(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Concept or rules? Concept good, rules bad.
The latter.
In 3e? Yes.
Yes in 3e.
Mostly RAW, some house rules.
I wish they'd optimize more.
Hell yes!
Only 4e.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Where 3E and 4E players stand in the great 3E disputes
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
Concept or rules? Concept good, rules bad.
The latter.
In 3e? Yes.
Yes in 3e.
Mostly RAW, some house rules.
I wish they'd optimize more.
Hell yes!
Only 4e.
cougent
First Post
I hate to answer every question with "It depends", but honestly that is the answer for most. Because most of these depend on individual players and their ways of handling the issue of the question, but in general attempts to answer...
Mostly GOOD, of my 3 players who attempted it in 3E, 2 did it very well and enjoyed it greatly. The 3rd however always seemed to have a different interpretation of them (both from me and the other 2 players) and this caused much strife in and out of the game. Overall, I think the system was fine, but like all things perhaps some players should avoid using it.
Never used.
NO, NO, and NO! If my players knew how to maximize ANY class at all it was the fighter, if anything they invented Fighzilla!
NO, I can see the possibility of this, but never had to face it. My group was actually always "Wizard poor" and the ones who played Clerics and the rare Druid just did not become over powered for whatever reasons. I also agree that the DM has enough discretionary critters to avoid this also, but I never had to resort to that myself.
Mostly RAW, maybe raw would be better. Very few house rules.
Of 8 regular players I had 1 optimizer in exotic and special characters. 2-3 were fighter optimizers and casual at everything else, and 4 were just casual.
Never used. My 1 optimizer player played Eberron in another game and loved it, told me I would probably like it if I tried it.
My 3E group I ran ended in 2005 because of too many RL issues, I played in another 3E game in 2007 and early 2008, and was asked if I wanted to play in a 4E game that never materialized in June. I would play 4E, but I have no desire to purchase 4E products as player or DM and no interest thus far in running it. Depending on RL issues, I will probably seek to play in "some version" of a game in 2009 or possibly start a 3E/PF/AE/BoXM game just because I already have all the books for those. RL issues will probably preclude having the time to run anything though for several more months.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
1. Psionics: Good or Bad?
Not really much of an opinion one way or the other, here. I've never had a player ask me to play a psi character. I played one briefly; he got to about third level before he was killed and I made something else. The general consensus seems to be: too much complexity for too little return.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
I personally like it. I've played a couple of the classes and they're certainly not overpowered; in my experience, people who say that either are just repeated something they've heard someone else say, or they have a poor or non-existant understanding of the rules.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Most of the pure classed fighters I've seen at the table did very well for themselves.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Somewhat yes; the wizard particularly. The Cleric was before all the buff spells durations were changed.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Almost entirely as written; the vast majority of my houserules are flavor-based (such as the ages of elves, what favored classes are, etc).
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
Mixture; two players optimize, two kinda do, and a couple don't much bother other than not making obviously silly choices.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
Very much yes.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
Exclusively 3E right now.
Not really much of an opinion one way or the other, here. I've never had a player ask me to play a psi character. I played one briefly; he got to about third level before he was killed and I made something else. The general consensus seems to be: too much complexity for too little return.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
I personally like it. I've played a couple of the classes and they're certainly not overpowered; in my experience, people who say that either are just repeated something they've heard someone else say, or they have a poor or non-existant understanding of the rules.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Most of the pure classed fighters I've seen at the table did very well for themselves.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Somewhat yes; the wizard particularly. The Cleric was before all the buff spells durations were changed.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Almost entirely as written; the vast majority of my houserules are flavor-based (such as the ages of elves, what favored classes are, etc).
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
Mixture; two players optimize, two kinda do, and a couple don't much bother other than not making obviously silly choices.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
Very much yes.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
Exclusively 3E right now.
Gilladian
Adventurer
1. Psionics - never liked them, never used them, never will.
2. Tome of Battle - bought, read, haven't needed to use; my players have shown no interest in it.
3. Fighter Sux - never really noticed it, but rarely play above 10th level, so maybe that's the reason.
4. Wizard and Codzilla overpowering - maybe a bit, but not so badly that folks have really complained. There's plenty for others to do. Again, this is from the 10th Lvl down perspective.
5. Houseruled? - lightly. A few races added and removed, a few classes removed (monk) or modified (paladin), mostly for campaign flavor, not because I hated them (except for gnomes).
6. Optimizing - hardly. My core players are happy with the 3 basic books, and are not big on grabbing for more power.
7. Eberron: No. I'd play in it, but have no interest in running it, or FR, or DL or any other campaign world not my own.
8. Run 3.5 exclusively. Play 4E under duress.
2. Tome of Battle - bought, read, haven't needed to use; my players have shown no interest in it.
3. Fighter Sux - never really noticed it, but rarely play above 10th level, so maybe that's the reason.
4. Wizard and Codzilla overpowering - maybe a bit, but not so badly that folks have really complained. There's plenty for others to do. Again, this is from the 10th Lvl down perspective.
5. Houseruled? - lightly. A few races added and removed, a few classes removed (monk) or modified (paladin), mostly for campaign flavor, not because I hated them (except for gnomes).
6. Optimizing - hardly. My core players are happy with the 3 basic books, and are not big on grabbing for more power.
7. Eberron: No. I'd play in it, but have no interest in running it, or FR, or DL or any other campaign world not my own.
8. Run 3.5 exclusively. Play 4E under duress.
Pierson_Lowgal
First Post
1. Psionics: Never use it
2. Tome of Battle: Love it, but too overpowered for my group's style.
3. Fighter Sux: Generally no, but they can.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: not to the point of game disruption
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? a few houserules
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? casually
7. Eberron: Yes or No? nope
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) 4E, I will never play 3E again.
2. Tome of Battle: Love it, but too overpowered for my group's style.
3. Fighter Sux: Generally no, but they can.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: not to the point of game disruption
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? a few houserules
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? casually
7. Eberron: Yes or No? nope
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) 4E, I will never play 3E again.
oookay.
Pretty good, I thought, though I never really used them.
I was in splat overload when ToB came out so I never bought it though I have looked at it a couple of times.
Not really but I don't mind that it was often treated as a lead-in to a variety of martial PrCs. I also houseruled some additional skills so fighters could have more of a point out of combat.
Not quite though I implement some houserules to curb their power a bit.
A number of house rules.
On the casual side.
Eberron's alright. I don't quite like warforged as presented, but the setting is good and the cosmology is excellent.
Haven't played 4E yet, just looked at the books. I'd like to play/run it sometime when more options have come out – there's a few things I think I can make it do better than 3.5, but we'll see.
Simon Atavax
First Post
1. Psionics: Good or Bad?
Not "bad"; just don't use them. Never wanted to bother, even back in the AD&D 1e days when Psionics were a mere Appendix to the PHB.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Never read it; never had any interest.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Not at all. Unless, of course, you want a Fighter with wuxia-type abilities or 4e-type spells (oops, "powers).
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Not at lower levels, which is where my games happen.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
I'm seeing quite a dichotomy in these questions. Anyway, I don't think anyone ever plays truly RAW. But I also keep houserules to a minimum. Mostly my group ignores various rules that overcomplicate things as opposed to writing new ones.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
Casual.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
God, no.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
If I were to play right now, it would be 3e (or maybe AD&D 1e). 4e intrigued and excited me at first, but I just can't get into it after studying the books for several months.
Not "bad"; just don't use them. Never wanted to bother, even back in the AD&D 1e days when Psionics were a mere Appendix to the PHB.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Never read it; never had any interest.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Not at all. Unless, of course, you want a Fighter with wuxia-type abilities or 4e-type spells (oops, "powers).
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Not at lower levels, which is where my games happen.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
I'm seeing quite a dichotomy in these questions. Anyway, I don't think anyone ever plays truly RAW. But I also keep houserules to a minimum. Mostly my group ignores various rules that overcomplicate things as opposed to writing new ones.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
Casual.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
God, no.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
If I were to play right now, it would be 3e (or maybe AD&D 1e). 4e intrigued and excited me at first, but I just can't get into it after studying the books for several months.
