To my mind Essentials just doesn't work.

It's simpler, but it doesn't make use of that simplicity to be more open.  In fact a lot of the more creative options for players, (such as rituals and stunt rules were stripped out of essentials).

In any case it wasn't that players had to make too many choices that was the problem in 4E.  It was that the game was set up so that players wanted to choose.  (Because those choices are significant).

The most meaningful choices to be made were the strategic choices made in character advancement - the tactical choices were of lesser importance unless you had a GM who was really creative with battlefield set-ups.

Essentials stripped out a lot of that strategic element but did absolutely nothing to move those strategic choices to the tactical realm.

It's why I'm tempted to strip back further - make whether your character can push someone, or attempt to blind them, or knock them over - a tactical choice you can make based on individual combat situations rather than a strategic choice made in character advancement.

Or in other words 4E makes creating a character that has a small range of tactics that can work in a team in response to the situations the GM throws at them a strategic puzzle to be solved.  (I can't help but think that miniatures games - where selecting the most appropriate team of character figures who synergise well together was a big inspiration on 4e - but of course in a miniatures game you have team not an individual character - and you can experiment with the makeup of the team from game to game.)

I'd prefer to have more versatile characters, and for the individual battlefield the pcs are face with to be the tactical puzzle to be solved.  (It seems to me that this better takes advantage of the particular strengths of rpgs as a medium).

Quote from: TJS;1103436To my mind Essentials just doesn't work.

It's simpler, but it doesn't make use of that simplicity to be more open.  In fact a lot of the more creative options for players, (such as rituals and stunt rules were stripped out of essentials).

In any case it wasn't that players had to make too many choices that was the problem in 4E.  It was that the game was set up so that players wanted to choose.  (Because those choices are significant).

The most meaningful choices to be made were the strategic choices made in character advancement - the tactical choices were of lesser importance unless you had a GM who was really creative with battlefield set-ups.

Essentials stripped out a lot of that strategic element but did absolutely nothing to move those strategic choices to the tactical realm.

It's why I'm tempted to strip back further - make whether your character can push someone, or attempt to blind them, or knock them over - a tactical choice you can make based on individual combat situations rather than a strategic choice made in character advancement.

Or in other words 4E makes creating a character that has a small range of tactics that can work in a team in response to the situations the GM throws at them a strategic puzzle to be solved.  (I can't help but think that miniatures games - where selecting the most appropriate team of character figures who synergise well together was a big inspiration on 4e - but of course in a miniatures game you have team not an individual character - and you can experiment with the makeup of the team from game to game.)

I'd prefer to have more versatile characters, and for the individual battlefield the pcs are face with to be the tactical puzzle to be solved.  (It seems to me that this better takes advantage of the particular strengths of rpgs as a medium).

Yeah, I think I agree with everything you said there. HoTFL/HoTFK just don't work for me, or for the players who already struggled with options. For them a PHB archer Ranger is much the best bet. I particularly hated how Essentials lost the AEDU design and lost the Rituals, among other 4e elements I liked for the sort of game 4e is.

I agree about tactical choices, though I think having listed "it just works" defined Power options in front of the players is good too. I guess players need their own copy of DMG page 42!

What always boggled my mind is the often quoted "all characters are the same" complaint leveled at 4e. I just don't get how that is possible? Despite all PHB classes having the AEDU resource, they all have different things that make them unique. As an experiment I made three Fighters from the PHB, no outside sources. Here's what I got:

Regdar, human Fighter. Str 18, Con 14, Dex 13, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 10. AC 17; Fort 17, Ref 12, Will 13. HP 29; Bloodied 14, surge value 7, surges/day 9. Exploits: at will - Cleave, Reaping Strike, Sure Strike; encounter - steel serpent strike; daily - brute strike; Feats: Blade Opportunist, Power Attack; Skills: Athletics +7, Endurance +6, Heal +7, Intimidate +5. Equipment: falchion, scale armor, javelins (3), adventuring gear.

Basically your kinda dumb brute, rushes in with a big sword and swings for lots of damage. Has little regard for his defenses and wants to overpower enemies fast, hence the Power Attack. He mitigates the penalty to attacks by positioning (I.e. Flanking) and/or Sure Strike exploit. For enemies he isn't near he'll lead with a javelin. Aside from the charging tactics, he likes to keep his enemies close, thus they can't escape so Steel Serpent does good here. His skills tend to favor his strength and he likes to engage with games of arms or physical prowess. He also knows basic field medic training.

Tordek, dwarf Fighter, Str 18, Con 15, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8. AC 20; Fort 16, Ref 12, Will 12. HP 30; Bloodied 15, surge value 7, surges/day 9. Exploits: at will - Cleave, Tide of Iron; Encounter- covering attack; daily - villain's menace; Feats: armor proficiency (plate); Skills: Athletics +6, Dungeoneering +2, Endurance +6, Intimidate +4; equipment: plate armor, heavy shield, battleaxe, handaxe (3), adventuring gear.

Tordek, a disciplined and trained warrior, knows that battles are won through composure, endurance, and steadfastness. Reckless and rash assaults are as likely get you killed as they get you fame. Because of his focus on tactics, he relies on his allies to do the bulk of the damage but helps to keep his enemies in position (with exploits like Tide of Iron). He wants to keep his enemies attacks focused on him but in turn make him harder to hit (plate armor prof.) And lastly his daily means he can be a deadly force for a whole battle. His natural skill at Dungeoneering helps navigate treacherous underground terrain.

Elenia, elf Fighter; Str 16, Con 13, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 10. AC 17; Fort 13 Ref 14, Will 13. HP 28 Bloodied 14, surge value 7, surges/day 8. Exploits: at will - Cleave, Sure Strike; Encounter - Passing Attack; Daily - Comeback Strike; Feats: Two-Weapon Fighting; Skills: Athletics +8, Endurance +5, Heal +6, Nature +5, Perception +3; Equipment: hide armor, rapier, short sword, longbow (20 arrows), adventuring gear.

This capricious elf maiden quite enjoys the thrill of Battle. She looks at it as a beautiful dance of deadly steel, always moving in the flow of combat and never slowing. Her blades attempt to find as many targets as she can find and usually starts battles with Passing Attack to mark multiple foes. She's also comfortable with filling her enemies with Fletcher arrows too. For an elf fighter she doesn't wear much armor, making her an easier Target for enemies to hit. She tries to mitigate some of this by using comeback strike, an exploit that boosts her resolve.

So all three of these characters are different in both how they're roleplayed and tactically played, all using one source. Even at 1st level I feel there is a lot of variation in the options they have, not even going into multiclass feats. So maybe it's just me?

Does it matter if they're all different if you're strongly discouraged from having all 3 in the same party?

Anyway it may be an oft quoted complaint - but it's not one I ever actually saw.  In the absence of an actual person making an actual complaint it's not really possible to know if you've adequately responded to anyone's actual concerns.

Quote from: TJS;1103442Does it matter if they're all different if you're strongly discouraged from having all 3 in the same party?

Not entirely sure why it would be discouraged? One guy is nearly a borderline Striker, the other makes sure that his buddy has a solid flanker, whilst the third uses both ranged attacks to mark enemies from farther away or also help in the flanking and ganking (and tanking?) They each have cleave, allowing for multiple opponents to take damage too.

But I suppose you'd want more diversity for a party, pretty much like every other edition pushes for. Three Fighters in a 3.5 game would be...very one sided in approaching obstacles that aren't easily defeated with Combat IMO.

Quote from: TJS;1103442Anyway it may be an oft quoted complaint - but it's not one I ever actually saw.  In the absence of an actual person making an actual complaint it's not really possible to know if you've adequately responded to anyone's actual concerns.

I've had personal arguments about a 'lack of options' and 'sameness' with both people in FLGS and at places like LARPing so...

Quote from: Batman;1103443Not entirely sure why it would be discouraged? One guy is nearly a borderline Striker, the other makes sure that his buddy has a solid flanker, whilst the third uses both ranged attacks to mark enemies from farther away or also help in the flanking and ganking (and tanking?) They each have cleave, allowing for multiple opponents to take damage too.

But I suppose you'd want more diversity for a party, pretty much like every other edition pushes for. Three Fighters in a 3.5 game would be...very one sided in approaching obstacles that aren't easily defeated with Combat IMO.

Well yes.  But you're the one trying to use 3 fighters to prove diversity not me.  If I wanted to make 3 4E fighters to prove diversity I'd use a Ranger, a Warlord, or a Fighter - because all of them fit easily into the "Fighter" mold of other editions.  From that perspective 4E is probably the best WOTC edition to have a Fighter dominated low magic party.

After all, half the classes in the 4E PHB were non-magical.  Something that is certainly not true of 5E

Quote from: Batman;1103443I've had personal arguments about a 'lack of options' and 'sameness' with both people in FLGS and at places like LARPing so...

Sounds very vague.  Maybe if you ask them to come and post here we can judge if you've successfully responded to their complaints.  Or better yet we can ask them.  (Although we'd probably - to be really sure - have to get them to actually play these characters through a game and see if they feel sufficiently diverse - I can't even remember what the powers you listed actually do so your point is lost on me - and, I presume, just about everyone else on this forum).  Absent that?

I mean I imagine that the main complaint would be probably more be something about all classes using the same kind of resource management (WOTC seemed to think so given that this is what they played around with in regard to both the psionics system and later the essentials classes) but I don't really care.

I'm really not sure why you're re-prosecuting a decade old edition war in response to complaints from random people elsewhere.

Quote from: Batman;1103402Despite the continued success of 5e I'd still rather DM or play 4e. They both have their strengths and I don't mind either, but for preferences it'll always be 4e.

Good point. Before 5e came along, I preferred DMing 4e more than any other edition of D&D, or Pathfinder. Once 5e was released, the DM side became slightly easier, but I really missed all the cool player tactics at the table and the fun & unique monster abilities of 4e.

Creating a level 1 PC wasn't a problem. It was leveling them up. The numbers flow through so many values, that you almost have to remake the whole sheet every time you level up. And it becomes increasingly unwieldy to add new powers and feats to a hardcopy PC sheet once  you get past three or four powers/feats.

To be fair, I also find 5E has inherited the problem of handling spells in the same way - they have to be laboriously written out and revised every time you level up. Or else you use spell cards. That's the reasons some of my players will never run a full spellcaster in 5E - they don't want to deal with the paperwork. The problem with 4E is every PC ability for every class is essentially a spell, so the lack of an online tool or cards makes it a hassle to continually revise and update by hand on a hardcopy character sheet.

Of course, everyone has different definitions of hassle. Most of my group considers spending more than 10 minutes to level up a PC to be a hassle. It took 5 min to level up a 4E character using the online tool and then printing it out. Without the tool, it's more like 20 minutes to essentially recreate a character sheet every level as you calculate and revise close to a dozen values and look up, choose, and write out each new power and feat by hand.

Quote from: Robyo;1103447Good point. Before 5e came along, I preferred DMing 4e more than any other edition of D&D, or Pathfinder. Once 5e was released, the DM side became slightly easier, but I really missed all the cool player tactics at the table and the fun & unique monster abilities of 4e.

I miss having everything I need to run an encounter right in front my eyes. No bookmarks of monster manual pages. No lookups of spells or special abilities.

It's clear that 4E was the only edition of D&D that employed a User Experience professional.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103454Creating a level 1 PC wasn't a problem. It was leveling them up. The numbers flow through so many values, that you almost have to remake the whole sheet every time you level up. And it becomes increasingly unwieldy to add new powers and feats to a hardcopy PC sheet once  you get past three or four powers/feats.

Leveling up is pretty simple in 4e (+1/2 level to everything, add what the level up table says), but I will agree, you can't keep the powers in full detail on your sheet, you basically have to reference a book (which is why I only build out of the PH).

Quote from: Haffrung;1103458I miss having everything I need to run an encounter right in front my eyes. No bookmarks of monster manual pages. No lookups of spells or special abilities.

It's clear that 4E was the only edition of D&D that employed a User Experience professional.

   I may be speaking as an Unclean Non-D&D Fan, but I really think that the game has been handicapped in multiple ways by the early and strong tendency to conflate 'magic', 'spells,' 'spellcasting' and 'special powers.'

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103462Leveling up is pretty simple in 4e (+1/2 level to everything, add what the level up table says), but I will agree, you can't keep the powers in full detail on your sheet, you basically have to reference a book (which is why I only build out of the PH).

This is why I typed all my sheets up on Word and printed them when needed. Also why I cribbed the Monster layouts for making PC sheets.

Monster powers work are a pretty good shorthand that lets me put even epic level characters on a single sheet of paper.

For example, here's a fairly complex spell;

O Feast of Souls (1/day): Burst 1 within 10; +27 vs. Will; 1d8+22 psychic and dazed (save ends). Zone (ENT; sustain minor): difficult terrain and creatures take 25 cold damage if starts in or enters zone; move action to shift zone 2.

The "O" at the start is a checkbox when I put it in Word so you can easily mark off when you've used it.

4E never thrilled me but I know some who people love it still. 5E is popular now but it is not my "go to" game. I prefer older systems and retro clones. If you like 4E play it by all means. Make mine Labyrinth Lord, Wizards' World or some such. 4E was dead on arrival to me.

BTW some 4e books still rank around the 40,000 mark on the Amazon Best Seller list. Like the MM for example (which is 40,053 as I write this). That's right around where ZWEIHANDER Grim & Perilous RPG: Revised Core Rulebook ranks, and above Adventures in Middle Earth: Player's Guide by Cubicle 7.

Quote from: Chris24601;1103409It couldn't be called "Neverwinter Online: The RPG" because 4E came first by a wide margin (Indeed, the Neverwinter MMO wasn't even announced until after AFTER Essentials had hit the shelves in 2010 and didn't go live until 2012... it's also known that work on Neverwinter didn't begin until after Atari bought Cryptic in 2009, by which point 4E was already in its second year of release).

Cryptic cribbed from 4E (just like it did from Champions for its Champions MMO), not the other way around. Why do I know this? Because it was peripheral to City of Heroes and the Star Trek Online MMO at the time.

Then you have no idea of the lead times on MMO development.