No RPG will ever be as good as D&D 3.5. Fact.
This is trolling, but it's utterly depressing how many people actually believe that.
>>44323051
It's not trolling if it's true.
>>44323040HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>44323059
Okay troll, I'll humour you. What exactly does 3.5 achieve as an RPG? What are its strengths?
>>44323040
I agree OP. No RPG will ever be precisely as "good" as D&D 3.5.
>>44323080
Breadth, scope, and a high standard of writing that only falters on occasion.
Enormous collection of monsters, spells, and items, classes, prestige classes, weapons, and other options for both players and DMs. You could literally play with less than 1% of everything and still have a deeper and more expansive game than most other systems can provide in their entirety.
Does it have flaws? Sure, all games do, but when you look at its strengths, it's not really a surprise that it dominated the market in its heyday and even now only lags behind 5e in popularity.
>>44323040
but anon, you posted the wrong covers.
>>44323080
>Massive amount of character options
>Incredible amount of support and expansions
>Optional rules allow for customization to a variety of different games
>Active community and playerbase even today
>>44323158
It raised a generation of mechanics-minded players who had to plot out their character's advancement seven levels in advanced to be effective, and littered the books with a minefield of trap options. It exemplifies Ivory Tower game design.
>>44323158
>Breadth, scope
I'll give you that, but-
>a high standard of writing that only falters on occasion.
Pfahahahahahahahaha
How can you even argue this? in core alone, there were bad and confusing descriptions, confusing wordings, a complete lack of standardization and shitty quality of life things like the useless spell lists.
And the sheer breadth of options is worthless when most of them are fucking. Even setting aside the stuff which was utterly broken, the sheer level of imbalance and mechanical bloat was so utterly staggering the game became an absolute clusterfuck at the drop of a hat.
I dunno, OP. I think there might be a game, in the unforseeable future, that is as good as D&D 3.5. Maybe even better! Unlike most of who will respond to this thread, I like 3.5, and I do consider it the best game I have ever played, probably the best ever made. I like the multiclass system that allows for a near-infinite variety of characters, I like the granular, detailed and (gasp!) highly crunchy skill system, I like the spell system, I like the sheer scale of the thing.
Yet "no RPG will ever be as good" is obviously hyperbolic. My own 3.5 games are heavily house-ruled, and I think if I could publish my own edition based on my house rules it would be a direct improvement on 3.5, and therefore as good (and better) than 3.5.
Plus, 3.5 has its flaws. /tg/ blows them out of proportion (and have no idea what "ivory tower game design" actually means), but if one were to make a similar game that addressed those issues (at least in part) while keeping the good stuff, it would by definition be a better game.
>>44323040
I think it might be true that no RPG will ever be as *pervasive* as D&D 3.5 in specific, and the d20 System it created and headlined in general.
Whether or not that's a good thing I leave up to the posters of /tg/.
>>44323206
>And the sheer breadth of options is worthless when most of them are fucking.
...now there's a mental image.
>>44323040
I prefer the original OP
>>44323183
>Massive amount of character options
Which are generally speaking badly designed, and not balanced. If you remove trap options or things your group shouldn't include, there's basically nothing left, and what's left is mostly messy garbage that's not significantly better than homebrew you could've done yourself with very little effort.
>Incredible amount of support and expansions
Why is this even a good thing, given how badly written it all is?
>Optional rules allow for customization to a variety of different games
The ones that differ from the core dungeon crawling centric gameplay of the game, are generally complete shitshows. But you probably haven't even dared try them because you subconsciously know 3.5e doesn't fucking work for army combat or whatever.
>Active community and playerbase even today
That's certainly true.
>>44323191
>>44323206
Cool opinions. I see why you don't like it, but since I don't agree with you, I guess that's that.
Really, the only thing wrong with OP's post is that he confused "Fact" with "Opinion."
>>44323040
GURPS
>>44323040
Pathfinder
>>44323270
>casuals actually believe this
>>44323270
I don't think anyone is going to contest that Dungeons and Dragons is old and widely known.
Debates tend to center around its other characteristics.
D&D is the Twizzlers of RPGs, i guess.
>>44323278
Goddamn man, if you were just gonna be a pissy contrarian faggot in the first place, why did you even ask?
>>44323377
OP made a point, the post you're responding to quite accurately described why OPs point was bullshit.
>>44323377
/tg/ is not one person.
I'm a different guy.
>>44323158
By those measures gurps. Gurps has breadth, scope, and options out the wazoo. It also is better written.
>371 replies omitted
>>44323040
I like 3.5, I have a long history with it and although I'm sure my memories of it are rose-tinted, I still find it enjoyable.
That said, it is not a good system, it is, in fact, a terrible system. It's a heavily mechanical game but has terrible balance. It has challenge ratings to help DMs make encounters, but the challenge ratings are outright wrong and fail at their job. It outright lies to you in many ways about what's the optimal path to take.
Admit it's bad, for your sake
>>44323400
Nobody plays GURPS.
>Any D20
>good
What. No. It's pretty nifty dungeon crawler ruleset, but that is it. Sadly the combat in that game is shit. I could just as well play heroquest and be done with it. The character progression is shit, then again i consider the idea of "levels" retarded.
Shit the armor class mechanic alone should have left this pile of shit firmly in to the 80's
>>44323476
>Any D20
>good
True20 and Mutants&Masterminds are d20 and at least decent.
>>44323503
M&M has gotten better the further away it's got from its d20 roots though. 3e is the best, and that makes a few really clever cuts, like scrapping ability scores and just using the modifier.
>>44323381
Not really. His post just reeks of bitter exaggeration, and to take his opinions to heart would leave you unable to recognize why it was so well received and remains popular today.
Hell, if you listen to the naysayers long enough, you might actually start to believe them when they say it was broken and unplayable, leaving you with the bizarre task of figuring out how to explain how so many people played it for years, and many continue to do so to this day.
It's like someone telling you that apples are poison and will certainly kill you, and then walking past an orchard and seeing people happily munching on them.
You're probably going to wind up having to perform some impressive mental gymnastics to reconcile the paradox.
>>44323534
It's not a paradox at all. D&D 3.5 is a broken, terrible system, but that doesn't mean it's unplayable. I've been in good, enjoyable games of 3.5 before, and I'm sure all the people who love it so much have as well.
But the system does you no favours. The system itself does nothing to make your experience of the game better, or the GMs job easier. Running 3.5 is hard goddamn work, and even playing it can be a chore, having to solve a convoluted and badly thought out mechanical puzzle where the answer might end up being 'You will never be as competent as the other characters'.
None of the complaints against 3.5, or against any RPG system, mean 'This game can never be fun'. But it's a commentary on how much the system assists or detracts from your efforts to have an enjoyable gaming experience.
The especially egregious elements of 3.5 in that regard are the huge number of trap options and the broken CR system, which can easily screw over a player or GM and potentially ruin a game through no fault of the group.
>>44323530
>ike scrapping ability scores and just using the modifier
The fact that this passes for clever in regards to the D20 system is fucking depressing.
It's probably the first fucking thought most people have when they are introduced to the way D20 handles abilities.
>>44323578
>the first thought most people have when they are introduced to the way D20 handles abilities
I guess I've been playing with fucking retards all my life.
>>44323040
GURPS
>>44323040
Dude, they literally just released a new edition that is basically 3.5 with all the terrible removed.
>>44323534
It was broken, not unplayable, but broken.
Also, it wasn't played so much because it was good, it was played so much because the OGL existed. It got so much support from so many places, and because it came out at the right time.
Things can be simultaneously bad and popular, you should know this, it happens everywhere
>>44323615
Ehh it's more like 3.5 with all the terrible and all the fun removed.
There's very few actual character options, and the really fun bits of 3.5, like Tome of Battle classes and the crazy playable races, are nowhere to be seen
>>44323534
>Hell, if you listen to the naysayers long enough, you might actually start to believe them when they say it was broken and unplayable, leaving you with the bizarre task of figuring out how to explain how so many people played it for years, and many continue to do so to this day.
But that's very easy to explain. It's simply resistance to change.
A lot of people started on 3.x; and in its heyday, you could find d20 versions of everything. You literally didn't need to learn another game ever.
In addition to that, RPGs are memetic by nature. As much as publishers want to push their games and enlarge their playerbases, the most common way to learn an RPG is to be taught by someone who is already playing.
D&D 3.x instilled and rewarded a very specific mindset in its playerbase, and required an effort to learn that means that a lot of people won't move from there. That's how you get people who are still defending some of the most obvious and well-known flaws of the game 15 years after it came out.
>>44323615
Maybe it's just pure chance, but exactly that thought went through my head, way back when, and after asking my playgroup three of the four said the same thing. And the three other times someone got introduced to it, the same question was asked.
Maybe it's the way people are explained the rules around here, with a "These affect your modifier and practically nothing else."
>>44323569
Your opinions are your own. Or, likely, you're just repeating what other people have said before you.
Most of what you complain about isn't really as system specific as you pretend it is, and when you look at systems that don't even try to be mechanically competent like the ST series, most of the complaints around 3.5 just come from the fact that people are actually familiar with the game.
"Houserules" and flexibility are inherent within the system, which most of the detractors conveniently forget, and hope to build their arguments around the idea that the only way anyone is allowed to play any game is by RAW, even though by RAW 3.5 includes a wide variety of rules to help facilitate flexibility.
You can dislike it, you can even hate it, but to call it a terrible system when its superior to 99%+ of the games out there (do you even recognize how many actually terrible games are out there?), based on opinions that hold 3.5 to a far higher standard than you hold other games, really makes it clear that you've got a colored perception that is neither fair nor accurate.
>>44323715
>but to call it a terrible system when its superior to 99%+ of the games out there
Prove it. Find me 100 systems, actual published systems and not shitty homebrews, that are worse than 3.5 and show to the world that 3.5 is not a bad system.
Do that, and I'll make a screencap of the post and henceforth post it in every fucking thread that claims 3.5 is bad.
>>44323715
The two biggest issues with 3.5 are character balance and horrendously inaccurate CR, it is a combat-focused game, and due to those two issues, isn't very good at doing combat.
Go onto Roll20 and find a game that's being played and does either of those things worse than 3.5
>>44323040
I don't like d20, I'd prefer not to play it, but I must it would be Pathfinder. Which is just 3.5 but straight up better with some of the bugs removed. But still not my cup of tea.
>>44323715
Opinions are opinions, but the existence of a significant number of trap options within 3.5 and the non-functional nature of the CR system are facts. Following the advice given to you in the books, you can build a useless character, and similarly a GM following the advice given for designing encounters can get walked all over or accidentally TPK with depressing ease.
How much of an issue you take with these things is the opinion element, but their existence is a factual, objective element of the system which I would cite as a major flaw.
And 'You can houserule it' is not a good defence of a system. It never is. It is universally applicable to every RPG ever made, and is essentially irrelevant to discussions of a game. See the point above, that systems can be assessed in terms of how much work they put on the GM. If you have to fumble around with the rules just to make them work the way they're intended, that is flaw that you can discuss and point out.
I'd draw a distinction between houseruling to make a system work in a way you prefer, every group tunes things to their ideas, but with D&D 3.5 some mechanics (such as the ones described above) literally don't work in the way the book claims they do, which means they require houseruling and GM fiddling to fix, which is a negative as it puts more work on the GM.
I hold all games to the same standard. And most games still do better than 3.5. The Storyteller System is mechanically garbage, yeah, but even that doesn't make D&D any better.
>>44323833
Which bugs got removed?
The noticeable ones all remain
>>44323715
>and when you look at systems that don't even try to be mechanically competent like the ST series
Funny how you accuse that other guy of just repeating things he heard when you don't have an idea of the state of the games you criticize.
The latest editions of WW/OP games have pretty tight mechanics and actually do things in ways that are miles ahead more interesting than 3.5. They might have been bad in the past, but it's like criticizing 3.5 for THAC0.
>>44323814
Welcome to Opinion Land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_genre
Do you want to go through each one, one by one, and have me explain why 3.5 is better? I can come up with all sorts of subjective arguments, but I'm pretty sure I can just use "Doesn't have both ninjas AND pirates" for a good majority of those if you want me to.
Hell, you did yourself quite a favor by excluding homebrews, because there's well over a thousand "Like 3.5, but somehow worse" games out there.
>>44323715
>"Houserules" and flexibility are inherent within the system
The argument that you are free to disregard the system is not a strong point in that system's favor.
>>44323534
>leaving you with the bizarre task of figuring out how to explain how so many people played it for years, and many continue to do so to this day.
Because most people don't play D&D 3.5 they play Dungeon World even if they don't realize it.
>>44323040
As successful? Probably
As good? I dunno, maybe?
>>44323929
Find me at least two undisputable problems for 100 of these that aren't purely subjective.
Why two? Because 3.5 has at least one: The clear imbalance between certain classes is undispitably problematic.
>>44323988
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the substantial number of morons who argue in favour of class imbalance and caster supremacy. Personally I think they're all wizard players who want to jerk their magic dicks, but there you go.
>>44323959
It's a good argument for something like FATE, where the rules are pretty loose to begin with so adding more for a particular story or setting is totally fine.
But in 3.5, most houserules are basically home-made bug-fixes, like limiting the game by tiers, or E6, or giving feat-taxes for free. Basically forcibly changing the rules to limit the flaws of the game. They aren't adding something, they're pruning the unwanted mess away.
That's why houserule flexibility is a poor argument for 3.5
>>44323976
How is Dungeon World anyway? Haven't heard a lot about it.
>>44323976
I first noticed seven years ago when D&D 4th Ed came out, so many role players on the internet argue that 3.X was a better game by providing examples of some rules-light houseruled version of D&D that has little resemblance to the actual rules as published.
>>44323959
The system being large enough that you can select what you want and omit the rest is though.
The game isn't designed around a world that includes every single monster in the monster manual, largely because a campaign that would go from A to Z would likely take a solid year just to get through the original, let alone the thousands that exist beyond the MM1.
And the game understands that with so much inherent diversity that a bit of caulk is needed to keep things running smoothly, so there's a variety of variant rules and tweak options to allow a DM to not be as dependent on the intitial rulings as much as detractors like to pretend he is.
>>44324048
It's pretty cool.
Like the comic implies it's fairly rules light and there aren't a HUGE amount of bits and bobbles to pile together but it's a good pickup and play game.
>>44324063
If that's the argument you want, that you can pick and select rules then GURPS is thousands of times better at doing that. Or Savage Worlds.
>>44323278
Not the person you replied to, but as a player of 3.5e I think these points are misguided.
>Trap Options
I see you're one of those people who likes winning at RPGs. Frankly, I've had a lot of fun playing with Tier 4 classes and random prestige classes that only really work when everyone goes along with it, but when they get going they're awesome. Turning into a bear is useless, practically, but the Bear Warrior is an amazing class.
>How badly written it all is
Some people think that the existence of a class that literally only makes you good at turning into a bear is bad. Fortunately, there are literally hundreds of other classes for those people to use.
>Optional rules
I'll agree with you on this one. D&D does a certain sort of thing, but it does that well because of the variety it as, although I can understand how you'd disagree with that.
>>44324094
tier 3/4 games are the best in 3.5
No full-caster bullshit, but there's still magic around, non-casters get to do stuff, and you can present non-combat challenges like walls to climb or pits to cross or people to convince or "convince" without them being bypassed
>>44324094
Not the person you're replying to, but mechanical competence matters for more than just 'winning'. I play RPGs for the characters and storytelling, but the mechanics matter as a way of engaging with and interacting with the world and the story and having an impact. If I'm playing a character who is rarely relevant and has little to no actual ability to help the party in most situations, I'm going to have a boring fucking time and the character is likely going to become stuck as a cheerleader. That is why mechanical imbalance sucks. It's not about winning or losing, it's wanting everyone able to contribute to the game and to have a meaningful effect on events as they go forward.
>>44323988
>The clear imbalance
That's subjective, and probably wrong, an optimized wizard can't do as much damage as an optimized fighter, looks like Fighter is unbalanced and too strong.
Also, making every class the same is probably a bad thing, but neither of those things is undisputable.
>>44324094
>winning
I don't wanna win.
I want a character who does what I want him to do and I want that to be useful. I want a chance to shine on my own accord and not because the GM kept bending over backwards to hand me an excuse to do something cool.
>>44323988
>clear imbalance
Not as clear as you'd think. Most people like to compare the best class against the absolute worst class at their highest degree of separation, which isn't really fair because the same could be done to exaggerate the disparity in ANY class based game, as well as really any game with build subsets.
But, you're sort of just leading this into the old caster supremacy debate, which is another thread worth of people arguing about their personal experiences.
>>44324094
>I see you're one of those people who likes winning at RPGs
When the game rules state that a level 10 BMX Bandit is expected to adventure around with a level 10 Angel Summoner, I don't think its the BMX Bandit's player's fault for feeling let down by the system that allows his Angel Summoning friend to end every enemy encounter before they begin.
>>44324170
>damage
>being relevant in 3.5
Learn about the system before you spout shit
>>44324093
Cool opinion.
>>44324024
I've never met one of those people in actual real life, which is why I'm convinced this is just some form of trolling. But I'd love to meet one of them, if they really exist.
People denying imbalances, yeah. People saying it's no big deal, yeah. People claiming that it's no problem with a Good DM, yeah. But never "Class Imbalance is actually good and necessary for the game!"
>>44324170
>an optimized wizard can't do as much damage as an optimized fighter
Nigga what. An optimized wizard can do anything.
>>44324189
But he's right. If options are what you want in an RPG, there are systems out there which are better designed for modularity.
>>44324227
wew lad thats some hot opinions
>>44324176
I'm not even really trying to drag the Caster Supremacy Debate in here, which is why I haven't used the word. But even among casters, there are those that are plain better than other casters, or there are martials that are 100% better at everything they do than a similar choice.
>>44324281
>D&D 3.5 IS THE BEST SYSTEM. FACT.
>GURPS is better
>LOL COOL OPINION BRO
do you not realize the irony of any of this?
>>44324227
Thing is, OP argues that 3.5 is best purely on the number of options. And not even GURPS with it's insane number of publications can compete in that market with 3.5. The OGL ensured that.
>>44324227
>But he's right.
You mean you agree with his opinion. It's a cool opinion, and I don't mean that sarcastically or snidely, but it is an opinion very open to discussion.
> If options are what you want in an RPG, there are systems out there which are better designed for modularity.
Even if that were the case, are they better designed for modularity without sacrificing too much else in the process? They might be, but that's deep in opinion territory.
>>44324312
Do you really not appreciate the irony of OP stating an opinion as a fact?
>>44324320
>The OGL ensured that.
Is everything published under the OGL considered to be part of D&D 3.5?
>>44324351
I understand it's a shitpost and the contributing to shitposting going on but why are you acting like none of this is a shitpost?
>>44324377
For the epic baits lad, people can't help but bite this hot meme. Come on, don't be a 4rry, come and cast a line with us.
>>44324377
Because it's honestly fun
I mean, the guy pretending to be retarded may be baiting, but he's really giving everyone else the opportunity to feel smarter, unified with like-minded people, and correct, so really, why complain?
Join in, pretend the bait is real and enjoy it, this is the board for roleplaying games after all
>>44324377
There's nothing wrong with liking 3.5. It's a pretty good system, and most of the hate depends on the exaggeration of certain opinions and pretending that they're presenting facts.
These 3.5 haters have been quite bold and loud with they're hot opinions, so it might do them so good to get a little frustrated when faced with the idea that no matter how much they hate something and claim it's terrible, it won't stop people liking it and calling it great.
>>44324491
There's nothing wrong with liking 3.5, but it is not a good system
>>44324508
That's a nice opinion.
I think it's a great system.
I had a lot of fun with it when I played it, and it was a lot of fun to make custom stuff for it, since there were a lot of precedents to pick and choose from.
As a side note, the 3.5 homebrewing scene was one of the most impressive communities you could take part in.
>>44324552
Pointing out that a statement is an opinion doesn't make your own opinion immune from criticism.
>one of the most impressive communities you could take part in
How so? Is it just the size or were you blow away by their statistical prowess or design acumen?
>>44324170
>>44324552
I also had a lot of fun with it, but with a highly experienced DM and with class options limited by tiers.
A game does not need to be good to be fun, for the fun in most RPGs is driven from who you're playing with.
I like 3.5, but if your DM is inexperienced it is no longer fun because the game gets in the way, if you don't houserule away the balance issues it is no longer fun because if one guy wants to turn into a bear and another want to be a non-magical thief then you're going to run into serious problems that may expand into table arguments.
A good game doesn't have those problems, a good game can be played by a new group and, barring inter-personal issues, let all of them have fun together without getting in the way
>>44324669
Reminding you that your opinion is just an opinion is important, especially when you're trying to condemn an award-winning system that has retained sizable popularity after two other flagship editions. I mean, if you're going to say it's not a good game, we need to all run over to your private little world where your opinions hold tremendously more sway than they do in reality. We've got to go through your explanation of how you define a good game, why 3.5 doesn't qualify, why your definition is valid and whether or not it's built around excluding 3.5, and so on and so forth, all while people are continuing to play it and love it fifteen years after its release in such numbers that only 5e is more popular.
I mean, you can weigh all the negatives more than the positives as much as you want, but why would you expect other people to do so when all it does is skew your opinion?
>How so? Is it just the size or were you blow away by their statistical prowess or design acumen?
I think it was the sense that the numbers mattered. With so many points of reference, you could fashion a fairly good argument as to why a creature should have a certain stat or why a character should take a particular class. Remember when people actually used Stat Me threads to stat things?
>>44324835
So what you're saying is, the only true measure of quality is popularity?
>>44324700
It sort of sounds like this is the kind of game that wouldn't able to attract any kind of following, since it's so mercilessly cruel to new DMs and players.
But, it looks like inexperienced players had difficulty maximizing the disparity between the classes, and as they grew in experience, so did the the DM and his ability to hold the reigns.
While it wouldn't be my first recommendation for new players, it doesn't seem quite as difficult to play as you're trying to make it out to be. I mean, I've seen middle schoolers play the game without issue. Why shouldn't adults succeed at that?
>>44324878
Not necessarily, but things that are good tend to become popular.
>>44323040
You're right, it was the best RPGat setting up for 4e
>>44323040
But that's not GURPS.
>>44323148
The thread should have ended here.
>>44323040
As someone who started out with 3.5, and is actually a D&D fan, I disagree. Martials are gimped to hell unless you have an optimized build, there's way more math than I like, and certain rules are just a clusterfuck. Only thing it has over the otherwise infinitely superior 5e is a lot more material.
>>44324921
Ahh, but you fail to account for all the variables
3.5 is the luckiest game in existance, it came out at just the right time, had huge amounts of free publicity from the previous editions thanks to religious hysteria and other craziness and, thanks to WotC and Hasbro, was spread much further and supported much more than any other RPG on the market.
It would have been a miracle if it had failed, it succeeding was just natural considering everything it had going for it outside of internal quality
>>44323476
> character progression is shit
At least it has significant character progression, puts it ahead of most other games (and 5e).
>>44324949
>GURPS
>Good for anything other than a paper weight and giving spreadsheet fetishists something to fap to
I am become Kek, destroyer of sides
Why do people always assume success equals quality? It isn't true, and it's never been true.
>>44323382
>/tg/ is not one person.
I refuse to believe this. /tg/ is exclusively me and one fat neckbearb arguing with everything I say
>>44324922
Counterargument: Justin Bieber.
>>44325067
They don't, they only do so when they like the successful thing
>>44323059
Whether or not someone's trolling has nothing to do with whether or not something's true.
Trolling's being an ass to get a rise out of people.
OP's trolling regardless.
>>44323569
Most other systems either don't have the equivalent of CR/EL at all, or reduce the game to a very simplistic damage + minor status effects easy to balance MMO type gameplay.
In a game like D&D with so many different hard counters and effects which are win buttons if not countered CR/EL is always going to be extremely unreliable.
>>44324878
No, I'm saying that you can't really call the RPG of the year a bad game because you think your opinions outweigh those of industry experts and the majority of players in the role playing market.
We can get into the nitty-gritty if you want, but all it amounts to is you hoping that your criticism is more valuable than the praise the game has received from people who don't really need to regurgitate the same four arguments endlessly.
What is the measure of a game? It's fixable flaws?
In the end, we're going to disagree no matter how much anyone tries to convince you, and no matter how many times you try to say I should be overwhelmed by problems I wasn't overwhelmed by, so at the very least I can remind you that your opinions are not as widely held as you might believe.
Even people who recognize that it is a rather outdated system that can stand a fair amount of modernization should respect the foundation it provides and the multitude of excellent design decisions it made alongside the few bad decisions that it contained.
>>44323040
The joke here, is that facts are just statements that can be proven true or false.
>>44325098
Comparable monsters are total crapshoots of CR; hell, just look at PCs. A level 10 wizard and a level 10 fighter are same-CR, but are they the same challenge? Fuck no.
>>44325067
I'm fairly sure even the designers didn't consider 3.0 or 3.5 to be quality, considering how fast they started writing the following editions.
>>44325088
Counterargument, that's an outlier to the general correlation.
Or, is everything that is popular Justin Bieber?
With so many good games out, why can't we just play what we like instead of squabbling over which is best?
>>44323929
>Do you want to go through each one, one by one, and have me explain why 3.5 is better?
If you are saying that it is definitively better than virtually every other RPG ever, then yes, an actual argument should probably be paired with your assertion. Put your money where your mouth is, or be content with having the 'correct' opinion.
>>44325088
Bieber hasn't been around for 15 years, and his fanbase is decidedly smaller now than when he started. By the end of 2016 no one will remember him.
>>44324921
This is all it takes, you massive faggot.
>Consider the 8th level druid. Now, an 8th level druid can do many things, like cast spells or shapeshift, but they also get an animal companion. At 8th level, their animal companion is likely to be a brown bear. Now, a Brown Bear gets 3 attacks a round, is Large (he gets free attacks whenever anyone moves up to him), has a 27 strength, and can make grapple checks as a free action whenever it hits you. An 8th level fighter, for comparison, can only make 2 attacks a round, although he probably has better accuracy and AC and he should have more tricks to use than a bear.
>But that's just one of the druid's abilities. The druid can also turn into a brown bear. So every time she wakes up in the morning, whatever else she does, an 8th level druid is, at minimum, 2 brown bears.
>Except one of those brown bears can cast spells. There's a feat in the PHB that lets you cast spells while wildshaped without any penalty at all. Oh, and any magic cast on the druid automatically affects its animal companion for free. Druids get many, many spells that benefit animals, so this is a useful power.
>So a druid is like two bears, each of them capable of more attacks per round than a fighter, except both bears can fly (Air Walk), both of them have magically enhanced claws, and one of them is throwing lighting bolts and and turning the ground to spikes and summoning more bears.
>That's caster supremacy. One guy gets a sword and armor, the other person is an aggressively hegemonizing ursine swarm.
>>44325208
No, 3.5 is the Justin Bieber of RPGs. Widely loved despite the fact it's mediocre at best.
>>44323040
Fiasco.
Fuck, I'd say even "Everyone is John" is better
>>44325231
>By the end of 2016 no one will remember him
No anon, he is going to be alive and (somewhat) well until his death around 2021.
Justin Bieber: President of the 27 Club
>>44324367
No. The OGL is just a content license, and plenty of stuff's been published under it that isn't 3.5-based or 3.5 compatible.
For fuck's sake, Fate's under the OGL.
>>44325098
Yet people wank over EoTE system that does the same thing and has the same type of WIN EVERYTHING combos.
>>44325250
The real problem here is just how easy it is for a new player to do this accidentally.
Being a bear, having a pet bear and summoning bears all sound really cool and thematic, you are the bear guy, you specialisein bears. Natural spell also seems really cool, now you can be a bear when you summon more bears.
Those seemingly innocuous character creation decisions have thus rendered poor mr fighter who just wanted to be a sword & board hero like in his video games completely useless
>>44325250
>reposting that
Oh, I remember you. You got butt-flustered when someone actually ran the math and dismantled your attempt to compare the best class against the worst.
Why do you keep posting wrong arguments and acting like you posted some kind of quantifiable proof?
>>44325231
You're saying 3.5 is more popular now than it was 15 years ago?
>>44325106
>multitude of excellent design decisions it made alongside the few bad decisions that it contained.
Holy shit.
Holy goddamn fucking shit.
I WISH I COULD HATE YOU TO DEATH
>>44325309
No one ran any fucking math. We kept asking you to, but you never fucking produced, you lying faggot.
>>44325307
That's only part of the problem. It really shouldn't exist at all, but we have jackasses like the one I replied to above that can't get it through their cancer riddled brains that it exists.
>>44325328
Relax, he's just a victim of standard 3.5 indoctrination, don't hate him, pity him
>>44325106
A game owns its flaws. They are not fiated away. And in fact, "industry experts" have a lot to say about how 3.5 is a bad game that made excellent marketing decisions and little else. Even on its launch. You are such an idiot fanboy that you do not exist in our reality. It's not "endlessly regurgitating the same four arguments," you delusional neckbeard.
>>44325316
It has had a relatively stable playerbase. It's about the same level as it was 15 years ago. Not bigger in any major way, but it definitely hasn't shrunk any either.
>>44325380
He propagates the memes, though.
At that point, he's moved past victim, and must be removed.
>>44325398
You are an actual crazy person, and no amount of evidence could ever convince you because you are no longer bothered by such trivial, reasonable things.
>>44323040
The Dark Eye is better, or at least so good that it's outselling D&D on the german market even if it was created later.
But I never really enjoyed a D&D since it was terrible difficult to find players for it. So it's just my personal opinion.
>>44325250
Accept that brown bear at level 8 is affected by anything directed toward animals, only knows 1 bonus trick only 6 HD and requires a feat from the druid to do any better.
So, to get anywhere near what you want, that druid has to use a feat on wild spell and improved animal companion to be anywhere near the fighter, who only had to outfit one person with the same material and doesnt have half his resources break and run in a combat with any real threat.
>>44325398
A: A huge amount of people never change RPG from the system they started with (see the whole "D&D Heartbreaker" thing.
B: The playerbase has definitely shrunk to people who play Pathfinder, 5e, 4e, Dungeon World, OSR, and other competitors that've emerged like FATE or Savage Worlds.
3.5 benefitted from heavy marketting and being a mass-market RPG backed by a major company, and, honestly, probably a fair bit of luck. It's really nothing special as RPGs go.
>>44325471
Whoo boy. Annd you forget the druid-buffs effect the bear, too, and it's not just ONE bear, and...
And I could go on for a while.
And the druid gets all those fancy magical items too. They just have a better everything else, too.
>>44325471
You're just wrong, man. Nearly all of the fighter's "tricks" are mathematically useless next to standing there and full attacking -- which six bears are always going to be better at than the fighter, because of their strength, magically reinforced weapons, higher HP, better mobility, access to other spells, and usually higher defenses.
>>44325421
So? He's doing no damage, this is /tg/, even the Pathfinder general is full of people aware of how bad 3.PF is at its core.
I'm not worried about him here, I'm only worried about him on other websites, telling innocent new players to play 3.5 or Pathfinder, thus perpetuating the cycle of poor fools taught one overly-complex RPG then tricked into believing all other RPGs are just as complex, thereby using fear of the unknown to prevent them from trying any new RPG, causing the hobby as a whole to stagnate under the hideous rotting carcass of 3.5
>>44325427
And you're a salty faggot who can't admit when he's been BTFO by hard facts.
D&D 3.5 is the best damn RPG on the market even today. Deal with it.
>>44325328
>>44325380
Oh, looks like the 3.5 haters club is here. Watching you guys tear yourself to pieces because no one really likes your little systems is wonderful.
All that jealousy. All that spite. All those negative emotions that convince you to blindly hate what so many people love.
And, the best part is, you've closed yourselves off, so that you can't even fathom why people would love it. You come up with alternate explanations for its popularity, you condemn its strengths and cripple your own games in the process, and in the end you become nothing but bitter hatemongers for a game that's more than a decade old.
>>44325471
Even if this is relevant ("He only has 1 bonus trick, suck it!"), the Fighter's going to get what with his feats? Fighter feats are shit.
>>44325518
>And, the best part is, you've closed yourselves off, so that you can't even fathom why people would love it.
I mean, I understand brain damage but I don't consider it a positive to inflict it on myself.
>>44323040
I like 5e.
It's easier for noobs to get into.
3.5 has a ton of math and multipliers, try teaching that to a couple of jocks.
Your argument will probably lean towards, "But 5e has no books!" So? It's a good clean base, you want more? Make it yourself. The game is about imagination, not adhering to the rules laid out before you.
As for best D&D, AD&D obviously you fucking twat.
And if you like 3.5 solely for content, well, there is only one system.
>>44325482
>Muh baseless opinions
>>44325511
>this level of crazy
Or, they like it because it's good?
You know, the rational explanation, and not the "WHY DON'T THEY PLAY MY FAVORITE GAME, WHY AM I SO LONELY" explanation.
I mean, even if the people in the pathfinder general recognize its flaws, they're still playing that game and wanting to discuss it.
Looks like you're just lonely and hateful. Oh, and jealous to boot.
Whew, what a mix of emotions. Aren't you proud of them guiding your perceptions?
>>44323040
>>44323059
>No RPG will ever "be as good" as D&D 3.5. Fact.
>No RPG will ever "have the same quality" as D&D 3.5. Fact.
I cannot why see anyone on either side of the argument would ever argue this.
You know, I dont give a shit about the bickering about 3.5 in this thread, I just wanted to ask something I have been wondering about for a while.
What is the difference, besides mechanics, on how people use GURPS and 3.5?
When I first started looking for help for both, I got the same responses, "It works so much better if you ignore this,this and this and only really use this.".
What makes you two fan clubs about either system if I have to gut either system or use rule lite options or I am not getting the right experience?
>>44325511
That's what I mean.
If he's doing it HERE, he'll do it other places. Hence propagation. And even here, there's the possibility that he could fool someone else, because idiots exists. Look at the two posts directly following yours.
Vaccination isn't enough. Only quarantine, execution, and burning the bodies is good enough anymore.
>>44325309
Wait, he compared monk vs wizard?
>>44325250
It's kind of a shame you had to go all Dungeon World and houserule the control of that Brown Bear to be whatever the druid player wants just to try and make a point.
>>44325009
Funny, I could say the same thing about 3.5.
>>44324687
This was made as a joke post, over half of the things listed in the bottom don't work on the dragon.
I am pleased that it is still reposted.
>>44325511
>>44325599
>This much paranoia that people will be told to play a good game instead of "m-muh indie" garbage.
>>44325598
GURPS can do other things aside from medieval fantasy
That's the difference in usage
>>44324996
>playing Fighter
>I get a +1 bonus to my attack accuracy and a new feat so I can continue to be completely mediocre
You're right, that's very significant!
>>44323833
>Which is just 3.5 but straight up better with some of the bugs removed.
wat
>>44325625
What the ever living fuck are you trying to say? Use goddamn english.
>>44325676
>If I keep screaming my strawman until my throat bleeds, someone might listen!
>>44324184
>>44324184
Nice opinion, what other games are played only exactly the way you want to house-rule them instead of by the rules?
Know what enemies can make saves on? Almost every powerful spell.
Know what they can't? Damage rolls.
>>44325699
There are actual rules for animal companions and how animals behave in the game. It's okay, you don't understand English so I could speak in Mandarin and you couldn't tell the difference.
>>44325595
>pathfinder general recognize its flaws
>still claiming it's good
I mean you're free to like stuff that's crap. A lot of stuff that's fun is mechanically or technically crap ("In terms of technique" not "by a technicality").
>>44325780
>>44325681
That is back to the fact you have to ignore chunks of the rules to make it work.
>>44325720
This is true amusement. Call it a day, man.
>>44325744
I think you are ignoring the thing in books with how wild empathy+animal companion rules work.
They are not just a random pet, anon.
>>44325598
Gurps was designed to be modular. Its subsystems are pretty independent of one another.
>>44325744
Yeah, fuck right off. How does any of that not work exactly within the rules?
Come on, let's hear it, fucker.
>>44325598
GURPS actively encourages use as a toolkit; you're specifically instructed to include or exclude modules as you like. 3.5 is intended to be a single game.
>>44325692
That's why you don't play tier 4 or below
>>44324059
Some argue it's better BECAUSE they have to houserule it for it to fit what they like
>>44325681
>I don't know anything about 3.5
The difference is that 3.5 does a lot of things good, and medieval fantasy very well. I mean, even just the Ravenloft and Oriental Adventures expansions already trump your idea of what it's limited to.
GURPS just does everything with a lukewarm approach, and isn't really a go-to system for anything. Some people often complain about how other people might try to use 3.5 for things it's not supposed to be used for, but it's even more embarrassing to find a group that didn't find a more suitable system for the game they wanted to play and had to settle for GURPS.
>>44325720
The save against damage is called AC, anon. You can just as easily say "You know what you can miss on? Melee attacks. You know what you can't? Spells."
The fact 3.5 changed up who rolled to determine the effect of an action depending on if it was a special power or a standard action was one of it's flaws.
>>44325518
Your appeal to an invisible majority really doesn't work when we have industry data, bro.
>>44325796
>posts a comic about replying with comics to a post that doesn't have comics
por que?
>>44325716
>If I call him a strawman enough times maybe my opinions will magically become facts!
>>44325808
That's insane troll logic. A tool is not better because it forces you to work around itself.
>>44325780
Recognizing it has flaws doesn't mean calling it bad.
Oh wait, you're that guy with that mythical perfect game system, aren't you? The one that no one plays and that frustrates you?
And then, whenever you try to show that perfect, mythical game without any flaws, it just transforms into one of those awful systems that are even worse than 3.5?
What a curse you have to suffer.
>>44325806
The classes aren't split between tiers in the corebook; they're all presented as equals. Can't you see that needing a fan guide to segregate the classes that can play with each other is a huge flaw in the game?
>>44325869
>industry data that supports 3.5's continued popularity
>>44325917
What're you even talking about? What game system is this? There are numerous better games than 3.5, including other later editions of D&D.
>>44325889
It's a strawman because no one, NO ONE, but you, has said a single fucking word about Indy games but YOU.
That's what makes it a strawman, you drooling retard. You are inventing a point to push over.
Do you understand, yet? Is it broken down enough for your broken, cancer riddled brain to understand?
But no, scree off with another flippant post with a picture and a tiny bit of greentext. That's all you're good for.
>>44325897
Of course it is.
The point is, some people still honnestly argue it
>>44325917
Your argument falls apart when even the devs of 3e realized at the end, after about 6 years, just how badly they fucked up.
The DEVS admit they made a poor system that rewards powergamers and punishes creativity and out of the box approaches.
>>44325834
gothic medieval, eastern medieval
You have actual arguments on your side you know, Eberron is pulp, Dark Sun is post-apocalyptic.
I mean, they're all still fantasy settings where the classes of 3.5 can fit in, but still.
>>44325889
>call him a strawman
That's not how the fallacy works. Nobody is calling you a strawman. We're pointing out that you are arguing with a position you've constructed rather than any actual person.
>>44325921
The fan guide is part of the "huge people support" that is listed as a great thing about 3.5
Also, a simple overview through classes will show that they are NOT balanced (maybe it won't show how much is that disparity)
>>44325954
>editions
I think you mean "edition."
You can hate 3.5 as much as you want, but if you need to double the damage of your monsters and divide their HP by 3 right from the get go, it sounds like there's something wrong with the combat math.
>>44325598
GURPS is intended to be modular. The rule sets are provided to work in concert, or to be abandoned, entirely by design. It is playtested so that they more or less work in any configuration, and you determine for yourself the amount of simulationism versus gamism. That's why it has a ton of books, and why the editions are extremely similar in engine and mathematics, and why they all start with "you don't have to use all of these rules, choose the ones you like."
If you start to pick apart any edition of AD&D, it starts to run janky, collapse into rule holes, or its mechanical issues become more pronounced. This is because the rules were intended to only work in concert, as a whole, and the flaws are hard-baked into the system as a philosophical choice in the game design. Or, sometimes, the "gut-feel" of math and the praising of sacred cows. But I won't get into that. The point is that you need a complete mastery of D&D to tinker with it, and you have to be careful at all times to examine the far-reaching interplay of the systems you modify.
And I don't even like GURPS. I play FATE and D&D, mostly. But it's a core strength of the system, that it's less of a cat's cradle and more of a puzzle made with only square pieces.
>>44325921
Yes, and?
3.5 is bad, but still fun
>>44326004
>good games never have errata after further public playtesting! They should just accept what they are and make it worse if possible!
3aboos are actual cancer and they should be executed in camps, quietly, as some kind of final solution to the hobby problem.
>>44325834
>GURPS just does everything with a lukewarm approach, and isn't really a go-to system for anything.
I'd say its a go-to setting for historical games and niche scifi not covered by other games.
Regardless of what we think of 3.5, we all have to acknowledge something:
It was specificaly designed to be as addictive as possible. And it worked.
>>44326001
So it's great because it requires the fanbase to patch it? What?
>>44326004
That is a problem, but it does not counteract his point
>>44325955
You can't even come up with arguments anymore you are so frothing mad.
3.5 is a good game, admit it and perfect for getting into the hobby. It's not some boogeyman that you need to spin paranoid delusions about. It's okay to be wrong man.
>>44326032
This is what I have long argued for.
It's just for the good of all.
The Greater Good.
>>44326004
Yes, a problem in 4e that was fixed by the later books when the math was evened out.
The marked difference is that the problem was addressed and corrected, anon.
The sad thing is that you literally pulled that from some thread on /tg/. Also it's divide hp by 2, drop defenses by 2-4.
You know what was a worse problem, and how you out yourself as someone who never played the game?
