D&D 4E Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...

[Tony Vargas]

Reskinning things was so easy and fun.

That was a pleasant surprise, the first time I ran an impromptu pick-up game, I found monsters to re-skin as elementals, and had 4 encounters ready in minutes.

That, and a playtester comment about the warlord, really set the tone for me.

You didn't even NEED a MM. Just grab some of the various charts with the math and have at it. I ran complete improv games that way in 4E.

I just ran a complete imorov, that way, tonight. An absent player unexpectedly got to return, and we threw together both monsters and alternate PCs, to play through the situation he'd been left in.

But I'll do that in any ed, in 4e, just with stats... that I don't have to fudge constantly...

 

[JeffB]

That was a pleasant surprise, the first time I ran an impromptu pick-up game, I found monsters to re-skin as elementals, and had 4 encounters ready in minutes

I just ran a complete imorov, that way, tonight. An absent player unexpectedly got to return, and we threw together both monsters and alternate PCs, to play through the situation he'd been left in.

But I'll do that in any ed, in 4e, just with stats... that I don't have to fudge constantly...

I improv regardless of system as well. In any O/TSR versions for sure with much confidence and no books.

As for re-skinning- I remember upon 4E's release being so pi$$ed at WOTC that the MM1 didn't have stats for Frost Giants. C'mon- NO FROST GIANTS??? Not long after I realized all I needed to do was replace a couple keywords and change a condition or two to the Fire Giant and voila! Instant Frost Giant (though the MM2 version was better- mine worked just fine)

For 4E I use Quickleaf's excellent DM reference document (might still be available here on ENWORLD) and occasionally the Sly Flourish 4E cheat sheet.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

4E is my favourite D&D edition and the one that I currently run.

I sometimes think I like it because I'm naturally contrarian and assume that anything as apparently unpopular as 4E must be good.

(snip) Monster lore was a bit of a mixed bag though, wasn't it? I remember one of my first games when I asked the DM to describe the monster we were fighting and he couldn't. All the MM had was stats - no description, no lore, nothing. I guess that worked if it was a monster from a previous edition that you recognized, but if not you were SOL. Monsters were just a bunch of stats and if you were lucky a picture. (snip)

I'm pretty sure that was Mike Mearls' influence which resulted in the absolute weakest of the three core books. I recall him explaining at the time that he thought it best that each table have its own monster lore. He also wanted more 1E Fiend Folio monsters in the Monster Manual so we ended up with crap like the berbalang instead of the much more commonly encountered frost giants.

Don't forget, the MM stat blocks were also crap (thanks, Mike!). If you study them closely, they seem to be based on three different sets of monster creation rules with little overlap with the ones in the DMG. I began 4E by building my own monsters from scratch according to the DMG rules as it seemed like I had a better grasp of how stat blocks were supposed to be created than Mike and his team who were paid to create the 4E Monster Manual.

Anyway, it's just spilt milk now.

 

[TwoSix]

Don't forget, the MM stat blocks were also crap (thanks, Mike!). If you study them closely, they seem to be based on three different sets of monster creation rules with little overlap with the ones in the DMG. I began 4E by building my own monsters from scratch according to the DMG rules as it seemed like I had a better grasp of how stat blocks were supposed to be created than Mike and his team who were paid to create the 4E Monster Manual.

Anyway, it's just spilt milk now.

There's definitely a bit of a rushed feeling to the core books. It's why I think the books that came out in 2009 and 2010 were the real high point of the system.

 

[Oofta]

4E is my favourite D&D edition and the one that I currently run.

I sometimes think I like it because I'm naturally contrarian and assume that anything as apparently unpopular as 4E must be good.



I'm pretty sure that was Mike Mearls' influence which resulted in the absolute weakest of the three core books. I recall him explaining at the time that he thought it best that each table have its own monster lore. He also wanted more 1E Fiend Folio monsters in the Monster Manual so we ended up with crap like the berbalang instead of the much more commonly encountered frost giants.

Don't forget, the MM stat blocks were also crap (thanks, Mike!). If you study them closely, they seem to be based on three different sets of monster creation rules with little overlap with the ones in the DMG. I began 4E by building my own monsters from scratch according to the DMG rules as it seemed like I had a better grasp of how stat blocks were supposed to be created than Mike and his team who were paid to create the 4E Monster Manual.

Anyway, it's just spilt milk now.

One of the more cynical things they did was the selection of monsters for the first MM and races for the PHB. They purposely left out canonical monsters and races (although some people may disagree that gnomes were important) so that people would have a reason to buy the version 2 of the book.

But I don't know who deserves the most blame here. I know they were under a lot of pressure to build in reasons to sell product and, as I stated before, that they pushed the system out before they were ready. Reportedly the whole daily/encounter/at-will structure was designed for wizards and was never meant to apply to every class.

Whether that structure was a good thing or not is a matter of preference.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I wished there was a ''Rule Cyclopedia'' for 4e, with a redesign of the monsters with the maths from MM3 and Monster Vaults, fully errata-ed classes and all the updated rules for skill challenges, disease tracks etc in the same place. Same with essentials.

I recently played a one-shot with character from Essential, but with the maths from 5e and no feats. Guess what, I works great. Just keep the saves, rest rules and the healing surges from 4e, with the rest of the class design (starting hp/hp per level, powers, saves etc), but take the Proficiency, Advantage, Equipment rules of 5e instead. I used the Monster Vault creatures and it worked well enough.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the more cynical things they did was...purposely left out canonical monsters and races, in so that people would have a reason to buy the version 2 of the book.

Not 'version' - that's a whole 'nuther level of cynicism, where they just wanted you to re-buy all the same stuff, like 3.5, Essentials and, within Essentials, HotFL/K (here! have all the same rules twice! just with different classes! it's simpler!), and, well, every rev-roll, really, they backed off on trying to sell the Essentials Class Compendium which'd've just re-printed PH classes with lame sub-class names, though, so there are limits - but the next in the line, MM2, PH2, DMG2... because everything is core, so slice core up and parcel it out.

I recall him explaining at the time that he thought it best that each table have its own monster lore.

I can accept that. OTOH, I can also accept the 5e party line that the rules are a starting point, and each table will have it's own variants, (so why ever fix anything). Hm... is that a pattern?

He also wanted more 1E Fiend Folio monsters in the Monster Manual so we ended up with crap like the berbalang....

That I can't get behind. ;P

I wished there was a ''Rule Cyclopedia'' for 4e, with a redesign of the monsters with the maths from MM3 and Monster Vaults, fully errata-ed classes and all the updated rules for skill challenges, disease tracks etc in the same place.

Well, for a long while there was DDI. That consolidated just about everything. But it didn't fix up everything.

Part of the problem is that the high points didn't come at the same time. MM3 finally got monsters right, but PH3 & HotFL/K were off the peak when it came to classes - and feats just kept getting worse - the trendline with DMGs pointed to some future DMG3 or 4 being the high point, I think.

 

[dave2008]

4E is my favourite D&D edition and the one that I currently run.

I sometimes think I like it because I'm naturally contrarian and assume that anything as apparently unpopular as 4E must be good.



I'm pretty sure that was Mike Mearls' influence which resulted in the absolute weakest of the three core books. I recall him explaining at the time that he thought it best that each table have its own monster lore. He also wanted more 1E Fiend Folio monsters in the Monster Manual so we ended up with crap like the berbalang instead of the much more commonly encountered frost giants.

Don't forget, the MM stat blocks were also crap (thanks, Mike!). If you study them closely, they seem to be based on three different sets of monster creation rules with little overlap with the ones in the DMG. I began 4E by building my own monsters from scratch according to the DMG rules as it seemed like I had a better grasp of how stat blocks were supposed to be created than Mike and his team who were paid to create the 4E Monster Manual.

Anyway, it's just spilt milk now.

Just use the Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. Both very good books. The nentir vale one had great lore.

 

[Panda-s1]

I wished there was a ''Rule Cyclopedia'' for 4e, with a redesign of the monsters with the maths from MM3 and Monster Vaults, fully errata-ed classes and all the updated rules for skill challenges, disease tracks etc in the same place. Same with essentials.

I recently played a one-shot with character from Essential, but with the maths from 5e and no feats. Guess what, I works great. Just keep the saves, rest rules and the healing surges from 4e, with the rest of the class design (starting hp/hp per level, powers, saves etc), but take the Proficiency, Advantage, Equipment rules of 5e instead. I used the Monster Vault creatures and it worked well enough.

okay tangent, 'cause you mentioned "Rule Cyclopedia", but does anyone remember the Rules Compendium they made for 3.5? I remember everyone loved it, and they especially praised the layout of the book. sometime after 4e came out I realized that it had almost the same layout as the 4e books, except it wasn't 4e so people were more than happy to praise a minimalist layout after the stuffy feeling of the layout in 3rd ed. books

 

[dave2008]

okay tangent, 'cause you mentioned "Rule Cyclopedia", but does anyone remember the Rules Compendium they made for 3.5? I remember everyone loved it, and they especially praised the layout of the book. sometime after 4e came out I realized that it had almost the same layout as the 4e books, except it wasn't 4e so people were more than happy to praise a minimalist layout after the stuffy feeling of the layout in 3rd ed. books

I just checked it out and it does look a lot like 4e layout/ graphic design. I hated the 3e/3.5e graphic design/layout, big reason I avoided that edition and pathfinder.