13 problems with 3.x


4th Edition

151 to 162 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
The problem is that a FTR 10 Wiz 10 is still a 20th level character and should be able to contribute to the group the same as any other 20th lvl PC. He won't be able to because when it comes to multiclassing 10+10 does not always equal 20.

While I would agree that it wouldn't equal 20, I would argue it is not very far off. A Fighter/Wizard would have spells that augment the fighting capabilities. Greater Invisibility, animal growth, mass enlarge person, overland flight. Oh sure 1 fighter 20 and 1 wizard 20 can do each job better. But then again, two are better then 1 generally. That 20th level fighter is kind of useless against an invisible 10th level fighter with a 15 bab.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Rhothaerill wrote:


I take them to the brink of death quite often, but I can guarantee you that if one of the characters met their death, with no chance of being raised (they aren't high enough level to cast it yet, nor rich enough to purchase it from a temple, short of a "quest-purchase" that I don't care to introduce) it would probably be the death of the campaign, or at least that player's enjoyment of the campaign.

If you have players like this, as a DM, you always have other options if someone doesn't want to stay dead. I'm sure they've befriended a Cleric at a temple, who might do a Raise Dead as a favor, or for a future favor (adventure seed). Or maybe the party is affiliated to the church? What about borrowing money from the local loan shark (adventure seed)? There are tons of ways to bring a character back, even at low levels, with a little creativity.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
3E does not need alternative rules - it needs a new core.

Opinion, not fact. I disagree with your opinion.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Larry Lichman wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:


I take them to the brink of death quite often, but I can guarantee you that if one of the characters met their death, with no chance of being raised (they aren't high enough level to cast it yet, nor rich enough to purchase it from a temple, short of a "quest-purchase" that I don't care to introduce) it would probably be the death of the campaign, or at least that player's enjoyment of the campaign.
If you have players like this, as a DM, you always have other options if someone doesn't want to stay dead. I'm sure they've befriended a Cleric at a temple, who might do a Raise Dead as a favor, or for a future favor (adventure seed). Or maybe the party is affiliated to the church? What about borrowing money from the local loan shark (adventure seed)? There are tons of ways to bring a character back, even at low levels, with a little creativity.

I know there are plenty of ways to bring a character back at low levels and your items are ones I've already thought about, but earlier I said I don't care to introduce a "quest-purchase". I already have multiple adventure seeds and quests currently going and in the works. Adding in yet another isn't an option I want to work with at the moment, nor would my players as they want to work on the seeds they are already involved in.

However, I suppose I didn't make all of the points I wanted to make earlier. The point that I think Erik was talking about was that PC death is so commonplace in his campaigns that it's not as big a deal for his players to roll up a new character and that character automatically joins in. For my players, it is a big deal.

Further on that (to pile on Erik a bit, sorry Erik ;)), if I killed off as many characters as Erik said he has in the first 3 adventures of AoW, and the party tried to raise each one, that is six raise dead spells. No low level party has the resources to pay off a loan shark for six raise deads, and if they receive quests from the local temple to pay for those spells then all they would be doing is quests from the local temple instead of following the AP (and yes, I know the AP could be massaged enough that the quests from the local temple could be catalysts for following the AP). I want my party to be able to choose how and when they go on adventures, not be railroaded into doing the campaign because it's the only way for them to pay for all their dead party members.


Erik Mona wrote:

I killed something like six characters in the first three adventures of the Age of Worms Adventure Path. All of the players just rolled up new characters and kept playing.

The first character to die, a paladin named Abelard, ended up giving his name to the entire group, who called themselves "Abelard's Band" in recognition of their fallen foe.

Rather than destroy the campaign, at least some of those deaths made it richer, and it made the clever players pay more attention and not stick their hands in so many obvious traps.

If I to put my group through that kind of meat grinder, they would have abandoned the game enmass and started playing with someone else as the DM.

The first character death enriched the game, and thats good. I really like the idea of naming the party after a fallen comrade, especially because of the Arena storyline later on. That's how to handle a character death well. If you could handle ever character death liek that, it would be okay.

But what about the other five characters who died? Did they impact the world in some way? How many of those second, or third, generation characters got much of a history? How many were just carbon copies of the old character, with a new class and name?

There were only four people in my gaming group when we ran Age of Worms, and that included me as the DM. If I had killed everyone's character twice by the end of adventure three, they wouldn't even bother naming their new character. They would have all hated the Age of Worms.

Instead, they played the same three characters for the entire adventure path, and the Age of Worms is being remembered as the best campaign we've ever played in. It's success has brought more players to the group, and everyone chipped in to buy the first AP just so we could run it.

I put a lot of that success on your shoulders Erik for making an amazing plot that spanned an entire adventuring career. You and the other folks at Paizo have an amazing thing going here with the AP series and I love it, but the very structure of the AP makes it feel like you should play the same character all the way through.


Erik Mona wrote:
I like the Vancian system, but in fact the fire-and-forget method of spellcasting is almost unique to his writings in the canon of fiction that inspired D&D. I have no problem with a spell system that allows for spontaneous casting (say, for example, the sorcerer), but so far throughout the whole history of D&D such systems were attached to a system rooted in the Vancian assumption.

I have decided to treat magic like advanced math in my universe. it's not a perfect analogy, but in essence a wizard must spend years struggling to understand all of the complex "equations" that go into making a very long "proof". You can get the answer from another fellow, or from a book, but if you have to start with a blank page and get to the end of this complex string of math and logic, you really have to understand how it all works.

But once you have mastered the math involved, and understand the relationships of all of the parts of the thing, you can do it as often as you like. Well, until you get tired ;-)

This means that a spellbook is not necessary for a wizard to cast spells, and he need not memorize them daily, however it is still a treasured possession, as it is his "research notebook" that he's using to constantly move toward mastering new spells (next level).

It also preserves the "wizard name" aspect of spells, because the first fellow to work out a new "formula" becomes the namesake as others study it and try to understand how to do it themselves, much as certain formulas, equations, and proofs, are named for the mathematicians who discovered them.

Rambling now. I should go :-)

Dark Archive

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
-Maybe I am in the minority but this is the best part of being a DM for me. Taking the time to create these NPC's and giving them life. I have spent weeks at times creating these NPCs knowing that in a game session the PCs might wipe him out in a few rounds.

2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
-I agree to this to a point. I would say levels 1 to 8 though. These levels are fun because PCs dont depend on magic such as Raise Dead, Teleport, ect which causes them to miss the fun. Journey from City X to City Y takes 10 days OR one teleport spell. Walking would be more fun to me.

4. Low level games are swingy.
-Going by Mr Mona's thought on what Mike means, then I like swingy. Momentum in a game is exciting to me. If the PCs are getting beat up then they have 2 options, fight or flee. The PCs cant win everytime, otherwise what fun is that?? Its like playing a board-game knowing that you are gonna win every time you play and the others know they are going lose everytime.

5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
-I think the CR is fine, but the problem that WotC out themselves in, is that they based the CR on a party of four people(Ftr,Clr,Wiz,Rog). My game has 6 players in controlling one PC each. Also, they kinda shot themselves in the foot by not keeping CR consistant based on how they broke it down in Savage Species. You can find lots of creatures in the Monster Manual and break them down using the SS guidelines and find that the CR isnt consistant.

6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
-Not in my games but YMMV.

7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
-Again YMMV

8. Characters have too few skill points.
10. You don't get enough feats.
-Ok this is what churns my butter. D&D, as I have known it since 1983, is about being heroic; NOT about being a superhero. Doing more with less is heroic to me. I think the skill system and feats are dead on. I disagree with DCs cuz I think many are too low, but thats an easy fix.

9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
-Only if you dont read the book before a session.

11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
-They are when you first start playing the game. I was confused because I wasnt used to them in 1e or 2e cuz they didnt exsist. After a few months I didnt have any issues with AoO.

12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
-I think this is more about flavor. As a DM I try to give the PC an opportunity to gain at least one item or spell needed to give them an advantage against the BBEG if I think its needed. Many magic items have a cool flavor even though the serve no purpose. But again YMMV.

13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
-The problem with things like grappling, sunder, ect is that they are not used EVERY session, which sometimes takes a little more time to look up in the middle of a battle, which disrupts the flow of the game, ect. I know how to do grapple without looking it up everytime, but I still have to look up Sunder because I dont use it often and neither do my players.

Anyway thats the thoughts of this grognard!!!


I thought I weighed in on this thread, but I guess I haven't.

I agree with Mearls 100% on ALL accounts. That said, the changes he could make based on these observations won't convince me to DM D&D.

"I'm retired." <- Wyatt Earp, Tombstone.


Larry Lichman wrote:
There are tons of ways to bring a character back, even at low levels, with a little creativity.

All of what you say is very true Larry, and I've use the kinds of things you suggest in the past. It is how we fix the problem of low level character death in my group usually, and I feel its a great way to get a beloved character back and expand the plot by doing so.

If the whole party gets wiped out, have the local cleric resuce their bodies and revive the whole group. They are now indebted to somebody, and you can get a good couple of adventures out of it.

The thing is, that isn't want we're talking about here.

We're talking about what to do when characters die and can't be brought back. When you're not going to get raised, and you have to roll up another character.

When this does happen in our games, we either role play it out, and spend forever getting the new character into the party, or the who group juust accepts this total strange into their midst because he has the word "PC" printed on his forehead.

I'd say that one low level character death event is something a campaign can deal with. You can do something clever like Erik's players did, name your party after the fallen comrade and carry on his legacy. A new character gets introduced in a logical way, and everybody continues on and has fun.

Once the players start dropping like flies, the game either becomes a complete farce with everybody playing their twin brother named Nale, or ends badly with everybody angry that they keep dying.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Why write a patch the size of a rule book?
The rules compendium managed to squeeze in all the rules from the past 5 years in a mere 160 pages. How much less would a set of alternate rules take up?
3E does not need alternative rules - it needs a new core. When a system has been patched to death it is time for a seed change.

I understand your viewpoint. However, a new seed builds on what has come before. Like Chicago after the fire. This is more like Carthage. WotC is leveling it, salting the earth, then building somewhere else.


Matthew Morris wrote:
I understand your viewpoint. However, a new seed builds on what has come before. Like Chicago after the fire. This is more like Carthage. WotC is leveling it, salting the earth, then building somewhere else.

well said, my good man, well said indeed!

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Rhothaerill wrote:
Further on that (to pile on Erik a bit, sorry Erik ;)), if I killed off as many characters as Erik said he has in the first 3 adventures of AoW, and the party tried to raise each one, that is six raise dead spells. No low level party has the resources to pay off a loan shark for six raise deads, and if they receive quests from the local temple to pay for those spells then all they would be doing is quests from the local temple instead of following the AP (and yes, I know the AP could be massaged enough that the quests from the local temple could be catalysts for following the AP). I want my party to be able to choose how and when they go on adventures, not be railroaded into doing the campaign because it's the only way for them to pay for all their dead party members.

Hey, feel free to pile on. I can take it!

I wouldn't expect the PCs to try to put together the dough for a raise dead spell before they crested 5th level or so. Surviving the low levels used to be part of the fun of D&D, and it still is in my campaigns.

If there's seriously no threat of dying that robs the game of serious excitement.

The idea that every encounter will be perfectly balanced to your party and that no one will ever die and that everyone will always come back takes a significant part of the fun out of the game, in my opinion.

I appreciate that certain characters need to stay alive for story reasons or what have you, but in my day they called that fudging.

The DM is in control of all variables. If you don't want a character to die, don't let him die.

--Erik

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Teiran wrote:
There were only four people in my gaming group when we ran Age of Worms, and that included me as the DM. If I had killed everyone's character twice by the end of adventure three, they wouldn't even bother naming their new character. They would have all hated the Age of Worms.

I admit that my Age of Worms campaign is an anomaly in that it had EIGHT players, which forced me to beef up the deadliness quite a bit. Also, four of the six dead characters were played by two players.

I don't think I'm bagging on them too much to say that those players were the least tactically minded players at the table, and that their resulting deaths were often the result of bad choices in play. None of their characters had particularly rich backgrounds (one was a ninja who couldn't even speak, for example), so it's not like their deaths had catastrophic effects on the campaign.

One of the other deaths was Nick Logue's character after he sat in during a single session. I killed off his guy after he left mostly out of convenience, as I was running too many NPC tag-alongs at the time.

Were I playing with only four characters I probably would be a little more careful with the slayage.

--Erik


How many characters in books or movies are constantly be raised from the dead after their deaths...anyone, anyone, Bueller?
Except any Wotc novel..because well they suck...


DangerDwarf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Gandalf was a bloody outsider, not your common wizard. Coconuts and rutabagas. ;)


Here's my list of 12 bad things that really hack me off about 3.x:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Yah, i have no complaints.

As ever,
ACE

Liberty's Edge

(lol!)

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
3E does not need alternative rules - it needs a new core.
Opinion, not fact. I disagree with your opinion.

Doc,

Yep, its an opinion. What I am observing here is this - we have all agreed that 3.5 has issues - well most of us anyway.

Every time an issue comes up folks say "sure that's a problem but does it require a whole new edition".

This has happened so often that I am wondering - why not?

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
The problem is that a FTR 10 Wiz 10 is still a 20th level character and should be able to contribute to the group the same as any other 20th lvl PC. He won't be able to because when it comes to multiclassing 10+10 does not always equal 20.
While I would agree that it wouldn't equal 20, I would argue it is not very far off. A Fighter/Wizard would have spells that augment the fighting capabilities. Greater Invisibility, animal growth, mass enlarge person, overland flight. Oh sure 1 fighter 20 and 1 wizard 20 can do each job better. But then again, two are better then 1 generally. That 20th level fighter is kind of useless against an invisible 10th level fighter with a 15 bab.

true but what about 2 ftr10/wiz10 vs 1 ftr 20 and 1 wiz 20

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

I think the problems with 3.5 clearly warrant a new edition.

I am undecided on whether the problems with 3.5 warrant so much tinkering with the background assumptions and sacred cows of the game, but I won't know that until I have the rules in my hands.


Eric, I would like to know what you (if you were at the helm) would do to prevent 4th edition from getting out of hand just like 2nd and 3.5?

The Exchange

Erik Mona wrote:

I think the problems with 3.5 clearly warrant a new edition.

I am undecided on whether the problems with 3.5 warrant so much tinkering with the background assumptions and sacred cows of the game, but I won't know that until I have the rules in my hands.

I agree. The one thing that is a huge roadblock for me is the lack of any "wild" classes - ranger and druid. I also agree that they messed with fluff more than they needed too but fluf can be reshaped as needed. Since I never liked FR much that change does not matter to me, but I can understand why it would matter to other folks.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

I think the problems with 3.5 clearly warrant a new edition.

I am undecided on whether the problems with 3.5 warrant so much tinkering with the background assumptions and sacred cows of the game, but I won't know that until I have the rules in my hands.

I agree. The one thing that is a huge roadblock for me is the lack of any "wild" classes - ranger and druid. I also agree that they messed with fluff more than they needed too but fluf can be reshaped as needed. Since I never liked FR much that change does not matter to me, but I can understand why it would matter to other folks.

Crosswiredmind, I'm pretty sure that the ranger is definitely in the first PHB.


My issue with low level combat in D&D has nothing to do with mortality. What I dislike is the disproportionate effect that die rolls have on the outcome of an encounter. With the dearth of options, the ease with which both monsters and PCs bite the dust, and with how little of an effect that a character's abilities have on attack rolls and skill checks low level D&D fails to satisfy me on a tactical level.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:

Every time an issue comes up folks say "sure that's a problem but does it require a whole new edition".

This has happened so often that I am wondering - why not?

I've said before. I don't have any real problem with the mechanical changes. Some I don't like, but I can deal. I certainly do agree that the edition needs tweeked. Make a new edition ... well it'll happen anyways eventually ... fine.

The fluff ... no. Simply, no. Selling the new edition by insulting its fans ... that's going to far.

The Exchange

Shroomy wrote:

Crosswiredmind, I'm pretty sure that the ranger is definitely in the first PHB.

I hope so but Races & Classes made it seem as if that would not be the case.

I have always preferred wilderness campaigns and the lack of a ranger, druid, and to some extent the barbarian make that much more difficult.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Shroomy wrote:

Crosswiredmind, I'm pretty sure that the ranger is definitely in the first PHB.

I hope so but Races & Classes made it seem as if that would not be the case.

I have always preferred wilderness campaigns and the lack of a ranger, druid, and to some extent the barbarian make that much more difficult.

The elf racial preview from a few weeks back recommended "ranger" as one of the classes that best fit their abilities, so I'm assuming its in. I think the confirmed (so far) PHB core classes are fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, paladin, ranger, warlock, and warlord.

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:

The fluff ... no. Simply, no. Selling the new edition by insulting its fans ... that's going to far.

Yep, that is our fundamental point of distinction.

I simply do not care about fluff all that much. I have never used the planes in my games so I don't care how that changed. I have disliked the use of alignment since 1982 when I played a fantasy game without them and loved it. With the exception of Eberron i have never run a home game in a prefab campaign setting so none of those changes matter much to me. I could care less where elves come from or if a critter XYZ is a demon or a devil.

What I want from D&D are solid high fantasy rules. Yep, just gimme the crunch. The rest will fall into place as needed.

The Exchange

Shroomy wrote:
I think the confirmed (so far) PHB core classes are fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, paladin, ranger, warlock, and warlord.

This is an ok list but the selection of core classes could have been so much better.


Besides the barbarian and the druid, which ones would you have added in the first release?

The Exchange

Shroomy wrote:
Besides the barbarian and the druid, which ones would you have added in the first release?

My line up would have been the same as the current PHB minus the monk and the sorcerer. The addition of the warlock is good but the warlord just seems odd.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:


If there's seriously no threat of dying that robs the game of serious excitement.

The idea that every encounter will be perfectly balanced to your party and that no one will ever die and that everyone will always come back takes a significant part of the fun out of the game, in my opinion.

Trust me, I put my PCs through their paces, both physically and mentally, to the point that they are occasionally not sure if they're going to survive or not. Most of the time though they have been able to fight back from it. I have fudged a die roll only once to keep a character alive as it was a hit that, but for the roll of a confirmed critical, wouldn't have quite killed the character.

Different strokes though. I just prefer to keep the roleplaying time my players have invested in their characters intact. They've put far more into it than McArtor's mute ninja. ;) About a month ago I gave all my players a list of questions I wanted them to answer. One of the questions was "what is your favorite part of the game". Two of the three (yes my group totals 4 people) stated that the character interaction and role-playing was far and away their favorite part of the game.

Sometimes I think that those two (two sisters, one of whom is my wife) wouldn't really care too much if I threw out all the rules and played a more freeform game like what I've heard about White Wolf's material (never played it), as long as they could role-play their characters how they wanted. :)

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

On the one hand, were it not for my profession I would be a LOT more bummed out about the "fluff" changes than I am now. I try to be pragmatic about it. Paizo can't use a lot of that world stuff anyway, so it makes no difference to me what they do with it. I've been focused for more than a year on coming up with something I like better anyway.

