D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

[HJFudge]

Man this thread is making me miss 4th Edition something fierce. I'll need to go bully someone into running it, or get someone to let me use their fantasygrounds to run my own campaign lol

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is a thing that could happen regardless of edition. You can't really know what a person will like until they try it, after all. Maybe they'd bounce off 5e but love 2e or 3e. You've no way to really know!

You can't know for sure, in advance - pesky free will.

But, IMX, running intro games at Encounters, Conventions, & AL, 4e was the single edition of D&D that was the easiest for new players to step into without excessive hand-holding, and now-roll-this-die level instructions. It was clear and intuitive. (The Encounters pregens were a single page - half-size sheet on both sides for some reason - with all the rules pertaining to that character right on them.) It retained new players like no RPG I've seen before or since, and let them tramsition to DMing with startling speed. It also freaked out old/returning ones with depressing consistency. And, of course, that only applies to players who tried it - who managed to find out about D&D and locate an Encounters venue without being put off by the blazing rhetoric of the edition war sprayed over any corner of the internet where 4e might have come up.

The 5e compromise has worked out a lot better, it's not as accessible to new players as 4e (nor as intimidating as 3e nor so arcane as 1e), but it's not off-putting to the old/returning ones, and you can search for D&D without vicious diatribes showing up everywhere you look. 5e hasn't retained quite the % of new players I saw with 4e, but it's attracted so many more, that it only matters in a theoretical sense.

And 5e is a better introduction to D&D. If you want to get an idea "What all the fuss was about," trying 5e, experiencing re-boots of old modules, likely with an old DM or player at the table, is going to get you that. It'll prepare you to handle trying out OSR or paleogaming, too...
...and that's not even to mention the return to the central role for the DM.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Hey, folks, just a note: We haven't had to moderate folks for edition warring for a long time. But if you are going to be a jerk about editions, we will deal with you.

Moreover, consider, for a moment, how not-fun all that was for moderators. And how much we will (not) thank you for bringing us back to that again.

So - you are allowed to like a thing, or not, and say so. But treat each other with respect. And don't pay the pain of the past forward. Continuing blood feuds over how we pretend to be elves forward is... dumb. Okay? Any questions - take them to PM or e-mail, please and thank you.

This is an example of another feature of 4E; Marking!

Marking is an action "Defender" classes (or in this case mods) can do to discourage monsters (or in this case edition warring posters) from attacking the rest of your party (or in this case the rest of the posters in this thread/any edition of D&D).

Note that Marking does not stop you from taking an action; it punishes you for it. Like how [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] can't magically prevent people from edition warring; but instead promises punishment if you do. The idea is the threat of punishment prevents edition warriors from, well, warring.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, if you think Tide of Iron and Thunderwave are pretty much the same, but Fire Bolt and a longbow attack are categorically different, I just.....I don't know, man.

Actually, even though you said that jokingly, it's still the same sort of thing, but in reverse: if "powers" are like giving spells to fighters, damage cantrips are like giving weapon attacks to casters. That's why I don't like them. And it seems like a lot of other people don't like them as well: I can't tell you how many times I've heard the player of a spellcaster say, "Well, I guess I'll use (insert damage cantrip)" in a tone of bored resignation.

Did they have the same tone in AD&D when they were forced to throw a dart or swing a staff? Maybe. I don't remember.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, even though you said that jokingly, it's still the same sort of thing, but in reverse: if "powers" are like giving spells to fighters, damage cantrips are like giving weapon attacks to casters. That's why I don't like them. And it seems like a lot of other people don't like them as well: I can't tell you how many times I've heard the player of a spellcaster say, "Well, I guess I'll use (insert damage cantrip)" in a tone of bored resignation.

Did they have the same tone in AD&D when they were forced to throw a dart or swing a staff? Maybe. I don't remember.

Well, we were all 30 years younger back then and weren't overstimulated by the Internet; everything seemed more exciting.

 

[Lylandra]

that's also what I meant when talking about too little utility besides combat.

5e has attack cantrips and very little spells as well (at least on lower levels) and I often just "ray of frost" people as well, but the spells can be used for utility more easily. 4e gives you more options in combat situations than 5e, at least on lower levels, as you regain some U and all E powers, so the Es are definitely "spamable".

Oh and I don't like the "Oh yeah I attack" martial option either that doesn't even provide additional benefits like marking or repositioning with your 4e at-wills.

 

[Lylandra]

Between this thread and the MAYA one I feel like it's 2008 again.

No, not all the classes in 4e played the same, even though they all used the same power acquisition structure. If you think a (let's just stick with the original 4e Player's Handbook) Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlord(*) all play the same... you're on drugs.

(*) Yeah I went with Warlord instead of Cleric for the Big 4 because (A) a pure PH Cleric is actually pretty lame, admittedly; and (B) the Warlord is *the* most 4e of the 4e classes so if you play 4e without a Warlord you're not playing 4e.

I very much agree. If you play 4e, get a Warlord. This class is SO much fun and so incredibly versatile. I'd argue that the WL is *the* essential 4e leader class.

Oh and I just remembered another bright side of 4e: It is the first edition with a really balanced psionics system that doesn't completely screw up your whole campaign.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh and I just remembered another bright side of 4e: It is the first edition with a really balanced psionics system that doesn't completely screw up your whole campaign.

Now THERE'S an example of how nostalgia wears rose-colored glasses: I read the above and couldn't help but smile fondly at the memories, even though you're right about the effects.

 

[Dausuul]

Did they have the same tone in AD&D when they were forced to throw a dart or swing a staff?

Yes, we did.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, we did.

Maybe it's because I never played casters but I honestly can't remember; however I think I agree with @TwoSix who said that back then it was all exciting.