Why did 5e receive a way better reception than 4e?

Murder/suicide

Pandering.

4e basically threw out everything from previous editions, which caused everyone to get really defensive and hate it for not being D&D, regardless of its actual quality.

5e promised to involve the community and bring back things from all editions, which regardless of the success of, made people look at it and nod and say it was indeed D&D again.

Opinions on quality or whether any of this was a good thing or not doesn't really matter. What matters is what people saw at first glance and how they reacted.

look, 4e sucked, and hasbro lost serious amounts of money to a pirate copy of 3rd edition.

5th edition doesn't have that problem.

All the people that got assblasted by 4e had jumped ship to pathfinder. Leaving the people who didn't care and the moderates to be around for 5e.

5e is also a lot closer to all the previous editions aside from 4e.

Do you even remember the marketing disaster 4e was?

5e has aspects to it recognizable all the way back to Basic (including elements from 4e).

4e was a huge departure that it looked like a completely different game with the D&D label slapped onto it.

Plus there was as above the anti-older editions slanted marketing that I think drove a huge wedge in the community (the same wedge which spawned Pathfinder), making it almost like WotC themselves fueled the edition wars.

Plus there was the fact that 4e was filled with empty promises, like all the digital support that fell through for unfortunate reasons. Towards the end of its life cycle 4e was just falling into mediocrity, and I'm sure Essentials rubbed people the wrong way after all the "there will never be a 4.5" talk, too.

4E sold really well, Hasbro even said that. The issue is is that it was losing the market to Pathfinder because 3E was, as you said, was pirated to another company and people would rather learn barely anything new over something nearly wholly new.

5E is a blast because it hits that sweet spot in having a bit of everything without being bloated out the ass.

Also don't forget how secretive WotC was about 4e's development vs 5e's open and "honest" approach.

I remember even hypothesizing about a potential 4e would get threads locked on the WotC forums with a mod saying "there are no plans for a 4th edition" right up to the day it was announced.

>5e's open and "honest" approach

You mean the "let's listen to the guys who want 3.X again and shut out everyone else" approach?

R.I.P. Martial dice
R.I.P. Sorcerer that isn't just a shittier blasty wizard

That's why "honest" is in quotes.

At least the community even knew it was being made before dropping it on them.

It's not like people who wouldn't play your shit anyway not buying your shit and instead buying somebody else's shit is actually losing you sales, but good luck trying to explain that to execs.

I mean, okay, lets say PF doesn't get made. So what? The haters still wouldn't buy it. I mean, there's probably a few that the smear campaign Paizo did wouldn't have convinced, but overall, things would be basically the same.

>smear campaign
The only smear campaign was on WotC's side, Paizo just capitalized on the butthurt it caused.

There's a difference between a product selling well and a product being well received.

Sure, everyone bought 4e, but nobody liked it.

Then there's also people like me, who bought the core books, even liked it, but never played it more than a couple of times so never bought more splats.

>You mean the "let's listen to the guys who want 3.X again and shut out everyone else" approach?
More people wanted the 3e stuff than didn't, I don't really see how that's WotC's fault. Making a product that the majority of their customers are looking for is just how successful companies work. You can whine all you want, but the reality is that you're in the minority, so you need to grow up and get over it.

Like it or not, 4e was incredibly different from what people expected or basic D&D so there was some hesitation from the beginning.

Because it's a better system

[ ] Not told
[X] Told

Why did obama get a nobel peace prize?

For not being its predecessor.

This. Memes matter more than reality to nerds.

5e had a reception?

Playing 4th edition maybe didn't exactly require a bunch of books and weird tokens/cards but it felt like it. Every time their was a gameplay issue their was some new supplement or handbook or gadget to fix it to the point that some of the Austin TX DMs were putting out "shopping lists" of what books/equipment were needed to play in their game.

5e went back to the holy trinity of DM guide, Players guide, and Monster Manual for *base play.* Sure, they had modules out before the MM hit and they've got new rule supplements in the books, but there's a clear perception that those 3 books are "enough" for a game, everything on top of that is gravy.

People don't want a new system like 4e, they want the same system but fixed

5e will get an OGL-type license.

I miss 4e. I miss when Fighters could have Wisdom as a secondary stat and were briefly useful and powerful. All hail caster supremacy, sucking the cocks of insecure nerd virgins since whenever!

See, my issue with that idea is...Jesus Christ, did you SEE the splatbooks for 3.5? It outsplatted 4e like crazy.

I miss fighters being able to protect their allies and Swordmages...being a thing at all.

Dude caster disparity ain't no where near as bad as it was in 3.5, hell I'm not even sure it still exists. 3.5 was really the only edition to have that problem

I actually wanted to like 4e and at first glance I thought it looked a lot more like a real rulebook, and less like some hack's first attempt at making props for their D&D game.

But goddamn did all the standardization irritate. It was like every ability was just a cut and paste of another ability, just changing a few small things depending on the context. And the diminishing sizes of the rulebooks really pissed me off.

it did, and they basically not did a 4e and released the books at a different time, the books were a hell of allot better in quality than 4th.

>the books were a hell of allot better in quality than 4th.

I'd disagree with that. It's a lot more fiddly and the art is kinda meh.

4E dared to do things differently. It innovated, and while some of its design choices sucked, others were amazing. It was actually new and interesting, and presented a whole new game experience from previous editions.

5E is a return to form, a game built not around being innovative, but instead being evocative of previous editions. It's the boring, safe regression into the comfortable known, instead of a progression into something new.

With a brand as old and respected as Dungeons and Dragons, you have a lot of players that don't want to come out of their comfort zones. Thus, the dreary 'safe' edition was better received than the innovative 'risky' edition.

quality as in, the ink didn't smear when I rubbed my finger on it, or smell like a fucking rotten egg because they used out of date ink.
I agree with the art though,but hey, gotta avoid them lawsuits.

Me and my group played it for around four years. Had a two year main campaign even, best game I've ever been in. Fuck I miss my character in that game.

The art is really bad in 5e. I can't stand it.

>4e
Loads of marketing, trying to open the D&D market to the common dude, you saw advertisements for it fucking everywhere.
It was also a massive departure from previous D&D editions, even moreso than the 3e departure from AD&D.
Then there's the fact that because they decided to clean up the book formats, everything looked 'samey' from first glance instead of like in previous editions where you had to parse through shit to know what the fuck it was talking about.
The marketing ended up back firing as well as Paizo was able to take the "3e is dead" and turn it into "3e Thrives!" or whatever. WotC also learned the same lesson Nintendo learned, going for the mass market gets a fuck load of initial sales, but the common shopper doesn't buy additional books/accessories/etc.

>5e
Trimmed back the marketing to focus only on the people who actually play D&D, promised to keep things toned down (which in a way preys on the people who were angry with paizo going out of control with their splats). Playtesting that showed they were willing to go all the way back to the concepts of "There's a Warrior, a Mage, a Priest, and a Rogue, you pick your specialization to make your warrior a fightan-warrior, a holy-warrior, or a nature-warrior", and that they were willing to expand, shift, and change based on what their testers wanted.
Unfortunately a lot of awesome ideas died because of this, but ultimately it kept the books to what the people who would buy them actually wanted.

Swordmages were hilariously chuuni and hilariously baller. Teleporting magic sword stabs errryday.

4e let us have an all-arcane party having shenanigans at a magic academy. 5e will never let us know such joys again.

3.5 certainly had more splats than 4e. But few of them felt as required as the 4e books did.

Yeah, I think every power type except shadow got at least one class for each role, which let you legitimately go 'All divine game' or 'Arcane Academy'

OD&D - Innovative and struck right when people were wanting something new to play.
Basic D&D - simple with very slow but gradual expansion culminating in the Rules Cyclopedia.
AD&D - Splats, splats everywhere. That said, introduced perhaps the best settings and some of the concepts that people came to agree "that's D&D".
3/3.5E - Designed to actually reward players for "mastering the system" it was nabbed up by a new generation of players and with the advent of the internet being properly huge players could interact and discuss things such as 'character builds'. This led many to view it as the 'standard RPG' and few wanted to deviate because of fear that they'd have to spend hours/days to learn new systems and builds.
4E - Innovative but basically required an online membership to handle all of the feats, powers, classes, paragon paths and epic destinies, as well as items. While highly balanced (compared to other editions) and letting every class be good, people were turned off since they'd have to learn the system anew/didn't want to pay out for the online accounts.
5E - A massive public playtest and feedback system (though some things should have stayed from the Next playtests IMHO), it blends the previous editions and promised that, with just a tad bit of work, all of the old adventures (and possibly other things) could be easily converted and they slimmed down a lot of issues. Best thing is they aren't flooding the market with splats, moving slowly and releasing 3-4 books a year, mostly adventures.

Martials never got controller, I think...

I loved the interaction of the Elf/Dwarf/Human trio in that group. They had that right level of disrespect that made me really believe they were great friends.

The main gun also managed to be a great example of how a Warlord works. He's the guy with the crazy idea and the tactical awareness, not the always listened to leader.

