|
When I read "why 3.x sucks and 4E will solve it all", I sometimes wonder if the poster enjoyed 3.x at all. Ultimately, I know they had too: like couples before a divorce, they forget what brought them together in the first place.
So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?
When I read "why 3.x sucks and 4E will solve it all", I sometimes wonder if the poster enjoyed 3.x at all. Ultimately, I know they had too: like couples before a divorce, they forget what brought them together in the first place.
So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?
Off the top of my head, I loved that they got rid of THACO, one XP progression for everyone, skill points instead of proficiencies, the wealth of character options in the PHB...
In all, it seemed a much simpler system than 2E. Getting rid of the Ability Score requirements was another change I liked.
The bottom line is that, like 4E hopefully will, 3E got rid of a lot of inelegant rules that made the game confusing. I've no doubt that even 4E won't fix everything, and a few years from now I'll be eager to try out a 5th Edition that claims to fix the problems that shake out of 4E.
Hell, a lot. The new BAB, feats, skill system, abilities and the way they interact with the game, saving throws...
Well, everything rocked but I feel that 4ed also rocks. I play a lot DnD and I trully wanted the move forward. I like the changes too. After so many years playing 3ed I got tired of it and found some things that now I dislike. This will certainly happen with 4th as well but perhaps I'm a guy that always look forward.
I dont think that 3rd Edition sucks. I remember when 3E was announced and a lot of people started clamoring that they hated 2E, and that it sucks, etc etc. This of course was crap: why the heck would you play a game that sucks? Maybe it sucked compared to 3E, I dont know.
The reason why I went from 2E to 3E was that things made a LOT more sense and were a LOT more balanced. Wizards didnt suck at low-levels and rule at high-levels (which actually meant that most of my players didnt want to play one: they didnt like the vague promise of being good way later in the game).
I liked the change in skills, going from THAC0 to BAB, monsters making more sense, races that were also balanced (I remember the minotaur from Skills & Powers), changes to saving throws, removal of weapon speeds, the addition of prestige classes and numerous new classes instead of potentially broken kits. Feats were a great addition that helped differentiate characters, ability scores made more sense and contributed (or penalized) in a more meaningful manner.
Despite all of those improvements, however, 3rd Edition still had its share of problems. So, I'm moving on to 4th Edition. I dont hate 3E. If I did, I would have stopped playing D&D altogether awhile ago in favor of something else.
Man, you're asking me to remember what I thought about something 8 years ago, when I have trouble remembering what I ate this weekend.
Let's see ... I liked lots of things other posters listed. Streamlining the rules. Things just generally making sense. I really liked the "everyone works by the same rules" concept 3E brought in (although since I've moderated my stance on that.) The idea of PrC seemed promising and the concept that every class was more or less balanced was exhilirating.
But, of course, not all worked as well as hoped. Wizards and Clerics were soon out pacing the more "martial" classes. Many broken PrC were released, and I felt the pain of having NPCs and PCs use the exact same rules everytime I had to generate a group of NPCs ... essentially having to create a group of PCs, something that would take hours of work.
I still love 3E (I play it every week, and have for years!) but that doesn't mean it's the perfect game. I doubt the perfect game exists, since my perfect game likely would be no one elses.
But I also think every new edition of DnD makes the game better, refining the rules, dropping ideas and concepts that don't work correctly, introducing new ones that sound promising. As time goes by the flaws in the new design will be found, just as they were in the old.
And some time from now, I expect to be looking forward to 5E. Hopefully it'll fix all the problems 4E will eventually be found to have. Maybe I'm just an optimistic guy.
Cheers! :)
|
I loved 3 and 3.5 until I had characters over 10th level. Holes and rough spots in the rules became glaring problems. Combats that were already fairly long before began to take hours to resolve.
I am hopeful that Pathfinder will help with some of the problems. However, after playing a few sessions of 4e (GMing actually) I may find playing any 3.x or OGL game to be a bit taxing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
At the tail-end of 2nd Edition, I looked at the gaming industry, and I saw that there was AD&D, and there was everything else. Every other game had a skills system. Every other game had a "core mechanic" as opposed to twisty maze of different subsystems.
When 3rd Edition came out, it struck me as D&D "growing up" and joining the rest of the hobby.
And I was really impressed with how Attacks of Opportunity worked. They seemed like an elegant mechanic for encouraging good tactical game play.
So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?
The things that stand out most to me are:
- Simplified combat -- specifically, no THAC0 and reversing AC progression to a more sensibe form (big numbers = good armor)
- Useful skill system -- and rogue abilities were properly made skills
- Streamlined saving throws that made sense (I never really understood what some of the old saves were supposed to represent)
But I'm not switching :)
And I was really impressed with how Attacks of Opportunity worked. They seemed like an elegant mechanic for encouraging good tactical game play.
Is the AoO part of 4e? That strikes me as exactly the kind of overhead WotC is trying to eliminate.
Opportunity attacks are in 4E. They work basically the same, except creatures dont threaten every space in their reach unless they have "Threatening wave".
And I was really impressed with how Attacks of Opportunity worked. They seemed like an elegant mechanic for encouraging good tactical game play.Is the AoO part of 4e? That strikes me as exactly the kind of overhead WotC is trying to eliminate.
What was 3E's AoO is now 4E's OA. For the most part the abilities are the same, although one big change is that Reach no longer allows you to make OAs out to your entire range (you now need Threatening Reach for that). Most of the other changes that come to mind are more changes in how movement works than changes in the OA mechanic, but until we get the books we won't know for sure.
Cheers! :)
Edit: Curses! Ninja'd by Anti!
Curses! Ninja'd by Anti!
lol :)
Edit: Curses! Ninja'd by Anti!
:-(
|
Opportunity attacks are in 4E. They work basically the same, except creatures dont threaten every space in their reach unless they have "Threatening wave".
I like that change; a Large creature could theoretically make a deliberate attack into the 32 squares around it, without necessarily being able to react instantly to events in those outer 20 squares.
By "wave" I meant "REACH". I have no friggin' clue why I said wave, but I blame talking to other people and exhaustion.
I really liked how multiclassing was so much easier, though little did I realize that it was reduced to a way to make yourself weaker... that, or a way to break the game if you knew what you were doing.
|
|
I dont think that 3rd Edition sucks. I remember when 3E was announced and a lot of people started clamoring that they hated 2E, and that it sucks, etc etc. This of course was crap: why the heck would you play a game that sucks? Maybe it sucked compared to 3E, I dont know.
The reason why I went from 2E to 3E was that things made a LOT more sense and were a LOT more balanced. Wizards didnt suck at low-levels and rule at high-levels (which actually meant that most of my players didnt want to play one: they didnt like the vague promise of being good way later in the game).
I liked the change in skills, going from THAC0 to BAB, monsters making more sense, races that were also balanced (I remember the minotaur from Skills & Powers), changes to saving throws, removal of weapon speeds, the addition of prestige classes and numerous new classes instead of potentially broken kits. Feats were a great addition that helped differentiate characters, ability scores made more sense and contributed (or penalized) in a more meaningful manner.Despite all of those improvements, however, 3rd Edition still had its share of problems. So, I'm moving on to 4th Edition. I dont hate 3E. If I did, I would have stopped playing D&D altogether awhile ago in favor of something else.
Actually I did hate 2ed. I had actually quit playing, I was playing other systems prior to 3E. I was playing Earthdawn, Deadlands and 7th Sea.
I don't like 4e from what I've seen, I do like what I've seen with Pathfinder.
I remember when 3rd edition came out, I thought it was a bad idea. I mean, we already had 1st and 2nd edition; they were so similar I used them pretty much interchangeably.
But my roommate bought the 3rd edition PH, and it totally rocked. I loved how elegant everything seemed.
Hopefully 4th edition will be even more elegant, but several aspects of 3rd edition seem to be missing that I really liked: skill points, easy multiclassing, nice mathematical progressions, PrCs, feats, consistant rules for everyone, etc. One of my favorite things about 3rd edition is how easy it is to design stuff.
4th edition does seem to have some neat qualities: I like the static saves and variant attack DCs for spells, poison, breath weapons, etc. It seems like it would be quicker to run, since you don't have to roll dice on someone else's turn. Minions look like fun, but you can pretty much design them now in 3.5--just give the Con penalties so they're vulnerable to attacks, but give them a leader that buffs them so they still pose a threat. I also like the Daily/Encounter/Will powers idea. Seems easier to keep track of, and more fun. Probably 1 reason I like 3rd edition warlocks so much.
I dunno. I would probably play in a quick 4th edition session, but I'd be leary of joining or running a 4th edition campaign until I'd taken it out for some testdrives.