Export thread

I miss 3rd ed D&D

#1



Chummer

I'd say I've given 4th Ed a fair shot and I agree that it's really fun AS A PC, but it is NOT fun to DM like 3rd ed is/was.

You cannot be as spontanious or creative. Plus allt he extra stuff you have to keep track off is such a drag.

Plus really I dont feel the need to buy the books thanks to the character creator program. So I figure Ill sale the majority of my books.

Then use some of the cash to buy Warhammer Fantasy and Pathfinder.


#2

doomdragon6

doomdragon6

I haven't played 3rd Edition, but I constantly feel limited in 4E where supposedly in all the others you can do just about anything, supposedly.

Edit: Supposedly.


#3

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/200...part-2-dungeons-dragons-4th-edition-followup/


#4

Baerdog

Baerdog

I've found DMing in 4E to be so much easier than in 3.5. I've not run into a situation where I haven't been able to do something I wanted to and encounters are incredibly easy to create now, unlike in 3rd. I love having multiple creatures in an encounter for the players to fight against, instead of them all ganging up on one super monster all the time! I think my players do too.


#5

Gusto

Gusto

I like both for completely different reasons.


#6

Baerdog

Baerdog

Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoyed 3.5 as a player and it deserves its spot on my shelf. 4E, however, satisfies me both as a player and as a DM. And since I'm the DM now.....


#7



Chummer

As a PC I would say 4th Ed is more fun, although i really miss the old magic system, like for Wizards.

But I have to disagree that its just as fun to DM. Perhaps its my DMing style but 4th Ed requires to much planning where as I could make shit up on the fly with 3.5.


#8



RealBigNuke

4th ed is a fantastic tabletop game.

3rd is a fantastic fantasy roleplaying system.

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU ASSHOLES DO TO MY CHAOTIC GOOD


#9



Qonas

4th Edition is a fantastic tabletop game, if you want to play WoW on your table.

Seriously, I hate 4th Edition almost as much as I do Tina Fey. It's simplified down, there's so much less meat to the system and to the roleplaying, and they MURDERED....MURDERED...their own lore so there's basically nothing to roleplay off of except dungeon hunting in a damned fantasy apocalypse. It's absolutely WoW in the sense that it's for the power-gaming grinder yokels who giddly hand out 30 bucks a month to have OCD over gaming gear. No offense WoW players. :D

But 4th Edition? It's a joke, it's tabletop shit, and I refuse to play it.


#10

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Obviously people here didn't watch my link.


#11



Chummer

Shegokigo said:
Obviously people here didn't watch my link.
Click to expand...
I stopped at "3rd was too much like Dragonball". Erm 4th Ed is way more like that.


#12



Qonas

^
|

This.


#13

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Yeah, way to miss the point all together and continue to complain without understanding the meaning.


#14

Dave

Dave

In 4e it's impossible to make a character who is not good at combat. There are NO support characters like there were in 3x. They took the roleplaying out of the roleplaying game.


#15



Chummer

Shegokigo said:
Yeah, way to miss the point all together and continue to complain without understanding the meaning.
Click to expand...

Psssh what do girls know about D&D anyways. ;)

Edit: Okay I watched all of it. He likes it better than 3rd ed cause its a good starter game for MMO kiddies. And he feels its easy to DM, but he only references making an encounter. Which yea its easy but I still dont think it lends itself to spontaious gameplay.

Yea I guess...

Heck EQ got me into D&D, but they played nothing like.


#16

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

*shrug* At least you gave it a shot. :thumb: for that.

But his point about unbalanced characters in 3e did hold true.

I think I was more interested in how he compared 3e and 4e more than what he though of 4e as a stand-alone.


#17

Jay

Jay

You just can't compare the two... it's very different.

3.5 was great.. 4.0 is pretty solid too... but I haven't had a character beyond lvl 7... so I don't know if they turn into demigods.


#18

Frank

Frankie Williamson

I haven't played since I joined the RCMP so I have no experience with 4th edition. However, the best part of our parties are the opposite of what Spoony there talks about. We had no teamwork whatsoever, in fact, more often than not we were tripping over each other and bungling our way to victory. It was always a blast. My chaotic good Wizard who would sooner swear at an NPC in Elven than be useful was the most fun I've ever had roleplaying a character.


#19



Chummer

SeriousJay said:
You just can't compare the two... it's very different.

3.5 was great.. 4.0 is pretty solid too... but I haven't had a character beyond lvl 7... so I don't know if they turn into demigods.
Click to expand...
Its more or less true, but I think a good DM could deal with it.

But yea ive seen my share of 3.5 PC's killing a boss fight monster in 1 round. A fighter that is equiped really well plus has like 4 attacks per turn lays down some serious hurt.


#20

@Li3n

@Li3n

Then go play it, it's not like WotC came to your house and took the books back...


\"Dave\" said:
In 4e it's impossible to make a character who is not good at combat.
Click to expand...
Yeah, weird how they took out the stuff most people where complaining about...


There are NO support characters like there were in 3x. They took the roleplaying out of the roleplaying game.
Click to expand...
Most advice i heard about roleplaying is that you should stop treating it as something that depends on stats so much...


WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU ASSHOLES DO TO MY CHAOTIC GOOD
Click to expand...
Why can't you just use the old alignment system with 4th Ed.? It's not like it has much influence on the math part of 4th ed anyhow.



And here's some interesting advice on how to make 4th edition better:
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/4/25/4e-bringing-you-down-try-this.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/7/15/hating-4e-give-it-one-more-crack.html


#21

@Li3n

@Li3n

And that blog also has some pathfinder stuff:

http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/9/21/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-skills.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/8/31/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-the-races.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/200...te-at-a-time-classes-barbarian-to-cleric.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/9/15/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-sorceror-and-wizard.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/9/12/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-monk-and-paladin.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/9/14/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-ranger-and-rogue.html
http://www.unnatural20.com/blog/2009/9/11/pathfinder-a-bite-at-a-time-druid-and-fighter.html


#22

fade

fade

My first reaction on reading the 4ed player handbook was, "Hey they took the DnD out of DnD!"


#23

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

so don't play it.

use the money to buy mutants & masterminds.


#24



Qonas

You don't like America, then GIT OUT!!!





Ohwait, whoops, wrong topic.

Just face it, 4E blows monkey nuts and has been neutered and simplified down to the 12-year old X-Box Live/WoW player level. It's removed all ability to actually, you know, roleplay which last time I checked was the entire point of a roleplaying game. Oh what's that? Things people complained about were removed? THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE COMPLAINTS! About everything and anything! It's about filtering out the actually good ideas from the loudmouthed flotsam. WotC didn't do that and instead served us up a poo-poo platter.

Don't pick up the books and play? Don't worry, I won't be. But the fact that this even happened, that they destroyed their own lore and rules and reputation and FUN, is sickening. And what happens when another Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights-type game is released and is based off of these ludicrous rules and ridiculously shredded lore? Ugh.


#25

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

:facepalm:

I see Spoony really did hit the nail on the head with some of the 4e haters.


#26

Dave

Dave

I have all the books and have tried to play it and GM it. What it boils down to is that they have so much balance that nobody stands out any more. Yes, @Li3n, it's fun to play a character who is more than just a combat oriented idiot. You know, that inept wizard who fumbles his spells and constantly hides behind the group for protection, yet get him in a library and he can find the most esoteric bits of information and string it together to find the great item the group was looking for.

One of my favorite characters ever was a sorcerer who had NO real offensive spells and took every feat and skill point towards knowledge. He was a blast but very, very weak in combat. You can no longer do that in 4e. All characters are good in combat no matter what. Yes, it shored up the complaints by those who min/max and can't RP to save their lives, but they left the people out in the cold who kept the company in the black through thick & thin.

So you can discount my opinions all you want and make fun of me for being a 'hater', but it doesn't change the fact that they changed it to be simpler, but they stripped it of character and wonder to placate the masses of people who want simplicity and MMO pen & paper.

4e is not for me.


#27

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

For me, everything in 4e is just too slow. Combat is going to be a significant time investment, and the group I play with usually gets bored partway through. We gave it a shot, played it for months, got through all the Paragon levels up to Epic (the amount of XP given out was a lot), and we had to deal with things with around 700 HP. At most, somebody is dealing 30~40 damage (when they use a daily), with a total group output of around 50~70 damage per turn.

Also, missing hurts more in 4e than in other games. Dealing with a party of 5 paragon level characters (closer to epic), assuming everybody hits, around 80~90 damage, if Dailies are spent. So if one person misses, it's now around 60~70 damage. If the striker misses, that's down to 50~60 damage. Missing significantly hurts group output. Especially when you miss with a big attack.

I'd just rather deal with a more abstract system than 4e when I play. Nothing against 4e, it just isn't for me.


#28

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Yeah... I loved my fighter builds in 3.5, as I actually felt like more than a tank. Splash in some Weapon Master and I can actually do some significant damage. Put in Berseker/Frenzied Berserker and I'm doing even better. With 4.0, I can't stand out no matter what I do.


#29



Mr. Lawface

I think both 3.5 and 4th are good editions.

I like 3.5 because you can be more creative with all the not strictly combat things you can do. In 4th, all the powers and abilities are a lot more strict and detailed in EXACTLY what they do, which leads to less freedom.

I like 4th edition because every character is about equally helpful and effective. I also am addicted to the character builder because it is just so EASY.


#30

@Li3n

@Li3n

Dave said:
I have all the books and have tried to play it and GM it. What it boils down to is that they have so much balance that nobody stands out any more. Yes, @Li3n, it's fun to play a character who is more than just a combat oriented idiot. You know, that inept wizard who fumbles his spells and constantly hides behind the group for protection, yet get him in a library and he can find the most esoteric bits of information and string it together to find the great item the group was looking for.

One of my favorite characters ever was a sorcerer who had NO real offensive spells and took every feat and skill point towards knowledge. He was a blast but very, very weak in combat. You can no longer do that in 4e. All characters are good in combat no matter what. Yes, it shored up the complaints by those who min/max and can't RP to save their lives, but they left the people out in the cold who kept the company in the black through thick & thin.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of classes that sucked at combat even if you tried making them not suck at it...

But as more and more stuff comes out classes do get more options, maybe they'll give you stuff like that too (although the at-will/encounter/daily/utility and the 1/2 your level skills things make that unlikely), i mean guide's i've seen do rank stuff as useless, even if it's not much, maybe try making a character using those.


Allen said:
For me, everything in 4e is just too slow. Combat is going to be a significant time investment, and the group I play with usually gets bored partway through. We gave it a shot, played it for months, got through all the Paragon levels up to Epic (the amount of XP given out was a lot), and we had to deal with things with around 700 HP. At most, somebody is dealing 30~40 damage (when they use a daily), with a total group output of around 50~70 damage per turn.
Click to expand...
The link i posted suggested halving all the monsters HP and other stuff to make it go faster.


#31

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

we tried that. half of a lot is still a lot.


#32

@Li3n

@Li3n

But shouldn't they die half as fast?


#33

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

they did die in half the time and we did kill them twice as fast. Half of a long time is still a long time.


#34

@Li3n

@Li3n

Well then if it works lower them until the combat's length is to your liking... duh.


#35

fade

fade

Dave said:
I have all the books and have tried to play it and GM it. What it boils down to is that they have so much balance that nobody stands out any more. Yes, @Li3n, it's fun to play a character who is more than just a combat oriented idiot. You know, that inept wizard who fumbles his spells and constantly hides behind the group for protection, yet get him in a library and he can find the most esoteric bits of information and string it together to find the great item the group was looking for.

One of my favorite characters ever was a sorcerer who had NO real offensive spells and took every feat and skill point towards knowledge. He was a blast but very, very weak in combat. You can no longer do that in 4e. All characters are good in combat no matter what. Yes, it shored up the complaints by those who min/max and can't RP to save their lives, but they left the people out in the cold who kept the company in the black through thick & thin.

So you can discount my opinions all you want and make fun of me for being a 'hater', but it doesn't change the fact that they changed it to be simpler, but they stripped it of character and wonder to placate the masses of people who want simplicity and MMO pen & paper.

4e is not for me.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I hate about most MMOs, too. They try to balance every class so much that it's almost an aesthetic selection. I know I've said that before, and got flack for it, but I still believe it.


#36

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

@Li3n said:
Well then if it works lower them until the combat's length is to your liking... duh.
Click to expand...
or play a system that doesn't need fixing for us to really enjoy it... duh.


#37

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I would think balancing out what enemies you present with the party's enjoyment level, both subjective elements, would be up to the DM.


#38

@Li3n

@Li3n

Allen said:
Well then if it works lower them until the combat's length is to your liking... duh.
Click to expand...
or play a system that doesn't need fixing for us to really enjoy it... duh.[/QUOTE]

Sure, if you want to play something that doesn't exist. (your complaint about the combat taking too long is way to subjective to ever be fixed, as someone else will dislike it taking so little time, and it's also something that is easily fixable on your end, unlike Dave's, who's complaint i misunderstood at first, who want the possibility to make a character who's not combat focused, which does require extra stuff to be added). But maybe if they add an official rule on how to scale back HP to make fights go faster you'd find it easier (i recall them talking about something like that, or maybe it was about monsters with less HP).

fade said:
This is exactly what I hate about most MMOs, too. They try to balance every class so much that it's almost an aesthetic selection. I know I've said that before, and got flack for it, but I still believe it.
Click to expand...
Now there's a better way of putting it... yup, it is very annoying now that everyone gets the same 2/4/4/7 spread on "stuff that's more or less a spell". Some variation would be nicer.


#39

doomdragon6

doomdragon6

Now I'm tempted to try 3.5e.

But I'm scared. :(


#40

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

@Li3n said:
Sure, if you want to play something that doesn't exist. (your complaint about the combat taking too long is way to subjective to ever be fixed, as someone else will dislike it taking so little time, and it's also something that is easily fixable on your end, unlike Dave's, who's complaint i misunderstood at first, who want the possibility to make a character who's not combat focused, which does require extra stuff to be added). But maybe if they add an official rule on how to scale back HP to make fights go faster you'd find it easier (i recall them talking about something like that, or maybe it was about monsters with less HP).
Click to expand...
huh. gee, now that you put it that way, I guess I should have realized you were talking entirely out of your ass earlier and should have regarded your posts as the wastes of space they truly are.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------
doomdragon6 said:
Now I'm tempted to try 3.5e.

But I'm scared. :(
Click to expand...
Here's what you do. You make a character. Then you roll a d20 and hope it's high.


#41

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

You're really making people kick themselves for not joining your one-shot games...


#42

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

Good for them.


#43

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Well seriously, look at your attitude towards it. It doesn't exactly resonate the sense of a DM looking to create a fun game experience. If you hate 4e, why did you want to do games of it?

Furthermore, you complain about 4e being limiting, and then when Lien says you can adjust it on those subjective terms (as you can really do with ANY game system), you complain that you shouldn't have to. If that's the case, the real issue isn't that it's limiting, it's that it fails to limit you in the way you wish to be limited.


#44

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

That was back when I liked it. Now I don't. Attitudes change.

I never complained about it being limiting. I complained that I didn't enjoy it, with slowness being one of my primary. I said I tried adjustments. Halving HP was just one of the things I tried. Also tried to have damage be a save DC for enemies to make, with degrees of failure determining how screwed up the enemies are. I tried running combat similarly to skill challenges. The methods sped up combat well. Still, my group and I would rather play something else. @lien insists again and again that I should just fix it more until it's fun. I tried fixing it. I want to play something that I don't have to experiment and tinker with to have fun with it. I found systems that I have fun with with little modification. I play those. Stop telling me to play 4e.

If I wanted to run a oneshot now, I'd run it in the systems I have fun with. Not 4e. I wouldn't have fun with 4e, so there's no way my players would have fun playing 4e with me.


#45



Chummer

I also agree that every class is like all the othes somewhat.

Really aside from the name all the "powers" come off as the same thing.


#46

David

David

I can't go back to 3.5. I've been spoiled by 4th's High-def graphics and the havok engine.

...wait...


#47

@Li3n

@Li3n

Allen said:
That was back when I liked it. Now I don't. Attitudes change.

I never complained about it being limiting. I complained that I didn't enjoy it, with slowness being one of my primary. I said I tried adjustments. Halving HP was just one of the things I tried. Also tried to have damage be a save DC for enemies to make, with degrees of failure determining how screwed up the enemies are. I tried running combat similarly to skill challenges. The methods sped up combat well. Still, my group and I would rather play something else. @lien insists again and again that I should just fix it more until it's fun. I tried fixing it. I want to play something that I don't have to experiment and tinker with to have fun with it. I found systems that I have fun with with little modification. I play those. Stop telling me to play 4e.

If I wanted to run a oneshot now, I'd run it in the systems I have fun with. Not 4e. I wouldn't have fun with 4e, so there's no way my players would have fun playing 4e with me.
Click to expand...
Ah, ze old "pretend you only marginally tried and then whack people on the head with the actual amount of trying when they call you out on it" trick... well played.


#48



Mr. Lawface

I just starting running a 1st level 3.5 game after playing nothing but 4th edition for about a year. Holy shit are 1st level characters weak in 3.5. They have ridiculously small amounts of hitpoints. Luckily, they will be leveling up soon.


#49

Jay

Jay

I don't know... Saryon tends to miss more often than not as a Healing Cleric... our group had a blast at him failing... it even provided comedic results in RP situations. DnD is all about what you make it to be. I seriously hope, that the hate that I'm reading is coming from people who actually seriously played the 4th edition.. or played it beyond one or two shot sessions. Or else.... fail. :(


#50

Draxo

Draxo

Dave said:
I have all the books and have tried to play it and GM it. What it boils down to is that they have so much balance that nobody stands out any more. Yes, @Li3n, it's fun to play a character who is more than just a combat oriented idiot. You know, that inept wizard who fumbles his spells and constantly hides behind the group for protection, yet get him in a library and he can find the most esoteric bits of information and string it together to find the great item the group was looking for.

One of my favorite characters ever was a sorcerer who had NO real offensive spells and took every feat and skill point towards knowledge. He was a blast but very, very weak in combat. You can no longer do that in 4e. All characters are good in combat no matter what. Yes, it shored up the complaints by those who min/max and can't RP to save their lives, but they left the people out in the cold who kept the company in the black through thick & thin.

So you can discount my opinions all you want and make fun of me for being a 'hater', but it doesn't change the fact that they changed it to be simpler, but they stripped it of character and wonder to placate the masses of people who want simplicity and MMO pen & paper.

4e is not for me.
Click to expand...
So much truth.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


#51

@Li3n

@Li3n

So, anyone here that was around for the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition? And how much did that resemble this one?


#52



Chummer

I was there at the switch to 3rd.

Honestly I found 3rd ed to be great step up.

I dont miss Thac0 at all. Or race/class restrictions. Or the different xp levels for the classes. Or the multi/duel classing rules. etc etc etc.


#53

Dave

Dave

Yeah, 3 felt like a step up from 2. 2 had a lot of issues. Now, 1 to 2 felt like a clusterfuck of epic proportions. In fact, the 1-2 feels a lot like the 3-4 debacle.

