Playing 4e has made me appreciate 3.5 more.

1056 posts / 0 new
Last post
First up, this is not an edition wars thread. I don't want to see edition wars in here. Let me make this very clear by repeating it in big red letters;

This is not an edition wars thread. Keep the edition wars out. If you want to say how 3.5 or 4e is superior in some way, shape or form, go make your own thread.




With that out of the way; i've found that playing 4e with it's balanced gameyness has ironically given me a new appreciation for 3.5. Don't get me wrong, i love 4e, i think it's a great game, but i've found that a little part of me does indeed miss the days when the Wizard could blow up houses at level 6 and blow up planets by level 20. Sure it was unbalanced, sure if you wanted to you could bend the system over backwards and have your way with it, but every now and then it's kind of fun to run around with half a dozen people each capable of flattening entire kingdoms with a wave of their hands.

I don't think 4e is better than 3.5 or visa-versa, i think they're different systems with different experiences, and playing the one has made me gain a new appreciation for the other. Anyone else have similar experiences?
If you miss the days when characters could blow up planets, and want to try something different, may I recommend Exalted 2E? It's fantastic for that overpowered nonsensence. It actually gets sillier than high level 3.5 wizards. You start out at roughly the same power level of a level 15 or 16 wizard, and move up. Quickly-ish. It's a blast to play with good friends though. Try it out!
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
My experience has been similar, but even more "retro" I guess. After playing 3.5 for about 8 years and 4 for a year, I have broken out my 1st and 2nd edition books.
I've never been able to go earlier than 3.5, i'm sure i could if i tried, but i 'discovered' DnD at 3.5 and it seems sufficiently complex for my tastes.

Although i have rather enjoyed a few games of Paranoia every now and then, most entertaining.
I have a tendency not to be very nostalgic. I loved 1E, 2E, 3E and 3.5E. Now I love 4E. I don't really miss them, if I did I would play them.
"god! this is the 21st century, where is my "Choke someone through the internet" button?" - Herrozerro
It's not nostalga; i actually do enjoy 3.5 more than i used to after playing 4e.

I do find it amusing how few people are able to appreciate both systems for their individual merits, but that's not for this thread.
It could, lets hope everyone read the red text and no-one will take it.

Besides i don't think anyone can pretend that 3.5 Wizards were balanced, but hey, unbalanced stuff can be fun too.
I'm what some people here would call a "simulationist", and the biggest factor I miss from 3.5 is the equivalence of all agents and creatures in the game.

In theory the monster and player characters were interchangeable (with obvious caveats that some combinations are too good to give to players). This just appeals to me as "balanced" - not in a game mechanic way, but in a theory way, like relativity.

This exact thing is why I dropped D&D 2, and went to Runequest for many years.

I've always played D&D at the lower levels, rarely above level 10 in any version. So I don't miss the super-wizards.
I've always played D&D at the lower levels, rarely above level 10 in any version. So I don't miss the super-wizards.

Aww, you missed all the fun!


In all honosty; i do like the whole 'simulationist' aspect of 3.5, although it would have been nice if it had actually worked. :P
I don't mind people being critical or negative of editions, i mind people arguing about it.

Feel free to speak your mind about whatever edition you feel like, it's just personal opinion after all and i don't mind negative opinions, but don't start an argument or debate; we've got enough of those already.
Er, the_Hated, have you actually played Exalted?

I kid you not when I say that a 3.5 high level wizard is a crippled child compared to what a Solar can do...

Truly, it is that nuts...
Tee hee. Sounds amusing.
Erm... th_hated was referring to terms like "overpowered nonsense" and "sillier". He even boldfaced it in the quote. Those two terms are baiting, although, I do think people take the boards way too seriously at times.
Well Wizards are overpowered, and high level Wizards are most certainly silly. hell a high level Dread Necromancer can have an army of over 500 HD worth of Undead, a normal high level Wizard can pull a Find City Bomb and annihilate an area hundreds of square miles wide anywhere in the cosmos several times per day! That's rediculous.

Silly isn't neccesarily bad mind you, but it is silly.
Now, had I said that about 4e, I would have been attacked and blamed for baiting.

No you wouldn't, because we don't do that in this thread, remember the red text? You seem to have missed it. Go read it again please.

(including rules for being pregnant >_>)

:D

I wonder if there's an Exalted ruleset for FGII.
Really?
Cuz that's what Sam did... red text or no red text...

I am not arguing about editions!
I am arguing about bias and hypocrisy...

No he didn't; he made an observation that high level 3.5 casters are overpowered and silly. And he's absolutely right. It's one of the reasons i like the system. Indeed it's one of the merits i discussed in the opening post.

It appears you may have missed the point of this thread, i would both appreciate and suggest if you would take a few minutes to cool down and then come back without looking for a fight.
Well Wizards are overpowered, and high level Wizards are most certainly silly. hell a high level Dread Necromancer can have an army of over 500 HD worth of Undead, a normal high level Wizard can pull a Find City Bomb and annihilate an area hundreds of square miles wide anywhere in the cosmos several times per day! That's rediculous.

Silly isn't neccesarily bad mind you, but it is silly.

Erm... no, you think it is silly. Overpowered is a term you can debate about. Silly is just an emotion, and usually a negative one as well.

Dictionary:
1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: a silly writer.
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: a silly idea.

Of course, now I am being a bit silly to reply, since personally I don't care whether you call 3.5 high level wizards silly or not, nor when you would call 4E silly. Like I said, that is a rather subjective opinion about which you can hardly debate ;)
Good luck not turning this into edition nonsense, you should know better by now.:D

Anyway I did not miss the days when casters were the elites and all the other classes subpar compared to them. Perhaps if 3E was called Mage: The Ubering that featured only 3 classes (Cleric, Druid and Wizard) then maybe that would have been different because it would have been kinda fair and balanced (maybe). Stick in the other classes then you get stuck with class imbalance and problems.

I knew a poster on the FR forums that said wizards should have more power because their ability to alter reality was greater than melee guys. So that is why I made the reference to Mage from WODs game library. I guess he should have been playing WOD stuff the whole time.
Erm... no, you think it is silly. Overpowered is a term you can debate about. Silly is just an emotion, and usually a negative one as well.

Dictionary:
1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: a silly writer.
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: a silly idea.

Of course, now I am being a bit silly to reply, since personally I don't care whether you call 3.5 high level wizards silly or not, nor when you would call 4E silly. Like I said, that is a rather subjective opinion about which you can hardly debate ;)

There we go, i think it's silly, you don't. End of discussion. Everyone is allowed have their opinions, and i don't mind people stating their opinions, i just mind people arguing about them.

Problem solved, on with the thread.
It could, lets hope everyone read the red text and no-one will take it.

Besides i don't think anyone can pretend that 3.5 Wizards were balanced, but hey, unbalanced stuff can be fun too.

The concept you may want to describe is called asymmetrical balancing. The idea is to offer players varying levels of experience along the axes of both power and complexity.

For example, a seldom recognised advantage of the 3.5 Fighter is that, setting optimisation aside, it is possible to play the class at a less complex level than that of a casting class. Also, as you say, a feature of the more potent casting classes is the greater reach in terms of mechanical potential for impact on the narrative.

-vk
Then why the hell am I always accused of baiting and flaming when I give my opinion of 4e?????

because you do not agree with them ;)

oh and i am sure your alias does not help either.
OP, the best thing is not to argue with certain folks. Stop responding and the fish swims off missing the bai... well they swim off to other threads. ;)
I wouldn't call it asymmetric balancing, i'd just call it a system that is flawed for competetive gaming.

Fortunately DnD isn't competetive, so it's not a huge issue, it's certainly a potential issue, but it's one you can get around.

Then why the hell am I always accused of baiting and flaming when I give my opinion of 4e?????

You're not, i just saw potential signs that could have led to an argument and decided to jump them early.
No, he called 3.x "overpowered nonsense" and "silly"... and said Exalted was like that.
And no, he is not "right". That's his opinion and it is baiting to those who like 3.x.
I am not looking for a fight...
I am pointing out bias and hypocrisy...

*Checks Samyeru's original post*

Um, no. He said 3.5 high level wizards are overpowered/silly. He didn't say anything about 3.5 at mid to low levels or melee classes...
Alright, enough, the points have been made, lets move on.
So as I said if there were only 3 classes (Druids, Clerics, and Wizards) then it would be class balanced I guess and fun for all of the classes. For me as a DM it would still be tough to put together, especially since I know that most fights could end in one ot two rounds. That is alot of planning work for nothing. Anyway my Mage idea could work for a D&D 3E campaign. Just hae the DM say "Only these 3 classes for play in My game".



On Topic - I much prefer balanced games but that's because I have a resident power gamer and he is good at what he does. He doesn't break or bend rules, he just optimizes to hell and back. In any given system he will find a way to be amazing at whatever his goal is. The more balanced the game system the more fun my non-power gaming friends can have because there is less disparity between them and him.

