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

[Urbannen]

I agree that the weapon size change was a bad idea. It's the one thing that has really stuck in my craw.

D&D may not be strictly based on LotR, but there's definitely an influence. The famous magic item Sting was an elvish dagger that was wielded by both Bilbo and Frodo as a light weapon (small for them). And I just don't think they got a -2 when using it.

Rather than change the system (which was a basic d20 mechanic), they could have just introduced things like small longswords into the equipment section:

Small martial weapon, halfling longsword, 1d6, 19-20/x2, slashing

 

[IanB]

Another thing to add, small rogues no longer have a d6 one handed option, because the 1h small weapons that do d6 are all martial weapons and not on the rogue proficiency list - before they could use a shortsword (non-finessed) for a d6 if they felt like it.

IMC I decided to fix this by giving all rogues longsword on their proficiency list (they had it in 1E, after all, and we are playing old 1E modules...)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Subdual damage is now "nonlethal" damage.

Almost every other re-naming I can figure out why they did it, but this...(shrug).

Ditto.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Another thing to add, small rogues no longer have a d6 one handed option, because the 1h small weapons that do d6 are all martial weapons and not on the rogue proficiency list - before they could use a shortsword (non-finessed) for a d6 if they felt like it.

IMC I decided to fix this by giving all rogues longsword on their proficiency list (they had it in 1E, after all, and we are playing old 1E modules...)

Hmm..and medium rogues were able to use a longsword in 3.0, too. It seems to have disappared off the list. Odd.

 

[Staffan]

Another thing to add, small rogues no longer have a d6 one handed option, because the 1h small weapons that do d6 are all martial weapons and not on the rogue proficiency list - before they could use a shortsword (non-finessed) for a d6 if they felt like it.

IMO, that's a good thing. Part of the disadvantage of being small is that you are limited to smaller weapons. The new weapon size rules make sure that this limitation affects all classes equally.

 

[Darkness]

Before 3.5 came out, a couple folks complained that "D&D 3.5" was a dumb name and it should be called "D&D 3e revised" instead.

So to them, at least, the "lamest terminology change" is 3.5's name itself...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm..and medium rogues were able to use a longsword in 3.0, too.

If they were elves, sure.

Otherwise, longsword wasn't on the Rogue list.

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

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

But even more I hate the half-baked way that it has been done. I'm trying to think why, within the 3.5 rules and ignoring any splatbook stuff (as they have with other things), they didn't do it as follows

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

Then they wouldn't have had to put in the clunky line in the enlarge metamagic feat to say it doesn't apply to lines and cones. Plus the definition above would make it clear what actually happens: it starts at your position and extends out to its full area.


So that's my contender for, IMO, the lamest change to rules terminology in the new edition. At least it is only a minor thing, but it niggles, like an unscratchable itch.

Cheers

What exactly are you complaining about? I see no terminology changes. Cones and lines are the same as always. There are no fixed ranges as you suggest, and the rules seem pretty clear . . .

 

[Staffan]

Re: Re: [3.5] lamest terminology change?

What exactly are you complaining about? I see no terminology changes. Cones and lines are the same as always. There are no fixed ranges as you suggest, and the rules seem pretty clear . . .

Actually, cones have changed. They're now quarter-circles rather than being defined by width = distance from caster (now it's width = 1.41*distance).

Also, the cones have changed from generally having a Close range (25 ft+5 ft/2 levels) to having a fixed range. Color spray is 15 ft, Cone of Cold is 60 ft, and Fear is 30 ft (those were the ones I thought of off-hand).

 

[bret]

Hmm..and medium rogues were able to use a longsword in 3.0, too. It seems to have disappared off the list. Odd.

Not unless they were elves.

Look at it this way, Rogues finally got to use the Sling again. In 3.0, Rogues were not proficient with Sling. I don't know how many people have been surprised by that little tidbit.