3.5 Edition to 4e

[Bulix]

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

[molten_dragon]

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]

Also, when playing fourth edition, with even 0 optimization, there is almost no sense of danger. At all.

[Waddacku]

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]

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

[Lord Raziere]

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]

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

Response in bold.

[Philistine]

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]

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]

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]

Ask a loaded question why don't ya?

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]

4e has its fair share of problems. The utter lack of effective OP makes higher level encounters take FOREVER!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

4e has its fair share of problems. The utter lack of effective OP makes higher level encounters take FOREVER!

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]

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]

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, you'll probably enjoy 3.5 more.

[navar100]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Chocolate!