Help me see 3x vs 4e

[No brains]

I'm feeling pretty dumb right now. I have access to all the 3.0/5 books though friends, but I'm feeling like it's not relevant anymore because it is slowly seeming that 4e is flatly better now.

I remember having good reason to be afraid of converting before, but now I've forgotten! I used to like fighters because they got oh-so many feats, but it turns out they suck anyway- better to play a warblade, which has maneuvers that I choose to use, but 4e seems to do activated abilities better! My days of enjoying my feat-piles were misguided and seemingly misplaced as well.

It also seems that one of the major benefits seen in 3x is sloppy editing! It is the ability to play loopholes into abuses that people seem to like most! 4e seems to be very careful in watching its editing now, keeping gameplay far away from fluff and even releasing updates on a regular basis.

I remember that 3x had better rules for world-building, but since those are so fluff-intensive, shouldn't DM fiat be the fuel of original worlds anyway? I've never seen the 4e DMG so I don't know what has been done to replace the old world-building guidelines.

I feel sad and disillusioned. Did I waste all my time looking into the seeming wonders of 3x only to learn that 4e is superior? Help me out so I can be an effective DM and player again. Tell me the merits of 3x vs 4e.

[true_shinken]

I remember that 3x had better rules for world-building, but since those are so fluff-intensive, shouldn't DM fiat be the fuel of original worlds anyway? I've never seen the 4e DMG so I don't know what has been done to replace the old world-building guidelines.
Nothing was done to replace them.


I feel sad and disillusioned. Did I waste all my time looking into the seeming wonders of 3x only to learn that 4e is superior? Help me out so I can be an effective DM and player again. Tell me the merits of 3x vs 4e.
They're different games for different players.
Also, there is no 'effective' DM or player. Numbercrunching and rules knowledge is just a small part of an RPG.

Really, there are no merits or flaws specific to each. They are just made to do different things and both achieve it's goal quite well.

[No brains]

Really, there are no merits or flaws specific to each. They are just made to do different things and both achieve it's goal quite well.

This is dodging the question. What are the thing each system does better? Is there anything I could have learned from my study of 3x books that could still be applied in a fun 3x game?

[Geigan]

They're different games for different players.
Also, there is no 'effective' DM or player. Numbercrunching and rules knowledge is just a small part of an RPG.

Really, there are no merits or flaws specific to each. They are just made to do different things and both achieve it's goal quite well.

I'd pretty much agree with this. I prefer 3.5's more complex systems and mish-mash of different mechanical concepts, but 4.0 is more balanced in each classes' effectiveness. I have nothing against 4.0 and still play it from time to time, but I just prefer 3.5. You shouldn't have to stick to something that you don't like as much if you have better options available for your style of game. Go for it man.

[true_shinken]

This is dodging the question. What are the thing each system does better? Is there anything I could have learned from my study of 3x books that could still be applied in a fun 3x game?

3.5 is a fantasy world simulator.
4e is a balanced heroic fantasy game.

[Curious]

Okay, I'm just going to rattle off a list of things I don't like in 4e as compared to 3.5/Pathfinder. It might not change your mind, but it does get it off my chest. :smalltongue:

The combat system. Every class uses the exact same mechanic for determining powers gained, at-wills, encounters, etc. I really don't like this since it makes every class feel similar in play, and breaks willing suspension of disbelief. I mean, you have a ranger shooting three or so arrows at once, one time a day, but he just can't pull it off the rest of the time. This makes no sense. Sure, you can explain it away as the wind or positioning or whatever you want, but the fact that you have to go to such lengths to justify the use of a power already means it breaks suspension of disbelief.

Another thing the combat system, and 4e's vaunted balance is to blame for; it gives you a role. Now, I'll admit that 4e is pretty well balanced all told, with no class really outshining the others, as compared to 3.5's wizard>fighter situation, but in the end it causes yet more problems. That is, it pigeonholes you into a 'role' dictated to your class. No more can you be a wizard who focuses on killing things really well, you have to be a controller, no more Fighter horizon-tripper taking mastery over the battlefield rather than taking hits. Just tanks and strikers and whatever.

Multi-classing, and by extension the number of character concepts you can realistically create, has been absolutely cratered. Sure, there's a few feeble attempts at letting you diversify, but in the end, Wizards expects you to sit in the nice seat they have made for you and play the game exactly as they planned it, with your role pre-determined. Again, 'balance' strikes.

I have many more complaints about the system, but I think I'm going to stop there.

[stainboy]

{{scrubbed}}

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Sorry, not getting into another 3.x vs 4e debate. The differences have been hashed and rehashed over plenty of times. Go review one of those threads.

[Fable Wright]

Here's what I've noticed from the systems:
In 3.Xe, you have a lot of flexibility in concepts. You can do almost anything you want in the setting, and make almost any character. There are prestige classes and base classes for almost any concept you want, and if there isn't, it's relatively easy to make new classes, or revamp old classes. With 3.5e, you can actually get powers and feats that were intended to be for the bad guys- see Sarruks and Candles of invocation for more details. There's a lot of complexity within the system, which also brings with it unique ways of doing things that you haven't done before. There are many systems for doing things in different ways- psionics, incarnum, binding, shadow magic, tome of battle, and other magic and combat systems about for them. They also have feats to help round out almost any concept, making it easy to make unique characters with the same class combinations. However, it has some flaws. Classes and races aren't necessarily balanced. WotC has the 3.5e policy of "There's an elf for that"-sometimes rather annoying that the whole system favors one race, though that's more of a personal annoyance. Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Archivists break the game if their player wants it, and the other characters, while usually capable in their own field, can have wide gulfs of difference in their powers. In short, 3.5e is better for making a dynamic world- people have a wider array of powers to choose from, and you can customize almost any villain you want to do whatever you want- you can change spells known, feats, class levels, and give a different encounter creatures of the same level. However, again, there are differences in the levels of powers between all of the characters there. Wizards and their kin can break the game if they are so inclined- there's a lot that the players can do, and they can become ridiculously strong if they apply themselves. However, of the DM and the other players can work together and agree not to overshadow each other, and tell each other when the characters are hogging the spotlight, it can be a very awe-inspiring and fun game.

4e is geared with an entirely different attitude in mind. It works more along the lines of an MMO than a dynamic world with infinite different characters. Most creatures are designated Non-PC- in 3.5e, you can play as almost anything in the monster manual (Read: LA line). In 4th, you can't. Ever. Not even a gnome, which is no longer a player race. You are given a select group of class powers, and given a role. You accomplish that role, and the other players play their roles. Each class has a built-in niche security; you can't overshadow another player. Early in the system, if you wanted to gain powers outside of your role, you couldn't do them effectively. Ever. At all. Multiclassing allowed you to dabble in another classes' abilities, but you could never get good at them. This has eased up a bit in the release of the Player's Handbook 3. Suddenly, you can play as a character that can merge powers slightly- but never enough to actually overshadow another person, and they more carve out their own niche, filling out each role a little bit of the time. The system has gotten more flexible, but nowhere near as flexible as 3.5e. It's also good at putting down the line on what players can use and what the DMs can use- the only thing a player might get out of a 4e book designed for a DM are some new rituals and possibly some new feats. In 3.5e, you get a book, and there will be content for DMs, possibly a couple of new base classes, if you were lucky, some prestige classes, and some new feats. You definitely get more out of each 3.5 book for each role if you have it. However, you generally get less out of roleplaying interactions- while 4e definitely has combat down, it lacks a bit with non-combat powers. While you can pillage and plunder all you want, it's difficult for a character to use their skill set for anything other than combat. While, I believe, they do have some non-combat powers, there's nothing compared to the 3.5 use of powers in the everyday game. For example, in 3.5, a hexblade is dedicated as a warrior-mage. Not necessarily a good one, but he can be decent. However, he can actually do something outside of combat. He could use his enchantment spells to manipulate people outside of combat, use his curse to make someone more gullible and less likely to disbelieve what he's saying, make the guards suddenly lack attention, get an influential person to muff up an important speech, or what have you. You can easily do almost anything with your designated powers. Outside of combat, a wizard can do almost anything with their powers, which is one of the reasons they are considered overpowered. And, in non-combat situations outside of interaction with other people, like tracking, scouting, and setting up defenses, each person can fill out a role decently. While some of the classes were unable to fill some of those roles well, like Barbarian and fighter, almost all of the classes released after that had something they could do, be it doing the scouting, not getting caught, taking animal form to spy/scout, using Invocations to accomplish things... the list goes on. Even one power, or a one-level dip could give someone something that they can do other than battle monsters and enter dungeon crawls. Unfortunately, in 4th edition, you have skills, and perhaps a few non-combat powers, but not enough of it to make a political or social themed game well, or a murder investigation. However, 4th edition can definitely satisfy almost all monster-slaying needs, in an MMO fashion.

That's my view of it, anyways, and other people no doubt have theirs. I may have missed updates that cover these areas, but this is how I compare the systems.

[under_score]

That is, it pigeonholes you into a 'role' dictated to your class. No more can you be a wizard who focuses on killing things really well, you have to be a controller, no more Fighter horizon-tripper taking mastery over the battlefield rather than taking hits. Just tanks and strikers and whatever.

This is the thing I most prefer about 3.5 (and even more so games like Shadowrun that do away with classes per se). More than anything, I think I enjoy a character driven game, which is most complemented by a character creation system that allows for great flexibility and customization. Fourth edition feels like there are only a few stock options with very limited adaptability (and most classes don't seem to be that unique to begin with). That's my biggest disappointment.

[Seerow]

It seems like I'm the guy around here who's most willing to bash 4e, and since you asked I'll just go ahead.



World building by fiat fails on contact with the players. In D&D there's no such thing as "player fiat" - players need mechanics to put their stamp on the world.

3e mostly handles this through spells (whether you cast them, buy an item that casts them, or pay someone to cast them for you). It's not perfect and obviously favors spellcasters, but there's absolutely no reason any player interested in world-building can't be a spellcaster. (Fighter and rogue types have to use PrCs, but hey, the options are there.)

4e is stingy with non-combat options for PCs of any class. The DM can construct an epic story and lovingly detailed world, but there's not much the players can do to interact with it so there's no reason for them to care. It's really easy for players to tune out DM Story Time and only engage during combat.

4e is really two games: freeform DM Story Time and a rigid rules-heavy minis combat game. You have to switch between the two in mid-play and the conventions of one don't make sense in the other. You go from describing people in an imaginary world to game pieces on a grid, and it's not a smooth transition. This further encourages players to tune out DM Story Time, because as soon as combat starts everything changes anyway.

Example: The DM declares you pissed off the city watch. Eight dudes show up to arrest you. In 3e/2e you can reasonably guess that they'll be 1st or 2nd level fighters/warriors/0-level humans, and you can make a decision based on that about whether to fight or surrender. In 4e, it's a crapshoot. That could be eight lv2 minions (easy fight) or three soldiers, four artillery, and an elite soldier [leader] scaled to your level (you're boned, surrender). You don't know until combat starts, so you tune out until the DM puts minis on the table or tells you want he wants you to do.

So you the DM can do all the freeform world-building you want but the players don't have any reason to care about it. You'll see 4e DMs say "I'm running a story," but you rarely see anyone talk about some awesome thing the PCs did. The DM may be telling a story but half the time the players aren't listening.


This is one of the most biased senseless things I have ever heard. Let's take your same example and apply it to 3rd edition using the same levels of negativity you used.




3e is really two games: freeform DM Story Time and a rigid rules-heavy minis combat game. You have to switch between the two in mid-play and the conventions of one don't make sense in the other. You go from describing people in an imaginary world to game pieces on a grid, and it's not a smooth transition. This further encourages players to tune out DM Story Time, because as soon as combat starts everything changes anyway.

Example: The DM declares you pissed off the city watch. Eight dudes show up to arrest you. In 4e you can reasonably guess that they'll be 1st or 2nd level soldiers or minions, and you can make a decision based on that about whether to fight or surrender. In 3e, it's a crapshoot. That could be eight lv2 warriors (easy fight) or three Warblades, four Rangers, and an elite array crusader, scaled to your level (you're boned, surrender). You don't know until combat starts, so you tune out until the DM puts minis on the table or tells you want he wants you to do.

So you the DM can do all the freeform world-building you want but the players don't have any reason to care about it. You'll see 3e DMs say "I'm running a story," but you rarely see anyone talk about some awesome thing the PCs did. The DM may be telling a story but half the time the players aren't listening.

[Metahuman1]

Let me further the above post.

3.x E: My character is the son of a master sword smith who forged for me this sword made from the metal of a fallen star and trained me in both it's crafting and it's use.

Mechanics: Fighter with proficiency great-sword and weapons focus + what ever feats you like, and Ranks in either profession blacksmith or craft weapons making. DM Fiat/ WBL if your starting high enough gives you a mastercraft Adimatin or Starmetal greatsword to go with the story.

4e: My character is the son of a master sword smith who forged for me this sword made from the metal of a fallen star and trained me in both it's crafting and it's use.

Mechanics: THEY DON'T EXIST IN THIS EDITION! JUST TELL THE STORY AND USE STANDARD MECHANICS FOR COMBAT FOR YOUR CLASS+RACE COMBO!

And another thing you might notice,


Combat in 3.x is a whole other game at lvl 10 or 20 and certainly by lvl 30 then it is at lvl 1.

Combat in 4.0 is EXACTLY the same at lvl 1 as it is at lvl 10, 20, and 30. The only difference is the numbers are proportionatly bigger, that's it!

And as far as the whole "exploiting Loop holes/better editing" argument.

There are plenty of things missed in the editing of 4.0 that can be used to get an advantage or even break the game. Do a big of Google Fu and you'll find a few. The reason for putting out 4.0 wasn't because 3.5 didn't work, it was because they wanted to make money by getting everyone to buy a whole new set of books, and make more books by putting less in every book and making more books. It's not uncommon for 2 or even 3 books in 4E to have equal material to 1 3.5 book. And they wanted to try and streamline it to "Go in, kill stuff, get the rewards, repeat" in a semi tactical format so they can compete with the massive success of MMORPG computer games such as Everquest and more recently/even more infamously, World of Warcraft, and they observed that that was all there was too such games all things considered, so they made it in table top format.


