D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 revisions caused by prestige classes?

[Quasqueton]

I have read here a few times assertions that certain revisions in the core rules were made because of secondary add ons (like prestige classes in splat books).

For instance I've read that some think/say the new rule of the Improved Critical feat and the keen weapon enhancement not stacking was because of the special critical features of some prestige classes.

I beleive some have also said that the reduction of the bonus from Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus was because of how they become overpowered when combined with some prestige classes.

Can anyone confirm this reasoning? Are there other changes in 3.5 made because of prestige classes?

Thanks.

Quasqueton

 

[gfunk]

I doubt that anyone can cofirm it, in the sense that they are a WotC "insider," but I do think you are right. A lot of abilities from PrC had ramifications that the designers did not intends, such as a 9-20 Crit range from a Weapon Master with Improve Crit feat and a Keen Weapon.

Also a lot of PrC have been powered-down such as an Archmage's spell power ability. But with the addition of classes like the Hulking Hurler, there still remain rules loopholes to exploit.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want to believe that the reason was not optional material.

However, I cannot clear my mind from the suspect that indeed the nerf to spell DCs was driven by too many stacking sources (feats, PrCl, whatever...) available to increase it. Hence perhaps the halving of SF/GSF and reducing the time of the mental buff spells.

 

[Artoomis]

I have no doubt whatsoever that optional materials caused the chage, to a large extent.

The d20 system was created to support virtually endless optional material.

D&D Version 3.0 was set up partly to contain the problem of endless stacking that was in previous editions. As more material came out, it became obvious that certain tweaks were needed to achieve that goal.

I have no problem with that at all.

 

[Crothian]

I highly doubt it. The critcals were reduced more for weapons like the falcion and scimitar, A potential crit on 12+ is basically a potential crit everytime one hits. Same with ther spell focus feats. I think that wasn't thought through as +4 to saves for just two feats is really darn good. If I were to blame anything I'd blame the min maxers, peopel abused the system too much and Wizards had to punish everyone for it.

 

[Artoomis]

I...people abused the system too much and Wizards had to punish everyone for it.

Not punish, but re-design to prevent abuse. In other words, make the game design better - the perfect game design would allow players to do anything they wanted without it being unbalanced. 3.5 is mostly further along in that direction (with the obvious example of the way screwed-up charge errata).

 

[Destil]

I don't know about PRCs, but spell focus has been mentioned as being changed because greater spell focus was overpowered at +4, and they couldn't 'take it back'

Why not leave spell focus at +2 and greater at +3 total is beyond me, though. Either way one of 'em is off.

 

[Artoomis]

In thinking about this more, I don't think they went far enough to prevent abuses.

All bonuses need to be named, and there needs to be a limited number of different bonus types, with no stacking of even dodge bonuses.

Maybe the next version will do away with the concept of unnamed bonuses. It's a rather large hole in the rules that gets abused by non-core material.

 

[Apok]

In thinking about this more, I don't think they went far enough to prevent abuses.

All bonuses need to be named, and there needs to be a limited number of different bonus types, with no stacking of even dodge bonuses.

Maybe the next version will do away with the concept of unnamed bonuses. It's a rather large hole in the rules that gets abused by non-core material.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea, for a couple of reasons.

For one, this method of balance can be easily skirted by coming up with new names for certain bonuses. Third party publishers have already done this to skirt the rules a bit, but I can see how it can be taken to absurd levels. It doesn't do anything but force you to keep track of every single + to attack rolls, saves, AC, or whatever and exactly what kind of named bonus it is. Pure hassle. "Why, yes, Dave, my AC is a 52. Base 10 +4 armor bonus, +3 Dex bonus, +1 Dodge bonus, +5 Luck bonus, +5 Munchkin Bloodline bonus, +2 Eaten of the Ambrosia Bonus, +1 Favored of Crom bonus, +3 Guacamole Master bonus..." Gets very ridiculous very quickly, ne?

The other reason is that it tends to put a cap on a character's overall effectiveness. If you know that, with all the equipment and stat-boosting stuff out there, you can never gain more than a +30 to your AC (or saves or whatever) without making stuff up, then you've just set a ceiling that cannot be breached without mucking around with the rules. I like unnamed bonuses stacking becaus you can always trancend to a new level of power, and let's face it; power in D&D is about stacking numbers.

Think of unnamed stacking bonuses as having 'unlimited growth potential' for your PC's and NPC's written into the system.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm not so sure that's a good idea, for a couple of reasons.

For one, this method of balance can be easily skirted by coming up with new names for certain bonuses.

I suggested a finite list of bonuses - do not allow for any more. Simply create, by fiat, a finite list on the core rules and do not allow for any more bonus types. This is an area that really needs to be tightened up.

... "Why, yes, Dave, my AC is a 52. Base 10 +4 armor bonus, +3 Dex bonus, +1 Dodge bonus, +5 Luck bonus, +5 Munchkin Bloodline bonus, +2 Eaten of the Ambrosia Bonus, +1 Favored of Crom bonus, +3 Guacamole Master bonus..." Gets very ridiculous very quickly, ne?

It's already that way - making the list finite helps this.

The other reason is that it tends to put a cap on a character's overall effectiveness. If you know that, with all the equipment and stat-boosting stuff out there, you can never gain more than a +30 to your AC (or saves or whatever) without making stuff up, then you've just set a ceiling that cannot be breached without mucking around with the rules. I like unnamed bonuses stacking because you can always transcend to a new level of power, and let's face it; power in D&D is about stacking numbers.

Think of unnamed stacking bonuses as having 'unlimited growth potential' for your PC's and NPC's written into the system.

Limited growth potential is not a bad thing. Actually, it would not be limited - it would only be able to grow in rough correlation with power (level). That's because it's easy to get many small bonuses, but harder to get individual high bonuses.