The D&D editions remind me of the Elder Scrolls in terms of depth and mechanics. First edition is brutally difficult like Arena, Second is stupidly complex like Daggerfall, 3.5 is massively open to playstyle like Morrowind, 4th is a lot more combat-oriented like Oblivion, and 5th is the easiest to get into like Skyrim.
Minion Daechir The Elder Scrolls series came from the Bethesda guys playing D&D and other RPGs at the time, like Ultima. Their D&D setting was the world of Tamriel, which became the setting for the Elder Scrolls series.
I'm not normally one for self promotion, but I've recorded a retrospective series of videos for my channel, starting with Zero Edition released in 1974. I just finished and am currently uploading the final part of my 4th Edition retrospective. They may not be as good as Pro Jared's, but if you are interested in the history of D&D they might be worth watching
I got banned for a day on 4chan/tg/ for "trolling with the truth is still trolling" by saying in a thread that "If D&D4E had been released with literally any name but D&D it would have been hailed as a landmark in cinematic fantasy superheroes: and a "D&D killer" game.
You were right. I guess the worst thing about D&D 4th (aside from the fact that WotC lied back in 2004 saying it wasn't planning to make a 4th edition in 2008) was the fact that it bore the name D&D. I tried it and enjoyed it, but never once did it felt like D&D...
I don't know why youtube placed my reply under your comment. I tried answering to some other guy's comment, but each time, youtube would move my reply here. God this site can be shit at times...
Yeah, probably. I think if WotC had realized that they could get TWO DIFFERENT FANBASES instead of going with the "There can be only one... edition" mentality, WotC could have gotten an even bigger chunk of the RPG players/fanbase, by getting people who wanted tactical games, and people who wanted the complexity of 3.5 too.
It may not have been a lie but company politics ie who ever was in charge in 2004 wasn't planning on D&D 4th. When companies get really big the right hand doesn't even know what the left is doing.
The best thing I have to say about 4th edition is that while playing as the Treekin race I managed to trade my actual arm and leg for some kind of super shield and then rolled a nat 20 to grow them back within the next three days.
I was an artificer and I severed my own arm and grafted myself a mechanical arm and ran around punching people despite being a primarily ranged fighter
I have to pretend to seasoned tabletop players that I got my start earlier, but 4e D&D was what introduced me to the game and tabletop in general. You're right about it being a good transition for video game players to get into. Now, I am THE girl to come to in my town if you want to know tabletop. My collection fills a stand-alone closet in my garage. I cover a variety of genres and teach games at tabletop conventions. Because 4e was the "transitional" D&D, I try to find other games like it to bridge the gap for people who have been curious about tabletop and use them to make traditional video game players feel more comfortable at the table with seasoned veterans. All in all, much as I try to hide it, 4e did a lot of good in my life.
Oh. And my first character was a an elven werebear ranger with a bear companion. You know how much awesome that brings? My second in 4e was an elven assassin designed for movement and poisons. Because of 4e's daily's I was a MONSTER. I could climb and jump and maneuver as a free action and let my poisons do the talking with a Deathstalker Shortbow.
I got introduced at 3.5, and played it for about 2 years before 4e came out. Let me tell you 3.5 was one of the most garbage dumpster fire of all time. The system was awful, and 4e fixed the vast majority of it. Think about why Pathfinder become the most popular system for a while. Because of how terrible 3.5 was.
I came into D&D with 4th Edition. My DM did a good job with managing between encounters and interactions, so neither were overused. The system gave a helping hand when I didn't know how to react in combat, but enough space to be creative with my actions. It indeed had some comparisons to video-game mechanics, however that was ideal for my group at the time. When combat encounters occurred, the party looked at what they could do, then took to action, taking some time of course, but didn't become excessive as time went on. There were several pros and cons to 4E, but overall the experience was great. After 3 years of playing 4E - now with 5th Edition available - my group is resourceful enough to create their own events and cool reactions to the fantasy world, while still learning from them.
Hello Jared, usually I don't comment much on UA-cam, but I wanna do it now for a reason. So, I'm in the middle of mid-age crysis or something, and your videos of D&D made me remember the good old days when I use to role play with some friends at some friend's house, basically, good times... and I realized that, I really missed that kind of interaction with people. Role playing it's really a thing of is own, I can't really explain the experience, but is something special. Summing it up, I contacted my old friends and told them to reunite for a D&D session, all of them loved the idea and overwhelmed me with suggestions, thanks for the inspiration Jared.
I think an issue with the editions in DnD is that the community often acts like only one edition should exist at once. If the NEW edition isn't the previous edition done BETTER, it must be discarded. If the new edition is "better", the older ones must not be played anymore. But I like how different 3.5 / 4 / 5 are from each others. After all, they're simply a ruleset, we make the story. It's a bit like we're modding a game, but we have access to three different ruleset to make our mod. So when a new Edition is released, I enjoy seeing them try new things. Even if the new edition doesn't fit with what I like, I still have access to the previous editions. I can still make my games with the rulesets I liked. People sometime see a new edition release, feel it has less choices than what they liked compared to previous editions, and say "DnD now has less choices", but that's false. The new edition might have less choices, but DnD as a whole now has more choices for us to use and experiment with. This isn't meant to discard every complaint thrown at 4th Ed, since criticism is still good (and led to a great 5th ed), only meant to give some context and to remind people that there's nothing wrong in sometime revisiting older editions when creating new campaigns or creating a new DnD group. They're still great games and available to use.
"... the community often acts like only one edition should exist at once." That's exactly how Wizards acted before they released 5e though.. They only supported, in any way, *one* edition of DnD. After 4e (for various reasons) didn't really caught on, they changed their tune. Now you can get online resources for any editions.
When WOTC stops supporting that edition, the Open Gaming Licence allows support for that edition to continue. 3.5 and 4th got spiritual successors in the form of Pathfinder and 13th Age respecitively, and Wizards supporting this by selling PDFs of the old editions and even the 5e playtest on Dungeon Master's Guild. WOTC may not support editions, but many others do.
Not to mention, there's nothing saying that you can't homebrew your own edition by taking elements from each ruleset that you like (and that mesh well obviously) and playing with your own custom game.
Right. I think the editions are all about preference. However there are indeed a few other factors with age, such as cost of obtaining some materials not found online due to rarity, but just because something is new doesn't mean its automatically better, and if people don't like it as much, that doesn't mean that said edition should be burned in a fire and tossed out.... unless we're talking about something like Shadowrun 6E which was an objective mess, sadly. I agree 5e is good, but it is certainly not my favorite. I think there are some balance issues here and there and the oversimplification is both a good and bad thing in my opinion. It's great because it makes D&D easier to get into for new players and have a thrilling time, but for a lot of veteran players it can feel pretty dumbed-down and oversimplified, taking away a lot of deeper mechanics that they spent a while to learn in previous editions and grew to enjoy. Obviously I'm the latter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slag off 5e entirely. I think its objectively good and does some great things. But that's where it all comes down to preference. I prefer 4e due to the thrilling combat it gave, the awesome and wide variety of abilities given to non-magic classes, like Jared said, the class balance as a whole. And with the right DM, as for any edition, the main issue with said edition can be worked around pretty easily. Thats the beauty of D&D.
What I like about 4th edition is that it makes all the character classes equally cool and interesting. Some lose a bit of their uniqueness, such as the sorcerer, but most benefit from the new system of at-will-powers, encounter-powers and daily-powers.
The three best things that came out of D&D 4e: 1 - Redesign of the Tieflings 2 - The last passive power of the trickster rogue 3 - Will Save World for Gold
I think the best advise I got from this is making the encounters very important. When i tried it out with my friends, encournters were heavy as fuck and making them each important instead is probably the better way to go
Commenting like a year later, but I don't really care. I think it's good advice no matter which version of D&D (or any RPG in general) you play. There's not much I can think of that's worse than having a combat session that lasts an hour plus that doesn't feel like it needed to be there beyond the GM just wanting to throw stuff at the party who has spent the last hour plus talking to people, or in the case of my Shadowrun group, planning a heist. It makes the sessions very tiring, and not in a fun way.
I never really understand the hate for any edition, or for other table-top RPGs like Pathfinder. I enjoy and play all of them (haven't tried fourth edition, but may after watching this) and currently I'm playing a campaign of D&D Fifth Edition as well as a Pathfinder campaign. Ultimately, what makes or breaks a game is whether or not: A.) You're with a group of people you like to be around and play games with, and B.) Whether or not the rules and mechanics of that game amplify or reinforce that mutual enjoyment, or allow you and your group to create and experience new and exciting things. That's why I play RPGs. Whichever edition is best is ultimately superfluous. Just enjoy the game!
But the book still provides the framework, and you are harder pressed to make an edition with rules you're not fond off work better. Especially when those rules turn your character into an oversimplified set of Darksiders-style animations instead of just letting e.g. skilled archery be skilled archery.
@@Warvell1 What is over simplified? 3.5 has "special attacks" in the form of feats like Whirlwind Attack, there classes that had abilities that allowed martials to the extraordinary. Powers just made what would have been split between two or more separate mechanics and possibly multiple classes into one mechanic.
Perhaps my favorite thing about 4e was the massive amounts of customization. There were tons of races and classes to choose from, then numerous subclasses and paragon paths and epic destinies. No two characters ever felt alike unless you wanted them to. Sure, all those options can be intimidating, but better to have a plethora of choices than none at all. I really hope that 5e gets a few more race and class options because I really miss the huge number of options that 4e gave. It's somewhat chafing to not have all that variety after getting used to it.
Zivillyn Where did you find any of that? I'm trying really hard rn to get into 4e because that's what my group chose and so far poking around in the two handbooks I haven't been impressed. I miss the option of choosing out of numerous schools or circles for your class. I feel like each class has only option a and option b and further customization only happens after level 10. I'm trying to make a character but I can't help being disappointed at the lack of backgrounds and personal paths. To me it feels like there is 0 lore, story or anything to help the role-playing aspect and it makes me sad. Granted I have not read through all of the book but if there is more that I simply haven't found yet I'd greatly appreciate being pointed into the right direction. I have dabbled in 5e before and really liked how much material there was to go off of not from a combat standpoint but a character and role-playing standpoint.
I personally believe that 4th Ed is the best entry point for most folks into Tabletop RPGs. Its designed to appeal to a wider audience and uses concepts that many people who play video games will understand instantly.
So long as you're not thrown into a mid-level campaign with no tabletop RPG experience like I was. Then you're just lost and confused while wondering where all these numbers are coming from.
Go away Google to be fair, THAT onus is on whoever your Game Master was. It was irresponsible of them not to ease you into it. It's not the system's fault.
@@justghoul It was 4th edition (should I go on?) anyways My DM was planning a massive dungeon and we enter the first room. Its 2 skeletons. No problem we thought. Im the tank, I approach it and whack it and miss. The wizard casts a spell, and misses, the warlock casted a low damage spell, it hits, and the second skeleton heals the first one. Most of it was just bad luck, but it was all the nature of the game itself. Funny enough this was just when 5th edition came out and we were like "we don't need that schmancy fancy new edition we're find right here!" we switched to 5th edition after that.
I tell you this much Wes, I never thought I would get into something like D&D... But during my first experience with the revised edition, I actually cried when my first ever character died in a very Stupid accident (I didn't look where I was going and fell into a 100 foot pit...) Whatever edition you play, with a good DM - The game will be amazing fun!
Warren Marris ^_^ I hope so, some friends of mine have been thinking of setting up a campaign. Though there's been some dumb stuff that's stopped the progress. If we do get started though, I'm making a character focused on pickpocketing, just to spite Jared. xD
Whatever TTRPG you play, as long as its not Pathfinder or F.A.T.A.L., with a good gamemaster and good players all with non-conflicting schedules and a good environment to play in, the game will be amazing fun.
"Two-weapon rangers were pretty common but bow-and-arrow rangers were rare" "monks were crazy overpowered in 3.5" Now I don't have a lot of actual experience with 3.5, personally, but this is literally the only two times I've heard these statements. Everyone says Monks are terrible and that two-weapon fighting sucks.
