Initially it was a test run. I was sure I was going to hate it, but I didn't want the "you can't criticize until you've played" argument thrown at me. As soon as I realized it played the same at the table as 3.5, substituting "insert power name here" rather than "I full attack", I was ok with it. The clinchers for me, though, were the way it practically forced the party members to cooperate (without them realizing it) and the fact the every fight felt more substantial. And the ease of prep time as DM was a boon, too. In fact, 4e's approach to game prep has eased up the prep work for the 3.5 games I still run by making me realize I don't have to spend hours building stat blocks when I can just eyeball them to appropriate for CR.
I still have some issues with 4e, notably players that call out power names and don't describe actions. As well as player dependency on the character builder. I like the CB, but it aggravates me when players show up and don't know what a feat or class feature does because the CB didn't spell it out on the sheet. The flurry of ongoing conditions is a headache, too, especially at higher levels.
All in all, if given a choice as to which game to play, I'm choosing 4e.
When 4e came out I was in the middle of running a 3.5 Ptolus campaign and didn't want to switch, but I was interested in looking at the rules, so I asked for the Gift Set just to look at them.
After reading through the rules, I really liked them and wanted to try them, so I started a new 4e game at my FLGS. After about a month later, the other players in my Ptolus game had had a chance to see 4e rules and they wanted to convert the game to 4e. About a month later that game fell through because of personality conflicts and I absorbed one of the players into my new 4e game.
I really have no issue with 3.5 or Pathfinder and would play it if someone asked me to, but I will not run it, prefering to run 4e instead. I like the easy of entry into the game, for both player and DM. I prefer games that have easy starting rules, which get more complex as you begin to dig deeper into them. 4e makes it easy to make a character that is not gimped because you don't know the rules, but becomes complex once you begin to look for synergizes with your group members.
As the thread title says why did you pick 4E over other existing versions of D&D.
DM Preparation Times
In 4E, it's very simple to set up an encounter of appropriate difficulty, and you can fully concentrate on the story during preparations. In 3.5, this is not really the case, as CR is mostly meaningless, and it takes experience and time to be able to properly judge a monster's difficulty and set up level-appropriate encounters.More interesting battles and teamwork rewards
I really like the tactical battles of 4E, with the emphasis on teamwork and the environment. In 3.5, environment was never such a big deal since everyone was flying after the first few levels anyway, and the system didn't really reward players working together as 4E does.
Easier to teach
The rules are much simpler and streamlined compared to 3.5, and with the Character Builder, I can simply print out the whole sheet with all the powers and and it to a new player. Everything is right in front of them, and explained in simple language. You can play a wizard without having to sift through long, obtuse descriptions of spells, ...
Balance and lack of SoDs
While far from perfectly balanced (what system is?), it's still much more balanced than 3.5. People can play monks, bards and fighters and can still contribute in battle (a very nice trait if you are used to 3.5). Also, low-level casters can take more than one hit before dying - while PCs still have to fear for their lives, death is not a matter of a single unlucky roll as so often in 3.5. And even the worst action denying powers of monsters are until-saved, which means only one or two rounds usually, and not 'for the rest of the fight' or forever (since you lost the SoD) as in the previous edition.
As a player...
Having said that, I still also play 3.5/PF (and also DSA, 'Das Schwarze Auge'), but for DMing, I would never choose anything than 4E. I like both systems, but the fun in 3.5/PF for me is more in finding optimal character options in random splatbooks (aka dumpster diving) for optimizing my char, while the thing I like about 4E is the dynamic battles, what's happening during the game...DSA just sucks as a system, but I play because of the group, a few times a year.
I didn't. I just added a new game to my list.
I played D&D since blue box, and although the gradual complexity of the game kept me going, it came to the point where I was more focused on roleplaying (general experience), versus always having to look up special rules, spells, etc. I don't think 4E is the answer to everything I want, but it is the only version of D&D that meets my expectations for a simple rule set, and bringing all the classes more in line with each other. Initially I wasn't sold on it, but I didn't let other opinions stand in the way of actual game experience. The ease of play for 4E, led me to start running my own campaign in a store, versus home based. I never would have considered DMing for a group of strangers (game store) with other systems I have played. I never had the time to become a rules lawyer.
It even introduced new players (wives of some of my friends) that seemed to have a hard time with more complex systems, especially when considering spell casters.
I was in a Pathfinder and a D&D campaign at the same time. I dropped out of the Pathfinder campaign and joined (an additional) D&D campaign because of a wide variety of reasons, no single thing, but in general every time I played Pathfinder I saw things that D&D was doing better. Also on balance the Pathfinder rules were frustrating me more than they were helping me have a fun experience.
However, I use the Pathfinder setting for my own D&D campaign, it's top shelf and really very awesome. What makes the book even better is that it's basically uncoupled from the Pathfinder rules set so it's extremely flexible.
Pathfinder setting + D&D rules = win.
Frankly i siwtched because I, and most of my fellow players, prefered melee classes, and the new edition gave them just so much more to do in combat. Things that reflected the themes of the classes/characters no less. I mean hell it was impossible to even fight and walk at the same time in 3.x, but now our rogue was bounding about the battle feild and our paladin was defending the week members of the party with his holy wrath, not just acting as a cleric with a full BAB.
I stayed for the ease of game prep, which was quite the pleasant surprise. When you have two jobs and kids, cutting four hours of prep time down to a half hour is freaking huge. I'm finding them far more entertaining as well. I am eaily able to balance traps and terrain, along with monster roles into something very tricky and fun.
I liked the philosophical underpinnings of the system.
A return to the rule set that presumes that the DM and players are playing a different game appealed, especially in so far as this system, more so then 1st or 2nd actually really recognized that the DM and players are playing a different game. In 1st and 2nd it was true but the design of the system had not been created with that philosophical concept front and centre.
I was very happy with many of the choices in things like when players got access to certain types of abilities. The ability to create murder mysteries at higher levels for example or the fact that the adventure plot is reasonably proof against the spell casters (if not necessarily being proof against the ingenuity of the players.
Elements in what a characters fundamentally is appealed - here everything from the fact that characters are mostly stuck to the ground to the skill system that reduced the variance between the parties best at a given skill and the parties worst so that skills and challenges around skills was something that might have a star player but probably everyone had at least a shot of accomplishing. Also the fact that characters always more or less operate inside or outside combat and do so comparably.
While it took a bit of getting used to I was very happy with the idea of powers, especially among the martial classes. I really liked that you could get some great moves in a combat scene but that there was built in variety. A fighter could have a cool combat breaking move...but it was not combat breaking because they could only do it once this combat and then they'd need to do something else.
Did I mention that DM prep is usually pretty quick and painless? I do a lot of conversions from other editions and this is really a sweet element.
|
I initially would have preferred to play Pathfinder, as while it tidied up 3.5 from a balance point of view (although frankly I've never really had balance issues ruin my or my players' experiences) my main motivation was Paizo loyalty. But by real-world group are not Paizoans and wanted to play 4e instead - they generally convert when a new edition comes along, a bit like when they did with 3e - and had no knowledge of or interest in Pathfinder.
Having played both, I would say that PF is beautiful in its complexity, but they still haven't ironed out the prep-time issue (which is a really big issue for me), while 4e is very cleverly modular and easy to get to grips with, easy on the prep time (especially with the IT component WotC have brought out) but a lot of the powers are variants on similar things (although it is a good thing for non-spellcasters to have fun powers too, on balance). If I had to choose (I play both - PF in PbP, 4e in real world and one PbP) I'd probably plump for 4e because I can run a game and have a life instead of having to spend the whole weekend prepping like I used to for 3.5. But I'd prefer to be able to play both, all said.
Because I'm a soulless fanboy who plays whatever I can buy the most of.
Okay, seriously? 4e's the most balanced edition yet, which is what I'm looking for in a generic fantasy rule set.
I wish I could say that 4e's "just another game I play," but I don't have the time for that many games. How do other gamers do it, and keep a job/go to school/run IRS scams?
|
|
I haven't actually "switched" to 4e, but I do play it as well as Pathfinder. As a matter of fact I did not like "original" 4e, but I have started playing Essentials, which I do like. Of course PF does get more table time, but since Essentials has come out I've been running adventures for my daughter using that.
I can honestly say that while I really like Essentials, it will never replace PF, but I do enjoy D&DE almost as much. The primary reason I even thought about getting Essentials was because I thought it would be easier to teach my daughter. Plus the character creator is an easy way for her to make characters. That's a big selling point right there for me.
My primary problem at this point is that even in Essentials the focus is still on minis and battlemats, two things I do not use. Since we play the entire game with only minimal visual aides, I either have to convert the powers/abilities that have to do with squares into feet or just ignore them completely.
So while Essentials has brought be around to playing 4e again, I still don't see me ever letting it replace PF/3.x as my game of choice.
|
Because it is the only game in town, so to speak. As a busy grad student I don't have time to hunt down a game and don't really have a whole lot of time to devote to playing. So D&D Encounters turned out to be the perfect format for me. Two hours a week is pretty manageable, where other games just aren't.
If you don't like using minis/tokens and battlemats, then 4E is probably not going to be the best game for you. If you want a game that is simple and easy to teach your daughter, you might consider running D&D using the Savage World rules.
I'm a teacher, and I've just started running a 4E essentials game for a group of grade 4 students who are entirely new to rpgs, and they are loving it. It can be really magical to run a game for kids since the game is so new and wondrous to them.
I haven't actually "switched" to 4e, but I do play it as well as Pathfinder. As a matter of fact I did not like "original" 4e, but I have started playing Essentials, which I do like. Of course PF does get more table time, but since Essentials has come out I've been running adventures for my daughter using that.
I can honestly say that while I really like Essentials, it will never replace PF, but I do enjoy D&DE almost as much. The primary reason I even thought about getting Essentials was because I thought it would be easier to teach my daughter. Plus the character creator is an easy way for her to make characters. That's a big selling point right there for me.
My primary problem at this point is that even in Essentials the focus is still on minis and battlemats, two things I do not use. Since we play the entire game with only minimal visual aides, I either have to convert the powers/abilities that have to do with squares into feet or just ignore them completely.
So while Essentials has brought be around to playing 4e again, I still don't see me ever letting it replace PF/3.x as my game of choice.
|
|
If you don't like using minis/tokens and battlemats, then 4E is probably not going to be the best game for you. If you want a game that is simple and easy to teach your daughter, you might consider running D&D using the Savage World rules.
I'm a teacher, and I've just started running a 4E essentials game for a group of grade 4 students who are entirely new to rpgs, and they are loving it. It can be really magical to run a game for kids since the game is so new and wondrous to them.
I've become so accustomed to taking parts that I don't use out of games it is almost second nature. Ignoring the minis & battlemats is not a problem for me, though I wish there wasn't so much focus on those aspects.
Like I said the big selling point for Essentials/4e was the character generator. It is so much easier for my daughter to make characters with it. Plus I do like a lot of the Essentials PC builds. 4e Essentials won't become my default system, but I like the revisions made in Essentials enough to bring 4e back to my gaming table. I'll probably quit buying 4e once I get the Essentials items I want, but the 4 or 5 books I'll get will be enough to keep her gaming for quite a while. My only real complaint is that it is a little more difficult to build one on one adventures with 4e. Not necessarily hard, it just requires a little more thought.Once she's more familiar with playing I'll move her into Pathfinder(that way she can game with my group), Starblazer Adventures, Hollow Earth Expedition, OSRIC, Dark Dungeons and maybe Buffy. I also plan on introducing her to Swords & Wizardry White Box and maybe even DC Adventures. Of course that's just once she gets more experience.
I was in a Pathfinder and a D&D campaign at the same time. I dropped out of the Pathfinder campaign and joined (an additional) D&D campaign because of a wide variety of reasons, no single thing, but in general every time I played Pathfinder I saw things that D&D was doing better. Also on balance the Pathfinder rules were frustrating me more than they were helping me have a fun experience.
However, I use the Pathfinder setting for my own D&D campaign, it's top shelf and really very awesome. What makes the book even better is that it's basically uncoupled from the Pathfinder rules set so it's extremely flexible.
Pathfinder setting + D&D rules = win.
+1
D&D 4E takes many of the lessons learned from prior editions and makes the game enjoyable for everyone. As a DM, it is so easy to prep. As a player, the rules are complex enough to allow for customization but simple enough to play w/o referencing the rules every turn.
Golarion, however, is better than any setting WotC can crank out. I fell in love with the campaign book and setting. It reminded me of 1st Edition AD&D Forgotten Realms, before the passage of time and the changing of hands turned into something less than preferred. Paizo writes great stuff, and WotC was silly not to retain their services for 4E.
I will still play any edition of (A)D&D, and I really like Castles and Crusades, but I prefer 4E.
I never liked 3.5 but I mostly played with rules lawyers and power gamers.
When 4e came out they keep playing their 3.5 power game and I met some new people the were willing to try it. We all enjoyed it because the rules lawyers and power gamers didn't want to join in our game and we could all roleplay and fight and still be more or less equal.
|
I haven't switched to 4e as such, I still prefer 3.5 and aim to run that again. But I have bought several 4e books and am currently running a campaign using it.
Ironically one of the reasons I pursued 4e was Pathfinder; initial info about 4e made me think I wasn't going to like it (able to heal all HP in a short rest!) and I was aiming to stick with 3.5, but when PF came out and looked like it would may fracture the 3.5 player base (so rather than it be a 3.5 or 4e thing it would be a PF or 4e choice) I thought I had best pursue 4e as it supported Eberron.
Now I am looking to play and / or run 3.5, 4e and PF (3.5 & 4e for Eberron, PF for PFS and any of them for Freeport).
Each offers me something different, but 4e offers me:
Easy monster stat blocks that don't require any cross referencing with other books (to look up spells or feats).
A feeling of freedom when creating NPCs, due to not having to follow the same rules as PCs, I feel free to make up stuff that just sounds cool. Also I can reskin monster stats and not worry (I have used hobgoblin stats for goblins, longsword attacks as spear attacks etc).
Very easy encounter building with the XP budget.
A consolidated skill list (though in some areas too consolidated for my preference) and everyone having a basic level of experience in skills (half level).
As a player lots of cool powers that don't always completely run out (At Wills and Encounter powers). Though as a GM I feel players get overwhelmed by choice leading to longer combats.
And the thing that brought me to the D&D game in the first place - it is still the most popular game out there and so the player base is massive making it easy to find games.
I have some power gamers in my group as well, and it can make running a 3E game pretty challenging, as such players can easily create builds that really tax the system and make it difficult to easily create challenging encounters. It also can lead to one player having an uber character and another player having a really gimpy character. That is my main beef with 3E. 4E solves these issues to a significant extent, but doesn't totally resolve them (at least not with my group).
