[3.5] Enormous number of changes - some make me wonder why...

[Stalker0]

I think the main reason they choose to give cones a fixed range is because its an absolute pain in the butt to figure out there area... even when using a grid.

Okay you have a 30 ft cone, alright.... oh you gained a caster level? Oh 35 ft ..., oh wait your enlarging it? Damn, okay 70 ft cone.

Now, I can just make myself a little 15 ft cone template, a 30 and 60 ft one, and be good to go.

I really like the xp cost to planar ally. It always cheesed me that my wizard had to go to the risks of negotiating with a hostile creature (and possibly have him come back and get me later), when at two levels lower the cleric could pull in a buddy, give him some cash or something and go on his way. That being said, there prices are huge!! While the day per caster level might be in line, the minute and hour prices are insane. If I'm paying xp, I don't think I should have an expensive "material component" as well.

 

[coyote6]

I still suspect that spell areas for cones & lightning bolt-like lines were standardized to make things easier to handle in the miniatures game. And/or computer games.

Also, note that they changed the shape of cones, judging from the GamingReport scans.

 

[IanB]

Does the second level spell now grant resistance 5 now? Why was this nessessery? At least tieflings and assamar will feal a little more special now, mabye.

It was necessary because they changed resistance from per round to per exposure - so that fire resistance 5 would be applying to every swing from that fire elemental rather than just the first 5 points of fire damge in a round.

 

[Spatula]

It was necessary because they changed resistance from per round to per exposure - so that fire resistance 5 would be applying to every swing from that fire elemental rather than just the first 5 points of fire damge in a round.

So, why was it necessary to change how energy resistance worked?

 

[Dragonblade]

So does disintegrate no longer do damage on a successful save? It would look silly if a target with a lot of hit points is better off failing the save than making it.

Now this is really interesting. My group will have a field day with this one. Obviously, WotC totally dropped the ball on that if its true!

 

[James McMurray]

Probably in order to have a more homogenous system. It always felt counterintuitive to me that DR applied to every swing, but ER only applied on a per round basis.

 

[Burne]

RE: Energy REsistence Change

I suspect that Energy Res was changed for the same reason that Wounding was changed. Playability. Our group had to invent rather complex notations to keep track of all the bleeding, ability, and per round cumlative fire resistence.

Having played a bunch of high level games with Eneregy Resistence being common, this is something that I favor.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Funnily enough we had *always* played energy resistance on a per attack basis - we never even noticed if it was supposed to be different to that.

(and did this make endure elements overpowered? hardly! It was still a rarely-taken choice, after shield/magic missile/mage armour/protection from evil!

Also, the old cones were never that difficult to work out - the idea that it was as wide as its distance from you at any point was actually *easier* than the current quarter-circle method IMO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Now this is really interesting. My group will have a field day with this one. Obviously, WotC totally dropped the ball on that if its true!

It does real damage whether you pass or fail the save, and if that damage takes you to 0, you are dust.

J

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Anyone noticed that Mage Armour and Shield don't stack. I was reading my PH which turned up yesterday and they are both Force effects granting +4 to AC. I think I'm right that they don't stack?