3.5 Scoops Discussion

[chalcedony]

Have you considered that emotion may not be in 3Rev at all? It was very versatile - possibly too versatile, if it was split up.

Also, to put things in perspective, the sorcerer at tenth level only knows three level 3 spells...

To put it into more perspective... a sorcerer can blast 7 of those spells compared to a bard's measly three Not that I expect Bards to be uber casters, though.

Was emotion that overpowered? Two of the functions were non-combat. Splitting it into about four spells is drastic.

But I like the overall list, so I'll stop whining about it...

 

[Destil]

It is actually a "power up" for conjurers, transmuters and evokers, since it makes the relative cost of specializing in those schools less than it is now. It also unbalances those spcializations with respect to enchanters, illusionists, and necromancers.

Your theory needs work, since it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Uhm, unless the Conjurer, Evoker or Transmuter selected one of the other three schools as their prohibited school, perhaps? Really this has always been the most sensable choice in my opinion for the three schools. This really makes taking two underpowered schools the best choice, while before sacrificing a single powerful school was also possible.

Also, as far as everyone wanting a point buy style school selection, it's real easy to reverse engneer one from the 3E PH:
Choose any number of schools worth at least the same number of points as the school you choose to specialize in
Necromancy, Divination - 1 Point
Enchantment, Illusion, Abjuration - 2 Points
Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation - 3 points
(this gives the exact same results as the 3E PH's rules)

Improving the ranger's stealth dosn't really hurt the rogue at all. Remember: sneak attack. Also, I think we need to ask Shadowstar to confirm the special abilities list for the rogue is the same (wouldn't be suprised if it included Hide in Pain Sight). Even if it's not there for the rogue, it's really not a big deal, having more than one stealthy PC in a group is a very good thing, scouting is very dangerous.... (high level monks have the best saves, good to great AC(both normal and touch), the ability to understand any language, go etheral, insane speed and several other great scouting abilities, after all... who's complaining about them?)

 

[taliesin52]

I am not filled with confidence. If you are working on a revision to the existing rules you should get the basic existing rules right. Otherwise, you are unqualified to be tinkering. Like Monte Cook, I think I will not be incorporating much, if anything, from 3.5 if this is the sort of quality we can expect.

Personally I'd be more content with his not being familiar with the rules (something that can give some objectivity) to one quote from the chat (and I can't find it again for the life of me) where he or andy explained that the stat buff change came because there was no reason for the +2stat items and that he was tired because wizards cast them too often in his home campaign!

I'm all for balancing and whatnot, but allocating revisions based on what the small group that plays at your diningroom table do is a bit assinine(sp).


Aside from my little rant there, can someone doublecheck to see if shadowstar answered the qustion about how often the word "bonus" appears on one of the pages? Seems like a nice verification question I didn't see it but there were a lot of posts since thursday afternoon!

 

[ShadowStar]

I didn't answer because I really didn't feel like closely reading the page to answer something that I didn't think anyone cared about. I can tell you that I really did have the book in front of me with each question I answered and none of the errors I made were intentional. Of course being that I'm the one suspect I guess that really dosn't prove much. If you have another question that is rules or book relevant I'd be happy to answer it as soon as I get the book back on Monday.

 

[Steverooo]

Re: Rogue changes

Sure, the rogue is just as good as it always was - but the ranger is now about as good a scout in urban terrain, and can cast spells as well, and has several nifty abilities, and is a better combatant. If you have favored enemy: Human you can prowl the human cities and will have boni to many skill checks as well, effectively negating the advantage of 2 skill points per level the rogue has. Granting Hide in Plain Sight to the ranger and not to the rogue just adds insult to injury, so to speak...

Naw, no such ranger in my campaign.

Rangers are supposed to be as stealthy as Rogues, and better fighters, as well. They are not anywhere near as good at gathering information, or negotiating, sensing motives, nor even using the Bluff-and-Hide maneuver... Rogues are FAR better in the city, and superior in the dungeon, as well!

Camouflage has always been something that the Ranger (and Rogue) could do, and frankly, the way it's been done, now, weakens BOTH classes. We haven't seen the text on Hide in Plain Sight, yet, but I'm sure it's like Camouflage and the Shadowdancers', and works only in "natural surroundings". In other words, it's another "Virtual Feat"!

What everyone always seems to miss is how much the Thief (now Rogue) has ALWAYS stepped on the Ranger's toes! The Ranger has almost always had his stealth abilities restricted to the wilderness, but the Thief/Rogue has NEVER had hers restricted to man0made, built-up areas, only!

I'm with you, on this one, though; both the Ranger AND Rogue should have Hide in Plain Sight, get it at the same level, and either A) Have both work anywhere, B) Have the Ranger's work only in "natural surroundings" and the Rogue's work in "man-made environs", or C) Both should work only in certain other conditions, such as cover, shadows, darkness, etc.

 

[Steverooo]

According to the scoops, you need to be a spellcaster to use Alchemy.

I think that what we're going to find is: Anyone can analyze a substance, make acid, or do other simple "chemistry". To make potions, however, will require Metamagic Feats, which will be restricted to Spellcasters, only... Let's wait and read the Alchemy Skill's description, and see if I'm right...

 

[Steverooo]

Spell focus and Greater spell focus changes -- why?

Half-elves getting bonuses to diplomacy and gather information -- why?

Dwarves suffer nothing from medium and heavy armor -- why?

Sorcerers can swap spells -- why?

Toad familiars give just +3 hit points -- why?

1) You got me, on the first one...

2) Half-Elves get along well with both Humans and Elves, and by not fitting in anywhere, become adept at getting along in other societies. Thus, they make good "'face" men (as in "interface"). Now stack that with Rogue or Bard...

3) Gimli, in LotR: FotR. The run across Rohan...

4) Spells useful at lower levels often aren't at higher. Would've made more sense (to me) if they'd just given'em more spells known, though. This is a case of "We're adopting the rules you play!", methinks.

5) Familiars' abilities now match a Feat. Alertness and (for the Toad) Toughness. Cats will probably grany Stealthy (+2 Move Quietly/Hide), etc.

 

[taliesin52]

Half-elves getting bonuses to diplomacy and gather information -- why?

This one bothered me slightly too. However that's because I'm used to older editions where halfelves were generally considered bastard childeren, most often by both races. Tanis was the stereotypical halfelf in those days.

 

[pech21]

I think that what we're going to find is: Anyone can analyze a substance, make acid, or do other simple "chemistry". To make potions, however, will require Metamagic Feats, which will be restricted to Spellcasters, only... Let's wait and read the Alchemy Skill's description, and see if I'm right...

You need to "be able to cast spells" according to shadowstar, unfortunately. It would have been cool...

 

[Banshee16]

not liking the 3.5 revisions

The more I read about these revisions, the more I think they're a bunch of inane, stupid ideas, surrounded by a few good tidbits. Obviously, the book isn't here yet, so it's not possible to know 100% for sure yet.....but a few things like the turfing of magic users, some of the class revisions, like a paladin SUMMONING his warhorse? Because it's inconvenient to have to drag him down into a dungeon? How stupid is that?

Other ideas are good, like finesse applying to a class of weapons, a sorcerers getting to swap out a spell every second level. And some of the spell fixes. But I'm seeing more and more hints of bad fixes....

The really annoying thing about it is that all future books will be 3.5e compatible, so it means being required to do backwards conversions for all books from here on in.

Banshee