Thumbs Down to 3.5 Edition
- Thread starter dcollins
- Start date
Camarath said:
Let me see if I have this straight. Are you saying you want D&D to be nothing more than a more complex game of chess? Or are you saying you think all DMs are control-freaks looking to humiliate and belittle the players? (Neither, I suspect, but y'see, that's the trouble with interpreting things out of context).
There's a happy medium between rule-free free-form role-playing and rule-heavy table-top miniatures battle. I personally believe 3E almost got it right, although weighing slightly more towards the table-top miniatures battle than the free-form role-playing. I personally think 3.5E has taken a step further towards the table-top miniatures battle end of the spectrum. Where it goes from here, I can't say, but as a matter of personal choice, I'm not prepared to go much further than 3.5E towards the chess-like D&D. YMMV
Cheers, Al'Kelhar
Al'Kelhar said:
If that is the case, I think they've failed. The proof is here on ENWorld and on Wizards' own messageboards. The number of questions about rules and rule changes seems neverending. The ruleset is constantly changing and not just because of d20 publishers. The various splatbooks and accessories each add a new layer of complexity to the game, and all of them have to be arbitrated/reviewed by a DM. I don't see removing or minimizing the DM as really being their goal.
Each edition of D&D has brought with it its own advantages, disadvantages, quirks, and snafus. Whether it's 3rd edition, 4th edition, or the 21st edition of D&D, I doubt this will change. If they really wanted to remove the DM from the equation, we'd be playing the D&D board game right now. Land on the dragon's square and go directly to gaol. Do not pass Game On. Do not collect 200 GP and a vorpal sword.
Cerubus Dark
First Post
Again the main question becomes "Why play something that you don't like?"dcollins said:
There are no guys in black suits waiting to give you a beat down for not playing by the new rules. There never was and never will be. My group likes 3.0, its very easy to do combat with, although now they are finding a lot of better improvments in the new 3.5 books for their classes, and as I look over the books (DMG/PHB/MM) I can see why they like the improvments. Although I perfer the combat system for 3.0 and thats what we use.
Although I will say I like using minis in my games only because I have built a modular dungeon for my players to wander in. We have fun playing together, and this is why we play. If I don't like a rule from the book I rule 0 it, thats the best part of being the DM. Here are some of the rules I don't pay too much mind too unless there is a reason for it.
Carrying Capacity
Starvation/Thirst
Having Rations
Camping
Again, if there is a reason for me to focus on one or more of these things such as they have not been to town in a while then yes they become a issue, and they have to deal with being out of rations or have to worry about camping out with the threat of a bandit attack at night. The point is no guys in suits have come to our games and tried to break our knee caps for not using all the rules that WoTC puts out.
If your not happy with D&D 3.5 try Hackmaster by Kenzer and Co.
Li Shenron
Legend
In 3.5 revision, some of the changes are considered necessary. At least most of the updated spells were already considered in need of a fix by quite a large part of the playing community. IMHO this is a welcome update, but it sounds like WotC had a little part in it, beside simply listening to the house rules already used widely. Of course, everyone had its own house rule for Haste or Harm, and the results in the revision may reflect mine or yours. Anyway, these kind of changes needed just a reprint of the corebooks, which finally should have been almost errata-free.
But instead, WotC wanted (needed or whatever) to make a revision which would have been worth to buy. That's when they started putting down a lot of what dcollins calls "unnecessary rules changes". Some people like them, some people don't like them. The majority like them, except that you have to take into account the simple effect that anything "new" always have on the customers. As how they are really implemented, I don't think they make my game better or worse: damage reduction? I didn't like that before it was just a matter to get the next level weapon otherwise soon the monsters are out for you, but the new one although much more stylish it may just make you buy more handy haversacks for the golf bag (I was disappointed by the fact that there are too few materials: would they have been 10 times as many, probably you would just give up the golf bag idea); weapon system? I think the previous was easier, the newer more complete, but I won't often need other than medium or small weapons after all. To put together variants, there is a book called Unearthed Arcana scheduled for next year that would have been perfect for this kind of rules, with no need for 3 extra products to buy.
In-between there are changes like Power Attacks or Spell Focus. They were fine before, they are not horrible now either, they are just differently and not even completely. Except by giving the players the feel they have bought something new, they didn't need to be corrected to "fix the game".
Obiously, I am talking as a customer. If I was an executive in WotC I would be talking from his point of view. But I am a customer, therefore I talk as a customer. Never heard anyone being happy by the gas station increasing the price of gas because "it makes the gas industry goes better, for the good of all us drivers"...
But let's say something positive. Monster creation/advancement rules are the only structural change. 3.0 already shortened a lot the distance between a PC race and any other creatures, and 3.5 completes the process. IMHO this is the best thing coming to D&D since a very long time, and probably it makes the MM the only book which was worth a real new edition.
A word on magic items. The idea below standardizing magic items is good if seen as a tool for the DM, which indeed should be. The sad thing is that it turns into a tool for players, just as prestige classes, feats and spells found in non-core books. I think that every DM has the right (and he should be exercising it!) for total control over the topic of magic items in his campaign. But if rules have improved over time, many players have become used with the computer games way of playing, and tend to see PCs as going to supermarkets to buy abilities and equipment, after all the PCs themselves are expendable with the fast speed of advancement given by 3ed XP rules. Anyway, it's right that this has almost nothing to do with the revision.
A final word on the playtesters credit. I don't think dcollins is merely regretting the lack of credits on the books. If a company writes a gamebook which value resides in balance, playability or more modestly the fun it can provide, playtesting certification provides the proof that there was a lot below (during and after) the design of the rules. I work in the biggest mobile phone industry in the world and the hell they are selling phones without testing, and you don't know how many, extensive, and extremely professionally they are: in our case, the test reports may not be intended for the customers, but rather networks operators, consumers's association and similar, but in the case of D&D it's only the players. I really think that if they had been playtesting well 3.5 they would have all the reasons in the world to spend a page and put credits for it, but nowadays we are left with the spare words in the interview. I can't say they haven't playtested, but I can't say they have either.
But instead, WotC wanted (needed or whatever) to make a revision which would have been worth to buy. That's when they started putting down a lot of what dcollins calls "unnecessary rules changes". Some people like them, some people don't like them. The majority like them, except that you have to take into account the simple effect that anything "new" always have on the customers. As how they are really implemented, I don't think they make my game better or worse: damage reduction? I didn't like that before it was just a matter to get the next level weapon otherwise soon the monsters are out for you, but the new one although much more stylish it may just make you buy more handy haversacks for the golf bag (I was disappointed by the fact that there are too few materials: would they have been 10 times as many, probably you would just give up the golf bag idea); weapon system? I think the previous was easier, the newer more complete, but I won't often need other than medium or small weapons after all. To put together variants, there is a book called Unearthed Arcana scheduled for next year that would have been perfect for this kind of rules, with no need for 3 extra products to buy.
In-between there are changes like Power Attacks or Spell Focus. They were fine before, they are not horrible now either, they are just differently and not even completely. Except by giving the players the feel they have bought something new, they didn't need to be corrected to "fix the game".
Obiously, I am talking as a customer. If I was an executive in WotC I would be talking from his point of view. But I am a customer, therefore I talk as a customer. Never heard anyone being happy by the gas station increasing the price of gas because "it makes the gas industry goes better, for the good of all us drivers"...
But let's say something positive. Monster creation/advancement rules are the only structural change. 3.0 already shortened a lot the distance between a PC race and any other creatures, and 3.5 completes the process. IMHO this is the best thing coming to D&D since a very long time, and probably it makes the MM the only book which was worth a real new edition.
A word on magic items. The idea below standardizing magic items is good if seen as a tool for the DM, which indeed should be. The sad thing is that it turns into a tool for players, just as prestige classes, feats and spells found in non-core books. I think that every DM has the right (and he should be exercising it!) for total control over the topic of magic items in his campaign. But if rules have improved over time, many players have become used with the computer games way of playing, and tend to see PCs as going to supermarkets to buy abilities and equipment, after all the PCs themselves are expendable with the fast speed of advancement given by 3ed XP rules. Anyway, it's right that this has almost nothing to do with the revision.
A final word on the playtesters credit. I don't think dcollins is merely regretting the lack of credits on the books. If a company writes a gamebook which value resides in balance, playability or more modestly the fun it can provide, playtesting certification provides the proof that there was a lot below (during and after) the design of the rules. I work in the biggest mobile phone industry in the world and the hell they are selling phones without testing, and you don't know how many, extensive, and extremely professionally they are: in our case, the test reports may not be intended for the customers, but rather networks operators, consumers's association and similar, but in the case of D&D it's only the players. I really think that if they had been playtesting well 3.5 they would have all the reasons in the world to spend a page and put credits for it, but nowadays we are left with the spare words in the interview. I can't say they haven't playtested, but I can't say they have either.
Last edited:
Fenlock
First Post
how quickly the forget 
just my to two european cents, but:
The golf-back argument against the 3.5 DR rules (the best about 3.5 IMHO), was once used in another way.
way back, when this site was run on by a guy called Eric on rpgplanet.com, when we heard about the changes to the fighter people was elated.
the fighter was no more restricted to one or two weapons (usually longsword and longbow) because of the weapon prof system. no, the fighter could actually use the weapon best suited to the job.
"Ogres! i need my longspear for the reach."
"Skeleton's! i need my mace for the bone chrunching damage."
"Brigands! i need sword and shield to teach them."
"Balor's! i need a fast horse. mother was right, i should have been a paladin."
back then having a golf back of weapons was considered a good thing(TM).
/F
just my to two european cents, but:
The golf-back argument against the 3.5 DR rules (the best about 3.5 IMHO), was once used in another way.
way back, when this site was run on by a guy called Eric on rpgplanet.com, when we heard about the changes to the fighter people was elated.
the fighter was no more restricted to one or two weapons (usually longsword and longbow) because of the weapon prof system. no, the fighter could actually use the weapon best suited to the job.
"Ogres! i need my longspear for the reach."
"Skeleton's! i need my mace for the bone chrunching damage."
"Brigands! i need sword and shield to teach them."
"Balor's! i need a fast horse. mother was right, i should have been a paladin."
back then having a golf back of weapons was considered a good thing(TM).
/F
Psion
Adventurer
Joshua Dyal said:
Oh? I thought of all the parts of the article, that one was the most astute. Just because everyone plays a different way doesn't mean that there aren't some common threads that WotC could look to follow among the audience. It does seem to me very much that R&D instituted many changes that nobody was clamoring for. AGAIAN, square facings come to mind.
Ryan couldn't see the future and perhaps his vision of the d20 community was unrealistic, but it's a vision I like and wish was closer to reality.
Last edited:
Simulacrum
First Post
I disagree with the tirade against 3.5
3.5 is a good *next* step and it was necessary. (for me at last)
My games improved alot since 3.5 as they become more stable and less taxing for me in doing the gamebalance job. The new rules and revisions are imho all exellent.
The idea that DnD became a roleplay free tabletop war game is a joke. I kow a lot of roleplayers and none of them ceased to actually *roleplay*. I also dont feel like the minature thing give DnD too much of a tabletop wargame feeling. In DnD things are a lot more diverse and very hard to forsee. Yet it makes combat a lot more "realistic" and better to judge. Wich in turns adds alot to the experience and makes battles even more memorable.
3.5 is a good *next* step and it was necessary. (for me at last)
My games improved alot since 3.5 as they become more stable and less taxing for me in doing the gamebalance job. The new rules and revisions are imho all exellent.
The idea that DnD became a roleplay free tabletop war game is a joke. I kow a lot of roleplayers and none of them ceased to actually *roleplay*. I also dont feel like the minature thing give DnD too much of a tabletop wargame feeling. In DnD things are a lot more diverse and very hard to forsee. Yet it makes combat a lot more "realistic" and better to judge. Wich in turns adds alot to the experience and makes battles even more memorable.
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Al'Kelhar said:
Let me discuss this point, because of all the comments here, it is the most interesting to me.
I certainly hope this is not their intention, because it is a holy grail they will never achieve. Reduce the amount of DM adjudication needed, I can handle. Eliminating it completely would be a pipe dream of the highest order. In a set of rules this complex, there will always be flaws, especially due to the introduction of new material necessary for increasing purchase interest. We will never have D&D chess, because the evolution of rules necessitates "breach and cure" to the ruleset.
Furthermore, the DM-as storyteller will always be an element. You cannot remove Tolkein from The Hobbit, just as you cannot remove Bilbo Baggins. But then, I'm certainly hoping no one is suggesting that, either.
The changes to 3.5 I am ambivalent on. I woul play in one version just as readily as another; in fact, many of the changes mentioned (the spell rearrangement, Damage Reduction, the Paladin Summon Mount, the weapon sizes) I actively like and support. But elimination of DM adjudication from the core rules is not distasteful - just an absurd premise, to me.
drnuncheon
Explorer
jmucchiello said:
Ah, yes. That was infinitely better when it was Conjuration, wasn't it?
...er, wait. No, it wasn't. At least Enchantment can be bent into making some sort of sense - after all, isn't that basically the same thing that an illusion does when it deals damage?
J
we won't even talk about where Neverwinter Nights put it
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Locked
