AD&D E3.5...
 

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

I'm intrigued.

Mikorlias Zard

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?

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.

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.

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?"

Here Here!

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.

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

I was just thining...

3.0E is better than 3.5 E.

What does this imply for 4.0E?

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