D&D 5E Discussion

[Excidium II]

Man, with the way you "roll" for stats, I am sure you can break just about any game.

 

[Lhynn]

Because some people like games that aren't lame. Maybe they like that particular setting.

Then they wouldnt be playing strange shit in the first place.

You can still make shit that isn't really related to Ravenloft. Like a playful Kender rogue who steals things from people because lol its funny. Or one of my players who made his own Wild Magic table with usually involved spawning ponies and shit. That's not really worth it.

True, but you can slowly corrupt the playful kender that steals shit because its funny, slowly the darkness creeping into him, his usual cheery mood being replaced by one of fear and desperation, he discovers the act of stealing is bad, perhaps by causing an indirect death in the process, yet he finds himself unable to stop. If the DM is decent and you got good players its doable and would reinforce the themes rather than detract from them.

Then he's not a ninja, he's a bard who sneaks around a bit. So that's actually more with his original point. That's kind of what he was getting at: "Alright, if you want to be a Ninja, try this class." Asking the DM "I want to be a Ninja type what is the class for that" is better than going "sup I showed up to your DnD game, nerd, and look at this shit! I have a Ninja class!"

So just rename the class to "shadow bard" or some crap. replace the abilities that dont resonate with your campaign and let him play it however he pleases. You only need to have a DM that gives a fuck

I was talking about 5e. It's a very balanced little game for the most part, and save-or-suck has been sort of neutered. And you have zero reading comprehension. My issue with min-maxers who break the game is they ruin it for everyone else. The person who just wants to chill and be a bard doesn't like knowing that his contributions are worthless because muh min-maxed mage

True, which is why 5th has been designed so these problems dont crop up. So i really dont see the point here. At most you can get one or two more on something without sacrificing much, or like having melee classes with shields and quarterstaffs to the possibility of using a feat even with a shield.

Man, with the way you "roll" for stats, I am sure you can break just about any game.

5th doesnt ask for much in stats, you only really need a good main stat and a decent secondary stat and you are set. So i dont really see your point. More stats can help with some stravagant multiclassing, but almost every multiclassing choice ends up being detrimental to your character, both short term by delaying better shit and long term by robbing you of your cap ability (which usually is hella good)

 

[Lhynn]

BTW i asked this question before, but no one answered.

What do you guys think of interchangeable subclasses, subclasses that could be applied to any class because they dont really require anything from the main class.

Fighter subclasses come to mind as an example. What do you think of a monk or a barbarian battlemaster?

 

[Keldryn]

BTW i asked this question before, but no one answered.

What do you guys think of interchangeable subclasses, subclasses that could be applied to any class because they dont really require anything from the main class.

Fighter subclasses come to mind as an example. What do you think of a monk or a barbarian battlemaster?

I would say no. For one thing, the subclasses are balanced with the capabilities of the primary class in mind. Most of the subclasses would make no sense outside of their primary classes. And in the case of the fighter subclasses, the champion and the battlemaster are quite different from all of the other subclasses in the game in that they don't represent specific archetypes or specialization, but are there to allow for fighters with simple mechanics and fighters with more complex mechanics. The champion exists to emulate 1e and 2e style fighters, and the battlemaster exists to emulate 4e fighters. That isn't really going to translate to other classes particularly well.

With some classes, the various subclasses build on certain mechanics of the primary class (such as how different monk subclasses build on the unarmed strikes). If you want a monk or barbarian battlemaster, you can multi-class.

 

[Lhynn]

Well, i can certanly see your point, but it would certanly give the game a lot of variety. battlemaster rogues, draconic bloodline barbarians, Divination specialist bards, etc.

It certainly has potential, and if balance is the only issue it can be ironed out rather easily im sure. You dont seem to be a big fan of homebrewing Keldryn, any reason for it?

 

[Keldryn]

No, Lhynn, I'm a huge fan of homebrewing.

A divination specialist bard is a cool concept, but it should be different that a divination specialist wizard. They don't approach magic in the same way, and the entire concept of the bard has the "jack of all trades" somewhat baked into it. Illusion and enchantment would also be appropriate specializations for bards, but again I think that this should be mechanically different from wizards specialized in those schools. So rather than just appropriating the Diviner subclass for bards, create a new one that is tailor-made for the bard. Borrow and tweak some of the abilities of the wizard version if they fit and maybe add some new abilities that enhance the bard class's abilities. Of course, the Lore bard is already conceptually similar to a divination specialist.

You could have a rogue who is focused on battlefield tactics, but the battlemaster abilities do imply some measure of training and expertise in combat, which isn't really what the rogue is about. You could design a rogue subclass that grants superiority dice and allows the use of some/all of the battlemaster techniques, but a fighter/rogue multi-class would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't it? The subclass would be a better fit for the ranger or paladin, but even there I think I would be inclined to tailor it to the ranger or paladin.

You could certainly have a draconic bloodline for any class, but the sorcerer subclass does interact with the sorcerer's spells, making a good chunk of it irrelevant to many characters. If you wanted to be really creative, you could build a subclass for each of the classes, so that you can show how the character's draconic heritage enhances the main abilities of any profession that he chooses. Or keep it simpler by making a feat that grants some of the basic abilities of the subclass.

Homebrewing is an art and every DM has his own view on what the game should look like. I always like to start with a concept and core themes and derive mechanics from there, and I dislike having several conceptually similar but mechanically different options in the game. I like strong archetypes and I think they facilitate play at the table, so I tend to favor mechanics that reinforce those archetypes (without being too limiting). I dislike novel combinations of game mechanics that aren't grounded in the fiction of the game.

Rather than just shuffling around subclasses, I think it would be far more interesting to do something like create a subclass for each non-human race in its iconic/preferred class. Or subclasses for the fighter, cleric, and paladin that reflect the roles of those three classes within a specific religious order. Subclasses for wizards that don't follow the traditional paradigm of schools of magic. New domains exclusive to clerics who are dedicated to a philosophy rather than a divine being.

Subclasses aren't designed to be interchangeable, and thus the subclasses of one class are not necessarily equivalent to those of another class. They are designed to complement the classes that they fall under. There exists plenty of design space here for creating new specializations and archetypes for the primary classes. Feats exist in the design space for options that are more interchangeable between classes (even if not applicable/useful to every class). You could create a feat that would grant a limited version of superiority dice and access to a small number of battlemaster maneuvers, if one doesn't already exist. That allows other classes to obtain some of those abilities without giving unrestricted access to something that helps making the fighter class distinct.

 

[J1M]

BTW i asked this question before, but no one answered.

What do you guys think of interchangeable subclasses, subclasses that could be applied to any class because they dont really require anything from the main class.

Fighter subclasses come to mind as an example. What do you think of a monk or a barbarian battlemaster?

It is a decent design idea, and was used in FFXI via the subjob system. It isn't something that would be balanced in 5e.

 

[Lhynn]

No, Lhynn, I'm a huge fan of homebrewing.

A divination specialist bard is a cool concept, but it should be different that a divination specialist wizard. They don't approach magic in the same way, and the entire concept of the bard has the "jack of all trades" somewhat baked into it. Illusion and enchantment would also be appropriate specializations for bards, but again I think that this should be mechanically different from wizards specialized in those schools. So rather than just appropriating the Diviner subclass for bards, create a new one that is tailor-made for the bard. Borrow and tweak some of the abilities of the wizard version if they fit and maybe add some new abilities that enhance the bard class's abilities. Of course, the Lore bard is already conceptually similar to a divination specialist.

Thats a good idea.

You could have a rogue who is focused on battlefield tactics, but the battlemaster abilities do imply some measure of training and expertise in combat, which isn't really what the rogue is about. You could design a rogue subclass that grants superiority dice and allows the use of some/all of the battlemaster techniques, but a fighter/rogue multi-class would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't it? The subclass would be a better fit for the ranger or paladin, but even there I think I would be inclined to tailor it to the ranger or paladin.

Well, it would work for a thug archetype maybe. Or for a soldier scout.

You could certainly have a draconic bloodline for any class, but the sorcerer subclass does interact with the sorcerer's spells, making a good chunk of it irrelevant to many characters. If you wanted to be really creative, you could build a subclass for each of the classes, so that you can show how the character's draconic heritage enhances the main abilities of any profession that he chooses. Or keep it simpler by making a feat that grants some of the basic abilities of the subclass.

Aye, i remember having a fighter/barbarian that had a strong relationship with dragons in 3.5, he had a red dragons heart transplanted in place of his heart, he would fit as a fighter/battlemaster barbarian/draconic heritage kind of theme. Thats why i thought of that archetype.

Homebrewing is an art and every DM has his own view on what the game should look like. I always like to start with a concept and core themes and derive mechanics from there, and I dislike having several conceptually similar but mechanically different options in the game. I like strong archetypes and I think they facilitate play at the table, so I tend to favor mechanics that reinforce those archetypes (without being too limiting). I dislike novel combinations of game mechanics that aren't grounded in the fiction of the game.

I can see your point, its redundant, but similar is not the same as equal, a bard loremaster implies he gets most of his stuff from deep studies, a bard divinator would fit in well as maybe a gypsie?

Rather than just shuffling around subclasses, I think it would be far more interesting to do something like create a subclass for each non-human race in its iconic/preferred class. Or subclasses for the fighter, cleric, and paladin that reflect the roles of those three classes within a specific religious order. Subclasses for wizards that don't follow the traditional paradigm of schools of magic. New domains exclusive to clerics who are dedicated to a philosophy rather than a divine being.

I agree, theres a matter of time and effort tho, but this is the answer i was looking for, as long as the players present it to me i can work with it and modify it without too much of a hassle. Btw wouldnt most clerical subclasses do well on a paladin and vice versa tho?

Subclasses aren't designed to be interchangeable, and thus the subclasses of one class are not necessarily equivalent to those of another class. They are designed to complement the classes that they fall under. There exists plenty of design space here for creating new specializations and archetypes for the primary classes. Feats exist in the design space for options that are more interchangeable between classes (even if not applicable/useful to every class). You could create a feat that would grant a limited version of superiority dice and access to a small number of battlemaster maneuvers, if one doesn't already exist. That allows other classes to obtain some of those abilities without giving unrestricted access to something that helps making the fighter class distinct.

Yeah, i designed a new feat for a warlock that wanted more out of his chain specialization for his familiar. It has worked out well.

 

[Caim]

I don't know a lot about the archetypes of 5e, but I do know about those in Pathfinder. The system allows for a lot of fun and diverse characters, but having them interchangable would also include having to change around your feats, and maybe even your skills.

Sure, you can pick a sword and board fighter and build around that, but the moment you change your archetype from sword+shield to two-handed weapon, you've got an awful lot of feats that do jack diddly squat now.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Changing your character completely is shit anyway. That was one of the 4 or 5 problems I had with 3.X. So, anyway, for those in the know, what stinks besides the ranger class in 5ed?

 

[Lhynn]

I heard elementalist monk is crap, at least compared to the other two paths. And necromancers arent very good due to lack of spells at low levels, tho that should improve with more supplements.

 

[LeStryfe79]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modern-magic

I'm stockpiling all of these Unearthed Arcanas for future reference. Most of them need some tweaking before publication, but they're still pretty cool. The paradigm of everything that fits into 5ed seems to work well. They nailed certain aspects of it so competently that I'm sure this edition or something similar will be be the gold standard for at least the next decade, and maybe more. Also, the artwork and writing quality seemingly improves with each product. Can't wait to see what they do with FR, which is insane to me given how low my opinion of WotC was 7 years ago.

 

[Andhaira]

Latest Dragon issue for mobile app had a free adventure. Here is the pdf link for PC Master Race:

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/DDEX31_HarriedHillsfar.pdf

Spoilers from The upcoming Sword Coast Adventures expansion: Expansion includes a Oath of the Crown for Paladins, Undying Patron for Warlocks (it's abilities makes them tougher, probably an undead patron), more racial options/variants, among other things.

 

[Andhaira]

enworld.com

 

[Andhaira]

Preview page from Out of the Abyss, upcoming new adventure:

 

[Caim]

Well, she was part of the Temple of Elemental Evil, right?

 

[SkeleTony]

I've never found splatbooks to improve the game in the long run -- at least the generic ones. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Setting-specific character options are (or can be) great and can really make a setting feel distinct (defiling in Dark Sun, Dragonmarks in Eberron, etc). The same goes for books focused on a particular campaign theme but not tied to a specific setting (e.g. pirates & seafaring adventures, horror, war, "oriental" adventures, swashbuckling, etc).

It's the kitchen-sink splatbooks that I hate, for the most part. PHBR1 The Complete Fighter's Handbook was pretty cool back in the day, as it included a lot of stuff that made combat more interesting. There was some good info on running a fighter-oriented campaign. The "character kits" section wasn't really the focus of the book, but this was where the decline started. None of the kits in this book were overpowered, but this was where the thematically incoherent mess of kitchen-sink D&D really took hold. The classes in the 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were designed to work together and fit the pseudo-medieval-European milieu reasonably well (if you didn't think about it too much). Then the The Complete Fighter's Handbook shows up, followed quickly by the books for Thieves, Priests, and Wizards, and of course players want to try out everything in the books. So now the campaign starts out like the set up for a bad joke: So, a Samurai, an Amazon, a Pirate, a Pacifist Priest, a Witch, and an Acrobat walk into a bar...

Never mind that it was an elven Samurai, a halfling Amazon, a dwarf Pirate...

Some of the kits in those first four books were clearly better than others, and virtually everything in The Complete Priest's Handbook was severely underpowered compared to the basic cleric, but I remember them as being mostly added flavor and nothing grossly overpowered or game-breaking. Then came PHBR5 Elves Are Better Than Everyone Else and Don't Need to Sleep, Eat, Fart, or Even Take a Shit and set splatbooks upon their future path.

3e fared no better. Prestige classes sounded like a cool idea at first, representing more advanced career paths or setting-specific organizations, but the first splatbook (Sword and Fist) alone shit all over that concept. Sure, the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats represent a fighter who has dedicated his life to mastering a particular weapon, but here are some 10-level classes for warriors who want to totally master a particular weapon. And a special class for warriors who master spiked chains, just because. Oh, and there's a couple of weird monk classes because this book says it's for fighters and monks and we haven't written anything for them yet.

Organizing additional character options in books centered around game mechanics like classes or races is just a bad way to do it. You'll either end up with a thematically incoherent campaign or a stack of books where you only use 4 pages from each one. Also, by the time every class book has come out, power creep has likely made the options in the earlier books less appealing. This happened in 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e, and I am certain that it would happen in 5e as well.

Some degree of power creep is inevitable when you start publishing new character options, but if they are only published as campaign-specific material for the entire set of classes, then it really doesn't matter so much if 5e Oriental Adventures options are less powerful than the 5e Fine, Here's Planescape, Now Stop Bugging Us options published 3 years later.

I would, however, be willing to accept an eventual book of new "general" character options akin to the 1e Unearthed Arcana book, provided that the material was actually balanced and thoroughly playtested. Oh, and that the book's binding wouldn't fall apart when you breathe on it. But I'm talking about one book expanding the non-campaign-specific options for all character classes. I absolutely do not want to see any class- or race- focused books. Those types of books start the inevitable countdown to the new edition that is required to clean up the mess.



This is both good and bad. On the plus side, it means that they are less likely to meddle with it too much or impose stupid "business models" on it.

D&D is a pretty complete game with just the core rulebooks and doesn't really need any additional rules. The game has actually always done very well when there was a small set of core rules and some adventures to play. Aggressive release schedules have generally not been a positive indicator of the game's health. The early years (1974-1979) and what many would consider the "golden age" when D&D was at its peak as a cultural phenomenon (1980-1984) saw tremendous growth in the popularity of the game, but a fairly controlled increase in the number of products being produced each year. And the product line was heavily weighted towards adventure modules, rather than rules expansions and campaign settings.

From 1985-1988, TSR's focus shifted towards additional rulebooks and campaign settings/supplements, culminating in a reboot of everything in 1989 with AD&D 2nd Edition. Even before the Player's Handbook hit store shelves, The Complete Fighter's Handbook and The Complete Thief's Handbook were listed in that year's TSR Product Catalog. What followed over the next six years was an absolute glut of product. Fifteen books in that PHBR series. Ten campaign settings with their own product lines, two of which had at least one sub-line. Some of this stuff is destined to sit in a landfill next to E.T. cartridges. TSR was a train wreck waiting to happen throughout the 90s, until it finally did happen in 1996.

3e was a massive hit at first and seemed to bring in a lot of new blood, yet within 3 years the game was rebooted with a revised edition. The quality of WotC 3e supplements was rather poor, and there was an avalanche of 3rd party product that displayed an appalling lack of quality. Within four years, there had been enough hardcovers produced for 3.5 to fill up the back of a pickup truck, and 4e was announced. The hardcovers for 4e were released at an even faster rate than they were for 3.5, and it was only two years before the line was NOT REBOOTED, HONEST with D&D Essentials. Not even two years later, they were talking about the upcoming 5e playtest.

Now many things are different in the 2010s compared to the 1980s. What I've talked about above is just circumstantial evidence, and there were obviously many causal factors at play. There are certainly other reasons as to why each successive edition has a shorter lifespan than the last.

But maybe, just maybe, the "huge variety of options" doesn't actually increase the lifespan of the game by offering players enough variety that they don't get bored as quickly. Maybe all of these options just end up contributing to player burnout. Too many products to buy, too many books to cart around, and too many decisions to have to make when starting campaigns, creating characters, or even just going up a level. Players get tired of buying books with cool options only for the DM to say "no, that doesn't fit my campaign," DMs get tired of having to say "no" all of the time, DMs get tired of having to get familiar with the new material that players bring into the campaign... After a while, the appeal of switching to a different game that uses 1 or 2 books becomes pretty tempting.

I'm not saying this is the case with all, or even most, players. I'm just musing.

Given the history of the game, I think that this slow rollout is probably a good thing. They'll lose some players who want a robust product line and a suitcase full of books with character building options (they already have Pathfinder). But they could very well lose more players and kill the game's positive momentum by releasing too much too soon. We're just now at 8 months from the release of the last of the 3 core books. I would much rather have a lean first year after the core books so that they have a chance to gather feedback on the finished product than get 3 or 4 books that were largely developed before the core rules were finalized.

I do not understand your issues here. Were you somehow forced to buy a bunch of rule books you did not want to use?! Did your PLAYERS make all the decisions about the campaigns you ran? I am no fan of D&D but I was curious to see how brave WoTC would be with this 5th ed. of the game (sounds like they were not at all brave and simply pandered to the nostalgia crowd) but 3.5 ed. was the best designed version of D&D yet released. They may have been saddled to the silly F&F magic system but at least they were trying to improve the game as much as they could get away with. All previous editions of (A)D&D were horribly over-complicated and for the most part broken (if you were using the actual rules to play the game. I know many or most tend to either houserule or replace rules witjh 'faster' means of resolving things.).

 

[Havoc]

I had my first play with 5.0 and... I laughed. The game is so casual and lacking, it was just sad. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a great game for inviting new players to RPGs, but veterans? I don't think so, maybe if they hated DnD before. All the time playing I was thinking "I rather play PF". Do you understand how lacking it was? I rather played a more complex system, have more options during character creation etc. It's just too casual and simplistic.

 

[Keldryn]

I had my first play with 5.0 and... I laughed. The game is so casual and lacking, it was just sad. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a great game for inviting new players to RPGs, but veterans? I don't think so, maybe if they hated DnD before. All the time playing I was thinking "I rather play PF". Do you understand how lacking it was? I rather played a more complex system, have more options during character creation etc. It's just too casual and simplistic.

Ah yes, I went through a similar phase in my youth. It's rather common for people with a lot of experience in something to come back around to prefering simplicity over needless complexity. Don't worry, you'll catch up one day.

Back in 2012, when my group burned out on 4e, I ran a few sessions using this:

And it was the most fun I'd had playing D&D in well over a decade. Creating a new character takes less than 5 minutes, so it doesn't matter so much if PCs get killed. Most combat encounters can be resolved in less than 10 minutes (and many take less than 5 minutes), so in a five-hour session the PCs can explore three levels of a dungeon, get into a dozen battles, and still have ample time for some role-playing and puzzle-solving encounters. The players were coming up with far more creative solutions and strategies than when they were looking over lists of abilities on their character sheets or shuffling around power cards.

When you have a loosely-defined character, much of what you can do is limited only by the player's imagination and the DM's judgement. When some sort of check is called for, use the six ability scores as a base and apply some modifiers based on the character's class, races, and a few background notes. You can accomplish so much with just this.

As soon as you start using skills and feats and other special abilities to define what your character can do, you are also defining what your character can't do by the skills and feats that you don't select.

What does the complexity of 3.x/PF give you other than longer combats and having to look up rules more frequently? Or DM screens that look like this:

Sure, it's not Rolemaster, but... ugh.


And what's on the 5e screen?

A summary of status conditions. Tables for generating NPC names and personality traits. Encounter distances. A quick summary of cover, obscured areas, and light. Overland travel. Tables for generating events and "quick finds." Plus an entire panel's worth of great art to help keep the screen from becoming a mind-numbing wall of text. It's mostly tables to help the DM make decisions during the game, rather than being a reference for all of the fiddly modifiers that are difficult to remember.

As a 28 year veteran of D&D, there is nothing I appreciate more than a set of rules that I can hold in my head and let fade into the background so that we can get on with playing the damn game. D&D 3.5 is the "Aspie Edition."

 

[Havoc]

So in short, DnD 5.0 is for old people, who can't remember more than two rules? Gotcha ya.

 

[Alchemist]

I had my first play with 5.0 and... I laughed. The game is so casual and lacking, it was just sad. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a great game for inviting new players to RPGs, but veterans? I don't think so, maybe if they hated DnD before. All the time playing I was thinking "I rather play PF". Do you understand how lacking it was? I rather played a more complex system, have more options during character creation etc. It's just too casual and simplistic.

Fun fact: true veterans of D&D started playing in the 70's with a system that is even simpler than 5E. And actually it's been quite popular with the old-school crowd.

But I sense an edition war a-brewing in this thread. Gonna grab some popcorn and probably sit most of this one out...

My take is I like something about almost every edition except for 4E - so I'll only war about that one. Half the fun of Pathfinder / 3.5 is working out character builds with all the numerous options - I agree that can be enjoyable in it's own right. I also really like older editions too (AD&D 1E is my favorite - it's what I grew up with). Age does have an effect on free time and makes the older lighter rules editions (or 5E) appealing in that you can get more done within a session. High level Pathfinder / 3.5 can make combats last in the range of hours. If I were in college with tons of free time, no job and no responsibilities I'd probably eat that up. But these days gaming time is at a premium.

 

[L'ennui]

Pathfinder is for aspies, and I know that that may be taken as a compliment in this wretched hive of villany, but it really isn't.

Go play Sudoku, you will find a much more elegant and distilled form of your number-crunching Pathfinder masturbatopia.

 

[Keldryn]

So in short, DnD 5.0 is for old people, who can't remember more than two rules? Gotcha ya.

Don't feel left out; I'll teach you how to play when you're all grown up.

Fun fact: true veterans of D&D started playing in the 70's with a system that is even simpler than 5E. And actually it's been quite popular with the old-school crowd.

Yes, original D&D had three classes (Fighting Man, Magic-User, Cleric), and the six ability scores were mainly descriptive. A 16 or higher in your prime requisite granted a 10% bonus to XP, and that was it. They used various methods of ability checks (roll d20 under your stat, roll 3d6/4d6/5d6 etc under your stat). A 14 or higher Dex giving a -1 AC bonus, a 14 or higher Con gave +1 hit point per die, etc. (I think those were the numbers) Supplement I added tables that were fairly close to what they ended up being in AD&D.

My take is I like something about almost every edition except for 4E - so I'll only war about that one. Half the fun of Pathfinder / 3.5 is working out character builds with all the numerous options - I agree that can be enjoyable in it's own right. I also really like older editions too (AD&D 1E is my favorite - it's what I grew up with).

The versions of D&D and AD&D produced by TSR were games where it didn't take much time to roll up a new character and the emphasis was on decisions made while the game was being played. Characters with similar classes were differentiated by how they were played and what they accomplished in the game, rather than by special game mechanics. D&D 3.x is a fundamentally different type of game, with the focus shifting towards decisions made outside of gameplay. You can certainly play 3.x in the style of TSR-era D&D, but in my experience the system typically ends up bringing out a style of play that I loathe.

Age does have an effect on free time and makes the older lighter rules editions (or 5E) appealing in that you can get more done within a session. High level Pathfinder / 3.5 can make combats last in the range of hours. If I were in college with tons of free time, no job and no responsibilities I'd probably eat that up. But these days gaming time is at a premium.

Yes. When you only get to play for 4 hours every 2 or 3 weeks (or even less often), you need to be able to accomplish something in that period of time. It can take months of real time to get through a fairly straightforward scenario in mid-to-high level 3.5/PF or any level in 4e with that sort of play schedule. And it wasn't that 3.5 was flat-out too complex for me to handle; it is very difficult to really learn a system inside and out when you play on that sort of schedule. And when you play once every 2 or 3 weeks, you generally end up having periods of time where you don't play for several months because nobody can get their schedules to line up. I suppose that might fall under some people's definition of "casual" play, but it's hard for me to look back on nearly 30 years of playing D&D and an entire bookcase of books and think of myself as a "casual" player.

We're "lapsed" players.

 

[ProphetSword]

I rather played a more complex system, have more options during character creation etc. It's just too casual and simplistic.

Which is fine, until you gain a few levels and get to the two-and-a-half-hour combats killing random wandering monsters that bogs the game down to a crawl while the DM flips endlessly through a stack of books to find out what each of the feats, skills and spells do thanks to the incredible bloat created by having far too many choices available to each of the special snowflakes sitting around the table. Good riddance.

 

[Telengard]

I did find a way to truly enjoy 3.5/Pathfinder, and that was PvP combat. That's seems to be the ideal form of the edition, what with pouring over all those books and sub-sub-rules actually suddenly having a real purpose, rather than just a masturbatory experience.