Zephemus
|
Hey everyone, I just wanted to start a thread of general pros and cons by you all about the editions of D&D 3rd-4th editions. Maybe we can accumulate these ideas into what a great RPG should be in Pathfinder.
I'll start:
3.5 pro; The immersion one got from playing the game was great and one of the main ways that this was done was detailing and creating all of the wonderful options released in 3rd and 3.5. In 4th edition it very much feels as if you're playing a board game and thus the fantasy world feeling has been lost.
3.5 con; One of the main strengths that led to the immersion feeling in 3.5 was that the skill list was incredibly inntricate. Though while this was a great things realistically. Practically, however, picking and choosing you character's skill list took forever.
4th ed pro; the skill list in 4th edition D&D was toned down to not make players rip thier hair out when creating a character and the skill list streamlining alone, IMHO, didn't ruin the entire feeling of immersion to the game.
4th ed con; One of the first things that I had to gripe about when I first opened the 4th edition PHB, I found that the new alignments, especially the neuteral ones, had become so vague that as a DM it becomes hard to expect how the players should act. A lot of fellow players at my LGS were either against alignments altogether, or had a problem with how alignments were associated with spells and/or classes, such as the paladin which I could agree on. Now to those people that think that the alignment system should be done away with entirely, this comes down to an issue of "if you don't like it, then just ignore it" really, and this goes for the alignment affiliations spells had was that alignments should have one purpose, to give the DM an idea of how characters are supposed to act and think, and to give some loose rules/guidlines on classes.
