In the late 70's and 80's, D&D and AD&D were two distinct games that shared some similarities but were also very different in many ways. AD&D Second edition kept most of the mechanics of AD&D but with a ton of polish from having seen them in action. Then for 3rd edition (Which dropped the Advanced because there was now only one D&D), they completely revised the basic mechanics from the ground up, and scaled up the impact by creating a license allowing anyone making a RPG to use the basic mechanics of 3rd E free of charge. This meant that a huge number of other RPG's coming out played just like D&D 3rd E making it easier for players to move back and forth between games. 3.5 was made a few years after 3 to fix a number of issues that had come up after 3 was released. But when they pushed forward to 4E, the initial reaction was not good, and so the creators of pathfinder decided to take one of those open licenses to start with the mechanics of 3.5 and patch in a few changes based on player experience, which is why some players called Pathfinder D&D 3.75.
No a sad part would be if you had to leave for a a job interview was gone 1 and half hours and got back and was only just then was it your turn it was still the first round but your last to play because you rolled lowest on initiative. It took 90 minutes for the other players to play a round.
@@petalsinthebreeze People hated 4th Edition, so a bunch of people went, "you know what, we can do this better". So they created their own rpg system based on the older 3.5 DnD system with their own improvements. Now it is one of their biggest competitors
After overprinting books for 3.5 Wizards realized they ran out of book ideas so they could't get more money out of the players, so they decided it was time to make 4E despite the fact people had just switched to 3.5 not that long ago, most people were NOT happy. Paizo took the oportunity to take 3.5's corpse, modify it, and make money out of all the people who got angry at wizards.
Every time one of the '4e bad' videos makes it across my feed, I am compelled to stream that 4e Spelljammer game I've always wanted to do, just to prove everyone wrong. ESPECIALLY with how bad 5e Spelljammer turned out. Many issues Puffin has with 4e stems from everyone being new, but also, kind of.... seeming to really WANT it to be that bad. A few responses: Tracking bonuses and penalties - I'm a wargamer, so I have a shorthand for tracking these things, so it's not as big an issue in my 4e games. But also if you look in the back of 4e books, you see they were initially advertising an online program to run in parallel with your game to track it for you - not entirely dissimilar to plans for D&D One. Gold for Rituals - rituals require spell/ritual components, and possibly a scroll to cast. You have to buy chalk or candles or herbs or whatever. It's not that they literally cost gold to cast. So the complaint is partly made in bad faith, but also low gold setting means they can't buy those components. Skill challenges - also a bad-faith complaint, the rules specifically say 'ask players which skill they want to use to try to solve this challenge'. The only time this wasn't a thing was for the pre-generated modules for adventure league. Really, a DM should know their party's sheet enough so they can give suggestions on how they can solve skill challenges.
I had enjoyed 4e, I liked all the classes having a variety of skills even if you weren't a caster and the more classes. But the problems with 4e are still real and I understand them.
The first ever RPG that was created was known as Blackmoor, which was followed by Gary Gygax's Greyhawk. They were games of smaller, more closed circles, and later in the 70's both of those games were made into D&D's original settings. Here's a video on the history of the original edition of D&D, known as OD&D, or more popularly, the White Box: ua-cam.com/video/PqVotn4UDFg/v-deo.html Just here to enlighten y'all!
As someone who loves utility magic, to the point of having played a character who was a wizard who had _no_ damage spells, 100% utility (and it freaking worked in 5E ._.) I could never get behind this ._.
I remember when I started playing D&D. I was also one that started out playing 4e; though we played an homebrew version of 4e. How much was homebrew? Well, basically all of it tbh. You see; in the group I was in; no one had ever played D&D before, and no one even knew the basics of the game. That meant that during session 0; we spent hours just trying to figure out how to play. No one could make much sense of the rules, so we just decided to wing it and play according to how we thought it should play out. Obviously; this meant that we hadn't a clue whether we were playing the game correctly or not (reflecting on those memories now; I know we did so much wrong in the game), but we didn't care. We just wanted to have fun and start playing already, and figured that as long as everyone was on board with how the game played; that it didn't matter if we followed the rules precisely or not. We just had to be sure that we were consistent with the rules of our campaign; which was simple enough. It was still a bit rough getting immersed into the game, however, and so I had the idea at the time to try and use background music to set the tone of the atmosphere. I decided one session to try it (with the DM's permission; of course), and when I did; everyone loved it. It really did help the entire group immerse into the scene of the session; even the DM, interestingly enough. Sadly, I only ever got to do that once; since after that, the group disbanded; but it was cool that I got to discover just how effectively music sets the atmosphere of a D&D campaign.
@AirierGames: I love 4e D&D. I had started way back in 1e/AD&D in the 80s, and I still think 4e was the best edition (currently playing 5e with everyone else now). I feel like he ran/played it sub-optimally like he said. I didn't have nearly as much frustration running/playing it (and yes, I DM'd years at the game stores and would run games for as many as eight players without issue). Of course he is going to have a bad time if he has a group (including the DM) who are new to the hobby. That will happen in any edition of a tabletop RPG. You really need a few experienced players and a DM in any group to make the acclimatization to a new game system painless. The game is nowhere near as bad as he is making it out to be.
Ok. I started on AD&D and worked my way to Pathfinder 2E. When we played 4E one game lasted 4 years. We went from level 1 to level 23 Demi gods who actually met gods. Only another player and I stayed on for the entire stretch because we had full backstories. The others didn’t put much thought into their characters so they had nothing to keep their characters going. My character was a fighter under Kord searching for his much more talented older brother who disappeared. He was also cursed with soul rot. Through many trials and obstacles he eventually discovered that his brother disappeared into a void and Asmodeus removed his soul rot. So from a loyal follower of Kord to an anti-hero under Asmodeus. From searching for his brother to wanting to kill his brother. It was quite the character arc. But the battles dragged on for quite a while. Sometimes we left fights unfinished and returned to them next session.
As no-one else seems to have mentioned it: Puffin got most of the things wrong here, and many of his legitimate complaints could just be that they didn't want to learn the system. Who plays year of any game and doesn't learn how to play it? Also, multi-classing was a thing and controllers had important role in the battlefield. Just because every class can deal damage, doesn't mean that's the only thing anyone cares about and maneuvering was huge in 4E since you didn't have "disengage" like in the 5e. I feel like most of the 5E crowd who try 4E just want to hit stuff and don't care about the synergies or the tactics involved. But when it comes to math, 4E is on the lighter side compared to many, many other games.
I like Puffin Forest well enough, but I'm looking forward to the day when you run out of these. It would be great to see you react to other D&D content.
I've actually already recorded everything he has out right now. the next few days, I'll probably start getting a few reviews of the dingo Doodles videos as well.
I remember a convention in germany around the time 4e was around. A few gamers talked about rpgs and one was like "I feel like the only thing that is keeping me from organizing book burnings for 4th edition is the historical bad taste that book burnings give me deep down..." You know something is bad if germans compare it to the 30-40s...
Also, Puffin messed up about multiclassing. There were actually 2 ways to multiclass in 4e - Hybrid (which he poorly describes), taking a feat that then let you take some abilities and powers from the class in question and I think there was another one for paragon multiclassing but I'm not one hundred percent sure on that one.
You want crazy? The original D&D rules, edition zero as its sometimes called or OD&D says a good referee (dungeon master nowadays) to player ratio is 1:20. That only really exist in its the original miniature wargming hobby, when it hit the public it quickly settled on more of 1:4 or so as the norm. Though the first few revised rulesets, Advanced Dungeon and Dragons (also known as 1E) and the Dungeon and Dragon line (it’s complicated) kept the caller rule. That is for your group only one player was to be designated the caller and all communication with the Dungeon Master is supposed to go through them, which makes a lot of sense when you have say 40 players and 2 DMs (Which did happen with Gygax) not so much for the average 1 DM four or five players set up. Such tables also didn’t tend to bother with describing attacks in depth. You rolled your dice, you did your damage, moving on. They just didn’t find the exact details of how you sworded a monster interesting. (A camp I admit I fall into, but it is the minority) And the combat system is fairly abstract (expect when it isn’t…. but that’s a whole thing.) t the point that a single turn in combat didn't take up 5 seconds, it encompassed ten minutes. Needless to say OD&D worked on assumptions that was rare outside of the wargaming community it was made for and is even less common now.
I really loved 4e. Honestly, I think it's my favorite edition, with 5e and then AD&D 2e rounding out my top three favorite D&D editions. And I know a lot of people think that only people who first got into D&D with 4e liked it, but I got into D&D with the 1980s BECMI boxed sets. Also, Puffin entirely screwed up how skill challenges are handled in 4e in the video.
Yea he did (he seemed to struggle with a lot of stuff in 4th edition),it was honestly a pretty good idea that needed some refinement (and some better examples in the core rulebook) but instead it got scrapped. The backlash to 4th edition is probably responsible for monsters in 5th being pretty dull. In fairness 4th edition was best played on a pc or laptop where a lot of stuff could be tracked for you.
The one thing me and my group carries over is Skill Challanges. However our GM has the "Convince me" mood. Basically if I can make a solid enough case to use Investigation to stop a rockslide by mathematically calculating where it is safe, the GM would allow it.
Yeah, 4e being described as a tabletop version of an MMORPG is accurate since at that time, MMORPGs popularity is still on the rise with multiple WoW clones and others. My first introductory is actually both 3.5e and 4e but online with a group of forum friends. We never really got anywhere due to the other players "cheated" by downloading the Book Module and the DM not wanting to have any nonsense in messing with the modules.
Say what you will about 4e it's monster manual had some interesting things in it. My first game of dnd was using a 5e player handbook and a 4e monster manual, oh boy did was that not balanced. A series of Living dragon weapons built to kill gods, giants that were corrupted by the shadowfell like shadow dragons, they were basically death elementals, devil freaks of nature whose souls were made of other the other souls of devils fused together, which is interesting since devils are basically all clones and it makes you wonder how in their "society" they would fit in or just the fact that you can fuse souls to make bigger souls which gets weirder when you think about the 5e monsters with fragments of souls that shattered. There were a lot of interesting concepts.
To be clear, 4e is pretty hard balanced for 4 players. So they literally had twice as many players as the game is normally made for. So of course that is going to seriously slow things down. But they also had never played before which also will slow things down. Also you could still make basic attacks and rely on the easier to remember abilities. Puffin really tends to exaggerate a few things with 4e, though it does have some actual problems.
In D&D 5e, game sessions usually go from anywhere between 2-5 hours on average with a maximum party of 4-6 players. It’s more manageable that way. I prefer a larger party, around 5 or 6 players and longer game sessions. You get more out of your time that way, and you can challenge the players more without it being unfair because of how CR scaling works when you have a larger party. Other groups prefer shorter sessions with smaller parties, around 2-3 players and maybe 4 or 5 hours max. It all depends on what kind of group you’re in and wether or not your DM can handle more complex sessions. 5e is a really flexible system that makes it accessible in a way older editions didn’t allow for.
When you get the chance to, I would highly recommend reacting to the D&D stories told by Dingo Doodles. I know a lot of people have suggested it before, but I wanted to add my own thoughts by saying it was her videos that inspired me to give D&D a try in the first place, and I had a lot of fun with my first session yesterday (which would be February 15th as of the writing of this comment)
I've DM'ed a group of 16 players... It's insane. Context, I was asked to take on a pen and paper community center class, and I was told that there wouldn't be too many attendees, and it was the same place where I had my introduction to D&D (OG 3rd edition) so I was alright with it.. turns out I had to take on two classes at once because the other DM bailed.. so I was stuck with 16 new players... At once... It was tough hahaha. I will also say that I had some enjoyable moments with 4th edition. But I will concede that 5th edition is far superior
@@Airier close to. I spent roughly 2-3 sessions getting everyone up and ready, and we only met up once per week, and we were only there for roughly 8 or 9 weeks. So it wasn't a lot of gametime, but I was told they found it enjoyable. But yeah, I had to severely limit Combat, just due to time constraints
My first introduction to dnd was 4e. I was lucky that a friend had a character builder program on his computer so it made making characters a breeze. For the final bbeg fight we had so many buffs on ourselves and so many nerfs on the bbeg that we got it to half health without ever being hit.
8 pcs in a pathfinder game.. I had the easiest job as the party tank, with a level 4 animal companion who could take 4 times the damage as the level 8 paladin in the party.
I started with 13th age which is a very simplified version of 4e, it was made for first time players, it's a very easy to understand and very liberal with the interpretation of rules (multiclassing is basically class stacking (up to 3) with a weapon damage debuff), the also completely dropped skills. Also 9 people in 2 hour sessions means basically nothing ever gets done.
4e was great (combat wise), lacked out of Combat stuff. Amazing PC creation with a TON of material (Hybrid Class plus Multiclass with a billion options).
I've only ever played D&D once on a friend's home campaign. It was a bit slow and we quit a few sessions in (due to people losing interest. I wanted to keep going) but this sounds like HELL.
4th e was heavily battle based-very little rp. I started on this e. My DM was happy for a couple sessions to call back to 3.5 when I got bit by a werewolf but that didn't last long-my character had to be killed off because 4e made things even more complicated. I was never angry about that-everyone was a bit more awake during those 3 sessions but 4e just wasn't letting much rp happen.
I felt he was moreso doing a comedy routine with some of the exaggerations, but it does frustrate me. Picture that if we put EIGHT players with a DM and they are ALL NEW. I'd imagine they'd make a video like this. Puffin and friends have done a session with 4e and nearly every complaint they've had, I had when I new to 5th. "Oh boy I healed once and have to wait for a long rest." Like having one spell slot?! I've loved my time in 4e and still miss my dual blade stance based ranger. One of the silly moments was jumping among the treetops to scout ahead. Friend was silly and threw a boulder at me to nat 20. There went the branch, my leg and some nat 1s. Spiteful friends are hilarious! Another highlight was dodging a enemy cross bow with elven reflexes(or something like that) aware it was the empowered shot to pin a foe. Hitting the one I was dueling on the ship(below deck) and seeing him get nat 20ed, pinned to the wall. Killing him during that process as the stance I used gave me a hit for ANY enemy that moved away/attacked me between rounds. I've had a great time with it and do like 5th now that I'm used to its system as well. 4th did introduce some helpful stuff in 5th, imagine no short rests. Ever.
Legit when he said this- 12:03 I started to tear up because it didn't matter if you houseruled it away because then it jeopardized literally everything else involved in the game! From the builds to even the enemies! It was so heavily enforced throughout the system that just taking it out would rendure the entire game broken. And just trying to replace it with something to keep it up would never work! I spent so much time failing to fix it and watch several other DM's fail to fix it. Once we all gave up we just suffered to push through it! RPing wasn't even worth the effort because of how jarring it was out of combat! Q A Q
4th edition was actually a lot of fun for me and my group. We did a two year long campaign in it, had a blast. Also, contrary to what Puffin said, every class was a blast to play and had a lot of meaningful choices every level. For instance, a Fighter could be a sword-and-board warrior who constantly knocked their foes to the ground with well-timed shield shoves OR they could be a Battlerager who gets more and more and more temporary HP the longer they stay in a fight. And at level 11 you got your paragon path which added even more depth to your character with new powers and abilities and lore. That sword and board fighter, for instance, could become a Shield Adept whose shield use is as legendary as any other warrior's sword OR they could be Doomguard Marauder who dishes out the pain in huge doses the longer their foes continue to harass them. Then at level 21 you begin your path to immortality. Will you become a demigod in service to a greater cause, or will you become the Legendary Sovereign who unites the realm and brings about a golden age and whose legend lives on alongside those of King Arthur or Charlamagne or Alexander the Great or Gilgamesh? Combat was not a detriment, it was probably the best part of the game. You and your party going toe to toe with the forces of evil, pushing chaos back to bring hope to a land long in need of it. Can you save the village? The region? The kingdom? The world? The multiverse?!
4e is pretty good. It's just not D&D, it's its own thing. So if you go into it expecting the creative freedom of 3.5, and for it to be an improvement of 3.5, you're going to be massively disappointed (like I was). I can definitely understand people wanting to play it for its own merits, however.
You should probably watch Projared's video on 4e as he is more positive towards it. Just to get both sides of it. But know this. The DnD board games using a simple version of 4e that started with Castle Ravenloft are great fun. So it gave us that at least.
In retrospect, 4e wasn't bad...it was just such a big departure from previous and future versions of D&D it feels like a totally different game. For a diehard fan of previous editions, my own problems centered around how hard it was to convert old characters in my favorite campaign settings into the 4e system.
Huh... So animate dead was a spell that only costed gold? What are they doing? Bribing the most stubborn mercenaries to come back to fight for them? I guess they really want that paycheck then
I know how it sounds but my sunday dnd group (it fell apart but because of a different reason) had at one point ten players granted it was 5e so maybe its better then 4th in terms of time but i heard of a 20 Player Vampire the Masquerade game thats true maddness.
as far as price goes you would only need a PHB (players handbook) and a set of dice. you can get the PHB as a PDF for free I believe but a physical copy is better. the other books are for the DM,
4e was very finely balanced. In order to obtain this balance, it placed all advancement on a treadmill (You got +1 attack? Perfect, it's mandatory because your enemies got +1 defense!), and put a straight jacket, concrete shoes, and heavy chains on your creativity. It also placed Being A Game above being a simulation, and as such a lot of "we're doing this because This Is A Game" elements were in your face basically all the time.
Been watching your stuff again. Also Been reading through the 4e materials again. In all honesty, Ben gave it the shittiest explanation possible. Most of the things he talked about are already present in other if not every edition. You had plenty of choices, with very few being copies of others. 3.5 is actually more complex. It's just way more functional than he makes it out to be.
"Functional" is a pretty apt description of 4e, because it was very much a function over form system. A lot of RPGs, especially at the time tended to bury the rules in with the fluff, whereas 4e made a very clear distinction between the two, which for whatever reason rubbed a bunch of folks the wrong way and caused them to knee jerk declare the system lacked immersion. There's plenty of fluff to get immersed in with 4e, it's just presented in its own sections separate from the rules, and tends to be less about exact details, but more so a framework for each table to put their own spin on.
As a DM for a game with 8 players it can work if people know what you are doing or I just avoid the combat if they don't know what they are doing. However this is 5e a much simpler system the only thing that is they same is the RP and the skill usage is different. As someone that has played 3.5 and 5e trust me 4e is so broken in how it works that even people that like the number crunch of 3.5 hate 4e.
4e was released a year after Gary Gygax passed away, and I feel that's the reason it failed so miserably. My first edition I ever played was 3.5 and while there is a lot of math involved (bonuses and penalties from your abilities and equipment), it wasn't as bad as 4e o.o I know there are people that actually enjoy 4e, but we can see why it wasn't everyone's cup of tea.
While I don't think Gary would've like 4e either, he definitely did not like 3e. He thought it was too combat-focused, superhero-ish, and lost the cooperative aspect.
