Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Do builds like Pun Pun show 3.5 is broken?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 5967688" data-attributes="member: 78958"><p>There's a lot of theoretical optimization creations that can blow your mind: a game save mechanic, nanobots "aiding another" en masse, the Jumplomancer, infinite loops of many kinds... but in my opinion none of these show that D&D 3.5 is "broken". </p><p></p><p>D&D 3.x is an incredibly complex agglomeration of rules, all of which interact. It's any given group's responsibility to use some or all of the rules resources at their disposal, to allow or disallow certain combinations, to form gentlemen's agreements and so on. Note I said "rules resources": the available plethora of rules is a pool of resources you can draw on - you don't <em>have to </em>use all of them, but you <em>can</em>, which is awesome.</p><p></p><p>In fact, some groups will consider broken what is fair game in others. Some hate überchargers or supermount builds, others love them. Some hate Archivists cherrypicking divine spells from obscure spell lists, others find it natural that Archivists would do so and actually expect it. Some take for granted that Sorcerers always have Wings of Cover, Celerity and Arcane Fusion on their spell lists, others shy away from the "I'm untouchable and now I'll just go nova on you" mentality. Some like groups comprised of a Sword-and-Board Fighter, a sneaksy Rogue, a healing-focused Cleric, and a blaster Wizard. Others like groups composed of two Druids, a Psion and an Artificer.</p><p></p><p>How you play the game, and (as a consequence) what parts of the rules available you use is up to you. The sheer amount of rules available, however, makes sure that almost any kind of game format is supported in an almost endless continuum.</p><p></p><p>Personally? I love it. It allows me to switch from a pretty high-powered, high-optimization game to a rather 'gritty' stone age scenario and still use the same rules frame.</p><p>In my last campaign, the Barbarian had damage output well in the three-digit range before hitting level 10. The Conjurer blinked away from attacks and planar bound monsters cherrypicked for the occasion from five manuals and one folio. The Cleric charged up her buff spells and was untouchable while putting the hurt on in melee.</p><p>In my current campaign, the Druid doesn't step on the Ranger's toes too much thanks to class variants, the Warlock feels good about Shatter at will in a pretty magic-less campaign world with little equipment and lots of humanoid enemies, and I'm having fun combing through tons of books for interesting but low-power, low-CR foes for my group to fight.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Empirate, post: 5967688, member: 78958"] There's a lot of theoretical optimization creations that can blow your mind: a game save mechanic, nanobots "aiding another" en masse, the Jumplomancer, infinite loops of many kinds... but in my opinion none of these show that D&D 3.5 is "broken". D&D 3.x is an incredibly complex agglomeration of rules, all of which interact. It's any given group's responsibility to use some or all of the rules resources at their disposal, to allow or disallow certain combinations, to form gentlemen's agreements and so on. Note I said "rules resources": the available plethora of rules is a pool of resources you can draw on - you don't [I]have to [/I]use all of them, but you [I]can[/I], which is awesome. In fact, some groups will consider broken what is fair game in others. Some hate überchargers or supermount builds, others love them. Some hate Archivists cherrypicking divine spells from obscure spell lists, others find it natural that Archivists would do so and actually expect it. Some take for granted that Sorcerers always have Wings of Cover, Celerity and Arcane Fusion on their spell lists, others shy away from the "I'm untouchable and now I'll just go nova on you" mentality. Some like groups comprised of a Sword-and-Board Fighter, a sneaksy Rogue, a healing-focused Cleric, and a blaster Wizard. Others like groups composed of two Druids, a Psion and an Artificer. How you play the game, and (as a consequence) what parts of the rules available you use is up to you. The sheer amount of rules available, however, makes sure that almost any kind of game format is supported in an almost endless continuum. Personally? I love it. It allows me to switch from a pretty high-powered, high-optimization game to a rather 'gritty' stone age scenario and still use the same rules frame. In my last campaign, the Barbarian had damage output well in the three-digit range before hitting level 10. The Conjurer blinked away from attacks and planar bound monsters cherrypicked for the occasion from five manuals and one folio. The Cleric charged up her buff spells and was untouchable while putting the hurt on in melee. In my current campaign, the Druid doesn't step on the Ranger's toes too much thanks to class variants, the Warlock feels good about Shatter at will in a pretty magic-less campaign world with little equipment and lots of humanoid enemies, and I'm having fun combing through tons of books for interesting but low-power, low-CR foes for my group to fight. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Do builds like Pun Pun show 3.5 is broken?
Top