I thought the beguiler and the healer were god awful classes. They had no finishing power. I've never looked at any other class (not including pretige classes) and asked myself, "Why would anybody ever play this? "
I hated multiclassing and prestige classes. I found myself staying with a core class even though it was the less optimal option. Now I find myself pretive classing more often because of the concept, even though in PF it is the less optimal choice.
I once played a dwarven cleric of Selune and only took the feats Toughness and Roll With It. His DR/- was phenomenal.
Your turn
PS: Again I reiterate that this is not an argument thread. Just a thread where people can say their dirty little secrets about 3.0-3.5.
I actually liked the idea behind the Healer class from the Minis Handbook.
Book of Exalted Deeds > Book of Vile Darkness.
Mind Flayers were overdone. It didn't help that the MM5 was basically the Illithid Manual moreso than the Lords of Madness book.
Wayne England was the worst artist WotC had, even worse than Crabapple (the dude that drew basically everything in the Masters of the Wild 3.0 softcover for druids, barbarians, and rangers). I don't know if that's a less held opinion or not.
Steve Prescott > Wayne Reynolds when it comes to the art in 3rd edition.
Eberron was the best Campaign Setting during that edition.
I kinda preferred the way wildshape worked in 3rd edition.
I still don't understand the druid's weapon restrictions. They can use a scimitar but not falchion? They can't use bows?
While the revisions of the ranger and bard were pretty important changes in 3.5 and there were some other important fixes, much of 3.5 is full of niggling little fixes all over the place.
The golems and their magic immunity in 3.0 is much more powerful than in 3.5, particularly when they added all of the conjuration-based orb spells. And it was a bad trade-off.
In many ways the 3.5 weapon size system was easier to grasp and had some pretty good verisimilitude since it makes sense that halflings should be using smaller versions of normal sized weapons, it does kind of suck the wind out of the sails of halflings who don't want to be spellcasters.
3.0 had some organization issues with the DMG but it also had some fantastic sidebars and option discussions that seemed to be dispensed with in 3.5. In many ways, 3.5 starts WotC on the road to 4's limitations, combat balancing, and boxing in of play styles while 3.0, although very similar, still hasn't lost all of its free-wheeling, experimental vibe.
I loved the Magic Item Compendium, and make it my one exception when I run Pathfinder-only games.
I would also say "I consider the Binder the best class WOTC ever put out", but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "shun-worthy" secret.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had great fun with 3.x for eight years, but the legacy holdovers and many of the details of the rule set, great and small, drove me crazy. I was in/famous around here for trying to hammer the system into the play experience I wanted, and I ended up with a seven-page pdf of my essential 3e house rules. And those are just the must-haves, among a tome of changes that I'd prefer. And all that was still just good enough.
When 2008 hit, I promised myself I'd never go thru the self-torment of DMing 3.x again...but once in a while I think about doing it again anyway.
3.x is like the crazy ex-girlfriend who I still sometimes want to leave my good-girl for.
I never played 3.0/3.5.
*Basks in the hatred*
3.0 - 3.5 what
Well since this about how Paizo community members view you, I'd say that other than how skill points are assigned 3.5 was superior to PF in almost all ways.
Now for 3.5 fans, I would say that I actually prefer the way animal companions were in 3e for special druids. The idea of a druid having a flock of crows is much more interesting from time to time than a druid having a single powerful eagle companion. I also preferred the sample NPCs in the 3e DMG more than the 3.5 DMG version. 3e DMG also had the 1/2-class option so you could multiclass at 1st level if you wished.
what is munchkin
Confession: I don't actually like order of the stick.
what is munchkin
A player who power games beyond the point of friendly play, and may rub his superior system mastery in others' noses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was a game with big noses and bad art
|
Sorcerers blew mad chunks. Coming from various other games that didn't use Vancian spellcasting (GURPS, Vampire, superhero games, etc.), it felt like the 3.0 designers were pants-wettingly-terrified of a more open system, and kept smacking it with the nerf-sticks every time it twitched.
Bumping clerics and druids up to a 9 level progression for spellcasting was probably an overstep, given their armor, BAB and hit point advantages over wizards.
I like about half of Todd Lockwoods dragon designs better than the current Pathfinder designs, and about half of the current Pathfinder designs better than Lockwoods, 'cause I'm fickle and faithless like that.
Some of the more interesting Lockwood 'iconic' artwork never even made it into the books. I'd go with Naull or the human thief-dude over Mialee or Lidda any day.
I thought it was a game with big noses and bad art
It's that too. The title of the game is probably a joke derived from the D&D slang term, though I'm not sure what exactly the joke is.
...On second thought, it's probably that munchkins are said to be always attempting to 'win' D&D, and Munchkin is a D&D parody game that actually is about winning. lol?
And on a related note, I've played Munchkin a couple times, and I find it horribly confusing even though it's no more complicated than poker. I think it's just that its D&D-related terminology and card types clash with what I expect.
|
|
I find the idea of animal companions for rangers and druids absolutely moronic.
The fact that every druid is able to change shape into a virtually infinite number of combat-oriented animals is equally laughable.
The most succesfull characters I've seen at my table were a fighter, a multiclass fighter-wizard, and a monk, all of them hailing from the 3.0 rules.
My players have always thought of PrCs as a waste of time.
I think that the Illumians are cool.
Combat is overrated in gameplay balance and depth.
Excluding obvious loopholes in spells, 3.0 was better than 3.5.
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
Simple - with an even number bonus added to a stat, it always makes a difference no matter if the initial stat is odd or even. If the bonus was odd, like +1, the recipient would get no effective benefit if their initial stat was even.
I think that the Illumians are cool.
+1. Illumians were awesome.
As were 3.5's Dragonborn. Sooooooo much better than their 4E counterparts IMO.
Simple - with an even number bonus added to a stat, it always makes a difference no matter if the initial stat is odd or even. If the bonus was odd, like +1, the recipient would get no effective benefit if their initial stat was even.
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
Not completely accurate. The character could still take one more point of ability damage for example. For Str, the character could carry more. For Con the character could hold their breath longer. Int allowed a wizard access to a higher spell level (Int 16 can only cast 6th level, but Int 17 can cast 7th level). There is more, but those are a few off the top of my head. An even modifier had an immediate effect on all features related to that ability, while an odd modifier only effect some features of that ability.
EDIT: A little homebrew I used ...
pres_man's cost for odd stat items: (modifier)(modifier+1)x1000
+1 item = 2000 gp
+3 item = 12000 gp
+5 item = 20000 gp
Confession: I don't actually like order of the stick.
HERESY!
:)
Also, my martial character beat up your honor student caster... well, used to.
Not completely accurate. The character could still take one more point of ability damage for example. For Str, the character could carry more. For Con the character could hold their breath longer. Int allowed a wizard access to a higher spell level (Int 16 can only cast 6th level, but Int 17 can cast 7th level). There is more, but those are a few off the top of my head. An even modifier had an immediate effect on all features related to that ability, while an odd modifier only effect some features of that ability.
All minor nitpicks, none of which really get at the reason a character wanted a stat bonus in the first place - to boost their modifier for the combat and skill checks that they anticipated. Thus, the even modifiers - to ensure there would be this desired effect.
Because of Vancian spellcasting I'll never play a caster other than Cleric. Not sure why I find that more palatable, but I'm unable to have fun playing other spell slingers.
Whachooo got agin' drooids dood?
Confession: I don't actually like order of the stick.HERESY!
Well my avatar image is the heretic and my name is Mr Sin...
It's like I don't even know you anymore man.
Its cool. Sometimes I don't even know myself.
Confession: I like ToB and Psionics, but I don't actually like core all that much.
|
|
Simple - with an even number bonus added to a stat, it always makes a difference no matter if the initial stat is odd or even. If the bonus was odd, like +1, the recipient would get no effective benefit if their initial stat was even.
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
But he would if the initial stat was odd. And having to roll for modifiers gave the feeling of something unpredictable, weird, possibly not so good possibily better than expected... hey, that would be some kind of magic!!
Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so obvious in the first place, but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
Everyone deserves something, you can't rely on bad/good luck in a game, and then we get races with no negative stat adjustements, because everyone is special. So, suddenly, no-one is. Aaarrgh.
but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
"Dealing with it" when the dice f+~% you on a single attack roll or save or whatever is a lot more palatable and infinitely more well designed than having the dice be able to f@~* you not just THERE but at charop and either make or break your character from the start of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I REALLY liked incarnum. Considering that all such characters have access to ALL soulmelds, however, I have no idea how they intended to make publishable adventures for it, if they did. Let's just say it's no surprise there never were any.
I thought illumians were cool. Raptorans, goliaths and a herd of stupid races were not.
Book of nine swords was fun despite being broken.
Graftpunk is a wonderful concept.
Book of Vile Darkness was incomprehensibly bad. Though maybe not a terrorist attack, a la what Tracy Hickman described the sealed section of that Dragon magazine as, a month after 9/11.
Wayne England's art was terrible, excepting one or two examples. Much of the art of the collected 3rd edition was bad, frankly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D 3.5e > Pathfinder.
|
|
but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it."Dealing with it" when the dice f@** you on a single attack roll or save or whatever is a lot more palatable and infinitely more well designed than having the dice be able to f~!* you not just THERE but at charop and either make or break your character from the start of the game.
Roll 4d6, take away the lowest result, do that six times, rearrange as preferred. If the whole string of values is not good enough, repeat.
"But this way I can roll infinite times to get all 18s!"
"I like to think that you're enough of a grown up to know when to stop"
(roughly translated from the original at my table)
It's not the value that determines outcome, and only occasionally is the dice roll. Most of the times, the culprit is the player's decision.
Yeah, I do wish they'd put a little more expansion into their non-core stuff rather than just dropping new stuff into one or two books then forgetting about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the Illumians are cool.+1. Illumians were awesome.
As were 3.5's Dragonborn. Sooooooo much better than their 4E counterparts IMO.
Illumians were one of my favorite PC races. I really liked 3.5's Dragonborn too, but wish they would've made options besides being restricted to LG, thane of Bahamut. A Dragonborn of Tiamat could've been pretty cool.
I am still a huge fan of sub-systems and alternate classes from 3.5e, especially Shadowcasting and Incarnum. My current PF character is a Half-Golem Incarnate/Totemist, and it's a blast to play. I'm a scatter-brained multi-tasker, so switching Essentia points on the fly and adapting to every encounter is just a ton of fun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for shun-worthy confessions, I found myself constantly house-ruling the equipment sections. It always irked me how they arranged weapon damage types.
For example, Short Swords are "Piercing," Long Swords are "Slashing," despite both having sharpened edges and stabbing tips. Yet, a lowly dagger can do both. If I can slash with a dagger and a long sword, why on earth can't I slash with a short sword? Why can't I "run someone through" by stabbing them with a long sword? I just found it dumb.
So, I had a constantly updating running rule that any weapon you use could be justified to do other types of damage, if the player specified ahead of time that the weapon could be used as such. One of my favorites was a slashing flail; instead of a spiky ball on the end, it had a multi-edged blade. Still did the same damage as a normal flail, just did slashing instead of bludgeoning/piercing(I realize having two types is "more optimal" than one, but it was for flavor).
Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so obvious in the first place, but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
Everyone deserves something, you can't rely on bad/good luck in a game, and then we get races with no negative stat adjustements, because everyone is special. So, suddenly, no-one is. Aaarrgh.
Let's not turn this thread into a ranty debate thread too, hm?
Take my word for it; believing that randomness is best saved for, you know, actual gameplay does not automatically equate to believing that racial penalties are unfun.
Roll 4d6, take away the lowest result, do that six times, rearrange as preferred. If the whole string of values is not good enough, repeat."But this way I can roll infinite times to get all 18s!"
"I like to think that you're enough of a grown up to know when to stop"(roughly translated from the original at my table)
It's not the value that determines outcome, and only occasionally is the dice roll. Most of the times, the culprit is the player's decision.
But then what's the point (and how are people getting the short end of the stick on die rolls)?
I used to do this too (mostly because my old GM did it), and really all it lead to was one guy rolling once and getting 2 16s, , 1 15, 1 14, and 2 12s, and one guy getting rolls of all 12s and 11s (after his 5th roll, at least he got rid of all the 7s and stuff).
I ended up having to just say "Use this stat array here, it's better and more balanced with the party" just so his Barbarian wouldn't be a failbot.
If you want your players to have high stats, give 'em a big array or high PB (I like high stat games, so 25-30 PB when doing that is the norm for me), save 'em all some time.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I too think the healer was a terrible class. Anytime someone says that a 9 level caster class is by definition OP, I can point at the healer as a counterexample.
For those unfamiliar, the healer was basically a cleric, but with only light armor, no domains, only the healing spells, no spontaneous cures, a bunch of healing SLAs, and a unicorn companion. On the WotC 3.5 forums someone once ran a "rate all the classes 1-10 and I'll average them" poll and the healer managed to score a 0.6, worse than the 3.5 samurai. I mean, yeah, you could cure all thos erandom status ailments like blindness or poison with your handy SLA, but you probably memorized those spells anyway because there was nothing else on your list.
The truename class was pretty bad too. Who thought it was a good idea to make a class that got worse at its core mechanic as it got higher level? Basically you had to make a skill check to use your magic, and the DC went up by 2 each level. Only being able to spend 1 skill point per level, even Skill Focus couldn't keep up with how fast the DC went up. (Plus how lame is it to have Skill Focus as a feat tax?)
ryric, where did the spellthief rank in the 3.5 class rankings?
I guess that's another confession of mine. I LOVED the concept of the spellthief, but the one time I tried to play one it was a total mess.
The minis handbook Marshal was outstandingly uninspiring too.
The thing about the spellthief is that its whole shtick is dependent on stealing magic from real casters. And guess what kind of NPCs appear least often in low level adventures? Casters!
As the campaign progresses, NPC casters appear more and more often, and their stealable spells get better and better. Depending on the DM, you might go from stealing nigh-useless spells like shocking grasp to encounter-ending ones. (Steal the evil wizard's ray of disintegration, so I can turn around and one-shot him with his own spell? Yes, please!)
Basically, the spellthief should have been a PrC because its power curve is like a caster's power curve...but even steeper! It just doesn't function well at low levels. Also it's an oddball concept, which just fits better as a PrC anyway.
|
ryric, where did the spellthief rank in the 3.5 class rankings?
I guess that's another confession of mine. I LOVED the concept of the spellthief, but the one time I tried to play one it was a total mess.
Yeah, where did the Warlock fit?
It'd probably be easier to post that list, or at least provide a clickable link. : )
Tequila, yeah, we only played levels 1 - 6, and the campaign was so lacking in opposing spellcasters that my spellthief was always begging the party cleric or sorcerer for a spell or two to steal just so he could do something. He bought each of them a pearl of power just so he could get a couple of spells each day.
My experience was that he was a weak rogue and a very weak spellcaster. But as I said, I love the concept, it just seemed to be spell-starved into oblivion.
According to JaronK on Brilliant Gameologists, both the spellthief and the warlock are tier 4 classes.
Healer needed to be a spontaneous caster and have the dragon shaman's healing aura. Then it could have at least been partially effective at its job.
|
|
According to JaronK on Brilliant Gameologists, both the spellthief and the warlock are tier 4 classes.
I've seen that before. I was hoping for ryric's 'score out of ten' list. : )