Need help with DnD

[freebiewitz]

Well me and my friends have decided to start playing the game only none of us have acctually played before. In the end I got voted to be the dm which is all good, we have characters and I have the first part of the campaign ready and so forth.

This is the problem. When we all got the books and we all picked 4th edition since it was the newest. Now personally none of us have found anything wrong with it, we've all played though the mini campaign thingy with premade characters and it was fun BUT, people seem to hate 4th edition for some reason.
I've got a friend who had used to play 3rd edition so I borrowed his books to see what the difference was and well the only thing was 4th edition compared to 3rd edition seems more simple, miniture based and bullshits all over diploymacy type things (I didnt lke the roll die to see if you convince guy to do stuff I prefer my players rp themselves so I only do the rolls when bluffing and stuff.)

But besides that it doesnt seem like its bad. Please can you someone tell me what is wrong with 4th edition?

Few complaints I already know about is as follow.
1.Simple :We're new we like simple.

2.Minitures :So is warhammer.

3.DC checks for rp :Ok you got me there.

4.Several classes taken out and put in id'nt people complain about bards anyways?

5.New races eople say they dont fit in forgotten realms but what abouta custom world?

6.Ranger = fighter with bow :Only fighter with bow does less damage and has more hp.

7.Dragonborne are bad : I dunno they look cool to me.

8.Gnome= bad? : Yeah I can see why people would complain about this one, Its like playing as link in zelda only to have him turn evil in the next game so yeah.

9.weapon proficiencys redundant :Yeah I kinda have to agree with this one -2 for weapon you dont ussually use? Yeah.

Okay anyways this is how its gonna work.
In order to balance it out I just want to know why 3rd edition is better the 4th BUT at the same time I want to know why you consider it better then 4th edition thanks.

 

[Dancingman]

I don't have many qualms with 4E, but it's really in the eye of the beholder what's wrong with the system, some say that it's too balanced, I disagree, knowing about all the god-wizards and Mary Sues back in previous editions. I like the dragonborn, I like the omission of gnomes, and the fall of the alignment system. I like 4E because it feels fairly unrestricted (for DnD, but there can't be a perfect system, something's always wrong. You don't need to treat these rules like they descended from the heavens, they're meant to be changed, it's known as "houseruling" among DnDers. You can change the rules if you feel like it, make weapon proficiencies extend to a whole group of weapons if you want. The DnD forums are full of flame wars over which edition is better, the truth is that no edition is better, elitists and trolls will tell you otherwise but no edition is better. Don't come into DnD with a "(insert edition here) is the best" mentality, don't get drawn into the flame wars.

 

[freebiewitz]

OMG My god I was expecting to dig through alot of spam, flaming and crap to get to a inttelegent answer and you just blow me away good god sir you truly are 1337!

 

[Higurashi]

OMG My god I was expecting to dig through alot of spam, flaming and crap to get to a inttelegent answer and you just blow me away good god sir you truly are 1337!

Oh my god, my god? Be amazed at the quality of the RP forums, will ya? Yeah, Dancingman is a solid guy. Some paragraphing would not have hurt though, and while I am being picky, you could use some punctuation, spellcheck and whatnot.
I would not mind learning DnD. Seems like it could come in handy for Forum RP'ing.

 

[FalloutJack]

Duude. Lemme tell you what I know from a fairly-successful group I observe from time to time. (I'm not in it since I'm immersed in another campaign with other people, but here goes.)

First of all, the GM may play by the rules, but one of the most important thing is that THE GM RULES. He/She says what will stay and what will go, according to thine own wisdom as per the desire to have fun. So, when this guy sees something that looks, more or less, like crap, he - like ANY smart GM - tweaks it to stability and noncrappiness.

Second, love your descriptive handbooks and the little sectioned-off areas for each spell/skill with description. Photo-copy for the handy-use of your players. Makes it easier than sifting through the one book all the time.

Third, GMs are allowed to make their campaigns more fun than the ones in the book. Our guy apparently spends at least a few days, on and off, working on a funny little story/adventure, playing on the tropes of the game rather than suffering from them. (Also, making up funny names for your villains kicks ass.)

Fourth, beware of a goblin named Gary. He's dodgey as all get-out!

Fifth, and most importantly, if not completely satisfied with your gameplay, both the industry and your DnD equipment vendor will laugh their asses off instead of letting you return them, because business is an evil so-and-so. Make the most of your roleplaying equipment, even if you have to render it as nonsensical as Unforgotten Realms.


Oh, and don't say leet stuff online. That's just rude.

 

[tenny20ca]

I've played both 3.5 and 4e. To be honest I think the thing people don't like about 4E is that it's not 3.5. I like 4e, the fights are alot more dynamic. I'm playing as a Multi-classed Cleric Avenger. They took Clerics and made them fun to play! Last night I crited on a deurgar with Holy Strike. 53 damage(2d12(24) +2d12(11, 12) +6), and I healed our tank, all in one round. You can check out my build here...
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=446032
Being able to shift and flank and be flanked adds more strategy to the gameplay. You have to stick together and work together to not get TPK'ed.

 

[Falconknight06]

1.Simple :We're new we like simple.

> Many of my friends think it has become too much like an MMO, lacking substance that 3.5 had

2.Minitures :So is warhammer.

> Always been used

3.DC checks for rp :Ok you got me there.

> To me, 4E lacks a lot of player interaction and seems to be much more about battling than immersive play where you are actually your character and you're interacting with a dynamic world. The lack of roleplaying and emphasis on quick combat is my major complaint.

4.Several classes taken out and put in id'nt people complain about bards anyways?

> Bards FTW. But seriously, that was my major complaint, but the PH2 fixed that

5.New races eople say they dont fit in forgotten realms but what about a custom world?

> The races you use are up to you. Use some with your world and leave out others. It's up to you

6.Ranger = fighter with bow :Only fighter with bow does less damage and has more hp.

> I've always seen Rangers as a fighter in the simplest sense of the word. Yes they fight, but they also have skills outside of combat which is their draw for me

7.Dragonborne are bad : I dunno they look cool to me.

> They are cool

8.Gnome= bad? : Yeah I can see why people would complain about this one, Its like playing as link in zelda only to have him turn evil in the next game so yeah.

> Gnomes are playable now. PH2

9.weapon proficiencys redundant :Yeah I kinda have to agree with this one -2 for weapon you dont ussually use? Yeah.

Okay anyways this is how its gonna work.
In order to balance it out I just want to know why 3rd edition is better the 4th BUT at the same time I want to know why you consider it better then 4th edition thanks.

> I liked 3.5 because it seemed like everyone's character had many more possibilities to make truly unique characters. Also, the dice rolls as roleplaying bugs me. I do like the streamlined skills found in 4E though and it is fun to play. The choice really lies with what you're looking for in the game. 3.5 is more expansive and leaves much more room for roleplay, but 4E is faster paced and easier to just pick up and play.

 

[Husky.Gnoll]

> I liked 3.5 because it seemed like everyone's character had many more possibilities to make truly unique characters. Also, the dice rolls as roleplaying bugs me. I do like the streamlined skills found in 4E though and it is fun to play. The choice really lies with what you're looking for in the game. 3.5 is more expansive and leaves much more room for roleplay, but 4E is faster paced and easier to just pick up and play.

Very true, I am going to wait for a couple of years to pass before I invest in fourth edition in hopes of it expanding like third edition.