Thumbs Down to 3.5 Edition

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

3.5 > 3.0 (this should have been a poll)

3.5 fixed so many more problems than it created for my campaign, and in most ways it makes a lot more sense.

I'm still not going to forgive them for not nerfing Mord's Disjunction though

PS where is this mini-mania coming from? I'm terrible at math and yet I can turn 1 square into 5 feet pretty quickly.

I don't use minis and 3.5 hasn't made it harder for me to play and DM at all.

 

[Kershek]

I don't use minis and 3.5 hasn't made it harder for me to play and DM at all.

How do you deal with things like attacks of opportunity (in its many forms of being triggered), flanking, sneak attacks, cleave, whirlwind attack, spell effects that have multiple opponent distance limiters (like magic missile), mobility, combat reflexes, and cover from ranged attacks made by people in the way? Without fudging, of course.

 

[Flyspeck23]

(A recent example is a barbarian wanting to lean his greastword against a wall while he switched weapons, so he could pick it back up as a free action later. OK, but on the basis that drawing a weapon is a move-equivalent action, leaning the weapon against a wall is also a move-equivalent action, and on the basis that your barbarian will be leaning it against the wall so that it doesn't fall over and can be picked up easily in future, his attention is distracted by doing so, and it provokes an attack of opportunity, rules I. Well, in that case I just drop the {expletive} thing, responds he. In 2E, I'd rule the proposed action was fine and dandy, it's not like drawing a weapon or picking one up took any time or had any consequences in 2E combat, where each round was 1 minute long.)

I might be wrong, but doesn't it make sense if the barbarian is somewhat distracted while he tries to balance that greatsword against a wall?
If I'd be fighting some monster in close proximity to that monster (why else would it get an AoO?), I wouldn't do anything fancy with the weapon I'm ditching for another, I'd rather pay close attention to my enemy - or else I'd suffer the consequence.
See, 3rd edition does make sense. If those AoO-rules wouldn't exist, you'd have to make them up


Oh, and what (Psi)SeveredHead said, to move back on topic: 3.5 does IMHO more good than bad. It's not perfect, but no system ever will be. Right now, it's as good as it gets (IMHO again).

 

[Umbran]

But having said that, 3E does a good job of ensuring consistency in combat. This is important if (a) you play in multiple groups; (b) you play with multiple DMs; (c) you play in tournaments; (d) your DM thinks D&D is a competition between him or her and the players.

You forgot "(e) your DM hasn't been running D&D for a decade or more, and has not had the chance to build up the acumen of which you speak". Consistency in combat can be dreadfully important to the guy who's only been running a game for a couple of years, and doesn't have a great ability to "eyeball" challenges.

In general, a really good DM wil not be hindered by the 3.X rules. A really good DM knows how to work with the rules to get what he wants done. A really good DM will still alter the rules when necessary - that's the purpose of Rule 0. A bad DM might be helped by these rules. A really bad DM won't be, because he'll just break the rules, too.

To quote a trendy pirate - They aren't so much rules, as guidelines. Always have been, always will be.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In general, a really good DM wil not be hindered by the 3.X rules. A really good DM knows how to work with the rules to get what he wants done. A really good DM will still alter the rules when necessary - that's the purpose of Rule 0. A bad DM might be helped by these rules. A really bad DM won't be, because he'll just break the rules, too.

To quote a trendy pirate - They aren't so much rules, as guidelines. Always have been, always will be.

I found that all the changes I would make to get 3e where I wanted it would make it 1e with a slightly different system. So I just decided to run 1e again. Abstracted 1 minute rounds work very nice for me. I don't see the need to track each swing and what feats are applied to it, and what feats are being used for other purposes, etc. High level fights are a chore to run for me in 3e, actually 3e was the first game I ever DM'ed that I found I didn't want to work with. I felt like I was back at work instead of having fun, so I quit running it after 2+ years of trying to make myself like the game.

To each his own.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Sure the new weapon size rules are more "realistic", but since when has realism been a factor? We accept the abstract nature of hitpoints, not wanting to bog down the game play with tons of hit location and special damage charts. The new weapon size rules add another level of complexity and just bog down game play.

My point wasn't really about the realism, I simply wanted to address the Halfling Longspear straw man that keeps getting propped up in these arguments. It was a glitch in 3.0, and it's a glitch in 3.5. The glitch in 3.5 is balanced by a penalty.

And there's nothing complex about the new rules. A gnome druid and a human druid use the exact same weapons, just sized different. Under 3.0, a gnome druid can use a scimitar in two hands. Why can't the human druid use a falchion? It's essentially a two-handed scimitar, isn't it?

A 3.0 halfling rogue can use a short sword, which is the equivalent to a longsword for him. Why can't the human rogue use a longsword?

 

[Numion]

How do you deal with things like attacks of opportunity (in its many forms of being triggered), flanking, sneak attacks, cleave, whirlwind attack, spell effects that have multiple opponent distance limiters (like magic missile), mobility, combat reflexes, and cover from ranged attacks made by people in the way? Without fudging, of course.

I don't use minis at all, so I can answer:

By the book.

Easy as that. DM knows inside his head where everyone is. Player might ask "can I cleave", and the DM'll tell. "Do I get flanking?", the same thing. And so on.

It isn't rocket science. Trust the DM.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How do you deal with things like attacks of opportunity (in its many forms of being triggered), flanking, sneak attacks, cleave, whirlwind attack, spell effects that have multiple opponent distance limiters (like magic missile), mobility, combat reflexes, and cover from ranged attacks made by people in the way? Without fudging, of course.

Heh heh. Counters could work, or use a drawn-out map on a piece of paper, or battlemat (I have one, despite the lack of counter - marker makes for a good mini) and so forth.

If I felt like it, I could fudge it. I did it in 3.0, I've done it in 3.5, and the "penalties" for doing so aren't any different.

Heck, the new facing makes it easier, since I don't have to draw facing on the map.

 

[Psion]

How do you deal with things like attacks of opportunity (in its many forms of being triggered), flanking, sneak attacks, cleave, whirlwind attack, spell effects that have multiple opponent distance limiters (like magic missile), mobility, combat reflexes, and cover from ranged attacks made by people in the way?

By interpreting by intent and DM judgement.

See:
http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly21.html

Without fudging, of course.

It's only fudging if the rules don't support it.

 

[La Bete]

By interpreting by intent and DM judgement.

w3rd

I own quite a few miniatures - and I prefere to run 3e with them, but the game I am running at the moment works fine without them. Keep it in your head, scrawl on bits of paper, use the 50/50 rule if your'e not sure whether that player can flank that npc.

easy.