Edit: Epic Ninja'd!

Ok, the comment referring too "The above post" was aimed at Stainboy's post. Just so there's no confusion.

[stainboy]

@Seerow: You should have just done the "fixed it for you" meme. It would have taken up half as much space.

[Seerow]

@Seerow: You should have just done the "fixed it for you" meme. It would have taken up half as much space.

Should have, but I don't believe in the reworded version, so I don't think it is fixed, but rather a demonstration as to how both of the statements are horrible hyperboles.




@Metahuman: If the difference between you feeling a world is realistic vs not realistic is the ability to put skill ranks into blacksmithing, I don't know what to tell you. Not to mention how patently easy it would be to add a Profession Skill that is trainable in 4e, if that would make the world more immersive to you somehow.

The point of the separation in 4e is so that you don't have to gimp your character in other areas to support your backstory. Your 3.5 fighter who is putting points into blacksmithing is wasting points that he is horribly short on to begin with that could have been put to better use.

Personally, for that sort of thing, I prefer shadowrun's system where you get knowledge/interest skills, and gain a certain amount for free, and can increase them cheaply. I don't really think 3.5 is any better in the skill area than 4th edition, and in some aspects it's really behind (the skill based powers that you can pick up once you have a trained skill are a cool concept, and while they exist in 3.5 as skill tricks, the skill tricks tend to be pretty terrible, while 4e's skill powers are more in line with the other powers they're balanced against.)

[Doc Roc]

I had a player instantly paste grazzt's avatar. He'd been saving a couple of tricks all campaign, hoarding them for what must have been a year of real time. It was insanely epic. Then my players jumped through a malfunctioning portal as the plane blew up around them, ended up on the plane of fire, and stuffed themselves into a portable hole to be carried away by the player who was fire immune. We cracked it open now and then to let them breathe.


It was epic, and completely impossible in 4e. That's not saying 4e is bad, in fact, I heard a few really amazing stories from 4e, and hopefully Gralamin will be by with one of them.

Just a counter-grenade, seerow. Fire in the hole, baby.

[erikun]

I've found that 3.5e is good pretty good at two things: multiclassing and homebrew.

In 3.5e, you can take whatever class you want, as many as you want, as much as you want. Want to be a Ranger/Cleric/Warlock/Paladin/Soulknife? You can do that. It's horribly inefficient, but you can still mash all those abilities together into one character. In 4e, your choices are far more limited. You're either one class with a single ability from another class (plus one encounter power and one daily, if you want to spend a feat each) or you are a cross between two classes that always have roughly equal abilities from both. Even something relatively simple - such as an archer that heals or a knight with a sword that wards others - can become rather difficult to pull off.

As for homebrew, it is far easier to create new classes in 3.5e than it is in 4e. A collection of 3.5e abilities, even 20 different ones, ends up easier to make than the 4e abilities and powers for a 30th level character - even if you only make one power at each appropriate level. This also extends into using monster races. If I want to play a Mummy or Lilliend, then 3.5e allow me to do it - although you might need to adjust the LA to make it playable. If I want to play the same in 4e, I'm out of luck. I need to make a base race from scratch, with basically no guidelines, and will likely need to create a paragon path just to allow the character to act like the creature in question (once per encounter and twice again per day).

In the interest of fairness, 4e does combat better. It is both easier to put together, quicker to run, more interesting to participate in and more challanging each fight, given that every fight of the day can test the full extent of the party rather than needing a few first to drain the party's resources.


No more can you be a wizard who focuses on killing things really well, you have to be a controller, no more Fighter horizon-tripper taking mastery over the battlefield rather than taking hits. Just tanks and strikers and whatever.
I'll use one of the common 3.5e defenses here: the class on your character sheet is just a collection of mechanical abilities of the character. A character doesn't know the names of the specific classes and abilities they have, and will choose to refer to themselves as they see themselves. A 3.5e paladin can have levels in the Paladin class, or the Duskblade class, or be a Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator, or just a Kensai. Even a Druid can work. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10942636&postcount=14)

Similarly, your wizard that focuses on killing things can be a Warlock or a Sorcerer. Your chain-tripping fighter can be a... well, he can actually be a Chain-tripping Fighter, as that is exactly what the 4e Fighter does. Your dungeon-crasher ubercharger can be a Ranger, a Barbarian, or an Avenger. Your heal-and-smash cleric can be a Cleric, Bard, Shaman, Warlord, or Paladin.


My character is the son of a master sword smith who forged for me this sword made from the metal of a fallen star and trained me in both it's crafting and it's use.
3.5e: You choose any class that uses a sword, and take ranks in Craft (Weaponsmith).
4e: You choose any class that uses a sword, and take the Weaponsmith background.

There are times when this isn't modeled very well in 4e - someone once mentioned using Bowmaking skills to arm their characters on the run - but your example isn't one of them.

[The Glyphstone]

Strawberry!


Looms over thread watchfully...

[Doc Roc]

Strawberry!


Looms over thread watchfully...

Exterminate? Exterminate, exterminate?

Exterminate!

[Dralnu]

I haven't played 4e yet but I've read the PHBs and DMGs and love them. The big reason for this is the simplicity of the system. 3.5 takes a stupid amount of time to learn all the core mechanics, which you need to know to actually play the game. In fact, my gaming group still doesn't know all of it. We always have to pause combat to do things like check the grapple, turn undead, and dispel magic rules.

The classes aren't the same. They still have their unique abilities, feel, and niche. It's just that the mechanics aren't arbitrarily difficult to pick up because everything's streamlined. Everybody using the same mechanics, in my opinion, is a GOOD thing, because it makes picking up new classes easy.

As a player, by far my favorite 3e book is ToB. It makes melee fun. 4e is like a better ToB for all sorts of things. That's great for me.

Not to mention how much easier it makes everything for the DM. I like not having to jump through hoops to challenge overpowered characters in a fair and balanced manner. I like not having to know the ins and outs of the party composed of an ardent, psion, warblade, and wizard, all using a different mechanic system. I would love to DM a 4e game.

EDIT: My biggest beef on 4e so far would be the lack of consistency. I'm shocked and disappointed at how quickly WOTC radically redesigned their latest system. The time gap between PHB to PHB2 to PHB3 and all the rules revisions was way too short. How could they not have learned their lesson with 3e, or did they just not care enough to playtest their product before release?

[Seerow]

I had a player instantly paste grazzt's avatar. He'd been saving a couple of tricks all campaign, hoarding them for what must have been a year of real time. It was insanely epic. Then my players jumped through a malfunctioning portal as the plane blew up around them, ended up on the plane of fire, and stuffed themselves into a portable hole to be carried away by the player who was fire immune. We cracked it open now and then to let them breathe.

1) What sort of tricks was he hoarding that he hadn't used? I can see something similar working in 4th edition. For example, a Wizard who picks up several daily powers that he simply doesn't prepare ever, until that climatic battle where he pulls it out and everyone's like "wtf I didn't know you could do that!" This goes doubly so if you're doing this at epic levels, where some of the Epic Destiny Powers start doing some pretty funky things, and there are some don't need to be constantly used, but can be amazing when pulled out.

2) Planes exploding, malfunctioning portals, and the survivability of players in portable holes are all non-RAW things, and could be just as easily handled in 4e as 3e.





Now I do want to be clear. I am a fan of both games. I acknowledge that 4e has its limitations, but they aren't anywhere near as severe as many people claim they are.

What I see as the main strength of 3rd edition's system is the flexibility, and the mechanical differences between different character types. There are several different resource systems in place, and they play fairly differently. While 4e characters will play differently based on their powers known, the difference isn't as great as the difference between a Wizard and a Warblade, or even between a Warblade and a Crusader. If there was one thing I could change about 4e, it would be giving every power source a different resource type, so things don't feel so homogenous. As long as all of the classes have powers, and they have some limitation on how many they can know, having different systems can remain balanced to a degree.


That said, 4th edition, while being less flexible, as I mentioned isn't as rigid as most people claim. You have a pretty huge variety in terms of powers known, and between bloodlines, multiclassing, and skill powers, you can build hundreds of different characters from any class at any level, even before considering Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. You can make pretty much any concept you want within the bounds of the game, but the problem it has is any two characters, while they will be vastly different in abilities, will in play act similarly (see the complaint above about no different resource systems). The other complaint would be lack of variety, by level 30, you have fewer encounter powers than a level 20 warblade, and far fewer encounter+daily powers than a sorcerer has spells at level 20.

Anyway, at this point I'm mostly rambling and don't have much of a point. So I'm just going to reitterate, 4e has its issues, but it is better than most people around these parts give it credit for.

[Seerow]

Even something relatively simple - such as an archer that heals or a knight with a sword that wards others - can become rather difficult to pull off.

Um... Cleric/Ranger multiclass gets you the first concept, and is easier than anything in 3e to get that concept. And a Knight with a Sword that wards others is a shielding swordmage. Again, far easier than anything in 3e to represent that concept....

[Doc Roc]

Actually, survival of players in portable holes, and malfunctioning portals are both RAW in 3.x :)

[Gralamin]

I had a player instantly paste grazzt's avatar. He'd been saving a couple of tricks all campaign, hoarding them for what must have been a year of real time. It was insanely epic. Then my players jumped through a malfunctioning portal as the plane blew up around them, ended up on the plane of fire, and stuffed themselves into a portable hole to be carried away by the player who was fire immune. We cracked it open now and then to let them breathe.


It was epic, and completely impossible in 4e. That's not saying 4e is bad, in fact, I heard a few really amazing stories from 4e, and hopefully Gralamin will be by with one of them.

Just a counter-grenade, seerow. Fire in the hole, baby.

It appears I have been summoned.

First Doc, Most of that is possible with 4e, though obviously instantly pasting is VERY difficult. Now while 4e characters can hold their breathes for INSANE amounts of time, getting Fire immunity, or high fire resistance. Couldn't use a portable hole because they were messed up in implementation (105,000 gp for an item that replicates digging a hole, and you can't even pick it up while creatures or objects are in it? :smallconfused:), But Embedded Bags of Holding would work (Allowable in 4e). Malfunctioning portals don't currently exist, but seeing how all they are is a portal (Which exists) + Random plane chart (Which is 5 seconds to make), I don't see a problem with saying you can still do it in 4e.

In terms of great 4e stories, well, I quite enjoy one of my current high level games.

In this game, we are using a homebrewed Gestalt system, since WotC hasn't provided us with one. They are also in the epic levels. A good example of the group in action is when they first went up against some high level dragons. The party proceeded to mop the floor with them, despite a hostage situation. This is mostly due to lucky crits almost one shoting one of the dragons (It lost over 450 HP in one go), and the other one being lock-downed to death. Except, neither were killed - they managed to in battle talk them into giving up and working with them instead of their crazy plan.

That said, seriously people, you can play more then one game. It's not like you have to give up on 3.5 to play 4e, or the other way around.

[under_score]

As I mentioned, I'm much more a 3.5 fan than 4e. However, one thing on which I will wholeheartedly support 4th is the art. Consistently beautiful. On a similar note, I've been using 4e Eberron maps for my 3.5 game, just because the detail and care put into those maps is truly worth it.

[Lyin' Eyes]

That said, seriously people, you can play more then one game. It's not like you have to give up on 3.5 to play 4e, or the other way around.
QFT.

It sounds like No Brains' group plays 3.5, but he's attracted to the balance of 4e. Well, what's to stop you from playing 3.5 and DMing 4e, big guy? DMs pretty much get to run whatever system they want, so go for it!

[Divide by Zero]

{Scrubbed}

[GoatBoy]

3.5
Sheer volume of resources
Rewards min-maxing
Feats/classes/spells can build almost any character concept
Classes feel and play distinctly

4.0
Character balance
Streamlined character creation, hard to create a "bad" character
Ease of entry for new players
Ongoing support from WotC

Decide which fits with YOUR play style and preferences. No one has any right to tell you which one you "should" be playing. You will find willing players and lively online communities for both editions.

[erikun]

Um... Cleric/Ranger multiclass gets you the first concept, and is easier than anything in 3e to get that concept.
Doesn't really work. If you're talking about Cleric-multiclass-Ranger, then none of your powers can work with your bow. Everything is either melee or a ranged attack that is powered by your holy symbol. You could spend two additional feats to get a single encounter and a single daily attack with it, but outside that you are limited to some very weak basic attacks.

If you mean Ranger-multiclass-Cleric, then you can get a total of two heals daily through two feats (one for the Cleric multiclass, one for a Utility power). That is incredibly pathetic, given that your standard Cleric gets two heals per encounter as a first level ability.

I'm less familiar with the Cleric-Ranger-dualclassing from PHB3. As I understand it, though, you must have at least one at-will power, one encounter attack power, one daily attack power, and one utility power from each side. This gives you only one useful at-will power (because the other is tied up as melee or holy symbol use) and nearly half of your other powers are taken up in useless attack powers or utility powers unrelated to healing.


Oh sure, you could use such a combination, just as you can use a Cleric 10/Ranger 10 in a 3.5e game. It just works incredibly poorly. A straight 3.5e Cleric simply focusing on Dexterity and Wisdom and taking archery feats works better than the 4e option.

[Seerow]

Doesn't really work. If you're talking about Cleric-multiclass-Ranger, then none of your powers can work with your bow. Everything is either melee or a ranged attack that is powered by your holy symbol. You could spend two additional feats to get a single encounter and a single daily attack with it, but outside that you are limited to some very weak basic attacks.

If you mean Ranger-multiclass-Cleric, then you can get a total of two heals daily through two feats (one for the Cleric multiclass, one for a Utility power). That is incredibly pathetic, given that your standard Cleric gets two heals per encounter as a first level ability.

I'm less familiar with the Cleric-Ranger-dualclassing from PHB3. As I understand it, though, you must have at least one at-will power, one encounter attack power, one daily attack power, and one utility power from each side. This gives you only one useful at-will power (because the other is tied up as melee or holy symbol use) and nearly half of your other powers are taken up in useless attack powers or utility powers unrelated to healing.


Oh sure, you could use such a combination, just as you can use a Cleric 10/Ranger 10 in a 3.5e game. It just works incredibly poorly. A straight 3.5e Cleric simply focusing on Dexterity and Wisdom and taking archery feats works better than the 4e option.

I don't recall the details, as it's been a while since I looked into it, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to treat a Bow as your implement for cleric powers. From there, it's simple refluffing to use your bow to shoot holy radiant arrows and buff your allies, you then pick up a couple of the better ranger powers for more serious physical damage dealing. I'm pretty sure wisdom is even a secondary stat for rangers, so it meshes pretty well.

Edit: That said it'd be nice if someone who is more up to date on 4e stuff could confirm it. It's been a year or so since I played 4e, and I've let my DDI sub lapse, so I don't have a quick easy reference to check.

[erikun]

I don't recall the details, as it's been a while since I looked into it, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to treat a Bow as your implement for cleric powers. From there, it's simple refluffing to use your bow to shoot holy radiant arrows and buff your allies, you then pick up a couple of the better ranger powers for more serious physical damage dealing. I'm pretty sure wisdom is even a secondary stat for rangers, so it meshes pretty well.
This works until you start running into blast/burst powers, which make sense for a cleric-character but not someone shooting people with arrows. Or when you are forced into the one bad power because the others don't make sense. And unless multiclassing has changed since PHB1, you are still limited to one daily and one encounter.

I've worked with the 4e system a bit, and created some rather odd builds. I'm familiar with what works and what doesn't - and there is a lot more in the second category with 4e than in 3.5e. Even something as simple as "spellcaster with a bunch of prismatic spells" ends up as quite a chore in 4e. (INT/CHA Wizard|Sorcerer multiclass-Artificer /Wild Mage, and it still doesn't fill the 17th level encounter slot) Compare this to just "I play a wizard and memorize prismatic spells" or "I play a sorcerer and learn prismatic spells" from the earlier edition.

[ericgrau]

I'm feeling pretty dumb right now. I have access to all the 3.0/5 books though friends, but I'm feeling like it's not relevant anymore because it is slowly seeming that 4e is flatly better now.
"Help most people in this forum like chocolate but I like vanilla, convince me to like chocolate too." Sorry man, just eat vanilla. 3e and 4e are almost different games. If you like 4e, then play 4e.


It also seems that one of the major benefits seen in 3x is sloppy editing! It is the ability to play loopholes into abuses that people seem to like most! 4e seems to be very careful in watching its editing now, keeping gameplay far away from fluff and even releasing updates on a regular basis.
Most 3e players don't try to abuse rules loopholes, their groups often frown upon it and disallow excess, and it's strictly optional.


The reasons you might want to go back to 3e are build flexibility, action flexibility and rules flexibility and therefore world flexibility. More options on all 3. The reasons you might want to stay with 4e are its simpler and everything's in front of you, so you don't have to worry nor care nor pull hairs being confused about special options. The things that won't change much are story/plot and a good time with your friends. You seem to be on the rules headache side of things right now so I'd play 4e for now, possibly indefinitely. If you get bored of it and want to do more things or try something more complicated then try 3e again. Maybe even reverse transition through tome of battle and so on.

I played 4e for a bit and it was kinda cool; I had my powers neatly organized, and tracked via jelly beans. I found ways to blow them in combat as appropriate, but after the 10th fight it was like pressing buttons on a video game. It was fun and I'd still play it as long as I keep getting fed new abilities to try out so it's not the same old buttons. But it's not like playing something as in depth as D&D. Eventually you may master it and find that simple is too simple. Ok, then it's time to try something new. Maybe 3e, maybe Axis and Allies... an awesome game, btw, but likewise way more complicated than Risk and may turn off some people.

[Adrayll]

"Help most people in this forum like chocolate but I like vanilla, convince me to like chocolate too." Sorry man, just eat vanilla. 3e and 4e are almost different games. If you like 4e, then play 4e.

Intentional backhand?

[tcrudisi]

This works until you start running into blast/burst powers, which make sense for a cleric-character but not someone shooting people with arrows. Or when you are forced into the one bad power because the others don't make sense. And unless multiclassing has changed since PHB1, you are still limited to one daily and one encounter.

I've worked with the 4e system a bit, and created some rather odd builds. I'm familiar with what works and what doesn't - and there is a lot more in the second category with 4e than in 3.5e. Even something as simple as "spellcaster with a bunch of prismatic spells" ends up as quite a chore in 4e. (INT/CHA Wizard|Sorcerer multiclass-Artificer /Wild Mage, and it still doesn't fill the 17th level encounter slot) Compare this to just "I play a wizard and memorize prismatic spells" or "I play a sorcerer and learn prismatic spells" from the earlier edition.

The Moonbow Dedicate feat. Clerics can use a bow as an implement for divine and arcane powers. This includes bursts and blasts.

[Serpentine]

For me, the reasons I'm not interested in 4e are as follows:

1. The sheer flexibility and adaptability of 3.5. If you want to do it, you can. If you can't, you can easily make it so you can do it.
2. The mechanical support for pretty much anything you can think of. One of the common counters to this is "you can do it in 4e, you just refluff it/put it in your backstory/just say that's what you're doing". And that's fine. But that's not what I want. I want as much as possible to be reflected in the mechanics. I want a feat that makes Craft(Basketweaving) have mechancial significance.
3. Inspiration. There's just not a whole lot in 4th ed that inspires me. In 3.5, classes, fluff, feats, even single spells or a skill trick can spawn a full-blown character concept that I can then forge straight from the rules given (see 1 and 2, above). Maybe it's just that I haven't read through enough of 4e, but I haven't gotten that effect.

But these are all purely subjective, personal preferences. They're not "reasons why 4e are bad", really, and I wouldn't object to trying a 4e game - and I fully intend to nick some things from it; I've already sort-of used the 1hp minion thing.

[Drglenn]

On the topic of bow-wielding healers: Archer Warlord or Prescient Bard

On topic i'm gonna repost what I posted in an earlier 3.x vs 4e thread


Another thing I think should be mentioned is healing:

For a start each character has a number of healing surges healing surges a day, this lets the characters heal themselves between encounters or, with certain powers (such as the ubiquitous second wind), during encounters.

Also most healing powers (second wind being a notable exception, except for dwarves) only cost a minor action which means a healer doesn't have to spend their whole turn, breaking the momentum and flow of the encounter, to heal.

Whereas healing in 3.x is generally a standard action (stopping you from attacking that turn), touch range (meaning you'll have to walk up to the ally) and uses up spell slots which could be used for better spells.

[Adrayll]

Whereas healing in 3.x is generally a standard action (stopping you from attacking that turn), touch range (meaning you'll have to walk up to the ally) and uses up spell slots which could be used for better spells.

Between this and the far higher (if you're not in double-digits at first level, regardless of class/race, you're doing it WRONG) hitpoints you have with 4e, I feel make the game a lot less deadly, especially at low levels. You can get away with getting into a slugging match, because you're Big Damn Heroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes) right from the get-go. In 3.x, at level one, you're a person (with an albeit better-than-average stat array) who happens to have a class level more useful than commoner.

Which brings up a point. How does one stat a commoner in 4e?

[Drglenn]

To fight against: stat up a level 1 minion enemy
To play as/with: make a PC with average stats, some skills, prof with simple weapons, and no class features or powers (other than basic attacks etc.), Starting HP and HP/level as wizard (lowest available IIRC)
Otherwise: Don't bother, if their stats come up in the player's interactions with them (insight being the skills that are most likely to come up) just assume they have average stats and maybe training in some skills.

[stainboy]

Whereas healing in 3.x is generally a standard action (stopping you from attacking that turn), touch range (meaning you'll have to walk up to the ally) and uses up spell slots which could be used for better spells.

You're complaining about a problem 3e doesn't have. The cleric who has to spend all her combat actions healing exists in MMOs, not in 3.5. I almost exclusively play healers (for definitions of healer ranging from "cleric" to "warlock with a wand") and in the ten years since 3e came out I think I've used a combat action to heal twice. The rules just don't produce conditions where healing is the best use of your standard action.

Here's how you play a healer in 3.5:
Step 1: Buy a wand of Cure Light Wounds (or Lesser Vigor).
Step 2: Focus all of your spell slots and actions on killing or disabling enemies before they can damage your allies.
Step 3: Use the wand after combat at your leisure.

[Drglenn]

You're complaining about a problem 3e doesn't have. The cleric who has to spend all her combat actions healing exists in MMOs, not in 3.5. I almost exclusively play healers (for definitions of healer ranging from "cleric" to "warlock with a wand") and in the ten years since 3e came out I think I've used a combat action to heal twice. The rules just don't produce conditions where healing is the best use of your standard action.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation. Healing (like most things) is easier in 4e than 3.5. 3.5 healing tends to be between fights, 4e can be either. Its just one of the reasons I prefer 4e to 3.5, I still like and play both (though I refuse to DM 3.5 any more after getting horribly screwed over by the CR system in the game I ran last year (fights would randomly vary between being a breeze for the PCs or killing half of them, and not just on dice rolls))

[stainboy]

(nested parentheses (i has them))

Fair enough, I misunderstood then.

The CR system is pretty bad. My favorite part of it is that it's suppose to describe monsters in terms of PC class level, but then we have a separate more punitive system for describing how powerful monsters are as actual PCs. If the CR rules say a bugbear is equivalent to a level 2 PC, and the LA rules say it is a level 4 PC, at least one of those numbers is wrong.

[sonofzeal]

Fair enough, I misunderstood then.

The CR system is pretty bad. My favorite part of it is that it's suppose to describe monsters in terms of PC class level, but then we have a separate more punitive system for describing how powerful monsters are as actual PCs. If the CR rules say a bugbear is equivalent to a level 2 PC, and the LA rules say it is a level 4 PC, at least one of those numbers is wrong.
Not necessarily.

- A monster with a powerful 1/day ability will almost invariably use it every single fight against the PCs, but as a PC they'd have to conserve it.

- Utility powers like Flight or Wish are far more powerful in PC hands, because they can use them to jump off the rails of the campaign and bypass things entirely, whereas Monsters are under DM control and thus not going to use those abilities in a way that damages the campaign as a whole.

- Monsters usually fight against a 4:1 action economy disadvantage, and against enemies who are usually prepared to deal with a wide range of challenges. PCs usually fight with a 1:4 action economy advantage, and against enemies who are often much more narrow in their focus. The situation is different, and different abilities are more useful.



(This is not to say that the CR system is good, just that it can be justified to have CR and ECL being different. In practice, yeah, ECL is usually too high.)

[MeeposFire]

Doesn't really work. If you're talking about Cleric-multiclass-Ranger, then none of your powers can work with your bow. Everything is either melee or a ranged attack that is powered by your holy symbol. You could spend two additional feats to get a single encounter and a single daily attack with it, but outside that you are limited to some very weak basic attacks.

If you mean Ranger-multiclass-Cleric, then you can get a total of two heals daily through two feats (one for the Cleric multiclass, one for a Utility power). That is incredibly pathetic, given that your standard Cleric gets two heals per encounter as a first level ability.

I'm less familiar with the Cleric-Ranger-dualclassing from PHB3. As I understand it, though, you must have at least one at-will power, one encounter attack power, one daily attack power, and one utility power from each side. This gives you only one useful at-will power (because the other is tied up as melee or holy symbol use) and nearly half of your other powers are taken up in useless attack powers or utility powers unrelated to healing.


Oh sure, you could use such a combination, just as you can use a Cleric 10/Ranger 10 in a 3.5e game. It just works incredibly poorly. A straight 3.5e Cleric simply focusing on Dexterity and Wisdom and taking archery feats works better than the 4e option.

NOt sure that you actually want it but there is an entire handbook devoted to the archer cleric type (apparently it subs as a striker in addition to being a leader). Here you go http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27535409/Shooting_For_The_Moon:_A_Mini_Guide_For_Bow_Cleric s

And just so you know there are cleric ranged weapon powers in 4e though they are all from beyond the PHB.

[Wings of Peace]

Other people will disagree with me but as I view it the debate boils down to this:

Do you prefer a less streamlined and more open ended system or a streamlined but primarily combat oriented system?

If the former, use 3.x. If the ladder, use 4.0.

I'm not saying that with experience combat can't go quickly in 3.x or that 4.0 can't be open ended. But mechanically I find each has it's own niche it's better designed for.

[CTrees]

Oh! This is fun! Okay, I want my character to be a troll. As a young child, he was captured by a CN, mad scientist type wizard who expiremented on him, giving him unusually high intelligence and... maybe a graft or two. He escaped when some adventurers knocked down the wizard tower, and has gone on to become a cerebremancer, using illusions and polymorph effects to get along just fine in social situations, and helps support the party through crafting items. Also, he uses that crafting knack to produce golems as pack animals/'meat' shields.

In 3.5, it's easy to do using RAW, even with only core+psionics (savage species may help a bit, too). Through on a template, just put lots of points at charcter creation into Int, you're good. Even gets around the 'troll in town' problem with judiciuos use of spells, skills, items and chicanery (which, at least with the groups I've played with? A quick stop in town could become a huge, non-combat diversion for hours, as we radically misinterptet a dm hint). Actually, it sounds pretty fun to me, to play.

How would you make it in 4e? Ideally by RAW?

[true_shinken]

Example: The DM declares you pissed off the city watch. Eight dudes show up to arrest you. In 4e you can reasonably guess that they'll be 1st or 2nd level soldiers or minions, and you can make a decision based on that about whether to fight or surrender. In 3e, it's a crapshoot. That could be eight lv2 warriors (easy fight) or three Warblades, four Rangers, and an elite array crusader, scaled to your level (you're boned, surrender). You don't know until combat starts, so you tune out until the DM puts minis on the table or tells you want he wants you to do.

So you the DM can do all the freeform world-building you want but the players don't have any reason to care about it. You'll see 3e DMs say "I'm running a story," but you rarely see anyone talk about some awesome thing the PCs did. The DM may be telling a story but half the time the players aren't listening.
He was pretty rude with his words, but he does have a point and you are not helping by proving you don't really understand the strenghts of 3.5.
You probably missed the worldbuilding rules in 3e. Those rules helpy you determine the level of the inhabitants of a town, which of them is on the militia and stuff like that. They allow you to estimate any NPC's level. High level characters are rare in 3e as a rule. They are as rare as the DM wants it in 4e. That was his point. In 3.5, if you are a high level character surrounded by town guards in a backwater village, you know you can crush them or just get away without them having any chance of catching you (they won't have teleport, flight, all that stuff). In 4e, the DM has to make all this choices before hand. It's not about the world and where those guards, it's about this encounter and how the DM wants them to fight. Like I said, two different games, with two different goals.
And to hear about awesome things done by players in 3e, just click here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836).

[Kurald Galain]

Those rules helpy you determine the level of the inhabitants of a town, which of them is on the militia and stuff like that. They allow you to estimate any NPC's level.
Precisely. By the default rules in 3E, the city guards will be a bunch of low level warriors, i.e. very dangerous to level-1 PCs, a threat for low level PCs, and irrelevant to moderate level PCs.

By the default rules in 4E, the city guards will be a level-appropriate challenge for the PCs, regardless of what their actual level is. If the PCs are low level, then so are the guards; if the PCs are moderate level, then so are the guards.

That's a different philosophy. I'm not saying that one approach is better than the other, but there is a clear difference. One works from verisimilitude, the other from balance.

[stainboy]

Not necessarily.

- A monster with a powerful 1/day ability will almost invariably use it every single fight against the PCs, but as a PC they'd have to conserve it.

- Utility powers like Flight or Wish are far more powerful in PC hands, because they can use them to jump off the rails of the campaign and bypass things entirely, whereas Monsters are under DM control and thus not going to use those abilities in a way that damages the campaign as a whole.


Yeah, that's why I picked a bugbear. I can understand the CR/LA difference for outsiders with craziness like at-will Greater Teleport.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm feeling pretty dumb right now. I have access to all the 3.0/5 books though friends, but I'm feeling like it's not relevant anymore because it is slowly seeming that 4e is flatly better now.

It is not flatly better. They are essentially different games, with different strong and weak points.


I remember having good reason to be afraid of converting before, but now I've forgotten! I used to like fighters because they got oh-so many feats, but it turns out they suck anyway- better to play a warblade, which has maneuvers that I choose to use, but 4e seems to do activated abilities better! My days of enjoying my feat-piles were misguided and seemingly misplaced as well.

How so? ToB classes are quite impressive in terms of activated abilities, and they act...amazingly similar to 4e. You've got some different recharge mechanics, but it's not a terribly big deal.

Fighter is a useful class. It just isn't 20 levels of useful class. It makes a fine dip. System mastery, while stronger in 3.5, is a major factor in both games.


It also seems that one of the major benefits seen in 3x is sloppy editing! It is the ability to play loopholes into abuses that people seem to like most! 4e seems to be very careful in watching its editing now, keeping gameplay far away from fluff and even releasing updates on a regular basis.

4e definitely has better editing and formatting, this is true. IMO, probably makes it easier for new people to understand how things work. This becomes less of an issue with a system once you learn it well, but it's a factor for newcomers. Many RPGs could benefit from more of this.

Nobody who plays 3.5 would likely describe sloppy editing as a major benefit, though. I suspect this particular line of reasoning borders on edition warring, as you're basically saying 3.5 players are munchkin/abuser sorts.


I remember that 3x had better rules for world-building, but since those are so fluff-intensive, shouldn't DM fiat be the fuel of original worlds anyway? I've never seen the 4e DMG so I don't know what has been done to replace the old world-building guidelines.

Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, exists to replace these.

And just because world building involves a lot of fluff doesn't negate the usefulness of these tools. I mean, if you want to build a world without them, you could always ignore them. But for those who liked them, they were occasionally quite handy.


I feel sad and disillusioned. Did I waste all my time looking into the seeming wonders of 3x only to learn that 4e is superior? Help me out so I can be an effective DM and player again. Tell me the merits of 3x vs 4e.

This entirely depends on what you see as superior.

If you place a high value on game balance and such, 4e looks pretty good, because it focused on that pretty hard. Pretty much all the classes are at least decently playable.

If you place a high value on a more thoroughly simulated world in whole, 3.5 looks pretty good, because it cares about that. You don't need to worry about silly 4eism like fireballs actually being cubes.



2) Planes exploding, malfunctioning portals, and the survivability of players in portable holes are all non-RAW things, and could be just as easily handled in 4e as 3e.

Pfft, I can make a plane explode by RAW in 3.5. Or at least, enough of it filled with explosion to be practically the same thing. It's not particularly easy, but at high level fights(which this seems to be one of), creating and destroying planes are a real possibility. If Epic Spellcasting is involved, massive collateral damage is almost a guarantee. Nuking the entire plane is an excellent way to negate a number of defenses.

There are all sorts of interesting portal rules. Which rules he used, I have no idea, but I can think of a number of them to use for such a Scenario. Off the top of my head, a Cubic Gate is a fairly simple way to get portals to random planes, with possible outsiders breaking through. It's core.

As for character surviving in a portable hole, the rules for that are described in....wait for it.....Portable Hole. "It contains enough air to supply one Medium creature or two Small creatures for 10 minutes." Presumably that would be why they had to routinely open it for more air.

So no, none of that relies on fiat.

[Tanngrisnir]

Personally, I just find 4e boring. The comparative lack of choice and flexibility make for a stifled game. I'm really not a fan of the party roles being so rigidly defined. Also, I find the fights are pretty much always the same and just do not hold my interest.

I've never found 3.5 too complex and I don't have trouble remembering the rules or working with them. 4th ed is too streamlined for me, it's too small.


. . . By the default rules in 4E, the city guards will be a level-appropriate challenge for the PCs, regardless of what their actual level is. If the PCs are low level, then so are the guards; if the PCs are moderate level, then so are the guards . . .

That's what it was like in Oblivion and it killed that game for me too.

[CTrees]

4e definitely has better [...] formatting, this is true.
The 4e books I've looked through lack indices. I know it's a tiny, tiny pet peeve, but it's a formatting issue, and I just find it deeply offensive on a personal level (I'm an exciting guy). Though again, I fully acknowledge that this is a ridiculous little gripe.

3.x books had indicies :smallannoyed:


You don't need to worry about silly 4eism like fireballs actually being cubes.

I suddenly want to play a modron wizard...

[Tyndmyr]

The 4e books I've looked through lack indices. I know it's a tiny, tiny pet peeve, but it's a formatting issue, and I just find it deeply offensive on a personal level (I'm an exciting guy). Though again, I fully acknowledge that this is a ridiculous little gripe.

3.x books had indicies :smallannoyed:

Yknow, I can't believe I missed that...that was my biggest peeve about a couple of 3.5 books(SpC!). I rely on indices heavily to rapidly find things.

It's a valid complaint.

[Veyr]

How so? ToB classes are quite impressive in terms of activated abilities, and they act...amazingly similar to 4e. You've got some different recharge mechanics, but it's not a terribly big deal.
I very strongly disagree. I can't really speak to 4E (I've read the PHB once and statted up a couple of low-level characters), but the recovery mechanics are extremely important for how the classes actually play and how they feel in combat, with comparison to other classes in 3.5.

[Kylarra]

Regarding scaling enemies, I don't find it a huge problem, though admittedly I can see why it's an issue, for the enemies that actually bring the battle mat out to be level appropriate. Otherwise your town guards aren't even worth time to actually fight and thus don't need to be a combat encounter.

Regarding troll character


In 3.5, it's easy to do using RAW
For definitions of "do" that don't include being useful in an non theorop game. You've got a 6RHD+5LA + int-boosting template (probably something sufficient to cancel out the -4 you get for being a troll) and that's before you take an actual caster class level!


Re: Indices - PHB 1-2 have an index for sure and AV 1/2 have appendices that list out pages for items by slot. So it's not that all of the 4e books lack them. I can't check the books I don't have, but you may be right about the various powers supplements. I do agree that lack of indexing is :smallfrown:

[true_shinken]

Regarding scaling enemies, I don't find it a huge problem, though admittedly I can see why it's an issue, for the enemies that actually bring the battle mat out to be level appropriate. Otherwise your town guards aren't even worth time to actually fight and thus don't need to be a combat encounter.

That's what I mean. When you are a high-level character, you should feel special and powerful. If guards in a backwater village can kick your ass, well, you're not that special or powerful.

[Serpentine]

I suddenly want to play a modron wizard...(replace the "homebrewing" with "D&D3.5")
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/2/23/672df926-c5d4-4ae7-ac47-3e2cf427157a.jpg
:biggrin:

edit: And The Million Dollar Man just came on :smallconfused:

[Dralnu]

Do you really need to make a power-scaling encounter for a local magistrate in a small town in 4e? I would imagine that, if the party is so much of a higher level, you would just roleplay the fight out. "I punch him in the face." "His head explodes on impact with your fist." "Cool. I check the body for loot."

[Draz74]

That's a different philosophy. I'm not saying that one approach is better than the other, but there is a clear difference. One works from verisimilitude, the other from balance.

And to me, that's the main reason I like 3e better, at least potentially -- not because of the ridiculous array of character options and the many complicated rules subsystems. Rather, because of the better verisimilitude.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate balance and streamlining too. But some of the ways 4e implements these things breaks my suspension of disbelief. Just a little bit. But enough that I'll be fully aware that I'm playing a game, rather than fully immersing my imagination in the story.

3e certainly isn't a perfect simulator; every time someone gets hit with an arrow and it doesn't inhibit their fighting ability, there's a disconnect. But 4e has more problems like this that pound small cracks in its verisimilitude. Things like square-shaped fireballs. Things like auto-scaling of monsters' levels and environmental dungeon hazards to match the PCs' level.

I could play 4e and enjoy it quite a lot. But at the end of the campaign, when we kill the dark lord and take his stuff and put away the pizza boxes and go home, I'll feel like, "Yay! we won the game!" instead of "YAY, we saved the WORLD!"

[true_shinken]

Do you really need to make a power-scaling encounter for a local magistrate in a small town in 4e? I would imagine that, if the party is so much of a higher level, you would just roleplay the fight out. "I punch him in the face." "His head explodes on impact with your fist." "Cool. I check the body for loot."

That's exactly what we have been saying for a long while now. The moment are heroes are bigger than other people inthe world is somewhat expected in heroic fantasy. In 3.5, this happens within the rules. In 4e, this is the result of the DM wanting it to happen.

[ericgrau]

Intentional backhand?

?. Naw. Would you have preferred strawberry? 4e can be strawberry.

[Kylarra]

That's exactly what we have been saying for a long while now. The moment are heroes are bigger than other people inthe world is somewhat expected in heroic fantasy. In 3.5, this happens within the rules. In 4e, this is the result of the DM wanting it to happen.I find this to be a sort of false dilemma since the scaling effect is only necessarily true if the DM is placing it as a combat encounter, and in 3.5 it only happens if you happen to be in the right place anyway.

4e does assume to an extent that you will be continuing to challenge the world, but I don't recall anywhere in the DMG that says if players go back to town A from level 1, the guards are automatically as strong as the players are now. If it is in there, I agree that that is dumb. :smalltongue:

[Tharkie]

Also most healing powers (second wind being a notable exception, except for dwarves) only cost a minor action which means a healer doesn't have to spend their whole turn, breaking the momentum and flow of the encounter, to heal.

Darn that "doing stuff in combat", always breaking the momentum and flow of the encounter.

:smallconfused:

[Kurald Galain]

4e does assume to an extent that you will be continuing to challenge the world, but I don't recall anywhere in the DMG that says if players go back to town A from level 1, the guards are automatically as strong as the players are now. If it is in there, I agree that that is dumb. :smalltongue:
In other words, most DMs aren't idiotic enough to have a paragon party defeated by a bunch of farmers. Which is good :)

The point, however, is the different approach. 3E has the internal consistency that all farmers are low-level commoners, and it is well-defined how they are affected by an arrow to the gut, a healing spell, or a stealth check.

In 4E, farmers are unstatted (if you're supposed to talk to them), or 1-hp minions (if they're under attack by orcs), or equal-level monsters (if they're going to fight you directly). This is all based on what the DM needs at the moment; depending on which he picks, your attacks, healing spells, and stealth checks will have a different effect on those farmers. This lack of internal consistency can hurt suspension of disbelief.

In both cases, with an skilled DM you won't have any problems; however, if you have a less good DM in 3E, the game becomes unbalanced; whereas if you have a less good DM in 4E, the game world stops making sense.

{table]Type|Arrow|Healing|Stealth
3E farmer|Loses HP, likely drops|Restores HP|Works normally
4E unstatted farmer|Gets angry|No effect|Works by non-combat rules
4E minion farmer|Dies immediately|No effect|Works by combat rules
4E enemy farmer|Loses HP, won't drop|Works, but only once|Works by combat rules
[/table]

[CTrees]

Regarding troll character


For definitions of "do" that don't include being useful in an non theorop game. You've got a 6RHD+5LA + int-boosting template (probably something sufficient to cancel out the -4 you get for being a troll) and that's before you take an actual caster class level!

Did I say it'd be good/optimal? Nope. I said you could easily create the character by RAW, as you've verified. If you're going to shoot me down, tell me how you'd make the same character for a PC in 4e, by RAW.

I'll be waiting.

[Kylarra]

In other words, most DMs aren't idiotic enough to have a paragon party defeated by a bunch of farmers. Which is good :)

The point, however, is the different approach. 3E has the internal consistency that all farmers are low-level commoners, and it is well-defined how they are affected by an arrow to the gut, a healing spell, or a stealth check.

In 4E, farmers are unstatted (if you're supposed to talk to them), or 1-hp minions (if they're under attack by orcs), or equal-level monsters (if they're going to fight you directly). This is all based on what the DM needs at the moment; depending on which he picks, your attacks, healing spells, and stealth checks will have a different effect on those farmers. This lack of internal consistency can hurt suspension of disbelief.

In both cases, with an skilled DM you won't have any problems; however, if you have a less good DM in 3E, the game becomes unbalanced; whereas if you have a less good DM in 4E, the game world stops making sense.

{table]Type|Arrow|Healing|Stealth
3E farmer|Loses HP, likely drops|Restores HP|Works normally
4E unstatted farmer|Gets angry|No effect|Works by non-combat rules
4E minion farmer|Dies immediately|No effect|Works by combat rules
4E enemy farmer|Loses HP, won't drop|Works, but only once|Works by combat rules
[/table]I'm not really upset by the disconnect, because in AD&D where I started, the NPCs weren't expected to be built like player characters necessarily. They had enough stats for their expected interactions and that's about it. I understand where you're coming from though, thanks to 3.X's more standardized, to an extent, system for the creation of enemies and so on. The healing surges are indeed a break in verisimilitude and I concede that one. Enemy vs minion/unstatted, not so much since it's just as possible that the farmer you're encountering is a retired warblade and so on, assuming the DM was placing an encounter for you to be able to fight it. Admittedly, I do recall at least one thread of a player being upset about apparently random Joe-farmer being a warblade, but that's neither here nor there. I'd be somewhat upset about a farmer posing a level equivalent challenge to a paragon party too, regardless of system.



Did I say it'd be good/optimal? Nope. I said you could easily create the character by RAW, as you've verified. If you're going to shoot me down, tell me how you'd make the same character for a PC in 4e, by RAW.

I'll be waiting.If you can find a quote in this thread where someone claimed that 4e can replicate every single character concept from 3.X, I may well concede that hey, you may have proved them wrong with your troll abomination. On the other hand, if you can't present the point that you're challenging against, then I'd say there's no point in trying to refute a strawman.

[Taelas]

He is not trying to refute a strawman, or indeed 'challenging' anything specifically. He is making a statement that while X is possible in 3.5, X is not possible in 4E. You seem to agree, so I do not understand why you started arguing with him in the first place.

[Kylarra]

He is not trying to refute a strawman, or indeed 'challenging' anything specifically. He is making a statement that while X is possible in 3.5, X is not possible in 4E. You seem to agree, so I do not understand why you started arguing with him in the first place.I call it a strawman because it's not arguing anything of value. If someone had claimed it, or if he genuinely wanted help to model a concept that he'd played in 3.X, then it would bear more relevance.

I was calling it out as ridiculous, because while technically you could make it, it wouldn't be feasible for anything resembling a standard game for a multitude of reasons, so it feels like an attempt to "prove" something.

It may be that I jumped the gun, it is a common enough topic in edition wars, but from the response I got, I'm not convinced that I misread.

[Taelas]

I agree that the specific example is not particularly relevant, but the point remains -- you can create a multitude of characters in 3.5 that you cannot in 4E.

To return to the original topic, 4E seems to be a balanced table-top wargame. It does not feel like D&D to me, however. When I changed from 2E to 3E, I did not have the same feeling of disconnect. If you enjoy the gameplay, by all means, go play 4E. Despite the edition wars, no one will come and hit you over the head in the night because you do not play their favorite version.

[Greenish]

?. Naw. Would you have preferred strawberry? 4e can be strawberry.Man, the edition wars would be much more entertaining if people argued about which flavour of icecream each system was.

Can 3.5 be liquorice? :smallcool:

[WitchSlayer]

No! Not one of these threads again!

Its not even Wednesday!

Wednesday is edition war day!

[Chess435]

Perhaps an ice-cream derailment is needed here.

*Casts Summon Glyphstone IX*

[Serpentine]

I call it a strawman because it's not arguing anything of value. If someone had claimed it, or if he genuinely wanted help to model a concept that he'd played in 3.X, then it would bear more relevance.

I was calling it out as ridiculous, because while technically you could make it, it wouldn't be feasible for anything resembling a standard game for a multitude of reasons, so it feels like an attempt to "prove" something.

It may be that I jumped the gun, it is a common enough topic in edition wars, but from the response I got, I'm not convinced that I misread.The point of the thread is "what does 3.5 have that 4e doesn't?" For him, "you can make even ridiculous character concepts without any trouble" is something 3.5 has over 4e.
It might be ridiculous, but it is relevant to the thread, and doesn't have to be in direct response to any claims about 4e.

[Doc Roc]

{table]Type|Arrow|Healing|Stealth
3E farmer|Loses HP, likely drops|Restores HP|Works normally
4E unstatted farmer|Gets angry|No effect|Works by non-combat rules
4E minion farmer|Dies immediately|No effect|Works by combat rules
4E enemy farmer|Loses HP, won't drop|Works, but only once|Works by combat rules
[/table]

Dear Kurald,
Your chart was awesome. It highlighted some interesting things for me, that I need to spend some time really churning over. I owe you one!
Cordially,
Jake

[Firechanter]

I haven't played 4E, but one of the gripes I hear most often, and also has been mentioned in this thread, is that the game is always the same, just the numbers get bigger at higher levels. That is actually true for most RPGs I know.
3.X is special in that regard, because it comes with a "built-in game rejuvenation system" for, well, most classes. What one and the same character can do changes quite drastically over the levels.
I know people who abandoned 4E because it's "always the same fare".

Then there's the sheer amount of choice in 3.X. Even if you discard all the crappy stuff (and there's a lot of it), there are still dozens of classes and probably hundreds of PrCs worth playing, and countless character concepts that can be realized with them without having to "play pretend". If you have sufficient game resources, it's going to take a while before you run out of concepts you haven't played before.
(The downside of this is the inflation of crappy stuff, and the tendency to inflate any tiny option to a feat, and the resulting huge bandwidth of usefulness of feats.)

Of course another point is the matter of said game resources. Many players have extensive collections of 3.5 books, and unless you have time to play several games, switching to 4E makes a $1000-stack useless; not to mention all the time these gamers have invested in mastering the system, which would also all be in vain.
In relation to that, trying to sell a new system as "New and Improved" doesn't come off well with people who have spent enormous amounts of cash and time on a game which by deduction is now implied to be "old and bad", which is probably a main reason for any edition war in any game system.

[squeekenator]

In relation to that, trying to sell a new system as "New and Improved" doesn't come off well with people who have spent enormous amounts of cash and time on a game which by deduction is now implied to be "old and bad", which is probably a main reason for any edition war in any game system.

This was always something that bothered me when 4e was announced. One of these I recall was a YouTube video showing D&D through the ages, and when it reached 3.5e it had a party in the midst of a battle. Unfortunately, one of the party members wanted to grapple the enemy, so they had to stop and spend half an hour looking through the grapple rules. It then shows this situation in 4e, where the entire atmosphere has changed and they're having tons of fun and have not a trouble in the world. It seemed that a bit part of their marketing campaign for 4e was not convincing us that it was good, but that 3.5 was terrible and we were all stupid for enjoying it, which just left a bad taste in my mouth.

[WinWin]

I have spent quite a bit of time playing and running a 4e game. I wanted to like the system. I spent a lot of money on the system. The game bored the hell out of me.
{Scrubbed}
Currently playing AD&D and I couldn't be happier.

[CTrees]

The point of the thread is "what does 3.5 have that 4e doesn't?" For him, "you can make even ridiculous character concepts without any trouble" is something 3.5 has over 4e.
It might be ridiculous, but it is relevant to the thread, and doesn't have to be in direct response to any claims about 4e.

Exactly this. The flexibility of character creation was being argued via examples like a clerical archer. Turns out you can do that in 4e, so I went way into the realms of "truly ridiculous characters," to prove the point that 3.5 really does have vastly more flexibility.

[Greenish]

Then there's the sheer amount of choice in 3.X. Even if you discard all the crappy stuff (and there's a lot of it), there are still dozens of classes and probably hundreds of PrCs worth playing, and countless character concepts that can be realized with them without having to "play pretend".Well, RPGs are by definition "play pretend". :smalltongue:

Unfortunately, one of the party members wanted to grapple the enemy, so they had to stop and spend half an hour looking through the grapple rules.What, there's someone who doesn't know the grapple rules by heart? :smallamused:

{Scrubbing bubbles} Out of context quote of the week:
In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.(Cookie only to the fastest one to recognize the source, since it's an easy one.)

[Tyndmyr]

I very strongly disagree. I can't really speak to 4E (I've read the PHB once and statted up a couple of low-level characters), but the recovery mechanics are extremely important for how the classes actually play and how they feel in combat, with comparison to other classes in 3.5.

There are also differences between the 4e classes. It's about the same magnitude.

The difference between the ToB classes and 4e classes is not strong at all. They are extremely different from non-ToB 3.5 classes.



Regarding troll character

For definitions of "do" that don't include being useful in an non theorop game. You've got a 6RHD+5LA + int-boosting template (probably something sufficient to cancel out the -4 you get for being a troll) and that's before you take an actual caster class level!

It's a feat, Troll blooded. I wouldn't consider it a heavy optimization exercise. The only real hitch would be getting your DM to allow you to take the feat(it's from Dragon, and some dislike it).

Granted, there are other ways in 3.5 to make a trollish character, but that's the easy mode to inject the desired flavor. The feat is actually useful as well(fast healing 1, IIRC).



If you can find a quote in this thread where someone claimed that 4e can replicate every single character concept from 3.X, I may well concede that hey, you may have proved them wrong with your troll abomination. On the other hand, if you can't present the point that you're challenging against, then I'd say there's no point in trying to refute a strawman.

It's been brought up in other threads( and swiftly proven wrong), but I don't think it's come up in this one.

That said, even if it hasn't been brought up, it does illustrate some of the flexibility of the system, which could easily be seen as a virtue.

In another thread, which promised to restat any 3.5 character in 4e, my submission of the actual character I was playing at the time was just flat-out rejected. Someone later tried, and entirely failed to replicate almost anything I actually did.

4e is a different game. You can't just port over things from 3.5 and expect them to work. Sometimes you can sort of recreate a concept in 4e, sometimes you can't.


Do you really need to make a power-scaling encounter for a local magistrate in a small town in 4e? I would imagine that, if the party is so much of a higher level, you would just roleplay the fight out. "I punch him in the face." "His head explodes on impact with your fist." "Cool. I check the body for loot."

Absolutely. You could do this for absolutely anything, but it's not really an inherent part of the system.

Kurald, mind if I steal that chart for my blog? It is filled with awesome.

[Greenish]

Granted, there are other ways in 3.5 to make a trollish character, but that's the easy mode to inject the desired flavor. The feat is actually useful as well(fast healing 1, IIRC).Regeneration 1, actually. You'll be fatigued in sunlight though. Basic component on various non-caster immune to damage builds.

[Master_Rahl22]

I'm currently in a game on Myth-Weavers where we were explicitly told the focus was on Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle, with things like healing surges, rituals, and skill challenges imported from 4E. It's freakin awesome. If you're that bummed by 3.5's lack of balance then fix it. Tier 3 is a good place to start for character classes.

[DrWeird]

I don't enjoy 4e, and refuse to buy it for the same reason I'm not about to buy ToB or buy imaginary hats from Robin & Gabe and their coding thrallherds at Valve.

To put it quite simply, there's nothing wrong with ToB or 4e, and are fun updates for different audiences in the tabletop community in a market competing with the easy to pick up MMO's; it's a competitive market, and tabletop gaming is slowly becoming a novelty, so I understand their issue. It's been beaten to death, but it really comes down to which style you prefer.

At this point, most of these posts are just our 2 coppers.

So, here's mine.

I refuse to shell out money to a company that doesn't care about the consumer and is more concerned with putting out viable product; I've always hated WotC personally, and wish D&D had their own company, however small, run by people who really cared and weren't doing it for the paycheck. Who knows? Maybe 3.5 was like that and I just got suckered because I started when I was young. Like a chain smoker.

Essentially, pick your poison depending on which you prefer; flexibility and tradition in a tested environment, or an easy to pick up tabletop MMO - both have flaws and merits, and that's all there is to it.

On a tangent, Robin & Gabe have swimming pools filled with money made off of imaginary hats, and that IS terrible.

[CTrees]

I refuse to shell out money to a company that doesn't care about the consumer and is more concerned with putting out viable product; I've always hated WotC personally, and wish D&D had their own company, however small, run by people who really cared and weren't doing it for the paycheck. Who knows? Maybe 3.5 was like that and I just got suckered because I started when I was young. Like a chain smoker

A company like TSR?

[DrWeird]

Yeop, good ol' TSR. My uncle's brother in law still has a bunch of the original TSR books.

[Kurald Galain]

Dear Kurald,
Your chart was awesome. It highlighted some interesting things for me, that I need to spend some time really churning over. I owe you one!
Cordially,
Jake
You're welcome. I'm curious what you're churning about, too.


Kurald, mind if I steal that chart for my blog? It is filled with awesome.
I don't mind, just mail me the link some time.

[oxybe]

Exactly this. The flexibility of character creation was being argued via examples like a clerical archer. Turns out you can do that in 4e, so I went way into the realms of "truly ridiculous characters," to prove the point that 3.5 really does have vastly more flexibility.

the problem with 3.Xs versatility is that it requires quite a bit of system mastery that a lot of players, especially the casual ones, don't care about. most people in my experience are far more interested in simply rolling up a character that works from the get-go then pouring over a mountain of books and tweaking things until it's "just right".

4th ed's books heavily imply that refluffing isn't a bad thing and that mechanics are really just a framework to hang your fluff on. and for most players, that's really all they want: a framework to hang their fluff on and tell a story, and have fun.

to me at least, this is where 4th ed is leaps and bounds over 3rd in that respect. it's far easier for me to think of a concept, pick the closest approximation, reflavor as needed and have it work from the get-go.

in 3rd ed this usually required a bit of study and tweaking, a bit of reflavoring either way and then waiting and hoping i survive until levels 4-6 and get the right mix of feats or class abilities to have it work.

[true_shinken]

in 3rd ed this usually required a bit of study and tweaking, a bit of reflavoring either way and then waiting and hoping i survive until levels 4-6 and get the right mix of feats or class abilities to have it work.
This still happend at 4e. It took until level 6 for me to get my Brawler Fighter MC Rogue to do everything I wanted from his archetype (vagabond ex-knight).
Sadly, many of the things I wanted him to do are not expressed in 4e rules at all. There no rules for seduction, so basically I had to scrap that away from the character. My DM wouldn't allow me to even try seducing anything, because it basically amounted to roleplay, and two bearded guys flirting was not exactly what we had in mind for our saturday nights.

[oxybe]

unless we're talking about a book like the BoEF i don't remember 3.5 having seduction rules so those were either :
A) ad hoc'ed in a sort of bluff/diplomacy/strait up charisma
B) roleplayed or
C) DM simply goes "yeah you manage to get laid" after you say "i go barhopping hoping to get some tonight"

and yeah, i don't deny that it can take a few levels in 4th ed to pull off a few builds, but i find that it happens FAR less often then it did in 3.5.

[Doc Roc]

You're welcome. I'm curious what you're churning about, too.


I don't mind, just mail me the link some time.

I'm trying to make sure that Legend provides balance and verisimilitude, in this respect. :/

[Firechanter]

Well, RPGs are by definition "play pretend". :smalltongue:

I guess you do know what I mean, but to elaborate: by "play pretend" I mean things like "describe stuff that are not reflected by mechanics". Such as when instead of saying "I attack" you deliver a description of how you jump on the table and swing from a chandelier etc. but when it comes down to it you are just making another attack roll.
And also, rationalizations like "you can only swing your sword like that once per day because [...]" which essentially come down to "stars are aligned" (or maybe rather "a Wizard said it").

[oxybe]

i honestly have no problem with fighters or any character doing their one big showy move once per day since it's a usual convention of the pulp/action genre where the hero has this one big finishing move that is VERY strong but can't be spammed.

D&D is set in a fantasy setting, where wizards have their wiz-bangs and fighters fight, but once you start applying genres and the conventions within on top of your setting, as well as making these consistent, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.

when watching Die Hard and seeing John McClane getting up after taking punishment that would kill a lesser man, yes it unbelievable in a "real life" genre, but in an "action" genre John is a hero and his ability to withstand punishment is consistent with the genre... i expect an action hero to be able to take a beating, get up, shoot the bad guy and walk it off.

same with the fighter pulling off a daily power or whatnot. sure it's not "real" but neither are dragons nor their ability to fly (at least based on the normal descriptions given). in an action oriented genre though, the characters usually have their one or two big attacks but they don't spam them. they normally wait for the right moment and then use them.

D&D, to me at least, has been in the action-genre since i started way back in '97-98. 4th ed is the first edition to get the tropes and conventions right to me. it still has it's issues and it isn't perfect, but it seems to know when to put mechanics on things and back off when mechanics aren't really needed.

[true_shinken]

unless we're talking about a book like the BoEF i don't remember 3.5 having seduction rules so those were either :
A) ad hoc'ed in a sort of bluff/diplomacy/strait up charisma
B) roleplayed or
C) DM simply goes "yeah you manage to get laid" after you say "i go barhopping hoping to get some tonight"
The Bluff skill in 3.5 is quite straightforward about seduction, actually - you are making people believe something you want them to. It helps that you can become actually better at Bluff as levels go by in 3.5 instead of 4e, as well. The worst part is that even if Bluff worked for seduction in 4e, I couldn't do it with my Brawler MC Rogue because you need dump stats in 4e.
Aside from Bluff, there are also the Silver Tongue feat (Oriental Adventures) and the Swashbuckler's dead level ability (Seduction) in 3.5. Bards also have fascinate. Heartwardens (Faiths & Pantheons) have a special ability based on their kiss. Seduction might lead to you qualifying for the Nymph's Kiss or Lichloved feats. There is a spell that kills things based on love, as well. That's just from the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
So... yeah. A lot about seduction-related stuff in official 3.5, no need to get the Book of Erotic Fantasy for that.


and yeah, i don't deny that it can take a few levels in 4th ed to pull off a few builds, but i find that it happens FAR less often then it did in 3.5.
I disagree. Unless your concept is really simple, you're going to need a few levels in both systems. No difference here.

[yugi24862]

unless we're talking about a book like the BoEF i don't remember 3.5 having seduction rules so those were either :
A) ad hoc'ed in a sort of bluff/diplomacy/strait up charisma
B) roleplayed or
C) DM simply goes "yeah you manage to get laid" after you say "i go barhopping hoping to get some tonight"

and yeah, i don't deny that it can take a few levels in 4th ed to pull off a few builds, but i find that it happens FAR less often then it did in 3.5.

Here you go (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x) Swashbuckler, bottom of the page. Its only to learn something, but the rules are there. 3.5 for you.

EDIT: Ninja'd

[oxybe]

The Bluff skill in 3.5 is quite straightforward about seduction, actually - you are making people believe something you want them to. It helps that you can become actually better at Bluff as levels go by in 3.5 instead of 4e, as well. The worst part is that even if Bluff worked for seduction in 4e, I couldn't do it with my Brawler MC Rogue because you need dump stats in 4e.
Aside from Bluff, there are also the Silver Tongue feat (Oriental Adventures) and the Swashbuckler's dead level ability (Seduction) in 3.5. Bards also have fascinate. Heartwardens (Faiths & Pantheons) have a special ability based on their kiss. Seduction might lead to you qualifying for the Nymph's Kiss or Lichloved feats. There is a spell that kills things based on love, as well. That's just from the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
So... yeah. A lot about seduction-related stuff in official 3.5, no need to get the Book of Erotic Fantasy for that.

honestly, this is what i meant about the system mastery that most people simply don't care about.

i've never read OA or F&P. i have no clue what Nymph's Kiss or Lichloved is. i think i know the spell you're talking about that kills a loved one but that is really stretching for proper "seduction" (at least in the common "i want to get in his pants/in her skirt" fashion) rules IMO. this is doubly true for the Swashbuckler's case since it's not even in a book, it's hidden away on the website.

it is not a boon for a system IMO to have a player require to read up on several books when all he wants to know is "can my character seduce the barmaid? Y/N?".

the average player is not, IME, someone who frequents the message boards and memorized a laundry list of books and online articles. the average player simply wants Kronknar the Wild One to get it on later that night with the saucy and/or fiery redheaded barmaid.



I disagree. Unless your concept is really simple, you're going to need a few levels in both systems. No difference here.
i'll agree to disagree. i've found that in 4th ed it's a lot easier to get your character's mechanics across earlier then 3.5.

[true_shinken]

it is not a boon for a system IMO to have a player require to read up on several books when all he wants to know is "can my character seduce the barmaid? Y/N?".
But that's not what this is about. If you want to stick to 'can I seduce the barmaid' and DM fiat, fine. This requires no system at all. You can do it in 3.5.
But if you want to be mechanically good on seduction, you can do this in 3.5, but you can't do it in 4e.
Heck, you can't even be mechanically good in skills on 4e, because the DC scales with you.

Anyway, can't argue that if you a simple, streamlined system, 4e is better. I just like that 3.5 can get more complex.

[WitchSlayer]

But that's not what this is about. If you want to stick to 'can I seduce the barmaid' and DM fiat, fine. This requires no system at all. You can do it in 3.5.
But if you want to be mechanically good on seduction, you can do this in 3.5, but you can't do it in 4e.
Heck, you can't even be mechanically good in skills on 4e, because the DC scales with you.

Anyway, can't argue that if you a simple, streamlined system, 4e is better. I just like that 3.5 can get more complex.

It does scale with you, but you can get really good at it. I imagine the average person would be the "average" DC for your level which, if you REALLY want to, you can get about 75-85% of the time if you're trained and have a decent stat in that skill. If you're REALLY optimized you can get all 3 more or less 100% of the time. Besides, the scaling DC sort of makes sense to me because, without magic, that virginal cleric will not get easier to seduce over time.

... Dangit, I participated in an edition war.

[true_shinken]

If you're REALLY optimized you can get all 3 more or less 100% of the time.
I guess I just don't have the system mastery oxybe just said 4e does not require, then.

[oxybe]

But that's not what this is about. If you want to stick to 'can I seduce the barmaid' and DM fiat, fine. This requires no system at all. You can do it in 3.5.
But if you want to be mechanically good on seduction, you can do this in 3.5, but you can't do it in 4e.
Heck, you can't even be mechanically good in skills on 4e, because the DC scales with you.

that is simply because you either do not understand how DCs in 4th ed actually work or you simply don't want look any further to try to understand.

the DCs are only scaling for challenges that are supposedly made to be a challenge for someone of your level and opposed ones are easier VS lower leveled enemies.

and unlike popular misconceptions, 4th ed actually does have DCs that aren't scaling.

[WitchSlayer]

I guess I just don't have the system mastery oxybe just said 4e does not require, then.

If you want to do something 100% of the time, then yes you are going to have to have system mastery. If you want to make a character that is pretty good then you do not have system mastery. The trick is to get a race that gives a bonus to the skill, a background that gives a bonus to the skill, trained in the skill, a high ability score that is related to the skill and (finally) skill focus in the skill. I'm not even sure if all that is necessary.

[true_shinken]

that is simply because you either do not understand how DCs in 4th ed actually work or you simply don't want look any further to try to understand.
No need to get so agressive. I could say the same about everything you said regarding seduction - "that is simply because you either do not understand how seduction in 3.5 actually works or you simply don't want to look any tfurther to try to understand".
Instead, I pointed out exactly what you had missed. I would ask you would please do the same.


the DCs are only scaling for challenges that are supposedly made to be a challenge for someone of your level and opposed ones are easier VS lower leveled enemies.
This in inferred. I once tried to use this exact argument when I failed to sneak past a farmer at 8th level, but the DM showed me it wasn't RAW.


and unlike popular misconceptions, 4th ed actually does have DCs that aren't scaling.
Not for social interaction.

[Kurald Galain]

It does scale with you, but you can get really good at it. I imagine the average person would be the "average" DC for your level which, if you REALLY want to, you can get about 75-85% of the time if you're trained and have a decent stat in that skill.
Of course, that does mean that you can't become good at a skill unless it is based on your primary or secondary attribute (also, you have to jump through some hoops if it's not actually on your class list).

[true_shinken]

Of course, that does mean that you can't become good at a skill unless it is based on your primary or secondary attribute (also, you have to jump through some hoops if it's not actually on your class list).
If that's not enough proof that 4e requires system mastery... I don't know what is.

[Curious]

If that's not enough proof that 4e requires system mastery... I don't know what is.

Clearly, another great win for 4th edition. :smallamused:
[/troll]

[WitchSlayer]

Of course, that does mean that you can't become good at a skill unless it is based on your primary or secondary attribute (also, you have to jump through some hoops if it's not actually on your class list).

I disagree. You can become GOOD just not 100% success rate as I had previously shown.

[true_shinken]

I disagree. You can become GOOD just not 100% success rate as I had previously shown.
If you define good as "works 50% of the time", then you'll probably get along just fine with my mechanic. That's how the guy thinks a car should work...

[cfalcon]

3.5 is a fantasy world simulator.
4e is a balanced heroic fantasy game.

+1, Exactly this.

[cfalcon]

This was always something that bothered me when 4e was announced. One of these I recall was a YouTube video showing D&D through the ages, and when it reached 3.5e it had a party in the midst of a battle. Unfortunately, one of the party members wanted to grapple the enemy, so they had to stop and spend half an hour looking through the grapple rules. It then shows this situation in 4e, where the entire atmosphere has changed and they're having tons of fun and have not a trouble in the world. It seemed that a bit part of their marketing campaign for 4e was not convincing us that it was good, but that 3.5 was terrible and we were all stupid for enjoying it, which just left a bad taste in my mouth.


This isn't a problem with 4ed at all.


However, I agree with you. This bothered me a great deal. I was at the Gencon 4ed was announced at. In fact, I was playing in a Three Dragon Ante game when suddenly event organizers came in and kicked us all out. I was not pleased at all with this. The announcement took place behind locked doors, but the news was out immediately anyway, before the conference was over. Now, why did they have to preempt an event? It had to be that effing secret that they would kick us all out?

There's a tad more to that, but suffice to say, they started out by pissing in my cornflakes.

Then, the stupid ads were all about how I was an old man for liking their system, and how gnomes sucked and tieflings ruled. It was clear that what they were making was not Dungeons and Dragons- but it was going to use the name, and this new system was going to entirely prempt any more additions to 3.5.

To their credit, most of the old stuff remains on the website. I actually thought they were going to try to poison their old stuff by deleting it all.


Anyway, 3.5 makes a game world. 4ed, of course I bought the book, and my friends and I talked about it. And no one wanted to play it. It's not just the investment. I'm sure I can piratebay stuff and print it for the guys that never buy books. I'm sure I can expand my own personal closet bookshelf to hold another edition, as I eventually did to make room for Pathfinder. It's more the knowledge investment, and the fact that this broke tradition. Silver Dragon has meant the same thing since I think the time I learned to pee in a toilet. Now it means a new thing. Nosir, that's not D&D. I appreciate that you control the name and all, but what you made was not my game.

I can't even express how grateful I am to the open source mentality that got us open content. We live in a world of plenty because of it.


Anyway, at this point, I know I will *never* run 4ed. I would play it if a friend thought it was keen and was running it, but I know that will never happen. I have multiple game worlds designed from 2ed onward, and they work ok if I decide to run in 2ed, 3ed, or 3.5ed, with tweaks that are simple enough that you can make them on the fly.



Please don't be offended if you like 4ed. I'm sure it's fun. It's just not the game I want to run, and honestly I think I would enjoy it less than I would when I play, which isn't often, if the alternative was 3ed or Pathfinder.



Hopefully I don't get actioned for this. Who knows, the rules to this forum are like the Voynich manuscript.

[tcrudisi]

If you define good as "works 50% of the time", then you'll probably get along just fine with my mechanic. That's how the guy thinks a car should work...

Let's assume you have a starting score of 10. You never put any points into it (besides the default at 11 and 21). You are trained in a skill that uses that score. Just to give a real example: you are a Sorcerer who has Intelligence 10 and is trained in Arcana (pretty common, really).

There are 3 levels to skill DC's: Easy, Moderate, and Hard.

Without using any further resources (Skill Focus, items, etc), you will make the Easy DC 85% of the time, the Moderate DC 70% of the time at level 1 slowly scaling down to 50% by level 30, and the hard DC 35% of the time scaling down to 5% by level 28 and 0% by level 29.

What does this tell us? Well, for starters, with minimal investment, you will always make the easy DC. I don't consider that to be "good" at a skill. I consider "good" to be the moderate DC, personally. And that's also fairly easy for a character with skill training. Heck, you start off at 70% and it tapers down pretty slowly (65% chance of success at level 10). So with no further investment, you'll be making the moderate DC's more than half the time. At the absolute worst, at level 30, you will make it half the time. Of course, at this point you are level 30 with an insane amount of resources and probably walking around with potions and minor items to wear outside combat to improve your skills ... but ya know, even without those at level 30 it's 50%.All math calculated using the newest skill dc list from the Rules Compendium.

[Kurald Galain]

I disagree. You can become GOOD just not 100% success rate as I had previously shown.
You won't become noticeably better than the rest of the party members.


What does this tell us? Well, for starters, with minimal investment, you will always make the easy DC.
Basically there's three levels of proficiency in a skill. You will be good in a skill if you have it trained AND it's based on your primary (or secondary) stat. You will be decent in a skill if you have it trained OR it's based on your prim or sec stat, but not both. And you will be bad at the skill if you neither have it trained nor is it based on a good stat.

There really isn't much you can do to change that. I think you overestimate how many potions and minor items actually exist to improve your skills; when they exist they tend to give +1 or +2 bonuses, which doesn't help enough. Your only real option is Skill Focus, which has to compete with oh so many better feats.

Aside from that, there's only a few ways to get a skill trained if it's not on your class list, and they also cost limited resources.

[Tyndmyr]

honestly, this is what i meant about the system mastery that most people simply don't care about.

i've never read OA or F&P. i have no clue what Nymph's Kiss or Lichloved is. i think i know the spell you're talking about that kills a loved one but that is really stretching for proper "seduction" (at least in the common "i want to get in his pants/in her skirt" fashion) rules IMO. this is doubly true for the Swashbuckler's case since it's not even in a book, it's hidden away on the website.

Ah, but you know about the bluff skill, the bard ability, right? Both are core.

There's usually a number of ways to go about doing something in 3.5, so you don't necessarily HAVE to know all the ways to get the job done. In this particular case, he's merely listing ways that exist.

And count yourself lucky that you don't know what Lichloved is. It's much like it sounds.


it is not a boon for a system IMO to have a player require to read up on several books when all he wants to know is "can my character seduce the barmaid? Y/N?".

Leaving aside the fact that you don't have to read those, the DM can just say "roll bluff", which is remarkably simple to do...and if you want your character to get better at bluffing, you've got skill points and a skill focus feat staring you in the face in core.

Some people DO like reading through numerous books and finding different ways to do things. This is a preference thing. Obviously, they sold a lot of splatbooks for 3.5. Someone was buying em.

[Serpentine]

Dunno about 4e, but... what about a simple Charisma check? Or Diplomacy, if you like?

[Tyndmyr]

Dunno about 4e, but... what about a simple Charisma check? Or Diplomacy, if you like?

Diplomacy convincing rules would also apply. Honestly, the decision between bluff and diplomacy would mainly be in the manner in which the character went about it.

Though, IMO, bluffing is usually funnier, if that's what you're going for.

[Kurald Galain]

Dunno about 4e, but... what about a simple Charisma check? Or Diplomacy, if you like?
Or any other skill as long as you can talk your DM into it. The point is, there are no rules for this, so it defaults to "roll your best skill and make something up". Some people like that, others don't.

[Tyndmyr]

Or any other skill as long as you can talk your DM into it. The point is, there are no rules for this, so it defaults to "roll your best skill and make something up". Some people like that, others don't.

In 4e, possibly. In 3.5, we've got specific ones that apply. I'm sure you could situationally use other skills to help yourself get laid, but I, for one, would prefer not to speculate on the possible applications of "use rope" for a fantasy love life.

[Serpentine]

Except I'd consider seduction to fit pretty much under the RAW for Diplomacy and/or Charisma checks of 3.5... It's used to convince people of things, impress them and negotiate. Pretty much the basis of seduction right there.

[CTrees]

Except I'd consider seduction to fit pretty much under the RAW for Diplomacy and/or Charisma checks of 3.5... It's used to convince people of things, impress them and negotiate. Pretty much the basis of seduction right there.

And being opposed by the target's Sense Motive... One really can't argue that seems appropriate!

[Kurald Galain]

In 4e, possibly. In 3.5, we've got specific ones that apply.

Yes, that's what I meant. 3E has explicit rules for this, 4E only has the aforementioned fallback ("roll your best skill and make something up").

[Seerow]

Yes, that's what I meant. 3E has explicit rules for this, 4E only has the aforementioned fallback ("roll your best skill and make something up").

Admit it, Athletics as a seduction check makes plenty of sense.

[Kurald Galain]

Admit it, Athletics as a seduction check makes plenty of sense.

Yes, it does. Been there, done that.

[true_shinken]

Except I'd consider seduction to fit pretty much under the RAW for Diplomacy and/or Charisma checks of 3.5...
Diplomacy alone? I doubt it.
Diplomacy is about getting people to like you. I like my friends, but I wouldn't go to bed with them.


And being opposed by the target's Sense Motive... One really can't argue that seems appropriate!
That's Bluff. Diplomacy works against a set DC.

[Boci]

Diplomacy alone? I doubt it.
Diplomacy is about getting people to like you. I like my friends, but I wouldn't go to bed with them.

Being spoken for probably imposes a penalty to the diplomacy check.

[Tyndmyr]

Wearing a wedding ring = circumstance modifier. Unless you're good with slight of hand.

Diplomacy is not merely for getting people to like you...that's only one part of the rules for it. The other part is an opposed check to convince someone to do something. If this doesn't fit talking your way into someone's pants, I don't know what does.

[No brains]

I have to thank everyone for posting and putting down your opinions. I'm glad I attracted so many people willing to post and re-post on this subject.

I do have a problem, though.


Did I say it'd be good/optimal? Nope. I said you could easily create the character by RAW, as you've verified. If you're going to shoot me down, tell me how you'd make the same character for a PC in 4e, by RAW.

This is what was a big issue for me in 3E. Why bother being a troll whatever when you will be a burden on the rest of the party? Weird is fun (believe me, I know), but unless your group is fine with having the flavorful yet useless troll whatever be their albatross, you endanger the fun of the group.

This pain can be applied to even something as basic as a sword-fighter. If you're a fighter and you want to help the party through your dedication to martial discipline, the magical wizard just comes in and beats you at your own game. Even if you go for the most highly optimized character based around the idea of non-magical discipline winning the day, you are a moron.

If you camp the base of the tower in the Outlands, you may be on to something, but then a snooty wizard drops a boulder affected by shrink item on you and your character's legacy of focus and dedication ends with a stain on the grass nobody will ever see.

Reiteration: in 3e it seems, esoteric fluff cannot stand under the weight of the crunch. In 4e, you have a chance to get by as your not-wizard even if you vie for something esoteric as a troll whatever. You may not be exactly a giant with the same numbers as the monster, but you can be something that can have fun without being left behind.

A separate point that got me was the ideas behind scaling challenges. I found this irrelevant. Even in 3e, challenges can be subject to DM fiat as that backwater town with gullible barmaids and weakling guards is still within some Lord's land which is still within some Kingdom which can matryoshka up to some god's turf that you've just stepped on. If a player has been a stealth master for several levels, the DM should rule that the geezer who tends the pigs might notice you sneaking by on only the most lucky roll, regardless of system or edition. But if that pig-tender just so happens to be a retired hunter-killer or a mage who communes with demons, you might find more trouble than is worth in his pig-pen. It is because of these ideas that I didn't consider the scale of challenges a debate between systems.

Lastly, the speculations to the cause of my conflict was off. I liked and studied 3.5, but I could only land a game with a 4E group. I had so much more fun as a player compared to how little fun I had being a DM in 3.5.

Still, I have to say thanks. I can see what people like to the editions now and I think I can get along better. I'm glad you put down the responses for me to see in my time of doubt. Maybe I'll look at some games on the forum to get better ideas of both editions...

[Curious]

The point of the troll wizard isn't to illustrate how awesome troll wizards are, it's to demonstrate that you can in fact create just about any character concept you can think of, optimal or not. It's flexibility and the different styles of play for different classes that make 3.5 enjoyable, and you just can't get that with 4e. But, if the numerous- numerous -arguments on this and other threads can't convince you that 3.5 is more fun for you, then the best of luck to you and your wargame.

Er, Roleplaying, I meant Roleplaying game. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Diplomacy alone? I doubt it.
Diplomacy is about getting people to like you. I like my friends, but I wouldn't go to bed with them.Diplomacy is also about getting what you want out of someone, about negotiation. It's also about convincing the other person to do something, and silver-tongued manipulation. I bet if one of your friends got a high enough Diplomacy check they could convince you to go to bed with them.

Bluff seduction is "hey baby, I just flew in from the island I own. Maybe I could take you there sometime. Let me get you another drink and I'll tell you about it..."
Diplomacy seduction is "hey baby, I saw you from across the room and couldn't take my eyes away. You're resplendent. No, don't turn away - here, let me get you a drink and get to know you better."

[true_shinken]

Diplomacy is also about getting what you want out of someone, about negotiation. It's also about convincing the other person to do something, and silver-tongued manipulation. I bet if one of your friends got a high enough Diplomacy check they could convince you to go to bed with them.
You do have a point. The Silver Tongue feat I mentioned, btw, works exactly like that. A Diplomacy check and they are all yours.


Bluff seduction is "hey baby, I just flew in from the island I own. Maybe I could take you there sometime. Let me get you another drink and I'll tell you about it..."
Diplomacy seduction is "hey baby, I saw you from across the room and couldn't take my eyes away. You're resplendent. No, don't turn away - here, let me get you a drink and get to know you better."
Hm, indeed, I agree. Both could work.

[Tyndmyr]

Even in 3e, challenges can be subject to DM fiat as that backwater town with gullible barmaids and weakling guards is still within some Lord's land which is still within some Kingdom which can matryoshka up to some god's turf that you've just stepped on. If a player has been a stealth master for several levels, the DM should rule that the geezer who tends the pigs might notice you sneaking by on only the most lucky roll, regardless of system or edition.

DM fiat can exist anywhere. It is not a product of the rules, and thus, is a very poor point of comparison for systems.

[Kurald Galain]

Weird is fun (believe me, I know), but unless your group is fine with having the flavorful yet useless troll whatever be their albatross, you endanger the fun of the group.

This pain can be applied to even something as basic as a sword-fighter.
Forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much primary spellcasters dominate the other classes in actual gameplay.

[true_shinken]

Forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much primary spellcasters dominate the other classes in actual gameplay.

Kurald, I love you.

[Serpentine]

Forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much primary spellcasters dominate the other classes in actual gameplay.Also, you could have an entire party of underpowered ridiculous concepts like that troll. There, no party balance issues - and it further demonstrates 3.5's greater flexibility to 4e :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

Forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much primary spellcasters dominate the other classes in actual gameplay.

This is also true. Actual gameplay varies wildly. What happens when a DM tosses eight encounters a day at you instead of the usual four? This need not happen OFTEN...but if it happens at all, and you don't know in advance what sort of day it will be, you tend to play a bit more cautiously.

Divination cannot establish absolutely everything, since the DM may not know everything that will happen. It can certainly be very helpful, but there are inherent limitations in any actual table use.

[No brains]

A separate point that got me was the ideas behind scaling challenges. I found this irrelevant. Even in 3e, challenges can be subject to DM fiat as that backwater town with gullible barmaids and weakling guards is still within some Lord's land which is still within some Kingdom which can matryoshka up to some god's turf that you've just stepped on. If a player has been a stealth master for several levels, the DM should rule that the geezer who tends the pigs might notice you sneaking by on only the most lucky roll, regardless of system or edition. But if that pig-tender just so happens to be a retired hunter-killer or a mage who communes with demons, you might find more trouble than is worth in his pig-pen. It is because of these ideas that I didn't consider the scale of challenges a debate between systems.

I fixed that quote for you, Tyndmyr. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Taelas]

{{scrubbed the post, scrub the quote}}

The thing is... he is not.

You cannot use DM fiat to justify ignoring part of the system and claim it doesn't matter. That's the Oberoni fallacy all over again.

[Tyndmyr]

The thing is... he is not.

You cannot use DM fiat to justify ignoring part of the system and claim it doesn't matter. That's the Oberoni fallacy all over again.

Thank you. You've expressed it perfectly.

[Reverent-One]

Also, you could have an entire party of underpowered ridiculous concepts like that troll. There, no party balance issues - and it further demonstrates 3.5's greater flexibility to 4e :smalltongue:

It also serves as an example of how 3.5's flexibility works primary on a party level, not as much on the individual one. A group of underpowered ridiculous concepts should work fine together (assuming the DM is aware of their underpowered-ness), but if you have most of the group making those sorts of characters while another couple make DMM'ing Cleric-zillas or other optimized characters? Issues begin to appear.

It does boil down to they are different games with different approaches. 3.5 has a greater absolute number of fiddley bits, but whether or not specific bits will work at a table is a gamble. 4e, on the other hand, has less bits overall, but one can generally rely on them working together. Which one you prefer is a question of which approach you like better, neither one is right or wrong. If having the absolute highest number of options possible is the priorty for you, you'll probably like 3.5 more. If you prefer less uncertainty on whether your character will fit in the game, 4e is the better choice, as it still has lots of bits to play with, they simply are less likely to clash with the bits from the rest of the party.

So really OP, if you've tried 3.5 and prefer 4e to it, it's doubtful anyone here will be able to change your mind, just as they are unlikely to convince you to change your favorite flavor of ice cream.

