4th Edition

[pfooti]

Heffroncm beat me to the punch. I prefer my rulebooks to be entirely crunch. The fluff and flavor text often provide more troubles than needed. I can provide fluff and description, the crunch is there to make sure my imagination is mechanically compatible with someone else's.

Frankly, I like everything to work based on keywords and other stuff (like what they've done with 4e). Consider the age-old debate: does Protection from Evil protect you from Hold Person? Some say yes (HP is a mind-affecting compulsion), some say no ("ongoing control clearly refers to things like dominate"). Even the sage, in the FAQ, doesn't really clear things up. Most spell descriptions should be able to be reduced to a few short lines, PfE could include: negates the effect of any spell with the compulsion keyword, rather than the poorly-worded description.

As a gamer, I always boil things down to basics anyway. So why not start there and let me put on some window dressing? That ends up making the game even more universal: the less fluff in the system, the easier it is to make a weird steampunk wild-west adventure world with it.

[Sunic_Flames]

That isn't what I meant. I mean terms like 'Daily powers', 'Push 3', 'Do [W] times 3' and so forth.

The items section and classes exhibit this the strongest.

About the nicest thing I can say about it is they made vorpal not suck horribly.

[heffroncm]

Mechanical descripton of mechanics is also a bonus in my mind.  As pfooti said, having a consistent base of words used to describe the precise effects of an ability is better than the open-ended interpretation allowed by imprecise descripton (Ironheart Surge anyone?).  I don't need my rules to impart flavor, that's what setting books are for.

[Sunic_Flames]

Perhaps. But 'I Iron Heart Surge the Sun!' has quite the humor appeal.

[MittenNinja]

Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.

[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]

[Prime32]

Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.

[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]

Oh, don't start...

[brislove]

Two Weapon Fighting is actually a very viable Fighter choice.  With the number of ways they have to cause extra Opportunity Actions and the Epic feat Two-Weapon Flurry, it can be a big potential boost.  Two Weapon Defense is arguably better than a Heavy Shield, as it adds 1 to Reflex and saves you a -2 Check Penatly at the cost of 1 AC.  It's also nice to have a second weapon on hand, and most of the Shield items aren't that great.

It's also nice that the various powers operate differently based on what weapon you're holding. I really see the 4e Fighter as having many more varied and intricate options than the 3e Fighter.

1: Shields add to your ref defense also, so the heavy shield costs you 2 check penalty and a feat, and you get 1 less ac. It's not an unreasonable option, but it's not strictly better either way.

2: I agree that the power options, weapon options ect. Give the fighter a ton more options IMO. You can build a fighter that heals himself, or that always hits (even if he misses it does something!). Dex Fighters that are mobile and ignore armor with some attacks (hitting ref defense instead!).

3: With multi-classing the way it is, TWF is actually a pretty strong option, just grab a few of the ranger abilities and rock out!

[Sunic_Flames]

Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.

[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]

Actually it is because his 'RAW' contains massive house rules boosting SAB, nerfing everything else, and treating all enemies as if they had an Intelligence or Wisdom of 3 regardless of their actual stats in that regard, ensuring that they actually stand there in front of the weakest character and be 'tanked'.

Yours has a better ring to it though.

[Jaimas]

Gotta say I'm not interested in 4E. Not after the announcement came about 2 days after I bought DotU. And the Fiendish Codexes.

Which are now irrelevant.

But your mileage my vary, and I'm certainly open to debate on the matter.

[LogicNinja]

Gotta say I'm not interested in 4E. Not after the announcement came about 2 days after I bought DotU. And the Fiendish Codexes.

Which are now irrelevant.

But your mileage my vary, and I'm certainly open to debate on the matter.

DotU was always irrelevant.

You can play both 4E and 3.5. I probably will; they do different things.

[Eepop]

It sucks that you didn't get those books until the quote-enqoute "last minute", but heres some things to consider:

1) Fluff is easily transferable between editions.
2) Nothing stops you from playing more 3/3.5 games.
3) Those books cited came out a good bit before two days before the announcement.  DotU was 05/07, Codexes were 06/06 and 12/06.  You have to acknowledge that even the most recent one: DotU, would have given over a year of playtime had it been bough when it was released. 
4) Most of the more recent books like say Elder Evils are actually fairly edition proof.  I'm actually planning to use a good bit of stuff from it for my 4E campaign when I get around to DMing.  The stat blocks are obviously not straight out of the book usable, but the way they have the monsters set up is fairly similar thematically to some of the 4E concepts, and I don't imagine much trouble converting them.

If you feel that you've still got some play left in your 3/3.5 books, don't make 4e stop you from playing with them.  Play 3/3.5 as long as you are still having fun.  And if someone has all the 4E books and wants to DM a game, go in with an open mind and give it a whirl playing.  If you like it, cool, you know have another game to get some fun out of it.  If you don't, no harm no foul, you still have plenty of 3/3.5 stuff to last you for quite awhile.

[brislove]

4e is a different game then 3e, I think it is mechanically more clear, and better balanced. I think 3.5 is still a great game, I would pilfer some things from 4e. (Turn sequence, minor actions not eating immediate actions, and specifying reaction/interrupt, among others that would primarily be used for clarity).

[Jaimas]

Well, yeah, nothing's stopping me from using 3.X at all. In fact, I'm still DMing several games with it. 

[Optimator]

I appreciate that 4e is simpler, and I honestly think that's a boon, but I already have 3.5 memorized, you know?  We just weren't the target market and I don't even feel like WotC was even trying to woo people like me, who are perfectly content with 3.5.  Many aren't, due to balance issues, clunky-ness, and whatnot, but I lucked out and have a great group who self-regulates the most broken aspects (almost like an honor system).  Our games are well balanced within the campaign and even our epic characters aren't out of control.