WOTC: What were they thinking? (not a rant)

[Celtavian]

re

I'm glad I was right about the direction Andy took with the Ranger. I could see the class changed from a Fighter type to a sort of monk type character. I am sure he realizes how good it will be for multiclassing given how good the monk would be if they removed the multiclassing restriction.

It was good to read some of the insights behind the changes. I am especially intrigued concerning the change to how intelligent items are created. I must admit I never used the old system for creating intelligent items. I hope the new system truly does make intelligent items more attractive an option.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: re

I'm glad I was right about the direction Andy took with the Ranger. I could see the class changed from a Fighter type to a sort of monk type character. I am sure he realizes how good it will be for multiclassing given how good the monk would be if they removed the multiclassing restriction.

They already did: Oriental Adventures. One of the best D&D books WoTC put out, IMO -- right up there with Manual of the Planes.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: re

I'm glad I was right about the direction Andy took with the Ranger. I could see the class changed from a Fighter type to a sort of monk type character. I am sure he realizes how good it will be for multiclassing given how good the monk would be if they removed the multiclassing restriction.

They already did: Oriental Adventures. One of the best D&D books WoTC put out, IMO -- right up there with Manual of the Planes.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

They already did: Oriental Adventures. One of the best D&D books WoTC put out, IMO -- right up there with Manual of the Planes.

I have that book. We use the rules in OA for monks including multiclassing. It is a very well done book. We use quite of a few elements from it in our regular campaign.

 

[smetzger]

...and you'll find there is much less fussing with figures that are too big for their space entries.

So, because the ChainMail Ogres had bases too large for a 5x5 area we now have Ogres using 10x10. Not the best of reasons.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So, because the ChainMail Ogres had bases too large for a 5x5 area we now have Ogres using 10x10. Not the best of reasons.

That isn't the reason at all. It is because so many people were complaining about the fact that no one had any idea how you "flanked" a 20x60 creature. Plus, if, during combat, no creature had a facing, then how come you put a creaure on the board that showed a front and back.

All of it didn't make any sense, and I like square facings much better to avoid ALL the arguements I had with players about the "logic" of not having facing.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[Richards]

This is the part that irritates me the most about the 3.0 (and now apparently 3.5) Monster Manual:

Some of the illustrations weren't exactly what we wanted to show folks for 3rd Edition, and just didn't come far enough from the 2nd Edition look.

"Didn't come far enough from the 2nd Edition look?" Why change the way so many monsters look (carrion crawlers, displacer beasts, manticores, etc.) just to make them different from what's been done (and worked) before? It irritates me to no end.

I still use my 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual to show my players what the monsters they encounter really look like.

Johnathan

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I thought I was the only one who did stuff like that. I use the 1e book but same principle. My displacer beasts eat stuff to avoid having that look!

 

[reapersaurus]

Flexor and Richards- are you saying that the art in 1E and 2E's MM was better than 3E's?

 

[herald]

I'm glad that intellegent items got overhauled. I hated the system that they tried to bring over from 2e.

Now, are they treated like constructs, or can they be charmed? This is what I want to know.