Player’s Guide to D&D 4th Edition (For 3E Players)
posted Saturday, May 30th 2009 by
Fourth Edition • Player Advice
Reading an edition wars argument recently, I discovered that a lot of third edition players had misconceptions about D&D fourth edition, or had tried to play but found the rules differences a little much to take in all at once. It hit me that Wizards never wrote an update booklet to help third edition players convert to the new game. To help, I’ve written a short summary of the changes new to D&D fourth edition, for players currently familiar with third edition.
The Basics
- Most rolls now add one-half the character’s level. This includes attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks. This prevents powerful high-level characters from having a puny +1 to a skill.
- Fort, Reflex and Will are now called Defenses, and work like AC: they have a base of 10, and the enemy rolls his attack versus your flat number.
- Saving throws refer to a different mechanic: at the end of each round you roll with a 50% chance to end an ongoing effect, such as being poisoned or on fire.
- Players have “healing surges”, a sort of resource that renews each day and can be expended to restore hit points. A misconception is that this allows characters to freely heal themselves in combat. Rather, healing still requires a cleric or similar, and healing surges are limits on how much healing a character can receive in a day. Some 1/day or 1/encounter abilities allow a character to spend a healing surge on their own. Clerics can heal at-will out of combat, to the limit of each character’s remaining healing surges.
Races
- Most races have +2 to two ability scores. This contrasts with third edition where most races had +2 to one and -2 to another.
- Level adjustment is gone. Monster races can be played, but at a reduced power level equivalent to a player character race.
- Tiefling and dragonborn are playable races. Gnome and half-orc are gone from the Player’s Handbook but are re-introduced in an expansion.
Classes
- Classes are divided into four roles, being defensive, offensive, area offensive and healer. A similar division existed in third edition (warrior, rogue, wizard and cleric), but it’s more pronounced.
- Multiclassing is limited. A feat lets you take a class ability of another class, but you can’t take levels in separate classes. This may be remedied in a further expansion.
- All classes have numerous combat abilities, or “powers”. “Powers” is a general term for a wizard’s spells, a fighter’s combat techniques (like Cleave), and so on.
- Warlord and warlock are core classes. Barbarian, bard, monk, druid, sorcerer and specialist wizard are missing, but are or will be re-introduced in future class books.
Skills
- There are 17 skills, where 3.5 had 36 skills plus 10 knowledge categories. Skills are fewer, but more useful: for example, Perception covers spotting, listening and searching, while Thievery covers all lockpicking/trap-disabling/pickpocketing attempts.
- Most rolls add one-half character level, as mentioned.
- Skill training works differently. Rather than spend points, players pick a number of skills to train in at character creation. Trained skills receive a +5 bonus. Although this bonus does not increase, it is in addition to the usual ability score modifier and one-half character level bonus.
Feats
- Characters receive feats more often. A 20th level character will have 12 feats.
- Magic item creation no longer requires feats. Instead, it requires only a Ritual (see Magic, below), which works like a spell in third edition.
Equipment
- Weapons and armour no longer have multiple properties. You can still find a Holy Avenger, but not a +3 keen icy burst greataxe.
- Scrolls and wands of combat spells generally don’t exist. However, non-combat spells appear in scroll form as rituals (see Magic, below). The old wand of cure light wounds for between-combat healing is no longer necessary.
- Items sell for less. Mundane junk is unsaleable, and most magic items sell for only one-fifth their buy price. This discourages hoarding junk to sell. Your DM is encouraged to make your desired treasure easier to find in treasure, perhaps as part of a quest.
Combat
- Players can take three actions: a standard, a move, and a minor. A minor action is something like drawing a weapon or sustaining a spell by concentration.
- Multiple iterative attacks are gone. Instead, fighter types gain powers which grant extra opportunity attacks, deal hefty bonus damage or cripple an opponent.
- Critical hits work differently. You no longer need to roll to confirm a critical hit, but instead of rolling double damage you simply deal maximum damage. Wizards can get critical hits with their spells.
- Almost all attacks are either at-will, 1/encounter, or 1/day. Cleave, Magic Missile and a basic melee attack are all at-will, Cause Fear an encounter power, and Fireball a daily. Most attacks take a standard action.
- Action Points let you take an extra standard action in a round. Action Points reset to one when you sleep to regain daily powers and hit points, and you gain one more for every two encounters you go without sleeping.
- Tactical movement is more important. Certain abilities of enemies or allies force movement, and certain terrain hinders movement. A lack of full-round actions and move-equivalent actions encourages movement.
- Miniatures are strongly recommended. The game rules assume you use a combat grid, even if it’s just coins and dice on graph paper.
- Diagonal movement no longer costs more squares. In other words, if my speed is six squares (30ft. in old measurement) I can move six diagonally the same as I would horizontally or vertically. The same goes for weapon ranges.
Magic
- Wizards now roll to attack with spells, against rather than a fixed DC against the opponent’s Fort, Reflex or Will roll.
- Spell preparation is essentially gone, as mentioned. However, wizards can still know more daily spells than they can cast per day, and choose their daily selection from this.
- Non-combat spells are now called Rituals. A common misconception is that fourth edition only includes combat spells. This is because non-combat spells for all classes are hidden away in the back of the Player’s Handbook. Rituals are spells which typically take longer than one round to cast, including Discern Lies, Knock, and Drawmij’s Instant Summons.
- Area effects have only two types. A burst is an area centered on a point, while a blast is a square area. Area effects can be “close”, meaning adjacent to the caster: a close burst is centered on the caster, while a close blast has at least one square adjacent to the caster (such as a breath weapon).
Miscellaneous
- The game standardly runs to level 30. This contrasts with AD&D 1st edition through D&D third edition, where twenty levels was the default limit and epic levels were introduced in expansions.
- Higher currency changes slightly. Platinum pieces are now worth 100 gold rather than 10, and a new 10,000gp denomination called the Astral Diamond (AD) is introduced.
- There are only five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil. Almost no spells or classes rely on alignment, however, so retaining the old alignment system shouldn’t cause problems.
- There are several minor changes, too many to list here. They include weapon damage changes, armour proficiency changes, pleasant minor tweaks, a simpler grappling system, and a somewhat different implied setting with a different standard deities list.
Comments
greywulf
May 30th, 2009
Excellent summary.
I’m sure that should help clear up a few misconceptions among the 3e crowd. Imho, 99% of the changes wrought in 4e are for the better – it’s an excellent system.
Alex Schröder
May 30th, 2009
Yup; it also matches my experience from the two playtest games. I’m not sure about “excellent system”, though. :)
Sean Brady
May 30th, 2009
Great write up. We just got started and do have a few 3x players at the table. I will share your article with them. Thanks for writing it up.
@greywulf I agree it is an excellent system.
CC
May 30th, 2009
Just a few minor points. Because you make your save on 10+ on a d20, you have a *55%* chance of making your saving throw, not 50%. It might be clearer to just say “If you roll a 10 or better on d20…” in case you give the impression that saves are rolled on percentile dice.
Also, characters *can* heal themselves without a cleric or other healing magic effect, using their Second Wind, but only once during combat.
And finally, you might also want to mention the major new game mechanic – the skill challenge as a formalized encounter type.
Toord
May 30th, 2009
Perhaps from the DM perpective this changes are great, since they simply and streamline the game workflow. However, from the roleplaying and character individuality standpoint, IMO, 4e simply is a suboptimal system. Additionally, it would seem they “pumped the numbers just to make it so. For instance, why would a level 30 full raging, berserking barbarian care about diplomacy skills? The skill point system of 3.X, IMO, if FAR superior than flat, given numbers of 4e.
Most of the comments against 4e (admittedly, mostly from players) are precisely what most DMs find enticing. I think Wizards went a little too lopsided towards the DM/game flow side of the RPG pendulum. Perhaps in future editions of 4.X there will be a better balance between the full customization and individuality of 3.X and the easiness of 4e.
Peace.
Toord
May 30th, 2009
Excuse my terrible grammar and spelling mishaps in the above post :)
Christian
May 30th, 2009
Thanks for the write-up!
I’m a 3E player, and it’s true that I had yet to see the systems’ differences outlined so succinctly. However, the only thing I seem to have misunderstood was the healing surges, but even then not by much. Even so, I think I still don’t like them… or the 4E system as a whole for that matter.
I realize 4E does have its strengths over 3.5, but I guess you guys can just lump me into that diehard 1% :P
Rev. Lazaro
May 30th, 2009
Very cool write up; I’m probably going to perma link to this somewhere so I can show any friends who ask about the differences between the editions.
Rob
May 30th, 2009
Just wanted to say that this is an incredibly useful write-up. I regularly play in both a 3E and 4E game, and I have found that there are misconceptions going both ways (we have a couple of players in the 4E game who haven’t played since 2E, and their views of 3E are a bit odd).
Of course, this probably won’t change the minds of anyone who has strong opinions on their favorite edition, but that is fine.
Personally, I feel 3E is a fun, mature game. However, I am kind of glad they put an end to that line, since we were starting to get to the point where Wizards was putting out books like “The Savannah Handbook”. I feel there are plenty of books to play 3E with, as well as plenty of homebrew support and products like Pazio’s Pathfinder.
On the other hand 4E is still young, and it can be a bit rocky at times. I personally enjoy playing it a lot, even though it has a different feel than 3E.
Swordgleam
May 30th, 2009
Great write-up. I would like to add that many of the changes require second or third thoughts to really be understood. I can’t count the number of times reading the 4e PHB that I said, “That’s the stupidest damned thing I have ever heard in my life,” and some time later it occurred to me that the change was actually a really good idea.
The new skill system hit me that way at first. I enjoyed buying skills with points, and making that decision at every level. But with broader skills, it works much better this way. And needing only to take a feat to be fully trained in another skill means that customizing your character’s options skill-wise is even easier than before.
DarkSchneider
May 30th, 2009
Just to note: A wand can contain any encounter power usable by any class that can use wands. You can get a wand of Witchfire, or a wand containing a bard power or a wizard power etc.
Saving throws are a -base- 55% chance, and can be modified by race, power bonuses, etc.
With the exception of monk, every class you listed as gone is already released in PH2. Monk will be released fuly in PH3, and is in playtest form for subscribers to D&DInsider already. There’s also some pretty new class ideas.
Defining a controller as area offensive is doing a disservice to the control effects and can lead to problems if that aspect is neglected.
I woudn’t technically even call the monster races at a significantly reduced power level; the only thing they don’t really have is extensive feat support. While a lot of racial feats are really excellent, there are enough available not tied to race that one could still potentially make a very viable PC of any race that has been given PC stats.
Except maybe bullywugs, because monsters don’t have access to their healing surges in combat most of the time so their racial ability is useless.
Icosahedrophilia
June 1st, 2009
One suggestion w/r/t: “A burst is an area centered on a point, while a blast is a square area. Area effects can be “close”, meaning adjacent to the caster: a close burst is centered on the caster, while a close blast has at least one square adjacent to the caster (such as a breath weapon).”
The phrasing might leave the incorrect impression that the difference between bursts and blasts is shape, which isn’t the case. Rather, bursts are measured out centrally from an origin square (which might or might not be the caster’s square), while blasts are measured from a vertex square that must be adjacent to the creature using the blast attack.
Thus, a “blast 3″ and a “burst 1″ are the same size and shape; both mark out a 3×3 square. The distinction between burst and blast lies in the relative positioning of the edges of that square to the origin point of the effect. 3.5e players making the transition can think of bursts as similar to 3.5e radius effects and blasts as similar to 3.5e cone effects.
