D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[mips42]

Extreme tl;dr version:
if 3e was the version that tried to bring in to board gamers, 4e was the version that tried to bring in MMO players. Some liked it, some thought is was 'meh' and some hated it with the power of a thousand suns.
I, for one, will not miss it.

 

[Obryn]

Speaking for myself, 4e is when D&D finally fulfilled the promises it had been making to me since 1982.

By the time it came out, I was well and truly done with all the iterations of 3.x, and had moved on to other systems - most notably WFRP2 and SWSE. I picked up Keep on the Shadowfell and found that 4e did - and continues to do - a number of things that scratch my gaming itches perfectly. It's a delight to run, it slaughters caster superiority, and it finally gave fighters (and related classes) cool stuff to do and an awesome niche.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but that's cool. I mean, I think 3.x and Pathfinder are terrible for many reasons, and I break out into a rash when I see a single character described like, "Battle Sorcerer 4 / Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Spellsword 1 / Eldritch Knight 8," so fair's fair.

 

[Jester David]

What did people think about Wayne Reynolds doing the art for both 4E and Pathfinder?

People either like his art regardless of source or hate it.
His posing of women is shaky at times and his swords/armour can be a little unrealistic at times. His Pathfinder iconics tend to be a little more restrained.
I dislike his PHB cover because it looks a little silly with everyone posing. But the DMG is my favourite DMG cover.

 

[Emerikol]

Hey guys,
1. How did everybody (or most people) here react to the news of a new edition in the first place? Excitement or trepidation? Didn't 3.5 still have a good amount of momentum in 2007? Or were people ready for an overhaul?

I think people were ready for something. They were far more secretive with 4e than they've been with 5e. So few actually saw AEDU all that early. They did have some early books on philosophy that I found myself disagreeing with a lot but then forgot that fact and I bought in heavily anyway.

2. How impressive were the early sneak peeks? Were people shocked at some of the changes from the get go? Or were people who didn't like the new game mostly blindsided once they picked up the core books?

Not impressive.

3. I see that that having the option of playing "Pathfinder" fragmented the fanbase somewhat. Was that a good thing or bad thing for this forum? Or did it have a minimal effect at all?

I believe it had it's effect but it's way overrated by 4e fans many of whom think many Pathfinder players would have went to 4e otherwise. I do think there is a divide in the community and I doubt any edition of D&D could fully heal it. Many who abandoned 4e early hate wotc and won't come back.

4. What else was noteworthy about 4E? Was there some product that was particularly awesome or infamous?

I think certain mechanics in 4e were widely hailed as good. The xp approach to encounter building for one. The ease of monster creation.

 

[Chaltab]

Your first couple questions are... a bit before my time talking about RPGs online. I played D&D for a bit when 3rd first came out but fell off fairly quick for lack of interested players, and began RPing regularly again in 2008 right around the time 4th Edition launched--but playing one of the numerous spin-off d20 games instead. It wasn't for two years or so that my group picked up 4th Edition, and we did so specifically because the d20 game we had been playing was horribly broken and we'd heard good things about 4E's balance.

3. I see that that having the option of playing "Pathfinder" fragmented the fanbase somewhat. Was that a good thing or bad thing for this forum? Or did it have a minimal effect at all?

Pathfinder is essentially Wizards of the Coast having forged the weapon that then cut off it's arm. You're probably aware of the OGL, which gives anything released under it to anyone and everyone to use in perpetuity. Much of the 3rd Edition system was flat out given away in the d20 SRD, and Paizo used it create a game that's basically an extension of 3.5, with many of its strengths and shortcomings in tact. Like anything in nerd culture, tribes sprung up around products, no different than Sega vs Nintendo console wars, and it did get pretty... bitter.

4. What else was noteworthy about 4E? Was there some product that was particularly awesome or infamous?

The most noteworthy thing about is the staggering amount of misinformation and hastily-formed opinions about it. That's not to say it's perfect or that everyone who dislikes it 'just didn't get it', but if you stumble upon an angry screed or two on the internet, don't take them at face value.

As for products, the second Player's Handbook and the second DMG are both excellent products and have some of the best class and race designs in the history of the game. The first two Monster Manuals are pretty bad and the math used to build monsters was drastically updated in Monster Manual 3, and two subsequent releases called Monster Vault, and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

 

[wedgeski]

Speaking for myself...

1. How did everybody (or most people) here react to the news of a new edition in the first place? Excitement or trepidation? Didn't 3.5 still have a good amount of momentum in 2007? Or were people ready for an overhaul?

