Відео

@5:45 as a forever DM I don't see 4e as mainly combat. It simplified and streamlined the other aspects under it's skill challenges. The fact you can run small combat encounters under that system as well means you can literally finish a combat in 3 minutes. Not tactical combat though mind you. That leaves a lot of time for other things. The biggest issue was DMs not bothering reading the DM guides properly and really getting to understand how the game works. I strip level bonuses off my games because they're just training wheels to keep encounters on rails so inexperienced DMs don't kill their player's characters. When removed and with an experienced DM you get better bounded accuracy than 5e's.

The more I see biological males beat the living crap out of Olympic level female boxers, the more I see the wisdom in having a difference in a fantasy setting between male and female strength. Even with lesser strength in AD&D female were never excluded from any adventuring life, in fact they were encouraged. And despite differences, similar to having a class or race that had to learn to work AROUND weaknesses was always the wiser strategy. Not to pretend they didn't exist.

I'm a mechanics first DM running 2 tables of story first players.

I actually got my start with the Wrath of Ashardalon board game, which is based on (simplified) 4e mechanics. It was enough to finally push me into playing D&D proper, so 4e kinda holds a special place in my heart even though I never actually played it. Currently I’m in an online campaign using 2024 rules, but my DM has also ported the “skill challenge” over, and I really enjoy that.

I know it has been awhile, but so many people credit 2e with many things I am certain 1st edition did FIRST. As I recall, 1st edition & 2nd edition were very similar. (with a decent bit of variations) Like you said, just a bit more "simplified". 3rd edition is when the game system was majorly changed & things like, getting rid of THACO & just doing a straight "adding upward" method instead, was introduced. Ever since 3rd edition came out & to this day, I just do not understand people who HATE THACO so much! I mean, to me, it is just ONE additional little step of basic arithmetic. So, what is the big deal?

Third edition made a LOT of changes. The Simplification of most of the math systems to make them approachable was a big positive overall. Many of the changes lead to gameplay patterns and character creation issues that were I didn't generally find enjoyable. If the Dungeon Master didn't restrict the feats/options there were often chracter builds and choices that could break many intended game play styles... but restricting player 'options' was often very unpopular. The Ivory tower design that rewarded people for systems mastery with "better" characters lead to a lot of characters that felt cookie cutter or 'Samey' for a system with so many options. (Especially with the internet and meme builds back in the day.) Having to meet extremely strict requirements for prestige classes had a similar effect. The Shared Monster/Character design space led to rocket-tag style combat where initiative became overtly important in many cases and caused issues when monsters had abilities that didn't follow character structures in a way that made sense to the players. A lot of these issues vary from playgroup to playgroup. One of the biggest issues my brother had, was his players would play until level 6 or 7 with a martial class, then retire them to reroll as a Caster for later levels as a lot of checks on spellcaster power were eliminated or abrogated in 3rd edition in various ways. Despite my eventual issues with the system, I had a lot of Fun and learned a lot from it as a player and dungeon master over the years. I have many fond memories of good games, that stand in stark contrast the the games that felt like a total waste of time. In the end, most of the issues are with Players, not the system, but the player behavior was enabled by the shift in Game Design from challenging players to challenging characters that occurred over the years. Thanks for taking the time to make this video.

I have not played 4e but i hate 5e and will not play it. I play 1 an 2e.Yes im truly old school 😅

AD&D 2e will always have a place at my table. It is reminiscent of table top strategy warfare of the 70's and as such the mechanics take into account better realism even in a fantasy setting. Moreover, the character progression tables based on class and all the game supplements made it nearly impossible to have two identical characters. I feel that in todays AD&D, characters can become pretty generic when all leveling up at the same time. Realistically, wizards would need to study much more to progress compared to a warriors training, so having these two classes progress at the same time is crazy. I understand that 2e may seem more complicated, and it was for certain things, but overly simplifying the rules is just as bad, it saps away a certain grind. The one and only thing I would give 5th e is combat simplicity. In 2e, some combats could sometimes take the length of a whole session.

I love a lot of the ideas in 4E. But WOTC mishandled every single aspect from day one, which is the cause of a LOT of hate. A problem that in another timeline could have been avoided by one simple thing. I have spoken about ita few times in my youtube

Explain Thaco again.

"Eberron is a world of Wide magic, not high magic" Thats one of the best ways i've heard it described. Cantrips and 1st level spells and common, as well as common, and to an extant, uncommon, magic items. But the higher magic's still retain that rarity. There's a whole job caste called magewrights who have learned a few cantrips, maybe a 1st level spell as a ritual, that keeps these large cities running, going around lighting lamps, cleaning streets, maintaining the city. It truly is a magic rich setting, and magic technology is just one facet. It's magic in everything. Business, economics, etc.

Getting a shadowrun group set up to stream on twitch with. Everyone is fairly new and I am indeed rusty. But this video really helped me remember a lot of the rules and lore in a simple 5 minutes. Your way of explaining things is very well worded and simple to grasp. I love it. I sent all my new players this video to understand the lore and the general idea of the game. Ik this vid is a year old but still amazing work <3

Did I miss the fact that 3.5 had templates as well? I have played all the editions upto 4e. That one I returned to Goodwill. 5e has made the game's classes very videogamie so I have never bothered to invest in them. I still believe that 3.5 WAS the Golden Age of DnD. More books. More Content. More Publishers. More Options. I still play today. BECMI and 3.5 depending on what my groups want to play. Playing since 79...

3E had many good ideas that streamlined the game, but I never really liked Prestige Classes they were so mush stronger that the regular classed. They just seemed like a cash cow to make infinite supplements with increasingly stronger Prestige Classes, so players would keep buying them.

4th Edition is my "hill to die on" edition.

I mean... its dnd... you guys can do anything, nothings stopping you

3.x was the worst edition of D&D until 2024 took the title.

I have always taken issue with the idea that 4e was combat focused. Like every edition, before and since, most of the rules were about combat. However, in addition to this, it brought some of the best rules and guides for things outside of combat. The DMG2 is still the best DMG ever printed, and continues to be useful to anyone wanting to run any TTRPG.

I dont think I could ever play 3.5 or PF1 ever again. The system is so broken, especially at high levels. It's not a balanced game at all. It also suffered from extreme book bloat. It was a nightmare to run as a GM. I'll play PF2 or 4e but never 3x ever again. And I played it for over a decade.

"We?" I knew from the jump how great 4e was. But I'm glad people are starting to see the light!

4:25 Faerûn?! The core world for 4e was Nentir Vale.

Treasure, video skipped.

The problem wasn't so much they tried combat focused, the problem is that 4e combat takes forever because evry9ne has too many HO amd deals no damage. It should not take a dozen rounds for a lv3 fighter to drop 1 orc.

Its funny dnd 4e is called videoy gamey. But honestly ive played 3.5, 4, and 5. And ghe other two combat is way more videoy gamey imo. Dnd 4e ruleset lets you add skill checks to any attack if you need to twist it. Like push, extend, make silent, etc. Any 5e ive seen or played is so strict and limiting. 4e just understood you dont need rules to pretend so it focused on some badass combat. Issue was too many people forced all aspects, and sometimes even wizards did, into their combat which dragged it on.

D&D 4E was the first edition of D&D where I actually liked the magic system and did not need to overhaul it completely. It, as a DM, was easy to run (outside of the grid focus combat, which meant needing to make maps all the time). The power system was easy to adjust and make homebrew powers. It is a shame they did not have a section in the Player's Handbook on altering existing powers. This, I feel, would allow players to really customize their characters. Another benefit to the power system was making it really easy to figure out what a character can do. I once for either 3E or PF1 went through three different books just to figure out what a power did because it kept referencing one spell and then that spell referenced another spell. Similar trouble with figure out what monsters can do. Oh, this monster uses this ability and it is like this spell. Please book, just describe what the monster can do without me needing to cross reference another book. Speaking of monsters, they felt a lot more interesting and fun to use in 4E than previous editions and the first edition of Pathfinder. The major issue, for me, was it being grid focus. A lot of combat powers were really specific on how far the enemy is away, how far you move them, are they close enough for an attack of opportunity and so on. This problem is not solved by using feet instead, because you can always convert a square to five feet. It is an issue of being focus on precise locations. There are solutions for this that require only some modification. In fact, I have started using it last time I did a one-on-one D&D adventure. As for the bloodied mechanic, I like how it added to in game narration. I like describing when an enemy is bloodied, how they might look more erratic or suddenly howl out in pain. The characters know they are pushing the enemy to their limits, but also, the enemy (when it comes to elites and solos) has gotten more dangerous (such as flying into a rage or tapping into ancient magic). Yes, such things can be done without needed to wait for 50% of their HP to be gone, or even waiting longer. But the mechanic encourages that, while also giving the players a rough sense of how far they have come along in the battle. As for it feeling like an MMO, I have only played a few MMOs and did not like them. But what I did play did not remind me of D&D 4E outside of normal videogame overlap stuff that appears in all editions of D&D. Maybe if I were really into them I would see more similarities. Anyway, it is interesting to see 4E being examined in a friendlier way than I have seen in a lot of places. I could ramble on longer, but won't.

I still love 4th.

Nice video, thanks for sharing your thoughts with the gaming community. 4e going back to D&D roots was more so realized in the focus on tactical combat. D&D was always a tactical miniatures game first that had heroic characters stapled on afterward. Don't get me wrong, I like the later emphasis on RP and story, but that's not a great "originalism" complaint which was often levied against 4e in bad faith. The main issues with the edition were marketing (as you said), over promising (like the VTT which was scraped when the designer killed his wife and unalived himself), making too many changes at once/sacrificing sacred cows, lack of public playtest, and timing. Everything else was pretty much a perception problem. The other main reason for the edition change and perceived failure, was to create a new gaming license for third party use. They drastically reigned in 3rd party support, which killed any chance of the edition gaining wide audience appeal. It was a fatal mistake made by listening to the executives like Wotc has done with 5e in the last few years.

Essentials was a problem because it over simplified everything that 4e was trying to revolutionize. They were trying to bring back the people who complained about martial PCs having "powers" that made grognards complain every PC felt the same. In turn, that irritated the people who liked 4e's differences and balanced classes. Being released 2 years after initial launch is no different than every D&D edition. 3.5, unearthed arcana, skills & powers for 2ed. Heck, even the various colored box sets of basic were essentially major edition updates that happened every couple of years. Xanathar's was 3 years after release and Tasha's was 3 years after that. Both were MAJOR changes to the game's basic assumptions and expansions of options, not unlike Essentials was for 4e.

4e made a solid base to build the Adventure board games on. It's the best implementation of 4e besides the Gamma World game based on it.

Every edition of D&D falls apart at about level 10 or so. (With the notable exception of BECMI) 4e went all the way up to level 30. There was an adventure path that took you all the way up to fighting Orcus and another one that took you to Tiamat. Level 20+ characters had epic destinies with gonzo powers and settings that made you feel like you were truly a fantasy book protagonist on a path to immortality. If you liked the system (and people tended to either love it or hate it) you could have truly epic campaigns that were actually supported by published material and were actually possible to run without the DM having to do a ton of extra work or homebrewing.

2e is the best cuz I started with it.

If you want an idea of how classes played in 4e, I wrote Player's Guide to Powers on the DM's Guild. It's almost exactly a one-to-one conversion of the 4e Player's Handbook classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Desinities, and Magic Items to 5e. What's more, I even included a "universal" subclass that gives a normal 5e class some weaker Powers to use as a Bonus Action and eventually some with a Reaction. That way, even if the 4e classes don't impress you, you can still make use of the content.

Disagree, system had its huge flaws, if it was well liked, it would grow over the years then it would grow more. PF2e is 4e with less flaws it is why it is so popular, why it feels so good to play but admittedly it still only works best with a VTT than in person.

Always thought it was a good game, it just wasn’t D&D.

I think part of the problem was the lack of immersion. You knew when an enemy was bloodied, you knew which ones were minions, you gave your DM a wish list of magic items you wanted. Part of the fun is the mystery and wonder of it all and 4e basically killed it. However, I have to push back when I hear complaints of having to use minis. Nearly every D&D game uses minis regardless of edition.

Imma be honest, I haven't played this edition or Pathfinder 1e but have read quite a bit and I have to say: wow, how can you think this is good? It looks terrible. All and all, I'm sure it was considered "good" by that time's standards, but I don't see a reason to play it today, play 5e or PF2E instead. I don't see anything it does better, honestly

Even the flaws are rather unconvincing IMO. • some criticisms (like too combat-focused and too many supplements) are not exclusive to 4e, they also apply to 3.5 and 5e • other criticisms like using grids/squares and the things about the lore are personal preference. Like you can say "I don't like 4e because of this" but not "4e is bad because of this" • Where did the narrative around MMOs and WoW come from? I don't get it. Seems like one of those rumors everyone on the internet "knows" but are not true • Switching editions/games in the middle of a campaign sounds like a bad idea ALWAYS. And not being retro-compatible is not a bad thing (looking at you 5.5, WotC you cowards, where is 6e?) IMO I'm not saying the edition is perfect, I'm saying THESE specific criticisms are kinda weak IMO. The only criticism that is valid IMO is that combat takes a lot of time, which has workarounds but still, fair

