PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Edition to 4e



Bulix
2012-10-27, 07:36 AM
Hello,
I have been playing D&D for about a year, all that time using 3.5 edition. Now, I know that every single person has a different opinion about this but, should I pass over to 4e? It looks kind of cool, but it seems to be focused on combat instead of anything else my sessions have. And, I hear spells are considered powers here, does that mean you can only have a really small amount of spells? The monsters do catch my attention though, and I know the basic rules. Should I try it?

Thanks :smallbiggrin:

molten_dragon
2012-10-27, 07:41 AM
Personally, I didn't like 4th edition much at all. It was way too simplistic for me, and every class was too much the same. I played it only a couple months after it came out, so it's possible that it's changed considerably since then.

I'd recommend trying it though. Playing it is the only way you'll know whether you like it or not.

And to answer your question about spells, they don't really exist in 4th edition, at least not the way they do in 3.5. A wizard's "spells" are just at-will, encounter, or daily powers like every other class gets.

Cranthis
2012-10-27, 07:45 AM
Also, when playing fourth edition, with even 0 optimization, there is almost no sense of danger. At all.

Waddacku
2012-10-27, 08:00 AM
Also, when playing fourth edition, with even 0 optimization, there is almost no sense of danger. At all.

This has nothing to do with the system and all to do with what the DM throws against you.

Bulix
2012-10-27, 08:01 AM
Hello,
I have been playing D&D for about a year, all that time using 3.5 edition. Now, I know that every single person has a different opinion about this but, should I pass over to 4e? It looks kind of cool, but it seems to be focused on combat instead of anything else my sessions have. And, I hear spells are considered powers here, does that mean you can only have a really small amount of spells? The monsters do catch my attention though, and I know the basic rules. Should I try it?

Thanks :smallbiggrin:

Lord Raziere
2012-10-27, 09:01 AM
well first of all, its so different form 3.5 that many people have said it might as well be a different game.

but thats not a bad thing! new experiences can be enlightening, opens up new horizons. go ahead, try it, its ok! who knows? you might like it. and if you don't? you don't. its that simple.

GnomeGninjas
2012-10-27, 09:10 AM
Hello,
I have been playing D&D for about a year, all that time using 3.5 edition. Now, I know that every single person has a different opinion about this but, should I pass over to 4e? It looks kind of cool, but it seems to be focused on combat instead of anything else my sessions have.That's my experience too. And, I hear spells are considered powers here, does that mean you can only have a really small amount of spells? Yes.The monsters do catch my attention though, and I know the basic rules. Should I try it? If you like 3.5 a lot you probably won't like 4e if you try to use 4e to play the same type of game as you ran using 3.5. 4e is a enjoyable combat simulator though it can't do the things 3.5 can do. To try it out I recomend going to a local gaming store, they will probably have a drop in 4e game. If you like the experience then maybe you should buy the core books, if you don't like it then at least you didn't spend $50ish on a game you don't like.

Thanks :smallbiggrin:

Response in bold.

Philistine
2012-10-27, 09:15 AM
You might have better luck asking this in the 4E forum - discussion of the system's flaws and merits there tends to be better-informed.

tcrudisi
2012-10-27, 09:15 AM
This is a tough question.

4e has some inherent advantages over 3.5, while 3.5 is better in other ways. It depends on what you want. And then throw in the fact that 5e will be out soon enough and it makes it even more complicated.

4e is much better for the DM. If you are the DM in your party, strongly consider it. Prep time goes down so, so, so very much in 4e compared to 3.5.

The fluff in 4e is far more mutable. In other words, it's easier to describe what you want to be happening, rather than what the power itself says. That's pretty darn cool.

4e's rules are certainly more "combat-oriented." Is that a bad thing? Heck no. Do you really need rules to tell you how to roleplay? Well, some people do. There's still the same amount of roleplaying in 4e as there was in 3.5, at least in my groups. We didn't change our roleplay simply because there's no Craft skill or Performance. If we need to make a Performance check, we use Diplomacy, Streetwise, or Bluff, depending on the situation.

And speaking of skills, they became more streamlined. No more having to put points into Spot, Listen, and Search. It's all Perception now. And things like that, which I consider a wonderful change.

And there's one huge, big difference in the roleplay and skills which I want to call out: skill challenges. You'll get very mixed reviews on them, even from hardcore 4e fans. Personally, I love them. I can't imagine ever playing D&D without them, ever again. Even if I went back to 3.5, I'd introduce them. Basically, it's a series of skills that help to tell a story. You get combat-like experience for completing it and it helps the DM to focus on the skills that need to be done to perform a task. The reason it's so tricky is that it's improperly used by many DMs. I admit that it's tricky for the players. Once they know they are in a skill challenge, I find the vast majority will proceed to drop out of roleplaying and try and just use their skills. So, as a DM, I make sure not to tell them they are in a skill challenge.

An example skill challenge might be to sneak into the kings chambers to poison his drink. So, how do you get into the castle and do this? To get over the wall, maybe you use Athletics to climb. Or stealth to sneak by. Perception is always good to look out for guards. Nature for the poison. Etc. As you set the scene, the players describe what they do, and it just flows ... wonderfully. At least for my groups. In some public-play groups that I've been in, it has devolved into "I use Athletics." But that's when the players know they are in a skill challenge. I admit, skill challenges are tough to use, but highly rewarding when you are successful at utilizing them. And they give xp as though you were in a combat! :) And, that to me, is a huge win over any other edition of D&D: you are now given significant xp rewards for non-combat things.

Yes, there are fewer powers, if you are a caster. The wizard has both less powers and more. The Cleric has less ... and more. The melees? They flat-out have more and are far more improved. 4e is certainly balanced. Some don't like that. Some believe the Wizard SHOULD be more powerful than the Fighter. I don't. I like balance. And why does the Wizard sometimes have more powers than in 3.5? Rituals. If you are talking about combat powers, the 3.5 wizard definitely had more powers. But if you talk about non-combat powers, it is very easy to have more rituals (non-combat spells) than in 3.5. Especially if you consider the ability to do them "on the fly." In other words, your rituals are always available to be cast. Now, they often take 5-10 minutes, but you can still do it without having to memorize them.

Rituals are contentious. I admit they could have been done better. They were poorly implemented, but at the same time, a fantastic idea. In other words: great idea, but poorly done. Why poorly done? The 5-10 minute cast time means it's often better just to use skills than it is to use a ritual. Some rituals, like overland flight, cannot be done via skills, though. Your mileage may vary on these.

Finally, the teamwork. In 3.5 it was easy to have one character who did it all. The Wizard would say, "combat? lol I got this." "Oh, we need to convince the king to give us money? lol Dominate Person." "Oh, we have to get over the ravine? lol Fly." "Oh, this is a trap filled corridor? lol Summon Monster 1 to get a bunch of mooks to find the traps for us." But in 4e, that's not possible. At all. Teamwork is REQUIRED. Seriously, it's mandatory. You can't possibly play without teamwork... or you all will die. And the characters are balanced, mostly. Even if you have an extreme optimizer versus a new player, the difference in heroic tier will be tiny. Even in epic levels, the new player will always be able to pull their own weight and contribute to the party.

So - does that sound interesting? If so, pick up 4e. But note that 5e will be out soon enough and you might want to wait to buy all the new books then.

crimsonstride
2012-10-27, 09:20 AM
Also, when playing fourth edition, with even 0 optimization, there is almost no sense of danger. At all.

He's right. I've been DMing a solid 4e game for about a year now, and the main difference between it and 3.5 is that as a DM, you really have no power other than choosing what the players get to fight, and what story they get to hear. Unless you do a lot of houseruling, numbers fudging, and DM cheese, the players will always have the upper hand, every time.

For instance, in my group there is a barbarian who, within 3 rounds, almost single-handedly killed Torag, god of the Underdark. The players do THAT much damage and often times I'll have to triple the amount of HP creatures have just to have the fight last longer.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-27, 09:31 AM
Ask a loaded question why don't ya? :smallamused:

I can't speak to the ins and outs of the system, all I can say is that I'm a very solid 3.5 fan and 4e just rubbed me the wrong way when I read through the PHB.

Snowbluff
2012-10-27, 09:37 AM
4e has its fair share of problems. The utter lack of effective OP makes higher level encounters take FOREVER! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSX8tAWg9A)

Plus, you know, the lack of OP. Which makes making a character not as much fun. I am not a big fan of PF, but I think it did simpler better than 4e when it came to character creation.

Kesnit
2012-10-27, 09:39 AM
I like 4E better than 3.5, though will play either. What I like about it is what turns many people off, though.

Contrary to what people say, the fact that most characters have the same number of powers does not mean they all play the same. Controllers play differently than Blasters, who play different from Leaders or Defenders. In addition, psionic classes work on a different system (at-wills augmented by power points).

Also, 4E is not all about combat, unless the DM makes it that way. If the DM does not use Skill Challenges, then there isn't a lot of call for skills. That is not a flaw of the system, but of the DM. Combat takes up a lot of the books, it's true, but that's because the skill system is easier to explain. (The skills work the same for everyone, as opposed to class powers, which have to be detailed individually.)

In all honesty, no one here can tell you if you should switch to 4E or not. There are some free sample adventures available. Check them out with your group and see how it goes over.

Lord Raziere
2012-10-27, 09:45 AM
Hey I say: sure, its different, but…come on, variety, spice of life right? won't know if you like it until you try it. who knows? maybe it'll expand your horizons, give you an experience you would like, and if you don't, you don't, its that simple. everyone else is just complicating it: just try it, if you like it good! if you don't, whatever.

Adoendithas
2012-10-27, 09:54 AM
You can get a free quickstart guide from WoTC's website, you should try that with your group. It's a nice little introduction to the system.

HunterOfJello
2012-10-27, 10:37 AM
Should you check it out?
You can. It's a very different game.

Is it a natural progression to learn 3.5, then move on to 4e?
Absolutely not. Fourth edition isn't 3.5 with more updated rules. It isn't like 2e -> 3e or 3e -> 3.5 was. It's a completely different game that happens to be somewhat similar in rules and has all the same monsters in it.

Ask the 4e forum for ideas about it and check it out for yourself. They'll give you much different opinions on it. I've never personally found a reason for me or my group to switch. If your group is having fun already, then it'll only be a bunch of work to learn and new books to buy.


~

The 5e testing forums sometimes make me wonder if 4e is just for people who have the Vancian magic system of 3.5 .

Piggy Knowles
2012-10-27, 10:47 AM
The last group I was with switched to 4E, and I remained with them for a little under a year.

In general, I was not a huge fan of it, but it wasn't so bad that it was worth leaving a decent table for. (I ended up leaving because of schedule conflicts, not because of the switch.) I still vastly prefer 3.5e, but it wasn't as bad as I'd expected.

Some problems I have are the same that others have mentioned - there's a definite feeling of "sameness" with all of your various options. This did wonders as far as balance is concerned... while there were still some definite balance gaps, it was not nearly as extreme as you see in 3.5e. On the other hand, it meant that every character you built didn't actually feel THAT different from any other. Also, in 3.5e I could pretty much always come up with a build concept and find a way to get the mechanics to match the flavor. That's not necessarily true in 4e.

Finally, this is sort of a silly complaint since this is actually something that most people LIKED about 4e, but the constant barrage of new content was actually something of a turn-off for me. (This was the case for me with part of the 3.5 run, as well.) In addition to being very aggressive about quickly releasing books, they had (have?) official Dragon content coming out online on a weekly basis. I can't really explain why that turned me off so much, but for some reason it really started to rub me the wrong way after a while.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-27, 10:49 AM
Great Modthulhu: Fair Warning is given - at the first hint of this becoming an edition war, the thread will be locked and not re-opened. Play nice.

Mcdt2
2012-10-27, 10:58 AM
Personally, I started playing 4e before any other system, I played and and DM'ed for it for about a year, and it eventually drove me to try 3.5, because the issues with 4e bugged em too much. Now, don't get me wrong, 4e had some great ideas, but fundementally I think that was the problem. They had some good ideas, but the execution fell flat. I actually like the "Powers" concept, and every now and then come up with an idea that would work best using that system, but most of the powers written are boring, nothing more than [Basic Attack] + [Some random modifier] or [basic attack]+[now it's AOE], etc. There were a few good ones, especially in later books, with the Warlord and the Psionic classes (including monk), but by and large, most of the powers were bland enough that you have a hard time not just getting at least one Basic Attack 2.0 power. This problem was much less for caster classes, of course, but even they tended to feel bland within thier roles. Sure a blaster mage felt different from a controller mage, but every controller felt the same to me.

Now that I'm done with the bashing however, let me tell you what I DID like about 4e. The skill system is vastly simplified, which cuts down on the situations it covers but it makes it far easier to use and learn. Stupid feat taxes are not very common (although the feats still aren't that great). The "Background" concept was cool, giving you an incentive to fill in your backstory and get some minor mechanical reward for doing so. Finally, Fighters, Wizards, and Rogues actually can operate on much closer tiers, so class imbalance is rarer, and is usually a result of the player playing them badly, not the character being badly built or just naturally inept at thier own given role.

TL;DR - You take the good with bad, but I feel the bad outwieghs the good.

EDIT: I don't want to say 4e is bad or anything, it just does not really fit my style of play. Every system has massive flaws to go with its srtong points. Not seeking any "Edition War" here, belive me, I'm fed up with them.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-27, 11:01 AM
4e has its fair share of problems. The utter lack of effective OP makes higher level encounters take FOREVER! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSX8tAWg9A)

Plus, you know, the lack of OP. Which makes making a character not as much fun. I am not a big fan of PF, but I think it did simpler better than 4e when it came to character creation.


He's right. I've been DMing a solid 4e game for about a year now, and the main difference between it and 3.5 is that as a DM, you really have no power other than choosing what the players get to fight, and what story they get to hear. Unless you do a lot of houseruling, numbers fudging, and DM cheese, the players will always have the upper hand, every time.

For instance, in my group there is a barbarian who, within 3 rounds, almost single-handedly killed Torag, god of the Underdark. The players do THAT much damage and often times I'll have to triple the amount of HP creatures have just to have the fight last longer.
Huh. That's....interesting.

prufock
2012-10-27, 11:10 AM
I played it once, at level 1, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

1. In theory, I like the class-building system. Everyone uses the same progression table, and classes are more or less defined by the powers available. Characters can be further distinguished by feats. The powers are, compared to 3.5, well-balanced, I thought.

This is coming from a guy who plays Mutants & Masterminds, a system with no classes, entirely point buy, and all options are available to all characters. I've never felt this was a drawback and made the characters "too similar." In M&M, you build to a concept. I think 4e captures some of that feel.

It also gives martial classes fun things to do - more Warblade than Fighter.

So character creation, I'll give an A.

2. I was not DM for this game, so I can't comment much on the DM workload or how much freedom there is to work around the system. However I will say that whatever challenges were put to us, there was still a perceptible danger. Maybe that was because I was expecting it, coming from 3.5, and in time I would have lost that sense. But healing surges were being spent, hit points were hitting low numbers, and there were stakes in the story (not all danger has to come from character death).

3. I enjoyed the session, but it did feel different. Different is not necessarily bad (I've played Paranoia!, M&M, D6, D6 homebrew, and Vampire: the Masquerade), but it doesn't feel like the same game.

RFLS
2012-10-27, 12:11 PM
I've built a character and played in a few sessions, and honestly, I think the biggest difference is who the systems are geared to. Some people like 3.5 because of the massive amount of variety, the number crunching, and the fact that you absolutely need to plan your build out to be remotely competitive later in the game. It's a complicated system, and a lot of people really enjoy that kind of thing.

On the other hand, 4e is really, really simplified, and some people like a game they can reasonably pick up in an afternoon and just start playing. It is, like everyone else has said, a matter of taste.

The rule of thumb I've found is that if you can be nerd sniped (http://xkcd.com/356/), you'll probably enjoy 3.5 more.

navar100
2012-10-27, 01:19 PM
If you're having a great time playing 3E, then there's no need to switch to 4E. Continue playing 3E with your gaming group and all the fun that entails. If you would like to give 4E a try, you could ask your current group. If they say yes, then do it. If they say no, don't force them or rage quit. Instead, continue playing 3E with them and find another group for your 4E playing needs.

4E is a different game than 3E mechanically. People have their preferences but neither invalidates the other.

LordBlades
2012-10-27, 01:23 PM
I've played both 3.5 and 4e(although in the earlier stages) and these have been my impression on each:

3.5: It feels like a true make-believe world. You can bring pretty much any character concept to life, and PCs feel part of the world as they pretty much work by the same basic rules. The main downside of all that is that, as expected in a believable world, some people end up drastically better than others.

4e: It's a good and balanced game, but everything about it screams 'it's a game' to me. The restrictive multiclassing which makes it very hard or impossible to build certain concepts, the fact that PCs operate by a completely different rules than NPCs, the fact that you're usually locked into a role and you suffer if your party doesn't have the needed roles covered simply ruin the feeling of immersion in a fantasy story that I want from D&D.

Redjar
2012-10-27, 02:16 PM
I actually played 4e first. It was my first ever campaign and then I actually DM'd some 4e. I am now in my first 3.5 game and I love it. I love it so much more than 4e. I have the same complaints as others. Even before I started 3.5 everything seemed similar. I'd be looking over classes and they would have similar (or even the exact same) effects in different classes.

I can see where 4e is preferred by some though. It's simpler. It made a great introduction to D&D. I was much more equipped for 3.5 than if I had just started there. So I think 4e is a decent introduction into D&D if you don't want to overwhelm the newcomer.

eggs
2012-10-27, 02:24 PM
The major appeal of both to me is that you can assume an RPG group plays at least one of them, at least once in a while. Neither would be my first choice otherwise, but in that context, they're both worth learning.

I just think 3e's especially fun to geek out over outside sessions.

crimsonstride
2012-10-27, 02:37 PM
Huh. That's....interesting.

I forgot to mention he was level 18, maybe 19? Torag is over level 30. No house-ruling going on whatsoever. His 3 allies provided some buffs, but nothing major aside from a few ranged attacks here and there. The way 4e treats major deities is laughable.

Snowbluff
2012-10-27, 02:46 PM
I will say that although I don't like 4e per say as a whole, it does have value as a board game or as an intro to DnD.

Mechanize
2012-10-27, 03:02 PM
An example skill challenge might be to sneak into the kings chambers to poison his drink. So, how do you get into the castle and do this? To get over the wall, maybe you use Athletics to climb. Or stealth to sneak by. Perception is always good to look out for guards. Nature for the poison. Etc. As you set the scene, the players describe what they do, and it just flows ... wonderfully. At least for my groups. In some public-play groups that I've been in, it has devolved into "I use Athletics." But that's when the players know they are in a skill challenge. I admit, skill challenges are tough to use, but highly rewarding when you are successful at utilizing them. And they give xp as though you were in a combat! :) And, that to me, is a huge win over any other edition of D&D: you are now given significant xp rewards for non-combat things.


I am confused to how this is any different than 3.5 other than the skills being narrowed down into less categories (which I love btw)

Kurald Galain
2012-10-27, 03:17 PM
Chocolate!

Kurald Galain
2012-10-27, 03:18 PM
Strawberry!

Snowbluff
2012-10-27, 03:19 PM
Chocolate!

So I didn't know what you are talking about. Then I clicked on your Chocolate! link... and I still have no idea what this has to so with the conversation. :smallconfused:

Tvtyrant
2012-10-27, 03:20 PM
Chocolate!

Chocolate? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111) CHOCOLATE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vmu6by_vVh0#t=5s)?!?!

Amidus Drexel
2012-10-27, 03:48 PM
Chocolate!

Bah, strawberry is so much better. You get all the good parts of chocolate, and only the drawbacks that are easy to optimize away.

Randomguy
2012-10-27, 03:57 PM
Maybe it would be better to just wait until 5e comes out, so you only need to buy 1 extra set of books instead of 2.

What sort of things do your sessions have as opposed to combat?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-27, 03:59 PM
So I didn't know what you are talking about. Then I clicked on your Chocolate! link... and I still have no idea what this has to so with the conversation. :smallconfused:

It's a running gag that came into being when the edition wars were at their peak. The poster with that link probably presumed that this discussion was already devolving into a flame-war without ever looking over the well reasoned responses that preceeded him.

It may also have been intended as an over-simplified way of saying that some people like chocolate while others like strawberry. Neither is objectively better than the other, but different people like different things. So it is with the 2 most prevalent editions of D&D.

Will 5e be mint flavored, I wonder?

Firechanter
2012-10-27, 06:09 PM
Disclaimer: I have never played 4E.

The question whether you should switch from 3.5 to, well, anything else, is the question what you enjoy or dislike about 3.5. For example, if you love fiddling with character options and optimizing builds etc. etc., it would be folly to switch, because no game supports this approach as well as 3.5.

However, if for example you wish that casters and noncasters weren't so horribly unbalanced, then you should indeed look at alternatives. It needn't be 4E, there are plenty of other games that do this as well.

And if you want the system to be "realistic", more of a simulation than a game, then you should look for something _totally_ different, i.e. not D&D at all, but maybe rather GURPS or HarnMaster or something like that.

It goes on like this.

Snowbluff
2012-10-27, 06:25 PM
It's a running gag that came into being when the edition wars were at their peak. The poster with that link probably presumed that this discussion was already devolving into a flame-war without ever looking over the well reasoned responses that preceeded him.

It may also have been intended as an over-simplified way of saying that some people like chocolate while others like strawberry. Neither is objectively better than the other, but different people like different things. So it is with the 2 most prevalent editions of D&D.

Will 5e be mint flavored, I wonder?

Oh, okay. That kinda makes sense, despite this being the tamest flame war I've been a part of. :smallbiggrin:

Lord Raziere
2012-10-27, 06:30 PM
Chicken and Cheese Taco!

because that makes just as much sense.

Lord Raziere
2012-10-27, 06:36 PM
Chocolate!

Potato Salad!

because randomly shouting food is very constructive. :smallannoyed:

tcrudisi
2012-10-27, 07:13 PM
I am confused to how this is any different than 3.5 other than the skills being narrowed down into less categories (which I love btw)

Because of the way 4e handles it. In the skill challenge, you need X amount of successes before Y amount of failures. If you get the max number of failures first, you've failed at the skill challenge. Perhaps you are capture, to use my example above.

Basically, it helps give the DM focus. For my groups, at least, it has turned it into a proper challenge. It helps the DM decide how many successes and failures are needed, and then it helps reward the players by rewarding xp for it. And that's the big difference: in 3.5 there wasn't an xp reward for using your skills outside of combat. In 4e, there is.

I know it's not much, but to me, it really helped to streamline the use of skills. It encourages players to use their skills wisely and to think in character. In that regards, I find that 4e actually encourages more roleplaying, at least for my groups, than 3.5 ever did. I hear a lot of people say that there aren't rules for roleplaying in 4e, therefore 4e is all combat. That's fine - if that's what you make of it. It's just not my personal experience.

But, as Kurald and Raziere are pointing out, this sort of discussion will eventually lead into a "which is better?" debate. I'm not telling you which one is better. They are both good systems for what they are. I have my personal preference and others have theirs. The best I can tell you is: give it a shot. Go into it with an open mind and embrace the things that 4e does well. Or embrace the things that 3.5 does well and stick with it for another couple of years until 5e comes out. Either way, just do it with a good group and you'll have a great time.

eggs
2012-10-27, 07:22 PM
Then how about this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVlnLWiSGp8)

Kaiisaxo
2012-10-27, 08:37 PM
Actually the most important factor here is your group, how do they play and what things they are acustomed to. For example the number of viable character concepts from the PHB1 alone is extremely reduced in comparison with those in the core in 3.5. In order to do that many concepts your group might have to invest in more than the cannonical 3 books (at least on the PHB2, Martial Power, Arcane Power and Divine Power, and your DM will need DMG2 and MM3) just to get some variety in builds, and even some aren't entirely possible on 4e, so watch out.

However there are some points of comparison to inform your opinion:


Do you usually dedicate a considerable amount of session time for combat? 4e might be worth it. Do you barely have any combat at all on a single session? well you'll find yourself freeforming a lot.

Are you happy with 3.5 granularity on skills? if the answer is yes, 4e may not be for you. Do you wish for something more streamlined? 4e will work for you Do you think they aren't granular enough? 4e definitely isn't for you

Do you think casters are overpowered and need to be reigned down? 4e will work for you. You are not having problems with it? then you are better off not switching.

Do you enjoy 3.5 toolbox approach to build almost anything? 4e will feel too restrictive to you. Do you feel 3.5 approach is just a lot of work with no reward? you'll love 4e.

Do you feel comfortable refluffing? if yes 4e will work for you, if no, you'll feel choices are lacking.

Are you high on simulationism? You won't like 4e. Do you enjoy narrativism? 4e will do wonders for you.

Think of HP as meat? 4e will make you uncomfortable. Think of it as a more abstract thing? you will love 4e

Like to play gritty and lethal? your are better off with 3.5.


I can tell both games have thier appeal, but making the switch normally is a group level choice which must be taken into account carefully.

Oh and for the record 3.0 and 3.5 DO REWARD using your skills with XP. Beating a challenge doesn't only mean combat, it's all there on the DMG!!. If your DM is negating you XP for avoiding combat it means he/she didn't read the DMG correctly. (In fact bypassing a trap, avoiding combat, seducing maidens and breaking in into a temple are all challenges worth XP)

TopCheese
2012-10-27, 08:40 PM
I had something long winded to say but I decided it was to much..

What I will say is that most of the problems people have with 4.0 is the same problems people had with 3.0 when it came out.

The people who played 2e (or 3.5) and tried 3.0 (4.0) said it was to videogamey and that it didn't "feel" like d&d. They also said that it was just a way for the company to make money...

I found an early forum before that had a huge edition war about 2e versus 3.0. You could switch the editions to the present and the arguments were the same -_-;;;;.

Anyways, I would say jump right in head first and not listen to all the people on the net. Most people on these forums hate 4e for whatever reason and people on 4e forums love it for whatever reason. Just try it out and see what you think :). At one time I was playing in a 2e game, 3.5 game, and DMing a 4.0 game (yay free time of college!).

Draz74
2012-10-28, 02:47 AM
Yeah, there are a LOT of other RPG systems that have been made by people who like 3e D&D, but still want something a bit better (for them). Which system is right depends on what you like, or don't like, about 3e.

Besides 4e, you might want to look into Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) -- it's not my cup of tea, but it's quite possibly the most popular RPG on the market today, and it's more closely related to 3e than any of the major alternatives. Its monster creation rules aren't really any simpler than 3e's, though.

Until my own system is ready to brave the Interwebz, my #1 recommendation would be for you to check out Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). It still runs on a lot of the basic ideas of 3e, but it's much better balanced and a little bit simplified/quicker. It has two methods of creating monsters -- one designed to be faster, the other using the same process as PCs -- which are both easier, IMO, than making a monster in 3e. It offers loads of crazy high-powered abilities to the players, especially at high levels, so it's not particularly good for "gritty," low-powered games, and it's no more "realistic" than 4e. But it's a fun system for making up characters, and it's especially good if you want to stretch genres and mix a bit of superhero or sci-fi into your fantasy.

Unfortunately it's still in Beta ... The 1.0 release has been "close" for a couple months now, but there's no telling when it will actually come out. Until it does, the rules have a few minor bugs in them, and have to be pieced together from a number of different PDF documents.

LordBlades
2012-10-28, 03:18 AM
However, if for example you wish that casters and noncasters weren't so horribly unbalanced, then you should indeed look at alternatives. It needn't be 4E, there are plenty of other games that do this as well.



4E does a poor job of that IMO. The 4E solution to caster vs. non-caster imbalance is to eliminate both. A 4E fighter is a non-caster and a 4E wizard is a caster only due to fluff and expectations connected to name. Mechanics-wise, they both work exactly the same.

Firechanter
2012-10-28, 04:47 AM
I guess you have a point there. Also, if I think about it a little, most games have this magic/mundane imbalance. We call it the "If you aren't a Mage, you're a pudding" syndrome.

Kurald Galain
2012-10-28, 05:47 AM
The people who played 2e (or 3.5) and tried 3.0 (4.0) said it was to videogamey and that it didn't "feel" like d&d. They also said that it was just a way for the company to make money...

I found an early forum before that had a huge edition war about 2e versus 3.0. You could switch the editions to the present and the arguments were the same -_-;;;;.

The difference, however, is that in spite of the arguments, most 2E players switched to 3E anyway; whereas most 3E players never switched to 4E even after trying it. This allowed Paizo to step in, take over the 3E brand, and have it sell better than 4E does; and this is why WOTC's is working on Fifth Edition much earlier than expected, in an effort to get that part of their audience back.

So as an answer to the OP, of course you should try it to form your own opinion; but you should also try 5E, as a public playtest is available for free download at the WOTC site.

Rejakor
2012-10-28, 06:41 AM
4e is very very different to 3.5, as people have said. It's a lot more like miniatures wargaming, you almost feel like you should have a whole party of characters rather than just one (you know the DnD miniatures game in the MiniHB? Like that game).

Depending on what you don't like about 3.5, i'd recommend checking out Legend, Pathfinder, or Tome as a replacement. Or going completely off the rails and run something in Wushu, Eidolon, or Rapture.

Mechanize
2012-10-28, 08:52 AM
But, as Kurald and Raziere are pointing out, this sort of discussion will eventually lead into a "which is better?" debate. I'm not telling you which one is better. They are both good systems for what they are. I have my personal preference and others have theirs. The best I can tell you is: give it a shot. Go into it with an open mind and embrace the things that 4e does well. Or embrace the things that 3.5 does well and stick with it for another couple of years until 5e comes out. Either way, just do it with a good group and you'll have a great time.

Lol... I didn't know they were pointing anything out. I was confused by their posts. :P

I do play 4e, and like a lot about it. I wasn't comparing anything saying 1 was better than another. I was just confused about this skill challenge deal you are talking about. It is probably something I just haven't read up on yet in the DMG. Could you give short examples of both 3.5 and 4.0?

So far, it all seems the same to me. "the party needs to climb a wall, roll climb check (3.5) or athletic/acrobat check (4e). You see a guard standing down the hall facing the opposite direction whoever wants to sneak up on him rolls move silent (3.5) or stealth (4e)." etc. Bland examples, but hopefully you see why I am confused.

You make it sound like skill challenges are an entirely new process, where I just see the skills narrowed down into less categories. I think I am missing something though... :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2012-10-28, 04:58 PM
You make it sound like skill challenges are an entirely new process, where I just see the skills narrowed down into less categories. I think I am missing something though... :smallconfused:

There is one important difference. Suppose your task is to cross a raging river. A regular skill encounter will end when all characters, in-character, have successfully made it across the river. However, a skill challenge will end when the players, out-of-character, have scored three to ten successes on skill checks, depending on the difficulty level.

If that sounds like the same thing, it's really not. In an SC, the players only have to make skill checks; they usually give a vague justification for the check, but it doesn't matter at all whether these justifications make sense, or how they would affect the rest of the team, or even if they're contradictory to what the rest of the party is doing. Also, it is mandatory that everybody participate, even if they have no relevant skills to the task at hand.

How does this work in practice? Well, with the aforementioned river, the fighter does the obvious thing and swims across, so he rolls athletics. That was easy. The wizard decides to cast a spell to teleport the party across, so he rolls arcana. It doesn't matter whether he actually has such a spell (or that casting spells by the rules doesn't require a skill check); he has a vaguely plausible justification for rolling arcana, so he does. The rogue decides that the fighter will toss him over the river, and he'll do some in-air contortions to land properly, so he rolls acrobatics. Again, it doesn't matter that this contradicts what the fighter already said (i.e. that he's swimming). Meanwhile, the cleric ponders how people have crossed rivers in the past, so he rolls history. If at least three of the checks pass, then poof! The party is now across the river, somehow.

If this sounds like a big mess, well, it is. Simple mathematical analysis shows that it is most effective for each character to always use his best skill, regardless of the situation, and to fast talk the DM into allowing this (even if the difficulty on that skill is harder, it is still mathematically better to roll your best skill). This is precisely what happens in play: players commonly suggest mad libs like "I pray to my god to help us in <task>" (roll religion), "I attempt to do <task> silently for whatever reason" (roll stealth), or even "I give my teammates a massage to make them more successful in <task>" (roll heal). The success of an SC depends on either the players not realizing they are in an SC, or on them being unaware of the math involved. Or, I suppose, on the DM not using SC rules but simply calling it an SC.

Aside from that, the rules as first printed say that the DM should compile a short list of skills to use, and every player that tries something the DM hadn't thought of should be punished with a higher skill difficulty. They also had the odd property that harder challenges were more likely to succeed, because of a math error. The current rules, after several sets of errata, take a different approach: the party can never ever fail at what they're trying. Either they make enough checks and succeed, or they fail too many checks, succeed anyway, and suffer a minor penalty in the next combat (such as -1 to hit, or an extra enemy on the field).

SCs are one of the most controversial parts of 4E, and for good reason. For what it's worth, the current WOTC devteam has gone on record to state that the SC system should "die in a fire".

tcrudisi
2012-10-28, 07:54 PM
And, what Kurald mentioned? No sane DM would ever allow. And not even by the Skill Challenge rules, either. And, surprisingly, Kurald's normally solid grasp of the rules are patently wrong in this case.

I hardly think that crossing a river would be worthy of a skill challenge, but even if the DM decided it was, many of those checks would never fly.

Arcana to teleport the party? That's not in Arcana's purview. History to know how to get across? Nope. At best, and I mean at best, it gives a +2 modifier on a successful roll. And that's doubtful.

Endurance? Sure. Athletics? Yep. Acrobatics once someone has made it over via Endurance or Athletics? Yep.

But that's not the point.

First, the players should never know they are in a skill challenge. Second, players are not required, by the rules, to participate in a skill challenge. You might say so, however. Crossing the river? Well, yeah, you can easily say that everyone has to make a check. But why the heck are you making it that big of a challenge to cross a river? A couple of skill checks, boom, it's done. That's not skill challenge worthy, unless the river is trapped and it's literally got mines in it that the party is trying to avoid.

Okay, so, yes, the players will try to use their best skills. I'm okay with that. You get to write an academic paper on any topic of your choice. Do you: A) Pick a topic you know nothing about, or B) Pick a topic that you already know well? Most people take the easier route.

But just because a player tries to take the easy route doesn't mean it's applicable. If a Wizard tries to use History to cross a river, they simply remember horror stories about the last few wizards who thought it wise to use History to cross a river.

If you do a skill challenge properly, the players won't even know they are in a skill challenge. In LFR or a pre-made module, that's impossible. And I'm betting that's where a lot of Kurald's disdain for them comes in. Yep, their bad there. But they have to be: there's no flexibility in a module. In a home game, the DM has all the flexibility. He decides when something is worthy of a skill challenge and acts accordingly.

Let's use the "crossing a river" example. Except, as I've said, I wouldn't do that unless it was spiced up. So, in my example, I'll assume a generic party of 5 and that river has mines in it. Time is a critical factor.

Me: "You've finally reached the Crying River. You know the group you are chasing crossed here because the bridge which used to cross this river has been destroyed. Only a small part of it remains, and even standing at the far end of it, the far bank is about 150 feet away. The river is flowing strongly, but you can see it breaking over various objects, but what they are is too difficult to easily make out. What would you like to do?"

Ranger: "I want to try and see what those objects are." (rolls perception successfully, opening up Thievery and giving a +2 to the next check.)

Me: "After paying close attention, you occasionally can make out that it's a metal, circular object with various buttons on it. It's a mine."

Rogue: "Can they be disabled?"

Me: "Yes, but the water is swift, so it will be dangerous to do so. And you will still have to get out in the water, first."

Fighter: "Can I just swim past it? I've got a rope that I can carry across to help the others with.

Me: "Absolutely! The rope will make it easier, but not trivial."

(Fighter rolls a hard DC Athletics successfully. This is now one success and it opens up Acrobatics if he ties the rope up higher. Tight-rope walking 101. And it gives a +2 for people who use Athletics or Endurance.)

After some talking back and forth so that I know exactly what he's doing, I sum it up for the party: "The Fighter swims across the river, successfully avoiding the mines. On the other side, he unties the rope from himself and ties it to a tree, giving a high rope over the river." (Note that at this point, if the party had wanted to take multiple ropes to make it easier, that's fine -- but it would have taken longer, while making it easier to pass. And they are in a rush.)

Rogue: "I want to go ahead and disable some of these mines."

Me: "That's fine. That will require two checks from you. The first is some way of getting into the water. The second will be to disable a mine."

Rogue rolls Acrobatics while also doing Thievery. His Acrobatics check was terrible but his Thievery was great. (2 successes now, and 1 fail.)

Me: "You've successfully disabled a couple of the mines when suddenly you see a log floating. Too late you realize that it's on a collision course for a mine just out of your reach. The mine blows up, creating a geyser of water which smacks into you, knocking you into the water."

Rogue now has to choose either Endurance, Athletics, or make a really good argument for something else. He's also slowed down the party a little bit.

And so on, until enough successes are received. The Rogue is still in the water when this ends? Sure. The party has to go downstream and are able to pull him in, perhaps with a rope. Or maybe the current just dumps him onto the far bank. If the party scored no further failures, this happens fairly quickly. If they failed the skill challenge, he gets dumped well down-stream, and now the party has to both make up a lot of time and rediscover the trail they were following. The degree of success vs. failure helps to determine this, as well.

So that's an example. Depending on how hard you wanted this to be would determine how much this was worth. For example, the high end is worth a full combat worth of xp. The low end is a single monster's worth of xp.

Kurald Galain
2012-10-28, 08:51 PM
And, what Kurald mentioned? No sane DM would ever allow.
Yes, yes they would. This is not theory, this is precisely what has happened in my area, and unfortunately this is how many of the 40-80 players in the region think. As a result, many of the DMs have stopped using SCs entirely.

And yes, many adventures printed by WOTC do make a skill challenge out of such things as crossing a river, or in one case even cleaning up a pile of rubble (an explicit example from the DMG is being lost in a jungle, that's quite similar to river crossing). It has been argued that these writers misuse the SC rules, but if WOTC's own writers don't understand their rules, I must conclude that the rules are not well written. And beginning DMs will, of course, mimic printed adventures because that's how they learn.

Anyway, if you don't like the example, I can easily give other ones. Trying to convince a duke to send his troops somewhere? Players may simultaneously try to make him happy through diplomacy, make him afraid through intimidate, and flex their muscles to show how trustworthy they are through athletics.


First, the players should never know they are in a skill challenge.
Yes, I agree with that. The question is, how do you keep them from knowing? Players aren't stupid.


Arcana to teleport the party? That's not in Arcana's purview.
If the wizard uses a teleport power, the three options are basically (1) a free success, (2) disallowing that power, or (3) having him roll arcana as a compromise. The first makes sense but is easily abusable, and the third is the only one that's actually in the rules.


Okay, so, yes, the players will try to use their best skills. I'm okay with that.
I'm actually not. It means players use the same method over and over again.


Let's use the "crossing a river" example. Except, as I've said, I wouldn't do that unless it was spiced up. So, in my example, I'll assume a generic party of 5 and that river has mines in it. Time is a critical factor.
Here's the thing. What you describe sounds like a decent way to handle crossing a river. However, it doesn't actually follow the SC rules! Like Mechanize said, this is a regular set of skill checks, the way most other RPGs on the market do it.

For instance, referencing DMG1 pages 72 and up (plus errata thereof), the rules say you must start by making a list of the "basic" skills and results (including mental, physical, and social skills); have the players roll for initiative; mandate that each player in turn take ONE skill check; and default to moderate DCs (and, if you're not using the errata, penalize players who try something you hadn't thought of). Your example doesn't follow that; and the whole system of unlocking other skills that you mention isn't mentioned in the rules either.

Now don't get me wrong, what you describe sounds like a great way to play! And since the rules contradict what you just wrote, I'm saying that those rules are bad. Good DMs don't follow SC rules as written; unfortunately not all DMs are good ones.

obryn
2012-10-28, 10:03 PM
The DMG1 skill challenge rules are an abomination and should not be used by anyone, with or without errata. None of WotC's own adventures even used them - the one time it's fortunate the adventure authors didn't follow the DMG's advice.

It's part of the unfortunate fact that, when 4e was released, it was basically a polished playtest. PHB1 got some classes right, some wrong. PHB2 got them all right. DMG1 had some wacky mechanical stuff that was obviously never even tested like the Skill Challenge DCs and that longer challenges were easier to win. DMG2 got them right. MM1 is horrible, awful stuff. MM2 is more of the same. Until at least MM3 (and I'd argue the freaking Monster Vault), WotC didn't get monsters right. They were progressive stages of less-wrong.

4e needed at least another full year of development and playtesting.

Fortunately, though, WotC has had a robust (if, at times, annoyingly frequent) errata and update process. 4e right now is a several-times-better game than when it was released.

-O

Mechanize
2012-10-29, 10:03 AM
@tcrudici

That is the way both of my groups have been doing SCs in both 3.5 and 4e. Probably why I don't see a difference.

neonchameleon
2012-10-29, 10:58 AM
Honestly, all I can say is try it. You might like it.

To put things in perspective, 4e is an archetype based fantasy adventure game running on Holywood Physics with simple and consistent out of combat resolution, detailed, kinaesthetic, and visceral combat (of the sort where if you put a pit trap in the room and the PCs know what they are doing, they will throw at least two monsters into it), and a minimum of grit. All PCs are a little larger than life (as, for example, are the Fellowship of the Ring), and all characters are roughly equally competent. It's also incredibly easy to DM. If that sounds like your thing then try it. If you want a gritty game or one where combat is almost irrelevant, or where magic solves most problems or even has a lot of blowback, try something else.

There are a lot of criticisms raised against 4e, many based on misunderstandings - and many of those misunderstandings based on WotC screwing things up badly.

The first thing to bear in mind is that 4e was literally written in a year - they were allocated two but Orcus (the previous attempt) was pulled mostly for being hideously complex but partly for not having any long term resources at all. The 4e released in 2008 was a half-finished system with too little playtesting and some very bad explanations. The 4e of 2012 is what the 4e of 2008 wanted to be but only showed hints of. (If you haven't got rulebooks, I recommend the Heroes (http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Supplement-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956208) Books (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Forgotten-Kingdoms-Essential-Supplement/dp/0786956194/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y), the awesome Monster Vault (http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Vault-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956313/ref=pd_sim_b_2) and the DMs Kit (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Kit-Essential-Dungeons/dp/0786956305/ref=pd_sim_b_2) - the Essentials line. Most of the rest of the PC material is part of D&D Insider (and it's easy to print out characters with the Character Builder).

The second thing is that most 4e adventures put out by WotC are terrible - my recommendation if you want premade adventures would be to start the ENWorld Zeitgeist (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=ZEITGEIST:+The+Gears+of+Revolut ion+Adventure+Path) arc (and the first skill challenge in there is a much better illustration of the concept than most of the WotC adventures).

And ignore Kurald other than on the point that early skill challenges were terribly explained. I don't think anyone defends the PHB/DMG1 presentation of them - and they've been errata'd to hell and back (try looking in the Rules Compendium or DMs Kit). A skill challenge is a tool for running a complex operation that isn't single point success/failure and is basically a system that works on "Three strikes and you're out" to keep the pacing and proportion of success of a complex series of skill checks running.

Kurald is even talking out of his hat about the PHB guidance - even Intimidate is called out in the example given as a skill that will not work on the duke.

But what skill challenges are is an attempt to bottle lightning. They are writing down what a (specific - this isn't the only way) good DM will do in a complex situation when improvising and trying to turn that back into standardised rules for a new DM to be able to follow. Later iterations do this better.

4e has a reputation for being combat heavier than it is - this is partly due to the abysmal Keep on the Shadowfell being the first module produced, and partly due to how poor "filler" fights are. It's also due to monsters doing too little damage early on (honestly, bin the Monster Manual - but Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale are arguably the best two monster manuals ever produced for D&D). Too little damage meant combat took too long even for easy fights as you needed more bad guys.

4e also has a reputation for there not being much outside combat. This is strictly false. First it has the complete range of adventuring skills of 3.X (although condensed), combined with utility powers (if you want them). Anything you can do in 3.X with skills you can do in 4e with the exceptions of be a professional non-adventurer. If you want to be a barmaid in 3.X you take Profession (Barmaid) and work out the number of SP per week a barmaid earns. In 4e you ask why they are trying to pretend to be a barmaid - and probably roll bluff.

What it doesn't have is overwhelming magic. You don't get to teleport cross-country at will or even much at all. Even teleport rituals tend to rely on anchors or circles (contrary to Kurald) - this is because almost unrestricted teleportation over long distances can wreck adventures and turn into Scry And Fry. Short distance teleports on the other hand are all over the place as is minor but cinematic magic.




Ultimately the question on feel is "Does the idea of a warlord shouting at someone so they reach within themselves and pull themselves together despite wounds sound cool or terrible?" If cool, 4e is a great game. If you think only magic should help you overcome wounds avoid 4e like the plague. Alternatively "Should monks be able to run on wire-fu or should they be restricted by the real world laws of physics unless explicitely casting spells?" If you like the idea of Wire-Fu monks, try 4e.

Also I think it's been over a year since either I or any of my players needed to look something up in a session that wasn't either part of my session notes, part of the monster statblock, or on the pre-printed character sheet. And we haven't had a non-trivial rules dispute in that time (two misread lines that were easily sorted out).

TopCheese
2012-10-29, 01:01 PM
Honestly, all I can say is try it. You might like it.

To put things in perspective, 4e is an archetype based fantasy adventure game running on Holywood Physics with simple and consistent out of combat resolution, detailed, kinaesthetic, and visceral combat (of the sort where if you put a pit trap in the room and the PCs know what they are doing, they will throw at least two monsters into it), and a minimum of grit. All PCs are a little larger than life (as, for example, are the Fellowship of the Ring), and all characters are roughly equally competent. It's also incredibly easy to DM. If that sounds like your thing then try it. If you want a gritty game or one where combat is almost irrelevant, or where magic solves most problems or even has a lot of blowback, try something else.

There are a lot of criticisms raised against 4e, many based on misunderstandings - and many of those misunderstandings based on WotC screwing things up badly.

The first thing to bear in mind is that 4e was literally written in a year - they were allocated two but Orcus (the previous attempt) was pulled mostly for being hideously complex but partly for not having any long term resources at all. The 4e released in 2008 was a half-finished system with too little playtesting and some very bad explanations. The 4e of 2012 is what the 4e of 2008 wanted to be but only showed hints of. (If you haven't got rulebooks, I recommend the Heroes (http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Supplement-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956208) Books (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Forgotten-Kingdoms-Essential-Supplement/dp/0786956194/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y), the awesome Monster Vault (http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Vault-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956313/ref=pd_sim_b_2) and the DMs Kit (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Kit-Essential-Dungeons/dp/0786956305/ref=pd_sim_b_2) - the Essentials line. Most of the rest of the PC material is part of D&D Insider (and it's easy to print out characters with the Character Builder).

The second thing is that most 4e adventures put out by WotC are terrible - my recommendation if you want premade adventures would be to start the ENWorld Zeitgeist (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=ZEITGEIST:+The+Gears+of+Revolut ion+Adventure+Path) arc (and the first skill challenge in there is a much better illustration of the concept than most of the WotC adventures).

And ignore Kurald other than on the point that early skill challenges were terribly explained. I don't think anyone defends the PHB/DMG1 presentation of them - and they've been errata'd to hell and back (try looking in the Rules Compendium or DMs Kit). A skill challenge is a tool for running a complex operation that isn't single point success/failure and is basically a system that works on "Three strikes and you're out" to keep the pacing and proportion of success of a complex series of skill checks running.

Kurald is even talking out of his hat about the PHB guidance - even Intimidate is called out in the example given as a skill that will not work on the duke.

But what skill challenges are is an attempt to bottle lightning. They are writing down what a (specific - this isn't the only way) good DM will do in a complex situation when improvising and trying to turn that back into standardised rules for a new DM to be able to follow. Later iterations do this better.

4e has a reputation for being combat heavier than it is - this is partly due to the abysmal Keep on the Shadowfell being the first module produced, and partly due to how poor "filler" fights are. It's also due to monsters doing too little damage early on (honestly, bin the Monster Manual - but Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale are arguably the best two monster manuals ever produced for D&D). Too little damage meant combat took too long even for easy fights as you needed more bad guys.

4e also has a reputation for there not being much outside combat. This is strictly false. First it has the complete range of adventuring skills of 3.X (although condensed), combined with utility powers (if you want them). Anything you can do in 3.X with skills you can do in 4e with the exceptions of be a professional non-adventurer. If you want to be a barmaid in 3.X you take Profession (Barmaid) and work out the number of SP per week a barmaid earns. In 4e you ask why they are trying to pretend to be a barmaid - and probably roll bluff.

What it doesn't have is overwhelming magic. You don't get to teleport cross-country at will or even much at all. Even teleport rituals tend to rely on anchors or circles (contrary to Kurald) - this is because almost unrestricted teleportation over long distances can wreck adventures and turn into Scry And Fry. Short distance teleports on the other hand are all over the place as is minor but cinematic magic.




Ultimately the question on feel is "Does the idea of a warlord shouting at someone so they reach within themselves and pull themselves together despite wounds sound cool or terrible?" If cool, 4e is a great game. If you think only magic should help you overcome wounds avoid 4e like the plague. Alternatively "Should monks be able to run on wire-fu or should they be restricted by the real world laws of physics unless explicitely casting spells?" If you like the idea of Wire-Fu monks, try 4e.

Also I think it's been over a year since either I or any of my players needed to look something up in a session that wasn't either part of my session notes, part of the monster statblock, or on the pre-printed character sheet. And we haven't had a non-trivial rules dispute in that time (two misread lines that were easily sorted out).


+1

I need to send this to a few people.

Thanks!

Ashdate
2012-10-29, 01:22 PM
I want to echo pretty much everything neonchameleon said.

What you'll get out of 4e is largely dependent about what you like about roleplaying games. You absolutely can run a very skill-focused game (I'm running a Planescape one (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/to-chance-with-hell-planescape) right now). You can also run a very kick-in-the-door dungeon crash type game as well. This is not really any different from previous editions, except that 3.5 allowed finer-tuned skills (via skill ranks and a larger skill list rather than training and a finer skill list), and that 4e is much more focused on tighter skirmishes between PCs and Monsters (in fairness to 3.5, 4e isn't very good at large scale battles, particularly between mismatched opponents).

But a lot of this is going to depend on your DM. Like anything, the more time they invest, the better your experience will be. This is true for either 3.5 or 4e!

I wouldn't let the grumbling about skill challenges bother you; skills can still work in 4e as they roughly did in 3.5. Skill Challenges (I believe) were meant as a way to get the whole party involved in solving a particular problem. Rather than having the party Bard do all the talking, they try and simulate scenarios where the whole party passes/fails. This also has the benefit of not hinging everything on a single die roll. In the abstract, this can work out well; those who have relevant skills for a situation can rely on those, while others will need to take risks or improvise with their own.

Since this "Duke" guy keeps coming up, perhaps the use of an Intimidate roll isn't to "scare" the Duke, so much as scare his Advisor, who the PCs believe is giving the Duke bad advice (thanks to an Insight roll).

If you DM takes the spirit of skill challenges into his/her game, I think they can be a lot of fun. One recent skill challenge in my game involved the party searching the landing in the Infinite Staircase that the Planewalkers Guild "lived" on, searching for a contact that would be able to tell them where the Wizard (a blood named Oriam) they were trying to deliver a message to was. I split it up into three segments of "four" rolls each (one for each member present):

1) Find the leader of the Planewalkers (a Minotaur named Hav'run)
2) Convince Hav'run to tell the party where to find someone who knew of Oriam's whereabouts (a Tiefling named Caern)
3) Convince Caern to tell them where to find him.

I had some ideas of how to run each segment. Obviously,skills such as Insight, Perception, Streetwise, and Diplomacy would help, but I was also open to other uses. One of my party, a Warforged Bleaker, thought about using his Athletics skill to help a group of Planewalkers secure a building under construction to the base below, gaining their trust (he ultimately decided not to because he was afraid of the Lillend who invisibly guard the staircase).

During the final party of the skill challenge, I decided that since Caern was a bit of a low-life, the party could mingle by betting on an "underground **** fight" (really summoned creatures, a la the 3.5 first level spell type). The party Wizard used her Dungeoneering skill to identify which creature was a better "bet", and then a d20-off allowed the Chaond Ring-Giver to increase his odds at "picking" the winning creature correctly from a d20 roll-off. This mingling gave them the info they needed to track down Caern.

The end result is that they "failed" the skill challenge, but I decided failure meant that the NPCs wouldn't warn them that the area they were going to was recently attacked by a powerful demon (a Glabrezu; much too powerful for a group of level 3 PCs). And there were consequences because of it! But hopefully that gives you some insight into how a "skill challenge" can work within the game that involved group participation.

obryn
2012-10-29, 01:24 PM
I'll just say, "what neonchameleon said." I know it's a bit of a tl;dr (:smallwink:), but he hits the major points and many of the reasons I've found 4e to be an eye-opener.

I'll also echo starting with the Essentials stuff, but keep in mind that everything from the PHBs and back is fully compatible. The Essentials books can stand on their own, but they're more a fully-playable supplement and/or new starting point than an entirely new game or edition. (We've had Essentials Scouts, Thieves, Sentinels, and Knights in my game alongside more traditional Rogues, Fighters, Warlocks, and Wizards. No issues whatsoever.) The books (importantly) incorporate all the errata, which was almost startlingly frequent in the earlier days of the game.

As myself and several people have mentioned, about the only point of caution involves monsters. Early in the edition, if you check 2008/2009 threads, there were people complaining about grind. Some experienced it to greater extents than others, but (mathematically at least) it's a real thing. Using MM1/2 is an invitation to long, drawn-out slogs, especially if (god help you) you use one of their solos. 4e generally has its fights run 45 to 90 minutes - it's an expected part of the game, and the main reason it doesn't do quick random encounters well. If you stick with MM1/2 and use monsters sufficiently powerful to challenge the party, it could take up to double that.

So, I'd recommend not using MM1 or MM2 at all. Monster Vault and its sequel should last you enough levels that you can get comfortable either designing your own monsters, or making it so MM1-MM2 monsters are enjoyable adversaries. (And seriously, Monster Vault is one of the best buys in gaming.)

-O

tcrudisi
2012-10-29, 02:32 PM
If the wizard uses a teleport power, the three options are basically (1) a free success, (2) disallowing that power, or (3) having him roll arcana as a compromise. The first makes sense but is easily abusable, and the third is the only one that's actually in the rules.

Here's the thing. What you describe sounds like a decent way to handle crossing a river. However, it doesn't actually follow the SC rules! Like Mechanize said, this is a regular set of skill checks, the way most other RPGs on the market do it.

For instance, referencing DMG1 pages 72 and up (plus errata thereof), the rules say you must start by making a list of the "basic" skills and results (including mental, physical, and social skills); have the players roll for initiative; mandate that each player in turn take ONE skill check; and default to moderate DCs (and, if you're not using the errata, penalize players who try something you hadn't thought of). Your example doesn't follow that; and the whole system of unlocking other skills that you mention isn't mentioned in the rules either.

Now don't get me wrong, what you describe sounds like a great way to play! And since the rules contradict what you just wrote, I'm saying that those rules are bad. Good DMs don't follow SC rules as written; unfortunately not all DMs are good ones.

Kurald, I know that the original SC rules as written were terrible. The ones in the Rules Compendium and DM Book are much nicer, though even they could use a little bit more clarification. But I'm not going to use the DMG rules, because, they are not the rules any more. The only rules are the ones from the RC and DM Book.

The rules do not say what happens when a wizard uses a teleport power. Not per se, rather. The closest thing we have are some modules which say that we should award a free success for it. And that makes sense. Much more sense than disallowing a power the character has or to allow a skill to do something which it is not allowed to do.

The DM Book and RC make no mention of having each player participate. Rather, it says it is the equivalent of between one and five monsters. When you fight a monster, does everyone need to participate? I know I've played in combats before where half the party was off doing it's thing in another room, ready to jump in were they needed, but otherwise occupied. And I think that makes sense - if it's the equivalent of one monster, you don't need everyone to participate. Just have a couple of characters do their thing and take care of it. If it's the equivalent of five monsters, you probably want the whole party to help out. And the bigger skill challenge like that will likely have enough skills for everyone to participate in some way.

The DM Book and RC do both say that one possible way of handling it is to have players roll initiative. It also says the players can act in any order of his choice. There are times when both make sense. A skill challenge taking place during a combat? Initiative. Otherwise? Whatever order makes sense.

My example followed the current rules as written. Not by the DMG, but by the DM Book. Yes, the original rules were bad. They've been fixed. They aren't perfect, but they have great potential and they've been updated to be pretty good. Plus, it gives xp. Anything that encourages the giving of xp for using your skills rather than fighting jumps up a peg in my book.

Kaiisaxo
2012-10-29, 08:44 PM
Yeah I second the proposal to try Essentials first, as it is the most close to 3.5 in terms of legibility (the phbs can be a little crude) and is more newbie friendly (because the aforementioned erratas). But again, this isn't a choice to be taken on your own, it is a group-spanning decision, unless you decide to start a new group around it.

And I think comparing 3.5 to 4e is like trying to compare Football with Soccer, they are very different, and while die-hard fans of one may dismiss the other, it is perfectly possible to enjoy both of them.

tcrudisi
2012-10-30, 10:05 AM
@tcrudici

That is the way both of my groups have been doing SCs in both 3.5 and 4e. Probably why I don't see a difference.

Really? 3.5 did not support skill challenges. It was a unique way of handling things that 4e introduced. In 3.5, my groups always just kept rolling until the DM said to stop. It made for some very boring roll-playing and didn't encourage RP from us at all.

Whereas in 4e, the SC system brought in a guideline. "You need X successes before Y failures" encouraged the DM to think about it. Just how many successes would be required? What if the players fail 2 checks? 3 or 4? If they make 6 successes but then fail, what are the partial ramifications?

These are things that 4e addresses. And then it awards xp for success or failure. 3.x never did these things.

Basically, it's a great tool to encourage roleplaying and help the DM to plan ahead. And in that regards, it's incredibly valuable.

Boci
2012-10-30, 10:09 AM
Really? 3.5 did not support skill challenges. It was a unique way of handling things that 4e introduced. In 3.5, my groups always just kept rolling until the DM said to stop. It made for some very boring roll-playing and didn't encourage RP from us at all.

Whereas in 4e, the SC system brought in a guideline. "You need X successes before Y failures" encouraged the DM to think about it. Just how many successes would be required? What if the players fail 2 checks? 3 or 4? If they make 6 successes but then fail, what are the partial ramifications?

And the biggest question of all: just how did failing a history check bring that much closer to failing the skill challange entierly?

You're coming off as very biased, assuming SC = instant awesomeness, when you need a DM to propaly flesh them out, otherwise you have PCs cycling through their highest skills asking "can I use this?". So both 3.5 and 4 require DM initiative to avoid being stale. Maybe 4E gives a better framework, but your comment came off as incredably biased all the same.

obryn
2012-10-30, 10:54 AM
And the biggest question of all: just how did failing a history check bring that much closer to failing the skill challange entierly?
Depends on the nature of the challenge. If History is part & parcel to, say, a negotiation skill challenge, getting some facts wrong could set you back a bit. If it's part of a skill challenge to find a lost temple in the desert within a specific timeframe, you got your facts wrong and ended up miles off-target. Etc, etc.


You're coming off as very biased, assuming SC = instant awesomeness, when you need a DM to propaly flesh them out, otherwise you have PCs cycling through their highest skills asking "can I use this?". So both 3.5 and 4 require DM initiative to avoid being stale. Maybe 4E gives a better framework, but your comment came off as incredably biased all the same.
The "highest skill" bit is a regrettable part of the DMG1 skill challenges, along with rolling non-combat initiative, requiring turns, and bad math. It is not current advice for anyone running skill challenges in 4e. A good DM will probably let you use an unusual skill if you can tell a good story about it, but generally you're either limited to 1 success or a bonus to a later check.

The skill challenge framework is a mathematical one. And, with the DC tables and X successes before 3 failures, it actually sets conditions for "winning" along with specific XP rewards. It's important that "failure" can mean different things - you might get to your destination, but be down several surges. You might have triggered some defenses which makes your adventure more difficult. Etc...

I've used them to great effect in my own games.

-O

tcrudisi
2012-10-30, 11:36 AM
You're coming off as very biased, assuming SC = instant awesomeness, when you need a DM to propaly flesh them out, otherwise you have PCs cycling through their highest skills asking "can I use this?". So both 3.5 and 4 require DM initiative to avoid being stale. Maybe 4E gives a better framework, but your comment came off as incredably biased all the same.

Instant awesomeness? Oh heck no. It took me a couple of years to figure out how to use a SC properly. Is it better than the previous skill system? Very much so, but it took both myself and WotC a very long time to figure it out. Heck, I still think there's room for improvement as it's not perfect. But it's an upgrade, and that's the point I was trying to make.

I have a response I use for players who know they are in a SC and ask "Can I use this?" I inquire back, "Maybe. How do you intend on using it?" If they give a good response, then great. If they give a bad response, I look at them and ask them if they would allow such a use if they were running a game. It tends to shut down bad uses pretty quickly.

I should hope my comments concerning SC have come across as biased. I took a stance and I've stuck with it. I'll even flat-out say that it's a superior system to any other RPG I've ever played. Don't get me wrong: I love how WoD and Gurps handles skills, but even within those systems I will implement a SC system when appropriate. Computer hacking is one such example. As with D&D, it's not always appropriate. But when it is, it's great to have a system in place that lets the DM better adjudicate the situation better. (And I still think that Gurps and WoD handles skills far better than D&D ever could, but the skill challenge system itself can thrive even within those rpg's.)

I also notice that I'm getting wildly off-topic.

4e is a great system. 3.5 was a great system. 5e will probably be a great system. They all have their different strengths and weaknesses. It's hard to say which is better for each person without trying it first. I went over the differences of 4e and 3.5 in my original post.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-30, 11:42 AM
Great Modthulhu: Duplicate Threads in multiple forums have been merged. Please, hold to One Thread, One Topic, and remember that any hint of a brewing edition war will see this thread shut down.


Amusingly, NWoD's Extended Rolls are basically Skill Challenges, so there's that.

tcrudisi
2012-10-30, 11:53 AM
Amusingly, NWoD's Extended Rolls are basically Skill Challenges, so there's that.

Good comparison. I didn't even think about that. Though there is a time and place for an extended roll and a different time and place for a skill challenge.

Boci
2012-10-30, 12:00 PM
Amusingly, NWoD's Extended Rolls are basically Skill Challenges, so there's that.

And isn't NWoD despised by older players, sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes simtply because its new? This comparison just gets better and better.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-30, 12:11 PM
And isn't NWoD despised by older players, sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes simtply because its new? This comparison just gets better and better.

Heh. You think the 3.5 to 4e edition wars are bad, you should have seen some of the clashes between OWoD and NWoD purists.:smallsmile:

Boci
2012-10-30, 12:23 PM
Heh. You think the 3.5 to 4e edition wars are bad, you should have seen some of the clashes between OWoD and NWoD purists.:smallsmile:

Didn't the NWOD vampire merge the Asamite, Malkavian and Setite clan lore?

On topic: my biggest problem with the SC system is the success condition (and the failure as previously mentioned). Why should a predetermined amount of success be required to solve it? Its fits with the feel of 4th ed, a tactical game which requires teamwork and everyone can contribute, but it just comes off as too "contrived" for me, but then that happens all the time in 4E. I still enjoy the system though.

obryn
2012-10-30, 12:33 PM
As a general gaming note... With very few exceptions (FATAL, Synnibarr, RaHoWa, and a handful of mythical others), it's absolutely best to play as many different games as possible.

Why? Every game has strengths and weaknesses.

I, personally, have a lot of gaming-related itches that need scratched on occasion. For me right now, 4e does a great job at most of it - but not all. Sometimes I want some cosmic horror, and 4e is sadly unsuitable for it. So I use Call of Cthulhu d20 or Savage Worlds/Realms of Cthulhu and they work great. Sometimes I want a 1e-style dungeon crawl through the Temple of Elemental Evil. Well, nothing's as good at 1e-style gaming as 1e itself so I run that/OSRIC. Sometimes I want a gritty, dark fantasy - WFRP2e to the rescue. Star Wars? SWSE is quite flawed, but my favorite for that universe. And sometimes I want to just say "heck with it" and take a break from anything serious, which is when Paranoia is perfect.

No one game is the single best game for everything, and it varies from person to person. For example, I can't think of a better system for Dark Sun now than 4e, but you can make arguments for the original 2e set, the 3.x conversions, or even other systems like Savage Worlds.

What I've noticed after playing a bunch of games is that every single interlude my group takes, trying out new rules or returning to old ones, improves every other game we play. Playing more games makes you a better, more-rounded gamer, and that's a great thing.

-O

obryn
2012-10-30, 12:47 PM
On topic: my biggest problem with the SC system is the success condition (and the failure as previously mentioned). Why should a predetermined amount of success be required to solve it? Its fits with the feel of 4th ed, a tactical game which requires teamwork and everyone can contribute, but it just comes off as too "contrived" for me, but then that happens all the time in 4E. I still enjoy the system though.
It doesn't; the format is very flexible. It just makes the math clear.

You can have pre-determined victory or failure "shortcuts" built in; even WotC's own adventures do this.

I very recently used a skill challenge in a huge, deadly fight with an overextended and vulnerable Sorcerer-Queen. She was protected by her own powers and the strength of her ritual, forming a magical barrier rendering her immune to attack. So, every round, the PCs were losing healing surges and mind-controlled pilgrims (including some friends of theirs) were turning to ash. To make things worse, some of her fleshwarped secret police were in the crowd, attacking the PCs. The skill challenge to take down the barrier was pretty much as follows...

(1) Really, only Arcana can win successes here, with 12 required before 3 failures. Someone could use some other skills (perception, mainly) to give bonuses to Arcana checks, but that's it.
(2) On the other hand, there's a specially-enchanted sword that can strike at her barriers for two success each strike.
(3) Each Failure nets 20 points of psychic+force damage, from the barrier's defenses.
(4) After 3 failures, the magical defenses are in full swing, and every check from there on out causes that damage.

It worked very well. It was tense and dramatic, with a real sense urgency.

-O

Rejakor
2012-10-30, 12:52 PM
FYI, to the people talking about how they have made skill challenges work - yes, skill challenges are written very vaguely and you can make up your own houserules to make them work decently well pretty easily - but they are, by RAW, clunky and horrible.

They are more a sign of the problems with the system than the sole problem individually - there are many more 'uh, what' kind of moments, and the overarching problems of small effect on the world even by the 'ritual' system, poorly defined other stuff, small amounts of character customizability, similarity of play from 1-30, 'padded sumo' meaning the DM has to reduce HP of monsters or players have to optimize characters to not have hour long fights, book-keeping of many small bonuses, penalties, marks, and auras, etc etc.

Boci
2012-10-30, 12:53 PM
It doesn't; the format is very flexible. It just makes the math clear.

You can have pre-determined victory or failure "shortcuts" built in; even WotC's own adventures do this.

I very recently used a skill challenge in a huge, deadly fight with an overextended and vulnerable Sorcerer-Queen. She was protected by her own powers and the strength of her ritual, forming a magical barrier rendering her immune to attack. So, every round, the PCs were losing healing surges and mind-controlled pilgrims (including some friends of theirs) were turning to ash. To make things worse, some of her fleshwarped secret police were in the crowd, attacking the PCs. The skill challenge to take down the barrier was pretty much as follows...

(1) Really, only Arcana can win successes here, with 12 required before 3 failures. Someone could use some other skills (perception, mainly) to give bonuses to Arcana checks, but that's it.
(2) On the other hand, there's a specially-enchanted sword that can strike at her barriers for two success each strike.
(3) Each Failure nets 20 points of psychic+force damage, from the barrier's defenses.
(4) After 3 failures, the magical defenses are in full swing, and every check from there on out causes that damage.

It worked very well. It was tense and dramatic, with a real sense urgency.

-O

That sounds like a very good senario. Pardon my cynisism though, but how much of that was your own personal initiative and creativity, and thus independant of the system used?

obryn
2012-10-30, 01:11 PM
That sounds like a very good senario. Pardon my cynisism though, but how much of that was your own personal initiative and creativity, and thus independant of the system used?
The skill challenge system is the mathematical framework and underpinning structure. (In this case, number of successes vs. failures and the required DCs for the checks). The details behind success, failure, usable skills, other ways to earn successes, etc. are intentionally left up to the DM.


FYI, to the people talking about how they have made skill challenges work - yes, skill challenges are written very vaguely and you can make up your own houserules to make them work decently well pretty easily - but they are, by RAW, clunky and horrible.
I think you may be behind the times on what Skill Challenge RAW is. :)


They are more a sign of the problems with the system than the sole problem individually - there are many more 'uh, what' kind of moments, and the overarching problems of small effect on the world even by the 'ritual' system, poorly defined other stuff, small amounts of character customizability, similarity of play from 1-30, 'padded sumo' meaning the DM has to reduce HP of monsters or players have to optimize characters to not have hour long fights, book-keeping of many small bonuses, penalties, marks, and auras, etc etc.
We could go through similar lists for just every system, frankly. :smallwink:

As I mentioned, every system has highlights and lowlights. As to your list ... IME, there's plenty of customizability at this stage of development, though PHB1 was admittedly lacking; play differs substantially from deadly 1st- to 5th-level to impressive high paragon; optimization is needed far less than in previous editions; new monster math has largely reduced or eliminated mid-level grind; I'd rather deal with several small direct bonuses than buff/debuff cascades; and so on. But to each their own! Really. My point is, try many games. See what you like about them. Pick several that scratch your itches the best, and don't worry if you think someone else is playing their elfgames wrong. :smallsmile:

-O

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-10-30, 07:53 PM
Really? 3.5 did not support skill challenges. It was a unique way of handling things that 4e introduced. In 3.5, my groups always just kept rolling until the DM said to stop. It made for some very boring roll-playing and didn't encourage RP from us at all.

Unique to 4e? I beg to differ. Extended tests in one form or another have been in systems from Shadowrun to WoD to, surprise surprise, 3e (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm). Not only that, but the 3e version gives examples of extended tests for each skill and probabilities for different results, which makes writing them easier. The UA version is written for a single skill rather than multiple skills, but everything in UA is proof-of-concept like that and it's easy to extrapolate that to a use multiple skills just like plenty of people run gestalt games despite the bare-bones framework given.

So the 4e dev team had a mostly-fleshed-out extended test system sitting on their computers that required maybe an extra paragraph of detail to accommodate multi-skill challenges and copy-paste the roleplaying XP rules to that section, four whole years after it had been written, published, and talked about on the internet...and instead of improving upon it significantly, they published the mutliply-errata'd cluster**** that is the 4e skill challenge rules that are workable (with a good DM and after many rounds of revisions) but aren't particularly noteworthy. Not exactly something I find impressive.

Obryn is right that you should try lots of different games instead of picking one edition of one game to stick with. Not only does that help you identify weak points in your favorite game that you might not notice otherwise because you aren't aware of any alternatives, but it helps put the various advances in new games in context. For instance, lots of 4e fans tout skill challenges, defenses instead of saves, AC that inherently scales by level, weapon groups, and skill training as innovative advances, but all of those showed up in 3e UA long before 4e was even an idea. Many of the power system changes were playtested in ToM/ToB; "martial healing" (Devoted Spirit and Dragon Shaman aura) and healing surges (reserve points) existed in 3e but in a slightly different form; and multiclassing, hybrid classing, and long expensive rituals are fairly close to AD&D in feel and effect if not exact mechanics.

Which brings us back to the "should I switch editions" question. Looking from 3e to 4e, lots of the problems people had with 3e weren't major problems until 4e was announced and later released. People were using complex skill checks, roleplaying XP, and other things for years (I've been using them since AD&D) and doing just fine, for instance, and then suddenly when 4e came around and claimed to fix it, skill challenges were Pelor's gift to gaming and 3e skill checks were clunky and boring.

Looking from 4e to 3e, many of the problems people have with 4e are problems of degree, not of content. I don't want to reopen the "rituals suck and martial healing and dailies are unrealistic" debate, since that deserves a thread of its own that would probably be quickly locked. Suffice to say that the 3e and 4e definitions for "utility magic," "encounter ability," "mundane healing," and more are different, often subtly so; just because you like one of them in 3e doesn't mean you'll like it in 4e, and vice versa. A crusader/sorcerer in 3e and a warlord with Ritual Caster in 4e both have encounter powers, mundane healing, and utility magic, but they play drastically differently whether you just look at those capabilities in a vacuum or in the context of the rest of the game.


TL;DR: Both systems have their pluses and minuses, 4e "innovations" sometimes aren't, the difference in feel between editions is subtle in some places, and only by actually playing the game will you figure out of 4e works for you and your group.

obryn
2012-10-30, 08:36 PM
Yep, a lot of 4e's signature mechanics were tested in latter-era 3.5, but further developed. It's why the game was such a natural evolution for my group - we saw it as a streamlined version of stuff we were already doing. :smallsmile:

The innovation was in taking these things that lay along the fringes of 3.5 and making them feel mainstream and natural. Bo9S showed it was possible to have weapon-users with interesting options; 4e made it the standard. The Knight had a proto-marking mechanic. 4e improved on it, and made the Fighter just simply the best class. Warlocks and reserve feats paved the way for at-will magic. 4e let all the classes do it. The design philosophy and (to an extent) unified structure closed the LFQW gap both efficiently and (for our group) enjoyably.

The unified structure in particular works far better than it reads. Yes, your Cleric and Fighter have similar amounts of Encounter & Daily powers. Heck; their attack bonuses are probably close, if your cleric's using weapons. But the two play completely differently on the table because of just a few class features and some well-designed powers. The burden was taken off the math and placed into giving each class the ability to do their jobs.

And there's no doubt - a lot of the stuff that was released early on was of questionable quality. Which is why I frequently say that 4e is a vastly better game now than when it was released. All that errata? It was regrettable that it was needed in the first place, but the end result is a smoother, more enjoyable, more challenging game.

-O

Knaight
2012-10-30, 08:38 PM
I'm going to recommend against switching, for one simple reason: If you're already willing to learn a whole new system, you've got better options than D&D.

obryn
2012-10-30, 08:45 PM
I'm going to recommend against switching, for one simple reason: If you're already willing to learn a whole new system, you've got better options than D&D.
I can't say enough good things about Savage Worlds. It's a remarkably fun, tight game with broad flexibility and enough fiddly bits that the act of playing the game is fun above and beyond the scenario itself.

It's also cheap. $10 for the paperback Deluxe edition; it's one of the best buys in gaming.

-O

Boci
2012-10-30, 09:31 PM
The unified structure in particular works far better than it reads. Yes, your Cleric and Fighter have similar amounts of Encounter & Daily powers. Heck; their attack bonuses are probably close, if your cleric's using weapons. But the two play completely differently on the table because of just a few class features and some well-designed powers.

Whilst this is true, it did have its limits. This is clear when you look at how quickly they burnt through the 4th edition. 3.5 had a very high cap on how much material it could produce, limited really by WotC's creativity (which some will argue sets the cieling pretty low). With 4th edition however, it eventually became clear that there were only so many ways they could make a class, only so many powers they could write and only so many feats.

3.5 showed that you could have have classes that varied drastically in mechanics (factotum's inspiration, Advanced casters, incarnum, ToB, warlock and DFA, swifthunter, duskblade, bard) whilst still being balanced in comparison to eachother. Of course it also proved that sometimes a particular sturcture makes one class better (wizard vs. melee).

4th edition decided that after a point, universal balance and simplicity meant more than mechanical diversity. So consider where you draw the line on that issue, and then compare it to where 4th ed did.

obryn
2012-10-30, 10:13 PM
Whilst this is true, it did have its limits. This is clear when you look at how quickly they burnt through the 4th edition. 3.5 had a very high cap on how much material it could produce, limited really by WotC's creativity (which some will argue sets the cieling pretty low). With 4th edition however, it eventually became clear that there were only so many ways they could make a class, only so many powers they could write and only so many feats.

3.5 showed that you could have have classes that varied drastically in mechanics (factotum's inspiration, Advanced casters, incarnum, ToB, warlock and DFA, swifthunter, duskblade, bard) whilst still being balanced in comparison to eachother. Of course it also proved that sometimes a particular sturcture makes one class better (wizard vs. melee).

4th edition decided that after a point, universal balance and simplicity meant more than mechanical diversity. So consider where you draw the line on that issue, and then compare it to where 4th ed did.
I think that's overstating the issue quite a bit. There's still design space left in 4e, and in the latter days, some very unique class structures were appearing. It seems to happen right around a line's sunset; it's much like end-of-line 3.5 stuff such as Bo9S, Complete Mage, etc.

You had PHB3 with two oddball ideas - monks, who have a unique Full Discipline mechanic; and three Psionic classes who primarily use At-Wills, with power points to enhance them. The Essentials martial classes are very odd, angling for a mix of At-Will and simplified Encounter capability without any Daily powers. Heroes of the Feywild and Heroes of the Elemental Chaos further developed interesting and unusual classes, a dual-role class, simplified casters, etc. And recent forays into themes and the like have yielded some really stellar and interesting results - another switch to flip to zero in on a compelling character concept.

Without a doubt, balance is hugely important for 4e class design, but balance can be achieved in more ways than rigid adherence to a single class structure. You might as well say, "3.5 classes are just collections of class skills, BAB, saves, and spell progressions." It misses the big picture.

-O

Boci
2012-10-30, 10:34 PM
I think that's overstating the issue quite a bit. There's still design space left in 4e, and in the latter days, some very unique class structures were appearing. It seems to happen right around a line's sunset; it's much like end-of-line 3.5 stuff such as Bo9S, Complete Mage, etc.

You had PHB3 with two oddball ideas - monks, who have a unique Full Discipline mechanic; and three Psionic classes who primarily use At-Wills, with power points to enhance them. The Essentials martial classes are very odd, angling for a mix of At-Will and simplified Encounter capability without any Daily powers. Heroes of the Feywild and Heroes of the Elemental Chaos further developed interesting and unusual classes, a dual-role class, simplified casters, etc. And recent forays into themes and the like have yielded some really stellar and interesting results - another switch to flip to zero in on a compelling character concept.

Without a doubt, balance is hugely important for 4e class design, but balance can be achieved in more ways than rigid adherence to a single class structure. You might as well say, "3.5 classes are just collections of class skills, BAB, saves, and spell progressions." It misses the big picture.

-O

You're starting to come off as defensive of 4th ed, at least to me. Yes, there is some mechanical variability between classes in 4E, but at no point does it come anywhere near that of later stage 3.5. Essentials are very odd? Maybe when you look at them in the context of 4E, but when you compare them to the differences between the dread necromancer and totemist the warlod and the slayer start to look like siblings.

Point is, if the mechanical diversity between classes was a very important aspect to your 3.5 game and you don't think you can live with out it, 4E is probably not the game for you.

I really hope this didn't come off as overtly harsh, lets just say I am suspicious of someone who disagrees with the statement "3.5 is more mechanically versatile than 4E" in the same way I am of someone who disagrees with "4E is better balanced than 3.5".

HunterOfJello
2012-10-30, 11:05 PM
a non-D&D game might be a better choice if you're getting a bit tired of 3.5, or are just interested in trying out new systems

The 5e playtests are coming out all the time right now too and are pretty interesting. Levels 6-10 were just released for the original classes, along with lots of new material.

If you were interested in 4e purely by the fact that it is a more recent version of D&D than 3.5, then going up to 5e could be a better idea. Then you won't have to learn a whole new system again when 5e comes out.

obryn
2012-10-30, 11:11 PM
You're starting to come off as defensive of 4th ed, at least to me. Yes, there is some mechanical variability between classes in 4E, but at no point does it come anywhere near that of later stage 3.5. Essentials are very odd? Maybe when you look at them in the context of 4E, but when you compare them to the differences between the dread necromancer and totemist the warlod and the slayer start to look like siblings.

Point is, if the mechanical diversity between classes was a very important aspect to your 3.5 game and you don't think you can live with out it, 4E is probably not the game for you.

I really hope this didn't come off as overtly harsh, lets just say I am suspicious of someone who disagrees with the statement "3.5 is more mechanically versatile than 4E" in the same way I am of someone who disagrees with "4E is better balanced than 3.5".
It's amazing how quickly honest disagreement can be seen as defensiveness. :smallsmile:

No, current 4e classes don't have entirely separate subsystems like you'd find in the 3.5 Tome of Magic and whatnot. :smallsmile: This is not to say that they're impossible - which is the point of my disagreement. The 4e design space is vast, just like the 3.x one is. The difference is that only a corner of it was explored. My point is that later books started to push the boundaries in more experimental directions, not that we ever saw anything truly bizarre such as the 3.5 Binder.

But with all that said, 4e does a very good job with variations within individual classes. The amount of variation between, say, two different Fighters can be absolutely incredible.

-O

Boci
2012-10-30, 11:52 PM
No, current 4e classes don't have entirely separate subsystems like you'd find in the 3.5 Tome of Magic and whatnot. :smallsmile: This is not to say that they're impossible - which is the point of my disagreement.

Fair enough, I no longer see your post as defensive. However, I think its kinda irrelevant. Sure, homebrew opens up a lot of opertunities, but it does so for every system. 3.5 can become classless with it. How many sub systems were invented in 4E homebrew? How many were invented for 3.5?


But with all that said, 4e does a very good job with variations within individual classes. The amount of variation between, say, two different Fighters can be absolutely incredible.

Again, I feel the words "absolutly incredable" goes a bit too far, especially when compared 3.5. Maybe in a vaccum, but compared to the previous editions, how varying could two 4th ed fighter builds be? And thats before you consider the change to multiclassing and prestidge classes/paragon paths.

obryn
2012-10-31, 12:05 AM
Fair enough, I no longer see your post as defensive. However, I think its kinda irrelevant. Sure, homebrew opens up a lot of opertunities, but it does so for every system. 3.5 can become classless with it. How many sub systems were invented in 4E homebrew? How many were invented for 3.5?
Who said anything about homebrew? I'm saying the design space is there.


Again, I feel the words "absolutly incredable" goes a bit too far, especially when compared 3.5. Maybe in a vaccum, but compared to the previous editions, how varying could two 4th ed fighter builds be? And thats before you consider the change to multiclassing and prestidge classes/paragon paths.
I don't actually care for that level of multiclassing, so I don't see it as a positive. :smallsmile: 3.x is idiosyncratic among D&D editions in that it ignores the strengths of D&D's archetypes in favor of what's close to a point-buy system. I prefer D&D that keeps a bit closer to single-classing.

As for variation between fighters? Quite a lot, frankly. Let's take feats as givens - there's tons in both editions, and 4e Fighters certainly get plenty. The "builds" you can select from include the basic PHB "Weapon Mastery" fighters, battleragers, tempest fighters, grappling fighters, arena fighters. Each has its own list of class features, its own secondary stats, and each shares some common features with the core. From there, there's Power choices at nearly every level, so the branching grows and grows. For the Fighter in particular, different weapon choices open up a variety of feats and power riders to more or less ensure that a sword & board fighter looks different from hammer & shield looks different from spiked chain, different from "free hand" grapplers, etc.

Then you have themes, to ensure even greater variety especially at low levels. And paragon paths, which ride on top of your Fighter abilities rather than replace them. And so on... It's honestly staggering.

-O

Boci
2012-10-31, 12:17 AM
Who said anything about homebrew? I'm saying the design space is there.

Are you saying 4th ed has the potential for sub systems? Because if so, that doesn't mean much. Unless there are some major game changers planned between now and 5th edition, without homebrew the potential will never be reached. If that's not what your saying, then what do you mean by the design space being there?



I don't actually care for that level of multiclassing, so I don't see it as a positive. :smallsmile:

I'm not saying its a positive 100% of the time, just that it increases variability within 100% of the time.


As for variation between fighters? Quite a lot, frankly. Let's take feats as givens - there's tons in both editions, and 4e Fighters certainly get plenty. The "builds" you can select from include the basic PHB "Weapon Mastery" fighters, battleragers, tempest fighters, grappling fighters, arena fighters. Each has its own list of class features, its own secondary stats, and each shares some common features with the core. From there, there's Power choices at nearly every level, so the branching grows and grows. For the Fighter in particular, different weapon choices open up a variety of feats and power riders to more or less ensure that a sword & board fighter looks different from hammer & shield looks different from spiked chain, different from "free hand" grapplers, etc.

Then you have themes, to ensure even greater variety especially at low levels. And paragon paths, which ride on top of your Fighter abilities rather than replace them. And so on... It's honestly staggering.

-O

As someone who is use to 3.5, its not staggering at all on its own. When you consider the fact that they are all relativly balanced towards eachother it becomes a greater achievemnt, but on the sole merit of mechanical diversity its a bit meh.

And this leads to another problem: what if you don't like the power level of 4th ed? In 3.5, you could always move up or down, but in 4th ed, your pretty much stuck at the "competant, but one shot an encounter with the right ability". Which can be good, but won't always be.

Kaiisaxo
2012-10-31, 12:57 AM
It's amazing how quickly honest disagreement can be seen as defensiveness. :smallsmile:

No, current 4e classes don't have entirely separate subsystems like you'd find in the 3.5 Tome of Magic and whatnot. :smallsmile: This is not to say that they're impossible - which is the point of my disagreement. The 4e design space is vast, just like the 3.x one is. The difference is that only a corner of it was explored. My point is that later books started to push the boundaries in more experimental directions, not that we ever saw anything truly bizarre such as the 3.5 Binder.

But with all that said, 4e does a very good job with variations within individual classes. The amount of variation between, say, two different Fighters can be absolutely incredible.

-O

Or absolutely and distressingly boring. I agree Fighters received a lot of love in 4e, but at the same time other classes didn't get enough. I've played lots of 3.5 clerics, bards, healers, rogues and sorcerers, none of them have been the same despite most of them being humans. Compare a Charming sorcerer that was made of glass and totally useless on a fight, yet very useful anywhere else, against a slef-buffing warrior Sorcerer that eventually grew up to be a paladin, both concepts entirely viable with just the three core rulebooks. On the flipside on 4e not even with the three PHBs pluss Arcane Power and a lot of Dragon exclusives I can even get to replicate those two characters, (I know there is always refluffing and stuff, but yet).

But take this with a grain of salt, I'm a very picky, customizing, snowflake-obsessed, rules lawyering tinkerer scrub. 4e still rocks, with the right group and the right DM, and while I'm not able to translate many of the concepts that worked on 3.5 to 4e and feel happy, the ones that I'm happy with truly are very fun to play, and is rare for them not to contribute. In fact creating a truly useless character on 4e is a personal challenge.

What I can say is, 3.x was the "edition of freedom" while 4e is the "edition of balance". One can't obejctively say one is worse than the other, personal taste has a lot to do, and is possible to like and enjoy both for their strengths tather than their weakenesses

obryn
2012-10-31, 12:59 AM
Are you saying 4th ed has the potential for sub systems? Because if so, that doesn't mean much. Unless there are some major game changers planned between now and 5th edition, without homebrew the potential will never be reached. If that's not what your saying, then what do you mean by the design space being there?

I'm not saying its a positive 100% of the time, just that it increases variability within 100% of the time.
Your statement that I replied to originally (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14143651&postcount=80) had said that the 4e designers basically ran out of design space. And I disagree. I've been continuing that conversation. Sorry if you moved on to a different one. :smallwink:


As someone who is use to 3.5, its not staggering at all on its own. When you consider the fact that they are all relativly balanced towards eachother it becomes a greater achievemnt, but on the sole merit of mechanical diversity its a bit meh.
I ran 3.5 for its lifespan, and I'm still impressed at the variety possible in building 4e characters. I wasn't at first - if you have only the PHB at hand, it's obviously limiting - but at this point? The wealth of material is pretty impressive. There's a very strong network of decisions you make both at character creation and at most every level. Between class, race, theme, background, class build, feats, and powers ... well, it's a lot! And unless you're trying a Hybrid, it's pretty tough to make something unplayable unless you do something like put a 10 in your primary stat.

And all of this is possible without any multiclassing at all.


And this leads to another problem: what if you don't like the power level of 4th ed? In 3.5, you could always move up or down, but in 4th ed, your pretty much stuck at the "competant, but one shot an encounter with the right ability". Which can be good, but won't always be.
I thought it was 3.5 which was basically rocket-tag at higher levels. :smallwink: In 4e, single spells or powers rarely shut down an entire encounter.

Power levels vary with character level, just like always. Low level is pretty darn weak (and lethal!), and high level is pretty darn high. I don't really know what else to tell you here - from there it's largely DMing style.

If you want even weaker than level 1, there's some capable-looking 0-level rules that were published around 2 years ago. If you want weaker than that? I'd recommend WFRP2!

-O

The New Bruceski
2012-10-31, 01:13 AM
And this leads to another problem: what if you don't like the power level of 4th ed? In 3.5, you could always move up or down, but in 4th ed, your pretty much stuck at the "competant, but one shot an encounter with the right ability". Which can be good, but won't always be.

If you're talking about character tiers that's one of those things that's a problem either way. For folks with enough system mastery to recognize tiers and play at an agreed-upon level the variation of 3.5 has some advantages, but that also has the problem of folks with less mastery picking a class that's of a disporportionate tier to the intent of the game, and disaster resulting. Here in the forums we tend to deal with a lot of high-mastery folks, but that's not the ratio of people who play D&D.

In 4e you can grab a class and while some play more complex than others (namely the PHB3 classes) they all play pretty similar and at similar power levels. You've played a fighter last campaign, decide to make a wizard, and you know how everything fits without needing to learn all about spellcasting and how things interact. Go to runepriest next time and you have a bit more complexity in each power having two ways it can be used, but it still has the same format as the other guys. You don't have Vancian casting being balanced against sorcerers, or a class whose fluff gets turned into a mechanics gimmick that straightjackets it.

The 4e format is a problem for some players, but I think it's worth recognizing that it was done to fix a problem for other players. It wasn't change for the sake of change.

Boci
2012-10-31, 09:00 AM
Your statement that I replied to originally (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14143651&postcount=80) had said that the 4e designers basically ran out of design space. And I disagree. I've been continuing that conversation. Sorry if you moved on to a different one. :smallwink:

But do you disagree practically or hypothetically? I.E. are you areguing that what I said wrong, there are subsystems in 4E? Or are you arguing that I'm wrong, there is the potnetial for subsystems in D&D?


I thought it was 3.5 which was basically rocket-tag at higher levels. :smallwink: In 4e, single spells or powers rarely shut down an entire encounter.

Yes, it was meant to say "competant, but won't one shot an encounter with the right ability".


Power levels vary with character level, just like always. Low level is pretty darn weak (and lethal!), and high level is pretty darn high. I don't really know what else to tell you here - from there it's largely DMing style.
-O

I didn't mean level in that sense. I mean level in the tier sense, but wanted to avoid using it because of the controversy surrounding the theory.


The 4e format is a problem for some players, but I think it's worth recognizing that it was done to fix a problem for other players. It wasn't change for the sake of change.

I never meant to imply it was. I was just saying that given that some groups like tier 1 play, others like tier 2, 3, 4-5, there are going to be those who don't like the end result of 4E, because its only one "tier".

Ashdate
2012-10-31, 10:16 AM
I never meant to imply it was. I was just saying that given that some groups like tier 1 play, others like tier 2, 3, 4-5, there are going to be those who don't like the end result of 4E, because its only one "tier".

I dunno, "tier play" by definition is a homebrew exercise; there is nothing in the books that say "this class is Tier 3" or "don't play fighters and wizards together if you care about character balance". And the tier system is overrated anyway; certainly it's roughly accurate, but most players don't view the books through the lens of the Internet. At the height of the Batman Wizard, I was playing with 3.5 with people who truly believed that Fighters and Paladins were strong, even compared to Wizards and Druids.

But to your point, if we don't agree that "tier play" is a homebrew exercise, one could simply homebrew 4e for a higher power level by making some small changes to the system. For example, allowing most rituals to be cast as a standard action would bump up the "power" level of the game pretty significantly (by returning a lot of the versatility of the 3.5 casters).

And I agree with Obryn; there is tons of design space still existing in 4e; if anything makes me sad it's that there likely won't be too much newer material like Heroes of the Feywild. I think the Beserker Barbarian in that book is the coolest class in all of 4e, and showed what potential there still was in the system to exploit.

obryn
2012-10-31, 11:38 AM
But do you disagree practically or hypothetically? I.E. are you areguing that what I said wrong, there are subsystems in 4E? Or are you arguing that I'm wrong, there is the potnetial for subsystems in D&D?
Didn't I already answer this, a few posts back? You argued that the 4e design space was basically all burned out. I disagreed. I think the boundaries were pushed pretty far, and there's room to push them farther.

I suppose if you view the 4e possible design space as "whatever, so long as classes are decently balanced between each other so every class is a valid option out of the box" and the 3e design space as, "whatever! who cares about balance!" then it's by definition a smaller design space. I don't think that's fair to 3e, though.


I didn't mean level in that sense. I mean level in the tier sense, but wanted to avoid using it because of the controversy surrounding the theory.
I never meant to imply it was. I was just saying that given that some groups like tier 1 play, others like tier 2, 3, 4-5, there are going to be those who don't like the end result of 4E, because its only one "tier".
Frankly, I think the existence of "tiers" in 3.x is to its detriment. I am very glad I don't have to deal with it. :smallsmile: If you enjoy running Angel Summoner and BMX bandit - and I'm not saying you're wrong to do so - then the rough balance of power in 4e will not be to your liking. While there are some stinker classes, you don't have nearly the power disparity between top "tier" and bottom.

And, like I said, I think this is good. I mean, the alternative is ... what? The designers intentionally come out with a class and say, "guys, this class is way powerful?" Unless your game is specifically designed for it (like Ars Magica and Buffy are and D&D isn't), that sort of class disparity is a design flaw, in my mind.

-O

Kurald Galain
2012-10-31, 11:48 AM
I think the issue is not so much that they ran out of design space, but when they explored new parts of design space, fan reactions were... mixed. Just check any forum for reactions to the whole "Heroes Of" series; they're somewhat controversial in a way that (e.g.) the PHB2 or Arcane Power are not.

And that means lower sales. For a designer, it's great to expand design space. For a company like Hasbro, however, as soon as your design space stops selling well (and it has), they order you to move on (i.e. to 5E).

Ashdate
2012-10-31, 02:09 PM
Hopefully Hasbro isn't looking strictly at book sales; I hear their D&D Insider stuff has done pretty well; they've got (by numbers I can find) a good 50,000+ people paying for an account each month. That's a pretty reliable stream of revenue...

Rejakor
2012-10-31, 02:43 PM
That's because you basically NEED insider in order to play 4e. They've issued so many rules changes, revisions, 'tweaks' etc that in order to keep up with the successive waves of errata you basically need an account in order to make a character at all.

Those subscriptions have eviscerated book sales, incidentally. 4e has been such a huge financial failure that people were seriously worried about DnD as a brand being closed down entirely (it still made money, so no danger of that).


Frankly, I think the existence of "tiers" in 3.x is to its detriment. I am very glad I don't have to deal with it. If you enjoy running Angel Summoner and BMX bandit - and I'm not saying you're wrong to do so - then the rough balance of power in 4e will not be to your liking. While there are some stinker classes, you don't have nearly the power disparity between top "tier" and bottom.

And, like I said, I think this is good. I mean, the alternative is ... what? The designers intentionally come out with a class and say, "guys, this class is way powerful?" Unless your game is specifically designed for it (like Ars Magica and Buffy are and D&D isn't), that sort of class disparity is a design flaw, in my mind.

Unless you want to run a BMX Bandit game, or an Angel Summoner game.

3.5 handles both, if you know what you're doing with it. 4e doesn't, it's one size fits all as far as relative power level goes.

That's by definition a more limited conceptual space.

And yes, with sufficient cleverness, any concept space is unlimited. That doesn't mean that certain conceptual spaces are EASIER to have more concepts in than others.

Kurald Galain
2012-10-31, 02:58 PM
Hopefully Hasbro isn't looking strictly at book sales; I hear their D&D Insider stuff has done pretty well; they've got (by numbers I can find) a good 50,000+ people paying for an account each month. That's a pretty reliable stream of revenue...

I'm curious where you got your figures, and whether this user or base is greater or smaller than it was a year ago.

obryn
2012-10-31, 03:52 PM
That's because you basically NEED insider in order to play 4e. They've issued so many rules changes, revisions, 'tweaks' etc that in order to keep up with the successive waves of errata you basically need an account in order to make a character at all.
Ummm.... if you're sticking to low numbers of sources - for instance, the Heroes Of... volumes, it's not necessary at all. Still helpful, of course. :smallsmile:

For me, 4e is no different from 3.5 in this respect. Programs and spreadsheets like HeroForge were nearly required for making PCs, NPCs, and classed monsters efficiently if I used multiple splatbooks... Unless, of course, I limited the options. Like I would do in 4e, without software assistance.


Unless you want to run a BMX Bandit game, or an Angel Summoner game.

3.5 handles both, if you know what you're doing with it. 4e doesn't, it's one size fits all as far as relative power level goes.
I just can't see vast power differences in classes as a good thing (again, unless the system accounts for and expects it, like Ars).

With vast power gulfs, what you have are basically two separate game systems - one for the Fighters and Monks of the world, and one for the Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. And it's not like they come with warning labels. :smallsmile: "WARNING: By taking Natural Spell and a Bear companion, you will dominate and become an aggressively hegemonizing ursine swarm."

I'd rather have all the classes be able to sit at one table and contribute, you know?

If I want a very low-power game, I'd much rather run WFRP2e than any version of D&D. I'd rather keep my D&D focused narrower design goals, and achieve them. :smallsmile:

-O

Ashdate
2012-10-31, 03:52 PM
I'm curious where you got your figures, and whether this user or base is greater or smaller than it was a year ago.

I got it from this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/308250-how-many-people-subscribe-d-d-stuff.html); it spans a few years, but the most recent post with a number was in August of this year. It seems the number has been increasing at about 1000 new subscribers a month.

I mean, take it with a grain of salt. I personally know three people with D&D Insider accounts, so that there might be 50k+ people with one doesn't strike me as being too optimistic.

Kaun
2012-10-31, 05:34 PM
Hello,
I have been playing D&D for about a year, all that time using 3.5 edition. Now, I know that every single person has a different opinion about this but, should I pass over to 4e? It looks kind of cool, but it seems to be focused on combat instead of anything else my sessions have. And, I hear spells are considered powers here, does that mean you can only have a really small amount of spells? The monsters do catch my attention though, and I know the basic rules. Should I try it?

Thanks :smallbiggrin:

If you are having fun with 3.5 but are interested in trying other things i would recommend moving away from the DnD line completely. There are so many awesome games out there, why constrain yourself to just different editions of the same thing.

That or get your hands on some of the free 4e samples and give it a try.

As some one who has played and run a ton of both editions (+what came before) they are both as good and as bad as each other for various reasons. It's completely a personal taste thing.

Rejakor
2012-11-01, 07:25 AM
I just can't see vast power differences in classes as a good thing (again, unless the system accounts for and expects it, like Ars).

With vast power gulfs, what you have are basically two separate game systems - one for the Fighters and Monks of the world, and one for the Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. And it's not like they come with warning labels. "WARNING: By taking Natural Spell and a Bear companion, you will dominate and become an aggressively hegemonizing ursine swarm."

I'd rather have all the classes be able to sit at one table and contribute, you know?

If I want a very low-power game, I'd much rather run WFRP2e than any version of D&D. I'd rather keep my D&D focused narrower design goals, and achieve them.

The power difference between the classes, as endlessly hashed out and talked about, in 3.5 is definitely what causes most of the problems with the game people have.

That said, the worst part about it is the no warning labels thing. Once you understand the nature of the problem, it's relatively easy to fix. And this isn't a Stormwind Fallacy thing - it's still a problem, and it shouldn't need fixing.

But once you get past it, the game system does allow you to run all kinds of games, from essentially superheroes to deities to commoners to sword and sandals adventurers to high fantasy swashbuckling heroes, it even lets you take a good swing at gaslamp investigation. The breadth is amazing. The mechanical interactions also work well, with a relatively simple system logical enough interactions that the problems people come to forums like these with tend to highlight how WELL the system is working rather than it's flaws - they're far more often social or conceptual problems than mechanics not making sense (go read the white wolf forums, or dumpshock, to get a taste of how the other half lives).

By.. comparison, I would have no idea how to even begin fixing any of the problems I have with 4e, or running anything other than the standard baldur's gate style game in it, or.. really anything. It's set up to lockstep to a set of mechanics that would require rewriting huge portions of the game to use it for anything else, and if you don't like the exact thing they were writing it for, or aren't willing to go and read the Insider and all the latest books and whatnot to find the set of rules that actually add up to the appropriate numbers, it's basically easier to just go find a different system than to try to use it.


As for WHFRP 2e, I don't really have words for what I think of that system. Useful if you're mostly drunk and want to run a game for the lols, and even then some of the byzantine math will make you insane, but not really for any kind of actual roleplaying. If you really really love the combat system of warhammer fantasy/40k, and want to have that system determining if you die or live, then that's great but you should probably just write your own as it would make a lot more sense than WHFRP 2e.

obryn
2012-11-01, 08:24 AM
But once you get past it, the game system does allow you to run all kinds of games, from essentially superheroes to deities to commoners to sword and sandals adventurers to high fantasy swashbuckling heroes, it even lets you take a good swing at gaslamp investigation. The breadth is amazing.
That's the opposite of what I want in a D&D game, though. I want D&D to excel at being D&D. For superheroes, gods, etc. I'd rather use a system which was designed specifically to target that genre.


By.. comparison, I would have no idea how to even begin fixing any of the problems I have with 4e, or running anything other than the standard baldur's gate style game in it, or.. really anything. It's set up to lockstep to a set of mechanics that would require rewriting huge portions of the game to use it for anything else, and if you don't like the exact thing they were writing it for, or aren't willing to go and read the Insider and all the latest books and whatnot to find the set of rules that actually add up to the appropriate numbers, it's basically easier to just go find a different system than to try to use it.
I think this is a matter of experience in the system, though, wouldn't you say? If you picked up the 3.5 books cold today, what sort of game would it appear to lend itself to?


As for WHFRP 2e, I don't really have words for what I think of that system. Useful if you're mostly drunk and want to run a game for the lols, and even then some of the byzantine math will make you insane, but not really for any kind of actual roleplaying. If you really really love the combat system of warhammer fantasy/40k, and want to have that system determining if you die or live, then that's great but you should probably just write your own as it would make a lot more sense than WHFRP 2e.
Byzantine math? :smallconfused: Are you familiar with the game, or confusing it with something else? It's pretty basic and stripped-down, generally relying on % rolls for most things. It's an extremely lightweight system, especially compared to 3.x or 4e... And the combat system doesn't even resemble the tabletop wargame... What byzantine math are you speaking of?

-O

Kurald Galain
2012-11-01, 09:14 AM
I got it from this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/308250-how-many-people-subscribe-d-d-stuff.html); it spans a few years, but the most recent post with a number was in August of this year. It seems the number has been increasing at about 1000 new subscribers a month.
Interesting, and more than I expected.

I would then speculate that Hasbro either finds this number unsatisfactory compared to what Magic the Gathering is doing (to a gamer, that's apples and oranges, but to a general manager it would not be), or that they think they'll retain most current users and draw in many more by releasing a new edition. I imagine they aren't content to be second best; they have to top Paizo somehow.


The power difference between the classes, as endlessly hashed out and talked about, in 3.5 is definitely what causes most of the problems with the game people have.
Ironically, 4E also has vast power differences between classes. At heroic tier, the game is fine - but at paragon tier, there is a clear difference between good and bad classes. I've played several games where the good class characters dominate every encounter and the bad class characters simply aren't relevant in combat. At epic, this issue is even more visible.

Ashdate
2012-11-01, 09:49 AM
Interesting, and more than I expected.

I would then speculate that Hasbro either finds this number unsatisfactory compared to what Magic the Gathering is doing (to a gamer, that's apples and oranges, but to a general manager it would not be), or that they think they'll retain most current users and draw in many more by releasing a new edition. I imagine they aren't content to be second best; they have to top Paizo somehow.

No doubt they would prefer more, but I do think it speaks to the idea that simply comparing PF booksales against 4e booksales isn't necessarily a great way of comparing the health of each game. And even if 50k (well, 70k I guess) isn't a tremendous number of subscribers, it's still what, a quarter-million in revenue each month?

And I would also speculate that they'll try and incorporate some sort of online subscription service into DnD Next as well. Despite it's issues (SILVERLIGHT!), I think $6 a month is a bargain for what you get (full access to character builder, compendium, dungeon and dragon, and the off-line Monster Builder). Given overhead on selling physical books, I would imagine that the $72 a year is a healthy dose of profit each month, even once you pay the Dungeon/Dragon writers/artists and your code people. And certainly, many Insider subscribers likely purchase physical books as well...

obryn
2012-11-01, 10:41 AM
Ironically, 4E also has vast power differences between classes. At heroic tier, the game is fine - but at paragon tier, there is a clear difference between good and bad classes. I've played several games where the good class characters dominate every encounter and the bad class characters simply aren't relevant in combat. At epic, this issue is even more visible.
...Are you saying that the power differential between a 15th level Seeker and a 15th level Wizard in 4e is comparable to the power differential between a 15th level Fighter and a 15th level Wizard in 3.5? :smallconfused:

Because that's the point I'm getting at. Class disparities of course exist - a few like the HoS Binder are relatively lousy - but it's nowhere near to the same degree.

-O