D&D General Maybe I was ALWAYs playing 4e... even in 2e

[HammerMan]

I have NOT always been playing 4e myself. I was whole hog into 2e with weird rules and little add on classes and TBH even the unbalanced parts I loved.

When 3e came out though I wish 4e had in its place. 3e almost killed D&D for me and my group. 4e quasi saved the group but totally saved d&d for me… 5e now feels like a shallow imitation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have NOT always been playing 4e myself. I was whole hog into 2e with weird rules and little add on classes and TBH even the unbalanced parts I loved.

I agree with it, but I think I always wanted balance. I just didn't do so well at seeing it.

When 3e came out though I wish 4e had in its place. 3e almost killed D&D for me and my group. 4e quasi saved the group but totally saved d&d for me… 5e now feels like a shallow imitation.

this is SOOO true for me too

 

[James Gasik]

If I could take the 4e books (or a modified edited version) back to 16 year old me, I think I would be fighting tooth and nail to never play anything eles...

I say modified because I think the OPTION of a simple fighter (slayer/knight) is good, and I think that the latter editions of utilitie/skill powers and themes made major improvements.

I would also just take a black marker to any of the expertise feats, and pen in a suggestion to half the HP of all the monsters that are not solo/end boss monsters.

Look, I adored 4e. But not at first. When the game came out, I looked at it, even played it, and was like, yeah nah, I'll stick with 3.5 thanks.

When I got back into it a few years later, however, it was suddenly a way more exciting game. So many new classes and races, and they seemed to have realized some of the early powers were bunk (when I read that Wisdom was supposed to be a secondary stat for Wizards, I was surprised, since almost no powers require it outside of thunderwave, which wasn't even that good...).

But when it became clear that the powers that be no longer wanted the game they had created, I was pretty annoyed. Even though I had just ended my 2 year 4e campaign because I tried to run White Plume Mountain and it fell flat because exploration wasn't all that much fun in 4e (and, well, let's be honest, a fight with a werewolf sorceress and her fighter boyfriend isn't a real challenge by 4e standards. Even Sir Bluto and The Crab were a bust!).

Because while I'd just run straight into the flaws of 4e in the worst way, I knew it was something that could be fixed if the devs would just work on it!

I recall having a real problem with my Death Priest. I'd invested heavily in Rituals so I'd have answers to any non-combat problem that came along. Right up until we were playing an LFR mod in Calimshan where we needed to cross a desert and I was like "oh, I'll cast this! and then that! oh and phantom steeds!", and the DM looked at me and asked if I could save my residuum because otherwise there wouldn't be any adventure.

Even the adventure designers had given up on pretending the game supported the exploration tier!

So yeah, it sucks that it died the way it did, and that it took awhile for everyone to give it a chance (and it really sucks that so many people still want to rag on it by saying "it wasn't D&D" or "it was a video game"), but let's not pretend it didn't have huge problems.

Whether or not 5e solved those problems is left up to the individual to decide...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I could take the 4e books (or a modified edited version) back to 16 year old me, I think I would be fighting tooth and nail to never play anything eles...

I say modified because I think the OPTION of a simple fighter (slayer/knight) is good, and I think that the latter editions of utilitie/skill powers and themes made major improvements.

I would also just take a black marker to any of the expertise feats, and pen in a suggestion to half the HP of all the monsters that are not solo/end boss monsters.

I think my ideal 4e would have been some sort of midpont between the original and Essentials. I liked how the Essential classes didn't all follow the same pattern and were build differently, and I was fine with some simplification (the original classes had stupid number of powers at higher levels and it was unwieldy) but I think they took it too far. Like the Slayer basically just had X uses of Power Attack and IIRC you only needed to decide to use it once you had hit, so it wasn't even a gamble, so there wasn't really any meaningful decision points. I would have preferred if for example Slayer would have had handful of encounter powers (big single target attack, AOE cleave, maybe some attacks with riders etc) and you could burn your X uses of power on those in any combination you liked. (Instead of only one of each like with the original classes.)

 

[HammerMan]

Look, I adored 4e. But not at first. When the game came out, I looked at it, even played it, and was like, yeah nah, I'll stick with 3.5 thanks.

Lol 3.5 was dead to us we had moved on to WoD and other game systems. 4e was what got me and us back

When I got back into it a few years later, however, it was suddenly a way more exciting game. So many new classes and races, and they seemed to have realized some of the early powers were bunk (when I read that Wisdom was supposed to be a secondary stat for Wizards, I was surprised, since almost no powers require it outside of thunderwave, which wasn't even that good...).

Oh that irked me too

But when it became clear that the powers that be no longer wanted the game they had created, I was pretty annoyed. Even though I had just ended my 2 year 4e campaign because I tried to run White Plume Mountain and it fell flat because exploration wasn't all that much fun in 4e (and, well, let's be honest, a fight with a werewolf sorceress and her fighter boyfriend isn't a real challenge by 4e standards. Even Sir Bluto and The Crab were a bust!

I don’t know the adventure but a tag fight from 2 elite 1 based on sorcere and one based on fighter sounds awesome to me.

I recall having a real problem with my Death Priest. I'd invested heavily in Rituals so I'd have answers to any non-combat problem that came along. Right up until we were playing an LFR mod in Calimshan where we needed to cross a desert and I was like "oh, I'll cast this! and then that! oh and phantom steeds!", and the DM looked at me and asked if I could save my residuum because otherwise there wouldn't be any adventure.

I am sure the same could be said of 3e spells/adventures. That is a d&d problem not an edition

So yeah, it sucks that it died the way it did, and that it took awhile for everyone to give it a chance (and it really sucks that so many people still want to rag on it by saying "it wasn't D&D" or "it was a video game"), but let's not pretend it didn't have huge problems.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Look, I adored 4e. But not at first. When the game came out, I looked at it, even played it, and was like, yeah nah, I'll stick with 3.5 thanks.

I was done with 3.5 by the time 4e came out. The question was NEVER 3.5 or 4e... it was 4e D&D or a new main system for RPGS

When I got back into it a few years later, however, it was suddenly a way more exciting game. So many new classes and races, and they seemed to have realized some of the early powers were bunk (when I read that Wisdom was supposed to be a secondary stat for Wizards, I was surprised, since almost no powers require it outside of thunderwave, which wasn't even that good...).

oh don't get me wrong the edition most DEF improved as it went. Like I said maybe an edited retrospect version...

my biggest gripe is that 4e was SO much better that I wish 5e had used the end state of 4e as it's base... and improved on it.

I recall having a real problem with my Death Priest. I'd invested heavily in Rituals so I'd have answers to any non-combat problem that came along. Right up until we were playing an LFR mod in Calimshan where we needed to cross a desert and I was like "oh, I'll cast this! and then that! oh and phantom steeds!", and the DM looked at me and asked if I could save my residuum because otherwise there wouldn't be any adventure.

I mean... to be fair that story fits ANY edition of D&D...

So yeah, it sucks that it died the way it did, and that it took awhile for everyone to give it a chance (and it really sucks that so many people still want to rag on it by saying "it wasn't D&D" or "it was a video game"), but let's not pretend it didn't have huge problems.

Whether or not 5e solved those problems is left up to the individual to decide...

oh don't get me wrong 4e needs an overhaul... I think a refit with the stuff they learned near the end with fixxing issues would have been MUCH better then the look backwards 5e is (and thats not to say 5e doesn't have some 4e in it)

 

[James Gasik]

I think my ideal 4e would have been some sort of midpont between the original and Essentials. I liked how the Essential classes didn't all follow the same pattern and were build differently, and I was fine with some simplification (the original classes had stupid number of powers at higher levels and it was unwieldy) but I think they took it too far. Like the Slayer basically just had X uses of Power Attack and IIRC you only needed to decide to use it once you had hit, so it wasn't even a gamble, so there wasn't really any meaningful decision points. I would have preferred if for example Slayer would have had handful of encounter powers (big single target attack, AOE cleave, maybe some attacks with riders etc) and you could burn your X uses of power on those in any combination you liked. (Instead of only one of each like with the original classes.)

Having played a Slayer (mostly because I was amused that the developers didn't see the Dex-Slayer coming), I admit that they could have used more options. But there is that vocal subset of the community that seems to want the "I swing!" Fighter.

I felt the Elementalist Sorcerer did this sort of thing better. The Binder Warlock was trash, the Essentials Rangers were...ok I guess, and the Wizard and Cleric...didn't really change at all.

My favorite E-Classes, btw (not that anyone asked) was the Sentinel Druid (with a REAL animal companion!) and the Barbarian that could be built to wear cloth armor and could switch from Defender to Striker as needed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think my ideal 4e would have been some sort of midpont between the original and Essentials. I liked how the Essential classes didn't all follow the same pattern and were build differently, and I was fine with some simplification (the original classes had stupid number of powers at higher levels and it was unwieldy) but I think they took it too far. Like the Slayer basically just had X uses of Power Attack and IIRC you only needed to decide to use it once you had hit, so it wasn't even a gamble, so there wasn't really any meaningful decision points. I would have preferred if for example Slayer would have had handful of encounter powers (big single target attack, AOE cleave, maybe some attacks with riders etc) and you could burn your X uses of power on those in any combination you liked. (Instead of only one of each like with the original classes.)

I didn't like slayer at first... but it grew on me and when someone said you could trade out power attacks for other encounter powers it worked well (so 1 or 2 power attacks plus a encounter power)

 

[James Gasik]

I didn't like slayer at first... but it grew on me and when someone said you could trade out power attacks for other encounter powers it worked well (so 1 or 2 power attacks plus a encounter power)

Power Attack did get better when you could knock people prone with it. That opened up some feat action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Having played a Slayer (mostly because I was amused that the developers didn't see the Dex-Slayer coming), I admit that they could have used more options.

my 1 slayer was dex max con second str third... and I used a longbow as my main weapon