I'm done with 3.5

[Treebore]

Can I have your stuff?

This is why we have more than one game. But complaining about the bloat isn't something I have a lot of sympathy for -- it's only an issue if you let it be an issue. I'd much rather have bloat than have a great game that gets abandoned after the first book.

And personally, I'd much rather have a game with rules I can ignore on a case-by-case basis than one where I have to wing things all the time. AoOs are pretty trivial to remove if you don't like them.

But hey, find something you like. Try True20, or C&C. They might give you the rules-lighter approach you like without deviating too much from what you know and what's supported.

If he switches to Castles and Crusades is "stuff" will still be useable, and most likely used. I refer to my 3E books a few times per month. For monsters, or a feat I want to adapt, or a rule I want to adapt from 3E to clarify things in my C&C game.

C&C makes every edition of D&D you own useable again, or still (in the case of 3E). C&C isn't about quiting playing D&D, its about making every edition/version of D&D useable, and as easy or as complicated as you want.

So when I switched to C&C my 150+ 3E books remained viable, and my 100's of books, etc... of all the older editions of D&D became viable again.

Do you have any idea how much fun I had running the "Against the Giants" series for my kids? How easy it was to do since all I had to do was convert the AC and use the HD as their to hit bonus and save modifier?

C&C is just a simpler way to play D&D, and use any D&D book you own as a reference for more monsters, magic items, and house rules you want to adopt.

Not to mention easily convert old and new modules.

C&C isn't about quitting any version of D&D, unless that is what you want to do. Its about being able to play any version of D&D via a mechanic (the SIEGE engine) that unifies the various versions of the game.

C&C is not the enemy of anyone who plays D&D. Its a simpler and liberating way to play the game we all love, and still use every book we have ever bought, if we want to.

 

[Aus_Snow]

These days, I'm finding that True20 allows me the flexibility I want without the bloat of 3.5.

Same here, actually.

And loving it.

 

[Meeki]

Heh. D&D core 3 book d20 can still be pretty cumbersome and mechanically wearying even without adding anything else. Make an ambush encounter with high level drow NPCs, fighters, clerics, and wizards who have spells going. There are lots of little situtation specific details to keep track of. How much work and time does it take to make the stat blocks? How difficult is it to track everything in the combat as a DM? When dispels start getting thrown how much does this complicate the stat blocks you now have to work with?

So I would disagree that the issue is using every book.

As a DM i don't make complete stat blocks for all NPC's that will be encountered. I use a basic template I have in word and I have been playing D&D 3.0/5 a while so I can create npc's pretty quick. Also when making spell casters i work backwards on spells, picking highest levels first and taking default spells the rest. I never make stat blocks with spells in effect already, i write them down after I print it off. I try to take alot of time organizing what will be happening to make it more manageable. Also, as I mentioned, the DM has the right to ad lib, if something is cumbersome he can replace it with a simpler rule.

If you read the rules a few times the game is simple and most things follow similar mechanics. Sundering, grappling, tripping, bull rush, disarm all follow similar mechanics. AoO, opposed check, results.

I can see where you are coming from, the rules are vast and can be overwhelming at times. As a DM i feel it is my responsibility to know the suggested rules and understand how to modify them, I dont expect as much from my players but I am fortunate to have many players that know the rules very well.

 

[Hjorimir]

Same here, actually.

And loving it.

Me three! True20 is the game I'm running, though I still play in D&D games, which I find much more enjoyable as a player than I do as a DM.

 

[Doug McCrae]

AoOs are one of my favourite rules in 3rd ed. They are key to making combat feel more tactical and thus more interesting.

 

[buzz]

Well, yeah. That's what I was implying. But the point is: if you want them to continue to be your users, you'll fix whatever is going wrong for them. If you just cross your arms and say "Nothing is wrong," they start threads asking for links to other game systems.

Things is, though, complaining about stuff is the Intarweb's #1 spectator sport. I.e., that you can find people complaining about something doesn't necessarily indicate anything.

(As for the customer service metaphor, it's not about claiming the user's complain is invalid without making en effort. It's finding out whether it's a genuine problem or simply a lack of understanding on their part, and what the reason for that may be.)

IMO, WotC is more sensitive to what makes for good play, and do more market research, than any previous steward of D&D. If AoO's genuinely impeded the game, and a significant number of users were complaining, AoOs would probably have been ditched with the 3.5 revision. What WotC did do was explain them much better than they did in 3.0.

Ergo, what I usually see is people complaining about AoOs, but AoOs just being their convenient shorthand for "I think I'd prefer something simpler and less tactical." And, that's cool; it's just not actually pointing out a flaw. It's pointing out a preference.

 

[Mycanid]

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.

Cheer up my good sir ... I am only part way down the thread, but I heartily recommend giving C&C a try. Maybe others did after me too.

Might look at some of the mods from Goodman Games too.... (Just re-writing what is in my sig here!)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Heck, you can design your own D20 system pretty fast. If you sit down with other players and see what they like and dislike I bet you can hash something out in a month.

That how I see it, too.

I can understand that some find the rules too complicated -- different strokes for different folks. If I felt that way, I would put all the 3.5 books in the closet as "DM only" for reference and inspiration, and use a way slimmed down version of d20.

All you really need is a stat system and a skill system. You can add on a "to hit" system, classes, and Save system only if necessary -- these are not required. Add skills and feats incrementally to taste.

This could be much simpler than Basic D&D.

 

[fusangite]

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.

You know: you don't have to buy or use any of the stuff outside of the core. Now, don't get me wrong: I agree that combat especially is a little baroque for my tastes too. But it seems weird to me that most of your reasons for abandoning the game are the optional parts that my friends and I never purchase, know nothing about and are totally unaffected by.

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.

There are lots of good systems out there! I hope you enjoy the search, whatever system it ultimately leads you to.

 

[Imaro]

Well I for one want to chime in with a "more power to you!". I have basically stopped running D&D for Castles and Crusades. One of my reasons was that I like a system that starts at a simple level, but allows me to add complexity...not the other way around. For me it's easier to add stuf to a rules system that is easily fully understood than to snatch things out of a system that I have a moderate understanding of.

My players picked up the rules for C&C, in their entirety and with no problem, in about 10 to 15 minutes. With D&D...let's just say that I knew the rules and they tried to play. This created a somewhat less fun environment as I think the game's fiddly bits, tactical nature, etc. enhance a game where participants have a full understanding of the game(while tendng to frustrate or minimize those who don't)...rather than promote a pick up and play style. I also have to say that introducing new players with Castles and Crusades is magnitudes easier than with even just the 3.5 core rules. No more taking an hour to complete a character, I would argue that a character in C&C is almost as quick as a character in Basic D&D and it's use of primes still allows for a broad level of customization. I mean, for me it's not really about granularity and realism...it's about getting together with good people and having fun with the type of adventures we've read about or seen on tv and film.

SIDE NOTE: I know one of my biggest problems with AoO is the whole I'm trading numerous blows with an opponent I'm engaged in combat with...but if his buddy runs past I can divert my attention...attack again...and he doesn't even get a bonus because I diverted my attention in the fight. Yeah right, try that in a real swordfight and more than likely the guy you're fighting is gonna lay the smack down on you when you turn to hit his buddy.