D&D 3E/3.5 Players playing 3 or 3.5 E vs 4 E?
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
lordxaviar
Explorer
you have a point.. I do know of alot of people who either never left or went back to the original edition.
Right now I'm in the middle of converting B2 to Pathfinder. It does take time, but not too bad. For example:
Original Text:
===========================================
This large creature is clad in chain mail, has a shield +1 and carries a mace. He fights as a 4 hit dice monster, has 15 hit points, and adds + 2 to damage he causes when successfully striking an opponent (thus, 3-8 points of damage).
Pathfinder (w/ older Dungeon Magazine style stat blocks)
===========================================
Male humanoid War 4; CR ?, XP ?; Medium-size humanoid (orc); Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; AC 19, touch 10, flat-footed 19 (+6 armor, +3 shield); hp 28 each (4d10+4); Save Fort +7, Ref +1, Will 0; Spd 30 ft.; Atk melee heavy mace +7 (1d8+5), ranged javelin +4 (1d6+5); AL CE; Str 21, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 8, Cha 6; Base Atk +4; CMB +9; CMD 19
Feats: Weapon Focus (mace), Dazzling Display
Skills: Intimidate +5
Special Qualities: Ferocity (Ex), Light Sensitivity (Ex), Weapon Familiarity
Equipment: Chainmail, Heavy Wooden Shield +1, Heavy Mace
Notes: the orc leader can put on a Dazzling Display with the mace, attempting to demoralize with the Intimidate skill (DC = 10 + HD + Wis modifier, Duration is 1 round + 1 round for every 5 in which the orc leader beats the DC). Should he succeed, all opponents within 30 feet will be shaken, i.e. -2 on attack rolls, saving throws, skills checks, and ability checks.
Original Text:
===========================================
This large creature is clad in chain mail, has a shield +1 and carries a mace. He fights as a 4 hit dice monster, has 15 hit points, and adds + 2 to damage he causes when successfully striking an opponent (thus, 3-8 points of damage).
Pathfinder (w/ older Dungeon Magazine style stat blocks)
===========================================
Male humanoid War 4; CR ?, XP ?; Medium-size humanoid (orc); Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; AC 19, touch 10, flat-footed 19 (+6 armor, +3 shield); hp 28 each (4d10+4); Save Fort +7, Ref +1, Will 0; Spd 30 ft.; Atk melee heavy mace +7 (1d8+5), ranged javelin +4 (1d6+5); AL CE; Str 21, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 8, Cha 6; Base Atk +4; CMB +9; CMD 19
Feats: Weapon Focus (mace), Dazzling Display
Skills: Intimidate +5
Special Qualities: Ferocity (Ex), Light Sensitivity (Ex), Weapon Familiarity
Equipment: Chainmail, Heavy Wooden Shield +1, Heavy Mace
Notes: the orc leader can put on a Dazzling Display with the mace, attempting to demoralize with the Intimidate skill (DC = 10 + HD + Wis modifier, Duration is 1 round + 1 round for every 5 in which the orc leader beats the DC). Should he succeed, all opponents within 30 feet will be shaken, i.e. -2 on attack rolls, saving throws, skills checks, and ability checks.
Right, what I meant was that there is a section in the conversion guide that talks about converting non-core classes. Rough guidelines to be sure, but it's a start. We had a Favored Soul in the group at the time and the DM added a couple things to the class' progression; namely some minor energy resistances I believe.
Of course, a spellcasting class already basically gets something every level, so I'd be sparing with too many upgrades.
I play in a mixed group, with an average age around 30-35. The DM has been playing her own same setting since playing 1e in college, and holds back a lot of her own custom-built mechanics. (she recently tried to bring it into 4e without success, mostly due to inherent conflicts in playstyle and mechanics) Generally, most players I know attend for the storytelling and the social aspect, but it's not a very deep mechanics game. (It's non-gridded combat, generally of a 'here's party order, everybody gets one' type.)
I'm currently building up a 3e/4e hybrid game, using 3e system mechanics, but adapting 4e aspects like the skill list, monster-roles, and encounter construction. I'm also doing an end-run around my perceptions of the downfalls of 3e, by breaking down the worst of it. (I've split Clerics and Druids into hybrid-fighter and cloth-armored-caster variants, and everybody's a spontaneous caster of a sort, warmage/beguiler/dread-necros encouraged.) I'm also throwing in some Unearthed Arcana variants I enjoy, like armor-as-DR and fixed-XP.
I've considered just running a flat-out 4e game, but I decided the parts I love most about 3e aren't there in 4e (level-adjust monster races and templates), while the stuff I like in 4e is fairly easy to back-convert (monsters, class-powers as maneuvers, utilities as skill tricks, etc).
All my players are also gamers from the established GM's game, though some have stopped due to life-busyness. Several of the other gamers also play in other games, which unfortunately I don't get to attend due to table-space limitations. To my knowledge they're 3e-generic. (this does make it hard on my game, as for them, they've got plenty of gaming options aside from the big-old-game, so they find it easier to skip out on my fresh-new game.) The couple players I've had reliably for the last few sessions have really enjoyed playing even this modified version of 3e, just because it's more customizable and strategic than the big-old-game.
I'm currently building up a 3e/4e hybrid game, using 3e system mechanics, but adapting 4e aspects like the skill list, monster-roles, and encounter construction. I'm also doing an end-run around my perceptions of the downfalls of 3e, by breaking down the worst of it. (I've split Clerics and Druids into hybrid-fighter and cloth-armored-caster variants, and everybody's a spontaneous caster of a sort, warmage/beguiler/dread-necros encouraged.) I'm also throwing in some Unearthed Arcana variants I enjoy, like armor-as-DR and fixed-XP.
I've considered just running a flat-out 4e game, but I decided the parts I love most about 3e aren't there in 4e (level-adjust monster races and templates), while the stuff I like in 4e is fairly easy to back-convert (monsters, class-powers as maneuvers, utilities as skill tricks, etc).
All my players are also gamers from the established GM's game, though some have stopped due to life-busyness. Several of the other gamers also play in other games, which unfortunately I don't get to attend due to table-space limitations. To my knowledge they're 3e-generic. (this does make it hard on my game, as for them, they've got plenty of gaming options aside from the big-old-game, so they find it easier to skip out on my fresh-new game.) The couple players I've had reliably for the last few sessions have really enjoyed playing even this modified version of 3e, just because it's more customizable and strategic than the big-old-game.
All I can say is, there are more people playing 3.Xe because 4E because 4E sucks. I can compare it to Heroes 3 vs. Heroes 4. Heroes 4 sucked big time so heroes 5 are so alike to Heroes 3. So I predict D&D 5.0 to be much more like 3.5/PF RPG.
The biggest fall of 4E is that all the classes are the same.
The biggest fall of 4E is that all the classes are the same.
Aluvial
Explorer
I have a converted 3.5 module of Return to the Keep on the Borderlands somewhere...
Greenfield
Adventurer
4e has a major advantage over 3.*. It's set up to try and generate a continuous revenue stream for the publisher.
If they could secure that, Hasbro wouldn't care if it was Chinese Checkers compatible.
They pinned their hopes on their "Virtual Gametable", which was originally supposed to be pretty much a blend of WOW and FTF gaming. Never materialized, as we all know, but that was the plan.
Recall that the best year in RPGs, ever, including every RPG from every publisher, would be a bad quarter for Hasbro.
