Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[nightwyrm]

Person 1: "Fighters, monks and paladins are weak and have little in-game versatility."

Person 2: "You can use the ToB and rename the warblade, the swordsage, and crusader into fighter, monk and paladin. Therefore, the idea that fighters, monks and paladins are weak is a misconception."

I'm not saying that using ToB is a bad fix for melee classes, but that's the sort of comparison I'm getting from this thread. A lot of DMs don't like to use the ToB to fix melee, is that the game's problem or the DM's?

 

[garyh]

I mentioned 4e once in my original post, was called on it and apologized for even bringing it up (even tried to avoid it by using a differnet game as an examplse), but I think there's alot of reading what one wants to into what I'm posting going on here.

I seem to have read things into your posts that you did not mean, and for that I apologize.

So, your DM is operating under the misconception that there is no 3.5 system for retraining?

The DM would be operating under the valid assumption that they're under no compunction to use a variant rule.

Then is the problem with the system, which has a solution, or is the problem with the DM, that denies it?

Exalted players don't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to play Lunars in Exalted, they say "Oh, just use the book."

Likewise, 3.5 players shouldn't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to retrain feats in 3.5, they should say "Oh, just use the book."

Which most do.

I don't see why 4e keeps being brought up. Yes, I'm glad 4e took a 3.5 rule and made it core. That doesn't mean "4e is better then 3.5, HAH!" It means "4e is using something from 3.5. It saw the rule wizards made for 3.5 and decided to utilize it in it's own system." I'm sorry, but the whining about what is and isn't core seems like just a very shallow front to puff out your chest and show how your game is so much better. And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.

And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.

And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.

Wow, I prompted triplicate and bold.

I completely agree with Imaro that there are lots of variant rules that can make 3.x what you want (assuming your DM and group can agree on what variants to use). If you like rule X and your DM doesn't allow it because it's a variant or a splat, I'm not really sure where I'd say the "blame" lies. The rules for not making the variant core, or the DM for not allowing a variant? Both?

I've already explained why it's nice for some folks that variant rules they like were incorporated into the next version of the game. I don't see where I'm saying my edition is "better" than yours. I'm simply saying I enjoy having variant rules I like but rarely or never got to use made core.

I'll say it again - rules exist to turn 3.x into practically anything you want. I enjoyed those options myself for a long time. I'm glad they're out there, and that people use and enjoy them.

 

[Lacyon]

Then is the problem with the system, which has a solution, or is the problem with the DM, that denies it?

Um, neither? It's a feature of the particular game you're playing in. Whether or not the feature is a problem is a matter of perspective.

Exalted players don't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to play Lunars in Exalted, they say "Oh, just use the book."

Likewise, 3.5 players shouldn't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to retrain feats in 3.5, they should say "Oh, just use the book."

Which is precisely why it's not really a misconception to imply that "just use the book" happens a lot in 3.x and therefore it is commonly a feature that retraining is not allowed, right?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Person 1: "Fighters, monks and paladins are weak and have little in-game versatility."

Person 2: "You can use the ToB and rename the warblade, the swordsage, and crusader into fighter, monk and paladin. Therefore, the idea that fighters, monks and paladins are weak is a misconception."

I'm not saying that using ToB is a bad fix for melee classes, but that's the sort of comparison I'm getting from this thread. A lot of DMs don't like to use the ToB to fix melee, is that the game's problem or the DM's?

It's not a good comparison though, because you're answering the wrong question.

I want to play a melee class with lots of cool abilities, and maybe even a wuxia feel, without resorting to magic.
Problem

Tome of Battle has three classes, a few PrCs, and loads of abilities designed to give martial characters cool and fun "maneuvers" in combat.
Solution

3.5 doesn't give any options to players who want to be a martial class and still use cool abilities every encounter
Misconception

 

[Hussar]

It's not a good comparison though, because you're answering the wrong question.

I want to play a melee class with lots of cool abilities, and maybe even a wuxia feel, without resorting to magic.
Problem

Tome of Battle has three classes, a few PrCs, and loads of abilities designed to give martial characters cool and fun "maneuvers" in combat.
Solution

3.5 doesn't give any options to players who want to be a martial class and still use cool abilities every encounter
Misconception

And you are certainly correct.

But, again, who is claiming this? Who is saying that these things do not exist at all? Most conversations don't go this way. The conversation is usually closer to:

Problem: Martial classes become completely overshadowed by caster classes in 3e.

Solution: Use Tome of Battle.

There is usually no misconception. You can use Tome of Battle or not. It does solve the problem. Whether it solves it satisfactorily or not is the point of having the conversation.

But who denies the existence of the Tome of Battle?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

And you are certainly correct.

But, again, who is claiming this? Who is saying that these things do not exist at all? Most conversations don't go this way. The conversation is usually closer to:

Problem: Martial classes become completely overshadowed by caster classes in 3e.

Solution: Use Tome of Battle.

There is usually no misconception. You can use Tome of Battle or not. It does solve the problem. Whether it solves it satisfactorily or not is the point of having the conversation.

But who denies the existence of the Tome of Battle?

There I was merely changing the example someone else gave. I think the problem came from people denying retraining feats.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The DM would be operating under the valid assumption that they're under no compunction to use a variant rule.

If the DM is saying you can't retrain because there's no rule, and you say "it's in the PHB2" and he replies with "I don't have to use that variant rule", then the problem isn't misconception, most certainly. I'd still not play in the guys game for being a dismissive totalitarian, but then that just goes back to the early (in this thread) example of "well, just simply kill off your own PC".

And again, they're under no compunction to use ANY rule, variant or otherwise. If you said "my character would like to swap a feat, I didn't realize it's limitations" in 3e or 4e and he said "no", it doesn't matter if the rule is in one core book and one supplemental book.

 

[Desdichado]

And again, they're under no compunction to use ANY rule, variant or otherwise. If you said "my character would like to swap a feat, I didn't realize it's limitations" in 3e or 4e and he said "no", it doesn't matter if the rule is in one core book and one supplemental book.

Agree. I feel like a bit of a broken record here, but I'll say it one more time; the distinction between "core" and "variant" seems a particularly facile and, frankly, kinda vacuous argument to make. PHB2 isn't core, so the problem isn't solved? Huh?

And 4e, I suppose, fixed that, by saying that all supplemental material from here until 5e comes out is all core? That's the implication here. I'd really like to hope that few gamers are that lacking in iniative, and frankly, gullible, that a designation by WotC of what's core and what's not actually means much of anything in any context other than maybe Living Greyhawk or something.

If I'm running a game, of either or any edition, the only one who gets to determine what is "core" for that particular game is me. With input and feedback from my players, naturally. Heck, the game I'm currently running, I decided that elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings, as well as any class with a spellcasting progression of any kind was not only not core, but was specifically non-existant in the setting (at least until the PCs could crack the code of the missing magic of the distant past, and maybe get access to taking levels in spellcasting classes again.) Then I specifically opened up hobgoblins, goblins, full-blooded orcs, xeph and dromites as core races, and psionics, and any full class from any of the Complete books as "core." For that game.

I also think the oft-repeated "but that variant rule isn't assumed by any other subsequent publication!" is a major red herring. While true for Unearthed Arcana stuff, you'd be hard pressed to find a variant rule where that actually made a significant difference to subsequent published material. I would hope that nobody would say that Tome of Magic is broken because it didn't account for the retraining rule in PHB2 or something like that. And except for Unearthed Arcana, that statement isn't even true anyway. I recently picked up Drow of the Underdark belatedly, and I'm actually quite surprised at how many references it makes to "non-core" supplements. It refers to Underdark many times, and that's a setting specific book fer cryin' out loud. It refers over and over again to classes from the Complete series. It references psionics a fair amount. It references MM4 repeatedly. And many others as well. I remember thinking the same thing about Elder Evils too.

 

[Shroomy]

I almost all cases I thought that when someone said "3.5e is missing x, y, or z," then it was an unspoken implication based on context that they were referring to the core rules. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't see why 4e keeps being brought up.

Probably because this discussion stemmed from a thread asking people why they are still playing 4E. (Thanks to Hobo for the recap.)