NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SpadeHammerfist" data-source="post: 3788083" data-attributes="member: 15358">opinion......well, this is all very interesting isn't it?  Although it is nice to see everyone having quite well thought out points and valid ones too, and although it is nice to see the WotC designers actually talking about what they've been planning since 2002 (is it?), and although it is nice to see that they seem to be trying to take into account things that the gamers have been asking/inquiring/arguing/complaining about 3.5; although all of this is nice, there's just a couple of points that are bugging me...1. You do know that they are really doing this for the money, don't you? It is not to do with them pleasing us, that is just a marketing tactic!  The whole point is that by making the new edition non-compatible is that anyone that wants to keep up to date needs to buy the stuff.  Now, by stuff, you know that doesn't just mean the Core books, don't you? Gnomes are being left out for a reason, so that if you want to use the new ruleset and play a gnome then you are probably going to have to buy a splatbook. Well, you don't have to, but you will, won't you? Well, we did for 3.0 (Sword and Fist, anyone?), we did for 3.5 (Complete ..., anyone?), heck, we did for 2.0 (Player's Option, anyone?).  They know we're going to do it again.  Or are we?  I know I'm not.  I've got a filing cabinet/bookshelf packed full with 3.5 stuff, that is fantastic and really builds my campaign into something better. Why should I start all over again? Can I really afford it? Can I justify it to my family? Heck, can I justify it to my players?2.  They say that 3.5 has to die, because it is so flawed. People point to things like the grappling rules as an example of where the rules are rubbish.  Right, so are they going to forget about grappling, then? Don't think so.  Are they going to come up with a guarranteed fool-proof and fair system to replace it? Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think so.  The grappling rules came into it because people in 2.0 were trying to grapple and DMs had to fudge it. To be honest, if you are low level, it's easy, if you're high level you've got Freedom of Movement running so can forget about it, and if it's really causing you a regular headache you can House Rule it into a simple opposed attack roll!  Which is my biggest point.  House Rule!  Which one of the changes that they are bringing into 4e cannot be brought into 3.5 with a house rule?  The most fantastic thing about 3.5 is the freedom it gives to groups, they can get rid of things, add stuff from the many books, and come up with their own stuff.  Don't like Vancian memorising of spells and running out of resources as a wizard? House rule special abilities, add feats that allow once per round abilities (see Complete Mage), or just give them a free staff! Sorted. New edition? Err, why? There's a poll on the Enworld website as to what speed people would like level advancement in 4e.  But, ..er, the levelling up speed in 3.5 is so adaptable to the type of game you want, what's the need to change it?  If you play a game where role is important, you have less fights and therefore level up slower and can roleplay things like character interaction.  If you play a game where rolls are more important you have more fights and therefore level up faster and therefore can roleplay being kitted up and tanking through dungeons!  And guess what? If you're a bit of both you can balance out interactions and fights and have a medium speed of levelling up!Also... I'm sure you've all read the stuff they're writing about the use of monsters and PCs. They talk a lot about the monsters having roles and the PCs having roles and both being supported in the new system (not a new edition, is it really?). Doesn't anyone find this a bit insulting? They seem to be saying that, as DMs, we don't know how to use monsters effectively to challenge our PCs, we don't know how to give character levels to monsters to spice them up a bit and add a bit of an element of surprise to them! As PCs, they seem to be sying that we don't talk to the rest of our group about what we want to play when we design our characters. Does anyone really not check what bases are covered? "We've got two fighters, and a paladin, a mage and a cleric, shall I play a rogue or a bard?"I'm sorry if I've gone on, or if I've highjacked this thread... but I'm a little bit steaming!! And on top of all this they cancel Dungeon and Dragon! Grrr</blockquote>

Verification