3e Core Viability vs. 4e " Core " Viability

[RangerWickett]

I'm playing in a core only 3.5 campaign. My character is boring.

****ing boring.

I'm a halfling rogue. Level 3. Guess what I do? I throw knives. Every combat. Over and over again. Maybe if I'm lucky I shoot an arrow. Boring. What I wouldn't give to play a swordsage, or a factotum.

 

[ST]

Both games are playable just fine with only their respective PHB1, DMG1, and MM1.

A lot of the issues people have with 3e come up in core-only games. They come up a lot more often the more books you add.

A lot of the issues people have with 4e are going to come up whether you go core-only or not, because they're issues people have with the fundamental design. Some of them are fixed by not going core-only, for instance MM3 gets a lot of credit for better fight pacing.

And of course Essentials is coming out, and is designed to be used as a "core-only" replacement for people who want that, so there's a third option.

 

[Umbran]

If you were playing 3e, would you feel less hard done by if the DM decided to call Core only than if you were playing 4e and the DM said the same thing?

I would not feel hard-done by the DM in either case. The core's sufficient in both cases for me to find interesting stuff to work with.

To be honest, I get more creative with my character concepts when I have less to choose from. If you open up all the options, none of them become inspiring. If you limit the options, I start to think about how I can make those restricted options fun for me. So, restricting me to core, or even to just a couple of classes or roles to pick from, doesn't bother me overmuch.

 

[Cadfan]

If I wanted to play a Monk in 4e, I'd be annoyed by core only.

If I wanted to play a Fighter in 3e, I'd be annoyed by core only.

If I were DMing a group of spellcasters in 3e, not even core only would save me.

 

[mkill]

I'm a halfling rogue. Level 3. Guess what I do? I throw knives. Every combat. Over and over again. Maybe if I'm lucky I shoot an arrow. Boring. What I wouldn't give to play a swordsage, or a factotum.

But that would give you kewl powerz (tm). You almost sound like a 4ron

I feel your pain, though. I remember my 3rd edition rogue, and what saved him was a) he was a Changeling, which offered tons of options to screw with NPCs, and b) he started at 4th level, which bridged the time until you could take the f*** Weapon Finesse feat.

I never understood why they didn't fix that with 3.5. Could it have really hurt Monte Cook's pride so much to give Rogues Weapon Finesse for free at first level, to remove their complete uselessness in melee combat!?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

3e has a lot of core only potential, but is not rare that mechanics falls back behind the idea (see as an example, ho much you struggle to two-weapon-fight with a fighter core-only, compared to fight two handed).

4e is designed to assume you take "the next book" (in the above example, tempest fighter is not PH1) but one could say that you should refluff a ranger. It seems to me that there is simply more and diverste stuff in 3.x core, but it's my edition of election so my considerations is open to debate and should be taken with care.

PF makes some of the core 3.5 concept far more doable (try to fight Sword and Board in 3.5 core ). It should be said that something is lost compared to 3e core - few monsters, even if present in the SRD, and things about environment like planar traits - the wheel is fairly good explained int the 3.5 DMG, as an example).


In the end, I'd go, with PF (if allowed in the discussion) and then 3e for a core-only game, but not blindly.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have played Core 3.5 and had some really good games. I played 3.5 with the everything but the kitchen sink and it got really overpowered and unbalanced.

I have played 4e with everything but the kitchen sink and it works quite well. I played 4e core only (to start with), and it worked very well.

Mechanically I prefer core 4e to 3.5. When you start to throw in stuff I VASTLY prefer 4e since they have actually done a job balancing the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm playing in a core only 3.5 campaign. My character is boring.

****ing boring.

I'm a halfling rogue. Level 3. Guess what I do? I throw knives. Every combat. Over and over again. Maybe if I'm lucky I shoot an arrow. Boring. What I wouldn't give to play a swordsage, or a factotum.

From your description it sounds like the campaign is boring.

I have played a Basic D&D fighter on more than one occasion-it doesn't get much more vanilla than that, and sometimes it was boring and sometimes not. The characters were not mechanically different at all but some campaigns were always exciting and interesting and others were room,monster,treasure,repeat. Interest in the game had far more to do with the level of excitement and energy from everyone playing than what I had on the character sheet.

This is why I become easily bored with WOW. No matter what new toys I get to play with, the campaign is still kind of the same. The only times it becomes interesting for a bit is when I'm playing with RL friends and then it doesn't matter what toon I'm using because the human element is providing the fun not the stats.

 

[Nifft]

I have played Core 3.5 and had some really good games. I played 3.5 with the everything but the kitchen sink and it got really overpowered and unbalanced.

IMHO the most broken stuff in 3.5e was in the PHB.

The most underpowered stuff was in there, too.

Cheers, -- N

 

[MrMyth]

From your description it sounds like the campaign is boring.

Ehhh, I've played in good campaigns where I had an unsatisfying character. Sometimes it just happens - whether due to the system, campaign limitations, just having the wrong character for the party/story/plot, or just having a character that seemed more awesome in concept than in execution.

Sure, a DM can get around that by actively designing stuff for the character to do - putting in specific objectives in each encounter/scene that only he will be good at, to give him the chance to shine - but if the character requires that to be interesting to play, I think the core issue isn't with the campaign.