I dunno, I've been reading the 5e rules, and I see where folks are coming from as far as calling it much like 2nd edition.

I haven't actually played, yet, but I'll be looking into rectifying that this weekend.

As long as they don't muck it all up with massive feat/spell/curlicue bloat, I think there's an RPG in here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7744915e is 4e lite.  Powers, Healing etc, far closer to 4e.

Are Martial Powers still a thing?

Quote from: The Butcher;774502Are Martial Powers still a thing?

One of the three fighter subclasses gets superiority dice it can expend for a couple of rider effects. They're less... chunky than even many 4e at-wills, though, at least so claim the 4e system wonks.

If I was to make a list of what made 4e, 4e.

• Universal Powers system across all classes
• Focused Roles for all classes
• Tactical movement based combat
• Powers always working regardless of simulation
• Focused Roles for all NPCs

5e has none of these.

Quote from: jadrax;7745135e has none of these.

Yay, 5e!

Quote from: jadrax;774513If I was to make a list of what made 4e, 4e.

• Universal Powers system across all classes
• Focused Roles for all classes
• Tactical movement based combat
• Powers always working regardless of simulation
• Focused Roles for all NPCs

5e has none of these.

I'm not sure I understand why 4E should be thought of as supporting focused roles for all classes. Perhaps in a very narrow, tactical sense this is correct, but I felt the broader and more important distinguishing feature of 4E is that all classes were functionally the same. Everyone was something of a combat monster, simply with different explanations as to why their AC and damage output was like everyone else's. A thief or magic user in 1E is a fragile, delicate creature that must think of ways to be useful and try hard to avoid direct confrontation. A thief or magic user in 4E is effectively just a rebranded fighter with a different collection of names for the things they do which inflict damage on foes.

Now, now, I dislike 4e as much as the next guy but saying the classes Are all just rebranded Fighters is just wrong.

...well okay, Rangers do come across as Nothing but fast-moving light-armoured Fighters, I'll give ya that one. Wizards Are quite different though.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774528I'm not sure I understand why 4E should be thought of as supporting focused roles for all classes. Perhaps in a very narrow, tactical sense this is correct, but I felt the broader and more important distinguishing feature of 4E is that all classes were functionally the same. Everyone was something of a combat monster, simply with different explanations as to why their AC and damage output was like everyone else's. A thief or magic user in 1E is a fragile, delicate creature that must think of ways to be useful and try hard to avoid direct confrontation. A thief or magic user in 4E is effectively just a rebranded fighter with a different collection of names for the things they do which inflict damage on foes.

I think jad means the four PC roles in 4e: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

The biggest single problem that I had with 4e was the slow pace of combat resolution.

It was likened to a tactical chess game, which isn't that far off the mark. I don't know how any of you have ever played 4-way chess, but it tends to crawl even slower than the 2 player version unless you use clocks.

Decision paralysis was an issue, but in addition, you had a relatively low damage-to-hit point ratio. That wasn't purely an accident. The game needed combats to be prolonged over multiple rounds in order for all the shifting and sliding and pulling and pushing and the relatively small tactical bonuses to have a meaningful impact. Third, because everyone needs to be able to impose conditions on opponents in order to stay balanced, by "marking" them if nothing else, you have increased bookkeeping and tracking of multiple conditions, and in many cases, tactical victory was achieved not by the sudden swing of a sword or the high roll of a die, but coating the target in so many adverse conditions that it was essentially checkmated.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of this.

Except that, apparently, when you do it over and over and over, many people who actually play the game eventually tire of it. That's what I'm told by the people who refused to play it anymore. In addition, there is a very strong tendency for a small handful of combats to eat up all the playing session time, which means that the overall story also proceeds at a slower pace.

One of my friends compared it to a Lord of the Rings movie where every combat was played out in Matrix-like "bullet time."

One of the early solutions offered in forums was drawn directly from chess.  The DM should just "resign" the monster when it became apparent that the result of the battle was inevitable and handwave the conclusion. The ultimate buzz-kill for people who actually enjoyed a little dopamine surge from seeing the monster drop from something THEY did rather than transparent inevitability.    

I think WotC tried very hard to address that in the Essentials line, and they may have had some success, but, by the time they did, most of the audience had already walked out of the theatre.

The main thing that I've seen so far in 5e is a fast moving game where the players can cover an awful lot of story ground in a single session. So in that sense, it couldn't be further from 4e.

What I'm most curious to see is whether the reintroduction of some of the 4e tactical elements leads down the same blind alley. It certainly hasn't in "basic," but that's the least 4e-like version on the table.

Combat resolution speed wasn't the only problem. The focus on the grid-based encounter as the game's centerpiece created an even more distinctive seam that diminished combat prep, exploration and an entire dimension of strategic planning since, more often than not, no matter what you did, you wound up in an appropriately "balanced" tactical encounter.

Well put, Saplatt.

Combat became the only thing the game was about, and said combat could take hours.

Quote from: LibraryLass;774548I think jad means the four PC roles in 4e: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

Indeed. Both the labeling itself and the idea that the class powers must fit that structure. Its more apparent on the NPC side, where for example they stripped away an Ogre Magi's traditional spells, because they were pretty random and did not fit a role.

This is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone, but it was to me a defining thing of 4e.

Quote from: Saplatt;774554I think WotC tried very hard to address that in the Essentials line, and they may have had some success, but, by the time they did, most of the audience had already walked out of the theatre.

This is true on all counts, at least from my observation of the scene. People I play with are just ready for faster combat. I strongly suspect this exact factor is going to peel away a lot of Pathfinder players as well.

I will note I did enjoy 4e combat for a while, especially in its Essentials incarnation.

Quote from: jadrax;774560Indeed. Both the labeling itself and the idea that the class powers must fit that structure. Its more apparent on the NPC side, where for example they stripped away an Ogre Magi's traditional spells, because they were pretty random and did not fit a role.

This is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone, but it was to me a defining thing of 4e.

They rolled back the baked-in MMOGification, sure, but all the systems will get put back in at some point, just optional, that's why Lite.

The at-wills and healing systems alone mark it as infinitely more 4e then 3e.

Well, Pathfinder has at-will cantrips.

Quote from: CRKrueger;774596They rolled back the baked-in MMOGification, sure, but all the systems will get put back in at some point, just optional, that's why Lite.

The at-wills and healing systems alone mark it as infinitely more 4e then 3e.

Meh, at-wills are in 3e style games and the healing rates/rest cycles are among the easiest to adjust in 5e. You want 4e? Make short rests 5 minutes and add in a grid based tactical mod. You want 3e? Just make cantrips level + mod per day or similar and remove HD healing.

Personally I'd let 5e be it's own thing and not screw with it like the above but whatever.