PDA

View Full Version : D&D editions: 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 and questions regarding them



ChaosArchon
2013-09-03, 02:24 PM
So for such a long title I have only two short questions, 1) why does it seem that 4.0 is eschewed in favor of 3.0 or 3.5, whats with the hate? 2) which class would win in a 1v1 against the other classes?

Thanks for answering my questions, total D&D noob

AuraTwilight
2013-09-03, 03:03 PM
4.0 is basically a completely different game from 3.5, and by trying to strike perfect game balance, made everything feel pretty same-y. A lot of its detractors don't like how it was basically not really built for handling anything besides mid-level combat.

As for your second edition, the answer is different depending on the edition, and even then, there's way too many variables to take into account. What level are the combatants? What feats or abilities are they allowed to take, for instance? At level 1, for example, a Fighter can cut a Wizard in half, but at level 15, the Wizard can probably destroy the Fighter in one turn if they know what they're doing.

ChaosArchon
2013-09-03, 03:40 PM
I probably should have clarified, but in 3.5 with a party like the OOTS but with the players using (what i presume) are better builds but at ~15-17. Assume that there is no difference is levels and the gear each has is equal in value to the others.

obryn
2013-09-03, 04:02 PM
4e isn't directly translatable to 3.x. They're rather different games, but both recognizably D&D. 3e focused more on game-rules-as-world-simulation, and 4e focused more on game-rules-as-gameplay.

Really, they're both perfectly fine systems; it comes down to what you want out of your elfgame pretend time.

If you're a complete noob, I'd probably recommend Dungeon World (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/108028/Dungeon-World) or a retro-clone like Dark Dungeons (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/) as an introductory game. Neither 3.x nor 4e are particularly well-suited for introductory gameplay.

Or, you could always snag the current iteration of D&D Next from the WotC site. It's better than either for introductory play, but has plenty of rough edges and some issues. Also, it's free.

For your second question, it depends on what edition. If you're running 3.x, a full caster (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) will wipe the floor with a Rogue or Fighter at mid- to high-levels. If you're running 4e, it's a lot more open-ended as to the eventual victor given the classes' balance with one another.

-O

erikun
2013-09-03, 04:27 PM
As others have mentioned, D&D4e is a considerably different game from D&D3e. Besides the usual edition war, some 3e players have a specific dislike for 4e, partially because Wizards of the Coast (at the time) came off as flippant towards the older system and partially because 4e tends to ignore or lacks some of the best qualities of 3e.

D&D generally doesn't settle class vs class fights very well, especially 4e with it's party-focused combat. 3e spellcasters can generally dominate non-spellcasters in combat, especially at mid- to high-levels where they have enough variety in spells to not have many vulnerabilities.

oball
2013-09-03, 04:31 PM
If you want to see what would happen in a fight between 3.5e and 4e OotS-style parties, I suggest you pick up the Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales compilation (http://www.ookoodook.com/store/OOTSSnipsSnailsAndDragonTales.shtml).

Kane0
2013-09-03, 11:40 PM
This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15617992&postcount=5) outlines a lot about 4e, which may help you. It takes a very different approach than previous D&D editions so many don't like the direction it went in (Hence most of the hate linking 4e with MMOs).

Tengu_temp
2013-09-04, 10:20 AM
3e players often don't like 4e for the same reason AD&D players often don't like 3e: because it's different from the game they know. Do note that whether 4.0 is eschewed in favor of 3.0 or 3.5, or the opposite, depends on what forum you visit. It's 3e > 4e here, but many other places prefer 4e.

Optimized DND 3.5 characters at level 15-17? Wizard wins, no contest.

Ansem
2013-09-04, 10:26 AM
http://geek-related.com/2008/06/06/dd-4es-out-and-its-awful-heres-why/
Sums up my mind completely.
Simply, 3.5e and former versions put you into a character, a persona in a fantasy world and you live their life. This world has their own social rules, economics, physics laws to some extend.
4e is like playing a tabletop MMO, it's really like a videogame and ripping off a lot.

I'm not a hater, if you like to play a tabletop rpg like a videogame, 4e is perfect for you but if you want deep roleplay and emerging yourself into the fantasy universe like a player character instead of an mmo account, 3.5 and earlier versions are for you. Since the reason I play D&D is roleplay and being a character, I'm not a fan of 4e, yes I have tried it and I hated it but I still played through two campaigns so I'm not a person who just yells "it sucks" without knowing what he's talking about.
It bears the name and brand Dungeons and Dragons, but it's not a Dungeons and Dragons game to me.

Kurald Galain
2013-09-04, 10:33 AM
[Insert edition here] is much better in every way than [other edition here], because of [gripe here] and [exaggeration here] and [misconception here], and only an [insult here] would play the latter!

Also, chocolate.

huttj509
2013-09-04, 12:04 PM
I like iced tea.

I like sweetened tea, and I also like unsweetened tea.

If I think I have a glass of unsweetened tea, then take a gulp and it's sweet, I will struggle to avoid spitting it across the table.

It's not that sweet tea is bad, it just has to do with expectations and preferences.

obryn
2013-09-04, 12:12 PM
http://geek-related.com/2008/06/06/dd-4es-out-and-its-awful-heres-why/
Sums up my mind completely.
Simply, 3.5e and former versions put you into a character, a persona in a fantasy world and you live their life. This world has their own social rules, economics, physics laws to some extend.
4e is like playing a tabletop MMO, it's really like a videogame and ripping off a lot.

I'm not a hater, if you like to play a tabletop rpg like a videogame, 4e is perfect for you but if you want deep roleplay and emerging yourself into the fantasy universe like a player character instead of an mmo account, 3.5 and earlier versions are for you.
Sigh. Looks like it's still 2008. Edition warring never changes, folks!

-O

valadil
2013-09-04, 12:26 PM
The big complaint agains 4e is that it plays like a video game. I ran a 4e game for almost two years and say with authority that it does not have to play like a video game. But I think I can see why people have that conception of it.

I blame sanctioned play. WotC put out a bunch of short adventures. People could register online to GM them. Some people did this at home, others did it at game shops. They were rather aggressive in making these sanctioned games available and a lot of players tried out 4e this way.

So why is that a problem?

Well, sanctioned play is kind of like a video game. Actually it's kind of like an MMO. All the players have to adhere to the same standardised rules so that characters can be portable. Adventures follow a specific format. There's very little room to go off the rails in one of these adventures. They almost always have two combats that take most of the time of the adventure. Oh and the combats are required to use the terrain tiles WotC published. Characters can't buy any loot they want, but have to buy rewards that come from the end of an adventure. There are probably other restrictions I'm forgetting.

Yes, there was sanctioned play for 3rd ed too, but it was way less prevalent. The point I'm trying to make is that when it game time to compare 4e to 3.5, players weren't making a fair comparison between the systems. They compared a 4e sanctioned game with a 3.5 home game. Or even if they did run a custom adventure in 4e, they were so used to the rules of sanctioned play that they assumed those confines and kept playing that way.

Psyren
2013-09-04, 01:39 PM
For me it was a combination of factors:

-> 4e tried to kill open gaming: The GSL has nowhere near the brilliance, scalability and ease of use that the OGL was, and then they added that rule that if you developed under the GSL you were shut off from the OGL. These combined to kill 3rd-party development, even efforts to update old material to their new product.

-> Lack of immersion: Movement in squares, no utility spells except in plot-tasatic rituals, short-duration/arbitrarily limited powers and healing surges all conspired to make it hard for me to see past the "game" to the story beneath.

-> Rigid roles: 4e certainly had its reasons for grouping every class into one or two of the standard "MMO roles" - tank, healer, dps, cc - and I can understand the benefits to be gained in doing so (it makes the game easy for newer players to pick up, it makes encounter design easier to pin down, it prevents PC redundancy or unfilled roles etc.) But it still curtails storytelling potential. For instance, balancing around parties having a "Defender" means making sure that non-defenders have a much harder time playing that frontliner role and taking hits. If they didn't, Defenders would be all but unnecessary. But that tight encounter design means 3e has a bit more freedom for unconventional or plot-based party comps, such as a Thieves' Guild campaign, or running with NPC classes in a party, or playing as animals with communication barriers etc. All you would really need to make these odd concepts work are a few magic items, custom-made if need be.

-> Compatibility woes: One of the most fun aspects of 3e/3.5 was being able to dig up very old modules, campaigns, and even just characters from previous editions and recreate them in the latest version in painstaking detail. With 3.5's breadth of non-combat rules and the simplicity of its core mechanic this was a cinch. But with 4e, so many of these abilities and metatext were simply lost, and with them went the stories they could tell.

There are a few other reasons but those were the standouts for me.

obryn
2013-09-04, 02:10 PM
The main thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a game where you sit around with your friends and pretend to be elves.

There are ways that each person might find more fun, and there are ways that each person might find find less fun. But, when it comes down to it, you're still just pretending to be an elf along with a bunch of other people who are also pretending to be elves.

So try out lots of different rules for various sorts of elfgames. (And non-elfgames!) Find out what tickles your fancy, but don't play just that one. Don't listen to a bunch of morons on the internet (including yours truly) who waste time arguing about the best way to pretend to be an elf. It's not a major life decision. And the elfgames you like to play say nothing about you as a person, other than the fact that you like pretending to be an elf (unless you are incredibly creepy about your elfgames, in which case, yes it does say something about you as a person, sicko).

In other words, keep a sense of perspective when digging into D&D. None of it means anything in the long run, other than having a good time with your friends. Boards like this one thrive on arguments about elfgame trivialities; take nobody here (including yours truly) too seriously.

-O

Eldan
2013-09-04, 02:35 PM
First, I should remark that my entire experience with 4E was the PHB , the online articles that came out before the game and quickly flipping through the German monster manual once in a store.

The marketing: there were several articles on the site that were aggressive, almost hostile to earlier editions, especially the cosmology. "We don't need several kinds of angels since no one ever fights good creatures, but the words eladrin and archon are cool, so they'll be elves and elementals now! The Planes were boring and no one ever cared about Planescape because it was dumb so we'll rewrite the planes so they aren't as dangerous!" And so on. I felt insulted after even just a few of those articles.

The terminology. Or really, the writing style in general. Going from five feet to square, from running to shifting, from spell to daily power, etc. is just really another step away from immersion.

Powers too combat focused and too similar: almost every power was damage+rider effect. I would have much preferred if over your career, you got maybe two or three of those and then filled the rest with utility or control powers. Or if damage types actually meant more and worked differently. Also, see the next point.

And the big one:
No simulationism: there were a lot of really weird cases. A lot of them stemmed from the fact that every power had to be useful on every creature. Or I think it was the intention. So constructs aren't mindless and immune to mind affecting anymore. Fireballs can burn fire elementals.
I prefer my rules to support the world first and the game second. It's a very close second, but still a second.
I like rules on economy and resource allocation. On how to overcome environmental obstacles. Travelling through lethal terrain. Now and then, I like stressing my players with depleted resources, long-lasting penalties, diseases, crippling injury, curses and guerilla warfare.
And I like complicated magic. Sorry, but I do. Powers with weird interactions, strangely specific cases, unusual limitations. Creatures with hidden weaknesses. D&D had some of that, but not nearly enough. 4E has almost none.
A character with telekinesis? Nice. A character that only has the power to repel gold away from him? Awesome! Divination to see at a distance? Useful. The ability to only see through silver mirrors that hang on stone walls? Damn cool. Short-range teleportation? Sure, I'll take it. Teleportation that is stopped by flowing water and moonlight? Heck yes. A ghost that is immune to weapons but banished by salt? MUch cooler than a ghost that's just incorporeal.


The main thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a game where you sit around with your friends and pretend to be elves.

Yes. And in that sense, 4E delivers, sure. If it was the only game out there, I would have a bookshelf full of house rules and campaign notes by now. The problem is, it isn't. It was, from the beginning, in direct competition with not only 3E, but every game out there. And it doesn't hold a candle to 3E in being the game I want to play if I have a choice.

If I could find an actual group? Sure, I'll play 4E. But I'd still try to convert them to 3E.

obryn
2013-09-04, 03:11 PM
Yes. And in that sense, 4E delivers, sure. If it was the only game out there, I would have a bookshelf full of house rules and campaign notes by now. The problem is, it isn't. It was, from the beginning, in direct competition with not only 3E, but every game out there. And it doesn't hold a candle to 3E in being the game I want to play if I have a choice
Sure, and I don't care much for 3.x anymore at all for many and varied reasons that aren't worth digging into. It's just crazy when I see "MMO" comparisons posted without irony, here in 2013. When it comes down to it, I'd rather be constructive and talk about what I do like. So I'll post a pair of links, both of which do a really good job of describing what I love about 4e. Because I'd rather do that than post about what I think is terrible about 3.x. :smallsmile:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?684492-4E-What-did-D-amp-D-4E-get-RIGHT&p=16669047#post16669047
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?684492-4E-What-did-D-amp-D-4E-get-RIGHT&p=16669050#post16669050

-O

Eldan
2013-09-04, 04:51 PM
Hm. The only one of those points I really agree with is rituals. Rituals are great. There's a reason I put them into my 3.5. Maaaaaybe balance. But I really don't care about balance that much anymore.

Ashdate
2013-09-04, 05:10 PM
I think it's fair to say that there are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, and your enjoyment of it is going to come down to how much you enjoy a system's strengths, and how much you can live with a system's weaknesses. Just how some on this board find 4e unpalatable, I probably wouldn't be DMing (and maybe not even playing at all) if it weren't for 4e hitting the sweet spot of what I was looking for in a system.

Ultimately, I think the best advice I can give you is that the people you play with are much more important than the system you play with. A good group filled with people you like will make any game fun.

Big Fau
2013-09-04, 05:33 PM
One major problem I had with 4E was PC flexibility. Every class was divided into one of 4 roles (Striker/Controller/Defender/Leader) and anything that allowed them to stray from one of those roles was shut down as hard as WotC could manage. Would it have killed WotC to make the classes a little bit more flexible in their role, or even perhaps able to switch between roles without using the multiclassing system they put in 4E? Would it have been so hard to design a Striker/Leader class with enough Encounter/Daily powers to switch back and forth round-by-round? I know the Hybrid class rule exists, but I felt it was too little.

Also why did they never make a Martial Controller?

Ashdate
2013-09-04, 05:47 PM
One major problem I had with 4E was PC flexibility. Every class was divided into one of 4 roles (Striker/Controller/Defender/Leader) and anything that allowed them to stray from one of those roles was shut down as hard as WotC could manage. Would it have killed WotC to make the classes a little bit more flexible in their role, or even perhaps able to switch between roles without using the multiclassing system they put in 4E? Would it have been so hard to design a Striker/Leader class with enough Encounter/Daily powers to switch back and forth round-by-round? I know the Hybrid class rule exists, but I felt it was too little.

Also why did they never make a Martial Controller?

Part of the point of having roles was that players were expected to be one part of a well-oiled machine, such as to not step on each others toes. That said, many classes bleed into other roles quite well. Fighters can make decent strikers, as can Wizards. Rogues can get a bit of controlling power too (as can Warlocks), and the "leader" multiclass feats can allow pretty much any class to contribute to keeping HP high. I can see people being annoyed with the divisions (particularly because it can sometimes get in the way of what people want to play), but it's very much a feature that I like having around.

As for "Martial Controllers", there was one in name (the "Hunter" Ranger from the essentials line, but most agree that it isn't a very good controller), but I think several defenders played a kind of "controller" role, albeit with the focus on keeping several enemies on them, as opposed to the more traditional controller which sought to help the party divide and conquer.

TuggyNE
2013-09-04, 07:49 PM
Sigh. Looks like it's still 2008. Edition warring never changes, folks!

In the grim darkness of the distant spacefuture, there are only Internet forum discussions.

Psyren
2013-09-04, 10:56 PM
Also why did they never make a Martial Controller?

This confused me too. Once they did Martial healing I figured they were going whole-hog into gamism but they didn't follow through.

tasw
2013-09-04, 11:19 PM
So for such a long title I have only two short questions, 1) why does it seem that 4.0 is eschewed in favor of 3.0 or 3.5, whats with the hate? 2) which class would win in a 1v1 against the other classes?

Thanks for answering my questions, total D&D noob

4e is final fantasy tactics and similar games pretending to be D&D. Its essentially all suck and fail that needs to be killed in a fire.

the only decent ideas it had were either ripped off from 3rd party games or adopted in a better form by pathfinder.

4e classes would win at low levels. They start out as superheroes compared to other editions.


Do note that whether 4.0 is eschewed in favor of 3.0 or 3.5, or the opposite, depends on what forum you visit. It's 3e > 4e here, but many other places prefer 4e.



The only place I've ever seen that preferred 4e was the WoTC forums, and thats because the mods banned everyone who didnt like it so they couldnt speak. Just like a certain forum starting with E did at the time, and is doing now to anyone that doesnt like 5e (because their whores for WoTC) but thats what happens when money gets into public discussion I guess.



Sigh. Looks like it's still 2008. Edition warring never changes, folks!

-O

40 years after Koontz first book he's still a 2nd rate rip off of stephan king. When something sucks, its sucks. time doesnt make it suck less.


The main thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a game where you sit around with your friends and pretend to be elves.

When we pretend to be elves we prefer to do it without crappy rules that make us feel like we're playing a tactical wargame instead of an RPG.

Shyftir
2013-09-04, 11:40 PM
4e is final fantasy tactics and similar games pretending to be D&D. Its essentially all suck and fail that needs to be killed in a fire.

the only decent ideas it had were either ripped off from 3rd party games or adopted in a better form by pathfinder.

4e classes would win at low levels. They start out as superheroes compared to other editions.



The only place I've ever seen that preferred 4e was the WoTC forums, and thats because the mods banned everyone who didnt like it so they couldnt speak. Just like a certain forum starting with E did at the time, and is doing now to anyone that doesnt like 5e (because their whores for WoTC) but thats what happens when money gets into public discussion I guess.




40 years after Koontz first book he's still a 2nd rate rip off of stephan king. When something sucks, its sucks. time doesnt make it suck less.


Ah, point of order: Aren't edition wars scheduled for Thursdays? I get the order so confused.
On Monday, we complain about/attempt to fix monks.
On Tuesdays, it's "how to make a Paladin fall."
Wednesday is for Wee-a-boo Wank about BoT9s.
Thursdays are Edition Wars.
Fridays are DM advice or "I hate my entire party for nor playing my way". Leaving the weekend free for all the other neckbearding fa/tg/guyism.
Just kidding I love all you guys, except for the ones who disagree with me. They suck.

tasw
2013-09-04, 11:44 PM
Ah, point of order: Aren't edition wars scheduled for Thursdays? I get the order so confused.
On Monday, we complain about/attempt to fix monks.
On Tuesdays, it's "how to make a Paladin fall."
Wednesday is for Wee-a-boo Wank about BoT9s.
Thursdays are Edition Wars.
Fridays are DM advice or "I hate my entire party for nor playing my way". Leaving the weekend free for all the other neckbearding fa/tg/guyism.
Just kidding I love all you guys, except for the ones who disagree with me. They suck.

Eh, I'm a rebel. Conformity sucks too.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-09-04, 11:48 PM
Obligatory Edition War link (http://imgur.com/mSZ9Jzh)

erikun
2013-09-05, 12:03 AM
This confused me too. Once they did Martial healing I figured they were going whole-hog into gamism but they didn't follow through.
I think the problem was that there was never a clear concept of what a "controller" was, and so everyone just used AOE-damage as a "close enough" example. The result ends up with things like the hunter-marksman firing arrows at all targets within an area or a whirlwind-fighter, as opposed to Obryn's links which give a much more interesting example of area control/debuffer for a description of a controller.

With no clear idea of what a controller is or isn't, there was understandable difficulty in pegging down what would be an appropriate martial controller.

And now everyone has me thinking of that 4e revision idea I've had before. Thanks for bringing it back up. :smallamused:

WitchSlayer
2013-09-05, 12:05 AM
Now where's that edition war bingo chart when you need it?

obryn
2013-09-05, 12:17 AM
With no clear idea of what a controller is or isn't, there was understandable difficulty in pegging down what would be an appropriate martial controller.

And now everyone has me thinking of that 4e revision idea I've had before. Thanks for bringing it back up. :smallamused:
Yeah, it's too bad, but a lot of 4e was released half-done. You have some obvious math errors, terrible monster design, schizophrenic class structure, and outright bad rules (like monster templates and that weird monster magic item chart). Oh, and Keep on the Shadowfell which showed 4e in its absolute worst light.

It's pretty impressive how well that ship got turned around by mid-2009, though. I saw enough in the initial game that I stuck with it and enjoyed it a lot more than 3.5, but it's gotten amazingly better with time and each new release. It's pretty remarkable; the game right now, in 2013, is pretty magnificent. It doesn't do everything right, but it just does so much right.

-O

tasw
2013-09-05, 12:17 AM
Now where's that edition war bingo chart when you need it?


it was retired when 4e lost.


Yeah, it's too bad, but a lot of 4e was released half-done. You have some obvious math errors, terrible monster design, schizophrenic class structure, and outright bad rules (like monster templates and that weird monster magic item chart). Oh, and Keep on the Shadowfell which showed 4e in its absolute worst light.

It's pretty impressive how well that ship got turned around by mid-2009, though. I saw enough in the initial game that I stuck with it and enjoyed it a lot more than 3.5, but it's gotten amazingly better with time and each new release. It's pretty remarkable; the game right now, in 2013, is pretty magnificent. It doesn't do everything right, but it just does so much right.

-O

Thats so much a matter of taste though. For me they took the things that they messed up and just double downed on them and it got worse and worst. It sounds like Essentials and monster vault may have made it playable but I have no interest in sinking that much money into a game just hoping that if I pay enough it will eventually get good.

navar100
2013-09-05, 12:22 AM
Ah, point of order: Aren't edition wars scheduled for Thursdays? I get the order so confused.
On Monday, we complain about/attempt to fix monks.
On Tuesdays, it's "how to make a Paladin fall."
Wednesday is for Wee-a-boo Wank about BoT9s.
Thursdays are Edition Wars.
Fridays are DM advice or "I hate my entire party for nor playing my way". Leaving the weekend free for all the other neckbearding fa/tg/guyism.
Just kidding I love all you guys, except for the ones who disagree with me. They suck.

Hey! Where's all the Tier System preaching and blasphemy and general 3E bashing (non-Edition War related)? I think that's scheduled for Saturdays.

obryn
2013-09-05, 12:32 AM
Thats so much a matter of taste though. For me they took the things that they messed up and just double downed on them and it got worse and worst. It sounds like Essentials and monster vault may have made it playable but I have no interest in sinking that much money into a game just hoping that if I pay enough it will eventually get good.
I'm not really interested in engaging in any edition wars.

There's such incredible negativity flowing around in a group of people who have a lot more in common with one another than different, that it's both sad and amazing. Mostly sad, though. It's all just games where you pretend to be a magical elf.

-O

NoldorForce
2013-09-05, 12:37 AM
@tasw: Given the corporate structure 4E cannot be said to have "lost"; by all measures of the tabletop market it was and still is (given DDI subscriptions) a success. If it weren't Hasbro would have been perfectly content to sit on the license instead of producing 5E. The entire brand is peanuts compared to everything else they do (including MTG, for instance).

But more importantly, you're the only one here who feels they have something to prove. If people play 4E (and they do) or inhabit boards which are 4E-centric (they exist, and I visit at least one that would dwarf GITP), that's not going to suddenly diminish the pool of people who like/will post about 3E. It's not going to influence your enjoyment of it in the slightest. Both Psyren and Eldan didn't like 4E, but unlike you they've presented sound arguments. Instead you're just calling forth the same tired, vague, and distortionary talking points that the whole community has heard many times over.

By all means it is possible to say why 3E might be better than 4E, but it's going to be a lot more constructive to say "this is what 3E did really well!" than to criticize some other edition or game. It's about offering reasons to play your game of choice, rather than to merely disregard one out of many games available. (There are a lot of good ones that aren't D&D, mind you.)

Roland St. Jude
2013-09-05, 01:25 AM
Sheriff: Thread locked for review.