Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[garyh]

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

Your DM doesn't own / allow PHB2, so you can't retrain.
Problem

I loved UA, and used it a lot when I ran 3.5. One of my favorite rules variants was reserve hit points. I always used them when I ran 3.5. Not once, however, did I ever get to play with reserve hit points as a part of the rules, as my DMs, for whatever reasons, didn't choose to allow them.

4e uses Healing Surges, the spiritual decendent of reserve hit points, and they're part of the core rules, and thus are allowed in any game where they haven't been house-ruled out.

Can you see why the situation in 4e would be preferable, even though the rules - when allowed - are similar in each edition?

 

[Imaro]

Your DM doesn't own / allow PHB2, so you can't retrain.
Problem

I loved UA, and used it a lot when I ran 3.5. One of my favorite rules variants was reserve hit points. I always used them when I ran 3.5. Not once, however, did I ever get to play with reserve hit points as a part of the rules, as my DMs, for whatever reasons, didn't choose to allow them.

4e uses Healing Surges, the spiritual decendent of reserve hit points, and they're part of the core rules, and thus are allowed in any game where they haven't been house-ruled out.

Can you see why the situation in 4e would be preferable, even though the rules - when allowed - are similar in each edition?

Perhaps you should have suggested them to your DM's and you would have known why they didn't use them, it could be a simple matter of them not knowing or forgetting about them.

Whose arguing which edition is "preferable"?

edit: Apparently if you've chosen to play 4e and have given up on 3.5 completely then I doubt anything in this thread will be of relevance to you... however, this thread wasn't created for you, I know it's hard to accept but this ain't about 4e, it's about 3.5 and last time I checked this was still General, not 4e.

Edit 2: I have seen numerous posts by people who have taken things like healing surges or retraining from 4e and put them in their 3.5 games... well surprise, surprise in case your curious there are optons in 3.5 to do some of these things, maybe you don't know about them or where they are so here...take a look.

 

[carmachu]

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.

Really?

So by that logic then when PHB2, PHB3, PHB4 come out for 4e, folks really wont be playing 4e, just a variant of it?

 

[garyh]

I simply tried to illustrate, as others have, the difference between "There's a variant rule for it in Splat Book #452," while entirely true, may not be as good as "It's right there in PHB1 as a core principle of the game." A lot of DM's don't like using lots of splats or variant rules.

I dunno, the tone of your posts seems to be less about increasing awareness of 3.5 options and more about refuting what many consider improvements of 4e by saying "3.x already did it (in a variant rule).

 

[Scribble]

Really?

So by that logic then when PHB2, PHB3, PHB4 come out for 4e, folks really wont be playing 4e, just a variant of it?

I think the big difference wil be new material going forward.

Since they've decided that new PHBs and DMGs will be considered "core" material published after those books will assume the rules in those books as part of the game.

3e did not consider material published in UA as part of the game going forward. (Nor did it consider optional rules in design decisions.) If you chose those rules, you were no longer playing what future material assumed you were playing.

So while Imaro is correct in there being many instances of developed optional rules to overcome perceived problems with the system, the game itself did not assume these options were being used. So while they might correct the problem, the end user would then be responsable for updating all future elements to account for the change.

 

[Imaro]

I dunno, the tone of your posts seems to be less about increasing awareness of 3.5 options and more about refuting what many consider improvements of 4e by saying "3.x already did it (in a variant rule).

I mentioned 4e once in my original post, was called on it and apologized for even bringing it up (even tried to avoid it by using a differnet game as an examplse), but I think there's alot of reading what one wants to into what I'm posting going on here.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Again, this doesn't answer my question. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? Who is denying the existence of these solutions? When someone says, "You cannot retrain in 3e" you simply answer, "Yes, you can, ref. PHB 2".

Now, whether or not that's a good answer will depend on lots of factors. But, no one can deny that the issue has not been addressed. But, I rarely, if ever, see anyone denying the existence of these solutions. Far more often I see people (it even happened in this thread) denying the existence of the problem in the first place.

