I shall valiantly try not to launch into a repeat of my usual long-winded D&D diatribe. Basically, I think 3.0/3.5 presented a tremendous improvement over the older editions in terms of organization. Add some thumb-tabs to the core books, and it's just about playable. It really doesn't suit my style of roleplay, though. My players would never settle for only improving once every four months - they've been trained by games like Deadlands, Ironclaw, etc., to expect tiny, incremental improvements in their characters possible every session - or every other session. So, there's a pressure on me to be a bit more generous with the XP ... and then I find myself regretting that the players "grow out of" stuff far too quickly.
At a fairly low level, spellcasters (particularly druids) get access to spells that rule out a lot of plot possibilities. (I.e., that big overland trek from Haunted Wood to the Forest At the Edge of the World? Transport via Plants - POOF. The whole party is there in a day.) I think the problem is that spells and powers are biased toward the "archetypical" dungeon layout. Sweeping overland plots, murder mysteries, court intrigue ... technically possible, but definitely not what the designers had in mind, and many of the obstacles provided in such plots are seen as mere nuisances that many spells can quickly hop past (unless the GM uses aggressive countermeasures).
Alignments have so often been a major sticking point, too.
The worst offense, though, has to be the preferred D&D setting - one where magic is commonplace to the point of triviality. The DMG basically lectures the DM who would dare to present his players with a quasi-medieval setting whose inhabitants are surprised and mystified by such things as monsters and magic. I prefer a system where a +1 longsword is a special thing ... and even better, I wish that such a weapon would have a bit more staying power, growing along with its wielder, rather than being traded off when a +2 sword comes along in the treasure haul. (Yeah, yeah, I know about "Legendary Weapons," but those things are generally TOO legendary ... and I don't want to have to buy an entire supplement just to deal with this shortcoming.)
Anyway, I do recognize that WotC needs to keep putting out products in order to remain viable. Improving the game seems like a worthy enough goal ... but some of the changes sound like they'll complicate things (from my perspective as a DM/GM) more than they'll help. I don't plan on "upgrading" to 4.0. (After I wrap up my Ironclaw campaign, I'm planning to move on to "Savage Worlds," which is sort of a "lite" and semi-genericized version of "Deadlands.")
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-21 11:58 pm (UTC)At a fairly low level, spellcasters (particularly druids) get access to spells that rule out a lot of plot possibilities. (I.e., that big overland trek from Haunted Wood to the Forest At the Edge of the World? Transport via Plants - POOF. The whole party is there in a day.) I think the problem is that spells and powers are biased toward the "archetypical" dungeon layout. Sweeping overland plots, murder mysteries, court intrigue ... technically possible, but definitely not what the designers had in mind, and many of the obstacles provided in such plots are seen as mere nuisances that many spells can quickly hop past (unless the GM uses aggressive countermeasures).
Alignments have so often been a major sticking point, too.
The worst offense, though, has to be the preferred D&D setting - one where magic is commonplace to the point of triviality. The DMG basically lectures the DM who would dare to present his players with a quasi-medieval setting whose inhabitants are surprised and mystified by such things as monsters and magic. I prefer a system where a +1 longsword is a special thing ... and even better, I wish that such a weapon would have a bit more staying power, growing along with its wielder, rather than being traded off when a +2 sword comes along in the treasure haul. (Yeah, yeah, I know about "Legendary Weapons," but those things are generally TOO legendary ... and I don't want to have to buy an entire supplement just to deal with this shortcoming.)
Anyway, I do recognize that WotC needs to keep putting out products in order to remain viable. Improving the game seems like a worthy enough goal ... but some of the changes sound like they'll complicate things (from my perspective as a DM/GM) more than they'll help. I don't plan on "upgrading" to 4.0. (After I wrap up my Ironclaw campaign, I'm planning to move on to "Savage Worlds," which is sort of a "lite" and semi-genericized version of "Deadlands.")