I've forgotten how to enjoy this edition, please help!

[Notafish]

Hi all,

I'm in a 3.5 game as a player - it has been a while since I have played this edition, and I am getting frustrated as a player for a bunch of reasons. Some of these might have to do with the DM's style being different from mine, but a lot of it has to do with my desire to have my character do interesting things running up against their lack of relevant bonuses for a particular skill check, or the game requiring multiple rolls (and multiple chances of failure) on combat actions other than weapon attacks. I have a feeling that eventually I will have enough bonuses and spells that I will have interesting things to do, but I think we're a few months away from Level 3 and right now, it. is. a. slog.

Any advice for how to enjoy the lower levels of play?

[Elves]

Can you give some specific examples of things that frustrated you? That might make it easier to tell if what you're clashing with is the system or the DM.

[Melcar]

Hi all,

I'm in a 3.5 game as a player - it has been a while since I have played this edition, and I am getting frustrated as a player for a bunch of reasons. Some of these might have to do with the DM's style being different from mine, but a lot of it has to do with my desire to have my character do interesting things running up against their lack of relevant bonuses for a particular skill check, or the game requiring multiple rolls (and multiple chances of failure) on combat actions other than weapon attacks. I have a feeling that eventually I will have enough bonuses and spells that I will have interesting things to do, but I think we're a few months away from Level 3 and right now, it. is. a. slog.

Any advice for how to enjoy the lower levels of play?

I would say try focusing on build features that come online earlier! :)

I have played characters where the build came online mid teens... that was a long wait. And guess what. The game ended at level 12, to my extreme disappointment! My DM said he warned me about building towards a late online build. I told him, that he could have leveled us faster... Point being it was dissatisfaction all over the place for me...

[Notafish]

Can you give some specific examples of things that frustrated you? That might make it easier to tell if what you're clashing with is the system or the DM.

Sure - the stuff I am pretty sure is DM rather than system is things like asking for Spot/Listen before he describes a new scene (the rolls don't seem to matter outside of maybe descriptive richness but we still take a minute noting each player's roll), assuming that the players have the same level of system knowledge that he does (I haven't played 3.5 in 6 years, the others have only played 5e), and overestimating his own level of system knowledge (for example, I think he's been getting the flanking rules wrong consistently by requiring 180 degrees of separation between flankers; I haven't been calling him on it because I don't want to bog the game down in a rules argument).

The stuff I think is system-related is more that the weapon attack seems like the right move all the time (disarm and grapple are bad ideas unless you have a bunch of feats). Which I guess isn't so bad now that I type it out. Still, I can feel the urge among me and the rest of my party to do more interesting things, and I think that urge is killing our characters (as they waste valuable action rounds not attacking) and taking up time in the session that could be spent moving the plot/our character progression forward.

Incidentally, I'm playing a barbarian; the other players are a Bard and a Druid. The Druid has been casting Nature's Ally and seems to be having a good time with that; the Bard is struggling and tending to retreat to a disappointed, "I guess I'll shoot my bow again."

[Melcar]

Sure - the stuff I am pretty sure is DM rather than system is things like asking for Spot/Listen before he describes a new scene (the rolls don't seem to matter outside of maybe descriptive richness but we still take a minute noting each player's roll), assuming that the players have the same level of system knowledge that he does (I haven't played 3.5 in 6 years, the others have only played 5e), and overestimating his own level of system knowledge (for example, I think he's been getting the flanking rules wrong consistently by requiring 180 degrees of separation between flankers; I haven't been calling him on it because I don't want to bog the game down in a rules argument).

The stuff I think is system-related is more that the weapon attack seems like the right move all the time (disarm and grapple are bad ideas unless you have a bunch of feats). Which I guess isn't so bad now that I type it out. Still, I can feel the urge among me and the rest of my party to do more interesting things, and I think that urge is killing our characters (as they waste valuable action rounds not attacking) and taking up time in the session that could be spent moving the plot/our character progression forward.

Incidentally, I'm playing a barbarian; the other players are a Bard and a Druid. The Druid has been casting Nature's Ally and seems to be having a good time with that; the Bard is struggling and tending to retreat to a disappointed, "I guess I'll shoot my bow again."

Actually your not supposed to roll spot and listen yourself. Most, if not all skills are supposed to be rolled secretly by the DM. You as a player are simple conveying that you do something: “I’m going to climb this rope!” The DM then secretly rolls your climb check and tells you what happens and whether or not you make it! Same thing goes with spot and listen. He rolls secretly for all of you when ever something hidden or hard to see is in your proximity and then explains who sees what, if any!

[Elves]

Yeah "I attack" syndrome can be real at low levels although I think that's also true in 5th.

Bard won't get many spell slots at first, but can buy wands when affordable. He can put a wand chamber in his weapon for just 100 gp. My first buy would be a wand of instant of power (750 gp), which he can sling out as an immediate action every round. If he wants to be a full caster bard like in 5th, it doesn't kick in until 11th level when he can enter sublime chord.

For you, yes, the special combat moves provoke unless you take a feat for them. Barbarian can get the grapple or trip one as a bonus feat with totem barbarian variant. Monk and fighter dips can get you more. There are a lot of ways to get a dynamic martial depending on what you want to do. The easiest way is just to enter a Tome of Battle class. Those solve the "I attack" problem right from the start.


(for example, I think he's been getting the flanking rules wrong consistently by requiring 180 degrees of separation between flankers; I haven't been calling him on it because I don't want to bog the game down in a rules argument).
Btw, this is right actually, it's different from 5e's optional flank rule.

[YellowJohn]

Your friend playing a bard at L2 in 3.5 is going to be sad - two bardic musics & 1 non-cantrip spell per day is going to leave you shooting your bow on most combat rounds, and when you're looking across the table at the barbarian smashing face for what? D12+6 without rage? Your bow is going to feel underwhelming - like you're not contributing.

Unfortunately, at L2, "I hit it with my [weapon]" is likely to be the best you can do - it's too early for most of the interesting stuff (eg: rogues don'tq have Weapon Finesse yet). The fun at low levels comes from the tension - the feeling that one lucky crit spells the end of it all. It's not a flavour of fun everybody is going to appreciate.

Talk with your party bard about it and if he agrees with you, talk it out with your DM. See if he can maybe get you to L3 a bit faster. Perhaps step up the difficulty a little. Maybe throw in some social encounters where the bard can shine, and where characters can develop their story arcs.

Good luck :)

[Seward]

Btw, this is right actually, it's different from 5e's optional flank rule.

Sort of. True for 5x5. Not true for 10x10 and larger, you can be offset as long as you are attacking the opposite sides (or corners) of the creature.


For the rest, D&D in most versions, and 3.5 is no exception has a much wider curve of competence than most games, where you start out as pretty competent but grow slowly. 1st-3rd edition in particular had steep advancement curves where you die to a single hit from a mook at level 1 to being a near god at level 20, even for purely martial classes (if properly geared per wealth by level).

What this means is you basically start out as a civilian with relatively expensive gear and are bad at everything, and only barely competent at whatever you spent skill points on or your primary combat role. By level 6 you're at most "story protagonist companion" level of competence and are pretty good at your primary role and usually can be basically competent at a few noncombat things. What is odd about 3.5 is you may remain bad at a lot of things even at level 20, but you are so powerful by then it doesn't matter (or can spend wealth to bump skills by +5 in whatever you want to be able to do but lack skill points for, plus are decent even with no skill points at things powered by attributes important enough to boost with items and wishes).

So basically you are not in a Conan novel, you are in a Young Adult novel of bumbling sidekicks that are trying to grow into adventurers. That can be fun if you are in the right mindset for it, but frustrating if you want to do more. For the bard, he absolutely needs to invest in consumables. This is something any spellcaster should do at low levels when spell slots and other things (in his case bardsongs) are very limited. Look over the entire bard spell list and buy some useful situational scrolls (try obscuring mist, unseen servant, silent image for example). At 25 gp each they aren't expensive and don't need a metropolis to find (anything on the bard list that is also a wizard spell is usually pretty easy to get in most campaigns where any kind of magic crafting/economy happens), but let you do useful stuff in combat that exceeds "I sing inspire courage" or "I cast daze" or "I shoot my bow". Out of combat bards are skill rich and have primary charisma stat and secondary intelligence usually, so they tend to do fine, but you can add a bit more with some cross class skills. Disable Device and Open lock, with masterwork tools and only a +3 to the roll (+5 with tools) will open simple locks and bypass easier traps that allow intrusion missions against softer targets (like a merchant shop, not a fortified keep) to gather information or set an ambush. A single rank in each will usually do that, and disable device at a "take 10 for a 15" also lets you do creative things like jamming a wagon wheel, rigging a saddle to fall off when the horse is mounted etc.

Don't forget take 10. For most noncombat things, try to get skills to where that gets you the ability you want. It takes the giant d20 swing out of the equation and makes a lot achievable even at level 1, if you aren't trying to do it in combat or similar stress.

The druid seems to be doing ok, so lets talk about the barbarian. Consumables for you are more limited but they do exist. Is your dex okish? Carry some splash weapons. Tanglefoot bags are really good, an alchemist fire flask has a lot of creative uses beyond just damage (it clears web spell, can be used to signal, set something on fire at range). All warriors probably need to get a cure light wounds potion, oil of bless weapon (works on both magic DR and evil dr) and a barbarian may well enjoy a potion of enlarge person when he just isn't badass enough, or needs to carry the whole party up a cliff only he can climb, or across a river only he can swim. Also if you're the strong one, you are the guy who should carry a crowbar, maybe a shovel or pick too. You are the guy who bypasses obstacles, especially with no rogue or wizard in the party.

When you have a few more tools to work with, you can find more actions to do. In combat, the barbarian is a beatstick, but you are strong and fullbab so against opponents not also strong, bigger or fullbab you should be able to do combat maneuvers if they don't get an AOO against you. Somebody dazed, stunned, blinded, nauseated, flatfooted from surprise is a fair target for such, ensuring they're in your grasp when they recover from the condition (or you take them alive instead of decapitating them). In a pinch you can often draw the AOO by moving around them THEN grabbing/tripping/disarming, assuming you are tough enough to not respect their AOO much. (hopefully your druid and bard are investing in wands of cure light wounds...)

[Fizban]

Sure - the stuff I am pretty sure is DM rather than system is things like asking for Spot/Listen before he describes a new scene (the rolls don't seem to matter outside of maybe descriptive richness but we still take a minute noting each player's roll),
This is an extremely common problem, you are correct-


Constantly demanding sense checks breaks flow and slows down the game
Sense checks are (not *explicitly* but very strongly encouraged in the DMG) supposed to be rolled secretly by the DM, so the players don't know who or what or when they may "fail" such a check or even that they "rolled" one.
Sense checks are only required when things are explicitly hidden: creatures that are intentionally hiding within cover or concealment, and hidden doors/traps/spaces/etc (yes, plenty of modules also make the same mistake of "rewarding" players that succeed at arbitrary sense checks to get "extra" information, that doesn't make it a good idea).
The DCs for such checks are usually completely arbitrary, whether too high (so the information might as well not exist) or too low (but the PCs can still fail and miss things people with eyes would see), and not based on the actual Spot rules (which I'm not sure even *have* any standard examples for non-living-hiding-creatures).
Such check spam usually is hiding basic information that anyone with eyes would notice if they looked for more than a second, causing the PCs to act like dunderheads. Sense checks are not required for basic terrain just because it happens to be foggy or dim, or because the DM has decided your character can't look up without rolling, nor is the DM supposed to wall off important information behind arbitrary skill checks (that's just bad level design).
And when you inevitably find out what information was being withheld and at what DC, everyone feel even worse/be even more mad that they've been "acting" like idiots because the DM was being obstructionist and obtuse.

Just don't do it.

The only way to fix this is to have a frank conversation about how this "style" of play is making the game worse. What they should do is keep a handful of d20's behind the screen, roll the whole pile whenever you enter a room or search something and pretend to read them, and then only *actually* use the rolls if there's something truly hidden (or for secret saving throws, etc). Thus you preserve some mystery while having plenty of dice results for those rare times you do actually need some.


assuming that the players have the same level of system knowledge that he does (I haven't played 3.5 in 6 years, the others have only played 5e), and overestimating his own level of system knowledge (for example, I think he's been getting the flanking rules wrong consistently by requiring 180 degrees of separation between flankers; I haven't been calling him on it because I don't want to bog the game down in a rules argument).
Bust out a book with a flanking diagram (or print/etc) before the session starts properly then, because once again that is not how that works. The rule (as most recently stated in Rules Compendium) is that you draw a line from the center of one ally's space to the other, and if that line goes through opposite sides of a foe's space (including if it goes through the corner point of that side), they're flanked.

Edit: Fixed paraphrasing error.

The stuff I think is system-related is more that the weapon attack seems like the right move all the time (disarm and grapple are bad ideas unless you have a bunch of feats). Which I guess isn't so bad now that I type it out. Still, I can feel the urge among me and the rest of my party to do more interesting things, and I think that urge is killing our characters (as they waste valuable action rounds not attacking) and taking up time in the session that could be spent moving the plot/our character progression forward.
This is where I turn back on you, because disarming and grappling *shouldn't* be good ideas most of the time. In real life, if your enemy has a weapon, you don't get fancy: you hit them with your weapon. Wasting turns doing something ineffectual should indeed be punished and lead to failure, particularly when combined with some bad luck. And for that matter, once you get past low levels you should mostly be fighting things that don't use weapons and/or are larger than you anyway, so it would be a bad habit to get into.

Disarm and grapple can be used more safely if the enemy is flat-footed: win initative, and you can waltz up and have a go without an AoO ending your attempt. But you still need a sufficiently high bonus vs a weak enough foe for it to really matter. Furthermore, taking foes alive (or otherwise having them so defeated they're at your mercy) leads to prisoner arguments, which are also a bad time.

I suspect if you're having problems with impossible flanking, that one of the "interesting" things you've been trying to do is just get your sneak attack and flanking bonus to work. Fix the flanking and you will have basic tactical options. *Next paragraph* huh, guess not sneak attack.

Incidentally, I'm playing a barbarian; the other players are a Bard and a Druid. The Druid has been casting Nature's Ally and seems to be having a good time with that; the Bard is struggling and tending to retreat to a disappointed, "I guess I'll shoot my bow again."
And just think, after you've gained a few levels the Bard will have a bunch of "interesting" spells to waste their turns with. Bards are a problem- they don't actually fill a standard role in the party, and their big thing is a buff. Players that don't want to be a walking buff spell should not play Bards. Further, you have an undersized party, so the Bard's buff is worth less than if you had a full 4 characters. Meanwhile you seem to want to use specialized combat maneuvers with impunity mid-fight, which requires a bunch of feats, which require Int->Combat Expertise, which is normally a Fighter thing, not Barbarian (though with sufficient "system mastery" you can find a ton of variants and substitutions to get that stuff on Barbarian basically for free).

I would recommend the Bard player switch to Rogue, or maybe Factotum (though I expect the DM does not have sufficient mastery of the skill system to hit the right skill DCs regularly, which could make the Factotum's main feature OP or useless). If you're getting by fine with basic attacks and only 3 PCs, you do not need most char-op advice you would find on the forum*. But you do need something more interesting for the Bard player. Heck, I only suggest Rogue because flanking and Bard have been mentioned- A Sorcerer or Wizard would be more useful, since the Bard can't Trapfind anyway and you're missing a major role.

*You will probably be told that the Druid is a danger of being OP, but in this undersized party with no real arcanist they're already going to need to pull double duty.

[Notafish]

Btw, this is right actually, it's different from 5e's optional flank rule.

Ooh, the line comes from the character's centers, not their spaces! Well, now I'm extra-glad I didn't challenge that ruling :)

I might be feeling the "I attack" syndrome more due to the sympathy for the bard and also the high-ish AC of some of the enemies we've been facing, too. And taking the frustration of not hitting out on the system rather than statistics/encounter design.

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

[Fizban]

I might be feeling the "I attack" syndrome more due to the sympathy for the bard and also the high-ish AC of some of the enemies we've been facing, too. And taking the frustration of not hitting out on the system rather than statistics/encounter design.
Also note that the AC of many low-level enemies is inflated due to size (and dexterity bonuses given to smaller creatures), and particularly for Small humanoids that also get basic armor. If you've been fighting Kobolds and Goblins and bugs and Orcs etc, yeah AC probably seems pretty bad right now. But as the game progresses, size bonuses start turning into size penalties, and stuff using basic armor becomes less and less effective. It'll take a few more levels, but inflated AC problems should go away for most things that aren't Dragons.

[Elves]

Ooh, the line comes from the character's centers, not their spaces! Well, now I'm extra-glad I didn't challenge that ruling :)

I might be feeling the "I attack" syndrome more due to the sympathy for the bard and also the high-ish AC of some of the enemies we've been facing, too. And taking the frustration of not hitting out on the system rather than statistics/encounter design.

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.
I think what you're pointing to is real. Vanilla bard starts pretty slow, and the way feat chains work often pigeonholes martials into one gimmick.

Take a look at warblade, swordsage or crusader and see if those are a more interesting take on fighter-types for you. They're versatile and good right out of the box -- no fancy builds required.

[Particle_Man]

If your dm doesn’t allow the tome of battle’s classes, you might want to look at tripping as a sometimes viable option. There is a horizon tripper build which is core but which you could build on depending on what other books are allowed.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?80415-The-Horizon-Tripper-(Core-Melee-Build)

You might also look at skill tricks from complete scoundrel to give you a few more once per encounter options.