Acid_crash
First Post
Akrasia said:Ahhh ... I am not alone.
sweet... at least I know I'm not the only person with taste.
3e and the Test of Time
- Thread starter Belen
- Start date
sweet... at least I know I'm not the only person with taste.
OH MY GOD!Acid_crash said:sweet... at least I know I'm not the only person with taste.
Why is it that our little community has to be divided against itself so passionately among different game systems? Geeze, you guys are making C&C look like a Lincoln town car. Well, I guess it had to happen.
Last edited:
Breakdaddy
First Post
Psion said:
That elicits a big AMEN from me. Preach it, brother.
BelenUmeria said:
I *wish* it was like this for me.
Firstly, I hate a couple of the minor 3.5 rules changes (like certain weakened spells and the entire new damage resistance system -- I want good magic weapons to be able to hurt EVERYTHING, I don't want players carrying some lame-ass spice rack of holy silver, adamantine, mithral and cold iron swords).
Secondly, mere months before 3.5 was announced, I bought two spare 3.0 Players Handbooks. AGGGHHH! :/
Lastly, although I own 3.5 editions of the big three rulebooks, I'm just not in the mood to re-buy every new thing that they're re-releasing (like COMPLETE ARCANE to sort-of-replace TOME AND BLOOD, etc.), so now I'm soured on the whole D&D-product-buying experience (although I still pick up a lot of third-party stuff).
So anyway, I have to use a mix of books from 3.0 and 3.5 (albeit mostly 3.5) in my games. I know the easy thing to do would be to wimp out and switch entirely to 3.5 but I can't bring myself to do it. CURSED NEW DAMAGE RESISTANCE!!!!
Jason
Breakdaddy said:
Admittedly, I think 3.0 is awesome too. In my opinion, 3.0 is the best version of D&D ever. (I like AD&D but just for nostalgia.) And 3.5 is mostly the same as 3.0, so that alone makes it good.
I dislike a couple of aspects of 3.5, though -- not just rules but some of the ways in which the "product branding" and "need to sell miniatures" shows through more blatantly. As someone who works for a fairly large entertainment company (in a minor capacity), I recognize this stuff and it pisses me off.
Jason
Virel
Explorer
One idea that could be made to a "4e" would be to drop the class system and go to a complete skill based system. This would throw much of the 3e and 3.5e stuff out the window and require those that wanted to stay current to buy new books. 
Instead of classes, your could tailor you PC however your pleased by buying skills. For instance one skill might be cast 1st level wizard spell - evocation. New books would expand the skill base to select from. The PrC's would become "kits or professions" with suggested skill sets and might allow new synergies if certain skills were taken.
The magic system could also be revised into a mana/spell points system. Something many players have wanted for a long time.
Instead of classes, your could tailor you PC however your pleased by buying skills. For instance one skill might be cast 1st level wizard spell - evocation. New books would expand the skill base to select from. The PrC's would become "kits or professions" with suggested skill sets and might allow new synergies if certain skills were taken.
The magic system could also be revised into a mana/spell points system. Something many players have wanted for a long time.
Virel said:
Ah, but is time between published editions the relevant question? I don't think so. There are more important questions to ask -
1)At the end of four years, which game did people feel needed fewer house rules to make it fun?
2)Which game wil have more players ten years after it's original publication?
3)Should we be considering 3.5e a distinct edition separate from 3e for this purpose? They share more similarities than they do differences.
