Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8558414" data-attributes="member: 6877472">No it wasn't that at all.  What killed 3e wasn't it's complexity, as it was as complex as any group allowed it to be.  You weren't meant to use all the books at once, they were optional.  In fact, as any long time 3e player could tell you, nothing in the game was more broken than what you could find in the core books when you came down to it.  Sure, there were supplements that pushed the envelope, like fleshraker dinosaurs and spells like venomfire, but at the end of the day, DM's could certainly veto using the books they came in for their own games (so no adding FR and Eberron content together unless the group is ok with it).  What happened to 3e was that the developers decided it's overall framework was untenable.  People weren't happy with resource allocation over a whole day, and they began tinkering with at will powers (the Warlock) and per encounter resources (The Tome of Battle) and said "THIS will be a better framework to build the game around.  We can get rid of class imbalance and create better rules for combat!". And so they did.  But unfortunately, they got carried away and realized too late that not all of the player base was ready for this.And we know this is true because of how Paizo took the opportunity to build onto 3e and extend it's lifespan (albeit in a mutated form) by another what, a decade and a half?</blockquote>