Question from an old-timer - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Question from an old-timer

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
aljovin
Dec 10, 2008 21:09:08 I've played the basic (red box) D&D, AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition (all as a DM).

I've been WAY out of the loop for the last 13-14 years of D&D.

I've recently got the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual for the edition 3.0. we played once and I liked it enough to want to play again. Now, my question is what kind of difference is there with edition 3.0 and 3.5. And again between 3.0 and 4th edition? I'm not planning on buying all the books, we'll probably be playing once a month, so no major investment on my part, and before I think about buying a newer version of the game, I'd like to know if it's worth the efforts.

For some reasons, I read some threads here, and it seems to me that SO much as changed in 4th edition, that I may not even recognize the game, am I just not remembering correctly, or it has changed so much that it could be called anything but D&D?
#2
aljovin
Dec 10, 2008 21:12:26 I just realized, I have posted in the wrong forum for this... could a WIZO move it?
#3
archangel_james
Dec 11, 2008 1:02:32 Version 3.0 and 3.5 are pretty much the same. Some things changed a bit, like skills, classes, spells, but they two editions are wholly compatible.

Fourth edition is totally incompatible, although noticeably based on third edition. As an old-timer, you may find 4e more to your liking; it has been described by many to be similar in style to the older editions--sort of a return to basics. Indeed, one of third edition's biggest problems was it over-reliance on printed rules for every little thing.
#4
Nautilus
Dec 11, 2008 19:33:39 Would you still recognise the game? Check out a 4e pdf of a character sheet; there'll be plenty around the net. They show that 4e characters still have the traditional six abilities. They still have AC, hit points, XP, levels, skills and feats. During play, people still cheer at 20s and groan at 1s.

Some of the major differences are: 1st level PCs start out tough, not weak - hit points in the mid to high 20s are common, and the lowest possible is 18. Attackers roll the d20, regardless of the attack - melee or magical. There's more movement and tactics in combat. Every class has its own special moves (powers) and will predominantly use these. Ordinary attacks, which were a staple for non-magical 3e classes, are now known as 'basic attacks' and have been very much relegated to the background.
#5
pigknight
Dec 14, 2008 22:41:51 Also most 4e propoganda is a lie.
#6
doctorhook
Dec 14, 2008 22:52:02
Also most 4e propoganda is a lie.

To which propaganda are you referring?
#7
pigknight
Dec 15, 2008 16:15:12 No roleplaying.

It's like WoW (it's actually like Guild Wars).

Only girly men play 4e.

$e.

Real geeks play 3.5.

Real men play 3.5.

Hot girls play 3.5.

Hitler plays 4e.
#8
Cyvaris
Dec 15, 2008 16:29:48
No roleplaying.

It's like WoW (it's actually like Guild Wars).

Only girly men play 4e.

$e.

Real geeks play 3.5.

Real men play 3.5.

Hot girls play 3.5.

Hitler plays 4e.

Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D
#9
ekio
Dec 15, 2008 16:38:33
Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D

Yes.
#10
aljovin
Dec 15, 2008 16:54:23 I actually played twice with the 3rd edition, and then tried to find the French books (well, we're French-Canadians) and it turns out that not only are they hard to find, but used, they cost not much less than the new 4th edition. The Player in French was 65$, now for the 4th edition: 50$, used 3rd: 25$.

After talking to a few people around, the feedback I had was that the 4th edition was quicker to play, so I bought the 4th edition Roleplaying Starter Set to get a feel of the game. I've ordered the 4th edition by now.

I'm looking forward to see how it plays out with the full ruleset, but so far, we're happy with what we've seen.

Having said that, it doesn't feel the same game as 2nd edition, but more board-gamish to me. But for me, it's fine. I really look forward to try out the Scale of Wars adventures!
#11
guest233075098_dup
Dec 15, 2008 19:27:01 The best comparison between 3rd and 4th that I've come across is that 3rd is best at building game worlds, 4th is best at playing in them.

In 3rd edition monsters and players use the same rules. Monsters have monster levels, and some monsters (specifically Dragons) need to have feats, skills, and spells assigned before they can be used.

In 4th edition monsters use simplified rules compared to players. Monsters as shown in the monster manual are complete and ready to play. Monsters can still be made tougher (or easier) using info in the DMG.

In 3rd edition you have more options making characters with unlimited multi-classing and prestige classes.

In 4th edition you have more options playing characters, At first level, 2 at will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily power and enough hit points not to go down in one hit.

I think both are good systems with their strengths and weaknesses. I like 4th edition better because it easier to DM, and because the characters are powerful even at first level without becoming a paralyzing list of abilities at higher levels. But not everyone likes the changes (and there are MANY changes).

There are a couple intro options that would let you try the game to see if YOU like it before committing to the full package. Keep of the Shadowfell came out before the main books and includes a light version of the rules along with premade characters for the adventure. At least the first printing did, I don't know for sure that it's still there. I think there is also an intro pack of some kind, but I haven't looked into that.
#12
doctorhook
Dec 16, 2008 8:27:31
Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D

Yeah, sorry. There's nothing cool or funny about Hitler.
#13
awesome_dude
Dec 16, 2008 10:32:59
Yeah, sorry. There's nothing cool or funny about Hitler.

You're right. He did look sort of dorky and didn't make many good jokes.
#14
Cyvaris
Dec 16, 2008 11:16:41 Just playing devils advoacte one of my favorites things to do. Sorry to all offended.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 aljovin Dec 10, 2008 21:09:08	I've played the basic (red box) D&D, AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition (all as a DM). I've been WAY out of the loop for the last 13-14 years of D&D. I've recently got the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual for the edition 3.0. we played once and I liked it enough to want to play again. Now, my question is what kind of difference is there with edition 3.0 and 3.5. And again between 3.0 and 4th edition? I'm not planning on buying all the books, we'll probably be playing once a month, so no major investment on my part, and before I think about buying a newer version of the game, I'd like to know if it's worth the efforts. For some reasons, I read some threads here, and it seems to me that SO much as changed in 4th edition, that I may not even recognize the game, am I just not remembering correctly, or it has changed so much that it could be called anything but D&D?
#2 aljovin Dec 10, 2008 21:12:26	I just realized, I have posted in the wrong forum for this... could a WIZO move it?
#3 archangel_james Dec 11, 2008 1:02:32	Version 3.0 and 3.5 are pretty much the same. Some things changed a bit, like skills, classes, spells, but they two editions are wholly compatible. Fourth edition is totally incompatible, although noticeably based on third edition. As an old-timer, you may find 4e more to your liking; it has been described by many to be similar in style to the older editions--sort of a return to basics. Indeed, one of third edition's biggest problems was it over-reliance on printed rules for every little thing.
#4 Nautilus Dec 11, 2008 19:33:39	Would you still recognise the game? Check out a 4e pdf of a character sheet; there'll be plenty around the net. They show that 4e characters still have the traditional six abilities. They still have AC, hit points, XP, levels, skills and feats. During play, people still cheer at 20s and groan at 1s. Some of the major differences are: 1st level PCs start out tough, not weak - hit points in the mid to high 20s are common, and the lowest possible is 18. Attackers roll the d20, regardless of the attack - melee or magical. There's more movement and tactics in combat. Every class has its own special moves (powers) and will predominantly use these. Ordinary attacks, which were a staple for non-magical 3e classes, are now known as 'basic attacks' and have been very much relegated to the background.
#5 pigknight Dec 14, 2008 22:41:51	Also most 4e propoganda is a lie.
#6 doctorhook Dec 14, 2008 22:52:02	Also most 4e propoganda is a lie. To which propaganda are you referring?
#7 pigknight Dec 15, 2008 16:15:12	No roleplaying. It's like WoW (it's actually like Guild Wars). Only girly men play 4e. $e. Real geeks play 3.5. Real men play 3.5. Hot girls play 3.5. Hitler plays 4e.
#8 Cyvaris Dec 15, 2008 16:29:48	No roleplaying. It's like WoW (it's actually like Guild Wars). Only girly men play 4e. $e. Real geeks play 3.5. Real men play 3.5. Hot girls play 3.5. Hitler plays 4e. Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D
#9 ekio Dec 15, 2008 16:38:33	Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D Yes.
#10 aljovin Dec 15, 2008 16:54:23	I actually played twice with the 3rd edition, and then tried to find the French books (well, we're French-Canadians) and it turns out that not only are they hard to find, but used, they cost not much less than the new 4th edition. The Player in French was 65$, now for the 4th edition: 50$, used 3rd: 25$. After talking to a few people around, the feedback I had was that the 4th edition was quicker to play, so I bought the 4th edition Roleplaying Starter Set to get a feel of the game. I've ordered the 4th edition by now. I'm looking forward to see how it plays out with the full ruleset, but so far, we're happy with what we've seen. Having said that, it doesn't feel the same game as 2nd edition, but more board-gamish to me. But for me, it's fine. I really look forward to try out the Scale of Wars adventures!
#11 guest233075098_dup Dec 15, 2008 19:27:01	The best comparison between 3rd and 4th that I've come across is that 3rd is best at building game worlds, 4th is best at playing in them. In 3rd edition monsters and players use the same rules. Monsters have monster levels, and some monsters (specifically Dragons) need to have feats, skills, and spells assigned before they can be used. In 4th edition monsters use simplified rules compared to players. Monsters as shown in the monster manual are complete and ready to play. Monsters can still be made tougher (or easier) using info in the DMG. In 3rd edition you have more options making characters with unlimited multi-classing and prestige classes. In 4th edition you have more options playing characters, At first level, 2 at will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily power and enough hit points not to go down in one hit. I think both are good systems with their strengths and weaknesses. I like 4th edition better because it easier to DM, and because the characters are powerful even at first level without becoming a paralyzing list of abilities at higher levels. But not everyone likes the changes (and there are MANY changes). There are a couple intro options that would let you try the game to see if YOU like it before committing to the full package. Keep of the Shadowfell came out before the main books and includes a light version of the rules along with premade characters for the adventure. At least the first printing did, I don't know for sure that it's still there. I think there is also an intro pack of some kind, but I haven't looked into that.
#12 doctorhook Dec 16, 2008 8:27:31	Is it bad if that makes me want to play more??:D Yeah, sorry. There's nothing cool or funny about Hitler.
#13 awesome_dude Dec 16, 2008 10:32:59	Yeah, sorry. There's nothing cool or funny about Hitler. You're right. He did look sort of dorky and didn't make many good jokes.
#14 Cyvaris Dec 16, 2008 11:16:41	Just playing devils advoacte one of my favorites things to do. Sorry to all offended.