Actually, the more WotC tinkers with the sacred cows and alienates the long-term players, the better it likely is for our business, as more and more gamers will be looking for something new.

So ironically, while I mourn the loss of the Great Wheel and the like, I couldn't use it anyway and like our version even more.

Dark Archive

Erik Mona wrote:
So ironically, while I mourn the loss of the Great Wheel and the like, I couldn't use it anyway and like our version even more.

Which is why I think the Great Wheel doesn't bother me at all. Most settings I've used don't use it. Plus, got new settings to look forward too.


Erik Mona wrote:

I admit that my Age of Worms campaign is an anomaly in that it had EIGHT players, which forced me to beef up the deadliness quite a bit. [snipped a bit]

One of the other deaths was Nick Logue's character after he sat in during a single session. I killed off his guy after he left mostly out of convenience, as I was running too many NPC tag-alongs at the time.

Were I playing with only four characters I probably would be a little more careful with the slayage.

--Erik

Yah, eight people with rotating players... gah that is a hard game to run. That never goes well for me and my groups. Even so, the two players who kept dying are a strange breed. I don't know many people who can die that often and remain happy afterward. If they can, good for them! They're enjoying the game, right? And that's the point.

It would bug the heck out of me, especially if the table was large and basicly the only moment in the sun my character got was when he died spetacualrly.

I wouldn't even call killing a former player character off a player kill. He was an NPC by that point if the player had no intention of returning to the game.

It's very encouraging to know that you would have played things differently at a small, stable like the one I usually run.

I know its a play style thing, and that some people enjoy losing ten characters to the Tomb of Horrors, but that's just not how the people I know play. Might be my fault, since I've never DMed that way, and I was the first DM they had. To each their own I suppose.

Just, please mark any adventure you guys make where you intend for the whole party to die repeatedly so I know to avoid it like the plague. :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
DangerDwarf wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
So ironically, while I mourn the loss of the Great Wheel and the like, I couldn't use it anyway and like our version even more.
Which is why I think the Great Wheel doesn't bother me at all. Most settings I've used don't use it. Plus, got new settings to look forward too.

Most of the fluff changes don't really bother me anyway. I have my own homebrew world, and I steal from Paizo's material if there is something else I need.

Even so, some of the 4th edition fluff fits in very well with my homebrew world. I didn't have much for gnomes to do in my world, while I have a race that is fairly similar to what I've seen of the dragonborn, though mine have a religious bent over a martial bent. I'll definitely throw out the elf fluff in my world though as elves are a badass oriental type based around the samurai class.

I'm mainly interested in the 4th edition mechanics. I love 3.5 D&D as it renewed my enthusiasm for gaming and got my wife involved in gaming with me, but there are a few holes in the core; some of which are the items Mike Mearls mentioned. I'm very interested to see if they can fix those holes.

Dark Archive

Rhothaerill wrote:

I'll definitely throw out the elf fluff in my world though as elves are a badass oriental type based around the samurai class.

Sweet. Have you checked out the Sovereign Stone setting? It has orientalish elves.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
DangerDwarf wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:

I'll definitely throw out the elf fluff in my world though as elves are a badass oriental type based around the samurai class.

Sweet. Have you checked out the Sovereign Stone setting? It has orientalish elves.

No, I've never heard of it. I just like the flavor of samurai elves over the high elf/wood elf classics. Though my players haven't quite suspected yet, the main storyline of my campaign revolves around an amoral tribe of samurai elves who disappeared centuries ago, and the efforts of their half-elven descendants to bring them back. The party will learn the full story a bit down the road...when they get transported to the alternate dimension where the amoral elven tribe now lives. 3:-D>

Dark Archive

It a pretty cool setting, Sovereign Stone, developed by Larry Elmore so has some cool art too. The elven racial description has a pic of some elves in samurai armor and other japanese type garb.

Cool stuff.


crosswiredmind wrote:
What I am observing here is this - we have all agreed that 3.5 has issues - well most of us anyway.

I gave this topic quite a bit of thought today through work.

I think I might have stumbled on something. I can say it works for me, but now it is time to check with others to see if it holds water.

My question is: "Are there any real problems with 3.5?"

No hold on. Don't everyone start typing out your personal list of pet peeves. Let me explain what I mean.

There are a lot of areas people don't like. I'll grant that. But just because someone doesn't like a particular aspect doesn't make it a problem.

An example: Earlier today (and I have yet to check back to that thread) crosswiredmind pointed out that s/he felt 4th Edition fixed the problem with multiple attacks, and that WotC had an alternative to multiple attack rolls.

While crosswiredmind doesn't like multiple attack rolls, are they really a problem? In other words: Is there any better way to do it? Note that I asked for better. Not simpler, nor easier, and not exactly faster either. I can come up with several different ways to do it... But they are all worse than multiple rolls.

What I am getting at is that 3.5 has actually compiled a collection of good rules. There aren't many I would say could be made better. Not that individuals do not want them to be different...

So... I am wondering, even if 4th Edition produces rules changes that people like, will the rules be better?
(Yes, I know that is likely subjective... But I am the guy that has never liked a Wrestling video game since WWF Attitude because the controls are worse. But the games tend to sell better. *shrugs*)

Contributor

Erik Mona wrote:
Paizo can't use a lot of that world stuff anyway, so it makes no difference to me what they do with it.

I've been asking myself this very question when it came to yours and Mr. Jacobs' line of thinking. I couldn't track your guys' train of thought because of this very factor.

Erik Mona wrote:
more and more gamers will be looking for something new

I'm not criticizing I'm just honestly confused by that--won't both WotC and Paizo be new?

That is, isn't Paizo's setting going to have a new take on the Great Wheel, like you said, and won't WotC have something new too, in fact the very newness that Paizoland is largely railing against?

Or, if it's a harken back to older D&D that you're after, won't your new actually be something old?

Like I said, I'm kinda confused by the new statement.

Would it be better to say different?


Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
What I am observing here is this - we have all agreed that 3.5 has issues - well most of us anyway.

I gave this topic quite a bit of thought today through work.

I think I might have stumbled on something. I can say it works for me, but now it is time to check with others to see if it holds water.

My question is: "Are there any real problems with 3.5?"

No hold on. Don't everyone start typing out your personal list of pet peeves. Let me explain what I mean.

There are a lot of areas people don't like. I'll grant that. But just because someone doesn't like a particular aspect doesn't make it a problem.

An example: Earlier today (and I have yet to check back to that thread) crosswiredmind pointed out that s/he felt 4th Edition fixed the problem with multiple attacks, and that WotC had an alternative to multiple attack rolls.

While crosswiredmind doesn't like multiple attack rolls, are they really a problem? In other words: Is there any better way to do it? Note that I asked for better. Not simpler, nor easier, and not exactly faster either. I can come up with several different ways to do it... But they are all worse than multiple rolls.

What I am getting at is that 3.5 has actually compiled a collection of good rules. There aren't many I would say could be made better. Not that individuals do not want them to be different...

So... I am wondering, even if 4th Edition produces rules changes that people like, will the rules be better?
(Yes, I know that is likely subjective... But I am the guy that has never liked a Wrestling video game since WWF Attitude because the controls are worse. But the games tend to sell better. *shrugs*)

Yet again I am forced to remind myself that earlier I promised not to be tempted into another rant about the (multiple) evils of 4e. Thus far, my resolve is firm - I shall not rant. I gotta say, though, you're onto something here, Disenchanter...

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Moonlion wrote:


Erik Mona wrote:
more and more gamers will be looking for something new
I'm not criticizing I'm just honestly confused by that--won't both WotC and Paizo be new?

Yes. Absolutely. A new edition is going to cause a lot of people to restart their campaigns, and that's going to mean people who had ordinarily been "locked" into the Realms or Eberron or whatever will be more open to trying something new than they would if they were in the middle of a Realms or Eberron campaign. And if they don't care for the changes in the new Realms, they're even more likely to look for something else. That's what I mean by "New".

Moonlion wrote:

That is, isn't Paizo's setting going to have a new take on the Great Wheel, like you said, and won't WotC have something new too, in fact the very newness that Paizoland is largely railing against?

If by Paizoland you mean the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting then I would say we absolutely are not "railing" against newness. It's a "new" campaign world, after all. It is possible to be new and exciting _and_ to remain respectful of the traditions of D&D. I think WotC is going to do a better job of this than a lot of people give it credit for. I think we might be able to do it better, but in the end all I really want to do is to create something that _I_ think is cool, that James thinks is cool, and that I think Paizo's audience will think is cool. At this point what Wizards of the Coast does with the fluff of D&D is almost irrelevant to me.

--Erik

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

das schwarze Auge wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Gandalf was a bloody outsider, not your common wizard. Coconuts and rutabagas. ;)

And you could make a nasty assamar sorcerer w/o even taking a level of fighter.

Sorcerer 6, Eldrich knight x (for added cheese, Ab Champ 5) since being an outsider gives you proficiency in all martial weapons.

Heck a fighter 2 Wizard 8 Eldrich knight 10 is a 17th level caster +16 bab, and that's core rules.

Can you start as an effective gish in core? Not really. With UA as others have said, Battle Sorcerer is doable.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Teiran wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
We're talking about what to do when characters die and can't be brought back. When you're not going to get raised, and you have to roll up another character.

This is only an issue if you let it become one. There is ALWAYS a way to bring back a character if you look hard enough.


Larry Lichman wrote:
Teiran wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
We're talking about what to do when characters die and can't be brought back. When you're not going to get raised, and you have to roll up another character.
This is only an issue if you let it become one. There is ALWAYS a way to bring back a character if you look hard enough.

I totally agree Larry, you've summed my feelings on this up perfectly.

Dark Archive

das schwarze Auge wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Gandalf was a bloody outsider, not your common wizard. Coconuts and rutabagas. ;)

I dunno.The Outsiders is one of my favorite movies and while I know Matt Dillon and Karate Kid are in it, I've never, never seen Gandalf in it.

Was he in the rumble scene?


Erik Mona wrote:
Surviving the low levels used to be part of the fun of D&D, and it still is in my campaigns. If there's seriously no threat of dying that robs the game of serious excitement. The idea that every encounter will be perfectly balanced to your party and that no one will ever die and that everyone will always come back takes a significant part of the fun out of the game, in my opinion.

I heartily concur with this attitude. Achievement is nothing if it's managed, softened or fudged by the DM. Overcoming challenges is what the game is all about. Now I don't expect a DM to have the kind of kill-em-all adversarial attitude that Gary Gygax often advocated, but players can tell when a DM is "easy" and the reward of achieving anything in those kinds of campaigns is often diminished.

On the other hand the kind of long, involved, epic stories found in the adventure paths do suffer when new characters have to be introduced in every adventure, and continuity can take a real beating if it's a TPK all the time.


Rhothaerill wrote:
Further on that (to pile on Erik a bit, sorry Erik ;)), if I killed off as many characters as Erik said he has in the first 3 adventures of AoW, and the party tried to raise each one, that is six raise dead spells. No low level party has the resources to pay off a loan shark for six raise deads, and if they receive quests from the local temple to...

No you got it wrong.

If you are below 5th or 6th level you dont go into debt raising your character...You roll up a new one. There is no raising.
Im guessing its just a style of play your really not used to.

151 to 162 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 13 problems with 3.x All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.