Why I hate D&D 3.5

[Bendris Noulg]

[sarcasm]Damn, my group has been doing it wrong this whole time! We've been building our characters for roleplaying reasons. You mean to tell me that we're supposed to mix/max? I didn't see that in the Player's Handbook. I guess it's good they've got 3.5 on the way to clear that up.[/sarcasm]

Ha ha... For now on, respond to my point instead of trying to twist it.

Listen up, dude. No one's telling you you min/max. The rules imply a "heroic" game. I didn't see anything that said "min/max." In fact, in my game I have a cleric with a Wisdom of 12. Why did he choose that? Because his god choose him to be the savior of her people. Then he multiclassed. He knew the consequences but chose to do it to roleplay. If you or your group have to min/max to have fun, you're playing a different game than I am.

This only shows that you aren't reading what I wrote.

When 3E was released, WotC was quite open in stating that the game was designed to support all methods of play. However, the rules also have within them the CR system: Level A must equal Power X.

If that power level is high (and yes, it is, under the circular justification of Heroic Play), than it's Power Gaming.

If it attracts min/max, than the DM needs to min/max or constantly metagame to even provide a challenge, which goes above the already rediculously high power level.

Why should I, as a DM, have to deal with such crap? Because it's allowed by the rules? No way. I'm better off altering the rules so that such gamers are immediately repeled and run away screaming in terror. The best compliment I got came about 8 years ago when one player, who learned that all the RP Hindrances he took for his character actually hindered him, quit my game, saying "This is too advanced for me."

Funniest part was, this was one of the people that introduced me to the game.

Seriously, man. You do know that the Pit Fiend is meant for high level play, right? Did you read the DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide? Check out the chart that lists out NPCs from 1st to 20th level for an example of high level play.

Again, I have never complained about the new Pit Fiend. I simply remarked that the "Tactics" section of the description block is a joke.

However, as an overall effect, increasing the power level of monsters only justifies increased power for the PCs. I fail to see how increasing an already rediculously high power level is going to be a good thing.

Except, of course, for folks that want more power.

The best thing is, if you don't like it: you can change it!

And I've said this how many times already?

Seriously, folks that don't read my posts probably are better off not responding to them.

Damn, now I'm going have Saddam Hussien singing "I Can Change" all day in my head.

You're a sick puppy.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

From your posts, I assume you must have a crappy DM. It is true, I wish the "flavor" present in D&D was not in the Player's Handbook. However, in my campaign, I run the players through a severely low-magic game with no breakdown whatsoever. The "flavor" present removes quite easily. I think that you just need to take the time to learn the rules and then tweak them. If you want to play a game "as is" and it doesn't suit your needs, why play it?

Actually, the first 10 years of my gaming experience was plagued with bad DMs. Y'know the type: Powergames all monsters and NPCs, allows flagrent and obscene min/max, provides little to no RP time.

And the problem isn't the "as is"; The problem is the close-mindedness that the balance promotes, causing folks to overlook the possibility of other options. Even your own statement (twice now refering to Low Level as being ideal for Low Magic) shows a limitation in your own thinking. If a game can't handle Low Magic and High Level at the same time, it's flawed. If the belief is that Low Magic and High Level can't mix at all, than that flaw has shaped the perceptions of Gamers. This is the nature of the problem.

In my opinion, they best thing about 3rd Edition is that it's modular. Don't like the magic system? BLAMO! GONE! Don't like the high-power levels? BLAMO! GONE! Don't like the new Pit Fiend? BLAMO! GONE!

Don't like Skill Ranks that supercede aptitude? BLAMO! GONE!

Oh, but now it's "underpowered".

Don't like uber-feat-combination-number-5? BLAMO! GONE!

Oh, but you just nerfed the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Sorcerer/Barb/Vituoso combo.

Eyeball it, pal. CR, power level, magic items--eyeball it. Know the rules, know your PCs. Then you can't fail! As far as the DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide being half useless, all I can do is quote Ellen Feiss and say "...uhhhhhh?"

Well, half of it is common sense, the other half assumes a high power level. Overall, it's one of the most useless DMGs I've owned.

There are approximately ten pages total on CR, EL, and experience. The rest of the 300-some-pages are magic items, prestige classes, dungeon designing, campaign building, etc. I hardly think half the book becomes useless.

Prestige Classes? Don't use published PClasses.

Campaign building? There are better resources.

Magic items? Don't use 3/4 of them.

Dungeon designing? Again, better resources are available.

Overall, minimum gain for a Core Rulebook.

 

[John Crichton]

Holy Jeeze...

Bendris Noulg: I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've got some history with the RPG industry or at least some of the folks involved in it. More than say, me. I'm probably stating the obvious here, but it sounds to me like you have serious problems with 3e, not just Revised 3e. It also sounds like you change a ton of stuff in your game which is well within the spirit of the rules (I do the same).

My question to you is: What do you like about 3e? Does anything work for you?


... my apologies in advance for bringing up the 1e/2e/3e comparison arguement yet again.

 

[Wormwood]

With all due respect, maybe some of you would be happier playing a different system altogether?

Perhaps a game which encourages more DM discretion, fewer rules, more abstraction, one that focuses less on combat and more on roleplaying. There are *many* such games available, and it might just be easier to run one of them rather than try to manhandle 3e into something that it may not be.

I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I copping a 'get the hell out' attitude. I just think you may have fewer headaches.

Note: I like 3e *because* it does away with the 'DM-Fiat' thinking that dominates other RPG's. I like the fact that it's more like an instruction set than a screenplay. I like the feeling I get that I'm playing a game *with* my players, not telling them a story. I also like posting poorly thought-out rants to amuse myself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Holy Jeeze...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've got some history with the RPG industry or at least some of the folks involved in it.

I've had some interaction with a few publishers, but all of it is post 3E/d20.

My question to you is: What do you like about 3e? Does anything work for you?

Smoother mechanics (d20), Skill/Feat system (except for a lack of caps on Skills)... Actually, there's quite a bit. However, almost all of it required some amount of tweaking or alteration in order to be more than just a big numbers fest.

In short, there are two ways of viewing heroes: Some are born, while others are made. The Core Rules assume the first, while my own preference is for the later.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I suppose you're right. Which leads me to wonder, this is the third or fourth post in one thread where you have referred to D&D 3E as flawed. Why are you playing it? There are a lot of other great systems out there!

Because it only takes a few mods to get it to work right and (both in previous editions and currently thanks to the OGL) there's far more to draw from.

It is true--the rules are carefully balanced to work together. Change one and it's your peril. You have to be very experienced to work it, but don't be mistaken--it can be done.

I know it can be done. I've done it and will continue doing it.

If you let crap like that in your game, you're on your own pal!

Agreed. That's why I love the min/max board: It's the best place to find these sorts of things.

(Note: I know not everything on the min/max board is a broken combo, but broken combos will be found there.)

For the love of God, why did you buy it then?!

Because until you have it, how do you know? While I had a feeling of what 3E was compliments of the PH, previous DMGs, with decent information regarding changes and customization, had me hopeful that the book would be more helpful for making such changes in 3E. I was wrong, putting the revised DMG way low on my "To Buy" list.

 

[Negative Zero]

Because it only takes a few mods to get it to work right ...

without reading the entirety of this all out slug-fest-knock-down-drag-out-fight between you two, this simple statement runs ringt into the curx of how i feel.

if you don't like something about the game, change it. quit all the constant complaining and spouting of words like "broken" and "flawed" and the like. just make the changes that you feel need to be made. ask opinions on said changes if you wish, but quit bitching that the designers didn't take your personal opinion into consideration when they laid down the rules. get off your arrogant high horse, play the game that you like, and quit trying to infringe on the game that other people like.

what's the so wrong with poeple liking a different version of the game than you? this soinds just like the role vs roll playing arguments. for example, i personally saw nothing wrong with haste. however clearly, a LOT pf people did. who's right? you? me? them? if majority doesn't make right, and the single can't outweigh the many, then there's no way to pick a winner. so just play what you like with other people who have similar tastes, and leave that other style of play to the ignorant savages.

we now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

~NegZ

 

[Bendris Noulg]

With all due respect, maybe some of you would be happier playing a different system altogether?

I'll be sure to pass along your compliments the next time WotC has a layoff.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

without reading the entirety of this all out slug-fest-knock-down-drag-out-fight between you two, this simple statement runs ringt into the curx of how i feel.

Oh, it's not a slug-fest. Heck, if I got into a real slug-fest here, I wouldn't be here anymore.

if you don't like something about the game, change it. quit all the constant complaining and spouting of words like "broken" and "flawed" and the like. just make the changes that you feel need to be made. ask opinions on said changes if you wish, but quit bitching that the designers didn't take your personal opinion into consideration when they laid down the rules. get off your arrogant high horse, play the game that you like, and quit trying to infringe on the game that other people like.

First, no, I'm not arrogant. Telling me to can it, however, is quite arrogant of you.

Second, I don't expect WotC to consider me when designing. However, when they designed the rules air-tight like they did, they made customization a real pain in the arse. Change one thing, it effects something else. This is a flaw for a system that has always been open to such customizations.

Hell, until 3E, customization was promoted by the game itself. Now, the only "condoned" customization is via Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells and Magic Items. That's a limitation, and limitations of that regard are a flaw.

what's the so wrong with poeple liking a different version of the game than you? this soinds just like the role vs roll playing arguments. for example, i personally saw nothing wrong with haste. however clearly, a LOT pf people did. who's right? you? me? them? if majority doesn't make right, and the single can't outweigh the many, then there's no way to pick a winner. so just play what you like with other people who have similar tastes, and leave that other style of play to the ignorant savages.

There's nothing wrong. However, if someone sees my rules and they call it underpowered instead of lower powered, than I am dealing with a person who's perception of the game has been limited, which limits the over-all potential of the game should the majority have been blinded to anything other than the balance.

 

[jasamcarl]

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.

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.

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.

Your arguments are pathetic and poorly thought out. 3E provides a BASELINE from which a DUNGEON CRAWL can be balanced. That does not mean that it limits your ability to play balance be damned, but it gives a much better idea of how that game played out minues DM fiat. There was no question that the librarian was viable in 2e BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY FREAKIN RULES TO SPEAK UP AND THE GAME WAS THE DM!!! 3e provides those same tools from the DM, but for an optional gamist element that [gasp], many people like to partake in.

Pathetic....