As I try to wrap my head around 4th edition, I find that in a lot of ways I think I'd rather just go back to 3.5.
I will start with a question for you: why do you feel any need to play 4E? If it is just becaues it is the current edition, you might want to rethink things. 3.5 has a plethora (yes, a plethora!) of support, both from WotC and outside companies.
I think I'm feeling bogged down in the new character class format. The pages and pages of powers for every class feels convoluted to me, as well as the sheer amount of classes available. I realise it's meant to give the players more options to customize but it feels heavy handed and I wonder if it really makes the game better.
I don't understand what you mean by "convoluted" and "heavy handed" in regards to the power system. 3.5 had quite a lot of feats and TONS of spells for the same purpose. Also, the PHB has 8 classes, while the 3.5 PHB had 11 classes. I personally feel that the power system makes the game better. It gives everyone the chance to have interesting attacks, and brings a balance to the game that has never been there before.
I long for the simplicity of multi-classing and relying on feats to customize my characters. It seems like making multiclassing a function of feats would just water the whole thing down, since you're essentially sacrificing your feats to get multiclass abilities. In 3.5 I could get 3 Feats out of 3 levels of fighter while in 4e I need 3 Feats just to properly function as a fighter. It seems restrictive.
It is certainly a cost, but that is because the benefit can be quite large. Each power swap feat you take doubles your choices for that type of power. Often you will find a power you really like from another class, while your class has nothing like it. For example, the level 3 Wizard encounter power "Fire Shroud" is a close burst 3 that only hits enemies. I've always thought that would be amazing for a Fighter, and well worth spending a feat to get. Also, as you gain levels, you can keep replacing the power with a higher level one. So in epic tier, a Fighter with the Wizard multiclass feats can have an epic level wizard spell. I'm not saying it is better or worse, just different. Have you looked at the hybrid rules for 4E? They might be more your style.
Neither am I thrilled about the devaluation of the basic attack. whereas before with enough levels of fighter and two hand weapons, or a moderately advanced monk, you could easily produce 3 or 4 attacks with a full round action, the 4e PHB clearly says that the basic attack is only good for opportunity attacks and that you're always better using powers. Powers that, again, seem convoluted and even a little underwhelming.
Once again, I don't know why you think powers seem convoulted. And I certainly don't know why they seem underwhelming. While some are underpowered for their level, just as many are overpowered for their level. Overall I think they are nicely balanced. Take a look at some Ranger powers (as you mentioned fighting with two weapons): they often grant multiple attacks (at no penalty even) and some allow you to attack everything adjacent to you. The attack progression is simply different. In 3.5, as characters gained levels they would get more attacks at lower bonuses. In 4E, most classes do not get extra attacks, but instead get attacks that do more damage or have stronger effects. It amounts to the same thing: you do more damage at higher levels. You should also take a look at the newly released Essentials builds: the Fighter and Rogue now use basic attacks for every strike.
Now it's not all doom and gloom. I love the way the books are written. I love the approach to the roles of the characters, like Leader, Controller, Striker and Defender, and I easily think they're worth owning just for how they encourage you to see the game. I think I'm just experiencing option overload with the general character building aspect of the game. The fact that wizards actually have a lot less options this edition only makes the whole thing seem worse.
Here is where I feel you will actually enjoy 3.5 more. The fact that wizards get no more or less options than anyone else is part of why I prefer 4E. If you feel that fighters and rogues shouldn't have many options and that wizards should have the most, 3.5 is the game for you.
So, for someone who has yet to start gaming, can anyone make the case for 4e? Am I missing something? What experiences have you had that would help me make sense of it all?
Is 4e truly better than 3.5, or at least good enough?
Again, it is a matter of opinion. I know many people (myself included) who prefer 4E. We like the new approach to classes because it puts everyone on the same level. We like the new approach to monsters because it makes every fight exciting. We like the new approach to treasure because the focus is more on your character's powers than his magic items. We just find that overall, 4E feels more like D&D in an intangible and indescribable way. I also know many people (including you it seems) who prefer 3.5. They like the way classes are designed to facilitate pick and choose multiclassing. They like that each class has a very different level of complexity, from the simple fighter to the complex wizard. They find that overall, 3.5 feels more like D&D in an intangible and indescribable way.
You ended with a question and so shall I. Once again I ask: why do you feel a need for people to make the case for 4e? Why do you feel a need to play 4e given that you really enjoy 3.5?
The only way I can figure that anyone would prefer 3.5 over 4th Edition is if they played nothing but spellcasters. I am definitely not nostalgic for my Fighter being useless and dying instantly all the time as was the case back in 3.5. At least in 4th the Martial classes hold their own against the casters, even at higher levels.
Untrue. I enjoy playing 3.5/PF games with my group. I rarely play spellcasters and there is one player that never plays a caster and he is not a fan of 4e. I do not get how your fighter was useless nor how he was dying instantly?
For those who haven't read my other thread, I'm a former 3.5 player who's coming back to the game after a long hiatus with Warhammer Fantasy.
As I try to wrap my head around 4th edition, I find that in a lot of ways I think I'd rather just go back to 3.5.
I think I'm feeling bogged down in the new character class format. The pages and pages of powers for every class feels convoluted to me
Nothing new here at all, easily compared to the pages and pages of wizard, druid, cleric et all spells and whole books dedicated to spells that was 3rd edition.
as well as the sheer amount of classes available.
Again, nothing new. 3.5 had plenty of classes you could play from level 1, all sorts of variants, source books, "complete" classes, perhaps even more than 4e has.
I realise it's meant to give the players more options to customize but it feels heavy handed and I wonder if it really makes the game better.
Heavy handed how ? how exactly does giving the player more choice equate to heavy handed ?
I long for the simplicity of multi-classing and relying on feats to customize my characters.
Multiclasses was never as simple as you make it sound to be, and you can still easily reply on feats to customize your character, nothing has changed there.
It seems like making multiclassing a function of feats would just water the whole thing down, since you're essentially sacrificing your feats to get multiclass abilities. In 3.5 I could get 3 Feats out of 3 levels of fighter while in 4e I need 3 Feats just to properly function as a fighter. It seems restrictive.
Indeed, you are trading, in a very easy to understand and straightforward manner, some power, for versatility.
Neither am I thrilled about the devaluation of the basic attack. whereas before with enough levels of fighter and two hand weapons, or a moderately advanced monk, you could easily produce 3 or 4 attacks with a full round action, the 4e PHB clearly says that the basic attack is only good for opportunity attacks and that you're always better using powers. Powers that, again, seem convoluted and even a little underwhelming.
To heck with the basic attack, It is boring and unimaginative. In 3.5 it turned the fighter and many other melee classes into boring "I hit it again" classes. Where as powers are much more flavourful and add more strategy to previously boring classes.
Now it's not all doom and gloom. I love the way the books are written. I love the approach to the roles of the characters, like Leader, Controller, Striker and Defender, and I easily think they're worth owning just for how they encourage you to see the game. I think I'm just experiencing option overload with the general character building aspect of the game. The fact that wizards actually have a lot less options this edition only makes the whole thing seem worse.
So, for someone who has yet to start gaming, can anyone make the case for 4e? Am I missing something? What experiences have you had that would help me make sense of it all?
Is 4e truly better than 3.5, or at least good enough?
It's not really a question of better, it's a question of preference. You can play squidmania the reconing and have it be a fun and immersive role playing experience, but will it satisfy you mechanicaly wise ? Some people prefer the mechanics of 3.5, some of 4.
4e for me does a lot of things i have wanted D&D to do for a long time. Make classes I found boring and tedious interesting, balance classes so certain ones (I'm looking at you wizard) don't steal the spotlight for the rest fo the campaign after level 7.
I fell that 4th edition is a mechanically superior edition to 3.5 in almost every single aspect. However, that opinion may not be shared by everyone, and that is fine.
The thing is, you shouldn't really as other to justify 4th edition to you, you should play it yourself for a few months and decide if you like the way it runs.
I would still play 3.5, as i had a lot of fun playing it for many years. However, I would prefer to play 4th
Big question: Are you a DM? If so, then 4e is your best friend. It's the most DM friendly version of D&D so far and I have DM'ed every version there is.
For players: Spellcasters in 4e lost a lot of their big hammers while the melee classes got a big boost. The idea was to create balance. Most of the time it works.
