New player asking for some advice/help, please. 3e vs 4e. Which one is for me?

[Kask]

Well, there a lot more options for players and DMs with 3rd Ed. It is also much harder for the DM to prepare NPCs and monsters than 4.0. It will come down to what "feels" better for you and your players. Something that is simpler than both and has more the flavor of the 1st Edition is Castles & Crusaders. You can buy the PDFs online and get you and your players up and running more quickly.

[Gargoyle]

Originally Posted by ZombieMaster

Hey, I'm just getting into table top RPGs. Wanted to for a long time, but I'm now finally getting it together. I always wanted to GM and I have at least 3 players waiting for me to get this started.

Whatever system you go with, I'm sure you'll have fun. Every version of D&D is a blast, especially when played with good friends.

My only problem though is which edition should I choose.

I tried to do my own research into things (enough to know I might be hitting upon a touchy subject), but some help from some more experianced players would be appreciated.

Now I'm not trying to turn this into some kind of one version sucks and the other rules kinda things. I'm assuming that both have their pros and cons depending on the people playing.

From what I've gathered 3e has much more flexibility with PCs and adds more depth to non combat adventures. And that I could, with enough understanding of the rules, pretty much create anything I wanted. While the downsides of 3e are some somewhat unbalanced character classes and a system which some find tedious.

This is a fairly good assessment, but I'll caution that the only reason 3e has more flexibility with PCs is its age. 4e will have hybrid classes next year, and already has 16 core classes available in the two player's handbooks. 4e is catching up in this dept.

I've also gathered that 4e is simpler, more streamlined, and easier to understand. And evens out the classes in combat. But it sacrifices flexibility for a more rigid structure, and less depth in non-combat adventures.

4e is simpler to DM. Setup time is much less. It actually has more rules for non-combat encounters like the rules for traps, diseases, rituals, and skill challenges. Skills are better implemented, and since you don't need rules to role play, I'm not sure why people think 4e is worse in these areas.

As far as playing, there are no simple classes, so in this respect, 4e is more complex. The fighter has powers just like a wizard, and while his powers aren't magical, it means that if a player wants a simpler class in 4e, I'm not sure which I'd recommend.

The Character Builder software helps with that, however. It makes creating and managing player characters easy, so even my 8 year old plays. Without it, there's no way he could, and my 11 year old could barely cope with leveling up.

At least this is how it seems to me (I've studied through 3.5 PHB so far, and am looking into the 4e one now), but I'm a newbie so if I'm way off please let me know.

So far I'm actaully leaning toward 3e, because I'm looking for a game where I can have a PC werewolf/Bard fighting against a Necormancer and his legion of dead and the only thing stopping me is how much time I feel like figuring it all out. And even though I'm a 'newb' the game being simpler in 4th doesn't really entice me becasue if I'm gonna do this I'm gonna go all in anyway, I just want to come out with no limits but my imagination.

The odd thing here is that it's easier to build a PC werewolf/bard in 3e, but easier to do the necromancer with his legions of dead in 4e. For the werewolf/bard in 4e, I'd consider a shifter bard instead, because I'm lazy, and let him take shifter feats to enhance his werewolf-ness. I don't think it'd be too hard to make a real werewolf PC though, it's just that it might take a little work, while in 3e the monsters are pretty much the same as player characters already and there are rules exactly for that. For the necromancer with legions of dead (or undead) I know I could create that much faster in 4e and that it would be more fun to play.

But of course maybe I'm missing something. Is 3rd the game I'm looking for? And if it is are there any ways you guys suggest at hiding it's flaws (balance issues, ect.)? Or am I underrating some of 4e's attributes?

4e combat is very fun. The player character classes complement each other quite well, and I like how rituals are out of combat. I think if you spend a significant time in combat, you'll have more fun with 4e.

The only problem I have with 4e is that it has not matured yet. It's better now that the PHB2 is out...before I really missed the bard, barbarian, and druid. And I like the splatbooks...they aren't too powerful and they add cool options like the beastmaster ranger. But I still think it has some balance issues at high levels and there is more errata than I'd like.

