What are the major differences between D&D 4e and 5e...

Good or bad, 4e takes heavy inspiration from MMOs.

Nope. People keep arguing this but there's never any good evidence for it.

The AEDU power structure? Not only do MMOs not do that sort of static 'once per fight/day' countdown, the entire system is just a reformatting of things that were already present in 3.PF. They just cleaned it up a bit- Tidying up the templating, making it all one system instead of a dozen conflicting subsystems. It wasn't new. It was just tidying up what was already there.

The same goes for roles. If you read the 3.5 PHB, each class is implicitly given a role, and classes are clearly designed to fit in certain roles within the group. The problem is that they fucked it up, meaning some classes can't fulfil any role at all while others can fulfil multiple.

This is what I find so maddening about the 'MMO' bullshit. It makes no sense. It's trying to argue when something new was added when all they did was rework what was already there, without the obfuscation, irrelevant bullshit and bad design that labours 3.PF to this day.

>This is what I find so maddening about the 'MMO' bullshit.
You find it maddening because you're an autist with an axe to grind.

P.S. 4e came out before Pathfinder so you can stop claiming 4e is a PF rework.

Pathfinder was created with the sole purpose of capitalizing on salty grogbux after 4e changed too much from 3.5. Which is incredible really, because 4e is just filtered 3.5.

3.PF is a general term for the broader system, since there isn't much point drawing a distinction between the two.

>grogs
3aboo plz, go back to playing Diablo.5

Basically this. I started with 2e and couldn't tell how 4e was so massively different from 3e besides slightly more balanced power levels.

Compared to how close they were, 3e was basically an entirely different game with the same terminology.

>'I can't dispute his points so I'll just call him an autist instead! That means I win!'

You leave Path of Exile out of this!

Start with D&D Basic. Everything you need is in two pdfs: 1) Basic Rules and 2)the module of your choice. Also the pdfs are easy to obtain. Basic D&D has the best combination of easiness and legibility.

Yo, since there's hardly a 4e general around, anyone remember what the common fixes are? I remember "1/2 health and x1.5 damage" for monsters. Can't remember what it is for PCs. It's like free weapon focus or something.

The monster math works better with the MM3, pic related summarises it.

In terms of system math, each PC should be given an Expertise feat (+1 per tier to attacks with a certain sort of weapon, plus a side benefit of some kind) and Improved defences (+1 to defences per tier) for free, as they're boring taxes necessary to make the system math work.

I have found basic rules but where can I find these "modules"?

>I remember "1/2 health and x1.5 damage" for monsters.

That's a meme. Just use the MM3 math.

>Can't remember what it is for PCs. It's like free weapon focus or something.

Free Expertise. Possibly free improved defense and melee training feats.

In the OSR general's mega, TSR -> Basic folder there are many folders of modules. Or, the following wikipedia page

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules

Note that this page also includes Advanced D&D modules, not just Basic. Once you get the hang of Basic you can easily convert AD&D modules.

Thanks. Probably should've saved this a long time ago.

And adding on to that, any of the B modules are good for novices, especially B2 Keep on the Borderlands

Uh oh, thanks. Well, that's a lot of new stuff to learn

It's a lot less than any other version actually. The Basic Rules (use Moldvay, also in the mega) is only 68 pages + whatever number of pages for the chosen module. On the other hand, 4e and 5e are hundreds of pages split into multiple books AND you have whatever adventure/supplement text. The Basic Rules are also edited for in-game reference, unlike later editions.

Take the OSR pushers stuff with a grain of salt. A lot of people love it, but it's very different to the standard idea of what a roleplaying game is. It might be the origin, but things have changed a heck of a lot since then.

Which one is more suited to play by post ?

It's really not. Basic is so fucking easy, and plays better than any other version of d&d since.
Descending AC can take some time wrapping your head around, it's not intuitive at all, but that's about it.

Both are good, but you'll have an easier time finding a 5e group.

I'd say 5e because it doesn't require any additional effort compared to in-person play--assuming you're doing 'theater of the mind' style stuff already, anyways.

4e can still work well because of it's strongly delineated and compartmentalized power/movement terminologies, so long as everybody knows what the battle map looks like and what's being done on it. This would take either something like roll20 accompanied by text describing what you're doing, or full-on chess-like notation.

