Why was D&D 3.5 so great?
>>44442741
Not this thread.
Sage
>378 replies and 64 images omitted.
>>44442741
Like all commercial successes, it was the right product at the right time.
Nice shitpost. Have a bunny.
>>44442741
Perfect balance between technical depth, in-rule customization/variety and possibility of varying degrees of rule-light play with just few modifications.
d20 is just a great system.
>>44442741
I loved 3.5 for its versatility when it came to classes and RP. The feat system alone changed it from 2nd enough to make me feel like I could be whatever I wanted to be. Ofcourse you got your naysayers and negative nancies who hate it just to hate it, but I felt like I could be whatever I wanted to be in a game system with still having a game system governing me.
Unlike some other neckbeards here I despise freeform and light mechanics games. I enjoy all the rules and rolls that govern the world, and 3.5 had everything I wanted to do that. I made so many unique and interesting characters within the ruleset that I was always happy with what I played.
Thats why it was great to me.
>>44442741
I think it has to do with how involved character creation is.
because at the end of the day thats all that dnd books actually do
make characters.
>>44442762
>>44442769
>>44442816
>3.5 haters
How does it feel to be silly contrarians that always need to scream about how much you hate something because it's popular?
Even if you post how much you hate 3.5 in every thread that mentions it, you still won't stop it from being popular and loved, a great game to everyone except you sad, bitter individuals who exaggerate its flaws while denying its strengths.
>>44442868
>popularity is quality
What is information inequality, Alex.
I'll take "Outdated Shitposting Techniques" for $200.
Finally! I was missing a good shitthread!
Can we turn this into a 4e thread like the last one?
>>44442868
>How does it feel to be silly contrarians that always need to scream about how much you hate something because it's popular?
I guess you are also a Belieber?
>>44442884
No one said that.
All they said is that you hate it because you don't like it being popular.
Now, proceed to exaggerate its flaws while denying its strengths, to formulate why you personally don't like it, so everyone can just dismiss you as a nitpicking nitwit with an embarrassing agenda.
>>44442921
>No one said that.
No one had to, implications are revealed through context.
>>44442884
>"Outdated Shitposting Techniques" for $200
This OP is paired with a reaction image, and is used to start a discussion without the OP needing to explain what exactly the poster likes or dislikes about the subject.Technically shitposting, but it's still a step above what usually happens in these threads.
>>44442868
honestly most of 3.5's flaws are lessened if you have an experienced group and are using the right crunch. Hell, I still really like a lot of the d20 variant rules.
Funny thing to me about mindless haters is that I played 3.x for a bit under 15 years. The things they rail about aren't significant issues in actual play and the serious deep flaws in d20 design are things they never seem to bring up.
nice balance,only monk was a little op maybe
>>44442948
>Funny thing to me about mindless haters is that I played 3.x for a bit under 15 years.
If you played the game for 15 years it's not the haters I'd call mindless.
Honest question, I am kind new here.
Why does /tg/ hate 3.5 so much? IRL and everywhere else I only heard good things about it, is it because 4e hipsters can only come on this site to discuss their shitty dead edition?
>>44442976
>so bitter
Adorable.
>>44442977
>Why does /tg/ hate 3.5 so much?
It doesn't.
It's literally a small group of obsessed idiots who attack it whenever it gets mentioned.
Most of /tg/ either doesn't particularly care about it, has fond memories of it, or actually continues to play it in one form or another, with the Pathfinder general being one of the fastest and most frequented generals.
It has it's flaws and it might not be to everyone's tastes, but paying attention to a vocal minority of mindless haters is silly.
>>44442984
Thanks.I'm working on it.
>>44442977
>IRL and everywhere else I only heard good things about it
Maybe you should leave your Stockholme syndrome'd echo chamber from time to time.
>>44442741
It wasn't.
>>44442741
I had fun with 3.5 when I was a teen. But since I was playing with my friends, I think we would've had fun with pretty much any system.
It's a shit game though, wouldn't play again.
>>44442976
hey man, I was 12 when I started and it was hard to find groups who'd play anything other than 3.5 for fantasy games.
The thing is though, the class balance and fuckhuge amounts of rules get smoothed over with familiarity.
The effect feats have on improvisation or the way the skill system works out are much more serious problems than class balance since you can't just houserule them away or have ToB solve the problem.
It's funny, I wish the haters brought up the actually horrible things about 3.5 rather than rail about the fighter being shitty or ivory tower design, which aren't actual problems for active 3.5 players.
>>44442741
>Why is it so shit
Everything
I enjoy 3.5 so much more than 4e because 4e went too far in terms of giving up realism for being a 'balanced' game. Balance is an illusion though unless every character is identical.
>>44443073
>It's funny, I wish the haters brought up the actually horrible things about 3.5 rather than rail about the fighter being shitty or ivory tower design, which aren't actual problems for active 3.5 players.
They often do, it just gets later derailed by the other stuff (although I'd say that casters having such a huge narrative power built in to their spells while other classes, not even ToB ones do is part of the problem).
>>44443073
>aren't actual problems for active 3.5 players
>for active 3.5 players
"The problem can be fixed if you know how" =/= "There is no problem"
Does not support gundam combat. 0/10 system. Its like they did not even try.
>>44443152
Maybe you should try 4e, there's some guy running a mech game in it.
>>44443048
>it was fun and I liked it
>but it's bad
Weird. When you compare it to other available games of its time, you'd actually have difficulty finding a game that was better. Now, over a decade since it was released, there are some better games, but how exactly does that make 3.5 shit?
It's sort of like complaining about Ocarina of Time because of its low-res textures and low-poly models, and focusing on the exploitative glitches or how useless the deku stick was once you got fire arrows.
>>44442977
You belong wherever you've come from.
>>44443123
True enough but it gets old sifting through all of that to find the one person pointing out how the feat design shuts down improvisation in a fundamental way.
Another misguided criticism is "too many magic item shops and everyone has 90 magic items" since that's part of the appeal to active players.
For myself, I don't quite get why so many people play pathfinder or 3.5 when 5e is an overall improvement of the d20 system. Every 3.5 group I know has switched over to 5e campaigns except for one group of hyper-fanatic grognards who hate change.
>>44443147
"There is a problem" =/= "It's a bad game"
Especially when that problem is easily fixed and doesn't actually come up outside of hypothetical "everyone is only allowed to be an idiot when playing this game" examples.
>>44443147
Most active 3.5 players have been playing for a decade or more now. Groups I've been in houseruled grappling, had folks who optimized the party power level, etc.
A lot of the critiques of 3.5 are based in theorycrafting rather than in actual play.
Like, I refused to run 3.5 ever again after running it for a decade. I refused to play ever again after 5 years. It's a fucking dogshit system but the most commonly cited reasons aren't a real factor in actual play.
>>44443166
>implying I want to play some shitty ground-based mechwarrior shit when I could be playing superior space-based gundam
4e is shit too.
>>44443268
I don't know what kind of mech games he runs, but since 4e has a fuckload of melee weapons/options, I'm pretty sure it's gundam style and not mechwarrior.
>>44443209
My group hasn't, if only because we played 4e in the meantime, and after trying 5e for a bit, saw no reason to downgrade.
>>44443181
Was Ocarina of Time a half-arsed rebuild of an older game that was shat out into the market as an untested alpha, helped along with an at the time unprecedented marketing campaign?
I wouldn't say 'great'. But it was successful for a variety of reasons.
1: it was a fresh release in a time when several other major industry giants had closed shop. That gave it an astounding market share.
2: the OGL allowed other companies to supplement WoTC's advertising campaign, while thinking that they would share some of the profits. It was basically free advertising by their competitors for Wizards wizards.
3: a large factor in their success was the sheer amount of material produced. With Monsters and character options in every sourcebook released, it encouraged both min maxing and diapers customization. The fact that most of the options were trap options that were of no value did not matter, the players were given the impression that they had unparalleled customizability. And that was a huge draw.
4: despite the fundamental flaws in the skill system, the basic mechanic and simplicity of math involved in the system made it relatively accessible and easy to use in comparison to earlier editions, which assumed the users had a innate and reflexive grasp of basic algebra.
>>44443319
*diverse
Fuck, I hate the voice recognition on this phone.
>>44442741
It was a fairly decent revision of the game that both restored a popular and nearly dead brand to life and seriously boosted the ailing Tabletop gaming industry.
>>44442977
Different people dislike different things.
Some hate it's popularity.
Some hate it's Ivory Tower design.
Some hate all the problems they IDed it having.
Some hate it because they moved on and it just won't die even though they wish it had.
>>44443181
>It's sort of like complaining about Ocarina of Time because of its low-res textures and low-poly models, and focusing on the exploitative glitches or how useless the deku stick was once you got fire arrows.
I have seen people crap on older video games for similar stuff.
>>44443212
>Especially when that problem is easily fixed and doesn't actually come up outside of hypothetical "everyone is only allowed to be an idiot when playing this game" examples.
Most of the problems people see come less from players being idiots than from players being to smart.
>>44443346
>Most of the problems people see come less from players being idiots than from players being to smart.
Or too new.
The amount of times I've seen a game ruined because someone new looked at the Druid class and thought "Wow, I could be a BEAR! With a Bear buddy!" is staggering.
>>44443312
I've played in 4e and it's fun but 5e is a blast to dm for is part of why new games are popping up with it.
Big thing of 5e is that it does something extremely different from late 3.5 or 4e. My advice if you ever want to run it would be to run it like an old school sandbox since that's where it shines. Bounded accuracy for example makes a shitload more sense in a sandbox style game. That and improv heavily.
ime 5e is more similar to 3.5 in the way the rules look but in actual play experience 3.5 and 4e have more in common with each other than either of them do with 5e.
>>44443315
To a certain extent, yes.
It was a cobbled rebuild of a Link to the Past, that gained much of its fame by simply being the first 3D Zelda game and also one of only a few 1st party Nintendo games and one of the only RPGs for the n64.
But, beyond that, it's also a good game, a game that still gets remixed and remade to this very day, and holds up fairly well.
>>44443319
Don't forget the video games. BG, BG2 and PST were big at the time 3e was released.
>>44443346
Players being too smart with the powergaming yes, but groups made of older players all actively try to optimize to each others power level. If everyone in the group knows how to min-max, you actually get less balance issues ime than in newer groups.
>>44443315
>>44443181
To be fair, there ARE reasons to hate OoT; even beyond its failings as a game (which are not an entirely objective matter), its success ensured that 3rd person adventure for a while was trying to ape it, and we _still_ haven't had a mainstream big name Zelda game that wasn't OoT inspired instead of one of the earlier ones, which had a distinctly different feel.
>>44443394
None of those use 3.0.
The first 3.0 game was Neverwinter Nights.
>>44443377
5e is what 3.5 should have been, 4e is what 3.5 became.
I'm in a 5e campaign, and it's pretty good, but I really miss 4e combat, and even build diversity a bit.
>>44443404
By which I'm trying to say that it's in a remarkably similar situation to 3rd edition, when you think about it.
>>44443340
If it makes you feel any better I got a kick out of imagining diaper customization.
>>44443413
They brought scores of vidya kiddies into the hobby at the time 3e was being heavily marketed. I doubt they gave a flying fuck about which edition it was, it said D&D on the covers.
>>44443307
>>44443268
Monk alone allows you to play out G Gundam. There is also a few other classes that allow you to teleport or move around crazy fast for high speed mecha action.
This is before you take stuff like Shaman into consideration, or the greater craziness that is Gamma World.
>>44443404
To be fair, no, hating OoT makes you a mung-faced contrarian. It's a game you can dislike, but hating it raises the question of what games from its time can you put above it.
And, it seems like you've ignored all the hand-held Zelda titles, like Minish Cap and a Link between Worlds, which shares far more with a LttP than OoT.
>>44443438
>5e is what 3.5 should have been, 4e is what 3.5 became.
I think this sums it up perfectly. And 4e wasn't as different from 3.5 as folks think. If you're familiar with late 3.5/later era OGL games or what folks were homebrewing at the time, you understand.
>>44443413
That doesn't matter; the games were popular, which generated interest in D&D, so when then new editions were released, they sold better.
>>44443472
I didn't ignore them. I love them.
They are not "mainstream big name Zelda" tho.
>It's a game you can dislike, but hating it raises the question of what games from its time can you put above it.
