Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1779314" data-attributes="member: 5122">At GenCon four years ago I ended up unknowingly discussing the spiked chain with Jonathan Tweet.&nbsp; (I was creating a Living Greyhawk character over my complimentary continental breakfast at my crowded hotel, and he asked to share my table.)&nbsp; When he saw what I was doing, he asked me what I thought of the 3E rules, and I told him, honestly, that they brought me back to D&amp;D, but that I did think there were some minor issues.&nbsp; One of the things I mentioned was the spiked chain.That's when he said, &quot;Yeah, I'm the one who put that in the game.&quot;&nbsp; I did a double-take and he identified himself (and then asked if Bruce Cordell could also sit with us).&nbsp; As we talked about it, my impression was definitely that he felt the spiked chain was too powerful, though he never came right out and said so.&nbsp; (He gave me a little friendly hassle because I was creating a semi-martial conjurer who weilded a greatsword.&nbsp; He said that after the spiked chain, the greatsword was the most powerful weapon in the game.)And this was before the 3.5 changes mentioned made the spiked chain just plain absurd.As for the original topic, I don't much care for the paladin's mount rules.&nbsp; Most of the other rules they changed, I also would have changed ... I just would have changed them better.&nbsp; For instance, the new ranger is a hundred times better than the old ... but it still has spells.&nbsp; For another instance, the buff's attribute spells needed their durations dramatically shortened ... but they should provide a +5 bonus (to give a tiny bit more utility to odd stats).&nbsp; For a third instance, the DR rules really do add a lot of flavor ... but they're thrown the pricing for magic weapons way outta whack.One thing I don't understand is why people have so much trouble with square facings.&nbsp; You can accept that a gnome fully controls a 5' square, but not that a warhorse can fully control a 10' square, or a dragon can fully control a 20' square?&nbsp; What's so wrong about that?Non-square creature-representation clearly implies facing rules.&nbsp; While for experienced gamers, that implication is easy to ignore (which, for 3E, we did), for inexperienced gamers it's just confusing.&nbsp; (Hell, there are players still who don't understand that D&amp;D doesn't have facing.)&nbsp; Square facings is just another combat abstraction ... and not even a major one.&nbsp; I just don't get the problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 1779314, member: 5122"] At GenCon four years ago I ended up unknowingly discussing the spiked chain with Jonathan Tweet. (I was creating a Living Greyhawk character over my complimentary continental breakfast at my crowded hotel, and he asked to share my table.) When he saw what I was doing, he asked me what I thought of the 3E rules, and I told him, honestly, that they brought me back to D&D, but that I did think there were some minor issues. One of the things I mentioned was the spiked chain. That's when he said, "Yeah, I'm the one who put that in the game." I did a double-take and he identified himself (and then asked if Bruce Cordell could also sit with us). As we talked about it, my impression was definitely that he felt the spiked chain was too powerful, though he never came right out and said so. (He gave me a little friendly hassle because I was creating a semi-martial conjurer who weilded a greatsword. He said that after the spiked chain, the greatsword was the most powerful weapon in the game.) And this was before the 3.5 changes mentioned made the spiked chain just plain absurd. As for the original topic, I don't much care for the paladin's mount rules. Most of the other rules they changed, I also would have changed ... I just would have changed them [i]better[/i]. For instance, the new ranger is a hundred times better than the old ... but it still has spells. For another instance, the [i]buff's attribute[/i] spells needed their durations dramatically shortened ... but they should provide a +5 bonus (to give a tiny bit more utility to odd stats). For a third instance, the DR rules really [i]do[/i] add a lot of flavor ... but they're thrown the pricing for magic weapons [i]way[/i] outta whack. One thing I don't understand is why people have so much trouble with square facings. You can accept that a gnome fully controls a 5' square, but not that a warhorse can fully control a 10' square, or a dragon can fully control a 20' square? What's so wrong about that? Non-square creature-representation clearly implies facing rules. While for experienced gamers, that implication is easy to ignore (which, for 3E, we did), for inexperienced gamers it's just confusing. (Hell, there are players [i]still[/i] who don't understand that D&D doesn't have facing.) Square facings is just another combat abstraction ... and not even a major one. I just don't get the problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification