Disappointed in 3.5 books
- Thread starter Iron_Chef
- Start date
Iron_Chef
First Post
I changed the thread title and blunted some of my hostility in the first post. Should've considered it before hitting "submit" but it's the internet, it;s late and I'm a little steamed about 3.5. One of those things.Morrus said:OK, keep it nice folks. Iron_Chef, your initial post was a little harshly worded; while you're entitled to your opinion, I can see why it provoked some of the responses it did.
Everyone else, please try to just debate the points without sniping. Thanks!
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Re: Re: Re: 3.5 books are a rip-off! You heard it here first!
So basically your argument is "3.5 sucks coz it doesn't include my house rules". Not much of a criticism, really.
I'd say the fact that it was called 3.5 and not 4.0 should have told you outright that it was going to be a half measure, not a thorough overhall.
As for the art, I've looked through the galleries on the web (the books ain't downunder just yet) and the new stuff seems up to snuff. I think Lockwood's version of elven chain is about the best interpretation I've ever seen.
Maybe I'm just too old - I remember when TSR rereleased the original Ad&D hardbacks with new covers - exactly the same inside mind you, even down to the typos, no revision, no clarification - just rereleased with new covers. You get more tolerant once you've been exposed to publisher arrogance like that.
Iron_Chef said:
So basically your argument is "3.5 sucks coz it doesn't include my house rules". Not much of a criticism, really.
I'd say the fact that it was called 3.5 and not 4.0 should have told you outright that it was going to be a half measure, not a thorough overhall.
As for the art, I've looked through the galleries on the web (the books ain't downunder just yet) and the new stuff seems up to snuff. I think Lockwood's version of elven chain is about the best interpretation I've ever seen.
Maybe I'm just too old - I remember when TSR rereleased the original Ad&D hardbacks with new covers - exactly the same inside mind you, even down to the typos, no revision, no clarification - just rereleased with new covers. You get more tolerant once you've been exposed to publisher arrogance like that.
Zarrock God of Evil
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: 3.5 books are a rip-off! You heard it here first!
Those are not necessarily bad changes Iron_Chef and I don't doubt your ability to come up with acceptable or even desirable rules changes.
But as you should probably know by now, tons of work, discussion and testing has gone into the revision and the people involved in the creation of 3.5 and comments such as your own - humorous or not - does show some lack of respect towards the designers and the difficulty level of the process.
From my point of view, they've fixed a lot of really MAJOR issues and brought the game closer to my vision of it - so what they missed some changes (they can't make everyone happy and they're ARE only human - even though they work for WotC
). You don't have to agree with that but the snide remark really isn't warranted and doesn't help support your point.
-Zarrock
Iron_Chef said:
You think you're so cool, Zarrock! Well, let me tell you, I would have made D&D so cool it would have had giant robots and mutant ninja turtles and laser swords... oh, wait---that's RIFTS!
Here's some changes I would have made:
Sorcerers get ALL charisma-based skills as class skills. They are a Charisma based class; to deny them the advantages of utilizing their high charisma for anything other than spellcasting is WRONG.
Clerics would get Sense Motive as a class skill. You know, so they can actually HELP their faithful and dispense insights to their allies. Duh!
Paladins get more cool powers so they aren't the weak sister to the fighter and cleric. Not sure what those are yet, but you know. Something cool.
Anyway, those are a couple ideas right off the top of my head.
Those are not necessarily bad changes Iron_Chef and I don't doubt your ability to come up with acceptable or even desirable rules changes.
But as you should probably know by now, tons of work, discussion and testing has gone into the revision and the people involved in the creation of 3.5 and comments such as your own - humorous or not - does show some lack of respect towards the designers and the difficulty level of the process.
From my point of view, they've fixed a lot of really MAJOR issues and brought the game closer to my vision of it - so what they missed some changes (they can't make everyone happy and they're ARE only human - even though they work for WotC
). You don't have to agree with that but the snide remark really isn't warranted and doesn't help support your point.-Zarrock
Iron_Chef
First Post
Re: re
It just should have been "better." You know, like more new art, some more rules tweaks. Like the few little changes to class skills I mentioned as being changes they should have (and I would have) made that would have dramatically improved the game for players... and made sense. Tossing in bluff to the sorcerer's class skills list *without* the other essential charisma based skills following suit is incomprehensible to me. Sorcerers are weak. Throw 'em a friggin' bone so they can do something besides throw magic missiles all day long.
