3.5 Scoops Discussion

[Shard O'Glase]

There was absolutely no reason why you couldn't have done this in 3e, just by using the animal handling skill to train beasts (as dinosaurs were then). It would have been easy for a 12th level ranger with a bit of focus in this area to have a couple of trained tyrannosaurs as pets.

The only (nice) difference now is the wholly different aspect of animal companions being able to gain HD, Str etc... now that IS cool, even more so should it be possible to retrofit that to some of your creatures!

Cheers

I don't think they culd be your companion before just basically a trained dog. A really big trained dog, but a trained dog. Now that their animnals and not beasts they fit better with the druids abilities.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think with the +4 for Tower shields the sword & boarders may balance out (given the revised Tower Shield mechanics).

Still have to mull this one over, though (x1.5 vs x2, that is).

Need to post this over at AC's site and get the reasoning.

He's seen one too many anime's. No wait I'm sure he'll come up with something that makes it sound..nevermind this just sucks.

 

[Branduil]

I hope Shadowstar made a mistake regarding the strength bonus thing. I don't mind x2 for two-handers, since it makes increased Strength more important. However, it makes absolutely no sense for TWF to still only give 1/2 str bonus on off-hand damage.

 

[Ravellion]

I think with the +4 for Tower shields the sword & boarders may balance out (given the revised Tower Shield mechanics).

Funny thing is.... well let me use an example to illustrate this.

Fighter in full plate and tower shield encounters Orc Ranger with Improved Precise Shot at 200 feet.

Option a) he uses the tower shield for cover, and it is of no use to him.

Option b) he uses the tower shield as a normal shield he gains it's AC benefit.

Most revision changes were at least good game design, even if I didn't like the ramifications. Improved Precise Shot is horribly designed. it seems like some of the crappier feats from the Netbook of feats - sure, it's balanced, but it's clunky and creates loopholes.

Whoever designed it should be shot. Preferablly through an arrow slit while holding a tower shield

Rav

 

[Delgar]

Funny thing is.... well let me use an example to illustrate this.

Fighter in full plate and tower shield encounters Orc Ranger with Improved Precise Shot at 200 feet.

Option a) he uses the tower shield for cover, and it is of no use to him.

Option b) he uses the tower shield as a normal shield he gains it's AC benefit.

Most revision changes were at least good game design, even if I didn't like the ramifications. Improved Precise Shot is horribly designed. it seems like some of the crappier feats from the Netbook of feats - sure, it's balanced, but it's clunky and creates loopholes.


Rav

Unless of course when you use the tower shield for cover it provides total cover and not just partial cover.

Delgar

 

[Plane Sailing]

Option a) he uses the tower shield for cover, and it is of no use to him.

Unless he uses it for 100% cover, which is the sensible thing to do, eh?

Plus, don't forget that if a tower shield is being used by a sword and boarder to get 90% cover (say, against a dragon) then he automatically gets the benefit of improved evasion against its breath weapon.

'course, this may have changed since 3e, but if it hasn't it gives the sword and boarder a greatly improved survivability against dragons and other reflex-save damage sources!

Cheers

 

[youspoonybard]

Did you see the Call Lightning revision?

That spell is insane!

"It's casting time is 1 Round and it lasts 1 minute/level. You can call 1 bolt/round that does 3d6 Damage, if there is already a storm the bolts do 3d10 damage."

150d10 over time at 5th level?

Don't annoy the Druid on a cloudy day.

 

[Ravellion]

Unless of course when you use the tower shield for cover it provides total cover and not just partial cover.

Delgar

Hmmm.... better ask again. From what it stated in the other thread it was +4 cover bonus to AC, which admittedly seems strange.

 

[Branduil]

Unless he uses it for 100% cover, which is the sensible thing to do, eh?

Plus, don't forget that if a tower shield is being used by a sword and boarder to get 90% cover (say, against a dragon) then he automatically gets the benefit of improved evasion against its breath weapon.

'course, this may have changed since 3e, but if it hasn't it gives the sword and boarder a greatly improved survivability against dragons and other reflex-save damage sources!

Cheers

Using a tower shield for protection from a dragon would be awesome from a cinematic point of view.

 

[Ruvion]

with the advent of two-handed fighters gaining x2 strength bonus to damage and x2 bonus to damage from Power Attack I do not know if I want to play a sword & boarder or a two-weapon fighter...

especially after finding out that the penalties of two-weapon fighting is still -6/-10 (if off-hand weapon is light -4/-8 and off-hand attack is still only at half strength bonus to damage) and this time with no Ambidexterity feat to close the gap between off-hand and primary hand.

and it looks like sword & boarder will have to fight with a tower shield in order to be "viable" and compete with the two-hander.

we may have to wait until we can see the whole picture come September...but I'm not counting my beans just yet.