I'm Curious about 3.5 and 4E.

[Deviousalpha]

So I began my D&D days with 4E. I'm too much of youngling to have really had any time with 3.5 While a friend who played the Neverwinter Nights online game swears to be 3.5 was great, I unfortunately cannot make my own judgement.

Short of cosmetic changes (a god missing here, an artifact added/removed there) when it breaks down to actual mechanics, what are the real gripes?

From my time with 4E I suppose I would say combat can be a bit of a slog, then again I have a long way to go as a DM and player, as I am currently learning with my new party whom I DM for. They have decided to go for a non-lethal approach to near every encounter meaning I'm having to develop dialogue for their prisoners on the fly. Which honestly I'm finding difficult as I had planned exposes later in the dungeons to show them which they would ruin by stealing a grunt and interrogating him.

I digress. So, I know curiosity killed the cat. But please, someone illuminate me as to the major changes which have got people up in arms.

[Kurald Galain]

What is your question, exactly?

What rules did they change between 3E and 4E? The short answer is "all of them". The system was basically rewritten from scratch.

What gripes exist over the rules? This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549) should give you a fair idea of what certain people consider Wrong about 3E, or Wrong about 4E. It's a very common debate on e.g. these forums.

[Deviousalpha]

What is your question, exactly?

What rules did they change between 3E and 4E? The short answer is "all of them". The system was basically rewritten from scratch.

What gripes exist over the rules? This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549) should give you a fair idea of what certain people consider Wrong about 3E, or Wrong about 4E. It's a very common debate on e.g. these forums.

I figured it might be but didn't know where to look. I was just curious as to the uproar. I mean, in my head I saw it as a re-writing but based of learning from previous experience. But clearly there has been a large divide so I was curious about what they could have got so wrong. I mean, its not like I haven't been really enjoying 4E since I picked it. Was 3.5 even better?.Anyway that thread should be good so I'll have a read now. Cheers.

[Meta]

Perhaps, I'm naive, but for me it can pretty much be summed up as:

A 3.5 is much trickier to get right. Players and DMs who know each other and know what to expect from each other can have a ball with the system, because it is more open ended mechanically. More 'work' will need to be done to maintain the good sense of inter and intra party balance that most 4e games will have.

4e does have fewer options when it comes to building characters but the dearth is still very large. Combat rules are more streamlined, as that's what most of the published rules are for: combat. Out of combat interaction is considered a bit lacking by most, but I maintain one of the hallmark's of a good DM is that social situations never come down to just a die roll anyways.

I like both editions and feel they both have something different and fun to offer.

[Mando Knight]

Was 3.5 even better?

Some say yes, others say no, still others say chocolate cookies & cream is superior.

If you're looking at it from a combat perspective, 3.5 is quirky. Wizards end encounters by looking at their spellbook, Clerics and Druids can essentially buff themselves into being better Fighters With Spells than the classes designed around that concept, and Fighters and Monks get laughed at by the spellcasters. If you want spellcasting to be all-powerful and relatively convenient in and out of battle, then it is a better system than 4e. It also has more skills, in case you really must spend your character resources on learning how to weave baskets or dance about for a few bits of gold every week.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What gripes exist over the rules? This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549) should give you a fair idea of what certain people consider Wrong about 3E, or Wrong about 4E.
Or if you prefer the Classic formulation, I'd recommend this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73469) :smallbiggrin:

Anyhoo, Kurald has the basics right -- they changed everything; moreso than from 2nd to 3.0, IMHO. If you're looking back from 4th to 3rd, I'd imagine things would look much like looking back from 3rd to 2nd: things were clunky and needlessly complicated. Of course, this is why there are people going "forward" in editions who invariably complain that the new system is "too simple" and "lacks verisimilitude."

As far as your personal issues: those sound like classic Beginner DM Tribulations, which haven't changed much since the Red Box :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

Or if you prefer the Classic formulation, I'd recommend this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73469) :smallbiggrin:

That's funny to read back now!

I totally called that (1) lots of errata would be printed, (2) sunder would be gone, and (3) there would be problems with the SC rules. :smallbiggrin:

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's funny to read back now!

I totally called that (1) lots of errata would be printed, (2) sunder would be gone, and (3) there would be problems with the SC rules. :smallbiggrin:
I refer to the old Edition Warz threads occasionally to relive the glory days -- and chuckle when I think about the Warz to come :smalltongue:

[Dimers]

Wow. That whole thread was "before my time" here in the Playground. I'm ... I just ... geez, I'm just flat-out amazed at the number of posters to that thread who are now banned.

I play both 3.5 and 4e currently. Neither lends itself to roleplaying better than the other, and 4e is more of a tactics / skirmish game, and 4e is better balanced, and 4e is easier to learn and use, so I prefer 4e. I find there are more things I have to deliberately ignore in 4e than 3.5, though (along the lines of "if a wizard can call down a meteor strike once per day, at no cost and requiring only a few seconds of time, why can't he devise a simple spell to make brownies" or "that guy was on death's door a minute ago and nobody used magic, so why is he fully healthy now").

[Tengu_temp]

I digress. So, I know curiosity killed the cat. But please, someone illuminate me as to the major changes which have got people up in arms.

Mostly? It's people not doing the research. From my experience, the rabid anti-4e people barely know anything about the edition, haven't really played it or played it once when it was still new and unpolished, make questionable logic leaps such us "it's like an MMO" or "it's all about combat and not roleplaying" and tend to have bad spelling and grammar. People who have valid reasons not to like 4e tend to be much more polite and less loud about their opinion.

[NecroRebel]

Mostly? It's people not doing the research. From my experience, the rabid anti-4e people barely know anything about the edition, haven't really played it or played it once when it was still new and unpolished, make questionable logic leaps such us "it's like an MMO" or "it's all about combat and not roleplaying" and tend to have bad spelling and grammar. People who have valid reasons not to like 4e tend to be much more polite and less loud about their opinion.

Incidentally, if you replace "4e" with "3.x" here, it's still almost completely true. The only real differences are which questionable logic leaps are made by rabid anti-fans, not whether questionable logic leaps are made.

[Tengu_temp]

Incidentally, if you replace "4e" with "3.x" here, it's still almost completely true. The only real differences are which questionable logic leaps are made by rabid anti-fans, not whether questionable logic leaps are made.

I'm not a fan of 3e, but I saw so many ridiculous arguments against that game that I must agree.

[Eldan]

Well, let's write down some of the principles of 3.5 in a list format.

Races:
Races in 3.5 have weaknesses as well as strengths. The elf, as an example, has a -2 to constitution, to represent their frailness.

Classes:
Not all classes have powers. In fact, most classes don't really have anything like that. Pretty much every class is different from other classes, they all gain new features at different rates and on different levels. Classes tend to differ enormously in power, to the point that some classes can do everything another class can do, but better, in addition to their own specialization.

Skills:
There are more skills. Many of those skills are rarely used, such as Forgery, or only have out-of-combat applications, like Craft or Perform.

Magic:
This is the big one. There are no ritual in 3.5. Instead, normal spells can change the world. You have spells that summon food. Spells that create volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis that can level cities. Spells that tell you the future, in detail, and spells that let you see what is happening thousands of miles away. Spells that teleport you to another continent. Spells that make it impossible to attack you. Spells that create new worlds from scratch.

Monsters:
Another big one. First of all, Monsters are built, basically, like characters. They don't have classes, but they have hit dice, base attack bonuses and abilities. They are built to do, in the world, what their fluff says they can, often with abilities that will, perhaps, never come up in combat or even in game, but explain a lot about how they live. And most monsters are playable, not just specialized races. Want to be a dragon the size of a house? There are rules for that. Not very good or balanced rules, but rules.



In the end, I think, I can say this for 3.5:
It's a toolbox. It requires a lot of work to make a working game. Now that there are online guides on how to break the game, the DM has to (and is expected) to make house rules and forbid certain options to the players, in order to keep the game even semi-functional. On the other hand, for any crazy thing you can think of, there's probably a rule somewhere. It might not be a well-written or bug-free rule, but it's a rule.

[tcrudisi]

I find there are more things I have to deliberately ignore in 4e than 3.5, though (along the lines of "if a wizard can call down a meteor strike once per day, at no cost and requiring only a few seconds of time, why can't he devise a simple spell to make brownies"

It's a sad day, indeed, when a Wizard forgets about Prestidigitation. Of course every Wizard can make brownies! And, don't forget - you'll never burn yourself again since you have Mage Hand.

In fact, I've heard it said that the reason Mage Hand came into existence was because Wizards kept getting pissed off when they burned themselves pulling brownies out of the oven. On the other side of the world, they didn't have Mage Hand yet, so they devised another way to make brownies: Prestidigitation. It actually took centuries before they got together and shared their knowledge, but necessity is the mother of all invention and brownies are nothing if not necessary.

And, this actually solves the riddle of 4e. See, the most powerful wizards in 3.5 had an amazing number of spell slots. They could cast dozens of spells a day. But, they were only that powerful because of brownies. Even the most epic of Wizards would need 75% of their spell slots as Prestidigitation - a level 0 cantrip! So the most powerful Wizards got together, regardless of affiliation: the Red Wizards joined with Elminster, for example. And they devised the most powerful spell ever. They knew they were giving up most of their power, but they just wanted to be able to cast Prestidigitation an infinite number of times so they were willing to pay whatever price was necessary. They changed the whole world, even the physics the world was built on. They gave up most of their power and fell down to that of a lowly Fighter or Monk. They ... switched their world over to the 4th edition.

All for brownies.

[Dimers]

It's a sad day, indeed, when a Wizard forgets about Prestidigitation. Of course every Wizard can make brownies! And, don't forget - you'll never burn yourself again since you have Mage Hand.

In fact, I've heard it said that the reason Mage Hand came into existence was because Wizards kept getting pissed off when they burned themselves pulling brownies out of the oven. On the other side of the world, they didn't have Mage Hand yet, so they devised another way to make brownies: Prestidigitation. It actually took centuries before they got together and shared their knowledge, but necessity is the mother of all invention and brownies are nothing if not necessary.

And, this actually solves the riddle of 4e. See, the most powerful wizards in 3.5 had an amazing number of spell slots. They could cast dozens of spells a day. But, they were only that powerful because of brownies. Even the most epic of Wizards would need 75% of their spell slots as Prestidigitation - a level 0 cantrip! So the most powerful Wizards got together, regardless of affiliation: the Red Wizards joined with Elminster, for example. And they devised the most powerful spell ever. They knew they were giving up most of their power, but they just wanted to be able to cast Prestidigitation an infinite number of times so they were willing to pay whatever price was necessary. They changed the whole world, even the physics the world was built on. They gave up most of their power and fell down to that of a lowly Fighter or Monk. They ... switched their world over to the 4th edition.

All for brownies.

And to think, it all could have been avoided if 3.5 had the Endurance skill -- either for suffering through the wait until the oven was cooler, or for the 6th-level skill power "Ovengrasp" (Culinary Power, p.122).

I'm sorry, Deviousalpha, we really shouldn't hijack your thread with this poignant recollection of what we've lost. We'll try to be more lighthearted in the future, I promise. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

All for brownies.

You just won the thread.