Thumbs Down to 3.5 Edition

[TiQuinn]

Thanks for posting the link to your essay, DCollins!

As usual with 3.5 articles, there's stuff I agree and disagree with. However, I think from a big picture standpoint, I'm pretty much thumbs down on 3.5 as well. Most games that I've played in since its release have become a mish-mash of 3.0 and 3.5. To that end, 3.5 seems pretty unnecessary since most DMs had their fair share of house rules to go along with 3.0. For all the changes that folks liked in 3.5, there are quite a number of changes that they dislike. The net result is practically zero, except that now a lot of people have bought new books. Such is life, and no one is new to disappointment in this hobby.

One thing that I don't care for is the money system change that you're looking for. IMO, it's something that is going to change from campaign to campaign. You'd like to see it because it adds a bit of realism. Personally, I think ANY monetary and economic system is going to fall well short of the mark on realism. I also think that it's something that individual DMs or campaign settings should address as opposed to the core rules. The thing is, you mention unneccessary rule changes that do not add anything to the game, but I think this change in the money standard definitely falls into that category.

With regard to spell changes, I agree with you that some of the changes make the spells very, very bland for the sake of game balance and standardization, particularly the "buff" spells like Bull's Strength. However, others I feel needed to be changed in some way, though maybe not in the way that 3.5 ultimately does. Hold Person in 3.0, for example, is a second level or third level spell that can effectively take someone completely out of the fight, or worse, can be used to automatically kill the person. Should any spell at this level be allowed to do this? I think it shouldn't. Does this destroy the fantasy notion of a powerful wizard freezing an opponent in his tracks? I don't think so. I think it requires a more powerful version of the spell, possibly something around 5th or 6th level. Same with Fly. The powerful witch who soars across great distances and seemingly at will shouldn't be doing this with only a 3rd level spell. The question I have is are you merely being nostalgic about some of these spells? Hold Person has been a potent spell right from the get go, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Just because it's been around a long time throughout all the editions doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at critically. Of course, this carries over to a number of areas, and that's probably a whole nuther subject.

As for the OGL/d20 issues that you raise, I agree for the most part. Open gaming is no longer Wizards' concern and probably hasn't been since they've been owned by Hasbro. The majority of publishers are using the d20 license. Some are moving to the more broad OGL license, but without the d20 trademark, this can have an impact on their sales and viability. In other words, a number of publishers are not going to remain in business. As everything, there's good and bad in this. There's a lot of junk out there, IMO. A lot of people competing for the same dollar. Some sort of consolidation is inevitable, and I'm not going to be sad to see some of these companies fall by the wayside. On the other hand, I'll probably see some other companies that I really do like, also fall by the wayside.

 

[Kershek]

I was going to write a more thorough reaction, but gfunk hit most all the points I was going to make. I agree with him on everything except for the Open Gaming bit.

I also wanted to reiterate that item creation feats were around in 3.0 and are not new in 3.5. I like the fact that you can tailor your own magic items. It's not like AD&D where the players have to grovel and hope for items they want and the "all-powerful DM" gets to choose who gets what, and when. Then you get into the situation where the player thinks the DM is keeping him from getting "his" items and animosity grows from the apparent DM power trip. I'd rather the players succeed from their own abilities rather than the bones that are given to them by the DM.

 

[daTim]

If a witch wants to fly all night, she should cast Overland Flight. 5th lvl spell, 1/hour a level. Just thought I'd point that out...

 

[Kershek]

Usually a witch uses a broom, which is a magic item that may have continuous flight on it.

 

[Psion]

- I disagree with this entirely, the changing ('rebalancing') of spells in 3.5 was practically my wish-list of what I wanted done. The changes to Harm & Heal were _exactly)_ my existing house rule. The change to the buff spells (risiculously overpowered in 3.0) and to Haste were exactly what was needed to prevent Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers totally overshadowing the non-spellcaster PCs.

Did you read his article? He explicitly listed harm and haste as notable exception -- and the crowd was pretty unanimoius on that. They didn't change that, there would have likely been a lynching!

But really, I don't see how a great many of the spell changes they made were really necessary.

 

[Mystery Man]

In other words, this is a return to the splitting of the game into a multitude of fragments. This time, I doubt that it will ever reforge itself into a single cohesive whole.

your assuming that it ever was.

 

[Aaron2]

The weapon size rules are a good change. I didn't like them at first but have come to appreciate them.

Mass Cure Light Wounds isn't a new spell, its just a rename of Healing Circle. I agree that some of the renames are silly, esp. since they weren't applied universally (why is Deeper Darkness not called Greater Darkness?)

I'm glad they toughened up Mummies and Demons. Mummies esp., they were just too wimpy for what is supposedly a scary monster.

I'm not sure what the complaint about magic items is. Those rules seem almost unchanged from 3.0.


Aaron

 

[drnuncheon]

A whole raft of spells had their school designator changed for the first time, not because it fit together, but to engineer a numerical equity between the different schools.

Yeah! Like flame arrow in 3e, which was an evocation effect (create flaming bolts) and a transmutation effect (turn arrows into fire arrows) somehow wrapped into a conjuration spell!

Er, wait.

OK, how about Teleport! It's moved from transmutation (Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition) to conjuration (which can bring creatures from another plane).

Hmmm.

OK, what are these spells that were changed that don't make sense?

J

 

[Psiblade]

For me, the 3.5 changes were on the most part very well done.

Class changes were very well done to add flavor and balance. Bards are the best example of a change that added flavor and balance. Bards get more interesting and powerful songs as they level. Bards also gained the ability to use thier magical abilities in light armor which would be something a minstrel type would wear. In addition to Bards are now worth something in combat. Rangers now can fit the Robin Hood role so much better because of additional choices regarding skills and weapons. Paladins have grown stronger in thier fight againist evil with thier additional smites. Generalist wizards now seem to have reappeared. In 3.0, I did not meet a single wizard that was not specialized. Why? In 3.0, it is very easy to give up certain schools such as necromancy & conjuration.

Regarding spells, I do like like most of the changes. Haste, Harm, and the daily buff session of GMW, Bulls, Cat's, etc in 3.0 had to be dealt with. The stacking of GWW on bow and arrows in 3.0 made for super cleric archers. The moving of the teleport / dimension door line into conjuration makes more sense especially for dimension teleports IMHO than transmutation. How can you turn into light and teleport across the planes? Does light naturally cross planar boundries? Necromanic spells such ray of enfeeblement (now worth something) and waves of exhaustion / fatigue fit a litery Necromancer very well.


-Psiblade

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Thumbs Down to this article.

To state it up front: I'm not happy with all the changes, but a lot of them are good, or necessary. Now about the article. I think it doesn't hit the spot, and condemns far to many things that actually aren't bad, or have nothing to do with the game itself.

- (No) Playtester Credits: Could have put it in, that's right, but it doesn't make it a worse game.

- Weapon Sizing: Makes more sense than the old one: Now I won't have that stuff with a large creature wielding a huge greatsword or a medium-size short sword or anything. You won't have to give the rogues different proficiencies based on size, and small rogues won't get their equivalent to the long-sword any more (while medium-size ones didn't get it) but will be able to use a rapier now. You were right with the ranged weapon issue, though.

- Damage Reduction: One of the good changes. Since the values now are much lower, it is not really necessary to carry a dozen weapons around. But now DR actually matters. The +x stuff usually meant that you either had the right weapon (which was very probably), but if you didn't have it, you were in very big trouble, since you made next to no damage. Plus, DR/silver was all but useless.

- Challenge Ratings going up: Another really good change. Face it: Demons and Devils, in all stories overpoweringly mighty creatures - and you are concerned about the stories - were a bad joke. They were far too weak to be the lords of Hell. Now there are something to fear again.

- Paladin Mounts disappearing: I'm not sure on this one. It is silly, but it enables Paladins to make use of the mount more often, which is nice - what use will that horse be if you can't use it half of the time, important end fights included? All in all, I'm kinda indifferent.

- Subdual to Nonlethal: I don't exactly know why they did it (though I have some suspicions), but that won't ruin my game.

- Greater Spell Focus: cannot be killed officially. You can't say "Feat X in book Y is deleted and cannod be used any more" in the core rules. This requires a whole new edition. Plus this is really easy to house rule.

- Power Attack: isn't all that complicated, but now it serves the purpose it was intended for.

- Change of Economy to silver: Couldn't care less. There are items priced in SP, after all (those with values below 1gp), or even in CP, and I prefer paying 15gp for that long sword to paying 150 sp.

- Spell Changes: Many of the spells that got changed were so broken, overpowered or too-good-to-be-true that they had to be changed. Whenever something is a must for everyone, it gets suspicious.

- FFR (Fantasy Flavour Removal): Fantasy Flavour is important, but so is balance. I like D&D cause it is balanced. I don't give a damn about wizards being unbeatable in the stories. It would be a very bad game where the wizard character would so totally dominate the game that the others might as well play something else. Not that the players should compete, but they should be roughly on par with each other.

-- Hold Person: You said that it is only a momentary thing and wizard in stories can freeze people with a word. Would you like the spell to paralize enemies forever? IMO, the new HP is both more balanced (no more 2nd-level death spell) and actually closer to the stories, where those with a strong will could shake off the paralization earlyer than the weak willed.

-- Darkness: I agree that that is a weird change, though the spell is named darkness and not pitch black. They could have let that one as it is, though.

-- Bull's Strength and affiliated: They were just to good to be true. They were practically magic items in spell form. Also, you can't expect a priestly blessing upon our knight last the whole excursion (which could be days or even weeks) anyway, so the rest is details.

-- Fly: Again, the new one is more balanced, and your example doesn't hold water, since witches use brooms, not spells.

-- Mass cures: Healing Circle was 3.0 (and earlier editions as well IIRC), so this isn't anything new (only improved). And it is magic, not herbs, and powerful magic at that. You can expect a little of that. Imagine a prayer for the wounded and god himself touching them to heal them.

-- Magic Items: Can't think of anything that makes them more general or easyer to create since 3.0. In fact, with the rule that certain effects must be on certain parts or the cost increases, the "do-it-yourself-magic-item" issue has actually been taken care of.


I agree with a couple of your points, but most of them either don't change the game (like the name change of subdual to non-lethal, which is hardly a game-breaker), are meta-game (lack of playtesting credits) or aren't really true. The article is also flawed since you don't even try to list improvements (except the h-spells, maybe) so all in all it reads like a "I don't like this thing up front and nag at everything" kind of rant.