so when 4e rolled around, i was stoked at the intro of powers and such. finally, variety & fun for all classes! personally, i thought magic-users were grossly overpowered in 3.5. i mean, make your own spells in epic? but, everyone else griped and complained that they didn't get to do cool stuff w/ magic in 4e anymore. i.e., one guy played a pyro psion in 3.5 and was very mad he couldn't control fire as well as he could in 3.5. i suggested simply to reflavor fireball and such but that won't do.
I'm also a power gamer, and i really hated how to get the quote-in-quote "best" build, you had to splash in like 50 different prestige classes. plus, there's a whole bunch of obscure books everyone's drawing from that i have no access too... i dunno. i just like starting w/ a fresh slate in 4e ...
i know i'm rambling but i had to get my thoughts out to my fellow players out there. if i'm coming across selfish/stupid just ignore me... i'm thankful you actually read this far. but i really would like some suggestions on how to *maybe* sway the rest of my group to stick to 4e...
Basically ... I suggest telling them what you just told us. You're not being selfish, you want a balanced game where everybody has a chance to contribute instead of 'Me cast spell, encounter over, hurr hurr!'
This seems to be the trend, from what I've seen. People who liked abusing the total imbalance of 3rd Edition and its spellcasting tend to prefer 3rd, and those who didn't care for spellcasters prefer 4th (again, in general, I'm sure exceptions abound).
Basically ... I suggest telling them what you just told us. You're not being selfish, you want a balanced game where everybody has a chance to contribute instead of 'Me cast spell, encounter over, hurr hurr!'
thanks for the support/responses. i'll try it 2mrw & "report back", lol.
:D
Good luck.
In the end its better to play a flawed system with your friends than to play a better system alone.
"I'll agree to go back to 3.5... if you all agree to play PHB melee characters while I play the spellcaster."
Indeed.
If you do end up going back to 3.5 I suggest taking a look at Pathfinder. You will find spell caster are still pretty powerful but they reworked a lot of the spells. They improved the figher quite a bit too.
...What? I dislike 4.0. It's evil. Eeeviiillllll I say!
Normally, I say, "DM works for the PCs, his/her friends." However, doesn't the DM get a say in what setting, edition, game they wish to run?
I suppose the compromise (where you should look) is whoever has the most game texts, minis, peripherals that will be used for the collective (majority PCs) gets more sway in which game/edition/setting you will be using.
Then vote.
Weigh total game attributes from game/edition/setting 'x' to 'y' to 'z', etc.
Then convincing arguements; no whining, bickering, leveraging, etc.
Then final vote. Agree to set parameters as you might have finite time for game 'x' before it's time for game 'y'. Give and take, ebb and flow. Remember, these are your friends/contemporaries, not work acquaintances.
That is the one you play. Majority rules, but don't let others get pushy.
You know how many times I wanted to play 3.5 and got hammered into Shadowrun 3rd ed, or Shadowrun 2nd and pushed into 2nd ed Ravenloft, 3.0 D&D for V:tM 3rd ed? Same w/ 1-nighters...Ghost would rather engage in lambic or good beer and play Munchkin, but cretins settle for PBR & Texas Hold 'Em which I despise.
Edition wise: I still prefer 3.5, w/ a predilection to 1st -12th lvl or so. Easier accounting, more realistic, mechanically synchronized better, etc.
Beyond that, you actually have to have a "good DM" to help organize, maintain game balance, and insure fun for all PCs involved. Sadly, many don't and project, scapegoating really, about it being broken rather than dissect the gestalt and get to the root of the problem(s).
Easy out to point the finger and only zero in on higher lvls which I can't abide/don't enjoy much. Some can, and that's cool, but others slander the entirety just as many slandered the whole of 4th ed w/out examining its total merits/flaws. Different strokes for different folks, right? No biggie.
ex) Casters for example. Everyone is saying, "Oh, they're so badass!" Yeah, at the 2nd half of game levels 11-20 or so. And even then, a player w/ 1/2 a brain can neutralize a magi w/out having to default to "this number trumps that number", bla bla bla. Min/max won't save the day so much as player intelligence, teamwork, and innovation. Others need a sacrificial lamb and blast the entire edition as it's easier than actually making an effort.
