D&D 3.5 vs 4.0

[malestrithe]

I prefer AD&D. If I am running games, it is almost always AD&D. While not the simplest one out there, it is the one I am the most familiar with.

I am just as comfortable with 3.5 edition as well, but I do not like it. It tends to led itself to min maxing and rules lawyering, but that can be mitigated by telling people what book we are using right off the bat.

4th edition feels too much like a playing a Computer or Console RPG instead of a roleplaying game. I do not like that every class gets unique powers and abilities that seem out of place for that class. I am a fighter and all I wanted do is hit things. I do not want to remember to use my daily power that allows him to run forward 5 spaces or the one that compels the opponent to move forward towards me.

Although it is possibly the simplest iteration of the system in terms of character creation and combat, I do not like how it bogs down at 4th level and above. I really do not like the level of complexity that comes after that because everything is dropping status effects all the time. It tends to disrupt things when you have to stop every so often to look up what poison does.

 

[Silvianoshei]

Depends on the group. For people who just want to jump in and wreck monsters, get loot, and play through a story, 4e is best. For people who want to feel unique as characters, and play a more personal, varied and interesting game, I'd say Pathfinder (3.5e). I really liked 4e, and it was a great way to introduce my fiance to dnd without scaring her off. We haven't tried pathfinder yet, I haven't played a game in years and I need to brush up on the rules, but I'm sure that she wouldn't like it as much, she prefers story and universe to character development. I personally like Pathfinder games more, because the characters used to feel as though THEY were the ones driving the story, and that actions they took based on who they were could tie into the story in more unique ways. 4e stories tend to be straight up manichean conflict style stories, which is built into the system. With houserules and a unique set of circumstances, it doesn't have to be, but at the very least party solidarity is a must. You can't have conflicting interests and motivations within a party like you could in Pathfinder, the system isn't really designed for such complexity.

All in all, 4e is more for gaming and Pathfinder is a much stronger system for roleplaying. Pick whichever you want, as long as you and your friends are having fun, nothing else matters.

 

[Eofofo]

I personally enjoy Pathfinder the best. It gives Rookies a chance to learn the ropes better, and gives rewards to advanced players who try some of the more complicated classes. Plus they have the cool p.d.f adventures that are always easy to run, easy to play, and a ton of fun.

 

[Souplex]

How do I put this...

Pre-4.0 is a better RPG, 4.0 is a better game.
Old editions were full of the balance issues, overpowered obscure builds, and rulebending that make solo-RPGs fun, but are annoying when there're other people involved.

4.0 is balanced, (In old editions, at low levels fighters could hit things well good, casters could cast magic missile once a day. At high levels, fighters could hit things really well, Wizards had a spell called "Wish" that was exactly what it said on the can.), the rules are tighter to prevent abuse, and the focus on the mat and miniatures makes it a more tactical experience.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I've never played Pathfinder but I know quite a number of people who praise it above 3.5, and where I am at least (upstate NY) it's readily accessible. I'm not a fan of Paizo, I think they did a shoddy job with Dragon Magazine, but I won't ignore the good things I've heard about their system.

They also screwed up Alignment: there's no such thing as Chaotic Good (for example). So a person of my own personal moral persuasion can't exist in the D&D world. And no Lawful Evil? (I guess there are no Dick Cheney's in D&D either ... so maybe it's a fair trade.) I can forgive Unaligned, I suppose ... but in a sense, that's more of a Chaotic Neutral sentiment, a "who gives a crap about all this morality anyway" attitude, that actually is, in itself, a moral stand. Now, I was never a huge fan of the old alignment restrictions, except in specific cases, so I never used alignment languages or any of that - but I DID ask players to choose an alignment - not to punish or control their actions, but as a Role-Playing device.

I think this is what ultimately killed 4E for me.

I wasn't a fan of 3.5 so when 4.0 was announced so soon after I was skeptical to say the least. A lot of things were said during its developement that had me very concerned (like the oft quoted comment about RPGs being about combat and nothing else) but I was willing to wait for the final product and check it out with an open mind.

Flipping through the player's handbook was disheartening to say the least, it looked horrendous, and then I got to the alignment . . .

