Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Najo]

First, and this is addressed to all the people saying it's unfair for me to use books outside the first three... Then will it be a fair complaint after the 2nd PHB and 2nd DMG are relesed to claim that 4e doesn't support the Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, etc. or rules for traps, etc.? If so then yes I will say I am in error for presenting this, but otherwise the point of splat books is to broaden a game, and once something is addressed, the game has support for it.

La Bete, haven't come across something to address that issue yet, but now I'll be looking for it and will post it if I do.

Here is where it is unfair. Your solution requires poeple tackcing on subsystems from various sources to make 3.5 gain some of the improvements 4.0 has.

With 4.0, all of those options are built into the system and streamlined from the ground up. Then 4.0 goes further to remove issues like Save or Die spells, "15-min" adventuring day, classes with dead levels, character's coming back from the dead, comlicated subsystems like grapple, etc.

So, starting a thread saying that 3.5 can have all of the advantages of 4.0 is false in that regard. WOTC took the best elements of what they did with 3.5 and smoothed it all out and mushed it into 4.0.

I am not saying 4.0 doesn't have any faults, but it does do everything you can compare between 3.5 and 4.0 like you are better. This is because it is designed from the ground up to do so.

 

[Greg K]

You do realize UA is in the SRD? And the Duskblade rules aren't right?

I like 3e and use Unearthed Arcana. I also dislike most things about 4e. That said, the SRD does not mean core. The SRD is the material WOTC has released for 3pp to legally use in their own products.

 

[Imaro]

Here is where it is unfair. Your solution requires poeple tackcing on subsystems from various sources to make 3.5 gain some of the improvements 4.0 has.
With 4.0, all of those options are built into the system and streamlined from the ground up. Then 4.0 goes further to remove issues like Save or Die spells, "15-min" adventuring day, classes with dead levels, character's coming back from the dead, comlicated subsystems like grapple, etc.

My solution requires people using the options for 3.5, the same as they wiill when more options come out for 4e. Uhm...recharge magic isn't part of 4e (and IMHO is a much better solution to the stated problem), the 15min adventuring day in 4e has not been "solved"...but recharge magic with clerics could do it. I haven't addressed anything else you bring up, so I'll assume you enjoy the solutions 4e has offered, soem don't here are some options for those people. Especially if thet only felt like some of the things 4e "solved" were actual problems.

So, starting a thread saying that 3.5 can have all of the advantages of 4.0 is false in that regard. WOTC took the best elements of what they did with 3.5 and smoothed it all out and mushed it into 4.0.

I am not saying 4.0 doesn't have any faults, but it does do everything you can compare between 3.5 and 4.0 like you are better. This is because it is designed from the ground up to do so.

Emphasis mine...where did I say this? Wow I feel like people are hating because I'm offering proof there is rules support from WotC for many of the so called "problems" that were suppose to be "solved".

Please define better, because the complex skill checks are, imho, better explained and better mechanically than what 4e has tried to patch up so far. YMMV of course.

I think the difference is...all of these things together may not be what many people wanted...but in 3.5 they have been given the rules support to mix and match. Also I still think recharge magic is better than the 4e solution.

 

[Imaro]

I like 3e and use Unearthed Arcana. I also dislike most things about 4e. That said, the SRD does not mean core. The SRD is the material WOTC has released for 3pp to legally use in their own products.

My point was moreso that these rules are free and available to any with internet access as opposed to the Duskblade. Probably should have been more explicit.

 

[Krensky]

Here is where it is unfair. Your solution requires poeple tackcing on subsystems from various sources to make 3.5 gain some of the improvements 4.0 has.

That the changes in 4e are improvements is your opinion.

WOTC took the best elements of what they did with 3.5 and smoothed it all out and mushed it into 4.0.

completely subjective opinion. I feel it took some of the good, and a great deal of the bad.

I am not saying 4.0 doesn't have any faults, but it does do everything you can compare between 3.5 and 4.0 like you are better. This is because it is designed from the ground up to do so.

Multi-classing. Recharge or spell point magic systems. Item (mundane or magical) creation. Taint. There are a number of things 4.0 does not do that 3e/3.5e had rules for. There are also a number of things that many people are of the opinion it does worse on.

 

[Fifth Element]

YMMV and all, but I don't know that these are misconceptions you're talking about. They look to me like problems someone might have with the system, to which you've provided possible solutions.

This is how I see it as well. The problems in the OP are with the core rules, which later supplementary rules provide optional alternatives for. But there's nothing in the OP to suggest these are actual misconceptions.

 

[Imaro]

This is how I see it as well. The problems in the OP are with the core rules, which later supplementary rules provide optional alternatives for. But there's nothing in the OP to suggest these are actual misconceptions.

Again...as I've said over and over in this thread, the misconception is that 3.5 doesn't have rules that support..."My character being able to change a feat or choice."...when in fact 3.5 does. It's a yes or no question either 3.5 does or doesn't have rules support for something, and thus because it does these claims are erroneous.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

First, I thought everything was optional in D&D. Now the question is whether 3.5 has support for these things or it doesn't. I think it's dishonest to claim it doesn't when it most clearly does, regardless of where the support is located.

No, everything isn't optional. Everything is ignorable. There's a difference. It isn't optional to pay someone rent when you land on their space in Monopoly. You and your friends can choose to ignore that rule, but it's part of the game.

It is optional to play with the free parking rules since it isn't part of the rules that come with the game(although I've been told it was so popular that it now comes bundled with the game, but it's still labeled as an optional addon).

The way that 3.5 edition is written is that everything in every book except UA(and some specifically labeled rules in the DMG) is part of the game. UA was specifically labeled(inside the book and in posts from the designers) as NOT part of the game. The game is every other book. UA simply suggests ways you might want to modify the rules to play a slightly different version of D&D. It's the same as reading a good idea on a message board on how to fix a problem with the game. It certainly might fix your problems and it might even be a good idea, but the rule isn't part of the game for everyone else in the world.

 

[Runestar]

I would probably recommend complete mage's reserve feats over UA's recharge magic variant if it is access to more firepower you desire. I personally feel that the latter is riddled with flaws, not least because the existing spells were designed with vancian casting in mind, not recharge variant. So you get weird scenarios like a 5th lv wizard being able to buff a fighter with bull's strength 24/7, because the spell recharges more quickly than its duration.

That is the problem with UA. They are just a glorified bunch of houserules which the designers cobbled together. I am not sure just how much effort was placed into playtesting, because certain rules such as spell-point variant have proved to be just as problematic as the feature it was designed to replace, if not more.

Sure, you can use them. But I would daresay that you may not necessarily be any better off. You might simply be trading one set of flaws for another.

 

[Imaro]

No, everything isn't optional. Everything is ignorable. There's a difference. It isn't optional to pay someone rent when you land on their space in Monopoly. You and your friends can choose to ignore that rule, but it's part of the game.

It is optional to play with the free parking rules since it isn't part of the rules that come with the game(although I've been told it was so popular that it now comes bundled with the game, but it's still labeled as an optional addon).

The way that 3.5 edition is written is that everything in every book except UA(and some specifically labeled rules in the DMG) is part of the game. UA was specifically labeled(inside the book and in posts from the designers) as NOT part of the game. The game is every other book. UA simply suggests ways you might want to modify the rules to play a slightly different version of D&D. It's the same as reading a good idea on a message board on how to fix a problem with the game. It certainly might fix your problems and it might even be a good idea, but the rule isn't part of the game for everyone else in the world.

Uhm the blurb on WotC's site says nothing about UA being "NOT part of the game"

A new guide to variant rules for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game.
This all-new sourcebook provides D&D players and Dungeon Masters with a wide choice of variant rules for alternate roleplaying in a D&D campaign. Designed to expand the options available for customizing gameplay, these variant rules are modular and can be imported into any campaign in any amount desired. Examples of variant rules include playing core classes as prestige classes and alternate damage systems. Brand-new rules include a new system of metamagic feats and a new spell system.



Seriously, you're arguing a supplement made for D&D 3.5...isn't a part of the game? Wow, just wow...this is surreal.

I would probably recommend complete mage's reserve feats over UA's recharge magic variant if it is access to more firepower you desire. I personally feel that the latter is riddled with flaws, not least because the existing spells were designed with vancian casting in mind, not recharge variant. So you get weird scenarios like a 5th lv wizard being able to buff a fighter with bull's strength 24/7, because the spell recharges more quickly than its duration.

That is the problem with UA. They are just a glorified bunch of houserules which the designers cobbled together. I am not sure just how much effort was placed into playtesting, because certain rules such as spell-point variant have proved to be just as problematic as the feature it was designed to replace, if not more.

Sure, you can use them. But I would daresay that you may not necessarily be any better off. You might simply be trading one set of flaws for another.

Okay, now this is an argument with some type of validity, perhaps the rules do have faults in them...in fact seeing as nothing is perfect I'm sure they do but again there is still support for certain things in 3.5 that people are claiming doesn't exist...also I notice no one is commenting on the stuff in PHB2, or is that a "Not part of the game" supplement as well?