D&D 3.x If 3.5 was so good...

[Psion]

...why is 4e going to be so different?

Well, they couldn't precisely repackage the 3.0 supplements AGAIN and have them sell, now could they? "The cavalier, weapon master, and arcane trickster AGAIN?"

They have to make it different so you'll buy it again. Just like Games Workshop had to create different unit types when they released new editions so you didn't just use your existing minis.

Which is not to say I don't see things that could be improved... but I see many things being changed that don't improve anything.

 

[Monkey Boy]

I consider the math of 3E to be a fundamental problem.

A few weeks ago no one was talking about math being a problem. This discussion all came from a WOTC designer blog. I guess my point here is that while we might have felt that something was wonky we didn't mind. It didn't ruin our game and was not a fundamental problem. We didn't really notice it and we didn't post to message boards about it effecting our games.

 

[WayneLigon]

...why is 4e going to be so different?

There's nothing made that can't b done better. Everything is a learning experience, and they've had seven years and more to see what works in 3E and what doesn't. I love 3E. I played a lot of other games until it came along and now for 7 years our group has played little else. But several things could be done better.

4E will be at least somewhat different; I don't think we yet have a good handle on the exact nature and extent of the differences. 3E seems very different from what came before, but really it's not that huge a change except in the details, and in the systems and options they added to the game.

The dynamic of the game changed a great deal, but there was still a lot that was the same: the XP treadmill, the items, the nature of magic, classes, hit points, alignment, etc. It fixed a heaping mountain of problems, but it also left another mountain untouched. There are still large areas ripe for change. The problem is getting people used to the idea of change.

 

[Monkey Boy]

If the same power level is divided among more levels, it's not so steep anymore

The point I'm trying to make is that I play 3.5E for 4 months and I start saving the world and plane hopping with my 10th level character.

In 4E I play 4 months and I start saving the world and plane hopping only this time with my 15th level character.

I didn't dwell in lower level adventures for longer. The amount of time it took to get to the plane saving adventures was exactly the same. All that happened was faster levelling. The power curve is still steep because you level faster. Playing to level 30 makes no difference.

 

[DaveMage]

However, I also consider that 3E is totally playable as long as one stays below level 15 or so, otherwise it becomes a bit of a nightmare to DM and a he who wins init wins contest.

Your 3.5 experiences differ from mine. I DMed 24th level gestalt characters and my combats always lasted several rounds.

I see only two "fundamental problems" with 3.5:
1. Combat is time-consuming
2. Creating high level encounters is also very time-consuming for a DM

But even with these issues, I still love the game. The options are infinite in 3.5.
4.0 seems to be sacrificing these options for quicker play.

I also find the design philosophies between 3E development and 4E development interesting. 3E expanded initial core options (from 2E) while 4E seems to be reducing them. It's an odd decision, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, I'm not likely going to be an early adopter, so, I'm pretty happy with 3e.

That being said, there are some fairly serious wrinkles with 3e. The DM's workload is a major element. People have been complaining about how 3e is the game everyone wants to play but no one wants to DM for years. And it's a valid point. Prepping for 3e is a major chore.

Sure, if you stick to Core 3e, then you're likely not having too many problems, other than fighters being useless at high levels. And, if you're not going above level 12, then you likely have few problems as well. However, there are a fair number of gamers out there who would like to use all the rules in the book, rather than ending things just as the PC's start getting into their big money powers.

Hopefully 4e will allow that to happen.

 

[teach]

A few weeks ago no one was talking about math being a problem. This discussion all came from a WOTC designer blog. I guess my point here is that while we might have felt that something was wonky we didn't mind. It didn't ruin our game and was not a fundamental problem. We didn't really notice it and we didn't post to message boards about it effecting our games.

I was one who always saw the "math" as a big problem. I don't know if 4e will fix it, but the amount of record keeping with regards to buffs and various feats and skills has been difficult to grasp. Also, building higher level characters takes practice (and i still don't feel very good at it.) I know for some people, it's not a big deal, but it does get in the way of my enjoyment of the game as I consider myself more interested in the story often than my character and spending so much time on the numbers crunch takes some of that enjoyment from me. But that's just my opinion, ymmv.

 

[Fobok]

If the same power level is divided among more levels, it's not so steep anymore

But I thought that was established as not being the case?

 

[WayneLigon]

A few weeks ago no one was talking about math being a problem. This discussion all came from a WOTC designer blog. I guess my point here is that while we might have felt that something was wonky we didn't mind. It didn't ruin our game and was not a fundamental problem. We didn't really notice it and we didn't post to message boards about it effecting our games.

Those concerns have been around for some time. We did notice, but the options and cool stuff that came with 3E was so invigorating after 20 years of being in a straitjacket that it wasn't that we didn't mind, we just didn't care. Once we became used to it, then we started kicking the tires and finding that there were certain problems.

It's just that now those concerns have more weight because developers are chiming in with them as well, since they don't have to protect the golden goose as closely.

 

[KarinsDad]

A few weeks ago no one was talking about math being a problem. This discussion all came from a WOTC designer blog. I guess my point here is that while we might have felt that something was wonky we didn't mind. It didn't ruin our game and was not a fundamental problem. We didn't really notice it and we didn't post to message boards about it effecting our games.

Maybe you didn't notice it.

Tumble checks being auto-checks by 6th level or so was well debated.

Take 10 and Take 20 were well debated.

High level casters doing 100+ points of damage per opponent per round while Fighters sucked was well debated.

Codzilla was well debated.

Two handed weapons crushing two weapon fighting, and sword and board were well debated.

Power attack was well debated.

Psionics was well debated.

Where were you?

Many balance problems are fundamentally math problems.