3.5 vs. 4e

THIS IS NOT A PROS/CONS THREAD, I DONT WANT "4e sucks, 3.5 is way better" or anything like that. W ith that out of the way, as a primarily 4th Edition player, what differences are there between the editions? What should I expect to be similar, and what will be radically different? I already know, for example, that you can choose to gain levels in different classes instead of 4e's power swap system.

3.5 doesn't use powers at all and doesn't operate within the confines of an "encounter" structure. The closest you get are some classes have abilities that they can use per day (this is actually how *all* spells work). Spellcasting is, itself, *vastly* different from 4e, having multiple basic types (spontaneous and prepared) and a slew of mechanics coupled with *much* larger spell lists. Said spells are also not separated into utility and attack powers and are simply chosen from a single list as a whole. For melee classes, rather than powers, you simply gain additional attacks per turn as your base attack bonus increases with diminishing accuracy for each attack after the first, with potential options opened for you with the advent of feat selection (which is much more stringent in 3.5; you get 1 feat every 4 levels instead of one every other level, by default; some classes are balanced around getting bonus feats). Instead of Paragon Paths, there are Prestige Classes, which you do not gain upon reaching level 10 but instead when you fulfill the requirements for said Prestige Class, which often include such things as specific feats, base attack bonuses, levels of skill training, race, and multitudinous other things. With said Prestige Classes, rather than continuing to progress within your normal class(es), you instead progress through the Prestige Class as if it were your base class (gaining levels in *it* instead of your previous class) and gain the abilities that apply to it. Defenses are also pretty different. Instead of Fort/Ref/Will defenses, you have those as relevant saves which the target makes against the DC set by the attacker. Also, rather than having attributes operate in base pairs (Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha), only a single attribute applies to a specific save (Con to Fort, Dex to Ref, Wis to Will) and only Dex applies to AC. The saves and AC do not scale as well in 3.5 as the defenses do in 4e, so you can expect, as a high level wizard, to still have an AC low enough to get hit by a low level fighter and pretty much guaranteed to get hit by anything of your actual level. Skills are also substantially different. The skill list itself is much larger, since 4e compressed many of the skills into a single one (i.e. Stealth is Hide and Move Silently; Athletics is Swim, Jump, and Climb), with said skills representing much more specific areas of expertise. There are also skill that are nominally "roleplay" or npc skills, such as Profession or Craft, that 4e did away with since they do not appreciably affect the conflict resolution portion of the game mechanics and generally penalize players for taking them for roleplay purposes by requiring skill points be siphoned away to get training in them. Skill training is, itself, much different because, rather than training existing as a binary attribute of trained (for +5 bonus) or untrained (for no bonus), skills in 3.5 are bought in ranks with skill points, which are acquired on a per level basis based upon the class you chose at that given level, with class skills purchasable on a one-to-one basis and cross-class (re: all other) skills purchased on a two-to-one basis. As for monsters, players and monsters use a fundamentally similar design system such that a hobgoblin warlord is, essentially, a PC of the hobgoblin race controlled by the GM whereas, in 4e, it is a completely separate design structure. Most other monsters follow a similar construct using "monster levels" rather than PC levels. DR (difficulty rating) is used instead of a creature's level, as 4e does, and isn't actually governed by any rule structure but by a vague assumption of performance against an abstract group of 4 PCs, which causes some stark differences in difficulty for creatures/encounters that share the same DR. 3.5 does not use an explicit role system, as 4e does, nor does it have the status effects that are standardized. There is no real marking mechanic (there are a few feats that do something *similar* to marking) but the basic "roles" really just boil down to the heavy armored non-caster, the light armored non-caster, the arcane caster, and the divine caster. Status effects do not have saving throws to end them or have the fuzzy/simplified end point of lasting until the end of the encounter/next extended rest and, instead, have explicit durations listed in rounds, turns, minutes, hours, etc. for both positive and negative effects. From a playstyle perspective, 3.5 is *much* more focused upon the strategic aspect of preplanning your character whereas 4e focuses more upon the tactical aspect of encounter based play. I would best describe 3.5 as the more *realistic* of the two editions whereas 4e is the more *refined* of the two, at least from a player perspective. From a roleplaying/NPC perspective, I think that 4e has the better construct since it doesn't attempt to apply the rules to things that are not necessarily attached to the fundamental combat balance aspects of a character (i.e. if you want your character to know how to cook in 4e, you just say it; in 3.5, you have to take points in Profession-Cook and, in order to get better, you have to level up and get more skill points).

4E is basically a completely different game, even more radically different then the shift from OD&D/AD&D to 3.0/3.5.  The way I describe 4E to friends is "It's makes for a great board/tactical wargame", but it comes down more to personal preference honestly.  I however would disagree with 4E being more "refined" and view it as more of a "distilled" or "basic" version of the game. Like Kit said 3.5 has alot more of a strategic aspect for character pre planning, but you also have alot more potential for using abilities in innovative ways both in and out of combat (at least if you're playing with imaginative people), which can lead to alot of unexpected outcomes (good an bad).  Also it's important to remember that you've always got the option of just not using stuff as a dm you feel detracts from the game.

3.0/3.5? 4e?  Make mine Gygax thank you :)

Buddy Christ said: I however would disagree with 4E being more "refined" and view it as more of a "distilled" or "basic" version of the game. I used the term "refined" to indicate that it's a system that focuses more on being a better *game* system as opposed to be being a more *realistic* system. As a game system, it's more refined since it's separated combat from the out of combat and roleplay aspects, which allows for, in my opinion, a lot more roleplay *options* since you're not longer having to establish them within the context of the numerical capabilities and out-of-combat problem solving because you're no longer sacrificing Magic Missile just to be able to use Tenser's Floating Disc. There was a *lot* of strange, artefactual mechanics that existed in 3.x that 4e did away with because, while they were *realistic* (i.e. Vancian magic, and quadratic wizard/linear fighter), they didn't make for good, balanced gameplay (from a mechanical perspective, which is different from abstract enjoyment). 4e learned from a lot of this and got rid of the stuff that didn't create fun, interesting, and involved gameplay and replaced it with different systems that allowed players to *play* more rather than either have their strategies predetermined (as was the case with most non-casters) or get bogged down in accounting (as was the case with casters). I really disagree with the descriptor of "basic" since it still has a similar number of rules as 3.x. It's easier to play and understand for most people because the rules were designed such that they're not complicated, obfuscated, and/or contradictory (most of which occurred because the rules of 3.0 evolved *very* heavily as it progressed from release to the very last books). It's approachable for new players that don't want to read rulebooks for hours on end. It also allows for a lot more tactical complexity thanks to the power system and was balanced better so that characters are never really rendered irrelevant at any specific level. Honestly, it's hard to say which is more "complicated" since 3.x emphasized description rather than the explicit mechanics of abilities, so that, while 3.x used plain text for most effects, 4e used the oft maligned power cards, many powers of which *definitely* get more involved than similar abilities in 3.x, not to mention that there are many more conditionals to account for on a tactical basis. Really, 3.x has more complex *accounting* and character creation but, for actual *play*, 4e has more potential tactical complexity. I always found playing 3.x more than a bit boring because any non-caster was generally just a series of 4 if statements (if adj full attack elseif w/i movespeed move and then attack elseif w/i double movespeed move then charge elseif double move) while casters were just waiting for the right time to use their spells and doing accounting otherwise. It was fun *building* characters, but actual *play* was always pretty much preordained. Plus, I always hated save v death.

Just a warning, please avoid assigning personal valuations on one system vs another so that we do not have to shut down this thread. These discussions (3.5 vs 4e) often devolve into 'mine is better'.  Stick with the mechanical differences without assigning valuations on if they are better or not and this thread will probably last longer. :) - Gauss

The purpose of this was merely to show some differences not which one is better. So let this not fall into a battle between 3.5e vs 4e personal experiences and semantics, please. I think this post did it's job already. Edit: Seems the mod beat me to it.

Just curious and this might not be the best place for it but as a DM who has really only run in 2nd edition and prior what are y'all's thoughts on DMing 3.5 and 4e?  Are their advantages to one or the other?  Mechanically speaking I know they are different but as story telling goes does one system or the other aid you in a way you find it "your" system?  Assuming the powers that be will continue with D&D next and there will be another system add infinity are either one of these systems "it"?  again just curious as upgrading is appealing but upgrading to what I don't know yet. thoughts?

From what I read and heard, I've never played. D&D Next is more like 2e. I can only speak from a DM 4e perspective. I really enjoy it. More than half the time I'm just making stuff up on the fly, and I find the small skill check list helpful for both my players and me. I find it flexible enough to stay with the rules while creating my own home-brewed stuff.

Greg M. said: Just curious and this might not be the best place for it but as a DM who has really only run in 2nd edition and prior what are y'all's thoughts on DMing 3.5 and 4e?  Are their advantages to one or the other?  Mechanically speaking I know they are different but as story telling goes does one system or the other aid you in a way you find it "your" system? The major difference in DMing between 3.x and 4e is that 4e operates around the fundamental adventure unit of the "encounter", which no previous edition really did before, and 4e completely separates player capabilities from NPC capabilities. 3.x used encounters *somewhat* with the CR system, but not to the same extent, and not in quite the same refined manner (largely because the CR system was almost *painfully* vague and had no real guide). In 4e, you can't really effectively run an adventure where players are sneaking into an orc fortress, trying to keep silent and quickly and quietly killing guards, lest they wake up the inhabitants and end up massively overwhelmed (well, you *can*, but it would be run as a skill challenge rather than a combat encounter). This is because 4e just runs individual encounters that don't work well when they're forced to move from one to the next very quickly; it's assumed that characters will get their short rests (i.e. 5 minute break) between fights, which 3.x doesn't require and, often, actually ends up trying to minimize. Basically, you can't really do a long series of tiny little micro-combats in 4e because the game wasn't designed to do that. 3.x has a more freeform encounter design that allows you to design encounters in almost any feasible manner. As to the NPC v. PC dichotomy, 3.x essentially has monster hit dice behaving as something roughly equivalent to levels (they affect saves, attack bonuses, feats, skills, etc.) and, when creating traditional non-monster NPCs (and even "special" versions of nominal monster PCs), you add player class levels (or sometimes the NPC specific "classes" that are designed to be downgraded versions of the player classes, for stuff like smiths, generic guards, and goblin/orc/etc. shamans). NPCs follow, essentially, the same construct as players do, which is laudable because it creates a certain degree of consistency, even if it does create some problems in game balance (because the "dragon" creature type is *way* better than anything else and there are no guidelines *at all* for NPC capabilities, like attacks, damage, spells, AC, etc.). 4e, on the other hand, maintains only the same fundamental interactive systems between NPCs and PCs: attack rolls, movement, attack types, etc. PCs gain powers, which are either at-will, daily, or encounter; paragon paths and epic destinies with player class unique capabilities; defenses that scale with gear and attributes; damage based upon weapons, gear, feats, etc.; healing surges for limited bursts of large amounts of healing; plenteous action points; and a whole slew of other player unique resources and constructs. NPCs, on the other hand, have their damage, defenses, hit points, and the like determined by the combination of generic role (i.e. NPC "classes" that are completely different and more general than the player classes; e.g. Lurker, Soldier, Brute, Skirmisher, Controller, Artillery) and level. On top of that, monsters have a further differentiation based upon whether they are intended to be Minions (massive hordes of easily killed monsters; i.e. orcs when you're level 6-8), Standard, Elite (stronger than normal; e.g. the orc warlord leading his horde of orcs into battle alongside him), or Solo (designed to be an encounter all on their lonesome; e.g. a dragon or beholder). In addition, rather than having at-will, encounter, and daily powers, NPCs have at-will, recharge (which recharge either upon certain conditions, like being reduced to half hp, or at intervals determined by rolling a d6 at the start of every turn to get over a certain goal number for said power), and encounter powers. Essentially, unlike 3.x, 4e uses a completely different construct for creating NPCs that is very well defined and completely different from the system used by PCs, with the only similarity being the combat system itself. One of the other little differences that I, as a GM, thoroughly enjoy, was the addition of skill challenges to 4e, which are essentially "combats" run using skill checks rather than attack rolls, with an abstract goal rather than specific monsters to defeat. The system is, in its default form, pretty flawed because it's really a system that hadn't been worked on particularly much, but the later variations and refinements on the system into 3 types of skill challenges (open ended, failure into combat, and dis/advantage skill checks) really make it work out well. This gives the GM a framework to specifically create explicit non-combat conflicts/event and reward them in the appropriate manner. Examples include negotiations with powerful entities (i.e. kings, dragons, etc.), escaping a room sized trap (i.e. the garbage compactor in Star Wars: A New Hope), navigating across a wasteland, or any other situation whether the players are in conflict with *something* but they're not explicit fighting it and it's dramatic/involved enough that you don't want to just have it be based upon a single roll. 3.x has the "complex skill check" system which is similar but not refined to the same level and doesn't have the same reward/difficulty structure attached to it.

Kitru, you still amaze me. Every time I've seen you post, it's a journey rather than a short answer. You are very consistent.