Anything Wrong?


3.5/d20/OGL


Hello group,

I was just wondering if anyone has any specific 3.5 rules they think doesn't work to their expectation and should need tweaking or changing.

Personally, I love the 3.5 combat system, but I do think those big battles (specially at higher levels) are getting mighty tedious. A bit too long for my tastes. Particularly hard on the DM (me).

Ultradan


Fumbles. Morale. Just off the top of my head.


Grapple. I hate Grapple rules. They need to present a flow chart or something and state more clearly which actions are considered attacks which actions are considered free/automatic actions.


I dislike the feignting rules. It seems to be unneeded rolling. A rolls bluff, B rolls to see if he falls for it. If it succeeds the the DM has to make a subtraction for lost Dex bonus. THEN A rolls his attack.

I figure feignting is an assumed part of combat just like dodging, blocking etc...


Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"


I second the grapple rules issue. My players and I have pretty much memorized most of the frequently used rules, but a grapple check always requires a flipping to the grapple page in the PHB for consultation.
For a rule that gets used as frequently as grappling does, I think it could be more streamlined.


Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"

I second that Aargh. Strip those rules down and give us some Cronenberg/Scanners type melon bursting and we've got ourselves a show.

The thing I like least about 3.5 is the .5.

It feels so temporary.

"Smmmmt. Ahhhhhhh. I love the the smell of complete textbook upgrade in the morning." -- WotC


Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"

Actually, they're not that bad. I play psionics and while the 3.0 psionics were nasty to deal with, the 3.5 (sorry, Jade) Expanded Psionics Handbook was much more streamlined. The most important rule to remember is that you can't spend an amount of power points manifesting a power than you have manifester levels. If you have 5 manifester levels, you can spend up to 5 power points. Everything else is fairly transparent (don't bother witht he psionics are different variant unless you are playing in a psionics-heavy game).


Checking for traps...

Actually I'm not 100% certian that I really totally dislike it - but its certianly different then what I am used to.

As it stands searching for a trap is a full round action to search a 5 foot by 5 foot area. Thats 6 seconds. My players quickly figured out that at the price of 12 second before stepping forward they might as well never not be searching for traps. Sure it slows them down to a rate of 25 feet a minute but thats hardly slow - most of us had pretty much kind of assumed that this was about the speed that dungeon clearing took place at anyway.

Due to this my players simply check every single space for traps before entering it. Now they don't take 20 or anything but they always check unless they are in a fight.

Basically it means I have to remmeber to make random roles every so often (so that they don't know that there absolutely is a trap every time I actually roll). But I can't decide if I like this or not as a feature of the game. If it took longer they would not do it but then maybe its justified since adventurers are cautious.

I notice that the DMG pretty much states that DMs should make traps rare - but I'm not sure if thats what I am seeing in adventures like the ones in Dungeon - and certianly all the 1st and second edition material I am converting does not have that issue. Nor am I really sure that its for the best if traps are rare - traps are cool. Admittedly you don't usually want them really common but I'd think a trap or two a session adds spice.


Amaril wrote:
Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"
Actually, they're not that bad. I play psionics and while the 3.0 psionics were nasty to deal with, the 3.5 (sorry, Jade) Expanded Psionics Handbook was much more streamlined. The most important rule to remember is that you can't spend an amount of power points manifesting a power than you have manifester levels. If you have 5 manifester levels, you can spend up to 5 power points. Everything else is fairly transparent (don't bother witht he psionics are different variant unless you are playing in a psionics-heavy game).

I think what I don't like is the fact that it's treated like a red-headed stepchild. It just doesn't feel like there was much of an effort to integrate it into the larger D&D world.


Amaril wrote:
Grapple. I hate Grapple rules. They need to present a flow chart or something and state more clearly which actions are considered attacks which actions are considered free/automatic actions.

I agree with Amaril. When you get to grappling, the fight turns to a grinding halt, as everybody starts flipping through their handbooks. There needs to be a way to make grappling as easy and natural as melee. You don't see players going to their handbooks when they make a simple melee attack... It should be the same for grappling.

For that matter, this could be true for almost every other thing said so far that relates to fighting.

Ultradan


Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"

I can't say anything about Psionics since I sort of shy away from it. It was so akward in the other editions (again, everybody started flipping through their books every time a Psionic battle took place), that I rarely used it. I think I've learned to hate it.

Ultradan


Lilith wrote:
Amaril wrote:
Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"
Actually, they're not that bad. I play psionics and while the 3.0 psionics were nasty to deal with, the 3.5 (sorry, Jade) Expanded Psionics Handbook was much more streamlined. The most important rule to remember is that you can't spend an amount of power points manifesting a power than you have manifester levels. If you have 5 manifester levels, you can spend up to 5 power points. Everything else is fairly transparent (don't bother witht he psionics are different variant unless you are playing in a psionics-heavy game).
I think what I don't like is the fact that it's treated like a red-headed stepchild. It just doesn't feel like there was much of an effort to integrate it into the larger D&D world.

Yes indeedy. The "If you choose to incorporate psionics in your game..." really gets to be disheartening after awhile. That's a lot of extra reading for a set of rules that D&D has always tried to drive out into the country for one last game of cruelly abandoning fetch.

And yet to its credit that dog keeps finding its way home.

I wonder if it will always have to sleep outside?


I don't like the way they revised the Ranger in 3.5. I hate that you have to either choose to be an archer or a two weapon fighter.
I agree that grappling is a bulky and time consuming process. Does anybody have any ideas on how to trim down some of that time?
I've never really used psioncs before, we tried a couple of times in my group, but found it tedious to keep track of.


I really think the delayed spell level progression for the sorcerer is wrong. when you get access to the next level of spells makes a huge difference to a class that relies only on spells. i think the fact that they only know a few spells, get no bonus feats, and rely on Cha instead of Int (no bonus skill points) make them unattractive compared to wizards. does anyone have players that will take more than a level or two of sorcerer? i think most classes work well (except maybe the paladin flattening out after 6th lev) but the sorcerer needs more work. IMO psionics is science fiction not fantasy, so i've never understood what it was doing in D&D. it's all about the magic, dudes.


voodoo chili wrote:
I really think the delayed spell level progression for the sorcerer is wrong. when you get access to the next level of spells makes a huge difference to a class that relies only on spells. i think the fact that they only know a few spells, get no bonus feats, and rely on Cha instead of Int (no bonus skill points) make them unattractive compared to wizards. does anyone have players that will take more than a level or two of sorcerer? i think most classes work well (except maybe the paladin flattening out after 6th lev) but the sorcerer needs more work. IMO psionics is science fiction not fantasy, so i've never understood what it was doing in D&D. it's all about the magic, dudes.

About sorcerers: One of my players is doing a full-fledged sorceress at this very moment. She seems to find that not having to prepare her spells in advance makes her ready for any situation. If the group is in trouble, all her 3rd level spells are used up as either fireballs or lightning bolts. Sounds pretty powerful to me.

And about psionics, I tend to think that SOME rare character or NPC could develope them (to have telekinesis more as an ability than a spell) is pretty cool. But I definetly don't think every PC can have access to them.

Ultradan


The Jade wrote:


Yes indeedy. The "If you choose to incorporate psionics in your game..." really gets to be disheartening after awhile. That's a lot of extra reading for a set of rules that D&D has always tried to drive out into the country for one last game of cruelly abandoning fetch.

And yet to its credit that dog keeps finding its way home.

I wonder if it will always have to sleep outside?

ROFL! Maybe some attempt will be made at correcting or improving usage of psionics in the Complete Psionics.

Though psionics may seem sci-fi, the concept behind both magic and psionics are the same - bending your will to do fantastical things that go beyond the ken of most beings. In Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean series of books, there's the concept of the Will and the Word, which kinda seems to indicate a sort of mental training before being able to access such abilities.

Monks, through physical training, are able to acheive things that would be considered magical.

Psionics and magic are both trying to do the same things - it's all about the method it's done in. ("What do I need moldering reagents for? I have mastered my abilities and no longer rely upon physical matter to fuel my will." Can we say Eschew Materials?")

Again, this is my problem with psionics in D&D. It's treated like the naughty dog in the corner, when it could be the prize-winning show dog. The diamond in the rough, if you will.


My beef: Runaway prestige classes across vendors.

There are so many variations on character classes now, why don't we just do away with the concept of a "character class" and have all characters be no more than a set of feats?

Classes/prestige classes are no more than titles given to a 'kit' of feats...it would be a very small change to simply wipe out the titles and keep the feats.

M


Marc Chin wrote:

My beef: Runaway prestige classes across vendors.

There are so many variations on character classes now, why don't we just do away with the concept of a "character class" and have all characters be no more than a set of feats?

Classes/prestige classes are no more than titles given to a 'kit' of feats...it would be a very small change to simply wipe out the titles and keep the feats.

M

I agree with you completely. It's not the "class" you choose that makes you a paladin or a ranger, it's how you play your character. Maybe the classes should just be used as guidelines or templates for NPCs.

We actually were working on new game rules (variant of D&D) once, with the NO CLASS idea in mind... But it turned out that almost everyone made a character witch resembled the 2nd Edition Bard "Jack of All Trades". I guess no one wanted to get caught with their pants down.

