Just Our Thoughts on D&D 4e (w. Felix, Jess, Zee, JoCat, DingoDoodles)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- This is just our thoughts on the D&D 4e game. After playing for several hours, we stopped to discuss what how we felt about the combat. The full game can be found here: • Puffin tries to run a ...
Also, I accidentally left the face tracker on my camera on, so there are white bars on my screen. Nothing I can do about it in post-production, so we're just going to have to live with it.
Characters: (all 8th level)
Dingo- Cob (Kobold Barbarian)
Jess- Musk Keto (Pixie Vampire) *vampires are a class in D&D 4e.
Zee- Eddie (Minotaur Psion)
JoCat- James (Half-Elf Bard)
Felix - Cupcake (Warforge Warlord)
Guests:
Jess Jackdaw: / @jessjackdaw
Felix: / felixirnich
Dingo Doodles: / @dingodoodles
Zee Bashew: / zeebashew
JoCat: / @jocat
Music Credits:
"Tubby" by Steve Adams
I forget his head isn’t an oval
That's his avatar. He's using facerig in this video.
Bastion Barrick I think you missed the joke...
@@Abioticlime I think you missed his joke...
I think there were jokes
I forgot Jocat's head wasn't a wiggler.
I seem to recall that when they were first designing 4e, they were also developing a digital table top to go with it. So they built a lot of mechanically complex features that were supposed to be handled by a computer. But when they finished the designing the game, the digital table top fell through and was never finished. So they just released 4e as is, which really suffered from not having that digital table top to do the math for the players.
that makes a lot of sense, i played a lot of 4e when it was out, and did have fun, but if there was a digital mechanic to handle all the effects and "bookkeeping", it would have been so much easier and faster
makes sense as it feels like an mmo with how its designed around powers n shit
Yepp, the D&D Insider VTT was supposed to be half of the 4e package. Also Wizards designers had to rush the system out of the door, so thats the reason why there are so many things in the game that clearly wasnt playtested. The Essentials line was basically a refined 4e version which was WAAAY better in every regard, but by the time those books got released the D&D commuity just gave up on 4e, and they did not bother with the Essentials version of the game.
That sounds highly plausible.
the project lead, Joseph Batten, was terrible at communicating with his team and kept most of the designs close to his chest and in his mind. what happened next to the original DDI tools is a literal tragedy: Joseph, the senior developper in charge of the tools, committed murder-suicide after stalking and harassing his seperated wife, Melissa, who was in the middle of getting a divorce with him.
This basically stopped the project cold and it never recovered, as the lead didn't really have any notes or left instructions to his team... thus the tools WotC was promising were not available on release and to my knowlege, forcing WotC to get another team in to work on it.
web.archive.org/web/20150507053944/www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online
It's weird how much I dissociate Puffin's voice from his real self.
its due to his cartoon avatar. Made me think he's a chubby short dude
I didn't have that problem with Ben, but I did with JoCat.
I seriously spent the first few minutes trying to figure out which one was Puffin
I dont like it! Give me his cartoon face.
It's kinda... abserd...
I keep wanting to warn Puffin Forrest that his face is being targeted.
“DO A BARREL ROLL!”
Damn auto focus
he's being locked on :o
MR. PRESIDENT GET DOWN!!!
The more i get to know about 4e, the more it makes me feel like that's what i would like to play but no one else in my social-circle would.
4E is a blast to play if you enjoy more wargaming style combat. I highly recommend it.
Two options:
1) 13th Age captures a lot of the spirit of 4e, by some of the designers that worked on it, while jettisoning most of the excess complexity. It's quite popular. I admit I like reading it more than playing it though.
2) Low level 4e combat is not crazy complicated. Players basically skip the boring 'dead' levels most RPGs start with and get right into a satisfying amount of options. You have two options for at-will attacks, a 1/battle power or two, and a 1/day power or two. You also have 1 or 2 impactful class features. It's very easy to manage and is legitimately great for getting new players into the hobby. From there complexity steadily grows until there's a million floating things on the battlefield you need to track, but lots of players are totally up for that.
However! After running just a few games in 4e I started cutting monster health in half and doubling the damage they dealt. This made combat much faster and much more exciting. Strongly reccomend it.
Yeah, there are boxed set board games that are more in the vein of Hero Quest or Gloomhaven that were made using 4e as a basis, such as Castle Ravenloft, or one about descending into the Underdark or something. You may find those are easier to get friends to play.
Try Pathfinder than...
@@RichardMocny1 I've played Pathfinder 1e and 2e before, but people weren't really into it so i had to go back to 5e to be able to actually play/DM which is a shame but what can i do? Tabletop games in general are really unpopular where i live, so i can't really afford to try something i'm not at all likely to find people willing to play.
Puffin torturing other D&D RUclipsrs.
I mean Puffin did play as Sauron and his most evil character......
Trixie Sparkles. ✨
@@mr.badguy8500 not just playing as sauron but a bureaucratic sauron which is even worse lol
@@mr.badguy8500 *Trixie Starbright
Sexy. Didn't know they were all into BDSRPG
I think we can all agree that Little Wallace, the Hero of Parnast is his most evil npc yet.
I just noticed one of their character's names was "Musk Kito".
the vampire specifically
"Zees character"
The Vampire Pixie even more specifically.
A very Gouda name.
I hate the character already
"Once when I was playing fourth edition, we spent EIGHT HOURS fighting goblins. That's, uh... that's the end of the story."
That tracks. It felt like every session I ran centered around a single combat, because everyone was too fried afterward to want to continue.
Sounds like you played it wrong.
@@Ultrox007 We played it by the book, so the wrongness wasn't on our end.
I've never had a 4e combat go even close to that long. I think I've had the odd boss fight last 2 hours, but that was kind of expected. I've had a 3.5 fight go on literally 3 game sessions though. Granted the group size was like 12 or something.
@@Stray7 Well, as Puffin showed in this video, just because someone's read the book doesn't mean they understood it.
I'm not a fan of 4e either, but I at least made sure I understood it before I played it. (I also started my players at first level so we could learn the mechanics and complexities slowly and introduce more of it over time rather than jumping into the deep end yelling "sink of swim!" at each other.)
At-will abilities are basically cantrips, and everyone gets a few.
OmnusI yeah, to me they basically said “here you go martial classes, have things to do other than *attack enemy*”
@@Solereaper21 which made them more interesting than a piece of soggy cardboard.
Exactly! But they seem like cantrips from older editions which were relatively minor effects rather than the paradigm-changing relative powerhouse effects that they became in 5e. Also, Daily and Encounter powers seem like to be like spells except everyone gets them but they lack the versatility in choice that spells have.
@@JGT42 First of all, only a few people cared about old-school cantrips. Once you had a few spells, you left Baby's First Magic behind. Of course, now cantrips are more like the tools you use again and again, so the at-will abilities. Dailies and Encounters are spells if you're a caster class - they lost their specialness, which is one thing people hated about 4E, but honestly is about the only way to balance casters and non-casters if that is what you care about.
@@omnusi5336 First of all yourself, only idiots used higher level spells to duplicate the effects of cantrips in 3.x or the 1st level spell Cantrip in 2e, especially those classes that could use magic but weren't 'full casters', i.e. bards, paladins and rangers, and had few spells per day available to them than 'full casters.'
Second of all, thanks for completely restating exactly what I said regarding at-will, daily and encounter powers and how they're like spells from other editions. I appreciate the confirmation.
Lastly, I care about game balance but not in 4e. I'll reiterate Zee's phrase but regarding D&D 4e instead of Shdaowrun 5e: trash fire.
I just jumped to a random time. The phase my character is about shifting and dealing damage, sounds like a magic deck.
ItS LiKe iT WaS mAdE bY a BuNcH oF nErDs! Lol. Every version has their merits. It can all be fun
Don't forget to tilt a entire mountain 90 degrees to get one goblin :)
That was my lvl 7 Druid.
Yup. D&D has adopted a lot of the language of mtg. In 5E, whenever I look at monster stat blocks, it has a real magic vibe. ‘When Sloth, Perpetrator of Evil is stunned, he deals 14 (4d6) acid damage in a 15-ft cone behind him.’
@@whitethunderclap451 Probably why they're trying to cram them together with Magic/D&D cross-over packs in the coming year (any why there's a party mechanic) and why D&D got Magic based races and settings. They're trying to unify them and, imo, it'll be to the ultimate detriment of both.
Especially given what magic has been looking like lately. Zendikar gives me a little hope but we're still stewing in so much weird hellish power increase with super-ramp and cleave aggro...
Sorry, just the prospect of getting my Magic issues mixed in with my D&D issues has not encouraged me.
Hey Puffin: Suggestion for next stream: When someone chooses to just use their avatar instead of a webcam, is it possible to have their avatar gain a light/glow border effect triggered by whenever they're talking? Something like that would make it easier to keep track.
And their name or at least channel listed underneath it
The two ladies sound nothing alike though.
@@R3GARnator also, Dingo's voice is so prominent : o
It's definitely possible, I've seen it done on Please Stop Talking
@@R3GARnator Jess is also going throught a hormonal treatement if I'm correct (transgender)
Which I have no problems with, but let's be real, her old voice sounded way better
Anyone who wants to see 4E being ran without much trouble using players new to it should watch Mathew Colville's "Dusk" campaign. It even has a neat and tidy playlist on his channel.
That would require me to not vomit in my mouth upon seeing Colville.
@@siegherz You can just close your eyes and listen.
21:20 Everyone gets 5e Cantrips in 4e, they are called "At-Wills".
AzureinkVI yes! It feels weird that no one can make that connection. And martial classes having at-wills made playing martial mot boring
There's a lot of little (and large!) points from 4e that have quietly been "introduced" with 5e, like rituals and cantrips. But whereas you can totally scale & modify the encounters in 4e to be less tactical, and even fairly quick (daily powers become encounters, and encounter powers get either a # of rounds reset or a roll-and-recharge), there's not enough 5e material to make it into the tactical warfare that D&D was *originally* designed as. Seriously, it broke my heart to hear them say a wargame is a departure from "real" D&D - Gygax Weeps.
Yeah, that comment was so stupid...
@@mandisaw Gygax can weep while rolling over in his grave for all I care. I'll take roleplaying over OD&D's roll-playing any day.
I don't know much about 4e but I have a strong feeling that 4e at-will powers are much more like earlier editions' cantrips than 5e's version which completely change what a cantrip was (a relatively minor effect). 5e's cantrips are far from minor and shouldn't even be called cantrips.
I used to play 4e with my dad’s group as a kid, and I do miss a few things about it. I miss the massive list of choices you got as you leveled up, gaining a level was always exciting and gave you a new list of choices to customize who you wanted to be. In 4e, it is really hard to write a broken character. 4e really rewards players for working together in character creation because you can easily make a party who’s abilities feed their ally’s abilities allowing you to become exponentially more powerful when you work as a team (in 5e for example I have a massive lone wolf problem). I also miss the battle mind, I might fix that by making the battle mind’s key ability a 5e spell but I love the idea of a defender class who’s big gimmick is teleporting you a person who deals damage to you, no matter how far away they are.
I loved the fact that the 4e battle system was extremely dynamic and that position changed easily with ever turn of every character.
Heck I even tried to play a character that would later on play the role of a "chessmaster", being basically able to every turn dictate where most of the actors on the board are staying, thus trying his best to move everyone around in a way that your allies get the most benefits and that your enemies have a hard time.
Most other systems don't have something even remotely like that.
@@mementomori5580 I am...in theory...I agree, in practice trying to fight in 4th edition made me feel just swamped with all the stuff that was happening there, we made tokens for special effects so we can keep track easier and every battle looked like we did some kind of advanced math modelling of a collapsing star.
Take a look at Pathfinder 2nd ed then. There are multiple RUclips videos on the massive amount of options you get at each level. Puffin did a video on how complex it can get, but that's because he was trying out a complex weapon combination. It can be as simple a character build or as complex as you make it.
@@JM-mh1pp i think the reluctance to use proper minions caused a lot of issues for book keeping. You only need to track 2 complex monsters over time and the remainders can be minions that only need to be tracked until damaged.
5e is starting to deepen its system: racial flexibility with the new Cauldron book, more subclasses, etc. The core system of 5e has radical changes I like and never thought they would dare to implement:
- combat cantrips so casters do not have to rely on a bow/crossbow/whatnot when out of spells (probably the good that came out of 4e);
- magic items are suggested as rare and therefore precious (not a dime a dozen);
- very limited power gain (too much power at high levels can spoil the brew);
- balanced overall (nothing is perfect)
[Though I like the many choices in Pathfinder 2, they failed at balancing though it is not worst than before];
- I am hopeful for the revised Ranger (definitely needed rethinking since even AD&D),
etc.
4e martials are the best designed martial classes. Makes you feel like you have options and not just beating the enemy with your stick everyround.
They could pull some battle master abilities and tie them into fighter inherently.
Very late response but 13th age did it better.
Commanders give others bonuses when ordering, Warriors get riders that apply based off your roll. Barbarians are still barbarians.
"There should be a streamlined version of 4e, like D&D colon something."
*D&D Essentials sweats in the corner*
That got a chuckle out of me until I realized they had no idea Essentials existed
I'd have called it "D&D Tactics" myself...
@@omnusi5336 Already taken - D&D Tactics was a PSP game released during 4e, but based (loosely) on 3/3.5
@@mandisaw Pretty sure it was licenced by WotC, so no issues. No one remembers PSP games besides you, I suspect.
@@omnusi5336 I've never owned a PlayStation :) But I have wanted a game that captured the feel of Final Fantasy Tactics or Fire Emblem in a D&D context for a very long time.
4e was my first time playing DnD. I read DnD books before, and was fascinated by it, but the first time I got to play was 4e. And I LOVED IT! :D
I think you guys nailed it, that 4e appeals to wargamers. I loved moving people around the board. I loved having so many powers that I could pick and choose. I love combat in general, it's my favorite part, because everyone get their own turn.
I struggle with RP, because I don't want to step on people's toes or fade into the background. Usually I zone out when people are talking about their shopping trip or negotiating with the quest giver over trivialities or taking the whole session to think of a plan, inconclusively. I want to move, I want the action!
And in combat, I can take my character that I worked on, that I "min-maxed", except I don't do math, I just pick what sounds cool. And everyone gets an equal turn, and can do what they can do on that turn. I like to tank and I like to do damage. In RP, it doesn't matter if I'm even there. But in combat, I can be useful, I can be an asset.
And 4e gave every class something to do. Rangers were AWESOME. Fighters were awesome. Every class could do all kinds of stuff. Maybe the stats could be balanced better. But I can't remember any complaints I ever had with it. Because I love combat. And I don't want a game where the RP elements are stripped out, because that is the sauce that gives the combat flavor. I want to know who I'm fighting, why I'm fighting. It's the difference between playing single player campaign, or multiplayer.
Our group switched to pathfinder, and I just hated keeping track of so many modifiers and numbers. I get that people can be put off by 4e combat, but I was put off by all the skills and feats. 5e is so much easier to understand in that regard, and there's a reason it is so successful. It is so streamlined and I have no problem with it. I like it, and it is accessible to anyone. I think it wins the all rounder category handily.
But I love 4e combat. I love using grids, and hate theater of the mind. (It just feels like playing improv.) What I'm learning is that I guess I would like wargaming. :D
Sounds to me like you would have more fun playing a video game then dnd.
@@failedGraphics RP in video games isn't like RP in a TTRPG, though
@@failedGraphics I do like Video Games better than TTRPG, but I like TTRPG for the social aspect. I don't like playing multiplayer video games, because you have no connection to the people you are playing with.
But I'm lucky enough to have a good long term playgroup for DnD, and I like meeting in person and having fun with those guys. (That's also why lockdown sucks right now. :D)
16:17
The D&D Boardgames actually came out in 4e, so there you go. Things like Castle Ravenloft, or Wrath of Ashardalon.
I have all of those except Curse of Strahd, and I and my friends love them.
But the boardgames are not really playing D&D, they are almost literally a separate thing - and yes, they do work well in their context.
Me Seeing Puffin after being used to seeing him as an oval shaped drawing: WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?!
He does such a good Cartman voice that it's I expected him to look like.
The thing I liked about 4E is that as a DM I could do what ever I want with an enemy and it felt natural and fit in. Building random monsters felt natural and within the game. I feel like this system was very DM friendly.
Yeah it's definitely the DMs version of D&D.
Both of you are going to need to elaborate on this more to make it understandable because DMs have always been able to make the game their own, even without the makers telling you that you should change things to suit you and your players.
Homebrew is the true heart of d&d.
It's easy to make encounters that are fun, and not completely 1 sided all the time. It's easy to make monsters that do what you want then to do.
But how is it easier in 4e than it is in any other edition?
Something I think it was JoCat said that in 5e classes are sort of picked for you once you pick your class as everything else kind of is handed to you. This is one of the reasons I love Warlocks as they get their invocations which really help customize them. I am not sure how balanced it would be to add something like that to all of the classes as that is the warlock's thing but that sort of system would help a lot.
I think WoTC are leaning into that with optional class features that you can swap out instead of the main features.
Which I believe is a step in the right direction.
5E is designed to be a very simple system that guides players choices so they do not make poor decisions. It is one of the reasons 5E has become a massive hit.
If you want more customization, you should play other games that are designed with that customization in mind (like 4E and PF2).
@@krim7 I got that and I love 5e for its simplicity. A couple of choices though would not hurt. Anyone can play a warlock for example.
As someone who started in 2ed 5th edition is the best iteration since that captures the earlier edition feel.
@@mysticonthehill When 4E was live, lots of 2E players said they loved the edition because it stripped away things they hated about 3E.
Your the one who introduced me into D&D and I am so grateful
Same! I found out about this amazing game through puffin!
Same
Same. Runesmith helped too
Yeah Puffin Forest and Dingo introduces me to it... and I really want to try it but haven’t really gotten the chance.
You're*
Been running a 4e Campaign for 3 years now! One of my players likes it. One is more so in love with 5e but plays because he loves D&D in general.
The others simply just enjoy getting together playing. They are level 13 and there's 6 of them. For the first 2 years combat took 4 hours+ , after some research and discussion with the players, I put them on a 2 minute timer (not including dice rolls for attacking/damage). Combat now takes 45 minutes up to an hour and a half.
I like high magic and tactics and 4e naturally fits both! We have a very dynamic yet simple story going on (in my opinion).
4e is the black sheep of ttrpg's as some might say. But it's also rich with lore and magic!
The BBEG wants to eradicate the world (continent) in/with Undeath (he's a Necromancer). The campaign takes place in a mix of the Feywild and Forgotten realms. The other BBEG wants to obtain god-hood and is an Archfey, but he's done nothing to provoke the Pc's to attack him, instead he's aided them twice. He just hasn't held up his end of a bargain and the Pc's are upset about that. It's a lot of fun!
I love how the 4e Raven Queen is just a Murderhobo PC who made it all the way to godhood, and is just a giant hypocrite who claims to be impartial and focused on the sanctity of death, but is totally willing to break all her own rules in order to maintain power. Just the entire cosmology of 4e was really cool
I'm in 3 year 4e campaign and we need to get a turn timer. Even after 3 years of playing combat still takes 3 plus hours. We tried the timer thing for 3 sessions and 2 people hated it, they are also the same people who take 15/20 minute turns
@@mcdirty764 Yup, I already have a couple players complaining about it myself. But I guess I'm an a$$ because they know they can leave if they don't like it. I work on Saturdays and Sundays, our game night is Saturday evening/night (everyone else in my group has weekends off). And I have to get up at 6AM for work. So I think they understand. With Attack rolls and damage rolls, a turn takes about 5 minutes.
I get wanting to optimize everything and getting the most bang for your buck, but often a bad choice in DnD leads to fun moments! 😎
Maybe limit your two 15-20 minute a turn players, to only being allowed to using two encounters and two dailys per combat so they don't take so long? And explain to them the problem as adults. "Look guys you're taking 20 minute turns and that's not respectful of everyone else's time, so you need to speed your turns up please".... maybe something like that?
@@marsupialmole3926 I like the rise and fall of a lot of deitys from 3rd/3.5 e to 4e. Lots of interesting lore in those regards!
@CommandoDude 100% correct! But it is also a lot of fun if you like tactics imo. I love tactic games like FIRE Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc... so much fun to me!
Why are you not using minions? The idea of minions is that their hit points are so low that they do not matter. A goblin to a mid level player might as well have 1 hit point.
Yeah, the DM was supposed to use mostly minions for the "normal" enemies and only give the few special enemies "real" stats that were complex.
Nailed it.
I ran and really like 4e for beginners. My initial thought was "Why on Gods green earth would you start these guys at 8th level". By that point they should all know the system very well and their characters very well. Now again I like 4e, but it isn't without its flaws. The reason that minions kind of suck for people use to other editions and Pathfinder is that normally you have a creature that say a fighter that hits with a massive blow would take down but a cleric that was forced to hit with a mace would not. In the case of a minion they both take it down. The only real issue I have with 4e is that everyone kind of feels the same. It is so well balanced, but that is its flaw. Not that this matters but I have played, DM'ed since the mid 80's and currently working with Pathfinder 2e. They all have their problems and good sides. Lastly, my reasoning for 4e being great for beginners is that you sit them down with a level 1 character and you point out their daily, encounter and at will powers. Very clean and easy, no matter what they play.
@@SteveMichael "everyone kind of feels the same" if you think every class feels the same, honestly you aren't super familiar with the system. This is like playing league of legends and going like "Hey, Ashe and Lucian are both marksman, they're the same"
@@SteveMichael a level 5 cleric can easily mulch a lvl 1 goblin that is where minion were supposed to be used not when the players were lvl 1. Starting low a party was supposed to face maybe 2 standard goblins and only later start bringing in goblin minions.
I guess I'm a freak because I love 4e combat. With some tools like a simple text file keeping track of initiative order and rolling all dice together it goes by quickly.
Also like another guy said use minions to make the combat feel more epic, but to go by quicker. Also starting edition newbies at 8th level just because they are experienced in other dnd options?? It's like Puffin is setting them up for failure
The monsters from the first few manuals had way too many hit points, so 4E combat could seriously bog down, especially once the big guns had already been used. It definitely got better with the later monster manuals, though, and the tactical aspect of 4E still holds up really well. You are definitely not alone in enjoying 4E combat mechanics.
I love the combos you can pull off as a party in 4e
I loved making custom monsters to raise my players' "pucker factor", but ultimately feel very satisfying to take out in the end. And I get that this was a Dark Sun game, but I wouldn't let a beginner play psionics, or try to wrangle anything bookkeeping-heavy in a one-shot.
Didn't watch the full playthrough, but why is everyone bunched up in the corner for the whole session? They were in those same basic positions before the edit/skip too. A 4e game where you stand in one spot throwing at wills for 8 rounds is not how the game is designed to be played.
It's almost like Puffin set this up to fail intentionally because he dislikes 4e so much......nah, that can't be it.
Always felt 4e was a computer rpg, but without the benefit of a computer handling all the rules behind the scenes.
That's cause it is. It was designed to be released with a digital tabletop so that you could play with friends anytime anywhere, but for some reason WotC cancelled that part of the project
The Neverwinter mmorpg seems 5o be built around 4e.
@@perryborn2777 From what another comment said it never released because the lead designer was a paranoid nutjob and didn't leave any form of notes. And then he stalked his ex and committed murder-suicide on her. That left the VTT dead in the water.
@@GamingWolfGod huh. Well shit
I can't seem to find any references about the digital stuff or anything else ;3 makes sense tho.
My local used book store has so many D&D 4e source books. After watching this, I understand why.
Our table still uses the "bloodied" mechanic, skill challenges and minions from 4e when playing our 5e games.
Some of the things brought up seems to be completely looked over in 5e. Such as the whole "you can do one thing" at level one. Reminding me how miserable I was in 5e as a Cleric having to wait between long rests. I love both for what they're better at than the other.
Agreed. Having played a 5th edition level 1 war cleric and getting one hit knocked out by a CR5 creature, when my level 1 cleric in *ANY* 4E adventure would have survived a few more rounds of combat.
@@MichaelNgTzeWei a level 1 anything should not be fighting a cr5 creature. That's over 4x deadly for even 4 man a party of level ones. It'd be a miracle if you didn't get insta-killed by it.
@@MichaelNgTzeWei You must have a shitty DM if he throws a CR5 creature at your party when you are level 1.
@@Axefighterr What if I told you that the CR5 encounter for my level 1 party is an official module from WoTC? Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. First act in the tavern.
@@MichaelNgTzeWei admitted it's been a long time since I played Dragon Heist, but I wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to teach you NOT to rush into every encounter guns a-blazing
The "5E version of 3rd edition for 4th edition" is called 13th Age, by Pelgrane Press.
This is correct.
Actually you might want to look at "Strike! RPG" since it feels far more like an attempt to simplify and modify 4e than 13th Age imho
@@Arcboltkonrad13 Did you "actually" this comment? -1 XP for you. LOL
@@Nolinquisitor Sorry if it came off as being mean or something, that was not my intention. But please check out the system, it's quite solid.
@@Arcboltkonrad13 Not harms done friend. I did check it out and it think it's worth exploring. Thank you for the suggestion!
Man this is so surreal to me. I loved 4th so much. I’m still sad it’s gone. I grew up on 3.5 and it will have a special place in my heart but 4th was just great. I can’t seem to connect with 5th even though it’s a great system. Not sure why. But man... I only ever had the long combat issue with one particular DM and never with anybody else. We got in and out quickly and we never hit these issues even without modification.
You know I think the game probably suffered from being run by a person who didn’t like the game. It’s hard to find the positives when it’s being presented to you in a bad light so the negatives show up that much harder. I’ve had a similar experience with somebody running Shadowrun before.
It not only suffered by a GM that didn't like the system, it sounds like the GM doesn't even understand how GMing in 4e works. He decided he had to alter his monsters because he chose the completely wrong monsters...monsters that aren't supposed to be used the way he's using them, so he badly designed a combat that was too long, and then blamed the system for his mistakes.
wow. Honestly it's the opposite for me. Hearing people talk about fast combat in 4E is a surreal experience that I find almost incomprehensible. I mean, back in the day I heard plenty of people online talk about it, but I never found a fast group, online or in real life. Do you know of any posted online videos of 4E groups that ran mid or high level combats quickly? I'd love to see how that works.
Pathfinder 2e is pretty tactical and crunchy, maybe you could try that? From what I've heard it's a nightmare to run (as in compared to other things like 5e, cause there's a million and 1 effects and stuff in it) but in my own experience it's a blast to play. Also it's so customizable for players that 2 players can make a Dwarf Barbarian from the same family and have none of the same abilities at all. The action economy in it is super cool too, you get 3 actions... that's it, in those 3 actions you can move attack or cast a spell (each costing 1 action, some spells cost more than 1 action and are usually more powerful the more actions they require), that means you can move 3 times or cast 3 spells or attack 3 times or any combination every turn (there are penalties to attacking more than once and such to balance but it's really good)
David Harshman I didn’t see the full play through. Just this video. So I can’t speak to that but it did seem odd that he felt the need to do so. To be fair he has been open about screwups plenty of times in his past. Sad though. This is a GREAT system and I wish it received more love.
What they describe about being taken out of the game because you’re thinking about your next move is how I feel whenever I play a prepared spell caster.
Yeah, the most I can do is a paladin or ranger, and lock in on my handful of pet spells. I can't do full spell casters.
Shorewall sorcerer’s more managable because you don’t have access to *all the spells* I also really liked Warpriest from Pathfinder. Right now though I’m playing in a gestalt pathfinder game as a witch/druid and I prepared a set of spells for one particular situation and still haven’t reset them, even though it’s been a couple of sessions and we’re on a totally different quests with different enemy types. Doing the research for all the spells is a ton of work and you have to do it outside of the game because if you do it durring the game it would just be hours of wasting everyone’s time.
JoCat sounds like he needs some Pathfinder 2e in his life
I concur
Hard to go back to 2E tho' ... and that's where I really started, looking back reminds me not to look back!
I mean, THAC0, really? That math alone probably turned off half a generation of gamers.
@@trejrco Their comment is referring to Pathfinder 2nd edition, which came out about two years ago
@@brotherbear92 And proceeded to raze multiclassing and archetypes with nuclear fire. Play PF 1e instead, you can actually have a mystic theurge that's properly balanced between arcane and divine. One spell slot per level, _seriously..._
@@StarshadowMelody e1 DM here...mythic stuff was never balanced. I remember Wrath of the Righteous
While everyone does have points about the game and it has issues, it does still make me sad that 4e gets a bad rep and people still view it as a complicated, slowed-down war game system. I was initially introduced to D&D through old D&D basic my friend had and we initially played it through what I would now call a dungeon crawl, so I immediately thought that combat was a huge, main part of the game. And when I started looking into 4e around the time it was around, I thought it was just doing what it was meant to be doing. 'Course no one wanted to play 4e where I was from and so I didn't even get a real chance to play D&D until 5e rolled around.
4e just had a lot that drew me to it: using tactics around a battlefield, properly coordinating with your party to get the most out of your abilities, martial characters having more cool abilities than just whacking or shooting enemies, the concept of minions, lots of customization, etc. There just feels a lot more to 4e when I look back on it than 5e currently since everything drips so slowly out and customization options just don't feel that grand as before.
That's not to say 4e doesn't have problems I don't see. I hosted a small one-shot a few years ago and it wasn't as I expected (though I also didn't really understand the system at the time and I was still new to DMing), but there were a lot of other things that you could say screwed 4e over. The online system they were making, which was suppose to launch with 4e and be a bit more online and automated never did take off and so it was just the books and why it felt very computer/video game-y. There was also the issue of the first MM and how it was imbalanced with health and damage but WotC started fixing it later on with monster health being cut in half and damage going up for the monsters.
Finally, this is where I kind of feel the whole session and response felt a little unfair. First Puffin, I love your work, you seem cool, but it was a mistake starting the players out at 8. That's like if my college nerd friends just put me into their Pathfinder game at lvl 10 or whatever and just expected me to know everything there is about the game. I get starting at level 1 can suck, but I personally feel 4e does a better job at it. At the very least start them closer to 3-4 so they have a few options but aren't overwhelmed. If you were really worried about enemies and too much health, maybe work more around minions and a one or two different different monsters, like artillery or soldier. I just don't understand how you can jump into a system you haven't played before/in a long time and then complain about how the system feels like garbage because you didn't have time to properly start slow and get use to everything.
This comment is the 4e of 4e defences
Hang on, you say they have 3 encounters, so they get to pick one? I am quite sure that they can use all of them, but each one only once per encounter. It's not like 'you have one encounter action to use', you can use every separate encounter action you have. (same goes for daily)
It's amazing how quickly the RP drops off after 2-3 rounds of combat.
I used a dry-erase board to keep track of all combat effects as a player in 4E. One section was labeled 'until start of next turn' and another 'until end of next turn', etc. I wrote things down as I got them and erased them at the appropriate time. As a DM, I passed tokens to players to help them keep track; +2 AC, +1 next attack, and so forth.
I think every time I see this I hear the same message. It is do not start your players at level eight on the first time they play and give them difficult classes that are meant for experienced players. I cannot imagine what would go through someone's head to make that decision. Drown them in choices and then being shocked when they come up sputtering. And complaining that bards don't get spells doesn't really hold water, he gets tons of powers that are how bards work, using song and music to help enemies. It feels to me that he wanted to play a sorcerer or wizard and did not understand that in 4e casters do different things.
The one counter argument Id make to the lack of customization in 5e (which doesnt disprove their point, since its the exception) is the Warlock. Theres multiple subclasses, and archetypes (Tome, blade, chain) and then there's invocations. Warlocks are the most 4e that 5e still has, and (if Im honest) I wish there was more of that in 5e. 5e is a great system. but there are some things in 4e that are enjoyable and could be imported.
4e D&D is my favourite D&D
I enjoyed how Warlock spells had alternate effects/bonuses based on your Pact. My friends and I look fondly to our weekly 12 hour long 4E sessions back in college.
You start at level 8 because they wouldn't have enough options. Now they can't handle too much options...
To many options in the game build in, nobody mentioned to many class abilities
@@draakgast one of the players is playing a Psionic, ONE OF THE HARDEST CLASS IN THE GAME! Level 1 is meant to slowly introduce players how to play the game, it's literally the perfect level. The fact they all shoved themselves into the deep end with level 8 is there own fault.
@@justghoul congrats ONE PLAYER HAS A HARD CLASS, now everyone has trouble???
THEY ARE ALL EXPERIENCED PLAYER FOR 8+ YEARS, how dumb do you think these people are they CAN'T figure out lvl 8 characters when they open with :WE ONLY HAVE 2 OPTIONS TO DO INGAME.
Fucking hell mate no, let's waiste 4 hours explaining stuff the DM can handwave or explain in 5 minutes,who cares about playtime people need to understand how skill chalanges work.
It's like you never played other games then D&D edition X so you can't understand people can learn other system ESPECIALY when they've already played different editions of D&D
@@draakgast Then they're fucking idiots, 8+ years and they can't figure this shit out. My friends and I have been playing this for less then a year and we're getting this perfectly. How the fuck does a bunch of experience players not understand any of this shit?
@@justghoulabsolutely, when he casually says “I started you at 8, I said “WHAT!?” Out loud. It’s a very clear case of “in 5e the game doesn’t get good till X level, so we’ll start there in this completely different game”. I keep hearing people doing the same thing with Lancer where they start at LL2 because they want the new mechs, but then they have so many systems to keep track of they get overwhelmed.
The podcast "Critical Hit" did a many years long 4e game. It was really good. But, they did it when all the online tools were still working. It's really worth a listen!
wait you started them as level 8 PCs? man what. just throwing them into the deep end
4e = I attack with my encounter power and then switch to my at wills.
5e = I swing my sword at them again.
This. This is why I dislike 5e.
I mean, if thats how you choose to play 5e, then of course that'll be your experience.
@CommandoDude If that kind of granularity is what you seek, I'd say both pale severely to gurps. Though I'm more of the mindset that the best customization/uniqueness comes from the player, not the system.
@@savarast That's what I say usually... but the statement is what I hear most people's complaints with 4e are, people dislike the mechanics... any system can be enjoyed if roleplayed with a good group.
@CommandoDude Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2 = Watch me dunk on *all* that customization.
If I'm gonna piddle my time away, I'm picking Pf, not 4e. If I want a chill RP experience, homebrew 5e.
To be honest, I think Puffin has internalized some really bizarre ideas about 4e from when he played it. Then, he does these problematic things whenever he plays and points to them as the reason why it's a problem. I ran 4e for years and combat was fast-paced and fun, also, it wasn't such a big part of the session. It took the same amount of time in the game as it did in 5e and in 3e. You just have to be willing to use minions and the other core aspects of the game.
A great deal of my xps also came from skill challenges and quest rewards. Which meant that frequently people were engaging in rp with npcs, or were finding creative uses for their attacks to do things like solve traps/hazards. I think a lot of this comes from how the game has a bit of a presentation problem. You see a lot of attacks without flavor and you just start doing attacks without flavor. The fact that you can at-will shift around things in addition to your normal movement though is a really interesting aspect that can be used in a lot of situations, like trying to plant evidence on a bad guy so the guards arrest them.
And the point they made about "combat specialization" (they used the example of shifting) is literally the only thing that makes martial classes any good in 3.5e, and it's also a big part of 5e.
In fact, literally all their criticisms are problems with D&D as a game.
@@moredetonation3755 Gotta remember that most 5e games are a lot more 'beer and pretzels', or at the very least more casual and RP focused vs combat focused. Most groups I've played in for 5e have combat as something fun and engaging that supports the story and decisions made, and not the main focus of a session. Meaning most groups have relatively simplistic combat encounters, which 5e supports. In fact, 6:00 in the video sums it up extremely well.
People who want intense combat aren't playing 5e. Or more, they really shouldn't be. Pathfinder or (in my experience so far, even better) Pathfinder 2 do a great job of fun and dynamic combat with a huge amount of customization that's not *too* bogged down by math (Pf1 most certainly does have that issue). If you want really good combat, play that. Because even with a very knowledge group of players and a DM (all of whom have been playing for a long time) combat will still take longer than 5e. But that's ok, cause that's why people are there.
4e I played, but I don't understand the appeal of. If I wanted good combat, I'd play 3.5 or Pathfinder. Now that we have Pf, Pf2, 3.5, 4, and 5... Why play 4 unless you explicitly like it? It has better combat than 5, sure. But if you're playing for combat, there's better games. It also has the most loosey-goosey rules for RP which makes it (ironically, since 4e was trying to avoid this) vary more between DMs than any other system.
You can usually say, "Not as bad as Shadowrun," with almost any system.
Shadowrun is fine, it's just super complex with the various rulesets
Shadowrun has an abysmally edited rulebook and character creation involves flipping back and forth across hundreds of pages multiple times for each step.
But 4e hurt WotC so badly that a partner company (Paizo) got so rapidly wealthy it could separate and essentially bought GenCon from them.
It's an incomparable fuck-up.
@@CathrineMacNiel I meant 1st Ed. Shadowrun
@@SymmetricalDocking Yeah, thats because Shadowrun is overly detailed, but you can literally do anything you could think of. Thats why Chummer is very popular.
At least 1st Edition Shadowrun isn't as bad as F.A.T.A.L!
4e was my first edition and I was waaaaaaay into it. That being said, it mostly fell through whenever I took a character to the table and actually got to play them, but there really is no system like 4e when it comes to theory crafting imho ^^
Pathfinder can do this somewhat as well, being majorly fiddly, especially if you use some third party XP-buy system where you can mix and match class features ^^
That being said, after having DM'ed a lot I've more or less exclusively turned to PbtA systems and FATE because there's just way more freedom when you focus purely on the narrative. I find this way more interesting when you are actually PLAYING THE GAME and it still stratches the theory-crafting itch, just in a different way :D
Really? My most beloved character, from any D&D edition, was a 4e character precisely due to how he played. Rogues in 4th edition are extremely fun, they get so many powerful and fun-to-use daily and encounter powers. Rogues in any other edition just feel so pathetic by comparison. In 3.5 they're woefully inaccurate thanks to 3/4 BAB, in 5e they just can't keep up in terms of damage with the other martial classes, and even some casters
in 4e didnt all classes have "at will" powers instead of some having cantrips. And instead of spell slots all classes had "encounter" and "daily" powers, which where once per encounter/day.
Yep, and everyone has 2 At-wills, 1 Encounter, and 1 Daily at 1st level. (Psionics don't get Encounters and instead get to buff their At-Will powers on occasion.) Humans can also choose to have a 3rd At-Will instead of the Racial Encounter power they could have.
@@alicesteel i was refuring to the bit in the video where they talked about bards didn't have cantrips while just a few other classes did.
@@mattisandersson9661 In 4e cantrips were minor noncombat spells only available to wizards like mage hand and prestidigitation(fey races could gain one as a feat). Some other classes like bards had noncombat spells as rituals. One of my favorite 4e magic items were the hedge wizards gloves that gave you mage hand and prestidigitation as at will powers a must have for my rogues.
@@jblare Yes there were extra At-Wills called "Cantrips", but 5e Cantrips are the 4e At-Will attack spells of the "caster" classes.
That's Skyrim Bullshit.
I actually take inspiration from 4e for some bosses, giving bosses complex mechanics and powers that "feel" special is great, but 4e went too far!
One of the only things I actually like from 4e is skill challenges.
I wish that was carried over into 5e because it's not that difficult of a concept and adds a little something extra to non-combat encounters that 5e just doesn't have.
5e is great in how it handled combat but I feel it really lacks in non-combat encounters, and a perfect example is PHB ranger.
It has so much potential but because 5e doesn't have really any rules for traveling and handling different terrain it often gets skipped over so a key feature of the ranger class is made completely useless unless a DM goes out of their way to include travel and different terrain types.
I kept minions from 4e. One hp support badies that give reduced xp but make the action economy feel more fluid.
Honestly, I enjoyed the flavour in 4e, with the descriptions of the attacks and such, as well as the myriad of character options. As a DM, I really did hate combat, though I still wish I could have a 2 DM system where someone runs the combat part for me in 5e too XD
4th edition would really benefit from a battle companion app
8th is not the place to start people on 4th! This is such a bad faith way of doing this...
