PDA

View Full Version : Dear 3.5



Starsinger
2009-06-15, 02:56 PM
Dear 3.5,
How have you been? It's been about a year now, since I left you for your brother, 4e, and longer since the two of us actually did anything together. I wish it hadn't ended between us the way it did, but your brother just treats me better than you did. Towards the end of our time together there was a lot of anger and frustration, emotions I'd felt for a while, but finally had the nerve to bring up in words.

When we first got together, everything seemed great, we were both kind of young and things seemed so simple. But people change, both of us did over the years. And as I got older, I heard things about you, things that I never noticed before that bugged me. Things like how you treated casters and non-casters totally differently, or how you only paid lip service to things that I enjoy, like healing people or casting spells that do damage. And at first I didn't believe people, I thought they were just jealous of the fun we had together and were trying to hurt my opinion of you. But I did some research, snooping around beyond what you told me up front, and I realized they were right.

And then you got fat and bloated. There came to be so much of you that I could barely recognize the 3.5 I knew. People assured me that underneath the frankly grotesque amount of bulk you put on, you were still the same. But the fact is you changed, instead of fixing what I didn't like about you, you continued on in the direction you headed.

And so I spent as little time with you as possible near the end, sure I talked with other people about you, and I tried to act like I still liked you, but my heart wasn't in it anymore. And then your brother came out and things were different. With your brother most of the things I didn't like about you were gone, and the things that you had in common, were toned down and easier to handle. I mean sure, when I spend time with 4e, I sometimes think about you, I mean you do share a familiar resemblance to one another, which brings me to the point of this letter...

I know that things will never be the same between us, but when I hear how much fun some of my friends have with you, I think you might be a cool guy, and I try, I've tried more than a few times to show up with some of my friends and spend time with you, but the old wounds open up whenever I try. I want to spend time with you again, somewhere... I just can't figure out how.

I wish you all the best until I figure out how to be friends with you again,
Sincerely,
Starsinger

tl;dr- I want to play 3.5 again, give me suggestions on how to enjoy it.

Indon
2009-06-15, 03:01 PM
The impression I get is that you disliked playing extra-core materials. So... play in a core-only game?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-15, 03:04 PM
Houserule/homebrew. Import the good things from 4.x and combine them with the 3.5 base. Tell your players 'Don't be Jerks'. Use ToB to balance non-casters and Casters. I've generally avoided the 3.5 problems, so I can't be more helpful than that, but that should get you started.

Timberboar
2009-06-15, 03:06 PM
The impression I get is that you disliked playing extra-core materials. So... play in a core-only game?

This. Except... well, sneak in the Book of Nine Swords. :)

Shirani
2009-06-15, 03:15 PM
The impression I get is that you disliked playing extra-core materials. So... play in a core-only game?

That will only aggravate the problem further..

Belobog
2009-06-15, 03:15 PM
4e and 3.5 have some rather irreconcilable differences, and it'd take a large retooling of either system to really capture some of the feel of either. Assuming that you're doing this to play with friends who like 3.5 better, then you'd have to convince them to make some changes...which, if they're perfectly happy with the old system, might be difficult.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-15, 03:26 PM
4e and 3.5 have some rather irreconcilable differences, and it'd take a large retooling of either system to really capture some of the feel of either. Assuming that you're doing this to play with friends who like 3.5 better, then you'd have to convince them to make some changes...which, if they're perfectly happy with the old system, might be difficult.Depends on the changes. The 4.x trap mechanics, for example, are one of the few things it has that are superior in every way. Stealing them is perfectly reasonable.

Doc Roc
2009-06-15, 03:38 PM
:: thoughtful gesture :: It depends on what power level you like.

I've had a lot of fun with
Core - Prepared casters + psionics

- wilder + complete series - erudite

+Full BAB monk - Io7v + ToB - timestop, gate, and the polymorph line


- Cha dependency for paladins + Sword of the Arcane Order as a bonus feat.

KIDS
2009-06-15, 04:02 PM
This was quite inspiring. Nice letter and very precise as well :)

erikun
2009-06-15, 04:25 PM
Heh, I think your avatar of Rosalina is quite fitting for the message. :smallamused:

Anyways, Tidesinger makes a few good points. Core + Tome of Battle covers most problems, leaving you only a few broken spells (and some other issues) that need fixing. Adding the Complete line gives you more work, but greatly increases variety.

Psionics feels like a self-contained "fixed" system to me, which is one of the reasons I like it.

Move over to a less broken system. I've heard good things about Pathfinder, and the homebrew forum has some very good 3.5e fixes.

Switch to d20 Modern.

Switch to Muntants and Masterminds.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-06-15, 04:26 PM
Wow, I never knew it was possible to combine D&D with the Lifetime channel. :smalleek:


tl;dr- I want to play 3.5 again, give me suggestions on how to enjoy it.
I suggest copious amounts of house ruling. (http://lukebuchanan.com/TS_Tome_of_House_Rules_3e.pdf)

FMArthur
2009-06-15, 04:32 PM
Depends on the changes. The 4.x trap mechanics, for example, are one of the few things it has that are superior in every way. Stealing them is perfectly reasonable.

Why are people saying 4.x? Is there already a derivative system of 4e that needs accounting for?

Tokiko Mima
2009-06-15, 04:48 PM
How about trying to do something 4e doesn't do well, like play an exotic monster race, gestalt class, alternate casting system, or an involved multiclass? Sometimes exploring the limitations of a system can help to spark an interest in a different ruleset.

Mando Knight
2009-06-15, 04:48 PM
Why are people saying 4.x? Is there already a derivative system of 4e that needs accounting for?

I've also seen it called "4.0" when there isn't an official patch or update that calls it 4.1 or anything. :smallconfused:

Unless of course you want to call the 4E core-1 (PHB, DMG, MM) books as originally printed "4.0," core-1 + Adventurer's Vault + Updates "4.01," etc. ... :smallconfused:

On gestalt: PHB 3 will have hybrid rules, which will allow gestalt-type characters without having to rebalance the entire encounter structure to account for them. Exotic monsters simply don't have racial stats yet. You could probably make rules for them, but they wouldn't exactly be balanced unless you were careful. (I'd suggest using a "hybrid monster" class to be mixed with the hybrid version of a normal class when using monsters that aren't normally suited for PCs, like true dragons)

The Mentalist
2009-06-15, 05:32 PM
E6 sounds like it would fit the bill.

Oblivious
2009-06-15, 06:50 PM
You could try Pathfinder. If nothing else, the feat list they put out is more extensive than 3.5 core but still self-contained and relatively balanced.

Maerok
2009-06-15, 07:13 PM
PHB 3 will have...

Well, I think I'm sticking with 3.5 for a while.

If you're spiteful: ToM for spellcasters and ToB for non-casters.

Crow
2009-06-15, 07:24 PM
The way it read to me was that spending time reading about the game on the internet ruined it for you. It sounds like you didn't have many problems with the system at all, until "other people" ruined it for you.

Seriously dude, what was the point of this? It seems like you have everything you need to enjoy the game, so just get a group together and play some simple adventures. Nothing too complicated, just fun!

Mando Knight
2009-06-15, 07:30 PM
Well, I think I'm sticking with 3.5 for a while.

Valid. Especially if you've sunk cash into it already.

Check with 4E in a couple of years, and it might be as mature (i.e. capable of representing a variety of concepts) a system as 3.5.

shmeck
2009-06-15, 11:04 PM
Dear 4e,
I'm not really sure why I'm writing this, since we never got to know each other too well. In the end you were so vanilla that there just wasn't enough about you to keep me interested.

At first I was really excited to get to know you. A lot of people told me great things about you and built you up to me. And it's true, you have a lot of great qualities and they make a lot of things go way more smoothly than with that wild sister of yours.

But over time I just.. lost interest. I think it's because every time we hung out it would be more of the same. You had this need to make everything "fair" and maintain all this "balance", which is cool for people with control issues who obsess over that sort of thing, but for me it was.. well.. *boring*. With you, everything fits into a nice neat little box, which just isn't very sexy.

Your sister 3.5 is so fun & quirky & unpredictable, it feels way more like real life with her & less like a video game. And she knows all these big words and she has all these interesting secrets, it's like I'm always discovering something new.

And when the lights get low I always feel like anything can happen with her and she makes me feel like I can do anything I want. You were always so predictable. *yawn*

To be honest, it seemed like you aren't really interested in me and what I like so much as you're interested in making a quick buck off me. I can get everything that matters about your sister 3.5 for *free* because she understands that money can't buy love and the best things are free. But you always charge, & you never give anything away.

Good luck with that.

Sincerely,
Shmeck

Mystic Muse
2009-06-15, 11:52 PM
dear 4.0

at first I liked you. I thought you were fun and easy enough to understand that I could have fun playing with you. at first you were fun. however after a while I realized that what people said about you was true. during that time I was also playing with your rival 3.5

3.5 had her own problems. however the thing was with her she could change more easily and not feel like you lost so much. she had more variety and while I could rely on her to be how she was normally she could also change and show me a different world.

I'm glad I still get to spend time with you. the only problem is you're more predictable and while your rival may be long winded you take much too long to get things done. I promise to keep playing with you until my DM decides to change to 3.5 again. when that time comesSAYONARA SUCKA!:tongue:

actually it's not THAT bad

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-15, 11:58 PM
Why are people saying 4.x? Is there already a derivative system of 4e that needs accounting for?No, but there will be. This is just getting everyone used to the idea.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 12:02 AM
How about this? I'll run you a one-off or two.

Pronounceable
2009-06-16, 12:10 AM
The way it read to me was that spending time reading about the game on the internet ruined it for you. It sounds like you didn't have many problems with the system at all, until "other people" ruined it for you.


I'm gonna quote this.

You also sound like you'd prefer a tweaked ADnD.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 12:13 AM
I'm gonna quote this.


I had a bit of a rant here about how I didn't think it was fair to suggest that CO ruined the game. I've deleted it as it occurred to me that you were probably joking, except for the following:

My way is my way. Your way is your way. I love the game as much as you do.

ericgrau
2009-06-16, 12:18 AM
Just don't abuse the system? I've seen games work out well with healing, damage and limited munchkinism. That stuff isn't that weak unless compared to abusive tactics, i.e. a focus on certain splatbook abilities for the purpose of easy cheesy "i win". High level healing is essential if you play a brutal campaign where lives need saving. Just avoid wasting combat rounds on mid/low level healing and have another tactic for the 80% of the time when there isn't an emergency. Scorching ray and fireball, plus metamagicked/etc. versions, are both bread and butter spells for disrupting other casters with readied actions, taking down creatures with high saves (for full/half damage), dealing with mirror images (removing or damaging in spite of) and dealing with masses of weak opponents. Other energy type spells are weaker but provide backups for an easy way to deal with resistances, as do certain feats/special abilities to change energy types. As with healing this shouldn't be your only tactic, but it is still extremely useful a good majority of the time. Now if you want only healing and damage to be the best option all the time (or any single tactic for that matter), that simply isn't true and you should just stick to 4e for that.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-16, 12:19 AM
I had a bit of a rant here about how I didn't think it was fair to suggest that CO ruined the game. I've deleted it as it occurred to me that you were probably joking, except for t

People found ways to do infinite attacks with the Ranger in 4.0 within two weeks of its release.

I don't think CO is the problem either.

Limos
2009-06-16, 12:29 AM
Dear 4e,

I know you've been going through a tough time lately. It seems like your big brother 3.5 has been telling all his friends that there is something wrong with you. I know it's just because he is jealous that you are finally getting your chance in the spotlight. Don't listen to them.

I love how you finally bridged the gap between the power sources, how you streamlined the game into one coherent system rather than having a different ruleset for every character. You actually make it fun to play as something other than a batman wizard or cheese clericzilla. I'm so happy that you threw out all that rancid cheese that your big brother left lying everywhere.

I know you are going through a tough transition with all the people trying to drag you down, but give it time for them to settle in and it'll work out fine.

Hang in there buddy,
Limos

SoD
2009-06-16, 12:30 AM
And so I spent as little time with you as possible near the end, sure I talked with other people about you, and I tried to act like I still liked you, but my heart wasn't in it anymore. And then your brother came out and things were different.

I knew I wasn't the only one who thought 4e was gay.

If you want a way to enjoy 3.5e, and one of the problems is casters, and another problem is too much stuff, get a bunch of people together to play a no- or low- magic game, possibly core only.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-16, 12:44 AM
I love how you finally bridged the gap between the power sources, how you streamlined the game into one coherent system rather than having a different ruleset for every character. You actually make it fun to play as something other than a batman wizard or cheese clericzilla. I'm so happy that you threw out all that rancid cheese that your big brother left lying everywhere.The primary reason I don't like 4.x. Sometimes, I want to have a dozen abilities to track, sometimes I just want to need to know my BAB. Sometimes I want to have to question whether it's worth it to take any actions, sometimes I want to have something interesting to do every round. 4.x would have gotten much more of a look from me if everyone had different numbers of per day abilities. There's no reason for the martial character to last the same number of fights as a caster.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-16, 12:44 AM
Dear http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png,

You could afford to be a bit less lax with your next child. You really let 3.5 go, and now you're just sitting back while the poser friends that got 3.5 into this mess are talking up 4e too. Raise 5e more proactively.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 01:02 AM
Dear GitP,
This thread needs to be closed.
I'm tired of seeing people I know and am friends with blamed for the excesses of design that caused problems in 3.5 and to a lesser extent 4th edition. I'm tired of being told that I'm the problem. You may be right. But if it is wrong to approach a game with an inquisitive mind and a desire to do well, then we are no longer playing a game. We're doing something else, and it's been made clear I'm not welcome in the reindeer games. Forgive me if this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be. I welcome your approach. I'll adjust my builds to whatever the rest of the table brings, and I'll gambol along quite contentedly. The gist of it is that someone I respected very much just left the community because all that was left were accusatory embers. His parting advice to us was that:

"One can disagree without being disagreeable."

And perhaps I am not a paragon of this. But can we at least try to indicate a respect for each other?
Instead of slugging out poorly written editorials about how optimization was the problem with 3.5?
4th is not a clean and beautiful system. There are plenty of serious exploits in it already. This number will only grow. It's okay, though. After all, we were never intended to consider the rules holy. Play how you want, how you need to. The books, the rules, they're just guidelines. Often very good ones, but really fundamentally just guidelines. But don't blame your players for the rules, because the rules are not immaculate. They are not holy. They are not good. It is the fate of all rules to be makeshift measures in a desperate attempt to cover an impossibly wide set of cases and situations.

With Sincerity,
Jake

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-16, 01:05 AM
Dear GitP,
This thread needs to be closed.

Yours,
JakeWhy?

See this? This right here, this is why I dislike the 10-character limit.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 01:07 AM
Expanded on it, sorry.

Why? Because I'm a grouchy old man. ;)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-16, 01:09 AM
I'm tired of seeing people I know and am friends with blamed for the excesses of design that caused problems in 3.5 and to a lesser extent 4th edition. I'm tired of being told that I'm the problem. ... We're doing something else, and it's been made clear I'm not welcome in the reindeer games.

That's why, innit?

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 01:11 AM
That's why I am a grouchy old man, yes.
Did you mean something else?

Grynning
2009-06-16, 01:14 AM
I just wanted to chime in on this. I've recently started playing Star Wars: Saga Edition, which I think is probably the best game WotC has done since 3.0 D&D. I like 4th edition, I've been playing in the same campaign since release actually, and have no plans for quitting it. But when I was making my Star Wars character the rush of having tons of choices again was really great. 4th ed. DOES pigeonhole your characters into a role based on class, and it does mean that a lot of characters will end up looking the same. In our Star Wars game, we have 4 Jedi, all of whom play completely differently due to multiclassing, feat and power selection, as well as highly varying stats. You just wouldn't see that with 4 Swordmages or Monks or whatever in 4th ed. Conversely, a lot of the things I like about 4th ed are still present, such as a simplified skill system, unified character progressions, and encounter based mechanics to prevent 5 minute workdays (and actually, 4th took most of these elements from Saga edition, which came first).

Anyways, in response to Starsinger's dilemma, I highly recommend SWSE. Even if you're not into the Star Wars setting, the rules changes could easily be integrated into a 3.5 style D&D game, including the Force rules in place of magic (just change use the Force to "Manipulate the Weave" or whatever, and maybe change it's key stat depending on your class) and reducing item importance in favor of level based bonuses. Either way I think you'll have a lot of fun, SWSE really is a good game for people who like both 3.5 and 4th ed.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 01:15 AM
I hear fantastic things about it from people I really respect. Could we talk about it more sometime? Is there any way to adapt mainstream 3.5 material to the SWSE rules system? Do you know what the intended degree of support is?