DeadlyUematsu
Explorer
1. Psionics: Good or Bad? Good.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? Somewhere in the middle. For 3E, it was good. What they took from it and put into 4E, not so much.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? Yes.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Overpowered.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Originally, RAW but after encountering nonsense like CoDzilla, I houseruled extensively.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? There were optimizers.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? Eberron is alright assuming no one ever advances over 8th level otherwise the setting breaks apart.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) I'm playing more 4E. I wouldn't mind playing 3E though.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? Somewhere in the middle. For 3E, it was good. What they took from it and put into 4E, not so much.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? Yes.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Overpowered.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Originally, RAW but after encountering nonsense like CoDzilla, I houseruled extensively.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? There were optimizers.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? Eberron is alright assuming no one ever advances over 8th level otherwise the setting breaks apart.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) I'm playing more 4E. I wouldn't mind playing 3E though.
yesnomu
First Post
1. Psionics: Good or Bad?
Psi is like balanced magic. It's really cool, and I like it. I pretty much liked all the 3e "experiments", like the truenamer, psi, ToB, etc.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Brilliant. Doesn't balance non-magic and magic, but the closest 3e ever came. Maneuvers are massive amounts of fun, and if you disagree, you never played a Tiger Claw Warblade.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Yup. Just so badly designed. Mindless one-trick ponies (ubercharger, et al) even when optimized enough to contribute.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Heh heh heh... going to have to go with a "yes" on this one. Of course, I didn't take anything the DM asked me not to, and I cleared everything with him in advance. Didn't stop my "stealth bomber" Fire Seeds-dropping druid from annihilating combats, or my Incantatrix from nearly one-shotting the friendly red dragon (don't look at me like that, it was the surprise round! He was going to eat somebody!).
The most disruptive, though, was the Malconvoker. Spent roughly a quarter-hour per turn controlling all his demon summons. Ugh.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Pretty much RAW, with some houserules to clamp down on the really broken stuff (Venomfire, Persistent Spell, etc.).
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
I confess to being an optimizer, though I'll tone it down if everyone else is (my Incantatrix was a half-orc). The rest of my group doesn't care that much, and one is the least optimize-prone person I've ever seen. Crazy chick loves the LA.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
Hells yeah. Heroes ought to be heroes. It does everything right for me as a setting.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
Right now, just 4e. Wouldn't mind playing 3.5 again (as a spellcaster or ToBer, natch), but I won't ever DM.
Psi is like balanced magic. It's really cool, and I like it. I pretty much liked all the 3e "experiments", like the truenamer, psi, ToB, etc.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Brilliant. Doesn't balance non-magic and magic, but the closest 3e ever came. Maneuvers are massive amounts of fun, and if you disagree, you never played a Tiger Claw Warblade.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
Yup. Just so badly designed. Mindless one-trick ponies (ubercharger, et al) even when optimized enough to contribute.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Heh heh heh... going to have to go with a "yes" on this one. Of course, I didn't take anything the DM asked me not to, and I cleared everything with him in advance. Didn't stop my "stealth bomber" Fire Seeds-dropping druid from annihilating combats, or my Incantatrix from nearly one-shotting the friendly red dragon (don't look at me like that, it was the surprise round! He was going to eat somebody!).
The most disruptive, though, was the Malconvoker. Spent roughly a quarter-hour per turn controlling all his demon summons. Ugh.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Pretty much RAW, with some houserules to clamp down on the really broken stuff (Venomfire, Persistent Spell, etc.).
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
I confess to being an optimizer, though I'll tone it down if everyone else is (my Incantatrix was a half-orc). The rest of my group doesn't care that much, and one is the least optimize-prone person I've ever seen. Crazy chick loves the LA.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
Hells yeah. Heroes ought to be heroes. It does everything right for me as a setting.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?(this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions)
Right now, just 4e. Wouldn't mind playing 3.5 again (as a spellcaster or ToBer, natch), but I won't ever DM.
1. 3.5 mechanics were good but I never used it.
2. Never read the book. No opinion
3. Anything beyond 2 to 4 levels of fighter was a waste. I like playing melee characters so I played clerics instead.
4. Yes. Wizards, clerics and druids were just too good at too many things to not be considered disruptive. Summoning was a true pain in 3rd edition.
5. RAW
6. Casually. Our players tend to imagine a character concept and then build a character to match and often, in 3rd edition, turn out to be innefectual.
7. Never read or played in it. No opinion.
8. 100% 4e and I have actually started DMing again which I gave up on very early after the release of 3rd edition.
Similar Threads
