Thinking of trying 4e coming from 5e

[TheFryingPen]

Starting with a bit of background info:

What came up after our last 5e game was that our group might go for a combat heavy dungeon crawl. We were usually more fooling around enjoying our homebrew sandbox freedom and battles with little stakes, but after a pretty lethal fight gone right thanks to multiple 20s on death saves (facing odds which were stacked heavily against our favor because we didn't see the easy way out - fleeing), people seemed to have developed a taste for more complex fights (higher stakes, choices and position mattering more etc.).
Personally I played 3.5 more or less regularly for a year (with pretty hard encounters for me at that time), but everyone else is a 5e player only (our group's been playing since bit more than half a year now). I like 3.5 for some of it's intricacies, mechanics and content, but wouldn't really want to go back to it. So I was like "There were more combat mechanics in previous editions, but adapting them and keeping things balanced will be hard. Wouldn't it be nice to have a bit more complex 5e that isn't as daunting as 3.5e? Wait a second... I think we've forgotten something"

What I gathered from 4e was that it felt too game-y to many but actually had good balance and interesting combat. That being exactly what we're looking for now. I personally think 5e's combat is a bit too streamlined - it's fast, but it's hard to make it interesting for some classes. So I got myself a 4e PHB and skimmed through it. The rules are often more extensive, but also more clearly spelled out, every class has its at will / encounter / daily powers (which is awesome, I loathe 5e's long/short rest disparity), progression seems interesting with MCs, hybrids (?) magic items and feats not being optional/variant rules. There are more implications on movement and positioning, everyone's got surges to heal or otherwise spend in combat... There just seem to be more available and interesting options across the board.


tl;dr: I'm really drawn to 4e's rules and would like to try a game with this system. But I don't have any experience playing with them. And I'd have to pitch the system to my group.


So here, finally, are my questions:

• What are the "gotcha"s for the DM and the players?
• Would it be too hard to get into? By now the whole group's familiar with 5e's mechanics so I'd say it's basically a couple of rules more but I tend to quickly get acquainted with mechanics and others might take longer. Then again, we'd like a better combat experience and are willing to put some effort into it.
• How much of a hassle is handling character creation and progression? Can one reasonably build a character in a few hours and level up within 15-20min or does it take day long searches for options in multiple extra books (as seen in 3.5e)?
• Are there trap options? Or can one assume that a single classed build will just more or less work fine as in 5e?
• Are there "must/should have" books besides the PHB, MM & DMG (similar to 5e's Xanathar's)? There's PHB 2 and 3 but I assume you just need it when one wants to play a class written in there.
• How do the character "roles" play out? Is it mandatory to have a mixed group or does a frontline with 2 strikers instead of a striker + defender work too?
• How is the encounter & monster building experience for the DM compared to 5e? I've read good things about elite, minion, single boss fight options but those were mostly in regards to 3.5e so I'd love an opinion from someone who DM'ed 4e and 5e.
• What is available in terms of tools (apps, resources, compendiums, char builders...)? For players and DM likewise?
• Guess we have to decide for ourselves, but in your opinion, is the change even worth it? Or is there any homebrew for more complex and 4e like combat in 5e? Might my impression false and 4e actually doesn't have the superior combat mechanics and will just turn out to be a drag?

[Jaeda]

There are quite a few things that work a bit differently in 4e than 5e. HP is a measure of short-term endurance; your healing surges measure your long-term endurance. Short rests are only 5-10 minutes instead of an hour, so you can normally rest between each encounter. All attacks are against one of your four defenses (AC, Fort, Ref, and Will); saves are for throwing off ongoing effects rather than evading them and work fairly differently. Each encounter is usually against several monsters of similar level (one per character) rather than one or two monsters.

Low level characters start off more powerful than in 5e, usually with around 25hp instead of 10, but they scale slower. This keeps play more consistent over longer periods of time, but you have fewer game changing points (which is both good and bad). Almost every 1st level character has the same decisions to make: race, class, ability spread, skills, 2 at-will powers, 1 encounter power, 1 daily power, 1 feat. Each of these powers comes from a short list so you have fewer options for each to consider than a first level 5e wizard does spells, but more decisions than a 5e fighter. When leveling up you usually make one or two decisions (a new power and/or a new feat). If you don't like one of your powers or feats you can swap it next time you level.

The difference between the good and the bad options is usually smaller; there are fewer trap options. As long as you put your best ability in the one required for your class (like Str for fighters) and the second best in one of the two support abilities, you shouldn't have a bad time. A few of the classes (like Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock) have two primaries and one secondary, which might limit your power selection somewhat. This is mostly for PHB1 classes; I think all of the PHB2 and 3 classes use the 1-primary 2-support model.

The PHB2 and PHB3 each offer new classes and are probably overall better designed than the PHB1 classes, but not necessarily more powerful. As a player you can get whichever one has the class you want to play and they work fine together. I would recommend staying away from the X Power books for your first game since that will probably cause you to have decision paralysis without making the game necessarily better.

Having a mixed group makes things better, but isn't strictly required. Each of the classes has some ability to fulfill one of the other roles (like Paladins have some Leader-like powers, Fighters can deal damage like a striker, and Warlocks have area and debilitating powers like a Controller), so you can use this to help patch up some holes. With healing from healing surges available through your second wind and rests, having a dedicated healer is much less necessary than other editions.

Encounter building is much easier than in 5e. Generally you pick one monster of about Lv-1 to Lv+3 per character (maybe one fewer if you are tending towards the higher end or you want an easier encounter and one more on the lower end or if you want a harder encounter). Elites count as 2 monsters and Minions count as 1/4, so a normal encounter for a first-level party of five characters might be something like 3 goblin spearguys (Lv 2 skirmishers), a sharpshooter (Lv 2 artillery) and 4 minions. You should use the solos judiciously since they tend to take a while. An elite with a couple normal monsters is probably a better first boss encounter. They did adjust the balance points after learning from experience, so the MM3 monsters tend to have slightly less staying power and more damage, but the difference at low levels isn't too noticeable.

There are character builder tools available. There is another thread for an offline version of the tools. Long story short; email ScrivenerofDoom to get a link.

I would say it is worth trying out. Be sure to go in with an open mind and give it a few sessions to get used to it. The 4e classes are similar to each other in resources (with everyone having the same number of powers), but in play their different mechanics (like marking and sneak attack) make them play very differently once you get used to them.

[MoutonRustique]

Starting with a bit of background info: [...]
tl;dr: I'm really drawn to 4e's rules and would like to try a game with this system. But I don't have any experience playing with them. And I'd have to pitch the system to my group.

First off : I congratulate you on posting excellence - you gave a concise and informative background to your question, separated your questions and clearly stated your intentions. Well done!

So here, finally, are my questions:
What are the "gotcha"s for the DM and the players?

I'll actually answer this one last.

Would it be too hard to get into? By now the whole group's familiar with 5e's mechanics so I'd say it's basically a couple of rules more but I tend to quickly get acquainted with mechanics and others might take longer. Then again, we'd like a better combat experience and are willing to put some effort into it.

It will be very easy to get into. If you want to make it much easier for you, start at level 1 and use this party composition : Dragonborn Fighter, Tiefling Warlord, Elf Rogue, Dwarf Warlock, Eladrin Wizard, Eladrin Ranger (in this order of selection, depending on how many players you have).

This is assuming you only have access to the PHB1 and are not going to bother with errata (at first anyway).

How much of a hassle is handling character creation and progression? Can one reasonably build a character in a few hours and level up within 15-20min or does it take day long searches for options in multiple extra books (as seen in 3.5e)?

If you're using only the PHB1, creating a 1st level character can take as little as ~10 minutes. You can trust that the power selection is acceptable : some powers are better than others, but the margins are small enough that if you pick [what looks cool], your character will work and contribute quite adequately to the game. Use the suggested arrays for starting stats.

If you're going to use all the books, all the magazines, 3rd party options, read everything, consult with fellow players on optimal choices and synergy... then yeah, that might take a while.

As a point of comparison, I can build a pretty cool level 8 party within 2 hours. A friend of mine can spend ~1 hour to do a single level up on a character. A big part of that is what your approach and goal is : if you're looking for a theme and cool concept = pretty quick. If you're looking to eek-out every single possible bonus = pretty long. If you're looking for both = very long.

Are there trap options? Or can one assume that a single classed build will just more or less work fine as in 5e?

Single-class builds, as you put it, will, on the whole, be better than the 4e multi-class-equivalent (Hybrid classes). Creating this kind of character is a complex endeavor and best left to "later". I've never had the need to use this portion of character creation, and I've been playing since day one. It's really cool - completely optional.

There is a form of multiclassing through feats : you take a feat. That's it. You should only take the "entry-level" one : they are very strong. After that, on the whole, you loose power. So yeah : simple and fast.

There is a trap option : there are some classes with attacks that use different ability score (Warlocks Cha/Con, Clerics Str/Wis, etc). Pick one type, don't try to be good at both. If you do, you will not be bad, in fact, at the lower levels, you might not even notice. At higher levels, the difference will be noticeable.

Are there "must/should have" books besides the PHB, MM & DMG (similar to 5e's Xanathar's)? There's PHB 2 and 3 but I assume you just need it when one wants to play a class written in there.

The "must haves" for me are on the DM-side of things : Monster Vault, Monster Vault : Threats to the Nentir Vale. If you haven't gotten it, don't get the MM(Monster Manual), use the MV(Monster Vault) instead.

On the player side - Dive Power makes the Paladin much more fun in play.

At first, I suggest keeping things simple - if you find you like 4e, build up : the books (most of them) are dirt-cheap (troll around second-hand websites and forums and you might be able to pickup a good deal of it for free, or near enough). Also there are digital alternatives that are very nice to have. ONCE YOU'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW IF YOU LIKE THE GAME - don't dive in the deep end. It's pretty deep! :D

How do the character "roles" play out? Is it mandatory to have a mixed group or does a frontline with 2 strikers instead of a striker + defender work too?

The only combination that really doesn't work is a party full of [leaders]. They'll never die of anything, but taking anything down takes forever.

4e has tons of inter-player synergy potential, usually that means different characters bring different things to the battle - but a full wizard party is possible (and if your players are good at chess-like games, the DM will cry).

How is the encounter & monster building experience for the DM compared to 5e? I've read good things about elite, minion, single boss fight options but those were mostly in regards to 3.5e so I'd love an opinion from someone who DM'ed 4e and 5e.

It's awesome.

A few suggestions from a long-time DM :
1 - at first, don't use solos - they are a new thing, and require a new way of doing things. They can be awesome, but tend to fall flat in inexperienced hands. Save them for latter when you've got more notches on your belt.

2 - use these three "templates" for combat encounters
TEMPLATE A : an elite, 1 standard per PC -2, 5 minions (ideally, 2 types), 2 terrain powers (traps, or other significant terrain feature) that both sides can use

TEMPLATE B : 1 standard per PC, 8 minions, 2 terrain powers. In two "waves" 1/2 +1 standards +4 minions, then the rest a round of two latter.

TEMPLATE C : 1 standard per PC, 2 terrain powers - the basics.

3 - if you can get your hands on it : Dungeon Delve can be an excellent [dungeon crawl] game aid - nice starting points.

What is available in terms of tools (apps, resources, compendiums, char builders...)? For players and DM likewise?

There are a few tools available - the legal ones are from WotC and online only. The other ones are "out there to find" and of questionable legal status, but unquestionable power and utility.

I highly suggest not seeking any of them out until you've played a fair bit with only the PHB1. There has been a lot of stuff created for 4e, getting all of it at once is a lot. (IMO, YMMV, etc, etc.)

Guess we have to decide for ourselves, but in your opinion, is the change even worth it? Or is there any homebrew for more complex and 4e like combat in 5e? Might my impression false and 4e actually doesn't have the superior combat mechanics and will just turn out to be a drag?

You can have as rich an experience in tactical game play with 5e - but nothing* is built yet. You'd have to create massive amounts of content to get anything close to what 4e offers out-the-box.

I would not attempt it.

Gotcha's ?

Getting back to this one. 4e is actually an excellent engine for (IMO) 2 radically opposed types of games.

1st : if you want a "Descent" kind of game, it really rocks! I mean - Hellz to the Yessss! (IMO)

2nd : if you want a game that focuses on significant events, narrative flow, and allows for determined difference between player ability and character ability, then 4e is a great game.

If you're looking for "classic D&D" with 10' poles and attrition-based adventure design, then no... 4e isn't the best tool out there.

If you're looking for 5e + tactical, you could do worst than looking at this and getting in touch with Myrhdraak - There's a link to his document in the first post. The end result is quite impressive. Quite.

[Excession]

I would say the biggest gotcha for players is accuracy. Almost every power in 4e needs to hit to be useful. Unfortunately there are a large number of places where a player can naturally choose to be less accurate. Start with an 16 rather than a 18 (or even 20) in their primary stat, use a +2 proficiency weapon instead of +3, take a feat for flavour rather than +1 to hit, etc. Making one of these choices is fine, you'll notice hardly any difference in play. Make four of these choices and your character will be hitting (and therefore being useful) a third less often than another PC. The GM can of course balance that by using lower level monsters with lower defences, but over time that can lead to an optimised PC hitting on a 2 while the less optimised PC is still missing on a 6.

I think for DMs the big gotcha is badly written monsters. The early monster manuals used what turned out to be the wrong numbers. Too many hit points, too high defences (especially at higher levels), and often overly complex and fiddly to run. The numbers got fixed in MM3 (and Dark Sun Creature Catalogue and later), but the monsters there many were still often complex and fiddly, and were the less common and iconic monsters that MM1 and MM2 hadn't covered. Monster Vault fixed the complexity, making the monsters threatening, easy to run, yet still flavourful. It mostly redid the "standard" D&D monsters with better mechanics, fixing what MM1 got wrong. Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir was even better, being perhaps the best monster manual ever published for D&D mechanically, and presented monsters in groups and organisations that helped with flavour.

It's also quite easy, with a little experience, to create your own monsters, or to fix the numbers on ones from earlier. An enemy that is expected to last for 4 rounds max does not need complex mechanics and attacks. Memorable fights are more about groups of enemies with synergies, and interesting terrain.

[ThePurple]

It's also quite easy, with a little experience, to create your own monsters, or to fix the numbers on ones from earlier. An enemy that is expected to last for 4 rounds max does not need complex mechanics and attacks. Memorable fights are more about groups of enemies with synergies, and interesting terrain.

Monster creation is disgustingly easy, honestly. The math is all right here.

My general loadout for monster powers is as follows (this isn't a canon approach, btw; it's just what I do):

Soldiers get a marking effect (generally an aura or attached to their basic attack) and a retributive effect (some kind of attack/damage when an opponent triggers the mark)
Skirmishers are immune to the marked condition and get improved mobility (generally shifting on their attack)
Controllers get some kind of impeding effect on all of their attacks (basic = slow, push, slide, pull; encounter = daze, immobilize or AoE of the weaker effects)
Lurkers get a disengage that prepares them to deal a bunch of damage the next round (they're designed to attack>disengage>attack>disengage)
Artillery *always* get a multitarget attack that they can use every round.
Brute uniqueness is just baked into their stats.

Minions get a single melee or ranged attack and something that happens when they die (they explode, they get a final attack before they die, they give some temp hp to a nearby non-minion, etc) or something that makes them very dangerous when they gang up (e.g. +1 to attack rolls for each adjacent minion).
Standards get a primary attack (ranged or melee), a secondary attack (melee or ranged, which isn't the primary) that does 50-75% damage, and an encounter/triggered recharge ability that is obvious enough for the players to understand when it occurs.
Elites get the same loadout as a Standard with another encounter/triggered recharge ability tacked on.
Solos get complicated but, in general, I prefer to give them additional turns rather than bigger turns and more actions. You can get a pretty decent solo fight by beefing up an elite's numbers to solo level and giving it one additional turn per round (either have it occur at a set initiative or its init score +10 or -10) as well as some method to end powerful control effects (daze, stun, dominate) at the end of each of its turns.

I prefer to avoid random recharge abilities since it adds an additional phase to each monster turn that can add up over time as well as requiring more bookkeeping. Having your recharge powers be triggered (like being bloodied, being flanked, using your at-will, etc.) removes both of these requirements since ideally your monsters should be using their recharge abilities asap (in effect, first turn, use recharge; on following turns, if recharged, use recharge, else, use basic).

As a GM, a properly designed monster shouldn't really require any tactically complicated decisions. The actions it takes each turn should basically be preprogrammed into it and grow naturally out of the powers it has. Anything that wouldn't get used is chaff that should be cut.

[Excession]

Artillery *always* get a multitarget attack that they can use every round.

Wow that's nasty. That will certainly encourage the players to try and focus them down first, which I guess is the point.

Elites get the same loadout as a Standard with another encounter/triggered recharge ability tacked on.

My rule of thumb for elites is to double their HP and give them a double attack. Upgrading a single-target attack to a 3x3 area or similar works too. If they don't present twice the threat of a standard they're not doing their job. An extra triggered attack works if it fires every round I guess.

[Yakk]

What are the "gotcha"s for the DM and the players?

Players:
In Heroic, the game is so balanced that nearly random build choices work.

Have a 16+ in your primary attack stat, and if in light armor a 16+ in your defence stat, and you will be viable.

As you gain levels, you pick feats, powers, build decisions, and make gear decisions. Each could make you +/-5% off another baseline, which is so tiny you don't really notice, but they *multiply up*.

By level 11 (paragon) you have made 10 such decisions. The character you made 10 "great" choices is going to be twice as effective as the one who made 10 "poor" choices. By level 30 you've made 27 such choices.

Even though 4e's balace is really well done, especially compared to other editions of D&D, there can be a large gap between "well built" and "not well built" characters.

So, for players, when leveling up:
1) Work to get your accuracy up.
2) Don't neglect your AC. Defenders should aim for 18+Level, if you are ever in melee you want at least 15+Level, and if you aren't in melee at least 12+Level.
3) Pay attention to your non-AC defences. At least 2 of them should be above 12+Level, and the third shouldn't fall below 8+Level.
4) Pick one stat for your attacks. Stick to it. Some classes have 2 stats (like Paladins who have Str and Cha attacks, or Warlocks who have Con and Cha). Pick one. The two-stat thing was an experiment that mostly failed, the opportunity cost is almost always too high.
5) The best way to deal damage is to generate more "taps" (ideally repeatedly on the same target), and get damage bonuses that apply to each tap. "Extra tap" powers are stronger than "big hit" powers by mid-heroic, and it gets worse after that. Not all classes need to focus on damage tho.
6) Always boost your attack stat as you level up. If you are in light armor, always boost your AC increasing stat. If you then have a choice (heavy armor, or your attack stat boosts your AC in light armor), boost a stat that gives you "riders" on your powers. If you are tempted to boost another stat you probably should have used a different initial build of attributes.
7) There are a few dud classes. Heros of Shadow, Fey, Elemental chaos; avoid classes from them. Some of the *subclasses* are viable, none of the new classes are. PHB1 classes are generally stronger, because they have more options due to longer support.
8) Hybrids are hard to get right, and easy to get really really wrong. Only make a hybrid if you consider *build complexity* and *play complexity* for zero to negative character power payoff to be a positive thing. I'm serious, you can make really complex builds with constant extra decisions by making a hybrid, but basically you don't get a power payoff from it. Most 4e classes are designed not to screw you over; hybrids have no training wheels. Pick the wrong combination and you can be crippled.
9) Having a ritual caster is really useful to convert 5+ obsolete magic items into one useful one, and convert gold into new shiny magic items.

For DMs:
1) Hand out 1 weapon/implement, 1 set of armor, 1 necklace, and 1 "other" item per party level (8-10 encounters) of party level +1/2/3/4 (pick randomly). Also hand out treasure equal to the value of a Level+0 magic item*2. The items should generally be ones that the party would use (ie, best "type" of armor that a caracter could wear). If you do this, the game math shouldn't break down. If you feel like having fun, you can look at charop and find items that are optimal for the party members, but it isn't needed.
2) Use MM3 & Monster Vault era monsters; MM1/2 monsters are not as consistently well built; they got better over the lifetime of 4e. MM3 on a business card is also worth googling, and can be used to update MM1/2 monsters.
3) Have interesting things on the map. Difficult terrain. Hazards. Cover. Cliffs. Concealment. Magical glyphs. Vats of bubbling soup. Use "page 42" to determine how nasty hazards should be".

Would it be too hard to get into? By now the whole group's familiar with 5e's mechanics so I'd say it's basically a couple of rules more but I tend to quickly get acquainted with mechanics and others might take longer. Then again, we'd like a better combat experience and are willing to put some effort into it.

So here are the basic differences.
1) You get 3 actions per round; Standard, Move, Minor. Standard can be used to Move or Minor, Move can be used to Minor. (This is a bit like Action, movement part, and Bonus).
2) Off-turn, you get 1 OA *per other combatant's turn*, and 1 Immediate action *per round* (resets in your turn). Immediate actions can be Interrupts or Reactions. Reactions go after, Interrupts before and can invalidate the trigger. OAs are usually interrupts.
3) Short rests are 5 minutes, long rests are 8 hours. Generally you short rest after each combat.

How much of a hassle is handling character creation and progression? Can one reasonably build a character in a few hours and level up within 15-20min or does it take day long searches for options in multiple extra books (as seen in 3.5e)?

There are awesome character building tools for 4e. But yes, you can build a character quickly and level up fast.

Almost every option you pick (except stat bumps, class and race) can be respec'd as you gain levels.

Are there trap options? Or can one assume that a single classed build will just more or less work fine as in 5e?

Some of the late classes where iffy. Warlock Binder, Vampire are the two worst.

Everything else is viable. The PHB1 classes have a slight edge, because they got more "splat", and while stuff is +/-5% quality more options means more stuff in the +5% range.

Are there "must/should have" books besides the PHB, MM & DMG (similar to 5e's Xanathar's)? There's PHB 2 and 3 but I assume you just need it when one wants to play a class written in there.

The "X Power" books often where used to "patch" holes in some builds. For example, Divine Power helped the Strength and Charisma Paladins be more distinct and gave them a better foundation.

How do the character "roles" play out? Is it mandatory to have a mixed group or does a frontline with 2 strikers instead of a striker + defender work too?

In most versions of D&D the most important role is the Healer. In 4e, the most important role is the Defender.

Strikers are about melting foes, and well done CharOp can make anyone deal more damage. So they aren't as important.

Leaders are awesome in that they help people use healing surges. But a well built defender soaks damage like crazy and locks foes away from their allies, and has modest self-healing in combat. Out of combat, 4e doesn't rely on healers to heal characters.

Controllers are awesome, but defenders are basically "melee range controllers". Controllers screw with the monster's plans. Defenders do as well.

Parties with all 4 roles well filled is going to be better off, but a party without a Defender is going to find themselves at the mercy of the DM going easy on the party. With a Defender on their side, you can *try* to do things like focus fire, go after squishies, etc, and you'll find your monsters find it too painful.

How is the encounter & monster building experience for the DM compared to 5e? I've read good things about elite, minion, single boss fight options but those were mostly in regards to 3.5e so I'd love an opinion from someone who DM'ed 4e and 5e.

4e has by far the most robust encounter building toolset for DMs. 5e is 2nd, but it is a far 2nd. Know all that annoying math about encounter size? In 4e, the hardest math is "add up XP values" and it works better than the 5e system.

As monsters have roles like players do, you can built encounters with certain "feel" and have an idea how a monster should act, tactically, even before you look at the monster's stat block.

At the same time, because all monsters have unique powers, they feel quite different from the perspective of the players. Players will know that Kobolds are shifty bastards after fighting them once or twice; and that is despite there being 20+ sub-types of Kobold.

What is available in terms of tools (apps, resources, compendiums, char builders...)? For players and DM likewise?

Get the offline character builder.

For the DM, honestly, there are simple guidelines for building your own monster.

Guess we have to decide for ourselves, but in your opinion, is the change even worth it? Or is there any homebrew for more complex and 4e like combat in 5e? Might my impression false and 4e actually doesn't have the superior combat mechanics and will just turn out to be a drag?

So by level 30, 4e characters that aren't well built actually results in extremely slow combat.

4e characters that are well built results in extremely fast combat.

So one issue is that if the party characters aren't built, and players aren't fast, combat can drag increasingly as you gain levels.

That can be fixed with more optimal builds for the players, or simply halving monster HP and going from there. ;)

But this issue starts around paragon, and at 8 encounters/level that is 80 encounters away. At 3 encounters/week, that is after half a year of play.

---

Oh ya, the skill challenge mechanics. Find a 3rd party version of them. The core system is too easy to screw up.

[masteraleph]

Most of what needs to be said has been said, so I'm just going to add one or two things to what various folks have noted.

I would recommend staying away from the X Power books for your first game since that will probably cause you to have decision paralysis without making the game necessarily better.

I'd disagree with this, actually. It's relatively true for some classes, but others gain tremendously from their appropriate splatbook. In particular, Paladins (PHB1, despite suggesting Strength and Charisma as separately viable primary stats, doesn't actually have a power at every level for each stat!) gain a lot from Divine Power. Rogues definitely like Martial Power/Martial Power 2; it's not quite as required as with the Paladin, but it gives them the *oomph* to compete with Rangers somewhat, especially once you get to mid-Heroic. The overwhelming nature can be tamped down by picking a class first, then seeking out options. Alternatively- if the word "optimization" doesn't make you itch- there's an extensive set of class guides at ENWorld. They rate powers and feats by a color system, which will allow you to throw out the lousy options and pick up the better ones. If you do that, though, then you should probably be seeking out some of those tools mentioned earlier.

Books

I'd add DMG2 for the DM. In fact, I'd suggest it even if you don't decide to play 4e. It's been getting a lot of attention in some circles lately, because it has some really, really good advice on running games. Also, to emphasize, Monster Manual 3 and both Monster Vaults are definitely the place to take enemies from.

In most versions of D&D the most important role is the Healer. In 4e, the most important role is the Defender.

I actually think a well-built leader is more important, though that gets increasingly true as you level up. Note that I don't say Healer- all leaders can heal adequately. But being able to hand out bonuses and attacks to allies is both a fun place to be in and a very powerful one. The subtitle for the CharOp Warlord guide is "How to wield a Barbarian one handed," and that's what a Leader does.

Items

You're going to have to make a choice with items- there were two different systems in 4e, and neither one is all that great (the worse one uses the rarity system introduced later). The one Yakk mentions is the better of the two official ones. The main problem with it is that it can feel agonizing waiting if you're the unlucky slob who doesn't get an item in a given level. Personally, I'd just give everyone an item of their choice of level +1/+2 and leave it at that.

Finally: if you'd like a way for people to test out without needing to build characters themselves, one of my favorite threads from the Wizards forums (that I don't believe ever got ported to ENWorld) is a Pregen Character Thread. It does pull from various sources, but it generally provides decent sample characters and provides suggestions for level them up through level 8 (and sometimes hints for Paragon as well).

[Kurald Galain]

The design goal behind 5E is that it's easy to play, and one of the things they did for that goal is make the game less tactical. This is obvious from e.g. the flanking and movement rules, and the non-stacking of (dis)advantage. So it stands to reason that anyone who wants a more tactical game should look into other games, such as 3E or 4E. So yes, this change is definitely worth trying.

The biggest 'gotcha' is choice paralysis, both during character creation but especially during gameplay. Players need to be encouraged to take their turns quickly, and not spend five minutes thinking about how they can squeeze out another two points of damage. This means that you should start at low level (so players can get used to it), you need power cards so players can quickly see their options, and personally I recommend playing without magic items to cut down on choice paralysis. There are alternative rules to replace item pluses by "inherent bonuses" at specific levels, and this speeds up gameplay.

Character creation at low level is easy. Character progression is decidedly not. There is a vast amount of feats, powers, and items to choose from, and there are a LOT of poor choices here, and it's rarely obvious what they are. So I recommend you either rely on class guidebooks on the forums, or stick to heroic tier. Note that (outside of forum optimizers) almost all games in 4E played in heroic tier anyway, to the point where in the last two years of the edition, WOTC basically stopped printing paragon and epic content.

Trap options, the thing to realize is that options have a cumulative effect. While there are few truly bad powers or feats, the difference between a character who picks decent powers and one who picks great powers is only going to increase as you level up. Around level 10 or so there is a vast difference between an average and a great character (and this is probably also why most games stick to heroic tier). There are, however, a number of trap classes, but not in the PHB1 and PHB2 (however, if you want more books, you should really avoid the runepriest, assassin, and easily half the classes from the "heroes of" line of books).

Must-have books. Well that depends on what class you're playing. I've found that the paladin and warlock are problematic if you're just using the PHB1. But in general, adding more books to the game does not substantially make it better, but it does increase the issues with choice paralysis and differences between character strength.

Party roles. It is not mandatory to have one of each role. Different party makeups play differently, but that's not problematic. That said, I strongly recommend having a dedicated leader (i.e. healer) in the party.

HTH!

[Kurald Galain]

Seconding some things from other posts:

• Don't use hybrid characters for your first campaign. Most (but not all) hybrid combinations are weaker than either base class would be on its own.
• Pick one primary ability for your character, not two; e.g. you are either str-cleric or a wis-cleric but don't try to be both. As corollary, don't be afraid to leave several ability scores at 8 or 10; it is common for 4E characters to have three dump stats, because the other three stats cover all attacks and defenses.
• Despite the name "solo monster", do not use said monsters alone. Add a bunch of support monsters to make combat interesting.
• The skill challenge rules in WOTC's books suck, do not use those.

[ThePurple]

Wow that's nasty. That will certainly encourage the players to try and focus them down first, which I guess is the point.

Not as bad as you might think. AoEs are supposed to deal only 75% normal damage anyways so getting 2 targets (on average) is only going to provide 150% DPR. With their decreased defenses (75% chance to be hit instead of 65% chance) and reduced soak (~75% of the hp), artillery monsters *have* to be extremely dangerous to offset their extreme squishiness, which is why they also get +2 to hit with their AoEs (which translates into a 60% chance to hit instead of a 50% chance to hit). When you look at their damage per soak (.75 damage * 2 targets * .6 chance to hit * .75 hp * .25 avoidance = .16875), it's still slightly less than a skirmisher's (1.0 damage * 1 target * .5 chance to hit * 1.0 hp * .35 avoidance = .175).

If anything, skirmishers ignoring the marked condition has had a greater impact on my game than anything of the other role changes (the soldier tweak is a close second, since it makes soldiers operate like defenders). I like that it gives skirmishers something unique, and it definitely strikes fear into the hearts of a lot of the parties I've run with that focus around using their defender to lock down the enemy party (especially since it means skirmishers can largely pick the targets they want to engage with, which is what skirmishers are *supposed* to do).

My rule of thumb for elites is to double their HP and give them a double attack. Upgrading a single-target attack to a 3x3 area or similar works too. If they don't present twice the threat of a standard they're not doing their job. An extra triggered attack works if it fires every round I guess.

In the math I've done, because an elite deals full damage until you deal two standards worth of hp to them, it shifts the scales a bit since you're getting the full damage the entirety of their lifetime; killing 2 standards would, halfway through, reduce their damage by half since one of the standards would be dead and incapable of dealing damage. Because of their action point, they're already getting 1 additional attack per combat (or, at least, should) that should last roughly 4 rounds, which is enough of a DPR increase that it is enough for them to be as dangerous (re: "deal as much damage") as 2 standards across the entire encounter.

Consider an encounter with 4 standards, one of which dies each round; you'll end up with 10 standards worth of damage dealt (4+3+2+1). With an elite (assuming it dies in the middle, as an average of killing it first and killing it last), you'll end up with 13 (4+3+3+1+2, the extra 2 comes from the AP) damage if it does 2 standards worth of damage each round. If you do the math, it ends up needing to do 5 standards of damage across all 4 rounds (the standards will deal 5 standards, for a total of 2+1+1+1), which equates to 1 standard per round, plus 1 AP. The additional recharge/encounter is just there to account for the recharge or encounter the fact that it's taking the place of 2 standard monsters (which would each get their own recharge/encounter to use).

Something similar is true with Standards, insofar as, in order to be numerically balanced in their total output across the entire combat, they should deal roughly 2.5x the damage of a standard each round (solos are supposed to be worth 5 standards but only have the hp of 4 of them, with 2 APs that each provide an extra "round" of damage, so you end up with 2.5*4 rounds+2.5*2 APs = 15 standards compared to 5+4+3+2+1 = 15 we get from 5 standards;if the APs aren't a full round's worth of damage, which is pretty normal since standards tend to have minor action and triggered attacks, you make up for this via the "more dangerous when bloodied" construct by beefing up their damage while bloodied or giving them a bloodied breath equivalent).

I'll echo what others have said that Skill Challenges, as written, are a colossal trap. If you want to use Skill Challenges, go for a third party system that does them *correctly* or else your players will likely learn to hate them.

[Excession]

Not as bad as you might think. AoEs are supposed to deal only 75% normal damage anyways so getting 2 targets (on average) is only going to provide 150% DPR.

Oh yes, I had forgotten that the lower AoE damage would apply to that multi-attack as well. Everything else there shows you've spent more time thinking about the maths of all of this more than I have.

In terms of Elites, I think I prefer them to remain a full threat until killed. They present a juicy target for controllers, to either shut the elite down or hold off everything else until the elite is dead. When playing online I had HP totals visible to everyone, so they learnt to pick to important targets. By the end of the second round everything tended to be slowed/dazed/prone/all-of-the-above anyway.

Enemy group composition makes a big difference as well, and is a bit harder to quantify. I do tend to protect my artillery pretty well, whether with terrain, a soldier screen, or just other enemies (controller/lurker) with similarly high target priority. I think my players responded to that by building strikers with a lot of movement and defence options, so they can get behind enemy lines and survive doing so.

[Dimers]

I'll echo what others have said that Skill Challenges, as written, are a colossal trap. If you want to use Skill Challenges, go for a third party system that does them *correctly* or else your players will likely learn to hate them.

Yeah, the players and DM both.

@ OP: There's really no need to use a formal structure for noncombat situations. If the DM wants to award XP outside combat, they can compare the difficulty of a normal combat against the difficulty of accomplishing a given noncombat goal. Then just assign that much XP. Or barbecue the sacred cow: throw out XP and simply level up after an appropriate number of fights/obstacles.

[ThePurple]

Oh yes, I had forgotten that the lower AoE damage would apply to that multi-attack as well. Everything else there shows you've spent more time thinking about the maths of all of this more than I have.

It's actually been a few years since I played *proper* 4e. I've built my own homebrew system based off of 4e in which I basically built from first principles (I created my own formulae and growth rates for characters and enemies), overhauling quite a few other systems that I disliked because they were either bad (Skills/Skill Challenges, which I completely rebuilt from the ground up), overly complicated (gear, which I simplified greatly and made more vague), or were problematic for balance purposes (themes, PPs, EDs, which were very poorly defined, from a mathematical perspective so they were often poorly balanced against each other). Any 4e player that sees it will definitely know where the inspiration drew from but there's also a lot that's different. All of my players have said that they prefer it, which is a good sign as I see it; it's basically my idea of what 4.5 (or a new edition of D&D based off of 4e rather than returning to 2e/3e mentality) would've looked like.

In terms of Elites, I think I prefer them to remain a full threat until killed. They present a juicy target for controllers, to either shut the elite down or hold off everything else until the elite is dead.

Spreading out effects and damage like that is a tactical choice that players have to make. It will slow down their killing and increase the total potential damage that they can take over time (e.g. if each player targets a different enemy and it takes 4 attacks, on average, to defeat an enemy, it'll take them 4 turns to kill all enemies, but rather than taking 4+3+2+1=10 standard attacks, they'll end up taking 4+4+4+4=16 standard attacks), so it's a tactical question they've got to ask themselves about: do you kill efficiently to reduce incoming damage or kill broadly to spread out secondary effects?

Mathematically, the primary danger of an elite is that they take longer to kill and they've got an AP. That alone enough to make them "equal" to 2 standards, as far as the math is concerned. If you want your elites to be more dangerous (to be "truly elite"), you can make them beefier, but they'll be more dangerous to the party (and should therefore be worth more xp) than 2 standards would be.

The main thing I'm going for is that every fight of a given quantity of xp should consume, on average, the same amount of resources from the party (powers, hp/surges, gear, etc), whether it's an elite and some standards, a bunch of standards and minions, or a solo. If I want to have a fight in which a boss monster and his servants really give the players a run for their money, I'm gonna make it a higher level fight (like a +3 or +4) since the level of the fight should determine the risk to the players, not the ranks of the enemies.

When playing online I had HP totals visible to everyone, so they learnt to pick to important targets. By the end of the second round everything tended to be slowed/dazed/prone/all-of-the-above anyway.

I don't allow my players to see enemy hp totals (all players see their own and allied hp and HS values). I only allow them to see the names and give a description (like what they're wielding if I'm using generic tokens). I've debated allowing them to see percent of total hp but *never* have I considered allowing them to see the hp numbers themselves. That's a bit too much information for them to have, imo. They should have to make a guess about whether they're gonna overkill or not, not know for a fact whether they're likely to or not.

Enemy group composition makes a big difference as well, and is a bit harder to quantify. I do tend to protect my artillery pretty well, whether with terrain, a soldier screen, or just other enemies (controller/lurker) with similarly high target priority. I think my players responded to that by building strikers with a lot of movement and defence options, so they can get behind enemy lines and survive doing so.

Well, that's kind of what strikers are intended to do: they're designed to pick a target on the battlefield (whether via CA or their striker bonus mechanic) and then *eliminate it* as quickly as possible, using either range or mobility to guarantee that they can get to that target. That's what their entire kit is built around, so it's not like your players' strikers are really doing anything other than what they're supposed to be doing.

Strikers are *supposed* to counter artillery monsters by skirting the harder defenses and taking out the squishy glass canons, just like defenders are *supposed* to counter brutes by getting right up on them and refusing to let them hit the defender's squishier allies. This is what makes the monster and the player roles so important and tactically interesting.

[ThePurple]

There's really no need to use a formal structure for noncombat situations.

I like the idea of a formal structure for noncombat situations because it gives you a framework for how threatening (i.e. how many resources, like hp and HSs, should be consumed in the process of completing) a non-combat situation should be. The problem is that SCs, as written, are *terrible* (unfun, unbalanced, etc) and 4e's skills, as written, are extremely limited and have a *huge* swath in effectiveness between optimization and nothing, not to mention that the math is completely different from anywhere else (compare the simplicity of monster math with the charts for skill check DCs).

Unless you feel like rebuilding the system, I concur that it's best to just abandon what 4e did so poorly (and 5e straight up abandoned) and deal with it like quest xp. If you want some (good) rules for it, you're gonna have to either make your own or find some that someone else came up with.

[Excession]

I don't allow my players to see enemy hp totals (all players see their own and allied hp and HS values). I only allow them to see the names and give a description (like what they're wielding if I'm using generic tokens). I've debated allowing them to see percent of total hp but *never* have I considered allowing them to see the hp numbers themselves. That's a bit too much information for them to have, imo. They should have to make a guess about whether they're gonna overkill or not, not know for a fact whether they're likely to or not.

I've watched players waste dailies on minions because they assumed wrong. It wasn't fun for either of us. I'm not playing the game to laugh that kind of player mistake.

I guess I could require monster knowledge rolls, but it feels like a waste of time. So I settled on players knowing HP, defences, and resistances. Being able to target multiple defences, or use multiple elements, is supposed to be an advantage in 4e, but combats don't last long enough to work out what you should have been targetting.

Maybe it's because I actually started playing D&D by playing the pre-4e miniatures game with a friend, so after the first game or two we each knew which tokens were the highest priority targets, and it didn't make the game worse. The cheap shot of being able to blast my friend's entire party with my Death Knight was really only fun once.

Well, that's kind of what strikers are intended to do: they're designed to pick a target on the battlefield (whether via CA or their striker bonus mechanic) and then *eliminate it* as quickly as possible, using either range or mobility to guarantee that they can get to that target. That's what their entire kit is built around, so it's not like your players' strikers are really doing anything other than what they're supposed to be doing.

Strikers are *supposed* to counter artillery monsters by skirting the harder defenses and taking out the squishy glass canons, just like defenders are *supposed* to counter brutes by getting right up on them and refusing to let them hit the defender's squishier allies. This is what makes the monster and the player roles so important and tactically interesting.

I see your point, but doesn't it also logically follow that in order to do their jobs the PCs needs to know which enemy is which type? Much of that is obvious from the enemies' description and placement on the field, but minion/standard/elite isn't always. But maybe there is some value in that first round being really chaotic as everyone works out what everything is, I just ended up not liking that pattern much.

[ThePurple]

I've watched players waste dailies on minions because they assumed wrong. It wasn't fun for either of us. I'm not playing the game to laugh that kind of player mistake.

I see your point, but doesn't it also logically follow that in order to do their jobs the PCs needs to know which enemy is which type? Much of that is obvious from the enemies' description and placement on the field, but minion/standard/elite isn't always.

Both of these kind of fit together for me. If you don't know what rank an enemy is (or, at least, you don't have a good idea of it), you shouldn't blow something big and fancy on it unless you're willing to take that risk. While standards and elites have a fair amount of overlap, solos and minions should definitely be obvious simply by virtue of the number of them on the field. With a solo monster, it should either be the *only* monster or the only *big* monster around; it should be obvious that *this* thing is the big nasty special bad guy that everyone is gonna have to focus on in order to defeat (even if it's a standard-sized enemy, like an orc war chief, it should be obvious in the way you narrate that *this guy* is the war chief and is as far above the standards and minions accompanying him as the PCs are above farmers). For minions, it pretty much always boils down to "hey, there are a crapload of these guys" because there are always *so many more* minions than other monsters; in an inversion of the way it's done with solo monsters, minions should be narrated in a way that demonstrates that they are *not* amazing fighters and that they're only a threat to the PCs in large numbers (in the heroic tier, minions are basically untrained thugs; paragon tier, they're average soldiers; etc).

But maybe there is some value in that first round being really chaotic as everyone works out what everything is, I just ended up not liking that pattern much.

I tend to run adventures and campaigns that are very cohesive with the enemy types, so that players will tend to see the same types of enemies over and over for a while. The first time they see them, they'll try to figure them out, but, after that, they've learned it. If they see something that deviates heavily from the norm because it's a unique entity (like said war chief) they can pretty easily deduce that it's something special and likely either an elite or a solo.

[Marcloure]

There are three things that I'll reinforce/give my opinion in.

• First, get the offline tools, both the Character Builder for PCs and the Compendium for DMing. Otherwise, it's very hard to navigate through all the books and magazines to browse the options or to find just the right thing. Seriously, simply being able to open the monster's stat blocks as a window using the Compendium made my day way easier.

• The second one is something you should look into after some experience, if you like the system. It is to rework how +Xs feats work and use Inherent Bonus to make items more rewarding and less "obligation". But let's let that to another time.

• Lastly, my personal experience is that 4e is a edition way more geared than 5e. This has a lot of implications, but what I want to point out is that it's harder to make up things that are both new to the system and yet fit into its mechanisms. Creating new powers and items can feel more restricted here (unless you throw the system expectations out of the window, which I recommend you to do after a while). I mean, usually you can't have a dragon to spit a fireball out to 120 ft. against your heroes flying Spiritual Eagles, but if you free yourself from always keeping to what is written on the stat block, you can make it work marvelously.

[Beoric]

On the player side - Dive Power makes the Paladin much more fun in play.

To the OP, I'm pretty sure he meant Divine Power here.

If you're looking for "classic D&D" with 10' poles and attrition-based adventure design, then no... 4e isn't the best tool out there..

I have to say I don't agree with this, because this is exactly what I do. I vastly prefer playing this sort of game with 4e to when I used to play 1e. However, you need to adopt an early-edition attitude to balance and power adjudication to make it work. Basically you take the 4e ruleset and reject everything the books and adventures tell you (directly or indirectly) about how 4e "ought to" be played, and replace it with everything you know about how early edition D&D "ought to" be played.

[Kurald Galain]

If you're looking for "classic D&D" with 10' poles and attrition-based adventure design, then no... 4e isn't the best tool out there.

I agree. If you want attrition-based adventures, you obviously need rules that support attrition.

As opposed to 4E's rules, where darkness is irrelevant because sunrods exist; rations are irrelevant because it takes thirty days before you feel the first effect of lack of food; and a night's sleep fully refreshes everything. This is most apparent in 4E Dark Sun, where the fluff suggests that you're dehydrated and starving and oppressed, but the crunch suggests that you're in optimal form and fine as always.

[MwaO]

I agree. If you want attrition-based adventures, you obviously need rules that support attrition.

As opposed to 4E's rules, where darkness is irrelevant because sunrods exist; rations are irrelevant because it takes thirty days before you feel the first effect of lack of food; and a night's sleep fully refreshes everything. This is most apparent in 4E Dark Sun, where the fluff suggests that you're dehydrated and starving and oppressed, but the crunch suggests that you're in optimal form and fine as always.

You have 3 days before you start having problems due to lack of water. You're also not allowed to take an extended rest if engaged in strenuous activity. Being in a really hostile environment causing a drain on healing surges seems to qualify for that.

You want attrition in 4e, it is reasonably straightforward to implement by RAW.

[Kurald Galain]

You have 3 days before you start having problems due to lack of water.

There's low level options that generate infinite water.

You're also not allowed to take an extended rest if engaged in strenuous activity. Being in a really hostile environment causing a drain on healing surges seems to qualify for that.

Attrition doesn't mean arbitrarily prohibiting the party from resting

[MwaO]

There's low level options that generate infinite water.

Page 116 of 4e Dark Sun Campaign Guide:
"Rituals that produce food and water are unknown on Athas. Such rituals are inappropriate for a Dark Sun game."

You have infinite water on Dark Sun, that's your DM being nice to you. And similarly, if you want an attrition-based game in 4e and you have table buy-in, don't allow such rituals.

Attrition doesn't mean arbitrarily prohibiting the party from resting

You don't sleep 4-6 hours effectively for whatever reason, you don't get the benefit of an extended rest. If you're telling your players you plan an attrition-based game in 4e, it is not arbitrary to deny them the ability to sleep if an extended rest would remove the problem entirely. Or you could do what Dark Sun does, which is hand out Sun Sickness to unsupplied characters(Page 199 of DSCG)

[MoutonRustique]

To the OP, I'm pretty sure he meant Divine Power here.

lol - yeah, the latter.

I have to say I don't agree with this, because this is exactly what I do. I vastly prefer playing this sort of game with 4e to when I used to play 1e. However, you need to adopt an early-edition attitude to balance and power adjudication to make it work. Basically you take the 4e ruleset and reject everything the books and adventures tell you (directly or indirectly) about how 4e "ought to" be played, and replace it with everything you know about how early edition D&D "ought to" be played.

I should have been more explicit, my bad.

I meant the dungeon crawl with 1.2 orcs per room in a 170 room dungeon, where each room is an independent event. That sort of "classic".

[Beoric]

You don't sleep 4-6 hours effectively for whatever reason, you don't get the benefit of an extended rest. If you're telling your players you plan an attrition-based game in 4e, it is not arbitrary to deny them the ability to sleep if an extended rest would remove the problem entirely. Or you could do what Dark Sun does, which is hand out Sun Sickness to unsupplied characters(Page 199 of DSCG)

You don't even have to be that heavy handed. You can try this:

1. Lure the party deep into the dungeon. One way to do this is to have may of your encounters below level (but still interesting - really, you can achieve this). The party presses on because it takes longer for its surge total to deplete. Also, monsters that can be bargained with rather than fought, empty rooms, tricks, visible treasure just across that bridge, etc.

2. Have wandering/random monsters. This makes the frequency and location of combat unpredictable.

3. DON'T have safe rooms inside the dungeon.

4. Do partial restocking when the party leaves.

The PCs now have an incentive to clear as much as they can (because restocking), a lure to go deep, nowhere safe to sleep unless they leave the dungeon, and the risk of encountering monsters on the way out. The party then has real choices to make in how far to push its luck. The best dungeons often tempt the party to push its luck.

That breaks a lot of 4e conventions but I don't believe it breaks any actual rules. However, if you think this will result in a five minute workday, add a minor houserule by reducing XPs and treasure for wandering monsters and restocked monsters. Both are meant to be a disincentive for screwing around, so it make no sense to make them a reward instead.

[Kurald Galain]

To the OP, I'm pretty sure he meant Divine Power here.

I would love to see a book called Dive Power detailing underwater adventures.

[Jaeda]

You don't even have to be that heavy handed. You can try this:

1. Lure the party deep into the dungeon. One way to do this is to have may of your encounters below level (but still interesting - really, you can achieve this). The party presses on because it takes longer for its surge total to deplete. Also, monsters that can be bargained with rather than fought, empty rooms, tricks, visible treasure just across that bridge, etc.

2. Have wandering/random monsters. This makes the frequency and location of combat unpredictable.

3. DON'T have safe rooms inside the dungeon.

4. Do partial restocking when the party leaves.

The PCs now have an incentive to clear as much as they can (because restocking), a lure to go deep, nowhere safe to sleep unless they leave the dungeon, and the risk of encountering monsters on the way out. The party then has real choices to make in how far to push its luck. The best dungeons often temp the party to push its luck.

That breaks a lot of 4e conventions but I don't believe it breaks any actual rules. However, if you think this will result in a five minute workday, add a minor houserule by reducing XPs and treasure for wandering monsters and restocked monsters. Both are meant to be a disincentive for screwing around, so it make no sense to make them a reward instead.

The Angry GM brought up the partial rewards for his Megadungeon series. I believe he used 1/4 rewards for random encounters. Since you only get 1/4 the rewards, but expend the same resources, you are strongly incentivized to avoid them because they aren't worth your (real-life) time or (in-game) resources compared to the planned encounters. The two main causes of random encounters are wasting time and being noisy, so the main danger of bell traps and violet shriekers is that they attract the wrong sort of attention (monsters that don't have much treasure).

[NomGarret]

Roles matter about as much as they do in any edition, 4e just explicitly states that they exist. If you don’t have a tough melee guy and a healer, you’re going to have to adapt as a party and as a GM. Everyone is going to pick more survivability options and focus on getting the drop on their opponents.

Running 4e monsters and encounter design is both incredibly easy and rewarding and it’s one of my favorite parts of the system. Note that it does lend itself to fewer, bigger fights over “open door, kill two skeletons. Open next door, kill gargoyle.” And yes combat runs slower than 5e, but that’s not really a problem if it’s more fun.

As to which books to get, there’s definitely double-edged swords involved in just about all of them. PHB 2 and 3 introduce new classes, but also new races and new, sometimes better, feats. I’d suggest getting PHB2, but holding off on 3. IMO it’s a little bit better and adds more iconic options. Namely, bard, barbarian, and druid, as opposed to monk and psion.

The X Power books are good, but worth holding off on until you get an idea of what your players are doing. Of note is Martial Power only references PHB classes whereas Arcane and Divine reference both PHB 1 and 2 classes, so your mileage is somewhat dependent.

Now I’ve found the layout really handy for comparing options across different books but it does add up the more books are in play. Picking a new Power is reasonably quick. Go to your class section in the relevant PHB. It’s sorted by level so you have about four options to pick from all grouped together. Repeat in the relevant X Power book, if necessary. Feats are a bit more spread out, but since they’re all set by tier, I find making a wishlist of all the feats you find interesting on the back of your sheet and working your way through it as you level works really well.