D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Marking in 4e isn’t a mental thing. It can be that, but it doesn’t have the charm keyword or anything like that. Like most conditions (and hit points) it’s context-specific, and in the fighter’s case marking is part of their physical attacks briefly interfering with the target’s ability to attack anyone else. A warden’s mark is a magical effect, and so is a swordmage’s. A weapon attack that inflicts the dazed condition would represent things like physical pain or trauma that briefly makes you less capable of acting, whereas a divine attack with the charm keyword that inflicts the dazed condition is a mental and magical effect that prevents you from acting and fighting at full capacity.

Right, and then if there could/should be some sort of additional something on top of that, then keywords come into play. The attack can have a 'charm' keyword, and that can interact with some sort of element special to that target, or (more likely) interact with the user (IE some feat they have) to produce additional mechanical effects, bonuses, etc. 4e ends up with a very rich set of elements in this way. It is often stated that "all the powers are the same" or something like that, but this is a misunderstanding. The differences are not usually so apparent within the specific definition of a power or whatever. Instead the players, GM, and mechanics build on that to produce the whole. This does sometimes mean things are less obvious than in games where, say, something on the Cleric says "and you do extra damage to undead" where in 4e the Radiant keyword factors in a damage increase against most undead.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Have you actually tried? I mean, I feel like this comes more from ignorance than an actual systems critique. PF2 blocks are fairly compact and basically carry all the info you need on them: I can literally go to AoN, pick a monster, and outside of the most complex it'll fix comfortably on my phone screen. They don't list off roles like 4E does, but I'm not sure that's necessary within the system as it's built.

I've seen a lot of things that I really dislike in Pathfinder 2e from that to the ridiculousness of the player side feats and the way they both include a lot of very fiddly +1s and the way they are required to do things that I think you should be able to do with skills normally (like demoralizing people and intimidating them in combat through your actions).

I have seen precisely one thing in Pathfinder 2e that has inspired me in any way at all - and I grabbed the three action system for one of my homebrew games. And I've discussed it in detail with a friend who's vastly more experienced than I am who has run it - and dumped it for giving her absolutely nothing.

And no roles aren't needed - what they do is enable you to build interesting and varied combat scenarios fast.

I am open minded however - can you suggest something positive about Pathfinder 2e other than that it has the three action economy. Because so far I've seen absolutely nothing I see as a positive advocated by its fans that it does better than both D&D 5e and GURPS.

I say this as someone who has improvised his share of encounters just by looking something up real quick and running with it. You saying that it's impossible to run your style of game does not really match my reality of playing it.

The parts I've pointed out are absolutely harmful to the style. It can be done but, when I'm used to not having to dealing with it having to deal with it is nails on a blackboard.

I love the concept of the escalation die, but I also dont think the PCs really need more help in fights.

You need to change the math to accomodate it. Raise all the ACs and save bonuses for NPCs by one so the PCs are behind on turn 1 and only break even on turn 2

 

[Justice and Rule]

Right, and then if there could/should be some sort of additional something on top of that, then keywords come into play. The attack can have a 'charm' keyword, and that can interact with some sort of element special to that target, or (more likely) interact with the user (IE some feat they have) to produce additional mechanical effects, bonuses, etc. 4e ends up with a very rich set of elements in this way. It is often stated that "all the powers are the same" or something like that, but this is a misunderstanding. The differences are not usually so apparent within the specific definition of a power or whatever. Instead the players, GM, and mechanics build on that to produce the whole. This does sometimes mean things are less obvious than in games where, say, something on the Cleric says "and you do extra damage to undead" where in 4e the Radiant keyword factors in a damage increase against most undead.

Yeah, that's the thing: people look to the framework and assume everything is the same because they use certain universal systems. The differences are how they use the system and relate to each other.

I've seen a lot of things that I really dislike in Pathfinder 2e from that to the ridiculousness of the player side feats and the way they both include a lot of very fiddly +1s and the way they are required to do things that I think you should be able to do with skills normally (like demoralizing people and intimidating them in combat through your actions).

I have seen precisely one thing in Pathfinder 2e that has inspired me in any way at all - and I grabbed the three action system for one of my homebrew games. And I've discussed it in detail with a friend who's vastly more experienced than I am who has run it - and dumped it for giving her absolutely nothing.

I mean, you don't need every "fiddly +1" to necessarily demoralize someone, though it can help because getting a critical in the system matters.

And I cannot speak to your friend, but the 3-Action system is a revelation. It's one of the absolutely best changes I've seen in a d20 game, because it eliminates so much of the nonsense around the Action Pyramid. If they got nothing out of it... well, I don't know. Maybe they were just going for a "3-Attack Round" every time. I don't know. For me, I've found it to be really cool, delivering relatively fast combat with lots of resolution and tactics while still feeling close to something like traditional D&D.

And no roles aren't needed - what they do is enable you to build interesting and varied combat scenarios fast.

Again, I've literally done this.

I am open minded however - can you suggest something positive about Pathfinder 2e other than that it has the three action economy. Because so far I've seen absolutely nothing I see as a positive advocated by its fans that it does better than both D&D 5e and GURPS.

I mean, I've played both those and I think it moves more efficiently than both and locks up people less. I mean, with GURPS there is way more modifier and maneuver stuff... but it also can get way more complex with modifying other people's defense through feints and the like. Also it takes some time for people to get used to 1-second turns, I find.

With 5E, I think the character building is absolutely a step above, being quick and having tons of options. The way the classes are built to be solid on their own to prevent trap options and allow people to pick characterful things and not be punished by it is absolutely a benefit, and I like the system where classes are largely about how one focuses on combat and everyone (largely) has access to the same skill feats. Also Ancestries are a great way of allowing people to build unique Elves or Dwarves rather than simply creating the same one each time.

Along with that, I like the multi-classing system being built around feats, allowing people to customize and dip into other classes without losing progress and creating all sorts of weird interactions between classes. It also takes the idea of a "prestige class" by putting more specialized archetypes (like the Wrestler, who focuses on grappling combat and causing damage from grapples) which also grant feats when you take them. I'll admit not every archetype is a home run, but I think there are plenty of good ones.

Finally, I think the universal critical mechanic is absolutely great and it's what allows a Vancian-style magic system to work by giving most spells more gradations than they used to, thus allowing a "Paralyze" spell to partially work if the person succeeds, while a failure is not nearly as dire as some save-versus-suck systems. Incapacitation does a little bit of edgework, but the on the whole the crit/fumble system is fantastic and really helps the system hum.

Though, honestly, I don't expect you to really like these because I don't think the system is really your style. To me it's more of what I wanted in 5E, and I'm not sure you really want something like 5E.

The parts I've pointed out are absolutely harmful to the style. It can be done but, when I'm used to not having to dealing with it having to deal with it is nails on a blackboard.

You really haven't described how the stat blocks can't be used to create an interesting, flowing encounter. You just declared it. I can tell you that I find them easy to read, I can recognize powers instantly and those that have to be enumerated are done so efficiently. I can tell what a person is from their actions and the traits they have on them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In reading this thread while reading through and digesting my copies of the 4e rules - AbdulAlhazred's post here really helped me clarify some thoughts about the game.

I skipped the whole late 2e to 4e era and only played 5e for the first time this past year. I spent all that intervening time playing almost every other game not called D&D. I got the 4e rules as a reference to see what was done with the game. (And honestly to see what the whole fuss was about.)

So I really have zero emotional investment in what this or that edition of D&D did "better".




One thing that became clear to me was that in order to maximize what your PC class does: You must pay attention to how things work, and what is going on.




My impression - this codification drives a group to engage with the game in a very specific way to take advantage of everything in the rules.

It does not strike me as an edition of the game where you can really play fast and loose with the rules.




Or another way of putting it: The way the GM has to arbitrate more of the combat (And thus situational and environmental aspects are pure GM fiat) - players will naturally invest in attacks that are not as dependent on GM Fiat/specific environmental or situational conditions.




One thing I would say is that it is my impression that 4e drives players towards a more specific playstyle (i.e. Having to engage with the game rules in a more specific way) than other editions of the game due to the preciseness of its rules.

The preciseness of its rules also drives the need for more consistent knowledge of the rules from the group as a whole.

So I can easily see how a lot of D&D groups bounced off of this hard.

Especially groups that had players that engaged with the rules at different levels of 'mastery'.

Conversely if the style of game 4e delivered ticked your fun boxes in the right way: I can see how those who liked 4e - really liked it a lot. I can easily see how moving to what 5e does would be viewed as a big step back by 4e fans.

I do like some of the ideas I see in 4e, and I will do a one shot with it to see how it works in the wild.

But I also recognize that there is no way in hell 4e is a good fit for my group for a long term fantasy campaign. I have several players that will not engage with the rules enough to make it sing like it should.

Here's the thing about 4e IN GENERAL. The thread opener was a question about what makes 4e a 'tactical' game; so I focused on answering that question. 4e is however, an incredibly flexible game! It is, IMHO, a Story Game; that is, its intent is to be focused on the story and for the action and process of play to focus on story, and particularly to give the players a bit more of a role in it than they do in a traditional D&D game by default. Players are pretty much in charge of how their character is built and have very many options to choose from during build (4e also offloads a LOT of work onto build time, you don't actually NEED huge 'runtime' game mastery to play 4e, no more than other editions, probably less in many cases).

It suggests that GMs consider player's preferences when giving out treasure, and it assumes that the GM will grant items within certain categories (later rules make that less of a concern). Players are granted the right (although the DMG hedges a bit) to define QUESTS, which are the fundamental story driving framework of 4e. And then both combat and noncombat action adjudication is much less A) built around GM adjudication, and B) much more structured. This means that when a player in a 4e game decides to have her character take some risk to perform an extraordinary action that the 'valence' of that move is apparent. If its part of an SC, then the outcome will have a mechanically defined incremental input into the overall success or failure of the SC (which is basically an encounter, though it could be more extended narratively). The same in combat, the 'tactical' nature is there to give the players assurance that if they unleash "Big Impressive Daily Power" that the range of potential outcomes is cognizable.

What NONE of this does is impose restrictions or imply that the game isn't as able to handle 'winging it' as any other D&D, or other RPGs generally. It is. There is a very tightly defined set of keywords and interactions (and you can think of things like class, race, origin, power source, etc. as effectively keywords, though that isn't really stated). You can leverage this. You would find @pemerton's descriptions of 4e play in his campaign to be quite interesting here. I have experienced similar types of play to what he describes. It is very dynamic, very open-ended, driven heavily by player choices, and allows for a lot of 'stuff to happen', and seems to be perfectly in keeping with the 4e rules, though not everyone is in agreement that WotC was intending this form of play (but hey, they say 5e is for everyone, I say 4e is too!).

So, you see things happening in games like "I break the Holy Avenger on him." Hmmm, that's very interesting, definitely an improvised move! Lets see, this thing is a demon lord, and the sword was FORGED TO DEFEAT HIM, what do you think happens? I mean, this would be the ultimate move of some SC, or the pivotal move in some combat. So, something pretty amazing happens now. There's no RULE for what that is, or why, or how, it has to be (well how can leverage all the excellent rules) but that's the point, the game doesn't tell you what to do, ONLY how it could be done, just like every other version of D&D in the past!

I'd also say that 4e DOES strongly favor certain styles of play in terms of what kinds of combats, for example, work really well. The game is not good for and useful to run trivial encounters. Its not a world simulator, its an ACTION GAME. If you are slogging through rooms full of dull and mundane seeming foes, then something is wrong! The DMG says it pretty plainly SKIP TO THE ACTION. Don't dwell on skirmishing with gate guards, get to the throne room. That other stuff can be significant, as a pass/fail check on an SC that helps decide how many guards are in that throne room, etc. It is just a waste to run 12 fairly trivial combats. Run the one where the Grand Duke shows up and reveals he's really a Devil, and then the one where the Captain of the Guard, whom you got on with well, apologetically lays onto you because its his duty to die for the king. Do the finale, make the rest color or SC fodder. Every combat should be dramatic, filled with personality, happening in a dynamic environment that itself is a participant in the fight, and evolves as it goes on. If Steven Spielberg wouldn't film it and put it in an action movie, it will probably not be that great of a fight.

4e is not your dad's D&D, but it is still D&D, and it can be a REALLY good game when it is played to its strengths. It can do more classic D&D adventures OK, but honestly its not the reason to play it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

To add something on with the PF2 action system, it just really allows different classes (and even archetypes within classes) to play very differently depending on their skills and loadout.

For example, a Sword-and-Board Fighter requires an action to raise their shield and get the defensive benefit, so they are going to be naturally slower than, say, a great weapon fighter, and even slower if they have a Tower Shield that they want to use to the fullest. Weapon choices matter in interesting ways with how they play around with the action economy, like one of the most common weapon/attack traits in the system: Agile. Everyone can attack with every action with a stacking penalty, but using an Agile weapon (typically smaller weapons) lessens the penalty. Suddenly having an off-hand dagger is useful because that dagger is more likely to hit on the second and (possible) third attack, rather than trying to outfit yourself with the biggest weapon you have in your offhand. And that applies to everyone, even though some classes are obviously better at it than others.

And different classes modify how they interact with the Action Economy: if you take Ranger and his specialty is "Flurry", his penalty for multiple attacks is MUCH lower, and if they use an Agile weapon they can make 3 attacks at less of a penalty than a regular person would have with 2. And how different actions react changes things: in PF2, if you are grappled it leaves you Flat-Footed. This is a +2 to anyone trying to hit you and is a keyword for a lot of powers to activate (Like Sneak Attack). So a Rogue walking up, grabbing someone and stuffing a knife into them can give them their Sneak Attack just like you'd expect from someone getting properly shivved. Also different actions can be modified by how many actions you spend: Cure Wounds basically occupies both Healing Word and Heal, depending on how many actions you spend on it.

Like, I could go on, but so much from the game keys off the action system. It's just really amazing.

 

[Justice and Rule]

If Steven Spielberg wouldn't film it and put it in an action movie, it will probably not be that great of a fight.

Yeah, I think this is really instructive with how 4E views combat, and why there is a disconnect with some people: it's a pretty common idea that D&D has to have random, wandering encounters, even if they are trivial. And that's not necessarily wrong, but that's not what 4E is built for. I'd say it'd be preferable to run such things closer to a Skill Check or Challenge than to actually get a combat ready. It's also why I suspect (from what everyone has said) that a lot of the written adventures suck for the system: it's not meant to be that sort of dungeon crawl.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean, you don't need every "fiddly +1" to necessarily demoralize someone, though it can help because getting a critical in the system matters.

When did I say you did? Fiddly +1s are +1s and annoying.

The really obnoxious part is having demoralize as a default use of a skill - but because Pathfinder 2e is hyperspecific and fiddly it makes auditory a necessary component, with the feat Intimidating Glare required to demoralize people visually even if you are already trained. So you can't demoralize people by doing unfriendly things to their mates with an axe unless you're talking to them. Killing someone messily and then looking at someone else and running your thumb across your throat to indicate they're next RAW doesn't work to demoralize unless you have the specific feat.

And I cannot speak to your friend, but the 3-Action system is a revelation.

I've been playing with WFRP's 2 action system for years. I've adapted the 3 action system to a homebrew game of my own. The 3 action economy is a good idea and I'll grant that. But so far as I can tell it is literally the only good idea in the whole of PF2e. No one I have heard advocate for PF2e has ever advocated for anything else other than that and PF APs.

Again, I've literally done this.

I have no doubt you have done that. I have also put together self-assembly furniture with a swiss army knife because it's what I had on me. That doesn't mean that a hex screwdriver wouldn't have done a far better job.

Along with that, I like the multi-classing system being built around feats, allowing people to customize and dip into other classes without losing progress and creating all sorts of weird interactions between classes.

If I'm going to have numbers of feats at all then 4e style multiclassing is the best way to handle a class based system, agreed.

Finally, I think the universal critical mechanic is absolutely great and it's what allows a Vancian-style magic system to work by giving most spells more gradations than they used to, thus allowing a "Paralyze" spell to partially work if the person succeeds, while a failure is not nearly as dire as some save-versus-suck systems. Incapacitation does a little bit of edgework, but the on the whole the crit/fumble system is fantastic and really helps the system hum.

I'll accept that.

Though, honestly, I don't expect you to really like these because I don't think the system is really your style. To me it's more of what I wanted in 5E, and I'm not sure you really want something like 5E.

I don't really want 5e, no. But I can appreciate it for what it does. As something sitting in an uneasy middle between 4e and Apocalypse World - both of which I love.

You really haven't described how the stat blocks can't be used to create an interesting, flowing encounter

No I haven't because they can be used to create an interesting, flowing encounter. It just takes unnecessary work to do so. I can create an interesting, flowing encounter by carrying the system on my back in almost any game. However in a good game the statblocks will actively help me do so. In a bad game they will make it harder for me to do so.

I have, I believe, explained why I find that significant parts of the PF2e rules make it harder than having the rules not be there. I have definitely explained why 4e makes it easier than not having the rules there thanks both to the forced movement and to the changing options you have available from turn to turn.

. You just declared it. I can tell you that I find them easy to read, I can recognize powers instantly and those that have to be enumerated are done so efficiently. I can tell what a person is from their actions and the traits they have on them.

