Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

I think you probably would have gotten a much less hostile response if you hadn't listed problems that people have with 3.x as misconceptions. Some of the things you list are fixes for problems that I had with 3.x, but I don't agree that all of them are good fixes or valid reasons for me to continue playing a game I think is overly complex. My concerns are valid and are not, misconceptions on my part.

If you had simply stated something like "Okay I know that people have issues with these things, here are ways to fix it", the response would have been more positive, in general.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think you probably would have gotten a much less hostile response if you hadn't listed problems that people have with 3.x as misconceptions. Some of the things you list are fixes for problems that I had with 3.x, but I don't agree that all of them are good fixes or valid reasons for me to continue playing a game I think is overly complex. My concerns are valid and are not, misconceptions on my part.

If you had simply stated something like "Okay I know that people have issues with these things, here are ways to fix it", the response would have been more positive, in general.

Truth here.

It was kinda like saying "there are misconceptions about 2nd edition because 2e had attack of opportunity (in Combat and Tactics) so the combat system is equal to 3rd editions".

That said, reserve feats > UA recharge.
 

I think the thread should have been named, "Where to find variant rules to fix things you may not like about 3.5."

That being said, some people don't buy supplements. Some people don't care for the SRD (myself being one).
 

Misconception 4 "NPC's have to be complicated and time consuming in 3.5." ...PHB2 actually has an appendix with a system for quick NPC creation, seems pretty straightforward and uncomplicated to me.

This isn't the part I would call complex in 3.5 I have plenty of freeware applications that make NPC and monster creations very quickly. My problem has more to do with how complex stat blocks get at higher levels. Paizo has done some nice stuff with their statblocks in the pathfinder modules but they are still fairly large and complex. I compare this to Orcus in the 4E monster manual... there is no comparison about complexity there.
 

No one has an excuse to not know the rules for Unearthed Arcana as they are open gaming and can be found here:

The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org

or at:

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/

Ah, the PC atmosphere. I remember you well during your birth pangs in the '90s. We go from "Things people get wrong about 3.xe" as being to harsh to the somewhat softer "Misconceptions about 3.xe" being too harsh. Sigh.

4e is a very small, hard to edit system (waiting of the inevitable, "But I play 4e without any of the core rules" comment). 3e is beautifully complex, and I love playing with it. It might have to do with the fact that I am a physics professor and not intimidated by math.
 

They're misconceptions, IMHO, because people claim 3.5 doesn't support this, and it plainly does. I mean it's the same as claiming 4e doesn't support a Gish class... even though it's in the FRPG. Or am I missing something here.
While I don't disagree with any of your misconceptions, I would like to highlight that the underlying complaints behind those misconceptions are mostly related to the game system, whereas complaints about the lack of druids, barbarians, gnomes, etc. are mostly related to the game material.

The key distinction, at least to me, is that retraining rules, complex skill checks and recharge magic require changes to the basic rules of the game, whereas adding new classes, races, feats and powers generally do not.

While the 4e ruleset is not perfect (the rules on Stealth were changed pretty quickly after its release, and there are still ongoing problems with the skill challenge system, IMO), I like 4e because the basic game rules seem to me to be better than that of 3e.

Of course, that may simply be a reflection of the difference in product life cycle between 3e and 4e. It seems to me that in the early years of an edition, game companies put out a lot of material that uses the system instead of changing it. Later on in the product life cycle, they start to experiment with alternate rules and new systems. The best (or at least, the most popular among the groups that they get feedback from ;)) get folded into a new edition, and the process starts over again.
 
Last edited:

Arguing that using a new class is the equivalent of implementing a set of optional rules--which are mutually exclusive from the rules in the PHB--from a Big Book of Optional & Alternative Rules is intellectually dishonest to a degree it is difficult to civilly express.
Whereas the notion that I find so intellectually dishonest that it's difficult for me to civilly express the absurdity of itr is the idea that an official book, published by Wizards of the Coast, full of rules all of which were added to the SRD is merely a "Big Book of Optional & Alternative Rules."

Likewise, I find it intellectually dishonest to the point of parody to pretend like there's a difference between the 3e conceit of "only the first three books are core; everything else is optional. No, really!" and the 4e conceit of "every single book we ever publish is Core. No, really!"

If I can be allowed to speak for Imaro, since I watched the genesis of this thread take place in a couple of other places, a bulleted list of things that someone liked about 4e over 3e was offered in which almost every single item was, actually, present and accounted for in official WotC publications in 3.5. I think there's some value in pointing out that 3.5 wasn't the broken, unusuble and inflexible monstrosity that many folks would have us believe, and that many of the "innovations" of 4e were present in D&D long before 4e was released.

That point really neither impugns 4e nor 3e. I don't see why it's a big deal that so many people are picking on Imaro's reasoning because many of this rules come from "non-Core" sources. The fiction of core vs. non-core has taken quite a drubbing with the changing position in 4e; as far as I'm concerned that officially puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that core vs. non-core is even a meaningful designation anymore.
 

Misconception 2 "In 3.5 skill checks are decided by one roll of the die." ...actually in Unearthed Arcana, there are rules for complex skill checks...they are almost the exact same rules (only explained in a more concise manner) that 4e uses for their revolutionary skill challenges. Seriously if you have the book read up on them.

Does anybody really need the UA for this? Haven’t DMs been figuring this one out on their own for decades?

Misconception 3 "3.5's skill system is too complex/fiddly" ...well again Unearthed Arcana has two alternate and more simplified systems for skills in 3.5.

I didn’t need the UA to tell me that I could just pick a number of class skills equal to the skill points I get per level and then those skills would always be level + 3 while the rest remained at default.

Just because the system allows complex builds doesn’t mean you have to make complex builds. All of my 3e PCs have been single-class. Nearly all of them used the above method for their skills. (Those that didn’t weren’t that far from it.)

A friend of mine gets accused of power-gaming because his PCs tend to outshine the others. When you actually look at it though, you see that he has a very straight-forward character built with only the core rules while it’s everyone else that has complex builds with lots of stuff out of the supplements.

Misconception 4 "NPC's have to be complicated and time consuming in 3.5." ...PHB2 actually has an appendix with a system for quick NPC creation, seems pretty straightforward and uncomplicated to me.

Most DMs just improvise something good enough and most players are OK with that. This is only an issue for groups with someone who misses the forest (fun) for the trees (rules). ^_^

Misconception 5 "low-level Wizards are reduced to using a crossbow, once their spells are gone."

Time for one of my favorite quotes: “A Wizard who has spent all his spells is only useless if the player is useless.” This isn’t a game about dropping spells and shooting crossbow bolts. It’s about exploration and puzzle solving. It’s about being able to do that option that you should be able to do but that you wouldn’t be able to do if this were a board game or computer game.

Due to the way the economy of actions work, I found most of the time the BBEG would only get one or two actions before he got nailed by the party. Related to this, those actions would often be very "binary" actions (SoD/SoS/ultra-high damage), which made combat a bit swingy for my taste.

The BBEG should be prep’d for battle. Unless the PCs have been particularly smart, the BBEG should’ve choosen the battle ground, and it should be one that can be used to his advantage. He should have preparations and minions ready to quickly neutralize the aspects of PC parties that are most likely to be personally dangerous to him. He shouldn’t be in combat with the PCs. He only hangs around until the PCs manage to target him for some hurt. Then he takes that secret back-door contingency. He only fights if the PCs manage to corner him.

Well, that’s general advice. Specific BBEGs might vary from that in various ways.

Seems to me that all that is pretty system-neutral stuff.
 

I'm glad this thread exists, but why did you have to go to non-core so much? Others have given better answers to some of these already, but I'm just gonna run through all of them at once, so I'll be repeating another poster at one or two points.

Misconception 1 "I am stuck with a bad choice in 3.5" ... contrary to popular belief WotC created retraining and rebuilding rules for PC's in the PHB 2.

Misconception 2 "In 3.5 skill checks are decided by one roll of the die." ...actually in Unearthed Arcana, there are rules for complex skill checks...they are almost the exact same rules (only explained in a more concise manner) that 4e uses for their revolutionary skill challenges. Seriously if you have the book read up on them.

Misconception 3 "3.5's skill system is too complex/fiddly" ...well again Unearthed Arcana has two alternate and more simplified systems for skills in 3.5.

Misconception 4 "NPC's have to be complicated and time consuming in 3.5." ...PHB2 actually has an appendix with a system for quick NPC creation, seems pretty straightforward and uncomplicated to me.

Misconception 5 "low-level Wizards are reduced to using a crossbow, once their spells are gone." Try using the recharge magic system in UA. They won't be hurling Magic Missile around every round, but they will be able to cast spells throughout the day. It's also really easy to tailor this system (adjust the recharge times for what one considers especially unbalancing spells) for customization in one's campaign.

