Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5983673" data-attributes="member: 87792">Double standards.&nbsp; If you count the TOB which appeared in very late 3.5, then it is massive double standards to not count the Slayer from Essentials which does just hit things.&nbsp; And I've had big arguments with other 4e players who consider the Slayer a betrayal - it opens up the game.This is complete nonsense.&nbsp; 3.X are quite simply the worst balanced versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF) of D&amp;D that there have ever been.&nbsp; In no other edition do you get the CoDzilla problem.&nbsp; In both editions of AD&amp;D (I don't know about BECMI and RC) there is a soft cap at level 9/10 so you don't have the excesses of high level wizards.&nbsp; All the drawbacks were taken off spells, and low level wizards gained a lot of spells per day.As for smoothly running, that would be a no.&nbsp; It's a massive load on the DMs; in every other version of D&amp;D you can use monsters straight out of the monster manual and trivially tweak them whereas in 3.X every monster is designed using PC rules&nbsp; (I know you enjoy this but that doesn't make it smooth).&nbsp; Last time I touched a book that wasn't either my setting book or a monster manual in the course of play while running was over a year ago.&nbsp; And I've completely re-written planned sessions after sitting down to play.&nbsp; That's smooth running.&nbsp; And a good AD&amp;D DM can do that easily enough.&nbsp; But with the monster design load and the fiddliness of the 3.X rules this is much harder in 3.X.&nbsp; The five saves in AD&amp;D might make no sense to me - but there are only five of them.Now that isn't to say there aren't advantages to 3.X - it is incredibly customisable in terms of character concept and development and if simulationism is something you are looking for, you may like it (or may hate it).&nbsp; But &quot;smooth running&quot; and &quot;balanced&quot; aren't on the list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5983673, member: 87792"] Double standards. If you count the TOB which appeared in very late 3.5, then it is massive double standards to not count the Slayer from Essentials which does just hit things. And I've had big arguments with other 4e players who consider the Slayer a betrayal - it opens up the game. This is complete nonsense. 3.X are quite simply the worst balanced versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF) of D&D that there have ever been. In no other edition do you get the CoDzilla problem. In both editions of AD&D (I don't know about BECMI and RC) there is a soft cap at level 9/10 so you don't have the excesses of high level wizards. All the drawbacks were taken off spells, and low level wizards gained a [I]lot[/I] of spells per day. As for smoothly running, that would be a no. It's a massive load on the DMs; in every other version of D&D you can use monsters straight out of the monster manual and trivially tweak them whereas in 3.X every monster is designed using PC rules (I know you enjoy this but that doesn't make it smooth). Last time I touched a book that wasn't either my setting book or a monster manual in the course of play while running was over a year ago. And I've completely re-written planned sessions after sitting down to play. That's smooth running. And a good AD&D DM can do that easily enough. But with the monster design load and the fiddliness of the 3.X rules this is [I]much[/I] harder in 3.X. The five saves in AD&D might make no sense to me - but there are only five of them. Now that isn't to say there aren't advantages to 3.X - it is incredibly customisable in terms of character concept and development and if simulationism is something you are looking for, you may like it (or may hate it). But "smooth running" and "balanced" aren't on the list. [/QUOTE]

Verification