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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sithramir" data-source="post: 978721" data-attributes="member: 12183">My question is this: Do any of you guys who complain and say how you are already going to have house rules for all these different things actually plan to at least play test the game as its given?  I've noticed a lot of people who compare 3.5 to 3.0 too much and see changes that "weaken" things as bad. Don't you guys think that maybe it all is more balanced and thats why the did it?    So do any of you guys who feel so many things are "nerfed" actually try it for a while first? I have a strange feeling most of you WON"T yet will still complain that its not right. I just feel that this is a big show of ignorance if you don' t give it a month of two of trying it before shooing it out the door.    For every arguement against how something has been "nerfed" i've seen another arguement of new ways that it can be better than before. For exampe, the druid wild shape losing the ability of scent as a dog. Makes no sense to me either, however, keeping a lot of magical items working is a huge bonus a HUGE bonus. Oh my dog has 30 ac instead of 14 or what not. Things like this are very controversial because its power vs flavor vs people who abused what should be there for flavor(the idea of a dog with scent).    I'm not trying to take a side on that I just wondered if people will actually play as is to see if it works. I know I hated 3.0 at first cause I was hardcore 2e but now I loved the balance and changes. Perhaps people are a bit hasty?</blockquote>

Verification