Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[The Shaman]

However, that ignores the point that there was a problem in the first place. Every one of your "misconceptions" Imaro are nothing of the sort. They really are problems that people have with the system.

I think this is a classic case of the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you can modify the rules to make the problem go away, it doesn't mean the original rules aren't a problem.

I have to agree.

And the fact that there are proposed solutions doesn't mean they make the original problem go away - sometimes the fixes are as bad as the problem (see "kludge").

 

[Imaro]

As was already pointed out, yes, there are fixes that exist for issues in 3.5.

However, that ignores the point that there was a problem in the first place. Every one of your "misconceptions" Imaro are nothing of the sort. They really are problems that people have with the system. The fact that you can point to fixes for those problems means that those problems actually do, in fact, exist.

Yes, you can retrain. IF you happen to have a splatbook that came out several years after the release of 3.5. That still does not change the fact that you are stuck with bad skill choices by RAW. If you happen to incorporate the later patches, then, fine, that problem goes away.

But that in no way negates the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

Again, and I don't know how many times I will have to say this...it is a misconception that 3.5 does not have rules support for these things. Plain and simple, yes or no question and the answer is yes. Whether it's in a later sourcebook or not has no relevant bearing on this, as long as it is in fact a sourcebook for D&D 3.5, to claim the rules of 3.5 don't support retraining, or anything but a one roll skill system is a fallacy... In the same way saying the Exalted 2nd edition game doesn't support playing Lunar exalted (trying to stay away from the 4e comparisons)... yeah it does in the Lunar splatbook which is part of the Exalted 2nd edition line of gamebooks.

EDIT: Yes the problem exists if you choose not to make use of the available rules... just like someone who chooses not to get the Lunar Splat has a problem... but it's not because the game doesn't support it (unless it hasn't been released yet), it's because they make a choice not to use those rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, and I don't know how many times I will have to say this...it is a misconception that 3.5 does not have rules support for these things. Plain and simple, yes or no question and the answer is yes.

But, existence is - plain and simple - not enough. It has to work. Does it?

My answer would be no. You have to change a lot more in the system then just add some UA rules to make things work. To learn more skills, the DM might allow the Skill Knowledge feat.

But wait - why can this just be a single feat that nets me an extra skill points equal to 3+level? How is this balanced with the core rules, where what the best feats do is add +2 to two skills, +3 to one skill, +4 to a conditional use of the skill, or add 4 skill ranks? Did the guys with the last feat screw up?

Wouldn't this system mean that Fighter suddenly become some of the most skillfull characters, while their skills used to suck beforehand?

Most of these ideas are half-baked. They provide a starting point, but they haven't been tested and they do not necessarily guarantee the same "balance" in the system.

Maybe that's okay if you don't care about balance, just about the way you resolve certain things. But I certainly do not. I want a good way to resolve things and keep a sensible balance between characters (and monsters).

I don't feel that a particular mechanic is supported if not only I have to buy a book (that's okay for me), but also have to work out all the side effects of the change. Adding a new class, feat or spell is far easier then changing the entire way how you resolve a game element.

Heck, doesn't Unearthed Arcana introduce also a "3d6" D&D? Did they ever go through the detailed implications of such changes? It's not just that critical might become more seldom - DC changes and modifiers have an entirely different effect, since you have a different probability curve for your numbers.

 

[Imaro]

But, existence is - plain and simple - not enough. It has to work. Does it?

My answer would be no. You have to change a lot more in the system then just add some UA rules to make things work. To learn more skills, the DM might allow the Skill Knowledge feat.

But wait - why can this just be a single feat that nets me an extra skill points equal to 3+level? How is this balanced with the core rules, where what the best feats do is add +2 to two skills, +3 to one skill, +4 to a conditional use of the skill, or add 4 skill ranks? Did the guys with the last feat screw up?

Wait a minute, that's not what the Skill Knowledge feat does. It's not supposed to be used in a game that isn't using the Level-Based or maximum rank skill system. Did you even read about it or are you just making something up and then using it as "proof" for your point? So this example boils down to...didn't read it, made a totally different effect for it, used it in a way it wasn't meant to be used and then claimed it was broken...uhm, yeah ok.

Wouldn't this system mean that Fighter suddenly become some of the most skillfull characters, while their skills used to suck beforehand?

Yeah, if it worked in any way like you describe above, I guess so.

Most of these ideas are half-baked. They provide a starting point, but they haven't been tested and they do not necessarily guarantee the same "balance" in the system.

Maybe that's okay if you don't care about balance, just about the way you resolve certain things. But I certainly do not. I want a good way to resolve things and keep a sensible balance between characters (and monsters).

Well I would say before you can judge that you should actually read and understand what something does, otherwise yeah, it might seem unbalanced or broken when it's not.

I don't feel that a particular mechanic is supported if not only I have to buy a book (that's okay for me), but also have to work out all the side effects of the change. Adding a new class, feat or spell is far easier then changing the entire way how you resolve a game element.

Again, the first step is to actually read and understand how and why something is implemented, if you choose not to do this... it's not the games fault, it's yours. Second have you tested any of this? Or are you assuming things don't work.

Finally I am really trying to stay away from edition war territory, but I'll ask this question...what game do you have where the mechanics are perfectly balanced, and none had to be adjusted or even fixed out of the box? Seriously that's a standard very few to no game lives up to.

Heck, doesn't Unearthed Arcana introduce also a "3d6" D&D? Did they ever go through the detailed implications of such changes? It's not just that critical might become more seldom - DC changes and modifiers have an entirely different effect, since you have a different probability curve for your numbers.

Okay, I'm asking seriously...do you have this book or are you just commenting without knowledge? There are 2 whole paragraphs about the effect of using the "Bell Curve" roll in D&D... in fact almost every rule has one to two paragraphs discussing it's ramifications on gameplay. So yeah, it discusses everything you list above.

 

[Garnfellow]

I think some people are missing the key point of the O.P. by focusing on optional/core distinction, which is really just a red herring.

There are several fundamental problems with the core 3.x rules that can be fixed with a few relatively simple patches from optional sources.

For me, here is the key point at the heart of the O.P.: none of these problems require a radical restructure of the entire core rules in order to be fixed.

I think the misconception isn't whether or not these issues are problems with the core rules as written (they are real problems, period), but whether or not the core needed to be completely rewritten to solve these problems (it didn't).

I think there is one (and really only one) significant issue with 3.x that could only be fixed with a major rewrite of the system: high level play. The fundamental math just starts to break down at that point. Now, you could do lots of thing to make the situation a bit easier, and with patches maybe you could push the breaking point out a couple of levels. But I couldn't really see it being solved without fundamentally changing the base attack and save progressions.

 

[Imaro]

You know, I have to say I'm glad I started this thread, it's making me really take a closer look at some of these books...and I'm realizing I had most of the "solutions" for D&D 3.5's problems at my fingertips already...Well I'll stop listing them as "misconceptions" since this has become a focal point for some to rally against the fact that 3.5 has rules to address certain "problems"... here's something else I found...

Reserve points....aka a lower-powered alternative to healing surges for 3.5, in UA. So now there's an alternative to the heal-bot or loads of curative items...and yes it's implications (the fact that the PC's have more hp's to loose over multiple fights, but are not any tougher than they would be refreshed in any single fight) are discussed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wait a minute, that's not what the Skill Knowledge feat does. It's not supposed to be used in a game that isn't using the Level-Based or maximum rank skill system. Did you even read about it or are you just making something up and then using it as "proof" for your point? So this example boils down to...didn't read it, made a totally different effect for it, used it in a way it wasn't meant to be used and then claimed it was broken...uhm, yeah ok.

SkILL KNOWLEDGE [GENERAL]
You gain access to new knowledge and abilities.

Benefit: Choose any two skills from one of your current classes' skill lists. You now know these skills as class skills.

Special: Instead of choosing two class skills, you may choose one cross-class skill (whether you already know it or not) and learn it, treating it as a class skill from that point forward.

So, what exactly does it differently from what I said?

Okay, I'm asking seriously...do you have this book or are you just commenting without knowledge? There are 2 whole paragraphs about the effect of using the "Bell Curve" roll in D&D... in fact almost every rule has one to two paragraphs discussing it's ramifications on gameplay. So yeah, it discusses everything you list above.

Another subtle change to the game is that the bell curve variant awards bonuses relatively more and the die roll relatively less, simply because the die roll is almost always within a few points of 10. A character’s skill ranks, ability scores, and gear have a much bigger impact on success and failure than they do in the standard d20 rules.

This is a very fascinating note - but if I wanted to rework the system, what would I really have to do? Gear becomes more important, ability modifiers, ranks! That's still a far way from a "discussion". It's just "look, there is a problem. Good luck."

 

[Obryn]

You know, I have to say I'm glad I started this thread, it's making me really take a closer look at some of these books...and I'm realizing I had most of the "solutions" for D&D 3.5's problems at my fingertips already...Well I'll stop listing them as "misconceptions" since this has become a focal point for some to rally against the fact that 3.5 has rules to address certain "problems"... here's something else I found...

Reserve points....aka a lower-powered alternative to healing surges for 3.5, in UA. So now there's an alternative to the heal-bot or loads of curative items...and yes it's implications (the fact that the PC's have more hp's to loose over multiple fights, but are not any tougher than they would be refreshed in any single fight) are discussed.

So what you're actually saying is that 4e was a natural outgrowth of rules that were presented in 3.5e's later books in order to fix some problems with 3.5e? And that healing surges, retraining, and skill challenges had clear antecedents?

Um.... Yeah, I agree?

From the thread title, I thought you were trying to make a different point than this.

-O

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Before I continue reading the thread, I've got a misconception for you, too:

"All 3E groups are comfortable using rules from UA and/or PHB2"

 

[Imaro]

So, what exactly does it differently from what I said?

Nice pulling it out of context (since it is in a sidebar in the book) and presenting it like any other feat...

Again that feat is only used in max or level skill systems, and I see no mention of it awarding skill points??? Maybe because it is not supposed to be used in a point system.

This is a very fascinating note - but if I wanted to rework the system, what would I really have to do? Gear becomes more important, ability modifiers, ranks! That's still a far way from a "discussion". It's just "look, there is a problem. Good luck."

Not sure exactly what you're looking for, it discusses the implications, did you want a mathematical breakdown of the probabilities and how they are affected by the bonuses, because even the core rules don't do that (though some choose to figure them out for themselves.). It gives practical advice on what the ramifications are for using this system, and thus you realize your PC's are more likely to roll around 10+ their bonuses than any of the extremes, thus most challenges you want them to succeed at should be at or a little higher than this...It regulates extreme failures and extreme successes. What exactly where you looking for?