Why do YOU still play 3.5?

[GoatToucher]

I am curious as to why so many people still seem to be using 3.5.

My group and I have also stuck with it, as we enjoy the more detailed skill system, and our playtests of 4th left us ill at ease with the daily/encounter/at-will ability system. Thinking we were in the minority, I was surprised to find so much talk about 3.5 here. Why have you and your crew stuck with it?

(I am old and tired, which makes me disinterested in the drama of 4th ed. hate, so please refrain from any vitriol unsupported by a decent rationale. I am not trying to stir anything up. Thanks.)

[Talya]

I am curious as to why so many people still seem to be using 3.5.

My group and I have also stuck with it, as we enjoy the more detailed skill system, and our playtests of 4th left us ill at ease with the daily/encounter/at-will ability system. I was surprised to find so much talk about 3.5 here. Why have you and your crew stuck with it?

(I am old and tired, which makes me disinterested in the drama of 4th ed. hate, so please refrain from any vitriol unsupported by a decent rationale. I am not trying to stir anything up. Thanks.)

4e to me feels much like the original 1e Basic D&D. It's not terrible, but it just doesn't feel that deep or varied. It also feels more like a tactical board game than 3.x, which is not something that interests me.

[Lappy9000]

I am curious as to why so many people still seem to be using 3.5.

My group and I have also stuck with it, as we enjoy the more detailed skill system, and our playtests of 4th left us ill at ease with the daily/encounter/at-will ability system. I was surprised to find so much talk about 3.5 here. Why have you and your crew stuck with it?

(I am old and tired, which makes me disinterested in the drama of 4th ed. hate, so please refrain from any vitriol unsupported by a decent rationale. I am not trying to stir anything up. Thanks.)I've tried 4e and it is...different. Different in many ways that don't feel quite right or simply don't fit my fancy. As a side note, I despise the new fluff presented in the Player's Handbook, but that's fixed easily enough.

Fourth edition, to me, simply doesn't feel the way that I think D&D should feel. That being said, my group will probably convert to Fax Celestis' d20:Rebirth fix in the near future.

[Nerd-o-rama]

For me, because they're two very different games with their own pros and cons. 4e is fun for a straightforward, faster-playing game that's easier to manage tactically (and hell, I know the rules for 4e better after six months of playing it than I do 3.5 after 5 years). 3.5 is fun because it's a lot more detail-oriented and has, by simple nature of time, a lot more variety and information for it, both homebrew and professionally published. It's also got the two best campaign settings ever (Eberron and Sigil Prep (http://www.sigilprep.com/)), neither of which have yet been totally updated.

[GoatToucher]

That being said, my group will probably convert to Fax Celestis' d20:Rebirth fix in the near future.

Who with the what now?

((edit: Found it.))

(Thanks for the input, btw.)

[afroakuma]

As a side note, I despise the new fluff presented in the Player's Handbook

Concurred. :smallannoyed:


That being said, my group will probably convert to Fax Celestis' d20:Rebirth fix in the near future.

That's the way to go, alright. It's been looking pretty solid, so far.


Who with the what now?

Fax Celestis is one of our senior homebrewers. He's currently building a complete restructure/rebalance of 3.X on these boards.

[Eldariel]

They feel like very different games. 3.5e offers more of what I'm looking for, especially when the DM is open to homebrew (I make sure mine always are).

[Lappy9000]

Who with the what now?


(Thanks for the input, btw.)Boom bassa Boom! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98722)

[Bobmufin52]

My group stays with 3.5E because none of us have $90 to spend on new rulebooks. Anyway, even if we did, the 3.5E system works fine, especially for my group, so why get something new when the old works perfectly well?
Also, while I've never had a firsthand experience with 4E, from what I've seen, it's not as customizable as 3.5E, which I don't like since I love adding homebrewed stuff into my games.

[ShadowFighter15]

I didn't decide to play D&D til after 4e was out; but I went with 3.5 because I'd had prior experience with the version they used in Neverwinter Nights 2. I figured it'd be easier to learn a slightly different version of a ruleset I already knew rather than learn a whole new one from the ground up.

[AslanCross]

1. I can easily make any character concept I'd like as long as I look hard enough. Though I don't doubt that 4E will have enough classes to do that someday, I still think there's too much cookie-cutter mentality in 4E design (though I really think it was necessary with what they had in mind).

2. The books are on sale here at 60% off. As such it's much easier to buy them despite the lousy selection available.

3. d20srd.org.

I honestly like 4E and the direction they took with some matters (DMing seems to be a lot easier), but I still like 3.5 more. Given that and the logistical reasons, I think I'm going to be sticking to 3.5 for a long time.

[Renegade Paladin]

Simple. Between us, my group has sunk over a thousand dollars into 3e books, and we're not going to throw it all away just because WotC rolled out some shiny new toys. :smallamused:

[lsfreak]

For my group, it's because they've barely looked at it, but what they did look at they didn't like. From what they told me of how much they looked at it, it's little more than 3.5-fanboyism.

From what I've read of it (read through most of the PHB and good chunks of the DMG), it just looses too much from what I'm used to. One thing is just the pure amount of sourcebooks that aren't available yet for 4e. Another is the loss of more roleplaying-oriented rules, like Craft/Profession and the simpler alignments. The at-will/encounter/daily is a bit too reminiscent of when I played WoW. There isn't nearly as much power gain as you level. There is no batman (even appropriately altered to not be stupidly powerful).

One thing I can give it is it's balance. Part of this, though, I believe is the relative lack of power compared to 3.5. In 4e, a small difference in power is background noise; in 3.5 classes scale up so much more that what starts out as a tiny difference can quickly become a huge one.

[Starscream]

In order to avoid making this like every other time I've had this conversation, I figure I'll do something different and list some things I like about BOTH systems.

Awesome Things About 4th Edition
* Very well balanced
* Skills are much simpler (honestly, why were Open Lock and Disable Device ever separate?)
* You can add the better of two ability bonuses to each save. I love this rule.
* Epic Destinies are sweet.
* No racial penalties, only bonuses. You will never be "punished" for combining a particular class with a particular race
* DMing is much simpler
* Great for beginners

Awesome Things About 3.5 Edition
* Characters are far more versatile
* Many more classes to choose from (4E will add more, but a 4E class takes up so many pages and requires so many new powers that having a lot of them is impractical)
* Prestige Classes are much more fun/cool than Paragon Paths
* With Level Adjustment you can adapt many more monsters as player races
* Much less need for a grid and minis. We don't even use them in our current campaign
* Multiclassing works much better.
* There are spells that are not combat related. What sort of bloody wizard can't even summon a mount?
* There are currently many more books out. This one will lessen as time passes.
* Better setting fluff, although this is optional.
* Better alignment system.
* Much easier to Homebrew stuff for
* Complicated is not bad. Chess > Checkers
* Just feels more like D&D. I feel like I could convert any 1E or 2E module to 3.5 without much difficulty. Much harder for 4E.
* SRD. 'nuff said.
* Books are now cheaper.

[herrhauptmann]

One of the things I dislike about 4e is the lack of customization. I pick a class, then I can waste a lot of feats if I choose to multi-class. Once I hit level 11, I take paragon levels, and at 21 I take epic, so again I'm stuck.

Also most of my 4e experience has been with LFR, which tends to have a lot of problems with getting the all details put into the adventure. At least as far as I can tell by reading my DMs face.

[Starbuck_II]

Because I am an individual. I like both 4th and 3rd.

I still discuss 3rd because I don't have enough expereince in 4th to have as much to discuss. Plus, not enough discuss 4th here so I discuss 3rd.

Also, I currently still play 3rd in PBP.

I only play 4th during the summer as DM.

[GoatToucher]

In order to avoid making this like every other time I've had this conversation, I figure I'll do something different and list some things I like about BOTH systems.

Thank you.

[Fjolnir]

my group plays 3.5/3.0, I would like to find a 4.0 group to at least see what it's like but it's rather difficult given that I am bound to the bus system

[Talya]

* Epic Destinies are sweet.

Which, for the record, existed in 3.5 before 4e was released.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428


* No racial penalties, only bonuses. You will never be "punished" for combining a particular class with a particular race.

This is an illusory benefit. Yes, a half-orc wizard in 3.5 was a bad idea thanks to a -2 to INT. But in a system without penalties, playing a wizard with any race without a bonus to intelligence is just as bad.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I still play 3.5 mainly because its the only thing anyone in my area wants to play. There's only one 4e game in the area, and that's the monthly Living Forgotten Realms game at the local game shop. I'd like to play 4e more, but no one else wants to play with me. :smallfrown:

I like 4e a lot, especially since now I can play a paladin who's actually effective without needing to do a lot of fancy multiclassing, and I don't feel inadequate when the two druids in our party use a combination of summoning and damage-related spells and one of them wildshaping into a giant bear to kill most of the enemies before I get a chance to swing a sword, or I spend an entire fight falling into a trench and being gnome flamethrower bait, without even attacking once.

[Seatbelt]

I still play because of my investment in the books.

[Alleine]

Because it's what I'm familiar with. Plus I can get my fix of D&D just by working on the mechanics of a character concept. 4e is far too simple for me to be able to spend the time I usually do on character creation, which is something I really enjoy.
I think only two guys in our group said they liked 4e better, and one of them had never played 3.5 before.

[Reverent-One]

Which, for the record, existed in 3.5 before 4e was released.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428

Though they existed because of 4e, as the very article you link to was written to convert them to 3.5. So yes, they existed in 3.5 before 4e was released, but were created in 4e.


This is an illusory benefit. Yes, a half-orc wizard in 3.5 was a bad idea thanks to a -2 to INT. But in a system without penalties, playing a wizard with any race without a bonus to intelligence is just as bad.

Except that the negatives made playing such a race two steps below a race with a bonus to the stat, even worse than a race with no bonus or negative in the stat.

[Assassin89]

4e simplifies the aspect of combat, but does not give any opportunities for roleplaying. Some encounters also become too difficult due to the extra templates given to certain creatures.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This is an illusory benefit. Yes, a half-orc wizard in 3.5 was a bad idea thanks to a -2 to INT. But in a system without penalties, playing a wizard with any race without a bonus to intelligence is just as bad.

I'd disagree here - you're forgetting stats relative to other creatures, and the world.

Most monsters are statted out with 10 being the baseline. If you had racial penalties, PCs could be -1 or -2 below "normal" for other creatures, and often would be (oh, all the CHA 6 Dwarven Fighters!). Likewise, the static (and dynamic) DCs are based around characters having a +0 in a stat - if you have a penalty, you are at an automatic disadvantage to all checks involving that stat.

This can be important for untrained skill checks (e.g. Perception, Bluff), Initiative (DEX only) and all skill challenges.

[Starscream]

Which, for the record, existed in 3.5 before 4e was released.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428


Yeah, I have seen these and they are pretty nice. But I always assumed that they were in 4E first and then adapted for 3.5.

In any case what I really meant was the way epic level play was built in to 4th edition from the very beginning. The epic level rules for 3.5 always seemed liked an afterthought, whereas for 4E they are an important aspect of the game.

This does bring up one very important other thing I prefer about 3.5: Most of the things I said I liked about 4E (like the saves and the skill system) could very easily be adapted to 3.5. Whereas you probably couldn't fix up 4E with the better aspects of 3.5 without significantly altering the core gameplay. 3.5 is much more...modular.


4e simplifies the aspect of combat, but does not give any opportunities for roleplaying. Some encounters also become too difficult due to the extra templates given to certain creatures.

See, this is one complaint I have never really understood. How can the rules stop you from roleplaying?

Granted, I think 4E is overall more combat oriented, but how you behave out of fights isn't constrained by rules at all. Then again, I have been known to roleplay Monopoly, so maybe I'm just a weirdo.

[FMArthur]

For me, personally, it's about the sheer number of options in 3.5E. That also made it very complicated, which is why I think 4E won't ever actually replace it, since part of the focus with 4E is simplification. I still maintain that they are both enjoyable in their own right, but sometimes for different reasons - I've often seen 4E referred to as 'D&D for beginners', and have even met a group that started with 4E and then went to 3.5E for the next campaign. 4E is simpler and more relaxing, while 3.5E is more complicated but more rewarding IMO.

For my group, it's more about laziness, and some misunderstandings. A lot of what they believe of 4E is entirely false but I like 3.5 enough that I can't bring myself to correct them. :smallfrown:

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is why I feel kind of alone here. I'm a person who actually likes 4e, maybe even more than 3.5e, especially because of its simplicity, and many people on this forum prefer 3.5e, so I feel isolated. I'm lonely. :smallfrown:

[Shadowbane]

My group stays with 3.5E because none of us have $90 to spend on new rulebooks. Anyway, even if we did, the 3.5E system works fine, especially for my group, so why get something new when the old works perfectly well?
Also, while I've never had a firsthand experience with 4E, from what I've seen, it's not as customizable as 3.5E, which I don't like since I love adding homebrewed stuff into my games.

I feel exactly the same way, and I have the exact same reasons.

[Asbestos]

I've tried 4e and it is...different. Different in many ways that don't feel quite right or simply don't fit my fancy. As a side note, I despise the new fluff presented in the Player's Handbook, but that's fixed easily enough.

Fourth edition, to me, simply doesn't feel the way that I think D&D should feel. That being said, my group will probably convert to Fax Celestis' d20:Rebirth fix in the near future.

Hmmm... I shall start a thread on this, the fluff issue. I wonder if it is a lack of fluff (relatively) or the specific fluff... it intrigues me.

Anyway, while I may be done with 3.x, the people I play with (whom I do not believe post here) seem to like 3.x because of the greater perceived number of options and because they are pretty darn familiar with the material/rules already. I mean, can you play a monk/ninja/whatever dracotaur in 4e? Not really. That, and since they've been playing 3.x for so much longer, the rule lawyering arguments are much fewer.

[oxybe]

we still play 3rd ed because we don't want to discard our campaign that's been going on for over a year now. the character conversion would not go perfectly (my warlock is impossible to recreate in 4th ed. invis+flight all the time among other things...)

thus we started a new campaign so we could play 4th ed on mondays instead :D. i came into 4th ed with almost a year of 'locking at the time, so going "do stuff all day long" to "do some stuff all day long, other stuff mostly througout the day and a little bit only once a day each" wasn't too big a deal. i just miss the perma invis+flight and the true darkvision/invisi-sight/30ft magical darkvision.

a hybrid game of 1st ed (original Temple of Elemental Evil) mixed in with some 2nd ed stuff is going to start soon. i'm playing the dwarven cleric of St.Cuthbert. "BAH MAH HAMMERRR, BE YE JOODGED!" *Bonk!*. the exact details of when isn't ironed out yet, but it's going to be soon as the players have been chosen and half the PCs made. i'm excited as i'm a Temple virgin, if you will.

all 3 systems allow us to play out the stories we want. we just tend to jump around between them. heck, the rumor mill in my apartment is buzzing that my roommate might be starting up his GURPS game up again now that he's working part time. i miss playing my medic.

[Ascension]

Money. It's all about money. I only got into D&D shortly before 4E was announced, but I got into it so enthusiastically that I sunk a whole lot of money into 3.5 books before I heard about the announcement. I haven't had time to get anything near my money's worth out of the 3.5 books I already have... there are just so many options left unexplored... too many for me to abandon it now. If I started throwing money at 4E I'd be out even more cash. I know from my experience with 3.5 that I couldn't hold myself to core. I'd talk myself into getting "only" the Adventurers Vault, then "only" the PHB series, etcetera, but before long I'd be buying the entire Forgotten Realms book just to get Swordmage. I just can't afford to get into 4E. It would destroy me. I don't want to end up begging for change on the streets.

[Morandir Nailo]

Three reasons why I play 3.x:

1. As far as my group goes, there's nothing broken or unmanageable about it. There's no reason to "fix" things by switching to 4e.

2. If I wanted to play a wargame, I'd sink lots of money into Warmachine or Warhammer or something.

3. I can't convince my group to try Classic, or C&C. If I could we'd be playing that instead.

Basically, I like the streamlining and simplification that 4e did, for the most part; I couldn't care less about detailed skill systems or modular multiclassing, and PrC bloat got way out of control years ago. But D&D without Vancian casting just isn't D&D to me (I'm turned off by the powers system in its entirety), and I hate the tactical map aspects of the game. Five months of running 4e were enough to tell me I'd rather be playing, well, any other version of the game.

Mor

[Knaight]

I would still rather play 3.5 than 4.0, because I like the mechanical diversity, and 4e locks one into a class much more than 3.5. I usually play, and always GM classless systems, I almost universally prefer classless systems to class based systems, and 4e is a much stronger class based system than 3.5, which has enough multiclassing to be closer to a non class based system. I also don't like the powers system much(being able to make something much more to my taste in other games, and having done so), and I hate overly grid based tactical games. This only applies to RPGs, if I sit down to play a wargame, then I look for it, but in an RPG I like combat to just move along. Its faster in 3.5 than 4.0 for me, although if I was playing 3.5, it would probably be e6, and d20 rebirth. Basically, 4.0 simplified the wrong things, I would have liked a simpler skill system, with a general DC table, and where skills going up wasn't the skill point method per say. But I like having a lot of skills, and 4.0 blurred things together too much for my taste. Plus combat, which I feel takes too long in 3.5, was not simplified as much as promised, and still takes as long or longer.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Does anyone here actually LIKE 4e better than 3.5 besides me?! :smalleek:

[Lappy9000]

Does anyone here actually LIKE 4e better than 3.5 besides me?! :smalleek:Well, this thread is asking "Why do YOU still play 3.5?" so it probably isn't the best source for 4e fandom :smallwink:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Does anyone here actually LIKE 4e better than 3.5 besides me?! :smalleek:

Wrong thread buddy.

The title is "why do you still play 3.5" so people should be lauding the system. I doubt there are many folks out there (well, aside from you) who are "trapped" into a system they'd prefer not to play :smalltongue:

EDIT:
Always with the ninjas!

[Tempest Fennac]

I haven't tried the 4th Edition, and I'm disinclined to due to how all the classes use the same mechanics, and I class Healing Surges (and Minions) as illogical. The idea of people recovering all their HPs by sleeping for 6 hours doesn't appeal to me either.

[Baalthazaq]

I bought all the 4th edition books just to look at them, and they're fine, but they're not DnD.

It's like someone invented an instrument, couple of strings, you pluck em to make a noise (1st), then decided hmmm... ya know... maybe a fret to modulate the notes (ADnD) then decided hey, lets tune it up and hammer out the bugs and make a guitar (3.0), then decided ya know what... this is cool... but what if we make the guitar electric! (3.5)

We've invented rock and roll, we used the tool to make beautiful creation after beautiful creation.

The out came 4.0. Guitar Hero. It's fun, but you're playing the songs set out by the designers 99% of the time. All the creativity is gone as far as I'm concerned especially with my absolute favourite part of the game: character creation.

No matter how many times people cry "but it's ELECTRIC! Like the old one!" I'm just never going to buy into it.

Having said all that, I *do* play guitar hero. I like it. I'm just not as immersed because I don't have the customizeability. I can't make anything that interests me.

I'm currently working on a character who is Lawful Good and a follower of Levistus, Lord of Stygia, the 7th layer of hell.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm currently working on a character who is Lawful Good and a follower of Levistus, Lord of Stygia, the 7th layer of hell.

Your Hell-Fu is weak, Baal. The most ironic is, it's Baalzebus who is Lord of the 7th. Levistus is Lord of the 5th

[Dhavaer]

That's what the group I play with plays. At the moment I'd prefer Shadowrun, which is also in its fourth edition, funnily enough.

[Tetsubo 57]

In my opinion the OGL and the SRD are the greatest gifts that the RPG community ever received.

I have far too much invested in 3.5 books to ever even consider buying them all over again. Not to mention most of the third party books will never see a 4E conversion.

I don't like how WotC handled the marketing decisions concerning 4E.

The feel of the 3.5 edition perfectly suits how I define the D&D game. 4E just doesn't fit the bill.

I recently discovered what I consider to be the best version of the 3.5 rules I've yet read, Everstone. See me ramble about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EatEMPbHuAs&feature=channel_page

For me, the last edition of D&D is 3.5.

Try as I might, I can't think of a single positive thing to say about 4E.

[Draz74]

Does anyone here actually LIKE 4e better than 3.5 besides me?! :smalleek:
On the Forum? Sure! On this thread? Probably not. The title warned them away. :smallwink:


It's like someone invented an instrument, couple of strings, you pluck em to make a noise (1st), then decided hmmm... ya know... maybe a fret to modulate the notes (ADnD) then decided hey, lets tune it up and hammer out the bugs and make a guitar (3.0), [snip] The out came 4.0. Guitar Hero. It's fun, but you're playing the songs set out by the designers 99% of the time. All the creativity is gone as far as I'm concerned especially with my absolute favourite part of the game: character creation.

Haha, the 3E : 4E :: guitar : Guitar Hero analogy is actually terribly amusing. And matches my perception to some extent too. Good work! :smallamused:

[Icewalker]

From what I've heard, and I can't say I am speaking from personal experience:

4e: more balanced, better combat system.
3.5e: more detail and better world-simulation, out of combat stuff.

Being primarily a big homebrewer and story-writer, I'm far more interested in the characters in a story aspect than the combat, so I still prefer working in 3.5 for the time being. I do intend to try out 4 sometime, so I can compare the two more accurately.

[Leon]

I own a LOT of 3.5 Related material and i intend to keep on using it for a long.
Also i don't have much issue with the way 3.5 works, anything that I've come across that doesn't work well i have tinkered with in my own games and have seen similar things done in others.

3.5 allows you to build on your concept much more easily as opposed to what I've seen of 4th where things are very much restricted.
Neither myself or the people that i play with are worried about the power levels of various classes, they all work to the ends that people want for their PCs

To me 4e feels very much like a Advanced version of D&D Minis

[Dogmantra]

I didn't decide to play D&D til after 4e was out; but I went with 3.5 because I'd had prior experience with the version they used in Neverwinter Nights 2. I figured it'd be easier to learn a slightly different version of a ruleset I already knew rather than learn a whole new one from the ground up.

This pretty much describes me, but also I'd been looking up spells and rules on the SRD any time they were referenced in OotS, so I already knew quite a bit of stuff, and didn't want to just throw that knowledge away.

[Shademan]

I still play 3.5 because 4.ED is a MUMMORPEGER in book form.

[Satyr]

When running a game everybody has his or her personal preferences. Other people prefer other gaming styles, story elements, degrees of grittyness etc.
My personal preferences include a very strong focus on versimilitude, flexibility for character creation and development, gritty combats and a certain feeling of heroism (that doesn't work at all if the characters feel too powerful, as heroism is based on challenges, not personal strength). These are all elements I can realise more easily with Edition 3.5 than with 4th edition D&D.

Besides, I played 4th edition to test it, but I found it rather dull and uninspiring for a game, very repetitive in its elements and too much concerned with balance and adventuring and too little with character representation and world building. I want that the characters move trough and are a part of a living, breathing world. D&D 4th edition treats the background only as a coulisse, and that doesn't fit well to the way I like to play or run a game.

But most importantly, I have written a complete conversion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102346) for 3.5 D&D to adjust it to the ideal of a heroic fantasy game, which was mostly finished only months before 4th edition's release was announced. Perhaps I am stubborn, but right now, I see little reason to switch to a system that fit worse to my preferences, especially when this switch would mean that much of the work I invested in Serpents and Sewers was practically useless.

[Comet]

Because I just can't memorize all the powers in 4e and keeping book of them is too much of a hassle.

3.5 is silly, illogical, too complex for my liking and the character sheet looks like a tax form, but I know it by heart and hence it is the easiest one to pick up when I need to run a fantasy game.

[Myou]

I bought all the 4th edition books just to look at them, and they're fine, but they're not DnD.

It's like someone invented an instrument, couple of strings, you pluck em to make a noise (1st), then decided hmmm... ya know... maybe a fret to modulate the notes (ADnD) then decided hey, lets tune it up and hammer out the bugs and make a guitar (3.0), then decided ya know what... this is cool... but what if we make the guitar electric! (3.5)

We've invented rock and roll, we used the tool to make beautiful creation after beautiful creation.

The out came 4.0. Guitar Hero. It's fun, but you're playing the songs set out by the designers 99% of the time. All the creativity is gone as far as I'm concerned especially with my absolute favourite part of the game: character creation.

No matter how many times people cry "but it's ELECTRIC! Like the old one!" I'm just never going to buy into it.

Having said all that, I *do* play guitar hero. I like it. I'm just not as immersed because I don't have the customizeability. I can't make anything that interests me.

I'm currently working on a character who is Lawful Good and a follower of Levistus, Lord of Stygia, the 7th layer of hell.

Best. Analogy. Ever.

[Kami2awa]

I still play because of my investment in the books.

Here, here. It would cost me £70+ to buy a complete set of 4e core books and I don't have that available.

Having said that, I haven't played D&D for ages, having instead been GMing Call of Cthulhu and In Nomine.

[Mordokai]

Our group decided to switch to 4th edition and from the looks of it, I'm the only guy that still wants to play 3.5. I bought the 4th edition core books(PHB 1, DMG and MM), looked at them, made me a character and decided that I won't buy a single book from this edition ever again. For once, the fluff really isn't to my taste, no matter what anybody says, I actually liked the Vancian system of casting and I just can't bring myself to like the power system as much as the spell system in 3.5. Furthemore, the 4th edition books seems to be subpar in quality, when compared to 3.5 ones. Often it happened to me that I layed my hand on an open book and when I lifted it, the ink was smeared on that place. And that's without hands being particulary sweaty. And I simply like the design of 3.5 books more. Cosmetics, yes, but it is important to me.

Furthermore, while I got into DnD only good two years before the change occured, it was still enough for me to get a good taste of 3.5 and bought enough books that, like a lot of other people, it would just not be economically feasible to start buying new system books.

I play 4th edition because I like the group I play with and I don't like looking for new one right now. While I'm not very happy with it, I suck it down and play it. It's not that bad, but deep down, it will never take the place of 3.5.

[Curmudgeon]

I'll still play 3.5 because it provides much more freedom to make characters that fit a concept. 4.0 makes balance the primary concern. So you want to make a skillmonkey? Well, you can't start off that way very well in 4.0, because you get zero utility powers at 1st level. There's no possibility of trading the 1st level attacks for something that's not combat-oriented.

[grautry]

I dislike it because of the disassociated mechanics.

What do I mean by that? Well, the Alexandrian (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html) explains it WAY better than I could.

Just read it until "Marking Mechanics" to get a general idea of what is it that I really feel is wrong with D&D 4E.

[Baalthazaq]

Sorry Solka, 5th it is for Levistus. :)

Glad people enjoy the Guitar hero analogy. ;)

[Paramour Pink]

I'm late to learning about 3.5. As in, I started playing it years after the last splat book for it was published, so there's no way I'm jumping ship just when I'm begining to barely have an understanding of the game now. :smallsmile:

[mikej]

Its still fun to play, creative character design, and theres still lots of material to run through.

[Quincunx]

Many cookies for Baalthazaq (I contribute soft gingersnap cookies: misread "baking powder" where the recipe says "baking soda", mix and bake as usual) for one of the best analogies to grace these boards. It's accurate, it's unbiased, it can be understood by non-gamers.

As for the topic, SRD is the reason. This household buys roleplaying books for the fluff and perhaps for pre-calculating some tricky concepts like classes with a new outlook on 'powers' (a homebrewer I'm not). This household does not buy books to learn how to play the game session which may or may not materialize because someone else didn't buy said book as well. Freely distributed rules make a game MUCH more likely to happen, and then we feel a need to acquire more fluff for it.

[Yuki Akuma]

I still play 3.5, but I also play 4e.

I play both for the same reason I also play Exalted, Nobilis, World of Darkness and countless other games: they're different games, and sometimes I feel in the mood to play one of them. ;)

[Narmoth]

I dm 2nd ed exclusively. The other dm in my group dm 3.5. We both dm the one system we know very good, and don't really have time (at least I don't) to learn a new system that yet have to come up with any reason to buy it.

[Kurald Galain]

Strawberry.

[NPCMook]

Strawberry.

Wrong thread, and way to late... but thanks for playing

[bobspldbckwrds]

me, and one of my best friends, both of us DM's went out and bought the new books within a month of it coming out. then we read them, and played with it.

then we came to the same conclusion.

we liked 3.5 a lot more, as it didn't put roleplaying into the same turn based rules as combat. wizards feel less like wizards and more like... something out of an mmorpg. but there were some good ideas, and there was a lot of work into balancing it. so we figured "crib what we like, leave what we don't, and save the 4ed books for when we are playing with people who prefer it.

[caith]

Hmmm... I shall start a thread on this, the fluff issue. I wonder if it is a lack of fluff (relatively) or the specific fluff... it intrigues me.

Personally I don't like the racial fluff too much...i think the core races and classes should be pretty generic and allow for customization from there. Our group switched to Pathfinder(built off 3.5) a few months ago and we are not looking back. Alot more character options, alot of improvements to core classes, better racial stats, and the world of Golarian is pretty neat. I never liked the 3e pantheon much, but the Golarian pantheon is great. I think this is what keeps me playing 3e, is all of the amazing stuff that's been written for it. I don't suspect that this will happen with 4e as it's more of a combat-oriented mini-tag tactical game with a story tacked on, whereas 3e i felt was very equal parts story and fighting. Something about the way 3e managed their core fluff was very appealing at first, very generic yet interesting enough where it didn't just seem carelessly pulled out of someone's ass (im lookin at you 4e).

That said, I very much like the 4e pantheon as well. I think they covered alot of the bases and made some interesting deities (big fan of the Raven Goddess) and made it maybe a little more clear where you should be going to worship. I think 4e characters are almost oversimplified as I actually very much enjoyed 2e chargen and very much enjoy making characters in 3.5e(and especially Pathfinder) as there are alot of very differing options. However, my regular DM will be running a 4e game just for ****s pretty soon...so we'll see how that goes, we are a pretty open minded bunch but none of us really were impressed enough by 4e after reading through the rules to force us to switch, and I think thats what it boils down to - 4e doesn't provide anything extraordinary over 3e to really pull people, it's more of a dumbed down horizontal shift towards the video-gamey hack and slash gameplay styles.


It's like someone invented an instrument, couple of strings, you pluck em to make a noise (1st), then decided hmmm... ya know... maybe a fret to modulate the notes (ADnD) then decided hey, lets tune it up and hammer out the bugs and make a guitar (3.0), then decided ya know what... this is cool... but what if we make the guitar electric! (3.5)

We've invented rock and roll, we used the tool to make beautiful creation after beautiful creation.

The out came 4.0. Guitar Hero. It's fun, but you're playing the songs set out by the designers 99% of the time. All the creativity is gone as far as I'm concerned especially with my absolute favourite part of the game: character creation.

Great GREAT analogy I feel exactly the same way.

[ericgrau]

For me, because they're two very different games with their own pros and cons. 4e is fun for a straightforward, faster-playing game that's easier to manage tactically (and hell, I know the rules for 4e better after six months of playing it than I do 3.5 after 5 years). 3.5 is fun because it's a lot more detail-oriented and has, by simple nature of time, a lot more variety and information for it, both homebrew and professionally published. It's also got the two best campaign settings ever (Eberron and Sigil Prep (http://www.sigilprep.com/)), neither of which have yet been totally updated.

+1. Why take the trouble to write a post when someone else has said what I want to say? Particularly the first half of this. EDIT: Looking back a bit, this seems to be the general sentiment. I'm in the same boat.

[Nai_Calus]

1. Familiarity
2. Everyone else I know except one person hates 4e. Despite, you know, most of them never even having read the books, let alone played it.

I want to try 4e but yeah no group == Kind of hard to.

Of course now that I've started DMing 3.5, I'm really starting to hate how bloated and unwieldy it is. The skill system is still terrible even after combining and throwing out skills until I've got 12 less than standard 3.5 and class skills have been thrown away. Endless classes and PrCs and races that are all a pain in the neck to try to evaluate and avoid powergaming. That we're playing online really does nothing to help. So it's more a 'Because I can't play other editions' thing.

It's actually making 4e and its supposedly dull and uninspiring races and classes look interesting. Hey look I can make a Fey character without a ludicrous LA. Hey look this Swordmage class lets me run around with a sword hitting things while using magic to do stuff without taking three base classes and ten PrCs. Hey look I get to use my imagination to make my actually mechanically viable straight-up human fighter awesome. I like what this power does but I don't like how they described it, I know, I'll describe it a different way I do like.

It's a tactical minis game? Hey guess what D&D got born out of.

(I just finished statting out a L16 wizard for a BBEG. Right now I despise 3.5. :P)

[Oslecamo]

like what this power does but I don't like how they described it, I know, I'll describe it a different way I do like.


You know, you could also do that in 3.X as well as in 4e.

[Nai_Calus]

You know, you could also do that in 3.X as well as in 4e.

Missing the point there, just a little. The point is that you can do it in 4e just as well as you can in 3.x, and what it says in the power entry is just an idea that you can throw away in favour of something else you like better within reason, not a creativity-murdering straightjacket. I am well aware that you can describe actions in 3.x, or in any system.

[Thurbane]

The reasons myself and my group are sticking with 3.5 are threefold:


Some of the guys in my group are casual players, and it wouldn't be worth their time to learn a new system. Our latest recruit has only just mastered 3.5, after returning to the D&D table after a 20 year absence!
We have a bucketload of 3.5 material we haven't even used yet - adventures, base classes we haven't had a chance to play yet, splatbooks we've barley touched etc.
A couple of us tried 4E and found it not to our liking - in particular, it just didn't grab me in the way that earlier editions have. Sure it's only personal opinion, but I'm sorry, it just didn't float my boat.

[Shpadoinkle]

4e is basically WoW on paper. Not interested. Never will be.

[Rei_Jin]

I still play 3.5 for a couple of reasons.


I've spent over $4,000 (AUD) on books for 3.0 and 3.5. There's no way I can afford to do so again.
My friends who play with me aren't interested in 4th edition. At all. We'd be playing 2nd edition if the books had been available to buy when they all got into roleplaying.
4th edition doesn't feel right to me mechanically. It is vastly different to every other version of D&D that I've had the joy of playing.
To have designers come out and say publically in August 2007 that when 3.5 wasn't even a year old, they were already planning 4th edition is evidence of pure financial goals over purity of the game. The implication is that 4th edition had been planned for a long time, probably before 3.5 was even released! (June 2003, for those who are curious)

If you don't believe me on the last point, read this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a), below is the important excerpt posted by none other than Jame Wyatt.



Set the wayback machine to May 2004!

Even at that point, we knew 4th Edition was coming, though official work on it wouldn’t start for another year.

[Divine Comedy]

Dragonborn are a core race in 4th. If you don't know about them, research how one is created.

They lost me right there.

In actuality the combat seems interesting, but from what I've sampled of the flavor it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Jerthanis]

I still play 3.5 because my group seems to refuse to play better systems (read: systems I like better).

[Kletian999]

Does anyone here actually LIKE 4e better than 3.5 besides me?! :smalleek:

Giantitp forum has been generally pro-3e since 4e started (having a comic that relies on the 3e spell system for magic plot devices helps in that matter). Also, since the official WotC forum got harsher on "edition wars" I think people migrated a bit (more 3e here, more 4e there). Just do your best to avoid arguing when someone misguidedly posts "4e=WoW" though and you can get along here.

[Tam_OConnor]

Inexplicably, I like the low levels. E6 and E10 all the way. I long for the simple beauty of AD&D stat blocks; I will not rest until I can streamline 3.5 stat blocks to similar elegance!

I let the rest of my friends play-test 4E. They broke it (something about inescapable magic circles), broke the DM (halfling eugenics...that is all), stole the good stuff (5 foot steps as a move action, charge as a standard action, the idea of mobile combats) and went back to 3.5.

I loved the idea of the Book of Nine Swords. I loathe and detest and loathe the Crusader. I can't rationalize Devoted Spirit, which doesn't speak well of my reactions to 4E.

I have hundreds of dead-tree issues of Dragon and Dungeon magazine. Earlier editions can be converted (sometimes painfully) into 3.5 (thank heavens for monster updates). 4E, from all reports, cannot be. Oh, I'm sure it's possible...but I am lazy.

[Deepblue706]

Because I know 3.5 more than I do any other system, and none of the others offer enough rewards to try to play.

-GURPS is my favored system, but nobody else likes it.
-4E is probably easiest to put together, but makes me feel like I'm in a straightjacket
-Nobody has the balls to play Hackmaster
-Other systems are lame

[Kaiyanwang]

The only good thing I can say about 4th is that's balanced, but balance is not an issue in my gaming group (maybe because I'm the DM and I'm a tyrant).

The amount of options and possibilities makes 3rd edition, IMHO, the best D&D edition so far. You can start 20 campaigns each time with different feeling and classes and magic rules and other things. Are something like 7 years I play this game and I'm still enjoying it a lot.

More, I don't recognize most of criticisms about 3rd (melee boring and spellcasting broken) I don't know if is my gamestyle or other things but that is.

4th edition, IMHO, even if has some very good idea, is a lost chance. They had the chance to improve and fix the game, but instead changed the game. If you are fine with game conceptions of 4th, 4th is perfect, otherwise you are screwed.

[Lerky]

I stick with it for the same reason so many people haven't even used Vista. They've heard bad things. I grew up with 3.5, I learned 3.5, I LIVED 3.5! DAMN IT ALL, I'M USING 3.5 TO THE GRAVE!!!:smallfurious:

*ahem*
sorry, got a little overzealous over there. But I had a DM friend who seemed fanatical about 4 ed. and always asked me why I refused to convert and how amazing it was...a month later he told me he hated 4.0. He says it's too much like a video game. I might've supported 4.0 (untill I actually played it) if it hadn't been for that one video with the interview with a gnome and tiefling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqFPujRZWo) which left me going: "WHAT THE FUDGE!? HOW CAN YOU NO LONGER MAKE THE GNOME A PLAYER RACE!?" so in my own mind I just figured it's barley even D&D anymore:smalltongue:

[X2]

My laziness is on a magnitude so great it would literally be easier to just say that I am lazy. Words cannot begin to describe my laziness the comprehension of which would cause your brain to evict itself from your skull through any (or all) orifice in your face.

And with great laziness comes great lack of patience...

I do not have the patience or energy to learn a new set of rules ergo I play 3rd ed.

And also... Wizards seriously I have hundreds of dollars in 3rd ed books... I'm not throwing it away just because you want me to! I'll uprgrade when I'm good and ready you money-grabbing pigs!

Note: Wizards of the Coast may not actually be money grabbing pigs.

[Neithan]

I play 3.5e because there isn't anything better yet.

[Killer Angel]

I'm staying with 3.5 for a lot of reasons; the main three are:

first: I don't like 4ed. It's just my personal taste and my playing style as a D.M., it has nothing to do with the new system. For example, I can see the reasons behind the minions (one of them is that finally you can stage fights with a great number of opponents) but I don't like them, neither the healing surges. 4th ed. is a new system, and has a lot of good things, so i don't criticize it, but I don't like it neither.

second: there's a lot of characters I haven't play with 3.5 mechanics, and I want to try them.

third: I'm 39. I have the money to buy all I want of 4th ed., but definitely I have no more time to learn the rules. And If I'll ever find the time, in that moment there will be the release of 4.5. No good for me.


P.S.: a hello to kaiyianwang, good to see some italian 'round here.

[Jera]

I play both 3.x and 4e, I prefer 3.x because of the versatility.

Now I dont mean the fewer feats/powers because more and more source books are coming out all the time to supplement 4e, so to me thats a moot point.

Its the ability to make a character around a concept. In 4e I feel like im creating a concept around the character.

To the people who say 3.x spellcasting is broken and melee boring, sure in 3.x I can do 3168d6 damage to everyone in a 6 mile radius at level 6 with a level one spell. I would never play a character like that. Id take a pure fighter with a greatsword, power attack, and cleave over that build any day.

AD&D, 3.x and 4e are all different games with their own good and bad points, Dungeons and Dragons is more of a brand name. You might as well be comparing 3.x vs WoD or 4e vs Shadowrun.

[Kaiyanwang]

P.S.: a hello to kaiyianwang, good to see some italian 'round here.

Ne sono anche io molto lieto.

[RebelRogue]

Me and all of my gaming group have played and enjoyed both 3.5 and 4e very much. However, at the moment we're heavily into playing gestalt, as we've just discovered this 3.5 variant, and we have a lot of fun with it. Also, I have a few 3.5 modules I'd like to play (even though converting modules to 4th is pretty easy). After that we'll probably make some PHB2 4e characters to try that out. I also DM another 3.5 campaign with the reason for the edition being that it's set in Eberron. Maybe we'll shift this summer when it'll be available in 4e, maybe not (two of the players in that group tend to prefer 3.5)... time will tell.

[magellan]

Its pretty superficial in my case actually, goattoucher

Negative armor class. To me its a little like the sound barrier. Of course, the difference between 1 and -1 is exactly the same as between 32 and 34, but one of the two is *negative* (supersonic) ... *drools*. It just feels different.

...

what wait a second...
3.5??? They made *another* edition after 3rd??? and you already have to "stick with it"????? *dies of old age*

[Killer Angel]

Ne sono anche io molto lieto.


:smallbiggrin:
Stayin' on topics, I (as You) don't have any problem with unbalance in 3.5 (even if i admit that even Core is broken).
So, it's not a matter of balance if I'm stuck with 3.5

[J.Gellert]

3.5 is more realistic, more varied, and ultimately more interesting.

It also is the D&D I've grown used to over the years. 4th is something entirely different to me - switching over just did not feel like an upgrade, but a big change (like dropping D&D and starting... something else. GURPS. nWoD. what have you).

3.5 has grown mature enough to cover everything. I understand how it works, every mechanic, and I don't get the complains of imbalance (how can you have that in a game with a human referee? This isn't a computer RTS). I have also written a campaign setting and many house rules on 3.5 edition. With all that, I ask: what kind of reason would ever make me change?

[BlueWizard]

I can't keep changing my books.

And when I read all the reviews of 4th ed, it only made me want to go back to my 1st ed AD&D. I stay with 3.5, because people who play in my games like the roleplay variety.... at least that's how I understand it.

[Roderick_BR]

Cause I'm lazy to finish reading the 4E books.
That, and the homebrew possibilities that 3.x still have, and it's easier to make "simulationists" rules, as people say.
I've been working on some variant rules for over a year (not continuous), that nabs some 4E stuff, but it's mainly 3.x

[Blackfang108]

I still play 3.5 becasue I've been in an Epic Campaign for a few years now. (ECL22, no xp campaign. Despite the lack of advancement, it's a lot of fun.)

We aren't going to shelve that campaign just because the new toys are out.

Instead, the DM for the 3.25[not a typo] Epic Campaign, decided to run a 4e home campaign.

And then I found us an LFR group...

The 3.5 campaign is our most common, but there are more people, and it can be run with as few as one other person (depending on what's happening.)

[Telonius]

I play 3.5 because I am the DM. I know how to break 3.5, and therefore can stop players from doing so. I know most of the unbalancing stuff, and have taken steps to make classes more balanced. I'm just not familiar enough with 4.0 to do the same. The players could pull out some mega-combo, and I wouldn't see it coming until it was too late. They could build something that's too powerful (or too weak) by accident, and I wouldn't know about it either until it was obvious to everybody. I couldn't warn them off of whatever they're trying to do, like I could with a 3.5 player who expressed an interest in playing a Samurai with Monkey Grip. I don't like changing rules or rebuilding mid-campaign, either.

Also, I am poor and can't afford seventeen new $30 books right now. Neither can my players.

[Erk]

If I did still play 3.x, it would be for the SRD. That was an excellent setup, and I am frustrated and even a little angry at the kicking-it-to-the-curb for 4e. I also preferred some of the fluff in 3.x, particularly the stuff it inherited from 2e like the great wheel, but all I've ever used default fluff for was to steal names for NPCs that typically don't resemble their namesakes anyway, so it's pretty moot.


This is why I feel kind of alone here. I'm a person who actually likes 4e, maybe even more than 3.5e, especially because of its simplicity, and many people on this forum prefer 3.5e, so I feel isolated. I'm lonely. :smallfrown:
You're not alone, this is just not a topic for 4e fans. I love 4e, as does my entire gaming group. On the other hand, I was never very happy with 3.x, so why would I post here? People enjoying 3.x don't need me coming into their topic telling them they're wrong for not liking 4e, even when they say what is to my eyes a patently ridiculous misconception about how 4e works. My enjoyment of the game is not diminished.

That said, I do miss the days I could post on GiantITP forums regularly. I don't care much for the WotC forums, but I also don't give a boop about 3x stuff, so there's nothing for me here anymore. /sigh/


"WHAT THE FUDGE!? HOW CAN YOU NO LONGER MAKE THE GNOME A PLAYER RACE!?" so in my own mind I just figured it's barley even D&D anymore:smalltongue:

Just FYI, gnome is in the new players' handbook, and looks wicked. I actually like the flavour better than the 3.x one, and it was probably my favourite nonhuman in 3.x. In some ways I'd have prefered the gnome and tiefling to switch books, because I can't stand the tiefling and think it belongs off-core, but at the same time I'm glad they waited: the gnome feels much more 'polished' as a result, as does most of the new book.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That said, I do miss the days I could post on GiantITP forums regularly. I don't care much for the WotC forums, but I also don't give a boop about 3x stuff, so there's nothing for me here anymore. /sigh/

Y'know, you can still post things under the [4E] heading here. Lots of topics about [4E] are floating around here - and if you post one, you'll get lots of responses :smallsmile:

[Lord Blace]

3.5? Hell, I'm stuck playing 2e. Why? A person in our group refuses to play 3.x or 4e (we'd just play w/o him, but I know I'd feel bad for leaving him out), and the others won't touch 4e with a 10ft pole. :smallannoyed: Which is aggravating because I want to try it out.

[Atamasama]

I started playing when 2nd edition was still pretty new (early 90s). I've played many, many RPGs and yet I always found that AD&D did one thing that other games didn't... The rags-to-riches character progression. Playing a wannabe fighter with a short sword and studded leather saving a small town from a gang of goblins, progressing to world-saving exploits against evil arch-fiends and draconic hordes. There was a story in the game that you were telling that felt epic and AD&D always stayed my favorite.

I was so used to 2nd edition when 3rd edition came out and I was resistant to it. However when I read it, I realized that it was a major improvement. There was a lot of variety in combat that wasn't in the 2nd edition (bull rushing, tripping, feinting) which made combat more interesting. A lot of senseless rules were made clearer... Why have a special saving throw for wands that doesn't apply to the same spell effect from a wizard's spell? Why is a high stat always good unless it's armor class? For that matter, why have such a complicated THAC0 system when you could just roll directly against an AC? Why do thief skills work completely differently than all other character skills (in a percentage system)?

And on and on. 3rd edition was a badly-needed cleanup of the 2nd edition rules which were just all over the place.

Then 3.5 came out, and it fixed some oversights in 3rd edition as well as having some great ideas that were new. Even better!

4th edition is just unnecessary. Version 3.5 is still new, there is so much for it... Why come out with a yet another new version that is such a dramatic departure from D&D instead of an improvement born from organic development? It seems like D&D in name only. I haven't played it admittedly, I've only skimmed through the player's guide, and even though I'd be willing to try it (I'll try any game at least once) my usual gaming group is so rabidly against it that I doubt it will happen soon if ever... but that doesn't bother me much, I just don't have a lot of interest in it.

[Ninetail]

When I play 3.5, it's because that's what the GM wants to run, and I'm happy enough to be playing instead of GMing for a change that I'd play anything short of Synnibar. I have to avoid playing the pure casters, though, or I'll break the campaign without even trying, and then I'll probably end up GMing again.

It is occasionally nice to go back to the system, as long as I don't need to run it, although I'd prefer to be playing an even earlier edition, on balance.

When I GM, I stay far away from 3.5. The prep time is onerous. I might've gotten used to it over the years I was playing it, but once I ran my first 4e game and found how easy GM prep, homebrewing, and adapting old material was, I couldn't go back. It's almost like playing Basic again.

When I'm not running 4e, it's usually HERO (mechanically complex as far as character creation goes, but a system I know well, and pretty easy to run during a session) or Nobilis (diceless, with very simple mechanics).

[Lappy9000]

On the other hand, I was never very happy with 3.x, so why would I post here? People enjoying 3.x don't need me coming into their topic telling them they're wrong for not liking 4e, even when they say what is to my eyes a patently ridiculous misconception about how 4e works. My enjoyment of the game is not diminished.If everyone thought like this, perhaps we'd have that utopian society I've heard so much about :smallcool:

[Gorbash]

For a number of reasons...

- My complete and utter mastery of the 3.5 rules
- 2 ongoing Adventure Paths (Savage Tide and Shackled City) and one soon to start (Age of Worms), so we have a few years of play still just because of those
- Versatilty, because I want to mix classes if I want to.
- Books. I love the tome look of 3.5 books and these new don't feel D&D to me. I really have no idea why they changed it, I was repelled from buying them as soon as I saw them.
- I don't like 4e fluff. Shadowfell, Feywild and the like are kinda stupid. Great Wheel rocks.

4e lost me with all those 'tips' that are laying around in the books. Tiefling, for example, has something like this in description:

Play a tiefling if you want a dark, brooding hero with a darkness inside.

Or something like that. I loled IRL when I read that...

[Waspinator]

Part of what I like about 3.5 is that, largely because of the third-party support, there are a LOT of pre-made campaign settings out there to choose from and some of them are very neat. 4E's increased restrictions on what third-party companies do is going to make that hard to match.

[Irate Ranger]

I just don't care for the direction WotC decided to take with 4e, Feels more like a board game than a roleplaying game. 3.5 had it's flaws, but it also had a healthy following, lots of 3rd party support and fan-made material, and more source books than you could shake a stick at.

One thing that really bugs me about 4e is how they insisted on changing the core races. We know the seven standard races in the PHB, they've become icons of the D&D community. Changing them just seemed like a bad idea, I can understand trying to attract a wider audience...but is that really necessary when you already have a strong and reliable audience? Change isn't a bad thing, but you shouldn't fix it if it isn't broken.

[Berserk Monk]

-I love the system
-I've mastered the system
-4.0 doesn't have enough expansions for me to outsmart the DM yet (yeah for munchkins)
-gnomes and orcs will always have a special place in my heart

[Chells]

Mostly because I haven't found what I want elsewhere yet. D&D is the classic standard but it still has the problem that characters are just as effect at 1hp as they are are a 100hp. I have been looking for a system where wounds and body damage are an active part of the story. 4e had bloodied but that is not really the fix I was after. So until I find the system that takes that into account I'm happy with 3.5. I may switch to 4e someday but until I get a chance to play it I'm definately not going to try to run it.