Why Do You Play 3.5

[Delcor]

I'll try and make this general.

Anyone new to DnD could spend maybe 10 minutes on tis forum or most others, and decide that 3.5 is a broken unbalanced game that is far too complicated for them. Others could look at it as a challenge.

So my question is simple:

Why do you play 3.5?
Do you play it as well as other editions? Are tiers somehow swaying what you play? Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

For me personally, I play 3.5 and 4e, I see the good and the bad in both. However I play 3.5 more often because I think it is just more fun, I don't know why. To avoid the balance issue, I have stayed inside core. Heck I didn't even know what a warblade was until I joined this forum. I have never had a game where a player hasn't been happy, or that a fighter has been overshadowed. I think 3.5 is fun, I think 4e is fun.

This isn't "why do you play DnD?" thats a lengthy answer
What I'm getting at is why do you play this edition
So, why oh why do you play 3.5?

[Flickerdart]

Stayed inside core? Core is less balanced than a one-legged man with an inner ear infection.

I play 3.5 because it's like a puzzle, except all the pieces are in different boxes and the picture is whatever you want it to be.

[Kefkafreak]

I can't really explain it, but I enjoy making 3.5 characters much more than in any other game. There are so many books, so many options, and sometimes you have to research to find what you're looking for.

Who cares about balance issues, if you know what you're doing you can either remove them or make them not matter.

[Greenish]

3.5 with all printed splats isn't really any less balanced than 3.5 with Core only.

I play it because it's what I'm used to. I don't mind using other systems, either, if I can find a group, but I just like 3.5 for some reason.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I like 3.5 for reasons similar to Flickerdart, I can make whatever I want in many different ways, and sometimes it is also a challenge one that I really like to take head on.

Also the vast difference in how classes work or interact with each other is a big draw for me, there are simply so many sub-systems in D&D 3.5 that I can always play a character that is mechanically different from all the other players in the table. One could play a Vancian casters, another a psionic character and I could be playing a martial adept, no overlap different mechanics, different feel.

On contrast 4e feels too similar for me, now I do enjoy it and I don't think fighters are wizards waving swords; but the mechanics are the same and it slightly grates me.

And finally even if the game is unbalanced at is core, I don't care, due the huge amount of options I can make a stronger character if I need, or even a weaker one (thought I don't like that very much...)

[Big Fau]

Why do you play 3.5?

3.5 is an infinite creation engine with simple rules and happens to be a system a lot of RPers know how to play.


Do you play it as well as other editions?

No. I dislike AD&D for various reasons, and I loathe 4E/4E.E/PF for system-related reasons.

I do try and enjoy WW, but my friends keep ruining it for me. And they have an even more unbalanced system than D&D.


Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?

The Tiers system has nothing to do with why I play. It is merely a tool I use to help adjudicate character creation and design encounters.


Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

Listing my reasons would take forever, but the main issues I have with 4E/4E.E are:


No diversity between classes (every class feels the same, the only differences are range, targets, and what stats you care about).
Feats suck.
Errata nerfs, something WotC does only for 4E/4E.E. They actually do not do this in Magic any more because it became a headache.
Combat takes too long for me to run more than two encounters/session.
Combat is far too lethal for the character creation system used in 4E.




Be aware, topics like this tend to devolve into an Edition War very quickly.

[Talonblaze]

Having bought over 1000$ work of books, not going to change and make them redundant.

Well, thats not really the reason, but its definitely good incentive.

3.X Mostly in my case, but at the heart 3.5 rules.

The key thing I like about 3.5 is its flexibility to build characters in an almost infinite possible way with the ton of supplement books out there and I think it has the largest base for such. (It will be quite a while, if ever that 4e will ever manage to do this.)

I don't play 3.5 for the game breaking rules and additions, that actually does not factor into our gameplay since those are easily fixed by unanimous house ruling. It just seems to have this flavour that most people enjoy. Including myself. I tried 4e and it didn't seem to really fit. Sure, it had some cool ideas (some of which I used to add more dynamics to our version and abilities) but past that it seemed less fulfilling.

Just my opinion. Our groups enjoy the more roleplaying aspect than the mechanical one.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I play "3.5" in so much as I use the 3.5 version of the d20 rules - and I play those rules because I believe them to be balanced and intuitive.
I play using generic classes, an E6 cap and a stripped out spell list.
No, it's not D&D, but it is 3.5 edition d20.

Most of the issues people raise regarding D&D 3.5 are artefacts of the class and magic system. The classes are straight-jackets with non-systematic exclusive abilities and progressions that make little sense. Magic is either too awesome (letting PC casters lord it all over the non-casters) or not nearly awesome enough (universe-altering powers, restricted to NPCs only), depending on your point of view.
Those are big systems, but they're not essential to a 3.5 d20 game.

It's normal to fix up what you're content with. Early AD&D and D&D gamers tended to houserule left right and centre. AD&D itself feels and reads like a bunch of compiled houserules for OD&D. I don't think I ever played a single old school D&D game without houserules. As the games got older, more houserules were used to patch it together.

I've not regularly played 4e mainly because it makes less sense to me, mechanically, and because it suffers from all the same flaws that a non-systematic class ability system brings.
Maybe 4e fixes some stuff well - I'm not that fussed. I've fixed my 3.5 d20 game, and I'm happy with that.

[Curmudgeon]

To avoid the balance issue, I have stayed inside core.
There are well over 100 base classes in D&D. Yet half the most powerful (Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) 1) classes are in the Player's Handbook. With supplements like Spell Compendium, fewer than half the D&D spells are in PH, but most of the problematic ones are there.

Staying in core guarantees balance is an issue.

[Telonius]

Familiarity, ability to customize, and sunk costs.

Familiarity: I know 3.5 well enough that I can ban/avoid/use the broken combinations, depending on the optimization level of the rest of the party. My house rules mostly fix what's broken, and the Gentleman's Agreement fixes the rest.

Ability to customize: One of 3.5's best qualities is the ability to mix and match from among hundreds of different options. There are literally millions (if not billions) of ways to build a character, and each one will have a slightly different feel for it. I really like this about the system (though others may find this as much of a bug as a feature).

Sunk costs: I have a very large library of 3.5 sources. The economy sucks right now, most of my group has either lost a job, been foreclosed on, unwillingly transferred, or is un/under-employed. It costs nothing but time to play 3.5. Nobody in the group is willing to pay the (minimum) $500 or so it would take to build a whole new game library for 4th-ed.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Stayed inside core? Core is less balanced than a one-legged man with an inner ear infection.

I play 3.5 because it's like a puzzle, except all the pieces are in different boxes and the picture is whatever you want it to be.

This nails it. I've enjoyed other systems, but I keep coming back to 3.5 simply because it's what other people know and what I know and love.

[Yora]

So my question is simple:

Why do you play 3.5?
My answer is also simple:

Is there something better? I've been looking for years, and found many games that are different, but not that much better that I would want to switch to them.

[NikitaDarkstar]

I learned 3.5, I'm used to it and my regular group prefers it, and I've jsut never felt any reason to switch over.

I do however play other systems, PF and D20 Modern mainly, and I've been curious about learning a few other systems when I have the time. (Like GURPS, even if it's intimidating as heck.)

[Tyndmyr]

I'll try and make this general.

Anyone new to DnD could spend maybe 10 minutes on tis forum or most others, and decide that 3.5 is a broken unbalanced game that is far too complicated for them. Others could look at it as a challenge.

A person new to star wars on any fan star wars system would likely also come to the conclusion that it was filled with terrible and contradictory things, too. Meh.


So my question is simple:

Why do you play 3.5?

It works. It has a lot of players. These are the biggest practical things.


Do you play it as well as other editions?

Well, I play PF. I still have 2e sourcebooks, and bear it no ill will, but don't actually play it anymore. I do play other systems, though.


Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?

Not really. Tiers are for understanding, but I have no actual objection to playing high op campaigns, or even to a substantial party power imbalance. It's just nicer when people know what to expect.


Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

Played a campaign, and hated it. Everyone went from intial enthusiasm and optimism to disappointment to eventual hatred. A lack of support for non-combat things, skill challenges, the vanilla feel of all classes using basically the same mechanics...we all went back to 3.5.

See, for all that people talk about balance on the internet, in actual games, perfect balance isn't at all necessary, and often not even expected.

Edit: Also, yes...core has a higher ratio of broken things than anything else printed. Staying in core to avoid brokenness is like staying in the wilderness to avoid bears.

[NeoSeraphi]

I play 3.5. The simple answer for why I don't play 4.E is that a fighter has equal BAB to a wizard. (It's much more complicated than that, but that example summed it up pretty well)

3.5 is a challenge. The spells are so diverse and interesting, the class features are so epic and enjoyable, and the prestige classes...so many options! I like 3.5 because I can roll up two barbarians and have them be completely different. One could be a frenzied berserker focused on rage/frenzy with a +5 Greataxe and Superior Power Attack, and the other a Whirling Frenzy archer with ridiculous precision and Dexterity, riding the back of a horse. The same with pretty much every other class.

In AD&D, there wasn't really that option. No ACFs, no real class progression. Every time you leveled you got proficiencies and spells and your THAC0 dropped, maybe. It was pretty boring. (I played AD&D after I started playing 3.5)

I never tried 3.0, and I don't know enough about it to comment on it.

So yes, 3.5 is harder than 4.E, but for working through that, you are rewarded with the ability to literally make any character you want. Want to be a necromancer? There's a class for that. Want to smash doors down? Class for that. Want to punch people in the face? There's a class for that too. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204494) There is, to some extent, the same breadth of options available in 4.E, and with the addition of firearms, some could argue there are more options. But if I want to die against a beholder, I'm definitely playing 3.5 instead of 4.E. And that's the way I like it.

[Jeraa]

Why do you play 3.5? Do you play it as well as other editions?
Its the edition I started playing D&D with, and the edition I have the most books for. (I have the books for 1st and 2nd edition as well, and had them before I started playing 3.5, but I never played the older editions.)


Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?
I ignore everything about tiers. I've never had or seen wizards (or any so-called Tier 1 class) overpower the game or be so much better than the lower tier classes. I've had wizards capable of doing next to nothing outside of combat, and fighters that were the greatest contributors both in and out of combat. It is all about player optimization, not inherent class power or versatility.


Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?
3.5 has everything I need, and I've spent a lot of money on it. And its personal - WotC lied about 4th edition. They constantly kept saying "4th edition is not coming, we're not working on 4th edition", right up until they announced "4th edition will be here soon." The only way that 4th edition could of been released when it was is if WotC was lying when they said they weren't working on 4th edition. New editions take time to come together.

[Volthawk]

Anyone new to DnD could spend maybe 10 minutes on tis forum or most others, and decide that 3.5 is a broken unbalanced game that is far too complicated for them. Others could look at it as a challenge.


Eh, just going by the forums, you'll get a distorted picture. People tend not to post about how things are going well, and post about problems. In practice, things aren't as bad as you would think going by the crazy stuff that is created on forums.


Why do you play 3.5?

It has a lot of varying bits and bobs I can play around with. It has an interesting array of things to use when making a character and in-game. It has some interesting stuff with it. Also, since the people I play with are open to homebrew, that expands things, since 3.5 has a wide array of homebrew available. Also, it's what I started with, and I find it pretty easy to play, in general.


Do you play it as well as other editions?

D&D-wise, I only play 3.5


Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?

Eh, I tend away from low-tier stuff, but not really because of the tier system, more because I find them boring. I like having interesting things to do.


Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

Eh, never bothered to try it. 3.5 is good for me.

[Yora]

The reason why I don't play 4E is because it's an entirely different game, that just happens to have the same name. It's the same as asking why I havn't moved to GURPS or Fate. It's not an improved version of 3.5e.

[Sucrose]

Why do you play 3.5?
It's the D&D that I first started playing, after getting my start in the Lord of the Rings system. It holds sentimental value for me. It is also a fairly good toolbox, while still having chunky enough pieces that you can really play with it.

If true class-based systems are like a playground, fun, but inflexible in what can be done with the equipment, and point-buy is like sand, able to be sculpted into basically anything you want, but inherently formless, then 3.5 is like Legos: an immense amount of flexibility, so long as you know what you're doing and what you want, but still solid enough to provide a few suggestions, and with a few suggested shapes you can make.


Do you play it as well as other editions?
Not really. Tried 4E, wasn't my cup of tea. Almost got into a 2E game, but a few issues turned me off.

I do, however, play different RPGs, principally Exalted. Still have the books for an LotR RPG, as well.

Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?
To the extent that they're a fairly useful balance metric, yes. If I'm playing in the same group as a Wizard who knows what he's doing, I know that if I'm going to go with a Sword & Board warrior, I probably should be a Crusader or Warblade, or maybe a gish, rather than a Fighter.

Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?
Not enough flavor text in the books. The design of the books themselves. Also, healing surges all recovering with a single night of sleep. Just a host of niggling issues that make the experience a bit unpleasant for me.

[DonDuckie]

Why do you play 3.5?
I love it! I love the broken parts especially. A Predator attack drone is just better than an AK47, which in turn is better than a sock filled with quarters.

I love it! It's my 2nd favorite system. Where else can you roll 60d6 at mid-game.

It's only topped by Pathfinder, which is the same :smallbiggrin:


Do you play it as well as other editions?
No, I tried 4e and AD&D, but didn't like them. I play many other systems though.


Are tiers somehow swaying what you play?
I assume you mean class-tiers; No, I don't play tier 6 classes, but I enjoy playing classes from tiers 1-5. I mostly play tier 1 and tier 3, but in 3.5 I often multiclass against all reason.


Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?
I don't like it, it's like a poorly designed computer game, written on paper. A power attack is the same as a fireball. Don't like.


So, why oh why do you play 3.5?
Because the possibilities are endless. Though I like crafting a lot better in PF.

HAIL 3.5! HAIL PF! Boo 4e!:smalltongue:

[Greenish]

If true class-based systems are like a playground, fun, but inflexible in what can be done with the equipment, and point-buy is like sand, able to be sculpted into basically anything you want, but inherently formless, then 3.5 is like Legos: an immense amount of flexibility, so long as you know what you're doing and what you want, but still solid enough to provide a few suggestions, and with a few suggested shapes you can make.That's a great analogy!

[Eldariel]

Lessee, 3.5 'cause customizability & depth in the published material. Oh, and ToB; awesome, simple combat system.


I do play other systems. I play AD&D whenever given the chance (there are many aspects in it I prefer over 3.5; more dangerous magic, inherently better class balance, less player coddling - stuff like magic items being destroyed actually happens, etc.) though obviously with the usual houserules, and I play occasional Pathfinder too (I even have a PF Society character). Though I don't really care about the differences between PF and 3.5; far as I'm concerned they're the same system.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't like it, it's like a poorly designed computer game, written on paper. A power attack is the same as a fireball. Don't like.

Oddly enough, while I hate 4e, I think it'd make a fantastic squad tactical combat video game. I'd *love* to manage a squad of fantasy people in that ruleset and pit them against others.

[Eldan]

Well, first of all, I don't give a damn about balance. There, I said it.

Second, the core system is simple enough that I can explain it in fifteen minutes or less. Roll, add modifiers, beat DC. You have six attributes, skills, feats and class powers. There are a lot of games with systems that are much more complicated.

Third: it still has rules for things I think need them. I don't like freeform, or games close to freeform. I want a system that hands me a way to handle resolving most actions in the game.

[flumphy]

I play 3.5 because I enjoy its combat more than anything else I've played aside from possibly 4e. If I want a low-combat game or a low-magic game, I run a different system that was built for that sort of thing. But for high fantasy games with lots of violence? Nothing beats D&D for me.

Currently I'm only playing 3.5, although I have played 4e as well as many unrelated RPGs in the past.

In the sense that some DMs I've played with blanket-ban certain tiers, I suppose you could say they affect what I play. Used reasonably and keeping in mind that not all real players have the same level of system mastery, I think that the tier system can be a useful tool for helping every character contribute in an unbalanced system.

I've played with 4e a little. There are things I like better than 3.5 and things I don't like as much. I like the streamlining and simplification of the rules 4e put in place. I like that mundane classes are balanced with casters. On the other hand, I absolutely hate the fact that almost every class gets daily powers, since I can never bring myself to use them. I also dislike the fact that casters are still generally more reliant on those daily powers. And oh, how I mourn what they did to Forgotten Realms.

I've stuck with 3.5 because my husband really dislikes 4e while I'm more or less indifferent. It seems silly to invest in a system that only one person in the household wants to play.

[opticalshadow]

3.5 offers the varity and freedom and flexibility to play and do whatever you want, both inside and outside of combat. 4e doesnt offer this at all, its a purely combat focused game, and it has 0 flexibility.
editions early then 3.5 were good, but also less flexable, but thats because less was eve made for it.

3.5 is not as broken as people cry, allowing certian areas or some splat books fixes it, gentlemen rule totally balences the game though, only people trying to break the game will break it.

[Daer]

My reason is simple, there hasn't been any pc game using 4e to lure me to try it. Though i have bit checked it it didn't seem that intresting as it seemed classes didn't have that much choices for modifying.

[BlueInc]

So my question is simple:

Why do you play 3.5?
Do you play it as well as other editions? Are tiers somehow swaying what you play? Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

I play 3.5 because I was introduced to it by friends and family and thought it was a cool way to tell stories together.

I play Pathfinder because I like that you can play almost any character concept as a base class or a base class+archetype, starting from level 1. I feel that Pathfinder gives more options and fun tools to characters, which is the same reason I include ToB and Psionics Unleashed in my Pathfinder games.

I haven't moved on to 4.E because at the time it came out, I was DMing purely through the d20 srd; I didn't own a single book, and I didn't have the money to buy any.

I've given a lot of consideration to 4.E, but I've heard a mix of comments from my players who've tried it ranging on a scale from:

[It fixes everything!]---[It's fun]---[It's ok]---[It's like playing Monopoly]---[It needs to die in a fire!]

I haven't had the time, opportunity, or incentive to try it, but it sounds like it could be fun for a dungeon crawl. For long, involved campaigns, I'm sticking to Pathfinder + Psionics Unleashed + ToB.

- - - - - - - - - -

Nice


Staying in core to avoid brokenness is like staying in the wilderness to avoid bears.

[Yora]

If true class-based systems are like a playground, fun, but inflexible in what can be done with the equipment, and point-buy is like sand, able to be sculpted into basically anything you want, but inherently formless, then 3.5 is like Legos: an immense amount of flexibility, so long as you know what you're doing and what you want, but still solid enough to provide a few suggestions, and with a few suggested shapes you can make.
I don't know what playgrounds you have been to, by mine always had space ships, and dinosaurs, and trucks, and pirat shipes, and caves, and lots of lots of lava. Don't forget the lava!

d20 can also be whatever you want it to be, you just have stop to stare at the bare bones that are the written rules.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I don't know what playgrounds you have been to, by mine always had space ships, and dinosaurs, and trucks, and pirate ships, and caves, and lots of lots of lava. Don't forget the lava!

d20 can also be whatever you want it to be, you just have stop to stare at the bare bones that are the written rules. all of the above.
Fixed it for you.

[Claudius Maximus]

I play 3.5 because it's like a puzzle, except all the pieces are in different boxes and the picture is whatever you want it to be.

This is pretty much exactly how I see it, and I would probably sig this if I had the room.

[MlleRouge]

I play 3.5 because of the (admittedly few) systems I've played, it's the most fun.

These are my reasons:

- Lots of room for creativity, both in fluff and crunch. I enjoy pouring through source books and looking for the perfect way to build whatever it is in my head. I love the wide range of options.
- I love the feel. I'm a strict adherent to medieval/western fantasy, and 3.5 is comfortable for running such games.
- Other editions fall short. Older ones are a little bit too restrictive, and I have a lot of problems with 4e that I don't feel like getting in to.
- I find that most of the balance problems with 3.5 are exaggerated. A sensible party and/or a good DM can take care of that without resorting to banning tons of material or being a jerk.

[Eric Tolle]

I play 3.5 because theres a part of me that is a power gamey, who likes researching broken and overpowered power combos. Its like the crunchy aspects of Hero system and Magic the Gathering only theres some character choices that barely need any work to be overpowered, even compared to the massively complicated builds that try yti make non-casters adaquete.

Which comes to the other reason to play 3.5: loarding over the pathetic Tier 4-5 characters with my Tier 1 class. Pointing out to the Rogue that Knock and Invisibility render him redundant, or mocking the fighter because he's inferior to the Druid's animal companion- that's half the fun of 3.5. When the player of the fighter quits in frustration to be replaced by a war cleric, that's when I know I've won.

Back in the day being a munchkin required bending or breaking the rules- the awesome thing about 3.5 is I can be a munchkin simply by choosing the right race/class/feat combo.

[Wings of Peace]

Honestly? I like it because it is broken and convoluted. I find the act of browsing obscure sources for new tricks fun in it's own sort of way. The brokenness doesn't bother me because most of the people I know are on the same skill level so I just build to roughly where I think they're at and things go okay. I know this only works in groups that get along though, I'm sure there are plenty of groups where the experienced players completely tromp over the less experienced ones.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's familiar, people play it, it has nostalgic value, and once you get to know the ins and outs the rules are a lot more engaging and interactive (to me) than 4e or rules light systems. If I'm not playing D&D 3.5, or PF with 3.5 splats, I might as well play free form, or play a story game like Fiasco.

[VacantPsalm]

It's what I was introduce to and there's still books out there I haven't dug through, so if I want something fresh/new 3.5 still has it. Plus it's what our group knows and we don't see any big reasons to try anything else as of right now. (Well, we have played other d20 systems, but same diff.)

If I did want to try 4e, (something which HAS crossed my mind) the first thing I'd do is grab some books and try and recreate some of the characters who's style I love. If I can find a way to get something similar (or completely different but still awesome) then I'd give it a shot. If I felt too constrained by the rules to get anything unique then I'd forget about it.

The complaining I've heard about it seams to be a mix of, "it's not very D&D-ish therefore it sucks," and other things that sound like they could be more legit. It's all too hodgepodge though so I'd definitely do a lot of digging before deciding for myself.

[molten_dragon]

I started playing D&D about 6 months after 3.0 came out. My only experience with 2nd edition, was icewind dale and baldur's gate. That was enough though, to know that the rules were extremely clunky and hard to learn.

When 3.5 came out, my group switched over after a year or so, just because that's what they were printing books for.

I continue to play 3.5 because despite all its flaws, I consider it the best edition of D&D ever printed. The rules have the perfect balance between simple to use and flexible enough to make just about anything with. 4th edition went way too far in making things simple and made every single class feel the same, and that gets boring real quick (and yes, I've played 4th edition, this is not just speculation). I've been playing 3.5 for about 6 or 7 years now, and I can still find new, fun, and interesting things to do with it. And really, its flaws have never been a huge issue for me. The majority of them go away when your DM has some common sense and your players aren't all powergamers.

I like pathfinder, but I like it for the exact same reasons that I like 3.5, so I see no pressing reason to spend money on it, when I already have a bunch of 3.5 books.

[navar100]

I like the variety of options. It tends to stress what player characters can do rather than not allowed to do. It does not apologize that player characters can be "powerful", even at first level. D20 for everything, always want high, is easy to use.

[Delcor]

Staying in core guarantees balance is an issue.




Edit: Also, yes...core has a higher ratio of broken things than anything else printed. Staying in core to avoid brokenness is like staying in the wilderness to avoid bears.

I will forever remain against those statements. I have always had a fulfilling game with no one feeling overshadowed. Broken things have never gotten in the way of my partys fun or the difficulty of the campaign. Maybe I'm spoiled that way, maybe I've been lucky enough to get a DM who is very good at this, but I have personally never experienced a broken core only campaign.

[Big Fau]

I will forever remain against those statements. I have always had a fulfilling game with no one feeling overshadowed. Broken things have never gotten in the way of my partys fun or the difficulty of the campaign. Maybe I'm spoiled that way, maybe I've been lucky enough to get a DM who is very good at this, but I have personally never experienced a broken core only campaign.

Or maybe your party hasn't discovered the power of Wildshape, Gate, Black Tentacles, Glitterdust, Glibness, Candles of Invocation for infinite Wishes, or the myriad of other examples of broken Core abilities.

Or you have never witnessed a 1st level Druid's Animal Companion completely curbstomp a 1st level Fighter?


Not knowing about Core being broken is not the same as blindly ignoring the facts. And it's a fact: The largest concentrations of broken are spread out through three sections of DnD. In order: Core, the ELH, and the Forgotten Realms as a whole (which is systemically tied to the ELH).

[Delcor]

Or maybe your party hasn't discovered the power of Wildshape, Gate, Black Tentacles, Glitterdust, Glibness, Candles of Invocation for infinite Wishes, or the myriad of other examples of broken Core abilities.

Or you have never witnessed a 1st level Druid's Animal Companion completely curbstomp a 1st level Fighter?


Not knowing about Core being broken is not the same as blindly ignoring the facts. And it's a fact: The largest concentrations of broken are spread out through three sections of DnD. In order: Core, the ELH, and the Forgotten Realms as a whole (which is systemically tied to the ELH).

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:
Gate: Not gonna argue that, we haven't gotten to the point where anyone can cast 9th level spells, I am fully aware that high level combat is iffy, but we haven't gotten there yet.
Black Tentacles: Perhaps, I'll give you that one.
Glitterdust: Never understood the brokeness of this one either, considering with the -40 to hide, our rogue could still beat most spot checks.
Glibness: Enlighten me.
Candles of invocation any DM that allows infinite wishes via unspecific text such as candles of invocation, is (pardon me) but a dumbass.

Animal companion: Maybe, but a couple good rolls and that puppy goes down, enlighten me to this one also.

I'm fully aware of the broken upper level combat where the fighter never gets into the fray, but thats the sign of when its time to retire that party.

[Angry Bob]

Because I can't convince my group to play something else, despite all the problems we've had. I guess I should consider myself lucky they moved to Pathfinder.

All I want is a break from sword and sorcery, guys, can we do that? Please?

Secondly, because if you go to a new group, you probably don't have to ask "hey, is anyone here familiar with dnd 3.5?"

[Dr.Epic]

Why do I play? I own most of the books.:smallwink:

[Big Fau]

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:

Replacing your physical stats with (likely) superior ones isn't a big deal? Free natural armor, a nice set of natural weapons, and coupling it with Druid buffs isn't a big deal?

You just need to sift through the MM and find some decent combat forms. Never mind that it lasts for hours at a time.


Glitterdust: Never understood the brokeness of this one either, considering with the -40 to hide, our rogue could still beat most spot checks.

Blinding everyone within a 10ft radius from Medium range. Even with the save, you've still got a solid chance of removing an entire group of enemies from the combat (since being blinded is a huge debuff unless you have Blindsight or another ability, all of which are fairly rare).


Glibness: Enlighten me.

+30 to Bluff checks. The maximum penalty you can take is -20, meaning even telling someone that they are actually an earthworm still gives you a minimum of a +10 to the check.

You can literally convince anyone to do anything with that spell. God forbid if you have ranks in Bluff on top of it, because the rolls can get down-right impossible for the average NPC.


Candles of invocation any DM that allows infinite wishes via unspecific text such as candles of invocation, is (pardon me) but a dumbass.

Except that it's RAW. You can use the Calling effect to call an Efreti, order it to grant you three wishes (it has to comply, as it's under the control of a Gate effect), and use one of those wishes to get another Candle of Invocation. All you need is proper wording.


Animal companion: Maybe, but a couple good rolls and that puppy goes down, enlighten me to this one also.

The odds are heavily in favor of the Dog because of it's better stats (assuming you use 32 PB) and buffs from the Druid in control of it. It can also be trained to wear armor.

It's a 1st level Chain Tripper otherwise. The Fighter isn't going to be in any position to fight back effectively, because staying prone imposes a -4 to attack rolls (meaning the Riding Dog is nearly impossible to hit).

As for your "good rolls" statement, the Fighter needs damn good ones. I've actually seen the combat played out, the Fighter loses 70% of the time (the other 30% is due to dice and dice alone). The Fighter is guaranteed to lose if the Druid prepared Cure Light Wounds with a bonus spell.

[Calimehter]

Well, I'll go against the grain here a bit . . . .

I've dabbled in Shadowrun and Mechwarrior (and still think of them as FASA games :smallcool: ), and had some fun with Heroes back in the 90's in college and some GURPS later on, but we always seem to come back to D&D at the end of the day.

Our group plays 3.5 because it is "D&D", i.e. the game we've been playing since 1990 (or much earlier in the case of some of our group - one of ours has gamed with Arneson back in the olden days) like the bunch of grognards we are. We picked up the books when 3.x came out, and we manage to make the mechanics portray the characters and tell the stories we want. Many folks like 3.x because of all the options available and the ability to crush trope-y fantasy archetypes under their thumbs, but our particular group tends to pare these options down to the "familiar" roles from 2nd ed and classic fantasy, and simply use the 3.x mechanics to fill in the 'holes' that 2nd ed had.

Works for us, anyways.

[Grendus]

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:
Giving druids 2 dump stats (still need con), and probably a third unless they're trying to be party face. Most animal forms are broken compared to PC forms, and Wilding Clasps and Wild armor enchantment lets the druid use magic items in forms. Combine this with Natural Spell and you're literally a bear riding a bigger bear summoning smaller bears and dual wielding bear cubs. Druids are the only T1 I've ever heard of accidentally breaking the game, at least wizards and clerics require some effort (not much, but some).



Glitterdust: Never understood the brokeness of this one either, considering with the -40 to hide, our rogue could still beat most spot checks.

Second level spell, area of effect blindness. Blind characters are denied their dex to ac and suffer a 50% miss chance on the off chance they can find an enemy. I think it's a little overrated against enemies who can speak (talking is a free action to direct them, it basically grants their targets total cover), but it's still very strong. If you get lucky enough to catch most or all of the enemy targets in the spells area, which is possible given it's radius, you can basically end the encounter on the first round. By the time the duration is up any enemies will be low on hit points and out of position.

Glibness: Enlighten me.

Haley sums it up pretty well. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html) The PHB puts the bonus modifier for an "almost too incredible to consider" bluff at +20. Glibness gives you +30. Presuming a charisma focused character (like a Bard or Beguiler) with max ranks in Bluff against a wisdom focused character (like a Cleric) with max ranks in Sense Motive, glibness still gives him a +10 advantage on the opposed check to get something outlandish past the cleric. Want to convince the cleric that the entire church of Pelor is secretly run by acolytes of Vecna in disguise? By RAW you can do that!


Candles of invocation any DM that allows infinite wishes via unspecific text such as candles of invocation, is (pardon me) but a dumbass.

Houserules =/= RAW. They work by RAW. It's completely ridiculous, but by RAW it works that way.


Animal companion: Maybe, but a couple good rolls and that puppy goes down, enlighten me to this one also.

A couple of good rolls and the BSF goes down as well. The difference is the druid can get a new AC that looks just like his last one with 24 hours of training. The fighter requires 1000 gp worth of material components and loses a level to bring back (or, if you're low level, cross out his name on the character sheet and introduce the party to his eerily similar cousin).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:
You need to grapple? Bear. Charge? Pounce and fast speed sure is nice, and there's rhino for extra damage on a single charge attack, and cheetahs for charging out of the blue.
Glitterdust: Never understood the brokeness of this one either, considering with the -40 to hide, our rogue could still beat most spot checks.
Perhaps you missed the part where he becomes blind.
Glibness: Enlighten me.
In social interaction, there is no overconvoncing. There is only "open parley" and "catch your breath". You can convince a dragon that treasure isn't a good thing with Glibness.
Candles of invocation any DM that allows infinite wishes via unspecific text such as candles of invocation, is (pardon me) but a dumbass.
That's not RAW. RAI, maybe, but not RAW.
Animal companion: Maybe, but a couple good rolls and that puppy goes down, enlighten me to this one also.
They're basically a free NPC warrior, but with good skills and/or special combat stuff.
I'm fully aware of the broken upper level combat where the fighter never gets into the fray, but thats the sign of when its time to retire that party.

Broken spells are available at low- to mid-levels. Polymorph, Cloudkill, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Suggestion.

[Doug Lampert]

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:
You are a bear, with a bear for a friend, who summons whole groups of bears with a single spell.


Gate: Not gonna argue that, we haven't gotten to the point where anyone can cast 9th level spells, I am fully aware that high level combat is iffy, but we haven't gotten there yet.
I'll get back to this.


Black Tentacles: Perhaps, I'll give you that one.
Glitterdust: Never understood the brokeness of this one either, considering with the -40 to hide, our rogue could still beat most spot checks.

Huh?!? Read the fracking spell!

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.
The spell BLINDS everyone in range, and you think a penalty to hide checks is the problem? HINT, even IF your rogue can stay hidden without invisibility and with a -40 (which he can't, you claim low level, I defy you to post a low level rogue with a +40 mod to hide), then he STILL can't do crap because the entire world has a 50% miss chance and he can't sneak attack.


Glibness: Enlighten me.

+30 to bluff and a bluff which happens to match the COMBINED modifiers for "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider." and "puts the target at significant risk".

So you believe ANYTHING a bard says which isn't actively LESS LIKELY or LESS RISKY than "that Beggar over there is actually Bahmut in disguise and he wants you to jump off that cliff, don't worry he'll save you, it's a demonstration of faith."


Candles of invocation any DM that allows infinite wishes via unspecific text such as candles of invocation, is (pardon me) but a dumbass.

What unspecified text?!? IT CASTS GATE! That's clearly and unambigously specified. Gate is clearly and unambigously specified to give short term control. And wish is clearly and unambigously specified to be a SLA of many creatures that can be gated. And wish is clearly and unambigously specified to be able to create magic items.

NOTHING in the chain is poorly specified or ambiguous. Worse, are you not the poster who IN THIS POST admitted ignorance of Gate because it's high level? But now you consider it that you KNOW it doesn't hurt to give it to people at level 8? Crap.


Animal companion: Maybe, but a couple good rolls and that puppy goes down, enlighten me to this one also.

So does the fighter, who can't be replaced for free 24 hours later.


I'm fully aware of the broken upper level combat where the fighter never gets into the fray, but thats the sign of when its time to retire that party.

You mean level 8? That's when flight comes in as a significant factor.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Which comes to the other reason to play 3.5: loarding over the pathetic Tier 4-5 characters with my Tier 1 class. Pointing out to the Rogue that Knock and Invisibility render him redundant, or mocking the fighter because he's inferior to the Druid's animal companion- that's half the fun of 3.5. When the player of the fighter quits in frustration to be replaced by a war cleric, that's when I know I've won.

...

My tier 4 Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian with Whirling Frenzy, Shock Trooper, and Martial Stance (Step Of The Wind) charges at you when you're unbuffed or barely buffed (probably at the start or end of the day). You're dead. Now roll up a single-classed monk.

[Dralnu]

Because my friends aren't willing to try out 4e. They don't want to buy new books and they don't want to learn a new system. On the flipside, I'm one of the most knowledgable person in our group about 3.5's rules and I STILL don't even know half of the mechanics out there, like figuring out how combat works within a 1st level spell. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11699470)

I'd much prefer to play 4e over 3.5 but more importantly I want to play with my friends, so I stick to 3.5

[Amphetryon]

Access to all the books is a big reason. Familiarity with the system is another, especially combined with more folks (generally) interested in playing it that I can find than most other games except Pathfinder or 4E.

Pathfinder, for my tastes, 'fixed' too many of the wrong things. 4E feels too much all the same to me. 3.X lets me make any character I can envision. Some will be awesome, some will be less so, but all are possible, and they won't all be cookie cutters of each other.

Character creation as a mini-game is something the other versions of D&D don't provide for me, and that other games don't emulate the same way - not even systems like Champions/Hero System.

[Delcor]

Replacing your physical stats with (likely) superior ones isn't a big deal? Free natural armor, a nice set of natural weapons, and coupling it with Druid buffs isn't a big deal?

You just need to sift through the MM and find some decent combat forms. Never mind that it lasts for hours at a time.



Blinding everyone within a 10ft radius from Medium range. Even with the save, you've still got a solid chance of removing an entire group of enemies from the combat (since being blinded is a huge debuff unless you have Blindsight or another ability, all of which are fairly rare).



+30 to Bluff checks. The maximum penalty you can take is -20, meaning even telling someone that they are actually an earthworm still gives you a minimum of a +10 to the check.

You can literally convince anyone to do anything with that spell. God forbid if you have ranks in Bluff on top of it, because the rolls can get down-right impossible for the average NPC.



Except that it's RAW. You can use the Calling effect to call an Efreti, order it to grant you three wishes (it has to comply, as it's under the control of a Gate effect), and use one of those wishes to get another Candle of Invocation. All you need is proper wording.



The odds are heavily in favor of the Dog because of it's better stats (assuming you use 32 PB) and buffs from the Druid in control of it. It can also be trained to wear armor.

It's a 1st level Chain Tripper otherwise. The Fighter isn't going to be in any position to fight back effectively, because staying prone imposes a -4 to attack rolls (meaning the Riding Dog is nearly impossible to hit).

As for your "good rolls" statement, the Fighter needs damn good ones. I've actually seen the combat played out, the Fighter loses 70% of the time (the other 30% is due to dice and dice alone). The Fighter is guaranteed to lose if the Druid prepared Cure Light Wounds with a bonus spell.

Wildshape: Well, next campaign is urban, so I guess I won't have this issue, but I guess I'll believe it.

Glitterdust: My problem is the fact that they get a save. :smallannoyed:

Glibness: I really need to have a good look at the bluff section, because I would really be interested in seeing where it says you can convince a dragon to give up its hoard.

Candle: I still look at that as a pile of crap. And WotC didn't catch this because????? :smallconfused:

Animal companion: Wait, we're assuming the druid is aiding the animal in this fight? I thought it was just Fighter toe-toe with an unbuffed animal companion, with zero interference by the druid, of course it would win if it was getting healed/buffed. :smallannoyed: (plus i always assume 28 PB)

[Lord Ruby34]

Wolfy still wins about seventy percent of the time, even if the Druid just sits back and watches.

[Groverfield]

4e is a bit too homogenized for most 3.5 players.

I just recently got into 4e after getting past that issue.

I've heard a lot of people say 4e is like an MMO, which turns off most of my 3.5 group, until we forcefully tried it... well, it's a good MMO adaptation, but still true.

[Delcor]

Wolfy still wins about seventy percent of the time, even if the Druid just sits back and watches.

I'm going over the combats in my head, and I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe I'm spoiled that way, maybe I've been lucky enough to get a DM who is very good at this, but I have personally never experienced a broken core only campaign.

Wildshape: No one in my group has ever been into druids, and I don't see the big deal about wildshape :smallannoyed:
Your personal experience would seem to be quite limited. Others have already covered the basics of what the core Duid can do, so let's consider a Druid and a Rogue in the party together, facing some fairly common D&D enemies: anything with undead, or construct, or plant types. With core rules the Druid will use wild shape and Natural Spell, and have many ways of dealing with such foes. Meanwhile the Rogue's contributions in these encounters will be rather less than the Druid's animal companion, because the core Rogue's main ability (sneak attack) is completely useless. :smallmad:

Outside of the core rules the Rogue has many options to overcome such limitations. There are ACFs in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and Dungeonscape; spells in Spell Compendium and new rules that make those usable with wands in Rules Compendium; an essential power-up in Champions of Ruin and a useful companion ACF in Dragon Magic; and helpful weapon options in Magic Item Compendium. Eberron Campaign Setting and Complete Champion have a pair of feats that work together to let the Rogue leverage skills to fight more effectively against many/all types of enemies, not just undead/plant/construct types.

What about facing an enemy who excels at tripping? The core rules create that problem with the spiked chain and Improved Trip feat. Again, the Druid simply uses wild shape to adopt a suitable form, and Natural Spell to retain all spellcasting functions while doing so. There are skillful options for the Rogue to avoid or recover from tripping in Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel. Many other books offer ways of obtaining flight capability to avoid the tripper: Races of the Wild, Races of Faerûn, and Fiend Folio all have options that don't require money, or are substantially cheaper than core magic items (and thus available at lower levels where a tripper poses a serious challenge).

Regardless of your lucky/spoiled/limited gaming history, the core rules are wildly unbalanced. Non-core options, on average, fix more of what's broken in core than they add to the problem.

[Eldariel]

Glitterdust: My problem is the fact that they get a save. :smallannoyed:

2-3 opponents with +0-+1 Will-saves (that's pretty much all low-level monsters) all rolling against DC 16-18 Will-save (Spell Focus: Conjuration is a perfectly reasonable feat to take early because of Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, etc.); it's fully possible that they all fail and even if they don't, most likely at least majority will.

Sure, sometimes they'll make their saves. Sometimes Barbarian only rolls 4s and lower for 3 turns straight; he's bothered significantly more by that than Wizard since Wizard lost one action. Though yes, it's annoying if enemies keep making the saves but that's how dice fall sometimes. Fact is that it's likely they'll fail their saves and the effect is devastating when they do.


Candle: I still look at that as a pile of crap. And WotC didn't catch this because????? :smallconfused:

Because WoTC didn't actually look through the rules for exploits. Here's a couple from Core:
- Cast/purchase Polymorph into an Animal. Now cast/purchase a casting of Awaken. Congrats, you've gained 2 HD, +1d3 Charisma and you get 3d6 Intelligence (sucks if it goes poorly but just reroll or use Metamagic Rod of Maximize)
- Shapechange/Wildshape/Polymorph into Shambling Mound. Hit yourself with e.g. Call Lightning, Shocking weapon or similar. As much Constitution as you want.
- Purchase a casting of Polymorph Any Object. Then purchase another casting into the exact same form. Congrats, since you had the same stats as your target form in the second casting, the second casting is Permanent. Enjoy your new Planetar body (with base 22 Int). Further, since Shrew can be PAOd into Manticore, PAO apparently circumvents HD limitations of other Polymorph spells. More lulz.

The rules simply weren't proofread. Things weren't thought through. In this particular case, there's 4 issues at works:
- Gate was given the "instant labor"-clause (compared to the AD&D version of the spell). Apparently, Wizards wanted to make magic more powerful/less dangerous based on player feedback. So now, instead of having to bargain for services or whatever you can force outsiders into obedience (see also: Planar Binding-spells)
- Candle of Invocation was designed forgetting the fact that XP components of spells replicated should significantly increase the Candle's cost. Candle should cost over 25k. It costs 8k for an unknown reason.
- Restriction for Outsiders' use of spells or abilities with material/XP components was limited to Summon-line spells only. Don't ask me why. That's what the Conjuration-section of rules says. I guess it's 'cause Calling brings the target there for real real so there can be no such restrictions in place. Calls to question why the hell they made all Calling-spells capable of forcing the called creature into submission.
- Wish only restricts the value of mundane items it can produce. No restrictions are mentioned for the creation of magic items. *shrug* Chalk this up to oversight. Though since Candle is supercheap, you could get it even with the 25k upper limit without perversion risk.



Animal companion: Wait, we're assuming the druid is aiding the animal in this fight? I thought it was just Fighter toe-toe with an unbuffed animal companion, with zero interference by the druid, of course it would win if it was getting healed/buffed. :smallannoyed: (plus i always assume 28 PB)

It doesn't matter. They're pretty even in fight. Fighter has out-of-combat utility in the capacity of being a human (talking to people, if not very eloquently, using items and so on), Dog has out-of-combat utility in the capacity of having Scent, Spot, Listen & being capable of tracking.

The dog is one class feature of one class (that also gets spells, more skills, wildshape and so on). Fighter is a full class that's supposedly equivalent to the class with Fighter as one class feature. A level in Fighter is supposedly worth as much as a level of Druid which also comes with a free level of Fighter.

[Delcor]

It doesn't matter. They're pretty even in fight. Fighter has out-of-combat utility in the capacity of being a human (talking to people, if not very eloquently, using items and so on), Dog has out-of-combat utility in the capacity of having Scent, Spot, Listen & being capable of tracking.

The dog is one class feature of one class (that also gets spells, more skills, wildshape and so on). Fighter is a full class that's supposedly equivalent to the class with Fighter as one class feature. A level in Fighter is supposedly worth as much as a level of Druid which also comes with a free level of Fighter.

Alright you have convinced me that an animal companion could beat a fighter at level 1.

[pres_man]

Why do you play 3.5?
Do you play it as well as other editions? Are tiers somehow swaying what you play? Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?

I have played earlier editions on occasion (some guy down the hall in the dorms wanted to get a game going for example), though I never got into them. They were just missing something to really connect with me.

When I started playing 3ed, near the switch to 3.5, I suddenly found a system that was what I was looking for. You mean I can play a half-orc and be a paladin? Elves can be barbarians? Dwarves can be bards?

When 3.5 came out, not even half the group had yet bought PHB, so it wasn't that big of a deal to switch over. Some of the changes were good, some weren't, and some were blah, but none were enough to stop us playing.

By now, I have invested quite a bit in 3.5, and I don't really feel like I am missing much. There aren't a lot of holes that I need filled. 4e didn't really interest me, I'm sure it is a fine game, but I was quite happy playing 3.5. Same thing when PF came out, have fun with it you young whipper-snappers, but I'm perfectly content with my version.

If someone was a brand new player with an entire group of new players, I'd suggest they probably pick up PF or 4e, but for me, nope, no thanks.

[Delcor]

Your personal experience would seem to be quite limited. Others have already covered the basics of what the core Duid can do, so let's consider a Druid and a Rogue in the party together, facing some fairly common D&D enemies: anything with undead, or construct, or plant types. With core rules the Druid will use wild shape and Natural Spell, and have many ways of dealing with such foes. Meanwhile the Rogue's contributions in these encounters will be rather less than the Druid's animal companion, because the core Rogue's main ability (sneak attack) is completely useless. :smallmad:

This argument has now become too frustrating, believe what you will about wildshape.

Regardless of your lucky/spoiled/limited gaming history...
:smallannoyed:

[Big Fau]

Wildshape: Well, next campaign is urban, so I guess I won't have this issue, but I guess I'll believe it.

Do you know that all it takes is a Knowledge check for a Druid to figure out what he can Wildshape into?

Urban doesn't mean jack to Wildshape. It just means the Druid has a reason to be a jerk to NPCs.


Glitterdust: My problem is the fact that they get a save. :smallannoyed:

Pyrotechnics then. Same idea if you use the Smoke option, and it lasts longer after they leave the effect/the spell ends.

Or you could just use Glitterdust anyway, seeing as the save DC is trivially easy to pump. I've seen 15th level Wizards who still cast the spell (usually Heightening it to around 4th/6th level) because it retains that much power even at the mid/high levels.


Glibness: I really need to have a good look at the bluff section, because I would really be interested in seeing where it says you can convince a dragon to give up its hoard.

"I'm actually a Solar/Horned Devil in service to Bahamut/Tiamat, and need a massive amount of money to undo a Curse and return to my normal form. Please lend me some cash and I will ensure that the almighty one hears of your generous sacrifice."

That would, by RAW, be a maximum of a -20 penalty. All you need to do is roll and you're set.


Candle: I still look at that as a pile of crap. And WotC didn't catch this because????? :smallconfused:

You assume they read their own rules. Fact: 4+ people were working on the Core Rulebooks, and when you are passing a set of rules between that many people, things tend to get overlooked. And the Editors aren't payed to balance the things they correct either.


Hell, WotC isn't entirely to blame for missing that: Paizo did it too, despite 40+ people pointing out the Infinite Wish Loop during Beta testing.


Animal companion: Wait, we're assuming the druid is aiding the animal in this fight? I thought it was just Fighter toe-toe with an unbuffed animal companion, with zero interference by the druid, of course it would win if it was getting healed/buffed. :smallannoyed: (plus i always assume 28 PB)

One is a PC, the other is a class feature of another PC. If you assume a PC isn't going to make good use of his own class feature, then you really need to brush up on your gaming strategies.

[rexreg]

i first played d&d out of the pink box
played 1st edition until 1/2 way through the 2nd ed. run
was introduced to planescape & fell in love with both that setting & the player's option rules (sorry Hamlet!!)
planescape still spells out the cosmology of the multiverse in our campaigns

tried 3rd & initially didn't care for it...that being said, between 3.0/3.5 & all of the OGL stuff, the wealth of material is amazing; ended up loving the system

tried 4th; it was interesting as a new system, but didn't have as much flexibility as 3rd; also, class mechanics tended to be very similar, skills have been over-simplified & some of the PC races are silly (especially most of those in the PHB3)

i have played w/ the same group for over 15 yrs...we play a base 3.0/3.5, but take bits & pieces of every edition & mix & match to our hearts' content
i am not a fan of how WOTC erratas the 4th ed. stuff...i have seen characters become 'illegal' in the middle of a campaign

in the end, i d&d started out as a simulation of sorts...casting time, weapon speed, different armors working better against different types of weapons

3rd ed. brought about a whole new realm of possibilities because of its focus on Skills & Feats...
i DM'd a 4th ed. campaign (WotBS) w/ a different group & heard several times when asked why rules were as they were "because it's a game, not a simulation."
the group has since voted to switch from 4th to 3.5
after 4th ed. d&d, i probably will spend no more money, on 'new' d&d product

[Shpadoinkle]

I don't play 4e because I dislike it for several reasons, but the main one being that I don't like how it feels.

I don't play Pathfinder because it didn't actually fix anything, it just exchanged the problems 3.5e had for a new, slightly different set of problems.

So that's why I play 3.5e.

[Greenish]

Maybe I'm spoiled that way, maybe I've been lucky enough to get a DM who is very good at this, but I have personally never experienced a broken core only campaign.Then you should have no problems with the splats. :smalltongue:

(Except maybe ToB, because it's nearly impossible to screw those classes up.)

[Username_too_lo]

Oddly enough, while I hate 4e, I think it'd make a fantastic squad tactical combat video game. I'd *love* to manage a squad of fantasy people in that ruleset and pit them against others.

Yes it would be a perfect way to Craft a World of War.

"Damn you Zutons and your crazy time machine": Mark Ronson

[LordBlades]

The main reason I play 3.5 is because of all the systems I've tried is the one that gives most freedom in bringing any character concepts to life.

I prefer a system where I can do <insert weird character concept X> and it sucks to a system where I can't do it because it wouldn't be balanced(such as 4e).

[OverdrivePrime]

I play 3.5 because I haven't switched over to Pathfinder yet. :)

I started playing back with AD&D 2nd edition, and loved it. After that, I played a lot of West End Games' Star Wars, Rifts & Heroes Unlimited, and then in college... SO MUCH WHITE WOLF. When 3.5 came out, I got my old game group back together and we had just a ridiculous amount of fun. Now, some 11 years later, I'm still having a blast with it, still coming up with new and fun character concepts, each of which are clearly different from one another and play very different from one another.

2 years back I played in a 4th edition game for a couple months. It was run by my best friend - a very competent DM - and I played with a great bunch of guys who were good roleplayers and had a decent mind for tactics. The first session was fun. The second session was predictable, but still fun. The third was boring but fun. Each session after was increasingly boring and decreasingly fun. Sure, it was still fun to gather around a table, talk trash and drink beer... but the game part of it was terribly predictable. None of our characters felt like they stood out. My goliath barbarian felt the same in capability as the elf wizard. They just delivered their damage in a different way, but the outcome was the same, almost down to the numbers.

Now I'm in the early stages of a long-running 3.5 campaign. I'll probably switch over to Pathfinder some time through. We also play a lot of Shadowrun (3 & 4, depending on the DM), and some oWOD with nWOD rules. But we're never playing 4th edition D&D again. I'll still try D&D 5 when that comes out. There's always a chance that they'll get it right.

[Tyndmyr]

I will forever remain against those statements. I have always had a fulfilling game with no one feeling overshadowed. Broken things have never gotten in the way of my partys fun or the difficulty of the campaign. Maybe I'm spoiled that way, maybe I've been lucky enough to get a DM who is very good at this, but I have personally never experienced a broken core only campaign.

I presume you're tired of examples by this point.

Suffice it to say that you do not need a balanced game for a group to get along and have fun together. I accept that 3.5 is not terribly balanced. I also just don't care, because this does not prevent us from having fun with it.

[Balor01]

I like 3.5 because it can make smart guys shine and dumb guys fail. Combat is leathal, but a smart PC will know how to shift balance his way. 4E is more or les HURRDURR can't fail, were all the same and 1E and 2E are a bit too narrow for my taste.

As for pre-mentioned problems regarrding Wildshape, etc ...

- any party just cleaving trought encounters will in my campaign quickly attract the attention of strong(er) creatures.
- Gate shennanigans - well every action has consequences and considering one does not abuse gate in a sterile enviroment of typpiverse lab ... well. Don't be surprised if you get curbstombed by strong outsiders/gods for gating in their buddies for no good reason.

The funniest thing I find is PunPun. It CAN be done. But as a DM I have so many wrenches to throw in those cogs ... Pazuzu may just have a bad day (and large knowledge of PunPun abusers) and just decide to put a goddarn summoner on a spike. "Obliged to obey the summoner?" Heh, you're talking to Pazuzu here. A creature older then some worlds, let alone a silly kobold/munchkin PC/epic lich.
Diplomacy checks: GiTP rules.

I like 3.5, I just rip out bunch of silly rules and replace them with sane consequences.

[Delcor]

I presume you're tired of examples by this point.

Suffice it to say that you do not need a balanced game for a group to get along and have fun together. I accept that 3.5 is not terribly balanced. I also just don't care, because this does not prevent us from having fun with it.

Thanks you, I would agree. :smallsmile:

[Partysan]

I like creating characters for it. And I have a group that plays it.

[Tyndmyr]

"Obliged to obey the summoner?" Heh, you're talking to Pazuzu here. A creature older then some worlds, let alone a silly kobold/munchkin PC/epic lich.
Diplomacy checks: GiTP rules.

I like 3.5, I just rip out bunch of silly rules and replace them with sane consequences.

There is no obligation whatsoever for Pazuzu to obey the aspiring Pun-Pun. Offering deals is likely behavior. These deals sometimes make use of Pazuzu's Wish SLA.

It most certainly does not HAVE to happen, and it's the weakest part of the level 1 pun-pun build. As a DM, I would enjoy throwing a wrench in this.

[Greenish]

It most certainly does not HAVE to happen, and it's the weakest part of the level 1 pun-pun build.Well, there's the Mirror Mephit version too, which doesn't rely on Pazuzu.

Of course, it's Pun-Pun, DM considerations rarely enter the picture.

[Firechanter]

Oh, a number of reasons.

1. The multitude of options. There are hundreds of classes and prestigeclasses, thousands of feats etc... You could probably play a completely new (and worthwhile) character concept every other month and not run out in decades. Just thinking up Builds is already fun.

2. There's nothing like a level- and class-based system in terms of niche protection. The big drawback of "open" toolbox systems is that everyone can learn anything. I prefer a game where you have to give something up in order to be awesome at something else.

3. I'm used to it and I have all the material I need, and still there's a lot to discover. I'm not even using all that 3.5 has to offer. Why should I switch to another game that makes me buy fresh book all over again?
Some people say "But 3.5 is not supported anymore" -- so what? I am not one who constantly needs a new add-on every month to have fun. As I said, 3.5 has still reserves I haven't yet tapped. I couldn't care less that no fresh material is published. As someone else once said when 3.5 was discontinued "Great, now the game's complete and we can start playing for real". ^^

That said, I do regard the screwed-up balance as a downside. But I actually find some enjoyment (but also frustration) in trying to "fix" it, i.e. hand-picking and restricting options in a manner that I hope to improve balance. You could say this is kind of a game of its own.


Conversely, I don't play PF because, firstly, it's just tinkering and doesn't really fix _one_ of 3.5's main issues, and I'm not discarding all my old stuff and invest more money for a debatably marginal improvement.
Likewise, I don't play 4E because from what I read and heard so far, it feels too "meta", simplistic and board-gamey; I keep hearing the things that have been mentioned in this thread: every class feels the same, not enough variation between characters, etc. etc.. And again, money.

[LordBlades]

There is no obligation whatsoever for Pazuzu to obey the aspiring Pun-Pun. Offering deals is likely behavior. These deals sometimes make use of Pazuzu's Wish SLA.

It most certainly does not HAVE to happen, and it's the weakest part of the level 1 pun-pun build. As a DM, I would enjoy throwing a wrench in this.

Pun Pun, like all TO is a thought exercise. Nobody sane would try it in a real game.




I prefer a game where you have to give something up in order to be awesome at something else.


That kind of excludes 3.5 casters:smallwink:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Pun Pun, like all TO is a thought exercise. Nobody sane would try it in a real game.


In my games Pun-Pun has already ascended and with the omni sene he discovered he is a character in a game and that for all his power there is a higher one, the DM and has agreed to serve as his avatar. He nows keeps the multi verse working by being the keeper of the exploits.:smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

Pun Pun, like all TO is a thought exercise. Nobody sane would try it in a real game.

Right. It was mostly just a pedantic correction of his statement.

I don't find pun-pun to be at all relevant in actual games.

[Ozreth]

To hell with balance.

I play with a group of people who don't mind if one character outshines another because they realize they aren't working against each other, but with each other, and one character being able to do something awesome only helps them all. It's a cooperative game, not competitive. They also rely a lot on thoughts and actions that aren't specifically written on their character sheet, which enables anybody to shine.

I like 3e because it is still very similar to older d&d in terms of flavor, mechanics and play style but streamlined and intuitive enough for me to not have to come up with too many random rules on my own. If I'm not sure how to handle something there is probably something in the book that gives me a good suggestion.

I like that I play with or without miniatures quite easily, as most of the spells are straight copies from AD&D.

I love the way the core books look and are organized.

I love the third party content.

That being said, I do enioy AD&D a lot as well. Sometimes it IS nice to just wing tons of stuff and not worry a lot about number crunching, skill points, etc. Because of this I use a lot of the stuff from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana to give my games a more "old school" feel.

OR if you wanted some new school flaire you could drop in ToB.

All in all, it's a flexible, mostly backwards compatible, streamlined and flavorful system with a good mix of old and new that can be molded to that which you desire.

[Andorax]

Why do I play D&D 3.5?

For background: Started with 0D&D. Played 1st, 2nd, 2.5 option, 3.0, 3.5. Each step in this path has, with full examination, been seen as an improvement, a step "forward". Once we got used to the changes they brought to the table, 3.0 was clearly better than AD&D 2.0 or 2.5. 3.5 was clearly better than 3.0.

I play 3.5 because I've yet to be convinced that 3.P or 4.0 are 'clearly better' than 3.5. Also, I've not yet run out of stories to tell. I have a host of campaign ideas that I just don't feel like I can do justice in a 4.0 setting/ruleset.
Do I play other editions?

I've tested 4.0 out a bit to get a feel for it, and have started a small campaign (my wife and 13 year old son). I feel like 4.0 is a bit easier and more intuitive...and can be made moreso with cards, poker chips, etc...so I'm making it easier for my son to grasp. Plus, new players coming in (especially of his generation) are likely to be playing 4.0, so I want to prepare him to be able to game with his peers.

Who knows? Maybe the 'old man' will be DMing a campaign for all the neighborhood boys and actually get to be the cool dad.

Are tiers affecting how I play?

Not in the least. I hadn't even heard of tiers before actively reading/posting here a few months ago, and my opinion hasn't really changed. I knew "wizards were godly" in a vague sense, but that's about it. I, and my gaming group, still feel that anything can be played and play an enjoyable part in the encounters and adventures the party participates in.

If anything, tiers have made me "more aware" of certain issues, which I can subtly adjust for...but when I have wizard and druid players who don't actively try to break the campaign...who prefer playing a tiger to a fleshraker because it 'fits'...then the tiers just don't pose a problem for me.

Why haven't I moved on to 4E?

Well, as noted above, I have started to...but right now we're comfortable. We have sourcebooks enough to last us into retirement, stories to tell, ideas to explore, and plenty of people who still seem to enjoy it.

Plus, there's a couple of things about 4E that rub me wrong. It may be that I've become more analytical in my thinking, but I saw right through 4E's "skin" to the skeleton of mechanics underneath, and it striped the magic right off of the game before I could learn to like it. I have to "work" to like it, and that seems off to me.

In past edition shifts, adapting wasn't a huge chore. Sure, 3.X throws fits when you toss a horde of dozens of opponents at the party in a single encounter, but with a minimal amount of tweaking here and there, it's fixable. Need to scale up an old 2E adventure? Give those orcs levels!

With 4E, it feels like some of my best tools have been taken away. Monsters don't follow the same rules players do for creation and advancement. Gone are the kobold sorcerors, ogre barbarians, and marilith blackguards. In its place is the lightning-enhanced, extra-strong, extra-fast kobold that you face at the start of nightmore mode the paragon tier.

[Doug Lampert]

Wildshape: Well, next campaign is urban, so I guess I won't have this issue, but I guess I'll believe it.)

You can use wildshape in a city. If there's fighting involved is still works fine.


Glitterdust: My problem is the fact that they get a save. :smallannoyed:

That problem is why in your EARLIER post you consceeded that the -40 applies, which means that back then it WASN'T the save that makes it reasonable. So you're changing your story about why it's not broken and moving the goalposts rather than admitting that the LEAST useful thing about the spell wasn't its main feature.


Glibness: I really need to have a good look at the bluff section, because I would really be interested in seeing where it says you can convince a dragon to give up its hoard.

The rules are clear that you can convince it of something "almost too incredible to consider" AND to do something that ""puts the target at significant risk".

So getting the dragon killed is quite possible.


Candle: I still look at that as a pile of crap. And WotC didn't catch this because????? :smallconfused:

If it is crap then TELL US why it doesn't work! Are we to believe that it doesn't work by your assertion?

You specifically and clearly stated that it works "via unspecific text". Which text is that? Enquiring minds want to know which of the blatantly clear rules is unspecific.

As to why WotC didn't catch this? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CARE?

It's horrible ballance, just like 90% of core! Why don't YOU demonstrate some evidence that core is ballanced or well thought out elsewhere and that this is thus an exception rather than being business as usual.


Animal companion: Wait, we're assuming the druid is aiding the animal in this fight? I thought it was just Fighter toe-toe with an unbuffed animal companion, with zero interference by the druid, of course it would win if it was getting healed/buffed. :smallannoyed: (plus i always assume 28 PB)

No. We're making no such assumption. There have been entire threads on how to optimize a companion. At level 1 it kicks the crap out of the fighter most of the time. If you give it gear comparable to the cost of the fighter's gear then an appropriate companion STILL kicks the crap out of the fighter at level whatever you like. The companion is a totally replaceable completely free replacement fighter that the druid gets just for being a druid.

Additionally, if the Druid DOES want to buff, the AC gets the same buffs for free, allowing it to even more easily destroy the fighter and totally dominate him in combat at effectively no resource cost (since the druid is buffing himself and the AC gets it for free). But that's hardly neccessary.

Since you've admitted repreatedly to no experience with a Druid WTF do you keep making pronouncements on how powerful an AC is?

[Doug Lampert]

Thanks you, I would agree. :smallsmile:

Then you contradict yourself, because he stated that the game is unballanced, and you've been arguing that core is ballanced.

This is delusional. By holding yourself to this delusional belief you are denying yourself the ability to use non-core options out of the deluded belief that they somehow make the game less ballanced.

[Grendus]

I wish I could convince my group to play 3.5. I may have some luck with pathfinder, but two of the members are already dead set against it because "it's too complicated". They apparently like 4e's simpler system. Then again, they do prefer a very hack and slash style, so 4e would probably work.

I like 3.5 because it has so many options. A few dozen base classes, hundreds of PrC's, more feats than I can count, items everywhere... if you can't find an idea out of all of those that you like, you're beyond saving.

[Firechanter]

That kind of excludes 3.5 casters:smallwink:

True, yes. Let's say it's more like "the target" rather than "the actual". I think the _idea_ of D&D is that everything is a trade-off. It doesn't hold true in practice thanks to shoddy balancing / editing, but still. Hence my attempts at fiddling with the game to achieve something closer to this ideal.

[Tyndmyr]

I wish I could convince my group to play 3.5. I may have some luck with pathfinder, but two of the members are already dead set against it because "it's too complicated". They apparently like 4e's simpler system. Then again, they do prefer a very hack and slash style, so 4e would probably work.

I like 3.5 because it has so many options. A few dozen base classes, hundreds of PrC's, more feats than I can count, items everywhere... if you can't find an idea out of all of those that you like, you're beyond saving.

If you want to get people into 3.5(or PF, really), and they're worried about complicated...don't do it all at once. 3.5(and PF is well on the way) has a LOOOT of books and options. It can be a bit overwhelming if taken all at once.

Hell, for new players, prefab sheets might even be the way to go. Ask em all what they want, whip them up a basic char.

[Essence_of_War]

Hell, for new players, prefab sheets might even be the way to go. Ask em all what they want, whip them up a basic char.

I had some success with this when I started 3.X with my group. I got them all together, and had them talk to me about what sort of hero they wanted to create. Then, with the exception of one of them who had a lot of AD&D experience playing wizards, I made them pre-fab, mechanically straight forward characters.

They had a lot of fun. We have been gradually adding source materials since.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I also recommend pre-fab sheets, but then you should thoroughly explain what each ability does. This is why the fighter class exists, btw. Not being able to do anything except hit people is very, very simple.

AC versus Fighter tangent:Level 1. War Trained Riding Dog with leather barding has 13 HP, 18 AC (12 touch), +3 Bite (1d6+3), and a free trip attempt after a hit at +2. (trip defense +6 due to 4 legs)

Bob the level 1 human fighter* has Improved Initiative, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. He has 12 HP, 15 AC (11 touch), +5 Guisarme (2d4+6), and a free attack after a successful trip (touch +5, trip +8). Trip defense is +8.

The dog's strategy is arguably straightforward. He runs up to the fighter, eats the AoO if necessary, and tries to stand up if prone. Bob's strategy is to try to trip the dog if it's not already prone, and otherwise just hit it and position himself to maximize AoOs. This means he'll 5' away from the dog most turns (since he won't actually get the trip off most turns), spend a move action to stand if necessary, and then smack.

To be honest, it looks like the dog is going to lose most of the time. Bob has a 70% chance to hit on the touch attack and a 60% chance to succeed on the trip attempt. If that succeeds, he then has a 55% chance to hit on the follow up attack since the dog is prone. He also does more damage than the dog, and any crit is basically an insta-kill (whereas Bob has about a 50% chance of survival against a single crit or, equivalently, two normal hits). Bob gets more attacks off due to reach granting AoOs and trips denying dog attacks.

On the reverse side, the dog has a 40% chance to hit on the initial attack, and then a meager 20% chance to succeed on the trip. Even if the trip works, it doesn't do anything since he doesn't get a follow up attack, and Bob just 5's away and uses his move action to stand up outside of the dog's reach. Bob also has the initiative advantage, although that feat could go into combat reflexes instead for more AoOs. Depends on what you want to do.

Because of the low probability of success for any individual attacks and the relatively low HP total, both of them have a decent chance to win, but by no means is the dog actually better in a one-on-one fight than the fighter. And before we talk about equipping the dog in more than just leather barding, keep in mind that the Druid shouldn't be spending too much time and money pimping out his T5 class feature, and it's sort of moot at first level anyway.

This isn't to say that the Druid isn't broken... but there's a reason the AC is the lowest "tier" of the Druid's class features. It's nice, it makes the fighter not entirely necessary, but I'd prefer a loyal fighter cohort... at least until I start getting those crazy druid buffs that the AC can share.

Edit: Arguably the dog uses the same "5' while prone" strat, difference being it has Int 2 and Bob has Int 13. That tips it closer to the dog's favor, but the percentages are still in favor of Bob.

*If you want to quibble about 32 point buy, which I find is standard on this board, shave the AC, HP and Initiative by 1. Woo.

[Talya]

I would actually argue that the game is far more balanced if you include all available splatbooks than it is without them. As 3.5 ended, the gap between casters and melee was far less than it was when it started.

[Eldariel]

*snip*

Yeah, a well-built Fighter is going to beat a stock AC most of the time (though obviously, the proper comparison is 25pb Fighter vs. AC since 25pb or Elite array is the default assumption of the system). Your average Elite Array Sword & Board build (which, mind, is the assumption; just check the starter package) doesn't fare nearly as well tho. Take the default Dwarf Fighter for example:
15 Str
13 Dex
16 Con
10 Int
12 Wis
6 Cha

Dwarven War Axe + Scale Mail + Heavy Steel Shield

Weapon Focus: Dwarven War Axe
Power Attack (don't ask me, I didn't build it)

So +4 To hit for 1d10+2, 17 AC, 13 HP. 20' move speed vs. 40' move speed though that's not so relevant in a 1v1. +6 vs. Trip tho (Dwarves are stocky).

Basically even on other numbers except the AC has the free Trip-attack in exchange for less damage.

[Optimator]

I actually like the grainy, simulationist RPG bits in its rules. I like the plethora of customization options for PCs with multiclassing, feats, and PrCs. I don't mind Vancian casting. I understand why they chose it and I've lived with it since 2nd edition anyway. I own perhaps 2/3 of the 3.5 books and have access to the rest, so that's an obvious reason--as is my friends preferring 3.5 too.

[Safety Sword]

I would actually argue that the game is far more balanced if you include all available splatbooks than it is without them. As 3.5 ended, the gap between casters and melee was far less than it was when it started.

*nods*
*points at ToB*

That's why.

And even though it's been said a fair few times:

3.5 still feels like D&D to me. That "other D&D" feels like a computer game put on paper for the ADD generation now kids. The thinking has left the game.

I have played D&D for many (many many) years and as a previous poster said, each addition or revision of edition seemed like a jump forward from the last.

My entire group (6 adults, 2 almost adults) all think 4.0 "dumbs down" the game. I know it's a different game altogether, but 4.0 just doesn't "feel" like D&D to us. It's rather less than an epic adventure when we've played it.

So we have a group that's perfectly happy playing a game that's well enough to us. Don't see why I'd up and change.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*snip*To be fair, it's the best available level 1 "stock AC" in core. A less-than-optimized druid could just as easily get an owl or something. Good for scouting, amirite? I figured max strength + reach weapon + improved trip was about as "optimized" (in core) as getting a war trained riding dog with leather barding.

Edit: Regarding 4e as a "non-thinking" game... Eh, I've played it several times before, and you can pull off a lot of shenanigans. Problem is they're all in-combat, and they all require teamwork. If you want to do something crazy by yourself, sucks to be you. If you want to do anything crazy at all and have mechanics-averse fellow players, sucks to be you. I think I might actually enjoy 4e's mechanics if it was paragon tier or up and I actually had the right group to play it... and the DM saw it for what it was and played it mostly hack'n'slash.

...

And less "HP blob" solos. Also what infuriated me was later monsters with "aftereffect" abilities. So the monsters get a taste of 3.5 style debuffs but the PCs don't? I thought the whole point of adding the save mechanic was because players didn't like it when they were taken out of the fight, not DMs feeling sad about their monsters... Okay, maybe I wouldn't enjoy it after all. But that's just me.

[Firechanter]

I would actually argue that the game is far more balanced if you include all available splatbooks than it is without them. As 3.5 ended, the gap between casters and melee was far less than it was when it started.

Yes and no. True, some of the most broken spells ever are from the PHB. Stuff like Shapechange, Gate, Timestop, Wish etc. However, it's not like the splats didn't add more stuff that made the spellcasters even more broken. Like DMM for Clerics and Persistent Spell. Or the very lowlevel Celerity spell, which comes down to "You >> Action Economy", especially when used together with Contingency. Or Heroism Heroics, making an entire class obsolete with a single 2nd level spell slot. Or the Devotion feats, allowing everyone to take them but giving the Cleric 10 times more benefit than anyone else. Or the Incantatrix - nuff said. The list goes on and on.

The noncasters did improve, due to improved options and better, more versatile classes, but they never made the full casters ' potential less game-shattering, and added yet more game-shattering options on top.

However, you can _build_ a more balanced game than Core by mixing and matching select Non-Core material.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Heroism is core. Also, we're comparing N sourcebooks, where N is large and includes Faerun material, to one sourcebook. It's important to look at the density of broken material in the PHB compared to non-core, and to look at how much non-core adds to casters in comparison to what it adds to melee.

If instead of a lineup of Black Tentacles, Enervation, Solid Fog, and Polymorph, the Wizard prepares Black Tentacles, Celerity, Solid Fog, and Polymorph, he's gotten... marginally stronger. He's traded some endurance and no-save debuffing for some action economy control.

But if we replace fighter with Dungeoncrasher, or better yet Warblade, he's made a huge improvement. He can contribute significantly right out of the box, which IMO is much more important than curbing broken tricks. No one's going to play Pun Pun at the table, but someone might try a monk.

[Firechanter]

Heroism is core.

I meant Heroics. Screw quasi-identical spell names!


It's important to look at the density of broken material in the PHB compared to non-core,

I disagree here. Density is irrelevant. Only absolute numbers are meaningful. Hiding gamebreaking stuff among piles and piles of subpar options does not make it any less gamebreaking. It just gives the power gamers an ever bigger edge because they can find out which options are the good ones, while the casual gamers are prone to pick stuff that just sounds nice and thus become weaker than before.


But if we replace fighter with Dungeoncrasher, or better yet Warblade, he's made a huge improvement.

Sure. That's part of what I meant -- use Splat material to replace the inferior noncasters from Core with worthwhile options like ToB classes. But at the same time, I find it also advisable to replace the broken full casters like Wizard with more limited Splat classes, like Dread Necromancer, Beguiler etc. - unfortunately there's no full portfolio. There are a couple of Wizard substitutes but very little in the Divine department.

[Coidzor]

Yes and no. True, some of the most broken spells ever are from the PHB. Stuff like Shapechange, Gate, Timestop, Wish etc. However, it's not like the splats didn't add more stuff that made the spellcasters even more broken. Like DMM for Clerics and Persistent Spell. Or the very lowlevel Celerity spell, which comes down to "You >> Action Economy", especially when used together with Contingency. Or Heroism Heroics, making an entire class obsolete with a single 2nd level spell slot. Or the Devotion feats, allowing everyone to take them but giving the Cleric 10 times more benefit than anyone else. Or the Incantatrix - nuff said. The list goes on and on.

