Mike and Enrique Look Back on 4th Edition of D&D

Mike Shea (@SlyFlourish) and Enrique Bertran (@NewbieDM) talk about their experiences with the 4th edition of D&D! Click "Show More" for details.
Experiences Running a Level 1 to 30 4th Edition D&D Campaign
slyflourish.co...
Subscribe to the Sly Flourish Newsletter:
mailchi.mp/aea...
Buy Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master
slyflourish.com...
Support us on Patreon!
/ slyflourish

[@starfoxtim]

As both of you were more familiar with 4e from the DM side, here were some pros/cons from the PC side: Self contained abilities where each card said exactly what it did quickly, with no pages of descriptions Every class felt equally powerful Meaningful choices at every level Every class had its own healing mechanism Simplified defenses with AC/Fort/Refex/Will prevented “dump” stats The power cards could lead players to thinking too narrowly for their options So many different effects to keep track of simultaneously Few encounters really felt deadly Skill challenges could end up feeling too repetitive and broke the narrative

[@tjduck85]

One of my biggest loves about 4e was how everything fit together, not just mechanically, but also in terms of the coherence of its themes, aesthetics, and mythos. Everything had a place in its cosmos. When you picked up a monster, you knew how it fit into the Dawn War mythos. When you picked up a character class with its power sources and the like, you likewise knew how it fit into the big picture of the mythos, and the class powers even reflected that sense of mythos too! Moreover, from level 1 to 30, the Points of Light motif permeated the entire feel of the setting and its cosmic Chaoskampf struggle, and EVERYWHERE in the cosmos was intentionally designed for player adventure. The mythos that 4e created and its mechanical commitment to it was coherent in a way that I don't think really has ever existed before or since.

[@francescobarbaro7575]

4e is still my favorite edition, and I still use a lot of Sly Flourish material to run my 4e sessions

[@SlyFlourish]

Glad it's still working for you!

[@wayneslater5531]

A lot of 5e mechanics seem to stem from 4e, stuff like rituals (which was introduced in 4e), and even spending hit dice on a short rest to heal (in 4e this was called a Healing surge, but it was the same concept), 4e also gave casters "at-will" damaging attacks, which would become Cantrips in 5e. Echoes like this are everywhere, and as a DM that loved 4e, i am glad to see these little easter eggs. :)

[@mandisaw]

It is a bit off-putting though to hear from 5e-only (or returned with 5e) players that they love those 4e-derived features, while sh*tting on everything related by name to 4e (often based on heresay).

[@wayneslater5531]

@@FMD-FullMetalDragon Yes!

[@appleseed8282]

Hit Dice are only kinda surface level to Healing surges The number of HS throughout the game are generally constant across a campaign, and the amount they heal are set. The point of them is a measure of the PC's daily attrition, like a stamina system. Hit dice just makes short rest an RNG heal

[@jackh3427]

I miss DDI so much.

[@HewWagner]

I’m a big fan of the Nentir Vale setting. With the Faerun/The Sword Coast, whenever I look at that map I just start thinking “who of my players have played Baldur’s Gate or read the Drizzt books and what are their expectations?”

[@PhD20]

Reavers of Harkenwold is an amazing story. As is Madness at Gardmore Abbey. The adventures included in the box sets were just so good.

[@KnightsofLastCall]

What you said about the current lack of officially, easily supported, online character (and Encounter) builders creating a strong disincentive to play is spot on. We played 4e throughout its entire production cycle (eventually moving to PF1 instead of 5e) and we really really enjoyed it. We sometimes discuss going back, but the prospect of trying to figure out all the errata manually and having to go through scores of physical books is just too daunting. Back in the DDI days I used to create new monsters and encounters JUST FOR FUN; it was so easy and so intuitive, I actually LOVED making monsters/encounters in 4e and it's been a chore and hassle in every RPG system before or since. I really do wish their way an easy way to digitally run a 4e game; but it seems wotc wishes to bury that edition like a pile of ET game cartridges.

[@SlyFlourish]

If you liked 4e, I highly recommend 13th Age. It's much easier to play and has a lot of the high power fun that 4e had.

[@KnightsofLastCall]

@@SlyFlourish Yup we've run 3 different "mini" campaigns using 13th age following their 10-session level-once-per-session suggestion. Lots of fun

[@mandisaw]

Back in the heady days of DM'ing 4e, I had a whole content pipeline: used the offline Character Builder mod to incorporate loads of homebrew for my players, and played with the Adventure [Monster] Builder and DDI Compendium to create hordes of custom monsters flavored with any Dungeon/Dragon article that struck my fancy. Created a Word template that I could use the Monster Builder output with, and gave my players Excel-based index cards for all their chosen powers. Working full-time, with limited time to prep for games, and having players with similar constraints, 4e's digital toolset was a real godsend. Plenty of easy-to-use, creative outlets for both crunch & fluff DMs.

[@KnightsofLastCall]

@@mandisaw Ohh yes, all so good. They definitely threw the baby out with the bath water with 5E in many areas.

[@Ryan_Winter]

18:02 You say that with confidence, but the Wall of Fire power description states that moving into the Walls space costs three extra squares of movement. And the wall blocks line sight. Look it up, it was there right from the beginning, PHB1, page 163. The problem you described never existed. You made it up.

[@KL-xn1sj]

great video. Love hearing about 4th edition that I didn't really get a chance to play. Always a great time when you have Enrique on. Gives me great memories of the one-v-one play of Dragon of Icespire Peaks

[@geoffreyperrin4347]

I like the way Matthew Culville does skill challenges. In essence, you decide a goal # of successes, and most of the time you want to avoid getting a 3rd failure. As long as the player can justify a skill making progress towards a clearly established goal (save the ship from the storm, find the hidden temple in the jungle, escape the cave before it collapeses, etc.), the player can attempt a skill challenge. I personally establish a set DC for all checks, and give advantage or disadvantage to represent the act being very applicable or just barely helpful. There are a few rules I use as well: 1. You must be proficient to attempt it. Exception: if this is your 3rd or more skill check and nothing you have is applicable, you can try a skill you aren't proficient in. 2. Only 1 attempt of a skill can be made per round. If one player uses survival, another can't use survival until the next round. 3. Once you use a skill, you can't use the same skill again in the skill challenge. 4. You can use thing like spell, though I may require something like a spell attack roll to since we are rolling skills. Spells are treated like a skill, thus can't be used more than once per round and only once by you. I might describe you using it multiple times, but only the first time matters towards the success/failure. I have found that this works quite well as long as (A) you make the objective very clear (B) the objective is either time sensitive (escaping collapsing cave) or can go bad (messing with a magic circle) (C) you are willing to work with the players and give examples the first few times you do this with a group, so they can understand what the goal of doing this is.

[@clarkside4493]

25:59 the classes, because I did! I put them in Player's Guide to Powers on the DM's Guild.

[@bengrunzel5393]

I loved a lot about 4E despite its flaws. Essentials cleaned up a lot, had a Basic D&D feel in some ways.

[@Thegn]

Loved (and still do) 4e. Not so much on the 5e. Maybe 6e?

[@SlyFlourish]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Nexusofgeek]

The 4th edition player's handbook was not $50 it was $35 plus tax, I bought it at Barnes & Noble.. it wasn't until 5e when WOTC got greedy and hiked up the price on the core books and supplements.

[@Ryan_Winter]

If the amount of errata or balancing issues are the measuring stick for determining the quality of a rule set then 4e is one of the strongest editions of D&D. People complaining about this in 4e never dealt with 3.0 problems and 3.0 was way superior to AD&D, it just was. 5e just can't have as much errata as 4e, because it's one of the most simple versions of D&D and it leaves a lot to DM "discretion". When you have a power whose main function is to wipe out minions and it's used in that capacity it's just fulfilling it's purpose, it's not a bug, it's a feature. People who have trouble with that tend to have very particular expectations how a given encounter has to play out. Why can't a player have that "win" of wiping out a lot of minions with one power? Even if you can't let it go, the inconvenience doesn't go beyond throwing another wave of minions at the players.