Interesting effect: In 4e you need to have a team approach. Building a party that can cover the roles (defender, striker, leader, and less so controller) is important. You can't have one guy do it all like you could in 3.5
Best advice I can give: Download the character builder demo from the main site and give it a try. If you feel overwhelmed by choice, you'll see that it's broken down into bite sized sections. Stay away from the char-op forums because they will suck the joy out of the game
Want to know more about the history of D&D, especially how to play older editions of the game? Check out Crazy Monkey's "Tour through the editions":
The current edition is BECMI, the most popular form of Basic D&D and the adventure is the classic Red Box quest to kill Bargle the evil magic user. Check it out, learn about the games roots, and enjoy the story as it unfolds.
The only way I can figure that anyone would prefer 3.5 over 4th Edition is if they played nothing but spellcasters. I am definitely not nostalgic for my Fighter being useless and dying instantly all the time as was the case back in 3.5. At least in 4th the Martial classes hold their own against the casters, even at higher levels.
Untrue. I enjoy playing 3.5/PF games with my group. I rarely play spellcasters and there is one player that never plays a caster and he is not a fan of 4e. I do not get how your fighter was useless nor how he was dying instantly?
I'm glad to hear someone say this, because I was sort of taken back by the insistance that fighters were useless. In my entire 3.5 career it was generally understood by everyone that if you got close to a wizard, that wizard was dead. True, it was tricky to get close to one, but that was a fair and balanced trade. Fighter v. wizard had an auto-kill feel in both directions, which I thought was exciting. Fighters invested in magic resistance, damage resistance, and of course often had wizard support of their own to draw some of the fire. Fighters, rogues and barbarians were very popular in my group precisely because they were so powerful at close range.
Don't you think the current system of leader/defender/stricker/controller was born out of the fact that the dynamic already existed informally in the previous editions?
@Arithezoo, Since I'm coming back to the game I'd like to play the current edition, or at least make an informed decision regarding which one I'd rather play. I ask because I want people to explain to me what they like about 4e from a 3.5 perspective, something that all of you got to do 2 years ago when it came out, a discussion that I missed out on by coming in late. Like I said, I'm trying to wrap my head around 4e.
Of the ~320 pages of the PHB, Chapter 3, the Classes, is 125 pages long. That's over a third of the book. Add to that the fact that there are 3 PHB full of classes. That's what I mean by heavy handed and convoluted. Character creation has shifted almost exclusively to the class-specific level. I'm talking about the pages and pages of choices loaded onto each class. It feels overblown and overly complex, which are admittedly just synonyms for heavy-handed and convoluted.
In 3e, if I took 3 levels of Fighter I got exactly the same thing that anyone else got from those 3 levels, and it was up to my feats, skills and other multiclass levels to synergies and make my character truly custom. It just feels like a more even-handed approach. In 4e, if I want to multiclass, I've got to puzzle out some modified fraction of the secondary class to incorporate into my repertoire, and in doing so I sacrifice my access to feats. That seems overly complicated.
Now, these are just initial impressions. If I'm wrong, I'm asking you to help me understand why I'm wrong, what I missing, which is what you guys are doing and I'm learning a lot just from these few posts. Thanks. But my gaming group will likely be small and it will be up to me to DM, so I want to understand the game as best I can so I can make a good decision about what we play.
No matter what, it's worth a try. You've already said you're willing to get the books, so play at least once.
Do a one-shot. As in, an adventure that is designed to span 4 sessions or so, and allow the PC's to have at least one session after they level up.
If people love it, play for another level or so, and see where it goes. Be generous about retraining, as players are making more choices than before, and are approaching character building from a new perspective.
If, after 4 sessions or so, people are not having fun, start a 3rd ed game.
There's really no intellectual reconciliation of the differences; it's such a different game that you just have to try it.
I think 4e's better than 3e for many of the reasons you think the opposite, which really goes to show it's a matter of personal preference.
I never really enjoyed having to just attack as a fighter or monk, and only having a really customized character if I played a spellcaster (which could be very complicated and very overpowered). I don't think of the basic attack as 'devalued', because, well, you needed to string 3 of them together in 3e to be worth anything, now it stands alone.
I will admit that 4e multiclassing is kind of a pain. I generally prefer the new Hybrid rules (more eco-friendly!) for my split characters.
