Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

It absolutely is.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to something that isn't the way things used to be.

If anything 3e is more like WoW, at least for non-mages.  You know what my barbarian does in 3e?  He waits for his turn, then he uses a power attack.  Then he waits for his next turn.

There are combat maneuvers like tripping and grappling that you can do instead of power attacking every turn.

[Neonivek]

It absolutely is.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to something that isn't the way things used to be.

If anything 3e is more like WoW, at least for non-mages.  You know what my barbarian does in 3e?  He waits for his turn, then he uses a power attack.  Then he waits for his next turn.

There are combat maneuvers like tripping and grappling that you can do instead of power attacking every turn.

Ignoring how it is almost never a good idea to use anything other than attack or the mess of trying to know how grapple even works.

Unless you make a gamebreaking build... you never can use those moves on an enemy. "What you are a giant enemy? Dang it! well Power attack!"

These "limitless builds" usually amounted to either breaking the game allowing you to do one thing differently... or just doing the same thing.

Where in 4e, especially with the suppliments, you actually had quite a bit of options and strategies within the same build... but other builds could expand what it is you can do. The difference between a Star focused or Fae focused Warlock is immense.

[Tres_Huevos]

I've heard good things about Pathfinder too, but I haven't really looked into it as much. And for a newb to tabletop rpg gaming, DnD is the big go-to name. Seems reasonable to start with

For the sake of clarity, since I haven't seen it explicitly pointed out elsewhere yet, for most purposes Pathfinder is D&D. Not in name or official setting as those belong to Wizards, but it took the 3.5 rules (which were released under the Open Game License), cleaned up what they considered the most glaring (and fixable without rewriting the entire system) flaws, and then continued developing content for it.

[Neonivek]

I've heard good things about Pathfinder too, but I haven't really looked into it as much. And for a newb to tabletop rpg gaming, DnD is the big go-to name. Seems reasonable to start with

For the sake of clarity, since I haven't seen it explicitly pointed out elsewhere yet, for most purposes Pathfinder is D&D. Not in name or official setting as those belong to Wizards, but it took the 3.5 rules (which were released under the Open Game License), cleaned up what they considered the most glaring (and fixable without rewriting the entire system) flaws, and then continued developing content for it.

Its biggest fix is it GREATLY diminished the sheer number of negation enemies, gave classes more options that stopped them from becoming useless (Clerics having Blind/deafen and curse use different saves is intentional).

Rogues are still TOO useful... but their problem of basically being useless in the majority of the fights is gone. So they are no longer too useless most of the time.
-3.5 rogues are too useful and too useless. Too useful in that whether or not the party has one completely changes how the game is played... Too useless in that they SUCK! the vast majority of enemies in the game are immune to them.

[Sergarr]

It absolutely is.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to something that isn't the way things used to be.

If anything 3e is more like WoW, at least for non-mages.  You know what my barbarian does in 3e?  He waits for his turn, then he uses a power attack.  Then he waits for his next turn.

There are combat maneuvers like tripping and grappling that you can do instead of power attacking every turn.

Ignoring how it is almost never a good idea to use anything other than attack or the mess of trying to know how grapple even works.

Unless you make a gamebreaking build... you never can use those moves on an enemy. "What you are a giant enemy? Dang it! well Power attack!"

These "limitless builds" usually amounted to either breaking the game allowing you to do one thing differently... or just doing the same thing.

Where in 4e, especially with the suppliments, you actually had quite a bit of options and strategies within the same build... but other builds could expand what it is you can do. The difference between a Star focused or Fae focused Warlock is immense.

Of course, if we speak about 3rd edition, the most right answer is always "go with the non-Sorcerer magic class instead".

Then you can do multiple different things at a level of "not suck", and every day you can choose a different list of "things that I can do this day".

[Neonivek]

Which at that point perhaps everyone should just play Wizards and Clerics.

[NullForceOmega]

Since when did PnP RPGs become about MMO style min-maxing optimized loadout?  Has no one ever actually just tried to build a 'character' here?  Christ, If I had to deal with a bunch of goddamn muchkins with the attitudes I see here at my table they'd very rapidly find themselves having a very bad day.

[Orange Wizard]

Shenanigans and RP are not mutually exclusive. Everyone likes different amounts of both. Personally, I like a moderate level of both roleplay and rollplay. I like to come up with silly character ideas and then abuse rules until I can both make that character and make it work.
Not everyone finds that fun, and that's okay. But please don't act like your roleplaying experience is superior because you don't care about the numbers.

[NullForceOmega]

If that came off as 'superior' then I apologize.  However your comment is frankly just as 'I'm better than you because I'm more inclusive' bullshit in that case.  I find munchkins to be disruptive, worthless at anything even vaguely related to actual story and frankly offensive.  But I don't claim to be superior, just intolerant.

[Criptfeind]

Even without optimization combat as a melee character in 3.5 is dreadfully dull compared to spellcasters/martial characters/4E. I mean, sure, you have some shitty combat things like grapple or trip, that will more likely then not fuck you over for trying to do them if you're not built to do them, and then be pretty much pointless in anything but at low levels. Or you can hit something with your sword. And maybe you'll kill it about 20 turns or so, as your sorcerer buddy is machine gunning out spells that destroy what you're fighting in a single action. You don't need to be a 'muchkin' to realize that's a shitty situation to be in. Hell, frankly I find it hurts the roleplaying a lot more then optimization does, when you you're suppose to be the wizards companion, but realistically you're more akin to a pet.

I mean, it's not a omnipresent issue. You can play a optimized character, but that's boring as a melee character generally, because that means just doing one thing quite well, but not having any other realistic options (and you're totally fucked if you need to fight something immune to your one thing) Or can play a martial class, which are powerful enough to keep up quite well to spell casters (assuming the spell casters are not optimizing) AND you have plenty of fun options that actually do different things. Of course, martial characters are basically 4E characters. Edit: Or the whole party can play on a lower level of power, which is often makes quite a good game, but many people don't like doing that for some reason. 

5E is a bit better in that regard... Although not... Well, it doesn't feel like that issue is as solved in it as it is in 4E, but at least with the squished power levels you're less a mascot and more a contributing member of the party. Although it seems like you can still be pretty one dimensional, especially if you're one of the free classes (seriously, the Champion archetype is such a joke, and really made me despair for 5E until I downloaded the actual book and read the other options.)

[NullForceOmega]

In fifteen years of running 3rd ed, I have never had a 'boring' session, as a player or a DM, and I have absolutely NEVER run nor allowed an optimized character of any class.  If the combat is boring then the DM does not have a clear idea of what they are doing, and if the roleplay is boring then the DM just plain sucks.

[Orange Wizard]

You have an outright ban on "optimised" characters? How do you even enforce that? Do you just go around saying "your character is too powerful, you bloody disruptive munchkin"?

...

'I'm better than you because I'm more inclusive'

Ahahahaha oh wow we've never met before have we.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah, well, good on you. (Although it's a little bit unbelievable a claim that you've never had a single bad session, they happen to the best of us). I'm not saying the game is boring, or that combat has to be bad. Just that the system really doesn't support fun and varied combat in the same way that 4E does.

Like I enjoy playing 3.5, and I think it's a great system to base the roleplaying on, but the mechanics, as a basic fighting character like a fighter or a barbarian, are not fun. You can still have fun, but that's on the players and the GM, it's not caused by the system. And good players and a good GM can have fun doing anything.

[NullForceOmega]

I've had 'bad' sessions, including arguments, brawls, and once a threat with a knife, but I have never had a 'boring' session.  And I am more than capable of performing basic and advanced math when I see a character, so yes, I will tell someone 'no' to a character that is clearly built around an unbalanced principle.

And no Orange, we have never met, for one we're on opposite sides of the Pacific, and for another, you wouldn't like me.

[Orange Wizard]

fun and varied combat

I always thought 4E was really same-y. It has more depth than 3/etc., in the sense that your strategy is more important (AFAIK), but with all the classes basically being refluffed versions of each other... meh. I'll take 3.5's poorly balanced asymmetrical nonsense over a balanced yet samey game any day.

On that note, what part of 3.5 isn't unbalanced?