[3.5 and 4e] Two Editions is hard

[Burley]

So, when 4e was announced, my group swore up and down that we wouldn't touch it. That it was unclean and we were to stay pure. But, for some reason, the Friday after it came out, we all have characters made and were fighting Bullywogs with our at-wills. And, it was easy. The jump from 3.5 to 4e felt so minor. Natural, even.
I always enjoy spell-casters, so the powers weren't a jump. And I prefer perpetual casters, like the warlock, so, never running out of powers just seemed balancing and more fun.
I think my entire group felt this way, except for one of my friends. She refused to look at the books, used a premade character for the first session, and refused to declare sneak attack, even when it was available. She was just being petty, in my opinion. She left when we made the permanent switch to 4e.

Now, that friend invited me and another friend (my BestFriend4Life, if you will) to join her 3.5 group. We thought "Hey, we know the rules, we know the setting and we enjoy it all, so sure." I forgot how complicated 3.5 is. It's hard. There is SOOO much information. Even if you're strapped to just core, there are dozens of spells to choose from. Specializing can cripple your character, but flipping pages back and forth can cripple the player.
Last night, I was trying to look through metamagic feats (JUST METAMAGIC FEATS) and the constant flipping and the shere volume of it all made me sick. I had to close everything and lie down.
And, last night, I played an NPC (its a bad time in the story to bring in new PCs) who had a pretty awful class but he had two feats that made him a-freaking-mazing. Knock Down and Improved Trip. I hit a flying gargoyle, tripped him out of the air, and basically curb-stomped him. Layed one of three out flat with a single readied standard, not full-round action. Standard.
It's because you can just pick two feats to make you awesome in 3.5, and it's almost scary that if I don't find the right two feats for my sorcerer, I'm gonna lose. Everything.

I'm done.
This is much more commentary than question. I look forward to seeing responses, though.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I'm a science major at a tier 1 university. 3.5 rules are pretty easy compared to what I go through during the regular school year.

Last night, I was trying to look through metamagic feats (JUST METAMAGIC FEATS) and the constant flipping and the shere volume of it all made me sick. I had to close everything and lie down.

Take two of these and call me in the morning.

It's because you can just pick two feats to make you awesome in 3.5

Knock Down and trip don't work against ethereal, incoporeal, things with many legs, and I am not sure if you can actually trip flying things. It's a great combo, but not the end all.

and it's almost scary that if I don't find the right two feats for my sorcerer, I'm gonna lose. Everything.

You only need one spell, Limited Wish. It allows you to emulate Psychic Reformation. It allows you to pay XP to rechoose your spells known, feats, and skill allocation.

[bosssmiley]

So, when 4e was announced, my group swore up and down that we wouldn't touch it. That it was unclean and we were to stay pure. But, for some reason, the Friday after it came out, we all have characters made and were fighting Bullywogs with our at-wills. And, it was easy. The jump from 3.5 to 4e felt so minor. Natural, even.

Oh no. Burley drank the Kool-Aid!

Seriously though, I'm glad you're enjoying 4E for what it is. It's funny how playing another system for a bit can point up the foibles and flaws of things you already knew and loved, ain't it? I came to a similar conclusion - namely that full bore, multi-splatbook 3E just has too high a 'number crunch/fun' ratio for my tastes - via reversion to older model D&D (crazy damn OSR hot-rodders!).

Life's too short to argue over which rule set you use to magical tea party your pretend elf.

[Mordokai]

It's because you can just pick two feats to make you awesome in 3.5

Funny, I started DMing me a 3.5 campaign this week and one of my players picked exactly those two feats And boy, is he ever effective!

And you know what I found out? I love 3.5! You wanna know why? It's not because it's balanced. I find it amusing and fun to play because it's not balanced! Right now, 4E just doesn't offer me the chances to put together crazy characters like this and more and my group put together some pretty wacky characters. It'll make me sweat blood, for sure, but I'm having tons of fun already. I never had this much fun while playing 4E and one session of 3.5 was enough to cement my opinion: 4E just isn't my cup of tea. I have no problems with all the numbers and splatbooks and everything out there, I love the edition because of it. If it would be up to me, we'd stay with 3.5 from now on. We probably won't, but it's ok. In a group, one has to adjust and I can do that. But really, now I know what I only suspected thus far. 3.5 is, to me personally, more amusing than 4E could ever be.

This is not meant to lead to edition wars. I understand that some people like 4E over 3.5 and I'm fine with that. However, your reasons are hardly good enough for me to convince me that 3.5 is not good. On the contrary.

[Kaiyanwang]

And you know what I found out? I love 3.5! You wanna know why? It's not because it's balanced. I find it amusing and fun to play because it's not balanced!

I think I love you.

OP: Considering 3.5, you can do it in 2 ways:

A) Options are a problem: they are a problem because are overwhelming, and the amount of material can lead to strange and OP combos.

B) Options are a tool: A Player thinks a strange PC, a DM thinks an odd campaing, and if you search and tweak enough, there is an answer out there.

If 3.5 becomes A or B, is up to the gaming group.


Of course, I respect people's point of view about how 4th is streamlined and so on. But I think that you can play a low level game or a battle between deities only with SRD, so even the "bunch of splatbook" thing.. well is not mandatory, IMHO.

[Dr_Emperor]

See the option thing was what scared me about 4rth, I used a friends character builder, and planned out a few characters. Also 4rth will have just as many if not more books for characters, to have to flip through to get the right options. Good to know your having fun with 4rth though.
Also I know from experience that 3.5 is mostly easy. Two feats can make you rock, or they can do very little, but good tactics change everything.

[Saph]

Yeah, the lack of options has been what's stopped me from switching over to 4e. I'll play it happily enough if that's what my group's doing, but most of the classes are just too limited for my taste.

[Erk]

Yeah, the lack of options has been what's stopped me from switching over to 4e. I'll play it happily enough if that's what my group's doing, but most of the classes are just too limited for my taste.

I'm not meaning to sound edition warry, but have you checked it out recently? Divine, Arcane, and Martial classes have quite a few options now. There are some other things, like hybrid classes, that I haven't even looked into but should offer a lot more variability. It hasn't, and probably never will, reach the glut of character design specifications of 3e, but it's come a long way from the "choose a race, a class, and a build, you're done" it felt like when it was just the PHB. (don't get me started on feats though. The obsession with making every feat have a racial requirement means that each new splat adds something like 5 feats per tier for any given character, despite having more than 30 feats per tier printed. It's starting to turn me away from buying splats).

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm not meaning to sound edition warry,

What's of edition warry in what you said? You've been polite and bringed in argumentations. Less than this, is not post, IMHO.

More, could you bring an example of hybrid class, and the source where you can take the rules for them?

Anyway (not to soun edition warry myself too ) some peole, right of wrong, could criticize the meaning of how options are different between the editions.

[Myshlaevsky]

What's of edition warry in what you said? You've been polite and bringed in argumentations. Less than this, is not post, IMHO.

More, could you bring an example of hybrid class, and the source where you can take the rules for them?

Anyway (not to soun edition warry myself too ) some peole, right of wrong, could criticize the maning of how options are different between the editions.

Hybrid classes are available online only. They're interesting, but generally are less powerful than the classes they try to emulate. Some combinations work out nicely, though.

[Mordokai]

I think I love you.

Aw shucks, you're making me blush

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Speaking as someone who got into the game with 1e, let me just say that 3e is simplicity itself compared to 1e and 2e. Standardized ability score modifiers? Only three kinds of saves? Items you can craft without crippling yourself? Please.

With that out of the way, I hate to tell you this, but 3e and 4e really have the same problems. 3e has sooo many spells and sooo many feats and sooo on and sooo forth? Well, yeah. It has 8 years' worth of material, and 4e has only ~1.5 year's worth. Come PHB 4, people will be complaining that 4e has sooo many powers and sooo many rituals and sooo on and sooo forth. Since 4e feats are meant to fade into the background and give powers the spotlight, the 3e "Pick 2 feats and you rock!" issue becomes the 4e "Pick 2 powers and you rock!" issue--a ranger can do very well simply by choosing Twin Strike and a fighter the same by picking Rain of Blows, both of which are fairly intuitive options. "Complexity and many options" isn't a problem unique to either edition.

[Myshlaevsky]

Speaking as someone who got into the game with 1e, let me just say that 3e is simplicity itself compared to 1e and 2e. Standardized ability score modifiers? Only three kinds of saves? Items you can craft without crippling yourself? Please.

I love the old save mechanic. I think it's much better than either the 3e saves or the 4e static defenses.

[Whammydill]

My group tried 4e for a while but we went back to 3.5. For myself 4e just felt too much like a glorified boardgame, or it felt like I was playing WoW or something. Now that I think about it, it felt like I was being railroaded into a glorified D&D Minatures games with RP chucked in.

I think 4e is nicely balanced and makes it hard to mess up. But that's what I don't like about it. The trial and error of builds and roleplaying them was what I liked best with 3.5. Yes, 3.5 has its problems, but the system is only broken if the players tried to break it, or the DM let them. In 4e, I felt like my characters were the same as everyone's else, with some arbitrary differences thrown in. Mechanically all characters *are* the same. Everyone gets the same system of at-will, encounter, daily....etc.

The varied and intergrated systems of classes and such in 3.5 made it feel like I had more direct control of what my character can become instead of being lead around by the nose by an "across-the-board" framework.

Just my 2cp.

[Zeta Kai]

As I've said before, 4E sucks. And 3E sucks. They both do horrifically dumb things, if you let them, & sometimes only Rule #0 will make them truly playable systems. They both have an odd habit of doing the opposite of what the designers told us that they were trying to do. I stick with 3E because I know the rules, I own the books, & I like the versatility & ease by which I can create homebrew. 4E homebrew is subject to rigid strictures of balance that produce a glut of homogeneity in the crunch, & it is thunderingly evident that fluff is largely irrelevent & interchangeable.

[Saph]

I'm not meaning to sound edition warry, but have you checked it out recently? Divine, Arcane, and Martial classes have quite a few options now. There are some other things, like hybrid classes, that I haven't even looked into but should offer a lot more variability. It hasn't, and probably never will, reach the glut of character design specifications of 3e, but it's come a long way from the "choose a race, a class, and a build, you're done" it felt like when it was just the PHB.

Actually, I'm playing in two 4e games at the moment. One PbP run on this site, and the Scales of War campaign in one of my regular groups.

Don't get me wrong, 4e isn't a bad system. It's just that compared to the vast array of stuff I can do in 3.5, my 4e characters feel a bit limited by comparison. Pretty much every turn comes down to "move, make my attack roll, done." I also find that combats tend to be highly luck-dependent - with every attack it's about 50/50 whether you'll hit or miss, and there isn't that much you can do to shift the odds in your favour.

I've found that Wizards tend to be the best for getting around this problem, as they can make lots of attack rolls, so you're likely to achieve something even if your luck's bad, and they have the biggest variety of powers. The character I was playing in another 4e PbP was a Ranger, and while his DPS was enormous, he was very tedious to play.

- Saph

[Myshlaevsky]

Actually, I'm playing in two 4e games at the moment. One PbP run on this site, and the Scales of War campaign in one of my regular groups.

Don't get me wrong, 4e isn't a bad system. It's just that compared to the vast array of stuff I can do in 3.5, my 4e characters feel a bit limited by comparison. Pretty much every turn comes down to "move, make my attack roll, done." I also find that combats tend to be highly luck-dependent - with every attack it's about 50/50 whether you'll hit or miss, and there isn't that much you can do to shift the odds in your favour.

I've found that Wizards tend to be the best for getting around this problem, as they can make lots of attack rolls, so you're likely to achieve something even if your luck's bad, and they have the biggest variety of powers. The character I was playing in another 4e PbP was a Ranger, and while his DPS was enormous, he was very tedious to play.

- Saph

I remember trying a melee Ranger and having much the same feeling. It does get better the more powers you have at your disposal, but some classes do feel particularly limited. I guess the real attraction of the 4e system for me is in how easy it is to DM. If I were to be DM'ing 3.5e I'd have to do a lot more work and homework than I do with 4e.

[Whammydill]

The "something happens even if you miss" aspect that seems to be attatched to every ability in 4e reminds me of the same mentality that has seeped into school-age sports these days; where even if you lose you get a trophy and still get your snack and icecream. Do not want.

[Saph]

I remember trying a melee Ranger and having much the same feeling. It does get better the more powers you have at your disposal, but some classes do feel aprticularly limited.

Yeah, mine was an archer ranger - Elf, standard build. Every round you take a move action to reposition, then Twin Strike or Two-Fanged Strike your quarry. Two attack rolls plus Elven Accuracy means you hit basically every time. Great DPS, but I found myself getting bored after a while because of how little thought or tactics it required - the only real decision I was making was deciding what to kill next.

[Whammydill]

I remember trying a melee Ranger and having much the same feeling. It does get better the more powers you have at your disposal, but some classes do feel aprticularly limited. I guess the real attraction of the 4e system for me is in how easy it is to DM. If I were to be DM'ing 3.5e I'd have to do a lot more work and homework than I do with 4e.

Yes, one of my first characters was a ranger. This class in particular was very monotonous(sp?) Every ability seemed like it was exactly the same, just add a few more dice here and there but not very different from any other.

[Master_Rahl22]

Mordokai, when the gleemax forums are back up go check out the CharOp boards for some ideas on some unbalanced characters. I've seen damage per round over 1000 using nothing but at will powers, meaning they can do it all damn day and not just for a nova. The main thing I like about 4E is that due to the effort they put into balance, it's incredibly hard to make a character that just downright sucks. You get your main attack stat to at least 16 in character creation, and then all you have to do is not choose ridiculously useless feats (Shield Prof. for a Fighter, etc) and your character is playable and could probably pull his weight. One of the side effects of making feats less powerful is that you can spend a few on non-combat fun stuff. One of the coolest 4E characters I've seen was a Tiefling Barbarian who used to be a librarian until he started hearing voices and blacking out only to awake having just killed somebody. He took Linguist 3 or 4 times so that he knows every language in the PHB, and he's still a darn effective character in combat.

[Whammydill]

Mordokai, when the gleemax forums are back up go check out the CharOp boards for some ideas on some unbalanced characters. I've seen damage per round over 1000 using nothing but at will powers, meaning they can do it all damn day and not just for a nova. The main thing I like about 4E is that due to the effort they put into balance, it's incredibly hard to make a character that just downright sucks. You get your main attack stat to at least 16 in character creation, and then all you have to do is not choose ridiculously useless feats (Shield Prof. for a Fighter, etc) and your character is playable and could probably pull his weight. One of the side effects of making feats less powerful is that you can spend a few on non-combat fun stuff. One of the coolest 4E characters I've seen was a Tiefling Barbarian who used to be a librarian until he started hearing voices and blacking out only to awake having just killed somebody. He took Linguist 3 or 4 times so that he knows every language in the PHB, and he's still a darn effective character in combat.

Of course for pessimists(realists?) that just means you have to try to fail, not fail to try in 4e. I absolutely love the RP value of that barbarian, that could go sooooo very far with so much fun. In 3.5 combat he would be behind the curve I believe though. Of course you could spend your feats for combat and just use skill points for languages/literacy.

/shrug.

[dragoonsgone]

They are getting into some different mechanics. I love the Psion.

You get no encounter powers but you can use power points to make your at wills better.

[Tiki Snakes]

Yeah, mine was an archer ranger - Elf, standard build. Every round you take a move action to reposition, then Twin Strike or Two-Fanged Strike your quarry. Two attack rolls plus Elven Accuracy means you hit basically every time. Great DPS, but I found myself getting bored after a while because of how little thought or tactics it required - the only real decision I was making was deciding what to kill next.

It's strange seeing someone feel this way, partly because the oposite is one of the things I actually like about 4th, namely, much more that I can do at any point.

To be fair, my few 3.5 ed characters were usually 'martial' and not in the TOB sense, either. Five foot step, attack, go back to sleep, ya know? Sometimes I'd ready an action.

Still, Rangers are pretty straight forward in many respects. Perhaps the higher risk required from a melee ranger would have kept it fresher? The Archery Ranger in my (finally completed) KOTS game did tend a lot more to simply two-fanged-striking everything than the Two-Weapon Ranger, who was for most of the campaign the closest thing the party had to a defender...

[Saph]

To be fair, my few 3.5 ed characters were usually 'martial' and not in the TOB sense, either. Five foot step, attack, go back to sleep, ya know? Sometimes I'd ready an action.

Still, Rangers are pretty straight forward in many respects. Perhaps the higher risk required from a melee ranger would have kept it fresher?

After you're familiar enough with 3.5 you can make pretty fun martial characters with very few books. A friend was running a one-off 6th-level 3.5 game last night and insisted that everyone only use the core books, so I put together my old Horizon Tripper character - Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter/Horizon Walker.

The build has reach, trip, Combat Reflexes, expertise, Power Attack, rage, fast movement, Darkvision, tracking, a favoured enemy, max ranks in detection skills, ranks in most physical and movement skills, and the ability to enlarge himself with potions. He can also heal and is a pretty decent archer into the bargain. Uses PHB and DMG only. I never had much trouble finding something interesting to do. :)

[Kaiyanwang]

After you're familiar enough with 3.5 you can make pretty fun martial characters with very few books. A friend was running a one-off 6th-level 3.5 game last night and insisted that everyone only use the core books, so I put together my old Horizon Tripper character - Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter/Horizon Walker.

Another way I found to add interesting moves to martial character are strange equipment like lazos, net, skiprocks, bolas, and a bunch of poisons and alchemical items. Even the right selection of weapons can do a lot for your full attack, IMHO.

[Tiki Snakes]

Never got the chance to play much higher than level 5 or 6, really, and to be quite honest, was never up to anything like that level of build-fu. The most interesting character I managed was a glaive-weilding barbarian elf, who traded rage for some rangery stuff (unearthed arcana), and went for the whole opportunity attack route. (managed to find an allowable dragon feat, iirc, that let him attack at short range with a small penalty, basically whenever needed.)

He was a fun character on many levels, but my favourite bit was non-crunch. He'd say hello. To everyone we met. From important NPC's, to two-headed anthropomorphic Rat-Man Vampires.

Then wave, cheerfully.

[Leon]

Yeah, the lack of options has been what's stopped me from switching over to 4e. I'll play it happily enough if that's what my group's doing, but most of the classes are just too limited for my taste.

This is what ive found from looking into it.
Over time its interest has grown a bit but while simple and streamlined PCs may be ok for a while i like to explore options and the rigidness makes it hard to develop some idea's

[Hal]

Oooh, another edition flame war. Allow me to summarize the contents of this thread 10 pages later:

[4eFaNb0y]: 4E is streamlined! Non-casters have more options! There are fewer dump stats!

[3pnt5rulz]: 4E = WoW = lolPG. There aren't enough options! My wizard feels neutered! You're dumb if you can't understand 3.5!

Okay, all of that aside, my own experience with 4e has been similar to Burley's. I (and my group) will probably stick with 4e from now on.

I won't say that I'd never play 3.5 again, I think I'd want to do quite a bit of house-ruling before I played a 3.5 game again. Many of the 4e changes (such as the paring down of the skill list) are very attractive, so I'd probably want to hold on to what changes I could.

In any case, I keep seeing "lack of character options" as a complaint, and this is really changing as more material is being released. If you haven't taken a glance at it since the core release, I would highly recommend giving it a second shot if that's all that's holding you back.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

In any case, I keep seeing "lack of character options" as a complaint, and this is really changing as more material is being released. If you haven't taken a glance at it since the core release, I would highly recommend giving it a second shot if that's all that's holding you back.

I'm sorry Hal, I can't do that.