Time to Reflect on 3.5 Disappointments

[maddman75]

Ah, good. We were about due for a 'my hat of 5.3 know no limit' thread. And since my hat of 5.3 know no limit, I'll put my $.02 in.

I have noticed the quality going downhill. Not that it has ever been stellar on the supplement side. I mean the core 3.0 was great - totally revitalized the industry in general and my gaming in paticular. After that we had the splatbooks. Sword and Fist was pretty bad, there are serious problems with that book. Errata did fix most of them, though not all. For instance you can't errata out the how-to-be-a-munchkin chapter.

After that they got better and better, with Masters of the Wild being really pretty good. Oriental Adventures I'd like to have, and the Manual of the Planes was well done. Psionics handbook had some issues with the psion, but the psychic warrior rocks on toast.

After this time (which is about when the big names started leaving WotC in droves) things IMO started to go downhill. ELH tried to handle epic characters by giving them a zillion hit points and putting 'improved' in front of every feat. Deities and Demigods spent a ton of time on statblocks for deities, which unless you are interested in ELH type nonsense is a waste of space. Dragon ceases to be remotely interesting, mostly a huge ad for whatever book WotC was trying to sell. The last Wizards book I had any interest in was the Book of Vile Darkness, and mostly then because Monte wrote it.

Now we get to the revision. It's early, but there's some places where the rules need fixed. Haste and Harm had problems, as did disintegrate (IMO). There was a ton of errata that needed to go into the books. Something had to be done with the Ranger. That's what we were told. It is NOT what we got. Sure, they did those things, but they also ruined the paladin's mount, messed up the base sizes, changed rules to promote their minis game, changed around the weapon size rules, and made seemingly random changes to every other spell in the book.

These days I look to the d20 companies, or other games entirely. Just recently I looked at WotC's upcoming releases and realized I wasn't remotely interested in anything they had to offer. It saddens me that most d20 companies seem to be going along with the revision.

And I don't hate WotC for wanting to make money. I was into the revision until I read the SRD. They just aren't offering what I as a gaming customer am looking for.

 

[Mercule]

Personally, the only things that I've seen in 3.5 that I don't like are: 1) Weapon Familiarity, and 2) Pokemount. I'm sure there are some other minor bits, but I'm generally happy with it.

I was initially opposed to the new weapon sizes, but they are starting to grow on me.

The new DR system alone is, IMHO, worth the price of the MM. Of course, since it's pretty much what I use anyway, it means that "official" is now compatible with my house rules.

The clarified combat rules, new/modified feats, and updated (read: playable) ranger and bard, as well as some of the magic changes are pretty much the minimum for the cost of the PH.

The DMG is a little bit better than the 3.0 version, with the addition of planar info, epic levels, and changes to the magic items (including the Detect Magic text). I don't think that's it's worth $30, but it's a step up from 3.0.

Is it better than 3.0? Definitely. Is it enough better to justify the entry price? Maybe, it depends on your disposable income, but it probably isn't for many people.

 

[Endur]

I don't have any issues with 3.5. I thought it was a necessary change to try and fix some of the loopholes in the rules. They didn't fix all of the loopholes. There were still many things that they didn't fix.

The other books havn't been that useful. BOVD did a great job on the Demon Lords (which should have been in MM or one of the God books) and the sacrifice rules (which should have been in DMG) and the artwork (which needed the R rating); the rest of it was useless in my opinion. Savage Species is a nice idea, but the 3.5 MM with ECLs pretty much eliminated any need on my part for Savage Species. Arms & Equipment looked nice, but I don't need any more magic items or rare materials. The various class guides (all of which I bought) really represent power-gaming; more feats and more PRCs to make your character better. Other than the trap guide from the Rogues book (which is now in the DMG), I didn't see much need for the splat books. The Epic rules are nice for super-powerful NPCs, but I don't see actually playing an Epic game on a regular basis.

I've stopped subscribing to Dragon and Dungeon. Not because I have any problems with what they are doing, just that I don't see the need for the magazines right now. I've subscribed once to Dungeon and many times to Dragon.

One of my annoyances is that Dungeon added that subscriber section. I'd personally prefer to buy Dungeon on the newstand. I don't have a problem if Dungeon offers subscribers a 50% discount, but I am annoyed when subscribers get extra content in the same magazine. It actually makes me less likely to buy Dungeon.

With regards to Dragon, its been hit and miss for me. They usually have good content and I'll probably subscribe again sometime. I really like the articles on GMing and the articles on doing stuff that isn't covered in the rules (swinging from chandaliers, etc.).

I could care less about the powerplays or the Sage's FAQ.

 

[BryonD]

3.0 was an honest revision. There were signifigant, major changes to the game... I would go so far as to call it a total redesign from the ground up.

3.5 was erata that they tried to pass off as a new edition.

OK, first, a lot of people strongly disagree with your assessment.

Perhaps the langauge being tossed around in this thread is just a bit closed minded in regard to other people's opinions.

I certainly think that 3.5 WELL worth the money. Isn't it possible that designers at WotC agree with me instead of you? And if so, then your accusation of a "pass off" is wrong. If they believed they were producing a quality product (hint, overall response supports this) then they were not doing as you claim.

Second, I asked, "if 3.5 is a money grab, then what was 3E". What makes one volunatary interaction a "money grab" and another not? Your reply, while wrong, wouldn't even answer that question if it had been correct.

 

[maddman75]

BOVD did a great job on the Demon Lords (which should have been in MM or one of the God books) and the sacrifice rules (which should have been in DMG) and the artwork (which needed the R rating); the rest of it was useless in my opinion.

Really? To me the Demon Lords were one of the least useful things. I mean I like that they were described, and the descriptions of their followers/minions were okay. But I'm probably never going to actually use them. I will use the prestige classes devoted to them, or the vile feats, or vile damage, or the templates, or the new demons and devils.

Do people actually go off and fight Graz'zt? By the time you get there we're generally bored with the campaign and ready to go kill orcs again.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Time to reflect on 3.5e disappointments?

Because, as we all know, there haven't been enough "let's whine about 3.5e" threads in the last 3 months.

I'm with BryonD. I think that 3.5e was well worth the money. My players and I have gotten a lot of use out of the books, and the balance changes were most welcome (such as the nerfs to haste and harm).

 

[d4]

The whole 3.5 money grab has left a very bad taste in my mouth...

because, as we all know, WOTC is a charity that should be giving away its work for free and not a company that needs to make a profit in order to keep producing the products we want...

arguing against 3.5 based on the "money grab" issue is a bit weak, IMO.

And I don't hate WotC for wanting to make money. I was into the revision until I read the SRD. They just aren't offering what I as a gaming customer am looking for.

i really like 3.5, but that's an opinion i can respect.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Great, at least I don't have to pay for crap. Free crap is still crap.

I've got this ball of dirt here I'll give to you for free!

I'll understand if you don't want it, but you don't have to get mad at me for offering. We all worked so hard making it for you.

I just thought you might want it.

 

[Tsyr]

OK, first, a lot of people strongly disagree with your assessment.

Ok, first off, a lot of people agree with my assessment too. How does this change matters?

Hell, I know people who LIKE 3.5 who conceed its really just erata and bit of spit-shine.

I certainly think that 3.5 WELL worth the money. Isn't it possible that designers at WotC agree with me instead of you? And if so, then your accusation of a "pass off" is wrong. If they believed they were producing a quality product (hint, overall response supports this) then they were not doing as you claim.

Ok, first... Of COURSE the designers at WotC agree with you! It's their paycheck you're writing when you buy the books. Of COURSE they think you should buy them.

That said, you are making two (as I see them) incorrect assumptions:

1) The people who wrote 3.5 had much if anything to do with the decision to make it in the first place. In truth, I have heard that 3.5 was essentialy rushed out by the higher ups.

2) That because you find value in the product and since WotC felt the need to produce it, there is therefore some undeniable statement therein that your view is right and mine is wrong.

Second, I asked, "if 3.5 is a money grab, then what was 3E". What makes one volunatary interaction a "money grab" and another not? Your reply, while wrong, wouldn't even answer that question if it had been correct.

Perhaps the langauge being tossed around in this thread is just a bit closed minded in regard to other people's opinions.

Getting the obvious hypocricy out of the way, here is my answer:

2.0 was stagnating. New products were trickling off, and there had been a long duration between the release of the last edition and 3.0. Further, innovations from other companies and game systems were starting to be noticed by people more and more, and DnD was loosing players. IMO, I feel that 3.0 was timed "right". It stepped in when there was a hole in the market that it could fill.

3.5 didn't have a hole to fill, so it made one by shoving 3.0 out of the way. It consisted of little new material, only enough to make continuance to use 3.0 awkward. It is almost entierly recycled from 3.0. There is nothing core to the system in 3.5 that could not have been in a (Fairly short) erata file.

I mean, of course, from a logical answer, both are money grabs. It's a capitalist system and people are out there to make money. That said, 3.0 was one that didn't feel like being spanked with a wet towel and being told its good for me. There was a product in 3.0 that I didn't own, and felt more than willing to pay the money for. There is nothing in 3.5 I don't own except for, MAYBE, 5-10 pages of minor rules changes, if you cut the fluff out.

 

[barsoomcore]

People sure are funny.

Raise your hand if you think it's smarter to keep pumping out errata or if at some point you take all the errata and fixes and new ideas that have come along, and you create a new package so that when people buy your rules, they get the rules as they actually are now, instead of having to consult pages of errata in order to figure out what the rules are?

Not to mention if you happen to notice that a large portion of your customers don't ever seem to understand a certain ruleset without lots of explanation and examples (coughattacksofopportunitycough), maybe you ought to consider rewriting the rules so that, again, when somebody plunks down their hard-earned dollars for a rulebook, they get rules that they can understand the FIRST time they read them?

The 3.5 revisions weren't done for US, the people who already had 3.0. Sure, Wizards is more than happy if we'll buy the rulebooks, but they provided the SRD explicitly so we didn't have to. The revisions were done so that when NEW people buy the rulebooks, they get a better game. Better presentation, better rules, better tea bag, better tea.

Now this is entirely a different question from, "Has everything Wizards puts out started to suck?" I will say that I found BoVD and Ghostwalk both good fun books. Dungeon keeps on being great value. Dragon I don't buy much but it looks like it'd be as valuable to DMs at a certain stage in their experience as it was to me 200 issues ago. Dragon taught me a lot about DMing and the fact that it seems to be still teaching the same lessons only means that it's no longer very useful to me -- but there's lots of newer DMs who probably find it very helpful indeed.

Blah blah blah. My hat of 5.3 knows bounds.