Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MadMaligor" data-source="post: 4286887" data-attributes="member: 66102">A quick question about this statement.  Are you saying you prefer to have 30 choices, of which 4 are really playably efficient options that require a hard choice, or 10 choices, of which 6-8 are playably efficient options that require hard choices?  Im not using specific numbers for a reason, this is just an illustrative question regarding your view on options but goes to the 3.5 vs 4 edition argument.The spell list is not gone, its undergone a transformation and split into two groups, powers and rituals.  I would agree its certainly been reduced significantly though.  This to me is what your agrument seems to revolve around and I get that.  Its a distinct change in play vs the old school caster memory/book requirement.  People can argue that you can just about build either a ritual or power to accomodate almost every spell you would want.  I would bet we see just about every spell 3.5 has to offer (with some noted "gamebreaker" exceptions) eventually in some formalized splat.  Oh and splats have always been there, will always be there, and even the ol red box had em, hell the OD&D white box had em (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, etc...).  Gygax, TSR, WoTC all love the splat books.  Every time someone says "I guess I will have to wait for the splat books *sigh*" I cringe and want to revoke their "I am a D&D enthusiast" card.At some point I half expected 3.5 to become 3.75 and remove the class sytem altogether, because it became so convoluted and there were distinct class grabs that were obvious min/max tools.  Nothing short of DM intervention stopped or penalized this, and if a DM did houserule against or penalize certain combinations...it went against the whole point of 3.5 multiclassing.  The only reasons for not taking certain options became roleplay decisions.  So in a wierd way at times, roleplay became a self nerf.  Which in turn led to some heated discusions at the gaming table.  I guess that is fine if your DM wants to deal with strife at the table and have to negotiate party unity or handle solo side adventures all the time (more on this later). First, Gaming is not about requiring an experienced DM, and one that is willing to deal with rule imbalances.  Gaming is about getting together with friends of all experience levels, enjoying each others company, and playing a system that is fun for the group, whatever edition that may be.  If you dont mind rule imbalance and you can work around things, great, more power to ya.  Me, I prefer that tripping, sundering, and disarming are not the holy trinity of combat but rather the odd occurance or attempt made for a specific reason (we wont even get into grapple).  I much prefer either a tame but balanced version, or no version at all that I can houserule myself instead of arguing with my player who just built his rogue around the RAW.Bending it, hell ya!  Breaking it, hell no!  I dont mind inventive/creative ways of finding a solution that is outside the path, provided that the end result is the same or similair.  suprising me by taking out the evil priest I had planned on escaping and using as a continuing plot threat is fine.  Turning on the party and joining forces with the priest to befriend him and later assasinate him, thus reaping all the rewards for yourself...not fine.  It sounds great on paper and for sure, it makes great storytelling.  Its also a good way to end up with a punch in the face at the game table.  The reason I use this example is because just that happened at a session I ran.  The guy who turncoated was a rogue and it was "in character" for him to roleplay the situation the way he did.  I couldnt disagree that his arguments were logical and that it was "realistic".  I also couldnt disagree with the guy playing the mage who said that it was pretty realistic to expect that if you betray people, inside or out of the game, one should expect to avoid the consequences...and duck and run.  But hey, if your DM allows this kind of "realistic" option and is willing to accept the consequences that can, and will happen...to each his own.I have no problems with players who want non-combat skills.  Hell I have a nice little system in place I have been using for over 20 years.  Thats what D&D is all about, taking the RAW, and making it your own.  But I have yet to see, 3.5 included, a system built around exploring dungeons and slaying dragons, that does a good job of incorporating a logical, workable non-combat skills system.  Those kinds of things should be roleplayed, not RULEplayed.  Please take your rules for non combat skills and leave them out of my PHB and DMG, thank you very much.In my campaigns this is called "railroading in reverse".  Otherwise known as one player using the system to force other players to accomodate their personal desire to run their PC as they see fit, campaign be damned.  I have one hard and fast rule in my campaings, only one.  We all came here to play and have fun together and enjoy being wizards and clerics, warriors and thieves...all while eating pizza and drinking a beer, dont screw that up with your delusions of grandeur.I dont mind arguing, teasing, joking, even some well roleplayed party strife involving a showdown over killing a prisoner (our Barbarian would have argued to no end about keeping whatever it was alive, but at the end would have said something to the effect of "If you like it so much you can keep it chained to your hip, but let me be clear, the moment it looks the wrong way at any one of us its dead.".  At the end of the day though, we are all on the same team with regards to the goal/quest/outcome of the adventure.Just the opposite for me actually.  The idea that alignment dictated what a PC could and could not do, or better put, would and would not do, always gave me fits.  It inhibited roleplay and also created great roleplay elements at the same time.  The idea behind the 9's were good.  The implementation sucked hard and put a stress on the DM that was unneccessary.  The new system broadens the scope and still allows for roleplay in any of the 9's.  I just dont have to decide whether or not PC's go to far beyond their chosen alignments and have to penalize or rule in some form or fashion.  I also detested the whole notion of the LG paladin (or any alignment restricted class for that matter).  Paladins should be defined by a code or belief system, not by an alignment.There are so many players here on this board who like 4th and are certainly not "newbies".  I respect your opinion, and think you certainly have some good points, but I tend to disagree on most.  I think D&D has always been a "what you make of it" type of game.  Its my opinion that the core mechanic went too far into the realm of trying to be a simulation and now the pendulum is swinging back.Oh and for those who think the roleplay has changed, no offense but that has been said by a grognard or three since day 2 when Blackmoor was released (I exaggerate, but you get the point, its always been about change, and roleplay is roleplay no matter what the edition).  Miniatures are also a part of the heart of the game since day 1.  Just look at the top of your old woodies or white boxes "Playable with paper and pencil and miniatures.  Hmmm, Im not quite positive...but that smacks of Gygax telling us his system is meant to utilize, paper, pencils, and miniatures.  My eyes could be decieving me though.  (I know I know, it was never forced miniature use...I mean you could always tell if your rogue was close enough to the fireball blast.)</blockquote>

Verification