The noncasters did improve, due to improved options and better, more versatile classes, but they never made the full casters ' potential less game-shattering, and added yet more game-shattering options on top.

However, you can _build_ a more balanced game than Core by mixing and matching select Non-Core material.

If broken, then a few more powerful options aren't really going to progress things to a hypothetical super-broken. It's still just broken, no real significance to the figures.

Whereas bad to not bad is a significant difference.

[McQ]

I play 3.5 because of my collection of books. Before 4e released, I had a fairly large collection, but even now it isn't complete.

I haven't even looked at 4e enough to note it being "advanced" or "better," so I'll stick with the resources I have.

[Delcor]

You can use wildshape in a city. If there's fighting involved is still works fine.

That problem is why in your EARLIER post you consceeded that the -40 applies, which means that back then it WASN'T the save that makes it reasonable. So you're changing your story about why it's not broken and moving the goalposts rather than admitting that the LEAST useful thing about the spell wasn't its main feature.

The rules are clear that you can convince it of something "almost too incredible to consider" AND to do something that ""puts the target at significant risk".

So getting the dragon killed is quite possible.

If it is crap then TELL US why it doesn't work! Are we to believe that it doesn't work by your assertion?

You specifically and clearly stated that it works "via unspecific text". Which text is that? Enquiring minds want to know which of the blatantly clear rules is unspecific.

As to why WotC didn't catch this? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CARE?

It's horrible ballance, just like 90% of core! Why don't YOU demonstrate some evidence that core is ballanced or well thought out elsewhere and that this is thus an exception rather than being business as usual.



No. We're making no such assumption. There have been entire threads on how to optimize a companion. At level 1 it kicks the crap out of the fighter most of the time. If you give it gear comparable to the cost of the fighter's gear then an appropriate companion STILL kicks the crap out of the fighter at level whatever you like. The companion is a totally replaceable completely free replacement fighter that the druid gets just for being a druid.

Additionally, if the Druid DOES want to buff, the AC gets the same buffs for free, allowing it to even more easily destroy the fighter and totally dominate him in combat at effectively no resource cost (since the druid is buffing himself and the AC gets it for free). But that's hardly neccessary.

Since you've admitted repreatedly to no experience with a Druid WTF do you keep making pronouncements on how powerful an AC is?


Then you contradict yourself, because he stated that the game is unballanced, and you've been arguing that core is ballanced.

This is delusional. By holding yourself to this delusional belief you are denying yourself the ability to use non-core options out of the deluded belief that they somehow make the game less ballanced.

Wildshape: I just meant that since its urban no one in my party will care about playing a druid. I know wilshape can be used anywhere.

Glitter: My new problem with it was the save, but that got shot down.

Glib: I'll look at it, may give in to this one.

Candle: My opinion, never meant to force it onto anyone, just slightly angered by the clear stupidity of the loophole, I am entitled to my opinion, you are to yours, I'm done with this debate.

Animal companion: If you bothered to read all of the forum, I clearly stated that I was convinced an optimized lvl 1 animal companion could defeat a level 1 fighter. Debate over.

I believe that most non-core material is unbalanced, and I admitted that core was unbalanced in a lot of areas. I have many reasons why I don't buy other books, but if I stated the main reason, you would all come down upon me like harpies :smallannoyed: core is fun, its fair enough and balanced enough that I have fun, as long as I am having fun, no amount of balancing or extra books is going to add to the fun, only to the complexities and math. End of discussion.

[Eldariel]

To be fair, it's the best available level 1 "stock AC" in core. A less-than-optimized druid could just as easily get an owl or something. Good for scouting, amirite? I figured max strength + reach weapon + improved trip was about as "optimized" (in core) as getting a war trained riding dog with leather barding.

*shrug* Fair enough. The biggest issue with the whole AC vs. Fighter deal people usually bring up relates back to playtesting which was done under 25pb S&B Fighter and equivalents; on what planet was it alright for the Fighter and the AC to contribute the same?

If 25pb Fighter is compared to standard AC, surely we should compare 32pb Fighter to AC with similarly improved stats and maybe chosen feats? Note, I don't advocate this as a good idea; just where I'm coming from with regards to the power level discrepancy in this particular example.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*shrug* Fair enough. The biggest issue with the whole AC vs. Fighter deal people usually bring up relates back to playtesting which was done under 25pb S&B Fighter and equivalents; on what planet was it alright for the Fighter and the AC to contribute the same?

If 25pb Fighter is compared to standard AC, surely we should compare 32pb Fighter to AC with similarly improved stats and maybe chosen feats? Note, I don't advocate this as a good idea; just where I'm coming from with regards to the power level discrepancy in this particular example.I bet they didn't even playtest a druid with a combat-focused animal companion. Mayyybe wolf.

[Greenish]

I believe that most non-core material is unbalancedYeah, and there you are wrong. Most of non-core options range from "ok" to "meh".

[Firechanter]

Well, "meh" isn't balanced either; the scales just swing the other way.

[ufis]

It seems that the the general answer to playing 3.5 is: "So many options to build the ultimate super character and own the game and everything in it" which to me sounds about as much fun as playing pac-man, but with all the dots being big dots (google it if you do not understand). To each his own.

My reason for playing 3.5 (and yes I only play core) is because that is the source books I have. Before that I had the ADnD 2nd Ed books, and that is what I played. I have not purchased 4e books because I do not play tabletop anymore - to hard to find decent groups these days.

It has a clear set of rules, that I am familiar with. But rules is simply a way to determine the success of specific actions.

The real fun lies in playing a character. This you can do, and have fun, with any ruleset and any "class". Once you stop trying to win the game and start to play the game, the ruleset does not matter.

[Greymane]

Snip

I'm afraid, sir, that you've misunderstood the bulk of people's responses if that's the conclusion you have come to. The primary view isn't "3.5 is super best because of all these ways I can break the game!", it's that there's so much to it, that what you can build, mechanically, is nigh limitless.

Spell Casters? It has four different varieties in the core book alone, let alone splat books that add more (albeit, less powerful ones save for the Archivist). What sort of theme would you like for your spell caster? There's tons upon tons of prestige classes that help you find a niche of your liking for them.

Psychic? Has a few of those. Holy Warriors? Several, even some variants for differing alignments. How about a little girl with a flying robot who fights for justice? You can build that as well.

It always feels like the sky is the limit (And when you're done with that limit, you pull out Spelljammer) with 3.5 D&D. And while our playstyles and experiences differ greatly depending on those we game with, I believe it's primarily this freedom and potential that draws us to this system.

[Eldan]

Yes. If I wanted to play the most powerful character ever, there would rarely be a reason to play as anything other than a wizard. Maybe a Kobold Paladin now and then.

But I don't want that. Effortlessly crushing everything? Heck, I don't even like 3.5 combat much.

I want the possibility to think of any crazy character idea and build it. There are point based systems out there, but for some reason, every one of them feels less flexible to me than 3.5.

How many games offer things like Binders, Artificers, Psions, Wizards, Shadowcasters, Truenamers, Dread Necromancers all for what is essentially, a very similar basic fluff ideas? Sorcerers, Wilders, Warlocks? Clerics, Favoured Souls, Paladins, Crusaders? They are all very different mechanically. The fluff as given in the books is similar, sure, but you can bend that to your will.

I have played a gnome who fought in a building sized battle suit using only, basically, one item creation feat and a non-core spell. I have played a character who was a warrior possessed by the spirit of an ancient elven necromancer living in his sword. I have played demons and dragons, angels and archons, mice and magma-monsters alongside mercenaries, assassins, politicians and frightened farmboys who owned a rusty sword and a pair of good boots. I can be a god, or I can be a child. I can be a hero, or a villain. A snake, a lion or a mouse.

And they all worked, mechanically, and they did what I expected them to do.

[Talya]

Yes and no...you can _build_ a more balanced game than Core by mixing and matching select Non-Core material.

No, not what I meant.
I meant, with an anything goes, all options on the table approach, the game is closer to being balanced if you allow all splatbooks than if you take only core. Yes, splatbooks give some tier 1s some more options to break the game, it's true. However, the gap is still less between the haves and have-nots if you allow all options at the table than if you merely allow all of core.

Can you balance it better by picking and choosing? probably. Should a DM evaluate each player's build choices for suitability in his game? Absolutely. But what I'm saying is Core is the main problem. Splats don't eliminate the problem, but they help.

[etrpgb]

Because I have fun making characters instead of making parties and following all the `rules updates'.

[Tyndmyr]

I believe that most non-core material is unbalanced,

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it correct.

Look, evidence! Check out the tier system. Observe that it contains three tier 1 classes...half of the most powerful classes in the game. It has one tier 2, one tier 3, three tier 4s, four tier 5s, and two tier 6s(half the weakest classes in the game!)

Notice that, overall, tier 3 is by far the most populated class, and splatbook classes cluster together here, and that core is actually biased toward the extremes. This demonstrates a comparative lack of balance.

Generally, if you can't demonstrate actual evidence for your side and the other side can...accepting that you were wrong is the way to go(or dig up some evidence!), instead of announcing you believe whatever, and demanding it be the end of discussion.


I have many reasons why I don't buy other books, but if I stated the main reason, you would all come down upon me like harpies :smallannoyed:

Oh, I love being criticized for things that I theoretically will do. How about actually stating the reason?


It seems that the the general answer to playing 3.5 is: "So many options to build the ultimate super character and own the game and everything in it" which to me sounds about as much fun as playing pac-man, but with all the dots being big dots (google it if you do not understand). To each his own.

That's not really what people were saying...

[Greenish]

It seems that the the general answer to playing 3.5 is: "So many options to build the ultimate super character and own the game and everything in it"What thread have you been reading? Certainly not this one.

[LordBlades]

What thread have you been reading? Certainly not this one.

ufis kind of misread the general point which IMHO seemed to be "So many options to build anything". Not necessarily win the game (that's trivial in 3.5) but regardless of what you want to do, there's at least a dozen ways to do it in 3.5. Some might be too strong, others too weak, but the options are there.

[Delcor]

"So many options to build anything".

Thats the main theme I noticed also.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I play 3.5 because (Big_Teej) my amazingly awesome DM doesnt run 4e, for valid reasons. Mainly though I like both systems, they just do different things. Which is somthing I would love to get into because I HAVE DEFINED
4e COMBAT!!! I have an actual name to give it!!!! Anyway, 3.5 has lots of support outside of core, I love the nonbroken stuff you can do with Leadership (spy network anyone?). I also like my DM which very much influences what I play.

As for tiers, meh, its more player optimization then anything, as long as the player is mature it shouldnt be a problem. I like both systems, though so far, 1st eddition has been my favorite for an odd reason.

[Big Fau]

Yeah, and there you are wrong. Most of non-core options range from "ok" to "meh".

And then there's the Archivist, Artificer, and Erudite. All three of which can be easily avoided (the Artificer can be excluded by not playing Eberron).


But yeah, the broken is considerably less prominent outside of Core.

[XenoGeno]

I got into 3.5 because it was the version of D&D that was around when I started playing with people in high school. I learned to read on my dad's AD&D books, so I grew up loving the flavor of D&D, and wanted to play. I stayed with 3.5, learning the ins and outs of the system, the way the pieces went together. There are just so many ways to make a unique, effective character with the same class as another unique, effective character due to the plethora of options. Admittedly, the plethora of options also leads to a countless number of ineffective builds, but that's part of the fun to me, the trial and error of finding what works.

As for other editions, I started enjoying Pathfinder once the APG came out; the base classes in that book were so interesting and flavorful. Summoner is without a doubt my favorite class from all 3.X-related works. I love how the eidolon serves as a sort of physical manifestation of the character's progression. While most characters just get nicer equipment to indicate their increase in power as they level up, summoners that go from level 1 to level 20 basically have what starts as a little pet snake or lion or whatever, digivolve (you know that's what it is) into a Huge fiery, flying four-armed lion-centaur-thing or whatever. I actually love the class so much I almost ran a gestalt campaign with the players having to take summoner on one side at every level-up. It barely got started before real life got in the way, but I'd love to revisit it sometime.

Fourth edition, though... eh. I enjoy playing it with my friends, but I don't really like the system itself. I hate how minions just seem to slow combat down more than anything else, I hate how monsters are damage sponges (in the last 4e game I played in, at level 11 I dealt 230 damage to one monster and it was just barely bloodied), I hate how I've only found one class that seems to function differently compared to the others in its role (ranger, because hitting twice in a single action makes it significantly better than every other striker), and there doesn't ever seem to be overlap between fluff and crunch. While I don't play much of any D&D these days (Mutants & Masterminds FTW), I'd much, much rather play 3.5 or Pathfinder.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

because I have balanced 3.5 without making a new system more than anyone else

and because it allows me to do darn near anything like make my ultimate bear-y build (bear-man who can transform a pseudo-bear and a bear who became a dire bear who can turn into a bear while turning into a bear that rides a bear that turns into a bear that merges with other bears that

[Murg]

I'll try and make this general.
Why do you play 3.5?
Do you play it as well as other editions? Are tiers somehow swaying what you play? Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?


A fun question!

I play 3.5 because it's what I'm most familiar with and I am happy with it. For me to "upgrade" to 4e would require a significant investment of $ on my part to buy new books, and a significant investment of time to learn the new system.

And since none of the people I play d&d with have gone over to 4e there's no impetus for me to do so. Plus, from what I've read of the material that's freely available on 4e, it does not seem to be any more balanced than 3.5. I've perused the new 4e Dungeon and Dragon magazines on the Wotc website-- looking at their "sample" issues which left me very underwhelmed.

As a caveat, I'll say that I've always resisted switching to new systems for the same reasons. When 2nd edition came out I said to myself "I don't have the time/money to switch, and none of my friends have switched, and a lot of these new rules seem broken to me." Then all my friends switched over so I had to as well, and I found that the new rules weren't as broken as I supposed and the system as a whole was better than 1e.

When 3e came out my gaming confederates started playing Neverwinter Nights (the computer game) so once again I had to switch, and once again I found out that the new rules weren't as broken as I supposed and I couldn't contemplate going back to 2e now.

But then World of Warcraft came out, and that just might break the cycle. My gaming buddies are all into WoW. Unlike with the previous editions they have no enthusiasm for switching to 4e at all, they would prefer to keep playing WoW and Neverwinter Nights. Wotc is supposed to be coming out with a new 4e Neverwinter Nights roleplaying game, but...I dunno, unless it's pretty darn awesome I just don't see us switching to 4e any time soon.

[Hiro Protagonest]

it does not seem to be any more balanced than 3.5.Unless your games consist of warblades, bards, beguilers, factotums, swordsages, and crusaders, I'm not seeing it.
Wotc is supposed to be coming out with a new 4e Neverwinter Nights roleplaying game, but...I dunno, unless it's pretty darn awesome I just don't see us switching to 4e any time soon.

Funny enough, based on my browsing history, Amazon suggested this (http://www.amazon.com/Neverwinter-Campaign-Setting-Dungeons-Supplement/dp/0786958146/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315528748&sr=1-1) for me.

[Murg]

Funny enough, based on my browsing history, Amazon suggested this (http://www.amazon.com/Neverwinter-Campaign-Setting-Dungeons-Supplement/dp/0786958146/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315528748&sr=1-1) for me.

Ah, I was actually referring to the co-op computer game, which has not come out yet:

http://www.playneverwinter.com/

[Daftendirekt]

Stayed inside core? Core is less balanced than a one-legged man with an inner ear infection.

I play 3.5 because it's like a puzzle, except all the pieces are in different boxes and the picture is whatever you want it to be.


I can't really explain it, but I enjoy making 3.5 characters much more than in any other game. There are so many books, so many options, and sometimes you have to research to find what you're looking for.

Both quoted for truth, and therefore seconded. Especially Forgotten Realms. There is SO much flavor in 3.5. The Races of line. ANY Faerûn book. All a bunch of fluff about the region/race/etc, with a bit of crunch thrown in in the form of a few PrCs, feats, and some gear. Although I appreciate 4e as well, I enjoy it for its combatant-creation possibilities. You just won't find such an abundance of fluff in 4e.

[GoblinArchmage]

I didn't bother reading this entire thread, just so everybody knows.

I have both a legitimate reason and a really bad reason. The legitimate reason is that I've already spent a good deal of money on 3.5 material. The bad reason is that I've heard (not experienced, mind you) that Fourth Edition is oversimplified and focused more on combat.

[Snails]

I'll try and make this general.

Anyone new to DnD could spend maybe 10 minutes on tis forum or most others, and decide that 3.5 is a broken unbalanced game that is far too complicated for them. Others could look at it as a challenge.

Every RPG every created is "broken and unbalanced" by one or more reasonable definitions. 3.5 is not significantly worse in this regard then every other RPGs ever written; in fact, it is better balanced than most RPGs.

For all its flaws, the 3.0 PHB was the most thoroughly playtested RPG product ever. The effort WotC invested was collosal by industry standards. And it will probably hold that title for my lifetime. People who make grand statements about how unbalanced 3.x is rarely have any perspective on this question.

So that is a non-reason for avoiding 3.5.

Is it far too complicated? Maybe. Depends who you are and what kind of campaign you like to play. If you play strict Core, it is not necessarily more complicated than 1e or 2e.

For me, I like "FRP" games. There are many I am fond of. 3.5 is the one that enough of my friends are fond of as well. It seems to sit near enough a sweet spot for us, even if it is not perfect.

In particular, I think that 4e is not compelling enough to switch -- it has some advantages, some disadvantages.

My friends used to be 1e/2e players. By my personal definitions as influenced by modern sensibilities, I would call 1e and 2e barely RPGs at all. They simply lack the kind of infrastructure modern RPGers expect.

Want to be an archer? Maybe a magic bow will fall into your lap. Or maybe not. Oh, and the guy standing next to you rolled a high Strength and high Dex, so he is actually a better archer than you, even though he thinks of himself as a melee specialist. If you find this imbalanced or unfair or bizarre, it could only be because you lack trust in your DM, because that is the solution to every 1e/2e problem. That is the only possible solution, in fact.

We get nostalgic about 1e/2e. And it could be fun enough for some quick adventure with disposable PCs. But the idea of playing a campaign there is even less interesting to us than going to 4e. The fact is a slightly stripped down Core 3.5 could do us better, if we want to go that direction.

Pathfinder and Arcana Unearthed look interesting. But, again, they may be better, but they are not different and better enough to compel a switch.

[Tyndmyr]

Unless your games consist of warblades, bards, beguilers, factotums, swordsages, and crusaders, I'm not seeing it.

While I do feel 4e is generally more balanced, I can see why someone might have that opinion, especially if they haven't actually played it yet. 4e does still have feat taxes, infinite combos, and so forth. So...while it is more balanced, it's still fairly dependent upon players being generally decent people. Not a great deal of change in the long run.

[LordBlades]

While I do feel 4e is generally more balanced, I can see why someone might have that opinion, especially if they haven't actually played it yet. 4e does still have feat taxes, infinite combos, and so forth. So...while it is more balanced, it's still fairly dependent upon players being generally decent people. Not a great deal of change in the long run.

The difference is that in 4e you can pick up anything and with a bit of common sense it will neither suck nor be overpowered. In that respect is a great improvement over 3.5

[Snails]

IMO, the big advantage of 4e is that by standardizing all mechanics it confines the range of potency of the available options very well, as LordBlades says above. No, it is far from perfect, but it is very balanced as RPGs go.

IMO, the big disadvantage of 4e is that by standardizing all mechanics, it confines all classes such that they feel sort of exactly the same. At a deeper level, yes, a Wizard is very different than a Warlock or Paladin. But at first glance a sword swing and a blast of arcane power is not different at all.

First generation RPGs were what I would call Proudly Faux Simulationist. 3.5 has preserved most of the advantages in feel of classic D&D. Things that are fundamentally different are allowed to have very different mechanics.

4e went a very different direction. And while I appreciate that it is elegant in certain useful respects, it is not enough of a net win to be compelling enough to switch.

[Niceman]

Why do you play 3.5?
Do you play it as well as other editions? Are tiers somehow swaying what you play? Why have you are have you not moved on to 4e?



Myself and a couple friends started playing AD&D more than 30 years ago. Was great fun though we didn't know a lot of what we were doing and powergamed and all that. Since then we matured and learned how to actually read rules such :P. We also branched out into other genres and systems. For a long (20 year) stretch we played other things.. games we still play.. Traveller, Champions, Battletech, Cyberpunk, etc... We entirely missed all of 2nd Ed. When we got the itch to play D&D again 3.0 came out and very shortly after 3.5. For us it was a very smooth and easy thing to get into. It had all the D&D fun we remembered, but it also introduced skills and feats and other aspects we had grown accustomed to in other systems.

3.5 works very well for us because of it's customizability. You can have two wizards standing side by side and they'll be totally different. It also worked in things like special effects and allowances to make things your own, so even if the two wizards had the same stats and feats and all, they could be two totally different characters. Keep in mind also, we are far more interested in who someone is playing rather than what... so we don't number crunch or try to mega-build or any of that. It's no fun for us to have the baddest guy on the block.. we enjoy challenges. We rely on our wits and creativity and we're lucky enough to have a DM who encourages that. I've seen basic characters out perform ones with tricked out feats and gear and whatnot. It's not what you play it's how you play it.

Tiers: We ignore any sort of tier classification. Never bothered researching it.

We haven't moved to 4e, and I sincerely don't wish to offend, but it seems it's just a dumbed-down version of D&D to cater to younger players who grew up playing online WoW type games rather than pen and paper RPGs. I can understand that. The company wants more of the market share so they broaden to attract a larger audience, but that's not why I play the game. I'll admit I haven't looked too much at 4e... haven't had the desire to, but what I have seen and what people have told me... it seems to be geared for that instant gratification/easy fix type of play that the online games excel at. Characters become homogeneous with things they can do and some things don't make sense. Fighters can heal themselves, for example. Forgive me if I'm over generalizing... but I play 3.5 so we can play the way we enjoy and 4e seems to be more akin to the online games that profess if you don't build your character this way it's crap and you can't succeed unless you do.

[Talya]

We haven't moved to 4e, and I sincerely don't wish to offend, but it seems it's just a dumbed-down version of D&D to cater to younger players who grew up playing online WoW type games rather than pen and paper RPGs. I can understand that.

I still half-expect WotC to release an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 4th Edition," with current 4e being the basic version.

[Big Fau]

While I do feel 4e is generally more balanced, I can see why someone might have that opinion, especially if they haven't actually played it yet. 4e does still have feat taxes, infinite combos, and so forth. So...while it is more balanced, it's still fairly dependent upon players being generally decent people. Not a great deal of change in the long run.

I think the biggest problem is all of the 4E classes feel like Tier 4s, not Tier 3s.

That, and it's impractical to have less than 5 players. The combat system assumes there's one member of every archtype (Defender/Controller etc), so being one short really can kill the party and being over 5 turns the combats into speed-bumps (albeit long speed-bumps).



I still half-expect WotC to release an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 4th Edition," with current 4e being the basic version.


They did. 4E Essentials.

[Greenish]

That, and it's impractical to have less than 5 players. The combat system assumes there's one member of every archtype (Defender/Controller etc), so being one short really can kill the partyDefender, controller, leader, striker… I count four.

[Big Fau]

Defender, controller, leader, striker… I count four.


Could have sworn there was one more, but regardless the Core rules of 4E state that 5 players is the ideal balance, at least last I checked.

[Amphetryon]

Defender, controller, leader, striker… I count four.

4e core rulebook - at least the version I got - indicates you want/need 2 defenders, so 5 people.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

IME the only necessary elements to combat effectiveness in 4e are a leader and, more importantly, teamwork. There are ways to get around other deficits, such as having no defender. You just need to acknowledge that and play the "right" strikers, controllers, etc. and work around it.

For instance, I was in a two-man barbarian/bard party which worked very well, at least when the bard remembered what his abilities were.

Big Fau: Those "very long speed bumps" are also called solos. Also, you're spot on about the T4 thing... but a lot of people enjoy T4.

[Big Fau]

Big Fau: Those "very long speed bumps" are also called solos. Also, you're spot on about the T4 thing... but a lot of people enjoy T4.

I know that. I personally enjoy Tiers 2-4 (with a nice, short leash to keep Tier 2 in check).


Solos are the worst of it all, but even a Minion encounter can run upwards of 8 or 9 rounds (45+ minutes IRL) because their Defenses are high enough and the modules like to recommend 12-15 of them instead of four or five.

And god forbid you get hit with a flying encounter and only have one character able to attack from 20 spaces away in the party.

[Half-orc Bard]

options 4e makes cookie cutter roles for classes (ie fighter get hit a lot and do above average damage, but you can shoot a bow well because all of your powers use melee weapons) There are more versatile classes like the ranger or warlock. But IMO the classes are more versatile in newer splatbooks like the PHB2. The Bard<------(favorite 4e class) and the Invoker <------- (2nd favorite 4e class) are both leaders and battle field control.