@Issun McGoodmage I agree, I am in a 3.5 campaign now and you can't add dex to your damage, you have to add strength, being an elven rogue with 6 str, not good, monks couldn't use flurry of blows properly until they had a +2 to attack and you got penalties for everything
Agreed. Monks suck in 3.5, unless you use supplements to swap out abilities, then they could keep up with other classes. Also two-weapon fighting sucked due to feat taxes, the only way for it to keep up was to apply extra abilities like sneak attack.
Monks were *only* good at level 15+, and by then a barbarian could do the same stuff better, without the speed. Two weapon fighter rangers were common but unimpressive, since barbarians and fighters could do it better. Archers were more common, but not very. 4e only fixed the balance between casters and fighters as far as I could see.
4th edition was very tactical. I liked the tactical parts. There are other considerations. WotC burned every bridge it could find while transitioning from 3.5 to 4. Their methods are what created Pathfinder, which continues to be their biggest competitor in the market. They drove the market away from them, and it didn't matter how good or bad the game was.
I began with 4th edition, and I agree on every point. I'm also glad you mentioned how balanced it is, when my group moved to 5th I was shocked at how once certain classes reached a certain level they could kill the rest of the party 1v4 style.
4E has, bar none, the easiest encounter creation of any edition of D&D and possibly in any tabletop RPG. It achieves this through having very balanced monsters. It achieves THAT through 4E's probably worst feature: scaling defenses. Monsters and PCs gain a bonus to their defenses equal to half their level (iirc) and this means you level out of range of monsters like you might in an MMO. This means that monsters -can't- be unbalanced realistically. But it also means monsters have a time limit on their utility. Minions are a "fix" for this, because they still get scaled defenses. If you used a low level monster in 4E, they'd be very very easy to hit and would never hit the party. This means that monsters appear in bands that can't be mixed, so in turn every game ends up featuring the same progression of monsters more-or-less. (unless you make your own)
The DMG has tables that give templates in terms of stats for monster creation which greatly eases the process or allows you to fairly trivially re-scale monsters to higher levels. You can also re-fluff existing monsters to mix and match the bands. I have run encounters almost completely off the cuff just throwing together some minis and knowing the level of the party. This comes from years of running 4E, but shows just how good the system is for running combat.
I have played quite a bit of 4e and on the contrary i think that i roleplay less now with 5th edition than i did with 4th i dont think it has really anything to do with the rules however i did think that my 4e characters were cooler because of the powers so i got into character more often.
even if it was, there's plenty of stuff in 4E to support it. Skill powers for example are generally of more use out of combat, as well as rituals, martial powers, and some of the powers associated with themes, paragon paths and epic destinies. a lot of the utility powers are very much roleplaying oriented to the point of being semi-useless in combat, even for flashy combat oriented characters like sorcerers( as opposed to bards or rogues). I can definitely see the argument that the sheer emphasis on the combat options and the care they took to make it balanced maybe seems like it should take up more headspace when playing but our games tend to be pretty 50/50 tbh. Plus a lot of people who talk about "roleplaying" in this aspect aren't very good roleplayers. I don't like dungeon crawlers, personally, as I like character and humour and plot and motivation and stuff, but I also dislike a lot of the more pretentious roleplay heavy stuff i've seen. I feel like our games have a similar balance to the better youtube'd campaigns like critical role that use 5E and don't really "feel" all that different despite the different mechanics. a lot of stuff has changed quite a bit but IMO it still has a lot of the same "feel".
I started with 4e so it has a very special place in my heart. I still have every single damn book on my computer and finding those were a lot of fun. Now with settings for campaigns, I usually played 4e with an MMO style of combat because the powers are set up like that. However, I've fallen in love with Pathfinder.
4e is probably one of my favorite editions. Was a great entry point to TTRPGs for casual players who had never tried a TTRPG and weren't sure how to get started. It had some really nice, deep mechanics without being overwhelming. People love 5e to death but don't realize that half of 5e's sourcebooks are just practically copy-pasting from 4e's. I appreciate the depth of combat without taking away from roleplay. Sad that people hate it so much but it helped create 5e and of course the rules are always there if I want to start another 4e game.
Also the 4e version of bladesinger was swordmage (although they did introduce a bladesinger class later on in Essentials). Bladesinger is a wizard archetype in the 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide though!
HotChocletyLez It took me a long time to chine around to 4e. In my mind, more choice is always good, and the streamlining they did took a lot of that away at char gen. But damn, after getting used to it 3.5 just seemed like a chore. And I never got the hate for the combat focus of the rules. Imo the rules are only really important for balancing combat, the rest of the rp should be up to the players/dm.
I found it actually heavily customizable compared to 3.5 and such. I usually play with black sun benefits though, but even then, when designing a level 1 character, you have so many options at your disposal, and then past that is just as overwhelming each level. Leveling up can be insane to the point I actually can't play 4e without some sort of tool or source because of how many options for things there are.
If you want to use all the options, sure it's a bit overwhelming, but 4e also had some kickass online tools if you wanted easy and understandable access to everything they released. Insider was a great service, and the character builder was super duper comprehensive. Even running straight from the books, though, I find it easier to build a level 1 4e character as opposed to, say, a level 1 pathfinder character.
This makes me so happy; 4th edition was the version I got when all my friends wanted to play...but when I arrived they were disgusted by the fact that I bought that one and not 3.5 like they expected. I was crushed, because what I saw of it looked good and I assumed the newest version was the best one. I always stood by what Jared says when someone says it's "too this" or "too that".....that can always be made up for by a good DM. It's still the version I play to this day...
Tbh, i might move to 4e, although i'm more into low fantasy recently, so maybe something more osr or maybe an E6 campaign. Pathfinder 2e feels like 4e's spiritual successor, so maybe i would play it, rather than 4e. Plus, pathfinder 2e is more accessible. Although, it might be fun to read through 4e one day. It seems like it's actually a great edition. Just one, which wasn't lucky.
(I hope you're able to read this comment, ProJared) So coincidentally in D&December, my friends and I have started playing D&D for the first time (we are all brand new to the game, but our friend the DM is a fanatic). We have all quickly become addicted to the game and are meeting quite often to play. So we play with a DM who claims to play by 3.5 rules (we don't use Reflex, Willpower, etc.) yet we use the 4th edition handbooks, we have the 4th edition character sheets, we use minions and utility powers, and we do other stuff that from this video I just found out are fourth-edition exclusive. Personally, I love this game and I love this version! (I might be biased because this is the only really thing I know) But seriously, the combat would be so much more boring if we didn't play with all these rules and weren't allowed to have all this extra versatility to attack enemies in different ways! Our battles do last quite a long time usually (at least a twenty minutes to up to around forty-five depending on the battle) but I didn't realize until now that that was irregular. The thing that is most bothersome to me is that they did away with all the super cool races from fourth edition when transitioning into fifth, like Psyions and Wildens. Two members in our party were these extra-handbook races (myself included) and all of the apps on the Play Store for spellbooks and stuff are in fifth edition and don't include our races! :( Also, another member in our party only plays Archer class, and the class of my second character is a Warlock. Anyway, I thought I'd just share this tidbit of information with you, and let you know that I totally agree with you on the stance that fourth edition can be fun! I'm having a blast with it! (with what fourth-edition aspects we're using...)
Nitrometutorials I think people just hate the more combat oriented setting 4th edition gets. But overall it's still a role playing game and wether it's good or not all depends on the players. I've only played 5e but I know it took a lot from 4e so I'll always respect it for that much at least
@@Nitrometutorials It's all good. Back in the day (excuse my creaking bones, youngin') people kitbashed shit together all the time. Take a 1e character, dump it in 2e, who cares? Drop racial level limits? OK! Invent spell points? OK! Change dual-classing requirements in 2e? Sure! Lots of people didn't give a dead moose's last shit about rules purity. Whatever gives you the fun and takes you to the dreamland is perfect.
This was quite educational. I continued to play 3.5 when 4th came out in part because I tend to buy the books and I was a bit younger so money was tight. But this makes me a bit more interested to look into it as I love 5th and from the sounds of things 4th is different but not bad. Cool
My favorite addition to D&D overall, though I'm not entirely sure when it was done, was cantrips. Simple spells with minor effects that can be cast as many times as you like, giving magic users at least SOME way to be consistently doing things instead of just blasting one enemy followed by waiting around for an hour to do it again.
At least you decide how your fighter swings (twice at level 6, or use cleave or use two weapons, etc) instead of picking a cookie cutter ability that you will use ALL the time. It is more fun for me to combine actions with the feats/abilities I have and do something that at least feels unique/creative.
@@hermittmog8697 4E is built around tactical combats and you'll use 5-7 different attack powers per encounter from level 11 and on no matter what class you are. It'll be a few less from 1-10, but even by level 3 you'll use at least 3 per encounter. Once you include utility powers, it's kind of a joke to try and compare 3.5E/5E Fighters with 4E.
@@Shananiganeer Even sillier to compare relative power across different platforms. It is not an issue of how many cookie cutter abilities you have or use (and you will use the same ones over and over) it is that an ability spells out EXACTLY what the character does for you. Instead of " I take a five foot step into flanking position and sneak attack and draw a potion". It's " I use x, y or z ability." I played a bit and found it an improvement for wizards but over all WAY too MMO for table top. Rules are already a trap. I can't do this because there is a specific class ability or feat that allows for it. This is an issue in every game but most especially in 4th where my cinematic combat decisions are prescribed EXACTLY by the cookie cutter ability that may encompasses my entire turn. If anything it is LESS tactical (for the player) as it spells out EXACTLY what you do in a single ability, you barely have to think about it. You don't stack multiple effects and actions to create interesting new outcomes you just push the button.
@@hermittmog8697 There's no rules in 4e that say you can't use your basic attacks to do cool things, that's entirely up to the DM and the player, like it has been in every edition of D&D, and let's be honest, most players don't do that, they just swing. 4e just has an extra option for cool stuff you're always gonna have.
4e is by far and away the best edition of d&d. Monsters have roles in this game, its balanced, its clean, every class can almost always bring something to the table. Combat is and should be the main focus of ttrpgs amd 4e is the first and only edition to embrace it and to actually introduce an indepth interesting system that allowed players AND monsters to nearly always have a ton of options. I played 3.5 and pathfinder for most of my life and totally slept on 4e for years, I just believed what people always said, how bad and different it is. Only started playing it about a year ago and honestly it was just years ahead of its time. With the success of 5e (which I dont get btw the game is dull af), I hope more people will try to look into older editions and discover the absolute brilliance of 4e.
@ProJared -researching DnD to try and get into it I actually found out bladesingers are a thing in 5th edition. they are in the sword coast books I think.
Yup! I have it. They're in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. They get a kinda Barbarian rage style spell dance they can do, and they can use light armor and martial weapons, unlike your usual wizard.
Find out if any of your friends would be interested in playing. If at least three people say they're in, you're gold. Get the rule book and study it like crazy. Watch youtube videos on how to get started. Sorry, but you *will* be the dungeon master for a while. You can also check out my new blog, where I'm including useful tips for new and experienced players: thegameadd.blogspot.com
Or if just one person does. Or two. Or seven. Or thirty-five. You can play DND with any amount of people greater than 1. You need atleast 2 people, one to DM, one to play, and the story can be told between just the two of you.
Hey Jared, great video as always, but I have one HUGE request for a D&December video: How exactly do you PLAY D&D? I know that's a rather vague and complicated question, so let me be a bit more specific. - How does combat, magic, and skill checks/saving throws work? (Turn order, attacks, spell preparations, etc.) - How does experience and levelling up work? - How do all the little details work? (Distance, food, healing, resting, etc.) Again, love your videos, you're one of my favourite youtubers. Happy Holidays!
In a session with a particularly brutal GM I went through a Tactical Warlord who died to Kobolds (got mobbed by all of them, then failed death save 3 times in a row), then a Dragonborn Bard (because why not?) who died during a fight with a goblin/hobgoblin(I think) boss, literally the turn before the fight was over. Then I made a human Rune Priest and put all my feats into death save prevention, and he turned out to be quite durable, often bouncing up from being knocked out.
I find it amusing when people argue about 4e. No matter the game system it's up to the gamers to have fun with it. Ran the game and role played the heck outta it. My players loved it.
