What Can 4th Edition Learn from 3rd?

[Einan]

What did 3rd Edition do right? What lessons did we learn from 3rd Edition that we'd like 4th to emulate?

I'll start. The initial $20 price point for 3e. I bought the first few books because they were cheap. I was a broke gamer and that initial low cost buy-in was an easy sell for me.

Also, the website support. I didn't have to pay for it, but there it was: a lot of content, designer notes, celebrity game table stories and free adventures to get me started on my D&D way. On the flip side, I'd have to see a lot more usefulness in order to pay for that sort of content.

How about you fine ENWorlders?

Einan

 

[Sunderstone]

1) Keep the Iconic classes and races as they are.
2) LESS SPLAT CLASSES. - Having a few here and there is ok, but too many destroys balance. Too many failed AP campaigns (for example) were due to unbalanced party mixes as everyone wanted to play the latest Prestige Class. Other unbalanced classes can make a DM's job hell as well.

 

[Xyxox]

Biggest lesson from 3?

NO "dot" releases!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Possibilities, not restrictions. My all-time favourite design concept of 3e. No "can't do that". Some "that's stupid/hard to pull off/will cost ya", but that's as it should be. 4e should continue to do so, getting rid of all the restrictions they can find.

Bursting "activity bubbles". 3e did away with a lot of actions that were carried out in a bubble, so to speak: Things where the abilities or actions of one side didn't matter. Thief skills, saving throws, things like that. 4e should round up the stragglers and mercilessly put them to the sword.

Tear down the rails. Well, this is a restriction of sorts, but it bears mentioning. 3e moved away from the static multiclassing system we had before. They should continue to improve on it to make more combinations (read, almost all combinations) viable.

 

[der_kluge]

I was wondering this myself. I saw the comment that they were going to keep the stuff from 3rd edition that "worked", and I wondered what that might include.

I think to generate this list, one need only look at 2nd edition. These are the things that I think work well in 3rd:

- No more cap of 25 in an ability score
- A single table of modifiers for an ability score (2e had a Dex chart, a Str chart, etc, etc.)
- A single XP chart (no more rogues leveling faster than everyone else; something I hate in C&C)
- The d20 system (roll a 20, add modifiers - beat a DC) it's simple and elegant.
- No racial level limits
- No class ability score requirements (Paladins no longer *require* a 17 charisma)
- I think the Damage Reduction rules work pretty well
- I like "templates" for monsters
- I like Feats

I suspect all of the above will remain more or less as they are.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I really liked the "you can be anything" approach they took to 3e. However, it looks like they are getting away from that. I also liked the ability to take whatever class you wanted to so long as you met the requirements. It really allowed you to create a totally unique character, whether or not it wasnt as good is only an opinion.

 

[Nyaricus]

Do you know what 3e did right, IMO? It put out a metric buttload of books with tons and tons and tons of crunch - tons of stuff which was looked over at the CO boards, and broken.

Yes, what 3e did right was that it was a stable, yet broken system.

The advent that was the d20 system didn't just open the floodgates - it tore them right off their hinges! Think of how many rulebooks came out in just 8 years, compared to 2e - a lot more. Some very experimental, but all just adding tons of garbage to the glut that was 3e. You see, all those cries of "I hate all these options!" (which I myself have said, admittedly) were only to overload the system - and then make 4e learn from it.

4e will have learned everything that 3e did right, and keep it (and add a bit of polish, as needed) and take everything that didn't work just so, and either get rid of it, or rethink it.

cheers,
--N

 

[Desdichado]

1) Keep the Iconic classes and races as they are.
2) LESS SPLAT CLASSES. - Having a few here and there is ok, but too many destroys balance. Too many failed AP campaigns (for example) were due to unbalanced party mixes as everyone wanted to play the latest Prestige Class. Other unbalanced classes can make a DM's job hell as well.

1) Change the iconic classes and races. They were poorly implemented IMO, with some being overly focused. Plus, they're frikkin' boring already.

2) MORE SPLAT CLASSES. Without that, I'd probably not have agreed to even play D&D the last few years or so; all I've played during our two years of Age of Worms were stuff that's newish.

 

[masshysteria]

Let's see

What it did well:
* OGL
* SRD
* No race/class/ability score restrictions
* Unified tables (XP, ability scores)
* d20 system
* Great production values (quality printing and binding, great art)

What it needs to forget:
* Poorly thought out rules bloat. (The rules can get bigger, but think about it first. Make it more of a toolkit or more modular so you can swap things in and out without bringing the system to a grind.)
* .5 Revisions
* Iconics (at least outside the core rule books). I can't draw, so it is nice to point to a picture in the books and say the NPC or my PC looks like this. When all the rogues are halfling females named Lidda, I can't do this.

 

[Sunderstone]

1) Change the iconic classes and races. They were poorly implemented IMO, with some being overly focused. Plus, they're frikkin' boring already.

2) MORE SPLAT CLASSES. Without that, I'd probably not have agreed to even play D&D the last few years or so; all I've played during our two years of Age of Worms were stuff that's newish.

umm..you have Eberron for that.