D&D 4E Anyone playing 4e at the moment?

[Garthanos]

more stuff to do is honestly the answer they came up with, not being a defender just being more than I hit stuff.

Simpler expression of my "more tactical options".

 

[Mind of tempest]

Simpler expression of my "more tactical options".

yeah

 

[S'mon]

I think that a 5e version of the 4e fighter and warlord would make htis new edition better, I think the martial classes of 4e were the best we ever had.

I wish the 5e Battlemaster was AEDU based rather than the Superiority Dice. I love the 4e PHB Fighter but the 5e Battlemaster just doesn't float my boat.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I wish the 5e Battlemaster was AEDU based rather than the Superiority Dice. I love the 4e PHB Fighter but the 5e Battlemaster just doesn't float my boat.

it is better than nothing but it and the champion should just be infused into the class itself.

 

[dave2008]

They certainly can I love some of the recent game play videos I have watched. But I havent seen any on 4e world lore

Better at what than what? I mean keeping my interest? having tactical options? being a defender and locking down enemies and keeping them from harming your friends? Eating minions for lunch? All of those comes to my mind.

My biggest issue with the original 4e fighter is that it wasn't a better "striker" (my issue with 5e one too). I don't a "tank" and no one at my table wants to play a tank. My 4e fighters were generally unhappy that the ranger did more damage.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My biggest issue with the original 4e fighter is that it wasn't a better "striker" (my issue with 5e one too). I don't a "tank" and no one at my table wants to play a tank. My 4e fighters were generally unhappy that the ranger did more damage.

I can see that. I guess as a DM you had the option to turn the Fighter into a damage dealer - just have NPCs constantly ignore his mark, and get punished for it. But it kinda asks the DM to play suboptimally just to make a player happy. I guess I wouldn't be good at that.

--
I am not actively playing D&D 4, but I used the D&D 4 ruleset as basis for a homebrew Star Wars system. And I kinda want to make a homebrew Arcane Unearthed game with D&D 4 like classes. Bu tI admit, some parts of the rules I am probably going to leave behind.
My gaming group plays exclusively online, and we have about 2.5 hours for a game. And so endless dungeon-clearing fights are not really our thing. We still want tactical fights, but the fights are focused and a "dungeon" might be only a single fight or two, and then there will be travel and other stuff happening so there will likely be an extended rest. So overall, I think I want to get rid of the Encounter/Daily distinction and even Healing Surges and balance everything around a single encounter. Maybe keep some kind of Injury/Stress system perhaps for some long-term effects, more for "immersion" then because it is important to balance.
---
Oh, as I am thinking about it. We actually still kinda have a D&D 4 game. We have a kind of "emergency campaign" that we play when one of us can't make it. It's basically a giant dungeon crawl, but we give out individual XP for achievements like "the most damage per turn this session" or "most targets hits" or "most healing done", a kind of friendly competition game.
We reactivated the old Offline Builder for that.

 

[Mind of tempest]

My biggest issue with the original 4e fighter is that it wasn't a better "striker" (my issue with 5e one too). I don't a "tank" and no one at my table wants to play a tank. My 4e fighters were generally unhappy that the ranger did more damage.

it needs to be both damage dealer and the guy stoping the squishes getting stabbed, plus getting people to dual you is cinematic and thus cool.

 

[dave2008]

it needs to be both damage dealer and the guy stoping the squishes getting stabbed, plus getting people to dual you is cinematic and thus cool.

Cool is subjective. The ranger was objectively a better damage dealer, that is how it was designed.

 

[Garthanos]

it needs to be both damage dealer and the guy stoping the squishes getting stabbed, plus getting people to dual you is cinematic and thus cool.

The optimization crowd I hang out with on Discord will often say things like Fighters in 4e actually are some very good strikers with the caveat that it takes building towards that, where as if you want an easy striker you build the ranger, but yes a dm could have monsters frequently ignore the mark it does not have to be constantly to up the anti quite a bit.

I am the flexible flavor guy and think a ranger, or actually the entire martial power source are "fighters" I built Zena who is in story Warrior Princess. (sounds like Warlord with Gender specifics) as that very acrobatic ranger who used the Chakram as her offhand weapon (throwing build). Warlords are called "off defenders".

How does one build Aragorn => I build a Warlord and give him nature skill one way or another and high enough intelligence that hide is the perfect armor but so is that other shiny metal stuff. Another might hybrid Ranger with Fighter or Warlord. That Distracting the enemy from attacking the hobbits is very useful for making him feel like the character in the books.... less so being able to kill something big, that was Legolas trick also not as much Gimli's.

When I build a Samurai I might use a Hide wearing ranger with Two Sword aka Miyamoto Musashi or a fighter using scale or a monk with cloth armor ie there is no one right way. The ranger or Warlord also enables the archery which is a historical difference between a Knight and a Samurai. Mulan being a Warlord build. Knights are legendarily not archers.

Knights very much the fighter in some ways, yet nature skill also was very much described as very important to knights including hunting, animal handling (falconry,dogs,horses) and horsemanship the purview of the noble (peasants were not allowed to hunt... see robinhood). And speaking of noblemen, A rogue can be a Nobleman with a rapier ... not a cat burglar.

That said I kind of like the structure of the 5e fighter. (credit where due it actually feels like a mashup between the 2e warrior lord/fighter with a really large helping of the way Book of 9 swords worked). It lacks the stylishness of the Bo9S and the poetry of any of the 4e classes with boring maneuvers which are all 3rd level appropriate with zero hint of the 4e fighters ability to mow down minions... and so on very unsatisfactory to me.

 

[Garthanos]

I can see that. I guess as a DM you had the option to turn the Fighter into a damage dealer - just have NPCs constantly ignore his mark, and get punished for it. But it kinda asks the DM to play suboptimally just to make a player happy. I guess I wouldn't be good at that.

I think its boring to always honor the mark. I do not think one has constantly ignore it you might even use when they get bloodied it will highlight very nicely or letting some enemies realize quickly they arent hurting this guy (do they know he can respond to their shift attempt? well the DM does he could very well assume they do not)... and those ones over there are squishy looking is not 100 percent not optimal in character at least.