Airos' corollary to Godwin's Law

47 posts / 0 new
Last post

"As a 3rd edition/3.5 Edition discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving 4th edition approaches 1." (Goodwin's Law)


 


I'm sorry if this becomes a rant, but I'm frustrated and need to vent in the open before I go off and derail a thread by chewing out some poor user that doesn't deserve it.


I choose not to play 4th edition D&D. Me and my gaming group are quite happy to continue to play 3.5 D&D, and will continue to do so through the lifespan of 4th edition. This is why I continue to read, and post on, the previous editions boards.


It seriously irks me to no end when I read a post about how "4th edition fixes that problem", or "this is why they changed that in 4th edition", or "it's so much easier and simpler in 4th edition". You know what? I don't care.


I'm not here to read about how 4th edition handles a particular problem, I'm here to figure out how to resolve issues in 3.5 edition. 4th edition "fixed" problems by throwing them out the door like a redheaded stepchild. Spells that don't deal damage are overpowered? *fling* What spells that don't deal damage? The Diplomacy skill is overpowered? *fling* What Diplomacy skill?


Sure, that may be a "fix" if you're willing to change gaming systems, but if that's the case I could have "fixed" the problem by switching to the White Wolf system, or Shadowrun, or Palladium Fantasy... There is zero class balance issues in Monopoly. Nobody complains that the race car is overpowered, or that the Get Out of Jail Free card is broken. Maybe I should just play that game instead of 3.5 D&D. It "fixes" all the problems!


I don't need, (or want) to use a second system to address the issues in this system. I keep seeing 4th edition bleeding into the posts here on the older edition boards, and I can't figure out why. Sure, there are people who play in multiple games, and use multiple editions and multiple editions. That's awesome! What's that got to do with addressing 3rd/3.5 edition problems within the context of those editions?


If you've got a house rule to suggest, based on how 4th edition handles the situation, then I'm willing to admit that it may be valid. Posting just to say that "4th edition did away with that, and we don't miss it one bit" is on the verge of condescending, and really isn't all that helpful.




At no point did anyone post a "4th edition fix" in reply to any of my posts.


Everything in the above post is 100% my own personal opinion, and I make no claims to assume I know what is or is not helpful to the rest of the members of this or any message board.


I have no doubt that people will be either completely ignoring my rant, calling me a grognard or otherwise telling me to "STFU".


I did not wake up on the wrong side of the bed, do not have my panties in a bunch, and nobody peed in my corn flakes.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

Nobody peed in your Corn Flakes? Oops! Whose did I pee in, then? Oh, Jimmy Carter's...


Just kidding. I know how it can be when you ask a question about a specific edition and you get every kind of answer about how some other system/edition/game is better. We've rolled back to 2e, and I still get "In 4e you can..." Egad! Where's that head-explody icon when you need it?

I don't play 4E either, but I kept note of how they solved a lot of the problems with 3.5.  Looking ahead to what they did is good practice for how to institute a house rule, as is looking back to 1 and 2E to see what they did.


==Aelryinth

Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you

Amen, Brother Airos.


In the same vein, I have some issues with a few that have been at my table that whine over how things changed from previous editions.  "DAG-NABBIT GUY; WE'RE NOT PLAYING 1ST.ED. OR ROLEMASTER"; or "I DON'T CARE ABOUT 3.0; I HAPPEN TO LIKE MANY OF THE CHANGES IN 3.5.  IF YOU WANT TO PLAY USING OLDER RULES, THEN GO FIND SOMEONE ELSES GAME".


so, what specific issues are you looking to have addressed?
once a thread devolves in to an edition war, I usually ignore it.

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.


I don't play 4E either, but I kept note of how they solved a lot of the problems with 3.5.  Looking ahead to what they did is good practice for how to institute a house rule, as is looking back to 1 and 2E to see what they did.


==Aelryinth




Taking ideas from other editions, or even other games entirely, isn't so much the issue I have as it is seeing posts that imply, or outright state, that the corrective action is 4th edition.




Amen, Brother Airos.


In the same vein, I have some issues with a few that have been at my table that whine over how things changed from previous editions.  "DAG-NABBIT GUY; WE'RE NOT PLAYING 1ST.ED. OR ROLEMASTER"; or "I DON'T CARE ABOUT 3.0; I HAPPEN TO LIKE MANY OF THE CHANGES IN 3.5.  IF YOU WANT TO PLAY USING OLDER RULES, THEN GO FIND SOMEONE ELSES GAME".


so, what specific issues are you looking to have addressed?
once a thread devolves in to an edition war, I usually ignore it.




No particular issue, really. What sparked this whole rant was in the Craft thread, which quickly moved from the skill to several other issues, at some point made mention how a wizard with the Fabricate spell can easily disrupt the world economy. The reply was roughly "that's why they took spells like that out of 4th".


Okay, and what's that got to do with anything? I'm still playing 3.5, so it doesn't help me any to say that any more than it helps me as a vegetarian to tell me that McDonald's in India has vegan friendly foods on their menu. Sure, if I ever happen to be in India and hungry, it's nice to know that the option is there, and if I ever find myself frustrated about powerful spells and playing 4th edition, I can take solace in the fact that they have been removed. Until then, I'd like options that deal with the problems within 3.5.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

yeah, that craft thread got stupid real quick.  if it's the one i'm thinking of, then it also devolved in to a scemantics agument on what "stone" and "rock" mean, vs. what "gem" and "crystal" mean.


so, anyhow:
what ever happened to respecting the power of DM fiat?  I was reading through an AD&D DMG recently, and was really struck by the difference in tone and feel, as opposed to 3rd.  It really does emphasis the spirit of the game over the rules; where as 3rd gives a cursery nod to houseruling, but then goes on to tell you how game-disrupting it will be if you do change the rules.  Just the way that 3rd is writen opens you to the mindset that the rules and players' whims are what run a game, and the DM has to do the adjusting (making you afraid of actually making a tough decision); where 2nd tells the DM to run their game the way they see fit, and it's up to the players to adjust to you.


What does that have to do with the topic?  Just this:
when you find something you don't like -- change it. 
if a spell is too powerful -- limit it's use.
if a class feature is too strong -- nerf it.
if a class is too unbalancing -- rebuild it.
if you just don't like it -- ban it.


How hard is that?  Why must the designers force players to play within their own little box?  Why do we have to play the same way that the designers play?  This isn't chess -- it's a friggin' RPG. 


That's how I solve my game problems.  As far as I'm concerned, common sense and practicality over-rule any rule ever writen.


BTW -- your last post on the "craft" thread had me cheering; I'll be sending a link to that to all of my players.

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.

I know what you mean. A little over a year ago, I had a serious problem player in my group. It was actually the second time he was in my group, but I was convinced to give him a second chance after he flaked out on us the first time.


First, a long winded back story about me and my gaming style.


I cut my teeth on red box basic. Sure, it was 1992, but my dad had bought it for some unknown reason back in the 80's and it sat on the shelf until I was old enough to understand it. Back then I learned fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants DMing. There were all of 10 rules at best, and adventuring equipment amounted to; pointy stick, not-pointy stick, armor, food, empty bag and fire. You stuck your head in a hole, stabbed something and took its money. If a PC wanted to do *anything* aside from attack with either of the two sticks or cast one of the like 7 spells, you had to just make it up as DM and the PCs *had* to be cool with it.


Around '94ish I started picking up any 1st edition AD&D books I could find at thrift stores for a buck or two. Then buying extra copies and selling them to my friends for $5. More rules, but I still had to make up most things, such as social interaction, making your own stuff from scratch, (including magic items), epic rules, fancy combat maneuvers, and all that. If the PCs wanted to do something outside the rules, they looked to the DM and aided by the answer. Splash in 2nd edition around '95-'96, and we used a kinda hybrid of the two since the systems were fairly compatible.


Year 2k and 3rd edition comes out, and there was much rejoicing. There were actual *rules* for all the stuff we needed to play by ear for so many years. Huzzah! We continued to make stuff up for fun.


So, now we get to "problem player". We'll call him "Pat". Because his name is Patrick.


He's never actually "played" D&D before, so much as "bought some 3rd edition books for cheap after we all bought 3.5". Convinced himself that he's memorized the books, that he's "awesome" at magic item design and has "broken" character builds.


Well, his designs more or less sucked. His characters were ineffective, his magic items weren't actually balanced in any way, (epic weapons with only a +1 enhancement bonus), and fought me just about every step of the way when I made any effort to correct him or help him.


He got it in his head that because it was "in the books" that it was his "right" to use them. He actually had the stones to tell me that the magic item creation guidelines in the DMG were "how you made new magic items", (forgetting the "guidelines" part), and "were meant for PCs with item creation feats". I had to explain to him what *Dungeon Masters Guide* meant, and that it wasn't "Player's Handbook".


What it boiled down to, in my and the rest of the group's opinion, was information overload. With so many actual *rules* regarding what a character can do it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for a DM to say "no" or "wait a minute" without looking like a jerk. If it's a rule in printing, then it's "fair game". "DM fiat" and "Rule 0" are more or less gone in favor of a more streamlined gaming experience.


One the one hand, it's nice to have some consistency from game to game without having to remember how you ruled a PC making a running jump into a hoard of goblins and swinging his sword around wildly, because lord knows the players will remember if you don't rule exactly the same way a second time. On the other, players get hung up on the idea that rules a just that, rules; that they're the holy gospel of the game and they're not up for debate. If it says in a book they can do it, then they'll do it come hell or high water, DM be damned.


And as far as my comments in the craft thread, I simply felt that a voice of reason needed to step in and offer up a more grounded point of view. Since nobody that fit the bill was actually posting in there, I decided to be disagreeable and throw about hyperbole.


When all is said and done, though, my opinion always remains "if your group is having fun, then you're doin' it right". It doesn't matter how many weird house rules, or bad misinterpretations of rules you're using, as long as it's "cool". If people are smiling, and continue to come back for each game you run, then there is nothing wrong with your style.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

Also, I just wanted to add in something else that I wanted to bring up, but got lost on my little tangent there.


During one of the many, many discussions I was involved in about 3rd vs. 4th, (I think it was over on the Nifty Message Boards), an awesome point was brought up; Whatever version of "D&D" you buy off the shelf is only a snapshot of the designers current D&D.


As the game is being built, eventually it gets stable enough to release to the public. At that point it becomes whatever edition; 1st, 4th, 297th, whatever. Now, and here's the kicker; the designers keep designing. They continue to tinker with the game, and it evolves. They're not playing "4th edition", they using some horribly patched and house ruled franken-D&D right now. When it looks like it actually works, they release it as a book, and continue screw around some more.


So why shouldn't we do the same? Why stick to what is the printed word? Tinker with the rules, keep what works, ditch what doesn't. Find your own version of "D&D" and call it your own.


And with that point, I sleep now.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery


Also, I just wanted to add in something else that I wanted to bring up, but got lost on my little tangent there.


During one of the many, many discussions I was involved in about 3rd vs. 4th, (I think it was over on the Nifty Message Boards), an awesome point was brought up; Whatever version of "D&D" you buy off the shelf is only a snapshot of the designers current D&D.


As the game is being built, eventually it gets stable enough to release to the public. At that point it becomes whatever edition; 1st, 4th, 297th, whatever. Now, and here's the kicker; the designers keep designing. They continue to tinker with the game, and it evolves. They're not playing "4th edition", they using some horribly patched and house ruled franken-D&D right now. When it looks like it actually works, they release it as a book, and continue screw around some more.


So why shouldn't we do the same? Why stick to what is the printed word? Tinker with the rules, keep what works, ditch what doesn't. Find your own version of "D&D" and call it your own.


And with that point, I sleep now.



and yet another link that will be emailed to my players.

it sounds as though our indoctrination to DMing are fairly similar.


I'd like to propose an addition to your corollary: "... and the same is true with regards to a 4e discussion and invocation of 3.x."

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.

CoolSmileLaughing


Huzzah!


Accolades!


Preach it, brother!


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!


yeah, that craft thread got stupid real quick.  if it's the one i'm thinking of, then it also devolved in to a scemantics agument on what "stone" and "rock" mean, vs. what "gem" and "crystal" mean.


so, anyhow:
what ever happened to respecting the power of DM fiat?  I was reading through an AD&D DMG recently, and was really struck by the difference in tone and feel, as opposed to 3rd.  It really does emphasis the spirit of the game over the rules; where as 3rd gives a cursery nod to houseruling, but then goes on to tell you how game-disrupting it will be if you do change the rules.  Just the way that 3rd is writen opens you to the mindset that the rules and players' whims are what run a game, and the DM has to do the adjusting (making you afraid of actually making a tough decision); where 2nd tells the DM to run their game the way they see fit, and it's up to the players to adjust to you.


What does that have to do with the topic?  Just this:
when you find something you don't like -- change it. 
if a spell is too powerful -- limit it's use.
if a class feature is too strong -- nerf it.
if a class is too unbalancing -- rebuild it.
if you just don't like it -- ban it.


How hard is that?  Why must the designers force players to play within their own little box?  Why do we have to play the same way that the designers play?  This isn't chess -- it's a friggin' RPG. 


That's how I solve my game problems.  As far as I'm concerned, common sense and practicality over-rule any rule ever writen.


BTW -- your last post on the "craft" thread had me cheering; I'll be sending a link to that to all of my players.




Some DMs just resent having to do DM stuff.


shrug


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!

Some DMs just resent having to do DM stuff.

shrug


 




then they don't have any business being a DM.
when they're ready to step up and do the "DM stuff", then they're ready to try being a DM.
Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.

Well, I think it depends. "DM stuff" can take a lot of time and hard work, and it takes my players about 15 minutes to completely destroy 5-6 good days worth of my work. If they don't ignore it completely.


My last campaign world took about 15 years, and I'd say about 20 various players throughout those years, to fully flesh out to the point where it was truly a living, breathing world. Or I could have just ran Forgotten Realms. It takes me about a week or two to come up with an adventure, or I could just run a module. It could take anywhere from weeks to months to balance a new class, monster or spell.