SilverDeathLord and that's all DnD is about. If you and your party had a fun memorable experience, then it did exactly what it needed to do and no criticism can take that away.
My biggest problem with 4thed is that it focused so much on having figurines, which I and my friends didn't have. So we mostly used 3.5 and pathfinder until 5thed came out.
I played 4th edition for three years. I once thought about getting my character a custom figurine, but I dismissed it because *literally no one else had a figurine*. Seriously, I played with several DMs and everyone just printed figures or even just used square pieces of papers with letters on it.
One I'm really happy this guy is still in the business of content creating.... Two I'm not sure why 4th edition vids keep popping in my feed... Three, I'm loving it... 4th was my first real intro into the series and I really miss playing it
So glad you made this video, Jared. I started with 4e and really loved it. I really enjoy being able to mix classes with the hybrid rules from PH3, picking paragon paths that gave you more focused features on top of your base class, finding cool combos through feats and such and the combat was just awesome. I've been DMing 5e lately. It's fun and all, but I miss a lot of what I liked in 4e and how easy 4e made DMing with monster XP budgets, using minions and such. I really miss playing 4e and it's great to hear someone give it some love.
I find very funny when people say "DnD 4e was like a Videogame" but those same people dont have much of a problem playing Baldurs Gate for hours, like, it is bad if an Rpg resembles a videogame, but it is Ok if a Videogame Resembles an Rpg? Come on, have some consitency people.
As someone who plays a lot of fighter based characters, I loved 4e especially for the reason that it wasn't boring. I never once had to go through an encounter telling the DM that I was doing a full attack round after round. I was able to use these awesome powers in different combinations that allowed tactical manipulation of the miniatures on the table. I finally felt like a full member of the adventuring party that no other edition has been able to reproduce. I will always love 4e over the other editions.
I have only ever played with 4th edition and I'm so glad you made this video. I feel one of the perks to 4th edition was because the classes were built similarly, my friends starting for the first time could try other characters without getting too confused.
I think 4th is so underrated. I've been playing fourth for like 6 years now and I think I'd rather play 4th over 5th by far. Honestly though 3.5 is tied for 4th for me. Both great and better and different aspects of D&D
I started with 4E, and as a DM I loved it. You made all of my points, so I'm not going to make them again. As a player, though... there was too much for me to keep track of. Yeah they introduced a ton of really cool things for players, but the four different types of Defense constantly confused and frustrated me, I didn't really understand the preparation of all spells for every Arcane spellcaster, and I could go on. As a player, I enjoy 5e much more than 4th.
Really? Cause I also started with 4e, went to 5e and never want to go back to 5e. combat is so fucking boring. Just this hour long melee basic slug fest...
Man.. watching these videos makes me want to play again. I haven't played D&D, or similar games, in years. I may just have to call up some of my old friends and see if we can work something into our schedules. Getting older has taken my tabletop fun from me.
Honestly, the ease of use that 4e's character builder provided me when comparing multiple builds was amazing, especially because it incorporated nearly all books, magazine and power edits. A character having both a theme and a background allows a character to get useful utility powers and cool storytelling abilities both about the characters past and their future struggles or growth. My favorite addition is just the vast amount of classes, flavoring different combat styles to different power sources is boring on surface level, but the flavor text of each attack makes each attack feel unique. Plus, my first ever DnD character was a dwarf battlemind who for the heck of it multiclassed into cleric. Not only could I give my melee attacks extra powers using power points, I could use magic that relied on my wisdom instead of int. I could do so many things, because there were so many classes to multiclass to.
I got started with 3.5, and moved on to Pathfinder after that, because it was so similar that it was pretty easy for me to learn. I've never gotten to play any other edition of D&D yet (partly because I don't know the rules, and I don't know anyone else IRL who does), but I've been interested in 4th Edition for a few years now. The "video game-y" elements and Swordmage class (I love magic knights) sound appealing enough that I want to at least try it someday. So I can't really talk about 4e at all, since I don't know much. But I do know a decent amount about 3.5 and Pathfinder, so I can say this: Some of the stuff you said at the beginning about Monks and Clerics in 3.5 is... very wrong. Monks are generally considered pretty bad in 3.5, because they were dependent on too many stats at once, and a lot of their abilities didn't mesh too well, and Clerics... well, they call it CoDzilla for a reason. They were definitely good at more than just healing.
The Magus is actually how I learned about Pathfinder in the first place. I wanted to be a magic knight in 3.5, started looking, and somehow stumbled upon that before the Hexblade or Duskblade. Never went back after that. I loooove playing as the Magus, it's pretty much everything I like about magic knights rolled into one class. My two favourite characters are both different Magi achetypes (Eldritch Scion and Kensai).
Let's not forget about the Skill Encounter system that 4e introduced. The idea of having the entire party contributing their various skills towards a successful non-combat encounter was very novel and very cool.
4th edition was the first edition I ever played and I had a really good time with it! The thing I can remember most was my first character, Kurt the Illusionist. He was a little bit of a shifty, hyper active and not too wise youngman. After bandits raided his farmhome, he died in the flames of his burning house while trying to save his sister and the shaman of said raiders put a curse on him so he wouldn't die (not really anyway). Everything he did in a past life would be passed to the other but he would have to be a Doppelganger for good, having to give up on his own identity. From there he woke up in the ashes of what ones was his home.... yet he came back to life years later. Trying to pick up his Illusionist skills again, after 18 years he went back into society disguised as a Half-Elf he once had a tussle with and accidently killed. Surprised by the grande change of the world he once knew, he stumbled upon his fellow party members and escaped a near death situation where a horde of drunk guards picked up a fight with said party. They decide to trust them after he told them his story and showed his true identity which is... disgusting at first. The half-orc didn't seem to understand so he didn't buy it and wanted to get me killed all along. The passage I once knew to the Dwarven Kingdom, inhabited by a Halfling village, had collapsed years ago and the Dwarves lived as outcasts to the rest of the world. I found a secret passage by pure luck that I happend to remember and we got through. Eventually, fighting for the freedom of the Minotaur tribes, Kurts next life ended when he got knocked out in a pool of flames and scorched to death. He then later returned as a Black Deva that REALLY wish he was a Ginger this time, indicating him getting used to the whole reborn every time thing. One of the most memorable moments of this character, was the love interest in the lady at the vegetable store in a small village that went down south as soon as it began when he got his asskicked by a local peasant who then went on and fucked her on the counter right in front of him. I really hope that someday, I'll be able to replay as this character's next incarnation and he'll do some more stupid shit.
You say monks are powerful, one of the things I hear from most of the people I've ever read from or talked with is that monks suck hard. So now I'm rather confused. "4th edition is very tactical!" which is cool! Having a very tactical RPG is a nice option! I have ZERO ability for map tactics. My options would either be to avoid tactically valuable abilities for ones that fit my mental abilities better, or have someone else help me with combat, which, in a combat-heavy system like 4th Edition, pulls away from actually being involved in the game myself. Short rests, now THAT'S where I think 4th's effect on the D&D scene as a whole shines through. That, and (in my opinion) the 5E paths system (picked up from Paragon and the like in 4th). Paladin oaths, Bard colleges, it not only fuels nonstandard class-to-character designs (not every paladin has to be Arthur "Stick-Up-My-Ass" McJustice!), it also helps fuel somewhat more balanced homebrew - instead of having to homebrew an entire new class for a concept that's "like X existing class but different in THIS way!" you can just design a homebrew path for an existing class. And since each path has similar parts with very specific progression, it's more solidified in that manner. Archetypes in Pathfinder served a similar function, but since any given archetype could replace entirely different class features from another archetype, it was still hard to truly balance. 5th edition paths, on the other hand, were their own thing - the only thing one path replaced was that you didn't get another path's bonuses. I think the main problem most people have with 4th edition is that it feels so divorced from the other D&D systems in design while still holding the D&D name.
Am I the only one who now wants to roll up a Paladin just so I can name him "Arthur Mcjustice"? Lmao! I'm not lying. The next chance I get I'm going for it.
You prolly found it but if you look up on steven vlog or just search stevenvlog trg (or chugga for that matter) you can find a whole bunch of stuff, dnd included
The best of 4e: Like it or not, it is tight fully integrated rule system. Rule disputes at the table are easy to resolve Love, love the monster entries. Everything you need in one block. No need to look up feats or spells Speaking of monsters, 4e monsters felt flavored. They were more than hit point bags. 4e kobolds - shifting and scurrying - across your battle grid! Best kobolds of any edition Love the trap mechanics. A trap attacks a PC 4e really benefits from encounter set design. Terrain features really matter and how they interact with PCs and monsters is easy for the DM to adjudicate. I think 4e fell victim to its time. It was published as internet trolls began to emerge. The game was unfairly ravaged by Grognards and 3e loyalists. No role playing? Nonsense. 1e and 2e have less rules and pay less lip service to role playing than 4e does. If you want to role play more, then role play more. 100s of points to allocate amongst dozens of skill points is not role playing. As our host said, role playing depends on the DM and also on the players at the table
We judged 4e too quickly and too harshly. I design for Savage Worlds and 4e, as written, is the only edition of D&D I’d ever play. A good DM can get it close to the feel of SW.
my dm was always pulling shit on us. There was always battles to be expected. People died all the time, Game of Thrones style. In fact, he'd get mad at us when we lived. I remember he almost killed my character's father until I healed him back. You should've seen his face
Dmitri George I would try out Pathfinder too actually. I made the switch from 4e to Pathfinder and I fell in love with all the options you could do to make a character. Especially multi classing. Good lord I've seen some stupid shit.
4e was my first edition, I got the redbox right when it came out because I wanted to be on a level playing field with everyone else playing (rather than trying to learn 3.5 while everyone else has known it for years). I had been playing it fairly recently up until August, when our team disbanded. For a long while it was fun, but once I started playing and reading and watching 5e, 4e's flaws became glaring, and as time went on with my 4e group, I started becoming more and more bored of the 2 hour combat encounters, lack of RP, and tedious rules-lawyering (this was just my group, I'm sure with other groups none of these things happened). That' not to say I hate the edition, I still do enjoy it, and in fact, I appreciate it more now that you've told me that 4e was the edition that began short rests, popularised grid-combat, and made dragonborns a player race, all things I REALLY enjoy in 5e.
Sean Flannery darkwalker (allows you to become insubstantial with powers) + Caiphon's Calamitous Melody (I think that's the name) + some additional spells like Wings of the Fiend. Makes you just a monster. Caiphon's Song allows you to avoid an attac if you roll a 10 or higher. So over a 50% chance
oh and Darkspiral Aura + Punisher of the Gods' Immortal Curse. Immortal Curse makes you always do full damage to the cursed enemy. And if Darkspiral Aura's counterattack (1d12 per charge) does 6 damage is weakens the incoming attacking and if it does 12 you go down to 1 charge instead of 0. So if you curse a boss his attacks are always weakened and you always have 1 charge. Also yo can take a second pact. Since darkspiral pact makes pretty much all of your damage necrotic (and that's the most resisted) you take Elemental Pact which allows you to roll a 1d6 and depending on what you roll you can change any damage you do to that elemental type. Also you get a better filler spell: Chromatic Bolt.
I've made two warlock characters in my time with 3.5; I've since moved on to Pathfinder. * My first "attempt" was an expy of a Super Saiyan in an epic level game. He was Barbarian 12/Warlock 11. Dude could rage, fire energy blasts, fly and even carried a bastard sword. * My second was a chaotic good warlock who claimed his powers came from interactions with fey, eventually prestiging into Hellfire Warlock.
So in defense of fourth it was the first game i ever ran. I had played D&D as a player since i was 12, mostly growing up with 3.5 books, and dice, but my friends would always DM. I was awkward and to this day I don't have a lot of friends, but when fourth edition came out and my friends lost interest in playing 3.5 no one wanted to DM. They say a hero is made when everyone steps back well that was my moment everyone looked at me and I said "Sure." I've been running games ever since and I love the position of DM, but it all started with fourth the balance really helped me to learn everything i needed and gave me confidence. Some people say it's baby's first D&D game I agree it's a great stepping on point.
In my campaign setting, I ran a lot of games using this rules set. The way I explain the ramp in power for heroes is fun, too. The Third Age (the time I used 3rd and 3.5) ended with the death of the gods. The powers of the gods splayed out over all the lands and made epic heroes and villains of mortal creatures. This Fourth Age is known as the Age of Heroes. As those powers waned, so came the Fifth Age. I really enjoyed the simplicity of the rules in 4th. It was very easy to get new players in because of the simple At-Will/Encounter/Daily power structure of each character class. 5th is way better...but 4th wasn't awful.
I'm happy someone else doesn't completely hate 4e. Though it isn't my favourite (I am a pathfinder person myself), I do enjoy the system. It was definitely good for the GM, and I still sometimes use it for one-shots where the GM hands a sheet to a player. Also I have retroactively added Skills Challenges to every D&d system before or after. It adds a lot to a game to have epic chase sequences or intense investigations with hard success and failure conditions. Also a great way to get some newer players who get combat to role play, because now their story telling had dice rolls for their skills and they had to apply a hard mechanic to a story element. Personally my biggest gripe was with 4e was lore stuff, forgotten realms was nuked, and dark sun, while fun, I thought was a bit cheery compared to the original, which kind of defeats the point. But, as avid world homebrewer, It was side step able. The mechanical issues can be house ruled if need be, like I usually did with character sizes. The game hates short people for no reason.
knate44 No one ever mentions the Skill Challenges and in fact they even get harped on for "replacing" role playing. I never say it that way. They actually add more opportunities for roleplaying. What I will say is that Warhammer 3e also had a similar system.
All I ever heard from other DnDers was that 4 sucked and I could never get a reason why. What I like about this video is a description of how things played out and actually I would like to gather some friends to try it out.
I loved 4th SO much and the bad reaction from other players actually turned me off other editions for quite some time. I still hesitate joining new groups as 4th gave me the most fun I've had in D&D to date. That and how some elitists go out of their way to bash 4th and me liking it. Forcing me in a mindset of "If 4th edition so incompatible and hated by other edition players... Am I compatible at all for other editions?" As you've said, it does come down to the DM in these groups, not the edition in my opinion. Many times I've been told I can't do that during 3.5 ed group, while I was able to in my 4th ed group. Simple actions where I describe the what, how and relevant stats while overselling the intent if it was a mundane task. For example, tracking. I describe how I'd get down on all fours and thoroughly inspect the tracks of each print. Offering to learn more about what made these tracks rather then simply following them. 3.5 groups told me to just roll, no bonuses. 4th group let me use my Nature skill and a small bonus. Hell, even taking the combat medic as a feat was something I liked to have. Being a player that'd fulfill whatever roles we lacked, like healing during combat. Did so in 4th with no issues, in one 3.5 group I was barred from it. Saying it was for use AFTER combat. I got salty and had to run my intent of skills as I leveled by the DM each time and made sure that didn't happen again. More skills I had to pass on thanks to that style. If you've read this far, hold nothing against any edition. This was me sharing why I loved 4th and took awhile to warm up to other editions. I don't hold it against other editions, I hold it against those groups. And mildly against those with a hate boner for 4th/players like me. Also, opinion here. If ANY edition wasn't fun, change something. The editions are guides, like 'rulebooks' for any tabletop game. Modify if players aren't having fun.
Screw the haters. I'm an OSR D&D guy who also plays 5e and enjoys it. But I'm gonna start up some 4e soon because a) I've never played 4e and b) it just looks like a whole lot of fun. There's no badwrongfun. :)
Yes my brother, as a DM I still feel this is the best version of DnD. Not only were the classes balanced, but the monsters were on par with adventurers and were actually fun to play. It also had skill encounters were there's a set of skill challenges the party has to face together, I used that to create great stories. The fact that people didn't like this edition without even playing it frustrates the crap out of me. I'm actually starting to play in a 5e game and I must say, the rules book is a mess compared to the easily understood 4E. Plus 4E had Gamma world which was the coolest setting EVER.
Thank you for a positive video, and an informed review of the actual edition, versus some vids I've seen on this. Just the fact that you're not obnoxious is incredibly appreciated.
I'm planning a campaign in 3.5 that has a climactic battle as the focal point of the next session, and this video inspired me to make minion equivalents so 1) I don't have to keep track of as many numbers 2) the players can feel BA 3) the strong characters leading the minions can have more impact by comparison!
I started with 4th edition a few years back, and I haven't tried any other editions. But I'm curious about them. Can anyone tell me the options other editions provide that enhance and expand roleplaying?
They don't. 4e has about as many rp options as any other edition. 4e has its flaws, every edition does, but it isn't less of a role playing game than any of the others. The emphasis on clear technical writing and interesting combat probably threw off people's impressions.
According to Matt Colville's video about applying 4e to 5e, even the WoTC writers had a hard time coming up with reasons why someone who already liked 4e would want to use 5e instead. The biggest things I like about 5e compared to 4e are 1) A small number of optional feats instead of a ridiculous number of feats you have to wade through every few levels, and 2) bounded accuracy/removal of needing feats/items to keep up mathematically.
I've been wanting to play DnD forever, but never had anyone to play with or any kits, nor do I know much about the editions and such. Any place I can find people to play with?
Some comic stores or gaming stores have groups for tabletop gaming and D&D, depending on the store. Or, if you don't have any place near you to play D&D in person, there are also some online communities for D&D that you could try out.
You can just ask your friends if you all wanna learn and start playing. If you're in a tight budget, there's free "basic rules" for D&D 5th Edition, which is the latest, and a (I believe) $20 "Starter Set" which comes with basic rules, a set of dice, premade characters, and a couple of adventures to get things rolling. Said adventures actually start out a big campaign that they followed up with and continued in other adventures they sold.
MasterIrukaPlays Go to your local card shop or tabletop gaming shop. They're usually one-in-the-same, but who knows. Find some people who play, and see if you cant find a group there to introduce you. I highly highly discourage playing without an experienced DM and at least one experienced player, as it can ruin the experience otherwise.
Played a DnD 4th campaign some years ago, it was actually one of the longest campaigns I've ever played (mostly thanks to our awesome DM). To be honest, even though it's totally different from "normal" DnD, I quite enjoyed it, more than the powerplaying clusterf**k that's 3.5. THERE I SAID IT
I do see the goods and the bads of this edition and all of the rule changes it brought. However, I have no real D&D experience yet, and the closest thing I have to D&D is KOTOR
My favorite edition, only one I run. People like to complain that you cant roleplay in it, but you can, it’s super lazy to say that. Combat was interesting. The way skills leveled allowed everyone to attempt skill checks and not just those who are trained in it. Healing surges also were great to have. Players didn’t have to worry as much about being struck down by a single attack. They could heal once on their own during combat. Healing classes didn’t have to waste their turn just healing someone. They could attack and heal. Spell memorization is a thing of the past. Wizards had full access to their spells, plus at will spells that they could use over and over. No more having to resort to crossbows because you ran out of spells during combat.
The D&D editions remind me of the Elder Scrolls in terms of depth and mechanics. First edition is brutally difficult like Arena, Second is stupidly complex like Daggerfall, 3.5 is massively open to playstyle like Morrowind, 4th is a lot more combat-oriented like Oblivion, and 5th is the easiest to get into like Skyrim.
Holy crap that's pretty spot on!
yup
Ryotaiku makes one wonder of how much each franchise has directly and/or indirectly influenced each other over the years
That's a spot-on metaphor, thank you!
Minion Daechir The Elder Scrolls series came from the Bethesda guys playing D&D and other RPGs at the time, like Ultima. Their D&D setting was the world of Tamriel, which became the setting for the Elder Scrolls series.
"In Defense of 4th Edition" - Uh oh...
*Nervously looks at number of thumbs down.*
Huh... It's a low number. What a relief.
You should do an edition review mini series or a video of the pros and cons of each editions
I agree with this! that'd be really cool!
This I can agree with.
SirBlazinGames Oh yes PLEASE
SirBlazinGames YEES
I'm not normally one for self promotion, but I've recorded a retrospective series of videos for my channel, starting with Zero Edition released in 1974. I just finished and am currently uploading the final part of my 4th Edition retrospective. They may not be as good as Pro Jared's, but if you are interested in the history of D&D they might be worth watching
I got banned for a day on 4chan/tg/ for "trolling with the truth is still trolling" by saying in a thread that "If D&D4E had been released with literally any name but D&D it would have been hailed as a landmark in cinematic fantasy superheroes: and a "D&D killer" game.
You were right. I guess the worst thing about D&D 4th (aside from the fact that WotC lied back in 2004 saying it wasn't planning to make a 4th edition in 2008) was the fact that it bore the name D&D. I tried it and enjoyed it, but never once did it felt like D&D...
I don't know why youtube placed my reply under your comment. I tried answering to some other guy's comment, but each time, youtube would move my reply here. God this site can be shit at times...
Yeah, probably. I think if WotC had realized that they could get TWO DIFFERENT FANBASES instead of going with the "There can be only one... edition" mentality, WotC could have gotten an even bigger chunk of the RPG players/fanbase, by getting people who wanted tactical games, and people who wanted the complexity of 3.5 too.
Herman Cillo by complexity you mean the banana pudding PrC?
It may not have been a lie but company politics ie who ever was in charge in 2004 wasn't planning on D&D 4th. When companies get really big the right hand doesn't even know what the left is doing.
The best thing I have to say about 4th edition is that while playing as the Treekin race I managed to trade my actual arm and leg for some kind of super shield and then rolled a nat 20 to grow them back within the next three days.
I was an artificer and I severed my own arm and grafted myself a mechanical arm and ran around punching people despite being a primarily ranged fighter
So you're saying that the shield cost you... an arm and a leg?
@@spencerdurette2859
Literally the Engineer origin story.
I have to pretend to seasoned tabletop players that I got my start earlier, but 4e D&D was what introduced me to the game and tabletop in general. You're right about it being a good transition for video game players to get into.
Now, I am THE girl to come to in my town if you want to know tabletop. My collection fills a stand-alone closet in my garage. I cover a variety of genres and teach games at tabletop conventions. Because 4e was the "transitional" D&D, I try to find other games like it to bridge the gap for people who have been curious about tabletop and use them to make traditional video game players feel more comfortable at the table with seasoned veterans.
All in all, much as I try to hide it, 4e did a lot of good in my life.
Oh. And my first character was a an elven werebear ranger with a bear companion. You know how much awesome that brings?
My second in 4e was an elven assassin designed for movement and poisons. Because of 4e's daily's I was a MONSTER. I could climb and jump and maneuver as a free action and let my poisons do the talking with a Deathstalker Shortbow.
Nice collection.
I got introduced at 3.5, and played it for about 2 years before 4e came out. Let me tell you 3.5 was one of the most garbage dumpster fire of all time. The system was awful, and 4e fixed the vast majority of it.
Think about why Pathfinder become the most popular system for a while. Because of how terrible 3.5 was.
There is no more or less roleplaying in 4e then anything else. I don't understand how that got started.
Rememeber who you are. Remember
I came into D&D with 4th Edition. My DM did a good job with managing between encounters and interactions, so neither were overused. The system gave a helping hand when I didn't know how to react in combat, but enough space to be creative with my actions. It indeed had some comparisons to video-game mechanics, however that was ideal for my group at the time. When combat encounters occurred, the party looked at what they could do, then took to action, taking some time of course, but didn't become excessive as time went on. There were several pros and cons to 4E, but overall the experience was great.
After 3 years of playing 4E - now with 5th Edition available - my group is resourceful enough to create their own events and cool reactions to the fantasy world, while still learning from them.
Hello Jared, usually I don't comment much on UA-cam, but I wanna do it now for a reason. So, I'm in the middle of mid-age crysis or something, and your videos of D&D made me remember the good old days when I use to role play with some friends at some friend's house, basically, good times... and I realized that, I really missed that kind of interaction with people. Role playing it's really a thing of is own, I can't really explain the experience, but is something special. Summing it up, I contacted my old friends and told them to reunite for a D&D session, all of them loved the idea and overwhelmed me with suggestions, thanks for the inspiration Jared.
