In a very long running campaign, we had an Elf Ranger, a Minataur Fighter, and my Eladrin Wizard. I had Rogue Multiclass feats, so I was sneaky and could open locks. We didn't have the Leader role, but we made it to level 14. Really fun campaign, and basically the first time I ever got to play and not DM for about 20 years. Multiclassing in 4E got a lot of heat also. I think it's great.
4e even had 2 differwnr multi classing. Normal feat based one and hybrid. Pathfinder 2 pretty much just took over the 4e normal multi classing (just less powerfull) And 13th age took the hybrid one (but streamlined it a bit) . So ir camt be that bad when other games copied it ;)
Another point worth mentioning along these lines is how Clerics in particular are actually more flexible and varied both in combat and in leveling than they were in previous editions. They always have their Healing Word, sure, but it kind of stays in the background as a minor action so they can have more to do even at low levels than just wait for someone to take damage. They have a range of options to choose from as a front line weapon user, ranged prayer-caster, or exclusive support/healer, and they’ll still have that baseline function of healing without feeling forced to ignore other things.
I really loved thqt in all the leaders. You are not a healbot. You can heal but a limited number of times and you do it on the siee your main action is foe soing something cool on your own!
Thanks for posting these vids. My exposure to 4e was brief and didn't leave me with a good taste in my mouth. That could have come down to my mindset at the time, the DM who was running the game or any other number of factors. Point is that though I've said for years that 4e just didn't work for me, I fully accept that my knowledge of it is far too shallow to give an informed opinion on the system as a whole. This is really helping to develop that blind spot for me.
I went through something similar with 2nd Edition AD&D. As I've always said, not every edition will be to everyone's taste and that's okay. We're all gamers here!
I like how different classes have different approaches to the different roles... Defenders in particular are sweet in their differences . I think there might be more roles the Warlords approach is so vastly different than other leaders.
I feel like the defenders had the best defined role with the most divers differenr specific mechanics, while the controller lacked a clear controller mechanic they were defined over their abilities. I also liked some of the later strikers though. Monk was really differenr as an example with more mobility and area damage focus
They say they feel they're shoehorned in, with an emphasis on "feel". The way 4e presented character roles made it sound (and perhaps play, never played 4e so idk) like it's the only thing you do, maybe unless you're a hybrid class. (Sidenote: you might enjoy Final Fantasy 14 TTRPG that came out recently. It's clearly made by 4e fans.)
@@mslabo102s2 Well even if you had a role like leader oe controller oe defender you would still do damage as one example. Alao different classes were differenr good in secondary roles. Like an elementalist sorcerer can be good as secondary controller if they choose the ice elemental or they can choose fire and focus more on damage. There was still lot of choice involved in how to play a class. Itw just you have 1 role qkd all the tools to make aure you can do that job but you can and will eo also other things. Also there are different ways to fulfill that job. A warlord might be lazy and not attack themselves or fight in the frontline with the others. A wizard can try to debuff the steongest (single) enemies with strong spells or controll the battlefield with creation of damaging zones.
I have some fondness for 4E, as the first ttrpg I played or ran. I wouldn't go back to it - I think the positives are better captured in other systems, particularly Pathfinder 2E, and I've moved away from very combat-centric rpgs in general.
I had a very bad introduction to it when 4e first came out. Played 5 games the first week of release with "official" dnd dms and had such a terrible time as they hard pushed for all of us to buy the books multiple times during the badly directed adventure. Liked the dragonborn but didn't like the push of tieflings and no aasimars.
I really appreciate you bringing the receipts here. I think you’re misrepresenting the need for roles in early editions slightly. When an old module tells you to bring a thief/rogue, it is always because of the need for their special abilities concerning locks, traps, pockets, climbing, sneaking, thieves were not strikers and fighters consistently had better damage output than thieves.
True, I didn't go into enough explanation on the Rogue. Traps and locked treasure chests are still a big part of 4E. I think a better Role would be Utility characters, since many of the Striker classes also have an emphasis on skills that can be helpful outside of combat. Whether it's "mine sweeping" Rogues, or Rangers scouting ahead or setting Traps and ambush points. Skirmishers fill those roles well.
1e thieves were indeed not strikers they were just terrible *you had to design really stupid trap dungeons and the chance of failing was huge... they were just not competent at anything.
I dabbled in 4E and liked a lot of it , but the idea of Roles turned me off. It did seem to be trying to pigeon hole your character into acting a certain way, mainly in combat. And the labels seemed more fitting to starting up a soccer club than a fantasy adventuring party.
Well, I think some of the flak the fourth edition got came from revealing "how the sausage is made". The descriptions of classes you've read here got don't evoke characters from fantasy books, but rather combat assignments in a WoW raid. In contrast 5e descriptions sound more like someone praising heroes of a saga.
This time I think you got the main point wrong, unfortunately. Character roles in combat were definitely a 4e thing, at least up to when it was published. Nowadays, Pathfinder 2e has reprised the concept to some extent, even though not that strictly. Before that, classes were defined by their type of abilities, not what role they played in combat. There were classes good at fighting, classes good at using magic, classes with special abilities, and so on. Those were not "roles", but more fields of expertise, which might have been required or not during an adventure or a campaign. 2nd edition's class grouping actually fits this concept very well: you have combat abilities, arcane magic, divine magic, special skills, and, a bit later, psionic abilities. There is one thing I do not particularly like about 4e roles, that is their coming from the videogame world, especially the mmorpgs. This fact makes them quite not "realistic" when applied to a type of games that tends to portrait a living world. For example, in a realistic setting there can be no "defender" role, because it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to force an enemy to attack you instead of the squishy and extremely dangerous spellcaster behind you except by physically blocking its path. The "mark" mechanic 4e uses simply makes no sense in the reality of actual combat. In more than a decade passed DMing 2nd edition, it never happened that one or two fighters would be able to stop the enemies from attacking the other characters past them, unless they were blocking a narrow corridor. They were not defenders at all, because they had no other ways to prevent that from happening. But it was them who dealt most of the damage in combat, which by 4e standards would make them strikers, except they had formidable defenses and lots of hit points, so they weren't this role either. Actually, there were no defined strikers in 2e. Thieves had a backstab ability, but its meager damage output was based on the crappy weapons they used and was incredibly hard to pull out. Some wizards may have been played as a classical glass cannon, but it was not a defining characteristic of the class, more like the result of a specific set of rolls, equipment, and spell learned. And the same could be said about the other two roles, the leader and the controller. It all depended upon the build of certain characters, but even so, often it didn't reach the perfect fitting 4e gave to its classes. What is really bad in most modern editions of D&D and similar games is how much they are built around combat and combat only. Combat is what gives you experience, combat is what gives you riches, combat is what provides you with special equipment, and so on. And this is actually not 4e fault. It all started with 3.0, which monetized magic items and forced players and DMs to follow certain "expectations", such as having a definite amount of equivalent wealth at a certain level or gaining most if not all their experience points from standardized combat encounters.
Thanks for your perspective. Most of my DMing Experience comes from 3rd Edition forward so it's very helpful to hear from those with more hands on experience with the older editions.
I agree, every edition has strengths and weaknesses. Not every edition is going to appeal to everyone and that's okay. Like what you like and let others do the same. It really shouldn't be so difficult.
@@fingersmcoy I think there’s a case to be made not that 4e is objectively bad but that it’s misnamed. If it had been called Heroes & Hallways, there would have been more room for it to do its own thing, which it did very well. Wizards of the Coast obviously wasn’t going to do that because it would have sold a tiny fraction of what it did, but for a lot of people it made more sense to switch to Pathfinder as the “real” continuation of the D&D system.
@@DravenSwiftbow i got into this game to escape judgemental, rude people. it is an escape for me, and its a shame when the real world enters into what is supposed to be fantasy
@@fingersmcoy There are certainly elements taken from CRPGs, most obviously the 4e Defenders being like CRPG “tanks”. I think of 4e as an RPG/Board Game hybrid, which does have precedent in the earliest versions. It was a great system for my players, who were all high school students (including my daughter) with computer game experience but no previous table top experience.
In a very long running campaign, we had an Elf Ranger, a Minataur Fighter, and my Eladrin Wizard. I had Rogue Multiclass feats, so I was sneaky and could open locks. We didn't have the Leader role, but we made it to level 14. Really fun campaign, and basically the first time I ever got to play and not DM for about 20 years.
Multiclassing in 4E got a lot of heat also. I think it's great.
4e even had 2 differwnr multi classing. Normal feat based one and hybrid. Pathfinder 2 pretty much just took over the 4e normal multi classing (just less powerfull) And 13th age took the hybrid one (but streamlined it a bit) . So ir camt be that bad when other games copied it ;)
Love 4th edition! Keep the videos coming!
Another point worth mentioning along these lines is how Clerics in particular are actually more flexible and varied both in combat and in leveling than they were in previous editions. They always have their Healing Word, sure, but it kind of stays in the background as a minor action so they can have more to do even at low levels than just wait for someone to take damage. They have a range of options to choose from as a front line weapon user, ranged prayer-caster, or exclusive support/healer, and they’ll still have that baseline function of healing without feeling forced to ignore other things.
I really loved thqt in all the leaders. You are not a healbot. You can heal but a limited number of times and you do it on the siee your main action is foe soing something cool on your own!
Thanks for posting these vids. My exposure to 4e was brief and didn't leave me with a good taste in my mouth. That could have come down to my mindset at the time, the DM who was running the game or any other number of factors. Point is that though I've said for years that 4e just didn't work for me, I fully accept that my knowledge of it is far too shallow to give an informed opinion on the system as a whole. This is really helping to develop that blind spot for me.
I went through something similar with 2nd Edition AD&D. As I've always said, not every edition will be to everyone's taste and that's okay. We're all gamers here!
Dave we need to start up a 4E game, never played it, I want to scratch it off my bucket list!
Oh, we'll get there!
I like how different classes have different approaches to the different roles... Defenders in particular are sweet in their differences . I think there might be more roles the Warlords approach is so vastly different than other leaders.
I feel like the defenders had the best defined role with the most divers differenr specific mechanics, while the controller lacked a clear controller mechanic they were defined over their abilities. I also liked some of the later strikers though. Monk was really differenr as an example with more mobility and area damage focus
Hit the like before the video even started😅
Same!!😅
Why does the 4e art look so similar to PF?
Because Pathfinder (especially pathfinder 2) did steal lot of inspiration from 4E.
They say they feel they're shoehorned in, with an emphasis on "feel". The way 4e presented character roles made it sound (and perhaps play, never played 4e so idk) like it's the only thing you do, maybe unless you're a hybrid class.
(Sidenote: you might enjoy Final Fantasy 14 TTRPG that came out recently. It's clearly made by 4e fans.)
@@mslabo102s2 Well even if you had a role like leader oe controller oe defender you would still do damage as one example. Alao different classes were differenr good in secondary roles. Like an elementalist sorcerer can be good as secondary controller if they choose the ice elemental or they can choose fire and focus more on damage. There was still lot of choice involved in how to play a class. Itw just you have 1 role qkd all the tools to make aure you can do that job but you can and will eo also other things. Also there are different ways to fulfill that job. A warlord might be lazy and not attack themselves or fight in the frontline with the others. A wizard can try to debuff the steongest (single) enemies with strong spells or controll the battlefield with creation of damaging zones.
I have some fondness for 4E, as the first ttrpg I played or ran. I wouldn't go back to it - I think the positives are better captured in other systems, particularly Pathfinder 2E, and I've moved away from very combat-centric rpgs in general.
I had a very bad introduction to it when 4e first came out. Played 5 games the first week of release with "official" dnd dms and had such a terrible time as they hard pushed for all of us to buy the books multiple times during the badly directed adventure. Liked the dragonborn but didn't like the push of tieflings and no aasimars.
I really appreciate you bringing the receipts here. I think you’re misrepresenting the need for roles in early editions slightly. When an old module tells you to bring a thief/rogue, it is always because of the need for their special abilities concerning locks, traps, pockets, climbing, sneaking, thieves were not strikers and fighters consistently had better damage output than thieves.
True, I didn't go into enough explanation on the Rogue. Traps and locked treasure chests are still a big part of 4E. I think a better Role would be Utility characters, since many of the Striker classes also have an emphasis on skills that can be helpful outside of combat.
Whether it's "mine sweeping" Rogues, or Rangers scouting ahead or setting Traps and ambush points. Skirmishers fill those roles well.
@ Good point, and it helps to explain both why Warlocks can take Thievery and why it took so long to introduce the Slayer (Fighter Striker).
1e thieves were indeed not strikers they were just terrible *you had to design really stupid trap dungeons and the chance of failing was huge... they were just not competent at anything.
I dabbled in 4E and liked a lot of it , but the idea of Roles turned me off. It did seem to be trying to pigeon hole your character into acting a certain way, mainly in combat. And the labels seemed more fitting to starting up a soccer club than a fantasy adventuring party.
Whenever teamwork is involved its most efficient to have different roles. The teamplay was inspired by football which I think is nice.
Well, I think some of the flak the fourth edition got came from revealing "how the sausage is made". The descriptions of classes you've read here got don't evoke characters from fantasy books, but rather combat assignments in a WoW raid.
In contrast 5e descriptions sound more like someone praising heroes of a saga.
This time I think you got the main point wrong, unfortunately.
Character roles in combat were definitely a 4e thing, at least up to when it was published. Nowadays, Pathfinder 2e has reprised the concept to some extent, even though not that strictly.
Before that, classes were defined by their type of abilities, not what role they played in combat. There were classes good at fighting, classes good at using magic, classes with special abilities, and so on. Those were not "roles", but more fields of expertise, which might have been required or not during an adventure or a campaign.
2nd edition's class grouping actually fits this concept very well: you have combat abilities, arcane magic, divine magic, special skills, and, a bit later, psionic abilities.
There is one thing I do not particularly like about 4e roles, that is their coming from the videogame world, especially the mmorpgs. This fact makes them quite not "realistic" when applied to a type of games that tends to portrait a living world.
For example, in a realistic setting there can be no "defender" role, because it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to force an enemy to attack you instead of the squishy and extremely dangerous spellcaster behind you except by physically blocking its path.
The "mark" mechanic 4e uses simply makes no sense in the reality of actual combat.
In more than a decade passed DMing 2nd edition, it never happened that one or two fighters would be able to stop the enemies from attacking the other characters past them, unless they were blocking a narrow corridor. They were not defenders at all, because they had no other ways to prevent that from happening.
But it was them who dealt most of the damage in combat, which by 4e standards would make them strikers, except they had formidable defenses and lots of hit points, so they weren't this role either.
Actually, there were no defined strikers in 2e. Thieves had a backstab ability, but its meager damage output was based on the crappy weapons they used and was incredibly hard to pull out. Some wizards may have been played as a classical glass cannon, but it was not a defining characteristic of the class, more like the result of a specific set of rolls, equipment, and spell learned.
And the same could be said about the other two roles, the leader and the controller. It all depended upon the build of certain characters, but even so, often it didn't reach the perfect fitting 4e gave to its classes.
What is really bad in most modern editions of D&D and similar games is how much they are built around combat and combat only. Combat is what gives you experience, combat is what gives you riches, combat is what provides you with special equipment, and so on.
And this is actually not 4e fault. It all started with 3.0, which monetized magic items and forced players and DMs to follow certain "expectations", such as having a definite amount of equivalent wealth at a certain level or gaining most if not all their experience points from standardized combat encounters.
Thanks for your perspective. Most of my DMing Experience comes from 3rd Edition forward so it's very helpful to hear from those with more hands on experience with the older editions.
i love first edition so much. but i dont get hating any edition. they are all good. its dungeons and dragons, how can it ever be bad?
I agree, every edition has strengths and weaknesses. Not every edition is going to appeal to everyone and that's okay. Like what you like and let others do the same. It really shouldn't be so difficult.
@@fingersmcoy I think there’s a case to be made not that 4e is objectively bad but that it’s misnamed. If it had been called Heroes & Hallways, there would have been more room for it to do its own thing, which it did very well. Wizards of the Coast obviously wasn’t going to do that because it would have sold a tiny fraction of what it did, but for a lot of people it made more sense to switch to Pathfinder as the “real” continuation of the D&D system.
@@DravenSwiftbow i got into this game to escape judgemental, rude people. it is an escape for me, and its a shame when the real world enters into what is supposed to be fantasy
@@joelpartee594 from what i have heard others say, 4e was the answer to the rush of role playing games like wow and such?
@@fingersmcoy There are certainly elements taken from CRPGs, most obviously the 4e Defenders being like CRPG “tanks”. I think of 4e as an RPG/Board Game hybrid, which does have precedent in the earliest versions. It was a great system for my players, who were all high school students (including my daughter) with computer game experience but no previous table top experience.