So, do you think 4E is catching on?

[ken-do-nim]

I'm curious as to whether fourth edition is actually going to overcome 3rd edition in popularity. Does anybody have any insight into what the split is right now? My total guess, leaving 10% for prior edition/spinoff players, is something like:
3.5/Pathfinder: 60
4E: 30
TSR editions & spinoffs (like C&C): 10

Of course I realize that the same person can play both games, so I guess these percentages reflect actual games in play. I imagine that many people are trying out 4E right now, but I wonder if those same people are going to go back to 3E exclusively after doing so.

[Kyeudo]

4th is getting pretty big. Swing through the PbP section of the forums and about half the D&D games are 4th.

[Ralfarius]

"Those are some impressive numbers, Sovereign!"

[Tallis]

Probably too early to tell. 4e is still new enough that a lot of people are trying it out, therefore lots of 4e games. We still don't know what their final choice will be though.

My personal opinion is that I will stick with a modified 3.X as my main game, but I'd also play 4e if it was available. However I don't have enough 4e experience to say that's my final decision yet.

[nobodylovesyou4]

4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.

[grinner666]

Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

[FoE]

"Those are some impressive numbers, Sovereign!"

"Oh, Watch, will you ever learn?"

Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

Uh ... thanks for letting us know you don't care about 4E.

'Cause, you know, that was keeping me up at night.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.

Very probably, also considering that 4e is easily much more newbie-friendly than 3.5...or any previous edition, for that matter. It guides you through the mechanics, provides a section on roleplaying, and setting up a character by choosing class powers is incredibly easy. Combat is rather smooth, it seems. All in all, a good game for the new players to get into.

[Shades of Gray]

Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

Then you'll see how 5e turns out.

[Sinfire Titan]

I do not think it is popular in this area. This is due to most DMs in the area wanting to play at the lower levels, and combat sucks for 4E at the lower levels. This leads to massively drawn-out battles that take up most of two sessions because no one can hit a damn thing even with a 15+, a number of DMs who just try to get the combat finished so they can get back to the ICRPing, and the crap they call experience (I've all ready house ruled out the rules for dividing the XP amongst the party because of how pathetic it is).

I myself want to switch systems and go back to 3.5, solely due to how much more entertaining it is to make a character than it is in 4E. The sheer diversity alone makes up for the time it takes, as I've yet to see anyone in my group play the same character twice (save for my little brother, who I pretend doesn't exist due to how obstinate and anger-driven he is).

[Covered In Bees]

I do not think it is popular in this area. This is due to most DMs in the area wanting to play at the lower levels, and combat sucks for 4E at the lower levels.

What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.

This leads to massively drawn-out battles that take up most of two sessions because no one can hit a damn thing even with a 15+

First-level characters are hitting defenses of 15-18 with attack bonuses of +4-8 (and +2 situational, and buffs, usually).
I submit that if your battles are taking up most of two sessions, somebody is doing something wrong. Our Brutal Scoundrel rogue was hitting with an AB of +8 for 2d6+2d8+12 or so, and that's with an encounter power. Enemies didn't last too long.

a number of DMs who just try to get the combat finished so they can get back to the ICRPing, and the crap they call experience (I've all ready house ruled out the rules for dividing the XP amongst the party because of how pathetic it is).

What's wrong with it?

I myself want to switch systems and go back to 3.5, solely due to how much more entertaining it is to make a character than it is in 4E. The sheer diversity alone makes up for the time it takes, as I've yet to see anyone in my group play the same character twice (save for my little brother, who I pretend doesn't exist due to how obstinate and anger-driven he is).

You can't say the same for core-only 3E. It'd take you quite a long time to get through all the 4E core options.



Edit: on-topic, 4E is definitely gaining popularity around here. A lot of people are hearing good things, trying it for themselvs, and having a good time.

[SoD]

I personally am happy with 3.5e. That's what I own, and it's what I know. I have the PhB, DMG and MM on PDF, but, although a friend has started a campaign in 4e, I'm about to start one in 3.5e. 4e seems fairly popular, although most of my friends agree that although 4e is more balanced, we've think that 3.5e is more fun.

Sadly, however, I cannot buy any more 3.5e stuff at the local gaming store.

[EvilElitest]

Bees, and a lot of people are catching on to the flaws


But anyways, 4E is popular because its new and exciting, and simply to learn. There is a lot of dislike of it, but that isn't anything new. Personally, i think that 4E will gain popularity, but not as much as 3E did to 2E. reasons why

1) Minor, but 3E is closer to 2E than 4E to 3E, easier transition. Not that there weren't and still are people who strongly support 2E, just less
2) Still minor with the internet more powerful, anti 4E people can make their options know much loudly and more annoyingly than earlier. In teh same note however, 4E can advertise just as easliy
3) Personally, i think people will start looking for better quality, and 4E will lag for a while, then more new people, who have only played 4E will come and 4E will get back on its feet (providing WotC doesn't do anything stupid) and keep rising
4) The only option not realated to my dislike of 4E, 3E had something that 4E did not. An open game license. If you want to publish in 3E, you don't have to get WotC permission, just go ahead (can't use stuff like mind flayers and what not, but you can still use a 3E like system). 4E doesn't have that, and so unlike when 2E went to 3E, there already powerful companies (not WoTC level of course) that can publish 3E just as 4E comes out, like Paizo
from
EE

[Sinfire Titan]

What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.

The risk makes it more fun, IMO. A number of my fellow DMs agree that 4E doesn't have that sort of risk or chance. And most of the players I have make characters who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe, thank you. They have some very serious tricks up their sleeves.

First-level characters are hitting defenses of 15-18 with attack bonuses of +4-8 (and +2 situational, and buffs, usually).
I submit that if your battles are taking up most of two sessions, somebody is doing something wrong. Our Brutal Scoundrel rogue was hitting with an AB of +8 for 2d6+2d8+12 or so, and that's with an encounter power. Enemies didn't last too long.

Most of our party has to check what their powers do every time they use them, only because there are no direct references. Some effects require us to look them up (whereas I have a number of hindrances memorized for 3.5, at least for the abilities I use a lot). And even our best character can't deal more than 20 points of damage, and he is a Rogue too. And I think you are miscalculating the damage values if you are getting a +12 to the damage rolls. If the power says 3[W]+Dex, then it doesn't multiply the Dex modifier.

One of the problems is that a DM who wants a fast-paced campaign at the lower levels can't have it, because any attempts to level the party up without using DM Fiat ends up with someone in the negatives making Death saves every round. The party I play with could handle a Mature Adult White Dragon at ECL 5th in 3.5. Now in 4E they can barely stand up to a Kruthik at 2nd level.

What's wrong with it?

Look at how much XP a party of 5 1st levels gets for beating an encounter 3 levels above them. Jack s***. Couple with the lack of WBL guidelines that are actually coherent enough to work, poor Skill challenge systems, and serious inexperience, and you have a very ill-equipped party dealing with low-CR enemies that still pose a threat for XP in the 50's. When they need somewhere in the 3000's just to level.

You can't say the same for core-only 3E. It'd take you quite a long time to get through all the 4E core options.

Indeed I cannot, but a caster party still has a solid chance and good options to work with. I can make characters with no real thought behind them in 4E, and still have them excel when compared to other party members. In 3.5, the only one with a handicap is my brother as he can't read the books without a CCTV. While this does result in party strife and someone wearing the pants for an entire campaign, it also suits gaming for the party to have a distinguishable leader rather than a bunch of bungling fools with barely a trick to taking their shirts off, much less for fighting.


In the end, some of us do not find the system effective. Some of us prefer the gaps in power to the obvious failure that results when the party fights.

I'll cite an example for you. A 2nd level party was put up against a Giant Beetle in 4E. To put it plainly, they got lucky. The thing went down after the Paladin and Wizard rolled crits on the damn things with their daily powers. The Paladin had all ready blown through his uses of Lay on Hands, and the Ranger in the group was below bloodied. The Cleric? Dead. Not because of the beetle though. He outright quit mid-fight the previous session after being humiliated by a Kruthik who doesn't even get hit for 19 (yes, exact count) rounds. When I handed out XP for each of those encounters, they were furious over the measly 35 XP per person, which is the RAW for a CR 2 encounter, and even the full 150 XP from the CR 4 beetle didn't budge their opinion on the CR/XP system.

I even put them up against a CR 10 trap, and let them BS the entire ordeal with it, and they got less XP than they did for the CR 4. Granted, I was using the RAW for XP when I threw the trap at them, but still... Its rather pathetic when a party gets less for a CR 10 than they do for a CR 4.

[BizzaroStormy]

4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.

Just to clarify, you got 3.5 because thats what I bought. I didn't really know there were different versions. Hell, all I knew vefore reading the manual was that the game involved a d20, which up until that point I only used as a life counter in MTG.

[EvilElitest]

guys, i remind you of the open game license
from
EE

[thegurullamen]

EE's got a point there. The GSL is the single worst legal document most of us will ever have the displeasure to read. This coupled with the Pathfinder RPG marks a decent split in WotC's original market.

But it's not definitive. As WotC has stated repeatedly, they hope to bring new blood in with 4e. Seeing all of the pros 4e has going for it, it shouldn't prove too hard for them as long as the word gets out. This on top of some of the original base's distaste over 3.5's many flaws should cement 4e as a solid edition (if not the most popular or successful [though only time will tell on these points.])

Overall, I think 4e's popularity is in an unstable place. On the one hand, it's popular, carries the namebrand of roleplaying and is enjoyed by many gamers, both old and new. On the other hand, it's coming off of an edition with a much better gaming license which translates to 3rd party support which, if nothing else, contributed to D&D's status as a key rpg. That and the radical changes between the two editions has split the fanbase and, unlike the 2e/3e jump, 3.x supporters have a new product to turn to for new updates: Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. In my opinion, WotC's moves over the next year are going to be pivotal in 4e's long-term success.

[skywalker]

A bunch of intelligent stuff.

This sounds really, really bad but there actually is some truth to it. The amount of XP you get for a potentially lethal encounter in 4e does not seem appropriate. I hadn't thought of it before it was brought up, but it is true. Sometimes, it is incredibly hard to hit enemies while it seems like they're destroying you with their +11 to hit. That means they hit a character with ac 16 75% of the time

To me, this actually makes 4e encounters potentially more lethal, especially at low levels.


All of that being said...

I think 4e is becoming pretty popular. My DM is the manager at my local game store. He says sales of 4 edition books have been very good. Then again, he is a Wizards fan boy. For one, 4th Edition has found traction in that group. We won't be going back... In my other group, I'm about to start DM'ing Keep on the Shadowfell. So far, it seems rather popular.

Overall, I think 4E is making its statement, and will become the dominant form of D&D by the end of 2008.

[Covered In Bees]

The risk makes it more fun, IMO. A number of my fellow DMs agree that 4E doesn't have that sort of risk or chance. And most of the players I have make characters who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe, thank you. They have some very serious tricks up their sleeves.

Who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe at level 1?
And who on earth considers it fun to die because that orc rolled a 20? Level 1 in 3.5 is almost always played with kid gloves, just because the luck of the roll matters so much.

Most of our party has to check what their powers do every time they use them, only because there are no direct references. Some effects require us to look them up (whereas I have a number of hindrances memorized for 3.5, at least for the abilities I use a lot).

I can see that happening, and I suggest power cards--they made all the difference when one of my groups was getting used to Tome of Battle, and they should speed things up a lot here. They're even easy to handmake.

And even our best character can't deal more than 20 points of damage, and he is a Rogue too. And I think you are miscalculating the damage values if you are getting a +12 to the damage rolls. If the power says 3[W]+Dex, then it doesn't multiply the Dex modifier.

A Brutal Scoundrel bugbear rogue with 16 STR/DEX bumped to 18/18 using Torturous Strike 2d6 (2[w] with oversized dagger) + 4 (Dex) + 4 (Str) 2d8 (Sneak Attack with Backstabber) + 4 (STR damage to sneak attack from Brutal Scoundrel) = 2d6+2d8+12, or an average of 28 and a ridiculous max/crit of 42, which our rogue got the first time he used the power. This is, admittedly, quite optimized, but even 20 damage is pretty significant (and should bloody any standard monster you face). A 3[w]+Dex power will do similar damage. Artful Dodgers will do less damage, but be safer and help teammates out more.

One of the problems is that a DM who wants a fast-paced campaign at the lower levels can't have it, because any attempts to level the party up without using DM Fiat ends up with someone in the negatives making Death saves every round. The party I play with could handle a Mature Adult White Dragon at ECL 5th in 3.5. Now in 4E they can barely stand up to a Kruthik at 2nd level.

That's because you could break 3.5 to all hell. If you consider that a feature not a bug, I guess there's not much I can say.

Look at how much XP a party of 5 1st levels gets for beating an encounter 3 levels above them. Jack s***.

A level 4 encounter for a party of level 1s is very hard. It'll be worth 175 XP per PC. Five of them and a weaker sixth will level the party up.

Couple with the lack of WBL guidelines that are actually coherent enough to work

What?! The parcel method makes distributing treasure incredibly easy. Where on earth is the problem? It's far simpler than making sure your party has WBL yourself.

poor Skill challenge systems

Have you seen the errata? The skill challenge system is quite nice, and they've fixed all the problems that did exist.

and serious inexperience, and you have a very ill-equipped party dealing with low-CR enemies that still pose a threat for XP in the 50's. When they need somewhere in the 3000's just to level.

A group of X level 1s facing an encounter of their level will each gain 100 XP. That means 10 such encounters will level them up--fewer, if you sprinkle on a few skill challenges, traps, etc. This is faster than it was in 3E. Then 10 encounters of five level 2 standard monsters (or the equivalent) will get them to 3.

Indeed I cannot, but a caster party still has a solid chance and good options to work with. I can make characters with no real thought behind them in 4E, and still have them excel when compared to other party members. In 3.5, the only one with a handicap is my brother as he can't read the books without a CCTV. While this does result in party strife and someone wearing the pants for an entire campaign, it also suits gaming for the party to have a distinguishable leader rather than a bunch of bungling fools with barely a trick to taking their shirts off, much less for fighting.

I can't help but feel that you're doing something wrong, so I'm going to look some stuff up. A single Kruthik Adult is a level 4 brute and "costs" 175 XP. That means it, a level 2 monster, and a level 1 monster make a level 4 encounter.
It has defenses of AC 17, Fortitude 14, Ref 15, Will 13. A level 2 wizard with 18 INT and a +1 implement is attacking at +4 (INT) + 1 (tool) + 1 (level) = +6 vs. a defense of 13, and will often have Combat Advantage as well. How on earth can he have problems hitting? A rogue with a +1 dagger and 18 DEX attacks at +10 vs. AC 17, usually +12 (trying for Combat Advantage). He hits the thing on a 5+!
The Kruthik has HP 67. It shouldn't take a party more than two or three rounds to chew threw that.

In the end, some of us do not find the system effective. Some of us prefer the gaps in power to the obvious failure that results when the party fights.

I'll cite an example for you. A 2nd level party was put up against a Giant Beetle in 4E. To put it plainly, they got lucky. ... a Kruthik who doesn't even get hit for 19 (yes, exact count) rounds. When I handed out XP for each of those encounters, they were furious over the measly 35 XP per person, which is the RAW for a CR 2 encounter, and even the full 150 XP from the CR 4 beetle didn't budge their opinion on the CR/XP system.

You're going wrong SOMEwhere. You do realize that a monster's level isn't the same thing as 3.5 CR? In any case, a single standard level 4 monster (not a level 4 encounter, or even a level 2 one) should indeed give 35 XP. A level 4 ENCOUNTER is considered hard, but should give 175 XP per PC.

There is no such thing as a Giant Beetle in my MM. You mean the Kruthik Adult, a party of five level 2 characters should take the thing down in two rounds or so, without using any dailies. It's possible to do it in one if they get lucky and someone crits or they roll well.

I even put them up against a CR 10 trap, and let them BS the entire ordeal with it, and they got less XP than they did for the CR 4. Granted, I was using the RAW for XP when I threw the trap at them, but still... Its rather pathetic when a party gets less for a CR 10 than they do for a CR 4.

A level 10 trap on its own is worth 500 XP. Each PC would get 100 XP. However, level differences that high are strongly not recommended. Two level 2 monsters, a level 2 elite, and a level 2 trap would be a simple-to-put-together level 2 encounter.

So... what the hell is your party doingthat they're so incompetent? How on EARTH could they avoiding hitting a Kruthik Adult's 17 AC and 13 Will defense for that many rounds? I swear, that sounds impossible.

[The_Werebear]

I think it is catching on, and will eventually be unquestionably more popular than 3.5. Already, my friends are scavenging mechanics and ideas out of it for our own mutant systems (Hey, look. A liver. If we hollow this out, it will make an excellent lung!).

At the moment, I am still worried about the aggressive expansionist viewpoint Wizards seems to have towards the game more than 4E's immediate failings (Which, I will admit, I don't see as much as some of the 3.5 diehards do). The number of power options for each class is strictly limited, giving maybe a total of 3-6 solid builds before you get overlap and concepts start to merge too much. This can be easily addressed by books with more powers and initial selection options, but that encourages WOTC to print dozens of them, not to mention new classes. If 3.5 taught us anything, it's that the power will creep upwards, and balance will get shaky. While a much better job of balancing has been done in 4th and 3rd, dozens of new books coming out at the (personal prediction) rate of 1 per month is going to be impossible to keep even.

If that happens, my guess is that there will be an exodus back to 3.5 or other systems. This is especially true if, after 3 years, a "4.5" revamp is announced and wipes out several hundred dollars of book investments.

If WoTC doesn't play a colossal jerk in that manner, I think that 4E will be the dominant RPG until 5.0, and the 3.X only crowd will fall into a severe minority position, much like the 2.X only crowd was in 2007.

[Viruzzo]

If WoTC doesn't play a colossal jerk in that manner, I think that 4E will be the dominant RPG until 5.0, and the 3.X only crowd will fall into a severe minority position, much like the 2.X only crowd was in 2007.

True, except for the 4.5 part. When 3.5 came out, a lot of people complained (rightfully they didn't want to buy variants of the same core books they had), but eventually either the 3.0 became a minority or passed on to 3.5 because it was an actual improvement of the game. So seeing 3.5 I suppose that even if 4.5 comes out, it would improve 4e enough to convince most people.

[Gralamin]

The newest errata has caused a bit of... strange rules for skill challenges. (More information and a potential fix can be found here. Thread is only 10 days old so posting in it is fine.)

Regardless, I think 4E will continue to catch on, as it is doing now.

[nagora]

I'm curious as to whether fourth edition is actually going to overcome 3rd edition in popularity.

It's interesting that my local gamestore has still not started to stock it. No one's been asking for it, apparently.

I doubt that it will reach 3/3.5's level of popularity, but I don't think it will flop unless Hasbro decide to drop it for some reason.

[Ashtar]

Well, I just had a mail from one of my players saying:

"Je dois t'avouer que nos parties du weekend me redonne de plus en plus goût au JDR."
Translated to "I must admit that our week-end games [4e] are bringing back my taste for Role playing games"

So at least for my group, it is catching on. Maybe we needed a change, maybe it's the different style, one thing is sure: For the moment, we are having fun!

[SoD]

It's interesting that my local gamestore has still not started to stock it. No one's been asking for it, apparently.

Lucky bastard. Mine's not stocking any 3.5e stuff any more, save a few adventures, and that's just because they haven't managed to sell them yet. I tried going there to buy PHBII the other day.

[nagora]

What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.

Opps! Another "3.5=all previous editions" post. 1e didn't (I'm not sure about 2e but I don't think it did either) have crits, and I'm generally of the opinion that crits are a bad idea in any game with hit points, although it's often hard to convince players of that.

Part of the game is to start off just slightly better than the average person and work your way up to being the big hero. A normal person CAN'T survive a good solid hit with a long sword. A fighter at 1st level in 1e has a good chance of doing so, and a 4th level fighter probably will survive four such attacks. That's just part of the game, and making it past the low levels makes reaching the higher levels more satisfying.

[Kiara LeSabre]

I'm confused. There was a 3rd edition? I thought it went D&D, AD&D, and 4e?

I did have a really bizarre dream about a couple of very improbably bad, failed editions with things called CoDzillas, Batman wizards, and a level 5 omnipotent kobold named Pun-Pun, but of course that's just silly and was obviously only a dream ...

... right?

[Glawackus]

The only complaint in my group has been that Barbarian and Bard are gone, but I think that this is only because we have one group member who really likes, well, barbarians and bards.

[Glawackus]

I'm confused. There was a 3rd edition? I thought it went D&D, AD&D, and 4e?

I did have a really bizarre dream about a couple of very improbably bad, failed editions with things called CoDzillas, Batman wizards, and a level 5 omnipotent kobold named Pun-Pun, but of course that's just silly and was obviously only a dream ...

... right?

"Of course it was..."

*Skip Williams, Monte Cook, et all step out of the shower*

[Covered In Bees]

Opps! Another "3.5=all previous editions" post. 1e didn't (I'm not sure about 2e but I don't think it did either) have crits, and I'm generally of the opinion that crits are a bad idea in any game with hit points, although it's often hard to convince players of that.

20 = hit, though. And at level 1 a hit is likely to kill you. Especially if you didn't roll so well for hit points.
(Rolling for hit points. UGH.)

Part of the game is to start off just slightly better than the average person and work your way up to being the big hero. A normal person CAN'T survive a good solid hit with a long sword.

Starting off as specifically better than average is not an integral part of the game. Doing it every time would get really old.

People have been starting games at level 2, 3, 4, whatever for a long, long time.

a 4th level fighter probably will survive four such attacks. That's just part of the game, and making it past the low levels makes reaching the higher levels more satisfying.

The idea that an attack that "hit" and deals HP damage has to be described as a good solid hit is really pretty played out.