3.5 Problems

Your faggotry has no end, does it?

>>50468518
>Because there was a similar thread a day ago where people were breaking apart such issues and I'd like to continue those brainstorms if possible.
Why?

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

If you don't like 3.5 then don't play it. Problem solved. There are dozens of other games out there.

>>50468518
every things is too expensive to martials, and even then they get shit for they buck

>>50468543
System analysis is a hobby in and of it's self.

File: 1sWgsy4.jpg (315KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1920x1080px

>>50468552
>>50468518
That was #10 actually, I forgot one.
On top of excessive/uneven feat taxes, martials also only get the 2+INT skill points.

>>50468518
>HP bloat

Oh fuck, it's this faggot again.
Just because you don't understand a system doesn't mean the fault lies with it. Even ten year olds understand HP, but here you are, once again, trying to create a meme out of your own stupidity.

These gay circle jerk threads really are just for a few faggots to bolster each other's butthurt because a system they don't like is different from the systems they wish were more popular, all the way to the point where they just gather to complain about anything that's different.

>>50468622
>>50468531
I am now legitimately curious as to who these people think I am.

>>50468622
The problem with HP in D&D 3.5 is that the "it's n abstraction for flesh wounds, vantage duing combat and etc and etc" is jut soehorned in without much through.
The execution is bad. It doen't help that the books thenselves half of the time behave as if HP was meat points and the other half behave as if it was abstraction.
You should look at Exalted 3e to see a system where hp as a abstraction for combat advantage was very well done.

>>50468564
Then maybe you could actually analyze systems then, instead of just single-mindedly trying to find fault with them?

These threads are just a bad excuse for trolls to show off how sad they are that a sixteen year old game is still popular. It's always just the same guys, repeating the same things, without actually bothering to look at the game itself and the reason for why its not only popular, but retained popularity.

Does it have problems? Yes. But, you'd do yourself a favor and actually learn something about the game you blindly hate by trying to figure out why people liked it and still like it, without trying to belittle all its fans by imagining them to be somehow lesser than you idiots.

If you can list 9 good things about the game without resorting to "its popular" or "it had good marketing", then you might have something worth taking seriously. Until then, it just sounds like you're starting up the same old troll thread.

>>50468622
It doesn't matter what HP represent, it's the fact that most mid to late game monsters and characters have so many that combat takes forever unless you focus on ability damage, which non-casters rarely have access to.

>>50468724
This has been explained to you probably a hundred times now, and you're still clinging to this bizarre "It's meat points except when it's clearly not" bullshit that's essentially "My argument is just me dancing around all the times I've been proven wrong."

How do you not get tired of this? Everyone is just about tired of having to explain it to you, just for you to go through a new set of mental gymnastics to prove that yes, if you do your best to work against the system, it's not going to work well with you. Something that could be said about any system, you dumbfuck.

>>50468729
I don't know who shit in your conrflakes, and I'm not apologizing for them either.
I'm not here to blindly fling around hate, I'm hear to pick apart a classic and see how it could be improved, and/or if it has any legitimately broken features. It has nothing to do with trolling or shilling. I have no idea why you're so upset.

>>50468724
I'm not sure who you think I am, but ain't me

>>50468822
Not him but we have this fucking thread EVERY SINGLE DAY.

We get it. You don't like 3.5. Just don't play it and move on with your life.

>>50468848
Oops, meant to >>50468790

>>50468822
No, you're not, because you started off with bullshit, and continued with further bullshit.

You really need to stop trying to get all your information about a game from trolls, because it's clear that most of the "issues" you've initially decided to bring up are just the lukewarm collection that the same idiots try to exaggerate as being far more dramatic than they actually are.

Like, at what point are you even caring about low-light vision? That's practically a racial ribbon, and that's fine.

These threads are a bizarre circlejerk for a small group of fags, and you're pretending that they're anything but, for reasons I can only assume are that you're tired of people seeing these threads for what they are, and now want to try and lure some fresh idiots in to try and discuss the game with a group of trolls who are more interested in complaining than "analysis.

File: giphy[1].gif (206KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 200x200px

>>50468851
1.We don't.
2. Why do you keep going into threads you don't enjoy?
3. No.

>>50468906
> and continued with further bullshit.
Thus far my only posts have been the ones to ask people like you to calm their tits.

>>50468822
Where's your nine good things.
If your answers are as half-assed as your nine complaints, then it's going to be very hard for anyone to take you seriously.

>>50468906
The argument is that low-light vision simply doesn't need to exist at all. Darkvision does everything it does and more, only two races have low-light vision at all, and it barely comes into play specifically. Why did the designers keep it at all instead of replacing it wholesale with Darkvision?

>>50468990
I'm not participating in his/your little farce, mate. Whether or not I can name 9 good things about is irrelevant, and even if I did you'd likely pick out 1-3 that you personally disagreed with and claim the entire list moot from that point.
It would be an exercise in arbitrary futility.

>>50468906
What do you care if people badmouth 3.5, just don't read the thread. No one is forcing you to contribute.

>>50469045
>I'm not a troll
>okay, don't be a troll
>fuck you, let me just troll for fuck's sake

Okay. Go on and troll, I won't bother with even pretending to take you seriously anymore.

>>50468701
There had been a "D&D/d20 sucks" troll for the past month or so.

I assume he's also the one spamming the martials vs casters threads.

Considering the ubiquity of those threads, I (and probably the other posters) wonder if you are just not a regular, or pretending or something.

>>50468906
>>50469006
I say Lowlight should be kept, and Darkvsion made more rare. The ability to see clearly in pitch-black darkness is a fantastic boon that gets thrown around way too haphazardly.

>>50469098
Another acceptable solution that the designers didn't consider.

>>50469091
The prior. I cruse through /tg/ semi-regularly, but generally jump out of any thread that devolves into edition wanking. Since just 2(?) days ago a guy had a thread asking about pathfinder that derailed into 3.5 analyzation I'd hoped to continue it. Which, save for that one guy calling me a troll, is actually going pretty well.

My buddy and I are trying to get into table top stuff. Should we start with 3.5 or 4? We've heard so many different opinions.

>>50469458
5e if you're dead set on D&D.

Alright, quick list:

Mostly objective (I mean, liking balance is a subjective thing, so you may not consider these problems... anyway):
- Numbers scaling is out of whack on defenses. AC doesn't really scale, while attack bonus does. This leads to AC just not really functioning after a while, and weird stats for enemies where giant eagles have natural armor that's harder than actual armor for some reason to have level appropriate AC. The difference between your best and worst saves goes from about +2-ish to 6; making it so that saves that can be saved by one character easily are near impossible for another character.
- Scaling on combat maneuvers is worse, especially since they just stop functioning after a while
- Scaling on stat checks is just nonexistant, while the difficulties do scale.
- Scaling on skills is weird. Some skills "max out", some skills have no cap.
- Damage difference between fighting styles (two handed/sword and board TWF, finesse) is not even in the same ballpark.
- All scaling assumes level appropriate magic items, but forgets to tell this in the CRB.
- CR is entirely broken and useless for its intended purpose, intentionally so at parts (i.e. making Dragons overpowered for their CR).
- the uneven powerlevel of core only classes makes levels also a shitty form of gauging the strength of the character, again, making it useless for its intended purpose
- multiclass XP fuckery

Subjective:
- Too many spells, too few feats. Both the content in the book, but also balance-wise, feats are massively overvalued while spell access is under.
- The spell list is large, but is often shared, making the casting classes less unique, but still more unique than...
- Non-caster, 4/9 caster classes get very, very little options, and are incredibly samey in play (although they tend to be mechanically different, what they achieve with that difference is the same). This is more obvious in PF.

>>50469488
I don't even know what that is. We aren't necessarily going D&D but probably something sword and sorcery. Pathfinder I guess? Are there threads for new players around here very often?

>>50469458
Consider 5e instead. Although 4e is not a bad beginner game, 5e is more supported at the moment, and simpler to boot.

I honestly prefer 4e, but only with a group who know what they are getting into.

>>50469505
5e is the 5th edition of D&D. It is the current edition in print/being supported/most popular.

There's basically always a 5eg (5th edition general) up on /tg/ who are eager to help. Or call you shit.

>>50469510
>>50469533
Thanks anons. I actually thought 4th was the latest edition. I'll keep an eye out for that.

>>50469505
5e is common shorthand for the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It is the most recent publishing of the rules and the one that is currently in print. It fixes a lot of problems that the older editions had and also streamlines play and mechanics to make it easier for new players to understand. You also won't need to go hunting online or in used bookstores for the rulebooks, and you will have little trouble finding a group.

>>50469510
I would have recommended 4e to those who want a lot of tactical combat and 5e if the group wants a lighter game with more focus on exploration.

>>50469488
I would recommend Dungeon Crawl Classics if you're looking for something retro, or Fantasy Craft if you're looking for something crunchy.

>>50469651
I wouldn't really recommend DCC to a newbie. Most of the old-school flare will be lost on someone just getting into the hobby, and it has a few odd conventions even by grognard standards.

File: Screen-Shot-2015-08-13-at-12.46.48-PM[1].png (275KB, 680x393px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 680x393px

>>50469491
> Scaling on skills is weird. Some skills "max out", some skills have no cap.
Elaborate.

>>50469692
Fair points, but idk what else to recommend that's relatively easy to pick up. Old School Hack is solid, but almost too simple, and so different that it doesn't introduce many transitive conventions. FC is good, but mega-crunchy. Anything D&D-like is either very crunchy or very abstracted; there's no real middle ground.
GURPS is solid too, but like FC it's so crunchy I second-guess suggesting it to a newbie.

>>50469491
>cont
- Skill points are needlessly complex, skill list is too long (fucking use rope, really?), skills are obsoleted by spells too easily.
- BAB scaling is pointless, when the difference between 3/4th and full are made up with a few self-only buffs anyway, and 1/2 BAB classes won't even attack.
- Full casters being able to reorganize their spells on a whim (except sorcerer). In fact, I have grown to quite dislike vancian casting.
- Linear fighter, quadratic wizard in full force
- Encourage multiclassing, but then punish it with EXP penalty
- Crafting rules
- Magic item treadmill
- Feat chains with elements that don't build on each other and other feat taxes.
- Modifiers from stats. Sacred cow that could easily be sidestepped. It's not that bad, but stats are also more important in this edition (since the bonus scales with every 2 points instead of maxing out at 18 at +3) which means...
- Rolling for stats. Even if its optional, it fucks with the already pretty shitty balance.
- On that note, rolling for health, another sacred cow.
- Dead levels
- Methods that fuck the action economy easily available.
- Too many stacking bonuses.
- Too many situational modifiers (you have like, 3 kinds of AC).
- All this combines into a really overcrowded character sheet and a lot of (admittedly small) calculations per roll.
- Full attacks make fights un-dynamic.
...

Fuck, I could go on all night.

>>50469698
There's no point to put more into Use Rope than what is the highest DC possible with it (15, I think).

By the same token, Climb maxes out at 30, everything over that is straight impossible.

Hide/Move silently/Spot/Acrobatics and other contested skills however you need to keep up because it scales with your enemies.

>>50469491
>Mostly objective
>proceeds to list mostly subjective complaints

Damn son. Learn what words mean before you try using them.

>>50469812
I did preface it that considering them faults is subjective, but they are still objectively true and lead to consequences that, if intended, are very weird, to say the least.

>>50469812
he did preface that shit

>>50469784
ty.

>>50469854
>>50469919
The preface is bullshit though, because there's other considerations beyond "liking balance" that are ignored, alongside subjective judgement calls pretending to be treated as objective calculations.

>>50469985
I'll give you multiclass XP fuckery.

How's the rest subjective though? It's literally math.

File: avatar-sokka-aang-katara-toph-sokka-appa-and-momo-25003863-275-183.jpg (26KB, 320x348px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x348px

>>50468518
3.5 takes a completionist approach to rules. It tries to have specific, detailed rules to cover just about everything. This makes it overly-complicated and cumbersome. It also makes the task of balancing everything that much harder, and that's a task it badly failed. So you have complicated, interlocking rules that are fucked up, which is a terrible state of affairs.

If a rules-light system misbalances something, it's no big deal. More rests on loose GM judgment calls and improvisation, and you can probably tweak something without setting off a chain reaction or having unforeseen consequences. Since it's rules-light, it's easy to build on top of. And with the rules-light game, maybe they sacrificed some quality in order to keep things simple. No game can do everything well, and there will always be trade-offs. But if your rules-heavy game is significantly flawed, what excuse does it have? What is the point of all those extra rules?

>>50470014
The majority of your "objective" complaints are largely just you failing to understand the system and its intentions. Even the ones I agree with I at least understand that for some of them there are fair reasons behind them, and I think part of your issues come from not reading the DM's guide well enough, particularly the guidelines for constructing an encounter.

And, above all else, you like to exaggerate like a drama queen.

>>50470148
>The majority of your "objective" complaints are largely just you failing to understand the system and its intentions.

Go ahead then. This thread is one for education.

File: jontron wtf.png (1MB, 1363x777px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1363x777px

>>50470148
I just came back to /tg/ after several months and I keep seeing this excuse to defend 3.5 which is already mindboggling for me that /tg/ is doing that.
>your (...) complaints are largely just you failing to understand the system and its intentions

What exactly is people failing to understand? the only thing this says to me is "It is supposed to be an Ivory Tower type of game".

>>50470206
>inb4: I won't explain things to an obvious troll.
>inb4: It's been explained before so I won't explain it again. No, I won't link any sources either.
>inb4: You don't know? Wow, you must be stupid!

I think that about covers everything the defense force might bring up.

File: 1479697009111.png (72KB, 353x439px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 353x439px

>>50470270
>>50470261
>>50470206
>>50470148
Calm down ladies, you're all beautiful.

My complains about 3.5 are mostly the unbalanced choices between classes. I don't even mind the fact that wizards get to be more killy than fighters, the fact that they get a lot more options on HOW to do killy stuff is what annoys me.

A fighter can't jump more than his height, a wizard have so many flavors on how to cross that gap is not funny. A fighter attacks a guy? Reduce his HP, a wizard? he gets a ful list on how to deal with that guy.

A nice thing I can say about 3.5 is that I loved the customization and always had more fun playing it that playing GURPS, yes, even when my DMs gf was playing a wizard and I was playing a fighter. My favorite class of all time is Artificer.

>>50470270
Don't forget he just suddenly goes utterly silent.

>>50470353
Oh, silly me, I forgot
>disregards arguments, responds with memes

There really needs to be a bingo card for this sort of thing.

>>50469505
if you're new to tabletop rpgs then please DON'T start with something like pathfinder. at least thats my opinion. 5e DnD is a great gateway game that is forgiving and simple for new players, but has enough depth to be fun and interesting to almost all.

>>50470457
> false-samefagging
BINGO!

>>50470490
Anon, please, we can all see the post counter. You aren't fooling anyone.

File: barbarians of lemuria spiel.png (96KB, 869x425px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 869x425px

>>50469458
5e is your best modern option. Moldvay Basic (B/X) or a clone of it (like Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, or Swords & Wizardry*) if you want to go for a retro-feel. Old school D&D isn't going to give you many mechanical options when it comes to character-building (more stress is put on improvising checks and adjustments based off character backgrounds), and the rules can be rather ad hoc (instead of a unified resolution system, you have different subsystems using different dice for different tasks), but Moldvay Basic is much shorter and easier to learn than even 5e (which made some effort to simplify things compared to its modern predecessors). Moldvay Basic is comprised of two sets, each with a single 64-page booklet, and you only need the first set to start playing (it takes you up to level 3). Compare this to 5e, where the core books (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual) total almost 1000 pages.

*Technically S&W is based on Original D&D, but S&W Core is based on core OD&D + the Greyhawk Supplement, which is the same thing Basic D&D was based on, so they're very similar. Check out S&W White Box if you want a brass-tacks game (more classes are in the White Box Heroes supplement).

Of course, D&D isn't your only option, especially if you are getting together your own group rather than trying to join already existing ones. You might want to check out something like Barbarians of Lemuria (see pick).

>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition

>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, shorter but not as refined) --http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf

>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A

>>50470572
you don't have to fool a fool

File: 1329794827942.jpg (203KB, 1028x1400px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1028x1400px

>>50470764
> BoL
I redact my previous suggestions and change them to BoL

>>50468518

Heavy insistence on powergaming from the community rather than group play.

Seriously, 3.5 is fun when your group shows their collective Wisdom/Charisma scores are better than their Intelligence scores. Play to enjoy it rather than push the limit, same with a number of older systems that've fallen by the wayside.

Heck, AD&D was fun and had the same flaws - caster supremacy, infuriating rules, HP bloat, etc. But stiffing the game design for failure has as much to do with the players pushing beyond enjoying the game and treating it like a min-maxing MMO.

Then again, my group has been fun in nearly every setting and system for about 20 years now. Your mileage may vary.

>>50469736
The multi classing EXP penalty is really easy to game... though it means splashing instead of really splitting between two classes. As long as you are maining your races favored class(any for humans), as long as you keep your splashes within a couple levels of each other you will never be penalized.

>>50468518
> hp bloat
Not as bad as 4e or 5e.

> Combat maneuver impracticality
"a bloo bloo I can't wrestle a dragon!"

> AC is mostly determined by your worn armor
This is every D&D edition. In fact 5e is worse at this because there are fewer options to increase AC in a dex-based build.

>>50472692
I always hear this defense and wonder why people would play D&D if not to mess with the system. There are tons of games with less cumbersome rules sets and easier story telling. The only point 3.5 wins on is the really modular rule set and the massive amount of content templating how to make more.

>>50470764
Barbarians of Lemuria is a fucking terrible game. Your character's effectiveness is based entirely on how much you can bully the DM into thinking your careers are relevant.

>>50469736
lmaoing at 5e where wearing armor makes it harder for an electricity spell to touch you. I suppose there could be a Faraday cage effect...

>>50472843

Later editions have bigger issues, so the fact 3.5 has issues is irrelevant?

>>50472864
> can't carry banter w/out it turning into a shit show
No anon, you are that guy.

File: ____skeptical_girl.png (493KB, 481x541px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 481x541px

>>50469458
3.5 > 4 > 5e > moldvay > AD&D 2e > AD&D 1e > OD&D white box

>>50472917
What the fuck does banter have to do with it? Did you even read / understand my fucking post?

>>50472933
I rest my case.

File: StarChuckle.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>50472918
That's just mean man.

>>50472889
It isn't, but you keep starting threads about 3.5 so clearly you think it has bigger issues.

>>50468701
tl;dr: I don't like 5E because HP explodes relative to damage and a lot of other reasons, I posted as much, Autism Supreme up there pretends that that's not a valid reason to dislike a game and thinks HP bloat is an uncommon term that wasn't used nonstop during 4E or anything, then some troll starts spamming my complaint in every D&D troll thread on the board until we get where we are right now.

>>50472992
He's not me bro.
The amount of false samefaging in this thread is incredible.

>>50472988
It's true.

>>50472843
> Not as bad as 4e or 5e.
-but still really bad.

> "a bloo bloo I can't wrestle a dragon!"
Try, "I provoke an attack of oprotunity and suffer a disadvantage to my attack checks if I do anything other than roll-to-damage, unless I dedicate 3+ feats to improving a single alternative action.

> This is every D&D edition
>>50472889

>>50469458
OSR D&D

>>50473070
"HP bloat" was something dramatic in early 4e, but with a very simple fix. It's no longer an issue worth mentioning except for in a "Well this was an early problem" sort of way.

It's hardly worth mentioning in any other edition, and it's now largely just a meme used by people upset about the bare idea of HP and try to come up with bizarre reasons to dislike it.

>>50468851
no we don't
it leads to my issue
>>50468518
nobody talks about 3.5, the generals segregate by edition and nobody does 3e/3.5e....

>>50473742
If you have to fix it at all, it's broken.

>>50473742
>It's hardly worth mentioning in any other edition
It halved the power of blasting spells and sword and board in the transition from 2E to 3E. That's not 'hardly worth mentioning'.

>>50473803
That's a feature, not an issue. If you want fragile, disposable characters, play at low levels.

>>50473796
>broken
That's a strong word for a relatively minor fix.
Call it marred, call it flawed, but if you can play with a toy, you can't really call it broken.

>>50473898
No, it was an issue caused by the fact that playtesting never went above 6th level.

>>50473917
You might want to come back when you actually want to discuss the game honestly.

>>50473931
I already was. You can't claim that lowered damage is a feature when it wasn't applied evenly.

>>50472862

Ah, I see the issue. You're looking at the modular rules as a way to get as many advantages as possible.

Instead, look at 3.5's many rules and options as ways to tweak a game to reflect the character you want to play. Pull in the optional rules from stuff like Unearthed Arcana (or d20 Modern, if you're really looking for it), and you can run something as gritty realistic as a Dark Heresy 1E game, or something as overpowered as say, Exalted.

But, with all of those in mind, you've still got access to all the campaign settings and the extremely deep worlds already around for some time. Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc. All exist, and can be played through in any number of ways.

tl;dr the many rules exist to allow different options; it's what allows a ninja, barbarian, Red Wizard, and Bard to all die in the Tomb of Horrors in hilarious fashions.

>>50474127
You know that's what systems like GURPS and M&M are for, right?

>>50474161
It's a real shame GURPS is trash though, isn't it?

>>50474197
When the point of comparison is specifically 3.5-derived d20...

>>50468518
Magic doesn't feel very magical. I find the Vancian magic system generally unappealing. It's not even a balance issue for me so much as it's sort of bland. I mean I can understand while they just keep using it as it's had to make a functional magic system much less a balanced and/or interesting one. I kinda liked the concept of designing your own spell the epic handbook put forth and would really like to see something like brought into the core game. Also I like spell point systems like they jacked from the psionics book better than spell slots.

>>50472692
But the most fun thing about 3.5 is the charOP

If I wanted to play D&D, rather than the charOP game, I'd play literally any other edition, even 4e does it better thanks to class roles making a team that is greater than the sum of it's parts so easy to make

File: 1477284793350.png (18KB, 212x198px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 212x198px

>>50473898
> "It's a feature!"

File: 1440453003972.jpg (93KB, 1000x801px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x801px

>>50468518
My issue is not with the mediocre system. There are lots of mediocre systems. My issue is the ubiquity with which such a mediocre system took over the entire gaming-o-sphere in the early 2000's to the point that when many people think of role-playing at all, they are specifically thinking of the OGLD20 genre. It got to the point where every game out there was basically 3e/3.5, but with a different genre-insert or "we're totally different" minor quirk.

It's sort of like if McDoubles became so incredibly popular that part-time-foodies started complaining about food for not tasting like McDoubles, and therefore not really being food. And then, every restaurant served minor variataions on the McDouble, that only register as different to people who've eaten so many McDoubles that a slight change in the mass-produced meat-seasonings becomes noticeable. Like, don't get me wrong, I actually kind of like McDoubles, but jesus-h-christ, I don't want the food-industry to be dominated by McDoubles.

....aaaaand before you go off saying "D&D was always top dog" that really wasn't the case for a while before 3e came out in the late 90's and EARLY 00's.

>3.5
>HP bloat

...what? I agree with everything you said and more but that. How does 3.5 have "HP bloat?"

In 3.5, being able to kill an enemy of the same CR as you a round isn't just unimpressive, its the bare minimum.

>>50468786
Nah. If there's one thing martials are good at, its inflicting gigantic piles of damage and absolutely overkilling everything.

Its just that its much easier and requires less minmaxing to render enemies into a "virtually defeate" state where they are blind, confused, etcetera.

The two things that always draw me back to 3e:

1. The blisteringly fast combat.
2. The wildly strange setting or potential for strange setting.

>>50473803
>It halved the power of blasting spells and sword and board in the transition from 2E to 3E

Wrong, it cut it down to closer to a fourth rather than just halving it.

>>50477582
Really?

What draws me to it is the insanely massive amount of official material and all the ways the material can be combined to produce crazy characters

>>50477582
>The wildly strange setting or potential for strange setting.

2E did that better than the 3E's.

>>50477460
Did you play 2E or before? People had about 1/4th as much HP as things did in 3.5, but things like blasty spells didn't get stronger to compensate.

>>50477617
It also did the fast combat better.

If those two are your reasons for 3.5, you should try other games instead.

>>50477582
>1. The blisteringly fast combat.
Old school D&D is significantly faster. 3e combat is honestly rather clunky.

>>50472918
Moldvay Basic > everything else > 3.x

Is this thread still up? Wow

>>50468518
I'm looking for combat options for a rogue in 3.5, any cool ideas?

>>50480837
Vial thrower.

Also, probably just be some sort of multiclass that gives SA and skillpoints instead, as rogues don't really get any other class features worth investing in.

>>50480837
Tome of Battle - Shadow Hand discipline. If character is already in play multiclass into swordsage. If only starting swordsage + sneak attack fighter is probably better.

>>50468790
>This has been explained to you probably a hundred times now,
and it hasn't been convincing a hundred times just as well

>Everyone is just about tired of having to explain it to you
you mean you and nobody else?

>>50477582
The fuck are you on? 3E's combat isn't fast at all. Do you only play at level 1?

>>50477610
I was being generous.

Either way, sword and board and blasting spells going to sucktown obviously isn't a feature of 3.5 because two handed swords and Rogues, Clerics, and Druids got a massive, massive damage buff that was obviously intentional, and that's just in core. Nearly everything after core has made damage easier to come by, and by the time of ToB it's objectively impossible to say that the devs wanted to do what Autism Supreme claims they did.

>the trolls awake

>>50480837
Your combat options are pretty much 'focus around Sneak Attack' and 'use UMD'. There's really not much more to the class unless you multiclass.

>>50481116
There's nothing wrong with that.

>>50468518
the linear spread of outcomes of a single d20 is problematic. I'm going to run 3.5 again soon and I'm going to suggest to my friends that we trial a 3d6 or 2d10 system as a straight replacement for the d20 roll.

>>50468518
1. It is just dreary old clusterfuck of books that I don't want to bother myself with.

>>50481186
Yeah, see, the problem with a dice curve in 3.5 is that it makes building around save or suck/lose spells way stronger while making low saves an even larger liability than they already were.

>>50481186
Don't you will regret it. 3.5 is bad but with 3d6 roll it's completely fucked up.

>>50481251
What will happen?

>>50468518
Google it, there's like a sextillion results on the shortcomings of 3.5. To name a good and bad thing I'd say

>good
Dragonfire Adept. I like any game that hands me breath weapons but doesn't make me some scaly ass lizard that uses it like once a day.

>bad
Fighters = Chain or bust

>>50468729
>without actually bothering to look at the game itself and the reason for why its not only popular, but retained popularity.
we did that and we came to a different assessment than you do. in fact, we think your arguments are laughable to non-existent

>If you can list 9 good things
>9
i could list a few pluses, not sure if it's 9. don't need to anyway. it's brand and legacy IS D&D's strongest asset though, nothing wrong with that.

>>50473070
>then some troll starts spamming my complaint in every D&D troll thread on the board until we get where we are right now
actually there is more than the two of us, buddy

>>50473742
HP bloat is still an issue if you are a simulationist

>>50477460
play some CoC, dude

>>50482002
>HP bloat is still an issue if you are a simulationist

If you are a simulationist, 3.5, and D&D et all has a bunch of severe issues. You are playing a game that, at best, is pretending to be simulationist sometimes, but is mostly gamist. It's like a vegan willfully walking into a steak place, then complaining that everything is too meaty.

>>50482180
and yet you have people defending D&D's HPs against people who have a clearly simulationist agenda

>>50469458
5e or 4e really.

5e is simpler and the fights don't drag on so much, 4e more tactical, the math is a bit clearer, and it's really easy to DM, even if the fights can drag out a bit.

>>50468518
This is retarded, OP. But I'll bite, mostly because I know way fucking more about 3.5e than anybody here/anybody has a right too.

>1. HP Bloat
This isn't actually true. HP does get quite high, but end level is a game of rocket-tag. Everything's fragile. I used to consider it a requirement for any build I make to one-hit the Terrasque's HP. Less damage, or any kind of standards for damage would be nice.
>2. Excessive feat taxes
>3. Uneven feat taxes
True enough. Feats were handled poorly. Some feats were utterly useless — they would never come up in game. Others were unmitigably awesome, and definitely not balanced. Trouble came when TRYING to balance feats against other feats. It was pointless. There were obvious tiers.

>>50485275
>4. Combat maneuver impracticality
Maneuvers from Tome of Battle? These were great! They gave "martials" other options in combat. If you mean Grapple/Trip/Disarm/Sunder, they were both pretty good, and not good. That list, in fact, is in order of best to worse. Sunder meant you broke your own loot. Disarm was rare, kind of pointless. Grapple was godly.
>5. Lowlight-vision is thoroughly out-classed/redundant
This is a non-issue, utterly.
>6. AC is mostly determined by your worn armor
This is not true. Magic items and also class/feat selection changed AC. AC was determined by your AC. Also it was largely pointless.
>7. Late-game caster supremacy
Caster Supremacy began when casters learned the Sleep Spell, and doesn't end.
>8. Shields = principally useless
Shields actually did have some use, when specialized. Tower-shields break line of sight, RAW. That's highly useful.
>9. Martials don't begin play proportionately superior at fighting
Not only do martials not play well at fighting in the beginning, but they just don't play well period. The Quadratic Wizard/Linear Fighter formula is as follows:

Fighters get a single thing to do with their actions, usually attack. Each level, they improve their attacks.

Wizards get new things to do with their actions on each level. And they ALSO get better at them.

>>50468724
>>50468518
>>50468622

Ironically HP really doesnt matter in D&D but yeah its fucked up.

If Clerics are going to heal you, it should be your ACTUAL WOUNDS they're healing not just your "pride"

Cure Light through Cure Critical should give you back some number of +1 HP per HD to make it more like a percentage that its supposed to be.

>mfw 1d8 hp + 1 per HD all the way up to 4d8 hp + 4 per HD

> mfw about 3 castings of Cure Critical can heal anybody unless they really are a lean mean motherfucker.

Besides the way to really kill things at higher levels is with spells or have fighters and barbarians grind them down. Characters have support roles and some things they're just not good at challenging.

> rogues vs undead

---

Actually the real problem ive seen is that there are some classes such as Monks who are designed as "trap" classes.

You get benefits for gaining levels but ultimately they are going to be less effective than some other classes and a highly optimized DM is going to destroy that character over and over again even just by accident.

This is like literally incorporating Rules Lawyering into the game and secretly challenging players to make only certain choices or options - with others being "inherently wrong" choices.

I had an optimized DM explain this to me when I started talking about Monks and it made me mad as a fit but he was right.

FFS this is what game balance is supposed to avoid, not promote.

And it is a game, the only punishment players should have for picking something flamingo flamboyant is chiding from their fellow players.
>>50469491
All of this

I kinda/sorta felt that agile style characters like Rangers and Rogues should be getting an AC adjustment over time similar to Monks.

Having an amazing Reflex save just logically implies combat skill would also increase normal defense too.

>>50469488
>>50469458

5th edition isnt powerful enough

If you want 2nd edition go with OSRIC because its free. Is fairly simple.

>>50485494
>Cure Light through Cure Critical should give you back some number of +1 HP per HD to make it more like a percentage that its supposed to be.

It's almost like 4e fixed this with surges essentially being 1/4th of your HP and about 95% of healing being based on them.

>>50485543

Yeah but the problem with 4E that ive got is the surges are something the victim has that the healer is just allowing them to use.

Frankly the idea of receiving supernatural healing is that just like inflicting harm its something that Someone Else Does To You.

Which means its beyond your control unless you actually want to make a will save to prevent the healing.

I really hate that idea that "The Cleric is just helping you do something you should already be able to do, but dont have the mind over matter to accomplish yourself"

> fuck that

Also this reminds me that in all editions of d&d its really tough to get a Regeneration or Fast Healing stat for your character.

Its not all that unbalancing either, maybe +1 or +2 LE

A good DM will use a castor or incorporeal to bomb your constitution anyway or just plain strike you dead or turn you to stone.

>>50480837
Play a Wizard with Invisibility and Knock.

Bam, you can already do anything worth bringing a Rogue for.

>>50485643
I think healing surges are there mostly as a way to show that even with healing, there's only so much your body can take before it just fails.

Healing surges are just an abstraction of that. Spending healing surges during rests is doing things like stretching, catching your breath, applying first aid, etc. Not something you can really do in the middle of a fight, which is what the magical instant first aid and martial morale boosting are there for.

File: 8291bdb9fd7748ea58e03377ae4c7c25.jpg (38KB, 406x800px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 406x800px

>>50468518
Randomized HP Generation -> nonrandom acquisitions.
Randomized static and non-interactive initiative positions.
Tl;dr: Dice is my problem with 3.5.

>>50485643
>"The Cleric is just helping you do something you should already be able to do, but dont have the mind over matter to accomplish yourself"

You can't though; not without sitting down, and resting. You need to rest to use surges (except second wind, but that's limited to one).

What the Cleric does is speed up your natural healing to a ridiculous degree (just like all other D&Ds; do remember, you heal in those as well if you rest, although at different rates/needing a day/etc.).

>>50485643
The Cleric is just helping you do something you are already able to do one more time.
You can heal yourself with a Second Wind and during a Short Rest.

>>50485275
>HP does get quite high, but end level is a game of rocket-tag.
Yes - for builds and/or classes that aren't mired in trap option hell. Sure, it's really easy for a Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian with a falchion to blow enemies up nonstop, but that's not true for a sword and board Fighter, which is why it's a problem.