Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM Mar 15, 2015 3:35:11	This is not meant to be an Edition War thread. Simply, my group is trying to decide on which edition to play. Our group consists of 6 players (including me). Two of us got started with 2E, 2 with 3E, and the other 2 are entirely new. One of the former 2E players hasn't played 4E. I and the other 3E player have played 3, 4, and 5.   No matter which edition we play, I'm going to be making changes, so the ease of changing things is important. Right now, I'm leaning towards 4E, but I'm open to being sold on 5E. There are definitely things I like on the player side of 5E, but those wouldn't be too hard to port over to 4E (skills largely decoupled from class, backgrounds, wildly different build options for certain classes).   I have three concerns about 5E:   First, I and the other player who has played 5E with me don't like the starting HP. We played a few sessions of "Lost Mines of Phandelver", and we found the HP to be very low. This is easily fixed, but it could disrupt the game's balance between spellcasters and non-casters (if fights take longer, they'll run out of spells faster and have to fall back on cantrips)   Second, as a DM, I find the monsters to be boring. From what I've seen, other than the spellcasters, they're all just "attack" with maybe some minor differences. Heck, even dragons seem boring to me (breath weapon, claw, bite, some minor actions; lair actions are nifty, but that's it). Compared to 4E and 3E dragons, they seem quite simple. I could simply modify the monsters, but this could end up being a lot of work.   Third, I worry that certain character builds, like the thief and champion, are boring. When we played Phandelver, the Fighter and the Rogue did nothing but "I attack". Again, simple enough for me to fix (or just encourage players to use the Weapon Master instead of the Champion).   If we end up playing 4E, I'm going to be polishing some things anyway, so no matter which edition we pick, we'll have some work to do.   How is the balance of 5E playing out (white room tests, yes, I know)? Are there more interesting monsters outside of the Basic document?
#2 CCS Mar 15, 2015 4:32:08	You've played 2e, you've played 3x, you've played 4th, and you've played some 5th. And it sounds like youre already biased pro-4e. But Its pretty simple: wch one do you like the most? Wich one do you like to DM the most? Wich one does your 2 vet players prefer? Do your 2 new players have an opinion or get a say? Whatever that answer works out to be? Then that's the edition you should play..... I will say this though: if you/you're group is unsure of your opinion on 5e? Then you should play more of that, but this time using the full PHB/MM/DMG. Give it an honest effort. The worst that'll happen is that you'll waste a few weeks or so & finalize your opinions. (Me? I prefer 1e. Followed by a tie between PF/5e.)
#3 KlaudisRex Mar 15, 2015 5:30:29	I think you should give 5e a second chance.  It's a way easier game, combat is quicker, and everything is " scaled down" which makes the whole game much more fair and balanced. This includes hp. Yes hp is low, and I don't think you should increase them mainly because the game is supposed to be deadly, and threatening and a real challenge, just with a lower numbers to work with.   Your right about he whole 5e "Attack" thing though. There are definitely fewer special attacks in 5e. so your rogue and fighter may not have the same experience.  To me, 4e is kinda like a video game, with almost all attacks having a cool name for the powers, big numbers to add onto bonuses, higher hp, and just an inflated game system.  It was very fun.  I loved it.  But for me, battles took forever after a while, and truth be told, it did feel like an MMO.  In 4e I felt like it was D&D on steroids, they were not run of the mill adventurers, but more like super-heroes with cool powers and they could do all sorts of fantastic stuff.   If you can get over a lower number scale, something they call "bounded accuracy", and do without flashy names for your players attacks, 5e will give you a really good chance to focus on actual role-playing and story development and less on combat.  But if you feel the need to play an MMO on the table, love the outrageous numbers and cool Attack names that 4e has, then we'll, you can play that too.     I didn't like 5e at first.  Until I read that the lower hp, lower Attack bonuses, and everything used a lower number scale made the d20 more relevant.  At some point in 4e you'll find that no matter what your players roll on the d20 to hit, they will likely succeed and hit because there numbers are out the roof.  AC is out the roof.  The whole game is a rat race to see who has the biggest numbers.  In 4e players get a raise to thier attacks every other level.  In 5e, thier Attack bonuses (proficiency modifier) goes up  like every 4 or 5 levels.  With 5e here's your chance to play a very well thought out game.  The support for 4e is gone.  The character builder, which is the best thing about 4e is gone, and it had its day,  5e is the new system, and I would run it because they're bound to make more books, adventurers and a whole host of new things for this game.
#4 iserith Mar 15, 2015 6:52:53	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#5 Rhenny Mar 15, 2015 7:04:25	5e is easier to modify and easier to run for me.     We also get more done per session with 5e.     But if you like more focus on combat and you enjoy encounter style games then 4e is a better match.    As for your players, if many of them prefer 2e and 3e, I think 5e matches up better.  4e is just different.
#6 Chaosmancer Mar 15, 2015 9:44:49	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#7 OoftaMeg Mar 15, 2015 18:31:23	How much have you played 4E and what level did you get your characters to?  I ran a 4E campaign all the way through 30th and by the end, each turn could take between 1-2 hours (not fight, turn).  We generally played 6-8 hours per session and I had a hard time getting in two fights.  In addition, I found it very difficult to challenge my group unless I really ramping up the monsters, and I had tweaked the game to limit some of the control options.  If you don't do something to limit the control aspects, the right set of PCs will simply dominate any combat you can throw at them at higher levels.   Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 4E at lower levels, but at higher levels?  It basically became a tactical war game that seemed to suck all the life out of the game for me.  Your mileage may vary of course, I can only go by my experience with my own campaign and the LFR epic campaign.   As far as what is fun for your group, that's something I can't answer.  I personally find playing the guy that hits things with a sharp pointy stick to be quite entertaining.  While I enjoy my work, it's frequently mentally draining so playing a character that just runs around smashing things is kind of a relief.  If I wanted a more complex character in 5E there are plenty of options.   But it really does depend on what you want out of the game.  I like a balance, with some games being RP/investigation/exploration intensive with relatively short brutal fights alternating with sessions that are all about the fights or all about dungeon exploration. I found that fights in 4E took so long and were so complicated that all we ended up focusing on was the fights.
#8 Rhenny Mar 15, 2015 19:12:36	Chaosmancer wrote:
#9 Glimjack Mar 15, 2015 20:00:18	It all comes down to how you play and the what you enjoy in the game. It seems to me you like the 4e style (This is in no way meant to be rude) which is prescriptive, as opposed to 5e's more descriptive style. In 4e, fighters and rogues and monsters had lots of fancy abilities and tactics, synergy's etc. 5e did away with detailing every possible combination in favour of letting the players and DMs describe what they were doing in a much more open resolution system. (I'm trying to avoid being biased about my own opinion and use non-weighted words so that my own 5e preference doesn't come through). If you prefer you combat to be a tactic miniatures games with dozens of unique abilities and interesting powers, then just play the game it seems you and your group are more inclined to which would probably be 4e. I can see why people think that 5e is just "I attack" more melee classes, but it doesn't play out that way in our group which prefers a more descriptive style. In our games the Barbarian says something like "I rush forward using my hand axe to deflect his blade upwards and then slam into him with my shoulder.". It's just a shove which he follows up with a blow while they are prone, but to our group it is the narrative not the powers that are important. So not every game will suit everyone. Choose what suits your group.