Not a debate thread? Good luck with that. And since when are alots all about tabletop games, seeing as I've never even seen one statted out?
I keed, I keed.
Despite my opinions on 4e, I'd almost suggest it; in many ways, it's simplified. Less to keep track of, in other words. However, there are some ways in which it's not really simplified. So...pretty much your call.
Depends on which you like better.
If you want to play three-five, honestly, I'd say to go with Pathfinder. It's generally smoother all around, and actually has support.
Conversely, if you wanted to play fourth. . . -Notices the statement of dislike of Essentials-
Yeah, you're covered.
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.Count: It got a little odd because they added new action types... AFTER the 3.5 Players Handbook came out. (I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 3.5.) Anyway, it's one move action, one standard action, one swift action, one five-foot-step. (There's a handful of abilities that let you use the swift action on someone else's turn as an interrupt.) A full attack (or anything else that's a full round action, for that matter) uses both the move and standard actions.
I'm not going to be able to provide a good answer here, since I hate 4th. ed with a burning, intense passion that can only be expressed by AM.
"No, the Singularity will not happen. Computation is hard." -Happy Ent![]()
I think 4e might leave that behind in a while. Wizards of the Coast is pushing the envelope on class design.
The designers put a lot of effort into making 4e idiot proof in terms of game balance. I haven't actually played but the encounter rules are more systematic so a DM can give the characters a good fight. The at-will/encounter/daily/utility power system puts the character on a similar power curves which seems to cure the quadratic wizard problem, at both the lower and higher levels. Magic items are not as powerful in 4e and save-or-die spells are gone and spells with long term effects are rarer. The skill system is simplified, and YMMV in comparison the 3.5.
edited 9th Aug '11 9:41:34 PM by 66Scorpio
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you are probably right.Both games have a lot of problems, so I can only give you what I feel each system does well and does poorly. And I haven't played Pathfinder, but I doubt it is perfect.
3.5 is very good at letting you play any sort of character you want. There's also a lot of variety in terms of mechanics, considering such classes as Binder or Crusader, which keeps things fresh. On the other hand it is woefully unbalanced, and even with the best sort of setup it has a "sweet spot" I normally put at levels 5-12 during which it really shines. Before that is too random, and after that it becomes very hard for spellcasters not to dominate everything.
4e plays things very safe. Classes are carefully balanced to work with each other, and while things break every now and then, it usually has to be done on purpose, unlike 3.5 where you can and will break the game by accident. You can get away with a much more lassez-faire party setup in it, which is good if people really like certain concepts. However, there are now WAY too many power choices at each level for some classes (Fighter is by far the worst offender), many of which are absolute trash, and the game was rebalanced halfway through, especially in terms of monster damage and skill challenges. Since everyone uses roughly the same mechanics, things get repetitive without an imaginative group and a flexible DM, and the fluff is too streamlined into one style of play.
Personally, I prefer 4e, but that's more a decision other members of my group have made.
If this is not a debate thread then YMMV is the rule.
So explaining the mechanics and their ups and downs is the purpose.
Doc here is saying basically what the designers said in that for the old versions of D&D, particularly high or low levels, were broken. Some will disagree but I see that the 4e progression from 1st to 30th level is more similar to 2nd or 3.5 progression from 5th to 12th.
edited 9th Aug '11 9:51:57 PM by 66Scorpio
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you are probably right.Do you want to play anything other then a spellcaster and still be able to have fun and contribute to the party?
If so play 4e.
Play 4e anyways even if you want to play a spellcaster because then you'll still let other players who aren't spellcasters have fun and contribute to the party.
"3.5 is good as long as you houserule away all the broken rules"
This is false.
edited 12th Aug '11 8:23:56 AM by PataHikari
Oooh, it's starting. Can you feel it?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd throw in a vote for not going with D&D at all. It's a robust, but overly complicated (or overly limited) system that doesn't really do the whole genre justice. If you want something fun to start with, why don't you try Exalted?
edited 12th Aug '11 9:17:58 AM by Korochun
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.Social, I can mostly give you- the diplomacy rules are hilariously broken, I agree. I was meaning more things like traps, and Invisibility, and flying, and making a floating disc that follows you round and carries your stuff- all the little things that a Wizard should be able to do to make his life that bit easier. Sure, they're in 4e, but IMO the swiss army knife wizard, who doesn't fight particularly well but has a spell for every occasion outside combat, is a character that I'd like to have available. The way 4e's built, with Utility powers and your combat powers a seperate thing, doesn't really allow for that.
![]()
![]()
Go read that person's post. They're probably really pretty.
please let it be Count Dorku
edited 12th Aug '11 1:05:18 PM by Aldheim
As much as I enjoy Passive-Aggressive Kombat, let's not summon a mod in here to lock this topic.
The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.

First off, this is not a debate thread. I just want to know which would be better for a person who knows alot about tabletop rpgs, but has very little experience playing. Also, I really have no interest in Essentials, so please don't recommend it.