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

[Shard O'Glase]

Yikes! They didn't like landing blows in combat? Seriously, Weapon Finesse on its own makes 3e rogues so much better than their 2e "thief" counterparts.

Was there a reason why they didn't take the feat?

Maybe they were primarily bow users. The rogue in my party didn't take it because he enters mellee combat so rarely it would be dumb to take.

 

[Merlion]

Make the rules work first, then worry about roleplaying, storyline, concept, ect.

I have said before, either here or the DR thread, that a good DM with a good group can make up for bad rules and still have fun. That isn't why the rules are there. The rules attempt keep characters in line with each other and the world in line with the characters. Once that matter is ballance, you decided what you want for flavor. If you don't balance the rules first, it only takes a small disscussion about an overpowered PC or a useless abiltiy before a game falls to ruin.

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?

 

[LokiDR]

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?

This is post 666 for me, so I feel like being evil.

Yes, I would fault them for putting style above substance. 2e was ripe with that, and it lead to problems like the specialty clerics. It was a great idea, it added style, and there was never a reason not to play a specialty priest.

A campaigns style is determined by the DM and the players. The rules should not be what enforces that style, that is the DM's job. Maybe I like a world where all the myth you heard as a kid is useless. Teach those damn players from metagaming Who are you or the rules to tell me that is bad idea?

[/evil] I know where you are comming from, and I agree that matching the myth would be nice. If you can do it and not hurt rules balance, I am in favor of it. But remember, even small changes can disrupt balance. The DR and haste changes aren't small. In other words, I hope they don't rush headlong into the revision without thinking it through.

 

[Merlion]

Like I said the DR thing very well might should have been an alternate rule. Although I really, really dont think its going to be as big a deal as most here say...I dont think theres going to be that many substances, and I think many many DR creatures will still have "standard" DR...in other words bypassed by an +X magic weapon. Also some of the creatures(fiends for instance) already essentialy have the same thing in the form of the regeneration. as it stands NOW you need a holy weapon to kill a bit fiend via damage. AND one of the catagories(Fey) that is going to have "nonstandard" DR is one that PCs rarely if ever actualy fight. Still yes it is a bit bigger change than they gave us the impression they would be making. I like it personaly. And I dont think it will be as big a deal as many say.
I also agree with the Haste change. thats the way it was in all previous editions of the game, and a 9th level wizard casting 3 spells a round is a tad much. And yes no insult meant but I think many of the people who are really broken up about it are people who play this game as though it was a combat game, not a form of interactive storytelling.
And above all...we still havent seen the full revisions.
And, a note to Petrosion should he see this: Yes, that goes for both sides of the arguement. However, those of us who feel the revisions probably will be good DO have a basis for it even tho we havent seen it yet...(or at least I do). When 3e was coming out, many said they hated it before they saw it. I said I loved it. and that proved about 90% true when it came out. and I think many who said they hated it changed there minds tho I have no empirical proof of this. And no the fact that I love 3e doesnt conflict with the fact that I like the revisions because yes it has some glaring problems(the ranger for instance.)

 

[Merlion]

And Lokidor I thank you for the last part of that message its nice to know someone else is thinking about thease things.
Your totaly right about the 2e priests I LOVED them but they were totaly broken.
Its a very fine line the designers walk.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

And above all...we still havent seen the full revisions.
And, a note to Petrosion should he see this: Yes, that goes for both sides of the arguement. However, those of us who feel the revisions probably will be good DO have a basis for it even tho we havent seen it yet...(or at least I do). When 3e was coming out, many said they hated it before they saw it. I said I loved it. and that proved about 90% true when it came out. and I think many who said they hated it changed there minds tho I have no empirical proof of this. And no the fact that I love 3e doesnt conflict with the fact that I like the revisions because yes it has some glaring problems(the ranger for instance.)

When 3e was coming out many of us had specific complaints beyond the 3e sucks crowd. I was mostly for 3e but certain rules I thought were a bad idea. Wierdly enough I still think they are a bad idea. I think these situations fall more along the lines of my past 3e experiences than yours. Why? Well because we aren't saying 3.5 suxxxs. We are saying these specific rules I can see having problems with. Especially considering this is a revision and not a huge change like 2e to 3e we have a much better chance at analyzing the possible rules problems, and coming to a somewhat informed opinion.

The dR change I can se problems with.(golfbag etc we have enough pages on it) Haste I think most people beleive a change was needed. Many of us though think this change isn't a good one. It will be truning a too good spell into a too weak spell which isn't a good fix IMO. It is amrginally like the 2e one except it doesn't double your attack rate, and it only effect one eprosn istead of one person per level, and it doesn't age you. The 2e version was signifigantly more powerful but it had a lame resticiton that made it a spell that was never cast.(unless you had lots of age cure potions)

 

[Merlion]

As to haste: We dont know all those things for sure obviously again. And it looks somewhat likely that it will double speed.
I've already posted my views on both issues.
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.
I agree its a different situation...but still similiar. As far as all that goes its largely a general attitude thing...glass half empty/full kind of deal.
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.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I am never a big fan of the 3.5 3e etc suxxs crowd. But I was somewhat woried myself when the first anouncements were things I did not agree with. I like some of the more recent anouncements like the martial weapon prof feat now being a group of weapon types, the rogue mods where we think a rogue wil be able to inherently sense trapsby jsut walking by etc. It's way too early for anyone to eb ale to say 3.5 is good or bad in total.(unless they are playtesters i which case NDA watch out) Still when specific complaints do occur I hope for their sake people voice them it may have an effect on the final product.(similarly people who like the rule should say YAH, because it may keep them form changing it for the complainers)

Never mind me i'm just babling, bored here at work.

 

[Merlion]

I sympathize
Me, I'm an intensly positive person and I always try to make the best of things...and I do tend to like new stuff that comes out. as you've probably gathered I am big on heavy roleplay/storyline also..which is the one reason why deep down I like the new DR despite possible complications. For me, its great. It might not have been the best idea ever to put into the core, but I think there trying to do a good thing. and as mentioned previously I dont really believe its going to be as big a deal as some say.
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.

 

[LokiDR]

And Lokidor I thank you for the last part of that message its nice to know someone else is thinking about thease things.
Your totaly right about the 2e priests I LOVED them but they were totaly broken.
Its a very fine line the designers walk.

Hey, you aren't the only one to consider style. I just don't want any more specialty priests.

And it is Loki DR, by the way