Talic
2009-06-16, 01:15 AM
tl;dr- I want to play 3.5 again, give me suggestions on how to enjoy it.

Well, start by taking it for what it is.

4e? Yeah, it treats casters and non-casters the same. Exactly the same.

Once per day, your character may do this.
Every encounter, your character may do this or this once.
Your character may do this or this as often as you like.

And every effect can easily be reworded slightly, and it looks like it belonged to another class all along. Everything's so fair, so equal, so homogenous.

Give me variety. It is the spice of life. Give me characters that work in radically different ways, and accommodate a variety of playstyles.

Give me oozes that can't be tripped. Give me verisimilatude.


Frankly, while I don't begrudge anyone their hobby choice, and each is entitled to enjoy whatever they like... I can't see why anyone would prefer 4e as a role play system.

Any system can look like the devil, if you only look at the bad. Want to enjoy 3.x? Look at the good.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 01:17 AM
Give me oozes that can't be tripped. Give me verisimilatude.
[..]
Any system can look like the devil, if you only look at the bad. Want to enjoy 3.x? Look at the good.

+1 simulated cookie

Grynning
2009-06-16, 01:24 AM
I hear fantastic things about it from people I really respect. Could we talk about it more sometime? Is there any way to adapt mainstream 3.5 material to the SWSE rules system? Do you know what the intended degree of support is?

The feats could pretty much be dropped right into a fantasy setting. Iterative attacks are dropped, but BAB is still there. The Scoundrel, Scout and Soldier classes could be used pretty much as-is for D&D (call them Rogue, Ranger and Fighter respectively), as could the Noble (Bard). Just drop any technology based talents (which are class features basically, you gain 1 every odd level) and maybe homebrew replacements.

Jedi are basically a melee/caster hybrid, which can be built either as mix-it-up fighter types or stand in the back wizard types, or anything in-between. You'd probably want to use the basic Jedi class in place of the Cleric and Paladin (since it works off of Wisdom and Charisma) and it covers both types of character equally well. The Lightsaber Combat tree could just be changed to work with the Deity's favored weapon or whatever is appropriate to your setting.

Wizards are a bit trickier. SWSE has no 1/2 BAB, which I think is fine, so you'd use the 3/4 BAB, and then give them talents based on using the "Force" or whatever you decide to call your magic (The various Force Tradition talent trees would work well for a guideline, particularly the Dathomir Witch and the Sith trees). Make their bonus feat list have less of the physical and combat type stuff and more resemble the Nobles. With all of the various splat books for SWSE, there's ways to do pretty much everything magic in D&D can do with the force, so there's no real loss of the spellcaster feel.

PrC's would also require a lot of adaptation, obviously, but any non-tech specific PrC's (like the Elite Trooper, or the Melee Duelist and Gladiator from the KotOR book) and the various Force using PrC's are all pretty much good to go, Force Techniques and Secrets are all great to use for a magic system.

Edit: The one thing that SWSE really doesn't have is magic items. Everything scales based on level or 1/2 level kind of like 4th ed, but you don't have item bonuses for anything. However, there are tech items with minor special properties and lightsaber crystals that have some nifty effects, so those would be good guidelines for how to do magic items using these rules. Essentially though, magic items would never add to attack, regular damage rolls or defenses. (I really like that by the way, I've always hated that D&D forces you to have magical gear in order for the math to work. 4th ed is even worse about that than previous editions and it does annoy me).

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-16, 02:19 AM
I can't see why anyone would prefer 4e as a role play system.

I'm jumping into this pants down.

I prefer 4e because charopping in 3.5e is monotonous. It's too easy to make soemthing hideously powerful. Do this, never touch that, take levels in this, shun that, do this, play this class, never tough 85% of the game. In 4e, I can bloody well charop how I want, partly because it's new, and partly because it's not broken all to hell and back.

Playing in 3.5e is a chore. Subsystems (and sometimes within subsystems) are nice, however, whenever I bring up Psionics, Incarnum, Tome of Battle, or Binders, most of the DMs I've seen adopt a look akin to someone who's being violated by the fattest, greasiest person that still lives in their mother's basement. The other DMs won't don't blanch instantly give me a sort of defeated look before passing on. Few of them just flat out go 'sure, fire it up.' And even fewer approach it with actual zeal.

And there's the point that magic rules. Everything. There are DMs that, when I bring up Tome of Battle, look at me like I'm suggesting everyone on the group play a rousing game of FATAL with their pants down and fifty dollars of lube. They claim it's broken, they claim it's too asian for the setting, they claim it's too weeaboo, whatever. Point is, melee characters get no good things. Meanwhile the same DMs allow the Spell Compendium and allow the casters EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN.

And repeat that with every single other system worth anything. Vanilla melee characters are by far and large the same boring fullattack routine. Or if you're built for it, tripping. Or you can find your singular other thing to do and repeat it on a constant basis while the Wizards and the Spellcasters by far and large have the more interesting options. I can't play a Warlock or Dragonfire Adept because those are broken munchkin classes despite the fact that they're not. TWF is a mess, THW Power Attacking and Charging is nearly the only other option worth anything.

And DMing? 3.5e? Dear lord, don't even get me started. DMing is a cluster of confusing messes. Besides the fact that learning how to DM in the first place was a massive chore, actually DMing itself was a pain. CR doesn't work at all, and if I wanted to play a game of 'Wing it and pray to hell it works' I'd be STing nWoD or finding decent women to discuss something intelligent with. Any encounter I make can be trivialized within seconds by the party's Wizard, and anything I throw at the Wizard that's beefy enough to give him trouble ends in a complete TPK. It's worse when I have a character who's optimized for story, as they'll either be immensely useless in combat, forcing me to either over or undershoot CR, or they'll trivialize my social encounters.

I could go on forever, but that is, in short, why I WILL NOT play 3.5e, much less DM it. It's bloated to hell and back, and the amount of houserules I would need to apply would be better spent doing something more productive like screaming at my neighbors, working on my 4e campaign's setting and pantheon, watching Heisei Riders, watching anime, writing a story that I've been putting off forever, ceasing my neglecting of my PS2, or just stop being fat. I despise the entire magic system and how ridiculously INTEGRAL it is to ALL of 3.5e, and I hate the obscene disparity between a vaguely optimized character, a heavily optimized character, and a character that isn't that optimized.

3.5e has it's good points, but what I despise about the system simply overwhelm what I actually like. I look between 3.5e and 4e and see that 4e hugely improved upon 3.5e.

Panda-s1
2009-06-16, 02:26 AM
Any system can look like the devil, if you only look at the bad. Want to enjoy 3.x? Look at the good.

Can I ask you the same of 4e?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-16, 02:34 AM
To Sir Homeslice:
Have you played 4e with those same DMs? How did they react? I actually mean this as a question.

I'm not sure that I follow your rationale for 4e is better powergaming (i.e. more fun overall), but it's not a major point. Preference and all.

Again, your DMs seem peculiar. Most folk I know hopped into bed with alternate systems because they were dissatisfied with basic magic; and some of these folk were much more hesitant to escape Batman Wizard by going to 4e. Spells have been decently nerfed (restricted) - gives the casters more creativity and they're still competitive.

I agree with your point about melee, but the only melee characters I've have reason to encounter would settle for nothing less than full offense. Two weapons are for fops and a shield is what buffs are for. ((The characters' mentality, not mine))

I can't believe that until now I couldn't understand why 4e was easier for DMs. It's not about the stat blocks or the organization or anything like that - it's the fact that CR works. They had to build the whole system from scratch, but it works (apparently).

A character optimized for story? I'm not sure what you mean there; and this seems like a concern that I might actually be able to address instead of offering my personal experience which is useless to you.

My groups have always had pretty blatant handicaps. Optimizers were relegated to squeezing the last bits of competence out of a gimped build. This led to challenges and a relative balance. Magic is still a problem if spells are from core only, but it's not insurmountable; and the different game being played interferes with the game about as much as a tank's lack of skill points does. Unless you meant magic items, which is a different issue entirely.


Can I ask you the same of 4e?

