PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Is 3.5/4 a binary opinion only??



tumble check
2008-08-26, 08:21 AM
Here's a really interesting question that I've formulated from all the 4e threads, which I've actually been enjoying...

It's becoming more clear to me that ultimately, the difference in opinion comes down to the fact that each person prefers a different style of play(DUH!), but what I really mean is that I'm not sure I've come across anyone who likes both editions. It's either people who love 3.5e and hate 4e's simplicity, or 4e lovers who hated 3.5e's balance and bookkeeping problems.

This raises the question...

1) Is there anyone on this board who likes both 3.5e and 4e?

2) Are there any common elements that make you like both, or is it for completely different reasons?

I want to know if there are actually any who really like both, not just "meh" about one or the other.

This shouldn't really be a long thread with much discussion, I'm just wondering if anyone like this is out there...

AslanCross
2008-08-26, 08:28 AM
I like both, but for different (practically opposite reasons).

I like 3.5 for some of its options (Tome of Battle, for example), while I like 4E for having relatively concrete guides on character, encounter and monster creation.

And yes, I like both enough to DM games in either edition. I've only experienced playing 3.5, but I've been trying my hand at 4E adventure writing. I like it (and the published adventures on the Wizards site) so far.

Saph
2008-08-26, 08:29 AM
1) Is there anyone on this board who really likes both 3.5e and 4e?

Yep, me.

I think I might be the only one, though. (Edit: Or maybe not.)


2) Are there any common elements that make you like both, or is it for completely different reasons?

Well, both have the 'It's D&D, I can be a fantasy hero and do cool stuff' vibe, which is the biggest part of it.

I like 3.5 more for the vast variety of cool stuff you can do, and I like 4e more for the simplicity. If I was playing a long-running campaign to go to high levels, I'd pick 3.5 every time, but 4e is much better for 1st-level games and for newbies.

- Saph

Totally Guy
2008-08-26, 08:35 AM
Both allow me to hang out with my friends. Being more well known than other systems maximises my chances of enjoying the game with others should I get that opportunity.

Plus I'm glad I'm DMing for the first time in 4th as I don't know if I know all of 3.5 enough to pull off the campaign I'm doing. I don't know how to defend much of my story from all the builds that might beat it at the start.

Reinboom
2008-08-26, 08:38 AM
I also enjoy both. I play in a 4e campaign on Tuesdays and run a 3.5 campaign on Sundays.
For campaigns where I want an intense amount of variety and uniqueness to nearly every significant character, major shifts in power, and a lot more intelligence gathering/infiltration/etc. in my games, I will choose 3.5. If I want more of the encounter crawl aspects, with faster combat, and less emphasis on magic in the world I will choose 4.

Oh, and I also play AD&D 2e as well, just no current running campaigns.

Jimp
2008-08-26, 08:53 AM
Yep, me.

I think I might be the only one, though. (Edit: Or maybe not.)



Well, both have the 'It's D&D, I can be a fantasy hero and do cool stuff' vibe, which is the biggest part of it.

I like 3.5 more for the vast variety of cool stuff you can do, and I like 4e more for the simplicity. If I was playing a long-running campaign to go to high levels, I'd pick 3.5 every time, but 4e is much better for 1st-level games and for newbies.

- Saph

That pretty much sums up my view too.

Arbitrarity
2008-08-26, 09:01 AM
I'll third or fourth no preference. 3.5 is nice for planning, complex character creation (read: powergaming), variety, and interesting magic. Currently, 4E has speedy combat, class balance, and a nice focus on tactics.
Both, of course, have about the same focus on RP (leave it to the players/DM), so that's not really a point that is easy to disagree on.

Charity
2008-08-26, 09:17 AM
I think most people are characterised as being in one camp or the other by reacting to ill thought out and inflamitory statements.

Obviously nearly all exponants of 4e thought 3e was a good enough game at some stage, as nearly all of them played it.
4e players almost by definition prefer 4e to 3e as they have elected to make the switch,iIn the most part their reactions and over reactions to anti 4e sentiments are seen to suggest they hate 3e, but realistically it is merely a comparative issue.

Glawackus
2008-08-26, 09:25 AM
I enjoy both.

As a player I enjoy 3.5 for its wide variety of options--prestige classes, alternate base classes, magazine content, etc. If I want to play a vigilante wizard skymage, it's entirely possible. (Maybe I won't be the guy doing the most damage or saving everyone's bacon, but I'll still be having fun.)

As a DM, I enjoy 4 for its ease in structuring encounters. No more working with CRs and ELs and digging up programs to do the calculations for me--I just grab what I want for my XP value.

This isn't to say I don't enjoy them the other way around, either. (I haven't had much of a chance to play 4, but I've DMed 3.5 and still had a good time.)

I think people need to just calm down and play whatever they want to, and not worry about what's the "best" system. :smallsmile:

Holocron Coder
2008-08-26, 09:27 AM
I like playing both. 3e has the range and depth of options still on its side, while 4e has overall better balance and simplicity. I love the fact I can make a monster in a few minutes and be relatively assured of balance.

3e is still fun though :smallsmile:

Kompera
2008-08-26, 09:40 AM
1) Is there anyone on this board who likes both 3.5e and 4e?

2) Are there any common elements that make you like both, or is it for completely different reasons?

I like both RPGs.

As a veteran player of games and someone who is analytical by nature and is able to find flaws or best strategies in many games without hardly trying
(As an example of the above claim: my unbroken run of wins in the AH board game Samurai, and how I grew so frustrated at winning every game that I finally resorted to announcing to the table before we started "I am going to win. Here's how I'm going to do it <explanation followed>" and still I have yet to lose the game following the exact formula I outlined, which summarized comes down to this: Buy the last sword, buy the last sword, buy the first sword, win.)
I find that 3.5 is tolerable within a certain level range and with certain house rules and certain source books allowed. I'll question a GM about his setting, magic level, character level, house rules, and source books allowed. And I won't play unless his/her answers meet my criteria. Why? Because 3.5 is way too easily broken unless the GM has a very strong vision for his/her setting and has heavily restricted anything which might interfere with that vision.

I'll play in any 4e game, because I have yet to see such easy ways to break the game as exist in 3.5, but that may be because I've only played it at lower levels. In any event, 4e at lower levels seems balanced, which 3.5 is not off the shelf, and so there is less likelihood of any imbalance creeping in until further publications become available. And 4e has already issued a number of errata, which gives the impression that the designers are responding to player feedback and making changes which are found to be necessary.

The common elements are that they are both FRPGs set in a fantasy medieval setting where there is magic and fantastic beasts and where the players can have adventures typical to such settings.

I can play the exact same character in either campaign. I'll make it clear here that I'm aware that I can't play, for example, a Batman Wizard, or even a Druid, in 4e. But I can play any character I like, so long as I define my character as a character and not a grouping of powers. Quirky, greedy Rogue? Both systems support this. Valiant, selfless warrior? Both systems support this. Shifty Warlock with a hidden agenda (perhaps a jerk with a heart of gold)? Both systems support this. Priest of a nature deity concerned with preserving nature from the incursions of man/orc/whatever? Both systems support this, even if the Druid class is not yet in 4e. Wizard who can have Contingency Timestop and who beats all game challenges with a few spells cast? Or even: Wizard who can cast a spell to match any Rogue ability, and Fighter ability, and any other non-caster's ability? Only 3.5 supports this.

Morty
2008-08-26, 09:41 AM
I prefer 3.5 on the whole, but 4ed has its undeniable merits and I'm playing a PbP 4ed game right now. So I guess I can be listed as such as well.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-08-26, 09:45 AM
I like both.

I enjoy 4e for the balance it brings, and it's easy to play, streamlined nature,

I enjoy 3.x for the sheer variety of awesome stuff you can do, and some of the true insanity that can result.

Aron Times
2008-08-26, 10:34 AM
I play 3.5 through Neverwinter Nights 2 and 4E through MapTool. 3E and 3.5 were revolutionary when they were released, basically streamlining the incredibly complex 2E rules. 3E is to 2E as 4E is to 3E. The game is evolving into a more streamlined ruleset.

RTGoodman
2008-08-26, 11:02 AM
1) I, too, like both. I haven't don't as much with 4E because my group has several campaigns they want to do in 3.x, but from the little I've used it and all the reading and stuff I've done I know I like it.

2) Basically, what Saph said. Both are D&D - they give me a wayto hang out and have a good time and pretend to be a Wizard or whatever. Also, I like both systems for their variety - 3.x has literally thousands of options for me to dig through, and 4E (while some say it limits variety by making every class on the same mechanic) lets me do more things as a Fighter or Paladin or whatever than I could before. And, of course, there's the fact that I can choose whether I want a very complex (3.x) game or a relatively simple 4E one.

Hzurr
2008-08-26, 11:13 AM
My group played 3.5E for several years. We enjoyed it, we had fun, we only ran into uber-characters a couple of times, but everyone was cool about it and no one overshadowed everyone else. It was good times. We've switch to 4E as our primary game not because we found anything lacking with 3.X (aside that we were too cheap to buy all the splat books), but because we wanted something new. Right now, we're all still absolutely thrilled with the novelty of 4E that it's all we're focusing on (a game where the players don't have every creature from the MM memorized? Yes please!) Especially for starting games at level 1, I'm really enjoying 4E, because since none of us know what it's like at high levels, we don't really know what we're missing (a problem we often run into while playing 3.5). However, I have no doubt that we'll pull out the old 3.5 stuff before too long, and do some games where I get to be a fighter-ninja with a flaming-returning bastard sword of throwing (man I enjoyed that character), and my friend gets to be his rogue-wizard-fighter-spellsword with twinked out ranks in bluff. Because, quite honestly, we had fun with it, so why should we ignore it?

ghost_warlock
2008-08-26, 11:20 AM
I vastly prefer 3.5 for:

it's variety of mechanical ways to accomplish the same task, whether it's dealing ability damage vs. hp to take down a foe or Vancian spellcasting vs. psionic power points.
the feeling that characters can have lasting, crunchy effects both in and out of combat; whether it's casting a spell that lasts hours/days or being able to actually sunder an opponent's weapon without it spontaneously regenerating at the end of my next turn.
the options it presents for character building, which may admittedly be largely due to the amount of published splatbooks, but also includes such things as the multiclass system (for all its faults), character Traits/Flaws, even the much-maligned Level Adjustment system and a slew of other miscellaneous items.
the fact that skill in building powerful/effective characters matters more. Hand-holding (even for the sake of balance) by the system bugs the crap out of me in 4e just as much as it does with Windows Vista ("X program wants access to your system. Allow/Deny?" Of course it wants access, I friggin' double-clicked on the icon, didn't I!? Let me play my games!!!! :smallfurious:).
interesting magic items.
the fact that, though I played other games before and since, 3.5 was the first system I truly fell in love with. :smallredface:


I vastly prefer 4e for:

the way it has presented certain classes, particularly the warlock and the paladin. I'd never play either class in 3.5 (despite my obvious love for the warlock concept) because of the way in which that edition handles these classes. The fact that the crusader does a better job of being a paladin than a paladin does annoys me.
the simplicity and effectiveness of the experience point system.
the fact that it won't take my brothers 3 days to build a character for a one-shot!


I'll add more later if I think of any.

Perhaps obviously, the balance swings in favor of 3.5 but I'll still play 4e. Last weekend I co-DM'd a 3.5 adventure and this weekend I'll be a player for a Keep on the Shadowfell run-through.

For some people, it may be a binary choice. For instance, my cousin has nothing hate for 4e primarily because necromancy (as it pertains to PCs mucking about with and creating undead; his favorite character concept) is effectively non-existant so far.

Likewise, one of my brothers would only grudingly participate in a 4e test run, and then only for the first encounter, saying that he hates 4e "because there's no druids." He was implacable, even when told that druids will likely be released early next year or confronted with the fact that he never played druids anyway. "It doesn't matter," he said, "they should've been there and they're not."

ImperiousLeader
2008-08-26, 11:22 AM
I miss elements of 3.5. Free-ish Multiclassing, I always played spellcasters so I miss all those spell slots and wickedly overpowered spells. I remember playing a Changeling Sorcerer that specialized in control spells. The other party members were a whip-wielding Dwarf fighter/rogue, and a Warlock. Between the Dwarf's trip attacks and my Grease spells our combats needed Benny Hill music in the background while we waited for the warlock to actually connect with an Eldritch Blast.

And it's not that I won't play 3.5, but I won't DM it.

However, I enjoy both playing and DMing 4e, so I don't see myself going back anytime soon.

EvilElitest
2008-08-26, 11:47 AM
Here's a really interesting question that I've formulated from all the 4e threads, which I've actually been enjoying...

It's becoming more clear to me that ultimately, the difference in opinion comes down to the fact that each person prefers a different style of play(DUH!), but what I really mean is that I'm not sure I've come across anyone who likes both editions. It's either people who love 3.5e and hate 4e's simplicity, or 4e lovers who hated 3.5e's balance and bookkeeping problems.

This begs the question...

1) Is there anyone on this board who likes both 3.5e and 4e?

2) Are there any common elements that make you like both, or is it for completely different reasons?

I want to know if there are actually any who really like both, not just "meh" about one or the other.

This shouldn't really be a long thread with much discussion, I'm just wondering if anyone like this is out there...

why do we need so much analyze of the people making the complaints or making the defense and just stick to the issues

I dislike both 3E/3.5, and 4E
from
EE

Mando Knight
2008-08-26, 12:02 PM
I play 3.5 through Neverwinter Nights 2 and 4E through MapTool. 3E and 3.5 were revolutionary when they were released, basically streamlining the incredibly complex 2E rules. 3E is to 2E as 4E is to 3E. The game is evolving into a more streamlined ruleset.

Perhaps Schlock Mercenary (schlockmercenary.com) is right... in a few millenia, D&D won't need any books or paper, or even your imagination. Just a set of dice. Really expensive dice.

Isomenes
2008-08-26, 12:06 PM
I like where this thread is going--of course there's plenty of gray area. I would say I fall into that zone, though of late I have been somewhat...distracted by the new shiny toy. :smallbiggrin: But they're both fundamentally D&D, and each supports very very well a wide range of storytelling and gameplay right out of the box. I still DM a 3.5 campaign world, though, and if anything, I like elements of both to the point where I've begun considering how I can augment one with neat features from the other.

It's easiest to go backwards (i.e., using 4E ideas in a 3.5 setting--in particular the 4E ability score augmentation at the expense of no stat-boosting magic items), but I've been heavily considering some of the issues raised in the 'serious campaign' thread. Most pointedly, I would like to see if it would be possible to have martial encounter powers or daily powers have the option to step down into at-will or encounter status, at some cost of course.

(Entirely off-topic, also, but I feel the need to point out that it does not in fact beg the question. (http://begthequestion.info/))

Artanis
2008-08-26, 12:10 PM
1) Is there anyone on this board who likes both 3.5e and 4e?
I really do like both, believe it or not. I have very limited experience with both, but it's always been fun in each version.

...well, except for this one 3.5e campaign where the GM just couldn't handle as many players as we had, but serial arson kept it from being that bad :smalltongue:



2) Are there any common elements that make you like both, or is it for completely different reasons?
Like I said above, the play in each has been fun, and I've enjoyed my sessions of both. And when it comes down to it, if a game is fun, then it's a good game, right? :smallcool:

Frownbear
2008-08-26, 01:27 PM
I like 3.5 more for the vast variety of cool stuff you can do, and I like 4e more for the simplicity. If I was playing a long-running campaign to go to high levels, I'd pick 3.5 every time, but 4e is much better for 1st-level games and for newbies.

- Saph

...but 3.5 games at high levels are an astounding mess of mechanics, not to mention completely broken.

infinitypanda
2008-08-26, 03:01 PM
I like them both, 3.5 because of the feel of the default setting, as well as the random tables for generating anything, and I love 4e because of the balance and variety of maneuvers available to martial classes.

But I also dislike 4e because it's $100 I don't have.

arguskos
2008-08-26, 03:15 PM
Yep, me.

I think I might be the only one, though. (Edit: Or maybe not.)



Well, both have the 'It's D&D, I can be a fantasy hero and do cool stuff' vibe, which is the biggest part of it.

I like 3.5 more for the vast variety of cool stuff you can do, and I like 4e more for the simplicity. If I was playing a long-running campaign to go to high levels, I'd pick 3.5 every time, but 4e is much better for 1st-level games and for newbies.

- Saph
What this wise one says. 3.x and 4e are both fine, for their own reasons. No more, no less.

I use 3.x for long-term gaming, exclusively because it jibes better with me. No other reason, it just fits better with my mentality and play-style.

4e is great for one-shots, sillier games, and just having fun with friends. And that's great. It was fun the few times I played it, even though it's not my style and I'd never play an extended game with it.

-argus

Swok
2008-08-26, 03:20 PM
I like both as well. But then, I also still play 2e and 1e every once in a while.

tumble check
2008-08-26, 03:34 PM
...but 3.5 games at high levels are an astounding mess of mechanics, not to mention completely broken.

Just trying to point out that both of these are opinions. I prefer mechanics-heavy systems, for example.





(Entirely off-topic, also, but I feel the need to point out that it does not in fact beg the question. (http://begthequestion.info/))

Duly noted, my original post has been changed. Thanks.

BobVosh
2008-08-26, 03:47 PM
I like elements of both. The main reason I don't like 4ed is everything feels very predetermined. Each race/class has the cookie cutter combination.

Therefore I am reserving judgment until more books appear.

Things I hated about 4ed: cookie cutter classes, lack of real variation in the classes, lack of utility

Things I liked: Minions, rituals, encounter building rules, multiclassing feats

Things I hated about 3.5: Rules that change in multiple books (not too many of those), rules that are hard to interpret, or interpret multiple ways with each way sounding correct.

