D&D 3.5 vs 4.0

[Johnny Impact]

I'm sure this thread has been done before but I didn't see it in the search results. Maybe I'm just tired.

Has anyone out there played D&D 3.5, or 4.0, or, preferably, both?

I'm looking for ways to compare and contrast editions. I have two rookies in my gaming group and I'm searching for the best way to explain the differences before starting a campaign. They get to choose which edition they like the sound of. As I have never done anything with 4.0 I need to understand it better myself.

I'm a veteran GM who has run Advanced, 2E, and 3.5 before. 3.5 seems to be the ultimate expression of "classic" D&D.

I've heard 4.0 is "World of D&DCraft," essentially redesigned from the ground up as a dice-and-paper MMO. I understand it plays very differently.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

Edit: We just got finished with two seasons of White Wolf. I did Werewolf, then another guy did Mage. Now we're doing a lighthearted superhero game. We'll go back to World of Darkness but not right now.

Edit again: I've heard Pathfinder mentioned before. Are 3.5 sourcebooks compatible with it -- Monster Manual, etc?

 

[octafish]

My thoughts? Red Box. If they are true RPG rookies run a short Basic D&D campaign, the rules are really simple and so are the classes. It would be a breath of fresh air for any experienced players you have also. The rookies will soon learn if they are into it or not and you can move on to more advanced stuff from there.

Make sure you kill a couple of them when they deserve it too. I personally never killed characters when they turned tail and ran but I was not adverse to killing one or two when they acted stupid.

See if you can find a copy of Paranioa. It is a really fun RPG for players of all levels.

 

[thehorror2]

Oh boy have you opened a can of volatile, flammable worms here.

They are for very different styles of game. 4th edition does heroic high fantasy (with dragons, greek-style gods, powerful special-fx magic, and flaming swords tossed out like party favors) really REALLY well. However, it doesn't do anything else very well, without significant houseruling. It is also the most newbie-friendly system I've run into. Every class is different in function, but similar in structure; if you know how to create a fighter, you can make a wizard just as easily, although they still FEEL like different classes. It does rip pages shamelessly from the WoW playbook, though, going for "this sounds cool and speeds up play" over "this makes sense and increases verisimilitude" which may be perfect for the kind of game you're running or it might not, depending on what you and your players want out of it.

3.5 (or Pathfinder, if you can find it) is a very different beast. It's still not totally realistic, but it can do more grounded types of fantasy without totally screwing up. However, balance between the classes is completely nonexistent. Depending on how your players build their characters, the spellcasters will feel totally underpowered as they blow their 3 spells for the day in the first round and have to flee and/or shoot crossbow bolts at people until they can sleep for 8 hours, OR the non-spellcasters (fighters, monks and the like) will feel underpowered as the spellcasters use their spells to one-shot bosses, send them to other dimensions full of pain and suffering, or make their pets into guided missiles that do melee combat better than the fighter 5 levels higher than them.

tl;dr: if you want balance between the players as to how awesome they are, go with 4th. If you want grittier games where balance of power isn't necessarily split evenly among the players, go with 3.5. (Or Pathfinder, but that's a tale for another thread.)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I've done both. I actually DM a 3.5 ed Pre-spellplauge Forgotten Realms group

And I say that I prefer 3.5 more. I prefer the way spells, combat and the like flow together.

I also like how it allows for more... unusual approaches to problems. Like a friend who is a Sorcerer/Elderich Knight with levels in Paladin for save and BAB bonus. I have not seen something like that for 4 ed

EDIT: But as for class balance, 4ed is your best bet. My brother (LN Aasimar monk) is more deadly then our Tiefling Barbarian, and our Sorcerer can out damage our Wizard any day.

 

[Johnny Impact]

See if you can find a copy of Paranioa. It is a really fun RPG for players of all levels.

Paranoia? There is no such thing as Paranoia. You're not cleared for that, citizen. Why aren't you cleared for that? You're not cleared to know that, either. Paranoia does not exist and, if it did, it would be nothing more than a plot by stinking Commies to destroy the Computer. The Computer is your friend. The Computer must never be questioned. Why must the Computer never be questioned? Your repeated questioning of the matter necessitates immediate reprimand. Proceed to the nearest Incineration Booth -- er, Confession Booth -- to receive your reprimand and complimentary tranquilizer. No, the Computer did not say, "Incineration Booth." There is no such thing as an Incineration Booth. Proceed to the Confession Booth for reprimand and tranquilizers. Have an extra-happy day, citizen!

