You’ve all heard the argument, and indeed many of you have probably even said it a couple of times, that “4th Edition has less content in the core books than previous editions of D&D.” But I’ve wondered if this was accurate. My instinct and a hunch were telling me one answer, but I set out to find out the truth!
The first, and possibly biggest, difference between the two books is that all 3rd Edition books are a lot more wordy than the 4th Edition material. They have more words per page, which is not a surprise since one of the stated goals for the new edition was to clean up the books, add more white space, and simplify everything. This is not necessarily a good thing, however, as it largely contributes to the overall feeling of the 4th Edition books containing less overall content.
3rd Edition Core Book:
- Avg. words per page: ~1,200
- Approx number of words in PHB: 328,800
4th Edition Core Book:
- Avg. words per page: ~750
- Approx number of words in PHB: 236,250
Since there are two schools of thought about the difference in word counts, I wanted to go much further and begin to compare the mechanical content provided in the books to see which edition really provides us with more “game” than the other.
3rd Edition PHB
- Races: 7 (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling)
- Classes: 11 (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard)
- Levels: 1-20
- Skills: ~44
- Feats: 74 total — 55 + 8 Item Creation Feats + 8 Metamagic Feats + 3 Special Feats
- Melee Weapons: 54 Ranged Weapons: 14
- Types of Armor: 12 Types of Shields: 6
- Spells: 116 pages (out of 274 – 42% of the book for 7 out of 11 of the classes use)
- Magic Items: 0
- Prestige Classes: 0
4th Edition PHB
- Races: 8 (Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-elf, Halfling, Human, Tiefling)
- Classes: 8 (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard)
- Levels: 1-30
- Skills: 17
- Feats: 150 total — 81 Heroic, 52 Paragon, 17 Epic
- Melee Weapons: 31 Ranged Weapons: 6
- Types of Armor: 18 Types of Shields: 2
- Spells / Powers: 116 pages (out of 315 – 37% of the book) + 20 pages for rituals
- Magic Items: 176 total – 28 armor, 20 weapons, 7 holy symbols, 7 orbs, 8 rods, 7 staves, 9 wands, 10 arm slot, 13 feet slot, 8 hand slot, 14 head, 13 neck, 9 rings, 6 waist, 13 wondrous items, 4 potions
- Paragon Paths: 32
- Epic Destinies: 4
The first aspect of making a character in both books is race, which 4th Edition clearly has more content for, but it falls behind on the number of classes. The next metric that a lot of people overlook is that 4th Edition now allows players to play all the way up through the Epic tier using the core rules, something which previous editions did not do. While 3rd Edition had more classes to play, it arguably contained a lot less content because it lacked 10 whole levels of play! Everything else that was measured is more or less simple metrics, 4th Edition has fewer skills but over twice as many feats.
Overall 4th Edition has a smaller selection of weapons, armor, and equipment in the core books, but the PHB itself contains 176 different magic items that were not present in the 3rd Edition PHB. However, that will be balanced out when I look at the DMG for each edition. The 3rd Edition PHB presented no options for Prestige classes, while 4th has many options for Paragon Paths and 4 Epic Destinies, but these are further examples of a move of content from previous edition’s DMG to the new edition PHB.
Which PHB has more content? 4th Edition – content all the way up to level 30, plus magic items, paragon paths, and epic destinies really seal the deal on this one.
3rd Edition Monster Manual
CR 1 or lower: 94 monsters
CR 2-4 = 133
CR 5-10 = 170
CR 11-20 = 49
Total Monsters: 446
4th Edition Monster Manual
1st-10th levels = 225 monsters
11th-20th levels = 191 monsters
21st-30th levels =73 monsters
31st+ levels = 1 monster
Total Monsters: 490
One of the biggest differences between 3rd and 4th Edition monsters is how they are scaled versus a group of adventurers. 3rd Edition scaled monsters by Challenge Rating (CR) which indicated what constituted a challenge (defined as taking 20% of the party’s resources) for a party of 4 characters of equal level to the CR. 4th Edition, on the other hand, went more in the direction of clearer math and gave monsters a level themselves and associated XP values. I have grouped the number of monsters from each Monster Manual into appropriate clumps representing different tiers of play and as even a spread of monsters within those tiers.
The first thing that I noticed is that there was a huge number of monsters in 3rd Edition that were CR 1 or below, and that there was a surprisingly small number of monsters between CR 11 and 20. Compare these numbers to 4th Edition, and you can see that the there is a much more even spread of monsters across the levels of play, even if you only consider up to level 20. The other thing that surprised me was that both Editions present a comparable number of total monsters to pit against the heroes in the core books.
Which MM has more content? 4th Edition – a total of over 400 monsters in 3rd Edition and only 49 of them account for HALF of the playable levels? No way, 4th Edition not only has more monsters but they’re also more evenly distributed.
3rd Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide
Prestige Classes: 6
Magic Items: 532 total – 19 Armor Abilities, 18 Shield Abilities, 10 Specific Armors, 8 Specific Shields, 24 Melee Weapon Abilities, 15 Ranged Weapons Abilities, 27 Specific Weapons, 51 Potions, 41 Rings, 18 Rods, 12 Staffs, 59 Wands, 183 Wondrous Items, 29 Cursed Items, 11 Minor Artifacts, 7 Major Artifacts
4th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide
Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies: 0
Magic Items: 4 Artifacts
The DMG is where 3rd Edition catches up, presenting a lot of comparable content to what was moved to the PHB in 4th Edition. It also features more customizable magic items, and on top of that a TON more magic item abilities in total. The 4th Edition DMG is a smaller book, and consists mostly of advice and guidelines for being a DM instead of actual mechanics and rules. It does present 4 unique artifacts which are magic items that are more plot devices than simple hand outs.
Which DMG has more content? 3rd Edition – clearly contains more content, and actually has more magic items in total than the 4th Edition PHB does by far, but still falls short on additional content like Prestige classes.
So now if we go back to the question, “Which Edition has more content?” If all that you consider is word count than clearly you’ll think 3rd Edition, but I consider that to be like saying that the Dictionary is a better book than most simply because it has more words in it. There’s no denying that 4th Edition has less fluff in it than its predecessor, but in my opinion the fact that Wizards is not simply reselling us the same fluff (which is not edition specific) over and over again is actually very encouraging. We can easily take fluff from previous editions, actually making use of our old books that are otherwise sold, discarded, or gathering dust and apply it to a new set of rules.
Looking at the straight mechanics, I think it is pretty clear that the 4th Edition core books actually provide more content, the biggest slice of which is allowing players to extend their characters beyond level 20 and through the epic tier. 3rd Edition has a lot more customization when it comes to magic items and a wider selection of classes, but falls behind when you look at monsters.
Taking a closer look at exactly what kind of content is provided in each of these core book sets, 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. There is some content missing that has been presented in previous editions, such as more detailed monster write-ups and more fluff in general throughout the rules set, but as I expressed earlier these are things which I feel we’ve already purchased in previous editions and don’t necessarily need to spend money on all of that again.
4e DMG:
200 pages of DM advice, diseases, traps, hazards, templates, and monster creation/alteration guidelines aren’t content now?
Even if we exclude the DM advice for not being crunch, that’s still a lot of content that you missed, man.
Graham´s last post: Scales of War 4 & 5 – Catching up!
Graham: I specifically left out things like traps and diseases because I didn’t think it was reasonable to compare them between editions. With my starting goal of excluding fluff from the consideration, some game mechanics that have changed over time created an issue when looking from one edition to the next. My goal was to stick to items that were at least mostly clear metrics which could be related from one edition to another, I hope that makes a at least a little bit of sense!
Good article Bart, thanks for giving me yet another critical-hits 4e article to link to people I don’t want to argue with over the internet. It’s become so that I don’t even have to utter a word anymore. Critical-Hits cut my time wasted in Edition Debates by almost 90%!
Wyatt´s last post: What the heck is a drabble?
Nice analysis, thanks.
Christopher´s last post: Snowy days are pancake days.
@Bartoneus
Yeah, somewhat, though at least Templates should be in there, since those make up a number of the monsters in the 3e MM as well.
Graham´s last post: Scales of War 4 & 5 – Catching up!
Good article overall, but I wonder about the Monster Manual section- specifically the number of UNIQUE monsters. 4e’s numbers skew higher in large part because there are two pages of kobolds, eight different skeletons, etc- if you count unique monsters, I suspect the 3E monster manual pulls way ahead.
Doug: That’s a good point, though it’s a judgment call. Some monsters under the same heading are pretty different, and some are similar. (Many of the Kobolds are the same, but the different kinds of skeletons are pretty different.) So then you’d have to apply a standard against both Monster Manuals.
You forgot the obvious, and most important measure:
Sacks
3rd edition – Yes
4th edition – No
I don’t want to play any game where my players can’t buy sacks. 🙂
Propagandroid´s last post: 4epowercards.com: Customizable power cards for 4th edition D&D
Wyatt/Christopher: Thanks!
Graham: I actually specifically left out templates because while they could be compared between editions, I felt that they effected the Monster numbers too much and are not a core factor, also I feel that both 4E and 3E are pretty even when it comes to templates so not much is missed. Maybe when I get home I’ll throw the numbers up just for completeness. 🙂
Doug: I considered this for a while also, this post began back before October and it took me a lot of time to consider what to include and what to exclude. Counting only unique monsters I felt was actually a excessive disservice to 4th Edition because of what Dave mentioned, there are some monsters of the same type that are vastly different mechanically. In the end I considered the 4th Edition monster groups to be separate monsters with primarily fluff tying them together and for the comparison wanted them each to count. I feel like excluding this would be blatantly ignoring a conscious design decision that went into 4th Edition, which in turn has led to a more even spread of monsters across the levels of play.
@Propagandroid: CRAP! Post = ruined, 4th Edition = quitting
I actually think the change in the DMG away from mechanics and toward advice is one of the best parts of 4e. It makes it a little less useful for we veterans, but much more useful for newer GMs. I love the book, and I wish it’d been published 25 years ago, so I’d have had it when I was getting my start.
A well reasoned, numbers-backed analysis like this is the kind that I never do myself because of the effort that is required, but am always glad when someone else does for me. Thanks Bartoneus.
Very valid points, Bartoneus and Game- some of the variants, like the skeletons, are all very different, which it’s fair to say makes them unique. One of my (many) beefs with the new MM is that many of the listings with multiple variations (yes, I’m looking at you, kobolds!) don’t seem to give us anything the monster adjusting section of the DMG wouldn’t allow us to do ourselves- in so many cases it seems like a colossal waste of space.
Also, much of the artwork sucks.
Just to throw another wrinkle into the mix……
D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Classic D&D, 1991 vintage)
* Avg. words per page: ~1,350
* Approx number of words in entire single rule book: 403,515
* Races/Classes: 9
* Levels: 1-36 + Immortality
* Skills: 62
* Weapon Mastery: 6 grades for 36 different weapons
* Weapons: 41
* Types of Armor: 6 Types of Shields: 2
* Spells: 201 spread across 3 classes
* Magic Items: 46 potions, 24 scrolls (+ spell scrolls), 30 rings, ……..
* Monsters: 243
….and much, much more, all in the same book!
Are we stepping backwards instead of forward? Numerically, most definitely.
greywulf´s last post: Character du Jour: Galidor
A great analysis.
I would like to query some of the comments on the MM and 20th level+ content.
Most games, most of the time, are playing low level characters and therefore it makes sense for the basic rule books to have content focused to those levels.
To get a character to higher then 20th level takes a long time. Only a tiny fraction of players will EVER get a character that far. Rather than including this content in the core books, it is one area where I think a expansion book would of been more suitable.
A more even spread of monsters in the MM appears on the surface to be a good thing. But at low levels the players will keep facing the same monsters all the time because the GM has a smaller range available and almost never have an opportunity to face the higher level ones.
Regardless, it is a great article. I know from my own analysis D&D – History and Growth that any comparisons between editions is incredibly hard.
Chris Tregenza´s last post: Fantasy Maps
@Greywulf: “Are we stepping backwards instead of forward? Numerically, most definitely.”
We can always argue quantity vs. quality, if you like? 😀
@Chris Tregenza: You definitely have some good points when it comes to the Monster Manual, but there are a fair number of people who start games at higher levels or that enjoy playing entirely epic level games, and typically for those people the core books have been mostly excluding. What I’m looking at is a comparison of the core books, and while it might make sense to leave ALL epic level content for later expansions, the fact remains that with 4th Edition they have provided us with more content in the core books by deciding to include it.
@Bartoneus We could, but the D&D Cyclopedia wins out in both quantity and quality (hey, it’s even got a decent index!), so what’s to argue? 😀
greywulf´s last post: First steps with DAZ Studio: Part Eight
Greywulf: I’ve never played it or even seen the book, if you’d like to provide me with a copy or the content somehow I’d be happy to see such a large amount of super high quality material!
@Bartoneus It’s available from RPGNow for just $5.95 and worth every penny 😀
greywulf´s last post: First steps with DAZ Studio: Part Eight
The Rules Cyclopedia is a hell of a book to be sure. It’s almost cheating in a way, though, since it’s the cumulation of an entire edition cycle, not the initial offering of an edition like the others being compared.
@Bartoneus – Thanks for an excellent post. I am as tired of the edition wars as you guys are. Much of my “experienced” many-year gaming group has become so anti-4e it has fractured our group of friends. However, the noobs, and the 2nd group of RPGA players on Weds, are having a blast! I have DM’ed for over 25 years, and I am having fun again in 4e. Between keywords and the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun… almost every question is answered, the DM can be an “expert” on the system without memorizing, and the game flows smoothly.
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
Nice article. My argument on the monster allocation vs the editions lies in the comparison of play.
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.
Ok, first the PHB.
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.
Ah, Mr. Razz, judging by your previous comments and online presence, I’m sure you’re the pinnacle of objectivity about 3e vs. 4e!
Razz: It’s quite evident that you did not read very carefully, not just the several comments here where we discussed a lot of what you mentioned already, but also the post itself where I mention 3E having more fluff and my reasoning for only factoring in crunch when it comes to the down and dirty comparison. The VERY FIRST thing I compared was word count, which is probably one of the only effective ways you could measure fluff between editions.
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.
Oh Mr. Obvious wins the game! Woo! He realizes I’m a 3E lover.
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.
Wow. Just……. wow.
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!
@Razz: It’s not a problem to enjoy 3e instead of 4e. Lots of people still like OD&D and 2e better than later editions. What is a problem is you seem to be using a common problem in debate which is you’re attacking the poster instead of the argument. Essentially, you’re saying everyone who likes 4e are total loser suck-ups, which is almost certainly not true – particularly since a large percentage of the online blogging community seems to have embraced it.
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.
The 3.5 DMG does contain content for epic level play, including several feats. None of which you put into your numbers and assertions.
I was surprised at a few of the exclusions here. When I did my initial comparison and decided 4e wasn’t for me I did the same sort of thing. Sadly the MM was for me the greatest travesty because it basically cuts out a third of the text and tries to squeeze in more stat-blocks. The result being basically nothing about these creatures. If I was new to the game I wouldn’t have a clue about 90% of the monsters.
The recurring theme I keep seeing is that you almost NEED 3e or 2e books to play 4e.
This fluff problem contributes elsewhere to the content disparity. When you flip through the 4e PHB it has only 2/3’s of the word count, but includes more areas of information than the 3e one. Worse the “powers” section (aka spells of 4e) is nearly identical in word count to the 3e spells sections. That basically eliminates half the possibilities for condensation of subject matter. So that 2/3 is actually a reduction of races, classes, skills, details and combat to around 1/3 of its 3e word count.
I think that these cuts are what is most aggravating. 4e uses less words to talk about more things. Many of these things have so little content left that all they get is a brief blurb. For instance tell me what fighters or clerics are like as people? The book has three sentences of fluff per class basically.
Interesting analysis. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
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 I was new to the game I wouldn’t have a clue about 90% of the monsters.”
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).
There is no point in comparing books with differently organized content (PHB and DMG) for different systems.
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
Ruemere:
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.
“There is no point in comparing books with differently organized content (PHB and DMG) for different systems. ”
–> 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
A response to Razz’s informed posts…
“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 :P) – 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 😀