Grazzt
Demon Lord
1. Bad
2. Antichrist
3. No
4. No
5. A few houserules here and there
6. Casual
7. Hell no
8. 3e/3.5
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Where 3E and 4E players stand in the great 3E disputes
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
1. Bad
2. Antichrist
3. No
4. No
5. A few houserules here and there
6. Casual
7. Hell no
8. 3e/3.5
roguerouge
First Post
1. Psionics: Good or Bad? Good. I don't play it, but I love the fluff of more varied manifestations (odors, miasma, etc.). I like a spell-casting class that uses any ability score and the Psionic Warrior looks like a keeper.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? I've not used it, because I can't find anyone to use it.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? Sadly, yes. After sixth level, there's no reason for opponents to bother with him rather than the more deadly casters and rogues, and he really can't do much about it. Your basic Todd Marinovich of a class: all heft, no blocking.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Yep. I play in an epic game and about 20 levels ago (in the high teens) I started redesigning my character on the fly just to keep up with these two, or, god forbid, survive them if they got dominated. In my low-level gaming, simply adding a druid vastly increased the survivability of our party.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? RAW with very minor house rules.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Both.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? I'd love to play, but I have no options. Also, I went to the same college as Baker, so I'd love to support an alum.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E? (this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) Current player 3rd edition, 3.5 edition. DMed 3rd and 3.5 edition. Will soon DM and PC for a Paizo playtest.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? I've not used it, because I can't find anyone to use it.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? Sadly, yes. After sixth level, there's no reason for opponents to bother with him rather than the more deadly casters and rogues, and he really can't do much about it. Your basic Todd Marinovich of a class: all heft, no blocking.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Yep. I play in an epic game and about 20 levels ago (in the high teens) I started redesigning my character on the fly just to keep up with these two, or, god forbid, survive them if they got dominated. In my low-level gaming, simply adding a druid vastly increased the survivability of our party.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? RAW with very minor house rules.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Both.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? I'd love to play, but I have no options. Also, I went to the same college as Baker, so I'd love to support an alum.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E? (this question is to see where each group falls in terms of the previous questions) Current player 3rd edition, 3.5 edition. DMed 3rd and 3.5 edition. Will soon DM and PC for a Paizo playtest.
The_Gneech
Explorer
We're a pretty-much-all 3.5 group which I'm slowly migrating over to Saga Edition.
So here is the questionnaire:
1. Psionics: Good or Bad? I quite like them; I didn't get much chance to try them in actual play, but I always wanted to.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? Didn't buy it, no opinion.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? The fighter makes a great supplement to a build; as a class on its own, it tends to be a little dull.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Not usually. I never had any real powergamey players try it, tho.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Mostly RAW to facilitate the use of E-Tools. Some at-the-table house rules, tho:
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Some of both. Depends on the player and the campaign. I like weird builds.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? It has its good points and bad points. We never bothered with it really, but we're not against it, either.
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 has received a sound "thumbs down" from the group. We've stuck with 3.5 for now, but as I say, my games at least are migrating to Saga Edition.
-The Gneech
So here is the questionnaire:
1. Psionics: Good or Bad? I quite like them; I didn't get much chance to try them in actual play, but I always wanted to.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? Didn't buy it, no opinion.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? The fighter makes a great supplement to a build; as a class on its own, it tends to be a little dull.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no? Not usually. I never had any real powergamey players try it, tho.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Mostly RAW to facilitate the use of E-Tools. Some at-the-table house rules, tho:
- Familiars and animal companions act on their master's initiative
- Hit points and cure spells reroll 1s
- We use Paizo's "Critical Hit Deck"
- NPCs almost always take 10 on Initiative
- Dodge gives you a flat +1 to AC instead of tracking different targets
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Some of both. Depends on the player and the campaign. I like weird builds.
7. Eberron: Yes or No? It has its good points and bad points. We never bothered with it really, but we're not against it, either.
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 has received a sound "thumbs down" from the group. We've stuck with 3.5 for now, but as I say, my games at least are migrating to Saga Edition.
-The Gneech
From a mechanical standpoint, no worse than regular arcane casting. Of course, that's pretty bad. From a flavor standpoint... bleccch.
I won't go so far as to say it's the best thing that ever happened, but it is certainly made of win.
No at low levels, sorta at mid-levels, totally yes from level 10 onward.
See previous question.
Varied from "substantial house-rules" to "overwhelming house-rules."
I'm not sure I see why these two are mutually exclusive. We optimized a lot, but we were pretty casual about it - nobody was out to "win D&D." It was more, "Hey, can I make this wacky concept work?"
No.
4E all the way.
I'm pro 4e. I am pro 3e too, I just like 4e more and think that haters should be shot.
1. Psionics: Good or Bad?
Bad. I like the idea of psionics, but I don't like the 3e implementation. It basically became an alternative version of spellcasting, with its own balance problems. These problems weren't necessarily lesser or greater than the balance problems with the core vancian spellcasters, but they were different, and keeping a lid on them required mastery of an entirely new system. I have high hopes for a psionics revision in 4e, because I do like the concept. Minus the crystals, but that probably won't happen, so I'll have to cope.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Best thing ever. My first thought upon hearing about 4e was, "But I've barely yet had the chance to play with Tome of Battle in an actual game!"
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
3e Fighter sucks. It sucks on multiple levels. It becomes less and less relevant at high levels, because even if it manages to keep up in terms of damage, wizards cast "rule breaker" spells that change the rules of the game so that damage isn't as important, and Fighters have to try to keep up by owning magical gear or having their wizard allies help them. And your equipment list versus my spells known is a losing battle for you. They also suck because they don't do much out of combat, and that's where a fairly large portion of my game is played.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Yes. Its the rulebreaker problem again. The overpowered nature is demonstrated in even little things like the way that a wand of Spider Climb renders a rogue's entire skill investment pointless. Or the way that a mystery plotline can be derailed by divinations. Or the way that a fight with a particular group of enemies can be rendered pointless by flight and ranged attacks. They turn the game into a rock/paper/scissors minigame of "thwart the spellcaster's attempts at bypassing the challenge." Which isn't fun for me. Some people call this "creative use of spells," but I tend to call it "destroying the realism of the gameworld."
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Basically rules as written. The only real houserule, other than campaign based restrictions on classes or races, was not to intentionally screw up the game. Everyone kind of policed themselves.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
A bit of both.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
I never played in it, but it looks fun enough. My only real problem with it is the same problem I have with most published settings- too much information for me to deal with, and too difficult to simplify down to one region to run a game.
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'm in a new city, and I'm starting up a game of all rookie players. Everyone's having a great time.
1. Psionics: Good or Bad?
Bad. I like the idea of psionics, but I don't like the 3e implementation. It basically became an alternative version of spellcasting, with its own balance problems. These problems weren't necessarily lesser or greater than the balance problems with the core vancian spellcasters, but they were different, and keeping a lid on them required mastery of an entirely new system. I have high hopes for a psionics revision in 4e, because I do like the concept. Minus the crystals, but that probably won't happen, so I'll have to cope.
2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened?
Best thing ever. My first thought upon hearing about 4e was, "But I've barely yet had the chance to play with Tome of Battle in an actual game!"
3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No?
3e Fighter sucks. It sucks on multiple levels. It becomes less and less relevant at high levels, because even if it manages to keep up in terms of damage, wizards cast "rule breaker" spells that change the rules of the game so that damage isn't as important, and Fighters have to try to keep up by owning magical gear or having their wizard allies help them. And your equipment list versus my spells known is a losing battle for you. They also suck because they don't do much out of combat, and that's where a fairly large portion of my game is played.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: yes or no?
Yes. Its the rulebreaker problem again. The overpowered nature is demonstrated in even little things like the way that a wand of Spider Climb renders a rogue's entire skill investment pointless. Or the way that a mystery plotline can be derailed by divinations. Or the way that a fight with a particular group of enemies can be rendered pointless by flight and ranged attacks. They turn the game into a rock/paper/scissors minigame of "thwart the spellcaster's attempts at bypassing the challenge." Which isn't fun for me. Some people call this "creative use of spells," but I tend to call it "destroying the realism of the gameworld."
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion?
Basically rules as written. The only real houserule, other than campaign based restrictions on classes or races, was not to intentionally screw up the game. Everyone kind of policed themselves.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?
A bit of both.
7. Eberron: Yes or No?
I never played in it, but it looks fun enough. My only real problem with it is the same problem I have with most published settings- too much information for me to deal with, and too difficult to simplify down to one region to run a game.
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'm in a new city, and I'm starting up a game of all rookie players. Everyone's having a great time.
