Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="halfling rogue" data-source="post: 6466090" data-attributes="member: 6779182">Thanks for the input. What both of you put actually makes a lot of sense. I didn't want to automatically chalk it up to being a &quot;playstyle&quot; issue, but I kind of felt that that might have been the case. I heard a lot of folks complaining that the players had all the say and the DM took backseat...but I didn't think 3.5 did that. I think lots of tables did that and then placed the blame on 3.5. Maybe 3.5 lent itself to some of that, but i don't think it encouraged it.Another thing is that my group didn't get into high level play. Maybe we just didn't notice the cracks because we hadn't stretched it that far yet?We also went to 4e, not because of anything wrong with 3.5, but I think because we were all just curious. 4e (and everyone having kids) nearly stopped us from playing though. I think everyone got bored with it. I was lobbying for a return to 3.5 just before 5e came out. It never happened though. But when we played 5e I think we were all really excited. One of the best things I can say about 3.5 and 5e is that 5e reminds me of everything we wanted 3.5 to be and more. In that, we got the same fun from 5e that we had from 3.5, only better. I liked 3.5 rules, but I didn't like that they were always in my face (not a flaw on 3.5 at all, and to be honest...the rules that were always coming up were related to the grid, which 5e has moved away with a bit).All that just to say that I think 3.5 core was/is pretty solid and I wasn't sure why exactly it doesn't get the credit I think it deserves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="halfling rogue, post: 6466090, member: 6779182"] Thanks for the input. What both of you put actually makes a lot of sense. I didn't want to automatically chalk it up to being a "playstyle" issue, but I kind of felt that that might have been the case. I heard a lot of folks complaining that the players had all the say and the DM took backseat...but I didn't think 3.5 did that. I think lots of tables did that and then placed the blame on 3.5. Maybe 3.5 lent itself to some of that, but i don't think it encouraged it. Another thing is that my group didn't get into high level play. Maybe we just didn't notice the cracks because we hadn't stretched it that far yet? We also went to 4e, not because of anything wrong with 3.5, but I think because we were all just curious. 4e (and everyone having kids) nearly stopped us from playing though. I think everyone got bored with it. I was lobbying for a return to 3.5 just before 5e came out. It never happened though. But when we played 5e I think we were all really excited. One of the best things I can say about 3.5 and 5e is that 5e reminds me of everything we wanted 3.5 to be and more. In that, we got the same fun from 5e that we had from 3.5, only better. I liked 3.5 rules, but I didn't like that they were always in my face (not a flaw on 3.5 at all, and to be honest...the rules that were always coming up were related to the grid, which 5e has moved away with a bit). All that just to say that I think 3.5 core was/is pretty solid and I wasn't sure why exactly it doesn't get the credit I think it deserves. [/QUOTE]

Verification