Disappointed in 3.5 books

[Iron_Chef]

I know there will be more new art in the MM; saw the online gallery (still too many reprints), and I'm fine with it. But the new art in the PHb and DMG in most cases is really subpar, and it hurts my reaction to the books. If something doesn't look cool, chances are it isn't cool, and regardless, I prolly won't stick around to read it and find out. I'm a very visual person.

Not to get hung up on the The sorcerer class skill thing, but...

If they added bluff, then they must have recognized the need for the class to have a better skill selection, so why couldn't they commit all the way? Sorcerers are definitely underpowered; a specialist wizard could take them any day of the week. Clerics need Sense Motive... do they have to cast a commune spell every time they want to know if someone is posssessed, cursed, lying about their belief in the cleric's deity or their sins, or secretly a follower of some mad god of evil out to kill the high priest? Come on. It's a Wisdom based skill and clerics are supposed to be wise!

I don't think the class skill changes I'm suggesting are out of line with mainstream D&D gamer thinking here. No, they won't make or break the game, but they are a subtle and important improvement to everyone's enjoyment, and they are so easy to add in that there is no way I can see that they shouldn't have been by the 3.5 team. I don't think they did it out of malice, lol, that's silly to suggest and I don't remember implying that was the reason, but making these few simple changes was an obvious thing to do to improve the game, and in keeping with the goals of a revision.

 

[Kichwas]

Most of Iron Chef's list sounds very much like the things threads on this board and elsehwere were asking for months back, if not since the day 3.0 came out.

As far as we know, there was zero playtesting involved in 3.5, after all, no playtesters were listed. Until WotC coughs up a list of them, that's a perfectly justified accusation to make.

There was however, 3 years of online discussion, much of which asked for things that were not included and expressly did not ask for or even asked not to have things that were.

It's perfectly valid for someone to be displeased with a purchase made. It's highly invalid to allow for no room for someone to have such an opinion.

Even if one disagrees with his conclusion, he has a full right to it and it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.

I have yet to see my copies of 3.5, so I have yet to pass judgement on it. That said much of what I have heard leaves me with mixed feelings. I am still buying it despite this, and that's the choice I have made. If I find myself later highly disatisfied, that will be my perogative to do such. I do know I am notably upset about the Sorcerer skill issue.

 

[Belphanior]

No offense, but I honestly hate the changes you've suggested, Iron Chef.

Giving sorcerors all Cha-based skills.
Why? Because their spellcasting uses Cha? So that makes them more diplomatic? More intimidating? I can't wrap my head around this one.
I can see a case for Bluff (though I don't really like it), but intimidate? No way.


Giving clerics sense motive.
Again, I wonder why. You just stereotype clerics into the roles of christian priests all over again. One of the reasons I like 3e is because it makes clerics into servants of a god. No more, no less. Why divine agents would be great at piercing lies is beyond me. I'd sooner see it on the fighter's skill list, to counter the ability to feint in combat.


Giving paladins "more cool powers."
Let's see that revised paladin of yours first. Then I'll tell you what I think.



Now, let me get this straight...
3.5 sucks because they do not have all-new art and because they did not make minor alterations to the skill lists of two classes?

You'll have to forgive me if I choose not to be bothered.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Most of Iron Chef's list sounds very much like the things threads on this board and elsehwere were asking for months back, if not since the day 3.0 came out.

It's perfectly valid for someone to be displeased with a purchase made. It's highly invalid to allow for no room for someone to have such an opinion.

Even if one disagrees with his conclusion, he has a full right to it and it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.

Thanks for the support. Admittedly, I started out this thread too bluntly based on my gut reaction, an emotional response to the books. I should have waited to cool down, but it's the internet and one of the few places left where somebody can shoot their mouth off (relatively) anonymously, without thinking things through all the way. Sorry to those who I may have offended. I do think my points are valid--particularly the class skills issue--and I continue to have mixed feelings about the revision. The design team is not of the same caliber as the original, IMO, and went too far with some areas and not far enough in others. The changes I'm asking for to class skills, frex; it's incomprehensible to me that they couldn't add them but they could drastically change so many other things, particularly things nobody wanted changed. Oh, well. I'm ready for 4.0. Bring it on so we can get a real revision!

 

[Iron_Chef]

No offense, but I honestly hate the changes you've suggested, Iron Chef.

Giving sorcerors all Cha-based skills.
Why? Because their spellcasting uses Cha? So that makes them more diplomatic? More intimidating? I can't wrap my head around this one.
I can see a case for Bluff (though I don't really like it), but intimidate? No way.

It says right in the 3.0 class description (don't have the book in front of me) that they are natural born leaders and often serve as party diplomats. Now how can they do that properly without charisma based class skills? What's not to understand? They have the blood of dragons or outsiders or whatever flowing through them; they have exotic looks, and they wield raw arcane power at will. Why wouldn't they be intimidating?

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

(...cut for space...)

The design team is not of the same caliber as the original, IMO, and went too far with some areas and not far enough in others. The changes I'm asking for to class skills, frex; it's incomprehensible to me that they couldn't add them but they could drastically change so many other things, particularly things nobody wanted changed. Oh, well. I'm ready for 4.0. Bring it on so we can get a real revision!

One man, I WOULD have loved to see on the design team is Sean K Reynolds (of course I know that would have been impossible). IMO, he has the coolest head in the business when it comes to analyzing rules (especially on a mathematical basis). AND he writes some good stuff.

-Zarrock

 

[Iron_Chef]

Giving clerics sense motive.
Again, I wonder why. You just stereotype clerics into the roles of christian priests all over again. One of the reasons I like 3e is because it makes clerics into servants of a god. No more, no less. Why divine agents would be great at piercing lies is beyond me. I'd sooner see it on the fighter's skill list, to counter the ability to feint in combat.

Priests are priests, regardless of which deity they follow. Every priest has a need to understand where others are coming from so he can either convert them or advise them on the best course of action (according to his faith, that is). Priests use Wisdom as their key ability score; they should, therefore, be wise, or at least have the option to be, shouldn't they? A fighter can be a servant of a deity, but a cleric is a spokesman for that deity, and his representative on the mortal plane.

 

[Iron_Chef]

One man, I WOULD have loved to see on the design team is Sean K Reynolds (of course I know that would have been impossible). IMO, he has the coolest head in the business when it comes to analyzing rules (especially on a mathematical basis). AND he writes some good stuff.

-Zarrock

Agreed. More SKR, please!

 

[danzig138]

I could have designed a better rules revision myself!

I hope this doesn't sound to rude. . .Hop to it. Money where your mouth is and all that. With the OGL and the SRD, there is nothing stopping you from making a "better" rules revision yourself. And I assume you'll release it for free so no one gets ripped off. . . Personally, I don't see how anyone who frequents these forums, the WotC forums, or a host of other similar forums can feel ripped off. It's not like we haven't been shown a lot, if not most of the changes. I just don't feel a lot of sympathy for the people who have read the boards, seen the changes, and then cry about the books being a rip-off. As far as the art goes, a topic I've seen repeatedly, I just want to scream at people to go buy a coffee table art book. IMO, 80% of the art from D&D, O-3 has been crap. Brom's DS work was real good, but other than that. . .But this has never bothered me. I don't buy game books for the art. I buy them for rules and such. I honestly don't understand the idea that the new books should have tons of new art, and I don't understand why anyone really gives a rodent's behind. But if people absolutely need art for their games, there are a lot of incredible artists who put their work online. And then there's people like me; poor, poor, sadly unskilled and untalented artists, who put their stuff online (NOTE: Most of my work has been for HU and RIFTS, and is currently offline). Obviously, YMMV

 

[Belphanior]

It says right in the 3.0 class description (don't have the book in front of me) that they are natural born leaders and often serve as party diplomats. Now how can they do that properly without charisma based class skills? What's not to understand? They have the blood of dragons or outsiders or whatever flowing through them; they have exotic looks, and they wield raw arcane power at will. Why wouldn't they be intimidating?

Well, they can do it with Charm Person, for one.

Your argument for intimidate doesn't hold much water though. The part of "alien" blood is just flavortext, and it is just something the sorcerors claim anyway. And even if they do look funky, so what? Have you seen the average D&D party? I see drow, lizardmen, gems floating around people's heads, and true aasimar paladins. This one guy who claims daddy was a devil so not impresses me.

Priests are priests, regardless of which deity they follow. Every priest has a need to understand where others are coming from so he can advise them on the best course of action. Priests use Wisdom as their key ability score; they should therefore, be wise, or at least have the option to be, shouldn't they?

I don't think you understood me. You're again stereotyping the clerics into a role they do not need to fullfil.
Do they have the option of being a good judge of character? Of course they do. Just buy the skill cross-class. Easy.

However, a class skill is something that the class (more or less) is meant for. The cleric is not meant to be a christian priest anymore. Why would Gruumsh's clerics be exceptionally good at piercing lies? They're divine warriors.