| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| eilinel |
Posted - 06 May 2003 : 10:25:19
i have a question : why druids are allowed to fight with a scimitar although they can wear any metal armor, shield or weapon?
i don't follow the logic of DnD on this point. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| eilinel |
Posted - 02 Feb 2004 : 23:28:37
yes, i know...
i mean, i don't know what to say then, u know, i cannot agree with that kind of practices...
but, i still download such stuffs.
but i like far more paper books.  |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 22:16:07
You base far too many things on Cyric, Cyric. Far too many.
Eilinel, you can download the SRD from the Wizards site. It's minus all the nice paintings and such, but it seems someone had a fit of decency and decided not to force people to buy at least some of the products. |
| Cyric |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 14:55:39
Druids they are boring they dont even whorship Cyric, but its importen to take care of natur so they are alright i think |
| eilinel |
Posted - 28 Jan 2004 : 22:39:51
well, i think 3rd edition was a real new one, when 3.5 is not.
they should have named it "errata" instead
anyway, i won't buy, i don't have that much money to throw away... |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 22:31:42
Wasn't it the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation marketing division who were the first against the wall when the revolution came? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 21:41:54
For me things are all about the feel. D&D third edition revised or something like that works better for me, than D&D 3.5. Marketers in my opinion are the first ones to throw true meaning and feel out the window, which is why I never liked Marketers. My friend Alex is a marketer and we get into it alot:)
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 09:00:32
Oh, and I forgot to mention -
Mournblade said -
quote:
Personally it is my sad opinion that WOTC chieftains, said "well we have to change things or people will not buy it. So add a littel paragraph to each of the classes."
This is exactly what I have been saying to myself since knowledge of the revision was made public. They have made the revision to some aspects of the system merely to justify greater changes elsewhere.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 08:57:56
branmakmuffin said -
quote:
A version number less than 1 for a software release means it's "pre-release", which means whatever the programmer wants it to mean. Often it means, "This is only beta quality, but I'm releasing it anyway."
That is correct, although sometimes not always the case. It some instances, (very rare now) in the early days of MS-DOS and Windows 2.0 some Pascal, or BASIC programs were written as ver 0.5, or ver 0.7. In this case it would signify that these programs were just the basic elements of the software. This was also the case when the 3.1 version of Windows (GUI - Graphic User Interface) was being beta-tested. Some of the basic programs running under Windows were in code-format and did everything a finished ver 1.0 program did, only with no GUI, just basic lines of code. These programs and software were sometimes marked as ver 0.7, or 0.8.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 06:33:48
A version number less than 1 for a software release means it's "pre-release", which means whatever the programmer wants it to mean. Often it means, "This is only beta quality, but I'm releasing it anyway."
I share Mournblade's pet peeve. The same applies to the (not so recent) trend (at least it's a trend in the US) of seperating the parts of a phone number with dots instead of the usual (in the US) dashes.
Ironically, Microsoft has somewhat led the industry away from the traditional version numbering system. Maybe the next release of D&D should be "D&D XP". |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 04:46:16
Ah, so that's how it works? I was wondering. Though could you tell me why I've got an old program somewhere here -- probably I can't run it on these computers, if it's the one I'm thinking of -- that is a "version 0.92"? I can't remember exactly which program it was, but the version code understandably stuck out in my memory.
And as for the general point of numbers: I agree. Provisionally. Sometimes it's important (I prefer movie sequals to be numbered, but I guess that's just old-fashioned of me) or they might be amusing (like the show UPN's advertising for the fall, "Jake 2.0" -- it's about a superhuman geek, so it's relavent).
I suppose that "D&D Edition 3.5" sounds better than "Third Edition D&D, Revised" when you're talking about marketing. I think I'd have preferred the straight talk rather than trying to make a cool title. Titles have their place, but they didn't need something so cheesy. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jun 2003 : 23:39:37
Personally it is my sad opinion that WOTC chieftains, said "well we have to change things or people will not buy it. So add a littel paragraph to each of the classes."
Thus far I am unimpressed with version 3.5. And let me state an ADDITIONAL pet peeve. Recently, so many TV shows, and BOOKS have been using the software version number system to indicate part two's or part X's. I hate that. I hate (INSERT TV SHOW) 2.0
The software version system had a definite purpose. D&D written material is NOT software, and so shoule not be 3.5. Is it version three and a half? If anything, since there has only been a 3rd edition with no debugging, then this should be D&D 3.1!!! People in our society are so used to seeing things used over and over that they forget what the original purpose of some of these things was for.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jun 2003 : 05:22:50
Actually at the time, I had thought it was quite good. But now I have had the time to take a more detailed look at the class, comparing it with already established WotC and 'third-party' Druid material. I can now see that very little has actually been changed.
Of course the fact that I have never really had an urge or feeling to play a Druid PC could also have lead to the fact that I had simply forgotten all I had read about Druids in 3e, simply because the information was never used. When I then read the Revision Spotlight about the Druid in 3.5, it seemed 'Great'.
I still think the Druid as is now in 3e, is fine, which leads me to restate my question from earlier, an echo of Mournblades words -
quote:
I wonder why WotC felt that Druids required revision? 
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jun 2003 : 22:41:20
Really, Sage? You seemed to think the new version was pretty good. Have you changed your mind? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jun 2003 : 09:38:14
There isn't much in the way of official differences. As for the ex-druid entry as Mournblade suggested, a little refinement in the text, and mechanics, there does not seem to be a whole lot of change.
I wonder why WotC felt that Druids required revision? . I found nothing wrong with the existing class either.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 26 Jun 2003 : 21:50:44
I don't think you're missing anything. I don't see any substantial differences, either.
I'd have to drag out my PHB and do a line-by-line comparison. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Jun 2003 : 19:55:58
I must be missing something...
I am only seeing minour differences at MOST. There does not seem to be that much different. And druids spontaneously casting is just dumb. I know you guys like it, but the only thing I think is different is the ex druid entry. What is so different and /or great about it. The druid class was one of the classes that did not need to be fixed. Now it looks like maybe they added a whistle to it and nothing more.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 22 Jun 2003 : 05:28:35
George Krashos:
Much of what you say sounds like a potential FR-specific, 3e version of The Wilderness Survial Guide. |
| Targon Moonrise |
Posted - 22 Jun 2003 : 02:30:11
That kind of product would be perfect for my party. We have two Rangers and one Druid(me). I hope they do something like that myself. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 22 Jun 2003 : 01:55:44
To put a bit more of an FR emphasis on this thread, I wonder whether WotC would consider doing a "Wilderlands"-type FR product with details on the various druidic circles of the Realms, bringing back the 1E Beastmaster NPC class (as a prestige class obviously), and lots of wilderness lore that DMs and players can find really handy and add flavour to the game (herbs, plants, wierd flora and fauna phenomena). Now that's a product I'd like to see.
-- George Krashos
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 12:50:13
Hopefully you will be able to tell me how it goes. I won't be able to run a 3.5 campaign until my two current campaigns are finished.
|
| Targon Moonrise |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 01:05:03
The new 3.5 revision for Druids is awesome. I'm a Druid in my campaign and that new stuff is perfect. I'll have to ask my DM if we can go by 3.5 rules instead of 3rd rules. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:27:31
Yes, this reworking of the Druid class has had a lot of positive opinions cast about it.
|
| eilinel |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 17:49:17
well, didn't see it, quite interesting in fact.
and even closer with Nature.
Good. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 07:16:45
I can say that I have never had the drive to play a Druid PC, up until this new reworking. It is definitely interesting. In fact suddenly several of my players wish to kill off their current PC's so that they can create some Druid characters.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 05:08:30
Hmm, that looks much more interesting than the current version. Any thoughts from people who've actually played druids? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 16:54:57
Eilinel, in case you haven't seen it, there is a current posting on the new 3.5 Druid up on the WotC site.
It's located here.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| eilinel |
Posted - 11 Jun 2003 : 10:55:27
i think so too, actually but the problem is that if he wasn't, he couldn't be as glorious as he was in the 2nd, because characters are going as powerful as he is before reaching the 16th level, u know.
well, i don't know, i don't like Drizzt a lot beavuse of that... |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 10 Jun 2003 : 18:26:36
eilinel:
I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm, epecially written, doesn't cross linguistic and cultural barriers well.
I think Drizzt is very minmaxed in 3e, which I think is bad. He is not so minmaxed in 2e, which is better. |
| eilinel |
Posted - 10 Jun 2003 : 14:27:25
a bit enough, no?
u may not think so... |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 23:03:24
eilinel:
quote:
ye, but they look good. What does Drizzt use to fight? its not the chance that they give him scimitars, it just looks good.
Even if it can be dopey 
In 1e and 2e, Drizzt's not as minmaxed as he could be. |