But, you cannot deny the existence of the solution. For that, Imaro, you are 100% correct. I just think you've created a position to argue against that no one would reasonably take.

Take an issue that I have with 3e - rogues being sidelined during combat by various creature types that are immune to sneak attack. ((Let's ignore the side argument that this isn't really an issue, but is in fact, all my own fault)) This is a problem IMO in 3e. Now, there are solutions in official rule books to this problem. There are a number of spells scattered around various books that will allow the rogue to sneak attack. I believe there are a few feats that will as well. IIRC there is a variant class feature in PHB 2 that allows rogues to have some effect against unsneakable creatures.

That doesn't change the fact that in 4e, this problem doesn't exist in the first place. In 4e, you can sneak anything. So, is it not fair to say that 4e solves a problem of 3e? The existence of 3e solutions to a problem does not change anything. Yes, there may be other solutions to the problem. But, for some people, they have the perception that 4e solves these problems better.

I'm still somewhat surprised that anyone would honestly argue that these solutions do not exist in 3e though given the huge number of books for 3e.

The "Why do you still play 4e?" thread was full of claims that 4e did x, y or z, and that's why the poster likes it. There was a brief discussion in that thread that pointed out that many of those things 3e did too, so it doesn't really answer the implied question of why 4e (as opposed to sticking with 3e---and I say 3e meaning 3.5 as well). The discussion jumped briefly to Circvs Maximvs, then Imaro started a new thread for it here.

I suspect many of the people who were making those claims would, indeed, agree with Imaro that the support in 3e was there. As always, the reasons one plays a given game are difficult to describe objectively, because someone can always come along and say, "well this other game does that too; why did you quit playing it, then?" but honestly, that's not really the point. You play a game because it clicks with you and that's it.

But, many of those complaints did, at least, give the impression that folks who were playing 4e didn't understand the scope of what 3e could do and support, though. Whether that was intentional or not.

Thanks for this Hobo. That places this conversation in a bit more context. Like I said, I would agree 100% with Imaro that many of the issues in 3e had 3e solutions somewhere in the books. And, I would also agree that many of these solutions are quite elegant. I would certainly disagree with anyone who tried to claim that these solutions did not exist at all.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Your DM doesn't own / allow PHB2, so you can't retrain.
Problem

So, your DM is operating under the misconception that there is no 3.5 system for retraining?

Can you see why the situation in 4e would be preferable, even though the rules - when allowed - are similar in each edition?

I'd wonder if your DM would say "well, we're not going to play 4e since they ruined it by making hit points too easy" or something.

The point of the thread is more about folks saying "3.5 didn't do this", not whether it was right or wrong or better in 4e. But, really, the thread is just another edition war thread now, since there is no way to discuss differences when there's an emotional attachment.

 

[Oni]

Really?

So by that logic then when PHB2, PHB3, PHB4 come out for 4e, folks really wont be playing 4e, just a variant of it?

Not at all. Adding a new class for instance does not in anyway rewrite the RAW. However if optional rules were given that changed how the RAW worked, then yes you would just be playing a variation should you use them.

[Edit for clarification: This isn't an issue of core vs. non-core, but rather consistancy of the base game mechanics.]

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Your DM doesn't own / allow PHB2, so you can't retrain.
Problem

Then is the problem with the system, which has a solution, or is the problem with the DM, that denies it?

Exalted players don't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to play Lunars in Exalted, they say "Oh, just use the book."

Likewise, 3.5 players shouldn't kick and scream about how they aren't allowed to retrain feats in 3.5, they should say "Oh, just use the book."

Which most do.

I don't see why 4e keeps being brought up. Yes, I'm glad 4e took a 3.5 rule and made it core. That doesn't mean "4e is better then 3.5, HAH!" It means "4e is using something from 3.5. It saw the rule wizards made for 3.5 and decided to utilize it in it's own system." I'm sorry, but the whining about what is and isn't core seems like just a very shallow front to puff out your chest and show how your game is so much better. And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.

And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.

And that's not needed in this thread. At all. So stop.