When did you enjoy 3.x?

[Mirtek]

I will once again enjoy 3.5e next saturday

 

[Steely Dan]

I will once again enjoy 3.5e next saturday

DMing or playing?

 

[gribble]

And why are they comparing it to 3e? Because 3.x is a solid game.
What would the merits of 4e be if 3.x sucked?

You have a good point. It certainly would have resulted in a lot less ill-feeling from some quarters if they had of positioned 4e as: "You know that really great game that you've been playing for the last 10 years? Well, we've taken that and improved on it, making it even better!"
Unfortunately, that isn't the impression I've taken from their marketing of 4e, and it doesn't seem as if I'm the only one...

Well, while this is a good question, I'd say that no, those problems were there even in core.
...
In that respect, at least, it seems like 4e is covered, but only time will tell.

Yes, of course there were some problems in 3.x core, just as there will undoubtedly be issues in 4e core. Also like 3.x, 4e will undoubtedly get more "broken" over time as "fixes" and expansions that don't play nicely together are released.
What I'm saying is more about the nature of the "fixes" that were made. 3.x core made some fundamental assumptions, such as classes that are balanced over 20 levels, not at each level (the old fighters are gods at low levels, wizards are gods at high levels argument). 4e aims for balance at each level. You can see why some of the "fixes" that were made to 3.x didn't play nicely if they were really "previews" of 4e content...
I'm sure that 4e will be balanced using the assumption that levels rather than classes are balanced, and because of that you'll be right that "4e is covered". What happens when 5e "previews" start to get integrated which use a different baseline assumption... then 4e becomes the horribly broken and unplayable game because the "fixes" for the core issues don't play nicely and excacerbate the problems?

Anyway, I'm kind of getting very theoretical and rambling here... just makes for an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Steely Dan]

Also like 3.x, 4e will undoubtedly get more "broken" over time as "fixes" and expansions that don't play nicely together are released.

I really, really think they are avoiding not playing nicely together in 4th Ed, I mean, that's like one of the main focuses.

…Of course they could blow it down the line…in which case, stick with the first 3!

 

[gribble]

I really, really think they are avoiding not playing nicely together in 4th Ed, I mean, that's like one of the main focuses.

I really hope they avoid it too. However, maybe the fact that every other rpg I'm familiar with that released expansion books hasn't managed to avoid power creep and creating "broken" combos of abilites/powers is making me a tad pessimistic in that regard...

Unfortunately, my opinion is that WotC has made things difficult for themselves by combining racial abilities/class abilities/spells into powers. At least in 3e you only had to balance feats against feats, spells against spells, and class abilities against other class abilities. Now you have to balance a new spell against a funky maneuver a fighter can pull off with his sword against the halflings natural luck... seems like a challenge to me.
Especially given that people thought feats were hard to balance in 3e, and they had a supposedly static power level (i.e.: there weren't level 1-30 feats, as opposed to 4e powers!)

As I said, I hope I'll be proven wrong, but if WotC pull it off across (hopefully) 10 years of expansions they'll have managed the RPG equivalent of a pertetual motion machine!

 

[Steely Dan]

Unfortunately, my opinion is that WotC has made things difficult for themselves by combining racial abilities/class abilities/spells into powers.

I think that's exactly the reason it will be easier to balance new material in 4th Ed – everything is either a power or a feat, well, we also have class and paragon path features, but those are one-off goodies.

 

[Njall]

You have a good point. It certainly would have resulted in a lot less ill-feeling from some quarters if they had of positioned 4e as: "You know that really great game that you've been playing for the last 10 years? Well, we've taken that and improved on it, making it even better!"
Unfortunately, that isn't the impression I've taken from their marketing of 4e, and it doesn't seem as if I'm the only one...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, here
I simply think they didn't bother to hype 3e as well 'cause 3.x and the d20 system kinda speak for themselves when it comes to quality.

Yes, of course there were some problems in 3.x core, just as there will undoubtedly be issues in 4e core. Also like 3.x, 4e will undoubtedly get more "broken" over time as "fixes" and expansions that don't play nicely together are released.
What I'm saying is more about the nature of the "fixes" that were made. 3.x core made some fundamental assumptions, such as classes that are balanced over 20 levels, not at each level (the old fighters are gods at low levels, wizards are gods at high levels argument). 4e aims for balance at each level. You can see why some of the "fixes" that were made to 3.x didn't play nicely if they were really "previews" of 4e content...
I'm sure that 4e will be balanced using the assumption that levels rather than classes are balanced, and because of that you'll be right that "4e is covered". What happens when 5e "previews" start to get integrated which use a different baseline assumption... then 4e becomes the horribly broken and unplayable game because the "fixes" for the core issues don't play nicely and excacerbate the problems?

TBH, my comment that "In that respect, at least, it seems like 4e is covered", referred to the problems that, IMO, the transition 2e-> 3.x brought into the game. Since 4e now slaughtered most of those sacred cows, they shouldn't be a problem again ( balance wise ).
I apologize if it was not clear, my english can be messy sometimes ( quite often, actually ).

Furthermore, I'm not sure that the "overall class balance" instead of "classes balanced at every level" was a feature of 3e and not a bug. To me, it sounded like it was another vestige from previous incarnations of the game that they didn't bother to correct, and in some cases ( cleric, druid ) the classes were purposely buffed to make them more "palatable" ( so, we know that CoDzilla, at least, was a feature to some extent).

I'm sure splatbooks will mess with game balance even in 4e, since the more options you add to the game, the harder it becomes to keep every possible combo under control: it's something you just can't avoid no matter how hard you try.
However, while I wouldn't really run a core 3e game as a DM ( it just doesn't support the kind of games I like to run ), what I've seen so far makes me think that I'd have no trouble at all should I DM 4e core

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I really hope they avoid it too. However, maybe the fact that every other rpg I'm familiar with that released expansion books hasn't managed to avoid power creep and creating "broken" combos of abilites/powers is making me a tad pessimistic in that regard...

Previous experience at least does not support the notion that expansions won't break the game. I mean, we can all hope and dream, but there will be made errors.

Unfortunately, my opinion is that WotC has made things difficult for themselves by combining racial abilities/class abilities/spells into powers. At least in 3e you only had to balance feats against feats, spells against spells, and class abilities against other class abilities. Now you have to balance a new spell against a funky maneuver a fighter can pull off with his sword against the halflings natural luck... seems like a challenge to me.
Especially given that people thought feats were hard to balance in 3e, and they had a supposedly static power level (i.e.: there weren't level 1-30 feats, as opposed to 4e powers!)

As I said, I hope I'll be proven wrong, but if WotC pull it off across (hopefully) 10 years of expansions they'll have managed the RPG equivalent of a pertetual motion machine!

I agree with Steely Dan here - the clear structure of powers and feats and a limited set of class features makes it a lot easier to balance new powers and new feats.

The power structure itself also ensures that you can probably never find a broken combo that dominates gameplay. Many more or less "broken" things in 3E were a result of being repeatable, or having lasting (possibly permanent) effects. 4E seems to cut down these.

My only worry is that the structure might simply feel to rigid. Everyone has the same number of powers. If you want a class that has more "innate" abilities (strong class features), you can't compensate by reducing the number of powers. You can try to reduce the effectiveness of its powers, but beware a multiclasser!
But maybe this is a good aspect. The constraints are obvious, and it forces a designer to work carefully.

Incidentally, I also think that 4E shifts a lot of work from the DM and the players to the designer. YOu have to create your "exception-based" powers yourself. And if you want a new class, be prepared to create 80 powers for it! Creating a new 3E class is cheap and easy - you usually don't have to create more then 20 class features (one per level, and that's much already). A spellcaster can just reuse existing spells, or even an entire spell list.

 

[Wolfspider]

The power structure itself also ensures that you can probably never find a broken combo that dominates gameplay.

My prediction is that within a day of the core rulebook's wide release, someone from the WotC boards will discover some broken combination of powers that dominates gameplay.

A week later, a dozen more will be discovered.

After all, it's what they live for.

The loophole in the paladin's ability to mark, run away, and kill wasn't discovered til very late in the design process. I'm sure there are plenty more similiarly flawed powers just sitting there waiting to be exploited by eager powergamers.

 

[Steely Dan]

And if you want a new class, be prepared to create 80 powers for it!

Isn't that what David Noonan has done with our smelly buddy the druid?