D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[ProfessorCirno]

I have to disagree with Cirno.

You can't just blame the char-op but look at the adventures themselves.

Seriously, Paizo is somewhat infamous for "slapping on templates to bypass the CR of creatures" which DO require that you have a min-maxxed character.

Hell, pre-4E announcement, one of the main complaints against Paizo WAS the excessive need to min-max your character because of the lethality of the encounters.

As another on this thread has said, I and many others didn't have this problem. So yes, I think you can blame the char-op and "EVERYTHING MUST ALWAYS BE MIN-MAXED" group.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Receding rapidly away in time is 3E, only truly playable with computer generators like NPCDesigner.

Mmm? What do you mean by that? I've never used that kind of program, and we do fine.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I think a lot of people are going to give up the game this time around, and maybe come back if Pathfinder or 5E does a good job. I think that D&D's owlbear has begun hibernating, and it's anyone's guess when it'll wake up.

"Idiot savant" nice.

I wonder how that jives with:

"From a business perspective, the core rulebooks are already well into their third printing, the H1 and H2 adventures are both in reprint." - Bill Slavicsek, Ampersand

Interesting. I hope the second printing of H1 uses superior paper. I'm glad to see that 4e is doing well.

Cheers!

Yeah, nobody at all is going to 4e.

 

[Runestar]

You don't think the splatbook-glut is going to repeat itself in 4e? I mean, give it a year or 2, and we should be swimming in new rules...

 

[vagabundo]

Complete Opposite for me

While I would not say no to playing in a 3e game (since I havent played in a decade).

4e showed me how much I hate DMing 3e.

My players seem to like it too. They love their new characters and the races. I dont think I could get them to play 3e again.

 

[timbannock]

Mmm? What do you mean by that? I've never used that kind of program, and we do fine.

My group doesn't use them either...and most of my players' character sheets are full of incorrect maths, obviously incorrectly referenced rules, and tons of notes on rules minutiae that no one can remember off the top of their heads.

Often all written in bad handwriting, so it's essentially unreadable.

Obviously that's not a problem with the game, but I can tell you for sure that -- at least for my group -- 3.X edition does exacerbate the issue.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Receding rapidly away in time is 3E, only truly playable with computer generators.

I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous assertion.

Mmm? What do you mean by that? I've never used that kind of program, and we do fine.

His statement might need to be clarified a bit. "Only truly playable with computer generators if the game is only "true" when you play with every option ever produced."

4e showed me how much I hate DMing 3e.

My players seem to like it too. They love their new characters and the races. I dont think I could get them to play 3e again.

4e is certainly firing on all cylinders for the DMs.

My concern is how long it will hold the interest of the players. 4e does not seem to allow the same level of meta-game hobby immersion as 3e.

4e is a game where the focus in on the game AT the table, not the game AWAY from the table.

Take that as a knock on 3e's complexity, if you prefer. It's intended to be a value-neutral comparison.

 

[AllisterH]

4e is certainly firing on all cylinders for the DMs.

My concern is how long it will hold the interest of the players. 4e does not seem to allow the same level of meta-game hobby immersion as 3e. .

But then it raises a question. What's more important? Making the DMing easier or making some players unhappy. On another forum, a group has reached an impasse. There are a couple of players adamant about staying 3.5, and the rest neutral. However, the DM after DMing 4E refuses to DM 3.5.

He'll play he says, but he definitely doesn't want to DM it. Yet, nobody else in the group feels comfortable DMing 3.5 (they had a rotating DM chair but it basically came down to one guy as the others found DMing to be too much like "work")

4e is a game where the focus in on the game AT the table, not the game AWAY from the table.

Take that as a knock on 3e's complexity, if you prefer. It's intended to be a value-neutral comparison.

Focus on the table...um, thinking back, isn't this the trait that 1e/2e fostered? I certainly don't remember my 1e/2e games being that "build-focused" but then again, you had less options pre-battle in 1e/2e. (Spellcasters didn't even get to choose their own known spells...). All I can say is, "that's good". 3.x tended to ignore those fans of more "what you do at the game table has as much influence as your build".

As for the gearheads themselves, if 3.x has JUST been the PHB, they would've been as bored as they say they are now. Supplements are really where it is at for those type of fans...

 

[Wormwood]

4e showed me how much I hate DMing 3e.

My players seem to like it too. They love their new characters and the races. I dont think I could get them to play 3e again.

This echoes my experience perfectly.

And to Wulf's point above: I am definitely spending less time 'thinking D&D' between sessions (and I'm in two games a week).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But then it raises a question. What's more important? Making the DMing easier or making some players unhappy. On another forum, a group has reached an impasse. There are a couple of players adamant about staying 3.5, and the rest neutral. However, the DM after DMing 4E refuses to DM 3.5.

He'll play he says, but he definitely doesn't want to DM it. Yet, nobody else in the group feels comfortable DMing 3.5 (they had a rotating DM chair but it basically came down to one guy as the others found DMing to be too much like "work")

Look, this is not new to 3e or 4e. DMing IS work, no matter how you slice it, on some level. Some folks just aren't cut out to DM.

Whether or not it's work, it's responsibility and if you aren't spending your "work time" statting up NPCs (or whatever b.s. busywork killed 3e for you) I hope you're at least spending your "saved time" in 4e working up worlds/plots/adventures.

If your benchmark for DMing is "As close to zero investment away from the table as possible..." then it's possible I might not want to play in your game.

3.x tended to ignore those fans of more "what you do at the game table has as much influence as your build".

That may indeed be true.

As for the gearheads themselves, if 3.x has JUST been the PHB, they would've been as bored as they say they are now. Supplements are really where it is at for those type of fans...

I'll concede your larger point, but there are certainly more options/builds within 3e's core than 4e's core.