D&D 3.x If 3.5 was so good...

[Shortman McLeod]

If you consider the power level to be too steep - as I now do - it's a fundamental problem.

That's personal preference, not a "fundamental" problem.

 

[Grog]

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.

 

[Nifft]

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]

But, as I disdain core only games as it is,...

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

 

[charlesatan]

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).

 

[Ranger REG]

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]

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

You're asking someone called Psion this question?

 

[jdrakeh]

A few weeks ago no one was talking about math being a problem.

Balderdash. People have been talking about that for years.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

 

[Firebeetle]

The problems are not deep and fundamental.

spoken like a man who has never played bard