D&D 3E/3.5 If 3.5 was so good...

[Jack99]

...why is 4e going to be so different? Now don't get me wrong, I like most of what I've seen hinted at so for for 4th edition and was never a huge fan of D20 D&D (overly complicated and mechanical feeling IMO). Nevertheless, D&D 3.5 is the king of the rpg world.

3.5 might be the king of the rpg world, but only because AD&D 2nd edition was it before

I personally think 3.5 is great. There are a few rules i would like changed, but all in all, I could play it from now and til I stop playing rpgs. However, I had the same feeling about 2nd edition. Which I suspect is quite a common feeling. Then, once you get to try and get used to the new game, you find it vastly superior.

Therefore, I definitely think that 4e can easily improve on 3.5, heck, from what I have heard so far, it already has

Cheers

 

[Li Shenron]

The problems are deeply and fundamentally within the minds of our gamers, changing the game will not help. We will still find some problem and exaggerate it and then say that something is unplayable. How many ruleset and game systems have been published in 32 years? 100? Have we EVER found one that doesn't have any problem?

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.

All of these are minor problem. They do not spoil the game if the players and the DM use some grain of salt, otherwise we would have stopped playing or universally switched to house rules or another system. The majority of groups perhaps use some house rule, but there is no single problem which is house ruled by the majority.

And next edition may improve (not solve) some of these minor problems, but it will surely create new ones or restore older ones.

 

[FireLance]

And next edition may improve (not solve) some of these minor problems, but it will surely create new ones or restore older ones.

Unfortunately, that holds true not only for game systems, but political systems, philosophical schools of thought, and technological inventions. And yet, we still call it "progress"...

 

[charlesatan]

All of these are minor problem. They do not spoil the game if the players and the DM use some grain of salt, otherwise we would have stopped playing or universally switched to house rules or another system. The majority of groups perhaps use some house rule, but there is no single problem which is house ruled by the majority.

House rules are well and good but the existence of house rules just goes to show that a) some rules can be improved or b) some adjustments needs to be made to tailor to specific groups. Not that GMs won't be implementing their own house rules to 4E.

I think the point is, while you can theoretically convert 3.0 to 3.5 using a bajillion house rules, if your list of house rules is a hundred pages long, maybe it's time to call it a new system.

 

[Celebrim]

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

I don't think that I would limit the list of 'fundamental' problems to that, but I would say that's a fair summation of the worst problems.

I tend to think that games have intrinsic problems which have to do with things like, a D20 is not a perfect randomization device. It's linear. It's range of results is limited to 20. It doesn't have fine resolution. And so forth. The thing about intrinsic problems is that you can't get rid of them. You can only trade them for different problems. A Tri-d20 system for example, is less linear and has finer resolution, but the math is fundamentally more complicated.

The fundamental problems you mention are somewhat similar. They aren't so much the result of bad design as the consequence of good design. Combat is time-consuming because it involves many options. It involves many options because players and monsters acquire more and more varied options. The options are there to give players choice, both in how they create there character and how they play them. I can easily design a system that plays more quickly at high levels. Instead of giving players new options as they level up, you replace them with more powerful options and take the weaker ones away. One can easily imagine a wizard where your spell list didn't grow significantly after 6th level or so, and instead you lost old spells and gained newer more powerful ones. You'd grow more powerful, but your options would stay about the same. But the question of course is, 'Is that really what you want?' For some it is. For me, I'm not so sure.

So yes, I'm convinced the designers can do the things that they claim they want to do. I can see how you'd go about it. I'm just not sure that I ever wanted to take the game there. Consequently, my anticipation of 4e is quite different than what I experienced when I first saw 3e. Third edition was a game for me. Fourth edition is I think a game designed for someone else.

3E expanded initial core options (from 2E) while 4E seems to be reducing them. It's an odd decision, IMO.

Especially considering this is from Mike 'the designer shouldn't tell you how to play' Mearls.

 

[Skornn2k7]

I think the biggest problem from 3.0 to 3.5 was that they didnt fix the Magic system. If they had fixed the Magic system, 3.5 would be realy hard to beat. I am in two campaigns, one is at 7th lvl, and the other is at 10th lvl. I see the same problems in both, the Magic system starts to bog down the game.

 

[Grog]

All of these are minor problem.

I would consider the imbalance between casters and fighters (things are too heavily tilted toward the fighters at low levels, and too heavily tilted toward the casters at high levels), the high power levels of clerics and druids compared to most other classes, and the fact that high level characters can't do anything without strapping on a dozen magic items first, to be major problems. Others may feel differently, of course.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Let's be honest, though.

3e has many options, but relatively few viable options -- in the power-gaming sense. How many fighting styles does the effective Barbarian choose from? One.

You can play a Sorcerer with a "non-standard" spell list, and you can play a Barbarian who chooses a bunch of +2/+2 feats in place of Power Attack, Weapon Focus and Cleave, but you do so to your detriment, and reduce the survivability of your group.

Fewer possible options, but more viable options, sounds like a net gain in options for my group.

Cheers, -- N

 

[jasin]

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.

Other than relatively minor things like lack of gnomes, how do you see 4E reducing initial core options? Compared to the initial core 3E options, not the current complete list of 3E options?

 

[GSHamster]

Imo, 2E was very restrictive. 3E removed many of the restrictions. You could play any race and class. Every race could advance to max level. Wizards could use more weapons. You could multiclass easily. Monsters could have classes. Heck, you could even write your material, compatible with D&D, and sell it!

And I think we revelled in the freedom, and didn't really realize that these different elements--once you were given the freedom to combine them--didn't really mesh together all that well. But it worked decently, and was a big improvement over what came before, so we were happy.

With 4E, hopefully we retain that freedom (which was, imo, the biggest innovation of 3E), but the game itself is put on a more substantial and solid foundation.