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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 1159101" data-attributes="member: 2182">I really agree with dcollins's essay.  IMHO, 3.5e has really hurt D&D.  First and foremost, a new revision wasn't needed.  I don't recall hearing anyone whining how 3e really sucked and needed to be fixed.  Whatever problems there were, they could have fixed by simple DM rulings. (E.g. The problems with harm could have easily been fixed with the DM ruling a reflex save was necessary.)Far from fixing what needed to be fixed, the authors of 3.5e tinkered with the whole rule set, and introduced more problems than they solved.  Why the new weapon size rules?  No one ever complained about the old ones!  The new ones worked fine, but the new ones introduce an extra level of complexity.  Also the authors took it upon themselves to not only fix harm, haste, and heal, but to completely redo NEARLY THE ENTIRE spell list.  Many spells in 3.5e have been reduced to the point of being nearly useless.Moreover, hellbent on revising D&D, the authors paid little heed to "backward compatibility".  Although, superficially similar to 3e, I have found that 3.5e conversion often requires quite a bit of work.  Some conversion is relatively easy-use the 3.5e monster instead of the 3e monster.  However, many of the classes are significantly different.  Your high level ranger is going to have to be rebuilt from ground up.  Likewise, a wizard or sorcerer is probably going to have to redo his spell list.Finally, 3.5e has fractured the D&D community.  The situation is similar to the waning days of 2e with the advent of the Player's Option books.  Players would use a hodgepodge of various rule sets, and no two groups ever played the same game.Just my 2cp.</blockquote>

Verification