View Full Version : A small survey of sorts, all help appreciated!

2009-09-28, 02:06 PM
Before I begin, I do NOT want this to become an arena for an edition war!

Now, I'm compiling a list of peoples opinions on both 3.5 and 4e, for a small project of mine, and also just out of personal interest.

If you're willing to help, please give me one pro and one con regarding one of the two editions of DnD, or both if you've played them.Or, if you have a more general complaint or comendation about either, post that as well. And while good humour is awesome, I'd like some serious answers. Thanks for the help. :smallbiggrin:

(Reading what I've just typed, I guess it might be hard for this thread NOT to become an edition war, but please, let's be civil and respect other people's opinions? Awesome...)

Temet Nosce
2009-09-28, 02:12 PM

Pro: Large quantity of options both for world simulation and characters.
Con: No new material for it.


Pro: Simple.
Con: Few options/similarity between options.

2009-09-28, 03:19 PM
Pro: Simulationist approach to rules, very thought intensive strategies.
Con: Wide variety of available materials allows too many exploits.

Pro: Easily accessible.
Con: I'm going to leave it at "stripped down combat engine with little to nothing connecting it to it's roots (previous editions); thus requiring obscenely massive changes to existing, popular settings for things to make sense."

2009-09-28, 04:12 PM

Pros: A working framework* that is essentially built to be adjusted without excessive issue. Most 'broken'-uber things can be nerfed without hurting game balance(banning polymorph doesn't destroy Transmutation, banning IHS doesn't destroy Warblades). Associated mechanics allow for easy decisions about unusual situations.

Cons: Epic play. The power imbalance between casters and non-ToB melee warriors at L10+ play.


Since I don't play 4.0, I'll list why I won't be trying it:
-I've heard a lot about how disassociated the mechanics are.
-Lack of mechanical options(instead emphasizing on the differences between these options, much like MTG spends a lot of time dealing with minute differences of power/toughness).

Tequila Sunrise
2009-09-28, 04:36 PM
3.5 Pros: Kinda-sorta tries to be simulationist. Tons and tons of options, many of which are just different mechanical ways of attaining the same fluff.

3.5 Cons: Kinda-sorta tries to be simulationist. (Any game with inflating hp just can't go the whole nine yards in this case.) Requires massive house ruling to be playable, IMO. Tons and tons of options, many of which are clearly [or not-so-clearly] inferior to the others and a few of which are absurdly broken.

4 Pros: Doesn't pretend to simulate anything but ACTION!!! Plenty enough options to cover just about any archetype imaginable. Simple and elegant rules that only require a few house rules to be playable, IMO.

4 Cons: Doesn't pretend to simulate anything but ACTION!!! (Consistency and in-game reality tends to suffer as a result.)