Would anyone mind posting a few major differences between these two versions of D&D ? which version do you guys like better ?

Floodgates: Open

D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder sometimes called 3.75) is a system like the old D&D (archtypes, levels) that is heavily skill and feat (special moves) based.   3.5 focuses on making any character or monster in a well defined way.  Basically all special powers are defined so in theory a player could play any monster and IN THEORY you would know how to balance that character with the rest of the party.

D&D 4 seems inspired by video game RPGs like WOW or Kingdom Hearts.  Often different characters are equally powered (i.e. do same damage) and only the special effect is different.  This is only true of the basic characters.  There are some new classes that have other tactical benefits and I think 4.0 is the first to actually think about group tactics and powers in any serious way.

A lot of old times are very anti-4.0.  I am not.  I don't like it more than 3.5 but I don't think its as evil or lame and a lot of people.  Its just different with its own focus.  4.0 does seem more combat oriented (if you can believe that).

Both versions are superior to the older versions of D&D (in my opinion).  You get more options and control of what your character can do and focuses on as you go up in levels.  Many people would disagree with that.  I think magic and thievery were broken in older versions and the newer games improve that.  Lots of people would argue which is better and why, which better supports role playing but I don't see that any different than arguing between D&D and other systems.  Basically, if you consider what each system tries to do you can get a good idea of what it will work well for and what it wont.

Between these two games (3.5, 4.0) I think most people would agree that 3.5 will appeal to old timers more because it is more like the older versions.  4.0 will appeal more to people who grew up playing RPG video games, including the ones that are multiplayer and cooperative.   

The only thing that you can say entirely objectively (I think) is that 4.0 scales combat in a different way than all previous versions.  At high levels it is designed to make combat last longer and you have to think more as a group.  All the older D&Ds were much more likely to have Bob does X and Sue does Y and combat is over.  4.0 is more focused on combat as a team as that was part of its design.

Now I will watch as the different camps tear everything I said apart.  :)

3.5 is the latest edition of Dungeons and Dragons that would be recognized as the same family as first edition. 4th edition is more of a tactical board game within a role-playing context.  While combat in 3.5 (and older editions) can be played without a “battle-map” or game board, it seems an impossibility in 4th. Arguments abound on how that effects role-playing though I think that most informed people would agree a lot has to do with the style employed by the players. If you take combat out of it the game play could be identical. 4th has a much more simplified skill system (which I feel leads to a focus on RP rather than rolling in game but leaves off the on-paper justification no ranks in say cooking.)

The games really seem to utilize different skill sets (player wise) the requirement of a battle-map really makes 4th edition an exercise in tactics that 3.5 just wasn’t as focused on. Another difference is game balance. 4th strives to make each character roughly equivalent to every other character of the same level. While this sounds like a good idea it has a dramatic effect on team dynamics. Wizards show this dramatically no more hiding in the back with a crossbow at early stages of your adventuring career in 4th. Then again there is no “I have the power of 20 suns at 13th” either.

They are very different games and I would say they are the same RPG in name only.

Wow 2 posts on the subject without "my game is more Uber!" See how we are growing.

I've been running a 4th game for about a year and we've discussed an older player conundrum. We try to follow character driven development storylines which appeals to old-schoolers instead of most new players. However by using 4th ed most Old schoolers wont come close to the game on principal. 

I'm not sure regarding the Videogame comment. I think there are some cooperative tactical games though I 'm not sure its homage to those games, rather than the principals of balance in game design showing up in both genres

I agree with Hew here, but I always found combat hard without some sort of reference for character location. Things like cones and blast radi when fighting mulitiple oppenents or seeking safe distance can be quite a challenge with 10 or more allies/opponents involved.

hewhorocks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

While combat in 3.5 (and older editions) can be played without a “battle-map” or game board, it seems an impossibility in 4th.

It's not impossible to run combat without a map or grid, it's just so much easier.

Well, sure you can play chess  or Monopoly or even Go for that matter without a board. However for a group of say 5 players to each have that significant a spacial acumen would be either a construct of absurdity or folks just saying "fudge it."

You think 4th ed combat takes too long now? Try " Ok your 5 squares from him but three from the fighter, there is rubble which counts as rough terrain just ten feet to your left then five feet north of that as well.  The northern part provides cover from the north or south but not the east or west.The pit is 10 feet behind you and the wizards minions are...."

I find myself already saying "let me draw it"

Yeah, but the reality is that miniature-less combat generally doesn't involve language like "squares."  In my experience, miniature-less combat has been handled in a much more abstract way, with players having a general vision of the battlefield rather than a specific one with positions and what not.  In a 30 by 30 room of a dungeon  or a skirmish in an alleyway, things like distance, blast radii, et cetera don't really matter.  You keep track of which kobold you're attacking, whether or not you're hiding behind or under something, and whether or not someone or something is next to you ("Aren't you hunched under a little table right now?  You can't load your crossbow!").  I've even done it in 4E before, though mechanics like Blast and Burst lost a lot of their effect - I had to resort to fudging it a couple times, but I don't feel that it took away from the game at all, and I certainly didn't allow anything that would be obviously impossible if we had been playing with a grid.

Now, I will say this: I ran two encounters (separate sessions) with the same group of players and similar numbers of monsters.  The first I ran mini-less and the second I ran with a grid.  The first encounter took about 15 minutes.  The second took about 2.5 hours.  When there's a board involved, many people tend to spend too much time analyzing all possible moves.  Gridless combat tends to be more fluid like a conversation.  Though a group can always implement a "shot clock" to limit player deliberation - and ignoring any discussions of the true definition of the word "game" - gridless combat is generally faster.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about 4E and gridded combat and everything that entails (it's entirely separate from the RP component of RPGs and satisfies a different set of tastes for me), but the loose, mini-less combat so common in pre-4E D&D has its appeal, too.

Oh, and magic is a lot different in 4E.  A lot of the old non-combat spells that you know and love like Knock and Tenser's Floating Disk are not listed as Powers for the different magic-using classes.  Rather, they are treated as Rituals and are handled in a totally different way.

Now then - I don't remember *how* exactly they're handled (never really absorbed it since I haven't used it in a game yet, and I don't have my PHB on me), but IIRC they can be used by members of any class are and found through studying a Ritual Book containing the Ritual they want to learn or read off of scrolls.  Rituals have levels, too, and can only be learned by a character of level less than or equal to the Ritual level.  I think Wish might be a Ritual in 4E.  Speaking of Wish, I wish I had my PHB on me right now so I could look it up and stop guessing.  Bah!

I'm sure my memory did not treat the rules for Rituals in 4E very well, so someone please feel free to jump in and enlighten whodat3542.

To act as a limited wish:

Non-combat/utility spells are classified as rituals and with a feat can be learned and cast by any character. (Depending on components, level and in many cases skills) A similiar mechanic exists for "non-magical rituals" called Martial Practices (long distance running, forgery etc.)

I think I like the idea of the "shot clock", beyonder. In the meet up game so far, most combat seems to be very drawn out and it is something I might want to consider for my Northshore game. What would be a good starting count-down in your opinion? I probably won't impliment one for the first few sessions since most are inexperienced, but eventually I will need to figure out something to speed up the combat encounters.

Another difference in 3.5 to 4e is the Skill Challenge encounters. I see no one mentioned them yet. The description given for running them in the DMG seems very straightforward, and really no fun. Essentially, the DM gives the players one or more base Skills to roll in order to progress through a challenge (let's say extracting information from an NPC). Each success gets you one step closer to achieving your goal, while a failure has the opposite effect. As the challenge progresses, the DM will notify the players of new skills that are allowed for use. There are also skills that may result in auto-failure. I just don't like telling the players what to do, or that they are limited in their options. If you can come up with a badass story on how you were able to us an Athletics check to help the party Bluff the king (and it makes sense), then hell yeah, why not?  :)

I see some good that can be taken out of this system if the DM can provide a good narrative and think on their feet a bit. I have decided to use concepts from this challenge system, but change it to feel more story and role play driven. Instead of giving a set of base skills to use and having a skill tree open up as the players reach success, I plan on using the narrative of the story to hint at logical solutions. Using a skill related to the solution they have devised, I will then have them roll against an appropriate DC. I am also not limiting skill challenges with a "Skill Tree" that shifts as the challenge evolves. If the players want to do something off the wall, then as the DM it is your job to referee the rolls and describe the outcome. IMHO the word "no" should only come out of the DM's mouth after 100 "yes's" have been given.  :D

Yeah I think the description of how to run skill challenges is not very clear. It is one area where they assume the DM knows what to do but I found that wasnt the case at least in our game.

Your "Solution" to rectify the situation is actually how the challenges were intended. The DM shouldn’t say roll skill X rather  “The Duke seems an impressive figure and looks somewhat off-put granting this audience to some adventures.”  Part of the issue is unlike much of 4th edition skill challenges require a great deal of preparation for the DM. (Either that or they need to be very good at working things on the fly. )
The "No" after the "100's yeses" thing is actually something that a lot of DM's do when they break the narrative voice.  Ie. its meta-game speak. "The No" is really the DM saying "I don’t think that this will work, I'd advise against it. " When the "proper” method of game play would be "The Duke chuckles, 'Yes your quite a specimen but I've got chunks of guys like you in my breakfast.' He looks unamused by your attempt at intimidation and seems to be on the verge of ordering his guards to drag you out."

In our group we have taken to role-playing out the encounter with interpretations by the DM on which skill the character is trying to use.  “ Hmmm that sounds like diplomacy…OK That’s an intimidate check” That’s certainly not something easily  done for all groups. “I use intimate” is the extent of RP in some groups, which is fine if they enjoy that and the rules work for both styles.

Im not sure skill challenges are really new to 4th though. I think most groups have used something similar since 3.0 though I’m not sure its been codified in a core rulebook.

Beyonder
To the Grid-less combat though how did you handle Push, pulls, slides, slows combat advantage? Couple those effects in with the terrain effects, Marks, blasts, bursts, zones, cover, immobilize (all of which are much more meaningful in 4th than prior eds) and it would seem to be a lot to focus on rather than describing the actions and effects in the naritive voice.

I dont know, Certainly I think we could run combat like story-mode as in earlier editions but I might argue you are tinkering with the balance of classes that is designed in 4th ed. In a combat with 15 total actors how does the wizard's  slow in a blast 1 within 10 affect the battle field? You can hand wave it certainly but controllers and some leaders give up much of the firepower from previous editions to address battlefield manipulation effects. The warlord class is all about manipulating the subtleties of the battlefield without the grid there it would be very difficult to not overplay or underplay the value/ scope of those abilities.

Again I think we could hand-wave it but in the context of discussing the differences between 3.5 and 4th it would be doing a great disservice to the discussion not to address the vastly more important role the battle-map plays in the 4th ed system.

I have said in the past, 4th ed D&D requires a different skill set than prior incarnations. In previous editions a good player was judged primarily by their RP ability. By 3.5 your ability to build effective characters was also a contributing factor. In 4th your tactical ability also plays a significant role in describing how good of a player you are.

I guess we could pull apart the constituent parts but I think 4th without a battle map is really like playing 3.0 ~3.5 without feats; it would be removing one of the most significant differentiations of the game from previous incarnations.

thanks for throwing some stuff out there for me guys. i guess what i'm trying to figure out whether after finding a gaming group on this site whether it would be worth purchasing a 4.0 guide from a bookstore or whether to just stick to 3.5 ?

OR.... you can download all the 4e books in PDF format from a torrent site and check them out.

BUT, if you are trying to decide if 4e is worth playing here's my advice: YES
The differences between 3.5 and 4e are irrelevent. The fact is that most D&D games are moving towards 4e (and Pathfinder) because it IS the most current edition. It is the game that is recieving updates, player feedback, rules revisions, and new product delevopement. There are those of us at my game that reminice about AD&D all the time, but we aren't going back to it. It's like playing an MMO without the new expansion, sure it's familiar and you rock at it, but everyone else has kinda moved on.

Another suggestion coming from someone that just started RPGs after 10+ years of not playing, go to where the games are first. You can find all kinds of people and groups here. Come hang out at a game or two, or find a game with an opening. Someone will let you borrow their book to look over or create a character if you don't want to pirate the PDF file. Observe or play, or both! And then make a decision on whether you like the system or not. Many other games have been retooling their systems into new editions for the past couple of years, and there is a lot out there to see.

Be careful about advocating illegal activities in a public forum.

Okay... if your scared, you can still download the PDF file LEGALLY at a discounted purchase price from the publisher.

People just have to say something huh?

Unfortunately, WotC no longer offers their books in PDF format - time for you to fire up the ol' BitTorrent client.

@hewhorocks: I understand what you're saying completely - a lot of the combat mechanics in 4E are meaningless without a grid...  if you use them.  Regarding the disruption of balance: I disagree.  The powers are all pretty similar to each other; removing push/pull/blast/zone/etcetera from all powers actually preserves this balance.  Damage is similar from class to class, too, and would remain the same whether or not you're using a grid.  If NO power uses a certain mechanic, balance persists.

I don't give a plop what you do (or I do for that matter), I just don't believe it's kosher for public forums.

Well, removing  all combat capabilities from characters creates balance as well though I would argue your now then playing 4th ed D&D at all. In our game combats have swung wildly on the application of a slows, on pushes and slides, and on dazes.  The application of which are the entire basis for some characters combat effectiveness. Removing or reducing the application of these mechanics greatly restricts the diversity of available tactics.  The presentation of tactics is in my opinion the significant difference in 4th edition.

As to damage being roughly equal I have to disagree. A heroic tier (say 5th level) ranger can be built fairly easily to open an encounter with an attack of 3d12 (great bow)+2d8 (quarry) +6 (ability mod) rerolling a miss. Add in a level appropriate magic bow and on a critical we are talking 48 + 4d8. With the use of an action point it is almost a foregone conclusion that our elven ranger friend here could dish 110+ damage on any round that he needed to. (Minotaur of the maze meet Arenandis he will be eating your lunch today) Nothing about a wizard can go near that in terms of damage until….Well I would guess late paragon tier (17~20th level.) Then again an orb wizard's ability to daze and slide a single target every turn or control large portions of the battlefield can have a much larger effect on a combat than raw damage numbers.

Pulling out the mechanics pulls the balance apart not only because damage outputs are so varied it destroys balance because many of the base classes are specifically designed to take advantage of particular mechanics. Fighters get durability but at the cost of wide and free access to certain mechanics. Removing access to those mechanics across the board removes the opportunity cost the fighter has to pay for having so much durability. Conversely controllers have a wide variety of mechanics or status effect to impart and they pay for it in terms of durability and damage potential. Removing any or all mechanics reduces the characters effectiveness without compensating for it elsewhere.  The removal of every mechanic would elevate those characters without access to or with ordinary defenses for those mechanics.   Low Will defense isnt much of a weakness when the only thing that attacks will are minor damaging effects without any status effects (cause they are redlined out.)

By the way I have it on good authority that Yle-Kay does give plop. Good plop if the rumors are to be believed.

As for gridless vs grid: if the DM and players can communicate well enough, then the grid isn't necessary in 4e. All one must do is multiply a given number of squares (say 4 squares) by 5, call it "feet" instead of squares, and you are all of a sudden playing 3.xx combat with different power names and more character balance. Granted, 4e combat rules were basically made for grids, but it doesn't mean you must play with a grid if that is the deal-breaker. I've played plenty of both systems, and 3.xx could get complicated if some players and/or the DM had a different imaginary vision of the battle. The more complicated it got, the harder it was to follow in one's head, making a mapping tool of some sort very handy, at the very least. 4e just cut the crap and based combat around it, which weirds out some people, apparently.

In any case, character conversations and non-combat activity are handled the same either way: the players and DM act like their characters communicating, and describe picking up something, and the game rolls on. The DM might insert "roll Stealth" rather than "roll Move Silently and also roll Hide" when the player wants to move unnoticed, but rules-junkies like the overly detailed specific rules of 3.5 for that, and that's fine. If you want to play a character, it can be done in any system. It then comes down to whether you want actions to be simple and more balanced or detailed and more complicated with dice needed as to which system you choose.

The books only explain rolling dice for actions and combats; playing your character is up to you whether you play 3.xx, 4e, GURPS, WoD, or whatever. So find a game, check it out, then pick the system based on what appeals to your rolling style and based on who you find playing what so that you can play the game and have fun (you don't want to pick a system only to play with losers like me....)

Hope that helps. And, regarding bit torrents, that should be off-the-radar, I'd think, for legal reasons and/or simple tact. Just because we know about bad things doesn't mean we can talk about them like we are participants. Besides, the hard books are better to have either way.  ::)

Adam wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 1:05pm:

OR.... you can download all the 4e books in PDF format from a torrent site and check them out.

It is the official policy of this forum that we don't support or encourage illegal activity.  Free speech allows you to talk about illegal activities in a general way but specifics on how to perform illegal acts will be removed.

I remain unconvinced that a typical 4th ed game could be run effectively without a grid. Even with the conversion of squares to feet (which is done in the narrative voice in most games anyway) the tactical nature of encounters seems to necessitate that a map be used. Granted a DM with a tactical map hidden from players view could be constantly described but the tactical minutia would seem to require that narrative from each perspective be provided on each initiative count as it arrives, or only on prompting  by each player. Though many at will powers provide say slide effects or aura effects or zones  and require precise placement for full utilization.

Players frequently presented with complex tactical issues like attacking from points which may require movement through an ongoing effect, or may provokes opportunity attack or allows you to be flanked depending on the route you take. Not to mention the Rune priests leadership aura allows you a bonus to hit if within 10 feet though cover would be  granted to the enemy if you are within that zone because of the terrain …unless the priest climbs up on the difficult terrain… though then he grants combat advantage to the lurker. 4th ed combat out of the box can easily be more complex than chess considering the variety of tactical concerns. That’s not to say you couldn’t ignore those tactical concerns  the game could probably still be fun and provide great RP possibilities. You could play Monopoly without the railroads, utilities and hotels  .still might be fun but its not the full Monopoly experience.

I think Hew is on to something here. No one is arguing that you can't handwave half the combat rules, what is being said is that basically the essence of what 4e combat has become will be gone. You might as well just roll opposed Fate dice and the victor gets to describe the outcome.

And while we are talking about grid battle, I have a question. Is there friendly fire from blast, burst, and other area effect powers?

it depends.  some powers effect just enemies while others effect all creatures.  im sure a dm could house rule that they dont effect friends but that would effect some of realism.

Or at the very least have some effect on how you describe the power. There is nothing that says that all enemies in burst 2 dont get their own invidual "fire tendral" instead of one big "Fire ball" blasting everything but friends.
Most powers descibe who it effects in the target entry.

Using "opposed fate rolls" however is a viable method of RP though thats another thread I think..