Dear 4e fans...

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dear 4e Fans, 
                        It seems the death of our lovely edition is near and from the looks of it is growing rapidly closer. Look at our 4e forums, they are already dying gown we have posts from 6 and 7 days ago. On the first Page! It inevitable that this Is going to happen, 4e will be a but a memory to these old forums. So I am here to say, it is our duty as the fans, to not give in on 4e. This is the day and age of the OGL! There is no reason to switch editions simply because it's not officially supported any more. Look at 3.5 players and Pathfinder... Could 4e have a game like that? Sure why not? Essentially all it is names of monsters, spells, and feats, and some attacks changed. Though I already know of a couple games/clones trying to do this, they seem to move a little farther away from 4e the more they are developed than I would like. All pre-3e games have a place to call home over at Dragonsfoot, 3e has Private Sanctuary and multiple good blogs. So, shouldn't 4e? Wouldn't it be nice to have a place to discuss 4e in place were flame wars and personal attack risks are low? A place where 4e can get 3rd party support, and have fan made adventures for download? A place like this doesn't need to exist, it has to exist. SO what do you say? What are we, the fans of 4e going to do do make 4e's life permanent?

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

One place already working is frothsof's 4e blog, with an e-zine in the works, frothsof4e.blogspot.com/
here Here!
I still play 2nd Ed Star Wars because, darn it, WEG rules were greatly better than WotC's (plus they aren't infected by the prequels).

So let us keep 4th Ed alive. (but kill Essentials! ;) )


So let us keep 4th Ed alive. (but kill Essentials! ;) )



Let's stop the hate. Not all of Essentials was bad, and it does provide a much needed breadth of complexity across 4E. Essentials can be integrated painlessly or ignored just as painlessly by any 4E campaign.

Edit: (fixing odd sentence structure) Let's give 4E a graceful exit and put an end to the pointless infighting.

As much as I consider Essentials the killing blow of 4e (and yet mor proof that D&D's marketing department is horrible) I have  to say I have to thank essentials for making custom class (or subclass) assmbly easy.
You might want to check out Fourth Party.
Contining to play the Fourth Edition and getting others to play it is one important thing.

Since I live far away in Korea (and am surrounded by Pathfinder or Old School enthusiasts) I have resorted to on-line roleplaying. Google+ Hangout is one terrific tool for this: no subscription required. Although I do subscribe to the Dungeons & Dragons Insider, I cannot persuade my friends to do so, nor woudl I expect beginning players to make such a commitment.
Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
You might want to check out Fourth Party.


I've been a member for a couple of months now.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

One place already working is frothsof's 4e blog, with an e-zine in the works, frothsof4e.blogspot.com/



I might take that site more seriously when Frothsof starts using capital letters properly in his sentences.
Two things:

1. Editions will never die, and neither will the wars associated with them.
2. I find that 13th Age is D&D 4E's spiritual successor, and thus am preparing to switch over to it Until I can acquire a copy though, I have already created a 4E/13th Age hybrid system, taking what is already available online and tweaking 4E to fit that system I may end up getting a copy of Savage Lands and a few other TRPGs to complement 13th Age and 4E though

That said, I feel that unlike previous editions, 4E never really got to get its full potential, especially considering how previous editions got modified halfway around the world almost from the onset, whereas 4E barely gets modded, so while every group has their own version of an older system, 4E groups have barely scratched the houseruling area...

... even when just about everyone knows that's where the real magic of a game comes out ;)

Then again, 4E is really that good and solid a system anyway, at least IMHO :p 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Two things:

1. Editions will never die, and neither will the wars associated with them.
2. I find that 13th Age is D&D 4E's spiritual successor, and thus am preparing to switch over to it Until I can acquire a copy though, I have already created a 4E/13th Age hybrid system, taking what is already available online and tweaking 4E to fit that system I may end up getting a copy of Savage Lands and a few other TRPGs to complement 13th Age and 4E though

That said, I feel that unlike previous editions, 4E never really got to get its full potential, especially considering how previous editions got modified halfway around the world almost from the onset, whereas 4E barely gets modded, so while every group has their own version of an older system, 4E groups have barely scratched the houseruling area...

