Mechanical differences between 3.5 and 4e

[Harris the Ford]

I'm going to start my first time playing 4e today and was wondering what the most prominent mechanical gameplay differences are between it and 3.5. I dont have time to sit down and read the entire corebook (but i will do some skimming, mostly character selection stuff) but I dont want to come into the game using all the 3.5 rules. Any help is appreciated.

[SilveryCord]

It'd be difficult to give you a sufficient overview, since 4e isn't so much of a 'change' as a 'different game', but here are a few points some people miss:

-You don't get bonuses to saves. This is intentional; 3e saves are now represented by defenses, and the only difference is who rolls the d20. (In 4e, the attacker always rolls the dice, where as in 3e you roll the dice for attack rolls but your target rolls the dice for saves). 4e saves are more of a timing mechanism.
-There is a tendency to evaluate the powers as being too similar to each other; but this isn't the case when you actually play with them.
-Getting to-hit bonuses is probably the most effective thing to do when you're given an option; the expertise feats, for example, should be taken as early as possible.

[Zaq]

I asked a very similar question when I started 4e.

Basically, EVERYTHING. You really should assume that everything is at least slightly different until proven otherwise. Try to approach it from a totally unassuming point of view... if you compare it to 3.5, you're likely to get frustrated. Let it stand on its own.

[Mando Knight]

Crits don't need a confirmation roll. Nearly all attack spells need attack rolls. (the updated Magic Missile doesn't anymore, though. Because people complained.)

...Basically, most of the mechanical differences come in what numbers are good for your level, how your numbers progress, and how abilities that affect Reflex, Will, and Fortitude work. The core mechanic (roll a d20, add numbers, compare to the DM's secret number) hasn't changed, just how you get the numbers to add to the d20 roll.

the expertise feats, for example, should be taken as early as possible.

Actually, you can hold off on the Expertise feats up to level 5 or even later... the +1 it grants until level 15 isn't much compared to what other feats have to offer. However, if you're lacking the feat at level 25, you should talk to your friendly neighborhood optimizer for info on how you're doin' it wrong.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm going to start my first time playing 4e today and was wondering what the most prominent mechanical gameplay differences are between it and 3.5.

I'm going to echo the previous two posters and say "everything".

There are lots of little changes (like how standing up no longer provokes, or how all magical thrown weapons return) and lots of big ones (like the power system, or the skill system, or saving throws) and several changes in design philosophy (like how you can no longer get reliable flight or invisibility by level 5).

[Zaq]

Oh, one huge thing that no one's mentioned so far is that there's no longer any such thing as a long-term buff. The best you can hope for is one encounter, which (if you're out of combat) is defined as a max of five minutes (shorter if you're fighting something, unless you're doing it hilariously wrong). Rituals with longer-lasting effects do exist, but only very rarely will those actually affect how you fight (and let's face it, the game's primarily about violence) the way that, say, Overland Flight or Essence of the Raptor (or even Mage Armor) used to. I'm also pretty sure that the concept of "rounds per level" is dead... I think everything now lasts until the end of [your / the target's] next turn, until the end of the encounter, or until the target makes a saving throw (which translates to "a round or two, three if you're very lucky"). There may be minor exceptions, but yeah.

And yeah, what would be a bonus small enough to make you cringe in 3.5 might actually matter in 4e. For instance, spending a feat to increase your AC by 2 (unconditionally) is considered a HUGE deal and very worthwhile nine times out of ten. The game takes a lot longer for the offense and defense numbers to split apart like crazy, so even small bonuses are still worth your time.

One of the biggest "holy hell, this IS a different game" realizations I had was when I realized that the "X Expertise" feats, which give a +1 bonus to-hit with a certain weapon, are considered INVALUABLE MUST-TAKE FEAT TAXES to the extent that a lot of games houserule them in for free. Compare this to the 3.5 Weapon Focus, which gives a +1 bonus to-hit with a certain weapon and is considered to be on the very worst tier of feats in the game. It's a lot harder to supercharge your attack bonuses or trivialize enemy defenses in 4e, and damn near EVERYTHING requires a successful attack roll to actually do anything fun.

Another thing is that keywords are... approached differently. Remember how in 3.5, as a rule of thumb, the more bracketed keywords a spell or effect had, the worse it was, because every instance of something like [this] means that there's another thing for enemies to be immune to? Yeah, not so much anymore. Keywords are generally considered a good thing, because 1) they're harder to be immune to and 2) you can trigger all kinds of nifty effects based on your keywords if you know what you're doing. Also, the prevalent existence of Vulnerability (previously limited basically to fire creatures and cold creatures, and not even always then) means that doing elemental damage is actually something worth seeking out, not something that you want to shift into untyped damage ASAP.

Oh, and watch how long it takes before your reflex to ask "wtf, WHY?" when someone mentions that they're playing a half-elf goes away. I still have to remind myself that they're no longer made out of compressed wads of fail.

[Kurald Galain]

One of the biggest "holy hell, this IS a different game" realizations I had was when I realized that the "X Expertise" feats, which give a +1 bonus to-hit with a certain weapon, are considered INVALUABLE MUST-TAKE FEAT TAXES to the extent that a lot of games houserule them in for free.

Actually, they're still as "powerful" as ever, which is to say, a +1 to-hit does absolutely nothing 95% of the time.

The difference is that many feats in 3E are much stronger than this, whereas the vast majority of feats in 4E aren't. Since a 3E character gets seven feats, he'll generally want the best seven feats in the book. While which feats are the top-7 is debatable, a +1 to hit is clearly not one of them. On the other hand, a 4E character gets eighteen feats, and there is no doubt that a +1 to hit (+2 from level 15) is in the top-18 of pretty much every build.

People still tend to vastly overstate the importance of these feats, just like how people overstate the importance of playing a race that gives +2 to your primary attribute.

[Zaq]

Actually, they're still as "powerful" as ever, which is to say, a +1 to-hit does absolutely nothing 95% of the time.

Not... quite. Any given +1 might only come up 5% of the time that you roll a d20... but the number of times that you roll that d20 and get to apply that specific +1 is quite different in 4e for most classes than it was in 3.5. In 3.5, it was relatively easy to trivialize defenses (by pumping attack bonuses to something stupid, by attacking touch AC or otherwise ignoring your enemy's defenses, or whatever) to the point that any given +1 might not even matter (a literal "hit on a 2" didn't tend to come up until level 8 or so, but still happened). In 4e, that's much less likely to happen if you're fighting level-appropriate monsters. (Possible with a really optimized buffer and/or debuffer, but by no means likely.) Also, Weapon Focus in 3.5 only applied to weapon attacks... while EVERYONE in 4e (Lazylords excluded, I guess) is going to see the bonus from Expertise nearly every round that they get a standard action. Even a 3.5 Fighter might not use Weapon Focus every turn (for example, if they end up grappling), whereas you basically have to go out of your way to make your d20 rolls not involve your Expertise bonus.

Finally, the preponderance of ways to add to your attack rolls in 3.5 made any given one of them less critical at any given moment, because if you were buffing, you were very likely to be using a lot of buffs at once. In 4e, Leaders have no shortage of buffs, but very few of them are likely to apply to any given roll. You can't keep them up all the time. Something that applies all the time is a lot rarer in 4e, and thus proportionally more valuable.

I'm not saying that your character is worthless without them or any such hyperbole (my earlier capitalized statement WAS hyperbole), but I feel that my comparison between 4e Expertise and 3.5 Weapon Focus stands.

[Harris the Ford]

so looking through the phb im going to be making an Eladrin Wizard Stormlord (or whatever that storm paragon is called) at lvl 11. Someone in the group supposedly has the offocial WotC character builder so im not going to mess around trying to build him now without so much as a character sheet. two of the feats im pretty sure im going to take are Expanded Spellbook, and Spell Focus (11th lvl feat) besides that i have 5 other feats to choose from.

[Kurald Galain]

Not... quite. Any given +1 might only come up 5% of the time that you roll a d20... but the number of times that you roll that d20 and get to apply that specific +1 is quite different in 4e for most classes than it was in 3.5.

You are correct about casters, but on the other hand weapon users will make less attack rolls per round, on average, than in 3E, because iterative attacks are gone, and most weapon-using classes gain no extra attacks for dual-wielding.

so looking through the phb im going to be making an Eladrin Wizard Stormlord (or whatever that storm paragon is called) at lvl 11. Someone in the group supposedly has the offocial WotC character builder so im not going to mess around trying to build him now without so much as a character sheet. two of the feats im pretty sure im going to take are Expanded Spellbook, and Spell Focus (11th lvl feat) besides that i have 5 other feats to choose from.

Are you asking for build advice?

Expanded Spellbook is a trap, don't bother with that. Good wizard feats include Enlarge Spell, either Improved Initiative or Quickdraw, Arcane Familiar, Second Implement, Enlarge Spell, Dual Implement Spellcaster, Expertise, a multiclass feat of your choice, and Enlarge Spell.

Good wizard powers include Thunderwave, Winged Horde (at will), Grasping Shadows, Color Spray, Twist of Space (encounter), Sleep/Flaming Sphere, Vision of Avarice/Stinking Cloud, Vision of Ruin/Wall of Fire (daily), and Shield/Jump, Wizard's Escape/Wall of Fog, Illusory Wall/Mass Resistance (utility).

(edit) not all of those are available in the PHB; ask your DM if you can use the Arcane Power splatbook. Wizards are still a powerful class with PHB-only, but e.g. at level-7 there isn't really such a great choice of powers.

[Thajocoth]

Expanded Spellbook is nearly useless. If you want more versatility, wield a Tome, which actually lets you swap "prepared" powers at the time of use. "Tome of Readiness". I recommend, for Wizards, Magic Missile, Wizard's Fury, and a few of the White Lotus feats... But I haven't looked at it since they changed Magic Missile.

My first character was an Eladrin Wizard. I was in a constant state of wanting to retrain more and more of my character until I finally threw it out entirely. I now only play Defenders and Strikers, as Controllers and Leaders have way too much for me to remember at once.

Every class can be useful in 4e. There are no Tiers anymore. A Monk can be just as good as a Wizard.

[Pechvarry]

I haven't seen anyone mention the changes to actions. And that seems important.

There's a Standard Action, just like in 3.x. There's a move action (or is it called supplemental?), which, in addition to your normal movement, is also the action you use for the 5-foot adjustment to avoid OAs (hah! instead of AoOs). This seems bonkers, except that the Minor Action, which is basically a swift action, can do all kinds of stuff that used to be handled by move actions. Basically, move actions really are for movement. Minor Actions are typically preparation actions (draw a potion, open a door).

And there doesn't actually appear to be a full round action. There's definitely no full attack and no iterative attack system.

I just skimmed the adventuring/combat chapters. That seemed enough to get the big changes.

Bonus points: count my comma usage!

[SilveryCord]

Crits don't need a confirmation roll. Nearly all attack spells need attack rolls. (the updated Magic Missile doesn't anymore, though. Because people complained.)

...Basically, most of the mechanical differences come in what numbers are good for your level, how your numbers progress, and how abilities that affect Reflex, Will, and Fortitude work. The core mechanic (roll a d20, add numbers, compare to the DM's secret number) hasn't changed, just how you get the numbers to add to the d20 roll. Actually, you can hold off on the Expertise feats up to level 5 or even later... the +1 it grants until level 15 isn't much compared to what other feats have to offer. However, if you're lacking the feat at level 25, you should talk to your friendly neighborhood optimizer for info on how you're doin' it wrong.

Ah, you have a good point. I haven't started 4e at level 1 since the game came out, so forgive my bad advice! :)

[Thajocoth]

I haven't seen anyone mention the changes to actions. And that seems important.

There's a Standard Action, just like in 3.x. There's a move action (or is it called supplemental?), which, in addition to your normal movement, is also the action you use for the 5-foot adjustment to avoid OAs (hah! instead of AoOs). This seems bonkers, except that the Minor Action, which is basically a swift action, can do all kinds of stuff that used to be handled by move actions. Basically, move actions really are for movement. Minor Actions are typically preparation actions (draw a potion, open a door).

And there doesn't actually appear to be a full round action. There's definitely no full attack and no iterative attack system.

I just skimmed the adventuring/combat chapters. That seemed enough to get the big changes.

Bonus points: count my comma usage!

The only full round action I'm aware of is Overland Flight, unless that's a houserule...

On each of your own turns, you have 1 Standard, 1 Move and 1 Minor action. You can use your Move Action as a Minor Action if you want to. You can use your Standard Action as a Move or Minor Action.

Once per each turn that is not yours, you can take one Opportunity Action. This is usually an Opportunity Attack. This means that, if you have 4 allies and 5 enemies, you can take 9 Opportunity Actions per round, if one is triggered on each ally's turn and one is triggered on each enemy's turn.

You can also take one Immediate Action per round, which cannot be taken on your own turn. This resets at the start of each of your turns, so there's no need to remember where a round officially started.

You can take as many Free Actions as you want with one limitation: If you have attacks that are Free Actions, you can only use one of them per round. Again, you count from the start of each of your turns for this limitation. This limitation doesn't apply to attacks that are No Action or simply not an action at all, both of which can also be done at any time.

At the start of each day, you have an Action Point. You get a new one after every two encounters (which is called a milestone). They go away at the end of the day if unused. Once per encounter, on your turn, you can spend an Action Point if you have one as a Free Action, to use an extra Standard Action that turn. As usual for Standard Actions, you may choose to use it as a Move or Minor Action. The Free Action is giving you a Standard Action here, not giving you an attack, so it doesn't count towards your Free Action attack limits.

That is EVERYTHING you need to know about Action Economy in 4e.

[Mando Knight]

The only full round action I'm aware of is Overland Flight, unless that's a houserule...

Technically, Overland Flight is a movement mode that robs you of your remaining actions (including Opportunity and Immediate), rather than an actual full-round action.

[Thajocoth]

Technically, Overland Flight is a movement mode that robs you of your remaining actions (including Opportunity and Immediate), rather than an actual full-round action.

Yeah. That's what I meant. "Action that happens to take a whole round", not "Full-Round Action".

[FelixG]

Never just say "I attack" you have at will powers that will be spammed, there is no reason to ever "just" attack as far as i have seen.

[Shpadoinkle]

I'm going to start my first time playing 4e today and was wondering what the most prominent mechanical gameplay differences are between it and 3.5.

Everything.

[Wings of Peace]

Everything.

[Dogmantra]

Never just say "I attack" you have at will powers that will be spammed, there is no reason to ever "just" attack as far as i have seen.

Not necessarily true. There are plenty of at-wills that do things like taking away stat bonus to damage in return for a bonus elsewhere, it's a bit silly, but if you pick two of that sort and you really want extra damage, then it's time for a basic attack.

To answer the OP with the single thing that stuck out to me:
The core mechanic is now 1d20 + ½ level + other bonuses. Never forget the half level.

[Thajocoth]

Never just say "I attack" you have at will powers that will be spammed, there is no reason to ever "just" attack as far as i have seen.

I don't normally see At-Wills being used that often... Well, at the first few levels, sure, but once everyone's got 2 Encounters and 2 Dailies, At-Wills become maybe half of what you use. By Paragon Tier, they're a rarity.

Though, I guess if a group had no synergy, made lots of poor tactical decisions, and took lots of useless feats like "Expanded Spellbook", "Skill Focus" and "Melee Training", it could be possible to drag combats out for hours...

[Tyndmyr]

I'm going to start my first time playing 4e today and was wondering what the most prominent mechanical gameplay differences are between it and 3.5.

All of them. However, you can still use your old set of dice.

It is not possible to translate an existing character from 3.5 to 4e, as you could in previous upgrades in version, as it is a completely different game. You can attempt to build a new character that is somewhat similar in feel, but it will not be a similar build to what you used previously.

[Sipex]

I don't normally see At-Wills being used that often... Well, at the first few levels, sure, but once everyone's got 2 Encounters and 2 Dailies, At-Wills become maybe half of what you use. By Paragon Tier, they're a rarity.

Though, I guess if a group had no synergy, made lots of poor tactical decisions, and took lots of useless feats like "Expanded Spellbook", "Skill Focus" and "Melee Training", it could be possible to drag combats out for hours...

I'd like to point out that the definition of 'useless' has been used to supplement 'Less combat effective' in this post.

Each feat has it's place barring situations and it really depends on your DM. For example a skill challenge heavy campaign, a campaign with high skill DCs or a character concept where you want to be able to perform acrobatic tricks flawlessly without feat would all benefit from the Skill Focus feat.

[Thajocoth]

I'd like to point out that the definition of 'useless' has been used to supplement 'Less combat effective' in this post.

Each feat has it's place barring situations and it really depends on your DM. For example a skill challenge heavy campaign, a campaign with high skill DCs or a character concept where you want to be able to perform acrobatic tricks flawlessly without feat would all benefit from the Skill Focus feat.

I disagree. I think some feats really are universally useless regardless of anything. Skill focus gives +3 to a skill you're already trained in. If you're trained, you should be succeeding almost all the time already, so why do you need another +3? For when you roll a 1 or 2 on the die? It's just so unlikely to have any real impact.

[Sipex]

I disagree. I think some feats really are universally useless regardless of anything. Skill focus gives +3 to a skill you're already trained in. If you're trained, you should be succeeding almost all the time already, so why do you need another +3? For when you roll a 1 or 2 on the die? It's just so unlikely to have any real impact.

I've got a rogue in my party who does athletics and acrobatics everywhere, he's trying to become a ninja in a way. Pit? Wall run or jump it, no rope for him. Monster in the way? Tumble past. Hole in the ceiling to escape out of? Jump off the walls. Stairs? Railing. Etc.

He's taken both of these so now he doesn't need to roll at all. He fears no chance of failure for his character concept.

Again, useful depending on circumstance.

edit: To clarify, he might have to roll if he tries something really ridiculous.

[Kurald Galain]

Not necessarily true. There are plenty of at-wills that do things like taking away stat bonus to damage in return for a bonus elsewhere, it's a bit silly, but if you pick two of that sort and you really want extra damage, then it's time for a basic attack.

Yes, then it's time for a retrain. Seriously, if you're at all considering to use a basic attack in a situation where you could use an at-will, then there's something wrong with your at-wills.

Each feat has it's place barring situations and it really depends on your DM.

That's not really true. There are many feats that are useful regardless of what your DM does, and there are also many feats that simply won't make a difference regardless of what your DM does.

A good example of the latter is Elven Precision. Simple math shows that it will only make a difference once every ten combats. There are also feats that will make a difference two or three times per combat. That's a huge difference.

I've got a rogue in my party who does athletics and acrobatics everywhere, he's trying to become a ninja in a way. Pit? Wall run

I should point out that there aren't actually rules for wall running with the Acrobatics or Athletics skill. So in effect, the DM is letting this player be awesome. And that's good DMing. Just don't claim that it's the Skill Focus feat that lets the character be awesome - he would most likely be just as awesome without that feat.

[Dogmantra]

No, then it's time for a retrain. Seriously, if you're at all considering to use a basic attack in a situation where you could use an at-will, then there's something wrong with your at-wills.

Not sure why there's a "no" there...
I did say it was a bit silly.

[Kurald Galain]

Not sure why there's a "no" there...

To contrast "it's time for a basic attack" with "it's time for a retrain". But I'll go edit my post now and change it into a "yes"

[RebelRogue]

Some concrete changes to existing mechanics that took me a while to get due to 3.5-thinking:

Opportunity Attacks: There are now exactly three things in the game the provoke Opportunity attacks; non-Shift movement as usual, Ranged attack powers and Area attack powers (Close attack powers are not Area attack powers! - I thought Close powers provoked for a long time). Also, you generally have to be adjacent to make an Opportunity Attack even if you have reach. No more having to worry about OAs from standing up from prone, drinking potions etc.

Threatened squares/flanking: The idea of threatened squares is gone, so you don't have to wield a weapon to provide flanking bonuses. You generally have to be adjacent to the enemy to provide flanking even if you have reach.

---
As for full round action, the closest thing in 4e are the Full Discipline powers of the Monk, but that is a very specific mechanic.

[Thajocoth]

Some concrete changes to existing mechanics that took me a while to get due to 3.5-thinking:

Opportunity Attacks: There are now exactly three things in the game the provoke Opportunity attacks; non-Shift movement as usual, Ranged attack powers and Area attack powers (Close attack powers are not Area attack powers! - I thought Close powers provoked for a long time). Also, you generally have to be adjacent to make an Opportunity Attack even if you have reach. No more having to worry about OAs from standing up from prone, drinking potions etc.

Threatened squares/flanking: The idea of threatened squares is gone, so you don't have to wield a weapon to provide flanking bonuses. You generally have to be adjacent to the enemy to provide flanking even if you have reach.

---
As for full round action, the closest thing in 4e are the Full Discipline powers of the Monk, but that is a very specific mechanic.

There are enemies with threatening reach, and ways to briefly gain threatening reach. Normally, a threatened square is any square adjacent to a creature. With threatening reach 2, it includes squares adjacent to those. Threatening reach 3 includes squares adjacent to those... And so on.

What Monks have, are powers that contain a Standard and a Move action. You can use those two pieces as much as you have actions for that turn. So you can Action Point, use the Standard Action twice, and then use the Move Action on the power... Or you can just use the Move Action and do something else entirely with your Standard. It uses up the power however you decide to split it up.