[Domhnall]

Originally Posted by Thelaird

I personally, don't think it's better or worse than 3.5e. It has many things I like more, and many things I don't like. But that's how it was as 3.5e. My group decided to go with it, just because it'd feel right to follow the evolution of D&D. None of us were expecting a better time, we were expecting something different.

Also, I brought along Domhnall who hasn't played D&D ever, only ever had chances to read the rules, and he had a much easier time learning 4e than anyone I've ever seen try to learn 3.5e. I'd say they succeeded in what they wanted to do with the game. Overall, I like it, but there's always going to be a spot in my heart for 3.0. It's what I learned D&D on, so I can't help but think back to those days. :P

It is extremely easy to pick up, and I think that's the main reason Wizards made it the way they did. Attempting to get the MMORPG crowd, some of whom might have found 3.5 too complicated, into the fold. Like he said, I never played anything before 4.0 but I did frequently read the books and lurked daily around message boards and forums that discussed 3.5 (and often 2.0). Granted, never having played 3.5 my word is worth a little less, but it did seem extremely complicated. Here's the biggest thing, though; from what I saw, it was extremely easy to gimp yourself (and only slightly harder to make an impossibly broken character) from the multiclassing aspect.

In my time around the message boards I've only seen 1 "broken" character from 4.0 (I'm not telling you how to make it, if you're that determined you can find it somewhere on the internet). While I was disappointed that I could no longer be a Ranger 10/Bard 5/Druid 5 or any such build, I was at least comforted by the fact that I'll not create a character that's utterly useless in combat.

So, take that how you will. Definitely simpler, but with the simplicity comes the assurance that your character won't suck.