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

[rounser]

Doing without them is incredibly time-consuming, but they aren't a requirement.

Exactly. No, you don't have to use the generators, but the amount of time to invest borders on completely ridiculous if you dot all the i's and cross t's on your NPCs, and don't just avoid the problem altogether by just using monsters as opponents, as Wulf suggested.

I'm not making a "ridiculous assertion"; I'm just being realistic about 3E and the impracticalities of it's NPC generation (because the character generation rules are not really primarily for generating NPCs - all those options are there to please players, it seems reasonable to assume). If you want to produce them in large numbers, swiftly, then you need to use a computer. Or just ignore a lot of the rules in your NPC stats, like skill points, and various other handwaves and workarounds that suggest that the problem is in the 3E design, and hasn't been addressed (unless you count the stat lists in the start of the DMG. I don't, really). Pretending this isn't true is just ostrich-head-in-sand type stuff, IMO, but everyone's got an opinion.

I don't know or really care if 4E fixes this problem, but it was definitely present in 3E.

 

[evilref]

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.

I know I said that you were, so I apologise and must have confused the two in my head at the time of posting.

I can well understand a dislike for the GSL, even though I really like 4e the GSL is not what I wanted to see (it might be doing exactly what it's meant to, I'd just like to see something between the GSL and OGL)

Just so this isn't entirely off topic:

I stopped playing 3.X years back for all sorts of reasons that came down to 'it's not the game for me', however even when I did run it NPC stat blocks wasn't a big deal for me because I just didn't use them. I'd eyeball what skills to give an npc and if it was important I'd roll the dice. Given I lean towards the 'say yes or roll the dice' school of gaming, I didn't think I needed to work out what an NPCs climb skill was if the players were just buying some eggs from him.

As for the PrC optimization/not optimization I think it only becomes an issue if one person is or isn't doing it, and then there is a perception that they are better/worse than everyone else in the party.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Since i'm currently playing in shackled city, without min-maxed characters, (in fact with a couple of deliberate flavourful character concepts), and having fun (albeit sometimes being very scared) I just don't recognise this description of Paizo adventures. Of course, YMMV.

While I do think Paizo's adventure paths call for characters slightly above the 3.5 baseline, power-wise, or very skilled players to compensate, I don't think they require optimized characters at all.

We've been through Shackled City and we're halfway through Age of Worms. In Shackled City, I played a basic cleric/necromancer mystic theurge, which is about as non-optimized as you can get, and we did fine. (We lost the final battle, but the final battle really is crazy tough.) In Age of Worms, I play a half-ogre fighter/barbarian/war hulk, which, while powerful in melee, is again not an optimized character. (For instance, my PC has a Charisma of 11, which pretty much makes him the Brad Pitt of half-ogres. I've also spread my feats around for lots of versatility in combat.) We're doing fine.

Also, keep in mind that Shackled City and Age of Worms (I dunno about Savege Tide or the Pathfinder APs) were designed explicitly for six PCs, rather than 3.5s CR assumption of four PCs. There really is no way that the iconics, for example, could survive and complete those APs in a party of only four PCs.

 

[Phlebas]

While I do think Paizo's adventure paths call for characters slightly above the 3.5 baseline, power-wise, or very skilled players to compensate, I don't think they require optimized characters at all.

We've been through Shackled City and we're halfway through Age of Worms. In Shackled City, I played a basic cleric/necromancer mystic theurge, which is about as non-optimized as you can get, and we did fine. (We lost the final battle, but the final battle really is crazy tough.) In Age of Worms, I play a half-ogre fighter/barbarian/war hulk, which, while powerful in melee, is again not an optimized character. (For instance, my PC has a Charisma of 11, which pretty much makes him the Brad Pitt of half-ogres. I've also spread my feats around for lots of versatility in combat.) We're doing fine.

Also, keep in mind that Shackled City and Age of Worms (I dunno about Savege Tide or the Pathfinder APs) were designed explicitly for six PCs, rather than 3.5s CR assumption of four PCs. There really is no way that the iconics, for example, could survive and complete those APs in a party of only four PCs.

when we started we were a little surprised initially at the toughness of the some of the encounters but we didn't have a death until 8th level and that was the warlock (who fired off one last blast while the rest of us were running for the door so it was technically avoidable). Once we got into the mentality that we would sometimes need to retreat and sometimes go nova rather than just charge everything it never really bothered us. DM was probably more nervous than the Players about TPK!

we play with 5 pc's - but when i say not optmized, one of us even has a level of aristocrat!
(for the record Warlock, Wizard (conjurer), Cleric, Fighter, Aristo / urban ranger / cursed*)
* cursed is a homebrew PrC reflecting the PC's descent into an undead state unless we can find the cure!

although you can min/max with multi-classing and PrC's, you can also develop an almost infinite variety of character concepts - the vast majority of which aren't 'broken' or game-breaking (for the few that are a DM needs to apply rule 0)

3E multi-classing is one of those rules you either love or hate, and I accept that not everyone will be a fan (and some will genuinely prefer the 4E customisation mechanic) - but it isn't fundamentally broken

 

[Branduil]

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.

I think the main difference between 4e and 3.x is the way 4e promotes and rewards teamwork. I think most people's problems with 3.x min-maxing is that though it would help your character it usually hurt your party. 4e encourages min-maxing to a degree, but the difference is your best bet for optimization involves everyone in the party being optimized. It's not a contest to make the most awesome PC that can outperform the other PCs.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the main difference between 4e and 3.x is the way 4e promotes and rewards teamwork. I think most people's problems with 3.x min-maxing is that though it would help your character it usually hurt your party. 4e encourages min-maxing to a degree, but the difference is your best bet for optimization involves everyone in the party being optimized. It's not a contest to make the most awesome PC that can outperform the other PCs.

It's not a contest to make the most awesome PC that can outperform the other PCs...yet. I think we ALL know it's going to happen. It's already started to happen in bits here and there, and as more books are released, more people are going to find more ways of making that one uber character.

A lot of 3.5's BIG balance problems weren't even caused by the game - it was caused by people purposefully trying to twist slightly badly worded things into what they wanted while combining things the authors never intended to have combined. That can happen with ANY system that grows large enough.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think the main difference between 4e and 3.x is the way 4e promotes and rewards teamwork.

4e also promotes world peace, cleans up smelly gamers, and can fry a pound of bacon in under 2 minutes.

 

[Greg K]

It's not a contest to make the most awesome PC that can outperform the other PCs...yet. I think we ALL know it's going to happen. It's already started to happen in bits here and there, and as more books are released, more people are going to find more ways of making that one uber character.
.

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.

 

[Greg K]

is there a delete comment?

 

[Branduil]

It's not a contest to make the most awesome PC that can outperform the other PCs...yet. I think we ALL know it's going to happen. It's already started to happen in bits here and there, and as more books are released, more people are going to find more ways of making that one uber character.

A lot of 3.5's BIG balance problems weren't even caused by the game - it was caused by people purposefully trying to twist slightly badly worded things into what they wanted while combining things the authors never intended to have combined. That can happen with ANY system that grows large enough.

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.