Looking to get back into dnd 4e

[kurzio]

After running multiple games ,as well as playing them, of pf2, 5e, pf1 I got the itch to go back to 4e and realized I never GMed one even though I played a lot of it a decade ago.

 

That's why I'm looking for a 4e game to refresh my knowledge and feel more at ease with it before I run a game. So here is hoping there are still people who know about it and are interested XD

[Trigun]

4th Edition D&D was my very first D&D. So I'd love to play that myself again one day. I have fond memories of my first few PBP campaigns when I was in The Tangled Web. One of those games had to be moved here due to the site crashing, which is how I joined Myth Weavers. Sadly, I have no DM experience so I can't help there. But I'm always up for a 4e game.

[leons1701]

4e is getting harder and harder to run. Physical books contain a lot of errata, some of which is pretty significant. Character generation is difficult at best, unless you're one of the lucky people who can still get Hero Lab to work (the last update broke mine). Making sure everyone is using the same versions of powers, feats, classes, weapons, etc can be a time consuming chore. As much as I liked the edition, I've pretty much moved on at this point, it's just not worth the hassle.

[kurzio]

The community still keeps the character builder, iPlay4e, compendium running and much more.

 

So that isn't a big issue IMO

[leons1701]

Huh, did not know that, was never able to find anything all that useful. Unfortunately, any discussion of exact sites, etc would fall afoul of MW rules, guess I'll have to do a bit more hunting.

[CapKirk]

I really want to do either Keep on the Shadowfell or The Slaying Stone both set in the Forgotten Realms.

[kurzio]

I don't remember either (I believe most games I played were DM creations) so any campaign works for me.

Or do you mean play them as opposed to running it?

[CapKirk]

I want to play them.

 

[kurzio]

Let's wait to get a DM and then we can see what they have available ^^'

[yxanthymir]

I like DnD 4 ed, but it doesn't play very well in PBP. Battles take too long and there are a lot of stats to keep tracking. That is why I jumped into 13th Age. I consider it a fixed Dnd 4 ed, same feel, but faster battles, gridless combat, simpler gameplay and free SRD. In other words, better suited to PBP.

Edited February 27 by yxanthymir (see edit history)

[kurzio]

Yeah I played both over pbp and indeed 13th Age did fix a couple of things but to me what makes 4e so great is the tactical combat where you slide allies and foes around terrain detailed map.

And 13th Age doesn't deliver on that. On a sidenote was also disappointed by the generic Icons. Great idea, lackluster execution IMO.

Due to pbp giving you more time to post your turn and easy access to VTTs since you are already playing online, I don't feel that faster turns and gridless combat makes it better suited for pbp.

[yxanthymir]

1 hour ago, kurzio said:

Yeah I played both over pbp and indeed 13th Age did fix a couple of things but to me what makes 4e so great is the tactical combat where you slide allies and foes around terrain detailed map.

And 13th Age doesn't deliver on that. On a sidenote was also disappointed by the generic Icons. Great idea, lackluster execution IMO.

Due to pbp giving you more time to post your turn and easy access to VTTs since you are already playing online, I don't feel that faster turns and gridless combat makes it better suited for pbp.

You are right about icons, completely have to concede on this point, but the rest I totally disagree.

Good luck finding a GM!

[paula36]

On 2/25/2024 at 4:53 AM, leons1701 said:

4e is getting harder and harder to run. Physical books contain a lot of errata, some of which is pretty significant. Character generation is difficult at best, unless you're one of the lucky people who can still get Hero Lab to work (the last update broke mine). Making sure everyone is using the same versions of powers, feats, classes, weapons, etc can be a time consuming chore. As much as I liked the edition, I've pretty much moved on at this point, it's just not worth the hassle.

I've had only a short trip into 4e, but I liked it very much. I wasn't the GM, so I had the easy part, but for me 4e is the only consistent and logical D&D version. For a while, I entertained the idea of running a game, but my primary reason for not doing that is my inability to do make cool/nice tactical maps. Somehow I feel that it is very important, since tactical maps are unavoidable in 4e.

About the quote from leons: How about using just the 3 PHBs? I haven't delved into character balance and such, but are the basics so bad that they need serious corrections for enjoyable play?

Edited February 27 by paula36 (see edit history)

[kurzio]

There are character builders and such. Similar to PF2, the books are nice to have and read but most people don't use them as main source when actually playing a character.

I do agree on tactical maps tho. These are a crucial part of 4e.

[leons1701]

Well, PHB 1 alone had the Blood Mage, the Paragon Path so badly designed that they ended up nerfing it three times (at least) and rewrote basically every single ability the class had. It also had a bunch of broken magic items, the original battlerager fighter (so many temp hp it was nearly impossible to kill), a major hole in the math towards the end of each tier and other problems aplenty.

 

Anyhow, none of that is insurmountable, at least one of the fan compendiums is a solid enough work to be useable.