So how is 4th edition?

3.5 or 4th for a new campaign

  • 3.5 is good based on your post

    Votes: 8 8.5%
  • 4th is good based on your post

    Votes: 61 64.9%
  • Either edition will work, as they both have merit

    Votes: 20 21.3%
  • Sorry, I don't think I can help you here

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • See my response under the topic

    Votes: 5 5.3%

I run and play both 3.5 and 4E (though nothing older) and when I start a new game, I think of what system and level best supports that campaign. Generally higher levels tend to go into 4E and lower levels can be either, though I tend for 4E there also.

4E works on a lot of levels for me, but not all of them. So far as a rich tactical combat goes, 4E wins over 3.5 hands down. There are too many off-level spells, and save or die things out there for fun in combat, as many players jsut abuse the strongest spells, feats and abilities that they can get away with.

Yes, that can happen in 4E also, but it does nto seem to matter as much.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have never played anything older than 4e, so I have nothing to compare to, but from what I've heard about the older editions, I don't want to play them. 4e is very good at letting you improvise. I have on many occasions not planned very far for a session and my players have surpassed the point I stopped at. I just started making it up as I went along. If you're a good actor, the players won't even notice. If you can't bluff, they'll tell that you're making it up, but they'll still have fun without having to wait.

It's also, as has been said, a lot better for tactical combat. I played Star Wars RPG twice, which I think is like 3e, and our combat was just roll, hit or miss, get attacked, repeat (it was more like roll, miss, get attacked unless already cowering for me, playing a droid noble with a blaster and -1 Dex, but I digress). In 4e, it can get boring, but if you know how, you can make amazing encounters with really interesting choices for the players and even the DM to make.

Thus, DON'T PLAY 4E IF YOU ARE GOING TO DESIGN ENCOUNTERS LIKE THEY WERE DESIGNED (from what I've seen, mind you) IN 3E! Putting an orc in a room guarding a chest, even if it's five orcs guarding a chest, is boring in 4e. Combat encounters should only happen if they help move along the story or provide something new for the players. You need a lot of interesting terrain to make it worth it. Combat can even take place in multiple rooms at once! If you plan to improvise (paradoxical as it may seem), have a bunch of possibilities for fantastic or otherwise tactically interesting terrain ready to input into an encounter you make on the spot. For example, terrain powers in the DMG2 are very useful. The characters can push over a bookcase or cause a chandelier to fall on their enemies. They're also easy to make up on the spot using the damage by level tables in the DMG. Skill challenges, though many say are broken, are not if you know how to make them. Get the DMG2; it's worth it.

Okay, I've said a bunch. I'm not trying to get you to like 4e; it's just a good game. For me and many others at least.

Try to have fun with whatever you pick!
 


4e is a lot easier on the GM. Encounters are so easy to whip up, you end up spending more time on the plot and other stuff. I'd recommend it, but given that you're posting in the 4e forum, I'm not sure what else you were expecting.

This.

As a player, there's things I like about both systems. As a DM, I'll take 4th any day. Its much less time consuming to make stuff up.
 

4e is a lot easier on the GM. Encounters are so easy to whip up, you end up spending more time on the plot and other stuff. I'd recommend it, but given that you're posting in the 4e forum, I'm not sure what else you were expecting.

This.

As a player, there's things I like about both systems. As a DM, I'll take 4th any day. Its much less time consuming to make stuff up.

As a DM who recently started a Trailblazer campaign, one that I'm enjoying have much enthusiasm for*, I'd rather run 4E. Monsters and encounters are a breeze to generate; the concept, including why they are there and what they want, it eight times more difficult than the stat blocks (and with DDI support it gets even easier). All of which leaves me with more time to devote to making the game fun, interesting, and enjoyable for both me and my players.

Good luck with your decision and I hope your group ends up happy with the results.

*I'm running the Shackled City adventure path, so I don't have to do much of the mechanical fiddling that was required when I ran my previous 3.x games. This has allowed me to overcome my issues and enjoy running the campaign and adjusting it to fit my players.
 

Why 4th edition works for me:

Characters are more clearly defined and stand out from each other. Each can have a 'wow' factor for encounters without over-shadowing the others.

Progression is a lot smoother and rewarding. Even though a lot of key abilities are handed out at level 1. No more 'oh, I don't get anything this level'

The monster mix is much better making it easier for DMs to craft complex encounters.

Less complex generic rules. Instead there's more class/ability/item specific rules.

Cons:

Skill challenges as per the core rules suck. I've run my own interpretation in the spirit of the idea. It's no great loss if you just ignore skill challenges.

