Why I love 3.5

[Snowbluff]

This video... sums it up? Nah, it's kinda long. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b91BWzLigs)

Simply put, we love 3.5 because it's hard. Well, not hard so much as you have to know a lot to make a character. Since it requires a lot of knowledge to make an awesome character, due to the expansive amount of material available among other things, it invites discussion and debate. People will say we can't roleplay these (Stormwind Fallacy) and that there is no way this is fun. Well it is fun.

We could have fun roleplaying with the people at the table with any system, like 4th Edition, and it will give us our ogre slaying smiles going, but 3.5 thrives off the table as well. We all have our proverbial bonfires, and this forum is one of them. We'll sit around it, swap stories knowledge, and tips, and that's what makes a game like this so great.

/)

[etrpgb]

I love 3.5 for the same reasons.

I hate 3.5 because:
- TIERS, it is simply unconceivable that between 3.0 and 3.5 there was so little and useless testing that in the same manual you can find Monk and Wizard.
- Lack of errata or support. A part of few fixes most errors are never fixed, authors just added material that replaces (by fact) the older one. (Warblabe VS Fighter; Flesh to Ice VS Flesh to Stone; ...)
- When finally they understood ``how do it''; see the most recent manuals... they decided of doing in a totally different direction and do D&D 4 :(
- This forums show it well... badly written RAW everywhere.

[Water_Bear]

I love 3.5 because it gives me a lot of options as a DM to create a world and populate it with fascinating people/monsters without having to homebrew. I've never understood people who want systems that need less prep-time; making a living world with fine-grain mechanical tools is absolutely the best part of D&D short of seeing how the PCs choose to interact with it.

I hate that 3.5 doesn't give better options to make mundane characters; not just in ability but gear. I've always liked the idea of "the blade isn't as important as the warrior who wields it" and the trope of "ordinary" muggles being badass enough to take down evil sorcerers. I love D&D's magic, but I really just want to go back to the developers who were writing the revised 3.5 PHB and throw the Tome of Battle Dungeonscape and Complete Scoundrel at their heads.

[ravagerofworlds]

I prefer 3.5 because... ubiquity and freedom of character creation. There's a lot of material available, and continuing to be made available from many companies. No one corporation has a monopoly on content with d20 products. While the market may be drying for d20 with competition, I have no reason to buy another system. I am content with d20 (3.5).

D20 (3.5) scales; new people can learn it just fine, and it can become complex enough to satiate the optimizers.

I've played half a dozen other systems in 20 years of RPG, and d20 (3.5) is pretty decent for emulating many campaign environments (fantasy, sci-fi, modern, noir, etc.) for the stories I tell with my friends (including the spouse, my number 1 player/co-GM).

[eggs]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Samurais "struggle to succeed," compared to Warblades or Swordsages?

I don't necessarily disagree that the struggle is rewarding, but this video seems to directly contradict the forum's go-to "Just use a ToB class" advice.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, it does at times. You have to remember the only way to succeed at a challenge is build a character that has options. Otherwise, you are playing with a convoluted random number generator. There is no struggle in trying to get lucky with the dice. ENB's point about the game not being hard to play but rather it rewarding for knowledge is what I am talking about.

Even then, a good builder can make a good Samurai if he works hard enough. I think Schneekey built a nice one for the Test of Spite a while back.

[toapat]

Why We love D20/3.5:

The breath of the game is immense, and we can build a few hundred concepts for play without any single one being impossible or wrong. The system is itself alot cleaner then more realistic games, but the realism is sacrificed so that the system itself may be streamlined. Learning DnD is alot easier then going and learning anything GURPS based.

Why We Hate D20/3.5:

The system itself has never been truly handled properly. Tome of battle is probably the best example of this, as it provides both a solid system balanced against others, but the system itself is hamfisted application of Ducktape, quickly patching the problems with mundanes, but not actually fixing mundanes. Playtesting clearly wasnt handled properly at all, which is rather impressive for a company who year after year pumps out an incredibly detailed and complex card game without normally introducing anything monumentally gamebreaking (although, if you look at MTG, 1998-2000 was the high point of ridiculous combos).

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like 3E, but I completely disagree with that video....

Bayonetta is a fairly hard game, at least on higher difficulties, but it managed to still have easy modes and be a good game, for example. Some people don't want a painfully frustrating game. He's talking about sense of accomplishment like it's the only point of a hard game. And that having the easy option somehow detracts from HIS experience even if he never touches it. His whole problem is inability to stop metagaming, it seems like.

In any case, 3E has "easy modes," too. Some classes are very easy to build/play, like... greatsword barbarian, and do ok if not amazing with little thought. And on the other facet, druid or cleric is like playing on easy mode, pretty much no matter how badly you optimize, they're just that powerful. Cleric or druid is like a cheat code for nukes in a RTS game.

[Cranthis]

I like it because its fun. Enough said.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I don't have time watch the video (stupid homework); but I agree with you general post, it is a testament on what great system 3e is (balance issues not withstanding), that even 4 years after it ended, we still discuss and try to find new ways to re-invent it. The massive amount of homebrew fixes and re-works also show how loved it is by it's players that they spend enormous amount of times trying to make it better.

And yes while 3e has an easy mode (play a caster); but most people try to do things the hard way, how many times have we discussed how to make a better monk (even if most of the time we default to USS) or how many times have we competed to make a bad class useful?

The biggest advantage that 3.e edition is that it has something for (almost) every type of gameplay, it has something for the hardcore optimizers, the beers & pretzel game, the worldbuilders, the hack & slashers, the roleplayers, etc.

And that is why I love 3.5 (>

[BShammie]

While you guys may love it, my hate of d02 know no limit. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?31914-My-hate-of-d02-know-no-limit) :P

Sorry, this was the first thing that popped into my head when I read the title. >.>'

[toapat]

While you guys may love it, my hate of d02 know no limit. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?31914-My-hate-of-d02-know-no-limit) :P

Sorry, this was the first thing that popped into my head when I read the title. >.>'

Yes, GURPS is better at depicting a realistic game. GURPS games take Days, not Hours, per session.

Your argument on that post that the best fighters in the world miss 5% of the time? Id suggest watching fencing. The depiction of armor isnt accurate, but id say that the rules cover melee combat pretty well, for an attempt to depict a realistic Abstraction, because you can either play a purely abstract game with no rules, or a fully detailed and realistic game that takes 10 minutes to roll the dice properly. Laws of Physics are a houserule for a reason, not RAW, for streamlining.

[Snowbluff]

And even then it would not be real (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/FATAL?from=Main.FATAL) enough. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=7ixhxjqoe9swz1xv4bxgw5h0&page=1):smallbiggrin: If you read this, then may Pelor have mercy on your soul.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, GURPS is better at depicting a realistic game. GURPS games take Days, not Hours, per session.

Your argument on that post that the best fighters in the world miss 5% of the time? Id suggest watching fencing. The depiction of armor isnt accurate, but id say that the rules cover melee combat pretty well, for an attempt to depict a realistic Abstraction, because you can either play a purely abstract game with no rules, or a fully detailed and realistic game that takes 10 minutes to roll the dice properly. Laws of Physics are a houserule for a reason, not RAW, for streamlining.

Ummm....... I could be wrong, but I'd hazzard a guess that BShammie linked that so we could all have a laugh, rather than as an actual statement of his distaste for 3.5.

[eggs]

wiht d02, teh only liimit is you! (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm)

[Aegis013]

I love 3.5 for all kinds of reasons. Social cooperative gaming, the freedom provided by table top RPGs, the wealth of options available in the system, the challenge of finding new synergistic options and character builds, the plethora of worlds the system can support.

As an aside...
The game in the video in the OP (Dark Souls) is an incredible game, it's atmospheric storytelling style is an abstract I've tried to adopt for my campaign. You do actions, and while you can't see directly the whole effects, it's clear by how the world responds that the effects are far-reaching. The ethical dilemmas this has allowed me to set up, the engaging social interactions for a normally heavier kick-in-door/hack-n-slash group have lead them to let me know this is the best campaign they've ever played in.

[Snowbluff]

wiht d02, teh only liimit is you! (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm)

So I downloaded the rules. It took me a sec to figure out that the chapters tap on the side of my application was for another pdf lol

[toapat]

Ummm....... I could be wrong, but I'd hazzard a guess that BShammie linked that so we could all have a laugh, rather than as an actual statement of his distaste for 3.5.

yes, i realized that after i saw the white text in the quote

[Tvtyrant]

wiht d02, teh only liimit is you! (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm)

The sad part is I rather like the coin pool system, especially the "bribing the DM with your coins." If you standardized it so each player had a certain amount of dice a day it would actually be kind of cool.

[Cranthis]

For an expanded reply, I love 3.5 because of the character building options that nothing else even close comes to replicating. In the 8 months I have played D&D, I have created so many builds, and had so many character ideas, I have no idea what to do with all of them.

[Morcleon]

I will say that I am somewhat biased towards 3.5 by virtue of it being the first system I ever learned. However, the best thing about it is the sheer number of options available. The way that we can just think of an idea, and then find a class/race to support it, rather than choosing between a relatively small number of archetypes and building off of that. And even better is the amount of actually good homebrew support for 3.5. If you can't find an official source for your idea, then chances are, there's a homebrew for that. :smallcool:

In my two years of playing 3.5, I've rarely ever felt that the character I was playing had anything more than a superficial similarity to any of my other characters.

[Invader]

I don't even have a problem with balance issues. Whereas a lot of people look at all the classes and say OMG they're so imbalanced I just see them giving us a ton of variety to play what we want. I'd find the game a lot less satisfying if every class was totally balanced and equal to each other. A wizard should be able to destroy the world and yes in comparison a monk that only punches stuff should be considerably weaker.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

I love D&D 3.5 because it rewards you for the amount of effort you invest into it. Sure you could just play a Greatsword Barbarian with Power Attack and Cleave. But if you have an intimate knowledge of the supplements, you could throw on Lion Spirit Totem, give him Whirling Frenzy, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, grab a Valorous Weapon and then take Frenzied Berserker. You then turn that "I run up and hit him with my sword" into, "I carve my way through the entire army and am still looking for blood".

This is a bit of an extreme example but one that makes me happy. I just love the endless customization and options you are presented with the system. That also means I can never get bored with it, because there is always something else for me to make. :smallbiggrin:

[eggs]

On what I dig about 3e, it's the depth on ways to nerd out over Johnny-style combinations. 3e's not the first system I'd use for a game, but it's the system I can sit down with and fiddle with when I have a few minutes to kill. And every once in a while, it's a game that the group can whip out, beat up some vampires in and show off the latest sweet new builds we've been mulling over.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why We love D20/3.5:

The breath of the game is immense, and we can build a few hundred concepts for play without any single one being impossible or wrong. The system is itself alot cleaner then more realistic games, but the realism is sacrificed so that the system itself may be streamlined. Learning DnD is alot easier then going and learning anything GURPS based.

No matter which way you cut it, "easy to learn" does not belong on the list of 3.5 pros. Or any D&D edition, really. If you want a game that has a good learning curve, Cortex is great. I figured it out in record time. Attributes and abilities are super simple, Traits and magic only slightly harder. The hardest part is learning the stuff past character creation.

[toapat]

No matter which way you cut it, "easy to learn" does not belong on the list of 3.5 pros. Or any D&D edition, really. If you want a game that has a good learning curve, Cortex is great. I figured it out in record time. Attributes and abilities are super simple, Traits and magic only slightly harder. The hardest part is learning the stuff past character creation.

Ok, let me reword that:

DnD is good at balancing Ease of learning against realism, Easier systems get more abstract typically, more realistic systems get more difficult. 3.5 tries to strike a balance, but any system built from 9+ subsystems is going to be complex.

Presentation of the material does not help, and IMO, I feel it could be delivered alot more cleanly then it is.

[Karoht]

Why I love 3.5
The sheer diversity.

Why I hate 3.5
The sheer diversity.

I discovered this once we started playing Pathfinder. Only needing to have 4 books on hand, and an EXCELLENT website resource in the SRD as backup, made for a much smoother and faster play experience.
Four players and four books means that we can each check a book if we don't know where something is. Assuming we can't find it within a single search of the d20pfsrd.com website.
Contrast that to previous. It was possible to have 1 character draw upon features and effects from many many books. Let alone the other players at the table.
And remember, the most broken stuff was in the Core book anyway.

Don't get me wrong, the diversity that 3.5 ended up as is ultimately a good thing. You can build just about anything. If 3.5 had a decent SRD the way Pathfinder does (the 3.5 fan sites don't really measure up IMO), I'm certain that my gripe with 3.5 would be much less of an issue.


As for the comment that in 3.5 it is hard to make a good character...
Play any of the T1 classes. Don't know what to multiclass into? Don't need to, straight Wizard/Cleric/Druid is still T1.

[Snowbluff]

Most of 3.5 isn't OGL like PF. No big SRD will happen until 2075-2082 (The copyright is 75 years, right?)

[Morcleon]

Most of 3.5 isn't OGL like PF. No big SRD will happen until 2075-2082 (The copyright is 75 years, right?)

...which is a shame, because you can't access a lot of the rules without a book. (or a .pdf! :smalltongue:). And that causes a lot of DMs to just ban some of the better sourcebooks because they don't have it (Dragon stuff, ToB and MoI in particular...)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Most of 3.5 isn't OGL like PF. No big SRD will happen until 2075-2082 (The copyright is 75 years, right?)

Does WotC going out of business potentially speed up that date at all?

[Snowbluff]

Does WotC going out of business potentially speed up that date at all?

It's hard for a corporation to litigate a case if it doesn't exist, so if they don't sell the rights, yeah.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yet another reason to root for them to fail, then.

[MaxTer]

I like 3.5 for the same reasons!

[Karoht]

I find the solution is typically the DM says 'Core plus each player picks 1 splatbook of choice' with the added clarification that either all spells are open, or those are restricted to core + splat as well. That tends to solve the issue of needing 80 lbs of books just to clarify all the rules pertaining to 1 character, much less the others at the table.

But indeed, an actual 3.5 SRD that didn't suck would be a huge help. Until then, my group wants to stay with PF and utilize 3.5 rules at DM discression. IE-Allowing the Orb of X spells in PF.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why I love 3.5
The sheer diversity.

Why I hate 3.5
The sheer diversity.

I discovered this once we started playing Pathfinder. Only needing to have 4 books on hand, and an EXCELLENT website resource in the SRD as backup, made for a much smoother and faster play experience.
Four players and four books means that we can each check a book if we don't know where something is. Assuming we can't find it within a single search of the d20pfsrd.com website.
Contrast that to previous. It was possible to have 1 character draw upon features and effects from many many books. Let alone the other players at the table.
And remember, the most broken stuff was in the Core book anyway.

Don't get me wrong, the diversity that 3.5 ended up as is ultimately a good thing. You can build just about anything. If 3.5 had a decent SRD the way Pathfinder does (the 3.5 fan sites don't really measure up IMO), I'm certain that my gripe with 3.5 would be much less of an issue.


As for the comment that in 3.5 it is hard to make a good character...
Play any of the T1 classes. Don't know what to multiclass into? Don't need to, straight Wizard/Cleric/Druid is still T1.
This is why I have my players mark an abbreviated book and page number next to their feats and spells. Knowing exactly where something is dramatically speeds up referencing.

I find the solution is typically the DM says 'Core plus each player picks 1 splatbook of choice' with the added clarification that either all spells are open, or those are restricted to core + splat as well. That tends to solve the issue of needing 80 lbs of books just to clarify all the rules pertaining to 1 character, much less the others at the table.

But indeed, an actual 3.5 SRD that didn't suck would be a huge help. Until then, my group wants to stay with PF and utilize 3.5 rules at DM discression. IE-Allowing the Orb of X spells in PF.

This also works, but is much more limiting.