Pros and Cons of every D&D edition?

[Kurald Galain]

Even by D&D standards though, 4e was built in such a way that it pretty thoroughly avoided these, which came across particularly strong in terms of how the magic system was defined. Other editions of fireball usually come across as "there's a ball of fire, it light things and melts things and generally acts like fire, and also game mechanically it does damage" where in 4e it was very much "[x] damage in area".

Exactly.

In other editions (and pretty much every RPG that isn't D&D), a fireball acts like a ball of fire; it usually deals Xd6 damage but in some situations (e.g. underwater) it doesn't, and that's normal and expected. Whereas in 4E it's precisely the opposite: a fireball deals Xd6 damage; it is usually described as "a ball of fire" but in some situations it's described as something else (or not described at all, because the damage is what matters).

I've had several players try to describe their actions in combat, and sooner or later this always ends up with something completely ridiculous or wildly inconsistent with what's happening mechanically. Often both; and in some splatbooks the designers even outright admit that they don't know how to describe some effect either. Unsurprisingly, this bothers certain kinds of players. Aside from that, a character that throws balls of fire is just much cooler than a char that deals Xd6 damage; so on that level, 4E fails to excite and engage certain kinds of players. Of course, the group of "certain kinds of players" turns out to be much bigger than what WOTC expected.

I also suspect this is part of where the 4e as videogame accusations came from, particularly the ones based more in general feel than in specific argumentation. Videogames are pretty bad at qualitative mechanics, and in 2008 they were significantly worse, without much in the way of systemic games that made more use of them. This general intuition was then mapped onto game mechanics where there was more of an existing vocabulary to describe them, even if they didn't fit that well.

Also straight on the point; in videogames and boardgames contradictory (i.e. non-qualitative) mechanics are expected, whereas in RPGs they are not.

[Delta]

They don't all play the same exactly. After all, some parties are ranged DPS, some parties are melee DPS, and some parties are about grinding. That, however, is not "a striking diversity of styles."

What exactly "striking diversity of styles" is completely subjective though, so I won't argue for or against that. In 4e, I've played a half-orc melee ranger and deva avenger, both melee dps, but the gameplay feeling between them couldn't have been more different. Now, you may well feel that the confines of the system is too narrow for you, the way everyone gets their at-will/encounter/daily powers , the way every class sits within the same very structured framework and so on, and if that's your criticisim, again I'd never argue against that, it is a very narrowly structured game. But as you can see, for some people, that framework is very much a positive, not a negative, for reasons just as valid as yours, so to call it objectively bad is just missing the point.

[Mordaedil]

2e had a section on creating new classes, complete with tables of costs. And it had Skills and Powers.

I don't think my 2e books have that? What page is it on?

[Kurald Galain]

as you can see, for some people, that framework is very much a positive, not a negative, for reasons just as valid as yours, so to call it objectively bad is just missing the point.

If I understand her correctly, Selene's point is not that it's "objectively bad", but that it objectively fails to meet its own stated design goals, and that its designers were fired over this.

Now arguably, most players don't care at all whether a game meets its design goals as long as it's fun, but it is nevertheless a fair criticism of game design if a game is intended to do X and ends up not doing X.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think my 2e books have that? What page is it on?

It's in the DMG, just one page though. It's not bad for a first attempt, as long as we note that it's a tool for the DM for the purpose of campaign building, and not a tool for the players to cherry pick from.

Of course, it doesn't fit the 1E/2E philosophy that players can cherry pick exactly what items and/or spells they get. While I'm sure some players did it anyway, building a powerful combo of specific parts is really more the 3E/4E mentality.

[Selene Sparks]

What exactly "striking diversity of styles" is completely subjective though, so I won't argue for or against that. In 4e, I've played a half-orc melee ranger and deva avenger, both melee dps, but the gameplay feeling between them couldn't have been more different. Now, you may well feel that the confines of the system is too narrow for you, the way everyone gets their at-will/encounter/daily powers , the way every class sits within the same very structured framework and so on, and if that's your criticisim, again I'd never argue against that, it is a very narrowly structured game. But as you can see, for some people, that framework is very much a positive, not a negative, for reasons just as valid as yours, so to call it objectively bad is just missing the point.

Honestly, my dislike for the narrowness of the class system and complete lack of diversity is not been the grounds upon which I've been saying 4e was bad. My complaints on the narrowness of the system specifically are ultimately value judgements, although I will say that everyone bringing essentially the same thing and engaging in the exact same behavior patterns isn't anything I'd call diversity.

