Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 4583883" data-attributes="member: 2804">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.</blockquote>

Verification