Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Shroomy]

UA is essentially a set of optional, OGL-derived house rules that either replaces or supplements rules in the core 3.5e game. It doesn't matter if WoTC collected them and placed them in a hard-covered splatbook, that's what they are, and other than a few of the optional class variants (I remember a Paladin of Slaughter or Tyranny in one of the late 3.5e adventures) and the taint/corruption rules (which were modified for future sourcebooks), I don't remember a lot of those rules ever getting any type of official support by WoTC.

 

[Greg K]

UA is essentially a set of optional, OGL-derived house rules that either replaces or supplements rules in the core 3.5e game. It doesn't matter if WoTC collected them and placed them in a hard-covered splatbook,

I don't remember a lot of those rules ever getting any type of official support by WoTC.

First, several of those rules were derived from the designers' own games or dragon articles.

Second, why should anyone care whether or not they got official support. They were released. They provided options for tailoring the game. And, for many of us, several of those options were improvements while the other WOTC supplements which were officially supported were, in general, barely average in quality (if that) and not worth using or contained very little worthy content.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The fact that the "misconceptions" are addressed by later rules seems to reinforce that these were, in fact, problems with 3.5 that had to be patched through additional house rules....

I managed to address them all using just the core rules, way back on page 2 or so. None reading have yet to take issue with those debunkings.

 

[RFisher]

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.

I completely understand, as that was one of the reasons I stopped running 3e myself.

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

<shrug> I’ve done it many times and had a great time doing it. There’s something quite satisfying about being a low-level PC who saves a high-level PC by taking out a threat that—despite being small—would’ve been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Which is not even mentioning the huge number of non-mechanical ways another player contributes to the party. For the stuff that merely comes down to gray-matter, we’re all equals.

But...if you’ve experienced it, you have, & I can’t argue with that.

 

[NilesB]

Unearthed Arcana. Some classes here, action points there, hexes over yonder... Something. And it's in the SRD,

You people keep repeating this lie, it's already been refuted in this thread. Give it up already, you are only making your arguments look intellectually bankrupt.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You people keep repeating this lie, it's already been refuted in this thread. Give it up already, you are only making your arguments look intellectually bankrupt.

I'm pretty sure when they say the SRD, they mean The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org
Anyone posting in this thread has access to the internet, so it's clearly not off-limits.

 

[NilesB]

I'm pretty sure when they say the SRD, they mean The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org
Anyone posting in this thread has access to the internet, so it's clearly not off-limits.

It's not an issue of accessibility.
They are using it's supposed presence in the SRD to claim it's an integral part of the 3.5 ruleset rather than the suppliment it is.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It's not an issue of accessibility.
They are using it's supposed presence in the SRD to claim it's an integral part of the 3.5 ruleset rather than the suppliment it is.

What you quoted said, and I quote (again, for you)

Unearthed Arcana. Some classes here, action points there, hexes over yonder... Something. And it's in the SRD,

So, let's see, what do they say? Ah, it seems they say "It's in the SRD." Which you agree with. Now who's the one being intellectually bankrupt?

You seem to think pointing and screaming over and over again and calling it a suppliment - and I use the "you" as a plural, and I use screaming over and over again because that's what 90% of this thread is - makes a difference.

It doesn't. Why doesn't it? Gee, maybe you should read the several pages of this thread first. Then again, you couldn't bother to read the passage you were quoting, so I admit that could be difficult.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

4e's new "everything is core" will mean they print an adventure and it has a druid and such, and if you don't have the book where druids are introduced, you're (theoretically) screwed.

Why should that be the case? So far, all NPCs have listed all their powers in detail without requiring any references to other books (another huge improvement over 3E). So even if a druid NPC shows up, there won't be any need to have the rules for druid PCs.

All those fancy extended class writeups are needed for player characters only.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Why should that be the case? So far, all NPCs have listed all their powers in detail without requiring any references to other books (another huge improvement over 3E). So even if a druid NPC shows up, there won't be any need to have the rules for druid PCs.

All those fancy extended class writeups are needed for player characters only.

Hence the "theoretically". We don't know what they're going to do in the future. If they assume PHB2 is core and draw on said material without reprinting what is needed, it'll be a problem. I don't know whether they'll do that or not, but my point was simply that 3e had a stated policy of "anything outside the core is not assumed".