Thanks, guys, you've ruined Haste for the rest of us.

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

The new damage reduction has been inserted, in my opnion, to better represent mythology/literature in the game...and to actualy have creatures that are both diffacult or impossible to harm via mundane means

First, last time i checked, most creatures with 3.0 DR were difficult to harm with mundane means, since magic weapons was the most common DR bypass.

Second, there is of course an issue of what "mundane means" means in a magical world. Alchemist fire does fine against werwwolves, as does acid IIRC. that make it expensive.

Third, the new lower blcoking numbers for DR actually make it EASIER to deal with DR by mundane means, right? Its not getting harder at all. If most of the +10's turn into +5's then Joe average gate guard with a breataxe has a much much easier time dealing with that werewolf than he did in 3.0e, right?

AND to have that actualy some times be a factor for magic weapon wielding PCS

Which of course, did not need designer dr at all. All you needed to do was reset the magic bypass numbers to match up more evenly with expected wealth level and GMW progression. Then viola... Dr has a greater impact on magic weapons.

Spell choice is a roleplaying/character concept area as to the haste part.

Spell choice is a complex issue involving many parts. ONE part is the spell's capabilities and for haste which serves little or no non-combat use, this means combat capabilities.

So, in an analysis of hastes changed combat capabilities, it seems silly to be expecting roleplaying discussion. My character roleplays the same whether he has a partial action, a move action or an extra attack, whether he has +2 ac or even +4 ac.

Actually, let me counter that... if he is routinely hasted and it only gives a partial attack, then my mage, who is able to count his way out of a paper bag, would likely develop tactics to utilize his haste advantages.

Thus "Elkiefer, master invoker of the black flame, avatar of Chupacka, and Herald of the righteous flame of purity, wielder of magics potent enough to cause the very earth to tremble.... he will devastate his foes and wreak havoc on his enemies with potent spells that burn the flesh from their bodies... and alternate these potent magics with dagger throws from his bandolier. Empowered fireball for 10d6x1.5... throw dagger...disintigrate....throw dagger...polymorph enemy rogue into snail...dagger... lather...rinse...repeat.

Now thats roleplaying.

Taken in context you'd see that I and Quinn were commenting more on that fact that many, many of the people in thease threads seem to view DnD as a live action version of Diablo or Everquest, and seem only to consider a new rules impact on there damage per round.

Yeah i got that, really i did. i was just trying to point out that you might be wrong or at least overstating. Since YOU specifically brought it up in the context of rules changes to dr and haste, both of which are specifically combat related game issues, it just seemed to be shoehorning in a general gripe/better-than-you that wasn't applicable to the threads at all.

Had you been complaining about combat analysis in a thread that was about roleplaying, it would have seemed to be an actual honest to goodness relevent point and not just taking an opportunity for an "im-better-than-you" post about how "we" just dont understand things as well as you.

.

 

[Petrosian]

Your assuming the new rules dont work(and no Petrosion I am not assuming they do...the DR thing probably should have been an optional rule).
Can you really fault them though for trying to do the things I mentioned?

Do you want us to grade their intent?

Really?

OK fine.

So far every general fluffy "what we want to do" statement has been great and wonderful. It has been dead spot on.

Unfortunately, the pit fiend is in the details not the intent.

I haven't seen anyone complaining because they liked DR and dont want to see it changed. i am sure there are some. I see most people complaining that this change is not a better solution.

Haste is more widely divided. Many campaigns are fine with it as is it seems, while others vary in level of disagreement. Me? I don't want dagger mages of doom to be sensible, so i prefer it being an extra MEA.

Their intent is just fine however. They can pat themselves on the back for some of the best puffery and mission statement creations so far.

If thats what you are after... 3.5e looks great for you.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

As to the other..that last part was primarily aimed at some of the things Petrosion has said in this and other threads. for one thing, he is basicaly saying 3.5 sucks..at least from what I've seen.

Quite frankly, from this comment and other posts, you seem to be reaching your conclusions before the facts. You seem to dismiss most of the complaints because to your predecided mind the complainers are just combat monsters who dont get roleplaying.

