Thumbs Down to 3.5 Edition

[Oni]

I think he means "Why won't this post die!"


To sum up...
1. If you don't like 3.5 DON"T PLAY IT!
2. If you don't like the Minis DON"T USE THEM!
3. If you don't like D&D WHY ARE YOU HERE!

Well if I don't like the direction the design of the game is headed, and I don't voice my opinion, how exactly should I expect things be better when the next edition comes out.

Also I don't have much choice but play 3.5 if I want to play dnd with my friends since that is the version of the game the DM opted to use.

 

[MerricB]

Let me discuss this point, because of all the comments here, it is the most interesting to me... But elimination of DM adjudication from the core rules is not distasteful - just an absurd premise, to me.

Henry, I quite agree. However, I see it from a slightly different viewpoint.

The coming of Organised Play in a larger format than just the few tournaments that gave us the "Giants" series and the "Slavelords" series has changed the way WotC must look at D&D.

Beforehand, it was possible for individual DMs to interpret the rules in the way they best saw fit, and because events were one-offs, their differing interpretations were not a huge problem.

Although, it must be said, they were enough of a problem for Gygax to release AD&D with the stated purpose of making a game where interpretation of the rules was more uniform.

With the latter years of 2E, and the rise of the Living Campaigns, the idea of 'global' tournaments came about, and a greater need for DM standardisation.

I must emphasise here that this standardisation should mainly apply to COMBAT, not the other features of what makes a good DM (storytelling, role-playing, etc.)

If someone plays in a tournament and loses their character, then it had better be because of bad luck or bad play, and not a dodgy rule interpretation! The last - if repeated often - will cause the OP scene to become extremely troubled.

D&D does not attempt to define every action, just the more common ones. If a player is innovative enough to come up with something not covered by the rules - more power to him or her! However, by defining - and defining well - the core rules of combat and some of other challenges, the chance of a player being disadvantaged due to a whim of the DM can be minimised.

Is it perfect in reducing the DM's whim? Of course not. I am simply saying what I believe to be rationale behind the more defined rules of 3E and 3.5E.

Cheers!

 

[Pants]

I'd like to chime in here on a few issues that keep coming up, both for 3.5 and against it:

Square Facing: I don't honetly understand why this is an issue at all. It makes perfect sense in a game that does not distinguish which direction a character is facing in combat. Take for example, the Tendriculous, a creature which had a facing (in 3.0) of around 30 by 90 (can't remember). Now say for example that we have a situation like this:
C C=Cleric, R=Rogue, F=Fighter, B=Barbarian
TTTT
TTTT
TTTT
TTTT
TTTTF
TTTT
TTTTB
TTTT
TTTT
R
Now say, for example, when the Tendriculous wants to attack the Fighter or the Barbarian, does it simply move it's head or does it's position change? What about the Rogue? If it's attacking the Cleric and it starts to attack the Rogue, does its head and butt simply switch places or does it move? Does moving its body provoke an attack of opportunity?
Is the current way more realistic? Not really, but unless D&D suddenly starts distinguishing which direction a character is facing, it's a needless hassle.
As for it being a needless change, this issue was brought up countless times on the WotC message boards, most of them proclaiming that the current Facing rules didn't make sense. So it wasn't a changed just to be changed.

Spell Changes: I find it absolutely hilarious that some are crying that Spellcasters have been nerfed, ESPECIALLY considering that during 3.0, spellcasters were often targeted as 'overpowered.' Suddenly, 3.5 comes along, some spells are changed and Spellcasters are now 'useless.' Thankfully, the number of posters saying this is low, but I still get a kick out of it whenever I read it.
The Buff spells were not on the needed to be changed list, but it's nice that they were. Why buy a stat boosting item when you can buff yourself for nearly all day by using a 2nd level spell slot? They're still usefull in 3.5. Fly should have been changed as well. In fact, I pretty much abused that spell back in 3.0. Gate is still very powerful, but that 1,000xp cost does hurt. Polymorph is much better.
Horrid Wilting change? It's still one of the most useful direct damage spells out there. Why? The damage it deals is only negatable by SR. Evasion does not apply. It affects only enemies. Its area is quite impressive. Still a very potent 8th level spell
About the only spell changes that I disagree with are that Emotion and Symbol have been broken up into many different spells. This hurts Sorcerers and Bards quite a bit.

Class Changes: All for the better, IMO. Some may say that the Barbarian is not the principle damage dealer in the game. This is true, however most overlook the fact that the Barbarian is likely going to have a pitiful AC compared to a Fighter. At 20th level, the Barbarian can soak up a lot of damage, however when he gets below 80 hp (80 HP for crying out loud!) he's going to need healing, because as soon as he drops out of his Rage, he's either dead or dying.
Bard, Ranger, Monk, Druid, Barbarian, and Sorcerer changes are all good IMO.

DR: I love the new DR and I was always mystified by why Lycanthropes had DR/silver back in 3.0. A magic weapon was always better than a silvered weapon so why even get a silvered weapon? Now there's a reason to.

Skill Changes: I like this, if only because Scry has been removed, which I considered one of the dumbest skills ever. It also made making Scry checks impossible to fail, even at low levels. Craft (Alchemy) makes more sense as does Survival. Getting rid of the Restricted Skill rule really helps the 'Options not Restrictions' approach.

Powering up the Outsiders: A good thing IMO. They were weak as hell for their CR back in 3.0 and now they're an appropriate challenge. In fact, I'd say that most of the Devils are a bit too challenging for their CR's now.

Weapon Size Rules: Did anyone honestly have a problem with the old weapon size rules? It would have been much easier to just leave the Weapons alone and put in the alternate damage rules for weapons of different sizes.

Editing: I don't want to sound like a jerk, but does WotC even have an editing department anymore? The gratuitous amount of stuff that needs errata and clarifications is mind boggling. I wasn't surprised, especially after Savage Species.

All in all, I'm happy with 3.5, but I can see why some wouldn't like it. WotC really shot themselves in the foot when it was said that two players could be using both the 3.0 rules and the 3.5 rules and not know the difference. It's obviously not so.

 

[MerricB]

Weapon Size Rules: Did anyone honestly have a problem with the old weapon size rules? It would have been much easier to just leave the Weapons alone and put in the alternate damage rules for weapons of different sizes.

The old weapon size rules worked fine until Savage Species came along and raised the possibilities of greatly differing sizes of weapons. At that point, they started to fall apart.

Really, the new rules are almost identical to the old, although they mucked up the rules for missile weapons.

Consider this: Under 3E, a large dagger dealt the same amount of damage as a large greatsword. What proficiency did you use to wield the large dagger?

That last is the question that 3E failed to answer. If the answer was "dagger", then a wizard could wield a weapon that was effectively a greatsword with no penalty. If the answer was "large dagger", then you had to do a great deal of calculation to work out what type of dagger you could wield - and suddenly halflings could no longer use ANY weapon in the PHB in 3E, because they were all the wrong size (or alternatively, couldn't use any halfling-sized weapons... the mind boggles!)

If the answer was "dagger" and you added the 3.5E penalties for each size that the dagger was removed from normal size for you, that adds another level of complication - you have to remember that a "normal dagger" is a "tiny dagger" for a human wizard, then the "large dagger" was three steps removed...

...and at this point it is pointed out that for a halfling, a "normal" dagger is not the right size and needs a -2 penalty to use.

Cheers!

 

[Kichwas]

Finally read the article.

I agree on the fantasy feel thing, but I think the failure here happened even before first edition came out. DnD has never felt like fantasy literature to me.

One thing to note: DnD created the video game industry, so it's not suprise that cricle would eventually come around again.

On Spell Focus, I felt it was a wasted feat at only +2, so now at +1 I just can't see why anyone would burn a whole feat on it unless they were a fighter swimming in feats... and then, why would a fighter want it?

MerricB and weapon sizes in the post above mine: never thought of that before, it actually makes the whole zoo in 3.5 with weapons make sense.

 

[Pants]

The old weapon size rules worked fine until Savage Species came along and raised the possibilities of greatly differing sizes of weapons. At that point, they started to fall apart.

Really, the new rules are almost identical to the old, although they mucked up the rules for missile weapons.

Consider this: Under 3E, a large dagger dealt the same amount of damage as a large greatsword. What proficiency did you use to wield the large dagger?

That last is the question that 3E failed to answer. If the answer was "dagger", then a wizard could wield a weapon that was effectively a greatsword with no penalty. If the answer was "large dagger", then you had to do a great deal of calculation to work out what type of dagger you could wield - and suddenly halflings could no longer use ANY weapon in the PHB in 3E, because they were all the wrong size (or alternatively, couldn't use any halfling-sized weapons... the mind boggles!)

If the answer was "dagger" and you added the 3.5E penalties for each size that the dagger was removed from normal size for you, that adds another level of complication - you have to remember that a "normal dagger" is a "tiny dagger" for a human wizard, then the "large dagger" was three steps removed...

...and at this point it is pointed out that for a halfling, a "normal" dagger is not the right size and needs a -2 penalty to use.

Cheers!

That... actually makes sense. I might have to change my opinion on the Weapon Size rules. I guess I never had a problem with the old system because no one in my group tried to break it.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by shadow:

"Finally, 3.5e has fractured the D&D community. The situation is similar to the waning days of 2e with the advent of the Player's Option books. Players would use a hodgepodge of various rule sets, and no two groups ever played the same game."


How exactly is this a problem? I have heard this "fracturing of the community" since 3.5 was announced, and I have yet to understand this arguement. D&D never was, and never will be a unified community that uses all the same rules. I know I haven't played D&D as written in the books since I was 12- I have my own likes and dislikes about the system, and I house rule the heck out of it so the system fits my world and likes. I use critical hits and fumbles, a spellcasting system based on a casting roll, no nonhuman PCs, etc. This is only an issue if you play something like Living Greyhawk, and you couldn't get me to touch Living games with a 10 foot pole.

Personally, I think dcollins is WAY off in his assessment of 3.5, but to each his own. I LOVE the DR changes, like the spell changes to lower their power (casters were overpowered in 3E), like the standardization of monster progression, like the bumped up monster stats, and think the revised classes are a big improvement. I have always used minis, so thats a non-issue to me. The only things I don't like are pokepaladins (never had trouble with the paladin's mount, and I have a guy that has been running a paladin for 12 years), and the new weapon sizing rules. You know what though? Just because it is printed in a book doesn't mean I have to use it. For paladin mounts and weapon size, I stayed with 3E- rule 0 (aka DM's perogitive) beats anything in the books.

 

[Stormfalcon]

Finally read the article.
One thing to note: DnD created the video game industry, so it's not suprise that cricle would eventually come around again.

Ummm, drifting a bit off topic, but that's a bit on the inaccurate side. There have been video and computer games before D&D came along in '74. IIRC, the Odyssey console beat that by a couple of years, and games like Spacewar were around in the late 60's.

 

[Psiblade]

I will definitely agree with shadow. I have been very happy with the 3.5 games that I have played in. I definitely enjoy the class and DR changes. I also like most of the spell changes that I have seen. Many overpowered spells have been reduced, but many new spells / formerly worthless (ray of enfeeblement)spells have risen. The new spells that I like are sorching ray, waves of fatigue, etc. If you do not like a rule then rule 0 it. I do not like square facings, so when I DM our home game they do not exist.

I also play in LG and can not count how many hasted, shielded, flying mages I have faced with my level 10 character. I have been harmed then inflicted in the same round by a hasted cleric. Can you say instant -8 hit points. In regards to weapons, my 5th level character in LG has enough to buy both a magical silver and a magical cold iron sword in addition to magic armor. Elder, what region do you play in? I have never faced multiple devils before level 6th. The earliest devils I faced were at APL 4 and then there was only 1.

-Psiblade

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The old weapon size rules worked fine until Savage Species came along and raised the possibilities of greatly differing sizes of weapons. At that point, they started to fall apart.

Really, the new rules are almost identical to the old, although they mucked up the rules for missile weapons.

Consider this: Under 3E, a large dagger dealt the same amount of damage as a large greatsword. What proficiency did you use to wield the large dagger?

That last is the question that 3E failed to answer. If the answer was "dagger", then a wizard could wield a weapon that was effectively a greatsword with no penalty. If the answer was "large dagger", then you had to do a great deal of calculation to work out what type of dagger you could wield - and suddenly halflings could no longer use ANY weapon in the PHB in 3E, because they were all the wrong size (or alternatively, couldn't use any halfling-sized weapons... the mind boggles!)

If the answer was "dagger" and you added the 3.5E penalties for each size that the dagger was removed from normal size for you, that adds another level of complication - you have to remember that a "normal dagger" is a "tiny dagger" for a human wizard, then the "large dagger" was three steps removed...

...and at this point it is pointed out that for a halfling, a "normal" dagger is not the right size and needs a -2 penalty to use.

Cheers!

But the new rules cause a few other problems:
a)
Can a human now take a Halfling Longspear, and gain 10 feet reach for a -2 penalty to his attack rolls?
b)
In most campaigns, Halflings, Gnomes, Humans, Dwarfes and Elves live alongside. They have their own lands, sure, but in most greater cities, you will find all of them - why didn`t Halflings and Gnomes never adapt to use weapon sized for other races?
c)
If you want to create treasure, what type are the weapons found in it? All optimized for medium size characters? That would mean a huge penalty for halfling and gnomes.
What is with the weapons many opponents carry - a Giant wielding a Flaming Screaming Keen Longsword (Large) and a Heavy Shield +2 is defeated - the equipment he left is useless for the characters and has to be sold ...

Anyway, I think there are several useful rule changes.
Most changes to the classes make sense (even if I do not really think the Rogue change was neccessary ), and some spell changes are fine. But not all of them, and some seemed to be needless. The Changes to the Charge/Overrun Rules are unneccessary and overly complicated.
I like the new Damage Reduction in that it has lower values and you have a chance to beat opponent`s DR even without the appropriate weapons, but I do not like the way the material rules for weapons work. I am not sure if we will encounter the Golfbag Syndrom.

Mustrum Ridcully