Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Imaro]

I'll say the misconception here is that 4e is fundamentally different in this regard.

"I've used my spells up, now I need to spam crossbow attacks."
vs
"I've used my daily and encounter power, now I have to spam magic missile."

Sure there are some differences, but acting like it's some total redesign of the system to insert a new thing to default to, it just feels silly.

I agree with what you're saying, and it's one of the reasons I like the recharge system...when a spellcaster uses a spell he's actually taking a risk now, since he doesn't know when he'll get access to that spell again...though there are some spells with pre-set very long recharges, they generally aren't going to recharge within a combat anyway. So you have to continually adapt to a different array of available spells each round. IMHO, it gives magic a more chaotic and wild feel.

 

[Obryn]

I ran 3.5 from start to finish, and yes, Unearthed Arcana has alternate systems for a lot of good stuff.

I think there's something to be said, though, about a game's default rule assumptions. While alternate rules might be great for a fairly insular campaign, they tend not to be supported in published adventures or computerized aids (like HeroForge). They're basically house rules, which are fine, but there's zero support for them in later supplements and they may interact strangely with new feats, spells, and classes.

I don't really consider supplementary classes, spells, and feats to be rule changes, to the degree of Unearthed Arcana options. I think it would be completely fair to say that 3e now has a pretty fair gish class in the Duskblade, even though it is non-core. On the other hand, I think it's stretching to say there are damage saves in 3e, even if they are provided as optional rules in UA.

YMMV and all, but I don't know that these are misconceptions you're talking about. They look to me like problems someone might have with the system, to which you've provided possible solutions.

-O

 

[Oni]

First, and this is addressed to all the people saying it's unfair for me to use books outside the first three... Then will it be a fair complaint after the 2nd PHB and 2nd DMG are relesed to claim that 4e doesn't support the Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, etc. or rules for traps, etc.? If so then yes I will say I am in error for presenting this, but otherwise the point of splat books is to broaden a game, and once something is addressed, the game has support for it.

La Bete, haven't come across something to address that issue yet, but now I'll be looking for it and will post it if I do.

Well those things being lacking, and requireing the purchase of an extra book is certainly one of my major complaints with 4e.

That said, I still think your not being particularly fair in your assessment. There are differences between a rules addition and actually changing the rules to work in a different way.

 

[WizarDru]

They're misconceptions, IMHO, because people claim 3.5 doesn't support this, and it plainly does. I mean it's the same as claiming 4e doesn't support a Gish class... even though it's in the FRPG. Or am I missing something here.

Well, no, that's different. Some of your examples are mechanics that run directly counter to the core design of 3.5, while the other is an option that fits directly into the core design. Saying 4e doesn't support a Gish class is the exact same thing as saying 3.5e doesn't support a Gish class. Or that 3/3.5/4 supports psionics, for that matter.

Unearthed Arcana, for that matter, was a book of non-standard options to change the core rules. There's nothing wrong with that, but faulting people for not knowing it's contents seems disingenuous to me. I wouldn't expect people to realize that a book of options exists that changes the core mechanics as meaning that the game directly supports it, even if published by WotC.

 

[Imaro]

Well those things being lacking, and requireing the purchase of an extra book is certainly one of my major complaints with 4e.

That said, I still think your not being particularly fair in your assessment. There are differences between a rules addition and actually changing the rules to work in a different way.

Again, I'm confused here...How is the addition of a new way for magic to work any different than introducing a new type of defender, whose powers and marks are totally different from the Fighter? I mean yeah you might call it a Bodyguard, but in the end what it is is a variation on the Defender role (a new set of exception based rules)...the same way that recharge magic is a variation on the spell casting method. He still uses the defender jobs framework, the same way recharge magic uses the same spell list...but both do it in a totally different way than what came before.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I think it would be completely fair to say that 3e now has a pretty fair gish class in the Duskblade, even though it is non-core. On the other hand, I think it's stretching to say there are damage saves in 3e, even if they are provided as optional rules in UA.

Pretty much my opinion, as well.

 

[Imaro]

Well, no, that's different. Some of your examples are mechanics that run directly counter to the core design of 3.5, while the other is an option that fits directly into the core design. Saying 4e doesn't support a Gish class is the exact same thing as saying 3.5e doesn't support a Gish class. Or that 3/3.5/4 supports psionics, for that matter.

Unearthed Arcana, for that matter, was a book of non-standard options to change the core rules. There's nothing wrong with that, but faulting people for not knowing it's contents seems disingenuous to me. I wouldn't expect people to realize that a book of options exists that changes the core mechanics as meaning that the game directly supports it, even if published by WotC.

You do realize UA is in the SRD? And the Duskblade rules aren't right?

 

[Squizzle]

Again, I'm confused here...How is the addition of a new way for magic to work any different than introducing a new type of defender, whose powers and marks are totally different from the Fighter? I mean yeah you might call it a Bodyguard, but in the end what it is is a variation on the Defender role (a new set of exception based rules)...the same way that recharge magic is a variation on the spell casting method. He still uses the defender jobs framework, the same way recharge magic uses the same spell list...but both do it in a totally different way than what came before.

Arguing that using a new class is the equivalent of implementing a set of optional rules--which are mutually exclusive from the rules in the PHB--from a Big Book of Optional & Alternative Rules is intellectually dishonest to a degree it is difficult to civilly express.

 

[Imaro]

Arguing that using a new class is the equivalent of implementing a set of optional rules--which are mutually exclusive from the rules in the PHB--from a Big Book of Optional & Alternative Rules is intellectually dishonest to a degree it is difficult to civilly express.

First, I thought everything was optional in D&D. Now the question is whether 3.5 has support for these things or it doesn't. I think it's dishonest to claim it doesn't when it most clearly does, regardless of where the support is located.

 

[Lacyon]

It's generally true that nearly any time someone says "you can't do X in system Y" it's a technically false statement. It's also usually true that what they actually mean is something a bit less absolute (much like people don't usually append "in my opinion" to the end of every statement of opinion).