D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 and before and 4th edition.

[Jack Simth]

This is interesting because in Diablo

There's things in video games that are extremely problematic (and so are usually skipped), that are simple to do in Pen&Paper. For instance, in Diablo 2, is the Wizard Greater invisible, flying, and dropping Fireballs on the Paladin from 300 feet up (Doable at 7th level for a Wizard in 3.5 D&D)? I'm not specifically familiar with Diablo 2, but the most likely answer is 'no' - precisely because such effects cause problems (rendering issues prevent long-range targeting past a point; flight makes it much harder to set up effective obstacle courses and monster AI's; Greater Invisibility is usually removed for game balance issues, although regular invisibility is often left in, as it goes away when you attack). In 3.5 and earlier D&D, Wizards have these options primarily because they're a staple of fantasy books, and they're not hard to implement when everything's in the people's imagination anyway.

However, such little options, while not individually powerful, tend to make for lots of power discrepancy when combined.

 

[Alexander123]

One of the differences in game design between D&D and Diablo is that Diablo classes were first of all designed for independence. When Diablo 2 was being made, the designers asked "is this a character that can successfully face all the challenges and difficulties of the campaign alone?" You will find that no D&D character was designed for this. Multi-player while the most fun aspect of Diablo, came only after the designers had successfully created characters who could finish single-player on their own. That is the most important difference between the two. That is in my opinion why such things in D&D will never be fixed because D&D was never designed so that one character could complete the campaign on his own and only then choose to join forces with other characters for fun.

 

[Alexander123]

And of course, I would modify the spells so every character has a chance as opposed to someone using Greater Invis., Fly and lobbing fireballs on the Pally from 300 feet in the air and I would also modify it so that a caster on his own facing a fighter has a fighting chance at any level.

 

[Jack Simth]

And of course, I would modify the spells so every character has a chance as opposed to someone using Greater Invis., Fly and lobbing fireballs on the Pally from 300 feet in the air and I would also modify it so that a caster on his own facing a fighter has a fighting chance at any level.

In which case, it's no longer D&D 3.5, it's a fairly heavily house-ruled version of D&D 3.5. Which is perfectly fine, in and of itself, but it's essentially impossible for anyone else to discuss effectively unless you've got a full copy of your house rules for doing that posted somewhere.

 

[Alexander123]

My mistake, I should have clarified. When I said that I meant that if I was designing the game, not after the game has already been designed. I do not intend to houserule and in fact I try to keep houseruling to a minimum for exactly the reason you said, because it wouldn't be D&D, it would be houseruled D&D. Of course, the game designers see no need for such a thing as I was thinking of above.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I bought enough 3.5 books already, the system works (if you play it enough, you memorize turning in about a day, charging in half an hour and grappling in like...14 minutes, its not hard) and there were FUN classes

I like the fighter having FEATS and not POWERS

im not playing WoW, im playing D&D

I like the math side of leveling up, because suddenly division of large numbers becomes easy, same with treasure

I like the fact the sorcerer/wizard spell list with JUST ABOUT all the books is like, 20 pages, it makes chocies fun, same with feats, and skills, granted they stay the same (cept for 'martial lore' in ToB)

i liked my characters....i was in mid campeign when 4E came out, i didnt want to transfer

I like 3.5 adventures, theyre so much fun!! the randomness of DMing means you can roll up a minotaur and be like "nah...LETS MAKE HIM A 2ND LEVEL BARBARIAN! MWHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!" and the PCs were like 'whoa, scary'

as weird as it sounds, I like looking through the books to find the rules on a spell, makes me feel like a wizard....is that normal?

 

[Ogrehatescomputers]

"I'm not playing WoW, I'm playing DnD"

yes. yes. yes. a thousand times yes. that is a good way of summing up how I feel about 4e.

If you play 4e and you enjoy it. Great. I'm glad you've found something that you like. I have nothing against that, and have played with people who play both. (and some who still play ADnD. Whatever works for you. Awesome.

I was, at first excited about the release of 4e. When I got my first look at a the core rule book for it however, I became much less happy. The first thing I looked at, races. And from then on my heart sank more and more through out the book. half dragons and teiflings being described as "races that can be seen in nearly every big city". It's just not what I care for in my fantasy settings. I mean really. I freaking half dragon. being "normal" sorry. I prefer good ol Dwarves and Elves and Humans and Gnomes. The more "classic" fantasy creatures. (but this is all just a bit of a rant, because as a DM you can simply say, no dragon people. or something to that affect and use only "classic" fantasy races)

My point it this, it set the tone for the rest of the book, for me at least. Everything was uber powerful. Every class, every race, every "power". It was too much. Your heroes are epic from start to finish. I prefer my heroes having to battle hard just to find a +1 longsword. And my fighters having to drink a potion of cure xxxx. not say, im going to heal myself with my healing surge because for some reason even though im not a magic user i can heal my wounds. blah i say. BLAH.

Per encounter abilities for everyone because supposedly people complained about wizards and clerics having to stop because they ran out of spells after one two or three encounters. What the crap kind loser caster are you playing that you dont have scrolls and wands and other items so you can still be useful. if you build a wizard and he is useless when he has no spells then your build is fail. even low levels should bust out the trusty crossbow and support the tanks.

Again I rant. I'm sorry. It just didnt feel like dnd. I feel like it was made for video game gamers.

I love the skills and feats system. I love that I can make a character who can be a awesome fighter, a hero, a dragon slayer. but if all else fails i can make maps for a living. I can craft arms and armor. I can be a diplomat. They murdered the skill and feat system.

Sorry for blathering on there. I pretty much completely agree with Stream of the Sky's first post.

...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GNOMES AREN'T EVEN IN THE CORE RULE BOOK. WHAT THE CRAP PEOPLE...

 

[Dandu]

Kids these days, eh?

 

[Runestar]

4e did have some neat elements I wish the designers could have incorporated into 3.5, rather than hold out so they have another area to criticize 3e over.

For instance, the monsters feel much more streamlined and less bloated (in terms of stat blocks). There was also the issue of monsters feeling more like casters, and less like the brutes they are meant to be (like the hezrou). I particularly liked how they made the marilith more "dervish-like".

Basically, what really made me mad was that the designers apparently knew what was wrong with 3e and had the opportunity to fix some of the more problematic aspects, but they opted not to, because Power-creep presumably sells more books and 3.5e was to be used as a testing bed for 4e.