I'm done with 3.5

[Edgewood]

I don't get the AoO hate, though. The rules are straightforward enough.

I should clarify here. It's not a hate on in as so much as a headache. I find that it slows combat down too much. And, if you want to remove it once the campaign is in full swing, it's somewhat difficult to do as it is extremely integrated with feats, skills, and some prestige classes.

If I were to return to 3.5 (which is not an impossibility), I will certainly remove that mechanic before people start gearing their PCs toward avoiding or getting better at AOO through feats, or skills, or spells, or anything else.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sounds like a bit o' the ol' B/X will be just the thing.

Ah, memories.


I know more or less how you feel, too. I'm kinda wondering about my future with 3e. As in, whether there is one.

If you want to give it one last go, maybe try just the core 3 [player-side], or with a few little options here and there. Otherwise yeah, B/X sounds like a lot of fun. C&C is more aimed at the 1e (or ex-) crowd, it seems. If you already have an older form of D&D though, and aren't looking to import stuff left and right, well, I'd say just go for it. Run the thing that actually inspires you to DM, and that doesn't require any learning of rules (again).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, I'm done with D&D 3.5. I'm going to take a step back from the rules bloat, the awkward mechanics (AOO anyone?), the endless prestige classes, feats, spells, player options, DM options, and the book treadmill that has become the current version of D&D. I need a simpler system. I'm pulled the old boxed sets out and re-read the basic and expert rules. I was delighted to read through something that no longer gave me the "gamer headache".

I've always found a complete system to be more satisfying than one where I have to reinvent the wheel for basically every situation. At least theres a guideline I can use if I feel like it. And if I dont like the "official" ruling, I'm no worse off than the red box's system of "make it up yourself!"

 

[BadMojo]

Since the OP isn't really asking a question, I'll just throw in my opinion on the whole thing. Even though I started with the red box D&D set, you couldn't pay me enough to go back and actually play it. There are so many things that game designers have learned from past products, that the only thing drawing me to OD&D would be nostalgia.

I agree that Savage Worlds looks like a great system. It's got the simplicity of older games along with nifty new rules stuff that actually adds to the fun. Besides, they're coming out with a Solomon Kane game (I hope). True 20 from Green Ronin is pretty slick too. I'd happily play either of those two if I wanted a rules light(er) game.

For what it's worth, I don't think the AOO rules are difficult themselves, just not explained very well in the official sources.

 

[delericho]

Where I work (a non-profit member association), we have a theory about customer complaints. If one customer complains, it's probably not an issue. I'd bet on "user error." If three people complain, it's probably not an issue but we might want to look into it. Once a half-a-dozen or more people complain, we know there's a problem somewhere we should look into.

That's probably the right policy. Although perhaps the thresholds should be based on the size of the user base, rather than being fixed. 6 out of 100 is a lot more significant that 6 out of 6,000,000,000.

With the sheer amount of people who throw out the "AOO hate," I think it's clear that there is a problem somewhere for a good amount of people.

My best guess for the source of this problem is that the rules were really badly explained in the 3.0 PHB. And, although they were cleaned up a huge amount in 3.5 (and other rulebooks) I wouldn't be at all surprised if many if not most people didn't bother to read those sections of the new books... after all, they'd already read the rules, so why bother?

 

[Crothian]

I'm also with you about AOO. I don't think they are difficult to understand, I just never liked the idea of a map or grid requirement and AOO along with a good number of feats make them a requirement.

But that's not true. Many people don't use them and play the game as written with zero problems. It has been discussed countless times, too.

 

[wildstarsreach]

I went from 1998 to 2005 skipping over 3.0. In 2005 I found a group and with this group learned 3.5. With almost 30 years of gaming from DND to the Rules monster SFB, it wasn't that hard to master. AoO make for a much deadlier combat. Otherwise it made getting to your spellcasters easy in 1st and 2nd ed's. AoO is sometimes the only thing stopping the enemy from overrunning your positions and getting your more valuable targets.

 

[Voadam]

There were times when I was running 1e and 2e that I felt the same way and considered going to basic D&D mechanics, so I empathize.

 

[JDJblatherings]

currently playing a ToEE using the BFRPG rules with players aged 10 to 58 it's working out fine so far.(the only things i had to do was adjust spells known by NPCs and jiggle the AC scores).

 

[Emirikol]

I hear you. There's so much power-escalation as to make the game look like a fanboy's "self-indulgence." I love the game though. I love that I can always find players. I'm just tired of the debauchery. My house rulebook has more to do with how to keep the PC's from glowing from sheer magical irradiation than with stuff that keeps it simple...

jh

Well, I'm done with D&D 3.5. I'm going to take a step back from the rules bloat, the awkward mechanics (AOO anyone?), the endless prestige classes, feats, spells, player options, DM options, and the book treadmill that has become the current version of D&D. I need a simpler system. I'm pulled the old boxed sets out and re-read the basic and expert rules. I was delighted to read through something that no longer gave me the "gamer headache". It's so much easier to digest than the out of control monster 3.5 has become. Maybe I'll check out C&C and see how that goes.