I have not said anything close to "3.5e" sucks. i have made SPECIFIC complaints about the haste change and the dr changes. Each of those was backed up in some fashion by specific examples operating within the realm of known information.

Not liking some parts of 3.5e for specific reasons is a far cry from "3.5e sucks" as you so eloquently ascribe to my intent.

You say its from what you have seen? thats great. Show me and the rest of the viewing audience the specific comments to the effect that 3.5e sucks as opposed to specific complaints about Dr and haste and so on.

Will i be implementing 3.5e in my current campaign. not a chance. But thats a far cry from "3.5e sucks."

Mainly my post on this thread was aimed not as much at the specfics of the DR/Haste arguement and more at the tendencies I was seeing in the posters...powergaming excessive concern with combat above all else, and in the case of some what is IMHO just an overly negative/cynical view of the whole 3.5 situation.

The combat relevence is in that these threads ARE about changes to combat rules, not changes to roleplaying rules (if such exist.)

If you are not wanting to comment on the issues and want to make off topic posts about other things, thats cool, but you should realize that when you fault posters in threads on combat rules changes for talking combat impacts... you come off as if you missed the boat and are still standing on the docks scratching your noggin. After all, its REASONABLE to expect to see a lot of posts about combat stuff in a thread about changes to combat rules.... IE dr and the haste spell.

 

[Petrosian]

And while I agree having concerns about specfic things we do know there going to do is fine. stating as some have that they will not be using the new rules, now months before release when we have only tidbits..is fine too but i personaly think its silly, and a bad outlook to have on things.

Man, are my ears burning.

As for how silly it is or how bad an outlook it is for me to say ... "i wont be using 3.5e for my current campaign"... which i have said twice at least now, lets examine my reasons.

BTW, if you had asked for my reasons before making you jump to conclusions check, you might have been able to speak reasonably about it.

My game is in its third year with players having advanced from 2nd to 12th. over the final year, i expect them to rise to around 18th level. The estimated conclusion date is Feb 2004. Over the course of the campaign, the issues with HASTE (ubiquitous as poios, very effective and "why not" issues) have been already acknowledged and dealt with. Similarly any DR issues were long ago solved. Heck i implemented the 10 per level cap on harm over a year ago and have never split the partial action/half-action hair so the "self-destruct" literalists issues were not a problem for my game.

Both the DR and the haste changes would, if impemented in mid-stream into a campaign 2/3rds done that has alrwady addressed them, would be disruptive. Most of the "history" would be changed and decisions made by the PCs including soprcerer spell choices and items kept vs items sold would be in one fell swoop made unreasonable. The 3.5e changes so far released are NOT being limited to 'easy grandfathering" (note that i do not consider this a fault. Some things need fixing) and thus there are clear INTEGRATION issues.

So, after seeing the haste change and the DR change and reading the other design goals and realizing that easy grandfathering was not a design limitation, i made the cld hard decision that adding 3.5e to my 2/3-done campaign was going to create more issues of integration and inconsistency than it provided benefits.

In case you don't realize it, this is a decision made EVERY DAY by thousands of companies and managers across america. One of their tools, hardware or software, is "upgraded" and they have to examine and weigh off the benefits of upgrades (new features and bug fixes) against the downsides (money for the upgrade, revision incompatabilities, training time with new version and the inevitable new bugs with newest features.)

So, i have made the decision to NOT upgrade.

This should not be taken as a condemnation of 3.5e, merely an assessment of the migration difficulties based on what we know.

had you bothered to inquire as opposed ro assume, you might have known this.

Viewing everyones ideas thru your own "i know better" glasses is skewing your conclusions.

 

[WizarDru]

I have not said anything close to "3.5e" sucks. i have made SPECIFIC complaints about the haste change and the dr changes. Each of those was backed up in some fashion by specific examples operating within the realm of known information.

Not liking some parts of 3.5e for specific reasons is a far cry from "3.5e sucks" as you so eloquently ascribe to my intent.

You say its from what you have seen? thats great. Show me and the rest of the viewing audience the specific comments to the effect that 3.5e sucks as opposed to specific complaints about Dr and haste and so on.

Will i be implementing 3.5e in my current campaign. not a chance. But thats a far cry from "3.5e sucks."

Heh, you may not mean it that way, but it sure comes across as awfully close to "I don't think 3.5e sucks, I just think everything I've seen about it so far sucks, which just coincidentally happens to be everything they've told us about."

Which is a perfectly valid opinion, but it strikes me as funny. I think some folks might be having a hard time understanding if you're saying you don't like the changes aesthetically, or if you think they're just plain unsound mechanically. The first is not subject to debate, the second most assuredly is.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Heh, you may not mean it that way, but it sure comes across as awfully close to "I don't think 3.5e sucks, I just think everything I've seen about it so far sucks, which just coincidentally happens to be everything they've told us about."

I have responded on these two specific threads... about haste and about designer dr. i have not wieghed in on threads about... wait are there threads about... new stat blocks showing grapple, harm/heal fixes (which i think the recent epic spell changes on wotc might show us a clue), clarification of potion spells, and so on. Then again, those changes do not have long lasting threads for them... probably because they are still relatively undefined or are not too controversial.

There are plenty of things I like from what i have seen in 3.5e (i have been writing the grapple check on my stat sheets for about 3 months.) I just did not feel posting about NON-haste and NON-DR in threads whose subject is DR or haste was on topic or relevent.

If someone wants to draw the conclusion that, because i post negative comment on new haste and designer dr on threads devoted to those specific topics and don't in those topics post wonderful happy joy comments about stat blocks, I think 3.5e sucks, i cannot prevent that. The again, they could have leaped to the conclusion that these posts mean i was wearing red-lace underwear with just as much efrort.

Conclusions should derive from facts, not drive the "facts.".

Which is a perfectly valid opinion, but it strikes me as funny. I think some folks might be having a hard time understanding if you're saying you don't like the changes aesthetically, or if you think they're just plain unsound mechanically. The first is not subject to debate, the second most assuredly is.

If their conclusion stems from the fact that i have repeatedly posted specific issues and events derived from the rules percieved impact, then i cannot help that.

I do not like either of the character issues and campaign issues that the designer-dr or the haste-attack changes provide. I see both as moving the PCs furhter from "fantasy character" to "DND character" and creating a much narrower scope for the campaign by making the DND characters in yet another way superior to the FANTASY characters. tyhese may be considered aesthetic by some but to me they directly impact the usefulness of this system for the campaigns I run and specifically the ability to draw NEW players in. The dread dagger-mage (or alchemist fire mage) makes little sense to me as a goal.

In terms of mechanics, the designer-dr simply seems to fail to produce results, barring campaign specific oddities like making silver weapons harder to come by than magic ones, and is inconsistent since all non-weapon forms of magic bypass dr totally. I agree a change needed to be made, but i feel the specific change is bad, and that reducing the blocking numbers and raising or lowering case-by-case the bypass magic numbers would accomplish more good.

In terms of mechanics the haste thing is silly. It gives a very limited action type which only favors a few types of recipients and the one's who can cast it are not among them. An MEA haste instead would favor everyone relatively evenly. i agree whole heartedly that a change needed to be made, since the balances did not work well, but think the specific change is as bad.

Reasons for these have alread been detailed.

if people read these and come away with...

"he's just a combat monster" or
"he is just saying 3.5e sucks" or
"he is wearing red lacey underwear"...

then i cannot do a darn thing to help them understand better.

this reeks of a classic case of "bash the messenger" and if by dismissing the people citing specific issues and specific impacts it makes it easier to deal with, Ok, whatever trips your trigger.

 

[WizarDru]

Reasons for these have alread been detailed.

if people read these and come away with...

"he's just a combat monster" or
"he is just saying 3.5e sucks" or
"he is wearing red lacey underwear"...

then i cannot do a darn thing to help them understand better.

this reeks of a classic case of "bash the messenger" and if by dismissing the people citing specific issues and specific impacts it makes it easier to deal with, Ok, whatever trips your trigger.

Well, despite the order in which they appear, my post was done before the one prior to it, where you sufficiently clarified your position. For the record, I don't recall saying those things, but I recognize that others have.

Concerning mechanics, we return to your aesthetics, which cannot be argued, because an opinion is a personal decision; versus a mechanical issue, which can be argued as to its relative validity. You think the new mechanics are flawed and silly, others disagree. Some think DR worked fine under the old system, others do not. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just pointing out that everyone should recognize that while you person 'A' has decided whether or not making haste give an extra attack versus Move Action (as MEA's no longer exist under 3.5) is a good idea, person 'B' has decided otherwise. Moreover, given the domino effect of some of the changes, it's all guesswork at this point, regardless. If a MEA is now a move-action, for example, the changes to Haste are impacted, and so are things like Quicker-than-the-Eye, and so on.

I realize you weren't dissing all of 3.5 above (note the smiley), but until the last two posts, you come across that way. I don't think it would have cost you much to mention that you liked certain aspects of the Pit Fiends example of the new stat block, at the same time you mentioned him in reference to DR, for example. Which is your perogrative, and as I said, a valid opinion. I just think you could have defused many detractors by making it clear with one sentence that you saw some merit in 3.5 somewhere, but not here. YMMV.

 

[Merlion]

Petrosian: I did not say that YOU were a combat monster and I'm sorry if I implied it. I said many of the people on the Haste/DR threads seem to be.
Yes, my comments were maybe a little out of thread. But to defend that let me say that for me, the rules and the roleplaying are actualy pretty closely intertwined...the rules are tools for roleplaying, and I feel ment to best represent things from fantasy. We all have our opnions of how thats best achieved.
You had said in a post somewhere that you were not going to use 3.5 in your campaign...given the overall severity of your comments I took that to mean you would not ever be using it...sorry for the overstatement/misunderstanding.
As to the rest well, yes I feel you have what I think of as an overly negative/cynical view of what players will and wont do. Yes I know your going to say the same of me for what i said about the posters on this thread...however I was talking specficaly about they who had evindenced powergamey behaviour not the DnD playing community as a whole. I also feel you respond a bit to harshly to people on some things some times. I'm not even going to mention the ones regarding me, but I remember posts where poster whom tend towards the liking 3.5 end of the spectrum mentioned that we should reserve judgement on the new rules till they actualy apear and you made rather scathing remarks about why they dont think that applies to the "for it" side as well as the "against it" side of the arguement. Those are the things I am commenting on

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I realize you weren't dissing all of 3.5 above (note the smiley), but until the last two posts, you come across that way.

Some part of me is pulling its hair out while another part of me is laughing out loud at this point. in one sentence you agree i wasn't doing what i was accused of but also say that it comes across that i was.

When offering specific and detailec riticisms and analysis of two very specific and precise items of 3.5e in threads specifically and precisely topiced about those individual changes is going to be taken by the pro-crowd as "coming across" as a general sweeping condemnation of 3.5e... then there is precious little frame of references for the discussion. if this is take into a sweeping "yu just think 3.5 sux" dismissal, then you grotesquely lessen the value of your own contributions to this discussion.

I don't think it would have cost you much to mention that you liked certain aspects of the Pit Fiends example of the new stat block, at the same time you mentioned him in reference to DR, for example.

First, that is grossly off topic.

Second, if i were to add to my already somwahat lengthy posts a cookie for every possible MISINTERPRETATION that could be made, i would never get a post done.

Which is your perogrative, and as I said, a valid opinion. I just think you could have defused many detractors by making it clear with one sentence that you saw some merit in 3.5 somewhere, but not here. YMMV.

Maybe i could sent a greeting card to every dnd player everywhere telling them that when i post specific examples for specific points in specific threads titled about those specific tpoics that i am not meaning to imply grotesquely grander sweeping opinions as a matter of course?

Would that be adequate to explain to every dnd player everwhere what you are covering?

Should i include a little prize?

BTW, should also every poster on any thread who says positive things about 3.5e ALSO post something negative about it?

or is this yet another case where those who detract, even if it is specifc and detailed detraction, are held to different standards?

Have you posted or emailed to every poster who said positive things about 3.5e without also providing the necessary required negativisms about their posting?

 

[Merlion]

Hmmm....and you acuse me of a "better-than-you" arrogance rant.
I just wish you'd stop being condesending and unpleasant to people...wether you think they deserve it or not