Why do we hate it?
>>46229674
Who's "we"? It's fine for what it attempts to portray.
>>46229674
It's fucking greatness is what it is
Because it's not only a bad RPG, it's a bad RPG which succeeded through brand loyalty, sunk cost fallacy and bull headed idiocy to the point where its bad design decisions, glaring flaws and stupid hangups became lauded as necessary parts of RPGs. On its own, it might have been simply mediocre, but as it came to dominate the RPG space and spawned a plethora of awful clones, third party splatbooks, dull settings and more. Just... Argh.
D&D as a historical icon is important, for creating the genre of RPGs and helping to popularize it. But 3.5 was a blemish on the face of a growing industry.
>>46229798
Someone got out damaged by a wizard. Maybe a druid.
>>46229905
>Wizards
>Caring about damage
You know nothing about 3.5
>>46229798
The sheer amount of support and customisation 3.5e offers, out-classes anything that has come since.
I don't but it's like a toy you take out every now and then if you want to make whacky powergame snowflakes. Which is fine if everyone in the group is doing and supporting it. It's easily the worst D&D for vanilla flavor and I find funny that people complained about certain weeb splats in the most weeb enabling edition.
>>46229998
>The sheer amount of support
Yes.
>and customisation
No. Games like GURPS, BESM, and M&M had it beat out from the very beginning because they're all designed for extreme customizability, with GURPS being by far the best supported and by proxy having the most custom rules.
>>46229998
Bollocks. 3.5 has a huge amount of available content, yes, but a tiny, tiny portion of it is actually worth using. Most of it is unbalanced, badly thought out or just plain broken, and at that point the sheer amount of content actually becomes a downside, as you have to sift through it to figure out which bits are actually functional amidst the crap.
>>46229998
Most of that mechanical support was poorly thought out and either useless or broken.
>>46230086
I'm not talking about optimal. Heck, filtering out the overpowered shit is a large part of it. I'm talking about trying to keep the game balanced, coherent and fun, which gets fucking impossible when nothing interacts on the same terms, you have three different books trying to achieve the same effect in different ways, and when entire classes literally don't work.
>>46230086
'Making an effective character capable of taking on equivalent-level challenges' is not being a powergamer, it's playing the game as intended.
But yes. 3.5e would be fine if it was just one game in a sea of many. Instead it somehow broke a bunch of people into thinking it was the only type of game possible.
Combined with the OGL and d20 glut, it also contributed to the overall RPG market collapse (not that it was the only thing - there were many other market forces at work).
>>46230131
See >>46230149
Also see https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy for why 'The GM can fix it' is not a useful comment and never has been.
>>46230131
Definitely see
>>46230174
The role of an RPG system is to take work off the GM's back and enable the players to create cool stories, not to create MORE work.
You can absolutely have a fun time with 3.PF... it just requires condensing the skill list, and not playing any class that's not tier 3 or 4. If everyone follows those same rules you'll have a great time - much better than 5e.
>>46229674
I don't hate it for itself, it's not worth anyone's time to worry about the existence of bad RPGs, but I hate how /tg/ clings to it as the definitive version of the game and pretty much the entire hobby when there were many better games when it was first released and it's been substantially bettered by its own sequels since.
>>46229674
It's shit.
>>46230131
Actually no. The reason that I hate 3e is best summed up as: I still see posts like this.
>>46230217
Most RPGs are not good.
Compared to other games, 3.5e was probably the best game in its niche, that niche being 'crunchy dungeon crawly fantasy RPG'.
The issue is simply that even today, in this modern day, people seem stunned that there are RPGs that are not the crunchy dungeon crawly fantasy kind, or even that non-crunchy is an option.
There are entire legions of people with a sunk cost fallacy and stick to 3e simply because they assume every RPG is just as complex.
>>46230232
Forgery, Open Lock and all of the psionics shit are all the things that need condensing. You're right that you can have a better time than with 5e. 5e is awful.
>>46230302
It's not even theorycrafting or arcane powergaming.
I have seen ordinary players who are new to the game run into caster supremacy right out of the fucking box. You can follow every guideline the book gives you, and end up with a party where some characters are utterly useless and others are completely dominant. Without getting into the vast reams of other issues, caster supremacy is an issue in core 3.5 that your smug dismissal does not, and cannot fix.
>>46230302
You can't possibly be arguing in good faith. You don't actually think quasi-legal char-op exercises like Pun-Pun and the LCB are what people are talking about when they say 3e has problems.
>>46230302
3e as a base is theoretically not broken. I mean, you can't 'break' roll a d20 and add modifiers. The base combat system is sound enough for what it is.
The main issues are twofold:
1. The game is far more crunchy and simmy than it needs to be. The game suffers from trying to be a 'world simulator' instead of just condensing it to what you need to play a game.
2. The gigantic class imbalance that some retards still somehow argue doesn't exist despite the otherwise overwhelming consensus and analysis.
You can fix 1 with a decent GM, you can fix 2 by the group agreeing to limit class tiers... but why bother going to all that effort when you can just play a better game instead?
>>46230365
>They are only used by powergamers who see the game in a competitive light.
Fucking bullshit. Roleplaying games are cooperative. But imbalance in a cooperative game is still a problem. If one player feels like they cannot contribute at all to the success of the group, that is going to actively harm their enjoyment of the game, and this is a serious and eternally recurring issue with 3.5. Nobody is talking about being 'competitive' here.
>>46230391
Truenamer
>>46230365
>I've yet to see a non-theorycrafted proof of caster imbalance anyway.
What does this mean? What would that look like?
>>46230361
>The game suffers from trying to be a 'world simulator' instead of just condensing it to what you need to play a game
Implying rules to accommodate every situation a player can imagine is a bad thing.
>>46230391
Truenamer
>>46230160
I actually don't have a problem with 3.5, but I've only heard negative views of it on here. I can see how it might be interpreted the way it was. Sorry for that.
>>46230448
Yes, it is. It's an unreachable goal and greatly over complicates things. A superior method a lot of systems have arrived at is constructing simple frameworks that can easily be adapted to any sort of situation, requiring much less turning of pages and remembering the details of rules you'll almost never use.
>>46230391
Samurai.
>>46230461
Because of smug cunts like you, smartass.
>>46229674
I don't.
>>46230485
It's a classic failure of the OGL. A published class which completely fails to function at a RAW level. IIRC it requires a diceroll for you to use its various abilities, but as your level increases, the DC for your abilities to function rises significantly higher than modifier you have to roll against them.
>>46230473
They only give the option to use these rules. Besides, it gives players greater freedom when thinking of a play style, and it saves the DM having to think of something on the spot.
>>46230461
You've listened to a group of three shitposters who always feel the need to complain about it. They're autistic trolls, and you should know better.
Most people like, or liked the system. In fact, it and PF are still the 2nd most popular system after all this time, just trailing behind 5e.
>>46230462
>It actually is. That and the whole "lol drowning healing" shit.
It isn't. It's things like the absurd class imbalance, useless CR system, the game as a whole requiring far more crunch and bookkeeping than a dungeon adventure game should need.
>>46230462
> You mean FantasyCraft? Please be specific next time.
FantasyCraft is probably better than Pathfinder but it's still a 'broken foundation' sort of thing. You'd get much better results starting off of 4e's base rather than 3e's, just because you'd have a more stable mathematical foundation.
>>46230485
Truenamer needed to achieve certain skill DCs to do anything with their powers. The bonuses a truenamer got to that skill increased slower than the DCs did on a CR basis.
Basically, you need to CharOp a truenamer out the wazoo to have the class just function.
>>46230483
Yeah, Samurai is literally just a Fighter with prepicked feats, making them the shittiest fighter imaginable.
>>46230462
OVERANALYSIS time!
"hmm, I'm a level 6 druid. I guess I'll take Natural Spell as a feat? Looks neat."
>is now a spellcasting bear all day that fights better than a fighter, with a bear companion, that casts spells to summon more bears
>>46230553
See above. Truenamer.
>>46230391
Yeah right. How can you play an effective fighter when someone can invalidate your entire class with a animal companion and still be able to do all their actions every turn?
>>46230553
Because there's no reason to take it over say, a Figher. Or in fact any other class. It's basic abilities can be achieved by a level 3 human of any class, but the class itself stretches these abilities out past the realms of them being useful. A commoner NPC class can do most of what a Samurai can do.
Besides this, Truenamer and NPCs classes though, most other classes are at least playable.
>>46230612
Well, let's start on those two.
What would you say a Fighters role is, in a group?
>>46230589
It sounds like you just plan on parroting answers you don't understand, and hoping you can convince people who've actually played the game with a group that didn't consist of morons.
I don't think you thought your plan through.
>>46230604
Also the Truenamer faced rising DCs to use their abilities more than once a day and could only have one instance of an ability active at a time.
>>46230553
instead of arguing with this person:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293
There. Argue in that thread, which will have far more discussion and information than a random 4chan thread.
>>46230625
Granted, the Leadership feat and animal companions can make characters invalid, but the ease of multi-classes and the sheer amount of support allows low tier classes to close the gap somewhat as long as the DM puts in some effort to balance the party.
It's certainly not a system for lazy people.
>>46230635
>So how does that make it completely ineffective?
Because unless you grab literally every single possible option to boost your truenaming check, you become literally unable to use your abilities on enemies of the appropriate CR, because the DC of your truename check increases twice as fast as your ability to invest skill ranks into truenaming.
>>46230604
>FantasyCraft is probably better than Pathfinder but it's still a 'broken foundation' sort of thing. You'd get much better results starting off of 4e's base rather than 3e's, just because you'd have a more stable mathematical foundation.
A digression, but I've wished for so long that 4e could get something like the Fantasycraft treatment. It has so many cool subsystems like the reputation economy and gear customization, but healing surges and easy encounter construction have spoiled me.
>>46230634
In theory? Tank And consistent damage through the fight. In reality? Making sure the casters live until level 3 ( for divine casters) or 5 (for arcane casters)
>>46230635
Truenamer isn't third party.
And yes, classes like Monk, Fighter and Samurai do eventually become incapable of contributing.
They have a greater reliance on magic items to stay effective - they need things like boots of flying, more magical armor, more magical weapons, etc. They're a drain on party cash.
Their inherent abilities don't keep up with enemy defenses as they level, and so they eventually can't keep up unless the DM is dumping magic items on them or the casters are buffing them.
Short version: Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
Note how BMX Bandit is /really fucking trying/. They're doing EVERYTHING to plan ahead and do awesome shit.
Or Angel Summoner could just do it all themselves.
>>46230677
Yeah. Multiclass into a caster and try to retrain your martial levels.
>>46229674
GURPS man here, and I love D&D 3.5. It was a landmark for its time. Great game that's absolutely perfect for its genre.
Seriously, why bother shitposting about it? You could learn a lot playing it, and become a better gamer and person if you let it into your mind and heart.
>>46230705
Tanking is one of the really interesting ones. Because here's the thing.
How can a 3.5 fighter tank? Generally, they can't. At best, they can stand in front of an ally and stop enemies approaching them with Opportunity Attacks. But it only works from one direction. And there are plenty of enemies, even at low CR, with the ability to move over or around a group.
In practical terms, a fighter is only an effective tank if a GM goes out of their way to make them so. And even then, half the time a summoned creature can do the job as well or better.
Meanwhile, their damage output barely increases as they level. Iterative attacks suffer from serious diminishing returns and they have a harder time getting around common sources of DR or immunity which only grow more common as levels rise.
>>46230680
>So a grizzly bear is better than an 8th level fighter?
One bear? Maybe not. Two bears that can self-buff? You betcha.
The adventuring day is roughly 8 hours, so being a bear all day is generally not an issue. Bears thumbs aren't opposable but allow for holding a pen for writing.
>>46230639
Yeah alright, no need to get personal anon. I'm just saying the people who repeat the funny memes about silly things you can do with D&D rules (which usually turn out not to be possible when you look more closely) are not the same group of people who've played the game and concluded it has a lot of more fundamental problems. Which, you know, can be worked around, but why would you bother?
>>46230772
DnD3.5e was fine for its time, but since it came out there are better games for the same thing.
13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Fantasycraft, probably a bunch of other indie RPGs I haven't looked at, all do that sort of thing better.
And, of course, 4e with inherent bonuses and Monster Manual 3 math, if you absolutely must have a game that meets the requirements of 'good' and 'says DnD on the cover'.
>>46230790
>Meanwhile, their damage output barely increases as they level. Iterative attacks suffer from serious diminishing returns and they have a harder time getting around common sources of DR or immunity which only grow more common as levels rise.
So, you've never actually played the game.
>>46230833
Please tell me, then, how iterative attacks remaind relevant. Because against CR appropriate enemies your first attack was the only one with a decent chance to hit, the second if you were lucky, and the last two virtually never. What was meant to be a major improvement was a damp squib.
>>46230833
Bring a little more than this if you actually want to argue it out.
>>46230878
Have you actually played a high level martial character? Ever?
>>46230929
Yep. I had the misfortune of playing a high level Monk for a while. Then the Tome of Battle appeared and I switched to Swordsage, which was a hell of a lot more fun even it still wasn't that good.
>>46229674
Because for some reason, 8 years on, this mediocre-ass game full of broken systems is still persevering and still getting discussed.
>>46230961
What's sword sage? Is it basically "Fighter with caster levels"?
>>46230970
Maybe because your opinion is whack and you have poo brains?
>>46231029
The Tome of Battle class, which accesses the Maneuver subsystem. And as much as the dumb meme is repeated, no it does not make martial characters into spellcasters. The Maneuver system has a very different feel and it's possible to take Maneuvers with entirely mundane effects. Only two of the schools have Ex abilities.
wtf is with all the deleted posts ITT?
>>46231079
Are you reverse-trolling to make 3.5fags look bad?
>>46231248
Are you trying to say that post was entitled to any other kind of response? He should be happy for the reply.
>>46230527
It doesn't save the time of looking up the exact rule on the spot though.
>>46231088
I think you meant to say that only two of the schools had (Su) abilities - Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.
However, I think Devoted Spirit may also have been (Su).
Either way - the warblade, the fighter analogue, didn't get any of those schools. And you could play a Swordsage without using any of the (su) schools if you wanted.
>>46231295
But he's right, and you're just coming across as a wildly flailing spastic.
I dunno who >>46230680 was, or what they said, but wholly fuck have I never seen someone get their shit wrecked like that.
>>46231432
You mean you share in that minority opinion, and are equally upset in waking up each day and finding out that most people still disagree with you.
