Comments and questions on 3.5 from a Newbie

[Silveras]

I would like to make a hypothesis on D&D 3.5. Call it a guess.
Once I've made it, could the experienced players here tell me what they think?
If you are one of the people who designed 3rd Edition, could you tell me if I guessed right?

I would say that you are partially right. Feat acquisition is a significant part of balance in 3.x. But it is not the only thing.

Spellcasters can multiclass, if they wish, but the price is one many will say is too high. So much too high that some Prestige Classes and/or feats that might sound a little too good exist merely to redress the problem.

Skill points are balanced among the classes with a specific number of skills in mind. You will not find many new skills in 3rd party products. WotC, in revising 3.0 to 3.5, reduced the number of skills by making the tasks of some overly-specific skills into tasks on another. Some 3rd party products (I am thinking specifically of the very, very good Shaman's Handbook from Green Ronin) that HAD added new skills followed suit in revising those products to 3.5. You *will*, however, see lots of new things you can do with the existing skills.

The Balance of Imbalances, as you put it, is indeed present to encourage cooperative parties of disparate characters (which is the reason I object to people urging rules changes toward an all-skills & feats structure instead of classes).

The main abilities of many classes, though, are not available as feats. You cannot gain a spellcasting progression by taking a feat, for example (though you can gain 1/day uses of some spells). You cannot gain Bardic Music or Bardic Knowledge by taking a feat. You cannot gain the ability to Sneak Attack by taking a feat. You cannot gain the Druid's Wild Shape ability by taking a feat.

Feats, Skill points, Class/cross-class skill designations, spell progression, and specific class abilities all form part of the balance process. Also, when classes gain bonus feats, it is usually from a specific list, not carte-blanche choice. Being a Fighter gets you bonus combat-oriented feats; it does not gain you feats that pertain to the Rogue's stealthy role.

So, yes, while Feats are an important part of the balance, they are far from the sole key thing.

 

[MichaelH]

Is the above right?

A couple of comments.

You cannot attack with two weapons while grappling (PHB 156), so you cannot attack with your primary hand and your off hand at -6/-10 in a grapple. On your turn you get to make as many grapple checks as you have BAB. Thus a 6th level fighter could make two grapple checks on his turn at +6/+1 plus his other relevant bonuses. Your two fighters can make one grapple check per round. They can make any number of opposed grapple checks when defending against a grapple on their opponent's turn. As a side note, even if you could fight with two weapons in a grapple, an unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the penalties for two weapon fighting drop 2 each, to -4/-8 (PHB 160).

Pinned opponents are not prone. And they can act on their turn after being pinned, but they are very limited in what they can do. Escaping the pin might be a good idea. Also, pinned opponents are not helpless so their dexterity is not considered to be 0. The pinned opponent suffers a -4 to AC due to being pinned plus he is denied his dex bonus to AC because he is grappling, but that's it. He should beware of enemy rogues in this condition.

Hope that helps you.

 

[3d6]

You actually do have a Dexterity of 0 when you are pinned. Check the Table: Armor Class Modifiers, footnote 4.

 

[monboesen]

I would not agree that Feats are the balancing point or the replacement of classes. IMO it does not even change the balance much to dole out more feats. In one game I am participating in we agreed on everybody gaining a feat each level. Every third feat (3, 6, 9 etc.) must be chosen from a small pool of racial/cultural decided feats (all non-combat feats).

Has this changed the game balance. Not really.

Are out characters massively more powerfull. Not at all.

What it really have allowed us is taking some feats that we feel flesh out our characters. Feats that we simply would not have taken in a standard feat progression game. For instance my characte have taken Improved unarmed strike, a feat that IMO most fighter-types should have. Usually you don't have the luxury of taking it. Has it made my character more powerfull. Marginally perhaps, but its certainly not something that disturbs the game balance. Likewise I have taken the feat Faster healing. Again not a power feat, but something that fits my character concept.

