halfling rogue
Explorer
I cut my teeth on 3.5 (D&D) so maybe I'm nostalgic or maybe I'm just not seeing a real blind spot, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.
The view from the air looks like this:
1) 3e needed updating so...
2) 3.5
3) splat...splat...splat...splat...more splat...etc
4) 4e announced
5) Pathfinder introduced
6) Pathfinder considered a 'fix' to 3.5 and thought of as 3.75
I came into D&D right in between #2 & 3. In my group, only the DM bought any extra splatbooks. He basically bought everything. I don't know how often he used them as reference, etc or in our campaigns, but as players, the only thing we used was the 3.5 PHB. Seriously. Nothing else.
Now it's been conveyed (or the impression I get is) that 3.5 needed fixed. WotC moved on to 4e and Pathfinder took up the helm. Folks call Pathfinder 3.75 because they 'fixed' it. Before I move on, let me be clear, this isn't a knock on Pathfinder or 4e. It's just a question about 3.5
Now maybe it's because we didn't dive into the splatbooks, maybe it's because we stuck with the core classes/races, but I never saw how 3.5 needed to be fixed. I'm not saying there aren't flaws or that there were rules that we needed to change up or houserule, but on the whole, using the 3 core books I just didn't see the issue.
Obviously there was an issue and I'm not saying there wasn't. Folks saw that something wasn't working right and obviously think Pathfinder adequately fixed it, fantastic. But what really was the problem? Was it all of the rules/options that the splatbooks provided? I heard wizards were too powerful, and that the game balance was all out of whack, but they never seemed too powerful in our games played by the 3 core books. Maybe we played the wizard wrong?
Currently we're playing 5e and frankly I like it better than other versions, but if a group was playing 3.5 I'd still join in. Problem is, I don't know if anyone is playing "core" 3.5 (core meaning 3 core books only) anymore. Seems most migrated to Pathfinder.
I guess I'm just wondering if 3.5 is/was considered 'broken' from the get go, or was it something that eventually grew to big for it's britches?
The view from the air looks like this:
1) 3e needed updating so...
2) 3.5
3) splat...splat...splat...splat...more splat...etc
4) 4e announced
5) Pathfinder introduced
6) Pathfinder considered a 'fix' to 3.5 and thought of as 3.75
I came into D&D right in between #2 & 3. In my group, only the DM bought any extra splatbooks. He basically bought everything. I don't know how often he used them as reference, etc or in our campaigns, but as players, the only thing we used was the 3.5 PHB. Seriously. Nothing else.
Now it's been conveyed (or the impression I get is) that 3.5 needed fixed. WotC moved on to 4e and Pathfinder took up the helm. Folks call Pathfinder 3.75 because they 'fixed' it. Before I move on, let me be clear, this isn't a knock on Pathfinder or 4e. It's just a question about 3.5
Now maybe it's because we didn't dive into the splatbooks, maybe it's because we stuck with the core classes/races, but I never saw how 3.5 needed to be fixed. I'm not saying there aren't flaws or that there were rules that we needed to change up or houserule, but on the whole, using the 3 core books I just didn't see the issue.
Obviously there was an issue and I'm not saying there wasn't. Folks saw that something wasn't working right and obviously think Pathfinder adequately fixed it, fantastic. But what really was the problem? Was it all of the rules/options that the splatbooks provided? I heard wizards were too powerful, and that the game balance was all out of whack, but they never seemed too powerful in our games played by the 3 core books. Maybe we played the wizard wrong?
Currently we're playing 5e and frankly I like it better than other versions, but if a group was playing 3.5 I'd still join in. Problem is, I don't know if anyone is playing "core" 3.5 (core meaning 3 core books only) anymore. Seems most migrated to Pathfinder.
I guess I'm just wondering if 3.5 is/was considered 'broken' from the get go, or was it something that eventually grew to big for it's britches?