D&D 3.5 -- Compiled Information Page

[Corinth]

Suggestion to all concerned: Compare the rules changes in v3.5 that are known to exist with the version of that particular d20 subsystem published in d20 Modern. The changes to Face & Reach, NPC stat blocks, etc. are either identical or nearly so. I'd say that d20 Modern is a good bellweather as to what to expect for v3.5 of D&D.

 

[coyote6]

Boy, I hope they don't change the Jump skill to work like d20 Modern. The way it "works", the average dwarf with no load carried whatsoever is unable to jump any distance at all on an average roll. They have to roll a 12 or better to jump 1 foot -- which is almost certainly less than the distance of their stride. And that's a running jump -- for a standing jump, the poor dwarf has to roll an 18 or better. It's a wonder they can walk, the poor guys.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

In any case, the character in question has 15 Dex. I don't see how there can be an Ambidexterity feat if this statblock is correct... this guy gets no extra penalty with his off-hand and gets his full strength bonus to both attacks.. what more could ambidex do? Given d20 Modern and this statblock (even if the math in it is wrong), I'm guessing Ambidexterity has gone the way of the 3/2 attacks per round.

When I first read that stat-block, it kind of reminded me of how I house-ruled Ambidexterity for my game... Basically, any character with a Dex of 15+ was effectively ambidextrous. (Mainly, I thought that TWF required too many feats to be remotely effective, plus it allowed me to make the Ranger a little less front-loaded while still letting people play a PHB-style Ranger.)

Anyway, no idea if that's what they're actually doing or not. But the 15 Dex at least means that it could be something of that nature.

-4/-4 is still a weird penalty, however. I don't trust it.

 

[Cassander]

-4/-4 is still a weird penalty, however. I don't trust it.

Neither do I. Nor do I trust the double Strength bonus in both weapons, but it could be there. I have a strong feeling that the two-weapon fighter will get errataed by Chris Thomasson... guess we'll just have to wait till he posts it to see.

 

[Henry]

When Lovecraft openly gave other writers permission to plagerize in part, certain elements of his works so that their works would have a common thread with his, it didn't hurt his sales, it strengthened them, and defined a genre.

Not to sound hostile about it, but poor H.P. Lovecraft died a penniless writer, living in the same house as his two aunts. His release of the "Cthulhu Mythos" IP was actually freely given to August Derleth and others because of his friendships with them, and the common bond they all had as lovers of "weird fiction" and his "Azathoth Cycle" (as he called it.)

But I definitely see your point - so much of D&D has a "common mythology" behind it, built from generations of players and materials, and the fragmentation of that material by protection of certain Product Identity as off-limits does not serve to make the whole stronger. I'll agree with that, at the same time I agree with them having the right to protect their intellectual property.