For example he played an extremely optimized Druid in 3.5 and none of the rest of the party could play at his level. He was just better at most things than the rest of the party. Now he plays an OoI wizard and while he is good the rest of the group feels on par with his ability.
Personally, I have nothing against Asymmetric balancing per se.

Just as long as you tell me beforehand. I love Ars Magica and that works because you KNOW going in what to expect.
Go away from this thread. Go away from these boards. Seriously. Just leave. You contribute nothing and do nothing but whine about how "If I did this blah blah blah blah" and then "bawwwww I'm da hated bawwwww!". Stop it. Leave.

Stop it before i have to get the hose.
The magic in 3.5 was great. I played a cleric last, and by the end of the campaign I had hundreds of spell cards, sorted by function, for all the spells I had access to; the options seemed infinite. There was a spell that merged the target's two arms into one arm. Never gonna see that again!

That's what I miss about the magic in 4E: there used to be so much you could use out of combat to really help the party or keep the action going (which is what I think vonklaude was saying), and so very many magical attacks, and now they're gone. Nothing against 4E, but I can't say I'm interested in playing a caster again. The powers system is immensely restrictive in comparison.


The magic in 3.5 was great. I played a cleric last, and by the end of the campaign I had hundreds of spell cards, sorted by function, for all the spells I had access to; the options seemed infinite. There was a spell that merged the target's two arms into one arm. Never gonna see that again!

That's what I miss about the magic in 4E: there used to be so much you could use out of combat to really help the party or keep the action going (which is what I think vonklaude was saying), and so very many magical attacks, and now they're gone. Nothing against 4E, but I can't say I'm interested in playing a caster again. The powers system is immensely restrictive in comparison.

Indeed, i fully support the balanced 4e magic, but the 3.5 magic was fun at times.
The magic in 3.5 was great. I played a cleric last, and by the end of the campaign I had hundreds of spell cards, sorted by function, for all the spells I had access to; the options seemed infinite. There was a spell that merged the target's two arms into one arm. Never gonna see that again!

That's what I miss about the magic in 4E: there used to be so much you could use out of combat to really help the party or keep the action going (which is what I think vonklaude was saying), and so very many magical attacks, and now they're gone. Nothing against 4E, but I can't say I'm interested in playing a caster again. The powers system is immensely restrictive in comparison.

Rituals capture that feel for me. Id love to play a game of exalted, does the new edition of exalted have any of the other types other than solar yet? Cause i was looking over the book for lunar and well I kinda like the idea of them a bit more. Anyway I love 4e will never go back to 3e unless one specific person I know is dming because I know it will get over the top and we will all be playing casters.
I believe all the other types are out for the new edition of Exalted. Lunars certainly are, and I really like what they've done with them. They're still enemies of the Realm, but now their plans are a little bit more thought out, which is appropriate considering that the ancient Lunars should have the highest mental stats in the world.
I can honestly say that I appreciate 3.5 less and less everytime I play or dm 4e. (especially Dm)

Anything about Super Awesome Magic, from 3.5 is basically a Plot Device Spell, which falls under the Ritual Category to me. (The FR Player's guide even talks about this sort of thing)
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
I believe all the other types are out for the new edition of Exalted. Lunars certainly are, and I really like what they've done with them. They're still enemies of the Realm, but now their plans are a little bit more thought out, which is appropriate considering that the ancient Lunars should have the highest mental stats in the world.

Now just need to find someone willing to run in the lakeland/tampa area. Because I love NWOD especially changeling, wish my game of that was still going on but oh well.
It's not nostalga; i actually do enjoy 3.5 more than i used to after playing 4e.

I do find it amusing how few people are able to appreciate both systems for their individual merits, but that's not for this thread.

It's like comparing Chess and Checkers and wondering why people don't enjoy both.

The feel of the games is very different and appeals to different people depending upon what they want from the game.

-James
I'm not wondering why people don't enjoy both, i fully know why people don't enjoy both.

I'm not asking a question here, i'm initiating a discussion.
I never developed a taste for high level magic because all the classes that got it were Vancian and variable spell lists are my definition of unfun.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Cheers Ryath, lets try and keep it clear from now on guys.


I never developed a taste for high level magic because all the classes that got it were Vancian and variable spell lists are my definition of unfun.

Fair enough. I'm curious though; why do you find vancian magic unfun? Not to try and suggest you're wrong or anything, i just find the viewpoints of others interesting.
So for you it's not so much vancian magic in and of itself as it is the fact that some people can do it and some cannot?