PDA

View Full Version : Making the jump...



Soft Serve
03-24-2010, 01:01 PM
I've only ever played D&D 3.5. The more I look at 4th ed though the more and more it appeals to me. I'm on the edge of the two right now and I really want someone to show me what exactly is on the other side. Why is it better?

Dr Berry
03-24-2010, 01:14 PM
Most people would probably not tell you that 4.0 is better than 3.5. Of course, they may prefer one or the other, but honestly, they are pretty much apples and oranges. D&D 4.0 is, by the traditional sense, not really D&D at all, but a brand new game in itself. It definitely plays more like a video game rpg than a tabletop one, which makes it much easier to get into but greatly simplifies the customization that was possible in 3.5. Personally, 4e is not my thing, and I greatly prefer Pathfinder, but that is just because I enjoyed 3.5, and am not really into other styles of rpg. But I know a lot of people who love the new system, as it is great for new players, dungeon crawls, and the "board game" aspects of D&D. I would say just give it a shot and see what you think. :)

They may be called the same game, but they really have almost nothing in common.

Soft Serve
03-24-2010, 01:18 PM
Most people would probably not tell you that 4.0 is better than 3.5. Of course, they may prefer one or the other, but honestly, they are pretty much apples and oranges. D&D 4.0 is, by the traditional sense, not really D&D at all, but a brand new game in itself. It definitely plays more like a video game rpg than a tabletop one, which makes it much easier to get into but greatly simplifies the customization that was possible in 3.5. Personally, 4e is not my thing, and I greatly prefer Pathfinder, but that is just because I enjoyed 3.5, and am not really into other styles of rpg. But I know a lot of people who love the new system, as it is great for new players, dungeon crawls, and the "board game" aspects of D&D. I would say just give it a shot and see what you think. :)

They may be called the same game, but they really have almost nothing in common.


So by customization you mean I would have a harder time teaching a 4e fighter how to pick locks than I would a 3.5e fighter? Or is multi-classing entirely gone?

Blydden
03-24-2010, 04:27 PM
Haha. Softy I have been waiting for this topic.

Multiclassing is here. A 4e fighter can not train in thievery, but can possibly multiclass as a rogue to learn thievery. Or just take other feats to gain points in thievery if you don't want to multiclass as a rogue.

Anyway. 4e and 3.5e are just 2 different things of the D&D world. They have a different set of rules, but honestly, from the 2 sessions of 3.5e I have played so far, the roleplaying of 3.5e and 4e is the same. The mechanics are just different, but the real roleplaying isn't. You can play a 3.5e fighter then transition him to 4e, and still have the same fluff. Just not the same powers and mechanics.

What I am trying to say is, the mechanics are different, but the roleplaying is the same. The d20 still dictates, and all DMs are still evil.

Give 4e a chance. Then you can say whether you like it or hate it. I will even help you learn 4e if you will let me. :3

Here is something that should help you.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx

wizarddog
03-24-2010, 04:48 PM
So by customization you mean I would have a harder time teaching a 4e fighter how to pick locks than I would a 3.5e fighter? Or is multi-classing entirely gone?

What 4e does is changes the way classes, class abilities and skills work. They have the same name but are utilize differently. Classes now directly fill specific roles in the party: Leaders (Those that give buffs and heal party members i.e. clerics and warlords) Controllers (those that control battlefield i.e. wizards) Skirmishers (Heavy damage dealers i.e. rangers and rogues), and defenders (Those that draw forces to attack them instead of allies i.e. fighters and paladins) The system now regulates abilities as keyword powers; these powers are broken down by at will (used at anytime), encounter(used once per encounter), and daily (used once and recharged after an extended rest). Each class has a set of class abilities you can choose and powers you choose as you gain levels. Typically, a 1st level PC has 2 at wills, 1 1st level Encounter and 1 1st level Daily. Some races, like the half-elf allow you use an at-will power from another class as an encounter power. All races (save humans) also get a special racial encounter power. Feats are still used in the system, but same name feats work differently.

Your class also determines what skills you can train into though you may have a racial feature or feat that allows you to take another skill. Many skills have been consolidated-so open locks, disable traps, pick pockets would fall under thievery while listen, spot, search fall under perception. Many of the things you could do with skills (avoid attack of opportunity with a acrobatics check) have been regulated to powers instead.

There is no multi-classing where you choose one class, get all the benefits, and advance in another. Instead, there is a feat tree that allows you gain some powers, skills, and powers from another class. For example, you could be a fighter and choose the Sneak of Shadows feat which gives you training in thievery and the ability to use sneak attack once per encounter. It also allows you to take feats that require prerequisite to be a thief. As you advance in level, you can take the next tier of feats to gain additional powers. In PHB 3 it contains the rules for hybrid classes, which combine class traits and powers from two different classes. In this case you could be Hybrid fighter Rogue that has powers from the fighter and the rogue class. It has limitations on what you can choose.

One final aspect of 4e is the combat. PC and monsters have more hit points, especially monsters. PC's have healing surges which they can use under certain circumstances (The cleric using healing word) to restore hit points while in battle. The battles last longer than 3.x fighting and require the PC's to work together. Many of the combat maneuvers have been regulated to powers (such as disarming) and iterative attacks have been removed (now designated by specific powers like the rangers twin strike). The best combat encounters in 4e utilize the different type of multiple foes, fulfilling their own roles in the battle : Skirmishers, soldiers, brutes, lurkers, artillery, leaders, and controllers. Rather than a CR system, the encounter is built using a XP Budget based on the number and level of the players: for example a party of five 1st level PC's could handle a encounter with XP of 500 which could be 5 1st level kolbolds(@ 100xp each) or 4 2nd level Goblins (@125xp each) both being suitable encounters (though in play, 1st level PC's tend to be more fragile).

As for customization, the limitations have to do with the eliminations of some of the variables you had in 3.5. Everyone class the same number of feats so their is no feat building fighter class. The system does not lend itself to having rules for everything, it encourages the DM to apply them as needed, similar to the 1e days. As for DM's, it makes it easy to create monsters, encounters and adventures because it tends to be more balanced.

I play 1e, 3,5, 4e and pathfinder and they are all fun. I just have different expectations from the systems. I know that in 1e I am a saving throw away of being killed. In 3.5 and pathfinder, the battle are going to last four rounds (three rounds if my pathfinder pally uses smite evil or aura of justice). in 4e, the battles are going to last longer (though I DM more than play this system). So it won't kill you to try it and it won't be bad if you like it.

BIGKILLA
03-24-2010, 05:14 PM
What 4e does is changes the way classes, class abilities and skills work. They have the same name but are utilize differently. Classes now directly fill specific roles in the party: Leaders (Those that give buffs and heal party members i.e. clerics and warlords) Controllers (those that control battlefield i.e. wizards) Skirmishers (Heavy damage dealers i.e. rangers and rogues), and defenders (Those that draw forces to attack them instead of allies i.e. fighters and paladins) The system now regulates abilities as keyword powers; these powers are broken down by at will (used at anytime), encounter(used once per encounter), and daily (used once and recharged after an extended rest). Each class has a set of class abilities you can choose and powers you choose as you gain levels. Typically, a 1st level PC has 2 at wills, 1 1st level Encounter and 1 1st level Daily. Some races, like the half-elf allow you use an at-will power from another class as an encounter power. All races (save humans) also get a special racial encounter power. Feats are still used in the system, but same name feats work differently.

Your class also determines what skills you can train into though you may have a racial feature or feat that allows you to take another skill. Many skills have been consolidated-so open locks, disable traps, pick pockets would fall under thievery while listen, spot, search fall under perception. Many of the things you could do with skills (avoid attack of opportunity with a acrobatics check) have been regulated to powers instead.

There is no multi-classing where you choose one class, get all the benefits, and advance in another. Instead, there is a feat tree that allows you gain some powers, skills, and powers from another class. For example, you could be a fighter and choose the Sneak of Shadows feat which gives you training in thievery and the ability to use sneak attack once per encounter. It also allows you to take feats that require prerequisite to be a thief. As you advance in level, you can take the next tier of feats to gain additional powers. In PHB 3 it contains the rules for hybrid classes, which combine class traits and powers from two different classes. In this case you could be Hybrid fighter Rogue that has powers from the fighter and the rogue class. It has limitations on what you can choose.

One final aspect of 4e is the combat. PC and monsters have more hit points, especially monsters. PC's have healing surges which they can use under certain circumstances (The cleric using healing word) to restore hit points while in battle. The battles last longer than 3.x fighting and require the PC's to work together. Many of the combat maneuvers have been regulated to powers (such as disarming) and iterative attacks have been removed (now designated by specific powers like the rangers twin strike). The best combat encounters in 4e utilize the different type of multiple foes, fulfilling their own roles in the battle : Skirmishers, soldiers, brutes, lurkers, artillery, leaders, and controllers. Rather than a CR system, the encounter is built using a XP Budget based on the number and level of the players: for example a party of five 1st level PC's could handle a encounter with XP of 500 which could be 5 1st level kolbolds(@ 100xp each) or 4 2nd level Goblins (@125xp each) both being suitable encounters (though in play, 1st level PC's tend to be more fragile).

As for customization, the limitations have to do with the eliminations of some of the variables you had in 3.5. Everyone class the same number of feats so their is no feat building fighter class. The system does not lend itself to having rules for everything, it encourages the DM to apply them as needed, similar to the 1e days. As for DM's, it makes it easy to create monsters, encounters and adventures because it tends to be more balanced.

I play 1e, 3,5, 4e and pathfinder and they are all fun. I just have different expectations from the systems. I know that in 1e I am a saving throw away of being killed. In 3.5 and pathfinder, the battle are going to last four rounds (three rounds if my pathfinder pally uses smite evil or aura of justice). in 4e, the battles are going to last longer (though I DM more than play this system). So it won't kill you to try it and it won't be bad if you like it.


thats is the best description i have read so far for dnd4e, thanks

Sascha
03-24-2010, 07:53 PM
The major difference I read into 4E was the explicit design philosophy; 4E's pretty up front about being a high-action adventure fantasy, closer to D&D's pulp origins than Tolkien-style epic fantasy. As such, the rules are going to reflect this shift, like the addition of Action points as core and a focus on small skirmish-level challenges.


D&D 4.0 is, by the traditional sense, not really D&D at all, but a brand new game in itself.
I'm not sure I follow.

kirksmithicus
03-24-2010, 11:56 PM
One thing you should do, is download the free version of the Character Builder. It only goes up to 3rd level but it lets you have a good look at what the different characters are like.

Soft Serve
03-25-2010, 08:03 AM
Haha. Softy I have been waiting for this topic.

Multiclassing is here. A 4e fighter can not train in thievery, but can possibly multiclass as a rogue to learn thievery. Or just take other feats to gain points in thievery if you don't want to multiclass as a rogue.

Anyway. 4e and 3.5e are just 2 different things of the D&D world. They have a different set of rules, but honestly, from the 2 sessions of 3.5e I have played so far, the roleplaying of 3.5e and 4e is the same. The mechanics are just different, but the real roleplaying isn't. You can play a 3.5e fighter then transition him to 4e, and still have the same fluff. Just not the same powers and mechanics.

What I am trying to say is, the mechanics are different, but the roleplaying is the same. The d20 still dictates, and all DMs are still evil.

Give 4e a chance. Then you can say whether you like it or hate it. I will even help you learn 4e if you will let me. :3

Here is something that should help you.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx

I'll be having a look at it tomorrow or possibly tonight. Thanks bly.


The major difference I read into 4E was the explicit design philosophy; 4E's pretty up front about being a high-action adventure fantasy, closer to D&D's pulp origins than Tolkien-style epic fantasy. As such, the rules are going to reflect this shift, like the addition of Action points as core and a focus on small skirmish-level challenges.

Action points are core now? I've got Eberron 3.5 so they aren't exactly new to me but core is a little weird.


One thing you should do, is download the free version of the Character Builder. It only goes up to 3rd level but it lets you have a good look at what the different characters are like.

I'll have a look at that too when I get the thing Bly suggested. Thanks kirk.


What 4e does is changes the way classes, class abilities and skills work. They have the same name but are utilize differently. Classes now directly fill specific roles in the party: Leaders (Those that give buffs and heal party members i.e. clerics and warlords) Controllers (those that control battlefield i.e. wizards) Skirmishers (Heavy damage dealers i.e. rangers and rogues), and defenders (Those that draw forces to attack them instead of allies i.e. fighters and paladins) The system now regulates abilities as keyword powers; these powers are broken down by at will (used at anytime), encounter(used once per encounter), and daily (used once and recharged after an extended rest). Each class has a set of class abilities you can choose and powers you choose as you gain levels. Typically, a 1st level PC has 2 at wills, 1 1st level Encounter and 1 1st level Daily. Some races, like the half-elf allow you use an at-will power from another class as an encounter power. All races (save humans) also get a special racial encounter power. Feats are still used in the system, but same name feats work differently.