The good: Many things, easy, streamlined, etc.
The bad: I don't own the books and I can't afford them. Forget any roleplaying or gamist concerns for now; the economy stops me from playing 4e. I do have dislikes of it, though.

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-16, 02:46 AM
To Sir Homeslice:
Have you played 4e with those same DMs? How did they react? I actually mean this as a question.
I'm going to spare you people a rape analogy and just say: No. All but one are incredibly against it. And the single DM that wanted to play 4e is in short a douche and I am going nowhere near his games.


I'm not sure that I follow your rationale for 4e is better powergaming (i.e. more fun overall), but it's not a major point. Preference and all.
It's more along the fact that the discrepency between a decently built character and a well built character isn't huge as it was in 3.5e.


A character optimized for story? I'm not sure what you mean there; and this seems like a concern that I might actually be able to address instead of offering my personal experience which is useless to you.
Optimized for story might've been a bad term to use... I was mainly referring to characters that either weren't optimized for combat, or characters that were made 'as characters.' eg: A devout preacher who falls upon difficult times, but eventually becomes a zealous sword of the faith, in hopes to prevent others from falling upon the same faith (Cleric/Rogue/Paladin). Or yadda yadda. Mainly taking classes to 'fit backstory' also crap on the fly.

<_< Answered what I could.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-16, 02:57 AM
Eh. Funny. Maybe if we fused our regions together we'd have a good mix of 3.5 and 4e GMs.

The thing is, a preacher falling on hard times but then becoming a zealous warrior, to me, is just a cleric. Maybe with a dash of that rogue you mentioned. Play cleric for a few levels, become disillusioned and hit a stumbling block on your faith; learn to actually use skills. Recover your faith, get back into your god's good graces, use cleric buffs and the retraining rules to become a warrior-priest instead of a preacher. But then again, that involves retraining.

But those concepts do tend to fall out of use. The concepts that are compatible with a decently powergamed build (and really, nobody I've met actually cares enough to heavily optimize a build; because the heavy optimization tends to be more roleplay restrictive) are wide-ranging enough to provide a good mix of roleplaying fodder and gamist fun.

J.Gellert
2009-06-16, 03:28 AM
Dear 4th "Edition",

you may be a fun game in your own right, but you are not D&D, so you should be ashamed for stealing the name to market yourself.

Also, you shouldn't have targetted the Action RPG group, because it's cheaper and faster for them to play a CRPG.

Goodnight, and good luck.

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-16, 03:31 AM
Dear 4th "Edition",

you may be a fun game in your own right, but you are not D&D, so you should be ashamed for stealing the name to market yourself.

Also, you shouldn't have targetted the Action RPG group, because it's cheaper and faster for them to play a CRPG.

Goodnight, and good luck.

4e is still very much D&D.

Nightson
2009-06-16, 03:48 AM
Hurray, another edition war thread, some people just can't resist.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-16, 03:53 AM
Hey, don't lay the blame just on him. Firkraag just happened to be the first one to step over the line into a "real" edition war. This whole thread was passively confrontational for both sides. Just because an anti-4e person fired the "first" shot doesn't mean that 4e supporters are vindicated.

Dear 4e,
I don't know you, so I'll make this brief. When your baby sister is born, take good care of her. 3.5 will be a decent role model, but you're in a position to relate more and do the real work. Make sure 5e gets some CRPG friends instead of just hanging out with the same old thespians all the time.

Talic
2009-06-16, 04:31 AM
Can I ask you the same of 4e?

No, you may not. The OP was seeking a reconciliation with a system he used to like, and has trouble getting into, as he's seeing the bad. But he WANTS to enjoy 3.5. I offered advice tailored specifically to that mindset.

I have no major interest in 4e. I have fun perfectly fine in 3.5. I have no need to make the switch, and no desire to do so. In other words, I have nothing drawing me there, which is the primary difference in situation between myself and the OP.

So I continue with 3.5. I believe it is the superior system for what I do. I'm also comfortable with it, and I enjoy the subtlety of the rules. I enjoy the variety of the character types, and what they can do.

In other words, I have neither need nor desire to switch. I reserve the right to choose for myself how I entertain myself. That does not include 4e, at least, not at this time.

J.Gellert
2009-06-16, 05:47 AM
I didn't mean to be any more 'active' than the topic already is. I certainly don't care to start an edition war (really, it's pointless, people play whatever they prefer anyway).

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 07:54 AM
I'm going to spare you people a rape analogy and just say: No. All but one are incredibly against it. And the single DM that wanted to play 4e is in short a douche and I am going nowhere near his games.


I.... I....
Wow, this is ridiculous. You just got on my ignore list.
Rape is never a good analogy, particularly when you say you won't use it then mention douching. Nice move, Homeslice.


http://h1.ripway.com/DrRocktopus/NINJA.gif
Ninja Dog's Approval Is Lacking.

Indon
2009-06-16, 08:32 AM
How about trying to do something 4e doesn't do well, like play an exotic monster race, gestalt class, alternate casting system, or an involved multiclass? Sometimes exploring the limitations of a system can help to spark an interest in a different ruleset.

Heh, I've been tinkering with a potential campaign setting in which magic items don't exist, but PC-class characters (you know, the legendary hero types) become gestalt Incarnum characters instead.

Starsinger: If what's been said hasn't helped you, then you're going to need to go into more depth about precisely why you aren't having fun with 3.x. If that means you have to drop the letter-style prose, so be it.

ericgrau
2009-06-16, 09:48 AM
(OP quote about streamlining abilities instead of having different for every character)

The primary reason I don't like 4.x. Sometimes, I want to have a dozen abilities to track, sometimes I just want to need to know my BAB. Sometimes I want to have to question whether it's worth it to take any actions, sometimes I want to have something interesting to do every round. 4.x would have gotten much more of a look from me if everyone had different numbers of per day abilities. There's no reason for the martial character to last the same number of fights as a caster.

I think this really sums it up. Depending on your preferences you may like 4e or 3.5e because of things like this.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-16, 09:59 AM
I prefer 4e because charopping in 3.5e is monotonous. It's too easy to make soemthing hideously powerful. Do this, never touch that, take levels in this, shun that, do this, play this class, never tough 85% of the game. In 4e, I can bloody well charop how I want, partly because it's new, and partly because it's not broken all to hell and back.
Depends. If you visit the 4E charop boards, they will precisely tell you do "do this, never touch that, take this paragon path, shun tat, do this, never touch 85% of the game".

The funny thing is that it seems like many objections people have against 3E are complaints they read on the internet, not things they have experienced themselves. Because yes, we all know how overpowered a 15th-level wizard is, but I bet that the majority of posters on this on any forum have never played one, or indeed played any campaign that got that high.

Fatso
2009-06-16, 10:02 AM
1: Get rid of all the rules and options you do not want for your particular campaigns. There is no reason for you to use every single available rule, feat, option and source book.

2: Get players/DM who accept 1.

3: Have fun! :)

Garian
2009-06-16, 10:43 AM
Dear 4e,
I'm not really sure why I'm writing this, since we never got to know each other too well. In the end you were so vanilla that there just wasn't enough about you to keep me interested.

At first I was really excited to get to know you. A lot of people told me great things about you and built you up to me. And it's true, you have a lot of great qualities and they make a lot of things go way more smoothly than with that wild sister of yours.

But over time I just.. lost interest. I think it's because every time we hung out it would be more of the same. You had this need to make everything "fair" and maintain all this "balance", which is cool for people with control issues who obsess over that sort of thing, but for me it was.. well.. *boring*. With you, everything fits into a nice neat little box, which just isn't very sexy.

Your sister 3.5 is so fun & quirky & unpredictable, it feels way more like real life with her & less like a video game. And she knows all these big words and she has all these interesting secrets, it's like I'm always discovering something new.

And when the lights get low I always feel like anything can happen with her and she makes me feel like I can do anything I want. You were always so predictable. *yawn*

To be honest, it seemed like you aren't really interested in me and what I like so much as you're interested in making a quick buck off me. I can get everything that matters about your sister 3.5 for *free* because she understands that money can't buy love and the best things are free. But you always charge, & you never give anything away.

Good luck with that.

Sincerely,
Shmeck

You don't know how happy you just made me after reading the "host-post".
Biggest problem with 4.0: Its far less creative and more like WoW or other video games. Gary Gygax always said that he did not favor the RPG or D&D-like video and computer games. I have no problem with people playing 4.0, I just feel like it changed D&D to much for me. I like the so called pathfinder 3.75 addition. It is the needed improvements/changes to 3.5 that should have been 4.0.
Oh well, just because 4.0 is around does not mean I can't play 3.5 or 3.75. :smallbiggrin:

Killer Angel
2009-06-16, 10:53 AM
tl;dr- I want to play 3.5 again, give me suggestions on how to enjoy it.

Try to play something you'd never played before; tell your friends to do the same.
Assemble a totally new and original group of pc and taste the difference in role-playing.

Blackfang108
2009-06-16, 10:58 AM
Well, I think I'm sticking with 3.5 for a while.

If you're spiteful: ToM for spellcasters and ToB for non-casters.

Someone on this board once gave me an idea for the following:

ToB, MoI, and ToM (minus Truthspeaking. Although I may allow that, and include an Item Familiar as part of the Truenamer's progression.)

Crow
2009-06-16, 12:13 PM
The funny thing is that it seems like many objections people have against 3E are complaints they read on the internet, not things they have experienced themselves. Because yes, we all know how overpowered a 15th-level wizard is, but I bet that the majority of posters on this on any forum have never played one, or indeed played any campaign that got that high.

This. A huge, huge, THIS. Basically what I was trying to say in my first post.

...and for the record, I never said CO ruined 3.5 edition.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-06-16, 12:39 PM
tl;dr- I want to play 3.5 again, give me suggestions on how to enjoy it.

Why would you want to play it if you don't enjoy it?

There is nothing wrong with playing 4e. In both games your playing make believe with fantasy elfs and dwarfs. They arn't so different, the two systems.

lesser_minion
2009-06-16, 01:45 PM
If you've had fun with 3.x in the past, you might want to try running games that replicate the formula you used (I suspect that this is actually going to be closest to the formula the designers had in mind for the most part).

You don't have to listen to the points made on the internet about how best to play your character, and when DM'ing, you have absolute control - that cannot change the fact that 3.x is really on its last legs even without WotC doing everything it can to drive a stake through its heart, but it isn't always a complete 3-act play to fix some of its problems, for one game at least.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how helpful I can be though. I'm currently abandoning both editions, stealing their rules and making everything up as I go along.

Starsinger
2009-06-16, 01:50 PM
Playing in 3.5e is a chore...

And there's the point that magic rules. Everything... Meanwhile the same DMs allow the Spell Compendium and allow the casters EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN...

Vanilla melee characters are by far and large the same boring fullattack routine. Or if you're built for it, tripping. Or you can find your singular other thing to do and repeat it on a constant basis while the Wizards and the Spellcasters by far and large have the more interesting options...

And DMing? 3.5e? Dear lord, don't even get me started. DMing is a cluster of confusing messes. Besides the fact that learning how to DM in the first place was a massive chore, actually DMing itself was a pain.

3.5e has it's good points, but what I despise about the system simply overwhelm what I actually like. I look between 3.5e and 4e and see that 4e hugely improved upon 3.5e.

These are fairly good points that I can sympathize with on the "Elaborate further upon what you dislike" front.


Why would you want to play it if you don't enjoy it?
Because a lot of my friends are of the same mind as many of the ever so helpful people who swooped in here and started bashing 4e. And some of them have the mindset "Well there's no reason for us to play 4e with you, you've played 3.5 before, so you should play it with us." And y'know, I like my friends, so I'd kinda like to play something with them, you know?

Myatar_Panwar
2009-06-16, 02:04 PM
Because a lot of my friends are of the same mind as many of the ever so helpful people who swooped in here and started bashing 4e. And some of them have the mindset "Well there's no reason for us to play 4e with you, you've played 3.5 before, so you should play it with us." And y'know, I like my friends, so I'd kinda like to play something with them, you know?

Good point. I'm in kind of a similar situation (friends like 3.5 more), though I find fun in both systems.

Honestly, before 4e came out, I would bring alot of books and stuff to sessions, really excited and what not. That feeling is starting to come back, but otherwise its mostly been just about me coming in with just a players handbook and a character sheet.

Don't take it too seriously, and you should have fun.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 02:07 PM
Don't take it too seriously, and you should have fun.

Seconded. Despite my rep, a lot of my favorite builds use just two or three books, and have just a couple of pages of spells for reference material. The only thing that drives my book count up is my unnatural love for Tome of Battle.

Philistine
2009-06-16, 05:04 PM
There's no reason for the martial character to not last the same number of fights as a caster.

Fixed that for you. The two are often played in the same game, much though some systems try to obscure this by having completely different rulesets for the two archetypes. In fact, they're quite frequently in the same party - and party endurance is going to be determined by the group member who can go the shortest time between rest stops. One character with greatly less stamina than the rest of the group holds everyone else back; one character with greatly more stamina than the rest of the group isn't really bringing anything useful to the table.

To the OP: I've heard of people having good results with 3.5E via simply banning Core.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-06-16, 05:21 PM
To the OP: I've heard of people having good results with 3.5E via simply banning Core.

I don't see how that could possibly work. Unless you meant ban everything but core.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-16, 05:26 PM
I don't see how that could possibly work. Unless you meant ban everything but core.

Core is unbalanced. A mix of ToB, XPH, and ToM works better.

Philistine
2009-06-16, 05:30 PM
What, and play Core only? Egad, no! Worst. Idea. Ever.

"Banning Core" mostly refers to banning every single class in the PHB. That alone gets rid of a lot of the most stupidly broken stuff at both ends of the power spectrum.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-06-16, 05:43 PM
I don't think I would want to play in a game without rogues, wizards, or fighters. Maybe thats just me.

And I originally thought you were referring to banning core feats as well, which would be... interesting?

Shadowbane
2009-06-16, 05:46 PM
Dear 3.5 and 4.0,

I like you both. I really do. My friends, not so much. But since I DM, they're learning. 3.5, you're great when we play Aelasael, my homebrew world. Your zaniness, unpredictability and wild antics give so much life to the world I created. I could never have created the CL 100 druid Wildwalker, or the 30th level Archmage Telnoth Zae who ended up killing him. I could never have had Bael'Itae Os'Taesia break free from Black Mountain and lead the Alliance of Light to victory against the drow.

I could never have let Shadowbane the Paladin conquer Black Mountain singlehandedly, only to fall at the hand of Kaukoth the Demon-King.

On the other hand, 4.0 lets me do this stuff in a slightly less badass and way faster way.

Sorry 3.5.

I have good news though! I just saved 15% on my car insurance by switching to Geico!

~Shadowbane

Oblivious
2009-06-16, 06:18 PM
Core is unbalanced. A mix of ToB, XPH, and ToM works better.

Which highlights the fact that it is really the power level of spells versus feats which is the problem.

Panda-s1
2009-06-16, 06:49 PM
No, you may not. The OP was seeking a reconciliation with a system he used to like, and has trouble getting into, as he's seeing the bad. But he WANTS to enjoy 3.5. I offered advice tailored specifically to that mindset.

I have no major interest in 4e. I have fun perfectly fine in 3.5. I have no need to make the switch, and no desire to do so. In other words, I have nothing drawing me there, which is the primary difference in situation between myself and the OP.

So I continue with 3.5. I believe it is the superior system for what I do. I'm also comfortable with it, and I enjoy the subtlety of the rules. I enjoy the variety of the character types, and what they can do.

In other words, I have neither need nor desire to switch. I reserve the right to choose for myself how I entertain myself. That does not include 4e, at least, not at this time.

Well gee, that's not nice considering I did the same for 3.5. In fact a lot of us did. People seem to forget the majority of 4e players were playing 3.5 before it. Did we have problems with it? Of course, but it was always "Well it's D&D, we'll just houserule it," or "That's kinda how D&D works, just deal with it." Instead we just concentrated on the good, learned the bad, and learned to ignore the bad when needed. When they announced 4e... well, I wasn't exactly excited for it. Even after Races and Classes came out, I was only mildly enthused about a system that was still six months away. And then the Pathfinder Alpha came out and I went "Wow, if 4e ends up sucking, I know what I'm gonna play!" But the 4e previews started coming out, I finally got to play it, and I was sold. The designers brought up all the problems I had with the system but were too afraid to mention, then fixed them. Are there things I miss? Yeah, but in the end I really don't need them.

So yeah, I did look at the good in all of my time playing 3.5, but the bad was still there.


