D&D 4E How would 4E improve my game?

[Philotomy Jurament]

From what I've seen so far (and keeping in mind I've never played 4E), I'd guess that 4E would be a better fit, for you. (Actually, I'd think that 3E would be a suboptimal choice, in general, based on what you said, but preferences are mysterious things, so there's a lot of wiggle room.)

 

[small pumpkin man]

I am considering the purchase of the 4E core books once they come out. However, I want to know if the expenditure will be worth it.

I like to run my games fast and loose with the core books and only a few additional books. I don't usually use minis, and use pencil sketches on paper if a map is really necessary. I like my magic mid-power (neither low-magic nor high-fantasy) and I like having mundane elements in my setting so that magic stays a bit magical by contrast with them. I prefer fast-paced play with minimal page referencing. And I'm having great fun DMing my current 3.0E campaign.

So, would 4E make my game run faster or smoother, have more options without encumbering me or the players, or in any way make my game significantly more fun to play than 3.0E?

<Pet Peeve>High Magic and High Fantasy are not synonyms</Pet Peeve>

Since I'm here, I'll see what random knowledge I can spew. Fast and Loose does sound like the style they're pushing for in 4e. As for "only a few additional books", we can't really tell, some people would argue that 4e will be missing enough out of the gate to make this hard, but I personally won't be missing Druids or Gnomes. As for minis, you might end up having to make scetches for more fights than before, but that's more because they're pushing for more terrain orientated fights, (lava, mud pits, rolling boulders, etc) but there's certainly nothing that looks like it's going to need actual minis. Regarding Magic, magic items seem to be a lot more optional, and things like getting 100 +1 swords at higher levels is gone, with the very intention of making the magic items the PC does get more special. This doesn't really hold with PC magic abilities though, as even low level spellcasters seem to have access to a lot of magic, however the game is set to make the PCs more self-reliant, so it looks like you can change the magic level of the setting more without it having a serious effect on balance.

Ultimately, however, I haven't actually read or played the final product, so these things may end up quite different.

 

[Zelc]

Mid-Power Magic: Tie

WHA??!?!

From everything I've read, 4E's magic is much more balanced than 3.5's. There's a reason fighters are really awful after about level 7, and that's because magic starts making them obsolete. Who needs a meatshield with a sword when you can cast Shapechange and otherwise command reality to bend to your whim?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am considering the purchase of the 4E core books once they come out. However, I want to know if the expenditure will be worth it.

I like to run my games fast and loose with the core books and only a few additional books. I don't usually use minis, and use pencil sketches on paper if a map is really necessary. I like my magic mid-power (neither low-magic nor high-fantasy) and I like having mundane elements in my setting so that magic stays a bit magical by contrast with them. I prefer fast-paced play with minimal page referencing. And I'm having great fun DMing my current 3.0E campaign.

So, would 4E make my game run faster or smoother, have more options without encumbering me or the players, or in any way make my game significantly more fun to play than 3.0E?

What levels have you reached in your current campaign? What in previous campaigns (if any)?
My experience is that DMing becomes harder at higher levels, since NPC generation takes more time.* That should become better in 4E. Higher levels also require you to account more for powerful magic - Flight, Raise Dead, Teleport, Scrying, Divination, and so on. That won't change in 4E (the "tiers" might make the changes more explicit, but they don't go away).

*) playing fast and loose with the rules helps, though. I had trouble doing so on my own, but the 4E previews and the Iron Heroes villain classes opened me up to become a bit more flexible.

 

[keterys]

WHA??!?!

From everything I've read, 4E's magic is much more balanced than 3.5's. There's a reason fighters are really awful after about level 7, and that's because magic starts making them obsolete. Who needs a meatshield with a sword when you can cast Shapechange and otherwise command reality to bend to your whim?

This experience varies wildly from game to game, with melee types being the primary damage dealers in many high level games. If it had been 'low magic' or 'high magic', I'd have been definite on 4E being a clear win due to inherent advantages, but for default D&D magic level? Each has advantages and disadvantages and I'd not call it based on balance level.

That said, if you read my response a couple down, I did switch to a 4E win, for a different reason.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am considering the purchase of the 4E core books once they come out. However, I want to know if the expenditure will be worth it.

I like to run my games fast and loose with the core books and only a few additional books. I don't usually use minis, and use pencil sketches on paper if a map is really necessary. I like my magic mid-power (neither low-magic nor high-fantasy) and I like having mundane elements in my setting so that magic stays a bit magical by contrast with them. I prefer fast-paced play with minimal page referencing. And I'm having great fun DMing my current 3.0E campaign.

So, would 4E make my game run faster or smoother, have more options without encumbering me or the players, or in any way make my game significantly more fun to play than 3.0E?

Speed is mostly a byproduct of knowing the rules and playing with a few books, which you can do in every edition. Lots of people say that their 3ed games bog down to page referencing all the time, but clearly that's just because they put too much material into use compared to how much they know by heart.

There are however a few circumstances that 4e has purposefully changed to speed up either combat (e.g. simplified rules for minions which are killed in 1 shot by default; attack vs defense as general circumstance-solver tool is quicker than figuring out a static DC) and DM's offline work (simpler monsters, fixed XP).

So if you buy 4e, prepare for at least a few months when your game will be slower due to learning new rules and players having a lot more abilities to choose from on the average (at low levels). If you survive the initial period, it will probably be faster later.

About minis use, I think 4e requires them more, since positions and distances are much more important than in 3e. You can play 3e without battlemats and the biggest issue is usually only attacks of opportunities from movement, the rest you can approximate quite effectively without unbalancing the game. In 4e it looks you have to accept a larger approximation and do more work, but everything can be done.

Level of magic (overall = spells + items) will be ok. Magic starts higher than 3e, there is practically no "no magic" phase, and increases more slowly than in 3e. It probably results in more levels of "mid magic" than 3e.

 

[Shades of Green]

Thanks for the input

I've skimmed through the Pre-Release Rules Compilation and I have mixed feelings about 4E.

Likes:
1) Spellcasters get to cast spells regularly rather than only once in a while. In previous editions even a wizard with a high intelligence had only a small number of spells per day (especially on low levels) so he got to do his thing only a few times and the rest of the time fight ineffectively with his dagger or crossbow. Now wizards use wizardry in every combat round. This makes them far more interesting to play.
2) Healing Surges. This allows to a degree of independence from a cleric (you could heal yourself), releases the cleric from the annoying "walking bandaide" job, and throws the "15-minute adventuring day" to the garbage-heap of history.
3) Spells don't always come at the expense of each other, so a Cleric could have more interesting spells in her arsenal than just "Cure X Wounds".
4) Less stat-block mess to waste prep time on (apparently). Also, apparently, simpler monster designs and easier monsters to play.
5) AoEs are probably simplified, which is a very good thing.
6) No gnomes. I never liked them and never found a good niche for them, as their niche and flavor seem to overlap with those of dwarves, elves and halflings.

Dislikes:
1) Clerics with offensive evocation-style spells such as Lance of Faith. This breaks very far from the D&D norm of wizards with flashy spells and clerics with more subtle spells.
2) I don't know how complete and playable the game would be with just the 3 first core books. I have neither the budget nor the desire to amass many more books than these, maybe one or two past the 3 first core ones.
3) The increase in amounts of spells per day/encounter/at will, while a great advantage game-wise, might have very bad setting implications, such as upping the overall level of magic.
4) I've heard something about characters forgetting abilities in order to learn new ones. If it's true, that's bad for the suspension of disbelief.
5) Artwork. A lot of what I've seen goes in the "dungeon-punk" or "dungeon-bling" direction, which doesn't fit my D&D style well - I mean, how many mythical/epic/fantasy heroes of renown could you imagine dressing up like that? I prefer more ordinary fantasy art.
6) I fear that the game would be too focused on combat, neglecting fun areas such as dungeoneering, wilderness travel and urban adventures.
7) I'm not sure whether 4E would support small parties (2-3 players) or one-on-one play.
8) I'm yet to see rules about poison/level-drain or other long-term effects that last longer than the encounter itself.

 

[Serendipity]

Keep on the Shadowfell comes out next month, fully a month before the core books for 4e. It contains (allegedly) rules to play - buy it, run it for your group, and see if it works better for you.
Better than bagging the core books only to find they're not what you're looking for.

 

[ZetaStriker]

2) I don't know how complete and playable the game would be with just the 3 first core books. I have neither the budget nor the desire to amass many more books than these, maybe one or two past the 3 first core ones.

Unless you have players with their hearts set on being something like a Druid, Monk, Barbarian or Bard, the core books should have everything you need.

7) I'm not sure whether 4E would support small parties (2-3 players) or one-on-one play.

I'm actually wondering about this as well. I wanted to make a solo pre-4E adventure to introduce my girlfriend to the game, but found myself having difficulty designing interesting combat options. Like 3E, these situations will hopefully be easier to design for at slightly higher levels, but it's about my biggest worry so far, as I'm unsure how large a group I'll be able to get to play regularly(my regulars have joined the Marines...).

8) I'm yet to see rules about poison/level-drain or other long-term effects that last longer than the encounter itself.

Long term effects seem to be out for the most part, with the elimination of level drain in particular actually being one of 4E's design tenants. Admit it; level drain sucks. I've never seen it do anything other than frustrate players.

We do have the hints of some possibilities, however. The stats for the Succubus have been released, and although she has a short-duration Dominate, she also has a longer duration Kiss ability that lets her keep someone charmed indefinitely as long as she ceases hostilities against it and kisses it once a day.

 

[ve4grm]

Dislikes:
1) Clerics with offensive evocation-style spells such as Lance of Faith. This breaks very far from the D&D norm of wizards with flashy spells and clerics with more subtle spells.
2) I don't know how complete and playable the game would be with just the 3 first core books. I have neither the budget nor the desire to amass many more books than these, maybe one or two past the 3 first core ones.
3) The increase in amounts of spells per day/encounter/at will, while a great advantage game-wise, might have very bad setting implications, such as upping the overall level of magic.
4) I've heard something about characters forgetting abilities in order to learn new ones. If it's true, that's bad for the suspension of disbelief.
5) Artwork. A lot of what I've seen goes in the "dungeon-punk" or "dungeon-bling" direction, which doesn't fit my D&D style well - I mean, how many mythical/epic/fantasy heroes of renown could you imagine dressing up like that? I prefer more ordinary fantasy art.
6) I fear that the game would be too focused on combat, neglecting fun areas such as dungeoneering, wilderness travel and urban adventures.
7) I'm not sure whether 4E would support small parties (2-3 players) or one-on-one play.
8) I'm yet to see rules about poison/level-drain or other long-term effects that last longer than the encounter itself.

1) Somewhat, but so did Searing Light and Flame Strike in 3e. Think of Lance of Faith as analogous to Searing Light.

2) It will be complete enough to play, for sure. There are definitely going to be some things that won't appear until later, but it will be a full playable game with the core 3 books.

3) Bear in mind that most NPCs don't have these abilities. The wizard living in the forest may only have a couple of daily spells known. This is because NPCs are actually built (for the most part) with monster rules, and thus are kept simpler. As far as the PCs go, though? There will definitely be more frequent magic, though not more powerful magic.

4) No different than the Sorcerer and Bard did in 3.Xe. I've never seen the out-of-game choice to replace a spell affect the player, myself. If so, you can justify it by saying that the player has merely moved on to more advanced maneuvers, and doesn't practice the old ones as much any more. For casters, the caster doesn't bother to prepare the spell any more (even though spell preparation is largely gone, is can still be used as an in-game explanation).

5) Some, yes. But most of it is just straight heroic fantasy. Besides, the art style is a poor reason to not use a game system.

6) Combat rules are really all we've been shown so far, which is why the rules compendium focuses on combat. Don't worry. 4e will be no worse at handling the out-of-combat stuff than any previous edition.

7) Since encounters are meant to scale well, with one monster (or equivalent) per PC, small groups of 2-3 should work fine. Solo will be as difficult as it always has been, but will probably be possible as well. Both of these will make it difficult to use some monsters, though, such as the solo creatures (designed to take on an entire party alone). But it should be workable.

The revised skill system, on the other hand, should greatly expand the adventure possibilities for smaller groups, as any character can train in any skill with the right choices, and even untrained skills allow for a passable attempt. So for non-combat, 4e should make things much better for small/solo groups.

8) Level Drain is gone, kaput, finito. Ability Damage is the same. Poison deals poison-type hit point damage and causes various conditions, like weakened. Disease, on the other hand, we don't have any information on yet. Other long-term effects may exist, but we don't really have info on them yet.

Hope that helped.