Absolutely, especially if you count Paizo and other 3rd-party stuff. But they were just that, splats. You bought the base 3 and then splatted on any stuff you were interested in or thought would help.

4th had 8 "core" rule books (PH 1-3, DMG 1-2, MM 1-3) plus 6 "power" books for the individual classes (Arcane, Divine, Martial 1-2, Primal, and Psionic) that all were considered needful and all referenced each other. That struck me as an insane number for "core" even though the total amount of books put out was only a tiny fraction of the 3rd edition booklist.

5e, OTOH, plays on 3 core books, so if you have them, you have core. Then *if* you want to add something else you can add in that specific book as well. 3 must-haves plus 10,000 if-you-want is actually a lower burden than 14 must-haves and 10 if-you-wish from the consumer's standpoint.

3.5 had both a DMG2 and a PHB2 to be technical.

I'd also call the other books splat just as much as the 3.5 ones. They added stuff, they were not required to use the main books.

Right, yeah. Mind you, Cha-Rogue was a controller in many ways so that ALMOST counts.

Hunter, technically counts I think.

There was no melee controller, however, aside from the CHA rogue.

Truth. It felt like a retelling of an actual group's adventure with inside jokes and little funny asides. Hell, they even burn down an orphanage (though said orphans were zombies or some shit).

>though said orphans were zombies or some shit

>"At least nobody will miss them!"

Again, hilarious lines. Dammit, now I need to go and buy the compilation book...

To be fair, 5e is a lot less bad than 4e. They're both shit though.

Because Pathfinder is bloated as fuck now

Why should D&D be innovative?

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

People who buy D&D want something that resembles D&D. If they wanted a complete departure from the series they would buy a different game.

This might be it. Though 5E is far from perfect, Pathfinder is just heavy now with splats. Hell, they are getting ready to release "Starfinder" for crying out loud!

>Starfinder
>Hahaha that can't be re-

>It was to a new edition of D&D what Final Fantasy Tactics had been to the previous seven games
That analogy don't really jibe. I mean, FFT was GOOD.

So was 4e.

>Starfinder
>there are people who will buy this.

FFT wasn't part of the main series though. Even the name implies that it's a different game.

Maybe 4e should have been called D&D tactics.

That's your opinion but you're in the minority.

I'm fine with that. The group i'm in loves 4e, I pretty much only play with them. But it was good. People do not have to believe it for it to be true.

My group only recently stopped playing 4E, mostly because one of the players wanted to run it but run it like it was a 2E adventure.

5E is a lot of fun so far but I'm now being lined up to run the Starter Set. Going to do a shout-out to 4E by putting the adventure in the Nentir Vale and expanding it out from there. End game goal is a "fracturing of worlds" event where bits and pieces of other settings are attempting to merge into the PoLand setting and the party needs to stop it.

Shit is gonna get fun real soon!

Our tuesday game is 4e. Our thursday game was 5e and we just TPK'd in it, pretty much everyone but one player in the group likes 4e more.

5e is okay. but 4e feels more like what we want from D&D. I hope you enjoy it.

Hope so too. Might go back to 4E if I can get a decent printer again (my group is fairly poor, the best of us makes about $14/hour and only me and my fiancee have tablets so everyone else needs to print their character sheets every level or so).

Looking forward to a little lower-power scale game, personally. Need a break from the ultra-high-fantasy we've been doing for a while.

D&D players are literally autistic and hate change.

Because caster scum got their supremacy back.
t. Magefucker Witchtoucher, nerfed to the ground

seeThere is no caster supremacy in 5e.

No, caster supremacy is back but it's not nearly as bad as it was in 3.PF. Most of the game-breaking spells are far more limited in scope but casters can still dominate if played even remotely decently. Again, not as bad but still there.

No it isn't. 5e is pretty balanced. As was every edition except for 3.5

The problem is that you don't want a balanced game. You want martial domination.

That user is right. There is still pretty heavy caster supremacy, it just only manifests in the second half of the level track. Single digit levels are balanced for all intents and purposes, double digits are not.

I'm not getting baited into another pointless casters vs martials trollfest.

Show us some concrete examples of caster supremacy in 5e or shut the fuck up.

Why are people saying 4e was a 'huge departure' when it plays exactly like a version of 3e that's actually balanced?
It's all the fucking same. Same magic items, same stats, same combat system, same action economy.

The only difference is that the classes are balanced and you have 30 levels instead of 20.

Polymorph, Wish, and other extremely versatile options in the second half of the level track bring back the same problems 3.X has. Namely, casters are extremely versatile, and martials are not.

