D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

[Manbearcat]

Who is still playing 4E? I'd to know if there are any resources out there that aren't connected to DnD Insider. My group has been playing 5E since release, but we find the system lacking in quality tactical combat. I'm hoping for constructive commentary. Thanks!

The only reason I'm not running a 4e game right now is because after two full games 1 - 30, we're spending our time on other systems (which have a lot of overlap with 4e but are subtly different). I'm running a Dungeon World game, a Hacker's Guide to Cortex + D&D game, and I'm exploring Torchbearer for my future dungeon crawl games. But none of these games will provide the full bore 4e experience (and 5e doesn't even attempt to touch it...by design...unfortunately or fortunately depending on your opinion). At some point, we'll run WotC D&D again and it will be 4e.

My advice to you would be to just use the books that you have available (and as a GM get DMG2 and RC). Intimately familiarize yourself with the math on a level by level basis. Develop or use stock monster theme templates. Always use some XP budget for traps/hazards. Always use some kind of challenging terrain. Work with your players to tie their quests to their Themes, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies. Hone your skill at running dynamic skill challenges (there are lots and lots and lots of threads by very proficient GMs on this) where your players (through their characters) have a stake in the outcome and full agency to dictate those outcomes. Push play toward conflict and play to find out what happens.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Who is still playing 4E? I'd to know if there are any resources out there that aren't connected to DnD Insider.

Playing & running 4e, still (in both cases, Paragon tier, ATM).

Also running 5e and playing 3.5, FWIW.

My group has been playing 5E since release, but we find the system lacking in quality tactical combat. I'm hoping for constructive commentary. Thanks!

You can impose some interesting tactical combat on 5e if you want, as the DM (you can do almost anything you want, as the DM, really). It might not balance or flow as neatly as in 4e, but it can be plenty detailed and tactical. You can use a grid or a play surface and measure everything, for instance. You can elaborate on the positioning and OA rules. You can allow 'clever use' of spells and improvised actions to impact and/or benefit from said detailed positioning. &c.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can impose some interesting tactical combat on 5e if you want, as the DM (you can do almost anything you want, as the DM, really). It might not balance or flow as neatly as in 4e, but it can be plenty detailed and tactical. You can use a grid or a play surface and measure everything, for instance. You can elaborate on the positioning and OA rules. You can allow 'clever use' of spells and improvised actions to impact and/or benefit from said detailed positioning. &c.

This sounds like an awful lot of work for very little gain...

 

[Oldtimer]

I'm currently running four 4E groups (three going through War of the Buring Sky and one struggling with the converted G1-3 adventures from Dragon). They will certainly go on for a long while.

Though my game actually more of a 3E clone with a lot (a whole lot!) of the mechanical ideas from 4E (and some 13th Age) combined with a bunch of my own house rules. Since it differs a lot from 4E in the presentation and details, I've had to build my own character builder and monster designer.

Regrettably all this work is in swedish, so I doubt you have much use for it.

 

[pemerton]

Analysis must start from a common baseline, but true common baselines universally valid at all possible tables simply cannot exist. On the one hand, it's pretty much incontrovertible that, if you haven't multiclassed yet, a multiclass feat is strictly superior to the skill training feat, since it gives an identical bonus (training in a skill) plus a huge other set of benefits (dabbling in another class). On the other hand, in a game where combat only happens once in a blue moon, and most powers are used for social/roleplay effect, the skill training feat might actually be worth taking after that; such a game is highly unlikely but not impossible. Guides cannot possibly be expected to take these sorts of things into account.

That said, though, I don't really disagree with your point. Much of the analysis is either left open-ended (e.g. "X is mediocre, but if you have/can get Y, it gets much better"), but even after that, there's still a degree to which highly complex effects from the DM are simplified out or ignored altogether.

On skill training, the invoker/wizard PC in my game has taken that feat twice, I think - he is the party "skill monkey" for everything but Thievery and social (and he's not bad at social either).

More generally, the players in my game have found that the optimiser guides tend to underestimate the value of mobility and synergy and perhaps overrate single-target damage.

 

[D'karr]

...the optimiser guides tend to underestimate the value of mobility and synergy and perhaps overrate single-target damage.

Which is pretty much what they are intended to do. All other considerations are secondary. The optimizers guides are designed to show how to eliminate opponents as quickly as possible (pile damage on single targets, rinse and repeat) which in turn mitigates damage to your "team" (less attackers remain).

They are good sources of focused analysis for their specified purpose. They are helpful but should not be taken as gospel. However anyone that is interested in sifting through the options that suck should at least give a good look at them because they are very effective at highlighting trap/crap options.

As for synergies the guides that deal with non-strikers usually have advice on synergies because that is one of the effective way to maximize damage/remove threats. A warlord with a charging barbarian wielded as a weapon is more effective than a warlord on his own.

However the guides have limited/narrow usability in a game that does not always heavily focus on combat, each table can be very different. Over time I've used all kinds of "techniques" from the DM side to keep combats interesting. Some of those techniques hamper/mitigate the optimization. When you have waves of attackers, lots of minions, etc., these tend to reduce the effectiveness of single target damage.

 

[Quickleaf]

Who is still playing 4E? I'd to know if there are any resources out there that aren't connected to DnD Insider. My group has been playing 5E since release, but we find the system lacking in quality tactical combat. I'm hoping for constructive commentary. Thanks!

While I'm no longer running it, we played the heck out of 4e and I have a lot of love for that system!

Probably the biggest lesson from 4e combat is: Forced Movement rocks.

Depending on how much tactical decision-making you want in your 5e combat, you might be able to satisfy your groups' desires with a single simple house rule:

When a character hits with an attack, they may initiate a shove (see PHB 195 "Shoving a Creature"), allowing them to either attempt to knock the target prone or push the target 5 feet. This happens in addition to the attack's regular damage.

In order to get the maximum value from this, however, you need to make your combat areas interesting with lots of hazards creatures can be pushed into.

Also, for players not running Battlemaster Fighters who want more tactical options, remind them that they can take the Martial Adept feat which allows them to take 2 battle master maneuvers - lots of players forget about that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On skill training, the invoker/wizard PC in my game has taken that feat twice, I think - he is the party "skill monkey" for everything but Thievery and social (and he's not bad at social either).

More generally, the players in my game have found that the optimiser guides tend to underestimate the value of mobility and synergy and perhaps overrate single-target damage.

That's fair. Kinda surprised about the skill training thing. Usually I'm so incredibly starved for feats, I'm trying to find excuses not to take something with such narrow benefits. There's no accounting for taste, I suppose!

 

[fjw70]

I am mostly playing 5e right now, but I did run a 4e one shot a couple months ago.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's fair. Kinda surprised about the skill training thing. Usually I'm so incredibly starved for feats, I'm trying to find excuses not to take something with such narrow benefits. There's no accounting for taste, I suppose!

I think a fair bit of the inclination for CharOp kind of optimization is premised upon the majority of encounters being fairly narrow combat scenarios with symmetric threats. There are several ways to mitigate this. If the majority of encounters are noncombat action scenes with high stakes, players will naturally invest deeper into the means to dictate outcomes therein. If a fair portion of combat encounter budgets are spent on hazards/traps (threats that can't be resolved via HP ablation/nova), then players will inevitably invest in resource suites to counteract/avoid them and forced movement to afflict enemies with them. If monsters (auras) or team monster (synergy) routinely punish lack of finesse/mobility/active mitigation, players will be less inclined to invest in brunt force/nova options.

Obviously the inverse is very true as well. My guess is that a fair number of 4e GMs hewed to that inverse (at least at its inception and a few years into its life cycle).