Setting. More effort was clearly put into 3E's setting than 4E's.
Also, 3E was a fairly limited game -- there was clearly an optimal build for each character class, and if you didn't make that, you were tupid. 4E can paralyze you with too many choices re: builds.
A big thing I liked was flexibility in Wizards. That's not to say I want to go back to them edging out other classes, mind. But I miss the idea of a wizard being able to choose between illusion, or necromancy, or other non-damage-focused options. 4e wizards all felt like evokers out of the gate (though they added a little illusion and a form of summoning later).
I liked abilities that scaled with level. The tendency for higher-level powers in 4e to be "lower level power, rank 2" struck me as a big waste of space. Sure, 3rd had its share of this ("Wish: as Limited Wish, but with fewer limits" is my single favorite line from the entire edition), but it wasn't as predominant.
There was also the feel of the books. I know it was controversial, but I liked the "tome" look of the 3.X books. And I liked the art they used for most of the "archetype" characters, with a few exceptions (*coughMialeecough*). Actually, having the archetypes as go-to examples of a class worked really well, and avoided the "character switches gender mid-sentence" problems that sometimes crop up.
I also miss the flavor of having crafting in among the skills. Being able to make your own weapons and armor really made it feel like a more complete, real world.
Having set DCs for an action made the world feel more coherent, as well. It was an iron door we were breaking down, not a level 5 door.
A big thing I liked was flexibility in Wizards. That's not to say I want to go back to them edging out other classes, mind. But I miss the idea of a wizard being able to choose between illusion, or necromancy, or other non-damage-focused options. 4e wizards all felt like evokers out of the gate (though they added a little illusion and a form of summoning later).
I agree with this. I played several different wizards in 3.5 and would intentionally do different spell schools each time. You could sort of do this is towards the end of 4E, but definitely not out of the gate.
I am curious to know what you thought 3.5 did right that didn't transfer to 4e.
Modular multi-classing. 3.5 could have done it /better/, but it was a brilliant idea. The two things that'd've fixed it (and that I'd've expected if 4e had been an evolution of 3.5), would have been (1) taking the 1st level of a class after 1st level doesn't give you the full 1st-level benefits (2) fractional BAB, Saves, and Caster level for /all/ classes, so that every single-level module adds something to all three (it was just absurd you you could have a MC character with 0 BAB after 4 or 5 levels, or wild save disparities, and the way MCing required PRC work-arounds for casters due to caster level not stacking).
Pole-arm wielding Fighters. Ever try getting 'Threatening Reach' in 4e? Ugh. 4e was generally very good about avoiding 'late blooming builds,' where your PC goes through along catepillar phase before pupating into the concept you were going for at some higher level. Except for pole-arm fighters. Want the simple, obvious advantage of being able to poke someone with a 13-foot pike before they can poke you with a 13" knife? Wait. For. Epic. ...Oh, and lances (they're pole-arms, too). You can play a 'chivalric' Paladin in shining armor, but no lance for you. WTF? On a related, more obscure note, you also can't do anything resembling a Hoplite with a reach advantage from a 1-handed spear, either - in 3.0 (not 3.5) you could at least fake it with a 'lance.'
3.5 did a lot of other things right - roles, tactial combat, d20 core mechanics, magic item costs, class skills, feats, universal exp advancement, etc - but they were passed on to 4e, and improved upon.
Of course, modular multiclassing isn't really possible in 4e. 5e could achieve the best of 4e's common advancement structure and 3.5 modular multiclassing, if it made classes, themes, and multi-classing all work through power-swaps (and perhaps even feature-swaps).
And, the problem with threatening reach is that it turns you into a sort of melee controller, and Fighters are defenders. Of course, they kept saying "we have no concept for a martial controller," when they had to take threatening reach away from polearms to prevent creating de-facto controllers, so there's your concept, right there. Anyway, a basic tactical consideration like weapon length shouldn't be relegated to upper tiers, it's just silly. 5e should definitely allow for a lot of differentiation among weapons and among martial characters, including allowing the source to cover all roles, well. (Which, among other things, enables 'low fantasy' and non-magical settings where D&D-style casters would be inapropriate).
How to put this. I liked that there were more... branching points? I feel that in 4e, characters of the same class are on too similar or tracks until far too late into the game, mainly paragon tier. I love the customization options that come from PPs, the level 16 features are things that completely change your dynamics. The paragon and epic feats are also much more interesting. They are more powerful as well, but they play on buffing features and tactics instead of just flat number buffs. Aside from the recent addition of themes, I hate everything about heroic tier in 4e because I feel like there simply is too little to work with to customize a character. I want things like level 11 and 16 features often, not half-way to becoming a demigod. And let's be honest, most of those abilities don't even feel very crazy, they are just interesting. Good, but interesting, not something that seems to fit with the idea of nation-influencing characters.
Contrasting this with 3e, PrC's can be taken much earlier, and in say D20 Modern, you can take them even earlier than 3e. The ability to start making your fighter into a Fighter|Rogue|Shadowdancer or whatever makes me feel so much more excitement. I like making characters that have a much more tailored skill set, and 3e provided this with its multiclassing and PrC rules. Now, it didn't do the best job because it was a horrible mess of balance, but the concept was there, and that's what I liked. For example, you can make a great hybrid of two very weird classes in 4e like say a Fighter|Warlock, and it will work ok, whereas in 3e a Fighter5|Warlock 5 is f'ing terrible.
I also miss magic items feeling, well, interesting. I can't be bothered with 99% of magic items in 4e, they are just bland and provide no benefit other than the "keeping up with the Jones'" type of bonuses. I miss the crazy stuff. Honestly, I feel the same way about a lot of out of combat magic and class abilities; they just were more diverse and interesting in 3.X. I don't want the return of scry and fry or eyes of find the bad guy, but there is a middle ground to be sure. The ritual system kind of captures this, but the costs and casting times are too prohibitive to see much play in most groups.
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
I also miss the flavor of having crafting in among the skills. Being able to make your own weapons and armor really made it feel like a more complete, real world.
Oh I know, the Artificer was my all time favorite class to play. I even made a whole unofficial artificer's guidebook back in the day (still got a copy of it around here somewhere too). What happened to that class in 4e was just... sad.
What happened to that class in 4e was just... sad.
What? I liked it in 4E. I thought it was fantastic, in fact. It got very little support, and that was very sad, certainly, but I don't think that there was anything wrong with the class itself.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Tome of Battle is the one thing I really liked about 3.5, I wish 4e's martials followed its template more closely than they did, and I hope that 5e steps back and uses ToB as a starting point for martials (and weapon-primary classes in general, so this includes Paladins, for example) doing Cool Things (TM). Funny thing is, the Essentials Slayer and Knight with their at-will stances was an obvious homage to ToB, but they forgot to fill those classes in with real encounter powers.
Hmm, wasn't ToB universally reviled? What made it good in your opinion?
