D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[Jimlock]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

It's nice to see that there are still ppl who employ/use logic out there...

 

[Jimlock]

3 - In a general rule, the rules state that 3.0 material is still valid unless overridden by 3.5 material.

Kitcik, could you kindly provide the official reference that states this?

The reference that states that you can take a 3.0 book and use it in the 3.5 system, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS?

 

[the Jester]

Wow there's a lot of just-barely-not-personal-attack poo flinging going on in this thread.

First of all, when they said "3.0 stuff still works fine" it was always with the caveat "but if we've revised the rules, use the revisions."

The earlier comments about using 3.0 feats in your 3.5 game are a wonderfully dishonest sort of argumentation- the whole book was revised, use the revisions.

Arguing that a 3.0 rule or feature trumps the later revisions is not just illogical, it's silly. But as always, the game is yours, play it how you wish.

Thread reported for being full of dickishness.

 

[RedTonic]

Wow there's a lot of just-barely-not-personal-attack poo flinging going on in this thread.

First of all, when they said "3.0 stuff still works fine" it was always with the caveat "but if we've revised the rules, use the revisions."

The earlier comments about using 3.0 feats in your 3.5 game are a wonderfully dishonest sort of argumentation- the whole book was revised, use the revisions.

Arguing that a 3.0 rule or feature trumps the later revisions is not just illogical, it's silly. But as always, the game is yours, play it how you wish.

Thread reported for being full of dickishness.

I really didn't expect a maths question to turn into 2 pages of argument about points of order.

 

[anest1s]

I really didn't expect a maths question to turn into 2 pages of argument about points of order.

I predicted it when you said "Terrorists please out"

 

[kitcik]

Wow there's a lot of just-barely-not-personal-attack poo flinging going on in this thread.

See below.

Arguing that a 3.0 rule or feature trumps the later revisions is not just illogical, it's silly.

Thread reported for being full of dickishness.

Yep, you were right. Thanks for playing.

 

[kitcik]

Kitcik, could you kindly provide the official reference that states this?

The reference that states that you can take a 3.0 book and use it in the 3.5 system, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS?

Yes, that is the crux of the counterargument.

As other people have stated, you are arguing RAI. You are saying that when they changed the GENERAL rule regarding the stacking of improvements to the critical range that they intended that to update the SPECIFIC rule regarding Disciple of Dispater.

As I said, I am not taking sides or arguing logic. That may well be RAI and it may well be logical, but I simply stated above what I see as the RAW argument and I do not yet see anything substantial enough to refute it.

 

[RedTonic]

I predicted it when you said "Terrorists please out"

Did anyone leave after? That way, I know who the terrorists are, and that they're mannerly folk.

Really, I'd just hoped to derail the weirdly burgeoning hostility.

 

[Jimlock]

Yes, that is the crux of the counterargument.

As other people have stated, you are arguing RAI. You are saying that when they changed the GENERAL rule regarding the stacking of improvements to the critical range that they intended that to update the SPECIFIC rule regarding Disciple of Dispater.

As I said, I am not taking sides or arguing logic. That may well be RAI and it may well be logical, but I simply stated above what I see as the RAW argument and I do not yet see anything substantial enough to refute it.

Kitcik, you are not answering to my question.

The only RAW reference regarding the matter is this:

PHB (3.5), page 4

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

So when you say that by RAW:

3 - In a general rule, the rules state that 3.0 material is still valid unless overridden by 3.5 material.

you are actually wrong/not-by-RAW.

What you should have said is this:

3 - In a general rule, the rules state that 3.0 material is still valid with only minor adjustments unless overridden by 3.5 material.

So actually, by RAW, i'm completely entitled to make those minor changes so as to bring every little bit up to date.

So by removing the Disciple's ability to: make his class ability stack with improved Critical (something that is 100% justified by 3.5 RAW), i'm actually doing nothing more than making those minor adjustments RAW suggests i make.

What i'm doing is 100% by RAW.

 

[xigbar]

Well, in that case, you're arguing about your house rule, not RAW. "Minor adjustments" could mean lots of things, not just your example.