How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
I wouldn't count it as fun or un-fun. I'd count it as something that you just do automatically.
I don't get the claims of changing all your skills. Strength goes to what, climb? How often do you use climb in battle? And for those isolated events in which you would, then you'd already know to look specifically at climb.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that 3.5 was just an easy breasy no math allowed play through. I just think that 4e is just as bad as 3.5 was.
I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated. We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.
Serious question, what type of math slows the game down?
You have the most creative and imaginative group here you could ever want, someone may have a solution.
Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.
There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.
Serious question, what type of math slows the game down?
You have the most creative and imaginative group here you could ever want, someone may have a solution.
Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.
There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.
Last edited:
alleynbard
First Post
I'm confused. You just made a reference to a 4e character (I presume) and I wasn't talking about 4e. I was talking about 3e. We have no issues with this in 4e. In fact, that was one of the things that really appealed to me about 4e.
In 3e when buffs were applied there was some math involved, progressively more as more buffs are added. It takes some time adding up those bonuses and their cascading effects. More often than not, this happened before combat so it meant there was a delay that many of us weren't fond of.
In addition, when a character gains a buff, it rarely comes from their own suite of abilities. What you are asking is that my fighter not only know what he does but what the whole range of wizard and cleric spells as well? Certainly, if the same buff is consistently cast upon him, that is possible. But I don't expect any player to know exactly what everyone else at the table is capable of doing.
Look, I have never found the math from any edition difficult, nor keeping track of my character's abilities. It's part of the game, all editions, and I had done it gladly.
I've had plenty of epic level 1/2/3 characters, and it was never difficult adding single digit numbers together. As someone said upthread, we were happy to be able to add more bonuses. It was not a chore.
This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.
alleynbard
First Post
I didn't say we found it difficult. I said it was not something we wanted out of our gaming experience. I was never fond of the cascading buff system.
Really, is there any need to come after me? I didn't attack you. I haven't attacked 3e. I played it for its entire life span. Why? Because it was D&D. But I never particularly loved aspects of the game. This is one of them.
We are not lazy, we just look for different things in our games. Is there a reason you find that offensive?
I am happy with 4e and I believe in letting others be happy with the game they love. I was expressing an opinion of 3e that in no way should be taken as a condemnation of others who enjoy it. I did get a bit snippy. But that really had no origins in how I feel about 3e or those that play it. In fact, I said as much to Mournblade. I am far from a badwrongfun kind of guy.
I am happy Pathfinder is coming out. I am pleased that 3e still has a vibrant community. I don't find any of this a threat to me or my game of choice.
Why can't you at least show the same modicum of respect as I am showing you?
Last edited:
No offense intended, and I apologize if I came of sounding grumpy.
I enjoyed playing Clerics in 1/2/3 edition, and I always tried to throw as many bonuses at possible at other characters. But I liked Clerics for more than their spell casting abilities. They were the city builders and always involved with what was happening in the city.
One interesting comment that was given to me was by one of the Fighters. He had always thought that my character was a useless combatant who did not contribute to the success of the party as I had few individual kills. I had missed a week, and upon my return he had realized the value of all the bonuses and protections that I gave out.
I especially liked the Status spell, because I knew where I had to give help.
I guess that I missed your concern because all the bonuses were second nature to me. The DM was a chess master, so he probably had everything processed in his mind without an afterthought.
If you don't mind me asking, what were some of your favorite characters?
I enjoyed playing Clerics in 1/2/3 edition, and I always tried to throw as many bonuses at possible at other characters. But I liked Clerics for more than their spell casting abilities. They were the city builders and always involved with what was happening in the city.
One interesting comment that was given to me was by one of the Fighters. He had always thought that my character was a useless combatant who did not contribute to the success of the party as I had few individual kills. I had missed a week, and upon my return he had realized the value of all the bonuses and protections that I gave out.
I especially liked the Status spell, because I knew where I had to give help.
I guess that I missed your concern because all the bonuses were second nature to me. The DM was a chess master, so he probably had everything processed in his mind without an afterthought.
If you don't mind me asking, what were some of your favorite characters?
You might not be wrong. Of course, you might not be representative either.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Well, the snarky answer is that this is the internet. Welcome argument hell.
The more serious answer, and I doubt you really want one, is that people hold the opposite opinion and strongly feel you are wrong. People sometimes mistake personal taste for some kind of objective reason. Also, there's some weird idea floating around that people change their opinions based on reason. Technically, this true. The problem is that sometimes personal taste is miss-classified as opinion. This causes some people to think that personal taste can be changed based on some kind of argument. This is false, but it seems true when personal taste is miss-classified as opinion.
Yes, yes. I can understand finding 3e fun. I just am not sure that actual human beings find the actual fun to reside in the fact that many spells and effects modified variables that seed other equations, resulting in cascading changes to the end-product stats you actually use.
I can understand people having fun WITH a game where spells and effects modify seed variables.
But having fun BECAUSE spells and effects modify seed variables? Really? What part of that is more fun than achieving the same end result without the seed variables and cascading mathematical changes? The challenge of remembering how to do simple but memorization-intense basic algebra?
Similar Threads
