D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!

[Grog]

By the way, that's "love" in a general, Christian sort of way.

Good to know

 

[LordAO]

Thank the Gods! No more Bladed Gauntlet 9-20 threat range cheese!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thank the Gods! No more Bladed Gauntlet 9-20 threat range cheese!

They were errata'd to 19-20 anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Of course, I'm having fun "debating" all these changes.

Indeed, a good mass debate is always very relaxing.


Hong "and I should know" Ooi

 

[Corinth]

The problem with this idea is that hardcore munchkin powergamers are a minority of the gaming population. Most players aren't going to buy every new supplement that comes out and comb through it looking for new ways to power up their character. Look at the sales figures for the PHB vs. the sales figures for supplemental material. They aren't even close. A large majority of players are working with core rules, with maybe a few splatbooks and a couple of other supplements added on.

This is a situation where numbers are irrelevant. What matters are the results generated from extreme stress tests, which is why it's wise to listen--in this circumstance--to the hardcore and not the casual gamers.

Making changes to core rules that will affect every single person who plays the game just to rein in the 10% or so of gamers who "break" the game by powergaming is just stupid. Especially considering that the powergamers will just find new ways to exploit the rules that the revision team didn't think of, while the non-powergamers will be SOL.

The casual gamers will abide; they always have and they always will. Meanwhile, the powergamers' efforts result in better games for hardcore and casual gamers alike. It's the same principle as the motor companies going to professional racers to test new car technologies.

And when one of the main people behind the revision can't even give a more compelling reason for a change than, "I didn't like it the way it was before", that just adds insult to injury.

The opinion of the head of WOTC R&D carries far more weight than most when it comes to D&D in particular and d20 in general.

 

[Celebrim]

"Doing it the "new way" (non-stacking) reduces the number of die rolls that are going to occur at the gaming table (because there won't be scads of "confirm" rolls), allowing me to "get on with combat" instead of being bogged down in roll after roll after roll."

Oh good grief, haven't you yet learned to have your players roll all the dice of an attack at once, especially those keen rapier types who are always making threats? At the start of the session decide whether the 'dark' or 'light' colored D20 is the 'to hit' and which is the 'confirm' and then just roll them at the same time (and roll the damage dice too). Then, the PC, if he's any good, blinks at the dice and describes his action cinematically and you err roll with it.

And for the record, not only did critical hits exist in earlier editions (I think the first published system was in like Dragon Annual #4), but in my house rules different weapons had different 'threat ranges' (not that I called them that). Granted, my rules were not so elegant and streamlined as the system in 3.0, but the 3.0 rules were immediately recognizable to me. I regretted losing the occassional lopped off limb or punctured eye (and still do), but the increased simplicity of the system was worth the change.

Corinth: I seldom begin any post exchanges with an insult, but I don't know how else to say it. In regards to the post immediately above mine, that is one of the most deluded and arrogant opinions I have ever seen on this board. There is so much wrong with it at every level that its pointless to try to respond to it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Corinth: I seldom begin any post exchanges with an insult, but I don't know how else to say it.

Careful, or the Paladinbots'll get you...

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

Careful, or the Paladinbots'll get you...

-Hyp.

After Andy gets through with the "revision", I think those "Paladinbots" will be nerfed into "Plushbots" ...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't see Corinth's insults as being any different from the insults being heaped upon Andy Collins - and it sounds like he uses a reasonable method of playtesting.

After Andy gets through with the "revision", I think those "Paladinbots" will be nerfed into "Plushbots" ...

This is lame as insults go.

In any event, I'm happy the high-offense low-defense nature of the game is being toned down. Besides, with all the wizard nerfs it isn't like the fighter was going to escape unscathed.

Did any of the above figures include flaming burst weapons in their calculations? That would be interesting to see.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

High offense/low defense nature of the game being toned down? Doubtful.

First, none of the monster changes (except possibly the dragons' CR increases) we've seen so far have "toned down" their offense. Most of them have cranked it up. So any toning down is only on the PC/NPC side of the equation. (When CR 5 trolls no longer deal enough damage to kill any 5th level character other than a fighter in one round on average rolls, we can talk about "toned down" offense).

Second, the majority of the changes actually are in the area of increased offense and decreased defense.

Haste? No longer an effective defensive spell but still has offensive potential; slows the game down in general.

Shield? No longer able to stack for effective defense. (Also significantly less bonusses).

Dodge? Still as useless as ever.

Greater Weapon Focus: more offense

Greater Weapon Specialization: More offense

Improved Rage: more offense

Core manyshot: more offense

Changed TWF: better offense--especially for rogues.

New Power Attack: better offense

Two Weapon Defense: Dodge for TWF characters.

Paladins get more smites: offense

Ranger favored enemies: twice as many bonusses--all to offense

Animal buff changes: probably similar effects on both offense Bull's Strength was more popular than Cat's Grace but buff spells were an important part of a lot of AC smackdowns. Also, IME, offensive stat items tend to be bought more quickly so the loss may have less effect on offense.

Spell Focus/GSF nerfs: this is an offensive hit for wizards. And a very significant one. But without reducing the offense of the monsters, it doesn't shift the balance from offense to defense, it just makes wizards less effective across the board.

Tower Shields: +4 AC for -2 to hit? Slightly better than the 3e tower shield but you'll still have to give me a 10 foot pole before I touch it.

Lower crit range: only really effects crit-dependent offense builds. The falchion wielder is hurt. The greatsword guy keeps on trucking.

When some real defensive boosts show up, I'll be intrigued to see them.

In any event, I'm happy the high-offense low-defense nature of the game is being toned down. Besides, with all the wizard nerfs it isn't like the fighter was going to escape unscathed.