One of my favorite things about the newer edition was the change in weapon sizing rules. I didn’t like them at first, but they grew on me (no joke intended)- the revision made more sense.
yes you did. And you can also play a commoner class.I played all of them. Are you saying I didn't?
None were as weak as a commoner, nor did they compare to playing a Fiat 128 racing a Ferrari.yes you did. And you can also play a commoner class.
And you can also race vs a Ferrari with your Fiat 128.
Neither was the NPC Warrior class.None were as weak as a commoner,
There weren't any major problems fixed. There was a pile of errata-level changes, a handful of things that were maybe too much change for a mere errata that were moderately improved, a few changes that seemed like they were for change's sake, and a desire to resell the core rulebooks.I'm looking at 3.0 for the first time in ages. It seems fine on the surface. What were the major problems that justified the release of 3.5?
You mean like it was in 1st and 2e. And yeah Allllll you had to do was touch the intelligent 660hp red dragon, who knew what clerics could do, had magic resistance, great saves, and could fly over breath weapon, fly over spell, land claw, claw, bite, wing buffet most likely save and the kill the cleric anyway. Nvm, the magic resistance vs the 1st level mage when you had to be around 10th level to have a chance of saving vs the fear.I recall the spell harm being singled out as particularly overpowered as well...the 3.0 version was a touch spell with no saving throw that dropped a (non-undead) creature - no matter how many hit points it had - instantly to 1d4 hp. So all you had to do was touch that 660-hp Great Wyrm red dragon, cast a harm spell on it, and then a 1st-level wizard oo
They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.I assumed that it was mainly there to fix Haste and Harm.
The spicy meatball has the truth. And the truth will set you free. For the small price of........
The fighter is definitely added to that list. A fighter was just a warrior with d10 HD (which match the ranger) instead of d8 and a few bonus feats.Neither was the NPC Warrior class.
The 3.0 Ranger, Paladin and Monk weren't much better than the Warrior. And the Bard not much better than those three.
They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.
I considered putting fixed in quotes too. They never shied away from officially revising it though. My favorite shape change rules ended up being the variant druid wild shape in Player's Handbook II late in the 3e lifecycle.The word "fixed" implies Polymorph ever reached a non-broken state.![]()
Sure, but most people felt there was a lot more to fix than just haste and harm - like the ranger, the bard, the increasingly dominant strategy of stat boosting spells + metamagic, etc. However, even all those fixes didn't extended nearly as far as the changes made from 3.0 to 3.5 and could have been handled in a supplement book. There was definitely another (or more) motives at work - I'm inclined to believe that they involved $ at the brand/corporate level and some form of OCD-like drive to push what 3.0 started into something even more regularized around a particular vision of how the rules should be structured at the designer level.They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.
I disagree, but we've now established people are using hyperbole on this topic. And it's not helpful.Neither was the NPC Warrior class.
The 3.0 Ranger, Paladin and Monk weren't much better than the Warrior. And the Bard not much better than those three.
The last 2-3 years of 3.5 the only way we continued was to make the classesYes: but its strongly advised to add the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage from Tome of Battle to your list.
Beguiler?Warlock warm age dread necromancy (I think I am missing one) replace wizard
That was itBeguiler?
No druid or cleric means lots of out of combat cure light wound wand healing as the go to.