Why I hate D&D 3.5

[Leopold]

trolling for responses are we?

~NegZ

bah, hush you! go sign up for my against the giants game!

 

[Numion]

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.

IMO the best part is the genuine outrage some people have shown against the idea of WotC actually revising the books to make profit. A company out to make a profit? Can't be...

 

[Staffan]

AD&D products released in 1991 (two years after the release of AD&D 2nd ed):
Tome of Magic
MC8: Outer Planes Appendix
Complete Book of Psionics
Complete Book of Dwarves
Arms & Equipment Guide
Vikings Campaign Sourcebook
Dark Sun boxed set
Freedom!
Taladas: The minotaurs
New Beginnings
Tree Lords
Oak Lords
Wild Elves
MC11: Forgotten Realms Appendix
Ruins of Undermountain boxed set
Maztica boxed set
Horde campaign
Anauroch
Drow of the Underdark
Nightmare Keep
Fires of Zatal
Endless Armies
Nightwatch in the Living City
Port of Raven's Bluff
Greyhawk Wars
Five shall be one
Howl from the North
Prince of Lankhmar
Tales of Lankhmar
MC10: Ravenloft appendix
Darklords
Book of Crypts
Van Richten's Guide to Vampires
Ship of Horror
Touch of Death
Legend of Spelljammer
MC9: Spelljammer appendix II
Under the Dark Fist
Realmspace
Spelljammer DM Screen
Practical Planetology
Goblin's Return

If my calculations are correct, that's 42 products, including 6 labeled as "core" (Tome of Magic through Vikings). Source: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/rate/display.html

In 2002, two years after the release of D&D 3rd ed, WOTC released these books:
Bastion of Broken Souls
Book of Challenges
Book of Vile Darkness
Deities & Demigods
Epic-Level Handbook
Lord of the Iron Fortress
Masters of the Wild
Monster Manual II
Stronghold-builder's Guidebook
City of the Spider Queen
Faiths & Pantheons
FR DM Screen
Silver Marches

That's a total of 13 products, 9 of which are labelled as "Core" (source: www.wizards.com/catalog ). OK, WOTC are producing more core stuff now, but *far* less stuff overall. Also, I think TSR started speeding up after '91 - '92 had 16 core releases and '93 had 15. WOTC, on the other hand, would appear to be slowing down - there are only four D&D releases (three core) in the first five months of 2003, though having all three core revisions hit in July might change this.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I agree, our wonderful poster here is definately smoking crack.

2E had close to 10 different official campaign worlds with supplements for each. Then there were the non-specific items like the complete series, race series, and historical series.

I can say that easily there were 10 items for 2E put out for every item put out so far for 3E by WOTC.

Unless of course the poster is whining about all the licensed products put out by other companies.

Wow, bitter much?

If you're going to complain, you had better get your facts correct. Would you like to take a guess how many products TSR/WotC published for 2e - and how many they've published for 3e? Hmm?

In any case, and this may be a shock to you, companies are in business to make money. I'm pretty excited that WotC can do this while putting out what I consider to be a damn good game. If you don't agree, well, luckily no one has shown up at your house and taken away your 2e Birthright and Al Qadim books.

 

[Negative Zero]

bah, hush you! go sign up for my against the giants game!

what? i don't get an automatic in lieu of all the hilarity contributed last year? in fact, Ed and i are dragging two more of our gaming group this year!

~NegZ

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I don't mind WotC wanting to make a profit, and if they want to release 40 books over the next 10 years thats fine. If these books are new and useful material I might just buy them. If they are the same 10 books released as new and improved every 2.5 years then I will only buy 1 set of them. It's WotC choice as to how they want to try to make thier profit, and its my choice as to whether I will spend money on thier products.

 

[Destil]

I would consider a 5th Level Expert (Librarian) just as valid a character concept as a 42nd Level Necromancer.

Do you?

Wrong. What the rules do is enforce someone elses expectations onto a setting. 3E sets a high-bar of measure for PC power, and it's magic/adventurer's economic system tells me exactly what kind of environment my world is "expected" to have. This, as a rules-set, is a limitation. One that previous editions did not have.

Accualy, 3E is FAR superior for your Librarian than any previous edition. In 2E they would be a 0th level commoner with some (no rules tell you how many) non-weapon proficencies. In other words, there were no rules at all to support such a PC, it was almost 100% DM's descression. In 3E terms you have already assingend them a level and class, far more than you could do in 2E. In effect the rules fully support both options, while in previous editions they didn't. Of course there's more available for the Necromancer, but that's because more players have an interest in playing one, I'd say.

In fact, the rules in general may lean towards (ultra) heroic fantasy, but the're flexable and well-explained so that you can use them in almost any way you want. A 'realistic' game can be done by sticking to low level and using NPC classes as well as PC classes, for instance.

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.

This is a problem you have with people bitching over your game, not the rules. The DMG is quite clear that you can control the advancement rate by varying EXP rewards, and gives you the information you need to do so, as well as several more abstract systems that can replace CR entirely (I basicly use the system listed under 'ad hoc XP' for 90% of party XP these days). How does this relate to 3.XE? It's more of an issue of some people who don't get it, or who feel you're not playing D&D if you don't play by these rules. (Which is a opinion bascily at a polar extreme away from that in the existing rule books, and I doubt this will change in 3.X)

 

[Vocenoctum]

[/i]This is a problem you have with people bitching over your game, not the rules. The DMG is quite clear that you can control the advancement rate by varying EXP rewards, and gives you the information you need to do so, as well as several more abstract systems that can replace CR entirely (I basicly use the system listed under 'ad hoc XP' for 90% of party XP these days). How does this relate to 3.XE? It's more of an issue of some people who don't get it, or who feel you're not playing D&D if you don't play by these rules. (Which is a opinion bascily at a polar extreme away from that in the existing rule books, and I doubt this will change in 3.X)

Of note, in CoCd20, CR's are given for monsters as a comparison of the monsters power, though no XP is ever awarded for monsters. The CR system is a used for comparion and XP. I like it as a quick reference, same as I like the Encounter Level mechanic.

If you're running a lower powered game, you should be able to gauge off of what you know of the party vs the core idea of D&D's power level. If the party is all 8th level, but you know from experience that they're more evenly matched by a CR5 monster, than you can still gauge the power of a new monster by that.

I still use the XP charts, but I don't use the CR printed. I base it on the ease/ diffilculty of the encounter as it happened. Monster XP is probably 40-50% of the groups XP.

 

[Negative Zero]

Raistlin, i have one thing to say about that highly offensive post of yours:

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*wipes tears away*

thank you for that. somehow i just couldn't bring myself to put in the effort to say all the things that you did say, but oh how i wanted to. lol personally, i think it's all pointless, but i applaud your ... eloquent oratory skills kudos to you.

~NegZ

P.S.
"Remember: only you can prevent forrest fires!"
that still cracks me up!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Accualy, 3E is FAR superior for your Librarian than any previous edition. In 2E they would be a 0th level commoner with some (no rules tell you how many) non-weapon proficencies. In other words, there were no rules at all to support such a PC, it was almost 100% DM's descression. In 3E terms you have already assingend them a level and class, far more than you could do in 2E. In effect the rules fully support both options, while in previous editions they didn't. Of course there's more available for the Necromancer, but that's because more players have an interest in playing one, I'd say.

In fact, the rules in general may lean towards (ultra) heroic fantasy, but the're flexable and well-explained so that you can use them in almost any way you want. A 'realistic' game can be done by sticking to low level and using NPC classes as well as PC classes, for instance.

Although the playability of a Librarian in 2E was never in question, thanks for proving my point: The power-level is higher, even for the general populace.

This is a problem you have with people bitching over your game, not the rules.

Actually, I haven't had anyone bitch about my game in years. Of course, my rules tend to repel power-gamers and min/maxers, which has had more of a positive effect than a negative one. By contrast, 3E is purposely designed to attract what I like least, so changing it is only natural to me.

Hell, it's neccessary in order to play, since I'd never play otherwise.

Even the changes to Dark Sun and the previously mentioned alterations to Birthright do more to repel me than attract my interest; Why would I be attracted when the spirit of these settings already is in my possession via the 2E material for them.

The DMG is quite clear that you can control the advancement rate by varying EXP rewards, and gives you the information you need to do so, as well as several more abstract systems that can replace CR entirely (I basicly use the system listed under 'ad hoc XP' for 90% of party XP these days). How does this relate to 3.XE? It's more of an issue of some people who don't get it, or who feel you're not playing D&D if you don't play by these rules. (Which is a opinion bascily at a polar extreme away from that in the existing rule books, and I doubt this will change in 3.X)

Yes, the DMG offers many variant rules. However, all of the ones you refer to (Experience Awards) aren't at all codified in any regard, becoming purely subjective. This fact alone causes whiners and nimrods to bitch and moan, acting like they're getting screwed. Even the rules that are codified assume a 4-person party, and in 20 years of gaming, I've never been in a 4-person game.

While I agree that the books lend lip-service to customization and variety, the codification and marketing over-use of the term "balance" has produced a generation of gamers more close-minded to changes and alterations than ever before. In short, while what you say is correct, it does little to indicate I'm wrong, since it's people, not books, that are the problem.

There's been some indication that the DMG will contain a little more information for handling more radical changes. As is, despite occasional remarks that customization is possible, there are also undertones that indicate the opposite. For instance, in regards to a Low Magic, the DMG gives but one example, which is based on the darkest, least attractive time in Western History (The Dark Ages). Instead, other examples could have been given (the height of Rome, the Rennaisance, the Victorian Era, etc., or perhaps works of fiction that are Low Magic but no where near as grim) instead of one that would seem purposely worded to make Low Magic unattractive from the start.