Anticipation for 3.5

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Re: Re: Re: Anticipation for 3.5

Gamingreport.com has a scan of a page in the DMG that talks about autosuccess/autofailure for saving throws as a variant rule.

Which page? The only one I see with a variant save rule is the one for saves with other abilities (WOTC has specifically said that autosuccess/fail for saves was in).

The other varient showing for critical success or failure if for skill checks.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anticipation for 3.5

Which page? The only one I see with a variant save rule is the one for saves with other abilities (WOTC has specifically said that autosuccess/fail for saves was in).

The other varient showing for critical success or failure if for skill checks.

It was on one of the DMG pages...the one filled with tons of variants. Don't remember exactly, and I'm too lazy to find the link.

 

[Coik]

I greatly anticpiate 3.5, but more as a spectator than anything else. Witness any thread with the word "Ranger" in the title. Pure entertainment!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anticipation for 3.5

It was on one of the DMG pages...the one filled with tons of variants. Don't remember exactly, and I'm too lazy to find the link.

Still don't see it. The other variant page only has damage variants, not save variants.

Edit: according to the table of contents, saves are addressed on page 33. Pages 34 and 35 are scanned (no base save info there, except the tail end of "Saving throw or Check?").

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Hmmm...could have sworn I saw the auto success thing...*shrugs* Ah well. I'm just going crazy...again...

 

[Kershek]

This page, on the bottom:

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules...le=index&req=ShowFile&file_wrap=html/dd13.htm

 

[Kordak]

Kershek,

That's actually a variant for checks (as in skills), not saving throws...at least that's what it looks like to me. Andy Collins mentioned (over on the Wizards Boards) that AFA saving throws go a 1 is an automatic failure and a 20 is an automatic success.

 

[Kershek]

Do you need it in the book as a variant rule in order to play it that way?

 

[maddman75]

I'm not really excited about Revised. Nothing to do with it - I think it's time, I like the changes, and it needs to be done occasionally.

But I've just gotten into the Buffy game, and am far more interested in playing that. Now to convince one of my groups to give it a try...

 

[Psion]

Now, there is a vocal part of the community that isn't too excited about 3.5, just as there was a vocal part that wasn't excited about 3rd.

3e was desperately needed. The system was a morass, and inconsistant mess with nonsensical rulings.

3.5 is not needed, at least not as much. There are a few things that are needed (ranger, harm, haste being the top three), but in too many cases, the changes that are trying to "fix what wasn't broken", and/or were made or insufficient or quite simply the wrong reason. This invalidates numerous products and campaigns that are now no longer up-to-date, again, for insufficient justification.