Ultradan


I have one major huge problem with 3.5. There are way too many feats and skills. I truely believe that they way that they are expanding and the dozens of new ones that come out with every new book, modual or magazine is sucking the roleplaying out of the game and replacing it with rollplaying. At this point I don't see how a Dm is supose to track them all and verify what they do (Cause I damn sure know that I can't trust my players to do it themselves.) We still play with second eddition rules and I've converted some of the feats and skills into proficencies, but at this point I'm waiting to see if a character that gets arrested by the local constabe is going to need a 'Deflect Bubba' skill to survive the night in jail intact. and the group thief gets a dex bonus because he has the 'Walk and Chew Gum' feat.
It seems to be a case of too much of a good thing.


Ultradan wrote:
Marc Chin wrote:

My beef: Runaway prestige classes across vendors.

There are so many variations on character classes now, why don't we just do away with the concept of a "character class" and have all characters be no more than a set of feats?

Classes/prestige classes are no more than titles given to a 'kit' of feats...it would be a very small change to simply wipe out the titles and keep the feats.

M

I agree with you completely. It's not the "class" you choose that makes you a paladin or a ranger, it's how you play your character. Maybe the classes should just be used as guidelines or templates for NPCs.

You mean like generic classes?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm


Marc Chin wrote:

My beef: Runaway prestige classes across vendors.

There are so many variations on character classes now, why don't we just do away with the concept of a "character class" and have all characters be no more than a set of feats?

Classes/prestige classes are no more than titles given to a 'kit' of feats...it would be a very small change to simply wipe out the titles and keep the feats.

Amaril wrote:


You mean like generic classes?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

My idea of doing away with classes would even include generic ones; reducing classes to a set of feats & skills would be a step away from going to a point-based skillset system employed by some of the modern gaming systems.

I think the toughest part of that conversion would be how to handle spellcasting; perhaps convert spellcasting ability into feats by grouping them by spell level...(1 feat slot=2 levels of spellcasting ability, etc.)
..*thoughts trailing...*

M


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
dragonlvr wrote:


I agree that grappling is a bulky and time consuming process. Does anybody have any ideas on how to trim down some of that time?

We play be 2nd ed rules, so I don't know what the "grappling chart" looks like that people are refering to. Given that, I don't know if this will work for you or not, but I liked the idea of incorporating the grapple stats I saw in the 3rd ed. Monster Manual stat blocks for some of the creatures, so here's what I do:

If the attacking creature hits with two arms (tentacles, whatever) then the grapple move starts. If the defender sits there with his mouth open not knowing how to react to what I'm describing the creature doing, the PC takes the damage (it's happened... sad).

If the defender's brain starts working and he /she tries to break free, then each makes a STR check. Defender wins= freedom. Attacker wins= damage. I start the next round rolling to see if the attacker is able to keep hold of the grapple (if applicable... depends on how I'm using it), and the STR check happens again.


My short answer is ... everything!
I dislike the general game mechanics in both v3 and 3.5 so much that my group plays 2nd ed with just a few caveats from the newer editions. I understand I am but a vocal minority, but you asked, so...here's my opinion...
I would agree with the too many classes (including & especially prestige classes) opinion and also greatly dislike the whole way of handling feats and skills. I (in accordance with previous posters on this and other threads) think that a logical progression or combination of similar feats/skills (as presented in prestige classes) needn't be a whole specific title plan but instead available to players to individually develop a unique character as they see fit.
The whole tone of the newer editions seems like its desperately currying favor from video/computer gamers with little left to the imagination for individual character development (just pick a template/PrC/etc and slap it on). Attempts to make the game easier and flow smoother have only resulted, IMO, in a "dumbing down" of the game for both players and DMs. Everything is spoon-fed, prefab, and just a $40 hardcover suppliment away.
I actually liked the 3rd ed treatment of magic resistence/spell resistence/damage reduction but I don't like how they "fixed" it in 3.5
I hate how they constantly change spell names and believe there's way too many spells out there anyway. Again, if you want a blast of cold effect, then just have the wizard PC exchange the fireball spell for a "frostball" with comparative damage,duration,etc. Or make it a lightningball, a negative energy ball...the list goes on. Spelling it all out for us (no pun intended) is not just unneccessary for any player or DM with half a brain; it's kinda irritating and burdensome.


Marc Chin wrote:

My idea of doing away with classes would even include generic ones; reducing classes to a set of feats & skills would be a step away from going to a point-based skillset system employed by some of the modern gaming systems.

I think the toughest part of that conversion would be how to handle spellcasting; perhaps convert spellcasting ability into feats by grouping them by spell level...(1 feat slot=2 levels of spellcasting ability, etc.)
..*thoughts trailing...*

M

You might want to try this system.

http://www.netflash.net/llanade/redleafgames/dliberation20.php

I don't know how well it works, though, as I've never used it.


Amaril wrote:

You might want to try this system.

http://www.netflash.net/llanade/redleafgames/dliberation20.php

I don't know how well it works, though, as I've never used it.

Very...GURPy...

It might just be me, but they seem to have borrowed rather heavily from GURPS.

The Exchange

In regards to the "too many feats and spells complaint," I admit to having a great deal of the 3.5 supplement manuals, and make it a general rule that a player be limited to the Core books, and two supplement sources that have been approved by myself. A Bhuka {Sandstorm} Samurai {Comple Warrior}is no problem (with sufficient backstory and roleplaying to back it up) but no adding Aberrant feats {Lords of Madness} in there ;).

I am always ready to adapt (and say, let scout from Complete Adventurer in the mix) but I find, as others have said, that truely interesting characters stem from the people who play them, not the exact feats, skills, and class levels that compose their mechanical side. While complicating things w/ too many source books for 1 char is no good, I do enjoy having the wide array of books to help guide both player (and my) decisions for the campaign.


Marc Chin wrote:

My beef: Runaway prestige classes across vendors.

There are so many variations on character classes now, why don't we just do away with the concept of a "character class" and have all characters be no more than a set of feats?

Classes/prestige classes are no more than titles given to a 'kit' of feats...it would be a very small change to simply wipe out the titles and keep the feats.

M

Marc,

I'm working on EXACTLY that for my next campaign. I was going to run a straight up Iron Heroes campaign, but after reading that book, I've decided to adopt a lot of rules from IH instead. One of the concepts that I'm going to adopt are "feat masteries" that allow level progression along certain lines of feats (In other words, a 5th level fighter with Feat XYZ can do more than a 1st level fighter with feat XYZ).

Having said that I'm seriously considering dropping all prestige classes and adopting several new "feat lines" that mimic what some of the prestige classes allowed characters to do.


SirMarcus wrote:

My short answer is ... everything!

I dislike the general game mechanics in both v3 and 3.5 so much that my group plays 2nd ed with just a few caveats from the newer editions. I understand I am but a vocal minority, but you asked, so...here's my opinion...
I would agree with the too many classes (including & especially prestige classes) opinion and also greatly dislike the whole way of handling feats and skills. I (in accordance with previous posters on this and other threads) think that a logical progression or combination of similar feats/skills (as presented in prestige classes) needn't be a whole specific title plan but instead available to players to individually develop a unique character as they see fit.
The whole tone of the newer editions seems like its desperately currying favor from video/computer gamers with little left to the imagination for individual character development (just pick a template/PrC/etc and slap it on). Attempts to make the game easier and flow smoother have only resulted, IMO, in a "dumbing down" of the game for both players and DMs. Everything is spoon-fed, prefab, and just a $40 hardcover suppliment away.
I actually liked the 3rd ed treatment of magic resistence/spell resistence/damage reduction but I don't like how they "fixed" it in 3.5
I hate how they constantly change spell names and believe there's way too many spells out there anyway. Again, if you want a blast of cold effect, then just have the wizard PC exchange the fireball spell for a "frostball" with comparative damage,duration,etc. Or make it a lightningball, a negative energy ball...the list goes on. Spelling it all out for us (no pun intended) is not just unneccessary for any player or DM with half a brain; it's kinda irritating and burdensome.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. 3ed and 3.5 have done serious damage by taking the roleplaying out of the game. Now its stat blocks and super moves (Cool if I'm playing Mortal Kombat, not cool if I'm sitting with books and dice in front of me.) prestige classes use to be created by the individual through good roleplay period.

Scarab Sages

Lilith wrote:
Amaril wrote:
Lilith wrote:
Psionics. I love them. Really, I do. It's just the rules are so "AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!"
Actually, they're not that bad. I play psionics and while the 3.0 psionics were nasty to deal with, the 3.5 (sorry, Jade) Expanded Psionics Handbook was much more streamlined. The most important rule to remember is that you can't spend an amount of power points manifesting a power than you have manifester levels. If you have 5 manifester levels, you can spend up to 5 power points. Everything else is fairly transparent (don't bother witht he psionics are different variant unless you are playing in a psionics-heavy game).
I think what I don't like is the fact that it's treated like a red-headed stepchild. It just doesn't feel like there was much of an effort to integrate it into the larger D&D world.

AGREED!!!

Thoth-Amon the Atlantean Mindflayerian

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Anything Wrong? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.