Pathfinder has the benefit of longevity. There are tons of material supporting it, and almost every problem with the system has been fixed. It's a solid system, and fun.

Not that I'd feel commited. I'd like to try both at some point. But at the moment, am I right in thinking 3e is the game I want to play?

My advice (and this might surprise some) is to go Pathfinder. I prefer 4e, but that's because I have the perspective of playing all the previous incarnations (except the very first) of D&D. I think since you have a very specific idea of what you want (werewolf bard), you should go with the system that best supports that.

Also it seems you are leaning in the 3e direction, so it seems to me that if you don't try it, you will always wonder what you missed.

Plus, going with Pathfinder will probably be cheaper, since you are planning to go "all in".

After 4e matures a bit you won't have a problem converting your campaign to it when and if you decide you want to. Waiting for 4e to mature a little might also let you buy books that are revised, and you won't have to worry about printing out errata.

On the other hand, if you think you might want to convert to 4e in the next year or so, I'd just go 4e now. Learning new systems is not always fun, and at best slows down gameplay.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Herschel

4E out-of-combat put control back in the DM's hands and is far more flexible than 3E. If you like to adjudicate more of the role playing, it's the system to use of the two. If you want rules for everything under the sun so you don't have to worry about making decisions on yay or nay, then 3E is the way to go.

4E should put far more emphasis on the players, if used correctly. I suspect that the DMG II will help people adapt to this. The DM should be willing to let the players add to the story based on what they want to be able to do with their skills. This doesn't mean they should always succeed, but as one can see with skill challenges, 4E opens up a lot of opportunities for players to add to a scene ways to interact.

[deadsmurf]

4E really has little to no restrictions on what can be done from the DMing perspective - if you want to come up with a new monster with strange abilities, you can make them in a couple minutes, no muss no fuss. Plus just with the monster manual you can quickly reflavour monsters so they are something completely different. Traps/Obstacles are equally quick and painless, and you can create some very interesting encounters for the party with little effort. Monsters are easy as all their details are included in the stat block, and there are no rules embedded in creature types for example. The math of the game allows an appropriately leveled monster to always be possible to hit and makes characters no feel useless.

4E is great for brand new DMs as it can be played 'from the box' very easily, and there aren't a lot of rules to look up all the time (especially if you have a DM screen which has most of the information you'd look up when you do need to do so) A lot of the rules are very streamlined and make for fast play.

4E is a little lacking on rules aided/defined roleplaying aspects. The Powers/Rituals are pretty narrowly defined to make them easy to adjudicate, but that leaves some of the 'neat ideas' you can get while using them out in the cold. I would recommend allowing more 'flavourful' usage of powers outside of combat (and limitedly inside too) - for example letting Illusion spells which do damage, to just have an effect on a hit.

4E's rule structure is very rigid, and playing with the rules of the game can be very very unbalancing, however because of the power system, specfic rules elements (such as races and class features and powers) can be changed quickly and easily without hurting the balance between classes. New classes are easy to balance, but are hard to make and take a long time (if you make 30 levels of powers etc)


3e on the other hand is a very open ended system. It too has many pros and cons, and I'll try looking at them in the same order as 4Es.

3E's monster system is complicated. Creature types have built in rules, each 'hit die' are tied to skill points and feats like the PCs, and have only cursory relations to the Challange Rating (level) of the monster. AC/Saves/Damage etc can vary wildly, making some characters useless and others awesome against specific monsters. Monster stat blocks are often missing information and require you to look stuff up (for example spell like abilities) and that slows down the game, or the preparation.

3E has rules for just about anything - this is great if you don't like to just wing it and figure things out for yourself. The problem is this can slow the game to a crawl while you look up the specific DC for skill X in situation X.

3E has a very loose structure, and a lot of subsystems specific to ranges of classes. This makes it very easy to rebuild rules - and this is practically required. I have very seldom seen a 3E game with out some sort of major house rule (even if it's something from the books themselves like using point buy and average hitpoints each level) Want to change the hit point system? Sure Easy! Etc etc - Game balance can be an issue, but it already is in the baseline 3E model. Also Classes are really easy to make, but hard to balance.

3E has a lot of 'rule supported roleplaying' - spells are often left quite open ended and open to interpretation and alternate usages. There are skills for just about anything. Some (prestige) classes force you into specific character ideas and sometimes have roleplaying only rewards or penalties.


Also think about what you are trying to accomplish with your game - are you trying to tell a story, or are you trying to build a world?
3E is better at rules to run a fantasy world (not great at it, but it is easier than in 4E) Hit Points are less abstract, NPCs have classes and work the same way as PCs. It would totally be possible to have the PCs play commoners (as in the class) then work their way into being heros. The players are elements of the world, not (nessesarily) its focus.
4E is a more naratavist style, and is good for telling a story. The players start as heroes, they're ready to go from the begining, and doesn't really support the farmboy to hero plot (unless you skip over the farmboy part, and join the narrative after he's learned his basic skills) And the world exists for the players benefit. Nothing really makes sense in the world except what the players are interacting with. How can Ogres be both level 6 brutes with a ton of hitpoints and difficult to take down, and also level 14 minions that can be taken down in one hit? Because they were threats to the players at level 6, but at level 14 they are mooks, not something that needs to take a lot of attention.


I tried to stay as objective as possible, but really 4E is my game of choice now - I really love it, I think its perfect for most people who are new to the game. It is easy to teach, and a lot of fun from level 1.
3E is a good game though, so if you're into it go for it! being a DM is really rewarding - you feel a sense of glee when you pull out a mini and the players start calling you an illegitimate child for springing this on them, and then they beat the hell out of it.

Good luck on your D&D whatever edition you choose.

[Festivus]

I find the following with regard to editions from my personal DMing point of view, having DMed both.

1. 4E is easier to run as a DM at higher levels than 3.5 is going to be for someone new to the game. If you choose to make it so, 3.5 can get very complex. What I do is toss out a lot of the finer points to make the 3.5 game run faster at higher levels, but I attribute that to experience with the system. A newcomer may not know to do this.

2. 4E takes longer to resolve conflicts. Not that this is a bad thing, but it does take more rounds than 3.5 did. To me that is part of the fun. It's not fun to take out the dragon lich in two rounds of combat (that would be 12 seconds of time). It should take some time to resolve. Downside, that pack of orcs also takes 8-10 rounds to clear out.

3. 4E allows me to travel to gamedays with exactly one book, the Players Handbook contains everything I need to run a game. The monster manual isn't needed because everything I have run has the full stat blocks of the monsters in the adventure. The DMG isn't really needed at all unless you are designing adventures. 3.5 requires me to travel with the following books at a minimum (bear in mind we have a lot of options in play): Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual(s), Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, Rules Compendium. For a basic 3.5 game you really only need the first three books to play.

4. 4E is more restrictive on player options (for now). 3.5 has dozens of splatbooks available to make characters "interesting". I suspect that as time progresses, there will be just as many options for 4E.

The above are all my opinions, as I currently run a 3.5 level 20 game and several 4E games of a variety of levels (highest being 16th).

My suggestion is as the others have said. Download the Pathfinder beta and the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure, and run some adventures as a tryout and get everyone's opinions as to which they liked better.

[Krensky]

Well, to play the "try my favorite game" game, I'd recommend Pathfinder or FantasyCraft.

To answer the question though:

If you're completely new to the tabletop, you may not be in the best position to decide on a game for all time. However, based on what you said, D&D 4e will preform admirably, for most fantasy. It's fairly simple to play and run, with a decent amount of complexity under the hood. It doesn't allow the gonzo example you gave in a full blown sense, and I don't think there is a Necromancer class at the moment, so 3.X or a derivative might serve better. You should spend some time trolling (in the fishing sense) DriveThruRPG/RPGNow, e23, YourGamesNow, and Indie Press Revolution for free and cheap quick-starts, demos, and core books to get a better sense for what's out there. I know Exalted 2e, GURPS 4e, and Castles & Crusades have introductory adventure/rulesets, I think Green Ronin has Tru20 and M&M2 quick-starts.

I'm assuming western medieval fantasy is your desired genre at the moment, if this isn't the case, you should speak up now. Also, a little background on you and your friends and what led you to the hobby and what you want out of it may help us avoid pitfalls.

[jamorea]

My advice, try them both and pick the version you prefer. You're the DM so use the ruleset you feel most comfortable with.

Use the newly released 4E quickstart rules and H1 for 4E. You can use the Pathfinder beta or the SRD for 3E. Do a one off using each system to see how you and your players like the systems. Also, keep in mind, you're not stuck with one system. There are plenty of others out there to try if/when you get bored or just want to try something different.

Have fun and welcome to the tabletop RPG fold.

[Mercurius]

To the OP: Well, that's because one DOES suck and the other rule, but which one is which depends upon the individual

Seriously though, a lot of the specific differences have been outlined quite well, but I would simply address the overall feel of each edition and what type of approach each emphasizes, with the caveat that either are perfectly suitable for playing most styles of gaming.

3ed is better for "system thinkers"--those that like lots of rules and want to customize their characters ad infinitum, or DMs that like to stat every little detail. 4ed is better for "improv thinkers"--those that like to play off the cuff. To put it another way, 4ed is less reliant upon rules than 3ed; in gamer vernacular, 3ed is "rules heavy," 4ed "rules medium."

You could also look at this in terms of when they came out: 3ed in 2000, after D&D had floundered for some years with an anachronistic system years, even decades, behind the cutting edge of RPGs. It was a move towards system and organization; its core mechanic allowed for countless rules exceptions, modifications, and add-ons, making it seem more cumbersome than it originally was. It was, in some sense, the pinnacle of "first generation" D&D in that it retained the core feeling of earlier editions but with an updated game system.

4ed came out in 2008, well after the booming of World of Warcraft, wuxia, anime, Hong Kong cinema, etc, so it has some very "non-traditional" elements making it, in some sense, the first 21st century version of D&D.

Let us know what your final choice is!

[neuronphaser]

Tough call, definitely:

Social Stuff - 3e might have some more feats for social stuff, but 4e has Skill Challenges and Quests. Both have social skills. I disagree with the basis of the argument that 4e has less social stuff in it: 4e has less books out...but I feel that if we compare just the Core books, 4e actually has more system & advice for social stuff than 3e.

Playable Werewolf Bard - 3e's got the rules in the core books for this (PHB, DMG, MM1). 4e would require the PHB2 to get the Bard, or a subscription to DDI (which provides a billion other benefits, though).

3e's monster race rules are kinda clunky in various parts. 4e is much more streamlined in this regard, but that also means it's a little more open to DM calls, which could be a problem.

Necromancers + Undead legions - I don't see a clear winner here. There is no necromancer base class in either, though a Wizard or Cleric in 3e can do the job, while in 4e you'd need to look into rituals or any of the several monsters that do necromancy. It's just different ways of doing the same thing.

Both editions have crap tons of Undead, so no issues there. Both have expansion books on the undead as well (Libris Mortis for 3e, Open Grave for 4e). DDI for 4e can you give you ALL the undead that have been published. 3e would require some extra book purchases.


Personally, I favor 4e. It's not simpler to me...but it is streamlined. The one is not the other, necessarily. 3e definitely has "more to it," but I feel that largely comes from the ridiculously huge library of books. 4e might have less, but with DDI, you won't notice it. Frankly, I feel like both have too much junk out for them, but at least DDI makes it much easier to access and sort through.

That help at all?

[Mercurius]

Originally Posted by Krensky

Well, to play the "try my favorite game" game, I'd recommend Pathfinder or FantasyCraft.

Not to "thread-jack", but how can FantasyCraft be one of your favorite games if it hasn't even come out yet? Or has it? I've never played SpyCraft but I'm definitely interested in this game, if only for the uber-cool borders.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Mercurius

3ed is better for "system thinkers"--those that like lots of rules and want to customize their characters ad infinitum, or DMs that like to stat every little detail. 4ed is better for "improv thinkers"--those that like to play off the cuff. To put it another way, 4ed is less reliant upon rules than 3ed; in gamer vernacular, 3ed is "rules heavy," 4ed "rules medium."

Personally, I don't think there's a significant difference in the rule-heaviness of 3e vs 4e. The difference is in how they're handled.
4e has literally thousands of encapulated rule-ettes but they're pushed out into the hands of the players to run as individual powers. Their scope is highly limited in duration each time one is involved.
3e's rules filter more through the DM since they are, particularly in the case of spells, more open ended.

3e is oriented toward system thinkers since it was the first of the D&D family to really impose structured systems on things outside of combat - combat principles were applied to skill in general netting the d20 system, something largely continued in 4e. 3e also devised a system for classifying and building monsters in an organized fashion, one focused mainly around the type of monster and how that type of monster generally interacts with the world and PCs.
4e is less system thinker oriented, in part, because its design system is based more on the role the monster is expected to play in combat and the level of opposition it expected to play to the PCs. I would say that the difference, fundamentally, is that the 3e system is intended to generate monsters with stats that fit in with its general type while 4e is intended to generate monsters with stats that fit with the combat math assumptions of a given level.

I don't think either is more improv-oriented than the other. 4e promotes more strongly certain types of adjudication on the fly by systematizing them as an attack roll - appropriate attack vs appropriate defense - to handle unexpected actions that aren't delineated as powers. 3e's more open-ended design of spells and abilities allow for more improvisational use than 4e's strict power construction.

One thing about 4e is that it is benefiting from a different approach to information presentation than previous editions. Everything with respect to powers, magic items, and feats is designed to be tightly compacted and readily managed by players with a set of cards. This sort of idea has been percolating a long time since the 1e days back when Dragon magazine articles suggested players put their magic items on index cards so they didn't have to refer to the DMG during play. This is the first edition to really make that presentation style a core part of the game's design. 2e had it with spell and magic item cards, but as a supplemental product that I don't recall actually seeing in 3e from WotC (though I might have missed it).
This is the main feature that allows DMs to travel lightly, without so many books. So if you go with 3e, I would suggest you consider doing something similar with your players. Cards are easy to make since pretty much all of the core rules are available on-line for free and can be cut and pasted into documents, formatted, and printed out on index cards or any other format that makes things easy on you and your players.

[Particle_Man]

Whichever you pick, keep in mind that there are errata for both, and an FAQ (I think for both). I believe the skill challenge DCs changed in the errata for 4e.

[Mercurius]

The question we should all be asking is which edition does Vin Diesel play?

[malraux]

One other element to consider is how much electronic support for your game you want. IE, do you want to do everything via pencil and paper or do you want to be able to just click a level up button and automatically get all the numbers right. IME, 4e is currently the winner here. Because only some stuff was released under the ogl in 3e, you never got a comprehensive (ie includes all source books) character builder in 3e. 4e currently has an excellent comprehensive character builder.

For DMs too, the electronic 4e support is superior, IMO. You can search for any monster that has been published by a wide range of criteria and end up with stats that are basically ready to run.

[JackSmithIV]

I've never personally spoken to someone who has tried 4th Edition and returned to 3rd Edition. My players would hate me if I even suggested it. We are having such a good time in 4th Edition, and are very addicted.

I could reiterate all of the reasons that people have listed to go with 4th, but instead I'll confirm them:

They are right.

4th Edition rocks. I apologize if this was not more constructive.