Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Desdichado]

If a wide variety of options is important to you, you are not a good candidate for early adopter. Give 4e time. It’ll get there.

To be fair, almost all of the reasons I'm disinterested in 4e boil down to external rather than internal reasons, and this right here that you just posted is one of the biggest ones. 4e can call me in a year or two once it's fattened up a bit. Maybe then I'll take another look.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I have never seen a PC or set of PCs so powerful that they couldn’t make good use of another warm-body.



snip

I've seen this. In my last campaign, the player created a character that was virtually unkillable. Monk/Paladin/Pious Templar (I forget the levels). Saving throws and AC in the stratosphere. One problem though. He couldn't hit anything and, when he did, he was doing about 1/4 the damage of everyone else at the table. Completely and utterly useless in combat.

He eventually suicided the character because of it. We worked together for quite a while trying to figure out a way to fix this character and, in the end, it was just unfixable.

In my current campaign, again a monk, has an attack bonus that's four or five below the rest of the combat characters (party is currently 5th level). When he hits, his damage is reasonable, but, he misses far more often than he hits simply because his attack bonuses are so pitiful. We play with a 27 point buy, so, 18 Str is right out and we're too low level for stat boost items to come into play. IIRC, his attack bonus is like +5 or +6, down to +4 when he flurries. That's just not cutting the mustard at all. And I don't see it improving any time soon.

Sucking hind is never, ever fun.

Imaro - ok, thank you for clarifying your point. My references to 4e were in response to Hobo mostly, not to you, so, you might want to dial back the snark just a touch. And, in your last post, you quote someone else and then aim the discusion at me, leaving me somewhat confused.

 

[Imaro]

Imaro - ok, thank you for clarifying your point. My references to 4e were in response to Hobo mostly, not to you, so, you might want to dial back the snark just a touch. And, in your last post, you quote someone else and then aim the discusion at me, leaving me somewhat confused.

Where have I been snarky towards you, unless correcting you about the purpose of this thread repeatedly is being snarky. I don't know if you're trying to suddenly play the victim role, but you came into this thread with alot of aggression instead of any sense of trying to understand it's purpose.

And my last post addresses exactly who it was meant to address Mustrum... I don't see where the confusion is coming in, if I've stated something over and over again in a thread and a poster comes into the thread and chooses not to read any of the previous posts or understand what has been discussed so far... well let's just say they should before posting in the discussion, or make it known they have chosen not to read the thread.

Finally, for those asking... who doesn't know these rules exist or where they are located... here's a thread where a poster is asking for alternate rules and their location for 3.5. I didn't direct him here though because this thread is so far off topic it's kinda pointless now.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...98-what-were-most-unique-3-x-supplements.html

 

[Vocenoctum]

Again I think it's a question of future material.

Once the druid is released since that book is now labled "core" the game will then "assume" druids are a part of the game.

This is different then previously, when the game didn't assume classes like "the knight" were part of the game.

*sigh* Yet again, that's actually not true. I don't have any specific examples for knight, but here's a simple example of where you're clearly wrong. In Drow of the Underdark, the book uses tons of material from other sources.

You can BOTH be wrong you know
The actual policy wasn't that "we'll never use it", it was "we won't assume you have the previous book".
Thus, when material was reused, it was reprinted, sometimes in an abbreviated manner, or sometimes they simply said "if you don't have X book, use Blah instead of Bleh".

This was a basic assumption of 3e, that no book outside of the Core was required going forward. (Except for limited exceptions such as Complete Psi requiring PsiHB, obviously.)

It also meant Immediate actions were reprinted in nearly every book after their first appearance... ::sigh::

4e's new "everything is core" will mean they print an adventure and it has a druid and such, and if you don't have the book where druids are introduced, you're (theoretically) screwed.

3e's policy was a response to the bloat of required books in 2e.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In my opinion, this thread is all one big Robocop versus Frankinstein battle.
I wonder who WOULD win if they fought? We would win, that's what.

 

[nightwyrm]

In my opinion, this thread is all one big Robocop versus Frankinstein battle.
I wonder who WOULD win if they fought? We would win, that's what.

Or most likely we would lose, if they ever decide to make a movie out of it. Lose very, very horrificly.

 

[Oni]

4e's new "everything is core" will mean they print an adventure and it has a druid and such, and if you don't have the book where druids are introduced, you're (theoretically) screwed.

Of course as far as adventures and the like are concerned this shouldn't be a problem since PC's and NPC's are treated differently now, everything you need should be right there in a neat little box.

 

[Greg K]

I've
In my current campaign, again a monk, has an attack bonus that's four or five below the rest of the combat characters (party is currently 5th level). When he hits, his damage is reasonable, but, he misses far more often than he hits simply because his attack bonuses are so pitiful. We play with a 27 point buy, so, 18 Str is right out and we're too low level for stat boost items to come into play. IIRC, his attack bonus is like +5 or +6, down to +4 when he flurries. That's just not cutting the mustard at all. And I don't see it improving any time soon.

What are is ability scores and feats?

 

[Mister Doug]

Well I have seen various posts that often talk about things 3.5 doesn't support. Some of these posts are correct... but I have seen just as many that are not correct and decided to create a thread where misconceptions about 3.5 can be dispelled. This isn't a thread about houserules, but about the wide berth of options 3.5 gives and how some people may discover what they are looking for if they just took the time to explore them... so here are a few, and anyone else feel free to jump in, but remember these are actual rules not houserules...

Misconception 1 "I am stuck with a bad choice in 3.5" ... contrary to popular belief WotC created retraining and rebuilding rules for PC's in the PHB 2.

Misconception 2 "In 3.5 skill checks are decided by one roll of the die." ...actually in Unearthed Arcana, there are rules for complex skill checks...they are almost the exact same rules (only explained in a more concise manner) that 4e uses for their revolutionary skill challenges. Seriously if you have the book read up on them.

Misconception 3 "3.5's skill system is too complex/fiddly" ...well again Unearthed Arcana has two alternate and more simplified systems for skills in 3.5.

Misconception 4 "NPC's have to be complicated and time consuming in 3.5." ...PHB2 actually has an appendix with a system for quick NPC creation, seems pretty straightforward and uncomplicated to me.

Misconception 5 "low-level Wizards are reduced to using a crossbow, once their spells are gone." Try using the recharge magic system in UA. They won't be hurling Magic Missile around every round, but they will be able to cast spells throughout the day. It's also really easy to tailor this system (adjust the recharge times for what one considers especially unbalancing spells) for customization in one's campaign.

Well these are just 5 so far...might come back and post some more later. Also, if there are any problems people are having using 3.5, feel free to post them and maybe there's something I come across that may help you out.

The fact that the "misconceptions" are addressed by later rules seems to reinforce that these were, in fact, problems with 3.5 that had to be patched through additional house rules....

 

[Imaro]

The fact that the "misconceptions" are addressed by later rules seems to reinforce that these were, in fact, problems with 3.5 that had to be patched through additional house rules....

So the rules in published supplements are now house rules...okay. Also, I'm not trying to be snarky, but please read through the thread before posting...thanks.