3.5 - Is your game better?

[Rashak Mani]

Damage Reduction now is better I feel...

Overall the BEST change is the Ranger. Even if your a die hard 3.0... DO CHANGE the Ranger. Its way better. The monk and the druid are better too.

If there is something that really helps players enjoy something more is their character class being "better" or closer to what they imagine it too be.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Damage Reduction now is better I feel...

Overall the BEST change is the Ranger. Even if your a die hard 3.0... DO CHANGE the Ranger. Its way better. The monk and the druid are better too.

If there is something that really helps players enjoy something more is their character class being "better" or closer to what they imagine it too be.

When hell freezes over. I've said this before: They "fixed" the ranger all right. Much as a dog is considered "fixed" by the removal of his testicles. The 3.$ ranger is the absolute worst of all the changes they made.

 

[Desdichado]

Since everyone I know disagrees with you, I'm curious why you think the 3.5 Ranger is so neutered.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, everyone I know agrees with me (outside of message boards that is.)

I've been in a hundred arguments over the new ranger, so I'll keep this short. The new ranger is a very nice class. If it were called a scout or skirmisher or archer or something it would be great. Even the much maligned "wilderogue" fits. It is not, however, a ranger. They took the warrior concept and turned him into a rogue. It's a complete paradigm shift. It's not that it's over or underpowered, just that instead of Arragorn, we now have Robin Hood. That's not neccessarily a bad thing, but now the Robin Hood players have a class and the Arragorn players don't, when Robin Hood could have been made easily with existing classes. D8 hit die, evasion, HIPS, high ref save, all of this screams rogue. Why couldn't they add the cool wilderness abilities and leave the rest alone? Endurance is cool, wild empathy likewise. Keep woodland stride and camoflauge, the d10 and 4 skill points. There's no intuit direction or animal empathy skills, so that frees up 2 ranks per level anyway. Lose the combat paths and you're done, high ref save, along with evasion, and you're done.

I can do this in my game, sure, or just use Jack Daniel's version which I really like as well, but it would be nice to have an official ranger instead of a second rogue.

Anyways, apologies for hijacking the thread. carry on.

 

[MerricB]

3.5? Love it, love it, love it!



The three things of note I really appreciate are:
* The new ranger class
* The new weapon size rules
* The new weather/wilderness rules

Cheers!

 

[JeffB]

Definite improvement AFAIC.

Clearer rules (especially combat), tweaks to the classes seem good, I like the nerfed spells,etc.

Plus the improved layout/re-engineering of the Monster Manual and especially the Dungeon Masters Guide makes those books much easier to use in-game for me.

EDIT: Oh yeah, really like the new DR...like the old days of B/X when everyone carried around a silver dagger somewhere just in case a lycanthrope of some sort showed up

 

[Jack Daniel]

Well, everyone I know agrees with me (outside of message boards that is.)

I've been in a hundred arguments over the new ranger, so I'll keep this short. The new ranger is a very nice class. If it were called a scout or skirmisher or archer or something it would be great. Even the much maligned "wilderogue" fits. It is not, however, a ranger. They took the warrior concept and turned him into a rogue. It's a complete paradigm shift. It's not that it's over or underpowered, just that instead of Arragorn, we now have Robin Hood. That's not neccessarily a bad thing, but now the Robin Hood players have a class and the Arragorn players don't, when Robin Hood could have been made easily with existing classes. D8 hit die, evasion, HIPS, high ref save, all of this screams rogue. Why couldn't they add the cool wilderness abilities and leave the rest alone? Endurance is cool, wild empathy likewise. Keep woodland stride and camoflauge, the d10 and 4 skill points. There's no intuit direction or animal empathy skills, so that frees up 2 ranks per level anyway. Lose the combat paths and you're done, high ref save, along with evasion, and you're done.

Needless to say, I'm in this opinion camp, and we're not the only ones, even on the boards. Certianly, my group prefers the ranger to be a fighter class rather than a bastard class, and that's how we play it. Not to hijack the thread or anything; carry on.

 

[ForceUser]

Generally speaking, I like 3.5 better and feel it was worth the price. On the other hand, 3E popped my cherry with regard to a Really Good Game System (tm), and I find that I often wax nostalgic about those "overpowered" 3E spells (haste, hours/level animal buffs, etc). Having wholly switched to 3.5, I can honestly say I miss them. 3E haste was great fun.

 

[Psion]

IMO, Ranger is the single most compelling change in 3.5. (Not QUITE perfect though. I think they were headed the right direction, but Monte's Book of Hallowed Might ranger had the other half of the equation -- feat selection. I replace the silly fighting styles with bonus feats.)

 

[ForceUser]

IMO, Ranger is the single most compelling change in 3.5. (Not QUITE perfect though. I think they were headed the right direction, but Monte's Book of Hallowed Might ranger had the other half of the equation -- feat selection. I replace the silly fighting styles with bonus feats.)

My favorite d20 ranger to date was the Wheel of Time d20 Woodsman. I've never particularly cared for spellcasting rangers.