D&D Gold/XP Equivalency (is now general D&D playstyles thread) - Page 3

Mirai Gen · 06-24-2009, 06:53 PM

Okay I probably shouldn't have been sarcastic. But even without that sentence saying that one or the other 'emphasizes' either role playing or munchkinism or combat is just silly, because both are combat games by their very nature.

The first bit I can agree with. What was said about balance and modular, I mean.

Tev · 06-24-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Try reading the rest of his post where he actually compared the two much more fairly than I've seen anyone else do yet.

Actually the first part of his post was hardly a fair assessment of the system at all. His idea that 4th Edition is less modular than 3.5 is inaccurate as I have shown that 4th Ed can easily handing incorporation not just new content, but content from two wildly different systems (L5R and Rollmaster). His point that 4th Ed is more limiting is not correct in that while there are less choices for things like powers and classes, the ability to customize and the broader use of the choices presented allow for more free-form characterization (Heck, if you really wanted to you could re-customize your character every level in 4th ed).

He is correct in his assertion that 4th is more streamlined. He is also correct that it is more friendly to newer players. He is correct in that playing 3.5 is a hassle for a GM who has to ban crap to keep his players from twinking out like crazy.

All in all, the idea that 4th ed is some terrible thing because of its balance and ease of use is silly. Now I know how gamers like you felt when I was pissed that the d20 system was eating my poor 2nd ed D&D.

krogothwolf · 06-24-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Why hello there subjective preferences, how are you today?

I didn't find what he said biased it seemed to actually promote pros and cons of each and was more of a "if you're this type you'll like this" kinda of way he did it.

Sithdarth · 06-24-2009, 07:55 PM

Given the option I'd play both. 3.5 when I felt like spending 7 hours tweaking every minute detail of a character and 4th ed when I felt like just sitting down and playing for awhile. I'd definitely prefer DMing 4th ed over 3.5 any day.

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-25-2009, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Okay I probably shouldn't have been sarcastic. But even without that sentence saying that one or the other 'emphasizes' either role playing or munchkinism or combat is just silly, because both are combat games by their very nature.

The first bit I can agree with. What was said about balance and modular, I mean.

Well I am quite biased towards 3.5, you were exactly right but I was trying to give some justification towards 4th based on what I see in the rules and what others have said.
My point about combat focus was that 4th ed has a lot more of its rules focused towards combat/dungeons whereas 3rd ed has a significant chunk of things like skills and utilatarian spells which are pointless except out of combat/dungeons. This is not to say 4th ed is entirely combat but the rules a re a lot firmer here whereas outside combat it's more wingy.

As for everybody else I'm going to have to agree to disagree.
I personally hate DMing 4th ed and love Dming 3.5 because I find it easier to get a handle on 3.5 rules/characters which is good because I tend to wing most sessions (my players are nutters).
And for the whole modularity/character choice thing that's a very large argument which would be better in a dedicated thread and I don't know if I care that much to have it.

Tev · 06-25-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

And for the whole modularity/character choice thing that's a very large argument which would be better in a dedicated thread and I don't know if I care that much to have it.

There's really not much to argue about. In 4th Ed every time your character levels you can theoretically change all of your At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers as well as change what Feats you have. Depending on whatever path the story takes your character can vary wildly between levels. You just can't do that in 3.5. You have to actually sit around and plan your character out from 1st level all the way to the epic ends of the universe to make sure you didn't forget anything along the way. It's silly to expect a player to do that when they are not even sure how the game itself will play out and leads to people having sometimes make characters that are way off base from the feel of the adventure.

Meister · 06-25-2009, 09:53 AM

Well you don't, strictly speaking, have to, but it's certainly more beneficial that picking your spells, feats etc. on a level-to-level basis. Especially if you want to go into a prestige class.

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-25-2009, 10:07 AM

It's never been a problem for our group.
I think the problem with prestige classes is that people just play them from various books which isn't how I feel prestige classes are supposed to work. They are supposed to be unique to your world and your setting. We just made our own classes (which is far easier to do in 3.5 than 4th ed) so that classes represented pretty much exactly what the players were about. If you just rely on what's in say the core books you are ignoring the key strengths of 3rd ed.
As for prestige class reqs they should be natural requirements that represents the character in that class. If you want to take a prestige class and don't meet the requirements then your character is not the type described in the prestige class. I think you are looking it from the wrong end.
If you are planning out your character from day 1 as a class then you are probably just trying to maximise your power in which case you don't care about the characters story. If you are playing the characters story I have no idea why you'd plan it from day 1 as it should just evolve naturally.
I totally don't understand this complaint.

Tev · 06-25-2009, 10:14 AM

I was one of those "level by level" players and many of my 3.5 gaming groups were somewhat anti-that. My characters grew at the pace of the story while other players literally had spreadsheets tracking their characters levels, feat choices, and class paths out to level 30ish with no discernable reason to expect that they would get to join up with some secret order or another or find that secret master of lore long forgotten. It just seemed silly to me. It was like if Einstein decided at the age of 13 that he was going to grow up to be the father of modern mathematics and invent the atomic bomb after joining a secret government society over in America.

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-25-2009, 10:16 AM

I should point out that I'm an absolutely bastard DM and throw so many curveballs that players who plan out thier characters in advance will find themselves completely unprepared for what they encounter, some would say suspiciously so.
So it's probably just our groups experience.

06-24-2009, 06:53 PM	#21
Mirai Gen We are Geth. Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 14,032	Okay I probably shouldn't have been sarcastic. But even without that sentence saying that one or the other 'emphasizes' either role playing or munchkinism or combat is just silly, because both are combat games by their very nature. The first bit I can agree with. What was said about balance and modular, I mean. __________________

06-25-2009, 10:07 AM	#28
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	It's never been a problem for our group. I think the problem with prestige classes is that people just play them from various books which isn't how I feel prestige classes are supposed to work. They are supposed to be unique to your world and your setting. We just made our own classes (which is far easier to do in 3.5 than 4th ed) so that classes represented pretty much exactly what the players were about. If you just rely on what's in say the core books you are ignoring the key strengths of 3rd ed. As for prestige class reqs they should be natural requirements that represents the character in that class. If you want to take a prestige class and don't meet the requirements then your character is not the type described in the prestige class. I think you are looking it from the wrong end. If you are planning out your character from day 1 as a class then you are probably just trying to maximise your power in which case you don't care about the characters story. If you are playing the characters story I have no idea why you'd plan it from day 1 as it should just evolve naturally. I totally don't understand this complaint. Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 06-25-2009 at 10:10 AM.

06-24-2009, 07:55 PM	#24
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Given the option I'd play both. 3.5 when I felt like spending 7 hours tweaking every minute detail of a character and 4th ed when I felt like just sitting down and playing for awhile. I'd definitely prefer DMing 4th ed over 3.5 any day.

06-25-2009, 09:53 AM	#27
Meister Pure joy Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 10,689	Well you don't, strictly speaking, have to, but it's certainly more beneficial that picking your spells, feats etc. on a level-to-level basis. Especially if you want to go into a prestige class.

06-25-2009, 10:16 AM	#30
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	I should point out that I'm an absolutely bastard DM and throw so many curveballs that players who plan out thier characters in advance will find themselves completely unprepared for what they encounter, some would say suspiciously so. So it's probably just our groups experience.