3.5 better for world building?

[Teemu]

Isn't this thread basically a list of who likes which edition? If you prefer 3.5, it's obviously better for worldbuilding. If you like 4e, that's better. Or am I missing something?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For instance, fighting on a ship could make it so that movement on a deck that is perpendicular to the ship is either difficult or easy, and can alternate every round.

You can do this in 4e

Or that throwing sand in an enemy's eyes, or bluffing them into a weak position, or creating your own trap are all viable strategies and tactics.

You can do this in 4e

The thing is, the power system is written in such a way that a creative player could easily duplicate the effects of powers they do not know, if they have a lenient DM.

You could say the same for any system.

The balance of 4e rests on the supposition that a class has a role, and the role imposes limitations, so that any player can shine in their own way. Trying to bypass these limitations by using your brain and imagination is part of how DnD has functioned since the beginning- but this type of play ruins the power system.

I don't get what you're saying here.

Bypassing roles in previous editions wasn't done. Nobody but the thief got thief skills. Nobody but the fighter got weapon specialization. In fact, the only difference is that then, the cleric and wizard could take any role they wanted, and now they can't.

Honestly, I think some people want to open a DMG or a PHB and see "Just BS all of it yourself" written inside.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm totally not following this. To the extent that numbers mean something in 3e, they basically mean the same thing in 4e.

Would that be "1st level" or "30 hit points"? I am afraid they cannot be simultaneously true!

As I said before, I am not interested in beating that dead horse. It may occur to you that anyone who cares to investigate the facts of the matter can do so.

The difference in that 3e does treat some subjects and 4e does not, and the difference in that 3e and 4e treat some things very differently -- and the reasons why, the attitudes toward those things -- make for notably different developments.

 

[malraux]

Would that be "1st level" or "30 hit points"? I am afraid they cannot be simultaneously true!

As I said before, I am not interested in beating that dead horse. It may occur to you that anyone who cares to investigate the facts of the matter can do so.

The difference in that 3e does treat some subjects and 4e does not, and the difference in that 3e and 4e treat some things very differently -- and the reasons why, the attitudes toward those things -- make for notably different developments.

How does that affect world building? A few hits to drop to dying in either system at level 1. Moreover, what does that have to do with your list of stuff from above?

 

[Philosopher]

Isn't this thread basically a list of who likes which edition? If you prefer 3.5, it's obviously better for worldbuilding. If you like 4e, that's better. Or am I missing something?

You're missing two things. First, it has been pointed out that 3e and 4e do things differently. Creating new classes is easier in one, creating new monsters is easier in the other. Second, the details you like to tinker with as you create your world could determine which edition you prefer.

Give people some credit. Aspects of the game determines whether people prefer it, not the other way around.

Bypassing roles in previous editions wasn't done. Nobody but the thief got thief skills. Nobody but the fighter got weapon specialization. In fact, the only difference is that then, the cleric and wizard could take any role they wanted, and now they can't.

In 3.5, anyone could buy ranks in any skill. The multiclassing rules allowed for lots of flexibility, especially when you added prestige classes. With the right feats, a wizard could wear armour and wield swords. These may not always turn out to be effective, but they could certainly be done. In fact, that's how 3e was designed - rather than saying "Your wizard just can't wear armour and use a sword," they said "Your wizard can wear armour and use a sword, just not very effectively - as it should be."

 

[Ycore Rixle]

How does that affect world building? A few hits to drop to dying in either system at level 1.

At level 1, in general, you could drop to dead quicker in 3e than in 4e.

And that's the whole issue here, I think. There are some people who look at this example and say, "One hit, three hits, it's all a few hits, how could that possibly affect world-building?" And there are other people who look at it and say, "One hit vs. three hits, how could that not affect world-building?"

The first group doesn't see a connection, the second group does. Different tastes, different views, chocolate vs. vanilla, staying up too late watching South Park vs. staying up too late watching Family Guy... ok got to go to sleep now.

 

[Ariosto]

Isn't this thread basically a list of who likes which edition? If you prefer 3.5, it's obviously better for worldbuilding. If you like 4e, that's better. Or am I missing something?

I don't think you're missing anything. Claim that 3.5 books are a better soporific via lector, and the 4e fans will probably leap to insist that theirs are even better.

 

[Ariosto]

Moreover, what does that have to do with your list of stuff from above?

You tell me. You're the one who claimed,

To the extent that numbers mean something in 3e, they basically mean the same thing in 4e.

as if it were somehow both accurate and relevant.

Don't you think that what would really have to do with that list of stuff would be your pointing out where it is in 4e?

Hmm. Maybe it's just not there.

 

[Ariosto]

malraux seems to have missed it, but I was answering the question as to what, to my mind, "world building" entails.

malraux, do you disagree?

malraux, do you think -- as that poster seemed to be claiming -- that 3e is inferior for world-building because it lacks a Curse of the Dark Dream power to hit for 3d8+Charisma modifier psychic damage and slide the target 3 squares?

 

[malraux]

Don't you think that what would really have to do with that list of stuff would be your pointing out where it is in 4e?

The 4e DMG covers that same list of stuff. Moreover, if I'm building my own world, I'm going to be varying from the default world, so those base assumptions are irrelevant.

I don't think you're missing anything. Claim that 3.5 books are a better soporific via lector, and the 4e fans will probably leap to insist that theirs are even better.

You could try not being an ass.