D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

[Jacob Lewis]

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.

You mean like Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in 5e?

 

[Gadget]

I agree with most of the above except I would counter on two points: 1) There is not near the reliance on Magic Items that most of the other, previous editions, of D&D had; and 2) There is not as much "magic" in classes as 5e has (Martial classes have martial exploits, similar to a battle master maneuvers, but is not strictly magical).

 

[Imaro]

You mean like Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in 5e?

Those are spellcasters in 5e....

 

[Jer]

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. 5e classes have special abilities, but there aren't as many as there are in 4e.

Every class doesn't have "magic" - every class has "powers". There's a difference.

Fighters, warlords, and other martial classes in 4e have powers in the same way that Batman has powers in a Mutants & Masterminds game - the various maneuvers that Batman can make are given a mechanical expression as a "power" that has a narrative description that matches the expectation of what Batman can do. The fact that they are mechanically realized in the game as "powers" is a game mechanism that is supposed to be separate from the fiction.

Some folks also don't like that martial characters have daily/encounter powers - they fell like that 1/battle or 1/day restriction makes them "magical". OTOH, if you think about fights in narratives (action movies, comic books, etc.) there are often stunts that a character will only be able to get away with once in a fight - or even once in a whole movie/story. If you think about martial maneuvers that way then the restrictions make more sense - they're narrative restrictions on the fight scenes, not descriptions of a character's capability. Many people HATE this aspect of 4e and I understand that - if you want to think of a character's abilities as purely descriptions of "what they are capable of" you're likely not going to like that framework.

Some folks do not like this kind of rules framework - and that's okay. If you don't like the idea of "powers" that are just mechanical descriptions of maneuvers that a trained fighter has then 4e is not going to be the game for you. If you can't help but think of any "special ability" that a character has as "magic" then 4e will be a stumbling block. OTOH, if you're okay with viewing the "powers" that a fighter has as special maneuvers that they can perform, then 4e might work for you.

 

[SkidAce]

Sure, if you have a group that wants to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would certainly recommend giving 4e a shot. Personally, I think it’s a great system, but even if you find it’s not for you, it should be an enlightening experience.

 

[ART!]

First, 4e is pretty balanced. To the fact that people may call it over-balanced.

Second, everyone has powers and the classes' mechanical skeletons work basically the same. Each class has its mechanical schtick which correlates to this class' preferred role(s). Everything else is streamlined as well.

Third, there are class roles: Defender/Tank, Striker/DD, Leader/buffer/enabler, Controller/AE/CC

Fourth, combat is very strategic and tends to be long. Participants have huge HP pools and there are a lot of conditions to be tracked.

Fifth, no skill points. You are either trained or untrained. (I found the skill system to be one of the major downfalls of 4e as you cannot really do much to influence these numbers and I'm a skill girl)

Sixth, magic items. You need to read through lots of them. They are pivotal to your character's power.

Seventh, you can live without a dedicated healer as everyone can heal themselves a bit via second wind. Leaders are awesome though and they can provide a boost to healing.

Eigth, powers. Expect to read through a lot of them. Everyone gets them and gets to switch them regularly. They are mostly only combat-relevant though. AEDU system.

All in all I liked 4e for its idea of strategic combat and the fact that martials had a chance to shine, too. The roles system was great. Rituals are nifty, too. But there's a lack of utility (magical and non-magical), too much reliance on magic items that do too little in terms of fluff (feats suffer the same) and too little complexity outside of combat situations. At least compared to the really sweet combat system.

Based on my experience with the system this is a very good assessment.

I am usually reluctant to run spellcasters because of the extra work, but when our DM told me that non-spellcasters in 4E were about as complicated as spellcasters, I nearly leapt for joy. I ran a cleric for the first time in well over a decade.

If you like skills, 4E doesn't seem to care much about them. They're there, and you will use them, but why they weren't worked into the interconnected, balanced system of feats, powers, spells, etc. is beyond me.

 

[MrDM69]

That's not the case. All of the classes share the same design concepts, but there are several martial classes in the PHG (Fighter, Rogue, Warlord) that don't use magic.

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.

 

[MrDM69]

You mean like Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in 5e?

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Fewer? Yes. Easier to keep track of? Yes. More effective? ...my instinct says this is a misapprehension, but I suppose it depends what you mean by effective.

Anyway, 4e is definitely high on complexity compared to 5e, which is one of the reasons I haven’t gone back to it. Keep in mind the context though, after late 3.5, 4e was a significant reduction in complexity.