3.5 Backwards compatibility

[Psion]

Square bases is mechanically a far more compelling change than any of the latter revisions. Care to explain your aversion to it?

Quite simple, really.

Minis are representations of creatures. And creatures are not square. Once minis fail to represent the creatures they supposedly represent, you have defeated one of the primary purposes of having them.

I am reminded of the "spherical cow" joke:

http://wildlink.com/humour/spherical_cow.htm

 

[Apok]

That's debatable...

If anyone ever clamored for square bases, I never heard it.

OTOH, I did hear many complaints about half-elves and monk and paladin multiclass restrictions, and those aren't changing...

Y'know, I've gotta laugh. I just got finished writing a post defending WotC's position and I just realized that they are contradicting their own revision policy.

You see, I was thinking that the designers were taking a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to revisions, which would explain why they didn't drop the multiclass restrictions on the monk or paladin and why they didn't change the half-elf. However, they still thought to improve upon their original design by changing the facing rules! Those rules weren't broken, but they fixed them anyway just because they could! Every other change was made for some valid reason, except this one!

*rams head into brick wall*

The only possible excuse they have is that changing the facing rules wouldn't perpetuate a major mechanics balance issue, while dropping the multiclass restrictions and changing the half-elf could.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Actually, he's not. He's a frequent poster over on RPGnet, infamous for his "I'll play D&D and complain about it every second of the way" sort of posts and attitudes.

That said, I'm not really sure he's totally in the wrong here. I personally wouldn't characterize printing a new edition as money-grubbing, but it does seem to be a bit early to me as well.

It seemed that way to me, too. I like what we've heard is coming, but it did seem early. On the other hand, it strikes me as appropriate that they call it 3.5. That is, most of the changes seem to be the result of 3 years or so of playtesting by the general public. I imagine most of the bugs that really are bugs have been located, and necessitate at least a new printing. New printings should incorporate the corrections. So, looking at it as a new printing with corrections, it doesn't seem all that early. What makes it all the more palatable is that the changes will be freely and legally available who don't want to buy new books.

 

[Arnwyn]

Square bases is mechanically a far more compelling change than any of the latter revisions. Care to explain your aversion to it?

Care to explain why you think it's "a far more compelling change"?

 

[Psion]

It seemed that way to me, too. I like what we've heard is coming, but it did seem early. On the other hand, it strikes me as appropriate that they call it 3.5. That is, most of the changes seem to be the result of 3 years or so of playtesting by the general public. I imagine most of the bugs that really are bugs have been located, and necessitate at least a new printing. New printings should incorporate the corrections. So, looking at it as a new printing with corrections, it doesn't seem all that early.

Y'see, that's where I think the trouble lies. Fixing things that don't work is cool. The ranger, haste, harm, simplified AoO rules and the like are all fair game for corrections... and are things I will use.

But some changes... like the DR changes and the minis rules strike me as redesigns vice corrections, and it seems a little premature to come up with these kinds of sweeping changes.

 

[KenM]

Re: Re: I'll concede the point

A revision every decade should be sufficient. 1E lasted for 12 years. 2E lasted for 11 years. 3E lasted for three years. 'nuff said.

Yes, what worries me is WOTC might make DnD like M:TG, with a new "core set" every couple of years. THAT WILL NOT WORK FOR A RPG, if they start talking about 3.75 or 4.0 for 2006, I'm switching to Hackmaster.

 

[Pbartender]

The only possible excuse they have is that changing the facing rules wouldn't perpetuate a major mechanics balance issue, while dropping the multiclass restrictions and changing the half-elf could.

Actually, I thought it was the other way around, sort of...

Rule-0-ing a race's or class' multiclass restrictions, weapon restrictions or alignment restrictions is a lot easier for a DM to do, than house ruling around with the facing rules, which have a much larger impact mechanics-wise.

So, leave the easily ignored race and class restrictions the way they are, and change the confusing facing rules into something that make more sense.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

redesigns vice corrections,

Do you mean "versus"?

 

[Staffan]

Care to explain why you think it's "a far more compelling change"?

While I'm not jasamcarl, I'll give it a shot: If creatures don't have a "facing" (i.e. front, sides and back), making them rectangular makes no sense. They should be square or circular.

 

[Psion]

Do you mean "versus"?

Close enough. I am using definition 3 from websters:

vi·ce3 Audio pronunciation of vice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vs, -s)
prep.

In place of; replacing.