TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Dungeons and Dragons: 3.5e or 4e?

Go To

Scroolly Since: Jun, 2009
#1: Aug 6th 2011 at 9:51:51 PM

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.

FarseerLolotea from America's Finest City Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#2: Aug 6th 2011 at 10:24:03 PM

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? tongue

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.

Diamonnes In Riastrad from Ulster Since: Nov, 2009
In Riastrad
#3: Aug 6th 2011 at 10:31:42 PM

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.
Aldheim Since: Sep, 2010
#4: Aug 6th 2011 at 11:24:05 PM

I like 3.5/Pathfinder better, personally. (My favorite is an extensively houseruled 3.5, but that's just because I've been playing it for so long and I enjoy a bit of tinkering.) As for which is "better..." Meh? They're pretty different games at this point, with different design philosophies.

CountDorku Behold my legal acumen! from the depths of insanity (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Behold my legal acumen!
#5: Aug 7th 2011 at 3:02:59 AM

I found 4e to be slightly better at explaining how combat works. I'm still not sure what the 3.5 "action economy" was (i.e. how many of each you got in a round). Maybe I just suck at reading rules, though.

Aldheim Since: Sep, 2010
#7: Aug 7th 2011 at 4:18:28 AM

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.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#8: Aug 7th 2011 at 4:59:58 AM

3.5/Pathfinder; for the class/gameplay diversity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Arilou Taller than Zim from Quasispace Since: Jan, 2001
Taller than Zim
#9: Aug 7th 2011 at 7:40:05 AM

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
EgregiousEric from space (I am from space) Since: Jun, 2009
#10: Aug 7th 2011 at 9:00:18 AM

[up][up] I think 4e might leave that behind in a while. Wizards of the Coast is pushing the envelope on class design.

Pages Needing Images
Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#11: Aug 7th 2011 at 9:03:15 AM

Depends on your preference really. I like both and really, the one I'm in the mood for varies by the day.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.
MorkaisChosen from Learning Since: Jan, 2001
#12: Aug 7th 2011 at 1:37:59 PM

In my view, 4e's better for a "have some fights against monsters" type game; 3.5/PF are better if you want significant noncombat crunch.

66Scorpio Banned, selectively from Toronto, Canada Since: Nov, 2010
Banned, selectively
#13: Aug 8th 2011 at 1:41:15 PM

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.
DrSaering Since: Feb, 2010
#14: Aug 8th 2011 at 11:57:53 PM

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.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#15: Aug 9th 2011 at 4:25:06 AM

First off, this is not a debate thread.

You know I once asked the same question on /tg/...

There were no survivors D:

hashtagsarestupid
66Scorpio Banned, selectively from Toronto, Canada Since: Nov, 2010
Banned, selectively
#16: Aug 9th 2011 at 9:44:32 PM

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.
PataHikari Since: Jan, 2001
#17: Aug 12th 2011 at 8:22:14 AM

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.

I like 3.5/Pathfinder better, personally. (My favorite is an extensively houseruled 3.5, but that's just because I've been playing it for so long and I enjoy a bit of tinkering.)

"3.5 is good as long as you houserule away all the broken rules"

In my view, 4e's better for a "have some fights against monsters" type game; 3.5/PF are better if you want significant noncombat crunch.

This is false.

edited 12th Aug '11 8:23:56 AM by PataHikari

MorkaisChosen from Learning Since: Jan, 2001
#18: Aug 12th 2011 at 8:45:07 AM

Would you mind explaining why that's false?

(Also, if you want to play a fighter-type and have fun in 3.5e, get Tome of Battle. waii)

Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#19: Aug 12th 2011 at 9:17:32 AM

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.
PataHikari Since: Jan, 2001
#20: Aug 12th 2011 at 9:33:15 AM

Would you mind explaining why that's false?

Because there aren't any magic special rules in 3.5 that make ~magical social roleplaying~ that 4e lacks.

Heck, I'm going to say that doing social events is better in 4e because 3.5 has the insanely broken diplomacy rules.

MorkaisChosen from Learning Since: Jan, 2001
#21: Aug 12th 2011 at 9:46:10 AM

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.

Aldheim Since: Sep, 2010
#22: Aug 12th 2011 at 12:14:57 PM

[down][down][down] 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

Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#23: Aug 12th 2011 at 12:57:20 PM

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.
Aldheim Since: Sep, 2010
Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#25: Aug 12th 2011 at 1:27:50 PM

Hell yeah, I'm pretty.

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

Total posts: 222
Top