D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Blue]

That's a really bizarre take considering the technique of just jotting down the essentials has been in use, even in published modules since 1e AD&D.

That's a really bizarre comment considering that one big point of 3.x was that they unified monster creation so there were rules for it all as opposed to earlier editions where you just made up numbers and compared to other monsters to guess how tough it was.

It's almost like people are blocking that there were specific rules for foe creation, that followed the rules for character creation, and this was a big difference from earlier (and later) editions.

So are using what was done in other editions - that worked better - but explicitly was not the rule in 3.x - to try and say that the rule in 3.x was fine.

And the more people say "don't bother with this rule. just fake it", the more I will continue to point out that is not support that the rule worked correctly and was not broken.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And the more people say "don't bother with this rule. just fake it", the more I will continue to point out that is not support that the rule worked correctly and was not broken.

Ignoring a rule may be the best way to deal with it for some groups, and that goes for any edition. But I agree that, from a design perspective, it’s a pretty meaningless bit of advice.

If the rule works so poorly that you ignore it, then it’s not a great rule.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

That's a really bizarre take considering the technique of just jotting down the essentials has been in use, even in published modules since 1e AD&D.

That's a really bizarre comment considering that one big point of 3.x was that they unified monster creation so there were rules for it all as opposed to earlier editions where you just made up numbers and compared to other monsters to guess how tough it was.

That makes me smile because 3E's CR was still just a made up number. And yes, it did work rather better than a silly wild-ass guess, but it wasn't nearly as infallible as it is often made out to be. That was just a bill of goods sold to you to convince you that 3E was superior to sliced bread and you didn't need to look very carefully behind the curtain.

IME 3E's precious methodology of building encounters with mathematical formulas was a breath of fresh air compared to 1E/2E, but it was nonetheless easily bent and even broken because it cannot incorporate so many other vital factors - including actual terrain, the actual classes of the PC's (there's a reason people blather ON AND ON about class tiers), more or fewer than the average number of expected PC's, skill of manipulating rules by either the DM or the players, the actual condition of the PC's when beginning the encounter rather than the assumed condition at the time of creating the encounter, the absolute unpredictability of dice rolls by either DM or players, the ruthlessness with which monsters are run by the DM, the ACTUAL equipment possessed by the PC's rather than the expected equipment, and of course assigning a monster a given CR in the first place IS just a guess AT BEST. It may be an educated guess rather than a silly wild-ass one, but that doesn't make it a brick in the wall of the universe. It must obviously overlook ALL those other impossible-to-define factors that go into creating an encounter. You might be able to overlook one, or even several such factors, but when you start to combine them together, the idea that in 3E "there are rules for it all" is, IMO, absurd. While you have more tools to help you, building encounters is still as much art rather than science as it ever was in 1E - especially when you're talking about a DM against players who are all working the system for every optimization because 3E was designed to give players a disproportionate amount of ammo for that.

The encounter creation rules in 3E are a useful tool, but it functions by Occams Razor: They must assume everything is average and otherwise equal in order to work as advertised - but it so seldom actually is. They aren't the unshakable foundation of bedrock that the rules had (and still do have) people believing them to be.

 

[Gilladian]

We still play 3.5e. I am currently running an E8 variant, and the PCs are approaching 8th level now. I really want to see how they like getting feats instead of more levels. We play almost without prestige classes, or even multiclassing, and just don’t bother with powergaming, tho my husband does it almost instinctively, so he sometimes overshadows everyone with his rogue archer... sigh...

 

[Celebrim]

That's a really bizarre comment considering that one big point of 3.x was that they unified monster creation so there were rules for it all as opposed to earlier editions where you just made up numbers and compared to other monsters to guess how tough it was.

You know, I had this exact same argument back in like 1993 over 1e AD&D. This is really old ground for me.

So, before I get into that history, let me say you are entirely wrong in all of your assumptions. There is no unified monster creation in 3.X. There are no rules for it. And that wasn't a big selling point. I'll explain what there was in a bit.

Back in 1e AD&D I once got in an argument with a player who claimed that I as a DM was breaking the rules because the goblin tribe that they were fighting didn't have the demographics outlined in the 1e AD&D monster. The player argued that they shouldn't have to fight 5HD goblins because there was no such thing as 5HD goblins. The player claimed that I was cheating to give them weapons not found in the write up for goblins, or to give them leaders not found in the write up for goblins. I pointed out to them that TSR's own published works, including the works of the same person responsible for the monster manual, did not in fact follow the demographic "rules" in the monster manual because they were not in fact actually "rules".

This is pretty much the same argument. You've mistaken guidelines and tools meant to aid and empower the DM for a set of rules that bind them. There is no rule that there has to be 13 encounters for each level. There is no rule that PCs have to have their suggested wealth by level. There is no rule that 20% of encounters need to be of a certain CR relative to the parties ECL. All of that discussion of the underlying assumptions of the game system isn't there to create rules, but to help DMs understand how the math works and to understand the consequences of certain decisions, and to help them stay in 'easy mode' until they have the understanding to follow their own creative impulses.

It's almost like people are blocking that there were specific rules for foe creation, that followed the rules for character creation, and this was a big difference from earlier (and later) editions.

I'm not blocking out anything. I remember when they published those guidelines. But there is a huge and insurmountable problem with your argument that there were "specific rules for foe creation", and it's pretty much exactly the same problem that the player back those nearly 30 years ago was overlooking. If in fact those are "specific rules for foe creation", then there is an insurmountable problem - the monsters in the Monster Manual cannot be created from them.

Pick just about any monster in the Monster Manual and it defies the so called "rules" in one fashion or another. There are in fact no rules. The writers of the monster manual didn't limit themselves to some rote mechanical creation system, likewise the DM is not limited to some rote mechanical monster creation system. They can do anything they like, and none of it violates the rules.

Don't believe me?

I can assign a racial bonus of any size I like to my creations. I can grant any sort of exceptional ability I want to my creation. If I want to create a monster that has the Exceptional ability, "Tougher Than Usual (Ex): This monster has 120 additional hit points.", I can do that because there are no rules, no limits, and can be no rules and no limits for what abilities that a monster has.

So are using what was done in other editions - that worked better - but explicitly was not the rule in 3.x - to try and say that the rule in 3.x was fine.

It's just not a rule. There is no rule that says, "If you have a ship's captain you can't just write, "Fighter 7" or (F7, Str 16, Profession (Sailor): +16, rapier +1) beside the entry and be done. You have to stat out ever skill bonus and every feat before hand." There just isn't a rule that says that. There is no rule that says, "Gee, if you've not got a stat sheet handy for this NPC and combat breaks out, you can't make an informed guess of their likely to hit bonus. No, you have to do a bunch of work that isn't relevant to the encounter." There is no rule that says that.

You're just making things up, like the guy that said, "You can't have 5HD goblins. That's impossible."

And the more people say "don't bother with this rule. just fake it", the more I will continue to point out that is not support that the rule worked correctly and was not broken.

The guidelines worked pretty great. They did work "correctly" (whatever that means). But you didn't have to use them. They were guidelines. They were a great tool chest. But, you could make not only whatever you wanted out of them, you could just make whatever you needed.

 

[Blue]

...stuff disproved by the rulebooks snipped...

I don't have my 3.0 books anymore so I pulled out my 3.5 books.

NPCs are in DMG pg 107 to 127, including NPC classes for when PC classes aren't appropriate. Plenty of examples include level-by-level breakouts of NPCs using PC classes, discussions of NPC wealth-by-level, and the rest.

MM pg 296-302. Down to skill points per HD by monster type and monster-only feats.

The fact that you could then add on additional exceptions does not in any way invalidate that you put the exceptions onto creations that were already built with rules.

Heck, monster errata came out because some creatures had the wrong number of skill points for their type and HD. Showing they were built with the rules.

Sorry, your entire post is not correct. There were specific rules for building NPCs and monsters, including advancing monsters with class levels that you were expected to follow. They were rules, not just guidelines, unless you consider everything in the core books guidelines.

And that's before getting back to the original point I was making, that when players where spending hours optimizing their characters (or going on the internet), you couldn't even just throw together something of appropriate level otherwise it wouldn't be challenging. You needed to spend time to work ut those NPCs to match the bar the PCs created. If you just wanted straight classes to provide a reasonable challenge you'd be so many levels up - using (single class, unoptimized) archmages and grand druids as run-of-the-mill opponents to fight mid level characters. Which breaks the verisimilitude that the highly-simulationist rules worked hard to achieve.

 

[Quartz]

"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.

Require? Only if you're submitting for publication. Who cares if the mook has Disguise +6 until it's actually required?

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

I was doing this in 1E days.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

And that's before getting back to the original point I was making, that when players where spending hours optimizing their characters (or going on the internet), you couldn't even just throw together something of appropriate level otherwise it wouldn't be challenging. You needed to spend time to work ut those NPCs to match the bar the PCs created. If you just wanted straight classes to provide a reasonable challenge you'd be so many levels up - using (single class, unoptimized) archmages and grand druids as run-of-the-mill opponents to fight mid level characters. Which breaks the verisimilitude that the highly-simulationist rules worked hard to achieve.

You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that everyone was seeking to hyper-optimize their characters. I think a lot of people just kicked back, played some modules, and everything worked out just fine.

There was a lot of bloat. The game was never designed to give the kind of latitude to players which many seized: in terms of race and prestige class combinations, magic item selection, spell choices; insane synergies can be leveraged. But if you're trying to break a thing, you'll probably break it.

I still think the core 3.5 engine is pretty tight. I think 3.0 is probably better, precisely because it's a bit looser - it doesn't try too hard.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

That’s not broken. Those are... options. Options. Options. You do not have to use everything. Some people like that kind of play. Others do not.

You appear to be in denial. High level casters just using material from the core 3.5 books were stupidly over powered. Quadratic Wizards (and Druids plus Psions) vs. Linear Fighters were a thing in terms of increasing power levels.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

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.

I'm not doubting your experience. However, my experience was quite different and I have seen many views expressed over the years that are more similar to my experience than yours.