In my opinion the D&D alignment system hit a great balance between options and accessibility. While it is clearly an over simplification it works well as a generalization. But 4E, ug. Suddenly a paladin zealot is "more good" than a Robin Hood type character, while a psychopath is "more evil" than a Nazi. If that's in line with someone's personal moral compass so be it, but why make it the moral compass. And is the new system really that much simpler than the old one?

I've left D&D entirely and I'm currently moving into Ars Magica. It's an incredible system, it's very straight forward, and its extremely flexible.

 

[StBishop]

I know you have more than enough info to make an informed decision but I cannot let this thread go by without saying the following:

4th edition is watered down, limiting, silly, the world is bad, forgotten realms is basically unrecognisable and it is inferior in every way.

3.5 is magical and I wouldn't have my D&D any other way. It did away with THAC0 and other over complicated rules but it maintained all the silly and fun rules like mages dual wielding bastard swords if they wanted.

4th ed stifles creativity.

BUT Skill challenges are a good idea and they are similar to how my D&D groups have all used skills in the past, we often had skill based challenges to break up the dungeon crawl however these usually had a binary, succeed/mortal peril outcome. It's nice to see the idea of using them to give possible rewards for success vs nothing for failure rather than, progression for success vs arse kicked for failure.

 

[Not Good]

I like to put it this way: the first time I played 4e I saw what people were talking about, even though I'm relatively new to tabletop RPGs. The restrictions put on the player are pretty stupid.

 

[denaekall]

I've played almost every edition of D&D there is (AD&D, 3.0, 3.5. 4E, Pathfinder, C&C, and others) and have been DMing for more than 14 years now.

If you and your players want a sound rules system, fun and diverse play, a plethora of options for almost every level, and a game that is well supported, then you most likely want to play Pathfinder.

If your and your players are looking for a game where the classes are all balanced near perfectly together, you are looking for a team dynamic that is built in to the mechanics of the game (ie: the "role" of your class), and one that still holds the most iconic image of gaming in our culture, then you most likely want to play Dungeons & Dragons 4E.

If you want a very rules light, quick to play, easy to understand game that will give you and your players the feel of "classic" Dungeons & Dragons, then I suggest trying out Castles & Crusades from Troll Lord Games. It has done for AD&D what Pathfinder has done for 3.5 D&D.

In the end, they are all fine games and can all be a blast to play. Personally, I favor Pathfinder or Castles and Crusades, but there are those in my group who still love 4E. We go back and forth with which version we play.

 

[Beliyal]

I've played 3.5 and 4.0 and DMed 4.0, and me and my friends agreed that 4.0 is much more approachable and easier. It was a good thing for us. I remember when we were noobs and we struggled to understand some parts of 3.5; it was pretty annoying and we didn't enjoy it. Fourth edition is maybe too simple and game-ish, with little actual roleplaying values, more focused on huge damage and has some "flashy" feel.

Now we mostly play GURPS and we haven't tried Pathfinder.

snip

Players are there to play the character they created, and that includes in-depth descriptions of actions in combat. Personally, I give bonuses for cleverness in combat, and make stat checks for most "creative" maneuvers. One famous exchange from a campaign of mine:
"How much damage does a bear do?"
"Doesn't matter, it's dead."
"No, I want to use the corpse as a club."
...I let him. He had the strength for it, and it was a fairly effective deterrent, if not much of a weapon.

I agree. I changed my own plans and rules when players played their characters well and did something better than my original plan for the adventure. One of the most awesome things they did was when I planned for them to escape from a city quietly and sneakily, but they wanted a fight and ended up destroying the entire airship fleet of the city and killing around 100 guards and completely messing up everything I planned. But that was awesome. And it came in handy later on. Having characters make their own creative choices is something I believe to be the point of the entire roleplaying. If I disallowed them from doing it by changing something, or if I was sticking completely to the rules, we wouldn't have had as much fun. I believe things like that, that I did while I was a DM, were the reason I'm still the only person that had the longest DM mandate in our group (we managed to finish the entire arc of the story and have 13 sessions).

 

[Raddra]

I have decided to get the Pathfinder books. Half the folks at my hobby store rave about them; the other half are playing 4E.

Thank you all for the info and opinions. It's great to talk with my fellow dicers. Now where did I put that Monster Manual.....

Good choice.

Its still not perfect, but its still a much preferred 3.5. There still might be a little houseruling needed (There is no RPG system that fits every group perfectly to not need this) but that all depends on your play and players character choices.

 

[LackofCertainty]

3.5: More complicated rules. More variety for spellcasters. more options for character customization

4.0: Slightly less complicated rules. More variety for non-spellcasters. Neatly structured character advancement.


My dnd group switched over to 4.0 when it came out and we did several campaigns. After a while, though, every character starts to feel a bit "samey" since they all follow the same general formula. Personally, I preferred playing spellcasters in dnd, and my favorite moments in 3.5 games were when I found a use for some strange/fiddlely spell that most people would have called useless at first glance. 4.0 pretty much eliminates that so I find I prefer 3.5 to 4.0.

Assuming that you have all the materials for both versions, I would advise that you start your new players off with a 4.0, and once/if your group gets tired of it, then you should try out 3.5/pathfinder.

One other thing.
[Warning: the following is an opinion, and if you don't agree with it, then please perform amateur lobotomies on yourself until you -do- agree with it.]

Extremely low level content sucks in all dnd systems I've played. Level 1 in 4.0 is boring. Level 1-2 in 3.5 is completely abysmal. Once everyone in your group has a campaign under their belts and understands leveling I recommend starting every adventure at level 3/4/5. Some people might enjoy the feeling of helplessness that comes from extremely low levels, but it's hard to plan interesting encounters when your players have basically no options (4.0) or can die in 1 hit if they're unlucky. (3.5)

 

[babinro]

I've played and DM'd in both editions for several years and in my opinion 4E is the superior version by a large margin.

4th is easier to learn and is far more balanced in gameplay compared to 3rd. While the Red Box is probably the best learning material for 4E, I much prefer all pre-essentials material as a long time player since more options and more customization is more fun for me.

Balance is the name of the game for me as a D&D player...4th has it, 3rd is really fun but completely unbalanced in creature and player design.

 

[feeback06]

I'd say since they are rookies, start them out at 4th. If they enjoy that, then later on you can try a 3.5 campaign.

 

[betastyle]

I hate to go insulting a person I don't know, but that right there is just symptoms of a truly terrible Dungeon Master.
Ideally, the edition you're playing and the internal mechanics of the game shouldn't matter so much to the player, because it's the DM's job to keep track of it all. Players are there to play the character they created, and that includes in-depth descriptions of actions in combat. Personally, I give bonuses for cleverness in combat, and make stat checks for most "creative" maneuvers. One famous exchange from a campaign of mine:
"How much damage does a bear do?"
"Doesn't matter, it's dead."
"No, I want to use the corpse as a club."
...I let him. He had the strength for it, and it was a fairly effective deterrent, if not much of a weapon.

Also, chaotic neutral is not an excuse to do just anything, it does reflect a set of values. I imagine if I were the DM over those min-maxed behemoths, they'd all be neutral evil and hunted by most NPCs about the time the second scene rolled around. Very few people can really get chaotic alignments right...

loc978: It took me a few game sessions with some other, better DMs to realize this, but yes, that was largely the point. Our second session was a bit more interesting, but our DM there was a bit too permissive as far as story and setting. He ignored a lot of limitations even beyond what was possible with the rules, and I found myself feeling like we were playing a free-form text-based thing like you'd do in an online chat room.

It all smacked of poor planning and structure in both instances, and after talking with our "Pro-DM" friend, he confessed a lot of issues he has with building encounters and tying one thing to the next using 3.5's rules.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

Really? There's TWO of us! Hot damn!

I really object to what happened to Cyric after the Spellplauge. This asshole ruins everything, and insted of killing him and spliting up his portfolio so no one has Deception, Illusion, Intrigue, Lies, and Murder in their portfolio, they just place him under house arest. I also don't like that Tyr died. That was my biggest problem with 4.ed as a setting for FR.

That and killing off Mystra and Helm. Seriously, never take a job as the Goddess/God of Magic for Faerun, turn-over rate is appalling. Those two gods have ended up being quiet prevelent in my games so I couldn't let them die. So I've just got them under "Mostly Dead," thank you Miracle Max, and seriously injured with their returns forthcoming.
Additionally, (Fanboy Moment) Ao decreed that the Gods power is based around their followers and their worship the Gods can't really stay "Dead" for long. (End Fanboy Momment)

Also, we need to find the other 3.5ed Forgotten Realms DMs out there, if there are more, and gather them someplace safe. We seem to be nearly extinct.