I am saying 4e is bad because the system is bad. The math simply doesn't work on pretty much every level. It fails to meet the goals and promises that it put forward. There are all sorts of perverse incentives that run counter to what the designers say they intended. And, as a note of measurement distinct from the previous, although not a direct measure of the quality of the game itself, it, as a product, objectively failed. The sales numbers are objectively awful, worse than the previous edition, they fired the head of D&D literally every year that 4e was being produced, and so on. Those are not simply reasons to dislike 4e, those are objective reasons why 4e is a bad product. I do, in fact, strongly dislike 4e, both because of the objective reasons I've noted, most specifically the math issues, as well as the more subjective issues, such as the lack of diversity, the reduction of creatures to mobs, and numerous other issues, but my dislike of the system is distinct from the fact that, by every objective measure I can come up with, 4e was a bad product. Now if people enjoy 4e, more power to them. Seriously, if you have fun with it, that's the most important thing for your group, so keep at it. But people having fun with a system is entirely a different question from a system being good. I RP because it's a thing I do with my friends, and so I can and have had fun with many a bad system, but that doesn't change the fact that the bad systems are bad.

[hamishspence]

4e Essentials appeared to be based around the fact that they recognized that people want to play classes with no Daily powers at all - so they created the Thief rogue variant, and the Slayer and Knight fighter variants..

[Delta]

I am saying 4e is bad because the system is bad. The math simply doesn't work on pretty much every level.

I hear that rather often, but honestly, even in my limited playing time with 3.5e, I've had way more math headaches with 3.5 than I ever had with 4e. Now, I'm not saying 4e is perfect, far from it, but in my experience, the math works really well (and I am a pretty numbers oriented gamer).

It fails to meet the goals and promises that it put forward. There are all sorts of perverse incentives that run counter to what the designers say they intended. And, as a note of measurement distinct from the previous, although not a direct measure of the quality of the game itself, it, as a product, objectively failed. The sales numbers are objectively awful, worse than the previous edition, they fired the head of D&D literally every year that 4e was being produced, and so on.

None of this I deny. Actually, I made the very same points in my first posts in this very thread. 4e failed, and failed hard, and for obvious reasons. If you consider it under those circumstances, it's a very bad product.

We can argue semantics all day and I don't want to, there are many reasons to dislike 4e, but I still stand by my statement that if you just want to roll out the battle map and smash through some dungeon encounters, with a focus on tactical combat (and loot) rather than narrative and just enough fiddly bits and pieces here and there, but within a narrow framework to keep everything nice and tidy and easy to run, it handles that extremely well. I've played a lot of games, if 4e was that objectively bad at what it did, I wouldn't be coming back to it (especially since I'm not emotionally invested in D&D at all). To make this clear yet again: I'm not a huge 4e fan, in my list of favorite RPGs, I'm not sure it would even crack the top 10 because it does only this one very narrowly focused gaming style really well.

[Kurald Galain]

4e Essentials appeared to be based around the fact that they recognized that people want to play classes with no Daily powers at all - so they created the Thief rogue variant, and the Slayer and Knight fighter variants..

Yes. Unfortunately this wasn't well received by 4E fans.

[hamishspence]

I thought that they were quite popular with those 4e players that saw ways to optimise them?

[Kurald Galain]

I thought that they were quite popular with those 4e players that saw ways to optimise them?

Well, that depends.

WOTC intended it as The New Starting Point with a new design philosophy, different style, and "evergreen" books/maps/dice that would always be available in every store. Basically, they expected players to drop and ignore their PHB1-3 / Foo Power books and instead build their campaigns on HOFL/HOFK, with bridging rules later to come on how to incorporate "earlier" elements in their "new style" campaign.

This fizzled out big time, most of the "evergreen" line quickly disappeared, and the bridging books were quietly cancelled. So yeah, that didn't work at all. Most of the new philosophy was heavily impopular, including the rarity rules, randomized loot, the change to skill challenges that stipulates that the party always succeeds (no, really), and the existence of "soft" powers like charm person that had an effect determined by the DM. Most 4E fans either cried out against these changes (this was a factor in WOTC closing their message boards), or just skipped those parts and are unaware there was a new philosophy in the first place. I'm sure the intent was to draw in new fans, but that didn't work either; non-4E fans generally ignored the New 4E because they didn't like the Old 4E. About the only change that people actually liked is the non-AEDU classes.

