Wik's Triumphant Return to 3e!

[Wicht]

No one ever takes Profession or Craft unless it's required for a Prestige Class or magic items, or they really have no other interesting skills to spend it on.

While I like Pathfinder's condensed skill list, you should realize the above statement is patently untrue. IT may be true that certain gamers never take it, but "no one" is simply too broad. Many of the characters in our home games frequently have crafting skills. One of my best characters was a dwarven wizard who excelled in crafting arms and armor (a very dwarfish thing to do). One of my daughter's favorite characters was a wizard who excelled in cooking (a popular choice in characters I notice) and ended up buying an inn. I have even seen a barbarian in a PbP game who had basketweaving as his profession of choice.

Different Strokes and all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No one ever takes Profession or Craft unless it's required for a Prestige Class or magic items, or they really have no other interesting skills to spend it on.

I do, but I'm weird like that. Most of my PCs- regardless of RPG system- have pure, non-combat, "personality" skills.

Making multi-classing better is great for me, as I generally play multi-class characters.

Almost all of my D&D PCs are multiclassed as well- usually with some kind of spellcasting built in. But I see the current (3Ed/3.5Es) rules as making sense. Someone who "specializes" in a single class is going to be better than someone who tries multiple classes. The tradeoff of flexibility and self-sufficiency for overall power is good design to me, on simulationist and narrativist grounds.

 

[Firebeetle]

I guess what I'm saying is, it was fun to play a game that fit my GM style a bit more. It felt a bit more like the players were running characters in a fictional reality, and less like they were moving game pieces across a board.

I guess it's all in how you run it. I absolutely feel more fictional reality in my 4e game than in my previous 30 years of D&D. For me it's much easier to have:

• Fights that feel dramatic and dynamic like a movie instead of endless exercises in dice-rolling
• Affects that are generated by the characters background, race, or personality
• Skill challenges, when run correctly, allow me to run endlessly interesting RP scenarios without players worrying about getting XP. Skill challenges are so versatile you can handle almost any situation, from a social party to crossing a dangerous gorge
• Nearly pure fluff supplements like Vor Rakoth or Hammerfast
• Versatility in planning, it is much easier to improvise now and I can let players wander freely for true sandbox play. It's just awesome. No more spending hours preparing encounters they'll never see because they went right instead of left.

My two coppers worth.

 

[Spatula]

Almost all of my D&D PCs are multiclassed as well- usually with some kind of spellcasting built in. But I see the current (3Ed/3.5Es) rules as making sense. Someone who "specializes" in a single class is going to be better than someone who tries multiple classes. The tradeoff of flexibility and self-sufficiency for overall power is good design to me, on simulationist and narrativist grounds.

Except that the opposite is generally true for martial classes in 3e, assuming that your definition of "better" is "better in a fight" vs something like "has slightly better rages" or "qualifies for weapon specialization a level sooner."

 

[TarionzCousin]

Trailblazer made my 3.x simpler to run. Not vastly, but noticeably.

I recommend Trailblazer to everyone who has ever wondered why they built 3E like they did and what would happen if someone just nudged it toward consistency. It's a fascinating read. Also, the PDF is only five dollars.

Bad Axe Games peels back the outer layers of the 3.5 rules and reveals the inner workings for all to see. Within this book, you'll find the keys to decoding the d20 rules and gain new insight into the mechanics of your game. Copious design notes detail the thought process behind every design change.

• Detailed introductory analysis of the "The Spine" of the 3.5 system
• Fixes for the most common 3.5 complaints
• Rebalanced classes, races, skills, feats and multiclassed spellcasters
• Streamlined combat and movement rules, including Combat Reactions
• Quick and easy Encounter Budgeting
• Elite and Solo templates to create memorable monsters
• Intuitive, streamlined rules for iterative attacks, grappling, wild shape, polymorph, summoned creatures, turn undead, familiars, and more!

It takes diff'rent strokes to rule the world.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that the opposite is generally true for martial classes in 3e, assuming that your definition of "better" is "better in a fight" vs something like "has slightly better rages" or "qualifies for weapon specialization a level sooner."

A PC who multiclassed into Barbarian is probably not going to be as good at Raging as a pure Barbarian. He won't have the same HP, he won't have invested in all the Rage Feats, etc. And if he multiclassed from fighter, he'll have to wear lighter armor to get full use of he Barbarian's class abilities and will give up bonus feats.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No one ever takes Profession or Craft unless it's required for a Prestige Class or magic items, or they really have no other interesting skills to spend it on.

I always take one or the other. And I generally find a good reason to have it, too.

What's the good of being a dwarf if you are neither a mason nor a smith?

The Auld Grump, but don't go digging in the ground - the pubs have rules against selling to miners, or so I hear....

 

[Aus_Snow]

A PC who multiclassed into Barbarian is probably not going to be as good at Raging as a pure Barbarian. He won't have the same HP, he won't have invested in all the Rage Feats, etc. And if he multiclassed from fighter, he'll have to wear lighter armor to get full use of he Barbarian's class abilities and will give up bonus feats.

Fundamentally, I agree with you (i.e., the general gist here, not just the quoted text).

However, I found that the crazy save bonus "bumps" all over the place can get a bit much. How do you feel about those?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's the beauty of cross-training, baby!

Who is in "better shape" overall, a marathoner, a discus thrower, a sprinter, a long jumper or a decathlete?

Who is a more effective fighter, a specialist in a single form, like Savate or American Boxing, or someone who studies a mixed-martial arts form like Jeet Kune Do or Krav Maga?

IOW, those bonuses don't bug me at all. Sure, you may get better saves, but does that really make up for the compromises you make in other areas?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess it's all in how you run it. I absolutely feel more fictional reality in my 4e game than in my previous 30 years of D&D. For me it's much easier to have:

• Fights that feel dramatic and dynamic like a movie instead of endless exercises in dice-rolling

The bloated numbers of 4E make me feel just the opposite. Combat is too grindy and takes too much real time for my tastes. 3E isn't much better.

• Skill challenges, when run correctly, allow me to run endlessly interesting RP scenarios without players worrying about getting XP. Skill challenges are so versatile you can handle almost any situation, from a social party to crossing a dangerous gorge

Never had a problem running interesting RP/non-combat activities in any edition and never needed a formal dice roll fest mechanic to do it.

• Nearly pure fluff supplements like Vor Rakoth or Hammerfast

These are great. Any edition of the game can benefit from cool location supplements.

• Versatility in planning, it is much easier to improvise now and I can let players wander freely for true sandbox play. It's just awesome. No more spending hours preparing encounters they'll never see because they went right instead of left.

Never an issue with this in any edition either from BD&D through 4E. I just don't see 4E bringing anything special to the table to facilitate this.