D&D 3E/3.5 If 3.5 was so good...

[Nebulous]

And how is levelling faster, only this time to level 30, the answer? Gonzo level DnD will still be Gonzo level DnD. You reach DnD with capes level in about the same time in 4E, only now it took you 20 levels instead of 15.

I don't intend to level the players per the core rules in 4e. I never did in 3.5 either. Or earlier.

 

[JDJblatherings]

If you consider the power level to be too steep - as I now do - it's a fundamental problem.

I would like a monster to be able to be used for several levels, not just for two levels before it became 'too weak'.

Cheers!

so use that monster you want to use for several levels, advance them, give them levels, mix them in with tougher monsters, have 60 of them show up instead of 3.

 

[F4NBOY]

have 60 of them show up instead of 3.

Unfortunately that's a bad idea to my group. My players do not enjoy playing an encounter for more than 8 hours...

 

[JDJblatherings]

Unfortunately that's a bad idea to my group. My players do not enjoy playing an encounter for more than 8 hours...

It doens't have to take 8 hours to mop up a big group of foes. But why not roast a tribe of orce with a few fireballs and the barbaian wipes out a whole group sneaking in on a flank? Why not have high level character kick the snot out of foes because the charcetr are in fact clearly superior instead of challenegd to 25% of their resources?


4E could use a morale score. It works great in getting creatures to act like somehting more then walking exp vendors.

 

[KarinsDad]

In 1E/2E, gold gave XP.

In 3E/3.5, killing gave XP.

I would like 4E to have two XP systems:

1) Challenges give XP. Similar to 3E, but beef up RP challenges, goal XP, mission XP, etc. where the rules in 3E are weak. And, simplify this. A level x opponent gives x XP. Why do we need to be into 3-6 digits for XP?

2) Gain a level every x number of sessions be that 1 or 6. Is there really a reason to keep track of XP at all?

 

[Masquerade]

2) Gain a level every x number of sessions be that 1 or 6. Is there really a reason to keep track of XP at all?

Exactly. The removal of XP as a component of magic item creation makes this even more viable and could even indicate that this approach will be suggested as an alternative right in the PHB or DMG.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

In 1E/2E, gold gave XP.

In 3E/3.5, killing gave XP.

Actually, both treasure and defeating monsters gave experience in 1E/2E. You didn't have to kill them - tricking or outwitting them gave xp too, although the DM was expected to come up with his/her own subjective value rather than the standard monster xp formula.

3E/3.5 also awards experience for *defeating challenges* not just for killing monsters. If your rogue disarms that CR5 trap, you get xp for that.

Why is this misrepresentation so common?

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, both treasure and defeating monsters gave experience in 1E/2E. You didn't have to kill them - tricking or outwitting them gave xp too, although the DM was expected to come up with his/her own subjective value rather than the standard monster xp formula.

3E/3.5 also awards experience for *defeating challenges* not just for killing monsters. If your rogue disarms that CR5 trap, you get xp for that.

Why is this misrepresentation so common?

Since I did not state that, why are your misrepresenting what I stated? I did not state that gold or killing were the only ways to get XP, but that is what you are implying.

If you would have carefully read my post, I said in #1 "where the rules in 3E are weak".

Yes, 3E/3.5 does have extra XP rewards including traps, but most of them are subjective and up to the DM.

Traps, at least in every game I've played, are a very tiny percentage of adventures and of XP.

So sure, it's there vaguely written in all versions. Big deal. My main point stands: XP rules are crap in 1E through 3.5. The lion's share of 1E/2E objective XP was gold and the lion's share of 3E/3.5 objective XP was killing, for those who follow the rules as written.

 

[Nifft]

The thing is that D&D is already a big hit. They could easily play it safe and still make a lot of money. I think they're looking for more though. They want D&D to make Magic and Pokemon kind of money.

I agree they're looking for more, but I don't know for sure if they think D&D can make M:tG or Pokemon money. Those were huge and somewhat faddish.

What I think is that WotC wants to stay in the driver's seat of RPG design. They want to own the system that everyone else is reacting to.

Before SW Saga came out, my group was seriously considering branching out into non-WotC games. The new World of Darkness (particularly the new M:tA) looked juicy, Exalted Deux looked wonderful, and even Conan & e6 had some appeal.

Now, we are all firmly focused on 4e, both in what we discuss, and in what we plan to purchase. (But also we're playing a bit more WoW.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Shortman McLeod]

The problems are not deep and fundamental. They are only there if you play the hell out of the system or add one too many splat books. 3.5 works fine. It's just suits WOTC to point out all these 'problems' as it will help sell 3.5 players on a new edition.

Exactly. No one was saying that 3.5 had "huge, deep, fundamental brokenness" until WotC told them it did.

Sigh.