Sorry. If it is not core in the core rules, it is optional. And, even stuff in the core is optional (Rule 0).
Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers
- Thread starter Imaro
- Start date
Sorry. If it is not core in the core rules, it is optional. And, even stuff in the core is optional (Rule 0).
Rule 0 - The DM can rule any way he wants.
Corrolary to Rule 0 - Just because the DM can rule how he wants does not necessarily mean that he should. Nor may he be right for the correct reason (ie: he is ruling the way he does because he is in authority, and not an authority in the rules).
Rule 0 gets thrown around way too liberally for my liking. If you think simply flashing that phrase in my face is going to shut me up, you are way mistaken.
Hussar
Legend
As was already pointed out, yes, there are fixes that exist for issues in 3.5.
However, that ignores the point that there was a problem in the first place. Every one of your "misconceptions" Imaro are nothing of the sort. They really are problems that people have with the system. The fact that you can point to fixes for those problems means that those problems actually do, in fact, exist.
Yes, you can retrain. IF you happen to have a splatbook that came out several years after the release of 3.5. That still does not change the fact that you are stuck with bad skill choices by RAW. If you happen to incorporate the later patches, then, fine, that problem goes away.
But that in no way negates the fact that the problem exists in the first place.
However, that ignores the point that there was a problem in the first place. Every one of your "misconceptions" Imaro are nothing of the sort. They really are problems that people have with the system. The fact that you can point to fixes for those problems means that those problems actually do, in fact, exist.
Yes, you can retrain. IF you happen to have a splatbook that came out several years after the release of 3.5. That still does not change the fact that you are stuck with bad skill choices by RAW. If you happen to incorporate the later patches, then, fine, that problem goes away.
But that in no way negates the fact that the problem exists in the first place.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
How well have these rules ever been tested? How do the affect the game balance, challenge ratings, encounter levels, effective character levels?
All these things might exist. But do they work? Do they work as well as if the system has been designed this way from the start?
Minor nitpick:
And for a real gish, you don't need the Swordmage in 4E. You can just multi-class a Fighter with a Wizard! Trust me, it rocks.
All these things might exist. But do they work? Do they work as well as if the system has been designed this way from the start?
Minor nitpick:
And for a real gish, you don't need the Swordmage in 4E. You can just multi-class a Fighter with a Wizard! Trust me, it rocks.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Not an excuse? Please? It is somewhere on the interwebs, how am I supposed to know that if I play the game at my table and don't visit WotC site, EN World or other role-playing sites?
---
But I would say this thread is a good reminder of 3E fans that dislike some aspects of 3E and try to look for alternatives if neither Pathfinder or 4E look appealing. I am not sure if there are many on EN World that are unaware of these sources, but who knows. I sure don't remember all the sourcebook content I read, either.
Jack99
Adventurer
Minor nitpick incoming: It's called 4e. Not 4.0. I know it's probably not intentional.
I respectfully agree. But swordmage (wizard) is just miles better
I'm not quite sure that's how I'd refer to the second Player's Handbook. In fact, I'm downright positive PHB2 wasn't a splatbook. Really, it's almost the exact opposite of a splatbook. Which raises the question: Why on earth would you refer to it as a splatbook?
Really, the fact that there were different optional rules and different mechanics that were introduced in other books (be it the retraining, or entirely new systems such as Incarnum or Tome of Battle) is one of 3.5's greatest strengths. Problems in 3.5's rule system could - and WERE - fixed, and new options not just for classes, but for entire gameplay mechanics were possible and published. 4e took a lot of ideas from 3e in it's later years, from these new and different mechanics, such as the aformentioned Tome of Battle. You can't just push them off as meaningless and unimportant.
...Also, why the hell did 4e get mentioned here? This has nothing at all to do with 4e.
La Bete
First Post
PHBI has a nice big "Core Rulebook I" on it.
PHBII does not. and on page 4 refers to it using content from "the three Core Rulebooks".
Oddly enough, the OP was the first to mention 4e.
But mainly the 4e reference is due to:
4e has been ragged on (possibly by the OP, certainly by pro-3e people) because desired content is in follow-on books such as the Druid in PHB2, whereas the OP is pointing out that issues that some people had with 3e are addressed - in add-on books.
But you knew that.
I think you're making things far more divisive then they need to be. The mention to 4e was done to defend 3e's problem addressing being done in other books; I haven't seen anything in this thread even vaguely related to attacks on 4e. Oh, and "pro-3e" is not the same as "dislikes 4e to the point of attacking it." Come on, now.
As for PHB2, you can be a non-core book and still not be a splat book. PHB2 is, by the definition of using content from the previous three core books, just as non-core as the 3.5 one. The only difference is the sticker on it that says "CORE"
Again, nothing in this thread is meant to rip on or attack 4e. It's a simple thread detailing where problems 3.5 had were fixed. There's no reason for this thread to devolve into bile and hate.
Similar Threads
