Time to Reflect on 3.5 Disappointments

[Tsyr]

I agree that a lot of people agree with you. But your claims presume that WotC agrees with you. You called it a "pass off" as if this were accepted fact. That is FAR from true. When you make a statment that assumes an opinion to be generally accepted as fact, and that opinion is NOT generally accepted as fact, then your assumptions are faulty, and therefore your conclusions are faulty.

You're making a faulty assumption yourself, that being that what WotC thinks about it's own product changes the fundamental reality of what it is. If I get this wild idea that magnets will make you immortal and start selling plastic rings with a magnet in them for 20 dollars a pop, even if I believe it, doesn't change the fundamental fact that i'm selling people a piece of plastic and a tiny magnet that wont add an hour to their life.

So?

Just pointing out that you don't have dislike 3.5 to share my view.


So you are saying that they are lying simply to support their income?.[/QUOTE]


Which, of course, is impossible. But no, I'm not. I'm saying that they would hope you would buy the product. This isn't lying. I'm pretty darn sure they do hope the product sells.

My point, that obviosuly went over your head,

Oh yes. The age old "You obviously didn't understand me" tactic.

was that I believe that the people who developed 3.5 think it is good on its own merits.

And my point, which, to borrow your attitude, obviously went over your head, is that I don't CARE if they think it's worthwhile or not. That's for me to decide, not them.

The anti-corpation, anti-profit knee-jerks continue to reject this as even conceivable.

I am neither. I am all for corporations, hate laws that restrict them, and think Microsoft is doing a fine and dandy job, thank you very much. I acknowledge the profit-oriented nature of buisnesses as as a fundamental building block of the capitalist system, a system which I would put my life on the line to defend.

I don't think that means I have to blindly accept every attempt by corporations to profit though. I'll still call a spade a spade, thank you very much.

As you have just done again by demading that profit is the only true basis of agreeing with me.

I, sir, have done no such thing.

This has been disputed. You, conviently disregard the replies.

No, I did the only thing anyone can do when two sides of an arguement are presented but I am not privy to the true details: I chose the one that feels more likely to me. As did you. We just happened to choose two different views.

Again, you simply choose to believe what you want. That is fine. But then you go around and start slamming people on the presumption that you opinion stands for fact.

I do not assume my opinion stands for fact. I do feel I am entitled to express my opinion however, not have to bow to the "3.5 was a Good Thing (TM)" crowd. Now was I slamming anyone. WotC, maybe, a little, but WotC isn't a person. And in any event, as I have said, I understand and accept what WotC was doing. I just don't have to like it.

Nope. You made one demonstrably wrong statement.

Oh? Which one? That I assume there were profit-oriented reasons behind 3.5? That's not demonstrably wrong.

You insist that other people motives MUST be driven by your views.

I have insisted no such thing, and this is about the third time you have tried to tell me what I'm saying. I'd thank you to stop doing that. Everything in my posts is IMO, as I see it, from the information I have.

In order for them to be "passing off" 3.5, then they MUST agree with you. So when you make that statement as a fact, you wrongly deny the possibilty that they honestly disagree with you.

No I don't. If some of the writers feel, honesty, that 3.5 was a great thing... well, I disagree, but they can have that view.

If you see hypocrisy then you don't get the difference.

Once again with the "you must not understand. I'll make this plain: You were complaining about people speaking with a tone of closed opinion. You were doing the same thing when you keep going off, "Youre wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong".

I never criticized your opinion. I criticized your demand that other people's actions assume they agree with your opinion.

For once I'll agree that I don't understand you. I've tried twice now to parse this sentance, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

OK, fine. Your opinion is a piece of the market. If the overall market agreed with you, the 3.5 would have flopped. It has not.

Being delicate about this, "the overall market" is basicly the same as "the public at large"... And these are the same people that keep McDonalds and crappy sequal movies profitable.

I object to terms like "pass off" and "money grab". These reek of typical anti free market sour grapes attacks.

Now you are the person who is demonstrably wrong. I am very much pro-capitalism and pro-freemarket.

Nobody spanked you.
It was volunatary.

Since I have not spent one red cent in on 3.5 and don't plan to, It wasn't even that.

 

[Endur]

Different campaigns are different. As a GM, I'm not going to use any of the vile feats, damage, templates, or new demons and devils.

I will use the various named minions/followers in the Demon Lord descriptions.

And if the players want to fight a Demon Lord, they can (although I expect the players to avoid final battle).

Really? To me the Demon Lords were one of the least useful things. I mean I like that they were described, and the descriptions of their followers/minions were okay. But I'm probably never going to actually use them. I will use the prestige classes devoted to them, or the vile feats, or vile damage, or the templates, or the new demons and devils.

Do people actually go off and fight Graz'zt? By the time you get there we're generally bored with the campaign and ready to go kill orcs again.

 

[Wycen]

Well since I'm not using 3.5, except as a player in one game, I won't be getting Dragon any time soon. Sounds like you already made up your mind and are hoping somebody here can change it for you. Don't worry about it, now you'll have that extra money to spend on other game material.

 

[Pants]

Being delicate about this, "the overall market" is basicly the same as "the public at large"... And these are the same people that keep McDonalds and crappy sequal movies profitable.

HEY, McDonald's makes some damn tasty fries so... um well... go BK!

 

[Mercule]

Do people actually go off and fight Graz'zt? By the time you get there we're generally bored with the campaign and ready to go kill orcs again.

Well, not Graz'zt, but I have used Demogorgon in my game a couple of times. It's never been a pleasant experience for the PCs, though. In general, I just like to have the option of letting the campaign climax there. 80%+ of the time, things end well before the characters get to that power level, though. Still doesn't mean the option should be there.

In my upcoming campaign (which is, to an extent, intended to close the door on my 20 year old homebrew setting) I fully intend to allow the PCs to advance to the 30th to 40th level range and take on a low-end deity. I'll be using ELH, DDG, and BoVD (and, probably BoED) as they approach the campaign resolution.

I think it says quite a bit about 3E that I'm willing to take the characters that far, even more that I'm looking forward to it. In running previous editions, characters were considered "high level" at about 7th or 8th level. Very few reached that high and it was usually a good time to retire. Even in 2E, I could have used the demi-human level limits in the 1E PH (anyone else still want to say "APH"?), and it would have mattered very little.

Previous editions, IMHO, really didn't scale well. 3E actually seems to have something to offer me above 10th level. I think 3.5 improves slightly even on this. Not sure that I would have spent $90 on the whole set (managed to get mine for $12 and change), but if I were to start from scratch, I'd rather have 3.5 than 3.0. I'd even choose 3.5 at $90 than 3.0 at $60 (the original release price).

 

[Desdichado]

Interestingly enough, I don't like how d20 scales at high level, so I still consider high level to be 8th or so.

 

[maddman75]

See, I really don't see that scaling. I mean it's better than it was, but after 14th-15th it starts getting strained. So much is save-or-die, and I find myself metagaming excuses not to lead off every big fight by disintegrating the wizard. The sheer volume of stuff the system assumes and the annoying magic item shuffle bothers me as well. The fights earlier tend to be drama filled, with many occasions where the PCs just barely pull it out. At high levels it's over quick and deadly one way or another.

 

[Arnwyn]

The 3.5 revisions weren't done for US, the people who already had 3.0. Sure, Wizards is more than happy if we'll buy the rulebooks, but they provided the SRD explicitly so we didn't have to. The revisions were done so that when NEW people buy the rulebooks, they get a better game. Better presentation, better rules, better tea bag, better tea.

I'll steer clear of the 3.0/3.5 debate, but I'll note one thing:

I give the above statement a big, hearty "BALONEY". WotC knows quite well the general consumer behavior of its market.

 

[Mercule]

Interestingly enough, I don't like how d20 scales at high level, so I still consider high level to be 8th or so.

I guess part of it is that my tastes have changed a bit. I'd still never play earlier versions at higher than "name" level, but it doesn't bother me with 3E.

My biggest fear is that epic levels will feel like Anime, which I loathe. Gilgamesh, Heracles, or Thor are fine. Just spare me from bad art, lame characters, and lacking plotlines.

 

[maddman75]

Heh - maybe I should start reading your Story Hour Joshua. We seem to agree on a great deal .