Your class also determines what skills you can train into though you may have a racial feature or feat that allows you to take another skill. Many skills have been consolidated-so open locks, disable traps, pick pockets would fall under thievery while listen, spot, search fall under perception. Many of the things you could do with skills (avoid attack of opportunity with a acrobatics check) have been regulated to powers instead.

There is no multi-classing where you choose one class, get all the benefits, and advance in another. Instead, there is a feat tree that allows you gain some powers, skills, and powers from another class. For example, you could be a fighter and choose the Sneak of Shadows feat which gives you training in thievery and the ability to use sneak attack once per encounter. It also allows you to take feats that require prerequisite to be a thief. As you advance in level, you can take the next tier of feats to gain additional powers. In PHB 3 it contains the rules for hybrid classes, which combine class traits and powers from two different classes. In this case you could be Hybrid fighter Rogue that has powers from the fighter and the rogue class. It has limitations on what you can choose.

One final aspect of 4e is the combat. PC and monsters have more hit points, especially monsters. PC's have healing surges which they can use under certain circumstances (The cleric using healing word) to restore hit points while in battle. The battles last longer than 3.x fighting and require the PC's to work together. Many of the combat maneuvers have been regulated to powers (such as disarming) and iterative attacks have been removed (now designated by specific powers like the rangers twin strike). The best combat encounters in 4e utilize the different type of multiple foes, fulfilling their own roles in the battle : Skirmishers, soldiers, brutes, lurkers, artillery, leaders, and controllers. Rather than a CR system, the encounter is built using a XP Budget based on the number and level of the players: for example a party of five 1st level PC's could handle a encounter with XP of 500 which could be 5 1st level kolbolds(@ 100xp each) or 4 2nd level Goblins (@125xp each) both being suitable encounters (though in play, 1st level PC's tend to be more fragile).

As for customization, the limitations have to do with the eliminations of some of the variables you had in 3.5. Everyone class the same number of feats so their is no feat building fighter class. The system does not lend itself to having rules for everything, it encourages the DM to apply them as needed, similar to the 1e days. As for DM's, it makes it easy to create monsters, encounters and adventures because it tends to be more balanced.

I play 1e, 3,5, 4e and pathfinder and they are all fun. I just have different expectations from the systems. I know that in 1e I am a saving throw away of being killed. In 3.5 and pathfinder, the battle are going to last four rounds (three rounds if my pathfinder pally uses smite evil or aura of justice). in 4e, the battles are going to last longer (though I DM more than play this system). So it won't kill you to try it and it won't be bad if you like it.

So skills are compacted and PC's are a bit more fragile? I actually like the sound of that a lot as my big complaint with 3.5 is that it takes 50+ damage in one swing to kill someone in one hit and even then they have a fortitude save. The sense of lethality is kinda gone from 3.5 to me.

The only potential problem I see with 4e now though is that it supports larger groups more. If you're short some players (and therefore classes/roles) it looks like you're kinda boned.

yukonhorror
03-25-2010, 08:13 AM
You can also download the 1st level module to see how combat should go and such.

But I'll put in my two bits as someone who has played 1st ed, 3.x, and currently 4e.

RP is the same. RP (as always) is what the players and the DM makes it. Of course they have added some new stuff, that adds to that. Like certain classes.

One example of a great addition for a class is a class called the avenger. I have been wanting this class in D&D since I played D&D. To me, I kind of consider him an enforcer/assassin for the church. When death is the only answer, they are the secret black ops kind of people to take out the hit.

Now maybe you could get that with 3.x, but the mechanics match up with the fluff.

The major difference is combat. To me it is more cinematic. Fanciful powers that do all sorts of nifty things. It isn't just the fighter swinging his hammer into the guy and it does damage. In 4e, he smacks the guy in the head and causes him to be dazed (a sort of stunning but not as detrimental). Wizards aren't just one hit wonders (magic missile, YES! ... Ok, I guess I'll sit over here until the guy is dead).

That's on the players side. On the DM's side, combat has much more options. You can have 5 kobold encounters that are all drastically different in terms of strategy and how things play out. The mentality is no longer, I throw this one CR5 creature at this level 5 party. The mentality now is set up so you throw 5 level 5 creatures at a level 5 party. Where one creature is sort of artillery, one is a big brute, one is a tank, and two are true skirmishers (flanking and running around the battlefield like maniacs). And you can make them all kobolds, so the grouping of badguys makes sense.

Stuff has a lot more hp, but I think damage output is also much higher. Also, that is what BUGGED me about old editions. You were so limited by healing, and HAD to have a cleric. There was no choice. Either that or the DM would have to supplement your healing in some way (annoying). 4e has changed hp and healing in a way that it is still a limiting factor, but everybody can heal themselves. You don't HAVE to have a cleric. When it comes to the roles (as explained by someone else) you don't HAVE to have any role. To me, they are just nice to have. You don't HAVE to have a cleric, but because he enhances people's healing, it is nice to have. You don't HAVE to have that big damage dealer, but it is nice to have. etc....

Finally, the customization has been enhanced with the PH3. The hybrid class system allows for true combinations of classes akin to what you saw in 3.x. However, it is limited so you can't get really ridiculous with it (have 5 different classes by 6th level). It is more akin to what it was like 1st edition. A balance between two classes. But the multiclassing allows for a little unbalance, in that you have your main role, but dabble in another class. Like said earlier by someone else, you are a fighter at the core, but you dabble with rogue so you can do thievery and do a sneak attack (one per encounter I think). This is so you don't overshadow the real full on rogue.

I think that's what is done with the multiclassing/hybrid system: minimizing min/maxing from players. You make characters with interesting characteristics, not just for POWER!

I know you like an RP heavy game, but if you want, you can come sit in on my online game (combat heavy) to see how it plays.

This by no means says that 4e is more inclined towards combat and sacrifices RP (as 4e haters will tend to say). This is a reflection of my DMing skills, not the game. I am not good at DMing an RP heavy game.

But the best thing to do is try it. Bring along 4 or 5 friends with very open minds, sit down with the the free adventure, and play it as though you have never played D&D in your life. Then afterwards, sit back and reflect "was this fun? What did I like about it? What didn't I like about it? How did it compare to my 3.x games?" But only ask these questions afterwards. It won't do you any good to compare while you are playing. AND, I would play more than one session. Play at least 3.

