Into The Fire!--Contrasting Analysis of 4E and 3.5E

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Excellent stuff my friends! Keep it coming!

I haven't bought *anything* for 4E yet.

I have an enormous library of 3.5 stuff. In fact, I have a larger and more diverse collection than many game stores. I have books that I have hardly even glanced at--much less had the opportunity to use and expand in a campaign. Many of them are still new and glossy, with only the forward's being perused. I honestly thought that it was far too soon for WOTC to introduce a new edition. I enjoy 3.5 D&D, and, perhaps because of my own DMing style and particular house-rules, I do not seem to have had many of the problems with 3.5 D&D that others have experienced. Thus, I am less than thrilled with my vast library of 3.5 D&D books being *obselete*.

However--I am always interested in new mechanics that improve the game and make things easier, in any event. So far, 4E sounds like it has some very cool and interesting elements in it--as well as some significant improvements in handling mechanics over that of 3.5 D&D. I am very interested in hearing more from you! I would like to be an educated and *informed* gamer, and customer--before I make any purchasing decisions, and perhaps more significantly--making any decisions about revamping my campaign world.

I NEED your thoughts. I'm not interested in seeing flamewars. I need you to explain to me what you like about 4E, and why. What you hate about 4E--and why. Comparisons to 3.5 are helpful for me to see the context.

If you LOVE 4E--great! Explain to me WHY. Explain what 4E does differently--and better than 3.5E.

If you HATE 4E--great! Explain to me WHY. Explain what changes 4E has made that are worse than 3.5E.

Thank you for those that have responded so far in kind. I am interested in hearing more! I want passionate, detailed responses that educate me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Scribble]

Some stuff I like about 4e based on my own opinions, and playstyle.

I think the game takes the idea of balance and rules consistancy that 3e brought into the mix, but dials it back to the things that really need it, while leaving the stuff that doesn't open. So to me, this makes it feel a lot more fluid, like in my basic-2e years, but with a sense of fairness, and a feeling of having a solid system to fall back on (when making ad-hoc DM rulings.)

The "core" rules in 4e are very small. There are only a few base rules to know, everything else adding onto them, or modifying them in some way. I like this. Easy to remember what matetrs, without worrying about overload.

I like that the game is balanced with the idea of particular "roles" being important as opposed to classes. (This allows new classes to be swaped in relatively painlessly in my opinion.)

I like how monsters are built. They're fast and fluid feeling to me and have neat powers, like in earlier editions. They're customizable like in 3e yet I don't have to find a particular feat or class to let it do whatever I need it to (without worrying I'll mess something up while winging it.)

I like combat. 3e introduced a lot of rules elements that could be used in combat. This was cool, and added to the game in my opinion. It also made using the grid/minis more of a nessesity to me. 4e adds a few more tactical choices in my opinion, and makes looking at the minis a bit mroe exciting. (They move around more which effectively adds a bit mroe of what I saw in my head in earlier games that didn't use the mini/grid to the mini grid... if that makes sense?)

I'm realy liking the flavor. I liked the 3e flavor, but.. well it's 30 some years old. I'm enjoyign new stuff.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I enjoy 3.5 D&D, and, perhaps because of my own DMing style and particular house-rules, I do not seem to have had many of the problems with 3.5 D&D that others have experienced.

Can you expand on this? It will help me evaluate where you're coming from and what points to make about each edition as they address your style and house rules.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think the primary difference is philisophical.

4e attempts to focus on the adventure. The rules are a spotlight with the PC's smack dab in the center. Everthing outside that circle of light illuminating the PC's possible actions is pretty much left entirely up to DM's fiat. 3e, as has been mentioned, took a different approach and tried to provide comprehensive rules that would cover not only what the PC's did but, governed what everything in the world did. ((Thus the whole "Rules as Physics" concept)).

Probably the best illustration of this is in the minion rules. Minions are simply 1 hit point monsters that die when hit. They have all or most of the power of an equivalent level monster - attack bonus, damage, etc - but, they die when someone sneezes very hard at them. Critics of this approach often question how such a member of a species could survive, after all, if it falls off a horse, it automatically dies, which, I think we'd all agree, would be silly.

This is a very 3e approach to the rules though. A creature in 3e that has 1 hit point has 1 hit point at all times and you get strange results like housecats being able to murder commoners. 4e ejects this line of thinking entirely. It's not that a minion has variable hit points depending on the PC's, it's that when the PC's aren't around, the minion has no hit points at all. It has no mechanics at all. It dies if the DM decides it dies and lives if the DM decides that it lives. It has no independent existence at all.

I think this, more than anything else, fuels the disagreements between 4e detractors and proponents. If you look at the changes made to the cosmologies, settings, and pretty much everything else in 4e, you can boil it down to changes made to make the game easier to play and run. Everything is done in service to the adventure and the PC's, not geared toward world building.

That's my 2cp anyway.

 

[Odysseus]

Greetings!



I have an enormous library of 3.5 stuff. In fact, I have a larger and more diverse collection than many game stores. I have books that I have hardly even glanced at--much less had the opportunity to use and expand in a campaign. Many of them are still new and glossy, with only the forward's being perused. I honestly thought that it was far too soon for WOTC to introduce a new edition. I enjoy 3.5 D&D, and, perhaps because of my own DMing style and particular house-rules, I do not seem to have had many of the problems with 3.5 D&D that others have experienced. Thus, I am less than thrilled with my vast library of 3.5 D&D books being *obselete*.



SHARK

The rule books would be obselete. The adventures wouldn't.
With 3rd edition converting old adventures , especially at high level, was difficult for me. While with 4E it easy to convert 1,2 or 3e adventures to 4E.
So why I like 4E, encounter design makes Dming a pleasure.

 

[avin]

What I Love in 4E: easy DMing!
What I hate in 4E: lack of fluff on MM.

 

[Dragonblade]

I am a big fan of 4e, and the reasons for this are as follows:

It is much easier to DM for than 3e, requiring minimal prep time. Monsters can be run directly out of the MM, or from their stat blocks without needing to reference any other books or resources. No more looking up umpteen obscure spell like abilities, or calculating bonuses from ten different buff spells.

In 3.5, the MM provided you with a basic orc. If you wanted anything beyond the basic orc, you had to build it as you would a PC. Select feats, skills, calculate bonuses, select spells, etc. No problem if you are a player and only need to focus on one character. But when you DM and need ten different NPCs it could became a real drain on your time and energy. Additionally, while the rules provided a framework for building your monster to make it a fighter, wizard, or whatever, it was all too easy to make it too powerful, or not powerful enough and the only way to mitigate that was to add loads of magic items (that would find their way into PC hands which may or may not be a good thing).

It was also extremely time consuming and boring when all you wanted was something to challenge the party before the PCs killed it.

4e works the opposite way. It provides monsters already pre-built for various levels and situations. The 4e MM has kobold warriors, slingers, priests, what have you, already built. And if you want to make your own monster, or customize an existing one, 4e tells you exactly what AC, and bonuses you need, and here is the real kicker...you just make it that way! You don't need to reverse engineer your NPC's AC and figure out what bonus comes from feats, or items, etc.

You need a kobold champion with AC 25, you simply make it so! Done! How does he get the bonus? Who cares. Perhaps a mix of training, armor, blessed by the dark gods, it doesn't matter. You are the DM, so you decide. And how do you know what AC your monster should have to be a reasonable challenge for your players? 4e comes right out and tells you!

4e is also much better balanced. When your players are X level, you have a pretty good idea of what they can do and whether an opponent will overwhelm them, or be a cupcake. Likewise there is better class power parity across levels. Casters are no longer weaker than fighters at low level, and godlike relative to vanilla no magic item fighters at high level.

4e also has a shallower power curve. Low level has many more options and is as fun as playing at higher levels now.

4e also no longer really has save or die/lose effects. For example, how fun is it to arrive at your friends home for a fun 6 hour session of D&D only to lose initiative to an enemy spellcaster who petrifies you, or casts slay living, or some other nasty spell on your PC before you can do anything? You get a single roll and if you fail your PC is gone in the first round of combat before you even got to go. For the next two hours of combat, while your friends are rolling dice and having a good time, you get to sit there bored out of your skull. 4e addresses this issue quite nicely.

4e also removes gamebreaking effects and tactics like Scry-Buff-Teleport. No more PCs teleporting in and taking out the big bad guy while he is unarmored and sitting on the latrine with his breeches down.

I think that you addressed a lot of these issues with your house rules, SHARK. Your Fate Point system did a good job of mitigating Save or Lose scenarios. Likewise you sidestepped the limited/fragile 1st level PC syndrome by embracing higher level play where options are plentiful.

You addressed Scry-Buff-Teleport by nerfing those spells in your world with DM fiat. And you mitigated the exponential level power curve by populating your world with high level NPCs instead of 0-level nobodies.

The advantage of 4e is that unlike 3e, it plays well without the need for such houserules to "fix" the game.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, 4e does rely HEAVILY on minis play and I know you don't use minis. Many PC abilities grant your PC extra tactical movement, or allow you to move enemies tactically around the battlefield with the assumption that you are using minis and a grid. Translating these powers into a mini-less game in a way that would allow the players to fairly benefit from their use would require a lot of strict DM adjudication. Much more so than the DM simply adjudicating AoOs in a mini-less 3e game.

So bottom line:

I feel that generally speaking 4e is a better all around game than 3e. It is better balanced, and much easier to DM, and just as much fun to play.

However, the 4e combat system IS a tactical minis game, and you can't really avoid it. Many PC and monster abilities are couched in the language of grid based movement. And that may be a deal breaker for you because I know you don't like using minis.

I have some other minor quibbles with the game that I won't get into, but they can be addressed by house rules. The dependence on minis is something you can't really house rule away, though.

 

[SHARK]

Can you expand on this? It will help me evaluate where you're coming from and what points to make about each edition as they address your style and house rules.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Greetings!

Certainly, Herremann!

Well, I use a Fate Point mechanic for player characters and select NPC's. Standard *adult* NPC's are in the 6th=12/15th level range. NPC's at 20th level and above are fairly common. Elite NPC's that are 30th level or higher are normal, and expected.

Information and traveling spells--Teleport, Scrying, etc--have various restrictions. Many traveling spells--like plane-hopping spells, have high chances of dangerous and mysterious effects occuring, including causing mass death for not only the caster, but everyone in a thousand yard radius. Diseases are rampant, virilent and deadly, and not easily dispelled or cured by standard spells.

High-level combat is organized and run swiftly, with the party of PC's commanding groups of dozens of henchmen, as well as oftentimes having the support of dozens or even several hundred troops, often elite. The PC's may for example, find themselves facing the challenge of storming a mutated, living citadel, held by 200-400 lvl 40 Fire Giants, commanded by a lvl 60 Vampire Lord, and supported by 2 lvl 60 Red Dragons.

I dispense with much of the niggling bookkeeping. I do not feel the need to worry about accounting for every *+2* bonus or *-2* penalty. During such fights, I use my previously-prepared notes, and wing it from there. If I feel a particular squad of giants guarding the temple entrance need some buffing, because the party has been having a bit of an easy time--no problem. I just give the creatures a +6 or +10 across the board bonus on whatever, and don't worry about it.

Maybe the PC's are desperate, and are getting overwhelmed, and the cleric uses a special prayer spell or such, and the Gods answer by sending a divine storm that temporarily grants the PC's extra powers, or maybe a regiment of elite Eladrin or Planetars show up, and provide the PC's with enough of an edge to have an opportunity to change the tide of battle, and emerge victorious.

Players and NPC's alike have abilities to craft powerful magic items and artifacts and relics of great power. PC's, while powerful, are not necessarily *unique*--in the sense that there are NPC's that may have access to a similar suite of powers, resources, and abilities.

Does this help?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SHARK]

I am a big fan of 4e, and the reasons for this are as follows:

It is much easier to DM for than 3e, requiring minimal prep time. Monsters can be run directly out of the MM, or from their stat blocks without needing to reference any other books or resources. No more looking up umpteen obscure spell like abilities, or calculating bonuses from ten different buff spells.

In 3.5, the MM provided you with a basic orc. If you wanted anything beyond the basic orc, you had to build it as you would a PC. Select feats, skills, calculate bonuses, select spells, etc. No problem if you are a player and only need to focus on one character. But when you DM and need ten different NPCs it could became a real drain on your time and energy. Additionally, while the rules provided a framework for building your monster to make it a fighter, wizard, or whatever, it was all too easy to make it too powerful, or not powerful enough and the only way to mitigate that was to add loads of magic items (that would find their way into PC hands which may or may not be a good thing).

It was also extremely time consuming and boring when all you wanted was something to challenge the party before the PCs killed it.

4e works the opposite way. It provides monsters already pre-built for various levels and situations. The 4e MM has kobold warriors, slingers, priests, what have you, already built. And if you want to make your own monster, or customize an existing one, 4e tells you exactly what AC, and bonuses you need, and here is the real kicker...you just make it that way! You don't need to reverse engineer your NPC's AC and figure out what bonus comes from feats, or items, etc.

You need a kobold champion with AC 25, you simply make it so! Done! How does he get the bonus? Who cares. Perhaps a mix of training, armor, blessed by the dark gods, it doesn't matter. You are the DM, so you decide. And how do you know what AC your monster should have to be a reasonable challenge for your players? 4e comes right out and tells you!

4e is also much better balanced. When your players are X level, you have a pretty good idea of what they can do and whether an opponent will overwhelm them, or be a cupcake. Likewise there is better class power parity across levels. Casters are no longer weaker than fighters at low level, and godlike relative to vanilla no magic item fighters at high level.

4e also has a shallower power curve. Low level has many more options and is as fun as playing at higher levels now.

4e also no longer really has save or die/lose effects. For example, how fun is it to arrive at your friends home for a fun 6 hour session of D&D only to lose initiative to an enemy spellcaster who petrifies you, or casts slay living, or some other nasty spell on your PC before you can do anything? You get a single roll and if you fail your PC is gone in the first round of combat before you even got to go. For the next two hours of combat, while your friends are rolling dice and having a good time, you get to sit there bored out of your skull. 4e addresses this issue quite nicely.

4e also removes gamebreaking effects and tactics like Scry-Buff-Teleport. No more PCs teleporting in and taking out the big bad guy while he is unarmored and sitting on the latrine with his breeches down.

I think that you addressed a lot of these issues with your house rules, SHARK. Your Fate Point system did a good job of mitigating Save or Lose scenarios. Likewise you sidestepped the limited/fragile 1st level PC syndrome by embracing higher level play where options are plentiful.

You addressed Scry-Buff-Teleport by nerfing those spells in your world with DM fiat. And you mitigated the exponential level power curve by populating your world with high level NPCs instead of 0-level nobodies.

The advantage of 4e is that unlike 3e, it plays well without the need for such houserules to "fix" the game.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, 4e does rely HEAVILY on minis play and I know you don't use minis. Many PC abilities grant your PC extra tactical movement, or allow you to move enemies tactically around the battlefield with the assumption that you are using minis and a grid. Translating these powers into a mini-less game in a way that would allow the players to fairly benefit from their use would require a lot of strict DM adjudication. Much more so than the DM simply adjudicating AoOs in a mini-less 3e game.

So bottom line:

I feel that generally speaking 4e is a better all around game than 3e. It is better balanced, and much easier to DM, and just as much fun to play.

However, the 4e combat system IS a tactical minis game, and you can't really avoid it. Many PC and monster abilities are couched in the language of grid based movement. And that may be a deal breaker for you because I know you don't like using minis.

I have some other minor quibbles with the game that I won't get into, but they can be addressed by house rules. The dependence on minis is something you can't really house rule away, though.

Greetings!

Hey my brother! Interesting stuff indeed! Yes, you're quite right. I dealt with many of 3E's problems in an elegant--and efficient--fashion. It does seem that 4E has some very nice improvements *hard-wired* in already, without the need to even make up house rules. That is very cool.

True, I'm not hot on *Mini's*. I suppose I could work with it though, if the other benefits of the system were salient.

I emailed you by the way!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Greetings!

Certainly, Herremann!

Well...

Does this help?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It most certainly did, and by the way, hello again. I have enjoyed your enthusiastic posts in the past and hope to continue doing so into the future.

I can fully endorse everything that Dragonblade writes except for the conclusion that 4E is a better all round game than 3.5. I would put them on par, excelling in different areas (different strokes and all that). However, having now got a gauge on your playstyle, I cannot help but think that you would absolutely love 4E and thus would encourage you to purchase the core set of books (available at a supremely good rate on Amazon if you are price conscious).

However, as Dragonblade specifically points out, the minis issue will be a BIG one for you. So many "things" are attached to the battlemap in 4E that excising them from the mix is something you wouldn't want to do without a counterbalance of some nature. In addition, there are quite a few conditions and fiddly bonuses to track during combat that if excised, will change the fabric of what the mechanics are trying to do. Still, one thing I have got the sense of is that you would make changes to the rules as suits and with good effect for your group. If anything, I would suggest responding back in the future as many would be interested in how you "SHARKify" 4E.

Or... you could purchase a battlemap and some figures and give it a go as per written.

Or... you could blend 3.5 and 4E together in a way that allows you to circumvent the "need" for a battlemap in 4E.

Whichever way you go, I'd be interested in the results.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise