Has 3E become too much like 2E yet?

[Nifft]

3.5e supplements: good balanced crunch, uninspired flavor, insane advice*.

Cheers, -- N

*) Seriously, telling a blaster mage to actively avoid acid fog -- right, because I hate when my foes stay where I want them for a few rounds. That's not in line with blasting them at all. *le sigh*

 

[VirgilCaine]

3.5e supplements: good balanced crunch, uninspired flavor, insane advice*.

Cheers, -- N

*) Seriously, telling a blaster mage to actively avoid acid fog -- right, because I hate when my foes stay where I want them for a few rounds. That's not in line with blasting them at all. *le sigh*

Where was this? PHBII?

Also, crappy, crappy generic NPCs. The DMG and the PHB II ones are just amazingly crap.

 

[Tessarael]

Yes, but not necessarily a bad thing. With all the random splat books, new base classes, 3rd party material (e.g. Arcana Evolved), there has been a lot of opportunity to explore alternatives and possible improvements to the system. The same thing occurred in 2nd edition AD&D with Skills & Powers et al., racial books, class books, and so forth. 3E D&D was a vast improvement on AD&D, but still has some mechanical problems (e.g. multiclassing for spellcasters).

There are too many rules out there currently. For example, warrior/spellcaster rules work very well with some of the immediate/swift spells, but you need to include those rules in your campaign ... but some of those spells are over-powered (e.g. Wraithstrike).

My hope is that the base 4E rules will consolidate down the best of 3E D&D, improve upon it and fix, rather than band-aid, where there were mechanical problems. Hopefully, things will also become a bit more generic, so we don't need umpteen different base classes, spells that do similar stuff slightly differently, etc.

 

[Nifft]

Where was this?

Complete Mage. The first part of the book.

They get worse though... "Avoid hideous laughter and take hold person instead, because hideous laughter grants a +4 bonus to saves by creatures not your own type." And hold person's effect on creatures of different types is... ? (where's my when I need it?!)

Also, crappy, crappy generic NPCs. The DMG and the PHB II ones are just amazingly crap.

Word. They're probably written last, or written by interns. (The thing that annoys me most though is that they're written by cut-and-paste from the previous page's list of class abilities.)

Gah! -- N

 

[Capt. D]

For the most part I have been very happy with 3e, much more so than 2e. Granted there is a surplus of core material out and much of it is mediocre at best, but you see that in any system (except Serenity), plus I think WotC has done a great job in keeping the reins tight when it comes to campaign setting specific material. The optional core material is just that, optional and you don't have to buy it. However, having the extra supplements so that you can pick and choose material that may be of interest/use to you is always nice.
Now as far as the campaign setting specific material, from what I have seen it is, usually but not always, superior in quality to the core supplements. Instead of having 30 settings with tons of crappy supplements, they have focused on pretty much 2 primary settings, FR & Eberron, and tried to put out quality material for them, IMO. Since we usually only play in Eberron, Wheel of Time, or my homebrew world this works well for my group. For the most part we focus on the setting specific material and ignore the rest, unless something really piques our interest or seems useful, then we may check it out, such as, Book of Vile Darkness or Exalted Deeds which we liked.
But overall I think that WotC has done a better job than TSR when it comes to supplements and although I would like to see more material for Dragonlance and at least one more original setting, I can't complain with the way they have handled FR & Eberron, so far.
WotC still has a long way to go before they are in the same rut as TSR. They've been smart enough to run the company as a business that tries to put out what fans want, rather than a bunch of gamers who put out what they want. While some may disagree and I specifically may not be interested in or even like a supplement, there are players that do. Which is why it is nice to have that option.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Given all the options that have have accumulated over the last few years, then yes 3E has gone down a similar path that 2E went down. But that's not a bad thing.

I consider something that 2E did that was popular with a lot of people and was then ported over to 3E is a good thing.

The only bad thing is that you have to make sure the options don't break your game. Luckily with 3E that is less of an issue.

 

[Psion]

The quality control is much better in 3e. There was more inconsistency between products produced in different times in 2e, and many products didn't work out of the box in 2e without house rules (e.g.: S&P psionics). Though I have tweaked things to my liking in 3e, it's not because I've needed to.

But I will say that I have about had my fill of rules-ish supplements and think that more setting material would be desirable from me.

 

[diaglo]

become?

i've always felt it was just like 2edADnD's etiology.

regurgitate the old stuff with a new shiny label and some packaging. (d02 being the vector for delivery of the disease)

d02 is a cancer

 

[hong]

I'm trying to get my current group more interested in the crunch in the splats. Ironically, they're having none of it (except the powergamer).

 

[Quasqueton]

Core rules only. It works with all editions of D&D. The existance of a supplemental/optional rule book does not affect my game in the least. It would not affect your game either, if you did not take action to bring it in.

Complaining about supplemental/optional rule books hurting your D&D game is like complaining that McDonalds is making you fat. If you don't turn into the parking lot, if you don't order the Big Mac, if you don't eat it, it won't make you fat.

Quasqueton