A group of friends and I all want to learn to play the game, but we don't know which rulesbooks to pick up. We know 4th edition is the newest, but we have heard some bad things about 4th edition on this and other boards. Which is a better rule set to learn by?
It rather depends on your preferences. 4e is easier to pick up and play without any prior experience, and it's also better suited for cinematic action-oriented gameplay.
3.5 on the other hand is better if you're interested in a high-risk simulationist game. Both have their merits, although depending on the tastes of your playgroup one or the other may work better for you.
I'd generally suggest 4E over 3E for a new group, since the game rules are more straightforward than the 3E ones; the degree of 'system mastery' that 3E leans towards is difficult to cope with if you don't have an experienced player to lead you through it.
It rather depends on your preferences. 4e is easier to pick up and play without any prior experience, and it's also better suited for cinematic action-oriented gameplay.
3.5 on the other hand is better if you're interested in a high-risk simulationist game. Both have their merits, although depending on the tastes of your playgroup one or the other may work better for you.
+1
Also, consider this:
-- with 4e being the newest, it is what is actually going to be recieving support by WotC, at they have stopped a support for 3.5.
-- 3.5, on the other hand, has a much larger body of player-generated gameology.
Given this plus the previous post (I HATE THIS NEW REPLY SCREEN!!!), take your pick.
-- 3.5, on the other hand, has a much larger body of player-generated gameology.
4E seems to be getting there though. There is currently much fan made material for 4E, and with the new forums structure (Blogs, groups, and wikis) we may soon see even more made available.
Personally, I've found 4e is easier to get the hang of.
I knwo that when my friends and I began playing 3E, it took quite a while (a year or so) to really get a handle on the system. 4E on the other hand, was pretty much a weekend of reading and we were ready for some dragon stomping.
4e is easier to learn, easier to play, and much better balanced than 3e. I highly recommend it.
Majority of the people here are pro-4th edition, just to let you know.
I've never played 3.5, but did play 3.0... It was fun. I liked it, but I also like 4th edition. The only gripe I have with 4th, is that all of the classes are equal. Melee warriors do the same amount of damage as spellcasters do, and that's a new thing for me(I've played since around '95-'96).
If you want a balanced game where everyone can shine, then play 4th.
If you want a game where it has more diversity, due to being out longer, then play 3.0 or 3.5.
The only thing is, the earlier editions are harder to play. There's a lot of quirky rules. 4th edition might be good, mainly because it has only been out for a little more than a year.
pro 3.5, anti-4: reason: to me 3.5 is easier to learn...dont know why...
from wat i can stomach from 4.0 is that it is....well dry is the word i am looking for: it is set into place too well-not to mention it is way too foregn for me even begin to describe.....i read the first players handbook for 3.5 and 4.0......trust it maybe a little tough but 3.5 gives you some diverse ways to go progression where as 4.0 say "here! this what you can choose." 3.5 says"just keep it legal-i dont how you do it."
and back to the "set in stone" thing: i think you should just pick one up. read it. then pick up the other on and read it. then pick. there point blank simple.
What type of game you will have will honestly depend on how you choose to use the game, at least in my opinion. Neither system is better, just different systems for different people. An objective opinion on these boards regarding which system is better is...Well. I wish you luck, but I hope you have a thick skin!
My advice? See if you can borrow the books from someone, and see if you like each system and decide from there. Problematic, yes, but probably the only way to tell if you like the system. Do you have a game store nearby where you can drop in on some DnD events, or borrow the books from?
3.5 :x I don't knopw, 4e confuses me <.<
I personally prefer 4e, but you can try them both out for free, so decide for yourself. Download the D&D test drive for free from the D&D homepage www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/d...
You can also find the 3.5 SRD for free (just google it), but it will be easier to learn if you can find someone that already understands the rules.
I've been teacing new players DnD for 30+ years, 4e is easiest to learn and teach to new players. I have found it difficult to teach older players. Sometimes it is hard to leave old paradigms behind. I remember a friend thinking a gnome bard was just unthinkable and bizzare.
I noticed that most of the people who have played both started with 3.5 (or earlier). I started with D&D 4th edition and I learned it in one session. I've also had plenty of times when I've sat down with new people and at the table explained everything they needed to know in about five minutes. The rules are very easy to pick up. Additionally, the classes have pretty much the same learning curve, which is a big plus for me. I can be a fighter or a wizard and only have to take a minute to learn the rules differences between them.
I did give 3.5 a shot, but found it way too stressful. Some of the rules are odd (e.g grapple), there's some quasi-classes that seemed weird (ex-Paladins?), and the learning curve between classes was pretty different. The Fighter just stabs all the time (low learning curve) and the Wizard has a bazillion spells and has to prepare them at the start of each day (high learning curve). That and I preferred balanced classes, but the martial classes in 3.5 are a whole lot weaker than magic users at higher levels, which wasn't too fun for me. So I stick with 4e.
Also, from what I can tell, one 4e encounter is equal to about three 3.5 encounters. And yes, that's partly why 4e combat takes longer.
I started playing with 4E. In fact, my whole group was new to D&D, and we all learned together. We all picked up at least the Palyer's Handbook, our DM picked up the three core books, and when we came together for our first session, we all brought the books and it took more time, but we helped each other figure things out. It didn't take that long. I think that it's a fairly simple, stright-forward system that lets new people in fairly easily.
I can't speak to 3.0 or 3.5 as I didn't play them, but I'm enjoying 4E, and all the new material coming out on a regular basis helps to keep momentum for a new group.
Speaking from experience,
I DMed 2e, 3 and 3.5e, I also played 4e.
The earlier the version the harder it is to pick up. If no one in the group has any experience playing earlier versions (1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e) I suggest sticking with 4e.
I never played 4e and picked it up in one, 6 hour session. Everything is balanced and simplified.
My friends and I personally prefer 3.5 as we find it has more abilities and is generally more advanced.
It's kinda funny, but everyone says 4e is easier ... and I shrug in response ...
I picked up both the PHB 1 and DMG of 4e off a friend and started flicking through it ... and subsequently gave up when things like powers came up .... seriously...
3.x you pretty much only need to look at the level graph at the front of each character class and you know what you get, and when you get it, and everything you need to know about what your character can do and how well protected it is againts spells, and likelihood of how well it can smack stuff around.
4e .. you have powers and other stuff you have to apply ..... argh .... took me awhile to figure out what the HELL was a 'w' in alot of powers descriptions.
..and I refuse to believe I might just be slow and too stupid to get it....
And what the hell is up with paragon paths?
In 3.x you EARNT your right to take a prc .... you put hard work into figuring out the stats, how to assign feats so you can take the class ... etc etc
Now it just seems like it's built into the system .... sure it might be more balanced ... but I would think that it would feel less epic for your character?
And don't get me started about the spells <.<
Now I don't 'hate' 4e ... I find it hard anybody can 'hate' anything that is merely pieces of papers bound in cardboard. It's a different system ... but it's one that seems largely to reduce what the plasyer can do with their character .... and in my experience, pen and paper rpgs shouldn't be like that :x
So if you want freedom in your game, I suggest 3.x ... 4e just seems to be a little too grind-tastic like in an mmo ...
Addendum:
Oh and 4e didnt hvae monk or druid in the first PHB .... my two favourite classes .... so yes, I was spurned by 4e as soon as I picked it up ... so very much biased :P And no ... it's not a consolkation that they appear in other books .... the fact that 4e shafted my two favourite classes, which would force me to pick up another book to get them hurts me :P
I think 4e would be your best bet, especially if no one has played before. I think 4e is a good game, not great but good. I played 3.0, then moved on to 3.5, and for me it is harder to think outside the box in 4e, in 3.x I knew that if I wanted my fighter to cut the rope to the chandelier, it wasn't going to take me more than a few whacks. With 4e the way that even the most basic of tasks scale with your level seems to not make any sense, so it forces me to stay in my box a little more. Since your starting out though as long as you use a little common sense with the 4e ruleset, everything should work out great.
I've played both. I learned on 3.5 (4 didnt exist yet), and I found the transfer to 4e incredibly easy.
4th edition is easy to pick up, learn, and play, and the powers make you just feel awesome.
3.5 on the other hand, is incredibly complex, and at first level you feel really weak on occasion. I go back to play it, but I rarely play below 5th level, because thats when things start getting interesting. Before that, spellcasters are basically archers with a few occasional powers they can use.
Really, I would play 4e with new players. It's the new thing, and its incredibly balanced. Everyone contributes, everyone has fun.
3.x you pretty much only need to look at the level graph at the front of each character class and you know what you get, and when you get it, and everything you need to know about what your character can do and how well protected it is againts spells, and likelihood of how well it can smack stuff around.
4e .. you have powers and other stuff you have to apply ..... argh .... took me awhile to figure out what the HELL was a 'w' in alot of powers descriptions.
..and I refuse to believe I might just be slow and too stupid to get it....
And what the hell is up with paragon paths?
In 3.x you EARNT your right to take a prc .... you put hard work into figuring out the stats, how to assign feats so you can take the class ... etc etc
In order to take a paragon path, you have to be 11th level. So yes, you do earn your new class in the game. Thank you very much. As for your concern about Druids, they were in the PHB #2. Does that answer your questions?
I'd say take your pick. 3.5 is a simulationist outlook where the power balance leans towards magic (as some believe it should), and 4th Edition is more abstract and attempts to keep all PCs equally powerful. (as some believe it should).
If you want just raw enjoyment, I can't say. I enjoyed 3.5, and I enjoy 4th Edition. I stick with 4th Edition because I enjoy DMing it, and I find that my enjoyment of D&D can often transcend the rules system. On the other hand, when I do play and look for some enjoyment in the combat, I find 4th Edition is a better system for me. Even playing a lowly Deva Barbarian, you can be useful. Everyone in a party, in 4th Edition, has a usefulness to them.
But 3.5 had its investment in realism, which some people prefer. I know it took me a while to get a grip on how abstract 4th Edition is, that fighters and wizards both use encounter and daily powers. Realism is good if you're going for that -- you want a game where realism comes before all else, and the PCs have to think in those terms.
Honestly, it's pure opinion. Maybe 4th Edition is easier to learn, but the two rules systems have very similar skeletons. It's much easier to teach someone a 3.5 Fighter than a 4th Fighter, but it's also much easir to teach a 4th Wizard than a 3.5 Wizard. It varies from class to class, person to person.
I'd say take your pick. 3.5 is a simulationist outlook where the power balance leans towards magic (as some believe it should), and 4th Edition is more abstract and attempts to keep all PCs equally powerful. (as some believe it should).
Unless you're at a low level, in which case a magic user is patently useless xP.
check my sig for almost all you need to try both out, virtually free of charge (other then paper & printer ink).
personally i'd go with 4th ed for a new group. for me, it fixes virtually all the issues i had with 3rd and is overall easier to understand. while some options don't exist for 4th that existed with 3rd, for me more exist in 4th that work without the need for 3rd's system mastery if those concepts were possible/viable.
3rd ed has more fiddly bits then 4th ed and while i like fiddly bits, i prefer those to be extras, not required. note that it doesn't stop me from playing 3rd though, just stops it from being my system of choice.
A group of friends and I all want to learn to play the game, but we don't know which rulesbooks to pick up. We know 4th edition is the newest, but we have heard some bad things about 4th edition on this and other boards. Which is a better rule set to learn by?
If you are all new to the game, I would recommend 4E. I find that 4E is also easier to DM than in previous editions. The 4E DMG has more advice on DM'ing. Minions make it easier to create encounters with a large number of enemies. The monster roles make it easier to pick monsters to create an encounter or to round out an encounter. It is also easier to create a balanced encounter for the group than in previous editions.
4E is much easier to deal with for new players IMHO...However, as to what game is better or that you should get into...the first reply i think gave the best short description.
3.5E is better for simulationist players. If your players like to do anything in a game world, they want to believe the world is 100% real, with every little detail possible for them to do without house ruling, and they want lots of options, etc, 3.XE will be better. If not, 4E is better.
Our group is split between the 2 as most players prefer 3.5X, some like 4E and me..i like half and half..so we've split the rules and converted what we like into 4E and rewrote from the ground up, what we don'tlike in any edition..hehe 
Sanjay
Weighing the merits of each edition could take a long time, but the short of it is that most will agree that 4th edition is better for a group new to the game.
I personally never found 3.5 to be any harder to learn for a player than 4e (some classes are more complicated, some less), but as a prospective DM, I found 4e to be a godsend.
Creating encounters in 3.X edition was/is frustrating. The CR system is rough and sometimes confusing and as I found out last saturday, not always accurate. (I had a huge monstrous spider attack a group of 4 level 4 characters. Thats only 1 CR above their level and they were 32 point "high power" characters. It killed one of them. They were at full health before the battle. I guess that is ONE definition of diminishing 25% of their resources.)
The system in 4e is not only much easier on the DM, it is downright fun. I spent a little time theorizing a 4e adventure and creating characters and encounters and all that, was just FUN. And not time consuming at all. The system made so much sense, allowed for much more mixed bags (I swear the 3.5 CR system is made only for encounters with solo creatures) and the more robust nature of both player characters and creatures makes the encounter being ruined by stray die rolls far less likely.
4e is more fun for a DM to build the game which is, quite possibly, the hardest thing about getting a game running. The DM can focus on making the encounter interesting instead of the stats and equipment of each creature.
If I ever DM a D&D game ever again, it will be 4e. I only didnt do 4e this time around because my group insisted on 3.5. Oh well, it is only 3 session group.
In order to take a paragon path, you have to be 11th level. So yes, you do earn your new class in the game. Thank you very much. As for your concern about Druids, they were in the PHB #2. Does that answer your questions?
I also wrote...
" Oh and 4e didnt hvae monk or druid in the first PHB .... my two favourite classes .... so yes, I was spurned by 4e as soon as I picked it up ... so very much biased :P And no ... it's not a consolkation that they appear in other books .... the fact that 4e shafted my two favourite classes, which would force me to pick up another book to get them hurts me :P..."
Buying three phbs to just get to play the two classes I want, especially that they we're on offer from the first of the cores in 3.5, annoys me ...
Paragon paths ... sorry ... I don't want my character progression mapped out for me in such a manner. I prefer PrC''s like in 3.5 ... they made sense.
Sorry, I prefer 3.x ... games makes more sense :P
I'd recommend 4th Edition to a new group.
Firstly there is the DDI character Builder (free of use up to level 3) which makes character creation a doddle.
Secondly the way the Character Builder prints out powers on cards makes it a lot easier to seperate what you abilities you have.
IMO 4th Ed is a lot easier to pick up from the start and would be simpler for a new group. You can even download quick start rules and then run Keep of the Shadowfell for free to see if it suits you!
I personally never found 3.5 to be any harder to learn for a player than 4e (some classes are more complicated, some less), but as a prospective DM, I found 4e to be a godsend.
Creating encounters in 3.X edition was/is frustrating. The CR system is rough and sometimes confusing and as I found out last saturday, not always accurate. (I had a huge monstrous spider attack a group of 4 level 4 characters. Thats only 1 CR above their level and they were 32 point "high power" characters. It killed one of them. They were at full health before the battle. I guess that is ONE definition of diminishing 25% of their resources.)
The system in 4e is not only much easier on the DM, it is downright fun. I spent a little time theorizing a 4e adventure and creating characters and encounters and all that, was just FUN. And not time consuming at all. The system made so much sense, allowed for much more mixed bags (I swear the 3.5 CR system is made only for encounters with solo creatures) and the more robust nature of both player characters and creatures makes the encounter being ruined by stray die rolls far less likely.
4e is more fun for a DM to build the game which is, quite possibly, the hardest thing about getting a game running. The DM can focus on making the encounter interesting instead of the stats and equipment of each creature.
One thing I found was that 4E provides a much larger margin of error for creating a challenging encounter without being downright leathal, particularly for level 1 characters. In 3.5, even the toughest character can die in the first encounter due to a back roll. In 4E, it takes a few bad rolls to drop a PC and then a few more bad rolls after that before he dies.
When starting out, I do not want PC's dying on their first encounter very easily. 4E allows you to create a sense of danger without having the consequences be leathal. My group doesn't like being dropped to 0 hp, and I don't like having to kill PC's left and right. For me at least, I find I don't have to pull any punches (like I did in 3E) to have a fun and fair encounter that is challenging fromt he PC's point of view.
One thing I found was that 4E provides a much larger margin of error for creating a challenging encounter without being downright leathal, particularly for level 1 characters. In 3.5, even the toughest character can die in the first encounter due to a back roll. In 4E, it takes a few bad rolls to drop a PC and then a few more bad rolls after that before he dies.When starting out, I do not want PC's dying on their first encounter very easily. 4E allows you to create a sense of danger without having the consequences be leathal. My group doesn't like being dropped to 0 hp, and I don't like having to kill PC's left and right. For me at least, I find I don't have to pull any punches (like I did in 3E) to have a fun and fair encounter that is challenging fromt he PC's point of view.
I agree, I actually DM'd a 1 shot of 4e and I didn't pull punches and I felt no fear of a character dying. I felt no desire to pull a punch, and yet I don't feel like the players weren't challenged. They were. One character was dropped to negative hit points but didn't die.
With 3.5 the players either kill it in one hit, almost die, or die.
In order to take a paragon path, you have to be 11th level. So yes, you do earn your new class in the game. Thank you very much. As for your concern about Druids, they were in the PHB #2. Does that answer your questions?
I also wrote...
" Oh and 4e didnt hvae monk or druid in the first PHB .... my two favourite classes .... so yes, I was spurned by 4e as soon as I picked it up ... so very much biased :P And no ... it's not a consolkation that they appear in other books .... the fact that 4e shafted my two favourite classes, which would force me to pick up another book to get them hurts me :P..."
Buying three phbs to just get to play the two classes I want, especially that they we're on offer from the first of the cores in 3.5, annoys me ...
Paragon paths ... sorry ... I don't want my character progression mapped out for me in such a manner. I prefer PrC''s like in 3.5 ... they made sense.
Sorry, I prefer 3.x ... games makes more sense :P
The classes were delayed, not shafted. They were both improved; the monk is actually useful, and the druid isn't crazystupidbrokenlyoverpowered.
And look at it this way, you don't have to take four paragon paths to have a decent character.
The classes were delayed, not shafted. They were both improved; the monk is actually useful, and the druid isn't crazystupidbrokenlyoverpowered.
And look at it this way, you don't have to take four paragon paths to have a decent character.
Possibly, but 1: People don't play monk properly in 3.5 ....
A Monk gets highest touch ac, best saves, improved evasion, innate spell resistance, HUGE landspeed, and a death attack which is better than 'Finger of Death'.
How is any of that not useful?
Playing a monk means playing an opportunistic, magebane-like character .... PICK YOUR TARGETS....
Wizard BAB at level 20, 10/5
Monk at level 20 = Touch AC well and truly 30+ with items, SR 10 + Level, Improved Evasion, and 12 base in all saves categories.
Does any other core phb class have that kinda of magic surviveability? Throw in Good Hp, pain touch with your stunning fists, and 4 + int Skill points each level .... you have a character that is skilled, hard to hit and is ALWAYS armed.... And ... the only character willing to punch a dragon in the face....
What more do you want? A character with dream like grace, who is willing to battle armies in a cloth robe and bare fists and mess up a baalor's features ... how awesome is that?
2: ....
No X.x
I'm sorry .. I don't know why people are trying to convert me .. I've been polite in stating why I like 3.5.
I say 1: Little customization of your character outside the generic "4/8 Roads to greatness" in 4e ... making your character feel less than special.
I don't care if it makes the game balanced, I just don't like being constrained that much.
2: 4e .... every little thing you do seems clinical .... from powers to skill checks. Whereas 3.5 is more visceral, gritty, and spontaneously DEADLY.
You know ... 2nd ed and 3x showed us WHY adventurers were allowed to have ungodly amounts of gold :P Because 99% of them (with a DM who didn't fudge dice to be somewhat kinder) died far beyond their elder years.
3: Everything you need to have a super-specialist party of adventurers came out with the core 3 books in 3.5.
Whereas if I remember correctly .... you get 6 ... 6 different classes in 4e phb1.
Forcing you to be Strikers, and Controllers ... yaddy yaddy yaddy yaddy yah ....
What happens if I want to be a monk that is like an amalgam of Jackie Chan (improvised Weapons) and an assassin like Bruce Willis in 'The Jackal' (A couple levels of rogue + ascetic rogue feat) ..... who loves to use crossbows all gunslinger like (two weapon fighting + weapon-prof. repeating crossbow so you can hit someone and shoot with a weapon, or quickdraw + flick of the wrist so you can draw light/heavy crossbows and get a couple of sneak attacks in too ... and still beable to move faster then what some characters can even CHARGE)...
Now I can make that character in 12 levels in 3.5.
And he would be awesome in ANY urban environ (think with slowfall and unarmed blows to boot against human/oid opponents :P). Are you saying he would be the same in a 4e game?
I like my characters to be flavourful, and I hate being constrained to simply "well you're this role .. and thats what you're good at" .... 3.5 gives me that level of customization, where I can create my own breed of warrior ... with access to zillions of PrC roads and paths to realise my character in full. 4e doesn't ...
4th ed constrains me to 4 paragon paths and basically stipulates " this is all you can be" ... well I say nertz to that <.< I'm sorry that's just how I feel.
" Oh and 4e didnt hvae monk or druid in the first PHB .... my two favourite classes .... so yes, I was spurned by 4e as soon as I picked it up ... so very much biased :P And no ... it's not a consolkation that they appear in other books .... the fact that 4e shafted my two favourite classes, which would force me to pick up another book to get them hurts me :P..."
Buying three phbs to just get to play the two classes I want, especially that they we're on offer from the first of the cores in 3.5, annoys me ...
Well, for players who are new to the game like the OP, I'm sure the 8 classes in the PH1 would be plenty to begin with. It's not likely that players new to D&D are going to go through the PH1 and wonder where the monk and druid are.
I like my characters to be flavourful, and I hate being constrained to simply "well you're this role .. and thats what you're good at" .... 3.5 gives me that level of customization, where I can create my own breed of warrior ... with access to zillions of PrC roads and paths to realise my character in full. 4e doesn't ...
4th ed constrains me to 4 paragon paths and basically stipulates " this is all you can be" ... well I say nertz to that <.< I'm sorry that's just how I feel.
To be fair, you are comparing the "Zillions" of 3.5/3.0/3rd party splat books to the 4e PHB. In regards to prestige classes/paragon paths.
Second point, there are 8 in the PHB, which IIRC is the same as in 3.5.
Third point, a character in 4e using only the PHB has access to 4 paragon paths with no prerequisites, and 32 with a single feat. Additionally, they have the option to paragon multiclass into any of the 7 other classes instead of take paragon path, bringing our number up to 39 paragon paths/prestige classes in the core book. Whereas the 3.5 DMG has what 8?
As you add in 3.5 splatbooks, you add in conservativly 20 prestige classes. Most of which are open to specific classes or multiclass combinations. The 4e splatbooks bring in roughly 10 paragon paths per class they reference (complete warrior to martial power) and with minimal investment any of those 10 per class can be taken by any class. You never have to stop being a fighter, if you want to get into a typically rogue paragon path. You simply become a fighter and a thief acrobat. Whereas in 3.5 it was often "I am a wizard, and some cleric. Ok cool now I am an ultimate magus"
I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the year, there are as many paragon paths for 4e as there were prestige classes of 3.5.
If everyone is new to the concept of an RPG, then 4E sounds like the right choice.
If you had grown up with RPGs as a kid and wanted to know which was the more role-playing of a role-playing game, I'd say that 3.5 is the answer. But I'd also suggest sticking with the core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM).
i would hardly say 3rd ed is better for RP then 4th. i haven't seen any rules that support RP more in 3rd then any other edition.
Roleplay is entirely group dependant. my group RPs fine regardless if we're playing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th D&D, GURPS, nWoD, or whatnot.
That's a lot of what I heard when the schism started (read, f'ed up press release, discrete beta testing towards 3.5's end, many core developers leaving, starry eyes in the Digital Initiative, etc). By the time we all mustered @ Gencon '08 and play tested it 3/day, it didn't take long to cut our teeth on it and make a decision among the veterans/noobs of our group(s). To spare incoming flames and more edition rhetoric/BS, uh, it's not for us (maybe you). It's got it's ups & downs like any other game, book, movie, program, etc., however, one must respect personal freedom & so forth. There is no "1 size fits all" shtick despite the posturing, jargon, or biases out there between editions. You gotta' find what's right for you & your's, and this wasn't (completely). Some good stuff to be sure, but like trading freedom for more security, simplifying and other new designs come at a cost as well like all things. Depends on what you're looking for.
Still, you can easily see the paradigm shift if you've been gaming a while. The new direction(s) as a whole if you've got the right set of eyes. New/old gamer? Age? Same thing w/ video gamers groomed on 8-bit games (and earlier) back in the day vs. the newer generations that are born well into the new exponential tech curve. Different watermark per chronology...POV, just like 3rd & 4th ed is pretty subjective.
You could kind of see the movement it and a wide host of other revised/new/etc pen & paper RPGs were going in that year. Shadowrun's 4th ed, not long before D&D's, speaks volumes. Same initial premise. Simpler, streamlined, some say dumbed down, whatever. One man's trash is another's treasure, bla bla bla (you know the drill).
It's an overcrowded market and they really missed the boat now must make a hurry-up offense to compete for kid's hard earned dollars squaring off vs. WoW and whatever flavor-of-the-week MMO is popular now. It's a business 1st and foremost and priority for a business is profit. So, bear in mind content, frequency (feast or famine) of release, quality of product, ad-ons, things like that (at the source), not just "this class is awesome" (even if though the rest of the book sucks) or "the art is so damn good" (because it might be atoning for subpar text). We're more consumers now than citizens and they f'ing know it. Stay critical.
Most importantly, the only real deciding factor for any pen & paper RPG is the guy/gal @ the helm. The game is only going to be as good as the DM, editions be damned. No matter how many bells & whistles you have, glut or absence of books & peripherals, complexity or simplicity of rules, etc., it's all totally meaningless if your storyteller blows.
ex) Same year we tried 4th ed (DM sucked hard), it didn't go well, and we were pissed, hence trying it a few more times to get a more critical perspective/fair chance. Still, didn't quite work out, it's cool though. Later, tried Call of Cthulu (hear good things, fun), but our storyteller sucked horribly...still, in the back of my mind I knew there was a reason their booths, merch, fan base were so prolific; don't punish the game, punish the inept troglodyte running it. Same thing here.
Last but not least, practicalities. Often, this means $. How much are you (friends) looking to spend? I'll let your local book vendor, Amazon, whatever do the talking here. Really, best advise I can give you is to sit in on sessions of both editions, hopefully, same populations trying each edition. Ideal circumstances like that are rare, but surviving objective rigor is key. You gotta' decide for yourself and you're the only real critic you can trust, you know?
I like my characters to be flavourful, and I hate being constrained to simply "well you're this role .. and thats what you're good at" .... 3.5 gives me that level of customization, where I can create my own breed of warrior ... with access to zillions of PrC roads and paths to realise my character in full. 4e doesn't ...
4th ed constrains me to 4 paragon paths and basically stipulates " this is all you can be" ... well I say nertz to that <.< I'm sorry that's just how I feel.
To be fair, you are comparing the "Zillions" of 3.5/3.0/3rd party splat books to the 4e PHB. In regards to prestige classes/paragon paths.Second point, there are 8 in the PHB, which IIRC is the same as in 3.5.
Third point, a character in 4e using only the PHB has access to 4 paragon paths with no prerequisites, and 32 with a single feat. Additionally, they have the option to paragon multiclass into any of the 7 other classes instead of take paragon path, bringing our number up to 39 paragon paths/prestige classes in the core book. Whereas the 3.5 DMG has what 8?
As you add in 3.5 splatbooks, you add in conservativly 20 prestige classes. Most of which are open to specific classes or multiclass combinations. The 4e splatbooks bring in roughly 10 paragon paths per class they reference (complete warrior to martial power) and with minimal investment any of those 10 per class can be taken by any class. You never have to stop being a fighter, if you want to get into a typically rogue paragon path. You simply become a fighter and a thief acrobat. Whereas in 3.5 it was often "I am a wizard, and some cleric. Ok cool now I am an ultimate magus"
I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the year, there are as many paragon paths for 4e as there were prestige classes of 3.5.
And how many paragon paths can you take? :P Youre assuming I only TAKE ONE class when multiclassing ... and not assuming I take multiple prcs as well as cores ...
There's a reason why 4e just tells you what you are going to be...
Ive seen 15 different cleric builds in my D&D playing career .... and I've seen 15 different clerics :p ... I've seen 14 wizards ... and all different....
I look at any class in 4e ... and I can't help but feel "yay for self-righteous pretentiousness on behalf of the writers of this edition .... thank you for telling me how to play my character douchebags .... not only that ... but thanks for labelling so every person I ever group with will expect me to play like that too." <.<
They took the class descriptions and used white out on "X is important..." and replaced it with a "You'll want to....". And of course if you deviate you're weaker then whoever DID play fetch for the D&D source writers and everybody gets to blame you for not fulfilling the arbitrary role they give you right?
I'm not happy with 4th ed ... they took a very workable, indepth, exciting, sensible 3.5 .... and they made a game which seeks to label these players into 4 or 5 roles ..... a game system that ytreated classes as amorpheous blobs of player molded awesome-ness, and replaced it with a guidebook to an awesome character .....
3.5 may have had roles, but they were so much grayer and multilayerable.
Do you REALLY THINK it's a good thing that 4th ed is so 'easy?' as people put it?
3.x was confusing because of it's depth, complexity, and the necessity for human imagination and flair.
Could it be that 4th ed players find the game easy because it lacks said depth of gameplay, complexity of characters, and lack of imagination and flair? I feel 4th ed is way too clinical, fleshed out, and .... unindividual ... it's not me ... it feels like any character I make will not be mine <.<
Hey, play what you want ... I'm just suggesting 3.5 for new players ... I don't like 4th ed, shoot me >.> I tried to learn it ... I TRIED ... but it's just not for me. I'm a creature of habit and comfort :P I have what I like, and Im happy, and in my opinion ... I feel like I would sacrifice too much to beable to enjoy gaming in 4th ed.
And how many paragon paths can you take? :P Youre assuming I only TAKE ONE class when multiclassing ... and not assuming I take multiple prcs as well as cores ..There's a reason why 4e just tells you what you are going to be..
Ive seen 15 different cleric builds in my D&D playing career .... and I've seen 15 different clerics :p ... I've seen 14 wizards ... and all different....
I look at any class in 4e ... and I can't help but feel "yay for self-righteous pretentiousness on behalf of the writers of this edition .... thank you for telling me how to play my character douchebags .... not only that ... but thanks for labelling so every person I ever group with will expect me to play like that too." <.<
They took the class descriptions and used white out on "X is important..." and replaced it with a "You'll want to....". And of course if you deviate you're weaker then whoever DID play fetch for the D&D source writers and everybody gets to blame you for not fulfilling the arbitrary role they give you right
I'm not happy with 4th ed ... they took a very workable, indepth, exciting, sensible 3.5 .... and they made a game which seeks to label these players into 4 or 5 roles ..... a game system that ytreated classes as amorpheous blobs of player molded awesome-ness, and replaced it with a guidebook to an awesome character ....
3.5 may have had roles, but they were so much grayer and multilayerable
Do you REALLY THINK it's a good thing that 4th ed is so 'easy?' as people put it
3.x was confusing because of it's depth, complexity, and the necessity for human imagination and flair.
Could it be that 4th ed players find the game easy because it lacks said depth of gameplay, complexity of characters, and lack of imagination and flair?
I feel 4th ed is way too clinical, fleshed out, and .... unjindividual ... it's not me ... it feels like any character I make will not be mine <.<
3rd ed was anything but sensible or workable. it takes someone with a head for system mastery to really get the most of the system and it contains too many traps ("my fighter is tough and durable... thoughness and endurance are great feats for him!"). many of the systems were much more cumbersome then they needed to be and hardly intuitive (turning & grapple imma looking at you two)
it's complexity lies in a system that full of disjointed mechanics trying to streamline themselves while clinging to sacred cows. it's complexity comes from a Class based system trying to be as versatile as a classless system but failing to do so and forgetting the actual point of a class-based system.
it's depth lies in the pile of splatbooks you need to make an effective character. after burying yourself in books creating the perfect whirlwind of blades and machismo using 5+books and multiple PRCs & Classes, you're still not as effective as the core-only wizard
the only imagination you need is the divination school and a bunch of spellcasters who know which "i win" buttons to pick in the morning as the game is devided into two tiers: Wizard/Cleric/Druid & Packmules/Ineffective Meatsheilds.
many of the "options" were traps or too situational that you either had to superfocus on them to even be effective, hope the GM throws you a bone, or play caster where you can swap your options on a daily basis.
"individual"? characterization is based on personality not numbers. 3rd had a lot of fiddly bits, but "5 ranks in jump" is hardly what i would call making the character a unique individual.
"flare" is horrible spell and waste of an action. you should be ashamed of yourself. :P
/fake troll
Do you REALLY THINK it's a good thing that 4th ed is so 'easy?' as people put it?
3.x was confusing because of it's depth, complexity, and the necessity for human imagination and flair.
Could it be that 4th ed players find the game easy because it lacks said depth of gameplay, complexity of characters, and lack of imagination and flair? I feel 4th ed is way too clinical, fleshed out, and .... unindividual ... it's not me ... it feels like any character I make will not be mine <.<
Hey, play what you want ... I'm just suggesting 3.5 for new players ... I don't like 4th ed, shoot me >.> I tried to learn it ... I TRIED ... but it's just not for me. I'm a creature of habit and comfort :P I have what I like, and Im happy, and in my opinion ... I feel like I would sacrifice too much to beable to enjoy gaming in 4th ed.
Newer players to D&D are able to approach the game with a open mind, so they really have nothing existing that they need to sacrifice if they decide to start with 4E. 3.5 does all for more customisation, but requires quite a bit of mastery with the system to greatly customise your character. 4E does provide an easier way to customise your character with the power system. You customise your character by making a different choice of powers (and feats) at each level.
The various prestige classes in 3.5 may actually restrict your choices depending on the PrC. All PrC's have prerequisites. Some have more than others. Those with restrictive prerequisites usually dictate how you level up in some manner or what feats you take.
With the 3.5 unlimited multiclassing rules, it is quite possible to take a new class or PrC at each level. I highly doubt that newer players will really want to take advantage of this feature. I think that newer players will find building a character in 4E much easier. The explicit mention of roles in 4E is to help newer players understand what each classes contributions in combat are. Then they can choose their class and understand better how to play it. It also teaches newer players that there are other things than pure damage. When I started D&D, I felt that it would have been great for me if it was pointed out that there was more to the game than pure damage.
And how many paragon paths can you take? :P Youre assuming I only TAKE ONE class when multiclassing ... and not assuming I take multiple prcs as well as cores ...
There's a reason why 4e just tells you what you are going to be...
Ive seen 15 different cleric builds in my D&D playing career .... and I've seen 15 different clerics :p ... I've seen 14 wizards ... and all different....
I look at any class in 4e ... and I can't help but feel "yay for self-righteous pretentiousness on behalf of the writers of this edition .... thank you for telling me how to play my character douchebags .... not only that ... but thanks for labelling so every person I ever group with will expect me to play like that too." <.<
They took the class descriptions and used white out on "X is important..." and replaced it with a "You'll want to....". And of course if you deviate you're weaker then whoever DID play fetch for the D&D source writers and everybody gets to blame you for not fulfilling the arbitrary role they give you right?
I'm not happy with 4th ed ... they took a very workable, indepth, exciting, sensible 3.5 .... and they made a game which seeks to label these players into 4 or 5 roles ..... a game system that ytreated classes as amorpheous blobs of player molded awesome-ness, and replaced it with a guidebook to an awesome character .....
3.5 may have had roles, but they were so much grayer and multilayerable.
Do you REALLY THINK it's a good thing that 4th ed is so 'easy?' as people put it?
3.x was confusing because of it's depth, complexity, and the necessity for human imagination and flair.
Could it be that 4th ed players find the game easy because it lacks said depth of gameplay, complexity of characters, and lack of imagination and flair? I feel 4th ed is way too clinical, fleshed out, and .... unindividual ... it's not me ... it feels like any character I make will not be mine <.<
Hey, play what you want ... I'm just suggesting 3.5 for new players ... I don't like 4th ed, shoot me >.> I tried to learn it ... I TRIED ... but it's just not for me. I'm a creature of habit and comfort :P I have what I like, and Im happy, and in my opinion ... I feel like I would sacrifice too much to beable to enjoy gaming in 4th ed.
I am reminded of someone who once told me that chaotic characters love lots and lots of rules, because then they have lots and lots of loopholes. Made me think about the scene in Pirates of the Carribean 3 with the immense Pirate Codex where Barbosa twisted the code to his purpose.
In essence, I think that is the reason a lot of people like 3.5. Lots and lots of rules meant lots and lots of loopholes leading the characters who did things beyond their intent. There is a huge gap between a min/maxed 3.5 character and a regularly built 3.5 character. In 4e, as far as I can tell, there isn't a huge gap. There is still some, but not enough to count a character as more than a level above what he is. In 3.5, you could easily make a 10th level min maxed character that could take down a level 20 regular character in 1 round.
It wasn't really fair. D&D is meant to be a cooperative game, not a competitive one. It is hard to be cooperative when one character is so powerful he makes the rest of the party completely insignifigant.
I also never understood why people needed such customizability within a single class. So you want to make a cleric who is better in melee combat, more fighter like, then why not play a paladin? If it is so important that your character actually be a cleric for roleplaying reasons, then just use the mechanics of a paladin and call yourself a cleric! You want an "Agile light armored fighter"? Then play a rogue or a ranger.
You can still build a whole lot of character. It is true you can't build the same characters you had in 3.5 (I have looked into it, you really can't) but you forget it is a whole different game. There are still tons of choices to play.
What annoys me is that you seem to want to be able to turn a class into something it is not. Do you expect to turn a cleric into a striker? A rogue into a defender? A fighter into a controller? let me ask, WHY? Why do you want to play a class if you didn't want him to do what the class was designed for? It's like playing Team Fortress 2 and trying to snipe with a scout. Or charging the base with an engineer. Or playing a medic and refusing to heal. Why play the class if you want to do something else?
"they took a very workable, indepth, exciting, sensible 3.5" This is a pretty laughable statement. 3.5 is broken at so many different levels, that the range of balanced play is only from levels 3-10. Less if the players are experienced min-maxers.
"3.x was confusing because of it's depth, complexity, and the necessity for human imagination and flair." This statement is also inaccurate. I dont think that is why 3.X is confusing because, well, I don't think 3.5 was confusing! At all! I find that statement pretentious actually. What 3.5 was, was unbalanced, having players who were experienced in the game immensely more powerful than ones who played it the first time.
Don't get me wrong I like 3.5, and it has merits above 4e in many different areas, but the game is not for beginners. You have to put a good amount of customization into it for it to be balanced and it requires tons more effort on the part of the DM, who even in 4e is putting more effort into the game than the rest of the group combined.
And that is what this thread is about. What game is better for players starting out. And that game is 4e.
...stuff...
A: Wow, a game you have to learn how to play before you can be good at it!? Utter disgrace! How is this any different from 4e? I'm sure an 8 year old picking up 4e could figure that if a class needs high wisdom, then picking a race that alllows a bonus for it could be a good start... it's not always the case, but hey! That's EXPERIENCE.
B: The Monk I described ... how is that broken? Good players don't seek to solo-break everything the dm throws (because a good dm will stump them ANYWAYS) ... good players seek to have fun. And the character I loosely described would be FUN ... thus my number 1 goal has been found ... a Monk that is unlike any other out there :p. And it was a fun character born from the freedom I can have with 3.5 :x
I get you ... but could I have such a character in 4e? Possibly ... but nowhere near as easily and certainly not in the same context :x
C: About wanting my character to do more than what it was designed for .... yes ... because I like divergence ... shoot me. I don't want a facsimile of the class looking at me EVERYTIME I play it ...
Addendum to C: Using a video game as shallow as a shooter is NOT a good rebuttal (refer to B for reasons).
D: Yes, confusing .... trying to remember all the options you have in a grapple for instancce ... sorry I didn't clarify.
Addendum to D: How is this pretentious? --->
pretentious
• adjective attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
(www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pretentiou...)
3.5 is a good system on your own word, as well as yourself also writing of so called 'loopholes' and their abundance and 'min-maxing' as you put it, thereby my argument lacks pretentiousness .... because there is, shock-horror, depth, complexity and flair.... the depth and complexity bridged by EXPERIENCE.... what part of my argument was pretentious?
If anything it was BADLY written <.< If you;re going to knock it back for anything, knock it back for that >.>
Even then, most GOOD players want a fun character, as opposed to a boring super-pcs, and you're assuming the dm doesnt just step in and say "no ... you're not having that feat/spell/ability."
E: I don't like 4e ... refer to ending clause of 'C:' for appropriate actions to be taken <.< I *personally* think 3.x is better.
I've stated twice I believe look ... "play what you want, but I say 3.x" ... I'll stick with my 3.5. I'm happy XD And maybe, who knows, if I ever play it one day far from now, I might become enamoured ... but from what I've read ... I doubt it O.o
That being said, I did relunctantly update from 2nd ... who knows?
Regardless, As you say ... it's a different game .... AND MAYBE I DON'T/WON'T (if it comes to be that I DO play it extensively) LIKE IT? Who are you to tell me I should play it? <.<
Be as annoyed as you want by my answer, but that quintessential statement stands ...
And just what would happen if the players in this guy's group is like me? Thinks the SAME WAY? Sure .. they are new players, but what if one DOES knows a bit of 3.x and likes to play like me?
Do you think he/she/they might feel offput? Especially if trhe rest of the players don't care and it's their first experience?
I love number crunching and I have few players. In the beginning our games were mostly core with pretty simple characters. Now we have lots of fun creating ridiculously complicated character builds. But I don't hate 4e, it's just not what I am looking for. Perhaps it would be what you are looking for. What kind of expectations do you and your friends have on the game?
I think the OP gave up on this thread when it turned into yet another edition war...
And how many paragon paths can you take? :P Youre assuming I only TAKE ONE class when multiclassing ... and not assuming I take multiple prcs as well as cores ...
They took the class descriptions and used white out on "X is important..." and replaced it with a "You'll want to....". And of course if you deviate you're weaker then whoever DID play fetch for the D&D source writers and everybody gets to blame you for not fulfilling the arbitrary role they give you right?
Do you REALLY THINK it's a good thing that 4th ed is so 'easy?' as people put it?
Could it be that 4th ed players find the game easy because it lacks said depth of gameplay, complexity of characters, and lack of imagination and flair? I feel 4th ed is way too clinical, fleshed out, and .... unindividual ... it's not me ... it feels like any character I make will not be mine <.<
1- By taking one single paragon path, and then an epic destiny you cut down on level up time immensely. You only ever NEED to choose twice, and from then on it is pretty straight forward. In 3.X you could choose 20 different times if you wanted to. This means you have to stop and consider each of a thousand things, 20 different times and decide which was best. (hint to new players, most were traps. See true necromancer).
That said in 4e, you have the option of playing a character as diverse as Krusk the half-orc Barbarian/rogue multi-classed into fighter with the Menacing Brute Paragon path, and Demigod epic destiny. Thats 5 choices, and even in my most convoluted characters of 3.X the only ones that saw real play were around there. (The best example I have actually, was Krusk the half orc rogue7/orc (prestige class in unearthed arcana) 3/ menacing brute 8/one more thing, who I was able to convert perfectly into 4e)
2.- in 4e the designers say "A wizard will want to play a race with high int." in 3.X the designers say "High int is important" but don't offer suggestions to get that. Do you really honestly contend that in 3.5 a half-orc wizard was as mechanically powerful as an elf (whatever subrace gives int). In 3.X the Designers said A fighter fights his enemies with weapons. In 4e the designers clear this up "A fighter is a defender, a defender is there to form a wall between his allies and his enemies. A fighter can also make a passable striker if you are so inclined"
This is like saying "In 3.X i was free to fufill whatever role I wanted in the party (or all if i was a druid/wizard/psion/cleric/artificer) but 4e forces me to follow a specific one. that sucks" In reality, a fighter in 3.X makes a pretty lousy skill monkey. The 4e Designers flat out say "Hey fighters are best at this, second best at this, and pretty lousy skill monkeys." Is that really so bad?
3.- i really do think it is a good thing that 4e is so easy. I enjoy that i can teach a new player the game in a session. I enjoy that the new player won't suggest that they want to play a bard 20, and then get laughed at by the experienced players, who then have to explain "Actually, we know we told you that you could do whatever you want, but here are the 16 options worth anything, and only one of them includes bard so you will do this."
4.- As to this, I challenge you to come up with any character concept that can't be fufilled by 4e, that could be (and was loosely valid) in 3.x. Don't say "I want a fighter 5/cleric 2 who uses bows" and expect anything. But go ahead and say An archer priest of (diety). I bet it could be made.
...stuff...
A: Wow, a game you have to learn how to play before you can be good at it!? Utter disgrace! How is this any different from 4e? I'm sure an 8 year old picking up 4e could figure that if a class needs high wisdom, then picking a race that alllows a bonus for it could be a good start... it's not always the case, but hey! That's EXPERIENCE.
B: The Monk I described ... how is that broken? Good players don't seek to solo-break everything the dm throws (because a good dm will stump them ANYWAYS) ... good players seek to have fun. And the character I loosely described would be FUN ... thus my number 1 goal has been found ... a Monk that is unlike any other out there :p. And it was a fun character born from the freedom I can have with 3.5 :x
I get you ... but could I have such a character in 4e? Possibly ... but nowhere near as easily and certainly not in the same context :x
C: About wanting my character to do more than what it was designed for .... yes ... because I like divergence ... shoot me. I don't want a facsimile of the class looking at me EVERYTIME I play it ...
Addendum to C: Using a video game as shallow as a shooter is NOT a good rebuttal (refer to B for reasons).
D: Yes, confusing .... trying to remember all the options you have in a grapple for instancce ... sorry I didn't clarify.
Addendum to D: How is this pretentious? --->
pretentious
• adjective attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
(www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pretentiou...)
3.5 is a good system on your own word, as well as yourself also writing of so called 'loopholes' and their abundance and 'min-maxing' as you put it, thereby my argument lacks pretentiousness .... because there is, shock-horror, depth, complexity and flair.... the depth and complexity bridged by EXPERIENCE.... what part of my argument was pretentious?
If anything it was BADLY written <.< If you;re going to knock it back for anything, knock it back for that >.>
Even then, most GOOD players want a fun character, as opposed to a boring super-pcs, and you're assuming the dm doesnt just step in and say "no ... you're not having that feat/spell/ability."
E: I don't like 4e ... refer to ending clause of 'C:' for appropriate actions to be taken <.< I *personally* think 3.x is better.
I've stated twice I believe look ... "play what you want, but I say 3.x" ... I'll stick with my 3.5. I'm happy XD And maybe, who knows, if I ever play it one day far from now, I might become enamoured ... but from what I've read ... I doubt it O.o
That being said, I did relunctantly update from 2nd ... who knows?
Regardless, As you say ... it's a different game .... AND MAYBE I DON'T/WON'T (if it comes to be that I DO play it extensively) LIKE IT? Who are you to tell me I should play it? <.<
Be as annoyed as you want by my answer, but that quintessential statement stands ...
And just what would happen if the players in this guy's group is like me? Thinks the SAME WAY? Sure .. they are new players, but what if one DOES knows a bit of 3.x and likes to play like me?
Do you think he/she/they might feel offput? Especially if trhe rest of the players don't care and it's their first experience?
A. When did I ever say anything regarding 4e being easier to learn than 3.5? I specifically SAID it really isn't, it is just easier on the DM.
B. It isn't. When did I say it was? If you are going to rebute something I said, make sure I actually said it. What I did say is that 3.5 classes can be min/maxed to ridiculous levels. I never said your example was.
C. If you are interested in divergence why are you playing a game that has a class based system? I'm not saying the concept of divergence is a bad idea, after all it gives individual characters depth and complexity allowing them to stand on their own, but D&D is an inhyerently team based system, where one tends to have an expected role, and when one does not live up to that role, the group suffers. I am not saying customization is out, but the character has to fulfill his primary role in at least an adequate manner or else the group can risk being destroyed. You have to house rule D&D a great deal and have a very deep understanding of the game and the world in order to allow for player character divergence. I am not saying it is impossible, in fact I play a 3.5 game that allows such things, but that game is heavily houseruled by a VERY experienced DM whose game is literally a near full time job with the amount of time invested in it. I emphasize the fact that this is a group just starting the game. You cannot expect that out of them, so why push a game whose main merit in this argument is the customization which requires a lot of time and dedication even before at least trying the game, where instead they can pick up 4e and get a game up and running with less effort and less worry. If they feel the need for extra complexity and ability to focus on self reliance and stand alone characters verse the group, they can look into games like 3.5 or one of the other games that allow such things.
I used Team Fortress 2 as an example because that game is an example of a game that encourages (if not flat out requires) group dynamics that involve the characters working as a team. D&D is similar in that aspect. If a First person shooter doesn't work for you, think of football (American especially), or baseball. Each person has a specific job they are expected to do. They can have other skills too, but if they do not accomplish their primary purpose, the team will suffer, and realistically would no longer desire the player on their team. At least not in that position.
D. You are pretentious because you believe that since you know how to master a system that is more complex than another that the other system is inferior. You think that because 4e discourages characters you like and encourages characters you put 3.5 on a pedestal. That is pretentious.
Also describing Team Fortress 2 as something that is too "shallow" to use as an example of cencepts in a game, that is pretentious.
E. "I've stated twice I believe look ... "play what you want, but I say 3.x" ... I'll stick with my 3.5. I'm happy XD And maybe, who knows, if I ever play it one day far from now, I might become enamoured ... but from what I've read ... I doubt it O.o"
Wait you haven't even played 4e?
Dear Gods I just wasted several paragraphs of half decent writing. Or at least writing of some sort.
Edit: Enough of this edition war crap, I have said what I believe. 4e is easier and more fun for the DM, and can be used without fear of character imbalance. So I think it is better for people who have never played a tabletop before.
I think the OP gave up on this thread when it turned into yet another edition war...
Yup. There have been a few attempts to bring the thread back on track, but I'm afraid there's no saving it.
I think the OP gave up on this thread when it turned into yet another edition war...
Yup. There have been a few attempts to bring the thread back on track, but I'm afraid there's no saving it.
In that case, 3.5 forevah.
Fourth edition is much more friendly to new players, with its simple powers, easy attacks, and balanced play. However, I find that 3.5 is the better system; everything has a rule for it, and it has a far greater variety of possibilities. You want to play that character with a dozen classes? Go for it. Fourth edition seems kind of restrictive, while 3.5 just says "Keep it legal."
Personally IMHO the mere fact that you can pick a dozen different classes for your character is meaningless. That isn't variety of characters, that's just spaghetti. 4e is finally the version of D&D that realized the rules are there to be consistent and intelligible and actually playable, and then they are supposed to just get out of your way and let you describe what your imagination makes up. I really think you missed the whole point of 4e.
Good characters are not about classes and monkeying with obscure rules and having 96 rules based choices to make about your character. Good characters are about playing a character well.
But to relate this to the original post 4e is VASTLY easier to teach people how to play. There is simply no comparison. Any moderately intelligent person with the interest in learning how to play can understand how to play an interesting character in a couple of hours. Assuming you have a DM willing to read the PHB and DMG ahead of time an entire new group can be up and running their first game in no time flat.
...more stuff...
I already said in two the articles you directly quoted actually (or atleast one) that I hadn't played 4e, I just read some of the cores ....
I said it multiple times ... <.<
And pretentious .... u.u;;
Stuff it, I give up ... peace and good tidings man >.>
I hadn't played 4e, I just read some of the cores
I find with many games, how it plays can be very different than how it reads. As a person who actually played both 3.5 and 4E, I would recommend 4E for players who are new to D&D for reasons I have already stated in my previous posts.
My honest suggestion? 3.5
For more in depth. As others have said, 4e is easier to learn..much easier to learn. Which is kinda the problem, its easier to learn, not because its just better built (there is some of that), but because anything 'cool but hard' was taken out. They refuse to put in anything that requires much thought, no matter how interesting or good it might be. Everyone I know calls it WoW as a board game for that reason. Because alot of its principles and ideas are built on the same mold as WoW. Yes WoW borrowed from D&D..but 4E looked at WoW and said 'what makes it so popular and how can we add that in'. It isn't a bad game..not at all...but on the other hand.
3.5 is a much more interesting choice. Part of this is because it's had several years of material already published for it, and also partially because it was built with the idea that some things are fun to do, no matter how complicated it might be. It also has certain roleplay themes and suggestions built in, a much more richly detailed world (both in description and in gameplay mechanics). You're character starts to feel more like they are in a world..instead of just the lead characters in a vid game.
That isn't to say that 4e neccessarily has less roleplay. Merely that 4e is more of a generic toolbox. Most of the world is left up to the DM to make up. There is little in the way of description of world. 3E gives you a larger world description, and more world built into the classes and races.
Overall to boil it down...4e is simpler and easier to get good fun out of it, you can get to some things faster, and just hit the ground running. 3.5 takes more setup, and more work, but in my opinion its much more rewarding. My only warning is that 3.5 has more flavor and interestingness than balance...so it can be a bit rough to have things balanced..though usually each char will have something to do.
The sooner all this....
"3e is for real role players"
"3e encourages imagination"
"in 3e you really EARN your levels"
"3e is for the more mature player"
...absolute nonsense dies out the better. The whole "Eeee in my day we ate coal, walked through 3 miles of snow"rubbish that comes from some 3e die hards reminds me of a Python sketch.
4e is a clean, well designed modern system that of course offends some that have the "In my day" attitude. New stuff always offends some just by being new. 5e will have 4e die hards that spout the same rubbish I am absolutely sure.
I've played every edition since the blue Otis cover Basic box, and in my opinion this is the easiest and most welcoming for newcomers while providing real depth for oldies too. A bloody good thing.
What some of the "you're just being a stick in the mud" crowd fail to realize is that many players are quite happy with what they have.
4e is a clean, well designed modern system that of course offends some that have the "In my day" attitude. New stuff always offends some just by being new. 5e will have 4e die hards that spout the same rubbish I am absolutely sure.
When I joined, right at the birth of 3.0, all I heard about was how this new edition was nothing but Diablo on paper, and back in 2e you had to earn your levels, yadda yadda. I wish I could remember/find some of the old reviews right at the dawn of the 3.0 era condemning it. I swear they were written by the same people.
4e is a clean, well designed modern system that of course offends some that have the "In my day" attitude. New stuff always offends some just by being new. 5e will have 4e die hards that spout the same rubbish I am absolutely sure.
When I joined, right at the birth of 3.0, all I heard about was how this new edition was nothing but Diablo on paper, and back in 2e you had to earn your levels, yadda yadda. I wish I could remember/find some of the old reviews right at the dawn of the 3.0 era condemning it. I swear they were written by the same people.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dn...
Sucks that the rest of the discussion is lost but you replace the term 3e with 4e and the term 2e with 3e and you have a dead ringer.
No, I think I'm staying in 2E, where the charcters at least have a
CHANCE to die.
Haha, he should have seen my Beholder-controlled Rogue (15) nearly one-hit (ok, not one-hit, but one-round) out dwarven fighter(8)/cleric(7). Critical, Sneak-Attack, got more than half of her hitpoints with that attack (never rolled so many sixes with my SA). She only survived that, because the DM forgot, that I had 3 attacks per round (and I was not motivated to tell him) 
What some of the "you're just being a stick in the mud" crowd fail to realize is that many players are quite happy with what they have.
what some of the "happy players" fail to realise is that just because they're happy, others aren't and want change.
there are 3 things you don't generally talk about: politics, religion and soccer. everyone has their own opinion and you'll have a very hard time convincing them otherwise. D&D editions are the same in that aspect. a lot of people have their fav and refuse to acknowlege other editions. most players are more open but most people have their "fav" edition.
-i'll play pre 3rd but i'll never gm it. i don't care enough to learn the GM's end of those editions
-i'll play 3rd, but only gm if it's my final option to play and i really want to play. i have enough system mastery to know it's too much of a headache at this point.
-4th, however, is currently my fav. i'll play, gm, whatever... for me, it's my current fav, knocking 3rd out of that place. it does what i want from D&D with the least hassle out of the other eds... for me.
but that's my opinion. towards the late end of 3rd, it was too much of a hassle for me. i could not stand gm'ing it anymore, especially the later levels... it stopped being fun and was more of a chore at times. i haven't had that with 4th though.
will i eventually? maybe. heck if i know.
what i do know is that i don't go into other forums, decry their preference and tout my own. i don't go into dragonsfoot and start dissing old D&D and touting 4th ed. if i have a question about old D&D, i go there, but i leave them alone. i don't go into the previous ed forums here and go "LOLZ UR PLYING TURD EDITION! HUR HUR HUR!". i stick to the 4th ed forums cause that's what currently interest me.
if i don't like your soup, i don't go in your house at supper time and complain you make crappy soup. i just politely decline it and go about my other business. i could care less if you (you as in a general "you", not someone in particular) like 4th or not, but coming into a 4th ed forum and being a jerk about not liking 4th and how it's wow or whatever the trolls are currently saying is rude and IMO idiotic. stay away from those threads and be constructive in other ones.
I hadn't played 4e, I just read some of the cores
I find with many games, how it plays can be very different than how it reads. As a person who actually played both 3.5 and 4E, I would recommend 4E for players who are new to D&D for reasons I have already stated in my previous posts.
Possibly, but I don't see why I should have to find a new group to play 4e with and give up a perfectly WORKING group of 3.x-ers just to have a go of a system I didn't like when I picked it up...
That's like going to a theatre and instead of choosing to watch a movie you're dying to see, you choose to watch a movie based on a book you've read and disliked :x Sure, the movie might have done things differently ... but it's still based on what you've read.
Our group is perfectly content with 3.5 and if that changes, well possibly, but unlikely as our dm prefers 3.x materials ...
4e does seem like a simpler system (once you get used to it i'm sure)... if thats what you want, well blessed art thou ... but maybe I want something with a bit more meat.
I hadn't played 4e, I just read some of the cores
I find with many games, how it plays can be very different than how it reads. As a person who actually played both 3.5 and 4E, I would recommend 4E for players who are new to D&D for reasons I have already stated in my previous posts.Possibly, but I don't see why I should have to find a new group to play 4e with and give up a perfectly WORKING group of 3.x-ers just to have a go of a system I didn't like when I picked it up...
That's like going to a theatre and instead of choosing to watch a movie you're dying to see, you choose to watch a movie based on a book you've read and disliked :x Sure, the movie might have done things differently ... but it's still based on what you've read.
Our group is perfectly content with 3.5 and if that changes, well possibly, but unlikely as our dm prefers 3.x materials ...
4e does seem like a simpler system (once you get used to it i'm sure)... if thats what you want, well blessed art thou ... but maybe I want something with a bit more meat.
I think you totally didn't read his post.
I would recommend 4E for players who are new to D&D
I can't see, where he talks about leaving an existing group for the new edition...
what i do know is that i don't go into other forums, decry their preference and tout my own. i don't go into dragonsfoot and start dissing old D&D and touting 4th ed. if i have a question about old D&D, i go there, but i leave them alone. i don't go into the previous ed forums here and go "LOLZ UR PLYING TURD EDITION! HUR HUR HUR!". i stick to the 4th ed forums cause that's what currently interest me.
if i don't like your soup, i don't go in your house at supper time and complain you make crappy soup. i just politely decline it and go about my other business. i could care less if you (you as in a general "you", not someone in particular) like 4th or not, but coming into a 4th ed forum and being a jerk about not liking 4th and how it's wow or whatever the trolls are currently saying is rude and IMO idiotic. stay away from those threads and be constructive in other ones.
This would apply, except that this thread is about a person who asked which edition his group should use as a new group. So it's more like a person asking his friends what soup they should order for dinner and then everyone arguing over which soup is best.
My argument is that although the soups have different flavors that can easily be subjective as to which one is better, that one soup is much easier to make, so that is better for someone who has never cooked before.
I can't see, where he talks about leaving an existing group for the new edition...
I did, but I assumed he was moreso saying (given he quoted me having only read the two cores, and flicked through the MM) that playing a 4e game would change myu opinion of what I've read :P
what i do know is that i don't go into other forums, decry their preference and tout my own. i don't go into dragonsfoot and start dissing old D&D and touting 4th ed. if i have a question about old D&D, i go there, but i leave them alone. i don't go into the previous ed forums here and go "LOLZ UR PLYING TURD EDITION! HUR HUR HUR!". i stick to the 4th ed forums cause that's what currently interest me.
if i don't like your soup, i don't go in your house at supper time and complain you make crappy soup. i just politely decline it and go about my other business. i could care less if you (you as in a general "you", not someone in particular) like 4th or not, but coming into a 4th ed forum and being a jerk about not liking 4th and how it's wow or whatever the trolls are currently saying is rude and IMO idiotic. stay away from those threads and be constructive in other ones.
This would apply, except that this thread is about a person who asked which edition his group should use as a new group. So it's more like a person asking his friends what soup they should order for dinner and then everyone arguing over which soup is best.My argument is that although the soups have different flavors that can easily be subjective as to which one is better, that one soup is much easier to make, so that is better for someone who has never cooked before.
generally speaking, most people who are "stick in the muds" are jerks, and that goes both ways. if you're happy with what you have, fine, but some people are jerks about it.
plus it's not like trying 4th will hurt you financially, since there is a free trial run out there. worst case scenario is you've taken up some space on your computer's harddrive, used up some ink & paper on printing characters & maybe the modules and you've spent 1-3 sessions giving something an honest try. most people just want you to give it a try is all before making up your mind. D&D, in all editions, play better then it reads.
Possibly, but I don't see why I should have to find a new group to play 4e with and give up a perfectly WORKING group of 3.x-ers just to have a go of a system I didn't like when I picked it up...
I can't see, where he talks about leaving an existing group for the new edition...
I did, but I assumed he was moreso saying (given he quoted me having only read the two cores, and flicked through the MM) that playing a 4e game would change myu opinion of what I've read :P
I think there was some misunderstanding of the intent of my posts. I had no intention of convincing you (or anyone who is happy playing 3.5) to actually switch to 4E. My intention was to suggest that the OP or anyone who is new to D&D to play 4E instead of 3.5. Your comments regarding 4E appear to be based solely on reading the rules and not having played it. Having read 4E and then played it, I found that sometimes things in 4E or any system plays differently than how it reads. I felt my experience in playing both editions lends more credibility to my recommendation.
You appear to be an experienced 3.5 player. I know of players who played 3.5 and prefer it to 4E. One player in my current group feels that way as well as other players with whom I have played before. I had no intention of using this thread to convince players who like 3.5 to switch or even try out 4E if that is not something they want to do.
I had attempted to try to get the thread back on track which is why I always tried to state my recommendation was for players new to D&D. I did not mean to fuel the edition war any further.
I think there was some misunderstanding of the intent of my posts. I had no intention of convincing you (or anyone who is happy playing 3.5) to actually switch to 4E. My intention was to suggest that the OP or anyone who is new to D&D to play 4E instead of 3.5. Your comments regarding 4E appear to be based solely on reading the rules and not having played it. Having read 4E and then played it, I found that sometimes things in 4E or any system plays differently than how it reads. I felt my experience in playing both editions lends more credibility to my recommendation.
You appear to be an experienced 3.5 player. I know of players who played 3.5 and prefer it to 4E. One player in my current group feels that way as well as other players with whom I have played before. I had no intention of using this thread to convince players who like 3.5 to switch or even try out 4E if that is not something they want to do.
I had attempted to try to get the thread back on track which is why I always tried to state my recommendation was for players new to D&D. I did not mean to fuel the edition war any further.
Oh ... sorry man ^_^ My error then.
Well yeah, if you have a group of players that know 4e, and they have the materials, and they would rather play 4e than 3.x then yeah.
If they don't want to play 3.x then they don't want to play it <.< Why play Monopoly when people want to play scrabble? >.>
I'm a uni student :P I don't want to fork out the minimum 150 to play 4e though XD Sure, a day's work :P But I only have three or four of those a week XD
Especially when I have buttloads of 3.x stuff and a group that loves it :P