PDA

View Full Version : Is 3.5 Obsolete? (Purpose is NOT 4/3.5 ed-bashing)



The Neoclassic
2009-07-26, 08:11 PM
As stated in the title, I didn't start this thread to gripe about 4e or encourage others to do the same (or complain about 3.5e either). I'm merely curious if the D&D gaming community generally considers 3.5 obsolete now. Are there any statistics or anecdotal evidence (oxymoron, I know) about how many people have switched over to 4e and how many stuck with 3.5? I still see a lot of people homebrewing and discussing 3.5 material here, but I'm unsure whether that's because most like 3.5 or my eyes just skim over the [4e] threads too quickly. Is this community representative of other D&D communities in that regard? Just wondering, as it is mildly disheartening to think that very soon no one will want to look at my homebrew (or anyone else's) because 3.5 is "obsolete." :smalleek:

Frosty
2009-07-26, 08:13 PM
At least on this board, the number of 3.5 threads outnumber the number of 4e threads by a staggering amount. Same thing with the PBP games here, but that may be a function of the fact that playing 4e with Play by Post sucks bullocks because combat WILL takes months. My friends and I are still playing 3.5 (and L5R) and will not be moving to 4th ed anytime soon, if ever.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-26, 08:13 PM
I played 4th first and like 3.5 better. in my mind 3.5 is NOT obsolete

raitalin
2009-07-26, 08:15 PM
I think a lot more people are sticking with 3.5 than they did with 2nd ed., and with Pathfinder out there books will continue to be published that are compatible with the rules system, so I'd say no.

AstralFire
2009-07-26, 08:15 PM
While 4E is alive and well, 3E is as well, and the somewhat popular Star Wars Saga Edition game has more in common with 3E than 4E. When you throw in the fact that the SRD is free and that 3E was the introductory point for MANY people into P&P gaming entirely, I suspect that 3E will have a sizable community for decades to come.

Heck, we have some people here who are members of message boards devoted to playing OD&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e, and most of those didn't have the relative industry splash that 3E did.

Zergrusheddie
2009-07-26, 08:15 PM
WotC does, which is why 3.5 material will not be coming out. However, there are many people who do not like the new systems and will stay in 3.5 for a long time. Considering that Paizo is capitalizing on the fact that people still like 3.5 and are making their own system which is very similar to 3.5, I would not consider 3.5 obsolete.

Edit: I've been Ninja'd!

Halna LeGavilk
2009-07-26, 08:16 PM
In all the groups I play in, we always play 3.5. It's still going strong.

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 08:21 PM
4e, altough it has it's strenghts, also offered several delusions to D&D players, so many people decided to stick with 3.X.

And as the OP himself pointed out, there's plenty of people still doing material for it.

Seriously, even with just the official books, one has material to entertain himself for years. Add in homebrew stuff and you really don't need to switch to a new version, specially one that cut down half the stuff you liked.

Fhaolan
2009-07-26, 08:22 PM
My group plays primarily 3.0. And I know several groups that play 2nd edition, 1st edition, and even Classic.

Just like there are several MMOs that are considered 'obsolete' that are actually still being played such as Everquest and it's ilk, it's kinda hard to use 'is it still being played' as a criteria.

Mando Knight
2009-07-26, 08:24 PM
Technically, it's obsolete. The company with the legal rights to produce and troubleshoot the system has officially discontinued the product, and any new material and support for it will be 3rd party and/or user created.

However, "obsolete" does not mean "worthless." The system will remain as useful as long as you wish to use it. However, without a dedicated company producing the system and developing new material for it, it will be replaced by later editions, just as 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were by 3.X.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-26, 08:26 PM
I would have to say generally no.

Obsolete is a term I generally associate with being able to compare hard numbers, and having one of the contenders being simply superior in every facet; while the older model is inferior and thus obsolete.

An RPG... doesn't really work that way. I mean yes - it can fall into disuse because people prefer the new edition; but even then I generally have a hard time seeing that as obsolescence. After all, an obsolete car will *never* run as well as whatever the improved version. On the other hand an old RPG, even one that's fallen out of favor, can always be picked back up and may well end up giving just as much enjoyment as a newer game. (Fun is just too hard a thing to compute really - too many factors. It's why you've got people who still prefer AD&D to 3.5e for example; and while I don't agree, it doesn't mean the older system is necessarily inferior - it just handles things differently.)

From my perspective, you really can't compare 3.5e and 4e side-by-side and say, objectively, one is superior or inferior. They each have their quirks, and thus they're going to have adherents who simply don't like the other edition - and neither is, in my view, wrong.

I personally play both; though I prefer 3.5e.

Gorbash
2009-07-26, 08:27 PM
Seriously, even with just the official books, one has material to entertain himself for years.

Quoted for truth.

When you take into account that one regular campaign lasts for years (if it doesn't fall apart for some reason, which doesn't happen in my group), and a staggering number of classes and prestige classes that 3.5 offers, I don't see the point of ever playing another system. There are so many characters/builds I want to play, but will never be able to simple because there isn't enough time in the world, so surely I won't reduce that time by switching to something else.


it will be replaced by later editions

Why would it be, when it's fine as it is? 3.5 has 100+ splatbooks, half a dozen huge settings, numerous web enhancement, dedicated communities everywhere, it's self-sustaining as it is. It doesn't need any new material. And it will take time for those editions to reach the number of splatbooks that 3.5 has.

Shraik
2009-07-26, 08:32 PM
I see in my gaming region, 3.5 being distinguished for a reason that does not exist. I think 3.5 is far from obsolete, but 4.0 will grow. I grew up with 3.5(started DnD at age twelve with 3.5). It's got it's complications, but can be simple enough to be ******' awesome either way. I think 4.0 is too much like W.o.W with the power system. I really do not like the powers. Otherwise, I am cool.
Hell, in my opinion, star wars D6 isn't even obsolete. THe community is still very large after 13 years of no publsihing, and I know more people who play d6 then d20 or saga.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-26, 08:47 PM
Well, there's two important points to consider.

The first is that, given how the term of "edition" is used now for most books, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th Edition aren't actually even editions, per se. You could argue that OD&D, AD&D and 3rd Edition are actual "editions" because despite the changes, most of the bulk of the abilities remained the same. Each edition changed a bulk of things (AD&D added weapon proficiencies, 3rd Edition replaced THAC0 and added feats and skills), but generally behaved in a same way. 4th Edition isn't a real edition in the sense of the term, but rather an entirely different version of the game. The rules, while the core mechanic remained the same, changed pretty violently.

I speak of this because, generally, the new edition of any book usually has the same content with one or two changes, some proofreading, a change in how the content is placed, and perhaps one or two updates. This doesn't apply directly to D&D, but it gives you an idea of the magnitude of the changes. 4th Edition, while using some familiar terms and rulings, is so different to 3rd Edition that it may very well be considered a different game altogether.

Which is basically the second point. 4th Edition can't be made backwards compatible with 3rd Edition, nor the latter can be updated to the former. You can make some work with alternate class features, the rules for monsters/items/spells, and Prestige Classes to adapt material from the 1st and 2nd Edition, but the way 4th Edition presents material is so strikingly different that it's too difficult to adapt one thing to the other, aside from what the developers already did (and even then, it's mostly spell-wise most of the time) So, it's often best to consider both "editions" as different games altogether. In that sense, 4th Edition can't make 3.5 obsolete, as it's the rough equivalent to replacing Windows XP with the latest version of Mac OS X. It's almost two different systems, but holding some similarities between each other. Even if WotC isn't making any more material for 3.5, the fact that it left the Open Game License pretty much ensured the edition won't stop receiving support.

I would argue that 3.5 was made obsolete if the change to 4th Edition resembled the change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition of Exalted and WoD: it's the same system, pretty much word by word, but with a very limited set of changes and a retcon of the entire story which makes the first (at least in WoD) obsolete in the literal sense.

jmbrown
2009-07-26, 08:51 PM
I think a lot more people are sticking with 3.5 than they did with 2nd ed., and with Pathfinder out there books will continue to be published that are compatible with the rules system, so I'd say no.

Every new edition of DnD has brought with it criticism and a split in fanbase. When 3.0 came out people still clung to 2E because the system was already established and had tons of material available. Once 3.5 came out a few years later and 2E books were hard to find everyone switched over.

I predict 3.5 will have a half-life of at least 2 more years. After that majority of the players will move on like all things.

AslanCross
2009-07-26, 08:51 PM
I'm sticking to 3.5, and so is my group. We might try 4E, but none of us really like it enough to shift. Also, 3.5 books are selling dirt-cheap now, so I'm going to invest in them instead.

Thurbane
2009-07-26, 09:05 PM
I can only speak for my group(s), which are most definitely sticking with 3.5 - possbly moving to Pathfinder at some stage.

Eldariel
2009-07-26, 09:07 PM
We'll be 3.5ing; we just don't feel 4.0 after the initial attempts. It's worth noting that there's a major difference between 3.5 and 2.0-conversions; broadband internet is now practically everywhere which means that 3.5 books will be easily available for anyone interested forever and ever.

That removes the necessity of transiting just due to new books and is like to keep many more people in 3.5 than with the last transition. It's also worth noting that 4.0 hasn't sold as well as 3.X or AD&D in their first years, which would suggest that more people are sticking over than on the previous switches.


But I don't have enough data to properly analyze this stuff so I'll just stop here.

RTGoodman
2009-07-26, 09:14 PM
Of the people I've ever played D&D with, it seems about evenly split, if not erring on the side of 4E being the predominant version nowadays. However, with the folks I know online but haven't played with, it's slightly more biased towards the 3.x end.

In general, I think 3.x still probably has more people that play it more often or prefer it, but it also has had several more years to get followers. For folks that don't follow D&D stuff online, that don't buy new books more than a couple of times a year, and so on, they still haven't even looked at 4E yet, probably. On the other hand, given another year or so, I think the split will probably be closer to 50/50, eventually moving towards a 4E focus, but that'll be at least a couple of years.

Mando Knight
2009-07-26, 09:23 PM
Why would it be, when it's fine as it is? 3.5 has 100+ splatbooks, half a dozen huge settings, numerous web enhancement, dedicated communities everywhere, it's self-sustaining as it is. It doesn't need any new material. And it will take time for those editions to reach the number of splatbooks that 3.5 has.
It isn't self-sustaining. All of the official material for it (including the PHB and DMG, which contain rules that the SRD doesn't have) is out of print. The old books will wear out. Eventually, it will become like 2nd edition AD&D: It will have a large fanbase, but one that is definitely aging and nearly stagnant. Thanks to being the first major edition of D&D released after the internet boom, it will survive longer in a healthier form than 2E did, but it will show its age some time. It might take a decade. Might take two or three.

Regardless, 3.5 won't be the primary fantasy RPG system forever, especially since it isn't perfect. I suspect that 4E will gain traction as the most popular edition of D&D within four years, if 5E isn't released in that time, or if it isn't already.

However, just as 3rd Edition was the first one released after the internet "boom," 4th Edition has the dubious status as the first edition of D&D released after data piracy became "popular," which cuts into its sales significantly (There are pdfs of the books available on torrents and such for free, and I know people who don't pay for the books because of that.), which also cuts into both WotC's profits and into the development team's paycheck. It also didn't help 4E that the US economy kinda collapsed in the fourth quarter of '08, cutting into everyone's "other stuff" budget... which tends to include games.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-26, 09:30 PM
Plenty of ways to get your hand on a digital version of the 3.5 books, so even as the physical copies degrade, anyone with a computer and a printer can make their own versions.

Tetsubo 57
2009-07-26, 09:35 PM
I am a 3.5 loyalist. I don't consider it obsolete in the least.

And thanks to the SRD and the OGL we can keep playing 3.5 forever. Not even mentioning Pathfinder. Or any of the OGL based game systems out there.

Long live 3.5! :)

erikun
2009-07-26, 09:41 PM
Is 3.5 Obsolete?
No, and that is a bit of an odd question if you really think about it.

D&D 3.0 could be considered obsolete by D&D 3.5, as 3.5 was basically an update and revision of the 3.0 rules. Pretty much everything that was 3.0 has been updated into the 3.5 ruleset, or can be converted easily. There isn't much 3.0 played anymore; it's been obsoleted by 3.5.

The same can't be said about AD&D 2nd edition. D&D 3.5 isn't really an update of 2nd edition, it's more like a similar system with 2nd edition material translated into it. If you ask to play 3.0, you'll have people who think of 3.5 instead. If you ask to play 2nd, you aren't likely to have many people mistake it for 3.5.

Much like 2nd edition, 3.5 isn't going to be obsoleted until something comes along to render it obsolete. (Sorry, Pathfinder, you aren't there yet.) It does have it's uses, namely a free online SRD, but it hasn't suddenly gone away or become "updated" to 4E.

I'd like to note that two different editions can be popularly played and enjoyed side-by-side. The current situation with World of Darkness comes to mind, where a number of players who play the older editions (generally Werewolf or Mage) have no problems playing other newer edition games, namely Chameleon. Yes, it's an overgeneralization, but I see a lot of people who will play Werewolf: The Apocalypse right next to Hunter: The Vigil, and they don't see a problem with it.

ericgrau
2009-07-26, 09:44 PM
Plenty of people are still playing 2e even, and I'd say the number sticking with 3.5 are a much greater number. So ya, 3.5 is gonna stick around.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-26, 09:49 PM
Plenty of ways to get your hand on a digital version of the 3.5 books, so even as the physical copies degrade, anyone with a computer and a printer can make their own versions.

It doesn't even require a printer. Everyone in my group has a laptop handy at games; since we're at a college that sells its endorsed laptop at a steep discount, even people who didn't show up with laptops have them now. Even ruling out the two people who download books in a dubiously legal fashion, the rest of us have enough PDF books among us that getting access to, say, Cityscape or Weapons of Legacy or another somewhat-obscure book is as easy as walking across the room. If you really want a hardcover copy you can get one, but if the cost of that is too much you can do without.

RandomNPC
2009-07-26, 09:50 PM
3.5 is still being printed by some groups is it not?
seriously is it?

anyway, it took me long enough to find a group and i had to teach them all. no more updated systems for me. besides BESM runds d20 and i just got that book. and there are so many more books to get.

i'll update when i can pickup some cheap used 5th edition books. if i like the edition.

Tetsubo 57
2009-07-26, 10:02 PM
3.5 is still being printed by some groups is it not?
seriously is it?

anyway, it took me long enough to find a group and i had to teach them all. no more updated systems for me. besides BESM runds d20 and i just got that book. and there are so many more books to get.

i'll update when i can pickup some cheap used 5th edition books. if i like the edition.

I've been picking up cheap used books on Amazon and B&N online. I just paid $2 for a copy of D20 Trigun. Lots of good stuff out there to fill out my gaming shelves for 3.5. I'll be buying books for years.

Doc Roc
2009-07-26, 10:32 PM
I still run it quite extensively.

ghost_warlock
2009-07-26, 11:08 PM
It isn't self-sustaining. All of the official material for it (including the PHB and DMG, which contain rules that the SRD doesn't have) is out of print. The old books will wear out. Eventually, it will become like 2nd edition AD&D: It will have a large fanbase, but one that is definitely aging and nearly stagnant. Thanks to being the first major edition of D&D released after the internet boom, it will survive longer in a healthier form than 2E did, but it will show its age some time. It might take a decade. Might take two or three.

3.5 also has a few things going for it to keep it thriving long past the point where the books wear out - free online SRD and a plethera of books in .pdf format that can be copied and reprinted by anyone with the file who's willing to invest the resources in ink, paper, and time.

4e will also benefit from this once it becomes 'obsolete.' Heck, electronic versions of 4e books were available even before the physical copies were distributed.

It's true that you can find electronic 2e and even OD&D & 1e books online, too, but in my experience they're much harder to obtain, especially when you're looking for a specific, obscure book.

Badgercloak
2009-07-26, 11:35 PM
No. Just like 2nd AD&D before it no new 3.5 material will be published by its parent company yet people will still continue to play it.

Alysar
2009-07-26, 11:46 PM
People still play 1.0 and 2.0, and sometimes campaigns can last for the better part of a decade depending on how often people get together to play.

3.5 isn't going away any time soon.

AgentPaper
2009-07-27, 01:15 AM
Obsolete? Very much yes.

That's not to say people can't, or shouldn't, play and enjoy it extensively, and probably will for a while. Though I do think it's past it's prime, by any measure.

Adamaro
2009-07-27, 01:32 AM
A friend of mine said about 4E "It's like playing FRP" (not in a good manner. FRP as go-slay-a monster, find-an-item, lack of roleplay, skills, all the details, that make 3.5 sometimes gritty and most of the time fun). For me, 3.5 will become absolete with new edition, which will not be as child/toy/fun-for-whole-family-like as 4E is.

AgentPaper
2009-07-27, 01:49 AM
A friend of mine said about 4E "It's like playing FRP" (not in a good manner. FRP as go-slay-a monster, find-an-item, lack of roleplay, skills, all the details, that make 3.5 sometimes gritty and most of the time fun). For me, 3.5 will become absolete with new edition, which will not be as child/toy/fun-for-whole-family-like as 4E is.

While I disagree strongly, I will point at the title of this thread. There have been enough threads on the 4E vs 3.5 debate already, no need to bring it in here.

Forbiddenwar
2009-07-27, 01:51 AM
I live in a major metropolis. I have visited several of the biggest gaming stores. They all say the same thing:

No we don't have any 3.5 edition books. 3.5 source books are impossible to keep in stock. No one is selling their used copies and they are not being printed anymore. This is in stores that have hundred of copies of 1st edition D&D books, 2nd edition(AD&D) books, 3rd edition books, and 4th edition books. In short, it is easier to sell a 3.5 source book than any other edition, because there is more demand for it.

So yes, since they are out of print, 3.5 is technically obsolete. But that doesn't mean there are less people playing 3.5. I'm fairly certain if you were total all the 3.5 games being played today (online and in person) and total all the 4.0 games being played today, the former would out number the later by a great deal.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-27, 04:16 AM
I still remember the first time I ever got my hands on a 3.0 Players Handbook. I was running a years-long ongoing campaign of 1e/2e AD&D at the time (I mostly used 2e, but kept certain 1e elements that I liked).

It was a revelation.

I immediately began converting my world into the new system. It was easy to do, and it enhanced my enjoyment and understanding of the campaign in almost every way. My players all felt the same, and quickly saw how their characters could be more fully realized and better utilized within the new system.

The moment we had 3.0, 2nd edition AD&D became obsolete for us.

3.5 was a mixed bag, mostly an improvement, fixing a number of issues while inadvertently introducing new problems. Nevertheless, the sum of the changes represented a strengthening of what we'd loved in 3.0, so we converted over again and 3.0 became as obsolete as 2e had been three years prior.

This is not the case with 4e. To me and mine, the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons is not the same game, and it is the first iteration of the game that does not logically follow from the game that came before.

It does not make 3.5 obsolete because it changes the game so fundamentally that one cannot actually choose to "upgrade" to the new system within an existing campaign.

The Third Edition was certainly different from the Second, but the pieces still all fit in such a way as to allow for such an upgrade. I did it without much trouble at all and seemlessly transitioned from 2e in one session to 3.0 in the next.

I defy anyone to make such a conversion from 3.5 to 4e without a major cataclysm in the campaign world to redefine the very laws of reality.

Ergo, 3.5 cannot be obsolete until every ongoing story being told in that system has drawn itself to a conclusion (since they cannot be merely converted to the new system and continued, as was the case in other iterations).

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-27, 04:34 AM
I still remember the first time I ever got my hands on a 3.0 Players Handbook. I was running a years-long ongoing campaign of 1e/2e AD&D at the time (I mostly used 2e, but kept certain 1e elements that I liked).

It was a revelation.

I immediately began converting my world into the new system. It was easy to do, and it enhanced my enjoyment and understanding of the campaign in almost every way. My players all felt the same, and quickly saw how their characters could be more fully realized and better utilized within the new system.

The moment we had 3.0, 2nd edition AD&D became obsolete for us.

3.5 was a mixed bag, mostly an improvement, fixing a number of issues while inadvertently introducing new problems. Nevertheless, the sum of the changes represented a strengthening of what we'd loved in 3.0, so we converted over again and 3.0 became as obsolete as 2e had been three years prior.

This is not the case with 4e. To me and mine, the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons is not the same game, and it is the first iteration of the game that does not logically follow from the game that came before.

It does not make 3.5 obsolete because it changes the game so fundamentally that one cannot actually choose to "upgrade" to the new system within an existing campaign.

The Third Edition was certainly different from the Second, but the pieces still all fit in such a way as to allow for such an upgrade. I did it without much trouble at all and seemlessly transitioned from 2e in one session to 3.0 in the next.

I defy anyone to make such a conversion from 3.5 to 4e without a major cataclysm in the campaign world to redefine the very laws of reality.

Ergo, 3.5 cannot be obsolete until every ongoing story being told in that system has drawn itself to a conclusion (since they cannot be merely converted to the new system and continued, as was the case in other iterations).



I've exactly the same feelings, even if I recognize that how 3.x will live, is dued to how people will make it hang on.

Oslecamo
2009-07-27, 04:55 AM
That's not to say people can't, or shouldn't, play and enjoy it extensively, and probably will for a while. Though I do think it's past it's prime, by any measure.

Says who? From what I see, 4e is losing momentum, specially when WOTC told all 3rd party publishers that trying to do anything 4e-related would be basically a pact with a devil.

On the other hand, there's still plenty of people making material for 3.X, and the number doesn't seem to be decreasing. With some luck one of them will finally get things really right, and then we'll see a new prime of 3.X.

It's not just one or other isolated group playing on their living rooms. There's whole communities still worcking for 3.X. More than 4e at least.

Random832
2009-07-27, 07:08 AM
While I disagree strongly, I will point at the title of this thread. There have been enough threads on the 4E vs 3.5 debate already, no need to bring it in here.

It's hard to separate though - I haven't ever played 4th, so I honestly cannot say that it is or it isn't, but it raises the fundamental question of: how can 3.5 not be obsolete except by 4th not being a suitable replacement?

bosssmiley
2009-07-27, 07:22 AM
From an industry standpoint: 3E is out of official distro and has been replaced with 4E. All hail the shiny newness!

From a hobbyist standpoint: no previous edition of D&D is obsolete so long as it is being played, enjoyed and argued about. Heck, there are communities of people out there playing and enjoying 1974 vintage OD&D. Mike Mearls is one of them.

From a conventions/organised play standpoint: from what I understand the year before 4E was released 95%+ of the slots open to play D&D at GenCon were booked for 3E (the then-current edition). The year after 4E was released ~60% of the slot booked were to play 4E, the rest were playing everything from 3E (and derivatives like Pathfinder) to OD&D. Make of that what you will...


Obsolete? Very much yes.

That's not to say people can't, or shouldn't, play and enjoy it extensively, and probably will for a while. Though I do think it's past it's prime, by any measure.

As any COBOL wonk or maker/craftsman type will tell you "no longer bleeding edge" != obsolete. :smallwink:

magellan
2009-07-27, 07:36 AM
People still play 1.0 and 2.0, and sometimes campaigns can last for the better part of a decade depending on how often people get together to play.

3.5 isn't going away any time soon.

Just yesterday a thought struck me:

Gaming doesn't lend itself very well to business and vice versa.

One of the key values of games is replayability. We have some record holders around that haven't had any new products for literally 1000s of years. (chess, go, checkers...)

For any marketing department that is a nightmare.
So making good games is a really bad marketing decision! But good games are good and will get played. Business really can't compete with what is produced by enthusiasts in their spare time. (and doesn't want to because putting out products that could compete would be bad for business)

For that reason i think the future of gaming lies in hobbyists. New products can't make old ones "obsolete" as they do in other industries.

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-27, 07:38 AM
Says who? From what I see, 4e is losing momentum, specially when WOTC told all 3rd party publishers that trying to do anything 4e-related would be basically a pact with a devil.

On the other hand, there's still plenty of people making material for 3.X, and the number doesn't seem to be decreasing. With some luck one of them will finally get things really right, and then we'll see a new prime of 3.X.

After being a year out, 4E has actually done better in sales than 3.5 in the same time, and 3.5 outsold 3.0.

Third-party publishers don't really have the clout, the writers or the quality control to keep 3.5 going, especially since much of the attraction of D&D is tied to the intellectual property of WotC, like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun and Planescape.

Raum
2009-07-27, 07:42 AM
As any COBOL wonk or maker/craftsman type will tell you "no longer bleeding edge" != obsolete. :smallwink:Yes but COBOL rots your brain... :smallwink:

On a more serious note, 3.5 won't become 'obsolete' for a long time. However it may not always be recognizable as 3.5. The SRD put the rules out there for anyone to use and expand on. Pathfinder is just a continuation of the plethora of games published using some version of the SRD.

kjones
2009-07-27, 08:37 AM
What does it even mean for a gaming system to be "obsolete"? To me, obsolescence implies that there exists a replacement that is better in almost every way. I don't think it's very meaningful to say that one gaming system is "better" or "worse" than another - different systems do different things well. It's apples to oranges.

So, I don't really think a game can be obsolete. Did chess make checkers obsolete?

(I don't consider 3.5 to be a different system than 3.0 - it's just a large errata)

Indon
2009-07-27, 08:38 AM
As the thread has clearly demonstrated, the answer is no.

Of particular note, 3.5 was published under a more liberal legal licence than 4.0, so even if absolutely nobody were playing 3.5 D&D anymore, it would still retain a fundamental feature which no subsequent version of D&D seems likely to have.

My personal opinion, frankly, is that 4th edition is Dungeons and Dragons Vista. I feel that Wizards will push out the next version before 4th edition ever 'catches on' because it will become clear that it will never do so as earlier versions of D&D has, despite possessing a variety of new features which should promote usage of the system.

DeathQuaker
2009-07-27, 08:38 AM
What has always helped 3.x stand out and survive is the free SRD and the OGL. Even as Wizards' 3.5 books go out of print, there are still OGL-based systems and supplements being printed all the time. Pathfinder, True20, and any number of modules, miniatures. In other words--if anything can make a game system "obsolete" (which as someone pointed out is kind of hard to do) it's the lack of availability of new product, and by its odd, open-licensed nature, 3.x does not lack this yet.

Sure, production has gone down (though some items like Pathfinder seem to be doing fine) but there is definitely a healthy, even if not huge, supply and demand cycle going on.

4E's GSL tries to do the same thing, but was so restrictive that it turned many 3rd Party supporters away (to be fair, they do have some great supporters in the form of Goodman Games, etc.), so I don't think the open-license effect will have the same effect for them when it stops being the next biggest thing.

4E is the newest thing and appealing to a lot of gamers--and it is very easy to get into--but as popular as the system is, it seems to be existing alongside 3.5, not obsoleting it.

The White Knight
2009-07-27, 09:11 AM
Obsolete only in that there aren't any new supplements coming out.

Nothing has made me want to play 2nd ed more than the 3.5/4ed wars. They all have their merits, and as long as there are books to be found in attics and hobby shops, none will grow obsolete.

Krrth
2009-07-27, 09:23 AM
3.5

We've tried 4e and we simply don't like the mechanics. It's extremely difficult to translate existing characters and game worlds (at least ours) and no one wants to spent the time and money on new splatbooks.

Volkov
2009-07-27, 09:27 AM
3.5 is something i'm not letting go of, ever. Because I've invested too much time and money into it to switch.

Alysar
2009-07-27, 09:33 AM
Just yesterday a thought struck me:

Gaming doesn't lend itself very well to business and vice versa.

One of the key values of games is replayability. We have some record holders around that haven't had any new products for literally 1000s of years. (chess, go, checkers...)



You might want to look at this (http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/).

Hal
2009-07-27, 09:36 AM
Can't add much that hasn't already been said, so I'll at least add my own experiences.

My gaming group has several games going on at once. While once those were 3.5 games, they're all now 4e games. Not the "same" games, technically, but the 3.5 campaigns were dropped in favor of 4e. Our group just likes 4e better over all. The DM has said he finds it easier to run (your mileage may vary) and the players seem to like the available tools. Once you've used the 4e character builder, it's hard to go back to pen-and-paper character sheets while pouring through a dozen splat books to figure out what you want.

Obsolete? For my group, yes. But as many people will tell you, that's a preference issue, and yours should dictate what you're running.

Talya
2009-07-27, 09:41 AM
3.5 also has a few things going for it to keep it thriving long past the point where the books wear out - free online SRD and a plethera of books in .pdf format that can be copied and reprinted by anyone with the file who's willing to invest the resources in ink, paper, and time.

4e will also benefit from this once it becomes 'obsolete.' Heck, electronic versions of 4e books were available even before the physical copies were distributed.

It's true that you can find electronic 2e and even OD&D & 1e books online, too, but in my experience they're much harder to obtain, especially when you're looking for a specific, obscure book.

This, in its entirety... except you don't need to print them. Assuming you had all of the hundred plus (maybe 200?) print 3.5 books from WotC, and you wanted to have them all available at your friend's house while gaming, or at work while you post in PbP games, are you going to carry your hundred pound book collection with you everywhere? Or are you going to pull out a laptop with all the books on PDF, with maybe one or two of your more commonly used books in comfortable print format at its side?

ericgrau
2009-07-27, 09:44 AM
It's hard to separate though - I haven't ever played 4th, so I honestly cannot say that it is or it isn't, but it raises the fundamental question of: how can 3.5 not be obsolete except by 4th not being a suitable replacement?

Mainly we avoid why so many people are still playing 3.5 and just say that they are. And give examples like many have done. We all know that reasons exist for it, no need to take it further. i.e., while the 4e/3.5e debates may not have unanimously established a favorite system for all - nor is it likely to be resolved via tangents in this thread - the debates have quite thoroughly established that many people like and wish to stick with their own favorite system.

valadil
2009-07-27, 09:47 AM
I enjoy both and find them distinct enough that I will continue to play both. At the moment I'm playing more 4e because it's the shiny new thing, but I still come up with 3.5 builds when I'm bored at work.

Catch
2009-07-27, 09:50 AM
The reason 3.5 games are still going strong, even after the release of 4.0 is that they're entirely different games that appeal to wholly different player bases. Each ruleset offers a different experience, so despite the fact that there exists a "newer" edition, it's not intended to replace the previous.

Talya
2009-07-27, 09:51 AM
it's not intended to replace the previous.

Fairly sure WotC really did hope it would replace the previous. They miscalculated.

AstralFire
2009-07-27, 09:53 AM
I defy anyone to make such a conversion from 3.5 to 4e without a major cataclysm in the campaign world to redefine the very laws of reality.

Done it. Wasn't hard. Eberron.

Party's only prepared spellcaster didn't use much of her spells out of combat anyway, so it was an easy shift.

Meanwhile, I would have issues backporting my 3E games into 2E. So it just depends on your campaign. If people can make fairly faithful conversions of characters not in games at all into gaming systems in the first place, why would it be superhard 100% of the time to convert between editions of the same game, or between two different games? There are some things every edition of every game simply cannot represent both accurately and quickly - I wouldn't try to build a Saint Seiya character in D&D, I'd use Exalted, for example. But I could build Indiana Jones in D&D... not so sure how well he'd work in nWoD, on the other hand. (He'd be best in Spirit of the Century, but that's another bucket.)

Roderick_BR
2009-07-27, 10:27 AM
Answering your question: No.
3.5 still have a good solid system that allows both warfare gaming, and simulatist roleplay. People just like to "fine tune" the issues WotC overlooked.

4e is more warfare-based, and thus simpler and easier to play. This easeness, by itself, allows for more free form RPs, but with fewer actual rules, so, in the end, it's all about the player's taste in gaming.

I am yet to play a full session, so I don't have a well enough opinion on 4e to fully switch or not, but I like to use ideas from it in 3.5, like a lot of people do, that are very similar to the StarWars d20 system.

Asbestos
2009-07-27, 10:45 AM
I see a lot of people mentioned Pathfinder... but how long until Pathfinder publishes something really new? The first books they're coming out with are a PHB, DMG, and MM.... will people buy those if they are, as advertised, just a mild change from the PHB, DMG, and MM that people already have? Will people wait until there's a MM full of 'new' monsters, or a book full of 'new' classes? Will they wait for a new 'Complete' or 'Races of'? Basically... when do people think that Pathfinder will produce something that isn't a rehashed book from 3.x?

Sorry if there's any vitriol in my comment, I just don't understand Pathfinder, or the love for it.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 10:52 AM
3.5 is not and never will be obsolete as long as there are groups campaigning using that system. As others have pointed out, there are groups still running using all prior versions of the rules, which demonstrates that the play is what matters, not the system.

I find that I prefer 4e for the balance, and dislike 3.5 for the major work involved for the GM in fixing the many issues with the rules, but I'll freely admit that anyone can run a 3.5 campaign up to about 10th level without the game becoming too broken for the non-casters.

But it is obsolete within my gaming group. We had a GM running AD&D and another running 3.5. The 3.5 GM is converting to 4e, making 3.5 obsolete for us.

The moment we had 3.0, 2nd edition AD&D became obsolete for us.I remember the first time I leafed through a 3.0 book at the local game shop. I saw the Feats section and thought "this is how playing a Fighter won't be boring any more! No more 'I swing my sword' every melee round, martial characters will have options."
I was both right and horribly wrong, since I didn't also consider that the caster classes were also being given more options and customizations, which maintained the status quo. That, and the spell save change, kept martial characters as the step-children they always were until 4e was published. At least AD&D made casters earn more EXP to level...

It does not make 3.5 obsolete because it changes the game so fundamentally that one cannot actually choose to "upgrade" to the new system within an existing campaign.
[...]
I defy anyone to make such a conversion from 3.5 to 4e without a major cataclysm in the campaign world to redefine the very laws of realityThis very much depends on the campaign in question. Yours may have proven impossible to convert, but 4 play sessions into my running the Keep on the Shadowfell for my group and the 3.5 GM is now converting to 4e. And it's trivial, no issues at all.

From a conventions/organised play standpoint: from what I understand the year before 4E was released 95%+ of the slots open to play D&D at GenCon were booked for 3E (the then-current edition). The year after 4E was released ~60% of the slot booked were to play 4E, the rest were playing everything from 3E (and derivatives like Pathfinder) to OD&D. Make of that what you will...I'm not sure what your point is here? You seem to be making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Perhaps you'd be able to quote the amount of 3.0 games vs AD&D games at GenCon the year after 3.0 was released, as that would make more sense as a comparison. Or wait until 4e has the same number of years in publication as 3.5 and then cite the % of 3.5 vs 4e games at that GenCon.

My personal opinion, frankly, is that 4th edition is Dungeons and Dragons Vista. I feel that Wizards will push out the next version before 4th edition ever 'catches on' because it will become clear that it will never do so as earlier versions of D&D has, despite possessing a variety of new features which should promote usage of the system.Wishful thinking, perhaps? 4e sales figures show clearly that 4e has indeed "caught on".

Once you've used the 4e character builder, it's hard to go back to pen-and-paper character sheets while pouring through a dozen splat books to figure out what you want.There are equivalent tools available for 3.5. Here (http://www.houseofyin.com/dnd.jsp) is a 3.5 character spreadsheet (MS Excel format) which includes a fair amount of non-core content.

Fairly sure WotC really did hope it would replace the previous. They miscalculated.Heh, more wishful thinking. Look at the sales figures again. If 4e was a miscalculation, it's one with many dollar signs.

Talya
2009-07-27, 10:58 AM
Heh, more wishful thinking. Look at the sales figures again. If 4e was a miscalculation, it's one with many dollar signs.

I'm not questioning the sales. I'm saying that they lost much of their customer base in the process of catering to a new one. 4e doesn't replace 3.5...it can't...because it's nothing like 3.5 at all. 4e doesn't feel like 3.5, it plays in a very different way. It's not a new version anymore than World of Warcraft is a replacement for Warcraft 3. They might have some similarities in setting, but they're entirely different games.

WotC resents this and is desperately trying to extinguish the support that 3.5 has from its playerbase, with no success at all. Sure they're making sales, but not through customer retention.

Oslecamo
2009-07-27, 11:05 AM
Heh, more wishful thinking. Look at the sales figures again. If 4e was a miscalculation, it's one with many dollar signs.

Like Talya pointed out, 4e is selling well because it atracted a bunch of new people that had never played D&D before.

There's also lots of people who bought the 4e books, and then went back to 3.X.

Wotc expected for almost everybody who played 3.X to switch to 4e. It didn't happen. A good cunck of the people who played 3.X are still doing so. And there's a lot of 4e books being sold secod hand right now.

Killer Angel
2009-07-27, 11:11 AM
A good cunck of the people who played 3.X are still doing so.

I think this is the real point.
It's more than one year that 4ed is around, and 3.5 is still alive and kicking: it's not a matter of the 4ed, but, while AD&D was an old system, which needed desperately an heavy review, 3.5 is an edition with many balance problem, but with a good structure, still 100% valid.
3.5 is not obsolete.

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-27, 11:16 AM
Wotc expected for almost everybody who played 3.X to switch to 4e. It didn't happen. A good cunck of the people who played 3.X are still doing so. And there's a lot of 4e books being sold secod hand right now.

How do you know what WotC expected? Sure they probably want people to switch, but the real money is in opening up the market a bit and attracting the new players. The people who bitch about WotC on the internet aren't their customers and they don't really need to care about them.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 11:21 AM
4e is more warfare-based, and thus simpler and easier to play.I don't think I'll ever understand this train of thought. Role play is role play, the system is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing about 4e which forbids you from running it with the exact amount of role play as any 3.5 game, AD&D game, or OE game. Charges of "warfare-based" seem to forget that D&D has always been based around conflict, and this is one thing which did not change with the publication of 4e. Your characters fight to advance, and this hasn't changed from OE to 4e.

I'm not questioning the sales. I'm saying that they lost much of their customer base in the process of catering to a new one. 4e doesn't replace 3.5...it can't...because it's nothing like 3.5 at all. 4e doesn't feel like 3.5, it plays in a very different way. It's not a new version anymore than World of Warcraft is a replacement for Warcraft 3. They might have some similarities in setting, but they're entirely different games.Odd, it plays the same for me. What are we doing differently? I find zero play difference in stating that my 4e Fighter uses his Cleave at-will power vs saying that my 3.5 Fighter will use his Cleave Feat since he dropped the prior opponent. The mechanics are slightly different, sure, but the play is identical.

WotC resents this and is desperately trying to extinguish the support that 3.5 has from its playerbase, with no success at all. Sure they're making sales, but not through customer retention.You seem to be projecting a bit here. I find it highly unlikely that you're close enough to WotC employees to be able to say with any accuracy that they 'resent' people who are staying with 3.5, or that they are 'desperately trying to extinguish' 3.5.

And on customer retention, isn't every 4e and every 3.5 player a retained customer? Who do you think they are losing customers to? "making sales, but not through customer retention" seems to be saying that they are stealing customers away from other RPGs, but that doesn't jibe with your claim that WotC isn't retaining customers.
Speaking from my own experience, every set of 4e books owned by members of my gaming group were purchased by owners of 3.5 books. That is just a small microcosm of the gaming world, to be sure, but those sales at least were repeat and retained customers.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 11:24 AM
Like Talya pointed out, 4e is selling well because it atracted a bunch of new people that had never played D&D before.Is this your desire, or just guesswork? Do you have any figures to cite on the number of new D&D players 4e attracted vs the number of 4e sales to players of prior versions?

I have to wonder why a person who had walked past 3.5 books for years suddenly will reach out and buy a 4e book. If the answer is 'marketing' then I'd wonder why the marketing for 3.5 had failed so thoroughly over so many years.

Killer Angel
2009-07-27, 11:25 AM
How do you know what WotC expected? Sure they probably want people to switch, but the real money is in opening up the market a bit and attracting the new players. The people who bitch about WotC on the internet aren't their customers and they don't really need to care about them.

mmm... if this were true, they would have continued supporting also 3.5.
No, they wanted the monopoly on D&D: the real money is when you don't have to leave to some others the pieces of the cake.

The New Bruceski
2009-07-27, 11:40 AM
Lots of opinion/hypothesis being stated as fact in this thread.

magellan
2009-07-27, 11:46 AM
You might want to look at this (http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/).

Ok, so there has been one new product for chess in 2000 years. And i'd wager that the majority of chess players don't use it on a regular basis.

My point was that it would be a bad decision for a game publisher to have long product life cycles. Yet in game design it should be the most important goal. Add to that the little detail that publishing companies services aren't as important anymore as they used to be, i'd say that the days of making money from games are coming to an end. It's too much fun making games, so amateurs aren't exactly hard to find, and since they don't have the restrictions a "professional" would have (make sure the customer buys the next part in 6 months) their products are better.

If a contemporary game company would make chess today there would be a first edition with only pawns, and then the special "knights and rooks" expansion pack a few months later.

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-27, 11:49 AM
mmm... if this were true, they would have continued supporting also 3.5.
No, they wanted the monopoly on D&D: the real money is when you don't have to leave to some others the pieces of the cake.

They already have monopoly on D&D. That what owning intellectual property means.

And the reason why they didn't keep supporting 3rd edition is that it wouldn't make sense. TSR gimped itself by creating a situation where they were in effect competing with themselves by simultaneously supporting AD&D and D&D, and having a ridiculous amount of game settings for both.

The New Bruceski
2009-07-27, 12:03 PM
Ok, so there has been one new product for chess in 2000 years. And i'd wager that the majority of chess players don't use it on a regular basis.

My point was that it would be a bad decision for a game publisher to have long product life cycles. Yet in game design it should be the most important goal. Add to that the little detail that publishing companies services aren't as important anymore as they used to be, i'd say that the days of making money from games are coming to an end. It's too much fun making games, so amateurs aren't exactly hard to find, and since they don't have the restrictions a "professional" would have (make sure the customer buys the next part in 6 months) their products are better.

If a contemporary game company would make chess today there would be a first edition with only pawns, and then the special "knights and rooks" expansion pack a few months later.

This has me thinking about the business/design model of a card game (standalone, not an "everybody needs their own pre-built deck" CCG) called Race for the Galaxy.

It's a complex game with cards doing many different things and supporting different ways to win. There have been two expansion packs that build on each other and add new mechanics or new support for underused combinations. The interesting thing is that there's going to be one more expansion pack in this set. After that they'll start again with another set of three packs that are meant to be added onto the base deck, but not the other trio. This lets them tweak the game into different flavors without fully watering down the existing cards.

What if one was to do this with an RPG? Make clusters of expansion books to take the base flavor in different directions, but expressly state that they're not meant to be fully compatible outside the cluster? One of 3.5's big flaws is that once something's dropped into the books it's suddenly available to everyone (in theory), and while Core had some issues, that combination of esoteric classes/monsters has led to some of the big ones like Pun-Pun. I wonder how well you could manage a different style.

Then again, that's pretty much what the D20 system and campaign settings like Eberron do. I guess this isn't such an original idea.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 12:17 PM
How do you know what WotC expected? Sure they probably want people to switch, but the real money is in opening up the market a bit and attracting the new players. The people who bitch about WotC on the internet aren't their customers and they don't really need to care about them.

Actually, the real money is in all the peripherals and splatbooks they sell to players. I will guarantee you that the reasons that 4e sales are so high is because so many DnD players bought it to see what it was like. If they went back to 3.5, they won't be buying any of the new books. I wonder what 4e PHBII sales look like.

Gaining new customers is definitely part of any solid business plan, but if you do it at the cost of alienating your current customers... well, time will tell how the math works out for Hasbro. I like the Vista comparison. If we see 5e in the next four years or so, you'll know the deal.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 12:21 PM
Is this your desire, or just guesswork? Do you have any figures to cite on the number of new D&D players 4e attracted vs the number of 4e sales to players of prior versions?

Well, if you consider that initial 4e sales were a bit higher than initial 3e sales yet a significant portion of the existing D&Der population doesn't want to buy 4e stuff or actively refuses to play 4e at all, then quite a bit of those sales have to be coming from new players. Obviously, if 4e weren't attracting many new players, its sales would be quite a bit lower. Now, do new players make up the majority of 4e players? That's another issue; I'd venture a guess that there's about the same number of new players as old, but there's no data on that either way.

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-07-27, 12:31 PM
No system is obsolete if you have the books you need, the players you like, and the correct dice to roll!

I still have my Basic/Expert rule set (Tom Moldvey/David Cook, Erol Otis covers) and still play them. And I can find new material and adventures on-line.

Play what you like. The idea is to have fun, not snob over "your set" while mocking someone else's.

Cedrass
2009-07-27, 12:40 PM
How do you know what WotC expected? Sure they probably want people to switch, but the real money is in opening up the market a bit and attracting the new players. The people who bitch about WotC on the internet aren't their customers and they don't really need to care about them.

Well, it's pretty easy to guess. I mean look at all the press they did when they announced 4E; "Our fans expressed their desire for simpler rules and blah blah blah". The key word(s) here is "Our fans", they really did hope people would switch, not only would they make more money out of it, but they would have made sure those fans would stay and try the 5E (Cause there will be one).

As for the matter at hand, I do not think 3.5E is obsolete as much as I don't think 2E is. It's different systems and they give off different feelings while playing. Some may argue that 2E and 3E are pretty much the same, but really, it's not. That being said, I have to go, I've got a Pathfinder game to DM :smalltongue:.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-27, 12:53 PM
From what I've seen (and obviously this is my opinion), I don't think WotC really cared if most 3.5 players switched over. The discussions in-house about "firing" their customer base and the general tone they took toward 3.5 in the 4e marketing push suggest *to me* that the goal was to get new players into the hobby, and if any 3.5 players switched over, that was just gravy.

It doesn't really matter though. From what I've seen, the majority of people in this market have switched over, which makes it increasingly more difficult to find enough people for a 3.5 game.

I've played 4e. I don't like it. I would like to see a resurgence of 3.5 gaming. But I don't think it's going to happen. In a few more years, I expect that the numbers of people playing 3.5 will be about the same as the numbers of people playing AD&D - precious few. It's not what I'd prefer, but I think it's a realistic assessment (based on my anecdotal experience in one city).

Indon
2009-07-27, 12:58 PM
Wishful thinking, perhaps? 4e sales figures show clearly that 4e has indeed "caught on".
Vista has sold a lot, too (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/09/microsoft-windows-vista-sales-rapid-at-140m-copies). Nonetheless it has not and won't get a chance to replace XP.

4E is distinct from Vista in two notable respects, though:

-4E has brought people wholly new to roleplaying into the hobby, an advantage for 4th edition. No OS can really make more people use computers anymore.
-Microsoft can pressure individual users to upgrade to Vista to a degree that Wizards can only leverage on their third-party developers, an advantage for Vista.


They already have monopoly on D&D. That what owning intellectual property means.
3'rd edition was released under IP terms too liberal to allow Wizards to effectively leverage their ownership of the property - thus how Pathfinder is able to continue working with the 3.5 material independently of what Wizards would want them to do.

Talya
2009-07-27, 12:58 PM
BillyJimBoBob, you and I are operating from entirely different beliefsets here, obviously. I don't believe systems and rules are interchangeable. The campaign, the gameplay, the worlds, the characters themselves, they are all integrated with the rules. "Fluff" and "crunch" are not and should not be divorced. I can't recreate my D&D sorceress in Exalted rules and have her feel like the same character, because she can't do the same things, she doesn't play the same way. As Cedrass put it, "different systems...give off different feelings while playing."

4e doesn't feel like any previous version of D&D at all. This is not a knock against 4e, many people love how it plays. But it is different in many ways that would go against the intent of this thread to describe, because it would turn into an argument about game mechanics.

On the other hand, though, if you don't feel the game system makes any difference at all, then 3.5 is still not obsolete. It has more material, the market is more saturated with it, and if it doesn't matter which system you use, doesn't cost you money for new books to play it. If to you the system makes no difference, go buy the most generic system you can and use it for everything, since there is no point to any mechanical changes...they're all the same.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 01:06 PM
Well, if you consider that initial 4e sales were a bit higher than initial 3e sales yet a significant portion of the existing D&Der population doesn't want to buy 4e stuff or actively refuses to play 4e at all, then quite a bit of those sales have to be coming from new players. Obviously, if 4e weren't attracting many new players, its sales would be quite a bit lower. Now, do new players make up the majority of 4e players? That's another issue; I'd venture a guess that there's about the same number of new players as old, but there's no data on that either way.So you're saying that 4e suddenly attracted new customers which 3.5 had failed to attract for years? How did these new players know that 4e was so much better than 3.5? What drew them to purchase the 4e books when they had no interest in the 3.5 books?

Dunno, still sounds like you're just speculating based on partial knowledge or pet theories. "a significant portion of the existing D&Der population doesn't want to buy 4e stuff", based on what? The posts you read on this forum? A friend who won't buy 4e? You? Do you have any valid and verifiable source you can cite for this "significant portion" claim?

In this thread we've had claims that 4e books were being sold off by people who tried it and decided they didn't like it, and at the same time claims that pdf piracy is obscuring the actual sales, and therefore interest, in 4e. Both of which seem to be easy things to claim, but hard to demonstrate.

Gnaeus
2009-07-27, 01:20 PM
So you're saying that 4e suddenly attracted new customers which 3.5 had failed to attract for years? How did these new players know that 4e was so much better than 3.5? What drew them to purchase the 4e books when they had no interest in the 3.5 books?

Lots of things could make people buy 4.0.
1. Marketing to a different market
2. Lots of people will buy the new thing, whatever it is.
3. Overwhelming stupidity.


Dunno, still sounds like you're just speculating based on partial knowledge or pet theories. "a significant portion of the existing D&Der population doesn't want to buy 4e stuff", based on what? The posts you read on this forum? A friend who won't buy 4e? You? Do you have any valid and verifiable source you can cite for this "significant portion" claim?

In this thread we've had claims that 4e books were being sold off by people who tried it and decided they didn't like it, and at the same time claims that pdf piracy is obscuring the actual sales, and therefore interest, in 4e. Both of which seem to be easy things to claim, but hard to demonstrate.

Dice admitted the numbers are hard to quantify. Do you seriously doubt that there is a significant portion of the current D&D population still rocking the 3.5? And you are going to advance this position on a board that sees more 3.5 posts than 4.0 posts? I don't know if Dice's significant number is 10% or 30% or 60%. I do know that a large majority of my gaming friends looked at 4.0 PDFs and decided it wasn't anything they wanted a part of.

AmberVael
2009-07-27, 01:24 PM
So you're saying that 4e suddenly attracted new customers which 3.5 had failed to attract for years? How did these new players know that 4e was so much better than 3.5? What drew them to purchase the 4e books when they had no interest in the 3.5 books?

This is really simple to answer.
Advertising.

New things gain more attention and new people through increased advertising, and the mere ability to claim being 'new.' It is why you can find people watching films like the star wars prequels or the Lord of the Rings trilogy without having seen/read the originals.

It is why people who have never been interested in comic book heroes before (like myself) find themselves watching Dark Knight, Watchmen, and etc. It is getting advertised.

DnD 3.5 isn't new anymore. You're not going to attract new people by advertising an old product, or supplements for a new one. That's why 4e can attract people. It isn't because it is better, or different, more successful, less successful, or anything- it is because it is new and advertised.

Granted, that won't account for everyone, and differences may attract new people or repel others- but you're always going to have a target demographic. 3.0 and 3.5 probably attracted new people too- it just doesn't anymore, because it is old.

Chunklets
2009-07-27, 01:24 PM
BillyJimBoBob, you and I are operating from entirely different beliefsets here, obviously. I don't believe systems and rules are interchangeable. The campaign, the gameplay, the worlds, the characters themselves, they are all integrated with the rules. "Fluff" and "crunch" are not and should not be divorced. I can't recreate my D&D sorceress in Exalted rules and have her feel like the same character, because she can't do the same things, she doesn't play the same way. As Cedrass put it, "different systems...give off different feelings while playing."

Very well put. I think you've hit on why I'm very much enjoying the 4th-ed campaign in which I'm playing, and yet found the decision not too update my 3.5 homebrew campaign to the new rules. That campaign was desined (subconciously, for the most part) to play to the strengths of 3.5, and to try to simply switch everything over would do a disservice both to the campaign itself and to the strengths of 4th-ed.

One reason for this might be (and you alluded to this in your post) the youth of 4th-ed, relative to 3.5. It will be interesting to see whether, as more and more material for 4th-ed becomes available, the two systems become closer in "feel," or further apart. If it's the former, than 3.5 probably will become obsolete at some point; if not, then 3.5 could hang on, with a significant proportion of gamers still using it, almost indefinitely.

shadow_archmagi
2009-07-27, 01:28 PM
No system is obsolete if you have the books you need, the players you like, and the correct dice to roll!

I think this sums it up nicely.

/thread, please

SimperingToad
2009-07-27, 01:34 PM
OBSOLETE, a. Gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; applied chiefly to words or writings. Webster's 1828

By definition, ANY version is not obsolete. OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc. are all still in use. But that's from a player standpoint. From Hasbro's perspective, all priors are certainly dead.

Woodsman
2009-07-27, 01:42 PM
I plan to stick with 3.5e for a good time, honestly.

4e just isn't my style. I know a lot of people who feel the same way.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 01:52 PM
I can't recreate my D&D sorceress in Exalted rules and have her feel like the same character, because she can't do the same things, she doesn't play the same way. [...] "Fluff" and "crunch" are not and should not be divorced. Sure, there are some characters that won't work out the same between systems, but the amount to which a group feels these differences will depend heavily on how they play. My own group is rather conservative, and so the changes were trivial and the characters do actually do the same things as they did in 3.5. The Fighter still swings a sword, the Wizard still casts spells, the Cleric still heals people. A Magic Missile may require a roll to hit now, but that is a trivial mechanical 'crunch' change which is absolutely divorced from the "I'm casting a spell against the monster" 'fluff', just as the mechanical 'crunch' of having an at-will Cleave power vs a Cleave feat is absolutely divorced from the "I swung my sword powerfully through one monster and hit another also" 'fluff'.

So yeah, I completely agree that you and I are operating from entirely different belief sets, because for me fluff and crunch are always and always should be divorced.

4e doesn't feel like any previous version of D&D at all.Odd, every version of D&D has always felt the same to me. Perhaps it's because I focus more attention on the setting and don't define my characters by the specific powers they have.

On the other hand, though, if you don't feel the game system makes any difference at all, then 3.5 is still not obsolete.You must be mistaking me for someone else. Re-read my first post in this thread, I have never said that 3.5 is obsolete.

Lots of things could make people buy 4.0.
3. Overwhelming stupidity.Nice ad hom.

Dice admitted the numbers are hard to quantify. Do you seriously doubt that there is a significant portion of the current D&D population still rocking the 3.5?I've never said that.

And you are going to advance this position on a board that sees more 3.5 posts than 4.0 posts?See, now, you're confusing many things here. Volume of posts does not have to lead to version preference.

Perhaps 4e is so well written and internally consistent that people don't have much need to post questions.

Perhaps the interactions between feats, classes, spells, etc is so much better in 4e that there will never be a post such as the 3.5 version where the author laid out his plan to gain infinite wishes at 5th level by dominating an Efritii(sic).

Perhaps the lack of splat books and their failed editing hasn't yet led to the need for a dozen posts explaining what Pun-pun is for people who see him referenced in another dozen posts.

Perhaps there is class balance such that these is no need for any 4e versions of the various "My roxor Monk build that can beat a Wizard!" type posts that 3.5 seems to force due to the broken nature of the class balance in that version. Many players of 3.5 seem to hear how their favorite non-caster class is useless next to any full caster class and they eventually feel the need to desperately defend that class, only to be shown again and again how futile that effort is regardless of which set of core/splat books used.

Perhaps the rules are set up in 4e so that there is no need or even relevance to a post such as this 3.5 one currently on the board:
Is having 48 str cheesy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119534) Wherein the author describes his character this way:
"Base strength 18
+6 Lolth-touched template
+14 Werewolf Lord template
+4 Warshaper
+4 Beserker Strength (rage variant from PHB 2) Replaced by normal rage which I won't count into this since it's only for a few rounds.
+6 Belt of Giant Strength."

I could go on, but I think I've made the point that a volume of posts says nothing about who likes one version over another, and a lot more about the loop holes and broken features of 3.5 specifically.

Talya
2009-07-27, 02:03 PM
Perhaps the rules are set up in 4e so that there is no need or even relevance to a post such as this 3.5 one currently on the board:
Is having 48 str cheesy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119534) Wherein the author describes his character this way:
"Base strength 18
+6 Lolth-touched template
+14 Werewolf Lord template
+4 Warshaper
+4 Beserker Strength (rage variant from PHB 2) Replaced by normal rage which I won't count into this since it's only for a few rounds.
+6 Belt of Giant Strength."

I could go on, but I think I've made the point that a volume of posts says nothing about who likes one version over another, and a lot more about the loop holes and broken features of 3.5 specifically.

And maybe the majority of D&D players who played 3.5 like to be able to play with a system where synergies can be utilized, where your character build actually makes a difference to your strength? That's part of the "feel" of the system...you can, without going into cheese, build a character that actually feels genuinely powerful...that is more than just another identical character with identical mechanics doing the same things. 3.5 gives you something to aspire to that way...having thousands of meaningful options to choose from to maximize both the fluff feel and the effectiveness of a character adds something to the game, synergizing lots of individually unimpressive choices into something devastatingly effective. 4e intentionally removed those because the designers didn't like what that added to the game--the options they put in really don't make much difference. My premise is that many gamers liked having that real choice--perhaps more of them than those that didn't like it being there, and so 3.5 will not become obsolete.

As an aside, I have to say I think Saga Edition is my favorite game system yet. It kept the character-build feeling of 3.5 while simplifying a lot of things like 4e did. It has the best of both systems mixed into one.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 02:12 PM
And maybe the majority of D&D players who played 3.5 like to be able to play with a system where synergies can be utilized, where your character build actually makes a difference to your strengthIf you want to believe this, I can't stop you. But go ahead and read the thread. You'll find that most of the posts run along the lines of "Your build is crap, and you'll have a gimp character." So much for utilizing the synergies of 3.5, huh?

4e intentionally removed those [so called synergies] because the designers didn't like what that added to the game [...]No, the 4e designers removed a pile of broken interactions that were never intended from the start but which were so poorly edited that with every additional splat book published the 3.5 game simply became more and more broken/breakable. Pun-pun.

Gnaeus
2009-07-27, 02:16 PM
Nice ad hom.


Why thank you. :smallsmile:



I've never said that.


No, you simply demanded his source when Dice argued that a "significant number" of players didn't make the switch. If we can all agree that a significant number of players didn't switch to 4.0, then how we prove that it is a "significant number" is irrelevant.


See, now, you're confusing many things here. Volume of posts does not have to lead to version preference.

Perhaps 4e is so well written ...

Perhaps the interactions....

Perhaps the lack ...

Perhaps there is ...

Perhaps the rules...


Perhaps the other 4.0 players are too busy playing WoW to find the forum. :smalltongue:

Everyone who posts a question about 3.5 is presumably playing in or honing their geek-fu for a 3.5 game. They help to demonstrate that a "significant number" have not shifted to 4.0. Some are presumably playing both editions. Most who play either edition don't care enough to sit on forums for them. That doesn't sound like "partial knowledge" or a "pet theory". It sounds like evidence that there are a significant number of lingering 3.5 fans. I'm not saying that the posts are necessarily proportional to the population.

Frosty
2009-07-27, 02:18 PM
If you want to believe this, I can't stop you. But go ahead and read the thread. You'll find that most of the posts run along the lines of "Your build is crap, and you'll have a gimp character." So much for utilizing the synergies of 3.5, huh?
No, the 4e designers removed a pile of broken interactions that were never intended from the start but which were so poorly edited that with every additional splat book published the 3.5 game simply became more and more broken/breakable. Pun-pun.

We like the idea of a toolbox with a million different parts for you to choose from. We don't like the fact that some parts apparently had their QA (quality assurance) done in China, but the concept is sounds and that's what houserules are for.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 02:35 PM
If you want to believe this, I can't stop you. But go ahead and read the thread. You'll find that most of the posts run along the lines of "Your build is crap, and you'll have a gimp character." So much for utilizing the synergies of 3.5, huh?

I agree with this, but I always take these notions with a grain of salt. I have always had fun playing non caster classes (including monks) and have never felt the urge to play a hyperoptimized character with three different PrC's. that said, there are other interesting questions and answers on the site, a great deal of which has to do with the ambiance of the game and DMing techniques. If it were just a hall of twinks, you yourself wouldn't be here.


No, the 4e designers removed a pile of broken interactions that were never intended from the start but which were so poorly edited that with every additional splat book published the 3.5 game simply became more and more broken/breakable. Pun-pun.

As I said in an earlier post: the way to make money with these games in with the splat books. 3.5 got pretty crazy, but my group only ever uses core rules and a couple of Complete... books. 2nd ed was hilarious about splatbooks. I'll take PrCs versus all the ridiculously imbalanced Kits any day of the week.

I mention this for two reasons.

First is that, while 4ed might have done a good job of balancing the classes, to took so much freedom and variety away from the players that the game really does feel like pressing attack buttons on my WoW screen (I know some decry the MMO comparison, but it was so obviously intentional that I feel it must be said). I want more than three choices to make that make my fighter different from other fighters. Maybe I don't care to be lumped into Tank/DPS/Controller categories. Sure, you keep me from using some bizarre spell combo to break the game, but I was never going to do that in the first place. In exchange, what have you cost me in terms of my game play?

Second, it is amusing that you decry 3.5 for its splatbooks, because the only thing that we can say for sure about the future of 4ed is that they will produce splatbooks. Lots of them. Because splatbooks make money, and Hasbro is in the business of making money. That's why they tossed out thirty years of ambiance in favor of something that appeals more to the MMO crossover market. Splatbooks are going to come out, and they are going to imbalance the 4ed, just as they have other editions. Which books you allow and disallow will become a part of your system of play, just as it has with 3.5.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 02:36 PM
We like the idea of a toolbox with a million different parts for you to choose from. We don't like the fact that some parts apparently had their QA (quality assurance) done in China, but the concept is sounds and that's what houserules are for.This I can get behind. No matter how broken the 3.5 rules are, I've never played in a game which approaches any of the extremes I've read about on these boards. The GMs and players alike simply would not allow it.

What I can't get behind is the inevitability of some of the broken. Pun-pun won't be happening in any 3.5 game I play in or run, but there is no denying that the Wizard is more potent than the Fighter, and that's a damn shame. No one sitting around the table in a group of equals should have a disadvantage in a game simply because they wrote "Fighter" on their character sheet.

Even in AD&D, where the balance is slower to upset due to a few things which 3.0 did away with, such as a harder EXP requirement, easier saves and no way to alter the DC of a spell, and of course all those meta-magic feats, this becomes apparent even to groups of non-optimizers. In the AD&D game my group has been running for several years now, the new D&D player has made me laugh by stating that the Magic-User is so much more effective than the non-casting characters. From the mouths of babes indeed.

But back to the house rules: If the value of 3.5 is that is offers "a toolbox with a million different parts for you to choose from", but then you have to throw a pile of those parts away since they don't fit with the rest, then what's the point in the first place?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 02:42 PM
See, now, you're confusing many things here. Volume of posts does not have to lead to version preference.

Perhaps a 3e-dominated board such as this one isn't the best data point to use:


Perhaps 4e is so well written and internally consistent that people don't have much need to post questions.

Perhaps you'll find that people ask tons of questions on other forums, and on this one we have the 4e RAW thread and several others.


Perhaps the interactions between feats, classes, spells, etc is so much better in 4e that there will never be a post such as the 3.5 version where the author laid out his plan to gain infinite wishes at 5th level by dominating an Efritii(sic).

Perhaps the interaction is better in some respects and not in others, because for everyone saying "Hey guys, I can get wishes at 5th level!" in 3e there's someone saying "Hey guys, I can take out Orcus at level 4!" in 4e.


Perhaps the lack of splat books and their failed editing hasn't yet led to the need for a dozen posts explaining what Pun-pun is for people who see him referenced in another dozen posts.

...um. I wouldn't call having Martial Power, Adventurer's Vault, Draconomicon 1, Manual of the Planes, and others out within a year of 4e's release a "lack of splat books," and trust me, WotC's editing has improved not an iota.


Perhaps there is class balance such that these is no need for any 4e versions of the various "My roxor Monk build that can beat a Wizard!" type posts that 3.5 seems to force due to the broken nature of the class balance in that version. Many players of 3.5 seem to hear how their favorite non-caster class is useless next to any full caster class and they eventually feel the need to desperately defend that class, only to be shown again and again how futile that effort is regardless of which set of core/splat books used.

Incorrect. If you check out the 4e CharOp boards, you see that the wizard is now on the bottom of the pile of super builds and the fighter is on top; there's just as many 3e "No fair! Wizards can be blasters, necromancers, summoners, and whatever else, and my fighter can only be super-amazing if he's a chain-tripper!" posts as there are 4e "No fair! Fighters can be Polearm Gambit-ers, heavy blade defenders, tempest TWFers, and whatever else, and my wizard can only be super-amazing if he's an orbizard!" posts.


Perhaps the rules are set up in 4e so that there is no need or even relevance to a post such as this 3.5 one currently on the board:

Well, of course that isn't relevant in 4e, because there are no ability bonuses except those from races and leveling. However, there are many such posts involving attack bonuses, movement, etc.


I could go on, but I think I've made the point that a volume of posts says nothing about who likes one version over another, and a lot more about the loop holes and broken features of 3.5 specifically.

And I think I've made that point that--entirely aside from the fact that this isn't supposed to be a vs. thread--you can't summarily dismiss the volume of posts as simply noting problems with 3e and then turn around and say that changes are trivial, inter-edition conversion is simple, and so forth.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 02:43 PM
3.5 got pretty crazy, but my group only ever uses core rules and a couple of Complete... books.Same here. And not even everything from any of those Complete books. Really just a Feat or two and a couple of spells. Buying them was a waste of money, frankly.

Splatbooks are going to come out, and they are going to imbalance the 4ed, just as they have other editions. Which books you allow and disallow will become a part of your system of play, just as it has with 3.5.The major difference being that Core 4e is balanced, while Core 3.5 has casters that mock the martial classes. So if my group follows suit in 4e and sticks to core we'll have a balanced game, which we never had in core 3.5.

Talya
2009-07-27, 02:50 PM
If you want to believe this, I can't stop you. But go ahead and read the thread. You'll find that most of the posts run along the lines of "Your build is crap, and you'll have a gimp character." So much for utilizing the synergies of 3.5, huh?



This is a problem? Not all builds should be equal! That ruins the fun of the build to begin with...if there are not advantages and disadvantages to various choices, then the choices are meaningless. It becomes an illusion of choice. What's nice in 3.5 is while generally some choices are better than others, there's almost always (almost!) a way to make use of some particular choice and turn it into something useful through various combinations.

Catch
2009-07-27, 02:51 PM
The major difference being that Core 4e is balanced, while Core 3.5 has casters that mock the martial classes.

Uh-huh. Ever play a non-orb Wizard? It's like playing a 3.5 monk.

4e has its share of holes, perhaps not as many as 3.5 taken to it's most broken point, but the point remains that it's not the avatar of game balance everyone seems to assume.

The major difference, I think is that most 3.5 players understand that the system isn't perfect and actively avoid broken combination or seek to fix them. Perhaps it's a little more thought and effort intensive, but many gamers seem to prefer a few houserules and a tacit understanding that munchinkery is not kosher.

AstralFire
2009-07-27, 03:01 PM
This thread made it to about what, page 3 before it got D&D-Godwinned? Is that a record? I think so, folks!

3E and 4E have their relative merits, and most of the familiar faces here should all be familiar with those by now, I think; this is not a new subject. No one is stupid, no one is crazy, no one is foolish for enjoying one or the other more than its counterpart, or godforbid another system entirely. Can we move on?

Catch
2009-07-27, 03:02 PM
This thread made it to about what, page 3 before it got D&D-Godwinned? Is that a record? I think so, folks!

Call the papers.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 03:06 PM
Perhaps the interaction is better in some respects and not in others, because for everyone saying "Hey guys, I can get wishes at 5th level!" in 3e there's someone saying "Hey guys, I can take out Orcus at level 4!" in 4e.Please show me a "Hey guys, I can take out Orcus at level 4!" in 4e that is valid. I haven't seen any, but I have seen abominations such as the 3.5 one which would actually work under RAW. They require a doormat GM for the most part, but they would work if the GM agreed to strictly run by RAW.

Incorrect. If you check out the 4e CharOp boards, you see that the wizard is now on the bottom of the pile of super builds and the fighter is on top; there's just as many 3e "No fair! Wizards can be blasters, necromancers, summoners, and whatever else, and my fighter can only be super-amazing if he's a chain-tripper!" posts as there are 4e "No fair! Fighters can be Polearm Gambit-ers, heavy blade defenders, tempest TWFers, and whatever else, and my wizard can only be super-amazing if he's an orbizard!" posts.Not incorrect, correct. Here's the difference: In 3.5 your super-amazing chain-tripper Fighter is still a pawn to any full caster. In 4e your Wizard can be a super-amazing orbizard.

Well, of course that isn't relevant in 4e, because there are no ability bonuses except those from races and leveling.Of course it's relevant. It further illustrates the broken nature of 3.5.

And I think I've made that point that--entirely aside from the fact that this isn't supposed to be a vs. thread--you can't summarily dismiss the volume of posts as simply noting problems with 3e and then turn around and say that changes are trivial, inter-edition conversion is simple, and so forth.Of course I can, I just did it. I'll say it again: 3.5 is horribly broken at the core of its mechanics, so much so that even the core set requires some heavy house ruling to even attempt to provide character balance. (I'll ignore the fact that there is a set of players who actually enjoy this disparity of power amongst the 3.5 classes) This doesn't have anything to do with converting characters between versions, and inter-edition conversions can be simple if your 3.5 characters are simple. If you value a specific power or effect your 3.5 character possesses over all else, you're not going to be satisfied. But if you just want to play the same character, not a list of powers, the conversion is very easy.


Here's my 3.5 group:
1) Fighter in leather, dual-wields short swords, uses a bow almost exclusively
2) Half-orc Wizard (18 STR, 15 INT)
3) Druid
4) Monk
5) Barbarian/Fighter (2 Fighter levels for the Feats)
6) Cleric
7) Rogue
8) Bard

Here's how they look under 4e:
1) Ranger
2) Half orc Wizard (we went from rolled stats to points, so he's strong but not near 18)
3) Druid
4) Not yet converted, infrequent player
5) Barbarian
6) Cleric
7) Rogue
8) Bard

Easy-peasy.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 03:10 PM
What's nice in 3.5 is while generally some choices are better than others, there's almost always (almost!) a way to make use of some particular choice and turn it into something useful through various combinations.How is it 'nice' in 3.5 when your choice to write "Monk" down in the class section of your character sheet means that you'll always be second fiddle to the player who wrote "Wizard" down in her class section? Different but equal is not such a horrible thing, and 4e seems to manage this much better than 3.5.

HamHam
2009-07-27, 03:15 PM
How is it 'nice' in 3.5 when your choice to write "Monk" down in the class section of your character sheet means that you'll always be second fiddle to the player who wrote "Wizard" down in her class section? Different but equal is not such a horrible thing, and 4e seems to manage this much better than 3.5.

Balance issues can be fixed. It's not even all that hard.

Catch
2009-07-27, 03:18 PM
How is it 'nice' in 3.5 when your choice to write "Monk" down in the class section of your character sheet means that you'll always be second fiddle to the player who wrote "Wizard" down in her class section? Different but equal is not such a horrible thing, and 4e seems to manage this much better than 3.5.

No, no it doesn't. It's just a convenient argument because 4e was intended to be balanced.

Non-orb Wizards are laughable compared to orb Wizards. Warlocks can't deal damage as effectively as Rogues or Rangers, despite being a Striker class. Etc.

Your choices in 4e bring profit or penalty just as much as they do in 3.5.

The New Bruceski
2009-07-27, 03:30 PM
Warlocks can't deal damage as effectively as Rogues or Rangers, despite being a Striker. Etc.

Your choices in 4e bring profit or penalty just as much as they do in 3.5.

That's a wonderful comparison to make, since the only point of a character (even the only point of a character in combat) is damage. Just ask the 3.5 Wizard!

Catch
2009-07-27, 03:31 PM
That's a wonderful comparison to make, since the only point of a character (even the only point of a character in combat) is damage. Just ask the 3.5 Wizard!

It is an excellent comparison, because damage is the thing you can do in 4e.

If you're going to distill a system down to "Deal [X] Weapon damage + a 1-round minor status effect," and call it balanced you'd better damn well make sure the output is comparable for each class.

And it's not.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 03:34 PM
That's a wonderful comparison to make, since the only point of a character (even the only point of a character in combat) is damage. Just ask the 3.5 Wizard!

The issue at hand is class balance. The designers are the ones who pigeonholed certain classes at striker/tank/controller etc... If one of their strikers does not do as much damage as other strikers, I would suggest that the classes are mechanically imbalanced.

SinsI
2009-07-27, 03:41 PM
How is it 'nice' in 3.5 when your choice to write "Monk" down in the class section of your character sheet means that you'll always be second fiddle to the player who wrote "Wizard" down in her class section? Different but equal is not such a horrible thing, and 4e seems to manage this much better than 3.5.
Classes shouldn't be equal, the only thing that needs to be "balanced" is for each class to have his own niche to shine. As long as your casters aren't outperforming fighters in melee combat you're okay to go.

In 3.5, each class is very different, and you can easily make a different role for each character - in 4.0, every class is nearly the same, so finding a different niche for each of 5+ players is extremely hard.

This inherent diversity in 3.5 greately promotes roleplay and specialization - there's only so much skill points each character has, and so many different skills to use...

The New Bruceski
2009-07-27, 03:42 PM
The issue at hand is class balance. The designers are the ones who pigeonholed certain classes at striker/tank/controller etc... If one of their strikers does not do as much damage as other strikers, I would suggest that the classes are mechanically imbalanced.

Or you look at what the odd class out brings that the others don't. The warlock has teleportation and more status effects/area attacks. Rogue gets the most extra damage but needs to do things to set it up that may or may not be easy (combat advantage).

A 3.5 fireball and lightning bolt look interchangable if you're only attacking one target in an open field. Have multiple enemies in a room or hallway and they're going to have situational advantages.

AstralFire
2009-07-27, 03:43 PM
Status effects vary enough and the game is designed (and requests) tactical movement enough that I think making an argument that 4E simplifies to 'damage and nothing but' is as erroneous as stating that 3E is too broken to play. Seriously, I love a good argument as much as (more than) the next person, but how are you all still drawing enjoyment from this (if you are?) Can't we just leave sleeping fanbases lie?

Chunklets
2009-07-27, 03:49 PM
Just looking through the recents posts in this thread, there's one thing that's becoming increasingly clear: 3.5 offers certain things (generally in terms of flexibility, it seems) that a) some players and DMs find attractive, and b) are not as readily available in 4E (the reverse, of course, is also true, but the original question was about 3.5). That being the case, I would submit that 3.5 is not at all obsolete, since some of things that make people want to play it have not been duplicated in 4E.

Sir Homeslice
2009-07-27, 03:57 PM
4.0, every class is nearly the same, so finding a different niche for each of 5+ players is extremely hard.

I find it the opposite. Unless a(2+) character(s) were intentionally made to be the same, characters tend to be very different.

Morty
2009-07-27, 04:01 PM
Fourth page, and the OP's request from the title is already flushed down the drain, it seems.

cfalcon
2009-07-27, 04:07 PM
Every new edition of DnD has brought with it criticism and a split in fanbase.

This is only partly true. My friends switched from 1st to 2nd quickly, and the only griping was the lack of support for some of the classes, like monks and assassins. These could be grandfathered in using the same (or slightly modified) mechanics.


When 3.0 came out people still clung to 2E because the system was already established and had tons of material available. Once 3.5 came out a few years later and 2E books were hard to find everyone switched over.

Again, neither me nor my friends "clung" to 2ed. I know one guy who still prefers it. Note that my entire shelf of 2ed material is *still useful to me*, as a 3.0-3.5 player. My encylopedia magica versions are all useful, as are the wizards and priests books full of spells. I could actually put any of those spells straight up into a game, or I could modify them a little to fit the new power curve- but in either event, something that does 1d6/level makes coherent sense, something that asks for a save versus death or die is going to be a fort or a will save, etc.

When 3.0 came out, the 2ed campaign that was ending continued as 2ed, and the next and all subsequent games were 3.0 or 3.5. No clinging, but we still have our books and they still work.


I predict 3.5 will have a half-life of at least 2 more years. After that majority of the players will move on like all things.

I don't understand why though. 3ed clearly *cleaned up* many of the *problems* with 2ed. It was the same game, but smoother and cleaner. There were a few things that added more time than everyone liked (a couple of my friends really hate the skill allocating part, because they think it takes too much mechanical knowledge to optimize), but overall, the idea is sound, and it's the same game.

A 20th level wizard in 3ed is an entirely unrelated beast to a 20th level wizard in 4ed. A 30th level wizard in 2ed doesn't know what a 30th level wizard in 4ed is, but I'm pretty sure he could take him blindfolded ;)

4ed isn't an edition of D&D- it's an entirely new game. I don't know anyone interested in switching over, and I would laugh if anyone used the term "upgrade"- I've bought books and tried to lend them out to folks to see if there's any interest, but it doesn't take very looking at the skills before there's this sour expression and I'm defending a game I'm not even willing to run yet.

I've been giving a little side thought to a world I could run in 4ed, but I'm just so frustrated by the non-iconic character classes and the *lack* (and in some cases *decimation*) of the real world historical or mythological ones- I mean, where's my ninja? Why is the druid fully effective as a goat? Can't he heal? Who assassinates? Where are monks? Etc.


So no, 3.5 is not obsolete, not until there is a sequel to it that we can all make sense of.

Mando Knight
2009-07-27, 04:09 PM
In 3.5, each class is very different, and you can easily make a different role for each character - in 4.0, every class is nearly the same, so finding a different niche for each of 5+ players is extremely hard.

Where do you get that idea? In 4E, a Fighter plays rather differently than a Swordmage or Paladin, even though they're all Defenders. In fact, certain builds of Fighter play entirely differently from others. Artificers are still entirely different from Bards, despite both being Arcane Leaders, and Barbarians and Warlocks have almost nothing in common besides their role as a Striker.

Finding a niche for five is easy: Leader, Striker, Controller, and Defender are the four main roles. The fifth player can easily slip in as another Striker or Defender, or even a second Leader or Controller. Larger groups can do the same.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 04:18 PM
Please show me a "Hey guys, I can take out Orcus at level 4!" in 4e that is valid. I haven't seen any, but I have seen abominations such as the 3.5 one which would actually work under RAW. They require a doormat GM for the most part, but they would work if the GM agreed to strictly run by RAW.

Unfortunately, it seems the threads have been pruned on the WotC boards (why don't they keep anything like this board?) but "Kill Orcus with X at level Y" threads were a dime a dozen last summer.


Of course it's relevant. It further illustrates the broken nature of 3.5.

If there aren't any stat-boosters in 4e, then there is no relevance to say that ability score boosts in 3e are unbalanced; it's like complaining that you can get 20 healing surges in 4e and then saying "You can't do that in 3e! 3e's more balanced!" As I said, if you compare something relevant, like attack bonuses or AC or something else the two have in common, that comparison might work.


Of course I can, I just did it. I'll say it again: 3.5 is horribly broken at the core of its mechanics, so much so that even the core set requires some heavy house ruling to even attempt to provide character balance. (I'll ignore the fact that there is a set of players who actually enjoy this disparity of power amongst the 3.5 classes) This doesn't have anything to do with converting characters between versions, and inter-edition conversions can be simple if your 3.5 characters are simple. If you value a specific power or effect your 3.5 character possesses over all else, you're not going to be satisfied. But if you just want to play the same character, not a list of powers, the conversion is very easy.

You are attempting to claim two contradictory things at the same time: (A) the volume of message board posts regarding 3e show only that 3e must be broken/confusing/whatever, and (B) the differences between the editions are trivial: "My own group is rather conservative, and so the changes were trivial and the characters do actually do the same things as they did in 3.5." If the former is true, then your group is obviously an aberration; if the latter, then there is obviously reason to post about 3e aside from its horrible brokenness.

shadow_archmagi
2009-07-27, 04:24 PM
Can we get a lock?

The OP's question has been answered, this thread can only go downhill into pointless 4e 3e bickering now.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 04:35 PM
If you're going to distill a system down to "Deal [X] Weapon damage + a 1-round minor status effect," and call it balanced you'd better damn well make sure the output is comparable for each class.

And it's not.Well, then it's a good thing that 4e didn't distill the players options down to "Deal [X] Weapon damage + a 1-round minor status effect", now isn't it?

Classes shouldn't be equal, the only thing that needs to be "balanced" is for each class to have his own niche to shine. As long as your casters aren't outperforming fighters in melee combat you're okay to go.You've clearly missed all the posts showing how CoDzilla and Wizards have all those lovely spells and can also kick the Fighter (we won't even mention the Monk) around in the martial arena. Not to mention simply making the mention of "the martial arena" a running joke.

I've been giving a little side thought to a world I could run in 4ed, but I'm just so frustrated by the non-iconic character classes and the *lack* (and in some cases *decimation*) of the real world historical or mythological ones- I mean, where's my ninja?This is my single largest beef with 4e. Tieflings and Dragonborn, these are not the traditional fantasy races I like to have in my D&D games. But as for the Ninja, my player with the Warlock does a damn good imitation of one by simply moving 3 spaces each turn.

Asheram
2009-07-27, 04:57 PM
Aaah! Bad people! Bad people!

*hits people on their noses with a rolled up newspaper*

No edition wars!

No edition is Better or Worse than the previous one, it all comes up to preference and gaming style!

Arguing about this is like trying to compare the techniques between someone that builds furniture and someone that builds houses!
They're both carpenters, but they're not doing the same thing!

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 05:00 PM
Unfortunately, it seems the threads have been pruned on the WotC boards (why don't they keep anything like this board?) but "Kill Orcus with X at level Y" threads were a dime a dozen last summer.How unfortunate.

If there aren't any stat-boosters in 4e, then there is no relevance to say that ability score boosts in 3e are unbalanced; it's like complaining that you can get 20 healing surges in 4e and then saying "You can't do that in 3e! 3e's more balanced!" As I said, if you compare something relevant, like attack bonuses or AC or something else the two have in common, that comparison might work.Wrong on many counts. First, that post on how to get a 52 STR (or whatever) wasn't just about the stat boosts. It was an illustration of many things in 3.5 which are broken. Applying multiple templates to a character being only one you fail to address by focusing only on the stat boosts. Second, it is of course relevant to point out that 3.5 has something broken that didn't make the cut in 4e. It's the entire point. If you want to make a case that getting 20 healing surges makes 4e unbalanced, please go for it. I certainly won't be arguing that it's balanced just because 3.5 doesn't have healing surges.

You are attempting to claim two contradictory things at the same time: (A) the volume of message board posts regarding 3e show only that 3e must be broken/confusing/whatever, and (B) the differences between the editions are trivial: "My own group is rather conservative, and so the changes were trivial and the characters do actually do the same things as they did in 3.5." If the former is true, then your group is obviously an aberration; if the latter, then there is obviously reason to post about 3e aside from its horrible brokenness.You've drawn a few wrong conclusions. "B" first: I've said that the conversion from 3.5 to 4e can be easy. This is not a license for you to claim that I've said that the differences between the systems is trivial. If the differences were trivial I'd still be playing 3.5. My groups 3.5 game was at 4th level, and the GM assigned us 3rd level under 4e rules. If you think that this was hard all I can tell you is that even the least analytical of the group was able to make the change with ease.

"A": 3.5 is broken. Groups can try to curb this via house rules and limiting or eliminating splat materiel, but it is broken in Core. Some people claim that even this is easily fixed, but that argues that a brand new game fresh out of the box should be expected to need fixing. I prefer that things I buy work right from the start, without any need for me to re-write major sections of the rules, and so far 4e appears to do so. I also do not believe the claims that this fix is as "easy" as it is reported to be, as at a minimum the entire spell list needs to be gone over, and changes to spell saves and everything that can modify them need to be made. This is hundreds of pages even in core.

It's quite possible that some char-op types can break 4e, but 3.5 is broken accidentally by players with no intent to optimize. All a 3.5 Wizard needs to do to dominate a 3.5 game is to learn over time that save-or-suck spells really do work better than evocations. So far I haven't seen 4e exhibit any tendency for the selection of your character class to have a significant impact on play balance over time.

cfalcon
2009-07-27, 05:21 PM
Applying multiple templates to a character being only one you fail to address by focusing only on the stat boosts.

See now, this guy here- he's clearly in the market for a game like 4ed. Read his post: it talks heavily about game balance, and implicit towards the end is the assumption that a wizard shouldn't basically be ascending towards godhood, that he shouldn't basically be able to wave his hands and kill stuff while the fighter is still weighed down by mechanics based on the real world.

That's fine too. That's why I would never argue that 4ed has no point or something.


But as far as multiple templates go, or many of the crazy stuff I've seen, you rule 0 that stuff. If I for some reason had to put multiple templates on a monster and it made him really strong, I would have to up the CR a bunch more. If a player was trying that, it doesn't even make sense. I don't even *like* the templates, they are clearly there to try to help you make the monster you want (or in some rare cases, the player).

Generally speaking, if you have wizards being too strong, you are either ok with that, or you try to fix it, or you do some of both. The players I play with all know that a cleric, druid, or wizard is the way to go if you want to be powerful, but those classes still end up being the minority in play. They don't know some crazy prestige class mush-up, as I limit players to three classes total and only *one* prestige class (this means I've had to take some prestige classes apart and put them in as feats, such as the tempest, and expand others to 10 levels- but the DMG flat out says you should only be rolling with prestige classes that are meaningful in your campaign anyway!)- but even if they did, the power level difference between that and a straight druid 20, cleric 20, or wizard 20 progression would not be that large. If you are throwing out 9th level spells in combat, then what you do in your spare time is probably pretty impressive.

Game balance is, in my opinion, subservient to whatever kind of world you want to game in. If that's not your opinion, then I would strongly recommend a 4ed experience to anyone- and the few 4ed rules that can be broken seem like they can be easily houseruled to be fixed as well.


So far I haven't seen 4e exhibit any tendency for the selection of your character class to have a significant impact on play balance over time.

As a DM and a player, that sort of makes me sad. If the hobbits were some *powerful* class, then a lot of their charm would have poofed away. They ended the adventure as they started it, as generally unfit for battle. I just get miffed when a class is so weak that they feel *useless*.

Gorbash
2009-07-27, 05:23 PM
It was an illustration of many things in 3.5 which are broken.

Str 52 at that cost isn't broken, it's just possible.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 05:28 PM
As a DM and a player, that sort of makes me sad. If the hobbits were some *powerful* class, then a lot of their charm would have poofed away. They ended the adventure as they started it, as generally unfit for battle. I just get miffed when a class is so weak that they feel *useless*.In a novel, there's no person playing the generally unfit for battle character. So no one is griping to the GM about how the Wizard gets all the spotlight time.

And in LotR, the Hobbits were glowing with magic items, a couple of inches taller, and pretty much a match for a man when it came time to cleanse the Shire.

Str 52 at that cost isn't broken, it's just possible.You are again focusing only on the stat, and not the entire character. And yes, it was widely agreed that the character was not going to be very potent, but that's beside the point of a Lolth-touched Werewolf Lord Warshaper berserker, now isn't it?

Frosty
2009-07-27, 05:36 PM
So far I haven't seen 4e exhibit any tendency for the selection of your character class to have a significant impact on play balance over time.
This is probably one of the best examples of why some of us don't quite like where 4e is going and why 3.5 probably won't be obsolete for a good while. We want a player's choice to be meaningful. A wizard who decides to spent all of his time learning how to fire a crossbow really well probably shouldn't be as powerful as the wizard who decides to spend time researching and refining spells.

What 3.5 did wrong was deceptive advertising of the various "parts" making it too hard to people to determine what fits together and what doesn't (aka, the learning curve is a bit high..at least until Tome of Battle came out).


But back to the house rules: If the value of 3.5 is that is offers "a toolbox with a million different parts for you to choose from", but then you have to throw a pile of those parts away since they don't fit with the rest, then what's the point in the first place?
We do need to throw *some* away (banning), but most of the parts just needs better labeling, and perhaps minor upgrading (making the dodge feat a bit better or the Skill Focus feat a bit more worthwhile isn't that hard). The important part is a lot of us still finds the PROCESS of putting together the puzzle that is a character to be fun.

RTGoodman
2009-07-27, 05:37 PM
Aaah! Bad people! Bad people!

*hits people on their noses with a rolled up newspaper*

No edition wars!

No edition is Better or Worse than the previous one, it all comes up to preference and gaming style!

Indeed. Also, here's one of my new favorite quotes:

"The real problem with edition wars isn't that they're offensive; it's that they're boring. It's been 14 months of the same 30 second loop." - Mike Mearls (http://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/2557956123)

Now, I return to my self-imposed vow to avoid all "3.x vs. 4E" threads.

Gnaeus
2009-07-27, 05:39 PM
And yes, it was widely agreed that the character was not going to be very potent, but that's beside the point of a Lolth-touched Werewolf Lord Warshaper berserker, now isn't it?

No, really, thats exactly the point. You can build any character that you and your DM can agree on, and the rules will help you do it. I dunno what game needs that monstrosity, but if it fits the world, you can make it.

Centaurs, Ogres, Half Dragons, a Treant. I've seen them all in play. The rules cover them. None were broken in the context of the games in which they were played. 4.0 looks at them, chokes and dies.

cfalcon
2009-07-27, 05:40 PM
In a novel, there's no person playing the generally unfit for battle character. So no one is griping to the GM about how the Wizard gets all the spotlight time.

Well, my point is more that the folks who pick the less powerful classes tend to do so knowingly (famously, the Core Barbarian is chosen even though he's probably worse off than everyone else at his big tasks). Usually, their job in combat is a little less complex as well, and some like that. Others just like not having resources to manage.




And in LotR, the Hobbits were glowing with magic items, a couple of inches taller, and pretty much a match for a man when it came time to cleanse the Shire.

Handing out great magic items to less powerful characters has pedigree, I'll admit!

My all time favorite broken item I handed out (in a game that went to 36th level and spanned most of my time in college) was the ability "Twin". You could make a double of you, and then you had one or two rounds to act as both at the same time, after which, you chose which one of you was the "real" you, and the other disappeared (you remembered both, you basically WERE in two places at once). This went to a rogue, who was buying all of no spells every level (compared to the jester, who had the same XP table but was a bard kit). Wow did that stunt get exploited! Trap checking, potion preserving, leaping from an airship just to see what it felt like to free fall for a few seconds, etc. Charged items sure did last awhile with that crew!

Thematically, magic breaks the rules, so the guys with magic break the rules and end up being the strongest. I like that 4ed provides an alternative for those who want game balance, but I have no problem with the theme of magic-user becomes transcendent.

Deepblue706
2009-07-27, 05:41 PM
All D&D is obsolete. We have GURPS.

Gorbash
2009-07-27, 05:42 PM
You are again focusing only on the stat, and not the entire character. And yes, it was widely agreed that the character was not going to be very potent, but that's beside the point of a Lolth-touched Werewolf Lord Warshaper berserker, now isn't it?

Of course it is, and if you have an issue with that, that's not the problem of the 3.5, it's the problem of the character who'd be willing to play that.

Frosty
2009-07-27, 05:46 PM
Well, my point is more that the folks who pick the less powerful classes tend to do so knowingly (famously, the Core Barbarian is chosen even though he's probably worse off than everyone else at his big tasks).
Again, the (fixable) problem with 3.5 is that the classes that are less powerful (some of them suicidally s.o) aren't ADVERTISED as such

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-27, 05:52 PM
Again, the (fixable) problem with 3.5 is that the classes that are less powerful (some of them suicidally s.o) aren't ADVERTISED as suchSome people prefer a game that doesn't need much if any fixing aka "work".

The Neoclassic
2009-07-27, 05:56 PM
I appreciate the input so far. It has been quite interesting (the question initially arose after I ran into some blog post where someone referred to 3.5 as obsolete, for those of you who wonder why I ask). However, mayhaps some of the anti-4e/anti-3.5e snipping at each other should stop? :smallwink: Overall this seems to have been a pretty calm, informative thread and I'd love to keep it that way.

Frosty
2009-07-27, 06:38 PM
Some people prefer a game that doesn't need much if any fixing aka "work".

YMMV. One man's work is another man's hobby. To us it's all part of the jigsaw puzzle. So the default pieces are kinda rough. It doesn't mean the puzzle isn't fun.

4e doesn't give me the feel of freedom and customizability that 3.5 does.

Talya
2009-07-27, 06:58 PM
How is it 'nice' in 3.5 when your choice to write "Monk" down in the class section of your character sheet means that you'll always be second fiddle to the player who wrote "Wizard" down in her class section? Different but equal is not such a horrible thing, and 4e seems to manage this much better than 3.5.


I did say "Almost."

There are a couple glaring problem classes in 3.5.

Just like 4e has. :p

Thurbane
2009-07-27, 07:01 PM
4e doesn't give me the feel of freedom and customizability that 3.5 does.
That's it in a nutshell for me.

Lert, A.
2009-07-27, 08:41 PM
If anything has kept me and my group in the 3.5 camp it would be the way theat multiclassing was handled.

3.5 may have gone a little overboard on all the class options, but 4e decied to go back to 2e dual-classing and didn't even get that right. That and the way that skills and skill challenges were handled.

I have to agree that Saga edition is the superior successor to 3.5.

Killer Angel
2009-07-28, 02:22 AM
How unfortunate.
Wrong on many counts. First, that post on how to get a 52 STR (or whatever) wasn't just about the stat boosts. It was an illustration of many things in 3.5 which are broken. Applying multiple templates to a character being only one you fail to address by focusing only on the stat boosts.


I could debate that this is not a problem of the system, but a problem of the player, who wants to play an unrealistic character.
3.5 has many balance problems, I'm not so crazy to negate them, but these are a separate issue, and it's more on the niche of competence of each character.
Crazy builds and pun-pun can be legal by raw, but no one plays them in a real game.
Anyone who wants to really play pun-pun, will try to break every game he'll play, from 3.5 to GURPS. And yes, even 4ed, with success.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-28, 03:14 AM
I still see a lot of people homebrewing and discussing 3.5 material here,

Well, then that answers your question, does it not?

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-07-28, 07:01 AM
Fourth page, and the OP's request from the title is already flushed down the drain, it seems.

Meh, it's in the nature of the Internet:

If someone has the wrong opinion about something, all you have to do is write page after page of why they are wrong and why you are right, and they WILL change their minds to match yours!

:smallbiggrin:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-28, 08:05 AM
Wrong on many counts. First, that post on how to get a 52 STR (or whatever) wasn't just about the stat boosts. It was an illustration of many things in 3.5 which are broken. Applying multiple templates to a character being only one you fail to address by focusing only on the stat boosts. Second, it is of course relevant to point out that 3.5 has something broken that didn't make the cut in 4e. It's the entire point. If you want to make a case that getting 20 healing surges makes 4e unbalanced, please go for it. I certainly won't be arguing that it's balanced just because 3.5 doesn't have healing surges.

1) Throwing all those templates together for high Str isn't broken. The guy's really strong and looks like a wolf spider, but there are other drawbacks to the templates up to and including high LA. That character is broken in the same sense as an Ubercharger build--ridiculously powerful in one aspect, but easy to handle if used in an actual game.

2) Str boosts in and of themselves aren't broken, just like healing surges in and of themselves aren't broken. Arguing that a high Str is broken, and that therefore the ability to increase your Str is inherently broken and 4e is better because it lacks that, is just like arguing that...well, since you don't think 20 surges is unbalanced, let's change the analogy...that a battlerager fighter is broken, and that therefore the ability to gain temporary hit points when hitting people is inherently broken and 3e is better because it lacks that.

I often run games with lots of weird templates and races; handling fighters with high Str and natural armor and wizards with high Int and defenses is no harder than handling those of regular PC races if you adapt to the challenge. Nobody exists in a vacuum; if you throw goblins and kobolds at a 50 Str character, of course he's going to dominate.


You've drawn a few wrong conclusions. "B" first: I've said that the conversion from 3.5 to 4e can be easy. This is not a license for you to claim that I've said that the differences between the systems is trivial. If the differences were trivial I'd still be playing 3.5. My groups 3.5 game was at 4th level, and the GM assigned us 3rd level under 4e rules. If you think that this was hard all I can tell you is that even the least analytical of the group was able to make the change with ease.

Looking back, I admit I missed that you were talking about your group in particular rather than generalizing. My apologies.


"A": 3.5 is broken. Groups can try to curb this via house rules and limiting or eliminating splat materiel, but it is broken in Core. Some people claim that even this is easily fixed, but that argues that a brand new game fresh out of the box should be expected to need fixing. I prefer that things I buy work right from the start, without any need for me to re-write major sections of the rules, and so far 4e appears to do so. I also do not believe the claims that this fix is as "easy" as it is reported to be, as at a minimum the entire spell list needs to be gone over, and changes to spell saves and everything that can modify them need to be made. This is hundreds of pages even in core.

You didn't say 3e was broken, you said the only reason for the volume of 3e posts was that it was broken. Big difference.


It's quite possible that some char-op types can break 4e, but 3.5 is broken accidentally by players with no intent to optimize. All a 3.5 Wizard needs to do to dominate a 3.5 game is to learn over time that save-or-suck spells really do work better than evocations. So far I haven't seen 4e exhibit any tendency for the selection of your character class to have a significant impact on play balance over time.

Orb wizards, battlerager fighters, and other top builds are easy to optimize and do well with, while things like Cha paladins need more effort to optimize. All an orbizard has to do is realize that save penalties and stun powers are good. The mere fact that there are some classes with separate secondary-stat builds (ranger, warlock) and some without means that it's easy for new players to turn out worse than they thought, and the fact that the good builds are all based on single class features means that it's easy for new players to overshadow others entirely at random.

ken-do-nim
2009-07-28, 08:34 AM
Sorry, I haven't read all 5 pages of this post, but it looked interesting and I thought I'd chime in. Anecdotally, here are the face-to-face games in my area that I know about:

4E - 2, not including one that just recently disbanded
3.5E - 2
3.0E - 0
2E - 0
1E - 4
Castles & Crusades - a group nearby just recently disbanded
Hackmaster - 2
BFRPG - I was just in one that recently disbanded
B/X - 2, though I'm not sure either meets more than occasionally
Rules Cyclopedia - 1 (my game)

I think 2E and 3.0E are the most obsolete (outside of Original). Most of these players either moved to 1E, C&C or 3.5E.

Talya
2009-07-28, 08:41 AM
It is an excellent comparison, because damage is the thing you can do in 4e.

If you're going to distill a system down to "Deal [X] Weapon damage + a 1-round minor status effect," and call it balanced you'd better damn well make sure the output is comparable for each class.

And it's not.

Funny how that got ignored.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 08:47 AM
Funny how that got ignored.


Status effects vary enough and the game is designed (and requests) tactical movement enough that I think making an argument that 4E simplifies to 'damage and nothing but' is as erroneous as stating that 3E is too broken to play. Seriously, I love a good argument as much as (more than) the next person, but how are you all still drawing enjoyment from this (if you are?) Can't we just leave sleeping fanbases lie?

Text to make me able to post.

Indon
2009-07-28, 08:52 AM
I could go on, but I think I've made the point that a volume of posts says nothing about who likes one version over another, and a lot more about the loop holes and broken features of 3.5 specifically.

And, interestingly enough, that the much more robust balance and stronger balance-oriented approach (as opposed to a simulation-oriented approach) of 4.0 makes it less interesting to discuss.

Talya
2009-07-28, 08:52 AM
Astralfire:
My gut is that that is not a reply to that post. If it is, it's a strawman argument, since he didn't distill 4e down to 'damage and nothing but.' He actually mentions the status effects, and refers to damage as just one thing you can do in 4e.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 08:56 AM
He says it is 'the' thing you can do, calls the status effects 'minor', and refers to 'distillation.' And was comparing it to the variety of 3.x. I really cannot see another way to read it.

If that wasn't his intention, then why is he measuring competency primarily on damage?

4E and 3E are different games with different design philosophies. Let's stop oversimplifying how they are and just let people enjoy it without even making implications that they're lesser for doing so, or that it's nonsensical. I like to argue relative merits, I really do, but this has been done to death and neither of them are going away any time soon. I don't see any more light being shed on the subject.

Talya
2009-07-28, 09:17 AM
He says it is 'the' thing you can do, calls the status effects 'minor', and refers to 'distillation.' And was comparing it to the variety of 3.x. I really cannot see another way to read it.

If that wasn't his intention, then why is he measuring competency primarily on damage?

4E and 3E are different games with different design philosophies. Let's stop oversimplifying how they are and just let people enjoy it without even making implications that they're lesser for doing so, or that it's nonsensical. I like to argue relative merits, I really do, but this has been done to death and neither of them are going away any time soon. I don't see any more light being shed on the subject.


Yes, he uses the word "distillation." Take it in context. He says "If you're going to distill a system down to 'Deal [X] Weapon damage + a 1-round minor status effect'."

Also note that he's not making a 4e vs. 3e argument. He's responding to claims that 4e is better balanced than 3e. It's clearly not. Damage is the primary thing you can do in 4e. The status effects clearly are minor. Yes they are there, but they only last a round, and don't compare to the stronger status effects in 3e. If two strikers can't do the same levels of damage, when that's their only real purpose, then there is a major balance issue. His argument is that there is no superior balance in 4e over 3e, so claims of "4e is better because it is balanced" are hogwash, apart from not being appropriate in this thread. We're talking about stylistic changes, because from an editing and game-testing standpoint, there's really no difference. 3e and 4e are very different games with their own merits, but trying to use balance as the deciding factor is not logical. The balance is different, yes. The very nature of the 4e has the mechanical differences between various characters are minimized as much as possible. But the characters are still not equal in power, despite that minimization. What you end up with is merely a difference in scale.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 09:28 AM
Status effect + movement. Both the players' ability to move and their ability to move the opponents, and the battlefields are not supposed to be flat and empty rooms.

It's still an oversimplification, much as when anyone claims that having a 3E wizard in the party totally ruins the party automatically, regardless of how the PC plays. This is relevant because wizards can ruin parties much as strikers can be no movement, all damage and status. But not every wizard and not every striker.

I'm aware he's not making a 3E versus 4E argument - but he is responding to one. I'm reiterating my point that we shouldn't even be having this argument here as often as I can so that my purpose doesn't get mistaken. I am tired of edition wars. I was tired of them when it was 2E versus 3E.

Catch
2009-07-28, 10:28 AM
I wasn't making a "my edition can beat up your edition" argument.

My original point was that 4th Edition's internal balance - not weighed against 3.5 - is miscalibrated. The example was that in looking at the striker classes, the Warlock lags behind the Rogue and Ranger in terms of damage output, and as as Striker, damage is what you're supposed to do.

If another class can do your job better than you - and 4th edition makes class distinctions explicitly clear - then somebody in R&D goofed.

And before folks start getting all indignant (too late) about how "There's more to 4e than damage!" just look at the damn power lists. 80% of what you can do in 4th Edition is damage, 10% are straight movement/teleportation effects and the last 10% is a rummage drawer of situational effects.

It's a system where hit point damage is clearly the expected means of dispatching combatants, as opposed to other systems where non-damage alternatives (fear, sleep, paralysis, etc) are just as viable. I'm not saying it's a flaw in 4e, but it's important to recognize that part of WOTC's balancing act was simplifying combat to mostly damage, with some perks added to keep things interesting.

Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 10:37 AM
Thank you for clearing that up - I understood 'damage is the thing to do' as in reference to the whole system, which is not what you meant, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I do think that even with Strikers, there is enough variation that you can't just look at the straight numbers for damage.

In any case, I'm gonna stop responding now and hope the thread dies before someone who will try to beat on 4E or 3E finds it again...

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-28, 11:18 AM
Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

I find this argument flawed, as applied to 4e. My 4e experience was a whole lot of "I cast magic missile. *sigh* Again. And... I miss."

This is just my experience, of course, and I know wizards are the weakest class in 4e. But still - the "I have something awesome to do every round in 4e" argument just did not hold true *in my experience*.

Morty
2009-07-28, 11:24 AM
Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

There are at least some people on this, not all that big, forum, who do prefer this to having various manuevers.

Mordokai
2009-07-28, 11:27 AM
Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

Sure I do! Granted, I started as fighter and was always happy to play as one, but that really shouldn't be a reason not to play as fighter. And with multitude of feats and suplements(CW, ToB and the like) you have quite a lot of options at your disposal.

And as PurinaDragonCho points out... how is 4ed any different?

"I use my At-will power number 1."
"You miss."
"Action point, I use my At-will power number 2."
"You hit."
"Wooooot!"

Yes, it's a gross generalisation, but if you want to make an argument that 3.5 fighters were boring I'm pretty sure we can make that argument for a most, if not all of 4ed classes.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-28, 11:47 AM
There are at least some people on this, not all that big, forum, who do prefer this to having various manuevers.

Maybe because the whole "I can only charge or full attack" and "full attack is boring" and "there are only few maneuver to accomplish" thing is completely flawed.

Funny how people don't use imagination in a game made for a big part of imagination.

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-28, 11:48 AM
Maybe because the whole thing is completely flawed.

You mean maneuvers, fighting classes or D&D in general?

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-28, 11:49 AM
You mean maneuvers, fighting classes or D&D in general?

Edited. I hope it's more clear now (:smallredface:))

Indon
2009-07-28, 11:51 AM
Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

I've been and enjoyed a 3.5 fighter before. I don't always want to immerse myself into intricate character mechanics with my RP characters, though I do enjoy that sometimes.

Catch
2009-07-28, 12:18 PM
And now we're on to RP versus mechanics.

Let's see, we've covered the edition wars, wizards, monks, Pun-Pun...

Pretty much all this thread needs to be complete is CODzilla.

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-28, 12:20 PM
And now we're on to RP versus mechanics.

Let's see, we've covered the edition wars, wizards, monks, Pun-Pun...

Pretty much all this thread needs to be complete is CODzilla.

And we're only at page 4!

((Well, page 4 if you properly maximize the number of posts per page.))

Morty
2009-07-28, 12:23 PM
And now we're on to RP versus mechanics.

Let's see, we've covered the edition wars, wizards, monks, Pun-Pun...

Pretty much all this thread needs to be complete is CODzilla.

You forgot alignments.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 12:25 PM
And Poland.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-28, 01:24 PM
And now we're on to RP versus mechanics.

Let's see, we've covered the edition wars, wizards, monks, Pun-Pun...

Pretty much all this thread needs to be complete is CODzilla.

I was not pointing about RP vs mechanics. I was talking about mechanics, period.

But I /seppuku to avoid the disaster.

Yora
2009-07-28, 01:56 PM
{Scrubbed}

Indon
2009-07-28, 01:59 PM
{Scrubbed}

Frosty
2009-07-28, 03:43 PM
We are now WAY too off topic. We should've just created a poll and be donw with it. Is there a poll option?

cfalcon
2009-07-28, 07:14 PM
Because nobody wants to be the 3.5 Fighter. "I full-attack. *sigh* Again."

In my experience it's usually more like HELLS YES I get to full attack again! I power attack for... hrm, 3? AW YEA.....

So yea, there are plenty of folks like that. The idea where you choose between a bunch of fictional moves based on their status mods does not appeal to everyone, for a few reasons.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-28, 07:23 PM
I love Fighter <;_;> It is my bread and butter.

But then I don't generally play fighters who you'd just "full attack" all the time with. I take Improved Trip; or use Bull Rush judiciously; or give myself a specific fighting style.

Hell, I can make the "full attack" thing fun just because I enjoy spending time describing how that attack action actual went <^_^>

My favorite though was using Combat Brute (Tactical Feat), a Cloak of Feathers (that's the one that grants Fly right? This character is kinda old), and my great sword to bull rush a foe UP; then on the next turn, hammering him straight back to the ground with a nice bonus on damage due to the use of Bull Rush the previous round.

Fighter is probably my single favorite class for the very reason so few people like it: It has no class abilities, and it's fluff is completely mutable.

As a class, it is Tabula Rasa so long as you're OK with mediocre skill points (or take one of the variants to get more.) This is one element I should add that I never understood: Of all classes, Fighter should have the most "alternate class features" available. It's a class that practically screams "Make variants of me!" >.< but there aren't very many, unfortunately.

Thurbane
2009-07-28, 09:06 PM
In my current game, our newest player is playing his first 3.X character (he used to play 1E almost 20 years ago), which is a core only Dwarven Fighter. And he's loving it! :smallsmile:

Catch
2009-07-28, 09:10 PM
There's no accounting for taste.

Maerok
2009-07-28, 09:23 PM
AFAIKARC we were on the subject of talking about 3.5's persistence into the future and whether or not it would become effectively obsolete due to Wizards not officially supporting it.

Of course, don't all things become obsolete after time and with new versions.

But I guess this is more to the point of: "We have 4th edition. What happens now to 3.5?"

Roland St. Jude
2009-07-29, 01:00 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for pointless flaming, Godwinning, etc., not to mention the general edition war nature of the thread.