D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Blue]

And your problem is? You don't need to go through the full character generation process for a throwaway opponent, but you can if you want to.

"This rule is so bad you should just ignore it most of the time" is not the strongest way to defend that rule as good. The 3.x foe creation rules did require the same amount of detail as character creation even for a throw-away opponent.

The idea that you are replacing it with the same method later editions replaced it with because it was so unwieldy does not magically make it good, it just reinforces that it wasn't. That it was broken.

Would you care to attempt to disagree again and reinforce the point more?

 

[Maxperson]

But if you're somewhere in the middle the two things conflict with each other mightily.

Why? Why can't I make a decently strong, but not all powerful PC that is built to roleplay as well?

The only time I saw any issues with these styles is when a player of one type entered a table of the other type. The game is really best when played with a group that is all on the same page.

 

[Maxperson]

You misunderstand me, I DMed 3.5 using many sourcebooks and it was a nightmare. I never ran 3.5 using just the core books, I'm speculating that just using the core books was the only way to maintain sanity.

Just to be absolutely clear, I had a huge library of 3.5 books and I allowed all of them into my game. This created a nightmare of broken combinations. You may have managed fine doing this, I did not.

My objective experience differs from yours - however my experience was that high level 3.5 with lots of books was a disaster. Don't try to tell me my experience is 'wrong'.

I didn't misunderstand at all. I just don't agree that using lots of source books created a nightmare of broken combinations. I used almost all of them, banning only the Nine Swords book and had very few issues. Hence my post about "broken" being in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Don Durito]

Why? Why can't I make a decently strong, but not all powerful PC that is built to roleplay as well?

Why are you asking me a question that seems to presume I said you couldn't when I did not in fact do that.

Look it's very simple. I can plan my character ahead and choose feats or prestige classes in advance or I can choose them reactively in response to events that happen in the game. I can't do both.

I don't really see how that's debatable.

 

[Maxperson]

Why are you asking me a question that seems to presume I said you couldn't when I did not in fact do that.

Look it's very simple. I can plan my character ahead and choose feats or prestige classes in advance or I can choose them reactively in response to events that happen in the game. I can't do both.

I don't really see how that's debatable.

Yes you can. You can easily plan out half of your feats and choose the other half on the fly. There's nothing wrong with doing both, and it's very easily done.

Debated

 

[Don Durito]

Yes you can. You can easily plan out half of your feats and choose the other half on the fly. There's nothing wrong with doing both, and it's very easily done.

Debated

I can go walking in the dayling and I can go walking after dark, and I can walk a little in the day and keep walking after dark but I can't walk in both daylight and after dark and the same time.

 

[Maxperson]

I can go walking in the dayling and I can go walking after dark, and I can walk a little in the day and keep walking after dark but I can't walk in both daylight and after dark and the same time.

Cool. That is a true dichotomy, unlike the False Dichotomy you presented in your last post. I just in my response to you showed definitively how you can in fact both plan out feats and choose feats on the fly. I did it, so it's a fact that it can be fone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The D20 bubble burst.. Companies like Green Ronin or Monngoose that began by supplementing D20 went away and made their own systems.

But they didn't make D&D-like sales.
The problem with your assertion wasn't that 3e's complexity & imbalance drove players away, it was that it drove them to other games.
More likely, they just concluded the hobby wasn't for them.

 

[Maxperson]

This was exactly why it was a hot mess - because to challenge that required DMs to put player-level attention to detail when building NPCs and other foes.

Again, this was why I bought a number of supplements with pre-built NPCs of all level ranges. I only sometimes had to put that effort in. Usually I just perused my books until I found an NPC that I wanted to use. Not only was it already built, but it also had background story for me to use, typically altered a bit to fit my campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't speak well for a game's design when it breaks apart with even moderate levels of optimization effort.

It doesn't. It took extreme levels to break it.