Mercule
Adventurer
This is dangerous ground and I hope it doesn't devolve into an edition war. Please keep the griping to a minimum. 3e and 4e are different systems, aimed at different play styles. As games, neither is inherently "better" than the other, just more "appropriate" to your style. Please approach the discussion with that assumption.
I just ended my 3.5 campaign and we're trying to decide what to do next (I posted a nWoD thread last week). 4e is up for discussion, but there are concerns.
Right after 4e came out, we ran a single session of KotS, using only the rules found there-in. As DM, I thought it looked like D&D. A couple of players really liked it. The paladin had the worst dice I've seen for years, so she's not sure what to think.
The wizard, though, had the most concern. He's the most experienced player at the table (I've got more experience, but I tend to GM) and is somewhat geared for fiddling with numbers, but without the collector's desire for shelves of books. He's also a big fan of arcanists/wizards. He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt. It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.
He likes Vancian magic (at least, modded with the UA spell-points) and I can't fault his preference. I've got something of the opposite opinion, though, so I can't really see it from his perspective.
Okay, enough background. On to the point:
I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has been "forcibly" converted to 4e. By that, I mean you were skeptical, but your group converted and you went along.
Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you? Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out? Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you? How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement? Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?
Again, I'm not looking for a "x edition is better" comment so much as I'm looking for why it ended up working or not working for you and/or your group. My group has certain play goals, and I'm trying to get information that is useful to them. (For the record, I'm currently thinking that most of the players would benefit from the ease of play I perceive in 4e, but I'm concerned that one player would be frustrated by certain aspects.)
I just ended my 3.5 campaign and we're trying to decide what to do next (I posted a nWoD thread last week). 4e is up for discussion, but there are concerns.
Right after 4e came out, we ran a single session of KotS, using only the rules found there-in. As DM, I thought it looked like D&D. A couple of players really liked it. The paladin had the worst dice I've seen for years, so she's not sure what to think.
The wizard, though, had the most concern. He's the most experienced player at the table (I've got more experience, but I tend to GM) and is somewhat geared for fiddling with numbers, but without the collector's desire for shelves of books. He's also a big fan of arcanists/wizards. He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt. It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.
He likes Vancian magic (at least, modded with the UA spell-points) and I can't fault his preference. I've got something of the opposite opinion, though, so I can't really see it from his perspective.
Okay, enough background. On to the point:
I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has been "forcibly" converted to 4e. By that, I mean you were skeptical, but your group converted and you went along.
Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you? Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out? Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you? How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement? Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?
Again, I'm not looking for a "x edition is better" comment so much as I'm looking for why it ended up working or not working for you and/or your group. My group has certain play goals, and I'm trying to get information that is useful to them. (For the record, I'm currently thinking that most of the players would benefit from the ease of play I perceive in 4e, but I'm concerned that one player would be frustrated by certain aspects.)