PDA

View Full Version : how is 3.5 actually better than 4e?



taltamir
2009-10-09, 07:52 PM
4e looks really nice to me from reading the PHB, seems like an improvement. what are some specific problems people have with it?

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 07:58 PM
4e looks really nice to me from reading the PHB, seems like an improvement. what are some specific problems people have with it?

Well, when 4th came out you couldn't be a Bard, Monk, or Druid. Now you can. So that problem was solved.

infinitypanda
2009-10-09, 07:58 PM
As an impartial observer (read: M&M player), it seems to me that many arguments mostly correspond to these few key points:

-combat is the metric by which classes are measured
-most classes use the Daily/Encounter/Power system, rather than the myriad systems 3.5 had
-4e currently has fewer options* than 3.5 has

However, I'm sure that someone will find something lacking in this post, and an edition war will start.

*Options meaning races, classes, feats, combinations, etc.

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 07:58 PM
To say that 3.5e is better than 4e is like saying apples are better than oranges, or vice versa. That's the whole issue right there, really- they're very different games.
Some people like 3.5 much better and complain about 4e because 4e didn't fix any problems in 3.5 so much as it eliminated the entire system and started over. Does that make 4e an inherently bad system? Not really- but people were expecting a continuation and edit of what they knew, I think- and 4e does not deliver that.
To make matters worse for 3.5 fans, the not only has the system changed, but the playstyle has changed too. Either through the new system's nature or through lack of source material, character creation has become more limited, abilities less varied, and etc. At least, this is what people feel and claim when they declaim 4e.

Some people like 4e, but I'm pretty sure even they realize it is a fairly changed game from 3.5. They just happen to like the new system- either as well as 3.5 or better than 3.5.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-10-09, 08:00 PM
This thread is going to go to hell in half a page. Personally, I play 4e, but here are 4e's flaws:

-It's a lot more simplified, which many people do not like.
-The class structure is much more rigid, as opposed to 3.5's multiclassing capabilities.
-Overall, characters are less individual.
-"Feels like a video game" due to using explicit healer/tank/DPS/CC roles and relying on grid placement far more.
-Game mechanics are much more divorced from story. (Martial encounter powers, because you can't swing your sword that way more than once/five minutes.)
-Less rules about roleplaying, as far as diplomacy tables and all that go.
-Classes are more similar because everything is on the power system as opposed to having psionics vs vancian magic vs ToB...
-PCs are explicitly special with their own rules. My friend complains about racial powers in particular, as they make every PC able to, for example, breathe fire.

There are others which will no doubt be raised, and there are rebuttals to each and every argument, and there are attacks on each and every rebuttal. It's ultimately a matter of taste and what works for your group.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:00 PM
Well, when 4th came out you couldn't be a Bard, Monk, or Druid. Now you can. So that problem was solved.

sure you could:
monk: a warrior who specializes with unarmed strikes
druid: a cleric of nature / nature gods
bard: warrior / sorcerer gish build with a music spell theme effect...


As an impartial observer (read: M&M player), it seems to me that many arguments mostly correspond to these few key points:

-combat is the metric by which classes are measured
-most classes use the Daily/Encounter/Power system, rather than the myriad systems 3.5 had
-4e currently has fewer options* than 3.5 has

However, I'm sure that someone will find something lacking in this post, and an edition war will start.

*Options meaning races, classes, feats, combinations, etc.
All of those are victories for 4e, not for 3.5



To say that 3.5e is better than 4e is like saying apples are better than oranges, or vice versa. That's the whole issue right there, really- they're very different games.
Some people like 3.5 much better and complain about 4e because 4e didn't fix any problems in 3.5 so much as it eliminated the entire system and started over. Does that make 4e an inherently bad system? Not really- but people were expecting a continuation and edit of what they knew, I think- and 4e does not deliver that.
To make matters worse for 3.5 fans, the not only has the system changed, but the playstyle has changed too. Either through the new system's nature or through lack of source material, character creation has become more limited, abilities less varied, and etc. At least, this is what people feel and claim when they declaim 4e.

Some people like 4e, but I'm pretty sure even they realize it is a fairly changed game from 3.5. They just happen to like the new system- either as well as 3.5 or better than 3.5.

Can you name some specifics? I heard those arguments before... but I want specifics, how is it "not a continuation" (if anything it kept a bunch of baggage like the retarded alignment system)... how is it "more limited"?




-It's a lot more simplified, which many people do not like.
-The class structure is much more rigid, as opposed to 3.5's multiclassing capabilities.
-Overall, characters are less individual.
-"Feels like a video game" due to using explicit healer/tank/DPS/CC roles and relying on grid placement far more.
-Game mechanics are much more divorced from story. (Martial encounter powers, because you can't swing your sword that way more than once/five minutes.)
-Less rules about roleplaying, as far as diplomacy tables and all that go.
-Classes are more similar because everything is on the power system as opposed to having psionics vs vancian magic vs ToB...
-PCs are explicitly special with their own rules. My friend complains about racial powers in particular, as they make every PC able to, for example, breathe fire.
1. how is it more simplified and why is that a bad thing?
2. how in the world is someone less an individual? does 4e have rules forbidding you from having a complex backstory?
3. doesn't 3.5 rely quite a whole lot about placement?
4. how does that actually restrict the story?
5. Do you NEED rules to roleplay? wouldn't less roleplaying rules be an advantage? Actually most complaints I hear say the opposite about 4e, that it has too many rules for roleplay.
6. Isn't class balance a GOOD thing? and not breaking the game, forcing you to do a PHD on the various systems, buying a million books, etc also an advantage?
7. Wouldn't something like that be completely optional? and in 3.5 PCs are special also.. all the classes a player classes... NPC classes include the commoner, fighter, and expert.

FlyingWhale
2009-10-09, 08:02 PM
4e looks really nice to me from reading the PHB, seems like an improvement. what are some specific problems people have with it?

The biggest, and truly only, problem I have... Is items. Weapons are slag, armor is slag, magic enhancements are...slag. Nothing impresses me less than shoving a thousand magic item fluffs into the fray. As long as we are on that... Fighters using their magical powers to make people move dozens of feet just to get smacked by a sword... Long story short? I'll take AD&D any day...

That said, I like 4e. A lot. If anyone has a problem with anything with any system for any game... Here is my advice... The same advice I live by. Make your own damn items. Make your own damn powers. And if all of that fails... Pick up a flail and bash the ever loving daylights out of the DM sweep the knees of a fellow gamer out from under them and show the DM why you can trip with one.

OK I'm heading out to pick up BritishBill. Good night GITP!

Edit:Holy crap, ninja'd by 6 people... lol Maybe I shouldn't be driving for 12 hours...

Edit2: I also prefer 3 1/2 over 4e anyday BUT I prefer AD&D over that any day... so... er... Actually I prefer the way AD&D felt...to be honest though the actual play of it made me squirm... just something about being mortal...

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 08:03 PM
All of those are victories for 4e, not for 3.5

This is where arguments stem from. That is an opinion, and sides disagree over whether these changes are good or not.

For all the flaws 3.5 has, I like all the crazy differences and varying mechanics it presents. It is just more fun for me. Is that true for everyone? No- which is why some people like the way 4e handled it.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:10 PM
This is where arguments stem from. That is an opinion, and sides disagree over whether these changes are good or not.

For all the flaws 3.5 has, I like all the crazy differences and varying mechanics it presents. It is just more fun for me. Is that true for everyone? No- which is why some people like the way 4e handled it.

so some people actually argue that:
1. it is an advantage to have a million different systems to have to do a PHD about.
2. inherently UNbalanced classes are good?

why not allow one player in every group play a pun pun and force the others to be commoners then? Every complaint I ever see about 3.5 basically comes down to balance issues. You would think a more balanced system would be better.


FlyingWhale... what is "slag"

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:14 PM
Try google. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=D%26D+pros+and+cons+of+3.5+%26+4e)

But since you probably wanted a directly relevant answer, here's a 3.5 fanboy's view. I will exaggerate some of these (most of them don't really irk me) because you specifically ask for complaints.

4e restricts multiclassing. With effort and willingness to refluff, you can still cover the same range of concepts, but the mechanical support is significantly less.
4e generally has less mechanical variety than 3.5, making it "less interesting" to play.
Bad marketing. Even if it's great, the fallout and acrimony related to its release (which Wizards could have controlled a lot better) still turn me off from it in my memory.
Skill challenges. The idea of having a fixed number of successes and an exclusive list of usable skills is painfully metagame to me. 3.5 allows you to incorporate more complex skill use than a mere simple roll. 4e encourages it, but ties it to completely arbitrary and probably tedious mechanical statistics. The message WotC is sending disconcerts me.
Alignment. What they did with it disgusts me. I'm fine with the existing 9-point tier, but rather than cripple it I wish WotC had killed it entirely. Killing CG, LE, LN, and CN made the system too linear, enforced the chaos->evil myth that stupid 2e alignment blurbs started, and again sent a message that disturbs me. Get rid of law/chaos all the way instead of a half-assed effort, and leave good/unaligned/evil. Or just kill alignment altogether - removing its influence on game mechanics neuters most of its usefulness.
4e removes parallel design between PCs and NPCs, which singles out PCs in a way that discomfits me.

Here's where it starts to get based on things I suspect might be inaccurate (second-hand knowledge)...
Many disassociated mechanics - i.e. gamey mechanics. The concept of daily power recharge, some of the marking mechanics, and various monster abilities have no clear root in-universe.
Too much combat focus. Monster SLAs related to noncombat have been stripped, and powers are mostly for combat use. Rituals are irritating/expensive.
As this link (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2009-02d.html) shows, a significant and disconcerting change in terminology that is largely responsible for perceptions of being "video game"ish. Superficial; but when we're talking about emotional reaction every bit helps.
Monsters have too much HP, there are more of them, each of them has their own unique abilities, et cetera. Too many little bonuses to keep track of.
Minions are a bit flawed, in that some area attacks don't work on them. This leads to metagaming, where the character avoids some monsters with an area attack because they're "minions" - or, worse, the character faithfully goes in with area attacks and does nothing.
Healing surges set a hard limit on the duration of the adventuring day. 3.5 allowed more proliferation of healing (cheap wands, for example) to allow the adventure to last all day. Once healing surges are out, the day's over unless you fancy dying. 15 minute adventuring day only extended by a factor of 4.
The numbers the system is based on seem untrustworthy. Again, just myth and hearsay, but perception goes a long way.

Saph
2009-10-09, 08:16 PM
so you think it is an advantage to have a million different systems to have to research and classes that are inherently UNbalanced with each other? why not allow one player in every group play a pun pun and force the others to be commoners then?

OK, taltamir, it's time to stop and ask yourself: what are you trying to achieve with this thread? Because first you've asked "why do some people prefer 3.5 to 4e?", and now you're attacking people for posting answers.

Games are subjective. Some people prefer one system, some prefer another. You seem to be doing your best to start another edition war, and quite frankly, we've had enough of them already.

FoE
2009-10-09, 08:18 PM
3.5E is no more "better" than chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry, or vice versa. Both accomodate very different playstyles. It all depends on what you prefer.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-09, 08:20 PM
Despite the fact that I am growing quite weary of edition wars flaring up every two weeks, I feel compelled to weigh in on the matter. So I'll quote myself from the last skirmish on the subject:



4E Bashing
To be honest, I liken 4E to the game chess. It is a fine tactical combat game, & can have deep & engaging strategic scenarios. But the mechanics are so thoroughly divorced from reality, or even realistic fantasy, that any true roleplaying (that is, attempting to place yourself in the role of your character & pretending that you’re not just playing a game) is difficult at best.

Also, I enjoy skill-based systems & simulationist-systems, & 4E reduced both. In fact, 4E reduced a vast number of things, in a systematic pattern of reductive changes that were all geared toward doing one thing, & one thing only: achieving an ideal of game balance. However, this pursuit of balance-above-all-else has proved demonstrably flawed & wasteful, because said balance was not achieved. The game’s flaws can be readily exploited, providing players with multiple means of breaking the game that are even easier to perform & harder to block by DM-fiat than the crippling flaws of 3E.

Lastly, it has also been proven that the game designers failed to adequately playtest & edit their game. This meant that many of the designer’s statements about their game do not match up well with what the game can actually do. In fact, many of the game’s pre-release selling points, as stated by the game’s designers, do not function in the actual game, or even do the exact opposite. A good example of this is the supposed elimination of the 15-minute adventuring day, which was touted over & over, & has since proven to be false, as the game mechanically encourages this play style. Another thing that was claimed was that combat would be more varied, & there would be no need to just stand around, slugging it out with enemies in a back-&-forth tit-for-tat hack-fest; in reality, the high number of HP makes hack-fests frequently advantageous or even necessary.

And I won’t even get into the skill challenges system, which does not function correctly out of the book, & required multiple errata to make even barely functional. Not that they are really worth it; most of the games I’ve seen played eschew skill challenges altogether in lieu of more traditional skill use.

Now that I'm done bashing 4E, let’s go over to 3E & see what’s so great over there...


3E Bashing
Well, 3E has been around longer, so its flaws are better understood. And they are Legion. I tend to be much harsher towards 4E, because game designers should’ve known better by now. But poor old big dumb 3E gets some slack for just showing up & not embarrassing itself on the carpet.

First off, the whole game does not encourage team-building or group strategy, one of the few things that I think 4E actually does rather well. 3E nominally requires group dynamics to compete against level-appropriate challenges, but the whole character generation & advancement process is centered around personal power acquisition, encouraging single-player builds that don’t factor in anything remotely resembling teamwork. This would be fine in a videogame (even an MMO, where this philosophy would lead to some interesting & dynamic PvP gameplay), but in a collaborative tabletop RPG, it’s counterintuitive & counterproductive.

Also, as much as I love skill based systems, this one has some glaring faults. The classes have varying amounts of skill points available to them. Now this wouldn’t be a problem, except that almost every class gets far too few of them. It’s as if the designers were afraid of breaking the game by being too generous with skill points, & overcompensated. In their stinginess, they nearly shut some classes out of the skill system altogether, which is just no fun. Not to mention that the cross-class system made things more complicated, & meant that most classes were pigeonholed into certain roles without being able to make interesting characters via skills. Most importantly, not all skills are created equal. Some skills allow players to do almost nothing interesting with them (Appraise or Forgery), whereas other skills are able to break the game with only modest investment (Diplomacy or Tumble). To be fair, most skills are fairly balanced, especially those that oppose one another (Bluff/Sense Motive, Hide/Spot, or Listen/Move Silently). But with Diplomacy, you can easily make the whole world love you, negating most plausible challenges without effort. And with Tumble, you can easily avoid most Attacks of Opportunity, which is an integral part of the combat system. Which brings me to...

Attacks of Opportunity. Good god, are they a headache. They kinda made sense when the game first came out, but they haven't aged well. Understanding when you can use an AoO & when you can’t requires an investment of time, & unlike the grappling system (which is even more of a headache), AoO’s are an unavoidable part of the combat system. No other part of the game requires the use of a grid more than AoO’s, which means an investment of more money for little benefit. And here’s the thing about AoO’s: they are completely unnecessary. Since the invention of immediate actions, AoO’s could’ve been scrapped & replaced by a more elegant & simpler system in which one could make attacks as immediate actions instead of standard actions, & the game would’ve been much better off. Alas.

Then there are feats. Feats are cool, & we all like feats. But (& this has been pointed out before, like everything else that I’ve said) they didn’t go far enough. Many feats are worthless, or only desirable as prerequisites for other feats or prestige classes. There just aren’t enough cool feats to go around, & the inequality of feats is just obnoxious. Feats have a built-in balancing mechanism, in the form of prerequisites; free ones should be kinda weaksauce, & costly feats (those with many difficult prerequisites) should be awesomesauce. But this potential balancing mechanism is all but ignored, allowing many feats to not be worth their cost, & making others practically free. Natural Spell, Improved Initiative, & certain metamagic feats are must-haves, while a glut of feats (Toughness, Far Shot, Dodge, et al) are complete wastes of a slot, except when absolutely required.

I could go on, and on, and on, AND ON. Classes are inherently imbalanced, heavily favoring casters over melee combatants. The level adjustment system over-penalizes most non-standard race options, needlessly limiting choice. The games monetary economy (like any of its other economies) can be broken without much effort, subverting the arbitrary wealth-by-level system & encouraging powergaming & munchkinism. The entire system is bloated with too many rules, covering obscure scenarios with vastly differing mechanics, which encourages rules-lawyerism (notice a pattern?). Lots of magic items are required for gameplay, making low fantasy games difficult & creating a Christmas-tree effect, where PCs are decked to the nines with so many items that they tend to forget about half of them; this cheapens the impact of magic items as a whole. The all-powerful casters grow to little demigods very quickly, obviating many challenges with spells that give them control of not only the battlefield, but also the pace of the game itself, giving rise to a 15-minute adventuring day. The CR system for monsters is an ill-conceived joke, based mostly on wild guesses & without objective means of determining proper adjudication. Most combat maneuvers aren’t truly viable without taking feats to specialize in them, meaning that most melee combat devolves into trading punches or spamming your One Special Trick, which is as boring & repetitive as chopping wood. And it goes on, and on, and on...

Most of the above points were discovered & explained before, by wiser men than I. But I’ve experienced just about every issue above with both systems, & any true discussion of either system requires that these things be said.

All that said, I still prefer 3E to 4E, for reasons that could take a whole other post to enumerate.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-10-09, 08:20 PM
so some people actually argue that:
1. it is an advantage to have a million different systems to have to do a PHD about.
2. inherently UNbalanced classes are good?
Well, most people don't like the unbalanced part, they do like the variety. And why not? I mean, I'm a sorcerer! I force parts of the universe to do exactly what I want them to do through sheer force of will and...my powers work exactly the same way as the guy whose powers work by having used a sword a LOT.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:20 PM
I totally agree about alignment (also, very specific, thank you), I hate what 4e did with alignment... but this is really a few works fix:
DM: "there is no such thing as alignment"
or
DM: "we use 9 axis alignment"

Isn't it simpler to use such a fix and a superior system rather than 3.5 and a million other fixes?

Basically it boils down to.. "how many fixes do you need to make to 3.5 as a DM to make it viable, how many fixes do you need to make to 4e"... Can someone here tell me that they have less "fixes" for 3.5 than they do for 4e?
Naturally 4e has many BAD THINGS about it... but for 3.5 to be better it needs to be a better system as is. not a better system after you apply 100 fixes to it when compared to 4e without allowing 4e a single fix.

PS. I don't understand why people say that 3.5 does not require a battle grid. by RAW it absolutely does, anyone who plays it without one is house ruling it and could do the exact same with 4e.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-09, 08:21 PM
3.5E is no more "better" than chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry, or vice versa. Both accomodate very different playstyles. It all goes by personal taste.
Liar.

Chocolate is far superior to Strawberry, and everyone with half a tongue knows it! All hail Chocolate!

. . .

Seriously though, can't we make a new Edition Warz thread every month? The last one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127412) was just winding down too.

And I, for one, support the Google suggestion. By now enough has been written on teh Internets to cover any and all possible arguments on this subject. Heck, I bet someone has even made a digest of those arguments for easy reading!

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 08:23 PM
so some people actually argue that:
1. it is an advantage to have a million different systems to have to do a PHD about.
2. inherently UNbalanced classes are good?

why not allow one player in every group play a pun pun and force the others to be commoners then? Every complaint I ever see about 3.5 basically comes down to balance issues. You would think a more balanced system would be better.

I'm attempting to be calm, reasonable, and respectful here. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

Yes, 3.5 has balance problems. This is one of "all the flaws" I mentioned. 3.5 has a great number of flaws, and balance is indeed the most prominent and glaring.

However, differing systems, variety, and complication do not have to lead to an unbalanced and ridiculous game involving commoners and pun pun. Even if a system allows such ridiculously unbalanced power levels (like 3.5 actually does, or Mutants and Masterminds, and many others, I'm sure), reasonable gamers don't have to play it in such a way to make things unbalanced. In fact, for those who know what they're doing, it is quite possible to make a balanced 3.5 game.

Some may argue that having to make conscious effort to create a balanced game is obnoxious and doesn't actually solve the game's problems- and yeah, there's some truth to that. But every game is unbalanced in some ways, and I find the idea of a game where I have to strain to break out of creative limitations imposed to keep balance less appealing than a game where I have to focus to make sure my character doesn't overpower anyone else's. That's how I perceive my choice, at least- other people don't have that issue with 4e, and that's fine. I'm just saying that from my perception, and the perception of apparently many others, it does feel like 4e is limiting in a way that 3.5 is not. We'd prefer to have control in our hands rather than the system's, even if that means potential for misuse of said control.


Can you name some specifics? I heard those arguments before... but I want specifics, how is it "not a continuation" (if anything it kept a bunch of baggage like the retarded alignment system)... how is it "more limited"?

This is going to be speaking from my personal experience with just the 4e PHB, so I recognize that I may miss things that are now out, or might just miss something in general. I didn't play 4e very long. *shrug*

Feats have been depowered. More to the point, they've generally just become minor bonuses to something you can already do. In some ways, this is a good thing, but in others... it leaves out major character options. Reserve Feats, metamagic feats, item creation feats, heritage feats, flaws, incarnum, binding, improved disarm/grapple/trip, whirlwind attack, etc. All of these wacky and strange abilities (and more!) could be gained with 3.5 feats. Not so in 4e. There are a few things that break the norm, but it isn't as varied as 3.5.

Classes have also become samey. Each one uses the same (quite new, not used anywhere in 3.5) system- there are no differences like the difference between fighter and wizard (though the poor fighter lost out), or the difference between tome of battle, incarnum, and binding. Each new system in 3.5 added a new facet and interest to the game. Even within the player's handbook there was more diversity- a barbarian was distinctly different from a rogue. In 4e... yeah, their powers differ, but the system is the same, as is the method. Its streamlined, but therefore simplified.

It is things like that, in general, that make me play 3.5 instead of 4e.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:25 PM
OK, taltamir, it's time to stop and ask yourself: what are you trying to achieve with this thread? Because first you've asked "why do some people prefer 3.5 to 4e?", and now you're attacking people for posting answers.

Games are subjective. Some people prefer one system, some prefer another. You seem to be doing your best to start another edition war, and quite frankly, we've had enough of them already.

I am trying to understand what it is that people have against 4e. Asking someone if my understanding of their position is correct is hardly attacking them. From reading said reply this is what I understood to be the position, so I ask if I am right or wrong... I did phrase it harshly and immediately edited it to a less aggressive SOUNDING phrasing; but that is really what I got from said reply, I understood that "unbalanced classes are fun". In fact that is what I seem to be hearing from several people.

What I want to achieve with this thread is learning, I wish to learn what is wrong with 4e because I am not getting it. Everyone complains that 3.5 is unbalanced and unplayable without a list of fixes ye long. So whats wrong with a system that applies MOST of those fixes out of the box and requires a lesser amount of fixes (although some of which are to remove changes and change them back to the superior 3.5 way).

The Glyphstone
2009-10-09, 08:25 PM
Strawberry reigns supreme, you heathen. Prepare to feel the wrath of my Smite Chocoholic ability!

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 08:25 PM
so some people actually argue that:
1. it is an advantage to have a million different systems to have to do a PHD about.

The crux of the matter is that people feel spellcasters should inherently have different resource management than martial types, and than psions, and than meldshapers and so on because they manage different resources.

Surely there are different limits to what you can do with a sword than what you can do with magic. The whole "daily martial powers"-thing doesn't sit well with e.g. Tome of Battle-fans; to them having all their presently trained martial abilities available with basically one action of preparation max is a crucial part of the feel of martial characters. Same with Core Melee-fans, though Barbarian stands out as an exception with a daily limited ability.

And on the other hand, the same people like how Vancian casters have a specific reason for how their abilities recharge; they need to rest to clear their mind and prepare the spells again. There is a lot of history to Vancian casting and why it works how it works so many older gamers, it just makes boatloads of sense that some arbitrary distribution to encounter/at will/daily powers just doesn't.

Finally, there is the group that prefers 3.5's simplicity. More specifically, how incredibly basic and simple the Core martialists are. Some people actually prefer it that way; not having a variety of different attacks and strikes, but simple "I have a sword so I hit it"-mentality where the "hitting to best of my ability"-part is implied rather than presented by different attacks. This group, of course, also dislikes e.g. Tome of Battle for the same reason as they dislike 4e. Mostly, I've understood that anyone who dislikes Tome of Battle also dislikes 4e because 4e is basically extrapolation of ToB to all classes.


2. inherently UNbalanced classes are good?

why not allow one player in every group play a pun pun and force the others to be commoners then? Every complaint I ever see about 3.5 basically comes down to balance issues. You would think a more balanced system would be better.

3.5e does have inherent imbalance, but some groups have homebrew in play that deals with it, and other groups either play on a level where the imbalance doesn't show up or have a gentlemens' agreement to keep things at certain power level.

That is to say, people solve 3.5e's balance issues when playing with it, one way or another. Or some just like to play the really powerful classes and simply don't play the weaker ones; in really optimized groups everyone can be hugely powerful and are balanced on a really high level. Some people just really enjoy having the power to end and remake the multiverse at their disposal and fighting opponents of similar powerlevel.


Inherently unbalanced is probably not the reason people like 3.5, but it's the inherent difference in the classes. As I touched upon earlier, it feels wrong to many if a Fighter and a Wizard only feel slightly different. Inherent imbalance is a downside people liking 3.5 are willing to live with for the other gains (or are just not aware of/don't care about comparative efficiency enough to care about the imbalance; I know plenty of people who have played Wizards without ever reading what Polymorph or Planar Binding does).


Also, yes, everything else Vael said. Hell, I'll just quote Vael's post 'cause it's what I would've said, spelled out in more concise and eloquent manner:

To say that 3.5e is better than 4e is like saying apples are better than oranges, or vice versa. That's the whole issue right there, really- they're very different games.
Some people like 3.5 much better and complain about 4e because 4e didn't fix any problems in 3.5 so much as it eliminated the entire system and started over. Does that make 4e an inherently bad system? Not really- but people were expecting a continuation and edit of what they knew, I think- and 4e does not deliver that.
To make matters worse for 3.5 fans, the not only has the system changed, but the playstyle has changed too. Either through the new system's nature or through lack of source material, character creation has become more limited, abilities less varied, and etc. At least, this is what people feel and claim when they declaim 4e.

Some people like 4e, but I'm pretty sure even they realize it is a fairly changed game from 3.5. They just happen to like the new system- either as well as 3.5 or better than 3.5.

EDIT: Well, turns out I got ninja'd. Serves me right for posting in this thread.

EDIT#2: And if it isn't clear from context, "people" in this post generally refer to "the people who prefer 3.5e to 4e"; I noticed I failed to repeat it at every point I used the phrase "people" in so instead of rewriting the whole post, I'm just clarifying it here.

FoE
2009-10-09, 08:26 PM
Couldn't we stick to arguing about things like whether Eberron or Forgotten Realms is better? (Answer: Eberron is better. Stop clinging to your crappy campaign setting, Drizzt fanboys.) :smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:27 PM
PS. I don't understand why people say that 3.5 does not require a battle grid. by RAW it absolutely does, anyone who plays it without one is house ruling it and could do the exact same with 4e.

Fah. You don't need a battle grid to play 3.5; winging it is good enough. I'm sure that 4e would be the same thing, if you have a good sense of the system. A square is about 5 feet or 1.5 meters - just approximate all the shifting.


what are some specific problems people have with it?

That was your original post. We're posting problems. Whether they're valid problems, whether they're worse problems than 3.5 has, and whether they make 4e unplayable is not a judgment we are obligated to state. Blatant defense of a system (4e, in your case) may lead to an edition war. And that would be sad.
But hey, why not stir the pot. Maybe, maybe we can conduct this civilly and renew hope in humanity.


The major "broken" point of 3.5 is spellcasting. 4e "unbreaks" the system by removing the massive option advantage of spellcasters. 4e still has plenty of combos to exploit. It still rewards optimization and allows users of it to create significant competency gaps. It still has option imbalance founded on questionable playtesting. It's still unbalanced, just in different ways.

And once balance, which is its major selling point (sort of), is undermined, the various flaws listed here can rush in and put 3.5 back on the top of the dogpile.

However, in my opinion, the primary selling point of 3.5 is inertia. I'm too lazy to learn 4e. I know 3.5 just fine, I've applied patchwork fixes already to cover up brokenness, and I know how to squeeze out its benefits. If I wanted to learn a new system, I wouldn't learn D&D. I'd go for GURPS, WoD, Shadowrun, M&M, etc.

Doc Roc
2009-10-09, 08:28 PM
Couldn't we stick to arguing about things like whether Eberron or Forgotten Realms is better? (Answer: Eberron is better. Stop clinging to your crappy campaign setting, Drizzt fanboys.) :smalltongue:

Actually, this is empirically verifiable by testing to see which setting gave us incantatrix.

Unfortunately, there's a similar test called "Which setting gave us planar shepherd?"

I think they both are excellent and interesting, if not particularly well-balanced systems. I don't know that they're really sequential revisions of the same source material, but a lot of similar complaints were aimed at shadowrun fourth edition, which I came to love in time. So I think, basically, the best tact to take when questions about which D&D is the better D&D is to play both, consider it, and then go play shadowrun fourth edition some place safe.


In summary, there is only ash, fire, and my bitter grin.

Redpieper
2009-10-09, 08:32 PM
Couldn't we stick to arguing about things like whether Eberron or Forgotten Realms is better? (Answer: Eberron is better. Stop clinging to your crappy campaign setting, Drizzt fanboys.) :smalltongue:

Anwer: Neither, Planescape rules supreme :smallcool:

Kiero
2009-10-09, 08:34 PM
It's not; rules-wise 3.x is a badly designed, kludgy, confused, mess that doesn't know what it's trying to do.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-09, 08:36 PM
It's not; rules-wise 3.x is a badly designed, kludgy, confused, mess that doesn't know what it's trying to do.

*rips open jumbo-sized bag of marshmallows, starts skewering hot dogs on long sticks*

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:36 PM
Fah. You don't need a battle grid to play 3.5; winging it is good enough. I'm sure that 4e would be the same thing, if you have a good sense of the system. A square is about 5 feet or 1.5 meters - just approximate all the shifting.
That is my point.. 4e requires a grid as much as 3.5 does... almost every power or ability has range and issues to do with maneuvering around... but you can wing it... heck you could say the same about almost every system ever made with combat...


I'm attempting to be calm, reasonable, and respectful here. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

Yes, 3.5 has balance problems. This is one of "all the flaws" I mentioned. 3.5 has a great number of flaws, and balance is indeed the most prominent and glaring.

However, differing systems, variety, and complication do not have to lead to an unbalanced and ridiculous game involving commoners and pun pun. Even if a system allows such ridiculously unbalanced power levels (like 3.5 actually does, or Mutants and Masterminds, and many others, I'm sure), reasonable gamers don't have to play it in such a way to make things unbalanced. In fact, for those who know what they're doing, it is quite possible to make a balanced 3.5 game.

Some may argue that having to make conscious effort to create a balanced game is obnoxious and doesn't actually solve the game's problems- and yeah, there's some truth to that. But every game is unbalanced in some ways, and I find the idea of a game where I have to strain to break out of creative limitations imposed to keep balance less appealing than a game where I have to focus to make sure my character doesn't overpower anyone else's. That's how I perceive my choice, at least- other people don't have that issue with 4e, and that's fine. I'm just saying that from my perception, and the perception of apparently many others, it does feel like 4e is limiting in a way that 3.5 is not. We'd prefer to have control in our hands rather than the system's, even if that means potential for misuse of said control.
I meant no offense there. Just trying to clarify if I understand your position and a bit of unnecessary sarcasm. Sorry.

So your position is that 3.5 gives you a vast unconstrained system where you have to work to maintain balance.
While 4e is a system where you have balance, but you have to work to get uniqueness and creativity?

interesting way of putting it. certainly than for a group of mature people who want to play cooperatively and are all masters of 3.5, the lack of limitations imposed by the system combined with their self limitations create a better situation.
While for the casual gamer / DM with lesser mastery the prebalanced conditions of 4e keep things simple and easy, albeit somewhat less flexible...

Well, the idea of having to spend less time mastering the system appeals to me, but so does the idea of having more creative flexibility...

But I am not entirely sure I am seeing how it happens... can someone show me some specific CHARACTER ideas that work out well in 3.5 but not in 4e and that aren't considered universaly broken?
aka, not pun pun / shapeshifter / czilla... but ideas like "a dashing swashbuckler pirate" or "a handsome knight in shining armor" or "an old frail wizard who blasts his enemies to pieces".

Actually yea, lets go with those. How would 4e limit your ability to create the above concepts while 3.5 e will not?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:41 PM
I'm attempting to be calm, reasonable, and respectful here. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

It's not; rules-wise 3.x is a badly designed, kludgy, confused, mess that doesn't know what it's trying to do.

:smallannoyed:


*rips open jumbo-sized bag of marshmallows, starts skewering hot dogs on long sticks*

That indeed.


So your position is that 3.5 gives you a vast unconstrained system where you have to work to maintain balance.
While 4e is a system where you have balance, but you have to work to get uniqueness and creativity?

...

Well, the idea of having to spend less time mastering the system appeals to me, but so does the idea of having more creative flexibility...
But I am not entirely sure I am seeing how it happens... can someone show me some specific CHARACTER ideas that work out well in 3.5 but not in 4e and that aren't considered universaly broken?
...
Actually yea, lets go with those. How would 4e limit your ability to create the above concepts while 3.5 e will not?

With enough work, you can translate any 3.5 concept to 4e. With enough work, however, you could have just maintained balance in 3.5. Your summation of the two systems (I underlined it) is something I can agree with. With 3.5, you have to work to balance. With 4e, you have to work to play some out-of-the-box ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, I have already done the work for 3.5, and thus am disinclined to take on more work with 4e while 3.5 still has a playerbase.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:42 PM
The crux of the matter is that people feel spellcasters should inherently have different resource management than martial types, and than psions, and than meldshapers and so on because they manage different resources.

Surely there are different limits to what you can do with a sword than what you can do with magic. The whole "daily martial powers"-thing doesn't sit well with e.g. Tome of Battle-fans; to them having all their presently trained martial abilities available with basically one action of preparation max is a crucial part of the feel of martial characters. Same with Core Melee-fans, though Barbarian stands out as an exception with a daily limited ability.

And on the other hand, the same people like how Vancian casters have a specific reason for how their abilities recharge; they need to rest to clear their mind and prepare the spells again. There is a lot of history to Vancian casting and why it works how it works so many older gamers, it just makes boatloads of sense that some arbitrary distribution to encounter/at will/daily powers just doesn't.

Finally, there is the group that prefers 3.5's simplicity. More specifically, how incredibly basic and simple the Core martialists are. Some people actually prefer it that way; not having a variety of different attacks and strikes, but simple "I have a sword so I hit it"-mentality where the "hitting to best of my ability"-part is implied rather than presented by different attacks. This group, of course, also dislikes e.g. Tome of Battle for the same reason as they dislike 4e. Mostly, I've understood that anyone who dislikes Tome of Battle also dislikes 4e because 4e is basically extrapolation of ToB to all classes.
So rather than have RP differences, characters should have no personality but be different MECHANICALLY?

And fighters must be allowed to be untiring monsters who never run out of breath as the execute the most taxing battle maneuvers while wizards must be able to win everything with a single spell but then completely run out of magic and be a commoner for the rest of the day?

both sound unrealistic and unfun to me.

OldTrees
2009-10-09, 08:43 PM
I am still a new player when it comes to D&D (only 7 years of playing D&D). I have invested heavily into 3e & 3.5 and have only played/run 3.x games (just so you know my bias) [PC 2nd edition video games don't count as experience in my book]. The thing that most irked me about 4e (one of the 2 reasons the prevent me from enjoying it) is that their is no true "multiclass" mechanic. Now let me explain what I mean. 4e has to my knowledge 2 multiclassing mechanics (multiclass feats and hybrid classes). Both of these feel more like the creation of a new player customized base class. This feels more like playing a duskblade then it does a fighter/mage. While more base class options are nice, it just leaves me thinking about what if I could "multiclass" 2 of these customized base classes. In 3.5 the extra sources came out with a ton of base classes and allowed "multiclassing". This is not an entirely fair comparison because if I remember right 4E classes get all their class features at level 1 in the class(another thing that bugged me but not significantly). My second dislike is that I really liked the concept (despite WOTC failure at making it balanced) of weak "At Will (or almost at will Fighters)" vs. strong "Limited Rationed uses" (Has to be DM enforced). I have no problem that classes in 4E have both of these types of abilities. I just wish there was a way to sacrifice one for more power in the other ("No Daily" Wizards and "No At Will" Fighters options for a change of pace).

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-09, 08:44 PM
Anwer: Neither, Planescape rules supreme :smallcool:
Avast, ye scurvy dogs!

This be the best setting that every sailed!
http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3787-2/spelljammer.jpg

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:45 PM
With enough work, you can translate any 3.5 concept to 4e. With enough work, however, you could have just maintained balance in 3.5. Your summation of the two systems (I underlined it) is something I can agree with. With 3.5, you have to work to balance. With 4e, you have to work to play some out-of-the-box ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, I have already done the work for 3.5, and thus am disinclined to take on more work with 4e while 3.5 still has a playerbase.

I can complete understand that... but which would be easier to work with for someone who has NOT done the work?


Avast, ye scurvy dogs!

Spelljammer be the finest setting there every was.
http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3787-2/spelljammer.jpg

I wet myself seeing this picture :)
I want to play spelljammer now...

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:46 PM
So rather than have RP differences, characters should have no personality but be different MECHANICALLY?

And fighters must be allowed to be untiring monsters who never run out of breath as the execute the most taxing battle maneuvers while wizards must be able to win everything with a single spell but then completely run out of magic and be a commoner for the rest of the day?

:confused::smallconfused::confused:

The post you quoted to never mentioned personality at all. Neither to deride it nor to promote it. It referenced mechanical difference, and that is all. A 3.5 fighter and a 4e fighter can be RPed the same, despite their wide difference. The 3.5 wizard and the 3.5 fighter can be RPed fairly similar, despite their huge difference. Two 3.5 warblades with the same build can be RPed quite differently. I really don't see what your point here is, or where the random fighter/ironman/wizard/commoner hyperbole is from.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:49 PM
I can complete understand that... but which would be easier to work with for someone who has NOT done the work?

And that, my friend, is why I don't hate WotC. The new type of game is a business move, and one that may enrich the RP community in the long run (key word "may"). 4e is more n00b-friendly. I respect that even if I won't touch it for as long as it lives. When viewing it in this abstract, "community-focused" perspective, individual mechanical gripes matter little to me. I plan to ride 3.5 as long as possible and switch to either 5e, GURPS, or another non-D&D system when 3.5 finally dies.

However, complaints with mood do matter to me.. This is why I dislike skill challenges and alignment. 4e alignment has tainted the memory of 1-3e alignment, and skill challenges threaten to push creative skill use into a rigid, arbitrarily numerical framework.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:50 PM
:confused::smallconfused::confused:

The post you quoted to never mentioned personality at all. Neither to deride it nor to promote it. It referenced mechanical difference, and that is all. A 3.5 fighter and a 4e fighter can be RPed the same, despite their wide difference. The 3.5 wizard and the 3.5 fighter can be RPed fairly similar, despite their huge difference. Two 3.5 warblades with the same build can be RPed quite differently. I really don't see what your point here is, or where the random fighter/ironman/wizard/commoner hyperbole is from.

the post i quoted actually SOUNDED like it was saying that to me... and saying it about OTHER people... "some people like to think" is not "I prefer". It sounded like he was saying that people who prefer 3.5 over 4e do so because they think "different mechanically" is somehow related to RP.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-09, 08:50 PM
It doesn't exactly make it better, just different, but I like how it feels more like I am playing a world rather then playing a game. Sure, 3.5 has it's weirdnesses and simulation errors aplenty, but at least it is trying to create something that could pass for a kind of reality on a misty day in bad lighting.
4E just gives up in that respect, in my opinion.
And frankly, good or bad, I would rather play in the world that tries.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:51 PM
And that, my friend, is why I don't hate WotC. The new type of game is a business move, and one that may enrich the RP community in the long run (key word "may"). 4e is more n00b-friendly. I respect that even if I won't touch it for as long as it lives. When viewing it in this abstract, "community-focused" perspective, individual mechanical gripes matter little to me. I plan to ride 3.5 as long as possible and switch to either 5e, GURPS, or another non-D&D system when 3.5 finally dies.

However, complaints with mood do matter to me.. This is why I dislike skill challenges and alignment. 4e alignment has tainted the memory of 1-3e alignment, and skill challenges threaten to push creative skill use into a rigid, arbitrarily numerical framework.

heh... reading the player book for gurps, I fell in love immediately.. it was like one single book that could replace everything ever published by WOTC and do so better...

sofawall
2009-10-09, 08:51 PM
Asking someone if my understanding of their position is correct is hardly attacking them.

Do you like cake?

Yes?

Wait, you're saying you like something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?

Also:


heh... reading the player book for gurps, I fell in love immediately.. it was like one single book that could replace everything ever published by WOTC and do so better...

GURPS is just as broken as 3.5.

FoE
2009-10-09, 08:51 PM
Avast, ye scurvy dogs!

This be the best setting that every sailed!
http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3787-2/spelljammer.jpg

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

No matter how much you pretend, your D&D character is not Captain Kirk.

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 08:52 PM
Your summation of the two systems (I underlined it) is something I can agree with. With 3.5, you have to work to balance. With 4e, you have to work to play some out-of-the-box ideas.
That's actually a summary of my summation. :smalltongue:


So rather than have RP differences, characters should have no personality but be different MECHANICALLY?

If all you care about is personality, then you don't need a system at all. To talk about systems (at least, the D&D systems) is to talk about mechanics.
Personality wise, there is no limitation between 4e and 3.5. But there's also no limitation between 4e and Freeform in terms of personality...

With other systems that include heavy amounts of fluff and setting this isn't quite the same, but D&D is relatively bare boned... it has all the stuff you need to create a number of fantasy game types, but no real specifics on what that setting is.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:53 PM
GURPS is just as broken as 3.5.

Which is just as broken as 4e, which is just as broken as M&M, which is just as broken as V:tM, which is just as broken as Tales of Synnibar... [/levity]

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:54 PM
Do you like cake?

Yes?

Wait, you're saying you like something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?

actually more like:
"what is the healthiest food to eat"
"cake"
"you're saying you think the healthiest thing to eat is something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?"

And to that I must say:
how does this ATTACK THE PERSON?
It is a fairly accurate description of cake and asking them if they were serious in their intent to consume it daily.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 08:56 PM
So rather than have RP differences, characters should have no personality but be different MECHANICALLY?

I said nothing about RP differences. They don't matter in this discussion since the editions do not actually control that area in any way. Sure, you could dig some fluff differences, but the fluff of a 3.5e Wizard is very much the same as the fluff of a 4e Wizard.

Mechanically though, they're entirely different. Yes, some people prefer different powers forcing different mechanical handling. Of course you RP your Wizard differently than you RP your Fighter, but if the Fighter also has relevant mechanical differences that match the RP differences, then the mechanics are reinforcing the RP and thus both sides are supporting each other. In 3.5e, these mechanics commonly support each other.


And fighters must be allowed to be untiring monsters who never run out of breath as the execute the most taxing battle maneuvers while wizards must be able to win everything with a single spell but then completely run out of magic and be a commoner for the rest of the day?

This mostly comes down to the history of Vancian casting I mentioned. More precisely, what it means to prepare a spell. It is not something as simple as just reading a spell over and over again until you remember it; you imprint the magic as a sort of font into your mind and when you tap onto that font, you burn its power to generate the magical effect you have imprinted into the font.

Magic is poorly understood and as such, not subject to free manipulation, but rather a strict and rigorous number of spells casters have researched over the years and recorded, thus being able to replicate them. Magic is not some toy you can master by memorizing some gestures and words; those aren't even relevant to the magic itself, they are just a part of how you unleash and control the font you have imprinted and the surrounding energies of the world. This is principally why the "need rest before being able to prepare your used slots again" makes so much sense to people familiar with Vancian casting.


And no, Fighters aren't untiring monsters; that's what HP reflects. However, they do not imprint their most taxing fighting maneuver into their mind and call upon it in their hour of need; they train it and then they know how to perform it and can easily repeat it without "repreparing" it; all they need to do is to position themselves so that they can perform it again.

Note that there are two schools of 3.5ers here again; one that doesn't like ToB and as such despises the whole idea of different attack maneuvers and such, and the other that uses ToB and likes said maneuvers, but still doesn't buy the whole "imprinting martial skill into your brain and then expending it"-part.


both sound unrealistic and unfun to me.

This remark seems quite pointless, only conductive to a less civil discussion. I thought this discussion was about why people liking 3.5e like it, rather than whether you agree with their reasons.

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 08:57 PM
actually more like:
"what is the healthiest food to eat"
"cake"
"you're saying you think the healthiest thing to eat is something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?"
That's actually a terrible analogy, as the health benefits of cake (or rather, their lack of health benefits) can be proven by fact, and the enjoyment of systems is purely opinion.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:58 PM
anyways.. we narrowed it down to "flexibility vs prebalanced"... but how accurate is that? how limiting is 4e really?
Maybe I lack imagination but I have a hard time to come up with an idea that I cannot do in 4e... can you give me some?


That's actually a terrible analogy, as the health benefits of cake (or rather, their lack of health benefits) can be proven by fact, and the enjoyment of systems is purely opinion.

apples and oranges... the question was not "what is the food you most enjoy eating", nor was it "what is the system you personally most enjoy playing".
It was "what is the healthiest food" or "what is a better system"

But actually this was an analogy to an analogy, in the original it sounded like a trap and a guy going off the hook just from hearing a reasonable response. (aka, I like to eat cake is a reasonable response)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:59 PM
actually more like:
"what is the healthiest food to eat"
"cake"
"you're saying you think the healthiest thing to eat is something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?"
"healthiest" is specific. "do you like cake" is vague. Similarly, "is 3.5 better balanced than 4e?" is specific. "how is 3.5 better" is vague. "Do you like cake" would be the apter comparison.


how does this ATTACK THE PERSON?
It is a fairly accurate description of cake and asking them if they were serious in their intent to consume it daily.

It's not an ad hominem, true. But it does frequently undermine the argument ("fairly accurate" is ambiguous) at hand, which can be galling. The same facts dressed up in different wording can be wholly different, especially in matters of taste; and if the wording is dressed a certain way the post approaches confrontational.

OldTrees
2009-10-09, 09:00 PM
I am still a new player when it comes to D&D (only 7 years of playing D&D). I have invested heavily into 3e & 3.5 and have only played/run 3.x games (just so you know my bias) [PC 2nd edition video games don't count as experience in my book]. The thing that most irked me about 4e (one of the 2 reasons the prevent me from enjoying it) is that their is no true "multiclass" mechanic. Now let me explain what I mean. 4e has to my knowledge 2 multiclassing mechanics (multiclass feats and hybrid classes). Both of these feel more like the creation of a new player customized base class. This feels more like playing a duskblade then it does a fighter/mage. While more base class options are nice, it just leaves me thinking about what if I could "multiclass" 2 of these customized base classes. In 3.5 the extra sources came out with a ton of base classes and allowed "multiclassing". This is not an entirely fair comparison because if I remember right 4E classes get all their class features at level 1 in the class(another thing that bugged me but not significantly). My second dislike is that I really liked the concept (despite WOTC failure at making it balanced) of weak "At Will (or almost at will Fighters)" vs. strong "Limited Rationed uses" (Has to be DM enforced). I have no problem that classes in 4E have both of these types of abilities. I just wish there was a way to sacrifice one for more power in the other ("No Daily" Wizards and "No At Will" Fighters options for a change of pace).

I am reposting because I believe my post was missed by virtue of being at the bottom of the page during a quick posting period.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 09:04 PM
Maybe I lack imagination but I have a hard time to come up with an idea that I cannot do in 4e... can you give me some?

There's only one I can think of at this late hour that might have a bit of difficulty. Here it is...

Worldly soldier who has absorbed abilities from all different magical traditions in order to help him be versatile in his fight for good and gold.

In 3.5, this is a warblade with a whole bunch of dips and refluffed Use Magic Device. Sort of liek batman, in the bag of tricks and abilities he has to get out of situations. No Fly, but things like climbing, swimming, minor divination, etc.

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 09:06 PM
Try to create the Binder in 4e.

It is a very interesting system that has a lot to do with the character's culture and personality (well, it can be). The idea of a character who does not necessarily rely on their own skill, but instead calls varying spirits to assist them as needed is quite intriguing, in my opinion.

Now, you could explain 4e powers as the effects of spirits, but there are many reasons why 4e can't model it nearly as well as 3.5 could.
First, 4e powers are mostly unchangeable. You select one set, and that's it (until you maybe gain some levels, but that takes time). It doesn't model a character handing over their will or calling a certain spirit to aid them very well- you have access to the powers you chose constantly, and they're always going to be the same ones.

Furthermore, the different 4e classes limit you to a role, and so attempting to play a character who calls spirits to aid them for specific situations is going to be difficult. You can't adjust your power set well at all- not outside of the bounds of "fighter who smacks things in certain ways" or "magic user who uses magicy stuff."

With 3.5, you can say "Binder!" And you've created the character pretty easily. Alternately, if you don't have Tome of Magic, you can go "boom, Incarnate! Totemist!" Both systems model that kind of idea pretty well- far better than something in 4e could.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:07 PM
I am still a new player when it comes to D&D (only 7 years of playing D&D). I have invested heavily into 3e & 3.5 and have only played/run 3.x games (just so you know my bias) [PC 2nd edition video games don't count as experience in my book]. The thing that most irked me about 4e (one of the 2 reasons the prevent me from enjoying it) is that their is no true "multiclass" mechanic. Now let me explain what I mean. 4e has to my knowledge 2 multiclassing mechanics (multiclass feats and hybrid classes). Both of these feel more like the creation of a new player customized base class. This feels more like playing a duskblade then it does a fighter/mage. While more base class options are nice, it just leaves me thinking about what if I could "multiclass" 2 of these customized base classes. In 3.5 the extra sources came out with a ton of base classes and allowed "multiclassing". This is not an entirely fair comparison because if I remember right 4E classes get all their class features at level 1 in the class(another thing that bugged me but not significantly). My second dislike is that I really liked the concept (despite WOTC failure at making it balanced) of weak "At Will (or almost at will Fighters)" vs. strong "Limited Rationed uses" (Has to be DM enforced). I have no problem that classes in 4E have both of these types of abilities. I just wish there was a way to sacrifice one for more power in the other ("No Daily" Wizards and "No At Will" Fighters options for a change of pace).

I am reposting because I believe my post was missed by virtue of being at the bottom of the page during a quick posting period.

on the first point... I would rather create a unique hybrid base class then "multiclass". especially since multiclassing in 3.5 is either:
1. complete waste as you are a vastly weaker character (lose progression)
2. a cheesy way to stack abilities faster making you vastly more powerful than someone of an equal level, by using tons of dips and PrCs.

Either option is completely distasteful to me... requires tons of effort, and does not contribute anything to gameplay.
Creating a unique class of your own that is a hybrid, does contribute to creating diverse characters easily.

As for the second point. I agree with you there, but wouldn't it be fairly simple to fix? especially compared to the grand convoluted fixes for 3.5

Elan's Modron
2009-10-09, 09:07 PM
Anwer: Neither, Planescape rules supreme :smallcool:

This is objectively true and scientifically proven!

I'm Elan's Modron, and I endorse this statement.:smallsmile:

arguskos
2009-10-09, 09:07 PM
This thread seems needlessly confrontational to last much longer. Perhaps if we avoided language such as "better than" and "superior" and what have you.

As for my opinion (and nothing but), I enjoy 3.5 infinitely more than 4e because the latter stretches my suspension of disbelief too far for me to care about it. 3.5 at least TRIES to present a world that makes sense. Even with all it's flaws (and there are many of them), it still makes that attempt, and I love it for it.

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 09:10 PM
apples and oranges... the question was not "what is the food you most enjoy eating", nor was it "what is the system you personally most enjoy playing".
It was "what is the healthiest food" or "what is a better system"

That's the whole point of what I've been trying to say this whole time. There is no better system. They're completely different, and some people will like one over the other just because of their personal preferences, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:11 PM
Try to create the Binder in 4e.

It is a very interesting system that has a lot to do with the character's culture and personality (well, it can be). The idea of a character who does not necessarily rely on their own skill, but instead calls varying spirits to assist them as needed is quite intriguing, in my opinion.

Now, you could explain 4e powers as the effects of spirits, but there are many reasons why 4e can't model it nearly as well as 3.5 could.
First, 4e powers are mostly unchangeable. You select one set, and that's it (until you maybe gain some levels, but that takes time). It doesn't model a character handing over their will or calling a certain spirit to aid them very well- you have access to the powers you chose constantly, and they're always going to be the same ones.

Furthermore, the different 4e classes limit you to a role, and so attempting to play a character who calls spirits to aid them for specific situations is going to be difficult. You can't adjust your power set well at all- not outside of the bounds of "fighter who smacks things in certain ways" or "magic user who uses magicy stuff."

With 3.5, you can say "Binder!" And you've created the character pretty easily. Alternately, if you don't have Tome of Magic, you can go "boom, Incarnate! Totemist!" Both systems model that kind of idea pretty well- far better than something in 4e could.

First i would say i am not very familiar with those classes... or the concept they represent. I never heard of binder and i haven't read the incarnate book.

But I have noticed that those all require splat books, none of those are doable with the 3.5 core. As such this is a matter of 4e having less splat books rather than having less flexibility as a system.

sonofzeal
2009-10-09, 09:12 PM
4e is a better tactical wargame, hands down. But 3.5 doesn't require miniatures and a battlegrid to play effectively, and that's a major win in every single group I'm in. I'm in a PBP, two instant-chat groups, and and IRL group. Of the four, 4e would be a complete and utter disaster for the first three, with its heavy use of "slide two" or various other powers that manipulate the battle grid, and would be problematic for the IRL group where we have counters but no grid. 3e, for all its faults, can work fairly well blind. I mean it still helps to have a grid, but the only major questions are "is he close enough to whack", and "can I catch XYZ with a fireball without hitting ABC", and both of those are questions a good DM can handle blind.

Additionally, 3e is still pretty inarguably the more flexible of the two systems. As suppliments roll out 4e will catch up a bit, but my experience so far is that it's rather more homogenized. Not that all classes play the same, of course, but there's a narrower range of possibilities. One of the ways I sell D&D to newbs is to tell them that their character can attempt just about anything they can imagine, with varying chances of success.

The biggest thing, though, is that it's a lot easier for me to find 3e groups than to find 4e groups. That, and the fact that I'm knowledgable and comfortable in 3e, I can make fairly optimized characters without even cracking open a book. Playing 4e would be a lot more effort for me, trying to learn new rules and remember everything, and would be a lot more effort finding the group too.

So, I'm sticking with 3e for the forseeable future.

OldTrees
2009-10-09, 09:12 PM
1. complete waste as you are a vastly weaker character (lose progression)
2. a cheesy way to stack abilities faster making you vastly more powerful than someone of an equal level, by using tons of dips and PrCs.



Some of us like dual progression prc and weak multiclassing for the versatile (but weak) abilities.


Both of my dislikes can and might(hope) be fixed but until then 3.5 is better in these areas.

Elan's Modron
2009-10-09, 09:13 PM
I wet myself seeing this picture :)
I want to play spelljammer now...



Oh hell yeah! (to your second sentence I mean, not so much the first :smallwink:)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 09:14 PM
especially since multiclassing in 3.5 is either:
1. complete waste as you are a vastly weaker character (lose progression)
2. a cheesy way to stack abilities faster making you vastly more powerful than someone of an equal level, by using tons of dips and PrCs.
Such extremities are often false dilemmas. I would, in this case, wager that it is. Again, one of the most powerful classes is a straight druid. Duskblade 3/Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Chameleon 2/etc. is powerful, not not "vastly more" so (esp. compared to sample druid). And given the inherently eclectic nature of somebody taking Chameleon, not too cheesy.


Creating a unique class of your own that is a hybrid, does contribute to creating diverse characters easily.
But it rarely goes far enough. Any ability granted by one or two feats isn't liable to give enough to make a true hybrid. Or do the newer multiclass feats come with drawbacks as well as bonuses? Honest question; I don't much know 4e.


especially compared to the grand convoluted fixes for 3.5
Citation for a fix that's really so convoluted?

PS: Nice new dynamic avatar, arguskos. Will take a while to adjust to, though. Still getting used to Tidesinger->Doc Roc...

AmberVael
2009-10-09, 09:15 PM
But I have noticed that those all require splat books, none of those are doable with the 3.5 core. As such this is a matter of 4e having less splat books rather than having less flexibility as a system.

Well, that's part of what I pointed out earlier- currently, 3.5 has many more splatbooks, which allows it more options- this may change, but for now, it is the case.

Still, even with core you could model it better. Druids and Clerics select from a huge array of spells, and can change their abilities every day. Such a system would work better than the 4e power system.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 09:21 PM
There's only one I can think of at this late hour that might have a bit of difficulty. Here it is...

Worldly soldier who has absorbed abilities from all different magical traditions in order to help him be versatile in his fight for good and gold.

In 3.5, this is a warblade with a whole bunch of dips and refluffed Use Magic Device. Sort of liek batman, in the bag of tricks and abilities he has to get out of situations. No Fly, but things like climbing, swimming, minor divination, etc.

Eh, few off the bat:

- A learned arcanist using arrows as a medium to channel his spells through (arcane gish with Smiting Spell and possibly two levels of Arcane Archer).
- A psionically gifted warrior using psionics to pretend to be incredibly skilled with his weapon of choice, while really just subtly using extra-physical powers to perform tricks that would be purely physically extremely difficult. Swashbuckler-type (e.g. Psion Gish with lots of martially enhancing powers).
- A beastmaster fielding a real circus of exotic animals (a Druid or Druid/Beastmaster with Wild Cohort and a couple of Handle Animaled extra pets)
- A keen-eyed warrior jealously guarding the area around him with a chain, intervening with any activity he can reach (a Spiked Chain AoO build)
- A man whose very presence is so icy, so dreadful that it throws even battle-hardened warriors into panic (a Barbarian/Zhentarim Fighter Intimidate-focused build)
- A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)



Some of them may be doable, I'm not familiar enough with all the supplements of 4e to know all the multiclass combinations offered. Not only that, but it's fully possible to make all of them mechanically competent.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:22 PM
There's only one I can think of at this late hour that might have a bit of difficulty. Here it is...

Worldly soldier who has absorbed abilities from all different magical traditions in order to help him be versatile in his fight for good and gold.

In 3.5, this is a warblade with a whole bunch of dips and refluffed Use Magic Device. Sort of liek batman, in the bag of tricks and abilities he has to get out of situations. No Fly, but things like climbing, swimming, minor divination, etc.

either a gish class...
or break one minor rule and have a warrior that chose the arcana skill...

sofawall
2009-10-09, 09:24 PM
both sound unrealistic and unfun to me.

But it sounds fun to me. Sometimes people disagree.

Call of Duty bores me like no other game, but I love Fire Emblem. Sometimes, most people disagree with you.

You can still be right.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 09:26 PM
And fighters must be allowed to be untiring monsters who never run out of breath as the execute the most taxing battle maneuvers while wizards must be able to win everything with a single spell but then completely run out of magic and be a commoner for the rest of the day?

You really think being what is explicitly an "untiring monster" and having explicitly a single spell per day is fun? :smallwink:

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:27 PM
Eh, few off the bat:

- A learned arcanist using arrows as a medium to channel his spells through (arcane gish with Smiting Spell and possibly two levels of Arcane Archer).
- A psionically gifted warrior using psionics to pretend to be incredibly skilled with his weapon of choice, while really just subtly using extra-physical powers to perform tricks that would be purely physically extremely difficult. Swashbuckler-type (e.g. Psion Gish with lots of martially enhancing powers).
- A beastmaster fielding a real circus of exotic animals (a Druid or Druid/Beastmaster with Wild Cohort and a couple of Handle Animaled extra pets)
- A keen-eyed warrior jealously guarding the area around him with a chain, intervening with any activity he can reach (a Spiked Chain AoO build)
- A man whose very presence is so icy, so dreadful that it throws even battle-hardened warriors into panic (a Barbarian/Zhentarim Fighter Intimidate-focused build)
- A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)



Some of them may be doable, I'm not familiar enough with all the supplements of 4e to know all the multiclass combinations offered. Not only that, but it's fully possible to make all of them mechanically competent.

Also a lot of issues that are more due to the lack of splat books for 4e and the plethora of them for 3.5...
This is less a weakness of the system I'd say and more of simply a case of 4e being young enough as to lack verity via splat.

I would completely agree that you are much much more likely to find a splatbook partaining to what you wanted for 3.5e than you are for 4e... at least for the short term.

Diamondeye
2009-10-09, 09:27 PM
actually more like:
"what is the healthiest food to eat"
"cake"
"you're saying you think the healthiest thing to eat is something that gives almost no nutrition, will bloat you, is just massive amounts of sugar, so you'll get a sugar crash afterwards, and all it does is make you obese?"

And to that I must say:
how does this ATTACK THE PERSON?
It is a fairly accurate description of cake and asking them if they were serious in their intent to consume it daily.

You're not attacking the person. What you're doing is making a Strawman Attack wherein you attack a much weaker version of their argument than what they actually said.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:28 PM
You really think being what is explicitly an "untiring monster" and having explicitly a single spell per day is fun? :smallwink:

no, I never said I think that is fun, I am pointing out that all classing having "at will, at encounter, and daily" powers actually makes sense... they all fatigue by doing something more ... fancy. and can only do them so often...

taltamir
2009-10-09, 09:33 PM
You're not attacking the person. What you're doing is making a Strawman Attack wherein you attack a much weaker version of their argument than what they actually said.

even if that was the case, a strawman attack on their ARGUMENT is not an attack on them as a PERSON.

"You son of a ---- I hope you choke on your cake and die because you are too much of a limp ---- ---- to have an intelligent opinion" is an example of attacking the person. "You are too stupid to understand me" Is a less severe example

A so called "attack on opinion" is nothing but disagreement.

I do however avoid using straw man arguments and detest their use. A strawman argument is a silly thing to say as it betrays your ignorance on the subject or/and unwillingness to be proven wrong. But that is far from being the case for me, I love being proven wrong, it means I learned something.

when I originally phrased it, it sounded dismissive of a certain idea (which might offend some), but not a strawman; and I immediately edited it. But it has been quoted since.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 09:34 PM
Also a lot of issues that are more due to the lack of splat books for 4e and the plethora of them for 3.5...
This is less a weakness of the system I'd say and more of simply a case of 4e being young enough as to lack verity via splat.

I would completely agree that you are much much more likely to find a splatbook partaining to what you wanted for 3.5e than you are for 4e... at least for the short term.

If necessary, those can be constructed as decent characters in Core 3.5. But yeah, the shell of 4e just isn't as flexible. The whole Ranger/Wizard/Arcane Archer/Eldritch Knight construction that would work for the first one just takes a whole ton more effort in 4e than in 3.5e, especially since the 3.5e version make a holistic change; instead of being able to just fire arrows and cast spells (both of which he can perform quite decently), he can combine the two by being able to use his bow to deliver all his area spells, giving him extra range and options in exchange for some spellcasting prowess.

The second one obviously requires Psionics, but beyond that, would be doable in a simple Fighter/Psion/Slayer shell with proper selection of powers and feats.

The third one an extrapolation of Handle Animal in combination with summons (fluffed as "hiding animals") and animal companion and so on.


But really, the limits of Core 3.5 are quite trivial with regards to what 3.5 itself is capable of. Due to the existence of prestige classes and different systems, 3.5 not only has more material (which it does), but it has more flexibility in what kind of material it can field.

4e really fails at any kind of combination involving 3+ base competencies, and lacks the option of having interesting gimmicky PrCs specifically for certain kinds of characters (say, Drunken Master or Fochlucan Lyrist) inherently because of the decisions made in designing the system. The other big one is PrCs that overlay the base class with a completely new progression (say, new spellcasting progression, new martial progression or such; stuff like Chameleon, Suel Arcanamach, Ur-Priest, Blighter and so on simply cannot exist within 4e framework without being a base class, which defeats the whole point of said classes save maybe Chameleon; they represent change).

3.5e is simply much more open-ended in this regard which ultimately leads to 3.5e having more mechanical options and freedom to present more concepts and options by nature.

Redpieper
2009-10-09, 09:40 PM
Right Planescape/Spelljammer sillyness aside :smalltongue:
I enjoy 3.5 more then 4th because I've grown up with it, meaning I know it from the inside out. It's grown on me.
Fourth edition on the other hand is new, which is a barrier to cross.
Besides that there's the multiple reasons people have stated.

It's all personal preference. There is no better system, it's all down to playstyle. Some people enjoy a lot of options and take the inherit imbalance and other flaws as a small price to pay.
Other people enjoy balance where everyone is (supposedly) equally powerful and take the lack of distinction between classes, powers etc as again, a small price to pay.

But really does it matter? I like 3.5 but it doesn't bother me that other people play fourth, or AD&D for that matter :smallwink:

Both systems are good, well crafted and succesful in their goal of providing roleplaying goodness.

And that's all that matters right? :smallsmile:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 09:40 PM
It was a response to this

But it sounds fun to me. Sometimes people disagree.

Call of Duty bores me like no other game, but I love Fire Emblem. Sometimes, most people disagree with you.

You can still be right.

You quite explicitly, after your hyberbolic description, stated that playstyle didn't appeal to you.

Also, "strawman" is a bit of a loaded term. There's probably no other way to express it, but eh.

On the splatbook issue:
1989: 2.0
1995: 2.5 (2e revised edition)
2000: 3.0
2003: 3.5
2008: 4.0

4.0 is anywhere from 20-40% over, depending on the ETA of 4.5

sofawall
2009-10-09, 09:44 PM
You really think being what is explicitly an "untiring monster" and having explicitly a single spell per day is fun? :smallwink:

Yes. I would, actually. I would find that pretty fun as a thought exercise.


a bunch of identical creatures in a single 5 foot area are considered a swarm, and thus cannot be cleaved.

Commoner Black Hole. Not a swarm.

Lots of cats. A cat swarm? Show me where it says lots of cats sharing a space acts as a swarm?

Kylarra
2009-10-09, 10:27 PM
Eh, few off the bat:
I guess I'll try to field a few with my admittedly weak 4e-fu



- A learned arcanist using arrows as a medium to channel his spells through (arcane gish with Smiting Spell and possibly two levels of Arcane Archer).
Bards and Clerics both have paragon paths that allow them to use bows as implements. Admittedly, that's not the exact flavor you're going for (and the bard one is sadly underpowered, but then again so're most things involving AA), but it's "close".



- A psionically gifted warrior using psionics to pretend to be incredibly skilled with his weapon of choice, while really just subtly using extra-physical powers to perform tricks that would be purely physically extremely difficult. Swashbuckler-type (e.g. Psion Gish with lots of martially enhancing powers).
4e has less focus on self-buffs and long-term buffs, so I agree this would probably be not feasible mechanically.

You could however, take melee training (whatever) feat and pretend to be a martialist. Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's actually how my group justified that feat for all the other classes. You're just using your power source to assist your basic attacks or whatever.



- A beastmaster fielding a real circus of exotic animals (a Druid or Druid/Beastmaster with Wild Cohort and a couple of Handle Animaled extra pets)DMG 2 has cohort and animal rules, admittedly I haven't read them, but that + beastmaster ranger doesn't seem out of the question.



- A keen-eyed warrior jealously guarding the area around him with a chain, intervening with any activity he can reach (a Spiked Chain AoO build)
Seems like a standard fighter using a spiked chain. Again, I'll concede that he can't AoO (or OA from 4e lexicon) at reach, but he still stops movement automatically with AoO/OAs that hit.



- A man whose very presence is so icy, so dreadful that it throws even battle-hardened warriors into panic (a Barbarian/Zhentarim Fighter Intimidate-focused build) Intimidate is kind of meh in 4e, but you can just have a decent CHA and force bloodied enemies to surrender I guess. I got nothing else for this one.



- A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)Eh. Rogue with druid/shaman/warden multiclass feat. Martial ability can be fluffed so many ways.



Some of them may be doable, I'm not familiar enough with all the supplements of 4e to know all the multiclass combinations offered. Not only that, but it's fully possible to make all of them mechanically competent.Most are doable depending on how literally attached to your concept being mechanically relevant you are.

Not against you directly, but I find it somewhat ... jarring to see so many 3.X proponents both actively promote disregarding fluff for classes in the 3.X in order to make characters, but then cling so very hard to minor details when making these statements against 4e. I will admit that there are a fair number of concepts that can be made in 3.X that can't be done in 4e, but some of the objections are just silly.

Roland St. Jude
2009-10-09, 10:37 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This particular discussion has been done over and over since 4e was announced. This thread is needlessly hostile and confrontational and seems to be more about whether people are attacking other people than about the substance. Please don't restart this thread.