3.5 was edition I played the most. It was a reason why I quit RPGs for nearly a decade because I hated it so much.
Every time I see another meme about how amazing 3.5 Tarrasque is, I remmember how amogn actual 3.5 players Tarrasque was the biggest joke. It was always brought up as definite proof designers have no idea how to make good monster. It was laughably easy to beat. A wizard could casually solo it, the same abilities people now miss in 3.5 amounted to ribbons. It was a laughingstock, forums had 100+ pages discussions how to fix it and general consensus was it’;s beyond saving. It was first proof in 3.5 if you cannot use magic you’re only good to roll over and die.
I honestly don’t know if everyone claiming 3.5 Tarrasque is such a horrifying monster are trying to rewrite history or unintentionally proving what a broken, unplayable pile of garbage 3.5 was, if it’s biggest punching bag is actually dangerous in a different, better designed game.
In 3.5, a high level wizard could take it down.
In 5e, you could have a mission to protect an endangered tarrasque from Aarakocra poachers.
The 3.x tarrasque became a joke, but that was a result of the extensive options combined with people’s system understanding - sure a single wizard could kill it, but that still needed to be played by someone who understood the system. It was a system that gave unlimited options, so if you worked out how to combine enough of them you could break the system wide open, and the tarrasque was a great yardstick for that.
Then you come to 5e’s tarrasque and it’s so badly designed that it’s obvious from a glance that a level 1 character with flight can just hover above it and plink it down with a bow. I’ve seen 3.5’s brought up in comparison to that, but not as an example of difficult fights in a vacuum.
3.5 was edition I played the most. It was a reason why I quit RPGs for nearly a decade
I’ve heard this line so many times, from virtually every game system. The system you know the best is always the worst. The system you’re least familiar with looks genius by comparison.
I remmember how amogn actual 3.5 players Tarrasque was the biggest joke. It was always brought up as definite proof designers have no idea how to make good monster. It was laughably easy to beat.
As I understand it, the Tarrasque isn’t intended to be a direct threat to the players so much as a civilization-wide threat that players have to deal with. If you’re just running heads-up against the creature, there’s a wide basket of indirect effects and clever builds that can kill or disable it. And when Wish/Miracle are on your spell list it isn’t an existential threat to a 17+ level party.
But all of that presumes you’re coming into contact with a Tarrasque as a known quantity. You’re not stumbling on the Tarrasque unexpectedly or dealing with it as the muscle attached to a more magically or socially savvy antagonist. You’re not fighting in any bizarre circumstances or unusual conditions. It’s not the Tarrasque that’s easy, it’s the fact that you’re on a message board with a pre-defined set of circumstances and a standard level appropriate set of resources to pull from that makes things easy.
I honestly don’t know if everyone claiming 3.5 Tarrasque is such a horrifying monster
An unanticipated introduction to a Tarrasque, particularly one encountered in unfavorable circumstances, can quickly end in a TPK. Players down on spells, caught napping, managing some secondary hindering conditions, or in an enclosed space (the meanest improvement I’ve seen a DM give to a Tarrasque was simply assigning it a burrow speed) don’t have the luxuries of time and distance to prepare themselves. And that’s what makes it scary.
But, again, you can say that about any of the Animal/Beast class of monsters. The humble house cat can one-shot a first level wizard if it gets initiative and rolls well. But the wizard wins with a single volley of magic missiles. The Kraken is a trivial encounter if your players can sit up on an 80’ tall cliff and fire arrows at it until it drops. Its significantly harder to deal with when it is demolishing the boat under your feet 600 miles off the shore.
Part of the DM’s job is to set the stage for high drama. “You see the big baddy waltzing up to you, take ten rounds to prepare” doesn’t get you that.
I think what they want is something to be a little afraid of. Yes, the beast as written is easy to kill for the creative but for some dorks it was scary because it existed.
I feel like people like remembering shenanigans or getting one over a shitty GM, but actually playing it was a slog especially with experienced power gamers at the same as new players. Also apparently enjoy arguing semantics to “win”. Bleh
what I liked about 3.5 was that it was insane, and the system was exploitable in ways the GM could not predict. it let you surprise even a railroady GM. there’s a kind of vibrancy that gives to a fantasy world. I think for a lot of people, that was the first time they saw anything like that. it was a tedious 90s/00’s kind of good.
it was tedious, and required knowing far too many rules. it was a tedious sprawling 90s/00’s kind of shitty. I don’t think it was a good system on balance, I just think it’s better than any other D&D, unless pathfinder counts.
and you can absolutely play a non-wizard, you just have to be as broken and weird as the wizards are.
Yeah rogues would literally just walk up to wizards and explode their whole body with a sneak attack and +40 Stealth checks.
Then they kill the wizard’s familiar with their other two attacks.
Fighters acted like they were poor little victims vulnerable to mean old spellcasters but that’s because players don’t like taking defensive feats. By the time 3.5 was done there was a build floating around that basically made you immune to magic.
I don’t recall 3.5 spells having nearly as many guaranteed success effects as 5.0 has. It was generally considered, you know, a bad idea to be able to reliably CC ancient wyrms with no hope of defense.
Fighters acted like they were poor little victims vulnerable to mean old spellcasters
About 14-15 years ago, I was playing in a 16th level game where the DM did NOT know how to challenge us. He put us against an astral behemoth with double hit points and our fighter soloed it in one round, dealing out a whopping 2,500ish points of damage in 7 attacks. One of the toughest monsters in the game, with double hit points, and the rest of the party didn’t even get to act.
Later in that game, we abused gate spells to crash rocks into the Abyss at 80% the speed of light.
3.5 is ridiculous.
Look, everyone knows that <previous thing> was much better than <current thing> because it was <comparator> and more <adjective>. Just look at how much <comparator> <element> became! They completely ruined it.
Fingers crossed this gets fixed in <next thing>.
< 1 year before release: This will be the best game ever, it will be better than real life. It will replace my life completely, allowing me to live in this world until the end of time.
Release: This is garbage. This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen. The <original creators> are turning over in their graves. Gaming is shit now. Devs fucked up. How could they ever release this.
1-2 years after release: Silence
2-4 years after release: You know, I replayed that game, it wasn’t that bad, honestly I kind of liked how it worked
4-8 years after release: That game was honestly one of the best. Back from the old days of gaming before everything became shit. Now it’s all terrible. I hope they don’t fuck up the next one.
8+ years: It’s probably one of the best games of all time. It wasn’t for everyone, but us true gamers knew how great it was. There’s nothing that will ever beat it.
The Tarrasque is a flawed creature in all editions. In case of 1e/2e, it’s not immune to being stunned or being paralyzed (e.g. Hold Person), giving the party a good chance to exploit its vulnerable period. Later editions have other flaws, most of which can be fixed by giving the Tarrasque a ranged attack (similar to Godzilla, etc.)
The flaws in 3.5e actually involve power scale. There’s combinations of abilities that are incredibly powerful, resulting in characters that are pre-planned rather than organically grown - and also meant that some classes were inherently better than others. At the same time, there were feat taxes that were essential for almost any character, which would be cutting into abilities that would be normal.
However, I’d be comparing 3.5e to Basic D&D. In this case, I’d most likely prefer 3.5e, simply because it’s more flexible compared to the rigid use of Basic’s weapons, but I instead skipped past that and went to both 4e and/or Pathfinder.