Well these are just 5 so far...might come back and post some more later. Also, if there are any problems people are having using 3.5, feel free to post them and maybe there's something I come across that may help you out.

1. Some options can be changed, such as sorc and bard spells known. Aside from that, a DM doesn't need retraining rules to have some mercy. If someone's really not happy with their choices, I'll let them make changes. I came to this opinion long before PH2 or DMG2 or wherever the rules first appeared. Rule 0 trumps all. If your DM refuses to budge at all, there is still a "core" method to fixing this -- get your character killed, create a new one (likely a level lower) that's very similar built the way you like, and problem solved. Is it silly to go to such lengths? Definitely. That's why it's better as DM to just lighten up a bit. But the fact remains -- this option is completely "core."

2. Often times there will be situations where it takes more than one skill check to accomplish something. A bargaining session could entail several diplomacy checks. The search checks merely opens up a bunch of new checks -- disable device; balance when that fails and most of the floor falls away; climb to catch yourself from falling if that fails; tumble to reduce the falling damage if that fails... whatever, just one example. The DM creates the environments and challenges. He doesn't need complex skill check rules to make a scenario that involves several rolls, and (gasp!) maybe some roleplaying, too!

3. I know someone said this already, but for [insert your lord's name]'s sake! Pick x number of skills you get per level by base number, int, etc... and choose that many from your class list. They are always ranks = level +3, and...done. NO different than picking your trained skills in 4E. If you want a more fiddly character with ranks all over the place...that's your call. The system in no way forces you to do this, however, and you can choose to emulate 4E's "trained and untrained" binary dichotomy if you wish.

4. Technically, any creature controlled by the DM is an "NPC," not just the ones with class levels... In any case, once you know the costs of the "big six" items types and look up the classed NPC's gear value, it's not that hard to give them the standard stuff. If you want more diverse things, it will of course take longer to add up. I usually just give the guy a rough estimate of all the things I think he'll "need" in what i think will come out about right for his gear value. Then I quickly add it up with rounding (I would count a +2 sword as 8000 gp and not bother with the base and masterwork cost, for example) and see about how many thousands of gp I get. If it's about right, awesome! Done! If not, I take the rough values and start removing the "least important" things or reducing +'s. It's really not that hard, the final value can be ballpark, you don't have to hit the exact number.

5. Someone already said how 3E crossbow isn't much different than 4E magic missile. And unlike 4E, a lot of spells have LONG durations, so while a 4E wizard has a hard time finding many all-day effects, a low level mage can have mage armor, unseen servant, mount...and that's just core conjurations of level 1. It may not be sexy, but getting that +4 AC for the entire dungeon sure is nice. Others said how the player can still participate in non-combat encounters and hel out with bright ideas and support (aid another?) in combat, so they're never worthless. It's also unlikely they'll run out of cantrips as well, unless the DM is really taking it hard on the party. Prestidigitation lasts an hour and can be used in innumerable situations. Ghost sound can set up an ambush or lure away guards. Message means you can fake being unconscious face-down and continue communicating with your allies...umm...kinda random example, oh well. Point is, seldom will a low level caster ever actually be made useless.


Here's a misconception I want to add:
6. 4e improves on 3E because you get better at skills as you level, even if you don't put ranks in. Err...train in it. :)

Answer: First of all, I consider not giving people good skill checks merely from being high level to be a GOOD thing, so this is a matter of taste. I really like that a level 1 expert who's never fought in his life but made weapons for 20 years can still craft better thana level 20 PC who's never worked in a forge a day in his life.

Even if you're appalled by such a possibility, do realize 4E is a false solution. In 3E, if two level 14 guys have 0 ranks in a skill, they both have +0 before other modifiers. In 4E, if they are untrained in the skill, they have a +7 before modifiers. So, if they're rolling opposed, the net effect of 4E's changes is...nothing! "What about for fixed DC's?" you ask? Well, see that's where 4E's focus on balance bites it in the ass. Sure...at level 14 you can climb that thick silk rope much easier than you could at level 1. But at level 14, you won't likely be seeing that nice silk rope. The rope in front of you will be covered in grease to keep you paragon folks from easily scaling it. you've done nothing on your own to improve your rope climbing skillz', so you're just as screwed now as you were then. NO CHANGE from 3E.
 

Hear, hear.

I've also mentioned these kinds of things, a number of times. Good to see there are others who've connected the dots.

Mind you, I don't give a flying rutabaga if some people still want to play 4e. Or 3e without such rules in place. Or whatever. Just so long as you all have fun, it's all good.
 

Remove ads

Top