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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8052851" data-attributes="member: 6855114">3ed was way better than the 2ed system wise. Unfortunately, it also suffered from the too many books bloat. It had its strong points. Yet, some of its weakest point only showed after a few years when many campaigns went high level enough. Whenever a new edition or a new game is out and I decide to DM we make max level characters and we simulate a few dozen of combat with high level monsters. We immediately saw the number bloat but at that time, we thought we had done something wrong. We saw the Codzilla (it was not the name we gave it) and the power of the summoner type of caster. After a few years, we went back to 1ed or played Vampire the Masquerade because the number bloat was, well... tiresome?The feats were the greatest addition to the game. Even if some feat were really a form of feat tax, the ability to make a truly unique character was there. Yes some characters were stronger than others, but over all, 3ed was good for character customization. Too good. The bloat of prestige classes became tiresome and the advent of Pathfinder only made it worst. Pathfinder was good. But it was a variation on what, near the end of 3ed, we saw as detrimental to the game: "A constant power creep in which numbers were always in greater numbers and too varied to control". The fact that many feats were in fact, feat taxes was also getting on our nerve and martial classes were there only to protect the Codzillas... And not counting the 5mwd that was introduced (or formalized?) in the edition.Again, don't get me wrong. 3ed was great. The consistency and the normalization it brought was much needed in D&D. But the game was a bit too swingy for my taste. 4ed went too much into normalisation and we know where it led. I do think that 5ed is the best edition so far.</blockquote>

Verification