Why I Love D&D 3.5: Less Player Whining

[Orius]

One thing I will say is that I agree with Psion that the blatant rules changes made to accommodate the miniatures are unsettling. This is one reason I loathe, from the deepest blackest part of my very soul, Attacks of Opportunity. Oh, sure, they make logical sense. Heck, the rules aren't even that bad. You pretty much have to use them because they're so tightly interwoven with much of the game. But they have made it impossible for my group to play without miniatures anymore. About half the group (me included) is content to only have attacks of opportunity when two characters are in melee combat; the other half bogs down any non-minis combat with "Wait! Don't I get an attack of opportunity?" every time an NPC or creature moves. And it makes me want to throttle them.

That's why I simply throw out AoO when I'm not using minis. Without minis there's way too many arguements about where exactly everyone is in a combat to make it worth it. I usually prefer using minis because they help to cut down combat arguments in the first place, but there are times when using them is difficult or impractical.

 

[Von Ether]

I snipped a bunch of examples to save space.

It sounds like your DM is obsessed with control. If I had to make a guess, I'd say he tends to create very elaborate, linear stories that he's obsessed with seeing play out in a specific way, or he sees the game as DM v. players. I wouldn't be able to put up with more than a session or two of such a style, and I definitely don't run my games like that. When I talk about whining I mean "Let's stop the game for 10 minutes and argue over whether I should have +1 or +2 to hit because of factor X, or I want to now complain about what happened 2 sessions ago." It's stuff that brings the game to a halt and just bores everyone to death.

LOL! I hear you. Thanks to Wind Walk, we discovered that our GM's main storyline was "numerous ambuses until we get to the next relay point." He pretty much wrapped it up after we could ambush our enemies as much as his NPC could ambush us.

To go back the warlock, he'll never just ask "Can I ignore their cover if I spiderclimb here?" Instead, he starts playing 20 questions with me - "How high is the ceiling?" "Are there any depressions or holes up there?" And when he thinks he has enough information to argue his point, he does his action, tells me what benefit he thinks he should get, and starts arguing. There's also a persistent assumption that bad event X never would've happened if I had ruled their way on certain issues. .

Yeah, I hear ya. I HATE that. I have a player who loves to do it all the time and he tries to avoid giving me a straight answer when I ask him "What are you driving at? Just say it." My guy doesn't do it to argue his point, he more hoping that he can "catch" me in giving him an edge in my ignorance ... "Uh, yeah there's some deep depressions in the wall. That sounds cool."

The interesting thing is that I've been in Von Ether's shoes in the past - it's a big reason why I vastly prefer DMing to playing. I've had DMs flat out refuse to allow my halfling rogue to Hide, move while hiding, and then fire an arrow for sneak attack damage. I've seen other DMs refuse to give out much magical treasure, but then they use the CR system as printed and wonder why the party can't handle a beholder. I've been in other games where my wizard has found a grand total of zero scrolls to scribe into his books.

I've developed a severe allergy to DMs who use house rules. Unless I've gamed with someone for a while, my first instinct is to mistrust any changes. Especially as a full-time d20 designer, I can see some house rules and immediately pick apart their problems and merits. IME, a fair chunk of house rules (though not all) are developed by DMs to shut down what they see as character abilities that are too powerful.

I just dropped out of game last year that was rampant with this. The GM foolishly allowed in almost suppliment in (Feats by AEG ... bad.) And then he made a slew of house rules and even up graded to 3.5 (3.5 was already out, but the GM wanted to stick with 3.0) because he thought it "control things" better.

 

[Jdvn1]

That's why I simply throw out AoO when I'm not using minis. Without minis there's way too many arguements about where exactly everyone is in a combat to make it worth it. I usually prefer using minis because they help to cut down combat arguments in the first place, but there are times when using them is difficult or impractical.

Wow, I've never seen that problem with mini-less battles. Maybe we just argue less, though.

 

[Storyteller01]

I've developed a severe allergy to DMs who use house rules. Unless I've gamed with someone for a while, my first instinct is to mistrust any changes. Especially as a full-time d20 designer, I can see some house rules and immediately pick apart their problems and merits. IME, a fair chunk of house rules (though not all) are developed by DMs to shut down what they see as character abilities that are too powerful.

