Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I am actually no longer convinced it is all that modular. (But I am not convinced that 4E would be any more modular). At least not more modular then other systems.

I mean, I could change a lot in Shadowrun 4.0, too. The way you earn Karma or improve skills. You could use the skill ratings and use them totally different. You could remove the magic or the cyberware system entirely.

Adding a new magic system for Warhammer 2e, a different skill resolution mechanic, they almost all look a easy - if not easier then in D&D 3E and 4E.

One of the primary reasons I see for this is because both editions have a way to measure character power vs monster power. And this is one of the best features for easy DMing, but also one of the worst for modularity, because suddenly assumptions like "magical items by level", "spells per day/encounter" or "encounter/day" all affect this.

If you can go without this system, maybe it works. But I really don't want to lose that.

The difficult task in D&D here seems to be figuring out how to replace a part of the game system with a new one without affecting this power balance (except maybe where you do it intentionally, like boosting non-spellcasters or weakening spell-casters).
I find this in many aspects harder in 3E then in 4E, because the effects of certain rules are harder to gauge on this. Remove magical items, and certainly all numbers are off - but you don't know how, because what boost items should I expect at each level? Can I expect "optimum" items at each level - what did the designers expect?

 

[Imaro]

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...

Again you assume everyone looks at all of these as problems, which I find hard to believe since we aren't a hive mind (You know, like how not everyone looked at the Wizard as a "problem"), as well as that they like all of them meshed together. Those are pretty big assumptions. I know I like some of them, but I don't like the way all of them came together in 4e and the effect it had on the feel and play style of the game for my group, so for me 4e is not a better choice. YMMV, and all that of course.

The actual misconception is again that 3.5 never addressed these problems and contrary to your popular belief I have seen posters make those type of statements. You don't believe that out of all the people on this board maybe a few or even some have never seen the rules in UA? Well I find it just as hard, especially after I brought them up and people did act like they had never read them before, that everyone does know about them. Neither one of us can prove this and since my thread doesn't in any way impede on your fun with 4e...why do you care?

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!)

The funny thing is the fact that most of these things are labeled as "problems" means they are probably already accounted for in the rules but the core rules handles it badly. Taking your example of reserve points...so what, people have been complaining they want their PC's to go longer without having to rest... this solves that problem, so why would they run into a problem of adapting anything... a game sessions would probably get more done, but I don't see how this causes any problems...since that's what you wanted. Reserve points double hit points, so expect your PC's to go through, on average, 2x as many encounters before having to rest. Just doesn't seem that hard to account for, and after a few play sessions you'll probably have it down pretty much to a science.

Buying 3 new corebooks and the supplements is only easier if...
A. You like all the changes they made
B. Don't care about the investment you've put into 3e
C. Are ready to ride the supplement train again, but of course there''s no guarantee new problems won't pop up and need to be fixed with...variant or optional rules (Skill Challenges)
D. Actaully like the new game enough overall to invest in it.

And I would argue that regardless of how easy the changes are to make in 4e, if you don't like the underlying basis of the game you probably aren't interested in using it. Why is it so hard to believe that many here would rather continue their play experience with 3.5 and tweak it, than pay to switch their play experience totally over to the assumptions of 4e and then still have to tweak it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Taking your example of reserve points...so what, people have been complaining they want their PC's to go longer without having to rest... this solves that problem, so why would they run into a problem of adapting anything...

But then they'd suddenly find out that an adventure whose main challenge is to get through 6 normal encounters and still have time for the final 7th is a little... too easy.

If the adventure was written with the assumption of reserve points, the individual encounters could have been harder and more enjoyable. (Assuming the group is "gamismn" oriented and is in for the challenges.)

And maybe someone wanted to introduce reserve points so he didn't need healing magic (particularly Clerics). But it turns out that you'd still need a Cleric during combat (since some monsters take almost all your hit points with a full attack).

Admittedly, in the second case they would have used the wrong system change, because Reserve Points don't help you here.

Buying 3 new corebooks and the supplements is only easier if...
A. You like all the changes they made
B. Don't care about the investment you've put into 3e
C. Are ready to ride the supplement train again, but of course there''s no guarantee new problems won't pop up and need to be fixed with...variant or optional rules (Skill Challenges)
D. Actaully like the new game enough overall to invest in it.

A. Not neccessarily. Maybe there are changes you don't like, but you find it easier to fix then the issues in the predecessor.
B. Agree. But you might be able to re-use a lot, depending on what you invested in. (Converting adventures is easier as one might expect.)
C. Sure, but if the new system introduces new problems, why should variant rules not also introduce them? (That would be my point.) And getting support for that is a lot less likely then finding fixes for core rules!
D. Sure.

This definitely reminds me that I hope Wulf Ratbanes and Raven Crowkings efforts for a "revision" of 3E do not go unnoticed by people that just don't like 4E but are unhappy with 3E (including UA).

And I would argue that regardless of how easy the changes are to make in 4e, if you don't like the underlying basis of the game you probably aren't interested in using it. Why is it so hard to believe that many here would rather continue their play experience with 3.5 and tweak it, than pay to switch their play experience totally over to the assumptions of 4e and then still have to tweak it?

I find it not hard to believe. But is it hard to believe that some people do not like the variant rules and the house-ruling or fudging or what-else and just don't accept them as a viable answer, either?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But even if someone does come up with a incredibly good build, that’s good for you. The PCs are all on the same team! (typically) The disparity never gets to Angel Summoner and BMX Boy levels. And even if it did, in the game (rather than the skit) Angel Summoner still has a limited number of things he can do in one round when there are pressures that require more. And such.

Well, at a basic level, I fully agree with this. One reason I prefer B/X D&D to 3e is that everyone at the table can “master” the B/X rules and quickly.

But my experience with 3e was different.

For the end of a friend’s campaign, I was invited to play the role of a very powerful NPC against another player playing another very powerful NPC. There is no doubt that his mastery of 3.5 and my lack of mastery was a deciding factor. I don’t know that I would’ve come out on top otherwise, but I know that I simply couldn’t compete because he knew the system better than I did.

But that was a very intentional and unusual player-vs-player situation. In every other campaign, I’m not playing against another player. Therefore, my level of system mastery hasn’t really been an issue.

Now, if you’ve got overly adversarial attitudes between the the DM and players—or even worse between the players themselves—I could see this being a problem. But I think you’ve still got problems no matter what system you’re playing. The complexity of 3e is just emphasizing them.

In most groups, a participant with a higher level of mastery over the system actually helps everyone else so that level of mastery isn’t an issue.

System Mastery wasn't a problem for me because of an antagonistic relationship between myself and the players or pvp. The problem came in power disparity and fun challenges. I have no idea who Angel Summoner and BMX Boy are, but I can say that the power curve between my system masters and non system masters was large enough to cause an issue. The gap grew level-to-level between them and the other players and myself. I wasn't trying to "beat" them. No one at the table was having any fun when an encounter whisked by without a sweat as the system masters took care of the problem for everyone. Even the system masters themselves tired of "cake walk" encounters after more than a couple (the first couple they'd still get some enjoyment out of seeing their new trick work). When I would try to compensate for their mastery and make a fun challenging encounter, they still wouldn't worry much, but other characters started dying, thus frustrating the non system masters. And if I actually dared make anything challenging enough to put the system master characters at risk, the non system master characters would drop so fast it usually resulted in a TPK. So frustration set in and most encounters ended up being boring cakewalks and I saw all my friends show up just to go through the motions of playing a game that we gathered to play for so long.

 

[Imaro]

I find it not hard to believe. But is it hard to believe that some people do not like the variant rules and the house-ruling or fudging or what-else and just don't accept them as a viable answer, either?

Nope, not at all...and I don't think I'm in any way forcing them to use my advice... but to say support or rules for these things don't exist in 3.5 is erroneous, choosing whether you use them or not is, well... a personal choice. We are talking about two different things here, and even though I've tried to stress that fact to you over and over again you seem intent on arguing choice to use as opposed to whether a statement like "A character is stuck with their feat choices in 3.5" is erroneous or not.

 

[Runestar]

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

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.

Yes and no.

For the 1st problem, the issue of regretting a bad character choice can be mitigated/nullified by simply taking some time and effort to first properly conceptualize and design your PC before actually playing him, so you don't end up crying over spilt milk. Map out your progression all the way from 1st lv to whatever level you expect the campaign to end at. Consult experts from the CO boards if you must. Prevention is better than cure, IMO.

For the 2nd problem, I am still not sure what it is about skill challenges which supposedly makes it a main draw of 4e or exclusive to 4e, considering that I should be able to do something similar in 3e. It is just that 4e put more emphasis on fleshing it out, while 3e made no mention of it whatsoever (and so for most part, players remained ignorant of such a possibility, rather than being unable to perform it). Skill challenges are in essence, simply a series of skill checks strung together, after all.

As for the 4th problem, it is not impossible to craft simple and straightforward npcs, though it may affect their effectiveness somewhat (because you are possibly forgoing an optimal build in favour of ease of use). As mentioned, simply select int mod+x skills to max out. Take feats and magic items which provide a constant bonus (so you can simply factor it directly into his stats and ignore it thereafter). And so on.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I am actually no longer convinced it is all that modular.

I'll go a step further to say that 3E never was modular. Modular means the ability to drop something in easily. But every time a new race, (prestige) class, feat, spell, magic item or monster was dropped in it had the possiblity to effect things throughout the game in unexpected ways.

Take new race from book A, class from B, feat from C and bang, overpowered. And its hard to blame the later 3E designers because it is a difficult task to weigh additions in 3E against the openness allowed in character creation (assuming your DM doesn't bring out the ban hammer - but I've addressed before why I prefer a system that doesn't require the use of the ban hammer).

Yes, even monsters! War Troll + Polymorph anyone?

As to whether 4E is modular, I think it's too early to tell. But from the design goals and what little has come out to date, I see it as a much more modular design.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nope, not at all...and I don't think I'm in any way forcing them to use my advice... but to say support or rules for these things don't exist in 3.5 is erroneous, choosing whether you use them or not is, well... a personal choice. We are talking about two different things here, and even though I've tried to stress that fact to you over and over again you seem intent on arguing choice to use as opposed to whether a statement like "A character is stuck with their feat choices in 3.5" is erroneous or not.

The problem is, if we add a lot of material outside of the core rules, it becomes very hard to speak about the game itself with any reasonable certainty. We end up being unable to communicate, because you basically had always to qualify everything. "Just using Core Rules but with UA reserve points, 3E was like this!"
We could play "fun" games about what a game does or does not do if we include all variant rules in the discussion. But I am afraid communication about the game would become nearly impossible.

Now, you pointing out the UA and other options is certainly a good thing to do for people that want to stay with 3E but want to make some changes.
But describing it as misconception seems to muddle the waters when trying to compare editions. But maybe it might be a good idea occasionally to look at these variant rules and describe how they work in 3E and how their equivalent in 4E works. But maybe not. If we change 3E too much, we might as well end up with 4E (or 5E, or 2E, or C&C.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes and no.

For the 1st problem, the issue of regretting a bad character choice can be mitigated/nullified by simply taking some time and effort to first properly conceptualize and design your PC before actually playing him, so you don't end up crying over spilt milk. Map out your progression all the way from 1st lv to whatever level you expect the campaign to end at. Consult experts from the CO boards if you must. Prevention is better than cure, IMO.

But this is the cure, not the prevention! Trying to go online and ask someone else what you should play to not be gimped doesn't sound like an elegant method to me.

For the 2nd problem, I am still not sure what it is about skill challenges which supposedly makes it a main draw of 4e or exclusive to 4e, considering that I should be able to do something similar in 3e. It is just that 4e put more emphasis on fleshing it out, while 3e made no mention of it whatsoever (and so for most part, players remained ignorant of such a possibility, rather than being unable to perform it). Skill challenges are in essence, simply a series of skill checks strung together, after all.

One big advantage is: "Predictability" or the ability to determine the difficulty of the skill challenge. There is a big difference between a 3.5 Rogue with maxed ranks in Search, the same Rogue with a +5 bonus item, and a Int 8 Barbarian with no ranks. And the differences grow with level. I suppose a DM might be able to gather what skill modifiers are in play and can determine appropriate modifiers, but adventure designers are less lucky. The worst part of the difference growth is that at some (unknown!) point, the d20 cannot overcome the difference. The Level 10 Barbarian with his -1 modifier and the Rogue with his +23 (+2 Int, +3 skill focus, 13 ranks, +5 item) modifier. (I think from the d20 based games, only Starwars Saga edition "fixed" this before 4E.)
Skill Challenges are designed as a group challenge (more like a combat then a trap). Many classes in 3E are "gimped" regarding social, perception or knowledge skills. If you do something in that area, it's easy to achieve a point where a character can't contribute.

As for the 4th problem, it is not impossible to craft simple and straightforward npcs, though it may affect their effectiveness somewhat (because you are possibly forgoing an optimal build in favor of ease of use). As mentioned, simply select int mod+x skills to max out. Take feats and magic items which provide a constant bonus (so you can simply factor it directly into his stats and ignore it thereafter). And so on.

I don't think that's the simplest route yet. Because you still have to pick those feats and magic items. The simplest route would be eyeballing "what would he need for stats". That gets a lot easier if there was a list of expected stats by level.

 

[Desdichado]

Also, about the CR and "carefully balanced math" of 3e; I suspect more and more that that is merely a myth, frankly. Those CR's aren't that good in practice.

Not only that, d20 Modern uses the same CR system, even though it assumes little to no magic items and greatly reduced spellcasting capacity (if any at all, depending on the campaign model in play.) And it still works as a rough gauge of how difficult a given creature will be for a party of PCs to face.

I also suspect that the published CRs are a lot more estimated and based on designer judgement call rather than "pure math" than a lot of people give it credit for. I could be wrong, but I've never seen CR as anything more than a very rough gauge, and as such, it works just fine, even with fairly substantial optional rule additions.

Plus; as someone who's played plenty of games who have nothing like CR at all in them (including older editions of D&D) I don't see that as anything like a crippling problem anyway. At best, CR's are a very rough shortcut that needs to be continuously calibrated by the DM's knowledge of his PC's actual capability anyway, not a substitute for doing that.