# What changes from 3.0 to 3.5 should *not* have been made?



## dead (Sep 28, 2004)

I still play 3.0 but was considering updating.

From what I can see, there's a lot of good changes and the game is now even more streamlined.

However, I'd like to know if there were any changes that people think just should NOT have been made.

Thanks.


----------



## Alhazred (Sep 28, 2004)

My only real beef with 3.5 is the weapon size category.  In my opinion, half a step back to 2e (where a weapon's damage dice depended on the size of the opponent).  However, weapon size is easy enough to ignore, which I and my players do.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 28, 2004)

Dwarves getting weapon familiarity and stability bonuses. It's not like dwarves were weak in 3.0.

Polymorph/wildshape finally got errataed to something useful before 3.5 was released, and then they make yet another version that ruins it.

Improved Trip might be too good in 3e, with both removing AoO, giving +4, and giving a free attack if you succeed, together with standing up giving an AoO now.

Hmm. Those are the things that immediately come to mind.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 28, 2004)

Weapon size, the nerfing of buff spells, bard as a gnome's favored class, pokemounts, the changes to the sorcerer class (although the 3.0 sorcerer isn't any better, it's just that they didn't fix the problem with 3.5) and the bard class and facing, off the top of my head, although there are more.

The list of things I like about 3.5 is shorter than the list of things I don't.  I like the changes to skills, such as survival & sleight of hand.  I like some of the new feats.  I like the 3.5 Harm and Haste spells.  That's it.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 28, 2004)

Yeah, the only thing I have a problem with is weapon sizes.  They are easy enough to ignore though.  I think druids should get the Ex abilities of forms they assume but again, that's easy enough to deal with.  Other than that, I like 3.5.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 28, 2004)

Weapon Sizing
Weapon Familiarity
Some spell durations
Power Attack 2-for-1 deal without a shield-wielder getting 2-for-1 AC from Combat Expertise

Other than that, mostly good changes.  I like the new Ranger and Bard.  I do think the Paladin could use some filling out at higher-levels.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 28, 2004)

At first weapon sizes bothered me a lot, but I grew to like them. Before, you had to start with a medium weapon and use some rather esoteric rules for scaling it up when you wanted a larger version of the same weapon. Who could use it and what category it was for them then became wonky. Now (mostly thanks to the handy chart in the FAQ) it's a lot easier.

What I don't like is the Space entry for creatures. Why does every monster have to take up an exact square? I don't care for minis, so that throws out the only real justification, making the entire thing seem ridiculous.

As far as DR goes, I like all of it, except for how they altered the pre-existing DR...namely various plusses necessary. While it's great to have DR versus damaging types, alignment, or special materials, I don't like at all that magic has been reduced to two groups: "magic" and "epic". In essence, as far as DR goes, you have +1 through +5 weapons, and +6 and up. Not only does this take a lot away from magic enhancement bonuses (since there are easier ways to increase damage), but it also de-emphasizes "levels" of magic weapons. It made plenty of sense to me that some creatures needed only a +1 to hit, and others needed a +4...not all magic was equal. Now, it is, at least as far as weapons go. This leads to a plethora of weapons that are +1 with a huge number of special qualities stacked on.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 28, 2004)

The ranger
Square horses
The ranger
Pokepaladins
The ranger
Small greatswords (wtf?)
The ranger
Darkness makes a light now?
The ranger
Gnomes favored class is now bard?  
Did I mention the ranger?
Unlearning spells
The ranger
Animal companions
The ranger


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 28, 2004)

I'm going to go against the grain here. The weapon size rules are great. A longsword for a small creature is not and should not be the same as a short sword for a medium creature. Anyone who argues that they should be has clearly never held an actual longsword or short sword. 

I like the new sorcerer. I like the new skills. I like the spell nerfs, for the most part. I like the new ranger, a _lot_. I love the new DR rules.

I can take or leave the new paladin's mount rules. I use them for high-magic campaigns, and go back to the old format for lower-magic ones.

In fact, if I have any single major complaint, it's the attempt to make 3.5 even more miniatures-reliant than 3.0.

However, I find that I like the _vast_ majority of changes.


----------



## dead (Sep 28, 2004)

I've noticed the Scrying rules have changed.

How's that working out for people?

It looks like an improvement. Far less chance for PCs to scry the BBEG if he gets a Will save!


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 28, 2004)

3.0 should have become D20 Modern.

But they really jumped the shark with that 3.5 thing.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

1) Pokemounts
2) Square bases (I thought I was alone on this, but it's nice to see at last someone else agrees.)
3) Concealment
4) School rearrangements and specialist wizards
5) Weapon sizes (something needed done, not that...)
6) Some feat changes (power attack, deflect arrows, spell focus/ISF)
7) (Not a change, just a "failed to fix it" thing) why not bonus feats instead of combat styles? Combat styles/virtual feats are clunky.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 28, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> I've noticed the Scrying rules have changed.
> 
> How's that working out for people?
> 
> It looks like an improvement. Far less chance for PCs to scry the BBEG if he gets a Will save!




Much better.  The scry skill was bad mechanically; nobody would take it before they could cast scry, cause duh, but then when you got the scry spells, you had to dump a lot of skill points into it to be at all good at the spell.  It was also odd conceptually, because other spells don't have associated skills, you don't even need to make ranged touch attacks to target fireballs on a precise point in space.  Will saves with adjustments for familiarity are just better.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 28, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> 2) Square bases




But they go perfectly with those circular bases on the WotC pokeminiatures, don't they?


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> I've noticed the Scrying rules have changed.
> 
> How's that working out for people?
> 
> It looks like an improvement. Far less chance for PCs to scry the BBEG if he gets a Will save!




Some think it's now too hard.

I'm not sure I could make that assessment, but I do know this: it screwed up some mechanics in third party books that were hanging on those mechanics. That I happen to be using. I kept the old scrying rules in my Second World game.


----------



## Testament (Sep 28, 2004)

The absolute nerfing of buff spells.  Something needed to be done to stop the perma-buffs, but they went too far.

Uniformity of space.  Nagas have to squeeze down halls?  This is probably my biggest beef.

Polymorph's nerfing.  I don't even get the form's ex abilites unless they're an attack?  WTF?!

Darkness creating light.  Granted, the old one was a game-staller and made well run Baatezu into a certain TPK, but this is ridiculous.

Pokemounts are kind of silly, but don't worry me too much.



And some responses to criticisms here:

I'm still trying to work out how anyone could NOT like the new Ranger.

I'm 100% with Mouseferatu on the weapon size thing here.  The old chart struck me as silly, why would small races not make Polearms (the ultimate defensive tool) and Quarterstaffs that they could use?  And did anyone stop to think about the fact that the grips on a larger weapon would be made for the massive hands of an Ogre or his ilk?  The weapon sizes are excellent.

JRR, what is wrong with Animal Companions now?  They're no longer as disposable, and the encounter stopper that was "Animal Friendship" is gone.  

Unlearning spells is a good thing purely for utility.

And anyone who dislikes sorcerors musn't have ever seen a well built one in action, with their bottomless clip.


----------



## mearls (Sep 28, 2004)

The spiked chain. IME, this thing is just a game killer. Once you have a spiked chain fighter on the loose, any other melee specialists are hosed. To keep the chain fighter challenged, you have to take a ton of care to sculpt opponents to threaten him. Otherwise, the game gets dumb.

The chain had a perfect storm of changes that all made it better - Power Attack 2/1 damage, the change to Improved Disarm, the change to Improved Trip, and the new rules for reach for Large and bigger creatures all make it too good. The annoying thing is I can see how, on their own, those changes make sense, but combined into the spiked chain it's too much.

On the plus side, it illustrates why game balance is important - if there's one really good option, it's hard to have a fun game that challenges the unbalanced character without making everyone else irrelevent or bored.

I can see why they did the weapon size rules, but they're too unwieldy IMO. I don't really like the entire move to make monsters more playable as PCs. I'd rather just have new PC races designed to evoke the feel of a monster, rather than duplicate its stats.

OTOH, I like a number of the changes. I like the changes to the paladin's mount (it actually makes it useful), and the DR rules are interesting.

Pet Peeve: I still think Moradin should have War as one of his domains. I have to chuckle with every warhammer toting dwarf that comes out in the D&D minis game. Those dudes aren't proficient unless they wasted a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 28, 2004)

Improvements to weapons' crit ranges not stacking.

The Vorpal Falchion Weapon Master who crits on a 10+ (or "&^%$! I need me some Heavy Fortification armor!") was fixed when Vorpal was cut down to a natural 20.  I cursed the change the first time I rolled what would've been a crit threat under the 3.0 rules (with a keen bastard sword!  That wasn't even Vorpal!  Sigh...).

Brad


----------



## Darren (Sep 28, 2004)

Just about everything I like/dislike has been thoroughly analyzed in one thread or another.  But I especially dislike the damage reduction rules because they result in a sort of golfbag syndrome a truly effective fighter usually employs.  I just like the flavor of a single, trusty, magically enhanced longsword I guess.  One other major (well, minor) change I despise but no one else seems to care about happened to the gelatinous cube.  Gelatinous cubes are _15 feet_ on a side in 3.5.  Why?  Who builds dungeon corridors fifteen feet wide and tall anyway?  *shrugs*  I like most of the changes, though I think too much was changed for an "update," but that has been beaten to death by now.  The stuff I don't care for isn't too difficult to house rule.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Improvements to weapons' crit ranges not stacking.




That one could have been done better... by letting it stack but NEVER allowing an effect to multiply. Always just a +1 threat range.


----------



## Liminal Syzygy (Sep 28, 2004)

Having given scry quite a workout in an RttToEE campaign, both before and after the change to 3.5, I really like the 3.5 changes and how it worked with the skill... The drawback is of course as Psion pointed out that lots of old 3.0 NPCs are statted out with the skill.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 28, 2004)

Umm...

I think the polymorph rules didn't improve.

That's about the worst I can say.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Sep 28, 2004)

In no paticular order:
1) Making dwarves more powerful
2) They switched gnomes favored class to bard (I don't like gnomes anyway)
3) Keen and improved crit not stacking (maybe weapon focus and masterwork shouldn't stack either).

Thats about it.  Most of the stuff I like.  I won't go in to details as they've been discusses enough as is.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 28, 2004)

In general I prefer 3.5, but here are the things I don't like (and house-ruled back to their 3.0 version in my game).

Nerfing Alchemy (Alchemists now have to be spellcasters, so no Expert NPC alchemists, or PC Rogues picking up Alchemy to make their own thunderstones/tanglefoot bags ect, they also dropped the 3.0 Alchemy rule that a DC 20 Alchemy check can ID a potion).  Alchemy wasn't overpowered before, why weaken it?

Pokemounts. *shudder*  I'll take Paladin Mount Classic thank you.

Buff Spell durations.  I don't mind making them a flat +4, it's the shorter durations I don't like.  I happen to like the idea of PC's using their spells to power up instead of being dependent on items.

Nerfing Polymorphs.  The 3rd Edition Errata Polymorph Self/Other will do just fine.  I really don't like the "Baleful Polymorph" nonsense, you can only turn them into a harmless tiny animal?

Weapon Size Rules.  Questions of realism aside, it's just a hassle to keep track of most of the time.  Yes, there can be Halfling-sized polearms and quarterstaves (but a quarterstaff for a small-sized creature would be a jo-stick for a medium sized creature, and be usable as a club IMHO, and a halfling-sized polearm would be a greataxe or longspear for a human)

Darkness is produces light, huh?  I still use 3.0 Darkness effects in my games.

Bard as the Gnome favored class, say what?  Since when were Gnomes renowned bards?  

As for making the game more mini dependant, go ahead, but I'm not buying the WotC minis they made them for, too expensive.  I'll stick to lego figures and my cheaper Mage Knight minis (yay for the 4-for-a-buck bin!), and all my old HeroQuest minis from way back when.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 28, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Power Attack 2-for-1 deal without a shield-wielder getting 2-for-1 AC from Combat Expertise



That's a good idea.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Sep 28, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> The spiked chain. IME, this thing is just a game killer.




The spike chain was a little broken in 3.0 now its a lot broken - 
why didn't real armies all use this weapon it is clearly superior to all polearms. 

Baneful Polymorph. 

Pokemount 

Jump Skill - I perfered the complexity and reallity 

I perfer the new stacking rules for keen, but I had'nt thought of just adding +1 for every addtional modifer. 
Dusts as wonderous items, instead of potions.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 28, 2004)

I can't think of any changes that, upon reflection, I disagree with.

The best changes that spring to mind are: 
 - updating monster feats & CR
 - class improvements: entire ranger; druid summoning; paladin mount/smites; bards armour
 - getting rid of no brainer multiclass level break-points (level of ranger anyone?)
 - spell revisions
 - magic item price revisions
 - improving the other item creation feats
 - halting the spell DC power creep
 - the general elimination of "must have" elements to the game


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 28, 2004)

The ranger (Monte Cook got it right, why can't WOTC?), paladin's mount, DR, the sorcerer (ditto), material from _Defender's of the Faith_ and other classbooks that was perfectly fine, ability boosting spells, weapon familiarity


----------



## Spatula (Sep 28, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> That one could have been done better... by letting it stack but NEVER allowing an effect to multiply. Always just a +1 threat range.



Which would unfairly benefit the high-multiplier weapons versus the low-multipier, high-range weapons.


----------



## Testament (Sep 28, 2004)

What am I missing here?!  What's wrong with the Ranger?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 28, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> The ranger (Monte Cook got it right, why can't WOTC?), ...



Monte said that he didn't get it exactly right, in particular he realized that his ranger variant is frontloaded feat-wise.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> What am I missing here?!  What's wrong with the Ranger?




Psion already mentioned one of my beefs--the combat styles. Also, I like the ranger as a wilderness warrior, not as a wilderness rogue.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 28, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Monte said that he didn't get it exactly right, in particular he realized that his ranger variant is frontloaded feat-wise.




I don't think we are talking about the same ranger. The one I have in mind is from the BoHM


----------



## Spatula (Sep 28, 2004)

I disagree with most of the spell & spell feat nerfs, and the general mucking about with the spell lists.  Haste & harm needed to be changed, the duration of the 2nd-lvl stat buffs needed to be reduced, but aside from some very minor tweaks I wouldn't have changed much else.

Removal of interesting or unusual spell-like abilities from monsters, especially the fiends, apparently because the SLAs weren't power-gamey enough.

Making the dwarf an even better race but giving nothing to the half-orc.

Changing the gnome's favored class to bard.

The keen/improved crit thing.

EDIT: Alchemy only being available to spellcasters. Blech.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 28, 2004)

Personally I find the 3.5 rules more trouble mechanically than they are worth. It really wasn't that freaking hard to move up or down one die size when scaling weapons.

But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _A longsword for a small creature is not and should not be the same as a short sword for a medium creature._



*cough* Sting

*cough* Barrow knives




> _ Anyone who argues that they should be has clearly never held an actual longsword or short sword. _



Ever held a longsword designed for a small size creature or a shortsword designed for a large one? That would be far more relevant.

However, I do know a dwarf (terrestrial homo sapien variety) who is involved in WMA and wields a 3.5' warsword with absolutely no difficulties.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 28, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Much better.  The scry skill was bad mechanically; nobody would take it before they could cast scry, cause duh, but then when you got the scry spells, you had to dump a lot of skill points into it to be at all good at the spell.



I certainly am not missing the loss of the Scry skill, but this statement is false.  There's nothing stopping you from taking 10 with the skill, it can be used untrained, and the DCs are rather low.  If you're a wizard, you're likely never going to need ranks in it at all.  Other casters will probably not need more than a few ranks, depending on the character's Int score.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> The spiked chain. IME, this thing is just a game killer.




At GenCon four years ago I ended up unknowingly discussing the spiked chain with Jonathan Tweet.  (I was creating a Living Greyhawk character over my complimentary continental breakfast at my crowded hotel, and he asked to share my table.)  When he saw what I was doing, he asked me what I thought of the 3E rules, and I told him, honestly, that they brought me back to D&D, but that I did think there were some minor issues.  One of the things I mentioned was the spiked chain.

That's when he said, "Yeah, I'm the one who put that in the game."  I did a double-take and he identified himself (and then asked if Bruce Cordell could also sit with us).  As we talked about it, my impression was definitely that he felt the spiked chain was too powerful, though he never came right out and said so.  (He gave me a little friendly hassle because I was creating a semi-martial conjurer who weilded a greatsword.  He said that after the spiked chain, the greatsword was the most powerful weapon in the game.)

And this was before the 3.5 changes mentioned made the spiked chain just plain absurd.

As for the original topic, I don't much care for the paladin's mount rules.  Most of the other rules they changed, I also would have changed ... I just would have changed them _better_.  For instance, the new ranger is a hundred times better than the old ... but it still has spells.  For another instance, the _buff's attribute_ spells needed their durations dramatically shortened ... but they should provide a +5 bonus (to give a tiny bit more utility to odd stats).  For a third instance, the DR rules really _do_ add a lot of flavor ... but they're thrown the pricing for magic weapons _way_ outta whack.

One thing I don't understand is why people have so much trouble with square facings.  You can accept that a gnome fully controls a 5' square, but not that a warhorse can fully control a 10' square, or a dragon can fully control a 20' square?  What's so wrong about that?

Non-square creature-representation clearly implies facing rules.  While for experienced gamers, that implication is easy to ignore (which, for 3E, we did), for inexperienced gamers it's just confusing.  (Hell, there are players _still_ who don't understand that D&D doesn't have facing.)  Square facings is just another combat abstraction ... and not even a major one.  I just don't get the problem.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 28, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Personally I find the 3.5 rules more trouble mechanically than they are worth. It really wasn't that freaking hard to move up or down one die size when scaling weapons.
> 
> But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.
> 
> ...




I never said that people _couldn't_ wield weapons that weren't sized for them. I simply said that such weapons aren't truly equivalent, Tolkien or no. The fact is (just for instance), short swords are weighted differently than longswords. They have a different ratio of blade-length to handle. One is not simply a smaller version of the other, and I like the fact that the game system as now written reflects that. I frankly don't find the new rules even remotely confusing, and I was surprised to learn that others do.


----------



## Testament (Sep 28, 2004)

Jeff, I can't speak for others, but my beef with the square facings is not actually with facings or the like.  Its with movement.  It strikes me as odd that a horse needs to squeeze their movement to fit down a 5' wide corridor, and absurd that a naga has to.

Your comments about facing are interesting, and I agree with you.  And there is no argument whatsoever about the Spiked Chain here.  That thing is truly absurd.

I find it interesting that you dislike the Ranger's spells.  Ah well, more a flavour thing I'd guess.


----------



## ecliptic (Sep 28, 2004)

Darkness spell shouldn't have been changed the way it was.

It should have been given a range. Which is a problem with 3e, not just 3.5.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> What am I missing here?!  What's wrong with the Ranger?



Ah, the 3.0 Ranger, where to begin. Let's see we've got:

 - frontloaded at 1st level
 - counter intuitive favoured enemies that requires you take you high level foe at low level
 - not enough skill points to cover the basics
 - no mid to high level class features
 - pitifully weak animal companion (has it improved?)
 - good HD & medium armour promotes tanking but stat requirements and scouting role discourage tanking

Have I missed anything?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 28, 2004)

Funny, a lot of things that I like about 3.5e are what a lot of people don't. I must have terrible taste.  

Weapon sizes: I disliked the 3.0 weapon sizes because Small races that would benefit most from Weapon Finesse could only use that feat with the dagger and a few other exotic weapons. Now, a halfling can use a rapier appropriately sized for him.

Square spaces: Rectangular spaces seemed really odd to me because it implied that creatures only ever faced one way in a fight, even if they were attacked from the side or the rear. Square spaces fit better with the concept that creatures turn every which way in a fight to strike at and defend against opponents on all sides.

Summon Mount: A paladin's god gives his champion the ability to summon a helper whenever and wherever he needs it, and people complain? So what if it's never been done before? It's a great idea, and even lawful good gods can innovate, you know. If it makes you feel better, have the paladin transform his pet dog into a dire lion or something.

The whole golf bag of DR issues: I liked the lowering of DR values so that it is now difficult but not impossible to injure a creature when you don't have the right weapon. I'm happy with the existing special materials and alignments. I will start to get annoyed if other special materials are added. I will make an exception for byeshk in Eberron because I like Eberron. Yes, that's terribly biased of me.

Gnome bards: In my own campaign, I was cracking my head over how to give gnomes more of a niche, and decided to re-invent them as a race of fun-loving tricksters whose favored class was bard instead of illusionist. You can imagine how delighted I was when 3.5e was released. Yes, this is another example of personal taste.

And now, back on topic. Things I didn't really like about 3.5e:

1. Needing to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy). I can see why some of the semi-magical substances need spellcasting ability, but it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to distill acid.

2. The buff spells may have been over-nerfed. 10 mins./level sounds good to me.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> Jeff, I can't speak for others, but my beef with the square facings is not actually with facings or the like.  Its with movement.  It strikes me as odd that a horse needs to squeeze their movement to fit down a 5' wide corridor, and absurd that a naga has to.




I gotcha.  Okay, think about this:

(1) It's only an issue in combat.
(2) Remember, D&D combat is all about _controlling your space_.
(3) Granted, a naga should have no problem slithering down a 5' corridor ... _except when she's worried about the space behind her_.

See what I'm getting at?  The movement penalty for "squeezing" isn't because the creature doesn't actually fit down the corridor ... it's because -- for whatever reason, length, height, bulk -- they have to proceed more cautiously to maintain vigilance and the ability to defend themselves on all sides.  (Consider a warhorse in a 5' corridor, being attacked from "behind," and maybe the visualization is easier.)

Does that help?



> I find it interesting that you dislike the Ranger's spells.  Ah well, more a flavour thing I'd guess.




Robin Hood didn't have spells.  Aragorn didn't have spells.  (Yes, Aragorn was a skilled herbalist and healer, but he _wasn't_ a spellcaster.)  Menion Leah didn't have spells.  Are there _any_ archetypal rangers that were spellcasters?

So, yeah, it's primarily a flavor issue.  I think the _Unearthed Arcana_ ranger is closer to perfect.

(BTW, I also dislike that assassins have spells, for the same reason.)


----------



## Spatula (Sep 28, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Robin Hood didn't have spells.  Aragorn didn't have spells.  (Yes, Aragorn was a skilled herbalist and healer, but he _wasn't_ a spellcaster.)  Menion Leah didn't have spells.  Are there _any_ archetypal rangers that were spellcasters?



I don't know, are there any archtypical D&D rangers from earlier editions?  Drizzt perhaps?  I don't care one way or the other, but complaining about rangers casting spells when they've been doing so for their entire game existance  (20+ years now) strikes me as more than a little futile.


----------



## Testament (Sep 28, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I gotcha.  Okay, think about this:
> 
> (1) It's only an issue in combat.
> (2) Remember, D&D combat is all about _controlling your space_.
> ...




That is, by far, the best justification ANYONE has ever given me.  Congratulations Jeff, you just changed my mind on that whole manner.

I also hate the Assassin having spells, and your views on the Ranger are valid.  I don't entirely agree with you (can't say why though  :\ ), nor do I disagree.

FreeTheSlaves, I'm not talking about the abomination that is the 3.0 Ranger (AKA the one level class), I'm talking about the 3.5 ranger, with 6+Int skill points and a heck of a lot less front loading.  The animal companion now scales (hallelujah!), and the favoured enemy bonuses can be kicked up when you pick up a new one.  If you pick up Dragons as your third, for instance, you can immediately kick it to +4.  Take a look at a 3.5 PHB, or the SRD.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Sep 28, 2004)

I've grumbled about it before, I'll grumble about it again.

Spell Resistance: No.

While the general concept behind this is probably something along the lines of "I've just conjured something that is real and is no longer magical but is actually here and therefore SR doesn't apply because it's really here and stuff", that line of reasoning means that the persistent force effect that has to pound through all of that real armor, Spiritual Weapon, is just as not-all-here as a lightning bolt, which is substantially less-all-here than the ranged touch attacks of Acid Arrow or Crystal Shard (Psionics -- power points are closer to a fantasy mechanic than spell slots   ) or the "just point and wait" Cloudkill.

While I can't complain much about Acid Arrow -- despite it leading to some mind numbingly dull and uncinematic suggestions involving trapping golems and using the sorceror to plink them to death with Acid Arrow -- it would seem to me that the Duergar would've used Cloudkill against the Drow (all of the Drow) a long time ago.  And using augmented Crystal Shards against a golem just deserves the kind of punishment that a DM who can see it coming would return for it.

Really, it's a _crystal shard_ that's real enough to not get stuck on spell resistance -- why the heck isn't it getting stuck on that adamantine full plate and tower shield the fighter is hiding behind, hrm?  How is it putting holes in that adamantine golem of mine, hrm?  If it were a straight ranged attack, then we could talk about it -- but it's a ranged touch, meaning that it's circumventing all standard armor slots that stop real things (like real crystal shards) from carving up what's inside.

The thing that made SR valueable in 3.0 was that it worked against virtually everything.  The thing that can make SR valueable in 3.5 is that the PCs don't expect it and therefore don't spend precious slots on SR-avoiding spells.  But that's not the case, is it?  From Drow to Duergar to Illithid (iirc), with most of the demons, devils and other outsiders in between, SR is a staple of monsters with a CR greater than 8 -- so why would any caster looking at high-level play seriously consider burning a pair of feats to help with Spell Penetration checks when they don't have to go making them at all?

AFAIC, binding the golems' Spell Immunity to SR was dang foolish -- especially if the actual spell Spell Immunity really does mean "Spell Immunity".

::Kaze (notes that _City of the Spider Queen_ is like a guided tour of all of the things that got nerfed or otherwise "rebalanced" for 3.5e which makes it pretty difficult to DM to the players' expectations)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 28, 2004)

Forgive my presumption, FreeTheSlaves- but I _think_ Testament was asking what was wrong with the 3.5 ranger...which I think is a pretty good class myself.

As for: Weapon size, the nerfing of buff spells, bard as a gnome's favored class -they bug me a lot.

As does the continued hosing of the half-orc.

The racial weapon familiarity makes sense to me, but should have been expanded to all of the non-human races (see statement immediately previous).

Enlighten me, guys- what are pokemounts?  I've not encountered that term before.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 28, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel better, have the paladin transform his pet dog into a dire lion or something.



_"I am Prince Adam, and this is Cringer, my faithful friend..."_


----------



## green slime (Sep 28, 2004)

My beefs are these:

1. Weapon Sizing. I just didn't see the problem. It was simple enough to create rapiers for halflings if you wanted to.

2. Improved Trip. IMO, this is a major contributor to the problem with spiked chain, together with the AoO for standing up.

3. Pokemount.

4. Cone-shaped spells having their area reduced to a fixed size. 

5. _Darkness_ that isn't. A nice spell as it is, it should have been a seperate spell, and _Darkness_ should still be...dark.

6. Wizard specialization. Now almost all specialists are Diviners.

7. Dwarves. 

8. Gnomes. Bards? wtf?

9. Weapon familiarity. 

10. Keen not stacking with Improved Crit.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I don't know, are there any archtypical D&D rangers from earlier editions?  Drizzt perhaps?




Justifying a D&D rule because of characters _based_ on that rule doesn't seem kinda, you know, silly to you?  It's like arguing in favor of the DH because the Yankees have had DHs for a long time.




> I don't care one way or the other, but complaining about rangers casting spells when they've been doing so for their entire game existance  (20+ years now) strikes me as more than a little futile.




Well, considering that complaining about the ranger got us a slew of unofficial 3E rangers, and then got us the 3.5 ranger, and then the _Unearthed Arcana_ ranger (which, BTW, doesn't cast spells), I suppose I have a slightly higher bar for use of the word "futile."


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> 4. Cone-shaped spells having their area reduced to a fixed size.




I don't get what you mean here.




> 5. _Darkness_ that isn't. A nice spell as it is, it should have been a seperate spell, and _Darkness_ should still be...dark.




I agree, but I really think this was an unintentional screw-up, and could be fixed as early as _Complete Arcane_.




> 6. Wizard specialization. Now almost all specialists are Diviners.




Say what?  I've seen three or four specialists in my group since 3.5, and not a single diviner.




> 8. Gnomes. Bards? wtf?




Why not?  It's not like they outlawed gnome illusionists.  Gnomes have always been gregarious sorts, getting along with pretty much everyone.  Making them natural bards seems like a justified extension of that to me.




> 10. Keen not stacking with Improved Crit.




I guess this one depends on whether you think that fights lasting only until the fighter rolls a natural 15 are fun or not.  (Put me down for "not."  But I'm a DM, and I would _never_ build a PC-killer like a min-maxed fighter with Improved Critical and a _keen_ weapon.  And if it's cheesy for me to use, in my role of creating fun encounters, it's damned sure cheesy for players to use.)


----------



## Steverooo (Sep 28, 2004)

I have to agree that the changes to Alchemy (or Craft (Alchemy), as it now stands) were a step down, instead of up.  While I agree that Wizrads, Sorcerors, Clerics, and Druids should all be able to ID potions, I thought IDing by an Alchemist was also a good thing.  Likewise, I agree that Non-Spellcasters should also be able to make acids, etc.

The changes to Tanglefoot Bags made them TOO weak, especially at higher levels.  They quickly become obsolete, especially compared to _Web_, a first level spell.

Profession (Herbalist) 5+ should still grant the +2 Synergy Bonus to Heal checks.

_Darkness_, cast in the dark, shouldn't produce light, nor should evil creatures be able to see through it when Darksight can't.

Weapon & Equipment weights/bulks are still badly out of whack.

Caster Levels for Rangers & Paladins should be Class Level - 3, instead of 1/2 CL, and the same for a Ranger's Animal Companion.

PCs should be able to acquire henchmen (or whatever you want to call them) without needing a Feat for it, even if there is a level requirement placed upon it.  Generally, you can buy a dog or a warhorse, but most GMs won't let you buy much else, and acquiring a Pseudo-dragon or a "special mount" (such as a Griffon, Hippogriff, Pegasus, or Unicorn) is a no-no for pretty much any GM.  It used to be that ANY PC could do this, at level 10+.  Now you need a Feat!

Hide requiring Cover/Concealment.  This hurts both the Rogue and the Ranger (as well as any PC who developed it Cross-Class).  Combined with "no facing", this makes sneaking up in too many situations a useless skill.

Invisibility is STILL too powerful!  It needs to be toned down to the point where, say, it gives the +20 to Hide, but beating the DC means that you know which square to attack, instead of having to beat the DC (at +20) BY 20!  That is just too much!

Magic is STILL too much more powerful than skills.  Spells still do too much more damage than weapons.  It's all about the magic, and High-level Fighters or Rogues really aren't worth as much as Wizards and Clerics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 28, 2004)

> 6. Wizard specialization. Now almost all specialists are Diviners.




Well, I've been playing specialist mages since I first had the option (2Ed, don'cha know).  Diviners have always been a favorite of mine, but I play just as many Transmuters.

And I'm the only person in my 2 groups who plays any specialists besides illusionists or evokers!  Most just play straight mages or sorcerers.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> 1. Weapon Sizing. I just didn't see the problem. It was simple enough to create rapiers for halflings if you wanted to.



Yup, as simple as applying the optional weapon equivalency rules if you don't like the revised weapon size.




> 2. Improved Trip. IMO, this is a major contributor to the problem with spiked chain, together with the AoO for standing up.



I thought it was great because it gave the Int-based fighter a nice power-up. My first 3.5e character was a human bard with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.


----------



## green slime (Sep 28, 2004)

Clarification: Cone-shaped spells went from having a range (long, medium, close), that was level dependant to having a fixed range.
Frex:

3.5 _Cone of Cold _ range: 60ft. Area: cone-shaped burst.
3.0 _Cone of Cold _ range: Close. Area Cone.

Because it was simpler to adjudicate? Is it really that tough to calculate the area? What is this? Gaming for the retarded?

With regards to specialists:
IMX, the loss of two schools of magic is too heavy a hit for specialists. Of course you may evaluate this differently. In a group that already contains a wizard (of any sort) the cost to the group is lower, of course.

In the campaigns I have played, DnD went from (3.0) having a greater variety of specialists (more players were willing to try different flavours of wizards) to only a very few (3.5). Of course your mileage may vary.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 28, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Enlighten me, guys- what are pokemounts?  I've not encountered that term before.



"Pokemount" is a derogatory term used to describe the 3.5e paladin's special mount because he now calls it magically once per day for 2 hours per paladin level instead of having it stick around 24-7. To me at least, it is annoying and almost as bad as some other words that would be replaced by smileys by this site's filter.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 28, 2004)

I am nowadays quite mild on the 3.5 changes, we still play a 3.0 campaign and there isn't one of the two which seems to work generally better or to be more fun.

Obviously, some of the specific changes I like a lot and some I don't. Just to list a few changes I don't like and haven't been mentioned so far:

- AoO when standing up from prone (realistic but a pain if overexploited)
- automatic Deflect Arrows (unrealistic, unfair, ugly and out of control, even if it rarely comes into play)
- the removal of multiple animal companions (could be difficult to handle but were nice)


----------



## Darren (Sep 28, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Enlighten me, guys- what are pokemounts?  I've not encountered that term before.




Pokemount is a derisive term sometimes given to the paladin's mount in the 3.5 flavor of the game.  In 3.5 a paladin can summon his mount from the "celestial realms" once a day.  It stays around for 2 hours per level or until dismissed.  It's sort of like the way little pocket monsters are summoned in the pokemon game.  So somewhere a terribly creative person with too much time on his hands somehow put pokemon + paladin mount together to get a pokemount.  I love the internet.


----------



## Kodam (Sep 28, 2004)

Hi!

- DR: Golfbag; 'nuff said on this. I like Monte's idea of relating materials to magic boni. (material = magic +X)
- Wizard Specialisation: in 3.0 it was a true alternative but in 3.5 its uninteresting IMO. The point in the wizards class is its multitude of spells. Two lost schools seem too much.


Kodam


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> Clarification: Cone-shaped spells went from having a range (long, medium, close), that was level dependant to having a fixed range.
> Frex:
> 
> 3.5 _Cone of Cold _ range: 60ft. Area: cone-shaped burst.
> 3.0 _Cone of Cold _ range: Close. Area Cone.




Oh, I see.  Wow, I didn't even notice that change.  (Obviously it didn't bother me ... )




> Because it was simpler to adjudicate? Is it really that tough to calculate the area?




I suspect it was more to balance the spells more easily with one another, while further standardizing area of effect rules.  Consider that there's a _big_ difference between _cone of cold_ (60' cone) and _burning hands_ (15' cone), and _no_ difference (beyond the obvious) between _cone of cold_ (close-range cone) and _burning hands_ (close-range cone).

I think a 5th-level spell _should_ have a much longer cone than a 1st-level spell, but on the other hand a 150'+ cone (if you step it up to Medium range) is kinda over the top.




> IMX, the loss of two schools of magic is too heavy a hit for specialists. Of course you may evaluate this differently. In a group that already contains a wizard (of any sort) the cost to the group is lower, of course.




I haven't found that to be the case.  Losing the schools sometimes hurts, of course -- if it didn't, it wouldn't be a drawback, after all -- but I've found the extra power makes up for it, or at least somewhere close.  Combined with that and the increased flavor of specialized wizards -- mmm, peppery! -- we rarely see non-specialized wizards in our games.

(To be fair, part of my feeling on this is shaped by the fact that I dislike the Illusion school.  I think many Illusion spells and effects are very difficult to fairly adjudicate, and that player and DM expectations often differ sharply.  So all my specialists lose Illusion pretty much automatically, and then I pick the other school based on the character.)


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> Uniformity of space. Nagas have to squeeze down halls? This is probably my biggest beef.



  This is what I meant by facing.  I should have said _*square facing*_.  It's just dumb that a horse is square.



> And anyone who dislikes sorcerors musn't have ever seen a well built one in action, with their bottomless clip.



 They still got the skills wrong, and a few other things.  Doesn't matter, I use my own build.  However, in 3.0 it was the only core class I felt was unuseable as written.  In 3.5 I think the ranger, paladin and bard need to be tweaked to fit my needs.  So I'm not a happy camper.  

But that's ok.  I've got enough 3.0 meterial to last me a lifetime, and my players aren't interested in "upgrading" so WotC can suck eggs.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Power Attack 2-for-1 deal without a shield-wielder getting 2-for-1 AC from Combat Expertise




Wow, what a cool idea!     I was going to say 3.5's 2-for-1 PA, I generally like most of the 3.5 changes.  This sounds like a very interesting house rule.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 28, 2004)

Power Attack 2:1. I'd have preferred to see the 1.5 factor from strength for twohanded weapons here as well. And a limit.

Kobolds. THEY GOT NERFED IN 3.5!!!?!?!?!?! Argh.

Imp Crit & Keen should stack. Crit special abilities for weapons only on 20s. ALL of them.

Polymorph etc. 

Druids and clerics: Still too strong. Animal Growth plus wildshape into Giant Octopus?

Improved Trip: Scratch the extra attack. Or the AoO for standing up. Or give more options to stand up without AoO.

Spiked chain. A weapon that would still be too good with 1d3 damage for medium sized creatures.

Bards. The new spell list is an improvement, but made archer bards impossible. Where's Magic Weapon? They made the bard stronger as a spell slinger with enchantments but made him useless as versatility character.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> With regards to specialists:
> IMX, the loss of two schools of magic is too heavy a hit for specialists. Of course you may evaluate this differently. In a group that already contains a wizard (of any sort) the cost to the group is lower, of course.
> 
> In the campaigns I have played, DnD went from (3.0) having a greater variety of specialists (more players were willing to try different flavours of wizards) to only a very few (3.5). Of course your mileage may vary.



If a change means that nobody wants to play the class in question, it probably wasn't a good change.  But eh, that's what house rules are for.  IMC, pick a school to specialize in, and pick an opposition school of your choice.  Simple.


----------



## green slime (Sep 28, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> If a change means that nobody wants to play the class in question, it probably wasn't a good change.  But eh, that's what house rules are for.  IMC, pick a school to specialize in, and pick an opposition school of your choice.  Simple.




Which is exactly what we do!  Great minds think alike!  Like most of my pet peeves, they are all already house-ruled! But this thread wasn't about my house rules, it was about what we (everyone on this board) feel shouldn't have changed in the core rules.

And wilder_jw? _Burning hands_ wasn't a cone in 3.0, it was a 10 ft. radius semi-circle...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 28, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I never said that people _couldn't_ wield weapons that weren't sized for them. I simply said that such weapons aren't truly equivalent, Tolkien or no. The fact is (just for instance), short swords are weighted differently than longswords. They have a different ratio of blade-length to handle. One is not simply a smaller version of the other, and I like the fact that the game system as now written reflects that. I frankly don't find the new rules even remotely confusing, and I was surprised to learn that others do.



I think the main reason the original rules make sense is because most of the races didn´t exist isolated from each other. Each of them is roughly familiar with the weapons of the other races, and probably the weaponsmiths designed weapons that could be used by most races, while the weapon training would consist in learning how to use the weapons that are not 100% and perfectly suited for your weapon. 
Especially adventuring heroes must know how to handle this - a halfling can´t be sure he will find a halfling-optmized sword when he enters a human town and needs to find a replacement for his old sword that just has been sundered ...


----------



## green slime (Sep 28, 2004)

Mouseferatu, it isn't that the new weapon sizes are confusing, it is the fact that they are klunky. Klunky and unnecessary. It provides for a level of detail in which I am uninterested. Who worries about blade-length to handle ratios? Does it chop/slice-n-dice? Can it kill the Beholders?

Does it make sense that a 3' halfling threatens as large an area as a 6' human? Hardly. Given this kind of granularity, I'm not going to worry about handles and blade lengths.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 28, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Wow, what a cool idea!     I was going to say 3.5's 2-for-1 PA, I generally like most of the 3.5 changes.  This sounds like a very interesting house rule.



Well, at first I didn't like the new PA.  But after playing with it for a while I don't mind the extra damage.  What I do mind is that taking it completely invalidates the Sword-and-Board style of fighting.  So I figure that if Power Attack is 2-for-1 for the 2H fighters in the game (and it should be, the greatsword/axe should do the most damage in the game, hands down), then Combat Expertise should be 2-for-1 for the S&B fighters in the game (and it should be, using a shield should provide the best defense in the game, hands down.)

Only Light or Heavy shields, though.

I just like the symmetry of it.  Both styles are still able to gain access to the opposite feat, but it works better for that combat style that most emphasizes its purpose.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2004)

I'll suggest this to my players as a house rule.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2004)

Here's my suggested Sword & Board feat - I've toned it down from your suggestion but I think it's probably still worth taking:

Shield Expertise: 
Prereqs: BAB +1, Shield proficiency
In combat the Wielder of a light or heavy shield can shelter behind their shield as a free action, by giving up  1 or 2 points of BAB they get a +2 or +4 AC cover bonus, ie +2 AC for-1 to-hit, +4 AC for -2 to-hit.  This feat is a form of Defensive Fighting and replaces Defensive Fighting's -4 to-hit for  +2 AC, it cannot be used in conjunction with Combat Expertise or a Full Defense action (+4 AC no attack).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 28, 2004)

3.5e changes:

*Classes* - I probably like all the class changes.

*Skills *- Excellent changes to jump, more clarity for Hide, Handle Animal and some others

*Feats* - I dislike 2 for 1 on 2H power attack, I dislike nerfing of improved critical, I dislike nerfing of spell focus to +1 (they should have just ignored greater spell focus and kept spell focus at +2 IMO). Dislike non-stacking of feats - multiple enlarges of cones were great, extends and empowers were fine. Several combat manouvres which avoid AoO now also give a +4 bonus as well (disarm, trip) and I think this was too much.

*Combat* - I like simplification of cover and concealment rules, I like square facing for combat, grappling made more sensible too.

*Spells* - Biggest problem. For some reason they decided to modify something like 80% of the spells in the book. Changed ranges, changed area of effects. Lightning bolts changed into confusing lines, cones with fixed ranges that can't be extended, buff spells with miniscule durations, multi use spells split up (emotion, eyebite, symbol etc). There were some good changes but huge numbers of unnecessary ones.

*DMG* - greatly improved organsation, especially excellent wilderness rules.

MM - fiends recieve a much needed upgrade in power, better stat layouts (e.g. BAB and grapple bonus called out for each creature)

Cheers


----------



## Gez (Sep 28, 2004)

The changes I didn't like:

The "Pokemount" problem.
Gnomes as bard. ???????
Most of the fiddling with spells, like with the "animal buff" spells. Talk about making characters _less_ reliant on their magic items and more on their own capacities, indeed.
Spell focus being +1. I would have made GSF be +3 and SF +2 instead.

On the other hand, here's a simple, easy, not-rule-affecting change that should have been done:
1. Create a new feat category entitled "Martial."
2. Give the fighter bonus martial feats.
3. Replace all the 

*Yada-Yada [General]*
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada.
*Special:* This feat can be taken as a bonus feat by a fighter.​by

*Yada-Yada [Martial]*
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada.​


----------



## shilsen (Sep 28, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Well, at first I didn't like the new PA.  But after playing with it for a while I don't mind the extra damage.  What I do mind is that taking it completely invalidates the Sword-and-Board style of fighting.  So I figure that if Power Attack is 2-for-1 for the 2H fighters in the game (and it should be, the greatsword/axe should do the most damage in the game, hands down), then Combat Expertise should be 2-for-1 for the S&B fighters in the game (and it should be, using a shield should provide the best defense in the game, hands down.)
> 
> Only Light or Heavy shields, though.
> 
> I just like the symmetry of it.  Both styles are still able to gain access to the opposite feat, but it works better for that combat style that most emphasizes its purpose.



 Very neat and elegant. Yoink!

I switched to 3.5 soon after it came out and haven't ever regretted the move. Sure, there are a couple of things I house-ruled, but far less than I did with 3e. It took all of 3 seconds to wrap one's mind around the weapon sizing change and it's never been at all confusing. And maybe it's just my group, but none of them had a problem when I described the visual image of the paladin petitioning his deity to send his mount to him, and a tunnel of light opened up behind him to reveal a shining steed galloping down from the celestial realms to aid him. Pokemount, forsooth!


