D&D 3.x 3.5 changes now that we've had time, a rambling, babaling comentary

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was just reminded by a post about the persistent being +6 spell levels now and that reminded me of the general trend to low duration spells in 3.5. Now that it has been in play for a while, my opinion is the same as is was back when it first came out. Most of the duration changes suck. For exmaple the buff spells are almost never cast, they are there purely to enchaant items now in my games. Oher 3.5 changes though did not get always get a negative review.

I disagree. I like a lot of the duration for buff spell changes - and my current DnD character just reached 10th-level (wizard!). Greater invisibility and fly were begging for duration nerfs. The stat-boost spells would need to be higher level to last all day and still be balanced. And there are some decent long-lasting buffs, like false life, which wasn't in the 3.0 core rules. Also, there's moment of prescience for me to look forward too

Though the class changes to the monk and ranger are positive(monk needs more work though).

Yes, but the monk was broken to begin with.

I like animate dead being 4th level for arcane casters.

I'd rather see it as a first level spell with a duration, as well as the current incarnation.

Prestige classes seem beter designed overall.

I agree when it comes to the ones in the DMG.

Some weak feats got some needed boosts.

And there were a few backslides, but I'd say overall it's a positive change.

Some feat exploits were removed, to some extent I lie this in other ways I don't. The whirlwind attack, great cleave exploit for exmaple sure its fixed now, but um I think getting a cleave off it is legitimate in many cases. Using it against a bucket of slugs ins't legitimate though. I'd rather of gotton a warning and tell the DM's not to let there players abuse this.

Some DMs are spineless. The trick still works, but is harder to pull off. WotC should not have let Great Cleave apply an infinite number of times. Capping it at BAB would have solved a lot of problems.

Reducing the effect of save or die spells I like the concept but maybe not the delivery. Hold person works for me as a fix, maybe not perfect but its ok. Sleep the static HD and the 1 round duration make it a sucky spell IMO. I never really had a problem with the wizard having acouple times a day big boom at low levels. I guess now its color spray.

Well, I always thought sleep sucked anyway due to the HD cap, so I've never cast it in 3.0 or 3.5. If there's a nerf, I really wouldn't notice it.

And the situation hasn't been fixed. Enervation and waves of fatigue don't give saves, and Mord's disjunction can still strip off all your buff spells without even using an opposed check. Busted!

eschew materials being a general feat is a good choice.[/quoite]

I like. I think Natural Spell is overpowered, however.

Improved crit and keen not stacking a bad choice.

No, I liked this one. IME it was begging to be added to the rules.

I have to say I hate the size-boosting spells in 3.5. Except for animal growth, which for some reason adds extra DR, I just find I can't stand them. We're house-ruling righteous might back to the 3.0 version, for instance. (We appreciated the divine favor nerf, however - the campaign isn't all about clerics.)

I also hate the new Power Attack. Apparently it's balanced if you look at the math, but IME it's what it does in the game that's important.

 

[Storyteller01]

We still play 3.0. We do use some of the 3.5 tidbits (Ambidexterity has been rolled into TWF, and the Enlarge spell is just an easier mechanic to use), but overall we leave it as is.

We did house rule that natural spell requires Still Spell and Silent Spell as prereqs.

 

[Zimbel]

Hey we found another rule change made by the FAQ. It clearly still states that druids have oath prohibitions on using weapons in the PHB (3.5) but was changed via FAQ (Sage Advice) and later incorporated into the SRD, again with no errata put out. And regardless what anyone wants to say this was clearly not a rule clarification since the PHB specifically states something that was subsequently reversed via FAQ.

No. It states this in the 3.0 PH, not the 3.5 PH.

the relevant paragraph:

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

This is unchanged from the 3.5 PH (other than breaking "thereafter" to "there-after"). See page 34.

 

[Zimbel]

I still play 3.0. My standard rant on 3.5: http://home.earthlink.net/~danielrcollins1/down3-5.html (highlights: weapon sizes, mini facing, DR, CR bumps, XP calculation, crits, cover, spell changes, etc.)

Interesting commentary; I agree with a lot of it. My comments on it:

Facing: I've been ignoring specific facing since pretty early in 3.0. I just use the physcial base of the minature, or something vaguely around the right size (A PH, for example) for really large creatures. My opinion is that facing really dosen't matter much the vast majority of the time, particuarly for creatures that are likely to be dead in 1-4 rounds.

CR bumps: I like these. One of my many disappointments with the 3.0 MM was that there was nearly no support for high level PCs. 3.5 does. For that matter, virtually everything I really love in 3.5 is in the MM.

 

[Staffan]

Hey we found another rule change made by the FAQ. It clearly still states that druids have oath prohibitions on using weapons in the PHB (3.5) but was changed via FAQ (Sage Advice) and later incorporated into the SRD, again with no errata put out. And regardless what anyone wants to say this was clearly not a rule clarification since the PHB specifically states something that was subsequently reversed via FAQ.

Huh? My PHB (3.5) says:
"The armor of a druid is restricted by traditional oaths to the items noted in Weapon and Armor Proficiency (below). ALl other armor is prohibited. Though a druid could learn to wear full plate, putting it on would violate her oath and suppress her druidic powers." (page 33, under Characteristics)
"A druid who wears prohibted armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatudal or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter" (page 34, under Weapon and Armor proficiencies).

 

[irdeggman]

Yup my bad. I must have went to the wrong pdf via recent documents. Its that "old" thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

In the end now after playing 3.5 for a bit over a year, for me there are almost as many bad changes as good ones. Some of the good ones are key, but so are some of the bad ones. I'm a lazy DM so I rarely house rule things but a nice combo of 3.0 and 3.5 I might motivate myself to write house rules for.

I have the same feeling. We played 3.0 since 2001, and started the first new 3.5 campaign in late 2003/early 2004, but we kept playing 3.0 in the existing campaign. At first, 3.5 seemed to me definitely better and I was the one advocating that we should switch, but slowly after playing I changed my mind. Now I think that 3.0 and 3.5 are about the same, and because we had more 3.0 than 3.5 books, we are now back to playing more 3.0.

Some specific considerations from my experience...

CLASSES
Despite my early enthusiasm, I think they are about the same as before. I think improving the Bard was good, but I think the Druid and the Ranger were improved too much, and the Sorcerer was indirectly weakened by changes to spells and feats.
The general idea of fixing front-loaded classes was not as good as I initially thought, and IMO it was needed only because a lot of gaming groups don't enforce the multiclassing xp penalty rule, but that rule wasn't changed.
Many individual class features were changed, but those for good are just as many as those for bad, and most of them all are however not really significant changes.

RACES
Most changes not significant enough, but I do think the Dwarf is now a bit too good, and that charismatic Gnomes are very off from their original image.

SKILLS
Merging some narrow skills was good to make them more popular, but also made them less special. The 3.0 UMD was essentially a class feature of Bards and Rogues, making it not exclusive anymore has again made it more popular but less special. These were ambiguous changes for me (good and bad at the same time).
Jump was improved, adding monsters to Knowledge makes sense, more synergy bonuses very welcome.
Changes to Perform and Alchemy get definitely a thumb down from me.
Other changes are basically neutral.

FEATS
Definitely a plus to have more feats in the PHB of course. Except the many +2/+2 to skills (a few were fine in 3.0, but not so many).
Good changes: Greater WFocus & WSpec, Imp Feint, removal of Ambidexterity
Bad changes: Power Attack, Spell Focus, Deflect Arrows, Augment Summoning, Imp Precise Shot, Manyshot, and dropping the stacking of same metamagic feats

COMBAT
I like the streamlining of actions and special initiative actions.
I dislike the square facing, the simplified cover, and the AoO for standing up.

EQUIPMENT
I prefer the 3.0 weapon size rules, but that's not a big deal.
I like material- and alignment-based DR, but I still like various +X to make a difference.

SPELLS
There are some good changes, but overall I largely prefer the 3.0 versions. Some examples:
- I liked that Harm/Heal were given a ST, but I dislike how they do damage now
- I think Haste only needed a rise in level, but 3.0 version is a completely different spell
- I dislike that multi-purpose spells were broken down
- I dislike that Conjurations now always bypass SR
- I dislike changing several spells' random results (i.e. buffs, sleep) into fixed numbers
- I dislike reducing the casting time of certain spells, most notably those to identify magic items

 

[Thanee]

Well, I still like the overall change, except for a few specifics, which we have house ruled.

A few things are definitely made worse than in 3.0, but the vast majority of the changes was good IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Greg K]

Well, I like almost all the changes. I even like the change to the perform skill which was one of my first 3.0 house rules and the duration reduction to the Buff spells. Actually, I would have preferred the Buffs going down to 1 minute/level!

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, I would have preferred the Buffs going down to 1 minute/level!

Umm, they did.