Do you think that 4E is lesser than 3/3.5?

[zergrusheddie]

I've reading over the 4E stuff and it seems like it has cut out most of the RP stuffs {my group plays for the Tacticle Combat}. However, I'm not exactly pleased with all the changes and, more importantly, the extreme deletion of content.

When 3.5 came out, a lot of people complained but eventually most people realized this just made things a little easier and more balanced. {Can you say with a straight face that a Rogue with 3.0 haste and TWF is balanced?} I think a lot of people are just opposed to the change, but I wasn't really sure so I decided to simply ask the populace.

Overall, do you think that 4E is lesser than 3.5?
Will you plan on playing 3.5 instead?

If yes, why?
If no, what do you like about it?

I mean to cause no flames with the post {I'm sure I'll fail} and I simply want to know what the general consensus is.

Best of luck
-Eddie

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

I find playing all the editions gives me the most possibilities to play DnD. Nice thing is, i can play anything from the '70's box sets to 4.0. It really doesnt matter. Now, do i have a favorite? Sure.

Do i consider 4.0 more or less than 3.5 or 3.0? Yes... no... maybe. Well, that would all depend on ones perspective.

I will admit this, fair and balanced isnt important to me, in fact, i prefer it not to be. Each class has its strengths and weaknesses and should be played accordingly. I dont care that they are equal from 1st level to 20th level, but with each new generation that plays this game, my opinion is falling more and more into the minority.

Great question, btw, zergrusheddie.

No flames were caused by your post. (;

Thoth-Amon

[Valdar]

There's a Roleplaying chapter in the character creation section of the PHB that a lot of people seem to overlook. The DMG is also an excellent book on how to construct interactive, exciting roleplaying adventures. I don't have my 3.5 or 3.0 books anymore, but I don't recall there being similar sections in the books for those editions. Based on that, there seems to be more RP info in 4e than in previous editions. I guess that's up to your definition of roleplaying, however.

Also, the more streamlined system is more conducive to roleplaying, in my experience. The combat is faster and more direct, so you can worry more about reacting to a situation in character, rather than crunching out tactical decisions.

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

First of all I just want to say that roleplaying aspects of a pnp game are HIGHLY based on ones perspective. I have roleplayed in 3.5 and I have played a single combat session with no roleplying just dice rolling for 4.5 hours in 3.5. So, roleplaying, for me, is what the GM and the players make of it.


Overall, do you think that 4E is lesser than 3.5?

By lesser I am going to assume that you mean in the RP department is 4e lesser than 3.5. And I am going to say no. I am finding more refernces in the 4e books on how to RP your character than any instances that I can ever recall in any 3.5 book. So, no.


Will you plan on playing 3.5 instead?

yes and no.


If yes, why?
If no, what do you like about it?

For me there is no "right" edition or "better" edition. Both versions of D&D offer players the opportunity to do something that we all love to do, roleplay. Our group just started a brand new 3.5 campaign and we are also starting a 4e campaign (with only one player refusing to join us). We continue to play 3.5 because it is fun, or better yet, WE make it fun. What I like about 4e, since I will be GMing the game, it seems easier to run. In all sense that Saga edition is easier to run than its predecessor, the RCR. I was greatly intimidated in even thinking about running a 3.5 game but 4e feels to me much more "user friendly" and less intimidating.


I mean to cause no flames with the post {I'm sure I'll fail} and I simply want to know what the general consensus is.

Best of luck
-Eddie

We are generally pretty good with the anti-flaming around here. So no worries!:biggrin:

[Genzodus Thoth]

That's really a question that can't be answered. It is not a lesser game, in plain terms. The main problem is that the classes are rather generic in comparison to previous versions, and that a lot of the flavor spells, etc. are gone. This has no real effect on RPing, but it does make it harder to fit a specific character concept within the game itself. The way I see it is that it is attempting to make the system more intuitive, like, as many people have said, an MMO.

When playing an MMO, you always know exactly what skills to use in what situation, regardless of what class you are or how you built your character. 3.X is more specific, like an Elder Scrolls game with a dozen or so mods on it. You have to think out combat decisions carefully, especially at low levels, or you'll probably die, particularly if you're a caster. The ease of the new system causes a little bit of comparison to anime (or anything with Superman in it) which is part of the reason that people say that RPing is stunted, as it is only rarely that the things that they're compared to have plots as involving as common high fantasy.

[Grimwell]

This really has been addressed, and beaten to death heartily in other anti-4E threads. Not that people shouldn't be able to talk about the different editions, but I'm not entirely convinced it was worth another entire thread.

[Engar]

:whistle:...

[Aidan]

How about we not start *yet another* thread on this topic which has been talked into the ground. If you want to read flames, go back to any of the threads discussing 4e, I'm sure you'll get a craw full.

[Mindbomb]

I've played my fair share of 4E and personally cannot tolerate the 'balance' of flavor. What I mean is that while I prefer hot salsa most people prefer mild or medium salsa. The same thing with music. I like outright avant garde weird stuff but most people will gladly listen to what's on the radio and even go buy what's force-fed to them in that format. What I'm saying is that it's all about flavor, not just taste. Clearly my taste is to have more flavor than the average person enjoys, but I think that most people will go along with what their given and learn to enjoy it, I however will not. I'll be picking up Pathfinder as soon as it hit's my local gaming store shelf because all that's doing is adding more flavor to an already well seasoned system. And while I prefer 2E, I've still gotta have people to play with, and a group of 3.X/Pathfinder players shouldn't be that difficult to find do to all the disgruntled 4E players out there. In another decade perhaps they'll have added enough to 4E to make it enjoyable but when I decide to play a character I don't want every possibility planned out until the end. There should be more extreme's to every character, and way more options than I know what to do with.

[tesral]

it's different. Asking if Forry is better or worse is like asking if apples are superior to oranges. It's not the same game and you really cannot compare the two on an equal basis. Looks to me like sticking a bill on a chicken and labeling it DUCK. It still can't swim. A chicken is a chicken and a duck is a duck. Both are good at what they are. Neither is very good at being the other.

The flaws are already cropping up in this yet again perfect edition. But every edition was perfect to be replaced by yet another perfect edition. People are taking and using house rules. The more things change....

Churn is what is it all about. I'm tired of it. Thank you I'm getting off the treadmill. Lizards was once a breath of fresh air in the hobby, they did new and shockingly different things that where good (OGL). Those days are over. Hasbro has declared it and so shall it be. Lizards have been turned to loyal little cooperate shills that talk the product. It uneasily reminds me of Microsoft tearing apart the last perfect version of windows in other to sell the next one. It feels exactly that way. D&D XP is insecure trash, a bad game, bad! Buy D&D Vista and all your worries will be over.

Just to make it perfectly clear. I don't blame the product. It is NOT evil to like Forry. It is the whole hype and discarding of the old school gamer that leaves a stomach full of bile. Also the clear feeling that I really shouldn't dislike Forry or tell people I don't like it or why. If I have anti Forry feelings I need to keep them to myself. That bothers me, not the game.

Anyone want some D&D Linux?

[Chi]

I don't think that it is lesser. We play both editions depending on who we are playing with. We like both it is just a matter of what we are trying to accomplish in our game. I like the way the halfling rogue turns out in 4 more than 3.5. I don't think that I will give up one for the other, I will just play both.

[Webhead]

...I don't think that I will give up one for the other, I will just play both.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that either! I'm of the same opinion on Star Wars RPGs. I love (and always will love) Star Wars D6 but I can still play and enjoy Star Wars Saga even though the two games are quite structurally different. I will play both because I like both. I wouldn't call one "lesser" than the other because they are different games that have different strengths.

[Chi]

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that either! I'm of the same opinion on Star Wars RPGs. I love (and always will love) Star Wars D6 but I can still play and enjoy Star Wars Saga even though the two games are quite structurally different. I will play both because I like both. I wouldn't call one "lesser" than the other because they are different games that have different strengths.
I have never play star wars D6, but I have wanted to. I will have to check it out.

[Thriondel Half-Elven]

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that either! I'm of the same opinion on Star Wars RPGs. I love (and always will love) Star Wars D6 but I can still play and enjoy Star Wars Saga even though the two games are quite structurally different. I will play both because I like both. I wouldn't call one "lesser" than the other because they are different games that have different strengths.


I have never play star wars D6, but I have wanted to. I will have to check it out.

i agree with both. i'm just here to have fun. who cares if they switced a few rules. or dropped a race here, a class there? not me:biggrin:

[Webhead]

i agree with both. i'm just here to have fun. who cares if they switced a few rules. or dropped a race here, a class there? not me:biggrin:

Well, the Star Wars D6 game system is rather drastically different from the d20 system that Saga uses. There is no such thing as "classes" in the D6 system. You just have attributes and skills. Everyone has a number of points to spend on skills and they spend them however they choose to fit their character concept.

But yeah, even though Saga plays a good bit differently than D6 in rules terms, I can still play and appreciate Saga because it is still a fun game and is still true to the "spirit" of Star Wars. There are things that I feel the D6 system does better, and there are things that I feel Saga does better. Thus, I would want to play both for different reasons. And because there's no "RPG police" to tell me it's wrong to want to play both, I can. :cool:

[Valdar]

I give. Again. And while I have enjoyed the debate on this subject, both for and against, I shall lay down arms and enjoy my game while respecting those stalwart few who have gone before. And in the honor of those who have resisted 4th ed, I will try to work in a race of reptilian creatures in my game whose empire sprawls along a thousand mile long stretch of coastline. Their number will totally ignore anything said to them, and will reply with complete non-sequiturs. In short, this vast civilization will be a complete caricature of the Lizards of the Coast.

I'll let you know how it goes.

[Webhead]

...I will try to work in a race of reptilian creatures in my game whose empire sprawls along a thousand mile long stretch of coastline. Their number will totally ignore anything said to them, and will reply with complete non-sequiturs. In short, this vast civilization will be a complete caricature of the Lizards of the Coast.

I'll let you know how it goes.

:pound:

I love it! That sounds like something that would show up in one of my D&D games! I did once introduce the Tumba Wumbas. A race of short, orange-skinned people in service to the powerful wizard named Warren Wanka! ;)

[Engar]

Oh, I get it, because they disagree with you they are stubborn, archaic and their arguments are invalid. Ha, ha. Boy those non-sequiturs, *slaps knee, winks and smirks*.

[Mac Who Else]

I've reading over the 4E stuff and it seems like it has cut out most of the RP stuffs {my group plays for the Tacticle Combat}. However, I'm not exactly pleased with all the changes and, more importantly, the extreme deletion of content.

When 3.5 came out, a lot of people complained but eventually most people realized this just made things a little easier and more balanced. {Can you say with a straight face that a Rogue with 3.0 haste and TWF is balanced?} I think a lot of people are just opposed to the change, but I wasn't really sure so I decided to simply ask the populace.

Overall, do you think that 4E is lesser than 3.5?
Will you plan on playing 3.5 instead?

If yes, why?
If no, what do you like about it?

I mean to cause no flames with the post {I'm sure I'll fail} and I simply want to know what the general consensus is.

Best of luck
-Eddie


People at first felt the same way with 3.0 You have to realize they did simplify things, to make rules flow quicker. that doesn't take the R.P away... there were never lots of rules about the role play... Spells have been very limited for the moment... making Casters no longer the power house they always have been... everyone else actually has had a boost to their combat, instead of warriors simply saying "I'm attacking, I'm attacking, I'm attack" now they have ACTUAL moves... similar to spells...

As for it lacking, you are comparing 3.5 NOW to 4.0 now... you'd really have to compare 3.0 to 4.0 and both what, 2 months after release? forgotten realms has came out much quicker than any compendiums for 3.0 did... so I'd say they are about on par, they are DIFFERENT, combat now plays more like a video gameish feel, which they warned people of ahead of time... clearly to try and get more players. I think neither is BETTER, they are simply different.

[Caeric]

I think that I have no preference either way, because both versions (3.5 and 4th) fill different interests for me. As a Dungeon Master, I'd be delighted to DM in 4th Edition. But in 3.5, it's a nightmare getting, say, five Pit Fiends to do their turns in under twenty minutes, so I'd rather be the player on the other side of the screen for a 3.5 game. Plus with all the customization options one has in 3.5 and all.

However, I'm sure that in a few years 4th will far surpass 3.5 in custom options, with all the PDFs they spin out. They made a list of new powers for wizards a WEEK after the core books came out. That's impressive.

[tesral]

However, I'm sure that in a few years 4th will far surpass 3.5 in custom options, with all the PDFs they spin out. They made a list of new powers for wizards a WEEK after the core books came out. That's impressive.

Rather speaks of having the additional material ready to sell before they opened the line. Step to the right and open your wallet.

[Valdar]

Rather speaks of having the additional material ready to sell before they opened the line. Step to the right and open your wallet.

The additional material referenced above is all free on Wizard's site.

Anyway, there should be a thread where those claiming "corporate greed" for the new material can hash it out with those claiming "not enough options" about D&D 4e. Unless they're actually the same people?

[Webhead]

...But in 3.5, it's a nightmare getting, say, five Pit Fiends to do their turns in under twenty minutes, so I'd rather be the player on the other side of the screen for a 3.5 game. Plus with all the customization options one has in 3.5 and all...

This goes along with part of my RPG mantra that there are some games that I will happily play but would never run.

HERO System is a good example. If one of my friends offered to run it, I would not object and I could probably have a good time. I would never, ever subject myself to running it however, as it would require entirely too much of my attention to make it "work" and do the game justice. If it generally takes me longer than 30 minutes to stat up a major NPC, it's already become an uphill battle.

In the same way, I would be much happier playing 3.X than running it, simply because I can spend less time worrying about the rules.

Star Wars Saga Edition is about as "granular" as I want to go with the d20 System. It does an admirable job of making d20 less of a pain to use.

[tesral]

Star Wars Saga Edition is about as "granular" as I want to go with the d20 System. It does an admirable job of making d20 less of a pain to use.

The trick with D&D is to know what is needed and what is not. Even a major NPC doesn't have to be statted out like a PC.

My version of the game doesn't bother with feats, no one complains. I don't list the skills for NPCs the majority of the time. It doesn't come up. We are far more concerned with role-playing that manipulating the rules.

[Valdar]

The trick with D&D is to know what is needed and what is not. Even a major NPC doesn't have to be statted out like a PC.

My version of the game doesn't bother with feats, no one complains. I don't list the skills for NPCs the majority of the time. It doesn't come up. We are far more concerned with role-playing that manipulating the rules.

Curiously, this is a house rule in 3rd and a core rule in 4th- in fact, 4th fixed a lot of the same things about 3rd that you did with your house rules (horrendous AoOs, vancian magic, etc). Though I can appreciate your (and others') lack of enthusiasm about re-syncing with Wizard's game again.

[Webhead]

The trick with D&D is to know what is needed and what is not. Even a major NPC doesn't have to be statted out like a PC.

My version of the game doesn't bother with feats, no one complains. I don't list the skills for NPCs the majority of the time. It doesn't come up. We are far more concerned with role-playing that manipulating the rules.

Indeed. I'm guilty of creating "short-order" NPCs frequently. I don't build them from the ground up so much as pick some important numbers at levels that feel appropriate and fill in any blanks as they come up.

Sometimes, especially for major foes, I like to get more detailed. Since the players are going to be using the rules to their advantage, I should at least try to challenge them in a similar manner. Even so, I don't want to spend more time than necessary to write up stats.

[tesral]

Sometimes, especially for major foes, I like to get more detailed. Since the players are going to be using the rules to their advantage, I should at least try to challenge them in a similar manner. Even so, I don't want to spend more time than necessary to write up stats.

I can usually stat up an entire adventure without referring to the books. Some times with monsters I haven't used in a while I need to go back to the book.
\
Combat is not a focus of my game. It's short and sweet. I can run a multiple round combat in 15 minutes.

The main thing I find slowing down combat is people that do not know their character and their character's abilities. Tonight was a good example. Half the table nattered and gromished over this book and that while the others sat around.

Build them simple, direct, and know your character. That is ANY game, ANY edition.

[Webhead]

...Combat is not a focus of my game. It's short and sweet. I can run a multiple round combat in 15 minutes.

I try to keep a good mix of things in my game, mainly because I have players who get a lot of enjoyment out of the "combat" portions of a game session, so I try to give them an opportunity to have fun in their element. When combat does pop up, my preference is for it to be quick and exciting. I've found some game systems that do that well and others that don't.


The main thing I find slowing down combat is people that do not know their character and their character's abilities. Tonight was a good example. Half the table nattered and gromished over this book and that while the others sat around.

Build them simple, direct, and know your character. That is ANY game, ANY edition.

Yes, that seems to be a big part of combat-slowdown. Another might be people who spend time researching circumstantial modifiers or other obscure rules to give them an edge. But thankfully, that kind of activity is very rare in my group.

[tesral]

I try to keep a good mix of things in my game, mainly because I have players who get a lot of enjoyment out of the "combat" portions of a game session, so I try to give them an opportunity to have fun in their element. When combat does pop up, my preference is for it to be quick and exciting. I've found some game systems that do that well and others that don't.

This is a matter of taste. If my group was more combat oriented, I would do more with combat. Write to your audience.




Yes, that seems to be a big part of combat-slowdown. Another might be people who spend time researching circumstantial modifiers or other obscure rules to give them an edge. But thankfully, that kind of activity is very rare in my group.

Frankly I see it as most of it. The DM was actually ditching entire parts of the combat to speed things up. He LIKES the combat and it was dragging out for him.

Something I do is my own character sheet. I fill out the standard one for the DM, but I never play with it. I list on my sheet every feat and power my character has and the effects of those feats and powers. I play off my laptop. (And have a print copy as backup) I know what I can do, when I can do it and my turn goes quickly.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Similar to tesral I pay a lot of attention to picking my skills and feats because i don't play my characters like most people do and try to superman them. I know what they can do, what kind of wall they can climb, how far they can jump how much weight they can carry swimming before they sink and start having to walk. I role play my fighters and rogues in combat as much as I do in encounters with other players and NPC's. I don't hit a booger man with my sword, I duck his swing and side step to the left and deftly insert the tip of my rapier into the joint where the neck meets the shoulder by passing his armor or I dive through the window and somersault to a landing with daggers at the ready. No reason why a player can't know his character well enough and have already thrown the appropriate dice to determine whether or not he made his move or made the attack. I'd rather throw the dice and have the numbers waiting for the DM and not need them then have to look up what I need to throw and look up my bonuses or encumbrance penalties. Not really being a computer guy its on my clipboard for ready reference which means I did a lot of preparatory work before hand. Anything I can do the make the encounter interesting and entertaining and fast helps the DM and keeps the game flow smooth.

I find that harder to do for 4e because I haven't learned it as well as I know 3.5. I wouldn't say either is lesser or better, just different.

[frank634]

for my 2 cents:

I have to say, I love 4e. First it is very easy to teach to new players. In a way, it made the game feel like an xbox rpg game, especially with the power system they came up with.

Second, I love the fact that the heros are now the focus of the game, something 3e lost as the monsters have the same stats as the heros.

Third, no more prestige classes (thank god). I got so sick as a DM of a player with six classes at 10th level, if you know what i mean.

4e leaves a lot of room for expansion with other books, with the dragon magazine, and of course for your own creation. My friends are already trying to create there own powers.

The one thing I do hope is WOTC to update the core rules on a regular basis by combining eretta and rereleasing the books. my 3.5 books had so many marks in them, it became difficult to figure out the real rules.

All in all, WOTC really made a good product and I will certainly back them up for it. I look forward to further books including a new 4e d20 modern and future editions.

[Valdar]

The one thing I do hope is WOTC to update the core rules on a regular basis by combining eretta and rereleasing the books. my 3.5 books had so many marks in them, it became difficult to figure out the real rules.


That would be nice, but I don't think it's in the cards. I heard that the deluxe editions coming out soon won't include the errata updates.

[Aidan]

That would be nice, but I don't think it's in the cards. I heard that the deluxe editions coming out soon won't include the errata updates.

Actually, they will.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20041015news

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Has anyone every purchased a special edition anything, when it comes to dnd? Just curious.

[Webhead]

Has anyone every purchased a special edition anything, when it comes to dnd? Just curious.

