Look, everyone knows that was much better than because it was and more . Just look at how much became! They completely ruined it.

Fingers crossed this gets fixed in .

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.

i can also confirm that the tarrasque was pretty universally clowned on for being easy in 3.5e. That discussion is basically what drove the whole "town built around the tarrasque" idea on the wizard forums and enworld. That said, it's probably not as bad as the 5e tarrasque by comparison

Could you give examples? I never heard of it being easy to beat, and I would love a laugh at it being easily handled

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 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

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.

I play 3.5 for a few years. One of my groups swore by it. It was... textured. When you call it a steaming pile of shit, I see your point and honestly agree with you. But I will say it was... completely what it was. It wasn't well designed, but it was immensely interesting. 5e is all of 3.x, but with the interesting parts sanded down. In my estimation, that makes 5e the lesser game.

I've only played 2, 3 and 3.5. Read the rules for 4 when it came out and was not impressed in the slightest, and neither was anyone else in my group. Haven't even bothered with 5 except in the case of BG3 which uses it so I don't know if it's as simplified as 4 or if the simplicity was simply the video game format.

We never used a terrasque and it's not like I read every monster manual cover to cover. I'd skim through, see a cool picture and if the description of it was cool enough, I'd use it. The terrasque didn't pique my interest by its appearance so I never read anything else about it. I'm a huge fan of Modons though. Fuck yeah! Shapes!

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.

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.

That's when I played too. Following the rules was torture.