The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

I can guarantee that if someone comes to your house because you're not implementing the changes to 3.5, it WON'T be Skip, Gary or I.

Unfortunately, the one I'm worried about isn't on your list.

 

[Kichwas]

Getting a book where Mialee doesn't look like a rat that stuck her tail in a wall socket alone is almost enough reason to buy the new books for me.

My only complaint is that I know I won't be able to come up with $90 spare all at once...

Not since I got dot.busted out of the economy...

I'm just worried there won't be enough changes, or thatthe one or two key things I'm focused on won't be addressed (number one on my list: sorcerers and Cha based skills, number two: Druid weapons, number three: Rangers and two-weapon fighting [which I'd almost bet won't get the treatment I desire]).

 

[Vocenoctum]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

I think too many people are seeing the Revised edition as WotC scrapping everything and doing a complete redo. It's not. That would entail a new edition. These are just changes designed to enhance clarity and fix a few problems. That's it. They are not deliberately trying to invalidate everything you have bought in the past.

It's amusing, but I never see people screaming about "Wizards ruined my game's with their erratta!"

I mean, if you liked the pre-erratta weapons from Sword & Fist, you don't have to use the post erratta versions...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

It's amusing, but I never see people screaming about "Wizards ruined my game's with their erratta!"

I mean, if you liked the pre-erratta weapons from Sword & Fist, you don't have to use the post erratta versions...

Actually, I have read such complaints...

Oh, wait...

Do Players whining about their DMs using errata really count?

 

[Guilt Puppy]

First off: Rule 0 is all-mighty, all-powerful, all-everything. Rule 0 can beat Elminster. If you don't want to buy a d20, Rule 0 says you don't need it. Rule 0 says you can get a duck and hit it and if you like the noise you succeed, if you don't you fail (bonuses are how many times you can hit the duck; penalties means the duck hits you.)

In other words: It doesn't matter whether or not you like the new rules, because no one's forcing you to use them.

Now... The one potential problem I can see is that if you don't like the rules, you have to convert a certain amount of new stuff (which, incidentally, is totally dependent on whether or not you LIKE that new stuff) back to 3E. That can be a pain, it increases prep time a little. Or, if there's old stuff you like, but you like 3.5e as a system, same problem but backwards (but why are you complaining about the new system if you like it?)

In short: If you buy a new supplement it will take you more time to implement it into your game. It takes time to implement it into your game already, but more, you know. And that's not entirely fun.

This will happen with every revision. Be happy it's in small steps: That means that if you want to keep up, you can do so without any staggering transitions, and if you don't want to, it'll be a while until new supplements are no longer useful to you. (Believe it or not, "RPG technology" does evolve, and it can become obsolete. Why wasn't 2e made like 3e in the first place? Consumers thought about the game differently, and further, they thought about things differently... The task resolution scheme of the d20 system is essentially an object-oriented programming environment: It is modular, hierarchical, and I have no doubt this is more than just coincidentally similar to desktop computing systems... but this is a major tangent, and possibly worth a thread of its own, but nah, never mind )