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

[BryonD]

I would agree except, since you cut out the rest of the quote, how is it user error for the wizard to use the spells he has? It's not like he's going out of his way to make the rogue irrelavent. These spells are right there in core. I don't recall any sidebars stating that players should avoid those spells which make another class entirely superflous.

I simply reject your claim that these are concerns.
The idea that a rogue is "superflous" is frankly boggling to me.
I've seen wizards destroy goblins with fireballs and yet this does not make fighters "superflous".
Again, the flaw lies not in the system, but in the user's application.

 

[BryonD]

You (in particular) might also say that turning down the machine to lob 60 mph pitches isn't likely to produce the next generation of power hitters.

No actually. I'd say that turning down the machine to 60 would cause those with a knack for hitting to start becoming unfulfilled. Which would then in turn cause them to seek out faster machines from other vendors.

 

[sinecure]

Oh cool! Baseless snipes at other editions are OK again? Man, just let me clean off my calendar and I'll be posting some doozies about 4e shortly!

no ?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No actually. I'd say that turning down the machine to 60 would cause those with a knack for hitting to start becoming unfulfilled. Which would then in turn cause them to seek out faster machines from other vendors.

Yes, that might happen. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.
There are professional players that even earn money for hitting the fast balls, and there are hobbyists that don't train regularly. At least I assume that's the case, I am not much into sports or sports analogies.

 

[Hussar]

I simply reject your claim that these are concerns.
The idea that a rogue is "superflous" is frankly boggling to me.
I've seen wizards destroy goblins with fireballs and yet this does not make fighters "superflous".
Again, the flaw lies not in the system, but in the user's application.

You've never seen your rogue sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs? Never run an encounter with plant monsters huh?

Your party wizard never cast arcane eye? Scry? Detect Secret Doors? Locate Object? Summon something to set off traps? Overland Flight?

The list of spells that step all over the rogue's toes is lengthy and pretty comprehensive.

It's actually laughable that you think fighters aren't superfluous as well. Clerics make ten times much better fighters than fighters do. CoDzilla was an issue LONG before 4e hit the ground.

Good grief, PHB II is chock a block with feats to make fighters actually viable at higher levels. Bo9S is all about trying to make the melee types work at high levels. Endless splat books and PrC's as well.

How much evidence do you need?

Next you'll be telling me that bards were powerful characters.

 

[BryonD]

You've never seen your rogue sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs?

Hey, it Hussar back to turning generalizations into absolutes again.
I have certainly seen it happen. I've also seen wizards twiddle their thumbs.
I've never seen these situations last long and I've never had a player complain about it or switch characters over it. It isn't a problem.

Never run an encounter with plant monsters huh?

No less frequently than anyone else. Why?

Your party wizard never cast arcane eye?

Sometimes. Why?

Scry?

Sometimes. Why?

Detect Secret Doors?

Sometimes. Why?

Locate Object?

Sometimes. Why?

Summon something to set off traps?

Don't recall. Maybe. Why?

Overland Flight?

Sometimes. Why?

The list of spells that step all over the rogue's toes is lengthy and pretty comprehensive.

And yet the rogue remains very much not "superfluos". Astounding.

It's actually laughable that you think fighters aren't superfluous as well. Clerics make ten times much better fighters than fighters do. CoDzilla was an issue LONG before 4e hit the ground.

Good grief, PHB II is chock a block with feats to make fighters actually viable at higher levels. Bo9S is all about trying to make the melee types work at high levels. Endless splat books and PrC's as well.

How much evidence do you need?

Just a little. But it needs to be at my table.

Next you'll be telling me that bards were powerful characters.

Bards could use some work. Of course that may be why I've seen only a handful of bard PCs compared to the scads of rogues and fighters.

 

[Moggthegob]

But then it raises a question. What's more important? Making the DMing easier or making some players unhappy. On another forum, a group has reached an impasse. There are a couple of players adamant about staying 3.5, and the rest neutral. However, the DM after DMing 4E refuses to DM 3.5.

He'll play he says, but he definitely doesn't want to DM it. Yet, nobody else in the group feels comfortable DMing 3.5 (they had a rotating DM chair but it basically came down to one guy as the others found DMing to be too much like "work")

It's actually really funny. Almost the same exact thing happened in my game only backwards. Since 3e forced me to become very efficient in terms of story and plot, I found 4e to be lacking in terms of giving me as a DM enough to do at the table or otherwise. It sucked the fun out of DMing for me. I love the Paizo design philosophy(i.e. I like templates) and designing my own junk(templates,variants new special abilities, etc.) for monsters I send at players.

So I refuse to DM 4e, but I will play it( as a player I find it like playing C&C only a bit more restrictive,but I never could convince the whole group to C&C for very long, mostly cus I wanted to play and noone else would DM). However, no one in the group wants to DM it either. So, despite a few of them strongly feeling 4E is the game for them we play 3.5/PFRPG/Frankengame

 

[Moggthegob]

I have played several kick-ass bards in my day. They make the best enchanters and even do pretty well as illusionists. There is even two prestges which, used in succession, can make the bard into the king of all spellcasters.
Heck, even just as the world's best support unit I have had some bards do that in ways no class can emulate. Heck, I play the bard every chance I get simply because it allows me to come up with creative spell uses( which my DM allows)

 

[Hussar]

Just a little. But it needs to be at my table.

BryonD - so, if a problem doesn't occur at your table, there is absolutely no way the problem exists?

Ok. That's the end of this conversation. :/

 

[BryonD]

Actually, that is a perfect ending for the conversation because you have precisely brought it full circle.

BryonD - so, if a problem doesn't occur at your table, there is absolutely no way the problem exists?

Ok. That's the end of this conversation. :/

User error does not establish a flaw in the system itself.

The level of user friendliness required may certainly vary from one group to another. But different systems serving the needs of different groups does not mean that either one has a problem.

I might as well say that a fast pitch batting cage has a problem with its system because I wiff at every ball it throws. If I'm talking to someone who can crush 17 out of 20, he is going to see the flaw in my claim that my misses signify a failure on the machine's part.

It may be true that there are other elements of the fast pitch machine that really could use some work. But if it functions for the intended user, then someone else not being able to use it is meaningless to the assessment.