Let us know what you think. And if you want to come watch, you are more than welcome.

wizarddog
03-25-2010, 08:51 AM
So skills are compacted and PC's are a bit more fragile? I actually like the sound of that a lot as my big complaint with 3.5 is that it takes 50+ damage in one swing to kill someone in one hit and even then they have a fortitude save. The sense of lethality is kinda gone from 3.5 to me.
.

You misunderstood my description. In the 4e game mechanics, the 1st level PC tend to be more fragile than 2nd level. Overall, hit points are increase for PC's and monsters, making battles last longer. In this case, lethality is even less in 4e, if you are good at strategy. If you are not, those wonderful hit points will be shredded quickly.

One slight draw back of 4e is that it assumes a heroic fantasy play style, so most fluff is geared to that kind of game. BUT the system can be adjusted to become more gritty and once you learn how to exploit it. If you want to increase the danger to PC's, throw tougher monsters or increase their damage. One option DM's took in the game (early on) to speed up combat was to halve monster hit points and double their damage. That way they fell faster but did more damage (simulating 3e battles in my opinion). Another is to use a mechanic called minions: basically creatures that go down with one hit so you can simulate large epic battles (4 minion equals to about one creature of similar level). Monsters are divided amongst minions, standard, elites (counting as 2 standards) and solo (counting about 5 standards). Utilizing minions will aid in creating goons that go down in one hit but are still a threat to the PC's. The most important factor in 4e is that rather than having a printed rule in the books, the game gives the DM the judgment call on how something will work and how to scale the difficulty. This moves away from the 3.5 rules set and moves more into the 1e ideal of DM arbitration (In my opinion, the 4e system makes more sense than 1e).

What I suggest is that you try the game and once you get a hang of it, begin to see how you can tell a different story/play a different kind of game that suits your style.

yukonhorror
03-25-2010, 09:55 AM
Or you can use the mechanic of henchmen ( an Idea I picked up from someone else, but is detailed in my blog on this site). A little hardier than a minion, but that same effect of plowing through characters.

I always thought 3.x wanted more characters than other editions (in my eye). Actually as I said, you don't HAVE to have roles. As such, you can do a 3 person party, and it will be challenging for the players, but doable.

If you want gritty, I have heard WHRPG is super gritty. Thoth will be able to explain better than I though (I have never played, but heard him and others talk about it).

Yes, the danger of dying is not as imminent, but that's something I like (hated character death). Another thing to do is add templates to ordinary monsters, but don't change their hp or defenses (just add the more lethal powers). You need a grasp of 4e to know what I mean, but by adding double attacks (instead of just double dam) or some sort of immediate interrupt/rxn ability, things get sketchy for the players.

And in my opinion (to speed up encounters) I wouldn't go all the way to half hp. I would go to 3/4. BUt that's just me.

I see blydden gave you the link to the free adventure. So yes, try it out. It will give you an impression of the mechanics. But be warned, with any WOTC module, it is most likely to be more combat heavy. But that is the biggest difference is how combat plays out, so it will give you the best impression of the differences (best as in most conclusive not 4e is better).

Sascha
03-25-2010, 12:17 PM
Action points are core now? I've got Eberron 3.5 so they aren't exactly new to me but core is a little weird.
Yes; they reset to one every extended rest, and you earn one every milestone (two encounters without an extended rest). And there are abilities that key off spending action points (or having no action points left).


The only potential problem I see with 4e now though is that it supports larger groups more. If you're short some players (and therefore classes/roles) it looks like you're kinda boned.
The logic is somewhat sound: each role is represented, plus a "safety net" member. You can do it with fewer, though you'll want to tailor encounters much more carefully, with changes depending on the role(s) missing.


RP is the same. RP (as always) is what the players and the DM makes it.
So very much this~


The major difference is combat. To me it is more cinematic. Fanciful powers that do all sorts of nifty things. It isn't just the fighter swinging his hammer into the guy and it does damage. In 4e, he smacks the guy in the head and causes him to be dazed (a sort of stunning but not as detrimental). Wizards aren't just one hit wonders (magic missile, YES! ... Ok, I guess I'll sit over here until the guy is dead).
Yeah, 4E makes what it does - tactical skirmishes - fun. And it *wants* you to use your abilities in every combat, instead of hoarding them for the boss fight (or having the 15-minute work day).

Cocoa
03-27-2010, 01:46 PM
So by customization you mean I would have a harder time teaching a 4e fighter how to pick locks than I would a 3.5e fighter?

Your fighter can take a feat to train in Thievery, which gets you a +5 bonus for all checks related to that -- disabling traps, picking locks, etc. The only "hard" thing about it is that a fighter can't choose thievery as a free trained skill at level 1.

You can still try to do all of that without training in Thievery. A few things require training, but most can be attempted by anyone whether or not they're trained in the skill. Someone with a high Dex might be very good at thievery even without being trained in it.

Or, your fighter can technically be in the Rogue class, choosing powers that feel fighter-like. Your character may end up being more of a striker (damage dealer) than a defender (keep bad guys away from the vulnerable party members), but it may be a better overall fit for your character concept. Rogues get thievery as one of their automatic trained class skills.

Soft Serve
03-27-2010, 08:59 PM
I haven't found the time this week to get too downloading the 4E things that you've put my way (sorry!)

But I have been talking to a friend of mine who plays it. He promises the show me the physical books sometime.

I noticed in the compendium that Githzerai are becoming a player race in PHB3? Aren't they primarily a monk class? So does that mean that 4E is basically designing a race that well suits each class now?

And also that Elves seem to be broken in half now between spellcasters (Eladrin?) and actual rangers and swordplayers (Elves). That all seems very unnecessary but maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

Cocoa
03-28-2010, 12:33 AM
Both elves and eladrin do well in any class that emphasizes Dexterity. That would include rangers and rogues, among other classes.

Elves have a Wisdom boost, so they have a natural advantage for classes that use Wisdom as an important stat. Eladrin get an Intelligence boost, so they do well for classes that rely on Int.

In my opinion, either race can do well in just about any class. They might prefer different tactics or they might not be perfectly suited for the class, but they can still be effective as well as fun to play.

Soft Serve
03-28-2010, 01:13 PM
So Eladrin are better Rogues as the INT boost gives them more skills.

And Elves score better as spellcasters because of the WIS boost.

Did they think elves were too OP or something?

Sascha
03-28-2010, 01:50 PM
The number of skills trained isn't modified by stats; eladrin do get a bonus trained skill, though.

Elves are better casters, if the prime stat is Wisdom; eladrin are better Intelligence casters. (For certain values of "better.")

I don't think it was as much "elves are overpowered," as "traditional roles go two different directions, stat-wise."

Soft Serve
03-28-2010, 02:01 PM
Can anyone explain why they needed 3 players handbooks? Just out of curiosity..

yukonhorror
03-29-2010, 07:50 AM
it isn't a need, more of a can. It is just like having the expanded psionics handbook, the complete arcana, or the book of incarnum, etc... This is how WOTC introduces new classes/races/mechanics.

They have ideas for new classes, and that is the medium they chose to present them. It is an extension, not a required book just like any other. I am sure they could have called it something else, but why not call it player's handbook 3.

I have to say, not each build for a class has a race in mind. Warlocks who focus on vestige binding want high CON/INT, and no race has both ability bonuses.

If you go through the archive of WOTC, I think they explain why they split the elves into eladrin and elf. But eladrin are more the book smart, arcaney, long sword wielding aristocrats, while elves are more rangerey, woodsy, archery master tracking types.

Cocoa
03-29-2010, 08:28 AM
So Eladrin are better Rogues as the INT boost gives them more skills.

And Elves score better as spellcasters because of the WIS boost.

As already was written, the trained skills you get is based on the class you choose. Each class has a list of skills available, and you get to choose a certain number of them. Some classes can only train a few skills from a short list, while others have more variety. Eladrin do get a bonus skill, though, and it doesn't have to be one of the ones that goes with the class they choose.

Both elves and eladrin are good rogues. There are several ways to be a rogue; the secondary stats become important as you decide what style of rogue you want to be.

Eladrin are very good wizards. Elves are quite reasonable, too. Wizards use Int as the primary stat. There are several possible secondary stats, depending on your style of wizardry. Wis and Dex are both possible secondary stats.

Elves are very good at anything with Wis as the primary stat, or Wis/Dex as the secondary stat. They do well in many classes.

I don't play enough of the other editions to know for sure, but people say that one strength of 4E is that even non-optimized characters can be very effective in the game. You don't have to restrict yourself to a favored race/class/stat combo to succeed. Apparently, "balance" was one of WotC's highest priorities when they designed 4E.

Sascha
03-29-2010, 08:55 AM
Yeah, they made it harder to shoot yourself in the foot with "bad"* options, something 3E was intentionally designed with. There are still rewards for system mastery, but the game wasn't balanced around it.

*"Bad" options here meaning ones designed to be a poor choice; 3E's Toughness is an oft-used example.

entropy
04-06-2010, 05:48 PM
In very simple terms, if you have both powergamer/optimizers and non-optimizers in your group, the optimizers will dominate the game if you play 3.0 or 3.5 (without major DM intervention, like giving the non-optimizers artifacts).

In 4e, balance was handled by the game system itself from the start, so even the non-optimizers' characters will be very useful and full participants.

Either system can work, but If you have a mix of player types, and/or your DM is not extremely experienced, I recommend 4e.

Trizeno
04-19-2010, 08:48 PM
Hey is anyone up for playing 4e online with the gametable program?

Soft Serve
04-20-2010, 01:41 PM
In very simple terms, if you have both powergamer/optimizers and non-optimizers in your group, the optimizers will dominate the game if you play 3.0 or 3.5 (without major DM intervention, like giving the non-optimizers artifacts).

In 4e, balance was handled by the game system itself from the start, so even the non-optimizers' characters will be very useful and full participants.

Either system can work, but If you have a mix of player types, and/or your DM is not extremely experienced, I recommend 4e.

I see my problem here. I'm still thinking of 4e as 3.75. I "acquired" some 4e books off the interweb just to read through them and see what it's like (No different then picking them up and reading them at the bookstore right? Honest Engine I deleted them because they were on my girlfriends computer anyway and didn't want to take up any of her space) but I looked through the 3 PHB and saw some very interesting tid-bits. Sometime later this year in the winter months I might have to look for an online 4e game to play... :D

Sascha
04-20-2010, 04:42 PM
I see my problem here. I'm still thinking of 4e as 3.75.
Yeah, that'll do it. ;)

Soft Serve
04-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Well now it's even more confusing actually...Cause I have to relearn an entire set of rules.

Sascha
04-21-2010, 10:14 PM
Try reading the rules as if the game's title was "Die Hard & Dragons".

yukonhorror
04-22-2010, 07:55 AM
if you can find someone to walk you through stuff, that'd be easiest.

wbrandel
04-22-2010, 02:55 PM
I noticed in the compendium that Githzerai are becoming a player race in PHB3? Aren't they primarily a monk class? So does that mean that 4E is basically designing a race that well suits each class now?


Not really, what they are doing is designing races to funtion slightly better in a particular class primarily due to the bonuses given to the stats. With the diffrences between the Eladrin and the Elves how I think of it is that the Eladrin are the High Elves from earlier editions and the Elves are the Woold Elves from the earlier editions, just think of them as a sub species from the elven humaniod tree, after all they are both from the Feywild.

Soft Serve
04-23-2010, 12:21 AM
Not really, what they are doing is designing races to funtion slightly better in a particular class primarily due to the bonuses given to the stats. With the diffrences between the Eladrin and the Elves how I think of it is that the Eladrin are the High Elves from earlier editions and the Elves are the Woold Elves from the earlier editions, just think of them as a sub species from the elven humaniod tree, after all they are both from the Feywild.


That makes sense.

Am I the only one pissed at the Alignments? I can't be Chaotic Good anymore?

yukonhorror
04-23-2010, 08:03 AM
I am indifferent about alignment. You can be Good (or unaligned) and act the same as you would if you were CG. OOORRR, you can keep the old alignment system. Remember, it is your game and you can tweak things as you see fit.

One thing I am happy about is alignment restrictions. I don't have to be a goody two-shoe to be a paladin. Heck, if I wanted I could be a kleptomaniac rogue/paladin hybrid.

Sascha
04-23-2010, 11:05 AM
Alignment's a non-mechanic in 4E - a roleplaying tool and (so very) little more. Beyond a very small number of effects, it has nothing to do with the *game* portion. (Which is basically how alignment was, originally :P)

yukonhorror
04-23-2010, 11:40 AM
I don't know if I agree with you on how it "was". This is how it is now, yes. I never played basic D&D, but in 1st ed. AD&D, there were still lots of ties between mechanical elements and alignment (protection from evil, detect evil, class restrictions [paladin and ranger specifically], and the ever powerful minor artifact talisman of pure good).

So are you referring to another game or REALLY OLD D&D?

Sorry to be off topic, just curious as to what sascha meant.

