|
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.
3.5 pro: The level of complexity means that those who need intellectual stimulation or become very quickly bored with a game can find their crunch to chew on, whereas the less tactical types can just pick an 'easy button' class (see: caster) and not be hopelessly lost.
3.5 con: The degree of theoretical optimization material in the core 3 alone such as Infinite Wish Loops means you have to actively pretend certain things do not exist for the sake of game stability. Also, some concepts are simply doomed to fail automatically.
4.0 pro: Certain simplifications were actually good. Similar skills being fused together for example, so that even the skill monkeys don't end up with an anemic skill array that is mostly the same as every other skill monkey. Hide + Move Silently + Listen + Spot + Search + Disable Device + Open Lock (if your DM doesn't let you use DD for this since it implicitly works, or an adamantine bolt, or otherwise more reliably open a lock) = 6-7 skills just to cover the skeletal basics out of around oh... 10-11 tops? Yeah. Course I house ruled these into 3.5 before I knew 4.0 had done the same, or even was much aware of 4.0's existence.
4.0 con: Just about every other simplification is meh, resulting in a generic and bland game that might as well be a straight port of *insert hack and slash CRPG* onto tabletop. The problem of course is that said CRPGs are good for their fast paced, thoughtless combat where you can just happily cut down mob after mob with your brain off. Instead you get much slower combat because you have to do the math making wailing on the huge MOB HP bar go from mashing A or X for a few rounds, to having to take much longer to resolve each grindy turn. I don't even consider 4.0 D&D as it moved the system out of the firm niche it had and into a market it cannot possibly hope to compete with on any level as it has simply been done far better, far sooner by others. Bows are a novelty when guns are widespread.
4e: Con: Isn't Pathfinder RPG, and thus discussions about it don't belong here.
3e/3.5e Con: Same.
:P
3.X pro: don`t know. almost everything? :)
3.X cons: with every new book there were new feats, new classes, new prestige classes which were much more powerful than previous ones.
4th pro: similar to Scrape. I like some aspects of the combat especially that wizards have to make attackrolls with every spell. i like tzhe idea of willpower or reflexes beeing something like AC when it comes to magic.
4th con: almost anything else. The oversimplification, the feel of playing a tabletop mmorpg for kids.
@Scrape: is there a possibility of posting your changes? It would really interest me because i was intending to to something similar.
|
3.5 Pro classes are not always pigeon toed to do something. Clerics can melee rogues doesn't always have to be trap finders.
3.5 Con: Imbalance issues that make people want to nerf the hell out of certain classes or abilities to the point when sometimes their favorite feature gets unusable.
4E: Balanced so less likely to get nerfed by house rules.
4E Con: Everyone is a caster! There are no mechanical difference between any of the classes with exception everyone gets different spells. Yes I'm looking at you halfling rogue who's able to push back an org with just using daggers.
I think it's really strange that everyone hates 4ed combat so much. I hated everything except the combat. My group found fighting in 4ed to be faster, more involved, and more tactical and interesting. Obviously, a lot of the powers are ridiculous and some break immersion, but in terms of playing out a brawl, 4ed really stood out for us.
In fact, I house-ruled a lot of concepts from 4ed into my PFRPG campaign because it was more fun- there was more movement, more varied attacks, more interesting powers and effects. Every class can use different attacks and powers each round and it really keeps things interesting. Just our opinion.
Even if the individual rounds are faster (and they are often not, because there's a lot of stuff that is almost the same as something else so you have to check every single word every single time so you don't confuse it with another, highly similar ability and see also: Everyone Is The Same) combat goes from a typical 2-3 rounds, to a typical 6-9 rounds with double digit round counts not at all unheard of. Huge, pointless grind that goes like daily, encounter, encounter, then spam at wills. Naturally this makes things take longer.
At least in 3.x all you have to do to get some variety in attack options is to either be a caster, or be a martial adept so that you can circumvent auto attacking.
You Know, just two coppers here mind you, but I never understood the anti-skill list people seem to have. Maybe its what's left over from my Rifts days (which are over yet) but I find that more skills are better. Sure I don't mind Spot and Search being reduced to perception or whatever, but I've kept listen seperate. Also Use Rope is back for me as I found it exceptionaly useful, going across a rope bride, or climbing using a rope, all sorts of stuff. In fact I've added Knowledge (add monster type, humaniod, aberations ect.). The problem with was all the sinergy crap and the skill ranks system, something by the way that Pathfinder fixed. Love the new skill system, just think there should be more skills.
|
|
The biggest "problem" of games like this is that people think it is - or at least has to be - fair and balanced. Especially those constant whinings about mage superiority and the cry for more goodness for melee classes is a huge pain. The simple truth there is that you cant make these classes equally powerful without making them "the same". This is the 4e approach, but IMO it also makes classes much more boring simply because they are "the same in green".
There is a way to solve this dilemma without needing to fiddle with the rules too much, but it is not easy to write down guidelines for it. Simply put the DM has to make sure every player has had his share of fun in the evening. When you have a triggerhappy wizard just give him a few trash mobs to nuke and make him happy and then add a tough one with spell resistance / immunities for the fighter. Everyone should be happy then, and wont need to whine for a better set of rules.
Wizards simply are the most flexible class in the game, fighters are focusing everything on their one job. This is the structural difference which explains why they cant ever be balanced evenly by the rules and why the DM has to do this.
I've never had any problem with the power settings for most of the classes. My main two that I've had huge problems with is Paladin, underpowered, being not worth taking past lvl 5, and the Monk, overpowered, being able to waste an entire dungeon with two of them.
I really respect that everyone has its strengths and weaknesses and usually stick to them, though most of my problems with 3.5 was that the spells per day system might have made the majority of mage type characters "saving" thier spells and relying on the crossbows instead, which to me doesn't scream wizard. The main way I thought about rectifying this is reintroducing mana meters, or the power points system that was put in for Psyonics late into 3.5.Another thing I would like to ask off topic is if anyone else feels the same way I do about spells per day, if the idea is impeding on most wizards from being the spell slingers that we come to expect.
|
I've NEVER understood the thought that says "A wizard isn't a wizard unless he is lobbing spells all day!"...
I guess that's what happens with exposure to video games...
Magic (Classically) has always been difficult to learn and master, which is why wizards in D&D prior to 4e have only had a limited number of spells per day in order to reflect this...
The game has always had pros and cons in that, if you play a wizard, you are weak in combat and have a finite list of spells per day. If you go with the fighter, you might be strong, but you don't have much in defense against magic (lower saves), etc...
Oh well...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
...and the Monk, overpowered...
...What? Was the rest of the party set up something like Commoner, Commoner, Expert?
|
|
The biggest "problem" of games like this is that people think it is - or at least has to be - fair and balanced. Especially those constant whinings about mage superiority and the cry for more goodness for melee classes is a huge pain. The simple truth there is that you cant make these classes equally powerful without making them "the same". This is the 4e approach, but IMO it also makes classes much more boring simply because they are "the same in green".
There is a way to solve this dilemma without needing to fiddle with the rules too much, but it is not easy to write down guidelines for it. Simply put the DM has to make sure every player has had his share of fun in the evening. When you have a triggerhappy wizard just give him a few trash mobs to nuke and make him happy and then add a tough one with spell resistance / immunities for the fighter. Everyone should be happy then, and wont need to whine for a better set of rules.
Wizards simply are the most flexible class in the game, fighters are focusing everything on their one job. This is the structural difference which explains why they cant ever be balanced evenly by the rules and why the DM has to do this.
I've never had any problem with the power settings for most of the classes. My main two that I've had huge problems with is Paladin, underpowered, being not worth taking past lvl 5, and the Monk, overpowered, being able to waste an entire dungeon with two of them.
I really respect that everyone has its strengths and weaknesses and usually stick to them, though most of my problems with 3.5 was that the spells per day system might have made the majority of mage type characters "saving" thier spells and relying on the crossbows instead, which to me doesn't scream wizard. The main way I thought about rectifying this is reintroducing mana meters, or the power points system that was put in for Psyonics late into 3.5.Another thing I would like to ask off topic is if anyone else feels the same way I do about spells per...
I have about decided to make spells a per encounter thing. I am sick and tired of one or two decent encounters and then the group has to rest for the wizard or cleric. The only thing I can think of is that I hit the PCs with too much. I expect each encounter to be a challenge to them. I don't usually hit them with just one bad guy, but a whole slew of them. By the time they are done they feel like they have been through a FIGHT. I think the spell system was designed for most encounters to be trivial with only a couple of real challenges per level. Which I think is just plain boring.
Not sure what I will do, but I am getting really tired of it.
OK a yes a wizard doesn't HAVE to be a spell slinger all day. But it sure isn't much fun to have encounters all set up and every 2-3 encounters they need to stop for a day. Sure does nothing in real life time, but it spoils the flow and threat in the game. I know I can just keep throwing stuff at the PCs, but then to be honest they really are too weak to deal with much of anything.
We have played with spells returning based upon rules from Unearthed Arcana, but that was too much bookkeeping.
"I think the spell system was designed for most encounters to be trivial with only a couple of real challenges per level."
The entire system was designed for most encounters to be trivial with only a couple of real challenges per level. Spells are just one of the many subsystems that reflect this. The typical assumed encounter is equal CR which means it just depletes a bit of resources, but isn't actually hard at all unless it's your fourth or maybe your third of the day. Sometimes, especially at higher levels the enemy is lower CR which is just free XP. Only rarely do enemies have a higher CR, and then only about a point higher unless it's the BBEG or similar.
Now you can certainly raise the bar to make it harder on your players, but if they don't have good opt fu you can expect any non casters to quickly die under the pressure.
Well, for one thing, we made spells an attack roll instead of a save. It's a pretty simple conversion to make, and it adds a big element of interaction to combat.
Do you just take the normal saves as DC/AC or do you add something? And what do you take as attack bonus for the wizard? His BAB or spellcraft?
Sorry for threadjacking.
|
|
I vote this thread least likely to erupt into flames and/or trolling!
Oh yeah, I'm with ya 100% on this...
People can talk all day long about their favorite subject and never (ever) feel that a criticism aimed at a mere game is somehow a personal criticism about them, a threat towards them, or a personal attack upon them in any way what-so-ever...
oh yeah, almost forgot: [/sarcasm]...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
I vote this thread least likely to erupt into flames and/or trolling!Oh yeah, I'm with ya 100% on this...
People can talk all day long about their favorite subject and never (ever) feel that a criticism aimed at a mere game is somehow a personal criticism about them, a threat towards them, or a personal attack upon them in any way what-so-ever...
oh yeah, almost forgot: [/sarcasm]...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I wanna live in the world you're living in. It seems like a nice place.
I've been trying out 4E from an observer's perspective, as 4E does fix issues that were present in 3.5. Thus, observing 4E can give insight as to what the problems with 3.5 are.
I'm noticing that 4E has an issue with being *too* balanced. To the point where any splatbook, such as the very first one, Adventurer's Vault, throws everything out of whack. The scale was so finely balanced that any weight tips it over. Whether this fact is intentional, so that WotC can generate sales by selling power-creeping books, is unknown.
I'm also noticing that 4E has a huge tendency to devolve into an at-will slugfest. The monster hit points scale upwards faster than PC damage does, so the encounter (and daily, if you're in a fight worth using them) powers are insufficient to finish off the monsters, then add on the fact that every attack roll is d20-dependent, so you're going to miss half the time all the time, and ba-da-bing-ba-da-bang... at-will slugfest.
However, what 4E shows us is that giving martial characters something to do beyond roll attacks for damage is a good thing. Which is part of why Power Attack needs to have choices, by the way.
4E's solo monsters are totally busted. Every single one I've experienced so far has ended in a total party kill or a PCs-live-because-of-the-DM's-generosity ending. They just have way too many hit points to be taken down with at-will powers before their own uber-powers have enough time to blast the party to pieces.
What 4E teaches us about 3.5, though, is that single-monster encounters fail after a certain point in 3.5, due to the PCs' action advantage, and that a single monster has to be totally over-the-top to pose a challenge, with a frack-ton of hit points, a feat which 3.5 does not support. It tells us that the CR system needs to be totally overhauled, because CR is designed around single-monster encounters. One thing that 4E gets right is setting the baseline encounter to be Number of Monsters = Number of Party Members, instead of 3.5's baseline of Single Monster. When the PCs' action advantage goes away, the encounter becomes much more interesting.
Can Pathfinder gut the CR system and replace it? I think it can, and I also believe that it really needs to; we'll just have to see.
-Matt
The biggest "problem" of games like this is that people think it is - or at least has to be - fair and balanced. Especially those constant whinings about mage superiority and the cry for more goodness for melee classes is a huge pain. The simple truth there is that you cant make these classes equally powerful without making them "the same". This is the 4e approach, but IMO it also makes classes much more boring simply because they are "the same in green".
...
Wizards simply are the most flexible class in the game, fighters are focusing everything on their one job. This is the structural difference which explains why they cant ever be balanced evenly by the rules and why the DM has to do this.
QFT
There are a few things I don't like in either edition. 3.5 had too many optional rules. And some ,like Grapple, sucked. I did not have a problem with lots of skills. Though some, like use rope, were not very desirable. The worst thing about 3.5 may have been combat at very high levels. And the mini-maxing. Players wanted to pick cross-classes and special abilities to simply uberize their characters and not for 'character'.
4e really doesn't fix that 100%. But it does cut down your options and stridctly limit cross-classing. To where it sucks. And skills are quite condenced. This wouldn't bother me too much, but the class you take limits your skill choices and at every even level- everyone gets skill points in all the skills. I don't like being so restricted and having everyone get everything. And classes are Not even. Strikers like Rangers do mega damage without fear of getting to close to combat. While the Warlord's powers are for boosting others in combat. Oh wait- it's a 3.5 bard without bardic magic. I hated playing one. It's cool to boost people and give them extra attacks, but after awhile it'd be nice to kick butt too. And odd levels suck for progression. You get to pick from like three daily powers. I found this boring. And would have prefered rolling hitpoints or doing something. All the cooler stuff like gaining skill points, getting ability points, and feats are at even levels. Games too restrictive. And lacks true R-Play customization. There are some good things, but I was disapointed and had to quit my tabletop group.
Pathfinder may fix a few things. But I haven't played enough to get my online party up there yet. When they hit those higher levels, I expect to see the same problems with higher level encounters that I did with 3.5.
I don't care for the core race choices in either setting. The races are too human in 3.5. And I don't like dragons as core pcs. This move seems to be for all the half-dragon fans. Personnally, I'd rather of had lizardmen. Why? To me dragons are a creature of wonder, power, and awe. To have dragon people running all over kinda kills that. Plus that's what made Dragonlance unique. Draconians. And I love tieflings- 3.5 version. The 4e ones all look the same and I don't care how you see it- they're all ugly.
In both settings we don't need half-elves or half-orcs as races. They, too, should be rare. And not a race on their own. I think Tanis is great, but I don't like the idea of elves and orcs getting it on with humans to where there's thousands of them all over.
I did enjoy my game of 4e at Gen Con. But without minis and a map I'd feel lost with it. 3.5, you could still get away with playing without all the visuals. I think minis and maps are awesome, but DMs should also be able to run a game by making players imagine what's going on with words and gestures.
- D
IBT