Pros and Cons

[Nimble Goodbarrel]

Again thanks to everyone. With the Pro's and Con's (and the fact the books went on sale near me) I went out and bought the core 4e books and have begun reading them and highlighting the cool parts over the phone to my players. The reaction has been mixed. One player seems really excited, the other continues to be arguementative and doubtful.

The doubtful player, sees the new edition as dumbed down. He does not like the fact that magic has been greatly reduced in shear amount of spells. My arguement was in the 15 years of playing D&D we have only used spells like 'Grease' twice. So the spells that have been kept are simple, easy to use and the once we typically throw at monsters.

I think that he see's this as the end of his 3e campaigne, which I told him wasn't truem that we could keep playing his game as long as he wanted.

Over all I am sure that I have made the right decision. I haven't been this excited aobut playing D&D in almost 8 years. This new version really seems like I will be able to spend more time on NPC's, what is going on in the world, and other cool story elements that I really couldn't spend time on in 3e. I spent most of my time trying to plan out what the monsters would do each round to make exciting encounters. It finally seems like I can role play alot more and focus on that. I also love to adhoc whenever I can and 4e seems alot easier for me to do this.

Thanks again to everyone for all the response. It has been so helpful and informative. I really apprecaite it.

Nimble
Toronto, ON

 

[I'm A Banana]

The doubtful player, sees the new edition as dumbed down. He does not like the fact that magic has been greatly reduced in shear amount of spells. My arguement was in the 15 years of playing D&D we have only used spells like 'Grease' twice. So the spells that have been kept are simple, easy to use and the once we typically throw at monsters.

One thing you might want to do, instead of that, is to point him at the Rituals. There's not a whoooooole lot in the first PHB, but they've been consistently added to over the course of the year (grab the Ebrron guide, it's got a host of 'em!).

And then, if anyone ever takes a ritual, actually make that ritual important in play somehow.

Most "utility" spells became rituals in 4e, and converting any 3e spell you miss into a 4e power or ritual shouldn't be too big of a deal.

You might also point him to a lot of the team-based synergies in 4e, how certain powers from different classes and roles work together. 4e isn't really dumbed-down, but the strategy now is how the team works together, rather than on one character.

If those don't silence his fears, they might at least quiet them enough for him to give 4e a whirl.

 

[Rechan]

Hope you have a good time!

 

[malraux]

The doubtful player, sees the new edition as dumbed down. He does not like the fact that magic has been greatly reduced in shear amount of spells. My arguement was in the 15 years of playing D&D we have only used spells like 'Grease' twice. So the spells that have been kept are simple, easy to use and the once we typically throw at monsters.

He's not exactly wrong. Just as the 4e ranger beat up the 3e scout and stole his stuff, pretty much all the 4e classes beat up the 3e wizard and stole a lot of his stuff. It really needed to happen, as the idea of the wizard that has a spell for every occasion devalues all other classes. If what you like about a 3e wizard is looking through splat books for tougher and tougher spells to use, you will not be happy with 4e.

That said, the new edition is not dumbed down. It has emergent complexity. The game is won or lost at the table rather than in the prepping. That might not be the kind of game he wants to play, but it isn't a simple game.

And rituals do have a place in the game. They cover a lot of the wizard's old flexibility, but with a somewhat higher cost.

I play a wizard in one game. Wizards don't dish out the damage like they used to. They do control the battlefield. When a wizard busts out a daily power, the bad guys should run in fear. Repeated automatic damage is the wizard's specialty, as are debilitating status effects. I'll hardly ever land the killing blow on a monster. But I'll have kept the monster from actually attacking the party, moved the rogue around to flank, and opened up the monster's defenses so the rogue can kill him. The mindset of what a wizard does is different, but there's nothing dumbed down about them.

And again, the game plays different than it reads. You really need to give the game about 3 sessions to get a sense of how it works. That said, its not badwrongfun to prefer 3e over 4e. Both are excellent games.

 

[Nimble Goodbarrel]

What about Find Familiar? Is there a Ritual for that somewhere else?

 

[malraux]

What about Find Familiar? Is there a Ritual for that somewhere else?

Assuming you mean "can one obtain a familiar?", yes, there are rules for familiars in AP. The major difference with 4e familiars is that they can die without doing permanent harm to the mage, and can be brought back rather easily.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I dislike 4Ed...just so there is no question as to my prefs. I'm not going in depth, just some highlights.

Pros:

1) Streamlined so that its easier to get up to speed on both sides of the DM screen.

2) Uniformity of class structure means that what you figured out playing one class will mean you have a more intuitive grasp of all other classes.

3) Lighter workload for DMs.

4) Restructured power/spell mechanic is ABSOLUTELY intuitive- power/spell levels match exactly with class levels. IOW, no more 3rd level mages just getting access to 2nd level spells, they're getting 3rd level spells. IMHO, this is the single best mechanical change in the game, and will make it much more accessible to novice players.

Cons:

1) Some stuff that has been in the core since AD&D is not available in the first 3 4Ed books- you need other books to play Druids, for instance.

2) Multiclassing isn't nearly as flexible as 3Ed. I'm not talking about the number of classes available- that will change over time- I'm talking about the mechanic itself.

4) Alignment system is pared down from 9 to 5, in a wonky fashion. Those who liked the 9 won't like it, those who would have preferred them be absent won't like it, and a 3 alignment system would have been a bit more intuitive.

5) Uniformity of class structure may be jarring to some.

6) Lack of support for non-combat or unusual builds (like Necromancy).

7) Some elements of the game feel "videogamey" to certain players, which may be a turn-off. For me, "healing surges" reminded me of games like Tekken. For my CRPG-junkie buddies, "marking" made them start rattling off a variety of games they'd played.

 

[roguerouge]

Once again I need help. I am trying to convince my other players that we should switch from 3e to 4e. But since I don't know too much about it, and my group doesn't know anything at all.

Well, your problem is your pitch! If you don't know anything about the game, why switch? Why would the players give up something permanently that's working for them without that information. Now, if you were talking about playing 4e as a short-term experiment first, not knowing might be an interesting reason to try it out. But to switch implies a permanent change, with the attendant opportunity costs and investment in new books resulting.

Edit: As someone who started a thread like this one, as a 3e DM and a 4e player I can give you a few bits of advice:

1. 4e is a superheroes game. They work under different rule sets from the rest of the world's mooks. They heal all injuries overnight. Think of that as your genre and set up your world to explain why the PCs are so special: mutation, chosen ones, throw backs to a better era, whatever. You have to have an explanation for this right at the start of your campaign.

2. Be VERY careful how you describe hits, being bloodied, and going unconscious during combat if you have a warlord in the party. I play one as the primary healer in game--and they rock--but how their MARTIAL power works teeters on the edge of ridiculous at times. For example, I used inspiring word to bring someone back from unconsciousness. So I role played that as talking to a coma victim to help them bring them back to life. You can only do that so many times before it gets ridiculous, and it will happen over and over again. You need to give the warlord a mystical power/magical object that explains how inspirational words work.

3. Healing everything overnight plays awesome ONLY if you have a narrative explanation for why right out the gate. Magic spells explained a lot of things in earlier editions that made game play smoother. Figure out what your explanation is going to be if you describe someone as run through or with a broken bone the day before. Without such an explanation, no amount of verisimilitude is going to save you from your 3e player, who's used to the gods themselves providing the narrative explanation and lifting the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, your problem is your pitch! If you don't know anything about the game, why switch? Why would the players give up something permanently that's working for them without that information. Now, if you were talking about playing 4e as a short-term experiment first, not knowing might be an interesting reason to try it out. But to switch implies a permanent change, with the attendant opportunity costs and investment in new books resulting.

Edit: As someone who started a thread like this one, as a 3e DM and a 4e player I can give you a few bits of advice:

1. 4e is a superheroes game. They work under different rule sets from the rest of the world's mooks. They heal all injuries overnight. Think of that as your genre and set up your world to explain why the PCs are so special: mutation, chosen ones, throw backs to a better era, whatever. You have to have an explanation for this right at the start of your campaign.

2. Be VERY careful how you describe hits, being bloodied, and going unconscious during combat if you have a warlord in the party. I play one as the primary healer in game--and they rock--but how their MARTIAL power works teeters on the edge of ridiculous at times. For example, I used inspiring word to bring someone back from unconsciousness. So I role played that as talking to a coma victim to help them bring them back to life. You can only do that so many times before it gets ridiculous, and it will happen over and over again. You need to give the warlord a mystical power/magical object that explains how inspirational words work.

3. Healing everything overnight plays awesome ONLY if you have a narrative explanation for why right out the gate. Magic spells explained a lot of things in earlier editions that made game play smoother. Figure out what your explanation is going to be if you describe someone as run through or with a broken bone the day before. Without such an explanation, no amount of verisimilitude is going to save you from your 3e player, who's used to the gods themselves providing the narrative explanation and lifting the suspension of disbelief.

YOu don't need magical explainations. Hit Points represent a lot of things, including morale and injury. If you are healed after a night from debilitating wounds, it is now your morale keeping you up, not your physical status (that is still impaired by the bandages you are wearing.).

Don't be "too" careful in your mechanics. You don't need "He hits you in the eye with his dagger for 4 hit points of damage", but you also don't need to say "You are bloodied, so I guess your sweating a little". There is a happy middle ground.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

The reaction has been mixed. One player seems really excited, the other continues to be arguementative and doubtful.

This will be your issue, when some players are gun-ho and others just hate it, it often leads to group split. This has happened many times over this and will keep doing so. I hope it works out for you man but do keep in mind some folks will not like a system you might like. And if that happens you may loose a player or have to not use that system.