AD&D E3.5...

[Mikorlias Zard]

What is it that (some) people have against the 3.5 rules? Tell me, please.

I'm intrigued.

Mikorlias Zard

[Derek R.]

I don't think its the new edition of 3.5 that people loathe so much as the fact that early into the lifetime of 3.0 did they decide to twink the rules just enough to make nothing compatable and it required to have a whole new set of Players Guide, Dm's Guide and Monsters Manuel. I spent alot of money on the Forgotten Realms series (and others. The 5 Prestige class books, Epic lvl Handbook, book of Vile Darkness...just to name a few) and now they are just an edition behind. The span between 2nd and 3rd was much more vast so it was sort of a financial wrench in the plans of some gamers. I think the new rules help, but I wonder if it was really necessary to make a whole new edition. Perhaps Wizards of the Coast wanted a bit more GP from its loyal fan base eh?

[Tempest Stormwraith]

not to mention the rules suck...

Cant stack keen and improved crit, damage reduction is pointless (for the most part), wizards cant do shit for dmg anymore, they STILL have shitty bards (yes, they have been improved, but not enough to be common place). just to name a few.

[Muffin Mage]

AD&D is dead, chief. It has been for almost three years now.

But, if you're talking about D&D 3.5, maybe we can work something out.

Quite frankly, I think that, if Wizards' gaming system was so great to begin with, it shouldn't need friggin constant upgrades. I am under the absolute conviction that there are other places to shovel your thrice-damned d20 system than into my hands. Give me THAC0 any day.

Which, to put it another way, would you rather have: Windows 96 or Solaris? 96 was so buggy that they had to hire Ridex to clean it out, and Solaris has this nifty "free source code" thing going down that lets users find bugs and point them out, thus eliminating the constant "Red Alert" level code holes. And Solaris works, someting that Windows 96 failed miserably at.

[Gramcrackered]

Money-money-money...moooooney...

I feel Wizards made 3.5 for money, pure and simple. I feel that the new books are hardly deserving of the price tags associated with completely replacing your core books. I feel that I shouldn't HAVE to adapt my old 3.0 information to 3.5. I feel that they have released a steady stream of "updated" information for 3.5 which is vastly nothing more than cut/pasted information from 3.0 books - something they promised not to do. I feel that it was all set up simply to milk as much money as possible, mainly because Monte Cook has said that they were planning to release an edition 3.5 a few years after 3.0, right from the beginning.
Sure, sure, some people say, "Well, they just want to make money right? What's wrong with that?"
I say, "Shouldn't it be about making quality games?"

[Derek R.]

Here Here!

[Strider]

Well, WotC did make some of the rukles in 3.0 better in 3.5. I think that they actually made the Attack of Opp. a much easier thing, and some of the other changes (like a larger Feats list) an asset.

Sadly, the changes they made are not worth a WHOLE NEW SERIES!
And that much, I agree: money trap.

I like 3.5 in most respects, I play 3.5 (except where I disagree [one major disagreement the Gnome having Bard as their preferred class]) and rather enjoy it.

But, I only bought the PHB, I'n not going to get the other ones, unless I get another crazy deal on it.

[Derek R.]

Sadly, I've been suckered into buying the new Dragonlance books since their all 3.5.

[Dante]

I was just thining...

3.0E is better than 3.5 E.

What does this imply for 4.0E?

[Mikorlias Zard]

Looks like the main argument is the "WOTC just want money and will do anything to get it out of us". THis is kinda valid I guess, but you only need to re-buy the 3 core rulebooks, updates for the other books are on the WOTC website itself. Although, I only started on D&D -after- the 3.5 edition came out, so I didn't suffer financially.

Anyway, you could always pay with fake money. :thief:

As for the inabilty to stack keen with improved critical etc, well this comes under a whole stack of twink-reducing stuff, which is good for balanced gameplay. If you want to play with an unbalanced character, then change the rules, rather than bend them.
Of course, :rmage: would disagree.
Damage reduction becoming less powered is, IMHO, a good thing, as by experience of E3.0 computer RPGs (well, Icewind Dale II), the rules for damage reduction are very annoying, especially at lower levels when you can't do much damage.
Wizards can do less damage, well, WOTC obviously thought they could do too much, and so brought it down. If you disagree, change it back.
Bards are NOT shitty. They may be of less practical use on an adventure, especially during combat, than other character types, but they're great to roleplay. In a dungeon based game, with hordes of evil monsters for the adventurers to fight and little dialogue, the bard is of little use. In a city based adventure, where there is little fighting but lots of dialogue, puzzle solving and uber-roleplay oppurtunities, the Bard truly comes into his/her own. Their greatest strongpoint, however, is in a single player game, with no party, just the DM and a player. Bards can cast spells, including healing spells, are good talkers, can use thief-like abilities and, given a decent CON score and Weapon Finesse in the Rapier, they can hold their own in the front line of combat too. No, I repeat NO, other character class possesses anything close to this kind of versatility. Admittedly, Gnomes having Bards as their favoured class is kinda odd, but I suppose it fits in with their prankster like nature. In the Narieth rules (Narieth is my campaign setting), all races have one class, and one 'sub-class' (specialist wizard, variant fighter class etc) as favoured class. Eg- Wizard and Fencer (Fighter variant from Dragon mag) for Elves, and Bard and Illusionist for Gnomes.

I think that's all, if there's anything else just post.

Mikorlias Zard

[Derek R.]

Its pretty frustrating to have to run to the site for updates..I mean. Who stays on the net all day...?.. *looks at all his posts* ...ok nevermind.

[Dante]

MZ - Once again you prove the point that there is *always* a place for a character, you just have to find it. However, most people tend to play party games, where specialists are more important, and in most one-on-one games, the guy has got it into his head to play some kind of super-fighter or super-warrior, so bards won't see much use.

But he is still useful, and like you said, especially in RP campaigns. Note that he will have the easiest time talking to anyone considering that he has Speak language as a class skill. Creatures on the other end might be pleased that the "puny gnome" sent to talk to them has bothered to learn their language.

They could be best as tour guide types, IMO. Keeps them out of really stressful situations and makes full use of his abilities.

[Thinkmeat]

As for the inabilty to stack keen with improved critical etc, well this comes under a whole stack of twink-reducing stuff, which is good for balanced gameplay.

It was full of good intentions, but it's not actually helpful. I'm convinced that the people who made 3.5 suck at D&D, or at the very least don't know diddly shit. For every good thing (keen and imp crit not stacking), you have six bad things (searing ray--way too powerful). Additionally, they nerfed a lot of things that didn't need to be nerfed.

Ex: Wizard spells.

Haste should not be viewed as a 3rd level wizards spell. It is an ability that all characters eventually get--wizards have a class ability to get it for free (instead of buying the 8k boots). Shield is not a 1st level wizard spell, it is a wizard class ability that lets their AC remain in the 'stay alive' level.

On top of that, by changing haste, they have effectively halved spellcaster damage. If it was remotely close to balanced before, how can it be anything but terrible now? Then there's handedness, 2 for 1 powerattack, etc etc etc. 3.5 is D&D for dummies by dummies, IMNSHO.

"You're coming too close" - No Use For A Name (Coming Too Close)

[Kaldar]

Well, all I have to say is Wizards never did some kind of half-assed thing like this before. Notice how there's no 1.5 or 2.5 version of D&D. I've looked over 3.5, there's some good parts to it and some bad. Honestly, though, it's just not worth the money.

And anything that nerfs wizard spells should not be allowed to live. Wizards need more defensive spells as it is, killing their one advantage is like taking the teeth away from a shark. What the hell is the point after that?

[Neverwhere]

lets put it this way:

keen = magical enchantment
improved critical = physical improvement that only your char gets through years of work

why cant someone who is physically improved also make use of a magically enhanced weapon? that makes no sense

[Muffin Mage]

But, ruining mages gives us psions a big advantage. :)

In general, though, I'd say that 3.5 can rot in the area of the 7th level of Hell where flatterers go. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go read the Divine Comedy.

By the way, Wizards didn't create D&D, TSR did. TSR had some slight glimmer as to how an RPG should be made. When Wizards bought TSR, they sold the rights to the D&D system to Kenzerco, creators of the Knights of the Dinner Table comic, and gave us the tripe known as the d20 system.

[Gramcrackered]

Wasn't Wizards later bought by Hasbro? I blame them.

[Derek R.]

I know they have something to do with one anouther.

[VeritasHertz]

Bah I have no qualms with 3.5 and I started with the original, back when there were Mystics and elves had their own spells! I think that 3.5 helped the ranger and the bard, two very lacking classes in 3.0 (why would a 3.0 character get more than one level of ranger?). Also The reasons behind nerfing haste was that there was no way you wouldn't get it. If you had a choice you would take 3.0 haste over timestop (I know I would) and at that point you just need to stop and rethink your decision making. As for DR it actually made alignment weapons worth getting.

And yes there was a 2.5 if you don't remember, it sucked, as did ThAC0 "I have an idea we'll make a gaming system based entirely on adding, except for that who basis for attacking your enemy thing, we'll f*#! with them there".

[Derek R.]

They have a Conversion book, simple little paperback thing, that tells you what few things have changed. Instead of making a whole new set of corebooks, why not just sell that Conversion info? For us poor folk, its just a pain...not to mention something fun to whine about.

[Demon with a Glass Hand]

Meh. I stopped trusting Wizards of the Coast ever since Richard Garfield helped them create a near monopoly on the gaming industry.

Remember when Garfield realeased that patent on card games stating that if a card game released by another company contained game mechanics devised by Magic: the Gathering that said company owed them hefty royalties.

Y'know, game mechanics like:
Drawing a card from a deck
Playing with cards face up on a table/face down on a table
Playing with a 'hand' of cards
Rotating cards any amount of degrees as a game mechanic
Having a deck of cards
etc etc etc

So when the tiny companies decided they didn't want to have to pay royalties to Big Bad WOTC, then the only option to keep their game alive was to merge with the damb thing. That's why Rage was ruined, that's why L5R was ruined ...

Point: WOTC is El Diablo o' Denero. Money grubbing bastards! So when I hear that someone broke a copyright law by downloading anything made by them off the internet, really I'm not sorry.

Not that I condone that kind of thing, but if WOTC was suddenly taken over by a Japanese Megacorporation and all the CEOs were lined up and executed one by one, I wouldn't really care.

[Ranson]

This sort of thing is why I try to support smaller gaming companies, like Cheapass games (founded by a former WotC employee, I might add), or 9th level games (makers of the wonderful Kobolds ate my Baby! series and Ninja Burger the RPG)

I don't fault WotC for trying to "fix" things or make money; such is the way of the world. I do blame them for "fixing" things that don't need it and charging full price for it. I was one of those eager types that managed to get the $20 editions of the core rulebooks, and there's no way I'm shelling out $30-$35 for an "update". You want more balance? Playtest and listen to your customers for 5-10 years, then fix what needs fixing. Don't just rush out an attempt at de-twinkification. Changes like 3.5 need to be handled on the website or in magazines (anyone at WotC remember the word "errata"?). They are neither good enough nor volumnous enough to require a new set of books. All these little things are probably being handled by GM house rules, anyway.

For all the free content they've given away, I probably would've paid something. This crap isn't worth the money.

Of course, all this will be corrected in version 3.75b.

[Muffin Mage]

We need to band together, before WotC goes down the dark path of Windows. A new version every year, and you need to shell out $90 for each new version, and they don't bother to fix the bugs, so you've got to get the updates online every other week...

[Demon with a Glass Hand]

I agree. In fact, I know a some CEOs from a couple Japanese Megacorporations. I'll make a couple of calls ...

[Chaotic Sorcerer]

I don't care what you all think, DnD 3.5 is great.

[Demon with a Glass Hand]

Good point.

I take back all the terrible things I've said about WOTC and AD&D 3.5.