In what ways, from an optimization standpoint, does 4e differ from 3.5

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So, 4e is a vastly different system from 3.5, it is known. But, how does it differ from an optimization standpoint? A few examples (I think) would be:

4e: Hit lots and hit accurately, to maximize DPR. 3.5: You always hit, rarely is there any question, so hit once, and hit very, very hard, to maximize DPR.

4e: Power attack is not king for muggles. 3.5: Yes it is.

4e: Skills front and center for non combat stuff. 3.5: Skills? I have magic.

What are some other examples, and did I get mine right?
Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[Yakk]

It is the difference between Pun Pun, and being able to deal 4x as much damage as an unoptimized "naive" build.

[Laserlight]

Hey guys. So, 4e is a vastly different system from 3.5, it is known. But, how does it differ from an optimization standpoint? A few examples (I think) would be:

In 4e, you don't have to thread your way through a maze of class changes to get the feats, skills and abilities you need.

[Inevitability]

4e's really broken stuff (like casting imprisonment as a standard action) always gets nerved, as gets a lot of the less broken things.

3.5 mainly kept their errata to printing errors.

[Mando Knight]

3.5: You always hit, rarely is there any question, so hit once, and hit very, very hard, to maximize DPR.

Another thing to note is that 3.5 gives combatants extra attacks just for leveling up, while 4e cut down on the number of iterative attacks significantly (though in return, a number of weapon-based classes have access to a good number of area or split attacks).

[GPuzzle]

And when something with multiple damage rolls shows up like Twin Strike and Hurricane of Blades, people drool over it.

[Kimera757]

Hey guys. So, 4e is a vastly different system from 3.5, it is known. But, how does it differ from an optimization standpoint? A few examples (I think) would be:

4e: Hit lots and hit accurately, to maximize DPR. 3.5: You always hit, rarely is there any question, so hit once, and hit very, very hard, to maximize DPR.

"Save DCs" are calculated differently. Your "save DC" in 4e is your attack bonus against an NAD. Just like in 3.x you can boost this, but note that saving throws are less common and are harder to modify. Indeed, I'm not sure how to penalize an opponent's saving throw if I'm not playing a wizard. (I don't think I've seen a similar invoker effect.) This is important, because in 3.x, if you had a spell that forced a save per round but you had an ungodly high save DC, the enemy was only going to break free on a 20, and often these saves took their entire turn. (Hold Monster and Tasha's Hideous Laughter work this way.)

Attack bonuses are important even if your damage is low, since your attacks carry "riders" that you want to apply. Riders are usually role-dependent: defender riders often slow or immobilize an opponent or knock it prone or away from squishy allies, leader riders usually give a boost to allies, and controller riders are crippling.

4e: Power attack is not king for muggles. 3.5: Yes it is.

Direct follow up from the above changes in accuracy. While it's possible to become extremely accurate (especially if you're playing a thief, slayer, or avenger) in general your accuracy is in the 60-70% range. It's very easy to fall below this (to the 55% or even lower range) if you didn't pay much attention during character generation. My Greyhawk group has a halfling runepriest who used simple weapons (+2 proficiency) and not great Strength, until we practically forced him to switch to daggers. His damage took a hit, but at least now he sometimes hits.

4e: Skills front and center for non combat stuff. 3.5: Skills? I have magic.

True, for the most part.

One big change were the spells. Any spell that was broken in 3.5 was either hit really hard with the nerf stick or turned into a ritual. Invisibility became hide in plain sight and requires actions to sustain, while Gate became the Adjure ritual (you have to use a ritual to summon a creature, then a ritual to bind it to service which includes a skill challenge, and if you blow the ritual you have to serve instead). Last session my Way of the Wicked 4e group had the cleric using Remove Affliction on himself to remove a curse. The cleric didn't have the Heal skill (a constant joke in my campaign) and only through help from the half-elf's amazing skill-boosting ability did he make the check at all. Failing the check would have inflicted damage too. (Remove Curse in 3.x has a caster level check, but the only consequence for failure is you lost a spell slot.)

Healing is markedly different. In 3.x, before the Heal spell healing didn't heal enough to be worth it in combat. Worse, it took a standard action and usually touch range, so you had to waste your move action moving to the wounded or downed PC. Like pretty much any spell, casting a healing spell provoked attacks of opportunity, a problem if your friend got downed by a giant wielding a halberd, and in a hard fight the AoO could drop the healer too. If the PC dropped to -7 hit points, you might not even be able to heal enough to wake them up. As a result, healing in combat was generally reserved for when a PC actually dropped, and some clerics simply refused to heal in combat.

Especially in high-level 3.x, I noticed cleric players getting bored, because while they had these powerful spells they could unleash, they had to spend their actions healing PCs who were getting ripped apart by level 15 monsters. At such high levels, spell slots aren't really a big issue, but actions still are. Even using the efficient Heal is costing an action that could be used to do something more interesting.

By contrast, in 4e, healing is usually a minor action in a close burst, so no opportunity attack, little to no movement required, the healing is proportionate and as long as the PC has a healing surge will wake up... Of course, you can only do it twice per round (thrice at level 16+) unless you start expending character resources on healing. Healing is so good in 4e there's little pressure to do so.

Long-term healing: Also very different. In 3.x and earlier, you healed so slowly without magic that healing to full took up a lot of energy. Back in 2e, where a starting cleric had very few spells and couldn't spontaneously cast healing spells, your cleric might be prepping nothing but Cure Light Wounds. In 3e, this was mitigated by the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, which might not have been used by the initial playtesters but became very common.

In 4e, you have a limited number of healing surges. However, these are resources of the healee, not the healer. In addition, PCs without a leader in the party can heal between encounters without expending magical resources at all. Healers do allow for more efficient use of surges outside of combat, though (especially bards).

The leader has at least two minor action healing powers per encounter, and sometimes more. Often leaders can heal as a rider on an attack, and it's pretty much always a good thing to attack. The only reason a leader should be reluctant to heal would be:

You need that minor action for something more important. Unless you've hybridized with a striker, that's not very likely to happen. (I don't like hybrids, this isn't the biggest reason for disliking them, but it is one.)

You can't use a minor action, due to being dazed (or other similar condition).

You need to heal someone else, perhaps yourself.

The fight looks particularly hard, and you want to preserve the healing power until later. (If a PC drops, this isn't much of an excuse.)

Ability scores are really hard to modify. You set your ability scores at character generation, and you can only boost them when you gain levels or take certain epic destinies. Items like the Belt of Giant Strength only give you some of the benefits (the item in question gives you a 1/day boost to damage, and I think a small boost to damage only, certainly not attack bonuses).

There's no iterative attacks. In 3.x, a full-round attack effectively used up your move action unless you had pounce, and I'm not sure a PC in 3.x could have pounce if they weren't a druid. It's more common in Pathfinder though. This gives 4e PCs more mobility. Having said that, opportunity attacks are usually nastier in 4e than in 3.x, so the psychological fear of opportunity attacks keeps this mobility increase to a low level.

AC improves organically by level, as your PC is learning how to parry, dodge and otherwise deal with incoming attacks. NADs also improve, although there's always one bad NAD, and sometimes two. The end result are PCs are rarely crippled by a combination of overpowered spells and very bad magical defenses. Even if you get hit by an effect that cripples you (save ends), you will probably break free from the crippling effect before long. Indeed, some classes (eg the slayer) have non-magical utility powers that help break free from such effects. There's a few feats that do similar things.

Roles are important. In 3.x, a fighter was basically a brute with high AC. In 4e you are given specific abilities to do your job (marks, punishments, etc) but you usually don't deal high damage. The fighter, knight and warden are pretty decent at doing damage along with defending, but they will never match a striker like a rogue or ranger.

[Dimers]

4e seems to have more optimizable points for most character classes. You can optimize for attack penalty, forced movement, damage, save penalty, defenses, attack bonus, second wind, combat advantage, resistance, bonuses granted to team, healing others (with or without surges), healing yourself, melee basic attacks, ranged basic attacks, at-will powers in general, movement speed ... the list just goes on and on. Most 3.X classes have very limited choice in what they can optimize for at all (though magic ITEMS fill in some of that flexibility).

Optimization in 3.X tends toward traits that last the entire time you're adventuring -- whether that's five minutes in between exiting and re-entering your extraplanar mansion, or constant effects that never need renewal. This is because buffing rounds are possible but never guaranteed. Optimization in 4e, with a couple exceptions, is applied for a round or two of duration per application. Example: You can't optimize the always-on defender aura to apply an extreme penalty, but you can add a lot of potence to marks, which have limited durations and are subject to enemies' condition-removing powers.

[MeeposFire]

In 4e optimization quality usually involves bigger numbers. A high OP ranger deals more damage than a low OP one. A wizard may deal more damage, affect more targets, or impose stronger conditions the better your OP fu gets.

In 3e true Optimzation is actually avoiding numbers all together. Many of the best tricks avoid dealing damage and just remove the threat.

4e generally can't do that. In a 4e discussion about what is completely broken is the same sort of discussion a 3e OP bored would say is the difference between a decent warrior type to a bad warrior type (as in the first deals really high numbers in damage and the second does not but the first is not over powered in 3e since casters can just make that damage irrelevant as a power discussion).

If you prefer a tier sort of comparison if you take the 3e concepts of the tiers and apply them to the 4e classes (but still compare them to the 3e rules) you would get essentially all tier 3-5. Tier 1-2 would not happen because the things that make tier 1-2 characters so crazy powerful do not exist in 4e (there are classes that would be tier 1 in a 4e vacuum but if you use the 3e mind set they are not tier one such as the ranger). Tier 6 does not really exist as 3e knows it since back in the day they showed even the most blighted classes (example being the binder) could do the job given them in a standard set of encounters in the standard allotted time, they just did not do it anywhere near as well as the other classes.