D&D 4E Edition Experience - Did/Do You Play 4th Edition D&D? How Was/Is it?

[Olrox17]

I quite enjoyed 4E. It addressed the massive class balance issues of 3E, and the whole system was built around the encounter as the primary unit of resource management, so as DM I was freed from having to design adventures around attrition and restricting PCs' ability to rest. Minions and solo monsters were awesome innovations. If you want really stunning, engaging set-piece battles, 4E delivers them like no other edition.

Of course, you may have noticed that everything I said above was focused on combat. Outside combat, 4E did not shine so well. There were some excellent bits (e.g., ritual spells), some bits that could have been excellent but IMO fell down in implementation (skill challenges), and some bits that... ah... well, let's just say that when you have to invent a 10,000-gp coin because item prices at the top tier of play are so high, I feel strongly that you have Lost The Way. Fortunately it was easy to play with the "no-pluses" variation where the expected item bonuses are just folded into your regular modifiers.

I did find the AEDU structure a bit stifling. I am possibly the only person in the world who was a huge fan of Essentials--I didn't get to play with it for very long since D&D Next was announced not long after, but I loved getting that variety in class design.

Overall: I liked 4E, played it throughout its run, but made the switch to Next/5E without hesitation. Still, I sure do miss that encounter-centric resource model.

You're not alone in thinking that Essentials were a welcome breath of fresh air. They introduced some variety without really unbalancing anything.

 

[CleverNickName]

The astonishing, and yeah I admit, video-game-esque stuff they could pull off, was staggeringly cool.

I played it and didn't care for it very much because it felt like an MMORPG. Suddenly we had defenders, strikers, and controllers all felt too similar to roles characters had in World of Warcraft. The at-will, per-encounter, and daily powers all felt like I was pressing a button on my keyboard and waiting for the cool down so I could press it again.

The whole 'role' thing came straight from WoW character optimisation language...

4E was certianly a product of its time, for better or worse. When 4th Edition first went into development in 2007, World of Warcraft had over ten million subscribers...it was easily the largest and most profitable fantasy game in the world. So of course game developers everywhere noticed this, and wanted a piece of it. It was everywhere from countless computer game clones to web sitcoms and comic books.

I remember that one of the strongest critiques of 4th Edition was "it's just too video-gamey," or that "it's too much like WoW." But D&D was hardly the only one trying to ride that wave. Looking back on it, that seems like a rather harsh thing to judge Wizards of the Coast for. I mean, we gave Felicia Day a pass for The Guild. We gave DC Comics a pass for Wildstorm. We gave Cryptozoic a pass for Hearthstone. Why did so many of us draw the line here, with Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons & Dragons?

A different marketing approach might have been helpful here, I suppose. Perhaps if they had been up-front about it and embraced the influence of WoW, instead of trying to hide (and later deny) it, they might have turned this comparison into a strength rather than a weakness? I dunno. I'm not a marketing expert, nor am I a fan of MMORPGs, but looking back this seems like a missed opportunity.

 

[MGibster]

4E was certianly a product of its time, for better or worse. When 4th Edition first went into development in 2007, World of Warcraft had over ten million subscribers...it was easily the largest and most profitable fantasy game in the world. So of course game developers everywhere noticed this, and wanted a piece of it. It was everywhere from countless computer game clones to web sitcoms and comic books.

D&D was certainly influential on the development of computer games in the halcyon days of the the 1970s which continues to this day. Given the continued popularity of computer games it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see that they've influenced D&D.

I remember that one of the strongest critiques of 4th Edition was "it's just too video-gamey," or that "it's too much like WoW." But D&D was hardly the only one trying to ride that wave. Looking back on it, that seems like a rather harsh thing to judge Wizards of the Coast for. I mean, we gave Felicia Day a pass for The Guild. We gave DC Comics a pass for Wildstorm. We gave Cryptozoic a pass for Hearthstone. Why did so many of us draw the line here, with Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons & Dragons?

I'm sure there are many people who rather liked that 4th edition felt too video-gamey. For me, it's just a matter of preference that I didn't care for it. I don't know what you mean about giving Felicia Day a pass for The Guild.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't know what you mean about giving Felicia Day a pass for The Guild.

I meant that we were okay with World of Warcraft having an influence on sitcoms, card games, and comic books... but not D&D. At the time, it felt like there was a lot of outrage over D&D having anything at all in common with WoW.

It's equally possible that it was all in my head, though.

 

[TwoSix]

I meant that we were okay with World of Warcraft having an influence on sitcoms, card games, and comic books... but not D&D. At the time, it felt like there was a lot of outrage over D&D having anything at all in common with WoW.

It's equally possible that it was all in my head, though.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to engage with this topic that doesn't brush the edges of Edition War; so out of respect for the OP, I won't engage.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

DMing an edition I didn't really like for about four years. We had a lot of fun with the campaign, but it always felt like rules were always getting in the way. Combat took forever, and some people in the group never really grokked the rules. We were always having to go back and add this or that modifier.

I mean, this sounds like my experience with 3.XE to me, especially the last line. 4E had a lot less of that for us. But I can definitely see that C&C vs 4E is one hell of a different thing.

I meant that we were okay with World of Warcraft having an influence on sitcoms, card games, and comic books... but not D&D. At the time, it felt like there was a lot of outrage over D&D having anything at all in common with WoW.

The big problem was that the vast majority of people saying this didn't know anything about WoW, and were making these vague assertions that 4E "sucked" because it was "like WoW", when in fact, it was nothing at all like WoW.

The roles weren't the same ones WoW has, didn't work the same they do in WoW (at all), and didn't produce a game that felt or played anything at all like WoW. Source: I played WoW from open beta to now (on and off, both at the highest levels - i.e. cutting edge raiding, and totally casually), and 4E for it's entire lifespan. Almost everyone saying this had either not played WoW much, and vague and inaccurate ideas about "how it worked", or hadn't play 4E much, if at all, and was assuming, based generally on the assertion "They both have roles, so they're the same!".

It would be fair to say 4E had videogame influence.

But it wasn't WoW, and it really drove me up the wall that people kept saying it was, out of ignorance, and because it was convenient, because WoW was huge in pop culture at the time. And sneered at by a lot of TT RPGs. It was a cheap slur, essentially, that was widespread enough that it didn't need explanation.

The main influence, really, was tactical RPGs - the closest game, at the time, to 4E, was probably something like Final Fantasy Tactics (particularly with 4E's heavy focus on movement and positioning, which it shared with that). XCOM, when it came out (after 4E), was definitely not a million miles away, either. Turn-based squad-tactics or tactical RPGs in general were the closest things to 4E, by a large margin. But almost no-one made that comparison. I suspect probably because they hadn't actually played.

The secondary influence would probably be general melee and ranged combat action games, including stuff like Onimusha or Ninja Gaiden or the like.

But WoW and MMORPGs? No. Honestly I wish MMORPGs were like 4E. They'd be improved insanely by copying design ideas from it. Sadly they are not. Not even the Neverwinter one, which was developed in the 4E era, but bears about as much relation to 4E as Tower of Mystara does to 2E.

 

[CleverNickName]

But WoW and MMORPGs? No. Honestly I wish MMORPGs were like 4E. They'd be improved insanely by copying design ideas from it. Sadly they are not. Not even the Neverwinter one, which was developed in the 4E era, but bears about as much relation to 4E as Tower of Mystara does to 2E.

All I'm saying is, a lot of people thought there was too much MMORPG influence in 4th Edition. I can neither confirm nor deny, since I don't play them. But I always thought it was a weird thing to complain about: even if it was, why did that have to be an automatic negative? The very first edition of this game was a direct product of a tactical war game, and every edition since has borrowed from other popular media in some way.

Like @TwoSix, I don't want to get too close to the "edition war" territory...I'm sorry if it felt like I was baiting anyone. I just remember hearing a lot of people saying that this edition of D&D was too similar to World of Warcraft, and I remember wondering why that would be such a problem. I never had an issue with video game influence in my tabletop RPGs...at the time 4E was announced, I was in the middle of writing a 3.5E D&D campaign based on Final Fantasy VI (thus, my avatar).

 

[Stormonu]

When 4E was announced, I wasn't ready to put aside my 3E books, and the previews kept rubbing me the wrong way. However, I was pressured into trying it by my gaming group and we ran Keep on the Shadowfell - and the party died to Irontooth. We rewound, played and finished the adventure. Still didn't like it, so I let someone else DM a game, wondering if it might just be me. It still didn't work out, so our group dropped 4E for other games - mostly Savage Worlds, Vampire and even an attempt at SW SAGA. I tried once more with 4E when Essentials came out, but my opinion did, and still remains the same - I just don't like the game.

About the only thing that came out of 4E that I enjoy (in moderation) is the board games - Wrath of Asherdarlon, etc.

 

[Undrave]

Played, loved it, DM'd for the first time and loved it...

Will admit that fights got bogged down at later level. I like the feeling around level 5-7 when you got two dailies and then two Encounters to work with. I think if the game had kept up that level of simplicity, only adding more usage of your previous powers, for exemple, and then additional powers from the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny, it probably would have smoothed out somewhat.

The lore was fantastic, if you had the eye for it as it was sometimes hidden. The best part was that it was vague and not super defined. A bit like real life History and Myth aren't 100% accurate or consistent all the times.

Back on to good points of 4E, can we talk about how totally awesome a lot of the 4E classes were?

Oh yes! A lot of them had great concept! Warden and Avenger as you say are fantastic!

Swordmage - A wonderful Fighter-Mage-style class that really felt like it's own thing, and just really well-realized in way you rarely see.

The 4e Swordmage is, IMHO, the best Gish ever. Felt like it was a TRUE blending of spells and swords. The 5e Gish just just a sword with their right hand and a spell with their left hand instead of using both at the same time. The closest thing we get are the SCAG cantrips (that need to be reprinted in a much better book) and the Paladin's Smite for pete sake!

I loved Primal being its own thing separate from Arcane and Divine, and monks fit perfectly well as Psionic. Also answered the question of why gods aren't super active in the world in a fantastic way (the elder primal spirits essentially told them to sit down and stay out). I still use the 4E cosmos when running D&D games. I've never been fond of alignment to begin with, and the previous model's usage of "a plane for every alignment combo and element" just felt ridiculous to me.

Primal is my favourite aspect as well! Love the cosmology of 4e and it makes for a great World of Adventure! And the way Primal had a very strong flavour as a power source with its emphasis on spirits and metaphors (aside from the shaman, and lame duck Seeker, all the Primal Classes had aspects of transformation!). The 4e Barbarian was something cool and special and not just an angry guy with a stick.

The main influence, really, was tactical RPGs - the closest game, at the time, to 4E, was probably something like Final Fantasy Tactics. XCOM, when it came out (after 4E), was definitely not a million miles away, either. Turn-based squad-tactics or tactical RPGs in general were the closest things to 4E, by a large margin. But almost no-one made that comparison. I suspect probably because they hadn't actually played.

Probably why I liked 4e. At the time I was BIG into Final Fantasy Tactics A2. I have over 100 hours logged into the first FFTA (It helps that I had my GBA with me during a hospital stay at the time) and I think I ended up the same in the sequel. A lot of the gameplay felt familiar but with added role-play! In FFTA everybody has A-Abilities (action), R-Abilities (reaction) and S-Abilities (Support), some took MP to use, some didn't, so I didn't have a problem with AEDU.

The secondary influence would probably be general melee and ranged combat action games, including stuff like Onimusha or Ninja Gaiden or the like.

4e could make a great Musou game too, what with the minions and all that.

 

[Badvoc]

I didn't like the sweeping changes to the lore. The rearrangement of planes, the dividing of Elves into Elves and Eladrin, the dividing of Fighters into Fighters and Warlords, the extreme focus on mechanical balance over all other concerns, nor the implied grimdark tone that the game seemed designed to convey (making Tieflings into a core race, Warlocks into a core class, the post-apocalyptic "points of light" setting, the Spellplague in the Realms all just exuded a "dark and edgy" vibe I didn't like). It seemed custom-designed to divorce D&D from the lore and expectations of everything that came before.

I really, really did NOT like the changes it brought to the Forgotten Realms, the Spellplague as the sweeping Realms Shaking Event to completely break Forgotten Realms, change it in tone into some grim post-apocalyptic setting, turning Cormyr from a stereotypical "good" Kingdom of heroes into a tyranny (the whole Wheloon Prison thing is like some extremely evil stuff done by a certain RL country known to be one of the worst dictatorships on Earth I won't name due to site rules about politics), kill some of the most prominent and popular gods of the Realms (Mystra, Tyr, Lathander etc), advance the timeline over a century (essentially invalidating my huge shelf of lore materials), and re-draw the map (that giant 4-part poster map from Dragon Magazine in late 2001? I kept that on my wall at the time, redrawing the map of the Realms was a particularly bothersome act for me). Forcing such sweeping changes to the Realms to accommodate 4e just increased my dislike and distaste for it.

This. So much this. My old grognard bones still haven't fully embraced these new fangled races that 4e introduced.

Bah! I remember when all this was fields...

At the time, the changes to the races and FR lore were definitely contributing factors that prevented me from connecting with this edition.