D&D - 3.5?

[claidheamhmor]

After going through the D&D 4th Edition books again, and reading up on a few articles, we had a chat with our Wednesday D&D group, discussed all the options, and it looks like we'll be sticking with D&D 3.5, albeit with some modifications (like switching to a spell-point system).

Some of the reasons for this are:

• The reliance of 4E on battle mats and figurines during combat, and the precise character positions etc. during combat is going to be a problem for our easy-going group.


• 4E breaks compatibility with older versions of D&D; it's essentially a new system, and if we have to change systems altogether, why 4E over something else? We have years of experience in D&D ranging from Basic to 3.5, all of which had the same basic ethos, and it makes sense to leverage that. 4E is a system taken from MMORPGs.


• The constrictions in 4E seem irritating - stuff like the skills one can use, and the requirement for parties to have each of the four major foodgroups roles represented. We like it casual.


• Increased complexity in powers etc. I like the idea behind it, but it sounds like it'll be a real problem for our group to keep track of. We're into the role-playing more than the roll-playing.

I do want to give the spell-point system a try; that might resolve one of my bugbears in 3.5, the whole thing about "memorising" spells every day. I know it's based on Vance's books, but it seems strangely out of place in a fantasy world, and it does mean a fair bit of housekeeping on daily spell selections if you want to do it right.

I do like 4E's "at will" and "per encounter" powers for the various classes; it may be nice to do something like that in 3.5, especially for the spell-casting classes (certain cantrips?).

Comments

[melancthe.livejournal.com]

With all due respect, I think you may be taking Claymore's "criticisms" of 4E a little too personally.

[evildmguy.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Wow! First response I get from you in years and it wasn't as positive as I could have hoped. *sigh*

I don't mind what game you guys play. (I mean, it's not up to me in any way and I know that.) In fact, 4E has given me more respect for previous versions of DND than any previous one. I have always loved the current version of DND better than the last. I don't know why for sure but that's how it has happened.

If his post was tongue in cheek, then I did miss it and I apologize. But there are inaccuracies in it and I merely wanted to make sure those inaccuracies were known before dismissing 4E. I do think that 4E is the best casual version of DND. Yes, it has some complexities to learn, as I am finding out with my new to role playing player, but it's a very good heroic fantasy system.

Again, my apologies.

I hope all is well with you!

Take care!

edg

[melancthe.livejournal.com]

I have nothing against 4E, and I don't think Claymore does either: the main focus of his post was how switching to 4E would negatively impact one of the groups we currently play with, not a broad criticism of the gaming system's merits. You've mentioned "inaccuracies" in the post, but you haven't taken into consideration that it mentioned, several times, that the concerns about switching over were with respect to a certain group of players. Obviously, if referring to a different group, the criticisms would be different.

[evildmguy.livejournal.com]

And I do agree that you and he know the group better and what would be better. However, part of the reason I commented is because I think 4E is much better for casual gamers and that's what you seem to have. But I could be completely wrong on that. It's just my take on it. I don't know your group.

How are you? What's new? How are things? I hope they are well!

edg

[claidheamhmor]

At this point, we have casual gamers who are familiar with 3.5. 4th Ed. would mean casual gamers (including the DM) who aren't familiar with the system, and that could be quite a stumbling block. For those who are dedicated, it might be worth it, but I'm not convinced that's be the case here.