|
|
247 of 266 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
I'd like to address issues raised in other reviews, June 3, 2004
My gaming group has switched to edition 3.5 mainly becuase we started adding new players, and the 3.0 books were no longer available. Also, I'd been rough on my 3.0 books and they were falling apart. It was a matter of convenience.It is not a perfect system. As a matter of fact, it's only margionally "better" than the 3.0 game it's replaced. It is not a new edition - that will be D&D 4.0. But it's changed more than a simple errata sheet could explain, so it's not really 3.0 any more either. It probably did not need to be made. That said, I think some of the reviews here have been rather unfair. There's the "I've been playing D&D since the 70's and this sucks" reviews. Version 3.x is a different game. Get over it. You can still play D&D the way you like - nobody's stopping you. Dust off your old rulebooks and have yourself a good time. It's awefully childish complaining that the new version of the game isn't the game you fell in love with 25 years ago. Of course it isn't! When you complain that the things you loved about D&D have changed, you don't come off as a seasoned, intelligent role-player, you come off as a whiney old fogey pining for the "good ol' days." There's the "how come they have to make everything balanced?" reviews. D&D has never made sense. No matter what edition you played, if you were a God and set up a world that followed the D&D rules, it would fall into chaos within weeks becuase things don't make sense. Why compain that wizards and fighters are now pretty close to each other in terms of power? Why does it "make sense" to do it some other way? This is, ultimately, a game, not some sort of simulation. All the players around the table deserve to have equal amounts of fun. It's no fun to have the player of a low-level mage being bored at low levels 'cause he only has one stinkin' spell to cast. It's no fun to have your high-level fighter overshadowed by a mage that can deal hundreds of times more damage than he can in a single round. The game is not about making sense, it's about having fun, and that's the way the rules should be designed. If you want to change it, you can house rule it. The 3.x default of equally-powerful characters is a good thing, and should have been done earlier. There's the "this game is the best thing ever" reviews. Get some perspective people. It's not perfect. Unless you can admit to the flaws in the game, you're going to be interpreted as a clueless fanboy, mindlessly drooling over the next release. There's the "version 3.x is for powergamers and is like D&D the video game" reviews. This is a bit unfair, but I have to admit that the rulebooks are very rules-heavy. In fact, there are virtually no rules for "role playing" becuase this is an activity that, by it's nature, can't be covered with rules. The quality and frequency of quality "role playing" (which means different things to different people anyway) is going to vary depending on the people in the group you've joined. It can take months or years to find a group with the battlegame-to-roleplay ratio your really like. This has not changed through the years. Just for clarity's sake, and the sake of anybody reading these reviews, let me go over in brief some of the more contraversial changes from the 3.0 edition to the 3.5 edition. 1) Spells have been nerfed! This is true. Several spells have been seriously reduced in power. Harm now allows a saving throw, Haste no longer lets wizards cast extra spells, and the stat-booster and invisibility spells are much shorter in duration (the stat-boosters, by the way, now increase a stat by a set amount, instead of rolling). 2) Rangers have been nerfed! Previously, Rangers got all of their cool abilities at first level. To the savvy power gamer, there was no need to take more than one level of ranger. It was pointless. Now, their abilites are gained more slowly as they level up. Also, they get fewer hit points per level now. This changes their emphasis from front-line warrior to something more akin to a wilderness-oriented fighter-druid multiclass. You now get to choose, at second level, whether you want your ranger to specialize in archery or two-weapon-fighting. This essentially subdivides the class into two more classes, and a more elegant solution could probably have been found. 3) Bards have been increased in power This is true. Bards in 3.0 were practically useless. Their spell progression was slow and their special musical powers useless at higher levels. To me, a bard is now a useful character and worth playing. 4) Somebody complained that Sorcerers are now overpowered compared to Wizards. I don't see this. The major change to the Sorcerer class was to allow them to, when they level up, swap out a single spell already in their repitoire for a different spell of the same level. This change was made because people playing sorcerers would avoid certain spells on their spell list becuase these spells would become useles later on. A sorcerers primary disadvantages are still present. They get fewer known spells. They get 2 new spells per level that they can cast, and can never exceed this amount. Wizards can, conversely, scribe any spell into their spell book they feel like (for a price). Second, sorcerers have a slower spell progression than wizards. A 5th level wizard has access to 3rd level spells and a 5th level sorcerer doesn't. Wizards always gain access to the higher levels of spells faster than sorcerers do. A sorcerer's only compensation for this is the fact that they can cast more spells per day than a wizard, and they don't have to prepare their spells ahead of time. 5) Square monsters This makes no realistic sense, but is the logical progression of the "no facing" rules introduced in 3.0. It is assumed that, in battle, a character is constantly turning around, assessing threats, etc..., and cannot be said to be "facing" a particualar direction. The rules support this concept by allowing the character to strike opponents on all sides without penalty, letting his shield bonus affect creatures on all sides, etc... No "facing" rules means simpler, faster combat at the expense of realism. But some creatures, dragons for instance, obviously have a front and a back. On a battle mat they are rectangular. Characters on all sides are still subject to all attacks, breath weapons, etc... This seems ridiculous when you have a rectangular critter. It would have to turn to point it's head in the right direction to bite or breath fire. But what if there's a character there and there's no room to turn? The rules say it can still do it, but it's silly. So they simplified the combat rules further and declared all creatuers, large and small, take up perfect squares on the battle mat. Horses take up 4 squares now instead of 2. Again, it was a sacrifice of a lot of realism for a little more ease of play. 6) Weapon sizing rules This was an odd change. In 3.0, a longsword was a "medium" weapon, a dagger was a "small" weapon, etc... The size of a weapon depended on the physical size of the weapon. This has changed. Now, weapon size is defined by the size of the creature intended to wield it. There are longswords. A Large longsword is a longsword meant for for a Large-sized creature to use. A Small longsword is a longsword meant for a Small-sized creature to use. If you use a weapon too big for you, you suffer penalties. This change did not need to be made and needlessly complicated the process of buying equipement, as well as confusing existing players. 7) Cover and Concealment These are combined into one concept: Concealment. Anything that in any way obstructs your view of your target provides concealment, from invisibility to hiding behind an arrow slit. I feel this change greatly simplified the Cover/Concealment rules, especially in cases where both applied. All in all, I feel the people who complain that this revision was unnecceary are justified. The rules worked just fine before, and if you already have a 3.0 library there is no real convincing reason to change and try to convert everything. You might complain in that case that new products and whatnot that are printed with 3.5 rules are not compatible with your 3.0 game, but I have frequently used material from 3.0 and 3.5 interchangably and nobody has noticed or cared. The rules changes are so minor, and the odds of a player auditing the DM's NPCs and modules so slim, it works out just fine. Purists will cringe, but my last group had a new player join with a 3.5 bard, and I was the only person in the course of 4 months to have noticed that he had abilities our other bard did not. So if you have 3.0, and have no need to upgrade, just don't. Go ahead and use new material from Dragon Magazine or online message boards just as if nothing had changed and it will somehow all be fine.
|