D&D 3.x 3.5 DM Considering 4E

[Hussar]

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.)

I see a lot of people saying this, but, honestly, I really don't see it. Yes, the mechanics are different, totally true. But, probably no more different than, say, going from core only AD&D to Full On All Splats 3e. And, if you played 3e outside of core, then 4e isn't really that huge of a jump.

In play, the biggest differences I see are:

1. Combat is a LOT more mobile. Makes sense. Everyone and their mother has stuff that makes you move. This has a number of knock on effects particularly when designing an encounter (narrow, 5 foot corridor makes a really boring 4e encounter).

2. The biggie for me is that characters now act out of turn all the time. Pre-4e, it was pretty rare that your character did anything outside of his turn in initiative. You might get an AOO once in a while (depending on build I suppose), but, that was about it. In 4e, it's not unusual to act two or three times in a given round - between the leader giving you extra attacks, increased mobility drawing opportunity attacks and that sort of thing.

Outside of combat though? It's not so much different. The skills are largely the same - the names might be a bit different, but, they generally do the same jobs. But, at the end of the day, you talk to NPC's, search around to find stuff, explore and then kill what you find.

Pretty much the same in every edition.

 

[Kzach]

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.

If something as inconsequential as fluff can turn you away from using the mechanics of a system, then I highly doubt you're going to be interested in anything 4e has to offer.

The simple fact is that none of the fluff associated with 4e needs to be used. It's like saying that you can only play OD&D in Greyhawk. Or was it Blackmoor? Mystara?

See the point yet?

If you're genuinely willing to give the system a go, then you first of all need to look past the fluff and determine if the mechanics are something you can adapt to and that would interest you as a DM to use in a game.

 

[delericho]

I see a lot of people saying this, but, honestly, I really don't see it. Yes, the mechanics are different, totally true. But, probably no more different than, say, going from core only AD&D to Full On All Splats 3e.

I consider the jump from 2nd Edition to 3e to be equally a massive shift. So, um, yeah.

Please note that "plays differently" isn't in itself a criticism - it all depends on how well you like each version.

1. Combat is a LOT more mobile. Makes sense. Everyone and their mother has stuff that makes you move. This has a number of knock on effects particularly when designing an encounter (narrow, 5 foot corridor makes a really boring 4e encounter).

2. The biggie for me is that characters now act out of turn all the time. Pre-4e, it was pretty rare that your character did anything outside of his turn in initiative. You might get an AOO once in a while (depending on build I suppose), but, that was about it. In 4e, it's not unusual to act two or three times in a given round - between the leader giving you extra attacks, increased mobility drawing opportunity attacks and that sort of thing.

Both of these, and the micro-management of short-term conditions, are the very things that I'd consider to be the big changes. Between them, they do make the game play very differently.

And although the out of combat stuff plays much the same, combat is so incredibly important to 4e that big changes to the combat system are enough to constitute big changes to the whole.

4e has a great deal in common with the previous editions, to be sure. But it also has huge changes.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

As you want to run the show as DM you should be aware of the different concept of combat encounters. Pre-4e encounters were scattered throughout the adventure, ranging from, to use a 1st level example, stumbling across two kobolds as random monsters to finding the court of the goblin king with all his retinue. Some were over with a few die rolls while others took quite some time and effort.

4e changes this by defining an encounter as a set piece designed to take a lot of time. In consequence you want to design or prepare fewer encounters but take more care in doing so. 4e shines when you use lots of enemies, maybe coming in waves.

This change leads to a different dynamic in the adventure. Combat-free phases are punctuated by big combat encounters while the older style had a more gentle ebb and flow with more and smaller pieces of action.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me the biggest difference is what the rules represent.

In 3e the rules were there to set up the world. In 4e the rules help everyone tell a story.

A lot of 4e rules are built on "Holywood Physics" - if it's vaguely plausible and pretty cool the 4e rules support it. 3e is built on a much more "realistic" basis except for the spellcasters. So a shotgun in 4e would knock someone backwards with the recoil because it's cool. In 3e you'd apply Newton's Laws. Which leaves the fighters stranded when the mages get to fly.

Also 4e is patterned like a show - everyone has spotlight time and levels of powers. At will/encounter/daily better translates to Default/Once per scene/Once per episode. And fighters can keep going like Indiana Jones or John McClain without needing spellcasters to support them. But there's a limit to even magical healing.

The next difference is that 4e is balanced. Vancian magic has gone (perversely it's easier to play characters from the Dying Earth wtihout it) and although Wizard daily powers are strong, so are e.g. Warlord dailies. Which is another thing - non-magic users can heal - or rather can yell at people enough that they climb back onto their feet. Which might not be realistic but is cinematic.

DMing is easier but different. The monster only has combat powers on its statblock - give it the rituals it needs if a caster and the skills (or use the DCs for what the PCs want to do and ignore the skills) ad hoc. It's telling a story not trying to simulate the world. But there's no looking up spells between four books. And other than major bosses the stats for monsters can be picked in minutes (or on occasion at the table) with no trouble at all.

And use whatever fluff you like. Most people who like to play martial classes will love you for the switch, most who like casters will find themselves limited as the martial characters are as effective and versatile as they are.

Edit: Minions will take a bit of getting used to. Basically with rare exceptions they are a way of getting monsters who are out of their league to contribute a little. And their XP values are often too low if a wizard can just nuke them.

 

[Rechan]

So @plunoir101 has this thread been helpful?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

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.

In my experience if you can run 3.5 without a grid you'll have no trouble running 4E without a grid. If you can fudge how many enemies are caught in a 20 foot radius Fireball, it's not difficult to convert squares to feet (1 square=5 feet) and fudge how many enemies are caught in a 35x35 foot square Fireball.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

What came out when I hit "post"

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

Second time this morning.
Man, that's frustrating when that happens.

Similar to what I actually posted:
I can't actually remember exactly what I wrote. Basically, the gist of it was that gridless 4e is very possible to run, but it changes the basic assumptions of what kind of powers, feats, and class features have value. Some of the powers that many consider crappy from a CharOp perspective would actually be decent in a gridless environment.

 

[mneme]

Yeah, that happend to me too, Nemisis. Worse than having code on the bottom of your messages (which regularly happens to me from Windows XP/Firefox.

And it just happened again (to this post, pre-edit). How annoying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Has there been a new setting published for 4e? The default setting really has very little to it, even now. The others have all been done for prior eds. There's a vast library of pre-existing 3e and earlier stuff, and adventures/settings for Pathfinder should be pretty useable with 3.5, too.

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 biggest differences are mechanical. The classes all have their class abilities organized into 'features' (which tend to support their Role) and 'powers' (which can be at-will, encounter or daily, and which more paint a picture of the class). Level advancement is pretty regular, and there's not much variation in 'BAB' (everyone is basically BAB 1/2, but /everyone/ rolls to hit with almost all attacks). Encounters are easier to design, classes are easier to keep balanced with eachother, magic items have slightly less dramatic impact than in 3.x - really, even though the mechanics used to achieve it changed radically, it continued the progress made in 3e.

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.

4e has edged back towards 3.x and AD&D slightly of late, but if the number of alignments and configuration of planes is enough to put you off, it has a long, long way to go before it become palatable.