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

[Quasqueton]

Should I worry about the 3.5 revision when I see core design mistakes in Dragon magazine?

In the article "Urban Heroes" by Stan! in the latest Dragon, I see four new feats. In the prerequisites for these feats are: Wis 12+, Cha 10+, Cha 12+, and again Cha 12+. This breaks the design "rule" of having ability score prerequisites be odd numbers.

In the article "Faith and Honor" by Skip Williams, I see some more new feats. In the prerequisites for these feats are several instances of Charisma 13. Not "13+", but just "13".

Now if the above mistakes were just in one place, it would be obvious as a simple and forgivable typo. But when the same thing is repeated 4 or 5 times in the same list of feats, you have to wonder if it was intentional, or if someone just is not paying attention.

If it was intentional, that means someone is tossing aside the core design rules of D&D3.

If it is just lack of attention, will such detail be overlooked in the coming revision.

And since my Dragon magazine has that little note of "100% Official Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, it makes me doubt the accuracy and design of the coming D&D 3.5 revision.

It just worries me. I hate to think that in revising and correcting the current game system, someone is going to flub things up even more by ignoring solid design rules or by lack of attention to detail. Is this a view of things to come?

Quasqueton

 

[Gargoyle]

It is my understanding that rules printed in Dragon rarely go through WOTC's R&D dept. Dragon may be the official magazine of D&D, but most of the rules within are not any more official than the stuff on the House Rules forum.

Don't worry about it. 3.5 will be solid.

 

[Shadowlord]

You're nitpicking.

 

[Knight Otu]

This breaks the design "rule" of having ability score prerequisites be odd numbers.

It's less of a "rule" and more of a way of making odd scores more useful.

In the prerequisites for these feats are several instances of Charisma 13. Not "13+", but just "13".

I'm pretty sure that the definition of feats says that, if you exceed the prerequisites, you still fulfill them. So there is no real reason for the "+" to be added.

 

[DDK]

I bet you wear plaid and use pocket protectors...

 

[Tsyr]

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

It's less of a "rule" and more of a way of making odd scores more useful.

I would agree with that. I mean, it makes sense, but you aren't *exactly* breaking anything if you do it that way. I have, for a few house rules, said you need at least an X bonus in some stat or another, which is basicly the same thing, and it still works.

I'm pretty sure that the definition of feats says that, if you exceed the prerequisites, you still fulfill them. So there is no real reason for the "+" to be added.

I would agree with that reading of the rule too. I mean, if you look at a prestiege class, it doesn't usualy say "You need 8 or more ranks of perform", it says you need 8 ranks. Same thing here.

 

[Quasqueton]

You're nitpicking.

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

So there is no real reason for the "+" to be added.

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

Yes, I'm nitpicking a bit here, but not overly so. When you read what Skip has to answer in the Sage Advice and FAQ each month, you'd think they'd see the pattern of nitpicking and try to nip the confusion in the bud. Unless of course, as I've worried here, they are intentionally changing the pattern, or are just being unattentive.

[If the new pit fiend stats didn't include the bonus hit points from its con mod, wouldn't everyone have pointed it out and wondered? If a series of creatures had the same omission, wouldn't everyone wonder if that is a change to the layout?]

Quasqueton

 

[Frostmarrow]

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.

 

[Shadowlord]

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

I participated in too many of these rules threads on WOTC boards (over 1000 posts) when I again realized what makes this game so wonderful. It isn't the rules (where often in the heat of the game you don't follow every tiny detail), it's the epic story, using your imagination and having a unique time. The nitpicking destroys the mood and is a pool for fanatics (read "freaks") who deviate from the game's true purpose (="roleplaying game").

 

[Gargoyle]

I participated in too many of these rules threads on WOTC boards (over 1000 posts) when I again realized what makes this game so wonderful. It isn't the rules (where often in the heat of the game you don't follow every tiny detail), it's the epic story, using your imagination and having a unique time. The nitpicking destroys the mood and is a pool for fanatics (read "freaks") who deviate from the game's true purpose (="roleplaying game").

There are many ways to play D&D. Roleplaying is one of the most enjoyable, but the roots of the game are based in wargaming, so that "nitpicking" aspect is just as legitimate. Nitipicking over the rules is just another style of play that some people enjoy and does not make them a fanatic or freak. Besides, this a forum post, not an actual D&D game, so I don't see the relevance of your point.

If you're focused on roleplaying, that's great (and I wish I had more like you in my group, as that's the part I enjoy most) but it doesn't mean that your way is the one true, best way to do it.