3.5 or 4th edition?

[Neonchameleon]

What do you want to play? For all they have the same name, they are very different games. To pick, I'd ask two questions:

1: The Shotgun Question. In a Holywood Action Movie when someone is shot with a shotgun they are knocked backwards. Does this (a) make you roll your eyes because it would never happen in the real world or (b) make you say "Cool!" as long as it's applied consistently in the story/world?

2: Strategy vs Tactics. Would you prefer to (a) have many battles that are over before they have started because of superior planning other than due to the dice gods, and the ability to win strategically enough to do the job of the rest of your team or (b) have less magical flexibility, fights that are tense and something approaching fair (the PCs win supposedly balanced fights but get beaten up along the way - good strategy and tactics really help but aren't as overwhelming) and niche protection so that every member of the party is competent in his/her own right and has something to contribute.

In both cases 3.5/Pathfinder is (a) and 4e is (b)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My take on it:

3.5 has:

1. The most options
2. Higher complexity
3. More source material to draw from
4. More stuff available at cheaper prices
5. More "traps" in PC design

4Ed has:

1. Arguably easier learning curve
2. Better mechanical balance between classes
3. Current support
4. Less overall flexibility in PC design

Personally, 3.5 and its 3PP offshoots (commonly called 3.X) is my game. 4Ed is nice, but its no substitute for 3.X in my book.

 

[DragoonLance]

If you and the other players are used to wargames (you mentioned warhammer) I would think you would enjoy 4e's tactical combat. I also consider 4e to be easier to learn both for new DMs, and players; it has less character building traps. An up-optimized character in 4e can still contribute in a meaningful way to the party's success. IMO and YMMV of course. I used to play warhammer but it has managed in recent years to price itself out of my fun money range, so 4e still scratches my tactical itch and lets me get in my role-playing at the same time.

 

[Sunseeker]

My take on it:

3.5 has:

1. The most options
2. Higher complexity
3. More source material to draw from
4. More stuff available at cheaper prices
5. More "traps" in PC design

4Ed has:

1. Arguably easier learning curve
2. Better mechanical balance between classes
3. Current support
4. Less overall flexibility in PC design

Personally, 3.5 and its 3PP offshoots (commonly called 3.X) is my game. 4Ed is nice, but its no substitute for 3.X in my book.

This is generally exactly how I feel about it as well. Though I disagree that 4e has an easier learning curve, and would add that it also has a wide variety of things that tend to be irrelevant in most gameplay I've taken part in which make it feel like I(as a DM or player) have to fine tune the game myself to figure out what's really necessary. Whereas 3.5e always seemed to just put it in my face and say "this is how it works, play it."

 

[athos]

"Eeek, 4th edition" tries to avoid getting any on himself

If you are of the WoW generation, you would probably like 4e better. My last gaming group in Tulsa, went heavily to WoW during the 3.5 days, but when 4th edition came out they came flocking back to D&D and just LOVE it.

I played it at first, since I was an RPGA guy and they dropped 3.5 and went to 4th edition, but for me, it was too much like a board game. Nothing against strategy and tactical games, it just wasn't for me.

Now, I have too much invested in 3.5 to leave it. You are lucky you have a choice since you are new, you can pick one or the other and invest your time and money in it. (Probably have to invest twice when 4.5 comes out )

Can't believe I am saying this, but as a relative newcomer to the game, you are probably best going 4th edition, since it is supported. If you have OpenRPG, you can go to the Blackstar server which I think is a hot bed of 4th edition gaming where you could probably sit in on and play some 4th edition and get a feel for it. I would play it online though and learn the "feel" of the game first before GMing it for you group.

 

[ancientvaults]

I would suggest sitting in on games if you can and trying them out. The best edition to play is the one that your players and yourself enjoy, regardless of the number. It may be 4e, it may be 3.5 or Pathfinder. It is an investment, so try them out through others and see what will work best for you.

 

[Verdande]

Everybody knows my opinion by now:

The best rules are the older ones. There's no reason to limit yourself to 3.5 or 4e, when both are needlessly complicated and overly reliant on rules, especially for new players.