Things I liked: multiclassing, and tons of unique moves (sunder, spell casting, etc)

Things I hate about both: D20, autofailures/successes, emphasis on combat, although that is especially in 4ed

Saph
2008-08-26, 04:02 PM
...but 3.5 games at high levels are an astounding mess of mechanics, not to mention completely broken.

Sorry, non-laser-bear, but I'm not sending this currently nice and friendly discussion into yet another 3.5 vs 4e flamewar. I meant what I said, and if you want to argue about it, either PM me or start a thread of your own. :)

- Saph

Knaight
2008-08-26, 04:47 PM
I'm willing to play either, and like them equally. That said, there is no way I'm going to get drafted into GMing, and would rather play any number of other games.

NEO|Phyte
2008-08-26, 05:34 PM
I like me the 3.5, though that could very well be purely from the fact that it's what I entered the gaming world with. My book collection outside of Core is rather small, but it covers the points that I enjoy the most. (OMG SCI-FI (expanded psionics handbook), and OMG WEEABOO (tome of battle))

My experience with 4e has been somewhat limited thus far, but I'm liking what I've seen out of it. Plus, there's already rules for warforged as players, so all it needs now are thri-kreen and psionics and it'll have everything I really want out of it.

Deepblue706
2008-08-26, 05:39 PM
I like both. 3E is great for when I want loads of details, while 4E allows me access to a game that requires little thought. I think both are inferior to earlier editions, however - but even they fall short of the glory that is GURPS.

Knaight
2008-08-26, 06:22 PM
Yes, they do. But then GURPS falls flat against the glory of Fudge.

Edea
2008-08-26, 06:28 PM
OT, but I keep reading about this 'Fudge' game system; what is it, exactly?

Dhavaer
2008-08-26, 06:58 PM
I like both, but I prefer 4e. I like 4e for the unified mechanic, which I find more interesting than the 3.x Fighter without being as hugely complex as the 3.x Wizard. I like 3.5 because it has Tome of Battle. They really should have kept that system for 4e... Warlocks, Shadowcasters, and the other limited list casters are also good.

Deepblue706
2008-08-26, 07:34 PM
Yes, they do. But then GURPS falls flat against the glory of Fudge.

But then, Fudge is no FATAL.

TheOOB
2008-08-26, 08:14 PM
I like both, I personally like 4e better, It seems to fix most the problems I had with 3.5 and I like the direction it's going, but at the same time the shear amount of options out for 3.5 means it hasn't yet hit the wayside for me.

I'm in a 4e game right now, but I would have no problem joining a 3.5 game if a friend started one, both systems are great, but 4e is simply an improvement over 3.5 in my opinion.

However I can see why someone might like 3.x better and I don't fault them for doing so.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-08-26, 08:15 PM
Why on Earth would it be a binary choice? I mean, unless you can't afford both, but now you can pick of 3.5 dirt cheap at used bookstores if you didn't have it already...

I like both. 4e's a simpler, faster-paced game, but I grew up (as a gamer) with 3rd Edition, and I appreciate its intricacy and variety of styles.

Killersquid
2008-08-26, 08:18 PM
I like both. 4e is fun and good for a quick game, and 3.x is good for more intricate play, or with experienced players. However, I prefer (and love) 3.x, despite its glaring flaws. I also don't play 4e because I am furious at the destruction of FR!!:smallfurious:

Knaight
2008-08-27, 07:41 AM
But then, Fudge is no FATAL.

Nothing even compares to Fatal. The other bad systems are just bad, FATAL looks like some insane pervert wrote while on a LSD trip while looking at depraved magazines, all while using various...toys. That "game" is screwed up.

Oh and fudge is right here. (http://www.fudgerpg.com/) Download it, read it, love it. Then buy the 10th anniversary edition if you really like it, and can see use for several kinds of magic rules, dogfighting rules, realistic martial arts rules, unrealistic martial arts rules(for genres where the martial arts are unrealistic, its intended), other vehicle rules, cybernetics rules, etc. Each has their own chapter, and because Fudge is extremely modular, you can use the ones you like in any given game. Awesome game in my opinion.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-27, 09:55 AM
I like both 3.x and 4e -- both end up being very fun and full of options. Currently, I think I favor 3.5 simply because it has more options (via splatbooks).

AKA_Bait
2008-08-27, 10:15 AM
I like both. There are apects of each ruleset I like and dislike. We shouldn't mistake being willing to point out a flaw or something we dislike in a system for not liking the system. Everything I like is imperfect after all.