Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Hussar]

What are is ability scores and feats?

Not sure, and, quite frankly don't care. The fact that with a reasonable stat buy, and a core character, he's created a PC that is miles behind the rest of the party pretty much says it all.

Imaro, my entire line of questioning throughout this entire little exercise was to question why you needed to put it forth that there are gamers out there who deny the existence of rules support in 3e. That was the way I read your OP and subsequent responses. The link you provided shows someone who knows the rules exist, but not the name of the book. There is a fair difference. Your original 5 points are most certainly covered in later 3e books. I won't dispute that at all. What surprises me is that you seem to think that there are apparently large enough numbers of gamers on these boards who are completely in the dark as to the existence of these rules. Your first response to my first post in this thread was:

Again, and I don't know how many times I will have to say this...it is a misconception that 3.5 does not have rules support for these things. Plain and simple, yes or no question and the answer is yes. /snip

Yes, I agree that would be a misconception. I just had no idea that this misconception was so widespread. Apparently I'm not reading the right threads.

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.

Heck, I didn't even START the whole 4e tangent. I was just discussing things. I'm sorry if you thought I was being agressive in disagreeing with you. I didn't mean to be. Actually, rereading my posts, I barely even mention 4e. Certainly at no point was I trying to "prove" anything. Hobo asked me what innovations appear in 4e that don't in 3e. My answer was none. How is that trying to prove that 4e>3e?

Reread the thread. Only read my posts. I defy to you to find posts where I'm championing anything.

 

[Obryn]

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.

That's kinda not the way 4e works... In published 4e material, there's nothing like a list of 3e spell-like abilities - where, say, a Druid will have the "Lightning Zap" power and you'll need to look it up in the Druid's spell listing.

In 4e stat blocks - both for PCs and NPCs - everything is printed within the stat block. I quite literally never need to reference a book when I'm running 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.

I believe there were Drow Knights and Warlocks in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. IIRC, their abilities weren't totally written up - but it's been a year or so since I've looked.

At any rate, yes, there are clear examples of classes, feats, spells, and the like from splatbooks being used in the latter day 3e adventures.

I think it's a little disingenuous to equate a splatbook like PHB2 with a book like Unearthed Arcana, though. And - forgive me, its been a few days - I don't know that you are.

I don't think you can make the argument that using, say, damage saves, reserve points, or gestalt classes from UA is the same kind of rules modification as simply adding a warlock or duskblade. Or that, because UA rules are listed as options on systemreferencedocuments.org they are somehow more canonical than non-OGL splatbooks. (Remember - UA is not part of the SRD; it's open game content that's been released and put online.) Or that both UA and PHB2 are published books, and therefore should be treated the same way. It's a difference between a modular add-on and a remove-and-replace of fundamental system mechanics.

Or, more to the point, there's a difference between a drow warlock appearing in a published module; and one drow who uses damage saves while everyone else is using hit points without any in-game rationale (like being hooked up to a device or under an enchantment) for being different.

-O

 

[Vocenoctum]

That's kinda not the way 4e works... In published 4e material, there's nothing like a list of 3e spell-like abilities - where, say, a Druid will have the "Lightning Zap" power and you'll need to look it up in the Druid's spell listing.

In 4e stat blocks - both for PCs and NPCs - everything is printed within the stat block. I quite literally never need to reference a book when I'm running the game.

I've only got the 4e PHB, have no plans on DMing 4e so don't need the other stuff. So, yeah, I don't know how they're doing stuff, I was just referencing the "stated goal" or 3e vs (AFAIK) no such policy for 4e.

As I said in my other post, the inanity of the "reprint all" stuff is that it pads the word count with repetition. 3.5 reprinted the Immediate action half-page block in nearly every book after introduction.

The flip side is the 2e method of having books that reference other books and lead to a lot of bloat. 4e seems to be going this way, but without the release schedule to really bloat things up. Actually I think it'll just be a few "core" books each year followed with other stuff that won't be referenced or whatnot.

I believe there were Drow Knights and Warlocks in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. IIRC, their abilities weren't totally written up - but it's been a year or so since I've looked.

I lack the book, so no first hand knowledge, but in general Warlock's were written up with "eldritch bolt, this attack has blah range and does bleh damage". Not total writeups, but you could use them in play.

I think it's a little disingenuous to equate a splatbook like PHB2 with a book like Unearthed Arcana, though. And - forgive me, its been a few days - I don't know that you are.

I think "splatbook" has drifted from it's original use, and is being used so murkily that it's lost all meaning, especially in this thread.

Back in the day, WW produced tribebooks, clanbooks, tradition books, what have you. On the internet, someone started referencing them as *books to ease things along, which was "splatbook" after a bit. Eventually it just meant "cheesy padding of books" type of deal, to refer to low-quality addons tossed at the fans for money. (Though, I liked plenty of clanbooks and creedbooks...)

PHB2 isn't really a splatbook, and UA certainly isn't. The big difference is that PHB2 will be building on stuff from core and will be integrated into the core system, whereas UA is alternatives to core assumptions.

When you're discussing "rules support" for a concept though, I'd say both are open for discussion. It's not like we're discussing "what is canon" or "what is core", and I think we all accept that UA is not "core". Some of us might debate whether PHB2 is also core though.

(For example, if PHB2 has grappling rules in it, can you argue that grappling is core or no? Well, who cares except the internet?

 

[Obryn]

I've only got the 4e PHB, have no plans on DMing 4e so don't need the other stuff. So, yeah, I don't know how they're doing stuff, I was just referencing the "stated goal" or 3e vs (AFAIK) no such policy for 4e.

I think it was all a part of the grand, overall scheme to cut down on reference times when looking up spell like abilities - namely that the statblock literally tells you everything you need to know about a creature's combat abilities.

I lack the book, so no first hand knowledge, but in general Warlock's were written up with "eldritch bolt, this attack has blah range and does bleh damage". Not total writeups, but you could use them in play.

It's been a while, but I remember sketchy descriptions... Again, IIRC, the warlock invocations weren't all spelled out... It would have been rough if they had! I think the suggestion may have been to replace the Warlocks with something else if you didn't have the book. But now I have assumption on assumption, and I should really just quit.

PHB2 isn't really a splatbook, and UA certainly isn't. The big difference is that PHB2 will be building on stuff from core and will be integrated into the core system, whereas UA is alternatives to core assumptions.

When you're discussing "rules support" for a concept though, I'd say both are open for discussion. It's not like we're discussing "what is canon" or "what is core", and I think we all accept that UA is not "core". Some of us might debate whether PHB2 is also core though.

(For example, if PHB2 has grappling rules in it, can you argue that grappling is core or no? Well, who cares except the internet?

I have absolutely no stake in the argument over whether or not any given supplement is core.

I do, however, think it's kinda bizarre to argue that the rules in Unearthed Arcana are the same type of rules as the added classes, feats, spells, and whatnot in PHB2. You're not doing that, but I've seen it on and off in the thread. (Including with the reductio ad absurdum that "everything is optional," which more or less ends - or at least sidesteps - the conversation, because at that point there's no system we can have a conversation about.)

-O

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think there's a substantial difference between UA and PHB2 rules. I don't think that option vs. core is a meaningful distinction.

True; 3.5 at heart was one game, and a lot of the option rules are merely add-ons, whereas others are more like patches or updates. 4e is a different game with a lot of similarities, but also some significant differences.

Still; what are we talking about exactly? If you like 4e, you play 4e. Hooray for you! If you like 3.5 better---either with or without a few "optional" rules---then you play that instead. Hooray for you too!

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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".

Well, what would you need the material in the PHB2 for? For creating player characters, nothing else. If there are any NPCs in published adventures and whatnot that make use of powers listed in that book, then they will reprint the powers and include them directly in the NPC stat block. Leaving them out and forcing DMs to refer to other books would be a radical departure from how they are doing it now - and it would be utterly pointless, too.

 

[Obryn]

I don't think there's a substantial difference between UA and PHB2 rules. I don't think that option vs. core is a meaningful distinction.

Then - not meaning any snark - how do you discuss a game system? If there's no distinction between option and core; or between core, supplement, option, and houserule... Well, I think you're removing the system from any discussion of a system. Which is dandy if you don't want to talk about it, but if you do, you need a set of agreed-upon assumptions. If you don't have them ... well, you end up with 12 pages of this.

True; 3.5 at heart was one game, and a lot of the option rules are merely add-ons, whereas others are more like patches or updates. 4e is a different game with a lot of similarities, but also some significant differences.

Right. It's only relevant in response to the OP, and the ensuing discussion over the difference between what a system does,, what it can do, and what it's intended to do. I think it kinda took on a life of its own.

Still; what are we talking about exactly? If you like 4e, you play 4e. Hooray for you! If you like 3.5 better---either with or without a few "optional" rules---then you play that instead. Hooray for you too!

No argument from me, here, but I think you know that.

-O

 

[Desdichado]

I dunno; how did we ever talk about D&D before? I've yet to hear of a 1e game that didn't use some house rule or other. The original Unearthed Arcana was a fairly controversial set of optional rules.

I think at some point there's a sufficient "preponderance of commonality" that you can talk about a game, even though two people's games may have some differences, and still have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Obryn]

I dunno; how did we ever talk about D&D before? I've yet to hear of a 1e game that didn't use some house rule or other. The original Unearthed Arcana was a fairly controversial set of optional rules.

I think at some point there's a sufficient "preponderance of commonality" that you can talk about a game, even though two people's games may have some differences, and still have a meaningful discussion.

That's a good point. IMHO, there's some stuff that's very far-reaching (using 2d10 radically changes all probabilities in the game; damage saves radically change the HP system and assumptions of survival) and some stuff that's relatively mild (reserve points, imho, do little except lessen the need for CLW wands; action points are really just an add-on system that will do little except make some challenges easier).

I'm only saying if everything is optional, then nothing is definite. And you need to at least establish ground rules - or find your commonality - in order to have a productive discussion.

I kinda think this entire thread is an attempt to settle on the ground rules.

-O

 

[Vocenoctum]

Well, what would you need the material in the PHB2 for? For creating player characters, nothing else.

And what if they present rules in supplements, such as Grapple? Do they reprint the grapple rules every time they have a monster that grapples, or do they reference the Big Book O' Grappling? Like I said, it flows to more than simply adventures, that was just something I mentioned in response to the other posters example of an adventure. In 2e, books drew on plenty of other books.