Play 4e Over AD&D or 3.5?

[Artemiz]

A year or two ago, my group tried 4e. Since then, we haven't played it much at all. Why? Well, I'm the DM, and it never really grabbed me.

I still think it's a cool game, but I was hoping for some positive reinforcement from people who now play it regularly. :smallwink:

[AgentPaper]

What didn't you like about it? Some reasons that used to be good ones not to play aren't there anymore, but some are just design features of 4E, and will always be there. (and are actually perks for many people)

[rayne_dragon]

I like 4e. I find it an excellent system for doing tactical battles and I hope to eventually see video games that use the system. I look forward to my 4e game and I'd even consider running a 4e game, which I think would be quicker and easier to set up than most other systems (I'm reluctant to run any 3.X game, but any prior edition is fair game).

[RebelRogue]

My group currently plays it regularly. Sometimes we also play 3.5 or other games. Personally, I think 4e is pretty good, and we've finally convinced the last non-believer in our group about the joys of it, so that goes for all of us :smallsmile:

[Artemiz]

What didn't you like about it? Some reasons that used to be good ones not to play aren't there anymore, but some are just design features of 4E, and will always be there. (and are actually perks for many people)

I felt there was significantly awesome use of the d20 system, however I wasn't a fan of the power system. It's pretty damn cool, and plus it speeds up combat (if your players plan ahead for their turn), but the feel it gives the game is that of hitting a spell/ability hotkey while playing an MMO. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

I like 4e. I find it an excellent system for doing tactical battles and I hope to eventually see video games that use the system.
...I was considering writing one, actually.

Well, inspired by it, anyway. I'd never get the official rights from Hasbro.

[Artemiz]

...I was considering writing one, actually.

Well, inspired by it, anyway. I'd never get the official rights from Hasbro.

You could base it off a similar "open-source" RPG. There's lots of cool systems to be found in the depths of the Internet. :smallbiggrin:

[bosssmiley]

A year or two ago, my group tried 4e. Since then, we haven't played it much at all. Why? Well, I'm the DM, and it never really grabbed me.

I still think it's a cool game, but I was hoping for some positive reinforcement from people who now play it regularly. :smallwink:

Yes, 4E is a very cool game at what it does, which is to focus on the D&D as squad level tactical game (just as 2E Birthright focused particularly on the SimKingdom subgame within D&D, and 3E on the character building subgame, and B/X on the dungeon crawler/wilderness explorer subgame, and so forth).

Maybe if you play to the particular strengths of the system mechanics during your sessions then 4E will grab you more as the One True Game (Of Which All Others Are Mere Shadows). :smallwink:

IANA 4E player; but enough people I respect are to make me appreciate that there's something to it.

[Artemiz]

...focus on the D&D as squad level tactical game (just as 2E Birthright focused particularly on the SimKingdom subgame within D&D, and 3E on the character building subgame, and B/X on the dungeon crawler/wilderness explorer subgame, and so forth).

Maybe if you play to the particular strengths of the system mechanics during your sessions then 4E will grab you more as the One True Game (Of Which All Others Are Mere Shadows). :smallwink: ...


Hmmm... A "squad level tactical game"...

That makes more and more sense the longer I stare at it. Good point. :smallbiggrin:

[Dyllan]

"Squad Based Tactical Game" - I can't think of a better way to sum up 4e.

If that's what you want, awesome. Personally, it's not what I want out of D&D, although I do enjoy the combat system for a while, I got bored of it when we tried out 4e... we quit around level 8 because too many of the players just didn't like it as much as 3.5. But, none of us thought it was a horrible game or anything... just not our cup of tea.

[KillianHawkeye]

I find that 4E is easier to run from a DM's perspective. In fact, that's probably the most attractive thing about it for me since almost no one else in my group would ever run it. That said, I still have a lot of game ideas using 3.X material that I want to get to first, so 4E is still waiting on the horizon for me.

[Vampire D]

yea i concur that 4e is alot easier to runa dn easier to understand, but i feel that it dose not give the players the same amount of options as the previous 3.5 edition did. I also feel that in 4e they really tried to take out alot of the stratagy in it. D&D was not ment to be like WOW, RO, or some other halfschemed RPG that the main concern of the player is who are they killing and for how much. That is really what i think that 4e has involved into, i feel that this has been displayed in the recharge system.(remember this is my personal beef w/ this system and i dont expect everyone to follow my point of view)

P.S.: i dont hate 4e i just think that is far inferior to the previous 3.5e and pathfinder.

Please add you comments about this post below.

[Artemiz]

I find that 4E is easier to run from a DM's perspective. In fact, that's probably the most attractive thing about it for me since almost no one else in my group would ever run it. That said, I still have a lot of game ideas using 3.X material that I want to get to first, so 4E is still waiting on the horizon for me.

It is significantly easier to run than 3.5. I love the new monster templates/organization. Not to mention the rules/skills/check simplicity, and the fact that I don't have to lend my DMG to any of my players looking to buy magic items. :smallwink:

[Frozen_Feet]

Hmmm... A "squad level tactical game"...

That makes more and more sense the longer I stare at it. Good point. :smallbiggrin:

Just for the heck of, it make an adventure where the PCs start in army. It's a match made in heaven.

[Tequila Sunrise]

4e is my edition of choice because it has the things that are important to me: balance between PCs and a nice balance of interesting options vs. simplicity.

The only thing that I really don't like about every 4e game I've played is the HP/damage ratio. Maybe if I played with optimizers it wouldn't seem so silly, but monsters can take a ridiculous amount of time to kill, without dealing enough damage to make players blink. During my group's last Scales of War session we fought an ooze and two spectres, and I was literally getting drowsy with boredom halfway through the fight. I knew we were going to win no matter what, but I also knew that we'd have to chip away every last hp with at-wills.

Not that the problem isn't fixable; as a DM I simply decrease hp and increase damage. But most DMs are reluctant to mess with RAW for whatever reason, and worse, many seem to think that players should have to hack through every last hp in order to earn their XP.

[Gralamin]

Not that the problem isn't fixable; as a DM I simply decrease hp and increase damage. But most DMs are reluctant to mess with RAW for whatever reason, and worse, many seem to think that players should have to hack through every last hp in order to earn their XP.

I've been meaning to find a good conversion rate for this. I think that -25% HP for +50% Damage works out, overall, but I haven't had a good chance to test it.

[Eric Tolle]

"Squad Based Tactical Game" - I can't think of a better way to sum up 4e.

Sounds like an adequate summation of all versions of D&D before 3.X started messing with things. :smalltongue:

For what it's worth, I've been enjoying the 4e games I've been in; character creation is fairly easy, the characters interact well with each other while having a lot of options, and the system hasn't gotten in the way of roleplaying at all. So while it may not be my favorite system, or even my favorite D20 system (that would be Mutants and & Masterminds), the game works well enough, and doesn't get in the way of the things I want to do.

[Thajocoth]

I like it 'cause it's pretty easy. I decide what I want to do... If in a battle, I have limited options to weigh, so I don't take forever to decide. If out of a battle, I just do what my character would do (RP) and if it's something I could fail to do, there's an obvious skill check for it. Making a character is quick. There are finite options. I need finite options. The time I take correlates directly to my options, and I don't want to spend forever. I shouldn't look at every option, but I have such trouble deciding on anything if I know there are options I haven't considered.

That and the only 3.5 game I've played was too open and repetitive. I really don't play to think. I think enough while doing everything else I do. I play to just have some fun. 4e is good for that for me.

[Knaight]

Well, inspired by it, anyway. I'd never get the official rights from Hasbro.

You can't actually copyright game mechanics, its been rules. However, names can be copyrighted. Meaning this is completely legitimate with different names, and sufficiently different artwork.

[Starscream]

I like 4E's simplicity, but I don't usually have as much fun with it as I do with 3.5. Still, because it is so much easier to DM, I'll sometimes play a quick 4E campaign in between longer 3.5 ones.

[Touchy]

Wow, A 4e comparison thread to other DnD editions WITHOUT an argument on the first page!
I love 4e, the same amount I love 3.5, I don't care if some people hate it, if it's fun it's fun, what is wrong with having fun anyways?

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've been meaning to find a good conversion rate for this. I think that -25% HP for +50% Damage works out, overall, but I haven't had a good chance to test it.
That's the most common hp/damage house rule ratio. Honestly, I use my own guidelines (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B13rBX1CAB0XYWI0YjA0Y2QtZjBiOC00ZWEzL TllNTItOTkyYjhmMzJlMTc4&hl=en), but -25%/+50% is a good ball park for DMs who don't have the time to write their own monsters.

[doc225]

4E is a good game in and of itself.

Our group has played it, we have run through a few adventures, with 2 DM's.

We prefer 3.5, with a few 4e style adjustments. mostly adjustments to the movement, and combat rules. We don't like the rapid rate of power growth, not do we like the grind of alot of combat. I know you can houserule to get rid of grind, but you can also houserule 3.5, so in a way, we feel like we wasted our money.

Again, it's not that we don't think 4e is a good game, just that we think they could have made more guidelines about adjusting and fixing 3.x, without rolling out a whole new edition.

We are going to be selling all our 4e stuff off, and sticking with 3.5.

We know we are going to lose money in the deal, but we played it for a while, and have decided that a few bucks in the hand is worth more than 12 books on our shelf that we never use. ( I told you we gave it a shot, we bought quite a few additional books.)

[toasty]

I dislike 3.5 magic system, honestly. I've always been a simple: "me smash" type guy. I get the biggest, baddest sword and smack my enemies. I don't like playing a caster in 3.5 because... being a caster is annoying. Too many friggin spells.

4e is more balanced. Combat is interesting. You have different abilities and different powers and its fun. 3.5 doesn't really seem this to me. I dunno... that's just my feeling. I understand a lot of people don't like 4e because of the direction it took, but I like that direction, personally.