Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Lacyon]

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?

I'm not aware of anyone who isn't familiar with rule 0.

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.

It is pretty unfortunate (especially when a large dogpile occurs). It's also unfortunate when, instead of trying to clarify their statement, they escalate. (It's also unfortunate when the edition in question is not 4E).

Now that we've identified a bunch of unfortunate things, I'm not sure what else to do with the thread

 

[Lacyon]

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.

This is absolutely true, and it happened to a lesser extent way before PHB II came out in some of my games ("oops, I don't really meet the pre-reqs for this feat" and "oops, that feat doesn't work the way I thought" were reasonably common in my first couple 3E games, and I had no problems letting them change). So I guess I have to concede that this particular one is really more misconception than semantics.

 

[Greg K]

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.)

Not silly at all, imo. While not "officially" core, there are several parts of Unearthed Arcana that are considered core for my games when I run including class variants, variant wizard specialist abilities, weapon groups, action points, spell points w/ vitalizing (unless using a 3pp magic system), spontaneous divine casting, the complex skill system, and incantations.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I honestly think you're addressing a problem that doesn't exist. Between the splats from WotC, and the D20 and OGL licenses, there is very little that 3X didn't do that 4E does. I don't hear hardly anyone saying that 3X couldn't do those things, rather that it didn't do them well or without considerable work on the part of the GM. 4E came out of a desire to fix (perceived) issues with 3X and many of the books WotC produced over the last couple of years during the 3X days were trial balloons for 4E. As a result, of course 3X has elements of 4E in it.

The issue I've always had is how well did all of those rules mesh together, and what unexpected changes or challenges did they create in a game...

Sure you could do recharge magic in 3X, but what are the recharge times for, say, a completely new spell released in the Spell Compendium?

Sure you can do a complex skill check in 3X, but how does that relate to the skill knack rules from the Complete Scoundrel?

When I say I like 4E because it makes prepping for a game much easier, I know that there are many supplements out there designed to simplify the NPC or monster creation rules, I simply prefer 4E because it gives me those options by default right out of the box and I don't have to kludge them all together with other parts of my established campaign.

That's not a slight on 3X, but rather something you would expect to see in a brand new game. In 4-5 years time, the rules bloat will likely result in much the same situation for 4E.

--Steve

 

[Oni]

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.

The post I replying to quoted the 3rd post in this thread. I am simply explaining my reasoning at the time of that initial posting. In your original post those problems are clearly labled misconception 1,2,3 et c., so I'm not sure what else I was to think at the time of that posting. If you've changed your arguement since then it has no relevance to the particular post I made.

If your argument is that WotC offers suggestions in the form of optional rules to change aspects of the game to better suit the taste of some players, then that is of course true.

My argument is that once you start using those optional rules that you are not using 3.5 any more but rather some variant there of. Optional rules are not RAW. WotC may support them, but 3.5 RAW does not in that using them the game ceases to be RAW. If I have a problem with the RAW, optional rules may alleviate the concern in whatever game they are applied in, it does not however alleviate the problem in the RAW. Thus the reasoning behind my original post.

I hope I have explained myself clearly enough that my position is at least understandable even if you don't agree with it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

To help condense it a bit...

I want to retrain my feats because I made a bad decision, but I can't
Problem

The PHB2 lets me retrain my feats
Solution

3.5 doesn't let you retrain feats.
Misconception

Or, to use the example the OP used,

"I want to play a Lunar Exalt, but I can't.
Problem

This book let's me play a Lunar Exalt
Solution

Exalted doesn't allow for Lunar Exalts to be played
Misconception

 

[Imaro]

To help condense it a bit...

I want to retrain my feats because I made a bad decision, but I can't
Problem

The PHB2 lets me retrain my feats
Solution

3.5 doesn't let you retrain feats.
Misconception

Or, to use the example the OP used,

"I want to play a Lunar Exalt, but I can't.
Problem

This book let's me play a Lunar Exalt
Solution

Exalted doesn't allow for Lunar Exalts to be played
Misconception

Thanks, this is exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Sacrificial Lamb]

To help condense it a bit...

I want to retrain my feats because I made a bad decision, but I can't
Problem

The PHB2 lets me retrain my feats
Solution

3.5 doesn't let you retrain feats.
Misconception

Or, to use the example the OP used,

"I want to play a Lunar Exalt, but I can't.
Problem

This book let's me play a Lunar Exalt
Solution

Exalted doesn't allow for Lunar Exalts to be played
Misconception

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not aware of anyone who isn't familiar with rule 0.

I was talking about the rules from the various books...I didn't know rule 0 was plural.

It is pretty unfortunate (especially when a large dogpile occurs). It's also unfortunate when, instead of trying to clarify their statement, they escalate. (It's also unfortunate when the edition in question is not 4E).

Now that we've identified a bunch of unfortunate things, I'm not sure what else to do with the thread

Well the statement was clarified numerous times, don't know why some people understand exactly what I am saying while others choose not don't perhaps I'm speaking a special language only some people understand...

 

[Desdichado]

Well the statement was clarified numerous times, don't know why some people understand exactly what I am saying while others choose not don't perhaps I'm speaking a special language only some people understand...

I think there's a weird sense of personal something or another on the internet that often bars reasonable discussion. Poster A says that he's posting to clear up a misconception. Poster B doesn't hold that misconception, but the fact that Poster A says he's clearing up a misconception is construed as Poster A saying that he, Poster B, does in fact hold that misconception. Therefore, he takes the post personally and argues vehemenently even though Poster A and Poster B are actually in complete agreement.

I see this kind of weirdness all the time on the internet. It's really... well, weird.