Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TiQuinn" data-source="post: 1156444" data-attributes="member: 4871">Thanks for posting the link to your essay, DCollins!As usual with 3.5 articles, there's stuff I agree and disagree with.  However, I think from a big picture standpoint, I'm pretty much thumbs down on 3.5 as well.  Most games that I've played in since its release have become a mish-mash of 3.0 and 3.5.  To that end, 3.5 seems pretty unnecessary since most DMs had their fair share of house rules to go along with 3.0.  For all the changes that folks liked in 3.5, there are quite a number of changes that they dislike.  The net result is practically zero, except that now a lot of people have bought new books.  Such is life, and no one is new to disappointment in this hobby.One thing that I don't care for is the money system change that you're looking for.  IMO, it's something that is going to change from campaign to campaign.  You'd like to see it because it adds a bit of realism.  Personally, I think ANY monetary and economic system is going to fall well short of the mark on realism.  I also think that it's something that individual DMs or campaign settings should address as opposed to the core rules.  The thing is, you mention unneccessary rule changes that do not add anything to the game, but I think this change in the money standard definitely falls into that category.With regard to spell changes, I agree with you that some of the changes make the spells very, very bland for the sake of game balance and standardization, particularly the "buff" spells like Bull's Strength.  However, others I feel needed to be changed in some way, though maybe not in the way that 3.5 ultimately does.  Hold Person in 3.0, for example, is a second level or third level spell that can effectively take someone completely out of the fight, or worse, can be used to automatically kill the person.  Should any spell at this level be allowed to do this?  I think it shouldn't.  Does this destroy the fantasy notion of a powerful wizard freezing an opponent in his tracks?  I don't think so.  I think it requires a more powerful version of the spell, possibly something around 5th or 6th level.  Same with Fly.  The powerful witch who soars across great distances and seemingly at will shouldn't be doing this with only a 3rd level spell.  The question I have is are you merely being nostalgic about some of these spells?  Hold Person has been a potent spell right from the get go, but that doesn't make it a good thing.  Just because it's been around a long time throughout all the editions doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at critically.  Of course, this carries over to a number of areas, and that's probably a whole nuther subject.As for the OGL/d20 issues that you raise, I agree for the most part.  Open gaming is no longer Wizards' concern and probably hasn't been since they've been owned by Hasbro.  The majority of publishers are using the d20 license.  Some are moving to the more broad OGL license, but without the d20 trademark, this can have an impact on their sales and viability.  In other words, a number of publishers are not going to remain in business.  As everything, there's good and bad in this.  There's a lot of junk out there, IMO.  A lot of people competing for the same dollar.  Some sort of consolidation is inevitable, and I'm not going to be sad to see some of these companies fall by the wayside.  On the other hand, I'll probably see some other companies that I really do like, also fall by the wayside.</blockquote>

Verification