[@cavalier973]

The 4e core DM guide had a couple of pages in the back that you could photocopy and use for maps. Take them to a print shop and have them laminated for dry-erase maps

[@Jabberwokee]

I have always disliked theatre or the mind, primarily because everyone is seeing things differently and it just causes arguments I don’t use theatre or the mind regardless of edition

[@8Smoker8]

A-ha there you are, now I can ask for another adventure series like Icespire Peak! :D

[@SlyFlourish]

We'd love to. Time is never on our side though =(

[@8Smoker8]

@@SlyFlourish yeah figured :( we'll be waiting ^^

[@nevisysbryd7450]

I think that Skill Challenges were, along with the encounter building structure, the best parts of 4e. However, they were far too narrow and structured to achieve the desired result. The applicable skills and success/failure conditions needed to be flexible to create a structured progression system rather than the rigid, predefined system that it was integrated as. While that is a different direction from the standardized vttrpg intentions that they had and would need to be more reined in within the vttrpg, I think that was a massive part of 4e's commercial failure and the allegations of being like a video game (because in that regard, it was). However, if you instead use the skeleton as a baseline arbitration system for something with greater depth, engagement, or tactical/gameplay consideration than a single dice check, it can achieve quite a lot.

[@grayseeroly]

This was our track with 4e (University Game Club 30+ people). We played 3.5 almost exclusively theatre of the mind for years across multiple campaigns. 4e comes out, we get some material from Wizards and we go over it. The monster design is fun and the tactical gameplay looks interesting but it rapidly becomes apparent that you CANNOT play 4e off the grid. So we never did, outside of a few encounters we built for fun, no campaigns were started. We all played 3.5 until Pathfinder came along and superseded it.

[@SlyFlourish]

Yeah, that was a big detriment. It was ONLY on the grid.

[@thekaxmax]

As far as I can find out they did playtest it, but the company decided not to spend the time to incorporate the fixes.

[@Nominrath]

I want those tiles! LoL I agree. Essentials was the peak, but it was the “too little, too late” point of 4e’s lifespan. I run 4e Essentials only. I’ve always felt like 4e was like one big long beta playtest and all its released material was like a bunch of patches and DLC as they kept reworking everything to finally nail everything down... and Essentials was the final-ish product. Matt Collville’s video, ‘Using 4e to make 5e Combat more fun!’ provides some great insight as well as some interesting points as to why 4e is the way it is and what makes 4e pretty good for what it is. Either way, I enjoy 4e and, at this point in my gaming career, I’m enjoying 4e more than 5e.

[@kain50144]

Little late to the part, i like the video but just wanted to throw in my two cents. First off no ones fun is wrong these are just my opinions after playing both editions. Competitive Dm vs Players: This is not tied to editions Move Minor Standard wasn't mentioned and i feel this was #1 best thing 4e did Stun-locked boss in corner: Did you not use indomitable? Wall of fire and slide: yes there was a rule, you get a save to fall prone to avoid being forced into hazardous terrain. Essentials was bad and you should feel bad (jk, the feeling bad part, but no really essentials was bad) I don't want a DM on my side it makes things feel less earned (was going to expound but was becoming an essay) Codifying rules doesn't remove agency, you can still ignore rules, you are the DM 5e lacking rules doesn't give DM freedom, it forces rulings that if inconsistent can lead to player frustration, as well as just a massive increase in DM workload. You can see a lot of this echoed by the vast amount of people spamming Sage Advice.

[@mandisaw]

As a DM (and sometimes player), 4e being more "transparent" with its rules-adjudication helped a lot with managing, or avoiding, player-conflicts (both player-DM and between players). I also rarely play with strangers at FLGS or conventions, but having a bit less DM fiat (or having it more on the fluff-roleplaying side, and less on the crunchy-combat/leveling side) would probably be a boon when playing at an unfamiliar table.

[@McCrackenVaughn]

Great video!

[@SlyFlourish]

Thank you!

[@Eemi_Seppala]

i seem to be in the minority, but I couldn't get into essentials. To me it was regressing on what made 4e unique and most of the people I played and still play with refuse to make essentials' characters.

[@SlyFlourish]

You’re not alone.

[@undrhil]

Just want to clear up one thing. MorePurpleMoreBetter's PDF was removed from DMsGuild and he was told to remove the non-SRD stuff, which he did. The sheet is still alive and well and active.

[@EricKamander]

I can't help but conclude that you were unfair to your player that wanted to catch both riders and mounts in a lightning bolt. As a Theater of the Mind DMs, we get to dictate the potential targets by determining their positioning, but since a lightning bolt is 5 feet wide, it is either 5 feet tall as well, or can be angled to have the same 5' tall effect effect. Maybe this isn't obvious, but once the player explains it, by not allowing it, you're ignoring your own advice, which was to err on the side of the players (and giving TotM a bad name). :) Just my take. Cheers.

[@SlyFlourish]

You're probably right.

[@TenguBE]

I never played 4e but last year I learned about the Nentir Vale and I love the setting. I plan to run 4e"keep on the shadowfell" with 5e rules which is free on the DM's guild. And yes; descriptions. We need that! I only saw it once; in lost mines of Phandelver. Descriptions that make the mundane sound mysterious.

[@SlyFlourish]

I loved Keep on the Shadowfell

[@dolphinsniper]

You know, it's funny seeing people say that Essentials was great, when anyone I ever talked to about Essentials HATES it with a burning passion and decry it as being the death knoll to D&D 4E when it could have gone on for longer.

[@Eemi_Seppala]

If it weren't for essentials we might have gotten the remaining power books. But in all seriousness, I think essentials tried to make 4E something it wasn't.

[@undrhil]

Well this is good timing! Lol

[@SlyFlourish]

Oh yeah? How come?

[@fairplay.studio]

@@SlyFlourish Big discussion about 4e on Reddit yesterday.

[@zoltanzvara]

I like Matthew Colville's take on the D&D 4th edition better. I suggest visitors interested in the 4th edition take a look at that discussion. For my party, the 4th edition is the most robust tactical game that we always wanted to play. It is hard (and fun) for the brain to keep up with bookkeeping. The 4th edition is the first game in our lives where I as a DM can really work against characters in combat or skill a challenge and try to kill them, which makes every combat memorable for everyone beyond measure. Moreover, improvisation is so easy in the 4th edition, because all ideas are backed up by a robust mathematical system. This is probably a philosophical question to D&D, but we think that the DM (a) sets the NPC's, fractions, (b) the baseline course of events, (c) stuff happens by intentions but randomly (d) stays within the system of the game and (e) works toward killing the PC's whenever he/she can. The 4th edition is perfect for this style of play. At least partially, the DM is against the players and that makes up to a really tactical & interesting game. I liked your video a lot!

[@Jabberwokee]

Theatre of the mind will never have a place at my game for battles - it is not something I am comfortable with and it’s not how I play I’m always surprised when people say they’re the other way inclined because, in my experience, theatre of the mind = constant arguments about positioning and placement Better to just avoid those arguments entirely

[@savnetsinn_original]

Group composition is a big factor in whether or not this works. New players take to it more easily, in general, because it offloads to the DM a lot of overload that comes along with battle mats and positioning. And if a group is playing primarily for a narrative in which combat takes a backseat, then the shift to more mechanical combat scenarios can seem a bit jarring. I like to start with TotM and allow my players to flex their own imaginations. The game seems to really come to life that way, at least for me. If any players do start to feel like they've been wronged in some way without a battle map, or if I'm planning a suitably complex encounter, then I'll break out more representative props to keeps things straight, but I rarely start out that way. Personally I prefer to retain some of the imaginative magic that comes along with role-playing, even at the risk of an occasional argument.