One of the guys in our group has a Paranoia game lined up. We're doing a round-robin GM thing, Mage to Silver Age Sentinels to Paranoia to D&D. So we'll get to it.

Never thought anyone would suggest Red Box. Ah, the days when "Dwarf" was a class. That takes me back.....

 

[Xanadu84]

Pathfinder, pathfinder, pathfinder. Its 3.75 basically, and it is the height of the D+D experience.

4th edition is not bad. What it is is streamlined and accessible. It focuses more on quick and dynamic combat with less of a sense of realism. It feels more like a strategy, action adventure game then a simulation. This leads to a different style of play. I find it best for a long time player to think of Pathfinder as the true successor, and 4th as an interesting re-interpretation. Chances are, people who have experienced both will give you some flavor of that answer.

 

[Slaanax]

I was unimpressed by 4th edition, maybe if it was not named D&D I would have accepted it. Something feels like its missing from the game for me it felt to laid out and not customizable enough.

 

[Tsaba]

From what I hear, 4.0 is crap.

That's what I hear from my friend who plays weekly as well, stay 3.5.

 

[Durindana]

As someone who has played both 3.5 and 4.0, I have to agree with the "World of D&Dcraft" analogy...mostly. 4.0 is much more new-player friendly, especially if said players have also experienced MMOs. It has a more rigid level-up system, fewer options at each level, and a smaller selection of monsters. These add up to create a much simpler but highly restrictive version of D&D than 3.5. In 3.5, the amount of customization for both players and monsters is enormous, between cherry-picking class levels, entire books worth of different items to use/wear, and so many monsters that you could practically point to any hostile in any video game and say, "There's a 3.5 monster just like that!" 3.5 has a much steeper learning curve certainly, but I think it's also better. One of the things that attracts me to D&D is the ability to create MY character: fully customized and tailor-geared how I want. I'd say that 4.0 is a good transition from MMO to D&D, introducing the idea of turn-based combat and the DM, but it's the little kiddie pool compared to the entire lake that is 3.5.

EDIT: Didn't see the Pathfinder reference till after I posted. I LOVE Pathfinder; it's like 3.5 version 2. It's mainly class tweaks and new options for classes, but it's 100% compatible with 3.5 books; it's an upgrade, not a replacement. The only gamechanger is that Pathfinder PCs will be much stronger than 3.5 PCs, so don't be afraid to throw more challenging encounters at them in Pathfinder.

 

[Paul Rego]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
pathfinder in a nice little bundle for all your gaming needs

 

[Canadish]

I'm no expert, but I've managed to get a group of rookies together (myself included) and get a solid game of Pathfinder(3.75 essentially) going.
Rules aren't overly complex, but all the classes feel different and fun.

We tried 4th ed a while back, but it really just didn't feel very fun. Way to limited and a bit High Fantasy for our tastes.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Has anyone out there played D&D 3.5, or 4.0, or, preferably, both?

I'm a veteran GM who has run Advanced, 2E, and 3.5 before. 3.5 seems to be the ultimate expression of "classic" D&D.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

I DMed in 2nd Ed, 3 Ed, 3.5, and now in Pathfinder.

I've played in all of the above, and 4E as well.

I agree that 3.5 / Pathfinder is the ultimate expression of D&D. Pathfinder is my very favorite system ever.

However, I've also played 4E and... it's fun. It's not as flexible as 3.5, and I felt restricted about my options (what options you have are very hollow) but the game itself was fun and amusing. I've actually stolen lots of stuff from 4E and back-converted into some 3,5/Pathfinder house rules. Skill Challenges for the Win. ^^

My main issue with 4E is the terrible way Wizards has handled the marketing, sales, and distribution of 4E. I think that has done more to hurt 4E than any mechanics have ever done.

So yeah... 4E has a lot of great stuff, but I feel like it's too restrictive. 3.5 is actually in there, underneath the hood - any 4E monster can be back-converted into 3.5 - they use the same monster building mechanics. But it's all hidden - 4E actually tries to PREVENT DMs from making their own monsters by not telling you how. That's one of the reasons I won't DM 4E - I don't like how it slaps my hands away from the creation table.

I don't think 4E feels like WoW. Maybe like Dragon Age. The fights are fun and visceral, but you can't create a new and interesting character outside their very restrictive class structure the way you can in 3.5/Pathfinder.

Oh, and in case you're not familiar with Pathfinder: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
There you go - the Pathfinder Reference Document.

 

[deafbudy]

I only a single session on 3.5 one session of pathfinder, and about 8 or so 4th ed. 4th ed was the one I liked the most manly because the game moved faster and was easier to learn.

 

[R Man]

4th Ed is fine.

The problem is that when people remember 3.5, they are actually remembering 3.5 that they house ruled. When 4th ed came out, people compared the new and limited version to the massive well of 3.5 that they edited for their own play style. So amongst the pessimists it looked
limited.

This was made worse by the fact that most people could remember 3.5 role playing editions, but since they had no experience with the new system they had to go by the book. And the book dealt mostly with combat. So it looked like 4th ed was only about combat. But here's the thing, so was 3.5 ed. Roleplaying had always been about players not rules, but people forget this.

That said it may not be for everyone. It is very cinematic based and has an action movie feel that may not appeal to some players. It is also more limited in the background skills that some players were able to use creatively to create rich backgrounds. So it depends on the players really.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Edit again: I've heard Pathfinder mentioned before. Are 3.5 sourcebooks compatible with it -- Monster Manual, etc?

They are, but it's best to use the updated stuff - not because the conversion doesn't work, but because Wizards didn't bother playtesting half their stuff, and many MANY 3.5 books are broken as hell. I'm looking at you Complete Champion, and you... any Forgotten Realms book.

The Pathfinder Core Rules and Beastary contain the entire contents of the PHB, DMG, and MM1. The old Monster Manuals work pretty well with Pathfinder (you might want to hand out a few -1 CRs though, since monsters got a little tougher in Pathfinder), but you'll find (almost) all the basic Monster Manual monsters in the PRD Beastary.

Anyway, I still use my MM3, Fiendish Codex, and so forth from 3.5 with Pathfinder.

Also, on Campaign Settings, Pathfinder actually has a really good one - it was written by an all-star cast of writers including Monty Cook and Keith Baker (creator of Eberron). A lot of classic D&D stuff got snuck in - it's a really good setting.

 

[Roganzar]

I've done both. I actually DM a 3.5 ed Pre-spellplauge Forgotten Realms group.

Nice to know I'm not the only 3.5ed Forgotten Realms DM out there. Granted I've made modifications to my game with some of the spellplague stuff, and god deaths (following the Marvel/DC Comics rules of death, and didn't destroy Halruua).

OT: 3.5ed is what I think of now when talking D&D.
Fourth edition isn't a bad system, actually pretty good from what I've read. Never had a chance to play it myself. I just can't think of it as D&D, fantasy sure but not D&D. Just me.

Also, I've never meet anyone that couldn't get the hang of White Wolf's d10 system quickly. Still love that system.

 

[Seanfall]

I started playing around 3.5. And I like it, I do it has a lot of options so you can pretty much play who or whatever you want as long as the DM allows it. That said it is easy to break the game but that remains true for any game if you know how. If I had a compliant it's that it's really lite on inspiration. It's basically a toolbox that lets you build what ever you want. Minecraft for the mind if you will. And while that's good something of a starting point would have been nice. Which is why so many setting's books came out. Eberron, Faerun to name a few.

4.0 has been called table top wow. Which is stupid since there actually is a Wow table top RPG. But I digress. What I love 4.0 for is that they give you a starting point, kinda ripped from Exalted imo, but let's put a pin that one. It shaves off a lot of the bulky rules and removes a lot of unneeded dice rolling, basically boiling the system down to just what's needed. Making it a little harder to break and min/max. A godsend for some DM's and meh for others. What it does in return however is give you a lot more in the 'visual' inspiration area. The artwork for these books are so far great. Especially in the core books. I love the look and feel how each race's armor and weapons have unique styles. Hell for the Dragonborn they even showed clan markings on their weapons and armor. And I think that's what I really like about 4.0 is that it shakes up the main races a bit. Adding in the Tieflings and Dragonborn and giving them a much needed make over.

Unfortunately my DnD group is so used to 3.5 that the idea of a new system scares their tiny little minds and so playing a full 4.0 game. (GOD I WANNA DO DARK SUN!) Has been difficult at best. I've played a few one shots, but I can't really give you an idea of it's systems when I haven't really seen them in play myself.