(3.5E) Aw, crap...

[Brown Jenkin]

Having just read the new update on 3.5E that's posted on the news page, I think my biggest concern has just shifted from the greater focus on minis to the rearrangement of DR.

The way it was, all DR save for damage type (blunt, slashing, piercing) was hierarchical, but now, materials are also being exempted from that structure (silver, cold iron, etc). This means that lycanthropes get DR against any weapon that isn't silver, for example, even if you're using that +5 longsword. And from what it says on the main page, some fiends, such as pit fiends, are going to be next to impossible to hurt with material weapons.

It's not that I think this is necessarily bad, since I can totally see the in-game rational for this, its just that I don't think this was a necessary change, not having heard any DR complaints either from players or people here. This also strikes me as being something that isn't so backwards compatible with existing d20 products as they would have us believe, since thats something of a moderate change, IMO.

Bravo, I 100% agree

 

[Agamon]

Yawn. This arguement is so 2000...

Edit: Meaning the mini arguement, 3E always assumed grid and minis. Check the examples in the PHB. The DR change is another color of dragon, however. While not a big change, it is mechanically different, which makes me go hmmm...

 

[MerricB]

It's not that I think this is necessarily bad, since I can totally see the in-game rational for this, its just that I don't think this was a necessary change, not having heard any DR complaints either from players or people here. This also strikes me as being something that isn't so backwards compatible with existing d20 products as they would have us believe, since thats something of a moderate change, IMO.

It's backward compatable.

I pick up a 3.0E edition monster which has DR 10/+3 or 10/silver. Do I have any problem understanding what that means under the new rules? Not at all.

It doesn't mean exactly the same thing, but the stats still work.

The one exception is if an NPC or PC in a module or example is assumed to hit a DR creature with a weapon that no longer affects it. I think I can confidently say that such will rarely be the case.

Cheers!

 

[Wormwood]

DR Revised Precedent

[Possible Standing Stone Spoilers]





I actually like the Revised DR, but it seems like I've seen it before...

In "The Standing Stone", didn't those little squirrel/monkeys have a variant DR that was something like 10/Wood, but with a special exception that *only* wooden weapons could bypass the DR?

 

[Alzrius]

I wonder if the vampire template will now grant DR 10/wooden piercing damage?

Seriously though, I wonder if there is going to be a mention of anything about staking active vampires. I know this is a tiny little concern, but the few rules we've seen for such a thing have been somewhat unbalancing in 3E. Basically, how do you have rules allowing you to stake a vampire while its still moving, killing it instantly, without making it so players can do that to any other monster they meet, also killing it instantly, effectively negating hit points?

Again, its a minor concern, but I wouldn't mind seeing it addressed in the revised edition.

 

[Zander]

Same here for me though. I would like a Metric option at least, since converting from Imperial to metric is time consuming.

I suspect that for distances other than height, 3.5 will use its own unit: the square. One square = 5 feet = 1.5 metres.

What really ticks me off though (since I can now, through living in the UK, picture the imperial distances) is Fahrenheit. It is only used by the US. Everyone else uses Celsius.

Actually, a lot of people in the UK use the Imperial system including for temperature. The fact that much of the British establishment (government, the BBC, the legal system etc) are hellbent on accepting Continental (dare I say French?*) hegemony hasn't stopped people at large from using Imperial units. The so-called 'metric martyrs' are examples.

* Yes, I know that Anders Celsius was Swedish. The metric system is essentially French though.

 

[Perithoth]

Hello All,

As the one who started this thread with my WF scoop... wow, one throw away line and a topic is born.

On the subject of minis. There were two drawings with acompanying photos of pre-cast scuptures based upon the drawnings. One was a Lantern Archon with a sword and the other was one of the Gnome Illusionist Iconic from D&D.

The assumption part of the rules was merely a recognition that a great many people used minis or some type of marker with their games. Does this mean you have to use minis and battlemats? No. Those that don't use them now will probably continue to do without. The problem with the current version of the rules is it didn't really completely embrace the topic. It was really just a small section in the DMG.

Most of the people I play with use minis and battlemats (actually all of them do). This shift away from abstract to physical representation is a boon to my games. It means the rules will take this into consideration.

Anyway, I know this topic has caused some people some angst. The fact is 3rd Edition has many things that are best resolved with minis and battlemats. If you are not concerned with that level of detail, by all means, use rule 0... the DM is always right.

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[jdavis]

I honestly can't fathom how people can say that minis slow down play. (I believe you when you say it does for you, I just can't see how.)

The major reason I use minis (dice, actually) is because it makes the game flow so much faster. No one has to ask "Can I make it to the troll and attack?" or "Are the orcs standing close enough to get an AoO if I run between them?" or anything similar.

It's all right there in front of them. I can get on with running the interesting parts of the game.

It's pretty much the same thing as when I hear complaints about how rules-intensive or power-gamerish 3E is. To me, it's just a system that fits together well. I don't have to worry about a whole bunch of broken rules. I can just deal with the story.

On that last note, BTW, I'd like to say "Good job!" to Monte and the others. No system is perfect, but you guys did a bunch to clean it up and make it flow.

I still don't get how mini's speed it up, but my curiosity has been peaked. Our combat is very fast because we don't sweat the details. We will roleplay out buying saddle for two hours but we generally fly throught the combat. I like tactical encounters and strategy games, the mini's might be fun for me but I'm afraid it would turn into group chess with my party. Everybody staring at the board and trying to figure out 5 or 6 different moves, then being told to hurry up already, then getting mad at being pressured...... we just are not used to it, the closest thing we ever played to this is Battletech and it was a horrible horrible experience for most of the group. I'm sure this is different, but I've never played with mini's so I don't have a basis for arguing, except that we don't have any problems with combat speed or distance as we are playing right now. I would like to try mini combat, just not with my group.

 

[jdavis]

I have to respond to this. How are grapples so difficult? I'm no rocket scientist, merely an amateur programmer and game developer who works as a cashier for a living, but I figured out grapples in the first 3e game I played.

Grapple = 1d10 + BAB + Strength + Size
A - Medium Fighter 3 (BAB +3, Str +2, Size +0)
B - Small Wizard 2 (BAB +1, Str -1, Size +1)

A tries to grapple B.
A rolls 1d20 and gets a 5 (5 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 10).
B rolls 1d20 and gets a 7 (7 + 1 - 1 + 1 = 8).

A grapples B. Simple.

That's quite a few numbers you got there, sure your not a rocket scientist?

Originally posted by smetzger


Its not the math, its the steps for intiating a grapple. Go ahead and ask about Improved Grapple and/or Grapple over in the rules forum and I bet someone responds and gets it wrong. Heck, an improved grapple example was and may still be incorrect on the WOTC web site.

Somebody already answered for me, what he said....................

 

[Staffan]

Yes, I know that Anders Celsius was Swedish. The metric system is essentially French though.

The proper unit of temperature in the SI system isn't "degree Celsius" anyway. It's Kelvin (note: not "degree Kelvin"). The "size" of the Kelvin is the same as one degree Celsius, but instead of having the arbitrary zero point where water freezes, it uses the point where there is *no* molecular vibration (which is what temperature measures), the so-called absolute zero, at -273.15 (or so) degrees Celsius.

In physics, this can occasionally be very important, such as when calculating things that depend on the square of the temperature or even temperature to the fourth power (I seem to remember something about black-body radiation that used T^4). Those give very different results if you plug in the Celsius temperature (e.g. 100) or the Kelvin temperature (e.g. 373).