D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 DM Considering 4E

plunoir101

First Post
Ok, so I've been DMing for awhile and I keep getting tired of seeing great ideas and campaigns..... only for 4E. I am a 3.5 DM by nature and im very familiar with it.
-BUT-
I want to know some of the big differences between 3.5 and 4E, good things bad things, things to really consider, and major changes.
Now, i perused a 4E book once and after noticing that apparently that some alignments were missing and the whole planar system was rebuilt using some kind of "Primordial Chaos" crap i closed the book and said no way.
It has been a year i think since then and Im willing to give this a serious look but I really am afraid to do this alone.

Thanks in advance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ok, so I've been DMing for awhile and I keep getting tired of seeing great ideas and campaigns..... only for 4E.
What ideas or campaigns are you seeing that are only applicable to 4e?

This is also important: how does your group feel about 4e? Because even if you want to try it, if they are down on it, it will not make it an enjoyable experience.
 

Ok, so I've been DMing for awhile and I keep getting tired of seeing great ideas and campaigns..... only for 4E. I am a 3.5 DM by nature and im very familiar with it.
-BUT-
I want to know some of the big differences between 3.5 and 4E, good things bad things, things to really consider, and major changes.

The differences are pretty huge.

1) The classes are more balanced with each other (I'm only considering PH1 and Essentials 1 classes). What is Essentials? Read on.

PCs get more hit points than before. The good news is monster damage is also higher, and combat is still deadly and (IME) exciting. The "bad" news is it's nearly impossible to kill a PC in a single round. So, a kobold can still kill a 1st-level fighter or wizard as easily as it could in 3e over time, but even an orc isn't likely to insta-drop a wizard with a crit. This gives PCs a safety net and makes lower-level more survivable (as if you get critted, you might choose to run rather than just ... die). Some people don't like that.

PCs have more healing options. Every PC gets a number of healing surges (a daily resource based on class and Con score) equal to 1/4 of their hit point value. Almost all healing takes up a surge, so you can't ignore damage all day. Every PC can use Second Wind. As a standard action, they can spend a healing surge and gain a minor defensive boost until the start of their next turn. It's generally the last healing option.

In addition, each leader class gets an ability like Healing Word, Majestic Word or what have you 2 or even 3 times per encounter that allows a PC to spend another healing surge, and usually gives bonus healing on top of that. These abilities are minor actions, so leaders can heal and do stuff they want to do in combat. I find clerics can, at low levels, effectively double the value of a healing surge.

Healing items, like healing potions, take a surge but give back (usually) less.

Before Essentials, each class followed an AEDU scheme. At-Will, Encounter, Daily and Utility powers. Each character gets basic attacks; these are standard weapon attacks (both melee and ranged). Each character gets at least 2 at-will powers from a list that give them various options over basic attacks (for instance, the fighter can take Reaping Strike, which lets them do a little damage even on a miss). Some characters, like the wizard, instead can use things like Cloud of Daggers or Magic Missile as an at-will, and these are nothing like basic attacks. Some people aren't fans of this (it means a wizard can cast a minor spell every round and never need use a crossbow).

The real cool stuff starts with encounter powers. Each encounter power can, of course, be used only once per encounter. Usually encounter powers deal more damage or inflict a nasty status effect, often something that enhances a character's role. Burning Hands is an example of an encounter power. Some people don't like how martial characters like fighters get encounter powers.

Daily powers are even more powerful. Many named spells from 3.x are daily spells now. For instance, Fireball, which does half damage on a miss. Many daily powers inflict a nasty effect on the victim until they save. (Legion's Hold, for instance, dazes and immobilizes the victims until they save.)

Utility powers tend to be defensive or skill-boosting powers. Classic spells like Stoneskin and Dimension Door fall under this category. Utility powers can be at-will, encounter or daily, but at-will utility powers are pretty rare.

Each class fills one of four roles: defender, striker, controller and leader. Each name pretty much does what it says on the tin.

An example of the defender are fighters and paladins. Defenders can usually mark opponents, which draws their attention, inflicting a -2 penalty on the opponent's attack roll except for attacks against the fighter. As defenders get high AC scores, you'd rather take the hits than a squishier wizard might.

The PH1 fighter has an ability called Combat Challenge. Every time it attacks something, even if it misses, it marks them until the end of its turn. In addition, if a marked creature tries to shift (the new 5 foot step) near the fighter or attack another creature, the fighter gets to immediately attack that creature. So naturally the creature "should" focus on the fighter. In addition, the fighter gets bonuses to opportunity attacks and can force a creature it hits with an opportunity attack to stop moving.

Contrast with the paladin. The PH1 version of the paladin has an ability called Divine Challenge. This is a minor action (swift action, in essence) that targets any enemy within 5 squares and affects it for the rest of the encounter. That creature is marked by the paladin. If that creature attacks anyone other than the paladin, it takes radiant damage based on the paladin's level and Charisma score.

Different, but both are "sticky".

Defender encounter abilities tend to enhance stickiness. For instance, the paladin's Piercing Smite ability marks all opponents next to whatever the paladin hit for at least 1 turn.

Strikers do damage. Rogues are the classic striker. So are rangers now. Rogues do sneak attack (naturally) anytime they gain combat advantage (that's the equivalent of losing your Dex bonus to AC), and many of their abilities let them gain combat advantage on a victim, so they can keep with the stabbing. Contrast with rangers, which can use Hunter's Quarry on a single opponent, doing bonus damage whenever they hit them. Strikers tend to have low defenses because players give them very high Dex scores, letting other scores lag. Note that wizards are not strikers.

Controllers are supposed to inflict negative status effects. Wizards are the only controller in the PH. They have two builds: wand and orb. (Also staff, but no one plays those. ^^) Wand wizards are wannabe artillery. They don't deal high single-target damage but can use AoE attacks at-will. (Truthfully any wizard can do this.) As an encounter or daily ability (I forget which), a wand wizard can use their Dex bonus in addition to their Int bonus when making a magic attack roll. Orb wizards (orbizards) tend to focus on save-or-suffer effects, and with their orb, can once per encounter or day either inflict penalties on a saving throw for one round or "repeat" an effect (so, if an effect dazes an opponent to the end of the wizard's next turn, they can extend that effect until the end of the wizard's next next turn instead.)

Some of the more flexible non-combat powers have instead become rituals. Those take a long time to cast (usually 1 or 10 minutes) and gold, but often have powerful effects.

Leaders are probably my favorite class type, especially the warlord. The two leader classes in the PH1 are cleric and warlord. As mentioned above, leaders have a minor action healing power.

The cleric has two builds in the PH1: "laser cleric" and "strength cleric". Laser clerics are my favorite. I've played a few clerics before and simply had no idea what spells to pick (compare to a wizard, where it was pretty obvious what to take). The laser cleric tends to take Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame as at-will powers. The former does radiant damage and gives an ally +2 to hit that target, while the latter gives an ally temporary hit points or lets them make an immediate save (the latter is sweeter than you probably think). Strength clerics often take Righteous Brand, which is a divine weapon attack. If it hits, allies get a bonus to hit that victim equal to your Strength bonus. Needless to say, cleric-flavored NPCs are hated by PCs, especially when they're giving attack bonuses to controllers!

Clerics get Turn Undead as an encounter ability. Unlike the 2e or 3.x versions, this is easy to understand. It does radiant damage to undead in a blast (half damage on a miss), and if it hits, it pushes the undead away and immobilizes them for a turn. Please note that most undead have vulnerability to radiant damage. A cleric can take a feat that lets it switch out turn undead (if it wants to, you don't lose turn undead) for an ability more closely associated with their deity. I found most of these abilities to be pretty weak, actually, and hopefully some non-core books have cooler options in them.

The warlord makes me drool, it's that cool for me. They come in two flavors as well, the Intelligence-based warlord and the Charisma-based warlord. Don't let the names fool you, Strength is your most important stat, a little sadly. One of your at-will abilities you can take allows an opponent to make a basic attack as a free action, which can be worth it because it also gives them bonuses. Use it on your most damage-dealing defender. Another attack lets you hit an opponent's Fort defense, doing minor damage but also giving an ally an attack against them. In fact, warlords are great at giving out attacks like that. An encounter ability, Hammer and Anvil, gives you a damage-dealing attack and also gives an ally one (with your Charisma bonus to their damage). The daily powers are almost scary; there's some that give all of your allies attack bonuses against the target for the rest of the encounter. Naturally you use that one first. An then there's utility powers like Knight's Move, which gives an ally a free move as a free action.

They also get Inspiring Word, a martial healing power. It doesn't seem very flavorful, but it means you can have a party without a cleric.

Monsters are also done up differently, designed to focus on simplicity. Most of the numbers are based on level. Most monsters have an attack bonus of level +5 vs AC or +3 vs non-AC-defenses. Their hit points are based mainly on level; rarely do you have a monster with a massive number of hit points but no special abilities (there are no 32 or 64 HD colossal zombies with a CR of only 11, doing massive damage but having poor AC and saving throws).

Monsters come in several roles: soldier (defender), artillery (striker), skirmisher (striker), lurker (something like a striker), brute (heavy) and controller. Note that leader is not a type by itself, instead leader is a "subtype" that's added to an existing role.

Skirmishers either get to move a lot, get special bonuses when they move, or both.

Lurkers focus on Stealth. Be sure to read the rules for Hidden Club before you use that skill; it's been errata'd too. A lot of lurkers can turn invisible.

Brutes do extra damage, have more hit points, and low AC scores.

Leader monsters rarely heal, instead giving bonuses to attack, damage, movement, etc.

Some monsters are elites or even solos. A solo is something like a dragon, designed to take on a whole party. The rules enable it to match a PC party's action economy, and give it special bonuses so it can't usually be taken down by a single control spell.

What is Essentials? This is somewhat controversial. WotC got some things in 4e wrong and essentially (heh) built a new set of core rules. So far the various PH1 classes have gotten new versions. They're compatible in the sense that you could have a PH1 fighter and an Essentials fighter in the same group, and there's no clashes. But you probably shouldn't let a PH1 fighter take Essentials feats or an Essentials fighter take PH1 feats, as they're not playtested with each other (probably, that is). The exception are some of the Expertise feats, but that's a topic for another day.

Most Essentials classes don't have daily abilities (certainly not the non-spellcasters). They have much less choice in abilities you can pick, making them seem like they're for "beginners" (whether this be true or not). The upside is it's even harder to make a weak PC using Essentials.

They also tend to be a little more true to their role (Essentials thieves, the equivalent to rogues, no longer have "control" abilities) and their abilities tend to be simpler to use, to the point that I often use Essentials rules when creating monsters. The Essentials wizard (the "mage") probably matches wizard flavor better, but seem a little more restrictive too. They have cool Enchantment and Illusion effects.

An element of inflexibility: they tend to focus on only one build (the Mage is the only exception to this). For instance, the Essential cleric, a warpriest, is only a Strength cleric. Not one of their abilities except Healing Word has range. There's no Lance of Laser Faith option :( The hexblade is a very specific take on a warlock.

Now, i perused a 4E book once and after noticing that apparently that some alignments were missing and the whole planar system was rebuilt using some kind of "Primordial Chaos" crap i closed the book and said no way.

Poorly-explained alignments were removed. People didn't know what chaotic good or chaotic neutral meant, or what lawful evil meant. Some people thought WotC went overboard with dumping alignments. In any event, you can easily add those alignments back, and of course you can write descriptions of those alignments that actually make sense. Please note that alignments have effectively no metagame effect. There are no detect alignment spells, no alignment blast, etc. Artifacts that are based on alignment instead become "nicer" or "nastier" depending on specific actions -- the Hand and Eye of Vecna, for instance, become happier if you torture information out of someone (an evil act, and Vecna is the god of secrets) whereas it becomes upset if you kill undead. Paladins no longer arbitrarily fall (hallelujah, I might actually play one for once!).

Planar system is based on the setting, and the one you're seeing is based on the Nentir Vale Points of Light setting. I'm running Dark Sun and use its planar system. There's no problem at all. You're worried over nothing.
 
