Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dargoth 07-11-03, 12:23 AM	http://www.montecook.com/review.html He says quite a few interesting things......
Thrask the Gnoll 07-11-03, 02:28 AM	Food for thought, certainly. Shouldn't this be in another forum, though?
Dargoth 07-11-03, 02:35 AM	Originally posted by Thrask the Gnoll Shouldn't this be in another forum, though? Only if the Forgotten Relams isnt going to use 3.5
Faeryl Zauvirr 07-11-03, 06:05 AM	I don't want to sound like I am bragging but as soon as I saw the 3.5 banner on the Wotc website I knew it was a money raising event. Wotc; don't think your players are stupid. Many of us are very intellegent. I may not not be the most intellectually gifted person in the world but it is as clear as day that 3.5 is a marketing event. Not only huge sales, but updates will be needed. Updates will mean more publications, and more publications mean more money. Where will we go from there? The envitable '4.65' edition? I am not accusing anybody of anything when i say this but it must be asked. Did Wotc design the game with minor flaws? Ones that would really affect sales too badly, but are intended to be fixed in the newer edition. You say you playtested for thousands hours afterward. I have never played more then one hundred hours of 3rd Dnd, but I can tell that the ranger class needs improvement. I am not saying Wotc is killing Dnd, but that they should stop taking the public don't take for granted. Advertising that change is comming for the new DnD and then state that two people could play for hours without knowing the difference in rules doesn't sit well with me...
Gelugon 07-11-03, 08:50 AM	Well Wizards, you got my 60 bucks once, then another 40 for FR, and 20 for Monsters of Faerun, and an extra 30 for the MM2. Why would I want to pay an extra 90 clams for a "revision that isn't a revision" and throw all I already had to relearn right out the window? Well, you're NOT getting any more out of me! Now, lots and lots of people, ignorant of the mistake they are about to cash in on, are going "ooh look at the pretty new D&D books". Boy are they in for a fun trip! No playtesting credits? Maybe that's because nobody playtested it. Of course, not that many would... Heh, D&D v7.75b in 2027. There will be a new version for every tiny thing some clown in R&D wants done differently.
pandionpdg 07-11-03, 11:21 AM	You all better be careful. Wizards doesn't like people trashing their products on their boards. I have a feeling that this thread will be censored like all other threads before that had something negative to say about WotC.
Purple Dragon Knight 07-11-03, 11:44 AM	You all know that the Realms are going 3.5, so as far as the Realms are concerned, 3.5 it is. If you have all the 3.0 Core, builder and FR books, and you are happy with them, nothing forces you to buy anything else. The 3.5 changes will be online on the SRD, so if you want to understand things like Survival mentioned in RoF or UE, it's just a click away... same thing for the new barbarian and the new ranger. The only thing you won't find online is stuff like the Archmage or Red Wizard PrCs, and other stuff that were once published in non-Core books (that's what I've been explained anyhow). So if you own the FR books, you're not missing out on anything. So as far as the FR products are concerned, sure, they will be 3.5... however you will have the online tools available to understand them.
Cthulhu 07-11-03, 12:15 PM	I will admit that Cookes review has caused me to think twice about buying the revision. In the end its not really worth the 100.00 or more I am going to have to spend on it (with supplements) and the money its going to cost me retroactivly for the 3e supplements I already bought (within the last few months!). But I am in the unhappy position of being involved with Living Greyhawk and that means up to date rulebooks. And many of my fellow gamers at my table are caught up in the 3.5 fad so that means my home campaign needs to be adjusted. Luckily I think I should be able to get by with just a players handbook, since everybody else is going to have the complete set. pandionpdg: WotC has a vested interest in seeing good press for its products, but a forum veteran I have yet to see any overt case of censoring posts to hide poor reviews of there products. Case in point...the entire Psionics Handbook board for the first year of its existence. When it came out almost nobody was happy with the PsiHb. That situation has calmed down considerably since than, but the occasional flame still pops up. Only when the CoC was violated did I see WotC moderators step in. If WotC truly does what you say the Psi boards would of been exterminated years ago.
pandionpdg 07-11-03, 12:42 PM	Cthulu ( if that is your real name);) , I have seen instances of censorship on these boards but I think it depends more on who the moderator was rather than stated board policy. There was a discussion about 3.5 on these boards about 2 months ago that had people questioning Wizards reasons for coming out with books that will cost close to $100. If Mr. Cook is correct, then what people said 2 months ago in that thread only confirmed their suspicions. Sadly, that thread was ended by an overzealous moderator when people started to slam Wizards. Secondly, didn't part of you wash up on the Chilean shore not too long ago? What was up with that? Please explain.
WotC_RichBaker 07-11-03, 12:43 PM	I don't want to start an argument here, but I do want to clarify one thing--we held nothing back in 3.0 to deliberately "fix" later. Monte, Skip, Jonathan, and I built the best game we could in 2000. Well, we've learned more about the game over the last three years. Many of the 3.5 changes were things that we needed to see thousands of people play for years to realize they needed fixing--for example, the fact that the haste spell was now completely mandatory for all 3.0 arcane spellcasters, or that many clerics and wizards lost three-quarters of their 2nd-level spells because the ability-adders (bull's strength, cat's grace, etc.) drove out other spell choices. I'll extend the same offer I've extended before RE: Forgotten Realms changes... if you want to know the reasoning behind a 3.5 rules change, I'll be happy to offer what insight I can. Originally posted by Faeryl Zauvirr I am not accusing anybody of anything when i say this but it must be asked. Did Wotc design the game with minor flaws? Ones that would really affect sales too badly, but are intended to be fixed in the newer edition. You say you playtested for thousands hours afterward. I have never played more then one hundred hours of 3rd Dnd, but I can tell that the ranger class needs improvement.
Erimthar 07-11-03, 01:15 PM	Originally posted by Richard Baker I'll extend the same offer I've extended before RE: Forgotten Realms changes... if you want to know the reasoning behind a 3.5 rules change, I'll be happy to offer what insight I can. There have been complaints about the new facing rules...three ogres needing a 30-foot wide corridor to walk abreast, a horse needing a 10-foot wide opening to pass through, etc...but doesn't facing really only come into play during combat? E.g., the ogres can walk down a narrower corridor, but they'd need 30 feet of width to *fight* effectively when standing abreast across the width of the corridor. And a horse can pass through a narrower opening because doing so is not a combat action?
Cthulhu 07-11-03, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by pandionpdg Cthulu ( if that is your real name);) , I have seen instances of censorship on these boards but I think it depends more on who the moderator was rather than stated board policy. There was a discussion about 3.5 on these boards about 2 months ago that had people questioning Wizards reasons for coming out with books that will cost close to $100. If Mr. Cook is correct, then what people said 2 months ago in that thread only confirmed their suspicions. Sadly, that thread was ended by an overzealous moderator when people started to slam Wizards. Secondly, didn't part of you wash up on the Chilean shore not too long ago? What was up with that? Please explain. But WotC DID implement a thread where complaints about 3.5 could be officially aired. I have not been there in a while so I don't know if thats the thread your talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if it got shot down though because it got pretty hot. And I have seen plenty of other complaints about 3.5 scattered across these boards. [shrug] Don't know if that means anything one way or the other. About that beach...not me. It was my no-good brother-in-law Louis. Probably too drunk to swim himself back home to Ryleh.
Purple Dragon Knight 07-11-03, 01:53 PM	Thanks for chiming in Rich. I for one agrees with many changes brought by 3.5 (especially haste and the ranger class). I definitely agree that corrections to the game were badly needed. The MBA student in me has a hard time understanding the marketing concept behind something called "3.5", however, and the lack of a totally new art package might be a turn off for some (I'd be irrational enought to buy a new PHB if the art would be totally new, even if the content is the same -- e.g. the second edition PHB and its first and second printing, which I both purchased). Is the term 3.5 used out of respect to the gamers, to somehow indicate that this product is essentially very similar to 3.0? (i.e. in order not to provide false expectations?) Somehow, buying another PHB with the same art seems weird to me... However, I find that your marketing guys/gals have done a good job advertising/hyping the coming of 3.5 however: the salespitch alone makes me want to buy it!! :) A third printing covering all erratas so far, and featuring brand new art, would have clicked more with my "inner consumer". That way all the new stuff could have been kept in reserve for a brand new 4E down the line, reducing the amount of time I'll be spending at the gaming table looking up new rules. You can still count me in for anything that has an FR on it though! Maybe my opinion of 3.5 is biased in the sense that you could consider me a "casual" core product consumer and a "hard-core" FR consumer. So far, the only core products I have are the builder books, PHB, DMG, MM 1 & II, and Epic Level Handbook. I've passed on Deities and Demigods (got F&P instead), Psi, MoP and Savage Species. In my view, the purchase of new core 3.5 products is not necessary for play, considering that the SRD will be upgraded. You could say that I'd feel more inclined to buy the 3.5 products if the SRD wouldn't be available. By the way, can you explain the OGL to me, in lament's terms? I simply don't get that the core rules are available for free on the SRD... where does that fit in, in terms of other d20 products? Why do this if you want to sell books?
