D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] lamest terminology change?

[Marimmar]

My personal fav. is large/small shield to heavy/light shield. Maybe it fits terminology wise but it sound like a heavy shield is covered in more armor plating than a light (armored) shield while actually it's just the size that matters.

No, I want my small and large shields back.

~Marimmar

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I really hate the way that they have changed cones and lines so that they are a fixed range.

....

Range - 0ft
Area - 60ft cone/120ft line/whatever.

Isn't there that rule that a spell can never extend the range? If you have a fireball and let it explode on the border of your range, half the fireball won't be there, because it's beyond your range. So, if you changed the range to 0 ft, cones and lines would be useless.

I hate how they changed the class name 'Magic-User' to 'Wizard'.

Or wait, had they done that before? I can never remember.

It's been a long time.

And it's good that way. For me, everyone who can cast a spell is a magic-user. That's 7 out of 11 base classes.

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: [3.5] lamest terminology change?

Isn't there that rule that a spell can never extend the range? If you have a fireball and let it explode on the border of your range, half the fireball won't be there, because it's beyond your range. So, if you changed the range to 0 ft, cones and lines would be useless.

That's exactly right. None of a spell's effects can extend past the limit of its range. An area spell with 0 range would also have 0 area.

 

[Staffan]

Small characters do the *exact* same damage they did before - generally one step down from what medium sized characters do.

That's not entirely true. In 3.0, the 1d4 dagger was a simple light weapon no matter who wielded it. Now, halflings and gnomes who want a light weapon will either have to use a Small dagger doing 1d3, or use a Small shortsword for 1d4 - but the latter is a martial weapon, so it's not available to clerics, wizards, sorcerers, druids, or monks.

 

[Planesdragon]

Re: Re: [3.5] lamest terminology change?

Isn't there that rule that a spell can never extend the range? If you have a fireball and let it explode on the border of your range, half the fireball won't be there, because it's beyond your range. So, if you changed the range to 0 ft, cones and lines would be useless.

Not that I know of.

The range is the furthest that you can target/control the spell--not the furthest that the spell can have an effect. Two great examples of this are illusions (which can only be created or controled within range) and continual flame spells (which must be created in range, and then are permanent even if they go far away from you.)

'course, the terminology is rather silly; something that reaches 100 feet away shouldnt' have a "range" of 0, IMO.

 

[coyote6]

Small characters do the *exact* same damage they did before

No, they don't. A halfling that wanted to finesse a weapon could use a dagger to do 1d4/19-20, range increment 10 ft. That's handy, 'cause he gets a +1 racial bonus to attacks when he throws the weapon; using a dagger gives him flexibility. Combine that with favored class: rogue, and you can deal some damage.

Now, a halfling that wants to finesse a weapon that he can also throw must use a Small dagger that does 1d3/19-20, range increment 10 ft. If he wants that dangerous 1d4 damage, he has to use a non-throwable (barring magical enhancement) Small shortsword.

Also, a halfling rogue used to be able to do 1d6 with his shortbow; now he's got to use a 1d4 Small shortbow.

Similarly, a 3.0 halfling or gnome could plink away at 1d8 damage with a light crossbow, or 1d4 with a sling; now, they're down to 1d6 and 1d3, respectively (poor gnome druids).

Heck, those gnome druids -- they could wield a 1d6/18-20 scimitar two-handed before. Now? Well, they can wield a 1d4/18-20 Small scimitar in one hand, but there is no curvy bladed 1d6/18-20 two-handed option for them at all, unless they multiclass or burn a feat.

Perhaps more importantly, the halfling and gnome have to hope they fight a lot of goblins and kobolds with magic items; it's not likely that your average orc, hobgoblin, etc. is going to be carrying around Small magic weapons. Of course, given that kobolds and goblins are classically not as dangerous as larger foes, they tend to have less extensive collections of lootable items. Thus, generally speaking, the small PCs aren't going to see many magic weapons or armor* as loot, while their more Medium-sized colleagues will continue to collect magic daggers, shortswords, and other items previously usable by all characters, but now unusable by the short adventurers.


*(or other items? Does it say that magic cloaks, boots, hats, rings, wands, etc., resize or are otherwise usable by a range of different-sized characters?)

 

[CrimsonTemplar]

Small characters do the *exact* same damage they did before - generally one step down from what medium sized characters do.

Light = 1d4, One Handed = 1d6, 2 Handed = 1d8. It's the same damn thing as it was in 3.0, it's just you don't have halflings trying to wield a shortsword like it's a longsword, because it's not made to be used that way.

Eh?!? Where was the table in a 3.0 core book that showed how damage scaled based on size? I don't recall ever coming across it. In 3.0 a shortsword was the same size as a halfling so he could wield it like a medium size creature weilds a longsword, one-handed, so how's it not meant to be used that way?

And Ogres always should have been wielding larger versions of normal weapons. It's not like you saw ogres walking around with 1d8 damage longswords did you? They generally had really big clubs that did a bunch of damage. That hasn't changed either, except that now if you want to give an ogre a greataxe or battle axe or pick, you can do it without the guesswork.

No, usually they had greatclubs and greatswords in one hand. From a DM's persepective I can see how it'll make things easier, but it's disappointing from a player's perspective to have a 1st level halfling rogue be unable to kill an orc with a single shot from a shortbow unless he manages to sucessfully sneak attack or crit.

 

[Delemental]

Re: Re: [3.5] lamest terminology change?

Isn't there that rule that a spell can never extend the range? If you have a fireball and let it explode on the border of your range, half the fireball won't be there, because it's beyond your range. So, if you changed the range to 0 ft, cones and lines would be useless.

From the SRD...

A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted.

So yes, according to the rules an area spell with a range of 0 feet would be useless. That said, I've always been bugged by this myself. It gets confusing when you see "Range: 50 ft" and then under Effect it says "50 ft radius emanation, centered on you". To me a range of 50 feet means that the spell's center of effect can be placed up to 50 feet away from me, and emanate from there.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Re: Re: Re: [3.5] lamest terminology change?

To me a range of 50 feet means that the spell's center of effect can be placed up to 50 feet away from me, and emanate from there.

But then you have to define a "center of effect" for every possible type of area. What is the "center of effect" of a 10x10 square per level, shapable? I prefer to simply not introduce the extra rules construct of "centers of effect," but then I admit I don't have a lot of patience for people who get confused by things that seem clear to me (like the range rule).

 

[GamerGeek]

The new Weapon Sizes rule is horrible. It is harder to understand and it screws small races. Why they decided to "fix" something that wasnt broken (and nobody complained about that I know of) is beyond me.

And another thing: I think it was a great idea to list the mass, improved, lesser, greater, etc type spells right after the base spell. Makes looking things up a lot easier. So why the hell didnt they do the same thing with the feats?

The weapon sizes thing really bothers me. Everything else is just nitpciky. All in all, I think they dd a very good job and definitely added value. I have no regrets having spent $20 on each of the new books (now, the MSRP of $30 each would have been a bit much).