3.5 or 4e for my setting?

[Urpriest]

Hey,

I like 3.5. I also like 4e. I can equally plausibly find a group for either.

I've also got a setting. It's been in the works for quite some time, and over that time I've run two 3.5 campaigns in it, editing the setting each time. I've also put some thought and a few forum posts into making 4e stuff for it. Now I want to do more work on it, potentially with an eye to starting an RL or PbP campaign in the setting, or at least posting some more polished homebrew up on these forums. As such, I'd like to commit to either a 3.5 or 4e interpretation of the setting, and work on that. I just can't decide which.

The setting is ancient-middle-east-esque, with a Lawful Evil Egypt analogue with mummies and dino-worship and a Neutral/Lawful Neutral Babylonian magocracy. Some pros and cons I see to each option:

3.5:

• I started creating the setting when 4e wasn't out yet, so there are many setting elements (races mostly) that were inspired by 3.5 sources that don't exist yet in 4e.
• Two previous campaigns mean I have some experience running the setting in 3.5.
• Lots of lizardfolk and dino-influenced races in the Egypt analogue mean I'll want some sort of natural weapon rules, which 4e by default lacks.
• The Babylon-equivalent has a big summoning theme while Egypt has some undead-legion types of things, both of which would have to have major elements restricted to NPCs in 4e.
• The setting traditionally has significant limits on resurrection and places certain character options out of the realm of certain characters, either seems contrary to 4e's design philosophy.
• The setting lacks psionics (at least for players), but contains monks. This generally wouldn't be a problem, but it might be if 4e comes up with more synergy between monks and the pp-using psionic classes.

4e:

• Monstrous races are common in the setting, and 4e traditionally handles them in a much more flexible and playable way. The characters could start as Minotaurs at first level for example.
• Some of the conversion problems are actually pretty interesting. I've already put some thought into what I would want out of natural weapon rules in 4e, for example. Similarly, certain character concepts aren't particularly represented and would be an interesting challenge rules-wise, like a necromancy focused leader class.
• Fewer races statted out in turn means much more flexibility for me in defining them as I see them in the setting, rather than having the baggage of their standard 3.5 existences hanging over me.
• Since 4e is much more fluff-flexible than 3.5, it's much easier to make dissonant rules-elements agree with the premise of the setting rather than throwing out multiple books.
• Homebrewing for 4e is a tad more straightforward, the standard conditions provide a nice framework for creating powers.

So what do you guys think? 3.5 or 4e? And while I shouldn't have to say this, please don't turn this into an edition war. I like both systems, it's just a matter of figuring out which I want to work with at the moment.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I guess... whatever system you like more? I know you said you like them both but "taste" is all I can say at this point.

My personal preference is 4e for the reasons you've mentioned. Also, because I hate 3.5

[Hiro Protagonest]

My personal preference is 4e for the reasons you've mentioned. Also, because I hate 3.5

Die! My druid should be able to destroy two cities and three armies, plus gain a divine rank, all in one day!

[dsmiles]

Well, I'm working on a 4e setting (over here) with some folks, and it's going slow. Of course, we're doing away with all the classes and coming up with our own 12 (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader for Arcane, Cerebrotic [NEW!] and Martial power sources) that fit the setting better. I'd personally say 4e, just because it's my preference. I'll take balance over 4 billion classes and 120 billion feats any day.

[Thyrian]

I play Pathfinder (3.75) so naturally inclined towards 3.5 out of the two choices if you've run campaigns from 3.5 before.

However it's probably best for you to use the 4th edition rules, more shtuff will of course keep coming out for 4th edition and the problem you seem to be having is stuff that you'll most likely have to work around in the future if you're going to keep using 4th ed. anyway! So it makes sense to work it out now, especially in the context of monstrous creatures being common!

4th ed. seems most definitely the way to go on this one!

[Heatwizard]

It seems like the issues for the 3.5 version of this setting are simply easier to remedy then the ones for Fourth. I doubt it'd be as difficult shaving level adjustment off races then it would to cut a summoning system out of whole cloth for a system decidedly not built to handle it, for example.

But it ultimately does come down to personal preference, which is hard for strangers on the internet to weigh in about. And it's not like your choice will cause all the rulebooks for the opposing system to suddenly burst into flame and be wiped from the earth.

[Tyndmyr]

Is both out? Because if a lot if it's already done in 3.5, and you've put work into a conversion already....it might not be that ridiculous.

[erikun]

I'd say that it depends on how much work you are willing to put into it. It sounds like you've homebrewed quite a bit of the setting for 3.5e, and while it's easier to make encounters in 4e than it 3.5e, it's far easier to just use the already-designed 3.5e encounters than make new ones for 4e.

I never got around to buying 4e PHB3, but I don't recall Monks using the PP system. They get at-wills, encounters, and dailies just like most other classes. The main difference is that they have various energy-based attacks, and use prayer beads (a specific implement) for their magical bonuses.

[Honest Tiefling]

Been a while since I've played 4e, I admit. But I guess it boils down to is, do you think you can put in natural weapons and undead and summoning in 4e without borking it all up (Not saying you are bad, just saying it might be difficult to tamper with) or make races in 3.5 viable without being too powerful or weak?

You say you have a group for 3.5 and a group for 4e...But do you have a group for 3.5 for this campaign world, and a group for 4e for this campaign world? Now, again, I don't mean any offense, but settings are often like pizza. Good mother****ing luck getting anyone to agree on it. Pitch it to both groups and see who really latches on. If you get more people from one system enjoying it, ask the other people to switch.

[Tyndmyr]

Been a while since I've played 4e, I admit. But I guess it boils down to is, do you think you can put in natural weapons and undead and summoning in 4e without borking it all up (Not saying you are bad, just saying it might be difficult to tamper with) or make races in 3.5 viable without being too powerful or weak?

Making balanced races in 3.5 is generally pretty easy. There's enough races to draw from that you can generally find something quite close to what you're after to base it on anyhow, and there's a great deal of stuff online about what races are best, so it's quite easy to sort that out.

I honestly don't know about the 4e stuff, difficulty wise. I haven't kept up with the books, so I couldn't say how much adaption might be needed.

[Honest Tiefling]

As sorry, should have been more clear. Is he confident he can make powerful races with a LA and HD enjoyable, and yet not overpowering other characters?

(Also, please send those rules to my PM box if you ever figure it out. Thank you. I never liked LA buy-off)

[Mando Knight]

The setting should be edition-transcendent. A game set in the setting would need to narrow it down to one edition, but until then, I'd start with showing the fluff, then describing how to fit the setting into the DM's (or players', depending on who gets to pick) edition of choice. If there's common monsters (etc.) that are in the setting and not in common sources (Monster Manuals, etc.), then I'd stat the creature out (if likely to be engaged in combat) using at least one system.

[tcrudisi]

Up-front, I'm going to give you a biased explanation for why you should run 4e. I know this is mostly a pro-3.5 board, so I'll rely on others to say why you should run 3.5.

3.5: [*]I started creating the setting when 4e wasn't out yet, so there are many setting elements (races mostly) that were inspired by 3.5 sources that don't exist yet in 4e.

Creating races in 4e is almost laughably easy. Far easier than 3.5, anyway. Pick a primary stat and two secondary stats. Then pick a couple of skills to give a racial bonus to, a racial power (something that really fits the race), and you are 95% done. Even if it doesn't exist in 4e yet, it's so easy to create a balanced race that I don't see it being a problem. I would also pick a surrogate race for purposes of feat selection for each race. Alternatively, just re-flavor an existing race so that way it's even easier.

[*]Two previous campaigns mean I have some experience running the setting in 3.5.

Really, the previous experience will help you just as much if you switch to 4e. Players will always react differently outside of combat, so anything a previous group did will only strengthen your ability to react, both in 3.5 and 4e. As for in combat? Well, 4e is far easier to run and create monsters for.

[*]Lots of lizardfolk and dino-influenced races in the Egypt analogue mean I'll want some sort of natural weapon rules, which 4e by default lacks.

I assume you mean for the players. Really, that is all tied up in the powers and classes anyway. Look at the Monk: they can make all unarmed attacks. Likewise, the arena fighter is another good example. If you want unarmed attacks, I would look at the fighter class specifically. Perhaps something like a racial ability for +2/1d8 is in order. Even the Thri-Kreen gets an example for an unarmed attack (albeit encounter power).

[*]The Babylon-equivalent has a big summoning theme while Egypt has some undead-legion types of things, both of which would have to have major elements restricted to NPCs in 4e.

Well, certainly as antagonists they would be restricted to NPCs. Summons work really well as bad guys since their actions are limited. However, it's still easy to do both an undead theme and a summon theme as a player. I do undead themes the same way as summon themes, except with reflavoring. Giant Toads are already really good for Predator Druids ... 1d8+1d10+6ish at level 4 with an instinctive attack is pretty darn good. And with an undead theme? That giant toad is now a flesh golem with really long arms (reach 3)!

[*]The setting traditionally has significant limits on resurrection and places certain character options out of the realm of certain characters, either seems contrary to 4e's design philosophy.

That one is easy enough. Want to limit resurrection? Don't give out scrolls or books of resurrection. The character elements section could be a problem. You are correct: I would not want to see half the Fighter feats stripped away from them due to the setting. However, I also would not want to see the same thing happen in 3.5. That's just a balance issue. But really: if any setting is more flexible in handling that, it's certainly 4e.

[*]The setting lacks psionics (at least for players), but contains monks. This generally wouldn't be a problem, but it might be if 4e comes up with more synergy between monks and the pp-using psionic classes.

Monks are a "psionic" class in 4e, but in name only. They do not work with power points and instead work like any other class. It's easy enough to stamp the martial tag on them and call it a day. Even if WotC eventually releases more feats and the like for the Monk (hahaha - yeah, right. WotC giving support to classes that need it?), it's easy enough to limit sources to anything out when you begin the campaign. Or, just forewarn any Monk players before they begin. Really, I don't even know why Monks are considered psionic anyway -- they have more in common with martial classes than the psionic classes.

[Urpriest]

Up-front, I'm going to give you a biased explanation for why you should run 4e. I know this is mostly a pro-3.5 board, so I'll rely on others to say why you should run 3.5.

In general I agree with what you're saying in this post, but I'm going to respond in order to make some of my concerns more clear.

Creating races in 4e is almost laughably easy. Far easier than 3.5, anyway. Pick a primary stat and two secondary stats. Then pick a couple of skills to give a racial bonus to, a racial power (something that really fits the race), and you are 95% done. Even if it doesn't exist in 4e yet, it's so easy to create a balanced race that I don't see it being a problem. I would also pick a surrogate race for purposes of feat selection for each race. Alternatively, just re-flavor an existing race so that way it's even easier.

I'm less worried about how to handle the rules (indeed, in terms of the races I've already thought up some decent refluffed equivalents) and more in terms of justification. I'll give you an example: Formians and Inevitables form the police force of the Babylon-equivalent. Why? Initially, because they were the iconic LN extraplanar beings. If I were to 4eify the setting, I could pretty straightforwardly make 4e Inevitables and 4e Formians, but it feels a little weird to do so when the first motivation for including them doesn't apply to 4e. They're an important element of the setting, so I would include them, but they highlight the fact that much of the way the setting is set up is because that was how the races in it behaved in 3.5.

I assume you mean for the players. Really, that is all tied up in the powers and classes anyway. Look at the Monk: they can make all unarmed attacks. Likewise, the arena fighter is another good example. If you want unarmed attacks, I would look at the fighter class specifically. Perhaps something like a racial ability for +2/1d8 is in order. Even the Thri-Kreen gets an example for an unarmed attack (albeit encounter power).

Natural weapons are traditionally handled via powers, yes, which doesn't work all that well for racially acquired natural weapons that can be used more than once per encounter. Essentially all other natural weapons in 4e are claws or fists, and there's a reason for that: in 4e handedness is a huge balance issue. Whole classes are balanced on being restricted to two-handed or one-handed weapons, or on having a hand free. A weapon that doesn't use hands is not a straightforward thing to include. I've thought of some ways to make it work, but the question becomes, why make a complicated new system for 4e when 3.5 already does it?

Well, certainly as antagonists they would be restricted to NPCs. Summons work really well as bad guys since their actions are limited. However, it's still easy to do both an undead theme and a summon theme as a player. I do undead themes the same way as summon themes, except with reflavoring. Giant Toads are already really good for Predator Druids ... 1d8+1d10+6ish at level 4 with an instinctive attack is pretty darn good. And with an undead theme? That giant toad is now a flesh golem with really long arms (reach 3)!

Yeah, this isn't as big of an issue as the others, since there are an increasingly large number of cool summoning and necromancy-flavored summoning (necro-summoning?) powers. Mostly, it's a symptom of the whole "plot magic is now restricted to the plot" thing that 4e's got going, which has its positives and its negatives.

That one is easy enough. Want to limit resurrection? Don't give out scrolls or books of resurrection. The character elements section could be a problem. You are correct: I would not want to see half the Fighter feats stripped away from them due to the setting. However, I also would not want to see the same thing happen in 3.5. That's just a balance issue. But really: if any setting is more flexible in handling that, it's certainly 4e.

Well, first, "don't give out scrolls or books of X" doesn't solve the issue of classes with free rituals getting them, but more importantly it seems contrary to 4e's design philosophy to limit resurrection in general. 4e is built around the idea that resurrection is somewhat trivial, it goes hand-in-hand with 4e's "don't screw the players" ethos.

Actually, the situation is a little more complicated than just resurrection being limited (and maybe you can help me brainstorm how to handle this). Resurrection is limited because in most of the world people aren't resurrected, they're mummified and animated. I've been pondering ways to deal with this, and so far either they have no meaningful effect on the character or they're overly obnoxious for 4e. For example, if your character was resurrected but with your race switched to Revenant, how much would that piss you off as a 4e player?

Monks are a "psionic" class in 4e, but in name only. They do not work with power points and instead work like any other class. It's easy enough to stamp the martial tag on them and call it a day. Even if WotC eventually releases more feats and the like for the Monk (hahaha - yeah, right. WotC giving support to classes that need it?), it's easy enough to limit sources to anything out when you begin the campaign. Or, just forewarn any Monk players before they begin. Really, I don't even know why Monks are considered psionic anyway -- they have more in common with martial classes than the psionic classes.

I'm aware that monks aren't meaningfully psionic at the moment. I'm just worried that WotC will release, for example, a Battlemind feat that modifies psionic powers and becomes a staple of monk optimization (accidentally buffing the monk in other words, seeing as that's the main way things happen ), and I'll have to tell my players they can't take it because Battleminds don't exist in the setting.

[dsmiles]

Natural weapons are traditionally handled via powers, yes, which doesn't work all that well for racially acquired natural weapons that can be used more than once per encounter. Essentially all other natural weapons in 4e are claws or fists, and there's a reason for that: in 4e handedness is a huge balance issue. Whole classes are balanced on being restricted to two-handed or one-handed weapons, or on having a hand free. A weapon that doesn't use hands is not a straightforward thing to include. I've thought of some ways to make it work, but the question becomes, why make a complicated new system for 4e when 3.5 already does it?

Honestly, I don't think it would be that complicated. An At-Will power, that uses a move or minor action, with the "Requirement" line stating, "You must have a free hand to make this attack" if it's hand-based claws, and a "Special" block that reads, "If unarmed, this attack counts as having a free hand." Anything else could be an At-Will power, that uses a move or minor action, if they're allowed to use in in conjunction with other attacks (such as a weapon or spell). I'd also put in this "Special" block that reads, "This power may be used in place of a melee basic attack." Make them racial powers, and have damage that scales with level, to keep them viable throughout play.

Well, first, "don't give out scrolls or books of X" doesn't solve the issue of classes with free rituals getting them, but more importantly it seems contrary to 4e's design philosophy to limit resurrection in general. 4e is built around the idea that resurrection is somewhat trivial, it goes hand-in-hand with 4e's "don't screw the players" ethos.

It's not really an ethos, it's what you make it. For instance, in the setting I'm working on, the healing and raising will be handled much like the Iron Kingdoms setting, where healing isn't always 100% effective, and Raise Dead is the only resurrection-type ritual, it's a pretty high level, and dangerous to both the caster and the recipient. Screw WotC's design philosophy. It's your campaign setting.

Actually, the situation is a little more complicated than just resurrection being limited (and maybe you can help me brainstorm how to handle this). Resurrection is limited because in most of the world people aren't resurrected, they're mummified and animated. I've been pondering ways to deal with this, and so far either they have no meaningful effect on the character or they're overly obnoxious for 4e. For example, if your character was resurrected but with your race switched to Revenant, how much would that piss you off as a 4e player?

This may be the hardest one to remedy. Maybe change their type to Natural Animate [Undead], and give them a racial power or two? I'd have to work this one out on paper to try and balance it.

Not that I'm trying to sway your opinion to write it in 4e, or anything.

[Mando Knight]

For 4e Natural Weapons, here's my take:

Make them weapons.

For example:

Claw/Bite: d6 damage, +3 proficiency, off-hand, Light Blade & Unarmed
Special: counts as wielded if hand is free (including dual-wielded, for both hands), can be enchanted by using Ki Foci even if not proficient with the latter (although they're psionic-flavored implements... reflavor them as necessary. That is, Amulet of Natural Attacks or whatever).
Feat: increase damage to d8


Done.

[tcrudisi]

For 4e Natural Weapons, here's my take:

Make them weapons.

For example:

Claw/Bite: d6 damage, +3 proficiency, off-hand, Light Blade & Unarmed
Special: counts as wielded if hand is free (including dual-wielded, for both hands), can be enchanted by using Ki Foci even if not proficient with the latter (although they're psionic-flavored implements... reflavor them as necessary. That is, Amulet of Natural Attacks or whatever).
Feat: increase damage to d8


Done.

That's what I was trying to say, albeit I don't think I made my point very well.

I was trying to say that it should be an exclusive racial weapon. +2 prof for 1d8 dmg was the example I gave, although +3 / 1d6 is fine, or just whatever the OP feels is appropriate.

[Urpriest]

For 4e Natural Weapons, here's my take:

Make them weapons.

For example:

Claw/Bite: d6 damage, +3 proficiency, off-hand, Light Blade & Unarmed
Special: counts as wielded if hand is free (including dual-wielded, for both hands), can be enchanted by using Ki Foci even if not proficient with the latter (although they're psionic-flavored implements... reflavor them as necessary. That is, Amulet of Natural Attacks or whatever).
Feat: increase damage to d8


Done.

Which is completely ignoring the brunt of my objection.

Essentially all other natural weapons in 4e are claws or fists, and there's a reason for that: in 4e handedness is a huge balance issue. Whole classes are balanced on being restricted to two-handed or one-handed weapons, or on having a hand free. A weapon that doesn't use hands is not a straightforward thing to include.

[Mando Knight]

Which is completely ignoring the brunt of my objection.

1.) Restrict using the claws to when the hand is free. Then it effectively takes up a hand.
2.) The weapon is balanced against the Short Sword as-is, a weapon that practically all weapon-using classes have access to. Its only advantages over the short sword are situational at best (no cost means it's better for level 1 characters, and not a physical weapon means it's easier to switch between using your claws and using a potion, and there may be some obscure way to abuse the unarmed group).
3.) Really, only assassin-types (looking to have an always-present weapon) and two-weapon characters will consider using this as their primary weapon, since it's weaker than things like most axes and heavy blades. Even then, Whirling Barbarians and TWF Rangers generally pick two larger blades rather than two Short Swords.

If you're too worried, just make them Spiked Gauntlets instead.

[Urpriest]

1.) Restrict using the claws to when the hand is free. Then it effectively takes up a hand.
2.) The weapon is balanced against the Short Sword as-is, a weapon that practically all weapon-using classes have access to. Its only advantages over the short sword are situational at best (no cost means it's better for level 1 characters, and not a physical weapon means it's easier to switch between using your claws and using a potion, and there may be some obscure way to abuse the unarmed group).
3.) Really, only assassin-types (looking to have an always-present weapon) and two-weapon characters will consider using this as their primary weapon, since it's weaker than things like most axes and heavy blades. Even then, Whirling Barbarians and TWF Rangers generally pick two larger blades rather than two Short Swords.

If you're too worried, just make them Spiked Gauntlets instead.

Ah ok, I see the problem. The issue is that you're having the weapon take up a hand, which it needs to in 4e for balance purposes. But, here's the key thing: it shouldn't take up a hand. Partially because some of the setting's iconic fighting styles involve a double weapon used alongside a natural weapon, and partly because it's kind of silly for a bite or the like to require a free hand to use, even if it's potentially justifiable in terms of balance or the like.

Now that's not to say I don't have ways around this, in fact it has led to some rather interesting homebrew directions. The key thing here is not that the problem is insurmountable, but that the problem has a default solution that's already integrated into the rest of the rules in 3.5, so going to a system where I have to invent a new way to handle it seems a bit wasteful.

[Mando Knight]

Well, you might allow a bite to not take up a hand (actually, it's probably a minor action racial encounter power if it's meant to be used alongside two-weapon styles... letting it be used every turn along with TWF powers would just make the Ranger even more powerful and it doesn't need the boost), but you can't fight with a double weapon in both hands and the use your claws on those hands at the same time. That's just silly and is against the rules of 3.5's natural weapons as well.

[stainboy]

Ah ok, I see the problem. The issue is that you're having the weapon take up a hand, which it needs to in 4e for balance purposes. But, here's the key thing: it shouldn't take up a hand. Partially because some of the setting's iconic fighting styles involve a double weapon used alongside a natural weapon, and partly because it's kind of silly for a bite or the like to require a free hand to use, even if it's potentially justifiable in terms of balance or the like.

Mixing up natural weapon and double weapon attacks is pretty uniquely 3e. I can't think of another system that would make it advantageous to do this. It seems like you're thinking about your setting in 3e terms, and you should just go ahead and run it that way.

[RPGuru1331]

Lacking specifics on your first bullet point for a 3.5 pro, I'm going to just look at the one I feel interests me.

Monstrous races are common in the setting, and 4e traditionally handles them in a much more flexible and playable way. The characters could start as Minotaurs at first level for example.

Does this matter to the players you're looking at?

And what are those players' opinions?

[Urpriest]

Lacking specifics on your first bullet point for a 3.5 pro, I'm going to just look at the one I feel interests me.


Does this matter to the players you're looking at?

And what are those players' opinions?

I don't have a particular group in mind yet. There are a variety of groups I could do this with, including simply finding people to PbP on these forums. That said, every time I've run this setting I've had people playing some monstrous race or another. The second time I ran it everyone started at second level and IIRC everyone except the druid was an LA+1 race. Monstrous races have a very big part of the setting, with elves and dwarves and the like being comparative outsiders.

[drawingfreak]

As far as the Edition Bid is concerned, I'd have both ready to some degree until I have players that agree on the setting itself. Then, ask them which edition they prefer. Keep in mind, 3.5e has always felt more realistic compared to 4e while 4e has always felt more...kick ass awesome heroes all cranked to 11. If your plot calls for rediculously awesomeness, go 4e.

Where natural weapons are concerned in 4e, I would look into creating racial powers or even feats. Perhaps the characters need to be trained in using their more natural weapons. Feats. Or maybe even something like the Master boons in the DMG II.

If you need help putting stuff together, don't forget we have a Homebrew section here.

[RPGuru1331]

Then if the setting elements that aren't well represented in 4e aren't interesting, you may be better served with 4e. May. You don't actually sound that unhappy to be devising tricks for natural weapons, for instance, and combining the lack of summoning/necromancy support (Which I understand has improved, but that's besides the point) with the fact that not everything's meant for PCs eliminates many of the downsides. Not sure about the low death resurrection stuff though, not really a consideration for me in system creation. I can see it being a problem in DnD though, especially 4e, yeah.

[Techsmart]

My opinion? Which system better supports the type of things you expect players to do in-game?
I don't think it matters whether you have a LA+0 minotaur prewritten, or have rules for natural weapons. Things like that can be handled (rather quickly) with a short list of "Look, Houserules." I haven't played 4e, so I can't talk on its highlights, but I've played between 3.5, NWoD, and a few other systems, and the big thing is: some handle roleplay better, some combat better, some are better at helping starting players get into PnP, and the big factor in what system we use is the answer to that question. It's really down to, if one runs smoother for your intended purpose than another, use it. The system is a tool to implement the story, and is a lot easier to adjust than any other part of your game.