----------



## Steverooo (Sep 28, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Robin Hood didn't have spells.  Aragorn didn't have spells.  (Yes, Aragorn was a skilled herbalist and healer, but he _wasn't_ a spellcaster.)  Menion Leah didn't have spells.  Are there _any_ archetypal rangers that were spellcasters?
> 
> So, yeah, it's primarily a flavor issue.  I think the _Unearthed Arcana_ ranger is closer to perfect.




"But in the wild lands beyond Bree there were mysterious wanderers.  The Bree-folk called them Rangers, and knew nothing of their origin.  They were taller and darker than the Men of Bree _and were believed to have strange powers of sight and hearing, and to understand the languages of beasts and birds_.  They roamed at will southwards, and eastwards even as far as the Misty Mountains; but they were now few and rarely seen.  When they appeared they brought news from afar, and told strange forgotten tales which were eagerly listened to; but the Bree-folk did not make friends of them."  FotR:178-9.

_Speak With Animals_, anyone?

"'This is an evil door,' said Halbarad, 'and my death lies beyond it.  I will dare to pass it nonetheless; but no horse will enter it.'"  RotK:58.

Prognostication/Precognition...

"Then Aragorn led the way, and such was the strength of his will in that hour that all the Dunedain and their horses followed him.  And indeed the love that the horses of the Rangers bore for their riders was so great that they were willing to face even the terror of the Door, if their masters' hearts were steady as they walked beside them.  But Arod, the horse of Rohan, refused the way, and he stood sweating and trembling in a fear that was grievious to see."  RotK:58-9.

_Calm Animals_?

"Aragorn stirred in his sleep, turned over, and sat up.
'What is it?' he whispered, springing up and coming to Frodo.  'I felt something in my sleep.'"  FotR:434.

"Nonetheless as the night wore on Aragorn grew uneasy, tossing often in his sleep and waking.  In the small hours he got up and came to Frodo, whose turn it was to watch.
'Why are you waking?' asked Frodo.  'It is not your watch.'
'I do not know,' answered Aragorn; 'but a shadow and a threat has been growing in my sleep.  It would be well to draw your sword.'"  FotR:446.

"There is mischief about.  I feel it."  FotR:457.

_Alarm_?

"When he had looked on the faces of the sick and seen their hurts he sighed.  '_Here I must put forth all such power_ and skill as is given to me,' he said.  'Would that Elrond were here, for he is the eldest of all our race, and has the greatest power.'"  RotK:145.

Not just skill, but _power_, too.  _Cure Light Wounds_, anyone?

"Now Aragorn knelt beside Faramir, and held a hand upon his brow.  And those that watched felt that some some great struggle was going on.  For Aragorn's face grew grey with weariness; and ever and anon he called the name of Faramir, but each time more faintly to their hearing, as if Aragorn himself was removed from them, and walked afar in some dark vale, calling for one that was lost."  RotK:147-8.

Healing is a struggle, requiring the use of some power.

"'I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley.  But to what she will awake: hope, or forgetfulness, or despair, I do not know.  And if to despair, then she will die, unless other healing comes which I cannot bring.  Alas! for her deeds have set her among the queens of great renown.'
Then Aragorn stooped and looked in her face, and it was indeed white as a lily, cold as frost, and hard as graven stone.  But he bent and kissed her on the brow, and called her softly, saying:
'Eowyn Eomund's daughter, awake!  For your enemy has passed away!'
She did not stir, but now she began again to breathe deeply, so that her breast rose and fell beneath the white linen of the sheets.  Once more Aragorn bruised two leaves of _athelas_ and cast them into steaming water; and he laved her brow with it, and her right arm lying cold and nerveless on the coverlet.
Then, whether Aragorn had indeed some forgotten power of Westernesse, or whether it was but his words of the Lady Eowyn that wrought on them, as the sweet influence of the herb stole about the chamber it seemed to those who stood by that a keen wind blew through the window, and it bore no scent, but was an air wholly fresh and clean and young, as if it had not before been breathed by any living thing and came new-made from snowy mountains high beneath a dome of stars, or from shores of silver far away washed by seas of foam.
'Awake, Eowyn, Lady of Rohan!' said Aragorn again, and he took her right hand in his and felt it warm with life returning.  'Awake!  The shade is gone and all darkness is washed clean!'  Then he laid her hand in Eomer's and stepped away.  'Call her!" he said, and he passed silently from the chamber."  RotK:149-50.

Power, again, aided by a "Power Component", Athelas.

"At the doors of the Houses many were already gathered to see Aragorn, and they followed after him; and when at last he had supped, men came and prayed that he would heal their kinsmen or their friends whose lives were in peril through hurt or wound, or who lay under the Black Shadow.  And Aragorn arose and went out, and he sent for the sons of Elrond, and together they laboured far into the night."  RotK:153.

It wasn't just Aragorn, either...  Elrond was the greatest healer, and Elladan & Elrohir, his two (Ranger) sons were, also.

"The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds."  FotR:75.

_Speak With Animals_, again...

"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue.  Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch.  From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."  FotR:233.

This is certainly the most convincing...  Aragorn isn't the type to waste either words OR time, yet he takes time out, while Frodo lies wounded & dying, to do SOMETHING with the hilt of the Morgul-blade!  If it's not a divination spell, then what IS he doing?

"'I have no fitting gifts to give you at our parting,' said Faramir; 'but take these staves.  They may be of service to those who walk or climb in the wild.  The men of the White Mountains use them; though these have been cut down to your height and newly shod.  They are made of the fair tree _lebethron_, beloved of the woodwrights of Gondor, and a virtue has been set upon them of finding and returning.  May that virtue not wholly fail under the Shadow into which you go!"  TT:319-20.

Faramir, too, displays talents, including item creation.

"If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard, and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands.  For they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro."  RotK:278.

Mindreading (an ability shared by all The Wise, which is why only Aragorn & Legolas could long hold Galadriel's gaze).

So, you could do a spell-less Ranger, but look at all the special abilities you'd have to invent, to replace the spells...

Precognition, Mindreading, Speaking With Birds & Beasts, Animal Calming, Stealthyness, Swiftness, and Perception, in general.  Then, you'd have to add a small host of special abilities that Rangers should have, which are covered by spells in 3.5:

A power of perception to awaken you to danger (_Alarm_).
Sending a message by Carrier-Pigeon, War-Dog, etc. (_Animal Messenger_).
Calming Animals, as the Rangers did upon the Paths of the Dead  (_Calm Animals_).
Befriend wild beasts (_Charm Animal_).
Speaking With Birds and Beasts  (_Speak With Animals, Summon Nature's Ally I-IV_).
Otherwise dealing with animals (_Hold Animal, Reduce Animal, Animal Growth_).
Sundry assorted healing abilities (_Detect Poison, Delay Poison, Neutralize Poison, Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Remove Disease_).
Finding Athelas, etc., at night, in the dark, in a ditch  (_Detect Animals or Plants_).
Finding traps (_Detect Snares and Pits_, Search).
Resisting the weather  (_Endure Elements, Resist Energy_).
Making traps  (_Entangle, Snare, Trip_).
Stealth  (_Hide From Animals, Pass Without Trace, Nondetection_).
Travelling  (_Jump, Freedom of Movement, Tree Stride_).
Swiftness  (_Longstrider, Cat's Grace_).
Knowledge/Lore  (_Read Magic, Owl's Wisdom, Speak With Plants, Commune With Nature_).
Hardy/Enduring  (_Resist Energy, Barkskin, Bear's Endurance, Protection From Energy_).
Nature Manipulation  (_(Greater) Magic Fang, Spike Growth, Wind Wall, Command Plants, Diminish Plants, Plant Growth, Repel Vermin, Tree Shape, Water Walk, Commune With Nature_).
Perceptions (_Alarm, Darkvision_)...

Now, a new, spell-less, variant Ranger could be devised, with new rules for all of these skills, and/or new, special abilities... but what would happen, then?

"The Ranger can _Speak With Animals_ at will, while the Druid can't?!"

"The Ranger can set traps, while the Rogue can't?!"

"Now the Ranger has the Barbarian's fast movement, PLUS Freedom of Action AND Tree Stride?!  Unbalanced!"

Nope, it's better to just use the already-existing mechanic, and call'em "spells".  No need to have a whole host of new tasks for Animal Handling/Animal Training, Craft (Trapmaking), Heal, etc., and explain why the Ranger can do it, but the Fighter can't.  No need to invent a whole slew of new Extraordinary Abilities, and explain why the Ranger "isn't unbalanced".

Nope, it's easier just to give the Ranger a few spells.  You want a Spell-less Ranger?  Give him/her/it a Wisdom of 10 or less.  Boom!  You're done!


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> And wilder_jw? _Burning hands_ wasn't a cone in 3.0, it was a 10 ft. radius semi-circle...




Thus my inclusion of the phrase "further standardization of areas of effect" ...


Jeff


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 28, 2004)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> They were taller and darker than the Men of Bree _and were believed to have strange powers of sight and hearing, and to understand the languages of beasts and birds_.
> 
> _Speak With Animals_, anyone?




"Were believed to."  Ignorant superstition, anyone?




> "'This is an evil door,' said Halbarad, 'and my death lies beyond it.  I will dare to pass it nonetheless; but no horse will enter it.'"  RotK:58.
> 
> Prognostication/Precognition...




Paranoia/Poetic license...




> "Then Aragorn led the way, and such was the strength of his will in that hour that all the Dunedain and their horses followed him.
> 
> _Calm Animals_?




Handle Animal skill?




> "Aragorn stirred in his sleep,
> 
> "Nonetheless as the night wore on Aragorn grew uneasy
> 
> ...




_Fear_ effect?  Night hag?  Great Listen check?  Paranoia?  Knwoing they _are_ out to get you?




> "When he had looked on the faces of the sick and seen their hurts he sighed.  '_Here I must put forth all such power_ and skill as is given to me,' he said.
> 
> Not just skill, but _power_, too.  _Cure Light Wounds_, anyone?




The Heal skill, combined with synergy with Craft (herbalism) given by a generous DM?




> "Now Aragorn knelt beside Faramir, and held a hand upon his brow.  And those that watched felt that some some great struggle was going on.  For Aragorn's face grew grey with weariness;
> 
> Healing is a struggle, requiring the use of some power.




Healing is a draining skill, especially when tending the very critically sick or wounded.




> Once more Aragorn bruised two leaves of _athelas_ and cast them into steaming water; and he laved her brow with it, and her right arm lying cold and nerveless on the coverlet.
> Then, whether Aragorn had indeed some forgotten power of Westernesse, or whether it was but his words of the Lady Eowyn that wrought on them, as the sweet influence of the herb stole about the chamber it seemed to those
> 
> Power, again, aided by a "Power Component", Athelas.




No, the Heal skill again, with a bonus for knowing about a particularly medicinally-useful plant.

Look, if Aragorn's touch actually healed wounds, there were enough people around to see it, and yet in none of the passages you quote did any onlookers see such a thing.  The most mystical thing they sensed was the smell of _athelas_.  I've had a contact high, too.




> And Aragorn arose and went out, and he sent for the sons of Elrond, and together they laboured far into the night."  RotK:153.
> 
> It wasn't just Aragorn, either...  Elrond was the greatest healer, and Elladan & Elrohir, his two (Ranger) sons were, also.




Why in the world did they "labor" far into the night?  Which requires long hours and hard work: the Heal skill used on many people, or laying on of hands?




> "The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds."  FotR:75.
> 
> _Speak With Animals_, again...




Who, exactly, is _speaking with animals_ here?




> "He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue.
> 
> This is certainly the most convincing...  Aragorn isn't the type to waste either words OR time, yet he takes time out, while Frodo lies wounded & dying, to do SOMETHING with the hilt of the Morgul-blade!  If it's not a divination spell, then what IS he doing?




Praying?  Meditating?  Examining the blade?  Thinking, "Oh, crap, we're in trouble now, I wish Gandalf were here"?




> "'I have no fitting gifts to give you at our parting,' said Faramir; 'but take these staves.  a virtue has been set upon them of finding and returning.  May that virtue not wholly fail under the Shadow into which you go!"  TT:319-20.
> 
> Faramir, too, displays talents, including item creation.




Yeah, about as much talent for item creation as the guy who sold me my Lucky Buddha down in Chinatown.  He laid a virtue on it for 'good fortune,' and I still haven't won the lottery.  (Of course, I don't _play_ the lottery ... )

Even if the staffs are actually magical, Faramir didn't say _he_ enchanted them.  Seems like he was pretty careful to use the passive voice, in fact.




> "If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard, and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands.  For they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro."  RotK:278.
> 
> Mindreading (an ability shared by all The Wise, which is why only Aragorn & Legolas could long hold Galadriel's gaze).




Wait, are you sure they didn't actually turn to stone?  Because up until now you've been putting a lot of stock into the perceptions and "beliefs" of onlookers.

I don't specifically remember this scene, truthfully.  Who's involved?




> So, you could do a spell-less Ranger, but look at all the special abilities you'd have to invent, to replace the spells...
> 
> A power of perception to awaken you to danger (_Alarm_).




Or you could give the ranger Listen and Spot skills, and lots of skill points, and access to the Alertness feat.




> Sending a message by Carrier-Pigeon, War-Dog, etc. (_Animal Messenger_).




Or you could give the ranger the Handle Animal skill, and lots of skill points, and have actual trained carrier pigeons and hounds to use the skill on.




> Calming Animals, as the Rangers did upon the Paths of the Dead  (_Calm Animals_).




Or you could give the ranger the Handle Animal skill, and lots of skill points.




> Befriend wild beasts (_Charm Animal_).




Or you could give the ranger an ability that allows the befriending of wild beasts, and call it something wacky, like, I dunno, "Wild Empathy."




> Speaking With Birds and Beasts  (_Speak With Animals, Summon Nature's Ally I-IV_).




"I can call spirits from the vasty deep!" / "Why so can I, and so can any man / "But will they come when you do call for them?"

You're actually claiming Aragorn _summoned_ creatures?




> Otherwise dealing with animals (_Hold Animal, Reduce Animal, Animal Growth_).




Wild Empathy, Handle Animal ... waitasec, again ... are you claiming that Aragorn casts _giant growth_ somewhere?  'Cause all of the above passages are stretches, but that'd be a whopper.




> Sundry assorted healing abilities (_Detect Poison, Delay Poison, Neutralize Poison, Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Remove Disease_).




Or you could give the ranger the Heal and Craft (herbalism) skills.  (If you're a reasonable DM, you could even allow synergy between the two.)




> Finding Athelas, etc., at night, in the dark, in a ditch  (_Detect Animals or Plants_).




Or you could give the ranger the Spot skill and a night with a moon.  (And if you're a nice DM -- or an author with power of life and death -- you could even lower the DC for the search substantially.)




> Finding traps (_Detect Snares and Pits_, Search).




Yeah, the Search skill would do it.




> Resisting the weather  (_Endure Elements, Resist Energy_).




Or you could give the ranger the Survival skill and the Endurance feat.




> Making traps  (_Entangle, Snare, Trip_).




Or you could give the ranger the Craft (trapmaking) skill.




> Stealth  (_Hide From Animals, Pass Without Trace, Nondetection_).




Or you could give the ranger the Hide and Move Silently skills.




> Travelling  (_Jump, Freedom of Movement, Tree Stride_).
> Swiftness  (_Longstrider, Cat's Grace_).




Or you could give the ranger Woodland Stride.  (And maybe even an extra 10' of movement (_Unearthed Arcana_).)




> Knowledge/Lore  (_Read Magic, Owl's Wisdom, Speak With Plants, _).




Or you could give the ranger the Knowledge (nature), Craft (herbalism), and Heal skills, and an experienced and long-lived ranger might even have cross-class skills in Knowledge (history).




> Hardy/Enduring  (_Resist Energy, Barkskin, Bear's Endurance, Protection From Energy_).




Endurance feat.  (You're gettin' seriously repetitive now.)



> Nature Manipulation  (_(Greater) Magic Fang, Spike Growth, Wind Wall, Command Plants, Diminish Plants, Plant Growth, Repel Vermin, Tree Shape, Water Walk, Commune With Nature_).




You have _got_ to be kidding me.  _Water walk_?  Is Strider yer own personal Jesus?




> Perceptions (_Alarm, Darkvision_)...




Spot, Listen, Alertness...




> Now, a new, spell-less, variant Ranger could be devised, with new rules for all of these skills, and/or new, special abilities... but what would happen, then?




Not "could be."  "Has been."  And, oddly, the sky didn't fall.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 28, 2004)

I can't believe this discussion is still ongoing.  It's just the same over and over again.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 28, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> 1) Pokemounts
> 2) Square bases (I thought I was alone on this, but it's nice to see at last someone else agrees.)
> 3) Concealment
> 4) School rearrangements and specialist wizards
> ...





ditto Psion's list.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> That is, by far, the best justification ANYONE has ever given me.  Congratulations Jeff, you just changed my mind on that whole manner.
> 
> I also hate the Assassin having spells, and your views on the Ranger are valid.  I don't entirely agree with you (can't say why though  :\ ), nor do I disagree.
> 
> FreeTheSlaves, I'm not talking about the abomination that is the 3.0 Ranger (AKA the one level class), I'm talking about the 3.5 ranger, with 6+Int skill points and a heck of a lot less front loading.  The animal companion now scales (hallelujah!), and the favoured enemy bonuses can be kicked up when you pick up a new one.  If you pick up Dragons as your third, for instance, you can immediately kick it to +4.  Take a look at a 3.5 PHB, or the SRD.




If anyone is looking for a better spell-less ranger, take a look at Iron Kingdoms 3.5. You can actually build Aragorn with it. Huzzah!

Mostly I was annoyed at a few spell changes. Some should have been hit with the nerf stick (Mord's Disjunction), some got powered up (Shapechange, Righteous Might) and a few are too weak (Blight).

I do not like the new Power Attack, either.



> Now Aragorn knelt beside Faramir, and held a hand upon his brow.




Stop right there. Aragorn is not the only ranger in the Tolkien universe. He's the king. Faramir is _not_ the king. No other ranger ever demonstrated these abilities - and I'm counting Beren here (he was a lycanthrope hunter with loads of wilderness skills).


----------



## diaglo (Sep 28, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I can't believe this discussion is still ongoing.  It's just the same over and over again.





give it another 12 years or so.

it has only been a year. that is hardly enough time to talk a topic out.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

Cordo said:
			
		

> Having given scry quite a workout in an RttToEE campaign, both before and after the change to 3.5, I really like the 3.5 changes and how it worked with the skill... The drawback is of course as Psion pointed out that lots of old 3.0 NPCs are statted out with the skill.




It's not just NPCs I speak of. Second World had multiple classes that hinged around it and a magic subsystem that was built upon it. I felt Monte's modifications in BoEM III did the trick for scry, so I just used those instead of the 3.5 changes and everything was happy.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.




Oh, I didn't lack the math skills (though I know some players who did). I just know it adds an additional step to each attack rolls, a process which is slow enough as it is.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 28, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> That one could have been done better... by letting it stack but NEVER allowing an effect to multiply. Always just a +1 threat range.



This would make sword-like weapons (19-20/x2 or 18-20/x2) inferior to axe-like weapons (20/x3 or 20/x4).

Basic crit weapons (20/x2) do 5% more damage on average, good crit weapons (19-20/x2 or 20/x3) do 10% more damage, and super crit weapons (18-20/x2 or 20/x4) do 15% more. Doubling the threat range (what we do now) changes these to 10%, 20% and 30%, equally within the category (ignoring for the moment both the marginal effect of "wasted threat range" and "wasted damage"). If you instead increase threat range by 1, you still get 10% for basic weapons, 20% for good axe-like weapons (19-20/x3) (net increase 10%), and 30% for super axe-like weapons (19-20/x4) (net increase 15%). However, good sword-like weapons (18-20/x2) only get a 15% increase (net plus 5%), and super sword-like weapons (17-20/x2) only get a 20% increase (also net plus 5%).



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Yup, as simple as applying the optional weapon equivalency rules if you don't like the revised weapon size.
> 
> I thought it was great because it gave the Int-based fighter a nice power-up. My first 3.5e character was a human bard with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.




The problem with 3.5e Improved Trip is that in exchange for one attack, you get two attacks (first as a direct result of Improved Trip, second as an AoO when he gets up), plus that you're putting your opponent at a disadvantage (being prone) and costing him half a round (getting up). That's a lot of advantage for one second-tier (i.e. only one prereq) feat.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Here's my suggested Sword & Board feat - I've toned it down from your suggestion but I think it's probably still worth taking:
> 
> Shield Expertise:
> Prereqs: BAB +1, Shield proficiency
> In combat the Wielder of a light or heavy shield can shelter behind their shield as a free action, by giving up  1 or 2 points of BAB they get a +2 or +4 AC cover bonus, ie +2 AC for-1 to-hit, +4 AC for -2 to-hit.  This feat is a form of Defensive Fighting and replaces Defensive Fighting's -4 to-hit for  +2 AC, it cannot be used in conjunction with Combat Expertise or a Full Defense action (+4 AC no attack).




I like the 2-for-1 Combat Expertise better. The two-handers get their bonus as part of a feat they're likely to take anyway, so the sword&boarders should too - it shouldn't require a separate feat.

IMO, one small failing of 3e in general (with 3.5e being slightly worse in this regard on account of 2-for-1 power attack) is that two-handed weapons are superior to sword & board, when in our world the opposite would seem to have been true.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> Jeff, I can't speak for others, but my beef with the square facings is not actually with facings or the like.  Its with movement.  It strikes me as odd that a horse needs to squeeze their movement to fit down a 5' wide corridor, and absurd that a naga has to.




Same here, except it goes beyond that for me. It's not just absurd when it comes to movement. It is also absurd when it comes to line of sight when your 10-ft wide mounted soldier cannot hide behind a 5-foot wide hut. Similar bizarreness comes up when you consider things like horse drawn chariots.

Sure you can make exceptions, but when you make exceptions for so many situations, it seems obvious to me that the abstraction does not serve its intended function.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 28, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> I still play 3.0 but was considering updating.
> 
> From what I can see, there's a lot of good changes and the game is now even more streamlined.
> 
> ...




Weapon size is nonsensical in the real world, but works fine for the game.  The face and reach change is probably the worst in the game, in my opinion.  All creatures fill a square shape, now.  So huge snake can't fit through a 5ft. hallway if you go by that.  It's dumb.  It's pointless.  It creates more corner cases than it removed.


----------



## Gez (Sep 28, 2004)

Actually, about square facing, there are rules about squizzing in passageways smaller than your facing.

The square facing represent the space you take when you're madly jumping and spinning and otherwise doing funky moves. Not the space you occupies when you're quietly walking in a corridor.

Lookit page 149 of your 3.5 _Player's Handbook_. (It's page 149 in both English and French edition; if you have an Italian/German/High Devirian edition, I don't know where it is, but probably nearby.)


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> This would make sword-like weapons (19-20/x2 or 18-20/x2) inferior to axe-like weapons (20/x3 or 20/x4).
> 
> (snip analysis)




Good point. However, I am not always concerned when an *option* is inferior. Hopefully players will recognize when their resources are best spent, frex, if an axe fighter might be better off taking improved crit where a sword fighter would be better off with weapon specialization.

Further, with some rules variants, this might be a desirable counterbalance. For example, if you give options during a threat, or assign the possibilities of impairment when a crit is rolled (like in _Torn Assunder_, the value of a wider threat range is greater.



> I like the 2-for-1 Combat Expertise better. The two-handers get their bonus as part of a feat they're likely to take anyway, so the sword&boarders should too - it shouldn't require a separate feat.




I'd just as soon do away with the 2-for-1 altogether, as it makes it too easy to generate large numbers. Frex, in my 3.0 game, overcoming hardness came up at several junctures; 2-for-1 power attack is the simple solution to that. Likewise, 2-for-1 combat expertise seems like it would be the key to extreme ACs that bog combat down to fighters continually missing one another. IOW, they are mathematially fair, but can create situational problems.

(Not that I have a real good alternate solution to the two-weapon thing, I just don't like *this* one.)


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Actually, about square facing, there are rules about squizzing in passageways smaller than your facing.
> 
> The square facing represent the space you take when you're madly jumping and spinning and otherwise doing funky moves. Not the space you occupies when you're quietly walking in a corridor.




I thought Testament's post made it clear that was understood.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 28, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Personally I find the 3.5 rules more trouble mechanically than they are worth. It really wasn't that freaking hard to move up or down one die size when scaling weapons.
> 
> But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.




THAC0 calculations were pointless. If they required Lebesgue integration I might be impressed, but there is nothing special about subtracting negative numbers.




			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> *cough* Sting
> 
> *cough* Barrow knives




I'd see a doctor about that cough. In the meantime, it might help to realize that Tolkien was not a weaponsmith.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 28, 2004)

I'm also not a big fan of square-based creatures.  Horses should be longer than they are wide, and ogres should be wider than they are long.  Apart from that, I don't have a lot of complaints.  Polymorph rules are still not perfect, and baleful polymorph (in particular) should have more options.  

And some consistent complaints that I disagree with:  I don't like gnomes, anyway - and the only player I've ever had who played one seriously played a gnome bard, so the favored class change seemed fine and dandy to me (although it will never come up, because my players *know* I don't like gnomes). 

Also, the new ranger is INFINITELY better than the 3.0 version.


----------



## Gez (Sep 28, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I thought Testament's post made it clear that was understood.




I was responding to something from the previous page.  But it took me some time to retrieve my PHBs.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Stop right there. Aragorn is not the only ranger in the Tolkien universe. He's the king. Faramir is _not_ the king. No other ranger ever demonstrated these abilities - and I'm counting Beren here (he was a lycanthrope hunter with loads of wilderness skills).




But we don't really know what character class any of these characters, or any of the rangers in LotR actually were. Other rangers were probably a mix of classes and it's not like we ever see any of them long enough to tell that they CAN'T do some minor healing, speaking with animals and whatnot. Similarly with Robin Hood. A ranger? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just a fighter with a rogue level or two. There are plenty of valid interpretations of these characters, not all being the same. To my eyes, it looks like Aragorn has some minor magical abilities.
The ranger class in 1st edition is clearly modeled on Aragorn (it even includes the use of scrying devices) and that has been translated down to 3.5. In all versions, spells have been a component. I'm content that the spell list has become one that seems to fit well with the ranger's adventuring out in the wilds.
I find the ranger the best revision in 3.5.

My complaint about 3.5 is the large scope of minor changes that seem to have little real point to them. This is mostly in spells and monsters. I can see how you'd have to change a bunch of the spell-like abilities of monsters to match the changes in spells, I can understand regularizing the number of feats and skill points they get, and I can understand carefully going over named bonuses in spells to prevent crazy and unbalanced combinations. But why change celestials to angels? Why change the ettin's darkvision to low-light vision? Was there a compelling reason for the change? If not, why bother changing it? Why would you make niggling little changes if the originals aren't grossly broken or confusing?
Same with many spells which, I think, are adjusted too far with combat in mind and not other applications. I agree that the buff spells needed some nerfing, but at 1 minute/level, you might not even be able to use any of the mental buff spells to get you through a useful task like having an audience with the duke. Same with invisibility. One minute/level makes scouting out an enemy position a mile or more away impossible.
Now, I've heard people argue, mainly with invisibility, that no spell should completely be able to horn in on the niche of the sneaky character types like rogues and rangers. Well I think that's bunk. I don't believe in any character archetype having a necessary role in an adventuring party. I believe that other methods, including magic, should be available that can compensate for missing expertise.


----------



## Steverooo (Sep 28, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Stop right there. Aragorn is not the only ranger in the Tolkien universe. He's the king. Faramir is _not_ the king. No other ranger ever demonstrated these abilities - and I'm counting Beren here (he was a lycanthrope hunter with loads of wilderness skills).




No, you stop right there.  _Which_ abilities did no other Ranger demonstrate?  I have already quoted where Elrond, Elladan, and Elrohir healed, and where Halbarad was prescient.  I could do the same for Denethor, Gilraen, etc.

The original poster claimed that no archetypal Ranger ever cast spells.  I believe that I have demonstrated otherwise.  Tolkien's PCs don't announce "I will now cast X", as he wrote LotR before D&D was created.    

If others want to believe that Aragorn is singing over the Morgul blade, instead of casting a spell, then that's their choice.


----------



## Ferret (Sep 28, 2004)

I'm growing to like the new weapon sizes... And growing to dislike the square creatures. I dislike the new power attack, and the dwarven changes. I dislike the change to wildshape and the plant shape of the druid. The half-elf changes are in the right direction but not enough.

There not much else, but it might be jsut because I can't remember any.


----------



## Henry (Sep 28, 2004)

My list contains a couple of things I've seen no one mention yet:

1. The changes to overrunning and charging. All this fuss to stop people from moving through friendly squares!?!? I never saw nor heard on these forums one single problem encountered by people with the 3E charging and overrunning rules. It's such a rare tactic that it's a miracle enough playtesting in the field was done to even point to a problem.

2. Polymorph Self changes - yet again. More problems added and loopholes because of unclear wording. In my opinion, WotC should have kept the version from Masters of the Wild, because it was not only clear, it worked with few to no problems that I had ever heard.

I'm of course miffed over being able to light a pitch-black area with a darkness spell,  but that's been mentioned quite a few times. I remembered and preferred the 3E darkness, and had Deeper Darkness been pitch black compared to darkness' "shadowy illumination" I wouldn't have minded. However, it destroyed for me the usefulness of the darkness spell, and it seriously harmed 3E brainchild the Darkmantle - those things couldn't challenge a 1st level party now, unless it was in multiple numbers.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 28, 2004)

On Polymoph, I feel there's truly going to be one way to fix the spell.  That's to add another ability type.  So that we would have Spell-like, Supernatural, Extraordinary, and Natural.  The by-the-book rule that a wildshaped bat can't see or a snake can't constrict is right out in my book, but you don't want to give away Troll Regeneration either.  My solution is to keep 3.0 polymorph, add a Will save or you think your natural form is the new one (stop that poly the party to trolls crap before it starts), and you can use any Ext ability that exists in the real world.  Works rather well so far.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 28, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> Mouseferatu, it isn't that the new weapon sizes are confusing, it is the fact that they are klunky.




*shrug* I never found them klunky. I like them a great deal, and when they popped up, we took to them like a fish to water. YMMV, as always, but I'm glad they're there, and I think they work pretty well.

As far as the races developing in conjunction with one another, and adventurers needing to be able to use what they find, well, they _can_. A halfling can pick up a human-sized short sword and use it. There's just a penalty--a relatively small one, IIRC--to do so. Makes perfect sense to me.

In regards other aspects of the conversation, I've played multiple wizard specialists--a necromancer and a conjurer come most immediately to mind--since 3.5 came out, and I've very much enjoyed them both. I don't for one second feel that two schools is too much to give up. Sure, it hurts occasionally, but those extra spells (and particularly the benefits offered by the specialist variants in Unearthed Arcana) are worth it most of the time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see those UA variants as core rules next time around.

And given that I've seen _far_ more sorcerers played than wizards, in both 3.0 and 3.5, I have to figure they can't be _too_ broken.


----------



## Psion (Sep 28, 2004)

For me, it's not that weapon sizes are clunky. It's that I find it pedantic to assign modifiers for things on an order that other aspects of the D&D system would gloss over, and it doesn't guarantee sensible results -- I still don't understand why a halfling longspear would have a reach AND be difficult to wield by humans. I am just not seeing something in game that would make both be true.


----------



## Swiftbrook (Sep 28, 2004)

#1 Weapon Sizing -- Absolutely stupid rule change.  Even the sage has problems with it.

#2 Arrow bonuses don't stack with bow bonuses -- They changed it so a low level character who can make a +2 weapon can't compete with a high level character who can make a +4.  +2 Bow +2 Arrow = +4 weapon.  I allow the stacking.

#3 Bard as Gnome favorite class -- tradition, Gnomes have always been good at illusion.

#4 Paladin's Mount

#5 All creatures fit into squares -- yah right.

-Swiftbrook


----------



## FireLance (Sep 29, 2004)

Since I've already touched on weapon sizing, the gnome favored class, the paladin's mount and the square spacing, I'll just address the stacking of bows and arrows (or projectile weapons and ammunition in general).

I doubt that competition between characters of different levels was the issue. After all, if a low level character can get +2 plus +2, a higher level character can get +4 plus +4.

The problem was that stacking enhancement bonuses made projectile weapons too good compared with melee weapons. A single strike with a melee weapons can get you +5 to hit and damage and +5 of some special abilities. With a projectile weapon and ammunition, you could get +10 to hit and damage and +10 more worth of special abilities. Yes, your store of ammunition does wear down, but you're a terror in the really important fights.

I would be interested to know how melee types feel in a campaign where the enhancement bonuses to projectile weapons and ammunition still stack.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Sep 29, 2004)

Weapon sizing rules in 3.5 suck.
Spell Focus shouldn't have been undercut.
Buff spells are now too limited.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 29, 2004)

I have a problem with the square bases, not for realism purposes but for miniatures purposes!  (Jeff brilliantly summed up the realistic reason for the 5 ft. corridors/squeezing rule)

I like having square-based ogres, giants, etc., because that's how every company that provides bases for L-sized creatures makes them - most importantly Games Workshop.

Unforunately, GW, and several other miniature producers, also make 'cavalry base' creatures.  1 x 2 squares.  For horses, centaurs, and quite a few other creatures.  Which are now supposed to be square.

 :\ 

Anyway, I agree with almost all of the 3.5 changes, but the removal of crit stacking annoys me.  That could be because I was playing a crit-based fighter at the time of the changeover.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 29, 2004)

> The ranger class in 1st edition is clearly modeled on Aragorn (it even includes the use of scrying devices) and that has been translated down to 3.5. In all versions, spells have been a component. I'm content that the spell list has become one that seems to fit well with the ranger's adventuring out in the




Pippin was able to use the Palantir as well; it's not a ranger ability.


----------



## Wolf72 (Sep 29, 2004)

wow, I think I've learned more about 3.5 than I did by reading through the SRD!!!

... I like magical rangers ... more of nature's warrior, than expert woodsman (not that I don't like expert woodsman ... but I'd just tweak the expert a bit to get the non-magic ranger ... in the early days someone posted the var.ranger, remember bertman4 anyone?, which was more skill oriented).

never caught the 2hr thingee for Paladins ... not decided about it, it is kinda nice to loose the horse once in a while


----------



## dead (Sep 29, 2004)

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but what about Haste.

I just took a gander at the SRD and it seems the new Haste spell is now only useful to warriors making a full attack.

No longer do you get a free partial action. Fullstop. You now only get it with a melee weapon while making a full attack action.

How's this gone for people?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Pippin was able to use the Palantir as well; it's not a ranger ability.




One might have a solid argument that he didn't use the palantir, but that it used him.  

Be that as it may, this is why Use Magic Device is a skill - so you can have the occasional oddball who can use magic items they otherwise coudln't.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 29, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Good point. However, I am not always concerned when an *option* is inferior. Hopefully players will recognize when their resources are best spent, frex, if an axe fighter might be better off taking improved crit where a sword fighter would be better off with weapon specialization.




Of course, in such a situation, you'd either have to make certain weapon-based feats unusable with certain weapons, or accept the fact that you'll never, ever see a sword ever again.  The former requires more rules, and will be picked to death everywhere.  As to the second, if I can get more benefit out of Improved Crit and WS for an axe rather than a sword...why should I pick up a sword again if I have a chioce?

Making an option inferior means that it won't see the light of day, ever.

Brad


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Sep 29, 2004)

*Sling damage is what irks me about weapon sizing*

I'm happy enough overall with weapon sizing, but what irks me is that the difference in damage dealt extends to missile weapons as well as melee weapons.

I keep thinking about kinetic energy being 0.5mv2, where the speed is what matters more than the mass of the item - and wondering why small combatants are penalised in terms of the sling.  Penetrating missile weapons presumably do most of their damage through shock - so again, it's more the amount of energy (which is more proportional to v than m) that matters...

...maybe I'm just over analyzing the thing, but I have seen players of small characters not have as much fun because they simply can't deal damage as well as medium sized characters (and to me, everyone having fun playing characters they want to play is an important thing).


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 29, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Much better.  The scry skill was bad mechanically; nobody would take it before they could cast scry, cause duh, but then when you got the scry spells, you had to dump a lot of skill points into it to be at all good at the spell.  It was also odd conceptually, because other spells don't have associated skills, you don't even need to make ranged touch attacks to target fireballs on a precise point in space.  Will saves with adjustments for familiarity are just better.




..which is why I have Spellcraft not Scry...and you only get half your ranks to it...IMG. 
And I'm a 3.5 Resistor.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 29, 2004)

Things I don't like about 3.5:

Grapple: what the....? All the stuff we faced have grapple checks so high, even our epic characters would have probs.

Weapon sizes: Makes me NOT want to play a halfling or gnome.

Heal spell: got nerfed. Not quite as powerful.

Righteous Might: got nerfed recently. Article on wotc site.

Divine Champion PrC (Faerun): Nerfed, IMO, as the feats that it allows are much, much more limited than before.

More to come later, I'm sure.....


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 29, 2004)

Damage reduction: Why should I get a +4 weapon when all I really need is a +1 to bypass DR/magic???   I kinda liked needing a +4 to get past DR/+4 other than just extra damage and better attack bonus.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 29, 2004)

Swiftbrook said:
			
		

> #3 Bard as Gnome favorite class -- tradition, Gnomes have always been good at illusion.



Gnomes are still excellent at illusion. They get the +1 save DC for illusion spells, and bards have most of the illusion school on their spell list.


----------



## Testament (Sep 29, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but what about Haste.
> 
> I just took a gander at the SRD and it seems the new Haste spell is now only useful to warriors making a full attack.
> 
> ...




Considering that this is what Haste was always intended to be, I've had no problems.  At any rate, I'm not going to miss the "three barelled Wizard" at all.


----------



## argo (Sep 29, 2004)

3.5 changes I dont' like:
Keen and Improved Crit don't stack (that's just plain stupid)
Weapon Familarity (give it to everyone or noone)
Changes to the Dwarf (the 3.0 Dwarf is just fine)
Short duration on buff spells (I use 10 min/level)
Nerfed Spell Focus (IMC SF gives +2 and GSF gives +1)


Other than that I am quite pleased with 3.5 which I think is generally an improvment on 3.0  Not that I don't have other house rules too but those are the changes I un-did.

Later.


----------



## Liminal Syzygy (Sep 29, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> 1. The changes to overrunning and charging. All this fuss to stop people from moving through friendly squares!?!? I never saw nor heard on these forums one single problem encountered by people with the 3E charging and overrunning rules. It's such a rare tactic that it's a miracle enough playtesting in the field was done to even point to a problem.



I've wondered about that myself -- why all the new limitations on charging? The main problem I saw with charging in 3.0 was damage doublers like Rhino Hide armor. I did think low level 3.0 Barbarians were broken a bit with this item. But Rhino Hide armor itself was scaled back. Maybe it was a case of the PHB revision team wanting to make charge more situation for that reason, not knowing that charge damage multipliers would also be scaled back.

I don't know the rules on charging with the mini game, but it could also be that this was all to bring charging into line with how it works there. Can anyone help here?


----------



## Squire James (Sep 29, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Damage reduction: Why should I get a +4 weapon when all I really need is a +1 to bypass DR/magic???   I kinda liked needing a +4 to get past DR/+4 other than just extra damage and better attack bonus.




Well, if it's a 2H weapon that extra +3 attack can be added to Power Attack and leave the same attack probability as the +1 model.  So that +3/+3 you're thinking of can easily become a +0/+9 with a potential of getting really sickening on a critical.  Well worth the 30K gold in my opinion!

It's harder to justify with 1H and finesse styles, except to say rogues sometimes need all the attack bonus they can get.  Sword-and-board fighters might be better served spending their money on +4 armor and +4 shield instead of getting a +1 weapon.

I would prefer to have more DR categories to indicate better magic weapons.  Something like "mighty", which would be defined as a magical weapon with an enchantment bonus of +4 or higher.  So that +1 keen vorpal cheeseball wouldn't get through "mighty and epic" DR.


----------



## Anthraxus (Sep 29, 2004)

> No longer do you get a free partial action. Fullstop. You now only get it with a melee weapon while making a full attack action.
> 
> How's this gone for people?




Actually, I don't think it's just an extra attack with a Melee weapon. My elven wizard has been Hasting the party_(another 3.5 change- it's not just for one person anymore)_ giving them +1 to hit, AC, and Reflex saves, and the extra attack on a full attack. The 30'_(or up to double your normal movement rate)_ is nice too. 

Spellcasters casting 2 spells per round(3 with a quickened one thrown in) was just crazy.

Things I don't like, Re: 3.5-
2 handed power attack. Totally.
Dwarves weren't good enough?!
Keen/Imp. Crit non-stackage.

-A


----------



## Grayhawk (Sep 29, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Or you could give the ranger Woodland Stride.  (And maybe even an extra 10' of movement (_Unearthed Arcana_).



Wilder_jw you have three times now mentioned a spell-less Ranger from Unearthed Arcana, and this may be a really stupid question, but where is it?

I see the Planar and Urban variants, a variant that gains Wild Shape but lose Combat Style and the Prestige Ranger, but on what page is the spell-less Ranger on?

*Flips through the 'Classes' chapter one more time*


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 29, 2004)

Grayhawk said:
			
		

> Wilder_jw you have three times now mentioned a spell-less Ranger from Unearthed Arcana, and this may be a really stupid question, but where is it?




Dammit, it's on page 13!


Jeff

P.S.  Of _Complete Warrior_, not _Unearthed Arcana_, of course.  Somebody wanna take over this hookah for me?

P.P.S.  Oh, and it's spell-less, but it does still have spell-like abilities, which I still don't like.  But better than spells.


----------



## Testament (Sep 29, 2004)

Dang.


----------



## Grayhawk (Sep 29, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Dammit, it's on page 13!
> 
> 
> Jeff
> ...



Oh, ok. Thanks.

Do any of you know if a write-up of the spell less Ranger from Complete Warrior is available anywhere?


----------



## Liminal Syzygy (Sep 29, 2004)

People have mentioned the square bases but another thing along those lines that has bothered me is the general size increase. As their bases are so huge now, fighting Ogres or other large creatures in the typical D&D environ - a dungeon - is a lot easier since they can only come at you 1 by 1 down a passage. And at higher levels, where PCs are fighting huge or even larger creatures it really becomes a problem. Especially when you try to convert 3.0 or even older modules to 3.5...  Anyone tried to play the G series? I bet the giants can barely fit in and move around their living quarters.


----------



## RichGreen (Sep 29, 2004)

*my pet peeves*

Hi,

Square bases & weapon sizes. I like most of the other changes, although I may introduce Monte Cook's alternative DR rules.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## billd91 (Sep 29, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Pippin was able to use the Palantir as well; it's not a ranger ability.




In LotR, using a palantir wasn't exclusively a ranger ability, true. Though Aragorn was the only one able to actually wrest control of it from Sauron and not be corrupted by it.
My point was that the original D&D Ranger was so based on Aragorn that it even alluded to using an item that was typically a wizard's item - the crystal ball. And someone thought it was a reasonable interpretation of Aragorn to include both Druid and Magic-User spells then. The tradition of using spells has been handed down since whether directly in homage to Aragorn or not. 
Personally, I find modeling Aragorn's abilities with magical spells works just fine and have no trouble with the 3.5 Ranger having spells.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 29, 2004)

Many of Aragorn's abilities came not from his Ranger training but from the blood of Numenor.  I'd make him a ranger/paladin, or maybe a ranger with a template.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 29, 2004)

All of them. 

Except for splitting up _Symbol_ and _Emotion_. 
Maybe the ranger changes, though the skill and hit die changes are obviously necessary to anyone who thinks about rangers for a second. 
Assassins getting spontaneous spells and not wizards spells is just a stupid thing that wasn't looked at hard enough in the change from 2e to 3e. Just like the Ranger's skill points and HD. 

