So what are the pros and cons, besides caster supremacy, of 3.5, /tg/?
A few people I know want to run a campaign using it, but none of us really know what we're getting into.
Caster supremacy isn't even a problem until the higher levels, unless you're playing with hardcore min-maxers.
The biggest problem with 3.5/PF is how it's a combat system first and a roleplaying system second. It doesn't lend itself well to tackling problems in creative or non-combat ways, and making a character who is good at non-combat skills often involves sacrificing alot of combat strength and survivability.
3.5 was conceived as Ivory Tower gaming, vaguely built around a CCG model where players would buy books for new rules and experiment with various character builds the same way CCG. 3.5 is not a tactical wargame (like chainmail or 4e) or even a tactical rpg (like AD&D), it's a very difficult character building game. The decisions made and dice thrown in game play matter very little compared to the effort put into building a character.
This leads to either very strong generalist characters based around flexibly solving scenarios and circumventing threats (Conjuration Wizards), characters that are simply too strong to defeat without crit failing a save or die (CoDZilla), or one trick ponies that can generally line up one or two multi hundred-point damage hits per session. (Uber-charging Fighter)
What do your players look for in their character building and game play? 3.5 is like Morrowind, in that it's a game where players breaking the world is completely possible with minor game systems like alchemy. Later editions are like Skyrim, in that they are sane, but they don't reward the madly dedicated character builder.
Basically: 3.5 is the largest, best selling edition, with extensive splats that offer players a chance to demonstrate their puzzle-solving skills outside of the session. I love its byzantine bullshit, but I don't recommend it to most people.
>>43534799
>>43534689
Basically Magic users are totally useless until they level enough to wrek everything in sight, not saying it's balanced but, rather they just have classis taking turns of been totally broken. There is also 'trap options' bound.
As for its being role-play versus role-play it is a assumed you're gonna be spending most of your time combat. That doesn't mean you can't build of character for other stuff but just remember the system is not designed for it. Good role play we come down more to you to GM and the players more than how many points you can put into diplomacy.
>>43534689
>A few people I know want to run a campaign using it, but none of us really know what we're getting into.
What possible reason could any of you have for thinking this is a good idea?
>>43534689
>Pros
Lots of people play it.
>Cons
The later-released books that make the shitfest that is 3.5e playable are often reviled because people are idiots. See Psionics, the Book of Weeb Fightan Magic meme, etc.
>>43534689
If you have no idea what you're getting into, then I recommend something that isn't dnd.
>>43534926
One of these people fancies himself as an RPG-extraordinaire, and thinks he'll be able to lead this group through an epic campaign. In reality, he couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag, is just trying to impress some people we both know with his "knowledge," and doesn't actually want to DM himself. So, I'm more asking for the sake of the other people who are just getting into RPGs, who would probably hate the hobby forever if they played this campaign blind, with the hope of letting them know what they're getting into before they commit.
>>43535076
Honestly, D&D 3.5 is the worst possible system to introduce anyone to the RPG hobby, unless these newcomers are lonely teenagers with a ton of time on their hands. It is a time-intensive wreck, anon. Start them with Dungeon World or something else that doesn't have a 4 hour rules-learning/character building process.
>>43534907
>Basically: 3.5 is the largest, best selling edition
Only if we count Pathfinder in with 3.5. Mearls is on record stating that each Edition has outsold the previous. Good write-up otherwise.
I personally loved all the different books and equipment. I loved that they included, priced and explained the use of multiple different kinds of tree tents, that they included wacky shit like growing crystal shard armor, and that they went as simple as different kinds of bandages and food spices that do different things.
Going through the books was always really fun, and each time going through almost every other page I got an idea for a brand new character and never had a problem with creativity. From Mindspies to Hulking Hurlers to Dervishes, there was never a shortage of wonderfully outlandish and totally cool choices to make, in how you wanted to play. You could say "Well I make and play my fighter with this sort of idea in mind." but it's quite another thing to actually play the idea in mind and get some cool, broken, useless but fun, or even just strange abilities or benefits that aren't available to a fighter no matter what feats you take or how you roleplay.
Sure, at the end of the day a lot of it was imbalanced and clunky, but if you've got a good group then that should never be a problem. Through and through, I'd rather the extra material was there, and it was up to me to choose and find out if it was useful or get burned by it, than to not be able to make the choice at all.
>>43534689
>none of us really know what we're getting into.
I have no idea why in this instance you would try to use 3.5e. How did that even come about? The only thing I can think of is there's some ridiculous fuck who's into PnP without ever having played it and from sites/blogs/twitch personalities or whatever insists on 3.5e.
If you're all new and want to play D&D you should shoot for 5e. If for some reason you absolutely have to use the 3.x ruleset, play PF which is at least still supported.
