PDA

View Full Version : Yin and Yang Version 3.5



Capfalcon
2008-08-30, 03:22 PM
Ok, I saw this thread in the RPG.net forum, (I believe...) and I thought it was a pretty cool idea.

Anyway, the basic idea is that if you are a fan of 3.5, you post five things you don't like about 3.5. If you don't like 3.5, then you post five things you do like about 3.5.

Now, while all of the following are going to be opinions, I would appreciate it if people specific examples. Saying "It changed too much from 2nd." is nice and all, but doesn't really say anything. Saying "I liked THACO, and wish they had left it alone" is a better example.

In advance, please don't try to be clever and post things along the lines of "Those people who were too dumb to count backwards now have their own game" or other such nonsense. It isn't clever, and it goes against the whole point of this exercise. If you don't have anything nice/not nice (depending on your feelings towards 3.5) to say, just don't say anything at all.

I thank you in advance for the maturity and self-control required to do so.

Anyway, I like 3.5, so here's some of the things I don't care for.

1. Non-casters have rather few options.

To be honest, it reminds me of the early Final Fantasy games. You have Attack, Item, Defend, Run, and the nifty trick that each character gets. Yeah, technically, anyone can try to trip, bull rush, etc, but, if you don't have the feat, you kinda suck at it.

2. Rogues, Trapfinding, and Disable Device.

These all kinda fall under the same tree, I guess. Do you want to be able to find a trap? You need a level in Rogue. Period. Hell, there isn't even a feat that lets you pick it up. I find the idea of a ranger being unable to notice a well made pitfall trap to be... odd, to say the least.

In addition, a wizard couldn't study the magic trap and try to mess with the wards or whatever. That is disable device's thing. You could just use Dispel Magic to try to get rid of it, but it's probably going to be simpler just to Summon Monster I and set it off.

3. Only the divine know the mysteries of first aid.

You either need a Cleric/Druid in the party, a hell of a lot of healing potions and wands, or you need to be prepared to set up a damn near permanent residence in a dungeon to sleep off your wounds.

4. Magic Item Audit

Gear is very, very important. Having gear above or below the expected level throws the game balance off. So, as a result, the players or the DM have to play Tax collector every now and then to make sure you have the right amount of gear.

5. Feats STILL put me to sleep.

As I said on the 4E Yin and Yang, I think that most of the feats in the PHB are incredibly boring. And Toughness. Just... Toughness.

So, what do you think?

P.S. Copy and Paste, FTW!

Morty
2008-08-30, 03:32 PM
Hm. I like 3.5, but there's certainly some stuff about it that I don't like. Here we go:
1) Noncasters have got few options. Duh. It's been repeated so many times I don't think I need to go into detail.
2) Practical magic. Magic can be used for mundane purposes far too easily, which leads to parodies like Eberron being logical extension of the rules and ever-present question: why don't they do X with magic?
3) Christmas Tree effect. Also preety self-explainatory, I think.
4) Cannon Fodder. Whole races such as orcs and goblins exist for the sole purpose of being grinded for XP by low-level adventurers.
5) Alignment system. It's not bad as alignment systems go, but the very existence of a system governing moralty is preposterous.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 03:43 PM
Well, I find 3e<4e, so let's see what nice things I have to say:

1) Feats & Combat Options
Oh, these were very nice. Feats let your character be more heroic by doing cool stuff in combat (improved feint, spring attack, etc.) and giving you a bit more customization than you'd get in 2e. Plus, rules for disarming and bull rushing were a nice addition, as were grappling rules.

2) Skills
NWPs were terrible. It was never clear what they really did, and most of them had little bearing to the sort of stuff you actually wanted to do (like, climb walls). Having a set of skills which your adventurer would use, and allowing you to improve them over time added some non-combat depth to the game.

3) Improvable Ability Scores
It was always annoying that your character couldn't "buff up" in 2e. Wishes were basically the only way you could improve any of your abilities... and since Ability Checks were basically how you did things out of combat, this became a little flat. Being able to improve things just by leveling added another dimension to leveling, and dealt with the old "why can't I get buffer by working out" issues.

4) AoOs
While I shed a tear for moving to grid-based combats, for a hackfest like D&D it's nice to make moving about the battlefield a little more hazardous.

5) Multiclassing
Multiclassing in 2e was ludicrous. Either it was the clearly right thing to do (always be a Fighter/Mage instead of just a Mage if you can) but it was tied up by racial choices. Lame. Now you could make some nice blends of classes, like the Fighter-Rogue, which captured missing archetypes (e.g. swashbucklers) that are fun to play.

Ifni
2008-08-30, 03:56 PM
I'm a fan of 3.5. Five things I don't like about it, in no particular order:

(1) The fact that "you die at -10" doesn't scale by level at all. At L1, it's a nice reassuring buffer: at L15, you have to be rather lucky to end up in the zero to -10 range, rather than going straight from "fighting" to "dead" in one blow. There are spells that try to patch this problem by (temporarily) stopping death-by-HP-loss entirely, but that creates a new set of issues. I feel similarly about the nonscaling Massive Damage rule (yes, you can one-shot a 1000HP dragon if you deal 51 damage to it with a single attack...)

(2) Swarms that are immune to weapon damage, and Antimagic Fields. I don't like encounters that invalidate pretty much all the options of several Core classes. (I strongly support the magic items, feats and ACFs in later books that allow rogues to sneak-attack normally sneak-immune foes.)

(3) The superiority of "high Strength + two-handed weapon + Power Attack" over all other fighting styles (unless, maybe, you use Tome of Battle). It's not a small gap, either.

(4) Newbie traps - options that look cool, but are actually ineffective (e.g. recommending spring attack for monks, when flurry of blows - which requires a full attack - is meant to help compensate for their lower BAB progression). Retraining/rebuilding helps here, but only if the player actually figures out what's wrong and how to fix it. I'm pretty sure this is about half the problem with perceived fighter/caster imbalance: it's a lot easier to build a really ineffective single-class fighter than a really ineffective single-class cleric.

(5) If you roll a nat 1 on a saving throw, it can fry your items - and worn items usually have very few HP. Similarly, I've never seen the rules for sundering worn items used in-game, because they're widely agreed (among people I play with) to be silly-broken. I like my magic items, and having them randomly fried or smashed isn't much fun.

Matthew
2008-08-30, 04:01 PM
I don't like it as much as AD&D, but I am going to go with "like", even though I am actually more neutral towards it.

1) Everybody Has a Class Terrible idea. Just terrible. Undermined some of the most important things about the class system in AD&D, and why you don't apply it to every character in the game.

2) Lack of Simultaneous Resolution Whilst AD&D supported the idea of "I move, you move" [i.e. it was possible to play like that] simultaneous movement was also supported.

3) Skill System The D20 skill system is bad, and for many reasons. The AD&D Proficiency System was not "good", but it was better (though that is a long discussion).

4) Multi Classing This is really related to the first point. It just misunderstands the role of Multi Classing in AD&D [i.e. ignores it, until they start creating mixed classes] and supports the class for everyone idea.

5) Magic Magic is powerful in AD&D, but there are limits. Many of these limits were inadvisedly removed in D20. From spell learning, to spell recovery, to spell casting, to spell interruption, to saving throws, it was just one big **** up.

______________________________________

Maybe I will do a like version as well...

1) Organisation The rulebook layout was much, much better than any version of AD&D.

2) Saving Throws Whilst I thought the implemenation was poor, the reduction to three types was actually quite neat.

3) Six second Round Thank god.

4) Two Weapon Fighting A mixed blessing, but it pointed the way.

5) OGL/OGC Yay!

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 04:03 PM
1) The lack of balance and WOTC's inablity to catch on

2) The lack of organization in splat books. I don't mind the amount, but i wish they were more in synch

3) Monsters in need of more detail

4) Societies that didn't make sense because of so much magic

5) Misunderstandings of the alignement system. Not the systems itself, just the way WoTc too so long to explain it properly

i liked most of 3E things, just not the way they did it
from
EE
Edit
Mathew, what is wrong with the class system. It was a very good way to get world consistency going and NPC classes were very good in implementation. It just was horribly executed but hey, its WotC. Is that what your complaining about, the execution?

Tengu_temp
2008-08-30, 04:26 PM
I don't like DND 3.5, so the things I like about it are:

1. Psionics. A nice system, much better than Vancian casting.
2. Tome of Battle. It increases the fun factor of this game by 100%. If not more.
3. It's fun to look at real life and media through the prism of DND 3.5 at times - look at the Unstat Me thread for a prime example.
4. Eberron is an interesting setting.
5. Without this game, we'd never have Mutants and Masterminds.

Matthew
2008-08-30, 04:33 PM
Mathew, what is wrong with the class system. It was a very good way to get world consistency going and NPC classes were very good in implementation. It just was horribly executed but hey, its WotC. Is that what your complaining about, the execution?

Dunno whether we're supposed to discuss our thoughts in this thread, but I guess I could explain myself a bit better. Basically, a class is a guideline. You don't need a class to create a blacksmith, or a soldier, or any NPC really. Their primary use is for creating player characters and advancing them by level [i.e. creating a power scale and reward system]. It's a game artifact rather than a world building methodology.

You can read more of my yabberings on the subject here (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0), though my input doesn't begin until page 2 of that thread.

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 04:38 PM
Dunno whether we're supposed to discuss our thoughts in this thread, but I guess I could explain myself a bit better. Basically, a class is a guideline. You don't need a class to create a blacksmith, or a soldier, or any NPC really. Their primary use is for creating player characters and advancing them by level [i.e. creating a power scale and reward system]. It's a game artifact rather than a world building methodology.

Matthew hit a nail on the head with this one.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 04:49 PM
Dunno whether we're supposed to discuss our thoughts in this thread, but I guess I could explain myself a bit better. Basically, a class is a guideline. You don't need a class to create a blacksmith, or a soldier, or any NPC really. Their primary use is for creating player characters and advancing them by level [i.e. creating a power scale and reward system]. It's a game artifact rather than a world building methodology.

You can read more of my yabberings on the subject here (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0), though my input doesn't begin until page 2 of that thread.

again i don't know if we are discussing stuff (and OP, let us know if we should stop) but i disagree. A character with a class, be he NPC or PC uses his lass as a device to effect the world around him. One's powers come from their class and their abilities are determined by their class. If a non magic class like thief or fighter have their abilities given by their class, it makes sense for people like black smiths and farmers to have that as well. Now logically, the PCs aren't going to often be Black smith's or farmers, but 3E doesn't make them core classes, it makes them NPC classes. they aren't intented for the normal use, but if you want to use them (IE, NPc comparads, lesser monsters ect) it makes more sense by having Human commoner level X rather than just Human or goblin
from
EE

Matthew
2008-08-30, 04:55 PM
again i don't know if we are discussing stuff (and OP, let us know if we should stop) but i disagree. A character with a class, be he NPC or PC uses his lass as a device to effect the world around him. One's powers come from their class and their abilities are determined by their class. If a non magic class like thief or fighter have their abilities given by their class, it makes sense for people like black smiths and farmers to have that as well. Now logically, the PCs aren't going to often be Black smith's or farmers, but 3E doesn't make them core classes, it makes them NPC classes. they aren't intented for the normal use, but if you want to use them (IE, NPc comparads, lesser monsters ect) it makes more sense by having Human commoner level X rather than just Human or goblin
from
EE

Well, let's start a new thread to discuss it.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 05:17 PM
Well, let's start a new thread to discuss it.

fair enough
from
EE

arguskos
2008-08-30, 05:17 PM
So, to drag this thread back on topic somewhat...

I like 3.5, so here's my short list of complaints:

1. Magic being ridiculously broken. I like Vancian casting, I really do, but there's no excuse for the idiocy of WoTC in failing to recognize the balance issues the spells tended to cause. It can be fixed with houseruling (as anything can be), but out of the box, it was stupid.

2. The skill system. This is merely personal preference, and honestly, it's not THAT bad, just annoying.

3. Druids being insane, and lack of even rudimentary balance in the system. I don't like excessive balance (like 4e's "balance above all" mantra), but I do like it when some thought goes into the game about how to keep certain characters from just totally outshining the others. Natural Spell is an excellent example of something that is just freaking STUPID and should never have gotten out of testing.

4. Supplements being wildly disorganized and all over the place. Really, I wish they'd have just picked a format that worked, and stuck to it. It wasn't until MM3 that we got a nice, clean monster format, and MM4 till we got a good stat block format. >_<

5. Too many ineffective options. I love the awesomeness of having tons of options for any character, but too many of them weren't really that great (which sorta sucks). I know that this is an issue with any system that gives hundreds of options, but it still bothers me.

-argus

Vortling
2008-08-30, 05:35 PM
I would say I like 3.5. The things that I dislike:

1) Overkill spell lists. There's a spell for everything and generally they're not restricted by class so you've got wizards and sorcerers or clerics and druids picking up almost anything. A little paring down would be very nice.

2) Christmas Tree Effect. I hate tracking all the items and wealth, both as a player and DM.

3) Lack of Cohesiveness with splatbooks. Each book tries to do something different, sometimes in the exact same way. There also tends to be overlap. There's a feat in Comp. Adventurer and a skill trick in Comp. Scoundrel that do nearly the same thing.

4) Alignment system. It really shouldn't have been tied to in game effects. That way it could have been ignored completely.

5) Paladin's Code. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? The paladin doesn't even get that much awesome for having to follow the restrictions.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-08-30, 05:51 PM
I like 3.5 (as opposed to 4e) so here are my primary complaints

1) Monks- I like the concept of monks, I really do. I know they don't fit theme and are terrible, but I like the concept of the Kung Fu badass and it's a pity that they suck so bad.

2) Increadibly limited skill points- Basically if you wanted to play a skill monkey, you had to play a rogue or a bard. Rangers skill list wasn't large enough and no one else gets enough skills points. It's worst for sorcerors, who not only get almost no skill points, but have to spend points in concentration, and as a charisma based class, have no access to charisma based skills.

3) Sudden Death syndrome- While I dislike 4ed making it's players basically invincible if they are smart (or don't have a sadistic GM), 3.5 randomly kills players far too easily. At low levels, even meat sheilds can be insta-gibbed bya well timed crit.

4) Created a bad name for casters- I don't like 4ed wizards, but I place blame squarely on the shoulders of 3.5 casters and there being able to end games by themselves (on the internet at least). Now, thanks to 3.5 I'll never be able to enjoy an RPGA event again..../sob.

5) Isn't the Legend of the Five Rings or Deadlands RPG- No explination needed. But honestly, that counts as a problem with just about every RPG system.

sonofzeal
2008-08-30, 05:58 PM
I definitelly like 3.5. What I dislike....

1) Vancian Spellcasting. I didn't like it in FF1, and I don't like it in D&D. Nevermind the implausibility of spontaniously forgetting spells, I dislike the inflexibility of it, and the amount of bookkeeping it entails.

2) Fighter suckitude. Did it never occure to them that a few feats don't balance out for the complete lack of class powers, and that martial types in general just can't keep up with the exponentially scaling powers of spellcasters?

3) Ranged suckitude. Does WotC just hate archers for some reason? Ranged weapons have decent support in Core, and there's some good throwing-based PrCs out there, but archers get a whole lot of nothing. There's a grand total of something like three archery PrCs that I know of, two of them are legendarily nerfed (Arcane Archer and OotBI), and the other is specialized in the sort of ultra-long-distance fighting that rarely comes up. Meanwhile, sword-and-board types are swimming in options.

4) Monk suckitude. Why oh why are they not full-BAB? And why did they decide to nerf such a potentially cool class so horribly?

5) Druid complexity. It seems like every new player I introduce to the game immediately wants to play a Druid first, and I have to break it to them that, of all the PHB classes, Druids are by far the most complicated and hardest to play. You have to handle not only your normal stats, but also your animal companion's, all your spells, and half a dozen potential Wildshape forms (with all the headache that comes from figuring out what changes, what stays the same, what affects what other stat in weird ways, etc).

Prometheus
2008-08-30, 06:25 PM
I like 3.5 so here's what I don't like about it:
1) Fungible Magic Items: Random magic items are nearly always sold and exchanged for something else. It is rare that players are forced to improvise or make things interesting. 4e has a good call when in dramatically lowers the selling price of items but increases the finding. It is a little like an RPG still, but who cares.
2) Homogeneous Melee Fighting: I too find the lack of options a little boring but more importantly I find that the weapons are all too similar in mechanics. I don't know what 4e does in this area, but I hear it makes weapon of choice a little more strategic
3) Lack Magic Specialization: Magic-users are by far to versatile. 4e attempts to correct this with predefined roles, but I think a more thematic approach might be more preferable. Spell lists should be cut at least in half, more if you can replace the lost spells with thematically appropriate spells and abilities
4) Balance: It would be nice if things didn't have to be modded for balance. Suggestion #2 and #3, among other things, would probably help.
5) Monsters: There never is enough monster for me. I buy every monster book that comes out and still end up homebrewing some to fit my needs. Why do the later MMs assume that I need more high-powered monsters? Why do they make duplicates of monsters we already have? Why do they insist on giving a shout-out to every minor plane?

hotel_papa
2008-08-30, 06:33 PM
I love 3.5. I've been playing since 2nd Ed AD&D, and "did my part" buying the three 4E core books to keep my beloved hobby going. Never got into 4E, though. Just bugs me.

Here's my list:

1. Total lack of support for Epic level play:
Everyone knows what I'm talking about. From a poorly put together Epic level handbook to the "I win" button that is epic spellcasting, I don't bother planning a campaign past level 21.

2. Wealth by level rules:
Hard to keep track of, hard (for me, at least) to enforce. It's taken me five years to get the balance down between too much and too little.

3. Diplomancy, as written:
Half-Elf Marshal 2, Cha 18, Diplomacy of +21 without items, spells or auras. Enough said.

4. Any weapon that uses 2d4 as damage.
Yeah, it's a little idiosyncratic, but it bugs the living crap out of me.

5. The power level of a class is directly proportionate to the publishing date
Case in point, Hexblade vs. Dread Necromancer vs. Duskblade

6. (Yay! Bonus!) Greyhawk.
Do you have a cool, powerful, well thought-out character? Does he/she have a compellingly written background and organic character development? Is he/she King/Queen Badass? Well, good for you. Meet Mordankainan, Rolibar, Bigby, Ottiluke, Tenser and Melf (et cetera ad nauseum) They are so hardcore that they have spells and feats named after them. You will never measure up to their greatness, despite this game being a fantasy epic where you are the main characters. Have fun. Don't piss them off.

Grynning
2008-08-30, 07:05 PM
I like 3.x edition. I know I posted in the other thread that I like 4th too...I like them both equally. Pick your brains up off the floor and wash them off now.

Dislikes about 3rd. ed:

1) Over-dependence on magic items/Christmas Tree effect - Any character over 4th level or so who wasn't visible from space due to the magic items they carried was going to die in a level appropriate encounter. Consider that the Vow of Poverty feat gives you ridiculous amounts of scaling bonuses, and optimizers still find it inferior compared to WBL. To me this runs completely counter to a lot of heroic fantasy, where the heroes are often without any special equipment (Conan), or have perhaps one or two powerful magic items (Lord of the Rings).

2) Useless character classes/PrC's - A lot of people have already mentioned the monk, but let's not forget all the other awful classes that got printed (Samurai, unfixed Hexblade, a slew of bad PrC's) etc. They just took up space in books and never got used, or if they did someone usually regretted it.

3) Caster pwnage - I actually found the 3.5 feat system a really good way to simulate a lot of martial arts, and for lower-powered games that don't include spellcasters, it works really well (in other words, I didn't think fighter was an option-less class like many seem to). However, the fact that a spell caster could handle pretty much any situation on their own, and the fact that higher level monsters were almost always more mobile and had reach on the fighters made them useless compared to the casters.

4) Pun-Pun, Uber-chargers, Hulking Hurlers, etc. - Think about things before you print them guys...expect people will own more than core and this one source book you're working on.

5) Slow combat. This is the area that 4th ed. improved the most on, and while 3rd ed's combat could be very realistic and tactical, it did take a really long time to resolve a lot of stuff because of so much page flipping through the PHB.

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 07:11 PM
5. The power level of a class is directly proportionate to the publishing date
Case in point, Hexblade vs. Dread Necromancer vs. Duskblade


Counter point for the sake of funsies, Wizard vs. Wu Jen vs. Truenamer.

Capfalcon
2008-08-30, 07:15 PM
I appreciate the thread fork. To clarify, I don't have a problem with people asking about other people's list, but if it's going to be more than 3 or 4 posts, I'd apprecate it if you take it to PM's or a new thread.

Capfalcon
2008-08-30, 07:21 PM
Counter point for the sake of funsies, Wizard vs. Wu Jen vs. Truenamer.

Or more accurately, Wizard/Cleric/Druid vs. (Almost) Everything else. :)

Saph
2008-08-30, 07:30 PM
I love me my 3.5 game, so here's my list of things I wish they'd changed.

1. Small stacking bonuses: +1, +2, -3, +4, aargh! In high-level combat, you could go crazy keeping track of them all.

2. Half-elf lameness: They're such a nice race fluff-wise. Did they really have to be so weak in comparison to their parents?

3. Infinite combo loopholes: I really wish Wizards would just errata them so that we wouldn't have to listen to people on message boards go on about them over and over again.

4. Casters at low levels: I have 3 spells per day. Yippee skip.

5. Playing at level 1: One hit will drop you to negatives. One critical hit will kill you. Getting healing is a nightmare. Worst of all, every old-school DM always insists at starting their game here.

- Saph

hotel_papa
2008-08-30, 08:19 PM
Counter point for the sake of funsies, Wizard vs. Wu Jen vs. Truenamer.

I would concede at this point, but I like a lot of the Wu Jen only spells, and I have a medical condition / defense mechinism that doesn't allow me to understand that last word you wrote.

(Seriously, how do you take one of the coolest reoccuring magic themes in fantasy and bastardize it into the only class that actually gets weaker as it levels up?)

HP

Deepblue706
2008-08-30, 10:32 PM
Five things I don't like about 3.5:

1) The regular balance issues (Wizards, Druids, Diplomacy, etc).

2) Vancian casting.

3) Being heavily reliant upon magical items.

4) A lot of mundane equipment is pointless to ever purchase (Flails? More like Fails!, etc).

5) The Campaign Setting and Supplement books are pretty terrible. Certainly seemed like they went Quantity over Quality.

BobVosh
2008-08-31, 01:12 AM
I like 3.5

Therefore Reasons I dont:
1. The D20. Way too random at low levels, almost pointless at high levels.
2. Epic level. There isn't even really a 3.5 book for this. They need an epic handbook without the "spellcasting or die."
3. Pointless/Godly PrCs. Some PrCs are "why would anyone sane every want to play this. I have to collect some rare substance, eat it, lose spell casting and as a reward I turn green." "I just took a level in awesome. I get to do a full attack while moving and double my attacks."
4. Lack of good campaign worlds. Greyhawk has no support, is fairly boring as because of this. Forgotten realms is older than dirt and everything to do has been done before you. Twice. Eberron is silly. Best way to describe it really. No other setting has support.
5. Elves. I just hate them. You know why.

Gorbash
2008-08-31, 03:31 AM
Eberron is silly

Have you actually played in Eberron...?

BobVosh
2008-08-31, 04:47 AM
Have you actually played in Eberron...?

In terms of pointless magics, banks, races (I really don't like warforged / shifters), and other small things like that it is goofy. I do like some things but overall I don't like Eberron as it just strikes me as over the top in too many ways. Or "silly." Espically the far east stuff.

Gorbash
2008-08-31, 05:17 AM
It's not pointless, it's actually the only world that actually uses magic in other ways other than cataclismic destruction, and as such makes a lot more sense than Greyhawk and Faerun.


I really don't like warforged / shifters

Living robots and offspring of werewolves...? How...?

Starsinger
2008-08-31, 05:25 AM
Living robots and offspring of werewolves...? How...?

Well.. I asked Google... http://www.elfwood.com/art/r/o/rouse/werewolf.jpg.html

Morty
2008-08-31, 05:30 AM
Living robots and offspring of werewolves...? How...?

Because they're completely stupid? I love it how every time someone makes a critical comment on Eberron someone will always jump to defend it. Some people find airships, magic trains, warforged, halflings on dinosaurs and magic-as-technology silly, to say the least. Deal with it.

hotel_papa
2008-08-31, 06:38 AM
As someone who completely fell in love with Eberron, and has yet to run anything else since getting the books, I still have to say, I agree with M0rt completly.

Seriously, the internet needs a refresher course in "to each, their own".

The steam-punk, Final Fantasy, JRPG feel of Eberron isn't going to be for everyone. Neither is cowering in the epic shadows of either Mordenkainen or Drizzt Do'Urden.

That being said, I still miss Mystara. (The 2nd Ed campaign setting, not the FR goddess who keeps "choosing" people to become epic. Seriously, look in the back of the ELH.)

Red Steel FTW. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about gets a cookie and an amulet of cinnibryl (to stave off that wretched curse).

HP

Gorbash
2008-08-31, 06:44 AM
You mean Savage Coast?

hotel_papa
2008-08-31, 06:55 AM
For the win!! *Hands over amulet and presents selection of fine pastries*

I know it was little more than X-men in D&D, but I still liked it. I miss rakastas, tortles and lupins.

Four tortle fighters and their wererat sensai... w00t.

HP

EDIT - Wow.... I killed a thread. How many XPs do I get?

bosssmiley
2008-08-31, 12:20 PM
That being said, I still miss Mystara. (The 2nd Ed campaign setting, not the FR goddess who keeps "choosing" people to become epic. Seriously, look in the back of the ELH.)

Red Steel FTW. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about gets a cookie and an amulet of cinnibryl (to stave off that wretched curse).

You mean the BECMI D&D setting that got horribly mangled when TSR tried to port it to AD&D 2E. :smallamused:

5 things I hate about 3.X:

1. Full caster, or fail!
We all know the drill... Full casters win after 10th level. Everyone else hobbles along on handouts.

2. Turning Undead
This mechanic has no relation to any other in the game. It's even dafter than SR (the only monster ability in the game that explicitly scales off CR, rather than HD)

3. Every fool and his dog has a class
Commoner 20. However you cut it, that is bad game design. :smallannoyed:

4. Your skills are worthless here, we have +15 to skill items for pennies
I spent 10 levels getting a skill rank he's just matched with a cheapo item? Bad joke!

5. Chandelier o' Gear
Only 3.X could make flaming katanas and hammers made of ice into something lame that you keep in a golf bag.

Bonus gripe
Double weapons. Instant munchkin detectors.

The Glyphstone
2008-08-31, 12:23 PM
Bonus gripe
Double weapons. Instant munchkin detectors.

More like instant noob detector. Except for a rare few exceptions - I think the double scimitar from Ebberon is one - double weapons were rarely very good. The only benefit they had over two one-handed or light weapons was the fact that they only counted as one weapon for EWP.

Morty
2008-08-31, 12:36 PM
More like instant noob detector. Except for a rare few exceptions - I think the double scimitar from Ebberon is one - double weapons were rarely very good. The only benefit they had over two one-handed or light weapons was the fact that they only counted as one weapon for EWP.

Ineffectual munchkinism is still munchkinism. A player might decide to use a double weapon in order to make a twinked out character and realize the mistake later. And double weapons sort of suggest "pick me, I'm broken" to inexperienced players who want to powergame.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 01:02 PM
Here's a yang...

(1) Too many classes. By which I mean too many pointless classes. There is no reason why anything from a samurai to a warrior shouldn't simply use the Fighter class, as they have no meaningful distinction. And then there's things like the Soulknife, or the Healer...

(2) The skill system sucks. Pet peeve, I know, but because the dice variation (1d20) is so much greater than the ranks, it remains impossible to set a difficulty that isn't either too easy for a complete rookie, or too difficult even for an expert.

(3) Too many kinds of magic. Sure, a setting can accomodate several kinds of magic, like the Wit and the Skill. But a setting that has arcane magic, and divine magic, and psionics, and incarnum, and truenaming, and shadowcasting, and whatever else people thought of over the years is just getting silly.

(4) Too long spell lists. Wizards, clerics, sorcerers and druids can pick any spell they like from any splatbook they like. This has the twin disadvantages of causing balance issues with wonky combos, and making character creation take forever. Classes like beguiler, with a fixed spell list, are much better designed.

(5) The internet. Many of the problems with playing the game stem from exaggerated discussions on the internet which lead people to believe that e.g. only retarded idiots would ever play a fighter, when in actual campaigns (if people hadn't read the optimization boards) they would likely not notice a problem. A discussion about how a character is ineffective at level 20 is completely irrelevant if the campaign (like most campaigns) never reaches that level.

Pronounceable
2008-08-31, 04:12 PM
I see there's a grand total of 2.5 (I count Matthew as half) people disliking 3.5. I though a bit on what I like about 3.5, but couldn't come up with anything much. Here's my yin (such as it is):

1) The main mechanic of d20+mod>=DC. I love this simple task resolution method.

2) Eberron, from what I've heard of it. A setting that takes vancian magic to its logical (and ridiculous) conclusion is a big plus.

3) Three saves. I like those, they're quite intuitive. I like 4E's reversed saves much better, but 3E's is good as well.

4) Um... It's the flagship of RPGs. Without it, there'd much less people interested in gaming as a whole.

5) Err.. I got nothing else.

Diamondeye
2008-08-31, 04:41 PM
I'm very fond of 2.5, but it does have a few problems:

1. Multiclassing without a PrC is impractical for spellcasters Pretty self-explanatory. Spellcasters either PrC-d into a class that continued spellcasting, or they lost large amounts of capability. ToB had the right idea by advancing initiator level when taking non-martial-adept classes.

2. 3.5 Revision of Rangers Rangers clearly needed help in 3.0, but they partly negated the effects by getting rid of their 10-sided HD, and taking away their medium armor proficiency. I've found it necessary to reinstate both things, as well as give them the ability to use their fighting style in any armor. That was equally lame "ZOMG I'm wearing Hide Armor I forgot how to dual wield!"

3. Two-weapon fighting was ridiculously feat- and ability-intensive six feats, and a dexterity of 19, if you weren't a Ranger, and it virtually mandate wearing lighter armor and using weapon finesse to make the DEX worthwhile. Another houserule I found necessary; drop the DEX requirement for all feats to 12, and make each TWD feat a part of its corresponding TWF feat.

4. Extremely weak archery More archery PrC's with better abilities were needed, and more archery feats, especially to beat magical defenses.

5. Metamagic Metamagic feats. Some weren't so bad, but some, especially Quicken Spell, were ridiculous. Half the supposed "overpoweredness" of casters came from the ability to cast certain spells quickened.

hotel_papa
2008-08-31, 05:04 PM
You mean the BECMI D&D setting that got horribly mangled when TSR tried to port it to AD&D 2E.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But I want to.

HP

Thexare Blademoon
2008-08-31, 05:10 PM
Ineffectual munchkinism is still munchkinism. A player might decide to use a double weapon in order to make a twinked out character and realize the mistake later. And double weapons sort of suggest "pick me, I'm broken" to inexperienced players who want to powergame.

What about people who like them even knowing they're weak? Yeah, I like Dire Maces and an occasional two-bladed sword. Whoever made Dire Flails can go fall off a cliff though, that was utterly retarded.


From my reading, NWN experience (applies more to 3.0, although the PRC adds a crapload of 3.5 classes), and random boredom-induced thoughts, I mostly like 3.5, and might possibly be the only person to have homebrewed a class for a game he never really played. :smallamused: That said, I do have complaints...

1. Two-Weapon Fighting. It sucks. Too feat intensive, etc. Been explained already.

2. Sorcerers. I like the idea of someone who didn't have to study his magic. I can re-fluff any dragon-related bits out for characters that shouldn't apply to. But the Vancian system just doesn't seem to fit the class right.

3. The Uselessness of Damage Spells. I like wizards being able to do things other than fling fireballs - one of my favorite (non-D&D) characters is a very creative illusionist thief. But I think these spells are too damn strong in combat.

4. Bland Fighters. Self-explanatory. Part of why I like Duskblades.

5. The Skill System Sucks.
Pet peeve, I know, but because the dice variation (1d20) is so much greater than the ranks, it remains impossible to set a difficulty that isn't either too easy for a complete rookie, or too difficult even for an expert.
Also, not enough skills to make a character that actually seems capable of tying his shoes, making a sandwich, and fighting (not at the same time!) unless you add Rogue or Bard levels.

Dishonorable Mention:

6. Auto-Failure on 1, Auto-Success on 20. Doesn't rank higher because it's so easily houseruled away.

7. Too damn many spells in splatbooks. You're a Wizard, and the readily-available spellbooks (core, maybe one or two others) don't have what you need? You're a bleepin' Wizard, make a spell! Crossing a pit? Conjure Pebbles: 3rd level Conjuration. Rocks fall, no one dies. Upon impact with any object, these six foot boulders fall into tiny pieces, doing 1d3 non-lethal damage to any creatures struck. Each boulder fills a five-foot cube with small rocks, and up to six can be summoned per casting. Need to get that magic armor off the enemy knight? Eliana's Disrobing: 5th level Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]. The target is magically persuaded into removing all armor. Will Save DC 20 negates. No, they're not perfectly balanced, but they don't have to be. It's not something being made for all players of the game, it's for probably no more than one game, and it uses a hell of a lot more creativity than just searching through a book. Mordenkainen didn't get spells named after him by reaching for Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium every time he wanted new spells, you know. And who wouldn't want to be the wizard that has spells named after them? It'd be a nice addition to the setting, if it's one you use for future campaigns.

Jimp
2008-08-31, 05:58 PM
I like 3.5 for the most part. I do have a few gripes but enjoy it on a whole. Here are my dislikes:

1. The poorly working skill system. We all know about problems here. Things such as the diplomancer and contacting devils for wishes at first level really highlighted the extremes it could reach. Even on a practical in-game scale though its problems are clear. As others have said, the d20 roll doesn't help much either. Either your skill bonus is so high it's a guaranteed success or so low that you need to roll a natural 19/20 to even stand a chance of passing. My first hand experience of this has been pretty annoying where players either pass every skill they train in and fail in everything else.

2. Magic Items, everywhere. This has been explained by other posters.

3. Favoured classes. These made little sense to me.

4. Too many damn Elves. My character is Elven Subspecies #22B! It's basically the PHB Elf but with a +2 in wis instead and his favoured class is Rogue. Why.

5. When you notice the design flaws it's difficult to forget them. Maybe this is just a problem for me from my experiences with players, but people aware of 3.5's major problems seem to bring them up a lot. In a recent game the group's wizard used teleport to get somewhere important quickly and the fighter, who had to travel normally, pulled a passive aggressive "Wizards are overpowered" style comment which caused some bad taste for a while. To be fair to the player their wizard was mostly a buffer/blaster that they played for fluff reasons and rarely outshined anyone else in the party, but the evidence needed to cause table-trouble is there even from her playing the class.

Tam_OConnor
2008-08-31, 06:10 PM
I love my mutant-houseruled 3.5. Ergo:

1) My poor innocent half-elf rangers, defeated by the system before they even start adventuring. So, really, this is a 'PHB half-elves cried themselves to sleep at night' and 'rangers are undone by DM's not using the right monsters' complaint.

2) Wealth by Level. Unscaled treasure. The Christmas tree of magical items. The random magic items tables slanted towards low-power disposable magical items (if I had a dollar for every cluster of spell scrolls I've rolled/earned...) General gripes with magic items not fitting...pretty much any fantasy literature out there.

3) Crusaders. Merciful heavens, the entire Devoted Spirit style. The sheer amount of bookkeeping involved was absurd. This is especially true when I keep track of PC hp on a large whiteboard ('Martial Spirit heals X 2' grumble grumble). Fun to play? Maybe; but I'll never play one because of the pain it would cause my DM. Paladins, Knights, anything but Crusaders.

4) PHB melee is the blah. I mean, raging grappling barbarian is pretty much the apex. Then it's the long, slow slide down: the spring attacking rogue, the fighter tripper/disarmer, the mounted paladin, the archery ranger, the shifted druid and friend... Which, I believe, led to a lot of the gish love (and ToB love).

As an addendum to that, when I try to bring my PCs back to 3.5 from 4e, they keep complaining about static melee. Oi, you're first level, you've got one attack: feel free to move. Wearing heavy armor? Get a horse. I'm afraid they're locked onto this sequence: IF D&D 3.5 and combat, THEN charge closer and do not move.

Further addendum: I may have to steal either 4e's or Pathfinder's standard combat maneuvers. A single mechanic for trips, bull rushes, overruns, disarms, etc? Yes, please.

5) Certain spells, while they are near and dear to my heart, are really really bad for balanced play. Orb of [element], I'm looking at you. (Particularly Sonic; I don't own that many d4s!) Direct damage in the wrong school, without SR? Why yes, my sorcerer will take a few for when he's fighting dragons and outsiders. Compared to the save or die/suck, they're pathetic, but I'm not exactly a fan of save or die/sucks, either. Boring (plus, the aforementioned over-saved/SRed/hped creatures above).

Dausuul
2008-09-01, 01:59 PM
Hmm. Well, I'm not sure where I fall on this; I enjoyed 3.5E, but got really really tired of it toward the end there. I guess I'll come at this from the perspective of "I didn't like 3.5E as much as 4E, but here's the stuff I think 3.5E handled better."

1. Item Prices. The magic item price scale of 3.5E is much more reasonable than 4E. Although the pricing of individual items was frequently off, the overall price curve (in terms of the relative prices of high-level versus low-level items) wasn't nearly as steep. Also, prices for nonmagical stuff were far more believable.

2. Alignments. The 4E five-alignment system just doesn't do it for me. I do appreciate that alignments have been mostly excised from the game mechanics, but in terms of what alignments are available, I'd much rather they'd stuck with the traditional nine and just clarified what Law and Chaos were.

3. Gameplay Not Always King. In general, I laud 4E's efforts to ensure a smooth game at all times, but there are a few places where I think it gets excessive. For instance, being able to hurt an incorporeal creature with a nonmagical weapon just seems wrong to me. And the lack of poison with long-term effects is irksome.

4. Less Grid-Dependence. The price of 4E's emphasis on tactical movement is, well, it emphasizes tactical movement, meaning it doesn't really lend itself to gridless play. 3E isn't as concerned with tracking exactly who is where.

5. Angels Don't Look Incredibly Lame. That about sums it up.

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-01, 02:41 PM
Well, I prefer Pathfinder, but I guess that counts as 3.5 if you put it up to 4e so...
I dislike:
The unbalanced magic
Alignment system and everything that implies
Bland non-casters in core (if you include splats is becomes a moot point with ToB)
Healing is a bit low, but rezing is too common
Horrible trap system

AslanCross
2008-09-02, 12:23 AM
I like both 3.5 and 4E. Things I don't like about 3.5:

1. Useless Classes. While the later "fixes" are understandable (ToB, Duskblade, etc), I wish they'd just come up with the idea earlier. The result is that we get left with a lot of other lame stuff in between.

2. Challenge Rating. CR-equivalent monsters are not created equal. A 13th level Monk is nothing like a 13th level Wizard is nothing like a CR 13 Red Dragon. Let's not even get started on LA generally not being worth it.

3. Messy Monster Advancement/Creation. Mostly because of #2. While some people are really good at homebrewing monsters, the Monster Manual left a lot to be desired in terms of instruction. It spoke in very uncertain and arbitrary rules like "If you give a monster an ability that dramatically improves its combat ability, CR +1." Of course, homebrewing is just as much art as it is science, but I wish the Monster Manual had spoken in more concrete terms than "Just playtest them against McAverage Party."
That's another thing: CR, on top of its inconsistencies, supposes the PC party consists of Fighty McAverage, Sneaky McMediocre, Pious O'Normal, and Blasty St. Arcane. With standard ability scores. (See MM p. 302)

4. Ubercasters. I don't really dislike Vancian casting (in fact I found it a rather cool departure from the Mana systems I was used to), but casters were just given too many options---and it's not like a lot of broken spells are actually core.

5. Feats. I like feats. Feats are good. Not all of them, though. It was rather annoying how they couldn't make up their mind about whether they were just static bonuses or extra combat options or world-shattering combo elements.

Things I like:

1. Multiclassing. The options this gave were really interesting, but unfortunately not universally viable.

2. Monsters. I liked how some monsters could really do a lot of interesting things, such that fighting one monster doesn't always mean experiencing the same encounter again. Books like Monster Manuals 3, 5, Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness were filled with a lot of interesting monsters and lore.

3. Feats. The most fun aspect of the crunch part of character creation, IMO.

4. Tome of Battle.--and other "fixes" gave better options. I just wish they weren't necessary.

5. Psionics. Never played with it myself, but I allowed it in one adventure and it turned out pretty well.