Icosahedrophilia
June 1st, 2009
@Toord: With regard to the skill system, you might turn it around a bit. Why would a 30th level barbarian be worse at anything, skill-wise, than a 1st-level whatever? That’s frequent in 3e but almost impossible in 4e. The 3e skill system assumes that a character must make a special effort to get better at various tasks. The 4e system assumes that characters naturally get better at everything–some things more than others–over time. And the 4e skill system incorporates “retraining,” by which you can allow one skill to “atrophy” (lose your training bonus) in order to get better in a different skill (gain a training bonus there). 3.5e didn’t have that flexibility, at least not as a core rule. Whether you agree that these are good design decisions or not, I do think the logic of 4e skill mechanics cohere within the bounds of the system.
Time Stop, June 15th: Happy Birthday 4e! - At Will
June 16th, 2009
[...] Player’s Guide to D&D 4th Edition (For 3E Players) by Jonathon Drain [...]
Scott’s Corner » Archive » random links
July 31st, 2009
[...] 4e: Dero Deathspittle, Yeti Prevent the Grind in 4e DM rewards Sly Flourish D&D focussed Website 4e guide for 3e players [...]
Gary
August 2nd, 2009
I stumbled upon this blog searching for some 4e clarification on a few points. I’m glad I have. I used to play 3e and the move to 4e took some adjusting. This succinct list really made a few things easier to understand. Thanks a bunch.
Kenshin
August 12th, 2009
My comment…. 4E is no longer the D&D I know.
From 1E to 2E, it was easy to understand the conversion. Still we had elf, dwarf, gnome, fighter, thief, cleric and wizard. Wizard has to read a spell book everyday in order to memorize spells.
From 2E to 3E, a great leap, still I was able to pick up easily. Still we had elf, dwarf, gnome, fighter rogue (thief), cleric and wizard. A few races and classes missed in 2E were re-appeared, likes monk and half-orc. I like to see them again. Wizard still need to read the spellbook, though a new spell caster who is not required to memorize spell introduced. But it is not wizard. A player needs to play very smart in choosing their spells. Only experience wizard can contribute to the party or even survive in the adventures.
For 4E, I am sad that the power system changes everything. The other unbelievable change is that they cancel the alignment. For more, there is no longer high elf in the D&D. I wonder why WotC have this changes….
baronterror
August 24th, 2009
No one seems to be saying the biggest difference in the other 3 editions to 4th. Focus on Roles rather than background, story, or role playing. Gone are the days of reading all the wonderful source books, or invetive and wonderful suggestions, world building, monster descriptions, or flavour of most any kind. Instead you get endless Role explination and almost completely dry “plug n drop” numbers for all the usuall fun and creative parts of the Role Playing Game. 4th edition has some things going for it, but never have I bought a D&D book and been bored by it. 4 unlike 1-3 is about boardgaming, not role playing. There is no personality, it could just as easily be a pamphlet on game mechanics. The Soul is gone.
PrimeSonic
August 26th, 2009
@baronterror
Don’t think you’ll ever come back to read this, but I’ll still say my peace.
I’ve been absolutely thrilled with the new lore in 4e. Even with it still being so young, there’s a wealth of lore to discover and invent.
The rulebooks should only ever provide the basics for getting the game moving. The rest is up to either the particular campaign setting or the DM. 4e has plenty of hidden lore to uncover if you look for it, and at the same time gives the DM room to expand or rewrite as needed.
I say you go read the DMG at the very least before spewing BS about the lack of world building. Check the MM and the new Draconomicon before spewing BS about monster descriptions. Everything is there, albeit in a streamlined fashion.
The ‘soul’ isn’t gone. The world is a different one. Several things have changed in flavor but the essence is still there. The game has evolved and expanded. It is by no means the same game it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago nor should it be. The fact that it keeps improving and adapting shows how very much alive this game still is.
Korak
August 31st, 2009
I have played D&D through all its editions since 1981. My last campaign was beyond superb, and it only stopped after 6 years because the players moved away from each other. We survived the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion just fine. But this new edition is so completely different that I do not see older players trying to re-learn all the rules ONCE AGAIN. (Plus buying all new books- and we all know that’s why we get new eds, not because the game’s so much improved!) I spent three hours in my bookstore reading over the 4th ed core books this weekend- I wasn’t impressed. Maybe some experienced 4th ed players could show me (in a game) what makes 4th so much better than 3.5- but from where I stand now, my opinion is: if you wanna play a MMORPG, get online and play one!
Jarrett K
October 7th, 2009
Wow way to take 3.x, an amazing system, and dumb it down for the masses. It’s not even hard to learn in the first place and it’s great just the way it is. All this other stuff is garbage >.> I will never touch 4.x and I’d hope you other DnD players would do the same.
David H
October 7th, 2009
Well, to all the negative ‘old time’ players… I have been playing for 30 years, have given 4e a try and really enjoy the game system. I have gone out and purchased those books that I felt I wanted (as a player and DM) all over again and learned a new system.
The new system is simpler in the basic game mechanics, but I find that allows the players to have a more tactical fight…. gone are the days of the highly trained fighter madly swinging his sword like a sharpened crowbar. Now all classes have different (read Flavor! Role-Playing! etc.) options each time it is their turn. Does this lean more towards using miniatures on a tabletop?? Yes, but then my group used mini’s 100% since 3rd edition came out.. so no radical change.
Is the skill system simpler? Yes. Is it better? Some. There are some things that were simplified to the point that it rather sucks (example: Perception used to find traps.. not Thievery… so my Rogue in a weekly game lets the super perceptive Cleric look for traps before I go disarm them).
All editions have ups and downs. Overall, having played a weekly ongoing campaign.. having played and DM’d Living Forgotten Realms adventures for totally new and experienced players… I find that I enjoy this edition more, and it is something that is enjoyed by anyone that I have personally gamed with.
I remember raging like many of the above posters when 3e came out… until I actually gave the game system an honest try.
Each to their own :) You don’t want to try 4e, your loss… enjoy whatever version you play… and let those more adventurous try a new system and see if it has the merit to make a change.
Happy Gaming all!
Brian
October 8th, 2009
3rd and 4th killed DnD as a pen and paper and is now just an MMO port to a tabletop…
Play 2nd if you want DnD, play anything else if your server is down on WoW =/
Paul
October 9th, 2009
Having played ADnD, 3rd, and 4th, editions as well as WoW, none of the above are close to an MMO. And frankly, I had a much easier time creating a unique character in 4th ed because I didn’t have to worry about niggling with stats to make sure that what character I wanted to play would be able to contribute to the group. In response to above people complaining about the lack of roleplay, customization and lore: Isn’t that the players or DMs fault? The rules aren’t going to roleplay for you, or customize your character, and relying solely on the core books for lore in your world is a bit sad.
Stone2065
October 11th, 2009
I want to thank you for your details regarding the drivel known as 4th ed AD&D. When it first came out, I saw the books at my neighborhood gaming shop and I also perused the new books, looking for what actual upgrades were done to a game I had been playing since 1982… it took about 15 minutes to say to myself “what kind of crack were these idiots smoking the day they wrote this crap?”.
Honestly, I’m sure my fairly brief looking over of the new version was at least somewhat incomplete, but now, after reading your fine article I can honestly say the following…
I would rather play solitaire with a deck of cards than play 4th ed… while wearing handcuffs…
They have gutted a working system for “simplicity”… well, guess what? When D&D, and later AD&D was being played in the beginning, you didn’t HAVE to dumb down the rules… because the vast majority of the player base were the smart ones… the jocks, and heads had their games, and we had ours. Now you come along, and dumb it down for the masses that shouldn’t be doing much more than levelling their WoW toon…
Sorry for the rant, but it just royally pisses me off when a company feels the need to dumb down a product because the majority of their customer base IS that damn dumb…
valon_majere
October 15th, 2009
im, really glad i read this article, it changed some of my preconceptions about this new system and actually made me want to try it. Thanks
Joel
October 17th, 2009
Thank you for clearing this up. While I had heard a lot about 4e that sounded terrible, this simply confirmed it. Everybody calling it “DnD for Morons” seems about accurate. No customization, dumbed down rolls and modifiers, a tiny amount of playable classes, no multiclassing.
I’ll stick to 3.5, thanks.
Jonathan Drain
October 17th, 2009
Joel: I should point out that additional material has been released since the Player’s Handbook. There are now 22 classes and 35 playable races, including all 11 of 3E’s core classes, all 7 of its core races, and 13 playable races from the 3.5 Monster Manual.
A multiclassing system has been created, as well as further customization opportunities. There are now four fighter specialties, including two-weapon fighter, and two to four fields of specialization for most classes.
Jamie S
December 10th, 2009
I play 4th for the only one reason and it’s the same one that I “upgraded” from 1st to 2nd, 3rd/3.5 and that is to play the Game. I am a diehard 3rd ed. player but I have had to “upgrade” to continue playing. The game is what you make it and I will have fun playing anything with a group of good friends. So if you players are able go play don’t beat up the game system. The game does not play like the other editions it plays more like Savage World by Pinnacle which is made to be fast, fun and furious but it plays well non the less.
S Kerrin
December 20th, 2009
I hear there are people who refuse to move from 1st ed to 2nd, fron 2nd to 3rd, or from 3rd to 3.5. I have been told this as justification for why people don’t like 4th Ed.
I am a new D&D player, only having managed to find a group this year. I started off playing 4th ed, having a try at 3.5 about 6 months later.
However, I now prefer 3.5, and refuse to touch 4th. This fact says something about the ‘quality’ that the latest material contains
Etherrider
December 22nd, 2009
I really enjoyed the write up and I am sorry to see the comments taking what now seems usual “3E rules, 4E drools” (or vice versa) that happens now with many edition wars.
D&D is still in there just like with every other edition and comes down to to each his own….Me? Well I’ve been playing since ’79 and enjoy 1E (with a dash 2E thrown in) and 4E.
What ruined 3E for me? Well my insistance that 1E/2E was the pinnacle and that 3E’s system was adding things that should never have been added…complex rules for RP-ing actions is one. But I do admit that I played quite a bit of 3E due to me wanting to play (that and DMing for RPGA). Well now I am on 4E and having plenty of fun.
Still D&D to me.
Alex
February 4th, 2010
@S Kerrin: I started playing 2E, and when I moved on to 3E (and later 3.5E) I really didn’t like it, I found it more difficult to pick up and unnecessarily complicated. Does that say something about the quality of the material contained? 4th ed simplifies it (doesn’t “dumb it down” any more than 2E was dumbed down) and makes it so you can use skills in any situation at the DM’s discretion (i.e. roleplay it!) and in fact recommends using different skills for differently handled roleplays. What makes people point and shout wolf/mmorpg, I think, is that there’s also more focusing on the rule of cool in combat – all classes are now no longer “I hit with my basic attack, I do damage” but “I shift to flank the monster and sneak attack with combat advantage, and use my Rampant Charge encounter power to charge the dragon” (and low level wizards are now no longer “I cast my two magic missiles, I’ll wait til we have an extended rest, too). The roleplay, in my view, will always have to come from a concerted effort of the DM to make a roleplayable setting and you to make a character with a backstory (and in fact the guides help you making backgrounds, suggestion you pick an area, an occupation etc and even offering you skill boosts/training based on that, as well as a whole list depending on your race (a gnome? maybe you’ve never been to the feywild, or maybe you’re an escaped fomorian captive…). Even the stating system, where races get +2 to two rather than +2 to one and -2 to another actually encourages non-mmoish character genning, since you can now have a still pretty optimal character without their base stat being useful (half-orc wizards are now viable).
Aurore
February 7th, 2010
4th edition is a tactical board wargame with no flavour. The classes are all the same, just a selection of powers that move you or others around a grid. All the fun and excitement and the extreme customisation of 3.5 is gone.
They also tried to take us back to the 1st ed style dungeon crawls by vandlaising faerun and creating their points of light setting. Bleh.
Sorry the whole edition is insipid and flavourless, and is not D&D.
We are now playing Pathfinder from Paizo, which IS D&D, even if it cant use the name, in addition to adding things from Monte Cook’s arcana evolved and iron heroes, both of which are also recognisably D&D. 4th ed is tabletop WoW or something.
Looking at Play by Post forums, 3.5 dominates over 4th even now by a factor of 5:1. I sincerely hope wizards will fail and the license go to a more useful company. Or maybe just scrap 4th and bring out 5th in a more traditional way.
Wes
February 10th, 2010
I began playing back in ’77 with 1st ED. Continued through High School and College with 2nd ED and AD&D. Then moved away, got married, had kids, and nearly forgot all about D&D.
We got back into it about 4 years ago when we started having “reunions” with our old gaming group. We also started a group here at home and decided to jump into 3.5. After a short learning period, we decided that we loved the changes as they seemed to make the game simpler and gave more room for the roleplaying aspect. We spent a year and a fair amount of money putting together a collection of books, maps, and minatures with which to play . . .
. . . just in time to have WotC step up and announce a BRAND NEW system – 4th ED.
So, just chunk all your 3.5 books (as well as your stat cards for the mini’s since they won’t work with the new system) and go out and buy all NEW stuff (so that WotC can get wealthier) . . .
I don’t think so.
Andy
February 22nd, 2010
I was very skeptical of 4th edition and didn’t really touch it till a few weeks ago. However, I like the balance that 4tg edition brings to the table. For instance as a lvl 1 wizard, in 3rd edition you shot off 3 spells then had to run away crying or shoot a crossbow (badly) from the back. The addition of at will encounter and daily powers allows for wizards etc to actually contribute to the party even at lower levels. And as far as roleplaying is concerned I hear a lot of people talk smack on 4e but I personally don’t feel as that the books should create the stories and depth for you. Dnd has always been to me just a set of mechanics to flesh out a world of your on creation and characters as unique as the players themselves. Could they expand more on roleplay? Probably. But dms and players should be upping their game and doing this on their own.
Andy
February 22nd, 2010
Also, 3rd edition is now more awesome with all the open source info, so there’s no real reason to quit playing 3e unless you want to. I’ll always love 3e and my group will probably continue playing 3e campaigns in addition to our 4e. Acting like there is no choice in the matter is silly. There is more than enough 3e materials out there to make just about anything. And remember the books are guidelines, not rules. They can’t tell you how to run your group
Andy
February 22nd, 2010
Ps. Pathfinder is awesome if u wanna stick with 3e
Josh
February 22nd, 2010
I read all the comments. I will say this: If your 4e game has “no flavor,” it’s because you and your DM have “no creativity.” 4e simply makes dungeon crawling more fun, with tactical movement features and at-will powers. As with any version of DnD…it all comes down to the DM and the players. Creative players can invent all kinds of things to do, and the DM rolls with it…for example, your warlock might use a feat and encounter power to Intimidate a bloodied orc into dropping his weapons and surrendering, and make a 2nd intimidate check to get the orc to swear allegiance to him. If the DM rolls with it (and your dice roll with you), now your warlock has an orc lackey that follows him into battle and does his bidding. It’s like…roleplay and flavor!
The best thing about 4e in my experience is how easy it is to get new players into it. We’ve got 3 novices in my group, and they’re taking right to it. Somehow, I don’t think the woman playing the wizard would be having much fun if she could only cast Magic Missile 3 times before running in terror. The at-will power/exploit idea was brilliant.
