D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

[Jacob Lewis]

Those are spellcasters in 5e....

Exactly. They are Fighters and Rogues who take an option to become spellcasting classes. Fighters and Rogues are not considered native spell-casting classes, as [MENTION=6998211]MrDM69[/MENTION] suggests. But the options exist in 5e. So why is it difficult to imagine a similar idea for 4e, (even though several others have clearly (and repeatedly) explained that powers in 4e are *NOT* the same as spells in other editions)?

 

[dave2008]

I've heard this too. I have the 4e Player's Handbook, and it seems that all of the classes have magic, and I prefer only the spellcasters to be able to use magic.

This is, generally, incorrect. Martial characters of non-magic "exploits" (versus prayers and spells for casters) that allow them to sometimes do things that seem magical. Some people have a hard time explaining them as non-magical, but others do not. It comes down to your creativity and viewpoint. However, by RAW "exploits" are not magical in 4e.

 

[dave2008]

The fighter has too many features or exploits to keep track of at once. In a way I think of these as magic or spells. 5e has fewer and more effective features. It's much easier to keep track of.

If that is your viewpoint, then you might be interested in the 4e essentials line. There are some more traditional classes in those books. For example, the "Slayer" is a simplified fighter similar in concept to 5e's "Champion"

 

[dave2008]

Those are optional archetypes. The 4e magic, features, exploits, or whatever you want to call them are not as optional, and just confuse the game.

I think you should try it before you make a determination. It is really not as confusing as it looks. I started my sons and there friends with 4e when they were 6-8 yrs old and they had no issues with the power system. If they can handle it, I bet you can too.

 

[ART!]

I played 4E for about a year on a mostly weekly basis, and have now been playing 5E lamost weekly for 2 years and I have to say: I didn't think I would miss the daily, encounter, and at-will power structure of 4E, but I really do. I think it was easier to understand - as I recall - than how 5E has it set up, although I get why 5E does things the way it does.

 

[dave2008]

Call them what you like, there's too much of it and it compilcates the game (too many "powers" to keep track of at a time).

You OP seems to suggest that you haven't played it. So how do you know it overly complicates your game? Playing is believing. If your interested, give it a try, but there is not much wisdom in shutting it down before trying.

Like I mentioned before, it is really not that complex. If it is to much for they provide "quick builds" for you if I remember correctly.

 

[HJFudge]

I think if you are going to try 4e (and I think you should!) you should try it with a group who played and enjoyed 4e.

Having someone who hated 4e run a game of 4e for you is uh...not going to give you an accurate experience.

 

[Mistwell]

I've heard that 4e is pretty good, but I want some more opinions before I start playing.

I played it for many years and had a lot of fun with it. It's not my preferred edition right now, but it has a lot of good things going for it.

One underrated element of it is some of the books, and some of the adventures (particularly the later adventures) are really quite good. For example, Open Grave was my favorite book dealing with necromancy and death in D&D. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is a very solid book. 4e had a good Manual of the Planes too. In terms of adventures, Madness at Gardmore Abbey is very very good. I liked Halls of Undermountain too.

 

[iserith]

I think if you are going to try 4e (and I think you should!) you should try it with a group who played and enjoyed 4e.

Having someone who hated 4e run a game of 4e for you is uh...not going to give you an accurate experience.

Agreed. I purposefully ran a game for a group of people who had never played D&D 4e, but had heard plenty of bad things. At the end, I asked what they thought and the consensus was "I don't understand what people hated about it - that was awesome!"

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know for sure, but many have said that 3.5 was the best edition. I've never played 3.5 or really even looked at any of the books, but I would like to try it. Also when it comes to reductions in complexity, I like how 5e made only one Monster Manual, Player handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide.

I always think it’s worth trying past editions, to expand one’s understanding of the game and its history. That said, if 4e is too complex for you, you’ll HATE 3.5.