DnD 4 vs DnD 3.5

[darkcommanderq]

I liked both 3.5 and 4.0 edition. The only difference I could tell is that 4.0 goes a bit faster. I just wish I could play it since my normal gaming group has vastly differentiating schedules. I haven't played in more than a year.

Actually in my experience playing and running 4.0 it is a lot slower than 3.5

A LOT slower....combat takes entirely to long in 4.0

 

[Croaker42]

I have to say that I disagree with your opinion of 4 winning the Monster ease and variety category. 3.5 has a massive catalog of monsters. It is almost impossible not to find at least one monster for any give situation. They could be easily scaled. And if you wanted to make your own/augment 3.5 offered a lot of really great templates.

 

[Maveron]

I still prefer 3.5. Since 4.0 feels too streamlined and combat-focused, it feels harder to roleplay, as though it's all tabletop now

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

3.5 is the Final Fantasy (The old ones when the series was good) to 4.0's Fire Emblem.

Funny I prefer 3.5 and Fire Emblem over Final Fantasy and 4.0 but I know what you are getting at.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

No THAC0, no D&D. 2nd Edition all the way. I always prefered MERPS anyway...

...I feel old now.

Long die 2nd edition. I dont miss the racial multiclassing and the dual classing. I do miss the products.

 

[Continuity]

2nd ed for me, THAC0 and all. Just fits in better with what i'm used to and the dragonlance books I used to read. Plus its gloriously unbalanced which is a major virtue, it give you as the DM the job of making it all fit together.

 

[Fappy]

4.0 gets a lot of shit, but every new edition always will. I still maintain it's better for new players whereas, if you want 3.5 DnD you're better off just playing pathfinder.

That said...Chaosium Call of Cthulhu for me.

Yeah Pathfinder is definitely the way to go for anyone who has any experience with d20 systems. Honestly, assuming at least one person in the group has a decent understanding of the rules, Pathfinder isn't much harder to learn that 4.0.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I liked both 3.5 and 4.0 edition. The only difference I could tell is that 4.0 goes a bit faster. I just wish I could play it since my normal gaming group has vastly differentiating schedules. I haven't played in more than a year.

Actually in my experience playing and running 4.0 it is a lot slower than 3.5

A LOT slower....combat takes entirely to long in 4.0

I agree with this. You have more choices to make 4.0 on your turn, and not all of them are even interesting. Also since the effects and durations are so... weird, it requires more bookkeeping..

 

[Lunar Shadow]

4.0 gets a lot of shit, but every new edition always will. I still maintain it's better for new players whereas, if you want 3.5 DnD you're better off just playing pathfinder.

That said...Chaosium Call of Cthulhu for me.

Yeah Pathfinder is definitely the way to go for anyone who has any experience with d20 systems. Honestly, assuming at least one person in the group has a decent understanding of the rules, Pathfinder isn't much harder to learn that 4.0.

I recently played a Pathfinder campaign. I enjoyed it immensely, as it took what was good from 3.5 and fixed alot of the BS.

 

[mrhateful]

2) DnD Crit system is rather a mess.

So, they had a really good idea with the 'crit just does max damage' thing. It simplified the issue and gave you a nice baseline to figure out how much damage you dealt without rolling. It was elegant, even if less impressive than previous versions crit system.

Unfortunately it was no doubt pointed out during early playtest that crits make little difference as you get further into the game. 1d6 + 15 damage isn't really much better on a crit. And so we give items an additional die roll for crits for even more damage... but now we've completely lost the elegance of the original concept. Telling a player "You crit, it deals max damage!" and then followed with "Well, except you do 2d6 more, no you have to roll that." To make matters even less interesting, you don't have many ways to improve crit chance, making them even less of an interesting aspect of the game.

I haven't come to far in our edition sessions however [4W]2d6+1 is stil 8d6+4, which means crit makes a lot of difference.

Also if you hate the system just make a house rule, not that hard really.

 

[Fappy]

4.0 gets a lot of shit, but every new edition always will. I still maintain it's better for new players whereas, if you want 3.5 DnD you're better off just playing pathfinder.

That said...Chaosium Call of Cthulhu for me.

Yeah Pathfinder is definitely the way to go for anyone who has any experience with d20 systems. Honestly, assuming at least one person in the group has a decent understanding of the rules, Pathfinder isn't much harder to learn that 4.0.

I recently played a Pathfinder campaign. I enjoyed it immensely, as it took what was good from 3.5 and fixed alot of the BS.

Pretty much everyone I know uses Pathfinder these days XP

Its my favorite role playing system at the moment.

 

[darkcommanderq]

I liked both 3.5 and 4.0 edition. The only difference I could tell is that 4.0 goes a bit faster. I just wish I could play it since my normal gaming group has vastly differentiating schedules. I haven't played in more than a year.

