Non proficiency was half level, proficiency was half level +5. I found the magic items great, especially artifacts. But the feel the same to keep everyone balanced at every level. 1st level wizard equal to 1st level Rouge. 30th fighter equal to 30 wizard. Way different than previous editions. Wizards start weak become Uber. The actions were unrealistic even for fantasy. (Shot everyone in the room with my handcrossbow with 1 action) but I loved the system. Too hard to die yes, video game-esct. Sphere of annihilation, (12.5% chance to kill you)
For me, D&D 5th was a devolution back, while 4e was an evolutionary step. Having ALL the information you need in a monster stat block was a delight. Unlike 5e, the encounter building was simple and balanced. The math is tight, there's a reason why weapon proficiencies are +2 (10%) or +3 (+15%) - attack powers had bonuses (sure strike =2) and stack that with flanking (+2). I agree at higher levels the combats become drawn out (I just ripped out 1/4 hp from some of the monsters and that kept encounters shorter). The symmetry of design means every Classes can shine, and the tactical depth of encounters was par excellence.
*Fascinating perspective on effects that occurred with 4th edition .* *Generally the problem with 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons is that it is called Dungeons & Dragons , that resulted people coming in with expectations of what it should be .* *If it was called something else .* *It would have been better off .*
If they had called it anything else, it would never have gotten off the ground. I mean, just look at the glut of RPGs out there and what people play today - D&D, D&D, D&D, maybe Star Wars, D&D, D&D, D&D, PF2e, D&D, D&D, D&D, PF1e, D&D, D&D, etc. It needed the D&D name or they wouldn't make literally any money from it.
The reason online play for 4e never took off had very little do with everyone supposedly hating the system, and far more to do with the simple fact that all the online tools which were supposed to be available at launch got delayed because of complications with outsourcing, and most damaging of all the virtual table that would have been the central feature piece for online play never got published at all.
My group went at this in a different way than some did when we tried it out. We created characters and after each session we would level them up to test out the different tiers (took longer to build them than bury them...ugggh.) -Races and roles were a strict match, no ability to create a character that can be viable no matter the class/race combo. -Everyone heals, everyone is just a template with a different coat of paint, it homogenized everything like a MMO and you can see the no player left behind creeping into the methodology. -Reading how the intent was to be "your characters are powerful without magic items." In practice it left the characters unable to compete or survive because of the lack of hit and damage bonuses. -From a DM's perspective having the monster creation rules summed up into "set it's AC so they have to roll an 18+ to hit it, give it X HP, use an existing creature's other stats,' was so lazy and idiotic I nearly burned the books. *One key thing you missed, although it wasn't 4E gameplay related was the response from WotC and the message board admins.* *The insults to the existing player base in the little animated video promos; referring to the detractors as trolls struggling to type at a keyboard in one warlock vid.* *The outright hostile treatment followed by banning if you even posted a statement or question that challenged how great 4e was on the WotC message boards.*
One last point, it took us 72 hours at the table to take out the CR 30 red dragon...death of a thousand cuts personified. Then it regained half+ its HP back...
4e was a pretty good game if you wanted to play a computer action RPG but do all of the math yourself for some masochistic reason. I'll never understand the obsession with balance in the newer editions of D&D. It's okay for some classes to start or eventually become stronger than others. A prowling cloak and dagger thief doesn't need to ever become as powerful as an arcane sorcerer to be fun to play. Right?
Non proficiency was half level, proficiency was half level +5. I found the magic items great, especially artifacts. But the feel the same to keep everyone balanced at every level. 1st level wizard equal to 1st level Rouge. 30th fighter equal to 30 wizard. Way different than previous editions. Wizards start weak become Uber. The actions were unrealistic even for fantasy. (Shot everyone in the room with my handcrossbow with 1 action) but I loved the system. Too hard to die yes, video game-esct. Sphere of annihilation, (12.5% chance to kill you)
For me, D&D 5th was a devolution back, while 4e was an evolutionary step. Having ALL the information you need in a monster stat block was a delight. Unlike 5e, the encounter building was simple and balanced. The math is tight, there's a reason why weapon proficiencies are +2 (10%) or +3 (+15%) - attack powers had bonuses (sure strike =2) and stack that with flanking (+2). I agree at higher levels the combats become drawn out (I just ripped out 1/4 hp from some of the monsters and that kept encounters shorter). The symmetry of design means every Classes can shine, and the tactical depth of encounters was par excellence.
*Fascinating perspective on effects that occurred with 4th edition .*
*Generally the problem with 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons is that it is called Dungeons & Dragons , that resulted people coming in with expectations of what it should be .*
*If it was called something else .*
*It would have been better off .*
Exactly, it's not a bad game on its own- just not a worthy successor to the mantle of D&D.
If they had called it anything else, it would never have gotten off the ground. I mean, just look at the glut of RPGs out there and what people play today - D&D, D&D, D&D, maybe Star Wars, D&D, D&D, D&D, PF2e, D&D, D&D, D&D, PF1e, D&D, D&D, etc. It needed the D&D name or they wouldn't make literally any money from it.
The reason online play for 4e never took off had very little do with everyone supposedly hating the system, and far more to do with the simple fact that all the online tools which were supposed to be available at launch got delayed because of complications with outsourcing, and most damaging of all the virtual table that would have been the central feature piece for online play never got published at all.
My group went at this in a different way than some did when we tried it out. We created characters and after each session we would level them up to test out the different tiers (took longer to build them than bury them...ugggh.)
-Races and roles were a strict match, no ability to create a character that can be viable no matter the class/race combo.
-Everyone heals, everyone is just a template with a different coat of paint, it homogenized everything like a MMO and you can see the no player left behind creeping into the methodology.
-Reading how the intent was to be "your characters are powerful without magic items." In practice it left the characters unable to compete or survive because of the lack of hit and damage bonuses.
-From a DM's perspective having the monster creation rules summed up into "set it's AC so they have to roll an 18+ to hit it, give it X HP, use an existing creature's other stats,' was so lazy and idiotic I nearly burned the books.
*One key thing you missed, although it wasn't 4E gameplay related was the response from WotC and the message board admins.*
*The insults to the existing player base in the little animated video promos; referring to the detractors as trolls struggling to type at a keyboard in one warlock vid.*
*The outright hostile treatment followed by banning if you even posted a statement or question that challenged how great 4e was on the WotC message boards.*
One last point, it took us 72 hours at the table to take out the CR 30 red dragon...death of a thousand cuts personified. Then it regained half+ its HP back...
4e was a pretty good game if you wanted to play a computer action RPG but do all of the math yourself for some masochistic reason. I'll never understand the obsession with balance in the newer editions of D&D. It's okay for some classes to start or eventually become stronger than others. A prowling cloak and dagger thief doesn't need to ever become as powerful as an arcane sorcerer to be fun to play. Right?