What is the Difference between 3.5 & 4 editions of D&D

[Sir Rigel]

One of the members of my group Plays forth edition, so I figured I might as well read up on it... and from what I can tell the only major two differences with forth edition D&D and 3.5... which are they "Kinda" fixed spell casting (as in made it less broken in a sense, but might of gone too far) and they Screwed up the Alignment system (Turned it into a linear system)... So, I am wondering, what differences have you guys found between 3.5 & 4th?

[erikun]

Quite a bit, actually.

You still have the core mechanic of d20 + bonuses vs difficulty. You still have levels and races and classes. You still have feats, skills, and +1 equipment.

However, beyond the general ideas, a lot has changed. All classes use attack rolls to hit, even spells. Higher level abilities do multiples of damage - such as 4x the weapon base damage - rather than large static bonuses. Almost all abilities hit for damage along with a side effect, rather than some that damage and some that create effects.

All classes have use-anytime abilities, once-per-encounter abilities, and once-per-day abilities. This includes classes like the fighter and rogue. Everyone gains new abilities at the same rate and same level; a fighter will get a new once-daily ability at 5th level, just as a wizard will get a new one-use daily spell at 5th level. (Note: Essentials has variants of these that apparently did away with that, so a 4.E game may not see this.)

Weapons add a bonus to hit and damage. Spellcasters have implements that do the same to powers. Armor adds a bonus to AC, while neck-slot items (i.e. cloaks) add a bonus to Fort/Reflex/Will. Other items, such as shields, do not add additional +1s to AC or anything else.

On that thought, Fort/Reflex/Will are now flat defenses that spells are rolled against to see if they still hit. There is still something called a "saving throw", but it is just a d20 with roughly a 50% chance of success.

HP is a flat number, and no longer rolled. At first level, you get the class's base HP plus your Constitution score, but CON doesn't get you any more HP than that. The game works off of "healing surges", where you have a set amount of maximum HP but can spend a surge to regain 25% of that value. It means that a character can start off reasonably healthy in most fights, but running out of surges would mean you can't be healed any more.

Skills are determined by 1/2 level + ability score modifier, +5 if trained. The list has been greatly reduced, so even fighters are compotent in a number of things. They can work out well, but Skill Challanges (as written in the DMG) don't work well.

[Sir Rigel]

Ah, so basically they made fighters, and fighter-like classes More powerful overall, but spellcasters Significantly less Powerful at later levels?

[erikun]

Pretty much. Fighters play much more like Tome of Battle, while wizards play more like... well, wizard spells with Tome of Battle mechanics.

They also more clearly defined "roles" for the party. Fighters get up on the front lines and hamper opponents, not letting them move around freely. Wizards drop area effects and stuff like stunning opponents. Swordmages (basically a gish) act like fighters, fighting up front with weapons, but can also teleport around and throw around magical area-spells. Warlords are something like 3.5e Marshalls, rallying allies with bonuses and actually handing out healing doing so.

Oh, and no more save-or-die. Most effects only last a single turn, or require making that 50% saving throw to shake off. This means that your wizard could put a group to sleep, but can't automatically guarantee they'll still be unconcious five rounds later.

[Binks]

Ah, so basically they made fighters, and fighter-like classes More powerful overall, but spellcasters Significantly less Powerful at later levels?

That's...maybe 1/10 of the differences from 3.5 to 4E. 4E is a lot like everyone having ToB maneuvers. It's actually reasonably hard to explain 4E in terms of 3.5 ruleset as the entire game is based around powers, which are basically things like 'Magic Missile', 'Fireball' but also 'Stab a guy in retaliation for him hitting your buddy' and 'Take 10 on a diplomacy check'.

Everyone gets different powers and they're what really makes your class. Feats skills and attributes are still there, of course, but most are there to modify your powers. When fighting you pretty much are maneuvering to gain a tactical advantage and then choosing a power to use in the current situation.

As someone who has played and enjoyed both systems, they are very different at a core level. Comparing them is hard, because it's not just mechanics that changed but core ideas. 3.5 is basically 'build a character using these frameworks' while 4E is 'pick a framework then pick powers for it to build a character'. Not sure if that's a good way to express it, but it really switches the order of importance of classes vs. everything else.

I've heard a lot of people talk about 4E being very MMO-like. I don't get that impression myself (but then again I never played WoW) but it might be a useful analogy for you.

[LibraryOgre]

The short version? Do not think of them as different editions of the same game, but as separate games that share a name. While they share some vague generalities (d20+mods v. difficulty, same basic 6 ability scores), pretty much everything has changed. The changes are more akin to the changes between Final Fantasy I and Final Fantasy V than between editions of the same game.

[Sir Rigel]

Ah, ok then, I guess I won't be picking up 4th edition anytime soon then, I really like the level of customization you get with 3.5 (With the shear number of spells, feats, and other things); But out of curiosity how does multiclassing work in 4th?

[Sir Rigel]

The short version? Do not think of them as different editions of the same game, but as separate games that share a name.

Ok, I will keep that in mind then! Thank you!

[Manateee]

Ah, ok then, I guess I won't be picking up 4th edition anytime soon then, I really like the level of customization you get with 3.5 (With the shear number of spells, feats, and other things); But out of curiosity how does multiclassing work in 4th?

There are two basic ways of doing it.

The basic multiclassing is done by using feats to access powers from other classes. This makes a Rogue/Sorcerer a more single-sided unit. This might seem kind of lame because it doesn't actually splice the classes, but what it does do is give the Rogue/Sorcerer level-appropriate abilities in each (contrast with the 3e Rogue 7/Sorcerer 1's woefully underdeveloped spells).

The hybrid classing mechanism allows both classes to progress simultaneously. You have access to powers from both classes, but there some limitations on which powers you can use and how they stack with each other.

[Anxe]

The multiclassing system in 4E is a lot more cumbersome than it was in 3.5.
You can only multiclass into one other class. There are two exceptions. If Bard is your base class then you can multiclass as many times as you want. If you are a Hybrid base class like Paladin/Warlord you can then take a multiclass feat and be a Paladin/Warlord/Psion (which sounds pretty awesome).
There are no prestige classes. Instead there are paragon paths. The only prerequisite is being a certain class or race. The Paladin/Warlord/Psion qualifies for all the Paladin, Warlord, and Psion paragon paths (Plus his race paragon path). Everyone must take a paragon path. They become available at level 11, but you can delay taking them as long as you wish. Once you enter you retroactively gain all bonuses the path would've given you. At 21st level you pick an Epic Destiny which works pretty much the same way.

So... multiclassing between base classes is difficult compared to 3.5 Multiclassing between prestige classes is much easier.

[Binks]

Ah, ok then, I guess I won't be picking up 4th edition anytime soon then, I really like the level of customization you get with 3.5 (With the shear number of spells, feats, and other things); But out of curiosity how does multiclassing work in 4th?

There is still a lot of customization in 4E. It's just customization of a different kind. Rather than trying to figure out which series of classes to chain in order to build your concept you figure out which series of powers/feats to chain to create your character.

If you want proof of the level of customization, well, I've got a Captain America Swordmage I would like to show you . Throwing around his spiked shield and bashing faces all the while being a fantastic tank, and built without a single multiclass feat (though one of the warlord ones would certainly fit).

Hybrid is something I have little experience with. In my experience it's generally not worth the bother. Multiclassing is done by taking a feat that grants you some benefits of a second class, then you can take other feats to get more benefits from that class at the cost of some of your original class's benefits.

It's less of a 'build a character from these set-in-stone classes' and more of a 'here's a framework, you can only use this one, but there are a bunch of options within the framework for you to use' system. Rather than picking, say, 2 levels of rogue to get Evasion (or whatever, it's been a while since I built a 3.5 character) you would instead grab a feat or power that gave you a similar power from your class.

