Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Halivar]

3.5 doesn't have retraining because I don't have that book. For those of us who can afford core and nothing more, the OP's 5 misconceptions are not misconceptions at all; they're the facts.

That said, 4E doesn't suffer from the OP's 5 misconceptions out of the box, and that despite the fact that I have 10-15 3.x books on my shelf (just not the right ones, apparently).

 

[Imaro]

3.5 doesn't have retraining because I don't have that book. For those of us who can afford core and nothing more, the OP's 5 misconceptions are not misconceptions at all; they're the facts.

That said, 4E doesn't suffer from the OP's 5 misconceptions out of the box, and that despite the fact that I have 10-15 3.x books on my shelf (just not the right ones, apparently).

So if you chose to buy only the Monster Manual, does that mean 3.5 doesn't have classes or combat rules... or does it mean Halivar doesn't have the rules in 3.5 that support that?

EDIT: Oh yeah, Halivar if you're talking about UA... the rules are free on the internet.

 

[Imaro]

What I find strange in this thread is that fans of 4e keep coming in posting about 4e being better than 3.5 because it has these rules in core... now I haven't seen a fan of 3.5 come in and list all the things that aren't included in 4e core that are in 3.5. I feel like 4e fans are really trying to push this thread into an edition war... just don't understand why. If you've chosen 4e why do you care what is or isn't in 3.5? Or did people read the title and think this was going to be a thread about bashing on 3.5 and are now disappointed.

 

[Desdichado]

Edition wars are in our blood. You can try to ban it, you can try out outlaw it, but the HATE WILL ALWAYS SURVIVE!

 

[Halivar]

So if you chose to buy only the Monster Manual, does that mean 3.5 doesn't have classes or combat rules... or does it mean Halivar doesn't have the rules in 3.5 that support that?

If I only have the MM, I don't have a complete game. Are you saying 3.5 is not a complete game without UA and PHB2? Because that's a steeper buy-in than I have for 4E, right now.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Halivar if you're talking about UA... the rules are free on the internet.

And if I'm talking about retraining rules, I'm SOL.

 

[Desdichado]

If I only have the MM, I don't have a complete game. Are you saying 3.5 is not a complete game without UA and PHB2? Because that's a steeper buy-in than I have for 4E, right now.

According to WotC, if you don't have the PHB5 in a 5 years, you don't have a complete game. :shrug: There comes a point where this argument starts to become very ridiculous.

I mean, naturally not everyone has every supplement ever produced for a given edition. That really isn't the point, though. The point wasn't ever that you needed every 3.5 book to have the complete game, the point was merely that those rules were available for those who were interested in adopting them. If you wanted them, you went and bought the book, and then you had access to it.

 

[Imaro]

If I only have the MM, I don't have a complete game. Are you saying 3.5 is not a complete game without UA and PHB2? Because that's a steeper buy-in than I have for 4E, right now.

And if I'm talking about retraining rules, I'm SOL.

You really need to read the thread before you post...the argument you're raising is like a broken record... and has already been discussed.

 

[Halivar]

now I haven't seen a fan of 3.5 come in and list all the things that aren't included in 4e core that are in 3.5.

Let me be the first. I miss the bard. I miss the fly spell. And I'm a fan of 3.x. Played it since it was released.

I feel like 4e fans are really trying to push this thread into an edition war... just don't understand why. If you've chosen 4e why do you care what is or isn't in 3.5? Or did people read the title and think this was going to be a thread about bashing on 3.5 and are now disappointed.

Many of us interpreted the OP as "why 3.5 ought to be good enough for you," and subsequent posts as insinuating, "if you don't get it, you obviously don't know 3.5 enough." Direct quote? No. But whether you intended it or not, it was easily construed, especially given that it sprang out of a 4E discussion.

EDIT:

You really need to read the thread before you post...the argument you're raising is like a broken record... and has already been discussed.

Wow. It's, like, the perfectly unassailable response. I can't even argue with it. I guess I lose, and I'll leave the thread now.

 

[Hussar]

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

Denying them how? Denying that they exist at all? Or simply declining to use those rules in their game?

What I find strange in this thread is that fans of 4e keep coming in posting about 4e being better than 3.5 because it has these rules in core... now I haven't seen a fan of 3.5 come in and list all the things that aren't included in 4e core that are in 3.5. I feel like 4e fans are really trying to push this thread into an edition war... just don't understand why. If you've chosen 4e why do you care what is or isn't in 3.5? Or did people read the title and think this was going to be a thread about bashing on 3.5 and are now disappointed.

I find it strange that you keep bringing up this idea that people are denying the existence of rules when no one, in this thread at least, has done so in the slightest.

What do you want? Yes, the rules for fixing those problems exist. Yes, those problems exist for some people. Apparently some of those problems are addressed at the outset in 4e, while it took a bit of time to address the problems in 3e.

What else is there to discuss here?

 

[Hussar]

Let me be the first. I miss the bard. I miss the fly spell. And I'm a fan of 3.x. Played it since it was released.

Many of us interpreted the OP as "why 3.5 ought to be good enough for you," and subsequent posts as insinuating, "if you don't get it, you obviously don't know 3.5 enough." Direct quote? No. But whether you intended it or not, it was easily construed, especially given that it sprang out of a 4E discussion.

/snip

For what it's worth, this is exactly how I read the OP as well. Since I have not read the other threads being referenced here, I can say that Hallivar's take on things is a pretty easy interpretation to fall into.