D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[Pedantic]

Was there actually any reason to make something at a lower level? Its been so long I've perhaps forgotten. If not, I think I stand by my opinion, but if there was I withdraw my statement.

Caster level is a multiplier in the item's cost in any item that creates a spell effect.

 

[James Gasik]

Was there actually any reason to make something at a lower level? Its been so long I've perhaps forgotten. If not, I think I stand by my opinion, but if there was I withdraw my statement.

Dispel Magic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Caster level is a multiplier in the item's cost in any item that creates a spell effect.

Thanks for the correction. Like I said, been too long since I did anything 3e-adjacent, and even back when I did I never saw a PC that did anything with enchantment beyond scrolls or potions.

 

[the Jester]

Was there actually any reason to make something at a lower level? Its been so long I've perhaps forgotten. If not, I think I stand by my opinion, but if there was I withdraw my statement.

Yes. It cost less, both in terms of gp and xp.

 

[Schmoe]

Generally the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Wizard) killed Feat design. Any time a designer made a new Combat Feat, they had to balance it with the knowledge that Human Fighters got 19 of the damn things, so they would add all these prerequisites so they couldn't have all the cool Feats on one character, or get very powerful Feats early.

This made it really difficult for any other class to invest in the better Feats, let alone in a timely fashion.

That's a good point, but it's also where I think they went wrong. The combat classes were significantly underpowered compared to full casters, so feats should have been the vehicle to allow combat classes to compete. Further, feats were the only thing a Fighter got, so they should have had the flexibility to pick up multiple options. Instead they added in pre-reqs that forced a Fighter to focus on only one path if they wanted to be effective.

 

[Schmoe]

I can honestly say, I've never understood why the iterative attack penalty existed in the first place. Especially with the existence of natural weapons and Multiattack. So a monster (or Druid) can charge and toss out a bite at full BAB and then 2 claws at -2 followed by 2 rakes, but my Fighter has to make 1 attack at full BAB, one at -5, and one at -10? With an additional -2 if I dare to use Two-Weapon Fighting? Yeah...ok.

I think the real issue with multiple attacks from high BAB comes from the impact of movement, rather than the iterative attack penalty.

In my current game at 12th level, the archer attacking with Rapid Shot hits all the time with her last attack, at an effective -12 to hit. But she also gets 4 attacks every single round because she can basically just sit in place and shoot. Adding in her flying mount gives her great mobility if the battlefield allows for it, too. The barbarian, on the other hand, is often stuck with just a single attack if he needs to move more than 5', which happens all the time. At least he has power attack.

I'm strongly considering some sort of Pounce-like ability for free, but just haven't pulled the trigger yet. That would make it much more like every other edition of D&D, including 5e, which work pretty well.

 

[Schmoe]

Several posters mentioned Point Blank Shot being worthless. I find it's pretty helpful in a most dungeon-crawling scenarios. It's very easy to be within 30'. That being said, if you tweak Far Shot with the following phrase, it becomes much more useful at higher levels:

Far Shot
"... Double the range at which all Precision-based bonuses are effective. This includes things like Sneak Attack, a Ranger's Favored Enemy damage bonus, and the bonuses from Point Blank Shot."

That's the thing I find about 3.5. There is a good framework in place, but a lot of things need small tweaks to make it fit together well.

 

[payn]

"Elephant in the room" document you can find online combines a lot of feats in a way that makes a lot of sense.

 

[James Gasik]

Several posters mentioned Point Blank Shot being worthless. I find it's pretty helpful in a most dungeon-crawling scenarios. It's very easy to be within 30'. That being said, if you tweak Far Shot with the following phrase, it becomes much more useful at higher levels:

Far Shot
"... Double the range at which all Precision-based bonuses are effective. This includes things like Sneak Attack, a Ranger's Favored Enemy damage bonus, and the bonuses from Point Blank Shot."

That's the thing I find about 3.5. There is a good framework in place, but a lot of things need small tweaks to make it fit together well.

Oh it's easy to be within 30'. My point was, as a ranged weapon user, you probably don't want to be that close to enemies if you have a choice.

 

[James Gasik]

"Elephant in the room" document you can find online combines a lot of feats in a way that makes a lot of sense.

Wasn't that for Pathfinder, or was there a version for 3.5 as well? Mine was for Pathfinder.