A problem that crops up pretty often in discussions is people citing the Oberoni principle to justify assuming that a broken rule or option will not be fixed in play - even though the Oberoni principle does not actually justify that.

The reason the Oberoni fallacy is cited is 'cause it counters the idea that Rule Zero is the best solution for everything. It's not assuming that you can't houserule it, what the Oberoni fallacy is saying is a broken rule is not okay just because you can houserule it. The rule should not be broken to begin with, 'cause by saying "Just houserule it," means the designers put the onus on GMs to fix something they should've fixed to begin with.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-16, 06:58 PM
Fixed that for you. The two are often played in the same game, much though some systems try to obscure this by having completely different rulesets for the two archetypes. In fact, they're quite frequently in the same party - and party endurance is going to be determined by the group member who can go the shortest time between rest stops. One character with greatly less stamina than the rest of the group holds everyone else back; one character with greatly more stamina than the rest of the group isn't really bringing anything useful to the table. And maybe I would prefer it if some characters were able to function if we're attacked in the middle of the night. Maybe I'd prefer it if the Rogue is able to be devious and tricky all day, rather than only being able to feint once per day. Maybe I think Wizards should be limited by spells/day. Balance is not the be-all end-all of D&D. 2d8 HP for Rangers proved that.

Mr.Moron
2009-06-16, 07:17 PM
I don't think I would want to play in a game without rogues, wizards, or fighters. Maybe thats just me.


It honestly works really well. Fighters & Wizards just don't belong the same games, mechanically. Starting at about 5th-7th level, any caster who knows what he is doing (even with just the core material) is already a great deal ahead of the melee, and the problem only grows from there.

When you restrict a game to a certain part of the power spectrum (be it high, low, or in between) things just get easier to deal with.



Because yes, we all know how overpowered a 15th-level wizard is, but I bet that the majority of posters on this on any forum have never played one, or indeed played any campaign that got that high.


I certainly doesn't take a 15th-level wizard to outshine a fighter or ranger. The gulf isn't quite as enormous as it is at that level, but it is certainly noticeable while still safely in the single-digits.

Doc Roc
2009-06-16, 07:19 PM
We can't stop here. This is caster country.

The issue is that if you think fourth isn't going to get smashed underneath expansion material, you have another think coming. And maybe they'll be more even handed, more careful about who gets what. But they only need to slip four or five times. And the CO community for 4th is very lively, suggesting to me that there's probably already a pretty wide power spread.

4th edition's biggest problem is that it is still D&D, not that it is no longer D&D.

lesser_minion
2009-06-16, 08:10 PM
The reason the Oberoni fallacy is cited is 'cause it counters the idea that Rule Zero is the best solution for everything. It's not assuming that you can't houserule it, what the Oberoni fallacy is saying is a broken rule is not okay just because you can houserule it. The rule should not be broken to begin with, 'cause by saying "Just houserule it," means the designers put the onus on GMs to fix something they should've fixed to begin with.

spoilered, as it's slightly off-topic:


The Oberoni priniciple (I prefer to call it a principle, because it sounds more like a principle than a logical fallacy) is that a broken rule is a problem with the game, even though the DM can fix it - a corrollary to which is that it remains a problem even if it never sees actual play.

I have seen people make a mistaken claim in a discussion that a broken rule (the lack of hardness in 4e - it was an edition war thread) will be played in its broken form, which is is only likely if the problems the rule presents are not immediately apparent. In reality, although it's a bad point against 4e, there is no reason to assume that wizards are punching their way through doors because it is faster than using Knock

The Oberoni fallacy is to assume that a car isn't broken because it can be fixed by a mechanic. My point was that people have been known to use this principle to try to justify the belief that people will drive the broken car without having it repaired.

In reality, the main reason why an obviously broken rule is a problem because the DM must go to the trouble of houseruling it, not because it will be used in play and then cause problems.

Eldariel
2009-06-16, 08:34 PM
I don't think I would want to play in a game without rogues, wizards, or fighters. Maybe thats just me.

And I originally thought you were referring to banning core feats as well, which would be... interesting?

Allowing Rogue is just fine (although I'd frankly lean towards using Swordsage with Trapfinding, or just good ol' Factotum, instead). For Wizard and Fighter...pick your books and overwrite "Psion" with "Wizard", "Warblade" with "Fighter" and you're done (alternatively, just do it in your mind to save your books). The classes are fluff-wise just what they used to be, but now they're pretty close power-wise.

And there's the Gish-in-a-Can Psychic Warrior that's pretty much what Fighter/Wizard should be, Ardent for more Wizard, less Fighter, and Binders for a different look at spellcasters. Then Unarmed Swordsage is what Monk should've always been, and variant Wilder does a decent Sorcerer-act. The only things it really misses out on are divine casters, Barbarian & Ranger, and there's Sublime Way Ranger (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=738077) and Sublime Way Barbarian (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-763404) for the latter problem (although Warblade does a fine Barbarian-play too), and Ardent can easily take the role Cleric used to have. Frankly, the game is better off without the Druids, although Ardent can pull that role off too with some work if necessary.

I guess you're still missing Bard; oh well, remove their spellcasting and instead give them access to White Raven maneuvers and some of Marshal's auras along with few new songs and you'll be done.


Point being, all the core classes are mostly present in a more fair guise in the presented books.

Reverent-One
2009-06-16, 08:59 PM
The issue is that if you think fourth isn't going to get smashed underneath expansion material, you have another think coming. And maybe they'll be more even handed, more careful about who gets what. But they only need to slip four or five times. And the CO community for 4th is very lively, suggesting to me that there's probably already a pretty wide power spread.

I disagree, if they're even-handed for the most part, it won't matter if they slip up and let something overpowered out a few times, as long as it's not something on the scale of a full class that's tremendously overpowered. Anything less then that could be easily errata'd, as they've done already for certain elements that proved to be more unbalanced than they thought. And even if these hypothetical four or five things did totally slip through their nets, 4e would still be far more balanced by several orders of magnitude than 3.5.

Crow
2009-06-16, 09:14 PM
Yay balance. Yay.

ericgrau
2009-06-16, 09:29 PM
4th edition's biggest problem is that it is still D&D, not that it is no longer D&D.

Because the most popular rpg around that we're here discussing b/c we all play it sucks so much and that's why it's so popular. I see this sort of thing in every kind of forum out there, not just rpg forums. People bash their own thing as the worst out there so much it's like some weird disorder, like maybe they want to feel better about themselves by putting down whatever's closest at hand. And what's closer than the main purpose of the forum? It seems like half the people (but probably only seems like that many) that went over to 4e did it so they could say how bad 3.5e was, and now they're probably complaining about 4e. Like I said most real games I've played in or heard of don't run into serious problems because most players don't want to abuse the system or get quickly shut down if they do. Even when games have their quirks or people do complain they still want to play it. And everyone still has a fun, challenging time. Nothing in life is perfect, you just pick the best you can find. If you don't like it, the best you can do is see whether or not you like anything else better and switch to that.

So it'd be cool if we could get to the O.P.'s stated purpose. Instead of saying something that can't really be used like "X sucks" or "don't play X", give the OP reasons to want to play 3.5e or ways you have (not would) made your own 3.5 game more fun. Or say the OP would have more fun with 4e or something else, giving reasons why you've personally had more fun with it or etc.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-17, 02:17 AM
Use ToB to balance non-casters and Casters.

Forgive me, Sstoopidtallkid, but this sentence always seemed strange to me.

Ok, ToB is really cool if you like the style, and anyway you can refluff it to match a different style a lot of time (For fun, I did it for a friend of mine, her 2d6 con damage maneuver is called "mortal strike" as an example*).

Ok, ToB classes are made to be slightly more powerful regarding their counterparts, starting from a better (and I would say, as it should be) skill selection, a better multiclass rule, and so on.

Ok, the tome is very solid and to build a good fighter you need something like 10 books, to build a good warblade the tome and the SRD are enough.

I never had problems with spellcasters, but I see the problems people addresses to them. The question is:

In what ToB improves the power balance issue? You can't teleport (at least, not for a great distance) with ToB, and you cant gate, your range is limited to melee and you don't have "meta-sublimeway" feats.





*Yes, the name is from Wow. But come on, if someone copypastes from Wow, why shouldn't I?

Kurald Galain
2009-06-17, 03:17 AM
I don't think I would want to play in a game without rogues, wizards, or fighters. Maybe thats just me.

The thing is you use other classes for those roles. You still call yourself a wizard in character, but on your char sheet it says beguiler, easy as that.

Sorcerer => Warlock
Wizard => Beguiler or Warmage
Fighter => Knight
Cleric => Dragon Shaman
And so forth.

Although missing the rogue does hurt. And it's one of the few PHB classes that falls right in the middle of the power spectrum. I suppose you could try for factotum, but that's such a silly gimmicky class that I wouldn't recommend it.

J.Gellert
2009-06-17, 03:21 AM
In what ToB improves the power balance issue? You can't teleport (at least, not for a great distance) with ToB, and you cant gate, your range is limited to melee and you don't have "meta-sublimeway" feats.

Just... just don't go there.

Teleportation, gating, and long-range attacks are the trademark of wizards in fantasy fiction everywhere. It's simply things that fighters cannot do and shouldn't be able to do.

Balance is one thing, but watch what you are asking. After all, the wizard is the guy who spent the first 4 levels hiding behind you with a crossbow, so cut him some slack - because you start campaigns at level 1 as the PH suggests, right?

Eldariel
2009-06-17, 03:33 AM
Just... just don't go there.

Teleportation, gating, and long-range attacks are the trademark of wizards in fantasy fiction everywhere. It's simply things that fighters cannot do and shouldn't be able to do.

And ToB doesn't enable them. What's your point? He asked how ToB is a balancing factor and it's true that it's really not in the sense that ToBbers would be as good as casters (because they won't), but it does make your average melee type a bit closer as ToB makes all types of melee decent, and means you don't really need to optimize to be good at what you do. It doesn't change the extremes, but it does skew the averages a bit closer to one another.

Although I do wonder what makes you think "long-range attacks are things Fighters shouldn't be able to do". Certainly Bows are a Fighter's weapons and can shoot at ranges almost no spells function at (~1000' away)? How isn't that a long range, and how isn't that appropriate for a Fighter? Luckily there's the homebrew "Falling Star" discipline to enable just that.


Balance is one thing, but watch what you are asking. After all, the wizard is the guy who spent the first 4 levels hiding behind you with a crossbow, so cut him some slack - because you start campaigns at level 1 as the PH suggests, right?

For the first 2 levels, everyone is hiding behind...well nothing, 'cause one Crit kills any character. That's why those levels don't exactly lend themselves to awesome play experience unless you like PC death. Level 1 is, to borrow the FPS term, rocket launcher tag. It's generally two hits and you're dead (or one failed save).

Also, how is it fair that Fighters are better 1-4 (which is not really the case, but that's hardly the point here) and Wizards are awesome 5-20? Of course there's little to do about that, but I'd rather make the game a bit more fair with Warblades et al.

Totally Guy
2009-06-17, 04:00 AM
"Banning Core" mostly refers to banning every single class in the PHB. That alone gets rid of a lot of the most stupidly broken stuff at both ends of the power spectrum.

We tend to play core only. Where can I find out about more non core classes? Sure I see words and names used all the time but they don't tend to mean a lot. I don't want to start thinking about a concept without understanding what the class is.

That is if my old 3.5 DM decides to run one over summer.

Else we're right back to my 4E game.:smallbiggrin:

J.Gellert
2009-06-17, 04:19 AM
And ToB doesn't enable them. What's your point? He asked how ToB is a balancing factor and it's true that it's really not in the sense that ToBbers would be as good as casters (because they won't), but it does make your average melee type a bit closer as ToB makes all types of melee decent, and means you don't really need to optimize to be good at what you do. It doesn't change the extremes, but it does skew the averages a bit closer to one another.

Although I do wonder what makes you think "long-range attacks are things Fighters shouldn't be able to do". Certainly Bows are a Fighter's weapons and can shoot at ranges almost no spells function at (~1000' away)? How isn't that a long range, and how isn't that appropriate for a Fighter? Luckily there's the homebrew "Falling Star" discipline to enable just that.

For the first 2 levels, everyone is hiding behind...well nothing, 'cause one Crit kills any character. That's why those levels don't exactly lend themselves to awesome play experience unless you like PC death. Level 1 is, to borrow the FPS term, rocket launcher tag. It's generally two hits and you're dead (or one failed save).

Also, how is it fair that Fighters are better 1-4 (which is not really the case, but that's hardly the point here) and Wizards are awesome 5-20? Of course there's little to do about that, but I'd rather make the game a bit more fair with Warblades et al.

Re-read my post.

Hint: I am not saying "don't use ToB" or "ToB is unfair" or "ToB is bad".

So yeah. You likely agree with me already, you just don't know it.

Eldariel
2009-06-17, 04:40 AM
We tend to play core only. Where can I find out about more non core classes? Sure I see words and names used all the time but they don't tend to mean a lot. I don't want to start thinking about a concept without understanding what the class is.

That is if my old 3.5 DM decides to run one over summer.

Psionics in their entirety are available in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/). That includes the base Psionic classes (Complete Psionic has one more that's very usable in Ardent; I cannot find the class online easily). One more Psionic class you can find is the Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) that's online.

The rest will be harder. Tome of Battle is a book you will almost certainly need to buy as they use new mechanics from that book. The best preview you can get is the Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2); that article comes complete with one school's low-mid level maneuvers (Warblade knows a total of 5 schools, and maneuvers go up to level 9), but that's the basic idea. That class is basically the "Fighter/Barbarian" of that system (mostly it feels like Fighter, but with Tiger Claw & Stone Dragon maneuvers and hefty dose of Iron Heart Surge, you can make it a Barbarian too). There's also a "Paladin" and a "Rogue/Monk/Swashbuckler" (depending on how you build it, it can present any of those classes) available.

Other than that, you can find the Dragonfire Adept (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2) (and most of the accompanying material save for Invocations), the Totemist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050907a&page=3) (and some Soulmelds), and some other stuff online.


Really though, you'll want to see the books to truly use those classes. Psionics you can easily just run off SRD and Mind's Eye, but to truly run with the Tome of Battle-classes, you'll want Tome of Battle. Tome of Magic has one excellent class in Binder, which unfortunately isn't online; you'll have to think if you find one mechanic & class be worth buying a book for.

Other books that contain often praised base classes are Complete Psionics (it's mostly a crappy book, but it has a base class named "Ardent" which is excellent for a lot of stuff), Dungeonscape (Factotum - a skill monkey extraordinaire - can be found there) and Magic of Incarnum (although the best class from the book, the Totemist, is available online; you'll still need the book for the soulmelds though).


To give you a bit of an image of the classes:
-Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader are all from Tome of Battle, and are melee classes that use new mechanics called "maneuvers" which are basically different attacks, blocks and attack boosts you have a set of available at any given time (all three classes have different methods of determining which maneuvers exactly you can use); basically you've got a variety of different ways to hit the opponent and to defend yourself. Then you can have 1 stance active at all times, which gives you some static abilities or bonuses.
-Psion/Psychic Warrior/Psychic Rogue/Ardent/Wilder are all Psionic classes (all but Ardent are available for free) and use Psionics instead of Magic. Basically just a "magic point"-based system with most spells having a variety of enhancement options that include spending extra points, and overall, just more fluid and interesting way of handling Magic. It also lacks many of the broken effects PHB spell list contains. This list basically has straight casters (Psions), Gishes (Psychic Warriors), Spellthieves (Psychic Rogues) and Cleric proxies (Ardents).
-Binder is a class from Tome of Magic; as a name suggests, he binds entities to his servitude to draw upon their powers. The good news is that Binders are awesome in flavour and power (that is, right on the right power level). The bad news is that the two other systems in the book, Truenaming and Shadowcasting, both fail pretty hard due to bad construction of the base class and mechanics. So yeah, Tome of Magic contains one nice class with its own mechanics; in no ways necessary to get the "core classes" replicated, but a nice addition.
-Totemist/Incarnate are classes from Magic of Incarnum; basically, they use magic to create "equipment" for themselves that allow them to mimic many creatures' abilities and gain various bonuses to different checks and stats on demand. Then they have this fluid source of extra power, "essentia", which they can use to empower some of their soulmelds. Great fun, even though the third class is a bit of a failure (and Incarnate is notably worse than Totemist).
-Factotum is basically a Rogueish class with a more generalist approach; while Rogue is always a skulking sneaky type, a Factotum can pretty much be anything. They have all skills in class and can use their own energy pool (named "Inspiration") to add their Int to basically any check, or their Factotum-level to a skill check. This energy reserve is renewed every encounter. It basically resembles the bits and pieces they happen to remember and focus on in any given encounter.


Re-read my post.

Hint: I am not saying "don't use ToB" or "ToB is unfair" or "ToB is bad".

So yeah. You likely agree with me already, you just don't know it.

That kinda confused me, 'cause in that case you'd agree with Kaiyan too, which seems to make this whole chain of replies unnecessary.

J.Gellert
2009-06-17, 04:56 AM
Balance in battle, and taking the spotlight when fighting against monsters, is something that everyone wants. ToB does a good step towards that by giving you these new warrior-type classes.

Giving flight, teleportation, and telekinesis to warrior-types however is a different thing. It's the things that differentiate magic-users from normal people, similarly to how fighters don't heal and don't turn undead.

Kaiyan implied that ToB doesn't improve balance because it doesn't give these options to fighters. I disagree, because I think that allowing warriors to teleport isn't a requirement to have balance. ToB works as it is.

Eldariel
2009-06-17, 05:00 AM
Kaiyan implied that ToB doesn't improve balance because it doesn't give these options to fighters. I disagree, because I think that allowing warriors to teleport isn't a requirement to have balance. ToB works as it is.

What I read into that was pretty much that casters still kick the living out of ToBbers in terms of efficiency and power, which is true and which hasn't changed much with regards to the core warrior types.

I didn't see him implying melee types should get those abilities, I just saw him implying that melee types are always going to be weaker because casters have those abilities.

J.Gellert
2009-06-17, 05:04 AM
Weaker in which way? In PvP? Because I can see a ToBer standing toe-to-toe with anything the DM throws at him without needing to chain-gate, so the lack of said spells/options doesn't hurt him.

Now if a wizard tries to kill him with a prismatic sphere loop that's more a problem with how certain spells work than a problem with how weak ToB'ers are.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-17, 05:06 AM
Balance in battle, and taking the spotlight when fighting against monsters, is something that everyone wants.

No it isn't.

ImmortalAer
2009-06-17, 05:07 AM
Dear Starsinger,

Well, hello there.

Instead of getting embroiled into 'which edition is better,' you can always sit back and take one very important aspect into consideration when picking.

Is 3.5 the superior game with it's dozens of books and munchkinnery, or is 4 superior with it's purported balance. Well, niether is. In fact, I would go as far to say that it could hardly matter less which edition you play.

The system is set for people to have a base mechanic to use as a support to play the game, to become a ravaging villian, a sparkling paladin, a devestating magi. What are we really doing? Writing a story. The system is nothing, what matters is your group. Can the DM bring an overarching plot, and memerable moments? Can he keep challenges suitably intense so that you feel worried for your niegh-invunerable character, seeing that somehow all of thier (Eldrich, Arcane, Physical) might could be for naught against this newest challenge.

Maybe it's just me, but watch people crunch a character into the stratosphere with power of any variety and magical items to try and cover every contingency is... well, breaking the spirit. It's a game, so yes, as players we're going to seek the best way to devestate the monsters and demons, to wander the archaic ruins of some lost forgotten civilization hunting down some keepsake of untold power in order to slay the insidious and depraved Lich-King of Gabadir. Where does the Edition and system come into this? It gives us the feeling of what our character's limits are. Even thier growing demigoddery has a limit. Even the Gods have "limits."

All in all, to me, the system, the numbers and the crunch could matter less. It's fun to stat out a character, to know how she (or he) compares to the other plot-important people, and the creatures residing in the dark corners. Dungeons and Dragons is an Epic Tale, if you have the group for it, whichever edition you play. So if you don't want to come back to 3.5, I'm not begrudging you that, and I wish you luck in your future games. :smallsmile:

(...and now for the RLs and Munchkins to chew my legs off. Especially if I mention that PrCs actually bother me with thier 'power balancing.' Especially ToB. I don't need your character to have an ungodly number of buffs and powers, just kill the dragon so the plot can roll on to the next hook. Yes, I run games with scale-by-character. Bite me.)

::Edit'd, because I remembered the word I wanted for one of the sentences.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-17, 05:16 AM
What are we really doing? Writing a story. The system is nothing, what matters is your group.

...

All in all, to me, the system, the numbers and the crunch could matter less.

Well said.

Kemper Boyd
2009-06-17, 05:53 AM
Just... just don't go there.

Teleportation, gating, and long-range attacks are the trademark of wizards in fantasy fiction everywhere. It's simply things that fighters cannot do and shouldn't be able to do.


I tried to come up with an example where a wizard actually does these things outside D&D license novels and came up with nothing.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-17, 05:58 AM
I tried to come up with an example where a wizard actually does these things outside D&D license novels and came up with nothing.
Dworkin, Brand and pretty much everyone from the Amber series.

Pug/Milamber from Krondor, and associates.

Vanyel Demonsbane from the Heralds of Valdemar.

That took me thirty seconds, I'm sure there's plenty of other examples.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-17, 06:10 AM
Weaker in which way? In PvP? Because I can see a ToBer standing toe-to-toe with anything the DM throws at him without needing to chain-gate, so the lack of said spells/options doesn't hurt him.

Now if a wizard tries to kill him with a prismatic sphere loop that's more a problem with how certain spells work than a problem with how weak ToB'ers are.

Actually, my question was about some of these things.

Maybe this thing will surpise you, but I my games I don't consider ToB mandatory. I appreciate a lot of things of the book, expecially movement-wise (see the TC stance allow to 1,5 foot step each hit) and I don't like a lot of others (don't so many, indeed, maybe only the extraordinary ability healing and exorcism of steel - why is temp?).

Said this, ToB is a welcome option for 3.5, as is any option used with the proper care and wisdom. More, I play gestalt from now to death, so the basic issue "throw the fighter take warblade" would be replaced with "play Fighter//Warblade", "Play Fighter // Feat Rogue" and "Play Warblade // Swordsage", and so on, as silly examples.

BTW I appreciate alot how the fighter class is designed, I'd prefer a better feat scaling than a replacement with maneuvers. Don't seems to me that Wotc went this way :smallwink:

Anyway:
I expressed my concerns about what Stoopidtallkid said because a lot of people say that "spell casters will always rock" because of fly, of summoning, and the like. Even a lot those who don't think about PvP (IMHO does not have sense in D&D) say this. So my point is:

-You say: spellcasting is not so broken, some melee need pimping and here we have ToB

OR you say either:

- Spellcasting it's broken to the bone and ToB, even if pimps melee, does not bring to a final balance.

You cannot say that Spellscasting are teh brokenn and say that ToB fixes it, because if you play in a way that spellcasting is irredeemably broken, ToB fixes nothing, IMHO.

BTW, I never cared about all of this.. even if I see how so many have issues.

Well said, ImmortalAer.

J.Gellert
2009-06-17, 06:33 AM
Obviously many things are greatly varied from game to game. In the end, it all comes down to your group; we've never really had balance problems in our games except with a certain drow rogue once.

I generally assume that people who are worried about balance primarily play with DMs and players they don't really know, and can't trust to avoid cheese.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-17, 02:11 PM
Anyway:
I expressed my concerns about what Stoopidtallkid said because a lot of people say that "spell casters will always rock" because of fly, of summoning, and the like. Even a lot those who don't think about PvP (IMHO does not have sense in D&D) say this. So my point is:

-You say: spellcasting is not so broken, some melee need pimping and here we have ToB

OR you say either:

- Spellcasting it's broken to the bone and ToB, even if pimps melee, does not bring to a final balance.

You cannot say that Spellscasting are teh brokenn and say that ToB fixes it, because if you play in a way that spellcasting is irredeemably broken, ToB fixes nothing, IMHO.Some spellcasting things are broken(Gate, Contingency, Holy Word, Druids) and need to be banned(either by the players or the DM) for a balanced game, but a lot of what makes it so much better than other classes isn't what's broken. Wizards can attack 3 seperate saves, touch AC, HP, or none of the above. ToB allows meleers to do the same(though to a lesser degree). Wizards can get defenses that render AC irrelevant. ToB lets martial classes do that, too(though again, not as much). Some things are the caster's domain, and should remain so. However, some things can and should be options for all characters, and ToB helps with that.