D&D 5E What new content do you like most?

[beta-ray]

I voted for Classes, Monsters, and species. I miss the products from 3.5 like the PHBII. It was nice to get more options.

I voted those three things too.

 

[beta-ray]

Oh, then I suspect you will be quite happy to see what Tales of the Valiant has in store …

I chose those things too, and yes, I am a backer.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I defy you to find anyone who uses that phrase.

It wasn't meant to be a precise quote.

But I have--repeatedly, on this very forum--been told that because 4e did something, it should not be done in 5e.

 

[Yaarel]

Be prepared for cries of "4e did things that way, therefore it's the worst design crime ever committed."

Actually, the 4e advancement schedule was weirdly convoluted − even tho all classes referred to it.

There has yet to be a straightforward rhythm. 5e is kinda close. Very fourth level has feat, except level 20. Every third level has a subclass, approximately. Minor relocations would make it work.

 

[mamba]

It wasn't meant to be a precise quote.

But I have--repeatedly, on this very forum--been told that because 4e did something, it should not be done in 5e.

I think I have only ever seen it used the way you did, ironically / jokingly, not as serious feedback

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think I have only ever seen it used the way you did, ironically / jokingly, not as serious feedback

I assure you, I have heard multiple posters on this very forum explicitly say that, because a thing was done by 4e, and 4e did not sell, that thing must be avoided as a design element, otherwise it would harm 5e through its inclusion. Since I am given to understand that it is frowned upon to name names or quote quotes not directly related to the thread topic, I cannot give you more evidence than that. But I could name at least two specific posters who have explicitly made that argument--and at least one of them very specifically did so about having a unified, regular progression track for all classes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Actually, the 4e advancement schedule was weirdly convoluted − even tho all classes referred to it.

There has yet to be a straightforward rhythm. 5e is kinda close. Very fourth level has feat, except level 20. Every third level has a subclass, approximately. Minor relocations would make it work.

Not really sure what you mean by that. 4e has a quite regular rhythm. 1st level is a bit wonky since you have to get a bit of everything, but after that it's a common structure for each tier (meaning if something happens at level 3, it also happens at 13 and 23.)

At level 2 and 6, you get a utility power.
At level 3 and 7, you get an encounter power.
At level 4 and 8, you add +1 to two ability scores.
At level 5 and 9, you get a daily power.
At level 1, and every even level thereafter, you get a feat.
When you enter into a new tier, add +1 to all ability scores (so 11 and 21).
In Paragon and Epic, if you get an E/D power, it replaces a power of that kind you already knew (usually with a "level X or below" restriction.)
All Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies give powers and features at a consistent, unified level, as your proposed subclasses would.

One of the few deviations from this is that you get an extra utility power at 10th level, but not at 20 nor 30. Some of these powers do come from your Paragon Path or Epic Destiny rather than being free choice, but you still get them at the appropriate level.

The only things which break from this pattern are the Essentials (sub)classes....and that is of highly debatable benefit depending on which class you look at.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It wasn't meant to be a precise quote.

But I have--repeatedly, on this very forum--been told that because 4e did something, it should not be done in 5e.

I don't suppose these posters give any kind of reason for this claim? Just "no 4e"? Personal preference is a reason, for example. Any chance they were expressing a distaste for a 4e rules widget?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assure you, I have heard multiple posters on this very forum explicitly say that, because a thing was done by 4e, and 4e did not sell, that thing must be avoided as a design element, otherwise it would harm 5e through its inclusion. Since I am given to understand that it is frowned upon to name names or quote quotes not directly related to the thread topic, I cannot give you more evidence than that. But I could name at least two specific posters who have explicitly made that argument--and at least one of them very specifically did so about having a unified, regular progression track for all classes.

Maybe they didn't like AEDU. That would be enough for me to be against it in 5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't suppose these posters give any kind of reason for this claim? Just "no 4e"? Personal preference is a reason, for example. Any chance they were expressing a distaste for a 4e rules widget?

While I'm sure they would provide further statements if asked now, at the time, the statements really did boil down to "are you really going to bring back stuff from the failed edition?"

It's a genuine problem, the belief that because 4e did something it must be wrong, because 4e did not sell as expected, while if 5e did something it must be right, because 5e sold better than expected.

Maybe they didn't like AEDU. That would be enough for me to be against it in 5e.

Oh, AEDU was definitely part of it, but this was about uniform power schedule in addition to that.