D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Derren]

Yep. I have already seen several threads on 4e asking, "What is the best [role]?" , discussing the best race(s) for [x], and people asking "Why anyone would use weapon [x] when weapon [y] is available?" among other things.

I see this often when people talk about ability scores. They are only distributed according to what is best for the class with at least one 18 in the primary score.
People building things like intelligent fighters whos ability scores are not minmaxed doesn't seem to happen often anymore.

 

[Eridanis]

Just a quick note to remind everyone to keep the discussion productive, and to not veer into attacking one's beliefs, game preferences, favorite flavor of Mountain Dew, or who's the better Star Trek captain. Thank you!

 

[jensun]

Yep. I have already seen several threads on 4e asking, "What is the best [role]?" , discussing the best race(s) for [x], and people asking "Why anyone would use weapon [x] when weapon [y] is available?" among other things.

This has always happened with every edition of D&D.

Whether it was in the pages of Dragon, around individual game tables, or online.

Its a feature of any game with a fairly high dgree of complexity.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Lucky you, I of course had the player who would go into excruciating detail to justify why his Gold Dwarf is a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 3…

3e's problem with excessive PrCs was an issue, not of the rules themselves, but of wishy washy DMs who failed to remember that PrCs were initially intended not as "let me dip in and get a cool ability" but as a special, campaign specific class that carried with it.....prestige.

DMs are at fault IMO for not acting like DMs and instead relegated to being merely rule arbiters.

That PrC nonsense never took place in my games, just like there were no god-awful abberations like half-golems and the spiked chain. DMs need to act like DMs, vetoing ridiculous options while helping players come up with more capaign appropriate character concepts.



Wyrmshadows

 

[FallenTabris]

Playing 4e reminds me more of how I didn't like many of the fiddly bits in 3e. Though I will admit it causes me to reconsider 2nd edition as a viable game. I miss Planescape with all its weird locations, cosmopolitan cities and pseudo 18th century english.

 

[Gothmog]

Playing 4e has reminded me how much I disliked 3e (the mechanics, underlying assumptions, and rules-opaque gameplay), and the reasons I left 3e about 3 years ago. 4e has put the fun back in D&D for me and my group, and taken D&D back to its 1st edition AD&D roots- where it belongs.

 

[CleverNickName]

That PrC nonsense never took place in my games, just like there were no god-awful abberations like half-golems and the spiked chain. DMs need to act like DMs, vetoing ridiculous options while helping players come up with more capaign appropriate character concepts.

Indeed. It can be a lot of work, but the game is a lot more rewarding for everyone involved. Part of the fun of world-building, for me at least, is creating the list of things that are permitted in a campaign. I wouldn't use a Japanese monster in my Egyptian game setting; why would I allow a Japanese weapon, race, or class? Game balance has nothing to do with it...the two just don't jibe.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that 4e makes a much bigger effort to reward team optimization and powers that aid other characters. There are always going to be powergamers... the difference is that 4e at least makes some effort to channel that urge in a way that benefits everyone.

And you're ignoring the fact that the problem-causing players don't give a rat's rear end what the game tries to channel - they're still going to cause the exact same problems.

You're ALSO ignoring that, while trying to make people think "Wow, this helps the team" is nice, it's human nature to ignore that and go for "Wow, this makes my character so much more awesome!"

This isn't something limited to editions, no matter how hard people might like to think this was some unholy blasphemy that was limited only to third.

 

[Hussar]

And you're ignoring the fact that the problem-causing players don't give a rat's rear end what the game tries to channel - they're still going to cause the exact same problems.

You're ALSO ignoring that, while trying to make people think "Wow, this helps the team" is nice, it's human nature to ignore that and go for "Wow, this makes my character so much more awesome!"

This isn't something limited to editions, no matter how hard people might like to think this was some unholy blasphemy that was limited only to third.

The problem is, 3rd edition doesn't particularly promote teamwork. About the closest thing you get is buffing. The best buffer in the game is the least favorite class - the Bard. Other than flanking, there isn't a whole lot you can do to work together in 3e. Yes, there are some things, but, not a whole lot of things.

4e seems geared around the idea that it's a great idea to do something AND help your buddy at the same time. In 3e, it was pretty much always a choice - attack or cast a buffing spell; full attack or move and single attack with a flank. Usually either/or situations.

At least, that's what I seem to be taking from things.

 

[Derren]

And this teamwork forces also pushes people to optimize more. After all, you can't let the other players down when you make an unoptimized character.

I predict that 4E will not be any different than 3E in this regard. As soon as the first few splatbooks came out with clearly more powerful paragon paths, base classes, feats and items minmaxing will run rampant.