D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

dave2008 · Jun 4, 2019

MrDM69 said:
What's the Essentials fighters?

I mentioned one up-thread: the "Slayer." Its basic mechanic is a power attack that becomes more powerful and you can use more often, if I remember correctly.

Tony Vargas · Jun 4, 2019

dave2008 said:
I mentioned one up-thread: the "Slayer." Its basic mechanic is a power attack that becomes more powerful and you can use more often, if I remember correctly.

Yep, it was a tanky striker, since it was built on the hps/surges/armor of the fighter 'defender' chassis. All about da damage. Added DEX mod to damage on top of STR mod. Power Attack encounter exploit up to 3 or 4 (with its semi-detached Paragon Path) times per encounter - very blah, but quite powerful, you could declare it after the hit, so if you really wanted to maximize damage, you could save it for crits and maximize the extra dice. It also had some encounter utility exploits. So it was AEU, just the Dailies removed, and versatility reduced, with nothing to compensate beyond Primal-striker-level hps on a Martial class.
Much simplified from the PH fighter (retconned the 'Weaponmaster' post-Essentials), but still about on par with the 5e BM, the 5e Champion is even more simplistic, and fulfills exactly the same tanky DPR role.

The other Essentials fighter was the Knight. Slightly different at-wills, a 'Defender Aura' (not as good as Combat Challenge, better than the 5e Sentinel feat), and the same striker-oriented Power Attack as the Slayer, which was quite the oversight. Also about on par with the BM in terms of innate complexity, but there's always a little more thought to playing a defender than a striker.

TwoSix · 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? 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.)

Heh, it's funny, but I remember when the Book of Nine Swords came out for 3.5, and seeing all the special "maneuvers" for fighters in the classic 9-level spell framework. I thought, "Oh, they're using the spell format for fighting types. The spell format for D&D is iconic, that makes perfect sense!"

That was the point when I expected 4e to use a harmonized framework for "spells" that all classes would share. I just also expected feats to be passive bonuses rolled up into that framework, and the fact they weren't turned out to be my biggest disappointment with 4e.

TwoSix · Jun 4, 2019

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

I mean, if you think Tide of Iron and Thunderwave are pretty much the same, but Fire Bolt and a longbow attack are categorically different, I just.....I don't know, man.

Tony Vargas · Jun 5, 2019

TwoSix said:
I mean, if you think Tide of Iron and Thunderwave are pretty much the same, but Fire Bolt and a longbow attack are categorically different, I just.....I don't know, man.

They both push! Exactly the same!
One of them is FIRE! Totally different!

TwoSix said:
That was the point when I expected 4e to use a harmonized framework for "spells" that all classes would share. I just also expected feats to be passive bonuses rolled up into that framework, and the fact they weren't turned out to be my biggest disappointment with 4e.

Well, you weren't /too/ far off, just reckoned without the cloud of chaff feats. I wonder if keeping the 9-level progression but applying it more broadly to powers would've mollified anyone at all, or made the cry of Fighters Cast Spells! just that much louder?

I was shocked by 4e, really. On the Gleemax boards, I was very much of the opinion that balance issues like class Tiers and LFQW were flat-out insoluble. That the only plausible solution, which would be intolerably not-D&D, was to use the Fighter class as a template, with spells for casters acquired via complex-preq feat trees. I couldn't have been more wrong on either count.

EzekielRaiden · Jun 5, 2019

Lapasta said:
Just this last week I was thinking that maybe I should give 4e a chance, after listening to “Edition Wars” on the Tome Show Podcast. From what I could read, the Essentials line is a good place to start (even though some of the books are now very rare). 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?

Essentials is not dumbed down (I hate that phrase) but it can feel excessively "pruned" if you're used to classic 4e. Thankfully, as others have noted, you can easily play an Essentials character in a party where all the other classes are "original style" and be pretty damn much the same. (I have heard some Essentials classes are more sensitive to the "falling slightly behind at very high level" issue, mostly since they feature far less feature-choice and thus less variability, but many have debated if this is relevant for most groups).

If you're thinking about running, ~~take me with you~~ frankly as long as you trust your players not to do anything exploitative, it
(almost) doesn't matter what classes they play. The game balance is really that robust. The only way in which it might matter is if the party makes an extremely synergistic party (such as one taking thorough advantage of vulnerability to Radiant damage, aka "Radiant Mafia," which may punch more than a bit above its weight.) Which is to say, it will only matter in that you might need to throw more dangerous stuff at then to threaten them. Teamwork is much more important than individual optimization and personal strategy.

Incidentally, despite not really caring for Essentials design much myself and emphatically *not* liking the cross-role subclasses (these are just personal opinions; the (sub)classes themselves are fine, they just offend my delicate sensibilities), I absolutely have to give Essentials credit for producing (what I consider) the literal first ever dirt simple caster: Elementalist Sorcerer. In structure it was designed like the Slayer Fighter, having a multi-use single "encounter" attack as opposed to many different attacks both daily and encounter. IMO no class before or since, not even the 3e Warlock, has truly hit that potential of "you want to be a mage, but hate bookkeeping and just want to kick ass wit fireballs? Here, have fun."

I loved this quote from user TwoSix. Which exactly are these powers mentioned?

In general, this is the format that one of the upper-level Epic Destiny powers takes: once per day, when you die, instead do this gorram awesome thing. You usually got them in mid-Epic (24ish IIRC?) So this os where you're hobnobbing with gods, serving eviction notices on Cthulhu, and slaying demon princes--a pesky little thing like death is at best a speedbump.

Edit: and if you're looking to get together a 4e group for online play, do let me know. I've been really hankering for a 4e game for a while. Finding DMs can be tough sadly.

Tony Vargas · Jun 5, 2019

EzekielRaiden said:
Essentials is not dumbed down (I hate that phrase) but it can feel excessively "pruned" if you're used to classic 4e.

To be fair - and I use that word almost ironically - Essentials paid a modest price in /increased/ overall complexity, in order to make certain classes feel a bit more "classic." (npi, irony, yes, but no pun)

Thankfully, as others have noted, you can easily play an Essentials character in a party where all the other classes are "original style" (I have heard some Essentials classes are more sensitive to the "falling slightly behind at very high level" issue, mostly since they feature far less feature-choice and thus less variability, but many have debated if this is relevant for most groups).

A few are just bad... OK, technically, they're post-Essentials classes or sub-classes from HoS. But, yeah, the lack of choice in some of the Essentials sub-classes starts to wear thin if you do take them to Paragon & Epic. Again, that's a design choice, product in the Essentials period was focused on Heroic, even to the point of taking adventures with a scope appropriate to Paragon and pegging them low in the Heroic tier.

If you're thinking about running, ~~take me with you~~

lol.

frankly as long as you trust your players not to do anything exploitative, it
(almost) doesn't matter what classes they play. The game balance is really that robust.

Um… Seeker, Vampire, Rune Priest, and ..er.. y'know, there wasn't really a complete crap defender, was there? … Knight, I guess.

Incidentally, despite not really caring for Essentials design much myself and emphatically *not* liking the cross-role subclasses (these are just personal opinions; the (sub)classes themselves are fine, they just offend my delicate sensibilities), I absolutely have to give Essentials credit for producing (what I consider) the literal first ever dirt simple caster: Elementalist Sorcerer.

There were some post-Essentials bright spots and that was one. The Skald and Berserker were also pretty cool, in some ways - though the Berserker was the most cross-role sub-class ever, changing roles when it raged.

Brashnir2 · Jun 5, 2019

4th Edition is a great game, but it's very mechanical. If you're interested in game theory and system balance, you should absolutely play 4E. If you're more interested in a freewheeling style, maybe you should avoid it.

Retreater · Jun 5, 2019

I've played all editions since AD&D 2nd edition, and numerous systems that aren't D&D. I've recently switched a couple campaigns I run to 4E. It's mechanically balanced, tactically robust, and provides one of the best combat resolution systems of any game I've played. If you are aware of its limitations, you can really curate a great gaming experience.

Combats take a long time. So if you're not wanting your sessions to have the feel of a miniatures skirmish game (like Frostgrave), I would highly recommend one combat encounter per session, with the remainder of your time spent role-playing, exploring, and using skill challenges. [But for goodness' sake, don't use the skill challenge rules. If you're curious what I do, let me know and I'll post 'em.] Let the combats feel big and epic (it's what 4E does the best).