Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samnell" data-source="post: 3868061" data-attributes="member: 130">A good 95% of what people criticize 3.5 for on these boards and elsewhere are problems I never see in my games, or see only in very small corner cases. This being the internet, they are of course blown way out of proportion. The main flaws I see aren't areas where a system is bad or wrong (like CR or EL) but where it could be more accurate than it is. These are fixer-ups, not fundamental issues. The only outstanding example I can think of is one that's almost never brought up here: the problem of increasing absolutes. It doesn't seem to come up much in the 4e marketing spiels either. SKR has an unfinished essay up on it.Christmas tree PCs and the like are not rules flaws. They're just preferences for otherwise than the default rules assumptions. No rule set will ever please all consumers. It's a play style and philosophical difference, not an obvious case of the rules being objectively faulty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samnell, post: 3868061, member: 130"] A good 95% of what people criticize 3.5 for on these boards and elsewhere are problems I never see in my games, or see only in very small corner cases. This being the internet, they are of course blown way out of proportion. The main flaws I see aren't areas where a system is bad or wrong (like CR or EL) but where it could be more accurate than it is. These are fixer-ups, not fundamental issues. The only outstanding example I can think of is one that's almost never brought up here: the problem of increasing absolutes. It doesn't seem to come up much in the 4e marketing spiels either. SKR has an unfinished essay up on it. Christmas tree PCs and the like are not rules flaws. They're just preferences for otherwise than the default rules assumptions. No rule set will ever please all consumers. It's a play style and philosophical difference, not an obvious case of the rules being objectively faulty. [/QUOTE]

Verification