Well that's a fun straw man.
No, 4E is superior because it realizes that you can spend as much or as little time on out-of-combat as you need to, because such events really don't need a lot of rules; what they need is a lot of narrative. And when you have 15 die rolls to everything you're doing, that slows down the narrative.
I'm with Tomu on this one. 4e has a significantly better pacing for both narrative and, in my opinion, combat experience.
Mostly because you can't get 9 attacks per round, all at different modifiers, plus extra two from haste, plus flurry of —yeah, basically no. 3.5 combat is a total trainwreck.
It's true that powers are somewhat more restrictive, but there is nothing stopping you from modifying the power system or even creating your own powers. In fact, it's encouraged.
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.Maybe not 9 attacks per round, but I can name a build that can get 7 attacks in the first round of combat <_<
I wouldn't recommend modifying the power system necessarily, but I think it's pretty crucial to ignore flavor text when it doesn't say precisely what you want it to say, and make it say something else.
edited 16th Sep '11 12:14:24 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Oh no, certain builds of hasted monks/tempests/etc can get you upwards of 11 attacks per round.
You think you know what boredom is? You don't. True boredom is waiting for that asshole to resolve his combat round.
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.I mean in 4E.
27th level Barbarian with Hurricane of Blades AP Storm of Blades. Woosh, that's what, seven attacks?
Also, honestly, I play online. Encounters take hours. Often, sessions only have enough time for one battle. Don't you tell me about not knowing how long it takes for someone to finish their turn :P
edited 16th Sep '11 1:45:16 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Epic levels in pretty much all D&D systems just seems silly to me. Especially in 3.5. I remember reading something in Dragon Magazine once, many years ago* , where this guy was bitching about how characters like Merlin and Aragorn "couldn't be constrained by 20 levels." The only response I could think of was, "have you ever actually played 20th level D&D? Characters are more powerful than the gods in most ancient mythologies." Other than the singular WT Fery possible in the 3E epic magic system, I have no idea why you would WANT to go beyond 20th level. *L*
(Also, Aragorn? I love the guy, but he was like, sixth level at best. He sometimes got punked by orcs.)
Even without wish (oddly enough, none of the players in my seven-player-strong party 20th level party were arcanists) you can still do pretty much whatever you want at 20th level in 3E. If people have fun with it, good on them, but I just never saw the point. (To be fair, I've always been a pretty low-fantasy guy, with the exception of Planescape.)
Well, let me clarify:
Your utility box level power doesn't really increase very much at epic, excluding things like "I create a flying mountain city" and crap. By 17th level, Wizards can "do" just about everything. It then becomes an issue of how much of everything that they can do they can do.
Epic lets you start killing things at a much better pace. 10d6 fireball? More like 120 automatic damage. Oh wait, let's enhance that-240. Or my favorite technique, summon 20 pidgeons, then cast Chained Detonate (a 12th level spell slot) to deal 200d6 damage to anything in the flock. Classic.
I have spoken towho plays 3.5 and they basically admitted that the appeal of the old system is because it's so badly broken and in balanced.
If you knew how to exploit the system you can create a perfectly legal deaf, dumb, mentally retarded 1st level peasant who could beat a monk in hand-to-hand combat, rival a wizard in the art of magic and empty a rogue's pocket while besting him in a game of cards.
4th Ed on the other hand robs your of that subversive thrill of being able to Min Max your character to the moon and back, there is a clearly defined list of what your character class can do and can't do and that's it.
edited 16th Sep '11 4:53:44 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidThat's BS, have you SEEN the Char Op boards? :P
4E is Less Wrong by virtue of being Less Broken but it's by no mean fixed.
Or you could, you know, contribute meaningfully to the argument.
Try reading the actual intent. Yes, I do think 4E is superior by allowing less time to be spent on non-combat events, but not because I think less time should be spent on non-combat events, but because I think the amount of time spent on non-combat events should be fluid.
3e doesn't force you to spend ages on non-combat if you don't want to. If you want to bounce from combat encounter to combat encounter, then you can certainly do that in 3e — your DM never has to present you with a situation that can't be solved by stabbing it. But if you do want to do non-combat things, and don't want to handwave them or houserule them, then 3e's rules are better for doing so than 4e's.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Actually, come to think of it... what non-combat rules does 3.5 have that 4E doesn't have that you're begrudging anyway? It occurs to me that there's nothing I can think of.
Other than profession skills, which are ridiculous in my opinion. Those kinds of skills should be handled as plot devices. Fits better with the narrative.
That's actually 4E having MORE rules. If you ignore skill challenge rules, where are you at?
I am iffy about skill challenges myself. I think that it's an interesting way of thinking about skills as more than just skill checks, but I think that they don't really serve their purpose: 9 times out of 10, you're better off just going with narrative. About the only skill challenges that really work are diplomacy based skill challenges.
And no: using fly to avoid having to climb would count as an automatic success.
Further: If you're operating on old DMG 1 rules for skill challenges, you're in the past. 4E's skill challenges became a good deal more robust with the Rules Compendium.
If there's one thing I CAN say makes 4E substantially worse than 3E it's that they've had to update things left and right so much, meaning that unless you're keeping up with online updates, you're gonna be shelling out cash for every last Dn D accessory just to get the latest version of the rules set. But honestly, isn't everyone doing that anyway? <3
edited 17th Sep '11 11:33:55 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

4E's out-of-combat mechanics are superior. I will argue that to be the case.
Does 3E spend more energy and time on out-of-combat mechanics? Sure. But you know what they say-work smarter not harder.
edited 15th Sep '11 5:50:42 PM by TheyCallMeTomu