... even when just about everyone knows that's where the real magic of a game comes out ;)

Then again, 4E is really that good and solid a system anyway, at least IMHO :p 



Yes, that is very true, most 4e players haven't even made up houserules, or if they have they are minor and not complete reskins. But, then again 4e is one of the few games I've seen that doesn't really need them. Also I've heard of 13th Age, though from what I hear its more of a 2nd or 3rd cousin than a spiritual successor. I may be wrong though. Could you perhaps tell me some of its mechanics and what it has in common with 4e?

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Yes, that is very true, most 4e players haven't even made up houserules, or if they have they are minor and not complete reskins. But, then again 4e is one of the few games I've seen that doesn't really need them. Also I've heard of 13th Age, though from what I hear its more of a 2nd or 3rd cousin than a spiritual successor. I may be wrong though. Could you perhaps tell me some of its mechanics and what it has in common with 4e?


Let's see...

* system combat math balance
* reflavoring encouraged
* ease of DMing
* big damn heroes as default :P
* introduces new mechanics (escalation die, relationship dice, new minion rules)
* death saving throws (much harder: 1-15 fail death save, 16-19 succeed and spend a surge, 20 succeed + spend a surge + take your turn as normal)
* same action allotment (standard, move, quick, immediate, opportunity)
* simplification

All the while addressing 4E's problems:

* class sameness.  There's a label for class complexity (to help newbies), but effectively each class can be more or less as complicated or as simple as you want.  "Simple" classes like the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin are feature-centric (like Essentials classes), whereas "complex" classes like the Wizard and Fighter are power-centric (like core 4E classes), although each character gets to choose 3 class features regardless of complexity.  Note that certain class features make a character more complex (like Paladins gaining a class feature that grants them Cleric spells), so there's that.
* grid-centric.  13th Age assumes an easy-to-reference gridless system that effectively ignores any specific measurement system.  Engaged (adjacent), nearby (one move action gets you there), far away (two move actions get you there), and maybe you could add "too far" if you want to (3+ move actions to get you there?).
* lack of non-combat rules.  13th Age does a lot in this regard, by giving very nifty guidelines that not only help the DM and players create their campaign, but also help in collaborative storytelling.  Skills are 100% based on background (as in you write your background influences [occupation, life experience, or what not] and assign a value to it, you get bonuses to ability checks based on those values), and you have relationships dice, that allow you to gain mechanical benefits based on your relationship towards one of the icons of a campaign.  My favorite feature has to be the Unique Thing: it's a non-combat feature that is agreed upon by both player and DM that can be just about anything.
* too much to track.  13th Age effectively removes a lot of the tracking not only by going gridless, removing most non-standard actions, and area attacks, but also simplifying conditions, reducing minion-tracking to a per-group rather than per-minion basis, and utilizing an "escalation die" that helps remove the need to track a variety of + to hit you normally get via powers or what not (escalation die effectively adds an increasing +1 to hit per round after the first, up to +6 to hit per attack by round 7... if the fight does last that long, that is).
* hit point bloat.  As the game is only up to level 10, by the time hit point bloat starts, you've reached the end of epic tier already
* monster sameness.  There are a LOT of suggestions on how to modify existing monsters

:D
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Yes, that is very true, most 4e players haven't even made up houserules, or if they have they are minor and not complete reskins. But, then again 4e is one of the few games I've seen that doesn't really need them. Also I've heard of 13th Age, though from what I hear its more of a 2nd or 3rd cousin than a spiritual successor. I may be wrong though. Could you perhaps tell me some of its mechanics and what it has in common with 4e?


Let's see...

* system combat math balance
* reflavoring encouraged
* ease of DMing
* big damn heroes as default :P
* introduces new mechanics (escalation die, relationship dice, new minion rules)
* death saving throws (much harder: 1-15 fail death save, 16-19 succeed and spend a surge, 20 succeed + spend a surge + take your turn as normal)
* same action allotment (standard, move, quick, immediate, opportunity)
* simplification

All the while addressing 4E's problems:

* class sameness.  There's a label for class complexity (to help newbies), but effectively each class can be more or less as complicated or as simple as you want.  "Simple" classes like the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin are feature-centric (like Essentials classes), whereas "complex" classes like the Wizard and Fighter are power-centric (like core 4E classes), although each character gets to choose 3 class features regardless of complexity.  Note that certain class features make a character more complex (like Paladins gaining a class feature that grants them Cleric spells), so there's that.
* grid-centric.  13th Age assumes an easy-to-reference gridless system that effectively ignores any specific measurement system.  Engaged (adjacent), nearby (one move action gets you there), far away (two move actions get you there), and maybe you could add "too far" if you want to (3+ move actions to get you there?).
* lack of non-combat rules.  13th Age does a lot in this regard, by giving very nifty guidelines that not only help the DM and players create their campaign, but also help in collaborative storytelling.  Skills are 100% based on background (as in you write your background influences [occupation, life experience, or what not] and assign a value to it, you get bonuses to ability checks based on those values), and you have relationships dice, that allow you to gain mechanical benefits based on your relationship towards one of the icons of a campaign.  My favorite feature has to be the Unique Thing: it's a non-combat feature that is agreed upon by both player and DM that can be just about anything.
* too much to track.  13th Age effectively removes a lot of the tracking not only by going gridless, removing most non-standard actions, and area attacks, but also simplifying conditions, reducing minion-tracking to a per-group rather than per-minion basis, and utilizing an "escalation die" that helps remove the need to track a variety of + to hit you normally get via powers or what not (escalation die effectively adds an increasing +1 to hit per round after the first, up to +6 to hit per attack by round 7... if the fight does last that long, that is).
* hit point bloat.  As the game is only up to level 10, by the time hit point bloat starts, you've reached the end of epic tier already
* monster sameness.  There are a LOT of suggestions on how to modify existing monsters

:D



Sounds interesting. I'll most definitely keep watch.

Will 13th Age be 4e compatible? 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Sounds interesting. I'll most definitely keep watch.

Will 13th Age be 4e compatible? 


It's supposed to be a system that you can mine ideas from regardless of edition or even system.  In fact, I've already made a 13th Age/4E hybrid system that basically pares down 4E from its 30 levels down to 10

At the very least, it's an excellent starting point for houseruling 4E, like for instance replacing all the backgrounds AND skills with the 13th Age background system, and utilizing the Relationship Dice instead of Alignment I'm eager to try out their version of minions as well (which basically amounts to: grab a standard, elite or solo monster, divide its HP by number of minions, and throw at the party).  The gridless system is harder to implement, but that's effectively what I'll be playtesting this Friday :D
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Sounds interesting. I'll most definitely keep watch.

Will 13th Age be 4e compatible? 


The gridless system is harder to implement, but that's effectively what I'll be playtesting this Friday :D



The only thing that's really hard for the gridless system is 4th edition's forced movement effects. I was doing some thinking on this. Something that normally moves a creature 1 square should cause automatic disengagement, and someting that moves more squares could take an enemy or ally and take it from engaged with on enemy to engaged with another. A really high amount of forced movement (5+?) could force a creature to be far away forcing them to take multiple move actions to get engaged again. That's probably the toughest thing to translate.

There is also anything that uses "shift" needing translation. I was thinking a single one-square shift is a free disengage. Anything that lets you shift multiple squares allows you to ignore disengaging and interceptions during the move. I think the 4e Defender's Aura could work in the system: Whenever an engaged enemy makes an attack that doesn't target you or moves away from you without disengaging then punish.

Anyway, I know me and a couple of RL friends have been talking about how we would change 4e and there's been a few ideas thrown around incluidng:
Hunter and Seeker melded to one class - I don't entirely agree with that one but my friend felt their flavor was too similar.
Ranger either loses Twin Strike and gets a stronger damage feature, or Twin Strike just becomes a class feature and Hunter's Quarry is gone. Alternatively give Hunter's Quarry more baked in effects other than damage (similar to the Hunter's at-wills).
Readied actions probably go away, but you still need something for things like Fly-By Attack.
One idea I'd probably borrow from 13th Age: Your basic attacks are based on your class. When hybriding, you pick which classes MBA you are using each time you attack. Powers and features that modify basic attacks particular to a class (striker features, Essentials stances, Thieve's tricks, etc). This keeps the cross-class shenanigans down but still allows you to have an effective MBA/RBA.
Shadow Assassin's Shroud would work up on the Assassin rather than the target, and would when applied to an attack would be the assassin sending the darkness and gloom with his or her attack. It is a bit different flavor, but I think it works out a little bit better mechanically.

We have thought a bit about flattening the math, but likely we will leave it as is and maybe buff things that need it (weaponless/implementless attacks, high-tier monsters, etc). Most likely we would keep a rarity system for magic but simplify it: common and rare. If you want to play a low-magic campaign, common should be just as rare. I really like the system we use in the campaign I'm in at the moment: You can request made anything but rares at the forges spread throughout the world, magic items upgrade on their plusses automatically (it is a low money campaign rather than low magic). I feel like this system works pretty well, but you do hold off on handing money out to players a little in this system. There is also a secondary requirement (ingots) that you also have to find out in the world to craft items (we have never actually tried buying these, now that I think of it).
One place already working is frothsof's 4e blog, with an e-zine in the works, frothsof4e.blogspot.com/



I might take that site more seriously when Frothsof starts using capital letters properly in his sentences.


NEVER! but seriously the mag uses them correctly, i just have my own 'forumspeak'

as for the ops comments, no game dies as long as there is a dm to run it. hell i could get a game of cyborg commando together in a couple of hours if i was willing to run it.



as for retro-clones etc of 4e, to me its unnecessary. the reason most of them exist is bc the old games are out-of-print and expensive. they are typically labors of love and have free versions available for download. which leads to my actual point, if you want 4e support, make your own and put it out there, i just dont personally think it needs a 'clone'. at least not at this point.

ps im honestly thrilled all of the '4e sucks' and 'pathfinder sales' threads are now in the 5e forums; the 4e general forums have never been better imo
The only thing that's really hard for the gridless system is 4th edition's forced movement effects. I was doing some thinking on this. Something that normally moves a creature 1 square should cause automatic disengagement, and someting that moves more squares could take an enemy or ally and take it from engaged with on enemy to engaged with another. A really high amount of forced movement (5+?) could force a creature to be far away forcing them to take multiple move actions to get engaged again. That's probably the toughest thing to translate.

You know, that gives me an idea...

Forced movement:
1-3 squares of forced movement = automatic disengage, target is nearby
4-6 squares of forced movement = automatic disengage, target is far away
7+ squares of forced movement = automatic disengage, target is too far away


There is also anything that uses "shift" needing translation. I was thinking a single one-square shift is a free disengage. Anything that lets you shift multiple squares allows you to ignore disengaging and interceptions during the move. I think the 4e Defender's Aura could work in the system: Whenever an engaged enemy makes an attack that doesn't target you or moves away from you without disengaging then punish.


Given how opportunity attacks automatically trigger when you fail to disengage properly, I'd say that Defender's Aura would simply be: whenever an engaged enemy makes an attack that doesn't target you or moves away from you even after successfully disengaging, opportunity attack.

And yes, intercept and opportunity attacks would likely be prevented via shifting
1-3 squares of shifting = automatic disengage, enemy previously engaged is nearby
4-6 squares of forced movement = automatic disengage, enemy previously engaged is far away
7+ squares of forced movement = automatic disengage, enemy previously engaged is too far away

Anyway, I know me and a couple of RL friends have been talking about how we would change 4e and there's been a few ideas thrown around incluidng:
Hunter and Seeker melded to one class - I don't entirely agree with that one but my friend felt their flavor was too similar.
Ranger either loses Twin Strike and gets a stronger damage feature, or Twin Strike just becomes a class feature and Hunter's Quarry is gone. Alternatively give Hunter's Quarry more baked in effects other than damage (similar to the Hunter's at-wills).
Readied actions probably go away, but you still need something for things like Fly-By Attack.
One idea I'd probably borrow from 13th Age: Your basic attacks are based on your class. When hybriding, you pick which classes MBA you are using each time you attack. Powers and features that modify basic attacks particular to a class (striker features, Essentials stances, Thieve's tricks, etc). This keeps the cross-class shenanigans down but still allows you to have an effective MBA/RBA.
Shadow Assassin's Shroud would work up on the Assassin rather than the target, and would when applied to an attack would be the assassin sending the darkness and gloom with his or her attack. It is a bit different flavor, but I think it works out a little bit better mechanically.


Hunters *are* effectively Essentialized Seeker/Ranger hybrids anyway, so I agree with your friend that the flavor is similar... but I disagree that they should be melded, on the basis that they are too mechanically different.  I'd say Seeker as a Subclass of Ranger seems more appropriate an allocation

If I remember correctly, the 13th Age Ranger does have a sort of Twin Strike, but more closely resembles the Essentials Scout than the 4E Ranger.  So, I'd put this up instead: Whenever you miss with a basic attack using your main hand weapon, if you rolled even on the attack roll, you can make a basic attack with your off-hand weapon.

[ Actually, doesn't the 4E Twin Strike fluff basically have Twin Strike as "if the first strike misses, perhaps the second strike will hit"? ]

Then we can tweak the options so that you can choose to have alternative class features in addition to the above Twin Strike:
* Hunter's Quarry: As a Quick Action, you can designate the nearest enemy as your quarry.  Until you designate another enemy as your quarry or your quarry is defeated, you deal extra damage to your quarry equal to the escalation die.
* Favored Enemy: Upon selecting this feature, choose a type of enemy that populates the campaign of the DM.  You gain benefits when dealing with these types of enemies and their associates: (list of benefits here)

[ Hmm, the 13th Age design decisions really do have merit, when looked at in a 4E perspective.... ]

Readied Actions could work just like in 4E, maybe with additional restrictions

Personally I like the Assassin Shroud as is, but that's just me.


We have thought a bit about flattening the math, but likely we will leave it as is and maybe buff things that need it (weaponless/implementless attacks, high-tier monsters, etc). Most likely we would keep a rarity system for magic but simplify it: common and rare. If you want to play a low-magic campaign, common should be just as rare. I really like the system we use in the campaign I'm in at the moment: You can request made anything but rares at the forges spread throughout the world, magic items upgrade on their plusses automatically (it is a low money campaign rather than low magic). I feel like this system works pretty well, but you do hold off on handing money out to players a little in this system. There is also a secondary requirement (ingots) that you also have to find out in the world to craft items (we have never actually tried buying these, now that I think of it).


I like the 1[W]/level paradigm of 13th Age, and decided to remove both Focus and Expertise feats as well.  The mathematical balancing act effectively comes in when you consider how monster HP in 13th Age exponentially increases as their size increases as well.

Seriously, dealing 11d12+3 damage against 125 level 10 minions and able to wipe out at worst 2-3 minions per slash, and at best 33 minions per slash, not epic enough?
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
The funny and sad thing is that 4E probably would have survived if it wasn't D&D. 
As its own game, from an idependent company, it would have been praised as brave and innovative and would have appealed to a probably small but solid audience, enough to keep it floating for a long time.

Instead, for being 'D&D' it has displeased a significant part of the community for the fact of being different in several regards from what people were used to. Maybe it was just ahead of its time (for a D&D edition).
One of the problems that anyone will have in continuing any sort of 4E support is licensing. The 3.x game had an OGL that allowed people to use that system as long as they jumped through the right hoops. Hence, we got Pathfinder when 3.x "died".

With 4E, there is no OGL and so anyone using the system or its components in a recognizable form is likely to be subjected to cease and desist actions from Hasbro's legal team.

