Is Dragon Magazine an Example of D&D3.5?

[TeeSeeJay]

I'm with you on this one Quasqueton. I don't see it as nitpicking. If they suddenly start releasing feats with even number prerequisites the system will become less elegant. Something I think is important for my RPG of choice. I'm not too worried about 3.5E though as I'm sure Skip loves elegance too.

I'm pretty far from being a 3E expert; can you spell out for me the whole even/odd prerequisite problem?

Is it just that folk with an even ability score are much less likely to burn an ability increase there because it doesn't net an additional modifier?

Where are the guidelines about feat prereqs being odd numbers? Is it in a Dragon or buried in the DMG somewhere?

Why do even prereqs make the system less elegant?

 

[Gargoyle]

Having odd prerequisites for feats gives players a reason to want to increase by one point an odd ability score. For example, if you have a 12 Dexterity and you get to 4th level, you may want to increase your Dexterity to 13 in order to gain the Dodge feat later. If feats had even prerequisites, you may decide to increase something else in order to get a larger bonus, since a bonus from a 13 Dexterity is still only +1, and really no better than a 12 Dex.

Guidelines from WOTC on how to build feats suggest using odd prerequisites for this reason, including the article in Dragon some time ago, appropriately titled "How to Build a Feat", though I forget which issue and can't seem to find it right now.

 

[jdavis]

Well to the question asked, No I don't see where this has anything to do with what WOTC is doing with 3.5 edition as it does with the editing and proofreading of Dragon magazine.

 

[hong]

Do you ever read the D&D Rules forum? Or the Sage Advice column? Or the D&D FAQ? There is some nitpicking of individual items. I'm looking at the overall pattern.

A highly commendable motive, I'm sure.

It is my understanding that the 3.5 revision is supposed (to try) to solve so much nitpicking.

The aim of 3.5 is not so much to solve nitpicking issues, but to change the rules that are causing the most grief for the most people. For example, haste, harm and heal are all crystal-clear in what they do. These spells aren't being changed because they're ill-defined, but because (for many people) they're unbalanced. Similarly, rangers, bards and monks are being changed because a lot of people think they need changing, not because people don't understand the rules.

So why is it added to every feat prerequisite ever published by WotC?

Yes, I'm nitpicking a bit here, but not overly so.

Now come on. I think when you nitpick, you should at least choose an issue of substantive importance to the majority of the gaming community. Being overly pedantic on issues that are peripheral or don't impair understanding of the underlying content is not very constructive, even if it's offered in the best possible spirit.

For example, you will notice that betwen pages 42 and 169 of the PHB, there are _at least_ three occurrences of "it's" (with the apostrophe) in locations where "its" (without the apostrophe) is clearly the word that was intended to be used. Furthermore, between pages 88 and 144 there are at least two occurrences of "looses" instead of "loses", and "definately" instead of "definitely". Of course, with your eagle eye for such things, I'm sure you're already aware of such grievous mistakes in the rules, and will be bringing them to the attention of the designers forthwith.


Hong "never maeks typos" Ooi