Why so many in a hurry to leave 3E?

[Li Shenron]

I have some suspects that a share of those in a hurry to change are D&D readers but not D&D players, not having an actual game at the moment... which makes it all easy to change.

 

[teitan]

I am just hoping that we get a much simpler version of the skill system, something like Saga where you are trained or not and get a set bonus plus your level. I hate making NPCs and I am the groups DM. It takes waaaaaay too much time away from scenario creation and I like how I have heard they are designing encounters rather than the CR system. If they keep the same level of fun and improve the adventure creation I am game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If 3E is as good as so many have said it is, why are you even moving on to 4E? It can't be because you've done everything that can be done in 3E.

So why do so many people seem so eager to throw 3E by the wayside and jump right into 4e?

I love 3e, but I'm not married to it. My loyalty is entirely based on it being the most fun thing for me to play or DM. 4e is giving the impression that it will be MORE fun. So why waste time with the next best thing?

Just because the burgers taste excellent doesn't mean I won't jump at the steak when they want to put it out.

Of course, this is contingent on 4e being better for my purposes than 3e. The previews are encouraging, but if they turn out to be misleading, I'll stick with 3e and be happy with that.

 

[Greg K]

I am just hoping that we get a much simpler version of the skill system, something like Saga where you are trained or not and get a set bonus plus your level. I hate making NPCs and I am the groups DM. It takes waaaaaay too much time away from scenario creation and I like how I have heard they are designing encounters rather than the CR system. If they keep the same level of fun and improve the adventure creation I am game.

See, I wouldn't have mind if the skill SAGA system had been an optional rule for DMs to quickly PCs. As a DM, I would have welcomed it for non important NPCs. As a player, I despise the SAGA system as default and it is a deal breaker for me playing the game-my players feel the same way.

 

[drothgery]

I'm interested in 4e, because 9 weeks out of 10, my regular tabletop game is going to be D&D (in whatever edition). And I'd like to try out, as a tabletop player, some of the interesting things in d20 game design that have come out in the last 4-5 years but were in supplements the guys DMing were disinclined to allow, or in non-D&D games. In many ways I'm very impressed with Star Wars Saga in a lot of ways, and I'm going to be running a short game soon, but we've got one regular player who only plays D&D, so we can't stay in the Galaxy Far Far Away very long. But if 4e incorporates a lot of what I like -- and 4e is running pretty heavily in that direction; the only things I'm a little negative on are almost pure flavor (PHB tieflings, non-LG paladins, including 10 levels of epic rules) or where I'll really need to see more to be sure on (it seems to me that 8-10 classes is too many).

 

[megamania]

who's quitting?



I am completely happy with 3e.

 

[Desdichado]

With any luck, when 4e comes out I'll be playing something other than D&D entirely, so it won't matter.

That said, 4e seems like it addresses at least some of the problems I have with 3e, so I'm certainly curious. But I just can't be bothered to work up any real steam about it. I'm really kinda over D&D in general and would rather play something else anyway.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I'll jump to 4E so that I can upgrade Urbis to it and publish it.

 

[Nebulous]

So why do so many people seem so eager to throw 3E by the wayside and jump right into 4e?

There are so many problems with the core 3.5 books that i don't even use them. I have to go to 3rd party publishers to play the kind of D&D i want. I'm *hoping* that 4e can bring me back to the fold, and improve upon the whole game in general. From what i've seen so far, i like the changes.

 

[Sunderstone]

As for rules glut, I never understood this. The problem is easy to solve-learn to say "no!". The DM should only allow into the game that which they are comfortable. Many DM's only run core. Others run core with just a few extra. So it can be done.

As for myself I run mostly core with some extras and house rules. None of the extras include XPH, Magic of Incarnum, ToB:Bo9S, Tome of Magic, or any class (base or PrC) from the DMG or WOTC supplement. I allow a few things from Unearthed Arcana (some replace standard rules), about 12-14 class variants (UA, PHBII, Complete Champion (used since 3.0 when Monte suggested them ), expanded skills (Complete Adventurer, Races of the Wild), some domains, spells and feats (from various books), and a few 3rd party products (including a few class books from Green Ronin, and some articles from Sean Reynold's website).

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.

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).