My opinion of 3.5 is short and sweet

[Jack Daniel]

Leaving aside the usual gripes about the poor editing these rushed volumes underwent (I'll leave that to the erratta fanatics... I never bother with erratta anyway), I see 3.5 in terms of tradeoffs. They kept the lines (good!) but smacked "v3.5" on all the covers and spines (bad!). The ranger-that-isn't, reeking horribly of computer games, $7 paperbacks, and anti-LotR denial, weaseled its way into the PHB riding the backs of kenderized 3.0 halflings (bad!); but the bard is once again a skillful, spellful scoundrel who can sing to soulfully while swindling you in circles (good!). The overall feeling of the book suggests increased complexity and less of a mind for teaching new players (very bad!), but WotC gets big gold stars for streamlining combat and standardizing weapon sizes (drumroll please... yeah, that's good).

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

That was neither short nor sweet. Discuss. [/Linda Richman voice]

 

[DerianCypher]

Just as an aside... Stop taking my Avatar! It's mine mine mine!!

and I have a higher postcount, and that's all that matters!

So yeah... to recap: it's mine mine mine!!!



DC

 

[Emiricol]

* Halflings haven't much changed.
* Rangers never were LotR-ized, but at least now they can be for them what wants 'em, but of course no matter what they did someone would scream "cheese!" which I think is just a good argument to ditch the class altogether.
* I think putting 3.5 on the cover is good - less confusion, which I can't see possibly being a bad thing.
* I agree with you about bards. I like their spell list changes too.

 

[Breakdaddy]

The new bards absolutely rock. I have to differ with you on the ranger, however. I think they have given the class a much needed boost. We had two rangers in our last campaign and both had to multi out of Ranger by around level 5-7 because some of the other PCs "outclassed" (forgive the pun) them so badly!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not short or sweet. More like long and rambling

I want to see someone do stats on Tom Bombadil. He can cast Persistent True Seeing, which is just creepy ...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Not short or sweet. More like long and rambling

I want to see someone do stats on Tom Bombadil. He can cast Persistent True Seeing, which is just creepy ...

Well, I wouldn't say that he had persistent True Seeing; rather, as Elrond and Gandalf noted, the One Ring had no power over him, so none of its powers affected him. Perhaps he could be fooled by invisibility from other sources. By the way, there are stats for Bombadil - for Decipher's non-d20 LotR RPG - in the Fellowship of the Ring sourcebook.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

for Decipher's non-d20 LotR RPG

Very good ... where do I find it? In the link to your sig?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The stats are in the Fellowship of the Ring Sourcebook Decipher just released. Sorry; it's copyrighted material, so I can't post the stats. Decipher's webpage for the FotR Sourcebook is here:

http://www.decipher.com/lordoftherings/rpg/products/fotrsourcebook/

 

[Droogie]

To comment on one of your points:

Even though the rules have been greatly clarified (based on player input and the Sage), the books are now beefier, which, paradoxically, give me the impression that the game is more complicated than ever before. Are there still plans for an introductory gateway-drug game? Seems like we need it now more than ever.

I was excited when the revision was announced because this was WotC's big chance to refine what was already an excellent game. Unfortunately they made so many changes that they managed to create as many wrinkles as the ones they ironed out. Example - creature facing. the old way and new way both have their pros and cons, but in the end I'd have to say neither way is better than the other.

But I will soldier on and continue to play my favorite RPG--life is too short to gripe about a game. I have my 3.5 PHB in hand, and I plan on grabbing the other two at GenCon.If I'm still into this stuff by the time 4.0 rolls around, I'll prolly buy those books too.

Maybe.