What makes 3.5e better?

[Bacchanalian]

I have some friends who I just found out are interested in playing D&D, and I have just invested in a ton of 3.5 books in part because the group I found online wants to run 3.5, in part because I found a ton of them at a used bookstore.

I haven't talked edition to my friends yet because I just heard it second hand that they're wanting to play, so I have no idea what version they're thinking about. If they're thinking about a different edition, how do I convince them 3.5 is the way to go other than the fact that I have probably $300 worth of 3.5e books already?

[Seppo87]

The fact that you own the books sounds like a reasonable argument.

Anyway
3.5 is a very flexible system. It allows players to pick choices in order to build characters that adequately reflect through game mechanics almost any imaginable concept.

[slaydemons]

Mmm better is probably not the best term for it, all editions are pretty good, however I can only share why I like 3.5 so my opinion might be biased. 3.5 is better then 4e merely because of customization. you can build your character how you want to build him not how the game tells you to build them, I could be wrong on that mind you. It is a lot harder to learn 3.5 but it is also the cheapest besides pathfinder to get into there is free information about 3.5 on the srd. 4e is does have its strengths though, but I won't talk to much here.

all in all lets not forget that these are prefrences *doesn't want to start an edition war*

[Bacchanalian]

Fair enough. Certainly not trying to start an edition war or anything, just looking for reasons why my friends should be interested in 3.5. I haven't played since the early 90s, playing 2e at that point, but the online campaign I'm in is 3.5 so that's what I'm getting up to speed on. I know nothing about 3, Pathfinder, 4, or 5, so I think it's less about comparing 3.5 to others and more "why 3.5"?

The thread title was probably poorly worded.

[137beth]

What I like about 3.5 is the customizability and flexibility of the system. You can have characters using wildly different mechanics and the still work together in the same game. You can't do that as easily with 2e, 4e, or pathfinder. I haven't looked much at 5e so I can't comment on it.

[eggynack]

3.5 is a rules heavy system. That means that it can be harder to jump right in if you really want to accomplish your goals, and that it's harder to freeform. At the same time, it means that you can accomplish just about any goal, without leaving the rules, and often do so in several different ways. Ask for a guy who beats face with natural weapons, and you'll get a half dozen options, all interesting and viable, at every point on the power curve.

[Pinkie Pyro]

from my limited time with the other additions? as follows:

1st: first draft, needed a bit more polishing.
2nd/AD&D: usable, but still really funky, and the classes were balanced much more weirdly than they are now.
4th: you can be a wizard! you can be a wizard! everyone is a wizard!

[Knaight]

The biggest thing is that you know the system best. If you're actually playing with these people (probably ad DM), you can do the best job with 3.5, you can explain 3.5 the best, and you already have the material for 3.5.

Odds are pretty good that it isn't the best system for them - it might be the best D&D system, but there are tens of thousands of RPG systems, and odds are pretty good that one of them out there is better than D&D 3.5 for this particular group of people. That just doesn't matter, as you're limited to the options you are actually familiar with.

[Bacchanalian]

Yeah, I suspect unless one of them already knows a system and intends to DM it, I'll wind up DMing, which means to some degree I can fudge rules where necessary. Last night playing with just my wife for instance, I skewed some dice rolls and the like to ensure that I didn't accidentally kill her and all of her party in the second night we played. I can probably gloss over some of the more complex mechanics if necessary, but the guys I'll be playing with are all very smart guys who will read up on the game and learn the mechanics without too much trouble. I think as long as we all agree not to rules lawyer too much and I'm able to apply some handwavium now and again, the fact that 3.5 is rules heavy may not be a problem.

[OldTrees1]

One innovation that I really like about 3E/5E is the level by level class customization. Aka each level pick a new/old class to level in.

This hits the maximum level of customization that also uses the level system to make the complexity feel less complex. For me this is the optimal value of complexity on the depth = F(complexity) function.

[Arbane]

Anyway
3.5 is a very flexible system. It allows players to pick choices in order to build characters that adequately reflect through game mechanics almost any imaginable concept.

That is not even remotely true. D&D can't even accurately model most _fantasy_ characters, let alone weirder ideas.


The fact that you own the books sounds like a reasonable argument.

This strikes me as a much better argument.

[eggynack]

That is not even remotely true. D&D can't even accurately model most _fantasy_ characters, let alone weirder ideas.
I think it's reasonably true, especially if you have really solid book knowledge. You can't do literally everything, at least not until pun-pun or epic magic, but there are a lot of books out there, and it's hard to find things that you can't model, at least to a reasonable degree. At the very least, you can definitely get the flavor in there.

[georgie_leech]

I think it's reasonably true, especially if you have really solid book knowledge. You can't do literally everything, at least not until pun-pun or epic magic, but there are a lot of books out there, and it's hard to find things that you can't model, at least to a reasonable degree. At the very least, you can definitely get the flavor in there.

Much like Elan's wit, fantasy characters are rarely equaled; exceeded often, but rarely equal. It's fairly difficult to cram all the relevant abilities and general toughness (or lack thereof) into a character without adding extras that they show no evidence of.

[Tvtyrant]

3.5 was my second system, and the first one I really started playing. It also remained similar enough to AD&D that most of it carried over (unlike a lot of 4E, which I like but killed too much fluff.)

It is better than AD&D because the system works better (in my opinion, and ignoring levels 17+) 4E is too different to compare, 5E/Next isn't out yet.

[eggynack]

Much like Elan's wit, fantasy characters are rarely equaled; exceeded often, but rarely equal. It's fairly difficult to cram all the relevant abilities and general toughness (or lack thereof) into a character without adding extras that they show no evidence of.
It's a fair sentiment, I think. Still, I'm of the opinion that you can generally do pretty well if you know what you're trying to do, and especially if you're not looking for a perfect model. As an arbitrarily druidish example that supports both of our points, if I were seeking to vaguely create Hange from Attack on Titan (because he/she's the best), I would currently build it up as a druid with both gatekeeper initiate and aberration wild shape, to represent knowledge gained through opposition, eventually turned into using that opposition's abilities, and knowledge thereof, to your own benefit. Or something like that, anyway. It's imperfect, but it feels right to me in general.

[Seppo87]

It's a fair sentiment, I think. Still, I'm of the opinion that you can generally do pretty well if you know what you're trying to do, and especially if you're not looking for a perfect model. As an arbitrarily druidish example that supports both of our points, if I were seeking to vaguely create Hange from Attack on Titan (because he/she's the best), I would currently build it up as a druid with both gatekeeper initiate and aberration wild shape, to represent knowledge gained through opposition, eventually turned into using that opposition's abilities, and knowledge thereof, to your own benefit. Or something like that, anyway. It's imperfect, but it feels right to me in general.
You mean Annie?
I'd stat Hange as a Champion of the Wilds Ranger with a 3 levels dip in Factotum and the Knowledge Devotion feat, probably.

[eggynack]

You mean Annie?
Nah, I get that the transformation element would support something like that better, but I like the idea of running it as a sort of malcondruid (as I've taken to calling the build), acting against aberrations with aberration based stuff and knowledge.


I'd stat Hange as a Ranger with a dip in the Factotum class probably.
Yeah, that'd probably have less extraneous parts. There are definitely multiple ways to put these things together, at different points on the power spectrum. Kinda comes back to the main point of the thread, actually.

[Arbane]

I think it's reasonably true, especially if you have really solid book knowledge. You can't do literally everything, at least not until pun-pun or epic magic, but there are a lot of books out there, and it's hard to find things that you can't model, at least to a reasonable degree. At the very least, you can definitely get the flavor in there.

Challenge accepted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364219-Characters-you-can-t-stat-in-3-5) :smallbiggrin: