Why so many in a hurry to leave 3E?

For all intents and purposes, there is only one D&D and that is always the most recent edition. All older editions are increasingly irrelevant fossils, calcified corpses of days dead and gone, discarded by the majority who prefer to celebrate with the living than worship the dead.

In more practical terms, the current edition is the one that will be omnipresent in the book trade, recent support from WOTC, and not disappear from store shelves within a year or two as the 3.5 products currently in the distribution system sell through or get pulped. (Can't buy a 3.5 PHB at the FLGS if there's none to be had.) When 4.0 is the only game in town, that's what you'll play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sunderstone said:
My sentiments mostly as well.
I run almost Core only with the players allowed to draw from the PH2, Frostburn, Stormwrack, Sandstorm, Planar Handbook, and the XPH (I love the book but my players have no interestin Psionics :/ ).
My DM tools extend to the DMG2, FF, MM2, MM3, Dragonomicon, Libris, Lords of Madness, and Drow of the Underdark.

MM3 didn't do anything for me. However, FF and MM2 are definitely in my DM tools as will be Dragonomicon, Fiendish Codex I, Lords of Madness and Stormwrack once I buy them.

Incarnum, Book of 9 swords, Tome of Magic etc just dont fall into our vision of D&D. Its a bit too far from the norm for us. We also avoid the "Complete" series like the plague as our experiences with various prestige classes have proved somewhat unbalanced (Frenzied Berserker, and definately Elemental Archon from Faith and Pantheons FR) at times despite the few gems apparently in there (Scout and Warlock come to mind).

Incarnum, I might have liked as Ki for monks. As presented, I really disliked the book and found it so uninteresting that I had no desire to keep reading. Bo9S, I hated mechanically as well as the flavor of certain styles. ToM had some interesting ideas, but I was unimpressed with the executions- especially true naming and vestiges.

As for the scout and warlock, neither impressed me. I am a big fan of the UA wilderness rogue (it is nearly identical to a variant I used shortly after the release of 3.0) and with the martial rogue option (also UA), I never saw a need for the Scout class (Plus, I disliked skirmish).
 
Last edited:

I will most likely do what I did when 3.0 and 3.5 went to print: peruse the books as they go to print, eventually buy them and start to learn the system, and when all of the CORE books (if that's the set up this time around again) such as a DMG, MM, and the PHB are out, I will probably begin a new 4E campaign when there is a natural seque from my previous campaign. That is assuming I will like what I see with 4E. Most likely I will (unfortunately for my bank account!).

I had finally reached a high level of competency with v.3x over the past couple of years, so it sucks to go back to learning a new rules system again, but change is part of life. We'll see how it goes :|
 

Between Arcana Evolved and Ptolus, Monte has me booked up for gaming ideas for a long time heh. I'll likely buy 3E cuz it's a new edition of D&D to check out (ignore that I don't own a single 3.5 book heh) but I don't see myself playing it as soon as it comes out, like I did w/3E
 

SSquirrel said:
Between Arcana Evolved and Ptolus, Monte has me booked up for gaming ideas for a long time heh.

QFT

/tangent on
I understand why some players have a problem with 3.5 rules glut, but I have no idea why they think it will be any better with 4E. Especially as now the game can be designed for the DDI to do all the number crunching for you. With 3 core books a year already on the schedule aside from settings and sourcebooks, it looks like 4E's future is to blow away 3E's release schedule!.
Sorry for the slight derail.
/tangent off
 




Remove ads

Top