D&D Edition Debate

[Cade Antilles]

Since the concept of debating the strengths and weaknesses of the various D&D Editions (mostly 3.5 vs 4) seems to be such a hot topic . . . why not have a dedicated thread for it? So . . . here it be!

So, have at it y'all!

[Bob The Magic Camel]

Replying from the other thread.

D&D All the Way, buddy!

I play 4E, by the way. Have to say I've had the most fun with this edition than any other.

Please don't flamecrapstorm me for that. It's true. 4E is great, and I'm having fun both playing and DM-ing it.

I don't mean to give the impression I think anyone who likes 4e is wrong. I just disagree with people who state that 4e is definitively better than any other edition for everyone.

For combat 4e is leaps and bounds superior to any other D&D system so far. Though I am curious... what kind of campaign are you running or playing in? I've found certain types of games are much better in 4e, certain games are better in 3.5, and some are better in 4e with a modified skill system.

I wouldn't say it's better for everything, just an overall improvement. For instance due to restricted licensing one cannot create mods, and even if the system allowed it, it would take a lot more time and effort to create good 4e classes. Of course, making new monsters is easier, so that balances out. I'm still planning on sitting down with the 3.5 SRD and thrashing out a Steampunk mod.

Which is another point: there's no 4e SRD, which makes crafting my own adventures take longer. It does seem like they're leaning towards trying to get people to buy premade modules instead of crafting their own. It makes sense from a business perspective, but I always run my own adventures. I ran one module once and it wasn't nearly enjoyable, because I had very little creative input.

[Telaril]

Most of my 4e experience is the starter adventure, a few mini-delves, and the Penny-Arcade/PvP podcast. Most of the rest of the information I have comes from my group, who have another game they play with a different DM.

So far nobody has ever described to me a game of 4e that wasn't mostly combat. The Penny-Arcade/PvP/WilWheaton ones certainly seem to stress combat. Not that combat isn't fun, but when I started running my current game my players asked specifically for a less combat-oriented game. I was actually taking over DMing in our group and our DM started playing. He'd previously run a really great long campaign of L5R that was less combat-oriented than most 4e games seem to be but still relied very heavily on combat, and several of our players were just getting burned out. One member of my group hadn't ever played ANY form of D&D before, and I wanted him to get his feet wet, so we decided on Pathfinder supplemented by 3.5.

I wouldn't be frustrated by 4e's simplified skills and lack of flexibility in character grown and creation if it weren't for the fact that the combat seems so GOOD. The "at will/encounter/daily" mechanic is just GREAT. It's much easier for new players, etc. But, as I've said before, I feel that it really limits the ability to set your character apart from others in out-of-combat situations.

[Bob The Magic Camel]

Taking your example of the money grabbing merchant being good at appraising versus the empathic bard being good at sense motive being rolled into one, here's how I see it.

Either way, it requires a certain level of insight. The nature of supply and demand is quite complex, as is reading people. Of course, one gets better with experience, and wisdom - the application of knowledge - certainly helps. Then for some reason or other your character may be naturally insightful, this is represented by training. If a player wants more bonuses than that, now they have to give me a better reason than "the number on my sheet says so". Maybe their parents were merchants.

The limited skills stops players defining their characters by their 7 levels in diplomacy. Instead it forces them to role-play more, relating their back story to what they want to do, and why they're good at it. Even the fiercest of roll-players might succumb in order to gain a bonus on a check or two.

As for the type of games I run, I like to run plot-focused games. The characters are always part of something bigger than themselves. My 3.5 group were instrumental in the discovery of the plains (I'm thinking about rewriting that at some point for 4th edition. It's something I'm quite proud of, it just needs a bit of neatening up a polishing off. It was, after all my first attempt at DMing.) My 4th edition group are attempting to liberate their country from two empires, by getting them to fight each other.

I haven't got enough experience in 4th edition to know how well non-combat encounters work, but I don't tend to follow the rules there anyway. Yes, the level of skill the players have in diplomacy helps, but I never make them roll. From the character's perspective there may be a sense of randomness involved, after all they don't know what kind of mood he's in. But I'm the DM, I do. If they can't get the Duke to send assistances through persuasion (or possibly him just humouring them) then they don't get the Duke's assistance. But equally, good rhetoric will award them more than a +4 bonus on their rolls.

[CyberTractor]

Seriously?

[Cade Antilles]

I actually refuse to touch 4th Ed, but not for rules reasons. I suppose it could be superior. It could be the greatest system ever constructed for an RPG. But I won't play it. Ever.

"Why?" you ask. Well, I've spent well over $2000 on 3rd/3.5. This does not include my investment in d20 Modern or d20 Star Wars, of which I have all WotC published books for each of those systems. I refuse to make that investment in 4th Ed.

"But Cade," you exclaim, "you don't have to buy all of the books to play 4th! That's just crazy!" No, y'see, I know me. If I play it, and I like it, I'll have to buy it. And I cannot let that happen.

To illustrate how much money I've spent on 3rd/3.5, I'll soon have a picture of me and my books. You'll see what I'm talking about.

[Bob The Magic Camel]

I actually refuse to touch 4th Ed, but not for rules reasons. I suppose it could be superior. It could be the greatest system ever constructed for an RPG. But I won't play it. Ever.

"Why?" you ask. Well, I've spent well over $2000 on 3rd/3.5. This does not include my investment in d20 Modern or d20 Star Wars, of which I have all WotC published books for each of those systems. I refuse to make that investment in 4th Ed.

"But Cade," you exclaim, "you don't have to buy all of the books to play 4th! That's just crazy!" No, y'see, I know me. If I play it, and I like it, I'll have to buy it. And I cannot let that happen.

To illustrate how much money I've spent on 3rd/3.5, I'll soon have a picture of me and my books. You'll see what I'm talking about.

I was bitter about 4e for a long while. I currently own 4 3.5 source books, so I'm "only" £80 invested. At the time 4e was announced, I only had the 3. So I certainly wasn't invested to the same extent you are. My problem lay in the fact it was announced 2 weeks after I bought my 3.5 source books.

[browncoat]

I'm playing a D&D 4th game, and up till now, it's basically a tactics game with some cutscenes. That's probably just the DM's style, I heard from other gamers that D&D 4th is "so much better" for role-playing.
Anyways, I have a couple of other systems I really like, so actually I don't care.
I've been running a 3.5 campaing, maybe someday I'll run a 4E campaign, but in the near future I'll rather run a lot of other games.
And to be honest, I don't own a single D&D book of any edition.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I'm happy to argue the merits of 3.5 versus the travesties of 4.0 any day, but I think we have something a little more important to consider at the moment.

[Joshua]

I'm happy to argue the merits of 3.5 versus the travesties of 4.0 any day, but I think we have something a little more important to consider at the moment.

This is terrible news, both of them now, well, may your reincarnation go well [roll='reincarnation']1d100[/roll]

[Cade Antilles]

Yeah, I just read about that over at Order of the Stick. Condolences to the family of Mr. Arneson, may he rest in peace.

[Joshua]

Yeah, I just read about that over at Order of the Stick. Condolences to the family of Mr. Arneson, may he rest in peace.

that made me incredibly sad, while still being funny, I cried a little.

[Jillers]

Well, Twenty Ought Nine continues to suck in the death department...

On the topic - I don't think there's much need to argue over this. 2.5 will always be my favorite version of D&D, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with 4th edition; it's just really different.
To me it seems 4th edition is just easier jumping off point for people who have never played D&D, but play MMORPGs: You like your WoW characters? Well here are some miniatures that have stats and things; oh! you like those too? Well here's a bunch of rules for playing with them with your friends the way you do online!"


Again, as a more serious note: I read about Mr. Arneson too, and share everyone's feelings; my most sincere condolences to his family.

[Red Charlie]

D&D Verison 1 MAN!!! Can never take it away from me!!!!

[What?]

I actually refuse to touch 4th Ed, but not for rules reasons. I suppose it could be superior. It could be the greatest system ever constructed for an RPG. But I won't play it. Ever.

"Why?" you ask. Well, I've spent well over $2000 on 3rd/3.5. This does not include my investment in d20 Modern or d20 Star Wars, of which I have all WotC published books for each of those systems. I refuse to make that investment in 4th Ed.

"But Cade," you exclaim, "you don't have to buy all of the books to play 4th! That's just crazy!" No, y'see, I know me. If I play it, and I like it, I'll have to buy it. And I cannot let that happen.

To illustrate how much money I've spent on 3rd/3.5, I'll soon have a picture of me and my books. You'll see what I'm talking about.

That's actually quite smart of you. I had a similar number of 3.5 books. Then I ran out of room, and thus gave away 90% of them in order to make more room for 4E books. (and GURPS, and World of Darkness, and Cthulhutech, and.... I'm such a game whore).

[Kag]

*stuff about 4e being combat-oriented*

Huh? How the game is played is a reflection on the players, not the product.

And if you want less combat, just don't fight. It certainly makes dungeons more interesting.

Anyway, my only problem with 4e is the multiclass rules, which I intend to homebrew at some point. Also Wizards needs to release more supplements so we can have an overwhelming abundance of character options again.

[WhoWouldWinInAFight?]

I got into third edition rather late and also into the 4th edition just this January (the store had 50% all things in it so I bought the three book box set). And I must say that 4th edition was much easier for me to get into. Though I am annoyed a bit by their making you character a special kind of person rather then just your race and a class.

[notomtolose]

I've only scratched the surface of either system, but... well, 3.5 gives you more options, but the rules for implementing them are kind of ridiculous and often broken. 4e, on the other hand, is simpler to use and harder to break, but limiting. It sort of tells you how you should play.

So basically, 3.5 is Windows and 4e is a Mac.

[Lyinginbedmon]

There's a lot of rule changes that I abhorre, but my chief complaint is the fluff they decided to put behind it.

I mean, they got rid of the Great Wheel, a precision instrument showing the planes and their placements and positions in the multiverse, in favour of what is essentially a very runny egg. And they switched Succubi from Demons to Devils, and I have yet to think up a reasonable enough way of prostitution being a Lawful act.

[What?]

How is prostitution any more or less lawful then any other transaction? Frankly, the level of cooperation, organization, and exploitation involved in running a brothel is far more reminiscent of Law then Chaos. Not to mention the whole temptation scheme being generally associated with the word devil over demon, which has connotations of more direct, obvious, and physical methods of tearing one down.

[InsaneFool]

I have yet to think up a reasonable enough way of prostitution being a Lawful act.

You've clearly never been to Amsterdam.