[true_shinken]

It also serves as an example of how 3.5's flexibility works primary on a party level, not as much on the individual one. A group of underpowered ridiculous concepts should work fine together (assuming the DM is aware of their underpowered-ness), but if you have most of the group making those sorts of characters while another couple make DMM'ing Cleric-zillas or other optimized characters? Issues begin to appear.
The same is true to 4e. To any RPG, actually.
If you have a half-orc wizard, a tiefling fighter, a revenant invoker... and a feycharger, the game gets unbalanced. Fast.

[Serpentine]

It also serves as an example of how 3.5's flexibility works primary on a party level, not as much on the individual one. A group of underpowered ridiculous concepts should work fine together (assuming the DM is aware of their underpowered-ness), but if you have most of the group making those sorts of characters while another couple make DMM'ing Cleric-zillas or other optimized characters? Issues begin to appear.That's what clear expectations, communication and inter-player cooperation is for.
I'm not really seeing what the relevance of this is :smallconfused: Yes, 4e is more balanced. Has anyone said otherwise, or tried to claim that 3.5 is balanced? This is a seperate issue: that 3.5 is more flexible, on any level. The application of that flexibility is a matter of the players and DM involved.

[Sir_Wulf]

I see the debate between editions as comparable to the unending debate between Apple and other PC enthusiasts. "I can do a whole lot more with my PC than any Apple I could afford. It runs X, Y, and Z, cool apps which aren't available for the Apple!" vs. "My Apple is designed better: I don't need to lose sleep over viruses or worry that an incompatible program will make the system crash."

[Reverent-One]

The same is true to 4e. To any RPG, actually.
If you have a half-orc wizard, a tiefling fighter, a revenant invoker... and a feycharger, the game gets unbalanced. Fast.

The difference being the amount of variance between the two ends of the spectrum, and that builds like the feycharger are generally a result of unintendended consequences of combining a fair number of different game elements in unexpected ways (which usually results in those unintendended consequences being removed once they are made known) while using DMM is what the DMM feats were designed to allow you to do.


That's what clear expectations, communication and inter-player cooperation is for.
I'm not really seeing what the relevance of this is Yes, 4e is more balanced. Has anyone said otherwise, or tried to claim that 3.5 is balanced? This is a seperate issue: that 3.5 is more flexible, on any level. The application of that flexibility is a matter of the players and DM involved.

The relevance is that it leads to an end result of my final statement to the OP, it's merely the jumping off point I used to begin with.

[Totally Guy]

I see the debate between editions as comparable to the unending debate between Apple and other PC enthusiasts. "I can do a whole lot more with my PC than any Apple I could afford. It runs X, Y, and Z, cool apps which aren't available for the Apple!" vs. "My Apple is designed better: I don't need to lose sleep over viruses or worry that an incompatible program will make the system crash."

I think this is quite apt. Bravo!

Of course I say this as a lover of small press RPGs that do wierd things with game theory and which you just can't get the players for! I guess that puts me in the linux or ubuntu camp. Or something like that.:smallwink:

[true_shinken]

The difference being the amount of variance between the two ends of the spectrum, and that builds like the feycharger are generally a result of unintendended consequences of combining a fair number of different game elements in unexpected ways (which usually results in those unintendended consequences being removed once they are made known) while using DMM is what the DMM feats were designed to allow you to do.
And DMM without Nighsticks, the Undeath domain and the Persist spell feat is not that incredible, really.
It's exactly the same as the Feycharger. It can happen in 4e as well.
Yes, it's a bit more balanced, but that's not even because of the game design, it's because they throw errata at you like crazy. And that's not even necessarily a good thing. With the PHB alone, a Cleric could stunlock any solo to death and a Ranger/Rogue could stab any solo to death. 4e is more balanced than 3.5 because of the sheer amount of errata, yes - and even then you have gamebreakers, until errata gets there, usually ruining completely some stuff (Student of Caiphon is nearly useless now, and Pit-Fighter was nerfed so hard it sucks for anyone but Fighters, Feycharge is another example, even the poor Avenger had it's AC nerfed) that wasn't even broken to begin with.

[CTrees]

I think this is quite apt. Bravo!

Of course I say this as a lover of small press RPGs that do wierd things with game theory and which you just can't get the players for! I guess that puts me in the linux or ubuntu camp. Or something like that.:smallwink:

I was figuring 2nd Edition was Linux. You can still have fun with it, you can do most of what you can do in other editions, at least with some work, and there are some truly wonderful things, fully fleshed out, which just don't exist in 3.5/Windows or 4/Mac (e.x., Spelljammer), but there are times when you just have to work rather a lot harder.

I really love the Mac->4th, Windows->3.5 analogy. Never thought of it that way before, but it makes total sense. You win one Internet, Sir_wulf. Bravo.

[Reverent-One]

And DMM without Nighsticks, the Undeath domain and the Persist spell feat is not that incredible, really.
It's exactly the same as the Feycharger. It can happen in 4e as well.
Yes, it's a bit more balanced, but that's not even because of the game design, it's because they throw errata at you like crazy. And that's not even necessarily a good thing. With the PHB alone, a Cleric could stunlock any solo to death and a Ranger/Rogue could stab any solo to death. 4e is more balanced than 3.5 because of the sheer amount of errata, yes - and even then you have gamebreakers, until errata gets there, usually ruining completely some stuff (Student of Caiphon is nearly useless now, and Pit-Fighter was nerfed so hard it sucks for anyone but Fighters, Feycharge is another example, even the poor Avenger had it's AC nerfed) that wasn't even broken to begin with.

So are you saying 4e is no more balanced that 3.5? Because if not, I don't know what we should be arguing about. 4e's balance isn't perfect, certainly, but it is more balanced that 3.5, you yourself commented on it's balance way back in the thread.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not really seeing what the relevance of this is :smallconfused: Yes, 4e is more balanced. Has anyone said otherwise, or tried to claim that 3.5 is balanced?
Also, forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much theoretical game balance is important in actual gameplay. Game balance isn't even a design goal for most RPGs on the market.

[Serpentine]

The relevance is that it leads to an end result of my final statement to the OP, it's merely the jumping off point I used to begin with.I was your segue? I feel so... used.

[CTrees]

I, for one, tend to think massive amounts of errata on a set of books is a bad thing. Typo fixes, or tables not matching text? Sure. Taking the nerf bat to things which were printed, adding addenda and extra clauses to make sure spells and abilities aren't used in creative ways... Those things should have been taken care of before print. If it's World of Warcraft, sure, patches are good. Books? I shouldn't have to go online before I start playing to make sure my books haven't been revised while sitting on my shelf.

It feels wrong to me.

[Reverent-One]

I, for one, tend to think massive amounts of errata on a set of books is a bad thing. Typo fixes, or tables not matching text? Sure. Taking the nerf bat to things which were printed, adding addenda and extra clauses to make sure spells and abilities aren't used in creative ways... Those things should have been taken care of before print. If it's World of Warcraft, sure, patches are good. Books? I shouldn't have to go online before I start playing to make sure my books haven't been revised while sitting on my shelf.

It feels wrong to me.

In that case, don't use the errata. But given that a number of threads pop up here asking about how to balance casters, it seems like the designers going through the rules to balance mistakes and fix things is the sort of thing at least some people want, since they won't have to go through and fix each spell (or in 4e's case, power) individually.

[true_shinken]

So are you saying 4e is no more balanced that 3.5? Because if not, I don't know what we should be arguing about. 4e's balance isn't perfect, certainly, but it is more balanced that 3.5, you yourself commented on it's balance way back in the thread.

I'm saying 3.5 is not as unbalanced as you're trying to make it look.


Also, forum discussions tend to vastly overstate how much theoretical game balance is important in actual gameplay. Game balance isn't even a design goal for most RPGs on the market.
Have I already mentioned that I love you, dude?


In that case, don't use the errata. But given that a number of threads pop up here asking about how to balance casters, it seems like the designers going through the rules to balance mistakes and fix things is the sort of thing at least some people want, since they won't have to go through and fix each spell (or in 4e's case, power) individually.
Some people want balance and a rain of errata, sure. Has anyone said that no one wanted balance and errata? :smallconfused:



I, for one, tend to think massive amounts of errata on a set of books is a bad thing. Typo fixes, or tables not matching text? Sure. Taking the nerf bat to things which were printed, adding addenda and extra clauses to make sure spells and abilities aren't used in creative ways... Those things should have been taken care of before print. If it's World of Warcraft, sure, patches are good. Books? I shouldn't have to go online before I start playing to make sure my books haven't been revised while sitting on my shelf.

It feels wrong to me.
You know what I'd like to see? Reprintings of the books with the errata added in. Not Essentials, that's a different set of rules...

[Tyndmyr]

And DMM without Nighsticks, the Undeath domain and the Persist spell feat is not that incredible, really.

Agreed. Two feats for some very limited daily metamagic use? Meh. The normal amount of turn attempts tends to limit you to a pretty reasonable amount.

The Mac/Windows analogy is apt. In both, I tend to prefer windows for personal use, but can aptly run a wild variety of different options, most of which have at least some niche value.

I fully agree that 4e is more balanced than 3.5. I just simply don't care much about that. It's terribly important to some people, but I don't see balance as that big of a deal. Values vary.

It's fairly easy to describe 4e as more tactical, more balanced, etc...but it's hard to describe it as "better" because of those things. The value of those things is inherently subjective.

[Reverent-One]

I'm saying 3.5 is not as unbalanced as you're trying to make it look.

All I'm "trying to make it look" like is more unbalanced than 4e. Again, if we don't disagree on that note, I don't see what we're disagreeing on.


Some people want balance and a rain of errata, sure. Has anyone said that no one wanted balance and errata? :smallconfused:

Did I say no one wanted balance and errata?


You know what I'd like to see? Reprintings of the books with the errata added in. Not Essentials, that's a different set of rules...

That did seem to be one of the goals of the Class Compendium book that was cancelled to simply be turned into a series of Dragon articles. It's interesting to me that there's been response to these articles along of the lines of it being a good thing the book got cancelled, since "who would pay for reprintings of old material (even with the errata)?". I also like the idea of errata reprintings, but maybe we're in the minority.

[Tyndmyr]

I would make sure to buy the printing with the errata if I did not yet have the book. I would not likely rebuy the book solely for the errata, unless the changes were fairly major. At least, like 3.0 -> 3.5 major.

[true_shinken]

I would make sure to buy the printing with the errata if I did not yet have the book. I would not likely rebuy the book solely for the errata, unless the changes were fairly major. At least, like 3.0 -> 3.5 major.
My thoughts exactly.
The way 4e is going now saddens me. My 4e group swapped to essentials recently and the DM decided to only use Essentials material from now on, meaning I would have to create another character. So unfortunate. I really liked Sir Darien.
I wanted to return to the group - maybe play a Hexblade or an Assassin but I decided I wouldn't bother expending more money on Essentials because they will release 5e or something befoe I even get to use half of what's in the books.

[Tyndmyr]

My thoughts exactly.
The way 4e is going now saddens me. My 4e group swapped to essentials recently and the DM decided to only use Essentials material from now on, meaning I would have to create another character. So unfortunate. I really liked Sir Darien.
I wanted to return to the group - maybe play a Hexblade or an Assassin but I decided I wouldn't bother expending more money on Essentials because they will release 5e or something befoe I even get to use half of what's in the books.

Hey, at least the used price on 4e books has stayed remarkably low(the errata/online focus probably encourages this). It's a rare book that breaks $20 on Amazon.

My main RL group has a set of 4e books that have been passed around so much that nobody knows whose they are any more. Not worth bothering with selling them, since they're so cheap, but nobody wants to actually play them. So, they just get dumped at someone else's house.

[Reverent-One]

My thoughts exactly.
The way 4e is going now saddens me. My 4e group swapped to essentials recently and the DM decided to only use Essentials material from now on, meaning I would have to create another character. So unfortunate. I really liked Sir Darien.



:smallfrown: Sad day, it always sucks to have character concepts not be usuable due to random book restrictions, doubly so when the restrictions come into play in the middle of an existing game.

[No brains]

The thing is... he is not.

You cannot use DM fiat to justify ignoring part of the system and claim it doesn't matter. That's the Oberoni fallacy all over again.

I apologize, my reading comprehension failed me for a moment back there. I didn't mean any disrespect.

The way I saw it, observance of the rules can take many forms, and the DM should be careful in assigning the exact difficulty of a given challenge. I've seen rules in 3.5 that allow for a lot of overlapping in determining what creature of what CR can be where. Particularly in towns and the open world, Affiliation Leaders, BBEGs in disguise, and other NPCs can be anywhere and that sneaking past anyone you aren't exactly sure about is a crap-shoot. In the dungeon, everything should be arranged as an encounter flow-chart so that the DCs can be neatly arranged, but doing something the DM didn't expect can have unexpected results.

If I'm seeing things the wrong way, and in 4e it really is a 50/50 chance a character devoted to sneaking can beat a commoner's passive perception, then that is just weird.

Again, I'm sorry for the mix-up.

[mootoall]

Yeah, I see a lot of "4e is too similar to WoW" as part of the argument. The focus on balance, and occasional outcries against it, remind me of the Great Druid Nerf of '08(?). An argument which led to an amusing quote having to do with the difference between playing WoW with a subscription and subscribing to the Online Character creator.

[No brains]

In regard to the 4mac/3pc debate, another way of looking at it is that 4e is better suited to the lawfully aligned who want to have their simple, repeatable box of reference and that 3e is more appealing to chaotic types, as even if it is more to deal with, it is the volume of thing to deal with that was the drawing point anyway.

I am also becoming aware of the constant errata problem in 4e. I am a cheap miser and I like to keep my money the way a dragon does, so I would be more cautious in regarding 4e as inherently more controlled so much as the WotC has become better at clamping down on inconsistencies faster. What was the general reaction to the release of errata to the 3e books? Did they happen as often?

[true_shinken]

What was the general reaction to the release of errata to the 3e books? Did they happen as often?
Errata in 3.5 usually fixed typos, editing mistakes or clarified rules. It wasn't usually used as a nerf stick. (Though some cases exist - Scout might have been nerfed because the creator intended it to work that way from the start, but I highly doubt it)