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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Well, the shift is very notable, but one shouldn't make the assumption that tactical mastery or teamwork was not important in 3E, and that character building is unimportant in 4E.

 

[Mercule]

In previous editions, they said "How does a fantasy wizard act? What powers does he have?

I have to disagree with this. I've never been able to reconcile my image of "how does a fantasy wizard act" with the D&D spell system. I think it's clearly a remnant of a wargame resource management system. That doesn't make it bad, but it certainly doesn't reflect the fantasy wizard archetype, either.

That said, if you were referring to the types of spells available, rather than the system around them, then I agree. The spells in the 1e PHB inform my characters even in systems like Hero. I just make them skill or END based, instead of charges.

 

[VanRichten]

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.

While I feel this sounds like a subtle edition war statement I felt the need to respond.

I think the problem comes from the fact that in the 30 years people have played the game there always was rules dealing with roleplaying. This has caused an ingrained understanding of if you cannot directly figure it out you can make a die roll to explain it.

Now we come to 4E and that paradigm has changed. No longer do you have a die roll to explain certain things. In many respects there are no hard and fast rules to define them. In fact they have to be arbitrated.

A classic example of this is training a horse to do tricks. In all past editions in particular 3.X there were defined rules in how to do that. Now in 4E it is not so well defined. This leaves room for interpretation on how you wish to approach the situation.

4E was the first edition in many years of D&D to move away from providing rules on roleplaying and focus solely on roll-playing. It focuses heavly on tactical style play, which for many is a good thing. Those who are not fans of it feel it speaks to them more like Warhammer (the tactical game). To each their own of course.

But lets rememember if for 30+ years you are told one way of doing something, and then suddenly it changes on you. You will probably be resistant as well. In most cases a factioning will occur.

 

[Mallus]

I have to disagree with this. I've never been able to reconcile my image of "how does a fantasy wizard act" with the D&D spell system. I think it's clearly a remnant of a wargame resource management system. That doesn't make it bad, but it certainly doesn't reflect the fantasy wizard archetype, either.

You mean wizards in fantasy literature didn't act like field artillery? And priests didn't act like combat medics? I think you might be on to something here...

 

[AllisterH]

.

A classic example of this is training a horse to do tricks. In all past editions in particular 3.X there were defined rules in how to do that. Now in 4E it is not so well defined. This leaves room for interpretation on how you wish to approach the situation.

4E was the first edition in many years of D&D to move away from providing rules on roleplaying and focus solely on roll-playing. It focuses heavly on tactical style play, which for many is a good thing. Those who are not fans of it feel it speaks to them more like Warhammer (the tactical game). To each their own of course.

But lets rememember if for 30+ years you are told one way of doing something, and then suddenly it changes on you. You will probably be resistant as well. In most cases a factioning will occur.

Looks at his 1E PHB....

Er, where are my rules for this?

 

[Voadam]

I think the problem comes from the fact that in the 30 years people have played the game there always was rules dealing with roleplaying. This has caused an ingrained understanding of if you cannot directly figure it out you can make a die roll to explain it.

4e has skills like diplomacy, intimidate, etc. and a skill challenge mechanic.

Basic D&D and 1e, did not. 1e DMG had a background profession chart but no real rules. Late 1e and core 2e had nonweapon proficiencies but no talking mechanics/rules for handling roleplaying. It was not until 3e that you even get a bluff mechanic.

If a DM wanted to give a die roll for something he would generally make it an ability check or a save or an arbitrary number, but roleplaying mechanics were not part of the actual rules of 30+ years of D&D to my knowledge.

Maybe you are equating the charisma reaction chart from 1e to this? Monster morale from basic D&D?

I'm not even aware of what basic D&D or 1e rule would apply to teaching a horse a trick. 1e unearthed arcana cavalier class abilities maybe but I think those were more rider tricks than horse ones. Did the 2e riding proficiency cover this or just stuff riders could do? I expect there was some kit that covered teaching tricks as well.

 

[Voadam]

I have to disagree with this. I've never been able to reconcile my image of "how does a fantasy wizard act" with the D&D spell system. I think it's clearly a remnant of a wargame resource management system. That doesn't make it bad, but it certainly doesn't reflect the fantasy wizard archetype, either.

That said, if you were referring to the types of spells available, rather than the system around them, then I agree. The spells in the 1e PHB inform my characters even in systems like Hero. I just make them skill or END based, instead of charges.

The vancian system of wizard spell magic (preparing/memorizing a daily limited number of variable spells from spellbooks that are then one shot later activated effects) was taken from fantasy wizards in fantasy novels by Jack Vance, to be used in wargame stuff which later evolved into D&D.

So it does come directly from the wargaming but does not originate with different types of cannon shot or whatever in the wargaming but with the wizard spellcasting system from the vance novels.

 

[AllisterH]

Isn't 4E the first edition to actually have rules about awarding XP for non-combat encounters?

As an aside, I went to my 2E PHB and saw something funny

2E PHB (Nonweapon proficiencies chapter)

"...this system is not without its drawbacks. First, nonweapon proficiencies are rigid. Being so defined they limit the options of both the player and the DM"

So, what do you guys and gals think of that comment...

 

[Voadam]

Isn't 4E the first edition to actually have rules about awarding XP for non-combat encounters?

1e gave xp for gold recovered.

2e gave xp for story awards and for class related experience such as thieves using their skills, spellcasters casting spells, etc.

3e gave xp for overcoming traps and poorly defined roleplay and story awards.

Basic -4e all have xp for combat encounters.

 

[Voadam]

3e is the default we all know. There is tons of material out for it (lots and lots of modules).

Pathfinder is 3e with a bit of a power bump to core classes and races to make them compatible power wise with later 3.5 introduced base classes and races which had some power creep (beguiler, Book of Nine Swords classes, warforged race, etc.) Pathfinder also simplified skills, grappling, turned save or die spells into damage effects and changed polymorph and wildshape to be less variable depending on sources used. Can easily use 3e resources, particularly modules.

4e takes the 3e ideal of each class being roughly balanced for combat encounters and makes it more uniform with each class having the same resource management of at will, encounter, and daily power class ability structure. It reduces 3e multiclassing to single class dipping which reduces poor multiclass builds. Monsters and NPCs have smaller statblocks and are easier to create from scratch. Some combat rule changes to make things run smoother (duration need not be counted down but save rolled each round, monsters have fewer parts to track, no real dispel magic causing recalculation of bonuses, etc.) More hp than 3e but no full attack options. More movement based powers for characters. Skills are consolidated and there are skill challenge mechanics (with criticisms about the math involved). Few current resources (modules in particular, but also classes and charm, summoning, and necromantic magic).

For casual play 4e has great options for the DM with easy to create monsters and NPCs, easy to use monster statblocks with a few distinctive powers each. On the downside there are not many module options and conversions have a few math issues. Also there is no easy to reference online srd such as www.d20srd.org.

For players all classes have resource management of at will, encounter, and daily powers plus action points, but character building to balanced characters is easier. Group tactics are more important. Requires learning the new system.


Pathfinder is relearning the 3e classes again with added powers and tweaked spells but looks to smooth out some of the perceived issues of 3e (save or die, power creep, empty levels, skill characters being spread thin by related skills). It allows use of existing 3e materials and there are a ton of 3e modules and settings and splat books out there available.

3e allows builds that do variable amounts of resource management.
You can have a warlock who has all ongoing or at will magic abilities. A rogue who just has to figure out how to get into position to sneak attack in combat and not worry about 1/day and 1/encounter abilities. Fighters who hack things well all the time.