So how is 4th edition?

[Derulbaskul]

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.

Exactly. If you're DMing then 4E is the game for you.

I also think if your players see the Character Builder they won't be too difficult to persuade to make the change.

I love 3.5E but, without good electronic utilities like 4E's Monster Builder, Character Builder and Compendium, it is just simply too hard to prepare for anymore, specially past about 6th-8th level. (I would happily play it again but I am the only DM I know.)

 

[Derulbaskul]

Lots of true stuff.

Like Gort, I was also this guy.

Using mattcolville's example, I could build that opponent using 4E's Monster Builder in about 10 minutes, more or less.

I love building unique opponents for my players to encounter, and they appreciate it too. 4E makes that so much easier and faster.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am playing in a 3.5 campaign that has gotten to level 16. Some of the players have problems remembering which of the 50-60 spells their characters know that is best for each situation. Every character day starts with who gets what buffs, planning which spells to use for that day, etc.

I am also playing in two 4e campaigns (one at level 9 and one at level 5). The characters are starting to get more powers, but it is at a much more manageable level. Combat lasts for 5 rounds instead of 2 rounds compared to 3.5, but take about the same amount of real time. In other words, your character gets to act 5 times instead of 2 times, and the waiting before it's your turn is much shorter.

 

[Kzach]

A poll is kinda pointless in the 4e rules forum since 99% of the people who frequent it are obviously going to be biased in favour of 4e and the other 1% are trolls looking for bait.

 

[Kzach]

Recently someone posted an interesting TED presentation in the General forum.

In it, the speaker talked about pasta sauce. He described how companies would conduct surveys to discover what it was people wanted. A man whose job it was to analyse this data set about determining people's preferences in a new and different way to the established methods.

What he discovered was that people don't know what they want. They think they know, but they don't. From his surveys, he discovered that when presented with a lot of various options, people invariably had different tastes. People would tell you that they wanted thin and watery pasta sauce, but what they really wanted was thick and chunky.

Almost overnight, thick and chunky pasta sauce became a major market.

So now we have dozens of different varieties of pasta sauces. One to suit every taste.

This brings me to 4e. It is another flavour and one that you may not realise you wanted until you give it a good try. If you'd asked me a year and a half ago what I wanted out of a system, I would not have given any response remotely like what 4e is. And yet, it is now by far my favourite system of all time.

It has it's flaws, but for the most part, it's now what I prefer. So I'd recommend buying the PHB and DMG (they're pretty cheap all things considered), getting a DDI account for three months, and running or playing in a game. If after that time you find it's not the system for you, then you can always sell the books and look for another flavour of pasta sauce.

 

[Starfox]

4E is a breeze to DM for. if you can get your players to embrace it, I'd say go for it. The cons are that the game is not nearly as balanced as it claims, much of the base rules (like Non-Armor-Defenses) don't work well, and it is safe, predictable, and slow in play which can make it a bit boring. 4E characters can also feel frat, and character development is restricted to the existing class options - if you like them you are good, but if you want to play something not statted up as a class, you are stonewalled.

3E is faster, more lethal, and swingier. This makes it more dangerous and less boring. There is a lot more freedom in designing player characters and in general, the player side of the game works better than 4E. PCs end up being more interesting and less one-dimensional. Nor is 3E really as unbalanced as is often claimed, and the lack of siloing means PCs can actually make up a lack in one area with a strength in another. The cons is the DM workload; the huge amount of work needed if you stat something up by the rules. And playing a non-spelluser in 3E can get pretty disappointing - not so much because of lack of power as lack of utility. Spells >> Skills in 3E.

In conclusion: 4E is a good game if you can stand its lack of feeling. 3E is a pretty bad GAME, but with a better feel.

 

[babinro]

4E is easy to setup as a DM compared to 3.5. Since that is all I find myself doing, it makes my choice clear.

4E benefits from all classes being interesting and allowing for enough options to prevent simply standing still and attacking every round. It also has a lot of cooperation within the game for PC's to combo their powers together and make the party better as a result, rather than try and see how strong of an individual player you can become. The combat so far seems to shine at earlier levels, and plays longer as you get into paragon (probably a lot longer by Epic).
When it comes down to it, the combat in 4E is simply a lot more fun for all involved. Clerics don't eat up entire turns having to heal players. They can heal and contribute. 4E doesn't demand a cleric role in the party configuration like 3.5 did. All classes have access to different levels of self healing and typically have powers to further it if desired. This makes a DM's life easier should no one want to play a certain archtype.


3.5 is prefered by many of my friends for the following reasons:
- Rules apply to both Monsters and PC's whereas 4E monsters follow entirely different guidelines <this I consider a major benefit to 4E but they consider it to be the most glaring flaw>
- More classes/feats.
- Less simplified skill system <I agree the 4E skill system seems too basic but is far easier to run>.
- Dislike for certain rule conversions based on what they feel didn't need changing. Take a look a swarm rules for example, almost completely opposite. They hate things like the new movement rules, the saving throw rules to them feels arbitrary...etc.


4E is worth trying out. I'd highly recommend learning the game from a low level...but trying it as well at something like level 9, or 13. The reason is that you'll start to appreciate the complexities of the game as you go. Whereas early levels may feel more limited. This was true for 3.5 as well. If you played only a level 1 wizard, you'd probably think they weren't that great. Give it time and you'll see what comes from it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Like Gort, I was also this guy.

I also. As a DM, I will never go back unless it's to run as-is modules. I mean as-is. Several times I spent many hours creating BBEG's only to have them get punked in the first round of combat. 10 minutes into the fight and *poof* there goes 12 hours down the drain. No thanks. That friggin' sucks.

I don't care what other downsides people claim about 4E, but spending 1/100th the time as GM to generate crunch is far and away worth it. Now I spend all my time on story.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Most improvements to 4E since you left it were on the players' side.

This comment is amazingly contrary to every other person who responding to the OP.

 

[keterys]

This comment is amazingly contrary to every other person who responding to the OP.

You have to read his post more closely. All of the big changes for DMs happened right when 4e launched, with the exception of the monster builder in DDI. Otherwise, it's been some steady increments (more magic items, more monsters), but players have gotten a lot more interesting options and subsystems in the year and a half since.

Comparing 4e at launch to 4e now, ie, not 3e to 4e.

Anyhow, I'm in the same boat - I won't DM 3e because 4e is so much easier and fun to DM. If I were forced to DM 3e, I'd probably do something like E6 where players are restricted to 6th level maximum and I'd continue to just make monsters like I do for 4e.