The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[Micah Sweet]

Nonsense. What are you even basing this on? 4e was my group's fav version of D&D but we enjoyed 13A just fine, PF2E as well...People might prefer 4e, but 'the only one they'll accept?' Yeesh.

The fact that anything resembling 4e but not 4e inevitably has someone here on the boards balking at it. Just like every other game. 4e fans are no better than fans of various versions of 5e (myself, for example) in that regard. That's what I meant.

I have no reason to give 4e a hard time. But I do think all us (myself definitely included) could stand to be a little less defensive about what we enjoy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry man. I'm never going to accept this argument. It just doesn't hold water, and PF2e pretty thoroughly proves that. Being both the things 4e was and the things D&D aspires to be is, in fact, important.

Why, if I may ask? And important to whom? Why can't 4e just be a good game on its own?

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e is a complex soup, with lots of ingredients. MMOs (and WoW) is one of them, and it's one that a lot of people point to when talking about it, but it's by no means the dominant one.

And while roles primarily come from the classic fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard classes, there are two main differences in 4e. One is to make sure that if a class is supposed to do a thing, it can do that thing. Fighters and paladins are defenders, so they have both the ability to take a lot of punishment and the ability to make enemies focus on them (or pay the price). Rangers are not defenders, so while they can take a hit or two they can't be the main tank, and the game communicates that very clearly. Clerics and warlords are both leaders, so they buff and heal their allies. Druids are not leaders, so they can't do in-combat healing (or at least not very well).

The other is that other editions have been less clear on these issues, and often positioned classes in between – e.g. paladins not being as good at fighting as a fighter, nor as good at healing as a cleric. Or druids having access to healing spells but on a delay, meaning they won't be as good at it as a cleric. Remember Ron Swanson's advice – never half-ass two things. 4e classes are built role-first – I imagine the design process went something like this:

1. OK, so what would a primal striker be?
2. A barbarian, huh? That's an interesting take.
3. How can we make a class that uses primal power to deal lots of damage and does so in a barbarian style?

This would be unlike other editions where the primary question is "What should a barbarian be able to do" and whether or not they can fulfill a "role" or not is at best a secondary concern.

IMO that question about what a barbarian should be able to do is far more important than all that other stuff. But of course there's other schools of thought.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Sorry man. I'm never going to accept this argument. It just doesn't hold water, and PF2e pretty thoroughly proves that. Being both the things 4e was and the things D&D aspires to be is, in fact, important.

PF2 took a lot of good ideas from 4e, but I'm never going to accept that it occupies the same space as 4e, or even D&D for that matter. And that is entirely my point. PF2 is better because it wasn't beholden to prior systems or legacies. It broke some molds and redesigned some old ideas, but in many ways, it has become it's own thing.

4e was a good system. Where it failed, it is usually compared to every other edition of D&D. People who didn't like it often complained about how some things changed, or weren't included, or it didn't feel like D&D. And though I genuinely liked this version of D&D, it was because it was very different than other editions I had played before. And I loved that! In act, my biggest gripes were when they didn't get farther away from the old tropes and expectations. To me, it was a half-arsed or hamstrung attempt to do otherwise.

When I say it shouldn't be D&D, I don't mean the name itself. I mean the implications and expectations of what people think has to be included to ensure the name is worn appropriately needs to be jettisoned before you can truly start to innovate. Otherwise, you're just circling the same track with another pony. 4e could have been the start of a whole new kind of RPG, but they wouldn't be able to do it while flying the D&D banner.

 

[payn]

4e is a complex soup, with lots of ingredients. MMOs (and WoW) is one of them, and it's one that a lot of people point to when talking about it, but it's by no means the dominant one.

And while roles primarily come from the classic fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard classes, there are two main differences in 4e. One is to make sure that if a class is supposed to do a thing, it can do that thing. Fighters and paladins are defenders, so they have both the ability to take a lot of punishment and the ability to make enemies focus on them (or pay the price). Rangers are not defenders, so while they can take a hit or two they can't be the main tank, and the game communicates that very clearly. Clerics and warlords are both leaders, so they buff and heal their allies. Druids are not leaders, so they can't do in-combat healing (or at least not very well).

The other is that other editions have been less clear on these issues, and often positioned classes in between – e.g. paladins not being as good at fighting as a fighter, nor as good at healing as a cleric. Or druids having access to healing spells but on a delay, meaning they won't be as good at it as a cleric. Remember Ron Swanson's advice – never half-ass two things. 4e classes are built role-first – I imagine the design process went something like this:

1. OK, so what would a primal striker be?
2. A barbarian, huh? That's an interesting take.
3. How can we make a class that uses primal power to deal lots of damage and does so in a barbarian style?

This would be unlike other editions where the primary question is "What should a barbarian be able to do" and whether or not they can fulfill a "role" or not is at best a secondary concern.

Great observations. My issue was I really liked in 3E/PF1 that the combination of stats, class abilities, feats, magic gear, allowed me to determine and forge what role I wanted X class to be. Obviously, there was a giant pit between me and my goal, and system mastery was a steep cost to pay to be effective at it. So, it didn't surprise me that one of the goals of 4E was to close that gap. It was that keeping things on track to avoid ineffective character builds so tightly, that just sort of took my desire to play out of it. Thats preference thing though, and not a design criticism. Which might be the difference between me and other RPGers that didnt click with 4E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why, if I may ask? And important to whom? Why can't 4e just be a good game on its own?

Three reasons.

1. This argument, "it would've been great if it wasn't called D&D", is just a more subtle and sophisticated way of excluding 4e from being D&D. It's the urbane, genteel way to redefine D&D so that 4e can be excluded as never having actually been D&D in the first place. I thus reject it for the same reasons I reject the to-the-point version.
2. The fact is, name matters. Names always mattered, of course--words have meaning and names have power--but this pretty well proves it. PF2e had everything a game could want for a new version: a large and engaged fanbase, lore that would give a reason for that fanbase to stay, and 10-15 years' experience with various iterations of the same rules system (3.0, 3.5, PF1). It should have been the perfect ground for demonstrating that a 4e-like game could succeed if it were simply allowed to exist without the D&D name. This demonstrably did not happen. Pathfinder 2nd edition was completely obliterated by 5e in terms of measurable numbers of games played.
3. Your question is flawed, because it's asking the wrong kind of thing. The thing I replied to was quite clearly indicating that EVERYTHING D&D-like, including the thematics, had to be removed so 4e could soar. I couldn't possibly disagree more: concepts like the Paladin (whose Lay on Hands was FOR THE FIRST TIME actually a personal sacrifice!), the Warlord as a whole, the Full Disciplines of Monk? None of those could have existed if this system had to cut out both the label and any thematics that smell too much like D&D. I'm very much of the opinion that the chassis is a good chassis for a game system--regardless of the label applied. I am, however, never going to accept that 4e could have succeeded anywhere near as much as it did if you had to carve out all the fantasy trappings and fantasy-CRPG-defining concepts that come from being an edition of D&D.

 

[Eric V]

The fact that anything resembling 4e but not 4e inevitably has someone here on the boards balking at it. Just like every other game. 4e fans are no better than fans of various versions of 5e (myself, for example) in that regard. That's what I meant.

I have no reason to give 4e a hard time. But I do think all us (myself definitely included) could stand to be a little less defensive about what we enjoy.

Well, sure, if the bar to jump is as low as ONE PERSON then yeah, you are technically right but it's a point without merit.

In your original post, however, you said "4e fans." Much higher bar, and it hasn't been cleared.

 

[Mannahnin]

I want to get a 4E game going, if for nothing else just a nice change of pace. And honestly the biggest impediment to get people on board? The fact that making characters, especially with all the books and errata, without the character builder is such a chore. If somebody makes a 4E clone and derivative I'd like to see one where the combat and powers still all play out the same but character creation is more streamlined. Sort of like kits from back in the day or something might help.

Yeah, definitely. I heard a rumor that if you get on a 4E Discord that some folks still have access to functioning character builders. Maybe retained from before the switch to making it web-based?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

2. The fact is, name matters. Names always mattered, of course--words have meaning and names have power--but this pretty well proves it. PF2e had everything a game could want for a new version: a large and engaged fanbase, lore that would give a reason for that fanbase to stay, and 10-15 years' experience with various iterations of the same rules system (3.0, 3.5, PF1). It should have been the perfect ground for demonstrating that a 4e-like game could succeed if it were simply allowed to exist without the D&D name. This demonstrably did not happen. Pathfinder 2nd edition was completely obliterated by 5e in terms of measurable numbers of games played.

While PF2e didn't literally overtake the household name as the market leader, you'd be very hard pressed to call it some kind of a failure-- this feels like a classic case of 'autopsying the living to see what killed them.'

 

[eyeheartawk]

Yeah, definitely. I heard a rumor that if you get on a 4E Discord that some folks still have access to functioning character builders. Maybe retained from before the switch to making it web-based?

Yeah, I know it's still around if you look hard enough. It's just kinda sketch to sell people on, just more friction, you know?