WotC_RichBaker 07-11-03, 03:51 PM	I'll do my best. I'm not a business strategist; I'm just a caveman game designer. Reading between the lines, I'm understanding your question to be: "What on earth does WotC get out of this deal?" The answer is simple: We drive sales of the core rulebooks. We want everyone playing RPGs to buy a copy of the PH, DMG, and MM. By encouraging other publishers to adopt our system for their use, we create the largest possible pool of d20 system players. Let's say that someone creates a brand-new, wildly popular fantasy world out there--maybe it's a novel, maybe it's a cartoon, a computer game, whatever. It's such a spectacular and popular world that, when translated into a RPG, it will pull non-RPGers into the hobby. Without the OGL, Publisher X (whomever got the rights to this new world) probably publishes the game with their house system. Whatever new RPGers are created with this property learn someone else's house system. They don't buy the Player's Handbook, DMG, MM, etc. On the other hand, with the OGL, Publisher X can use the D&D rules. That's good for WotC, because it means that those new RPGers being created by that great new fantasy world are buying Player's Handbooks we otherwise wouldn't have sold. And--here's the cool part--it's *great* for Publisher X, because he can now tap into an established market of hundreds of thousands of D&D players to offer a wildly popular fantasy world for their D&D games. It's nothing but extra sales for them. The SRD is available in its entirety to clearly delineate what the open game content of D&D consists of. Yes, you could choose to use the SRD and not buy our Player's Handbooks, but we think that most folks will vastly prefer having a bound, illustrated copy of the rules. Many people smarter than me have written extensively about the OGL and its implications for the gaming business. I'd recommend digging around at gamingreport.com, because I believe there are some threads there where Ryan Dancey (the fellow who thought up the OGL notion for D&D) posts his thoughts on a regular basis. You'll get better info there than I could likely give you. Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight By the way, can you explain the OGL to me, in lament's terms? I simply don't get that the core rules are available for free on the SRD... where does that fit in, in terms of other d20 products? Why do this if you want to sell books?
pandionpdg 07-11-03, 04:20 PM	My worry about this 3.5 update is that Wizards is following in the footsteps of software companies like Microsoft where a product is produced by the publisher who already knows it has shortcomings or will need to be tweaked but will resolve these problems with patches or later formal updates every 3-5 years(i.e. Windows 3, 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP...). The gaming industry does not develop as quickly as the technology sector where innovations overtake previous technological breakthroughs every 3-6 months and it would be outrageous for Wizards and Hasbro to shove such "upgrades" down the consumer's throat simply to make more money. Essentially, updating the core books every 3-5 years is unnecessary and is demanding too much from the buying public. I'm not writing this as a rant but more of a warning. WotC's core rulebooks are not the same as Microsoft's Windows OS. There are too many other games and game systems on the market now (unlike the OS market) which are just as good and Wizards cannot affort to make its customers angry by coming up with new rules on a regular basis when they simply aren't needed.
eclipticavatar 07-11-03, 08:09 PM	Richard Baker, why did you have to make the combat system use squares? :/ I HATE minatures and this is by far the worst change that could have been made.
Dargoth 07-11-03, 08:23 PM	Sean Reynolds has also posted a review http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html
Zardnaar 07-11-03, 08:28 PM	I will buy 3.5. I won't buy 4.0 if it comes out withen the next 5 years though. Although the "mystic Theurge" may be a boring PrC we have been spoilt but alot of PrCs that generally boost your power. Myself I would be happy with a Mage/Fighter PrC with full BAB and +1 spellcasting/level with no other abilities- reduceing ASF is just gravy as far as I'm concerned. Remember most of us here whined and moaned and got 3.5. Personally 3.5 should have been released as 1 book basically of erratra and the PrCs with some of the spells being changed. All of the "new materaial" probably would have fit in 1 book.
Gelugon 07-11-03, 10:19 PM	I apologize for being harsh, but I'm sure most of you can see the point of frustration. To balance out my part of the discussion, I would like to see some of the new changes (rangers, for instance) available to download and add to my already-purchased 3rd Edition books? (which are still in mint condition, I might add)...
Pystian 07-12-03, 07:49 AM	Am I the only one that is just going to walk into their local book/gaming store with their old books, a pencil, and a huge pad of stick-it notes? Seriously though, I feel like house rules are going to become more common after 3.5 comes out. Does that strike anyone else a little funny?
Jack in the Green 07-12-03, 10:51 AM	Originally posted by Pystian Am I the only one that is just going to walk into their local book/gaming store with their old books, a pencil, and a huge pad of stick-it notes? Seriously though, I feel like house rules are going to become more common after 3.5 comes out. Does that strike anyone else a little funny? I have all 3 cores coming to me from preorder, hopefully by Tuesday. I will know how I will be adopting the new rules when I read them all and compare them side by side. Most likely I will just move over to 3.5 at sometime rather that mish-mash. I hate house rules and everything having to do with keeping track of them. Some folks love doing it and more power to them but its just not for me.
eclipticavatar 07-12-03, 05:37 PM	Seriously though, I feel like house rules are going to become more common after 3.5 comes out. Does that strike anyone else a little funny? I wouldn't say they will be more common. We have a huge ammount of house rules now.
Elereth_Berantor 07-12-03, 09:07 PM	I'm just happy I never got around to buying the 3.0 books. 3.5 is on order, as usual, and as Monte Cook suggests, I'll just toss out the rules I don't like, such as those miniatures rules. I've never used minis and I never will. Know this though, WotC: Don't assume everyone is using minis when you make 4.0. Most people I know have no interest in them.
FineasBoggs 07-13-03, 12:22 AM	I find that your marketing guys/gals have done a good job advertising/hyping the coming of 3.5 however: the salespitch alone makes me want to buy it!! You know the "In the works section"where that clown rants and raves about how cool and great all the new products are that are coming out. Remember, maybe it's archived, Etools? What a load of junk. Wizards new it was junk, everyone that used it new it was junk, and then they pawn it off to another company to fix, which they didn't it still is junk. Now comes along 3.5....Ooh its going to be great, wonderful, awesome. I can almost hear the clown with his little squeky horn. Junk, junk, junk. Especially when no one play tested it. Seems to me they know its junk and are going to ram it down our throats anyway. That being said, I'll probably buy them anyway. Of course I only pay 56% of retail anyway, so its not that much of a ball breaker.
Sarelle 07-13-03, 07:17 AM	I am going to by 3.5 - partly because I came into 3E so late that there would have been no point in buying 3.0. I now have FRCS, Fiend Folio, Savage Species, Races of Faerūn, Monsters of Faerūn and F&P but no core rulebooks! The main reason, though, is that other than the gnome favoured class from illusionist to bard (still don't like but coming round...) most of the changes will be really good. I mean now we get Level adjustment for all the monsters we have wanted to play as PCs. And no more wasting time on Ambidexterity for your two-weapon fighters. And the Extraplanar subtype is handy, whilst the shapechanger as a subtype is near-essential. AND monks are now going to be an attractive class. But I can see why people are annoyed at wotC draining those coppers from their wallets. I agree with Zardnaar - 3E rules are great, they just need gradual improvement, which is what 3.5 is. 4E will just turn the gaming world on its head if it is realeased within the next 1-8 years.
Sirius_Black 07-13-03, 11:25 AM	Originally posted by FineasBoggs You know the "In the works section"where that clown rants and raves about how cool and great all the new products are that are coming out. Remember, maybe it's archived, Etools? What a load of junk. Wizards new it was junk, everyone that used it new it was junk, and then they pawn it off to another company to fix, which they didn't it still is junk. Now comes along 3.5....Ooh its going to be great, wonderful, awesome. I can almost hear the clown with his little squeky horn. Junk, junk, junk. LOL! :D Way to go Fineas. I'll never be able to read the In the Works section again without hearing a clown horn in my head and picturing the guy with a Krusty the Clown voice. "Hey, hey boys and girls <honk>. I've got a bunch of new products to tell you about this month <honk>.....
Jack in the Green 07-13-03, 11:46 AM	Codemonkey has really done a good job "fixing" the boat anchor of a program. It's actually almost usable now. I hope their working on a conversion patch or something for the 3.5 edition. :bigeyes:
FineasBoggs 07-13-03, 12:18 PM	"Hey, hey boys and girls <honk>. I've got a bunch of new products to tell you about this month <honk>..... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
FineasBoggs 07-13-03, 12:23 PM	Codemonkey has really done a good job "fixing" the boat anchor of a program. It's actually almost usable now. Thats the problem, it still is not worth using, even after the patch. Then they have the cans to sell you data sets to use with the game that the game should have let you make yourself. The houserules section design a feat sucks. Little more than a name and a description. It should have let you assign modifiers to skills or BAB or AC or whatever. Instead.....JUNK. But I digress. This thread is about 3.5, not how crappy Etools is. I'll still buy 3.5....maybe I'll take a look at monty cooks things and switch over. He seems to be more in tune with the average gamer. IMO
eclipticavatar 07-13-03, 05:37 PM	He seems to be more in tune with the average gamer. IMO How do you figure? The average gamer doesn't come to these forums nor do they read reviews. They buy what they want and use what they want. Obviously the majority love the 3.5 idea or it wouldn't be at the top of sales charts.
FineasBoggs 07-13-03, 06:01 PM	Because I consider myself the average gamer and what he said made a lot of sense to me. That's how I figure.
eclipticavatar 07-13-03, 10:36 PM	You aren't an average gamer, you are an informed gamer like the rest of us.
FineasBoggs 07-14-03, 02:01 AM	So where did you get the idea that the average gamer is not informed? Or even that the average player doesn't come to the boards to see what is going on? Or did you just make a broad assumption with nothing to back it up? I consider myself an average gamer, so I know of what I speak when I say Monte Cooks article made a lot of sense to me. For you maybe it didn't and thats fine. But don't tell someone you don't know what they are or are not. We are talking about Dungeons and Dragons, not politics.
Faeryl Zauvirr 07-14-03, 02:09 AM	My brother doesn't play d&d, so I guess this may not be a big issue for him. When I told him about the debate about the validity of the new rules he had one simple and reasonable statement: If you don't like it don't buy it. Wotc can do whatever they want to DnD, as long as I have my favourite set of rules (1st, 2nd 3rd or 3.5) and my imagination I don't care.
Jack in the Green 07-14-03, 06:51 AM	Originally posted by FineasBoggs Because I consider myself the average gamer and what he said made a lot of sense to me. That's how I figure. I consider myself an average gamer and I couldn't really care less what he says. I still think he's a good person and I own practically everything he's published with Malhavoc. But I do happen to disagree with a majority of his article. Call me an independant thinker I guess.
Fredegar The White 07-14-03, 07:31 AM	Asxeto! 90$ 90 euro For the *@&%@ BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!:mad:
WotC_RichBaker 07-14-03, 12:31 PM	I think you already know the answer to the question -- we're trying to make sure our rules support miniatures play as thoroughly as possible. We've got a great-looking line of new minis coming out shortly. Even if you don't like miniatures, you might want to check 'em out. And if you just can't stand the idea of playing the game with minis, we figure it's easier for a DM to exclude those rules than it is for a DM to add minis-favoring rules if we did it the other way. Originally posted by eclipticavatar Richard Baker, why did you have to make the combat system use squares? :/ I HATE minatures and this is by far the worst change that could have been made.
Purple Dragon Knight 07-14-03, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by Richard Baker I think you already know the answer to the question -- we're trying to make sure our rules support miniatures play as thoroughly as possible. We've got a great-looking line of new minis coming out shortly. Even if you don't like miniatures, you might want to check 'em out. And if you just can't stand the idea of playing the game with minis, we figure it's easier for a DM to exclude those rules than it is for a DM to add minis-favoring rules if we did it the other way. Rich, is there going to be provisions for "tight ranks" or close-quarter fighting? Imagine a line of cavalrymen charging an incoming army. In real life these cavalrymen are really close (like one or two feet from each other). With the new system I reckon each horse will take a 10x10 square. I was wondering if provisions were there to fight in close formations, even if it would incur a penalty... PS: I love playing with figs, but the 5x10 horse will be sorely missed! :(
Thrudjelmer 07-14-03, 05:11 PM	Maybe we could get the 10' by 10 ft. horse some Trimspa... Mr. Baker, that may make lots of sense to you, but even using miniatures, I find the square system to be dumbed down to the point where I cannot take it seriously. It stinks, and I hate it.
Azzadar 07-14-03, 07:15 PM	I may not like some of the changes that were made, but I will still buy the books. Most of the changes, I think, will be good. If there is something we do not like, I will leave it out or change it. I feel role playing games are about the experience and not the rules. The rules are in place to resolve issues such as combat or sneaking past a guard. Basically, if you don't like a rule, change it or omit it. If you don't like a book, don't buy it or buy something else.
Purple Dragon Knight 07-14-03, 07:21 PM	Originally posted by Azzadar I may not like some of the changes that were made, but I will still buy the books. Most of the changes, I think, will be good. If there is something we do not like, I will leave it out or change it. I feel role playing games are about the experience and not the rules. The rules are in place to resolve issues such as combat or sneaking past a guard. Basically, if you don't like a rule, change it or omit it. If you don't like a book, don't buy it or buy something else. Well, in my case, it's not really about liking the changes or not, it's about how long I am willing to wait before I buy 3.5 Supposedly, a complete gift set containing all D&D Core Rulebooks is coming out in September, and I am ready to wait for it... call it the old "boxset lover in me" perhaps! ;) I learned this on the FR email list. I quote: -------------- Schedule July : ========= - Player's Guide + Monster Guide + DM Guide Schedule September : ============== - Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set
Thrudjelmer 07-14-03, 07:51 PM	If youy really want the special set, hold off for it... no need to buy the books twice when WotC will make all of the 3.5 rules available online in the System Reference Document. Just use the SRD until then, and fall back to your 3.0 books for flavor text and artwork if you absolutely need it.
Ivarrius 07-15-03, 12:21 AM	We use a few house rules here, but it seems like 3.5 is going to be a pick what we like only kindof revision. We like the new Barbarian? we will use that. we dont like the new Bulls strength ? we wont use that. But whatever.. it will be nice to have two official releases to draw our rules from. Makes it easier when it comes to argument time lol.
Adomas 07-20-03, 07:57 PM	Hey Rich, thanks for your input. However, I gotta ask, what minis are you looking at? I have seen the web pics and I gotta say Great Looking these things are not. Cheap, maybe. Randomized so you might end up with a horde of Clerics of Yondalla, certainly. But "Great Looking"? I dont think so... The miniatures line is a marketing scam from people who have tried for a long time to incorporate into the game we all love a "collectible" aspect. It has already negatively impacted the game and will continue to do so by hurting third party mini manufacturers who are actaully producing the great looking material. BTW, If Monte says its a sham than, trust him, its a sham. He has as much or more at stake in this than anyone. Adomas:behold:
Itenquich 07-20-03, 09:49 PM	Guys, come on....stop complaining. Given that you check out this bulletin board, it is likely that D&D is your favorite--if not only-- hobby. Hobbies can be expensive....and many other hobbies are more costly than D&D (e.g., try sailing or fine dining). Ninety bucks for the updated books isn't bad when you consider the hours of enjoyment you get from thinking about and playing D&D. Furthermore, the changes made in the v.3.5 are improvements in my opinion. I recall hearing many of you complain about the weakness of the Ranger class....Well, it has been repaired. I recall hearing many of you complain about Haste and Harm spells....they have been fixed too. In fact, many changes closed loop holes that previously made DMing difficult (e.g., Invisibility's duration has been shortened; Fly's duration has been shortened as well). As someone who purchased nearly all of the 1st and 2nd edition materials, I don't mind having spent the money. It gives me great pleasure to look back at the past materials and fondly think of previous adventures, characters, etc. It gives me equal pleasure to look to the past, and see how far D&D has come. So take a deep breath guys, and quit complaining. Stagnation isn't good for D&D.
Harlock 07-20-03, 10:06 PM	Originally posted by pandionpdg My worry about this 3.5 update is that Wizards is following in the footsteps of software companies like Microsoft where a product is produced by the publisher who already knows it has shortcomings or will need to be tweaked but will resolve these problems with patches or later formal updates every 3-5 years(i.e. Windows 3, 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP...). The gaming industry does not develop as quickly as the technology sector where innovations overtake previous technological breakthroughs every 3-6 months and it would be outrageous for Wizards and Hasbro to shove such "upgrades" down the consumer's throat simply to make more money. Essentially, updating the core books every 3-5 years is unnecessary and is demanding too much from the buying public. I'm not writing this as a rant but more of a warning. WotC's core rulebooks are not the same as Microsoft's Windows OS. There are too many other games and game systems on the market now (unlike the OS market) which are just as good and Wizards cannot affort to make its customers angry by coming up with new rules on a regular basis when they simply aren't needed. Been playing D&D very long? Here's a little history lesson http://mistrealm.com/DnD/History.html You'll notice that within D&D's first 11 years it went through 4 editions. You'll notice that in its first 16 years it went through five editions. Start counting the "2.5" edition of AD&D (player's options etc) it's starts getting even more crowded... Originally posted by Zardnaar Personally 3.5 should have been released as 1 book basically of erratra and the PrCs with some of the spells being changed. All of the "new materaial" probably would have fit in 1 book. Guess what? The SRD is right up your alley. I actually felt the way you did when I first heard about "3.5" but I have to say I changed my mind when I thought about it. If they release an erratta book now, why not another one in another year? Ever played Warhammer? There are books like that with rules changes. You have to remember when a rule was changed, and if it was changed later in a separate book. It gets confusing going through 2 or 3 books looking for one obscure rule. It also prevents people new to the game from having to buy "one more book" just to break into D&D. The way WotC has chosen to do this allows existing players to choose to shell out the dough, or to save their cash and use the SRD, sticky note changes, or bum off of friends. It allows the newer players to jump right in with less expense, fewer hassles, and less intimidation (3 books as opposed to 4 or 5 including erratta handbooks). As odd as it sounds, this was the best alternative to fix what was broken.
see 07-20-03, 10:13 PM	Originally posted by Gelugon To balance out my part of the discussion, I would like to see some of the new changes (rangers, for instance) available to download and add to my already-purchased 3rd Edition books? The 3.5 SRD has been promised for midnight, July 24th. So, in five days you'll be able to download the appropriate file and print out the new ranger, for free. And you'll get the vast majority of the other 3.5 updates free in that set of files, too -- probably you'll only miss out on the 3.5 versions of some of the monsters not in the 3.0 SRD. So if 3.5 was an attempt to screw people, the SRD release makes it a rather incompetent attempt.
Mr. Wilson 07-20-03, 11:04 PM	my books were falling apart anyways. The only thing that struck me as odd was the new 7.5 foot rule for moving diagonally. The whole 5-10-5-10 thing is gonna be a tad confusing to explain to the people without the books. Oh, and the wilderogue. I don't like him. HiPS, how does the ranger manage to get that one.
kidjay76 07-21-03, 12:25 AM	Originally posted by Ivarrius We use a few house rules here, but it seems like 3.5 is going to be a pick what we like only kindof revision. We like the new Barbarian? we will use that. we dont like the new Bulls strength ? we wont use that. But whatever.. it will be nice to have two official releases to draw our rules from. Makes it easier when it comes to argument time lol. You sum up exactly what I, as DM of my Forgotten Realms campaign, will be doing. I bought all the 3.5 stuff this weekend and having skimmed a good chunk of it, I know, for example, that I will be using the class alterations (ranger, monk, bard, sorcerer), the feat adjustments, the new skills (grouping intuit direction and wilderness lore into Survival was much needed) and the new racial traits. I will not, however, use the baffling handedness groupings for weapons, the new face rule for combat, or the inexplicable reduction of the bull's strength-type spells from 1 hour/level to 1 minute/level. I'll have to delve deeper into the rulebooks before I can compile an exhaustive list of what we'll use and what we'll discard. I'll stick with the old, "If you don't like 3.5, don't buy it" argument. Nobody put a gun in my hand and made me spend that cash. :)
Visceris 07-21-03, 12:55 AM	With Urban Arcana, I bought my last WotC book. From what I have read of the DnD 3.5 rules, and yes I have read all three books (no need to buy them when your local gaming store allows you to flip through them for free). I plan on downloading the SRD and all the other free stuff that WotC will offer, but I will not buy material that I deem unnecessary.
Zanan 07-21-03, 03:20 AM	I already said this once I knew that 3RE was in the making: If the Wizards want to stay loyal to the gamers, there should be a free download update (in full) which lists all the changes which were made to 3E. What has been published so far is nice, but needs the new books to check what is actually meant. SRD are another choice, but who wants to go through a few hundred pages of DOC files and the like and check for change there? Essentially, it comes down to this: gamers who bought 3E will be somewhat worse off, if they want to include 3RE material. Gamers who start now are just fine. Did I already moan about the weakening of the Drow sleep poison in 3RE? :nonono:
Another Gnome 07-21-03, 06:24 AM	Purple Dragon Knight: Imagine a line of cavalrymen charging an incoming army. In real life these cavalrymen are really close (like one or two feet from each other). With the new system I reckon each horse will take a 10x10 square. A scene like that was rules-wise impossible in 3.0 because there weren't half-a-squares, and space reserved by each creature was an absolute. With the 10x10 space, on the other hand, you have a few feet on both sides of the horse built-in the system. There are also "squeezing" rules for narrow spaces. All in all, I think the new space system, while more abstract, has a more realistic feel to it.
Jack in the Green 07-21-03, 10:28 AM	If the Wizards want to stay loyal to the gamers, there should be a free download update (in full) which lists all the changes which were made to 3E. They did. It's called the SRD. SRD are another choice, but who wants to go through a few hundred pages of DOC files and the like and check for change there? It's free, what do you want? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Buy the searchable PDF for a few bucks from rpgnow. However, I gotta ask, what minis are you looking at? I have seen the web pics and I gotta say Great Looking these things are not. Cheap, maybe. Randomized so you might end up with a horde of Clerics of Yondalla, certainly. But "Great Looking"? I dont think so... They really are just ugly as all get out. But, in some cases it will be better than having to hand paint a ton of stuff. Good with the bad I guess. For our main PC's they will always be hand painted. A lot of the bigger demons and dragons and whatever else looks cool from Reaper and others will still get bought.
Another Gnome 07-21-03, 12:26 PM	I wouldn't call WotC line of miniatures exactly great-looking either, but should I ever use minis (yeah right, and Hell just froze over), I guess I would use the WotC stuff for two reasons: 1) Miniatures in general look silly. [Edit: okay, it would seem that either the technology has become more advanced or the miniature makers more skillful since the days of those older Dragons with pictures of minis in them, as there has been definite improvement in little details and the more expensive ones aren't really bad at all. But I will continue to claim that the vast majority of minis are nothing special.] WotC ones at least have a comparable price tag to go with the appearance. 2) WotC minis are pre-painted and there are plenty of them in one package. For a miniature collector or something that's probably an insult more than a good thing, but for someone just looking for a few figurines to place on the game table instead of pieces of paper or lego-men, it's a definite plus. Another thing, of course, is whether there actually are players who think like that.
WotC_RichBaker 07-21-03, 03:38 PM	To be honest, I feel that the pictures we posted just don't do the minis justice. They look a lot better on the table than they do all zoomed-in like that. But, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Originally posted by Adomas Hey Rich, thanks for your input. However, I gotta ask, what minis are you looking at? I have seen the web pics and I gotta say Great Looking these things are not. Cheap, maybe. Randomized so you might end up with a horde of Clerics of Yondalla, certainly. But "Great Looking"? I dont think so... The miniatures line is a marketing scam from people who have tried for a long time to incorporate into the game we all love a "collectible" aspect. It has already negatively impacted the game and will continue to do so by hurting third party mini manufacturers who are actaully producing the great looking material. BTW, If Monte says its a sham than, trust him, its a sham. He has as much or more at stake in this than anyone. Adomas:behold:
Jack in the Green 07-21-03, 03:41 PM	Originally posted by Richard Baker To be honest, I feel that the pictures we posted just don't do the minis justice. They look a lot better on the table than they do all zoomed-in like that. But, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. What kind of finish is on the plastic? Could it be touched up and modified with regular paints?
Jurai 07-21-03, 05:10 PM	Originally posted by Richard Baker ...three-quarters of their 2nd-level spells because the ability-adders (bull's strength, cat's grace, etc.) drove out other spell choices. I'll extend the same offer I've extended before RE: Forgotten Realms changes... if you want to know the reasoning behind a 3.5 rules change, I'll be happy to offer what insight I can. Ok, let's talk about the ability-adder spells. If I'm playing a sorceror and I want to help the party out with bull's strength, cat's grace, etc., in 3.0 edition while it took up slots, the spell lasted for hours. Very useful. In 3.5, those same spells now only last minutes, rather than hours. So I'll have to spend MORE spell slots to help the party that way, not less. How does this help my spell choices? How did this unbalance the game? Why was this class of spell "broken"? Thanks.
Another Gnome 07-21-03, 05:24 PM	Rich Baker: To be honest, I feel that the pictures we posted just don't do the minis justice. They look a lot better on the table than they do all zoomed-in like that. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I believe that. :) Even the smaller pictures look much better than the zoomed-in images, and I would think that against something other than an all-white background, and in natural light, the real things do look better than what the website images suggest.
Harlock 07-21-03, 08:57 PM	Rich and Another Gnome, where are these pictures of which you speak regarding the new mini line? I've only seen the few from GAMA posted at GamingReport.com and the stuff on my new DM screen.
Another Gnome 07-22-03, 10:54 AM	Miniatures Spotlight: linkity-link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ms/20030606a) The gallery links are on the left (and on the bottom of the article). I recall seeing a few other pictures as well somewhere on WotC site but I'm not sure where it was. Probably the "In the Works" articles.
WotC_RichBaker 07-22-03, 12:09 PM	I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find out (tough to do at the moment, since so many people are already on their way to GenCon). Originally posted by Jack in the Green What kind of finish is on the plastic? Could it be touched up and modified with regular paints?
WotC_RichBaker 07-22-03, 12:16 PM	The problem we saw was this: The rogue, the fighter, and everybody else at the table developed a sense of *entitlement* to your cleric's 2nd-level spells. To the point that folks were refusing to proceed with adventures unless the cleric committed to giving them +4 Str, Dex, and Con for the day. More to the point, when you see one spell selected at a particular spell level at the expense of any other spell that might have been chosen, it's an indication that you're produced something that is broken-good. Also, we were having a terrible time producing challenging NPCs for our products. NPCs are already pinched for cash as compared to PCs... but without fail every PC of, say, 5th level or higher was effectively running around with +48,000 gp in gear (that being the equivalent cost of +4 ability adders in all three physical stats). We couldn't equip NPCs equivalently without busting our treasure payoff all to heck. So, we nerfed them. Going to 10 minutes/level we didn't like, because that really means "all the day's adventuring" every bit as much as 1 hour/level. The 1 minute/level duration is harsh, but you will often get the benefit of the spells in two or three successive encounters. Originally posted by Jurai Ok, let's talk about the ability-adder spells. If I'm playing a sorceror and I want to help the party out with bull's strength, cat's grace, etc., in 3.0 edition while it took up slots, the spell lasted for hours. Very useful. In 3.5, those same spells now only last minutes, rather than hours. So I'll have to spend MORE spell slots to help the party that way, not less. How does this help my spell choices? How did this unbalance the game? Why was this class of spell "broken"? Thanks.
Harlock 07-22-03, 03:24 PM	Originally posted by Another Gnome Miniatures Spotlight: linkity-link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ms/20030606a) The gallery links are on the left (and on the bottom of the article). I recall seeing a few other pictures as well somewhere on WotC site but I'm not sure where it was. Probably the "In the Works" articles. Thanks AG. As for a critique, well, they aren't the prettiest paint jobs I've ever seen but they are cheap and I don't have to spend my time and paint on them. Add to that I have two players (almost three) who don't really get into painting minis as much as I do and whose paint jobs are marginally worse than those pictured. So, I'll be picking up a few of these packages and dabbling on ebay trying to find a few nicer ones for PC use and continue to purchase my own metal minis and paint to do my special characters and NPCs in the games I DM. They come to like a buck and a quarter a piece, so they're only slightly worse price wise than nice counters on plastic for a better representation, in my opinion. Guess what WotC, you just made a sale.