3.5 Dungeon 100 info

[JChung2003]

Now how about tempering Sneak Attacks? Yeah, I know many monsters are immune to it, but very few human or humanoid enemies are, and virtually no giants, magical beasts, animals, dragons, etc. are.

All it takes is a little bit of concealment to negate a sneak attack. Concealment, on the other hand, has no effect on the damage a ranger does with his favored enemy bonus if he is able to hit the target. Also, for creatures like Huge or bigger giants, you may also want to consider the possibility that a short sword-wielding rogue cannot sneak attack them if the creature's vitals are beyond the rogue's reach, especially if he is a Short race.

 

[Technik4]

Speaing of Concealment, Blur a 2nd level wizards spell gives half-concealment along with full immunity to sneak attacks

Technik

 

[noretoc]

I love the new duration. With the way things were going in 3.5, with any adventurer worth his gold, beefed up with bull strenght and cats grace, etc, my taverns were starting to look like the super hero bar in that tick episode with the evil mad bomber. I don't see fighter getting all suped up to get into every fight. I see then spells like bull str being used to bust open that stuck door or to go take care of the giant that was in the other room. Not walking around like some huck, lifting boulders for fun, and arm wrestling dinosaurs....

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Elder Basilisk
The pit fiend only has an attack bonus of +30. It will hit a 20th-level player character about half the time, and it only gets one attack if the player is smart enough not to trade full-round actions with the pit fiend.

Interesting assertion. It appears that 20th level characters may bear that out.

Tank type
AC 45 [+13 (+5 mithral fullplate), +3 dex, +5 deflection, +5 natural armor, +7 (+5 shield), +2 dodge]

Quick type
AC 44 [+9 (+5 mithral chain shirt), +6 dex, +5 deflection, +5 natural armor, +7 (+5 shield), +2 dodge]

I should also point out that these "sky high" ACs weren't playtested. The multiple Empower stacking ability was added later, to cause headaches for DMs whose players read messageboards.

IMO, multiple stacking empowers are only a problem if they're combined with some kind of improved metamagic ability. And, in that case, the problem is the improved metamagic not stacking empower.

I don't believe you. My 25 point buy players were 15th-level when I succumbed to the need to try this thing out (I didn't know it's CR had changed at the time). The barbarian could hit it with his first and second attack about half the time - when raging. He even confirmed a crit against the thing. The DR 15/whatever didn't mean a great deal either. (The party also didn't use haste).

Hmm. BAB +15, +10 Str 30 (17+3 stat boosts, +6 enhancement, +4 rage), +5 weapon, +1 weapon focus, +1 bless or prayer = attack bonus of +32/+27/+22 which hits AC 44 on a 12 with the primary attack. Of course, what happens when he hits the unholy aura is another matter entirely.

Easily.

If the revised pit fiend is really CR 20, I guess I can buy that. I'll have to wait and see though. In most games I play in, our supposedly overpowered PCs wielding their supposedly broken spells still barely escape with their lives against half the things that are supposed to be challenging.

 

[coyote6]

Interesting assertion. It appears that 20th level characters may bear that out.

Tank type
AC 45 [+13 (+5 mithral fullplate), +3 dex, +5 deflection, +5 natural armor, +7 (+5 shield), +2 dodge]

Quick type
AC 44 [+9 (+5 mithral chain shirt), +6 dex, +5 deflection, +5 natural armor, +7 (+5 shield), +2 dodge]
[/B]

If all characters have to have that to compete, that means that a lot of interesting (but non-maximizing) options (in magic items, feats, etc.) will perforce be neglected. That's boring, IMO.

 

[Gundark]

my imput

well I'm gald to see the buffing spells limited. In my 11th level campaign the mornings went as followed-PCs get up, have breakfast, cleric casts bulls strength on most everybody, sorceror casts cat's grace on those who it would benifit, and it would last all day. It got silly.
Also I don't think that we have to worry too much about unpowered PCs. As it is now PCs are too tough and monster not enough. It sounds like there will be things in the classes (barbarian's getting rage earlier for example) that will compensate for loss of overpowering spells

 

[Gundark]

buffing

Were people really abusing Bull's Strength so often that they needed to lower the duration that much?

un yeah....at least in my campaign it was getting out of hand

You got really high ACs, Damage, saving throws, it limited what the DM could use against us and still keep it a challenge

 

[Simulacrum]

Oh god its scary to see how many D&D gamers are from the whiners cry baby party. congrats girls!

I like the changes very much! They are all exellent. I hope that wotc will have the balls to do it all the way.

buffs in 3e were are way too good option.
Monsters were too weak.
So they did the right thing.
I always hated the *buff* approach that 3e took.
I'm glad to see that these times are over.
DEATH TO BUFFS
DEATH TO INSTAKILL
!!!
WHHOOHHOOOO!
I love 3.5e!

 

[Gundark]

i agree

Fantastic. If this is truly the case, I'll be pretty pleased. Anything that beefs monsters and nerfs characters get the big thumbs-up from me. It seriously helps the DM to balance encounters in a campaign while maintaining an appropriate level of believability and avoiding encounters that pass beyond the point of idiocy just to challenge the PCs - DM: "Crap. Now I need to use *three* pit fiends just to challenge the PCs." (*Three* pit fiends? WTF?)

I totally agree with this. My friends campaign just died..why cause the PCs were too freaking tough...now granted a lot of this was his fault, but as a DM it gets hard to chanlenge the PCs without being overly crazy with what you throw at them ( 3 33 HD fiendish beholders....yawn, no problem...) ok I'm exaggerating a bit here but monsters needed buffing....look at the orge mage IMHO just not up to a CR 8

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

---
I absolutely hate it when the rogue in my players' party manages a full attack while flanking an enemy, taking it down in half the time the fighter would.
---

I am not sure I understand what you mean here? A rogue can only sneak attack once per round, period. So a 6th level rogue using a full attack is with two daggers and gaining a sneak attack will still only do 1d4 + 1d4 + 3d6 (max of 26 damage) if he succeeds at hitting while a 6th level fighter with two long swords and a 16 STR (low for most fighters I know) will be doing 1d10 + 1d10 +1d10 +9 (max of 39 damage). How does the rogue do more damage? Especially when you consider the rogue has a much lower attack bonus usually and often hasn't taken two weapon fighting either, add into this a Fighter who has taken weapon specialization (read most) and that same fighter is now doing a max of 45 damage in one turn to the rogue's 26.

Let me know if my figures are wrong since I am at work and do not have a book inf ront of me.