It bites because 4E finally got a D&D system that had what I needed: a robust and fun combat system and not very much "fluff mechanics" that always seemed to jumble up story-telling. 
The funny and sad thing is that 4E probably would have survived if it wasn't D&D. 
As its own game, from an idependent company, it would have been praised as brave and innovative and would have appealed to a probably small but solid audience, enough to keep it floating for a long time.

Instead, for being 'D&D' it has displeased a significant part of the community for the fact of being different in several regards from what people were used to. Maybe it was just ahead of its time (for a D&D edition).

Personally I feel that 4E is what I could consider a "modern" TRPG -- blame the lack of TRPG exposure if anyone deems me uninformed -- and just like how the original D&D was the pioneer of the TRPG industry, 4E would effectively be the baseline for just about every TRPG to come, considering how it is one of the few (if not only) TRPGs that is heavy on both mechanics and fluff but doesn't require an absolute intermeshing of the two.

In short, I feel it is ahead of its time relative to most TRPGs prior to 2008. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
In short, I feel it is ahead of its time relative to most TRPGs prior to 2008. 

I can get behind that assessment.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I live in a small town and generally have the same players week after week, year after year, decade after decade (literally).

I am very nearly always the DM, and the group is genuinely content to run whatever version I feel like DM'ing.

I stubbornly (and regretfully) did not even try 4e until 2009, we played v2.x until that time.  Now, 4e is by far my favorite version and I will never switch again.    Nor do I have the slightest interest in some 'almost/kinda/sorta' 4e version made by another company.   D&DNext will never get a penny out of me, unless they put out something that is utterly compatible with 4e.

I will enjoy 4e material for as long as it's available, and then I will make do with what I have for as long as I'm able to DM (turned 50 this year).

Wow, someone almost as stubborn as I am.
You skipped all of 3.0 and 3.5? wow. That was pretty fun, even though I missed out on 3 years of it.

2 of our group have said pretty much the same thing: we're not buying 5th, or any future books except maybe modules.

I, for one, was annoyed with the collector/baseball card/pokemon manner of the plastic minis in the unknown packs. So I'm glad they stopped that, though WotC hasn't replaced it with anything else. Oh well... That's what Privateer Press' minis are for.
Started buying the 4E books myself last Summer. Still missing a bunch, because I only buy about 1/month, IF the book store has something I don't already have.


I, for one, was annoyed with the collector/baseball card/pokemon manner of the plastic minis in the unknown packs. So I'm glad they stopped that, though WotC hasn't replaced it with anything else.
.


they kind of have. i mean they use non-random tokens now in a lot of their products which for me, and i have a ton of minis, is better. i much prefer buying a product such as the monster vault and having tokens with the exact images of all of the monsters come with it, rather than mixing and matching similar looking creatures. my wife loathes the tokens though

although im not interested in it, the dungeon command thing they have coming out at least has minis grouped by type. aalso, you may not be aware of the beholder and dragon mini sets they did recently. they were non-random. didnt thrill me but at least you knew what you were getting.

none of these are perfect solutions but they are efforts to avoid "the collector/baseball card/pokemon manner of the plastic minis in the unknown packs"
Wow, this is... interesting.

From what I understand: technically, Orcus I was supposed to be 4E.  Orcus I ended up in a portion of Book of Nine Swords.  Then in 2006, the "new design" by the original team -- Design team was James Wyatt, Andy Collins and Rob Heinsoo, while the Development team was Robert Gutchera, Mike Donais, Rich Baker, Mike Mearls and Rob Heinsoo -- was questioned by Mike Mearls and Rich Baker because the whole thing was not 3.5E enough, resulting in the at-will, encounter, and daily power resource we have today.

In other words, 4E should technically have been Book of Nine Swords for all classes, and a new game called "Orcus" instead of D&D 4E.  It basically turned out to be a great idea being hammered into 3.5E paradigm.

And basically, if you thought 4E was a bad game, you have only Mike Mearls to blame.  Everyone having same powers?  Him and Baker.  Everyone having dailies?  Him and Baker.

Who is the lead developer for D&D Next again?