I think for the *most* part it was unwelcome. Personally, I was done with 3E and loved what was being talked baout by Wizards. Of course, only some of it came to fruition. There was a bad reaction by a lot of people to the preview video which focused on particularly notorioius aspects of the 3.5 system (grapple etc.). As diplomatically as I can, I will say that the video was not, by many people, taken in the spirit it was intended. As you can see by the posts on this thread, the history has now been constructed that Wizards only knew how to market 4E by telling us how bad 3E was, which is false.

2. How impressive were the early sneak peeks? Were people shocked at some of the changes from the get go? Or were people who didn't like the new game mostly blindsided once they picked up the core books?

It took a loooong time for actual mechanics to be released, I remember that much, but I don't recall the reaction to them. The "making of" preview books were excellent, I thought, despite that annoying "visiting the fairies" line which became the rallying-cry for seemingly every disaffected D&D player in the world.

3. I see that that having the option of playing "Pathfinder" fragmented the fanbase somewhat. Was that a good thing or bad thing for this forum? Or did it have a minimal effect at all?

In the early days it was a nightmare, but now..? I think we mostly just get along. It doubtless helps that 5E bears so juch similarity to AD&D/3E.

4. What else was noteworthy about 4E? Was there some product that was particularly awesome or infamous?

Well, I loved 4E for the longest time. Its most noteworthy feature to me was its encapsulation of table realities. Short Rests, Long Rests, Healing Surges, those were all responses to how my games played themselves out in the 3E era. It was incredibly brave (many would say foolish) to spin out a whole new design the way they did. Second to that was the separation of PC and monster rules, and the joy of monster and encounter design. These features were peerless IMO.

 

[Jester David]

and I break out into a rash when I see a single character described like, "Battle Sorcerer 4 / Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Spellsword 1 / Eldritch Knight 8," so fair's fair.

Opposed to a trickster rogue daggermaster demigod dune trader?

 

[BryonD]

I break out into a rash when I see a single character described like, "Battle Sorcerer 4 / Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Spellsword 1 / Eldritch Knight 8," so fair's fair.

I've never seen a character that would justify such a complex build. But if I did I'm glad I've got a system that can handle it. I'm very sorry that your skin condition limits your options.

 

[Obryn]

Opposed to a trickster rogue daggermaster demigod dune trader?

... yes? Absolutely? In your example, you have the normal parts of building a 21st level character, with class, build, theme, paragon path, and epic destiny. For 5e, you have race, subrace, class, subclass, background by 3rd level - Hill dwarf folk hero champion great weapon fighter - and maybe multiclassing down the road (which is too bad).

The 3e example showcases, to me, the worst excesses and conceits of the system, along with the awfulness of the 3.x approach to classes and Buffet-style multiclassing (aka "broken point buy").

(I mean, did I mention this was a villain? as in a DM put that together, rooting through how many books just to make the bad guy work like he was supposed to? and then presumably remember all that nonsense to run him? Never again.)

And the worst part to me is that 5e could very easily end up bringing all of this back in exactly the same way. Structurally it's almost identical to 3e, and there's nothing preventing the return of prestige classes. Or multiclassing abominations.

Now, clearly, a lot of folks find that fun. And to them this is a plus of both 3e and 5e. And bully for you if your are! To each their own! But I'm not among them.

I've never seen a character that would justify such a complex build. But if I did I'm glad I've got a system that can handle it. I'm very sorry that your skin condition limits your options.

I'll manage. I'm likewise glad I'm not running any systems where "handling" that is somehow considered a strength.

Thank you for your concern. Stockholm syndrome takes many forms.

 

[Raith5]

Speaking for myself, 4e is when D&D finally fulfilled the promises it had been making to me since 1982.

This was my experience. The mechanics expressed the spirit of team based gameplay.

4e is a mechanically dense game with a lot of the mechanics being in the hands of the player as well as the DM - some did not like the number of options and power the players had over the game. I loved it.

The mechanics also heavily supported things that were long done in the history of D&D - fighters as defenders was nothing new but powerful mechanics gave them significant influence in combat and clerics ability to heal was additional to their spells. I liked the fact that you had a role - a job to do - but feats allowed you to go beyond and change it.

It was not perfect. I do think more needed to be done to encourage players to use their abilities more creatively visa vi stunts and more effort put into exploration and social gameplay - I played 4e with a group that played in a fairly deep role-playing way but I have seen enough of people on these forums who had problems with this to believe they needed to do far more. I also think more effort was needed to make backgrounds of PCs more important and link characters to game world (like 5e and 13th age have done).