So how is 4th edition?

[DracoSuave]

Wow. Asking if 4th edition is better on a 4th edition forum...hmmm, wonder what the general answer would be..

ACtually, OP is asking if 4th ed is a better fit for what he wants to do. He knows the benefits of 3rd, he's looking for the benefits of 4th. He wants people to sell it.

He's not looking for the end score, he's looking for the critiques themselves, and explanations, more indepth reasoning.


Reading OP is always good.

 

[Hejdun]

3e is hard and complex.

4e is simple and easy.

If you like complexity (and it sounds like the original poster does), then I think it might be better off sticking with 3e, so long as you're ok with the amount of effort DM preparation takes.

Otherwise, you'd be better off going to 4e. It makes things soooo much easier to run and play, particularly on the DM side. The various online tools only make this even more true. There are things you'll be annoyed by and things you'll lament. You'll probably become one of those grognards that tells the next generation of gamers "In my day, we had to consult a special chart every time we wanted to turn undead!" But the ease of use really makes up for it.

 

[Mircoles]

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I'm curious what the OP means by "flexible and open".

For example, it certainly seems easy enough to create new races, feats, powers, items and creatures in 4e -- as easy as in 3.x, easily. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies should also be pretty easy to create, though possibly harder to balance. How about an entire class? Pretty hard if you're starting from scratch, but maybe not so difficult if you just modify an existing one.

But let's say instead that you want to reintroduce 3.x mechanics like grappling, disarming or breaking weapons, or the AD&D concept of "armor class" (with different values depending on the weapon type used for the attack) -- I could see that being pretty complex.

Alternatively, if the OP likes 4e but hates Encounter powers and wants to remove them completely without destroying balance -- that too could be difficult.

So, I return to my original point: What does the OP mean by "flexible and open"?

 

[KarinsDad]

So, I return to my original point: What does the OP mean by "flexible and open"?

It's hard to tell. It's possible that he is referring to the fact that PCs use the same powers over and over. Most every encounter is the few same encounter powers, possibly a daily, followed by the same two (or three) at wills over and over again. 4E has limited versatility per PC, hence, he may not consider it flexible.

3E did have the advantage for spell casters to cast different types of spells many encounters, at least from level 7 or so up.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd like to give you advice, but I don't quite know what to make of your OP:

i found the 3.5 system a better system at the time because I loved the interconnected rules, and easy tables.

Can you give an example or two?

I have heard 4th is more simplified/easier to run, but I have always liked flexible and open to simplified.

One of the biggest reasons I DM 4e is because it's flexible and simplified. Though I feel like there's a miscommunication going on, because you writing those two things as opposing traits doesn't make much sense to me.

Their only requirement is it allows them to develop fun and viable characters without massive work (ie not huge weighty rules like Champions).

This one at least, without a doubt, 4e does better than 3e. Each race and class entry gives [useful] character creation suggestions. And options are overall much better balanced in 4e, so there's much less chance of a player accidentally making a character who's significantly more or less awesome than the others.

 

[jbear]

I'm curious what the OP means by "flexible and open".

For example, it certainly seems easy enough to create new races, feats, powers, items and creatures in 4e -- as easy as in 3.x, easily. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies should also be pretty easy to create, though possibly harder to balance. How about an entire class? Pretty hard if you're starting from scratch, but maybe not so difficult if you just modify an existing one.

But let's say instead that you want to reintroduce 3.x mechanics like grappling, disarming or breaking weapons, or the AD&D concept of "armor class" (with different values depending on the weapon type used for the attack) -- I could see that being pretty complex.

Alternatively, if the OP likes 4e but hates Encounter powers and wants to remove them completely without destroying balance -- that too could be difficult.

So, I return to my original point: What does the OP mean by "flexible and open"?

I was wondering that myself.

I have found the 4e system very easy to tinker to my own tastes. If that is what is meant than yep, it'll do the job.

Also, for your players, that might find that 1st level characters are more 'heroic' and hardy than 1st level 3e characters. I think this is a bonus for new players.

 

[Felon]

A poll is kinda pointless in the 4e rules forum since 99% of the people who frequent it are obviously going to be biased in favour of 4e and the other 1% are trolls looking for bait.

True this. 4e gushing galore.

Lizzybeth, let me ask you ask a question: are you and your friends willing to get a subscription to DDI? Because that's the make-it-or-break-it. Without access to the character builder, you're playing with a lot of things out-of-whack. Go to the Wizards website and look all of the available errata....err, I mean revisions.....errr, sorry, "rules updates". Those updates are incorporated into the character builder.

Mind you, having a DDI subscription amounts to not really needing the printed books that badly, so it may actually wind up being very cost-effective.

 

[Turtlejay]

Considering one of your criteria was "to develop fun and viable characters without massive work", I'd say 4e edges ahead, but it depends on how high you are going to play. Lower level 3.5 is not too bad, but once you start looking at PrC requirements and a ballooning number of spells per day, the character aspect gets a little less streamlined. 4e progresses at a more measured pace, but you will still end up with 4 dailies, 4 encounters, 2 at-wills, 6 utilities, and various feat, race, class, PP, and ED abilities. You can, of course, build around this. You can do the same thing in 3.5, too, but you will end up with a lot less interesting things to do in combat.

That is kind of the main tipping point for me as a player. I may go play some 3.5 in the future, I *like* the system, but I don't think I would ever play a non-spellcaster again. I am spoiled by options. What do *your* players like? That makes a big difference, too.

As for DMing, a lot of really good points about it's streamlined nature have been made. I'll just echo those and say that if you'd like that kind of environment, 4e is a good thing. Nothing against importing that kind of attitude to 3.5, but you might run into a square peg/round hole issue.

Jay

 

[bardolph]

The only real minus to 4e is that it is almost entirely lacking in good fluff. Aesthetically, I don't like the idea of clerics shooting laser beams at will, and vancian martial powers take a little getting used to.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or so they say. I only had to run one session before I was totally hooked.