Source
r/DungeonsAndDragons•
Suope

[NEW] should I even start a 4E campaign?

So I'm a brand new player. I've played two sessions in two different campaigns, so that leaves my experience with the game at VERY close to zero.

I recently bought he 4E players handbook, monster manual and DM guide hoping to start a campaign with 4-5 other new players. To acquaint myself with the game, I've been skimming the manuals and listening to the dungeon masters block podcast.

I was somewhat aware of the 4E stigma, but when I looked into it I found a Reddit page full of people saying "I started with 4E and it was awesome" and "4E is my favorite," etc. on the DM block podcast, the topic at the moment was that players/characters have to act rationally and fair to the other players/ be a coherent person in game. If not, they said, "go play 4E and do a bunch of combat". This worried me, so I looked into 4E more and found it was more combat oriented, and that combat was long and tedious.

Is 4E really that role-playing-less? Should I even start the campaign, or should I resell the books and invest in some 3.5 books?

EDIT: or invest in 5E

Posted Jan 16, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC · edited

29
SchopenhauersSon•

First off, it will be harder to find people to play 4e. 5e is the newish shiny and it's a great efition, so lots of people play it. 3.x is still really popular, too.

I'm a firm believer that you can have as much or as little RP in a D&D game as you want. When I played 3.0, there was zero rp, for example.

Play the edition you want and try not to listen to the edition warriors. Lots of people like 4e, but who talks about stuff they like when they're busy doing it?

8
SuopeOP•

Thanks for the response! I already have a group, so that's not a problem, and I sort of suspected I could do more role playing than combat If I just did more role playing than combat (go figure).

I guess I'll just get into it then; wish me luck as a new dm that's also new to the game.

3
SchopenhauersSon•

I'm excited for you!

If you feel like it, there's a REALLY good video series done by u/mattcolville about running D&D that's geared towards new DMs.

Running the Game: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlUk42GiU2guNzWBzxn7hs8MaV7ELLCP_

I can't say how much he's helped me.

2
1D13•

4e had a lot of great features to it, and most of the "flaws" of long combats could be easily bypassed by a decent DM on the fly. I enjoyed 4e and still have all the books.

My only real issue with 4e is that the system requires min/maxing, understand that I know all D&D expects some level of min/maxing, but 4e actually punishes players for making roleplaying choices that are not in line with mechanical combat choices. And since most of 4e's rules are based around combat, then any suboptimal character choice is a hindrance in most of the dice rolls of the game.

In 5e a half orc wizard with no magic items is playable in the system all the way through level 20, with very little effects from that choice on your regular dice rolls. You'll be able to hit monsters of similar challenge rating to your level pretty much with the same odds as you level.

In 4e a half orc wizard with no magic items is useless once you hit paragon tier (level 10) or so, but you feel inferior from level 1 onward.

In 5e being +1 or 2 short of optimal isn't a huge deal, just pick a spell or two that the enemy must save against and you can not miss a +1 or +2 missing to your spell attack rolls.

However since 4e's math against AC and NADs is calculated the same, unlike 5e, then you are punished for every single suboptimal mechanical choice. 4e's challenge rating and leveling systems where monster defenses increase in regards to your level as well as the game rules taking into account all the magic items you should have, not necessarily the magic items you do have. After a few levels of suboptimal character choices you might find yourself needing dice rolls of 15+ to do anything in combat against monsters appropriate to your level which is less than a 25% hit chance.

How heroic will your wizard feel if your other players can hit on a 60%+ chance, all because the other player made optimal combat choices instead of roleplaying the character they wanted to make?

I am not saying 5e is better. Honestly my philosophy is "the best game is the one you have a group for." I liked 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e. There are popular games that I don't like and unpopular games that I love. To each their own.

I am just saying that 4e requires a familiarity of the system and willingness to take mechanical based choices for the sake of the rules over fun roleplaying choices. But some people prefer games like that. I know lots of roleplayers, and board gamers that love games which can be "solved" and the adventure for them is to figure out how to game the game system.

What works for you is up to you and your group.

4
SuopeOP•

Funny you should say that (thanks for the detailed response btw), because here it is, the next day, and I've started to communicate with my group about making our characters. So far I think we have 3 bards, going for a metal band flavor.

I guess I'll just be wary of the rules and try to steer their builds in ways that replicate a more well rounded group, or else I guess I could make sure they have to deal with their group handicap in interesting/fun ways.

EDIT: some spelling

2
NT_ThirtyNine•

4e was the first edition me and my brothers played. It made sense and we enjoyed it.

Personally i dont like how few races and classes were available in each 4e PHB that made it expensive for us as new players.

Idk if it was just how we read the rules but we dont use tiled maps in 5e and it feels less contrived/rigid. We have found it easier to prepare and DM a 5e session. Also without a map we have been able to create more interesting encounters. (That may have come with experience)

2
Arkanis106•

Combat being "long and tedious" is a problem with shitty, inattentive players being on their phones. It will be just as bad in any edition.

That said, 4th is superior to 5th in every way - 5th is a stripped down, overly simplified, barebones version of 3.5 that is unsatisfying in every way. 3.5 and 4th are the only real versions to play. 3.5 unfortunately suffers from severe imbalance problems that 4th goes to great lengths to fix, but it's a more 'traditional' DnD style. Both are good, I prefer 4th because of balance and combat complexity.

4e has as much, or as little RPing as the group wants. Right now I'm in the early stages of a 5th campaign, and I have chosen a Druid for my class. I never play anything but Warrior types in games (Paladins as priority), and the only reason I'm a Druid, is because it seems to be the most complex class that 5th can dish out - and I'm still fucking bored out of my mind with how little you can do. I'll never be playing 5th DnD after this.

2
Dungrollio•

^ All of this is, of course, in THIS guy's opinion... I'm involved in 2 campaigns right now (3.5 and 5e) and I much prefer 5e over 3.5. Do some more research into which ones you pick, but keep in mind it really depends on what you/your party want to do. 3.5 is a lot more technical than 5e, while a lot of mechanics are streamlined in 5e (making it easier to learn).

Edit: I should also mention that these 2 campaigns are my first DnD games, and that may be why I prefer 5e over the more complex 3.5.

4
51Gunner•

I just started a campaign in 4e with some entirely new players. It's gone very well so far.

There's exactly as much roleplay in 4e as you want there to be. It's on you and your players to make opportunities to roleplay. Add some non-combat stuff between various combat encounters. Add interesting NPCs who give quests or run stores, etc.

There is a bit of fair criticism about 4E - a VERY large amount of the rulebooks and mechanics are focusing on combat, or skill challenges. Roleplaying stuff takes up just a very few slim pages. I think the creators focused most of their efforts on fleshing out the combat and guessed players would figure out the roleplay on their own.

1