I feel like this is faulty reasoning? Even if there were no better titles, that only makes it "best at the time" not actually "good".
>>44442741
It was easy, balanced and fun, without caring about numbers or character efficiency.
>>44442741
Druids
>>44442977
There are a wide variety of reasons for people to dislike it, some more justified than others.Personally, I'm less sick of the system itself and more sick of everyone trying to force every possible campaign into d20 rather than try anything new.
>>44443152
Literally only autistic people like gundam
It appeared in a time where optimization and builds were predominat, see Diablo II and its hundred clones, people had fun with those and it translated well to P&P games, even if you didn't have fun (you wouldn't say this out loud though) you assumed it was because your fault and because you didn't know how to "build" your character and "beat" the game just like in those hack&slash games.
>>44443511
You got a good chuckle outta me, m8
>>44442868
That Roll20 pic is hilarious, as is your continued posting of it as though it means something.
>>44443511
>balanced
>>44443506
>They are not "mainstream big name Zelda" tho.
That's exactly what they are. They are flagship titles, not spinoffs like Hyrule Warriors or Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland.
>Even if there were no better titles, that only makes it "best at the time" not actually "good".
I get a feeling that we no longer are speaking the same language.
What is "good"?
If a game that was the best at its time, won numerous awards, is commonly cited in best games of all time lists, serves as inspiration for thousands of games and is commonly cited by game designers as one of the most influential games ever made, and reprintings of it still manage to make top 10 sales lists over a decade after it's release, I'm going to go ahead and say "yeah, that sounds good."
>>44443625
>>44443615
It's obviously sarcastic.
I mean, that sentence basically means "it's balanced if you ignore the imbalance".
I have a love/hate relatioship with 3.5, I love how many options you have, how many character concepts you can create and that basically you can build any character ever from other sources if you have access to splats, I like that.
The stuff I don't like is the complete lack of balance, the eternal feat trees to do menial shit in case you're a martial, the fandom and 99% of the GMs.
>>44443623
It axes the "No one plays 3.5 anymore" or "Most people hate 3.5" argument, at the very least. It forces you to play in the "Well, MY opinion is blah blah blah" court, which makes it so much easier to dismiss your complaints as petty bitching.
>>44443638
>popularity = good
>>44443209
If it came down to playing 3.5 or PF or 5E, 5E would be the last choice out of all of those because its developers hit the one button that will make me drop a game and never look back - they decided it'd be cool to make anything above CR 1 have insane amounts of HP combined with 5E's stupid bounded accuracy that means it's harder to hit everything. I want to see a single Fighter have the potential to kill something big in two or three rounds solo, but instead what we got was needing an entire party to wail on them for two to three rounds to kill them. Fuck that, the latter makes everyone feel ineffective.
>>44443577
What's the point of something new though? You bog people down with learning new mechanics, even if there aren't too many of them. With d20, everyone understands it and they don't have an extra layer of thinking between themselves and the story. It becomes second nature and switching systems at that point is just wasteful and brings the focus away from "let's tell an engaging story" and puts it on "let's try out this new pile of rules and mechanics"
>>44443413
Icewind Dale 2, actually.
>>44443683
Wow, you're a cool guy.
3.5 fans are always in this desperate need of validation.
>>44443741
>With d20, everyone understands it
[citation needed]
>and they don't have an extra layer of thinking between themselves and the story.
I'm pretty sure that d20's mechanics automatically do this to players. Fuck that shit.
>>44443741
>With d20, everyone understands it and they don't have an extra layer of thinking between themselves and the story
I'd like to grapple the bandit.
>>44443715
Just adjust the hp then, you fucknugget
I'd imagine you would hate every system if you had to play everything exactly as written
>>44443786
>Just adjust the hp then, you fucknugget
How can I do that when I'm not the DM, retard?
>>44443711
Winning awards and influencing game designers? What about those? It sounds like even critics who are experts in their fields are throwing accolades.
We can argue about the finer points of the game endlessly, but all that winds up happening is your subjective opinion colliding with mine.
In the end, when we look beyond ourselves, we're forced to come to terms with that your opinion is that shared by a minority and is based around ignorance and bitterness, a contrarian idea that you hope to propagate in hopes of one day not being the minority opinion.
What you fail to comprehend is that while what is popular is not always good, that doesn't mean everything that is popular is somehow bad.
>>44442741
It was super fun and had good flavor to it. The problem arose when people started min/maxing and a specific character you made became worthless because the druid and cleric realized they could do anything and everything. I still like it though. my group just makes sure every character is having fun and all goes well.
>>44443791
Be the DM or find a non-shit DM?
>>44443741
Setting-appropriae mechanics are a gigantic boon to immersion, and also make the tactical minigame more enjoyable and worthwhile. D20 has a lousy tactical minigame, and is exceptionally bad at having its mechanics match the setting and feel of things that are not D&D.
>>44443772
I think it's just opposed grapple, and you should have your grapple modifier written on your character sheet.
Rolling anything with a modifier would be tedious if you didn't have the modifier written down already
>>44443760
Really? It seems more like the 3.5 haters are in a constant need to try and bash 3.5.
3.5 fans don't really need more validation. I mean, they already have quite a lot. You pull up anything outside of "muh personal opinion" about the game, whether it's sales figures, player population, awards won, player retention, and so on and so forth, and it's been near or at the top of the pack since it's release.
If 3.5 is bad, than that means almost every other RPG is bad.
>>44443771
If you're brand new or legitimately mentally disabled, sure. I'm not talking about those groups though.
>>44442937
What is Greentexting In the OP?
>>44443802
I'm not that guy. Just saying.
>Winning awards
Fucking worthless.
>influencing game designers
Sure. Bad things can influence game designers just as well.
> It sounds like even critics who are experts in their fields are throwing accolades.
And criticisms as well. It's not as universally acclaimed as you think it is, and the further we go and explore game design, the more people will be willing to explore its faults.
>>44443840
>3.5 fans don't really need more validation.
Literally the op
>Why was D&D 3.5 so great?
>>44443872
>implying OP is a 3.5 fan
>>44443181
>OoT
Wew fuckin' lad
>>44442937
What are greentext implications, Alex. I'll take "Outdated Shitposting Techniques" for $400.
>>44442741
It was my first exposure to tabletop games, and I remember it fondly for that. The huge variety in content, be it monster, class, setting, or items, was very alluring and inspired many campaigns and adventures by themselves. It was a great time, and I will never forget those halcyon days.
But I've moved on to bigger and brighter things, now. I play Eclipse Phase, L5R, 13th Age, a smattering of games I try one shots with to try things out. One day I'll probably look back on these fondly as I try more things, or maybe I'll stick with one or two of them forever. I'll probably never play 3.5 again, because once I realized its flaws I understood it wasn't really the game for me, or at least not one I'd stick with.
Mundanes will never beat supernatural, and 3.5 proves this, if you're so assblasted play a fucking supernatural class. The game plays as intended and, just like in real world, is not fair and not everybody is equal
>>44443715
ime, 3.5 and PF fights last way, way fucking longer than 5e fights until you hit around level 10. My gm though mentioned a couple times that he'd decrease hp and increase damage on monsters.
>>44443907
So why are classes treated as equal when creating NPCs for the players to fight against?
>>44442741
For a game that was never meant to go above level 10 it does everything it needs to well enough and seemingly direct enough that people were okay with picking it up.
The fact it came at a time when internet fan communities were just shifting from being a small group of turbo nerds to actual large communities made the D&D community feel larger as well, causing a lot of people to say "that's my d&d".
>>44443840
>sales figures, player population, awards won, player retention
Wow. You managed to say the same thing in 4 different ways.
And none of these says anything about the quality of the game.
>>44443911
3.5 fights take longer to resolve in terms of time taken but are much shorter in terms of rounds.
>>44443802
No one said everything popular is bad. No one. That's just the last bastion of idiocy for people who can't comprehend that someone could dislike their precious babby system.
You're like a fucking teenager who says "you just hate me because I'm popular" whenever anyone brings up how much of a bitch they are.
>>44442741
>Why was D&D 3.5 so great?
Like many varieties of bloated vermin, D&D 3.5 makes great bait, edging out crickets and "Excuse me..." threads, and surpassed only by nightcrawlers and "Elf slave wat do."
>>44443911
3.5/PF lasts longer out of game, but less in game.
>>44443849
> It's not as universally acclaimed as you think it is
Yes. Yes, it is. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're talking about one of the most praised systems in the entire industry. It was the game to beat for the entirety of its run, and even when it's out of print it remains as one of the most important games on the market.
Like, I'm willing to get into the same old boring conversation about your specific petty gripes about the system, but what I want you to recognize is that I share a lot of those gripes, but am not stupid enough to ignore all the amazing things it contributed to the entire industry. You might choose to only focus on the negatives, trying to tell me that 3.5 is responsible for min-maxers or other silly myths, but we're talking about the system that revolutionized RPGs, literally ushering them into a new era.
Could it have been better? Certainly, especially with the fifteen years of hindsight we have. But, we're still talking about a game that was a worthy successor to the D&D line of games by every measure you can imagine, unless you are a literal grognard.
>>44444020
Not that poster, but... WoW and Halo were 'the games to beat' for a long time in the vidya industry.
Obviously, this makes them good, guys!
>>44443968
But, that's really it. You hold 3.5 up to standards you don't hold other games to, and accuse it of flaws that you excuse other games for having.
You literally hate it because it's popular.
>>44443943
>>44443995
Then why get all jimmy rustled over it taking longer in-game? The ridiculous long fights of 3.5 and 4e were always a big problem for my group. In 5e we've been able to have fuckhuge battles with 40 combatants or real complex environments without it grinding the game to a halt as much.
>>44444020
We were talking about OoT not 3.5, although it does work for 3.5 as well.
>>44444040
Halo kicked ass though
At least the first 3 did
>>44444075
>Then why get all jimmy rustled over it taking longer in-game?
Why shouldn't I get pissed off over having each player's action's impact reduced when doing that is one of my biggest pet peeves in any system? Fuck off.
>>44444020
Just to show you how flawed your reasoning is:
many other games have won many awards in the years since 3.5.
None of them ever became as big as 3.5 (in theory).
Is it because of the quality of the games? Clearly not. It's because only one of those games has a corporation behind it.
>>44444040
I dislike both WoW and Halo, but even I can recognize what they did well.
I largely don't like MMORPGs and FPSs, but when you look at what WoW and Halo introduced and the manner in which they executed it, you can't really fault them. They did good in their fields, and while there were other games that were better, you can't straight up call either of them "bad."
Well, WoW is actually Satan's bunghole, but that's largely a fault of the MMORPG genre as a whole.
>>44444056
I disagree.
I switched to other games exactly because 3.5 doesn't meet the standards I set, and those games do.
>>44444143
>you can't straight up call either of them "bad."
You can't call them great either.
>>44444056
Who the fuck are you talking to? I haven't been involved in this thread until now. And no, I don't hold 3.5 to standards I don't hold other games to, I hold it to the same fucking standard of "is the math in this acceptably balanced so almost anything in the system is viable". If the answer is no, I don't touch that game. It's why I haven't played CthulhuTech despite thinking the setting might have some merit, and it's why I'm very iffy about playing Earthdawn.
I think 3.5 is terrible because it doesn't meet my general standards. And this is from someone who used to love 3.5, back when I first got into tabletop games. Besides that, most of the games I play are popular, too, or at least they are on /tg/ and where I game. If I hate 3.5 because it's 'popular', then I must hate those other games as well. But I don't, therefore you're a faggot who is desperate to win an internet fight.
>>44444143
I can fault them for making crappy games. I can't fault the legions of fanboys for liking something I don't like.
I can fault those legions of fanboys for screaming at me for not liking what they like, though, which is why OP and everything he stands for.
>>44444173
>Besides that, most of the games I play are popular, too, or at least they are on /tg/ and where I game.
None of them are AS popular. Really, not even close.
Does that get under your skin?
>>44444193
>I can fault those legions of fanboys for screaming at me for not liking what they like, though
>Why was D&D 3.5 so great?
I'm going to guess that you don't even realize how bitter and sad you are to make that interpretation.
>>44444204
5e is MORE popular, and it doesn't get as much hate. I don't hate it. >>44444193 rpobably doesn't hate it.
But yes, people say mean things about your system just because it's popular, boohoo.
>>44444204
>I'm mad so you must be mad too!
