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

[Steely Dan]

I never had a Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/Dwarven Defender in my 3e game, either-- nor ever will.

Lucky you, I of course had the player who would go into excruciating detail to justify why his Gold Dwarf is a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 3…

 

[Greg K]

Lucky you, I of course had the player who would go into excruciating detail to justify why his Gold Dwarf is a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 3

Well, PrCs are optional and you
1) Chose to allow PrCs
2) Allowed him to take all those PrCs.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Oh really, Wulf?

Yes, really. If you don't want to get called on ridiculous assertions, take out the ridiculous parts.

I didn't major in NPC Generation 101, and pity the people whose livelihoods relied on generating 3E NPC stats with classes and stuff, such as at Paizo.

It's ridiculous because you asserted that the only way to "truly play" the game was with computer help. That is demonstrably false, unless you'd like to further assert that I am not "truly playing" the game unless I

• a) use lots of NPCs with huge statblocks and
• b) use a computer to handle them.

You seem to be overlooking

• a) not using NPCs with huge statblocks
• b) using NPCs with huge statblocks but paying other people to do the work (see Paizo)
• c) using NPCs with huge statblocks and simplifying those statblocks by not sweating the details

and last but not least

• d) Majoring in NPC generation 101 and doing all the work yourself.

You may fly the flag for 3E, but at least be honest in it's limitations.

Um, I am honest in its limitations. Always. Its limitations provide me with a purpose, after all.

Saying that the only way to play it is with a computer is the dishonest part.

 

[Greg K]

I'm primarily a DM (as in I get to be a player about 2% of the time). I have no plans (or interest) to run 4e. 3e has never been a problem to run, but that might come down to

1) I keep control of the supplements and material coming into the game. That means, occassionally telling the players, "No". This means players do not assume that I will allow anything or everything from a book just because they purchased it.

2) I require players to create characters that fit the setting rather than building the setting around the characters or allowing just any character idea. This means available races, classes, and class variants are generally set ahead of time as are deities and domains (although I go one step further and tailor deity spell lists).

3) I place some controls on multiclassing and taking PrCs. The existance of a class or PrC doesn't mean that a character can simply take a class. To learn a new class or PrC, characters need to find a trainer, convince the person to train them, and have the time to spend training. Furthermore, I use the training rules on learning new skills and feats. On the other hand, I do utilize the customize a character option from the PHB to help tailor characters.


4) I don't allow characters to simply increase known skills, because they have points available. Characters need to have had the opportunity to utilize the skills. And, if a player is over focusing on a given skill (or skills) and ignroing rounding out their character, I put them in situations to discourage the practice (and I am always upfront about this with new players).

5) I don't worry about accounting for every skill point or feat when building NPCs (unless the NPC will be adventuring with the party). I am under no obligation to show the players the NPC stats.

6) I don't allow players to rest safely when the situation should not allow it.

7) I don't run past levels 10-12. I have never enjoyed DND past those levels and 4e, despite its changes, doesn't make me want to run games beyond level 10-12 (I don't like paragon paths and epic destinies, but then I really don't like PrCs in most instances).

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, PrCs are optional

Yes, and no.

Yes, they're technically optional (as it says in the book).

No, they're practically not optional if you want multiclassing to really work, since most caster multiclasses are garbage without PrCs. Hence the reason we ended up with the Eldritch Knight and the Mystic Theurge.

--

To Wulf... I agree that 3.X didn't require computer-based generators in order to function. However, without them, the amount of work needed to even generate NPCs and encounters, by the rules, was staggering. At the peak of my 3.5 playing/DMing, I'd spend roughly 1.25 hours of prep for every 1 hour of play.

 

[Gothmog]

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.

Oh good grief. Playing D&D or any game isn't about "manning up", or having "what it takes" to DM. Its about fun, pure and simple. Some folks like the complexity of 3e and enjoy mechanical system mastery, and if they do, nothing is keeping them from continuing to play that game. But a lot of folks (and I mean a LOT) over the last 8 years found 3e tedious and onerous to prep due to its stat-heavy nature, and the designers for 4e listened to those fan suggestions and made modifications based on many people's problems with 3e. That doesn't mean 4e is "dumbed down" or any such nonsesne, it means that more people now have a game system they enjoy prepping and find the work to output ratio more managable.

Yes, DMing is a responsibility, and involves a lot of thought, effort, and time. I take my DMing responsibilities seriously because I want my group to have fun and have a memorable night. A lot of us here think that our time might be better spent by considering the plot, personalities and motivations for NPCs, developing interesting locales, and painting minis/making props for the game rather than fiddling with rules minutiae that ultimately make NO difference since the BBEG or monster or whatever will be killed inside 5 rounds anyway. 4e gives us an expedient way to handle the stats and rules as well as providing more interesting tactical options, while also giving a range of values appropriate to an ecounter at a given level. If I get the same (or better) result out of 4e than I would out of 3e, with a fraction of the work, and have more time to devote to other areas of the game my group and I enjoy more, why in the hell would I go back to 3e?

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

More options? Yes. More viable/better options? Nope. 3e stressed mechanical system mastery, and seemed to intentionally include traps in character generation that allowed someone who had not studied the rules in detail to make a decidedly subpar character. It was possible (and even likely) in 3e for someone who spent all his time looking up rules minutiae to make a decidedly MUCH more powerful character than a casual player who didn't put in that effort (whether due to interest or time constraints). In many cases that lead to dissatisfaction with the game on the part of the players because one PC overshadows all the others, not due to creative playing, but due to simple powergaming/munchkinism. Its also a puts a much larger workload on the DM to design encounters that challenge the overpowered PC, but doesn't simply slaughter the normal PCs. Not all 3e players did this, but I noticed a large number over the years who were so focused on the mechanical mastery that they completely lost sight of the role-playing in the game, and only thought to use options in play if they were rigidly codified or they had feats/skills/spells/buffs/magic items for them- ie. they were limiting their own play experience. If you don't have an issue with any of those things, then keep playing 3e- more power to you.

4e addressed this issue as well, and instead of rewarding mechanical system mastery, it rewards tactical and in-play mastery (much like 1e/2e did). I much prefer this approach, since it puts players on a more level playing field, but rewards those with a quick wit, problem solving skills, and who invest in the game at the table, rather than away from it. Its pretty hard to make a character who sucks in 4e, but the challenge comes in learning how to use your abilities to their best effect during play. In this way, 4e has more viable character options, and a greater variety of good play options that 3e does.

I'll have to concede the point to you, since my knowledge of 4e is still mostly hearsay.

That's not my understanding of the situation but I'll freely admit to a bias of maybe "absorbing" a few more "I have fewer options in 4e" posts than I may have "I have more options in 4e" posts.

So by your own admission, you're ranting about 4e, but haven't yet read the rules or played it? All I can say is that an informed opinion is much more conducive to a debate than an uninformed one. I had reservations about 4e as well, and I tried it for 5 sessions. I'm a convert now, and there is no way I'd ever go back to 3e. Give it a shot- at the very least you broaden your horizons and find out exactly what you don't like and how it plays. At best, you've got another game to play and enjoy. You've got nothing to lose.

 

[CleverNickName]

I find it funny though, that you point out the things in BECMI you liked are a lot of the things I fell in love with 4e for; with a few exceptions. I love the new planes (esp Shadowfell and Feywild); I love the greater emphasis on class and role (rather than 3e's building block method that often times created Frankenstien's rather than characters), I love the greater definition on racial traits and the bigger emphasis on race, the three tiers clearly defining play, etc. All 4e is missing is good mass combat rules (though I think minions might be a good way to handle some of that)

Say what you like about the powers vs. spell slot debate, but my main love of 4e is that it FEELS like BECMI-style D&D, but without the artifacts of old (Thac0, et al).

You are right; 4E has a very distinctive "retro" feel to it...this has been cussed and discussed in dozens of threads. Especially compared to 3E, which was much more technical, rules-wise.

The Points of Light setting is fairly benign; it's no better or worse than any other out-of-the-box setting. Mystara is just my favorite, that's all. I've got all of the books, I've played it for years, I know the maps by heart (and they are on hex paper, even!)

The cosmology of 4E is a definite improvement, but it still isnt' as clean and neat as the one in BECMI. I like the idea of the Feywild (which reminds me of the Sphere of Life in a lot of ways), but I'm not keen on the way the elemental planes work now. And they still put way too much emphasis on demons...even more than they did in 3rd Edition. Completely removing demons from the 4E game would be more trouble than its worth.

True, 4E uses the standardized d20-based mechanic, which is a huge improvement over BECMI. Castles and Crusades uses this system as well, and it doesn't come with all of the other "exotic" (read: "not something I want in my game") stuff like new races, healing surges, minions, and marking. I don't want to get into this, though, lest the thread dissolve into even more of an edition war than it already has become, and begin to attract the attention of planar beings who might be sailing about...

I would say that C&C is closer to BECMI in the sense that if I wanted to play a "modernized" BECMI style-game, I think it would be easier to start with C&C and add stuff, than to start with 4E and remove stuff.

My two coppers, anyway.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Some folks like the complexity of 3e and enjoy mechanical system mastery, and if they do, nothing is keeping them from continuing to play that game. But a lot of folks (and I mean a LOT) over the last 8 years found 3e tedious and onerous to prep due to its stat-heavy nature, and the designers for 4e listened to those fan suggestions and made modifications based on many people's problems with 3e. That doesn't mean 4e is "dumbed down" or any such nonsesne, it means that more people now have a game system they enjoy prepping and find the work to output ratio more managable.

I find nothing objectionable in any of that.

So by your own admission, you're ranting about 4e, but haven't yet read the rules or played it?

Uhh, no.... I'm not ranting about 4e.

Folks seem to have the impression that I am anti-4e, though I think I've been fairly even-handed on 4e with respect to the design, leaning in its favor, and even strongly in favor of the new rules' market positioning.

I support the concept that the game shouldn't be work.

I am strongly anti-GSL... You could probably point to a few rants there.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Defending 3E against hyperbolic criticism is not the same as attacking 4E. There are definitely places 3E can be criticized and 4E attacked, but rounser's blanket assertion is certainly not The Truth About 3E any more than Wulf's response to it was an attack on 4E.

 

[The Little Raven]

Defending 3E against hyperbolic criticism is not the same as attacking 4E. There are definitely places 3E can be criticized and 4E attacked, but rounser's blanket assertion is certainly not The Truth About 3E any more than Wulf's response to it was an attack on 4E.

Agreed.

Noone would ever paint me as a 3e lover (well, not in the past three years, at least), and I completely agree that rounser is wrong about 3e requiring computer-based generators to function. Doing without them is incredibly time-consuming, but they aren't a requirement.