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

[Remathilis]

I'll have to concede the point to you, since my knowledge of 4e is still mostly hearsay.

That's not my understanding of the situation but I'll freely admit to a bias of maybe "absorbing" a few more "I have fewer options in 4e" posts than I may have "I have more options in 4e" posts.

But even conceding that point, taking multi-class out of the mix is a pretty big concession in itself.

I'll take a stab at trying to explain "less vs more".

Lets say you walk into a game (new player) and you ask the group what you need. "We need a healer" they reply. "Core Rules Only."

In 3e: you have a few options: You could be a cleric, druid, bard, or paladin. However, there are many sub-optimal choices there: druids need to prep cure spells so many of your spell slots would be tied up in Cure X Wounds slots. In addition, you'd lack many of the powerful status-removers (Restoration, Raise Dead) or have the delayed in level. A bard would spontaneously cast Cures, but they have slow progression, limited spell choices, and fewer status-removers than a druid. A paladin has lay hands, but unless your a wand-weilder, you are pretty much useless at additional healing. You could do a cleric, but you best be positive energy channeling or you're stuck with 1/2 your spells slots CXW anyway...

So you settle on cleric. Great. You decide you want to kick a little ass while you heal, so you chose Kord as your deity. You also want a martial weapon (greatsword looks nice, and its Kord's Wpn of choice). How do you get it? Well, you could multi-class into fighter, but that slows down you spell progression, and unless your keeping even levels (which is the death knell of a caster) you are now restricted to human, half-elf, or dwarf (favored class). Or, you could blow one of your 7 feats to take MWP: Greatsword.

4e: You need to be a healer, so you have head straight to the leader role. You have two options; cleric and warlord. Either one grants you holy/inspiring word, so you can make healing surges kick in when you want. Clerics are better at healing, warlords at buffs (both are no slouch though at the other). So you opt for cleric. You still want to kick some ass, so you invest one of your 7 HEROIC TIER feats (7 before 10th level) in Greatsword, and look at the "battle cleric" build. You choose any of the eight races (though dragonborn, dwarf, elf, and human make the best clerics) and you are all set. If you want, you could begin to invest some feats into multi-classing fighter or paladin powers as well. You make sure to note which rituals you'll need (remove affliction, raise dead) and talk with the wizard about sharing them...

While there is less overall options (2 classes vs 4, no free multi-classing) more of those options are "worth-while". Over the long-run, you can craft your priest into a battle-hardened war-priest (paragon path) or you could retrain him into a better healer-defender type. You could even had gone warlord and picked up ritual caster and done everything a cleric does, including raise the dead! All the races are viable (even those without wis bumps, none give a wis penalty) and you can use feats to customize your PC better because there are fewer "must have" feats (Precise Shot, Power Attack, Weapn Finesse, etc) and more feat slots.

However, if you liked the idea of having open-book customization and routinely took cleric3/fighter2/warpriest3/radiant servant10 as a build advice, you're going to be choked by 4e's restrictions. The more you liked to fiddle/stack, the less 4e is customizable. However, if you want options for expanding PCs "within their role", 4e can't be beat.

 

[Gothmog]

Uhh, no.... I'm not ranting about 4e.

Folks seem to have the impression that I am anti-4e, though I think I've been fairly even-handed on 4e with respect to the design, leaning in its favor, and even strongly in favor of the new rules' market positioning.

I support the concept that the game shouldn't be work.

I am strongly anti-GSL... You could probably point to a few rants there.

Ah, ok- stupid internet isn't very good at conveying tone in posts, so I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. For what its worth, I find the GSL pretty horrible too, and think it will prove a detriment to the fans and WotC in the long term. I just hope the suits at WotC pull their heads out from their dark posterior hole, and allow thrid party publishers to support 4e in a more even-handed way.

 

[racoffin]

Made many, many good points.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is exactly my thoughts and DMing style in a great many areas, and seems to poke holes in a great many of the "problems" that people like to point at in 3E.

 

[Derren]

While there is less overall options (2 classes vs 4, no free multi-classing) more of those options are "worth-while".

I disagree with that. Druids, bards and even ranger, rogues and paladins with wands are worth-while healer in 3E. Just because one class is the best at healing doesn't mean all other classes suck and unless you are in a group consisting out of minmaxers it doesn't matter if you play a cleric or druid as healer.

And this can be applied not only to healing but also to many other such "4E offers more viable options" arguments. The options which were removed might not have been the best, but they were far from useless.

 

[Khairn]

I'm primarily a DM (as in I get to be a player about 2% of the time). I have no plans (or interest) to run 4e. 3e has never been a problem to run, but that might come down to

1) I keep control of the supplements and material coming into the game. That means, occassionally telling the players, "No". This means players do not assume that I will allow anything or everything from a book just because they purchased it.

2) I require players to create characters that fit the setting rather than building the setting around the characters or allowing just any character idea. This means available races, classes, and class variants are generally set ahead of time as are deities and domains (although I go one step further and tailor deity spell lists).

3) I place some controls on multiclassing and taking PrCs. The existance of a class or PrC doesn't mean that a character can simply take a class. To learn a new class or PrC, characters need to find a trainer, convince the person to train them, and have the time to spend training. Furthermore, I use the training rules on learning new skills and feats. On the other hand, I do utilize the customize a character option from the PHB to help tailor characters.


4) I don't allow characters to simply increase known skills, because they have points available. Characters need to have had the opportunity to utilize the skills. And, if a player is over focusing on a given skill (or skills) and ignroing rounding out their character, I put them in situations to discourage the practice (and I am always upfront about this with new players).

5) I don't worry about accounting for every skill point or feat when building NPCs (unless the NPC will be adventuring with the party). I am under no obligation to show the players the NPC stats.

6) I don't allow players to rest safely when the situation should not allow it.

7) I don't run past levels 10-12. I have never enjoyed DND past those levels and 4e, despite its changes, doesn't make me want to run games beyond level 10-12 (I don't like paragon paths and epic destinies, but then I really don't like PrCs in most instances).

I agree with everything but #7. I really enjoyed my higher lv games. But I can certainly understand where others might not like it.

The only point that I would add is ...

#8) I request that my players actually know their skills, abilities and spells so that when their turn comes around they don't have to go go searching to figure out what they can do.

I know it may sound simplistic, but these few common-sense rules all but eliminated many of the complaints that some players have about 3E (ie 15 minute workday, broken classes that ruin a game, 2-3 hours for a single battle etc etc.)

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

If you fork it and tell me what "unpacking it" means, I'll try to oblige.

EDIT: Your intrigue notwithstanding, I am not sure there's a whole lot more there to expound on that what it says at face value, but I'm willing to see if there's anything to "unpack" out of it.

Here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4419188

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So you settle on cleric. Great. You decide you want to kick a little ass while you heal, so you chose Kord as your deity. You also want a martial weapon (greatsword looks nice, and its Kord's Wpn of choice). How do you get it?

I'd just play a cleric of no specific deity, and choose War and Strength, or War and Magic, or War and Luck, etc. If you are playing a warrior cleric, it's not out of line to take the War domain.

And if I want to play a cleric who casts flashy spells, I'll take the Magic domain.

And if I want to play a cleric who blasts undead, I'll take the Sun domain.

And if I want to play a cleric who sneaks around, I'll take the Trickery domain.

Maybe I'm weird that way.

However, if you want options for expanding PCs "within their role", 4e can't be beat.

But as you and others have stated, 4e won't let you break your role. Or break out of your role.

With regards to the remaining points you raised about the cleric, I'm definitely on board with 4e's easier healing overall-- but those are not really changes to the class, those are changes to the combat mechanics.

Without a doubt if you were the guy who always "got stuck" playing the cleric in 3e, you have more options in 4e.

 

[The Little Raven]

But as you and others have stated, 4e won't let you break your role. Or break out of your role.

Not completely true. Paladins are Defenders, but they have a side-helping of Leader with a few heals and buffs. Fighters are Defenders, but can deal damage that is comparable to a Striker. Clerics are Leaders, with some touches of Controller. And there will be more expansion to each class in the future, as the Martial/Arcane/Divine Power books will provide alternate class features, feats, powers, and the like.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not completely true. Paladins are Defenders, but they have a side-helping of Leader with a few heals and buffs. Fighters are Defenders, but can deal damage that is comparable to a Striker. Clerics are Leaders, with some touches of Controller. And there will be more expansion to each class in the future, as the Martial/Arcane/Divine Power books will provide alternate class features, feats, powers, and the like.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here, but that really just seems to bring it back to a wash.

3e Rangers/Paladins have smidgen of heal/buff; Barbarians/Monks have a smidgen of Scout-ery, Rogues/Wizards have esoteric skills, etc.

I assume that 4e will have lots and lots and lots of options in the future, but its unclear to me how many folks who are decrying the complexity of 3e are going to fall off the 4e bandwagon or have the honesty to admit it when 4e becomes similarly cumbersome, etc.

This is all part of the normal game lifecycle, for what it's worth. I have no beef with it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Are people once again claiming that in order to play 3.5 you need half a dozen PrCs and you need to min/max everything?

Christ.

Did the system favor mastery? Yes. Did it require it? No. Take those idiotically false statements back to the horrifying tumor of the CharOps forums. And if you think 4e is going to be any different once their extra books come in, you're fooling yourself.