Why I hate D&D 3.5

[TeeSeeJay]

You know, that I actually think about it, not even counting the 3rd party support for d20, WoTC has released a hell of a lot of "Core" 3E stuff.

2 Core Rulebooks, 3 Monster books (counting fiend folio), 5 accessory books, 5 class books, and 5 flavor books (counting savage species and the arms/equipment guide). That's 20 books in -- what, 2 years?

For 2E, there were 31 "core" books in 10 years, counting the 2 core rulebooks, 5 monster books (manual + 4 annuals), 10 class/race books, 8 Dungeon Master References, 3 "option" books, 3 accessory books. That's if I haven't forgotten any.

Of course, saying that 3.5E invalidates all twenty volumes of 3E core material is putting the cart well before the horse.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

Slanging? That a Brit thing?

Seriously, though, neither do I.

I actually expect that if you and I role-played together we'd have quite a lot in common. You may have coined IDRP as an expression, but the idea of in depth role-playing goes back a lot further - I recall earnest converstions about the styles and effects of role-play in my University days (and that was back in the mid-80s - ack! I am getting old!).

Whole-heartily agree. I had the Basic and 1E Rules long before I found a group of Players. My expectations for the game, particularly the RP element, was rather high since during this time I had a Dragon subscription, reading the same articles you're likely refering to.

As a result, my expectations of the game was for it to be role-playing focused. 2E leaned in that direction rather well, although playing styles and verbatum rules didn't always permit balance through game-play. Generally, though, I've always home-brewed, thus RP-focused rulings were always within the context of the group, which published rules don't always allow.

I think if you play D&D 'straight', in so far as that actually means anything, it probably does suggest certain types of character. That's because D&D encourages combat; it's part of the 'swords-and-sorcery' genre. But I have no doubt - because I have seen it - that the game can and is taken in other directions. You can even have quite a lot of in-depth role-play in and around the combat-intensive play. The CR system you single out as a problem, but I think that a DM can adapt that to suit his needs. If combat is not to be an important part of the game, then award more XPs for other challenges and pitch weaker opponents against the (less combat oriented) PCs. Provided that you and your players are clear on what sort of game you are running it will still run smoothly.

Oh, I definately agree on that.

My issue is that the Core CR System becomes the measure by which other rules are measured. For instance, if I post a House Rule, it immediately gets compared to the standard rulings. As a result, most people would look at the rule and judge it as either lower powered or underpowered. The first is correct, since the rule most likely is focused on a lower-powered setting; The second is a problem, however, since it is written-off as unviable and thus invalid. Also, underpowered was a quite common reference towards Wheel of Time when it was first released, indicating clearly that some people had a problem distinguishing the Balance of 3E as "the" balance, overlooking the fact that it is simply one balance of countless measures.

This effect, overall, is limiting to game growth, since only the Balance becomes acceptable to the majority. That's the nature of my issues with the Core rules and why, after 2.5 years, I'm still retooling my campaign into 3E/d20 mechanics.

D&D has always had certain expectations built into it. I think 3e has had those design decisions stated much more expressly, and I think that that has helped less experienced DMs and players know what to shoot for. If the game that you or I want to run differs widely from those expectations then we have to put in more work, and we have to make sure that our players understand our expectations. That, though, is true of any game system, be it D&D, Vampire: the Masquerade or Traveller.

I'm personally of the opinion that previously defining your group's Balance or your setting's Balance was the task of the DM and the individual group itself. As such, experimentation, varients, alternate ideas and the like were just as valid as any other. I don't see that anymore; To quickly, something is labled as overpowered or underpowered when higher powered or lower powered would most accurately describe it.

We've gone from knowing that every game was different to assuming they're all the same.

I was annoyed about your remarks on Andy Collins since I don't think that it's useful to attack the man, nor contributes to making your point. I understand now that there is a 'history' between you, but all you can truly say is that the way he approaches an RPG differs sharply from your own approach. Munchkin carries a lot of emotive baggage, and also means quite significantly different things to different people. Better to say what it is about his approach that you think will affect the design, and how it differs from your own.

Per Piratecat's request, I'll not comment on this. But e-mail me if you wish. As an In-Depth, you'll likely find it amusing.

At the last I am firmly of the opinion that we can get the sort of games we want to play out of 3.5e as we can from 3e. It might take more work, it might not. It may require the decision not to go down that path. But we, the players, ultimately make the game (and thus the role-play experience). It behooves us to consider the game in toto and use it as a toolkit for our gaming experience.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just hesitant because my setting is finally becoming coherant as a rules-set, so I'm worried about how much is going to impact me and my group (especially since I've moved back to Chicago and am finally able to get my entire group back).

I'd hate to have to go back to the beginning and begin making major changes; Or, more accurately, that my stuff will now be even more underpowered because the power-level has been increased again.

Makes it hard to get new Players.

 

[ForceUser]

I was going to comment, but then I noticed PKitty said it already.

 

[SSS-Druid]

You know, at first, I thought that my favorite part of the hubbub surrounding the 3.5 announcement was the whole "THough I have no concrete knowledge about the game as a whole, just small design-crumbs that have been dropped as teasers, I'm going to complain about how awful it is."

I did think that was my favorite part.

But actually, my favorite part was the part where people say: "WotC! You suck for putting out new books."

And then WotC (or other folks) point out that the rules will be available free for download online.

And then, the original people say something like: "Yeah, but still!"

That part? That part rules.

 

[Pielorinho]

But actually, my favorite part was the part where people say: "WotC! You suck for putting out new books."

And then WotC (or other folks) point out that the rules will be available free for download online.

And then, the original people say something like: "Yeah, but still!"

That part? That part rules.

You rule, SSS-Druid . I am utterly berschnickled by all the complaining going on around this revision.

I've only read one complaint that's given me pause for thought: on Monte Cook's Message Board, he's vented about the fact that WOTC didn't talk to him at all, didn't solicit his advice at all, about revising the 3.5 DMG. Considering that he wrote the first one and has said in many interviews that he has plenty of ideas about what he could have done better, he's a little peeved that they didn't get his feedback.

Now, that doesn't mean much. I like Monte Cook from what I've seen of him, but it's not like WOTC snubbed my fiancee or anything. Their snub of Monte isn't enough to make me boycott the books out of solidarity.

However, it does worry me. It seems that Monte is a pretty logical person to go to for ideas on revising the DMG; their failure to do so seems a little weird to me.

Time will tell. As I've said elsewhere, I'll pick and choose amongst the changes, taking the ones I like and ignoring the ones I don't like; only if the books are fantastic improvements over the first printing of 3E will I shell out the money for them.

But under no circumstances will I march down the message board scourging my back and wailing about how WOTC is the incarnation of Capitalist Eeeeeevil.

Daniel

 

[WayneLigon]

You know, that I actually think about it, not even counting the 3rd party support for d20, WoTC has released a hell of a lot of "Core" 3E stuff....That's 20 books in -- what, 2 years?...For 2E, there were 31 "core" books in 10 years

I've been trying to find a comprehensive list of releases and release dates for various things. The closest I've come so far is This List for 1E and 2E. It shows almost 40 books in less than five years.

1989
2100 Dungeon Master's Guide
2101 Player's Handbook
2102 Monstrous Compendium, Vol. 1
2103 Monstrous Compendium, Vol. 2
2110 PHBR1 The Complete Fighter's Handbook
2111 PHBR2 The Complete Thief's Handbook

1990
2108 Legends & Lore
2113 PHBR3 The Complete Priest's Handbook
2115 PHBR4 The Complete Wizards's Handbook
2114 DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide
2112 DMGR2 Castle Guide

1991
2118 MC 8, Monstrous Compendium, Outer Planes Appendix
2117 PHBR5 The Complete Book of Psionics
2124 PHBR6 The Complete Book of Dwarves
2123 DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide

1992
2129 MC 14, Monstrous Compendium, Fiend Folio Appendix
2127 PHBR7 The Complete Bard's Handbook
2131 PHBR8 The Complete Book of Elves
2128 DMGR4 Monster Mythology

1993
2140 Monstrous Manual
2138 Book of Artifacts
2134 PHBR9 The Complete Book of Gnomes & Halflings
2135 PHBR10 The Complete Book of Humanoids
2136 PHBR11 The Complete Ranger's Handbook

1994
2145 Monstrous Compendium Annual Vol. 1
2147 PHBR12 The Complete Paladin's Handbook
2150 PHBR13 The Complete Druid's Handbook
2144 DMGR6 The Complete Book of Villains

1995
2159 Player's Handbook, revised
2160 Dungeon Master's Guide, revised
2149 Player's Option: Combat & Tactics
2154 Player's Option: Skills & Powers
2156 Dungeon Master's Options: High Level Campaign
2158 Monstrous Compendium Annual Vol. 2
2148 PHBR14 The Complete Barbarian's Handbook
2155 PHBR15 The Complete Ninja's Handbook
2151 DMGR7 The Complete Book of Necromancers

1996
Player's Option: Spells & Magic

Note that it takes them five years to put out a class book for the basic classes of the game. Do we really want that kind of mess again?

I used what I considered were 'rules' books or significant rules expansions. And of course, we have a 'revised' (ooooh) 2E set of books (which I think were mainly just errata and some repaging and different art?), plus the Player's Option books in 1995. Afer 96, I think, that's when things got so bad they pretty much stopped printing a lot, right?

Now, on the timing: remember that TSR only had so many resources and most of these 2E books seem to have been put out in their infamous 'spam the universe' phase, where they're not only putting out these books, but they are also producing modules, supplement lines and such. Many more modules and supplemental things (such as all the settings boxed sets) than WOTC has done. WOTC has concentrated on doing just the core books and a few other things, letting the third party publishers put out all the other types of books that took up TSR's design resources in the past. I think when that is taken into consideration, it more than evens out.

 

[hong]

Are you trolling AGAIN, Bugaboo?

Makes it hard to get new Players.

Life's a bitch and then you die.


Hong "as long as you leave a well-buffed corpse" Ooi

 

[Sammael99]

Am I the only one surprised at the amount of anger about the changes in 3.5 when we have hardly any concrete info. For the love of God, at least wait until we have the full details before ripping into it.

Starman

I'm not that surprised. I'm not angry about it, but I certainly won't be a customer for 3.5. I don't think having a new edition out to clarify a few rules points, tweak a few spells and add a little stuff from splat books into the main books is necessary.

However, I'm not angry about it. New D&D customers will buy 3.5 and old customers will keep on playing 3 or move to 3.5 as they see fit.

What I am surprised at, to be honest is the number of people I read on the boards who really truely think this is necessary. What have you guys been doing for the last 2.5 years ? I've been playing, using the rules, tweaking when needed and we had a blast. 3E was hard enough to learn, mainly because combat is so tactical, I'm not about to change anything... Heck, if I went back to my players and said "we'll be using 3.5 from now on, there are some minor changes that invalidate 10% of your PHBs" they'd throw me out the window !!!

But I understand perfectly that I can simply not buy it and that's what I'll do. My overall feeling is just one of mild amusement at the enthusiasm that 3.5 seems to be generating...

 

[Zappo]

But actually, my favorite part was the part where people say: "WotC! You suck for putting out new books."

And then WotC (or other folks) point out that the rules will be available free for download online.

And then, the original people say something like: "Yeah, but still!"

That part? That part rules.

I just figured that this bit deserved to be repeated. Sooner or later, maybe they will get it.

 

[WizarDru]

What have you guys been doing for the last 2.5 years ? I've been playing, using the rules, tweaking when needed and we had a blast. 3E was hard enough to learn, mainly because combat is so tactical, I'm not about to change anything... Heck, if I went back to my players and said "we'll be using 3.5 from now on, there are some minor changes that invalidate 10% of your PHBs" they'd throw me out the window !!!

We've been having a blast, too....but we've also been spending time discussing and interpeting rules, and sometimes making the occasional house rule, too. We haven't stood still, and I'm glad to see WoTC hasn't, either.

You feel that's unnecessary, possibly even silly. There's nothing wrong with that, but some of us have been playing and working past rules problems where we saw them. Some are problems with rules, but a lack of clarity. Just this Friday night, I did a grapple attack, and we had to review the rules....again. I described a mechanic, and it was quickly pointed out that I was thinking of the mechanic for Trip, not grappling. Certain spells, mechanics and ideas are not fleshed out adequately. Some are just plain inconsistent, or vulnerable to mistakes discovered from player and DM exposure.

I also think that some folks are undervaluing the thought that new players will get a BETTER system. New players won't have to have the 2 hour discussion of AoOs that my party had at our first game. They won't have to argue over Time Stop's ambiguities, or wonder how certain combat actions work. That's good for the game overall, and good for most players.

I should also point out that I tend to devalue the criticism of folks who didn't want to go to 3e in the first place, when they complain about revised. It's their opinion, but I tend to weigh their arguments with the obvious bias when listening to it.

Oh, and SSS-Druid? You da man.