The MASSIVE problem with solos not having multiple actions, leading to any bbeg battle to being a curb stomp.
>>44325948
That only kind of works if you are willing to say that 3.5 is the exact same game as both 5e and Pathfinder, and even then you're a fumbling retard that is ignoring wide, wide swaths of the global hobby because they don't exist in your particular microsection of the United States. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trolling, rather than being incurably retarded.
>>44326047
Meh, I play it sometimes, but I'd rather play FATE or D&D 4e in almost any given situation
>>44326050
It is great because there is room to improve. It would be boring as hell if it was perfect.Also, RAW debates are fun.
>>44326018
>Shifting goalposts
>>44326004
In 4e you can actually tell that that needs doing because the math is otherwise well constructed. And even without that, combat runs fine, just slow.
By contrast if you throw a dragon on someone, in the game Dungeons and Dragons, then everyone gets raped because dragons have an invisible +1-2 CR of stats because the devs thought that'd be a fun surprise, unless you've got a party wizard in a low tier party, of course, who will solve it and also the entire dungeon from the campsite because core classes are also fucked.
>>44326046
That's pretty fair. I guess if you can't find a specialist system that will already handle the nuances of whatever genre and tone of game you're going for, a decent answer is to use GURPS instead of trying to hack something together yourself, generally.
>>44326032
Do you even understand how fucked up the combat math has to be to require thirding the HP and doubling the damage?
And even than the combat isn't really all that great, and that was supposed to be it's primary selling point.
Cute board game, but please, let's not try to say that 4e isn't the worst D&D flagship. Even the miniatures game would have worked as a better flagship system.
>>44326081
RAW debates are not fun, you are just an asshole
>>44326018
This is actually literally all I wanted people to admit. You go have fun, anon. I bet you run good campaigns.
>>44326032
>>44326051
>>44326065
>>44326095
Oh wow, so all the 3.5 hate really WAS from just butthurt 4rries?
What a surprise!
>>44323656
3.5 didn't have any of that at release, though. Complaining that 5E doesn't have as many options after a year as 3.5 had after the better part of a decade is retarded.
>>44326081
>something is great because it's broken
This isn't even trolling. It is a lower form of shitposting that doesn't even have a name.
>>44326104
Why are you replying to a post if you're just going to pretend it says what you wanted it to say? This isn't a thread at this point. You're just yelling at your imaginary friend, in public.
>>44326130
Hey, fuck you
Just because I think 4e is better than 3.5 doesn't mean I like 4e.
It just means 3.5 is worse.
>>44326130
>Wait for it
>>44326146
Because that's all he has left.
He knows, in his heart, 3.PF is a rancid shitpile.
But he doesn't want to admit it. He's literally insane.
>>44326109
>you are just an asshole
I don't think that statment is RAW, pal
>>44326131
Well yeah, but that's why I'm not playing 5e right now
I'll play it a few years down the line, when fun stuff is added.
Looks like it's well on it's way actually, just looking at the rules for sun monks now
>>44326081
I legitimately believe this is what turns popular stuff into stuff with legacies. Everything that's got a crazy rabid fanbase is incomplete or terrible somewhere that amateurs can comment on, whether it's shows with templates for fanfic or OCs, shitty graphics that let fanartists go crazy, plot details that are confusing or better yet incomplete, or rules that're playable but fucked in places that let people debate it. The speculation, fanwork, and general "fanbase activity" keep that media alive despite official support drying up or vanishing.
>>44326177
It is the asshole that is raw.
>>44326140
See >>44325808
Let's call it Yodagaming
>>44326130
This is something you can't understand, because you are an abused housewife that thinks that there is nothing out there in the world beyond your drunken husband 3.5 and his whisperings of how much he loves you and how much you deserve this between the strikes of his fist: a normal person plays many games, as the campaign and group calls for it. They aren't parasitically addicted to just one edition, of just one game, of just one genre, and try to use it for bumfucking everything. Knowing what the fuck you're talking about when discussing a game doesn't mean anyone here has latched on pathetically to 4e in the same way that you weep and gnash as the waves crash over your sinking ship, 3aboo. Your obsession is a personal problem, and your insistence on projecting it to your opponents is as transparent as it is debased.
Why don't you just play Pathfinder
>>44326177
No no, I'm being quite accurate here, taking actual joy in a game being bogged down by arguments about how mechanics work due to shitty wording is only fun to those who take joy in the misery of others, in other words, assholes
>>44326104
I mean sure, monster math was fucked, but it's better than the entire game being fucked on every level, so that's an improvement.
>>44326130
>3.5 or 4e are the only two options.
>thisiswhat3.5playersactuallybelieve.jpg
>>44325799
>Call it a dayI only just got here, I'm not quitting now.
>>44325856
Except the chances to make a save are vastly higher than the chances for an attack roll to miss at almost all levels of play.
And one failing wastes resources, while the other wastes.. nothing.
>>44326066
You really like to pretend that your imaginary market data is real, don't you?
Even if other games were bigger in other countries (they aren't), those countries entire RPG industry is vastly smaller.
>>44326172
>all this butthurt
Who's got that roll20 picture?
The one that shows that even now 4e is less popular than 3.5?
>>44325720
>using spells with saves
>>44326207
Dude, that's a pretty long post that tries to deny what a bunch of 4rries already confirmed, that they're the source of all the silly and irrational "3.5 is the devil" hate.
>>44323239
>highly crunchy skill system
No, it isn't. Most of it is completely binary, either you succeed or you don't. Adding up a lot of numbers doesn't make something crunchy, breadth of options and outcomes do.
>near-infinite variety of characters,
Is meaningless when a solid 70% of the material is actually bad if you include it in your character. Bad, in this case, meaning makes you less effective at the thing you are trying to be good at than another option.
>I do consider it the best game I have ever played
>heavily house-ruled
This amount of cognitive dissonance is only found in the religious and dogmatic.
>>44326273
"Popular"=/= "Well-made"
That's literally all we're arguing.
Well, someone's apparently arguing for the Final Solution To /tg/, but aside from d4 Hitler.
>>44323040
You can't compare 3.5 to GURPS or WoD, for example, those are totally different systems with totally different feel. But in it's category 3.5 is really good. And it is a really good game overall.
Tremendous amount of material.
Content that oozes flavor. Flashwarper, binder, beguiler and artificer are forever in my heart.
Great comunity. Hundreds of well-written guides on running games, learning the rules, CharOpt and so on.
Passive part of the hobby. You can build characters just for the sake of theoretical optimization, you can build even the most broken stuff that noone will ever use in a game and it is fun. Like solving puzzles.
Easy to explain rules basics to new players because most of them played NWN.
Compatible with Pathfinder if needs to be. The Paizo content is mostly crap, but Dreamscarred and Radianse make good content.
Its a shame really that so many people hate 3.5 just because it is cool to hate things and le epic maymay that D&D is shit.
I played tones of fantasy RPGs: SW, Burning Wheel, RuneQuest, Shadows of Esteren, PF, all editions of D&D, DW, LotFP, GURPS Fantasy, 13th age, Fantasy Craft, several systems that are not translated to english that noone heared about and yet I've never seen a fantasy rpg as good as 3.5.
>>44323239
>(and have no idea what "ivory tower game design" actually means)
Confirmed for casual.
>>44326219
4e sucked at everything except for combat, except that it even sucked at the combat.
What's left? The awful lore?
>>44326273
>4e is less popular than 3.5
Again, popularity isn't a measure of quality.
>>44326292
Nah, nigga. You don't get to do this.
I hate 4e. I also hate 3.PF.
If I'm playing DnD, I'm only playing 5e. Flat out. So fuck right off.
>>44326256
>Except the chances to make a save are vastly higher than the chances for an attack roll to miss at almost all levels of play.
>And one failing wastes resources, while the other wastes.. nothing.
Depends how optimised you are, and if you're using spells with saves. Remember, every book includes more tricks for wizards, while a fighter will always be reliant on a full attack combo. "A summoned monster" may well do just as well, and is save-less. Sure, it's a resource, but so's the fighter's HP. Tiers exist, anon.
>>44326333
Better combat than 3.5, another game focused on combat that sucked at everything but combat
That's literally all anyone's arguing. No one's saying 4e is good, it's just better than 3.5
>>44326273
I have the Roll20 picture, but I always enjoyed this one more.
The Roll20 picture makes me sad, because such a huge, huge percentage of those games are 3.5 in all but literal name.
>>44326292
2/10
You can do better.
>>44326351
Don't forget that fighters still can't get pounce
So it's all about the full attack, and they can't even do that well
>>44326273
>unfilled games are indicative of support!
>unfilled games on just one website are indicative of support!
>unfilled games on just one website in just one language supported by that website are indicative of support!
>>44326316
I'm arguing that you're just butthurt. And, you're butthurt because 4e didn't manage to do what 5e did, so you take your anger out on 3.5.
It's either that, or you play one of the EVEN LESS popular systems, and it frustrates the shit out of you that you and your "superior" opinions are ignored by the majority of the community.
>>44326333
The first books had combats that took too long but were more involving and interesting for every class except wizards, who were about the same.
Summary expansions fixed the "Take too long" bit, which you can fix with basic maths.
As for "out of combat": What, 3.5 had a super-engaging skill system and two hundred pages of complex emotion state rules? You're rolling a d20 and adding some numbers to see if the GM said you pass in both games. Or you're doing a silly voice and pretending to talk to an elf. They're the same game, but in one game, combat's not shit.
>>44326386
>Correlation doesn't exist!
>>44323040
I dunno man, AD&D was pretty sweet. That was before the internet though. No one had yet realized that everything sucks.
>>44326395
Oh my god, stop
It's not funny anymore, it's just sad, you're not being clever anymore
>>44326372
>dungeoncrasher fighter
>>44326419
>the truth hurts
Looks like I hit you right where you didn't want to be hit.
>>44326386
You think Roll20 is only one language?
You're one of the guys who doesn't actually play traditional games, aren't you?
>>44326395
>"You just love 4e too much!"
>playing 5e
What is it with people screaming at stuff I didn't post today? Does 3.5 actually cause brain damage? Do I need to contact your caretaker?
>>44326444
Still not me, anon! It's okay; you can put down the keyboard. I forgive you.
>>44326355
>better than 3.5
Funny how the only people who hold that opinion are part of that minority of "players upset about 3.5's popularity."
>>44326447
That doesn't mean anything, maybe 4e players just don't use the internet much, or use bing.
>>44326494
>This much denial
Come on now son.
>>44326256
>Except the chances to make a save are vastly higher than the chances for an attack roll to miss at almost all levels of play.
I'm not so sure about that. I mean if you pick a random spell, sure (where you pick one of the 2 good saves a character/creature has). But luckily Wizards (and generally other casters) have spells that can target all 3 saves. At 8th level, a character will have two good saves somewhere around +12 (good stat, good progression) and a bad one somewhere around +5 (bad stat, bad progression). At level 8, a 4th level spell should have a saving DC of around 20ish (10 + 4th level spell + 6 stat modifier). That's a 75% failure rate for the bad stat (which is the stat you choose to target).
Further, failing a spell's save generally means "This fight is over" for the villain. Whereas a Fighter will only be doing damage of 10-20% of the villain's health per round.
>>44326494
Maybe 3.5 players use bing more, and the graph would show even more disparity if they included that engine?
But seriously, who uses bing?
>>44325514
Best? I can't say that. It is the edition that people are still buying tho. 4 & 5 sit on the shelf while people who play 3.5 buy 3.5 stuff. Maybe its an income thing? Broke peasants play roll20 5th....stable/well off fags play 3.5?
>>44326494
Or more realistically, don't use R20; there are other game rooms and R20 is kind of cancer.
The only good thing about 3.5 was its sheer amount of content.
For people who don't mind working through the glut of rules, though, it's actually really fun so long as you stick to Tier 3 and Tier 4 classes only.
>>44326577
You got the numbers for those other game rooms?
C'mon. Less speculation, more refutation.
Because, it really does seem like not only are the 4rries butthurt about 3.5 being more popular, they're still hoping to deny that it is.
WHOOOOOA, MOMMA. Do you even realize how pathetic it is?
I mean, we've got part of the 4rrie camp trying to desperately say "Popularity doesn't mean anything!" (probably because they've actually seen the numbers and understand how correlation works), while the other part is shouting "4e is more popular so its better!"
>>44326356
>5th had almost as many searches as 2nd two years before it released
What
>>44325250
>>44325250
8th level is pretty specific. She can't get a brown bear companion until 7th, and she can't summon brown bears until 7th (when she has at most 2 4th level spells to spend, 3 at 8th), and can't turn into one until 8th.
If she spends every 4th level spell on summoning bears, this will get her 5 bears total (companion, self, 3 summons), and will take at least 3 full rounds to do (assuming she was already wildshaped to begin with).
Bears are large size, so getting three to be able to attack one target means the target must be in the middle of a big empty space. If he's in a corner, only one could attack him unless a second one squeezed in (it's up to the DM whether or not the bear can remain in the squeezed area to fight, and if it does, it takes penalties; I would rule that it can). Bears DO NOT have reach.
If he's in a hallway, its one bear at a time, unless the druid has the range to summon one behind him, but then he could just be at the end of a hallway with his back to a door or something. Druid would whoop him in the woods, he would have a serious advantage in a hallway, let's meet in the middle and assume he's in a room where he can stand in a corner.
Except in a very contrived example, 5 bears is absolutely better than a single 8th level fighter. Hell, two bears is, especially when they have barkskin, airwalk, bulls str, etc.
But getting more than two unaugmented bears takes time and resources. The fighter maybe needs to activate a magic item, drink a potion, or just ready a weapon and/or shield.
+2 full-plate (5.5k), +1 tower shield (1k), +1 weapon (2.5k), x5ish MW weapons (1.6k), belt of giant str +2 (4k), ring of protection +1 (2k), cloak of resistance +1, (1k), potion of enlarge person (.25k), silversheen x2 (.5k), CONTRIVED BUT POSSIBLE item of constant grease (8k) = ~27k
somewhat less contrived are oils of grease (at 500gp per 10 round use)
1/2
