4E Should I play 4e? - Page 4
Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 246
  1. #31
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Corellia (Space-Texas)
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    Those are spellcasters in 5e....
    Exactly. They are Fighters and Rogues who take an option to become spellcasting classes. Fighters and Rogues are not considered native spell-casting classes, as @MrDM69 suggests. But the options exist in 5e. So why is it difficult to imagine a similar idea for 4e, (even though several others have clearly (and repeatedly) explained that powers in 4e are *NOT* the same as spells in other editions)?

  2. #32
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    I've heard this too. I have the 4e Player's Handbook, and it seems that all of the classes have magic, and I prefer only the spellcasters to be able to use magic.
    This is, generally, incorrect. Martial characters of non-magic "exploits" (versus prayers and spells for casters) that allow them to sometimes do things that seem magical. Some people have a hard time explaining them as non-magical, but others do not. It comes down to your creativity and viewpoint. However, by RAW "exploits" are not magical in 4e.
    XP Fanaelialae gave XP for this post

  3. #33
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    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.
    If that is your viewpoint, then you might be interested in the 4e essentials line. There are some more traditional classes in those books. For example, the "Slayer" is a simplified fighter similar in concept to 5e's "Champion"
    XP Charlaquin gave XP for this post

  4. #34
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    Those are optional archetypes. The 4e magic, features, exploits, or whatever you want to call them are not as optional, and just confuse the game.
    I think you should try it before you make a determination. It is really not as confusing as it looks. I started my sons and there friends with 4e when they were 6-8 yrs old and they had no issues with the power system. If they can handle it, I bet you can too.
    Last edited by dave2008; Tuesday, 4th June, 2019 at 06:54 PM.
    XP Charlaquin gave XP for this post

  5. #35
    Member
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)



    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bloomington, IN, USA
    Posts
    160
    I played 4E for about a year on a mostly weekly basis, and have now been playing 5E lamost weekly for 2 years and I have to say: I didn't think I would miss the daily, encounter, and at-will power structure of 4E, but I really do. I think it was easier to understand - as I recall - than how 5E has it set up, although I get why 5E does things the way it does.
    XP Aldarc gave XP for this post

  6. #36
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    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).
    You OP seems to suggest that you haven't played it. So how do you know it overly complicates your game? Playing is believing. If your interested, give it a try, but there is not much wisdom in shutting it down before trying.

    Like I mentioned before, it is really not that complex. If it is to much for they provide "quick builds" for you if I remember correctly.

  7. #37
    Member
    Scout (Lvl 6)



    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    86
    I think if you are going to try 4e (and I think you should!) you should try it with a group who played and enjoyed 4e.

    Having someone who hated 4e run a game of 4e for you is uh...not going to give you an accurate experience.

  8. #38
    Member
    Hydra (Lvl 25)

    Mistwell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA
    Posts
    14,500
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    I've heard that 4e is pretty good, but I want some more opinions before I start playing.
    I played it for many years and had a lot of fun with it. It's not my preferred edition right now, but it has a lot of good things going for it.

    One underrated element of it is some of the books, and some of the adventures (particularly the later adventures) are really quite good. For example, Open Grave was my favorite book dealing with necromancy and death in D&D. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is a very solid book. 4e had a good Manual of the Planes too. In terms of adventures, Madness at Gardmore Abbey is very very good. I liked Halls of Undermountain too.
    XP dave2008, Aldarc gave XP for this post

  9. #39
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Medellin, Colombia
    Posts
    6,350
    Quote Originally Posted by HJFudge View Post
    I think if you are going to try 4e (and I think you should!) you should try it with a group who played and enjoyed 4e.

    Having someone who hated 4e run a game of 4e for you is uh...not going to give you an accurate experience.
    Agreed. I purposefully ran a game for a group of people who had never played D&D 4e, but had heard plenty of bad things. At the end, I asked what they thought and the consensus was "I don't understand what people hated about it - that was awesome!"

  10. #40
    Member
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)



    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDM69 View Post
    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.
    I always think its worth trying past editions, to expand ones understanding of the game and its history. That said, if 4e is too complex for you, youll HATE 3.5.
    XP dave2008, MechaPilot gave XP for this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •