4e made making decisions in combat meaningful, and those decisions impacted subsequent encounters too. In my longest campaign for 5e I played a human fighter with high Dexterity and a Rapier. Combat was SO boring for me. It became a joke at the table that my character was nickname "attack nearest"
Games worth considering for interesting combat - to me, one of the major feature of combat is the ordering of action (and its disconnection between order of speaking at the table, and order of action in the fiction): Blade of the Iron Throne (really a must try, though there is a learning curve), 4e obviously, Lace & Steel, Flashing Blades, definitely Runequest 2nd edition, Bushido.
imo, the real mistake they made with 4e was completely replacing 3e and leaving all the 3e fans with no option. That may seem obvious in hindsight, since this propelled Pathfinder to great success, but consider what happened in the early days of D&D. Gygax introduced Advanced D&D not as a replacement for the original rules, but as an optional alternative. As it turned out, that was smart, because both Advanced and Basic had massive parallel followings, which may not have happened the same way if at some point one system replaced the other, even tho the two weren't as different as 3e and 4e. The whole concept of two versions of the game was abandoned with 3e, but they should have used 4e to revive it. Again imo. At the time 4e came out, I hadn't been playing 3e very long, and I just couldn't understand why they would make such a drastic change, and neither apparently could a large percentage of the fan base. Having it as a variation, a "new Basic" as it were, would have made a lot more sense, since in effect that was what it was. But as I said, that's in hindsight. Woulda coulda shoulda. Maybe they'll listen to me (ha!) and revive it again someday in just this way. Like you say, it wasn't all bad, regardless of popular opinion back then (or now ftm).
No I think that's exaxtly thr issue. If 4th had been marketed as it's own new rpg in the dnd universe I genuinely think it would have been really enjoyed and appreciated by people.
I mean ... Quick way to lose your head in combat but hey. Some characters have a death wish 😆 I think it is more about fleshing out the imaginary fight. I mean we are already sitting around playing make believe with rules and math rocks. Why is THAT the line ? 🤣
I still run 4E, and it's a perfectly good RPG. Supports players actually roleplaying by getting out of the way and supplying skill challenges when required.
@@DesksAndDorks It seems to be the character generation got them all angry--because 5E is very basically 4E with 3.5E's chargen and treasure. So it's not really the systems. And I've never found _any_ version of D&D to be particularly good at supporting roleplaying over rollplaying apart from some versions having interpersonal skills.
@@DesksAndDorks Deliberately. :P They wanted the changes of 4E but make it look like 3.5E. Worked, too. At-will==cantrip, spell shapes on the battlemat, that sort of thing. Me, the changes to 4E were good, so I've kept them. Of course, the playtest results weren't included for cost reasons, so what we got was a beta version of 4E. That pretty well torpedoed it from the start. Character creation as is is too complex, but that's easy to fix--tedious, but easy; make spells/abilities work the same levelled way magic items do.
@@DesksAndDorks A design decision--and noted as a mistake by one of the devs to leave it out of the DMG--was to allow roleplaying to be freeform and not stick rules all over it. If you want to roll there's the Skill Challenge mechanic. Don't need more than that.
It's perfectly fine as an RPG too. D&D in general doesn't do a whole lot to support roleplaying mechanically and 4e actually has some of the best written lore books in the entire DND catalog.
@@Jeebus-un6zz I disagree here. Mainly because the mechanics don’t support roleplay, and I can take any game in the world and simply add roleplay to it if I’m not expecting mechanics to support roleplay, therefore, I only consider something a roleplay game if it has mechanics specifically for supporting roleplay. Otherwise it is no different than any boardgame out there. Additionally, the mechanics are very gamist, and often ignore the infinitely varied world the characters are in. They are clearly designed such that the only options players are expected to use are the ones on their character sheets. There is very little room to step back from the mechanics and consider how these options would actually work within the fictional world rather than just within the confines of the mechanics. Minions for example, everything about minions makes zero sense from an in-character perspective. Those mechanics are pure gamist mechanics. If I’m playing a war game, a strategy game, a boardgame, then that’s fine, but I play rpgs to escape such confines, not to play within them.
@@DesksAndDorks perhaps great minds think alike 😄 I’ll share a house rule with you that we’ve developed: Complications & Consequences Complication: 1) fail a check by a narrow margin 2) ask the DM for a complication 3) the DM comes up with one 4) you make accept or refuse 5) if you accept, succeed 6) if you refuse, you may fail OR 7) go Double or Nothing Double or Nothing: 1) fail a check 2) spend an HD to reroll 3) success? Tell us how you did it 4) fail? Unavoidable severe complication
The ideas behind this are many and varied but include pushing your roll, near misses, and a desire to maintain player agency in a way I first heard described by Bandit’s Keep
this is my first video on the channel so i took the voice fully at face value
i loved it tho
Honestly that just made my morning
4e made making decisions in combat meaningful, and those decisions impacted subsequent encounters too. In my longest campaign for 5e I played a human fighter with high Dexterity and a Rapier. Combat was SO boring for me. It became a joke at the table that my character was nickname "attack nearest"
I would agree with the assessment if 5e. I've said it before, but if 4e had been its own skirmish game people would have loved it.
Also "attack nearest" is hilarious
Games worth considering for interesting combat - to me, one of the major feature of combat is the ordering of action (and its disconnection between order of speaking at the table, and order of action in the fiction): Blade of the Iron Throne (really a must try, though there is a learning curve), 4e obviously, Lace & Steel, Flashing Blades, definitely Runequest 2nd edition, Bushido.
I have not even heard of blade of the iron throne consider that added to my list of games to check out!
I enjoy watching/listening your videos. Keep up the good work. They help spark my curiosity for writing.
Glad you're enjoying it man! I'm trying my best to keep plugging away and making new stuff.
600 mg of caffeine?! I once took 250 and had to hold on to my bed for fear of flying off.
I don't think it was actually 600 MG but I could hear color.
The intro made me think I was on lazerpig's channel for a minute 😂
imo, the real mistake they made with 4e was completely replacing 3e and leaving all the 3e fans with no option. That may seem obvious in hindsight, since this propelled Pathfinder to great success, but consider what happened in the early days of D&D. Gygax introduced Advanced D&D not as a replacement for the original rules, but as an optional alternative. As it turned out, that was smart, because both Advanced and Basic had massive parallel followings, which may not have happened the same way if at some point one system replaced the other, even tho the two weren't as different as 3e and 4e. The whole concept of two versions of the game was abandoned with 3e, but they should have used 4e to revive it. Again imo. At the time 4e came out, I hadn't been playing 3e very long, and I just couldn't understand why they would make such a drastic change, and neither apparently could a large percentage of the fan base. Having it as a variation, a "new Basic" as it were, would have made a lot more sense, since in effect that was what it was. But as I said, that's in hindsight. Woulda coulda shoulda. Maybe they'll listen to me (ha!) and revive it again someday in just this way. Like you say, it wasn't all bad, regardless of popular opinion back then (or now ftm).
No I think that's exaxtly thr issue. If 4th had been marketed as it's own new rpg in the dnd universe I genuinely think it would have been really enjoyed and appreciated by people.
My group uses failing upwards but we call it a devil's bargain
Why do we have to roleplay combat? What if I want to roleplay a dog sniffing poop? What then?
I mean no judgement but I'm very curious as to why
I mean ... Quick way to lose your head in combat but hey.
Some characters have a death wish 😆
I think it is more about fleshing out the imaginary fight.
I mean we are already sitting around playing make believe with rules and math rocks.
Why is THAT the line ? 🤣
Honestly an rpg about fictional doggy daycare would go hard. What are the rules for cleaning cereberus messes.
I still run 4E, and it's a perfectly good RPG. Supports players actually roleplaying by getting out of the way and supplying skill challenges when required.
I do enjoy 4e for its systems cool to know that there are still people playing it.
@@DesksAndDorks It seems to be the character generation got them all angry--because 5E is very basically 4E with 3.5E's chargen and treasure. So it's not really the systems.
And I've never found _any_ version of D&D to be particularly good at supporting roleplaying over rollplaying apart from some versions having interpersonal skills.
@thekaxmax I wasn't going to say anything but yeah 4e and 5e feel very similar in many ways
@@DesksAndDorks Deliberately. :P They wanted the changes of 4E but make it look like 3.5E. Worked, too.
At-will==cantrip, spell shapes on the battlemat, that sort of thing.
Me, the changes to 4E were good, so I've kept them. Of course, the playtest results weren't included for cost reasons, so what we got was a beta version of 4E. That pretty well torpedoed it from the start. Character creation as is is too complex, but that's easy to fix--tedious, but easy; make spells/abilities work the same levelled way magic items do.
I like 4e as a combat game, but not as an rpg. Just saying.
Again i think if it wasn't attached to the dnd name and was it's own thing people would like it more. But yeah as a combat game it slaps.
@@DesksAndDorks A design decision--and noted as a mistake by one of the devs to leave it out of the DMG--was to allow roleplaying to be freeform and not stick rules all over it. If you want to roll there's the Skill Challenge mechanic. Don't need more than that.
@@DesksAndDorks Totally agree with that
It's perfectly fine as an RPG too. D&D in general doesn't do a whole lot to support roleplaying mechanically and 4e actually has some of the best written lore books in the entire DND catalog.
@@Jeebus-un6zz I disagree here. Mainly because the mechanics don’t support roleplay, and I can take any game in the world and simply add roleplay to it if I’m not expecting mechanics to support roleplay, therefore, I only consider something a roleplay game if it has mechanics specifically for supporting roleplay. Otherwise it is no different than any boardgame out there.
Additionally, the mechanics are very gamist, and often ignore the infinitely varied world the characters are in. They are clearly designed such that the only options players are expected to use are the ones on their character sheets. There is very little room to step back from the mechanics and consider how these options would actually work within the fictional world rather than just within the confines of the mechanics. Minions for example, everything about minions makes zero sense from an in-character perspective. Those mechanics are pure gamist mechanics.
If I’m playing a war game, a strategy game, a boardgame, then that’s fine, but I play rpgs to escape such confines, not to play within them.
Ohhhhhh. TTRPG combat. I thought this was gonna talk about how boring turn based combat like Dragon Quest is.
Ye, although I guess technically ttrpg combat is mostly turn based? But yeah you're looking at games of the board variety.
🥳🫂👍🏿
Interesting combat is interesting - I got the Fantasy AGE book specifically for the spells and stunts 👍🏿
Then you made an excellent choice. The stunt system is spectacular.
@@DesksAndDorks perhaps great minds think alike 😄 I’ll share a house rule with you that we’ve developed: Complications & Consequences
Complication:
1) fail a check by a narrow margin
2) ask the DM for a complication
3) the DM comes up with one
4) you make accept or refuse
5) if you accept, succeed
6) if you refuse, you may fail OR
7) go Double or Nothing
Double or Nothing:
1) fail a check
2) spend an HD to reroll
3) success? Tell us how you did it
4) fail? Unavoidable severe complication
The ideas behind this are many and varied but include pushing your roll, near misses, and a desire to maintain player agency in a way I first heard described by Bandit’s Keep
@TwinSteel I ADORE it. Well done!
@@DesksAndDorks thank you very much - we should share house rules some time - this video was #2349 on my House Rule Quest playlist