I'm trying to develope a system so my players can use exp to purchase skills and feats. Hopefully it can give them soembreathing room on the choices. As a designer, do you have any suggestions?

I'll make another thread on this, if need be.

 

[Staffan]

I'm trying to develope a system so my players can use exp to purchase skills and feats. Hopefully it can give them soembreathing room on the choices. As a designer, do you have any suggestions?

I'll make another thread on this, if need be.

I've heard good things about a PDF-file called Buy the Numbers which does something like that. You can buy it from RPGNow.

 

[Vigilance]

3.5 made a lot of good changes.

But the changes to cover and the Pokemounts are still just silly.

And I've heard the balance arguments that Pokemounts let the Paladin get greater use out of his mount... somehow I just dont see Lancelot going "Great Steed I choose you!"

Chuck

 

[Andre]

I'm trying to develope a system so my players can use exp to purchase skills and feats. Hopefully it can give them soembreathing room on the choices. As a designer, do you have any suggestions?

I'll make another thread on this, if need be.

My one experience with this met with complete indifference from the players. They much preferred to save their xp's to go up levels. Perhaps if you award two types of xp, one for levelling, the other for customizing.

 

[Sammael]

My one experience with this met with complete indifference from the players. They much preferred to save their xp's to go up levels. Perhaps if you award two types of xp, one for levelling, the other for customizing.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. I allowed purchasing feats with xp (3,000 xp for a first-tier feat, +1,500 xp per feat prerequisite), and I think only one player (out of six) hasn't purchased any feats. Guess what class he's playing?

Here's my house rule dealing with purchasing feats (and this really does belong in House Rules):

It is possible to gain additional feats by spending experience points. You must declare at least one session in advance that you are planning on taking an additional feat. “First-tier” feats (with no prerequisites) can be obtained by expending 3,000 experience points. To acquire the more powerful feats, you must satisfy their prerequisites normally, and their cost is increased by +1,500 xp for each feat listed as their prerequisite. Thus, you could obtain Mobility (provided you have Dodge) for 4,500 xp, or Whirlwind Attack (Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack) for 9,000 xp. Level, class ability, and attribute minimum requirements impose no additional cost. You can never gain more than one feat per character level in this fashion, nor can you expend so many experience points so as to lose a character level.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thanks for the info. I'll start a new thread in houserules. Sorry for the hijack folks.

 

[Klaus]

3.5 made a lot of good changes.

But the changes to cover and the Pokemounts are still just silly.

And I've heard the balance arguments that Pokemounts let the Paladin get greater use out of his mount... somehow I just dont see Lancelot going "Great Steed I choose you!"

Chuck

Well, Lancelot only yells that if you want him to.

May I draw your attention to Lady Yleanna of Winterbrook. As a paladin of Ehlonna, she has seen her share of overwhelming odds, and today is no exception. Lady Yleanna's group is storming a vile temple of Nerull in the middle of a once-pristine woodland. All the nerullian clerics have barricked themselves inside the main altar room, and the party is about to blast the double doors to smithereens. As the wizard prepares his fireball scroll and the cleric asks Pelor for a magic circle against evil, Lady Yleanna stares intensely at the doors. On the other side are scores of evil monsters and undead.

"Milady Ehlonna, Ruler of the Forests, hear my humble prayer. Yet again I stand before darkness, and yet again I ask you to shine your silver light upon it."

And like a silvery moon breaking through the night clouds, a beam of light shone from behind Lady Yleanna. It was the holy light of Elysium, and through this tear in space stepped a mighty creature, a unicorn of the purest white. It rested its head on Lady Yleanna's shoulder and she whispered softly into its ear.

"Once again, Silvermane, we ride forth into the darkness."

With a swift movement, the half-elven maiden mounted her faithful steed, a heavenly gift of her goddess, and drew out her gleaming sword. Her lips opened into a discreet smile.

"Alright, Farenz. Make me a door."




Very different from "Unicorn, I choose youuuu!", right?