Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
jaldaen said:
Natural weapons and unarmed attacks are explicitly stated to allow Power Attack. It's only actual light weapons that can't benefit from Power Attack.
Impressions on 3.5?
- Thread starter satori01
- Start date
Natural weapons and unarmed attacks are explicitly stated to allow Power Attack. It's only actual light weapons that can't benefit from Power Attack.
I think 3.5 is going to be kinda weak. First off I HATE all the expansion books, the class books and such. I think they are unplaytested crap for powergamers and have never included them in my games as its hard enough as it is to get players to forget the numbers and get into a fantasy world. Mostly I found the prestige classes to be unbalanced and uneccesary, but there were a good deal of feats that seemed redundant or overpowered as well. And don't even get me started on psionics. How that 
got into DND in the first place I will never know, but I think I can blame the inventors of the mind flayer.
That being said a number of rules from the expansion books are going to be in corporated into 3.5e and that bugs me. I know I can pick and choose which rules I want to go with, but once you include them in the core books its kinda hard to just rule them out. Then I feel like I need to highlight the stuff we do use, and black out the crap we don't. But there are just enough new rules that are good that I think we are going to make the switch. /sigh
got into DND in the first place I will never know, but I think I can blame the inventors of the mind flayer.That being said a number of rules from the expansion books are going to be in corporated into 3.5e and that bugs me. I know I can pick and choose which rules I want to go with, but once you include them in the core books its kinda hard to just rule them out. Then I feel like I need to highlight the stuff we do use, and black out the crap we don't. But there are just enough new rules that are good that I think we are going to make the switch. /sigh
Tom Cashel
First Post
McD&D. Over 10 billion served.
Funny how it's being billed as "by Monte Cook" when he had nothing to do with it (beyond writing the original material).
Funny how it's being billed as "by Monte Cook" when he had nothing to do with it (beyond writing the original material).
KDLadage
Explorer
I have been nervous, but not much.Eldragon said:
Exactly.
WotC does everything they do for money. So I am not worried there. They are giving the rules away (new SRD), so I tend to dismiss the idea.
Can't make everyone happy, I guess.
Your call. You will have the new SRD, so there is no need to buy the new ones.
#1 -- I understand this change now. Took a while, but I get it. Given that there are no facings in the game, having rectagular spaces for creatures create a sort of psuedo-facing issues that are corrected by making all of the creatures take a square area. Personally, I would have liked to have had facing added to the game, rather than square areas for creatures to eliminate the psuedo-facing issues. But I think I am in the vast minority on that one.
#2 -- I did not care for school specialization in 3.0 (or any previous edition, such as the Illusionist class). So this is a no brainer.
#3 -- The limitations on Buff spells make sense to me. Oh well.
Last edited:
KDLadage
Explorer
Funny... cause AU really does not excite me at all... not that 3.5 has me bouncing off the walls.
3.5 I see as a worthy upgrade. I do not fully agree with everything, but I will check out the whole package and how it all fits together before I make a complete judgement.
AU seems like ... well ... blah. But that is just one man's opinion.
3.5 I see as a worthy upgrade. I do not fully agree with everything, but I will check out the whole package and how it all fits together before I make a complete judgement.
AU seems like ... well ... blah. But that is just one man's opinion.
Henry
Autoexreginated
A thought struck me this morning (ouch!) and frankly, I don't know why it never occurred sooner:
For all the complaints and concern about the length of time between editions that have occurred, people don't seem to be taking into account the POWERFUL effect that the internet has on playtesting and on revision of existing rules.
In the 1970's, it took years for the consensus of the gaming community to filter back to a company, assuming the company was listening in the first place.
In the 1980's, the advent of BBS's helped people share their interests and their optional rules, but the internet still was not a user-friendly place to be.
Even still in the early 90's, a company did not have many means to ascertain the direct pulse of a community built around their products. The advent of AOL, GEnie, Compuserve, and the internet galvanized who communities of gamers, and showed people the beginnings of instant feedback. For better or for worse, just as computer programs now have amazingly short development times between revisions, RPG designers have harnessed the ability of a community to determine from Shinola in rapid time.
It still takes a long time to discern between valid complaints and suggestions, and loud-mouthed grousing, but think about the fact that when someone comments that the Grappling Rules are cumbersome and have errors, that the DESIGNER of said grappling rules is likely listening right as it's being said! At what point in prior history has a designer of a product been able to listen to hundreds of thousands of feedback almost immediately after releasing their product?
The fact that money is a concern is not a question to me. But the idea that a revision is "too soon" is using the turnaround cycles of a non-internet age as a point of comparison to a new era in customer satisfaction and feedback.
On ENWorld, we have some posters who get outraged when a complaint is not answered in 3 hours or less; how much more instantaneous are the demands from a game designer on new or revised product?
For all the complaints and concern about the length of time between editions that have occurred, people don't seem to be taking into account the POWERFUL effect that the internet has on playtesting and on revision of existing rules.
In the 1970's, it took years for the consensus of the gaming community to filter back to a company, assuming the company was listening in the first place.
In the 1980's, the advent of BBS's helped people share their interests and their optional rules, but the internet still was not a user-friendly place to be.