No, it doesn't. Because this might come as a shocker, but I do not care about game popularity. I play a game because I think it's neat, that it works, and my friends also want to try it. That is my only standard. I don't have to be mad about a game not being popular because I have people to play them with no matter what.
>>44444219
Uh huh. Sure. I'm not even going to pretend you don't know the entire thread was bait. OP knew exactly what happens when you post a 3.5 thread here. And you do too.
>>44444256
5e is in the nice sweet spot, where it's too popular for anyone to take the criticisms against it seriously. Still, people try.
3.5 has waned down, and without as many active players, it seems like the easy target to complain and hate, potentially in hopes of eventually using 3.5 hate as a platform to attack 5e.
Overall, people will do all sorts of weird things to attack D&D just because it's the most popular brand.
>>44444322
>potentially in hopes of eventually using 3.5 hate as a platform to attack 5e.
Tell me, what kind of brand is your tinfoil hat made of?
>>44444284
What I understand is that there are some fags who think that 3.5 deserves hate at its mere mention.
You are the problem, not OP.
3.5 does have great things about it. I'm sorry that people liking something that you don't like gets you so flustered, but if you're really going to keep trying to promote a "/tg/ hates 3.5" mentality, then other people are going to quickly rise up to say "Shut up with your petty bitching, you silly little minority."
>>44442741
Lots of customization options, Goblins are playable, Bards are fairly playable,lots of settings available,fairly compatible with other d20 products, minor changes needed to use some pathfinder stuff,Eberron,Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana,minor rules needed to become more 4e like, Complete anything....
>>44444322
5e isn't hateworthy. It's disappointing, but I'm happy to just not play it. Mustering the energy to actually dislike it isn't worth it. 3.5 is actively unpleasant.
>>44444373
>3.5 is actively unpleasant
That's your unpopular opinion.
Also, can you do me a favor, alongside the other 3.5 haters?
When you spew your hate, can you also list the games you play? Just to slake my curiosity.
>>44442921
Given the popularity of 3.5 is objectively harmful to the roleplaying hobby as a whole they would be right to be annoyed its popular.
>>44444420
Cute opinion. Makes you look kooky, and I rarely get to use that word.
>>44444414
I play/DM 4e, 5e, Savage Worlds, FATE/FAE, Strike!, Worlds in Peril, and been roped into playing WoD (or is it CoD now?) and PF.
I only tolerated PF because I did not DM and the group wasn't familiar with anything else.
>>44444540
I had a feeling.
>>44443907
You actually have a mental disability if you think that is a justification for anything.
Magic can be ANYTHING the author wants, if the supernatural is massively OP its because the game designers were incompetent or malicious enough to make it so.
A fantasy system supposedly based on fantasy novels and legends that cannot represent the fact evil wizards get killed all the damn time by sneaky, skilled and brave mundane warriors in fiction and legend is shit.
>>44444553
What, I'm not allowed to hate 3.5 unless I'm playing it right now?
>>44442741
PF is better though, not only has the best from 3.5, it also fixed what was wrong, which wasn't much, but still, is just a even better 3.5
>>44444574
No, I'm just waiting for the other three 3.5 haters to list their games, because I sense an underlying pattern.
>>44444611
>three
sure
>I sense an underlying pattern.
I wonder what that is.
>>44444573
No, if you want to be an awesome and efficient martial you pick ToB because they're essentially supernatural, fighter and other mundanes are shit because they're meant to be shit, mundanes should never be equal to supers.
>>44444446
>kooky
When you have entire clubs full of morons who refuse to play anything but 3.5 that is harmful.
Its also a problem when people will desperately hack 3.5 to run every genre under the sun because they are too invested and fear change too much to use a system that would actually do the job properly.
We have threads on this very board where more people suggested Pathfinder for a science fiction game than systems actually capable of running that type of game well. There is no defence for that level of blind fanboyism.
>>44444414
Other guy who dislikes 3.5 here.
My main games are currently 5e, Mutants & Masterminds, and Unknown Armies. I've played some Traveller, Shadowrun, and Eclipse Phase; I'm trying to get my group to try Ars Magica and Legends of the Wulin.
>>44444611
>three
You know it buddy ;^)
>>44444659
Aside from, y'know, your adamant refusal to accept that the system is more versatile than you're willing to accept.
>>44442977
The main problem people had with it was/is that people tried to play all sorts of game types with that system even if it wasn't a good fit for that type of game. People refused to learn other systems.
That and it made an entire generation follow the letter of the rule rather just house ruling the confusing parts.
>>44444685
d20, at its core, can be used as a resolution system for any genre/setting/whatever. It's not any better or worse than d100 or d6 or pool systems, if used right.
3.5/Pathfinder on the other and are only good at running their own kind of idiosyncratic fantasy, and even then, barely. Even with a lot of modifications, you end up with absolutely terrible shit when you try to adapt, like d20 modern.
>>44444685
Because its true, using a class based fantasy system that is not even great for its own genre to model cyberpunk or WW2 espionage is pointless. Anybody who would refuse to use an appropriate system for such games is a fanboy who is being actively toxic to the hobby in general.
>>44444656
So you agree the designers are either too incompetent to make the game work or you think they are so malicious they would make some classes deliberately inferior to others in a game about supposed equals adventuring together.
A purely mundane martial should be able to kill an evil wizard with nothing but skill, strength and determination. If he cannot do this the game has failed to live up to the influences of the genre.
>>44444656
I know it's bait, but why are the fighter and druid right next to each other in the core book if they're not meant to be equal options?
>>44444768
And he can, if he surprises a wizard who is out of spells, just like in the books.
>>44444739
Well it's certainly better than dice pools. Everything is. Dice pool systems are pure cancer
>>44444414
>That's your unpopular opinion.
And liking 3e is your opinion. Being popular doesn't add anything to it.
>>44444776
Because they were meant to be equal options, anon, it's just that SKR and the 3.5 playtest crew were really bad at their jobs
>>44444776
Alphabetical order.
>>44442741
I enjoyed it mostly because it was my I introduction to DnD. It was fun and had a massive plethora of options for both races and classes. However, pathfinder was essentially an improved 3.5 in almost every way (except they had no dread necromancer. I miss that class). almost every class got improvements that were needed and the core book cover pretty much everything so you only needed 2 books to get started instead of 3.
Though my favorite edition now is 5e. It is both simplified and in depth. It focuses more on character creation than class building. (Though I hope one day a full necromancer class will be made in 5e).
>>44444776
Because classes are in alphabetical order?
>>44444839
Why didn't they fix it then?
>>44444882
They were bad at their jobs.
>>44444890
And how 3e supposed to be good game again, if creators sucked at their job that much?
>>44444858
>first paragraph
...must...refrain...urges...to reply...to this...bait...
>>44444850
>>44444864
His point is if they are all in the PC class list people will naturally assume there are no gross imbalances.
>>44444105
1st one would have kicked ass if it was on the PC as intended, on time instead of delayed for years while the xbox was being created. 2nd one was really good for a console shooter. 3rd one was solid but forgettable. The rest suck balls.
>>44444903
3e wasn't good that's why they made 3.5e which is the best DnD.
>>44444858
PF fixed nothing, it just put some icing on the pile of shit and made you think it was better than regular shit, in fact is even more caster supremacy than 3.5 and everything nice that martials might get (in the odd case they actually get something nice) casters get it better through some broken archetype.
PF is basically and endless cycle of Monk and Warpriest Sacred Fist disparity.
I've played D&D 3e, 3.5e, and now Pathfinder for 15 years for a couple reasons:
1) It's resisted nearly all of the narrativist and rules-light crap infesting RPGs currently. (I'm looking at you Apocalypse World and FATE.)
2) It has the rules, somewhere, for whatever you need to do with minimal handwaving and ass-pulling required. Want to climb a wall? The DMG has the difficulties for each type of wall. Want to take your campaign onto the high seas? There's a supplement that has rules for ships, naval combat, a bunch of appropriate prestige classes, feats, encounters, monsters, and plot hooks.
3) It's free, and the SRDs online are easy to search and decently organized. I realize that 4chan is full of people who don't mind pirating books, but not everyone in real life is like that. Nor do they want to drop $60 on a game sight-unseen. Having the rules available online and for free is a big deal because anyone can learn the game legally.
4) The classes feel unique and there's always the right combo of base classes, prestige classes, and feats to create just the character you want. We hated how same-y the 4e classes were and ended up switching to PF instead. In some games there's no difference to how Magic and Psionics are handled, it's just fluffed differently and that bothers me deeply. If it's different it ought to use different subsystems.
>>44444942
PF fixed everything relevant, don't lie. Casters are supposed to be stronger than martials so I see no reason why that's a bad thing.
>>44444936
I'm Hungarian and they never released/translated the 3.5 books here, so people are still playing 3.0, and swear the game is great.
>>44444936
...3.5 is just 3, there's literally no difference, and again, why Druid is next to Fighter in 3.5 if one is clearly superior and the other is meant to suck?
>>44443380
It annoys me when people refer to Zelda games as RPGs. At no point in Ocarina of Time does the player make any decision which affects the storyline. The Zelda games are just action platformers.
>>44444948
So you like it because its a shitty version of GURPS?
>>44444936
So they fixed casters in 3.5, right?
>>44444948
Congrats, you are the poster boy of 3aboos.
>>44444971
Yeah, martials suck dick like they're supposed to and casters got a bunch of neat toys.
>>44444952
>Casters are supposed to be stronger than martials so I see no reason why that's a bad thing.
I refuse to believe you are such a shitty, stupid person you actually think this.
>>44443394
Those are all based off of late AD&D 2e. Kotor and Neverwinter Nights were the first d20-based video games.
>>44444982
And how this makes 3.5 a good game again?
>>44444942
>PF is basically and endless cycle of Monk and Warpriest Sacred Fist disparity.
Why don't play a sacred fist then?
>>44444984
I'm surprised you're so stupid. Mages are almost always the strongest people in stories. Its only through the help of mages or the divine or plot contrivance (like a GM) that martials ever win.
>>44442741
I think it has a lot to do with it's rapid evolution over time. Players like having new game options open up due to new books (and dungeon magazine) coming out all the time.
AD&D 2e really set the trend in this of course, but grogs tend to hate 2e too so that doesn't undermine my point (only hipsters think 2e is old school).
>>44444969
Poor man's GURPS, yeah. The difference is that people actually play D&D in the wild, and I've encountered one other person in all my years roleplaying that plays GURPS.
Contrast that to D&D Encounters on Wednesday evening, D&D Meetup every other Saturday morning, and Pathfinder Meetup every other (other) Saturday morning. Each event pulling roughly 20-30 people.
>>44444948
>We hated how same-y the 4e classes were and ended up
I just don't understand how people come to this conclusion. You seem like a reasonable fellow, could you explain it to me?
The whole point of a class system is simplicity and quick character creation.
If you have dozens of classes, prestige classes and ways to combine them then its just a shitty, really coarse point buy system that makes it awkward to make exactly what you want.
>>44445024
You never visited GURPS General or official forum, right?
>>44444990
Icewind Dale 2 was 3E based.
>>44445052
In the wild man, which means wherever they live at their flgs.
It says something about 3.5
When I mention that i think 5e is better than 4e in 4e edition war threads, we end up discussing our respective editions civilly, their strengths and weaknesses, why we prefer ours to the other.
When I do the same in 3.5 edition war threads, 3.5 fans spew insults left and right, seem to have rarely played 5e, cuss me out and act incredibly hostile in every post.
>>44445066
Oh, you play IRL? In that case yeah, DnD is your inevitable choice.
>>44445024
The only people I know personally who routinely played GURPS were a group of inmates all locked up on child molestation charges. They raved about how it was superior to D&D in every way though.
>>44445017
Yeah no, be more subtle next time.
Anybody who actually thinks that is a stupid shit who should never be allowed to play games with others.
>>44445029
Area of effect attacks, healing surges, most tactics, etc.
All very samey at one point.
>>44445088
>They raved about how it was superior to D&D in every way though.
Well, it is.
>>44445094
Funnily, its so easy to find a game of 3.5 instead of whatever indie game you like. I get to play a lot more games than you!
>>44445086
>inevitable
With that attitude it is.
Unless they are the kind of toxic fanboy who will refuse to play anything but 3.5 you can show them better games or games more suited to other genres.
DnD is also a terrible beginner system for the same reason, nobody who starts on any other system I have heard of will stick to that system for all time.
>>44445077
What? Are you retarded?
Look at this thread. The 3.5 haters leaped at it immediately, because they can't stand the idea of people liking 3.5.
If you're wondering where all the spittle comes from, it's not the 3.5 fans, but the 3.5 haters who rightly deserve all the insults they get.
>>44444981
Thanks.
I've played 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars, Weapons of the Gods, and everything in between. You should understand that there are a lot of good non-d20 games out, but not everything is going to appeal to everyone.
I enjoy games that have rules for everything. GURPS, Shadowrun, Rolemaster, Eclipse Phase, even the 40k RPGs and Burning Wheel to an extent. I feel like a lot of games these days are half-done and leave everything up to the GM to puzzle out.
>>44445086
I don't know why anyone would subject themselves to playing RPGs online.
>>44445112
Okay, but why? 3.5 and 5e classes also share mechanics, but that doesn't make them the same. Why did it for 4e?
>>44444966
But... But... There's dungeon crawls! And magic loot! And long dialogue!
>>44445122
Even criminals can tell. I bet they molested those kids just to escape to prison, where they could play gurps in peace.
In prison, normal criminals shank kiddy fiddlers, and kiddy fiddlers shank 3.5 players. The hierarchy here is obvious.
>>44445148
Yes, people deserve insults for being fed up of being surrounded by fanboys who keep hacking 3.5 to run things it cannot do well.
>>44445155
>I don't know why anyone would subject themselves to playing RPGs online.
Same thing for IRL. It allows me to choose time, to play with many different players all over the world and play the system I like.
>>44445184
Yes, you deserve insults for thinking that people liking and using 3.5 is your personal problem.
>>44445155
This sounds a lot like "I'm not racist, my friend is black".
>>44445242
It is a personal problem for everyone unable to play a good game.
Or forced to choose between nothing or 3.5 hacked for modern or whatever stupid thing the local fanboys have done this time.
There is no defence for the people who refuse to play anything else, stop acting like there is.
>>44445160
>Share the same mechanics
Not really. Not everyone can just heal because 'muh surge', there are no area of affect attack outside of spells essentially, and they offer a more diverse play book as a result.
4ed did balance like a mother fucker. Anybody arguing against that can be ignored. The cost of the balance though? Lack of diversity. This made the game thin. It wasn't a bad system, but it just wasn't enough to keep me interested. Although I will say it translated wonderfully to the D&D board game series they made.
>>44445283
>Not everyone can just heal because 'muh surge'
Instead anyone with a minor amount of gold and ranks in UMD can do it just as effectively as a dedicated caster can.
>there are no area of affect attack outside of spells essentially
Whirlwind Attack, also this is a total fucking non-issue because attacks in 3E are so limited and attacks in 4E aren't.
>and they offer a more diverse play book as a result.
No, your game isn't more diverse when you have classes who are limited to full attacking and nothing else.
>>44445283
I've always thought it'd be cool to mash 4e with the exploration, resource management and dungeon crawling of basic d&d.
It'd be very gamey but that'd be one hell of a dungeon crawler.
>>44445267
Not sure what you're trying to imply. I'm super 'racist' against RPGs. I've play dozens of them and I hate some mechanics, some author's way of writing, etc. Some of them never tip either.
What I'm saying is that I know what I like (crunchy, gamist systems), I've spent well over a decade figuring it out.
>>44445283
>Not everyone can just heal because 'muh surge',
5e has hit dice.
> there are no area of affect attack outside of spells essentially,
Whirlwind attack. Do note 4e martials usually have few AoE attacks, if at all, and even less in the PHB. Like, I can't off hand recall a ranger or rogue AoE from PHB.
>>44445317
One thing I found with 5e is that the "interact with environment" and "movement can be split however you like" makes improv in combat a lot better for martials than it was in 3.x. Just in general, the way skills and the action economy got retooled.
Altering your environment or climbing up a wall and mobility is a lot easier to do. Especially since martials are the most likely to have proficiency in athletics, acrobatics, and the physical scores to back that up.
>>44445280
Christ, people like games they are familiar with even if they are shit.
Board games? Everyone knows Monopoly and loves it despite it being objectively shit, but try to get them to play something like Descent or Pandemic and they go googly eyed and hate the game because it is unfamiliar.
Card game? Poker or Uno is where it is at for most people, mention Legendary or Shadowrun: Crossfire and they draw a blank. Try to teach it too them and they hate it because it is new and doesn't illicit the memories they have of the older games.
That is how it is. People will love shit because it is familiar despite it being surpassed and improved upon in countless ways.
3.5? It was made shit by many other gaming systems. Hell, even a slightly tweaked system with 5ed made it shit (at least that one is taking off somewhat), but having to learn something new disgusts most normies and gaming has a bunch of normies in it these days.
>>44445280
There's no excuse for thinking that your opinions excuse you from attacking people just because they prefer using 3.5 over whatever system you prefer.
Really. If you hate these fanboys so much and the game they love, why is it even an issue if you don't get to play with them? Why don't you go play with all your friends who agree about how smart you all are and how ignorant everyone else is?
>>44445283
>muh surge
Second Wind is a standard action once per encounter and generally not worth your time. Otherwise healing surges need to be activated by a healing power. They are in fact a limit on your healing.
>>44445361
>interact with environment
You can do it only once per turn, so you can draw your weapon and nothing else, or sheathe your weapon and nothing else, or open a door, etc. Drawing and sheating your weapon in less than 6 secs? impossible
And that's why S&B Eldritch knight sucks
>>44445418
Sword&Board always sucked, like TWF, nothing new there, I don't see the complaint.
>>44445418
You should have weapons already drawn if you're expecting combat. It's part of the penalty of being caught unaware to have to draw your weapon.
>>44444952
The skill system is still broken, thesuffocation and garotte rules make no sense, and castersupremacy is brainless bullshit. So no, PF just added a bunch of bloat on top of an already bloated system.
>>44445413
>2015
>Trying to explain to a 3aboo what he got wrong about 4e
>>44444907
Not bait, just giving my opinion.
Network effect.
>>44445478
>Have shield an sword
>Want to cast a spell
>Sheathe sword
>Cast
>Dra...shit
Yep, awesome mechanic
This doesn't happen with other gishes because those other gishes can put their spellcasting focuses on shields and still cast while they have their hands occupied
>>44445521
>The skill system is still broken
Not really. It functions well enough.
>thesuffocation and garotte rules make no sense
Oh boy, here we go with Mr. Petty and the Tiny Complaints.
>and castersupremacy
Parrots going to parrot, I guess.
>>44445550
Your opinion is factually wrong then, PF didn't fix shit, in fact it stressed the 3.5 problems even more, this much everybody knows. I don't care if you enjoy both systems, that's is subjective, but saying PF fixed shit is wrong.
>>44445577
>Parrots going to parrot, I guess.
So it's not true because many people say it?
Interesting.
>>44445634
Prove it, for example, prove a Druid is better than a Fighter, it should be easy if it's true as you say, come on, you can do it.
>>44445560
Eldritch knight is kinda weak. I could just point to their spell selection and tell you that.
I don't know why you're acting like this is a massive indictment on the entire way the action economy works with the skill system and mobility rules to make combat be more dynamic round to round than it was 3.x.
Just add a sentence "EK can use their shield as a spell focus" if it butthurts you so much. Or play a duelist style EK. Or maybe they did that to EK precisely for balance reasons but they over nerfed EK at some point in development.
Shit idk. This is a game where the DMG is half houserules, I don't think the game will break if you add a single sentence to an archetype.
>>44445670
Druids can't into metal
>>44445670
>this shit again
Too obvious.
>>44445670
Set the rules and I'll do it.
>>44445713
No items, fox only, final destination
>>44445670
CoDZilla
>>44445740
Fox animal companions are kinda shit, I'm having second thoughts now.
>>44445694
Most GMs don't houserule shit because they think the PHB is fine as it's, and the ones they houserule they make it even more unfair for other classes.
I sadly literally never found a GM who houseruled fairly.
>>44444948
You obviously just never cared much about the rules other than being proud you know a bunch of them. The only point you have that is correct is that Pathfinder has an srd, and that makes it cheap to learn. The SRD layout is also superior to the books in every way.
>>44442741
3.5 (and most dnd editions) are really good at one thing: dungeon fantasy. And since that is the most popular genre of rpgs, and most people's first game is dnd and they don't move on it makes it very popular. Plus when you have Wizard of the Coast's marketing weight to throw around, it is no wonder it sells well. If you want to just play dnd(which most people do) play dnd, if you want to play literally anything else, use a different system. A game should be measured by more than its sales and popularity.
>>44445577
So I'd like to make a DC 80 escape artist check.
>>44445577
>The skill system is still broken
>Not really. It functions well enough.
Attacked by bandits? Alright, let me use diplomacy so that we become friends
>>44445670
They can turn into a bear that is nearly as strong as a Fighter in its own right, have an animal companion that is also a bear that is nearly as strong as an animal companion in its own right, and can summon bears that are also almost as strong as a Fighter in their own right.
If we start moving outside of core, they can grab obviously broken shit like a Fleshraker with Venomfire cast on it, Planar Shepherd, either of the Magebred animals that specify they can be taken as animal companions...
>>44446001
Exactly, ALMOST as strong as a fighter, but not as strong, so they aren't as powerful as a fighter. Imo the fighter should be nerfed.
>>44446101
Too much mate, way too much.
>>44446101
OP had some tasty bait, but this is just sad. Boo this man!
>This entire thread
>>44446119
The Emperor looked so menacing then, how did they fuck up his face so bad in the prequels? Did they forget everything they knew about makeup, or what?
>>44445991
That's either ten rounds or a -10 penalty. If they're interested in talking at all.
I don't like 3.5 but I miss the days when it was the only game in town. /tg/ was a lot better then. The edition wars brought in a lot of shitposters who don't even play RPGs, many of which never left.
>>44446185
And where does that appear in Pathfinder?
>>44446268
Those were the 3.5 rules, sorry.
PF diplomacy still takes a minute (10 rounds), but not only is there no option to rush and eat a -10 penalty, it specifically doesn't work in combat or "against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."
Pathfinder Core Rulebook. Page 93-94.
>>44446268
And yet intimidate could work on anything anytime until a 2015 FAQ
>>44446398
And here I thought my DM was being a dick when I started playing PF, well, not that knowing this would make me not run from that shitty game though.
>>44446101
You joke, but I've seen people unironically call the 2E Fighter overpowered because they can kill things faster than anything but a Wizard.
Yes, really.
3.5's big problem? It got too popular and thus drew in idiots who then became dm's.
>I roll to intimidate the wall!!!
Sorry, but no non-idiot DM would allow such fucktardness.
>hurrrr I summon a million bears!!
Sorry your DM can't read spell descriptions. Sorry the player is a fool and playing like its a cabbagehack on skyrim.
3.5 has problems...mainly shit-tier players and retarded dm's.
>>44443901
This technique involves saying something purposely to generate anger and replies
>>44446588
>Sorry your DM can't read spell descriptions
You mean sorry you can't read spell descriptions. Higher level Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally allow you to summon hordes of monsters from lower levels of the spell.
ITT: regular people trying to reason with brain-damaged 3.5 players.
I'm glad that 5e came out. It's a good containment game for the kind of people I dont want near true roleplaying games.
>>44446678
>hordes...
Lol
>>44446634
What is baiting, also called trolling or sometimes rusing?
>>44446688
>ITT, people trying to reason with brain-damaged 3.5 haters
>>44446678
>5 monsters is a horde
heh
DnD 3.5E is a terrible system. But it did have two merits:
1. It got rid of some of the shittiest mechanics from 2E, like THACO and race/class restrictions. Streamlined a lot of stuff that had no fucking reason to be not streamlined in the first place (fucking different XP tables for different classes, why?)
2. It got out during a time where fantasy got incredibly popular (LOTR movies) so HUGE amounts of people started with 3.5E
It's still a terrible, bloated, imbalanced clusterfuck of a system and inferior to 5E in every possible way except the amount of released material.
Plenty of options and of flexibility
>>44446902
Almost too many.
Also a lot of the supplements are for "higher powered" games. Yet players use feats/classes from them and then scream about balance.
>>44446902
>felxibility
Name one thing it can do well besides high-powered high fantasy.