Personally I think it's at least worth a look. Not everyone's cup of tea I understand but I like 4E's system better than 3.5 (which isn't to say I don't enjoy 3.5 )

tl;dr Yes, multiclassing is more cumbersome in 4E. It's also far less important and can generally be ignored entirely without consequence. It's possible to build a character like Captain America (which in 3.5 would require at least 1 PrC and probably 2 base classes) using only a single class with the proper selection of feats/powers. Classes are a lot more flexible in 4E, which means they don't need to be combined.

[Eldan]

One thing I really missed in 4E (the parts i read, which was the PHB 1, really) was open-ended abilities. Things that didn't have just a few defined possible uses, but just had a general description and left the application open to you. The Silent Images of 4E, really.

[Binks]

One thing I really missed in 4E (the parts i read, which was the PHB 1, really) was open-ended abilities. Things that didn't have just a few defined possible uses, but just had a general description and left the application open to you. The Silent Images of 4E, really.

Like Deceitful Image (Heavenly Deceiver Paragon Path feature), Psionic Image (Wild Talent at-will power), Ghost Sound (Wizard at-will), Distracting Illusion (assassin utility), Glimmering Forms (Drow at-will), or Spectral Image (Wizard Utility) Less easily accessible, yes. Missing? Far from it.

[Eldan]

You'll notice that very few of those are in the PHB, I'm guessing form the sources given

[Tyndmyr]

One of the members of my group Plays forth edition, so I figured I might as well read up on it... and from what I can tell the only major two differences with forth edition D&D and 3.5... which are they "Kinda" fixed spell casting (as in made it less broken in a sense, but might of gone too far) and they Screwed up the Alignment system (Turned it into a linear system)... So, I am wondering, what differences have you guys found between 3.5 & 4th?

They are basically not the same game.

You can no more port over a 3.5 char to 4e than you could port him over to say, gurps. As such, the differences are extreme. It's best not to think of 4e as the same game at all.

[Das Platyvark]

The difference between them is as great as the difference between Good.... and Evil!




Alright, I'm just biased. 4e is certainly a decent game on it's own, but it really depends on your taste. 3.5 is easier to customize because it looks like you can–4 is equally customizable, but it's better hidden. 3.5 is a lot trickier to get the hang of, but I think it's definitely worth it over 4.

[Kurald Galain]

Like Deceitful Image (Heavenly Deceiver Paragon Path feature), Psionic Image (Wild Talent at-will power), Ghost Sound (Wizard at-will), Distracting Illusion (assassin utility), Glimmering Forms (Drow at-will), or Spectral Image (Wizard Utility) Less easily accessible, yes. Missing? Far from it.

You'll also notice that while those are technically illusions, none of them do even remotely what Silent Image does. For example, Spectral Image creates an illusion of one creature in a square, that cannot move and that immediately disappears if touched or attacked; whereas Psionic Image can only create a small object, and lasts for six seconds.

4E is quite good at "technically but not really" effects, such as the Finger Of Death spell (which is really "Finger of standard damage that isn't any more or less lethal than any other attack of that level").

[Leolo]

Well...it is not as if silent image has no restrictions in 3.5

For example "can't be moved" sounds very familar (in fact some of the 4E versions of this can move freely) and of course silent images in 3.5 can be discovered as illusions, too.

It is clear that the rules does not exactly match. But wasn't the point "open ended"?

Because you can create whatever you like with some of those spells.

[Sebastrd]

I wouldn't bother coming here to get an unbiased, informed opinion on 4E. Most message boards have an edition bias. The Paizo and GitP boards, for example, have a pretty extreme 3E bias, while the WotC boards are pretty much 4E only. ENWorld.org is probably the most civil board I know of, and even they have a slight 4E bias.

[Tyndmyr]

Well...it is not as if silent image has no restrictions in 3.5

For example "can't be moved" sounds very familar ...

From silent image: "You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."

"Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)"

So...yeah, the area in which you can move it is pretty large. It STARTS at 500 square feet. And the image can consist of literally anything you can imagine. 4e doesn't touch this for open endedness.

[INDYSTAR188]

I think that 4e (and this is just in my own experience) is much more of a 'team' game. Everyone picks a role and they all compliment each other on the battlefield. Also, I like that in 4e it seems like there is a lot less arguing about the vagueness of a rule or feat or power. There's not really a huge difference in classes like tier 1 - tier 5 or whatever 3.5 has. Everyone has a way to contribute with cool stuff to do. At the end of the day, I prefer 4e to 3.5 but would play either if that's the direction my group was going.

[Kurald Galain]

I think that 4e (and this is just in my own experience) is much more of a 'team' game. Everyone picks a role and they all compliment each other on the battlefield.

"Wow, Fighter, you're looking so chivalric today!"
"Thank you wizard, I admire your arcane knowledge."

(I love it when people make that typo :) )

[Leolo]

From silent image: "You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."

"Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)"

So...yeah, the area in which you can move it is pretty large. It STARTS at 500 square feet. And the image can consist of literally anything you can imagine. 4e doesn't touch this for open endedness.

Well...500sq feet sounds good, but in practice it means you can let the illusion walk from here to the next house at the end of a small street, but not let it enter the next side alley if you have not specified it before.

The silent image ritual of 4E technically does the same in fact. Without the range limit. And a duration of 1 hour.

The Distracting Illusion power can even let you take the illusionary creature with you. No range limit. You want to have a big armored soldier walking next to you while you go through the city? No Problem. Entering a building? Sure, feel free. You can move it as a minor action.

There are similar 3.5 spells, too. And this is fine, in fact every edition should have this. But silent image has restrictions and it is not very helpfull to claim that only other spells have those restrictions.

[Tyndmyr]

Well...500sq feet sounds good, but in practice it means you can let the illusion walk from here to the next house at the end of a small street, but not let it enter the next side alley if you have not specified it before.

At CL 1. This is quite literally the most limited it can ever be. It is remarkably open ended.

The silent image ritual of 4E technically does the same in fact. Without the range limit. And a duration of 1 hour.

Silent Image, in 3.5, is a level 1 spell. Or, in some cases, a cantrip. It is trivial, and available to many without investment of gold, etc per casting.

Rituals are not like that at all. In fact, they're basically never used because of the inconvenience.

Oh, the spell is also concentration based. So, no duration limit. Hell, you can permanency it.

To illustrate just how ignored the 4e version is...the first hit on "silent image 4e ritual" is this thread. The second hit is for something entirely different. The third hit is the 3.5 Silent Image. Nobody uses the 4e version at all. Nobody even talks about it except for right here. It does not exist in actual play.

The Distracting Illusion power can even let you take the illusionary creature with you. No range limit. You want to have a big armored soldier walking next to you while you go through the city? No Problem. Entering a building? Sure, feel free. You can move it as a minor action.

There are similar 3.5 spells, too. And this is fine, in fact every edition should have this. But silent image has restrictions and it is not very helpfull to claim that only other spells have those restrictions.

Silent Image, the 3.5 version, is less restricted than any similar spell from 4e.

You cannot compare a single trivial 3.5 spell to a wide variety of powers from 4e that aren't even from the same power source.

[Greenish]

4e stuff is less open-ended on purpose, because when there's a Green Lantern in the party, Aquaman will be superfluous.

It's an actual design goal of the system, not a value judgement or criticism. You do not have to "defend" 4e from the "accusation" that it lacks a part of what makes 3.5 so unbalanced.

[Kurald Galain]

4e stuff is less open-ended on purpose, because when there's a Green Lantern in the party, Aquaman will be superfluous.

While certain wizard builds using certain spells in 3E are overpowered (a point that gets vastly exaggerated in forums), this really does not apply to a level-1 wizard casting Silent Image.

But yes, this purpose is a major difference between 3E and 4E. 4E shies away from effects requiring DM interpretation, effects lasting longer than a few seconds, and effects that cannot be summarized as "X damage + Y condition". Note that "shies away" does not mean "completely avoids".

[Tyndmyr]

It's an actual design goal of the system, not a value judgement or criticism. You do not have to "defend" 4e from the "accusation" that it lacks a part of what makes 3.5 so unbalanced.

Precisely.

It's part of a tradeoff they made. They killed a lot of open ended things to create a better balance. If this is good or bad mostly depends on how much you value flexibility compared to balance. I prefer the former, so I play 3.5.

That said, silent image is not generally considered overpowered in 3.5. While it's a reasonably good example of an open ended thing that went away, there is a reasonable argument that this specific thing was not an instance of open endedness that 4e needed to kill.

[Leolo]

To illustrate just how ignored the 4e version is...the first hit on "silent image 4e ritual" is this thread. The second hit is for something entirely different. The third hit is the 3.5 Silent Image. Nobody uses the 4e version at all. Nobody even talks about it except for right here. It does not exist in actual play.

Well i know at least one round (here on the board) where it exists in actual play, but what is your point? 4E has no such options or Google finds no such options? Or that your google foo is not good enough to find the (existing) discussions about the silent image ritual in 4E?

In fact it is a pretty new ritual - so maybe we could even ignore it for not being in the php. Although there are similar rituals that are in the php.

At CL 1. This is quite literally the most limited it can ever be. It is remarkably open ended.

Well, even a level 20 wizard could not use it to let a creature walk at his side through the town. It would just increase the maximum distance by 200 additional feet (assuming the image walks on a 10ft path without leaving the way)

Silent Image, the 3.5 version, is less restricted than any similar spell from 4e.

Let's make a small test:

The group kills the guard they have encountered and hides him in a dark corner. Now they want a similar looking guard stand at the door so that no one noticed the guard has left while the group searches the building for whatever macguffin they are searching.

Can they do it? Not if the wizard who casts the spell does not stay at this place, because the duration is concentration.

Can 4E silent image do it? Sure. Can 4E Hallucinatory Creature from the PHP do it? Sure. It could even tell someone to go away. Or patrol. And it lasts 24 hours. Well, but this is not fair - it is a higher level spell.

I don't want to say that wizards in 4E have no restrictions or even less restrictons. They have not (ok, silent image is a bad example because this ritual has in fact much to few restrictions for my taste in 4E. Less than it's 3.5 version - having no size or range limit and being able to create even the illusion of effects without concentration as a lvl 1 ritual is far to powerfull and open ended for a 4E option and ends with DMs simple judging what it does. Or to say it different: Players don't knowing what it does.)

But it is important to understand that restrictions where always part of the game. There are things silent image can not do, and this is fine.

[Manateee]

That's an incredibly nitpicky example. The specificity makes it seem a bit disingenuous as a counter-illustration.
4e is much more specific in its abilities. This is limiting.

And as has been mentioned already, the limitations aren't a bad thing.

While I was playing 3e, the heavier restrictions, more rigidly structured classes and more limited multiclassing of 4e were exactly what I wanted from the game.

[Leolo]

That's an incredibly nitpicky example. The specificity seems a bit disingenuous.

Sure, but there are many of those examples. Imagine i'd be a level 20 wizard.

Can let a illusory dragon pop up with silent image? 3.5 yes and it will be gargantuan. 4E? yes but it can not be that huge. (EDIT: Ok, 4E silent image is simple stupid. No size restriction....)

Can i let him fly from a larger distance to here to make it more plausible? 3.5 no. 4E maybe, it does not states a maximum distance or size. But 4E silent image is not a good example, as it is no PHP spell, pretty new and not good designed.

But speeking about the 3.5 version. 240feet are about 80 meters (or 72 in D&D). I could not even let some illusionary creature walk from my house to the end of the street (well, i could metamagic it and i believe it would surely work with some adjustment so don't misunderstand this). I could not let it talk.

It is open ended regarding what i could create (at least a little open ended, because i am limited to objects, creatures or force effects. I can not create other effects with it RAW). But other than this it has many restrictions and this is actually a good thing. It is just bad arguing if you ignore them or claim that other spells are limited for having similar restrictions.