I know that this is tough for some...

[FadedC]

I actually find that people carry less baggage with them going from 3e to 4e then they carried with them going from 2e to 3e just because the 4e rules are so much different. When 3e came out (and well even 5 years later) I had to constantly remind people that just because spell X worked like that in 2e doesn't mean it does anymore in 3e. In 4e so much has changed that I most people would be surprised if spell X in 4e worked remotely like it did in 3e.

This isn't a value judgement, just an observation.

 

[IceFractal]

I don't see how having a different interpretation of the rules, or even twisting the rules to get an advantage, is having a 3E mentality. If a rule is twistable, it'll be twistable whether the players are from 1E, 2E, 3E, or have never played D&D before.

And also ...

do the frontal lobotomy

You need a frontal lobotomy to play 4E right?! I think I'll pass.

 

[Danceofmasks]

If there are two interpretations, the rule isn't clear enough.

 

[Nifft]

A good rant has a single, clear, grating point. See if you can't straighten your rant out a bit.

I think this is more psychotherapeutic than cathartic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dykstrav]

First of all, I have to second the idea that 3.X isn't "junk." I'm still totally up for playing a 3E/3.5 game. But then again, I'd play 2E, 1E, OD&D, old World of Darkness, the FASA and Last Unicorn Games versions of Star Trek, and the West End Games Star Wars as well. Just because it isn't new doesn't mean that it can't be fun.

Second, "manipulating the rules" is not endemic to 3.X players that are crossing over to 4E. Players like that are called munchkins or rules lawyers, and they exist in every game. They've been around since before 1E and they'll be around for 5E, 6E, and so on.

Third, there's a major point that you're not addressing, but some of the other posters have: if there are different ways that that same rule could be read, it's not written clearly enough. Look at the longsword, for example--it does 1d8 damage. Now, if instead, the rules said, "a longsword does more than 1d4 damage but less than 1d12," would you think that players are trying to "manipulate the rules" by using different dice for the same weapon? Or would you think that the rules aren't written clearly enough? All the rules should be written clearly, reagrdless of being in 3.5 or 4E. And it's certainly not the player's fault that a book was poorly proof-read and edited.

 

[Kzach]

First of all, I have to second the idea that 3.X isn't "junk."

Way to prove the OP's point.

Try reading the sentence you're quoting again.

 

[Craith]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

Just because you CAN break something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

If there are 2 interpretations, one does about the same as comparable abilities do, one is vastly superior/inferior, I don't have to think twice which one they intended.

There are unclear rules where it is not so clear, but many of the loopholes which are OMGsobroken(TM) are things I would never purposefully misread in such a way, and hit my players (characters) hard if they tried something like that.

 

[Branduil]

If there are two reasonable interpretations, the rule isn't clear enough.

Fixed.

Any rule can have multiple interpretations, but if it's well-written there will only be one reasonable interpretation.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Like I said, do the frontal lobotomy and remove all that 3.X junk.

No pointless rants which bash other editions, please.

Thread closed