Haste should have been given some additional costs, not mangled beyond recognition. Ability damage, subdual damage, high material component cost, maybe XP cost, or some combination of these, NOT a paradigm shift in the spells effect.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 29, 2004)

Changes in 3.5 I don't like:

- weapon sizes
- paladin mounts
- bard is gnomes' preferred class
- cover
- DR: removal of pluses for "magic"
- square bases
- removal of much of the demon/devil Sp abilities

I fixed every one of these IMC. 

(And thankfully I have yet to encounter the _darkness_ creating light thing - once somebody casts it, there's going to be a lot of "WTFs" going around the table...)


----------



## Aristotle (Sep 29, 2004)

Paladin Mounts are about the only thing I dislike (although Paladins as a base class bother me so it don't much matter). I'm indifferent about gnome bards. I like most of the other stuff. I'm really surprised at some of the complaints in this thread...

Weapon sizes make a certain amount of sense to me. I loved the idea as soon as I saw it.

Square bases... I have no idea what this complaint is all about. As was already explained the critter doesn't take up a square base when not in combat. The square base, and the ajoining threatened areas, are just there to show you how much space the creature can 'control' in a fight. You could obviously fit a horse down a 5' wide corridor or fit two people into a 5' box... but if they had to be fighting while in those situations they wouldn't have the room they need to properly operate.

*shrug*


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 30, 2004)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Paladin Mounts are about the only thing I dislike (although Paladins as a base class bother me so it don't much matter). I'm indifferent about gnome bards. I like most of the other stuff. I'm really surprised at some of the complaints in this thread...
> 
> Weapon sizes make a certain amount of sense to me. I loved the idea as soon as I saw it.
> 
> ...





Get your mind out of the dungeon for a minute.  Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart?  It bothers me.  That and the horde of minis and counters I own that assume a horse is 1x2.  Plus its a fix to a problem I never had, nor do I recall others complaining about.


----------



## Pants (Sep 30, 2004)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart?  It bothers me.



How does a horse that is taking up a space 5ft. wide and 10 ft. long effectively move in combat when the game has no rule for facing? The horse clearly has both a front, a back, and two sides in such a scenario.

Also, remember that the 10 ft. square represents the amount of the space the horse manuevers in, not the amount of space it takes up. It's simply an abstraction for an already abstract combat system. If you didn't complain about the no facing in 3.0 (and the creatures that clearly HAD facing) then you can't really complain about this either.

Both are abstractions and both are pretty far from perfect.

Edit: Forgot to list my problems

My actual problems with 3.5:
- Breaking up spells and thus making them less versatile (emotion and symbol are examples)
- Simplifying of cover (this wouldn't be a bad thing if the old cover system were implemented as a variant rule somewhere)
- Changing some spells (darkness comes to mind, harm is now somewhat ambiguous in its wording, shapechange made into a freaking overpowered spell!, sleep kind of sucks now)
- Not changing some spells (Mord's Disjunction and Astral Projection SHOULD have been changed, but weren't)
- Removing some Demon/Devil SLA's
- Not putting Yugoloths in the 3.5 MM
- Not enough new art in the books

Most of these aren't really big problems, but they're kind of annoying. I'll still play 3.5 over 3.0 since a lot of the changes I agree with.


----------



## Vanye (Sep 30, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but what about Haste.
> 
> I just took a gander at the SRD and it seems the new Haste spell is now only useful to warriors making a full attack.
> 
> ...




It's gone over quite well in the game I run, not quite so well in the game I played in.  

The game I run, the wizard took the spell so he could cast it on others.  He didn't want to run out of his spells, so the ability to throw an extra spell per round was wasted for him.

The 3.5 change, however, was much more useful for him. Now his entire party ended up with:
enhanced movment
a bonus to armor class
a bonus to Reflex saves
and everyone got an extra attack, if all they did was attack.

However, in the game I played in, the two party wizards both liked to haste themselves and burn through all their spells in the first fight of the day, and then insist on resting for the rest of the day.  It caused some player conflicts when the rest of us said "The heck with that.  You didn't need to blow through 15 spells in one fight.  You could have saved a few..."


----------



## Vanye (Sep 30, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Haste should have been given some additional costs, not mangled beyond recognition. Ability damage, subdual damage, high material component cost, maybe XP cost, or some combination of these, NOT a paradigm shift in the spells effect.




Ahh, but the paradigm shift came in with 3.0, NOT 3.5.  In previous editions, the spell was capable of affecting multiple allies, not just one target.  This was more true to the past than their original version.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 30, 2004)

And it couldn't be used to cast more than 1 spell a round as well.  The 3.5 version is much truer to its roots than the 3.0.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

Testament said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to work out how anyone could NOT like the new Ranger.
> 
> 
> JRR, what is wrong with Animal Companions now?  They're no longer as disposable, and the encounter stopper that was "Animal Friendship" is gone.
> ...





On the above:

1:  I don't like the new ranger because it's NOT a ranger as I define the term.  Someone else said it's INFINITELY better than the 3.0 ranger.  I'd clarify that a bit and say it's infinitely MORE POWERFUL, not necessarily better.  It's been said before, the ranger is now a wilderness rogue instead of wilderness warrior.  C'mon, evasion?  Bleh.  Combat styles suck.  The ranger is the ONLY class forced into either wasting class abilities or using a pre-defined fighting style.  Even the wizard can use a two-handed sword by "wasting" a feat.  The ranger "wastes" 3.

2.  Animal companions.  Yeah, they're much better now, but before, an animal was just an animal.  Now suddenly, it's a mystical creature who can cast spells, evade fireballs, talk, etc.  It should be an animal, not a familiar.  I don't mind the extra hit dice, and stuff that makes it a better combatant (natural armor, base attack, hit dice, etc), but the familaresque stuff is just lame.

3.  Unlearning spells - I know they did this for spells like sleep, and it helps boost the sorceror a bit, but it just doesn't make sense, though I could argue I've unlearned most of what I learned in my college mathematics classes.....


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 30, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> On the above:
> 
> 1:  I don't like the new ranger because it's NOT a ranger as I define the term.  Someone else said it's INFINITELY better than the 3.0 ranger.  I'd clarify that a bit and say it's infinitely MORE POWERFUL, not necessarily better.  It's been said before, the ranger is now a wilderness rogue instead of wilderness warrior.  C'mon, evasion?  Bleh.  Combat styles suck.




The TWF style is exactly what the 2e and 3.0 ranger got. So yeah, I guess the 3.0 ranger sucked because of the combat styles 



> The ranger is the ONLY class forced into either wasting class abilities or using a pre-defined fighting style.  Even the wizard can use a two-handed sword by "wasting" a feat.  The ranger "wastes" 3.




It was worse in 3.0.



> 2.  Animal companions.  Yeah, they're much better now, but before, an animal was just an animal.  Now suddenly, it's a mystical creature who can cast spells, evade fireballs, talk, etc.  It should be an animal, not a familiar.  I don't mind the extra hit dice, and stuff that makes it a better combatant (natural armor, base attack, hit dice, etc), but the familaresque stuff is just lame.




Yeah, that does kind of suck, although the animal doesn't cast any spells or gain Intelligence.



> 3.  Unlearning spells - I know they did this for spells like sleep, and it helps boost the sorceror a bit, but it just doesn't make sense, though I could argue I've unlearned most of what I learned in my college mathematics classes.....




You do know that sleep sucks by the time a ranger could get it? Why bother? Besides, I don't see Aragorn casting any sleep spells _or pseudo-mystical equivalent_ in LotR, nor anything that could even be interpreted that way. Then again, you could say the same thing for the vast majority of ranger spells - _longstrider_ and _commune with nature_ are the only possible exceptions I'd noted.


----------



## Grayhawk (Sep 30, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> 1:  I don't like the new ranger because it's NOT a ranger as I define the term.  Someone else said it's INFINITELY better than the 3.0 ranger.  I'd clarify that a bit and say it's infinitely MORE POWERFUL, not necessarily better.  It's been said before, the ranger is now a wilderness rogue instead of wilderness warrior.



I tend to agree with this - which Ranger do you use instead? A house ruled or an 'official' variant?

(And isn't there someplace I can check out the spell-less Ranger from Complete Warrior, short of buying the book?)


----------



## Spatula (Sep 30, 2004)

IIRC, the Complete Warrior "spell-less" ranger variant loses spellcasting but gets a number of fixed spell-like abilities.  Like _speak with animals_ 3/day at level X, _summon nature's ally IV_ 1/day at level Y, etc. (just examples, I don't recall the specific spells that are granted).


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 30, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> IIRC, the Complete Warrior "spell-less" ranger variant loses spellcasting but gets a number of fixed spell-like abilities.  Like _speak with animals_ 3/day at level X, _summon nature's ally IV_ 1/day at level Y, etc. (just examples, I don't recall the specific spells that are granted).




I took a look at it today, intending to try to remember, but I'm really not sure how well I succeeded.  I had about 15 seconds to look it over on my way out the door.  It's _something_ like:

(1) 6th level: +10' to movement.
(2) 11th level: +4 bonus to Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom once per day, for a few minutes' duration.
(3) 13th level: _Neutralize poison_ or _remove disease_, once per day.
(4) 16th level: _Freedom of movement_, once per day.

The clear intent is to mimic one or two of the most oft-chosen spells at each spell-break.  Aside from the fact that giving the ranger supernatural and spell-like abilities kinda defeats the whole idea of a non-mystical ranger, there are other mildly odd things about the way they did it.

First, only the first power (+10' to movement) is achieved when the ranger would normally have gotten a new spell-level (1st).  The others lag one level behind.  (E.g., the buff-power is achieved at 11th level, but a ranger with spells would get a 2nd-level spell at 10th level.)

Second, there's no obvious balance for (a) the lack of flexibility that the ranger would have with spells, or (b) the additional spells of each level a ranger would have gotten.

The inobvious balance lies in a few areas: (a) the movement increase is EX, so not subject to whole bunch of limitations _longstrider_ might be; it's also always-on, (b) the buffing (and possibly the _freedom of movement_, I can't remember) is SU, and thus doesn't provoke AoOs in use, (c) the other abilities are spell-like, and thus don't require components, (d) none of the abilities require the ranger to have a good Wisdom.

I don't think that the balance is _quite_ right, but it's close enough.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 30, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> 1:  I don't like the new ranger because it's NOT a ranger as I define the term.  Someone else said it's INFINITELY better than the 3.0 ranger.  I'd clarify that a bit and say it's infinitely MORE POWERFUL, not necessarily better.  It's been said before, the ranger is now a wilderness rogue instead of wilderness warrior.




I'll grant that the ranger is _closer_ in 3.5 to a rogue than he was in 3.0, but why is that a problem?  A wilderness warrior, almost by definition, is a guerilla fighter.  The 3.5 ranger is incredibly well-suited for that role.

The 3.5 ranger has the HP of a fighter/rogue, the BAB of a fighter, the weapons knowledge of a fighter, the shields proficiency of a fighter, the saves of both ... looks like a wilderness warrior to me.




> C'mon, evasion?  Bleh.




Why is evasion a problem?  The ranger is more lightly armored than a fighter, and usually quicker.  He relies more on avoiding damage than absorbing it.




> Combat styles suck.  The ranger is the ONLY class forced into either wasting class abilities or using a pre-defined fighting style.  Even the wizard can use a two-handed sword by "wasting" a feat.  The ranger "wastes" 3.




Well, compared to the 2E and 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger has double the choices.  How in the world you can count that as a negative is beyond me.




> 2.  Animal companions.  Yeah, they're much better now, but before, an animal was just an animal.  Now suddenly, it's a mystical creature who can cast spells, evade fireballs, talk, etc.




Talk?  Say what?

The animal companion is a tougher, more experienced version of an animal, just as an adventurer is a tougher, more experienced version of a normal person.




> I don't mind the extra hit dice, and stuff that makes it a better combatant (natural armor, base attack, hit dice, etc), but the familaresque stuff is just lame.




If you think the animal companion can talk, or shares a telepathic link with the ranger, or anything that can't be justified as a natural -- albeit maybe extraordinary -- ability, you just don't seem to know the rules.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 30, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> If you think the animal companion can talk, or shares a telepathic link with the ranger, or anything that can't be justified as a natural -- albeit maybe extraordinary -- ability, you just don't seem to know the rules.



It may be that he's mixing up the animal companion and the paladin's mount.  The paladin's mount does gain incremental intelligence and an empathic link with its rider.  Though even the mount can't actually talk...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Yeah, that does kind of suck, although the animal doesn't cast any spells or gain Intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that sleep sucks by the time a ranger could get it? Why bother? Besides, I don't see Aragorn casting any sleep spells _or pseudo-mystical equivalent_ in LotR, nor anything that could even be interpreted that way. Then again, you could say the same thing for the vast majority of ranger spells - _longstrider_ and _commune with nature_ are the only possible exceptions I'd noted.




Um, doesn't the animal get share spells?  If so, it can cast poison, etc.

BTW, the above was not just criticism of the ranger, but of 3.5 in general.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 30, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Um, doesn't the animal get share spells?  If so, it can cast poison, etc.
> 
> BTW, the above was not just criticism of the ranger, but of 3.5 in general.




Umm, no. That is, yes, the animal gets Share Spells, but that's not how Share Spells works.

Share Spells doesn't allow the animal to cast any spell. Ever. Under any circumstances. All it means is that the caster can cast a spell on himself--such as _protection from elements_ or _pass without trace_--and it affects the animal as well.

That, to me, doesn't make the animal magic; it means the character has the ability to offer some protection to the animal.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

Grayhawk said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with this - which Ranger do you use instead? A house ruled or an 'official' variant?
> 
> (And isn't there someplace I can check out the spell-less Ranger from Complete Warrior, short of buying the book?)




I use the 1e ranger.  Just add skills from 3e.  I give him a d10 hit die, however, since the 1e fighter got 9d10 to the ranger's 11 d8.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Umm, no. That is, yes, the animal gets Share Spells, but that's not how Share Spells works.
> 
> Share Spells doesn't allow the animal to cast any spell. Ever. Under any circumstances. All it means is that the caster can cast a spell on himself--such as _protection from elements_ or _pass without trace_--and it affects the animal as well.
> 
> That, to me, doesn't make the animal magic; it means the character has the ability to offer some protection to the animal.




Okay, I may have that confused with the familiar's ability to deliver touch spells.  At any rate, I'm just sayin' I don't like the magickiness (new word) of the 3.5 animal companions.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> It may be that he's mixing up the animal companion and the paladin's mount.  The paladin's mount does gain incremental intelligence and an empathic link with its rider.  Though even the mount can't actually talk...





Yeah, that and familiars.  I just looked at the animal companion entry again.  It's not as bad as I thought.  I still don't like them getting evasion, though.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 30, 2004)

Vanye said:
			
		

> Ahh, but the paradigm shift came in with 3.0, NOT 3.5.  In previous editions, the spell was capable of affecting multiple allies, not just one target.  This was more true to the past than their original version.




Riiiiight. 

Affecting multiple targets is more vital to it's "heritage" than giving extra attacks, the actual EFFECT of the spell. 

That doesn't make sense. Preserving the specific EFFECT of the spell--multiple attacks--is more important than how many people it affects. IMO.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 30, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Affecting multiple targets is more vital to [_haste_'s] "heritage" than giving extra attacks, the actual EFFECT of the spell.
> 
> That doesn't make sense. Preserving the specific EFFECT of the spell--multiple attacks--is more important than how many people it affects. IMO.




3.5 _haste_ does give additional attacks.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 30, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> 3.5 _haste_ does give additional attacks.




No, it gives ONE extra attack. With a weapon. 
I should have said "action" or something, not attack. Ooops.

At any rate, it doesn't do what it did in 3.0 and it should not have been mangled so.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> No, it gives ONE extra attack. With a weapon.
> I should have said "action" or something, not attack. Ooops.
> 
> At any rate, it doesn't do what it did in 3.0 and it should not have been mangled so.




There are some of us who think it shouldn't have been so mangled BY 3.0 that it allowed more than one spell to be cast in a single round. That's something the earlier editions of Haste (which also aged the target by a year, let's not forget, in return for doubling your number of attacks and rate of movement) did not do.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 30, 2004)

Regarding _Haste_, they could have bumped it up a level or two instead of changing it.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I'll grant that the ranger is _closer_ in 3.5 to a rogue than he was in 3.0, but why is that a problem?  A wilderness warrior, almost by definition, is a guerilla fighter.  The 3.5 ranger is incredibly well-suited for that role.
> 
> The 3.5 ranger has the HP of a fighter/rogue, the BAB of a fighter, the weapons knowledge of a fighter, the shields proficiency of a fighter, the saves of both ... looks like a wilderness warrior to me.
> 
> ...




While we may disagree on whether a ranger should have spells, I certainly agree with you that I can't really understand JRRNeiklot's beef with the revised ranger. It seems to me that he just wants to play a fighter with tracking skills, for the most part.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 30, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> No, it gives ONE extra attack. With a weapon.




To multiple targets.  That's extra "attacks."

(3.0 _haste_ only provided one extra attack, BTW.  Its use on melee or missile combatants wasn't the problem.)




> At any rate, it doesn't do what it did in 3.0 and it should not have been mangled so.




Well, if you don't agree that 3.0 _haste_ was broken, there's no point in continuing the discussion.  If you _do_ agree that 3.0 _haste_ was broken, how would you have fixed it without "mangling" it?

My group is perfectly happy with 3.5 _haste_.  It remains a common spell for wizards and sorcerers to choose, but it's no longer a complete no-brainer.  That's a good thing, IMO.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 30, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Regarding _Haste_, they could have bumped it up a level or two instead of changing it.




Not only would current _haste_-haters be complaining even more about that, but it would _still_ be broken as a fifth-level spell.

In D&D combat, there is nothing more precious or powerful as "actions."  Game mechanics that add actions are usually broken, almost by definition, no matter what level they are.  The problem is that higher-level characters (read "spellcasters") can do correspondingly more powerful things with extra actions, so just delaying when they get those extra actions doesn't help much.

A 5th-level wizard under 3.0 _haste_ can cast an extra _fireball_ in a round.  An 11th-level wizard could cast an extra _disintegrate_ or _circle of death_.  Changing _haste_ to be a fifth-level spell wouldn't affect the 11th-level wizard much at all.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 30, 2004)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Get your mind out of the dungeon for a minute.  Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart?  It bothers me.  That and the horde of minis and counters I own that assume a horse is 1x2.  Plus its a fix to a problem I never had, nor do I recall others complaining about.




Do the unit of pikemen readying against their charge have to stand 5' apart?  

If so, they're dead meat, because they won't be presenting a 'forest of pikes.'  They'd be even worse off if they were axemen holding a shieldwall against a cavalry charge.

If you want units charging on a battlefield, then just play with Warhammer, Warmachine, War Gods, Warlord (... there's a pattern here, I'm just not spotting it ...) or some other miniatures rules.

D&D doesn't model units; it models individuals in a melee.  10 ft. represents the model's zone of control, not the space it fills.

Of course, the problem with 1 x 2 horse miniatures still stands.


----------



## Liminal Syzygy (Sep 30, 2004)

People who want to keep their extra spell casting actions... Rods of Quicken are now core and priced appopriately high.


----------



## dimonic (Sep 30, 2004)

*3.5 why not*



			
				dead said:
			
		

> I still play 3.0 but was considering updating.
> 
> From what I can see, there's a lot of good changes and the game is now even more streamlined.
> 
> ...




The trouble with this question is that there are enough people out there that there will be someone who will disagree with every change. This will then be multiplied by the fact that only the people who feel strongly will bother to reply. You will then get mostly opinionated rants by people who have been personally hurt by the changes, who will mostly be people who have been taking advantage of a 3.0 weakness in the first place.

At least 9/10 people prefer the ranger, but there is always one person who hates him. Probably every DM is happier with crit increases not stacking anymore, but every player who built their character round them will hate them. People who actually played their Paladin, and had the DM say, "no your horse will not go there", will like the new mount. The DM, and perhaps other "realism conscious" players will dislike it. Wizards will hate the changes most: their uber-build spell focus wizards, with daily buff spells that lasted all day suddenly have to start thinking. Druids will hate the new polymorph, because they cannot totally dominate game-play. The weapon sizes make much more logical sense, but halfling players are crying foul. DMs will prefer the new DR rules, players will not.

Some things people are complaining about are more or less flavour text anyway. It makes no difference to game balance if you ditch the new square facings and play with the old ones. They even suggest this, and also the old weapon size system as /options/ in the new DMG.

What this all says is that you will have to deal with your group's complaints. This will be your biggest problem with 3.5. I just pushed it down their throats (after all, none of them wanted to DM). After a while, they realized they liked it better.


----------



## Ozmar (Sep 30, 2004)

Relative weapon sizes. What a confusing, needless complicated mess!

A Small Sword is a short sword for a human and a longsword for a halfling. I much prefer the elegance and simplicity of this approach over the 3.5 paradigm of a Small Long Sword and a Medium Short Sword that are not the same weapon. It really makes things needlessly complicated vis-a-vis treasure acquisition and weapons.

Ozmar the Grump


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 30, 2004)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Get your mind out of the dungeon for a minute.  Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart?  It bothers me.




Mini's don't make horsemen stay 10 feet apart, either. If you think mounted horses should take only, says, 4 feet wide, put them next to each other does not make them 5 feet apart on a 5 foot-wide base. It makes them inches apart. 

Charging horsemen DO put more than 12 inches between themselves, or more! 

Add a reasonable space the space the horse and rider already takes up and you are getting close to a 10 foot wide base. 3 feet space on the left, the 4 foot width of the horse and rider, 3 feet space on the right. The 3 feet on a side of each charging horseman adds to 6 feet of space between charging horseman, if you put them on 10 foot wide bases.

As believeable as seeing horsemen inches apart charging at a full clip, because they would be on 5 foot-wide bases. IMO.


----------



## Lars Porsenna (Sep 30, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Mini's don't make horsemen stay 10 feet apart, either. If you think mounted horses should take only, says, 4 feet wide, put them next to each other does not make them 5 feet apart on a 5 foot-wide base. It makes them inches apart.
> 
> Charging horsemen DO put more than 12 inches between themselves, or more!




Perhaps for certain types of horsemen, but medieval knights and ancient Cataphracts charged into combat literally knee to knee, and this is supported by sources. With the new facing style can't have, say, a unit of knights charging in this style...the new facing system _forces_ you into a "skirmish" deployment.

Damon.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Sep 30, 2004)

*Aaaand I'm OFF on a tangent*

For the paladin's mount, I use a simple houserule. I let the "spirit" of his celestial mount _infuse_ the mount he's riding, so when he calls it his present mount turns into his Paladin's Mount. He can also summon it per the rules if he has no mount. This gets past the whole "what do I do with my normal mount?" questions.

Basically, I'm just there to play a game and have no problems with the paladin's mount as written. Just a little change for flavor, really.

Ok... 

Back to your regular debate.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Sep 30, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> (3.0 _haste_ only provided one extra attack, BTW.  Its use on melee or missile combatants wasn't the problem.)




Minor correction: 3.0 _haste_, not infrequently, let you move and still get a full attack.  For melee combatants at high levels this is quite a bit more powerful than giving a single extra attack.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 30, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Well, if you don't agree that 3.0 _haste_ was broken, there's no point in continuing the discussion.  If you _do_ agree that 3.0 _haste_ was broken, how would you have fixed it without "mangling" it?




Of course, I have no actual knowledge of the effect, having never played a game that used it. 
I'm one of those Non-Gaming gamers--I'd like to, but I don't have time.

If I was going to change it from 3.0 to 3.5, I would have given it, say 1d6 subdual damage per round, a Fort save or take 1 Con damage at the end of the duration, and a hefty material component of 250 gp, maybe of a specific substance. 
THAT would be fixing it. Giving additional costs to the spell, NOT changing the whole effect of the spell. 

If it 3.0 haste was THAT HORRIBLY OVERPOWERED it would have been houseruled somewhat similar to the above on a massive, universal scale. 
AFAIK this wasn't done. Was it?

Was it _really_ so bad? _Really?_ Because I don't see cause for changing the whole effect. I can see how it might be a _problem_ and merit my treatment. 

And all those people who said they would still take Haste, even if it was a 9th level spell are dense. Take Time Stop instead. Time Stop lets you examine the ambush (which high-level attacks are mostly) and decide what to do--attack retreat, etc.


----------



## dimonic (Sep 30, 2004)

*Haste*



			
				VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Of course, I have no actual knowledge of the effect, having never played a game that used it.
> I'm one of those Non-Gaming gamers--I'd like to, but I don't have time.



As a regular gamer (I gave up TV)


> If I was going to change it from 3.0 to 3.5, I would have given it, say 1d6 subdual damage per round, a Fort save or take 1 Con damage at the end of the duration, and a hefty material component of 250 gp, maybe of a specific substance.
> THAT would be fixing it. Giving additional costs to the spell, NOT changing the whole effect of the spell.



The damage you suggest is fixable with a low level clerical spell or two. The money is little object to players (who wouldn't pay 250 gp to defeat a CR 7 bunch of monsters).


> If it 3.0 haste was THAT HORRIBLY OVERPOWERED it would have been houseruled somewhat similar to the above on a massive, universal scale.
> AFAIK this wasn't done. Was it?



It is hard to get the worms back into the can. Once players have enjoyed a priviledge, especially one so "officially" sanctioned and enshrined in the rules, it is very hard to back them away from it. I am sure many DMs are affected by player pressure (much like the pressure you are using in this debate). The day I read on WOTC's site about the upcoming revision to haste, I used this to "house rule" haste in my campaign.

It was a spell that every single character who had it in their spell list would select, every day, several times if possible. No character who could cast it would not take, except that they had some item that reproduced its effect, or another caster they could rely on to do the same. Once my group "discovered" it, it became the standard modus operandi. IMO, when a spell does this, the spell is overbalanced.

Also, for a while (until I quit DMing that campaign), the Wizard would seriously overshadow the other characters because he would routinely haste himself, destroy the opposition, repeat, until he needed to recharge his spells. Then he could teleport home, and repeat in the morning. He even boasted that he did not really need the party.



> Was it _really_ so bad? _Really?_ Because I don't see cause for changing the whole effect. I can see how it might be a _problem_ and merit my treatment.



The core problem is allowing a back door where spell-casters can cast two spells per round. Look at the other mechanism and compare the cost.
1. A feat (Quicken Spell).
2. A spell slot 4 levels higher than the lower of the two they plan to cast /each round they cast two spells/.
3. A limitation on the level of the extra spell of 4 less than their highest spell slot.
4. Knowing in advance which spell they would like to quicken.

With your treatment it is hard to balance against the power granted.



> And all those people who said they would still take Haste, even if it was a 9th level spell are dense. Take Time Stop instead. Time Stop lets you examine the ambush (which high-level attacks are mostly) and decide what to do--attack retreat, etc.




Haste in 3.0 would allow two spells per round 18 times for an 18th level wizard. The high level wizard in our campaign /always/ took haste, and /always/ cast it.

Try playing once in a while. You will see.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> While we may disagree on whether a ranger should have spells, I certainly agree with you that I can't really understand JRRNeiklot's beef with the revised ranger. It seems to me that he just wants to play a fighter with tracking skills, for the most part.




A fighter with tracking skills, who's good with animals, but not just a woodsman.  He's a protector of the weak and downtrodden, also a scholar, shown by dabbling a bit in spells.  He's Arragorn, but could be Daniel Boone just as well, if you don't want spells.  He is NOT Robin Hood.  

Anyways, I've had this argument a dozen times, and you're right, on this board, I'm in the minority, but so what?  The majority of American's seem to like Survivor and Friends, but they both make me puke.  Being a majority doesn't necessarily make one right.  Every ranger since 1e has gotten a little bit farther from its roots, and imo, that's a bad thing.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 30, 2004)

dimonic said:
			
		

> The damage you suggest is fixable with a low level clerical spell or two. The money is little object to players (who wouldn't pay 250 gp to defeat a CR 7 bunch of monsters).



 I never knew that Cure spells cured subdual also...hmmmmm [_Checks SRD_] ...and it does. 
At any rate, I DIDN'T JUST SAY MONEY! 
I said a MATERIAL COMPONENT! Material Components -=- Money! 



> It is hard to get the worms back into the can. Once players have enjoyed a priviledge, especially one so "officially" sanctioned and enshrined in the rules, it is very hard to back them away from it. I am sure many DMs are affected by player pressure (much like the pressure you are using in this debate). The day I read on WOTC's site about the upcoming revision to haste, I used this to "house rule" haste in my campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 1, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Time Stop is a more appropriate spell AT THAT LEVEL OF PLAY.




Personally, I have no problem conceding this point.  Yes, 3.0 _haste_, as broken as it was, _is_, in fact, less powerful than the ninth-level spell _time stop_.

There ya go.


Jeff


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 1, 2004)

Cordo said:
			
		

> People who want to keep their extra spell casting actions... Rods of Quicken are now core and priced appopriately high.




Still broke, and I find it ironic that you used the word "high"


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 1, 2004)

I don't like;
Double Power Attack: I see the need to counter the (effectively) double PA of the two weapon guy, but coupled with the change for no PA on light weapons, I think it's not needed.

Gnome as Bard: the typical rogue-illusionist isn't a bard, but now it's nearly impossible. Arcane trickster needs enough levels already, let alone another rogue level.

AoO on Standing from Prone: It worked well as a feat track from Dragon, but automatically? It's just too much.


Stuff I like (that others complain about);
Weapon Sizing; it's great, and broadens the Small weapons immensely. If you have to house rule something constantly (creating small versions) then perhaps the system doesn't work?

Paladin's Mount: I was a little on the fence at first, but like it now. When you get the ability, the mount lasts 10 hours, that's a day of riding, so what's the harm?

Buff Spells: I inititally houseruled it to 10min per level, but in the latest game I decided to try it as stock (1min/level) and see how it goes. Hard to say without having played it yet.


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 1, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Paladin's Mount: I was a little on the fence at first, but like it now. When you get the ability, the mount lasts 10 hours, that's a day of riding, so what's the harm?




The problem is that IMC paladins are knights with loyal steeds, not conjurers.  It is completely inappropriate for them to conjure a mount.

As for haste, I took off the bonus to AC.  That's enough for me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 1, 2004)

I still use my 3.0e houserule for haste - 

1 target, get +4 hit, +4 Reflex ST, +4 AC, double movement.

Slow works in reverse... -4 to hit, AC and Ref ST, half movement.

I still like this conceptually and mechanically.

Cheers


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 1, 2004)

Actually, I was reminded in-game tonight of one other of the few changes I dislike.

The new _command_ spell. Yuck. Ick. Ptui.

What, saying "any command you can get across in a single word" was too complex? We had to have a list? _Command_ used to be a fantastic spell in the hands of a creative player. Now? Meh.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 1, 2004)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The problem is that IMC paladins are knights with loyal steeds, not conjurers.  It is completely inappropriate for them to conjure a mount.



Fair enough, though I personally didn't have a problem with it because the idea of the paladin _calling a mount from heaven_ seemed to fit in well with the flavor of the class.  It's a calling, so the creature very real, not merely an apparition conjured from thin air.  And now, you can travel six levels into the dungeon and call for your loyal steed in the lich's throne room.

I like.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 1, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Fair enough, though I personally didn't have a problem with it because the idea of the paladin _calling a mount from heaven_ seemed to fit in well with the flavor of the class.  It's a calling, so the creature very real, not merely an apparition conjured from thin air.  And now, you can travel six levels into the dungeon and call for your loyal steed in the lich's throne room.
> 
> I like.




This is one of those rules that I take or leave based on the nature of the campaign setting. For something that feels a little more traditional/medieval, I stick with the old rules. For something a bit higher magic or more fantastic, I go with the new rules. (Alternatively, I go with the old rules, but let the paladin have weird things like pegasi or, as I did in one campaign, a giant monarch butterfly. It actually worked really well, oddly enough.)

Thing is, I _love_ the tactical options made available by the new paladin mount rules--such as the fact that equipment put on the mount stays on the mount. I have this intense vision of an entire order of paladins who need to take out the military leadership of a heavily guarded evil city. They know they cannot get inside armed or armored. So, an entire train of unarmed men and women in monks robes, arms crossed before them, slowly shuffles into the city. As they get inside, each disappears down a seperate alleyway.

And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.

I'll be the first to admit, it doesn't work for all campaigns. But I think it's a darn cool image, though, and a great idea for those campaigns in which it _does_ fit.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Oct 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, I _love_ the tactical options made available by the new paladin mount rules--such as the fact that equipment put on the mount stays on the mount. I have this intense vision of an entire order of paladins who need to take out the military leadership of a heavily guarded evil city. They know they cannot get inside armed or armored. So, an entire train of unarmed men and women in monks robes, arms crossed before them, slowly shuffles into the city. As they get inside, each disappears down a seperate alleyway.
> 
> And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.



Ok...that just sounds sooo cool.

*suddenly has desire to play a paladin...


----------



## Will (Oct 1, 2004)

I like most of what other people have complained about, which is, I suppose, normal.

I love the DR change. You can say 'golf bag,' or you can say 'preparation is rewarded.' My players fought nightwalkers. Next time they heard about these creatures, they made sure to research and get silversheen.

Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.

I used to dislike weapon sizes, but it's grown on me. I think it makes sense, and the optional '-2 for missized weapon' rule works fine. -2 isn't that huge a deal. I'm also fairly easy-going about selling and buying equipment, which might skew my reaction.

Square facing works great, IMO. I have no problem with the 'maneuver space' issue. The old 'horses are 5 x 10 but there isn't facing in this game' stuff made no sense to me. I also like the squeezing rule. It fixes some of the problems I had with, say, large companions getting through doors and the like.

Gnomes as bards... love it. Makes perfect sense to me. Just one of those things, I guess.

Now, personally, I like spell-less rangers. But rangers with spells is fairly canonical. The new ranger is HUGELY better than 3.0. I dislike the combat style tracks. I would prefer something along the lines of a bonus feat from a more diverse pool, plus a special dispensation that a ranger bonus feat from the archer or twf lists has no restrictions so long as the ranger is in light or no armor.

Buff limits. I go back and forth. I think I like it, though its at the point now where they are used only under very rare circumstances. The problem is that by the time you can actually use it reliably (like level 10), you can afford boosting items. 10 mins/level might be better.

Pokemounts rub me the wrong way. I houseruled this in my game. I don't think it's a bad decision, it just isn't to my taste.

Haste is perfect. Still very handy, but not the game breaker it was before. Let this be a lesson to all game designers... ANY ability that adds actions in combat will almost certainly be broken. WW learned this with Celerity, too (gave bonus actions per round). I think their new game reduces what Celerity can do significantly.

As for Time Stop... it's handy for escape or preparation, yeah. But I'd gladly cast a 3.0 version of Haste as a 9th level spell instead. With my rod of quickening... hee.


There are some stuff I see as constant problems. Invisibility and see invisibility/true sight is a constant fight. At about 10th level, invisibility becomes near-useless.

Polymorph and Shapechange are moderately better, but still rife with problems.


----------



## Grayhawk (Oct 1, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I still use my 3.0e houserule for haste -
> 
> 1 target, get +4 hit, +4 Reflex ST, +4 AC, double movement.
> 
> ...



This is pretty close to my house ruled Haste and Slow as well, as I too wanted them to mechanically cancel each other out.

When you say 'double movement', does it mean just that, in the way that you don't get to make any extra attacks?

Here's mine:

'Haste: Target gains an extra Partial action (non Magical), +2 AC, Attack Rolls & Ref Saves. Jump +5. (Run=6xSpeed)

Slow: Make only one partial action, -2 AC, Attack Rolls & Ref Saves. Jump -5.'

I believe the term 'partial action' has been removed from 3.5, but the effect of the spells should be clear enough.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 1, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> I like most of what other people have complained about, which is, I suppose, normal.
> 
> I love the DR change. You can say 'golf bag,' or you can say 'preparation is rewarded.' My players fought nightwalkers. Next time they heard about these creatures, they made sure to research and get silversheen.
> 
> Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.




Preparation was rewarded in 3.0 too--Oil of Greater Magic Weapon anyone?

I don't like the new DR system for the simple reason that it IS doable to kill creatures with DR! 
Whether evolution or Demon Princes or whatever, _something_ would have made the DR such that the creature couldn't just be "hit enough" and die via normal weapons.


----------



## Hawk764 (Oct 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm going to go against the grain here. The weapon size rules are great. A longsword for a small creature is not and should not be the same as a short sword for a medium creature. Anyone who argues that they should be has clearly never held an actual longsword or short sword.
> 
> I like the new sorcerer. I like the new skills. I like the spell nerfs, for the most part. I like the new ranger, a _lot_. I love the new DR rules.
> 
> ...



 i'm with this guy, the paladin's mount being a summoned creature is the only thing i have found that i didn't like. the Ranger class rocks.


----------



## Hawk764 (Oct 1, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> The spiked chain. IME, this thing is just a game killer. Once you have a spiked chain fighter on the loose, any other melee specialists are hosed. To keep the chain fighter challenged, you have to take a ton of care to sculpt opponents to threaten him. Otherwise, the game gets dumb.
> 
> The chain had a perfect storm of changes that all made it better - Power Attack 2/1 damage, the change to Improved Disarm, the change to Improved Trip, and the new rules for reach for Large and bigger creatures all make it too good. The annoying thing is I can see how, on their own, those changes make sense, but combined into the spiked chain it's too much.
> 
> ...



 i have played in 2 games with spiked chain wielders, who, while very versitile, were no match for a good barbarian in a fight. if you want to see something broken, look at the Goliath with mountain rage.


----------



## Hawk764 (Oct 1, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That's a good idea.



 no it isn't.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Oct 1, 2004)

I think the only thing I don't like (so far) is the new Deflect Arrows feat.  Automatic deflection just stinks...

And yes, I'm bitter about having a potentially heroic moment ruined by that feat...


----------



## Psion (Oct 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.




Paladins-cum-commandoes?

Jot this down as one more reason pokemounts won't be seeing the light of day in my game.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 1, 2004)

I'd hardly say that infiltration of an evil city automatically equals commandos. I'm talking about using tactics to start the battle, not black-clad assassins or that sort of thing.

But hey, as I said, the idea doesn't work for all campaigns. It doesn't even work for all of _my_ campaigns. But for a slightly higher-magic world, I think it fits just fine.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 1, 2004)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> I think the only thing I don't like (so far) is the new Deflect Arrows feat.  Automatic deflection just stinks...
> 
> And yes, I'm bitter about having a potentially heroic moment ruined by that feat...




Bah.  It was a nonscaling DC for a minor benefit (what kind of archer shoots only 1 arrow?).  If it had been, say, let the monk roll an unarmed attack or reflex save versus the attack roll of the shot, that would have been one thing, but once the monk hits 4th or 5th level, the DC 20 roll was a speedbump.  Doing away with extra rolls in combat == good.


----------



## Victim (Oct 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd hardly say that infiltration of an evil city automatically equals commandos. I'm talking about using tactics to start the battle, not black-clad assassins or that sort of thing.
> 
> But hey, as I said, the idea doesn't work for all campaigns. It doesn't even work for all of _my_ campaigns. But for a slightly higher-magic world, I think it fits just fine.




It's a cool idea.  However, if I were the evil overlord guy, I'd be extra suspicious of a bunch of unarmed, unarmored people in monk's robes.  Monks don't need armor or weapons to beat up guards.

I'm not overly fond of the poke-mount idea either.  However, being able to summon the critter when needed allows the paladin to actually use the feature more of the time.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 1, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> It's a cool idea.  However, if I were the evil overlord guy, I'd be extra suspicious of a bunch of unarmed, unarmored people in monk's robes.  Monks don't need armor or weapons to beat up guards.




Heh. My bad; my western-oriented thought processes coming forth again. I meant "monk" as in "the harmless religious types who make wine or raise grain in monestaries, and occasionally solve murder mysteries if their name is 'Cadfael,'" as opposed to "monk" as in "Using all manner of martial arts to beat the crap out of people who threaten the world or insult their sensai."


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 2, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This is one of those rules that I take or leave based on the nature of the campaign setting. For something that feels a little more traditional/medieval, I stick with the old rules. For something a bit higher magic or more fantastic, I go with the new rules.




I think the old system works better if everyone is mounted. The new system works better if the party doesn't have horses to take care of.

If everyone is mounted and it's the type of campaign where that is handy, it's fine to have a perma-steed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 2, 2004)

Y'know- despite asking a couple of pages ago- I still haven't been told what a "pokemount" is!

Never heard the term- what does it mean?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 2, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Y'know- despite asking a couple of pages ago- I still haven't been told what a "pokemount" is!
> 
> Never heard the term- what does it mean?




Actually, it was answered a few times (or maybe that was another thread I'm thinking of).

In any case, some people who dislike the new paladin's mount rules call it a pokemount, after the whole Pokemon-appearing-out-of-a-bright-colored-ball thing. Because as we all know, the ability to summon a creature _cannot_ be portrayed in any way more seriously than a poorly written kids' cartoon.  :\ [/sarcasm]


----------



## Will (Oct 2, 2004)

I use the term not to be derisive, but because it's a lot quicker than saying 'the ability to summon up a mount' or even 'summonable mount.'

And, to me, it's not how serious it is, but it is another in a series of elements that I (and others) find mood-breaking.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 2, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> I use the term not to be derisive, but because it's a lot quicker than saying 'the ability to summon up a mount' or even 'summonable mount.'
> 
> And, to me, it's not how serious it is, but it is another in a series of elements that I (and others) find mood-breaking.



 How is the paladin summoning a mount mood-breaking in a game where the standard PHB magic system exists? Not to mention everything else in the core rules. I can see a paladin's summonable mount not fitting into a low-magic setting, but in core D&D? I'm not arguing; I'm just really curious about this perspective.


----------



## Will (Oct 2, 2004)

Because a paladin is basically a holy knight. I can see a holy knight calling forth a blessed mount once, when it first appears. Calling it each day as is convenient and using it as a bag of holding strikes me as off-mood.

A wizard or sorcerer doing miraculously weird stuff (spells) is, at times, mood breaking to me, but at least spells and bizarre effects are part and parcel with the definition of such people.

This is the same problem people have with rangers, though for rangers the issue is more acute. The conception of what a ranger is varies a great deal from person to person. So any version of a ranger is going to seem ill-fitting to someone. For example, whether they have spells or not.

As another example, considering regular rogues having shadowdancer abilities. Perhaps appropriate for a high fantasy game, but people would prefer a 'regular rogue' not being inherently magical.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Because a paladin is basically a holy knight. I can see a holy knight calling forth a blessed mount once, when it first appears. Calling it each day as is convenient and using it as a bag of holding strikes me as off-mood.




Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?


To me the term pokemount does nothing but signify the lack of imagination of the detractors.


----------



## Will (Oct 2, 2004)

He didn't conjure it out of thin air. It rather seemed that he had either called to it and it came to him, or that he had hunted down Shadowfax and then left him a convenient distance away, to be called over when ready.

Gandalf is also, of course, a wizard, not a paladin, and essentially a celestial. Even if he had blown a bubble of smoke which turned into a horse, it's within the scope of 'miraculous powerful dude.'

If all the knights of Gondor had the ability to pray and have horses pop into existence beside them, I rather think it would be mood-breaking.


I've heard proponents use the term 'pokemount.' Your second comment is, at best, ill-founded.


----------



## Psion (Oct 2, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> How is the paladin summoning a mount mood-breaking in a game where the standard PHB magic system exists?




It muddies up the knight in shining armor with the conjurer.

Which is fine if that's what you are after, but as a default... I don't like it.


----------



## Psion (Oct 2, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?




Galdalf is not even CLOSE to being an archetype for a paladin.


----------



## Zweischneid (Oct 2, 2004)

> Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?




Shadowfax is a gift to Gandalf by the King of Rohan... born and bred in a stable like any other horse.




> Galdalf is not even CLOSE to being an archetype for a paladin.




Returned from the dead, to live A life to fight evil surrounded by a radiant nimbus of holy, inspiring courage in those who lost heart, healing the minds from dark sorceries with but a touch, riding into battle, a shining beacon of hope.

Gandalf does get damn close to that archetype if you ask me. Than again, every Protagonist of Tolkiens Epic would likely feature a few paladinlevels if you write em up for D&D.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 2, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.




How often did you face DR above 15 in 3.0.  What 1 or 2 celestials and golems.  And with golems who cares there immune to basically all magic why is it somehow worse for them to be also immune to virtually all physical attacks.  Anf celestials again whopedy there are a couple creatures virtually immune to physical punishment.  The high DR problem of 3e was vastly exagerated to support the new DR system.


----------



## Will (Oct 2, 2004)

He's an angel, or something close to it. He spent close to 2000 years in Middle Earth. He might also have had history before that, my Middle Earth lore is not extensive.

In any case, that's like saying all paladins should fly because the archangel Michael could. After all, he's a bastion of light, holiness, and military prowess!

Shard: We fought several very high DR beasties in City of the Spider Queen. They rendered much of the party useless unless we focused entirely on a +N weapon. A golem... didn't have a +5 sword? May as well, oh, run away and hope the casters could do something.

It also meant that nobody would ever get an adamantine or silver sword... why bother? A +3 sword would be much better in nearly every other case.

When you aren't choosing silver weapons to kill lycanthropes, the game's gone off the tracks.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 2, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> How often did you face DR above 15 in 3.0.  What 1 or 2 celestials and golems.  And with golems who cares there immune to basically all magic why is it somehow worse for them to be also immune to virtually all physical attacks.




So they're supposed to be invicinble? Then what is the point of using golems?


----------



## Staffan (Oct 2, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> How often did you face DR above 15 in 3.0.  What 1 or 2 celestials and golems.



Ghaele (celestial, 25), Planetar (celestial, 30), Solar (celestial, 35), Succubus (demon, 20), Bebilith (demon, 30), Vrock (demon, 20), Hezrou (demon, 20), Glabrexu (demon, 20), Nalfeshnee (demon, 20), Marilith (demon, 20), Balor (demon, 30), Kyton (devil, 20), Hellcat (devil, 20), Cornugon (devil, 20), Gelugon (devil, 20), Pit fiend (devil, 25), Wyrm dragons (20), Clay golem (20), Stone golem (30), Iron golem (50), Night hag (20), Nightshades (25), Rakshasa (20), Noble salamander (20), Death slaad (20), and Tarrasque (25) - and those are just the ones from the MM. Having just looked through the list, it seems 15-20 are the most common DR values, as opposed to 5-10 in 3.5. There are almost no monsters with DR 5 or 10.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 2, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?
> 
> 
> To me the term pokemount does nothing but signify the lack of imagination of the detractors.




1. Gandalf is not a paladin.

2. Shadowfax did not *poof* out of heaven.

3. Shadowfax did not drop Gandalf on his arse when his "time was up."

4. It is a lame idea, period.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 3, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> 4. It is a lame idea, period.



Since not everyone agree's with you, it's not really "period", eh? 

Other thing I dislike with 3.5 is the split in "respawn" times;
Paladin Mount dies: 30 days or one level
Mage Familiar: Year and a Day, even if you DISMISS it
Druid/ranger animal companion:  24 hour ceremony

Oh, and a paladin is a conjurer, since all their healing spells are conjuration (healing), they also get create water and several other spells that are actually more direct conjuration effects.
Paladin spells go back quite far.

I accept the mounted knight stereotype, but I do not feel confined by it. Just as I don't think all barbarians are wilderness grunts.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 3, 2004)

> Other thing I dislike with 3.5 is the split in "respawn" times;
> Paladin Mount dies: 30 days or one level
> Mage Familiar: Year and a Day, even if you DISMISS it
> Druid/ranger animal companion: 24 hour ceremony




I'd hazard a guess that the logic behind that is as follows:

The druid doesn't have nearly as strong an empathic link with its companion. Plus, it's a change from a previous edition (3.0) where this ability was based on a spell, which could be cast as often as desired (within reasonable limits).

The paladin's mount is _far_ more likely to die than the familiar, due to its presence on the front lines and in the midst of combat. (Show me a mage who _regularly_ sends his familiar into melee, and I'll show you a mage who's either got a really good improved familiar or is way behind on XP. ) Therefore, the paladin needs to be able to replace the mount more quickly.

Not saying I _agree_ with all that, just that I'm willing to bet that's at least part of the logic behind it. Personally, I don't enforce the year and a day thing for familiars; I think the XP loss is sufficient penalty, thanks.

And heck, remember that back in 1E, a paladin could only call one mount every _ten years_!!


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 3, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Shard: We fought several very high DR beasties in City of the Spider Queen. They rendered much of the party useless unless we focused entirely on a +N weapon. A golem... didn't have a +5 sword? May as well, oh, run away and hope the casters could do something.
> 
> It also meant that nobody would ever get an adamantine or silver sword... why bother? A +3 sword would be much better in nearly every other case.
> 
> When you aren't choosing silver weapons to kill lycanthropes, the game's gone off the tracks.




Gee, hasn't ANYONE EVER READ GREATER MAGIC WEAPON??!??

At any rate, the DR problem disappears if you don't use many of the outsiders with DR (which is basically celestials, demons and devils), Dragons, Golems, the six kinds of Undead, or Elementals. Thats all that has DR in the 3.0 MM, excepting the Grick and the...one other one.

Also, most of these are silver or +1 DR, more rarely +2 or +3. +5 is only the Tarrasque...and Greater Magic Weapon allows +3 weapons for nine hours at level nine...
And don't say "not enough time"--Haste should have taken care of that.

So "being screwed" is not applicable at all.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 3, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Ghaele (celestial, 25), Planetar (celestial, 30), Solar (celestial, 35), Succubus (demon, 20), Bebilith (demon, 30), Vrock (demon, 20), Hezrou (demon, 20), Glabrexu (demon, 20), Nalfeshnee (demon, 20), Marilith (demon, 20), Balor (demon, 30), Kyton (devil, 20), Hellcat (devil, 20), Cornugon (devil, 20), Gelugon (devil, 20), Pit fiend (devil, 25), Wyrm dragons (20), Clay golem (20), Stone golem (30), Iron golem (50), Night hag (20), Nightshades (25), Rakshasa (20), Noble salamander (20), Death slaad (20), and Tarrasque (25) - and those are just the ones from the MM. Having just looked through the list, it seems 15-20 are the most common DR values, as opposed to 5-10 in 3.5. There are almost no monsters with DR 5 or 10.



So what? 
Look at the bypass numbers, not the value. 

Dragons shouldn't even count, their CR is too high for you not to have the appropriate magic weapons.


----------



## Victim (Oct 3, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Gee, hasn't ANYONE EVER READ GREATER MAGIC WEAPON??!??
> 
> At any rate, the DR problem disappears if you don't use many of the outsiders with DR (which is basically celestials, demons and devils), Dragons, Golems, the six kinds of Undead, or Elementals. Thats all that has DR in the 3.0 MM, excepting the Grick and the...one other one.
> 
> ...




Also, clerics can easily use Beads of Karma to boost their caster level by 4.  So that adds +1 or +2 on top the regular GMW.  And since those spells last for hours, it's easy to buff with them.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 3, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Therefore, the paladin needs to be able to replace the mount more quickly.



Right, but as a celestial mount, I'd think the month is too long really. Sure the Forces of Good might penalize you, but a month is odd to me.



> Not saying I _agree_ with all that, just that I'm willing to bet that's at least part of the logic behind it. Personally, I don't enforce the year and a day thing for familiars; I think the XP loss is sufficient penalty, thanks.



It just seems odd to me that a wizard dismissing his familiar takes XP loss and can't summon another right away.


> And heck, remember that back in 1E, a paladin could only call one mount every _ten years_!!



yeah, but looking for sanity in 1st edition won't get you too far


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> So what?
> Look at the bypass numbers, not the value.



The bypass numbers weren't the ones  being asked for. The claim was that there was only one or two celestials, plus golems, that had DR values over 15.


> Dragons shouldn't even count, their CR is too high for you not to have the appropriate magic weapons.



That was true for all the 3.0 monsters - the DR was basically designed never to come into play. because you'd almost always have weaponry that could penetrate DR (with a few exceptions, like the CR 9 rakshasa with DR 20/+3 - possible but iffy).

3.5, by comparison, assumes you will probably have to batter through DR the hard way (except for DR X/magic), and assigns CRs and DR values appropriately.


> Gee, hasn't ANYONE EVER READ GREATER MAGIC WEAPON??!??



The issue isn't that 3.0 DR was impenetrable - it wasn't (because you'd always have a high enough weapon bonus). The issue is that 3.0 DR was too much of an all-or-nothing thing.


> Preparation was rewarded in 3.0 too--Oil of Greater Magic Weapon anyone?



That's just a temporary boost along the same linear scale. You just get a weapon that's as powerful as you can afford, and you're set. In 3.5e, it pays to research what you're going up against and prepare accordingly.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 3, 2004)

> Preparation was rewarded in 3.0 too--Oil of Greater Magic Weapon anyone?




Does anyone want to explain how you know what DR a 3.0 creature had _without metagaming_?

It's pretty easy to say you need silver to kill a werewolf, but who can really say "you need a class III weapon to kill a balor?"


----------



## dead (Oct 3, 2004)

*Yikes! Bards as the favoured class for gnomes?*

This news knocked me off my seat, but I'm not suprised WotC did it.

In fact, this is what I call the Culture of Balance and it is prevalent in 3E (and off-the-scale in 3.5 by the sounds of it). In other words, WotC would rather serve the "balance of the game" rather than honour tradition.

Since time immemorial, gnomes have supposed to be quite handy at Illusion magic. Thus, it made perfect sense to make the Illusionist the gnome's favoured class. Sure, this is quiet a specific favoured class but so what? . . . think of the D&D flavour!

Now, out-of-the-blue, gnomes the Oerth over are talanted troubadours, bountiful bards, and trusty tenors!

Is there no respect for tradition anymore? Or is it just balance, balance, balance all the way and the *flavour* that D&D is built upon is warped and twisted on a whim?


----------



## Zweischneid (Oct 3, 2004)

> In any case, that's like saying all paladins should fly because the archangel Michael could. After all, he's a bastion of light, holiness, and military prowess!




I think you got it the wrong way. 
Archangel Michael would likely be statted with a few Paladin Levels, simply because this class D&D Mechanic likely approximates his abilities most closely. As should be done with Gandalf.

Rule mechanics serve to tell the story, not the other way around!
RPG-Rules ain't more than simple tools for taskresolution in those 5% of the Session when just telling the story doesn't cut it or an agreement in the sense of the story cannot be achieved without randomness.


----------



## Zweischneid (Oct 3, 2004)

> Since time immemorial, gnomes have supposed to be quite handy at Illusion magic. Thus, it made perfect sense to make the Illusionist the gnome's favoured class. Sure, this is quiet a specific favoured class but so what? . . . think of the D&D flavour!




If you like gnome illusionists, there shouldn't be a problem in either playing the old editions or houseruling the current one.

Retaing rules based on outdated material that you want to replace seems to be pretty foolish. Why revise the thing in the first place, if you want to keep it like it has been before?


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 3, 2004)

DR is fine as is in 3.5.  Makes much more sense this way.  If anything, they should make weapons that penetrate multiple forms of DR.  Me, I just go for the feat in the Draconomicon that lets you bypass five points of DR to begin with.  Works really nice if you have a non-power-attacking warrior type.


----------



## Zweischneid (Oct 3, 2004)

> Me, I just go for the feat in the Draconomicon that lets you bypass five points of DR to begin with. Works really nice if you have a non-power-attacking warrior type.




If it needed fixing in some obscure sourcebook it couldn't be that great in the Core Rules in the first place don't you think?


----------



## shilsen (Oct 3, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> Is there no respect for tradition anymore? Or is it just balance, balance, balance all the way and the *flavour* that D&D is built upon is warped and twisted on a whim?




To answer your first question, and speaking purely for myself - absolutely not. I'm playing the game to enjoy myself, not to worship at the altar of editions past. If something in 3.xe is interesting, I like it, irrespective of whether it fits earlier editions or not. If the MM had a creative and interesting explanation for why a red dragon was affected by fire, immune to acid, and had a 'breath' weapon which consisted of puffs of _stinking cloud_ from its ass, I'd say "cool" and use it. Gnome bards are an interesting concept that I can use, so I do. No reason you have to. As for your second question - yes, I like to have a lot of balance, balance, balance. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go torch some religious sites and stand on one toe on a seesaw.

*brought to you, courtesy of an equal opportunity iconoclast*


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 3, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> Is there no respect for tradition anymore? Or is it just balance, balance, balance all the way and the *flavour* that D&D is built upon is warped and twisted on a whim?




There are plenty of Sacred Cows that they retain simply because "it's D&D man".
I can understand the idea behind gnome bards. The archetypal gnome is a rogue-illusionist, and the bard is quite close to a rogue-illusionist.

You know what's more like a rogue illusionist though? A ROGUE-ILLUSIONIST!
By the New Gnome, you have to keep rogue & illusionist levels balanced or face multiclass penalties. WHich means next to know caster level. Arcane Trickster is already pretty high level, adding another level of rogue for the very race that IMO best represents just rubs me wrong.
(That said, the Divine Prankster IS very neat.)

I wanted to make a fighter-illusionist, but it's just too many lost levels for a gnome.

(and, for those that say "house rule" it, there are quite a few DM's that won't change a rule like that or Paladin multiclass restriction, because they assume it's there for some game balance reason.)

So, I agree there are some things needed to be changed, but also think some of the rules are Change for the Sake of Change. Gnomes & Dwarves didn't need changing, half-elves and half-orcs did, IMO.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 3, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Does anyone want to explain how you know what DR a 3.0 creature had _without metagaming_?
> 
> It's pretty easy to say you need silver to kill a werewolf, but who can really say "you need a class III weapon to kill a balor?"




The same way you know you need silver--someone fought one and found out, and told other people. Duh.

Is it really so hard to think of these things, people?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 3, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> The same way you know you need silver--someone fought one and found out, and told other people. Duh.
> 
> Is it really so hard to think of these things, people?




Oh that's funny. The bard comes to the tavern and sings a song about the paladin Lord Ovulous and his class III sword.

You can tell it's a class III sword because all +3 weapons come with such a clear label (eg "This Weapon Cuts III"). Duh.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 3, 2004)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> If it needed fixing in some obscure sourcebook it couldn't be that great in the Core Rules in the first place don't you think?




That is some seriously twisted logic.

That's like saying Dodge is proof that AC should start at 11 instead of 10.

It's a very nice -option-.  I grab it because my characters tends to be style-heavy, and, glassteel rapiers don't pierce many DRs.  It's a feat for those who don't want to go the power-attacking route, or who can't.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 3, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Oh that's funny. The bard comes to the tavern and sings a song about the paladin Lord Ovulous and his class III sword.
> 
> You can tell it's a class III sword because all +3 weapons come with such a clear label (eg "This Weapon Cuts III"). Duh.




Oh, thats funny. Why would you go to a bard for detailed historical records?
Why not...a wizard? A cleric of a knowledge deity?   No, not those--a bard of course!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 4, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Oh, thats funny. Why would you go to a bard for detailed historical records?
> Why not...a wizard? A cleric of a knowledge deity?   No, not those--a bard of course!




From the journal of Archinon the Great:

"If ye should face Durin's Bane, you need one of two things:

A class III sword.

A 5th-stage mage. Ye must check the latter out for yourself - thou must use the clarity of a deity's vision and make him cast a cone of Caina. Finding one is very hard ... and no, don't bother me the next time you run into a balor."

Do you mind re-writing this without referring to enhancement bonuses, levels or numbers?


----------



## jeffh (Oct 4, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Oh, thats funny. Why would you go to a bard for detailed historical records?
> Why not...a wizard? A cleric of a knowledge deity?   No, not those--a bard of course!




That whizzing sound you hear is the point sailing over your head.

"Silver" is something the *characters* (not players, *characters*) can reasonably refer to. "+3 sword" is not. Period. Who they ask is utterly beside the point.


----------



## Pants (Oct 4, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Also, most of these are silver or +1 DR, more rarely +2 or +3. +5 is only the Tarrasque...and Greater Magic Weapon allows +3 weapons for nine hours at level nine...



Then what's the point of 'damage reduction' in this case if a level 9 wizard can bypass a Balor's DR with a simple casting of a spell?  It ceases to be damage *reduction* at that point...


----------



## Staffan (Oct 4, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> Since time immemorial, gnomes have supposed to be quite handy at Illusion magic. Thus, it made perfect sense to make the Illusionist the gnome's favoured class. Sure, this is quiet a specific favoured class but so what? . . . think of the D&D flavour!
> 
> Now, out-of-the-blue, gnomes the Oerth over are talanted troubadours, bountiful bards, and trusty tenors!



Yeah, I'd hate to nudge the race that's supposed to be pranksters and good with illusions toward a class with spells like _ghost sound, prestidigitation, magic aura, silent image, ventriloquism, blur, invisibility, minor image, mirror image, misdirection, displacement, glibness, illusory script, invisibility sphere, major image, phantom steed, hallucinatory terrain, greater invisibility, rainbow pattern, false vision, mislead, seeming, shadow evocation, irresistible dance, permanent image, programmed image, project image, _and _veil_.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 4, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> Is there no respect for tradition anymore? Or is it just balance, balance, balance all the way and the *flavour* that D&D is built upon is warped and twisted on a whim?



Flavor in D&D is what the DM, in his individual campaign, makes of it. I like to think of 3E as taking a pointed stick to the brainpan of tradition; it needed it.


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu (Oct 4, 2004)

The one change I destest is the new druid's animal companions.

Don't know why. Just rubbed me the wrong way


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Oct 4, 2004)

I didn't like the changes to weapon sizes.  The nerfing of the buff spells could've been dropped to 10 mins per level and been ok, but not to where they are now.  

Pokemounts??????


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd hate to nudge the race that's supposed to be pranksters and good with illusions toward a class with spells like _ghost sound, prestidigitation, magic aura, silent image, ventriloquism, blur, invisibility, minor image, mirror image, misdirection, displacement, , illusory script, invisibility sphere, major image, phantom steed, hallucinatory terrain, greater invisibility, rainbow pattern, false vision, , seeming, shadow evocation, permanent image, programmed image, project image, _and _veil_.




I mentioned it on the other thread, but here's a good place too.
The Illusionist has all these spells, at the same level as the Bard. The Illusionist gets them all earlier, because bards have slower progressions for spells.



> glibness



This one is totally bard, woohoo!


> mislead, irresistible dance, project image



These spells have a reduced spell level. Mislead is 5 (bard) 6 (illusionist), dance 6 (bard) 8 (illusionist) & project image is 6 (bard) 7(illusionist)

because of slower progression for the bard though, he still gets those spells after the illusionist already has them.


----------



## Spatula (Oct 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd hate to nudge the race that's supposed to be pranksters and good with illusions toward a class with spells like _ghost sound, prestidigitation, magic aura, silent image, ventriloquism, blur, invisibility, minor image, mirror image, misdirection, displacement, glibness, illusory script, invisibility sphere, major image, phantom steed, hallucinatory terrain, greater invisibility, rainbow pattern, false vision, mislead, seeming, shadow evocation, irresistible dance, permanent image, programmed image, project image, _and _veil_.



And what spells on that list does the illusionist not get, and at an earlier class level?

Strangely enough, illusionists are better... well, illusionists than bards are.


----------



## Zweischneid (Oct 4, 2004)

> Does anyone want to explain how you know what DR a 3.0 creature had without metagaming?
> 
> It's pretty easy to say you need silver to kill a werewolf, but who can really say "you need a class III weapon to kill a balor?"




Well, it's easy to spin folktales or ancient wizard archieves on the power of silver, or even things like the "moon godess own metal", etc.., etc...

Using a "class III" weapon ingame is mixing OOC Mechanics with IC Gaming, i.e. Metagaming and one of the fastest and surest ways to destroy suspension of disbelieve.


----------



## dead (Oct 4, 2004)

dead said:
			
		

> This news knocked me off my seat, but I'm not suprised WotC did it.
> 
> In fact, this is what I call the Culture of Balance and it is prevalent in 3E (and off-the-scale in 3.5 by the sounds of it). In other words, WotC would rather serve the "balance of the game" rather than honour tradition.
> 
> ...




OK. OK.

Those big nosed gully snots can play the mandolin and flute if they wanna.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2004)

I always wonder if there is some ingame possiblity to determine the + of the weapon - and I think there must be. 
Most Magic Weapon Crafter seem to charge 8.000+ for a +2 weapon, and if someone would compare the weapons abilities, he would find them similar powerful. The magic aura is similar, and identify will identify two +2 Longswords from two different crafters as having the same abilities. 

So there definitely is a way to determine the "Plus" of a weapon. Maybe it is not as easy for a fighter as it is for a wizard, but maybe not - after all, most fighters can probably also determine the difference between an average sword and a well-balanced and crafted (MW) sword, so maybe with some time, they would also feel the differences between the magic abilities.

The interesting question is how they call it "ingame" - Do they call it simply +3, or Class III? A 3rd grade magic weapon? Maybe the even base it on the caster: "This weapon was one of the best of the mage - and he was at least in the 9th circle of magic (or maybe the 4th, referencing to spell and not caster levels?)


----------



## shilsen (Oct 4, 2004)

DonaldRumsfeldsTofu said:
			
		

> The one change I destest is the new druid's animal companions.
> 
> Don't know why. Just rubbed me the wrong way



 Any particular reason? I think the mechanics are quite well-handled, and have no problems with the flavor. Different strokes.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 4, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> That whizzing sound you hear is the point sailing over your head.
> 
> "Silver" is something the *characters* (not players, *characters*) can reasonably refer to. "+3 sword" is not. Period. Who they ask is utterly beside the point.




Please there's 5 levels of enhancements.  To assume that in game they don't have terms for that and its just an out of game mechanic is compeltely unreasonable.  I mean cuase here in the real world we just have guns right, we don't have anything like claibers or any other way to judge the power of a gun, why would people in a fantasy world have ways to judge the power of their weapons.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 4, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Then what's the point of 'damage reduction' in this case if a level 9 wizard can bypass a Balor's DR with a simple casting of a spell?  It ceases to be damage *reduction* at that point...




Actually if a wizard uses a spell to bypass a balor's damage reduction that's a character using their class abilities to overcome a challenge.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Ghaele (celestial, 25), Planetar (celestial, 30), Solar (celestial, 35), Succubus (demon, 20), Bebilith (demon, 30), Vrock (demon, 20), Hezrou (demon, 20), Glabrexu (demon, 20), Nalfeshnee (demon, 20), Marilith (demon, 20), Balor (demon, 30), Kyton (devil, 20), Hellcat (devil, 20), Cornugon (devil, 20), Gelugon (devil, 20), Pit fiend (devil, 25), Wyrm dragons (20), Clay golem (20), Stone golem (30), Iron golem (50), Night hag (20), Nightshades (25), Rakshasa (20), Noble salamander (20), Death slaad (20), and Tarrasque (25) - and those are just the ones from the MM. Having just looked through the list, it seems 15-20 are the most common DR values, as opposed to 5-10 in 3.5. There are almost no monsters with DR 5 or 10.




So 26 specific creatures, and lets see angles, demons/devils, that badest of the bad dragons, golems, night hags, nightshades, rakshasha(which surprises me but hey), noble salamander, death slaad, and the tarrasque.  So 10 things again zippy.  So I fogot some, there are a few more creatures that have above DR 15 in 3e, so against these creatures be prepared or be prepared to run.  The problem wasn't that big before and even if you found it to be a big problem the 3.5 revision should of just dropped the DR instead of making all these special materials rules.  Or if they were to add in these special materials rules they should be as an option for those who don't have the magical weapon of the right power.  

And hey I really think some of these DR shouldn't of been dropped like the golems.  Heck the wizards just shuffle there feat and say well hopefully those fighter types can do something when they bump into golems, because they sure as heck can't do much of anything against them if thery don't ahve the couple specific spells needed prepared.  So why should the fighters get an easy pass if they don't have the right gear.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 4, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> So 26 specific creatures



Well, 37 to be precise. I compressed 10 dragons and 3 nightshades into one entry each. That's a significant portion of CR 10+ monsters.


> even if you found it to be a big problem the 3.5 revision should of just dropped the DR instead of making all these special materials rules.



But I *like* the material rules. I *like* the golfbag thingy - I'm a big proponent of fighters being the types who prepare for different situations with all their feats. Glaive for dealing with creatures with reach, warhammer for bashing skeletons, longbow for shooting flying things or things far away. And now, a holy cold iron weapon for dealing with demons, and a holy silver weapon for dealing with devils (you can probably hold off on the holy thing until mid-levels or so). Perhaps make the warhammer adamantine, for dealing with golems.


----------



## Pants (Oct 5, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Actually if a wizard uses a spell to bypass a balor's damage reduction that's a character using their class abilities to overcome a challenge.



True, but when a level 9 PC can completely ignore the defenses of a CR 18 creature with a 3rd level spell, it ceases to be damage reduction and becomes a nuissance.

There aren't any spells (Core) that reduce (or remove) a creature's SR, reduce its resistance to energy, or remove its immunities.



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Heck the wizards just shuffle there feat and say well hopefully those fighter types can do something when they bump into golems, because they sure as heck can't do much of anything against them if thery don't ahve the couple specific spells needed prepared.  So why should the fighters get an easy pass if they don't have the right gear.



Actually, golems can be damaged with Conjuration spells or any other spell that doesn't allow SR. So, those wizards can do something against golems.


----------



## Testament (Oct 5, 2004)

Dangnabbit, the golfbag thing is a non-issue!  You need an Adamantine weapon and a Cold Iron weapon.  That and a jar of silversheen.  Problem solved.

The new DR rules are manifestly superior.  The thresholds aren't so enormous, and they make more sense in my opinion.  Only a holy weapon can harm the fiends, and the higher end ones need materials as well.  Its harder to bust their DR, but not a certain death if you can't.  Just one tough match.


----------



## Spatula (Oct 5, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> True, but when a level 9 PC can completely ignore the defenses of a CR 18 creature with a 3rd level spell, it ceases to be damage reduction and becomes a nuissance.
> 
> There aren't any spells (Core) that reduce (or remove) a creature's SR, reduce its resistance to energy, or remove its immunities.



And there aren't any spells (core) that reduce or remove a creature's DR.  _Greater magic weapon_ gives one weapon (or 50 arrows) the ability to bypass DR, assuming the caster is high enough level.  Which is great for whoever is using that weapon, but doesn't do much good for the rest of the party.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Oct 5, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> And there aren't any spells (core) that reduce or remove a creature's DR.  _Greater magic weapon_ gives one weapon (or 50 arrows) the ability to bypass DR, assuming the caster is high enough level.  Which is great for whoever is using that weapon, but doesn't do much good for the rest of the party.




It lasts an hour per level and you can buy or make wands of it reasonably cheaply at high level. A sorcerer can trivially put it on nearly everyone in the party when they wake up in the morning. A rogue with a high-level wand can also do it. In 3.0 it was trivially easy to bypass DR is you bothered to prepare properly. We did it all the time. 


Tzarevitch


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 5, 2004)

Shilsen said:
			
		

> Any particular reason? I think the mechanics are quite well-handled, and have no problems with the flavor. Different strokes.




I like the 3.5 companions than the 3.0 companions, but IMO evasion and share spells is stepping on the toes of spellcasters. I can see why the latter is so important, though ... no one wants to heal your companion.



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I mean cuase here in the real world we just have guns right, we don't have anything like claibers or any other way to judge the power of a gun, why would people in a fantasy world have ways to judge the power of their weapons.




My sword is 3 feet long, making it better than your sword. You do realize that _magical_ guns don't exist, right?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 6, 2004)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> It lasts an hour per level and you can buy or make wands of it reasonably cheaply at high level. A sorcerer can trivially put it on nearly everyone in the party when they wake up in the morning. A rogue with a high-level wand can also do it. In 3.0 it was trivially easy to bypass DR is you bothered to prepare properly. We did it all the time.
> 
> 
> Tzarevitch




It's a good thing DR in 3.5 changed to broaden the DR system then, otherwise DR is just pointless.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 6, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I mean cuase here in the real world we just have guns right, we don't have anything like claibers or any other way to judge the power of a gun...




If you want to go that way, then the characters basically know nothing about their weapons.

Most peoples understanding (even supposed experts) of firearms is terrible. Big calibre gun, more stopping power, right? Knockback? Hydrostatic shock? Glazers? Most of this stuff is pure crap, most of the studies are critically flawed, and most gun owners don't know anything about their gun beyond how big the barrel is and where the bullets go.

So if you want to transfer that across to D&D fine. I'd suggest you start by removing every stat from the weapons section, and replacing the ones on the more expensive weapons with phrases like "hits harder!" and "greater stopping power" regardless of what the original stat was.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 6, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Most peoples understanding (even supposed experts) of firearms is terrible. Big calibre gun, more stopping power, right? Knockback? Hydrostatic shock? Glazers? Most of this stuff is pure crap, most of the studies are critically flawed, and most gun owners don't know anything about their gun beyond how big the barrel is and where the bullets go.



I won't disagree that many people who own guns, particularly for self-defense, know very little about them.  However I'm not sure I'd go with "most."  A lot of gun owners in the US are hobbyists.  Hunters and target shooters.  My dad is such a one.  He makes his own bullets.  He takes apart his guns to clean and service them, himself.  At the firing range he goes to, several of the regulars are also gunsmiths.  These people's understanding of firearms is excellent, to say the least.  And I'm not sure I'm ready to say that they are the minority by a large margin.

But let's assume that my dad and his buddies _are_ in the minority.  Even so, that means that there's a subset of weapon owners who can readily judge the strength of a particular firearm and/or bullet.  They are the ones who use firearms weekly or even daily, and who may also know how to make them.

In a fantasy world this translates over to warrior-types, who may also have ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing).


----------



## Victim (Oct 6, 2004)

On the other hand, it'd be easy to understand and rate the magic bonus on weapons from an IC point of view.  Detect Magic will break weapons into 3 categories of power.  Comparision with GMW provides another way of testing the weapon's bonus.  In 3.0, DR was pretty much impossible to bypass without a magic weapon.  Summon different demons, whack them with the weapon, see if injury results.  Not to mention the difficulty of making the weapon.


----------



## dead (Oct 6, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I like to think of 3E as taking a pointed stick to the brainpan of tradition; it needed it.




3E is still steeped in tradition. I'd say 80 to 90 per cent is tradition.

You still have olde chestnuts of tradition like:

arcane/divine magic divide
classes like the monk, paladin, druid, etc.
alignment
short elves
Bigby's this-and-that; Mordenkainen's such-and-such

and the list goes on . . .


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 6, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it'd be easy to understand and rate the magic bonus on weapons from an IC point of view.




I'd think it'd be fairly trivial to test the sharpness and hardness of enchanted weapons.  For example, I'd allow a skilled alchemist to create a range of acids to "etch test" magic blades.

As long as my players' PCs don't start calling it "my +2 longsword" in character, I'm quite okay with the PC knowing his +2 longsword is better than a +1 longsword but not as impressive as a +3 longsword.


Jeff


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 6, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> As long as my players' PCs don't start calling it "my +2 longsword" in character, I'm quite okay with the PC knowing his +2 longsword is better than a +1 longsword but not as impressive as a +3 longsword.



I don't even mind IC use of the term "+2 longsword," unless I've given the players alternate in-game terminology to use.  Sometimes I come up with something.  Sometimes I just use the OOC term as the IC term to save time.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 7, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd hazard a guess that the logic behind that is as follows:
> 
> The druid doesn't have nearly as strong an empathic link with its companion. Plus, it's a change from a previous edition (3.0) where this ability was based on a spell, which could be cast as often as desired (within reasonable limits).
> 
> ...




I've seen familiars used as scouts and have gotten in battle (usually inadvertantly).

Unless you have a DM who likes to take out the paladin's mount for the sheer hell of it. My paladin's mount has been in the thick of battle numerous times and hasn't been hit once. But then it hasn't attacked anyone, just carrying the pally around as she attacked foes.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 7, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I don't even mind IC use of the term "+2 longsword," unless I've given the players alternate in-game terminology to use.  Sometimes I come up with something.  Sometimes I just use the OOC term as the IC term to save time.




The only time we refer to a sword's magical bonus is when we're talking to a merchant to purchase one or getting a wizard to identify it's properties. Then we refer to a +2 sword as a sword with the 2nd circle of magic.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 7, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I'd think it'd be fairly trivial to test the sharpness and hardness of enchanted weapons.  For example, I'd allow a skilled alchemist to create a range of acids to "etch test" magic blades.




Or just use the standard things to determine hardness, though what would be required for an enchanted adamantine blade would be...interesting.



			
				wilder_jw said:
			
		

> As long as my players' PCs don't start calling it "my +2 longsword" in character, I'm quite okay with the PC knowing his +2 longsword is better than a +1 longsword but not as impressive as a +3 longsword.




I try to name my character's weapons, though, of course, all the good names have been taken.

Brad


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 7, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Or just use the standard things to determine hardness, though what would be required for an enchanted adamantine blade would be...interesting.




What are "the standard things"?


Jeff


----------



## Victim (Oct 7, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> What are "the standard things"?
> 
> 
> Jeff




There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials.  Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.

Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 7, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials.  Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.
> 
> Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.




Engineers...


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 7, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials.  Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.




In a quasi-medieval environment, wouldn't most of these tests damage the object tested?

"Well, it _used_ to be a pretty damned powerful sword ... here are the remaining shards."

That's why I'd allow harmless alchemical testing.


Jeff


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 7, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Unless you have a DM who likes to take out the paladin's mount for the sheer hell of it.




Of course, the ability of the Mounted Combat feat to allow the paladin to potentialy negate one attack on his mount per round has to be a darn handy one (assuming he is putting plenty of ranks into Ride of course)

Cheers


----------



## Psion (Oct 7, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials.  Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.
> 
> Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.




Engineer chimes in...

Qualities of a material that have to do with it being pulled or torn aren't hardness, but other qualities (tensile strength, ductility, etc.)

We now return you to discussion that would have anything that you would want to concern yourself with in a game...


----------



## Victim (Oct 7, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Engineer chimes in...
> 
> Qualities of a material that have to do with it being pulled or torn aren't hardness, but other qualities (tensile strength, ductility, etc.)
> 
> We now return you to discussion that would have anything that you would want to concern yourself with in a game...




Yeah, but DnD hardness seems a bit different than say Brinell hardness since it protects against almost all types of damage.  So it includes corrosion resistance too, among other things.  But yeah, tensile strength would probably work against Break DC, rather than hardness/HP.

The hardness tests are rather non destructive.  They'd put some small marks on the blade, not break it.  Of course, those marks might act as stress concentrators later.

It might be better to GMW up an equivalent sword, then test that.  Then, if you mess it up, you're out 15 gp plus the casting cost (possibly nothing if you can do it yourself), instead of 18k.


----------



## Steverooo (Oct 7, 2004)

*Hardness*

Sheesh!  You take arguements to the nutty extreeme, don'tcha?!?    

The Mohs scale, IIRC, goes from Chalk to Diamond.  You take a piece of material that you want to test, and see if it will "mark" (or leave a scratch on) a piece of chalk...  If it does, you proceed UP the scale to the next hader material.  When you find something that your test material won't "mark", then you see if that material will mark it.

In this way, you get a "Moh's Number".  That number is the material's hardness.

Now in D&D terms, you would have enchanted materials (probably above diamond), and adamanti(ne/te), and then its magical variations.

By using a weight (let's say twenty pounds), you remove variables (how much pressure was applied) from the equation.  Nothing there that would break the sword.  At worst, there would be another "sharpening scratch" along the edge of the blade.  Etching the blade would do more damage than that.


----------



## Steverooo (Oct 7, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> Yeah, but DnD hardness seems a bit different than say Brinell hardness since it protects against almost all types of damage.  So it includes corrosion resistance too, among other things.




Actually, no...  "Acid" includes ALL forms of corrosion (acids, alkalis, caustics of all forms).  Both "Acid" and "Sonic" damage ignore hardness...  See the DMG...


----------



## Carpe DM (Oct 7, 2004)

I suppose posting in a thread this contentious borders on the Quixotic, but I can't resist.

The biggest problem I have with 3.5 was the Paladin nerf.  The class is dependent on force multipliers to make the pathetic smite useful.  The following abilities were all nerfed, and acting in conjunction, reduced the utility of the Paladin far more than any other class:

1. Crit stacking nerf (force multipliers for smites now much rarer);

2. Holy Sword nerf; (they left Hunter's Mercy intact, of course);

3. Divine Might nerf;

4. Lances errata'ed (ok, fine, they're pathetic 2-handed weapons that do 1d8 damage, but we'll treat them as having none of the benefits of being 2-handed, of course);

5. Turning nerf (paladins now couldn't turn yogurt);

6. Spellcasting nerf (the change in spell durations didn't hurt clerics; they destroyed spell utility for paladins because of the 1/2 caster requirement);

Those are just a few of the problems.  Paladins received summon mount in return, which I think a lot of people have pointed out was a pretty poor exchange.

Flavor-text aside, I do think the paladin mount ability permits paladins to focus a lot more on their mounts, since they can get them deep down in the dungeons on occasion (otherwise, as in many campaigns I've observed, the Paladin gets to use her horse once every other month or so).

But it's no exchange for the across-the-board nerfing of a class that was already so far behind clerics as to be laughable.

best,

Carpe


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 7, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> A lot of gun owners in the US are hobbyists.  Hunters and target shooters.  My dad is such a one.  He makes his own bullets.  He takes apart his guns to clean and service them, himself.




I sure hope people don't pay someone else to clean their guns (Simply because it is a pretty trival thing). 

Making your own bullets or for that matter, _cartridges_ isn't terribly uncommon, though unless you shoot a certain miniumum amount of ammunition, it isn't cost-effective.

Anyway...


----------



## Victim (Oct 7, 2004)

Carpe DM said:
			
		

> I suppose posting in a thread this contentious borders on the Quixotic, but I can't resist.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with 3.5 was the Paladin nerf.  The class is dependent on force multipliers to make the pathetic smite useful.  The following abilities were all nerfed, and acting in conjunction, reduced the utility of the Paladin far more than any other class:
> 
> ...




Paladins already turned at level -3.  Turning at -4 isn't a huge drop in their ability.

Holy Sword needed the nerf.  I've seen in play attacks for over 400 damage.  Granted, Hunter's Mercy could use a gang beating with nerf bats as well.  I too was surprised when it was put into the ranger spell list in PGtF without a new version of the spell.

Divine Might was probably too good before.  The free action plus one fight duration, combined with the paladin's large number of turning attempts essentially gave the paladin more damage than specialized fighters.  Now it's still good enough to take and use, but it's not a given for each round of combat.

Paladin's now get extra smites from levels, which they didn't have before.  Smiting 4 times instead of once at higher levels is a great improvement.

By the time paladins had access to stat buffing spells, they could easily have items for those abilities anyway.  I don't recall seeing too many paladins using those spells before.
----------------
Dang it, I keep forgetting that Acid damage got changed to be like sonics.  Dnd Hardness would probably related largely to Impact Toughness.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 7, 2004)

re: finding out magical properties of items (like +1 or +2)

Wouldn't it be easier to just cast an identify spell?  In 3.5 you find out all magical properties of any one non-artifact.

(But cast Detect Magic first...I got burned when I paid a mage to cast identify on what turned out to be a vial of antitoxin)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 7, 2004)

Carpe DM said:
			
		

> I suppose posting in a thread this contentious borders on the Quixotic, but I can't resist.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with 3.5 was the Paladin nerf.  The class is dependent on force multipliers to make the pathetic smite useful.  The following abilities were all nerfed, and acting in conjunction, reduced the utility of the Paladin far more than any other class:
> 
> ...





I couldn't disagree more. I'm playing a paladin right now, and I'm loving it. Those multiple smites really pay off at higher levels, and I've always felt that _holy sword_ and the buff spells needed tweaking. And frankly, lances were never meant to be useful, except from horseback--where they're absolutely _devastating_.

But frankly, if you're playing a paladin expecting to be the equal of the fighter or barbarian in combat, that's a mistake. The paladin is a warrior class, but with broader focus and spell-using ability. It's not _supposed_ to be quite the fighter of, well, the fighter, because that's what smite and the spell list are intended to compensate for. And IMO, they do so quite effectively.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 8, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> I sure hope people don't pay someone else to clean their guns (Simply because it is a pretty trival thing).



Gun cleaning is about $30 round these parts, and isn't an uncommon service...


> Anyway...




Right.  

On Topic: For the crit change, I pretty much just turned Keen Weapon to affect the multiplier instead. Same end effect but now you can limit the other bonuses that were the real problem IMO.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 8, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I couldn't disagree more. I'm playing a paladin right now, and I'm loving it. Those multiple smites really pay off at higher levels, and I've always felt that _holy sword_ and the buff spells needed tweaking. And frankly, lances were never meant to be useful, except from horseback--where they're absolutely _devastating_.
> 
> But frankly, if you're playing a paladin expecting to be the equal of the fighter or barbarian in combat, that's a mistake. The paladin is a warrior class, but with broader focus and spell-using ability. It's not _supposed_ to be quite the fighter of, well, the fighter, because that's what smite and the spell list are intended to compensate for. And IMO, they do so quite effectively.




I have fun playing an 11th level paladin who can smite evil 5 times a day.... (with a feat, of course...   ) Never used the buffing spells other than Resist Energy, which hasn't been worth it but was a precaution mostly except for being inside a volcano, standing on a shelf. To keep from roasting to death, the paladin cast the spell so the heat would bother her much more (she was cold-based, being a half silver dragon...) while the party figured out how to get from the shelf out of the "dungeon" (which this was the end of...).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 8, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I won't disagree that many people who own guns, particularly for self-defense, know very little about them.  However I'm not sure I'd go with "most."  A lot of gun owners in the US are hobbyists.  Hunters and target shooters.  My dad is such a one.  He makes his own bullets.  He takes apart his guns to clean and service them, himself.  At the firing range he goes to, several of the regulars are also gunsmiths.  These people's understanding of firearms is excellent, to say the least.  And I'm not sure I'm ready to say that they are the minority by a large margin.



He may well be a genuine expert. I think he's a rare breed, judging by the general level of firearms information to be found around the place. Ask the average gun owner why he uses X gun or Y bullets, and chances are most of the information making up that decision is unfounded, misinformed, or downright disproven.


> In a fantasy world this translates over to warrior-types, who may also have ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing).



I'd agree entirely. I'd also say there's going to be a lot of people out there that consider themselves experts who have not a single rank in the skill.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 8, 2004)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Engineers...




Hey, I was just going to mention the Mohs scale and talk about seeing what scratches what.  Whew.  Talk about lucky...

Brad


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 8, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> On Topic: For the crit change, I pretty much just turned Keen Weapon to affect the multiplier instead. Same end effect but now you can limit the other bonuses that were the real problem IMO.




I still allow keen and improved crit to stack, so there isn't an issue for me there. 

However, if in 3.5e they were going to prevent them stacking then I think they should have extended improved crit so that it doubled the threat range of *all* non keen weapons being used by the fighter/paladin/whatever. That would have been a neat tradeoff.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Oct 8, 2004)

My only complaint is that the standard buffs (Bulls Strength, etc) were reduced in duration- an hour per level does actually seem a bit much, but reduced to 1 minute per level, seems a bit short. We houseruled it to 10 minutes per level which seems like a compromise. 

Personally, I would have liked Summoned critters to last 10 minutes per level as well, or at least 1 minute, rather than a single round/level. 

No complaints about the rest of it, including weapon sizes. I'm ok with all of that. I loved 3.0 and I have been very pleased with 3.5's improvements.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 8, 2004)

My buff spell houserule:

You can choose at casting time to make it _high intensity_ (gives combat bonuses, save bonuses, DC bonuses etc) and it lasts 1m per level, or you can make it _low intensity_ (*only *gives skill bonuses, nothing else).

This makes it a useful buff for negotiations, rock climbing and such and not merely a combat buff as 3.5 would have it.

Cheers


----------

