However, the experiment failed. The player base saw 3.5 as basically a new edition, but not sweeping enough for a new edition, and felt that WotC was gouging them, forcing them to buy new books and trashing their existing collections. I think the lesson WotC learned is that you can't make major changes to an edition's rules, only add new things and tinker around the edges.
What "new ideas" do you think they're testing out now? So far I haven't seen anything creative or inspirational in the upcoming new edition materials. Admittedly I'm inclined to dislike it.I definitely think that people claiming 3.5 was just some sort of a cash grab are forgetting just how much WotC was really testing out new ideas at the time (and frankly, still is). It's important to remember that how much status and market share D&D lost in the late 90s. There was no one who "knew" how the market would handle a rules revision at the time. People had guesses and hopes, but it's not like WotC was certain how it would go. I mean, just look at the 4e release if you need proof that WotC couldn't be sure of what was going to happen with some of the changes they were making to D&D just a little bit later.
And of top of that, I will say that the rules definitely benefited from the 3.5 change. I don't know if you could say that the rules 100% "needed" the 3.5 revision. But I do think 3.5 was A Good Thing for D&D in general.
What "new ideas" do you think they're testing out now? So far I haven't seen anything creative or inspirational in the upcoming new edition materials. Admittedly I'm inclined to dislike it.
Probably, though I never minded it; I've always loved me some Hong Kong action films.There may have been a culture aspect to monk-hate as well, since the class never met the "trappings of medieval Europe" assumed standard.
You said they were still being new and creative, now. I was responding to you.Well, the most obvious thing they're testing out now is new ways to deal with the concept of species/race. I would say that there's also experimenting with moving more mechanics towards templates instead of individual cases.
But I don't see how any of this relates to 3.5. If you want to discuss OneD&D there's an entire forum for it. No need to hijack this thread.
Well, they're no worse armored than barbarians in WotC 5e as far as AC, but they have their insane damage resistance and pegged hit points to protect them too.Probably, though I never minded it; I've always loved me some Hong Kong action films.
My problem with the Monk started when I played one and realized "wow, Monks really suck". It's a class that sure looks cool, but ever iteration has had some problems (I'd say my best experience was with Pathfinder 1e's Unchained Monk), and it can't escape the simple problem that D&D is a game where warriors fight with weapons and wear armor; and the Monk is built to use fists or wacky weapons and a strange inability to wear even the lightest of armor while doing so.
Except at low levels, when the Barbarian can totally wear Medium armor until they get higher AC naturally.Well, they're no worse armored than barbarians in WotC 5e as far as AC, but they have their insane damage resistance and pegged hit points to protect them too.