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

[Hussar]

Actually, that is a perfect ending for the conversation because you have precisely brought it full circle.



User error does not establish a flaw in the system itself.

The level of user friendliness required may certainly vary from one group to another. But different systems serving the needs of different groups does not mean that either one has a problem.

I might as well say that a fast pitch batting cage has a problem with its system because I wiff at every ball it throws. If I'm talking to someone who can crush 17 out of 20, he is going to see the flaw in my claim that my misses signify a failure on the machine's part.

It may be true that there are other elements of the fast pitch machine that really could use some work. But if it functions for the intended user, then someone else not being able to use it is meaningless to the assessment.

Nice. So, basically, you're saying that I'm just not quite up to running or playing a 3.5 game. Nice.

Numerous people have reported having problems with this. There are numerous spells in the PHB which allow wizards (and to some degree clerics) to do rogue things many times better than rogues can.

Yet despite this, the problem lies with the players, and not the system. The system is absolutely perfect and cannot possibly be at fault here. All because you personally have never seen this happen.

Just as a question, how much time have you spent playing or Dming in games above 12th level?

 

[BryonD]

Nice. So, basically, you're saying that I'm just not quite up to running or playing a 3.5 game. Nice.

No, but you certainly seem to be.

I'm simply pointing out that me, and many others, are not having the problem. If it was an intrinsic problem, that would not be possible.

Yet despite this, the problem lies with the players, and not the system. The system is absolutely perfect and cannot possibly be at fault here. All because you personally have never seen this happen.

Again with the Hussar absolutes. 3.5 is far from perfect. I have 100% stated that some people most unquestionably have this problem.

You are the one refusing to distinguish between a system problem and a player problem. You are claiming that I must agree that the problem is a concern because you can't solve it. That is just as invalid and telling the guy crushing fastballs that his machine is broken.

What happened to the conversation is over? You completely repeated yourself and now you are trying to drag me down the exact same loop again.

Just as a question, how much time have you spent playing or Dming in games above 12th level?

Dunno. I've been playing pretty much continuously since 3E came out. I'd guess 35 to 40 percent of that has been above 12. But 0% of the time below 12 has been a result of avoiding it. We happen to enjoy lower levels also.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Yet despite this, the problem lies with the players, and not the system. The system is absolutely perfect and cannot possibly be at fault here. All because you personally have never seen this happen.

The problem with your hpothesis is that you're assuming your experiences are more valid than someone elses. Some people who experience problems assume that it must be the rules. Others who don't experience the same problems assume its the DM/players. The thing is, who is to say who is correct?

A lot of the issues other people claim to have had problems with (in 3.5), I personally have not experienced, whereas I have issues with other aspects of the game that others seem not to. Just because people come to EN World and say something is broken does not mean it is. After all, the vast majority of gamers don't come here at all.

It is, IMO, very arrogant to simply state you correct because it must be the case. Your arguments, assumptions and experiences are no more (or less) valid than anyone elses. ByronD is simply trying to point out that alternative points of view to your own not only exist, but are just as valid.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Nice. So, basically, you're saying that I'm just not quite up to running or playing a 3.5 game. Nice.

With all due respect, Hussar, I think you've said the same thing yourself. As have others. The claim goes something like this,

"Now that I've played 4e, there's no way I will ever go back to DMing 3e."

And I see nothing wrong with that, provided it's understood that the claim is more reflective of the person than the system.

I think it's entirely possible that I too would prefer DMing 4e to 3e, because I am famously lazy as a DM. But I have my DMing prep time in 3e down to about 2 hours once every 2 weeks, and that's tolerable. I spend far more time working on my maps or even painting miniatures than I do crunching numbers.

 

[Hussar]

With all due respect, Hussar, I think you've said the same thing yourself. As have others. The claim goes something like this,

"Now that I've played 4e, there's no way I will ever go back to DMing 3e."

And I see nothing wrong with that, provided it's understood that the claim is more reflective of the person than the system.

I think it's entirely possible that I too would prefer DMing 4e to 3e, because I am famously lazy as a DM. But I have my DMing prep time in 3e down to about 2 hours once every 2 weeks, and that's tolerable. I spend far more time working on my maps or even painting miniatures than I do crunching numbers.

I've actually never played 4e, as a player or DM. I'm basing this entirely on the fact that I PLAY 3e.

The problem with your hpothesis is that you're assuming your experiences are more valid than someone elses. Some people who experience problems assume that it must be the rules. Others who don't experience the same problems assume its the DM/players. The thing is, who is to say who is correct?

A lot of the issues other people claim to have had problems with (in 3.5), I personally have not experienced, whereas I have issues with other aspects of the game that others seem not to. Just because people come to EN World and say something is broken does not mean it is. After all, the vast majority of gamers don't come here at all.

It is, IMO, very arrogant to simply state you correct because it must be the case. Your arguments, assumptions and experiences are no more (or less) valid than anyone elses. ByronD is simply trying to point out that alternative points of view to your own not only exist, but are just as valid.

I'm being arrogant because BryonD is telling me that I'm not good enough to play 3e.

You'd be right if there wasn't also the fact that the SPELLS ARE RIGHT THERE. I've listed a short list off the top of my head of spells that allow wizards to be better rogues than rogues. These aren't imaginary situations. These aren't hypotheticals. They're right there in the rule books.

Let's turn the question around a bit. What can a rogue do that a wizard can't do better? What actions can a rogue perform that the wizard can't out do him?

 

[Hussar]

Actually, Wulf, it's funny you talk about prep time. I'm just about to start up a Savage Tide campaign. That's how I got around the issue in 3e - running campaign in a box style campaigns. First it was the World's Largest Dungeon, and now STAP. I'm actually 99% prepped for the next several months.

It's a nice feeling.

I'm not saying that there aren't ways around the issue. There most certainly are. But, that doesn't negate the fact that the issue is there in the first place.

"The game everyone wants to play and no one wants to DM" - sound familiar?

 

[Keith Robinson]

I'm being arrogant because BryonD is telling me that I'm not good enough to play 3e.

I don't think anyone is saying that - and I apologize for calling you arrogant. I'm sure you're a fine DM and player. People are just saying that your experiences aren't mirrored by everyone and there are many who don't see those flaws in the game. As I said, I have issues with some parts of the game that others don't - but this doesn't mean the game is flawed or that I'm a bad player or DM. It's just my experience of the game.

Let's turn the question around a bit. What can a rogue do that a wizard can't do better? What actions can a rogue perform that the wizard can't out do him?

Again, just to repeat what I said above, this is not my experience of the game. I've seen Wizards do rogueish things and rogues do wizardy things. I've seen flying ogres, naked dwarves, heroes who can't hit, wizards who take up the front line, and all sorts. For me, that's the beauty of the game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've actually never played 4e, as a player or DM. I'm basing this entirely on the fact that I PLAY 3e.

Mea culpa. (Glad I qualified it with "I think...")

"The game everyone wants to play and no one wants to DM" - sound familiar?

Not really. My group has 7 players and 4 who want to DM. <shrug>

 

[AllisterH]

I'm with Hussar.

I've stated before but the 1e/2e spells work under an entirely different paradigm.

Simply translating them into 3E as they did truly unbalanced.

You were NOT supposed to have flying, invisible buffed wizard in combat. It simply was not an option in 1e/2e without the DM's explicit approval.

Knock wasn't supposed to be something you could put in a wand and walk around with and have just as effective.

 

[BryonD]

I'm being arrogant because BryonD is telling me that I'm not good enough to play 3e.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

For the record, I've pointed out that you yourself are repeatably implying that you are not good enough and I have pointed out that you claims that certain things can not be done fall on deaf ears when directed at someone who easily does them. I've made no claims of fact about your own abilities. I've simply pointed out your implications and holes in your argument.

That is all.

Also, I'm not the one trying to say that my play experience is a constraint on everyone else. You are claiming that because some people have issues, that all must agree it is a problem. That is absurd.
I'm simply claiming that those who don't have a problem, don't have a problem. Period. I'm making no statement about others beyond people problems do not implicitly define system problems.

You'd be right if there wasn't also the fact that the SPELLS ARE RIGHT THERE. I've listed a short list off the top of my head of spells that allow wizards to be better rogues than rogues. These aren't imaginary situations. These aren't hypotheticals. They're right there in the rule books.

There is a significant gulf between wizards being able to achieve the same general effects as rogues and wizards being better rogues than rogues. I'm sorry that your game experience (based on your claims) has failed to demonstrate that.