I've just looked up the adult black dragon - and the best I can say for it is "it exists". I think I understand everything it does - but give me a 5e black dragon over that with their lair actions and legendary actions rather than random tail slap, corrupt water, and having to look up spells (although at least having a third action makes the PF dragon better than the 3.X Prosthetic Forehead Wizards that so many monsters in that edition turned into). And give me a Monster Vault 4e black dragon with its bloodied breath, instinctive devouring, action recovery, acid blood and the works. Yes, I can make a good encounter out of the PF2e dragon if I put in extra work. But I'm supporting the system. It's not supporting me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

When did I say you did? Fiddly +1s are +1s and annoying.

Are there not those in 4E? I had figured there was plenty of bonus stacking in 4E. Now you could find the way they do it more interesting, but I've found that PF2 does it fairly well in its own right. I like it way more than simple Advantage/Disadvantage.

The really obnoxious part is having demoralize as a default use of a skill - but because Pathfinder 2e is hyperspecific and fiddly it makes auditory a necessary component, with the feat Intimidating Glare required to demoralize people visually even if you are already trained. So you can't demoralize people by doing unfriendly things to their mates with an axe unless you're talking to them. Killing someone messily and then looking at someone else and running your thumb across your throat to indicate they're next RAW doesn't work to demoralize unless you have the specific feat.

I mean, if you are doing unfriendly things to them with an axe, I suspect I might give you a bonus, though just getting intimidation from, say, an attack would be a bit sweeping, wouldn't you say?

But there is a Feat for that Intimidating Blow.

And I like that the glare is a feat: not every charismatic bard should be able to intimidate people with a glance. Splitting it up, to me, is a solid distinction.

I've been playing with WFRP's 2 action system for years. I've adapted the 3 action system to a homebrew game of my own. The 3 action economy is a good idea and I'll grant that. But so far as I can tell it is literally the only good idea in the whole of PF2e. No one I have heard advocate for PF2e has ever advocated for anything else other than that and PF APs.

How often do you go to our PF board? Or the PF Reddit? Like, have you talked to people who like it, or just found people who don't like it? That could simply be an artifact of your friend group.

I have no doubt you have done that. I have also put together self-assembly furniture with a swiss army knife because it's what I had on me. That doesn't mean that a hex screwdriver wouldn't have done a far better job.

Those comparisons don't mean anything. Your later explanation is a bit better, but just making these bold assertions doesn't really do anything for your argument.

If I'm going to have numbers of feats at all then 4e style multiclassing is the best way to handle a class based system, agreed.

And the thing is that you can just do a lot with those. The character building is honestly a really great feature of the system. Some of the archetypes are really great. I mention the Wrestler because it's fantastic.

I'll accept that.

I don't really want 5e, no. But I can appreciate it for what it does. As something sitting in an uneasy middle between 4e and Apocalypse World - both of which I love.

Yeah, I think you'll bounce off because it's just not your thing. I'm pretty adaptable in my tastes.

No I haven't because they can be used to create an interesting, flowing encounter. It just takes unnecessary work to do so. I can create an interesting, flowing encounter by carrying the system on my back in almost any game. However in a good game the statblocks will actively help me do so. In a bad game they will make it harder for me to do so.

To me, the statblocks on PF2 creatures are fun. I think part of is that you need to know the system, as a lot of the flavor is wrapped up in creature traits. But once you do, there's a lot to love. I don't think it'll replace 4E for you, though. It's a very different feel and taste.

I have, I believe, explained why I find that significant parts of the PF2e rules make it harder than having the rules not be there. I have definitely explained why 4e makes it easier than not having the rules there thanks both to the forced movement and to the changing options you have available from turn to turn.

I mean, if 4E is easier for you, I can respect that. I'm not really interested in arguing whether one is better because I don't think I know enough about 4E to make a solid comparison. I hinted as much when I was talking about Marking, but I'm kind of at my limit. I do know that I like the monster design, and I think for me PF2 hits a solid medium of simple but complex.

I've just looked up the adult black dragon - and the best I can say for it is "it exists". I think I understand everything it does - but give me a 5e black dragon over that with their lair actions and legendary actions rather than random tail slap, corrupt water, and having to look up spells (although at least having a third action makes the PF dragon better than the 3.X Prosthetic Forehead Wizards that so many monsters in that edition turned into). And give me a Monster Vault 4e black dragon with its bloodied breath, instinctive devouring, action recovery, acid blood and the works. Yes, I can make a good encounter out of the PF2e dragon if I put in extra work. But I'm supporting the system. It's not supporting me.

First off, not all dragons get spells: if you had looked further, you'd notice that by being a spellcaster, they lose certain actions. So there's actually a tangible difference from a dragon who doesn't know spells and one who does. I find that cool.

And different reactions mean different things for different dragons. While they don't have lair actions, I find the actual combat with them to be way better compared to what I did in 5E: each of their different actions, because of the traits they have, have different values and change how you do things. Claws are weaker, but good for followup attacks because they are agile. Bites are the big deal, which is why the Red getting it as their reaction matters, just as a Blue having a defensive reaction is important. Things just moved better and the player characters just had way more options in what to do. The monster was interesting but not overcomplicated, and the hitpoints were the right level to not overstay its welcome while also keeping things very tense.

 

[Justice and Rule]

To put a quick addendum on feats and the plethora of them, one of the big things with the balance of PF2 is that the class chasses are very solid and do most of the heavy lifting. The feats largely meant to customize your play, so they seem small but their effect is bigger when you take into account the advantages of your class and such. Plus you just get a bunch of them: I love that backgrounds in PF2 grant a few stat bonuses and a simple feat, so that there's no optimal choice, nor is there some weird mechanic that everyone feels they need to take. These choices are meaningful, but in the end with how the math plays, it becomes difficult to build a bad character unless you are trying so deliberately.

I'd also say stuff like Familiars, Animal Companions, and Wild Shape using templates modified by different traits (By the choice of animal with the latter two, ala carte with familiars) is great for creating useful and balanced animal companions while still allowing them to be characterful.


Buuut if we want to continue this, put a "Sell me on PF2" thread in the proper forum. I regret being the person who took us off topic from 4E, since I like to hear it discussed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e's Skill Tree character builds favored tactical decision making. They also required elaborate prep on the DM's part to challenge the players, and let them take advantage of their character builds.

For me, this was a weakness of the system, because the prep time incentivized the DM into making linear dungeons, with elaborate set-piece encounters. Supposedly, this had to do with WOTC's plans to implement the system into a digital tabletop that was due to be released in tandem with the tabletop version. The 4e system would be ported into the VTT, making the book keeping easier to manage. There were some personal tragedies with the development team which completely nixed the digital project, so WOTC was left with a TTRPG system that proved complicated at higher levels, and more laborious to prep.

Earlier editions (B/X, 1st, 2nd) had simpler rules, short stat blocks, and quicker prep time. IMHO, this lightened up the DM's workload, freed him up to develop the exploration and RP pillars of plays. It's a lot easier to "Jacquay" up a dungeon, when it only takes 5 minutes to think up an encounter, and jot down the stats.

But see, this is where I beg to differ with a lot of people. 4e is a VERY LOW PREP system with a huge amount of convenience features which lighten the GM's load! I did very little prep in my 4e games. I would generally go through before a game and come up with a putative list of likely foes (any that I didn't already have in hand from previous sessions) and quickly paste up a 'book' (several sheets with stat blocks printed densely on them) for that day's play. I might reskin a monster or two, or now and then make up one completely from scratch. I'd dig up any traps, or environmental stuff that might come up too. This was all pretty general. I might also sketch out encounter locations, sometimes in detail, but generally just a rough sketch and a couple notes.

All of this was usually an hour a week or something like that. I can remember in my old 2e campaign having to spend HOURS every week on prep! Every time you had anything that could cast or had spell-like abilities you had to make a quick reference, or do up their spell lists, etc. Ugh! Yes, the stat block of an Orc in AD&D is simple. The stat block of an evil wizard? No!!!! Not simple in 1000 years! And if you never face your PCs with spell casters? Yeah, they are going to roll over most everything at higher levels. This is why things like 'E6' exist in 3.x...

So, I never understood suggestions that 4e is high prep. I think part of the problem is that people EXPECTED this 'linear sequence of detailed encounters' to be how D&D is played, but is NOT how 4e really plays. This is why KotS is such a disaster! There are GOOD adventures, and I'm sure you can spend a lot of time on them, but mostly I found 4e is not a demanding game. It is more demanding on players to go add stuff to their PCs when they level up than it is on the GM! (and that may be a problem, admittedly, though CB sure helped).