Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[StreamOfTheSky]

To some degree this is true. However, it does ignore a couple of salient issues. Firstly, there is a danger that the System Master starts dictating to the other players what they should take. In a sense, instead of helping, he's actually going further and pretty much writing other people's character's for them.

This can cause a great deal of friction in a group. The System Master can become very frustrated when he sees others taking obviously (in his mind anyway) sub par options and the others can get frustrated because the System Master's priorities are different from the other player's priorities. If you're taking Skill Focus Candlemaking because you want to be a superb candle maker the System Master is possibly going to freak because you're bringing down the party batting average so to speak.

((Arrgh, interruptions, will finish this later.))

It might be a bit frustrating, but if you're a decent human being and respect the very basic fact that It's his character, and he decides what to do with him, you just let it go, and no argument starts.

That's what's great about 3E. If you want to be a professional candlemaker (nay, the best candlemaker!), you can be, and you can stand beside the CoDzilla and the batman wizard. Will you absolutely suck ass in combat compared to the system mastered guys? Of course. But you chose to not worry about combat performance so much, so you can accept that just as the system master can get over the "weakening of the party"* I don't deny you your rights to build your character the way you want, so why do you feel the need to homogenize the rules and lessen how much I can fiddle with my character just to forcibly drag me closer to your purposely chosen power level?

*And I don't buy this. A responsible system master just shrugs at the things beyond his control and works with what he's got. So one guy doesn't want to optimize, maybe more. "Oh well, the DM will just scale the encounter difficulties to fit what our party can handle anyway. Back to figuring out my level 18 feat!" And yes, that means if 4E were the last edition of RPG on earth and I were forced to play it, I would try and make lemonade from the lemons presented to me.

One thing system masters tend to have in common is the desire to crave "challenges." Check out the 3.5 char op boards. There's plenty of threads on taking some race, class, mechanic, etc... that's widely ignored or laughed at as weak, and trying to break the hell out of it. If there were such a candlemaker PC in my party and he was willing to listen to my advice on build so long as it respects his singular focus on candles, I would certainly try and find some way to make that useful in as many situations as possible. Not sure how it could be done, but it'd certainly be fun to mull over!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Part of the DM's job is to make sure the players are having fun.

That is certainly true. But - if a DM has the choice to incorporate several house rules and optional/variant rules from supplements, or switching to a system that contains the options he wants from the beginning, with further supplements expanding or relying on them, isn't that a great thing for him? Is it not also easier for him to switch to the new system?

Maybe it's a misconception to say that 3.5 doesn't have rules for certain things. But it's a misconception to believe that variant rules and optional rules or house rules are automatically sufficient!

 

[Desdichado]

That is certainly true. But - if a DM has the choice to incorporate several house rules and optional/variant rules from supplements, or switching to a system that contains the options he wants from the beginning, with further supplements expanding or relying on them, isn't that a great thing for him? Is it not also easier for him to switch to the new system?

Possibly, but only if he likes everything else that comes with the new system as well as he likes everything that comes with the older system. The true situation is not quite so binary; I think the point was originally brought up (well, I should know, I made the point first in the other thread) in the context of liking 3.5 better than 4e, yet finding a few 4e "core assumptions" to be pretty good ideas that had broad applicability within 3.5 as well.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That is certainly true. But - if a DM has the choice to incorporate several house rules and optional/variant rules from supplements, or switching to a system that contains the options he wants from the beginning, with further supplements expanding or relying on them, isn't that a great thing for him? Is it not also easier for him to switch to the new system?

"Retraining feats" is hardly a totally new mechanic though. Same with having a series of skill DCs to meet. The different magic systems are the closest, but even those still operate strongly on the bare bones of the system itself - Incarnum and ToB both only alter one very, very small part of the system. I think it's safe to say that 4e has a lot more changes then "the first book has retraining feats instead of the, like, fifth."

Maybe it's a misconception to say that 3.5 doesn't have rules for certain things. But it's a misconception to believe that variant rules and optional rules or house rules are automatically sufficient!

Ahh, but there you're putting house rules and optional/variant rules in the same catagory. They aren't. House rules are for when the publishers and developers either don't see the problem or haven't made a solution. Optional and varient rules are by the developers, and that's a very important thing to note. It means they DID see the problem, but obviously couldn't go back in time to prevent it from happening. So they make the new rule.

Again, the core argument here seems to be "It doesn't count if it's not in the first three books." And I'm sorry, but that's a really lame argument, because...well, yes. Yes, it still counts, because it's still the developers who see - and fix - the problem. Yes, it's in a later book, but again, until we master time travel, that's going to have to do. For many players, it's a problem that 4e doesn't have druids. For Exalted players, it might've been a problem early on that they couldn't play Lunar Exalts. Yet I think it's incredibly stupid to blast Exalted for the inability to play Lunar Exalts, and I think most if not all Exalted fans would call me a moron if I did - and rightfully so. Likewise, once the druid class for 4e comes out, it would be immensely stupid to say "4e doesn't have druids, those were just added in a LATER book!"