I like 4e
I like 5e
I like 3.5e
I like PF

I like pretty much every RPG

Get 5th edition, its simplified without being dumbed down. 4e is kind of dead at this point, even though it's good. I just don't think there is a point in getting into it now.

Both are designed for newbies.

4e focuses much more on tactical combat with minis, and has more "gamey" mechanics, but tighter balance character balance.

5e is less combat focused, has mechanics that more closely match up with the story, but less tight class balance (some classes are less versatile than others).

4e is out of print and requires several books/PDFs, but has a fancy character builder.

5e is cheaper to get into, as it has less books a player needs, and less books overall, but less variety in characters than 4e.

5e is more compatible with most oldschool d&d settings, like planescape, forgotten realms, greyhawk, and dragonlance. 4e is better for better eberron and dark sun, and its own setting "points of light/nentir vale".

Neither is particularly complicated.

Pathfinder is also fun, but the balance is significantly less, and as such there's a not insignificant learning curve to knowing what not to take. Its appeal is mostly in gonzo high powered Dr. Strange tier magic and a million and 1 character options.
Pathfinder is cheaper to get into, because all the character options are available for free on d20pfsrd, archives of Nethys, and prd (their business model mostly revolves around selling adventures).
It more or less handles the same settings 5e does, but again, much less newbie friendly.

It depends on what you're looking for.

...

And that's not even considering other games.

Mythras/Runequest/BRP/Unisystem/Open d6/GURPS/Fantasy HERO/d20 Conan/FantasyCraft/Talislanta/Hack master/HARN/HARP/Rolemaster/one of the many OSR D&D clones might all serve you better, depending on what kind of fantasy campaign you're looking to run and what sort of mechanics you find you prefer.

I personally lean towards GURPS or fantasy HERO for their flexibility, but many other people have different preferences.

My group leans toward Pathfinder (largely because they like the ton of published adventures you can just pick up and run and the tons of character options and the "character optimizing minigame") so that's what we play most often for fantasy games.

But as a starting point, 4e and 5e are both easy to pick up for a newbie.

>Not only do MMOs not do that sort of static 'once per fight/day' countdown
Except they do. They're not explicitly called Daily or Encounter powers, but they often have a long enough cooldown that they're really only good once in a fight or once per day.
>each class is implicitly given a role
Which just happen to line up perfectly with the MMO roles. DPS, CC, Tank, Healer, etc. 4e literally just renamed those roles to make it less obvious that they were cribbing from video games.
>It makes no sense.
It does though. You'd realize that if you came out of your willful denial and thought about it more than not at all.

>but it's very different to the standard idea of what a roleplaying game is.
Only because entitled video game players have corrupted idea of what an RPG is.
youtube.com/watch?v=X9vECzikqpY
Modern players actually expect to be playing Cape Comics: Fantasy Edition rather than brutal dungeon crawling and resource management.

Nope. Both are completely valid playstyles. Neither is superior or inferior, it's just a matter of personal preference.

The problem is that D&D tried to force both styles into a single game. This corruption eventually lead to martial/caster disparity and now bullshit snowflake "psionic kitsune" that pathfinder suffers from.
3e onwards really shouldn't have been named D&D but whatever.

Work on your reading comprehension there, buddy.

Man people really fetishize that video.
Or maybe it's just you posting it over and over again.
You do know that you can run a brutal dungeon crawl in a system that doesn't suck or have a save exclusively for polymoprh and petrification, right?

It's me posting it over and over again
I'm mad because I like low level campaigns due to the reigned in power level but every time the players are "Can we play a higher level?" just so they can use more abilities rather than for any role play reason. Never once had a player say "Can we start at a higher level? I want to role play a warrior-king who lost his throne."
The player mentality always leaves RP in the back seat leaving the game mechanics up front, and I prefer different types of games than most players.

Honestly it just sounds like you've had run ins with shitty players. I play in a lot of high power stuff and people generally have no trouble adapting to the higher power tone of the campaign and making appropriate characters for it.

I also think a large part of the reason people might ask to start at higher level is that many, many GMs will insist on starting at level 1 almost all the time, meaning that you might play a dozen games of D&D while never experiencing more than the first five levels of the system.

The only campaigns i get to play are low level because it takes so long to get higher up that my group never makes it before they start over. The highest we've ever gotten is 8. I do want to try the higher level stuff and that'll probably never happen unless we start higher.

>many GMs will insist on starting at level 1 almost all the time
This is exactly what I want to do
>while never experiencing more than the first five levels of the system.
Because past the first five levels casters start getting access to game busting spells that are not my cup of tea.
From my perspective it's like play a roguelike where suddenly the player stops being snapped to the grid so now you have to lets monsters unsnap to the grid to be a threat and powerlevels just keep escalating from there.
Really triggers my autism.

>AEDU is nothing new
In 3.x most abilities are usable several times per fight, or several times per day whenever you want them.

1 grab bag of 1-use powers is a significant departure from that.

Additionally, individually tracked x/time period abilities are an unpopular mechanic in 3.x, as well. The lack of that is the main thing people like about 3.x psionics.

Personally they're the thing I hate most about 3.x, and so, IMO, 4e took the worst part of a game I like, made it worse, and put it fucking everywhere.

Though I don't make the 4e=MMO claim. I see it more as "what if disgaea was a tabletop game", implemented in a way I don't find any fun.

We start at 7-10 in Pathfinder. I wouldn't play in a game that started below 6.

I believe you mean we onwards shouldn't be named D&D.

3e is just a continuation of 2es high magic fantasy settings.

4e and 5e don't

4e aims solely for superheroics, 5e aims solely for dungeon crawling

High level 5e casters are more powerful than high level 4e casters, and less than 3e casters.

I wouldn't say "solely". High level 5e characters are still pretty over-the-top even if not to the same level as previous editions.

>I'm mad because I like low level campaigns due to the reigned in power level but every time the players are "Can we play a higher level?" just so they can use more abilities
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to play the fun portions of a system, any more than it's unreasonable to want to play the fun portions of a story.

It does suck that you can't find people with the same tastes as you, though.

>IMO, 4e took the worst part of a game I like, made it worse
"Put it fucking everywhere" is a valid observation, but how in the hell are encounter powers, daily powers, and a handful of 2-3 per either worse than tracking 23 individual spells, most of which are overpowered, mostly irrelevant, or buffs lasting caster level minutes/hours?

High level 5e full-casters are awful and I hate them.

It's not as bad as 3.5, but it still feels like the design philosophy of the game is broken by how powerful they get

It's especially fun if you have a wizard with you that has meteor swarm, true polymorph, or wish. And simulacrum, oh god. I always ban that spell.

4e they're all 1/time abilities. You don't have the option to use the same ability multiple times, like you can with many 3.x classes.

That's how it's worse. And again, it's fucking everywhere.

Would have much preferred a stamina, strain, or mp system.

Point is 5e isn't all about dungeon crawls.

Personally I like high powered, versatile characters, with answers, and murder as the fallback option rather than first pick.

But it's definitely a different type of gameplay

>What are the major differences between D&D 4e and 5e?
4e is vastly different from 3.PF, so much so that it made people mad. 5e is not noticeably different from 3.PF, as such it is very successful.

>I have never play a tabletop RPG before - which one is easier to start with?
Personally I prefer 4e to play, but 5e is extremely user friendly to new players, just don't fall into the trap of only playing OGL d20 games for the rest of your gaming career because it's comfortable.

That sounds like an interesting game.

I don't know. I've found that OSR grogs tend to like/be neutral to 4e, while reserving their harshest criticisms for 3.PF

3.pf is the antithesis of a dungeon crawler. 4e is the most crawl-happy version of the game since ad&d 1e

ignoring everything else being brought up in this thread, I think we can all agree from an actual physical design point the D&D Essentials line were really well made(and the perfect size for an RPG book), really wish D&D would use that format again

>Would have much preferred a stamina, strain, or mp system.
Then play a psionic class and CALL power points "stamina" "strain" or "MP."

Problem solved.

It's meant for online play ideally. I know some people play it online to make it more fun.

>4e its explicitly designed to get newbies into the hobby
5e is also explicitly designed to get newbies into the hobby.

You misunderstand me.

I want a game where *ALL* the classes run off a *unified* mp or strain system, and all abilities can continue to be used until you run out of juice/rack up too many penalties.

Everything from wizards to bards to barbarians to hybrid classes.

