log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

D'karr

Adventurer
The gods have a backup for you if the fates are not kind.

Offline Character Builder with CBLoader. Really fun, especially if you understand code.

Yes, there are options besides the online tools. I moved completely to offline because the online tools are not as flexible. Even with some of the bugs these work fine.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

hugodlr

Explorer
Yes, there are options besides the online tools. I moved completely to offline because the online tools are not as flexible. Even with some of the bugs these work fine.

I've heard of both - tried once . . . about a year ago I think? to download them and work with them, but ministry & work take up a big chunk of my time. Maybe I'll try again over Spring Break - my group still does 4E and I run two 4E games @ my school, so if it does get taken down having a backup would be nice. Thanks!
 





No idea if it's paid, subscription, or pirated. Just 'Hero something' and they seem to have all the 4e info (one of them's a pixie for instance).

http://www.wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab&page=4th_edition

Commercial software. Pretty well regarded, though I've never used it. I'd note its a full Windows application, for all the good and bad of that, though there's also a Mac version (which I doubt runs on iOS). Apparently it also integrates with 'd20pro', which is a commercial VTT product (one I've never actually seen in use, no idea how good it is).

Hero Lab is pretty much the standard these days for CBs, it has modules that support all the different flavors of D&D-like games.
 

RedSiegfried

First Post
[D][/D]Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I used HeroLab for 4e, it required that you have a DDI account so that you can download and install the actual data from WoTC. Also IIRC, you only needed to use the account one time or whenever you needed to refresh/update the data. But since WoTC isn't updating DDI anymore, you probably just have to sign in once or if you ever reinstall HeroLab. It worked well enough for me, though personally I prefer WoTC's online or offline builder. If the online builder goes away, I'll probably give HeroLab 4e another try. I also have the offline builder from WoTC fully updated and installed and that is a great option too.

Keep in mind too that if you use HeroLab for other games, you pay a license for each game - you don't get to make any character for any game unless you've paid the license for that game. In the case of Pathfinder, you basically pay to add each expansion/splatbook. But it's all a one-time fee, no subscription required. (One again, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used HL in a while.)
 

Jessica

First Post
I DMed some of The Slaying Stone this weekend for a group of three people(two weren't able to show up this weekend so I made some companion NPCs in advance) with one of them being an experienced 4e player and the other two being new to 4e(with one of them being my roommate who is still new-ish to D&D in general) and everyone seemed to have a really good time. After my roommate had numerous bad experiences with 5e*, she absolutely loved 4e. She felt her Ranger had so much more to do every round. She always plays archery-based characters and will almost always play the ranger/hunter type class whenever it's available but she thought the 5e Ranger was pretty boring.



*A massive portion of those bad experiences were really mediocre DMs(either boring DMs or ones who seemed to have it out for her or ones who didn't bother to read the module they were running or who didn't even bother to learn how to play 5e before running 5e) and the second biggest factor was how boring mechanically Rangers were to her at low levels.
 

I DMed some of The Slaying Stone this weekend for a group of three people(two weren't able to show up this weekend so I made some companion NPCs in advance) with one of them being an experienced 4e player and the other two being new to 4e(with one of them being my roommate who is still new-ish to D&D in general) and everyone seemed to have a really good time. After my roommate had numerous bad experiences with 5e*, she absolutely loved 4e. She felt her Ranger had so much more to do every round. She always plays archery-based characters and will almost always play the ranger/hunter type class whenever it's available but she thought the 5e Ranger was pretty boring.



*A massive portion of those bad experiences were really mediocre DMs(either boring DMs or ones who seemed to have it out for her or ones who didn't bother to read the module they were running or who didn't even bother to learn how to play 5e before running 5e) and the second biggest factor was how boring mechanically Rangers were to her at low levels.

