Why is 3.X still so popular?

[Milo v3]

5e I make a character in ten minutes and then settle down for some deep thinking on which background I want for my backstory and as a result I put a lot more time into who my character is, rather then just what the character is.

Weirdly I feel the opposite, when I made characters in 5e they always felt like they couldn't ... do anything. So I didn't feel justified given them any special fluff. I mean, there was nothing they could do that a generic grunt couldn't do or when I made a rogue or cleric I had to pretend some of my class features didn't exist because there is no way to swap them out despite it not making sense for my character.

With 3.P I could look at the mechanics and see hundreds of possibilities and create immensely detailed backstories... but 5e, just lacks any spark to inspire me.

[Togo]

Honestly I'm the same way, but I feel that 3.P stifles and kills my creativity because of how hard coded everything is, and because by the time I'm finished with all the mechanical bits I'm pretty burned out on that character.

5e I make a character in ten minutes and then settle down for some deep thinking on which background I want for my backstory and as a result I put a lot more time into who my character is, rather then just what the character is.

Interesting, I have the opposite problem. A lot of what I play is freeform or rules-lite gaming. I'm asked to create an interesting character with no real mechanical guidelines about twice a month. It gets dull. 3.X actually gives me something to work with, and I find I get more interesting and creative characters as a result.

I'f I'm going to play a mechanics heavy-system, I want one with lots of variety in mechanics. If I'm not, I don't play with few rules or no rules at all. I don't have a need for a mechancis-heavy simple and quick system.

I've encountered an interesting split, between those who come up with a concept first, and then try and make the mechanics fit, and those who come up with the mechanics first, and then build a concept around that. Could that be related?

[Heliomance]

I've encountered an interesting split, between those who come up with a concept first, and then try and make the mechanics fit, and those who come up with the mechanics first, and then build a concept around that. Could that be related?

I do both, actually. Sometimes I come up with a concept and try to figure out how to wrestle it into working mechanically, and sometimes I see an interesting mechanic that I want to play with. It varies.

[Clistenes]

Honestly I'm the same way, but I feel that 3.P stifles and kills my creativity because of how hard coded everything is, and because by the time I'm finished with all the mechanical bits I'm pretty burned out on that character.

5e I make a character in ten minutes and then settle down for some deep thinking on which background I want for my backstory and as a result I put a lot more time into who my character is, rather then just what the character is.

Also the background system is amazing for some quick inspiration on fleshing out my character. Sometimes I'll roll the random results to give me a skeleton and flesh out on how my character is with those random results.

So basically, when I played 3.P I felt like I was playing a collection of class(es), feats and features rather then a character. My collection of things was unique, but that's all they were. My 5e Sorcerer may not be that different mechanically then the other Sorcerer, but mine is a gnome who was drafted to fight on a military sailship. He never saw combat in that war, but was offered a permanent psition afterwards on the ship. So he spent many a year working as a sailor/guard but after a particularly bad storm, he decided that he wanted more out of life then a death at sea, and decided to join an adventuring party and find out was land has to offer.

If you want rules to express your character's background and personality, 3.5 has a hundred ways to express the personality and background of your character from level one: Skill Focus (Profession) feats, regional feats, Pathfinder's backgrounds/half-feats, flaws/anti-feats, Unearthed Arcana's and DMG II's backgrounds and personality traits, the Book of Broken Dream's personality disorders...etc.

If you don't, you don't need to use those at all, and you can just roleplay your character's background and personality.

[jok]

I guess without a certain internet page 3.5 would be very difficult to get into.

[Forum Explorer]

If you want rules to express your character's background and personality, 3.5 has a hundred ways to express the personality and background of your character from level one: Skill Focus (Profession) feats, regional feats, Pathfinder's backgrounds/half-feats, flaws/anti-feats, Unearthed Arcana's and DMG II's backgrounds and personality traits, the Book of Broken Dream's personality disorders...etc.

If you don't, you don't need to use those at all, and you can just roleplay your character's background and personality.

See all those hundreds of ways just means that by the time I'm finished going through them, selecting the ones I want, and the other level 1 stuff means that I'm burnt out and want to do nothing else for my character's backstory.

And the problem only gets worse with higher levels, gestalt, various level adjustments and so on and so forth.

Basically I have limited attention to split between the mechanical stuff and roleplaying. The more mechanical stuff to deal with, the less I roleplay.

[Zombulian]

See all those hundreds of ways just means that by the time I'm finished going through them, selecting the ones I want, and the other level 1 stuff means that I'm burnt out and want to do nothing else for my character's backstory.

And the problem only gets worse with higher levels, gestalt, various level adjustments and so on and so forth.

Basically I have limited attention to split between the mechanical stuff and roleplaying. The more mechanical stuff to deal with, the less I roleplay.

I can understand that. The difference for me is that I will research character concepts, flip through splatbooks, and read handbooks for fun. So when I'm in either situation - starting from concept or starting from crunch - I can pretty deftly set up a character.
You already mapped this out though in a previous post. So I'll just leave it at the fact that we have our differences. And that's okay

[Clistenes]

See all those hundreds of ways just means that by the time I'm finished going through them, selecting the ones I want, and the other level 1 stuff means that I'm burnt out and want to do nothing else for my character's backstory.

And the problem only gets worse with higher levels, gestalt, various level adjustments and so on and so forth.

Basically I have limited attention to split between the mechanical stuff and roleplaying. The more mechanical stuff to deal with, the less I roleplay.

Yes, but as I said, you don't have to use all that. It's your choice. You can do it both ways, so you can hardly hold that against 3.5. It's an option you are given, not an imposition.

[KingSmitty]

Yes, but as I said, you don't have to use all that. It's your choice. You can do it both ways, so you can hardly hold that against 3.5. It's an option you are given, not an imposition.

exactly this. You have soooooo many options with 3.5, they aren't requirements though.

[Forum Explorer]

I can understand that. The difference for me is that I will research character concepts, flip through splatbooks, and read handbooks for fun. So when I'm in either situation - starting from concept or starting from crunch - I can pretty deftly set up a character.
You already mapped this out though in a previous post. So I'll just leave it at the fact that we have our differences. And that's okay

Pretty much.

Yes, but as I said, you don't have to use all that. It's your choice. You can do it both ways, so you can hardly hold that against 3.5. It's an option you are given, not an imposition.

I can't not look at options available in character creation. I may not use all of those options, but I'm certainly going to think about them every single time.

[Milo v3]

I can't not look at options available in character creation.

Sure you can. I mean, you don't look through every splatbook when you do your feats do you?

[Clistenes]

I can't not look at options available in character creation. I may not use all of those options, but I'm certainly going to think about them every single time.

Why? If you don't like them, you can ignore them. They don't change your character's power, since most of them both take something and give something. You can just make a rule for yourself that you won't use any variant rules for backgrounds and personality traits. It's a choice, just like choosing to play 5th edition.

[Wonton]

I've encountered an interesting split, between those who come up with a concept first, and then try and make the mechanics fit, and those who come up with the mechanics first, and then build a concept around that. Could that be related?

That is an interesting distinction, though it probably doesn't only depend on the player, but on the type of campaign you're playing. If you're playing a well-known Adventure Path, and you can read a 20-page players' guide, learn everything about the setting and background, and then it's easy to start with a cool concept. But often, you don't have much to go on, so all you can do is say "I feel like playing a Druid", and build your backstory after you've built the character.

[Knaight]

Why? If you don't like them, you can ignore them. They don't change your character's power, since most of them both take something and give something. You can just make a rule for yourself that you won't use any variant rules for backgrounds and personality traits. It's a choice, just like choosing to play 5th edition.

You have to look through some of the character options still. Every so often you need to pick a feat, so you go through at least part of the feat list. If you're playing a caster every so often you need to pick a spell, so you go through at least part of the spell list. Those are relevant to expressing the character, and that takes time. Whether it takes too much is debatable, but the length of the list is relevant. To use a non D&D example, the extent to which GURPS insists on modeling every little thing with its own skill is a deterrent to playing it, even if most of the list won't be in effect at any given time.

[Forum Explorer]

Sure you can. I mean, you don't look through every splatbook when you do your feats do you?

Pretty much, unless I know exactly what feat I want. Though even then I tended to look around a little bit for a slightly better feat, or maybe one that suited what I wanted to do better. The worst was when my concept depended on some sort of feat chain, which means I'd have to look over every feat in the chain and then compare it with other builds that might not take as many feats, but do something slightly different.

