D&D 4E D&D 4E fans: what do you like about 4E?

[darkbard]

I'm a big fan of 4E. But I won't pile on, most of the things that I like about it were already mentioned.

However, I always homebrewed and didn't touch the official settings. Why is Nentir Vale getting so much love? Isn't it really small?

From my perspective what makes the Nentir Vale such an excellent setting is its "draw maps but leave blanks" approach. Not literally. Rather, the setting is roughly sketched with copious points of entreé for PCs (via obvious Background and Theme connections and things of that ilk) but not a whole lot defined and constrained on the lore side. There is no overarching metaplot or superpowerful NPCs. Lore is there for giving PCs obvious and individual quests, goals, connections to the setting and without much pressure to adhere to any canon. There is plenty of flavor defined across many books, but there is also contradiction, unsolved mysteries, places or creatures hinted at more than exhaustively detailed, and so on.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Another thing to add to the Nentir Vale list of virtues, it's that it has lots of lore and information despite how small it is. While it was intended to be the starting point for a campaign, and there is advise for what to do once the characters grow powerful and want to go to explore the rest of the world, the thing is that leaving the Vale isn't necessary. It has a lot of materials, and you can basically run an entire lv. 1 - lv. 30 campaign without ever leaving the Nentir Vale.

It's basically your sandbox to do with it as you want.

 

[fba827]

- transparency in the background math allowing for improvising and adjustments on fly
-Better balance between options of different classes giving them each something to consistently do rather than always being outshined by other classes
- Simple power stat blocks for monsters so dm does not need to parse as much in the moment of the game session

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Caveat, I never played 2e or 3e, so maybe some of these things were in earlier editions. But I found them in 4e and liked them. First off, +1 to what folks have said already above. Even the part of reading them and nodding my head - I was doing that too

• Monster tactics/strategy in the stat block
• Monster lore based on skill checks
• Epic tier play, in theory (we never actually got up there, so I don't know how it actually played - but it just seemed so cool to choose the epic destiny)
• Skill challenges - What someone else said about them it involved the entire party
• I really loved the arenas of power (Arcane, Martial, etc) along with the party role (Leader, Striker, etc)
• As a player I loved bloodied. As a GM it was ok, but didn't get in the way
• Picking different types of powers at each level made every character feel different
• I never hacked it much, but it felt like it would be easy to do so
• No diagonal movement
• Healing surge economy
• The online character builder with a subscription model that gave me everything official in the game published to date

 

[Voadam]

Caveat, I never played 2e or 3e,

I did.

so maybe some of these things were in earlier editions.

Some of them yeah. Some in bits and pieces only though.

But I found them in 4e and liked them. First off, +1 to what folks have said already above. Even the part of reading them and nodding my head - I was doing that too

Yeah, there are a bunch of good aspects of 4e.

• Monster tactics/strategy in the stat block

Started in 3.5 Monster Manual for select monsters with round by round tactics. Narrative combat notes were in a bunch of edition monster descriptions to one degree or another.

• Monster lore based on skill checks

You could see this in late 3.5 starting with Monster Manual IV

• Epic tier play, in theory (we never actually got up there, so I don't know how it actually played - but it just seemed so cool to choose the epic destiny)

3.0 had the first full sourcebook on it, the Epic Level Handbook.

1e had the first module for characters over 20th level with H4 The Throne of Bloodstone for characters levels 18-100.

• Skill challenges - What someone else said about them it involved the entire party

New to 4e.

• I really loved the arenas of power (Arcane, Martial, etc) along with the party role (Leader, Striker, etc)

Arcane divine had been pretty much a split of powers from the beginning.

People came up with core four roles early on (not in the same terms or fully the same concepts though, stuff like healer and skill monkey) but as actual explicit game mechanics that was 4e.

• As a player I loved bloodied. As a GM it was ok, but didn't get in the way

I believe that started showing up as a monster mechanic in late 3.5 Monster Manual V in some individual monsters.

• Picking different types of powers at each level made every character feel different

Casters always had new magic every couple of levels, and 3.5 worked hard at getting rid of dead levels where you gained nothing but HD, attack, skill, and save advancement, but you'd have to go to d20 Modern for a solid everybody picking powers each level 4e precursor. (I couldn't say for Saga Star Wars).

• I never hacked it much, but it felt like it would be easy to do so

Most all editions were easy to hack in a number of ways.

• No diagonal movement
• Healing surge economy
• The online character builder with a subscription model that gave me everything official in the game published to date

These were fairly 4e specific.

 

[cbwjm]

As a player I loved bloodied. As a GM it was ok, but didn't get in the way

The bloodied condition was, and still is, a great idea. I've used it in 5e to trigger attacks or effects.

 

[Hussar]

Started in 3.5 Monster Manual for select monsters with round by round tactics. Narrative combat notes were in a bunch of edition monster descriptions to one degree or another.

View attachment 292708

You could see this in late 3.5 starting with Monster Manual IV

View attachment 292709

3.0 had the first full sourcebook on it, the Epic Level Handbook.

1e had the first module for characters over 20th level with H4 The Throne of Bloodstone for characters levels 18-100.

New to 4e.

Arcane divine had been pretty much a split of powers from the beginning. People came up with core four roles early on (not in the same terms or fully the same concepts though, stuff like healer and skill monkey) but as actual explicit game mechanics that was 4e.

I believe that started showing up as a monster mechanic in late 3.5 Monster Manual V in some individual monsters.

Casters always had new magic every couple of levels, and 3.5 worked hard at getting rid of dead levels where you gained nothing but HD, attack, skill, and save advancement, but you'd have to go to d20 Modern for a solid everybody picking powers each level 4e precursor. (I couldn't say for Saga Star Wars).

Most all editions were easy to hack in a number of ways.

These were fairly 4e specific.

I'm sorry, but this is why these sort of conversations always fly up my left nostril.

One of the biggest complaints about 4e was that it was too different from earlier D&D and changed too much. But, as soon as you start pointing out the changes that you liked, then, well, nothing in 4e is original and all appeared in earlier editions. Then, when 5e rolled out, if you pointed out the similarities to 5e from 4e, the same thing happens - despite 4e being totally different from D&D, any similarities to 4e in 5e are only pulled from earlier editions.

It's really frustrating to be honest. Not that that's what you're saying @Voadam. I'm just springboarding off your point.

4e really is the quantum edition - it is both completely different, yet completely the same as all other editions of D&D.
-----------

Anyway, for my money, the biggest change in 4e was breaking the initiative order. While yes, you had reactionary powers in 3e like AOO's which could occur on other people's turns, it wasn't until 4e that we could deliberately take actions on other turns. You actually had to pay attention to the game when it wasn't your turn because you could be called on at pretty much any time to take some sort of action. It was a great way to keep the group engaged during combat.

Probably the best innovation to come out of 4e IMO.

 

[Voadam]

Anyway, for my money, the biggest change in 4e was breaking the initiative order. While yes, you had reactionary powers in 3e like AOO's which could occur on other people's turns, it wasn't until 4e that we could deliberately take actions on other turns. You actually had to pay attention to the game when it wasn't your turn because you could be called on at pretty much any time to take some sort of action. It was a great way to keep the group engaged during combat.

I pretty much built my first non-one shot 4e PC around getting as many ranger interrupt and reaction encounter and daily powers as I could and it was fantastic in the face to face campaign.

It would have been a nightmare in a play by post game though. I had a lot of fun in a 4e pbp game as an epic swordmage but limiting myself to attack of opportunity as my interrupt options helped the game go smoother there.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I could see that.

It’s why I don’t think 4e would have translated into a computer very well at all. There are so many “do over” powers. I can’t see how you’d put that in a video game. Even a turn based one wouldn’t really work.

 

[overgeeked]

I pretty much built my first non-one shot 4e PC around getting as many ranger interrupt and reaction encounter and daily powers as I could and it was fantastic in the face to face campaign.

It would have been a nightmare in a play by post game though. I had a lot of fun in a 4e pbp game as an epic swordmage but limiting myself to attack of opportunity as my interrupt options helped the game go smoother there.

Oh...gods. Yeah, interrupts in a pbp game would be a nightmare.