My biggest issue still stems with the fact that balance should not mean that all characters are the same. ALL characters get x combat powers at x level, x utility powers at x level, etc. All characters are basically trained in all skills with the biggest difference being 5 points. So a 6th level barbarian who has never been in a city before has a lockpick skill of [stat]+3 while a thief who has trained in the art and the same DEX has 5 points more. Wha-?

So 4e has killed individuality, skills and the playability of non-combat style characters. But combat is very detailed. Thanks for turning my RPG into a miniatures strategy game.


#54

Gusto

Gusto

Meh, I like both, and I RP more in my Thursday night online 4e game than in any other I've ever played.

Makes me like the game more.

The part of me that likes solving puzzles and coming up with ridiculous battle strategies prefers 4e, and the part of me that likes flexibility and individualism likes 3.5e.

*shrug*

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, so whatever floats yer boat.


#55

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

I can't believe that some are arguing that certain in-game rules, prevent them from roleplaying. I mean, REALLY? :blue:


#56

Jay

Jay

It's called fishing.

People can be quite good at it.

D&D players can make it an art form.


#57

@Li3n

@Li3n

Dave said:
My biggest issue still stems with the fact that balance should not mean that all characters are the same. ALL characters get x combat powers at x level, x utility powers at x level, etc. All characters are basically trained in all skills with the biggest difference being 5 points. So a 6th level barbarian who has never been in a city before has a lockpick skill of [stat]+3 while a thief who has trained in the art and the same DEX has 5 points more. Wha-?
Click to expand...

Yup, those are annoying... they really should have only made class skills be half your level, with Training upping it to 3/4 of your level for class skills, with non-class skills getting only the 1/4 from training. (but you can get more the 5 points of difference based on your ability scores)

 And the powers stuff is sad, but i for one can't see how they could have done it differently and still have the at-will/encounter/daily stuff... (though they could have easily kept the wizard spellbook being able to have spells added from scrolls in it).


#58

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Wait, wizards in 4th edition are limited in their spell selection?

BOO!

FUCK 4th EDITION!


#59

@Li3n

@Li3n

Frankie said:
Wait, wizards in 4th edition are limited in their spell selection?

BOO!

FUCK 4th EDITION!
Click to expand...
Well they get to learn 2 powers instead of the 1 everyone else does, and at the beginning of the day choose which to prepare, and you can get a 3rd with the Extended Spellbook feat... but it's a hard cry from being able to learn them all.


#60

Dave

Dave

That's one of the reasons that in my game I allowed wizards to be able to choose which power they wanted to use that day, but they had access to them all at the various levels. Same with clerics.


#61

@Li3n

@Li3n

Dave said:
That's one of the reasons that in my game I allowed wizards to be able to choose which power they wanted to use that day, but they had access to them all at the various levels. Same with clerics.
Click to expand...
Well i was thinking more along the lines of 3rd edition spellbooks, where you could copy spells from scrolls... that way the wizard could go library raiding... "what, you want me to help you kill evil guy X... does he have a library? Dibs on all spell scrolls"


#62

Dave

Dave

They do something like that in 4e with the rituals.


#63

@Li3n

@Li3n

Yeah, but those can be cast by anyone with the ritual feat...


#64

doomdragon6

doomdragon6

I'd love rituals if they didn't cost so damn much to cast in components.

My number one complaint with the game is that EVERYTHING costs way too much. Why the hell would I spend 40g on a potion that has a one-time use, when I've only got like 200g in the first place?

It's feasible that they intend that kind of thing to come into play later, but I assumed that a Lvl 1 potion/item is intended for Lvl 1 characters.

At this rate I MIGHT start purchasing those things at level 10.


#65

Gusto

Gusto

Eh.

Among everything else we looted last Thursday we gained two level 8 pieces of equipment and another wondrous item. I don't think we're hurting for cash or equipment, and I have less than anyone else in the Company.

It works similarly in the 3.5 game I DM. Once every 5 or 6 sessions or so, the players get an opportunity to shop. And maaaaaybe they decide to splurge on something, but they typically take the loot they can get and/or save up for something really special.


Top