D&D 3E/3.5 If 3.5 was so good...


log in or register to remove this ad

Shortman McLeod said:
Exactly. No one was saying that 3.5 had "huge, deep, fundamental brokenness" until WotC told them it did.

Sigh. :(
Dude, people have been talking about the fundamental problems with 3.5 for years now. Find a new riff.
 

Shortman McLeod said:
Exactly. No one was saying that 3.5 had "huge, deep, fundamental brokenness" until WotC told them it did.
Say what? Of course we have. We just didn't have a forum devoted to the concept until WotC announced 4e. ;)

Cheers, -- N
 


Ranger REG said:
What's wrong with playing a D&D game using core-only (specifically three core rulebooks)? :\

Nothing wrong with playing a core-only game. =) It's just some people prefer to play the game with more options (hence supplements).
 

charlesatan said:
Nothing wrong with playing a core-only game. =) It's just some people prefer to play the game with more options (hence supplements).
Trust me, there will be supplements. History have shown that there is no way you can cover all topics and themes in just three volumes ... and keep the set less than $100.
 



Scholar & Brutalman said:
You're asking someone called Psion this question?
That's his problem. I don't want psionics in my D&D. If he wants to consider a PsiHB as the fourth core rulebook to be part of core only, I have no objection.
 


Remove ads

Top