Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Desdichado]

What else is there to discuss here?

Well, you could always ignore the nearly 150 posts of tangency and help advance the premise posed in the original post: were there any other examples of nifty 4e innovations that made appearances in 3.5 books beforehand?

 

[Imaro]

Let me be the first. I miss the bard. I miss the fly spell. And I'm a fan of 3.x. Played it since it was released.

Many of us interpreted the OP as "why 3.5 ought to be good enough for you," and subsequent posts as insinuating, "if you don't get it, you obviously don't know 3.5 enough." Direct quote? No. But whether you intended it or not, it was easily construed, especially given that it sprang out of a 4E discussion.

First, theres alot more missing than the Bard and the Fly spell, but that's what you want isn't it... to pull me into an edition war so the thread gets shut down...nah, I'll pass.

WTH... where does anything I said equate to 3.5 should be good enough for you (whoever this you is)? I'm insinuating you (again with this "you") don't get what? I'm giving the rules and books that address certain problems in 3.5 that some may believe there is no support for. Seriously this sounds like you interpreted it in the way you wanted to because it irks you for a positive 3.5 thread to keep going that has nothing to do with 4e. If that's the thought process going on here with some people all I can say is wow, that's real petty. If not, really...what is it? I mean you're still comparing the two editions in your above post, why when that's not what this thread is about?

 

[Imaro]

Well, you could always ignore the nearly 150 posts of tangency and help advance the premise posed in the original post: were there any other examples of nifty 4e innovations that made appearances in 3.5 books beforehand?

Exactly, if you're not interested cool...but then why are you reading and posting in the thread?

 

[Halivar]

EDIT: Forget it. It's not even worth it.

 

[RFisher]

I think there is one (and really only one) significant issue with 3.x that could only be fixed with a major rewrite of the system: high level play.

That’s one of the easiest to fix. Don’t do it. Either stop at the highest level that still “works” and play for in game rewards like a classic Traveller campaign or just retire the PCs and start a new campaign.

Feats: This was a new toy in 3E. I don't think the designers decided what they wanted these to be. Some feats were small perks (Toughness) and others were cool powers (Whirlwind Attack - although I'm sure I could find better examples that aren't part of a long feat chain).

They said early on “all feats aren’t equal”. This is really an insoluble problem. Two different things aren’t going to be worth the same with different DM or different groups. Besides, the differences are usually along multiple axes. Trying to quantify how much better X is than Y just doesn’t work. Lots of games have tried fine-grain pricing and they still can’t get it right.

IMHO, 3e was exactly right to keep it coarse-grained and not worry about it so much.

I’m at a loss for how this is really a major problem, because I haven’t seen it. Just because another feat might have been better in some way doesn’t mean that the one you have isn’t good in the way that it was good when you choose it.

Multiclassing: New classes and prestige classes seem innocuous to some, but each new one stacks a new batch of options to cherry-pick.

IMHO, 3e multiclassing was originally setup to be a suboptimal choice. Which is fine.

Perhaps with the right combination of stuff from splatbooks you could built something “too good”, but I haven’t seen it. The single-class, core-only PCs in my group have held there own and were sometimes the ones accused of powergaming.

But even if someone does come up with a incredibly good build, that’s good for you. The PCs are all on the same team! (typically) The disparity never gets to Angel Summoner and BMX Boy levels. And even if it did, in the game (rather than the skit) Angel Summoner still has a limited number of things he can do in one round when there are pressures that require more. And such.

System mastery caused the death of 3E for me. Casual players, IME, are frustrated when a system master trumps them continuously just because they don't want to (or can't) make the investment of time and money to master the system.

Well, at a basic level, I fully agree with this. One reason I prefer B/X D&D to 3e is that everyone at the table can “master” the B/X rules and quickly.

But my experience with 3e was different.

For the end of a friend’s campaign, I was invited to play the role of a very powerful NPC against another player playing another very powerful NPC. There is no doubt that his mastery of 3.5 and my lack of mastery was a deciding factor. I don’t know that I would’ve come out on top otherwise, but I know that I simply couldn’t compete because he knew the system better than I did.

