D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

Tony Vargas · Jun 4, 2019

Lapasta said:
From what I could read, the Essentials line is a good place to start. But is it too dumbed down? Or just streamlined? Is having just one Epic Destiny for all characters too same-y? Or they can still fell different because of the base classes?

The one Epic Destiny (Destined Scion) is kinda thematic, for HotFK/HotFL tying into the vague history of Nerath, Arkoshia, and Bael-Turath, but ultimately fairly bland, with generic, if powerful, mechanics.
Essentials was not particularly dumbed down and certainly not streamlined, it was less consistent and less robustly balanced, and it tended towards a wordy, redundant style, even going as far as having swaths of the same material being repeated word-for-word in different books.

Azzy · Jun 4, 2019

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

Do you know anyone running the game? Is so, ask to play in their game and see if you like it.

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
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.

What's the Essentials fighters?

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

I've read most of your replies and I've decided to try it out. Thank you all!

Charlaquin · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
What's the Essentials fighters?

The Essentials line had two variants of the Fighter, both of which were less complex than the standard 4e fighter. They still had Powers, of course, but they were built around using a much smaller number of them, most of which were at-will. Both were very easy to learn and to play. As were most of the variant classes in the Essentials line.

If the complexity of 4e and keeping track of Powers seems like not your cup of tea, I would recommend trying Essentials first.

MrDM69 · Jun 4, 2019

Charlaquin said:
If the complexity of 4e and keeping track of Powers seems like not your cup of tea, I would recommend trying Essentials first.

Thanks! I'll do that!

ccs · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
What's the Essentials fighters?

A fighter with much of the AEDU system stripped out of it.

Around the two year mark WoTC tried to make some changes in order to re-attract the dollars of those of us who'd bailed out for greener pastures. Since every class operating on the same AEDU system was one of the major complaints they changed some of the classes to feel less like you were all playing spellcasters.
(AEDU - call each classes stuff whatever you will, but if I go through the exact same motions as a player to use my "Super Bladestorm Hurl Hack martial daily exploit" as I do to have my wizard cast a "spell", guess what? It kinda feels like I'm casting a spell even though I chose to play a fighter.... Stating this observation about how playing 4e makes you feel is of course like dragging fingernails over a chalkboard to 4e fans. They'll tell you to just imagine it different. But that doesn't change the fact that you still feel your fighter just cast a spell.)
And presumably this also made it easier for new players....

Try 4e if you think it looks interesting.

Just remember, it was written by some moron who explicitly tells you that magic arrows don't exist.

Dausuul · Jun 4, 2019

It depends on what you want out of your game. I know folks who swear by 4E and folks who will never touch it, and neither of them are wrong. It's just a matter of preferences.

Strong points of 4E:

The best class balance of any edition, by far.
Ideal for "set-piece" battles where the PCs face a planned encounter, on a battlefield with varied terrain, using a battlemat and minis. These battles can be very dynamic and tactically engaging. 4E is a wargamer's happy place.
Because everyone has the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers, the "5-minute workday" is less of an issue. You don't run into the scenario where the spellcasters have shot their wad and want to rest while the warriors are ready to keep going. And since daily powers are limited, it's a lot easier to carry on over the long haul.
"Minions," simplified 1-hp monsters that can be used in large quantities, make it possible to easily run large fights that would bog down in other editions. I was sad that these went away in 5E.
Careful thought is given to how each class will contribute in combat. It is possible to make a 4E character who sucks in combat, but you have to go out of your way to do it.
Plenty of love for non-magical classes. 4E was the first edition to make fighters really interesting to me. Everyone has plenty of toys to play with.
Nifty new cosmology with some very neat ideas.
Much harder to "break the game" than in other editions. Abilities like flight and long-range teleportation are tightly controlled, which makes the DM's life a lot easier.

Weak points of 4E:

Most editions try to make the mechanics seem realistic at a casual glance, even if they don't hold up to scrutiny. 4E makes no attempt whatever to do this. Examples include attacks that deal damage even when you miss; instantaneous healing without benefit of magic; thrown daggers that hit everything in a 15-foot square; et cetera. Very jarring when trying to narrate.
Game manuals are extremely dry and technical. They do little to inspire the reader with ideas and excitement to play the game. Classes can feel very "samey" due to using identical power structures and advancement paths.
Non-combat aspects of the game are given short shrift. Monster entries especially are laser-focused on combat, with no attention to any non-combat abilities they might have.
Skill challenges are a nice idea, but not nearly fleshed out enough. I have had too many DMs announce "Skill challenge!" and proceed to have everybody roll a lot of dice with little or no narration--deadly dull. They can be done well, but it takes a lot of work and the rules give no hint that you need to do it.
Traditional D&D cosmology thrown out the window, along with decades of accumulated lore.
Combats using the early monster books can be "grindy" due to monsters having too many hit points and not dealing enough damage. Later monster books addressed this.
Equipment prices are weird and insane, following the MMO model where prices scale into the millions as you reach higher levels. They had to invent a new currency, the astral diamond, as a 10,000 gold piece "coin."

I played 4E throughout the edition and enjoyed it, but the shortcomings did wear on me as it went on. My group and I switched to 5E as soon as the playtest started and none of us is interested in going back. However, you might find that it really speaks to you, in which case, find a group (if you can) and get playing!

Tony Vargas · Jun 4, 2019

ccs said:
AEDU - call each classes stuff whatever you will, but if I go through the exact same motions as a player to use my "Super Bladestorm Hurl Hack martial daily exploit" as I do to have my wizard cast a "spell", guess what?

You did it wrong. Seriously, if you used an implement to set every enemy in a burst 3 within 20 on fire, you didn't quite resolve your fighter exploit correctly, no matter how odd a name you made up for it.

No fighter exploit used Implements, all wizard spells did - the only wizard-adjacent spell that used a weapon (which was also an implement, but hey, weapon keyword) were on a Paragon Path.
No fighter exploit did typed damage, vanishingly few wizard spells did untyped damage.
No fighter exploit was Area, no wizard attack spell was Melee.
No fighter exploit was affected by Dispel Magic, numerous wizard spells were.
Most fighter exploits targeted AC, no Wizard spells did.

The differences were profound.

The similarity was only in how often you got to use them. Even then, there were differences. Some fighter exploits got the Reliable keyword - if they missed, you didn't expend them and could try again - no wizard spell got that keyword. Wizard Daily & Utility spells could be swapped out after a long rest, fighter exploits couldn't. And, wizards got additional spells over and above the AEDU framework in the form of cantrips and rituals.

It kinda feels like I'm casting a spell even though I chose to play a fighter....They'll tell you to just imagine it different

Well, you're certainly expending a LOT of imagination trying to make them seem similar.

... But that doesn't change the fact that you still feel your fighter just cast a spell.)

As opposed to 5e, where your Fighter(EK) /actually does cast spells/, *from the wizard's list.*
...and your wizard can be a "Sniper" with his firebolt, that rolls an attack vs AC, just like a bolt from a crossbow.

Joshua Randall · Jun 4, 2019

Between this thread and the MAYA one I feel like it's 2008 again.

No, not all the classes in 4e played the same, even though they all used the same power acquisition structure. If you think a (let's just stick with the original 4e Player's Handbook) Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlord(*) all play the same... you're on drugs.

(*) Yeah I went with Warlord instead of Cleric for the Big 4 because (A) a pure PH Cleric is actually pretty lame, admittedly; and (B) the Warlord is *the* most 4e of the 4e classes so if you play 4e without a Warlord you're not playing 4e.