I agree. We need to hide and teach our children the superiority of 3.5 ed over 4th. Also, funny for me, but I never played DnD before I DMed it. A lot of people find that funny when I say that

OT: I think I will learn to play 4th ed when I go off to school. Knox has a LOT of DnD players from what I understand, and I would enjoy playing for a change of pace.

Also, for people looking to make Paladin NPCs, look at the Gray Guard class. Great for story

 

[Cole Sauer]

Iplay 3.5 because it just seems more free flowing and simplistic whil 4 has so much bulls*** it gets REALLY anoying sometimes

 

[ace_of_something]

I've been playing D&D for 20 years or so. Among many other P&P games.

I like 4th ed. It's different I feel I can make my character whatever I want it to be and roleplay however I want. Simplified leads to being able to modify it a lot more too.

Besides you're behind the time if you want a current comparison it's 4th ed vs. essentials.

 

[Harkonnen64]

The next time any of you go into a game-enthusiast store, ANY game-enthusiast store, go to the RPG section and you will notice that they have multiples of several 4th edition books and only a handful of Pathfinder books. Why? Because most people wised up and bought Pathfinder instead.

The main argument for 4th edition is also its biggest flaw: balance.

There are basically 4 archetypes for play in 4E: Striker, Controller, Leader, and something else. For example, both the bard and the cleric are "leaders" in 4E. In 3.5/Pathfinder, the cleric would be able to roflstomp a bard in combat, but classes aren't designed to fight each other, classes are designed to feel like the roles they fill! When you play a bard or cleric in 4E, they don't feel different, they both feel like the "leader" archetype, and for a role-playing game, that's a fairly big issue.

If I want to play a game with a shallow classes that feel exactly like one another, I'll play World of Warcraft, which 4E mimics so heavily I'd be surprised if Wizards didn't do some under-the-table deal with Blizzard to avoid a lawsuit. If I want to play a game where I can actually role-play, I'll play Pathfinder.

 

[Slycne]

One other thing.
[Warning: the following is an opinion, and if you don't agree with it, then please perform amateur lobotomies on yourself until you -do- agree with it.]

Extremely low level content sucks in all dnd systems I've played. Level 1 in 4.0 is boring. Level 1-2 in 3.5 is completely abysmal. Once everyone in your group has a campaign under their belts and understands leveling I recommend starting every adventure at level 3/4/5. Some people might enjoy the feeling of helplessness that comes from extremely low levels, but it's hard to plan interesting encounters when your players have basically no options (4.0) or can die in 1 hit if they're unlucky. (3.5)

Heh. Only if I can implant that lobotomized portion over so you can see what you are missing. I used to think exactly the same way. I'd start characters or campaigns off around 3rd level with a magic item or two under their belts, but my opinion has made a complete 180 on this in recent years.

Those low level experience can sometimes be just as, if not more, fulfilling as high levels especially since you really need to put it all on the line. Just last night for instance, in our new Oriental Adventure campaign the entire group got poisoned unconscious, robbed, humiliated and one character died. Not willing to suffer this injustice, or the honor loss (which Oriental Adventures tracks), we quickly re-equipped ourselves with an assortment of weapons we were not proficient with and low/out on spells took off after the robbers, knowing they were taking our stuff to a place we were warned away from before. We get in, big fight ensues and at the end of it our two fighters are down to 1 hit point each, the priest/ other spell caster are spent and the monk and geisha are only marginally better.

That whole sequence would have been just as great at 3/4th level, but I don't think it would be nearly as memorable or give as great context and detail to the setting, even by 3rd level your characters are heroes who've done this or that as opposed to just appearing out of thin air out whatever backstory was cooked up.

 

[Zodka]

Personally I prefer 3.5 (or Pathfinder) more then 4.0. 4th ed is more game then role playing, which I know is OK for some people, but if you just came from WOD games and you enjoy those types of games 3.5 or Pathfinder is for you. There's a lot more role playing opportunities to those games. For instance one of my friends was a wizard til 10th level and got all his magic stripped from him, and went on a giant solo quest to get his powers back. From what I've heard about 4th ed there's nothing like that.
Also, as for 3.5 to Pathfinder conversion, go to paizo.com and look for the Conversion Guide.