There's a lot of bad faith most of the time someone brings up 4e on the internet. You can always tell when people talk about it who haven't tried it, or read it at all.
did sort of the same thing with Pathfinder 2E video, really up talked and over talked the complexity
I feel like this boils down to:
P1 - "I really wish 5e had X!"
P2 - "Oh, 4e has that thing."
P1 - "I like the depth but it doesn't feel like DnD."
P2 - "Oh... Just play Pathfinder 2e."
So my first edition of D&D was 2e but 4e still remains one of my favorite editions. For me, 4e was a response to 3e. 3e was breaking under the weight of all the crunch and broken rules. 4e tried to fix that paradigm by making things click well together and to me, that makes total sense. I like systems with a bit of crunch to them (5e is okay in this respect but not great) and so 4e works for me. Crunch but a system that tries a bit more to be balanced and offer all players a chance to do something awesome. To me, that's what makes 4e great.
A lot of the complaints I see people make don't really click with me.
* "4e doesn't promote roleplay"
How does 3e or 5e promote roleplay. The only systems I've seen push 'roleplay' are ones like Apocalypse Word where your powers are designed to mess with other people and the world.
* "The combat is too slow!"
A legit complaint but one for people who never saw 3.5e or Pathfinder combat. Those games took hours to finish a combat. 4e needs players and DM's to start low level and slow, then it builds up.
* "There is no flavor text to the powers!"
Yes there is flavor text but it's made brief to encourage the players to elaborate more. I seem to recall that this was by design because 4e was trying to be less setting specific.
* "4E is trying to be WOW!" or "4E is trying to be a Tactics game!"
It's not, it's a response to the crunch of 3e. If you really could see the mess that 3e turned into you could see what 4e tried to solve and focus on. Sadly that focus didn't really work for a lot of players, hence Pathfinder.
You have to also realize that each edition of D&D is a response to the other. Luckily for a lot of new D&D players, 5e hit some kind of sweet spot that they love and 4e didn't. Oh well. I would totally play or run another game of 4e if I had the time.
the third point was specifically called out in the PHB as I remember. It encouraged you to re skin the description of a power to fit with what you were doing I played a fey-pact warlock for 4e with a contract with the fey of deep waters. My mark ability made the target feel like a crushing weight of water was pressing down on them or a deep sea leviathan was watching them from just beyond the gloom. The origins of powers made quite a bit of sense, druids derive their power from the primal natural forces of the world not the divine like the clerics. The current hard divide of martial, arcane, and divine pales in comparison to 4e's martial, primal, divine, and psionic.
It doesn't really feel like 4e did a decent job of making things click properly until essentials. But also it kinda IS trying to be a online game or board game. Because it was, and then the online system for it caught fire and didn't come out poofing into the aether and left all the things meant to be handled by a computer in human hands leading to you managing all the token's duration's and effects on your own. It could be done but it was way more effort then you had to put into 3.5 barring some way out there books. 3.5 and pathfinder's complexity is in the creation and upgrading of your character, 4e doesn't have that instead it dumps all its complexity onto running combat and that pushed away the vast majority of dnd players leading to 4e having such a short time of support and fewer books(probably for the better. I love my 3.5 books but there's only about 2000 of the damn things.).
For my side I prefer Pathfinder, simplified from 3.5 and the only real complicated part for me was just spending my gold due to the plentiful magic items and trying to get the best effect out of them (much less if you threw mythic crafting and shit in there or even just the advanced normal crafting and start fusing magic items together so you can have a back slot that is both a cloak of resistance and something interesting.). And 5e is fairly enjoyable to me.....though I wish I could get a real game of it going for more then 2 sessions without some player disappearing from the internet. (last time was the dm. 2 sessions in they just ceased to exist, never got online again. They were on multiple friends lists on things....just gone.)
I can supply some reason for the first complaint. This was the thing that turned me off most to the system when reading the rulebooks for the first time. Not that it didn't promote roleplay, but that it didn't *support* it. (3e and 3.5e provided much better supporting rules for anything not combat related than 4e. Can't speak for 5e) In a game where the characters will likely have physical traits and abilities that differed from their players, it was very difficult to play a character with different social traits and abilities than the player. Several hundred pages are spent describing mechanics for combat with examples that illustrate how the character's stats, powers, and equipment work, rules for how they interact, explanations to shape expectations, define limits, and provide examples of use, while only a dozen or two dealt with non-combat player actions. The game was designed in such a way that even your utility powers were intended for combat use, so the handful of social powers were "Timmy cards." (look up Monte Cook on Ivory Tower Game Design if you don't get the reference)
Social skills get a small description paragraph with 1 or 2 modifiers listed for, usually, all-or-nothing skill checks and the Diplomacy skill has no mechanics listed at all, only, to paraphrase, "there's a lot of modifiers that might apply; the DM will tell you, but this is usually used for Skill Challenges." Except looking through the DMG there was no discussion on Diplomacy, no examples of how much or how little of an effect a success or failure should have or what severity of modifiers to apply, or even what kinds of things should or should not apply modifiers, nothing but, to paraphrase again, "simple diplomacy should be a skill check and not a skill Challenge."
...and the mess that was Skill Challenges in the original 4e release... **shudder** "Intimidation is an instant fail or risky" "Every skill other than Intimidation has a better effect than Diplomacy" "gaining a level can randomly make skill challenges more or less difficult" "low skill characters do better at short challenges and high skill characters do better at long challenges, even if they have higher DCs than the other length"
Skill Challenges were an excellent design for instant crisis moments like whole-room traps, and, with modification (especially making the "every PC" requirement conditional upon the intended use) , could make a great framework for mechanically simulating longer-term endeavors of the PCs, but RAW, even in the examples given, were terrible for doing anything but using your highest allowed skill and hoping the DM hadn't built the challenge in a way that disfavored your skill list.
So every modifier and effect related to Diplomacy was left for DMs to guess at and every time you looked for guidance in the books you were pointed toward the dumpster fire that was Skill Challenges. My experience with this was that my DM ended up applying high negative modifiers because the ***player*** of our high-Diplomacy priest had low personal Diplomacy skill when asking to use his character's Diplomacy skill and in other social-skill uses, the magnitude of both modifiers and effects were wildly inconsistent to the point that it felt pointless to bother with it.
And it wasn't just the lack of mechanics for social skills. While looking through tables and rules for helpful out-of-place mentions, I realized that as you increased in levels, the game increasingly penalized all sub-optimized play. That is, the kinds of choices made when roleplaying instead of rollplaying become more likely to lead to narrative stalls from excessive skill failure and slow down combat with lower damage output compounded by the rapidly inflating damage-sponginess of enemies. (Oh. Hey. Guess this explains some of the reasons for the 2nd complaint, too.)
I’ve never played DnD 4e because of its reputation, but I might actually try it now because all of that sounds kind of awesome
Don't listen to any of the haters. I've played 4e for years (my longest campaign, which lasted 2 years, was in 4e). The system is incredibly solid but you need a DM who understands actual combat balance (Puffin here does NOT for a number of reasons but I'll abstain from ranting on that for now). Also, start at level 1 since the game works best if you slowly work your way up instead of starting at higher level so you understand all of your powers, feats and race/class abilities and such.
Best of luck, SerDerpish!
@@Arcboltkonrad13 Could not have agreed more. You are right on the money.
WotC D&Ds Summarized
3.0e/3.5e: If you've played Pathfinder you've played "New Coke" to this Coke Classic.
4e: Rebooted the entire canon and wanted to play like a MMORPG with cooldowns and per encounter abilities.
5e: Literally just 4e without the combat rules taken out, and the alignment chart put back in.
@@Ultrox007 huh? But 4e has an alignment chart
@@yaoellassar 4e had an alignment line.
"Lawful Good - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic Evil"
no chart like the old days, it was one of the biggest complaints about the edition. Along with Dex and Con being swapped in their positioning.
in 4e you do get cantrips, the system just calls them "at will powers". They are a thing that you can do, which is better than attacking that has no limit on its use. Now if jocat was saying I want stuff like light or guidance or mending I can understand that. 4e doesn't have so many role-play powers
Except 4e has those too. The Wizard starts with them and there is a version anyone can take at the cost of a feat. Plus rituals.
The other version of 4e is 13th Age, btw. I can't speak to if it is streamlined, but it was made by the same designers as 4e.
This was really nice listening to. So many seeing the positives of 4e just concluding it doesn't fit their playstyle. The whole "if it hadn't been branded D&D" was a nice touch.
Except for the fact that it was completely wrong.
They were put in at 8th level. Would you start a new player at 8th level in any other edition? Of course not! And it's no wonder they were complaining about how complex it was.
D&D has always been a tactical game. In 3.5e, your spell's range or your arrow penalties were modified in increments based on level or distance. That's extremely tactical.
The other problems of 4e - the combat focus, the slog, the number crunching - these are problems with D&D as a GAME, not 4e specifically.
4e couldn't have been anything but D&D. I'm sick of people pretending 4e is bad as if that opinion makes them a True Fan of D&D.
@MoreDetonation what new players?? I though all of these guys played D&D before.
I like how you complain people misrepresend 4E but then ignore puffin telling you he ignored alot, made it simpleler and left stuff out and it was STILL to complex AND BECAUSE he wanted to streamline it.
I'm sick and tierd of the 4E fan-boys just blindly lashing out while barely listening to what was actually said
@@draakgast mate they haven’t played 4e n forever. Me knowing 5e won’t help me learn 3.5 at 8th level
@@aguilarraliuga1777 so you don't know what a level is?.
Never heard of saving throw then? Do you need explanation how damage worjs with hit points?
No because you played other previous versions, there IS overlap.
If you've played enough D&D you'll understand that every edition(very) basicly the same
Wait, an 8th level session...for beginners? Also, they didn't make their own characters, but started with high-level pregens? I don't want to be too critical, but it seems like a less than ideal choice if we expect the players to have a balanced (or accurate) view of the game's complexity. 8th level assumes you've been playing for a while and are comfortable with the mechanics already. It's nearly at the end of the first 'tier' of gameplay in 4e. The description of players looking over their cards could just as easily be a byproduct of sheer unfamiliarity and decision paralysis - both of which wouldn't be as much of a factor for low level play or a natural progression to this level. Or, for that matter, if they had the extra familiarity of having made decisions during character creation.
I ran 4e for a hot minute back in the day and had a ton of fun with it. I never had any issue telling a story. The "storytelling" side of 4e is mechanically handled in basically the same way as 3e and 5e - player descriptions and ability/skill checks. In fact, I found skill challenges to be a really interesting and cinematic way to handle a variety of situations. (4E DMG has surprisingly good advice for DMs.) Rituals I also thought were interesting. Anyone with the ritual caster feat could cast them, which opens up magic to basically everyone. I think maybe some of the trouble is that combat powers feel a bit separate from the adventure/storytelling process - and combat itself is pretty crunchy and consumes much of the page count.
As for fact that folks have "buckets of HP" - there's a quick answer. Minions. The best thing ever. Basically, you pick a few baddies to be strikers, leaders, or whatever. Then everyone else is a minion. They have 1 hp, but otherwise had full stats. This means the players speed through "mooks" and stop and go "oh" when they hit something that doesn't crumble immediately.
4e feels on the surface very different but moment-to-moment outside of combat is pretty familiar to anyone that played 3e before it. And the combat was probably the most balanced and tactical version of combat rules. No "linear fighter, quadratic mage" problem. Everyone had interesting tools in their kit and they all progressed along the same rate roughly. Also the character options are just really robust. You can really dig in to make someone unique - and from lvl 1.
Like anything, 4e isn't for everyone. And I def dig 5e and 3e before it for different reasons. I just wish more people had given it a fair shake.
It almost feels like this was meant to just reinforce the bad takes and hate on 4E.
If you would take newbies to play 5E or pathfinder(or 3.5) at level 8 it would end up even worse than this.
We like 4e, it's really well balanced, every class/role is important, healers don't just sit at the back healing.
On combat speed: we used esculation dice to speed up slow encounters
Also most of the rules in the book are on combat, cos roleplaying doesn't need rules! That said there were noncombat encounter rules, based on skill checks and innovation thinking to solve problems
We'd go sessions and sessions without combat in our 4e campaigns
We honestly think that 5e was a huge step backwards, it's horribly broken, every 5e story we hear is about how broken their character is and they're just roll-playing not roleplaying. And everything people say is good in 5e, like hit dice, those were stolen from 4e but made worse. Last thing you need when you're dying is your dice to screw you over one last time, guaranteed 1/4hp heal is soooooo helpful
This been my experience as well. To me, it feels 5e is a big step backwards instead of forwards.
Combat healing was always way overpowered in 4E. I mean minor action to instantly heal someone from zero and put them at 1/4 or higher hp? It's pretty crazy.
Pretty much there was zero tension in my 4E games so long as the leaders had their healing powers. Multiple times per battle, they could just tell the DM "That didn't happen" and undo all the damage dealt with a minor action. It felt so boring to DM, knowing that your rolls in the early rounds, no matter how lucky, would just be nullified by combat healing. Often times the guy who dropped didn't even lose a turn. The real battle didn't even start until the healers were tapped out, until then the PCs had their security blanket and didn't worry about anything. Combat healing was the one power they didn't give to monsters, because it's so ridiculously powerful and obnoxious to fight against.
@@taragnor i agree with you on the healing but you could say the same thing applies to 5e.
@@rayclawicefire2503 : You could yeah. I'm not really a fan of 5E healing either. Granted I don't think 5E healing is as OP a 4E's though. Mainly because of amount. I mean 5E, the healing amount is actually pretty small, meaning you come back but the next blow (which isn't always even a monster's whole turn if they have multiple attacks) will take you back down. In 4E, I've seen characters use a few minors and suddenly be up to near full health. You basically need high level spells to do that in 5E, so the 4E healing is still more overpowered. Also minor action healing potions in 4E further make the healing far more powerful there.
But yeah, I'm not a fan of unconscious characters healing back to fight in general. It's silly and video gamey and it basically encourages DMs to outright kill characters by attacking them on the ground. As a DM I'd prefer if the rules didn't incentivize monsters to finish off dying PCs.
4th ed is a wargame with a charisma stat
All of D&D comes from Wargaming.
Well, 4e certainly isn't for people who lack attention or interest in tactics and want to just "I walk up and hit with sword!"..
Too bad DnD world is filled with people who just want to hit a baddies with a sword and seduce barmaids.
Cantrips and 1st level spells in 5th edition are balanced to at-wills and 1st level encounter powers from 4th.
I couldn't not hear JoCrap every time JoCat talked.
We been thirsting for Puffin content for week and now we're drunk 💪🏽
I love 4e for its rules and strategy. I'm freely admitting that it take a lot of setup and there are a bunch of moving parts, but the gameplay is actually satisfying. I have more issues playing 5e because if I want a low complexity, open system, I find it straight up awful. Its trying to do splits between satisfying strategic planning and open roleplay and imho its good at neither.
I completely agree with this.
4e is the best d&d, because every other d&d is a bad board game AND a bad rpg.
Want freeform roleplaying, with a bit of rules? Go grab a storyteller game. (or another one of the plethora of games out there)
I've been saying this for years
Anyone who might have liked some of the ideas of 4e: I would recommend LANCER which takes a bit of of PF and a lot of 4e and makes a mecha game in space. The split between powers and RP makes more sense when you're jumping in and out of your mech. The tactical combat and character building are very 4e from reading it, but I haven't gotten to play much
I think that 5es combat, while not super complicated, is pretty nice because you can have a fight be pretty quick, and overall I like the streamline. However, maybe in one of the UAs WotC could make something kind of like 4es character build for 5th edition, so you could customize your character more.
"I changed a bunch of stuff to accommodate expectation and started you at a complex point of a complex system for your appraisal, what do you think of what I did to 4E?"
0:33 The 4E experience
Yeah... Spending an eternity in each combat encounter is pretty much how I remember it.
D&D 5 is superior in any way. Simple, clean and flexible.
@@TheRezro D&D5 class with no spell are boring, but they are not in D&D4 -> Change my mind !
@@sertonetix Puffin messed up running this game. First, he had a party of people who admittedly had little to no experience in 4e jump in at level 8, the combat he ran was not properly attuned for their level (it's better for a party of level 12s than 8s due to the addition of the umber hulk he admits to using) and allowed one player (Zee, the bearded red head person) play a psion, one of the more difficult classes in 4e to play (it would be like taking someone who had only ever played a fighter in AD&D 2e and telling them to play a level 10 Pathfinder Arcanist) and because of apparently little to no player coordination they had no clue how to properly play with one another which made it so people (like Zee) spent more time looking at their powers than working things out tactically on the board. As a long time 4e player, it's just nerve-wracking to watch this play out.
@@petalsinthebreeze Your non arguments convinced my :|
Really , its not that hard to learn , have you guys not played any other types of TTRPGs ?
The DM fucked up in not starting them at 1st or 2nd ed....
From what I can tell 4e was built like a video game but the dm and players are the software that runs it.
As I recall, there was _supposed_ to be a digital toolset that was meant to be used alongside the game. Indeed, 4e was designed around it. But it never got released due to development issues. Meaning people playing 4e were sold on _half a game,_ that they just had to compensate for.
4e was designed with webtools in mind (you can see advertisements for it in the back of the original 4e PHB, DMG and MM) but due to THE INCIDENT the webtools were dropped for a while until someone finally came along and bashed together a character builder, a monster builder and a rules compendium. The virtual tabletop that was being designed was dropped because the people who tried to pick up the program after THE INCIDENT could not understand the coding for it and the original developer kept no notes on it because he was apparently very paranoid and not all right in the head.
(In case you're wondering what THE INCIDENT was, the developer in question was going through a nasty separation and was afraid his ex was going to steal his work [thus no notes] and then trailed her to a hotel where she was meeting up with her new lover. He shot and killed his ex and her lover and then killed himself in the parking lot of the hotel. After that no one really wanted to work on the programs for obvious reasons but Hasbro told WotC to suck it up and get something out to justify the DDI subscription beyond the two e-zines they put out monthly on it).
Would you try to teach someone 5e by starting them at 6th lvl??
In all fairness, these aren't exactly new players. New to 4e sure, but these players have experience with complex systems (I think Dingo's go to edition is 3.5). Starting them at a higher level to allow for more options makes sense.
Yes, would not be that much of a jump
4e is massively underrated. I could write paragraphs defending it but nobody will listen or change their mind.
Find a dm that's good with 4e and give it a shot, judge it yourself
Oh How I feel your pain.
We played a 4th edition campaign from 1st level to close to 20th over a few years. Now that I see it I remember two things that epitomises the way it ran.
1: We used to place rings from soda bottle caps around the bases of our miniatures to keep track of various conditions. By the end the stack of rings around some miniatures were taller than the mini itself.
2: one of our players had so many conditional effects that the character creator reduced the text size in that box to such an extent that it wasn't legible anymore
After many years of playing 4th edition. This is the kind of system that would be GREAT for those kind of GMs that want that epic battle between their two different gaming groups.
And leave it at that. As was talked about in the video. It's a very war-gamey system. I love the Idea of wargaming. I just don't like having to control anything more than just "myself". I think this is where 4e like rules could really shine. IF one was to throw away most of the D&D stats and have those based on your Race/Class/Role, choices as a whole. The game becomes deciding on what to do where it just jives with your party. If compared to some board games like Gloomhaven, and the 4e based board games, and things like zombiside. I think 4e Stands out as an better experience.
I've done a complicated strategic movement one time in 5e when I was playing an echo knight to try and reach an enemy around 60' in the air. I made my echo move and then swapped places with them. Next, I moved far enough away from the echo to have it vanish, and I summoned another at max range to get him just in their reach. Technically independent of DM, but still definitely an exceptional occurrence.
Puffin, dude, the fight you ran was, based on the monster you yourself admitted to using, were better suited to a party in the Paragon tier, not level 8s!
@fearmymastin I'm being serious. The two orcs he listed are elite meaning they count as 2 monsters (thus the high HP totals on them) and the other monster he named in this video is an Umber Hulk which is CR 15 in 4e. Those three listed together means the fight was better tuned to a party of around level 12 than a party of level 8. Basically, his claim of "running things by the book" is a complete falsehood.
@@Arcboltkonrad13 I have to agree completely, this was far from "By the Book." If anything, this is just a good example of NOT how to run a game. Don't get me wrong, I like Puffin Forest, but this was....a mess.
