Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3825425" data-attributes="member: 3192">I think they were wise to survey the existing player group in '98.  If they could have surveyed players who left back in '88, tons of which came back, the game would have been even better.The design also incorporated far to many non-D&D fantasy (and even non-fantasy) rulesets that had come out through the 90's, especially the late 90's when the industry had nearly disappeared.  I don't think they were bringing back gamers because they didn't appeal to the mass of gamers.That said, the final d20 product does seem to feed off its' designers strengths.  Their previous designs working for other games in other companies.  Unfortunately, instead of knowing why past errors within D&D needed to be removed, the problems were compounded by making everything one seamless integrated system where all elements had to be taken or none.Vancian casting was over-the-top in 3e.  It should have been more obvious that players playing spellcasting PCs shouldn't have to memorize 100's of spells to play their character effectively.  Instead of making their combat abilities a joke after about 5th level, they could have progressed them at a higher BAB and lowered the number of Spell / Day to a feasible level... say about 2 / spell level.  Then spells wouldn't have had to be awkwardly weakened.Or if they had simply stayed at 10 levels, the system wouldn't appear to be imbalanced at certain levels.  My guess is (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=207929" target="_blank">link</a>) they are taking the 2nd route with 4e.</blockquote>

Verification