Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9345374" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I have discussed this with numerous ardent 3e fans. They considered it a badge of honor to be described so. Perhaps this is not so for all such fans. But it has been so for all but one ardent defender of 3e I know--and that one exception is particularly exceptional in a variety of ways (many or even most of which I respect, even though we disagree on a great many things). They post on here relatively often, going by "Pedantic." This isn't really a conversation for them or their interests, so I'm not directly tagging them, just letting you know who it is I'm speaking of.I mean no disrespect when I say this, but...I do not, cannot take the "dissociated mechanics" argument seriously. Its creator was never actually serious about it in the first place. So I'm afraid anything which starts from that point is fruit of a poisoned tree, as far as I'm concerned.In my experience, the only major "glaring hole"--other than those noted by Pedantic, as mentioned--that most 3e fans find is that 5e does not include the utterly monolithic amount of options for customizability (classes, feats, ACFs, PrCs, spells, etc.) Further, cutting to the quick...in many cases I find the "most of the things that made it interesting" cashes out primarily as "most of the things that made full spellcasters ridiculously powerful and required extreme practical optimization for half- or non-casters just to avoid being dead weight."It definitely sounds like you share a number of Pedantic's stances on things, so you may wish to seek them out, I suspect the two of you would have a lot to talk about. But the fact of the matter is, if you cared even a little bit about optimization (and 3e's design really did force you to care at least a little bit about optimization, otherwise you'd fall behind), you were aware of things like the class tiers at least in general concept, and you knew that things like Natural Spell are brokenly, horribly overpowered while Toughness and Mobility are traps designed to weaken those foolish enough to take them (outside of a very, very narrow range, at least for Toughness) unless they were prerequisites for something better. You'd know that spending your turn buffing an ally is less efficient than just doing, or at least attempting to do, some solid damage yourself--because two actions that only potentially generate 1.5 attacks' worth of damage is less efficient than two attacks that each potentially generate one attack's worth of damage. Action economy is king, etc., etc.The whole idea of making a beautiful clockwork that just (metaphorically) "runs on its own," and the players must act and react within it, cleverly leveraging what they can, is a philosophical back-formation, an idea that the 3e rules themselves frequently fell far short of actually implementing. And if that's what 3e was to you, then I can grant that no, 5e is not that. But 5e in practice works like how a great many--possibly even most--people actually did play 3e, and PF1e. In some ways, people play it like 3e/PF1e even when the books actively tell them not to, such as how people handle skill checks, even though the book doesn't support doing so and says various things that go against it (in a soft way, at least.)</blockquote>

Verification