I never liked 3.5 but I mostly played with rules lawyers and power gamers.
When 4e came out they keep playing their 3.5 power game and I met some new people the were willing to try it. We all enjoyed it because the rules lawyers and power gamers didn't want to join in our game and we could all roleplay and fight and still be more or less equal.
I have some power gamers in my group as well, and it can make running a 3E game pretty challenging, as such players can easily create builds that really tax the system and make it difficult to easily create challenging encounters. It also can lead to one player having an uber character and another player having a really gimpy character. That is my main beef with 3E. 4E solves these issues to a significant extent, but doesn't totally resolve them (at least not with my group).
Yeah, power gamers can cause problems in 4e too if they try hard enough. (Or get ideas from CharOp.) I just had a falling out with my group's youngest player, because he wanted to use a cheesy hybrid combo. So I house ruled Eyebite to not work with Divine Challenge, he got upset, and long story short he's taking a time out from my campaign.
So yeah, rules lawyers and RAWtards happen in every edition, though some more than others.
I have some power gamers in my group as well, and it can make running a 3E game pretty challenging, as such players can easily create builds that really tax the system and make it difficult to easily create challenging encounters. It also can lead to one player having an uber character and another player having a really gimpy character. That is my main beef with 3E. 4E solves these issues to a significant extent, but doesn't totally resolve them (at least not with my group).Yeah, power gamers can cause problems in 4e too if they try hard enough. (Or get ideas from CharOp.) I just had a falling out with my group's youngest player, because he wanted to use a cheesy hybrid combo. So I house ruled Eyebite to not work with Divine Challenge, he got upset, and long story short he's taking a time out from my campaign.
So yeah, rules lawyers and RAWtards happen in every edition, though some more than others.
I've heard of some busted builds in 4E but this little combo is not really one of them. Eyebite itself is not all that potent a power and the Paladins divine challenge is not that awesome. I mean its a cute little trick that more or less forces a monster to either loose its turn or suffer the penalties for ignoring a mark but it can only be done once a fight against a single target. There are perfectly legal encounter powers that are a lot more potent then this little trick - in fact I think players like it more because of 'frustrating the monster' then because its actually good.
Our Paladin eventually stopped using this when he realized that with his phenomenal AC and the obscene damage the monsters where doing at later levels it was already in the monsters best interest to ignore the mark - this just cinched the deal and forceed the monsters to rip a 40hp hole in the cleric instead of having a 50% chance of missing the Paladin who was better at handling a 40 hp hit in any case.
This is definitely an issue with D&D in both 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E. The system itself caters towards players who like to min/max by giving them zillions of different options and combinations for putting together characters, which can be fun and rewarding, but also offers opens the door for system abuse/exploitation. It is very easy for players to get wrapped up in trying to wring every little ounce of PC power out of the D&D sponge. What so many don't seem to understand is that it can just lead to frustration for dms and make the game less fun for other players at the table, as everyone else feels like they need to do the same thing, so that they can make sure that their characters' aren't left in the power gamer's dust. It is hard to deal with this issue because there is a fine line between building an effective character and power gaming/optimizing. Usually, you can tell who the power gamers are based on their personalities and why they come to the table. Personally, it isn't my preferred play style, and it is one of the reasons I've become increasingly frustrated with dnd lately- though I should probably hate the player not the game (but they're nice enough people, so it's kind of hard to hate them). None the less, power gamers may well force me into early retirement.
I have some power gamers in my group as well, and it can make running a 3E game pretty challenging, as such players can easily create builds that really tax the system and make it difficult to easily create challenging encounters. It also can lead to one player having an uber character and another player having a really gimpy character. That is my main beef with 3E. 4E solves these issues to a significant extent, but doesn't totally resolve them (at least not with my group).Yeah, power gamers can cause problems in 4e too if they try hard enough. (Or get ideas from CharOp.) I just had a falling out with my group's youngest player, because he wanted to use a cheesy hybrid combo. So I house ruled Eyebite to not work with Divine Challenge, he got upset, and long story short he's taking a time out from my campaign.
So yeah, rules lawyers and RAWtards happen in every edition, though some more than others.
So I house ruled Eyebite to not work with Divine Challenge, he got upset, and long story short he's taking a time out from my campaign.
Yeah, like Jeremey said, it isn't really that unbalanced. Heck, one of the main reasons a Warlock/Paladin hybrid is actually effective is because it can combine the Warlock's single target control with the Paladin's durability and mark consistency to make one enemy's life hell. The playstyle is more like a Seeker or pure Warlock than a pure Paladin so it isn't really suited to being the main defender of a group, but it's still not mindmeltingly overpowered.
Anyway, I better get back on-topic. I've switched from 3.5 to 4e because, well, I just have more fun playing 4e. Really, that's it. Also, I've DMed 4e and I wouldn't even think of DMing 3.5. The CR system is just too variable for me to be able to throw an at-level encounter at the party and know whether or not they're going to win easily, have a good fight or die, and there's just too much in 3.5 monster design to even think of making my own.
Quite frankly 4e's "min=max"-iness isn't half as bad as 3e's is, and I'd go so far as to say that even 2e was worse once you add in kits.
It's pretty dang hard to make a "bad" character in 4e, and even super "good" characters, save for a few exceptions, aren't that much better then normal ones.
I've heard of some busted builds in 4E but this little combo is not really one of them. Eyebite itself is not all that potent a power and the Paladins divine challenge is not that awesome. I mean its a cute little trick that more or less forces a monster to either loose its turn or suffer the penalties for ignoring a mark but it can only be done once a fight against a single target.
Maybe I'm unaware of some detail in the hybrid rules, but I was going under the assumption of an at-will combo. At-will attack (eyebite) + at-will mark (divine challenge) = at-will combo.
Granted, it's not game-breaking like thousand-damage cheese is, but I don't think the devs balanced the game around PCs who can make themselves invisible to their own mark at-will.
Maybe I'm unaware of some detail in the hybrid rules, but I was going under the assumption of an at-will combo. At-will attack (eyebite) + at-will mark (divine challenge) = at-will combo.
Granted, it's not game-breaking like thousand-damage cheese is, but I don't think the devs balanced the game around PCs who can make themselves invisible to their own mark at-will.
Yeah, but unless you're spending an action point you're only making yourself invisible to your mark. Most of the time you'd have better things to do with your time, whether it's use one of your better Warlock powers to give him a better debuff while he can't reach you if he wanted to or to stab something with a Paladin power when you have to act like a defender for once.
Like Jeremy said, most of the time it's more of a cool trick to do than the most effective thing you could be doing.
I've heard of some busted builds in 4E but this little combo is not really one of them. Eyebite itself is not all that potent a power and the Paladins divine challenge is not that awesome. I mean its a cute little trick that more or less forces a monster to either loose its turn or suffer the penalties for ignoring a mark but it can only be done once a fight against a single target.Maybe I'm unaware of some detail in the hybrid rules, but I was going under the assumption of an at-will combo. At-will attack (eyebite) + at-will mark (divine challenge) = at-will combo.
Granted, it's not game-breaking like thousand-damage cheese is, but I don't think the devs balanced the game around PCs who can make themselves invisible to their own mark at-will.
I was thinking of Paladin Multi-class Warlock (which has eyebite as an encounter). But I still don't think its all that potent. Might be a tad better at 1st-5th where the -2 for being marked is a significant deterrent against hitting other party members but the Paladin has the best AC in the party. I expect that the group will soon realize that the monster being forced to go after some none defender soft target is actually worse for them. I know they'll find that after 5th when a Paladin can have 25-27 AC wile other members of the group might well be around 21-23.
As has been pointed out a much more straightforward build that just involves bashing the bad guy for a ton of damage, marks them and lets them hit the character back is actually better since the character is going to be one of the toughest hombres in the party - he's supposed to be the one taking the hits, not the cleric or rogue who can't take the heat for long.
I fancied a battlemind/warlock which is con based, but I will have to take a look at the paladin/warlock.
As the thread title says why did you pick 4E over other existing versions of D&D. Keep it civil and please do not turn this into an edition war.
I'm warming up to 4th Ed. as a lite RPG alternative. With editions through 3.0, I would buy the base books and some non-trivial number of supplements. For 3.5, I just bought the base books.
I ranted about how versions 3 & 3.5 lost the original fantasy and non-combat feeling Here --> Dr. Games' Ravings on AD&D ver 3.5.
My initial reaction when I heard that D&D was coming out with a fourth edition was very positive. In fact, I pre-ordered four complete, base rules, boxed sets.
Then I attended GENCON 2007 to participate on some panels and was physically present for the grand unveiling by the WOTC/Hasbro team of the new edition. The room was tense with anticipation and full of the true believers. This was GENCON man!
We all wanted to be blown away! We were ready to cheer! The indescribable fragrance of thousands of gamers packed into a standing room only ballroom was palpable!
Alas, as the lead producers described the product, our ardor fled. Cheer turned to disappointment to shock to fear, and feared turned to anger, and anger led to the dark side.
So, I dejectedly tucked my away my four boxed sets and later gave three of them away as gifts to various 8-10 year olds.
I sat in on a couple of 4th Ed. gaming sessions to give it another shot, but the feeling of WoW was too overpowering. In one of the sessions, the mage chose to use his magic missile shtick as instantiated by bolts of energy shooting out of his eyes.
But, I have since been deployed again and come back and had a chance to mellow a bit. My gaming groups have evaporated, and I rarely get to play let alone DM any more.
Most of the calls for DMs in this area (DC/MD/VA) appear to be for 4th Ed. D&D.
So, I brushed off my remaining box set and re-read the rules cover to cover.
While I do not feel that the system is a good representation of high fantasy, it is probably great for a pick-up RPG session that will last four hours or so.
