NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 969477" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is yet more evidence that leads me to suspect that:1) You really have to wait about a decade before a good consensus develops about both what is wrong with the rules and what the best way to fix them is.   The reason third edition brought me back to D&D after having sworn off it was that so many of the new rules looked like extraordinarily well thought out variations of my own house rules.  2) Fourth edition (for that is what 3.5 really is) is looking more and more like a particular DM's set of house rules and less and less like a consensus that will be widely accepted by the DMing community.  I do agree with the poster that part of this change was probably based on the effects of having a +1 keen falchion with improved critical and power attack.  Why couldn't they have stuck to just applying errata, adding obvious and well recieved rules extensions, fixing typographical errors, and fixing only those things that 80% of the community had already changed (Harm, for instance)?  When you change something that needs changing, 90% of the time if its a well done change, I'll accept the official fix over my house rule because it a) keeps down the number of notes I have to keep b) makes communicating my rulings to a new player all easier.   But if you start changing alot of thingsI never saw the need to fix - indeed never even heard anyone say they felt a need to fix - then you are introducing a book that is actually less like the rules I'm using than the one I already have.   As such, I don't see a point in buying it.Barring a couple of breakable PrC's, was anyone actually having troubles with this in thier campaign?</blockquote>

Verification