Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9548277" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think you are correct to import fixes to problems you have in 3.0e rather than importing 3.5e as a whole.&nbsp; The more I learn about what is actually different in 3.5e, the more I consider the whole thing a bad move.I feel no desire to give up horses occupying a 5x10 area.&nbsp; Yes, formalizing what free facing changes mean on a non-symmetrical model, would be tough, but it's a rare enough problem that I don't think it's worth giving up the advantages in realism of the 3e size classes.&nbsp; 3.5e monsters occupy clunkily huge areas.&nbsp; But, on the other, this is also a small thing.&nbsp; If you can't be bothered, eh, I get it.For DR I strongly encourage you to not go to 3.5e DR but instead to half (on average) the amount of DR in 3.0e (or otherwise adjusting to more interesting numbers).&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, DR 5/+1 is more interesting than DR 10/+1, and DR 5/cold iron is more interesting than DR 10/cold iron.&nbsp; This is an easy fix and actually strongly covers the actual problem, which was too rigid of adherence to the all or nothing model of 1e.&nbsp; DR is an important defensive trait of monsters that helps monsters achieve the idea 3-5 rounds of combat that makes for visually and tactically interesting play.&nbsp; Try to avoid trending toward &quot;glass cannon&quot; models of combat where everything is over in 0-1 rounds.&nbsp; If you still find DR annoying, a single adamantium sword solves most DR problems at high levels.&nbsp; Another solution is to assume that 'cold iron' refers to all ferrous steels and not a special alchemical item, and that admantium is a ferrous steel (&quot;true iron&quot;) and mithral a form of silver (&quot;true silver&quot;).&nbsp; This drastically will reduce the toolbox problem while still keeping DR meaningful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9548277, member: 4937"] I think you are correct to import fixes to problems you have in 3.0e rather than importing 3.5e as a whole. The more I learn about what is actually different in 3.5e, the more I consider the whole thing a bad move. I feel no desire to give up horses occupying a 5x10 area. Yes, formalizing what free facing changes mean on a non-symmetrical model, would be tough, but it's a rare enough problem that I don't think it's worth giving up the advantages in realism of the 3e size classes. 3.5e monsters occupy clunkily huge areas. But, on the other, this is also a small thing. If you can't be bothered, eh, I get it. For DR I strongly encourage you to not go to 3.5e DR but instead to half (on average) the amount of DR in 3.0e (or otherwise adjusting to more interesting numbers). IMO, DR 5/+1 is more interesting than DR 10/+1, and DR 5/cold iron is more interesting than DR 10/cold iron. This is an easy fix and actually strongly covers the actual problem, which was too rigid of adherence to the all or nothing model of 1e. DR is an important defensive trait of monsters that helps monsters achieve the idea 3-5 rounds of combat that makes for visually and tactically interesting play. Try to avoid trending toward "glass cannon" models of combat where everything is over in 0-1 rounds. If you still find DR annoying, a single adamantium sword solves most DR problems at high levels. Another solution is to assume that 'cold iron' refers to all ferrous steels and not a special alchemical item, and that admantium is a ferrous steel ("true iron") and mithral a form of silver ("true silver"). This drastically will reduce the toolbox problem while still keeping DR meaningful. [/QUOTE]

Verification