D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[Jaeger]

In reading this thread while reading through and digesting my copies of the 4e rules - AbdulAlhazred's post here really helped me clarify some thoughts about the game.

I skipped the whole late 2e to 4e era and only played 5e for the first time this past year. I spent all that intervening time playing almost every other game not called D&D. I got the 4e rules as a reference to see what was done with the game. (And honestly to see what the whole fuss was about.)

So I really have zero emotional investment in what this or that edition of D&D did "better".

Beyond that it is just IMPORTANT. A fighter can use specific class features against opponents within his reach when they move or attack. This is the heart of what the class does, not just one piece. Likewise flanking opponents and getting CA on them is a pretty important consideration, and it is defined in terms of the grid. This is, again, BECAUSE of the desire to make things transparent to the players. It should never arise that there's a doubt about who is where that has to be resolved by the GM, or about exactly where an AoE falls on the map. These are all things that can be unclear in other editions.

One thing that became clear to me was that in order to maximize what your PC class does: You must pay attention to how things work, and what is going on.

That is, it is a fairly codified and process-driven rules structure. One of the implications of this is that both the players and the GM can look at the situation and decide what it means and what they are going to do about it. This makes 4e inherently amenable to genuine tactical analysis, and thus you can select character options in such a way as to make various tactics work for you, or to thwart certain types of options your opponents might try. This also couples with the combat roles, which provide a ready-made structuring of tactical situations on both the party and the monster side. The strict codification of the grid, action economy, etc. furthers that.

My impression - this codification drives a group to engage with the game in a very specific way to take advantage of everything in the rules.

It does not strike me as an edition of the game where you can really play fast and loose with the rules.

falls to the GM to arbitrate in every element of combat such that there are really on a very few optimum ways to play, and they tend to work regardless of what the opposition is, for the most part.

Or another way of putting it: The way the GM has to arbitrate more of the combat (And thus situational and environmental aspects are pure GM fiat) - players will naturally invest in attacks that are not as dependent on GM Fiat/specific environmental or situational conditions.

Some people seem to have found this preciseness inhibiting. Others objected to the way it puts the players on nearly an equal footing with the GM in being able to say what is what. I assume other people just didn't enjoy that aesthetic.

One thing I would say is that it is my impression that 4e drives players towards a more specific playstyle (i.e. Having to engage with the game rules in a more specific way) than other editions of the game due to the preciseness of its rules.

The preciseness of its rules also drives the need for more consistent knowledge of the rules from the group as a whole.

So I can easily see how a lot of D&D groups bounced off of this hard.

Especially groups that had players that engaged with the rules at different levels of 'mastery'.

Conversely if the style of game 4e delivered ticked your fun boxes in the right way: I can see how those who liked 4e - really liked it a lot. I can easily see how moving to what 5e does would be viewed as a big step back by 4e fans.

I do like some of the ideas I see in 4e, and I will do a one shot with it to see how it works in the wild.

But I also recognize that there is no way in hell 4e is a good fit for my group for a long term fantasy campaign. I have several players that will not engage with the rules enough to make it sing like it should.

 

[Scribe]

Eventually, more monster books are made. Now the designers know the system better and are hopefully more aware of the system's emergent properties. But at the same time, the iconic monster concepts were already used for the first monster book! So you might have a better idea on how a troll should be, but the MM already has a troll in it. So now you need to make it a Mountain Troll or something like that, or avoid the troll connection entirely and call it a Gaznab or something. But a gaznab will never be as cool or iconic as a troll, so your superior design will languish while poorly-designed trolls are all over the place.

I think the new Monster Book should fix this, hopefully.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing that became clear to me was that in order to maximize what your PC class does: You must pay attention to how things work, and what is going on.


My impression - this codification drives a group to engage with the game in a very specific way to take advantage of everything in the rules.

It does not strike me as an edition of the game where you can really play fast and loose with the rules.

And I'd say that you are (understandably) confusing two related concepts. Precision and ability - and then not taking into account what GURPS from memory calls the Bag of Sand issue ("If sand in the eyes were to work every time fighters would stop carrying around swords and start carrying around bags of sand").

Or another way of putting it: The way the GM has to arbitrate more of the combat (And thus situational and environmental aspects are pure GM fiat) - players will naturally invest in attacks that are not as dependent on GM Fiat/specific environmental or situational conditions.

This is an absolute misunderstanding of 4e. The environment is easier to evaluate for the GM in 4e than in literally any other edition (DMG p42 provides benchmarks for one thing and there are consistent rules for pushing people into hazardous terrain). And the abilities the players have are much more likely to have incidental pushes attached so NPCs are much more likely to end up in any hazardous terrain than they are in any other edition (I went into the expected result of a fight on the docks in this post).

The ability to handle environmental hazards is effectively a core DMing skill in 4e unlike any other edition. The real difference however is that using the environment is something you do without needing to adapt the rules.

One thing I would say is that it is my impression that 4e drives players towards a more specific playstyle (i.e. Having to engage with the game rules in a more specific way) than other editions of the game due to the preciseness of its rules.

Here I think you're talking about 3.X. 4e rules are only a little more precise than 5e rules if you're using the 5e battlemap. And the parts that are more precise in terms of skill modifiers IME are always the first things dropped and no one ever misses them. If you say that the 4e skill system is the 5e skill system with very slightly different pluses you aren't far off.

In terms of precision on the battlemap your position and your movement are more or less fixed by the rules in any edition. There's no more and no less precision in terms of what you are and here you can attack or what's in the environment. Speeds are what they say, positions are what's right there, terrain's what's right there.

Where 4e gives more is that they give martial classes actual additional tricks rather than simply attacking. So one of the 4e at will fighter attacks they can choose at level 1 in the PHB is Tide of Iron which, as one of multiple possible options, means that they can drive the person they hit back 5ft and follow up as long as the person isn't more than one size larger than they are.

The big difference between 4e and other editions in terms of precision is that fighters and martial types have the same amount of precision as casters - and it's closer to the precision of fighter types than it is to casters in most editions.

But I also recognize that there is no way in hell 4e is a good fit for my group for a long term fantasy campaign. I have several players that will not engage with the rules enough to make it sing like it should.

The actual rules are simple by D&D standards (probably slightly more complex than 5e but simpler than literally any other edition). Where people tend to bounce is (a) the dependence on the battlemap; because it makes such use of movement (which isn't hard) theatre of the mind is hard and (b) that unlike any other edition fighters don't simply say "I attack it" and need to pace themselves with abilities including attack combinations that you recover after a 5 minute rest and even an overnight one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The actual rules are simple by D&D standards (probably slightly more complex than 5e but simpler than literally any other edition). Where people tend to bounce is (a) the dependence on the battlemap; because it makes such use of movement (which isn't hard) theatre of the mind is hard and (b) that unlike any other edition fighters don't simply say "I attack it" and need to pace themselves with abilities including attack combinations that you recover after a 5 minute rest and even an overnight one.

I think this ignores how much people were used to doing a lot of, effectively, using at-wills in other editions, not just for fighters, but almost all the fighting related classes and even things like sorcerers. To get used to using Encounters and Dailies is not a trivial jump for them, and it becomes less and less trivial over time.

You're right that its not any worse than keeping track of prepared casters were in prior editions, but an awful lot of people didn't play prepared casters in prior editions for just that reason. Some of the Essentials classes can help some here, but only some.

The truth is, the degree of engagement 4e demands to get value out of it is a virtue for some and a deficit for others, and I don't think understating the latter does this sort of discussion any good. That's an issue entirely outside the look-and-feel problems I had with it.

 

[cowpie]

4e's Skill Tree character builds favored tactical decision making. They also required elaborate prep on the DM's part to challenge the players, and let them take advantage of their character builds.

For me, this was a weakness of the system, because the prep time incentivized the DM into making linear dungeons, with elaborate set-piece encounters. Supposedly, this had to do with WOTC's plans to implement the system into a digital tabletop that was due to be released in tandem with the tabletop version. The 4e system would be ported into the VTT, making the book keeping easier to manage. There were some personal tragedies with the development team which completely nixed the digital project, so WOTC was left with a TTRPG system that proved complicated at higher levels, and more laborious to prep.

Earlier editions (B/X, 1st, 2nd) had simpler rules, short stat blocks, and quicker prep time. IMHO, this lightened up the DM's workload, freed him up to develop the exploration and RP pillars of plays. It's a lot easier to "Jacquay" up a dungeon, when it only takes 5 minutes to think up an encounter, and jot down the stats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's what the Epic Destinies were for. Did you ever read them? Most of them had some truly awesome abilities!

I'm pretty sure the Spells section alone is more than 3% of the PHB...

And your 'partner DM' thing is super well meaning, but lacking solid rules has, historically, always penalized the martial types more than the casters. Being able to affect the world around you and not rely entirely on arguing with your DM is important for ALL characters, not just Casters.

Also, it's generally accepted that the 4e Adventures were pretty bad. A lot of them felt like they were written for 3e and just had 4e monsters slapped in with boring combat areas and not fully utilizing all the tools of the edition.


Yeah, I disagree with that.

A level is worth the same XP for one class to another. If that experience isn't equivalent then it makes NO SENSE for them to be worth the same XP.
If a Fighter levelled up faster than a Wizard I'd be on board with your interpretation, but if they have the same XP requirement then their levels HAVE to be the same. It also, again, makes the Fighter feel like an inferior character, a sort of 'default guy' that other classes are built on top of rather than a class of their own.

That was one advantage of the pre-3e xp system. Having classes level at different rates made that story make sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That was one advantage of the pre-3e xp system. Having classes level at different rates made that story make sense.

Eh. In practice it was usually invisible for most of most group's lifespan because the numbers got so large. When a Fighter had to get to 8000 and a magic-user to 10000, they were both going to likely take an enormous amount of time grinding up through 6-7000.

 

[Mordhau]

The only real advantage of different XP tables is that it forces all players to engage with the XP system. Because everyone bumps up at different times and everyone is tracking XP, XP is able to feel significant even when you aren't going up levels.

It does nothing for balance between classes.

One thing that 4e recognises is that there's a big problem with hit point damage in that when you do HP damage nothing happens in the fiction. By that I mean you can describe something happening, but the description is inconsequential colour, it makes no difference to how the monster works until it reaches 0 hps. If you do enough damage in one go this is hidden somewhat because it still feels significant, but it can still be frustrating when all you are doing is making numbers go down (especially against big tough solo monsters that can take lots of hits).

4e pretty much makes sure that you are always doing something more than just hit point damage*. There is almost always something additional that happens, even if that's a slight push for better position, or a shift that sets up a flank - something to connect the rules with some kind of progress or change in the fiction.

*well not Rangers

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e's Skill Tree character builds favored tactical decision making. They also required elaborate prep on the DM's part to challenge the players, and let them take advantage of their character builds.

For me, this was a weakness of the system, because the prep time incentivized the DM into making linear dungeons, with elaborate set-piece encounters.

YMMV. For me "elaborate prep" roughly half the time meant "drawing the map in response to PC plans and picking the monsters out of the monster manual right then and there at the table" because the monsters were actually good and engaging if you had a mix of them. On occasion because the math was so transparent and the PCs came up with a ridiculous plan that took them somewhere I was not expecting at all I've invented the monster stats in my head while drawing the map and sorting out initiative. There are systems I've done less prep for than 4e - but they've all, without exception, been deliberate freeform ones.

I certainly prep much more for 5e combats than I ever needed to for 4e because the math is nowhere near as clean, the monster design is nowhere near as good or synergistic, and the statblocks are far far worse. (As for having to "let them take advantage of their character builds", that's their job).

This doesn't mean I haven't prepped occasional actual set piece battles but they've been story arc capstones with e.g. the building falling down around the PCs as there's a race against time to save the McGuffin. But an ordinary 4e fight by a docks (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) that I've thrown together having prepped nothing because I expected the PCs to be in the other half of town will be almost epic setpiece level, requiring tactics and with engaging and interactive terrain.

Earlier editions (B/X, 1st, 2nd) had simpler rules, short stat blocks, and quicker prep time. IMHO, this lightened up the DM's workload, freed him up to develop the exploration and RP pillars of plays. It's a lot easier to "Jacquay" up a dungeon, when it only takes 5 minutes to think up an encounter, and jot down the stats.

The 4e statblocks might be slightly longer - but jotting down the stats takes almost no time. I mean the maths literally fits on a business card and even if you aren't homebrewing you can just take your XP budget and go shopping out of the MM.

All you need to make 4e combats sing is two monster types and a relevant piece of terrain to engage with and they will, in my experience, be a match for the very best published setpieces in any other edition. Like I say it's the difference between green screen and on location.

