Compiled 3.5 Revisions

coyote6 · Jul 3, 2003

Re: Small weapon sizes mean...which club?

SpeedDemonic said:
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to playing a gnome...
nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerf!

I tend to sympathize with your position (there's a dagger-wielding halfling in my game, and he will not benefit from this change), but do note that there is a variant rule in the DMG that covers "equivalent weapons". Gamingreport's page images include that particular page, IIRC, so you can go there & check it out.

Heck, if enough people use those rules, the "variant" will might become the "standard" next edition.

(As for the Arcane Archer -- perhaps we should see if the class has changed?)

proditor · Jul 3, 2003

I'd love to see the AA abilities.

We can argue back and forth about which is better, fighter or AA, and then remember that a new ranger will probably beat both of them silly at high level, but I'd rather see if they changed the class.

Danzauker · Jul 4, 2003

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
OA uses the same thing with some abilities costing flat gold amounts and others as +x enchantments. I see this as a way to increase the cost of certain enchantments that had the flat +x and were probably worth more. Hmm...looks like I'll see more +5 weapons in my games now.

Yes. Oriental Adventures introduced the mechanic and the rationale under it.

If the power is combat and weapon related then has a plus equivalence.

If the power is bestowed on the person (like Fly for example) then it's just like having an ordinary magic item, and it just costs money.

I don't know how you should calculate the making cost thogh, because it's basically a magic item that doesn't use a body slot but has to be held in hand.

I think the DMG will give guidelines.

CapnZapp · Jul 4, 2003

Olgar, a suggestion:
When you are finished with Andy Collins' last answers, why don't you start a new thread, perhaps called "Compiled 3.5 Revisions (complete)" or somesuch.

This thread contains *way too much* off-topic stuff...

Otherwise your compilation is a real life-saver

Thanks!

Olgar Shiverstone · Jul 4, 2003

I've added everything new I could find from Andy Collins' answers; he's said that he's done posting information since the books are in reviewers and others' hands now.

So barring what scoopers with the books have to offer, this thread is essentially complete from a WOTC standpoint.

Maybe one of the mods can prune the thread -- I know a lot of other people/boards have linked to this one directly.

Unfortunately the compiled Word document is just a little too big to attach here; maybe later today I'll try to cut it down a bit so that it can fit.

Edit: More from our Dutch friends:

ll. Acrobatic: +2 Jump & Tumble

mm. Athletic: +2 Climb & Swim

nn. Deceitful: +2 Disguise & Forgery

Mithral and steel don't bypass hardness while adamantine does.

yy. Other spell changes:

· Invisibility: Duration has changed from 10 minutes/level to 1 minute per level
· Temporal Stasis: 9th -> 8th level
· Simulacrum: limited to 2ce your levels or hit dice. And the gp cost is 100 gp powdered ruby per HD, XP cost: 100 XP per HD, with a minimum of 1000 XP
· Ice storm: Level:4 Duration: 1 full round, -4 penalty check to listening in the area of effect, all land movement is halved for the entire duration. At the end the hail disappears, leaving no after effects except the damage dealt.

Celtavian · Jul 4, 2003

re

Mithral and steel don't bypass hardness while adamantine does.

I really hate changes that lack a good flavor reason. The adamantine ignoring up to 20 points of hardness is going to be changed if there is not an extremely good flavor reason. Game Designers should not fall into the "Its magic, I don't have to explain it" reason for magical properties.

Oldtimer · Jul 4, 2003

Have you noted under the "Combat" section that slings now allow you to add your Strength bonus to damage?

Ravellion · Jul 4, 2003

Re: re

Celtavian said:
I really hate changes that lack a good flavor reason. The adamantine ignoring up to 20 points of hardness is going to be changed if there is not an extremely good flavor reason. Game Designers should not fall into the "Its magic, I don't have to explain it" reason for magical properties.

It might ahve to do with the golems having Damage reduction adamantine.

The flavor text in the DMG refers to it as "Ultrahard". They also don't reduce hardness by 20 as was mentioned a bit up, but as you said ignores hardness less than 20, ie. adamantine doesn't ignore itself, or +5 Mithral.

I can see the rationale in a way, but the rules aren't consistent. They'll do IMC however.

Olgar Shiverstone · Jul 4, 2003

And with that I think I'm done.

The full books will be out soon, and there are enough folks with their hands on them that any further compilation will just be reproducing what will soon be available in the books themselevs -- I suspect that the majority of what is left are specific changes to individual spells or monsters, which aren't worth my further time to reproduce.

For those who'd like it, I'm attaching the full hyperlinked MS Word document (minus the FAQ part). If someone wants to convert it to a *.pdf, feel free.

It's been fun. I look foward to doing this again when 4.0 comes out.

Edit: I just had do go and do another update, so I've attached the new file here (as well as on page 7 of the thread). This version includes the FAQ, and a lot of new spell/magic item changes, thanks to our Dutch friends (Cegorach, Breikki, Tharizdun, Phillip)