“You can’t disarm,”

Hmmm, your DM doesnt allowed called shots to the weapon hand? Bad DM, Bad!

“you can’t trip,”

You can if your DM allows it…

“you can’t sunder”

Hmm, thats a Warcraft term for reducing someones armor benefit (bet your Alliance ) – I suspect you mean sunder weapon – same answer as for disarm methinks, but targetting the weapon rather than the hand.

“you can’t tumble away to avoid AoO”

Hmmm, you might want to re-read the 4e books. The skills have been amalgamated up, so try using Acrobatics instead of Tumble – most DM’s I know running 4th ed will allow that.

In case you’re wondering, I play 3.5e AND 4e. I love em both. I like the greater manouverability on the 4e combat board but still love 3.5 (and retro 2 and 1 and 0 ed play).

3.5e – its great with the right people and the right attitudes.
3.0e – ditto
2.0e – same again
1.0e – yup repeats
0e (DnD no A) – I still love Mystara and the old old weapon skill systems.

4e?

Played some, read some – still learning, but love it all the same.

DM’s running it – also learning but also using what they know from earlier editions that aren’t yet covered (I have no doubts 4e will grow and grow just like previous did).

As for the article, based on the constraints explained in it, I thought it was very factual myself and pretty much spot on.

So there you go, a response from someone who loves em both

–> Clearly not the case considering the positive feedback and interesting data mined from the endeavor. You can dispute the validity of such an endeavor, but to claim there is ‘no point’ just points to one thing…

TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl

While not the author of the article, there are a few things I must point out. As more of a statistical analysis, some of the points you ask to be compared are not relevant.

“You have counted statblocks, not unique monsters.” What draws the line at “Unique Monsters”? Is a Troll a unique monster from a Scrag? Is an Ogre different than an Ogre Mage? Stat blocks, on the other hand, are easily countable to compare.

Similarly “You have failed to mention missing classic 3.x classes and monsters from PHB and MM.” Is there a scientific definition of “classic”? As someone who started before 3.x, I find any definition of classic stretching it. From a pure analysis perspective, this can’t really be a datapoint. On a more subjective review, yes, but not in an article like this.

Which I think also applies to “You have ignored system-specific sections from both systems.”

Maybe you’re right that there is no point in comparing differently organized rules-systems, which I view as the point of the article: a specific response to the claim that 4e has less content than 3e, so thus must be worse. They both are systems with their own merits and flaws.

Royal fail:
“Which PHB has more content? 4th Edition – content all the way up to level 30 [1], plus magic items [2], paragon paths [2], and epic destinies[2] really seal the deal on this one[3].”

Obvious issues:
[1] 3.x was intended to played for 20 levels, 4E for 30 levels.
[2] Totally skewed. Thinking in the same way, 3.x DMG would be superior to 4E counterpart absolutely since 3.x DMG contains prestige classes (are there prestige classes in 4E, I wonder).
[3] It also seals my opinion of the worth of this article.

Other obvious issues:
You have counted statblocks, not unique monsters.
You have failed to mention missing classic 3.x classes and monsters from PHB and MM.
You have ignored system-specific sections from both systems.

Honorable mention fail:
“I have realized that what most people percieve and express as a general reduction in content is most likely a pure reaction to the reduction in word count even though the books themselves are not particularly smaller”

Look at combat chapter (actions), check missing monsters and classes. “pure reaction”? Right.

What it boils down to is that both systems are different. Attempting to defend 4E by pointing that 3E is different with regard to content organization hints at inability to conduct a review.
You should have broken all books into comparable entities (chapters, for example), then compare only analogous ones.

Regards,
Ruemere

I find this amusing, because I actually have a group member who is brand new to D&D entirely, and she feels quite the opposite about having a clue about how to use the monsters (or where they would logically show up).

I think you should have mentioned the epic rules in the 3.5 DMG. They are pretty brief, but in theory you can play up to level 30 and beyond using them.

Also, I seem to remember that level 30 in 4th edition is supposed to be comparable in power to level 20 in 3rd edition, so it could be argued the “extra” 10 levels in 4e are not really extra content. (Not sure I agree with this myself, but I thought I’d mention it.)

And there is no point arguing with Razz.

If you want to debate about editions, debate it on concrete terms with evidence to support you. Falling into the trap of insults simply demeans your argument and makes you look like an ass (for lack of a better term). Granted, a lot of 4e supporters use the same tactics, so it’s something we all need to be aware of.

Dude, join the army or find something worthwhile to focus all that anger. This is a hobby and supposed to be fun.

We’re all gamers, ok? Chill!

greywulf´s last post: Dragon versus Manga Babe!

I don’t try to hide it, so why bother stating it? I’m stating you’re 4E biased and anything you say clearly has no objectivity to it. Just like every other 4E review I’ve seen. And then the ones that do have objectivity in it, you people blindly call them 3E lovers. Sad indeed.

No, you cannot do many actions in D&D that you could in 3e. Not without stupid ENCOUNTER powers anyway. You can’t disarm, you can’t trip, you can’t sunder, you can’t tumble away to avoid AoO, you can’t fight with two weapons properly unless you’re a freaking ranger or spend $30 on a book that lets Fighters do it.

Hence why I used to support D&D and 3E by buying all the books but now I enjoy sticking it in their ass by DLing for free and the stuff on the DDI and sharing them with as many people as possible!

And then when 5E is released in a few years I will be the one pointing and laughing at all you nitwit 4E lovers. 3E will never die and neither will its supporters! Not without a fight!

If I had my way, I’d have blown up WotC headquarters during the Christmas break.

You can perform any action you want in combat, because it’s D&D. I already bought D&D books for the fluff, they’re called my 3E books and I’m still using that fluff even for my 4th Edition game. The monster variations aspect was already brought up and discussed in the comments here, but if you think the 4E MM is just full of a million variations of the same monster than you haven’t even looked at it yet.

Your comment is a failure, it’s obvious you’re a 3E lover and only read the conclusions of this post rather than any of the actual content.

You left out the fact that the 4E PHB leaves out A LOT of the combat actions you were able to do in 3rd Edition and can no longer do in 4th.

You left out the fact that FLUFF is also CONTENT! Which you didn’t even count for either books. Not everyone buys D&D for the CRUNCH, so this review was completely biased against those buying D&D purely for the crunch level of content and not a mixture of the two. If you were to combine the FLUFF + CRUNCH in the 3E PHB and that of 4E PHB, the 3E PHB clearly is the winner. The same goes for DMG 3E and DEFINITELY the Monster Manual.

You’re also forgetting that the Monster Manual for 4E LOSES because many of its monsters have several variations as opposed to the true way 3E does it which is give the stats to one monster and leave the DM to adjust it as he sees fit with material provided elsewhere. Again, 3E MM has more content as there are more unique creatures and not a million variations of one creature (only a few of the 3E MM creatures have variations, and it’s usually only a couple unless it’s a template). The MM of 3E also offered templates.

Your comparison is a failure. It’s obvious you’re a 4E lover and cannot compare the two without any sort of objectivity.

In 3rd edition, most of my campaigns ended around 8th level, and none went past 11th. It became a hassle of resource managment, in my opinion. I grew tired of monsters with hundreds (any spellcasting creature, ala demons/dragons) options in a given fight. Once the players had the same amount, it was just a headache.

In 4th edition, my first and current campaign is still going strong at 9th level (we started at 5th, since the previous dm’s game started at 1st and ended at 5th). Having a lot of monsters evens out each level’s challenge options, and it’s really easy to re-skin them to your needs.

Combat still slows down with Marks and so forth, and yes, I have made a few bad calls as DM–because I sometimes stumble into 3.x thinking. I still use the vast library of previous edition fluff I own, I regularly use my 3.5 Forgotten Realms maps and books, but I adore…yes, adore!…4e. I didn’t realize the DM could have so much fun too.

GrecoG´s last post: Playing without Books

greywulf´s last post: First steps with DAZ Studio: Part Eight

greywulf´s last post: First steps with DAZ Studio: Part Eight