But what you're not taking into account is just how disposable the monsters are in TSR-era editions. It might take five minutes to think up the stats and jot them down (unless they are casters when you need to look up and jot down their spells) - but most of those monsters are going to go down in a round or two. They're a speedbump. Meanwhile if you spend ten minutes thinking up a 4e combat encounter you're going to have that last the best part of an hour. 4e combat prep is therefore vastly more efficient than combat prep for earlier editions in terms of reward for time spent which gives me far more time to prep to make the exploration and social interaction good./

The other issue is that 4e simply isn't well suited to the dungeon and speedbump fights IME. I mean 4e combat is good. But so is chocolate. This doesn't mean that I want a triple chocolate cake with chocolate sauce as my main course every meal. If I'm running in a classical dungeon I need to cut the combats and merge them or it's room fight after room fight in frequently not terribly engaging combat environments (because dungeons have solid floors, walls, and ceilings much of the time). And with each taking about three times as long not only are they not very good we're going to drown in them.

One of my biggest pieces of advice for 4e DMs is that the combat is awesome - and keep the quantity relatively low. 4e has an out of combat experience that's at least a match for any other edition (the skill rules are very different from 5e and you have rituals and utility powers, plus better improv tools as the DM); it's a very close match for 5e in almost all ways out of combat and I'll take 5e over the excessive fiddliness of 3.X or the "just use your stats and see if you can ever make NWPs relevant" of older D&D. But the combat is dessert not the main course.

 

[Nefermandias]

I think the new Monster Book should fix this, hopefully.

Judging by Fizban's, it most likely won't.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Alright, so the rest of my day was rough and I didn't manage to get my previous post in before things happened in the thread. So I'm just going to use this post to create clarity around points given how they have been twisted in the argument.



First off, I didn't think the whole "Marking" thing would become a complete fustercluck, but here we are. I want to go back to my original point: that Marking is meant to create a real tactical consideration that is very hard to actually do in turn-based systems. The main argument against it is obviously about suspension of disbelief with possible artifacts of the game, though I find these split into two categories: overall realism and edge cases. The latter to me doesn't really matter that much: that oozes can be marked just isn't a big deal and these sorts of things can be found in any game. I don't find them to be deal breakers.

I find the realism argument to be a bit more pertinent, but also flawed: turn-based combat already has a bunch of problems that make asking for full simulationism impossible, and thus I find trying to get the general "feel" to be much more important. My example would be something my group has termed the "empty space" problem. I'm going to use some pictures because I think it's way easier to show rather than explain through text.

So here we have 8 characters in a small box. Now let's move one guy across to the open square.

Boom. No problem. Now let's start doing a few more moves.

So maybe you see where I'm going with this, maybe you don't. But let's say I continue the full cycle with all 8 guys. In the rules, there should be no problems. However, there's a very real problem with this: you have 8 people cycling through a 5 foot square in 6 seconds in a frankly impossible way. That action would be difficult (if not impossible) for a professional dance team, let alone a bunch of D&D mooks. But this is totally possible to do in the game because in a game, you either in a space or you are not; there's no "beaten path" where someone is currently moving through where they could potentially collide like football players.

Now, am I proposing we starting using impulse rules or some other fix? Hell no, because you're just not going to fix that problem in a turn-based system (without a Phoenix Command-level of rules and detail). You kind of have to deal with people being able to spontaneously move through areas like they were an elite SWAT team stacking and breaching a door. While you can (rather easily) create unrealistic artifacts in the system, it's outweighed because you can keep the general feel of combat correct with turn-based movement and a few additions.

I have a similar view of marking. It's trying to solve a complicated problem that D&D generally does not deal with but I think is interesting: the idea of threat and interference. It's really easy for GMs (even ones who are trying to be favorable to players) to ignore fighters in favor of hammering easier targets. You can just run past them and, outside a possible AoO, you can hammer that mage without problem.

Marking creates something closer to real life, where someone could actively threaten/distract/interfere/occupy someone in a way that makes it difficult to just immediately choose the easy target. The idea of a "defender" suddenly works in a way that it just didn't previously, and you create interesting situations that have verisimilitude with what we associate with combat: if a mage is in trouble, a Fighter can run in, hit a guy, and suddenly occupy that guy in a way that he just can't in other editions. It's only for 6 seconds (as @EzekielRaiden pointed out), so if you run away it's only a temporary thing. But if you stay and continue marking someone, it gives this idea of a Fighter really locking into combat with someone in a way that doesn't happen in other editions. And while people can complain about the idea of "distracting" an ooze, I think the second half of that equation (being able to respond to attacks) to absolutely be something characterful and realistic.



To move to a second point, I wanted to make clear something on mechanics and hidden complexity, because I feel that it got completely twisted and strawman'd in a way that my actual line of argumentation was lost. I want to say that I do think that 4E is the more complex of the two games; unequivocally, it has more moving parts, more modifiers, and it wants you engaging with that complexity to succeed.

The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.

This is what I mean by "unintended crunch". You have to learn a whole lot more individualized information because there's really no assurances that any two things will work on the same principles. This is big in spells, but perhaps most important in character-building, where there are big trap options (subclasses and arguably a class or two) as well as powerful combinations. If you're a GM, you have to be aware of how these combinations are going to work, and (as I did) work with players who really want to try something with a class that is not exactly great (I'm sure people can figure out which one that is). And it's alright to do that, but I find having to do that to be more of a failing of the game rather than representing a strength.

This is where creating more rules can paradoxically cut down on complexity. Giving more guidelines, creating systems that standardize certain effects or rules can be very helpful in creating that upfront complexity that reduces the backend complexity that generally happens "in the moment" and can slow down a game. For example, 4E's power system means that every player is going to know how all classes function: their individual roles and powers will be the different, but they'll understand how to play powers, the value of Encounter and Daily Powers, and how to build a character.

Let me be clear: I don't think it's badwrongfun to have the sort of backend complexity of 5E. I just disagree with people who talk about a "lack of complexity": rather, I find that it's more that 5E just doesn't actively shine a light on it.

As a related matter, I find that giving structure can be helpful to players and GM. You don't have to put out a bunch of hard rules for everything, but having clear guidelines for judging how to give things can be helpful. One of the first things I found was problematic for my players was them just not knowing what their skills could really do. I ended up copying the 4E skill usages, and that was useful for giving them an idea of what they could do with their skills instead of asking me all the time if they could do something. It's good that an open system can work for some, but I like not having to some set skill usages instead of having to litigate everything.



And I know I got accused of this, but I'd like to say I don't hate 5E. I enjoyed it for quite a while, but I've found it more tiring over the last few years more than anything. It's a fine game, but I find that it's got a lot of flaws that are glossed over (even by myself, as I know I argued with @EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon on other boards about it) when brought up. I'm not really a super 4E fan, either, as I have very limited experience with it (though I might be getting my first long-term game of it off the ground; I'll know in a few weeks). It still has a lot of classes I find to be very cool and interesting, even if they have some really notable flops in there.

 

[Staffan]

The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

Ugh! I hadn't spotted Insect Plague. That's a mess of a spell.

There are, using unwritten rules for this sort of stuff that normally apply in 5e and I think always apply in 4e in that it's either "At the start or when enters" for things that trigger immediately and you aren't meant to be able to avoid or "at the end of your turn" for cases where a retreat is appropriate. I'm pretty sure 4e has both for different effects; the 4e power rules are a markup language.

Insect Plague is simply badly written as it's "when enters or at the end of your turn". This means that:

• Someone who starts in the insects and walks out doesn't take damage but someone who walks in and walks out does
• The rules are ambiguous on whether someone who walks into the plague and ends their turn there takes damage twice over. (Is "or" implicitly "OR" or "XOR"?)
• It's a mess thematically; why are insects tearing down people immediately when they enter but fine with people starting there. It's one of these many edge cases that's annoying but doesn't fundamentally break things.

Spirit Guardians on the other hand is fine and works exactly the way I'd expect; the main difference I'd expect in 4e is that the entire effect could be written in about a quarter of the word count using phrases like "Enemies in burst" rather than "When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it."

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

Though I have to say, as someone who's experience is far more outside the D&D-sphere than probably most here, complaining that an edition of D&D has a lot of exception based design feels like complaining water is wet. While I agree there's more coherence to 4e than a lot of D&D versions, its still just scattered with distinctions that exist for no obvious reason other than that's how you design things in this sphere. This became extremely obvious when I took on the job of updating the ad-hoc support for Hero Lab for 4e when I was in a campaign of it

 

[Justice and Rule]

Though I have to say, as someone who's experience is far more outside the D&D-sphere than probably most here, complaining that an edition of D&D has a lot of exception based design feels like complaining water is wet. While I agree there's more coherence to 4e than a lot of D&D versions, its still just scattered with distinctions that exist for no obvious reason other than that's how you design things in this sphere. This became extremely obvious when I took on the job of updating the ad-hoc support for Hero Lab for 4e when I was in a campaign of it

I think my point of argument with this would be that to have exceptions, you have to have a standard.

More seriously, some level of standardization would help. PF2 is good for some of this, with a standardized way of getting rid of many effects like Frightened, Sickened, Confused, etc. Keywords also could help: Incapacitation is a great example of a standardized exception, and having the Fortune tag means you know how that ability will interact with other Fortune effects.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think my point of argument with this would be that to have exceptions, you have to have a standard.

More seriously, some level of standardization would help. PF2 is good for some of this, with a standardized way of getting rid of many effects like Frightened, Sickened, Confused, etc. Keywords also could help: Incapacitation is a great example of a standardized exception, and having the Fortune tag means you know how that ability will interact with other Fortune effects.

All true. I'm just noting from outside this can often seem like arguing whether scarlet or crimson is more red.

 

[Undrave]

4e's Skill Tree character builds favored tactical decision making. They also required elaborate prep on the DM's part to challenge the players, and let them take advantage of their character builds.

I disagree, it's really easy to just throw something together as long as you have an eye for what makes for a good action scene. Admittedly, it's a skill on it's own, but when you get used to it you just need to come up with the big concept for your fight scene and you can improvise the details at the table.

Like my ‘Rat King’ encounter I had my PC go through that one time. I had the concept “Fight in a flour mill against a mad Kobold who controls rats” and just slapped the map and wrote down the stat of the main antagonist of the fight and added some terrain powers as we got there that day.

The fight was against a kobold who seemed to have become possessed by some kind of rat hive mind and declare himself the Rat King. He had telekinetic ability and would use them from the rafters of the mill to throw flour sacks and crates of grain at the PC (or just take pot shot with his sling). Meanwhile, giant rats were moving around the cramped quarter of the mill to block exit paths. The sack would create temporary cloud of flour that blocked views, and every time a crate would break, I would roll to see if it contained a swarm of rat that would immediately attack anyone it landed on. Swarms could be a really big problem in 4e.

The success of the fight hinged on the party rogue, a Kobold themselves, climbing to the rafters and getting the Rat King down from there. Once he was knocked out, the remaining rats scurried away in fear.

As long as you can come up with a cool concept for a fight, putting it together at the table is really not that hard.

4e pretty much makes sure that you are always doing something more than just hit point damage*. There is almost always something additional that happens, even if that's a slight push for better position, or a shift that sets up a flank - something to connect the rules with some kind of progress or change in the fiction.

And there's always effects that trigger when someone is bloodied, PCs or monster alike, so you can get at least 1 extra 'milestone' in the fight aside from 0 HP.

I think removing the Bloodied condition from 5e cut a lot of potentially simple mechanics that now need to be wordy and clunky.

 

[Teemu]

I’d say that it’s typically easier and faster to create an engaging fight in 4e than in 5e, mainly due to monster roles and more interesting monster abilities. However, I will also say that there’s kind of a reduced expectation of a tactically interesting fight in 5e. Like, looking at encounters in 5e adventures, a lot of them are very simple and in very simple environments, so the game as a whole expects you to provide fewer complex fights. That’s been my experience.

 

[Mannahnin]

The 4e statblocks might be slightly longer - but jotting down the stats takes almost no time. I mean the maths literally fits on a business card and even if you aren't homebrewing you can just take your XP budget and go shopping out of the MM.
View attachment 147493
All you need to make 4e combats sing is two monster types and a relevant piece of terrain to engage with and they will, in my experience, be a match for the very best published setpieces in any other edition. Like I say it's the difference between green screen and on location.

Yup. 4th ed was the first time I felt like DMing could be easy and fun. In significant part because of the ease and speed of creating tactically-interesting and engaging encounters.

 

[Oofta]

I’d say that it’s typically easier and faster to create an engaging fight in 4e than in 5e, mainly due to monster roles and more interesting monster abilities. However, I will also say that there’s kind of a reduced expectation of a tactically interesting fight in 5e. Like, looking at encounters in 5e adventures, a lot of them are very simple and in very simple environments, so the game as a whole expects you to provide fewer complex fights. That’s been my experience.

I would say that 5E leaves making the fight an interesting challenge more in the hands of the DM. In theory you could use weird tactics, etc. in 4E but on a pretty regular basis if I tried to do anything "off brand" even a bit in 4E people would challenge how they did that. So if the monsters burst up out of hiding people would question the specific power they were using when it was really just fluff to make the encounter more visually interesting. For whatever reason I don't see that in 5E.

As with all things, "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder. I like the more freeform and speed of combats in 5E, I can see why people could prefer 4E.