But, that's the DM's aegis, which, for the OP, is him (you). IMO, the game, ANY RPG REALLY, is only as good as it's DM just as the car is only as good as the driver. ie)Compromise, like any gallant antagonist. Give & take.
Surrender to the might of 3.5! Surrender!
...What? I dislike 4.0. It's evil. Eeeviiillllll I say!
Please don't bring an edition war to this forum; What's a Player to Do? (and its DM counterpart) have been, to this point, mostly absent of the edition war, with both editions co-existing. I would very much enjoy keeping this forum that way.
Now, there's no reason why you can't streamline 3.5 with some of 4th's 'improvements' - You're the DM, some houseruling is to be expected.
thanks for the replies, guys!
If you are playing 3.5, think outside the Full-Round Attack.
There are many, many things that the attack roll can do, and as a martial character, you can do them well.
Grapple, Trip, Bull Rush, & Sunder... these are your friends.
In fact, Trip the enemy archmage, grapple him, take his Staff of Power, and play chicken.
That's one round for a high level fighter, and I'm not power gaming by 3.5 standards.
And never, never forget the beauty of the Sunder rules. Every d20 product has one notable factor (flaw???), be it 3e/4e/Pathfinder, and that is the reliance on magic gear to determine a large portion of a character's power level.
Even if you have to take an attack of opportunity, you can probably afford the damage... and you get to leave the enemy mage crying... a LOT.
That tactic doesn't work quite as well in Pathfinder, but it's a definite truth that d20 games are gear dependent, and one round targeting the gear is often worth two or three rounds of combat.
Note: See Disarm rules for additional fun.
Also, invest in different types of weapons so you can beat on an opponent, grab them, and stab them while they are grappled. Don't limit yourself to one "Weapon of Choice."
In addition to all of this, practice describing your attacks, not just rolling them.
"I swing my sword."
"I whip my spear around my head attempting to rap the blunt of of my weapon against the hunter's wolf, before taking the point and driving it through the hunter's stomach."
One of those is a lot more interesting.
Oh, and add motions. Act like you're swinging a sword, shoving a spear, or whatever... just don't throw your dice at the DM.
While I am probably my gaming group's main wizard player (at least, when I'm not the DM), I have managed to play several very successful melee characters that more than managed to keep up with the damage output of the party's casters. (Thank you x3 & x4 crit multipliers!) I have also managed to have a lot of fun doing so.
I've seen wizard players who act bored to tears b/c they're "just casting another spell." They don't get into their characters, and as such, manage to be just as bored as the "typical" 3.5 martial character.
Finally, talk to your DM. I typically view the rules as "opportunities," not "limits." If somebody in my group wants to try something, then I call for an attack roll or a skill check, whatever the best course maybe, and my games run fine. I have never banned ToB from my group, but it sees almost no use (w/ the exception of the Superior Unarmed Strike feat). I suspect the reason is that... we already have characters jumping through the roof, knocking people through walls, disarming opponents in a haze of steel, etc...
We just figured that the rules allowed for that... as long as you made the appropriate check.
So, you might ask your DM questions like, "Can I make a Jump check to clear the Barbarian's head and tackle the archer standing behind him?"
Some people might argue things like AoO... but trust me, you can deal w/ that easily enough. There is no such thing as a useless class, even in 3.5... (with the possible exception of the Healer).
Now, if you're wanting to play a Rogue... I can't do a thing for your there...
I like both systems to be honest, but I can see why playing a caster in 3/3.5 is more fun, you just get so many more options. Hell, you even got more options in 3.5 as a martial character (there is a LOT more to do than simply full attack every round, if you were designing your fighters that way, that is your own fault).
That being said, I really enjoy the faster based slightly more tactical combat of 4th edition. In the end, I think both editions are fairly strong, and there is no reason you can't play both.
If you aren't going to have fun, you can always choose not to play.
This. While it would be nice if everyone shared the same taste in what they wanted mechanically in a game whether mechanics, genre, or playstyle, they don't. Sometimes, individuals just need to accept that they are the odd-man (or woman) out and, if playing what the group wants is unfun for them, bow out and find another game or start running their own game and begin looking of players.