Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 1157906" data-attributes="member: 7884">From my own personal observation, I think your essay largely misses the point.&nbsp; While 3.5E contains a large amount of material which many of us think is objectionable in one form or another, much of that material is a logical extension of the philosophy underlying 3E.The philosophy underlying D&amp;D 3E is to minimise the effect of Rule 0.&nbsp; I'll reiterate that in bold, varied slightly for emotional impact: The philosophy underlying 3E is to remove the DM from the game.&nbsp; Accordingly, game balance must be inherent in the ruleset, as the DM no longer plays the role of arbiter on all things.D&amp;D 3.5E is simply a logical extension of the philosophy underlying 3E.&nbsp; The majority of changes in 3.5E can rationalised as changes to ensure that the DM did not have to &quot;fix&quot; balance issues with the 3E ruleset.&nbsp; Changes to spells, changes to cover and concealment, changes to damage reduction, changes to magic item creation pricing, etc., are all examples of the drive towards &quot;rules that need no umpire to adjudicate&quot;.&nbsp; Again, remove the DM from the equation and have a ruleset which has an inherent balance.If the thesis of your essay was &quot;Why 3.5E is the last nail in the coffin of the quality Dungeon Master&quot;, I'd support it wholeheartedly.&nbsp; At the moment it's a series of examples of the above without bringing it together as a coherent whole.Cheers, Al'Kelhar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al'Kelhar, post: 1157906, member: 7884"] From my own personal observation, I think your essay largely misses the point. While 3.5E contains a large amount of material which many of us think is objectionable in one form or another, much of that material is a logical extension of the philosophy underlying 3E. The philosophy underlying D&D 3E is to minimise the effect of Rule 0. I'll reiterate that in bold, varied slightly for emotional impact: [B]The philosophy underlying 3E is to remove the DM from the game[/B]. Accordingly, game balance must be inherent in the ruleset, as the DM no longer plays the role of arbiter on all things. D&D 3.5E is simply a logical extension of the philosophy underlying 3E. The majority of changes in 3.5E can rationalised as changes to ensure that the DM did not have to "fix" balance issues with the 3E ruleset. Changes to spells, changes to cover and concealment, changes to damage reduction, changes to magic item creation pricing, etc., are all examples of the drive towards "rules that need no umpire to adjudicate". Again, remove the DM from the equation and have a ruleset which has an inherent balance. If the thesis of your essay was "Why 3.5E is the last nail in the coffin of the quality Dungeon Master", I'd support it wholeheartedly. At the moment it's a series of examples of the above without bringing it together as a coherent whole. Cheers, Al'Kelhar [/QUOTE]

Verification