Actually in my experience playing and running 4.0 it is a lot slower than 3.5

A LOT slower....combat takes entirely to long in 4.0

I agree with this. You have more choices to make 4.0 on your turn, and not all of them are even interesting. Also since the effects and durations are so... weird, it requires more bookkeeping..

Thats not even the half of it. Its the HP to Damage ratios in 4.0 that takes for ever.

I realize that level 1 chars and mobs in 3.5 dieing in 1 hit to a great axe was unbalanced, and in the later stages such a thing does not even phase you. 4.0 tried to correct this by normalizing hp in the 20-40 range. Start it off high, but increase it slower. Good idea in theory, but then tinkering with the AC/Def system to that everything worth killing has AC 20+?!

WTF WIZARDS. This means that hp is all around higher at he beginning and its harder to hit stuff, but damage is the same. What you end up with is, -swing- -miss-, -swing- -hit- -4 damage- -is it bloodied? no-, -swing- -miss-...../cry

I much prefer the more realistic combat of Anima, where how well you hit someone in combat is directly proportional to the amount of damage you do. While it takes a bit of calculation it is oh so rewarding to score a crit and utterly decimate a foe that you were just picking away at turns before.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Sure is old topic in here.

If only people had said this more eloquently and in-depth when 4.0 came out.

...Then again, they did.

 

[Zechnophobe]

2) DnD Crit system is rather a mess.

So, they had a really good idea with the 'crit just does max damage' thing. It simplified the issue and gave you a nice baseline to figure out how much damage you dealt without rolling. It was elegant, even if less impressive than previous versions crit system.

Unfortunately it was no doubt pointed out during early playtest that crits make little difference as you get further into the game. 1d6 + 15 damage isn't really much better on a crit. And so we give items an additional die roll for crits for even more damage... but now we've completely lost the elegance of the original concept. Telling a player "You crit, it deals max damage!" and then followed with "Well, except you do 2d6 more, no you have to roll that." To make matters even less interesting, you don't have many ways to improve crit chance, making them even less of an interesting aspect of the game.

I haven't come to far in our edition sessions however [4W]2d6+1 is stil 8d6+4, which means crit makes a lot of difference.

Also if you hate the system just make a house rule, not that hard really.

So that case does exist, yes. But that is a Daily Power. You will use it maybe once a session, and crit only 5% of the time (Maybe 10%). Most powers have only one or two dice of damage. And the bonus you get to the damage roll itself increase much MUCH faster than the dice you get.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Thats not even the half of it. Its the HP to Damage ratios in 4.0 that takes for ever.

I realize that level 1 chars and mobs in 3.5 dieing in 1 hit to a great axe was unbalanced, and in the later stages such a thing does not even phase you. 4.0 tried to correct this by normalizing hp in the 20-40 range. Start it off high, but increase it slower. Good idea in theory, but then tinkering with the AC/Def system to that everything worth killing has AC 20+?!

WTF WIZARDS. This means that hp is all around higher at he beginning and its harder to hit stuff, but damage is the same. What you end up with is, -swing- -miss-, -swing- -hit- -4 damage- -is it bloodied? no-, -swing- -miss-...../cry

I much prefer the more realistic combat of Anima, where how well you hit someone in combat is directly proportional to the amount of damage you do. While it takes a bit of calculation it is oh so rewarding to score a crit and utterly decimate a foe that you were just picking away at turns before.

Hmm, I think you are maybe a little overstating it (4 damage? Pshaw!) but yes, I do see your point about the hp and damage paradigm. Though... if they didn't like the 'great axe = kill' early game... why not solve via minions? Eh, whatever. I honestly think that playgroup will end up being the biggest factor here, since an experienced group will go many times faster than an inexperienced one.

 

[trooper6]

GURPS 4e all the way, for me!
and on some love for:

Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu
Unknown Armies
Paranoia 1e

 

[darkcommanderq]

Thats not even the half of it. Its the HP to Damage ratios in 4.0 that takes for ever.

I realize that level 1 chars and mobs in 3.5 dieing in 1 hit to a great axe was unbalanced, and in the later stages such a thing does not even phase you. 4.0 tried to correct this by normalizing hp in the 20-40 range. Start it off high, but increase it slower. Good idea in theory, but then tinkering with the AC/Def system to that everything worth killing has AC 20+?!

WTF WIZARDS. This means that hp is all around higher at he beginning and its harder to hit stuff, but damage is the same. What you end up with is, -swing- -miss-, -swing- -hit- -4 damage- -is it bloodied? no-, -swing- -miss-...../cry

I much prefer the more realistic combat of Anima, where how well you hit someone in combat is directly proportional to the amount of damage you do. While it takes a bit of calculation it is oh so rewarding to score a crit and utterly decimate a foe that you were just picking away at turns before.

Hmm, I think you are maybe a little overstating it (4 damage? Pshaw!) but yes, I do see your point about the hp and damage paradigm. Though... if they didn't like the 'great axe = kill' early game... why not solve via minions? Eh, whatever. I honestly think that playgroup will end up being the biggest factor here, since an experienced group will go many times faster than an inexperienced one.

Hears the thing though. Even if an experienced group only takes a few mintues to resolve combat, im not talking so much hours and hours of time wasting away. Im referring to total rounds it takes to resolve combat.

I know im a bit on the extreme ends of things, but I really like combat to be over quickly before it starts to turn into. -swing- -hit-, -swing- -miss-, -swing- -hit and bloodied-, -swing miss, -swing- -crit-, -it dead yet?- -2 more hp-...etccc. As a GM you can only narrate combat so much before it drags on, even if your fantastic. Iv been in 3.5 games that devovled into this type of thing and I just wanted to take a nap.

I dont like to get boged down in combat unless its a boss battle in which case combat can be woven into some higher scheme to defeat it.

Side note: minions in 4.0 are fine and all, but they die to dame quick to be of any use to a GM. Every game I ran as a GM all minions were killed by round 2 with AOEs of cleave type attacks...lol

 

[Vanbael]

4th ed was actually pretty much streamlined. It acutally makes DMing a lot easier compared to 3.5 but 3.5 has a few more features.
I do find myself taking to 4th ed. Even still have the 4th ed character builder downloaded to my laptop, and I don't care that I'm not getting any more updates.

3.5 has a lot more going for t though as far as material, content, and customization goes. I will stay with 3.5 but as far as bringing in new players, they will like 4th ed more.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Hears the thing though. Even if an experienced group only takes a few mintues to resolve combat, im not talking so much hours and hours of time wasting away. Im referring to total rounds it takes to resolve combat.

Hmm, I'm having a hard time determining total rounds in one versus the other to be honest.

I know im a bit on the extreme ends of things, but I really like combat to be over quickly before it starts to turn into. -swing- -hit-, -swing- -miss-, -swing- -hit and bloodied-, -swing miss, -swing- -crit-, -it dead yet?- -2 more hp-...etccc. As a GM you can only narrate combat so much before it drags on, even if your fantastic. Iv been in 3.5 games that devovled into this type of thing and I just wanted to take a nap.

I dont like to get boged down in combat unless its a boss battle in which case combat can be woven into some higher scheme to defeat it.

Narrating a long combat can be very annoying if impossible. It often breaks the mood of the game (because you spent 2 or 3 hours fighting a 2 minute fight) and can lead to player fatigue, especially for those who aren't super interested in fighting. However, short fights can often be either too easy, or too inelastic. A few bad decisions or rolls? Catastrophe... or on the other side, the fight is over fast and doesn't feel like it was even worth fighting. Sigh.

Side note: minions in 4.0 are fine and all, but they die to dame quick to be of any use to a GM. Every game I ran as a GM all minions were killed by round 2 with AOEs of cleave type attacks...lol

Hm, well, they still have Defenses that should be roughly level appropriate, though there are a lot of AoE effects that 'just hit' things (chilling cloud anyone?). TO me, they make those abilities worth HAVING though.

I have recently started using a 'quick combat' system when I play. Basically, if I want military conflict, but don't necessarily want this to be a major test of the players strategic capabilities, I do what is a mixture of a skill test, and combat.

Real quick, the rules for that are the encounter requires X success' from the team as a whole. The players get to make one attack roll, and make one skill check that is relevent to the encounter. Each successful roll is a 'success'. So total possible successes is 2 times the party size (Note that you can only attempt skill checks in skill you are TRAINED in for this).

If you don't meet the Required X success, the players have to lose 1 healing surge for each failure.

It is a fast way to do an encounter in a more narrative light, it eats healing surges so it plays nice with that aspect of the game, and can let you handle 'random group of goblin' fights without it taking 3 freaking hours!

 

[Fightgarr]

When I created my module for 3.X I used elements from 4.0 that I liked, with 3.X as a base, and my own system effectively removing the traditional class and magic systems for something a little more freeform. I wasn't a huge fan of 4.0 when I played it, but I think it's an easier entrance to D&D than previous iterations which can only be a good thing. 3.X was fairly convoluted, so it took me a while to actually "get" everything when I was learning it, especially since my entry point was a camp where I wasn't educated that much by my fellow players, so when I left I bought the books to play it with my friends, so I had to learn effectively everything myself, as a 12 year-old, which wasn't super easy.