Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
And you being a Kanukski, you are allowed to say that!!
The misbegotten waif thread a/k/a The Fray V2
Relique du Madde
Adventurer
I almost feel like a real developer. I was working on a flash game and I finished porting it to android air . 
Now begins the annoying task of fixing its issues.
Now begins the annoying task of fixing its issues.
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
and thus is the first step to being a softwere developer.
Rhun
First Post
I almost feel like a real developer. I was working on a flash game and I finished porting it to android air .
Ah, the vagaries of quality assurance.
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
This just has to be posted here:
I just hope [MENTION=54810]renau1g[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48762]Leif[/MENTION] won't notice it.
I just hope [MENTION=54810]renau1g[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48762]Leif[/MENTION] won't notice it.
Last edited:
renau1g
First Post
I would surmise it's experience. I could put together a level 1 4e PC in under a few minutes or so. Pathfinder/3e takes me much longer now. I made a level 1 sorcerer for Carrion Crown and it took me a few hours to go through the various bloodlines, the traits, etc. that I wasn't familiar with.
I think I've settled into my head what the key difference between the systems are. 4e promotes balance as one of it's key pillars in design. A fighter is never made obsolete by the mage or cleric. Spellcasters are now more or less in line with martial classes with respect to their effectiveness. 3e had the traditional, fighters are strong to start but gradually see their effectiveness diminish (especially when you had the mexican standoff between two high level fighters waiting for the other one to get in close so he could make a full attack) where mages start very weak and minimal spell options. As they level their power level increases exponentially.
Personally, I prefer a slow and steady power increase to the one that starts off really low and ends really high. Again, not right or wrong, but that's a key difference.
Another major difference is on the combat side. 4e promotes the more epic, set-piece battles (which consequently take longer to resolve) as their bread and butter, which can be annoying as sometimes you just want to ambush that scouting party of kobolds, but they each take 3-4 hits to drop. (you can use minions of course). 3e tends to have smaller combat locations, less number of foes and combat tends to be a bit swingier, especially with save or die spells at higher levels and small amounts of hit points at lower levels.
For me I prefer the longer, more tactically focused battles, but some prefer the shorter, quicker battles. I don't think either's better, just different. I think 4e requires the DM to only put in combat's that have meaning to the story because you can easily get bogged down in somewhat meaningless combat encounters and leads to boredom. That's why most of the 4e modules have sucked large so far, they're just a string of combat encounters pasted together.
I think I've settled into my head what the key difference between the systems are. 4e promotes balance as one of it's key pillars in design. A fighter is never made obsolete by the mage or cleric. Spellcasters are now more or less in line with martial classes with respect to their effectiveness. 3e had the traditional, fighters are strong to start but gradually see their effectiveness diminish (especially when you had the mexican standoff between two high level fighters waiting for the other one to get in close so he could make a full attack) where mages start very weak and minimal spell options. As they level their power level increases exponentially.
Personally, I prefer a slow and steady power increase to the one that starts off really low and ends really high. Again, not right or wrong, but that's a key difference.
Another major difference is on the combat side. 4e promotes the more epic, set-piece battles (which consequently take longer to resolve) as their bread and butter, which can be annoying as sometimes you just want to ambush that scouting party of kobolds, but they each take 3-4 hits to drop. (you can use minions of course). 3e tends to have smaller combat locations, less number of foes and combat tends to be a bit swingier, especially with save or die spells at higher levels and small amounts of hit points at lower levels.
For me I prefer the longer, more tactically focused battles, but some prefer the shorter, quicker battles. I don't think either's better, just different. I think 4e requires the DM to only put in combat's that have meaning to the story because you can easily get bogged down in somewhat meaningless combat encounters and leads to boredom. That's why most of the 4e modules have sucked large so far, they're just a string of combat encounters pasted together.
Velmont
First Post
Sounds a fair analysis. But I would add something. When it come to skills, 3e give a more flexible way to handle skill and give a way to give some personality to your character.
4e have simplified the skill system to a point where skill doesn't define much your character as 3e did. As renau1g told, there is nothing bad to it. But I always had a preference on point system, and I must tell my favorite character on EnWorld up to now was a Rinaldo the Merchant (a 3rd edition Rogue), which allowed me to give more sense to his Merchant background than I was able to do it with Leonard Doherty (a 4th edition Bard)
4e have simplified the skill system to a point where skill doesn't define much your character as 3e did. As renau1g told, there is nothing bad to it. But I always had a preference on point system, and I must tell my favorite character on EnWorld up to now was a Rinaldo the Merchant (a 3rd edition Rogue), which allowed me to give more sense to his Merchant background than I was able to do it with Leonard Doherty (a 4th edition Bard)
renau1g
First Post
I like that my non-combat options are now not competing directly with (in all likelihood) superior combat-related options. Profession was great...except outside of your PC I didn't see any others spend more than 1 point on it. Great for background, but why do I need to spend a point on it?
I like saying, before I took up the sword, my hero was a blacksmith, but after the goblins invaded his town and slew his family, Reginald took arms and after some training became a Fighter. The DM looks at the sheet "Oh, sorry, you didn't take Profession (Blacksmith)"
I guess profession was potentially marginally useful in 3e while you had to wait for spellcasters to craft/scribe their stuff to pick up a handful of gold.
Again, I find that by removing a lot of the really focused, specified skills, it actually opened things up more and feels less restrictive. Outside of Perform/Profession I think all the skills ended up in 4e just somewhat grouped (and even PF did that).
Spot/Listen/Search -> Perception
Balance/Tumble -> Acrobatics
Jump/Climb -> Athletics
Etc, etc.
Similar Threads
D&D General
What Are Traps For?
