D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 revisions I'm not going to use!

[Plane Sailing]

The only information that I've heard so far that I might change if it turns out to be true:

Wild Empathy based on Diplomacy. Frankly, basing it on Handle Animal makes so much more sense to me, and unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do otherwise that is the way I'm likely to go.

Otherwise, I'm willing to try pretty much everything I've heard about.

Cheers

 

[DonAdam]

Mystic Theurge- banned. No flavor, nuff said.

Wild Empathy- if it uses Diplomacy, that's beyond stupid. Handle Animal.

Dwarves are just getting way too much in the new edition. They were already a super hoss race. They'll be getting toned down.

Stat buffs: While I like that the new durations solve a problem, there's no doubt to me that this makes them too weak. I will probably go with a variant of the d20 modern version: two spells, Enhance Physical Ability and Enhance Mental Ability, that grant a flat +5 bonus and only last 1 min/lvl.

Ranger: I'll take away the spellcasting, high reflex saves, evasion, and combat paths and replace them with normal bonus feats (BOHM style), d10 HD, and trackless step (where evasion went).

Spell Focus: I agree that +1 each is too little to spend a feat on, but I think the +4 from Greater is outrageous.
However, neither edition solves the fundamental problem with Spell Focus, that it only benefits a few schools: Enchantment, Evocation, Necromancy, Illusion, and some Transmutation.
So, why not make spell focus give you +1 DC's and +1 caster level for your school, and greater spell focus make it a +2? That way, even though it's not perfectly even, all schools benefit from spell focus.

I also hate that all the new fiends have obscene dexterity's. I realize they probably wanted their touch AC's higher, but the idea of a pit fiend with a 27 Dex is going to do far more to make my players giggle and not be scared than having them be a little weak. They could have done some inherent demonic deflection bonus instead.

 

[SimonMoon5]

I won't use:

• Any of the changes I've read about so far.

 

[Fleetwood]

I think we are all missing the basic point. 3rd edition was supposed to be THE D&D edition for all time and eternity. The thought was to make 3rd edition so good and complete that there would not be any need to do another.

Calling the "new" edition 3.5 is just window dressing. If there are completely new books to get, new rules to assimilate, etc... its a new edition.

I for one am going to try my hardest to keep my campaign, plain old 3rd edition. If I can morph 2nd edition stuff to 3rd I guess I can do the same with 3.5.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Personally, I think that if a caster wants his stat buffs to last all day, that's what the Persistent Spell metamagic feat is for.

 

[Caliban]

Personally, I think that if a caster wants his stat buffs to last all day, that's what the Persistent Spell metamagic feat is for.

Persistant Spell doesn't affect the stat buff spells. You can't Persist spells with a range of "Touch".

 

[AuraSeer]

3rd edition was supposed to be THE D&D edition for all time and eternity. The thought was to make 3rd edition so good and complete that there would not be any need to do another.

Bullfeathers. No one ever said that 3E was going to be absolutely perfect on the first try. If WOTC had attempted to claim that, the players would have to be pretty stupid to believe it.

Calling the "new" edition 3.5 is just window dressing. If there are completely new books to get, new rules to assimilate, etc... its a new edition.

Sure, if that makes you feel better. There is a reason for the name, though.

The point of calling this "Third Edition Revised," instead of 4th edition, is that the changes are relatively minor. Look at the differences between 2nd edition and 3rd:

• all the races and classes completely overhauled
• multiclassing completely changed
• new skill system
• different levelling system
• new basic die mechanic (d20)
• new magic item creation
• introduction of feats
• rules for stacking bonuses
• rules for combat maneuvers other than "attack"

The edition that comes out in July is not making changes of that magnitude. All the basic mechanics will remain the same; they're only modifying details. Certain spell descriptions change, not the whole magic system. Individual classes will differ, but the class system is the same. Many feats are renamed or reworded, but the feat system remains as is. That's what makes this a revision, instead of an independent "4th Edition."

I for one am going to try my hardest to keep my campaign, plain old 3rd edition.

I remember hearing lots of people make this claim just before 3E was released. "Change is bad!" they said. "I like the rules now! You can take away my 2nd Edition when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

Turns out that the new edition actually was an improvement. When they realized that, the great majority stopped whining and moved up to 3E. I'm expecting exactly the same thing to happen with the 3.5 complainers.

 

[Henry]

I think we are all missing the basic point. 3rd edition was supposed to be THE D&D edition for all time and eternity. The thought was to make 3rd edition so good and complete that there would not be any need to do another.

Unless someone who headed the 3E project ever said this, I can't say I believe this was ever mentioned as a design goal. If this were the case, one of the main goals of the Open gaming license (allowing for community mechanical development) would be pointless, not to mention the basic notion that no ruleset created by human beings could ever be perfect and complete, hence necessitating the need for constant improvement.

From the d20 System Concept FAQ:

Q: Won’t publishers make lots of variations of the d20 System concept, confusing players?

A: Sure, they'll probably try.

However, using the OGL, anyone who wants to can "fix" that content and publish the fixes, returning the variation to the core d20 system known by hundreds of thousands of gamers. And if those "fixes" are more popular than the variations, pretty soon, the "fix" will become the standard, and the variation will become a curiosity known only to a few people.

Over time, if the effort to vary the basic d20 System rules keeps failing, the number of people who attempt it will decline. At some point far in the future, commercial publishers may stop bothering to try at all.

The interesting thing about "open" projects (software, tabletop RPGs, etc.) is that they tend to suppress, rather than encourage "forks". Since everyone has the right to take an "open" project and make whatever changes are necessary to conform to the public standard, those who try to deviate from that standard are often perceived as wasting everyone's time, and being disruptive to the value of the shared community experience. Innovation happens at the edges of the envelope, rather than at the core. Changes to the core require a general consensus from large numbers of people to be successful, otherwise they'll just be ignored or "fixed" to maximize compatibility.

In fact, one of the biggest groups affected by this force will be the Wizards of the Coast tabletop RPG Research & Development team. When the time comes to make a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, they'll have to make a very persuasive case to the market to adopt any changes to the core rules they want to make! The R&D team has already made some variations close to the core. The Star Wars rules include a different system for tracking character health, the Vitality Point/Wound Point system. Only time will tell if two variations that close to the core will both be supported by the market.

This quote has been on their site for at least two years that I am aware of, so I'm pretty sure it's been part of their game plan for a long time. They anticipated changes to D&D, and said so.

 

[Apok]

Persistant Spell doesn't affect the stat buff spells. You can't Persist spells with a range of "Touch".

Isn't it interesting that nobody ever remembers that little caveat?

Back to the topic at hand, so far the only changes that have me at all worried are the changes to Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. Other than that, I like the way the revisions are looking.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Changing Spell Focus (Greater Spell Focus) to +1 (+2) to all your DCs and +1 (+2) to a specific school DC seem like a fun fix at first glance if you even want to change the rules, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. I would just add this feat instead:

Spell Power [General]
Benefit: +1 DC to all your spells. This bonus stacks with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus.

Archmages get this feat as an optional class ability in the FRCS.