Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6183162" data-attributes="member: 4937">Without even looking at the build in question or opining on it, I note that exactly ZERO of the things referenced in the build were available in the 3.0 SRD and core books.  I therefore don't care what they say or how they are interpreted, because it was immediately obvious at even a cursory reading of the 3.5 Player's Handbook that the writers were incompetent and didn't know what they are doing.  While they fixed a few marginal problems like Haste and Harm they broke a bunch of crap that wasn't broken.  In the rules as originally written, the majority of the brokenness was confined to 9th level spells like Wish, Shapechange, and the like where things can be relatively safely broken because in any sort of reasonable campaign you are going to spend the vast majority of the play time on lower level play and wrap up before or soon after obtaining 17th level.  The rest was easily dealt with.Basically, I've never had any of the problems described in this thread and particularly in the increasingly off topic spammy debate supposedly on 'casters' that is dominating the thread and I dismiss any argument that simultaneously complains about how broken spellcasters are in 3.5 AND also argues that in playing 3.X by default players should expect to have access to even anything much less everything published in 3.5.   In fact, I would happily say to the writers of the 3.5 splat books: "What in the world were you thinking beyond 'I've got a deadline and have to add content because the editor demands it'?   Are you proud that you got paid to write that junk?  Didn't you realize you were killing the brand?  Seriously?"The fact that you can in theory create Pun-Pun or any similar sort of broken caster by compiling ill-thought out abilities from a variety of sources has no real bearing on the utility or discussion of the Tumble skill, and as such really has no place at all in this thread.   If in fact you conceive that there is some game out there where playing any such character is considered reasonable or that such a character could be made is considered salient to a discussion of the game, the problem is with your table for adopting such ill-advised practices.   "Hey, they published it." is frankly no excuse whatsoever, and any player that - knowing the rule or option is obviously broken - advocates for it on the basis that it was published in official sources is to not put to fine a point of it an idiot and has no value at all to a RPG group.   If he can't see that obvious fact, friendship or not, he's not playing RPGs with me.tl;drRambling off a long list of things from various 3.5 splatbooks as proof of anything immediately causes me to lose interest.   Even so much as the assumption that because these books were published they have bearing on a discussion of 3.5 seems to me far removed from reality.   Theoretical optimization aside, I don't believe the campaigns where such theoretically optimized characters were played actually exist or ever existed for any long period of time.   Whereas, by comparison, mine is still going.Even shorter:Most tables that play or played 3.5 not only didn't use all its splatbooks and options, they actually had no interest in doing so - news at 11.</blockquote>

Verification