D&D 3E/3.5 3E sucks, but keep playing it for next few months

[KingCrab]

Actually, that's what a salesman has to get you to believe. He can think whatever it is he's selling is a shoddy piece of crap, as long as it doesn't allow that to interfere with his selling ability.

What? I like playing devil's advocate.

I have friends in sales, and this is absolutely true. Lots of people push things they don't believe in, and do it effectively. They don't have to actually believe in the product. They just have to be able to lie to themselves and you about it while the sale is being made.

 

[Dinkeldog]

In response to item 2, I believe they felt a fresh slate was needed since they are introducing an online aspect of the game that requires things like key codes inside of books for future database population, coupled with the unfeasibility of back-tracking into 3.5 for these tools. I think they finally 'got' the possibilites of an online compliment to the game. I can see how acheiving this would require a fresh slate.

Which leads to another possible issue: Without a degree in computer science or engineering, how difficult will it be to introduce Rule 0 modifications into an online virtual game table?

 

[KingCrab]

I see it more as, "we heard all the stuff you fans complain about and we have noticed similar things and complained, too... and we think we've come up with a cooler game. You'll like it. Keep playing the game you play now, but when we release the new edition we think you'll like it as much as we do."

Yeah, I know this is actually what they're saying, but these are troubled times for 3.5 fans, and what we hear is people bashing the game we enjoy. The same people who are pulling it from the shelves. I certainly get upset hearing anything bad about 3.5 right now, though before the 4e announcement I think it would have been fine.

 

[Cevalic]

Greetings!

Good points all, Pemerton! I agree, in part. Some of the rules are time-consuming, and annoying to deal with. I'm just not convinced that the problems are

(1) So huge, so pervasive, that it demands a whole new edition to fix. (And the required additional outlays in expenses to customers in buying yet more *versions* of a dozen or two dozen books we already have, many of which were just produced and purchased in the last year or so).

(2) Speaking of the problems of 3.5E, whatever they may be, to whatever degree that people guage them at--why couldn't these problems, such as they are--have been dealt with in the DMG II, PHB II, or an Unearthed Arcana II, instead of an entirely new edition?

So, I'm not sure, again with my above questions (1 and 2)--how these problems necessarily demand a whole new edition to address, because while they may be problems, they are not necessarily that *big* of a problem. If that makes any sense?

I look forward to your responses!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK, you have an excellent way of saying somethings that I'd just blunder through. I dont see why an entire edition has to be switched over due to a few issues. And I like the idea using the DMG 2 of PHB 2 to fix whatever is wrong. Even the Rules Compendium would work.

 

[Cevalic]

For my money, here are some of the more evident flaws with 3.5:

*Excessive complexity in generating creature and character stats (too many sources of bonuses, too many skill points, etc); John Cooper's unofficial errata in his reviews on this website are proof enough of this - if the core designers and developers for the system have trouble generating rules-legal stat blocks, something has gone seriously wrong;

*Some overly complex resolution systems (grapple, aspects of AoO, rules for non-lethal damage, unarmed attacks, overlapping mechanics of spell resistance and saving throws, contrast between full-action spells and one round spells, to name a handful);

*A degree of incoherence in the relationship between the metagame and in-game aspects of rewards: treasure is both a reward for players (as it improves their PCs) and also has a clearly defined in-game significance, but XP are far more ambiguous - at times the suggestion is that XP, levels etc are purely metagame concepts (and this is also suggested by the fact that they are earned in a way that can only be given a metagame justification, namely, by adventuring) but the spell component and magic item rules treat them as an in-game character resource also;

*Coherence problems also in the ways characters/creatures are modelled - hit points, BAB etc suggest a focus on high fantasy, but skill definitions and rules for skill use are much closer to RM or RQ-style simulation of gritty fantasy;

*Related to the above, a lack of rules to facilitate fairly common tropes of high fantasy, such as pursuits, acts of derring-do, and characters pushing the limits of their power (either physically or magically) and exhausting themselves as a result - in part this is a consequence of the absence of metagame mechanics for giving players a degree of narrative control over the outcome of PC actions;

*The use of Raise Dead (which has in-game as well as metagame significance, and is subject to sometime arbitrary GM interference) rather than Fate Points (a purely metagame device) to give players narrative control over the fate of their PCs;

*An inability to decide whether alignment is purely descriptive (as the PHB suggests) or also prescriptive (which is implied by the assumption in most modules and campaign worlds that PCs are Good), and a related inability to coherently explain the internal psychology of "ordinary" Evil people (as opposed to serial killers and other psychopaths).​

Obviously none of these make 3.5 unplayable, given the amount of play that it sees. But indications are that 4E will tackle many of these issues, and that will make it a better set of rules.


A top-quality set of rules doesn't need parts that get ignored or applied in a haphazard way. The rules should play smoothly as written. This sort of clunkiness was typical of AD&D, but one aim of 3E was to get rid of it. Where 3E failed, 4E might have a chance of success.

I see some of your points, but I'm confused on a couple:

1. Excessive complexity of generating characters, NPCS: Ive never thought its been hard to generate a NPC as a DM. I dont go through and pick out every skill, feat, ect. Just the basics as far as HP, AC, BA. Major villians are of course fleshed out, but the minor thug needs no more than a little bit of time to put it together. It seems unnessecary to go through and make full stats on someone the PCs are going to roll through in just moments.

2. I dont think grapple is so much as overly complex as overly long. One mechanic should have been enough. I also dont understand what you mean about the overlapping of spell resistance and saving throws. I think they should be seperate like the way they are.

3. Advancement between treasure and XP and metagame: I dont see what you mean.

4. Coherance between high fantasy and gritty fantasy: I've never played RM, so once again I'm not sure what you mean here. My campaigns are normally low magic and gritty. I'll wait for your explanation, because I'm probably just confused.

5. The use of Raise Dead vs Fate Points. Again, this seems like a house issue. Some people like Raise dead, others dont. My games dont use raise dead, and the players know not to do anything too stupid (attack a well protected king, ect) or they risk losing their characters for good. I do like the idea of Fate Points though. Although not too many. Too many would let them get away with more, and take away from the story I think (such as Drizzt. How many times can you escape death? Over and over?). I like gritty, and fate points might work having just a few, but not too many.

6. I've never liked alignment, and have always just loosely used it. Most people I've ever come across have done the same. I hope they dont work something in about PCs having to be good, as most campaigns Ive run or played in are usually neutral or evil.

Sorry about being confused on a couple things. Number 4 just had me scratching my head a little.

 

[orsal]

I am Czech and I can assure you, it is not Czech accent. It sounds like native english speaker trying to funny imitate french accent to me, though.

I'm a native English speaker who has translated French professionally, and that's exactly how I interpreted it.

 

[SavageRobby]

And yes, top-notch rules *shouldn't* require on the fly improvisation, and so on--however, (and I'm dating myself here a bit--yes, I'm a 1E AD&D/D&D Grognard from 1979)--I have not played in *any* edition of D&D where some people, if not everyone--at least some of the time--doesn't do this.

For a board game or war game or something similar, I agree. For an RPG game, I vehemently disagree, and this is - IMO - the crux of the problem with 3e and other rules-heavy games. It caters to the mentality that "for everything a rule, and a rule for everything". That is just plain silly and entirely too cumbersome.

The rules should be a framework to provide a basis for adjudication, or as you state, "on the fly improvisation". I realize that not everyone agrees, heck, most don't, but it would be my seriously hope that 4e steps back away from "comprehensive rules for any/all situations" and provides good methodologies for GM rulings instead.

 

[pemerton]

I see some of your points, but I'm confused on a couple:

I'll try and explain a bit more.

1. Excessive complexity of generating characters, NPCS: Ive never thought its been hard to generate a NPC as a DM. I dont go through and pick out every skill, feat, ect. Just the basics as far as HP, AC, BA. Major villians are of course fleshed out, but the minor thug needs no more than a little bit of time to put it together. It seems unnessecary to go through and make full stats on someone the PCs are going to roll through in just moments.

Fair enough. But skills and feats can effect AC, hp, BAB, so what you're saying is that many NPCs are partial or approximated. A better ruleset would, in my view, actually address this issue of generic NPCs, rather than leave it to GM handwaving. 3E doesn't do this, and indeed the rules for NPC classes in the DMG combined with the rules for monster building in Savage Species and the MMs imply that all NPCs look exactly like PCs. And the plethora of errors in WoTC stat blocks shows that these rules are too hard.

Here is a different way of coming at the issue: if it doesn't matter that your NPCs are only partial or approximated, why are the rules going into the level of detail that they do?

D20 modern (and I gather SW Saga) tackle this issue with rules for non-heroic NPCs, which I gather are much easier to build than heroic NPCs and PCs.

1st-ed also tackled this issue, by having distinct rules for 0-level commoners, 0-level soldiers, mercenary captains, sea captains, sages etc. Although the rules presentation was very patchy, what was given was (in effect) a set of rules for constructing generic NPCs.

