So... A few questions about 4th edition

[Slenn]

So, a while ago our physics club started a group of people to start playing D&D just for the heck of it because it sounded like it would be fun. Two weeks ago our group started rolling characters and already I thought that this would be 10 million times better than playing WoW because of the roll playing and the imagination involved. As well as the fact that WoW is slowly loosing my interest after Cataclysm, even though it impressed me a while back.

However, every time I surf the internet for topics unrelated to D&D, I always catch a blog or a webcomic saying something along the lines of "OMG 4th ed. DND must HATE GRRRR." So what exactly besides the terrible new alignment chart makes it bad? One of my friends explained it to me that while 4th ed makes for greater flexibility and more classes and races, it also had backlash from other people who didn't like the idea of adding additional races and such. I also heard that this edition makes it easier for people to get more acquainted with D&D making it all the more rewarding for newer players like me, but at the same time it also decreased the difficulty level for veteran players.

So I have to ask: While I still expect myself having loads of fun roleplaying and that a lot of people in our group are going to continue to play, what else in 3rd and 3.5 ed did 4th edition change? And, if you're old enough to remember, what kind of response did people have with the coming of 3rd over the 2nd?

 

[Mehall]

There's nothing really wrong, per se, with 4th, it's just largely simplified. Sometimes this can have a negative effect on the game, and how far you can push something, but this largely depends on the DM. Honestly, different editions suit different DM's, just like plenty DM/GM's don't like GURPS (I love GURPS personally).


I'd personally choose to play 3.5, but 4th isn't a problem for me. next game I'm playing is gonna be 4th.

 

[Chamale]

In 4th edition, there are lots of interesting changes.

People who liked 3rd and 3.5 absolutely hate this.

The backlash doesn't mean it's worse, only that it's different. It's like the hate you see whenever Facebook goes to a new format.

 

[Evil mr dave]

I'm someone who has played both 3.5 and 4th edition and personally i liked 4th a lot more then 3.5. maybe it was just because barbarians were a lot better in 4th (I.E. if played correctly you will never stop attacking in combat) but i also found that the way health and statistics worked easier to understand, but the nail in the coffin of 3.5 was that they made warforged a viable race in 4th.

 

[Chibz]

D&D 4th? Oh, you mean Pathfinder not that... vastly inferior game.

D&D 4th edition (as you know it) is just D&D 3.5 dumbed down to an incredible degree.

 

[Space_Titanium]

In all honesty, don't worry about the differences in the systems. Both editions are perfectly fine and appeal to different groups.

D&D 4th edition has a vastly different feel then the original versions of the game and tries to appeal more to people who have experience with MMORPGs. The system itself is simpler at early levels for people to learn, but it's been plagued with game-balance issues at high-levels.

D&D 3.5/Pathfinder has tried to keep up the classic feel of the original game, but the rules are a bit more complicated to learn than 4th edition. If you get in with Pathfinder they have a lot of online support, but it lacks the sheer online power of 4th edition (the 4th edition Character Builder is a wondrous thing for players).

It really comes down to what appeals to you and your group. Take a look at Paizo to check out Pathfinder/3.5 (the 3.5 D&D books are hard to get a hold of now a days, so I would go with Paizo's Pathfinder product, which is essentially an updated version of 3.5) and Wizards of the Coast to take a look at 4th edition. It's all good.

 

[Link XL1]

4th edition does aLOT of streamlining from 3.5 and alot of people think that its too much of an overhaul. the alignment chart is the best example. also, spells and class abilities have been rolled into one, and that kinda pissed magic users off. if i were you, i'd do what i did: get Pathfinder.

pathfinder is a spin off of 3.5 made by a different company. its basically DnD version 3.75, it makes improvements where 3.5 needed them without the complete overhaul that is 4.0. its also streamlined the combat maneuvers (bull rushing, grappling, etc.). combat maneuvers used to be REALLY confusing and kinda dumb, now they're all rolled into one check, and life is good. if its your first time in the DnD stuff then 4.0 is fine for you, but if you're like us old timers (ha! im like 20) then pathfinder was made for you (seriously! pathfinder exists because people didnt like 4.0)

 

[RoBi3.0]

D&D 4th? Oh, you mean Pathfinder not that... vastly inferior game.

D&D 4th edition (as you know it) is just D&D 3.5 dumbed down to an incredible degree.

Have you even played 3.5 or 4e? The two games are vastly different. 4e is only similar to 3.5 in its very basic principles.

-on topic-
I think that is why people hate on 4e so much. The change is not small and easy like 3.0 to 3.5 was. It was a huge step in a completely new direction all at once.

Personally I prefer to play 3.5. When I DM I run 4e games as I like how 4e handles game management better.

 

[thedoclc]

Frankly, every time the game changed editions from Basic until now, a lot of fans started screaming RUINED FOREVER. I cut my teeth back when "Advanced" was seen as a betrayal by some purists. The big change is that a lot of the new internet crowd came along towards the beginning of 3.X, having missed the convoluted, murderously difficult game that was 2nd.

That said, 4th was NOT the biggest transition of the group. Instead of trying to follow its own "simulate a slightly absurd heroic fantasy," the game basically started following the tropes of an MMO. I'm also of the opinion people who played video games first, then picked up TT games, tend to think like they're playing a video game and rely more on builds and mechanics than on narrative and flavor. (No comment on right or wrong; I'm describing an observation without editorializing.)

But Third was an even bigger transition, and I'd recommend anyone who thinks 4th is a huge change should go back and grab an old book from the 80's and 90's.

The core difference is that 4th Edition removes hardship on the PC's and tries to replicate the feeling of CRPG, whereas 3rd was still trying to maintain the old "problem solving, it's a tough world" of earlier editions. I dislike 4th not because it's a bad game for what it is, but because it becomes very transparently about game mechanics and -feels- like a computer is running the show. I'd recommend Paizo's Pathfinder if you're thinking of dabbling in 3.X. It's a vastly improved 3.5 which balances the game much better than WotC's line. As far as complexity goes, 4th << 3.X << anything earlier.

Finally, I run Pathfinder using older edition fluff or White Wolf's rendition of Ravenloft, since the older editions did a much better job of capturing the flavor of the settings.

 

[thedoclc]

if its your first time in the DnD stuff then 4.0 is fine for you, but if you're like us old timers (ha! im like 20) then pathfinder was made for you (seriously! pathfinder exists because people didnt like 4.0)

Old timers remember when elf was a class.

 

[David Farnell]

Personally, D&D is far from my favorite pen&paper RPG anyway--but I play it because that's what most of the gamers in my town play. And hey, it's fun and all, usually. I started with D&D way back in the day (I'm old), but I just missed out on the original rules (when it was basically a miniatures wargame with some support for role-playing) and I missed the 2nd Edition when I snootily refused to play D&D for several years. A few years back, I joined a group running 3.0, bought the core books, and BAM! 3.5 came out. Groaning, I bought the 3.5 Players Handbook, and the DM bought god only knows how many books. It seemed like 4th Edition was announced six months later. (Yeah, I know, it was probably a few years--I'm old...time goes by quickly for me.)

So our group said, "Screw this, we ain't upgrading! We have too much invested in 3.5!" I actually bought the 4th Ed. PHB, and didn't really like it much. Figured they'd come out with a 4.5 version in another six months anyway.

So that's why we haven't upgraded--as a group, we have hundreds and hundreds of bucks invested in 3.5, and we feel like Wizards of the Coast is greedy. But if you're new to D&D, there's no reason not to go for 4th Edition. I know some folks who play it and like it a lot. Personally, I think it's just an attempt to recreate an MMORPG on the tabletop, to which I can only ask "WHY??" But that's just me. I'd rather be playing Call of Cthulhu anyway.

 

[Chibz]

Have you even played 3.5 or 4e? The two games are vastly different. 4e is only similar to 3.5 in its very basic principles.

-on topic-
I think that is why people hate on 4e so much. The change is not small and easy like 3.0 to 3.5 was. It was a huge step in a completely new direction all at once.

Personally I prefer to play 3.5. When I DM I run 4e games as I like how 4e handles game management better.

If you enjoy 3.5, you should check out Pathfinder. Pathfinder is what 4e should've been.