Started playing these game with rifts and pathfinders its was fun as hell now playing a homebrew fire emblem dnd based off of three houses its werid but fun
This is two years late, but I have to speak up: I'm sorry. I'm sorry your first impression of 4th Edition was through Puffin Forest. You deserved better. With that out of the way, if you are in any way willing to at least listen to a bona fide 4E experience so you can determine for yourself whether it was a "bad" system, then please consider listening to Critical Hit: A Major Spoilers Dungeons and Dragons Podcast. Edit: They have rebranded themselves as Critical Hit: A Major Spoilers RPG Podcast. They began their first campaign at Level 1 in 2009 and played a nearly 11-year long super campaign that ended at Level 29 in September of 2020, comprising Six Seasons worth of content. The story has intermissions with additional short campaigns from other systems, including 5th Edition Starter Set, Fate Accelerated, and Pathfinder. The first 2 episodes are excerpts from their main show and are minorly important, but they establish 3 of the key players: Dungeon Master Rodrigo, Old Grognard Matthew, and Baby's First D&D Stephen. Episode 3 is a thorough walk-through of character creation for Stephen's first PC, the Eladrin Wizard named Orem Rivendorn. The follow-up episode is the first session, featuring only Rodrigo and Stephen, and is a great example of running a 1-party member session. Episodes 5-7 are where Matthew and another player named D&D Brian join Stephen in the first Season of the series, essentially ending the first group session on a major cliffhanger to encourage interest. Episode 8 is where the 4th and, for a long while, final player Rob joins and begins the Second Season. The early seasons are chock full of break-downs and entire Q&A episodes about the system and how it runs. The group is very dynamic but clearly learning as they go, and Rodrigo handles the role of Dungeon Master expertly. I beg you, don't write off 4E because of the hyperbolic meanderings of a person who clearly admitted that "they were running it wrong". Thank you, and please stay safe.
@@Eemi_Seppala: 4e is by far my personal favorite system and I think Puffin's take on it is very biased, but I don't think he intentionally "lied" about it. I fully believe that these were his legitimate experiences with the system... his group was just really, really bad at it, and his video doesn't really spend enough time acknowledging how much of their troubles were their own fault, or rather that it was probably just always gonna be a bad fit for the style of game they wanted. 4e is a rules heavy system, and while the meme that it's ONLY about combat is highly exaggerated, it's not gonna be a very fun system for players that don't enjoy engaging with tactical skirmishes. It's very much a system were the amount of fun you get out of it is proportional to the amount of effort you put into it.
I played one session of DnD 4e with a quick character. It didn't go so well. I figured if I learned the system more I'd find more enjoyment. I didn't get past character creation before I peaced out. It felt like I was playing a WoW charceter without the PC doing the under the hood calculation.
Not sure if I'm the only one bothered by this but could you change the audio balance so that when you're talking at the same time as someone else my brain doesn't interpret that as you yelling over them.
I think Puffin ends up presenting 4e pretty poorly. There's multiple times where he makes it apparent that he either misremembers how the game worked or misinterpreted it. There's also when he talks about how classes work and ends up making them sound more homogenized than they are, like how he presents all the healing classes having a healing ability as a bad thing.
D&D 4e is the best D&D I've ever played. 3.5 was always an unbalanced garbage and 5e feels like a dumbed down version of my favorite D&D. All that those memes make me think of is that this mob mentality and some influential figure that didn't like the game for being purist robbed people of an amazing experience with 4e. I know that because I was almost robbed of that experience for that same reason if it wasn't for my friends consistently insisting for me to give it a try and Ioved it so much that I dropped Kindred of the East and Vampire the Masquerade for D&D (you should know how rare that is). Before hearing to people who are not smart enough to keep track with basic math to play the game, you should try for real yourself. Pick up the Rules Compendium, the MM 3 and go for it.
@AirierGames: Don't take Puffin Forest's 4e "review" too seriously. The 4e D&D game is much better and varied than he is making it out to be. He did not learn/remember correctly what the game was. He gets a lot of the rules and stuff wrong.
All reviews of 4th edition tend to devolve into spewing poison at it. It is not a good system; it is tedious, it is boring, and bogs down combat. You can take hours to get through two rounds of combat. I am glad they came out with another edition, because even Wizards was against the system towards the end of it.
I’m so tired of people ragging down the edition I love, I’m tired of their memes spreading across the ttrpg world, causing whatever players to never even look at the cover for it’s undeserved reputation
@@aguilarraliuga1777 I'm sure you didn't mean it towards me specifically, but you make it sound like you are cross with me for saying things that I felt are legitimate issues with the game.
!["A Crap Guide to D&D [5th Edition] - Character Sheet" | Kip Reacts to JoCat](/img/n.gif)
In the late 70's and 80's, D&D and AD&D were two distinct games that shared some similarities but were also very different in many ways. AD&D Second edition kept most of the mechanics of AD&D but with a ton of polish from having seen them in action. Then for 3rd edition (Which dropped the Advanced because there was now only one D&D), they completely revised the basic mechanics from the ground up, and scaled up the impact by creating a license allowing anyone making a RPG to use the basic mechanics of 3rd E free of charge. This meant that a huge number of other RPG's coming out played just like D&D 3rd E making it easier for players to move back and forth between games. 3.5 was made a few years after 3 to fix a number of issues that had come up after 3 was released. But when they pushed forward to 4E, the initial reaction was not good, and so the creators of pathfinder decided to take one of those open licenses to start with the mechanics of 3.5 and patch in a few changes based on player experience, which is why some players called Pathfinder D&D 3.75.
“It took 3 hours. We made it to turn 2” don’t ask why but I just found that extremely hilarious
No a sad part would be if you had to leave for a a job interview was gone 1 and half hours and got back and was only just then was it your turn it was still the first round but your last to play because you rolled lowest on initiative. It took 90 minutes for the other players to play a round.
wtf and how the hell it hapened
That whole "Hey you know how Dungeons & Dragon's 4th Edition is terrible? We're not!" is _exactly_ what happened with Pathfinder.
@@petalsinthebreeze People hated 4th Edition, so a bunch of people went, "you know what, we can do this better". So they created their own rpg system based on the older 3.5 DnD system with their own improvements. Now it is one of their biggest competitors
After overprinting books for 3.5 Wizards realized they ran out of book ideas so they could't get more money out of the players, so they decided it was time to make 4E despite the fact people had just switched to 3.5 not that long ago, most people were NOT happy. Paizo took the oportunity to take 3.5's corpse, modify it, and make money out of all the people who got angry at wizards.
@@franciscoalejandro7567 4e was made because Hasbro was getting ready to kill D&D on top of people BLASTING 3.5 for it being a broken disjointed mess.
