Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Halivar]

Why do you think Pirates have already dominated popular culture with a huge movie trilogy?

Pirates- even better business men.

The epic ninja movie trilogy is just playing ninja-quiet, that's all. I mean, if everyone knew that American Ninja 1-4 was the best movie series of all time, it wouldn't be very stealthy, would it?

 

[Jhaelen]

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 didn't think so, but I concede that it might be possible (though unlikely).

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

I didn't say it's you having a misconception there - this is a misconception of those that supposedly claimed there was no support (and by extension that having support alone would help to alleviate the (perceived) problems)

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?

Once my post has been quoted and replied to, I don't consider it good style to delete the post.

For those reading the thread this tends to make it difficult to make sense of the replies and follow the discussion. I've often been frustrated when I searched for the original context of a quote to find it was no longer there.

 

[Oni]

So....then they throw everything out, void everything and start a new game and thats ok?

I'm not sure that I said anything to that effect.

All I meant was that, those are in fact very real issues with the system as written, and it was unfair to lable them as misconceptions, because changing the rules solved them. I mean 3.5 can do practically anything if you change enough rules, M&M shows that. But if you go back and play the game as written no amount of optional rules have made those problems go away.

I felt it was poor form to say, XYZ isn't a real problem in 3.5 because if you change the rules XYZ isn't a problem so you just didn't know what you were talking about. That's how the OP came across to me, given the response I don't suppose I'm alone in that.

So I come back to my original question. Is it fair to call them misconceptions?

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure that I said anything to that effect.

All I meant was that, those are in fact very real issues with the system as written, and it was unfair to lable them as misconceptions, because changing the rules solved them. I mean 3.5 can do practically anything if you change enough rules, M&M shows that. But if you go back and play the game as written no amount of optional rules have made those problems go away.

I felt it was poor form to say, XYZ isn't a real problem in 3.5 because if you change the rules XYZ isn't a problem so you just didn't know what you were talking about. That's how the OP came across to me, given the response I don't suppose I'm alone in that.

So I come back to my original question. Is it fair to call them misconceptions?

This is the last time I'll say this, since I've posted it over and over in this thread, and anyone arguing from the position that the problems are the misconception is either not reading the thread and just commenting or trying to be antagonistic...

The misconception is that 3.5 had no rules support to address, solve, whatever these problems. So when someone makes a blanket statement that 3.5 characters are stuck with their choices...that is a misconception, there are rules for 3.5, by WotC no less that address this, so it is a misconception that 3.5 characters in a blanket sense are all stuck with their choices. Now if these rules had never been published, or not published yet the assumption would be true...otherwise it is not.

 

[carmachu]

So I come back to my original question. Is it fair to call them misconceptions?

Imaro covers it better then me. Yes their misconceptions. Fixes were out there, but were they used?

The only problems that I think were never really addressed were high level/epic play seemed to be a mess....

 

[Lacyon]

The misconception is that 3.5 had no rules support to address, solve, whatever these problems. So when someone makes a blanket statement that 3.5 characters are stuck with their choices...that is a misconception, there are rules for 3.5, by WotC no less that address this, so it is a misconception that 3.5 characters in a blanket sense are all stuck with their choices. Now if these rules had never been published, or not published yet the assumption would be true...otherwise it is not.

Very few people (if any) have any misconceptions about any of this. It's an issue of language, not knowledge, as I noted on page 1.

It's generally true that nearly any time someone says "you can't do X in system Y" it's a technically false statement. It's also usually true that what they actually mean is something a bit less absolute (much like people don't usually append "in my opinion" to the end of every statement of opinion).

Insisting that everyone append "without screwing up the game in some other way that pissed me off" or "without spending more effort than I feel like it's worth" to the end of every "You can't do X in system Y" is, fundamentally, the only resolution to your OP.

Posters in general are unlikely to start doing this, but you can mentally append it yourself when you read the post.

 

[Deset Gled]

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."

One thing that has really been bugging the pedant in me during the coarse of this thread is a very incorrect statement that has been made multiple times by multiple people regarding UA and the SRD. I'd like to correct it:

Unearthed Arcana is not, nor has it even been, part of the SRD. UA is merely published as Open Gaming Content, the same as many other WotC creations and countless 3rd party publications. It is legal to use in many of the same ways as the SRD, but it is not part of the base rules of the system. Even the SRD websites mentioned in this thread specifically note this. Systemreferencedocuments.com, for example, says in the UA section "The rules in this section are not part of the System Reference Document. These are variant rules from Unearthed Arcana by WotC and do not present a coherent whole." The legally complete set of items in the SRD can be found here: Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document

UA is no different than any other OGL material published by WotC outside of the SRD. This leads me to consider it to be just one of many big books of optional and alternative rules that WotC has published. I will leave the significance of this, and how it relates to whether or not 3.5 has any shortcomings or misconceptions, up to others.

 

[Imaro]

Very few people (if any) have any misconceptions about any of this. It's an issue of language, not knowledge, as I noted on page 1.



Insisting that everyone append "without screwing up the game in some other way that pissed me off" or "without spending more effort than I feel like it's worth" to the end of every "You can't do X in system Y" is, fundamentally, the only resolution to your OP.

Posters in general are unlikely to start doing this, but you can mentally append it yourself when you read the post.

Or, as demonstrated by their unfamiliarity with the rules, some people really didn't know these rules existed and thus haven't had a chance to test them or try them out in their campaign. Or is that not a possibility?

What I find hilarious is that people are routinely pulled on blanket statements about 4e, when it is clearly or should be clearly inferred that it is the posters opinion...hmmm.

 

[Desdichado]

One thing that has really been bugging the pedant in me during the coarse of this thread is a very incorrect statement that has been made multiple times by multiple people regarding UA and the SRD. I'd like to correct it:

Unearthed Arcana is not, nor has it even been, part of the SRD.

You're right, that is pedantic.

Since I don't like the rtf files when I can get fairly pretty if plain html files at The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org, I go there and tend to forget that just because all the UA open content is posted there doesn't mean that it's in the official SRD.

Still; my main point there in that post that you quoted isn't that UA is or isn't in the SRD, it's that the notion of core vs. option has taken quite a beating with the rather dramatic 180° turn in direction from 3e to 4e. I find it difficult to believe that whether or not something is designated "core" or not means anything at all anymore.

Never really did, but especially in light of the shift as 4e was produced.

 

[Sacrificial Lamb]

Our group plays 3.5, and we're having a great time. We use the variant classes from PH2, and quite liberally use the retraining rules. They work very well. If I eventually realize a feat choice didn't fit the concept for my character, I change it as I'm leveling up. These are 3.5 rules, and we're not trapped by our feat choices. The game hasn't fallen apart because of it.

We also use various rules from Unearthed Arcana, such as variant classes, incantations, and flaws. This might sound odd, but I've always considered these two books as "almost-core". Sounds silly, doesn't it? But those two books feel like core books to me, even if they technically aren't.

Anyway, our group plays 3.5, and we're having a great time.