D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Things I wish they would have fixed

[Chris_Nightwing]

Oh my. I just worked it out.

Wizards and Sorcerors USELESS without Haste eh? I think not!
You cast your spell, you maneuver THEN you ready to couterspell the enemy wizard's haste... Muahahahahahah

 

[drnuncheon]

- Tumble needs improvement, and eventually needs further motivation at higher levels[/I]

They did this actually. Not only are there more circumstances that raise the DC - the surface you're tumbling on, for instance, as well tumbling past multiple people - but you can also take a -10 penalty to your roll to tumble at full speed (rather than half speed). That's really cool for a monk.

J

 

[hong]

Oh my. I just worked it out.

Wizards and Sorcerors USELESS without Haste eh? I think not!
You cast your spell, you maneuver THEN you ready to couterspell the enemy wizard's haste... Muahahahahahah

Huh? 3.5E haste doesn't grant an extra partial action.

 

[Sinjin the Rogue]

Spell resistance

I would like to have seen a spell that allows arcane casters to give themselves Spell Resistance, and perhaps a chain of feats that allow casters to increase their ability to defeat SR. There is spell penetration and greater spell penetration, but I have been told that these feats will only grant a +1/+2 bonus rather than the +2/+4 they used to grant. (I don't have the books yet) So, for casters, everything seems to have become more difficult.

While the books compare SR to AC versus magic, it's not a true comparison, because when a fighter swings his sword and misses the target, the fighter still has his weapon in hand and can attack again, but when a caster fails to beat spell resistance, the spell is gone. This makes the caster less reliable and the players don't feel like they are able to contribute in combat encounters.

Even in 3.0, at high levels, creature SR's in the low to mid 30's cause casters to lose 50% or more of their spells if they cast them on an opponent. For instance, my 17th level wizard with greater spell penetration gains a bonus of +21 to overcome SR. Unfortunately he no longer faces opponents with SR 21 to 25. The opponents he's been coming across have SR's of 31 to 35. I have to roll a 10 or better just so that my spell has a chance of working. Roughly 50 percent of my spells, cast on enemies, fail. Even if the spell succeeds, there are still resistances, immunities and saving throws to overcome. When you start wasting 6th, 7th and 8th level spells on one enemy, you've wasted a lot of fire power, and thus in succeeding encounters, the wizard is less likely to play a significant factor.

In 3.5, if what I have been told about spell penetration is true, then my wizard only gets a +19 added to the die roll to beat SR. A creature with an average SR of 33 will require a roll of 14 to beat, and thus the wizard's spells will fail 70 percent of the time. The end result is that my wizard will spend more time buffing, (oh wait, those new durations of 1 minute per level make the animal buff line of spells much less attractive, so they probably won't get memorized) waiting to teleport the group out in case of an emergency, and being a target. He'll probably have "Dispel Magic" and "Greater Dispelling" occupying almost every slot so that he can be strictly reactionary in combat situations. In the end, it's probably time to tuck the spell book in a Leomund's secret chest and start a new fighter.

 

[Obryn]

but I have been told that these feats will only grant a +1/+2 bonus rather than the +2/+4 they used to grant. (I don't have the books yet)

This is false. The Spell Penetration feats still give +2/+4. It's spell focus that changed.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

1. Burst weapons are a +2 bonus. Why? Surely something that adds 1d6 on all attacks is better than something at adds 1d10 on criticals. Sure you can get 3d10 for some items, but if you believe that a rapier (18-20) is just as good as a pick (x4) then you have to buy the notion that the rapier is doing an extra d10 damage less than 30% of the time the d6 gets off. The only thing good to say about burst weapons is you don't need to activate them. But really that isn't such a big deal.

Well, the bonus from burst now explicitly stacks with the 1d6. So you'll have 1d6+1d10 fire at a crit.

Also, special qualities that work on a crit now work even if the enemy is immune to crits (so that +1d10 works on undead, and the mace of smiting will destroy construckts).

2. Counter spells are still pretty worthless. I've never seen anyone even try to use one. A feat which allowed it as a free action would actually be pretty cool, but as a move action would be great too. It seems like a great idea wasted... (although I can't find anything in the 3.5 rules to indicate what type of action needs to be readied...)

What? Free action? No way! That would be to strong. Move action, too, I think. So you'll still get improved counterspell and reactive counterspell and can counterspell as a reaction (robbing you of your next standard action)

3. I still hate that armor, dex, etc. all get merged into one big "AC" I'm guessing that come 4th edition armor will provide DR rather than a defense bonus. A change I will welcome.

It's D&D. I don't think they will change that one, and I like it that way, at least for D&D.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Spell resistance

Even in 3.0, at high levels, creature SR's in the low to mid 30's cause casters to lose 50% or more of their spells if they cast them on an opponent. For instance, my 17th level wizard with greater spell penetration gains a bonus of +21 to overcome SR. Unfortunately he no longer faces opponents with SR 21 to 25. The opponents he's been coming across have SR's of 31 to 35. I have to roll a 10 or better just so that my spell has a chance of working. Roughly 50 percent of my spells, cast on enemies, fail. Even if the spell succeeds, there are still resistances, immunities and saving throws to overcome. When you start wasting 6th, 7th and 8th level spells on one enemy, you've wasted a lot of fire power, and thus in succeeding encounters, the wizard is less likely to play a significant factor.

Remember that an encounter of equal ECL ought to use up 20% of your resources. On the average, if you're using save-or-die spells and half of them fail, it will take two spells to take out the Bad Man. Is that 20% of your resources?

In general, creatures with SR have an SR of 11+CR - which, yes, means that spells will fail about half the time against them unless you're stacking the odds in your favor with Spell Penetration or Spell Power. Sometimes your spells will be ineffective, sometimes they won't. When they are effective, though, they will generally do a lot more than any individual weapon strike.

J

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Spell resistance

Remember that an encounter of equal ECL ought to use up 20% of your resources. On the average, if you're using save-or-die spells and half of them fail, it will take two spells to take out the Bad Man. Is that 20% of your resources?

In general, creatures with SR have an SR of 11+CR - which, yes, means that spells will fail about half the time against them unless you're stacking the odds in your favor with Spell Penetration or Spell Power. Sometimes your spells will be ineffective, sometimes they won't. When they are effective, though, they will generally do a lot more than any individual weapon strike.

You forgot that there is a saving throw, too. It takes more like 4 or 5 save or die spells to take out a critter with SR. If the beasty doesn't chew up my buddies and spit them out in the 1 to 5 rounds it takes to cast these spells, that is anout 20% of the party resources, yes.

Personally, I think they should have completely ditched SR. It is not necessarily at all, and it strangely distorts the flavor of magical critters.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

should of changed metamagic signigantly in the oppsoite direction they seem to be moving with it.

It was underpowered and underused in 3e so lets take away stacking and weaken a feat, so its even more underpowered and underused in 3.5.

Oh and quicken should of been made sorcerer friendly.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree with Shard's metamagic analysis, except for the stacking. The stacking had to go. Good riddance to Empower stacking.