What's the most significant difference you've found with 4e from 3e?

[JoeGKushner]

One of these things is not like the other.

4e can be a good game engine and the Monster Manual can still be a gimp book.

I see no bad chi there.

 

[Fifth Element]

4e can be a good game engine and the Monster Manual can still be a gimp book.

I see no bad chi there.

I guess we have different ideas of what "gimp" means then.

 

[Asmor]

Conversion work is much harder in 4e.

I'm curious what you consider conversion work... I would consider all the work in converting a module to be statting up the monsters and such in it, which is infinitely easier in 4e.

Levels don't align anywhere like they used to.

I don't understand this comment at all. As in, it is completely nonsensical to me. What are you trying to say?

The Monster Manual is a gimp book and in dire need of support/reinforcement (not hard to guestimate the goods in the meanwhile but at the cost, with the reprinted art and reduced page count, I don't feel I should have to.)

With 500 stat blocks in it...

 

[malraux]

Having done a small amount of conversion from 2e to 3e, I've got to say that I find 3e to 4e far easier. Admittedly I'm doing a thematic conversion, rather than literal, but I've found that it takes me 1-2 hours to convert enough for an evening's adventures (so ~4-5 hours of actual gaming). And that's typically with 10-20% monsters straight from the MM, 50-60% just adding or removing a few levels, and the remainder as ex nihlo or extreme reskinning.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Monsters are one part. I could go through a whole list of monsters that have been "subsumed" or changed or simply missing but it's not that hard to come up with new materal. (Unlike the art in the Monster Manual where resuse for a core book that's far smaller than the PHB was one of the orders of the day.)

In addition, encounters are simply built different. The new edition calls on a lot more... I don't want to say simple variety, but game mechanical variety where a couple of different types of monsters (controllers, brutes, soldiers, etc...) are useful for breaking up the different way characters themselves play.

Treasure another part. Intelligent magic items for example. Finding that many items work nothing like they used to such as Gauntlets of Ogre Power or Bracers of Defense.

In terms of levels, in previous editions of the game, 1st-20th was still 1st-20th. Changes here and there but the "essence" or feel of that was still the same. 4e kicks it up a notch with the new 21st-30th default assumption in the campaign.

I'm sure part of that is learning the system.

Another part is that it's quite a bit different and things don't work like they used to.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm...you know, Joe raises an interesting question, what WOULD be harder?

Converting a 1e/2e monster to 3E or to 4E?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm...you know, Joe raises an interesting question, what WOULD be harder?

Converting a 1e/2e monster to 3E or to 4E?

Depends a little on how you do it. But I think since the 4E monster guidelines seem far easier and less fiddly, I would think 4E might be easier - or at least more rewarding. It might be hard to come up with the unique, exception power of the critter in 4E, I don't know. But that is probably fun, because you're not doing "math", but doing something creative (within the constraints of the "power" system of 4E, of course).

The more interesting question might be - how did "encounters" change over editions? (pemerton once made a point that the idea of grouping combats into "encounters" or "encounter areas" instead of "dungeon exploration" was already a shift between AD&D and 3E and is now enforced in 4E.)