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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="maddman75" data-source="post: 1176102" data-attributes="member: 2673">For my position, there is no contradiction.  What I was interested in was 5-10 pages worth of changes, incorporation of the errata, maybe a couple new pieces of art.  They did those, certainly.  But they also threw in a ton of seemingly random changes.  Every other spell had it's area of effect or range changed.  It will never, ever, ever matter to me that stinking cloud now has a 30' radius instead of a 20' radius, or whatever.  The only thing it will achieve is making the versions less compatible and more confusing.  The weapon size changes are another example, fixing something that isn't broken.  Yes, the rules are more logical and 'realistic'.  But the old ones weren't causing any problems.At the same time, it felt like the same game.  It wasn't like going from 2e to 3e, where you were getting something NEW.  You were getting the same old 3e, except the details were changed seemingly to make things as incompatible as possible.  Like renaming skills for instance.  I don't care that Pick Pockets is called Sleight of Hand.  It will never mean anything except confusion when converting my several hundred dollars of d20 books to the new version.And no, WotC thugs are not going to come to my door and take my old books.  But any new books will have the new incompatible rules.  Modules especially will suffer, as entire spell lists will need to be redone.  Loading up with haste and 2nd level stat buffers isn't exactly a good idea in 3.5.Personally I hope to see more companies go OGL and print under the 3.0 rules.  Or even dual stat.  I believe Monte said he will do this where possible.  But it likely won't happen much.  Heck, personally there's no way I'd publish under the d20 STL now, but that's a whole other rant.</blockquote>

Verification