Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 4119123" data-attributes="member: 5038">Nope. I can't say that I went through this with 3e.  We had some issues, but nothing like with 4e. The only really big issues with 3e from the previews were keeping the vancian system and suspecting both that spellcasters would still dominate at higher levels and we would still not like high level play (beginning around 12th level). The only other issue that I recall from the previews of 3e was not liking the barbarian as a rager- that was one I thought was stupid (and I'm still not fond of it, but having the UA barbarian hunter and a variant that exchanges wildernes skills for more urban skills takes care of my issues with it). Then again, about 90% of my pre-3e suggestions made it into 3e. Of course, I had some other issues with 3e after buying the books. Most were carry overs from previous editions (e.g., energy and level loss), a few  were not adopting some of the ideas introduced in some of the 2e supplements, and a few were new to 3e.In contrast, I see too many things with 4e that I don't like which are far greater than the few changes that I do like. They still appear to not have addressed some of the issues that I had with previous editions (although, it is still possible that they may have and we  have not have seen the changes). Where the designers  of 4e appear to be addressing my problems, they are often doing so in ways that I do not like and/or consider inferior to solutions in current d20/OGL products (including some of WOTCs own).  Finally, they are introducing a number of elements that I don't like.  Some of these elements are include changes to things that I don't think need changing and have resulted in  steps backward from what I consider advancements introduced in 3e to things that I disliked about previous editions.</blockquote>

Verification