Although to be fair, the MMO feel (with the roles thing and all) wasn't Mearl's: it was Dave Noonan's idea apparently.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging


And basically, if you thought 4E was a bad game, you have only Mike Mearls to blame.  Everyone having same powers?  Him and Baker.  Everyone having dailies?  Him and Baker.



Well now I know who to thank.   4E is excellent, much better than previous incarnations IMO.   I was so sick of wizards being demi-gods compared to the rest at high levels.



And basically, if you thought 4E was a bad game, you have only Mike Mearls to blame.  Everyone having same powers?  Him and Baker.  Everyone having dailies?  Him and Baker.



Well now I know who to thank.   4E is excellent, much better than previous incarnations IMO.   I was so sick of wizards being demi-gods compared to the rest at high levels.



Yup I love, love D&D 4E compared to previous incarnations, and I LOVE the fact that 13th Age basically takes what was learned from Tome of Battle, 4E and other editions + other RPGs and molds it into a very nice and well-articulated "love letter" to D&D In spite of what the detractors are saying.

Ironic that the detractors of 4E are singing praises to the very same guy that scrapped Tome of Battle-esque innovations and introduced the AEDU system that some of them are STILL despising due to "lack of versimilitude", "it makes fighters melee wizards", etc.

I really wish Orcus was released instead of 4E though;  We might have had an even better system than what we have.  Then again it wouldn't have the "D&D" logo, which might have pushed away the DM that introduced me to D&D in the first place, so it's all good

Thank you Mike Mearls, Rob Heinsoo, and all the other guys involved in D&D 4E's development, although I certainly don't envy your job right now Mike, given how the very innovations you thought would "fix everything" were basically the exact same innovations that broke a lot of stuff in the end... and now you have to "fix everything" by designing a "back to roots" D&D that is attempts to unite 6+ design philosophies (pre-1E, 1-3, 3.5, 4, Essentials) in under one roof.

Good luck with that mess Mike.

[ Play a bit less Diablo 3, maybe? ]

EDIT
So let's see... we have

* the dislike of other people regarding 4E design, half or three fourths of which is from Mike Mearls' call to add 3.5E elements to the system
* the apparently historical preference of Mike Mearls to 3.5E design, as shown not only in 4E's AEDU design, but even moreso in Essentials (complete with 3.xE's infamous "trap options" and "system mastery rewarding")
* D&D Next being designed by Mike Mearls

I think I lost faith in D&D Next.  Will still try to contribute in the playtests, but I have no real hopes with D&D Next's design philosophy supporting anything outside of 3.5E.
 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Dropped DDI last year, switched over to Pathfinder. Couldn't get the players togather for 4th ed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Dropped DDI last year, switched over to Pathfinder. Couldn't get the players togather for 4th ed.


Hmm Pathfinder. Meh.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Dropped DDI last year, switched over to Pathfinder. Couldn't get the players togather for 4th ed.


Pathfinder. And people call 4e a "desperate money grab."
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
Pathfinder isn't a bad game at all, Paizo made some nice changes to 3.5 (and also some bad changes IMHO). The real strength of Pathfinder to me is the Pathfinder Society organised play - it is very popular and the scenarios are easy to buy and events easy to organise - I wish 4e had such a prominent Living Campaign (LFR seems to have died a death and Encounters just doesn't happen around here).
R Grant Erswell Geek in wolf's clothing
Dear 4e Fans, 
                        It seems the death of our lovely edition is near and from the looks of it is growing rapidly closer. Look at our 4e forums, they are already dying gown we have posts from 6 and 7 days ago. On the first Page! It inevitable that this Is going to happen, 4e will be a but a memory to these old forums. So I am here to say, it is our duty as the fans, to not give in on 4e. This is the day and age of the OGL! There is no reason to switch editions simply because it's not officially supported any more. Look at 3.5 players and Pathfinder... Could 4e have a game like that? Sure why not? Essentially all it is names of monsters, spells, and feats, and some attacks changed. Though I already know of a couple games/clones trying to do this, they seem to move a little farther away from 4e the more they are developed than I would like. All pre-3e games have a place to call home over at Dragonsfoot, 3e has Private Sanctuary and multiple good blogs. So, shouldn't 4e? Wouldn't it be nice to have a place to discuss 4e in place were flame wars and personal attack risks are low? A place where 4e can get 3rd party support, and have fan made adventures for download? A place like this doesn't need to exist, it has to exist. SO what do you say? What are we, the fans of 4e going to do do make 4e's life permanent?



As much as I dislike 4e, you've got the right idea. Some say AD&D 2e is bad because of THAC0, some say D&D 4e is bad because of all it's problems, but neither are bad, F.A.T.A.L. is bad, but all RPGs(except F.A.T.A.L.) deserve to live on and WILL live on.
    Our local 4e groups is enjoying a short-term uptick of a couple of tables.  Possibly it is just a coincidence that the increase has been since we got a good look at 5e.
    Our local 4e groups is enjoying a short-term uptick of a couple of tables.  Possibly it is just a coincidence that the increase has been since we got a good look at 5e.


Surprising. I thought people would be creaming their pants over a game where combat consists almost entirely of slaying minions with basic attacks. Wink
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
I jumped back into D&D with 4e after many (decades) of hiatus since playing 1st edition as a kid.  I was at first shocked when I went into my FLGS and found out that the red box I saw was not the same red box of old.  What?  They changed the rules?  Again!?  For the same game?  I knew about 2e (and have since tried it out), but D&D was completly off my radar through the 3.0 and 3.5 years.

Anyway, I picked it up, figured out the mechanics, made some characters, and stared DMing for friends and family.  I've really enjoyed it, but have to admit that I agree with many of the motivations for Wizards to create Next.   

In very little time DMing, I became annoyed with all the complicated monster powers, PC interrupts, readied actions, powers that change powers, etc.  But it's easy to house-rule these to a manageable form, solve (at least) this problem, and make a better vesion.  Why throw the baby out with the bathwater each and every time desires to improve the game pile up (other than to sell more merch)?  

For example, I really improved gaming with my groups by reducing monster HPs to about .5-.7 of what is listed, focusing on one monster power except when needed to maintain tension in the party, and creating a template for 2-attack-kills-them minions.  Monsters are still fearsome foes, but encounters go MUCH faster.  Similarly, the distance mechanics mentioned earlier in this forum are a great way to simplify movement and attacks.

So why can't Wizards improve the game system by modularizing the current edition, and creating updates that address the problems they see rather than replace 4e completely with something new?!  While I'm curious about what Next with bring, and will likely buy a book or two when it comes out, I don't imagine I'll want to jump into it unless they issue a transition guide or adjustment templates that allow the Next modules to work with 4e adventures, monsters, and characters.  This can't be that difficult, and would really (really!) make a lot of us quite happy.
Agreed.

The only thing I'd really like to see changed in 4e is all the tracking.   I'd honestly like to get rid of every single power that lasts "until the end of x's next turn".   I don't mind it for ongoing poison/fire/cold/etc, or stuff that lasts until the end of the encounter.

But I find it a real PITA to track "-2 to all defenses until..." stuff.
Though some of the tracking is annoying I've grown used to it, though as I've ran games for newbies I can tell it kinda daunting for them. Though overall 4e is my favorite edition. I do wish there were some optional Rules or Supplements that brought a tad bit more danger into the game (just little bits, like some of the old save or die stuff, not that stuff where if a monster touches you you lose 1d3 levels of DEX).

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater each and every time desires to improve the game pile up (other than to sell more merch)?


 This! WotC needs to know/do this. 4e is a great system and I would totally buy into a 4.5 that addressed and fixed some of 4e's problems.    

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Essentials really had the opportunity to actually fix 4e's issues, instead they decided to make things an utter mess and avoid ".5ness". Nor did it really succeed at teaching the game from what i've seen.

A more thorough .5 was likely avoided due to people just picking up the updates on DDI.
i have a playtest up of some material from my upcoming free fanzine. it is in rough form, as you might imagine, but you can download it here

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/
yo, im still looking for feedback, so im bumping if you havent seen this

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/08/4e-forev...