It seems like you've got issues that need to be resolved, and I don't think they actually stem from the popularity of a roleplaying game.
>>46231445
It was a comment trying to refute the Druid Homogenizing Ursine Swarm.
Remember 4plebs records everything and keeps deleted posts.
>>46231445
>>>46230680
They asked if a druid wildshaped into a bear was better than an equivalent level fighter.
They also suggested that being a bear all day was impossible, and that you can't speak while being a bear, and that this was a downside.
Man, so many butthurt oldfags.
Go back to playing 1st or 2nd if you hate it so much.
>>46231836
There have been two good editions of DnD. Or three, depending on how you count
They were called B/X, BECMI, and 4th edition.
Each one was a relatively (compared to other DnD editions) well-designed, tight ruleset with specific goals that were successfully achieved.
>>46231502
It's a little tragic that this is you trying your hardest. :^)
>>46231704
>>46231660
Huh, I had a mind blank and thought all the deleted posts were one really long winded post at the very beginning pulling apologetics for 3.5.
>>46230878
Damage is not the problem with martials. It's really really easy to optimize a martial so that they wreck anything within their reach.
The problem is the lack of flexibility because combat maneuvers suck, the almost universally shitty saves in a game where SoLs are everywhere because the classes that do have good saves are either shit like the Monk or the Paladin or are actual spellcasters like the Cleric or Druid, arbitrariliy being blocked off from contributing out of combat due to 3.5's absolute cancer of a skill system, and the full attack mechanic requiring you to get Pounce if you want to actually do your damage.
>>46231878
Who needs to try to do anything?
No matter how much you complain about it, it's still going to be popular, because it's a good game that people enjoy playing.
I could actually go ahead and help you out, and we could spam about how much we hate it whenever it gets mentioned, and do you know what would change?
>>46232160
>implying people don't enjoy shitty things
Donald Drumpf.
>>46232160
In the same sense that Transformers 2 was a good movie, sure. Lots of explosions. Lots of movement. Lots of complex special effects. It definitely made a lot of money and was seen by many people.
Why should we hate Transformers 2? It's so good.
>>46232197
>implying mindlessly complaining about it on the internet is going to help
Maybe you should stand around outside conventions with a picket sign and complain about 3.5 there? You'll certainly do more for your little crusade that way.
>>46232226
That's cool.
Maybe you should go to /tv/ and complain about Transformers 2 every day?
>>46232286
the main difference is probably that people don't watch only the Transformers movies and when someone else comes up to them with a new movie, they don't say "I don't want to put the effort into watching a new movie" or "lol nobody's seen that movie"
Imagine a community of people who casually enjoy going to restaurants every week or so, but a large group of people refuse on ever going somewhere that isn't Pizza Hut.
Does everyone take the bait any time someone tries to start an edition war thread? Or is today a special occasion?
>>46232332
/tg/ loves to edition war. It is barely bait when people are enjoying doing it.
>>46229674
We have only compassion for it. For we have the wisdom to understand it, and therefore have love for it.
>get invited to a 3.x game my best friend is planning on running this summer
>get excited, want to think of my character beforehand
>be aware of class imbalances and stuff via what people talk about on here, figure I don't want to accidentally break his game with a busted character (like I think I may have accidentally done last time he ran a game) or accidentally make a useless character and not have fun
>"Sounds cool, what tier thing is it going to be?"
>"Tiers? Huh? What are you talking about?"
>"You know, they say some classes are, uh, better than other ones, so people plan campaigns for a bunch of PCs with a similar power level... um..."
>His gf cuts in: "Uh, you just make a character? Like, with a class? And you play it?"
>she goes on for a while sarcastically like I've never heard of TRPGs before
>want to point out that didn't have anything to do with what I was asking but I get the feeling she's just picking a fight
>just let her go on until I change the subject
Now what am I supposed to do? Just play a rogue or something and hope I pick the right feats and things? Rogues are apparently in the 4th tier of seven, so is that average or just bad? I don't want to minmax my character, but I also don't want to be useless. I'm at a loss.
>>46232355
The issue is also when facts get confused with opinions, really.
For example, "I enjoy playing DnD3e" is an acceptable position to have. You enjoy what you enjoy.
"DnD3.5 is a game where the core classes are balanced", on the other hand, is an outright false statement, and should never be uttered except in jest. It's as much of a joke as "You can play DnD5e RAW without a grid".
>>46230276
I just wanted to say, I really like this picture. It made me feel nice. I hope I find myself in a party like that someday soon.
>>46229674
We don't.
People going against the TG norm hate it.
>>46232319
You like hyperbole and exaggeration, so your analogies are worthless.
If you really plan on your crusade actually amounting to anything (outside ofbeing a testament of how much you need to find a real hobby that can maintain your interest), you probably need to actually say things that people don't immediately dismiss as the whimpers of an underfed dog.
But, the funny thing is, no matter how much you want your crusade to succeed, it's not really going to do anything in the end. All your complaints, all your mindless posts discussing issues that people either don't have or don't care about, all this effort you put into trying to take down your personal metaphysical antagonist, all of it is meaningless when a person can just pick up the game, play it a little, and realize that you were exaggerating and that the game easily exceeds the low expectations you tried to convince them to have.
It's a good game. Shitposting because you hate how popular it is doesn't change that.
>>46232421
Play a druid or cleric, play entirely normally.
If you pick a druid, take the Wild Shape feat when you can. Turn into a bear.
Have a bear as an animal companion. Watch the fireworks.
If you pick a cleric, pick spells that are strong combat buffs.
Instead of buffing anyone else, buff yourself and wade into battle.
Again, watch fireworks.
No need to minmax. Just flip through the spells and pick what looks good to you.
You'll still effortlessly break the game unless someone else is just as knowledgable.
>>46230705
>Making sure the casters live until level 3 ( for divine casters
Except the divine casters are BETTER than the Fighter when it comes to survivability at low levels. Having -2 HP at level 1 and -1 HP for every level above that doesn't mean shit when both of them get cantrips to make up the difference and when the Druid has animal companions that are better than a low level Fighter in this regard.
I mean, a level 1 riding dog has 13 HP and 18 AC with cheap as fuck leather barding, free trip attacks, scent, and actually good Jump, Spot, and Listen checks. At level 3? That becomes 26 HP and 21 AC. A Fighter's not reaching either of those without overinvesting into Constitution and Dexterity on top of being sword and board, which makes you a liability very quickly because of how fast HP scales in 3.5.
>>46232421
I'd just go tier 1. But don't be a dick about it and outshine everyone. Just be a support tier 1 that makes everyone better.
>>46229674
Because you are fools. It's quite good.
>>46232484
>It's a good game
This is objectively false.
>>46232539
>I don't know what objectively means
Your unhealthy delusion that you mistake as conviction makes you hard to take seriously.
>>46232487
See, I /might/ be of a mind to do that if it were somebody I didn't like very much, but as I said this is my best friend. As I also mentioned, I may have also accidentally broken a previous character in an earlier game he ran. It was some kind of homebrew system that was still basically d20 3.esque with some extra rules. He wound up nerfing me halfway through and I felt pretty bad because I didn't mean to outshine anybody.
>>46232493
I kind of like the sound of being a tier 1 "support" guy. I could be really effective, but mostly through helping the rest of my party. But then again, if I could just cast whatever buffs on myself, then I'd just be following the advice of that first guy and I don't want to be a dick.
