D&D 3E/3.5 Helping a Former 3.5 Player Get 4e

[KarinsDad]

As a corrollary, often it's more important to go together than to go first.

Although this advantage works for monsters as well. If the PCs are all lumped together with initiative, this generally means that monsters are as well. That makes ganging up on a single PC easier for the monsters.

If the DM rolls initiative for every monster like we do in our home game, then initiative tends to be something like:

MMPMPMPPMP where M is monster and P is PC. The players tend to be shocked if a PC goes first in initiative.

Course, none of my players have tried for a high initiative. At level 17 and 6 PCs, they range from +9 (for the high Int low Dex Swordmage) to +14 (for the high Dex Druid who probably should take Improved Init at some point).

 

[DracoSuave]

Depends on the party I suppose. Monsters don't tend to include the same sorts of resources as a fully outfitted party.


The big thing with 4e is to remember that -every attack- (and most everything else) is a power. If you've ever played City of Heroes, you'll grok this idea quite quickly. Every attack is actually using a power, including the Basic Attack. Once you grok that, it makes understanding the differences quite easy.

 

[KarinsDad]

Depends on the party I suppose. Monsters don't tend to include the same sorts of resources as a fully outfitted party.

Which is why challenging encounters include other advantages for the monsters like terrain. Monsters tend to have more hit points and advantages like terrain and/or higher levels and/or occasional heavy condition powers. PCs tend to have more powers / resources (hence more options), better to hit and defenses, a greater ability to do striker damage (hence better focused fire), and the ability to heal themselves which effectively is the ability to minimize or negate focused fire.

Tactics basically boil down to ways in which to do more damage to the enemy faster than it does more damage to your team (even the goal of defensive or healing tactics is this same basic goal, minimize enemy damage which in turn increases the ratio of your teams damage to the enemies damage).

Monsters that have special abilities that can heal themselves or regenerate or heavily hamper the PCs such as blind or stun are a lot more threatening overall because it shifts the normal action economy of the PCs typically outnumbering the NPCs by about round three, to later in the encounter. This not only gives the monsters more rounds in which to counterattack without casualties, but it also results in the PCs running out of their better Encounter powers and being forced to rely either on At Wills, or bringing out the bigger Daily powers.

 

[Shin Okada]

D&D has been a game of teams, not a game of individual super heroes. But 4e is more so comparing to the previous editions, both for PCs and monsters.

Positioning is very important. And as there is almost no cast and forget buffs, PCs must actively move so that they can assist other PCs in some way. And in 4e, a PC can do that while attacking. There is almost no "just do healing" or "just do buffing" turn.

 

[Zustiur]

My advice is: Do NOT launch into a campaign from the get-go. Run a few practice sessions with lots of different characters first so you get a feel for the rules. Then start your campaign.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I recently got the 4e PHB/DMG/MMI book trio, and my buddy's starting 4e with a campaign.

Here's what I get now:

No LA
No ASF
No BAB
Better Class vs Class balance

what I want to understand

Essentially everything else

I kind of am confused and could use a hand. Thanks y'all

Right. Throw out most of what you knew. 4e is a different game to previous editions.

The biggest change is the feel and pacing - 4e is a game that runs as an action series on "Holywood Physics". Large and cinematic - and who cares that the laws of physics say a shotgun can't throw someone back? It's cool! It's also incredibly kinaesthetic, the PCs easily being able to throw monsters off ledges and into bonfires (or vise-versa) - and the right place for a monster is in its own pit trap.

Likewise the weird seeming healing surge rules - they represent the way the hero can get really beaten up in one scene (i.e. hit points lost), but can keep going with only a few scratches in the next (i.e. surges lost) until they reach the limits of their endurance. (And renaming at will/encounter/daily as at will/scene/episode works well to understand the narrative pacing).

Also the PCs start off as fairly tough - there are no more first level wizards who get beaten up by housecats on a regular basis (or drop to one hit to anything sane). Or wizards who are forced to rely on crossbows when they run out of spells. But they never reach the levels of game-breaking of older editions.

And the books are meant to be played rather than read.

 

[ggroy]

BAB = level/2 for all classes in 4E.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

yeah, try playing the freebie adventure, by yourself or with pals, not to "Play" but to grasp the changes
4th ed is less about simulation and more about dynamism and team play.
Pcs can really work off each other's powers and tactics
this is most seen by the Warlord class, which is FINALLY a good representation of say, an officer or NCO, or heroic leader like Belesarius, John Paul Jones etc

the warlord doesn't do as much damage himself, but, he has lots of ways he can boost the party's attacks, defences, and "heal" them by spurring them on again etc.
Hit points ain't "health" more about "will to fight" fatigue etc, so the warlord rallies and drives his friends on, points out openings and weak spots etc.
more in the party the more the warlord's powers shine.

Wizard's generally the one you want with high initiative. rather thanbe a mega-killer and totlaly dominating most parties liek they used to, wizards are more about totlaly ruining the enemies' plans, ability to get cloe to the party, slaughtering tons of minions because he is one of the few with lots of Area of Effect powers.
a classic example of this is the "Visions of Avarice" spell. when triggered, it "Pulls" enemies towards a square, where they see an illusion of treasure.
doens't do damage, but it totally screws up the enemy's ability to overwhelm the party!

While I initially loved 3rd ed, the complexity soon became a nightmare for me as DM :/
4th ed's designed to keep it MUCH simpler to design critters/ecounter,s but actually let them do more of NOTE int he game
for example, say a dragon had in 3rd ed 24 spells and abilities...it would use only a few in most games. so why have so many in the first place?
Better to have fewer, but that let it do more useful thingsin combat, that are easy for the DM to track, like daze close up attackers, Daze = can't do opportunity attacks, so the dragon could move away etc.

Another thing is the removal of stat affecting powers/effects and level drains
those were a nightmare to calculate all the time!
isntead, you may get "weakness", your attacks do half damage. Which is MUCH easier to calculate and just as damn scary in a fight.

the enemy can get just as much milage out of the better tactical abilities as the party can, so it behoves the Players to co-operate even more, and makes the "soloing kill junky" PC a warm soggy marshmallow
rogues/rangers cna sitll jump out of shadows and slaughter guards very effectively, ESPECIALLY because of the minion rules, but you aint jumping a room full of 'em and getting away with it if yer silly enough to just stand there.

movement/tactics is king. just like real fights, I find this MORE simulationist than simulating critters in detial as per PCs.
3rd ed added more use of movement/tactics, but 4th ed WAY takes it up.
positioning by using pushes (away), pulls (towards) and slides (anyway you want) really change the games dynamicson the table
I used to get annoyed with the "stand there and whack-a-rat on each other" style of combats before, you didnt get much beyond a bullrush, charge, trip or disarm and those had problems (taking up an action etc) now, you get the movement AND the normal or better damage in an attack.

Melee fighters, because of the movement/tactical stuff, really shine at last it's not just "whack whack whack"
the fighter pins enemies down, he's right in their faces, threatening them all the time, if they don't attack him and go for the wizard instead, they suffer attack penalties or the fighter may get free attacks on them etc.
again that's more simulationist than before. yeah ignoring the gladiator to stab the scholar beside him is NOT a good idea, as the gladiator is gonna take that opening and push his gladius where the sun don't shine!

healing, buffing and tactical movement of foes and allies usually are PART of an attack or such, now, so you don't lose out for being more tactical and saavy in a fight
the cleric is NOT reduced to being the party's "duct tape bandaid commando", lol.


minion rule is very good, not just for allowing more combatants, but also for things where, as said, the guard on watch is a total mook, one shot should be a kill, but in other editions had the tendency to not die so easy, backstab or not

it took me a while to "grokk" the differences, as it is quite a shift in thoughts, but it is so good especially for a DM

(simulationist/gamist, meh I use 'em my way, others use them their way of meaning )

 

[Herschel]

Raw damage is no longer king. Credible damage with proper tactics, status effects and balance is better. Defenders need to be accurate and durable, Controllers hose a DM's plans more than any other role and Leaders tend to make the party as a whole work a lot better but aren't damage monkeys themselves. It's all about teamwork.

Don't split the party. Going solo usually means going dead.