Guys, seriously. Enough with the editions wars. I've played both, and they are both enjoyable, in different ways. 4th edition is fundamentally easier to understand, with a simpler core mechanic which makes it easier to get into, and get new people into. 3rd Edition is more open-ended and complex in what it allows players to do, which can be intimidating, but gives very experienced players a feeling of power they don't feel like giving up. 4E focuses on fun and balance, such that even poorly built characters can still contribute, and their players can still have fun in combat. 3.5 is such that there is a massive difference between what an optimizer can do and what an unfamiliar player can do. Even at 1st level, but the difference grows exponentially as levels go up. This eventually can make the game no fun for less knowledgeable players. This is a big problem for new players, as the knowledge required for fun is quite large.
So 3.5 has this added complexity, which if properly utilized can create more interesting and unique characters and ideas. It's more adaptable, but harder to use, with more significant differences between options. Eventually these differences can stack up to make certain players massively more powerful than their comrades.
4E has a simpler, more rigid system with fewer branching options available to the player, instead a lot of small choices you can make. Power levels between players can shift, but it rarely shifts enough to make it game-breaking or unfun.
If you are already familiar with 3.5 and have enough friends who are familiar, go ahead and stick with it. Trying 4E is free, if you'd like to try it, all the basic resources are available online. It is inherently more simple, and therefore requires more creativity to do the same things that could be done in 3.5. The question is: If what you want is exactly what 3.5 lets you do, why change? You set yourself up for disappointment if you come into a new game expecting to be able to do precisely the same things you used to be able to do and more. That's what splatbooks are for. They are two different games.
I've had fun with both editions, and I'm currently playing both, as a 3.5 player and a 4e DM.
GreyWolf257 said:
By the way, have you ever noticed that the 4th Edition book is so hard to read? I mean, it just seems so disorganized, especially compared to the 3rd Edition book. I opened the 4E book and "BLAM!" face full of nothing but wall of text after wall of text. Hurt my eyes reading that thing.
No, I think you're confusing that with 3rd edition. Especially the spells in 3rd edition. 4th edition is full of shiny colors, short paragraphs and pictures. You, like many others, are suffering from a "what I learned was better" selective memory.
RJ Dalton said:
And another thing I go on about is how insulting the books are. I'm going to quote something directly from the text:
"Play a dragonborn if you want to look like a dragon."
That's so bloody shallow that you'd think WotC thinks we're all five-years-old. And it does something like that for every race. It just plain bugs me.
That's the trouble with trying to make something accessible to new players, the old ones complain that it's too simplistic. There's plenty of deeper fluff about all of the races if you're actually interested in learning about them, though it isn't all found in the PHB. (It wasn't found in the 3.5 PHB either.) Bullet points are made to be simple, and they were helpful for getting new players started on picking out their characters. When you're trying to make a character for somebody who's never played before, it's a lot easier to tell them the basics, then let them find out more later. It doesn't make it "made for 5-year-olds" to have it summarized simply.