>>46232645
>I don't know what objectively means
Look in the mirror, retard, you're the one who's pretending that a game that has thoroughly broken rules is 'objectively good' when that by default disqualifies it.
>>46232697
It's subjectively good. And we're talking about an award-winning game that was praised by industry experts and served as inspiration and even as the model for hundreds of other games.
I know you want to pretend it has "thoroughly" broken rules, or that your personal opinion counts as "objective," but you're not talking to mindless idiots here. You're talking to people who've played and enjoyed the game, and it's hard to convince them it's objectively bad when they, along with thousands of other people who make up the majority of the gaming community, agree that it's a pretty good game. Maybe not the best, but certainly better than most others you can find on the market.
I know this upsets you to hear, but you're going to hear it every time you make the mistake of thinking your subjective opinion somehow magically becomes objective simply because there's a few rules that particularly personally upset you.
>>46232885
>I know this upsets you to hear,
Again, look in the mirror, you're the one getting incredibly butthurt every single time someone criticizes 3E.
>>46232917
Really? This is the direction you're going to try to go?
>>46232944
Are you going to stop posting multiple paragraphs about how a game isn't bad because people like it despite many, many, many of its rules failures being documented over its 16 year lifespan and its designers admitting that they fucked up several times?
>>46232987
You can't have a perfect game, doesn't mean one with flaws is absolute shit. Everything has flaws. Also stop moving the goal posts.
>>46233029
>>46232987
Are you really going to pretend that anyone has a problem with it except for a minority of people?
It's like you're standing outside an ice cream parlor, shouting that ice cream is objectively terrible. When someone is stupid enough to ask why, you say that it has a lot of fat. Then when people tell you there's fat free varieties, you start sperging about how it has a lot of sugar. When they mention the low-sugar and sugar-free options, you start complaining about artificial colors and how some people like to put sprinkles on their ice cream and that upsets you for some reason. Eventually, you get so bad that you start screaming that it's literally poison.
Cry all you want, people will still enjoy ice cream. No one wants to debate you, because nothing you say will convince them that they don't like ice cream, because they've eaten it and found it delicious, and it's nowhere near as poisonous as you pretend it is.
>>46233127
Are you going to pretend that it's not broken?
>>46233178
I have played it in the past and enjoyed it thoroughly. I need not pretend.
>>46233201
Really? Because I see a fuckload of pretending right there.
>>46232885
>You're talking to people who've played and enjoyed the game
Are we? Are we talking to people who've played the game?
All I ever hear about in 3.pf threads is how thoroughly people house rule or cut content or try to change the game to support unsupported settings.
Does anyone ever actually play the game?
Or does everyone just cannibalize it and call the rotting corpse still DnD?
Has anyone here actually played straight vanilla 3.pf, and do they consider it good? I would be surprised.
>>46233213
Those are your personal demons and delusions. You really need to get yourself checked.
>>46233223
>All I ever hear
Selective hearing tends to do that.
>>46233254
That image doesn't answer the question. Try reading the post, buddyfriendguy.
>>46233067
Now try to find me a perfect tabletop roleplaying game without flaws.
I'll wait.
>>46233319
Flaws are not a binary.
Your girlfriend could have a birthmark that looks kind of like Satan, or she could be Satan. Not quite the same thing.
"It's fine that X system is a total trainwreck! Every system has flaws!" makes no sense as an argument.
>>46233319
>>46229674
BECAUSE 4CHAN CARES NOT FROM WHERE THE HATE FLOWS - ONLY THAT IT DOES!!
>>46233281
What question are you even asking?
If you really want an answer, it's right there in the book. It says that it's up to the DM to select what he feels fits in his campaign, and he can introduce variant rules as they see fit. With so many options available to them, a DM can pick and choose exactly what he wants to include or disallow, and since he's following the recommendations written right there in the rulebook, any DM can go ahead and say they play "straight vanilla" 3.pf.
And with so many games running, and still running, it seems that people are enjoying it, and considering it good.
We're not talking about the Trasformers 2 of the gaming world. We're talking about possibly the most popular RPG ever, one that has earned more awards and outsold all of its competition, and remains popular long after it's initial printing. We're talking about a combination of an Oscar-sweeping, Golden-globe dominating, and Box-office destroying legendary film that people spend the next decade copying and learning from, and dashing out to the theaters during its inevitable re-release.
You can say you didn't like the movie or that it's really not the best movie ever, but you kind of look like a bit of a wanker to spend your days complaining about it just because you didn't really understand it.
3.5 is the best tabletop game I've ever played or DMed, and I've played quite a few systems.
Why do some people hate it? Hipster special-snowflake contrarianism. Happens with everything that's really good and popular, especially on this website.
>>46233360
>Your girlfriend could have a blemish or be the literal incarnation of evil
Not a very accurate representation. So let me be clearer with parameters. Find me a system that does not suffer from:
>HP bloat
>Class imbalance
>Options that are directly inferior to other options (trap options).
>Overpowered third party splats
>A over complicated rules system.
>A rules system that's too simple to be engaging.
>A shit fanbase
>>46233473
>Overpowered third party splats
Basically every system that isn't OGL ever.
>>46233452
People have explained it thousands of times. Its an unbalanced mess that punishes new players. Its not even a horrible system in my opinion, but don't act like its just an act of contrarian-ism when it has legitimate weaknesses.
>>46233437
I've played it. I understand it. I don't like it, what it stands for, or what it does to players.
The worst players I've GM'd for have always been people who play 3.5 primarily.
And I don't think a game that you -have- to house rule in order to enjoy is a good game.
So unless you can find me someone who plays without house ruling and enjoys it, I will stick with my opinion thanks.
>>46233553
>that punishes new players
Is this your first time discussing roleplaying games?
>>46233631
Most RPGs don't go out of their way to make minefields out of options.
>>46233473
Games without HP
Games without classes (Both of these are my preference anyway)
Most games that aren't DnD. Or at the least they have far fewer.
Depends on how you define "overcomplicated," but I've found every game I've played other than DnD and Eclipse Phase to be easier to handle.
Depends on what you consider too simple to be engaging, but anything more complicated than Risus or maybe Fate suffices for my taste.
The only system I've ever encountered where being a fan was a detriment when playing a different, unrelated system is DnD. They are the only fanbase where they drag their shit with them no matter what they play. So once again; most games that aren't DnD. Nobody else brings it up if you aren't playing "their" game.
>It's popular!
>You've just never played it!
>All systems are shit anyways, so it's fine!
Like clockwork, every single thread.
>>46233613
>I've played it
Perhaps.
>I understand it.
Apparently not.
I mean, it sounds like you just tried to blame the system for the players.
>So unless you can find me someone who plays without house ruling and enjoys it, I will stick with my opinion thanks.
What part of "selecting/rejecting options in the books isn't house-ruling" didn't you understand?
>>46233682
Forgot 3rd party splats: Most games do not have these. So also a non-issue.
>>46233697
>What part of "selecting/rejecting options in the books isn't house-ruling" didn't you understand?
Yes it is.
>>46233689
>it's "objectively" bad!
>hyperbole and exaggeration
>straightforward shitposting
like pottery
>>46233697
>What part of "selecting/rejecting options in the books isn't house-ruling" didn't you understand?
