Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5027307" data-attributes="member: 5834">reTrue. No game system opened up their content like 3E. Wouldn't really be a point to it if it took no levels at all.Text equivalent to the above is included in every iteration of D&D yet made. Yet 3E was the one edition that actually gave you rules specifications for a larger number of actions that should be available in combat as an option other than a power.Rituals are non-combat options. I did not see any useful combat rituals in any 4E book.There were sustainable spells. Most of the combat damage ones were taken as that allowed someone to do something other than an at will every round which deterred them from taking fireball and the like.Most of my players avoided spells that required a long-term save for say mind effecting or some other effect because they were weak most of the time. Why would you waste a powerful daily on regular monster that would save against it 45% of the time? And against solos that usually had some significant bonus on their saves a powerful daily was even less useful, though solos died fairly quick with a party beating on them.I don't know what mess you're talking about other than the spread of skills. Not like it took a total rework of the system to combine skills like spot and listen into perception or open lock and disable device into one skill. Or move silently and hide into a single skill stealth. Pathfinder pared down the skills too and still did it within the 3E framework. Should have been a no brainer for the original 3E designers, but sometimes you miss stuff.As far as skill point allocation, I much prefer a system that allows you spread your skill points as you wish and gives at least a little usefulness to non-combat skills such as professions and crafting.In the original 3E book traps topped out at CR 10 or so and a 9th lvl spell trap was DC 34 to find and remove. Topping out at CR 10 for a trap and having them easily defeated took alot away from what should be a scary part of the game up to lvl 20. Though 3E did have supplements for trap systems. Yet like most on here I'm not a huge fan of having to buy many different books for one part of the game.Complexity doesn't have to be time consuming. I ran 3E far faster than I ever ran 4E and with less of a headache. I knew all the rules system by heart. And with Pathfinder's new CMB vs. CMD system it made running combat maneuvers even easier than 3E with a higher level of complexity in terms of options, but a simpler means of deciding the outcome. That's what I call a rules improvement over throwing a good rules system out.I find that 3E better fits what I read in books or watch on TV. It built on what 2E had done to an even greater degree by giving melee classes fighting styles that came closest to simulating a fighting style you would see in a book. It based fighting on feats on situations rather than limited use powers, which I prefer.I like spell strategy. The older spell systems allowed arcane and divine casters to better assist the party and required a more complex plan than cast sustainable damage spell and roll to hit every round. It encouraged the use of non-combat spells for people other than yourself and allowed for tactics such as teleport guerilla warfare and the use of charm person for infiltration.Alot was lost with the 4E magic system, primarily because the 3E system allowed for too much min-maxing with casters. 3.5 wasn't as bad 3E, but I would have liked to keep the arcane caster complexity rather than tying everything non-combat to rituals and eliminating much that extends past a round for boosting the party.I already have. As I stated, I'm a 25 year plus D&D player that has left D&D for the first time ever to play Pathfinder. It's not a perfect game, but it has improved upon the 3E ruleset substantially.I tried 4E to see if it would grow on me like 3E did. But I found 4E ruined my game immersion. Certain things I thought were initially going to be cool turned out to be weak. Solos were not hard to kill when a whole party starts beating on them and unloading encounter powers, especially when his chance to hit is reduced by the defender while the skirmisher and controller are doing insane damage and further limiting it and the leader is making the attacks on the already hard to hurt defender irrelevant. Combat wasn't simpler, it was more annoying than 3E because round to round modifiers and saves are more of a pain to keep track of than a single save or a modifier that will at least last a combat.I did enjoy the lower prep time and skill challenges. I plan to incorporate the skill challenge mechanic into my Pathfinder game when I feel it is appropriate.Some rituals weren't too bad either. I liked that they didn't take up the 4E equivalent of spell slots. Though they weren't even as necessary due to 4Es lack of permanent effects. Negative levels were pretty much gone as is permanent ability drain. So what's the point of the Restoration ritual if most of the dangers it cured are no longer relevant? That's how alot of the rituals are.I've played casters in both systems as well as other systems like Shadowrun and GURPS. Weakest, most uninteresting caster I've ever played was in 4E. Maybe this changes at 18th level or epic levels. I don't know. But through 12 levels, it was the most boring caster class I've ever played. Almost the entire class is focused on damage. You rarely have time to cast a ritual in a dungeon or access to the components. It didn't matter anway because the majority of effects don't require a ritual. You can get by playing 4E without having a single ritual if you so choose or casting the ones you have. I did it for 12 levels. The only ritual I ever cast was a ritual scroll of raise dead.You greatly missed out on the beauty of a 3E or even 2E caster if that's all you accomplished. Maybe you never really attained very high level or really spent a great deal of time mastering the arcane or divine caster even at lower levels.I played a great many divine and arcane casters. I focused less on individual damage and more on party support or the application of magic at key times rather than opening up with it. A haste spell at a key time could turn the tide of a tough battle. Using a wall spell to split the battlefield against strong enemies became a must against groups of giants. A simple spell like wind wall allowed a party to survive an onslaught of arrow demons looking to wipe us out. Having the Rapid Casting feat and using Restoration as a standard action helped a great deal battling advanced spectres.Spell strategy was a great deal more interesting with 3E and 2E spell casters. And it did not consist of blasting the battlefield over and over again with damage spells though you did get to do that every once in a while as well. In 4E I chose the best power available for my level for my particular arcane or divine class.In 3E and 2E I took the time to think about what we were fighting and what combination of spells would best help the party to win and survive. That does not happen in 4E and trying to sell me that it does isn't going to change that. It doesn't happen because arcane and divine casters will not be using rituals during combat and do not have anywhere near the spell flexibility to prepare a great spell strategy based on what they will be fighting. If you consider the 4E caster on par with the 3E, I have to assume you have not played them to high level and in fact have not played them much at all. Just the other day our party wizard helped win a battle with heroism and haste without casting much more than magic missile as an occasional clean up spell. Not going to happen in 4E.Certain things shouldn't need to hit. Fireball as a prime example. It was smart not to make a fireball need a hit roll save for maybe designing a mechanic to have it hit a spot on the map. I find it ludicrous that you can drop a Scorching Burst in a particular area and miss half the targets even though it does burst in the area you want it to hit. I'd much rather have spells like scorching burst hit an area rather than target individual reflex defenses.I thought touch AC was just as good a mechanic as reflex defense for attack rolls for spells that required a hit roll.I don't know whether I like everyone having the same attack bonus or not. That's a hard one to call. Part of me thinks that a fighter should be better at striking in melee than a wizard for reasons other than his proficiencies and powers. I think I prefer how 3E handles a fighter being much more proficient with weapons better than 4E, I especially like what Pathfinder did with the fighter. They are heads and tails above everyone else with weapons now. Given what they did with the spell system I won't ever see how the defense system works versus the save system. The spells are too different between the two editions to compare. I know I prefer a spell system that allows me to do things like an effective non-combat charm or a group combat teleport as well as use spells other than damage spells that help the party even if I want to fill all my spell slots with non-damaging spells if I think it gives our group a better chance to win.</blockquote>

Verification