Opinions about 4th edition

[Harperfan7]

I haven't played it yet.

How would you compare it to 3.5? Are there any significant differences that I wouldn't realize until I played it?

Lastly, do you like it better?

[Occasional Sage]

Chocolate!

[Dublock]

...this can be a big flame war.

May I suggest you use the forum search feature to find the few 4E vs. 3.5E threads before this gets ugly?

[Inyssius Tor]

Chocolate!

You are objectively wrong, and quite frankly I find the implications of your statement quite offensive. But let's leave that aside for a moment. Personally, I believe that Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough is far superior to any other option (barring unorthodox combinations, homebrew recipes, and third-party products such as Double Cookie Caramel Ripple Fudge Swirl or Stephen Colbert's Americone Dream).

[Blackdrop]

You are objectively wrong, and quite frankly I find the implications of your statement quite offensive. But let's leave that aside for a moment. Personally, I believe that Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough is far superior to any other option (barring unorthodox combinations, homebrew recipes, and third-party products such as Double Cookie Caramel Ripple Fudge Swirl or Stephen Colbert's Americone Dream).

Bah, you are so wrong.

Cookies and Cream is hands down better then your crummy Chocolate Chip Cookies Dough.

[BobVosh]

Bah, you are both wrong. It is the simplistic bit with some alternative features that make the truly great choice. Vanilla with hot fudge is far superior. Harder to make into a box set though.

[The Minx]

Strawberry > chocolate. But not by much, mind.

[ocato]

I like them both.

[Blackdrop]

Hot fudge is a terrible topping. The only time I ever used it, it melted my ice cream. I now refuse to use in place of the older, more traditional, chocolate syrup.

[The Minx]

Hot fudge is a terrible topping. The only time I ever used it, it melted my ice cream. I now refuse to use in place of the older, more traditional, chocolate syrup.

But it's yummy! Therefore, you are objectively wrong.

Besides, you have to pour it around the ice cream and eat it quickly, which is easy because it is yummy. So there.

[monty]

I love these threads.

[Arbitrarity]

I haven't played it yet.

How would you compare it to 3.5? Are there any significant differences that I wouldn't realize until I played it?

Lastly, do you like it better?

I like it. It's sometimes a bit more frustrating, because you rely on the dice, thanks to the careful accuracy balancing (as opposed to 3.5, where guaranteed attacks and effects were pretty normal [unless this is just my inner munchkin speaking. I Tornado Throw the boss with my 90 ft move speed]). Battlegrid is quite important, and all the classes are well-balanced.

In turn, however, the classes are relatively homogeneous. The differences between each class are relatively subtle, because they each rely on minor differences in powers and abilities, but they still function very differently in fights. Rogues still circle for flanks, wizards throw area of effect spells and status effects around, and so forth. Class design, however, is unified. Each class gains new abilities at the same levels, and EVERY level is designed to have some interesting element, whether an ability score increase, a feat+general skill increase, utility powers, or attack powers. It actually fits together quite nicely.
The system assumes some optimization, but this isn't absolutely necessary. Even unoptimized characters can be accounted for with the simple, easy-to-use scaling level system.
4e is much easier to run as a DM. There are codified rules for players taking unusual actions, encounters are easier to design, and terrain can be improvised (it's important, though).
Feats aren't as relevant as they used to be, but are still quite useful. Many previously useless feats are now quite good choices. (toughness!). The skill system is much simpler, and can now be used to make "encounters" involving only skills. I strongly recommend you find the skill errata, it's important.

First level characters are MUCH more fun to play. No longer are they threatened by housecats, first level characters are quite badass, with lots of health, healing abilities, and a decent selection of powers.
Tactics are important in play. Despite the fact that tactics don't "swing" abilities as much (tripping, denying dex bonus, etc) as much, every +2 to hit counts in 4e, and so flanking, tripping, and so forth are very important. Also, opportunity attacks are quite important, and rather annoying to avoid.

[DwaggieBard]

*Expresses poorly formed views!*
*States contradicting facts!*

COOKIES ARE WAY BETTER! I don't know what the alternative is! But whatever it is, chocolate rules all!

[FoE]

Strawberry > chocolate. But not by much, mind.

So it's all strawberry for you, is it?

Well, I need more than strawberry, and for that matter I need more than chocolate. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that Ms. Minx, is the definition of liberty.

[Inyssius Tor]

Well, I need more than strawberry, and for that matter I need more than chocolate. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that Ms. Minx, is the definition of liberty.

Are you high?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hokay, let's try some links to previous threads:

What Edition of D&D?

Is 4e Worth Getting?

An Edition War, For This?

Those are all from the past few months. I recommend reading the first 1d3+1 pages of each and then posting any specific questions you still have about it.

Also: Inyssius Tor, that picture is totally sweet

EDIT:
Oh, and the ice cream stuff? This is why.

[Harperfan7]

Well, ****.

Leave it to me to step on a nerd culture landmine.

Sorry folks, I'm socially retarded.

(thanks for the links and info)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, ****.

Leave it to me to step on a nerd culture landmine.

Sorry folks, I'm socially retarded.

(thanks for the links)

Don't worry 'bout it.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of sticky thread where everyone gets to say (in 500 words or less) what they think of 4E and why. That way, if anyone wanted to hear what the Playground thought about 3E v. 4E it'd be there, right on the first page.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, ****.

Leave it to me to step on a nerd culture landmine.

Sorry folks, I'm socially retarded.

(thanks for the links)

I believe the term you're looking for is Internet Backdraft...

[TheOOB]

3.5 vs 4e has been talked about to death, though the flame wars have mostly subsided. You can tell just by looking at the 3.5 to 4e threads that 4e is by no means universal, but it's gaining ground.

I personally like 4e better, but that doesn't mean I don't still like 3.5. If a good DM wants to start a 3.5 game, I'll join.

4e is very, very different from 3.5, and all the differences are hard to catalog. The biggest change is that everything is about powers now. Classes are, for the most part, a collection of different powers, usable at-will, per encounter, and once-per-day. Think of it as every class having their own spell list. In addition, races have powers, magic items have powers, even some feats grant powers.

The game has also been streamlined(some people other then myself would say simplified). It's generally quicker and easier to teach new people how to play the game, but the tactical depth has if anything increased which creates a different sort of learning curve.

The classes are new, many people find themselves enjoying different classes then they did before. There are some complaints that all the classes feel the same now, and on paper they do look similar, but I find that in play the classes all feel unique, especially if played by a good player. Also, the new classes coming out are radically different from the ones in the PHB.

Really though, borrow a copy from a friend or spend a while in a bookstore reading the book, you'll decide quickly if it is something you want to pursue.

[BobVosh]

So it's all strawberry for you, is it?

Well, I need more than strawberry, and for that matter I need more than chocolate. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that Ms. Minx, is the definition of liberty.

But you didn't convince me :(

[FoE]

But you didn't convince me :(

It's not you I'm after. It's them.

*Points to other forum-goers*

[TheOOB]

I like vanilla, it's the finest of the flavors.

[its_all_ogre]

bacon ice cream for the win

[BobVosh]

bacon ice cream for the win

Canadian, or regular?

[loopy]

So it's all strawberry for you, is it?

Well, I need more than strawberry, and for that matter I need more than chocolate. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that Ms. Minx, is the definition of liberty.

I love Thank You For Smoking so very very much. Thank you for quoting it.

Is it wrong that I model myself after that character?

[FoE]

So you're like that guy who can pick up any girl, except you're on crack?

I don't see why not. He was somewhat immoral, but he wasn't really a bad guy. And he was likeable. I myself would like to have a bachelor's degree in kicking butt and taking names.

[mistformsquirrl]

I'll just go ahead and give my personal opinion <^_^>

Honestly - 4th isn't better NOR worse than 3.5e on the whole.

They *are* very different from each other though. I actually feel 4e would have been well received if it had been called anything but D&D - not because I don't feel it fits D&D, but because its such an enormous departure from what people were used to.
Here's how I look at the two:

3.5e - Customization is a plus, you start out relatively weak, which means you can go for extremely humble beginnings without much difficulty and then work your way up into a powerhouse, the whole game has a more serious feel to it. Once you're out of spells, your out of spells and that's it for the day; this can lead to DOOM with a cruel DM.

4e - Less customization, but better balance between classes. You'll wind up with less situations where "omg the party can't go another step or we'll DIE" - because you have things like Encounter powers, which recharge after each battle. Party roles are well defined, but still provide enough overlap that roles don't generally feel restrictive.

So... all told, I think both are good, but they do different things, and so it depends largely on what kind of game you're running/going to play to determine what the rules will do for you.

An addendum - I think 4e would have been better recieved if it had been anything but D&D. Same exact system in every other way, same art, same everything, but with a different name. Some people have developed a specific attachment to the D20 system, and the fact that it was largely just an evolution from the older systems. The new system for 4e is a completely different animal, despite some superficial similarities.

This I think is where the "It's not D&D" mindset comes from; because its a huge change from what's come before.

So yeah, I think both are great and playable, but are different systems that do different things well <. .>b

[its_all_ogre]

Canadian, or regular?

regular, i think canadian is some kind of turkey that is flavoured like bacon?

i likes my fat.

[Mobey_Wee]

Are you high?

wow, thanks for my new background!