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

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. 

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

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


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

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.

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.)

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. 

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.