Playstyle differences between 3.5e and 4th?

[WildPyre]

Also, this isn't really playstyle, much, but I think your party will see this, but you don't have to be a god's lackey to heal in 4e.

You don't need to in 3rd edition either... hell you don't need to be a god's lackey to be a cleric. You can play a cleric, pick two domains, and tell the gods to **** off.

You can also play a druid and heal people... so yeah... not sure what point you're trying to make there.

[MeeposFire]

You don't need to in 3rd edition either... hell you don't need to be a god's lackey to be a cleric. You can play a cleric, pick two domains, and tell the gods to **** off.

You can also play a druid and heal people... so yeah... not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I think the idea was that you do not have to be divine or perhaps even magical to keep a party up and going. You can be a warlord and have a party continuing to adventure even with no magical characters which is very hard to do in 3e.

[Sinon]

Yeah, martial, arcane, primal, or psionic. Coming soon: shadow or what ever power source they trot out next.

My feeling is that in earlier editions parties had a near de facto requirement to include a divine character to heal them.

Now you don’t, and that can change the way a party feels to some extent.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Yeah, martial, arcane, primal, or psionic. Coming soon: shadow or what ever power source they trot out next.

My feeling is that in earlier editions parties had a near de facto requirement to include a divine character to heal them.

Now you don’t, and that can change the way a party feels to some extent.

Yeah I like the inclusion of the Warlord, Ardent, Druid,Artificer, and Bard. Though their healing is all the same. A minor action to roll a d6 to add to the target's Healing Surge.

But they all have different attacks that add in a lot of cool combos. Such as Wolf Tactics for Warlord.

However there seems to be a theme of having a Healing strike, which I noticed in Cleric and Ardent.

[Belobog]

Yeah I like the inclusion of the Warlord, Ardent, Druid,Artificer, and Bard. Though their healing is all the same. A minor action to roll a d6 to add to the target's Healing Surge.

But they all have different attacks that add in a lot of cool combos. Such as Wolf Tactics for Warlord.

However there seems to be a theme of having a Healing strike, which I noticed in Cleric and Ardent.

Actually, the cleric and the warlord are the only leaders with very similar healing abilities; everyone else is a variation on a theme. The bard's, for instance, is 'target spends HS, gets HS+Cha hp, shifts a couple squares', while the Shaman's is 'one target spends a HS and gets HS hp, while another target gets +xd6 hp'.

[Sipex]

Artificer is interesting, they get a HS from a volunteer (himself/whoever) before battle to prepare healing admixture in advance. An admixture can be used on anyone and doesn't cause them to use a surge (since a surge was already used in preparing it). This means you can sort of pass around healing surges.

[Mando Knight]

Actually, the cleric and the warlord are the only leaders with very similar healing abilities; everyone else is a variation on a theme. The bard's, for instance, is 'target spends HS, gets HS+Cha hp, shifts a couple squares', while the Shaman's is 'one target spends a HS and gets HS hp, while another target gets +xd6 hp'.

And then the Cleric and Warlord also both get feats to add other effects to their X Words: Clerics can go Pacifist and get ridiculous healing rates, for example.

Artificers use anyone's surges to heal the target, so if the Defender somehow comes up relatively unscratched one fight, he can donate his surges to help keep the Striker from running out.

[MeeposFire]

I like using a ritual to spread healing surges around so I do not need an artificer to do that.

[Vitruviansquid]

My answer will be biased in favor of 3.5 because I assume you already own all you need to play 3.5, while switching to 4e will require dropping some cash and going through the learning process.

Anyways, you should look into 4e if it is a problem that some players at your table have more to do or take bigger roles than others. If that is not a problem, stick to 3.5.

In 3.5, you had classes or archetypes that, mechanically speaking, got to play more of the game than others. They may have had more deep and interesting choices to make in character creation, levelling up, and gameplay, or they're simply stronger than another class by being able do everything that other class could do, only better. 4e seeks to solve that problem and does so by introducing some new mechanics and paradigms.

Now, for some players and groups, this wasn't a problem to begin with and, in attempting to fix it, 4e broke other stuff or made other stuff less fun. For the other camp, this was a very serious problem and 4e delivered balance.

Since 4e is the new edition and starting it would be an investment for you, the question to ask yourself is whether you think 4e delivers something you want or something you've never really cared about.

[evirus]

Having had a group move from 3.4 to 4 the most drastic thing about the change was the pushback we got from certain players (we actually lost 2 party members).

RP wise the biggest change that we appreciated was the team dynamic in combat. Having to rely on others because you can't do everything on your own leads to greater RP. We really had that band of brother's feel congratulating and thanking each other for saves in combat.

This, to our group was a huge change from 3.5 where everyone was trying out outshine the rest.

Mechanically, the biggest change was mobility in combat. With all the movement related powers as well as forced movement, you really have a battlefield that ebbs and flows. It means you always need to be looking for advantage and paying attention to what is going on. You can't just sit and wait for your turn anymore.

The downside was the loss of individual versatility. Although as a group we could handle anything, alone we found ourselves incomplete and unable to cope.

Overall I would say that we are having more fun playing together than in any previous version simply due to our comeradery in combat.

[jseah]

All the differences between 3.5 and 4th come down to a simple design perspective.

3.5 modeled a world (people would say badly =P) and out of that fell some consequences.
4th models a group of heroes (again, people would say badly =P) and we get the usual action oriented 4th.


3.5, combat is lethal, knowing your enemies and getting the jump on them is King and will more or less decide battles before they are even fought. (and sometimes you have the perfect answer in your class)
In a good group, the game revolves around forestalling problems and dealing with them before they turn into trouble. Crushing advantage after crushing advantage. But you know that one mistake will have your advantage evapourate into thin air.
In a bad group, the game turns into a dissatisfying combat fest that ends up with the players getting whipped after curbstomping a few encounters.


4th, combat is non-lethal, party dynamics and tactical expertise matter more. Battles are never decided before they are fought (although the players win almost all the time) unless one side out-levels the other drastically.
Essentially, given equal skill in tactics, only levels matter in 4E. Grander strategy matters much less.

4e, a swashbuckling adventure game. 3.5 only looks like it on the cover, but the mechanics don't really support it.

[Grogmir]

It’s more focused on Team Play than the individual thinking of 3.5
It’s more ‘cinema’ in its design, This means one or two ‘memorable’ battle(s) rather than ‘dungeon crawling’.
It’s easier to understand, modify and rule on the fly. We never have rule books open at the table now.
It’s not more hack n slash, You get exactly what you put in. Just like 3.5

And that’s pretty much it.