Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="feydras" data-source="post: 1630477" data-attributes="member: 16038">Maybe i just don't understand the problems...How are the 3.5 changes to classes not improvements?&nbsp; The 3.0 ranger is frontloaded and ripe for 'cherrypicking'.&nbsp; Beyond that the ranger has nothing to offer at higher levels beyond spells.&nbsp; The 3.5 version introduces combat styles so you finally have the option of playing an archery focused ranger.&nbsp; The later abilities like camoflague and hide in plain sight are cool and fit the ranger IMO.&nbsp; The added skill points and lower HD make the ranger more of the skilled hunter archetype that i think the class was envisioned to be instead of a 1 level throw away class.&nbsp; Not looking at both versions right now, but i believe that the druid and monk were changed largely to provide a more fluid progression of abilities so there would not be 1 or 2 levels where you get nothing.&nbsp; Also, the monk received a much needed boost with the improved unarmed attack BAB.&nbsp; It was too weak in 3.0.&nbsp; The monk's evasion was moved to 2nd level, again, i think to prevent someone from scooping up one level of monk just for that.&nbsp; Bard - the change to bardic music abilities was necessary so a character couldn't just take 1 level in bard and pour skill points in perform from other classes and still increase their bardic music.&nbsp; Also the increase in skill points is nice and fits the jack of all trades image of the class.Similar things were done to the prestige classes in regards to making them more desirable past 1st level.Other great changes IMO - skill focus changed to +3, more synergy skill bonuses make skills more useful/fun/flavorful, fixed harm and haste.Well, now that i've hijacked the thread, i'll shut up and await your answers.&nbsp; I am genuinely curious what is so bad about 3.5.- Feydras</blockquote>

[QUOTE="feydras, post: 1630477, member: 16038"] Maybe i just don't understand the problems... How are the 3.5 changes to classes not improvements? The 3.0 ranger is frontloaded and ripe for 'cherrypicking'. Beyond that the ranger has nothing to offer at higher levels beyond spells. The 3.5 version introduces combat styles so you finally have the option of playing an archery focused ranger. The later abilities like camoflague and hide in plain sight are cool and fit the ranger IMO. The added skill points and lower HD make the ranger more of the skilled hunter archetype that i think the class was envisioned to be instead of a 1 level throw away class. Not looking at both versions right now, but i believe that the druid and monk were changed largely to provide a more fluid progression of abilities so there would not be 1 or 2 levels where you get nothing. Also, the monk received a much needed boost with the improved unarmed attack BAB. It was too weak in 3.0. The monk's evasion was moved to 2nd level, again, i think to prevent someone from scooping up one level of monk just for that. Bard - the change to bardic music abilities was necessary so a character couldn't just take 1 level in bard and pour skill points in perform from other classes and still increase their bardic music. Also the increase in skill points is nice and fits the jack of all trades image of the class. Similar things were done to the prestige classes in regards to making them more desirable past 1st level. Other great changes IMO - skill focus changed to +3, more synergy skill bonuses make skills more useful/fun/flavorful, fixed harm and haste. Well, now that i've hijacked the thread, i'll shut up and await your answers. I am genuinely curious what is so bad about 3.5. - Feydras [/QUOTE]

Verification