In all fairness to 5e, the Ranger is reputed to be pretty much the worst class in the game. IN GENERAL I think the 5e classes are really quite good, within the constraints of 5e's flavor of D&D. They cover a lot of character concepts in a pretty compact fashion. If the game had a 4e feel and more of a 4e-based design to it, I think it might have been just what we were looking for.
 

thanson02

Explorer
In all fairness to 5e, the Ranger is reputed to be pretty much the worst class in the game. IN GENERAL I think the 5e classes are really quite good, within the constraints of 5e's flavor of D&D. They cover a lot of character concepts in a pretty compact fashion. If the game had a 4e feel and more of a 4e-based design to it, I think it might have been just what we were looking for.
5E Beastmaster Ranger was an issue. No one I talked to had an issue with the Hunter Ranger (and the one I made worked fine).

However, the rangers in 4E are fun and I enjoyed playing them. 4E had more options, but they were more streamlined and to the point. The 5E Ranger options seem more general so you can get more creative with them. It is a style preference.
 

5E Beastmaster Ranger was an issue. No one I talked to had an issue with the Hunter Ranger (and the one I made worked fine).

However, the rangers in 4E are fun and I enjoyed playing them. 4E had more options, but they were more streamlined and to the point. The 5E Ranger options seem more general so you can get more creative with them. It is a style preference.

5e tends to present an entire concept in a single package. 4e makes you build towards a lot of things, constantly selecting more feats and powers that collectively give you what you want. So, sometimes 5e's method is a little bit coarse, you may not get EXACTLY what you want, but they DO have just enough feats (and MCing if you really want to go there) to usually get it very close. In that sense it was executed with a deft hand.
 

MwaO

Explorer
5e tends to present an entire concept in a single package. 4e makes you build towards a lot of things, constantly selecting more feats and powers that collectively give you what you want. So, sometimes 5e's method is a little bit coarse, you may not get EXACTLY what you want, but they DO have just enough feats (and MCing if you really want to go there) to usually get it very close. In that sense it was executed with a deft hand.

There's a rather big hole if you want to play a complex weapon-user in 5e. Especially if your DM doesn't look at the short rest mechanic in the DM guide suggested way.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
If the game had a 4e feel and more of a 4e-based design to it, I think it might have been just what we were looking for.
Yup, if 5e was an improved version of 4e, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately, it's more like 1e with a pinch of 4e to make it more palatable for modern RPG players.
 

There's a rather big hole if you want to play a complex weapon-user in 5e. Especially if your DM doesn't look at the short rest mechanic in the DM guide suggested way.

I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

Personally I prefer 4e, but I think there COULD be somewhat of a happy middle where you could for instance just not make many real big choices and you'd get a fairly generic version of your character concept, and then if you're really into it you can do some sort of swaps and jiggers and whatever to make it do exactly what you like. Likewise a set of fairly generalized powers, for a fighter they can be just scaling versions of 'Hit Harder', 'Push the Guy Back', 'Maximum Defense', 'Take it for a Buddy', etc. You could then pick more detailed and 4e-like powers instead if you have a very specific shtick you want to do.

Harping on my own 4e hacking strategy again, the "when you get boons you level up" concept is working out well, because you don't really get 'builds' per-se. Its much more organic, thus there's not the high level of tweaking everything. You can relax things like requirements for accessing stuff from other classes/archetypes, which means a lot of stuff is just way simpler. There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that! If you can, great (and its really up to the DM as to how hard to make you work for that, but generally a boon is a reward for an 'adventure', so make it an adventure and grant the boon, you can see how the logic really 'just works' with this approach).
 

Yup, if 5e was an improved version of 4e, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately, it's more like 1e with a pinch of 4e to make it more palatable for modern RPG players.

I'd say its mechanically more of a tweaked 3.5 with a bit of stuff pinched from Essentials, tweaked to play like 2e.

I don't consider it an 'improved version' of ANYTHING because it doesn't do a style of play that interests me that much, but its always good to objectively understand strengths and weaknesses. 5e is very good at being 5e, and you CAN learn lessons from its design and apply them to more 4e-like games.
 

darkbard

Adventurer
There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that!