That is exactly what house ruling is.
>>46233697
Yes, it is.
"We give you permission to house rule" doesn't make it not a house rule.
>>46233682
Games without HP and classes seem impossible. How would you actually play a game like that? HP is any damage tracking method and classes are anything that describes what your character should be able to do. Just "I can shoot and if I get hit I die instantly like everyone else" doesn't seem like a good system.
>>46233760
>HP is any damage tracking method and classes are anything that describes what your character should be able to do
What? That doesn't make any sense.
You can have skills without classes and wound tracking without saying "14 hit points."
I'm really just lurking for these arguments, so I don't really know or care if you're pro or anti 3.x, but that really doesn't make any sense.
>>46233553
This is people regurgitating the same stuff over and over because they read it here once, I see it all over the website with all kinds of examples of media. It's literal memeing. If there's an imbalance issue in your campaign, it's the DM's fault, not the systems. It's very common in 3.5 that DMs make the mistake of throwing the same kind of challenge at the party that doesn't put pressure on supporting classes. The game is too malliable and complex to have balance issues that are outside of the DM's direct control.
>>46233760
>Games without HP and classes seem impossible
Only because you went out of your way to define them as broadly as possible, contrary to what they actually are. HP is a specific method of tracking damage and classes are a specific method of limiting what your character can do.
>>46233679
Please describe these "minefield" options in a game centered around roleplaying, customization and improvisation, and not centered around competition with other players like a MOBA or MMO. I can't imagine why playing a character that you want to play is a mistake unless you want to play a competitive MMO and accidentally played D&D.
>>46233760
Sure i guess if you define HP as "any damage tracking method" instead of what it actually is.
>>46233790
>Look at me, I know better than the people who designed the game and admitted that they fucked up several times!
>>46233760
White Wolf pretty universally is one of the most popular games that have neither classes or HP.
Traveller, which used to be one of the most popular games around right up there with DnD, does damage to stats instead of HP. It is... kind of on the edge on whether the lifepaths count as classes. I'd say no, since they have no bearing after chargen.
GURPS has no classes, but it does have HP.
Honestly, most games have no classes. No HP is rarer.
>>46233704
>>46233733
>>46233737
A houserule is an option or variant not used in the books applied to the game.
With so many books to choose from, with so many variants within those books, essentially we'd have to define 3.5 as a game of "houserules" by your definition.
Not that it's like that's a problem or a slight against it. One of the strongest features of 3.5 was how impressive the homebrew community was, and how far people went to discuss and develop for the game.
Also, you three really need to learn to let your hatred go. It's unhealthy.
>>46233839
A lot games use some sort of toughness/health check.
>>46233826
>in a game centered around roleplaying, customization and improvisation
That's not what D&D is about. See: Every adventure module ever.
>>46233839
>Honestly, most games have no classes.
So how would you go about balancing the game so someone doesn't just spend all their points on the most OP options and screws over game balance?
>>46229674
Because in its day it was fine and has some redeemable features but wouldn't you hate tenpenny bicycles if everyone was still riding them today, making it harder or more expensive to find new and good bikes?
>>46233858
>A houserule is an option or variant not used in the books applied to the game.
Wrong. Using variant rules that are from the books is still houseruling.
>>46233790
> it's the DM's fault, not the system
If you're going to rely on DM fiat to balance things, you don't need a system with near so many rules as D&D.
>>46233831
Ad hom and afa instead of responding with a structured argument.? Confirmed for regurgitating memes and not having any actual stances through experience.
Get a mind, 4chan can be toxic if you let it control your preferences. Look at all of the people in this thread afraid to have fun in 3.5 because of the memes they heard here about it like >>46232421
These memes are literally stopping you from thinking for yourself and having fun.
>>46233858
>A houserule is an option or variant not used in the books applied to the game.
>With so many books to choose from, with so many variants within those books, essentially we'd have to define 3.5 as a game of "houserules" by your definition.
You are aware that these statements conflict, right?
>those three anti-D&D shitposters at it again
What is wrong with you three?
>>46233910
How can you say 'those three' as if there are any usernames or identifying characteristics?
>>46233889
Read my post fully before regurgitating the same meme arguments.
>"It's very common in 3.5 that DMs make the mistake of throwing the same kind of challenge at the party that doesn't put pressure on supporting classes."
Everything is there, in the rules, without DM declarations and rule shifts. DMs just make the mistake of not using it too often, giving the illusion that wizards, clerics and druids are imbalanced characters because they are never challenged.
>>46233932
Because it's you same three guys. Why pretend at this point?
>>46233876
Usually by not having 'most OP options' and generally by being games built around things other than dungeon crawling, so a wide variety of skills are desirable instead of just murder.
Works pretty well when I run, no house ruling required.
>>46233900
>Confirmed for regurgitating memes and not having any actual stances through experience.
I'm sorry, which one of us played a sword and board Fighter in 3.0 when it was new?
Because I'd be willing to bet actual money that it wasn't you.
>>46233963
Hey at least there are three of us unlike that one lone guy who still thinks 3.5 is a good system.
>>46232421
Basically anything lower than Tier 2 might as well be a pack mule for a party of tier 1's. Play a high tier but don't optimize, just go with a theme. You'll still have fun but it wont feel like you went out of your way to be the best. Avoid DPS roles if you dont want to start in fighting. Easiest way to start a fight in 3.5 is step on the DPS' toes. They always are touchy faggots for some reason.
>>46233976
You lucky fucker I played a god damn monk.
>>46233910
>anti-D&D
Anti-3.X isn't the same thing as anti-D&D, fuck off.
>>46233936
Calling everything memes doesn't actually negate people's arguments.
>>46233963
I post in like one thread every few months, and most of those have nothing to do with DnD. Mostly I just lurk. Pretty sure you're just being a dick and trying to minimize the opposition.
>>46233976
Argument from authority now, along with a straw man suggesting my stance is less than yours over your own invention that I could not have possibly played 3e as long as you have. If you had so much experience, you'd have actual fleshed out logical arguments instead of literal textbook fallacy.
>>46233996
It's because all damage dealers have is damage.
>>46233910
Actually most people who dislike 3.5 do so because ADnD and Basic are way more refined and dialed back for a great roleplaying experience.
>>46234006
3.0's Monk is better than 3.5's and contributes a hell of a lot more than a Fighter who can't do damage or use combat maneuvers or do anything out of combat does.
>>46234041
Most DPS snowflakes I've encountered also had some utility in their build so they could just be a one man army.
>>46230361
Because there are no better games, 4E and 5E suck dick.
Given how tiers are kinds spelled out fr you anyway I don't see how fix 2 is even a problem.
>>46233987
Can you three start using tripcodes? I'm sure there's lots of people who would appreciate being able to filter you guys.
It would be nice to see people casually mention things like mimics or starbucks or fish nets without seeing you get triggered all the time.
>>46234094
>mimics or starbucks or fish nets
What do any of those other than mimics have to do with 3.5?
>>46233973
So a game focused on being boring and doing detective work?
>>46234084
>DnD is the only roleplaying game in existence.
>>46233900
>Look at all of the people in this thread afraid to have fun in 3.5 because of the memes they heard here about it like >>46232421 (You)
Hey, whoa, don't pull me into arguments I'm not in to use as an example. That is not cool, man. Plus, saying "all of the people" like that is pretty disingenuous if I'm your only example. I don't see anybody else ITT saying it like I am.
Here's the thing, I like to keep an open mind, but using me as an example was not cool, so I'll ask you a question about something I've heard that has negatively affected my impression of 3.x. Searching around about classes and things, I almost always see people saying not to pick Fighter. In fact, I ran into a couple of classes that sounded an awful lot like different names for a "Fighter" class, like "Warblade." I've since been told (by the 3.x general on this board, when I asked) that this is because Warblade was introduced as a class to replace Fighters.
Fighters happen to be my favorite class, fluffwise. I don't know why, exactly. But can you tell me if these allegations about Warblades is true, and if so, why didn't they just fix the Fighter instead? If they're not true, what's different about "Warblade" that distinguishes them from what would otherwise be called a Fighter? Just give me a simple explanation of this thing to dispel some of my anxiety, if you will.
>>46233996
I'll keep that in mind. I usually like going with themes of one sort or another, and my best friend did say that he liked 3.x for its customization, so I'll try to take advantage of that.
>>46234039
Project more.
>If you had so much experience, you'd have actual fleshed out logical arguments
I do, you simply won't accept them like a Young Earth Creationist won't accept any evidence that they're wrong.
>>46234084
Do you mean no better D&D games? Because 3.5 isn't even the best D&D that goes to Basic. This is why there's so much backlash against 3.5. It's not that it's the worst system in the world. Just the worst popular one. 5e fans are just 3.5 fans btw.
>>46230527
> and it saves the DM having to think of something on the spot.
This isn't a good thing. A DM who can't improvise can't run a good game in my experience. Having a rule for every little thing kinda makes having a DM pointless.
>>46234127
>So a game focused on being boring and doing detective work?
I'm not even in this argument, but if you can't imagine a game that's not centered around dungeon crawling than I don't even know why I'm posting this shit on here. Just get a fun, guy.
>>46234160
>But can you tell me if these allegations about Warblades is true
are*
>>46234127
There is a lot more to RPGs than dungeon crawling man.
>>46234047
So, two out of the three? And the 3rd guy is a 4e player? Or do those not exist anymore, and he's actually doing a doubleshift as that one weird guy who always tries to recommend GURPS regardless of what question is being asked?
>>46232421
If they don't know anything about character optimization, they won't think you're useless unless you pick something so terrible that it can't hit with basic attacks (Monk with Flurry Of Misses, pretty much.) They'll think you're a munchkinning asshole if you pick something they haven't heard of - power level doesn't actually matter there.
Tiers 3 and 4 are the most beloved by the character optimization community. Tier 3 is full of things people haven't heard of so they'll consider it power gaming, but it does have the Bard, which is a lovely choice in a lot of respects.
Another classic approach is to pick a heavily optimized support Wizard, like "Treantmonk's guide to being GOD" type. When you polymorph the Fighter into a hydra, everyone thinks it's equal team work and nobody does the math to realize that you just needed a warm body to cast the spell on.
The reason I like Bard as a choice in your situation is that it has less raw power than a Wizard but still has the innocuous support nature.
>>46234006
I had an evocation-based Wizard.
>>46234226
>neener neener I can't hear you
Typical 3.5 fan. Chicken or the egg scenario though. Does 3.5 create people that can't have a conversation without resorting to childish bullshit or does it just attract them?
>>46234084
>Because there are no better games, 4E and 5E suck dick.
Have you ever tried to play something other than DnD and its clones?
>>46234281
Do you honestly think you've said anything to be entitled to anything else?
>>46234018
My argument is in there, and you've failed to respond to it. Read again.
I'll even give you an easy example. Wizards/druids/clerics not getting challenged enough in your campaign because you're throwing nothing but stupid monsters at your party? Get some necromancers together. Intelligent human beings that use strategy and understand the importance of removing supporting class characters from an attacking group. Ambush the back of the party with some enervation spells, watch the party shit bricks when they have to handle something they aren't used to. That kind of thing is normal with a great DM, but unfortunately it's a common mistake made to throw big stupid monsters that run at the tanks over and over. It's the fault of the DM, not the system.
Ignoring my argument because I correctly declared your arguments memes while also providing sound counter-arguments doesn't support yourself at all. A classic indicator of regurgitation, meaning you read something, accepted it as true, didn't think it through, and repeated it. Once your meme arguments are put under scrutiny you fold to fallacy and red herring, because you didn't arrive at those conclusions on your own.
You guys need to think for yourselves so you can have fun playing games.
>>46234160
If you're an asian male living in LA, there's no reason to not mention you as a statistic as an asian male living in LA, even if you don't want to be "used as an example".
You're someone who was afraid of 3.5 because of class meme autism caused by /tg/. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant to being a statistic.
Warblade is basically a Fighter from a 3.5 extension that has better everything, because the class was seen as too boring by a lot of players in vanilla. It's up to the DM to include such expansions or not, I don't. Everything is there in vanilla, and as long as characters express their goals to me, I make sure that doors are open to achieve them.
>>46234323
>Wizards/druids/clerics not getting challenged enough in your campaign because you're throwing nothing but stupid monsters at your party? Get some necromancers together.
And then suddenly the Fighters and Monks can't do shit because enemies that challenge spellcasters are going to dominate them effortlessly.
>>46234311
Like something actually demonstrable and not just pure conjecture like "3.5 is the best"
I doubt you've ever played Basic or ADnD. Although now that I've pointed that out I'm guessing your response will be something like "yeah I have plenty and they're shit". There's things to like about 3.5 but your newfag is showing if you actually think it's the best DnD let alone the best RPG.
>>46234323
>class meme autism caused by /tg/
It's just three guys. Hardly /tg/ as a whole.
>>46234164
>you're projecting
confirmed for arguing using memes only.
Your argument is literally this:
>"People have explained it thousands of times. Its an unbalanced mess that punishes new players."
When countered, you went directly to memes. Your argument has no flesh, it's simply regurgitation. Feel free to prove otherwise, I've provided plenty of flesh to my argument and all you've responded with is fallacy and memes.
>>46234160
>why didn't they just fix the Fighter instead?
As you've probably realized, people are extremely touchy about the suggestion that D&D is unbalanced. Saying "Fighters aren't strong enough, here's a buff" would seriously set people off. Nothing in Tome Of Battle (the Warblade book) actually says "these are better fighting classes because we fucked up" for that reason. Instead that's left for the people willing to think about game balance to realize.
See my advice in >>46234263 about how people who don't understand character optimization thinking "Thing I haven't heard of = unbalanced." Depending on your assessment of your group, you may have that problem if you pick Warblade.
If you do want to take a plain fighter, the Attack Of Opportunity based build (mostly PHB stuff, you'll figure it out) and the Dungeoncrasher variant (Dungeonscape) are the most effective. Fighters have low skill points though, so they're very short on non-combat options.
>>46234370
Wow, you seem like a cool person to argue with. Please, tell me that I don't know what I like some more, I'd love to hear why you think so.
>>46229674
>>46229674
>>46229674
Because of too many sessions where a slightly optimized cleric/druid/wizard nullified entire encounters by himself. Because people who play RPGs rarely know what makes an RPG good and then spew their bullshit opinion when challenged about 3.5. Because we can't not have an edition war at all times.
If 3.5 is so great, why did they make 4e and 5e?
>>46234323
>Warblade is basically a Fighter from a 3.5 extension that has better everything, because the class was seen as too boring by a lot of players in vanilla.
Wait a second. So Warblades are mechanically better than Fighters? What does that have to do with them being "interesting" or not?
>>46234412
Huh. I'd kind of ruled playing a Fighter out for this system entirely, but I do like Attacks of Opportunity. Thanks.
>>46234417
This isn't an argument. This is you getting taken to school. I don't really care what you think, except in the grand scheme of being annoyed at the prevalence of 3.5 fanboy wankery.
>>46234358
You're not really thinking about things very creatively if you literally cannot fathom a scenario where supporting classes instead of front-line classes. Which is common, which is why 3.5 has the imbalance illusion. It's because people like you DM and can't think outside the box a little and create an exciting and balanced experience for ALL of your players.
Remember that wizards are made of glass and don't take 1d4 turns unless the DM wants them to. A good monk build would slaughter in the situation I just described.
>>46234449
Warblades are more interesting than fighters because their maneuvers give them more to do in combat than move and attack.
>>46234478
>monks
>actually able to threaten wizards outside of the first 1d4 levels
wew lad
e
w
l
a
d
>>46234449
I personally don't think they're interesting, but that's because I just see it as bloat. I don't see any reason for the class to exist, as it's basically a thinly veiled and unnecessary retcon for the fighter class.
Technically they aren't strictly better. There are feat trees you can climb pretty high as a fighter that you can't as a warblade.
>>46234449
>So Warblades are mechanically better than Fighters?
Warblades aren't just better than Fighters numerically, they're more intricate than them on multiple levels and their options extend far beyond "hit it with a big stick or use a shitty combat maneuver that won't work if you didn't invest your entire build into it". A Fighter will full attack and tank hits with very little bells and whistles beyond that, a Warblade will parry attacks made at him into other enemies adjacent to him or literally jump into the fray or instinctively follow someone who's trying to get out of their reach.
>>46234505
I bet he thinks grappling focused monks are op.
>>46234511
>There are feat trees you can climb pretty high as a fighter that you can't as a warblade.
What, like the fighter exclusive feats? Warblades can qualify for those too.
>>46234505
>>46234478
>Remember that wizards are made of glass
Only if you're a literal retard and think that HP is indicative of actual survivability.
>>46234544
I don't get it
>>46233910
>If you don't like 3.X you don't like DnD
Wow fuck off any time, thanks.
>>46234534
Fighters get extra combat feats at every even level. Warblades get some other weird bloaty thing instead.
>>46234441
If -your system here- is so great, why are there other rpgs?
>>46234465
>This is you getting taken to school
No, this is you making assumptions, and falling into your own little world of delusions. This is you complaining, and thinking that anyone is listening to you when you're telling them things they already know either don't matter or are straight-up false.
You don't care what anyone thinks, except that you're terrified of how many people still play 3.5 and how many people prefer 3.5 over alternatives.
You need help. Your hopeless complaining won't ever solve your problem.
>>46234544
It is hilarious that you actually think you're right.
>>46234561
This. If anything people who don't like 3.X have generally played more D&D than those who love it. Because 3.X is usually a starter system that people latch onto and then are afraid to play anything else because they think it's going to be just as daunting to learn.
Once people start playing a myriad of systems they realize why 3.X is flawed beyond reasonable repair.
>>46230033
You know M&M is built on the DnD OGL right?
>>46234568
Because those other RPGs are made by different companies who thought their RPG was better.
If 3.5 wasn't broken, why would Wizards make subsequent editions instead of continuing to work on 3.5?
>>46234560
He like a lot of players including myself when i first played D&D looks at the monk's list of abilities and thinks it's impressive.
And it is until you play for a bit and find out that a lot of your abilities don't mesh well together can be replicated by low level spells or don't really function as intended at all.
>>46234323
My argument was "If you're going to rely on DM fiat to balance things, you don't need a system with near so many rules as D&D."
You're talking about "fixing" the problem with an ambush that specifically targets the most powerful characters.
Wizards have the most reason to pick Improved Initiative of any class and have access to spells like Nerveskitter, so they're actually the least likely to be surprised of anyone. And that's before getting into the fact that utter cheese like Contingency exists.
> big stupid monsters that run at the tanks over and over.
Unlike you, the character optimization community realizes that there are (nearly) no tanking mechanics in 3.5, making the role of characters like fighters even less important.
Fortunately, the big stupid monster can't actually get to the "support characters," or indeed the party at all, because spells like Entangle, Web, Black Tentacles, and, god help you, Solid Fog exist. The "tank" role that you seem to think exists is actually best fulfilled by a Conjurer.
>>46234570
Again, nothing to say, but a lot of words. Stay in your little 3.5 delusion bubble who cares. You're the one defending the shit as if it has some personal significance. This is like people who get upset hearing their favorite video game is shit. If you love it so much go eat your shit sandwich. Just don't shove it in my face and we'll be both fine.
>>46234596
M&M only looks like 3.5, it isn't actually anything like it in play.
>>46234560
Monks have an incredibly high movement speed, damage output and are wisdom and dex based, giving them significant will and reflex save throw bonuses making them strong against spells. Within two rounds a mid-level monk will have moved to and slaughtered a wizard in most situations, I've seen it plenty and is something I keep in mind when designing encounters for my campaigns.
>>46234611
Yeah I think the common misconception is that there's any way to fix the wizard or really make up for the power gap by anything less than bullshit GM FIAT.
>>46230033
>GURPS
Oh, here we go.
GURPS is the worst system. There's a reason that only ten people play it and it's general is a stagnant mess, and it's not that other games are more popular, it's that GURPS is a trainwreck of pointless rules with each one making the game less fun and more arduous.
>>46234649
>Monks have an incredibly high movement speed, damage output and are wisdom and dex based, giving them significant will and reflex save throw bonuses making them strong against spells. Within two rounds a mid-level monk will have moved to and slaughtered a wizard in most situations,
Please close that can of worms. You don't want the shitstorm that's about to follow.
So how does the monk deal with no-hit no-save spell effects?
>>46234649
>Monks have an incredibly high movement speed
Speed boosts don't help you for shit in solid fog
>damage output
You mean the flurry of blows you can't use if you used your incredibly high movement speed this round?
>wisdom and dex based, giving them significant will and reflex save throw bonuses making them strong against spells
So your strength is underdeveloped, reducing your damage output, and you /still/ have a save gap against fortitude, which the wizard is gonna ream your ass with.
Any wizard that dies to a monk is as bad at 3.5 as you are.
>>46234625
You're the one attacking it because you think you can convince people it's a bad game. It really doesn't matter what game you're complaining about, actually, but attacking 3.5 just because it's popular means you pop up a lot, because people like talking about 3.5 and likely always will.
I'm telling you that your crusade is pointless, and it's about time you stopped thinking anyone wants to hear your whining.
>>46234449
Warblades aren't particularly better at basic combat than Fighters. They are, but it's only marginally and at higher levels. They're better at the Attack Of Opportunity build that I suggested, for example.
The major things are that they have ways to deal with common monster traits - for example an entire school of combat dedicated to dealing with damage reduction, which is normally just a kind of extraneous "fuck you" to combat characters. And they have a deal of non-combat utility, partially just more skill points.
If you play using the game's actual rules, unlike that guy who keeps yelling at me about memes, fighters are very bad at everything but hitting stuff and two other things chosen from a narrow set of skills.
>>46234649
>damage output
3/4 BAB with zero accuracy boosters, MAD, and inherent incompatibility with Power Attack even if you're using 2H Monk weapons says no, no they don't have good damage output.
Giacomo pls go.
>>46234584
Nobody has said anything to the contrary other than basic contradiction. There's no argument there. Try play experience.
>>46234623
>You're talking about "fixing" the problem with an ambush that specifically targets the most powerful characters.
No I'm not. I'm explaining how it's not a problem but an illusion of a problem caused by DMs never challenging supporting classes.
If you'd ever actually played 3.5 instead of armchair speculate optimized classes, you would know that tank classes are extremely real to the point of being stereotypical and necessary at low level. A dedicated conjurer is a perfect example of a tank class. So is a fighter, cleric, or paladin depending on the build. I had someone in one of my recent campaigns go dual-shield fighter, and he carried the party through the first ten levels. According to you, who obviously has no play experience, that doesn't exist, even though it literally does all of the time in most games.
>>46234733
You're really delusional if you think there's some secret cabal of people who just go around shitting on 3.5. I go on /tg/ maybe about once a month because of the shit state it's in right now I can't stand to be here much more than that. I just happened to click the first trollbait thread that I came across. I don't ever think about 3.5
Right now playing Shadow of the Demon Lord. It's pretty great. You should try some other DnD-like systems you might enjoy them or at least get your head out of your ass about 3.X being the best system.
>>46234747
Yeah no, I played this shit in person for two years and online with the character optimization community for another two.
There are also no rules in the game for dual-shield use. If you're actually playing the game in the books, instead of one you made up in your head, at least.
I'm done with you.
>>46234747
Same type bonuses don't stack.
>>46234798
Doesn't the book state this like a dozen times?
>>46234747
>If you'd ever actually played 3.5 instead of armchair speculate optimized classes, you would know that tank classes are extremely real to the point of being stereotypical and necessary at low level.
I see this exact argument as if 3.5 players don't generally go online and use optimized builds. That's nice if you and your friends are just totally ignorant of 3.5 optimization but the general player base is not. 5 wizards beats a "balanced" party any day anywhere no prep time needed. That's not even the biggest problem with DnD but you're kidding yourself if you think low tier classes are actually comparable to demi-gods.
>>46234783
> I go on /tg/ maybe about once a month because of the shit state it's in right now I can't stand to be here much more than that. I just happened to click the first trollbait thread that I came across. I don't ever think about 3.5
This an amazing testament to what kind of person you are.
Remember, this is less about the system, and more about how pathetic the people who feel the need to complain about it are.
I couldn't have written anything more condemning myself.
>>46234193
But if there's nothing there besides rolling skills and taking dick from vampires I'm not sure they should count as games.
>>46234691
>>46234697
>>46234740
You all seem to be under the impression that wizards cast 4-5 spells in a round. You're not thinking about the scenario I posed at all, where some necromancers target the supporting classes. A wizard isn't going to enervate the back of the party then turn and cast acid fog an entombment spell in a single round unless they are a high level transmuter taking 1d4 turns and you intentionally put it there to kill everyone as the DM. Think about the situation realistically.
Also the three anti-D&D memers deal that the other guy was talking about has been officially confirmed.
>>46234831
The mental gymnastics you just went through to go from "you're on a crusade against 3.5" to "you're pathetic for complaining about 3.5 at all" is great. Thanks for playing.
>>46234831
How sad are you that you walk into a thread about the complaints with 3.5 to complain about people complaining?
>>46234820
Yes, but this guy obviously hasn't played 3.5, so...
>>46234845
>You all seem to be under the impression that wizards cast 4-5 spells in a round.
>one of the people you quoted literally did not mention spells at all
>>46234862
>>46234867
>d-d-damage control
Just admit I got you good and go take your break from /tg/ already.
>>46234785
>>46234798
>"I don't know how to hold two shields because it says so in a rulebook that doesn't exist in my universe! Holding two shields is physically impossible and if I did it would make zero sense if it gave me more defensive capability!"
Are you seriously going to tell a player "No that's physically impossible" when they request to use two shields?
>>46234830
Why play someone else's optimized character build when you could roleplay and have fun?
>>46234830
>5 wizards beats a "balanced" party any day anywhere no prep time needed
I wouldn't say that, you could easily have a 'balanced' party that consists of a Wizard for typical Batman shenanigans, a Cleric or Druid for the front line, another Cleric or Druid for 'support', and then a Wizard/Unseen Seer or a Cloistered Cleric for skill monkeying, and then whoops, the entire game is broken.
>>46234898
>I'm defending a system with rules that even I think are too dumb to play by.
>>46234885
And that person was objectively wrong as a mid-level monk has accuracy boosters
Also
>Only needs WIS and DEX
>MAD
pls
>>46234898
A) Nobody cares about your shitty houserules.
B) Holding two shields in real life doesn't do shit all that holding one doesn't.
>>46234898
>Why play someone else's optimized character build when you could roleplay and have fun?
Because the two aren't mutually exclusive?
>>46234937
So you're just gonna ignore str sinking your damage and con trashing your hp and fort save.
>>46234937
Pray tell, what accuracy boosters does a mid level monk have? I'm not seeing anything in their class abilities that improves their attack bonus.
Also,
>Only needs WIS and DEX
>implying you don't need STR for damage and attack bonus
>implying you don't need CON so you have enough health to survive long enough to flail at something
>>46234937
>as a mid-level monk has accuracy boosters
From their class? No they fucking don't. The only thing they get is lower penalties on Flurry of Blows.
>Only needs WIS and DEX
If you want to do jack fucking shit for damage because you're limiting yourself to your damage dice and nothing else while other classes are swinging around 6d6 or 2d6+30 per hit.
>>46234912
"Balanced" party of a battlefield control Conjurer, mass buff Transmuter, "Batman" wizard instead of a skill monkey, and a Transmuter-gish instead of a big stupid fighter.
>>46234933
Rules are decided by the DM. No, that does not mean the game is broken and needs fixing, it's literally on the first page of the DMG and is part of the rules. I've given plenty of examples of ways to fix imbalance issues without changing any rules at all. I've also given an example of an extremely reasonable rule shift made purely to allow a character to have fun in a realistic way.
If you are strictly following the rules of 3.5, cool. There are absolutely ways to balance the game, which is usually part of the DMs job, though people commonly make mistakes.
Literally nothing but meme arguments. It's depressing.
>>46234898
>Why play someone else's optimized character build when you could roleplay and have fun?
Because the two aren't mutually exclusive for most people. Roleplaying doesn't preclude using a pre-made build. It's also not hard at all to optimize a caster build by just looking at high tier spells and options and choosing from them.
>>46234886
Alright newfag, you think I'm using a vpn just to shitpost at you or something? lel
>>46234912
That's true, but was just an example. When I said "balanced" I meant what people think of when they think a DnD party. Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Bard or what have you. When in reality 3/5 of them are just kinda useless in comparison to the Wizard and Cleric. And it's not that I want it that way. That's just how it is.
>>46235010
With that many int based casters would you really lack for skills?
>>46235024
>to allow a character to have fun in a realistic way.
>I have never done HEMA or anything like it, ever