Celtavian said:
It just should have been "better." You know, like more new art, some more rules tweaks. Like the few little changes to class skills I mentioned as being changes they should have (and I would have) made that would have dramatically improved the game for players... and made sense. Tossing in bluff to the sorcerer's class skills list *without* the other essential charisma based skills following suit is incomprehensible to me. Sorcerers are weak. Throw 'em a friggin' bone so they can do something besides throw magic missiles all day long.
Iron_Chef
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3.5 books are a rip-off! You heard it here first!
It just seems so dumb not to incorporate simple things like the two I mentioned. How hard would that have been to do? You know the revision team talked about incorporating my sorcerer class skills suggestion because bluff is now on the list, and an interview with, or by posting by, one or another of the revision team basically said (IIRC) "we couldn't decide what to do, so we just left it at adding bluff." WTF? Who couldn't agree on a simple little fix like this? That's what I would (politely) call boneheaded, and a prime example of why I think the revision was rushed, improperly playtested, and not as well designed as it should have been.
I shouldn't have to go marking up my new 3.5 books just to add little things like that which WoTC should have been smart enough to do for me.
Zarrock said:
Those are not necessarily bad changes Iron_Chef and I don't doubt your ability to come up with acceptable or even desirable rules changes.
But as you should probably know by now, tons of work, discussion and testing has gone into the revision and the people involved in the creation of 3.5 and comments such as your own - humorous or not - does show some lack of respect towards the designers and the difficulty level of the process.
From my point of view, they've fixed a lot of really MAJOR issues and brought the game closer to my vision of it - so what they missed some changes (they can't make everyone happy and they're ARE only human - even though they work for WotC
-Zarrock
It just seems so dumb not to incorporate simple things like the two I mentioned. How hard would that have been to do? You know the revision team talked about incorporating my sorcerer class skills suggestion because bluff is now on the list, and an interview with, or by posting by, one or another of the revision team basically said (IIRC) "we couldn't decide what to do, so we just left it at adding bluff." WTF? Who couldn't agree on a simple little fix like this? That's what I would (politely) call boneheaded, and a prime example of why I think the revision was rushed, improperly playtested, and not as well designed as it should have been.
I shouldn't have to go marking up my new 3.5 books just to add little things like that which WoTC should have been smart enough to do for me.
Last edited:
Zarrock God of Evil
First Post
Re: Re: re
The comment about sorcerers underlines what I'm trying to say here. If you posted a poll on this board (a minor representation of the DnD community as it may be), you'd probably find that at least half think sorcerer's are just fine - or even overpowered. Try to think of it - the designer's had to improve the game in a way that would bring it closer to the vision of ALL or MOST of the 3.0 players. Now there's a difficult task. Btw - part of the reasoning for not giving the sorcerer more charisma based skills may have been that they didn't wish to step on the bard's feet too much. And even though sorcerer's primary ability is charisma - intelligence and constitution skills are probably the sorcerer's most useful: concentration, spellcraft and knowledge (arcana).
I think that overall they succeeded, you feel that they failed. What you thought were terribly important and obvious changes, the design team may have felt premature, unnecessary, or of secondary priority (who knows). Does this make the revision inherently bad? Sales numbers may show (even though it's really a lousy way to judge the quality of a product. Taken from the interest here in Denmark, 3.5 seems to be on its way to massive financial success).
I think they did a good job and they tried their best and I certainly don't believe there's any ill will on their part. As for the art, I'm in the same boat as Morrus. Didn't expect anything new and I'm not disappointed.
-Zarrock
Iron_Chef said:
The comment about sorcerers underlines what I'm trying to say here. If you posted a poll on this board (a minor representation of the DnD community as it may be), you'd probably find that at least half think sorcerer's are just fine - or even overpowered. Try to think of it - the designer's had to improve the game in a way that would bring it closer to the vision of ALL or MOST of the 3.0 players. Now there's a difficult task. Btw - part of the reasoning for not giving the sorcerer more charisma based skills may have been that they didn't wish to step on the bard's feet too much. And even though sorcerer's primary ability is charisma - intelligence and constitution skills are probably the sorcerer's most useful: concentration, spellcraft and knowledge (arcana).
I think that overall they succeeded, you feel that they failed. What you thought were terribly important and obvious changes, the design team may have felt premature, unnecessary, or of secondary priority (who knows). Does this make the revision inherently bad? Sales numbers may show (even though it's really a lousy way to judge the quality of a product. Taken from the interest here in Denmark, 3.5 seems to be on its way to massive financial success).
I think they did a good job and they tried their best and I certainly don't believe there's any ill will on their part. As for the art, I'm in the same boat as Morrus. Didn't expect anything new and I'm not disappointed.
-Zarrock
Last edited:
