Tony Vargas
Legend
Not quite how I remember it. There were grognards who did say some pretty silly things about 3e being grid-dependent and 'not really role-playing' or whatever, but they never took over a forum the way the actual edition war did.Oh, there was a full-on 3e edition war.
But, hey, the main difference probably had more to do with the state of the internet back then, not the level of nerdrage. So if we retroactively call it an edition war, and they were ranting unfairly against PrCs /and/ you repeated some of those rants, then sure, congratulations, you'd be retro-warring.
I was there, and on UseNet for the Roll v Role debate, for good measure. Gamers were always nerdraging about something, but the edition war was a whole 'nuther level of awful. Though, sure, mainly a matter of degree rather than kind.As someone who hung out on Noah's boards, the WotC message forums (and the listserv's before that) and here, I saw plenty of 3e hate from earlier players, other RPGers, etc.
That doesn't mean re-cycling role v roll BS or fighter SUX threads to attack 5e or potential additions there to isn't just as lame as re-cycling edition war rhetoric to attack it or potential additions like the warlord. Maybe the wounds aren't as fresh.
Well, no, not most of 'em: 5MWD, LFQW, excessive magic items - those were all perennial issues that 3e just didn't fix (maybe made worse), not problems it caused. Even CoDzilla was a result of trying to address problems with the classic D&D cleric being nothing but a 'band aid' class. And, y'know, those were real issues, many of them brought up by 3.5 fans familiar with the system, not just hold-outs nerdraging in ignorance. They'd be more analogous to the problems 4e had with Skill Challenges, MM1 elites/solos, or feat taxes (probably the best example since they weren't an entirely new problem) - things even loyal fans wanted addressed, rather than flimsy excuses for hating and rejecting it out of hand.I mean, Batman Wizard, CoDzilla, Magic Item Christmas Trees, Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard, etc all came from comparisons to AD&D, right?
You'd be off-base. There's nothing much to indicate that 5e PrCs would suffer from power-creep (hasn't been much of an issue in 5e so far), and even MCing is optional in the first lace, so they needn't impact any campaign that doesn't want 'em.So if I say Prestige classes are a mechanic that encourages cherry-picked Frankenstein PCs who exploit the multi-classing rules while offering straight up power-creep compared to those who remain in base-classes
I'm sure if you worked at it you could join the ranks of semi-mythical 'h4t3r5' who just want to burn WotC D&D to the ground, and live in the TSR era forever.(all common complaints about 3e PrCs) I guess I'm being a hat3r? Maybe if I combine it with hating warlords, I can be a h4t3r?
It's not like the 4e warlord did anything unreasonable - it was balanced, and the 4e leaders that made it into 5e are all got pretty substantially upgraded. A 5e Warlord that was little more than a direct port of the 4e version would be under-powered & under-versatile compared to those classes. If 5e is going to expand to support the character concepts and playstyles that the Warlord opened up, it'll need a viable version of the class.It really does feel though that the discussion is "I want a full warlord class that did everything the 4e warlord did and then some,
Last edited: