Hey, fa/tg/uys, I've always wondered why there are so many anti-3.5 edition posters here. The system isn't perfect, but my group(s) and I have always had a lot of fun with it.
What I really hate is that the only guys that have ever critiqued 3.5e to me in person don't actually know the rules. They'll tell me spellcasters have no limits on spells, forget casting costs, ignore rules as written and rules as intended, and never take the role playing ramifications of certain player decisions into account.
What gives?
>>46681543
>This stupid thread
Its been over a decade. Why do we need to rehash this shit every day?
>>46681606
Because you never give a valid argument?
>>46681631
I don't care what edition of D&D you play, bro.
>>46681693
You'd be the first who isn't critical.
>>46681543
>Hey, fa/tg/uys, I've always wondered why there are so many pro-3.5 edition posters here. The system isn't totally without merit, but my group(s) and I have always loathed playing it
In other words
>opinions
>>46681543
You enjoy it because you're used to it. That doesn't change how garbage it is.
5e is objectively better.
>>46681804
>>46681837
Again, no logic behind either statement.
>>46681892
>I have fun with it, therefor if you don't like it you're objectively wrong
Grow up and enjoy what you enjoy. Stop being so defensive about it. You'll live longer.
>>46681631
Bro... You seriously saying that with over 10 years of people shitting on 3.x you have never found a valid argument? Not a single one?
OP, what do you like about D&D 3.5? How does it compare to other RPGs you've played?
>>>46681543 They'll tell me spellcasters have no limits on spells, forget casting costs, ignore rules as written and rules as intended, and never take the role playing ramifications of certain player decisions into account.
Never seen those arguments here, though I suppose it's the sort of thing I would ignore if I saw.
Disregarding that, broken is an understatement if player by the book. Broken doesn't come close to doing it justice. It's gone pretzel shaped.
>ignore rules as written and rules as intended, >as intended
Slightly better, but almost as horribly imbalanced there too.
Even without bringing the spellcasting system into it, the skill system is still too kludged together.
It tries to leave nothing to the referee's discretion, and gives the impression that the referee exists to serve the rules.
(Instead of the rules existing to serve the referee.)
>The system isn't perfect, but my group(s) and I have always had a lot of fun with it.
That is fine and you are fine. The system works fine if your group collectively agrees to be reasonable.
But /only/ if.This post was brought to you by the word "Kludge".Look it up!
Casters have the ease of switching between non-combat utility spells and combat spells every morning. This gives them a massive boost in total options a amiable ehile every non-caster class is stuck with five or six base class traits that cannot change without heavy feat investment. With the extensive multi-thousand long list of spells available to 3.0 and its derivatives it's easy to see how this will give massive advantage to those who plan five minutes ahead.
>>46681543
>why there are so many anti-3.5 edition posters here
Because it's a terrible system (In that it is bad at what it sets out to do compared to alternatives. 4e does heroic fantasy better and 5e does mud'n'grit adventuring better.) with a mostly terrible fanbase.
It's just a few shitposters. They're easily triggered by this manic thought that people who play 3.5 will never play their pet game, when it's really just a matter of them never going to play their pet game regardless.
Just ignore them.
>>46681937
There's a difference between having flaws and being broken.
Almost all the complaints are either exagerations, easily fixed, memes without any truth to them, or unfair criticisms that could be levied sgainst just about any game.
>>46682642
I mean, I know you are baiting, but I find it astonishing that there are people out there who actually think like this.
There are people out there who look at a sword and board finesse fighter and a druid with its bear animal companion, turning into a bear and summoning more bears available in the same party, considered the same CR, and say "This is okay. There's nothing wrong with this."
>>46682787
You act like comparing the weakest class against the strongest class means anything, when the same or similar results could be obtained from any game with classes. And, with classless systems, why don't you go ahead and compare the all the worst options against all the strongest? Seems like that will prove some kind of point, right?
Please. You're retarded and your hatred has left you in a place where you don't even realize how far you need to twist the truth to try and call one of the best games of its generation "bad."
But, either way, your opinion doesn't matter, since you're just a bitter troll upset about that so few people share your skewed opinion.
>>46681543
It was my first RPG (was going to start playing D&D, read through the 2nd edition stuff, went back to store to finally buy a book and the "new" books were starting to come out).
I loved it for a while.
Then I started DMing it.
We enjoyed it for years.
Then we started liking it less.
Then I realized that the only times I actually enjoyed DMing it were when I was completely ignoring most of the system, and just making things up on the fly based on the core mechanics.
Then we got completely burned out on it, and thought we were just burned out on RPGs.
Then we started playing Star Wars: Saga Edition, and loved it.
Then 4e came out, and we generally liked it.
Then I started looking at a -lot- of other RPG systems.
I realized I don't really like D&D (especially running it).
I realized I REALLY don't like 3e (especially running it).
I proceeded to just not play it.
I still get to listen to people telling me that it's literally the best thing ever, and that everything else is just wrong.
I started (unfairly) associating that entire attitude with the fans of 3e in general.
Now I just dislike the entire group.
I dislike you, OP.
You are human filth.
I was bored enough to type this shit.
>>46682911
Hey, troll-io me boy-o, you're getting too invested in this! Take a breather, step back, don't let your personal opinions mix with your shitposting! I mean, seriously, it'll help you get Gus in the long run.
>>46682911
Wait, if his opinion doesn't matter, why does yours?
>>46683170
Because it's an opinion that's shared by industry experts, the majority of the gaming community, and relies on actually looking at the game, instead of trying to justify largely irrational hatred towards it.
If it all just boils down to a question of taste and opinion, the one that says "This game isn't perfect, but all the awards it won and its popularity, legacy, and continued impact aren't entirely unwarranted" seems considerably more sane.
>>46683303
>Because it's an opinion that's shared by industry experts
This is extra hilarious because even the designers who worked on it admit it's shit.
>>46683303
Wait, when did sanity come into play?
Are you suggesting that people that disagree with you are insane?
And you're backing up your opinion by saying "It's popular, so it must be good!"
Since when has popularity ever been any metric of quality?
Also, if 3.5 is so popular and well regarded and amazing, why does it need unprovoked defending on an imageboard full of people who will randomly tell you you're shit, regardless of the truth(fucking *HINT* *HINT*)?
Why ask why someone doesn't like it, if you're just going to dismiss their opinion because it isn't industry-approved?
>>46683409
(fucking *HINT* *HINT*)
>>46683363
Which is funny, because that's you exaggerating and taking things out of context.
>>46681543
>my group(s) and I have always had a lot of fun with it.
Some people have fun doing calculus. That doesn't mean that calculus is entertaining.
>>46683469
Fuck you it's not.
>>46683365
I'm saying you're neurotic, and you have an unhealthy obsession with hating a game that's nowhere near as bad as you're hoping to pretend it is.
I'm not saying it's good because it's popular, I'm saying that if we're forced to the level of comparing subjective opinions, the opinions of experts and the masses easily outweigh the opinions of a few salty individuals.
>>46683510
Ha! I'm not even the same guy!
I don't even give a shit about if 3.5 is good or not!
I'm just here to laugh at you, pretty much. And point out why this is such a poor troll, and is every time you do it.
>>46683530
Then pay attention to the discussion and realize just how wrong you happen to be, as I just explained. If you're just popping in without realizing what's going on, of course you're going to say something as stupid as what you just said.
>>46683510
Also, you need to make a decision.
Either there's a ton of people who dislike the game(thus your starting post) or there's only a very vocal minority(what you just said).
Are they a holy crusade, or are they Batman?
>>46683549
Wait, how am I wrong?
>>46682911
>You act like comparing the weakest class against the strongest class means anything, when the same or similar results could be obtained from any game with classes.
4e, 5e, AD&D
Not even different series. All have better inter-class balance. Not saying it's "good" inter-class balance, just saying it's better than having a class that's essentially replaced by a single level 1 class feature of another class.
>>46683553
I'm not OP. OP is probably just a troll who wanted to bait out the three idiots who actually suffer from a compulsive disorder and are triggered whenever someone mentions 3.5. They literally have a mental condition, and they need to shitpost about how much they hate 3.5 or else they start having convulsions and ultimately shit themselves.
>>46683605
Wait, how are you not OP?
>>46683624
Wait, how are you (you)?
>>46683639
I'm not sure, actually. According to me, I'm not (you)
Everyone I personally know who started RPGs with 3e, other than myself, doesn't play RPGs at all anymore.
Everyone else I personally know who started RPGs with something else will, at most, play 3e/Pathfinder if it's the only option (but will not GM it).
None of these people really hate it (I might), but none of them really enjoy it either.
>>46683605
But then why do you keep posting, if you truly believe that to be the case?
If you are fully secure in your knowledge, you don't need to defend the game from autist shitposters, do you? Nobody cares about what they post on an anonymous imageboard anyway, right?
Unless of course you also have some kind of compulsion to shitpost.
>>46683801
I am not him and by no means do I love 3.5, but I can speak as someone who is tired of the fucks who like to bring up 3.5 that it is almost always the anti crowd that brings it up now.
No one uses it as a default on stat me threads, people stopped assuming it was the system of choice in "shithead player, what do" threads and even filename threads have moved past most of the jokes being about it.
Yet, we can not have someone mention something to do with magic or a wizard without someone going "FUCKING WIZZARD SCUM 3.5 KEKNIGGER" and derailing the entire thread. This shit was old a year ago, now it is just excessive. Fuck, even edition wars have died down because no one bothers talking about dnd here because you can never get help for it here. Even PFG is a circle jerk of wiafu shit and an avatarfag trying to stay relevant.
Hell, tell the rest of us the magic words to say to get you fuckers to go away finally.
>>46683458
"3rd edition was a mistake"
-Monte Cook
>>46681543
It was a massive departure from 2nd edition and horribly balanced. Also popular.
>>46683945
>"3rd edition was a mistake"
>-Monte "Please Buy Numenera" Cook
>>46683994
3e was published at the right time and had good marketing ("We're saving D&D!"). What is interesting is that getting 3.5 out almost right afterwards didn't have much backslash.
>>46682642
Now you know how 4th edition players feel.
>>46681543
It's been so long since I cared about it that I honestly don't remember my problems with it. I don't think I could tell you much about it. But I remember playing it for quite a while before I learned other systems exist, and slowly got into other games and decided that I had issues with 3.5 and it wasn't for me.
I don't care what problems it may or may not have anymore. I'm never going back.
I play and still enjoy 3.5/PF. But I do so fully realizing the many problems the system has.
Class balance is a joke, 80% of all character options are worthless, and spellcasters break the system without even trying. That's just how the system is. You can either accept it, or play a different system. You can't deny that those problems are real though.
>>46685060
I think the majority of spellcaster abuse comes from ignoring spell costs, XP requirements, spell components and spell per day limits.
People talk about a Druid and a Melee type in combat and suggest the Druid can turn into a colossal sized bear as many times as necessary per day while also summoning an infinite number of Tarrasques per round...
Don't ignore the rules, breaking the game in the process and blame your ignorance of RAW.
>>46685175
>I think the majority of spellcaster abuse comes from ignoring spell costs, XP requirements, spell components and spell per day limits.
Even spells that don't require components with an indicated value skew the game balance massively in favor of casters. You could get incredibly anal about players keeping track of what they have in their component pouch and where they get it, but that doesn't improve the game in the slightest. It just creates grating busywork in an attempt to balance what is inherently unbalanced.
I wouldn't require martial characters to keep track of when they maintenance their weapons and how much oil they use for said maintenance, and I wouldn't require a caster to keep track of how many pinches of bat shit he has. If he's got a spell component pouch, I assume he spends part of his downtime making sure it contains the cheap, common supplies for his known spells.
>...suggest the Druid can turn into a colossal sized bear as many times as necessary per day while also summoning an infinite number of Tarrasques per round...
This is an exaggeration. The whole point is that the Druid doesn't need to turn into a collossal bear and spam tarrasques. Turning into a regular brown bear WITH casting abilities AND a second bear as an animal companion is ridiculous enough already.
Regular martial characters don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of keeping up with that kind of power. Additionally, their supposedly high attack bonus, high hit dice and access to combat-oriented feats gets outclassed by monsters as soon as you've got a few levels under your belt and the game comes into full swing.
That's not to say I don't primarily play 3.5. For some reason, everyone I play is most familiar with that particular system, and hesitant to spend time learning a new system they might not like. Sunk costs and all that. I'm not too keen on chucking the shitload of materials we have for 3.5 in the incinerator either, but I do see that it has massive issues.
>>46681543
5anboys have this weird cult mentality where their edition is their God and 3e is their Satan.
>>46684094
He coined the term "Ivory Tower game design" in describing how it was a mistake in 2005, 8 years before Numenara was even kickstarted.
Is there an alternative in terms of theme and content?
A fairly generic (and therefore accessible) fantasy RPG with a large amount of published materials? Having a large pool of monsters, spells and magical items to use is an especially large draw for me.
>>46685623
4e?
>>46685623
Basically any other edition of D&D, Fantasy Craft, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e...
>>46685719
I'm not convinced 4e is an improvement. It's a bit arcady and WoW-like. I'd rather take a step back to 2nd edition than move on to 4th.
>>46685769
Have you looked at 5e? It's basically 3e but not shit.
>>46685623
>Is there an alternative in terms of theme and content?
>A fairly generic (and therefore accessible) fantasy RPG
There are plenty, and a lot of them do at least one thing well (even if people don't agree on which does what) so you definitely have some good options.
>with a large amount of published materials?
Ah, there's the rub. Assuming you're rolling Pathfinder into 3.5?
I've heard good things about Fantasy Craft, but I don't really know how much is published for it. Certainly less than 3.5 materials, but that goes without saying.
2e and 4e also have mountains of content. GURPS and the Hero system certainly have something to this end in their insanely broad back catalogues.
Not a lot of other games have had the same themes and the same super-aggressive publishing strategy.
>>46685747
To be fair 5e doesn't have as much materialbloatas other D&D editions yet, and I think neither does fantasycraft.
I mean, I honestly think that having a few good adventures and good design guidelines for monsters and magic items and such is waaay more important than "yet another book of useless magic items X", but hey, if that's what he wants...
Look OP, I started with 3.5 and I love it for its strengths, but it is still a broken mess. Thing is, you can have fun with a broken mess.
>>46685623
>a large amount of published materials
Be careful what you wish for there. I'd argue that the huge amount of schlock published under 3.5 is a big reason that the game is terrible. Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks? Oath of Poverty? The Samurai and Swashbucler classes? WotC didn't exactly knock one out of the park every time they went to bat.
>>46685816
The DMG monster creation guidelines in 5e make it super easy to port stuff over, though. I converted an entire 1e module in about 3 hours.
>>46685769
That's a reasonable stance to take. I honestly don't get why people consider 4e WoW like when comeing from 3.PF, but hey, if that's how you feel, go for it.
>>46685887
This is true for most flexible RPG systems tho.
>>46685872
I'm not necessarily interested in player options. I'm looking for building blocks for the DM. Statting everything in a setting or adventure from scratch isn't the most efficient option. Things like monster manuals and magic item compendiums are incredibly useful.
The quality of either of those documents in 3.5 isn't the point, mind you. The point is that I quite like having a library of material for different power levels that I don't need to invent myself. And there's even artwork, which really helps my players' immersion.
