D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

iserith · Jun 4, 2019

ART! said:
If you like skills, 4E doesn't seem to care much about them. They're there, and you will use them, but why they weren't worked into the interconnected, balanced system of feats, powers, spells, etc. is beyond me.

If the DM knows how to create and present skill challenges (as outlined in the Rules Compendium, not the DMGs), then skills are very important. Often my players are more terrified of skill challenges than they are of combats!

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

Jer said:
Every class doesn't have "magic" - every class has "powers".

Call them what you like, there's too much of it and it compilcates the game (too many "powers" to keep track of at a time).

EpicureanDM · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
The fighter has too many features or exploits to keep track of at once. In a way I think of these as magic or spells. 5e has fewer and more effective features. It's much easier to keep track of.

4e is not for you and that's fine.

TwoSix · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
Call them what you like, there's too much of it and it compilcates the game (too many "powers" to keep track of at a time).

It certainly feels like you've answered your question in the inital post, then! 4e doesn't sound like your cup of tea.

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Keep in mind the context though, after late 3.5, 4e was a significant reduction in complexity.

I don't know for sure, but many have said that 3.5 was the best edition. I've never played 3.5 or really even looked at any of the books, but I would like to try it. Also when it comes to reductions in complexity, I like how 5e made only one Monster Manual, Player handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide.

Ralif Redhammer · Jun 4, 2019

3e is worth giving a shot – it lived on for years after its demise in Pathfinder, after all. But ff you’re going through older editions, I’d put OD&D, BECMI, 1e, and 2e ahead of all the others, for all that my random internet opinion counts.

4e was when I really got back into gaming after one of my lapses. So while I have no small degree of thankfulness for that, I do not care for the system. That being said, it’s worth playing just to experience the experiment that the edition was, maybe with a one-shot or just handful of sessions.

MrDM69 said:
I don't know for sure, but many have said that 3.5 was the best edition. I've never played 3.5 or really even looked at any of the books, but I would like to try it.

Jer · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
Call them what you like, there's too much of it and it compilcates the game (too many "powers" to keep track of at a time).

Ah - so you've already made your decision then. Very good - continue to not play 4e then

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

Jer said:
Ah - so you've already made your decision then. Very good - continue to not play 4e then

okay, thanks!

dave2008 · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
I've heard that 4e is pretty good, but I want some more opinions before I start playing.

Yes! It is a great game. It brought me back to D&D after a long absence. It seems to work better for newer groups or groups with less investment in the sacred cows of older editions, but it worked great for us.

We are staying with 5e, but there are things I miss about 4e.

Fanaelialae · Jun 4, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Fewer? Yes. Easier to keep track of? Yes. More effective? ...my instinct says this is a misapprehension, but I suppose it depends what you mean by effective.

Anyway, 4e is definitely high on complexity compared to 5e, which is one of the reasons I haven’t gone back to it. Keep in mind the context though, after late 3.5, 4e was a significant reduction in complexity.

If we're talking the 4e PHB fighter I would agree. However, if it's the Essentials fighters, then I'd say they're not any more complex than the 5e fighter. In fact, I'd consider them significantly less complex than something like an Eldritch Knight.