"Putting an orc in a room guarding a chest, even if it's five orcs guarding a chest, is boring in 4e." - There is definitely more work required on the DM to keep things interesting. But then we probably should have been doing this already. Like Wizards I've been borrowing heavily from RPG computer games for ideas :)
 

As many have said 4e is MUCH easier and less time consuming on the part of the GM (Which is why I run it). That being said, as a player I have found the system far more restrictive then the previous editions. This is easing as more and more splat books come out.
Combat in general flows better though at the higher levels starts to become cumbersome and nitpicky, no where near as definitive (or deadly) as 3e. I suspect this will get worse as more books come out as it did in previous editions.
An important note, 4e has the PCs powerful as a group instead of powerful as individuals (as in 3e). While this is great for standard combat encounters, I have had trouble imagining as a player ever having a scene that plays out with my character one on one against his hated nemesis in a duel to the death. That really just cant happen with the mechanics and classes as they are now. Everything is a group activity. Its not a bad thing, just something to note.
To answer the OP question directly; if you are a working stiff trying to GM a group or If your players don't have a preference go 4e and don't look back. If you have the time (lots of time), the books, and your players each want to be the ultimate badass, stick with 3e.
 

i found the 3.5 system a better system at the time because I loved the interconnected rules, and easy tables.

3E's great merit is its unparalleled robustness. I think this is what you're describing when you talk about "interconnectedness" of the rules.

The example I always use is Grappling. It's 1,600 words (2.5 pages in any other RPG book, but the D&D3 PHB has incredibly high words per page for just this reason) in the D&D3 PHB.

It's a lot of detail just to grab someone. When you read it, it all makes sense. Each step in the process makes sense, it works in a manner that is consistent with how the rest of the game works, and has a lot of detail. Robust.

If you like that kind of thing, then D&D3 is for you. I spent, no joke, 6 hours once creating a Bugbear boss (named BITER) who was a Lasher. A bugbear who used a whip. It took me six hours to make that one dude because there was no e-support, nothing like the Monster Builder for 4E. I had to go figure out how Whips work, Whip Daggers, make a whip attack that doesn't do subdual damage, does a whip attack provoke, all the various feats that let someone use a whip to disarm you, how disarm WORKS, a feat that let you pull the disarmed weapon toward you WITH your whip, another feat that let's you GRAB the weapon you just pulled toward you. The Lasher prestige class, what classes did a bugbear need to qualify, how many class levels did I have to give him to get the feats necessary.

It took six hours for a few reasons.

1: I did not have a high degree of experience with disarming. It's very complex in D&D3, lots of feats that cover it. D&D3 is built on the premise that overall, you always suck at everything and are unlikely to succeed at a grab or a disarm or anything like that, unless you take a few feats to become competent. So I had to learn a lot about how Disarming works and how you can become really good at it. If I wanted to play by the rules--and if I didn't, why am I playing an incredibly robust system?--I had to do a lot of research. Disarm and how Whips work.

2: All these rules were spread out over several books. There was a phenomenal amount of cross-referencing.

3: Once I knew how everything worked, and had all the books open to the right pages, it still took a lot of brainpower to create the character. Figure out how all the pieces fit together, try different builds to see what worked. It was not easy.

In the end, this monster lived about 8 rounds, which was about 90 minutes. And at the end of that 90 minutes I was delighted because Biter scared the crap out of my players and lived long enough to do all the cool stuff he could do, without me having to cheat to keep him alive. At one point the PC cleric summoned a Celestial Black Bear and sent him after Biter dismissively, "oh I'll have the bear take care of him" and the bear provoked an attack, and Biter obliterated him and everyone went "O_O".

But afterwards, happy though I was, I was forced to conclude that a 6 hour investment for a 90 minute payoff, on one NPC who I'd likely never use again (because how often can you get away with a Bugbear Lasher?) was a kind of madness. I spent longer on Biter than we did playing that night.

That's just me. I was in many ways the target audience for 4E. I was crazy in love with 3 and played it weekly for its entire history, but in the end I was desperate for something that didn't require so much work.

Last week I, as a player, watched as our GM, on the fly, using a laptop, the Combat Manager (indispensable, cannot imagine running a game the old way) and the Monster Builder, build an entire Kobold encounter on the fly, but make a custom Kobold War Drummer and Kobold Standard Bearer in seconds. Prep time? 0 prep time. No prep time. He did it on the fly, at the table, while the rest of us were roleplaying.

So if you want that kind of "I am an arcane researcher with my tomes open before me and guttering candles illuminating my vision," if you like that feeling of incredible depth in the rules and that pouring over them for 4 hours will give you a more optimized character than someone who only poured over them for 3, then D&D3 is for you. For many years, I was that guy. This is no indictment of D&D3, it made a lot of people happy for a long time.
 

Lots of true stuff.

I was also that guy. Once you got to a certain level, you basically had to start designing your own monsters and NPCs - the stuff in the monster manuals and sourcebooks wouldn't "fit" your party at all, and the problem only grew with the more levels your players got.
 

If you do a 3.5 campaign, do yourself a favour and stick to PHB mainly. At least start with that.

After several sessions, you may consider proposing prestige classes to players if you find one that fits with his build, maybe even dropping prerequisites or allow retraining of feats. (That was the intend of prestige classes and they really do work this way)

You may also propose feats from complete books if you see it fit, but really, have your players browse through many books...

For skills, remember: use low numbers (10, 15 and 20) for easy, medium and hard tasks. This encourages spreading them and makes cross class skills worthwhile.

If you play 4th edition, I would stick to non-online content. Use character builder though and erratas only if its benefical to the player or if you see that the power is to good that it makes combats boring.
 

Remove ads

Top