But that was a very intentional and unusual player-vs-player situation. In every other campaign, I’m not playing against another player. Therefore, my level of system mastery hasn’t really been an issue.

Now, if you’ve got overly adversarial attitudes between the the DM and players—or even worse between the players themselves—I could see this being a problem. But I think you’ve still got problems no matter what system you’re playing. The complexity of 3e is just emphasizing them.

In most groups, a participant with a higher level of mastery over the system actually helps everyone else so that level of mastery isn’t an issue.

 

[Hussar]

Well, you could always ignore the nearly 150 posts of tangency and help advance the premise posed in the original post: were there any other examples of nifty 4e innovations that made appearances in 3.5 books beforehand?

Hell, I'd say almost all the 4e "innovations" have appeared SOMEWHERE in 3e books. Very, very few are entirely new. I'm actually at a loss to think of any innovations in 4e that haven't appeared in some form in 3e.

Granted some of them have been taken to a much greater extent - at will/encounter/daily powers being available to all classes for example - but, that system certainly appears in 3e. The Binder from Tome of Magic is the clearest example I can think of for that system in 3e. You've got the daily ability to bind X number of vestiges, each of which grant you a suite of at will and encounter powers.

I think it's an easy question to answer honestly. "What innovations were created whole cloth for 4e?" Almost none of them.

Again, I have no knowledge of the other thread. I agree completely with you and Imaro that somewhere within the rules space of 3e, there is a published solution to just about every issue that exists in 3e. I'm still not seeing anyone claiming anything differently. Hallivar I suppose is closest in that he's talking about access to those rules sets. But, even he is not claiming that the rules don't exist.

 

[sjmiller]

OK, I have a question related to the solutions given in the original posting. Am I right in assuming that Unearthed Arcana is a collection of variant and optional rules? Is the same valid with regard to the Player's Handbook II?

A second question: can any of the misconceptions/problems mentioned in the original post be solved/corrected/remedied without using optional or variant rules?

I would find solutions based on what is defined as 3.0/3.5 Core Rules to be more useful and potentially more palatable to a great many DMs and players. This is especially true for those who only have or use the Core Rules and not the SRD.

 

[Hussar]

Now, if you’ve got overly adversarial attitudes between the the DM and players—or even worse between the players themselves—I could see this being a problem. But I think you’ve still got problems no matter what system you’re playing. The complexity of 3e is just emphasizing them.

In most groups, a participant with a higher level of mastery over the system actually helps everyone else so that level of mastery isn’t an issue.

To some degree this is true. However, it does ignore a couple of salient issues. Firstly, there is a danger that the System Master starts dictating to the other players what they should take. In a sense, instead of helping, he's actually going further and pretty much writing other people's character's for them.

This can cause a great deal of friction in a group. The System Master can become very frustrated when he sees others taking obviously (in his mind anyway) sub par options and the others can get frustrated because the System Master's priorities are different from the other player's priorities. If you're taking Skill Focus Candlemaking because you want to be a superb candle maker the System Master is possibly going to freak because you're bringing down the party batting average so to speak.

((Arrgh, interruptions, will finish this later.))

 

[FireLance]

Well, you could always ignore the nearly 150 posts of tangency and help advance the premise posed in the original post: were there any other examples of nifty 4e innovations that made appearances in 3.5 books beforehand?

There are only a handful of truly "new" 4e innovations I can think of at short notice. One is the unified progression mechanic for attack rolls, skill checks and defences. Another is healing surges setting a practical limit to daily healing. A third is the way saving throws are handled. Practically everything else "new" in 4e had its roots somewhere in 3e.

Dragonborn? 3e had something similar in Races of the Dragon.
Tieflings? We've had them since 2e's Planescape.
Warlords? There were marshalls in the Miniatures Handbook and White Raven warblades in the Book of Nine Swords.
Marking? The knight from PH2 could challenge his enemies.
Attacker rolls the dice? Variant rule in Unearthed Arcana.

In fact, in perhaps a mirror to the OP, I sometimes find myself wondering how some posters could have the misconception that "4e is a completely different game" when the vast majority of 4e elements had been introduced in one form or the other in earlier editions of the game.

But I'm not going to start that thread.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hmm...are my arguments gilded gifts from the gods themselves, or do that many people have me on their ignore lists? Still no one challenging my assertions at all? Really?

And why is retraining still an issue? It's been covered both in the fact that if a rule doesn't exist for it, that doesn't mean you can't do it (DM's choice); and that the suicide option, silly and pointless as it may be, is an undeniably "core" option for retraining. I know there weren't as many level-up decisions in prior editions, but were DMs in those editions not allowed to let the PCs change their minds? I really don't get where this is coming from, that such a thing needs to be spelled out. Part of the DM's job is to make sure the players are having fun. If the player really messed up on his build or decided he doesn't like Joe the shield barbarian that much after all, the DM should offer some way to alter things. Would you rather have your player sit there miserable session after session? There's a WIDE difference between "unsatisfied with my character" and "I found yet another way to game the system for even more power in this new splatbook!"

But my experience with 3e was different.

For the end of a friend’s campaign, I was invited to play the role of a very powerful NPC against another player playing another very powerful NPC. There is no doubt that his mastery of 3.5 and my lack of mastery was a deciding factor. I don’t know that I would’ve come out on top otherwise, but I know that I simply couldn’t compete because he knew the system better than I did.

But that was a very intentional and unusual player-vs-player situation. In every other campaign, I’m not playing against another player. Therefore, my level of system mastery hasn’t really been an issue.

Now, if you’ve got overly adversarial attitudes between the the DM and players—or even worse between the players themselves—I could see this being a problem. But I think you’ve still got problems no matter what system you’re playing. The complexity of 3e is just emphasizing them.

In most groups, a participant with a higher level of mastery over the system actually helps everyone else so that level of mastery isn’t an issue.

Indeed. I power game and try to master the system, but I don't try to make the other PCs obsolete or feel weak or to gloat about it. I just like being awesome.

And I've learned to not freely offer advice and rather wait for the other person to ask, but if they do see me doing "optimal things" and get curious, I'll always be happy to help. It's a team game, and I want them to be happy with their characters, too. I just started a new game and it has two elven bow rangers. One didn't show so I volunteered to play as him, only to discover he had never even picked out gear. No big deal, I know the equipment listing pretty well, only took a few minutes. I never forced my advice on the other ranger, but when he saw my equipment selections (specifically the buckler), he asked. I informed him of how you can wear a buckler and still fire a bow freely, linking to the buckler description. He was new to the game and didn't know. Now he's got a buckler and seems pretty happy about it.

Ditto in combat, if the other person is open to it, I'll freely offer them suggestions on superior tactics (which really can be as simple as "the bard goes next, maybe delay so you can benefit from his inspire courage?") and what new feat to take that would work well him etc... I also am willing to help my DM create more fearsome NPCs, if he wants, I spread the knowledge around. That way no one gets jealous of me ten levels down the road and (hopefully) they'll become better informed of the system and take that with them to new groups they join.

Oh, and I never power game my character to make others worthless. I find it both better power-wise and "let's all get along"-wise to fit the party's talents into your build plans. New game has lots of ranged characters. So, I'm going to focus on battlefield control spells to pin foes down and make the most of our party's advantage in that area.

So umm...long-winded way of saying, I agree with the above. System mastery may make it easier for some jerk to ruin other people's fun, but the root of the problem is still with that person in the end.

[sblock]And the worst case I ever endured didn't even have to do with system mastery. The guy just happened to be playing a warforged, and the place just happened to be filled w/ poison needle traps. I was the rogue, so he quickly got into the habit of triggering the trap on purpose to both gloat about how it didn't hurt him and (mostly) to make me feel worthless. Like, he was actually taunting my character and saying the party didn't need him. The DM eventually got so pissed off, he had the next trap hurtle the warforged 30 feet back into a wall, taking piercing damage from the needles and 3d6 from hitting the wall. Apparently, that batch of needles had a really high-pressured spring mechanism launching them... [/sblock]