D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[jonesy]

But again I ask you, or anyone else in this thread, to provide me with an official rule/clause/paragraph/chapter/webpage/whatever... that says, how 3.0 Material should be used "untouched" in a 3.5 system?

Sure. Here it is:

"This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products
can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

Can. Not should. Not supposed to. Not must be. Not have to. You have an odd definition of flexible.

 

[anest1s]

there is nothing that can relate this phase:
which we will point out if and when they are needed
to anything written or intended in the clause on the revision.

Not only this is not a valid interpretation, it is also fiction.

Or perhaps you can explain me why i'm wrong?

Its not a fiction.

Q: Will there be a rebate program for previous owners who buy the new books?​

A: Not to my knowledge. Your 3.0 rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-3.5, and vice versa. The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes. Anyone who wants to investigate the changes before purchasing new books can download the upgraded SRD. You can do that for free.​

from D&D Revision Spotlight: Why "3.5" And More

This means that if I want to see how discipline changed, I just have to search for an upgrade.

This latest version of the rules, v.3.5, is compatible with 3rd edition D&D, but incorporates revisions and updates based on player feedback.

From Current Rules Edition

It incorporates revisions and updates based on player feedback. This doesn't mean that if I take a 3.0 book and update it myself I will have a 3.5 book.

Also, the fact that it is compatible means that you can actually use it, like it is 3.5.

What is said in PH 3.5, is that you can use 3.0 with small changes. Small changes THEY make, not YOU or me or anyone else. Well you can. But its not RAW.

So they say you can use 3.0 stuff if there is no update.
There is no update to BoVD so it is legit in 3.5.
And since its legit in 3.5 specific overrules general.

 

[Jimlock]

Sure. Here it is:

"This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products
can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

Can. Not should. Not supposed to. Not must be. Not have to. You have an odd definition of flexible.

Jonesy tell me, honestly... did you read any of the above?

I asked for a reference that says how 3.0 Material should be used "untouched" in a 3.5 system, and you come up with the same ref that i've been stating for almost 2 pages now, and which clearly states: can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

If this is a joke, it's a bad one...

If this is supposed to be a counter arguments to what i'm saying, i suggest you read all the above and then address my posts and arguments accordingly. This Thread is already a very big one. There is no point in going back and forth. Perhaps you can show some respect to that?

 

[kitcik]

Let me reiterate that I am not arguing the RAI point or whether the Dispater should stack. I think it is unclear.

However, I think taking the words "with only minor revisions" and saying that means that Dispater does not stack is not a RAW argument, it is a RAI argument. You are stating what you believe to be the intention of "with only minor revisions." Show me the RAW where it says "with only minor revisions" means Dispater does not stack.

And don't show me the general rule about Improved Critical not stacking because that rule is already broken by the subsequent specific rule about Psychic Weapon Master.

This subsequent specific ruling can be taken as an indicator of what was meant by "with only minor revisions" --> indicating that the general rule about improved critical not stacking does not override specific class rulings to the contrary. Again, I am not arguing the RAI point. Despite the point I have just made, I feel RAI is unclear.

However, I see nothing in RAW (so far) stating that Dispater does not stack. Your interpretation of "with only minor revisions" is simply that - an interpretation. In other words, your vision of RAI. Which may be perfectly valid. But that does not make it RAW.

 

[AeroDm]

Not to derail the lively discussion, but I put together a spreadsheet that highlights the tradeoff. The damage variance is a function of the to hit ratio (and crit confirm) as well as the bonus to damage that is multiplied. You can adjust the crit range at the top of the "Comparison" tab to see how things change.

For the most part, the longsword does has a higher expected damage per attack than the scimitar when the damage bonus is low and you are likely to hit. The scimitar has a higher expected damage output per attack when damage bonus is high and you are likely to hit. The difference becomes negligible if you are unlikely to hit.

 

[xigbar]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION]
"However, I see nothing in RAW (so far) stating that Dispater does not stack. Your interpretation of "with only minor revisions" is simply that - an interpretation. In other words, your vision of RAI. Which may be perfectly valid. But that does not make it RAW."

I could've sworn someone said exactly that a page or two ago.

 

[kitcik]

Not to derail the lively discussion, but I put together a spreadsheet that highlights the tradeoff. The damage variance is a function of the to hit ratio (and crit confirm) as well as the bonus to damage that is multiplied. You can adjust the crit range at the top of the "Comparison" tab to see how things change.

For the most part, the longsword does has a higher expected damage per attack than the scimitar when the damage bonus is low and you are likely to hit. The scimitar has a higher expected damage output per attack when damage bonus is high and you are likely to hit. The difference becomes negligible if you are unlikely to hit.

Thanks. This is awesome and actually addresses the OP. Note that if you open it up and multiply each crit range by 4 (15% --> 60% or 9-20 and 10% --> 40%), the table skews incredibly to the scimitar.

 

[kitcik]

@kitcik
"However, I see nothing in RAW (so far) stating that Dispater does not stack. Your interpretation of "with only minor revisions" is simply that - an interpretation. In other words, your vision of RAI. Which may be perfectly valid. But that does not make it RAW."

I could've sworn someone said exactly that a page or two ago.

I can't XP you, but yes I know. But hey, that's what these boards are for - lively debate. One man's RAW is another man's WELL DONE. Or something. Jimlock is a good guy, just a bit stubborn on his rules interpretations.

(see my quote below)

 

[AeroDm]

Thanks. This is awesome and actually addresses the OP. Note that if you open it up and multiply each crit range by 4 (15% --> 60% or 9-20 and 10% --> 40%), the table skews incredibly to the scimitar.

Absolutely true with the one caveat being that it still depends on damage bonus. Now, seeing as your statement becomes true when the damage bonus reaches +4, it is probably safe to just say you are correct. But this also shouldn't be surprising, the scimitar is 50% better at critical hits and if you make your critical hits 400% stronger (i.e. the x4 you referenced), that ought to be reflected in the damage output.

 

[xigbar]

I can't XP you, but yes I know. But hey, that's what these boards are for - lively debate. One man's RAW is another man's WELL DONE. Or something. Jimlock is a good guy, just a bit stubborn on his rules interpretations.

(see my quote below)

Such perfect usage of the profile quote.