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

[Asmor]

It's really not very useful to try and compare 3.5 with 4th edition. That's like asking us to compare, say, 3.5 with Mutants & Masterminds. At the very core, they're still somewhat similar, but in every way that matters they're very different games with very different goals and feels.

Anything I said about 4th edition would probably come off as a put down to 3.5, so I'll just say that I like it and that's that.

 

[dm4hire]

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. You can do that with 4e, but you don't have the diversity of the characters as the other two. PF as mentioned is being designed to replace 3.5, offering a tightening of the rules that most players thought was needed instead of a whole new edition with the changes that WotC did with 4e. If you're looking to play casually and don't have the time to put into character or monster developement then go with 4e for the simplification mentioned.

 

[Vael]

I liked 3.5, but as a player. I could spend hours pouring through books finding feats and spells. I tried to DM 3.5, and wanted to blow my brains out.

4e isn't as in depth, but that's a strength for casual gamers and casual DMs. I like running the game, and playing it.

 

[MacMathan]

I don't know that I have more to add to the comparison than what has been said.

I will say I think 4e would be easier on a casual group of players as there our currently only 3 books for the DM to buy and 1 for the players so the ramping up in terms of cash and information load is easier.

 

[AllisterH]

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. You can do that with 4e, but you don't have the diversity of the characters as the other two. PF as mentioned is being designed to replace 3.5, offering a tightening of the rules that most players thought was needed instead of a whole new edition with the changes that WotC did with 4e. If you're looking to play casually and don't have the time to put into character or monster developement then go with 4e for the simplification mentioned.

I think this is the biggest difference.

4E I think is more appealing to me as a DM but even as a pro-4E fan, I can see where as a player, 3E is more attractive to the gearheads.

Like I've mentioned before, 3E is Constructed while 4E is akin to Limited (Draft)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think this is the biggest difference.

4E I think is more appealing to me as a DM but even as a pro-4E fan, I can see where as a player, 3E is more attractive to the gearheads.

Well, I agree in so far as I might be willing to play a 3E campaign now, but not DM it.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer playing 4E. And my group is anything but "casual", I think - we try to make it possible to play every week, and this has been done for i don't know how long (possibly 1-2 decades, with me only par-taking only the past 8 years?). And we focus pretty exclusively on RPG stuff, too - we don't play video-games during our game sessions, we don't drink (or take any other drugs - except the two smokers in our group, that need their cigarettes, of course). I don't think that's "casual" gaming. And most of us also only meet for the game sessions (living or working in different cities by now - albeit only in a 60km radius) Ah, well, that's all just anecdotical, but my point would be: Yes, it is easier to pick up for casual gamers. But that doesn't mean that "non-casual" games will enjoy it less then 3E. Because that's definitely not the case for us.

 

[AllisterH]

I think 4E will appeal to a certain type of gamer. Namely the ones that like the tactical aspect of 4E but not so much as the build.

PErsonally, I prefer playing 4E because of that (I vastly prefer Limited to Constructed)

 

[Mercule]

The focus on minis: You could get by without in 3.5, but in 4E it is more of a stretch.

I think this is largely a matter of presentation in the books. The 4e writing style assumes minis much more explicitly. My reading of the 4e books, though, makes me think it wouldn't be much harder in actual play to skip minis. You just have to adapt the language.

3e emphasized rules and system mastery

I've come to the conclusion that this is the biggest difference. From the designers' mouths, 3e was a game where system mastery was rewarded, while 4e rewards tactical mastery.

 

[Greg K]

Also, 3e is more of a toolbox and also has plenty of great third party support that can help tailor the game to be what you want. This means that if you don't like WOTC's take on something, you can probably find an alternative that you do like. Also, among the third party products, you can find options not available from WOTC.

As someone that generally does not like WOTC's take on supplemental material for 3e and also doesn't like the implementation of many changes to 4e, third party 3e products are an important consideration.

 

[blargney the second]

I haven't played Pathfinder yet, so I'll only do a quick compare of the three biggest differences I've noticed between 3.5 to 4e.

1) In 3.5 you can accumulate enough bonuses to make the d20 irrelevant. In 4e it always remains a large factor.

2) In 3.5 you stop adventuring when whoever has daily abilities runs out. In 4e you stop when someone's out of healing surges. (Or risk them dying...)

3) In 3.5 consumable magic items are much more common and frequently used to effectively extend your daily abilities. In 4e consumables are almost non-existent, so you're more reliant on your own abilities (specifically encounter powers).
-blarg