Most martial in the second half of their level track get very very little in the way of utility abilities, and even combat abilities start to decrease in utility gradually especially without magic items.

5e fixes the combat system for collapsing AC into itself, balancing saves [except at high levels], weakening save or dies, and semi-fixes the skill system by making the more viable, but the core problem of caster supremacy was always the versatility problem, and around level 10 or so the power of martials vs the versatility of casters declines by a lot.

It plays nothing like 3.X, are you high?

Sorclock having the highest, longest ranged sustained ranged DPR, on top of being a 9th level caster.

Bard stealing the shit out of paladin and ranger spells, as well as expertise from the rogue on top of being a 9th level caster.

Moon Druid wild shape being less limited and overall better than the barbarian rage, on top of being a 9th level caster

Necromancers

Martials STILL only receiving ribbon abilities and magic STILL being the best solution to everything (special mention goes to the barbarian who at least gets to fly). Divine casters STILL selecting from the entire spell list every freaking day.

In terms of sheet damage, they aren't as strong as 3.P, but they again reign supreme in terms of versatility (especially the Bard). A fighter may increase his crit range, intercede with his shield in a fight, etc. but the Wizard can see invisible creatures, summon monsters, alter memories, raise the dead, and bring a person youth again. Those are all features from the various Wizard Schools. What can the Fighter do that is similar?

>caster supremacy in 5e

Cool, when does my fighter learn to cast Charm Person to easily get through a social encounter? Or even just Friends, if I don't care about ever seeing that NPC again.

When does my Barbarian get to cast Plane Shift? I mean that's a whole range of story possibilities right there, plane shift. When do I get to do something as meaningful to the story as opening a hole to another reality?

When do they get to do something exciting in battle that's not "I attack" or "I use my single effective ability"?

(Paladins are cool, I like the paladin ability set. If only they all had such a spread)

Indeed, fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins/rogues don't have to stand still and full attack every turn to contribute. You also (usually) don't win/bypass an encounter with a single spell.

As says, it plays like a "fixed" 3.5.

>first poster lists things that are the same

You COULD have said:
>no, it's different because x and y

INSTEAD you said:
>nuh uh, nuh uh!

congratulations

gr8 b8 m8.

Try actually playing both games before saying they're the same.

Casters (Wizards more acurately) have always had access to Wish and Polymorph.

Of course caster are going to be more versatile than a class who's only good at one thing: melee combat.

There's no way of fixing that unless you want to give martials Wish, Polymorph, Gate, Teleport, Flight, etc...

Essentially you're complaining that that wizards cast spells while martials swing swords. That's what it says on the box dummy.

He's wrong. Its literally comparing apples and oranges. They play nothing alike. It goes from a system of attacking and combat manuevers, and daily spell effects, along with a bunch of by-class subsystems, into a one-size-fits-all system of Powers that are at-will, encounter, and daily.

It literally is nothing alike in terms of gameplay. 5e plays like a fixed 3.X, 4e plays like a completely different game.

No, I'm complaining that at high levels one character class is immensely more powerful and versatile than another.

If you think martials are "swing sword" the class, than you're 3.X cancer and should just STFU and stay away from game design.

No instead we have to wait half an hour for martial classes to pick which one of their viturally identical powers they will use this round.

It slows down combat to a crawl.

Having 1 wizard in the party is enough.

That's what martial are. Sorry m8. You're the one who needs to STFU. Or go play another game I guess.

>No instead we have to wait half an hour for martial classes to pick which one of their viturally identical powers they will use this round.

You must really fucking hate battlemaster fighters.

No thats what Commoners are, you go play another game.

Go back to 3.PF, faggot. Go and stay go, we don't want your cancer here.

5e was a good start, but it needs to do more.

TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAME
OH SHIT ROGUES WITH THE UNIQUE SNEAK ATTACK
CLERICS WITH CHANNEL DIVINITY
FIGHTERS ACTUALLY ABLE TO STOP ENEMIES

it's all the same game. YOu need to provide evidence of your claims, this isn't church.

pictured: class subsystems

Stay mad martialfags.

Keep playing your dead edition lol

>Polymorph
Requires concentration

>Wish
Has some severe limitations & can only be used once per day by lvl17+ sorcerers & wizards

5e casters have versatility at the cost efficiency & specialization. They're heavily resource reliant, & they can't surpass martial characters performance in their roles.

Casters can be very powerful at high levels but they don't make everyone else redundant any more.

The OSR movement and grognards like rules that make mages even better than everyone else and hate rules that don't require mind caulk to work.