>>46681543
I remember when anti-4th ed was the dominant opinion. Time flies seat.
>>46686263
>Statting everything in a setting or adventure from scratch isn't the most efficient option.
Stating is usually significantly easier, so you can do it on the fly as long as you follow the guidelines set by the game. Better yet, you can just import the monsters from your existing manuals.
Anyone has the comparing Mummies image?
>>46685175
It's more that a single use of entangle does more in a single action than even an optimized fighter can do in a single round of combat
>>46685769
Oh boy let me just post this yet again
>>46685769
If it's WOW-like and arcady, why has there never, EVER been a SINGLE rules-accurate videogame adaption?
There have been multiple adaptions of 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and 3rd Edition, all with varying levels of rules accuracy to fit either the hardware or the game itself. 4e has none of these.
In fact, the closest thing we have to a 4e videogame is Darkest Dungeon.
>>46683510
>unhealthy obsession
I hardly think talking about a roleplaying game you don't like on an image board dedicated largely to the discussion of roleplaying games is evidence of an "unhealthy obsession".
>>46686392
>arcade-y 4e
>It'd be like D&D:SoM meets Dragon's Crown
>we'll never get another good arcade D&D game
>>46686332
>Anyone has the comparing Mummies image?
Now I want to know what the shit this is.
>>46686679
Here
>>46686979
whoops, almost forgot the second half
I am an aspiring DM who wants to run dnd 3.5 because there seems to be a ton of easily accessible books
People sat Pathfinder is better though, so what do I do?
>>46687103
They are the same game basically. PF has some quality of life improvements and removed some dumb shit from 3.5, but has a bunch of dumb shit of its own.
I honestly don't think more books are inherently better, but pathfinder SRDs (d20pfsrd.com) are easier to traverse and have basically everything on hand, you only need to hunt down adventures and setting stuff.
3rd-5th D&D is varying degrees of WotC trash.
2nd AD&D is Lorraine Williams trash.
>>46687355
1st Edition is impractically dated.
So no one gets to play any version of D&D without getting shat on, I guess.
My real gripe with 3.X is that in making rules for so many things, it winds up fucking martials in the bargain. All the things a creative player could do that were generally up to the player, DM, and a dice roll are now feats, class abilities spread about a dozen + classes, and so on.
>ITT hipsters assblasted that people are having fun
>>46687465
The last two-three 3.5 threads on /tg/ had been "why do people hate 3.5?". I remember one that asked for build help that got like 2 replies from last month.
If someone's assblasted here, it's not the haters.
>>46681543
It's not Dungeon World.
>>46687517
I really have a hard time wrapping my head around why people think that system is good. This is coming from someone who loves AW.
There's too much for people who just want to sit down and play a game.
It's way I prefer the chronicle system because it's simple, but can be made more complicated when necessary.
>>46686393
I'd expect that "needing to shitpost every time the 2nd most popular roleplaying game is mentioned on a traditional game board" is the very definition of "unhealthy obsession."
>>46687486
What would you call the endless Pathfinder general?p
And you should know by now that the "Why hate 3.5" threads are just bait for the haters who have a shitposting compulsion.
>>46687822
Pathfinder is not 3.5 ya know.
Plus even the regulars admit PF is a shit system at its core and is massively improved by using as much 3rd party as possible.
>>46687355
>2nd AD&D is Lorraine Williams trash.
And it still manages to be better designed than 3.x. A system with no playtesting other than that which the designers could convince their home groups to do is better than one which had playtesting.
>>46687876
>Pathfinder is not 3.5 ya know.
A largely superficial distinction. Especially in this context.
>Plus even the regulars admit PF is a shit system
This meme is hardly true, and can be better worded as "People in the PF general recognize the flaws in the game. They still play it, however."
>>46688081
I don't. I just post builds and theorycraft. Sometimes answer rules questions. It's about the only thing that I can derive fun from from that game.
>>46687465
The picture is true for /tg/ and dnd but this is just a trolling thread, so whatever.