Emanuel
February 22nd, 2010
I’m been playing 3.5 and Dming for alittle while, My first tabletop experience was actually Two World tabletop book that came with the special edition of the xbox game< the similairies between that simple, one tiny book is strikeing, I hate the idea of 4e, it hurts to to look at it,That said i am goin to grit my teeth and try it..
Drake Saber
March 3rd, 2010
Well, the 27 feb, 10, was my 1st actual encounter w/ 4e. Personally, I like it. It’s more like a RL videogame. As far as those complaining ’4e lacks -’, think of this- You can ALWAYS take 3e stuff, & tweak its ideas, into 4e. & those that play the whitewolf system, will adjust easier too, cuz, again, imo, 4e is simular in nature (skill use, etc).
DR
March 30th, 2010
Okay… simplifications:
Rangers – only good a ranged attacks now… sorry that was never what a “Ranger” meant, period. To be a Ranger, one “ranged” across the open wilderness. Like a gillie, or games warden, but not tied to a laird or lord. A ranger is a “mountain man” a trapper, a hunter, who can handle both blade and bow, because living in the wild means that sometimes things will get the drop on you and you better be able to take it down in close combat.
Limits to “powers” – for game “balance” it plays too much with my “suspension of disbelief” as having taken various self-defense classes in real life – I know that just because I failed to perform a maneuver once on an opponent, does not mean I will never get the opportunity again, in the same fight or even the same day. This is a defect that carried over from 3.x and carried over into 4th.
This is not to say that everything is bad… I like the elimination of “metamagic” feats… those were just totally stupid, but then again I think there is once again a problem with magic… While getting rid of the “Vancian System” is fine and an admirable endeavor it suffers once again from the artificial limitations used in the “powers” in general. Something that hampers the “suspension of disbelief.”
Use of miniatures – well having been introduced to the use of minis in my days 2nd Edition and Ravenloft, I like minis. What I do not like is the overblown chess-like game that it seems to have become. If I wanted to play Chess with a d20, those rules were out YEARS ago, and are so much simpler to boot!
What many people seem to forget in design is that limits for “playability” are really artificial, because what the PCs can do, the NPCs can do too, and if need be the NPCs can do it better to boot!
I see myself potentially incorporating some elements of 4ed into my game or next game but to adopt the whole system? No. But I thank you John for the primer… something much needed.
Roc
April 21st, 2010
DR, your comments show me you have either not read 4th Edition yet or do not understand it.
Ranger only for ranged combat? Which version are you reading. Rangers have a few specializations they can have… ranged combat is one. Dual melee weapon combat is another. Beast master is another where they have a creature sidekick (i.e. think of Drizzt), and a few more.
And from a 1st or 2nd edition player, I might slightly see the complaint about miniatures. Although most of us all used them back then too. (Otherwise how do you know ranged and area affects?) But for 3rd edition, the miniatures were absolutely necessary. You had attacks of opportunity, bull rushing, etc. that all required miniatures. 4th edition is no different from 3rd in this way.
I am admittedly of the other extreme though…I loved 1st and 2nd edition, played 3rd edition during the entire release, but hated it the entire time. 3rd edition just didn’t have any direction or consistency and didn’t know what it wanted to do (just the release of a 3.5 version shows that…this is not a computer program!) But 4th edition is light years ahead in improving the game over 3rd.
S
August 10th, 2010
Haha, “hornet’s nest” might be a good description of what’s been stirred up here.
For what it’s worth, after playing 4e for two years now, I find it elegant and interesting to play, enough that it’s my system of choice. I loved my 3.5 druid dearly, but my 4e characters are just as fun to roleplay (of course, since you can roleplay with any system), and I find the system overall cleaner.
D. Fitz
August 25th, 2010
I have played 3.5 for years now and i have played several campains with 4.0 and while 4.0 isnt bad I rather enjoyed the greater possibilitys to custimize characters in 3.5 but 4.0 will probably release more options in time. Guess i’ll have to wait and stick with 3.5 for now.
sorry for the spelling and grammer errors in the above, im a science nerd not an english teacher.