I started back in 1979 or 1980, and have played up to 3.5. I have looked at 4th edition, and to be honest it does not really look like AD&D at all.
To be honest I prefer 2nd edition. 3.5 seems more like a super hero type game system. The character feats are so overbalancing to me it seems almost silly. I do prefer their skill based system, as long as it is moderated.
I have read a few of the different boards, and they have post after post of how to create the SUPER character build by placing your initial points here and then taking the appropriate feats and classes.
To me, the 3.5 version of the game lost alot of the finesse factor overall.
I have not played 4th edition, I have just watched a few hours of it. The mage being able to constantly throw magical damage seems a bit overdone. They have also removed the spellbook completely. To me it was one of the charms of 2nd edition, trying to come across the obscure spell. You can just choose the type of damage your doing, fire, cold, electric or what ever. Also they said that you can just cast fly, knock, or any of the other types of miscellaneous spells by using magical force effects.
Please feel free to chime in. I would welcome the chance to relook at the games and find stuff I have missed. I am finding it harder and harder to find people who like 2nd edition. The super hero version, (to me) of 3.5 or 4th edition has far more followers.
Questions about different expansions
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Here's the big difference between 3.5 and 4th that anyone who's seriously interested in D&D should know.
4th edition is the type of game that's all about the action and the die rolls, skill challenges here, powers there, it's all a matter of roll this or that and there are far less variable rolls than 3.5, so the die rolls are quite simple. This is a perfect game for people who don't know the rules to D&D or even what D&D is all about.
3.5 is a moderately broken but highly customizable, expansive, and dynamic system that, once the D20 system is almost second nature to a person, is a gamers best friend (especially pathfinder). Yes, many supplemental rules, especially Prestige Classes, are extremely unbalanced. Druid, Wilder, Psychic Warrior, Warlock, even core classes like those can be highly broken. However, there are -so- many variables to the game, so many options and so many counters to what you are as a character, and because of that there are so many ways to make the game -very- much balanced. With a little work, and a few choice supplemental books like Pathfinder, Eberron, and so on, the edition is easily the best of the six.
I like second edition as well (save for Thac0), but 3.5 is my forte for now.
4th edition is the type of game that's all about the action and the die rolls, skill challenges here, powers there, it's all a matter of roll this or that and there are far less variable rolls than 3.5, so the die rolls are quite simple. This is a perfect game for people who don't know the rules to D&D or even what D&D is all about.
3.5 is a moderately broken but highly customizable, expansive, and dynamic system that, once the D20 system is almost second nature to a person, is a gamers best friend (especially pathfinder). Yes, many supplemental rules, especially Prestige Classes, are extremely unbalanced. Druid, Wilder, Psychic Warrior, Warlock, even core classes like those can be highly broken. However, there are -so- many variables to the game, so many options and so many counters to what you are as a character, and because of that there are so many ways to make the game -very- much balanced. With a little work, and a few choice supplemental books like Pathfinder, Eberron, and so on, the edition is easily the best of the six.
I like second edition as well (save for Thac0), but 3.5 is my forte for now.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
followers
What I could not understand is how they could put followers into the game. Not knowing 3.5 very well, I could not believe what they were able to do.
A person had a cleric follower who was always 2 levels below him, and would buff him before every combat. The monk had a wizard who would cast a variety of spells upon him. A follower for the cost of feat was silly. If your follower died for any reason you could just get a new one, as long as you were taking care of them.
What I could not understand is how they could put followers into the game. Not knowing 3.5 very well, I could not believe what they were able to do.
A person had a cleric follower who was always 2 levels below him, and would buff him before every combat. The monk had a wizard who would cast a variety of spells upon him. A follower for the cost of feat was silly. If your follower died for any reason you could just get a new one, as long as you were taking care of them.
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Cohorts were the least broken feature of 3.5 IMO.
They count towards the CR of a party and considering they're 2 levels lower, this screws with the average and works against the players. Basically, you have 4 level 10 characters, and a couple of level 8 cohorts. Before, with just the 4, they couldn't take on an average sized red dragon, but now they can, and their cohorts are easily going to die because of it.
The feat requires that you're level 6, and the stats are so immensly hard to get at that level. Once you're high enough, sure, pop on a cloak of charisma or something to up the stats, but otherwise, you may have him be 3 or even 4 levels below you for a time being.
They count towards the CR of a party and considering they're 2 levels lower, this screws with the average and works against the players. Basically, you have 4 level 10 characters, and a couple of level 8 cohorts. Before, with just the 4, they couldn't take on an average sized red dragon, but now they can, and their cohorts are easily going to die because of it.
The feat requires that you're level 6, and the stats are so immensly hard to get at that level. Once you're high enough, sure, pop on a cloak of charisma or something to up the stats, but otherwise, you may have him be 3 or even 4 levels below you for a time being.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
An Artificer, Wizard or Cleric cohort is still pretty mean, especially in lower-magic campaigns. It pretty much ensures you get the magic items you want, when you want, where you want. (Barring DM intervention, of course.)
The most broken thing in 3.5 is the PHB. Just take a look at lvl 9 spells.
Anyway, despite its flaws, I'll stick with 3.5 anyday. The sheer customisibility makes up for any flaws.
The most broken thing in 3.5 is the PHB. Just take a look at lvl 9 spells.
Anyway, despite its flaws, I'll stick with 3.5 anyday. The sheer customisibility makes up for any flaws.
-
Argyle_Warrior
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:23 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- Contact:
Approach with an open mind . . .
Personally, I've been playing almost 20 years, and I think that each edition has it's place. 2nd ed was the culmination of a legacy, and the game in it's purest form. 3.5 is the power-gaming mutation, bringing combat to it's tactical epitome, and was also structured to reach a wider audience.
The current incarnation of the game (4e) doesn't seem so much to be intended as growing upon the success of the past as it is to bring the entire game into a new place and attract the millions of gamers out there who were intimidated my the tabletop format.
At first blush, I too was disappointed with the apparent "dumbing down" of the system. But I have also come to realize some very important points which perhaps we had all forgotten or taken for granted:
1. The game is a business. It's WotC's responsibility to their employees and shareholders to be as profitable as possible. If they can design a game that appeals to the masses and market it with the most recognizable brand name in the world, then they will.
2. The game is what we make it. This has been true from day one. If there is a spell, or power, or combination thereof that you feel is "broken," don't allow it at your table. This may become sticky at an RPGA event, but then again, you made the decision to go there and play by their rules. Just as the dungeon master is empowered, and encouraged, to build the game in a way they want, they are also able to limit the resources and options available at their table. If you think psionics are broken, don't use them. Don't like how a cdertain feat makes someone apparently invincible, nerf it. And if several players within a group petition their DM that a rule doesn't make sense because it's TOO powerful, I'm sure the DM will check it, and a good DM will probably change it.
2b. The game is still what me make it. This includes fixing what we feel is an oversimplification of the process. Skills in 4e have been reduced to a couple dozen abilities that get called upon a couple times a session in "skill challenges." But it is up to the DM and the players to make these skill challenges come to life. Don't just roll the diplomacy check. You have to describe the conversation. Include body language and tone, add flavor, and play "in-character." Don't just roll the athletics check, describe your wind-fast sprint speed or your gazelle-like leaping ability.
All of it boils down to the fact that it's really more about who you play with, and less what you play. The dart-specialized half-orc fighter was just as broken in 2nd ed as the frost-dagger-wielding rogue in 4e. If "munchkining" characters isn't your style, don't play with people who do. You'll all have more fun.
On a side note, wizards still have spell books, and additionally the concept of ritual casting has opened spellcasting to new directions and allowed a lot more flexibility in some of the most popular truly utilitarian applications.
Personally, I've been playing almost 20 years, and I think that each edition has it's place. 2nd ed was the culmination of a legacy, and the game in it's purest form. 3.5 is the power-gaming mutation, bringing combat to it's tactical epitome, and was also structured to reach a wider audience.
The current incarnation of the game (4e) doesn't seem so much to be intended as growing upon the success of the past as it is to bring the entire game into a new place and attract the millions of gamers out there who were intimidated my the tabletop format.
At first blush, I too was disappointed with the apparent "dumbing down" of the system. But I have also come to realize some very important points which perhaps we had all forgotten or taken for granted:
1. The game is a business. It's WotC's responsibility to their employees and shareholders to be as profitable as possible. If they can design a game that appeals to the masses and market it with the most recognizable brand name in the world, then they will.
2. The game is what we make it. This has been true from day one. If there is a spell, or power, or combination thereof that you feel is "broken," don't allow it at your table. This may become sticky at an RPGA event, but then again, you made the decision to go there and play by their rules. Just as the dungeon master is empowered, and encouraged, to build the game in a way they want, they are also able to limit the resources and options available at their table. If you think psionics are broken, don't use them. Don't like how a cdertain feat makes someone apparently invincible, nerf it. And if several players within a group petition their DM that a rule doesn't make sense because it's TOO powerful, I'm sure the DM will check it, and a good DM will probably change it.
2b. The game is still what me make it. This includes fixing what we feel is an oversimplification of the process. Skills in 4e have been reduced to a couple dozen abilities that get called upon a couple times a session in "skill challenges." But it is up to the DM and the players to make these skill challenges come to life. Don't just roll the diplomacy check. You have to describe the conversation. Include body language and tone, add flavor, and play "in-character." Don't just roll the athletics check, describe your wind-fast sprint speed or your gazelle-like leaping ability.
All of it boils down to the fact that it's really more about who you play with, and less what you play. The dart-specialized half-orc fighter was just as broken in 2nd ed as the frost-dagger-wielding rogue in 4e. If "munchkining" characters isn't your style, don't play with people who do. You'll all have more fun.
On a side note, wizards still have spell books, and additionally the concept of ritual casting has opened spellcasting to new directions and allowed a lot more flexibility in some of the most popular truly utilitarian applications.