Sometimes it's a time management issue. It's quicker and easier to grab something "off the shelf" than to do the work yourself. Other times, it's that the DM doesn't have confidence in his or her ability to start changing things around. It could even be that the DM really doesn't have the ability to start mucking about with things.


Take, for example, one of my previous DMs, "Will". You already know why we're calling him "Will".


Will came from the era of Gygaxian D&D, (please note that I'm not making a commentary on Gygax or his DMing style, only on the high PC mortality rate during his years as a games designer). 1st edition was his bread an butter, and he wanted things to be tough.


Well, he had delusions of being the next Tolken, and was working on a series of novels as well as creating a new gaming system set in the world of the novels at the same time. Loosely based on D&D. Sorta. Really, he kept trying to do some weird things with the rules, and we just went ahead and played 3rd edition in spite of him.


Every week the races would change, or the classes, or how much XP we needed to level up. I kept trying to point him to the OGL, and that he could just use the existing rules as they were and create a setting for a third of the work. In 2001, no game, outside of maybe World of Darkness, was going to come close to holding a candle to D&D. He was trying to beat WotC at their own game, and he was losing before he even began.


Did he have some awesome ideas? Yes, I liked the feel of his setting. It was interesting, and could have done a lot of great things, but his ability to design sucked.


Now, more to the point he wasn't actually all that good of a DM anyways, and was changing things that didn't need to be "fixed". He was trying to exert control over the players by screwing with the PCs and the rules. If we overcame an "impossible" encounter and got tons of XP, the next week the XP for next level was doubled. If we killed a monster in one hit, suddenly it had 5 times as many hit points. If he left a powerful magic item in the hands of an NPC that we murdered defeated and robbed looted, the next week it was stolen without a single die roll to notice the theft.


So, in his instance, "DM fiat" was being used in an abusive manner. He took it as his "right" to change whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, with little input from the players and zero regard to how much, or really how little, fun the change was.


While no game can ever truly prevent its players from changing it, (even video games are subject to the GameShark), it's not always a bad thing to attempt to limit its power.


I think the designers of 3rd edition saw this and took steps to reel it in a little. By making the game more modular, it balances and shares the amount of power between the players and the DM.


In 2nd edition, there were monsters that looked like the floor, the walls, the ceiling, a cloak hanging on the wall, the sheets on your bed, a treasure chest or other inanimate object, and a bunny sitting on a tree stump. And it was the tree stump that was the monster, not the bunny. So when the PCs walked through the dungeon and the room ate them, the DM could hide behind the Monster Manual and say "they're in the books, it's not my fault the game is out to kill you". And that wasn't counting the traps, cursed magic items, monsters that looked like other monsters but killed you twice as quickly, or twisting and perverting the Wish spell for no good reason.


So, while a DM can just as easily adapt those techniques to 3rd edition, it gives the players a clearer vision of "bad" DMs who are out for blood and power. The DM can't hide and say "the game made me do it", but actually has to 'fess up and admit that he's a bit of a jerk.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

In many ways, 4E was a 3.5 'fix'.  They realized there are so many fundamental problems with the 3.5 system they just decided to throw out everything that didn't work correctly so they could rebalance stuff.  That basically involved taking every class down to nothing and then rebuilding them to exacting balance, not in designing a character concept and matching the class to that, ignoring balance the while.


4E does a lot of stuff right.  Everything? No.  It's trying hard to be the young generation's D@D, the game that sucks them in and which they, too, will love and remember all their lives.  We have our roots elsewhere, adn this is a clear departure.  But then, I grew up on Space Invaders and Pac-Man, which is a long ways from HALO and Final Fantasy.


===Aelryinth

Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you


In many ways, 4E was a 3.5 'fix'.  They realized there are so many fundamental problems with the 3.5 system they just decided to throw out everything that didn't work correctly so they could rebalance stuff.  That basically involved taking every class down to nothing and then rebuilding them to exacting balance, not in designing a character concept and matching the class to that, ignoring balance the while.


4E does a lot of stuff right.  Everything? No.  It's trying hard to be the young generation's D@D, the game that sucks them in and which they, too, will love and remember all their lives.  We have our roots elsewhere, adn this is a clear departure.  But then, I grew up on Space Invaders and Pac-Man, which is a long ways from HALO and Final Fantasy.


===Aelryinth




I'm sorry, but you can't quantify that in any universal terms. 4th edition fixed the problems you had with 3rd edition. It does a lot of things you think are right.


The only way anything is "broken" within a rules system is when it stops being fun. In every single way I think Super Mario World is a better game than Call of Duty 4, yet CoD4 has better graphics, better audio, is all shiny in HD, can be played by more than two people and those people don't need to "take turns".


Each person has a unique experience with 3rd edition. My players don't play casters, and even when they do they pick damage spells over "save or die" spells, so my group doesn't have an issue with powerful spells. They don't need to be "fixed" because they're not present. Grapple is an issue, because that is a combat option my players want to use, but it stops being fun as soon as the first roll is made. Fighters aren't used in my games past 3rd level, so that's something I want to fix. Diplomacy isn't used as an "I rule the world with a word" skill, so it's not "broken" in my games.


Can things in 3rd edition be exploited? Yes, the CharOp boards are living proof of that fact. There are things that are widely unbalanced, and can break the game within seconds in both a "this is too powerful" and a "this has no purpose" sense.


4th edition isn't "fixing" anything. It's replacing them. You said yourself it started from scratch. That's a far cry from how 2nd edition handled fixing the problems in 1st edition. It was still the same system, and you could still use all your old books with minor tweaks and adjustments. 3rd edition replaced every single thing in 2nd edition. 3.5 fixed 3rd. 4th edition replaces.


By the same logic, Hackmaster is a 3.5 "fix", or Vampire: the Masquerade, RIFTS, GURPS or any of a hundred other systems. I've actually played a session in 2nd edition where we used Magic: the Gathering cards instead of dice and D&D rules. Does that make M:tG a "fix" for 2nd edition?


4th edition makes changes to things that I don't have any need to change. Things that I don't think are "broken". For me, it's buying a new car because your old one got a flat tire. For other people, it's buying a new car because the engine was shot, the transmission was shot and it had 4 flat tires.


 

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

I completely support anyone playing the verison of the game that is most "fun" to them. However intent and context of a poster bringer 4E into a 3E discussion are important. Discussion of 4E rules and design philosophy can be helpful in a discussion of  3.5 rules and design philosophy. For instance if a DM is having an issue with one rule or system in 3.5 it is helpful to look at how other systems handle the issue, even though the DM wants to tweak 3.5 rather than adopt the other rule set. Of course if the other poster's motive in bringing up 4E is just to bash 3.5, then yes it is not helpful.


 


3e is a good system which I still play, but it is almost a decade old, and game design has advanced since then. 3E is a "high maintenance" game to DM. In 3E the classes are imbalanced, you can easily use magic to side step just about every challenge, and the encounter system as written is extremely clunky and unreliable. Now if the DM works very hard he can make fighters and monks be more than side kicks to the casters, keep spells from breaking the game in half, and get the CR system to be somewhat functional, but he will have to be mindful of these issues in each and every session. Just because the issues can be managed and or house ruled by the DM does not mean that they are not there.


 

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 


In many ways, 4E was a 3.5 'fix'.  They realized there are so many fundamental problems with the 3.5 system they just decided to throw out everything that didn't work correctly so they could rebalance stuff.  That basically involved taking every class down to nothing and then rebuilding them to exacting balance, not in designing a character concept and matching the class to that, ignoring balance the while.


4E does a lot of stuff right.  Everything? No.  It's trying hard to be the young generation's D@D, the game that sucks them in and which they, too, will love and remember all their lives.  We have our roots elsewhere, adn this is a clear departure.  But then, I grew up on Space Invaders and Pac-Man, which is a long ways from HALO and Final Fantasy.


===Aelryinth




4E did not "fix" 3.5.  They threw away 3E and started over.  3.5 was a "fix" for 3.0.  Fixing something means you still have what you fixed.  Throwing something out and buying something different is not a "fix".


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Its all D&D to me, the theme, plot and roleplaying is not particularly effected by which rules are used so I all I can compare the editions against is their mechanics.


I feel 3E was a significant improvement over 2E, but it does have a lot problems that needed to be house ruled and managed. Again if the DM is willing to take almost all of the responsibility for getting the rules to work than everything is fine. However actually rewriting the rules, so for instance, that the class and encounter system are balanced (which is the very foundation of the game's mechanics) is no small task. 


4E in my view took every good thing from 3E and improved on the rest. E6 is also a very good fix for 3E but it basicaly throws levels 7-30 out of the game (which is like more than 2/3 of the game). Now I can see how people say that this constitutes throwing out the baby with the bath water, but how else do you mechanically fix a class based system where at least 50 percent of the base classes are so irrelevant after level 8 or so.     

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 


I completely support anyone playing the verison of the game that is most "fun" to them. However intent and context of bringing of a poster bringer 4E into a 3E discussion are important. Discussion of 4E rules and design philosophy can be helpful in a discussion of  3.5 rules and design philosophy. For instance if a DM is having an issue with one rule or system in 3.5 it is helpful to look at how other systems handle the issue, even though the DM wants to tweak 3.5 rather than adopt the other rule set. Of course if the other poster's motive in bringing up 4E is just to bash 3.5, then yes it is not helpful.


 


3e is a good system which I still play, but it is almost a decade old, and game design has advanced since then. 3E is a "high maintenance" game to DM. In 3E the classes are imbalanced, you can easily use magic to side step just about every challenge, and the encounter system as written is extremely clunky and unreliable. Now if the DM works very hard he can make fighters and monks be more than side kicks to the casters, keep spells from breaking the game in half, and get the CR system to be somewhat function, but he will have to be mindful of these issues in each and every session. Just because the issues can be managed and or house ruled by the DM does not mean that they are not there.




You're right, and I probably wasn't clear enough about that early on in the thread about my feelings on that.


I look at 3rd edition like the Xbox 360; is the amount of fun you get out of the system greater than the issues the system presents? I refuse to buy a 360 until such a point in time that the "red ring of death" is resolved to my satisfaction. A lot of other people disagree with me. I'm willing to deal with the amount of problems 3rd edition "brings to the table".


I agree with the Oberoni Fallacy, but I don't believe that I'm invoking it in this instance. In fact I pointed out a couple of the serious issues that 3rd edition has; spells, fighters, grapple and diplomacy. And on a case by case basis, I looked at how my group handles those issues. For every single rule in 3rd edition, I ask two questions; Is this broken? Is this a problem for my group?


I think the idea that Venerable Kobolds can take Epic Feats is a stupid idea that was presented in Races of the Dragon. It was what originally opened up the mess that is Pun Pun. It's broken, because it allows things to happen that shouldn't. Now, is it a problem for my group? No. Nobody has ever played a Kobold in my group. My players won't play races outside of the PHB without serious prompting on my part. If and when the situation ever presents itself, I'll make a ruling based on the situation. If I see the potential for abuse, I'll step in to prevent it. If it's not going to wreck the game, I'll allow it.


I don't think there'll ever be a system that doesn't have its flaws and problems. As each edition grows, more material is added in, and how each rule interacts with each other rule gets tested less and less. If you create a new feat, are you going to playtest that feat with the hundreds of monsters, hundreds of other feats, dozens of base classes and scores of prestige classes?


At some point, perhaps even now since I don't read the 4th edition boards, there will be some "broken" combo. Some rules that can be used in an abusive manner and will break the game wide open. Some of them will be silly, (buy a 10' ladder, dismantle it, sell it as 2 10' poles = unlimited gold), some of them will be highly subjective, (Divine Metamagic, Nightsticks = unlimited Metamagic on a spell for zero cost), and some of them will be downright powerful, (8th level druid, Natural Spell = never having to play fair).


Is anybody "right"? I doubt it, least of all me. Will the situation ever be resolved? I doubt it, as there are still folks who play OD&D, Basic/Expert, 1st and 2nd edition, and resent the changes made in each successive edition.


I said in my opening post, as well as my first reply, that I'm not completely opposed to the idea that one can look to other gaming systems to see how a rule is handled. It's when using a different system is the proposed fix that I take issue. I'm not going to "fix" 3.5 by playing 2nd or 4th edition D&D any more than I'm going to "fix" it by playing Hackmaster or Monopoly.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

You know we have the exact same thing going on in the 4e boards.  constant "3e works better with X"  in our discussions.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

ah, get off yer high horses and quit being so defensive.


A rule that can be broken without abusive language is broken, regardless if you use it or not.  THat's Oberoni fallacy...just because your players don't abuse it didn't mean it wasn't broken. Diplomacy is a key example of this...few people abuse it, but it IS so easy to abuse, it's obviously broken.  Dragonwrought kobolds are another...what were the designers thinking? (although a Dragonwroght kobold is properly dragonkin, not a True Dragon, adn the Epic thing doesn't work).


You call it replacement, I call it a fix.  If the fix works differently then the original, so what? I'm now pedaling using gears and a chain instead of straight off the wheel.  It's still a bicycle.


It's a fix that is based on radically different perceptions of the game, and it balances it to a different paradigm.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Still d20 rolls, still hit points, still levels, still monsters to slay and gold to get.  The core is there, even if the extensions are different.


 


==Aelryinth

Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you

I think my biggest problem with these sorts of discussions is the presumption that everyone involved knows 4E, or should know 4E. This is a fair assumption if you're posting on the 4E boards, but not anywhere else. 


When discussing house rules or variant rules within the context of 3.5, I overwhelmingly saw two things paired together: a reference to the variant rule ("Well, Rich Burlew over at GiantInThePlayground has a variant rule for Diplomacy that works well") and a summation of the rule. ("Diplomacy is now the art of the deal; the difficulty is based on what you're offering versus what you're asking, and is modified by your relation to the other person") Sometimes there was a link to the rule instead of a summation, and sometimes the summation had to be a bit vague to respect IP, but basically no one ever just said "X does this better", they said "Here's how X does it, and I think it's better".


For some reason, when people talk about how much better 4E handles certain things, there's an odd omission of the rules in question.


ah, get off yer high horses and quit being so defensive.


A rule that can be broken without abusive language is broken, regardless if you use it or not.  THat's Oberoni fallacy...just because your players don't abuse it didn't mean it wasn't broken. Diplomacy is a key example of this...few people abuse it, but it IS so easy to abuse, it's obviously broken.  Dragonwrought kobolds are another...what were the designers thinking? (although a Dragonwroght kobold is properly dragonkin, not a True Dragon, adn the Epic thing doesn't work).


You call it replacement, I call it a fix.  If the fix works differently then the original, so what? I'm now pedaling using gears and a chain instead of straight off the wheel.  It's still a bicycle.


It's a fix that is based on radically different perceptions of the game, and it balances it to a different paradigm.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Still d20 rolls, still hit points, still levels, still monsters to slay and gold to get.  The core is there, even if the extensions are different.


 


==Aelryinth





But if a particular playing group is not having any particular problem with a rule that's "broken", then there's no reason to switch game systems just because it is "broken".   If a particular gaming group is having a problem with a particular rule, regardless if it's "broken" or not, the solution is still not switch gaming systems.

There are legitimate reasons to switch gaming systems. 1: Just to try something new.  2: Bored with the current system being played.  3: Loathe the current system being played with a passion.


However, if a player doesn't want to try something new or is not bored with the current system being played or loves the current system being played with a passion, he is not wrong and should not have to be convinced.


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!


I think my biggest problem with these sorts of discussions is the presumption that everyone involved knows 4E, or should know 4E. This is a fair assumption if you're posting on the 4E boards, but not anywhere else. 


When discussing house rules or variant rules within the context of 3.5, I overwhelmingly saw two things paired together: a reference to the variant rule ("Well, Rich Burlew over at GiantInThePlayground has a variant rule for Diplomacy that works well") and a summation of the rule. ("Diplomacy is now the art of the deal; the difficulty is based on what you're offering versus what you're asking, and is modified by your relation to the other person") Sometimes there was a link to the rule instead of a summation, and sometimes the summation had to be a bit vague to respect IP, but basically no one ever just said "X does this better", they said "Here's how X does it, and I think it's better".


For some reason, when people talk about how much better 4E handles certain things, there's an odd omission of the rules in question.




okay -- so at least I'm not the only one to have noticed this.  I just smacked-down some guy who was trolling a 3.5 discussion with his 4e rhetoric.  Once I put things to him much the same way you did hear, he became very short on suggestions (but at least he stopped his b.s.). 

I really am getting sick of all the edition-war rhetoric.

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.


ah, get off yer high horses and quit being so defensive.


A rule that can be broken without abusive language is broken, regardless if you use it or not.  THat's Oberoni fallacy...just because your players don't abuse it didn't mean it wasn't broken. Diplomacy is a key example of this...few people abuse it, but it IS so easy to abuse, it's obviously broken.  Dragonwrought kobolds are another...what were the designers thinking? (although a Dragonwroght kobold is properly dragonkin, not a True Dragon, adn the Epic thing doesn't work).


You call it replacement, I call it a fix.  If the fix works differently then the original, so what? I'm now pedaling using gears and a chain instead of straight off the wheel.  It's still a bicycle.


It's a fix that is based on radically different perceptions of the game, and it balances it to a different paradigm.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Still d20 rolls, still hit points, still levels, still monsters to slay and gold to get.  The core is there, even if the extensions are different.


 


==Aelryinth




Well, I don't see where I'm on my high horse or getting defensive. I'm stating my argument and pointing out where I disagree with your opinion.


What I'm taking away from your posts is this; you feel there are a lot of problems in 3.0/3.5, and 4th edition is a good way to fix those problems.


My point is this; the problems presented on these boards are not a problem for my group, and don't need to be fixed in my group.


I never said the problems didn't exist. I've said again and again that they do. I understand that the rules can be abused, broken and ruin the game.


Please re-read the Oberoni Fallacy. "[X] is not broken because you can rule 0 [X]". I did not say that 3.5 is not broken. I did not say that rules or anything else is not broken because you can use rule 0. I said that it's only broken when it stops being fun.


A rule that could be abused is a deal breaker for, if these boards are any indicator, most people. Your definition of "broken" is anything that could be abused, even if it is not abused at any point in the game. My definition of "broken" is anything that takes away from the fun of the game.


From your posts, you would consider Diplomacy to be "broken" since it could be abused by easy means as it is written. I consider Diplomacy to be something that could be abused, but isn't a problem in my games, thus I don't need to "fix" it.


If a rule can be abused, but is not, and everyone is having fun with the game, including said rule, then I see not point in "fixing" the rule to prevent some vague idea that it could be abused at some unknown point in the future.


I don't assume that my definition is the norm for these boards. I would imagine that most people consider your point of view to be the definition of "broken". I'm attempting to explain what I consider to be "broken", and thus what falls into the category of what I feel I need to fix.




But if a particular playing group is not having any particular problem with a rule that's "broken", then there's no reason to switch game systems just because it is "broken".   If a particular gaming group is having a problem with a particular rule, regardless if it's "broken" or not, the solution is still not switch gaming systems.


There are legitimate reasons to switch gaming systems. 1: Just to try something new.  2: Bored with the current system being played.  3: Loathe the current system being played with a passion.


However, if a player doesn't want to try something new or is not bored with the current system being played or loves the current system being played with a passion, he is not wrong and should not have to be convinced.




Thank you. That's really the point I'm trying to get across here, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm failing with my words.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

No, I get you point.


However the topic of this thread is people who post about issues that they themselves are have in thier own 3E games. Now I do agree with you that If someone says that they are having a problem with x mechinic in edition Y, it is not helpful for people to post either system Y is awesome and that their group has no problems with it, or that sytem Y is awful and you should just play system Z. 


 


 


 


 

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

The argument is falling flat because a fix extends across all games, not just yours.  Just because you don't have a problem with a rule doesn't mean it isn't broken.  That IS Oberoni...you're ignoring the problem because it doesn't affect you, yet it STILL is a problem. I.e. just because you don't use the grapple rules doesn't mean they aren't a pain in the keister...or maybe that's why you don't use them.  Either way, they need some streamlining.


We're looking at the entire system, not just your campaign.  If you're going to have a discussion about fixing rules, excluding your own campaign just turns it all into a Rule O discussion.  You fix it, even if you haven't had problems yet, because it needs to be fixed...and you might have a problem in the future.


And no, I don't play 4E.  I consider a great deal of the stuff they put in 4E should have been put into 3E and fixed it up, but by no means everything.  If you want to talk Edition wars, you're going to have to go back to 1E and Basic->Masters D&D through 4E with me, and talk about how you could borrow things from ALL those to make a better game.  I'm a freeform rules looter, acknowledging improvements, and disparaging changes from what worked (Melees from 2e->3E especially).


==Aelryinth

Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you


The argument is falling flat because a fix extends across all games, not just yours.  Just because you don't have a problem with a rule doesn't mean it isn't broken.  That IS Oberoni...you're ignoring the problem because it doesn't affect you, yet it STILL is a problem. I.e. just because you don't use the grapple rules doesn't mean they aren't a pain in the keister...or maybe that's why you don't use them.  Either way, they need some streamlining.




Okay. I'm going to try this again. If I can't help you to understand after this post, then I'm going to give up trying to help you understand.


I get that there are broken rules in 3.5. CoDzilla, fighters, diplomacy, spells, grapple are all things that can do serious damage to a game.


Just because something is broken does not mean that I need to fix it. If it does not take away from my fun of the game, then it is not broken at my table.


You're making the assumption that every person plays D&D exactly the same way. You even said that a fix extents across all games. No, it does not. Not every person uses the Polymorph rules in PHB2, not every person uses the errata, not every person uses 3.5.


A fix only extends to the people that have a problem with a rule, and implement that fix.


Here is the original post by Oberoni explaining the fallacy;



This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:


  • "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

  • "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."

  • "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:


  • "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.




Every example that has been brought up has been replied to by me with example 1. I agree. Some rules I feel I need to fix, others I do not.


"Diplomacy is broken" "Yep, that could be a problem in some games. It's not a problem for me, so I'm not going to mess with it".


"CoDzilla is broken!" "Yep, that could be a problem for some games. My group understands the power gap between casters and the other classes, so they don't choose overpowered spells and keep their power level in line with the rest of the party".


"Grapple is broken!!" "Yep, that's a problem me and my group have as well. I'm looking at alternative rules to make the option more fun".


I'm actually not invoking rule 0 by virtue of the fact that I'm not changing any of the rules. I never "rule 0'd" Diplomacy, we run it exactly as it is in the PHB. I never "rule 0'd" Clerics or Druids, we run them exactly as they are in the PHB.



We're looking at the entire system, not just your campaign.  If you're going to have a discussion about fixing rules, excluding your own campaign just turns it all into a Rule O discussion.  You fix it, even if you haven't had problems yet, because it needs to be fixed...and you might have a problem in the future.




You're looking at the entire system. I'm looking to only fix what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with the entire system, or else I would just change systems. That's the point of this thread; I don't think 3.5 is broken, I think elements of 3.5 are broken. Other people feel differently, and approach the problem from a different angle.


I'm not playing D&D at your house. I don't know how your players play the game. Every group is unique, and so is each campaign. Fixing CoDzilla in a low-magic campaign is different from fixing the CoDzilla in a high-magic campaign. What if it's a no-magic campaign? How broken are your casters now?


Every fix needs to be adapted to fit the players and the campaign, just like every printed rule does. I'm not out to fix the entire game, only the elements that take away the fun from my game at my house with my players. That's the only D&D I play. I can't fix the entire game for every player in every group for every campaign. I can only fix my D&D.


If other people have a problem with a rule, they're free to use a fix that I've worked out for my group, or they can look for an alternative that would better work for their group. If they want to tackle the entire system, then they can feel free to do that too.



And no, I don't play 4E.  I consider a great deal of the stuff they put in 4E should have been put into 3E and fixed it up, but by no means everything.  If you want to talk Edition wars, you're going to have to go back to 1E and Basic->Masters D&D through 4E with me, and talk about how you could borrow things from ALL those to make a better game.  I'm a freeform rules looter, acknowledging improvements, and disparaging changes from what worked (Melees from 2e->3E especially).


==Aelryinth




I'm not here for an edition war. This thread isn't even really about what I want to fix in 3.5, but my opinions about how every fix eventually degrades into a "[X] system fixes [Y] problem".


If you want to start talking about how you could borrow from other editions of D&D, then you need to bring up other gaming systems entirely with me. How does White Wolf handle grapple? How does Shadowrun keep the balance between casters and the other classes? What combat elements could we adapt from RIFTS? How does Ironclaw/Jadeclaw deal with social skills?


I'm not here to talk about what OD&D/1st/basic/expert/2nd/4th edition did right or wrong. I'm here to help my 3.5 game be more fun and enjoyable for my group.


Fixing broken rules that my group doesn't have a problem with isn't fun, and doesn't make my game any better. All it does is create more house rules that we have to remember outside of the books.

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

Fixing broken rules that my group doesn't have a problem with isn't fun, and doesn't make my game any better. All it does is create more house rules that we have to remember outside of the books.



But, if we are talking about a hypothetical thread where someone hypothetically says "4E fixed that", then wouldn't it follow that this particular hypothetical thread was about having a problem with this thing that 4E fixed?

Basicly what I'm saying is that if you were not talking about a rule you had a problem with, then no one would have the opportunity to tell you it was "Fixed in 4E".


I can see your point, and I like how reasonable you are being about it, but it's just that sometimes "4E fixed that" IS entirely applicable to a thread. Of course, if they don't elaborate on HOW they fixed it, then it is useless anyway, but if they explain how it made the problem better then it is very useful. And if the thread wasn't even ABOUT someone having a problem with the rule, then "4E fixed that" is again useless.

EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)

The problem is that he doesn't acknowledge that he's 'rule 0'ing' the difficult rules...by not testing them out.


Not having your casters use their best spells to their full extent is voluntary nerfing.


Not abusing the diplomancy rules is voluntary nerfing.


The fact is, they are Rule 0'ing themselves like crazy to play the game.  So, your examples, protests and citing are all looking really, really strange to me, as you are doing classic Oberoni by denying the problem, despite the fact you've got spoken or unspoken house rules in place to address them!


As for other games, I've read all of those at one point or another, but cash being what it is, I haven't bought them, and most of my own books are roughly a thousand miles away at this point.  Most games treat grappling as just another form of martial art with damage on top of it...or skim by it, since it's so hard to duplicate and not abuse.


And in a thread talking about rules problems, saying 'rules are a problem for you and not for me' is more Oberoni denial of the problem, especially when you brought in the 'super-Rule 0' of a house campaign with nerfed magic.  Oberoni exists to point out that rules are what they are, common basis, and house ruling IS what we are talking about.  The intent of the thread was to find solutions to the overarching rules, not to deny they need to be fixed in 'your' campaign.


===Aelryinth

Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you


But, if we are talking about a hypothetical thread where someone hypothetically says "4E fixed that", then wouldn't it follow that this particular hypothetical thread was about having a problem with this thing that 4E fixed?


Basicly what I'm saying is that if you were not talking about a rule you had a problem with, then no one would have the opportunity to tell you it was "Fixed in 4E".


I can see your point, and I like how reasonable you are being about it, but it's just that sometimes "4E fixed that" IS entirely applicable to a thread. Of course, if they don't elaborate on HOW they fixed it, then it is useless anyway, but if they explain how it made the problem better then it is very useful. And if the thread wasn't even ABOUT someone having a problem with the rule, then "4E fixed that" is again useless.




My comment that you quoted was in reply to Aelryinth's comment that "we're looking at the entire system" and "fixing things before they're a problem". At no point am I trying to fix the entire system, and I don't generally participate in threads that deal with issues I don't have in my game.


If I have a single problem with a single rule, then a comment of "4th edition addressed that problem, here's what you could do..." could be helpful. I don't have the 4th edition books, and there's no SRD for 4th edition, so like you said simply telling me that "4th edition fixed that" isn't very helpful without an example and a way to adapt that rule into something that 3.5 can use.


One of my issues with this whole subject, though, is something I touched on in my last post; why don't other systems get brought up as a "fix" to an issue? Many of the threads I've read, on these boards and others, don't seem to bring up older editions or other systems. Maybe it's an issue of them being non-d20 systems, thus not as easily compatible with 3rd as 4th is.


 



The problem is that he doesn't acknowledge that he's 'rule 0'ing' the difficult rules...by not testing them out.




1. I never said that we didn't test the rules out. Every example that's been brought up thus far, with the exception of the Kobolds, has been used at some point by me and my players.


2. That's not what Rule 0 is.


0. Check with your dungeon master


Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits will with the group.


That's from the 3.0 PHB. It's still in the 3.5 PHB, but all the 'steps' have had their numbers removed. There's also Rule 0 as found on the Urban Dictionary.


The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:


The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things.


Not using the rules is not the same as changing the rules.



Not having your casters use their best spells to their full extent is voluntary nerfing.




3. That's the players choice. They're playing the kind of casters they want to, and they have more fun with spells that deal HP damage than the "save or die" spells. The "broken" spells still exist as they are written, and my player's are free to use them. I've never taken the option away from them. Should they present a problem in my game, I'll address them.



Not abusing the diplomancy rules is voluntary nerfing.




4. Not abusing the rules is good conduct. The rules were never meant to be abused. Even if a PC can make a DC 60 Diplomacy check to turn an opponent from Hostile to Helpful as a full-round action, however, there's still one fact that remains written in the PHB; Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far. It is not Rule 0 to say that an opponent is not willing to risk life and limb for the PCs, is not willing to relinquish all their worldly wealth to the PCs and/or is not willing to aid the PCs in any way.



The fact is, they are Rule 0'ing themselves like crazy to play the game.  So, your examples, protests and citing are all looking really, really strange to me, as you are doing classic Oberoni by denying the problem, despite the fact you've got spoken or unspoken house rules in place to address them!




*sigh*


5. I really don't get what part of "Yes, that rule is broken, we don't abuse it" is denying that the rule is broken.


"That rule is not used in our games, so we don't have a need to fix it" Oberoni fallacy.


"That rule is broken, so we're not going to use it" Oberoni fallacy.


"That rule is broken, so we'll be careful not to abuse it" Oberoni fallacy.


"That rule is broken, so we'll house rule it" Oberoni fallacy.


"That rule is not broken because we can just fix it" Oberoni fallacy.



And in a thread talking about rules problems, saying 'rules are a problem for you and not for me' is more Oberoni denial of the problem, especially when you brought in the 'super-Rule 0' of a house campaign with nerfed magic.  Oberoni exists to point out that rules are what they are, common basis, and house ruling IS what we are talking about.  The intent of the thread was to find solutions to the overarching rules, not to deny they need to be fixed in 'your' campaign.




6. This is not a thread about rules problems. This is a thread that is investigating the idea that the longer one talks about the rules in 3.5 the more likely it will be that a comparison to 4th edition will occur. That said, refer to point 10 below.


7. Not having a problem with a broken rule is not the same as saying that the rule is not broken.


8. I brought up the "super Rule 0" as an example to your point that you were "looking at fixing the entire system" and not "just my campaign".


A fix that works for one group may or may not work for another group. Each rules question I have must be looked at under the light of my campaign and my players. There is no single correct fix to all D&D problems.


If I fix a rule in a different way than you do I am not paying with a broken rule.


9. The Oberoni Fallacy exists to point out that there is flawed reasoning among debaters. It does not address the rule that is being debated, only the argument about the rule.


10. The intent of this thread is to investigate the idea that the longer one talks about the rules in 3.5 the more likely it will be that a comparison to 4th edition will occur.


It became a rules fix/rule 0/Oberoni Fallacy discussion when you said that "4th edition was a 3.5 fix", and that it "fixed many of the problems inherent in 3.5". I said that it changed rules that I did not have a problem with, and did not need to see changed.


 

The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that you're getting. D&D 3.5 Glossary
My 'Tags'.
(\(\ (='.') o(_")") Backloggery

I don't play 4e, I wouldn't mind giving it a go, but personally I like 3.x


I do have a problem though with people that tend to shove 4e down people's throats because they think "oh well, you don't have to worry about x-y-z now" ...


Well maybe I don't want to play a radically different game just to deal with x-y-z.


In another board I said that I am "quite content with playing 3.5 ... my group is happy, I am happy .. we are content and I prefer playing 3.x" ... and 3 or so people in less than 2 hours said I should play 4x because it does things different.


Maybe I want to play 3.5 and perhaps just say "you can't use this spell, this spell and this spell to my spellcasters"


Touch of Idiocy ... yep gone <.< ... Power Word Stun ... uhuh ... yeah ... GONE ... Planar Shepherd .. AH HA!!! Gone ... See how easy it is? ... and the best thing is ... it's still 3.5 <.< Just with a bit of pruning.


The easiest way is simply to say "If it's not in the PHB, DMG, or Faerun PHB/CS ... then you don't get it without MY approval."


YAY!!! .... problem solved, and I get to play a game with skill points and none of these 'powers' nonsense I have to remember... Why they hell would a fighter from a landlocked natio at 4th level be worse at steering a galleon through stormy seas than a fighter at level 11, from the same landlocked nation?


SKILL POINTS ARE NECESSARY PEOPLE. 4e regulations are slightly simple ... yeah .. so are the biblical commandments .. but for some reason I still prefer the mountains of bureaucratic mess which passes muster as legal obligation and rights that we have in the modern world.


Why the hell, as DM ... Should I have to remember what powers everybody has like in 4e? 3.x "Give me a list of all spells you've memorised and a copy of the 1st page of your character sheets" ... DONE .. 4e ... "EVERYBODY give me a list of ALL POWERS .."


Don't tell me 4e is easier to DM, it's just easier if you don't have a brain.


For some reason people think 4th ed is better ... and they'll open their mouths without realising "it's not a better game ... its a DIFFERENT game" and therefore if somebody need help on a 3.x problem .. perhaps they shouldn't be spouting off about A DIFFERENT GAME...


If you're playing "Guess Who?" .. I don't say "Monopoly is better because you can have more than two people playing." 


Anyways .. hats off to you Airos .. I agree wholeheartedly.

If 3E is working for you and your group with your houserules, there is no need to change systems. That being said I did want to comment on some of your points.


 


Skills: In terms of 4E skills there are two things to keep in mind, one  some uses of skills require that you be trained in those skills and two DCs scale with level. So getting a +1 to all skills every other level does not help you that much in make checks that either by the rules you can't attempt at all or have DCs you have little chance of hitting.     


 


Also as a point of comparison in 3E, does it make any more sense if a someone goes out and kills a bunch of goblins and then levels up and becomes an even better brewer? What if the character goes from 2nd to 3rd level and has zero points in brewing and then puts all of his skill point into this skill and takes skill focus brewing, he then just by the magic of goblin slaying goes from a +0  check to a + 9 check. Now you could as the DM rule that you will not let the character become a skilled brewer literally overnight and that they must train or in some other way account for the new knowledge. Just as in 4E you could rule that a fighter from a landlocked nation could not make any skill checks related to sailing regardless if the rules would give them a small percentage chance to pass the check. 


 


Powers: You don't need to remeber everyones powers in 4E, the game runs quite smothly whether the DM has some familarity with them as long as the player know how their charecters work.


 


People talk a lot about different fixes for 3E because there is a pretty general consensus that 3E needs a lot of fixes, opinions just very on how deep and sweeping to make the changes. For example both Pazio and WOTC agree almost 100% on what the prevalent issues in 3E are (class imbalance, encounter system, too many sub systems, spells etc.) they just went about addressing them in different ways.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 


Also as a point of comparison in 3E, does it make any more sense if a someone goes out and kills a bunch of goblins and then levels up and becomes an even better brewer? What if the character goes from 2nd to 3rd level and has zero points in brewing and then puts all of his skill point into this skill and takes skill focus brewing, he then just by the magic of goblin slaying goes from a +0  check to a + 9 check. Now you could as the DM rule that you will not let the character become a skilled brewer literally overnight and that they must train or in some other way account for the new knowledge. Just as in 4E you could rule that a fighter from a landlocked nation could not make any skill checks related to sailing regardless if the rules would give them a small percentage chance to pass the check. [/qote]
Well, as a matter of fact, there is actually a provision in the 3.5 DMG that specifically addresses this type of thing.  It's just a matter of whether or not the DM wants to use it.



Powers: You don't need to remeber everyones powers in 4E, the game runs quite smothly whether the DM has some familarity with them as long as the player know how their charecters work.



I have found this to pretty-much true, irrespective of edition/game system.  The problems come when either the players don't bother to know what all their character can do, or when they try pulling munchkin-type shenanigans -- both cases pretty-much force DMs to either know what all the characters can do or be prepared to make liberal use of "rule 0".


People talk a lot about different fixes for 3E because there is a pretty general consensus that 3E needs a lot of fixes, opinions just very on how deep and sweeping to make the changes. For example both Pazio and WOTC agree almost 100% on what the prevalent issues in 3E are (class imbalance, encounter system, too many sub systems, spells etc.) they just went about addressing them in different ways.





I, for one, think that this goes a long way towards "fixing" things (it may not be the end-all-be-all, but it is at least a solid start).

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.


I don't play 4e, I wouldn't mind giving it a go, but personally I like 3.x


I do have a problem though with people that tend to shove 4e down people's throats because they think "oh well, you don't have to worry about x-y-z now" ...


Well maybe I don't want to play a radically different game just to deal with x-y-z.


In another board I said that I am "quite content with playing 3.5 ... my group is happy, I am happy .. we are content and I prefer playing 3.x" ... and 3 or so people in less than 2 hours said I should play 4x because it does things different.


Maybe I want to play 3.5 and perhaps just say "you can't use this spell, this spell and this spell to my spellcasters"


Touch of Idiocy ... yep gone <.< ... Power Word Stun ... uhuh ... yeah ... GONE ... Planar Shepherd .. AH HA!!! Gone ... See how easy it is? ... and the best thing is ... it's still 3.5 <.< Just with a bit of pruning.


The easiest way is simply to say "If it's not in the PHB, DMG, or Faerun PHB/CS ... then you don't get it without MY approval."


YAY!!! .... problem solved, and I get to play a game with skill points and none of these 'powers' nonsense I have to remember... Why they hell would a fighter from a landlocked natio at 4th level be worse at steering a galleon through stormy seas than a fighter at level 11, from the same landlocked nation?


SKILL POINTS ARE NECESSARY PEOPLE. 4e regulations are slightly simple ... yeah .. so are the biblical commandments .. but for some reason I still prefer the mountains of bureaucratic mess which passes muster as legal obligation and rights that we have in the modern world.


Why the hell, as DM ... Should I have to remember what powers everybody has like in 4e? 3.x "Give me a list of all spells you've memorised and a copy of the 1st page of your character sheets" ... DONE .. 4e ... "EVERYBODY give me a list of ALL POWERS .."


Don't tell me 4e is easier to DM, it's just easier if you don't have a brain.


For some reason people think 4th ed is better ... and they'll open their mouths without realising "it's not a better game ... its a DIFFERENT game" and therefore if somebody need help on a 3.x problem .. perhaps they shouldn't be spouting off about A DIFFERENT GAME...


If you're playing "Guess Who?" .. I don't say "Monopoly is better because you can have more than two people playing." 


Anyways .. hats off to you Airos .. I agree wholeheartedly.





Wow, that was a needless amount of bile. I don't think the intent of this thread was to bash 4E. I mean, it's a bit hypocritical to say "I don't think people should say '3E sucks, play 4E'", and then suddenly start flipping out about how absolutly awful 4E is, how "SKILL POINTS ARE NECESSARY!", and how it is so ridiculous that DMs have to remember all of every power every player has, something they, you know, don't have to do.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)

Airos' Law just struck in the Classes Forum in the discussion about wizards and sorcerers!


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!


Airos' Law just struck in the Classes Forum in the discussion about wizards and sorcerers!


 




I hate to nit-pick, but it's Airos' Corollary, not LawCool  (dammit, I really hate these emoticons!)

otherwise -- good lookin'-out.

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.


I hate to nit-pick, but it's Airos' Corollary, not LawCool  (dammit, I really hate these emoticons!)


otherwise -- good lookin'-out.





Then don't.

TeeHee


:P


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!

I can't help it -- I thinks it's a compulsive disorder or something.  Tongue out

Airos' Corollary stuff, stuff, stuff, and stuff more stuff don't be a **** okay, if you insist Return of the awesome -- you just can't kill it Everything you need Everything I say is to be taken at face value. Why? Because that's the way it is intended.


I can't help it -- I thinks it's a compulsive disorder or something.  Tongue out





Tee Hee

It's a minor pet peeve of mine when someone says "I hate to X" but does X anyway.  I just felt like needling a bit for it.


 

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!



I can't help it -- I thinks it's a compulsive disorder or something. 




Tee Hee

It's a minor pet peeve of mine when someone says "I hate to X" but does X anyway.  I just felt like needling a bit for it.


 




4E does emoticons differently. I think they are much easier since we don't have worry about iconic emoticons.  With the new rules coming out in 4E Emoticon Vault, you will be able to use two or more emoticons without grabbing a feat once you hit Epic Levels.
Sign In to post comments