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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

 

[SlyFlourish]

I don't think 4th has any less depth out-of-combat. Rituals are there and the skill system is much nicer now than it used to be.

I'd recommend going through the free PDFs of Keep on the Shadowfell with the quick rules summary and getting a feel for it there. You could run the first part of it as a one-shot game and see if you and your group likes it.

Wizard.com server temporarily unavailable.
Wizard.com server temporarily unavailable.

I fall on the side of the people who moved to 4e and never looked back. My 3.5 game was so heavily house-ruled that it ended up looking like 4e anyway.

I've never tried Pathfinder, though, so it may also be worth a look.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

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.

From a the perspective of a player making a character, it may seem true that 4E is more restrictive. From the perspective of a DM, this is entirely wrong. There is far more for a DM to be able to do in 4E, if only because you are not tied down to the same restrictive way of constructing effects and there is more 4E support for innovative action on the part of the players.

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.

If you want all that freedom, go ahead! 3E should not disappoint.

Even if you start with 3E, you probably want to start simple. You may even want to start with a short trial adventure so that you and your fellow players can get a handle on how the rules work. They may want to make up new characters after they try things out.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I'm DMing 4E right now. I feel like I have no limits but my imagination. I did not feel that way DMing 3E.

 

[MACLARREN]

If you are leaning towards 3E over 4E, I would also want to suggest Pathfinder to you. The beta download of the rules set is free and available at Paizo. The main reason for this is because with you being a new player and Pathfinder being a "new" system it may work better. Pathfinder is essentially a revamped 3.5 system with the final version coming out soon with some fixes. Why not get on board when it begins? With choosing 3.5 right now, it may be slightly difficult to find the books you are looking for as well. Pathfinder will have constant support going forward, new modules every month for ideas, and constant ongoing support.

Being new, you may enjoy 4E though and check it out to see what you think. I did not but that is another story. Good luck though and have fun with whatever you decide.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Pathfinder. Check it out, in its (beta version) entirety, for free!

And yes, it sounds like a 3e/d20 game might be more well suited. 4e is, in many ways, more mechanically restrictive. In fact, it was deliberately designed to be that way. Some see it as a plus. You might not, from the sounds of it. Neither do I, incidentally.

 

[Herschel]

Hey, kids! Start an edition war in what had previously been a pretty balanced thread, and win a free vacation! ~ Piratecat

I'll bite and assume this isn't just a trolling thread:

4E is more complex with the structure of powers and abilities, but less reliant on initial set-up. In 3E, if you don't set up properly, your character can be seriously behind the power curve and just kind of crappy. It's all number crunching.

4E is more flexible and "forgiving" with retraining abilities.

3E has more options at this time because of the umpteen splat books out and 4E is still a new edition with only a few.

As for a "werewolf bard" a Longtooth Shifter Bard is right in PHB II in 4E or in a few sources in 3E.

Combat in 4E is more dynamic with the powers. It is also more balanced.

3E was far better for Munchkins because of all the options and the lack of balance in some characters. It was set up nicely for powergamers.

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.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'll bite and assume this isn't just a trolling thread:

3E was far better for Munchkins because of all the options and the lack of balance in some characters. It was set up nicely for powergamers.

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.

Well, you know, it wasn't. Thanks oh so much.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll bite and assume this isn't just a trolling thread:

3E was far better for Munchkins because of all the options and the lack of balance in some characters. It was set up nicely for powergamers.

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.

Well, you know, it wasn't. Thanks oh so much.

I second that sentiment. The only thing in 3e keeping the DM from asserting all the control he wants or needs is the DM.

Now having said that:

If you are a new player, I wholeheartedly recommend that you start with 4e. It was designed specifically with YOU in mind.

Despite that I am a 3e player (and publisher), I think you would be making a huge mistake to start with anything other than 4e, which in addition to being specifically designed for new players to learn how to play the game, also has the big advantage of being the currently supported version of the game.

You can (and should) check out 3e/Pathfinder for free, sure-- but I am absolutely not an advocate of teaching someone to swim by just throwing them in the deep end of the pool.

 

[Jack99]

Looks like we might be needing fire and acid around here soonish!

To answer the OP, I think that you should go with 4e. Not only because it is much better for new players (as Wulf mentioned) but also because it seems that all your reservations regarding 4e are based on slightly misrepresentated information.

A lot of the differences comes down to personal tastes. If you eliminate those (vacian magic and powers), IMO, at the end of the day, you choose between the following:

Great flexibility for players (3e), poor flexibility for the DM (3e) and poor balance amongst classes (3e) vs poor flexibility for players (4e), great flexibility for the DM (4e) and great balance amongst classes (4e).

Good luck deciding.