I've made up my mind...for now.

[Sefotron]

Wow! The OP pretty much exactly summed up my groups' and my own thoughts and feelings about our beloved game over the years (though I started playing with the Red Box), and definitely about 4th edition.

4th ed may be great, but unless it does, somehow, revolutionise our games, and open vistas of play undreamed of at present (which given the flexibility and high degree of customisation we get with 3.5 and various add ons is unlikely), I think we will cherry pick any cool ideas for our 3.5 games, and stick with what we have.

...Of course, if 4th edition does do something incredible...well...I'm sure we could be persuaded to change

 

[the Lorax]

Well, the 4e books have come out, and anyone who was interested has had the chance to review the rules for themselves.

I have been recruited by a friend of a friend to join in 4e group do to my local reputation as a rules/game mechanics guru.

So a bought PHB, the pages are a bit wavy and the ink is very smudgy.
The layout is...not how I would like it.

Having read through and tinkered a bit with the rules, I am inclined to make a few judgments:

This is not recognizable anymore by me as D&D. It has begun to fall into the realm of games like Paladium which obviously have similar base but are different.

In designing characters, I feel very straight jacketed. Not just by class level, but within a class itself. I can't sneak attack with a big stick? My Ranger must be Drizzt or Legolas?

Skill Challenges? Really? Did anyone in design/playtesting work out the math here?

In 3.0, I was THRILLED with removal of NPC only abilities, and PCs using the same rules as NPCs - seeing them return in humanoid monster stat blocks is annoying, no matter how cool and interesting the ability is on its own.

All this talk of new options in combat is really bunk - options exisited in 3.x combat as well, Grapple, Charge, Sunder, Disarm, Trip, Bull Rush, ect. Movement in combat was a perfectly viable option, even if some weren't able to see the tactical advantage of it.

Like many other perfectly good rules sets, that may be reasonably well balanced, and fun, this is most likely going to be just another game that I'm not going to support or run.​

 

[Renfield]

Hmmm,

I think I'll help with the pseudo-resurrection of this thread.

I've gone back and fourth over the whole 4e thing for awhile now. I'm actually glad I didn't stumble onto this thread until now as my opinion has jumped from hate it, to can't hardly wait, to hate it to skeptic yet hopeful and round again. Now that I physically have copies of the books and have ran a session (admittedly only a bit of roleplaying and an encounter or two) I feel I can make a more substantiated opinion.

I myself will not be switching over to 4e.

I will play it but it will be closer to a junk food RPG, for when I feel lazy and don't want to deal with as many complexities as 3e has. I will say DM prep time, mechanically at least, is a lot easier with 4e whereas (for me at least) it took forever for me to properly prep a game... nevermind that some of my best sessions were completely off the cuff with only an idea and a couple monster stats to work with but that's neither here nor there

I think, mechanically, it's a good game, there are a few aspects that come off as rushed or at least not paid the attention necessary (*cough* rituals *cough* and if you doubt look up that 24th level scry ritual, pure B.S.) to fully take advantage of the idea. 4th edition strikes me as a great combat mechanic but not a great RPG. My games don't focus as much on combat as 4e seems to, that, and Paizo has won me over.

I will be sticking with 3.5 but in it's new form, to me, the Pathfinder RPG better maintains the D&D feel. My group shares this opinion and considering how much they've invested in 3rd edition this works out best for all of us. That and I have loved all their Adventure Path modules thus far as well as their campaign world so I'm pretty much sold on them.

Will I be switching over? No. Will I play it? Yes. Will I buy everything? Hell no. Will I buy everything they publish? Hell no. 4e just doesn't maintain the feel of D&D for me, perhaps I'm just one of those old (ha!) gamers that wax nostalgic but it seems like a different system.

 

[IceBear]

I'm unhappy that even if I go with Pathfinder, it's still not very compatible with 3.5 (sure, it's more compatible than 4E, but still needs a lot of work to convert NPCs, etc)

 

[Renfield]

I'm unhappy that even if I go with Pathfinder, it's still not very compatible with 3.5 (sure, it's more compatible than 4E, but still needs a lot of work to convert NPCs, etc)

That's true. Though it depends on the type of conversion you're looking for. A lot of the core classes were given a power creep to balance more with the supplement classes there for some of the supplement classes would be fairly easy to convert. As for monsters and NPC's they have advice for those, I usually only reserve total conversion for the more powerful NPC's and give the weaker ones an extra feat and a few extra hitpoints unless I'm bored and have copious amounts of time on my hands. Where do you have the most trouble converting?

I've been playtesting but I've been working with the Pathfinder Adventure Path "Rise of the Runelords" we recently finished "Burnt Offerings" the first module. I'll admit I had a hard time with some things but I was able to manage even when I didn't have the proper prep time. The higher level adventures might be a different story though.

 

[LowSpine]

For me, it is about the fact that I've played SOOO much in the current edition that I'm ready to try something different. Plus, I'm tired of dealing with a lot of the issues that have come up over the years in 3.5e.

I'm tired of searching the PHB every round trying to figure out what the NPCs spells do, dealing with grappling rules, dealing with endless discussions about whether it's better to take 1 level of Spellsword before heading into Dragon Slayer in order to get the highest BAB with the highest caster level, tired of being reminded by my players over and over again about casting on the defensive and attacks of opportunity, remembering all the small exceptions to every rule.

I just want a ruleset that gives me the advantages of 3e (codified rules, more balance, not having to make up constant house rules) without the above disadvantages. 4e appears to provide that.

I agree with most of that, but after reading the books I believe your last hope is not realized. In fact, after being very pro 4E, I have been left deflated by the fact that 2/3s of the book seems to be missing - with house rules having to take up the slack.

I'm a little disappointed they didn't include the whole game (the combat is 99% fantastic - shame about the other part of the game they missed.)

 

[Oompa]

Why i switched to 4th?

- My players arent the best in english, the long spell descriptions in 3.0 where awful, my players didnt understand some things, and threw spells that fired back at them.. In 4th the powers are simplified, its much easier to read and use.

- Its easier to find things than in 3.0

- The art

- The way how easy it is to create encounters, just pick some monsters for ... xp and youre done.. (off course i look at what i pick)

- Dragonborn, Eladrin, Warlord, Warlock

- Wizard cantrips at will ( mage hand etc )

- Minions

That are an few things why i switched, and players to..

 

[theNater]

...there are a few aspects that come off as rushed or at least not paid the attention necessary (*cough* rituals *cough* and if you doubt look up that 24th level scry ritual, pure B.S.)...

I just read through Observe Creature, and I still doubt your claim.

It tells you what it does, how much information it provides, and how it can be countered. The rolls involved seem reasonable given the nature of the effect. What makes you say this is pure B.S.?

On the larger topic on hand, I've switched for two primary reasons:

1)I have more fun in combat than I have in previous editions of D&D, regardless of class.

2)Preparation is so much faster and easier. This covers both DM prep(encounter building, treasure placement) and player prep(character creation). An impromptu 4th edition game seems much more feasible than an impromptu 3rd edition game, especially if we want to include inexperienced players.

 

[bardolph]

Having run my first game last week, I have to say 4e is fantastic. Classes seem balanced, minimal prep time is required, combat is fast and exciting. Even though this was our first game, not much time was spent looking up rules and abilities.

Couldn't have asked for more, to be honest.

 

[ki11erDM]

Couldn't have asked for more, to be honest.

I can always ask for more... and I am sure they will give us more with new books hehe. After all WoTC is an American company owned by stockholders.

Back to the OP question/comments.
I am happy with 4e. I VERY much enjoyed my first session as a player and the DM side is shaping up nicely as well. That’s not to say I don’t have complaints, because I sure do, but I have less completes about 4e than I did with 3.x. 3.x gave the illusion of simulation but after banging on that system for 8 years it was obvious to me it needed a massive over hall, and that’s what we got.

Also… I honestly have no clue how in the world people can say this edition is ‘more combat oriented’. I really just don’t get it at all. The whole point to every addition was to provide mechanics to resolver combat and character progression, almost everything else was left to the DM. Sure there are a few things here and there in those old books that delta with none combat situation but all that is still in 4e and I personally think it has been amplified.

But I do understand why someone would think 4e combat is not ‘D&D.’ 4e combat is action oriented with light weight rules and all the classes have cool things to do all the time and that is a huge change over the past. Heck I think my wife would even enjoy playing again as she gave up because every combat took hours and hours because of the constant rules referencing and adjudication. But I guess some people prefer that over rolling dice or role-playing. *shrug*