But it depends on where you're coming from. If your group is wargamers first and roleplayers second, 4th edition can work for you. Its detractors claim that it's a gussied up wargame, so maybe it'll be your gateway drug.

If your group is into more freeform, open roleplay, where you don't have to touch the rules because they're easy enough to internalize, and if you're big on homebrewing and making stuff up, I'd recommend Labyrinth Lord. It's a free pdf download, or you can (optionally) choose to buy a softcover or hardcover book for a pittance. It's my favorite version of the game, and miles and miles superior to any of the newer editions. Newer doesn't always equal better, as you well know.

If you're big into character building, then I recommend 3rd edition. Most people who like 3e are into it because it lets them play with mechanics and math and stuff to make the most optimal character possible. If you're not into that, then 4e or a retro-clone like Labyrinth Lord are more your speed.

 

[Cor_Malek]

BTW - if you've already decided to go with 4e - DDI subscription, even(especially? ) for one month is good value, as you get tons and tons of downloadable stuff and character builder for life. Me recommendation in this case would be: use demo to get started, if you like the game - get 1 month subscription, and renew it every couple of months when enough new material stacks up. Consider finding a shop that is running an Encounters event to try the system out.

And remember - either system will have a feel that you give to it, the rules are just a toolset. Ultimately it's the same game of mind.

 

[Asmor]

Disclaimer: I'm a 4e guy.

3rd edition is more simulationist. It emphasizes verisimilitude and consistency in rules.

4th edition is more gamist. It emphasizes balance and gameplay in rules.

A common complaint of 3rd edition is that most of its fun is in a relatively narrow band--around 5th through 10th level, depending on who you ask. Lower level than that and many characters feel limited. Higher and things tend to get too complicated. 4th edition is much more consistent, although it also does get a bit more complicated as you get higher in levels.

A common complaint of 4th edition is that the classes all feel similar. There are also many who say they felt this way until they played the game; in fact, a lot of people say 4e plays much better than it reads. It's also worth mentioning that this complaint was at its height in the beginning of 4e; later products have diversified things a bit. PHB3, in particular, has broken the mold in with its psionic classes, and Essentials also introduces some new innovation.

By contrast, 3rd edition classes can be very, very different, particularly in later supplements. I'd even go so far as to say many classes in 3e were just excuses to try out some new subsystem.

Both systems emphasize combat heavily. Both systems require a battle mat and miniatures (others may disagree on this point, but they're wrong ). Combat in both systems can really bog down, particularly if people aren't on the ball.

3rd edition tends to assume a party of 4 characters. 4th edition assumes a party of 5. Both editions work well anywhere from 3-6, imho.

3rd edition combat usually assumes 1 monster vs. the party. 4th edition combat assumes an equal number of monsters as the party. Both of these are very flexible, though.

All this said, if you decide to go with 3rd edition I'd recommend looking into Pathfinder. It has the benefits of being further developed and still supported, and I believe it's supposed to maintain compatibility with 3.5 supplements and adventures. Never tried it myself, though.

If you decide to go with 4th edition, you might consider waiting til September when D&D Essentials comes out, which is a product aimed at new players/groups and patterned after the old boxed sets. Don't think of it as "D&D Lite," though, if I understand correctly it should be fully featured, and indeed the new builds and such will be of interest to experienced 4e players as well.

 

[Oryan77]

and sorry, I didn't know such a topic could start heated discussions.

That's because one of the editions sucks, and the other rocks. Only you can figure out which is which.

For some reason a lot of people get butthurt when they hear criticism about their edition. So now you can't even mention the word "edition" without someone yelling out, "WAR". It's very annoying.

Really, ignore the "sky is falling" comments you hear about edition wars and take all of the advice people offer about each edition (good & bad) as constructive criticism. Pick the one that sounds the most interesting. You won't go wrong with either edition. But the only way to know what you will like best is by trying them both. So maybe in the future, you can give the other edition a try...then you can can sit back and watch all of the children bicker about why your favorite edition sucks.