Main differences between 3.5E, 4E, and Pathfinder?

[Merlin the Tuna]

Gothmog's assessment is pretty similar to my own.

What was the last edition of D&D that you played, out of curiosity?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In previous editions, they said "How does a fantasy wizard act? What powers does he have? How does a fantasy rogue act? What powers does he have?" In fourth edition, they said "How do we make this balanced?" There's defintely a push in 4e towards making the mechanics before the world. It can be jarring in some areas, and the game very blatently doesn't bother explaining many things.

As for Pathfinder, I haven't played it, but I know someone who has, and he really seems to enjoy it. Apparently they've really been trying to cut down on the complaints that 3.5 had - lowering spell power, giving clerics more versatility and usefulness in turning, changing out save-or-die spells, etc.

 

[Mercurius]

Wow, what great replies! Special thanks to Gothmog and Mustrum for going so in depth. You all helped me make my decision, which is to go with 4E--I especially like the "tactical" over "system mastery" approach to rewards; one of the things I found frustrating with 3E is that character creation and development ended up becoming so focused on what combination of feats and/or spells would allow a character to do the most damage. It became rather formulaic--a lot of options superficially, but it seemed that there were certain "character paths" that provided the most optimization.

Merlin, it was 3E. The 3.5E books came out in the latter days of my last group and someone of us got them, but we didn't really change our game-play, and then I quit the group as I was moving out of state.

 

[Greg K]

one of the things I found frustrating with 3E is that character creation and development ended up becoming so focused on what combination of feats and/or spells would allow a character to do the most damage. It became rather formulaic--a lot of options superficially, but it seemed that there were certain "character paths" that provided the most optimization.

The above is a playstyle issue. Not all groups approach the game in that manner.

 

[pemerton]

For what it's worth, I agree with Gothmog and Mustrum Ridcully, both in the sense that 4e emphasies play over build (be that build of character or build of world), and that this makes it more adapted for either gamist or narrativist purposes than for simulationist purposes (I think in saying this I'm also agreeing with ProfessorCirno).

I also think that this probably increases its suitability for casual play, but I'd agree with Mustrum that it is not suitable only for casual play.

I think in playing 4e you probably have to be prepared to separate the ingame from the metagame - eg just because the game rules don't let my PC do it, and I know that (because I've already spent my daily power), it doesn't mean that in the gameworld it can't happen, it's just that in the gameworld it doesn't happen. If you try to read all the rules constraints back into the gameworld (as some put it, treat the rules as the physics of the gameworld) then the gameworld will look a bit strange.

Some players (especially, in my experience, those who really like Runequest or RM or the non-optimisation character-build aspects of 3E) might find this a bit grating.

Another difference that I don't think has been mentioned yet is between 3.5 and 4e in respect of "reward mechancis": 4e has flexible but (more-or-less clearly) spelled out XP rules (not just for combat but also for quests and skill challenges) and a slightly different approach to the awarding of treasure. Moreso than 3E, and consistent with what Mustrum said about GNS and also what ProfCirno said, it begins by addressing head on the question of which treasures should be awarded over the course of the adventure, and then looks at how those can be usefully and meaningfully placed, rather than starting with "What sort of treasure would this dragon have?"

 

[Mallus]

I think in playing 4e you probably have to be prepared to separate the ingame from the metagame...

Pem, this is terrific advice. Advice that applies to every RPG I've played, BTW.

Some players (especially, in my experience, those who really like Runequest or RM or the non-optimisation character-build aspects of 3E) might find this a bit grating.

In every RPG I know there is some element of tension between the game itself and the world being depicted by the game. This isn't particular to 4e. It's only grating because it's new.

 

[Steely Dan]

You could role-play in all previous editions, but apparently, as there are no rules for role-playing in 4th Ed, it can't be done.

 

[Mallus]

From my observation I'd say that 4e works best for a quick pickup game or on the fly. 3.5 and PF offer more diversity for characters and depth for creating more thought out games.

An observation: mechanical diversity is only one kind of diversity.

A question: isn't campaign depth more dependent on what the DM and players bring to the game -- the choice of setting, the type of adventures run, the relation of the players to the setting and, in general, the kind of play experience they're after-- than the particular rule set used?

I mean, those people that wanted them played in-depth, well thought out campaigns using OD&D and early AD&D. And others played paper-thin, story-less dungeon crawls using late, splat-heavy 3.5.

There's no debating that 3.5 produces more mechanically complex characters, but the evidence that those characters neccessarily lead to more complex campaigns looks shaky.

 

[Storminator]

I'm a pretty huge 4e fan, to the point where I don't want to play 3e any more... possibly ever.

But in terms of BSing on a message board, 4e is strictly inferior. If you post a 10th level 3e PC, we can dissect him for a hundred posts. A 4e PC, maybe 10.

3e rewards out-of-game-time pursuits much better than 4e.

PS

 

[billd91]

Wow, what great replies! Special thanks to Gothmog and Mustrum for going so in depth. You all helped me make my decision, which is to go with 4E--I especially like the "tactical" over "system mastery" approach to rewards; one of the things I found frustrating with 3E is that character creation and development ended up becoming so focused on what combination of feats and/or spells would allow a character to do the most damage. It became rather formulaic--a lot of options superficially, but it seemed that there were certain "character paths" that provided the most optimization.

I think the differences between 3e and 4e with respect to system vs tactical mastery are in grave danger of being overblown. There will still be discussion and debate about what combinations of feats and powers will be the most effective in 4e, but now they will often include discussion about synergies with the powers of other PCs at the table. It adds a more group-based focus, but the process is still there and will increase with the additions of more core books.