D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[Staffan]

DingDingDingDingDing!! We’ve got a winnah!
I can’t stress enough how this sort of thing was emergent. The wealth by level guidelines and magic item pricing indicated that some of this stuff was expected, but not to the degree it took hold. Andy Collins’s Big Six article, dated 2007, was chasing the concept, not offering real design insights.

Yeah, that article that was posted was part of a 3-article series of marketing for the Magic Item Compendium. Mostly, those articles boil down to "Here's what's wrong with magic items in 3e, and here's how we're fixing it." Some of the more important things in the MIC were useful activated low-level items, and the rules for combining passive bonuses with more fun items (basically: you could bolt a passive bonus onto another non-bonus item in an appropriate slot without paying double for two effects in the same item).

Bringing it back to 4e discussion, it is fairly clear that this type of analysis was at the forefront when 4e was designed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

DingDingDingDingDing!! We’ve got a winnah!
I can’t stress enough how this sort of thing was emergent. The wealth by level guidelines and magic item pricing indicated that some of this stuff was expected, but not to the degree it took hold. Andy Collins’s Big Six article, dated 2007, was chasing the concept, not offering real design insights.

I think basically they took the mess that was late era 2e and went about systematizing it, without REALLY ever testing things. They jiggered with the rules until they'd created a system that WOULD mostly reproduce 2e play, if you just 'played like 2e' and then tossed in some bad ideas like "we should have trap options" and released it. The math was COMPLETELY off in many respects, fighters are totally screwed, wizards get amped to the max, and then you have bizarre strangeness like CODZILLA and CLW wands. You CAN play it, for sure, but only if A) the players consciously pretend they're playing 2e with a better core design, or B) you just go all gonzo and roll with it. Neither one produces a result terribly close to TSR D&D though!

 

[Red Castle]

To expand on the monster design. Since monster levels were tied the XP value they gave, it was easily possible to take a high level monster and recreate it at a lower level as an Elite or Solo monster.

So if we take the giants for exemple, a Standard Stone Giant was level 14, or worth 1000xp. But if you wanted to make it a Solo Creature threat for lower level parties, you could just look at the level of a Solo creature worth the same XP and go from there. So in the case of the Stone Giant worth 1000xp, it would be the same as a level 5 Solo creature. You then just had to look at the easy rules to create Solo monsters in the DMG and recreate the Stone Giant as a Solo monster. You would then have a epic balanced encounter for a level 5 party using a level 14 monster.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To expand on the monster design. Since monster levels were tied the XP value they gave, it was easily possible to take a high level monster and recreate it at a lower level as an Elite or Solo monster.

So if we take the giants for exemple, a Standard Stone Giant was level 14, or worth 1000xp. But if you wanted to make it a Solo Creature threat for lower level parties, you could just look at the level of a Solo creature worth the same XP and go from there. So in the case of the Stone Giant worth 1000xp, it would be the same as a level 5 Solo creature. You then just had to look at the easy rules to create Solo monsters in the DMG and recreate the Stone Giant as a Solo monster. You would then have a epic balanced encounter for a level 5 party using a level 14 monster.

Right, and being, probably, a pretty significant encounter you could even build it as a level + 4, so the actual total XP of the thing is now considerably more (not going to go look up the number) and Stoney has a bunch of friends, maybe a standard and some minions, all of level 5, that could be based on other stone giant figures, or maybe they're other sorts of allies or whatever.

 

[Kannik]

With regards to monster/opponent design, one of my fav moments in 4e was during one of our very first sessions. The gang leader the party was after wore spiked armour and fought with a spiked chain. As a minor action (on a recharge), when they hit could wrap that chain around a party member and slam them into their spiked armour for 1dX extra damage. The players loved it. And I loved it because it was effects based and just happened without any need roll to grapple, roll to resist, roll to hit with the spikes, and then what happens next turn, is the player still grappled, and so on. In addition, it was super flavourful and made the big bad feel that much more menacing and memorable.

It was great how many monsters/opponents were (or could be) designed that way, giving abilities that in play made you feel what they were on those multiple levels.

 

[deganawida]

Decided to go a bit more in-depth into things that I liked about 4e.

1.The World.

• a. The designers took a different approach than previous and subsequent attempts, and, instead of retroactively altering the old lore of settings, created a new setting, The World (AKA, Points of Light, AKA Nentir Vale) where every D&D trope had its own place and had always had its own place. There was no need to shoehorn in Dragonborn, or what standardized Tieflings. Instead, you had a world where these fit and had a place in the history without having to change what previous editions had said.
  • i. PHB 2 was where I first saw the beauty of this, in how they made all the Primal Power Source classes have a distinct role within the setting. For example, Barbarians aren’t just angry fighters, as they were in 3.x, nor are they tribal warriors, as they were in 1e and 2e. Instead, they are warriors powered by primal spirits, which manifest in what is simply called a rage, without being necessarily anger.
    • 1. The same can be seen in the Psionic Power Source, where all the psionic classes have a tie back to a particular origin.
• b. The very idea of Points of Light works spectacularly with D&D, in that there’s a reason for adventurers and various dungeons. It also has the added effect of making every action by the PCs feel consequential, as they are the heroes (or villains) that the world needs.
  • c. The open-ended design of The World meant that any item from any previous setting could be dropped in it without disrupting the lore. The World is in a dark age, and is ancient, so that there are plenty of mysteries and forgotten secrets for PCs to find and DMs to include.
• d. The Dawn War (cannot recall if that was the name given in 4e specifically, or was retroactively added by Mearls with 5th Edition) was a great myth that set stakes for the world. It’s the Titanomachy in D&D, and epic in ways that many other settings fail to be.
• e. Asmodeus was made terrifying. People actively worshipped him. Worse, he was actually needed to prevent worse things.
• f. Stars being holes in space was so awesome, it almost made me play a Warlock.

2. At the very least, the Martial, Divine, and Arcane power sources presented a meta-class for their various classes.

• a. Every Martial character is a warrior of some kind.
  • i. Fighters (including Knights and Slayers) are your soldiers or generic warrior.
  • ii. Warlords are your warriors who are also leaders.
  • iii. Rangers are your elite warriors, spec-ops style, who focus on burning down enemies.
  • iv. Rogues are your adventuring warriors who don’t really fit into societal norms well.
    • 1.When first released, it did seem that they were pushing them to thief, assassin, or ninja, but, as 4e matured, you started to see the more warrior aspect mentioned above come out.
      • a. This really comes out with Versatile Duelist, which allows Rogues to use any One-Handed Military Heavy Blade, and allows them to use their class features with that.
        • i. Want a lightly-armored swordsman who’s inventive, clever, charming, and hits hard, but doesn’t want to be mobbed? Grab that feat, and actually be mechanically supported, something which D&D has not done really well ever before or since.
      • b. It also has more of the feel of a movie or TV action hero than the Fighter has, with support given in other feats, powers, Paragon Paths, and so forth.
  • v. Every Divine character is a clergyman of some sort.
    • i. Paladins are taken out of the old paradigm of just being a super Good (capitalized for alignment) knight, and turned into a part of the priesthood for their gods.
  • vii. Every Arcane character is a mage (lower case, so as to not confuse with the Essentials class build of the same name) of some sort.
    • i. Swordmage is a mage who teleports around and defends allies with spell-infused weapon attacks.
    • ii. Bards are mages with arcane songs.
• 3. Essentials gave another way to play. It’s still highly tactical, but it makes builds simpler and gameplay faster. That’s a plus in my book.

 

[Zeromaru X]

The Dawn War (cannot recall if that was the name given in 4e specifically, or was retroactively added by Mearls with 5th Edition)

The name was given in 4e. I don't exactly recall specifically in which product this name for the conflict between gods and primordials was first mentioned, but the term was already in use by the time they published Divine Power (the sourcebook).

 

[Mannahnin]

It's not given that name in the PH or DMG, though the concept is established and referenced in there, of the Primordials creating the world, the Gods meddling in it and creating mortal beings to worship them, and a war being kicked off. It got fleshed out more in later books, but the PH and DMG generally seem to try not to define the world too tightly.

While I was googling around a bit I also found this very nice, succinct lore compilation on the Dawn War, with book and page references for lots of stuff:

The Dawn War - The Nentir Vale

nentirvale.wikidot.com

 

[Manbearcat]

Worlds and Monsters (the 4e preview book) talks about the dynamics of The Dawn War extensively (including siting it temporally with the "dawn of the universe"), but they don't actually use the formal Dawn War in that text.

If I had to wager a guess, I'd bet it was either originally (a) used in the ample design articles in the lead-up/early on or (b) in one of the first Dungeon or Dragon mags after 4e's release?

 

[Voadam]

Worlds and Monsters (the 4e preview book) talks about the dynamics of The Dawn War extensively (including siting it temporally with the "dawn of the universe"), but they don't actually use the formal Dawn War in that text.

If I had to wager a guess, I'd bet it was either originally (a) used in the ample design articles in the lead-up/early on or (b) in one of the first Dungeon or Dragon mags after 4e's release?

I just did a quick search in Dragon and #369 page 7 is the first Dawn War reference in dragon, November 2008, 364 is the first 4e Dragon. Divine Power was July 2009.

"The demon lord Baphomet was once a great primordial with strong ties to the natural world. He can rightly claim minotaurs, for it is he who raised them as soldiers to claim nature for him in place of Melora, his most hated deific foe. In the Dawn War, minotaurs fought against the gods on the side of Baphomet. But Baphomet was defeated. One myth says the Horned King hurled himself into the Abyss rather than face the final judgment of the gods."

There is a Dawn Cataclysm referenced in 365, but that is Forgotten Realms and refers to an ancient god against god war when Moander split Tyche into Tymora and Beshaba.