... and now I want to make a homebrewed version of 4E in which you have a system of points that you can use for your powers.
>Martials have Stamina
>Arcanes have Mana
>Divines have Favour, representing how hard they prayed last time they rested and how willing the gods are to give them good shit for the next few encounters
>Primals have Essence, representing the spiritual energy within them that they absorbed from their environment while meditating or some shit
>Psionics have ki, though this might be renamed

5e does it better honestly, considering that 5e is harder for DMs but easier for players, while 4e is harder for players but easier for DMs

Keep in mind that 4e abilities are not balanced for repeated use.

5 5 5 5
F I V E
5 5 5 5
F I V E
5 5 5 5

Personally I see nothing wrong with spending a higher-leveled power to re-use a lower-leveled power you have

Like spending fighter forgoing the use of storm of blows in order to use come and get it twice

Sure, if you're using them like spell slots that would probably be fine.

If you're converting everything to an MP system, however, it may prove problematic.

In that particular example? Sure. But it's a matter of action economy.

Using low slash over and over is pretty damn powerful.

A spell slot system might work better than pure MP.
Certain powers can have restricted usage if they're particularly abusable through spam.

>Certain powers can have restricted usage if they're particularly abusable through spam.

Basically everything that fucks with action economy, yours or the enemies.

Thanks for the advice, ultra-Satan.

4e tried something new
5e didn't

But that's all optimal power choices

Off-turn attacks, minor-action attacks, triggered attacks, attacks that daze, stun or dominate. They tend to always be the best options available.

And that's why you can't spam them.

Replacing one powerful action-economy power with another tends to be fine

Take low slash for example, I'd generally say using low slash twice instead of using low slash once and stunning strike once won't screw up the balance of the class that badly. Sure it's powerful in terms of DPR, but it costs you a stun

...which MMOs have CC as a playable role? The vast majority of bosses in MMOs are basically immune to any form of crowd control or stun.

As opposed to 3.PF where those MMO mechanics came from?

...wait...what? 4e Casters have some pretty crazy bullshit like 'I died so the future me came back in time to finish the fight then rez my ass so I don't cause a time paradox'

Technically, that's an ED available to everyone.

But, for example, 4e characters can't make clone/skeleton/polymorphed dragon armies.

>Crowd control means single target stun and debuffs.
When did this become a thing?

Crowd control means killing/controlling all of the mooks (the crowd), or keeping enemies off of your allies through battlefield shaping effects.

>Would have much preferred a stamina, strain, or mp system.

Can you imagine how much bitching there would be about 'It's an MMO' if they went to a mana system?

Pretty much exactly the amount we got because no one making that complaint ever actually played the game?

>When did this become a thing?

Because that's the main speciality of Controllers in 4e and you said it lined up with MMO roles?

AOE damage is more the area of Strikers (See: Monk, Sorcerer) than Controller (Wizard is an exception due to it's old 3.5 'I can do anything' nature meaning it ended up with a heap of powers that don't line up with it's actual role)

No more than they already got. And it's not like there aren't other tRPGs that use a mp system already.

Mana is (unfortunately) ambiguous. Sometimes people mean mp (like you clearly do).

Other times they mean it in the same way as in MTG/Witcher/GURPS: channeling ambient energy from the area so you can use it for magic.

It's a warlock ED iirc.

And rogues had some pretty crazy bullshit like running past people and somehow making them attack themselves in the process.
And warlords had some pretty crazy bullshit like shouting people into being healthy and able to fight properly again.

And every class had some pretty crazy bullshit that relied on the exact same resource management system no matter what class you played.

I'm not the one you responded to. I don't think 4e is like an MMO in any way other than how marking is an alternate way to enforce a sort of aggro management.

I responded to the bottom that single target debugging counted as crowd control.

No? "crowd control" means "controlling" the "crowd"

If we're referring to it's use in MMOs, it generally refers to things like the World of Warcraft Mage using "Polymorph" or an Everquest Enchanter using "Sleep". Single-target abilities that temporarily remove the target from the fight

>And every class had some pretty crazy bullshit that relied on the exact same resource management system no matter what class you played.

Psionics and Essentials!

The only thing the E classes are good for is to prove you faggots wrong.

Even then, it's rarely a classes role so much as 'That one ability they have that they use then go back to the main job'

Even in the corebook, Fighters interacted with them in a unique way due to Reliable powers meaning that a failed power wasn't expended and could be repeated. That's an ability interaction that no other class did.

In what way is a single target a "crowd"?

Except for the Vanilla WoW Warlock

Which was simultaneously 100% necessary for every raid and the least fun thing in the game

Then don't play D&D?