4e vs. 3.5e

[mummy162]

I know this will probably invite a flame war, {Scrubbed}

[ericgrau]

Sounds about right, but also for adventuring in general not just for character creation. EDIT for below: Yeah, I should have said that too. If you only want opinions, do a search b/c there's already a thousand out there... with surprisingly few flames.

[Chrono22]

I think this is rehash. If you want to see people's opinions, do a google search of these forums.

[KillianHawkeye]

I know this will probably invite a flame war, but... ...

So what do you think?

I think you know better than to post this topic.

[Sipex]

I play 4e but have some experience with 3.5.

4th Edition
- Is definitely easier to learn and follow
- More dependant on grid based battles
- Classes feel more balanced, nothing feels useless.
- Multiclassing does suck if you think about it in the old 3.5 terms. It's alright compared to the rest of the feats offered though.
- Battles can take a while unfortunately.

3.5
- Better character customisation and experimentation
- Can be confusing. Rules can be obscure.
- Rolling saves feels more interactive than Fort, Ref, Will static defenses.

[Kaun]

I have played alot of both additions now and come the the decission that i perfer not to play DnD over other rpg systems.

But here are the major points as i see them.

3.5
- Magic was still magical.

4.
- Very hard to make a useless chr
- No more batman wizards.

They both have there good points and bad points but i still think your better off play a diffrent system tho

[Colmarr]

No

[valadil]

{Scrubbed}

[mummy162]

I disagree that the online supplements are great. I bought a DDI account and deactivated a day later. The software is pathetic.

Not the tools, the online supplements. I mean Dragon and Dungeon magazines, as well as the Compendium. They have great articles in Dragon like the Assassin class, which I am now poring over.

[Vulkarius]

I think that 4E is a great gateway to 3.5. I learned on 4e and enjoy how certain things are consolidated. While battle is pretty balanced between the classes that's all there really is. All i've done so far is battle battle sit in tavern and battle.

[Kaun]

Not the tools, the online supplements. I mean Dragon and Dungeon magazines, as well as the Compendium. They have great articles in Dragon like the Assassin class, which I am now poring over.

Yeah and the character builder is a good tool that gets upgraded with all the new content as it comes out.

[oxybe]

multiclassing is iffy. it all depends on what you want out of it.

i prefer multiclassing to be the dabbling of 4th, rather then the mix-n-match of 3rd ed or the "spread your XP between 2 classes" in 2nd ed.

i have enough alternate class features to make most characters i want and once i get the full details of hybrid classes in PHB3, i don't see any problem with variety.

a level 7 Barbarian|Warden m/Fighter might not have the same ring as a Fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3, but both are still quite complex in their choices.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd like to see what people have to say. Here are the pros of each system:

I'm going to respectfully disagree with most of what you say. That is, I don't agree with what you consider to be the strong points of 4E, and I do not agree with what you claim to be the advantages of 3E, either. That said, I do like both systems, after a fashion.



4E is not easier to play. Where in 3E you can simply state what you want your character to do and let your DM figure it out, in 4E you have to learn what your powers do, because you're expected to use them all the time. Although this wouldn't faze a long-term roleplayer, I've seen several newbies confused by this.

I am unaware of any supplements for 4E online, except for WOTC's subscription service, which is admittedly pretty good. 3E has more supplements online than you can count, many of them homebrew, although the quality varies wildly.

New sourcebooks and supplements are also still being published for 3E, under the brand name of "Pathfinder", and this appears to be going at a faster pace now than 4E books.

Everything is not much more clearly defined, either. For a simple example, the rulebooks do not clearly define how 3-D combat works (or indeed, if it is supposed to exist in the first place), leading to perennial debates on the WOTC forums. Where in 3E, people would argue endlessly over minutiae, in 4E, people argue endlessly over basic concepts, like whether motion counds as "movement" and whether hazards count as "hazardous".


On the other hand,

3E appears to allow more freedom in character customization, but this has so many pitfalls it's not even funny. For instance, two of the eleven core classes are frequently said to be not worth playing on message boards like this one.

As a corollary to the previous, 3E multiclassing doesn't necessarily "suck" but can be hard to make "not suck"; for instance, building a fighter/wizard is pretty hard to do in a way that doesn't end up being bad at both.

There is a vast array of sourcebooks, but this is daunting to some people, and the even the official WOTC splatbooks vary quite a bit in quality. Furthermore, DMs have a habit of informedly or arbitrarily denying several of them.

I haven't counted which of the two has more dedicated forums, but GiantItp is hardly a dedicated 3E forum, and several forums that used to be 3E have now moved on to 4.

And gaining a level does not necessarily entail more choices: if you choose to stick to your mainclass, then many classes do not get much of a choice at most levels; and if you do choose to multiclass or prestige class, then you pretty much have to plan this five or six levels in advance.


So there you go. I appear to have the exact opposite opinion that you have, except that we both seem to like both the systems anyway. Can we get Rene Descartes in here now?

[holywhippet]

4E went for being more or less balanced between the classes. This is both as blessing and a curse. A blessing because you no longer have classes that are far more effective than most other classes at high levels. A curse because a lot of the tricks and combos are all gone. In 3.5 you could throw together say a druid and a sorcerer then go for some levels in mystic theurge ending up with a character with a lot of offensive spell options. Or you could string together some fighter type classes for a hitting machine. Or maybe take a few levels as a spellcaster so you can buff up your fighter before wading into melee.

In 4th edition your options are far more limited after you've chosen your race and class.

[Kaun]

4E is not easier to play. Where in 3E you can simply state what you want your character to do and let your DM figure it out, in 4E you have to learn what your powers do, because you're expected to use them all the time.

People do tend to forget that they can still just say what they want to do in 4e.

Players just see these big bright shiney powers and strugle to look past them.

[mummy162]

People do tend to forget that they can still just say what they want to do in 4e.

Players just see these big bright shiney powers and strugle to look past them.

I completely agree. The 4e DMG talks about letting your players creatively use their skills and abilities, and rolling with the punches. I had a friend who used the warlock power hellish rebuke to set corn fields on fire and heat up chains, and our experienced DM was fine with that, even though the power isn't used to light things on fire like that. Improvisation and adaptability are key if you want to play 4e. Otherwise it is as dull as the Use Rope skill.

[Kurald Galain]

I completely agree. The 4e DMG talks about letting your players creatively use their skills and abilities, and rolling with the punches.

Sure, but that doesn't make it any less confusing to new players.

Also, numerous DMs either do not allow such tricks (including one of the actual game designers, in a podcast!) or discourage them by making creative uses less effective than ordinary uses (and frequently without realizing they're doing so).

[Kaun]

Sure, but that doesn't make it any less confusing to new players.

Also, numerous DMs either do not allow such tricks (including one of the actual game designers, in a podcast!) or discourage them by making creative uses less effective than ordinary uses (and frequently without realizing they're doing so).

Yeah but if we are bringing up things that your DM wont let you do there will probably be alot more for 3.5e then 4e.

Also you are right it dosent make it any less confusing for new players but new players are far less likely to make choices which will overly gimp there characters mechanics wise in 4e.

[oxybe]

the drow's power just outlines creatures with a ghostly fire. it's doesn't actually burn or produce heat. it's effectively a low-power glitterdust that can't blind but can show where invisible targets are.

so yes it makes sense that you can't melt fire with it.

[nepphi]

I like them both for the same reasons.

Create an iconic class, fight some iconic monsters, have some awesome roleplay with your mates.

That's all DnD needs to be for me.

[oxybe]

also, that was the first fight of the session. he wanted them (all new to 4th ed and i think 1 new to D&D) to get comfortable reading the powers & getting used to the mechanics. you'll notice a LOT of "basic melee attacks" being done too.

he's showing them the ropes

[Shpadoinkle]

3.Xe = Dungeons and Dragons

4e = boardgame

[oxybe]

3.Xe = Dungeons and Dragons

4e = boardgame

classy. like a kindergarten classroom after a finger painting session.

[Kaiser Omnik]

3.Xe = Dungeons and Dragons

4e = boardgame

"3.Xe = Dungeons and Dragons" ≠ argument

"4e = boardgame" ≠ argument

Now that's better.

[mummy162]

I like them both for the same reasons.

Create an iconic class, fight some iconic monsters, have some awesome roleplay with your mates.

That's all DnD needs to be for me.

There's an attitude we should all have.

[Roland St. Jude]

I know this will probably invite a flame war, ...

Sheriff of Moddingham: This was the point at which you ought to have decided not to post this thread.