Have fun, my your dice roll many twenties
Pepinillomaton and no ones
I think an issue with the editions in DnD is that the community often acts like only one edition should exist at once. If the NEW edition isn't the previous edition done BETTER, it must be discarded. If the new edition is "better", the older ones must not be played anymore. But I like how different 3.5 / 4 / 5 are from each others. After all, they're simply a ruleset, we make the story.
It's a bit like we're modding a game, but we have access to three different ruleset to make our mod. So when a new Edition is released, I enjoy seeing them try new things. Even if the new edition doesn't fit with what I like, I still have access to the previous editions. I can still make my games with the rulesets I liked. People sometime see a new edition release, feel it has less choices than what they liked compared to previous editions, and say "DnD now has less choices", but that's false. The new edition might have less choices, but DnD as a whole now has more choices for us to use and experiment with.
This isn't meant to discard every complaint thrown at 4th Ed, since criticism is still good (and led to a great 5th ed), only meant to give some context and to remind people that there's nothing wrong in sometime revisiting older editions when creating new campaigns or creating a new DnD group. They're still great games and available to use.
"... the community often acts like only one edition should exist at once." That's exactly how Wizards acted before they released 5e though.. They only supported, in any way, *one* edition of DnD. After 4e (for various reasons) didn't really caught on, they changed their tune. Now you can get online resources for any editions.
>great 5th edition
Be careful, I heard it's illegal to say that within 3 miles of a gaming shop
When WOTC stops supporting that edition, the Open Gaming Licence allows support for that edition to continue. 3.5 and 4th got spiritual successors in the form of Pathfinder and 13th Age respecitively, and Wizards supporting this by selling PDFs of the old editions and even the 5e playtest on Dungeon Master's Guild. WOTC may not support editions, but many others do.
Not to mention, there's nothing saying that you can't homebrew your own edition by taking elements from each ruleset that you like (and that mesh well obviously) and playing with your own custom game.
Right. I think the editions are all about preference. However there are indeed a few other factors with age, such as cost of obtaining some materials not found online due to rarity, but just because something is new doesn't mean its automatically better, and if people don't like it as much, that doesn't mean that said edition should be burned in a fire and tossed out.... unless we're talking about something like Shadowrun 6E which was an objective mess, sadly. I agree 5e is good, but it is certainly not my favorite. I think there are some balance issues here and there and the oversimplification is both a good and bad thing in my opinion. It's great because it makes D&D easier to get into for new players and have a thrilling time, but for a lot of veteran players it can feel pretty dumbed-down and oversimplified, taking away a lot of deeper mechanics that they spent a while to learn in previous editions and grew to enjoy. Obviously I'm the latter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slag off 5e entirely. I think its objectively good and does some great things. But that's where it all comes down to preference. I prefer 4e due to the thrilling combat it gave, the awesome and wide variety of abilities given to non-magic classes, like Jared said, the class balance as a whole. And with the right DM, as for any edition, the main issue with said edition can be worked around pretty easily. Thats the beauty of D&D.
"I do like the minions" now *that* is an abusable soundbite!
I did picture a band of murder hobos cutting a wide swath through a room full of anthropomorphic twinkies.
The Blade singer IS a thing for 5e. It's in the Sword Coast Adventure Guide.
It also was introduced in 3.5, not 4th.
Duskblade, yeah. And it was pretty unimpressive lol
Razgriz 3 5:04
If we REALLY want to split hairs, it was introduced for 2nd Ed AD&
No it was introduce in AD&D 2nd edition, in the Complete Book of Elves.
What I like about 4th edition is that it makes all the character classes equally cool and interesting. Some lose a bit of their uniqueness, such as the sorcerer, but most benefit from the new system of at-will-powers, encounter-powers and daily-powers.
The three best things that came out of D&D 4e:
1 - Redesign of the Tieflings
2 - The last passive power of the trickster rogue
3 - Will Save World for Gold
I finished reading will save world a couple weeks ago and it was great
I think the best advise I got from this is making the encounters very important. When i tried it out with my friends, encournters were heavy as fuck and making them each important instead is probably the better way to go
Commenting like a year later, but I don't really care. I think it's good advice no matter which version of D&D (or any RPG in general) you play. There's not much I can think of that's worse than having a combat session that lasts an hour plus that doesn't feel like it needed to be there beyond the GM just wanting to throw stuff at the party who has spent the last hour plus talking to people, or in the case of my Shadowrun group, planning a heist. It makes the sessions very tiring, and not in a fun way.
@@kaimcdragonfist4803 learn to make combat faster, players paying attention, knowing what to do, quickly
I never really understand the hate for any edition, or for other table-top RPGs like Pathfinder. I enjoy and play all of them (haven't tried fourth edition, but may after watching this) and currently I'm playing a campaign of D&D Fifth Edition as well as a Pathfinder campaign. Ultimately, what makes or breaks a game is whether or not: A.) You're with a group of people you like to be around and play games with, and B.) Whether or not the rules and mechanics of that game amplify or reinforce that mutual enjoyment, or allow you and your group to create and experience new and exciting things. That's why I play RPGs. Whichever edition is best is ultimately superfluous. Just enjoy the game!
But the book still provides the framework, and you are harder pressed to make an edition with rules you're not fond off work better. Especially when those rules turn your character into an oversimplified set of Darksiders-style animations instead of just letting e.g. skilled archery be skilled archery.
@@Warvell1 What is over simplified?
3.5 has "special attacks" in the form of feats like Whirlwind Attack, there classes that had abilities that allowed martials to the extraordinary.
Powers just made what would have been split between two or more separate mechanics and possibly multiple classes into one mechanic.
I just deleted my comment ;n;
Perhaps my favorite thing about 4e was the massive amounts of customization. There were tons of races and classes to choose from, then numerous subclasses and paragon paths and epic destinies. No two characters ever felt alike unless you wanted them to. Sure, all those options can be intimidating, but better to have a plethora of choices than none at all. I really hope that 5e gets a few more race and class options because I really miss the huge number of options that 4e gave. It's somewhat chafing to not have all that variety after getting used to it.
Zivillyn
Where did you find any of that? I'm trying really hard rn to get into 4e because that's what my group chose and so far poking around in the two handbooks I haven't been impressed. I miss the option of choosing out of numerous schools or circles for your class. I feel like each class has only option a and option b and further customization only happens after level 10. I'm trying to make a character but I can't help being disappointed at the lack of backgrounds and personal paths. To me it feels like there is 0 lore, story or anything to help the role-playing aspect and it makes me sad. Granted I have not read through all of the book but if there is more that I simply haven't found yet I'd greatly appreciate being pointed into the right direction. I have dabbled in 5e before and really liked how much material there was to go off of not from a combat standpoint but a character and role-playing standpoint.
You don't need a book to make a background. I'm with op, with all three phb there are staggering amounts of choices
Raise your hand if you've ever been made fun of just because you liked 4th edition of D&D
*Raises Hand*
Put up Hand but kinda puts it in the middle
4th edition is my waifu
I litterally had an online friend cut contact with me because I preferred 4e, it was weird
Raymondium people can’t make fun of you if you dont have friends
Nerd!
I personally believe that 4th Ed is the best entry point for most folks into Tabletop RPGs. Its designed to appeal to a wider audience and uses concepts that many people who play video games will understand instantly.
The best thing is that nobody has to feel useless, like a wizard who ran out of spells at low levels, or a fighter at high levels.
Yeah, I’m thinking of getting into D&D and I think I’d just start out with 4E and work my way into wherever I can go
Thank you! Been saying this for years!
So long as you're not thrown into a mid-level campaign with no tabletop RPG experience like I was. Then you're just lost and confused while wondering where all these numbers are coming from.
Go away Google to be fair, THAT onus is on whoever your Game Master was. It was irresponsible of them not to ease you into it. It's not the system's fault.
Good god, the way you say Controversial is controversial in of itself
Douglas The Hedgehog do you some people say things differently like water or woter
Douglas The Hedgehog Oh, the irony. LMAO still a good video.
@@theloz3r water is wet
Contraverssal
In and* of itself, mr controversial
Wait, there's tabletop combat encounters that don't take hours?
my party fought 2 skeletons, it took 2 hours...
@@maxwellsmallwood3631 What edition and how the fuck did that happen?
@@justghoul It was 4th edition (should I go on?) anyways My DM was planning a massive dungeon and we enter the first room. Its 2 skeletons. No problem we thought. Im the tank, I approach it and whack it and miss. The wizard casts a spell, and misses, the warlock casted a low damage spell, it hits, and the second skeleton heals the first one. Most of it was just bad luck, but it was all the nature of the game itself. Funny enough this was just when 5th edition came out and we were like "we don't need that schmancy fancy new edition we're find right here!" we switched to 5th edition after that.
@@maxwellsmallwood3631 ...I don't think bad rolls is a excuse to give up on a system
@@justghoul You don't need an excuse, obviously, play what you like. A story is a good way to illustrate WHY they would rather play something else.
I've never played D&D, but having Jared as a DM for 4th edition sounds like it'd be hella fun!
I tell you this much Wes, I never thought I would get into something like D&D... But during my first experience with the revised edition, I actually cried when my first ever character died in a very Stupid accident (I didn't look where I was going and fell into a 100 foot pit...)
Whatever edition you play, with a good DM - The game will be amazing fun!
Warren Marris ^_^ I hope so, some friends of mine have been thinking of setting up a campaign. Though there's been some dumb stuff that's stopped the progress.
If we do get started though, I'm making a character focused on pickpocketing, just to spite Jared. xD
Whatever TTRPG you play, as long as its not Pathfinder or F.A.T.A.L., with a good gamemaster and good players all with non-conflicting schedules and a good environment to play in, the game will be amazing fun.
Warren Marris What's wrong with Pathfinder?
www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-283230.html
That should cover it pretty nicely for you
"Two-weapon rangers were pretty common but bow-and-arrow rangers were rare"
"monks were crazy overpowered in 3.5"
Now I don't have a lot of actual experience with 3.5, personally, but this is literally the only two times I've heard these statements. Everyone says Monks are terrible and that two-weapon fighting sucks.
@Issun McGoodmage
I agree, I am in a 3.5 campaign now and you can't add dex to your damage, you have to add strength, being an elven rogue with 6 str, not good, monks couldn't use flurry of blows properly until they had a +2 to attack and you got penalties for everything
You had to abuse cheese for the former, and TWF rangers were because of Drizzt. They weren't GOOD, but they were common.
Agreed. Monks suck in 3.5, unless you use supplements to swap out abilities, then they could keep up with other classes. Also two-weapon fighting sucked due to feat taxes, the only way for it to keep up was to apply extra abilities like sneak attack.
Monks were *only* good at level 15+, and by then a barbarian could do the same stuff better, without the speed.
Two weapon fighter rangers were common but unimpressive, since barbarians and fighters could do it better.
Archers were more common, but not very.
4e only fixed the balance between casters and fighters as far as I could see.
Hans Brackhaus "evil band of monks"
4th edition was very tactical. I liked the tactical parts.
There are other considerations. WotC burned every bridge it could find while transitioning from 3.5 to 4. Their methods are what created Pathfinder, which continues to be their biggest competitor in the market. They drove the market away from them, and it didn't matter how good or bad the game was.
David Silver yay pathfinder! " I'd like to move 10'..." " ok that incurs 10 attacks of opportunity." "Annnd I'm dead."
That shouldn't damn a game though
@@multieyedmyr Tactics!
It was bad, probably the worst if you were rating the editions.
I began with 4th edition, and I agree on every point. I'm also glad you mentioned how balanced it is, when my group moved to 5th I was shocked at how once certain classes reached a certain level they could kill the rest of the party 1v4 style.
That was even worse in previous editions. Spellcasters always were on a league of their own past a certain level.
"4th used squares so it sucked!!!"
ya know, like OD&D that was literally based on miniatures.
"Look I made an arrow ladder, come on everybody lets go"
*arrows snap immediately under weight of PCs*
Tupperware93 *coughPrinceofPersiamoviecough*
Could you tell a story about a time you played with "that guy"
He did last year. It's called the worst player ever
TheDoctors12 "is dere the dargon in there?"
"We'll call him Steve, and Steve...was a dumb-ass."
no no, no no. let him go right.
Okay, you've just grown metallic spikes on your *reproductive organs*
I'm already crying!!
The bladesinger did come back in 5th Ed!
it's in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide as an Arcane Tradition for the Wizard!
4E has, bar none, the easiest encounter creation of any edition of D&D and possibly in any tabletop RPG. It achieves this through having very balanced monsters. It achieves THAT through 4E's probably worst feature: scaling defenses. Monsters and PCs gain a bonus to their defenses equal to half their level (iirc) and this means you level out of range of monsters like you might in an MMO. This means that monsters -can't- be unbalanced realistically. But it also means monsters have a time limit on their utility. Minions are a "fix" for this, because they still get scaled defenses. If you used a low level monster in 4E, they'd be very very easy to hit and would never hit the party. This means that monsters appear in bands that can't be mixed, so in turn every game ends up featuring the same progression of monsters more-or-less. (unless you make your own)
The DMG has tables that give templates in terms of stats for monster creation which greatly eases the process or allows you to fairly trivially re-scale monsters to higher levels. You can also re-fluff existing monsters to mix and match the bands. I have run encounters almost completely off the cuff just throwing together some minis and knowing the level of the party. This comes from years of running 4E, but shows just how good the system is for running combat.
Roleplaying is not a product of a rule system.
I feel like 90% of the 4E hate boils down to people not really understanding this.
"But the rules discouraged role-playing!!!!!"
How?
I totally agree with you
Omg I found friends who understand me
I have played quite a bit of 4e and on the contrary i think that i roleplay less now with 5th edition than i did with 4th i dont think it has really anything to do with the rules however i did think that my 4e characters were cooler because of the powers so i got into character more often.
even if it was, there's plenty of stuff in 4E to support it. Skill powers for example are generally of more use out of combat, as well as rituals, martial powers, and some of the powers associated with themes, paragon paths and epic destinies. a lot of the utility powers are very much roleplaying oriented to the point of being semi-useless in combat, even for flashy combat oriented characters like sorcerers( as opposed to bards or rogues).
I can definitely see the argument that the sheer emphasis on the combat options and the care they took to make it balanced maybe seems like it should take up more headspace when playing but our games tend to be pretty 50/50 tbh. Plus a lot of people who talk about "roleplaying" in this aspect aren't very good roleplayers. I don't like dungeon crawlers, personally, as I like character and humour and plot and motivation and stuff, but I also dislike a lot of the more pretentious roleplay heavy stuff i've seen.
I feel like our games have a similar balance to the better youtube'd campaigns like critical role that use 5E and don't really "feel" all that different despite the different mechanics. a lot of stuff has changed quite a bit but IMO it still has a lot of the same "feel".
I started with 4e so it has a very special place in my heart. I still have every single damn book on my computer and finding those were a lot of fun. Now with settings for campaigns, I usually played 4e with an MMO style of combat because the powers are set up like that. However, I've fallen in love with Pathfinder.
4e is probably one of my favorite editions. Was a great entry point to TTRPGs for casual players who had never tried a TTRPG and weren't sure how to get started. It had some really nice, deep mechanics without being overwhelming. People love 5e to death but don't realize that half of 5e's sourcebooks are just practically copy-pasting from 4e's. I appreciate the depth of combat without taking away from roleplay.
Sad that people hate it so much but it helped create 5e and of course the rules are always there if I want to start another 4e game.
Also the 4e version of bladesinger was swordmage (although they did introduce a bladesinger class later on in Essentials). Bladesinger is a wizard archetype in the 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide though!
HotChocletyLez I didn't understand 4e at all. Even though I was like 10 at the time I still don't really understand it
HotChocletyLez It took me a long time to chine around to 4e. In my mind, more choice is always good, and the streamlining they did took a lot of that away at char gen. But damn, after getting used to it 3.5 just seemed like a chore.
And I never got the hate for the combat focus of the rules. Imo the rules are only really important for balancing combat, the rest of the rp should be up to the players/dm.
I found it actually heavily customizable compared to 3.5 and such. I usually play with black sun benefits though, but even then, when designing a level 1 character, you have so many options at your disposal, and then past that is just as overwhelming each level. Leveling up can be insane to the point I actually can't play 4e without some sort of tool or source because of how many options for things there are.
If you want to use all the options, sure it's a bit overwhelming, but 4e also had some kickass online tools if you wanted easy and understandable access to everything they released. Insider was a great service, and the character builder was super duper comprehensive. Even running straight from the books, though, I find it easier to build a level 1 4e character as opposed to, say, a level 1 pathfinder character.
This makes me so happy; 4th edition was the version I got when all my friends wanted to play...but when I arrived they were disgusted by the fact that I bought that one and not 3.5 like they expected. I was crushed, because what I saw of it looked good and I assumed the newest version was the best one. I always stood by what Jared says when someone says it's "too this" or "too that".....that can always be made up for by a good DM. It's still the version I play to this day...
Do you still play 4E? Or have you moved to 5e?
@@davidlorang7697 Oh definitely to 5e by now, but like the video states I'm grateful for the things 4e gave us
Tbh, i might move to 4e, although i'm more into low fantasy recently, so maybe something more osr or maybe an E6 campaign.
Pathfinder 2e feels like 4e's spiritual successor, so maybe i would play it, rather than 4e. Plus, pathfinder 2e is more accessible. Although, it might be fun to read through 4e one day. It seems like it's actually a great edition. Just one, which wasn't lucky.
(I hope you're able to read this comment, ProJared)
So coincidentally in D&December, my friends and I have started playing D&D for the first time (we are all brand new to the game, but our friend the DM is a fanatic). We have all quickly become addicted to the game and are meeting quite often to play.
So we play with a DM who claims to play by 3.5 rules (we don't use Reflex, Willpower, etc.) yet we use the 4th edition handbooks, we have the 4th edition character sheets, we use minions and utility powers, and we do other stuff that from this video I just found out are fourth-edition exclusive. Personally, I love this game and I love this version! (I might be biased because this is the only really thing I know) But seriously, the combat would be so much more boring if we didn't play with all these rules and weren't allowed to have all this extra versatility to attack enemies in different ways! Our battles do last quite a long time usually (at least a twenty minutes to up to around forty-five depending on the battle) but I didn't realize until now that that was irregular.
The thing that is most bothersome to me is that they did away with all the super cool races from fourth edition when transitioning into fifth, like Psyions and Wildens. Two members in our party were these extra-handbook races (myself included) and all of the apps on the Play Store for spellbooks and stuff are in fifth edition and don't include our races! :( Also, another member in our party only plays Archer class, and the class of my second character is a Warlock.
Anyway, I thought I'd just share this tidbit of information with you, and let you know that I totally agree with you on the stance that fourth edition can be fun! I'm having a blast with it! (with what fourth-edition aspects we're using...)
UPDATE: After talking with my DM, we're playing with all 4th edition rules now! I really don't understand the hate it gets, I'm having fun with it...
Nitrometutorials I think people just hate the more combat oriented setting 4th edition gets. But overall it's still a role playing game and wether it's good or not all depends on the players. I've only played 5e but I know it took a lot from 4e so I'll always respect it for that much at least
@@Nitrometutorials It's all good. Back in the day (excuse my creaking bones, youngin') people kitbashed shit together all the time. Take a 1e character, dump it in 2e, who cares? Drop racial level limits? OK! Invent spell points? OK! Change dual-classing requirements in 2e? Sure! Lots of people didn't give a dead moose's last shit about rules purity. Whatever gives you the fun and takes you to the dreamland is perfect.
4e has a lot of awesome monsters that still haven't been brought to 5e
Volo's guide brought a few cool monsters in though
I'm expecting they'll bring over a lot from 4e into 5e. I'm hoping the vampire class and the Vryloka race make a return
This was quite educational. I continued to play 3.5 when 4th came out in part because I tend to buy the books and I was a bit younger so money was tight. But this makes me a bit more interested to look into it as I love 5th and from the sounds of things 4th is different but not bad. Cool
My favorite addition to D&D overall, though I'm not entirely sure when it was done, was cantrips. Simple spells with minor effects that can be cast as many times as you like, giving magic users at least SOME way to be consistently doing things instead of just blasting one enemy followed by waiting around for an hour to do it again.
That started in 4E, all spellcasters had at will spells they could cast endlessly. making them useful even if the fireballs were all gone.
"Oh man I wish my fighter could only swing once instead of having all these cool abilities and powers".
At least you decide how your fighter swings (twice at level 6, or use cleave or use two weapons, etc) instead of picking a cookie cutter ability that you will use ALL the time. It is more fun for me to combine actions with the feats/abilities I have and do something that at least feels unique/creative.
@@hermittmog8697 very
The novelty won't last
@@hermittmog8697 4E is built around tactical combats and you'll use 5-7 different attack powers per encounter from level 11 and on no matter what class you are. It'll be a few less from 1-10, but even by level 3 you'll use at least 3 per encounter. Once you include utility powers, it's kind of a joke to try and compare 3.5E/5E Fighters with 4E.
@@Shananiganeer Even sillier to compare relative power across different platforms. It is not an issue of how many cookie cutter abilities you have or use (and you will use the same ones over and over) it is that an ability spells out EXACTLY what the character does for you. Instead of " I take a five foot step into flanking position and sneak attack and draw a potion". It's " I use x, y or z ability." I played a bit and found it an improvement for wizards but over all WAY too MMO for table top. Rules are already a trap. I can't do this because there is a specific class ability or feat that allows for it. This is an issue in every game but most especially in 4th where my cinematic combat decisions are prescribed EXACTLY by the cookie cutter ability that may encompasses my entire turn. If anything it is LESS tactical (for the player) as it spells out EXACTLY what you do in a single ability, you barely have to think about it. You don't stack multiple effects and actions to create interesting new outcomes you just push the button.
@@hermittmog8697 There's no rules in 4e that say you can't use your basic attacks to do cool things, that's entirely up to the DM and the player, like it has been in every edition of D&D, and let's be honest, most players don't do that, they just swing. 4e just has an extra option for cool stuff you're always gonna have.
4e is by far and away the best edition of d&d. Monsters have roles in this game, its balanced, its clean, every class can almost always bring something to the table. Combat is and should be the main focus of ttrpgs amd 4e is the first and only edition to embrace it and to actually introduce an indepth interesting system that allowed players AND monsters to nearly always have a ton of options. I played 3.5 and pathfinder for most of my life and totally slept on 4e for years, I just believed what people always said, how bad and different it is. Only started playing it about a year ago and honestly it was just years ahead of its time.
With the success of 5e (which I dont get btw the game is dull af), I hope more people will try to look into older editions and discover the absolute brilliance of 4e.
@ProJared -researching DnD to try and get into it I actually found out bladesingers are a thing in 5th edition. they are in the sword coast books I think.
Yup! I have it. They're in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. They get a kinda Barbarian rage style spell dance they can do, and they can use light armor and martial weapons, unlike your usual wizard.
Bladesingers in 5E are fucking awesome. I love 'em ^^
I think Jared confused Bladesingers with swordmages, which are basically bladesingers from what I can get.
they are not cannon.
@@THAC0MANIC bladesingers? They are canonical in the sword coast
My marathon of rewatching, liking, and commenting on every Jared video continues. Video 64
i really want to play DnD except no one i know plays it
PandaBroFilms Check out roll20.net
i tryed roll20 and it was a way to confusing setup
Find out if any of your friends would be interested in playing. If at least three people say they're in, you're gold. Get the rule book and study it like crazy. Watch youtube videos on how to get started. Sorry, but you *will* be the dungeon master for a while.
You can also check out my new blog, where I'm including useful tips for new and experienced players: thegameadd.blogspot.com
PandaBroFilms Find a good DM.
Or if just one person does. Or two. Or seven. Or thirty-five. You can play DND with any amount of people greater than 1. You need atleast 2 people, one to DM, one to play, and the story can be told between just the two of you.
Hey Jared, great video as always, but I have one HUGE request for a D&December video:
How exactly do you PLAY D&D?
I know that's a rather vague and complicated question, so let me be a bit more specific.
- How does combat, magic, and skill checks/saving throws work? (Turn order, attacks, spell preparations, etc.)
- How does experience and levelling up work?
- How do all the little details work? (Distance, food, healing, resting, etc.)
Again, love your videos, you're one of my favourite youtubers. Happy Holidays!
In a session with a particularly brutal GM I went through a Tactical Warlord who died to Kobolds (got mobbed by all of them, then failed death save 3 times in a row), then a Dragonborn Bard (because why not?) who died during a fight with a goblin/hobgoblin(I think) boss, literally the turn before the fight was over.
Then I made a human Rune Priest and put all my feats into death save prevention, and he turned out to be quite durable, often bouncing up from being knocked out.
I find it amusing when people argue about 4e. No matter the game system it's up to the gamers to have fun with it. Ran the game and role played the heck outta it. My players loved it.
4e is the s***, i personally enjoyed it a lot, i don't have anything to back that up but still, i enjoyed it and if you didn't, than leave me alone
SilverDeathLord and that's all DnD is about. If you and your party had a fun memorable experience, then it did exactly what it needed to do and no criticism can take that away.
SilverDeathLord h
*pokes with stick*
5E sucks, 4E / 3.5E where the best 2 Versions of D&D.
My biggest problem with 4thed is that it focused so much on having figurines, which I and my friends didn't have. So we mostly used 3.5 and pathfinder until 5thed came out.
How did you play 3e without figurines? I mean spiked chains, AoE spells, any sort of movement, rogues using flanking for Sneak Attacks...
I played 4th edition for three years. I once thought about getting my character a custom figurine, but I dismissed it because *literally no one else had a figurine*. Seriously, I played with several DMs and everyone just printed figures or even just used square pieces of papers with letters on it.
One I'm really happy this guy is still in the business of content creating.... Two I'm not sure why 4th edition vids keep popping in my feed... Three, I'm loving it... 4th was my first real intro into the series and I really miss playing it
So glad you made this video, Jared. I started with 4e and really loved it. I really enjoy being able to mix classes with the hybrid rules from PH3, picking paragon paths that gave you more focused features on top of your base class, finding cool combos through feats and such and the combat was just awesome.
I've been DMing 5e lately. It's fun and all, but I miss a lot of what I liked in 4e and how easy 4e made DMing with monster XP budgets, using minions and such.
I really miss playing 4e and it's great to hear someone give it some love.
I find very funny when people say "DnD 4e was like a Videogame" but those same people dont have much of a problem playing Baldurs Gate for hours, like, it is bad if an Rpg resembles a videogame, but it is Ok if a Videogame Resembles an Rpg? Come on, have some consitency people.
4e was amazing for monster building too.
I want to see ProJared as a guess on Critical Role.
As someone who plays a lot of fighter based characters, I loved 4e especially for the reason that it wasn't boring. I never once had to go through an encounter telling the DM that I was doing a full attack round after round. I was able to use these awesome powers in different combinations that allowed tactical manipulation of the miniatures on the table. I finally felt like a full member of the adventuring party that no other edition has been able to reproduce. I will always love 4e over the other editions.
I have only ever played with 4th edition and I'm so glad you made this video. I feel one of the perks to 4th edition was because the classes were built similarly, my friends starting for the first time could try other characters without getting too confused.
I started with 4th, but I moved to 3.5 because it was way more versatile than 4th in character customization.
I think 4th is so underrated. I've been playing fourth for like 6 years now and I think I'd rather play 4th over 5th by far. Honestly though 3.5 is tied for 4th for me. Both great and better and different aspects of D&D
Fourth edition sounds right up my alley. Love tactics thinking. Sounds kinda like the new board game mechs and minions in regards to the minions
I started with 4E, and as a DM I loved it. You made all of my points, so I'm not going to make them again. As a player, though... there was too much for me to keep track of. Yeah they introduced a ton of really cool things for players, but the four different types of Defense constantly confused and frustrated me, I didn't really understand the preparation of all spells for every Arcane spellcaster, and I could go on. As a player, I enjoy 5e much more than 4th.
I cut my teeth on AD&D (before 2nd ed). 4th is still my favorite, I was so tired of playing Casters and Caddies . . .
always good to see Jared bringing positivity to the dnd world
4e was my first campaign, and I loved it then, and loved it now.
4th edition was the first edition i ever played. it was good to start out with, but after playing 5e, i never wanna go back.
5th rules!
I fully agree!
You should play 13th age, it's way way better
I liked being able to play a fighter in 4th edition and not just say "I hit it" every round.
Really? Cause I also started with 4e, went to 5e and never want to go back to 5e. combat is so fucking boring. Just this hour long melee basic slug fest...
Man.. watching these videos makes me want to play again. I haven't played D&D, or similar games, in years. I may just have to call up some of my old friends and see if we can work something into our schedules. Getting older has taken my tabletop fun from me.
Honestly, the ease of use that 4e's character builder provided me when comparing multiple builds was amazing, especially because it incorporated nearly all books, magazine and power edits.
A character having both a theme and a background allows a character to get useful utility powers and cool storytelling abilities both about the characters past and their future struggles or growth.
My favorite addition is just the vast amount of classes, flavoring different combat styles to different power sources is boring on surface level, but the flavor text of each attack makes each attack feel unique. Plus, my first ever DnD character was a dwarf battlemind who for the heck of it multiclassed into cleric. Not only could I give my melee attacks extra powers using power points, I could use magic that relied on my wisdom instead of int. I could do so many things, because there were so many classes to multiclass to.
Is the game better or worse if you imagine Minions as the yellow tictacs hoarding the party?
edfreak9001 Well, so long as that doesn't trigger a critical mass of will saves for your players, I'd say it's a great mental image lol
The idea of mowing down those little yellow freaks does have a certain appeal to it
firedrake110 a Venus djinni!
I really want to play D&D, but this one player keeps kicking my ass!
GamerGuy03 is it thekobold27?
The Gamist Yeah thekobold27
GamerGuy03 dang thekobold27
Who is thekobold27?
I think it might be thegoblin72
I got started with 3.5, and moved on to Pathfinder after that, because it was so similar that it was pretty easy for me to learn. I've never gotten to play any other edition of D&D yet (partly because I don't know the rules, and I don't know anyone else IRL who does), but I've been interested in 4th Edition for a few years now. The "video game-y" elements and Swordmage class (I love magic knights) sound appealing enough that I want to at least try it someday. So I can't really talk about 4e at all, since I don't know much.
But I do know a decent amount about 3.5 and Pathfinder, so I can say this: Some of the stuff you said at the beginning about Monks and Clerics in 3.5 is... very wrong. Monks are generally considered pretty bad in 3.5, because they were dependent on too many stats at once, and a lot of their abilities didn't mesh too well, and Clerics... well, they call it CoDzilla for a reason. They were definitely good at more than just healing.
Dude, if you play Pathfinder and you''re interested in the Swordmage class, look into the Magus class from Paizo's Ultimate Magic supplement.
The Magus is actually how I learned about Pathfinder in the first place. I wanted to be a magic knight in 3.5, started looking, and somehow stumbled upon that before the Hexblade or Duskblade.
Never went back after that. I loooove playing as the Magus, it's pretty much everything I like about magic knights rolled into one class. My two favourite characters are both different Magi achetypes (Eldritch Scion and Kensai).
Monk is the 2 level dip and the cleric just did everything it wanted well xD
You should do a one minute review of each edition! That would be pretty neat.
I don’t know why people say 4th is just about combat. It is up to the DM to find the balance throughout all RPG elements.
I love videogames and I loved 4th edition. I had a lot if fun with it and enjoyed running games in it.
Isn't the bladesinger available as a wizard archetype on 5E? They're in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide if I'm correct.
The Spellsinger is a AD&D 2nd edition elf subclass from the Elf Handbook.
Correction: The Complete Book of Elves
Let's not forget about the Skill Encounter system that 4e introduced. The idea of having the entire party contributing their various skills towards a successful non-combat encounter was very novel and very cool.
4th edition was the first edition I ever played and I had a really good time with it! The thing I can remember most was my first character, Kurt the Illusionist. He was a little bit of a shifty, hyper active and not too wise youngman. After bandits raided his farmhome, he died in the flames of his burning house while trying to save his sister and the shaman of said raiders put a curse on him so he wouldn't die (not really anyway). Everything he did in a past life would be passed to the other but he would have to be a Doppelganger for good, having to give up on his own identity. From there he woke up in the ashes of what ones was his home.... yet he came back to life years later. Trying to pick up his Illusionist skills again, after 18 years he went back into society disguised as a Half-Elf he once had a tussle with and accidently killed. Surprised by the grande change of the world he once knew, he stumbled upon his fellow party members and escaped a near death situation where a horde of drunk guards picked up a fight with said party. They decide to trust them after he told them his story and showed his true identity which is... disgusting at first. The half-orc didn't seem to understand so he didn't buy it and wanted to get me killed all along. The passage I once knew to the Dwarven Kingdom, inhabited by a Halfling village, had collapsed years ago and the Dwarves lived as outcasts to the rest of the world. I found a secret passage by pure luck that I happend to remember and we got through. Eventually, fighting for the freedom of the Minotaur tribes, Kurts next life ended when he got knocked out in a pool of flames and scorched to death. He then later returned as a Black Deva that REALLY wish he was a Ginger this time, indicating him getting used to the whole reborn every time thing. One of the most memorable moments of this character, was the love interest in the lady at the vegetable store in a small village that went down south as soon as it began when he got his asskicked by a local peasant who then went on and fucked her on the counter right in front of him. I really hope that someday, I'll be able to replay as this character's next incarnation and he'll do some more stupid shit.
You say monks are powerful, one of the things I hear from most of the people I've ever read from or talked with is that monks suck hard. So now I'm rather confused.
"4th edition is very tactical!" which is cool! Having a very tactical RPG is a nice option! I have ZERO ability for map tactics. My options would either be to avoid tactically valuable abilities for ones that fit my mental abilities better, or have someone else help me with combat, which, in a combat-heavy system like 4th Edition, pulls away from actually being involved in the game myself.
Short rests, now THAT'S where I think 4th's effect on the D&D scene as a whole shines through. That, and (in my opinion) the 5E paths system (picked up from Paragon and the like in 4th). Paladin oaths, Bard colleges, it not only fuels nonstandard class-to-character designs (not every paladin has to be Arthur "Stick-Up-My-Ass" McJustice!), it also helps fuel somewhat more balanced homebrew - instead of having to homebrew an entire new class for a concept that's "like X existing class but different in THIS way!" you can just design a homebrew path for an existing class. And since each path has similar parts with very specific progression, it's more solidified in that manner. Archetypes in Pathfinder served a similar function, but since any given archetype could replace entirely different class features from another archetype, it was still hard to truly balance. 5th edition paths, on the other hand, were their own thing - the only thing one path replaced was that you didn't get another path's bonuses.
I think the main problem most people have with 4th edition is that it feels so divorced from the other D&D systems in design while still holding the D&D name.
Monks are very exploitable at later levels. It is the best for metagaming cunts.
Am I the only one who now wants to roll up a Paladin just so I can name him "Arthur Mcjustice"? Lmao!
I'm not lying. The next chance I get I'm going for it.
President of Whiteistan
No. They're not.
Who else thinks ProJared should play D&D with Stephen Georg
I didn't know stephen played D&D!
yea he was the DM for when he played with TRG
Is there a stream of that or...? I only know of the one hedoes with his GTA Online friends.
You prolly found it but if you look up on steven vlog or just search stevenvlog trg (or chugga for that matter) you can find a whole bunch of stuff, dnd included
The best of 4e:
Like it or not, it is tight fully integrated rule system. Rule disputes at the table are easy to resolve
Love, love the monster entries. Everything you need in one block. No need to look up feats or spells
Speaking of monsters, 4e monsters felt flavored. They were more than hit point bags. 4e kobolds - shifting and scurrying - across your battle grid! Best kobolds of any edition
Love the trap mechanics. A trap attacks a PC
4e really benefits from encounter set design. Terrain features really matter and how they interact with PCs and monsters is easy for the DM to adjudicate.
I think 4e fell victim to its time. It was published as internet trolls began to emerge. The game was unfairly ravaged by Grognards and 3e loyalists. No role playing? Nonsense. 1e and 2e have less rules and pay less lip service to role playing than 4e does. If you want to role play more, then role play more. 100s of points to allocate amongst dozens of skill points is not role playing. As our host said, role playing depends on the DM and also on the players at the table
We judged 4e too quickly and too harshly. I design for Savage Worlds and 4e, as written, is the only edition of D&D I’d ever play. A good DM can get it close to the feel of SW.
My avenger could teleport 3 squares if I was hit. So we used to solve puzzles by beating me senseless.
I've only played 4th edition. I enjoy it. I have fun with it. I don't get why people are hating on it tbh
my dm was always pulling shit on us. There was always battles to be expected. People died all the time, Game of Thrones style. In fact, he'd get mad at us when we lived. I remember he almost killed my character's father until I healed him back. You should've seen his face
Dmitri George I would try out Pathfinder too actually. I made the switch from 4e to Pathfinder and I fell in love with all the options you could do to make a character. Especially multi classing. Good lord I've seen some stupid shit.
***** eh
Dmitri George You do you man
Friends don't let friends play Pathfinder.
4e was my first edition, I got the redbox right when it came out because I wanted to be on a level playing field with everyone else playing (rather than trying to learn 3.5 while everyone else has known it for years). I had been playing it fairly recently up until August, when our team disbanded. For a long while it was fun, but once I started playing and reading and watching 5e, 4e's flaws became glaring, and as time went on with my 4e group, I started becoming more and more bored of the 2 hour combat encounters, lack of RP, and tedious rules-lawyering (this was just my group, I'm sure with other groups none of these things happened). That' not to say I hate the edition, I still do enjoy it, and in fact, I appreciate it more now that you've told me that 4e was the edition that began short rests, popularised grid-combat, and made dragonborns a player race, all things I REALLY enjoy in 5e.
Grid was always a thing. 3rd popularized grid combat, and did it better.
I made a nigh-unkillable Warlock in 4e. That was fun
as 4e was the only edition i played, my friend became a warlock, and he became OP AF.
Sean Flannery darkwalker (allows you to become insubstantial with powers) + Caiphon's Calamitous Melody (I think that's the name) + some additional spells like Wings of the Fiend. Makes you just a monster.
Caiphon's Song allows you to avoid an attac if you roll a 10 or higher. So over a 50% chance
oh and Darkspiral Aura + Punisher of the Gods' Immortal Curse. Immortal Curse makes you always do full damage to the cursed enemy. And if Darkspiral Aura's counterattack (1d12 per charge) does 6 damage is weakens the incoming attacking and if it does 12 you go down to 1 charge instead of 0. So if you curse a boss his attacks are always weakened and you always have 1 charge.
Also yo can take a second pact. Since darkspiral pact makes pretty much all of your damage necrotic (and that's the most resisted) you take Elemental Pact which allows you to roll a 1d6 and depending on what you roll you can change any damage you do to that elemental type. Also you get a better filler spell: Chromatic Bolt.
I've made two warlock characters in my time with 3.5; I've since moved on to Pathfinder.
* My first "attempt" was an expy of a Super Saiyan in an epic level game. He was Barbarian 12/Warlock 11. Dude could rage, fire energy blasts, fly and even carried a bastard sword.
* My second was a chaotic good warlock who claimed his powers came from interactions with fey, eventually prestiging into Hellfire Warlock.
So in defense of fourth
it was the first game i ever ran. I had played D&D as a player since i was 12, mostly growing up with 3.5 books, and dice, but my friends would always DM. I was awkward and to this day I don't have a lot of friends, but when fourth edition came out and my friends lost interest in playing 3.5 no one wanted to DM.
They say a hero is made when everyone steps back well that was my moment everyone looked at me and I said "Sure." I've been running games ever since and I love the position of DM, but it all started with fourth the balance really helped me to learn everything i needed and gave me confidence.
Some people say it's baby's first D&D game I agree it's a great stepping on point.
In my campaign setting, I ran a lot of games using this rules set. The way I explain the ramp in power for heroes is fun, too. The Third Age (the time I used 3rd and 3.5) ended with the death of the gods. The powers of the gods splayed out over all the lands and made epic heroes and villains of mortal creatures. This Fourth Age is known as the Age of Heroes. As those powers waned, so came the Fifth Age. I really enjoyed the simplicity of the rules in 4th. It was very easy to get new players in because of the simple At-Will/Encounter/Daily power structure of each character class. 5th is way better...but 4th wasn't awful.
I'm happy someone else doesn't completely hate 4e. Though it isn't my favourite (I am a pathfinder person myself), I do enjoy the system. It was definitely good for the GM, and I still sometimes use it for one-shots where the GM hands a sheet to a player. Also I have retroactively added Skills Challenges to every D&d system before or after. It adds a lot to a game to have epic chase sequences or intense investigations with hard success and failure conditions. Also a great way to get some newer players who get combat to role play, because now their story telling had dice rolls for their skills and they had to apply a hard mechanic to a story element.
Personally my biggest gripe was with 4e was lore stuff, forgotten realms was nuked, and dark sun, while fun, I thought was a bit cheery compared to the original, which kind of defeats the point. But, as avid world homebrewer, It was side step able. The mechanical issues can be house ruled if need be, like I usually did with character sizes. The game hates short people for no reason.
knate44
No one ever mentions the Skill Challenges and in fact they even get harped on for "replacing" role playing. I never say it that way. They actually add more opportunities for roleplaying. What I will say is that Warhammer 3e also had a similar system.
All I ever heard from other DnDers was that 4 sucked and I could never get a reason why. What I like about this video is a description of how things played out and actually I would like to gather some friends to try it out.
I loved 4th SO much and the bad reaction from other players actually turned me off other editions for quite some time. I still hesitate joining new groups as 4th gave me the most fun I've had in D&D to date. That and how some elitists go out of their way to bash 4th and me liking it. Forcing me in a mindset of "If 4th edition so incompatible and hated by other edition players... Am I compatible at all for other editions?" As you've said, it does come down to the DM in these groups, not the edition in my opinion. Many times I've been told I can't do that during 3.5 ed group, while I was able to in my 4th ed group. Simple actions where I describe the what, how and relevant stats while overselling the intent if it was a mundane task. For example, tracking. I describe how I'd get down on all fours and thoroughly inspect the tracks of each print. Offering to learn more about what made these tracks rather then simply following them. 3.5 groups told me to just roll, no bonuses. 4th group let me use my Nature skill and a small bonus. Hell, even taking the combat medic as a feat was something I liked to have. Being a player that'd fulfill whatever roles we lacked, like healing during combat. Did so in 4th with no issues, in one 3.5 group I was barred from it. Saying it was for use AFTER combat. I got salty and had to run my intent of skills as I leveled by the DM each time and made sure that didn't happen again. More skills I had to pass on thanks to that style.
If you've read this far, hold nothing against any edition. This was me sharing why I loved 4th and took awhile to warm up to other editions. I don't hold it against other editions, I hold it against those groups. And mildly against those with a hate boner for 4th/players like me. Also, opinion here. If ANY edition wasn't fun, change something. The editions are guides, like 'rulebooks' for any tabletop game. Modify if players aren't having fun.
Screw the haters. I'm an OSR D&D guy who also plays 5e and enjoys it. But I'm gonna start up some 4e soon because a) I've never played 4e and b) it just looks like a whole lot of fun. There's no badwrongfun. :)
This is really enlightening since any DM I've ever had has only ever said "Were playing 3.5 or 5e since 4 is terrible," and I never really knew why.
Yes my brother, as a DM I still feel this is the best version of DnD. Not only were the classes balanced, but the monsters were on par with adventurers and were actually fun to play. It also had skill encounters were there's a set of skill challenges the party has to face together, I used that to create great stories. The fact that people didn't like this edition without even playing it frustrates the crap out of me. I'm actually starting to play in a 5e game and I must say, the rules book is a mess compared to the easily understood 4E. Plus 4E had Gamma world which was the coolest setting EVER.
3.5e is for people who hate game design but love rules lawyering.
At-will magic which became cantrips in 5th were pretty great.
Wizards were the only good thing about the edition.
As soon as I heard dragonborn I got some great skyrim flashbacks
They're not what you think they are and I fell for that. They're still awesome though!
I know that. Just the name.
Draconic creatures with mammaries is still a biological WTF for me.
***** They're like argonians if they were cool XD
Argonians are cool...
Thank you for a positive video, and an informed review of the actual edition, versus some vids I've seen on this.
Just the fact that you're not obnoxious is incredibly appreciated.
I'm planning a campaign in 3.5 that has a climactic battle as the focal point of the next session, and this video inspired me to make minion equivalents so 1) I don't have to keep track of as many numbers 2) the players can feel BA 3) the strong characters leading the minions can have more impact by comparison!
I started with 4th edition a few years back, and I haven't tried any other editions.
But I'm curious about them.
Can anyone tell me the options other editions provide that enhance and expand roleplaying?
They don't. 4e has about as many rp options as any other edition. 4e has its flaws, every edition does, but it isn't less of a role playing game than any of the others. The emphasis on clear technical writing and interesting combat probably threw off people's impressions.
According to Matt Colville's video about applying 4e to 5e, even the WoTC writers had a hard time coming up with reasons why someone who already liked 4e would want to use 5e instead. The biggest things I like about 5e compared to 4e are 1) A small number of optional feats instead of a ridiculous number of feats you have to wade through every few levels, and 2) bounded accuracy/removal of needing feats/items to keep up mathematically.
I've been wanting to play DnD forever, but never had anyone to play with or any kits, nor do I know much about the editions and such. Any place I can find people to play with?
Some comic stores or gaming stores have groups for tabletop gaming and D&D, depending on the store. Or, if you don't have any place near you to play D&D in person, there are also some online communities for D&D that you could try out.
MasterIrukaPlays Try setting up a game via Roll20, it's a free website that lets you play tabletop games without all the kits.
You can just ask your friends if you all wanna learn and start playing. If you're in a tight budget, there's free "basic rules" for D&D 5th Edition, which is the latest, and a (I believe) $20 "Starter Set" which comes with basic rules, a set of dice, premade characters, and a couple of adventures to get things rolling. Said adventures actually start out a big campaign that they followed up with and continued in other adventures they sold.
This is basically the story of 60% of people that is watching D&Dcember.
MasterIrukaPlays Go to your local card shop or tabletop gaming shop. They're usually one-in-the-same, but who knows. Find some people who play, and see if you cant find a group there to introduce you. I highly highly discourage playing without an experienced DM and at least one experienced player, as it can ruin the experience otherwise.
Played a DnD 4th campaign some years ago, it was actually one of the longest campaigns I've ever played (mostly thanks to our awesome DM). To be honest, even though it's totally different from "normal" DnD, I quite enjoyed it, more than the powerplaying clusterf**k that's 3.5. THERE I SAID IT
real talk, a lot of 4th edition sounds REALLY similar to Knights of the Old Republic
I fokken love that game
It really had a heavy "tabletop videogame" feeling that lots of people didn't like, but I enjoyed it :)
And yeah KOTOR is awesome.
I do see the goods and the bads of this edition and all of the rule changes it brought.
However, I have no real D&D experience yet, and the closest thing I have to D&D is KOTOR
KOTOR
***** excuse me, everyone, I'm going to block out all of humanity for about a month while I play KOTOR till I can't breathe
My favorite edition, only one I run. People like to complain that you cant roleplay in it, but you can, it’s super lazy to say that. Combat was interesting. The way skills leveled allowed everyone to attempt skill checks and not just those who are trained in it.
Healing surges also were great to have. Players didn’t have to worry as much about being struck down by a single attack. They could heal once on their own during combat. Healing classes didn’t have to waste their turn just healing someone. They could attack and heal.
Spell memorization is a thing of the past. Wizards had full access to their spells, plus at will spells that they could use over and over. No more having to resort to crossbows because you ran out of spells during combat.
Wizards + at will powers made it so much less confusing and made them feel always useful
4th is the best edition, in fact.