I couldn't disagree with this approach more! I view 4E's ability to separate mechanics from fluff utterly and completely to be one of the system's greatest strengths. If a player wishes to poach a power for his Fighter from the Wizard list because of its synergy with what the character can already do, to my mind, it makes so much more sense to refluff the power as an extension of her already developed martial abilities rather than requiring the character to develop a narrative reason to become a spellcaster and tack on an entirely new dimension to the character.

Sure, if one wanted to pursue a narrative component that sees the Fighter somehow accessing arcane energies through boon or study, etc. that's entirely possible too. I just don't see the need to force the narrative to accommodate what may only be a mechanical choice.
 

MwaO

Explorer
I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

It isn't about the level of choice, it is what you can do with the choice and what options actually justify the use.

Basically, a complex weapon user should have the following:
A variety of options to use in every combat.
Mechanical incentive to use that variety of different options in every combat.

At the moment, there's really no incentive to not use the same option repeatedly. In fact, there's some strong incentive to gain specific options(bonuses to hit) so as to be able to max out the advantage of the two big extra damage feats in the game. Because doing so basically doubles damage output with no other option even coming close...
 

thanson02

Explorer
I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

Personally I prefer 4e, but I think there COULD be somewhat of a happy middle where you could for instance just not make many real big choices and you'd get a fairly generic version of your character concept, and then if you're really into it you can do some sort of swaps and jiggers and whatever to make it do exactly what you like. Likewise a set of fairly generalized powers, for a fighter they can be just scaling versions of 'Hit Harder', 'Push the Guy Back', 'Maximum Defense', 'Take it for a Buddy', etc. You could then pick more detailed and 4e-like powers instead if you have a very specific shtick you want to do.

Harping on my own 4e hacking strategy again, the "when you get boons you level up" concept is working out well, because you don't really get 'builds' per-se. Its much more organic, thus there's not the high level of tweaking everything. You can relax things like requirements for accessing stuff from other classes/archetypes, which means a lot of stuff is just way simpler. There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that! If you can, great (and its really up to the DM as to how hard to make you work for that, but generally a boon is a reward for an 'adventure', so make it an adventure and grant the boon, you can see how the logic really 'just works' with this approach).
Touching base on the dual weapons use, I know a ton of folks that took full advantage of the attack powers that were minor actions as their two weapon fighting options. Granted, there was not alot if them, but it was an option.

My personal opinion is that they should have done this with the dual weapons powers of the fighter, ranger, and the barbarian from the beginning instead of multiple attacks as just a standard action. It would have opened the door for more options for players.
 

I couldn't disagree with this approach more! I view 4E's ability to separate mechanics from fluff utterly and completely to be one of the system's greatest strengths. If a player wishes to poach a power for his Fighter from the Wizard list because of its synergy with what the character can already do, to my mind, it makes so much more sense to refluff the power as an extension of her already developed martial abilities rather than requiring the character to develop a narrative reason to become a spellcaster and tack on an entirely new dimension to the character.

Sure, if one wanted to pursue a narrative component that sees the Fighter somehow accessing arcane energies through boon or study, etc. that's entirely possible too. I just don't see the need to force the narrative to accommodate what may only be a mechanical choice.

I think that's a slightly different kettle of fish. Yes, if you, as a fighter, want to pick up a spell, particularly one that is already pretty appropriate for a melee combatant (like a swordmage power or something) and perhaps refluff it a bit, or you have some modest narrative justification for acquiring this one ability, then great, there's not some big burden. If its entirely refluffed, then its just a new fighter power, which is fine. I'm just talking about more what 4e's MC feats were about, power swapping, so you could say fire off a fireball without being a wizard. There HAD to be a feat cost to that for fighters in 4e, because its purely a player resource, ANY player can do it at any level up. If you could just pick any power in the game, then class would be almost meaningless. In my approach though, you're unlikely to want to go to the huge trouble of spending a year at wizard's college to gain some spellcasting ability, PLUS it will level you up, and you only get however many levels, which means you may be losing out on fighter stuff you want. Its subtle, but there's more of a feeling of trade-offs involved.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top