Banner Archive

Marvel Comics Timeline
Godzilla Timeline



« Covers - not worth the effort | Main | Civil War Spoilers »

3.5 is for suckers

Armor class should be low! Long live THAC0!

By fnord12 | July 13, 2006, 9:10 AM | D&D


The bigger, heavier, and better my armor is, the _lower_ my ability is? That's decidely unamerican. Sounds Scottish to me. and needlessly complicated to me. I prefer a system that allows new players the easiest entry into the game. I'm not some kind of crazy elitist like you. 3.5 rulz!

Oh yeah, i shudder to think of all the people who turned away from D&D because they just couldn't comprehend that being ranked low (like being #1 in your class as opposed to #10) was good.

That's all well and good if you're just comparing rankings. but in every other stat in the game, bigger is better. they could all be low, or all be high, I don't care, but if you're going to compare and use together low numbers with high rankings and need crazy matrices to do so, then you are being needlessly complicated. The only reason Thac0 existed for so long is because you conservative types can't let go of an old idea, even if it's a bad one.

You're not making sense. When do you compare Armor Class to ability scores? And it's not a question of letting go, it's a question of a system that works just fine and not needed to spend $100+ on new books and converting my whole campaign to address some anal retentive issue. They only release these new editions every so often so that they can continue to make money since once you have the books you really don't need to buy anything. Hence, 3.5 is for suckers.

First of all, there are times when ability scores and armor class are used together, but I was mainly thinking of combat and skill related issues and I find the method of combat in V3.5 better than in V1 or 2. Not vastly and not worth getting all new rules over. Everything is determined in pretty much the same way, which streamlines combat rules (once understood and handled by an excellant DM like yourself, will hasten combat, which often drags down the role-playing aspect). I know rod, I was once terrified by the idea of no more Thac0, but really, it'll be ok. It'll be ok.

However, this was your point about why V1 is superior which is not my point over why V3.5 is superior (although I think it is). I feel that V3.5 is superior because you get a greater variety of characters with the rules for V3.5. This is it's advantage and it's a great one. These rules allowed you, bob, adam, and priscilla to all have what would be essentially the same character skills and abilities wise under v1 rules, to be vastly different under v3.5 without engaging beyond the core books or some half-assed rules you'd have to invent yourself. I think this variability as well as better quantifing skills and having a system that allows ease into using them with abilities, spells, etc. is worth the change despite the slight initial difficultly that a DM may have in adapting himself to any new rules.

And you're right, the switch from V3 to V3.5 was probably more market than need driven (which is sometimes a necessary evil, i won't discuss this aspect here) and could've done a quick update for a lower price rather than require $90-100 to update. The same I would say with the switch to V1 to V2. But the switch from basic to V1 and V2 to V3, I think were necessary as those updates truly improved the mechanics, playability, and ease of newbies to understand. Would you still play basic if AD&D were available just because you were used to it?

As for your personal money thing, well that's really not an issue as you have great friends, one who will give you all you need to run V3.5 even a useless DM's screen all at a low low cost.

Barring that, let me play Beeblebrox and Adam Lord Phantar.

Man, I kneew I was a geek, but this is ridiculous.

Points all considered but for now i'm not upgrading. I have too much stuff written out by hand that i don't want to convert to new rules, and i think it's better for newbies if the DM is familiar with the rules than if we're playing with a ruleset that was written with newbies in mind but that the DM is learning along with them. And i can't let Beeblebrox and Phantar back as PCs - they are too integral to my plot right now. However, maybe in the future we can do a veteran's campaign. And FWIW, i did switch from basic to AD&D back in middle school.

Ehhh...do what you want. I don't care. You're probably right that it's more important you're familar with your made-up rules. It's good you were open to new ideas when you were younger though.

This is intended to be sincere, not sarcastic. I realize it's hard to tell.

ok, that 'new ideas' thing was a bit sarcastic.

Hey, in basic D&D, "elf" was a profession, know what i'm saying?

You have defeated me with your +2 Bit of information.

i don't see how any of this answers my question about hyperspheres.

I've been following your debate with interest, and i just wanted to say... the rules don't really matter. They're just a guideline to get you started. Whatever rules you use, as long as they are applied consistently, will be fine.

Why, when we first started playing, we had nothing more than a bunch of six sided dice and some fantasy war miniatures, and we had a grand old time.

Mr. Gygax,

Please recall that Hasbro, Inc. is the rightful owner of all of your ideas, creations, and personal anecdotes. Please refrain from posting any such info again.

Hasbro, Inc.
Pawtucket, RI 02862