My point wasn’t to strongly stand against any of the choices 4e made, more to give my remembering of the zeitgeist at the time. Like the marked stuff, there is validity in the mechanic, but I distinctly remember describing to friends as we got into 4e, “its like aggro from wow”
Linear vs quadratic is worth solving, but my issue is more in how they solved it. Distilling everything down to powers felt to me like a cop-out and ruined a lot of what I liked about the versatility of magic in 3.5, and again felt very similar to MMOs.
Skill challenges were pretty cool, if I recall. That was a non-combat system that I don’t believe was in 3e. I often see people accidentally reinventing them in 5e, because they want some sort of system for non-combat challenges.
Skill challenges are cool, and are a decent example of basic out of combat design, but more what I felt was stripped was the interesting non-combat use of magic for problem solving. The rituals felt very limited and not as integrated into the identity of the system of classes, and all the powers came with an implied “no bag of rats” qualifier, so they couldn’t be used out of combat for solutions.
I think in the end all of these speak to very different play styles and what we were looking for from the systems. If you enjoy very predicable rules and well balanced and polished mechanics, especially for a largely combat focused campaign, 4e is probably solid for your needs.
On the other side of that though, DnD felt extraordinary to me because interfacing with a human meant that interesting puzzle solving, or creative use of spells allowed for emergent game play in unique ways. Obviously there is still a person on the other side of the screen in 4e, but it felt that many of the mechanics were structured in ways that didn’t lend to the looser play style I, and I assume many other 3.5 players, liked in our DnD games.
I’m getting old and senile but I don’t remember a lot of clever use of magic in 3e. I know there’s a lot of jokey posts about it in 5e, but often to the tune of “I cast create water IN HIS LUNGS LOLOLOL”, and then people go “that’s not how the spell works”. 5e also has weird interactions and limitations like sneak attack or smite unarmed, or Eldritch blast and objects.
You mentioned the zeitgeist and I think that’s actually the key. When 4e came out a lot of 3e grognards didn’t like it, but casual players also didn’t like it because it was still kind of crunchy, and you had to make choices that could lead to a bad character.
5e came out and is vastly simplified. Now there’s a lot of players who would never touch 3e or 4e playing, because it’s easy and kind of a shallow game mechanically, so the online sentiment is different. More positive. Also a lot of the grognards have aged out. Without those new players, I feel like people would be repeating “5e is baby’s first RPG. It sucks” the way people said 4e is an MMO, it sucks.
My argument is that 4e has some dubious similarities to video games, but it was a loud minority and then bandwagon jumpers that cemented the idea. Without that loud minority, I think a lot of people who came to 4e as it was would have enjoyed it fine. People who dismissed it as “an MMO” would not have drawn that conclusion.
I haven’t played much 5e, I was comparing it more to 3.5, I am pulling from loose memory and the spotty options that exist online (due to the game system license which honestly didn’t help 4e’s case), but if this source is to be trusted for the things that have been made creative commons, it shows the charm person power. It’s an encounter power with the standardized to hit mechanics the effect is:
The target gains vulnerability to charm and illusion effects from you and your allies, and suffers a -5 penalty to their Will and Sense defenses until they snap out of it.
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
This is obviously only one example, and a particularity egregious one at that, but speaks to the sorts of differences I saw in what 4e was trying to do, and what 3.5 was doing. I don’t think it’s fair to attribute the dissatisfaction specifically to grognards, when these are very clearly different kinds of systems, and the goals of 4e are much more video game like in having controlled variances and results, rather than the freer form of ‘rulings not rules’ intended games.
If that’s not your style than, rock on, but I feel like the counter culture revival of 4e does gloss over the fact that is really was a pretty drastic shift in what DnD was, and it was disliked authentically for the very different and opinionated choices it made, not just online backlash.
It makes sense to me to move the non-combat spells into their own thing (ie: rituals). Details like should they take 10 minutes or 10 seconds can be debated. I think you need to compare 3e’s Charm spell to rituals for a fair comparison. They seem pretty similar to me.
5e and 3e often have this unpleasant (to me) tension around like “I could solve this problem with a 3rd level spell slot. I could just fly over the chasm. But… then if I need fireball I won’t have it later. So let’s do it the mundane, slow, boring, way that doesn’t use magic.”. Rituals were a decent solution for that.
That’s valid, we might have under utilized rituals in replacing much of what I felt was lost in vancian casting. I still feel the homogenization of powers, while very sensible from a mechanical standpoint, stood out to me as very video game.
I can see you’re point in spell slots use for environmental vs combat, I think that was part of what I found interesting in caster classes in 3.5, and later pf1.
I get that there is a lot of intelligent design in 4e, and I think on a mechanical level it makes a ton of sense, but I think ultimately it comes down to rules vs rulings mentality to the game. I would say it was very much on the side of rules, and for many players that felt much more like the MMOs they knew than a TTRPG.
@jjjalljs@Postimo Also, 4e gave us useful at-will cantrips so that a wizard out of spell slots still feels like a wizard.
Its one thing 5e kept that I was glad of. I wish skill challenges had come along too, along with Healing Surges keeping their name. Hit Dice has a whole OTHER meaning within D&D, using the term for the dice you can roll for healing during rests is just confusing.
My point wasn’t to strongly stand against any of the choices 4e made, more to give my remembering of the zeitgeist at the time. Like the marked stuff, there is validity in the mechanic, but I distinctly remember describing to friends as we got into 4e, “its like aggro from wow”
Linear vs quadratic is worth solving, but my issue is more in how they solved it. Distilling everything down to powers felt to me like a cop-out and ruined a lot of what I liked about the versatility of magic in 3.5, and again felt very similar to MMOs.
Skill challenges are cool, and are a decent example of basic out of combat design, but more what I felt was stripped was the interesting non-combat use of magic for problem solving. The rituals felt very limited and not as integrated into the identity of the system of classes, and all the powers came with an implied “no bag of rats” qualifier, so they couldn’t be used out of combat for solutions.
I think in the end all of these speak to very different play styles and what we were looking for from the systems. If you enjoy very predicable rules and well balanced and polished mechanics, especially for a largely combat focused campaign, 4e is probably solid for your needs.
On the other side of that though, DnD felt extraordinary to me because interfacing with a human meant that interesting puzzle solving, or creative use of spells allowed for emergent game play in unique ways. Obviously there is still a person on the other side of the screen in 4e, but it felt that many of the mechanics were structured in ways that didn’t lend to the looser play style I, and I assume many other 3.5 players, liked in our DnD games.
I’m getting old and senile but I don’t remember a lot of clever use of magic in 3e. I know there’s a lot of jokey posts about it in 5e, but often to the tune of “I cast create water IN HIS LUNGS LOLOLOL”, and then people go “that’s not how the spell works”. 5e also has weird interactions and limitations like sneak attack or smite unarmed, or Eldritch blast and objects.
You mentioned the zeitgeist and I think that’s actually the key. When 4e came out a lot of 3e grognards didn’t like it, but casual players also didn’t like it because it was still kind of crunchy, and you had to make choices that could lead to a bad character.
5e came out and is vastly simplified. Now there’s a lot of players who would never touch 3e or 4e playing, because it’s easy and kind of a shallow game mechanically, so the online sentiment is different. More positive. Also a lot of the grognards have aged out. Without those new players, I feel like people would be repeating “5e is baby’s first RPG. It sucks” the way people said 4e is an MMO, it sucks.
My argument is that 4e has some dubious similarities to video games, but it was a loud minority and then bandwagon jumpers that cemented the idea. Without that loud minority, I think a lot of people who came to 4e as it was would have enjoyed it fine. People who dismissed it as “an MMO” would not have drawn that conclusion.
I haven’t played much 5e, I was comparing it more to 3.5, I am pulling from loose memory and the spotty options that exist online (due to the game system license which honestly didn’t help 4e’s case), but if this source is to be trusted for the things that have been made creative commons, it shows the charm person power. It’s an encounter power with the standardized to hit mechanics the effect is:
Compaired to 3.5’s from here:
This is obviously only one example, and a particularity egregious one at that, but speaks to the sorts of differences I saw in what 4e was trying to do, and what 3.5 was doing. I don’t think it’s fair to attribute the dissatisfaction specifically to grognards, when these are very clearly different kinds of systems, and the goals of 4e are much more video game like in having controlled variances and results, rather than the freer form of ‘rulings not rules’ intended games.
If that’s not your style than, rock on, but I feel like the counter culture revival of 4e does gloss over the fact that is really was a pretty drastic shift in what DnD was, and it was disliked authentically for the very different and opinionated choices it made, not just online backlash.
I think charm effects were moved to rituals, from a quick search.
https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Call_of_Friendship for example.
It makes sense to me to move the non-combat spells into their own thing (ie: rituals). Details like should they take 10 minutes or 10 seconds can be debated. I think you need to compare 3e’s Charm spell to rituals for a fair comparison. They seem pretty similar to me.
5e and 3e often have this unpleasant (to me) tension around like “I could solve this problem with a 3rd level spell slot. I could just fly over the chasm. But… then if I need fireball I won’t have it later. So let’s do it the mundane, slow, boring, way that doesn’t use magic.”. Rituals were a decent solution for that.
That’s valid, we might have under utilized rituals in replacing much of what I felt was lost in vancian casting. I still feel the homogenization of powers, while very sensible from a mechanical standpoint, stood out to me as very video game.
I can see you’re point in spell slots use for environmental vs combat, I think that was part of what I found interesting in caster classes in 3.5, and later pf1.
I get that there is a lot of intelligent design in 4e, and I think on a mechanical level it makes a ton of sense, but I think ultimately it comes down to rules vs rulings mentality to the game. I would say it was very much on the side of rules, and for many players that felt much more like the MMOs they knew than a TTRPG.
@jjjalljs @Postimo Also, 4e gave us useful at-will cantrips so that a wizard out of spell slots still feels like a wizard.
Its one thing 5e kept that I was glad of. I wish skill challenges had come along too, along with Healing Surges keeping their name. Hit Dice has a whole OTHER meaning within D&D, using the term for the dice you can roll for healing during rests is just confusing.