Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, I've got the third edition. So I don't see the point in buying 3.5, as I have all three core books from #3. I have to agree with Bahamut on the errata issue.

And I don't particularly like the third edition anyway. It's designed for complete hack 'n slash, which got boring, which is why I went for the Storyteller system.

Is 3.5 any better? I have a friend who might (that's only a might though) be interested in getting it... (I had to lend him mine.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't particularly like the third edition anyway. It's designed for complete hack 'n slash, which got boring, which is why I went for the Storyteller system.

First time I've ever seen defeating a guard by fooling him (and geting full XP for it)defined as hack and slash....

No offense, Snake Eyes, but whereas there are a number of combat feats, there a huge number of feats that are best used either away from combat or even in non-combat situations. Also, the skills system is a definite step up from the previous versions, and encourages more non-combat role-playing (such as going to parties and trading)...But I'm guessing your games see a lot of full-contat chess ::sneaky2 ?

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finbar- DnD was designed for Hack n Slash. Have you ever read the Dungeon Master's Guide? It was written with combat in mind. Why do you think they brought out the Monster Manual? For extra traders in the market place? No. More violent enemies. Sure you can outwit an orc, or a group of goblins, but as you read through the books, you see more and more combat or dungeon crawl rules.

But I'm guessing your games see a lot of full-contat chess  ?

What's full contact chess? Is it like rugby, but with nights an queens? (Imagine going up against a castle)

Ok. I'm through with this argument. Anyone for Elderflower tea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Sorry...It's just that D&D players have put a lot of work on things like alternative societies, discussions re: alignment, and worried about the social implications of a lot of magic, but these get lost in the hack 'n' slash stereotype. It just gets annoying because, whereas most of the on-line people praise the ST for role-playing, most of the ST players I know want to know who has the biggest gun/most powerful ability. It doesn't help that most of my players role-play in D&D and kill-maim-destroy in ST...

Basically, you can role-play or power-game any game, but way too many people are stuck on "D&D=hack 'n' slash, ST=role-play" stereotype...

2) I like some of the changes (the ways actions have been streamlined, for example), but we're still getting used to some of the spell durations, which is causing some minor chaos with are spell-casters. Also, I like the expanded prestige classes (I liked someo of the ones given, but wasn't able to pick up the book they first appeared in, like the arcane trickster)...

Also, I like the re-design of the character sheet, even though there's not enough room for some spells (I like writing up different lists for different situations (like the marketplace vs. dungeon), and too much for weapons/ammo. It would have been nice to an expanded notes section as well...

Overall, it's not bad, and I definitely like the new rules overall, but I wish they would have just put out a book with all of the changes in it. It's good to have the revised books out there for new players, but it gets sorta old to buy a new set of books just keep up to date...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...I would like to reiterate that this is not a DnDer=hacknslash/ dosent like to RP person. I have always found that it is in the players the decide which it is, but thats not the discussion here.

THanks for that info there finbar. Any more revelations come abuot...please tell us.

So far though, you havent said anyhting in there that couldent have been put in as errata...or hey...why not have had them in the first print.

OF course im singing the same old tune as my last post...but hey...thats how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEHEHEHE...

Ok finbar tell me about the ranger class, is it better than the Mote Cook ranger (it would have to be better than the 3.0 ranger that's for sure)? I heard there was some change to the monk, sorcerer, and the blackguard but noone had the time to give me any info or opinions about them... Hate to say it but I'm actually interested, the only fun DnD give me is character creation, it always gets my hopes up for a good game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're ever in Sacramento...

You seriously need to look at the pdf from Wizard of the Coast, which summarizes a lot of the changes. I think you'll be very, very happy....(fighting on staircases; time to crank up that Errol Flynn campaign idea ::cool ).....

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I take back some of what I said about the character sheet; I just took a closer look, and it has spaces for info that would have been nice to see on the original (like how much a load is fo the character and grapple info)...Still too many spaces for attacks/defenses, and I wish there was a notes, section, but overall it's got some nice improvements...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the reason for 3.5 is the open content thingy. I've heard that 3.5 is not supposed to be compatible with previous supplements (or independent ones). I guess they decided that they weren't happy with the way D20 was working out financially. Furthermore, rumor has it that WotC is offering distributors 50% of the price of 3rd Ed in exchange for 3.5th edition, the same thing they did with 2nd.

Don't take this as fact, just speculation

By the way, anyone want to make a bet that Steven Jackson Games makes a Munchkin 3.5?

Dr. A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) So far it looks like it is somewhat compatible; most of the changes were just little tweaks. Also, Dragon magazine has been publishing updates on the revision, so any publishers that paid attention should be okay. About the only exception are those that depended heavily on the ranger class, and I can only think of a few...

2) You need to keep in mind that the OGL has basically been such an explosion that I doubt that WotC would really do something that silly. Besides, enough of the supplements are D&D-related that I think the OGL was a really good idea...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a look through the new Players Handbook 3.5, I was unimpressed to say the least... Though I like what they've done with the classes, especially the druid, and some of the abilities (err... skills) overall it clearly wasn't worth the money many people (several friends of mine included) spent on the PHB. The book looks and feels the same as the last, except with far more typo's, I've checked the net and found that there are over 100 pieces for the errata that'll be updated in later releases... Really 100 wouldn't be all that much for a newly released game but 3.5 is so similar to 3.0, that there shouldn't have been that many mistakes. I've yet to look through the DMG (Dungeon Masters Guide) and MM (Monster Manual), though I'm told as updated books go they're better than the PHB as the changes go... More on this when I wrench those books from the hands of the evil DnD'er freinds of mine (it's gonna be a while).

P.S. WOTC are making an absolute killing with the new release of DnD, despite the number of people refusing to buy the books, it seems people (you know.. the gamer type) who were always currious about DnD are loading up on the books. I think 3.5 is currently in it's 3rd print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...