 

[Hussar]

/snippige for length

And I agree with you 100%. I was pointing out possible issues, not saying that they were foregone conclusions.

The problem with the candlemaker though, is that sometimes, through no fault of your own, you've made that character and suddenly you're sitting on your thumbs for several sessions.

I like to go back to the rogue's being sidelined thing. See, it's true, it doesn't have to happen. If you take the right feats, or the right spells, it doesn't. But, say that it only happens for one adventure. Is it worth spending the resources for that one adventure? Probably not. But, for me at least, an adventure generally lasts about 6 sessions. That means for six solid weeks, the rogue player is sidelined through absolutely no fault of his own.

If it was one fight, like say how casters are sidelined somewhat against golems, then that's fine. But, take the typical crypt scenario, now the rogue is twiddling his thumbs for hours on end because he suddenly does as much damage as the average house cat.

This is the problem that comes up. When the player is punished for doing nothing wrong. The guy who is playing the rogue isn't choosing to suck in combat. Rogue's generally don't suck in combat. But, the rules are such that, for not insignificant amount of time, I'm going to really suck at combat.

So, we see a plethora of variant rules to help the rogue not suck at combat when dealing with specific monsters.

Wow, I've really digressed and I think I've actually lost my point. I'm going to stop now and reread for a while.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Possibly, but only if he likes everything else that comes with the new system as well as he likes everything that comes with the older system. The true situation is not quite so binary; I think the point was originally brought up (well, I should know, I made the point first in the other thread) in the context of liking 3.5 better than 4e, yet finding a few 4e "core assumptions" to be pretty good ideas that had broad applicability within 3.5 as well.

But they have the advantage of being "core assumptions" and not latter added variant rules. If a system is build from the core up with certain design elements, it will usually be better at it then just some variant rules. And as such I say it is a valid critique to say that a certain system starts with different assumptions then you prefer.

And thus I think it's not a misconception that 3.5 is lacking in certain regards, even if there are variant rules...

The biggest issue with variant rules is the lack of ongoing support. How much do you want to have to adapt every further supplement to fit it to your variant rules. If you add reserve points, characters can fight longer. An adventure that based a lot of its pace and difficulty on attrition will feel different (probably a lot easier) with an extra pool of hit points between combats. (Though to be fair, it probably won't affect the typical 3E Adventure Path ). If you switch to the 3 base classes (Expert, Warrior, Adept?), what do you do with NPCs in adventure modules or new PrCs and Core Classes? How do you integrate these concepts?
Sure, you can always convert the individual class or NPC if you think you want it. But it introduces more work. And you didn't really wanted more work. You wanted to follow a different assumption.

Buying 3 new core rulebooks and then maybe getting the supplements is far easier. Because you just need to browse the books and pick the things you want - they work "out of the box".

(I might also argue that some changes are easier to do in 4E then in 3E - the rules are more transparent in may ways. It's a shame that it's not OGL, really... Try removing magical items in 3E and try removing then in 4E!)

 

[Imaro]

Hell, I'd say almost all the 4e "innovations" have appeared SOMEWHERE in 3e books. Very, very few are entirely new. I'm actually at a loss to think of any innovations in 4e that haven't appeared in some form in 3e.

Granted some of them have been taken to a much greater extent - at will/encounter/daily powers being available to all classes for example - but, that system certainly appears in 3e. The Binder from Tome of Magic is the clearest example I can think of for that system in 3e. You've got the daily ability to bind X number of vestiges, each of which grant you a suite of at will and encounter powers.

I think it's an easy question to answer honestly. "What innovations were created whole cloth for 4e?" Almost none of them.

Again, I have no knowledge of the other thread. I agree completely with you and Imaro that somewhere within the rules space of 3e, there is a published solution to just about every issue that exists in 3e. I'm still not seeing anyone claiming anything differently. Hallivar I suppose is closest in that he's talking about access to those rules sets. But, even he is not claiming that the rules don't exist.

Emphasis mine #1: Yeah, that is an easy question to answer...to bad it's neither the question "asked" or the purpose of this thread. Again this thread is about showing people where in the expansive collection of 3.5 books they can find solutions to some of the problems they may have with 3.5.

Emphasis mine #2: That's not the point of the thread, I am actually asking for people to help me and those interested in finding and compiling these solutions so when that misconception does come up there is a place to point people... sory this thread is in some way stepping all over your fun and sensibilities... but it's really not about you or 4e.

 

[Imaro]

OK, I have a question related to the solutions given in the original posting. Am I right in assuming that Unearthed Arcana is a collection of variant and optional rules? Is the same valid with regard to the Player's Handbook II?

UA yes...PHB 2 no, not variant but like everything it is optional.

A second question: can any of the misconceptions/problems mentioned in the original post be solved/corrected/remedied without using optional or variant rules?

Perhaps, but are you talking about in the realm of house rules? If so we have a whole forum for that... furthermore I think it is still valuable to know where these things are so those who like 3.5 overall but may want to tweak a few things can use these rules as examples suggestions and a basis for doing their own thing.

I would find solutions based on what is defined as 3.0/3.5 Core Rules to be more useful and potentially more palatable to a great many DMs and players. This is especially true for those who only have or use the Core Rules and not the SRD.

Again are you asking for house rules, because any DM can make his own rules up...otherwise, like every rpg, the core rules are the basis of the game and designed to play a certain way. In 3.5 many of those rules are modular and can be tweaked or changed... but are you looking for those changes and tweaks to be in the core as well? If so I think thats an unreasonable desire...it's like saying you want every further option, class, etc. in the core... it's just so big and thus can't happen without making it unwieldy.

 

[Imaro]

That is certainly true. But - if a DM has the choice to incorporate several house rules and optional/variant rules from supplements, or switching to a system that contains the options he wants from the beginning, with further supplements expanding or relying on them, isn't that a great thing for him? Is it not also easier for him to switch to the new system?

Maybe it's a misconception to say that 3.5 doesn't have rules for certain things. But it's a misconception to believe that variant rules and optional rules or house rules are automatically sufficient!

What about the possibility that he only wants one of thos variant rules from the supplements? Is it them easier to first spend the mponey on a brand new system and then proceed to take out all the other subsystems he doesn't like and replace them with those from the old game... sometimes that isn't even possible, how would you go about adding 3.5 style vancian magic back into 4e?

Who said they were automatically sufficient? Hussar, get out of the 4e vs. 3.5 mindset, no one except you and a few other posters are trying to prove one is better than the other. Then maybe you'll see that this thread could actually be both a good reference point and jumping off point to discussing some of these rules to fix "problems" for those of us who still enjoy 3.5 and may just want to tweak it a little bit.

In fact here you go Hussar:

For anyone who likes all the changes we list here, and how they all interact to create a different play style from 3.5. Then 4e is probably a better system for you. It builds all of these assumptions into core so you just have to buy 3 new books and you will have a game perfectly suited to you. Take this with a grain of salt as well, since 4e also has many changes not listed here that you may not enjoy.

On the other hand, for those who already have or would perhaps like to buy one or two discounted supplements, enjoy playing 3.5 in general but maybe want to tweak it a little bit but not necessarily integrate everything we talk about here or even pick and choose which of these "problems" you feel need to be addressed in your particular campaign... this thread is for you. Take this with a grain of salt as you will probably have to do a little work to tweak the game to where you want it.

 

[Desdichado]

But they have the advantage of being "core assumptions" and not latter added variant rules. If a system is build from the core up with certain design elements, it will usually be better at it then just some variant rules. And as such I say it is a valid critique to say that a certain system starts with different assumptions then you prefer.

Let me put that in my own words and see if I understood you correctly: you should find the system that most closely aligns with what you like to begin with so you can minimize the amount of tweaking necessary to get the gaming experience you want.

Well, yeah. Sure. No argument there in the least.

And thus I think it's not a misconception that 3.5 is lacking in certain regards, even if there are variant rules...

No, absolutely not. It's an opinion, and therefore can't be a misconception by definition.

The biggest issue with variant rules is the lack of ongoing support. How much do you want to have to adapt every further supplement to fit it to your variant rules. If you add reserve points, characters can fight longer. An adventure that based a lot of its pace and difficulty on attrition will feel different (probably a lot easier) with an extra pool of hit points between combats. (Though to be fair, it probably won't affect the typical 3E Adventure Path ). If you switch to the 3 base classes (Expert, Warrior, Adept?), what do you do with NPCs in adventure modules or new PrCs and Core Classes? How do you integrate these concepts?
Sure, you can always convert the individual class or NPC if you think you want it. But it introduces more work. And you didn't really wanted more work. You wanted to follow a different assumption.

Those are certainly better examples than the ones produced so far, but I still firmly believe that this "problem" is significantly overstated. But part of that may be my willingness as a GM to handwave rules as needed. I don't worry about NPCs in published modules because technically they don't need to be converted. The generic classes interact just fine with NPCs built using the "regular" classes, and I can, if needed, adjust difficulty on the fly by arbitrarily reducing or expanding hit points, to hit bonuses, skill bonus, saves, damage or effectiveness of NPC tactics.

But I'll be the first to admit that my personality and GMing style make that significantly easier for me than it may be for many others, to the point where I don't even percieve a problem at all that others may think is extremely difficult to overcome.