Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Jürgen Hubert]

It all depends on how you define tacked on vs core. I can play a druid with the 3.5 core books... can't with 4e. And the only reason I will be able to do so in the future (after PH2) is because the concept of "core rules" has been redefined to include what 3.5 covered in splat books.

I always thought that that redefinition was rather silly. So I will state that the core rules of 3.5 support druid player characters while the core rules of 4E don't.

Though I do think that the 4E rules are the system that's more fun...

 

[Scribble]

Again I think it's a question of future material.

Once the druid is released since that book is now labled "core" the game will then "assume" druids are a part of the game.

This is different then previously, when the game didn't assume classes like "the knight" were part of the game.

 

[Desdichado]

Again I think it's a question of future material.

Once the druid is released since that book is now labled "core" the game will then "assume" druids are a part of the game.

This is different then previously, when the game didn't assume classes like "the knight" were part of the game.

*sigh* Yet again, that's actually not true. I don't have any specific examples for knight, but here's a simple example of where you're clearly wrong. In Drow of the Underdark, the book uses tons of material from other sources. There are NPC write-ups of Warmages, Warlocks, Favored Souls, Soulknives, Swashbucklers and more. There are Vile feats. There is a template from MM3 that's applied to several NPCs. There are rules referred to from the setting specific book Underdark.

I don't remember offhand seeing anything specifically from PHB2, but all these "optional" rules from the splatbooks that everyone keeps claiming never show up again? Dead wrong. They absolutely do.

 

[Scribble]

I don't remember offhand seeing anything specifically from PHB2, but all these "optional" rules from the splatbooks that everyone keeps claiming never show up again? Dead wrong. They absolutely do.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong I'll admit so. I just don't remember that being the case.

 

[Henry]

The thing that's poignant to me is that, if you take all of Imaro's optional rules and add them in, you're all but playing 4th edition, at that point, minus the healing surge and powers rules, which seem the most objectionable parts of 4E. It's not like 4E jumped on the stage with a bunch of new concepts - they were written on the wall from three to five years ago.

Me, I just wish I could adapt 4E's math and NPC rules to 3.5's variety of options. I'd have the happiest game table in the world.

 

[Desdichado]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong I'll admit so. I just don't remember that being the case.

OK. So we've got you with your vague memories, and me with a late era 3.5 book in my actual hand right at this very moment so I can pull specific examples out of it.

Regardless of what you remember, you're wrong. I'm looking at it in black and white right here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Regardless of what you remember, you're wrong. I'm looking at it in black and white right here.

Exemplars of Evil (one of my favorite 3e books) uses material as well.

It's false to say that material presented in one book never again made an appearance.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong I'll admit so. I just don't remember that being the case.

Magic Item Compendium had items for various non-core classes, such as the Wilder, Scout, and Marshal (the latter getting an entire item set shared with the bard).
Many later spel-containing books aside from Spell Compendium had new spells for other classes. I know full well Complete Mage had Wu Jen spells, for instance.
Complete Mage's alternate class features listed several non-core classes where appropriate. For example, the ACF to trade Evasion lists Scout along with Monk and Ranger.

If I cared enough to thoroughly disprove you, I could actually crack open the books instead of going on memory.

 

[RFisher]

To some degree this is true. However, it does ignore a couple of salient issues.

Of course! How could I be defending 3e if I weren’t? ^_^

I’m no fan of 3e’s system mastery aspect. That’s one of the reasons I prefer B/X. In my experience, however, it never gets anywhere near as bad as it gets painted. And I have a hard time imagining it ever getting that bad unless there are other problems involved.

The problem came in power disparity and fun challenges.

Maybe you needed to scale wide instead of deep? Did you try having combinations of challenges so that while the higher-power PCs were tied up dealing with their own problem the lower-power PCs would still have other challenges to deal with?

I have never seen a PC or set of PCs so powerful that they couldn’t make good use of another warm-body.

The thing that's poignant to me is that, if you take all of Imaro's optional rules and add them in, you're all but playing 4th edition, at that point, minus the healing surge and powers rules, which seem the most objectionable parts of 4E. It's not like 4E jumped on the stage with a bunch of new concepts - they were written on the wall from three to five years ago.

Yeah. It just jumped on the stage with two big new parts that lots of people objected to. ^_^ Isn’t that the whole point of many people. Not that they are against change but that 4e was too much change. I think a lot of people would be happier with a 4e without healing surges or the powers rules.

Even so: A lot of people don’t keep up with the supplements. So, most of these changes did hit them by surprise. A lot of people who do keep up with the supplements remain very picky about what they allow in their game. So, whether it was mostly out there anyway doesn’t mean that they like all that stuff suddenly being in by default.

Me, I just wish I could adapt 4E's math and NPC rules to 3.5's variety of options. I'd have the happiest game table in the world.

If a wide variety of options is important to you, you are not a good candidate for early adopter. Give 4e time. It’ll get there.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Maybe you needed to scale wide instead of deep? Did you try having combinations of challenges so that while the higher-power PCs were tied up dealing with their own problem the lower-power PCs would still have other challenges to deal with?

This would make me feel like an adult that's been told to go sit at the kid's table on Thanksgiving. Here, you guys suck, let the real party members handle the big bad men.

Seriously, I did try but it was still frustrating to me because I have become a casual DM. I don't have the time or desire for System Mastery. So the stuff I thought would challenge them usually fell flat. Or made me feel antagonistic by purposefully choosing challenges that would trump their abilities. Or would be too over the top and TPK them. It all became an exercise I was no longer willing to endure.

I have never seen a PC or set of PCs so powerful that they couldn’t make good use of another warm-body.

Playing said warm body isn't much fun either, IMO. Talk about feeling like BMX Bandit.