?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
Ok, so by now I expect most of us have seen/used/browsed 3.5 What do… 
23rd-Aug-2003 03:02 am
Bill by Binkette
Ok, so by now I expect most of us have seen/used/browsed 3.5

What do you think? The good? The bad? The ugly?



Well...lets just name off some stuff....

It wasn't really needed? simple enough. Some fixes/changes were needed, but there seems to be too much done with no good reason.

-Sorc gets a chance to remove a spell that is obsolete and pick a new one? Its ok, but not really needed. If you pick your spells carefully it's easy to have a powerful spell selection. But overall its ok
-Power Attack....using 2 hands on the weapon gives you +2 on damage for every -1 on attack ...wtf?!? Thats a bit much. A 2 for 1 deal?? Too powerful. Power Attack didn't need that little addon, but I guess every munchkin digs it?
-Whats with the extra bullshit in the DMG? Epic level stuff, stuff on the planes, prestige classes from other books, 2 "new" shitty prestige classes, the new Blackguard pic is good, but other than that...crap! A few changes on magic items are good too (now that I think of it) but there are some other stupid moves. Lots of stuff that we already have in other books. Why add it?? So WotC can say there is "lots of new additions" or such???
-The descriptions of monsters in the MM is a nice touch. Our current DM (I just finished DM'ing...I can play again woo!!) used the description of Ankhegs and it was neat. I like that, but wouldn't buy the book just for that.
-Paladin's war horse 2/hr per level? Ehn. I don't really dig that. We've always seen the warhorse as a lifelong companion, but now its a creature to summon?? tsk tsk.
-Druid's being able to "burn off" spells for Summon Nature's Ally is ok. Equivilant of cleric's ability.
-Ranger's have been changed so much that we're expecting a new version next week.
-Sunder and other feats being named "Improved [name]" wasn't needed. Sure anyone can try to sunder, but taking the feat prevents the attack of opp. Improved Sunder now gives a +4 to the attack roll....why? Just to make characters more powerful?? Most are plenty powerful already.
-Those feats that give you +2 on two skills are ok, but I personally wouldn't waste a feat on either. Unless I was trying to get a mad total on some skill.
-I like the DR now. Cold Iron is cool. Skeleton's having 5/Blugdeoning and Zombie's with 5/Slashing is good. Nothing drastic but keeps skeletons up against low level characters for a bit longer. Demons and Angels should be harder to fight now. Especially if they have dual-DR. Before someone could get "Sure Striking" and hit the demons, angels, powerful dragons, etc etc. without having to worry about the DR. ...assuming they can hit the AC.
-Something about the weapons.....handedness is it? and the different damages?? Its a flashback of 2nd ed. Longsword doing 1d8 vs small/med. and 1d12 vs. large...wtf?
-They dumbed down orcs. I wonder if it was because of the same type of whining I faced from the players when I made an adventure using 3.5 creatures. Orcs with Falchions? Doesn't seem right. Orcs are cruel, vicious, and such. So a greataxe seemed fitting. Possible mad damage. Only on a natural 20 though. Falchion's crit range is 18-20 but 2d4. And then they lowered the Orcs AC...why? Mighty Orcs and their 14 AC was too much? So they changed it by 1 to 13? Bah. Why not equip them with a stone dagger and a tutu?
-A Gnome's favoured class is Bard?? wtf???
-Why do Half-Elves get a +2 bonus to diplomacy?? People dig half-breeds all of a sudden?
-There is just too much shit renamed. Why rename something when there was nothing wrong with a name. If you can't remember the names then you shouldn't be playing.
-Harm and Heal are fixed. Good.
-Barbarians get DR earlier... 4 levels I think...which is no big thing, but why? no reasoning there.
-I like the fact that Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection now have a good material component. After all raising the dead shouldn't be a simple task.
-Renaming Endurance to Bears Endurance wasn't needed. Sure its a part of the "animal boost" spells...but does it really matter?
-Now Bull Strength and similiar spells only last minutes rather than hours? We've always seen those as pre-adventuring spells. Something you cast before setting out and lasting a nice while. The new one gives a 4 to the score so there is no rolling. What? Too many people rolling 1's for the old spells and whining??


Anyways, I don't own the books, just remembering (correctly I hope) the stuff I looked over when I had a loan of them from another player.

end rant :)
Comments 
22nd-Aug-2003 10:35 pm (UTC)
"and the different damages?? Its a flashback of 2nd ed. Longsword doing 1d8 vs small/med. and 1d12 vs. large...wtf?"

Umm, no. They don't "do different damage." Those are stats given for different sized weapons--a small version (for halfings and gnomes, for instance) and a "standard" version for normal-sized characters like humans. It's so you can play a halfling who uses a longsword built for, and by, halflings.

And I, for one, give thanks for the reduced duration on the Buff spells. To me, having spells that you basically cast and last (for all practical purposes) all day was way too Everquest-like. Now they're spells that you use when you need.

Frankly, while I agree that some changes weren't necessary, I can think of very few I actually dislike.
23rd-Aug-2003 05:50 am (UTC)
-Sorc gets a chance to remove a spell that is obsolete and pick a new one? Its ok, but not really needed.
People have been complaining on how Sorcerers were so much weaker than Wizards. With Eschew Material Components becoming a non-metamagic feat and the spell-swapping, the Sorcerer becomes on-par with the Wizard (or close to it). Spell-swapping makes non-cookie-cutter Sorcerers possible; before you had to take spells that scaled or you were toast. Now you can choose Sleep as at low levels without being penalized for it later on.

-Power Attack....using 2 hands on the weapon gives you +2 on damage for every -1 on attack ...wtf?!?
Power Attack was useless in 3.0. Unless you were fighting opponents with extremely low ACs (you hit on everything except a 1) or extremely high ones (you could only hit on a natural 20), it was better, statistically, not to use the feat. In 3.0, it's still not a good choice for S&S or TWF fighters, but now it's useful for THW fighters. Usefulness is good.

-Whats with the extra bullshit in the DMG?
Most people like to stick to core and so never bothered to pick up those other books. Besides, the DMG 3.5 updates a lot of that material to 3.5 standards. Would you rather buy a FRCS 3.5 to get the new 3.5 Archmage changes?

-The descriptions of monsters in the MM is a nice touch.
Agreed. The tactics aren't bad, either, for those who haven't had a lot of experience with particular creatures. The new stat format also makes it a lot easier to DM.

-Paladin's war horse 2/hr per level?
Too often the mount had to be left outside when the Paladin ventured into the dungeon. When he returned, it was only to see that the mount had been slain. 3.5 fixes this. Note that the creature is called, not summoned. Note also that the minimum duration of the calling is 10 hours a day since the Paladin doesn't get the mount until level 5.

-I like the DR now.
It's really nice and a big step forward from 3.0 where it was only the "plus" on your magic weapon that mattered. It's also nice that most opponents are no longer invincible if you don't have the correct weapon (Iron Golem, 3.0, was untouchable if you lacked a means to get around DR).

-A Gnome's favoured class is Bard?? wtf???
Illusionist wasn't a class -- it was a subclass. Many players were multiclassing Gnomes as Illusionist/Rogues, and the new Bard fits that flavor pretty well. Note that Gnome Illusionists are better off under 3.5 as well, since they get a boost to save DCs.

-Why do Half-Elves get a +2 bonus to diplomacy?? People dig half-breeds all of a sudden?
Because Half-Elves suck.

-Barbarians get DR earlier... 4 levels I think...which is no big thing, but why? no reasoning there.
Because it was useless before. At level 7, DR 1/- is pretty helpful.

-I like the fact that Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection now have a good material component. After all raising the dead shouldn't be a simple task.
Still too easy for my games. ;)

-Renaming Endurance to Bears Endurance wasn't needed. Sure its a part of the "animal boost" spells...but does it really matter?
So that Druids could have the spell. Druids got a major power boost, which they didn't really need.

-Now Bull Strength and similiar spells only last minutes rather than hours? We've always seen those as pre-adventuring spells. Something you cast before setting out and lasting a nice while.
That's exactly why the spell was changed. If you want permanent boosts, you're supposed to spend money on magic items, not just have the Wizard or Cleric buff you up every morning. The spell bonus is now constant to avoid metamagic boosting it even higher, which is what a lot of people were doing in 3.5, to make it conistent with the even bonuses throughout the game, and to make it just a little more powerful on average.
23rd-Aug-2003 12:54 pm (UTC)
I won't tackle some of the complaints that already have been mentioned but...

-Whats with the extra bullshit in the DMG? Epic level stuff, stuff on the planes, prestige classes from other books, 2 "new" shitty prestige classes, the new Blackguard pic is good, but other than that...crap! A few changes on magic items are good too (now that I think of it) but there are some other stupid moves. Lots of stuff that we already have in other books. Why add it?? So WotC can say there is "lots of new additions" or such???

Bullshit is a very relative term. I personally am happy that they decided to take some stuff from other books that aren't OGL and popular, update it for 3.5, and put that in the main book. This makes good business sense too for three reasons:

1) If you don't have the other books or are new to D&D, you can get a taste of it through the DMG and then pick up the other books if you like.

2) Fans of the old books are certainly going to be asking for "How does this work in 3.5" Putting some of it in the DMG mitigates that.

3) By putting it in the DMG, you also put it in the SRD which now makes a lot of the basics OGC. I know the planar basics (not the details) are OGC, I think the epic stuff is too. This placates the camp that demands "Make ELH or MotP open game."

However, if you have all the old books, don't mind doing the conversions by yourself, and don't care whether if OGC or not... then the extra stuff is probably worthless to you. I don't think you are in the majority however.

As for the naming changes, it looks like they were done to facilitate referencing. I thinking mostly for spells so that they can put the spells together (i.e. planar binding with lesser planar binding and greater planar binding) and then have an entry desrcibing that placement under the lesser and greater entries. This makes it easier for new people to negotiate the game.

Gnomes actually get a class as a favored class now instead of a specialty. And look at the bard spell list and tell me they aren't damn good illusionist. Gnome's being illusionists is a throw back from 1e and I think they made a good retrofit.
23rd-Aug-2003 05:03 pm (UTC)
my opponion short and sweet...

never trust an RPG/software/WHATEVER that has number.5 in it.

Its bullshit telling you that the next version is already in the works and will be out in a year or so.
3rd-Sep-2003 02:30 pm (UTC)
-Ranger's have been changed so much that we're expecting a new version next week.

since everything else seems to have been covered by other people, i'll respond to this one - if for no other reason than that i've been working up a 3.5e ranger over the past several days.

i don't really see anything that i'd call a "major change," but there are a couple of things i've noticed.

animal empathy is now called wild empathy, and is a feat instead of a skill. the name change somewhat makes sense, since you're only likely to use it on wild or unfreindly animals anyway - and really, as a "greedy" player i love the idea of it being a feat since that'll free up skill points to be spent on other things .. but seeing as the description of the feat is exactly the same as the description of the skill, it would seem that either 1) someone slacked off on editing the verbiage to make it clearer as to what's changed about this or 2) it should've just been left alone and remained a skill.

intuit direction seems to have gone missing; if anybody finds it, please let me know.

wilderness lore has also gone missing - but then, i've thought that it was a bit redundant when anything that wilderness lore affects can also be covered under knowledge:nature.

the only other changes i recall seeing were the addition of a couple of bonus feats that bring the ranger a bit closer to the druid in terms of "mentality." which is fine actually - it makes sense, since they've always been two sides of the same coin, really; they're both protectors of the wild. the druid has always been a little more magick-focused, and the ranger a little more fighting-focused - and they still are in 3.5 - but i don't see how allowing the ranger to acquire an animal companion completely restructures the class. (although i can see some people who like playing druids all the time getting bent out of shape about how much less unique they are.
This page was loaded May 25th 2018, 8:25 pm GMT.