[@TrackerRoo]

Always better to have a map, then you wont have players asking where everything is every time their turn comes up.

[@Gamerdudegames]

I threw Sephek at a 1st level party and none of my players died. One of them went down and the other two finished with pretty low health but it definitely wasn't the TPK I've heard a lot of people talk about. In fact for most of my Rime game I was bumping enemies up to max HP to even be able to challenge my players.

[@SlyFlourish]

I'm pretty sure I could kill characters with that guy.

[@rich63113]

I just can't see running this with 3 level 1s and not TPKing. His average damage is 13 melee/10 ranged - so he should be one-shotting characters, and misty step means no crowd control - so he's killing the characters that can stop his regen immediately. And 75hp means its going to take several turns for them to take him down even if he blows a couple rolls. How did yours actually play out? Did he just stand toe-to-toe with the fighter or something?

[@nicklarocco4178]

I think you guys are waaaay off base with essentials. Essentials was the deathknell of 4e. It was confusing, poorly marketed, poorly made, and poorly received. The character classes were not only weaker than the base game ones, but substantially less fun to play because they dropped the AEDU system, which was one of the main features of 4e's system. The monsters were built better, but that was a function of time more than anything essentials did. 4e was still more popular than pathfinder, up until essentials came out. But because WotC marketed it poorly people didn't know was this a new game? Was it 4.5? Was it compatible? Was it a sister system? It was incredibly unclear.

[@ScrivenerofDoom]

It was very Mearlsian - an interesting idea poorly executed.

[@mandisaw]

@@ScrivenerofDoom +1 for "Mearlsian" I'm keeping that :)

[@Eemi_Seppala]

I feel like Essentials is like a 4.5, as it is somewhat compatible, but totally different ball game. I just wish they'd release second power books for the rest of the power sources, since some classes i.e. Seeker and Rune priest got barely any options after being introduced in PHB3.

[@appleseed8282]

Essentials was good in every regard except classes As you implied, it was the final culmination of all the erata and MM3 design principles. If only they didn't give into people who hated 4e with the classes...😭

[@TonyRobetson]

do you think the WotC stream games are theater of the mind because theyre most likely entertainment first instead of game first? they should totally have guidance for it either way, but the number of things they should have guidance for has built a whole industry :D

[@SlyFlourish]

My understanding is that their *own* games are also theater of the mind.

[@TonyRobetson]

thanks for responding! yeah i heard that part about playing in their home games, but my thinking was that them streaming games got them to start doing the same in their home games. especially if one of them gave away a ton of mini's. changing playstyles over time could explain the lack of support in past books, still doesnt excuse putting some in tasha's at the very least.

[@danobra]

My biggest problem with 5e is that the game feels like a dumbed down version of the D&D I learned to love. 4e is magnificent. And I never really felt like it was hard to run combats. I never felt the need to win or to optimize my attacks. Just let the players be heroes and use higher level monsters. At least combat was as boring as the “I attack” seen in 5e. Also, by the time Essentials was released, monsters were better (since MM3) but the classes felt… not as interesting Also… having a theater of the mind description triggering your abilities in 5e feels VERY cheap. It’s just not fun. People just use grids and then complain about 4e used grids. It’s frustrating

[@phillipalleva-cox3903]

Still my favorite edition of D&D, it's the only one that tried to evolve the game to the modern age, it's the only one I would go back to play. That being said I don't really play D&D anymore, I've moved on to what I consider to be better games. D&D is dragged down by it's legacy IMO. Can you run 5e without a grid, yeah, but it just becomes a game of mother may I.

[@stevekeyD9Games]

Love 4e . I’m making a new RPG now . 5 e to vanilla for me

[@jmvh59]

As the guy at the table most likely to play the tank or attrition fighter, for me, taking away the critical confirmation really hurt. Mechanically, it's like losing a point of armor class or 20-25% of your hit points.