So how is 4th edition?

[ValhallaGH]

This comment is amazingly contrary to every other person who responding to the OP.

1) No it isn't. The quotation refers to the OP's stated use of 4E after it came out, and the changes that have been wrought in the following hiatus. No one else has said anything that directly says "Player-side changes to 4E for the last year and a half have been non-existent of for the worse."
If it were referring to 4E in relation to 3.x then it would be contradicted by most of the posters in this thread. I happen to disagree with them (I find the ability to build an effective and interesting character with only 3 hours of total system study over the last two years, and the cross-referencing power of the Character Builder, to be liberating as a player), but that's neither here nor there.

2) It's true. Most of the supplementary material for 4E (including the additional "core" books) has been for the Players to use. Further, this material has made it both easier and better, as a player, to make the character you want and for that character to be different from other characters while still being effective.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

As a player I think whether one prefers 4e or 3e is a matter of taste. For instance: Its easier to play a 'spell caster' in 4e but harder to play a 'noncaster' than it was in 3e (I think 4e struck the ideal balance).

But as DM 4e is far better than 3e. More monsters are interesting and fun to run. It is easier and faster to create new interesting monsters and NPCs.
In 4e its easier to create balanced encounters, challenging encounters or deadly encounters (the new etools for DMs make this advantage even greater).
High level magic in 4e isn't quite as adventure destroying as it could be in 3e.

Even with players getting the vast majority of the new options since 4e's launch, DMing 4e is still more fun and easier with only 2 DMGs and 2 MMs than DMing 3e with its myriad of monster manuals and compendiums.
The monster/trap options that exist for a 4e DM are more often interesting than for a 3e DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, in terms of who benefits the most from the new material I'm not so sure it is all just the players. Yes, there are a LOT more player options than there were before whilst the mechanics of the game haven't changed at all essentially (there are a few new areas that have been added but they mostly support new player options). From this perspective though it really just shows how basically solid the system is and how it managed to cover all the really important bases by using very generalizable mechanics from the start. I mean from that perspective what MORE do you really need on the "GM side?". Just basically more monsters, traps, etc which they HAVE supplied in good quantity.

However if you look at a lot of the supplements they are a DM goldmine. Open Grave, the Draconomicons, etc have tossed an enormous amount of plot material and easily adapted background stuff out there. DMG2 tossed out a LOT of good ideas for campaigns, alternate ways of doing rewards, etc. Even AV2 added a lot of interesting stuff that is likely to be highly useful to the DM even if it is basically player-oriented. Even just looking at the power books a lot of the player-oriented new stuff like beastmasters, familiars, domains, etc is really useful from a DM story-telling perspective as well since you can easily coopt most of it to use with NPCs.

As a DM I've certainly gained a lot from the newer material. I mostly don't use a lot of it as-is but its good material and has seeded some fun stuff into my game that I probably wouldn't have so easily done without having some of those books. Granted I COULD have done it all, but not as easily.

Overall its a good RPG. That's about all that can really be said. I don't think characters are more "flat" in 4e than they were in older Es either. In many ways they are more flexible. With a lot of really core character functionality in skills its MUCH easier for instance to set up a campaign centered around stealth and intrigue than before. The players can make pretty much standard style PCs and just take a feat each to be stealthy instead of being stuck only running "sneaky classes" (or in 3.x they can do it but only by doing some serious MCing and degrading their core competencies as a result). At worst such a 4e party would probably want to go with certain builds to be most effective, but those very builds would be thematic to that genre anyway (light armor dex fighters with rapiers and daggers, etc).

 

[Gort]

As an addendum to the previous stuff about how 4e is easier on the DM, I've also found that running the pre-made monsters and NPCs to be a lot easier in 4e than in 3e. Generally in 3e I often had to pick through tons of feats which might modify a monster's attacks and the like (power attack, awesome blow, etc etc etc) and I often ended up missing something important. I might also miss an important part of the monsters capabilities by not reading his skills list correctly.

In 4e, generally if a monster can do something, it'll be listed as a power. They don't have feats or anything more than the most truncated of skills lists (generally all I care about is stealth, perception and athletics) and I don't tend to slap my forehead at the end of a fight when I realise I missed half of the point of the monster by missing out some of it's feats.

That said, I have been known to forget about auras on some 4e monsters, but it's not such a big deal.

 

[Ravellion]

I've chosen "both have merit". This is because your players don't seem to mind which edition you are playing, and you lean twoards third. So why did I coohse the middel option: because fourth edition is very good, and very DM friendly (though at epic, I am currently having some trouble properly challenging my players - but that is something I can work with. 3e epic requires a chartered accountant IMO).

 

[renau1g]

Being a chartered accountant, I still struggle with 3.5e at epic

However I love 4e. DDI is a great tool (although you do pay for it, but it's cheap IMHO).

I prefer 4e both as a player and a DM.

 

[Ravellion]

There is a lot more freedom in designing player characters and in general, the player side of the game works better than 4E.

I'd like to say that for multi class spell casters, I like 4e rules better as a player. Additionally, I like the fact that 4e requires a lesser degree of mastery from the sytem in creating a PC. I did not like heading into combat in 3e with people using LA+1 races with poor stat and feat choices, thereby basically contributing nothing at all to combat. That experience is very hard to duplicate in 4e (yes, you could consider deliberately choosing a low prime stat, despite advice in the PHB to specifically not do that).

 

[Belphanior]

Like Gort, I was also this guy.

And me too.

Well... not exactly.

I once helped out my DM who needed to prepare a hostile group of NPCs, basically the 'anti-party'. One of the spellcasters took him, even with my help, over two hours to construct.

Later that night I killed that NPC with the very first action of the combat. Or rather, my feat did (Leadership). I didn't abuse any of my knowledge, as all I did was pick out some thematic spells. But my Cohort charged in, used a power, and basically tore him in half.

In that same game the paladin/cleric needed a three-page excel sheet to keep track of what his to-hit and damage bonuses were on various attacks, including all possible permutations of buffs and feats that might apply.

 

[BobTheNob]

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

Speaking for myself my experiences span back to 2nd edition (1st if you go into my ealier childhood). To me, 4th edition feels like the designers started the process with the sentence "How is that game going to work?" rather than "Whats it supposed to do?".

Systemicly, the previous editions felt like a desire translated into numbers, but 4th is like a game first, then fit the desire in...

Im not really making myself clear. Personally speaking, I have run the gammit, and whilst 4th has its glitchs (as they all do), I would never contemplate looking backwards. It just feels better from every perspective, like a car that doesnt rattle when the door closes, cause the designers spent the time to ensure everything fit in one elegant package.

 

[Iron Sky]

You might keep in mind that this poll may be slightly skewed since you posted it in the 4E Rules sub-fourm. Most people who come here play 4e regularly, or they wouldn't be here.

If you posted it in the General RPG Discussion sub-forum, you might get a more balanced array of responses.

Would be an interesting experience if you copy-pasted the post on the 3e sub-forum just to see the difference in responses (not sure if the Mods are ok with that though...)

Edit: Missed Bob's reply above mine...