D&D 4E Switching to 4e?

[Squnk]

I'm fairly new to d&d and have been playing 3.5 for about four to five months now. I have recently talked to my group and everyone seems to be in agreement of possibly "trying" 4e, though with some hesitation from a couple people. I have done some research and I find myself torn between trying it or not, mainly cause of the time sunk I have already sunk into 3.5. But with that said from some of the research I have done I don't think 4e is as bad as some people make it out to be.

I know this has been a large topic of discussion over the last few years in the d&d community (3.5 vs 4e), but I though 4e might be worth trying atleast. I am hopeful to get some advice from players who have played both versions and tell me their conclusions or experiences. What is good and bad about it? Was the transition difficult? Were other members of your group adapt well? Was it worth it? Or just any helpful insight into 4e.

As a side note, none of us haves played 4e, only 3.5

Thanks!

 

[purgatorybound]

I have played 3.5 for about 4 years before switching to 4E. I was very hesitent on switching to 4E myself, but eventually the lack of availability of 3.5 material caught up to me and I bought the 4E PHB... It wasnt long before we had our hands on PHB2 and then PHB3. I have some complaints about 4E, but I think if yo ulook at the switch like I did then you will be ok.

The way I convinced myself to actually try 4E is to remind myself of how much fun i had learning 3.5. If you take into consideration that for the most part, the entire party will be re-learning DND (aside from the basic d20 system) then it makes it easier to stomach all of the changes that first appear to be for the worse.

For example: when I saw the shortened skill list for 4E, I had a fit! I loved the fact that I had a skill that I could train and focus for "anything" I wanted my character to do. After learning that the smaller list of skills is designed to emcompas many skills within a skill, I was ok with the fact that I would only have to train Athletics to train in swimming, climbing, and jumping. This means that i can focus my skill points at each level on one skill that covers three I wanted.

Also the at-will powers actually add a great element of personality to the game. Any Barbarian can crush a kobold skull with a maul, but the term "Howling Strike" helps picture the anger and rage focused behind the otherwise basic melee attack with an added effect.

It took me awhile after purchasing the 4E books to actually get into it. I still miss 3.5 but if we want the game we love to keep evolving then we are going to have to evolve with it. My dream is to write a d20 Modern Zombie Apocalypse campaing, but I will definitely use 3.5 when I do, but as far as D&D, I will continue learning the new era of gaming through 4E.

 

[The Human Target]

Its all want you want from the game really.

I played 3rd Edition from its release to its end.

I had a lot of fun.

4e so far has kicked its but for me and my group.

Its has lots of things we consider improvements over 3E- more dynamic combats, less book keeping, a more even power curve, all the classes are pretty similar to learn so if you can play one you can probably play any, the characters feel bad ass, its way easier to DM, etc.

But to be fair, I'm probably not going to support the Essentials line of products at all, because I don't like its direction (it feels more like older editions.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I love 4e but I think that you guys should initially approach it as a new game, not as D&D as such.
The biggest issues i have seen is people running 4e characters as if they were the 3.5 character. 3e rewarded preparation, build, buffs selected and cast before combat were important aspects of 3e. In 4e one can be looser about that but when the fight starts then what the characters do and how they support each others is very important.

Out of combat, to be honest I do not see much difference, a lot falls on the DM but the skills are broad, which I prefer, since you non longer the the ranger that can spot but not listen or search and that sort of thing.

A balance party is pretty important in 4e, leader, defender, striker and controller should all ideally be present.
One group I DM for are pretty much strikers and a controller and have done pretty well for themselves. However, it is a pretty fragile party. I occasionally DM for another group that is more Defender, leader, controller and they can have a hard time putting down tough monsters, like brutes.

 

[BobTheNob]

Wow. Strange place to ask the question...I dont know how much relativity you are going to get! That aside, I will try to give an honest assessment.

4e is not just a different beast to 3.5. Its a different beast to ALL previous incarnations. Its a far more structured approach, then previous editions. This has enormous advantages, but also brings some disadvantages.

As a DM, I have never had it easier. The rules are so clear that very few arguments arise as to decisions, and most of the time I am able to easily clarify.

The other thing is game balance. Their is far far less "number abuse" than 3.5. The game still has the concept of "uber builds", but I remember 3.5 and earlier we always had one guys whos character was SO super powerful that you had to gear encounters against him, and the other players shrank into irrelevency. 4.0 Doesnt really suffer this problem, just about all builds are balanced (and constant errata, something 3.5 never had, maintains this) and everyone has a part to play.

Now the downs. Combat can be slow, just inherent to what is going on. Characters can also end up so complex that you just loose track of everything : we have a casual group of 7, one of which is me, the DM, with one power player and 5 casual players and its not suited to casual player in the paragon + teirs (11 and up)

Of late, the other thing that has been getting to me is that with every source book that is released, the lines started to blur between what classes did, then they ended up with 20+ classes and more stupid races, and I ended up asking myself "Are they adding value...or just content?"

I am very hopeful with essentials that it will come to the rescue of our groups woes, and I might suggest as a 3.5 conversion that you start by looking there too.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

ardoughter is right, a balanced party is pretty much essential in 4e. Particularly when you get up to the higher levels.

 

[RangerWickett]

When I first tried 4e, I was disheartened because I missed a lot of the options from 3e, but now 2 years in, the game has really broadened. The flavor and art has improved too, which were my other main grousing points.

I will say, if you're coming from 3e, you might have trouble adjusting to the new design mentality. In 4e, all classes have 'powers.' I mean, a fighter can still just swing his sword around, bull rush, charge, and do all that basic stuff, but he also knows a few special moves which they can only use a few times per fight. (There is not explicit rationale for why you can't do these tricks multiple times; it's just part of the rules.)

Some people complained that it made fighters into spellcasters. Others said it was too video gamey, like fighters have super-move gauges that don't replenish until after a fight ends. I eventually got used to it because, as much as it might not make sense from a simulationist stand-point, the design keeps fights fun. You almost never do the same thing two rounds in a row. In 3e, it was easy to get into the rut of swinging your sword every turn. Now you get to do more exciting stuff.

But, if you don't think you'd like that, the Essentials just came out, which basically take a step back and work more like 3e.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

Like to add that there's more emphasis on the players playing together, particularly at higher levels. Once the players can basically work out what they can do as a team and who needs to do what to make it work, then they are a very compelling force indeed. I've found that when my players use their abilities together to their advantage, I have to ramp up the difficulty as the DM to the point where I'm playing against them, but in a more ability way than competetive. And then when they can go against me at the best of my abilities and win it makes it all the more sweeter for them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm fairly new to d&d and have been playing 3.5 for about four to five months now. I have recently talked to my group and everyone seems to be in agreement of possibly "trying" 4e, though with some hesitation from a couple people.

I assume that while you're new to D&D there are others in your group who aren't - and a couple of them are the ones who are bashing 4e and don't want to try it?

4e is a great system, superior to 3.5 in many ways. It's faster and easier to learn (and the new 'Essentials' lines tries to be /even/ simpler and easier and faster to learn), better balanced, encourages team play and tactics, etc... The main advantage of 3.5 in the eyes of many is that it provides a vast, rich set of character customization choices and 'rewards system master.' In other words, it's a power-gamer's dream system - complex, arcane, and infiinitely abuseable.

If you like your group and can stand to play 3.5, you might not want to push the issue. I've gamed with 3.5 fans who 'reluctantly give 4e a chance,' and the outcome is grim more often than not - if you're determined to find fault, there's always faults to find. If there are D&D Encounters games going on in your area, they're quick, painless way to try out 4e ('Essentials'), you won't see it at it's best, as the setting is very casual, and the attendance unpredictable, but it's something.

If your group really is ready to try 4e, they might want to start with the Red Box - it has an old-school retro feel that might apeal to those who have resisted 4e so far.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, just play it. Like any game it is best approached without too many preconceived notions of how things are 'supposed' to work. If people decide to give it a chance 4e works well. It really shows some serious thought in its design, which honestly I'm not convinced was really much in evidence in past editions for the most part.

The real danger with 4e as I see it is that it works so well that a lot of groups seem to get sucked into a rut where nobody thinks outside of what the rules give you. At some point the DM particularly needs to get out of the box and just inject some craziness into the game. I think this can be tough for people that started with 3.x, which also seems to have encouraged a rather "the rules encompass all the options" kind of thinking. 4e avoids defining a lot of story related stuff. There is plenty of fluff but as an example there are no fixed rules for a character turning into a werewolf. It is perfectly feasible mechanically, the rules just deliberately avoid nailing it down. These kinds of things are left as story elements that the DM can customize and work in as they like vs a large mass of codified rules for what happens in the story when someone gets bit by a lycanthrope. I see a lot of groups just assuming that there is no rule for it so it "can't happen". A more old-school mentality helps, the rules codify combat and provide a good framework for other types of action but make no attempt to be an encyclopedic solution to every possible situation.

There are other differences in game design philosophy between the two games, but in the end it is basically the same sort of game, you're a band of adventurers and you go out and kick butt.