Yeah, but in 5E you're generally functional as long as you've got a magic weapon of any kind while 4E rules basically required you to upgrade or replace your magic weapon every few levels or you'd start to fall behind.
That's not really a fair criticism of 4e -- remember that the prior edition was 3.5e, and the gear treadmill in 3.5e was much worse.
Yeah, but in 5E you're generally functional as long as you've got a magic weapon of any kind while 4E rules basically required you to upgrade or replace your magic weapon every few levels or you'd start to fall behind.
That's not really a fair criticism of 4e -- remember that the prior edition was 3.5e, and the gear treadmill in 3.5e was much worse.
I never remember any of my 3.5 games having too much of a problem with the gear treadmill, whereas the 4E games I was in were absolutely horrible about it to the point that gaining a level felt like it made the character worse. That might have just been the GM I had. He was a self-admitted hind-end-of-an-equine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I never remember any of my 3.5 games having too much of a problem with the gear treadmill, whereas the 4E games I was in were absolutely horrible about it to the point that gaining a level felt like it made the character worse. That might have just been the GM I had. He was a self-admitted hind-end-of-an-equine.
4e was absolutely playable with items that were too low level, it was just harder than the game was balanced for. In 4e, you had only three important gear slots, and for every 5 levels you were undergeared you were at -1 defenses, attack, and damage relative to expected values. In 3.5e, being under-geared by five levels would leave you at something like -4 (in fact, 4e item bonuses were not significantly different from 5e; a level 20 character in 4e was expected to have, from gear, +4 to hit, +4 to damage, +4 to AC, +4 to secondary defenses (saves), and it's completely plausible for a level 20 character in 5e to have similar bonuses -- +3 armor, ring of protection, +3 weapon, and some way of getting +2 to your attacking stat).
4e was a fine game. If it had been called something other than D&D - say, "D&D Tactics" - I think it would have ultimately fared a lot better than it did.
But the other big thing that kneecapped it was the GSL thing.
I loved 4e. We never would have bothered trying 5e if the online tools fr 4e hadn't been abandoned. As a player, the amount of choices and customization available opened up some really wild character concepts. It was also the edition where martials got as close as they're ever going to get to casters in terms of overall power, and as someone who favors martials that was a plus for me.
As a DM, encounter design was hands-down better than any other system I've ever seen. No vague, arbitrary CR values - monsters had levels just like players, they had defined roles that made them work together in fun ways, and elites and minons provided an easy way to fight a couple stronger things or many weaker things while still providing a relatively predictable level of challenge. Solos needed a lot of work to be a threat, but I don't think any edition has figured that out yet.
Everything else was role-playing, which doesn't require any rules at all and honestly outside of combat we don't play 5e any differently than we played 4e. I am honestly just confused when people say 4e was worse for roleplaying than other editions. Roleplaying is up to you, not the edition.
Overall I felt it was just very well-made. Matt Colville floated an interesting theory that it was WoW that created all the ire for 4e. D&D players hated that WoW sucked everyone into their computers for 9 months when it came out, and soon after that when 4e came out with a few similarities everyone still had a bad taste in their mouth from that and transferred their WoW hate onto 4e. I was not in the community at that point so I can't comment as to how accurate that might be, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
It depends on what you like. You have your old school D&D, which is gritty and dangerous low heroism survival-horror dungeon crawling, then you got your 4E D&D which is all about flashy heroic fantasy and tactical wargaming with a fantasy skin, then you got your 5E D&D which halfheartedly panders to both crowds ending up somewhere in the middle.
Every edition of D&D is the best version of D&D...
... for someone. No version is the best for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I had heard that 4E was supposed to have a VTT built alongside it from WotC, but it didn’t make it. So the game design that was meant to play well virtually, couldn’t. And this helped along the idea of it being to video-gamey.
I enjoyed 4e, but I enjoy 5e more. I think that 4e's bad press is extremely unfair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I had heard that 4E was supposed to have a VTT built alongside it from WotC, but it didn’t make it. So the game design that was meant to play well virtually, couldn’t. And this helped along the idea of it being to video-gamey.
Yeah, the guy who was running it died under tragic circumstances, (I mean, all deaths are tragic, but this one was really sad) so they just kind of backed away. The rumor was he had the planning, ideas and such all in his head, so when he died, they had no way to continue.
If they were in beta as Plague scarred says, then surely they would have had to have had the bulk of it at least recorded somewhere and most of it already in code (with plans to tweak and alter, of course)?
I think it more likely that they were still somewhat on the fence about it and the guy was driving it forward, but when he passed the momentum just fizzled out.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If they were in beta as Plague scarred says, then surely they would have had to have had the bulk of it at least recorded somewhere and most of it already in code (with plans to tweak and alter, of course)?
I think it more likely that they were still somewhat on the fence about it and the guy was driving it forward, but when he passed the momentum just fizzled out.
Poorly-managed software development (and WotC were even less a software company then than they are now) often leads to code that's only maintainable by the person who built it.
I wonder if they were building it in silverlight as well
One of my players thinks it's the best way to run D&D.
Is this true or are there issues with it?
Lots of opinions either way, but really the best answer to this is to call out your player. If they really think 4e is the best way to run D&D, have them run a demo one shot taking your table through a character creation, and some sort of scenario that hits all the pillars you play and enjoy in 5e. Not all tables have the same taste in what makes a set of rules good, so test the assertion for your table.
Some people really do enjoy 4e, some people really enjoy being contrarians. it does look like 4e is getting reassessed as unfairly maligned in its debut.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you've never played it, what's that advice based on?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not really a fair criticism of 4e -- remember that the prior edition was 3.5e, and the gear treadmill in 3.5e was much worse.
I never remember any of my 3.5 games having too much of a problem with the gear treadmill, whereas the 4E games I was in were absolutely horrible about it to the point that gaining a level felt like it made the character worse. That might have just been the GM I had. He was a self-admitted hind-end-of-an-equine.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
4e was absolutely playable with items that were too low level, it was just harder than the game was balanced for. In 4e, you had only three important gear slots, and for every 5 levels you were undergeared you were at -1 defenses, attack, and damage relative to expected values. In 3.5e, being under-geared by five levels would leave you at something like -4 (in fact, 4e item bonuses were not significantly different from 5e; a level 20 character in 4e was expected to have, from gear, +4 to hit, +4 to damage, +4 to AC, +4 to secondary defenses (saves), and it's completely plausible for a level 20 character in 5e to have similar bonuses -- +3 armor, ring of protection, +3 weapon, and some way of getting +2 to your attacking stat).
4e was a fine game. If it had been called something other than D&D - say, "D&D Tactics" - I think it would have ultimately fared a lot better than it did.
But the other big thing that kneecapped it was the GSL thing.
I loved 4e. We never would have bothered trying 5e if the online tools fr 4e hadn't been abandoned. As a player, the amount of choices and customization available opened up some really wild character concepts. It was also the edition where martials got as close as they're ever going to get to casters in terms of overall power, and as someone who favors martials that was a plus for me.
As a DM, encounter design was hands-down better than any other system I've ever seen. No vague, arbitrary CR values - monsters had levels just like players, they had defined roles that made them work together in fun ways, and elites and minons provided an easy way to fight a couple stronger things or many weaker things while still providing a relatively predictable level of challenge. Solos needed a lot of work to be a threat, but I don't think any edition has figured that out yet.
Everything else was role-playing, which doesn't require any rules at all and honestly outside of combat we don't play 5e any differently than we played 4e. I am honestly just confused when people say 4e was worse for roleplaying than other editions. Roleplaying is up to you, not the edition.
Overall I felt it was just very well-made. Matt Colville floated an interesting theory that it was WoW that created all the ire for 4e. D&D players hated that WoW sucked everyone into their computers for 9 months when it came out, and soon after that when 4e came out with a few similarities everyone still had a bad taste in their mouth from that and transferred their WoW hate onto 4e. I was not in the community at that point so I can't comment as to how accurate that might be, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It depends on what you like. You have your old school D&D, which is gritty and dangerous low heroism survival-horror dungeon crawling, then you got your 4E D&D which is all about flashy heroic fantasy and tactical wargaming with a fantasy skin, then you got your 5E D&D which halfheartedly panders to both crowds ending up somewhere in the middle.
Every edition of D&D is the best version of D&D...
... for someone. No version is the best for everyone.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This, right here.
I had heard that 4E was supposed to have a VTT built alongside it from WotC, but it didn’t make it. So the game design that was meant to play well virtually, couldn’t. And this helped along the idea of it being to video-gamey.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
4E had two VT , one 2D and the other 3D in developement, i was beta tester for one of them but they never released any.
I enjoyed 4e, but I enjoy 5e more. I think that 4e's bad press is extremely unfair.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah, the guy who was running it died under tragic circumstances, (I mean, all deaths are tragic, but this one was really sad) so they just kind of backed away. The rumor was he had the planning, ideas and such all in his head, so when he died, they had no way to continue.
If they were in beta as Plague scarred says, then surely they would have had to have had the bulk of it at least recorded somewhere and most of it already in code (with plans to tweak and alter, of course)?
I think it more likely that they were still somewhat on the fence about it and the guy was driving it forward, but when he passed the momentum just fizzled out.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Poorly-managed software development (and WotC were even less a software company then than they are now) often leads to code that's only maintainable by the person who built it.
I wonder if they were building it in silverlight as well
Lots of opinions either way, but really the best answer to this is to call out your player. If they really think 4e is the best way to run D&D, have them run a demo one shot taking your table through a character creation, and some sort of scenario that hits all the pillars you play and enjoy in 5e. Not all tables have the same taste in what makes a set of rules good, so test the assertion for your table.
Some people really do enjoy 4e, some people really enjoy being contrarians. it does look like 4e is getting reassessed as unfairly maligned in its debut.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ive not played it but I think 3.5e, 5e or pathfinder is what you should go for
If you've never played it, what's that advice based on?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha