Read on Twitter
It didn't stick around for very long. https://twitter.com/trollishdelver/status/1326967122413703175
There were some features I did enjoy about 4th edition, for instance the online character creator made it very easy for starting up groups.
The art was nice, & they had a lot of classes you could play, but honestly that's where a lot of the problems I have with 4e begin.
The art was nice, & they had a lot of classes you could play, but honestly that's where a lot of the problems I have with 4e begin.
Take the classes, for instance.
By the end of 4e there were 26 official classes.
26.
And one of them was Vampire. Yes. Vampire was a class.
And even if you owned ALL THREE Player's Handbooks, you'd still need additional books to get all the classes under one roof. That's bad.
By the end of 4e there were 26 official classes.
26.
And one of them was Vampire. Yes. Vampire was a class.
And even if you owned ALL THREE Player's Handbooks, you'd still need additional books to get all the classes under one roof. That's bad.
It's clear that a lot of what 4e was designed to do was to recoup losses & sell things. Sell books, sell minis, sell battlemaps, sell, sell, sell. I know some folks hate theater of mind, but playing D&D in 4e basically necessitated doing it via minis, combat grids & no other way.
And it was SO heavily focused on combat. Like, we joke about how D&D has always been a fighting game, but 4e was a fighting game. While I did like the skill contests mechanics, it's another instance of getting bogged down in trying to offer a width of options as opposed to depth.
What do I mean by that?
Think of it this way: when designing something, you can either try to mechanically account for every conceivable thing the player might do, which leaves you with a lot of little systems that aren't very deep in how they work but take up a ton of space.
Think of it this way: when designing something, you can either try to mechanically account for every conceivable thing the player might do, which leaves you with a lot of little systems that aren't very deep in how they work but take up a ton of space.
OR.
Or you can say "there's no possible way we can cover all options" and design a few systems that are flexible & adaptable & can be expanded & iterated upon with clever manipulation.
For video games, this is the difference between Red Dead Redemption 2 & Super Mario Odyssey.
Or you can say "there's no possible way we can cover all options" and design a few systems that are flexible & adaptable & can be expanded & iterated upon with clever manipulation.
For video games, this is the difference between Red Dead Redemption 2 & Super Mario Odyssey.
RDR2 offers all these limited use actions for literally everything in the world, so while you can turn pages & put out lights & make bullets & do all these things there's not a huge depth in what you can actually DO with each of those available mechanics individually.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile.
While Mario really only has a jump & capture function in terms of mechanics, those two concepts can be iterated upon in many, MANY unique ways, to the point that you can basically fly through the air with the right inputs & tricks up your sleeve.
This is 4e versus 5e honestly.
This is 4e versus 5e honestly.
Even though in 4e it was made explicit that rules arbitration is ultimately up to the table, the way the game was designed & the way new mechanics kept being published insisted that there was a correct way to play the game. It limited perspectives & approaches to the table.
And consider this again: at roughly around $45 a book, the barrier for entry into getting access to all of 4e's PHBs, DMGs, and MMs was around $360.
That's roughly $360 to own 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, and all 3 MMs.
That's a lot of money & it still doesn't cover everything 4e had.
That's roughly $360 to own 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, and all 3 MMs.
That's a lot of money & it still doesn't cover everything 4e had.
And the worldbuilding was so limited.
People joke now about how everything in 5e is Forgotten Realms this & Forgotten Realms that but in 4e we were left in a weird lurch of like "there's a D&D official world & it has a lot of specifics, but you can play with them if you want!"
People joke now about how everything in 5e is Forgotten Realms this & Forgotten Realms that but in 4e we were left in a weird lurch of like "there's a D&D official world & it has a lot of specifics, but you can play with them if you want!"
Like, no, Nentir Vale wasn't THE setting, that was made obvious (even though a lot of adventures were set there), and yes we had other modules like Dark Sun & Eberron, but there was no... D&D setting. It was & it wasn't, & the Forgotten Realms was also there but had a cataclysm.
A lot of folks were actually quite relieved when it was announced that for 5e it would be mostly set in Forgotten Realms. That definitely wore out after a while, but it came as a grounding for many GMs who had been somewhat frustrated by exactly where to go with what 4e gave us.
And this isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the 4e books immensely, I owned literally all of them. I love the 2 Draconomicons and the Demonomicon, and the three books about the Planes a lot. They went into so much detail, it's just that that detail felt both a lot & insubstantial.
Maybe it was my own weakness as a younger DM just getting started but I found myself greatly missing the customization for worldbuilding you had in 3/3.5. There was an entire section dedicated in the 3.5 DMG that just went over all the differing D&D cosmologies you could have.
That, more than anything 4e provided, felt like it was encouraging to branch out & homebrew your own world. It felt like you were given general tools to iterate, as opposed to what 4e felt like which was being shown a banquet of specific tools for specific jobs you might use.
And listen: if you like 4e, that's great. This isn't me saying it's terrible & if you like it you're bog-scum.
I just bought wholesale into it & for as many campaigns as I tried to run in it, I just felt like I was left being frustrated by many of its design choices & options.
I just bought wholesale into it & for as many campaigns as I tried to run in it, I just felt like I was left being frustrated by many of its design choices & options.
And I haven't even really gotten to my chief complaint yet which is player creation.
Yes, it was easy to make players & I loved that, but it was also easy to make entirely unique & wholly specific players.
And that is so very taxing on a Dungeon Master & a t able at large.
Yes, it was easy to make players & I loved that, but it was also easy to make entirely unique & wholly specific players.
And that is so very taxing on a Dungeon Master & a t able at large.
Remember how I said there were
TWENTY-SIX
playable classes in 4e?
I didn't mention subclasses.
In addition to those 26 classes, there were 25 subclasses. And you might be noticing a discrepancy in those two numbers & it's because not every class HAD subclass options.
TWENTY-SIX
playable classes in 4e?
I didn't mention subclasses.
In addition to those 26 classes, there were 25 subclasses. And you might be noticing a discrepancy in those two numbers & it's because not every class HAD subclass options.
For example, if you played as a Wizard, you had 5 subclass options:
-Arcanist
-Bladesinger
-Mage
-Sha'ir
-Witch
But if you played as a Warden, what subclasses might you get?
Jack shit.
And you might be thinking to yourself "that's pretty limiting if I want to play Warden."
-Arcanist
-Bladesinger
-Mage
-Sha'ir
-Witch
But if you played as a Warden, what subclasses might you get?
Jack shit.
And you might be thinking to yourself "that's pretty limiting if I want to play Warden."
But here's the thing about 4e: much like how 5e has those archetypes you can typically choose at around 3rd or 2nd level, 4e had that as well.
Except, in 4e you don't wait to choose those.
You choose that shit IMMEDIATELY at character creation.
And this creates a big problem.
Except, in 4e you don't wait to choose those.
You choose that shit IMMEDIATELY at character creation.
And this creates a big problem.
Because immediately, right off the bat at level 1, you're already met with as a GM a group that is composed of super specific character choices that might require you to own 6 different books & have read that one article of Dragon magazine.
That is a LOT to put on a DM to know.
That is a LOT to put on a DM to know.
Let's assume that every 4th edition class ONLY had 4 archetype options like that (they didn't & often had more, but let's pretend).
If we assume that every one of the 26 classes had options like that, that means you could create 104 unique classes right off the bat at level 1.
If we assume that every one of the 26 classes had options like that, that means you could create 104 unique classes right off the bat at level 1.
If that number doesn't blow your mind then here's a comparison.
In the 6 years that D&D 5e has been out (not including the 2 years of D&D Next playtesting) there have only been 14 official classes released.
Which means that at level 1 a GM only has to know 14 potential classes.
In the 6 years that D&D 5e has been out (not including the 2 years of D&D Next playtesting) there have only been 14 official classes released.
Which means that at level 1 a GM only has to know 14 potential classes.
14 as compared to over 100.
And this is why 4e failed IMO: it was overwhelming.
It had a steep cost of entry, both mentally & monetarily, & it tried to do everything.
We joke about how people try to use 5e for everything, but I much prefer that to the limitations 4e gave us.
And this is why 4e failed IMO: it was overwhelming.
It had a steep cost of entry, both mentally & monetarily, & it tried to do everything.
We joke about how people try to use 5e for everything, but I much prefer that to the limitations 4e gave us.