Though it's not as bad as every splatbook. I don't have all of them, and usually a bunch were banned (or rather, only a few were permitted).

Why? If you don't like them, you can ignore them. They don't change your character's power, since most of them both take something and give something. You can just make a rule for yourself that you won't use any variant rules for backgrounds and personality traits. It's a choice, just like choosing to play 5th edition.

I don't have the problem with the options themselves, just the sheer number of options. I could have just limited myself to only core, just like I could've played the same character every time. I didn't for pretty much the same reason, I got bored. And once I got the splatbooks, I bloody well was going to use the things.

[stanprollyright]

That's actually an interesting way to think about it. You start out as a level 1 character of "blah" class. Of course you're not unique, you're just some dude with a little bit of training/background.

The issue is with years of play it gets quite tedious. Although no one said you have to play from level one every time...

As an experienced player I hate starting at level 1 in 3.5. As others mentioned, that's where Pathfinder picks up the slack with archetypes and other built-in options, like sorcerer bloodlines and rogue talents and rage powers, etc. However, 3.5 does have approximately 40 base classes with varied mechanics, hundreds of races, and a nearly infinite number of feats...

[Milo v3]

Pretty much, unless I know exactly what feat I want. Though even then I tended to look around a little bit for a slightly better feat, or maybe one that suited what I wanted to do better. The worst was when my concept depended on some sort of feat chain, which means I'd have to look over every feat in the chain and then compare it with other builds that might not take as many feats, but do something slightly different.

Though it's not as bad as every splatbook. I don't have all of them, and usually a bunch were banned (or rather, only a few were permitted).

*Shrug* Then it's your fault IMO. If you choose to dumpster dive, then it's your fault that you dumpster dive.

[Vhaidara]

As an experienced player I hate starting at level 1 in 3.5. As others mentioned, that's where Pathfinder picks up the slack with archetypes and other built-in options, like sorcerer bloodlines and rogue talents and rage powers, etc. However, 3.5 does have approximately 40 base classes with varied mechanics, hundreds of races, and a nearly infinite number of feats...

As a point of order, Pathfinder first party is currently at 34 base classes, not counting Alternate classes (Ninja, Samurai, Antipaladin) or Unchained classes (UnBarb, UnMonk, UnRogue, UnSummoner) as separate. Just adding on Dreamscarred Press for Psionics, Tome of Battle, and Incarnum adds another 19 (10 psionic, 6 initiator, 3 akashic), with 2 more on the way for Tzocatl (Truenaming). Spheres of Power adds in another 9. And the mechanics are far more varied than 3.5 had for most of their classes.

The only count I could find for PF feats put them at currently having 2000+ (which I can very easily believe), while the site that shall not be named shows 3.5 having 3466. However, this includes multiple reprints (for example, Ability Focus is listed 6 times, once for each Monster Manual and once for Savage Species)

Races...I think you exaggerate. Unless you consider everything with a listed LA or ECL to be a "race", even if said numbers render them unplayable (like, say, LA +10 on something?). And if you are counting that, then PF has rules for playing any creature with a CR that function about as well as LA (ie, badly)

Again, STSNBN lists 145 races. But looking over it, we again run into repeats (3 instances for Drow), and we run into a lot of subraces (Dwarves: Gold Dwarf, Arctic Dwarf, Dream Dwarf, Badlands Dwarf, Fireblood Dwarf, Gray Dwarf, Shield Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Urdinnir Dwarf, and Wild Dwarf), which PF handles via alternative racial traits instead of making new races.

I count 37 just under the PF Core, Featured, and Uncommon Races. Again, factor in DSP alone and you add 4 akashic races and 10 psionic races. So that's 51 moderately customizable races.

[stanprollyright]

Obviously I was exaggerating. And I'm glad that Pathfinder is catching up on sheer number of options. Technically more, because archetypes essentially give you exponentially more classes to choose from.

[Vhaidara]

Obviously I was exaggerating. And I'm glad that Pathfinder is catching up on sheer number of options. Technically more, because archetypes essentially give you exponentially more classes to choose from.

My point was actually more that I feel within a year or two PF will have fully passed 3.5 with regards to everything but Prestige classes. And the main reason they won't be passing there is that PF has mostly abandoned PrC as a thing outside of theurge/gish. Though DSP still makes good ones.

[stanprollyright]

My point was actually more that I feel within a year or two PF will have fully passed 3.5 with regards to everything but Prestige classes. And the main reason they won't be passing there is that PF has mostly abandoned PrC as a thing outside of theurge/gish. Though DSP still makes good ones.

I agree and it makes me happy that this is so. However, lack of good PrCs does make the character-building minigame less exciting.

My original comment was more in response to the idea that 3.5 didn't have enough options at level 1.

[Snowbluff]

My point was actually more that I feel within a year or two PF will have fully passed 3.5 with regards to everything but Prestige classes. And the main reason they won't be passing there is that PF has mostly abandoned PrC as a thing outside of theurge/gish. Though DSP still makes good ones.

Nope, never going to happen at this rate. Last 2 (or three) major releases were a huge bummer.

ACG in particular. That one really had my hopes up. Third party stuff is good, though.

[stanprollyright]

Hey! I like the ACG! Some of my favorite classes are the hybrids from that book.

[Snowbluff]

Hey! I like the ACG! Some of my favorite classes are the hybrids from that book.

What, like the rogue with spells vivisectionist but worse investigator or Full Arcane Caster #4 Lord of Redundancy Arcanist or Druid but worse Ranger again they really couldn't come up with something unique? Hunter.

But seriously though I am interested. I want that book redeemed so I can glue back together my shattered hopes and dreams.

[stanprollyright]

The Skald is my new favorite, and it's the only one I've actually tried so far. I love it. The Investigator looks fun too, kind of a spiritual successor to the Factotum. Brawler looks like it is superior to the Monk in every way, so if I ever go for a guy that punches stuff. The others look a little blah, tbh. The Swashbuckler looks like it's better than the 3.5 incarnation, which isn't saying much, but at least that type of character is (somewhat) viable now.

[Vhaidara]

Bloodrager, investigator, and brawler are all good classes from play experience.

Hunter, shaman, swashbuckler I've heard good things.

[Milo v3]

Shaman is too powerful, warpriest should have full BAB, and swashbuckler is too vulnerable and limited. Aside from that ACG was pretty good. Hunter, bloodrager, investigator, and slayer are especially good. I really love Hunter being a balanced version of the druid.

[Jay R]

While it took place over decades, when TSR stopped supporting original D&D, BECMI, 1e, and 2E, they slowly withered away. A lot of us kept playing them for a long time. In fact, I'm still in a 1E game, and still running a 2E game. But there's no support, and therefore no growth. TSR had the complete ability to shut it down.

But the Open Game License means that Wizards can't ever take the support for this game away. That means that new games don't get to simply supplant it. They have to compete with it.

[Snowbluff]

The Skald is my new favorite, and it's the only one I've actually tried so far. I love it. The Investigator looks fun too, kind of a spiritual successor to the Factotum. Brawler looks like it is superior to the Monk in every way, so if I ever go for a guy that punches stuff. The others look a little blah, tbh. The Swashbuckler looks like it's better than the 3.5 incarnation, which isn't saying much, but at least that type of character is (somewhat) viable now.

First of all, "Swashbuckler" is an archetype (as in character type, not Alternate Class Feature) that doesn't require a class. That's like saying we needed the thug ACF to play a thug in 3.5. You could play a "Swashbuckler" a bunch of ways in PF and 3.5 without touching Swashbuckler of either edition. Really, rogue does such a nice job with the idea already.

Bloodrager, investigator, and brawler are all good classes from play experience.

Hunter, shaman, swashbuckler I've heard good things.

Not that I have anything against the class itself, Investigator is indicative of them treading old ground. It's doubly so, since skill points can be modified by archetypes. The term "Hybrid class" comes off much more like unsupported propaganda rather them expanding the system in a meaningful way. It's design space that seems promising, but PF has already covered it with what archetypes are capable of. :s

Also, who told you good things about the Swashbuckler? I understood that class was relatively unpopular, unlike Bloodrager and Skald (which are the two people seem the most excited about).

[Vhaidara]

Snowbluff, I've played investigator. And I've played vivisectionist. I prefer investigator.

Swashbuckler requires enough things not native to the system to deserve its own class. Like functional dex based combat (remember, were discussing first party here). Or counterattacking.

And I played alongside one for a while. The inspired blade archetype is a fantastic dip for low level investigators as well.