The problem with 3.5e

>>55333883
It can't possibly be the best way to explain when it's blatantly wrong in just about every way.

>>55333916
Go on?

>>55333883
This is a retarded analogy for so many different reasons.

Problems that aren't game breaking are purely personal, and you'll sooner convince someone to change their political affiliation than their favorite game system.

Ever notice how it is not dnd players who start this shit nowadays?

>>55334244
>he thinks those who hate 3.PF don't viciously play 3.PF
Kek
It's called stockholm syndrome, they hate 3.PF but they can't stop playing it so as an excuse they make these threads

>>55334257
I mostly see playing pathfinder and 5e staying in their hovels until some jackass calls the all idiots for liking something.

>>55333883
That's not even an explanation, just an analogy.

>>55333883
>I'm going to explain what's wrong with the game
>It's not really that good
>muh influence

Riveting read

I've solved the problem with [game system]. Hear me out. Listening?

I have personal problems with it, which, while some are valid, you might be willing to overlook those because they may not personally bother you at all.

Boom. Never play [game system] again.

Zero playtest and devs literally don't knowing shit about their own system might be the best explanation to why the game has so many problems.

>>55334698
Odd, I thought that there were playtests, but only at low PC levels.

>>55334724
There were """playtests""" but the clerics only picked healing spells and the wizard only picked blastings pells. They ignored the buff/debuff ones. They also didn't playtested much, pretty sure they played a couple of times on levels below 6th and they said "yeah, it's perfect".

Anyway, this is if you believe the actual stories, there aren't facts about this, only rumors.

>>55334724
>>55334771
I remember those. Didn't they also have a Druid running around only using a Scimitar?

>>55333883
I actualy think it's better than 5e

It has much more content, and even though it's unbalanced it works and can be used for a fun night.

The fans have also thought of good variants like e6 which vastly improve it.

And lotr is really good, what are you smoking?

It's better than 90% of the crap out there nowadays, and you probably can't like it because you have to disagree with everyone to feel special

>>55334990
I wish I could get my players to do e6. I start to hate just about any edition of DnD starting around level six, but no one I play with agrees so I just tend to keep my mouth shut. No reason to ruin the game for them for my sake. But still, it's something I'd like to try, since DnD is too overpowered for a couple of game ideas I have and my players won't try any other systems.

>>55334257
>It's called stockholm syndrome, they hate 3.PF but they can't stop playing it so as an excuse they make these threads
The thing is I have this but I don't start threads to whine about the system because there's no point. The anti-3.PF trolls are so ass-hurt by a system that, apparently, "ruined a generation of roleplayers", that they have to spam the board constantly. Meanwhile I play a campaign of 3.5 every week, GM a Pathfinder campaign and a 5e campaign as well. And I enjoy all three of them thoroughly.

Meanwhile, 3.pf trolls are desperately trying to get into a game on roll20 and considering taking DarkGM722's offer of 20 bucks per session to his Patreon just so they can get into a real game.

>>55334990
>I actualy think it's better than 5e
Narrowly. The lore, art, and style of 3.5 is infinitely superior to the bland cuck fantasy of 5e. Don't get me wrong the interior design of 5e is beautiful, but the feel the game gives in its art is just so boring. 3.5 had character. The hundreds of prestige classes were kinda retarded but they fed so much lore and content that it seemed like you had infinite options to choose from. Only a few were "good" but that didn't really matter to me when I was younger. Epic6 is loads of fun. I'm in a high level 3.5 campaign right now, we got to level 17 from level 4 start, still playing. Oh and I'm playing a fighter/ranger with no spells and enjoying the fuck out of it. Stay butthurt, 4rry/5fag/other system trolls.

My 2 cents
When I started this system I liked it, it was probably my first approach to rpgs and it sounded cool
Through the years I grew up dissapointed with it because how many flaws it had plus the average fanbase being horrible, specially DMs who liked to shit on martials which forced me to play casters (yaeh, the "magic rules martials drool" people actually exist)
I stopped playing it, and any other system, for like 7 years
But a few years ago I gave it a go with a new group, I was game starved at that moment and I said fuck it, turned out the group I'm in right now is awesome, know the problems, propose solutions, allow variety and aren't dicks. GMs are awesome too and don't mind throwing bones to those in need

I know that a good group can even make FATAL go well and that doesn't mean FATAL is a flawless game, but in my case I'm having enough fun to dismiss the flaws of the game

>>55334990
This. Recently started playing 3.5e, and as opposed to 5e, it actually feels compelling and interesting. Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot more engaging and inspiring than 5e. 5e is just meh.

>>55335053
So much of this. The butthurt from the wannabe hipsters is palpable.

>>55333883
I got it! You are suffering from brain damage and you are asking for help!

>>55335520
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

>>55333883
>2001 Space Odyssey
>Not good at all

Can see you have shit taste already. 3.5 is great because of how much content is in it. You can make almost anything and have mechanics backing up your idea.

That's also it's weakness, to much damn content.

I'd prefer have to much shit and worry about how it could potentially break a game rather than the opposite. At least in the former you can talk to the DM and reel your over powered ass back to the groups level.

File: 1498750606627.jpg (31KB, 600x365px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x365px

>>55333883
>LotR, 2001, and NGE aren't good
go and stay go

>>55335618
>That's also it's weakness, to much damn content.
It's weakness is wizards having too many spells, a bunch of broken spells, the game having a bunch of retard rules that punish martials (like full attack as a full round action. Absolutely destroys two weapon fighting as a viable option). Bring in 5e's action economy (move and one action then a minor action), as well as its damage-type / resistance rules to take the edge off of damage reduction raping martials at higher levels, and bring the math back to the realms of sanity (but please god not the fucktarded proficiency system), and wrap saves and attacks into a single number, and you'd fix the game a lot.

But here's thing, even with all of its flaws, 3.5 fights with 5e for playerbase size. If it was fixed up a bit, it would absolutely blow 5e out of the fucking water.

>>55336183
Which is why you do e6 or limit wizards and push psychics and the tome of battle.

>>55336228
I've actually found that my favorite class to play is the factotum.

>>55333883
>MY OPINIONS GOOD
>EVERYONE ELSE'S OPINIONS BAD
>SO THIS GAME IS BAD BECAUSE I SAY SO

Eh, fuck off.

>>55333883
>OP is a dribbling imbecile
geewiz

>>55336411
Doesn't that class require like 6 books, open at all times, to play?

>>55336573
Not really, it's stupid good with a bunch of books

>All those triggered pathfaggots

>>55336651
What else could you want?

>>55336183
Gee, I wish an edition existed that did all that.

>>55337423
AD&D?

>>55337423
Didn't know there was another mutants and masterminds fan

>here's how I'll explain why D&D is shit
>first, I'll say that everything is shit
>then

>>55337462
AD&D doesn't have minor actions.

Which edition would you say is the most balanced? I hear bad things about 4 and 5, but are they really worse than 3.5? 3.5 was a gigantic clusterfuck.

>>55338838
Mutants and masterminds is basically the best thing to come from the d20 system, so if you have to d20 do mutants and masterminds.

If you have to ask my opinion 3.5, it's not balanced but it has such a wealth of material for it to be really fun.

Just make sure you use one of the community patches, such as e6

Without a patch, just play 5e but warning it's boring as snot after 10 games

>>55334990
e6 may be an improvement, but a druid is still going to absurd compared to a fighter and save or dies are still stupid strong.

>>55338838
3.x is far and away the least balance of the three you have mentioned. People complain about 4e and 5e for totally different reasons.

>>55339094
See this is why I either ban fullcasters, and go full psionics, or just weaken them.

And no fighters, you are playing a ToB class no matter what.

>>55339094
>People complain about 4e and 5e for totally different reasons.
Namely? I heard that 4 is basically a wargame, I've been reading the quickstart to 5 but I don't see anything outrageous except the "Inspiration" thing which I can't figure out

>>55339213
I like 5 so I'm probably not the best person to ask but I imagine it has something to do with decreased customization options from 3.x (of course half of those options were shit and some were very broken, but to each their own).

>>55338838
2ed.

This is beyond dispute.

>>55339399
Don't like 5e

Yea it's boring, and doesn't really have the flavor of fun that 3.5 had.

Even the stupid stuff was there to add flavor.

The new game seems too calculated and bland to really be fun, and it lacks the customization and eagerness of 3.5e

And as said, 5e gets bland after 10 games, whereas I'm still learning about 3.5 to this day

>>55339408
>beyond dispute
The Complete Book of Elves

>>55339454
And?

>>55339491
If you think that book and its content are balanced you're wearing some serious nostalgia blinders.

Best balanced edition is probably 4e pre-essentials.

>>55339443
It's like TF2 vs overwatch

TF2
>badly balanced
>developers don't care for it
>oodles of flavor
>awards system mastery
>bit dated but tons of fun

Overwatch
>well balanced(in comparison)
>developers care
>generic flavor
>new players have an easy time with it
>new and gets boring after a while

>>55339516
Explain the unbalanced part.

With the racial limits in place, the elves book adds some elvish flavor, a couple decent arrow tricks, and that's pretty much it.
Not really unbalanced or shattering to a game.

>>55339543
Oh and
TF2
>tons of custom content(hats, weapons, and maps)
Overwatch
>skins and voice-lines I guess

>>55339516
>you're wearing some serious nostalgia blinders.
And you could be right on that. I'll glance back through it.

Oddly, I still have that book. Been a long time since I looked at it to be honest.

>>55333883
What has DnD 3rd+ ever influenced beyond Pathfinder, and why would that deserve praise?

>>55339657
Mutants and Masterminds

3.x, PF, 4e and 5e

Was one of the first to use the d20 system

Order of the stick?

>>55339686
So one separate game, one clone, two wildly different editions of the same game, and one webcomic.

>>55339792
Well if you count influencing game design for a while, and countless webseries then the number is higher

>>55339847
Still pretty mediocre for an edition of arguably the most famous tabletop rpg in the world.

In terms of influence it's largely comparable to many of its far less famous peers. It's like praising royalty for graduating from high school.

>>55340019
What the heck did rifts or shadow run or wod influence?

TTRPGS are a niche thing, and as such typically don't influence anything past the niche

>>55340190
>What the heck did wod influence
Twilight?

>>55333883
>LotR gets praised as one of the best (fantasy) novels of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.
>2001: A Space Odyssey gets praised as one of the best (Sci-Fi) movies of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.
>Neon Genesis Evangelion gets praised as one of the best (mecha) anime of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.

Jesus, what terrible opinions. I've never seen a plebeian pleb this hard.

Anyway, 3.5 is bad because it's an atrociously balanced, overcomplicated mess that manages to actually get less out of more. That's the meat of the issue and all that needs to be said.

>>55339399
Reducing trap choices is never a bad thing. Unless you're from /d/.

>>55339443
>And as said, 5e gets bland after 10 games
What's with this motif? What makes it suck?

>>55333883
>D&D 3.5 gets praised as one of the best (tabletop) games of all time
that makes no sense. who says such a thing?

>3.5 is unbalanced, you should play GURPS
>Build earth-shattering Mage with 50 points
>N-No, you don't understand, you should play White Wolf
>I'm literally warping reality by the fourth session
Do I have to even mention Exalted?

>>55340343
D&D as it is class and option based, is really dependent on having a bunch of crap out there.

It's built like a video game, where expansions add classes and stuff.

So the more options, the less boring the game is.

It's not like gurps where 2 books can do anything. It's built on an expansion system m

>>55340471
Gurps really doesn't believe in balance, as the game is built on GM support.

So your argument is invalid

>>55340496
It's really not. "I don't believe in balance" is not a helpful or useful answer to "this game isn't well-balanced."

>>55340683
I could kill your 50 point earth mage with 10 points

Gurps really doesn't have balance m

File: Memri_3.5.jpg (108KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 480x336px

>>55333883
T f u
f
u

>>55340700
Actually if you knew GURPS you couldn't, the "50 point" is a well-known "build" in the community, It literally only uses RAW to build a character that can end the entire universe in a single turn.

>>55340683
How about this: GURPS doesn't make a claim of everything being perfectly balanced, only that it provides options that can be balanced if the GM is paying attention. It's more focused on creating a good game and asks you to do more work in order to get such a thing.

3.5 is an inherently broken game, the LEAST problem being that half of the classes are worthless and a third of them are game-breakingly powerful. It's a game that makes the claim "These things are balanced against each other and all of your options are valuable in the right circumstances", and yet it's as badly balanced as said 50 point earth-breaking wizard.

While you can make the argument that a 100 point character in Gurps should be balanced against 100 point characters, GURPS also leaves that up to the players and the GM to a much higher degree than D&D does. There's no un-fucking Fighters using the rules in D&D, they're just shitty, but if you're not doing well with your fightan' guy in GURPS you are flushed with in-game options to optimize and fix said problems.

>>55340800
I do know gurps.

I would get a no roll, no dodge no DR inmate attack, and then just kill him.

>>55333883
Not really, rather it's a cake
that had custard added, custard goes with cake
that had jam added, jam goes with custard
that had crackers added, crackers goes with jam
that had cheese added, cheese goes with crackers
that had mustard added, mustard goes with cheese
that had bologna added, bologna goes with mustard
that had liver pate added, live pate goes with bologna...

>>55340343
The entirety of 5E is less interesting and involving than a single class in 3.5 could be, and no, I'm not talking about full casters.

>>55333883
>LOTR and 2001 aren't good
I can't possibly imagine what it would be like to live, being retarded as you are. You have my sympathy.

>>55340927
I can understand defending LotR, but honestly I can't see anything good about 2001 other than its influence.

>>55341026
It's not a sci-fi film, and if that was your expectation, you're bound to be disappointed.

>>55334698
Wasn't third edition playtested?

>>55341121
By total retards.

>>55341131
Odd, I remember it being something to the tune of 500 people.

>>55340811
> It's a game that makes the claim "These things are balanced against each other and all of your options are valuable in the right circumstances", and yet it's as badly balanced as said 50 point earth-breaking wizard.

>this game claims something that it doesn't claim and I'm irrationally upset

I'm gonna go ahead and do the same, and say that GURPS makes the claim that it's balanced, when it's anything but and requires intense effort on the GMs part to make a game work.

I mean, 3.5 actually has ample advice and tells the DM to be careful about what he allows into the game and to make decisions about what options he will allow or not allow depending on what kind of game he wants to run, but since you're willing to ignore that, I'm going to go ahead and also add that GURPS promised that it could run any kind of game well but it can barely run a few genres and none without heavy GM modification.

>>55340471
play CoC, faggot

>>55341177
The thing is that d&d is built like a video game.

The classes are built to improve at the same rate and be able to beat each other.

Gurps is built so that equal numbers of points aren't necessarily able to beat each other. A hundred point scientist can be beaten by some mook with a sling built on 10 points.

Gurps never claims to be balanced, and is a rules-heavy genetic system which always take lots of GM input.

3.5 is built to work with a balance, and it doesn't. It doesn't really claim to require a bunch of GM input but does.

Gurps knows what it is, 3.5 doesn't

>>55340811
>There's no un-fucking Fighters using the rules in D&D, they're just shitty,
I'm sorry you have a shit dm.

>>55341138
He didn't say it was a few people. Just that the people were retards.

The playtesters, as a a whole. tested the system based on the "proper" way to play. Blasster wizards instead of Save-or-die spells (as SoD spells weren't as effective in older editions, while damage spells were more effective). Clerics were healers, as opposed to the self-buffing warriors that became typical.

Instead of looking at the system on its own, ignoring the previous editions, they only tested it based on how things had always been. I'm sure there were a few who properly tested the material, but they were ignored as playing things "wrong".

>>55341281
>Gurps never claims to be balanced

Then why have point costs

>>55341369
They measure potential. Characters with the same point cost have the same potential, but their actual capabilities vary.

>>55340253
Vamp porn novels have been a thing for a while. Shit, I think the one I read from the public library was there 15-20 years ago and it was old enought the pages were turning orange.

>>55341385
Those are some clumsy cartwheels. If you're going to do mental gymnastics, at least put a little effort into it.

>>55341309
>tested the system based on the "proper" way to play.

They didn't make up 1500 convoluted rules for when a mage wants to play like a fighter?

Those stupid fucks!!

>Tries to use (x) in a way (x) isn't made for
>The makers of (x) are stupid

People like that, are why prepH has a warning label to not ingest.

D&d needs a simple disclaimer to solve most of the "balance" issues. Something easy to grasp.

>"This game isn't intended or made to play in a retarded fashion."

>>55341438
Are you retarded?

>>55341309
>Instead of looking at the system on its own, ignoring the previous editions, they only tested it based on how things had always been.
They didn't realize that the new gen of ttgamers, would play like fucking idiots.

Honestly, they should have.

>>55341437
It's not a measure of combat potential, it's a measure of power

Power can be anything from intelligence to a patreon, to an ally, etc.

A higher point character isn't necessarily better at fighter, just more powerful than the common man.

>>55341491
They won't understand that concept.

>>55341491
I should really have said resources.

A person with a higher point total has more resources than one without.

That can be in the form of wealth, friends, intelligence, combat experience, bombs, etc but the point total just lets you have more resources

>>55341480
The guys going HURR DURR and throwing fireballs against enemies that save more often and with twice to thrice the health they had in AD&D are the retards playing the game wrong, not the guys who figured out that Glitterdust fucks encounters in the ass.

>>55341471
>play a game in a fashion it wasn't intended for
>game fails to measure up to an arbitrary definition of balance now
>Game is retarded
>Anything explaining game is retarded
>Anyone disagreeing is retarded

Hmm.

>>55341491
nah, it's an attempt to balance characters. it's not meant to balance characters in combat but it is meant to balance characters.

>>55341558
>fuck up how the game plays so badly that the intended method of play is worse than save or lose spam/CoDzillas
>wow this isn't the fault of the developers at all how dare you blame WotC and braindead playtesters for not doing their jobs

I've seen the argument that editions of D&D before 3rd were focused on hitting the right balance between simulation and playability, while editions after 3rd were built more for balance. Is there any truth to this? One example that I've seen is that in folklore, and therefore in D&D before 3rd ed, Fly was a spell that lasted for hours, while after 3rd they "balanced" it down to only lasting for at most a few minutes.

>>55333883
Just give it a rest and play one of the 2 good editions of D&D (1e AD&D and 5e)

>>55341555
Lol

>Muh glitterdust!!

What are will saves?
What is being 11' apart?
What is "shoot the mage first"?

>Muh glitterdust tho!!!!!

>>55341629
Why is Fly lasting hours more simulationist than lasting minutes?

>>55341558
>design a game that includes obvious exploits all over the place
>gamers take advantage of exploits
>game isn't fun except for the abusers
>game design isn't retarded, you are!
really fires my synapses

>>55337423
There is, but it doesn't have the stuff 3.5 has. That's the problem. 5e has good rules, 3.5 has good content. Although, half the 5e rules are shit, and half the good 3.5 content is shit. As a result you have two games that are 3/4ths shit but people like to play D&D so they keep playing it.

>>55341646
Very, very low on the things you want to blind.

An invitation to fuck them over without even using a spell because now most of them won't be able to full attack.

Irrelevant because ranged combat does joke tier damage in 3.5.

But hey, keep doing that 5d6 half the time against things with 60 HP, that's helping.

>>55341629
That's a good example.

It's a play/game style issue. Minutes is now plenty of time, when so many games are just a series of set battle scenes.

>>55341678
If only there was an edition with lots of content but also good rules... though maybe it wouldn't be very D&D-like then, I guess.

>>55334894
Source?

>>55341629
3.5 has Overland Flight for long-lasting flight.

>>55341647
Because in folklore witches can fly on their brooms for hours.

>>55341703
Gleemax, so good fucking luck tracking it down.

>>55341728
Yes and?

If a wizard's spell doesn't work like how witches work in fairy tales it's not simulationist?

Why not have it work like Simon Magus, who is actually more of a wizard (and falls on his ass after a shorter period of time)?

Alternatively:
-witches get fly as a spell-like
-flying brooms exist as magic items
-where the fuck do you get "can fly for hours" even? I know "can fly" but I have never heard how long the time period is.

>>55341681
>Be mighty lv 3 wizard
>12 hp
>Four goblins prepare to fire at me
>I glitterdust one and blind him for 3 rounds with my all-powerful magic
>Three bow shots later I die
>But my encounter ending glitterdust!!!
>Dm sucks
>D&d sucks
>Everyone but me is dumb
>Go home and play WoW

>>55341820
wouldn't goblins with shortbows do 1d4?

You have a 1:64 chance to die from 3 hits (that assuming they even hit).

>>55337577
<3

>>55341820
That's you being a shitty player, plus some blasting spell would have had even less of an effect than using Glitterdust in the worst way possible. Drop prone for the +4 AC against ranged attacks or walk behind cover, let the party mop up on a joke encounter.

>>55333883
We've been having these threads every day for the last 17 years. I think we can stop now.

File: Edgeworth-shrug.gif (35KB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 256x192px

You jokers realize that 5e is Stone Soup edition and you're supposed to do the OSR thing by adding in your own mechanics to spice it and flavor it, right?

>>55341907
And 5E can cope with ToB that isn't watered down how, exactly?

>>55341887
20th anniversary or bust!

>>55341846
And you're assuming the one gobbie you can dust, fails it's save.

(Critters use the weapons I give them btw, these are using 1d6 bows)

And yes, they'll hit, using the same assumption.

>>55341944
Goblins have a negative Will save(as do orcs). Assuming 3 random goblins hit with medium shortbows and do enough damage to drop a Wizard to negative HP is a far larger stretch.

>>55341885
Where's the goalposts now?

The assertion was that the spell was "encounter ending". Now you're simply trying to survive by cowering like a cunt and letting your betters deal with those mean little gobbies.

Magecuck.

>>55341980
It's moot. Because that glitterdust was "encounter ending" ... that was the claim.

It's not, even against a very weak EL.

>>55341981
Blind is an encounter ending status effect. You not understanding that and instead bitching that you can't crowd control 4 shitters that aren't even a threat to a level 3 party tells us more about how little you know about the game.

Now try it against a clay golem that's set up as a boss fight for a level 6 or so party.

>>55342016
>2 ogres is (theoretically) a threatening encounter
>1 ogre gets blinded
>encounter is split into halves that are no longer threatening
>NO IT'S NOT ENCOUNTER ENDING REEEE

>>55342044
You didn't make it to the boss encounter. Because 4 little goblins lookouts just stomped you.

>>55333883
I dont watch anime cuz I'm not a manchild but you're hilariously wrong about Lotr and 2001.

>>55341026
That's cause you're a pleb

>>55342061
>Mages get to pick the exact set up of ALL encounters

No anon.

But we can keep on moving the goalposts if it helps you pretend you've played with a good dm.

>>55342116
The only goalpost moving that's happened was you insisting that Glitterdust, a spell that removes the ability to have big, dumb brute enemies be anywhere close to effective against a party, sucks because you can throw shitty low CR enemies at a party and the Wizard can't crowd control them all at once.

>>55342082
>I dont watch anime cuz
Hmmmmmm. You must not like the taste of other guy's penises.

>>55342165
Does your group go straight to the "boss" monster?

An ogre is likely to have a few mooks about. But I get the feeling that you don't play that way. It would require a little thinking. I'm sorry you've got a shit dm.

>>55342075
>oh wow, encounter ending spell doesnt't end every game only the ones that were meant to be epic!
kys

>>55341907
houserule: every time you think about playing 5e, play 3.5 instead

>>55342232
>Ogre with mooks
>blind ogre
>party mops up mooks then the ogre by himself afterwards as there's no longer a big threat to contend with

>>55342281
As you reach for the 3.5 books, stop and grab the 2ed ones.

>>55342260
It's not exactly"encounter ending" now is it?

Learn to read.

>>55342338
Optional: Once you have a big stack of core + sourcebooks well and truly in hand, use them to bludgeon yourself to death so we don't see any more of these stupid fucking threads.

>>55342294
The ogre is in the back carvern. The lookouts are near the entrance, waiting on a few ledges, with their bows.

What dm would have them all in one room?

>>55342360
>absolutely have to include multiple spread out enemies or use enemies with high Will saves or it WILL end an encounter
>not encounter ending

>>55342387
If the ogre's not even engaged in the fight for several rounds, what kind of retard would claim it was a fight with an ogre?

>>55342400
So basically it's "encounter ending", because in some very specific (tailored for the mage), it can blind(maybe), creatures in a 10' area?

Magecucks are funny.

>>55342387
Have you ever DMd yourself, anon?

Here's my take on it, as someone who isn't that other guy. Glitterdust is annoying to me, the DM. I don't like it. I don't like that the wizard can cast some magic sparkles that turn a bad guy into a joke. I don't understand what kind of game design goes into giving people the option of no-selling their enemies till they stop being dramatic or epic. I seriously don't. If you can explain it, I'd love the info.

>>55342416
You goalpost moving faggots brought the ogre into this.

Talk to them. I said 4 little gobbies with bows...then others said " oh ya? Well muh ogre!!"

>>55342432
It's encounter ending because it counters nearly half of the MM by itself and cripples many many MANY encounters lifted straight from modules.

>>55342435
Honest answer?

Because you're setting up your encounters in a not-so-great way. The 4 goblins just showed a way to block the spell. As would a sleeping ogre with a blanket, who wakes right after the spell is cast. Or 100 other reasonable things.

In a world of magic, why would anything not take simple precautions against magic? A door. A table to dive under. A spread out group of low level critters. All can make a mage burn spells, and make an encounter more entertaining and make more classes useful and fun.

Use the terrain. Use a couple low level critters. As dm You set the stage. You don't have to send antimage critters. Just use a little creativity.
Don't throw 2 ogres. Use a group of goblins with an ogre pet.

>>55342481
>straight from modules.
Well, there's a problem anon.

>>55342082
What's your defence of 2001?

>>55342560
>Use a group of goblins with an ogre pet.
You mean have a weaker encounter that's still effectively dealt with by blinding the ogre because of how rapidly lower CR enemies become obsolete? Even with a terrain advantage and slightly better bows they're still a joke to a CR 3 party whereas the ogre could potentially oneshot someone. This is bad advice and you'd realize that if you stopped to think about what you're actually saying.

>>55342481
>many many MANY encounters lifted straight from modules.
I can't speak about those. We've not used but 1 or 2 in years. They're usually not to our liking in many ways.

I'd suggest creating your own game anon.

File: bAiT Field.jpg (20KB, 720x534px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 720x534px

>>55333883
Not today.

>>55333883

Expressing opinions as fact and then leading the reader to the "obvious" conclusion is facebook political cartoon tier.

>>55342632
I've always created my own encounters, but the fact that you can't just use a module as written without Glitterdust McFaggot and Druidzillas raping everything kind of proves my point.

File: 1228837936558.jpg (124KB, 1062x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1062x600px

>Neon Genesis Evangelion gets praised as one of the best (mecha) anime of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.

Watching NGE was unironically the most influential turning-point of my life. It deserves all the praise it gets and then some.

>>55342662
>I've always created my own encounters,
>Module encounter suck
>ALWAYS used my own
>Module encounter..

Wait, what?

>>55342746
Just because I create my own encounters doesn't mean everyone does.

>>55342560
This is an awful answer, anon. Telling me I'm setting up my encounters wrong is one thing, but your logic is awful.

First of all, the four goblins can go eat a dick each. I'm talking about genuinely dramatic encounters.

Genuinely dramatic encounters don't have goblins running under the heels of ogres, they just don't. This point is, to some extent subjective, but I think you'd have to be pedantic to not allow it to go by.

Now, let's head into the territory of the silliest things I've ever seen used as justification for this shit. "In a world of magic," in a world where magic of this level is the purview of third level wizards who can only use it once a day. Wizards who are, by the average DnD fluff, astoundingly rare. If you're trying to sell me on a setting of your creation, okay, but that's not the world we're talking about when we're talking about average 3.5 DnD.

Now, precautions against ridiculously rare magic, prepared by an Ogre with an intelligence of 6? Okay, if that's what you like. Should I have the dragons pepper you with their built-in flamethrower from too-many-feet in the air?

"All can make a mage burn spells," so what? That's not a goal I want to have. Where, when reading fantasy literature, did you see the wizard be forced to waste such a puny, insignificant, silly spell just so the author could get them to the dramatic setpiece and not have them succeed by throwing glitter at it?

Making the mage burn their fireball is one thing, anon. Making them burn *anything* that looks like a serious spell, maybe. But glitterdust? Fucking glitterdust?

>>55333883
I don't agree with any of your examples.

>>55342798
>First of all, the four goblins can go eat a dick each. I'm talking about genuinely dramatic encounters.
Ok, pick one then.
>A Uber ogre who gets taken out by a lv 2 spell
>A few low level critters that confounded the PC's

Your ogre can eat the dick. It's not being dramatic in the slightest.

As for the setting? If mages are running around one-spell-fucking everything...then no reasonable npc would be without a few precautions.

Simply put, if your encounters aren't dramatic or entertaining enough, then step your game up and try something different. Mix it up a bit.

Or enjoying watching glitterdust fuck the game up, and make 3/4's of the classes unnecessary.

>>55342798
>Where, when reading fantasy literature, did you see the wizard be forced to waste such a puny, insignificant, silly spell just so the author could get them to the dramatic setpiece and not have them succeed by throwing glitter at it?

Never.

The bbeg never has low level guards. Such a thing is unheard of.

The wizard always runs in, and casts glitterdust and wins.

>>55342922
You mean a few low level critters that get rolled over by the PCs without having to spend spells at all.

>>55342798
>Genuinely dramatic encounters don't have goblins running under the heels of ogres, they just don't.
2ed mm said they did.
3.5 mm says ogres accept employment from evil things. Also they can be found in bands. A goblin with gold could hire one. Also, I think arms and equipment had an entry about goblin archers that ride ogres.

So ya..it's completely within reason that low level critters be found in the company of ogres.

>>55341281
>>55341369
>>55341385
I think the problem is when you people are saying "balanced" you're only thinking about combat and not anything else
That 10 point character with a sling can kill the 100 point scientist. But there are a lot of things the scientist can do that the 10 point slinger can't. Unfortunately, most rpgs revolve around conflict, and mortal combat is an inevitable form of conflict.

>>55343048
The scenario was that the bad ass mage is able to end the encounter on his own, with one spell.

Are you now adding in other PC's and moving the goalposts?

>>55343108
Defanging an encounter to the point where the rest of the party can mop it up without breaking a sweat IS winning an encounter in one spell solo. An encounter where the wizard doesn't even have to spend a spell to enable that isn't even a fucking encounter.

>>55343140
Gotcha then.

We're moving the goalposts.

>>55343140
So the mage isn't needed. Agreed.

>>55342699
Is that bait? I'm not sure if you're being serious or not.

>>55343321
Against literal goblins at level 3? No. I don't know why you thought they were.

>>55343331
This is bait

>>55342952
Nice reading comprehension. My argument isn't against low level guards, it's against glitterdust's existence forcing them for an encounter to be viable.

>>55343493
>My argument isn't against low lv guards
>Argues against low level guards being used

Autism.

>>55343522
The chunk of my argument you greentexted had nothing to say about low level mooks. Why quote it if you'd rather nitpick something that wasn't in it?

>>55343522
It's more autistic to lool at someone say a spell is great for ending encounters, nitpick what exactly ending an encounter entails, and then carefully craft an encounter to specifically nullify that particular strategy with homebrewed monsters acting with greater intelligence than their statblocks would indicate.

>>55343709
>then carefully craft an encounter to specifically nullify that particular strategy
4 goblins isn't some carefully crafted nullification strategy fool.

This shows the mentality of magecucks. Any simple encounter that doesn't cater to them, is some evil nullification strategy against them.

>What? The bad guy is 30 feet away, not 25?
>This is clearly an evil plot by the DM, meant to nullify my awesomeness!!!

>A ladder?
>My horse companion can't climb ladders!!
>This is clearly an evil plan by the dm, meant to weaken by awesome druid!!

It's always the same two class that cry like little twats if everything isn't tailored to their PC's benefit.

>>55343572
Are you seriously not thinking?

>>55344298
You'd have a point if you were 'nullifying' anything instead of assuming that you shut the Wizard down just because you made it not worth the time or resources to cast a spell instead of letting his party members take the encounter down.

>>55344446
You're moving the goalposts.

The argument was that glitterdust dust fucked every encounter in the ass.

My counter was to offer up 4 little gobbies and that confused the little bitch mages. Then the magecucks started squirming and changing the argument.

Much like your post just did.

>>55344507
>The argument was that glitterdust dust fucked every encounter in the ass.
This was literally never the argument.

>>55341555
>>55344524
I'm sorry, what?

>>55340473
>all D&D is 3.5
I can only imagine how much money you waste on mobile games

>>55344560
In what world does "Glitterdust fucks encounters in the ass" equate to Glitterdust fucking every single encounter ever over even though Outsiders have good Will saves as a rule of thumb and there are monsters with Blindsight? Actually think about what was posted for one second, you autistic fucktard.

>>55344603
Read the thread dumbass.
Read the guy claiming to be a dm, and how glitterdust fucks up everything.

Seriously, learn to read. Lurk more.

>>55341928
You do realize 5e Paladin exists already, and is about half way to a ToB class already.

>>55344603
>Outsiders have good Will saves as a rule of thumb and there are monsters with Blindsight?
^^evil plot to nullify the mage

>>55344652
It's a ToB class if ToB classes were really shitty. It's a third of a Crusader at its best.

>>55344667
When they're used normally? No. The problem there is that by the time they're regular staples, your Wizard has a dozen+ methods of dealing with them.

When they're used by a faggot GM who is spamming them because "SEE? TOLD YOU GLITTERDUST WASN'T BROKEN EVEN THOUGH I COULDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT TOUCHING ANY BEATSTICK WITH A BAD WILL SAVE!"? Yes.

>>55333883
you're a total faggot and you've contributed nothing.

>>55344639
Am I the guy "claiming" to be a DM? As if that was such a difficult thing to believe. You do realzie DMs have to exist for you to play the game? In fact, there's probably a higher concentration of DMs in tg than elsewhere. Do you think all those worldbuilding threads come from people like you?

But what I really wanted to get to was that I never said Glitterdust fucked everything either. What I said is that Glitterdust is annoying because it's too effective for what it is.

>>55333883

I once wrote a 5 page essay for my DM as to why I was sick of playing 3.5 and everything I personally thought was wrong with it. He never would shake on the matter so I just stopped gaming at his table.

My point here is, you could write a New York Times best seller that is nothing but trash talking the dumpster fire that is D&D 3/.5/PF, and you are gonna have people defend it regardless.

>>55342281

I'd rather drink bleach personally.

I'll play D&D Basic before I even LOOK at 3.5

>>55346277
Yeah, I'm not going back to 3.5e or PF after 5e.

File: Unlessugotbunz.jpg (64KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 312x445px

>>55336431
So you're saying YOUR opinion good, MY opinion bad?

Ooga ooga!

lol!

>>55346277
>>55346417
Personally I prefer 3.5

Sure it's a hideous unbalanced mess, but at least character building is interesting and fun and I have a lot of choices to make, unlike 5e where having more than 2 important choices is a luxury

>>55346441

I'll take Limited Class Options over pointless Bloat any day of the week

>>55346541
And that's your opinion, mine is the opposite

Searching through the rulebooks for what I want is an adventure in of itself, with the treasure at the end being a character who can do some crazy shit

>>55341698
If you mean 4e, yes, it didn't have very good rules for D&D.

>>55346558
I can respect that.
D&D3.5e/PF really play to the concept of finding toys and games and wanting to play with them and see how they mix together, and I think a lot of people don't realize that's the appeal of the system.

D&D5e while not the harsh dungeon crawls of the old days like they initially said they wanted to recreate, it still does make for a better game for the people who think char creation should be a minor activity that you get out of the way to get into the game itself.

>>55334698
>Zero playtest and devs literally don't knowing shit about their own system
That would be true for 3.0.

Then they play tested it, talked to their whole company about their own experiences, designed the miniatures game, and took all of that to produce a revised edition that they named 3.5e. It's playtested as fuck

3.5 is literally 3.0 (playtested edition)

>>55342387
So now you're implying that a wizard is only going to have a single spell prepared?

>>55335096
>The lore, art, and style of 3.5 is infinitely superior
This is a big part of why I run a 3.5e campaign. That and the splat books mean that no two PCs are the same, even with the same races/classes, they still end up being totally different.

>The hundreds of prestige classes were kinda retarded but they fed so much lore and content that it seemed like you had infinite options to choose from
This too, it's stupid that there are so many but in reality, you only need to pick from a dozen for whatever you are and even if you don't take them, it's nice to know there are options and you could do all sorts of crazy things if you wanted. Now and then, you do take a crazy one for variety.

>>55335618
>3.5 is great because of how much content is in it. You can make almost anything and have mechanics backing up your idea.
>That's also it's weakness, to much damn content.
>I'd prefer have to much shit and worry about how it could potentially break a game rather than the opposite. At least in the former you can talk to the DM and reel your over powered ass back to the groups level.
My feelings exactly. All you need to do is say no to the obviously broken build. If a PC is taking potentially-broken stuff but not completing the rest of the combo, then you don't even have to say no to them.

The variety and depth to the game is amazing and the reason why I just can't get into 5e. And won't even consider 4e.

>>55333883
>D&D 3.5 gets praised as one of the best (tabletop) games of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.
But its influence is terrible. 3.x led to D20-ing everything in existence, the idea that any system that isn't crunchy and fairly complex is baby stuff, the subordination of the GM to the rulebook and the expectation that he's cheating if he ever goes off-script, sunk cost fallacy and an unwillingness to try new shit because of an expectation it'll be as involved a process as 3.x, etc. The D&D you want to praise for its influence is OD&D, or old school D&D in general, and not 3.x.

>>55347837
4e comes closer than 5e in terms of variety and depth

Still nothing compared to 3.5, even if most of the time when I play 3.5 my thoughts are focused on "but how can I hit EVEN HARDER?"

>>55346568
Obviously, since having good rules for D&D means caster supremacy and obfuscation.

>>55347882
>The D&D you want to praise for its influence is OD&D, or old school D&D in general, and not 3.x.
this. 3.X literally didn't influence any other gameline outside of d20, it brought d20 up to speed with other RPG systems.

>>55333883
Is 3.0 better than 3.5?

>>55350201
No.

Unless you like a broken version of Haste, in which case yes.

>>55333883
> Something gets released which is really good
> because it's so good it becomes really popular
> because it's popular, everyone hates it

Besides this, every new DnD rule books ride on the success of older DnD versions. They don't need to be good, because it's "DnD".

>>55347775
>3.5 is literally 3.0 (playtested edition)
Source?

>>55350201
Honestly I've seen arguments for 3.0 being better than 3.5, most of which are to the effect of "with only a handful of exceptions, the changes made in 3.5 made no fucking sense".

>>55350799
Why do people keep thinking popularity is synonymous with good?
No you retards, it just means it has popular appeal.

>>55346541
It's not just limited class options, though, it's limited class options plus really bad classes that don't match up to individual classes from 3.5 even if you put the laziest fucker behind the wheel.

>>55342608
When something like a movie that's designed to entertain reaches critical acclaim, its good. If it is viewed by the average consumer as amazing, it's good. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't good.

>>55351403
I don't say it popularity automatically means it's good.
But I think LotR is good, because it kind of created the type of genre people nowadays still like and create books of, and play roleplaying games.

LotR is pretty much the inventor of Elves + Humans + Halflings + Dwarfs + Orcs, and throw some wizards in there.

If you play classic DnD, how can you simultaneously shit on LotR, I don't get it.

At the same time, no not everything that's popular is good. Especially nowadays. But this doesn't mean that it can not happen that something good also becomes quiet popular.

>>55347823
You magecucks...

You only need glitterdust. That was the claim.

Goalpost moving retards.

>>55351538
You're not at all bother by say, the movie's horrific pacing?

>>55351950
The only person moving the goalposts here is you. Refusing to admit that Glitterdust shuts down entire types of encounters in favor of pretending it's not broken because it doesn't rape the whole game solo just makes you look like a dipshit.

>>55345923
>But what I really wanted to get to was that I never said Glitterdust fucked everything either. What I said is that Glitterdust is annoyi

Literally that was said over and over.

Lurk more so you look less stupid.

>>55352008
Looking over the thread, no, nobody said that despite your insistence that they did.

>>55351987
Look retarded chimp, a lot of spells/actions/abilities can shut down many encounters.

A well placed fireball can end an encounter.

A critical hit from a charging fighter can end an encounter.

A turn undead could.

Hundreds of things can. It's up to the DM to adjust his game's encounters to allow/not allow this to happen.

Seriously, some of you module using wannabes need to up your game and learn to dm.

If you're not clever enough to design your encounters in a way that a lv 2 spell doesn't prematurely end it all the time, then you fail as a dm.

File: go fuck yourself - the book.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>55333883

>>55352094
1) you're a liar
2) you're stupid

Pick one.

>>55352111
>A well placed fireball can end an encounter.
Not any encounter worth talking about because HP scales so much faster than Fireball's damage.
>A critical hit from a charging fighter can end an encounter.
Against low HP enemies less than 30% of the time at best. Otherwise the chance of it happening with a x4 weapon is so low that it doesn't matter.
>A turn undead could.
If you build around high Charisma, take feats, and the encounter has a lot of weak undead, yes.

None of those are comparable to making giants, golems, and anything with a low Will save your bitch with a single spell you don't even have to specialize in.

>>55352132
I pick 3: You don't know how to read.

>>55351985
It helps the subtle realization that something's wrong with Hal. its tension building. Same way that Sergio Leone builds tension with nothing but two men starting at each other with the knowledge dawning that someone's gonna draw

>>55335096
>cuck
What does this even mean anymore?

>>55352422
"I am a retard and you can safely ignore everything I just posted"

File: 1489947117691.png (141KB, 623x432px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 623x432px

>>55333883
>LotR gets praised as one of the best (fantasy) novels of all time, but it's not really all that good. If anything, it only deserves praise for its influence.
Wrong. Get the fuck out.

>>55351582
>But I think LotR is good
Yes, good, ok, fine
>because it kind of created the type of genre people nowadays still like and create books of, and play roleplaying games.
LotR didn't even birth those -- stuff like Conan, and Fafrd and the Grey Mouser, the worlds of which are a lot closer to how D&D actually is, did.
But, more importantly -- No, it's not! It's a book! What makes a good book isn't how many RPGs it spawns, what the fuck?

>>55352202
All you listed, are EASY things for a competent dm to handle.

I think I get the issue here and understand the disconnect between our group and so many here, over the whole "mages rule".

Too many of you look at a module or try to use an exact encounter level for your encounters. Instead of realizing that a monk with no ranged weapon, will struggle more vs a ranged encounter, than an archer build, or a blaster sorcerer.

A dm should use a bit of common sense to set the stage and create fun and entertaining/challenging encounters, based off what his players are playing.

4 fighters? Or 4 mages? A mixed group? All of those will likely struggle/fail on different encounters. Some encounters will be much tougher than the EL, based on what PC's are involved.

If you allow a 2nd lv spell to prematurely end too many of your encounters, then as a dm, you've fucked up. You're not providing a fun/challenging encounter. You're just phoning it in, and then crying about it.
It's really that simple.

>>55352269
What about the 2 minutes of blank screen that the movie starts with, followed by 20 minutes of chimps fucking around, and then something like another 40 minutes of fairly pointless shit that we see before Hal is even introduced?

>>55344639
Ok but if you're completely hamstrung when designing encounters, because glitterdust, a 2nd level spell, can be an encounter-ender whenever you don't carefully create circumstances to mitigate that SPECIFIC spell, then I'd call that spell broken.

What exactly can, say, a Paladin do at 3rd level that continues to END ENCOUNTERS IN ONE ROUND if the DM makes the mistake of designing an otherwise-level-appropriate encounter without explicitly avoiding that flaw?

And, of course, then there's the entire rest of the Wizard's spellbook.

>comparing 3.5 to true art

kek, it's just a bloated and unbalanced grognard game

>>55352783
You realize that the DM has to specifically design encounters for those supposed 'encounter enders' to actually work and that the actual guidelines the game gives you makes all of them not work, right? None of those are the same thing as an enemy having a low Will save, which by the way is the lowest average save from CR 1/8 through 12 with the exception of 10.

>>55352967
Agreed to some degree.

I'll toss in that the DM should add specific encounters as a rule. If the DM isn't designing specific, challenging, encounters, and a pc is fucking them up, then the DM has only himself to blame.

>>55340847
> mustard goes with cheese
Hanging's too good for you.

>>55352812
Seriously, you should be designing your encounters "specifically".

What do you do? Decide an encounter is needed, open the book to a cr lv, and grab a monster, start everyone at 50' and say roll init?

Put a little bit more effort into it.

>>55352804
I'm sorry, you're right. You're smarter than everyone because you don't like popular stuff

>>55353039
Here's the core problem with your argument.

If you don't counter a Fireball spammer, he doesn't break encounters that weren't already worthless due to how low CR enemies obsolete themselves against a party with higher levels. 5d6 is 17.5 damage on average on a failed save: the average CR 2 HP is 20.55, they have an okay chance of passing the save, Fire resistance is the most common elemental resistance in the game, and enemies at low HP are still just as functional as enemies at max HP.

If you don't counter a charging Fighter, he doesn't break encounter design with any sort of frequency, and even if you do counter him it's as easy as including difficult terrain.

If you don't counter a Turn Undead spammer Cleric... he erases a subsection of undead encounters that can be overpowered with Turn Undead, which is less than you think. Okay, but not worth worrying about when that's the least of a DM's problems with Clerics.

If you don't counter a Wizard with Glitterdust prepared at the encounter design level, he has a very good chance of breaking an encounter in one spell.

>>55352804
that's because the movie isn't just about Hal
shocking, I know. It's almost like they thought the movie they were making was somehow more significant than MAN FIGHT ROBOT IN SPACE. How pretentious can you get?

>>55353203
>turn undead [...] is less okay than you think
I remember DMing for a party consisting of a couple vets and a couple new players. We were well aware of the system's flaws, so the party tends towards a bunch of knight-esque martials. One of the new players wants to play a cleric, so I allow it and just resolve to keep an eye on his spell prep so he doesn't accidentally stumble into CoDzilla mode.

Off they go to fight an evil cult. About halfway through the second session, they raid a tomb. I give them a bunch of zombies as a welcoming party. The cleric decides to test his turn undead thing and blows the encounter away. After I tell him the results, he just stares at the all the enemies on the grid for a second, then turns to me and says "Wow, that's some bullshit."

>>55353787
Like I said, subset of encounters. Spamming shitty undead at a Cleric is just asking for it while an encounter with a couple of strong undead is basically immune.

>>55353085
I say "man isn't this monster cool. I'd sure love to watch while the players find out about this."

I'm sorry, is the game not about doing cool stuff to you?

>>55353787
>>55353865
>mix creatures
>a horde of zombies with some nastier shit in the middle of it
>turn undead solves one problem by turning the zombies but it doesn't get rid of the nastier shit
You don't seriously just throw multiples of the same creature for each combat, do you?

>>55353787
Wait, since when did Turn Undead actually win encounters? As far as I can remember it just delayed the inevitable, because all it does is make them flee.

>>55353787
So, you had a lv4+ cleric, against a bunch of 2HD zeds. You also had somewhere below 16HD of Zeds. (~8) (without stat bonus, assuming max roll)

Else wise, he's just prolonged the issue of the zeds. They will flee from -him- for a minute, or cower if they cannot. But, him approaching within 10ft of them causes the effect to end immediately.

If they have room to flee, this could have tipped off things deeper in that intruders are inbound. And now that encounter has zeds ontop of whatever, and he's used at least one turning attempt to supply that encounter with the zombies.

>>55334990
>e6

Amen. Playing in PF with an e6-like patch and it's really nice. We're still only level 5 but it's good to know we won't be facing a lot of high-level bullshit. Rolling with a slayer, a barb and two fighters helps too.

Anyways, one of the best superpowered campaigns I've played in was in 3.5. We were descendants of the Gods blessed with powers beyond mortal men, tasked with leading the Empire to the future.

How do you do that? We were level 3s in player classes. A fucking dire tiger with some extra goodies was a threat calling for the whole party and a company of troops. A troll was an extinction level event.

It was awesome.

>>55354381
Seriously, is there ANYTHING wrong with e6? Despite looking, I've never found a single criticism of it.

>>55333883
3.5 is a fucking convoluted mess. It was my first tabletop game ever, and I'm surprised I stuck with the hobby after the fact. It had a ridiculous amount of focus on wargaming mechanics, and if it wasn't for build guides I found online, I would've gotten lost reasing about the stupid amounts of customization options available. Any game mechanics that allows the creation of Pun-Pun to exist needs to be thrown in a dumpster.

>"You can make anything you want, and there's mechanics to support your choice, cuz MUH OPTIONS!"
>implying you couldn't do that with any game provided you know what your doing and have a competent DM.

>>55354703
Level 1-2 are still shit, lots of classes don't get off the ground until after level 6 so they're really not fun to play, blasters are even worse in a low level game.

>>55346434
Nope. I said no such thing in the slightest.

The fact that you need to defend OP by saying I did just points out how desperately needy OP i and how stupid you are.

>>55354732
I would have never stuck with RPGs if 5E was my first game.

File: 1503960897323.jpg (13KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 326x326px

>>55333883
3.5 is bad but your post is also bad and you're a dumbass

>>55353865
I had absolutely set up the encounter with Turn Undead in mind. I figured he was a new player so it would be good to give him some time to play with his tools. It was just funny to see him, as a new player, react to it.

>>55354189
Yeah, it was a large enough area that they could corner and destroy split up zombies.

>>55354703
Druids are still retarded.

>>55353868
>I say "man isn't this monster cool. I'd sure love to watch while the players find out about this."
And now you know. It wasn't cool if it was scoffed at and 1 pc ended it. So up your game. Don't allow the next one to go that way.

>>55353986
>You don't seriously just throw multiples of the same creature for each combat, do you
A lot of tg doesn't.

Itt, it was said that low level mooks just aren't cool enough. And that having smaller monsters mixed in is just boring and dumb.

>>55355138
Or maybe people are just recognizing that one big scary guy is well integrated into genre expectations and that 3.x fails to deliver that in a satisfying manner at low levels without serious homebrew (not to mention modules falling flat on their faces).

>>55355449
This

File: consider.jpg (33KB, 672x612px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 672x612px

>>55333883
>LOTR and 2001 aren't good.

>>55354790
Level 1 and maybe 2 sucking is such an ancient thing that it's sort of expected and even dramaturgically (bleh) it can be a good thing to be the FNG. If you don't want that, start at 3.

What classes do you think get horribly nerfed in e6?

3.5 is insanely imbalanced, but I will say that considering that the makers of the game had a limited amount of time to playtest, while there are entire websites almost entirely devoted to finding ways to optimize or break the game, and their are way more optimizers online then their were playtesters, I am not surprised that it turned out the way it did

>>55355849
Off the top of my head: Warlock, PsyWar, PsyRogue, Dread Necro, Duskblade.

>>55339137
>banning Tome of Battle because it makes martials useful
Found the retard

>>55354732
This was my experience with 4e ironically enough.

>>55354732
>Any game mechanics that allows the creation of Pun-Pun to exist needs to be thrown in a dumpster.

Apart from Pun-Pun's requirements that are literally impossible to meet outside of a forum post. Why pretend you know what your talking about if you then just go and reveal you don't know shit? step it up.

>>55356479
He said the exact opposite of banning them.

>>55333883
Nah its purdy guhd, ur just faggin

>>55341820
>>55341646

Glitterdust is a level 2 spell. The average level 3 optimized wizard has an int modifier of +3 or +4, meaning that the DC should be 15 or so. A goblin- the one from the monster manual at least- has a will save of -1. That's a 20% success rate against glitterdust. 30% percent chance to if you've only got a +2 int modifier. Not counting if you have spell focus (conjuration).

Not to mention, Glitterdust is a area-of-effect spell. You could catch two or all three of them in it, depending on how it's positioned. Or use Grease with Shape Spell, if they're too far away. Even if they succeed their reflex saves, they need to make a balance check to do much of anything, and since they don't have 4 or more ranks in balance, they're flatfooted for the rogues in your party.

Then because you're obviously a Conjurer specialist, you have the Abrupt Jaunt Immediate Magic feature. Any time you're attacked, you can just- as a reaction- teleport away from the attack immediately. The arrow hits the spot you were standing a moment ago.

Low level encounter ending spells:

>1. Grease (Reflex)
>2. Glitterdust (Will)
>3. Stinking Cloud (Fortitude)

>>55356766
Ah, my dslexia kicked in and made me read it as 'aren't'

>>55356830
That's cute, but you could've just said "I cast sleep, all encounters pre-4 are auto-win".

>>55356887
Yeah... Though when I make wizards, I tend to ban enchantment and evocation. Mostly because enchantment is the least important out of the various schools (save for evocation, which is the absolute worst school), and when we get to higher levels, there are so many creatures that are immune to mind-affecting spells that it's not very good in the long run.

Divination destroys over the plot, Conjuration destroys battles against multiple creatures, Necromancy destroys battles against powerful boss-level creatures, and transmutation destroys obstacles of all kinds. Illusion is pretty good for everything if used creatively (And shadow spells let you bypass prohibited schools)...

Then for the other two schools-

Enchantment destroys low-level and non-plant, non-construct, non-undead creatures, and Evocation destroys the wizard's own spell slots.

>>55336183
>proficiency system is fucktarded
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you're proficient in something you add the bonus to it plus whatever modifiers you have.

Why does it need to be more complex than that?

File: 1301870920712.jpg (32KB, 498x614px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 498x614px

>>55351987
>Refusing to admit that Glitterdust shuts down entire types of encounters
It doesn't.
>in favor of pretending it's not broken
It's not.
>it doesn't rape the whole game solo
It doesn't.
Glitterdust is not brokenly powerful (or at least, no more than any other save-or-suck). What makes glitterdust so great is that its usable in wide variety of situations. As a save or suck, it is basically ineffective only against things that have blindsight (Oozes and some Aberrations) which are fairly rare around low levels. And it has the secondary utility of highlighting invisible/hidden creatures. Basically, if you're not sure what you're going to be fighting, you won't go too wrong with Glitterdust.

>>55357509
Pretty sure that Glitterdust does, in fact, totally shut down encounters where you fight big stupid fighter-type enemies. That's the entire reason this conversation even happened. It may not be Solid Fog tier since it has a save, but monster Will saves are terrible for the first fourth of the game.

>>55355057
>Druids
Oh yeah, forgot about that one.

>>55357568
>Pretty sure that Glitterdust does, in fact, totally shut down encounters where you fight big stupid fighter-type enemies.

I'm sorry you had a shit dm.

>You see an ogre!!
>He's in the open, exactly 50' away!
> I cast glitterdust
>He doesn't save, you all hack him to bits
>Roll for treasure!

Seriously, I'm sorry you had a shit dm anon.

>>55357967
That's not shit DMing. As another anon pointed out higher up the thread, a single strong enemy is genre appropriate.

I'm sorry you wasted your time on a shit system that doesn't work to make good stories AND manage to keep its combat fun at the same time. If I wanted to get together with my friends to play wargames I would just do that. Then I wouldn't need to DM, too.

>>55357967
>Golems, giants, orcs don't exist
>Parties will never fight them in numbers smaller than 3 and it'll never be in an area where they can't spread out, it'll always be in the wide open
I'm sorry you were born with brain damage.

>>55358053
>genre appropriate
That's funny shit.

Literally anything could be under that blanket of "genre".

There's nothing fun or entertaining about encounters that 1player constantly one shot ends.

Allowing bullshit that fucks up the group's fun in an encounter, that's what's not genre acceptable.

And it's the DM's job to see to it. If a PC is glitterdusting everything and the DM isn't stopping that sillyness, then you've got a shit dm.

Hate to break it to you.

>>55358124
so the system makes it harder for GMs? that's not great.

>>55358124
This is a thread about 3.5e being shit. I think you've easily become the clearest evidence that the claim is true.

>>55358150
Not really harder for decent dm's.

Just harder for module addicted DM's who have a group of munchkins.

Balance issues? Maybe for some. We've had minimal trouble with it. Others seem to. Are we just awesome? Or do the other groups suck?

I dunno. Both or neither. Take your pick. We're used to bigger battle scenes, deeper plots etc. Maybe if we changed our style, we'd bitch about balance and scream " 3.5 sucks!!".

>>55358155
Shit players and GM's make any system shit.

>>55358201
>Bigger battle scenes
>Deeper plots
>Same anon who shat on the idea of genre

Here's the reality, asshole. You have no taste that isn't warped, no clue that you haven't lost up your ass and no concept of good tabletop roleplaying that has ever managed to make it past the thick layer of oozing shit slowly leaking out of your brain and filling your skull.

You're a waste of time, anon. Worse than the OP of this thread. I hope in some measure of time you wake up to the reality that you've literally been arguing against the possibility of better games from a position of total and absolute conformity.

>>55358343
>Play a game for years
>Enjoy it
>Anon is too retarded to play right
>"You are doing it wrong!! Stop having fun when me and my group of downs syndrome buddies can't!! Reeeeee!"

Hmm.

>>55358693
For someone who played the game for years you have no actual understanding of it, or why "warp encounters around the Wizard or he will destroy them" is an admission that your argument was wrong to begin with.

File: nge.jpg (306KB, 970x868px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 970x868px

I find the lack of defences for NGE in this thread pretty funny.

>>55359013
>characters aren't allowed to have inner conflict
>implying Asuka is a prize
shitty comic
but yeah, NGE is kind of hard to defend on the same level as either of the other two works

File: Evangelion.jpg (94KB, 616x577px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 616x577px

>>55359013
>we order them in bulk
had a chuckle

Enlighten me to why you never go into pfg to spam this?

I know why you dont for a 3.5 general, the dont exist. Why post this looking for the last autist who plays it on /tg/? You seem addicted to drama.

>>55362440
enlighten us all as to why you would bump this?

>>55354732
>implying you couldn't do that with any game provided you know what your doing and have a competent DM.
Not in 5e. Also, "your" a retard.
> Any game mechanics that allows the creation of Pun-Pun to exist needs to be thrown in a dumpster.
They literally don't, it uses NPC-only options and shady interpretations of the rules. Have you even looked at punpun? Guess what: 99.9999% of players never play pun pun so it's like walking to work to avoid getting in a car crash on a straight road in broad daylight, you fucking moron.

>>55354861
This. 5e is fun but even normoniggers are getting sick of it. I just enjoy it being a bit more homebrewy than 3.5.

>>55356887
>everything with CR 4 has 4 hit dice
Yeah you've never run a game of 3.5. Just shut up, faggot. The minotaur would like to talk to you.

>>55357149
Well, (1) it means all classes have the same to-hit with their chosen weapon, and (2) the bonuses increase slow as fuck in 5e. Fighters are nothing special except some gay-ass combat maneuvers, they get more and more mechanically complicated and just end up being boring under all of it.

>>55362440
Because PFG doesn't give a shit about his spam. He gets an entire thread of (you) idiots posting shit in his own threads.

>>55362683
>Fighters are nothing special except some gay-ass combat maneuvers, they get more and more mechanically complicated and just end up being boring under all of it.
You can go Champion instead and just get wacky DPS, can't you? I thought that was the whole appeal of that subclass, was the damage > martial maneuvers deal

>>55356408
Warlock and Dread Necro - yeah. Especially Dread Necro, you need to drop Animate Dead to level 3 as for clerics for it to function properly.

PsyWar and Duskblade I think do okay. They mostly seem nerfed due to other classes being somewhat better.

PsyRogue can't say.

Fighters are nerfed hard. Frankly they become full blown NPC class due to the fact that you can get feats after level 6.

>More books is more fun
>Muh 1000 prestige classes
>Overly complex mechanics is what makes it fun
The only ones defending 3.5e are people who had massive faggots for DMs and never actually played a good campaign, thus being
forced to forever play a number crunching figurine battles instead of an actual RPG.
I feel sorry for you if you think 3.5e is good in comparison to 5e.
If you ask any good DM what his favorite edition is, they will always tell you 5e.

>>55333883
There are issues in stacking of bonuses in most of the subsystems, and making each variant use similar streamlined rules. There is also a problem that some game changing or necessary customization choices are pooled in with unnecessary customization.

Most of the essential problems were never fixed by popular revisions. Pathfinder jacked up the bonuses and customization choices but didn't address essential flaws. 4th edition turn everyone into quasi-wizard super heroes. 5th edition has some of the most broken features, low level spells dealing millions in damage, spells banned from play, and so on only in it's first year due to being designed for balance.

In that way it's still better than a lot of the "updates" that replaced it but it could use some minor tweaking with ideas introduces in those other editions. You could use a AD&D 2e style spell casting system and spell progression rules. Some pathfinder customization, racial-class bonuses, and class capstone features. Maybe use the concentration mechanic in 5e but not apply it so randomly, using it for powerful effects like bigby and not levitation or invisibility. Unify bonus types, change some to giving advantage instead of a flat bonus.

>>55333883
>LotR gets praised as one of the best (fantasy) novels of all time, but it's not really all that good.
Stopped reading here.

>>55354732
The 3.5 game mechanics don't allow for the creation of Pun-Pun. it requires very liberal interpretation of various things which any DM with reading comprehension beyond a 12 year old would pick up on. Many of the insane builds required the DM to waiver the rules or present them in a very lax way, like allowing a character to join 8 different secret societies and have 3 different blood lines for prestige class combos.

>>55362946
I like the prestige classes and interesting mechanics. Incarnum, the Binder, Tome of Battle... fuck, even Truenaming would be awesome as shit if you houserule in fixes.

>>55362946
You don't crunch numbers. Your character is not supposed to be qualified for all of the options available. The options just give you various ways to achieve the same result. Look at 5e now call each class path a prestige class or a base class, and assume that each class is getting preselected bonus feats. That's the main difference in character creation, except in 5e one choice is obviously better and some paths are ass.

>>55362946
>I play fan fic magic realms

Your autistic opinion is disregarded.

>>55363073
>You could use a AD&D 2e style spell casting system and spell progression rules.
Hopefully 6ed will change that back to 2ed rules. And take item creation rules back to 2ed. And weapon/no weapon profs as well.

In fact, hopefully they make 6ed a slightly updated 2ed.

>>55363128
>would be awesome as shit if you houserule in fixes.

/Tg/ gets triggered by such talk.
They can't munchkin a game if a couple simple fixes are applied.

>>55363337
They tried to market 5e as a throw back to AD&D 2e. Instead they just made a mish mash reinterpretation of everything designed by spreadsheets.

The main problem with 6e that I can think of is that it continues this trend of Wizards to flip over the table every few years. Interns of today will be lead designers of tomorrow, just like Mearls.

>>55363462
Yeah. I don't have high hope that it won't be a clusterfuck of a mess.

Sadly.

>>55363479
Or a joke, like 4ed.

>>55363479
Just look at the popular mechanics these day. One person concentrates banishment on the toughest enemy, the others mop up the minions, break concentration and then gank the boss. Rinse and repeat. Very simplistic and unexciting, that's how WotC designs mechanics.

AD&D had a lot more to track, with tables and situational variables and modifiers. Less fast paced but more depth, which is the opposite goal of today.

>>55363366
I'm sure even the absolute worst grognard would agree that the truenamer needs work.

Mostly because as-is, it isn't even functional by RAW. As in, its abilities plain do not work.

>>55363118
It requires DM intervention to not work. You could possibly argue that there could be some extra hoops at the part where he gets infinite stats, but none of those arguments are based on RAW.

I'm not saying it's not stupid, and it requires meta-knowledge from the player of course, so in-universe it can not really happen feasibly, but it works.

>>55363204
>except in 5e one choice is obviously better and some paths are ass.

Are you sure you didn't want to write 3.5 there?

The difference between a "bad" character of a class and a "good" on in 5e is like 1% of what it is in 3.5.

>>55363489
The punchline being "green boxes shatter muh immersion"?

>>55363073
>5th edition has some of the most broken features, low level spells dealing millions in damage, spells banned from play, and so on only in it's first year due to being designed for balance.

wat.

Explain please, I know nothing of these.

>>55363999
They're around on various sites. I'm sure there are even youtube tutorials explaining some of them.

>>55364577
At least give me a pointer, man, all "infinite damage 5e D&D" gives me is bitching about cantrips.

>>55363955
No, you got that mixed up. It requires DM intervention to work at all. If anything Pun-Pun whining is more than a noob detector.

>>55364593
Okay, where?

>>55364591
Cantrip bitching is a good place to start. A lot of the principle would be applicable to other spells too.

>>55364614
Okay. So where is the infinite damage?

>>55364599
It has been a decade since I looked at it but I believe it was in the requirements to to the initial few steps. Either the shape or the supernatural ability of the form.

You can also look at the three or so other people that explained to you that it doesn't work.

>>55364639
They made the claim it doesn't work, but proved nothing.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)#FAQ

Unless you have anything else to add on top of that, I think this FAQ covers all of the most basic claims on why it wouldn't work.

>>55356573
Nothing in 4e comes close to being pun pun levels of stupid.

I've seen maybe one infinite damage 4e build, and even that required misreading a few rules.