And, yeah, balance is a big thing for me. I absolutely adore the fact that the classes are more-or-less balanced from start to finish. There are some flukes in there, of course, but you no longer have 'linear warriors, quadratic wizards, geometric priests'. I like that combats can't be decided in two rounds with a handful of save-or-die/save-or-lose effects, and that teamwork and tactics are rewarded. I LOVE the fact that you don't need to be a divine character to heal!
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The only way I can figure that anyone would prefer 3.5 over 4th Edition is if they played nothing but spellcasters. I am definitely not nostalgic for my Fighter being useless and dying instantly all the time as was the case back in 3.5. At least in 4th the Martial classes hold their own against the casters, even at higher levels.
Untrue. I enjoy playing 3.5/PF games with my group. I rarely play spellcasters and there is one player that never plays a caster and he is not a fan of 4e. I do not get how your fighter was useless nor how he was dying instantly?
I'm glad to hear someone say this, because I was sort of taken back by the insistance that fighters were useless. In my entire 3.5 career it was generally understood by everyone that if you got close to a wizard, that wizard was dead. True, it was tricky to get close to one, but that was a fair and balanced trade. Fighter v. wizard had an auto-kill feel in both directions, which I thought was exciting. Fighters invested in magic resistance, damage resistance, and of course often had wizard support of their own to draw some of the fire. Fighters, rogues and barbarians were very popular in my group precisely because they were so powerful at close range.
Don't you think the current system of leader/defender/stricker/controller was born out of the fact that the dynamic already existed informally in the previous editions?
@Arithezoo, Since I'm coming back to the game I'd like to play the current edition, or at least make an informed decision regarding which one I'd rather play. I ask because I want people to explain to me what they like about 4e from a 3.5 perspective, something that all of you got to do 2 years ago when it came out, a discussion that I missed out on by coming in late. Like I said, I'm trying to wrap my head around 4e.
Of the ~320 pages of the PHB, Chapter 3, the Classes, is 125 pages long. That's over a third of the book. Add to that the fact that there are 3 PHB full of classes. That's what I mean by heavy handed and convoluted. Character creation has shifted almost exclusively to the class-specific level. I'm talking about the pages and pages of choices loaded onto each class. It feels overblown and overly complex, which are admittedly just synonyms for heavy-handed and convoluted.
In 3e, if I took 3 levels of Fighter I got exactly the same thing that anyone else got from those 3 levels, and it was up to my feats, skills and other multiclass levels to synergies and make my character truly custom. It just feels like a more even-handed approach. In 4e, if I want to multiclass, I've got to puzzle out some modified fraction of the secondary class to incorporate into my repertoire, and in doing so I sacrifice my access to feats. That seems overly complicated.
Now, these are just initial impressions. If I'm wrong, I'm asking you to help me understand why I'm wrong, what I missing, which is what you guys are doing and I'm learning a lot just from these few posts. Thanks. But my gaming group will likely be small and it will be up to me to DM, so I want to understand the game as best I can so I can make a good decision about what we play.
And your person with three levels of fighter would be the exact same as every other fighter baring feats. 4E allows far more diffrences within classes it allows the character to truly be more unique without the need for multi classing which in general I personally dont like Ive only ever seen players in 3e do it to gain more abilities and munchkin, as to fighter wizard after lv5 any fighter will be dropped by a wizard hands down almost without a struggle in 3.5 Ive seen it happen dozens of times. One spell that requires a will save and the fighters just gone.
The powers are not complicated at all you start out with 2 at will, 1 encounter and 1 daily, you choose the ones most themantic for your character. My pirate rogue right now focuses on powers that give extra movement or that can be used on a charge, because it fits the combat style that I see her using.
Big question: Are you a DM? If so, then 4e is your best friend. It's the most DM friendly version of D&D so far and I have DM'ed every version there is.
I have also GMed every version of D&D, and I feel 3rd, not 4th, edition was by far the best edition to run.
Don't get me wrong, I think 4e is the most new GM friendly, but it's not so experienced GM friendly. It works really well if you're the type that just wants to run a published adventure and/or use premade enemies from the Monster Manuals, sure, but if you want to create your own totally new stuff (rather than reskinning Monster Manual entries), it's not so great.
The problem is subtle, but it relies on the fact that monsters and pcs don't work the same way anymore. There's no real guideline for what abilities are acceptable for a given monster level. Yes, you have easy reference for all the math, but hoenstly, that was the easy part as far as I was concerned. Maybe I'm just a math guy, I don't know, but I could generate the numbers for monsters in 3.5 from memory, so the fact that all the numbers are super easy to get (remember one static number + level most of the time) isn't really helpful to me.
Before, I could say, "Hmm, when is it appropriate for this NPC to get ability X?" And the answer was, "When a PC can get ability X."
Now I say, "When can an NPC get an aura that dazes and how large should it be?" And the answer is, "I have no frickin' clue. Now I need to pour through the monster manuals until I find some enemy with a similar ability and then eyeball how to adjust it for the level I want.
I find people who enjoy 3.5 enjoy lone wolf tactics, building up characters that can cover a lot of areas on their own, and really like character specializing and optimization.
I find people that enjoy 4.0 enjoy the team based role that they play and growing as a party instead of an individual character.
That's just my experience though.
I don't know about that. I like specializing, optimizing, and lone wolf tactics. But, I despise Vancian casting with a passion and always have, not to mention I am just totally uninterested in the concepts behind most of the Vancian casting classes.
I think the greatest triumphs of 4e over 3e are that:
1) You do not need any system mastery to make a functional PC (you need some to make a great PC, but you can be functional with practically no help from someone like me and the difference between great and functional is usually 10% or so).
2) You can be great mechanically without being supernatural
The only way I can figure that anyone would prefer 3.5 over 4th Edition is if they played nothing but spellcasters. I am definitely not nostalgic for my Fighter being useless and dying instantly all the time as was the case back in 3.5. At least in 4th the Martial classes hold their own against the casters, even at higher levels.
Untrue. I enjoy playing 3.5/PF games with my group. I rarely play spellcasters and there is one player that never plays a caster and he is not a fan of 4e. I do not get how your fighter was useless nor how he was dying instantly?
I'm glad to hear someone say this, because I was sort of taken back by the insistance that fighters were useless. In my entire 3.5 career it was generally understood by everyone that if you got close to a wizard, that wizard was dead.
That would likely be due to one of the following:
1) The social contract of you and your friends did not allow for the wizard player, nor the wizard npcs, to outclass the characters just because they were able (and boy were they able)
2) Your Wizard players and the GM of your Wizard npcs had no idea what the Wizard was truly capable of and how you could completely and utterly obsolete every non-spellcaster in your party after the first 5-8 levels.
3) Your GM was the only guy at the table interested in the rules and mechanics and optimization, and he was draconian in wiping out imbalance before the players ever even knew the overpowered stuff was possible (this is what I did to make sure my players actually enjoyed D&D).
True, it was tricky to get close to one, but that was a fair and balanced trade. Fighter v. wizard had an auto-kill feel in both directions, which I thought was exciting.
I guess your spellcasters never took Wings of Cover, then? Or the hundreds of other amazing defensive spells?
Don't you think the current system of leader/defender/stricker/controller was born out of the fact that the dynamic already existed informally in the previous editions?
Absolutely not. It existed for the first couple levels of the game, and after that, it existed only if the spellcasters allowed it to by deliberately not being as powerful as they could be.
Now, these are just initial impressions. If I'm wrong, I'm asking you to help me understand why I'm wrong, what I missing, which is what you guys are doing and I'm learning a lot just from these few posts. Thanks. But my gaming group will likely be small and it will be up to me to DM, so I want to understand the game as best I can so I can make a good decision about what we play.
If you never played around with the later parts of 3.5, 4e is going to look totally foreign and weird. But the truth is, we were carefully set up to accept the changes with the innovative classes at the end of the run. Things like Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts created the notion of the at-will power. All the Martial Adept classes from the Book of Nine Swords and Binders from the Tome of Magic included the precursors to the Encounter power. If you skipped over that transitional stuff, it can feel a bit odd.
To echo some of the advice from the thread, I would seriously consider the Essentials line for you and your group. It's very simplified, but amazingly, not underpowered or anything. It eases you into the concept of the powers while sticking to the class chart format where you just get features that modify your basic attacks.
