Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="satori01" data-source="post: 1028931" data-attributes="member: 7859">I just got my 3.5 books and skimmed the players handbooks, a couple of thoughts jump out at me:1) I generally like the class redos Barb is nice, the Monk is Fantastic with the easy BAB calculations, the Bard is getting there, and the ranger is niiiccee.  The Paly might need a little bit of encouragement but I can wait to 4e, and the druid will probably be reworked in my new campaign, wildshape is a little problematic for me.2) Shields why did they have to mess w/ shields?  Before shields used to add 2 to your AC, bash for 1d4 dmg, spike for 1d6, and were considered a light weapon.Now you have Light shields that add 1 to ac, do 1d3 dmg, spike to 1d4 and are considered light weapons or"Heavy" shields that add 2 to ac and have the old spike and bash statistics but are considered one handed weapons for twf.Bleh, talk about mudding the issue.  Sure under 3.5 rules IMPshield bash is core, meaning a sword and boarder with twf and improved shield bash and a spiked shield will have 2pts of ac and do 1d6 dmg= 1 more ac point than a twf w/ the two weapon defense feat.So what, that one ac is not going to break the bank, but shields are even more divided now, no more plain +2 shields anymore.3) I wish WOTC had either highlighted the changes on the pages, or added a change primer index in either the front or back of the PHB.  Come on this is a revision, I dont want to have to reread the whole book, frankly enough of the text is similar enough that my brain started boogling, especially during the spells.Do me a favor WOTC and spell out the changes lest I miss some.4) I found the diagrams in the combat section to be less informative than the old 3.0 ones, and disliked how they were spread out in sections where the diagram did not pertain to the rules on the page, often times with a diagram of a particular rule preceding the rules themselves.5) cover being a straight +4 to ac, kinda like for the simplification, kinda dont, leaning more towards like. Grappling !!!! I read and understood easily.  I dont like the squeezing rules, nor the calculations for diagonal movement, squeezing seems to make large creatures much easier to defeat.6) Dragon DR, I know this isnt PHB related but come on DR/Magic, you might as well remove DR from Dragons all together, who isnt going to have a magic weapon when facing a Dragon.  Give them adamantium or something else but magic please!7) Overall the rules are going to be harder to explain to newer players.  I foresee some problems concerning the weapon sizes and shield sizes and encumbrance calculations and people retaining and understanding them.  I like what those rule changes are trying to do, but as my next campaign is going to have 3-5 players completely new to D&D I see a little longer of a learning curve than 3.0.</blockquote>

Verification