2. I dont think grapple is so much as overly complex as overly long. One mechanic should have been enough. I also dont understand what you mean about the overlapping of spell resistance and saving throws. I think they should be seperate like the way they are.

Maybe in some conceptual sense it's good that SR and saves are separate - I'm not concerned with that question. But what it means in practical terms is that any attempt at resolving a spell typically involves two rolls: one for SR, one for save. If it is a ray or touch spell, there's also the attack roll. This is too many rolls. It makes the game needlessly complex. Rolemaster -itself hardly the smoothest ruleset out there - resolved this issue 25 years ago.

3. Advancement between treasure and XP and metagame: I dont see what you mean.

D&D has two sorts of rewards: XPs (which make PCs better by giving them intrinsic abilities) and treasure (which makes PCs better by giving them magic items). The latter is clearly an in-game resource also. The former, however, is awarded according to a metagame logic (ie players who succeed at the premise of the game, by overcoming challenges, earn XPs for their PCs) and it is difficult to assign it an in-game interpretation. Nevertheless, aspects of the magic rules treat XPs as an in-game resource. But what is the nature of this resource? I have read some suggestions that XPs measure "spiritual power". But in that case, why is the only way to build up "spiritual power" by overcoming challenges? It makes no in-game sense. Thus the incoherence. A coherent ruleset would treat XP purely as a metagame device.

4. Coherance between high fantasy and gritty fantasy: I've never played RM, so once again I'm not sure what you mean here. My campaigns are normally low magic and gritty. I'll wait for your explanation, because I'm probably just confused.

A 10th level fighter can trivially beat a lion in hand to hand combat (far more hit points, better BAB, comparable ST, comparable damage per hit). In real-world terms this is a near-impossible feat. Thus, the combat aspects of D&D are aimed at the highest of high-fantasy.

On the other hand, a 10th level fighter can probably not sneak past the typical town guard to save his life (few skill points, probably none in Move Silently or Hide). This is ultra-gritty.

This generates a tension within the gameworld - is it a world of over-the-top heroics, as the combat portions of the rules suggest, or a game of gritty survival, as the skill system suggests? I mentioned RM and RQ because they resolve this dilemma in favour of grittiness, having skill systems not unlike that of D&D but combat systems that are far from ultra-heroic.

5. The use of Raise Dead vs Fate Points. Again, this seems like a house issue. Some people like Raise dead, others dont. My games dont use raise dead, and the players know not to do anything too stupid (attack a well protected king, ect) or they risk losing their characters for good. I do like the idea of Fate Points though. Although not too many. Too many would let them get away with more, and take away from the story I think (such as Drizzt. How many times can you escape death? Over and over?). I like gritty, and fate points might work having just a few, but not too many.

Dropping Raise Dead is a house rule. Played from the book, Raise Dead (and its kin) are in the game. In effect, they constitute ways of spending significant amounts of resources (given the material component costs, and the level-loss in many cases) in order to avoid character death. But in the process the action (at least for the player of the dead PC) grinds to a halt. Fate Points provide an alternative resource, purely metagame, for achieving a similar outcome without the interruption to action.

Of course, the same objection might be made about healing, or any other aspect of character ill-health or resource depletion. The difference with Raise Dead is that (i) character death precludes playing the game in a way that character injury or poverty often does not, and (ii) frequent (and somewhat mundane) return of characters from death is not a typicaly fantasy trope.

6. I've never liked alignment, and have always just loosely used it. Most people I've ever come across have done the same. I hope they dont work something in about PCs having to be good, as most campaigns Ive run or played in are usually neutral or evil.

As I said, most published campaigns and modules assume that PCs are good - so in that respect, it sounds like the games you play in deviate from the (published) norm.

The difficulty with downplaying alignment at present is that quite a few parts of the mechanics - eg spell effects, weapon effects, smite abilities etc - refer to it. Sorting out how alignment is to be understood and applied would improve the game.

Sorry about being confused on a couple things. Number 4 just had me scratching my head a little.

I hope I've made things clearer.

 

[Keldryn]

I hate the idea of updating the core rules in later expansion books. It just makes for more books to carry around, and more books to have to refer to in (and out of) play. If enough revisions and updates are being made, I'd rather have a whole new edition. Even without specific 4th Edition revisions, there are enough additions and revisions to the 3.5 rules, as well as new design philosophies (Book of 9 Swords, classes like Scout and Warlock, etc) to warrant a core rules revision.

 

[Villanelle]

Cognitive dissonance... it's human! And arguably universally so.