3rd edition frustrations

[anti-hero player]

lets be reasonable 3rd edition was pure gabage in terms of player character options .feats that were useless,prestige classes that were useless and core class features that were pure trash (trap sense anyone? seriously how often did it come into game play? once every 10 levels? ) racial penalties , ECLs and worse yet,most of the core classes that came out after the PHB in 3rd edition were just rotten.many of these seemed ok in their intros and general descriptions but went down the toilet when and came down to mechanics. check out the 3rd edition hex blade to see what i mean. when 4th edition was released much to my delight it cleaned up most of the trash that made me want to rip books apart in frustration during most of 3rd edition. am i alone or are their other players out there who do NOT want their d&d characters to be a bunch of gimps?

 

[tuxgeo]

Today, 07:14 PM #1
anti-hero player
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1
anti-hero player Novice (Lvl 1) Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported.

 

[anti-hero player]

explanation

the only point i am trying to make in this thread is that i do NOT want a game system that goes out of its way to make the pc's weakened or crippled in any way just because of the choices the player makes . this seemed to happen too often in 3rd edition but the problem was nearly non existant in 4th edition .all daily, utility, at will,encounter, racial and class powers were useful in every encounter and never once was the player punished or weakened in some was just because of the choices he made .i just would hate to see this "5th edition" return to these 3rd edition ways. as a hero ( or anti hero as my name suggests lol ) character in a fantasy world the pc's should NOT have any foolish weakenesses these just ruin the game.

 

[FireLance]

Then I suggest you edit your thread title and first post to something less inflammatory. Otherwise, this thread is as good as locked. Criticism is fine, but do criticize respectfully. Present your arguments clearly, avoid emotive terms, and distinguish between opinion and fact. You may feel strongly about a subject, but your taste is not universal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Subtle

 

[Henry]

Amen, Brother! Preach to them of the badwrong of their fun!

More seriously, however, based on the latest Rule of Three article, they're taking "baseline competence" into account in their designs, so we shouldn't see characters completely useless in combat or social arenas just because they wanted to be the best darned trumpet player in the kingdom. It might not be in the same way as 4th edition handled it, but I myself find that a good thing, because while 4E did ensure a character was still competent in multiple arenas, it did so in my opinion at the expense of too much ability for a player to play with "fiddly bits" such as feats, skill points, etc. if they desired.

I like every time my character levels to feel like I have several meaningful options to choose; with 4E, every time I leveled, I had maybe one to two choices to make, and that's it! Everything else was on autopilot, from my skill bonuses, to my attack bonuses, my hit points, my ability checks, everything. As smooth as it made power curves and the DM's job to plan easy, as a player it began to grate on me -- I pick ONE new power, or ONE new feat, and every so often two ability scores to raise, and that's it. Heck, until the Mordenkainen's book, there wasn't even a decent selection of equipment to buy. It's great for people who dislike a bunch of tweaking per level, but the rest of us who like playing with several new options per level, it gets kinda boring, truthfully. That's my take on it.

 

[Dragonblade]

Reported.

Lack of tact, issues with grammar, and spelling aside, our newly joined friend is actually referring to oft reviled aspect of 3e called "system mastery".

Something Monte Cook himself admitted was intentionally added to the game. Deliberately subpar choices created as traps for new players so veteran players could feel superior and more powerful by knowing which classes, feats, and spells were better.

In that respect, yes, deliberately inserting such "garbage" (i.e. subpar) options in the game as deliberate newbie traps is something that should be avoided in 5e design, IMO.

 

[anti-hero player]

Lack of tact, issues with grammar, and spelling aside, our newly joined friend is actually referring to oft reviled aspect of 3e called "system mastery".

Something Monte Cook himself admitted was intentionally added to the game. Deliberately subpar choices created as traps for new players so veteran players could feel superior and more powerful by knowing which classes, feats, and spells were better.

In that respect, yes, deliberately inserting such "garbage" (i.e. subpar) options in the game as deliberate newbie traps is something that should be avoided in 5e design, IMO.

thankyou ! someone who understands

 

[BryonD]

deliberate newbie traps

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

 

[anti-hero player]

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 .