I am glad to hear some positivity about 4E, but some corrections (which also others stated). 1. Pathfinder never outsold 4E (Search this in google maybe with the keyword alphastream and you will find a post disproving this years ago). 2. WoW /MMOs were really not a big influence on 4E except for the business model. It was stated by the 4e lead designers (even last year in a 50 year stream). It can also be seen when you look closer at the gamedesign: Let me quote myself: I played WoW I really dont see how the 2 should be similar, never did: Yes wow has 3 roles, but D&D had 4 roles from the start (Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Wizard) and had the exact same in 4e. If everything WoW like a lot of other games was inspired by D&D The roles in 4E are a LOT less strict. Especially healers in wow would not do damage. They would only heal. Controllers is also its own role not present in WoW, because it would not really make sense. 4E is a game of attrition. WoW is a game where you start any meaningfull fight with full ressources. (Every cooldown, full health, unlimited healing) 4E is a strategic fight over around 5 turns, WoW is a fight over 100s of turns with focus of not making mistakes by following the long term strategy and not having good short term tactics (as 4E had). To clarify here: In WoW you KNOW the strategy for the boss beforehand. In D&D you improvise your tactics during the fights. So 4E is about improvisation (handling misses, handling monsters you dont know maybe with terrain features you did not saw before. etc.) and tactics, WoW about strategy and execution. (In WoW with normal builds you would never miss, you know the scene and monsters, so no need to improvise). 4E gets a lot of its strategy from positioning, movement, forced movement and also blocking movement. WoW literally lets players walk through enemies and vice versa and has only 1 class and 1 subclass which care about positioning. WoW cares about enemy facing, which 4E does not. WoW is built around rotations, 4E about using their 1 of abilities at the best possible time. (1 of per fight or per day) WoW is mostly about fighting at endgame, 4E is about leveling up (and changing playstyle with different attacks). In WoW you have always the same attacks after a certain level, and low levels are not what you want to play. You want to reach endgame and there the real game starts. Getting better (same level gear), enchanting gear etc. Both are group based RPG which is responsible for pretty much all of their similarities. And I would argue that XCom the computer game is a lot more close to 4E since it is about tactical movement, ressource management and limited ressources (ammunition grenades etc.) for special abilities during an "adventure day" Alternativly final fantasy tactics also comes closer And a lot of the other similarities just come from good/evolved game design Classes have the same general structure/layout because this makes it A LOT easier to process classes. This is nowadays considered good game design and use din board games, computer games AND tabletop rpgs Using clear language is something which is also in general good game design. Magic the Gathering the card game showed how this is important and lots of games have taken over their style even Having a selection of actions to do on your turn (but not a too big one), is in order to make turns meaningfull (have a decision) but not trigger analysis paralysis (having tooo many options to consider all). It can be seen in board games, computer games like Mobas, and other games as well. Also while D&D removed the options (for casters) down to 2 at wills 4 encounters and 4 dailies (+ at most 8 utility), WoW had easily 40+ abilities per class of which a lot where useless at later levels. Giving all classes similar options to make them all feel important fun and powerfull is also quite a general thing to do in gaming. Having powers which can be used with different frequencies also is nothing new. You had this in previous D&D edition as well. And its not the same as cooldowns. Cooldowns only limits how often and when you can do them during a fight. The equivalent in Tabletop RPGs (which exists in some) would be: "If you did this actions you need to wait X turns to use it again", this mechanic is absent in D&D 4E. Also yes both have debuffs, but in 4e most of them were 1 round which was meant more like an "I created an opening" and the ones which were longer worked quite different with saving throws where in WoW they had fixed durations. Also Baldurs Gate Dark alliance 2 on the PS2 also had already debuffs. (And they worked with time).

I ran 4E back in the day. My biggest dislike of the system is actually pretty petty. I DMed at game conventions fairly often back then and the stack of books I needed to haul around to cover the classes was annoying. I also somewhat disliked how wedded to having a book open the players were so they could read their little action block/power description written blocks. And spell casting didn't really feel much like the casting of spells. But hey - it worked failry well. It just felt different.

I enjoyed it enough, and kind of miss it. There were enough misses though it isn't something I'd stick with. I wish 5e had pulled more from it. A big example for me is the rituals in 4e, while I think they needed to be refined to be more friendly toward a solo ritualist as it was too easy to be the only person at the table who wanted to do them they did help a lot with the martial caster divide. By putting the big ticket setting change spells into ritual form that in theory anyone could learn and cast, it expanded the potential utility of every character. And it reigned things in, some spells should take more than a action to cast. Rituals in 5e just seem sad in comparison.

Been playing D&D since, more or less, when it first came out. 4e just was not my jam. To each their own, but for me, I am not a fan of playing a table top RPG that feels like I am playing a video game... on paper... with dice. For those that like/love 4e, awesome! Just not my thing. I do enjoy a lot of the lore/setting(s) from a lot of the different versions of D&D... just not the video-gamey ones.

4E was the easiest to get people into TTRPGs, because a bunch of theater kids were able to grock the system, and start playing in a few hours as opposed to the other stuff i tried to run. It is not a bad system, but it was restrictive in parts that D&D players were used to freedom. Had a great time with it. it is just that 5E is better for those who like to theorycraft, and turns out, that is a lot of the community.

by far my favorite edition, namely because it actually balanced the martial caster divide by letting everyone have cool abilities.

The most fun I've ever had creating monsters/npcs was with 4e. And it was infinitely scalable too. I remember running a Dragonlance-esque campaign and the wizard character was to take the test of sorcery. Instead of worrying about trying to come up with an enemy or two that wouldn't one-shot them, they got to have exciting battles with minions, and face off against their darkest fear (their own desire for power) at the end. It wouldn't have been anywhere near as exciting without minion creatures and the ability to recover some damage between combat.

I was working at Wizard's Retail when 3.0 was released, and got a healthy Company in-store discount for all my 3.5 books. (NEVER getting rid of those at $23/apiece) but 4E felt like a Money-Grab to me, especially because of the #2 and #3 of some of the Core Books that "Expanded" on the materials "needed" to play the base system. It was Bullsh*t. So I never played it, and I sure as HELL did not WASTE my money on it!

4E's biggest problem never had anything to do with the game itself, it's that people kept (and keep, still happening to this day) spreading lies (for those doing it intentionally) and misinformation (for those just regurgitating lies they heard elsewhere without bothering to check if what they heard is actually true) about it. Point in case, you state, matter of fact-ly, that "an *overwhelming* amount of the community" switched to Pathfinder, causing it to "overtake D&D in sales". This is completely untrue (and exactly the kind of perpetually propagated misinformation that contributes to 4E's public image to this day) and 5 seconds of googling followed up by 5 minutes of reading are all the fact checking you would have needed to prevent this severe mistake. There's plenty of other misconceptions about this game, but this is one of the most harmful. Pathfinder never outsold 4E. 4E was always ahead by a sizable margin. 4E did fine financially. This is backed up by Owen Stephens, Chris Sims, Trevor Kidd and other industry insiders. Unless you have valid and sourced information that refutes these statements I suggest you retract your claim, as it undeservedly keeps perpetuating a harmful myth about this game. You're clearly trying to take a more differentiated look at the game then the generic "lol 4E bad", so this should be in your own interest too. Thank you for your consideration.

I played 3.5, 4e came out just after PF1. and .... well, 3.5's mess of legos was appealing, the new kid PF1 was wildly exciting, and 4e's underdeveloped undercooked action figure selection was not. In 4e core; feats that were so bad they did not matter, tremendously bland class and ability design, duplicated abilities, it all just felt... awful. There are absolutely cool lessons to be learned from 4e, and recently I am looking on games like Lancer that take inspiration from it, in an extremely positive light. Bloody condition, Minion stat blocks, healing surges, the raven queen, the real Eyebite spell, (and not marshal, which is just a build-out on 3.5's Book of Nine Swords), there's a lot to love, but the package was styrofoamy and dull in its whole. You are also the first in a while to mention the lore changes that just... dumpstered the complexity and made a mad jumble of everything that survived. It was actually a fun in-game character discussion point to deal with different, conflicting interpretations of the cosmos (great wheel vs astral sea).

Read it, never played it. 9:00 is correct. Didn’t feel like DnD. Plus according to Puffin Forest combat took a very long time. The designers had more success with 13th Age. Been meaning to play that soon.

I had played D&D since first ed AD&D. I took 4th ed back to the shop and exchanged it for Castles and Crusades. I have never looked back.

The Good, Bad & Ugly of 4th edition, in my opinion the good, was first in the monster roles as mentioned. This basic idea l still use in my 5.5 e game's. Also, the Treasure tables gave a good basic idea of what type of loot to give out for newer DMs. The Bad was game balance, or should l say over balance in the fact every class could essentially do the same effect. However, this was tweaked to character enhancement abilities, gaining a single free utility ability every three levels that characters could pay for, train in & use once during the encounter. Once a day, abilities were also a thing but were more of a boon that characters gained after rolling a natural 20. Players choise that or % roll on the damage table. The ugliest part of 4th e was the sheer unorganized way the books were released, making it difficult to navigate the way DMs & Players interact.