4e newbie

[dgnslyr]

Well, my well-intentioned parents got me the PHB and DMG for 4e this christmas. While I'm pretty familiar with 3.5, 4e is pretty new to me. Anything I should know?

[Cirrhosis]

Read the two rules chapters in the back of the PHB and the getting started section up front. You shouldn't have too much trouble with most of the rules, as they're generally less complicated than 3.5 and 2nd ed.

That said, there are threads floating around that will be helpful in understanding some of the more commonly misunderstood rules in 4e (starting hit points, what provokes attacks of opportunity, etc.).

Try not to get too wrapped up in the idea that it should feel like previous editions of D&D, cuz it won't. It will feel less like a vague attempt at simulating a fantasy world and more like a tactical miniatures game with a colorful candy RPG shell bolted on. Y'know. Cuz it is. Think Final Fantasy Vs Final Fantasy Tactics, and you'll be on the right track.

[Dalek-K]

4e is more of a party game than 3.5. In 3.5 a druid or cleric (and later a wizard) could be the party with many of the other classes being more like minions...

All the classes are made to do 1 thing well and another thing somewhat well. There are exceptions but that's pretty much how it goes.

Controller, Striker, Defender, Leader

Everyone gets a lot of powers eventually so when it comes to time... Its kinda like having a bunch of players play 3.5 wizards XD

[Lateral]

4e is more of a party game than 3.5. In 3.5 a druid or cleric (and later a wizard) could be the party with many of the other classes being more like minions...

All the classes are made to do 1 thing well and another thing somewhat well. There are exceptions but that's pretty much how it goes.

Controller, Striker, Defender, Leader

This, basically. Every class in 4e is, in 3.5 terms, somewhere in tier 3. Some classes are more powerful than others, but there's nothing heinously gimped or broken. A party tends to need all four of these roles to succeed. The defender protects the squishy controllers (and ranged strikers) who are dishing out the damage and BC, the melee strikers go in for the kill, and the leader keeps everyone running smoothly with healing and buffs. It relies much more on intra-party cooperation in combat.

The connections kind'a go:

Fighter-Controller/Ranged Striker (Meat shield keeps enemies away from squishies)
Controller-Everyone (The controller is God. A good controller casts the spells that make his allies kick the foes' asses, not the spells that makes the peoples fall down.)
Melee striker- Melee striker (Flanking)
Leader-Everyone (Everyone needs to be healed sometimes.)

[kieza]

Try not to get too wrapped up in the idea that it should feel like previous editions of D&D, cuz it won't. It will feel less like a vague attempt at simulating a fantasy world and more like a tactical miniatures game with a colorful candy RPG shell bolted on. Y'know. Cuz it is. Think Final Fantasy Vs Final Fantasy Tactics, and you'll be on the right track.

You know, I've heard this argument since 2008, and I have yet to hear a decent justification for it. I just don't see how 4e is any more like a wargame than 3.5 was. Since you make mention of "simulating a fantasy world," the only difference I can see is that 4e feels less obligated to have rules for Every. Single. Possible. Action. and leaves it more open to the DM. Which, to be honest, makes it less like a wargame, where you need such rules because it's competitive.

To return to the OP's question: It is correct that 4e will feel different. It does away with a lot of the redundant systems that differentiated classes in 3.5, and it tries to leave more latitude for the DM to decide things:

--Fortitude, Reflex, and Will are now static defenses like AC, and casters roll attacks against them using their casting stat. All four defenses (counting AC) increase at the same rate, and base attack bonus increases at the same rate for all classes, and at the same rate as defenses. You have roughly a 50% chance of hitting an average monster of equal level. (Or you should. WotC messed up the math in the first Monster Manual, but they fixed in the later ones.
--Saves have become a way of determining a random duration. Once an effect is applied, you have a 50% base chance of shaking it off each round. A few effects change the chance. (On average, an effect governed by saves lasts two rounds, but might last longer or shorter.)
--Every class gains abilities called powers. For martial characters, they're special sword strikes, tricky maneuvers or trick shots; for spellcasters, they're spells. There are a wide variety to choose from, and you gain more as you level. Martial characters have just as many powers as spellcasters, and thus just as many options in combat. (Personal opinion: I DM'd 3.5 for two years and have since DM'd 4e for 2 years. I've seen a lot more people playing martial characters since I changed over, and it seems to be because they have an equal number of special abilities.)
--Every class gains powers at the same rate: You start with two attacks which you can use as often as you like, one that you can use every five minutes (once per encounter, roughly), and one that you can use every day. You never gain more at-wills, although they become more powerful as you level, but you eventually have 4 encounter powers and 4 dailies, plus quite a few other abilities (which can be non-offensive combat abilities or totally non-combat) which can be used at will, once per encounter or once per day depending on which of them you choose. At-Wills are roughly equivalent to an attack with a sword, with perhaps a small extra effect. Encounters have significant extra effects or more damage. Dailies have more damage, very powerful effects, and often have effects on a miss. (Wizard example: Magic Missile is at-will, Burning Hands is encounter, Sleep is daily, and Shield is a Utility.)
--Skills have been condensed. Listen, Spot and Search are a single skill, Perception; Hide and Move Silently are now Stealth. All of your skills improve at the same rate, but you are trained in a few, making your bonus significantly higher in those skills even before taking ability bonuses into account.
--There are no trade or craft skills. (This is personal opinion, but a decent DM will allow you to say that you were once a blacksmith and thus make mundane objects and know about blacksmithing. You no longer need to compromise your ability to be an adventurer to reflect your pre-adventuring background.)
--A lot of spells (Raise Dead, Sending, Teleport, etc.) from 3.5 have been converted into rituals, which are non-combat magic. They generally take several minutes to several hours to perform, and have cheap to moderate component costs. All you need to use rituals is a feat (which has a prerequisite in being trained in the Arcana skill), but the wizard, cleric, and several other classes get it for free along with a few rituals which they already know. Some even get to ignore component costs on specific rituals.

EDIT: I forgot about roles. To summarize:
Defenders stand between monsters and the rest of the party. They have abilities which make it more attractive for monsters to attack them. Frequently this takes the role of a mark, which imposes an attack penalty to attacks against anybody but the Defender. Fighters can stop monsters from moving, and can even make opportunity attacks (sort of) on a shift (the equivalent of 5-foot step). Paladins automatically deal damage if a monster ignores them, and they have limited healing.
Strikers do lots and lots of damage. Their powers tend to emphasize damage over conditions, and they tend to do extra damage under certain conditions. They also tend to have ways to escape being attacked. Rogues have very high damage and are stealthy. Rangers have consistently high damage; they have lots of attacks per round, and they can almost always hit with at least one and apply bonus damage to it. Warlocks deal less damage, but have a lot of powers that impart nasty conditions, and they are a little tougher to kill due to teleportation, access to temp hp, and concealment.
Leaders aid the rest of the party. They can heal, but most of them find their true strength lies in augmenting their allies. Clerics have lots of buffs which give numeric bonuses. Warlords can give out lots and lots of extra attacks.
Controllers are mean to the monsters (and frequently to the DM). They have lots and lots of abilities which drastically alter the flow of a battle. They can create dangerous terrain, move both monsters and allies, restrict the actions available to monsters, and frequently render individual monsters completely powerless (via stuns, preventing the monster from seeing anything, trapping them in windowless boxes or illusions, etc.). Wizards are the only one in the PHB, but they have a very wide variety of spells, and they also have many abilities which can affect large areas.

[Caphi]

This, basically. Every class in 4e is, in 3.5 terms, somewhere in tier 3.

3? 4. The classes each have their own tightly defined spaces of expertise, and it's pretty difficult to break out and do something non-archetypal without throwing resources (commonly feats) at the problem.

[Lateral]

Oh, yeah, sorry. I meant 4.

[The Glyphstone]

You know, I've heard this argument since 2008, and I have yet to hear a decent justification for it. I just don't see how 4e is any more like a wargame than 3.5 was. Since you make mention of "simulating a fantasy world," the only difference I can see is that 4e feels less obligated to have rules for Every. Single. Possible. Action. and leaves it more open to the DM. Which, to be honest, makes it less like a wargame, where you need such rules because it's competitive.
.

It isn't completely groundless - little things like having the ranges of abilities measured explicitly in 'squares' rather than 'feet' or 'meters' don't have much to do with simulating a fantasy world, but they do contribute to a more 'gamist' focus. For some, it's a good thing as you describe...without 'rules for roleplaying', you're free to just say 'Im a blacksmith', but the default 4E engine does ignore most everything that isn't combat-related.


For the OP, the best advice has to be to judge 4E on its own merits, as others have said. Don't try to compare it to 3.5, or 2E, or Basic. It's it's own game, as much as 2E was compared to 3E, with its own problems and solutions.

[Suedars]

It isn't completely groundless - little things like having the ranges of abilities measured explicitly in 'squares' rather than 'feet' or 'meters' don't have much to do with simulating a fantasy world, but they do contribute to a more 'gamist' focus.

This is really just a continuation of 3rd's trend. After all, 3e was the game that really introduced the tactical grid, even going so far as to make it so that spells could only be centered on intersections in the grid, meaning that Fireballs could only be aimed every 6 feet, with gaps in between where they couldn't be centered, despite there being no justification for that aside from it making the game play nicer with grids.

For some, it's a good thing as you describe...without 'rules for roleplaying', you're free to just say 'Im a blacksmith', but the default 4E engine does ignore most everything that isn't combat-related.

This isn't true at all. 4E ignores almost everything that isn't adventuring related. There's plenty of rules for non-combat stuff. You've got skills, utility powers, rituals, martial practices, backgrounds, skill challenges (with codified xp), roleplaying xp, quest xp, etc. You can be a master of arcane lore and obscure utility rituals and fluent in half a dozen languages, but the game doesn't support being a master cobbler, since that's about as relevant to high fantasy adventuring as being a Space Marine.

Also, does being able to say "I rolled a 23 on my Profession (Cobbler)" really enrich your roleplaying much?

[Kurald Galain]

4e is more of a party game than 3.5. In 3.5 a druid or cleric (and later a wizard) could be the party with many of the other classes being more like minions...

For that matter, I've heard this argument since 2008, and I have yet to hear a decent justification for it.

Sure, theoretical optimization boards persistently claim that a wizard is so completely uber that he will always upstage everybody else without even trying. In practice, though? People don't play that way.

[Dalek-K]

Actually it doesn't matter about optimization when it comes to making melee characters the "minions" of 3.5

There are just so many more things you can do with a cleric, druid, wizard (sorcerer) that you can't do with a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk. Flying in some fashion and turning invisible are just two examples. The melee characters need some item to allow them to do it whereas the other classes get them for free.

Melee needs the Christmas tree whereas cleric/wizard/druid are the Christmas tree makers

However in 4e the thing you need to remember is that you have a role and it doesn't matter how you go about it just make sure you get the job done. If you are a fighter don't get mad when the barbarian out damages you, just make sure you can stop him from taking damage :)

[Kurald Galain]

There are just so many more things you can do with a cleric, druid, wizard (sorcerer) that you can't do with a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk. Flying in some fashion and turning invisible are just two examples.

That depends highly on your level. A rogue can effectively become invisible at level one, by means of the stealth skill. I don't recall any means for a cleric to turn people invisible short of casting Miracle.

Again, this is theory. For example, Saph has posts about her actual long-running campaign pointing out that in practice the skillmonkeys can do many things that the casters don't have the spells available for (at the moment that they're needed).

Don't repeat charop memes, look at actual gameplay.

[Urpriest]

Another thing: in 4e it's very hard to "break" the game. There are a couple theoretical builds that can dish out absurd and/or infinite amounts of damage like Aptitude Crossbows did in 3.5, or be almost unkillable like the Emerald Legion. These are very involved, however, and tend to be errataed out of existence. 4e never has and never will have a Pun-Pun or a Cindy, however. There just isn't functionality for things like that.

Which connects to another thing that's important to keep in mind: 4e is designed so that not only is it tricky to break the game, it's tricky to break the plot. The teleportation ritual can only take you to NPC-created Teleportation Circles, for example. It is very hard to break a setting in the way that you could in 3.5: armies of minions, long-term mind control, full-featured shapeshifting and summoning, these things simply don't exist. If you want some big dramatic effect on the world it's going to happen because you and the DM agree it's a fun plot, not because your character has some published ability to do so.

[Dalek-K]

The rogue still needs an item to hide behind

the cleric can fly (wind walk etc..) buff, heal without needing to buy anything, they get it for free.

And what the hell is a meme?

3.5 wasn't made to where all classes where equal, however 4e attempts (and does a good job at it) to do so. Not equal on damage but equal on usefulness.

The fighter is more than a meat shield now, he is a valuable member of the team.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm starting to smell another edition war on the horizon. Sure, it's inevitable, but let's see how long we can stave this one off?

[WitchSlayer]

I'm starting to smell another edition war on the horizon. Sure, it's inevitable, but let's see how long we can stave this one off?

You should check the other 4e thread, the edition war there has already started.

My suggestion for getting into 4e? Get Gamma World and play around with that for a while, or just jump straight into 4e if you can find a game. It's also pretty easy to DM so you wouldn't have too much trouble running a game yourself once you get a hang of the rules.

[The Glyphstone]

You should check the other 4e thread, the edition war there has already started.

My suggestion for getting into 4e? Get Gamma World and play around with that for a while, or just jump straight into 4e if you can find a game. It's also pretty easy to DM so you wouldn't have too much trouble running a game yourself once you get a hang of the rules.

It's Christmas Day, I'm slacking. Tomorrow I'll have to go bust heads there, but for right now I'm trying to keep the active edition war threads down to 1 at a time.

[dgnslyr]

Any advice on what a good class is to ease myself into the game?

[The Glyphstone]

Depends on what you want to do. Kill things very, very dead? Make enemies cry in the corner because they're immobilized and debuffed nine million times over? Shout insulting things about the monsters' mothers until they take a swing at you only to find your allies beating their faces in? Be the unappreciated sap who keeps the whole team alive while they do the dirty work? Lots of options for whatever playstyle you like.

[Mando Knight]

Any advice on what a good class is to ease myself into the game?

What kind of characters do you like? Unless you decide to grab, say, PHB3 and its Psionic and Hybrid characters, they're roughly all that the same basic level of complexity to build and play (and even Psionics and Hybrids aren't too different). Thus, I suggest you play the characters you want to first.

Rogues are still backstabbing thieves, Rangers are still obsessed with using two swords or shooting a hell of a lot of arrows, Fighters still smack things around with their favorite weapon, Clerics still dish out a lot of healing while being able to mix it up in melee if they want to, and Wizards still act smugly superior while nuking the battlefield with their favorite area-of-effect spells. Paladins can fight for any god they want now, but still act like an odd Cleric/Fighter mix (the mounted build isn't available in the PHB, though. You'll need Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms and D&D Insider for that). Warlocks can draw their powers from various pacts (fiends, fey, Great Old One-like stars, and a couple more in splatbooks) to fire off curses from afar. The Warlord is a cross between a military field officer, a battlefield tactician, and a Fighter: the Fighter hits stuff with his sword, the Warlord hits stuff with the Fighter (and his own sword).

[Lateral]

The fighter is more than a meat shield now, he is a valuable member of the team.

I want to stress this. I'm in a 4e campaign, and I play a fighter who wields a longspear and a light shield (DM let me do it). Because of a few feats, on every opportunity attack I make, I push my enemy 2 squares and they fall prone. Combat Superiority and Polearm Gamble means I make a lot of opportunity attacks. I can do the same thing with an at-will power. It's so much fun, and the only times the squishies have been hurt from behind me were when I failed Will saves against stunning. I need to boost those Will saves...

[WitchSlayer]

Any advice on what a good class is to ease myself into the game?

See above, depends on what you want to do.

[Suedars]

Any advice on what a good class is to ease myself into the game?

If you want a character that's fairly straightforward, Ranger (especially archers), Barbarians, Clerics, and Paladins (if you have access to Divine Power as a sourcebook) are good places to start.

[Urpriest]

I'm going to second/third the suggestion of ranger. You deal good damage with minimal effort, you don't really need to think about anything besides damage to be effective, and if you're feeling really unimaginative you can do the same thing every turn and still contribute. Rangers are really nice for getting used to the system.

[tcrudisi]

Sure, theoretical optimization boards persistently claim that a wizard is so completely uber that he will always upstage everybody else without even trying. In practice, though? People don't play that way.

People do play that way. Of course, not all of them. Not even half. But some do. I speak from personal experience. I had a friend who always played his "Batman" wizard. Basically, he had a wand for everything. He was a bit kinder about it, as he never really stepped on any toes, but his wizard always had the ability to do what we needed to be done. He just let the Rogue actually use Open Locks before breaking out his wand of Knock.

And I have sat down at a table with someone who was building towards Pun-Pun.

Yes, these things are theoretical optimization... but theoretical optimization seems to find its way towards the table.

Back to the OP - I'm going to go against the suggestion of a Ranger. It's... the most boring class ever. It's also the most powerful (although the difference isn't that big as there is a lot of balance in 4e). I strongly advise trying out a different class other than Ranger. However, if you tell us what you enjoyed playing in 3.5 (and why), we can give suggestions based on that feedback. Or if you tell us what role you think you would find the most enjoyable, we can give a better break-down within that role.

[Vitruviansquid]

I actually recommend against playing the Ranger. Rangers don't need that much knowledge and are actually sort of boring to play, so you won't learn the nuances that 4e has to offer and it won't give you a great impression of the game.

I recommend playing a Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, or Wizard. None of these classes are "oddballs," like the psionic classes or do things incredibly differently from other classes that share their role, while each are also relatively involved and require a bit of finessing that you'd miss out on the Ranger.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

4e focuses a lot more on tactical combat and friendliness to new players than older editions, making it half RPG and half board game.

[Suedars]

4e focuses a lot more on tactical combat and friendliness to new players than older editions, making it half RPG and half board game.

How are board games defined as a genre by their tactical combat and friendliness to new players? Is Catan not a board game because it doesn't focus on tactical combat? Is Arkham Horror not a board game because its complicated rules often trip up new players?