I love how Puffin goes "I played that game some time ago, and I bought the books for nostalgia!" to "Oh god, please kill me!"
Every time one of the '4e bad' videos makes it across my feed, I am compelled to stream that 4e Spelljammer game I've always wanted to do, just to prove everyone wrong. ESPECIALLY with how bad 5e Spelljammer turned out.
Many issues Puffin has with 4e stems from everyone being new, but also, kind of.... seeming to really WANT it to be that bad. A few responses:
Tracking bonuses and penalties - I'm a wargamer, so I have a shorthand for tracking these things, so it's not as big an issue in my 4e games. But also if you look in the back of 4e books, you see they were initially advertising an online program to run in parallel with your game to track it for you - not entirely dissimilar to plans for D&D One.
Gold for Rituals - rituals require spell/ritual components, and possibly a scroll to cast. You have to buy chalk or candles or herbs or whatever. It's not that they literally cost gold to cast. So the complaint is partly made in bad faith, but also low gold setting means they can't buy those components.
Skill challenges - also a bad-faith complaint, the rules specifically say 'ask players which skill they want to use to try to solve this challenge'. The only time this wasn't a thing was for the pre-generated modules for adventure league. Really, a DM should know their party's sheet enough so they can give suggestions on how they can solve skill challenges.
I had enjoyed 4e, I liked all the classes having a variety of skills even if you weren't a caster and the more classes. But the problems with 4e are still real and I understand them.
The first ever RPG that was created was known as Blackmoor, which was followed by Gary Gygax's Greyhawk. They were games of smaller, more closed circles, and later in the 70's both of those games were made into D&D's original settings. Here's a video on the history of the original edition of D&D, known as OD&D, or more popularly, the White Box: ua-cam.com/video/PqVotn4UDFg/v-deo.html
Just here to enlighten y'all!
As someone who loves utility magic, to the point of having played a character who was a wizard who had _no_ damage spells, 100% utility (and it freaking worked in 5E ._.) I could never get behind this ._.
I remember when I started playing D&D. I was also one that started out playing 4e; though we played an homebrew version of 4e. How much was homebrew? Well, basically all of it tbh. You see; in the group I was in; no one had ever played D&D before, and no one even knew the basics of the game. That meant that during session 0; we spent hours just trying to figure out how to play. No one could make much sense of the rules, so we just decided to wing it and play according to how we thought it should play out. Obviously; this meant that we hadn't a clue whether we were playing the game correctly or not (reflecting on those memories now; I know we did so much wrong in the game), but we didn't care. We just wanted to have fun and start playing already, and figured that as long as everyone was on board with how the game played; that it didn't matter if we followed the rules precisely or not. We just had to be sure that we were consistent with the rules of our campaign; which was simple enough. It was still a bit rough getting immersed into the game, however, and so I had the idea at the time to try and use background music to set the tone of the atmosphere. I decided one session to try it (with the DM's permission; of course), and when I did; everyone loved it. It really did help the entire group immerse into the scene of the session; even the DM, interestingly enough. Sadly, I only ever got to do that once; since after that, the group disbanded; but it was cool that I got to discover just how effectively music sets the atmosphere of a D&D campaign.
@AirierGames: I love 4e D&D. I had started way back in 1e/AD&D in the 80s, and I still think 4e was the best edition (currently playing 5e with everyone else now).
I feel like he ran/played it sub-optimally like he said. I didn't have nearly as much frustration running/playing it (and yes, I DM'd years at the game stores and would run games for as many as eight players without issue). Of course he is going to have a bad time if he has a group (including the DM) who are new to the hobby. That will happen in any edition of a tabletop RPG.
You really need a few experienced players and a DM in any group to make the acclimatization to a new game system painless.
The game is nowhere near as bad as he is making it out to be.
Ok. I started on AD&D and worked my way to Pathfinder 2E. When we played 4E one game lasted 4 years. We went from level 1 to level 23 Demi gods who actually met gods. Only another player and I stayed on for the entire stretch because we had full backstories. The others didn’t put much thought into their characters so they had nothing to keep their characters going.
My character was a fighter under Kord searching for his much more talented older brother who disappeared. He was also cursed with soul rot. Through many trials and obstacles he eventually discovered that his brother disappeared into a void and Asmodeus removed his soul rot. So from a loyal follower of Kord to an anti-hero under Asmodeus. From searching for his brother to wanting to kill his brother. It was quite the character arc. But the battles dragged on for quite a while. Sometimes we left fights unfinished and returned to them next session.
As no-one else seems to have mentioned it: Puffin got most of the things wrong here, and many of his legitimate complaints could just be that they didn't want to learn the system. Who plays year of any game and doesn't learn how to play it?
Also, multi-classing was a thing and controllers had important role in the battlefield. Just because every class can deal damage, doesn't mean that's the only thing anyone cares about and maneuvering was huge in 4E since you didn't have "disengage" like in the 5e.
I feel like most of the 5E crowd who try 4E just want to hit stuff and don't care about the synergies or the tactics involved.
But when it comes to math, 4E is on the lighter side compared to many, many other games.
I like Puffin Forest well enough, but I'm looking forward to the day when you run out of these. It would be great to see you react to other D&D content.
I've actually already recorded everything he has out right now.
the next few days, I'll probably start getting a few reviews of the dingo Doodles videos as well.
@@Airier Oh very nice to hear mate. I look forward to hearing what you think of his content.
@@DLAlucard her content, I may guess...
@@uhbyr1 Ah yes nice catch. I'd been half asleep when making that comment.
@@DLAlucard nah, it's okay. Have a good day
I remember a convention in germany around the time 4e was around. A few gamers talked about rpgs and one was like "I feel like the only thing that is keeping me from organizing book burnings for 4th edition is the historical bad taste that book burnings give me deep down..."
You know something is bad if germans compare it to the 30-40s...
Also, Puffin messed up about multiclassing. There were actually 2 ways to multiclass in 4e - Hybrid (which he poorly describes), taking a feat that then let you take some abilities and powers from the class in question and I think there was another one for paragon multiclassing but I'm not one hundred percent sure on that one.
You want crazy? The original D&D rules, edition zero as its sometimes called or OD&D says a good referee (dungeon master nowadays) to player ratio is 1:20. That only really exist in its the original miniature wargming hobby, when it hit the public it quickly settled on more of 1:4 or so as the norm. Though the first few revised rulesets, Advanced Dungeon and Dragons (also known as 1E) and the Dungeon and Dragon line (it’s complicated) kept the caller rule. That is for your group only one player was to be designated the caller and all communication with the Dungeon Master is supposed to go through them, which makes a lot of sense when you have say 40 players and 2 DMs (Which did happen with Gygax) not so much for the average 1 DM four or five players set up.
Such tables also didn’t tend to bother with describing attacks in depth. You rolled your dice, you did your damage, moving on. They just didn’t find the exact details of how you sworded a monster interesting. (A camp I admit I fall into, but it is the minority) And the combat system is fairly abstract (expect when it isn’t…. but that’s a whole thing.) t the point that a single turn in combat didn't take up 5 seconds, it encompassed ten minutes. Needless to say OD&D worked on assumptions that was rare outside of the wargaming community it was made for and is even less common now.
I really loved 4e. Honestly, I think it's my favorite edition, with 5e and then AD&D 2e rounding out my top three favorite D&D editions. And I know a lot of people think that only people who first got into D&D with 4e liked it, but I got into D&D with the 1980s BECMI boxed sets. Also, Puffin entirely screwed up how skill challenges are handled in 4e in the video.
Yea he did (he seemed to struggle with a lot of stuff in 4th edition),it was honestly a pretty good idea that needed some refinement (and some better examples in the core rulebook) but instead it got scrapped. The backlash to 4th edition is probably responsible for monsters in 5th being pretty dull.
In fairness 4th edition was best played on a pc or laptop where a lot of stuff could be tracked for you.
There was MC'ing, just limited to 3 Feats (1 for each Tier). And the book for Hybrid Classing was PHB3.
The one thing me and my group carries over is Skill Challanges.
However our GM has the "Convince me" mood.
Basically if I can make a solid enough case to use Investigation to stop a rockslide by mathematically calculating where it is safe, the GM would allow it.
Yeah, 4e being described as a tabletop version of an MMORPG is accurate since at that time, MMORPGs popularity is still on the rise with multiple WoW clones and others.
My first introductory is actually both 3.5e and 4e but online with a group of forum friends. We never really got anywhere due to the other players "cheated" by downloading the Book Module and the DM not wanting to have any nonsense in messing with the modules.
Say what you will about 4e it's monster manual had some interesting things in it. My first game of dnd was using a 5e player handbook and a 4e monster manual, oh boy did was that not balanced. A series of Living dragon weapons built to kill gods, giants that were corrupted by the shadowfell like shadow dragons, they were basically death elementals, devil freaks of nature whose souls were made of other the other souls of devils fused together, which is interesting since devils are basically all clones and it makes you wonder how in their "society" they would fit in or just the fact that you can fuse souls to make bigger souls which gets weirder when you think about the 5e monsters with fragments of souls that shattered. There were a lot of interesting concepts.
4th e was not a bad game for how it was structured. However it was much closer to a strategy board game than an actual rpg.
To be clear, 4e is pretty hard balanced for 4 players. So they literally had twice as many players as the game is normally made for. So of course that is going to seriously slow things down.
But they also had never played before which also will slow things down.
Also you could still make basic attacks and rely on the easier to remember abilities. Puffin really tends to exaggerate a few things with 4e, though it does have some actual problems.
In D&D 5e, game sessions usually go from anywhere between 2-5 hours on average with a maximum party of 4-6 players. It’s more manageable that way. I prefer a larger party, around 5 or 6 players and longer game sessions. You get more out of your time that way, and you can challenge the players more without it being unfair because of how CR scaling works when you have a larger party. Other groups prefer shorter sessions with smaller parties, around 2-3 players and maybe 4 or 5 hours max. It all depends on what kind of group you’re in and wether or not your DM can handle more complex sessions. 5e is a really flexible system that makes it accessible in a way older editions didn’t allow for.
When you get the chance to, I would highly recommend reacting to the D&D stories told by Dingo Doodles. I know a lot of people have suggested it before, but I wanted to add my own thoughts by saying it was her videos that inspired me to give D&D a try in the first place, and I had a lot of fun with my first session yesterday (which would be February 15th as of the writing of this comment)
I would say the 4e has a lot of good magical items so if you see that book for cheap maybe grab it for magical items for 5e games.
I've DM'ed a group of 16 players... It's insane. Context, I was asked to take on a pen and paper community center class, and I was told that there wouldn't be too many attendees, and it was the same place where I had my introduction to D&D (OG 3rd edition) so I was alright with it.. turns out I had to take on two classes at once because the other DM bailed.. so I was stuck with 16 new players... At once... It was tough hahaha.
I will also say that I had some enjoyable moments with 4th edition. But I will concede that 5th edition is far superior
... that sounds amazing, but at the same time, even thinking about having that many other players is blue screen worthy. 😲
@@Airier close to. I spent roughly 2-3 sessions getting everyone up and ready, and we only met up once per week, and we were only there for roughly 8 or 9 weeks. So it wasn't a lot of gametime, but I was told they found it enjoyable. But yeah, I had to severely limit Combat, just due to time constraints
My first introduction to dnd was 4e. I was lucky that a friend had a character builder program on his computer so it made making characters a breeze. For the final bbeg fight we had so many buffs on ourselves and so many nerfs on the bbeg that we got it to half health without ever being hit.
Technically Chainmail, which was straight medieval military sim. The Fantasy Mod/attachment was what D&D derived from.
8 pcs in a pathfinder game.. I had the easiest job as the party tank, with a level 4 animal companion who could take 4 times the damage as the level 8 paladin in the party.
Good that I started to get into D&D with the 5 edition.
Also was just at a dentist and ya no one in the history of mankind has said Ya to the dentist
I started with 13th age which is a very simplified version of 4e, it was made for first time players, it's a very easy to understand and very liberal with the interpretation of rules (multiclassing is basically class stacking (up to 3) with a weapon damage debuff), the also completely dropped skills. Also 9 people in 2 hour sessions means basically nothing ever gets done.
4e was great (combat wise), lacked out of Combat stuff. Amazing PC creation with a TON of material (Hybrid Class plus Multiclass with a billion options).
I've only ever played D&D once on a friend's home campaign. It was a bit slow and we quit a few sessions in (due to people losing interest. I wanted to keep going) but this sounds like HELL.
4th e was heavily battle based-very little rp. I started on this e. My DM was happy for a couple sessions to call back to 3.5 when I got bit by a werewolf but that didn't last long-my character had to be killed off because 4e made things even more complicated. I was never angry about that-everyone was a bit more awake during those 3 sessions but 4e just wasn't letting much rp happen.
This always confused me as a criticism as there's is the same amount of RP opportunities as other editions.
I felt he was moreso doing a comedy routine with some of the exaggerations, but it does frustrate me. Picture that if we put EIGHT players with a DM and they are ALL NEW. I'd imagine they'd make a video like this. Puffin and friends have done a session with 4e and nearly every complaint they've had, I had when I new to 5th. "Oh boy I healed once and have to wait for a long rest." Like having one spell slot?!
I've loved my time in 4e and still miss my dual blade stance based ranger. One of the silly moments was jumping among the treetops to scout ahead. Friend was silly and threw a boulder at me to nat 20. There went the branch, my leg and some nat 1s. Spiteful friends are hilarious! Another highlight was dodging a enemy cross bow with elven reflexes(or something like that) aware it was the empowered shot to pin a foe. Hitting the one I was dueling on the ship(below deck) and seeing him get nat 20ed, pinned to the wall. Killing him during that process as the stance I used gave me a hit for ANY enemy that moved away/attacked me between rounds. I've had a great time with it and do like 5th now that I'm used to its system as well. 4th did introduce some helpful stuff in 5th, imagine no short rests. Ever.
Legit when he said this- 12:03 I started to tear up because it didn't matter if you houseruled it away because then it jeopardized literally everything else involved in the game! From the builds to even the enemies! It was so heavily enforced throughout the system that just taking it out would rendure the entire game broken. And just trying to replace it with something to keep it up would never work! I spent so much time failing to fix it and watch several other DM's fail to fix it. Once we all gave up we just suffered to push through it! RPing wasn't even worth the effort because of how jarring it was out of combat! Q A Q
4th edition was actually a lot of fun for me and my group. We did a two year long campaign in it, had a blast. Also, contrary to what Puffin said, every class was a blast to play and had a lot of meaningful choices every level. For instance, a Fighter could be a sword-and-board warrior who constantly knocked their foes to the ground with well-timed shield shoves OR they could be a Battlerager who gets more and more and more temporary HP the longer they stay in a fight. And at level 11 you got your paragon path which added even more depth to your character with new powers and abilities and lore. That sword and board fighter, for instance, could become a Shield Adept whose shield use is as legendary as any other warrior's sword OR they could be Doomguard Marauder who dishes out the pain in huge doses the longer their foes continue to harass them. Then at level 21 you begin your path to immortality. Will you become a demigod in service to a greater cause, or will you become the Legendary Sovereign who unites the realm and brings about a golden age and whose legend lives on alongside those of King Arthur or Charlamagne or Alexander the Great or Gilgamesh?
Combat was not a detriment, it was probably the best part of the game. You and your party going toe to toe with the forces of evil, pushing chaos back to bring hope to a land long in need of it. Can you save the village? The region? The kingdom? The world? The multiverse?!
4e is pretty good. It's just not D&D, it's its own thing. So if you go into it expecting the creative freedom of 3.5, and for it to be an improvement of 3.5, you're going to be massively disappointed (like I was). I can definitely understand people wanting to play it for its own merits, however.
You should probably watch Projared's video on 4e as he is more positive towards it. Just to get both sides of it. But know this. The DnD board games using a simple version of 4e that started with Castle Ravenloft are great fun. So it gave us that at least.
In retrospect, 4e wasn't bad...it was just such a big departure from previous and future versions of D&D it feels like a totally different game. For a diehard fan of previous editions, my own problems centered around how hard it was to convert old characters in my favorite campaign settings into the 4e system.
One thing that saddens me, is that I want to play Gamma World, but apparently the closest one to D&D is with D&D's 4th edition.
I am pretty sure the number of players in a trading card game is not nearly as comparable to d and d combat.
4th edition was one where we pull out if we can't continue our current campeign and to do a one nighter
Have you seen? The Because Science video Where he made a computer from the rules of Magic the Gathering in a legal game
Huh... So animate dead was a spell that only costed gold? What are they doing? Bribing the most stubborn mercenaries to come back to fight for them? I guess they really want that paycheck then
I know how it sounds but my sunday dnd group (it fell apart but because of a different reason) had at one point ten players granted it was 5e so maybe its better then 4th in terms of time but i heard of a 20 Player Vampire the Masquerade game thats true maddness.
as far as price goes you would only need a PHB (players handbook) and a set of dice. you can get the PHB as a PDF for free I believe but a physical copy is better. the other books are for the DM,
4e was very finely balanced. In order to obtain this balance, it placed all advancement on a treadmill (You got +1 attack? Perfect, it's mandatory because your enemies got +1 defense!), and put a straight jacket, concrete shoes, and heavy chains on your creativity. It also placed Being A Game above being a simulation, and as such a lot of "we're doing this because This Is A Game" elements were in your face basically all the time.
And this is why absolut balance is not nessecarily a good thing.
Been watching your stuff again. Also Been reading through the 4e materials again.
In all honesty, Ben gave it the shittiest explanation possible. Most of the things he talked about are already present in other if not every edition. You had plenty of choices, with very few being copies of others. 3.5 is actually more complex.
It's just way more functional than he makes it out to be.
"Functional" is a pretty apt description of 4e, because it was very much a function over form system. A lot of RPGs, especially at the time tended to bury the rules in with the fluff, whereas 4e made a very clear distinction between the two, which for whatever reason rubbed a bunch of folks the wrong way and caused them to knee jerk declare the system lacked immersion.
There's plenty of fluff to get immersed in with 4e, it's just presented in its own sections separate from the rules, and tends to be less about exact details, but more so a framework for each table to put their own spin on.
My current game (also my first campaign), has 7 players and the DM. It's kinda hard to be heard, but good stuff.
As a DM for a game with 8 players it can work if people know what you are doing or I just avoid the combat if they don't know what they are doing. However this is 5e a much simpler system the only thing that is they same is the RP and the skill usage is different. As someone that has played 3.5 and 5e trust me 4e is so broken in how it works that even people that like the number crunch of 3.5 hate 4e.
my first game was a wired mix of pathfinder i dont remember most of the rules i do remaber the once a day and few times a day spells and passive buffs
4e was released a year after Gary Gygax passed away, and I feel that's the reason it failed so miserably. My first edition I ever played was 3.5 and while there is a lot of math involved (bonuses and penalties from your abilities and equipment), it wasn't as bad as 4e o.o
I know there are people that actually enjoy 4e, but we can see why it wasn't everyone's cup of tea.
While I don't think Gary would've like 4e either, he definitely did not like 3e. He thought it was too combat-focused, superhero-ish, and lost the cooperative aspect.
@@ABSTAINER14 I didn't know that o:
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGG Raid shadow legends! *relaxes when he says it isnt* ok good
Started playing these game with rifts and pathfinders its was fun as hell now playing a homebrew fire emblem dnd based off of three houses its werid but fun
Wow that sounds interessting.
So out of -impatience- curiosity, are you going to read the binary translation I posted on your latest TTS reaction?
Yup. This Sunday during the next livestream.
😁
Is not the dice for D&D more pricey then the book? More so the good dices?
I once Dmd a game of dnd 4e for 12 players I Have not dmd since then
If you want Airier i could give you a link to a Website where you can look into some of the Books online.
Gracias.
Yea pathfinder is a modified 3.5 i personally liked it better than 3.5.
3.75
This is two years late, but I have to speak up:
I'm sorry. I'm sorry your first impression of 4th Edition was through Puffin Forest. You deserved better.
With that out of the way, if you are in any way willing to at least listen to a bona fide 4E experience so you can determine for yourself whether it was a "bad" system, then please consider listening to Critical Hit: A Major Spoilers Dungeons and Dragons Podcast.
Edit: They have rebranded themselves as Critical Hit: A Major Spoilers RPG Podcast.
They began their first campaign at Level 1 in 2009 and played a nearly 11-year long super campaign that ended at Level 29 in September of 2020, comprising Six Seasons worth of content. The story has intermissions with additional short campaigns from other systems, including 5th Edition Starter Set, Fate Accelerated, and Pathfinder. The first 2 episodes are excerpts from their main show and are minorly important, but they establish 3 of the key players: Dungeon Master Rodrigo, Old Grognard Matthew, and Baby's First D&D Stephen. Episode 3 is a thorough walk-through of character creation for Stephen's first PC, the Eladrin Wizard named Orem Rivendorn. The follow-up episode is the first session, featuring only Rodrigo and Stephen, and is a great example of running a 1-party member session.
Episodes 5-7 are where Matthew and another player named D&D Brian join Stephen in the first Season of the series, essentially ending the first group session on a major cliffhanger to encourage interest. Episode 8 is where the 4th and, for a long while, final player Rob joins and begins the Second Season.
The early seasons are chock full of break-downs and entire Q&A episodes about the system and how it runs. The group is very dynamic but clearly learning as they go, and Rodrigo handles the role of Dungeon Master expertly.
I beg you, don't write off 4E because of the hyperbolic meanderings of a person who clearly admitted that "they were running it wrong".
Thank you, and please stay safe.
I started to kinda dislike Puffin after this video of his. It turned away so many people who could have loved 4E, if he didn't lie about it.
@@Eemi_Seppala: 4e is by far my personal favorite system and I think Puffin's take on it is very biased, but I don't think he intentionally "lied" about it. I fully believe that these were his legitimate experiences with the system... his group was just really, really bad at it, and his video doesn't really spend enough time acknowledging how much of their troubles were their own fault, or rather that it was probably just always gonna be a bad fit for the style of game they wanted.
4e is a rules heavy system, and while the meme that it's ONLY about combat is highly exaggerated, it's not gonna be a very fun system for players that don't enjoy engaging with tactical skirmishes. It's very much a system were the amount of fun you get out of it is proportional to the amount of effort you put into it.
17:30 is basically EA games
1:10 no!!!... oh... ok
I played one session of DnD 4e with a quick character. It didn't go so well. I figured if I learned the system more I'd find more enjoyment. I didn't get past character creation before I peaced out. It felt like I was playing a WoW charceter without the PC doing the under the hood calculation.
📝
D&D 4e, is a good game
The ONLY way i imagined to play 4th ed was for a « the players are stuck in a videogame » game since the game is so video gamey
What commander do you play?
A mix of Animar, Kaalia, and any new Commander that comes out who might strike my interest. I usually switch the third deck up after a while though.
In my opinion, 4e serves to be nothing but lore.
Where does Raid get all that ad revenue?
Powers and Rituals require soda machine mechanics?
3.5 Is a good system, it just inkludes mor math, so manny people don't like them.
AirierGames
That's my name. 😁
Not sure if I'm the only one bothered by this but could you change the audio balance so that when you're talking at the same time as someone else my brain doesn't interpret that as you yelling over them.
I think Puffin ends up presenting 4e pretty poorly. There's multiple times where he makes it apparent that he either misremembers how the game worked or misinterpreted it. There's also when he talks about how classes work and ends up making them sound more homogenized than they are, like how he presents all the healing classes having a healing ability as a bad thing.
Can you watch epithat erasest? Im just asking also Hello from Denmark
Why don’t you react to dingo doodles
I'm actually about to start recording reviews of Dingo's vids soon.
They tried to make d&d like world of warcrafts combat system.... it was terrible
D&D 4e is the best D&D I've ever played. 3.5 was always an unbalanced garbage and 5e feels like a dumbed down version of my favorite D&D.
All that those memes make me think of is that this mob mentality and some influential figure that didn't like the game for being purist robbed people of an amazing experience with 4e. I know that because I was almost robbed of that experience for that same reason if it wasn't for my friends consistently insisting for me to give it a try and Ioved it so much that I dropped Kindred of the East and Vampire the Masquerade for D&D (you should know how rare that is).
Before hearing to people who are not smart enough to keep track with basic math to play the game, you should try for real yourself. Pick up the Rules Compendium, the MM 3 and go for it.
XD RAIDDDDDD
It just shin megami tensei
@AirierGames: Don't take Puffin Forest's 4e "review" too seriously. The 4e D&D game is much better and varied than he is making it out to be.
He did not learn/remember correctly what the game was. He gets a lot of the rules and stuff wrong.
All reviews of 4th edition tend to devolve into spewing poison at it. It is not a good system; it is tedious, it is boring, and bogs down combat. You can take hours to get through two rounds of combat. I am glad they came out with another edition, because even Wizards was against the system towards the end of it.
I’m so tired of people ragging down the edition I love, I’m tired of their memes spreading across the ttrpg world, causing whatever players to never even look at the cover for it’s undeserved reputation
@@aguilarraliuga1777 I'm sure you didn't mean it towards me specifically, but you make it sound like you are cross with me for saying things that I felt are legitimate issues with the game.
d&d 4 edition was made entirely by the wizards of the coast it was so bad they hired d&d players to help on making 5 edition
Only DMs I know is 4e followers. And that piss me off, but I have no other options. 7 years of that trash edition. I hate it so much...
4th edition was so bad part of the company broke off and created pathfinder
All accurate. 4e sucked!