Even still in the early 90's, a company did not have many means to ascertain the direct pulse of a community built around their products. The advent of AOL, GEnie, Compuserve, and the internet galvanized who communities of gamers, and showed people the beginnings of instant feedback. For better or for worse, just as computer programs now have amazingly short development times between revisions, RPG designers have harnessed the ability of a community to determine
from Shinola in rapid time.It still takes a long time to discern between valid complaints and suggestions, and loud-mouthed grousing, but think about the fact that when someone comments that the Grappling Rules are cumbersome and have errors, that the DESIGNER of said grappling rules is likely listening right as it's being said! At what point in prior history has a designer of a product been able to listen to hundreds of thousands of feedback almost immediately after releasing their product?
The fact that money is a concern is not a question to me. But the idea that a revision is "too soon" is using the turnaround cycles of a non-internet age as a point of comparison to a new era in customer satisfaction and feedback.
On ENWorld, we have some posters who get outraged when a complaint is not answered in 3 hours or less; how much more instantaneous are the demands from a game designer on new or revised product?
Snapdragyn
Explorer
1) You already use square facings -- they're just 5' squares. Seriously, the only way a fighter would occupy each side of a 5' square equally (rather than say 5' for front & back, & 2-3' for the sides) is that the fighter turns & moves around & stuff... which is exactly the justification being given for square facings. *shrug*
2) No opinion.
3) I agree it needed changed, but they went too far. 10/level sounds like a decent HR to me; I could even see 5/level.
Oh, & (different poster) that range stacking +5 limit HR sounds very good to me.
DrSpunj
Explorer
Wow!
I'd never considered that either, Henry. Very insightful. Thanks!
It sounds like my own thoughts about 3.5E join the majority (slight though it may be). I'm happy with the majority of the changes, either because they incorporate House Rules I was using already or offer acceptable alternatives, but there are some things I'm going to continuing using my House Rules, "revert" back to 3.0, or introduced something that I see as a new problem.
Regardless, I think they've done well overall. They're not going to please everyone and they know it; and they're a for-profit company, so they're partly doing it to make money, which is understandable even if people don't like it. The best thing about it, which makes me respect WotC regardless of any changes I like or don't like, is that they're updating the SRD so people that don't want to buy the new books can get the vast majority of the changes without spending anything more than ISP costs.
I've preordered (Thanks Talon Comics!
) and don't regret my purchase. Everything ShadowStar (and originally roytheodd) have shared has, for the most part, just made me anxious to receive my books!
Thanks,
DrSpunj
Henry said:
I'd never considered that either, Henry. Very insightful. Thanks!
It sounds like my own thoughts about 3.5E join the majority (slight though it may be). I'm happy with the majority of the changes, either because they incorporate House Rules I was using already or offer acceptable alternatives, but there are some things I'm going to continuing using my House Rules, "revert" back to 3.0, or introduced something that I see as a new problem.
Regardless, I think they've done well overall. They're not going to please everyone and they know it; and they're a for-profit company, so they're partly doing it to make money, which is understandable even if people don't like it. The best thing about it, which makes me respect WotC regardless of any changes I like or don't like, is that they're updating the SRD so people that don't want to buy the new books can get the vast majority of the changes without spending anything more than ISP costs.
I've preordered (Thanks Talon Comics!
) and don't regret my purchase. Everything ShadowStar (and originally roytheodd) have shared has, for the most part, just made me anxious to receive my books!Thanks,
DrSpunj
coyote6
Adventurer
I like most of the changes I've seen.
But the ones I don't like have been excessively annoying for whatever reason; I think it's that they strike me as overreactions (e.g., the buff spell duration nerfs, Power Attack) or unneeded & seemingly arbitrary (e.g., some spell list alterations).
And my cynical side expects that in 3 or 4 years, when the next revision comes out, those overchanges will be partially reversed (and my really cynical side expects that other changes will be made that will have to be partially reversed in the next revision, circa 2009; fortunately, that about exhausts my cynical side).
Back! Back, cynical side! Back!
PS: WotC making money is good. WotC changing the game just to make money is not good ("not good" is, of course, not necessarily the same as "evil" or "bad"). There are other ways to continue making money on a game besides creating new rulesets (just to spike sales) every few years. WotC doesn't have to give in to the Dark Side; the gaming hobby already has Games Workshop, after all.
But the ones I don't like have been excessively annoying for whatever reason; I think it's that they strike me as overreactions (e.g., the buff spell duration nerfs, Power Attack) or unneeded & seemingly arbitrary (e.g., some spell list alterations).
And my cynical side expects that in 3 or 4 years, when the next revision comes out, those overchanges will be partially reversed (and my really cynical side expects that other changes will be made that will have to be partially reversed in the next revision, circa 2009; fortunately, that about exhausts my cynical side).
Back! Back, cynical side! Back!
PS: WotC making money is good. WotC changing the game just to make money is not good ("not good" is, of course, not necessarily the same as "evil" or "bad"). There are other ways to continue making money on a game besides creating new rulesets (just to spike sales) every few years. WotC doesn't have to give in to the Dark Side; the gaming hobby already has Games Workshop, after all.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