@fearmymastin But that is just it, 4e wasn't busted. The only thing that was busted was it was supported by Hasbro (or wasn't supported).
I had a feeling something like this was going on. It's really a travesty because 4e is actually super well balanced if you follow what the DMG suggests. Back when I DMed, I would generally do an easy, medium, and hard encounter in a single session with time for story in between, all of which would be done within 3-4 hours. I'll admit that 4e had a LOT of problems with it, the biggest being the Red Queen Effect (one of the big reasons 5e went with bounded accuracy amongst other things), however there were also a lot of cool ideas in there as well (like minions and solo creatures).
I suppose the thing I am most disappointed in is seeing one of the more prominent voices in the D&D community giving 4e an even worse reputation than it already had, through no fault of the system itself.
He clearly expressed he changed the monsters stats pretty drastically for the proper level.
4ed = DnD MMO
5ed = Baby's first DnD
3ed = DnD for Accountants, lol
@@shorewall Probably the closest DnD has come to that. If you really want a game for accountant, try the Hero System. It started out for superheroes, so you can literally make anything within the rules, but even the fantasy setting for it is very crunchy.
Ok... I love 3.PF psionics... it actually feels way more intuitive to me than normal spell casting. (You can do some broken stuff, but arcane magic can do different broken stuff)
Psionics in every edition that had it always suffered from "special snowflake syndrome". In a dedicated campaign, featuring psy-monsters and maybe investigation skill challenges, psionics could (probably) do well. But in a setting like Dark Sun, where you have arcanists & psionicists in the same mix, just to balance out the lack of divine casters, and keep with the post-apoc flavor, it's mechanically broken af.
@@mandisaw I've never tried out dark sun personally. I've usually played with arcane or divine casters and it all felt pretty balanced, but none of us were trying to break anything
@@mandisaw dark sun was just a train wreck. The concept sounds awesome on paper, but there’s just way to much extraneous things. It felt like it couldn’t decide wether it wanted to be Conan or mad max.
@@thatguy8637 Traditionally, Greyhawk is more Conan/Hyboria-inspired, with Tolkien influences. Dark Sun has some Mad Max similarities, but that's because both are riffing off of *far* future sci-fi, stuff like Jack Vance's Dying Earth books (origin of the term "Vancian casting"), and possibly Samuel Delany's Neveryon books, and Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series.
There are also 70s/early-80s "swords & sandals" B-movies (besides Conan) that much more clearly fit into that Dark Sun mold, like Zardoz. As for too many things, well, it's a setting - you focus on the parts that work for your table.
4e was my first edition and I loved it
I am most certainly permanently uniquely damaged by it
I miss lord kensington rules for skill challenges
Aahh a person of taste!
Critical Hit Podcast nostalgia
"It's so hard to teach people combat" BEGINS AT LEVEL 8
4e and PF2e, Puffin is just horrible at introducing people to games.
As an avid ShadowRun 5e player and GM of 3years you are correct, it is a messy a badly formatted game that is as beginner friendly as deep sea fishing with a pocket full of rocks and a paper bag full of air.
but i still love it.
My only experience with Shadowrun is someone who adapted it to fit Fate:Core and honestly I didn't have a good time because the GM didn't explain the premise all that well, and my character didn't mesh well with the other party members and so I often just sat there because I had this Character built for combat that didn't get to use any of my features because no one else built their Character that way.
It was an all around poor planning on the GMs part and lack of communication from other players that really turned me off.
i play SR 5E with my friends sometimes
god i love the system so much for how much you can do at char creation
Honestly, I'd say 4E Shadowrun is the best so far. It's a lot more streamlined and player-friendly than say 5E is.
@@darkjackl999 pretty much the only reason to play anything 👍
I liked that this system was the first I had seen to actually promote tactics, and doing anything in combat that wasnt either running up and smashing yourself into the monster, or staying as far back as possible to hit it or aid your allies. I also liked, coming from 3.5, that this system promoted having less than a 1000 choices at every single level (3.5 having to pick from 100s of feats and spells for some classes was daunting).
Things like simpler character creation and short rests I am very glad made it into 5e, I wish there could be more tactics stuff available, but the more I play 5e the less I miss older systems.
I am deeply hurt with Zee shitting on Shadowrun, the look into the camera wounds me, but yeah SR5 is a total mess. 5 years later and still a total mess. Big sad. Optimistic for 6th World. If you don't mind numbers and a big learning curve, just go back to SR4A, or wait until they fully sort out 6th. Best recommendation.
I agree with you, but as much as I love zee i dont think he can wrap his head around any conceptual Numbers larger than 100, if you have to start dividing dice pools or setting aside things he gets lost very quickly. Hence why he dislikes shadowrun, but while 5th world is a dumpsterfire in regards to anything involving the matrix, 6th failed to fix any of the issues, and made a good chunk of the known ones worse. Looking at you mage run. 6th world basically flipped the table and declared the game as pink mohawk, you have nondecision.
Pathfinder 2e has lots of character options: class feats, ancestry(race) feats, and skill feats. The Pathbuilder app can help you build a character really quick. A friend of mine has a "giant instinct" rage barbarian and can use an action while raging to grow to the large size and increase her reach.
@@andrewsan1997 I've always maintained there's a good game between 5th and 6th edition shadowrun but it takes awhile to bring it out
Currently in a shadowrun 3e game.
best fucking ttrpg ive ever been in.
then again the dm/gamemaster is truly godtier.we dont talk about sr5...
@@dacomputernerd4096 Im not gonna lie.. if not for my DM. i wouldnt understand it either. it looks alot more complicated than it is tho!
8:40 "After playing some trashfire systems, like SHADOWRUN!"
u wot m8?
8:48 "Fifth Edition"
Ah, I see you are a man of culture as well
I don't think he tried the Essentials line, I started 4th edition off of that and the complaints they bring up are lessened if not solved in it.
I really agree with Jocat on the character creation thing, I would *REALLY* love for 5e to have more actual character customization for it to not feel so videogamey and instead feel like an actual Roleplaying game, which, ironically, there's many RPG videogames that actually accomplish
I haven't played 3.5 or Pathfinder because _I hate numbers_ and the people I play with _also hate numbers_ but I would really love if 5e or 5.5e or whatever actually took the time to give us an entire book of just character options, alternative class features, alternative subclass features, race features (which seems like Tasha's might give us), new feats to not end up using the same 5 ones every single time
5e is already very easy to get into, it really needs more complexity in the character creation department, in fact, the most interesting class from my point of view, it's the warlock and it's just because invocations are *LITERALLY* "Chose your class features"
Play FATE, if you hate numbers, FATE is the game for you
Or Nights Black Agents, but it's a lot easier to find people willing to play FATE rather than Nights Black Agents
@@marsupialmole3926 I already have 3 games a week (I'm also the DM in one of them) and I'm planning on _maybe_ DMing call of Cthulu, I don't really have time for more games and not really want to learn a new system, which is why I would like 5e to add some of the complexity of Pathfinder's CC (which from now on Im gonna refer to as "Modular Character Creation" tho that term probably already exists) cuz that way I can easily just apply the new rules to my current games
btw, you don't hate numbers if you play 5e. It's still way up there on the complexity scale compared to most TRPGs.
It’s literally just 4e essentials, you know the tu in t people hated about the latter half of 4e lifecycle?
I am playing D&D 4th edition since 2008 and I have none of the issues you have discussed :) .
One thing about the amount of character choices in 5e that one guy brought up is that it depends a ton on what class you play. Spellcasters in general always have a lot more options than most other characters due to the fact that every level they can at the very least pick what spells they want to learn. And even among Non-casters it can depend a lot on the subclass. For example most Barbarians are pretty straightforwards, but say stuff like the Rune Knight or Battle Master Fighter provide a number of options even within the subclass.
It's kind of nice because the thing is that in 4e, you have almost every class being equally complicated as each other, which means that it's hard to recommend an 'easy' class for newer players. Whereas in 5e you have a wide variety of complexity in classes, allowing for players that want a simpler experience to play simpler classes and those that want a deeper one to not only pick a more complex class, but to also dip their toes in things like multiclassing, and I love how well 5e supports multiclassing.
GOOD AFTERNOON NOTIFICATION SQUAD
Hi
Mornin for me
Good night notification squad.
"Yawn"
oy
"each of the monsters are just as complex as a PC". Wow, you just decided to straight up lie, huh?
NPCs in 5e are so simple*.
*Unless they've got spellcasting...
Even then they're more simple than any other WotC edition versions mate.
@@JimothyTheGreen "More simple" is not "simple". I'd argue that spellcasting NPCs are more of a pain to run than a 4e monster. I love the 5e NPC stat blocks, but WOTC messed up by pulling so hard away from the ability system in 4e (at least as far as providing interesting monsters).
@@quest900I could not disagree more. Look to basic D&D for actual simple characters, magic-users and clerics included dude.
@@JimothyTheGreen Running spellcaster npcs with even 4 spells that do more than flat damage in 5e is objectively far far far far more information to track and manage than any 4e statblock in the monster manual. Many 5e spells are designed to provide complexity and nuance to players seeking those options, and the DM having to manage all that while flipping to information on what a monster does *in another book* is far more intense than a 4e stat block.
@@danfelder8062 Okay but I think you're being disingenuous because you're comparing a 5e character sheet to a 4e monster stat block and you're ignoring everything else about 4e that complicates the system and combat far more than that of 5e.
So, you've never played the system, started at level 8 with new characters and are surprised that combat was slow? 4th is the most unique version of D&D and if it's run by a know hater of 4e, you can rest assured all of the worst aspects of the rule set will be highlighted. If you're going to give people a taste of 4e, start at level 1 - it is the only edition that has playable level 1 characters. Learn the system while the combats have fewer moving parts and you will all have a better understanding of the strengths of this rule set. 5e is the rule set of voice actors and story tellers while 4e is for players that like a more balanced team based combat system. I have played all the editions, I like them all, but I think 4th is the best. It figured out how the mechanics of how the world works - you can roleplay any way you want in any system. 5e is second as it learned a few things from 3.5 and 4.
So much THIS. Nearly every time I hear complaints about 4e, it is because of an improperly applied mechanic or something similar. Of course the game won't seem fair if you use the rules wrong. Imagine checkers if one person moves like a knight, and now cannot be touched by any of the other pieces.