(Imagine if Frodo did not worry about Gandalf and the demon, because he knew that Gandalf still had several healing surges left in him, or, even if Gandalf was killed, he would just wander back from the nearest graveyard, eat some cinnamon rolls and be ready to fight in no time.)
So, yes, I have turned the corner driven there by the grim realization that if I want to play then this is probably the system of choice.
After reading the rules again, I have managed my expectations enough to realize that I will just run one shots. I'll get my gaming fix. Everyone will have fun.
What I will not do though is spend any money on gaming geomorphs, miniatures, and 4th Ed. supplements. I will use the base three books I own already.
Nough said.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
[/b]
Quite frankly 4e's "min=max"-iness isn't half as bad as 3e's is, and I'd go so far as to say that even 2e was worse once you add in kits.
It's pretty dang hard to make a "bad" character in 4e, and even super "good" characters, save for a few exceptions, aren't that much better then normal ones.
I'd generally agree with this. Especially after the MMIII monster update. Notice that you rarely see DMs complaining that their players 'are too powerful' instead you do sometimes see the flip side of this which is...'oops I squished my players, my bad'.
While its possible to make some broken characters what you don't really see is an 'arms race'. There is not really this effect where the players make some good characters and then the DM makes a challenge that gets one of them so the player comes back with an even more powerful character and the DM finds he has to up his game to keep the challenge going and it turns into a circle where the players and DM keep building ever more min-maxed versions.
4E monsters are what they are and for the most part players are similar, by which I mean there are only a limited numbers of ways of stacking the build to be better. Sometimes the same style of build can be made using a different angle (a hybrid for example) but you don't really see the same kind of range of power within the same build in 4E as you did in 3.x.
On a related note I also prefer how 4e rewards actual tactics more than builds.
A group of "sub optimal" characters when played with an eye towards teamwork and tactics will do far better in an encounter , than a group a group of min-maxed monsters played by glory hounding loud mouthed power gamers will.
It's a pretty strong paradigm shift really.
(Imagine if Frodo did not worry about Gandalf and the demon, because he knew that Gandalf still had several healing surges left in him, or, even if Gandalf was killed, he would just wander back from the nearest graveyard, eat some cinnamon rolls and be ready to fight in no time.)
Using Lord of the Rings to represent a tabletop game needs to be turned into some kind of internet fallacy. 4e didn't destroy your ability to play LotR in D&D because it was never there to begin with. Imagine if Frodo didn't worry about Gandalf and the demon because he knew Gandalf had 9th level spells? Hell, that's far more immersion breaking then healing surges :p
On a related note I also prefer how 4e rewards actual tactics more than builds.
A group of "sub optimal" characters when played with an eye towards teamwork and tactics will do far better in an encounter , than a group a group of min-maxed monsters played by glory hounding loud mouthed power gamers will.
It's a pretty strong paradigm shift really.
This, a thousand times this.
Personal optimization is nothing compared to group. You can make an awesome warlord who's as optimized as humanly possible, but if your strikers have terrible basic attacks, then your job could be better done by other leaders who aren't half as optimized.
It also encourages teams to act and fight as a, well, team. No more angsty loner rangers who never want to contribute and always want to run off alone to do things solo, thank god.p
(Imagine if Frodo did not worry about Gandalf and the demon, because he knew that Gandalf still had several healing surges left in him, or, even if Gandalf was killed, he would just wander back from the nearest graveyard, eat some cinnamon rolls and be ready to fight in no time.)
Ummm... but Gandalf did just wander back. His Epic Destiny death ability must have kicked in.
|
|
I play both systems (Pathfinder and 4th Ed). Like most others here, I see no deifference in the type of game I can run.
What I do get is very easy DMing in 4th edition, and not so much in Pathfinder. I run a weekly 4th edition game using the Scales of War campaign and modified sections of Rise of the Runelords to mix things up. It takes me less than an hour to prep the game which we then run for 3 - 4 hours. That's good given my time restraints.
I run a Pathfinder game for another group (with some overlap) but we play once a fortnight (in good times) but closer to once a month on average. Even though I'm running a pre written AP, I still generally have to prepare more for Pathfinder because I often need to read up on spells and feats to fully understand what the critters can do.
Both sytems let me have fun and involving games. But 4th edition wins the GM ease of use factor hands down.
Pathinder has more felxibility in some areas, but that's mostly from what I'm hearing from my players. As a GM I'm not seeing a difference either way.
Cheers
I think by flexibility players often mean that in 3.x magic enables you to do much crazier s*&& that can easily break encounters and make dm's job of challenging the party much more difficult/time consuming.
I play both systems (Pathfinder and 4th Ed). Like most others here, I see no deifference in the type of game I can run.
What I do get is very easy DMing in 4th edition, and not so much in Pathfinder. I run a weekly 4th edition game using the Scales of War campaign and modified sections of Rise of the Runelords to mix things up. It takes me less than an hour to prep the game which we then run for 3 - 4 hours. That's good given my time restraints.
