Quote from: Diffan;1051139- Advantage/Disadvantage
- Hit Die healing and non-magical healing via maneuvers (thanks Purple Dragon Knight!)
- No alignment mechanics
- Proficiency Bonus applying to a myriad of attributes
- Monster Recharging features
- Rituals
- At-Will magic being a staple point in *spellcasters* character design
- Limited Skill List
- Long/Short Rest Mechanics (I mean, you can count the Tome of Battle as 3rd Edition but it always gets blamed for being 4e Testing Ground, so take from that what you may)
- Warlock Pacts. Basically the entire Warlock mythos as it pertains to Dungeons and Dragons changed in 4E. In 3E it was sort of just...there with invocations. 4e started the Pacts and how it pertains to otherworldly beings.
- Elemental Monks (I am ignorant on most pre-3e supplements so maybe there's a element monk in 2e?)
- Dragonborn, Drow, and Tieflings being PHB playable races.
- No more Ability Score penalties due to Race
- Complete removal of level drain and ability score drain
- Effects now slowly work like Stone to Flesh doesn't instantly turn you to stone, it take multiple turns to work fully. That's a 4e thing
- Finger of Death doesn't outright kill you on a failed save. Other spells are in there too like Circle of Death that doesn't outright kill on a failed save.  
- Effects that trigger on a hit. In pre-4E you had to "declare" what you were doing (smite, stunning fist, etc.) and if you missed with the attack, the attempt failed and you used that ability. Starting with 4E, most effect occurred AFTER you hit the target, it was tacked on. That remains true in 5E. A 5e paladin "Smites" when he hits with his weapon attack. That might not be significant, but it is for those of use who got pissed when you'd waste your limited resource to no effect.

Look at a 2nd Edition Players Handbook, rules and all and then look at a 4th Edition Players Handbook, rules and all and say to me which one resembles the other mechanically.
No alignment restrictions or mechanics
No racial restrictions
No racial caps
No Experience point penalties
No Dual-Classing
No Weapon Speeds
No Weapons vs. specific armors
No % rolls for skills

I'm sure there's more but I don't have any 2E books ATM. Maybe 60% is wrong. I admit that. What the actual percentage of 4E (or at least mechanics fully implemented and used in 4e) are in 5th Edition is anyones Guess. I see a lot of similarities because I routinely play 4th and 5th Editions on a weekly basis. To me the merits of 4e are on clear display in the way 5E handles a LOT of aspects, especially in the way the game plays.

Are you for real..?

Quote from: Diffan;1051137I think the significant difference, and how it pertains to classes/game in general, is that the formula was different for sub-sets of classes and not exactly uniform at least in 3rd Edition. Sure there were poor/average/good BAB but that didn't relate to Saves or Skills per level or AC. In 4E and 5E EVERYONE plays by the same Proficiency Rules, one unifying system. The point I'm getting at, I guess, is that you didn't need to reference anything. It was a universal truth that all followed. Maybe it's splitting hairs but I feel the play difference between a 10th level Wizard in 3.5 who's trying to make a longsword attack is completely different than a 5e Wizard who's trying to make a longsword attack. One has a decent chance of hitting due to bounded accuracy and a minimized range vs. a range that varies from 13 to 32 by the first 10 levels of the game.  

Okay. There's merit there. Attack bonus in particular it changes the way the game plays significantly that the wizard and fighter have the same chance to hit, provided that they keep their attack attribute similar (not a really valid assumption, but whatever), and the major difference being that the fighter swinging the longsword is going to do it more frequently and have some other effects up his sleeve to make his hits more meaningful. That was a big change and 4e definitely gets credit
*super side note: oD&D is notable that, at first level, a Magic User (Wizard in modern parlance**) had the same attack value as a fighting man (fighter) and did the same damage. Of course they were super fragile and didn't belong in melee, and didn't keep up as they leveled. I mention this little point to showcase how hard it is to say X edition did something first (since we can see all these little side-exceptions).
**look how easy that was to make these things clearly communicated?

QuoteIt absolutely was testing ground for some of the 4E groundwork. I'd still say that without 4E's push to make it 1) character based [not class based] and 2) mainstream accepted that it still would've been an optional rule. I still wish I had the old 5e Playtest documents so I could reference them or maybe you played through it and remembered, but earlier on they toyed with bringing back Reserve Feats for Spell Casters *better??* that you could take as an option vs. putting damage dealing cantrips into the main game. The concept fell through and instead we got a limited number of cantrips a spell caster can access. Also the push to make them character-based was definitely attempting to allow more power to those who multiclass, otherwise a wizard 1/fighter 19 has practically zero reason to grab a damaging dealing cantrip if it only goes by 1st level wizard rules. Conceptually 3e but fully utilized and imported from 4e (can I get half credit? )

Your original premise was, "About 60% of 5th Edition mechanics and concepts are derived, in some part or wholly, from 4th Edition." I hadn't noticed before just how low a bar that actually is (hit points! Hit points exist in 4e and in 5e! We can chalk that up in the pro-Diffan's point column ). More practically, it seems we as a thread have settled on discussing what "4e-isms" ended up in 5e, and frankly we should probably just stop and decide what exactly that means. Does it have to have been invented in 4e (in which case, reserve feats rule out at-will combat spells)? If so, invented from whole cloth, or some conceptual threshold (ex: natural healing certainly didn't start in 4e, but significant/meaningful/non-last-resort mid-adventure natural healing certainly did). I'll give you half credit if we decide on a more lenient inclusion criteria, but OTOH that would mean that the actual point you are trying to prove is a lesser point. Take your pick.

QuoteTo be specific, I was attempting to show how 4E fits directly into the design elements of 5th Edition alone. I don't remember the last time I used "Magic-User" in reference to a very specific and detailed class, especially when referencing healing. I guess that terminology means a lot despite not being relevant to the actual game in over two decades. Regardless, I'll use "Spell Caster" in regards to those who use magic in stead of the antiquated term "Magic-User".

You don't remember when you last used 'magic user' in reference to a specific class? And the term hasn't been relevant to the 'actual game' in over two decades. When I frame it that way, do you understand how that sounds a little like only your gaming experience is relevant? To me, it sounds a little like, "Les Paul, who is that, and since I don't know who they are, how can they be relevant to my favorite rock music?" Take note, you are not the first person to come here, make statements like this, and get called a troll. Just FYI, you probably do not want to repeat the tactic of acting like what you're saying isn't problematic, taking up a defensive posture, attacking old games and the players thereof, all the while decrying yourself as being under attack. It has not worked well for the last guy.

QuoteClerics weren't removed though, and got MASSIVE amounts of options in multiple supplements. Their focus is still holy man who heals and, going by the "Leader" role, they're the best class to heal. They have loads of ways to replenish Hit Points that doesn't take up resources, that empower your points when you do, and give you buffs when you do spend hit points. Not only that but other things, like being really good against Undead and having a slew of Radiant-themed prayers makes them excel versus the supernatural creatures that don't take to sunlight.

Basically what 4e did was say "Ok we know that there are players who want to be a supportive role but who ALSO don't want to portray a preach-y, holier-than-thou, God-empowered spellcaster. There are also those who don't want to bother with the arcane or divine at all and would rather heal from a militaristic role. Since Hit Points can mean a LOT of stuff, not just meat, it's not a far fetched notion that you regain Hit Points by people shouting encouragement for you to get back into the fray."  The Role of a Cleric never diminished, it was just expanded to be more accepting of other styles of play.

Fair enough. I was extrapolating this into a general point (Clerics in particular probably could have used a chance to shine at things other than being everyone else's healing battery. It certainly has worked well in 5e). 4e did a good job of slaying sacred cows. Perhaps a better example Vancian casting. The thing is, I much prefer how 5e (kinda, sorta, in a half-hearted way, comparatively) got rid of Vancian casting. Why? Because if I were to go down the road 4e did for remaking the spell-casting method, I don't know that I wouldn't go all the way down that rabbit hole and end up with a system like Hero System (with the fantasy sourcebook). Slippery slope arguments are rather flawed in ethics and politics, but in matters of personal taste, they can work. I don't know when I would choose to move down a lot of the slopes upon which 4e slides away from other D&Ds, where I wouldn't slide farther to completely different systems. And that (along with length of time for combat) is why I don't like 4e, not for any reasons based on a larger or grander theory. It's just not a stable location of the curve for me.

Quote from: Diffan;1051139- Advantage/Disadvantage
- Hit Die healing and non-magical healing via maneuvers (thanks Purple Dragon Knight!)
- No alignment mechanics
- Proficiency Bonus applying to a myriad of attributes
- Monster Recharging features
- Rituals
- At-Will magic being a staple point in *spellcasters* character design
- Limited Skill List
- Long/Short Rest Mechanics (I mean, you can count the Tome of Battle as 3rd Edition but it always gets blamed for being 4e Testing Ground, so take from that what you may)
- Warlock Pacts. Basically the entire Warlock mythos as it pertains to Dungeons and Dragons changed in 4E. In 3E it was sort of just...there with invocations. 4e started the Pacts and how it pertains to otherworldly beings.
- Elemental Monks (I am ignorant on most pre-3e supplements so maybe there's a element monk in 2e?)
- Dragonborn, Drow, and Tieflings being PHB playable races.
- No more Ability Score penalties due to Race
- Complete removal of level drain and ability score drain
- Effects now slowly work like Stone to Flesh doesn't instantly turn you to stone, it take multiple turns to work fully. That's a 4e thing
- Finger of Death doesn't outright kill you on a failed save. Other spells are in there too like Circle of Death that doesn't outright kill on a failed save.  
- Effects that trigger on a hit. In pre-4E you had to "declare" what you were doing (smite, stunning fist, etc.) and if you missed with the attack, the attempt failed and you used that ability. Starting with 4E, most effect occurred AFTER you hit the target, it was tacked on. That remains true in 5E. A 5e paladin "Smites" when he hits with his weapon attack. That might not be significant, but it is for those of use who got pissed when you'd waste your limited resource to no effect.

Look at a 2nd Edition Players Handbook, rules and all and then look at a 4th Edition Players Handbook, rules and all and say to me which one resembles the other mechanically.
No alignment restrictions or mechanics
No racial restrictions
No racial caps
No Experience point penalties
No Dual-Classing
No Weapon Speeds
No Weapons vs. specific armors
No % rolls for skills

I'm sure there's more but I don't have any 2E books ATM. Maybe 60% is wrong. I admit that. What the actual percentage of 4E (or at least mechanics fully implemented and used in 4e) are in 5th Edition is anyones Guess. I see a lot of similarities because I routinely play 4th and 5th Editions on a weekly basis. To me the merits of 4e are on clear display in the way 5E handles a LOT of aspects, especially in the way the game plays.

And this folks, is the legacy of 4E.

Quote from: Chris24601;1051140I can only speak for those I've played with, but frankly, GURPS and Hero System are garbage (I'm not a huge fan of what results from 100% point buy... allocation arrays, classes and levels seem to work for more people overall

I used those examples because I consider them well-known. Runequest would also be one that a lot of people know. But there's Dungeon World, MERPS, Fate, ... I mean, just so many fantasy TTRPGs why am I bothering to make a list? My central premise was that if I were to say, "these TSR D&Ds are just too D&D-y for me, I want to try something farther away from that," then sliding down the scale away from those, 4e is not where I'd stop.

QuoteONLY real problem a lot of players had with D&D in general was gating the healing behind pagan faiths (particularly pre-4E when the GM could cut off your access if you weren't acting in what they felt was accord with said pagan faith).

We seem to be stuck on clerics in a way that I had not predicted. I can tell you that I had no idea that there were a lot of people where this was a major problem, much less the "ONLY" one.

QuoteThe "Well, technically" game is great if you're looking to do a wonk dive into the origin of various mechanics, but its kind of if you're talking about the general end-user its kinda like saying "Well, Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, he just improved existing designs to the point they became commercially practical" or that "James Watt didn't invent the steam engine, he just designed a compressor system for it that made it efficient enough to be practical."

Its technically true, but so the fuck what?

I don't know the fuck what, what are we trying to accomplish. What's our goal here? Is it assigning credit? In that case, the analogy I'd use isn't who invented the light bulb, it'd be: Johnny grew up to be a famous scientist and cured cancer, who gets credit: his mom, who was a scientist (but let's say geologist), his grandpa, who was a mathematician, or great grandpa, who was a ditch digger, but encourage his kids to get education. It's not a strict one-answer type thing. It will be a case of you think this counts but that doesn't, and someone else thinks otherwise, and we make our cases back and forth.

4e's legacy is AEDU, long combats, and angst. That's about it.

"About 60% of 5th Edition mechanics and concepts are derived, in some part or wholly, from 4th Edition." - ah.....No. it's a giant ball of stuff from a bunch of different systems, rules, and editions. It even doesn't go to level 30 or have paragon/prestige classes and feats are worth their salt in 5e.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1051143Okay. There's merit there. Attack bonus in particular it changes the way the game plays significantly that the wizard and fighter have the same chance to hit, provided that they keep their attack attribute similar (not a really valid assumption, but whatever), and the major difference being that the fighter swinging the longsword is going to do it more frequently and have some other effects up his sleeve to make his hits more meaningful. That was a big change and 4e definitely gets credit
*super side note: oD&D is notable that, at first level, a Magic User (Wizard in modern parlance**) had the same attack value as a fighting man (fighter) and did the same damage. Of course they were super fragile and didn't belong in melee, and didn't keep up as they leveled. I mention this little point to showcase how hard it is to say X edition did something first (since we can see all these little side-exceptions).
**look how easy that was to make these things clearly communicated?

Fair enough. My ignorance of pre-3e is showing. And thanks, I might have to check out the system!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1051143Your original premise was, "About 60% of 5th Edition mechanics and concepts are derived, in some part or wholly, from 4th Edition." I hadn't noticed before just how low a bar that actually is (hit points! Hit points exist in 4e and in 5e! We can chalk that up in the pro-Diffan's point column ). More practically, it seems we as a thread have settled on discussing what "4e-isms" ended up in 5e, and frankly we should probably just stop and decide what exactly that means. Does it have to have been invented in 4e (in which case, reserve feats rule out at-will combat spells)? If so, invented from whole cloth, or some conceptual threshold (ex: natural healing certainly didn't start in 4e, but significant/meaningful/non-last-resort mid-adventure natural healing certainly did). I'll give you half credit if we decide on a more lenient inclusion criteria, but OTOH that would mean that the actual point you are trying to prove is a lesser point. Take your pick.

I was going from the point of - if it was standardized in 4e or originated there, it's a 4e-thing. For example Dragonborn and Tieflings certainly aren't new from 4e. They have roots in previous systems (plural) but not as PHB options. As someone said, if it's not "Core" sometimes it's not considered at all. To make these options core is to give it legitimate weight. So yes, at-will spells aren't only in 4th edition as 3.5 had warlocks and dragon-breath guys (don't remember the name) with at-will invocations and there were reserve feats. But they weren't "Standardized". To me, having some rules - somewhere within 50+ supplements of sub-rules and mechanics isn't the same as a Function of ALL classes, especially magical ones, that everyone is basically forced to utilize.  

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1051143You don't remember when you last used 'magic user' in reference to a specific class? And the term hasn't been relevant to the 'actual game' in over two decades. When I frame it that way, do you understand how that sounds a little like only your gaming experience is relevant? To me, it sounds a little like, "Les Paul, who is that, and since I don't know who they are, how can they be relevant to my favorite rock music?" Take note, you are not the first person to come here, make statements like this, and get called a troll. Just FYI, you probably do not want to repeat the tactic of acting like what you're saying isn't problematic, taking up a defensive posture, attacking old games and the players thereof, all the while decrying yourself as being under attack. It has not worked well for the last guy.

I don't know who the last guy was, and it was never my intent to attack older games and the players who enjoyed them. My mistake. Yes I mean those who cast spells, specifically healing ones, not Directly and Specifically the Magic-User class. Square?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1051143Fair enough. I was extrapolating this into a general point (Clerics in particular probably could have used a chance to shine at things other than being everyone else's healing battery. It certainly has worked well in 5e). 4e did a good job of slaying sacred cows. Perhaps a better example Vancian casting. The thing is, I much prefer how 5e (kinda, sorta, in a half-hearted way, comparatively) got rid of Vancian casting. Why? Because if I were to go down the road 4e did for remaking the spell-casting method, I don't know that I wouldn't go all the way down that rabbit hole and end up with a system like Hero System (with the fantasy sourcebook). Slippery slope arguments are rather flawed in ethics and politics, but in matters of personal taste, they can work. I don't know when I would choose to move down a lot of the slopes upon which 4e slides away from other D&Ds, where I wouldn't slide farther to completely different systems. And that (along with length of time for combat) is why I don't like 4e, not for any reasons based on a larger or grander theory. It's just not a stable location of the curve for me.

That's a fair statment.

Quote from: Diffan;1051132And yea, I played 2E for like a whole summer back in 97'.

That is why I pointed out your statement made sense in context.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1051134Isn't that more or less how it worked in 1e with the class/subclass distinction? Fighter was a class, Ranger and Paladin were subclasses; Magic User was a class, Illusionist was a subclass & etc. Each group had their own HD and to-hit advancement tables.

Not in the same way 2e did. In AD&D the sub-classes werent really. They were each their own thing with different EXP needs and even different HD or HD spreads. They were subclasses in name only. And in a weird and different way it was the same for 2e. There was no actual Warrior class. It was just an EXP and HD frame for the actual Fighter, Paladin and Ranger classes.

Quote from: Omega;1051155Not in the same way 2e did. In AD&D the sub-classes werent really. They were each their own thing with different EXP needs and even different HD or HD spreads. They were subclasses in name only. And in a weird and different way it was the same for 2e. There was no actual Warrior class. It was just an EXP and HD frame for the actual Fighter, Paladin and Ranger classes.

I think both 1E and 2E did use the subclass/class group for holding together attack and saving throw tables, at least.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1051156I think both 1E and 2E did use the subclass/class group for holding together attack and saving throw tables, at least.

2e Did. AD&D just grouped them together. As noted. They didnt treat them as subclasses really in AD&D and they werent really subclasses in 2e. Weird.

Quote from: Batman;1051150it's a giant ball of stuff from a bunch of different systems, rules, and editions.

This.  A couple of things that 4e brought more to the forefront of the game have survived into 5e but 5e is definitely an homage to ALL the previous editions.  It's a big tent -- plenty of room for everyone without flinging poop at each other.

Quote from: KingCheops;1051198This.  A couple of things that 4e brought more to the forefront of the game have survived into 5e but 5e is definitely an homage to ALL the previous editions.  It's a big tent -- plenty of room for everyone without flinging poop at each other.

The main point I was trying to make is that 4e is INCLUDED into the design of 5e.  ALL Editions shared their bloodline into 5e, INCLUDING, no matter how much some people whine about how they HATE a game they clearly never played, the horrifically brand destroying, fun ending RPG known as 4e!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1051207The main point I was trying to make is that 4e is INCLUDED into the design of 5e.  ALL Editions shared their bloodline into 5e, INCLUDING, no matter how much some people whine about how they HATE a game they clearly never played, the horrifically brand destroying, fun ending RPG known as 4e!

Bemusingly some of the stuff they carried over from 4e is the stuff some players unaware of that fact have been complaining about in 5e.

i didn't hate 4e.  i think if it'd been packaged as a boardgame, rather than and rpg, i would have been more into it.
for example, packaged like "Heroquest" or something.

Or just simplified like the latest edition of "Gamma world" did.  that was 4e rules simplified for a Gonzo style RPG that i really liked. It was fast, really varied for character gen and a LOT of fun to run for what it was.
Although i believe Gammaworld wasn't very popular for that edition.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1051545i didn't hate 4e.  i think if it'd been packaged as a boardgame, rather than and rpg, i would have been more into it.
for example, packaged like "Heroquest" or something.

Or just simplified like the latest edition of "Gamma world" did.  that was 4e rules simplified for a Gonzo style RPG that i really liked. It was fast, really varied for character gen and a LOT of fun to run for what it was.
Although i believe Gammaworld wasn't very popular for that edition.

Or as a computer game. I hate that the game didn't  last long enough to make it through a good computer game's development cycle. 4e would probably be a solid structure for such a game.