I have never purchased any special/deluxe/leather-bound/limited edition versions of any RPG books, only because they are generally more money for something that would serve me just as well for half the price.

There was a time or two that I was tempted, but as soon as I look at the price tag, I was on track again. I spend too much money on gaming as it is, I don't need to be throwing more away so that I can get special foil-trim pages or sewn-on ribbon bookmarks. Just can't justify it. Besides, that leaves more money for other books.

[Valdar]

Has anyone every purchased a special edition anything, when it comes to dnd? Just curious.

I bought a deluxe version of GURPS Steampunk once- mostly because the regular version was out of print and I needed it quickly. Even came with a survey asking "Why did you buy this?". I sent it in to Steve Jackson and got a personal response.


Actually, they will.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20041015news

Awesome- I guess they listened to their fan base =)

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

I almost bought a special edition wfrp once, but the price was kinda out there. By the time i had the fundage to *waste,* they had already sold out on said item. I didnt feel bad about it. Special edition anything just wastes good money which could otherwise be used for some good supplements/modules/miniatures, etc. This is not to say i wont pick one up if its a bargain. They are cool, after all.

I'm old-school anyway, i kinda like books getting worn and looking used. It not only gives them personality, it holds a special meaning to me. This is why, to tell you the truth, i'd rather have a well made book(in b&w) than a nice looking book with great pics with bad binding, ink, and or paper quality.

[tesral]

I'm old-school anyway, i kinda like books getting worn and looking used. It not only gives them personality, it holds a special meaning to me. This is why, to tell you the truth, i'd rather have a well made book(in b&w) than a nice looking book with great pics with bad binding, ink, and or paper quality.

Amen, I hate to see what any 3/4e book would look like after taking the abuse my old AD&D books have. I'm careful with books, but you can't do that with books and have them stay pristine. They are worn and look like they have been to hell and back, but they are in one piece and readable. Quality, worth paying for every time. The writing was so stilted you had to make a save vs petrification reading them, but the binding would stand up toe a war.

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

And lets not forget that hot blonde. Many a kid imagined saving her from the clutches from the demon. LOL

http://www.ludicamente.net/LdM2.0/images/stories/Ludicamente/gary_gygax/dungeon_master_guide.jpeg

[Greylond]

Bah, I much prefer;
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/incomics_2002_146047733
:love:

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Bah, I much prefer;
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/incomics_2002_146047733
:love:
Not bad, not bad. Would have worked just as well.

[Engar]

Amen, I hate to see what any 3/4e book would look like after taking the abuse my old AD&D books have.

Never happen to mine. Years from now my 4e books will look as they do now, just a little dustier.

[tesral]

Never happen to mine. Years from now my 4e books will look as they do now, just a little dustier.

Not using them eh?

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

I still pull mine out from time to time. In fact, we play an old first edtion game at least once a year for fun.

[Chi]

Has anyone every purchased a special edition anything, when it comes to dnd? Just curious.
We have wanted to buy alot of special edition stuff we just don't have the money!

[Chi]

I still pull mine out from time to time. In fact, we play an old first edtion game at least once a year for fun.
We just bought a 2E book and I hope we play it soon just to see how different it is

[Webhead]

We just bought a 2E book and I hope we play it soon just to see how different it is

2e is different from 3e/4e in some substantial ways, but it is not "less fun" because of that. In fact, the only way I would go back to running the Dark Sun campaign setting (which I have the itch to do) would be running it with 2e. I still have some 2e stuff on my shelf. If you need some help understanding anything about 2e, feel free to let me know.

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

We have wanted to buy alot of special edition stuff we just don't have the money!
Many of us would agree. Glad we're in a big boat. LOL

[Chi]

2e is different from 3e/4e in some substantial ways, but it is not "less fun" because of that. In fact, the only way I would go back to running the Dark Sun campaign setting (which I have the itch to do) would be running it with 2e. I still have some 2e stuff on my shelf. If you need some help understanding anything about 2e, feel free to let me know.
Thanks so much I will let you know if I need help. I just told CPLMAC in chat that is hard to read 2E when you are ADD due to the lack of pictures.