I hate the other editions mainly because of all the LYING people have done about 4e. Puffin is no exception (hybriding is the only way to multiclass). As you said, this was blatant sabotage to make it miserable and confusing.
Ya @ the 3 min mark I stopped the video. I'm going to be honest, I dont really care for 4th, it was actually my first edition that I played as a full fledge player, and not as a child doing theater of the mind with the GM doing the dice rolling for us. 4th has alot of traits that make it diffrent than all the other editions, for some people they are a pro and other they are a con. Forgive me it's been like 8 years since I played 4e(still have the 1st core 3), but the system, especially the combat system makes me think of more of a cross between a co op board game with ability tiles, a video game, and "normal" dnd. After I did 4e I did 3.5, and then 5e. I disagree that 4e is the only one where lvl 1's are playable, rather they feel most like full fledge adventures, and if you only got to play a lvl 1 one shot 4e is the best for that. Something else that 4e did great was actually make the martial classes feel in the same ballpark as the full casters. Like I'm still pissed that the tome of battle from 3.5 wasnt fully incorporated in the martial classes for both 4th and 5th. Like 4th isnt bad it's just diffrent, it was trying to modernize dnd and be a retort to pathfinder, and to be honest it for the most part succeeded. The main problem it had was nerds don't like their toys messed with a bunch, and 4th really alterd the wheel. That said, of the people who love 5th talk shit about 4th they dont know what they are talking about.
4th edition is a great miniature skirmish boardgame. It's just not nearly as good of a role playing game.
It's more like Mordheim than like any other DnD edition.
I've never got the 4e is bad for role play sentiment, it's still a game where you role play but it has mechanical things to give your actions more weight than advantage or disadvantage.
So gonna be that guy and hit on points that made me scratch my head in terms of criticism to the system. Because frankly, 4e has issues, but a lot of this seems much more like issues with how the game was run than with the system itself.
1) You all started at level 8 so are immediately jumping into the system with 5 feats and multiple encounter and daily *and* at a point in the game where certain enemies gain more advanced abilities to keep pace for difficulty.
2) This is a one shot session 1 with a bunch of assorted characters with no defined roles in the team dynamic...8 levels into character progression.
3) This is Dark Sun which is a pretty notoriously brutal setting.
4) The encounter design from what I see is completely haphazard and is not properly balanced in terms of what enemies are being used if you feel the need to "cut out certain abilities" due to it already being too much. Honestly sounds like you dropped multiple elites into the same encounter when those are supposed to be boss level monsters that can potentially handle combats solo with maybe some minions sprinkled in (also using enemies from lower levels instead of the minion rules which is what minions are for: to be the filler enemies that can attack with numbers; lower level enemies are meant to be the enemies for lower levels, not mooks for higher levels).
5) Apparently there is a rules misunderstanding with how powers work, namely thinking you can only use one encounter power per encounter which is completely wrong. Otherwise leader roles could only ever either use their healing class ability or an encounter power but not both. Any encounter power, like a "once per short rest" ability in 5e, can be used once per encounter so you can use multiple of them per encounter.
6) Seems like the majority of gripes about the powers (not being able to use the same encounter twice and being "forced" to use one and/or the other like with spells and spell slots) are coming from people specifically playing the traditional casters. That goes back to the simplification of the system for newer players as well as a means to balance the power between casters and non-casters - the level 8 wizard doesn't just have a laundry list of spells to invalidate everyone else in the party, and now the level 8 fighter can actually do stuff beyond "I move here and attack with my weapon X number of times" and can have an active effect on the battle beyond damage and being a block of meat and steel.
7) Also with the mention of missing "vague but roleplay-able" effects of spells/powers like Grease, those do still exist in 4e. They aren't available to everybody (but then again neither are some spells in 3.5/5e) but powers that have a tangible effect on the battlefield with utility purposes and not outright "damage plus some debuff"...in fact Grease is literally still an available power in 4e and actually does more than it does in 5e (like making enemies actually slip and slide on the grease).
8) Jocat bringing up the vagueness of spells like Grease, specifically about it being "potentially flammable," is an odd point to make because the complaint before was about powers being firmly defined in a combat sense, being too rigid, but them the earlier complaint was about things being "too much" and too bloated/complicated and laughing at the idea of this being a simplified edition...so what exactly is the criticism? Is it that the powers performed don't give room to have utility purposes? Because that's not a 4e thing; that's just called DM fiat, and that's been a thing since D&D existed and still is a thing in 5e. Case in point, Grease in 5e says nothing about the grease being flammable just like Ray of Frost says nothing about it being able to freeze a puddle of water...is your argument that 5e somehow lets you make a point to let you make those interpretations so you can set the grease on fire or use the Ray of Frost to freeze a fleeing bad guy's ankles in water in place whereas 4e doesn't? Because there's no rule in 4e to deny that anymore than in 5e, so maybe it's the DM that's the one being too rigid, same as if the DM ruled Grease isn't flammable because the spell doesn't say it is.
You get the point. 4e has its flaws for sure, but this honestly felt like an exercise designed to fail by people either overly confident in their ability to just plug and play and make it work (and doing so playing really weird and advanced stuff like a Vampire and a Psion, in a pretty unbalanced party) or just unwilling to give 4e a fair shake. Because really, you guys are very much new or at least needing a serious refresher based on what I saw...now imagine if I took 5-6 new players as a green DM to 5e and just dropped them all at level 8 and had 3 of them playing a Bard, Wizard, and Druid and make them share their thoughts after their first encounter. It would probably be overwhelming, the group wouldn't have an established dynamic, and it would have been a slog, which means 5e looks rough by no real fault of its own.
Starting even at level 2 (with a second feat and the first utility power) would give a fair assessment of how 4e works, as opposed to 3 levels away from choosing a Paragon Path and gaining essentially an entirely new subclass. You would have the ability to fairly assess the flow of combat without being bogged down by choices and a litany of statuses and buffs/debuffs and taken the time to actually RP, get into character, establish relationships, y'know...things that still exist in 4e yet people act like they don't. This group may be able to strike up a one shot of 3.5 or 5e due to collective experience with those editions, but genuinely believe that's not the case with 4e and shouldn't have been.
I agree with you and I also wrote up a similar breakdown on PF's other 4e video but its just a waste of time. He, and the other "D&D" RUclipsrs in this don't care about facts, they care about riding the popular opinion that 4e is stinky bad evil trash and so they never intended to give it a fair shake. Especially PF who proved both in his 4e Retrospective and in the real play that he actively refused to actually read the rules. And then the masses clap and repeat the factually wrong opinions because funny youtube man is an authority instead of people who have actually been playing a game for a decade plus.
If PF had given a hoot about this being fair he would have used one of the plethora of level 1 or 2 one shots that 4e already has and given everyone the prebuilt characters that come with them. But that will never happen when there clicks to be earned by cementing the zeitgeist.
Thank goodness this was posted, because I need my puffin fix but I’m not gonna be able to rewatch the latest horror story one without some serious anxiety. It was really good! Just so real...
You can't listen to an RPG story without getting scared?
I always felt that 5e was just a little bit of an over reaction to 4e. I just feel they went just a touch to far with the simplifying.
in what way? 5e brought a new golden age.
@@darkening1093 Yes it did, I never said it was a bad system.
As far as "in what way". The character customization. There are a lot of books at this point but even so every decision on creation and level up is for the most part on rails. 5e feels like the railroading version of game systems
The one thing I wish they kept was “at-will powers” it would have been so nice for martial characters to have more options than “I hit the guy”
@@darkening1093 5e benefited from RUclips, Stranger Things, and people who'd tired of Pathfinder's bloat. If ever there was a Golden Age of D&D, it's probably the AD&D into 2E era with loads of settings, computer games of multiple genres, and a freaking broadcast TV cartoon. That era also saw book & adventure/magazine sales in comic shops & bookstores small & large around the world.
@@mandisaw Not gonna lie. After playing 5e for the past few years, I've been asking myself if the bloat was really an issue at all. I just feel so restricted in 5e and I miss the options and complexity of pathfinder.
I think the best way to see if you like/dislike 4e is to play from start vs play at 8th. The reason why is because you would have limited abilities, they would cause you to understand what you are doing and why, then as combat became more and more complicated you would understand what your choices are. You end up with a go to cycle of abilities with a few hold outs for just in case, etc. As it is you and your players were overwhelmed. It helps to take time to learn your character and what they do best, then get complicated. I personally enjoyed the times I played 4e, lots of customization, fun combat (imo).
4e was suposed to come with an online session simulator. It's a shame that it was never meant to be.
Hey Puffin, a while ago I went through your channel and added spanish subtitles to some of your dnd stories, this was shortly before RUclips got rid of the option to submit more community captions, not sure if the ones from before are still there, but if they are, it would be really cool if you approved them.
So, five minutes in, and I disagree with almost everything being said.
1) 5e monsters are not simpler than 4e character. As stated -- 2 passives and 2 attack options make up most of 5e monsters ... which is true of 4e (though passives are actually rarer until paragon). Exceptions are controller types (which are supposed to have extra tricks up their sleeves) and elite and solo variations, which are supposed to replace multiple foes.
2) Combat in 4e is slower? If it is, it is because of interesting decision being made. I'm running a 4e game and playing in a 5e game, and both have "short" thirty minute fights alongside full session combat. The difference is, in 5e we pretty much just do the same thing (though I try to change the flavor of my actions), whereas in 4e players take time to make decisions. If I'm going to be spending minimum 30 minutes in combat, I'd rather have it be over an hour of interesting decisions than 30 minutes of exactly what we did last time.
3) "Can only do spell casting if you have Ritual Casting." No, you can only cast Rituals if you have Ritual Casting. It's like thaumaturgy/evocation separation in the Dresden Files. Every spell caster can fling spells around, but it takes a more focused mind to learn rituals.
4) Starting at level 8 to give more encounter options was ... odd. Every class gets 2 at will options, so every turn there should already be a decision between 2 abilities, plus the choice to use the limited-resource abilities. It seems you increased the "overwhelming" issue to push an advantage that was already present.
Pretty sure there was more, but that's what stuck out to me. Honestly 4e is like every other edition of D&D: Deeply flawed, but with enough framework to make it work at your table.
does anyone know what program they're using to play