Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1637602" data-attributes="member: 18280">Paladin's pokemounts?&nbsp; All creatures have square bases?&nbsp; 3.5 might have fixed a few things, but it broke a few things, too.&nbsp; Also, it didn't address the things I personally want fixed.&nbsp; Enter the house rules.Do I think 3.5 is crap?&nbsp; Nah.&nbsp; Do I think it's worth changing systems for?&nbsp; Also nah.&nbsp; What 3.5 addressed, my house rules generally addressed as well or better.&nbsp; In terms of 3.5 improvements, I'll use them.&nbsp; Especially from the later support books, such as Unearthed Arcana or Draconomicon.&nbsp; But I'll modify them, too, because the rules should fit the world (IMHO, of course), not the other way around.But what arguments, exactly, are you refuting?&nbsp; The argument that says &quot;I prefer 3.0&quot;?&nbsp; How can you refute someone's preference?&nbsp; The argument that says &quot;I don't feel like shelling out $90 for a minimal change in rules?&quot;&nbsp; Again, you can hardly force someone to pay for the update if they don't think it's worth it.I know that a lot of people are enthusiastic about 3.5.&nbsp; Some of the spells are toned down, which is nice.&nbsp; Some of the feats are toned up, which means I don't allow them in my game.&nbsp; Dwarves not being encumbered by armor?&nbsp; Nice, unless you include that non-encumbrance thing in Swim checks.&nbsp; Paladin's mounts disappearing when they go into the dungeon, to reappear whenever convenient?&nbsp; Give me good old original AD&amp;D, where the paladin had to go on a quest to obtain the mount she wanted.Where changes seem silly, make things unduly simple for the PCs, or seem too much like a video game, I toss 'em out.&nbsp; Where I like the changes and they seem to make sense, I feel free to incorporate them.&nbsp; But I am still 90% in the 3.0 camp, 1% 3.5, and 9% house rules (roughly, of course).(Soon enough, though, that'll be 75% house rules.&nbsp; Lots of good 3rd party stuff that'll end up house ruled into my game.&nbsp; Medieval Player's Handbook?&nbsp; Love it!)RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1637602, member: 18280"] Paladin's pokemounts? All creatures have square bases? 3.5 might have fixed a few things, but it broke a few things, too. Also, it didn't address the things I personally want fixed. Enter the house rules. Do I think 3.5 is crap? Nah. Do I think it's worth changing systems for? Also nah. What 3.5 addressed, my house rules generally addressed as well or better. In terms of 3.5 improvements, I'll use them. Especially from the later support books, such as Unearthed Arcana or Draconomicon. But I'll modify them, too, because the rules should fit the world (IMHO, of course), not the other way around. But what arguments, exactly, are you refuting? The argument that says "I prefer 3.0"? How can you refute someone's preference? The argument that says "I don't feel like shelling out $90 for a minimal change in rules?" Again, you can hardly force someone to pay for the update if they don't think it's worth it. I know that a lot of people are enthusiastic about 3.5. Some of the spells are toned down, which is nice. Some of the feats are toned up, which means I don't allow them in my game. Dwarves not being encumbered by armor? Nice, unless you include that non-encumbrance thing in Swim checks. Paladin's mounts disappearing when they go into the dungeon, to reappear whenever convenient? Give me good old original AD&D, where the paladin had to go on a quest to obtain the mount she wanted. Where changes seem silly, make things unduly simple for the PCs, or seem too much like a video game, I toss 'em out. Where I like the changes and they seem to make sense, I feel free to incorporate them. But I am still 90% in the 3.0 camp, 1% 3.5, and 9% house rules (roughly, of course). (Soon enough, though, that'll be 75% house rules. Lots of good 3rd party stuff that'll end up house ruled into my game. Medieval Player's Handbook? Love it!) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification