Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Imaro]

It doesn't. But neither does it matter because, there's obviously another misconception:

1. misconception: having support =/= providing a good and balanced solution.
2. misconception: there are things that aren't supported in 3E.

Don't we need to get past the misconception that this support doesn't exist, before people can even begin to decide whether it is a good and balanced solution?

I don't understand number 2, as it seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying.

P.S.: After having read the thread this far, I'd rather I didn't have bothered replying at all. This discussion will go nowhere.

Fair enough, you can believe what you will about where this thread will go...but if you had rather not replied...why didn't you just delete it?

 

[Obryn]

NOTE: Some of these don't lead to rules bloat as they are replacing other rules, not adding to them...but that's really just a side point.

I think there's a big difference between rules bloat and rules schizophrenia.

The former is the natural consequence of adding on rules, past a certain point. 3.5 could fairly called bloated if you used every single splatbook.

The latter is when you have to reference multiple books to find the rules you have in place, and when supplements don't make the same baseline rules assumptions as you do.

I think a campaign that uses a lot of UA will see the latter, but not the former.

I feel like some people are using this as an opportunity to throw out how much they don't like 3.5 with irrelevant dislikes, and really want to tear these solutions down with such absurd claims as they aren't part of the game...(Really, because I don't know what game they go with then), or pulling out rules I never even cited as fixing anything (Bell Curve rolls, when did I actually suggest Bell Curve rolls as a fix for anything?)... In the end it's not a thread bashing 4e, though for some reason many are taking it that way... it's a thread citing that yes, 3.5 did address many of the problems the designers and certain fans of 4e claim there was never any rules support for. Simple fact of the matter, for the issues I have listed there was rules support for solving them.

Yeah, the d20 mechanics and 3.5 are very flexible systems. Naturally, you can do a whole lot with them - look at all the OGL variants, for example. I think that's clear and almost goes without saying.

However, I don't think you're fighting the same fight that others in the thread are... It's enough 'support' for you that there were optional rules presented in a book, which fixed or patched issues people may have had. For others - like me, posting earlier in the thread - there's a fundamental difference between simply publishing rules for something; and actually using those rules as core assumptions in published products down the road.

-O

 

[Imaro]

So, just to be absolutely clear, you are claiming that there are a large number of 3e critics who claim that there are no rules support for tweaking the 3e system? That the five points you list in your OP aren't covered by a number of alternative systems?

Who are these critics? I've never seen anyone try to claim that there weren't alternative rules given for pretty much any element of 3e. If you're willing to break into 3pp land, there's probably a baker's dozen options for changing/tweaking pretty much any and all elements of 3e D&D.

Anyone who claims differently is woefully ignorant of the huge amount of material out there.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that there aren't all that many people who would seriously argue that there are no solutions to the problems of 3e. I would think that there are lots of people who have no problems pointing to the problem, but, I have trouble thinking that a quick search on Amazon would net you any number of solutions.

Can you point me to these critics? They are, as you say, woefully underinformed.

So you've never seen the claim that in 3.5 you're stuck with a crappy feat choice, or you have to plan your character out from level 1 to the end... If you claim no , I don't know what to say except we must be reading totally different threads.

I'm not going to call anybody out I don't have to proive anything and really it's just antagonistic, especially after that little snide comment you attributed to me (which is in bold) when I said no such thing...So all I can say is you want proof, go read some of the threads after 4e had just come out...in fact there's a thread on the first page of this board where the inability to switch a feat is brought up, but like I said I'm not calling any particular person out...that's not my purpose. If you don't have these misconceptions...why are you so adamant about arguing over them?

Edit: Please stop twisting my words, I just realized what you try to attribute to me in your first sentence. I have outlined very specific things which have been used as arguments against 3.5... not some broad based blanket statement that you are now trying to pin on me.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is Imaro, by 3.5 rules YOU ARE stuck with a crappy feat choice. That problem exists. There is no getting around the fact that that problem exists in the first place.

Certainly I've seen people complain about this in 3e. I've seen these complaints long before 4e was even on the table.

My question is where are the people who claim these things AND THEN deny that there are any solutions.

Like I said, I've seen loads of the first people. I've not seen too many of the second. Typically, when someone complains (or complained) about something in 3e on En World, the 2nd or 3rd reply would be to point to some point in some book somewhere.

I'm still not seeing what you're point is.

 

[Renshai]

I think that this thread and your intentions could be summed up by stating that yes, people have certain problems with 3.5, but some of the problems that people have claimed to exist also have official, or unofficial (as some prefer) rules that help to address these issues.

Now, with that said it is perfectly acceptable for someone to continue to have an issue with any of your stated problems, because they don't necessarily like the rules that were used to fix problem. I think the response to your post just started out negatively because of wording and presentation. Intent and tone are hard to express over the Internet, through this kind of medium, and I personally don't think your intent was to incite an edition war or heated argument...

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

It's sort of simple on the retraining issue. In 3e, it was up to the DM to let you rebuild your character when an option proved flawed or when a new option was presented.

In PHB2 for 3.5, and in 4e, this was codified into a system where the player had an outlet to change.

Of course, the flaw there is, if you realize something is wrong and want to redo, you still ask the DM and such. Waiting until the next level to change is just silly, IMO. The "retraining rules" aren't an innovation, they are a limitation. If I find out paragon path I picked isn't what I wanted, I need DM intervention, if I notice at a level that my feat build is wrong for what I want, I need to wait and do it one feat at a time over the course of levels?

The retraining thing is not a helpful rule, it is a false limitation on the PC which will most likely be worthless when it's needed the most, in favor of the DM ruling, as it was in previous editions.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The problem is Imaro, by 3.5 rules YOU ARE stuck with a crappy feat choice. That problem exists. There is no getting around the fact that that problem exists in the first place.

No you're not, the rules do not address changing feats. That puts it into the realm of the DM.

In 4e, you have a rule limiting how much you can change.

I'm still not seeing what you're point is.

His point, IMO, is the false notion that at the point in time that 4e was created and released, these problems were not addressed in some manner. If you want to create the false dichotomy of "only referencing core 4e vs a version of 3.5e from 5 years ago", then you're on a different page.

It's simple really, when someone complains that 4e doesn't have as much material as 3e does, then saying "well it hasn't had the time and breadth of supplements" is fine. When someone says "these problems with 3e weren't really problems when 4e released", then you compare what is present, rather than ignoring years of development.

(and yeah, as a poster said, if you find that 4e was an evolution of 3e and such, fine, but that doesn't mean that these "problems" were not addressed in 3e by then.)

 

[Imaro]

I think that this thread and your intentions could be summed up by stating that yes, people have certain problems with 3.5, but some of the problems that people have claimed to exist also have official, or unofficial (as some prefer) rules that help to address these issues.

Now, with that said it is perfectly acceptable for someone to continue to have an issue with any of your stated problems, because they don't necessarily like the rules that were used to fix problem. I think the response to your post just started out negatively because of wording and presentation. Intent and tone are hard to express over the Internet, through this kind of medium, and I personally don't think your intent was to incite an edition war or heated argument...

This is correct, and it is why I stayed away from mentioning 4e at all in the first post. This is a post that gives options for those who may still be under certain assumptions, because they may not know a certain rule exists... the funny thing is that I truly believe many of the people on this thread had no idea about some of these rules until I brought them up. I also believe there is a segment who dislikes anything pro-3e and will go out of there way to imagine pro-3e = anti-4e and that's just not true.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's sort of simple on the retraining issue. In 3e, it was up to the DM to let you rebuild your character when an option proved flawed or when a new option was presented.

In PHB2 for 3.5, and in 4e, this was codified into a system where the player had an outlet to change.

Of course, the flaw there is, if you realize something is wrong and want to redo, you still ask the DM and such. Waiting until the next level to change is just silly, IMO. The "retraining rules" aren't an innovation, they are a limitation. If I find out paragon path I picked isn't what I wanted, I need DM intervention, if I notice at a level that my feat build is wrong for what I want, I need to wait and do it one feat at a time over the course of levels?

The retraining thing is not a helpful rule, it is a false limitation on the PC which will most likely be worthless when it's needed the most, in favor of the DM ruling, as it was in previous editions.

I wish I could give you more than +1 xp for this.

Maybe this should be another 3E misconception, though the factthat it should apply to any edition and yet seems to mostly haunt the 3E rules is a curiosity in itself:

#7 "If there is no rule on it, the rules don't allow for it to be done."

Answer: Nope. If there's no set rule for a situation, it's the DM's job to figure out how to handle it. This has been the case from the beginning, and I see no text in 3E taking that responsibility away from the DM. Please reference a page if you think otherwise.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

This is correct, and it is why I stayed away from mentioning 4e at all in the first post. I also believe there is a segment who dislikes anything pro-3e and will go out of there way to imagine pro-3e = anti-4e and that's just not true.

You sure about that?

And calling something "revolutionary" while pointing out that it already existed is quite sarcastic. Could you maybe see how someone might draw the conclusion that "pro-3e = anti-4e?" I don't believe it's true, but comments like this lend creedence to those who do. I also feel many people believe that pro-4E people that are anti-3E are only so because they are pro-4E. (Confused yet?) I personally was ready to quit 3E before 4E was announced.