So instead, most 4E players treated this as just another splatbook like the Foo Power series, to cherry pick a few feats or powers from. From that approach, the books were quite popular as long as they contained useful options (e.g. HOFL/HOFK) or mostly ignored if all their options were weaksauce (e.g. HOS managed to print a necromancer with literally zero useful necromancy spells...)

[Ratter]

Aw man, got myself hyped up for this new thing and no one on roll20 plays it ):

[Rhedyn]

Aw man, got myself hyped up for this new thing and no one on roll20 plays it ):

If you want to play truly great RPGs, you have to start the group yourself.

I recommend roping local friends into it, but if that's not an option online works too. GMing is the gateway to playing. It's why I have half a dozen Savage Worlds campaigns lined up after mine closes.

Start with one shots of your chosen system to gauge interested. If people like it, they will eventually want to GM something.

[Delta]

WOTC intended it as The New Starting Point with a new design philosophy, different style, and "evergreen" books/maps/dice that would always be available in every store. Basically, they expected players to drop and ignore their PHB1-3 / Foo Power books and instead build their campaigns on HOFL/HOFK, with bridging rules later to come on how to incorporate "earlier" elements in their "new style" campaign.

Yeah, Essentials was weird and felt never really well thought out (yet another example of 4e being terrible as a product), for those people disliking 4e, it changed way too little to get them into the game, for those already into 4e, it was like "Huh? Why are you releasing new core books but without any significant rule changes?", although I do like and still use the Monster Vault, never really cared for the rest.

[Quertus]

I don't think my 2e books have that? What page is it on?

It's in the DMG, just one page though. It's not bad for a first attempt, as long as we note that it's a tool for the DM for the purpose of campaign building, and not a tool for the players to cherry pick from.

Of course, it doesn't fit the 1E/2E philosophy that players can cherry pick exactly what items and/or spells they get. While I'm sure some players did it anyway, building a powerful combo of specific parts is really more the 3E/4E mentality.

Well, by page numbers, two pages.

And, yeah, I think it's fairly objectively horrible (seriously, it has an "other" entry with a price), but it exists.

Most of the new philosophy was heavily impopular,

Most 4E fans either cried out against these changes (this was a factor in WOTC closing their message boards)

Wow. How many products can claim to be so bad, that hate from the fans caused them to close their message boards?

I'm actually less upset at WotC for closing their message boards now.

[Selene Sparks]

I hear that rather often, but honestly, even in my limited playing time with 3.5e, I've had way more math headaches with 3.5 than I ever had with 4e. Now, I'm not saying 4e is perfect, far from it, but in my experience, the math works really well (and I am a pretty numbers oriented gamer)

I am also a number-oriented gamer, which is why I actually ran the numbers back when I played 4e.

Now, don't get me wrong, the math behind combat is less bad than the math behind skill challenges, but it still fails hard on numerous levels. First of all, the fact that monsters scale at level, where PCs scale at half-level. This kind of thing was self-evidently bad way back when 3.5's Tome of Magic was put out. By the strict numbers, PCs are less accurate at high levels than they are at low levels. This is obviously badly thought-out, and only gets worse when you think about how investment works, and that not every class needs every stat, so the defense situation specifically gets even worse. Secondly, the way bonuses are thrown around is bad. If you have a cleric that can throw around +9 attack bonuses like candy, your game math is super messed up. A 45% increase in attack efficacy means that either you are now on the RNG with that huge boost, which means you aren't without it, or you're off the RNG with it if you were on without it. These aren't good options. Furthermore, the damage gain isn't actually that huge as you level, with the average at-will DPR ranging from 20 to 45 or so out of the box(That is before feats, buffs, and such), and the gaps within dailies weren't terribly different when I ran the numbers the first time, so if you stack on just a handful of easily obtainable damage buffs, you can bring what's essentially a high epic character to low heroic fights, in terms of damage. This gets even sillier when you factor in multiattacks.

We can argue semantics all day and I don't want to, there are many reasons to dislike 4e, but I still stand by my statement that if you just want to roll out the battle map and smash through some dungeon encounters, with a focus on tactical combat (and loot) rather than narrative and just enough fiddly bits and pieces here and there, but within a narrow framework to keep everything nice and tidy and easy to run, it handles that extremely well. I've played a lot of games, if 4e was that objectively bad at what it did, I wouldn't be coming back to it (especially since I'm not emotionally invested in D&D at all). To make this clear yet again: I'm not a huge 4e fan, in my list of favorite RPGs, I'm not sure it would even crack the top 10 because it does only this one very narrowly focused gaming style really well.

And I very strongly disagree, because even if you like the super restrictive system, 4e doesn't actually handle combat well. Disregarding everything that's opinion, you can seriously have more than ten different fiddly buff or debuff effects active simultaneously in a battle, all with different, round-measured durations and ending under different circumstances(IE, subject's turn, creator's turn, etc). Bookkeeping in 4e is horrific, and if you want basic combat, minimal bookkeeping is a must.

Look, I get that you enjoy 4e, but that doesn't mean it's good. You're conflating your usage of the system with the idea that the system is, in fact, good at what you're using it for.

[JNAProductions]

Did you also account for magic items and whatnot? Because it doesn't seem like you did.

[Selene Sparks]

Did you also account for magic items and whatnot? Because it doesn't seem like you did.

I did, in fact. A magic item is only getting you +6, with +4 from stat boosts. Monsters simply scale better than PCs. This problem is why math fix feats were created, and why they're awful design on numerous levels.

Now I confess it's possible I'm forgetting something, as I haven't paid attention to 4e in years, but my basic math did include magic items.

[hamishspence]

Monsters might scale better - but "Ranger soloing Orcus" was a thing in early 4e before that one ranger power was nerfed. So even a 30th level character going up against a Level 33 Solo Monster, could still hit them - and that was before any of the Math Fix feats were introduced.

[Kish]

Monsters might scale better - but "Ranger soloing Orcus" was a thing in early 4e before that one ranger power was nerfed.

Leading Orcus to reflect, "I should have stayed on my mighty throne, clutching my terrible rod."

[hamishspence]

I think 5e fandom (using one of its earliest adventures) had "Can you solo Tiamat" as its optimisation basemark.

[JNAProductions]

I think 5e fandom (using one of its earliest adventures) had "Can you solo Tiamat" as its optimisation basemark.

Did anyone actually manage to do that, though? Because I don't recall anything outside Wish-Simulacrum chaining that could. Not even Coffeelocks can do that.

[hamishspence]

I don't know for sure - maybe the 4e forum as a whole knows more about this? It's just that I got the impression that this was the target optimisers aimed at, since it was the highest level threat at the time.

[2D8HP]

Monsters might scale better - but "Ranger soloing Orcus" was a thing...

Leading Orcus to reflect, "I should have stayed on my mighty throne, clutching my terrible rod."

From now on I will have Elvis Presley as the voice of Orcus:

"I feel my temperature rising
Help me, I'm flaming
I must be a hundred and nine
Burning, burning, burning
And nothing can cool me
I just might turn into smoke

The flames are reaching my body
Please won't you help me
I feel like I'm slipping away
It's hard to breath
And my chest is a-heaving"

It totally works!

[kyoryu]

And not just expectations from earlier editions, either.

The interesting thing is that I think that 3.x kind of destroys expectations from earlier editions too. I mean, a lot of what happens in a 3.x game doesn't really "look like" D&D to my grognard eyes.

The difference is that D&D broke expectations in a less obvious and visible manner, while 4e was all "WOOHOO THIS IS DIFFERENT SUCK IT!".

[Delta]

Look, I get that you enjoy 4e, but that doesn't mean it's good.

No, but you disliking 4e doesn't make it bad, and that's all I really get from you there. I never said 4e was perfect, I said it was good at handling the math, and considering everything you've written, I stand by that opinion. Yeah, math fix feats are an unfortunate fact of life in 4e, but if the worst thing is that you need a couple feats to make the math fit perfectly... um, yeah, I'll take that every day of the week over the complete mess most games (including 3.5) become once someone tries to seriously game the system.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think 5e fandom (using one of its earliest adventures) had "Can you solo Tiamat" as its optimisation basemark.

Don't remember that one, but my presence in the 5e subforum varies a lot and always has. I do remember a lot of threads about how, if you assumed average stats, you could beat most dragons in a handful of rounds by arming a hamlet with bows.


I'll admit now, that I actually find 5e to be the least D&D edition personally. It seems a lot too focused on the specific instead of broad archetypes, I don't care that my Paladin swore the Oath of Redemption (chosen because it's tenants were easier to twist to LN than Oath of Devotion*, strangely enough), I'd honestly have made him just a Fighter if the party didn't need both healing and a bit of support magic. To me D&D is the game of strong archetypes, of heroicgreedy heroes fighting evil, the fighter with their sword, the wizard with their spells, the cleric with their faith, and the thief with their skills.

5e seems to break from that in a way 3e and 4e didn't. In 3.X and 4e I could still be a fighter or a wizard, now I have to be a Champion Fighter or an Evocation Wizard. It's at it's worst with the Sorcerer and Warlock, at least most of the other classes have generic 'this is sort of what you were expecting' options, I'm seriously wishing for a destinyborn sorcerer subclass that can represent any origin not statted.

Maybe it's why I like Fantasy AGE so much, the classes begin broad and even when you narrow in you're not locked into choices. It's also why one of my favourite games is Lamentations of the Flame Princess, because the classes are broad archetypes and each has it's place.

* It's supposed to be redeeming from evil, I'm going for redeeming from chaos. Yes, my character knocks enemies out when he has the chance, he used to be a police officer and it's hard for the dead to participate in a trial.

[Selene Sparks]

Monsters might scale better - but "Ranger soloing Orcus" was a thing in early 4e before that one ranger power was nerfed. So even a 30th level character going up against a Level 33 Solo Monster, could still hit them - and that was before any of the Math Fix feats were introduced.

"Being able to theoretically hit an enemy" != "the math works." Especially since, if you'll recall, the ranger killing Orcus first involved using a rogue power to heavily debuff Orcus before hitting Blade Cascade. In other words, despite the silliness of Blade Cascade, the real problem in that set up was Imperiling Strike.

Again, prior to math fixes, the PC's offense got worse by about 30% of the RNG as they leveled. That's simply bad math, just as it's simply bad math to have RNG swings mid-combat that are the size of the entire RNG.

No, but you disliking 4e doesn't make it bad, and that's all I really get from you there. I never said 4e was perfect, I said it was good at handling the math, and considering everything you've written, I stand by that opinion.

Then you're wrong. Again, the fact that temporary bonuses of half the RNG are being thrown is itself proof that the math behind the system is bad. And that's without getting into the problems of PC defenses basically being a joke.

Let me put this another way: What could possibly convince you that the 4e is, in fact bad? Could anything? Or are you wedded to the idea that 4e is good because you enjoy playing it?

Yeah, math fix feats are an unfortunate fact of life in 4e, but if the worst thing is that you need a couple feats to make the math fit perfectly... um, yeah, I'll take that every day of the week over the complete mess most games (including 3.5) become once someone tries to seriously game the system.

And now you've jumped to two unrelated conclusions. First, you're presupposing that the math fix feats actually, well, fix the math, They actually don't. They push things in the right direction, but the only place they have real, meaningful impact at all is on PC attacks and the PC's one good defense, and even then PCs still get flatly worse as they level. Second, you're also claiming that 4e's math isn't as fragile and inconsistent when pushed as other systems, which I've already pointed out is untrue due to, among other things, how easy it is for parties to stack buffs up such that they have the numbers of parties over twenty levels above them.

[Telok]

Something I think is a con of the WotC editions is the move away from reaction rolls and morale checks.

The reason I say that is because every DM I've had who hasn't played or DMed AD&D has had monsters universally immedately attack and fight untill dead. Four goblins on foot, in dirty leather armor, armed with clubs, versus six mounted adventurers, several with chain or better, some lances and bows, and two obvious spellcasters. Sure it's "cr 1.5 emcounter" against a 2nd level party, it's still stupid. And it's not always the DMs fault, the game and the books say that encounters are fights and there's nothing else. The DMs have never encountered the idea in the rule books that an encounter might not be automatically hostile or might run away at some point. They've never read a monster entry that says the creatures flee or might stop chasing the party to eat dropped food.

[Kurald Galain]

DMs have never encountered the idea in the rule books that an encounter might not be automatically hostile or might run away at some point. They've never read a monster entry that says the creatures flee or might stop chasing the party to eat dropped food.

This is an odd one... printed adventures for 3E/PF often specify e.g. that the enemy will run away if reduced to 5 or fewer hit points. The issue is that these values are (almost) always so low that a single PC attack can easily reduce the enemy from 6 or more to -1, meaning most monsters will still never run away.