Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 654678" data-attributes="member: 259">Not wrong, just misunderstood.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lemme quote the part of my post that people are missing:See?&nbsp; With about 30 seconds' thought, I came up with a POSSIBLE spell they could add to 3.5 that would enable archer characters to be useful in combat vs. creatures with DR/special material.&nbsp; I wasn't talking about that 3E cantrip at all.Before you run in circles, screaming and shouting, think about whether the problems you're imagining have imaginary solutions as well.&nbsp; If they do, why not discuss those imaginary solutions?&nbsp; Andy is obviously reading this thread; if your suggestions are good, maybe he'll include them.But talking about how You're Not Going To Buy 3.5 Because of This Sucky Rule -- this is, I'm guessing, both false and irrelevant.&nbsp; People said exactly the same thing before 3E came out, kvetching about all sorts of stuff that later proved to be immensely popular.&nbsp; Only 3 saving throws?&nbsp; Wizards can wear armor?&nbsp; Clerics have nine spell levels?&nbsp; Blasphemy!&nbsp; Despair!&nbsp; Armageddon!&nbsp; I'll never buy the books!And yet when people saw how these changes were actually implemented, people found them to be fair and exciting.&nbsp; People bought the books after all.&nbsp; And i do hope that Monte, Skip, and all the others ignored people's I-won't-buy-the-book-if-you-make-this-change threats.So discuss these changes.&nbsp; But give the designers the benefit of the doubt.&nbsp; Point out potential pitfalls, but use your imagination, and try to come up with possible solutions.That's constructive criticism.&nbsp; Just saying, &quot;This su&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;0r5!&quot; is perilously close to whining.Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 654678, member: 259"] Not wrong, just misunderstood. :) Lemme quote the part of my post that people are missing: See? With about 30 seconds' thought, I came up with a POSSIBLE spell they could add to 3.5 that would enable archer characters to be useful in combat vs. creatures with DR/special material. I wasn't talking about that 3E cantrip at all. Before you run in circles, screaming and shouting, think about whether the problems you're imagining have imaginary solutions as well. If they do, why not discuss those imaginary solutions? Andy is obviously reading this thread; if your suggestions are good, maybe he'll include them. But talking about how You're Not Going To Buy 3.5 Because of This Sucky Rule -- this is, I'm guessing, both false and irrelevant. People said exactly the same thing before 3E came out, kvetching about all sorts of stuff that later proved to be immensely popular. Only 3 saving throws? Wizards can wear armor? Clerics have nine spell levels? Blasphemy! Despair! Armageddon! I'll never buy the books! And yet when people saw how these changes were actually implemented, people found them to be fair and exciting. People bought the books after all. And i do hope that Monte, Skip, and all the others ignored people's I-won't-buy-the-book-if-you-make-this-change threats. So discuss these changes. But give the designers the benefit of the doubt. Point out potential pitfalls, but use your imagination, and try to come up with possible solutions. That's constructive criticism. Just saying, "This su><><0r5!" is perilously close to whining. Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification