PDA

View Full Version : 4.0; stupid, good, better, worse, what's your opinion?



ivendale
2008-12-04, 01:50 AM
I think That 4.0 is a lot of bad joojoo. I mean they killed barbarians, bards, scorserrors, gnomes, skills, and two weapon fighting! I keen come on grog has got to smash with somthing more thanjust one axe.

KKL
2008-12-04, 01:57 AM
There's a Barbarian Playtest (1-30, only the Str/Con build), a Bard Playtest (1-10), Sorc's coming out soon in PHB2, nobody cares about Gnomes at all, except people who like Kender, and it's a widely accepted fact that both are subhumans, skills are just fine how they are, and TWF is actually USEFUL instead of either hilariously awesome or hilariously crap.

Oh, and in before, during, and after pointless edition wars.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-04, 01:58 AM
Apples are not better than oranges, nor vice versa. They are simply different.

skywalker
2008-12-04, 01:58 AM
Oh wow...

I think 4th edition is, in a way, stupid (dumbed down from 3.5). But it's also, IMO, more fun. So it is both stupid, and better.

My $.02.

EDIT: KKL, by subhuman, did you mean sub(below, perhaps shorter?) than humans? Because I doubt many people would disagree with you there at all.

kenjigoku
2008-12-04, 01:59 AM
I think That 4.0 is a lot of bad joojoo. I mean they killed barbarians, bards, scorserrors, gnomes, skills, and two weapon fighting! I keen come on grog has got to smash with somthing more thanjust one axe.

Aside from the fact this is probably going to start another [4e] war, I would like to point out that Barbarians and Bards are ready for PHB2. As for TWF, Martial Power just came out with Tempest Fighters, and you can always multi-class Ranger. Gnomes are in the MM, so you could play one, you just don't get any racial feat support. As for skills... yeah they got nerfed.

Edit: Sweet I totally got ninja'd! See spoiler!


There's a Barbarian Playtest (1-30, only the Str/Con build), a Bard Playtest (1-10), Sorc's coming out soon in PHB2, nobody cares about Gnomes at all, except people who like Kender, and it's a widely accepted fact that both are subhumans, skills are just fine how they are, and TWF is actually USEFUL instead of either hilariously awesome or hilariously crap.

Oh, and in before, during, and after pointless edition wars.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-04, 01:59 AM
What, was the Monk thread dying down?

In reality, I hate 4.0, but it does have it's good points.

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:01 AM
EDIT: KKL, by subhuman, did you mean sub(below, perhaps shorter?) than humans? Because I doubt many people would disagree with you there at all.

Only plants like Kender and Gnomes. ADHD midgets with sticky fingers != decent race.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-04, 02:06 AM
I don't remember Gnomes being Kender...

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 02:08 AM
Apples are not better than oranges, nor vice versa. They are simply different.

I must disagree, oranges are clearly jucier, and more flavorful than apples, but harder to get into at first. (A little like 3.5) Apples are a bit easier to get into and not as messy, but not as tasty and leave you unfullfilled and have poison at the center. (kinda like 4th)

Yes, I've had that apples vs oranges thing in my head for years. No, I dont have anything better to do.

Icewalker
2008-12-04, 02:08 AM
I don't know too much about 4e, but I know that despite a lot of anger towards it, there is often anger towards change.

I'd like to link to this (http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/332/inside_dd_4th_edition), regardless.

Lastly, Stupendous_Man: apples are way better than oranges :smalltongue:

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:12 AM
I must disagree, oranges are clearly jucier, and more flavorful than apples, but harder to get into at first. (A little like 3.5) Apples are a bit easier to get into and not as messy, but not as tasty and leave you unfullfilled and have poison at the center. (kinda like 4th)

In my fits of hunger I have consumed many innocent apples, none of which whose cores have filled me with vile toxins.

Also, apples > oranges > apples > oranges, it all depends on the person. 3.5e and 4e blow an equal amount of ass, and both have their positive merits that outdo the others.

Zeful
2008-12-04, 02:16 AM
I think That 4.0 is a lot of bad joojoo. I mean they killed barbarians, bards, sorcerers, gnomes, skills, and two weapon fighting! I keen come on grog has got to smash with something more than just one axe.

First, you obviously know very little about what your talking about. Had you, you would have known that WotC said at the onset that certain things (Druids, Barbarians, Bards, Monks, Gnomes, Sorcerers et all.) removed from the PHb were done so because they were either changing the class/race's focus (Druid, Monk, Sorcerer), or rewriting it from the bottom up (Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer).

Also stop perpetuating the myth that gnomes were removed from the game, they were moved to the MM while undergoing a change in focus.

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 02:21 AM
In my fits of hunger I have consumed many innocent apples, none of which whose cores have filled me with vile toxins.

Also, apples > oranges > apples > oranges, it all depends on the person. 3.5e and 4e blow an equal amount of ass, and both have their positive merits that outdo the others.

You didnt know that apple seeds contain arsenic then?

Icewalker
2008-12-04, 02:23 AM
Not enough to be particularly dangerous though, I believe. Unless you ate a bucket of apple seeds. That'd probably do it.

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:24 AM
You didnt know that apple seeds contain arsenic then?

... Well, I'm still alive. That's gotta count for something.

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 02:26 AM
... Well, I'm still alive. That's gotta count for something.

Doesn't arsenic build up in the body over time?

Asbestos
2008-12-04, 02:26 AM
killed barbarians, bards, scorserrors, gnomes

What? All these will be in PHB2. As Zeful said, they're just rewriting them. If you hate 4e so much, why not play the D&D you have and wait for Pathfinder to bring you 3.75 rather than starting a '4e sucks' thread? What is the big deal people?!?!

Zeful
2008-12-04, 02:28 AM
No, it generally flushes out of your system after a couple of days unless more is added. If you eat an entire apple a day, your going to go end up poisoning yourself.
You eat a whole apple every week, your going to be fine.

Asbestos
2008-12-04, 02:35 AM
No, it generally flushes out of your system after a couple of days unless more is added. If you eat an entire apple a day, your going to go end up poisoning yourself.
You eat a whole apple every week, your going to be fine.

Its sort of a moot point since... they don't contain arsenic!!!!

Apple seeds contain a chemical that is metabolized into cyanide. But, you'd have to eat a heck of a lot of apple seeds to kill yourself from it. You'd very likely get sick from stuffing yourself with apples before you got sick from the seeds.

Enlong
2008-12-04, 02:39 AM
What, was the Monk thread dying down?

Just write unarmed Swordsage threads.

skywalker
2008-12-04, 02:48 AM
Just write unarmed Swordsage threads.

What's there to argue about over unarmed swordsages?

Tengu_temp
2008-12-04, 02:50 AM
{Scrubbed}

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:52 AM
What's there to argue about over unarmed swordsages?

Terrible recovery mechanic. Like, TERRIBLE.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-04, 02:52 AM
No, it generally flushes out of your system after a couple of days unless more is added. If you eat an entire apple a day, your going to go end up poisoning yourself..

So i should be really, really, really dead by now?

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:53 AM
So i should be really, really, really dead by now?

You're my brother in death. We shall die together!

/me bites a chunk out of another apple.

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 02:56 AM
You're my brother in death. We shall die together!

/me bites a chunk out of another apple.

Can I have your source books then?

FoE
2008-12-04, 02:58 AM
Oh gods, not this again.


Can I have your source books then?

Sorry, they'll be buried alongside him in the tomb. But if you can fight past the sixty-six mummies that pelt you with apples, you're free to have them.

HAIL THE DARK LORD SNUGGLES!

KKL
2008-12-04, 02:58 AM
Can I have your source books then?

I'm afraid not. If I'm going six feet under or burnt to a crisp and stuffed in a jar, they're going with me into the afterlife.

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 03:03 AM
I'm afraid not. If I'm going six feet under or burnt to a crisp and stuffed in a jar, they're going with me into the afterlife.

Come on, its not like I asked for your dice!

Kizara
2008-12-04, 03:03 AM
What's there to argue about over unarmed swordsages?

Unrealistic concept, mechanics and taking the teeth out of situational or RPing restrictions.

Not everybody is in love with the ToB.

KKL
2008-12-04, 03:11 AM
Unrealistic concept, mechanics and taking the teeth out of situational or RPing restrictions.

Not everybody is in love with the ToB.

The concept isn't unrealistic at all, especially in a setting where the guy over there is raping reality's bleeding ******* on a regular basis, his cleirc friend is raising the dead and turning HUGE to beat things to death, the druid well...It's a party of bears, and lizards exist where their weight should have killed them. The mechanics themselves are well-done and make melee characters fun.

Also there are no RP restrictions. Unarmed Swordsages can just be regular brawlers that are Just That Damn Good. All you need to do is avoid the schools that can't be easily handwaved as something mundane (I'm talking to you, Desert Sun and Shadow Hand).

Enlong
2008-12-04, 03:15 AM
I was just making a joke, I didn't mean to spark an actual argument.

Oslecamo
2008-12-04, 03:21 AM
The concept isn't unrealistic at all, especially in a setting where the guy over there is raping reality's bleeding ******* on a regular basis, his cleirc friend is raising the dead and turning HUGE to beat things to death, the druid well...It's a party of bears, and lizards exist where their weight should have killed them. The mechanics themselves are well-done and make melee characters fun.


Well, some os us like to just charge and full attack every turn instead of having to make talent trees and needing a deck of cards to know what the hell you can and can't do this turn.

Plus the unarmed swordsge will always be inferior to the armed swordsage, killing the whole monk concept.


People played and had fun with melee characters before ToB.

And they still play and have fun with melee characters whitout ToB.

KKL
2008-12-04, 03:28 AM
Well, some os us like to just charge and full attack every turn instead of having to make talent trees

Nope, not reading the rest. Enjoy your full attack yawnfest with nothing to do.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-04, 05:00 AM
What does mean only charge and full attack?

Do you realize things you can do in a full attack action?

As an answer to the OP, an homage to Irvine Welsh and Danny Boyle, as well to my RPG insanity...


Choose a role; choose a class; choose a paragon path; choose an epic destiny; choose a freaking suggested built, choose magic equipment with no chance to be cursed directly from Player Handbook; Choose healing surges, no save-or-die and one-night full healing; choose fixed damage output; choose a starter home in a point of light; choose crappy- name powers; choose your alignment and wondering who the f*** u are not Chaotic Good ; choose spamming at-wills following mind numbing, spirit-crushing tactics, stuffing only healing potions into your mouth; choose rotting away at the end of the 30th level, pishing your last in a miserable world where magic is nothing more than an embarassement and monsters exist only to grant XP to yourself; choose to fight senseless minions; choose Fourth Edition. But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose fourth: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got to drive nut with 3rd Edition rules?


Don't take it seriously, just find the reference :smallwink:

KIDS
2008-12-04, 05:37 AM
I'd say that all of the things that you listed as "killed" were playable right from the start, and soon came back in refurbished versions anyway.

Fairly satisfied by now, though I wouldn't actually use the words "better" or "worse".

Oslecamo
2008-12-04, 05:44 AM
Nope, not reading the rest. Enjoy your full attack yawnfest with nothing to do.

Enjoy your overcomplicated yanfest of full round maneuver, swift maneuver, recover next turn, repeat ad nauseum, that fail to actually do anything more than the full attack.

And just for the record, trip, sunder, power attack, combat expertise and some other stuff allow for great variety on a full attack.

Samurai Jill
2008-12-04, 05:56 AM
Apples are not better than oranges, nor vice versa. They are simply different.
Thank you.
4e is a very polished gamist RPG where primary melee can actually compete with full casters. If you want anything apart from incrementally more challenging monster encounters and balanced tactical combat, you're essentially on your own.

EDIT: I take that back. It's like comparing apples and lemons, because 3e couldn't decide what the hell it wanted to be good at.

JBento
2008-12-04, 05:56 AM
Plus the unarmed swordsge will always be inferior to the armed swordsage, killing the whole monk concept.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The monk will always be inferior to... whatever other class you choose to pick (except, y'know, NPC classes - except adept - and the CW Samur... oh wait, that one doesn't exist, nvm). By your reasoning, "the whole monk concept" is a stillbirth...

Bryn
2008-12-04, 06:34 AM
4e thread? Oh fiddlesticks, I'm all out of popcorn!

Seriously: Some people like to play 3.5e. Some people like to play 4e. Neither of these people are doing it wrong. Trying to convince the other person that they like the wrong edition is more than a little pointless.

If you want to read a discussion on the merits of each system, try searching the forums. Make sure to wear flame protection, though, and keep your OH- ions nearby.

JBento
2008-12-04, 06:43 AM
4e thread? Oh fiddlesticks, I'm all out of popcorn!

Seriously: Some people like to play 3.5e. Some people like to play 4e. Neither of these people are doing it wrong. Trying to convince the other person that they like the wrong edition is more than a little pointless.

If you want to read a discussion on the merits of each system, try searching the forums. Make sure to wear flame protection, though, and keep your OH- ions nearby.

I'd advise you to keep some H+ around, too. Some of the arguments can be pretty, y'know... basic...

*hides before the vindicator of bad jokes shows up*

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 06:52 AM
EDIT: I take that back. It's like comparing apples and lemons, because 3e couldn't decide what the hell it wanted to be good at.

Do I have to give you a comparison of apple and lemons? I already gave one for apples and oranges.

KnightDisciple
2008-12-04, 07:16 AM
4e thread? Oh fiddlesticks, I'm all out of popcorn!

Seriously: Some people like to play 3.5e. Some people like to play 4e. Neither of these people are doing it wrong. Trying to convince the other person that they like the wrong edition is more than a little pointless.


This. Please.
Seriously, this back and forth gets us nowhere. :smallannoyed:

RebelRogue
2008-12-04, 08:24 AM
To be fair, it's never been possible to play scorserrors in any D&D edition! :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2008-12-04, 08:43 AM
I like all editions- for different reasons.

And am something of a fan of old monsters, weapons, spells, names. I was not entirely fond of Spell Compendium crossing out character names from spells.

Things I waited for in 3rd ed and never saw: Melf's Minute Meteors spell, Yellow Dragon (the old style winged desert one, not the Dragon compendium one) and a few others.

so, each time 4th ed brings up a monster, spell, or something else, that 3rd ed neglected, I will be happier.

archmage45
2008-12-04, 09:13 AM
I must disagree, oranges are clearly jucier, and more flavorful than apples, but harder to get into at first. (A little like 3.5) Apples are a bit easier to get into and not as messy, but not as tasty and leave you unfullfilled and have poison at the center. (kinda like 4th)

Yes, I've had that apples vs oranges thing in my head for years. No, I dont have anything better to do.

Well... that really depends on the apple. If you restrict yourself to red delicious then yes, they aren't particularly flavorful or messy. Now, if you find yourself in an apple orchard late September to mid October where they've got Jonagold, Gala, or Fuji trees, pick one, and compare it to the flavor of the best orange you've ever eaten. It will rival it, no problem!

BardicDuelist
2008-12-04, 09:49 AM
I think that you should use the Search function. This has, at this point, been done to death so many times that it's practically worthless to discuss any further. Sorry you weren't here for it, but read what everyone else has to say. If you had read those, and you were posting just to post your own opinions, find a blog or something, as this really isn't the place.

There was a thread closed about this within the past week or two. Really, it's enough.

hewhosaysfish
2008-12-04, 10:16 AM
Yes, I've had that apples vs oranges thing in my head for years. No, I dont have anything better to do.

Wait... you were thinking of analogies to describe the differences between 3.5 and 4e before 4e was even announced?! You're a future psychic!
:smallbiggrin:

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-04, 10:26 AM
I think That 4.0 is a lot of bad joojoo. I mean they killed barbarians, bards, scorserrors, gnomes, skills, and two weapon fighting! I keen come on grog has got to smash with somthing more thanjust one axe.
What's joojoo? Is that like Cartman trying to flirt with Kyle's female relatives?

Anyway, I like 4e much better than 3e. I'll still play 3e if it comes up, but I won't DM it ever again.

TS

Enlong
2008-12-04, 10:53 AM
I think That 4.0 is a lot of bad joojoo.

REally? Sweet! Which class has the "sheep transformation curse" again?

Samurai Jill
2008-12-04, 11:08 AM
I must disagree, oranges are clearly jucier, and more flavorful than apples, but harder to get into at first. (A little like 3.5) Apples are a bit easier to get into and not as messy, but not as tasty and leave you unfullfilled and have poison at the center. (kinda like 4th)
3e is like a lemon- there's a lot of work involved before you can even sit down to eat, and if you don't boil it with sugar for a while it'll leave a bad taste in your mouth. With 4e, you just have to spit out the pips.

Morty
2008-12-04, 11:10 AM
3e is like a lemon- there's a lot of work involved before you can even sit down to eat, and if you don't boil it with sugar for a while it'll leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Strange, my group plays with no huserules at all and we're having a good time.

Samurai Jill
2008-12-04, 11:16 AM
Making use of Polymorph? Any monks in the party to keep your druid company? Does your cleric intend to spam Harms at every opportunity? If not, it would be more accurate to say you are playing a limited subset of 3e.

Sometimes, you can play by houserules and not even realise it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-04, 11:16 AM
3e is like a lemon- there's a lot of work involved before you can even sit down to eat, and if you don't boil it with sugar for a while it'll leave a bad taste in your mouth. With 4e, you just have to spit out the pips.This thread was funny up until this point. Now I have to argue. I like 3e. I like a game that requires thought. I like having a half-dozen different systems I can use when making a character so I'm never bored while playing. I like how some characters take multiple rounds to reach full power, and others go nova in round 1 and are useless afterward. I enjoy building characters, and I have a huge library of books I love flipping through for that one half-remembered feat. 4e fixed the health issues that my groups never minded by cutting 90% of the meat from their product.

Also, I eat lemons, raw, the same way other people eat oranges. So maybe not everyone shares your tastes.

Morty
2008-12-04, 11:20 AM
Making use of Polymorph? Any monks in the party to keep your druid company? Does your cleric intend to spam Harms at every opportunity? If not, it would be more accurate to say you are playing a limited subset of 3e.

Sometimes, you can play by houserules and not even realise it.

So... because my group happens to not suffer from common 3ed problems I'm playing with houserues and a "limited subset of 3ed"? Whoa, I learn something new everyday. Turns out that if I don't use most broken and underpowered stuff I'm not actually playing 3ed.

Samurai Jill
2008-12-04, 11:25 AM
So... because my group happens to not suffer from common 3ed problems I'm playing with houserues and a "limited subset of 3ed"? Whoa, I learn something new everyday. Turns out that if I don't use most broken and underpowered stuff I'm not actually playing 3ed.
I'm afraid so. You are in fact playing with pretty significant house rules, whether made explicit or not.

Sstoopidtallkid- it's perfectly possible to enjoy the process of making lemonade, but the '90% of the meat from their product' spawned the abomination that was Pun-Pun. Sometimes, for the greater good, sacrifices must be made.

Morty
2008-12-04, 11:27 AM
I'm afraid so. You are in fact playing with pretty significant house rules, whether made explicit or not.


Yeah... right. Sure, whatever you say. I'll have to tell others to pull off a Clericzilla because we're not playing 3ed otherwise. In other words, since I promised myself not to get tangled up in another 4ed vs. 3ed debate that also contains good old "if you don't worship Tome of Battle, you're stupid" sheniangans, I'm off.

KKL
2008-12-04, 11:30 AM
And just for the record, trip, sunder, power attack, combat expertise and some other stuff allow for great variety on a full attack.

HAHAHA THIS AGAIN

Tripping was only used if you built for it. It swung between useless and incredibly frustrating because of size categories and the like.

Sunder just breaks your loot and is in fact, better for the NPCs to use since they're not going to live long anyways.

POWER ATTACK FOR FULL EVERY ROUND YEAH THAT'S SO AWESOME except it's not.

Combat Expertise is garbage, except the prerequisite forfor improved ____.

The some other stuff is well, no. Not at all.

If you don't mind I'll claim victory over this one.

Samurai Jill
2008-12-04, 11:44 AM
Yeah... right. Sure, whatever you say. I'll have to tell others to pull off a Clericzilla because we're not playing 3ed otherwise. In other words, since I promised myself not to get tangled up in another 4ed vs. 3ed debate that also contains good old "if you don't worship Tome of Battle, you're stupid" sheniangans, I'm off.
"Don't spam Harm", "Don't cast Polymorph", "Don't play Monks" are all Rules. The fact your players didn't need to be told them doesn't mean they didn't apply. Nobody plays uncooked 3e.

RebelRogue
2008-12-04, 11:54 AM
"Don't spam Harm", "Don't cast Polymorph", "Don't play Monks" are all Rules. The fact your players didn't need to be told them doesn't mean they didn't apply. Nobody plays uncooked 3e.
By that definition noone ever plays "uncooked" anything!

mikeejimbo
2008-12-04, 11:54 AM
To be fair, it's never been possible to play scorserrors in any D&D edition! :smalltongue:

Well, unless someone homebrewed one, but that's true of any class that's not in right now.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-04, 11:56 AM
This thread was funny up until this point. Now I have to argue. I like 3e. I like a game that requires thought. I like having a half-dozen different systems I can use when making a character so I'm never bored while playing. I like how some characters take multiple rounds to reach full power, and others go nova in round 1 and are useless afterward. I enjoy building characters, and I have a huge library of books I love flipping through for that one half-remembered feat. 4e fixed the health issues that my groups never minded by cutting 90% of the meat from their product.

Also, I eat lemons, raw, the same way other people eat oranges. So maybe not everyone shares your tastes.

Seconded en plein. Lemons included


So... because my group happens to not suffer from common 3ed problems I'm playing with houserues and a "limited subset of 3ed"? Whoa, I learn something new everyday. Turns out that if I don't use most broken and underpowered stuff I'm not actually playing 3ed.

So, me too.

Friends of mine bringed a monk (20 Monk 20 Shintao Monk) to epic. Bare Hand vorpalized Great Wyrms, Infinite deviation of orb spells, almost unkillable character. I learned in these threads that Monk are underpowered.

Ah, and never used relevant houserule (unless in the meaning Samurai Jill intended).

Mephit
2008-12-04, 12:07 PM
It's 3.5 for me as well, if only for the sheer amount of time you can nitpick at the mechanics. Also, even if some things might seem to be suboptimal, it's no reason to not play them.

I've tripped multiple times with a character who wasn't optimised for it. (Admittedly, in those situations, I had an obvious chance to succeed.)
I've played monks, no matter what optimisation may say about them.
Heck, I've played a kobold fighter because they're downright awesome.

Just because a game doesn't have excellently balanced mechanics doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. Yes, the game is unbalanced in some aspects. It makes up with all of the options and customisability of your character.
So come hold the 'unbalanced and monotone' argument in my face when an equal amount of splatbooks for 4th have come out as 3.5 has.
In the meantime, I'll just houserule away what I don't like, and keep the awesome bits of the edition. (Which is to say, everything except a few feats, some fluff and a couple of spells.)

Don't judge the edition based on what you find on the net. I promise I won't do the same to 4th edition.

Britter
2008-12-04, 12:11 PM
I am an unabashed 2e and 4e fan, and generally dislike 3.x, but I have to throw my total support behind the folks defending 3.x in this thread. Sure, by now it is a trite and over-stated point, but the game I like and the game you like aren't going to be the same game, even if they are the same edition.

We all play for different things. There are people who enjoy the nature of 3e for what it is, just like some folks enjoy 1, 2, or 4. It fills their gaming need. 3.x is a robust system that can meet the demands of a lot of different gamers, has a ton of supporting documentation in splatbooks to help achieve the feel you want, and offers a lot of flexibility. Sure, some of that leads to broken things, but frankly, who cares? Heck, some gaming groups LIKE the fact that it leads to broken things. Sure, the rules are numerous and might be too complicated for some people (Like me, for example. Too many rules in 3.x for me to enjoy it), but other people enjoy being able to work within the complicated rules structure.

In my 15 years in this hobby I have played around a dozen different gaming tables, under 4 or 5 gms, with a wide variety of systems. I liked some, I hated some, and I worked to tailor my gaming to what I wanted from it. But mostly I learned long ago to stop telling people playing a game that they were enjoying that they were "doing it wrong." It is a game, after all, and a games sucsess can really only be measured by asking if the people playing it are having fun.

Now, although it is a futile request, lets stop re-animating this dead horse only to beat it into pulp yet again. Be passionate about your hobby, be passionate about your choosen edition, whatever floats your boat, but don't harsh someone elses groove by bashing how they want to game.

/end soapbox rant, apologies for coming off as preachy.

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 12:35 PM
Wait... you were thinking of analogies to describe the differences between 3.5 and 4e before 4e was even announced?! You're a future psychic!
:smallbiggrin:

Of course I am, but only in ways that are of no use to me or anyone I know, unless they wont believe me. One of my friends' friends went missing and I predicted exactly where they would find her.

FoE
2008-12-04, 12:38 PM
Now, although it is a futile request, lets stop re-animating this dead horse only to beat it into pulp yet again. Be passionate about your hobby, be passionate about your choosen edition, whatever floats your boat, but don't harsh someone elses groove by bashing how they want to game.

Well said. This in-fighting is pointless. I propose we derail the thread with Yu Gi Oh Abridged references. :smalltongue:

"The ocean and I have an understanding. She allows me to date other large bodies of water. But the ocean is my one true love!"


Of course I am, but only in ways that are of no use to me or anyone I know, unless they wont believe me. One of my friends' friends went missing and I predicted exactly where they would find her.

Hey there, Cassandra Truth. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CassandraTruth)

Morty
2008-12-04, 01:34 PM
By that definition noone ever plays "uncooked" anything!

Exactly. Because very often, there are some "rules" withing the group that have nothing to do with balance at all. Saying that game is houseruled because players don't know anything about optimization and therefore are less likely to run into balance problems is preposterous.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-04, 01:35 PM
Unrealistic concept, mechanics and taking the teeth out of situational or RPing restrictions.


Vancian spell casting.

Moriato
2008-12-04, 01:52 PM
Vancian spell casting.

You're right, I propose a more "realistic" spell casting system: You cast a spell, nothing happens.

The Mormegil
2008-12-04, 02:03 PM
This thread was funny up until this point. Now I have to argue. I like 3e. I like a game that requires thought. I like having a half-dozen different systems I can use when making a character so I'm never bored while playing. I like how some characters take multiple rounds to reach full power, and others go nova in round 1 and are useless afterward. I enjoy building characters, and I have a huge library of books I love flipping through for that one half-remembered feat. 4e fixed the health issues that my groups never minded by cutting 90% of the meat from their product.

Also, I eat lemons, raw, the same way other people eat oranges. So maybe not everyone shares your tastes.

:smallsmile: This was fun to read:


I don't like 3e. I like a game that requires thought. I don't like having a half-dozen different systems I can use when making a character so I'm never bored while building a character. I like how combat moves and actually requires much more than a fixed amount of damages, because in MY 3.5 experience it boils down to that, magic being completely useless, and I love wizards and arcane magic and all that and that's frustrating. I enjoy DMing, and I have a huge library of books I love flipping through for that one half-remembered story. 4e fixed the health issues that my groups suffered very much by cutting 90% of the meat from their product which we never really minded at all, except for the ones of us who are munchkins, which are also the ones that quit gaming with us when 4E arrived.

Also, I eat lemons, raw, the same way other people eat oranges. So maybe not everyone shares your tastes.:smallcool:

Funny old world isn't it? :smallwink:

EDIT: Which of course prooves what people is telling from the start: they are both good systems, one is good for us, one for them...

Zeful
2008-12-04, 02:10 PM
Vancian spell casting.

3.5 or 2nd ed? They are two different systems. 2nd ed makes sense: You call on the powers of the universe and weave them in a safe environment. This process takes a monumental amount of time.

3.5: 8 hours refreshes your powers over physics.

Yukitsu
2008-12-04, 02:14 PM
Also, I eat lemons, raw, the same way other people eat oranges. So maybe not everyone shares your tastes.

I eat them like apples. The peels have tons of vitamins, and that white stuff has a lot of fibre.

As for 4th ed, I personally don't like but, but if someone does like it, good for them. I do wish they would continue supporting 3.5 in some capacity though.

Mephit
2008-12-04, 02:15 PM
powers over physics.

With all respect, I'm going to make the argument countless amounts of people have made before: How can you possibly argue that one system of bending the laws of the universe to your will makes more sense than another one?

hamishspence
2008-12-04, 02:17 PM
"Picking something up with magic tires you as much as picking it up with arms and back" is typical of slightly grittier Magic systems.

Then they start ignoring all that with a little experience, at higher level. Oops.

chiasaur11
2008-12-04, 02:20 PM
I am an unabashed 2e and 4e fan, and generally dislike 3.x, but I have to throw my total support behind the folks defending 3.x in this thread. Sure, by now it is a trite and over-stated point, but the game I like and the game you like aren't going to be the same game, even if they are the same edition.

We all play for different things. There are people who enjoy the nature of 3e for what it is, just like some folks enjoy 1, 2, or 4. It fills their gaming need. 3.x is a robust system that can meet the demands of a lot of different gamers, has a ton of supporting documentation in splatbooks to help achieve the feel you want, and offers a lot of flexibility. Sure, some of that leads to broken things, but frankly, who cares? Heck, some gaming groups LIKE the fact that it leads to broken things. Sure, the rules are numerous and might be too complicated for some people (Like me, for example. Too many rules in 3.x for me to enjoy it), but other people enjoy being able to work within the complicated rules structure.

In my 15 years in this hobby I have played around a dozen different gaming tables, under 4 or 5 gms, with a wide variety of systems. I liked some, I hated some, and I worked to tailor my gaming to what I wanted from it. But mostly I learned long ago to stop telling people playing a game that they were enjoying that they were "doing it wrong." It is a game, after all, and a games sucsess can really only be measured by asking if the people playing it are having fun.

Now, although it is a futile request, lets stop re-animating this dead horse only to beat it into pulp yet again. Be passionate about your hobby, be passionate about your choosen edition, whatever floats your boat, but don't harsh someone elses groove by bashing how they want to game.

/end soapbox rant, apologies for coming off as preachy.

SHH!

You'll scare away the strawmen. Stop being so reasonable!

Paramour Pink
2008-12-04, 02:53 PM
I must disagree, oranges are clearly jucier, and more flavorful than apples, but harder to get into at first. (A little like 3.5) Apples are a bit easier to get into and not as messy, but not as tasty and leave you unfullfilled and have poison at the center. (kinda like 4th)


Apples have something called (I think) cretin, which supresses hunger. Otherwise, I like your orange VS apples comment. :smallamused:

Zeful
2008-12-04, 03:10 PM
With all respect, I'm going to make the argument countless amounts of people have made before: How can you possibly argue that one system of bending the laws of the universe to your will makes more sense than another one?

Magnitude. 3.x had separated the magnitude of the spell with the expense of using it (both in time (preparation, and casting) and resources). It takes eight hours to refresh all the spell slots a wizard has and fill them with spells. Then it takes a single standard action to stop time, nothing else, no great expenditure of gold or personal power. Just 6 seconds of talking and bam.

In 2nd, you took nine hours to prepare the same spell, and every other ninth level spell for that matter. Then casting it would take an action, lower your initiate for the next turn (or round, I played 2nd ed once.) and cost something (years I'm pretty sure). It required much more thought to use then Clearicy+Time Stop+Buff Familiar=Death to everybody.

In short the stronger a spell is, the more resources should be spent learning and utilizing the spell (time, gold, exp, age), not just be higher level.

DM Raven
2008-12-04, 03:18 PM
Ug, don't we have enough of these threads...

And yes, I realized I just bumped the thread and I, therefore, am responsible for furthering this madness.

Hey guys, I've missed everyone...but I have returned!

Kris Strife
2008-12-04, 08:48 PM
Apples have something called (I think) cretin, which supresses hunger. Otherwise, I like your orange VS apples comment. :smallamused:

Thanks! I came up with it entirely to disprove the "you can't compare apples and oranges" saying. And wouldnt that mean that you get tired of playing 4th (the apple) faster than 3.5?

Roland St. Jude
2008-12-04, 09:26 PM
Ug, don't we have enough of these threads...

Sheriff of Moddingham: We do have enough of these threads. And this one, like the others, promises to be a pointless edition warn ending in various Infractions. Thread locked.