I played 4th edition for the first time - here are my thoughts.

[chif-ii]

Comically enough, I've had chats with quite a few people that are relatively high in the vidya game industry and, when the topic of D&D editions came up, stating that I prefer 4e instead of 3.PF or 5e was seen as evidence that I would be a good systems designer because they all see 4e as the "better designed system, even if it's not precisely D&D" (they also laugh at 4e being seen by many people as a "failed" game because it wasn't as profitable or popular even though it's a better designed game, since, in both PnP and video games, "good" is only loosely correlated with "profitable/popular").

Agreed. 4e is a more thoughtfully-designed system that had some serious flaws at launch (bad encounter design, limited character selection), a customer base fanatically devoted to the previous edition, and a competing system specifically designed to capture those disappointed fans.

[OldSalt]

Not that I haven't been enjoying lurking and reading everyone's reactions...but what are your thoughts on rituals?

An unwieldy patch on the problem of relying on combat encounters as the basis for short-term repeatable, pseudo-random powers.

5e is the best version of D&D.

Pathfinder is the company I consider to be the effective holder of the D&D franchise now.

D&D5 seems to be an overly complicated bodge to try and merge the the D&D and 4e markets.

[Yakk]

Wait, 5e is overly complicated, while 3e/pf is not?

Well, at least satire is obvious.

[OldSalt]

Wait, 5e is overly complicated, while 3e/pf is not?

Well, at least satire is obvious.

If you're referring to me, my source is an examination of the 5e book in a book chain, where it looked like it was aiming for Warhammer RPG, AD&D1, Gyglax levels of complexity.

D&D3.5 was pulling apart AD&D do people could reassemble it to build hopefully balanced characters. It was the first workable system from the company that saved D&D.

Pathfinder takes that abandoned system and continued to preserve the D&D feel, after D&D4 happened, much to their credit.

D&D4 is still playable, nethertheless. Those congealed lumps of homogenised, pseudo-random combat powers have their own achy, breaky charm.

[MwaO]

Personally, I dislike the ritual rules as written. They require a lot of bookkeeping (which I do not enjoy at all) and are generally so hyperspecific that they either allow players to completely circumvent a skill challenge with a comparatively minor expenditure of ritual components (which basically gets translated by players into "residuum" because residuum is the same cost but can be used for all ritual types) or they're useless "loot" that the player just keeps in their ritual book doing nothing.

One thing to note about rituals is that when you get to about 5-10 levels higher than the level ritual, there's essentially no bookkeeping. 25 gold is not particularly meaningful at 6th level and is basically 0 in Paragon.

So as ritual casters get higher and higher level, they gain this whole set of usable nearly at-will options...

[Kurald Galain]

So as ritual casters get higher and higher level, they gain this whole set of usable nearly at-will options...

Well, except for the ludicrous casting time and many silly restrictions on rituals mentioned above. The cost of rituals was never really the problem.

[Dimers]

If you're referring to me, my source is an examination of the 5e book in a book chain, where it looked like it was aiming for Warhammer RPG, AD&D1, Gyglax levels of complexity.

Oh gosh no. I wouldn't call 5e simplistic, but it's definitely simple compared to 3.X or PF or 4e. Or 2nd-ed with the Player's Option books, for that matter. Relatively streamlined, straightforward skill application, easy adjudication of combat effects, doesn't waste time trying to preclude 'edge cases' that will rarely arise.

[MwaO]

Well, except for the ludicrous casting time and many silly restrictions on rituals mentioned above. The cost of rituals was never really the problem.

Casting time? Most rituals take 10 minutes to cast. Yes, that makes some rituals less worthwhile, but at the same time, they're not supposed to dominate play. The person who has Perception trained is the one supposed to be finding the secret door, not some caster waving his hand and finding it automatically.

And some of what you list as silly restrictions really aren't. Not 100% sure what ritual takes 8 hours to cast, but let's look at what you mentioned:
Traveler's Chant lasts 8 hours, takes 10 minutes to cast. Speaking as someone who played a Bard at 1st level in early 4e, I used this all the time - once a day for free and liked it better than the other options.

Arcane Lock. It isn't hard at all for a 4th level Wizard without any exceptional bonuses to roll a 30 and most monsters are not trained in Thievery. Assume you're assisted by 2 party members and failed by 2. That's +2. You're trained(+5), level 4(+2), 21 Int(+5), and getting a +5 from the ritual for a base of +19. Roll an 11 and there you go. Have a +2 from somewhere else and 3 assists/1 fail and that's all the way up to 35. Which can stop most paragon tier monsters from getting through even on a 20 - a level 16 Elite Earth Titan just has a +14 Strength check as an example. Sure, it has a +19 Athletics, but that's not a skill that gets through Arcane Lock.

Illusions. Similar in some ways to Arcane Lock, just without the +5. But unless there's a good reason, shouldn't be making 20 checks. And many creatures aren't going to be trained in the appropriate checks.

Commune with Nature. You likely get 4 questions due to assists and Wisdom being a common not-dump stat. "Is there X nearby." "What direction is it in?" "Anything dangerous in the way?" "Is it within a half a mile?"

Etc...

[Kurald Galain]

Commune with Nature. You likely get 4 questions due to assists and Wisdom being a common not-dump stat. "Is there X nearby." "What direction is it in?" "Anything dangerous in the way?" "Is it within a half a mile?"

"What direction is it in?"

"Yes."

They're yes/no questions. That's what makes it so useless.

[MwaO]

Oh gosh no. I wouldn't call 5e simplistic, but it's definitely simple compared to 3.X or PF or 4e. Or 2nd-ed with the Player's Option books, for that matter. Relatively streamlined, straightforward skill application, easy adjudication of combat effects, doesn't waste time trying to preclude 'edge cases' that will rarely arise.

It can appear that way, but a Caster 8 with a 20 Stat can easily have 15 at-will options until they use up their highest level slot. And that's even ignoring that some spells behave differently when leveled up.

The simplicity is mostly in that non-casters don't have a lot of options - and therefore their combat turns resolve really fast.

[MwaO]

"What direction is it in?"

"Yes."

They're yes/no questions. That's what makes it so useless.

You might want to reread the ritual. That's not what it actually says.

[Yakk]

"What direction is it in?"

"Yes."

Unless "Yes" is a direct, that is either incorrect or dishonest.

They're yes/no questions. That's what makes it so useless.

No:

The primal spirits you communicate with are honest but sometimes can be elusive. Most questions are answered with a yes or a no

They aren't yes/no questions; they give honest but sometimes elusive answers.

As it happens, if Yes is the name of a direction, then Yes is a valid answer.

Maybe you are thinking of another ritual.

[Bahamut7]

I find the Rituals are great but each need to be tweaked to better go with the feel of the campaign and to better match the task at hand. Yes, 10 minutes on some rituals are stupid and some like the item creation feat should be a bit more flexible considering what you are creating. If my Artificer is making Reading Glasses (translates everything), that should not take an hour if a +6 Polymorphing Armor also takes an hour.

While I like the idea of Residuum (or however it is spelled) as a way to ease the book keeping, I feel it should be rarer as it is essentially powder Magic. I would run in my campaigns that Rituals can use it but it will be difficult to find. I would also have to redo the disenchant ritual for this reason.

[OracleofWuffing]

As it happens, if Yes is the name of a direction, then Yes is a valid answer.

Great, now someone's gonna roll a campaign where there are 5,032 prominent individual settlements scattered across the planes, all named "Yes" or some homophone of the sort.

[Tiadoppler]

Great, now someone's gonna roll a campaign where there are 5,032 prominent individual settlements scattered across the planes, all named "Yes" or some homophone of the sort.

Done.

The roads, waterways and taverns are all called some variant of no, noh, nho, noe, and nno. The capital city is Maybe. The nation is called Somewhere Else. The big enemy evil creatures are called the "mai phamil eeand frends". The verbal component for Cure Light Wounds is pronounced "Dai" and must be shouted as loud as possible. The somatic component is a single raised central digit from each of the caster's primary manipulators.

[chif-ii]

Great, now someone's gonna roll a campaign where there are 5,032 prominent individual settlements scattered across the planes, all named "Yes" or some homophone of the sort.

Plane of Ambiguity confirmed for D&D 6th Edition.

It would be the perfect place to hide someone. It's not that divination spells don't work; it's just that there's so much noise (everyone has 15 quantum duplicates of themselves running around) that it would be impossible to find the right one just by divining it out.

[Kurald Galain]

Plane of Ambiguity confirmed for D&D 6th Edition.

Obviously this needs random encounters with Schrödinger Cats. Or undead Schrödinger Cats.

[chif-ii]

Obviously this needs random encounters with Schrödinger Cats. Or undead Schrödinger Cats.

Eh, I've never liked using Schrodinger's Cats. Rolling twice on the random encounter table and taking both results never meshed well with my deterministic DMing style.

[MwaO]

Eh, I've never liked using Schrodinger's Cats. Rolling twice on the random encounter table and taking both results never meshed well with my deterministic DMing style.

That's because the other you couldn't get out of the box with the poison gas...

[RedMage125]

OP:

Glad you gave 4e a try. I LOVED 3.5e, and was loathe to switch, but reading the 4e design material (Races&Classes and Worlds&Monsters) made me fall in love with what 4e was trying to achieve. I got into 4e from the beginning, and was almost always the DM. Having DMed for 3e, 4e, and 5e, and played all of those (plus 2e), I have to say that 4e was, BY A HUGE MARGIN, the easiest to DM.

• Focus on grid: This is totally a legit complaint for people who don't like such. I played 3e with grids and minis, though, so I appreciate a tactical approach to combat. This is a mater of taste and preference, though.
  
• Deciphering Powers: I guess I don't share this concern, because I got into 4e at the ground level, so I adjusted to it quickly. I only had ONE book to read through at a time, because I was usually able to get the new ones when they came out (I have every 4e book except The Plane Above). But I can see how this would be complex for people getting into it later.
  
• Skill system: Again, this is a view that stems from going from 3.5e to 5e to 4e. Viewed as 3.5e->SWSE->4e->5e it's a linear scale getting simpler.
  
• Cooperative character gen: I agree with posters who said this was a good idea, but not necessary. An ideal 4e party is 5 people. Defender, Melee Striker, Ranged Striker, Leader, and Controller. IF you have 6 people, my recommendation is a 2nd Defender who minors in Leader, like a Paladin or a Life Warden (PHB2/Primal Power).
  
• Static NADs: I agree that this was a great way to make things simpler with more player agency.
  
• Encounter Design: Probably the highlight of what makes 4e so appealing to DM. Seriously. Fluid, Beautiful, Simple, and Elegant. Even making your own unique creatures is easy.
  
• 4e monsters have a LOT of col riders and abilities, although those don't start to show up until mid to late Heroic Tier. If you played low heroic tier, that explains why you didn't see many of them. Solo monsters especially are a brilliant design, and I have run Dragons, Beholders, and unique solos.
  
• Too many hit points: Another valid critique of 4e is how long combat takes. 4e was designed with the idea of "cinematic combat". Which means lots of monsters, or creatures that have a lot of hp, sometimes both. Minions cater to this goal as well. Unfortunately, EVERY combat is cinematic, and very few combats are over within one or two rounds, like other editions. This gets tedious. But the upside is that by making an enemy controller or Artillery monster Elite, you have have an enemy spellcaster who doesn't go down after a few hits, and is a genuine threat for the majority of the encounter.
  
• Roleplaying: I have ALWAYS has a great time roleplaying in 4e. Some criticized 4e for a lack of simulationist rules, like crafting and whatnot. I saw that as a blank slate for free-form roleplaying, which was what was intended. I'm glad your group seized that opportunity.

[Felhammer]

I'd say some attention was given in earlier editions, just not in the base books. Player's Option in 2nd Ed and Tome Of Battle in 3rd both emphasized tactics and different ways of interacting on a battlemap.

Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga's Force Powers were the early test bed ideas for 4E's Power system, which is why they felt more dynamic than generic 3.5.
.

[neonchameleon]

If you're referring to me, my source is an examination of the 5e book in a book chain, where it looked like it was aiming for Warhammer RPG, AD&D1, Gyglax levels of complexity.

Indeed. When I can fit the core rules of D&D 4e onto a double sided trifold and everything else goes on the character sheet 4e is vastly less complex than any of the other games you mention. And the idea that Gary Gygax produced a simple game when you read the AD&D 1 PHB and DMG is silly. Quick question: What are the rules for helmets according to the DMG - does it have any?

D&D3.5 was pulling apart AD&D do people could reassemble it to build hopefully balanced characters. It was the first workable system from the company that saved D&D.

First, you seem to forget D&D 3.0 which was workable. 3.5 was the rewrite that was planned from the launch of 3.0. And second Gygax spent a lot of time and effort balancing both oD&D and AD&D 1E. Why are the XP tracks different? Game balance. Why can't clerics wield edged weapons? It was a way of making sure that the most powerful magic weapons got funneled towards the fighters. What was the demihuman level cap all about? You could have an easier game in exchange for being locked out of the endgame. Why did you need high stats to enter certain classes? So you didn't put those stats in more powerful positions.

D&D 3.0 put most of the balance rules in AD&D that 2E hadn't wrecked (including the effective level cap) through the shredder and didn't seem to notice.

Pathfinder takes that abandoned system and continued to preserve the D&D feel, after D&D4 happened, much to their credit.

Pathfinder takes the worst balanced version of D&D in history (no other edition allowed Pun-Pun) and the most fiddly, complex, and detail oriented version of D&D in history (no other edition had D&D Standard Trees) and continues to preserve and double down on all the ways the unbalanced process-sim game with superficial consistency turned its back on the fundamental design assumptions of Gygax' game.

D&D4 is still playable, nethertheless. Those congealed lumps of homogenised, pseudo-random combat powers have their own achy, breaky charm.

Being playable and not ludicrously unbalanced being one of them. On the other hand Pathfinder has its own charm and is excellent to read and can inspire some interesting characters.

[ThePurple]

And second Gygax spent a lot of time and effort balancing both oD&D and AD&D 1E. Why are the XP tracks different? Game balance. Why can't clerics wield edged weapons? It was a way of making sure that the most powerful magic weapons got funneled towards the fighters. What was the demihuman level cap all about? You could have an easier game in exchange for being locked out of the endgame. Why did you need high stats to enter certain classes? So you didn't put those stats in more powerful positions.

Except that every single one of those choices is an absolutely terrible way to balance the game.

The different xp tracks make sense if you have a single player controlling an entire group of PCs but that's not how D&D was intended to be played; it makes even less sense when you consider that magic-users were utterly worthless at low levels, when the xp track that were on made them level even at half the speed of a thief (and the tracks don't even make much sense; when wizards finally start being able to pull their weight and overshadowing the other classes, *they start requiring less xp for each level*). From everything I've seen, clerics being unable to use edged weapons was actually more of a thematic choice ("Clerics can't draw blood" and an attempt to force all religious characters into very specific archetypes) since there were plenty of non-edged weapons that were on par with the edged weapons. Pretty much the only real penalty was clerics not being able to use any decent ranged weapons (they were basically forced to use slings). The demihuman level cap, to me, seemed more about trying to encourage multi-classing instead of single classing (especially since the human racial "benefit" when classes were race restricted was that humans had no racial restriction) though I can see the argument for improving early performance at the cost of an end game cap. The need for high stats wasn't so much about putting stats in bad positions (with the exception of paladin CHA requirement, every single stat requirement was useful for the class in question) but to force a character creation lottery on players: if you rolled crappy stats, you wouldn't get access to the more powerful classes.

You could make the claim that he made those choices because he thought it would balance things out, but intention doesn't equate to results. All of those choices were absolutely horrible for the balance of the game. It doesn't help that he admitted at one point that he specifically designed the game so that, beyond the first few levels, the game was supposed to be all about magic-users so you can't even really claim that he was ever really trying to actually balance the classes since his *goal* was for the game to discourage high level fighters and thieves in favor of magic-users.

3.X tried to address pretty much all of those terrible design decisions by seeking to *actually make the game somewhat balanced*. It wasn't perfect (it still held on to the "everything is about casters from level 5 onward" design and there were still plenty of egregious balance problems especially as more and more splat books were released), but it directly addressed a lot of the terrible (if well intentioned) systemic decisions that Gygax made with an eye towards results rather than hopeful thinking coupled with a general inability to see D&D as a single complex system rather than a bunch of disparate ones.

[neonchameleon]

Except that every single one of those choices is an absolutely terrible way to balance the game.

The different xp tracks make sense if you have a single player controlling an entire group of PCs but that's not how D&D was intended to be played;

You're making the classic error of assuming that how you expect to play D&D was the way that D&D was expected to be played in Lake Geneva and Gygax intended it to be played. To take the single most obvious example, the wizard wasn't as useless as you think; low PCs were expected to bring along hirelings or war dogs. The wizard might have only got one spell at first level - but if they had something like Sleep it meant that they could end one hard encounter for a party of approximately two dozen - hardly worthless. And the rest of the time they'd spend it organizing the hirelings.

To take the second example from the wizard, a first level wizard in a party where you have about a score of hirelings between you and the enemy isn't that vulnerable. You've got all those lovely hit points sitting between you and the enemy. On the other hand the levels you point out where the wizard XP speeds up are the levels where hirelings and war dogs become almost worthless and if they value their lives don't go into the dungeon no matter what you pay them. Which means that yes, they are accelerating in power - but their life expectancy has taken a sharp turn for the worse because they've lost their ablative meat shields.

since there were plenty of non-edged weapons that were on par with the edged weapons.

Really? If we look at the 1e weapons table and look in specific at the damage vs large creatures, which other weapons do the 3d6 damage the greatsword does (against large creatures)? The only one is the heavy lance (which has its own issues...). Which other one handed weapons do the 1d12 damage the longsword does (against large creatures)? The only one is the Katana. Swords were among the best weapons in the game against medium creatures - and the best weapons in the game without exception against large creatures. This was a deliberate balancing factor that gave fighters more of a boost at higher levels when just about everything worth hitting was large.

And if we look at magic items on the 1e DMG p121 Gygax explicitly says "the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game." We also find that 11% of all magic items in the game are magic swords - with all other magic weapons between them covering a mere 14% of magic items (10% of this 14% are maces and 8% hammers). Between p124 and p125 of the DMG we find out that swords go up to +5 plus some weirdly good swords. On the other hand there is a +4 mace. There's also the mace of disruption, the dwarven thrower, and the hammer of thunderbolts - but no other non-sword weapon in the DMG goes beyond +3 except legendary artifacts.

So there may be non-sword weapons that have as good enchantments as swords (I'm not arguing vorpal sword vs hammer of thunderbolts and I'm also not counting artifacts) but there are far fewer of them.

[Beoric]

Quick question: What are the rules for helmets according to the DMG - does it have any?

DMG p. 28:

It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to
the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer.
Wearing of a "great helm" adds the appropriate weight and restricts
vision to the front 60" only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not
worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is
intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6,
1-3 = head blow).

Which actually underscores your point. AD&D is a mess of subsystems - or it would be if anybody used them. I think most people picked what they liked and ran the rest like OD&D or BECMI.

[Beoric]

And second Gygax spent a lot of time and effort balancing both oD&D and AD&D 1E. Why are the XP tracks different? Game balance. Why can't clerics wield edged weapons? It was a way of making sure that the most powerful magic weapons got funneled towards the fighters. What was the demihuman level cap all about? You could have an easier game in exchange for being locked out of the endgame. Why did you need high stats to enter certain classes? So you didn't put those stats in more powerful positions.

Yeah, I would argue that point. At least half of those choices were for flavour reasons and had nothing to do with balance. MUs need more XPs because their discipline needs more study. I'm pretty sure clerics used blunt weapons because of a legend of a fighting cleric during the Norman invasion of England who used a mace "that he would shed no blood" (except that pouring out of the ears and nose after he crushed their skull, apparently). IIRC the level cap was a Gygaxian ecology thing that justified human domination of the game world. Paladins needed high stats because they were supposed to be the best of the best.

Incidentally, the changes to stat generation in Unearthed Arcana ensured that everyone had a good chance of generating roughly the same array of stats. I worked it through once, it generates very similar results to the standard 4e array.

[Kurald Galain]

The different xp tracks make sense if you have a single player controlling an entire group of PCs but that's not how D&D was intended to be played; it makes even less sense when you consider that magic-users were utterly worthless at low levels,

MUs are only "worthless" if you assume that the party is going to solve everything through combat and that a normal adventure is about having three or four level-appropriate battles per day. That's not at all how that edition of D&D was intended to be played.

[ThePurple]

MUs are only "worthless" if you assume that the party is going to solve everything through combat and that a normal adventure is about having three or four level-appropriate battles per day. That's not at all how that edition of D&D was intended to be played.

Except that the first editions of D&D didn't have non-combat rules; it was all based on the *player* to make up for the low level MU's worthless combat capabilities in non-combat situations, as you suggest, but *any* could do that because there was nothing about the MU that made them any better at it. That's not game balance.

I find it almost farcical for people to keep defending the early editions of D&D as having a semblance of balance because "you must not have been playing it right" when, if you go by the *actual written rules* rather than attempting to defend Gygax, it's laughably imbalanced and patently absurd. I'm not trying to demonize Gygax or disparage him for everything he did to make this hobby that I love so dearly, but he (and the editions he wrote/created) was *far* from perfect and he made a *lot* of largely arbitrary and patently *bad* decisions with post facto justification (by both himself and others) in order to maintain his reputation as a legend among tabletop game designers.

If you read the stories about the early games of D&D that created a lot of the mythos/history of the Greyhawk setting, there's no mention *at all* of entourages and war dogs. Most of the stories involve a tiny handful of players *as the only actors and combatants* and often it was just a single one. The closest I've seen to the game being played in the "war party" manner is the stories from my father wherein every player played 2 characters at the table, one of which was a non-MU (fighter or thief) and the other was an MU (because MU's were basically worthless until you got them to a high enough level to render the *other* class worthless). You could argue that this is the way it was intended to be played by Gygax, but it seems pretty revisionist to me since there's absolutely nothing written anywhere in the rules about playing multiple characters and none of the early games discussed involve anyone playing more than one character at a time (in fact, a number of stories only make sense if there is a *single* character).

[Kurald Galain]

Except that the first editions of D&D didn't have non-combat rules

Perhaps you should check those books again

Anyway, you're arguing against the wrong guy here. Neon is the one who claims that 1E is balanced; I'm only claiming that one of the most popular classes from that game isn't "worthless" as you suggested earlier. And, obviously, that it didn't intend for players to solve everything with 3 or 4 level-appropriate combats per day.

[Beoric]

@ ThePurple: The 1e DMG had about 8 pages of tiny font devoted to henchmen and hirelings. Fighters, rangers, clerics, thieves and assassins all got a number of followers once they achieved "name" level, which gets another page and a half. The random encounter tables assumed rival adventuring parties would include 9 NPCs, of which 2-5 were character classes and the balance were henchmen or hirelings.

The 1e PH expressly says that players "must create one or more game personas." [emphasis added] It also has half a page of tiny font on henchmen and hirelings.

Early adventures like Hommlet (and Keep on the Borderlands, IIRC) made a point of telling the DM which NPCs would be willing to go adventuring with the PCs.

@Kurald Galain: The issue with MUs may not have been how 35-year-old Gygax meant it to be played, but it was certainly the way most pre-adolescent or adolescent male newcomers to the game played it. It always starts out as a hackfest of chaotic (regardless of alignment) murder-hobos. More nuanced play comes later, but only after those early habits become ingrained.

And while you could survive as a low level MU by being an absolute monster for one combat (assuming your DM gave you sleep, which he did not have to), it was deadly boring if you had more than one combat to spend the rest of the session in the back row missing with darts.

I don't even care about this argument (I'm not even sure I know what it is about). But there are enough misconceptions about what the early game was about (including in the OSR community) without compounding the issue here.