Was 3rd edition fundamentaly flawed?

[Toben the Many]

Fundamentally flawed?

Well, instead of looking at it from a 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0 perspective, I'm looking at it from a 1st edition to 4th edition perspective.

There are things that have been inherent in the game for a long, long time that I have seriously not enjoyed. For example, the level "sweet spot". The "fight, rest, fight" dynamic. The Christmas Tree effect of magic items. Save or die. Level drain. I could go on.

However, many of the things I listed above, I feel, are flaws that have been inherent in D&D since its conception. So I'm glad to see they are being addressed.

That being said, I am still very cautiously optimistic. I'm far from 100% sold on 4th Ed.

 

[hong]

Ha!

Are you saying they will not try to sell as many supplements* as they did in 3.5 edition?

Of course they will. But the point of these supplements will be to make more money add more options, more crunchy bits and expand the fluff, as opposed to fixing problems with 3E. Like just about all supplements ever produced.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Well, I don't think is was fundamentally flawed, as I'd never say it was a flawed system.

What flaws it has were fundamental, rooted in core design assumptions.

The big one to me? Linearity is the only accepted numeric curve.

 

[Nebulous]

It's worth noting that 4e will certainly be flawed as well, and will probably contain at least one flaw on the scale of the multiclassed spellcaster issue. That's not an attack on 4e or the designers thereof - it is a reality of a project of this size. And, no matter how much design work they put in, and no matter how much playtesting they did, it would still be the case.

As much as i like the changes they're making to 4e, you're right about this. The designers will unintentionally be adding problems to the game. The scope of these problems might be trivial or massive, but they will also differ in severity from player to player.

 

[JDJblatherings]

the notion that 1st level MUs go 'splat' real easy and there is a 10 pt difference in BAB at 20th level betwen a fighter and a not-a-fighter class, or saves vs some effects being really bad vs really good at really high levels equals fundementally flawed baffles me.

Some characters are good at some things, some charcetr are bad at some things no one is bad at everything or good at everything.

 

[Mallus]

What flaws it has were fundamental, rooted in core design assumptions.

Exactly right. And curse you for being far more succinct that I was going to be.

 

[Baby Samurai]

but the game's "sweet spot" only extends from levels 4-14.

My experience of the sweet spot is levels 3–8, after that, casters get, well…you know.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes, 3.5 is fundamentally flawed.

I've come to this conclusion only recently, after learning that the rules for Falling/Jumping/Tumbling are different in the DMG vs. the PHB, and that the Climb DC for ladders can only be found in the DMG, buried in the section on dungeon features.

I can't live like that. Nobody should have to put up with that.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, 3.5 is fundamentally flawed.

I've come to this conclusion only recently, after learning that the rules for Falling/Jumping/Tumbling are different in the DMG vs. the PHB, and that the Climb DC for ladders can only be found in the DMG, buried in the section on dungeon features.

I can't live like that. Nobody should have to put up with that.

So, are you speaking to the 1 in 4 that get your point? Or just teasing everyone else?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Two is a coincidence, three is a conspiracy.

Bryon, I just noticed your sig has a startling lack of granularity.