Thumbs Down to 3.5 Edition

[diaglo]

we won't even talk about where Neverwinter Nights put it

yeah, several grandmas would be upset.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

There's no denying that many of the rules changes made weren't necessarily asked for (yeah, square facing and weapon sizes are two obvious ones in that camp) but the whole concept of the OGL means we'll have a fractured gaming community in terms of what rules we use. You can't have one without the other.

For that matter, I'm not sure why anyone'd complain about a fractured gaming community. I have yet to see anyone explain why that's a bad thing.

Also, I fail to understand what the complaint about the OGL support is as well (if you take the two separately and forget for a moment that they contradict each other as goals.) Wasn't the whole point that the game would continually evolve as new (and arguably better) rules were introduced into open content? Sure, some of the content isn't necessarily better, nor did it evolve from previous open content in many ways, but the idea that the game would evolve into a new standard was an important aspect of the whole concept from the very beginning. Now that it actually is doing so, he complains about how the changes aren't supportive of the OGL movement, and the game should remain static? I think that's not astute at all; that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the promise of OGL was all about.

 

[maddman75]

Well, I guess I'll throw my $.02 in on the reasons that my hat of 5.3 know no limit.

- Unneeded changes. Did every other spell REALLY need it's area of effect, range, or duration changed? I was looking through the SRD when I realized that I could not justify $90 for the revision, and pressure my players to spend $30 for changes to the system that will never matter. It makes no difference to me that a spell is 30' radius instead of 20'. It looked like change for the sake of change.

- Weapon chart. First and most offensively, it's change for the sake of change. In all the time I've spent here, RPGnet, rgfd, dragonsfoot and other online forums I never once EVER recall someone complaining about the weapon sizes. And at DF they complain about the art like it's an affront to God, daring him to bring down a plauge of locusts o'er the land. Second, it add a needless level of complexity. Before, I didn't have to worry about the size. It was a longsword. Humans, dwarves, and elves used it in one hand. Halflings and gnomes used it in two. Third, it violates some important genre trappings. I mean if elven sized knives making for fine hobbit sized swords is good enough for JRRT, it's good enough for me.

- Focus on minis. This I really don't mind. They used the same descriptions in d20 modern, and they aren't even selling minis. Heck, I didn't understand the AoO rules until I came to Eric's page and looked at his minis diagrams. Those should be in the PHB!

- Too hard on magic. Yes, there were some spells that needed to be fixed. But they went too far. Haste is near worthless now. If they'd at least made it a MEA, that would be something. You could make a move and still full attack, or a wizard could cast a full round spell right then. But a single extra attack. Whoopee. Fly and polymorph were rendered useless to those who used them for noncombat purposes to reign in munchkins. Same with stat boosters. I never had a problem with the 'shower, shave, and buff' routine. For a big fight, we'd buff. If someone had an extra spell, they'd throw a Bull's on the warrior. Only change I'll use it to shield, because it's easier to figure out. Haste and Harm will get my houserules, everything else can stay.

- Golf bag o' weapons. This is only a problem if the DM uses a golf bag o' monsters. If the PCs are used to running into random things, then yeah, you'll want a golf bag. I tend more to use specific foes in an adventure. So if they are battling werewolves, time to stock up on silver weapons.

- Removing the DM. This is a new way of saying 'rules-heavy system'. Nothing wrong with a rules heavy system. If you want a ruleset that is fast and flies by the seat of it's pants there are plenty out there. (I highly recommend Buffy)

- Pokemount. This should be included as an option. Or make the mount an option, let the paladin get a holy weapon or something. But this is something that would completely ruin the feel on my world.

I may eventually get the MM, as the changes in there are about the only ones that I don't find distasteful.

 

[maddman75]

There's no denying that many of the rules changes made weren't necessarily asked for (yeah, square facing and weapon sizes are two obvious ones in that camp) but the whole concept of the OGL means we'll have a fractured gaming community in terms of what rules we use. You can't have one without the other.

For that matter, I'm not sure why anyone'd complain about a fractured gaming community. I have yet to see anyone explain why that's a bad thing.

Also, I fail to understand what the complaint about the OGL support is as well (if you take the two separately and forget for a moment that they contradict each other as goals.) Wasn't the whole point that the game would continually evolve as new (and arguably better) rules were introduced into open content? Sure, some of the content isn't necessarily better, nor did it evolve from previous open content in many ways, but the idea that the game would evolve into a new standard was an important aspect of the whole concept from the very beginning. Now that it actually is doing so, he complains about how the changes aren't supportive of the OGL movement, and the game should remain static? I think that's not astute at all; that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the promise of OGL was all about.

Wasn't the idea that WotC can take from the best the d20 community comes up with and reincorporate it back into the core? They did none of this, coming up with all the changes in-house.

 

[Dimwhit]

I agree with you completely on one point: balance. I think the rules are WAY too focused on everyone and everything being perfectly balanced. It's boring and unrealistic to me. Not to mention the fact that most everything can be figured out based on some kind of formula. Just lacks flavor.

 

[Desdichado]

Wasn't the idea that WotC can take from the best the d20 community comes up with and reincorporate it back into the core? They did none of this, coming up with all the changes in-house.

In theory, yes. But does it really matter where the changes come from at the end of the day? Either way, it makes his argument nonsensical.

 

[Psion]

For that matter, I'm not sure why anyone'd complain about a fractured gaming community. I have yet to see anyone explain why that's a bad thing.

Well, "fractured gaming community" is not one of my big harping points, but I can certainly see the disadvantages of it. Sure, different groups are going to have different tastes, but if the preferences vary widely and are strong preferences, it makes it that much harder to get a group together and play a game. This was very much the state of the D&D community near the end of 2e and the ease of finding games suffered because of it.

My big harping point WRT this issue is "swimming upstream." I've accepted that it is inevitable that a GM should be willing to take charge of the game and house rule around ugly points in the system. That said, when the rules core becomes somewhat "out of touch" with what people are playing, the average amount of house rules that a group has to incorporate becomes larger, and speaking from experience during the 2e era, trying to maintain a large body of house rule often passes the point of diminishing returns and it becomes more trouble than it is worth. The closer to an "average" that the core rules are written, the less a given group has to house rule to play by whatever deviations from the average they prefer.

Add to that the more people feel compelled to jump ship/make house rules/etc., the more house rules they make, the more that they deviate from one another, which feeds into the fragmentation problems mentioned above.

 

[Psion]

Golf bag o' weapons. This is only a problem if the DM uses a golf bag o' monsters.

Which unearths an old point that I made a long time ago WRT the DR issue. I personally don't have a problem with the DR rules themselves (well, I didn't see the point of collapsing +1 -> +5 to "magic", but that's easily remedied.) What creates the problem is that so many creatures in the MM use specific material DRs now. Sure, having a few things like Rakshasas and Lycanthropes having their signature weaknesses is flavorful and appropriate, but almost every single outsider has some sort of specific material or alignment DR.

It doesn't take a golfbag of exotic monsters. My campaign was only 2nd level before my players found it necessary to carry a 2nd weapon to beat skeletal undead. At low levels where some PCs only do 1d6 or so damage, 5/bludgeoning DR is way more telling than the old half damage restriction.

 

[Aaron2]

The abandoning of magic items because they don't do what you need at the time or are weaker is a HUGE problem with DnD style play. You find a +2 sword and you are carrying your father's ancient +1 sword, sure, you are going to abandon the heirloom or quit using it altogether. Been a problem since 1E.

This problem is mostly fixed due to the ability to add more bonuses to the same weapon. The Barb in my campaign has been using the same weapon almost his entire career. He bought it as a masterwork waraxe around third level and has since enchanted it to a +2 frost waraxe. Plenty of better weapons have been found and sold to upgrade the party's equipment.

In all the time I've spent here, RPGnet, rgfd, dragonsfoot and other online forums I never once EVER recall someone complaining about the weapon sizes.

I remember plenty. I remember the Small Longspear used as a light weapon in the off-hand of a two-weapon fighter. Still provides reach. Or the halfling rapier (is it a rogue weapon or not). Just look at the weapon list for AU, you've got the same weapon listed over and over but with different sizes; you've got fean staffs, giant's club, spryte javelin, faen nunchaku, etc etc. Now you just need one entry for every weapon and it can be used by anyone.


Aaron

 

[buzzard]

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.

While you are correct for home games, I happen to like playing at gamedays and Cons, and there you have no choice. For example, Living Greyhawk is changing over to 3.5 (actually has changed over as of this month). You don't have a choice in this matter. If you wish to continue playing you WILL convert to 3.5 (and of course the RPGA marketing arm of WoTC will expect you to buy 3.5 books).

I am not looking forward to using 3.5 as I don't see the point in many of the changes. The golfbag of weapons will be especially harsh in LG where you don't know what you will encounter (at all), and have no idea who will be at your table to provide the spells which may be necessary to bypass DR flavor of the day (assuming the clubs in your golfbag have the right composition). I don't even know if the game will have adamantine weapons available without serious jumping through hoops.

However, I will be trying it this weekend, so I should be able to give a better accounting at that point.

buzzard