Good... but good in a way that makes me wish the psionics mechanics were used for magic.
Best thing that ever happened (or close to)... but again, the martial adepts classes basically make the old warrior classes obsolete. Which is a good thing, IMHO. The mechanics for warrior classes presented in TOB/Bo9S are more interesting.
Unfortunately, yes. The class is a nice source for Feats. Sort of.
No (barely). It's not so much that full-progression casters are disruptive as that they 1) significantly increase the amount of work required for adventure design and 2) they change the nature of the campaign to the point where whole modes of play, and character concepts, become impossible. Wait, that's disruptive, isn't it?
Surprisingly RAW (though we do import some things wholesale from Monte's Arcana Evolved, and we use a lot of WotC product).
My group is made up of some very talented optimizers who choose to play the game casually.
Yes, yes to Eberron. No, no, to people who bitch about dinosaurs and the lightning rail.
Equal. I play in a new 4e campaign and run a long-running 3.5e campaign with the same people.
Random conclusions from this thread.
1. If you felt that fighters sucked, you probably felt that ToB was a great patch. If you felt that fighters were ok, you probably felt that 3e was overpowered. In rare cases, if you felt that fighters sucked, you resented ToB because, by comparison, it made fighters suck even more.
2. ToB might have done well to use 4e power source terminology. Most flavor based criticisms of ToB essentially accuse it of containing ki based or magical fighters. But really, it contained one ki class, one divine class, and one martial class. For example, one person in the thread above stated that he put it back on the shelf when he opened it and found a power that let a "fighter" deal fire damage to everyone nearby. Had the book used power source terminology, this person might have been primed to recognize that the power in question was a swordsage power, and used a Ki power source. And then they might have looked on for some of the Divine powers, or the Martial powers, which they might have enjoyed. No guarantees, but perhaps the book should have been marketed in such a way as to make it very, very clear that there were three power sources inside.
3. Most people feel that the cleric and wizard were overpowered, but those same people also rarely had a problem with it in their own game. They handled the problem by a gentleman's agreement not to break the game's balance. These are the people who answered that question "They're only overpowered if you want them to be," or "They're overpowered but only in certain player's hands."
This "gentleman's agreement not to break the game" is relevant to a lot of other matters in D&D. For example, doing things in game that break verisimilitude. In 3e terms, that's leaping off of cliffs because you know you won't die. In 4e terms, that's using a power described as throwing sand or debris into someone's eyes when you're indoors in a clean swept room and your opponent is wearing goggles. These sorts of matters are well suited for being handled through a simple gentleman's agreement not to break the game.
1. If you felt that fighters sucked, you probably felt that ToB was a great patch. If you felt that fighters were ok, you probably felt that 3e was overpowered. In rare cases, if you felt that fighters sucked, you resented ToB because, by comparison, it made fighters suck even more.
2. ToB might have done well to use 4e power source terminology. Most flavor based criticisms of ToB essentially accuse it of containing ki based or magical fighters. But really, it contained one ki class, one divine class, and one martial class. For example, one person in the thread above stated that he put it back on the shelf when he opened it and found a power that let a "fighter" deal fire damage to everyone nearby. Had the book used power source terminology, this person might have been primed to recognize that the power in question was a swordsage power, and used a Ki power source. And then they might have looked on for some of the Divine powers, or the Martial powers, which they might have enjoyed. No guarantees, but perhaps the book should have been marketed in such a way as to make it very, very clear that there were three power sources inside.
3. Most people feel that the cleric and wizard were overpowered, but those same people also rarely had a problem with it in their own game. They handled the problem by a gentleman's agreement not to break the game's balance. These are the people who answered that question "They're only overpowered if you want them to be," or "They're overpowered but only in certain player's hands."
This "gentleman's agreement not to break the game" is relevant to a lot of other matters in D&D. For example, doing things in game that break verisimilitude. In 3e terms, that's leaping off of cliffs because you know you won't die. In 4e terms, that's using a power described as throwing sand or debris into someone's eyes when you're indoors in a clean swept room and your opponent is wearing goggles. These sorts of matters are well suited for being handled through a simple gentleman's agreement not to break the game.
an_idol_mind
Explorer
1. Psionics: Depends on the setting. I haven't used them since 2nd edition, since they boil down to yet another form of magic. If someone wants to play a psion, I usually just reflavor the sorcerer class.
2. Tome of Battle: Never used it, not interested in using it. The same goes for most rule supplements.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes and no. They aren't the best generic warriors anymore, but they can be darned good when they specialize on a particular style.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: No. Every class has an achilles heel, and it's up to the DM to tailor adventures to challenge the group at large.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written plus two pages of house rules that are intended to either simplify the game or significantly reduce the need for magic items.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?: Casually. I'm usually the only one who has a full handle on the rules, and even I wing it from time to time.
7. Eberron: Some good stuff in Eberron, but it ultimately treats the fantastic as too mundane for my liking. Goblins are meant to bite and scratch, not to serve as butlers.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?: I play 3e. 4th edition didn't ring my bell, so I saw no reason to switch.
2. Tome of Battle: Never used it, not interested in using it. The same goes for most rule supplements.
3. Fighter Sux: Yes and no. They aren't the best generic warriors anymore, but they can be darned good when they specialize on a particular style.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: No. Every class has an achilles heel, and it's up to the DM to tailor adventures to challenge the group at large.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written plus two pages of house rules that are intended to either simplify the game or significantly reduce the need for magic items.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually?: Casually. I'm usually the only one who has a full handle on the rules, and even I wing it from time to time.
7. Eberron: Some good stuff in Eberron, but it ultimately treats the fantastic as too mundane for my liking. Goblins are meant to bite and scratch, not to serve as butlers.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E?: I play 3e. 4th edition didn't ring my bell, so I saw no reason to switch.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
1. Psionics: Always been indifferent to psionics. Don't really think about them enough to dislike them, but they never seem to grab me (in any system).
2. Tome of Battle: Was not buying 3.5 books. Only bought the Magic Item Compedium, which I thought was merely decent (though I like the execution of the same idea better in 4E than in 3.5).
3. Fighter Sux: Pure fighter was never a players' first choice in our campaigns, but fighter/rogue (mostly fighter) saw good play. After we got going with Arcana Evolved, the unfettered and warmain pretty much exile the fighter from the table.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: A little overpowered, but not usually a problem. Only time it was a problem was in a gestalt game, which can hardly be blamed on the core system.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Played it both ways. House rules were more for campaign flavor than balance, though.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Mostly casual. Even the optimizers are sensitive enough to not overshadow the others.
7. Eberron: Nothing against Eberron, but I wasn't looking for a setting when it arrived, and thus never gave it much of a chance. Some of the surface stuff doesn't appeal to me, either, but I wouldn't let that stop me if I were interested in it otherwise.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E? 4E, though still think 3E (well, AE) is a fun game.
2. Tome of Battle: Was not buying 3.5 books. Only bought the Magic Item Compedium, which I thought was merely decent (though I like the execution of the same idea better in 4E than in 3.5).
3. Fighter Sux: Pure fighter was never a players' first choice in our campaigns, but fighter/rogue (mostly fighter) saw good play. After we got going with Arcana Evolved, the unfettered and warmain pretty much exile the fighter from the table.
4. Wizard and CoDzilla overpowered to the point of game disruption: A little overpowered, but not usually a problem. Only time it was a problem was in a gestalt game, which can hardly be blamed on the core system.
5. Your 3E games: Rules as written or houseruled into oblivion? Played it both ways. House rules were more for campaign flavor than balance, though.
6. Does your group optimize, or play more casually? Mostly casual. Even the optimizers are sensitive enough to not overshadow the others.
7. Eberron: Nothing against Eberron, but I wasn't looking for a setting when it arrived, and thus never gave it much of a chance. Some of the surface stuff doesn't appeal to me, either, but I wouldn't let that stop me if I were interested in it otherwise.
8. Do you currently play more 3E, or 4E? 4E, though still think 3E (well, AE) is a fun game.
Voadam
Legend
1 I consider psionics mostly good. I love playing soulknives and like the psionic focus mechanic.
2 Don't own ToB and have not read it and I'm not familiar enough with it to comment on whether it is a good or bad prduct/system.
3 Fighters do not suck IME, even in the 17th level game I play in we all consider the straight classed 17th level fighter who specialized in archery the most powerful combatant among us.
4 No.
5 Heavy house rules and supplements
6 A definite mix but there is strong optimization
7 our shared campaign world (we rotate DMs with the same homebrew setting) adopts more and more eberron aspects
8 3e
Similar Threads
