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

To a certain extent this fan of fate and fudge and similar games considers D&D ummm being fiddly as a something of an assumed LOL. However looking at 3.x and PF and I see that 4e is concise in comparison AND to me 5e lost the big damn heroes angle even if you adjust for level 5 being the start of heroic tier (and analogous to 4e level 1 in theory).
Yeah, I mean no version of d20 has been super simple. That went out with "we play 2e without proficiencies and don't use all the supplements" around 1994...

Still, 4e is much fiddlier than 5e. I've played a decent amount of each. Think of it this way, to make your 'Axe Dwarf' in 4e, you have to obviously start out figuring out what race (well, that's axiomatic here, mostly), class (there are a few options here), build, what powers synergize with that, the correct feat(s), a theme that works with your stuff, a background or 3, etc. This is not so bad, you'd make almost as many choices in 5e by 3rd level. However, with 5e you're done. Yeah, maybe your a battlemaster and you gotta pick 3 'powers'. Later on you're going to choose ASIs or maybe at some point a feat or two, and eventually a couple more battlemaster powers. But the APPLICATION of these, and any interactions between them and say equipment, is very straightforward and minimal. It is pretty darn clear what makes an Axe Dwarf, and your choices are fairly peripheral to the core of that.

4e is different. In order to get proper damage and weapon bonuses, you need to pick the right feats, and devise a way to make them synergize with your powers and equipment. Yeah, you can just do 'whatever' and your character will 'sort of work', but if you're wanting to be Karl the Mighty, Axe Dwarf Extraordinaire, you should do better than that. And its fiddly, because what works together depends on action economy considerations, attack types, keywords, bonus stacking rules, etc. And you have to keep making key choices at pretty much every level, otherwise you will start to fall behind on those critical bonuses, off-turn attacks, etc. The choices are multi-faceted too. Do I increase CON, or WIS? Well, WIS ties into a feat that increases your off-turn punishment damage, but CON obviously ties into hardiness. Each one needs to hit a certain threshold to enable various feats, etc.

And that isn't counting the 'tactical fiddliness' of 4e where if you happen to be in a certain spot then some power gets some sort of bonus, or you can trigger a power with some added feature, whatever. There are a lot of very rules-dependent choices here, which often don't really relate in a very coherent way to the fiction.

This is why we play HoML now, instead of 4e. It is simply taking some of the less fiddly ideas on builds and certain rules elements from other games and applying them in the context of a really action-oriented d20 type game with solid tactics. No abandoning grids like 5e or 13a, no abandoning unified resource economy like those games either, and doubling down on 'story now' type play instead of giving up on it like 5e did.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Yeah, I mean no version of d20 has been super simple. That went out with "we play 2e without proficiencies and don't use all the supplements" around 1994...

Still, 4e is much fiddlier than 5e. I've played a decent amount of each. Think of it this way, to make your 'Axe Dwarf' in 4e,

I do not want generic Axe Dwarf anyway in fact the lack of levers on the 5e character is the other issue. It ends up being homebrew or multi-classing to even start to approach getting the characters I actually do want. And the multiclassing does not seem reliable way too easy to bollux yourself which kind of describes some homebrew too. Oh and maybe rampant use of UA material
 

I do not want generic Axe Dwarf anyway in fact the lack of levers on the 5e character is the other issue. It ends up being homebrew or multi-classing to even start to approach getting the characters I actually do want. And the multiclassing does not seem reliable way too easy to bollux yourself which kind of describes some homebrew too. Oh and maybe rampant use of UA material
Yeah, sure, but a LOT of people do want fairly stock archetype PCs. They may want to go on and add some twists and whatever later on, but the fact that you had to keep making more tweaks just to continue to be effective in your basic archetype was an issue with 4e. For a lot of players it felt like they were constantly being asked to do 'homework' to figure what they were supposed to pick, whereas 5e just hands it to you without needing to even think about it.

4e is a BIT more flexible, but you know what? 5e ain't exactly horrible in that department either. The thing is, 4e forces you to make a lot of choices about the 'core' of your character, which are pretty much no-brainer choices for most players (IE 'tax' feats, weapon choices. Axe Dwarf = Mordenkrad, period) ASIs, etc. 5e choices are more about 'frills', though some of them (like which Battlemaster powers to take) can be reasonably defining.
 



Sorry, what is "HoML"?
It is a 4e Hack that I made. So, taking a lot of 4e, but not specifically compatible with it. The intent is a game which is more clearly narrative, somewhat pared down, and retaining an interesting tactical 'action sequence' format. There have been a few 4e-adjacent games in the past, 13th Age, Strike!, I suppose one might say 5e to a degree, but I never felt like any of them really specifically tried to focus on just perfecting the things that make 4e great, going further with the design instead of watering it down. Honestly I am no longer very satisfied with the first cut at it, but there are a lot of things in there that worked pretty well.
 





Remove ads

Top