Sascha
04-23-2010, 05:49 PM
Original D&D. Before Good and Evil crept in.

TheYeti1775
04-27-2010, 03:21 PM
Original D&D. Before Good and Evil crept in.

Yup

Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic

Those were your choices back in the Red Box days.

Matt James
04-28-2010, 04:50 PM
I tend to favor less rules and mechanics and run with my own creations for those parts. In this instance, the alignment axis.

Soft Serve
05-06-2010, 01:15 PM
I've seen generators even for 4e that list all the 3.5 alignments, so I guess I'm not the only one.

Why Dragonborn? Why not Half-Dragons?

Sascha
05-06-2010, 03:51 PM
Probably because they didn't want to worry about the creation of half-dragons, when half-orcs caused some controversy back in the day. (Ignoring, of course, the 'true-breeding' aspect of the other half-breeds, which makes no sense biologically. But who plays D&D for realistic biology? :biggrin:)

Slipstream
05-07-2010, 05:06 AM
I like Soft Serve am 'making the jump'... but not really. I'm only picking up a few books (I'm telling myself that) like PH1 and Divine Power simply to have a character on hand when at meetups more people wanna play 4th than something else. I'd rather just submit and have fun with everyone else than go home. Plus, there might be the occasional Wednesday night where I feel like killing a couple hours for an Encounters event. I'm also working on a character for Pathfinder Society, so I'll have that organized play thing in the bag... of holding. /rimshot

Soft Serve
05-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Nice geeky reverb at the end there slippy.

:usa2: <<(He's saluting you.)

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------


Probably because they didn't want to worry about the creation of half-dragons, when half-orcs caused some controversy back in the day. (Ignoring, of course, the 'true-breeding' aspect of the other half-breeds, which makes no sense biologically. But who plays D&D for realistic biology? :biggrin:)


The creation of half-dragons? Isn't that a hell of a lot easier than the creation of the Half-Orcs though? Which was already pretty easy in the first place?

Orc raids village, finds a pretty girl, does naughty things to her against her will and poof is a half-orc.

Dragon changes shape to mingle with humans and since all dragons have high Charisma for all the Sorcerer style spellcasting they pull off they don't have too hard a time finding a human mate. Bam Half-Dragon.

Dragonborn? Deformed dragon babies? What?

Sascha
05-08-2010, 11:01 AM
Orc raids village, finds a pretty girl, does naughty things to her against her will and poof is a half-orc.
That's the controversy. Not everyone wants to deal with rape in a game, which is why the half-orc's fluff has them able to perpetuate half-orciness by consensual mating with other half-orcs. (Same with half-elves, but nobody's really objected to pretty folk wanting to mate with humans.)

As far as I can tell shapeshifting (outside of changelings) went the way of the MacGuffin, so dragons are perma-monsters as written. Half-dragons imply unfortunate consequences, as a result.

Soft Serve
05-08-2010, 11:21 PM
That's the controversy. Not everyone wants to deal with rape in a game, which is why the half-orc's fluff has them able to perpetuate half-orciness by consensual mating with other half-orcs. (Same with half-elves, but nobody's really objected to pretty folk wanting to mate with humans.)

As far as I can tell shapeshifting (outside of changelings) went the way of the MacGuffin, so dragons are perma-monsters as written. Half-dragons imply unfortunate consequences, as a result.


Nobody (aside from rapists) wants to deal with rape. D&D should not be an E-Rated Elmo's Adventure. One of the dieties had his eye and hand ripped off his still existing body (Vecna). So to try and whittle the game down to that doesn't make any sense. If you're playing with a particularly young crowd sure, but that situation excluded I like it the way it is.

Handing it to 4E for removing Gnomes though. If it costs me Half-Orcs I don't care. Hate gnomes...

Sascha
05-09-2010, 11:35 AM
Nobody (aside from rapists) wants to deal with rape. D&D should not be an E-Rated Elmo's Adventure. One of the dieties had his eye and hand ripped off his still existing body (Vecna). So to try and whittle the game down to that doesn't make any sense. If you're playing with a particularly young crowd sure, but that situation excluded I like it the way it is.
I wouldn't say nobody, since there are people who want those elements. It's just a far, far trickier subject with which to get everyone on the same page. Non-sexual violence is, for whatever sociological reasons, far more acceptable, at least for US culture. Comparing Vecna's body parts strewn about is a sight different than a race whose existence is in no small part due to sexual assault. It's not a difficult change to make if you want to revert your game back to the old fluff, but I think they made the right call.

(Also, that objection is far older than 4E. The half-orc, as well as the assassin class, were removed from the AD&D Player's Handbook for Second Edition, back in '89. They also renamed 'devils' and 'demons' with those changes.)


Handing it to 4E for removing Gnomes though. If it costs me Half-Orcs I don't care. Hate gnomes...
They're both in the second Player's Handbook.

Soft Serve
05-09-2010, 01:47 PM
I wouldn't say nobody, since there are people who want those elements. It's just a far, far trickier subject with which to get everyone on the same page. Non-sexual violence is, for whatever sociological reasons, far more acceptable, at least for US culture. Comparing Vecna's body parts strewn about is a sight different than a race whose existence is in no small part due to sexual assault. It's not a difficult change to make if you want to revert your game back to the old fluff, but I think they made the right call.

(Also, that objection is far older than 4E. The half-orc, as well as the assassin class, were removed from the AD&D Player's Handbook for Second Edition, back in '89. They also renamed 'devils' and 'demons' with those changes.)


They're both in the second Player's Handbook.

I know they're both in 2nd but ever since the release of it I've started counting 1,3,4,5,6 etc.

I've never had anyone give me an issue with it, actually never thought it was something people would care so much about until you brought it up this way. I guess if it came down to it I would go the way of The Elder Scrolls. Just redub Half-Orcs, Orcs. Orcs themselves becoming Elite Hobgoblins or something...

...Wait Hobgoblins are Human/Goblin combinations...

............crap?

Speaking of Crap and Elder Scrolls the Orcs in that game are believed to have been created when an angered god ate High Elves and digested them. The still living beings that came out the other end became known as Orcs. So Orcs either don't exist, exist as the product of rapists, or crap-spawn...just can't get lucky...

Cocoa
05-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Handing it to 4E for removing Gnomes though.

Uhhh... you'd better not look at 4E's second PHB, then. (It has both half-orcs and gnomes.)

Soft Serve
05-12-2010, 10:01 AM
Uhhh... you'd better not look at 4E's second PHB, then. (It has both half-orcs and gnomes.)


I know. I feel like I can't win with all the 4e PHBs.

I want to say that Half-orcs and Gnomes (and monks) should be in the first PHB and should not cost extra money to play as, but then that's speaking out of expansion from 3.5 where they are a starting race(class in monks case) which everyone tells me not to do coming into 4e.

So on the other hand/foot it's completely ok for there to be no Half-Orcs, or Gnomes, or monks without an expansion because it's a different game.

Back to the first hand, I like D&D the way it was introduced to me (3.5) not this new game. So why should I care about it? Everyone else says it's good? And I'm supposed to spend so much more money on this new game that roughly emulates the game I was playing anyway? And it isn't even complete! (Missing half-orcs and monks...and something else...I forgot...anyway) So why bother? Why not just continue playing the game the way it was introduced to me?

Because 4e is bigger, and better, and shinier, and all the cool kids do it, just try it once, you'll get addicted. PEER PRESSURE. Plus look we have dragons and psionics and stuff. And you don't have to pay extra for the psionics, just the stuff that's familiar to you. It'll be an adventure. Did I mention shinier?

So I don't know where to stand anymore...But I'm pretty sure both sides lose in the end when 5 comes out. (Which will be the day after I buy all the 4e books...)

Sascha
05-12-2010, 11:23 AM
And I'm supposed to spend so much more money on this new game that roughly emulates the game I was playing anyway?
That might be the stumbling block, heh: 4E most certainly does not emulate 3E, except in the base trappings. I mentioned this in another thread, I think, but the shared terminology between 3E and 4E is probably a greater cause of misunderstanding of 4E; it may use the same words as previous editions, but they don't really mean exactly the same thing.

Soft Serve
05-12-2010, 09:08 PM
That might be the stumbling block, heh: 4E most certainly does not emulate 3E, except in the base trappings. I mentioned this in another thread, I think, but the shared terminology between 3E and 4E is probably a greater cause of misunderstanding of 4E; it may use the same words as previous editions, but they don't really mean exactly the same thing.

So it can be called a rough emulation then.

Like Starcraft and Warcraft (before it turned into this MMORPG garbage) are a lot alike in the sense that the screen is almost exactly the same, they both have different races, they both have units and resources that do the same things. Aside from the new features and genre split they're a lot alike. 4e and 3.5 are the same way without the genre split part.


(by Genre I mean Starcraft is Sci-fi and Warcraft is Fantasy.)

Sascha
05-12-2010, 10:19 PM
Aside from the new features and genre split they're a lot alike. 4e and 3.5 are the same way without the genre split part.
The differences between Warcraft and Starcraft aren't the same as D&D. It's more like comparing Final Fantasy 7 with Final Fantasy Tactics: similar thematic elements, but the games play differently.

(It'd also be like comparing oD&D with 3E: they might share some of the same base ideas, but their implementation is far from being interchangeable.)

Cocoa
05-13-2010, 09:22 AM
Well, those who played D&D before 3E weren't totally happy about that change, either.


So why should I care about it? Everyone else says it's good? And I'm supposed to spend so much more money on this new game that roughly emulates the game I was playing anyway? And it isn't even complete! (Missing half-orcs and monks...and something else...I forgot...anyway) So why bother? Why not just continue playing the game the way it was introduced to me?

No need to play 4E if you don't want to. No need to give up 3.5 if that's what you like, even if you do try other editions.

4E is somewhat different from 3.5, but that doesn't mean better or worse. Both are rule sets for playing D&D. Both can be fun. And ditto for the pre-3.5 editions.

Soft Serve
05-15-2010, 08:17 AM
I didn't know D&D came with so much neophobia. It really needs a warning label.

Sascha
05-15-2010, 10:53 AM
I didn't know D&D came with so much neophobia. It really needs a warning label.
I'm not sure I follow.

Soft Serve
05-15-2010, 09:25 PM
Neophobia meaning Afraid of New things. As in there are a lot of changes to 4e and the more I know about it the less I like. But that can be said about anything or anybody. I wish I could have jumped into it like 3.5. When you jump into things like that you don't learn about all the bad until you're already committed and it's too late...

Like marriage! Good old, happy, successful, marriage...

But I bought all the 3.5 books I own in bulk all at once. I read them and read them and months later learned I loved the game. Then I played it and when it came down to the execution it didn't run as smooth as I had read. All the math was bulky and explaining it to my friends/first timers like myself everything fell apart in 2 days, but I already spent $200 so I stayed in the gaming circles. And here we are. Now that I get to taste it little by little and the more I see the less I like I'm being even more and more deterred. But the good parts are great! Healing Surges sound awesome and it looks so much smoother and more vast. Then this 4 different PHB junk and the rehashing of $200+ more dollars does not sound very good at all. It's a lose / lose for me with 4e still.

Sascha
05-16-2010, 02:09 AM
Ah. I hadn't initially read that as self-reflection.


I read them and read them and months later learned I loved the game. Then I played it and when it came down to the execution it didn't run as smooth as I had read.
4E's the opposite, in my experience. The rules don't read as well as they play.


Then this 4 different PHB junk and the rehashing of $200+ more dollars does not sound very good at all. It's a lose / lose for me with 4e still.
There's no reason to buy all the books, unless you want to; the game still functions fine without all the latest bells and whistles. There's also DDI, which makes things so much easier, and the Character Builder and Monster Builder still function after your subscription lapses.

(Really, though, if you haven't bought any of the books, take the quickstart (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx) for a spin and test it out. The Character Builder has a three-level demo, for PC creation.)

Soft Serve
05-17-2010, 09:02 AM
There's no reason to buy all the books, unless you want to; the game still functions fine without all the latest bells and whistles. There's also DDI, which makes things so much easier, and the Character Builder and Monster Builder still function after your subscription lapses.

(Really, though, if you haven't bought any of the books, take the quickstart (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx) for a spin and test it out. The Character Builder has a three-level demo, for PC creation.)

I'll have to see if anyone in my group would be ok with running it. Probably online though since I don't have a laptop or anything to bring that to the table. Just work computers. But I'll try.

DDI is annoying. You have to be a subscriber to do anything on WotC anymore. Which may also influence my bias to 3.5.

yukonhorror
05-17-2010, 11:52 AM
there may a BIT less you get with free online content than you used to in 3.5, but not much. in my opinion. Like the other Player's handbooks, the DDI content is not required to fully embrace 4e, but add some nifty things. Most of the "kind" of content DDI provides, was not available for free with 3.5 either.

What is nice about DDI, is you COULD get a month's subscription, save as MUCH as you can locally, and then cancel the subscription. You'd miss out on the fluff and the background of a lot of things, BUT, the hard-core numbers and mechanics would be there.

Farcaster
05-17-2010, 11:58 AM
DDI is annoying. You have to be a subscriber to do anything on WotC anymore. Which may also influence my bias to 3.5.

Since when? I'm actively playing 4th edition, and there is nothing that I absolutely must have from DDI. Everything I need to play the game is in the published handbooks. What DDI does is make things much easier by giving me access to a character and monster builder that is constantly updated with the new material whether I bought those books or not. However, that is a convenience, not a necessity. It plays just fine without any subscriptions.

Soft Serve
05-17-2010, 10:24 PM
I meant the website not the games they make, sorry.

Like how you have to be subscribed to look at the Art Gallery which used to be free.

And I also get it's not centered on DDI, but it's like they force-feed the subscriptions for it everywhere I look in D&D.

yukonhorror
05-18-2010, 12:46 PM
you can peak at the art gallery, but you can't make the pics big

Soft Serve
05-18-2010, 08:46 PM
Firefox is broken apparently or I would.

So from someone who has played 3.5, and made this transition, which do you guys like more? Just weigh it out.

From what I get they both have pros and cons, but what made you switch?

Sascha
05-19-2010, 12:51 AM
So from someone who has played 3.5, and made this transition, which do you guys like more? Just weigh it out.
4E, easily. 3E may read well (and it did), but didn't play well.


From what I get they both have pros and cons, but what made you switch?
3E's rules were getting in the way of my fun more often than they added to it. Way too many rolls to resolve one action (concealment rules, critical confirmation, spell resistance, Grappling in its entirety, etc.), and way too many bonus types to keep track of. 4E tones that stuff down a lot.

I really like the changes to spells, both in the way they're cast (the at-will/encounter/daily model) and how they're resolved (targeting a static defense, instead of forcing a save check). The way saves work now make having 'save ends' effects much, much more tolerable than 3E's saves.

Soft Serve
05-19-2010, 02:03 AM
4E, easily. 3E may read well (and it did), but didn't play well.


3E's rules were getting in the way of my fun more often than they added to it. Way too many rolls to resolve one action (concealment rules, critical confirmation, spell resistance, Grappling in its entirety, etc.), and way too many bonus types to keep track of. 4E tones that stuff down a lot.

I really like the changes to spells, both in the way they're cast (the at-will/encounter/daily model) and how they're resolved (targeting a static defense, instead of forcing a save check). The way saves work now make having 'save ends' effects much, much more tolerable than 3E's saves.

I see what you mean. In my 3.5 games I usually did away with Crit Confirms though. Grappling was never complicated to me. It did seem like too many rules for too little reward though. I'm actually pretty convinced that 4e might be the greatest thing to have existed now...

Sascha
05-19-2010, 12:30 PM
I see what you mean. In my 3.5 games I usually did away with Crit Confirms though. Grappling was never complicated to me. It did seem like too many rules for too little reward though. I'm actually pretty convinced that 4e might be the greatest thing to have existed now...
Yeah, Grappling is complex, rather than complicated; it's still in violation of my "one roll to resolve" action policy ;)

Soft Serve
05-19-2010, 12:41 PM
So there is nothing in 4e that requires more than one roll?

yukonhorror
05-19-2010, 12:58 PM
I switched because things I didn't like were fixed. Also, I love a cinematic battle, and it is hard to get that with 3.x

Sascha
05-19-2010, 01:05 PM
I can't think of anything, off the top of my head. Maybe area attack powers count, though they don't feel the same; multiple rolls as there are multiple targets, but it's not multiple rolls per target. Certainly nothing like 3E's crit confirmation, spell resistance, concealment or grappling rules.

Soft Serve
05-20-2010, 06:19 PM
I understand yukon I always had that problem but just assumed it was bad DMing on my part. The rules always seemed to poke in on battles I expected to have a large impact on my group.

Well this has been fairly enlightening, and I've been reading more and more 4e. I'll be learning to forget as soon as I can I guess. Thanks all.

yukonhorror
05-21-2010, 09:29 AM
well the effects and visualization provided by the powers is what makes the battle more cinematic than "Fighter swings sword at dragon, does damage, repeat"

There might be a D&D game day for when the MM3 comes out (there might be, but I don't know). Might be a good opportunity to check the game out.

Soft Serve
05-21-2010, 06:41 PM
well the effects and visualization provided by the powers is what makes the battle more cinematic than "Fighter swings sword at dragon, does damage, repeat"

There might be a D&D game day for when the MM3 comes out (there might be, but I don't know). Might be a good opportunity to check the game out.


I shall look into that. Thank you.

DarkCerberusX
07-07-2010, 09:20 AM
Hello everyone, I'm newish to this forum, but as far as 4e vs 3.5 go I have to agree that they are completely different monsters. Its like Demons vs Devils. I love 3.5 to DEATH.... my favorite gaming system ever played. But 4e is better for Starcraft in my opinion. MUCH better in fact. It has that arcade gaming feel to it which everyone complains about sure, but thats what Starcraft is. The real decision turner is the speed. 4e is like a Ferrari compared to the Volkswagen Bug that is 3.5e. You can setup a character and start a campaign in an hour or two instead of a session or two, and you can level in 15 minutes or less instead of 2 hours.

Some things need to be tweaked, I'm as miffed as anyone else about certain characteristics like the death of prestige classes and critical nerfing. To that end though, I'm already 150 pages deep into making my own Starcraft d20 based on the 4e system. However, that base is hugely elastic, I've already tweaked and added and changed features from 4e that weren't good. I figured out how to reintroduce prestige classes, and am debating about certain other points for change besides some basic tweaks like certain races are restricted to certain classes. Its still very much in production and change mode though.

If your interested SoftServe I have a ton of stuff for the Terrans and Protoss done already, including basic stats and names and some stats on equipment, and rules for space etc, besides having outlines for most Terran Powers and some Protoss Powers. Zerg are outlined in form and are gonna be playable as A player class, but level differently etc. Its a long way from done, I've been working on it for a year or so solo, and it will take probably another if I still do it solo. But if your interested in some of my ideas and source material I'd be more than happy to share even if you decide to base in another system.

Again... I love 3.5 dearly (and much more than 4e honestly) and it would've been Soooooo much easier to base Starcraft mod in it because player classes are so much easier to design, but I really do think form fits function is important. If anyone has any suggestions about 4e tweaks they would love to see let me know.