3rd edition frustrations

[Dragonblade]

As long as they don't repeat the mistakes that make the game so poor for everyone else.

Right. I think the debate over whether system mastery is desirable or not is completely separate from whether you like 4e design or not.

One reason I like both Pathfinder and 4e, is that the designers of both games recognized system mastery was not desirable. 4e took a radical design approach to achieve it, whereas since Pathfinder still needed to be on a 3e frame, Paizo had more constraints on their vision.

But its clear thats what their goal was if you look at how they fixed or eliminated the deliberately subpar feats, spells, and class options and replaced them all with much better choices.

 

[Oni]

If you want to last around here and aren't just trolling then I might suggest that you seriously consider how you word your criticisms. Your original post is blatantly and needlessly inflammatory, and you've basically destroyed your ability to have a sensible and thoughtful discussion on the topic with your choice of words.

 

[anti-hero player]

If you want to last around here and aren't just trolling then I might suggest that you seriously consider how you word your criticisms. Your original post is blatantly and needlessly inflammatory, and you've basically destroyed your ability to have a sensible and thoughtful discussion on the topic with your choice of words.

not trolling i was just explaining what i went through during 3rd edition .if it was not for my DM i would not have played it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Is there any point in posting to this thread, or is it just going to get locked?

Anyway:

You can't demand that WotC remove all the "bad" feats (etc.) from the game, because something else has to be the lowest. Toughness (Monte's example of a newbie trap) is only a bad feat because there are much better choices. If there were a slew of feats that were less powerful than Toughness, and very few better (I know, hard to imagine) - Toughness would be seen as a mid-range feat.

The only way to eliminate "bad" feats is to make absolutely sure that every feat is precisely as powerful as every other feat. If you mess that up in the slightest, then suddenly you have a whole bunch of "bad" feats obviously inferior to the one or two "good" feats that are more powerful.

Gamers need to stop being so intolerant of a range of execution. If the worst feat is 90% as powerful as the best, this should be a lauded accomplishment.

 

[Shemeska]

ok thread title changed, i cannot believe that people around here are actually offended by the word "garbage". anyway my opinions of 3rd edition are based on playing for 8 years almost every weekend and somtimes 3 times a weekend, so the issues i pointed out constantly stuck out like a broken leg . so i will stand behind my opinions as they were the facts that i had to deal with every time i played 3rd edition .

I will bribe you with XP if you run your posts through some version of spell and/or grammar check.

 

[GX.Sigma]

You can't demand that WotC remove all the "bad" feats (etc.) from the game, because something else has to be the lowest. Toughness (Monte's example of a newbie trap) is only a bad feat because there are much better choices. If there were a slew of feats that were less powerful than Toughness, and very few better (I know, hard to imagine) - Toughness would be seen as a mid-range feat.

The only way to eliminate "bad" feats is to make absolutely sure that every feat is precisely as powerful as every other feat. If you mess that up in the slightest, then suddenly you have a whole bunch of "bad" feats obviously inferior to the one or two "good" feats that are more powerful.

Gamers need to stop being so intolerant of a range of execution. If the worst feat is 90% as powerful as the best, this should be a lauded accomplishment.

The problem is not that some feats are worse than others. The problem is that some feats were intentionally designed to be useless.

 

[WarlockLord]

I don't get why you're all jumping on anti-hero player because, and I say this as a 3.5 fan, he's absolutely right. No one likes seeing trap options like 3.5 shadowcaster or 4e binder which look cool on paper but are completely useless in a real game.

And yes, Savage Wombat, you can totally ask for no more +2 to two skills feats, prestige classes that advance 1 caster level every two levels, a mechanic for playing monsters which doesn't force you to pay twice for abilities AND lets you level up monster abilities, anything from Complete Psionic, and epic destinies that aren't demigod.

 

[Piratecat]

Okay, I'm going to close this for now on account of edition warring. I'll look again in the morning when I'm not so tired, cranky and sick. If it still makes me angry, we'll proceed accordingly.

Klunk.

 

[anti-hero player]

Is there any point in posting to this thread, or is it just going to get locked?

Anyway:

You can't demand that WotC remove all the "bad" feats (etc.) from the game, because something else has to be the lowest. Toughness (Monte's example of a newbie trap) is only a bad feat because there are much better choices. If there were a slew of feats that were less powerful than Toughness, and very few better (I know, hard to imagine) - Toughness would be seen as a mid-range feat.

The only way to eliminate "bad" feats is to make absolutely sure that every feat is precisely as powerful as every other feat. If you mess that up in the slightest, then suddenly you have a whole bunch of "bad" feats obviously inferior to the one or two "good" feats that are more powerful.

Gamers need to stop being so intolerant of a range of execution. If the worst feat is 90% as powerful as the best, this should be a lauded accomplishment.

there should NOT be any "Bad options" in the game period.no bad feats no bad pc options . especially when these "bad" options should have been obvious to the so called game designers.