I run a Pathfinder game for another group (with some overlap) but we play once a fortnight (in good times) but closer to once a month on average. Even though I'm running a pre written AP, I still generally have to prepare more for Pathfinder because I often need to read up on spells and feats to fully understand what the critters can do.
Both sytems let me have fun and involving games. But 4th edition wins the GM ease of use factor hands down.
Pathinder has more felxibility in some areas, but that's mostly from what I'm hearing from my players. As a GM I'm not seeing a difference either way.
Cheers
|
|
I think by flexibility players often mean that in 3.x magic enables you to do much crazier s*&# that can easily break encounters and make dm's job of challenging the party much more difficult/time consuming.
To an extent I have to agree with you here. Pathfinder and 3.5 made it much easier for players to be lazy and just fire off a spell to overcome certian things (particularly social challenges if the right spells were used).
However, I got very good at creating situations where everyone had different roles to play to succeed in those situations, and the old one spell to rule them all doesn't seemt o play a big part in my games.
Interestingly, the guys in my PF game that like to play casters don't like 4th ed, but the other guys do. I'm still muddling my way through as a DM for 4th and I think that may have contributed a little as well. However, now we've played a lot more, and there's so much more choice of options out there now, I find 4th edition is playing more and more like our old 3.x/Pathfinder games.
And its easier to DM. Have I said that already.
What I don't enjoy about 4th is the books seem really "hollow" when I read them. There doesn't seem as much depth or feeling to them as there is in Pathfinder, particularly the monster manuals. There's just something unsatisfying in the MM books since they rarely contain much detail about the creatures themselves, their behaviours, their habitats or history. It is this meat and bones that really gives a DM inspiration for great game building. So I'm glad I have experienced over 20 years of DMing and gaming to draw on when it comes to fleshing out the baddies into something more than numbers. However, this is the trade off you get for having great and easy to use stat blocks created at multiple challenge levels. I can live with it.
Cheers
The lack of fluff in the WOTC Monster books has been a common criticism, but I think they have tried to listen, and MM3 was a big improvement in that department. I think the upcoming monster vault will also be good one.
It certainly is possible to build challenging counters that can't be "brorken" easily by a couple of key spells in 3.x. However, it can be difficult especially at higher levels. For instance running fights against giants can be tough in 3.5 unless you give them access to a lot of magic. It can be easy for a high level party to just teleport into their lair, blast the crap out of them with a bunch of maximized or quickened spells and then teleport away, leaving a bunch of charred corpses behind. As a dm you have to work harder to set things up, so that things won't be that easy.
I think by flexibility players often mean that in 3.x magic enables you to do much crazier s*&# that can easily break encounters and make dm's job of challenging the party much more difficult/time consuming.
To an extent I have to agree with you here. Pathfinder and 3.5 made it much easier for players to be lazy and just fire off a spell to overcome certian things (particularly social challenges if the right spells were used).
However, I got very good at creating situations where everyone had different roles to play to succeed in those situations, and the old one spell to rule them all doesn't seemt o play a big part in my games.
Interestingly, the guys in my PF game that like to play casters don't like 4th ed, but the other guys do. I'm still muddling my way through as a DM for 4th and I think that may have contributed a little as well. However, now we've played a lot more, and there's so much more choice of options out there now, I find 4th edition is playing more and more like our old 3.x/Pathfinder games.
And its easier to DM. Have I said that already.
What I don't enjoy about 4th is the books seem really "hollow" when I read them. There doesn't seem as much depth or feeling to them as there is in Pathfinder, particularly the monster manuals. There's just something unsatisfying in the MM books since they rarely contain much detail about the creatures themselves, their behaviours, their habitats or history. It is this meat and bones that really gives a DM inspiration for great game building. So I'm glad I have experienced over 20 years of DMing and gaming to draw on when it comes to fleshing out the baddies into something more than numbers. However, this is the trade off you get for having great and easy to use stat blocks created at multiple challenge levels. I can live with it.
Cheers
What I don't enjoy about 4th is the books seem really "hollow" when I read them. There doesn't seem as much depth or feeling to them as there is in Pathfinder, particularly the monster manuals. There's just something unsatisfying in the MM books since they rarely contain much detail about the creatures themselves, their behaviours, their habitats or history. It is this meat and bones that really gives a DM inspiration for great game building. So I'm glad I have experienced over 20 years of DMing and gaming to draw on when it comes to fleshing out the baddies into something more than numbers. However, this is the trade off you get for having great and easy to use stat blocks created at multiple challenge levels. I can live with it.
I think this may be largely in response to the huge number of people, like myself, who play in homebrew worlds of the time and who just got tired of paying for X pages of fluff they would never use in every book WotC published.
I mean why try and sell a page of text explaining the inner working of lizardman society when it isn't going to apply to 90% of the games actually being played.I love the bared boned approach they've used, as a world builder it apppeals to me.
It's also worth pointing out they still have ecology articles in dungeon every month, so if you really want fluff just subscribe for a month and donwlad all of them, and that books like open grave and dragonomicon have a lot of fluff as well.
|
|
I think by flexibility players often mean that in 3.x magic enables you to do much crazier s@@% that can easily break encounters and make dm's job of challenging the party much more difficult/time consuming.
This I agree with. DMing 3.5e for me became a chore. I'm trying to tell a story and some of my players are just crunching the numbers. In the end I refused to DM adventures of higher than 12th level. Now I love playing 3.5e it was different from earlier D&D in that I could make nearly any concept (crunch-wise) that I chose. 4e characters have less "fiddle" and this means less crunch play.
So in summary;
I choose to play 3.5e (actually PF) but DM 4e. DMing 4e, as has been stated numerous times, if far more like my beloved 1e/2e. The grand unified theory of everything (i.e. 3.5e) rule set meant players were very rarely surprised by things and if something was different they assumed I was house-ruling (which I dislike - personal preference, not saying it is wrong). Essentials for me is the new set I'll be running games under - but Essentials only, no pure-4e products.
Paizo has produced and outstanding game and now WotC has released Essentials they have in my opinion found their way again.
Good on them both,
S.
What I don't enjoy about 4th is the books seem really "hollow" when I read them. There doesn't seem as much depth or feeling to them as there is in Pathfinder, particularly the monster manuals. There's just something unsatisfying in the MM books since they rarely contain much detail about the creatures themselves, their behaviours, their habitats or history. It is this meat and bones that really gives a DM inspiration for great game building.
I feel like 4e as-published makes for a good rules-system foundation, but still needs an infusion of material from other sources - other RPGs, books/TV/movies, homebrew worlds - to make it shine.
The published fluff is okay, but most of it hasn't grabbed me enough to want to spend a lot of time in that world. That's the basic reason why I prefer a hybrid approach in games I DM or play in - 4e rules, mixed-source fluff.
I can certainly relate to why you might want to stop DMing 3.5 after level 12. That would be about my cut off as well if I were to run another campaign with that system. I'm not sure if I agree with you about 4E having less "fiddle" room. That may have been true when the system first came out, but with the splat books that have been put and the hybrid character rules, I think there is loads of fiddle room (possibly not as much as 3.5, but still enough to keep the power gamers real busy on those character optimization boards- shudder even thinking about it).
I think by flexibility players often mean that in 3.x magic enables you to do much crazier s@@% that can easily break encounters and make dm's job of challenging the party much more difficult/time consuming.This I agree with. DMing 3.5e for me became a chore. I'm trying to tell a story and some of my players are just crunching the numbers. In the end I refused to DM adventures of higher than 12th level. Now I love playing 3.5e it was different from earlier D&D in that I could make nearly any concept (crunch-wise) that I chose. 4e characters have less "fiddle" and this means less crunch play.
So in summary;
I choose to play 3.5e (actually PF) but DM 4e. DMing 4e, as has been stated numerous times, if far more like my beloved 1e/2e. The grand unified theory of everything (i.e. 3.5e) rule set meant players were very rarely surprised by things and if something was different they assumed I was house-ruling (which I dislike - personal preference, not saying it is wrong). Essentials for me is the new set I'll be running games under - but Essentials only, no pure-4e products.
Paizo has produced and outstanding game and now WotC has released Essentials they have in my opinion found their way again.
Good on them both,
S.
|
|
I think there is loads of fiddle room (possibly not as much as 3.5, but still enough to keep the power gamers real busy on those character optimization boards- shudder even thinking about it).
The fiddle is different, well so far for me, in 4e. The fiddle in 4e allows a different kind of optimization that in my current experience does not result in what I term "blinding 3.5e headaches". These are the headaches caused by extreme optimization leaving other players as mere bit-parts in most combats. Sort of characters that end up hitting on 2's and doing 8-gazillion points of damage when the rest of the party is hitting on 10's and doing damage that can be counted on your hands. In our current game our optimizer is happy he has got the best out of 4e but does not overtly over-shadow the other players - he is slightly better however, so I optimization is there and works, just it isn't the game breaker it was. In our Age Worms 3.5e him and another guy, playing a cleric and druid respectively, made the other 4 members of the party redundant once they got to about 12th level.
My personal observations of course,
S.
|
I started playing 4E because I was curious about the mechanics, and frankly because it was definitely the easiest RPG to find a group for in my area. I always have the option of starting up a game myself, but I also like to be a PC some days.
I have kept playing 4E because I have grown to like the style of the mechanics. Most of the classes are comparable in ability to perform their roles, which I credit for fewer instances of PCs declaring something "unfair" or "broken". I also like powerful characters, and 4E seems to balance the high end better than 3.0 and 3.5.
I still see cases where min/maxing results in a character 2x more combat-effective than another, but the possibility for such will always remain in some degree until DMs are handing out pre-made PCs (and who wants that?).
The only thing I feel 4E lacks (and I can understand why) is a good rules set for creating unique items and constructs. One of my favorite 3.5 characters had the Craft Golem feat. This feat requires the DM to trust the PC not to abuse its use; that trust factor is removed in 4E, imo.