Last edited:

Ok, so I've been DMing for awhile and I keep getting tired of seeing great ideas and campaigns..... only for 4E. I am a 3.5 DM by nature and im very familiar with it.
-BUT-
I want to know some of the big differences between 3.5 and 4E, good things bad things, things to really consider, and major changes.
Now, i perused a 4E book once and after noticing that apparently that some alignments were missing and the whole planar system was rebuilt using some kind of "Primordial Chaos" crap i closed the book and said no way.
It has been a year i think since then and Im willing to give this a serious look but I really am afraid to do this alone.

Thanks in advance.
Well, first, you're not alone. The folks here at Enworld are generally helpful, mostly fellow DMs, and glad to answer questions and share experiences.

Psi just a decent job of outlining a lot of changes, so I'm largely going to try not to overlap with his answers.

Things to consider:

-You don't know the rules anymore.
This has been, even years into playing 4e, one of my biggest hang-ups. A lot of small changes have happened, and it can be easy to assume you know the rules because you remember them from 3.5, only to look them up and find that things are subtly different. For example, it was fully two years of weekly 4e before I found out that a charge is no longer -2Ac, +2 to hit, but rather +1 to hit and no AC penalty.

-Alignment has changed. Make that "been de-fanged".
As you noted, 4e uses a 5 point alignment system as opposed to the 9-point of older editions. The real change, though, is that there aren't a lot of alignment mechanics going around. There's no Detect Alignment spells, no Helm of Opposite Alignment. If you prefer the 9-point system, it really isn't a big deal to just keep using it. My players still describe their characters in those terms.

-Setting.
The planes have been changed, as you pointed out. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a new planar system has been introduced. Personally, I like the 4e default setting, including its cosmology, and suggest at least giving it a good read with an open mind. On the other hand, if you still don't like it, or like many DMs, simply want to run homebrew stuff, I find 4e is really good at getting out of the DM's way in world-building. A big part of this is that PCs are assumed to run by different rules than NPCs, and NPC rules are very flexible. But basically, any setting works more or less fine in 4e. I've played 4e Greyhawk, and it worked as well as it did in 1e.

-The rules have a bit of a different focus.
linky link.
 

One thing I`d like to add from my personal 4E-experience is that they have changed the mechanics behind the races as well. Each race except for humans gets 2 ability score-bonuses and 4E does not do racial penalties. Dwarfes get Wis and Con+2, for example, but there is no penalty to Charisma, despite the fluff in thew PHB still suggesting their view of the world is a little out of synch with the standards of the rest of the world.

Many races now also bring a special so-called 'racial power' to the gaming-table and some of them can be enhanced with the use of feats. In fact, every race now has racial feats which are only accessible for members of the given race. These racial powers along with the ability score-bonuses are now the schtick about every race and 4E assumes your players take that into consideration when building their characters. IMHO the right combination of race and class is even more important than in 3.x.

And just another note: 4E does not really do subraces, neither does it do Level Adjustment.

Sadly, while it certainly did help balance things out it ultimately forced them to remove quite a lot of unique, more exotic races like arctic dwarves, so there may be some dissapointment when you tell your players to choose their characters` races(at least, if your players enjoy the flavor of the niche races as much as my players do).

All in all, I agree with (Psi)SeveredHead that 4E is a lot better at balancing.

To make things easier for the very start I`d suggest you reduce your players`ressources to the PHB 1-3 and maybe the power books(Arcane Power, Martial Power, Primal Power, Divine Power) and forgo the use of Psionics and Hybrid Characters. The material from the Dragon Magazine is often crazy powerful in comparison to the printed options and allowing this into your game could escalate into an arm`s race between your players.

I can`t really give you any advice on the matter of Essentials vs Old-4E, fot our group onlly uses 'classic' 4E-material but I`m rather confident other members of enworld or your search-fu can help you out with that ;)
 

One major difference, and it seems to me the one that more people get outraged about (in both directions) than any other, is where the two systems fall on the "fluff vs crunch" axis.

In 3.x, a spell or effect is defined by what it does... a fireball makes a huge blast of fire, a rogue stabs an unsuspecting opponent in a vital spot. Then the game applies that description to the game world, and has to come up with rules for how the described effect interacts with various situations. Does a fireball work underwater? Do zombies have vital spots? This resulted in a very complex and very real-feeling world.

In 4.0, a spell or effect is defined in game terms - a fireball does so many dice of fire damage in this area, a rogue deals extra dice when he or she has combat advantage. These effects are reliably applied in nearly all situations; if your attack says you knock an opponent prone, then the opponent loses its move action "standing up", never mind that it's flying, or a snake, or a gelatinous cube. It's up to the player or the GM to describe how exactly that happens, though many groups just assume "it's magic" and move on. This results in a very fair game.
A monster may be immune to fire or poison, but that is rare, and a monster will never be "immune to sneak attacks" or "magic-proof" or otherwise gimp a class's only way to fight it.

"Save or die" effects are nearly gone, and typically require 3 failed saves to kill you, offering time to try to solve the problem. Recovery from even the worst effects is gentler than previous editions - no permanent level drain or stat loss, and even rust monsters give you back the value of the items they ate when you kill them.

I also disagree with some of the statements about Essentials vs PH1 classes. Switching powers and feats between them, to the extent allowed by the rules, works just fine. Sorting it all out without the Character Builder is hard; with the program, you won't even know you're taking powers from both sources. The most confusing one may be: Rangers have 7 builds - archer, marauder, 2 blade, beastmaster, scout, hunter, and hunter (no, I didn't stutter). Archer and 2 blade are in PH1, beastmaster is in Martial Power, marauder and hunter are in Martial Power 2, and scout and the other hunter are in Essentials. All of the builds can poach from one another, but the non-AEDU structure of the Essentials ones limits the poaching somewhat.

OK, I take it back, warlocks are more confusing; I think we are up to 13 builds now (an excellent number for warlocks).
 
Last edited:

I'd go further on what resources aren't allowed. You don't want to see a Battlerager fighter, for instance.

(I'm also glad arctic dwarves are gone. They didn't need different stats.)
 

And just another note: 4E does not really do subraces, neither does it do Level Adjustment.

The comment about subraces was true at the beginning, but ceased to be true at least a while ago. 4e does subraces in three ways: Branching racial stats, feats, or racial feature swaps.

Shifters use the first method. When you make a Shifter, you choose Longtooth or Razorclaw. They are equally balanced, just different. This is the only race that does it this way, though.

Dusk Elves use the second option, with a feat that makes an Elf into a Dusk Elf, and additional Dusk Elf-only game elements. These add additional features, since you are paying character creation/maintenance costs for them. These are found in Dragon/player side of D&D Insider, as well as the Character Builder and Compendium. And I guess I should give an honorable mention to FR racial feats, such as Wild Elf Luck (must be elf; adds +1d4 to elven accuracy reroll; cannot take Wood Elf Agility), which also made you a subrace, sorta.

Gold Dwarves use the third option. In the Neverwinter Campaign Guide, you can choose to be a Gold Dwarf, which gives you options such as swapping Iron Stomach (+5 save vs poison) for Iron Mind (+5 save vs Fear). These are roughly equivalent in power to the features you are choosing to forgo.

And with themes, you could create a 4th option.
 

There are some philosophical and rules based differences between 3e and 4e.

Grid Based Combat

The system requires a grid. There's no way to fudge it. Spells/powers et al refer to distances in terms of squares, not feet.

Fights last the same amount of time, but are more rounds

Fights in 3e and 4e usually last around 30-45 minutes. The difference is that in 3e they usually last only 2 rounds. In 4e they usually last around 5-6. So in a way more stuff happens.

You don't need universal rules for that

Do you want a statue in a room that grants those around it Resist 5 (which works like DR)? You can. You just have to say that statue is special; you don't have to justify it with what magic was cast on it. If you want an effect, if you want a monster to have an ability, you just give it to them.

In 3e, monsters had abilities PCs could likely get. Furthermore, all NPC skills/stats/abilities were basically based around a strong formula and if they had class levels they operated like PCs. You had to account for their skill points and spell slots.

But in 4e, the only formula present is the monster's role (a lot like it's class; what it does in combat) which dictates its HP, Defenses, the attack bonus and the damage its abilities can do. That's it. If you want an enemy mage, you don't have to look through wizard powers, just give them a few powers that feel "Mage" like.

This often can mean that you have rules for situations but that situation is special. This monster does something no other monster can do, so the rules for it is special. Swallow Whole works different ways for different monsters.

When it comes to skills, if you need a weak NPC who has a great set of Knowledge skills, you don't have to level them to determine what their skills are - you just tack on a number that feels satisfying and go.

The Rules are Combat vs. Non-Combat

Monster statblocks are smaller, intent to fit on a single index card. All the relevant rules to a monster's power is in the statblock, so you don't have to look up how that ability works anywhere else in the books. Even higher level spellcasters have about as many powers as this monster does, all the relevant information for the spell is there in the statblock, and that's it. If it has some buffs running, just include that in the stats and don't bother accounting for a spell cast before combat. All of this makes monsters easier to prep and run in a combat because all the stuff is small.

Non-combat abilities do not go on the statblock; the statblock is just the monster's combat stats. But what about non-combat abilities? Well, just like monster abilities - the monster just has them. Do you want a Pit Fiend with scrying and the ability to make a volcano erupt? He just can. That's a non-combat spell - a Ritual.

PCs have Rituals too. These are your "Identify magic item", your "Tensor's floating disks" etc. PCs also get non-combat powers (known as Utilities) which have a lot of your various non-combat spells (Charm Person for instance, or invisibility).

Aside from Rituals, all effects have only a few durations. Either: End of your Next Turn, Sustain (you spend an action every round to keep this power going), or until the End of the Encounter (until the fight ends). No more tracking spell duration by minutes or rounds.

Because monsters are simpler, and also tougher (Standard monsters have the same HP as PCs) then a typical combat will involve several monsters. 1 Standard Monster = 1 PC. The XP for this is easier to calculate, and each encounter assumes this, so it's easier than figuring CR/EL.

Everything Works, Except for Exceptions

All effects occur in all cases, unless there's an ability that says otherwise. For instance. A PC can knock an ooze prone. How does that work? Well in game terms, it doesn't matter what the effect looks like - it just is subject to the effects of Prone (-2 to attacks, -2 to AC/defenses, can't move, need a move action to 'stand up'). Within the context of the scene, the ooze could have been splattered into little pieces and has to spend a move action to pull itself together, or its membrane was breached and it 'deflated' or lost consistency. The description is up to you, but the effect, in game terms, occurs.

This is important because many monsters have corner cases that in one instance, they can break a rule. For instance you could have a monster that says 'Can't be knocked prone'. Thus it gets to break the rules.

You explain it

The above is pretty much involved with players and monster abilities alike. You get the game rules, and (in PC power cases) a fluff text, but what it looks like in action is up to you. In some cases this is called reskinning - using the stats for one thing but describing it as another. One person on this board used a Telekinetic Psion and described him as a wind wizard - all his powers were gusts of wind, tornados and the like. He was just using a different class's rules to do it.

You don't have to use it

You saw 5 alignments. Well, the alignments are unrelated to mechanics - there are no mechanics that deal with alignment. So you could use the 9 alignments if you want, or not bother with alignment at all - either way, it will have no impact on the game.

The same with the cosmology - you could use the 4e planes, or use the Great Wheel - it has no baring on the rules.

The PHB has some races that you might consider crazy. The PHB3 has Psionics. You, as the DM, can say "No, we won't use those races/classes" and that won't destroy the game.

If you want to play in a world that's low magic, you can easily do something to the rules so PCs get the bonuses from magical items without having magical items. This way the attack/defenses don't lag, but they just don't have tons of magical items.

Grapple is easier

Grapple is simple. It's just a straightforward attack that immobilizes an opponent (They can't move to any other square). To escape a grab, you need to roll athletics or acrobatics against an enemy's fortitude or reflex. Few monsters impose penalties to escaping the grab, so there's none of this 'it's impossible to escape a grapple from a Large monster'. Many monsters impose grab if their attack hits, and then they have abilities that depend on a target being grabbed.

On Classes and Characters

I know that you're going to DM, and everyone here is talking about classes. I want to just say a little bit about classes/players, because as the DM, you're going to have to deal with transitioning your group and also dealing with PCs.

1) PC classes have a role. A role is basically "What does this class do best in combat?" In past editions for a large part, that meant 'kill the enemy fast'. But there's more to it than that. There has always been 'put the mage in the back ranks, let the fighter take the abuse'. Now, the fighter (and other defenders) can do that easier, by giving monsters a reason to attack them. Wizards (and other controllers) are about debuffs and otherwise messing with enemy tactics. Leaders are about party buffs and otherwise group synergy. Strikers kill monsters fast - they do lots of damage.

This also means that PC classes are meant to work as a team, as many powers compliment one another.

2) PCs are more durable. They have more healing and more hit points, so even first level PCs have enough to survive a few hits before going down. A single crit will not kill them.

3) PCs have more to do. Even Clerics and other leaders can heal, move, and attack in a single round. Even Fighters are doing more than just 'I attack with my sword'. Once per encounter they can attack everyone around them as though they had Whirlwind, or they might do twice the amount of damage and knock an enemy prone, etc. Everyone also gets a "Daily" power.

Often the complaint then is "Every character is a wizard", that every player has too many choices at character creation and too many each round. For the players that like to just swing their sword or not worry about powers, this is for the most part what the Essentials are for - they make more simpler, direct classes. Also the Essentials non-magical classes (Fighter, Rogue, ranger) do not have Daily powers - the presence of daily powers bothered some people because 'why can you only do something once a day that isn't magic?'

Sidenote: The wizard in the PHB1 is likely going to tick off most players used to playing 3e wizards. And the Wizard in the PHB1 is IMO weak and unsatisfying. The Essentials Wizard feels more like a Real wizard and has more flexibility and room to strut. The Essentials wizard also is the first printing of Charmed Person (called Instant Friends).
 
Last edited:

Ok, so I've been DMing for awhile and I keep getting tired of seeing great ideas and campaigns..... only for 4E.

What do you mean by this? If you're talking about WotC's pregenerated adventures, be aware that these are almost all very poorly executed.

The EN Publishing adventures are well regarded, but these are also available for Pathfinder (which will convert to 3.5e easily).

I am a 3.5 DM by nature and im very familiar with it.

If you're happy with 3.5e, it may well be wise just to stick with that. If you're mostly happy but have a few hates, Pathfinder may be the better option - it's very definitely an update to 3.5e, rather than a major redesign.

4e is vastly different from 3.5e. The rules are very different, the default world is very different, it plays differently. In some areas, the game has had some much needed simplification applied... and in other areas it's much more complex. (They've traded tracking of lots of stacking modifiers for a micro-management of short-term conditions.)

My best advice is probably to find and download "Keep on the Shadowfell" from the WotC website. This is an adventure that includes a set of pre-gen characters and a rules primer. Basically, it's enough to give you a taster of the way the game plays. (But be aware that the adventure itself is a bit of a stinker - use it to get a feel of the rules; try not to judge the system based on the bad adventure!)

Now, i perused a 4E book once and after noticing that apparently that some alignments were missing and the whole planar system was rebuilt using some kind of "Primordial Chaos" crap i closed the book and said no way.

Those are still true, and if they're still a deal-breaker then stay away... However, if you really wanted to back-port the old alignments and the old planes (or mostly anything that has been removed), this should be easily enough done - they're just story elements.

It has been a year i think since then and Im willing to give this a serious look but I really am afraid to do this alone.

If you're going to be the DM, and you're this uncertain, I would again suggest staying clear.

When I tried to run 4e, I hated it. But there's another DM in the group who was bitten by the 4e bug hard, and when he runs the game his enthusiasm for it really makes it shine - in his hands the game runs really well. That enthusiasm for the system just makes a huge difference.

(It's also very telling that the moment he switched to a WotC adventure, "Sceptre Tower of Spellgard", it immediately killed his enthusiasm, and the game sucked. That adventure very quickly and effectively killed what had been a fun and exciting campaign.)
 

Remove ads

Top