Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1637803" data-attributes="member: 18280">I'd like to see a d20 version of the priest set-up from 2nd Edition.  That would have been a significant improvement.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   I was disappointed by clerics in 3.0, and remain disappointed to this day.  Sure, you can make a lot of prestige classes for your various religions, but the earlier priest system was cool and allowed a greater degree of gearing clerics to a specific campaign world.So, it's not really the same thing, is it?  I, for one, had no difficulty with sizing up weapons in 3.0, either.  IMO, 3.5 created a problem here without adding anything useful.  To me, at least.Everyone assumes things about everyone else all the time, Dark Jezter.  From my reading, I assume that Lord Pendragon wanted to make sure the issue was addressed, as opposed to Shadow's terminology.  And while the 3.5 books didn't say that the square spaces related to facing, in real play they do.  Once, a creature like a behir would automatically have had a lot more flank than face, right?  Now the largest centipede imaginable has the same front-to-side ratio as a human fighter.This was clearly done to make Wizard of the Coast's miniature packaging easier.  They don't have to make long figures.  All the figures get a circular base.  We have now seen this with the behir, specifically.This change was made to aid in WotC's bottom line.  It was a bad design so far as the rpg itself goes.Okay, and I've personally bought all of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition books, including the many, many sourcebooks that TSR put out over the years.  And I get Dragon monthly, because most of 3.5 can be ported into 3.0 with very little change.On the other hand, imagine if you could spend $20/year to go to the movies once a week.  Sounds like a good deal, right?  Now imagine that the only movies they are showing are B films.  (I was going to use Danny Devito in Jack the Bear -- a great movie, but as depressing as hell -- or a real stinker, like Tarzan and the Lost City or Dungeons & Dragons, but, really, 3.5 isn't terrible, right?  I'm only arguing that it isn't the best product available).  Then, let us not forget, to get the first year's membership at the theater, you also have to pay for two additional years.  Up front.Still, it might not be a bad deal.  There are a lot of B movies that I really enjoy.  But, if you already had a membership at a theater showing better movies, which you have already paid for, and for which you will never be asked to pay again, why would you switch?The question is not, is 3.5 too expensive.  The question is, is 3.5 too expensive for what you are getting?  I say yes.  Others say no.  To each his own.  Just don't tell me that's cheap entertainment if I don't think I'm getting anything for my money.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> RC</blockquote>

Verification