There are a few notable differences between 3.5 and 4. First, it's less complex. A lot of that was streamlining of rules in a way that lost very little depth, but there are a few places where they did sacrifice some depth, mostly for accessibility purposes.
I'm friends with a lot of die-hard 3.5 edition fans. For the most part, they see the streamlining and view it all as a loss of depth, even though only a few portions of the game actually lost much depth. In a few cases, such as the simplification of the skills list and the slightly less flexible character classes, they do have valid complaints, but for the most part I see it as resistance to change.
I know many people who complain bitterly about the lack of content compared to 3.5 - and by content I mean the sheer number of classes, skills, spells, items, etc. Which is a valid reason to stay with 3.5 for now, but not a valid reason to criticize the 4th edition system as a whole - simply because it's only a couple years old. When 3.0 was first released, it lacked content too, and many of the people who voice these complaints have used nothing but 3.5 their entire D&D career.
4th edition has some really nice improvements, though. First, it is vastly more accessible. Part of that is through presentation and explanation of the rules, but a large part of it is the aforementioned streamlining. The system is simply easier to understand than older editions.
Another improvement - in my opinion - is the way that they've spread out the fun stuff to more classes. I have a friend who only ever played wizards in 3.5. When we switched to 4.0 to try it out, he was veyr angry because he felt like he had fewer exciting, utility, or awesome spells. Which is partially true, but most of those spells and abilities still exist... they were just redistributed to other classes, meaning that the OTHER players actually had cool abilities beyond standing there and swinging a weapon. It was a loss for the wizard players, but a net gain.
Another major difference is that positioning has gotten a lot more importance. A lot of abilities now do things like pushing enemies around, etc. From what I recall, that was less prevalent in 3.5.
I'm friends with a lot of die-hard 3.5 edition fans. For the most part, they see the streamlining and view it all as a loss of depth, even though only a few portions of the game actually lost much depth. In a few cases, such as the simplification of the skills list and the slightly less flexible character classes, they do have valid complaints, but for the most part I see it as resistance to change.
I know many people who complain bitterly about the lack of content compared to 3.5 - and by content I mean the sheer number of classes, skills, spells, items, etc. Which is a valid reason to stay with 3.5 for now, but not a valid reason to criticize the 4th edition system as a whole - simply because it's only a couple years old. When 3.0 was first released, it lacked content too, and many of the people who voice these complaints have used nothing but 3.5 their entire D&D career.
4th edition has some really nice improvements, though. First, it is vastly more accessible. Part of that is through presentation and explanation of the rules, but a large part of it is the aforementioned streamlining. The system is simply easier to understand than older editions.
Another improvement - in my opinion - is the way that they've spread out the fun stuff to more classes. I have a friend who only ever played wizards in 3.5. When we switched to 4.0 to try it out, he was veyr angry because he felt like he had fewer exciting, utility, or awesome spells. Which is partially true, but most of those spells and abilities still exist... they were just redistributed to other classes, meaning that the OTHER players actually had cool abilities beyond standing there and swinging a weapon. It was a loss for the wizard players, but a net gain.
Another major difference is that positioning has gotten a lot more importance. A lot of abilities now do things like pushing enemies around, etc. From what I recall, that was less prevalent in 3.5.
This message last edited by lord-of-shadow on 21/10/2009 at 09:42:54 PM
What REAL games do you like? (computer/video games don't count)
20/10/2009 07:06:58 PM
- 1073 Views
My own list
20/10/2009 07:41:40 PM
- 830 Views
Wow, do you own a game store or something?
20/10/2009 08:28:02 PM
- 852 Views
If it weren't for the internet and death of retail, I would be tempted to open one
21/10/2009 05:06:09 PM
- 812 Views
"Forgetting something?" Surely you didn't do that all from memory? O_o *NM*
20/10/2009 09:18:04 PM
- 401 Views
Do you think I'm going to pull everything out of my games closet or keep walking over to look at it?
21/10/2009 04:57:11 PM
- 868 Views
Out of curiosity...
20/10/2009 07:50:14 PM
- 801 Views
Multiplayer video games are social as well. I just don't have friends who play them.
21/10/2009 04:59:55 PM
- 774 Views
I enjoy most games.
20/10/2009 08:29:28 PM
- 785 Views
Ping pong. *NM*
20/10/2009 10:24:01 PM
- 373 Views
I also played a card game called Lost Cities. It was new to me, but fun. *NM*
21/10/2009 01:39:54 AM
- 388 Views
How I read that subject bar
20/10/2009 11:49:26 PM
- 937 Views
I just learned a few new ones at a family reunion
21/10/2009 03:08:08 AM
- 801 Views
My Uncle had the triangle with the holes and the golf tees at his house
02/11/2009 07:47:23 PM
- 966 Views
Re: What REAL games do you like? (computer/video games don't count)
21/10/2009 02:48:42 PM
- 771 Views
I hear there is a lot of resistance to 4th Edition D&D
21/10/2009 05:04:07 PM
- 740 Views
Re: I hear there is a lot of resistance to 4th Edition D&D
21/10/2009 07:23:56 PM
- 787 Views
4E is poor. PATHFINDER is better, although not as radical as perhaps it should have been.
26/10/2009 05:05:18 PM
- 781 Views
On 4th Edition...
21/10/2009 09:41:43 PM
- 717 Views