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

[CleverNickName]

4e and Pathfinder both have worked together to remind me of what I really loved about my old BECMI games.

- I like the default setting (Mystara)...it's my favorite of all of the published campaign settings out there. I have collected most of the gazetteers, even...all I need is a good copy of "Orcs of Thar," and I have them all.

- I liked the cosmology: the spheres (Entropy, Death, Life, etc.), the elemental planes, etc. It seems that the newer editions of the game are All About The Demons, but the old BECM rules barely even mention them. Nice and simple, just like I like it.

- I liked the races. I liked how clan-centric the demihuman races were, and how each clan was centered around a relic or icon (dwarves had their Forge of Power, elves have their Trees of Life, halflings have their Crucibles of Blackflame.) I didn't care too much for non-human races being character classes, but everything else about the races was okay by me.

- I liked the classes. I liked that clerics couldn't use sharp weapons. I liked that magic-users couldn't use swords. I liked that druids couldn't use metal of any sort. I know that these were the first things people complained about, but I really liked them. A character's "class" seems to mean less and less in newer editions (many would argue that this is a good thing, I suppose.)

- I liked the idea of "name" level. It was the predecessor of the "tier" structures in 4E, after all. I much prefer this to the complicated system of prestige class requirements in 3rd Edition.

- I liked the simple rules for mass combat, sieges, and castle construction.

- "The Isle of Dread" is the best module ever written. Search your heart, you know it's true.

Of course, the things that were wrong with the BECMI rules are almost too numerous to list, but most of them can be fixed by using the d20 rules mechanic (get rid of THAC0, use the "high=good, low=bad" for things like save throws and armor class, standardize the advancement tables, etc.)

So I agree with the OP; 4th Edition really fanned the old flame that I still carry for my old friend BECMI. I've been looking into the Castles and Crusades game system, and I really like what I am seeing in there, but it is hard to find players who would be interested in giving it a shot...it seems like most of the gamers I meet are either playing 3.5E, or they are in their basement playing WoW.

 

[Steely Dan]

You mentioned spending greater time on plots/worlds/etc. That's certainly one option. What about "putting together several challenging encounters in an hour and spending time with my wife" in one evening?

Man, I just did that last night – had to stat a semi BBEG for tomorrow's pit fight.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My point was that 4th Ed single class characters have more choices/options than 3rd Ed.

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.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, I'm intrigued by this sentence. Could you unpack that, please? Fork it over it you want.

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.

 

[Wormwood]

I am spending more time "thinking D&D" now than I have in years, but I spend less time "working on D&D" because of how easy designing for 4e is to me.

Whoops---looks like I was unclear.

I spend less time "thinking D&D crunch".

As a DM, prepping adventures takes far less time and effort---leaving me more time to come up with ideas.

And as DM *and* player, I no longer feel the need to scour forums for up-to-the minute rules advice and debate.

 

[Steely Dan]

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

Oh, of course.

There is no Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/Dwarven Defender in 4th Ed.

Ed.

 

[Remathilis]

4e and Pathfinder both have worked together to remind me of what I really loved about my old BECMI games

I have a soft spot for them as well, but (as a later-comer) I much preferred the overly generic "Thunder Rift" modules to the already-OOP Mystara stuff. Heck, my homebrew is pretty much TR + other homemade areas + a pantheon of Gods. Its part of the reason I fell in love with the Points of Light default: It was very reminiscent to those olden games I loved so dear.

I find it funny though, that you point out the things in BECMI you liked are a lot of the things I fell in love with 4e for; with a few exceptions. I love the new planes (esp Shadowfell and Feywild); I love the greater emphasis on class and role (rather than 3e's building block method that often times created Frankenstien's rather than characters), I love the greater definition on racial traits and the bigger emphasis on race, the three tiers clearly defining play, etc. All 4e is missing is good mass combat rules (though I think minions might be a good way to handle some of that)

Did I mention that the Isle of Dread was mentioned in Worlds & Monsters

Say what you like about the powers vs. spell slot debate, but my main love of 4e is that it FEELS like BECMI-style D&D, but without the artifacts of old (Thac0, et al).

 

[rounser]

"Idiot savant" nice.

An idiot savant does one thing really, astoundingly well, and everything else a bit less than ordinary. That's my opinion of 4E. It's marvellous in a very narrow area (combat crunch), and quite uninspiring outside of that context (the flavour that got stomped into the dirt in supporting that crunch, and the wacky flavour of dragonborn warlords for perfectly justifiable marketing reasons that happen to not make any sense out of that context). Which makes it not worth playing, IMO - there's no hook, no reason to expend effort on it.

I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous assertion.

Oh really, Wulf? I didn't major in NPC Generation 101, and pity the people whose livelihoods relied on generating 3E NPC stats with classes and stuff, such as at Paizo. When one NPC requires a stack of decision points and calculations in order to generate stats, and the opinion of one of at least one of the the designers (Monte Cook) is that they had been waiting for programs such as these, I don't think it ridiculous at all.

You may fly the flag for 3E, but at least be honest in it's limitations. Up there like number one with the ways D&D could be improved over 3E is in perhaps splitting the system so that DMs and players don't have to rely on the same set of rules in creating their characters. More options is good for players, yet the payoff is in time consumption for DMs. Something's gotta give.

Quite frankly, stuff the stats. If WOTC is hell bent on not fixing the system, and instead selling us character generators, after the lessons of 3E, then they've failed, in that respect. This is not, and should not be, a CRPG, no matter the goals of DDI, or WOTC's will to sell software to complete their game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Oh, of course.

There is no Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/Dwarven Defender in 4th Ed.

Ed.

I never had a Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/Dwarven Defender in my 3e game, either-- nor ever will.

And I saw far more dual-class core class builds than 3/4/5 class/prestige class builds.

Oh, and of course I had single classed bards, barbarians, and druids.

 

[Steely Dan]

I never had a Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/Dwarven Defender in my 3e game, either-- nor ever will.

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…