More feats is a bit like the Gestalt rules. You get more options, but as you can do only one thing each round its less powerfull in practice than it looks on paper.

But the bread and butter of a character are. BAB, HD, Saves and Class abilities.

It might be because you are focusing on fighters right now that feats seem so dominant to you. Feats are the fighters class ability, but the other classes have equally (or far more) powerfull class abilities that have nothing to do with feats.

 

[Staffan]

True, to a certain extent...but if you multiclass in a bunch of different classes, while you'll have a wide range of abilities, you won't be as good in any one of them as a single-classed character of your level would be. (Either that, or you just very inelegantly created a bard. )

"A bard, huh? My father taught me that bards were underpowered."
"Really? So what class are you?"
"I'm a multiclass fighter/rogue/sorcerer who specializes in enchantment spells."
"And that never struck you as needlessly complicated?"
"Not until this moment, no."
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=50

 

[Storm Raven]

You actually do have a Dexterity of 0 when you are pinned. Check the Table: Armor Class Modifiers, footnote 4.

No, you lose your Dexterity modifier while grappling, but only with respect to those outside the grapple. Against those within the grapple, you retain your Dexterity bonus. Your Dexterity does not drop to 0 while grappling. From the SRD:

No Dexterity Bonus
You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.)

 

[Dr Simon]

Interesting thread. A couple of random observations:

The rules are quite daunting at first, but you'll find that it comes together more once you've gone all the way through once and back again. A lot of your concerns that have cropped up can basically be answered with "Keep reading and you'll find out".

The DMG contains a lot of behind the scenes explanation of how and why some mechanics are what they are, and you'll find this very helpful. Probably the best DMG rule, which can help especially with DMs and Players overwhelmed by the number of different bonus/penalty types (there aren't really that many but they look horrific when listed in one chunk!) is the "DM's Best Friend" rule - if in doubt, wing it with +2 or -2. But that's later in your journey

Attacks of Opportunity come on for a lot of flack, but they're not too difficult to wing. (I found them weakly explained in the PHB 3.0, even with the Bonus Material examples. Don't know how 3.5 is written.).

Basically, is someone does something within reach of your melee weapon that isn't a direct attempt to damage you with a pointy thing, you get a chance to hit them, unless they have a Feat that negates this (i.e they are particularly good at disarming). Thus, drinking potions, reading scrolls, trying tricky combat moves like targetting your weapon specifically to break it (Sunder) or knock it out of your hand (Disarm).

Movement only provokes an AoO in three ways which are quite obvious when you think about it. You are running past somebody. You are trying to close with someone using a pole-arm. You are backing away but trying to do something else at the same time (Move + Standard Action). Running directly away (Double Move) does not provoke an AoO. Moving in little steps (the "5ft step") does not provoke an AoO.

This means that a swordsman vs. a pole-arm user is going to, one way or another, suffer an attack from the pikeman before he gets to strike (either he closes to within range of the pikeman, makes no attack, pikeman attacks, next round swordsman takes 5ft step into reach, gets an attack OR rushes in to close with pikeman as soon as possible, pikeman gets an AoO. Once the swordsman has closed, the pikeman has to keep giving ground or he's in trouble since he can't attack adjacently. It's all quite obvious if you picture the combat.

As for your example combat, a few thoughts:

I could be wrong, but I don't think one grappling opponent can provoke an AoO from the other. Certainly somebody in a grapple can't AoO anyone outside it. Making an AoO needs some degree of mobility which you don't have whilst wrasslin'.

Second, I think by giving your combatants Plate Mail yet only 1st Level BAB, you're setting yourself up for a fairly dull fight full of misses. Scale Mail (+4) might have been better.

Third, Joe Orc as a 1st level Fighter is tougher than your typical Orc. Most would be a 1st Level Warrior (an NPC class in the DMG. Pretty much a Fighter but without the bonus Feats).

On the subject of Fighter Feats, your selection covers what I would refer to as a Trick Fighter, although Down and Dirty would also cover it, I guess. It's a viable option (and a path that you couldn't easily follow in older editions without lots of 2nd Ed. supplements) but only one of many.

I recently converted some old characters from my old college campaign to 3rd Ed. and of the more combative characters I ended up with:

A mobile Fighter with lots of hit-and-run style feats.
A trick fighter with many of the combat stunt type feats
A heavy fighter with feats from the Power Attack tree
An archer with the feats from the Point Blank Shot tree
A two-weapons fighter.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'll read the posts above in a moment. I wanted to make another comment first.

Whoever thought up the interlocking rules of 3rd edition was a genius. Someone I know believes they consulted with an army specialist and a psychologist in the process of writing them. I'm inclined to agree ... and the person who said that, meant it as a compliment.

Imagine the rules of 3.5 were sentient and took an avatar form (let's say, a celestial.)
And that avatar had a talk with a player of 3.5.

The Rules of 3.5: Hello there.
The Player: Hello, indeed.
The Rules: Do you like your 1st level character?
Player: My character sucks. He can't do anything.
Rules: Did you do your best to build him?
Player: Uh ...
Rules: Laziness will get you nowhere.
Player: Actually, I worked very hard building him. But he's good at only one thing. He sucks at everything else.
Rules: That's my doing.
Player: WHY?! It's stupid.
Rules: Because, your character must now rely on the other characters to survive the adventure.
Player: That sucks. I want my character to be self-sufficient. There's nothing wrong with being self-sufficient.
Rules: Being self-sufficient is fine, but not in a multi-player D&D game. If you are self-sufficient, you are not required to cooperate with the other players. And then, you won't cooperate with the other players. And then, there is no game.
Player: But I am self disciplined, and trained in cooperation with others. I appreciate the value of cooperation! I don't need you to force me to cooperate!
Rules: Yes I do. You may be altruistic, but you have human failings like everyone else. And your character is not you, and may not be inclined to cooperate at all, if you roleplay him correctly. And look at the people around you: are they all willing to cooperate as much as you, as altruistic as you, and as self-disciplined as you? Or do they tend to bicker, fight, be lazy and non-productive, or otherwise not contribute to the team?
Player: Well ...
Rules: It is not enough for you to be willing to voluntarily cooperate. I am here to enforce cooperation. And if you do not cooperate, everyone in the group dies.
Player: You're like a bloody drill sargeant ...
Rules: Yes. Live with it. You must cooperate. You don't cooperate or are lazy, everyone dies because you didn't pull your weight. But likewise THEY must cooperate with you, respect you, and honor your efforts. If they don't, they - and you - will all pay. I will make sure of it.
Player: Hey, I don't have to live with that. When I get to high level, I'll be self-sufficient, and I won't need to cooperate with anyone! And you can stuff it!
Rules: When you get to high level, you can be self-sufficient ... against low level opponents. You can fight orcs all you want, all day.
Player: And I will! And I will gain levels, and I won't need anyone's help.
Rules: Wrong. When you are high level, if you do not face a foe of equal challenge, you will gain little or NO experience. Your orcs will grant NO experience, even if you kill them by the thousands.
Player: That's ridiculous.
Rules: That's how it is. If you want to continue gaining experience and levels, you must face encounters that will force you to continue to rely on your fellow adventurers: failure to cooperate will bear the same penalties.
Player: But my character will be high level!
Rules: But the same result will apply: if you do not pull your weight, or argue, or do not do your best, the party will die. Your character will die.
Player: Wait until my character is Epic Level. THEN he'll overcome your restrictions.
Rules: Wrong. No matter how high in level you become - even if you become 1,000th level - you will still be required to cooperate, pull your weight, do your best, not fight, not argue, not disrupt, and otherwise be the best player you can be. Because if you refuse to be all these things, I will make a point of killing your character and all his companions.
Player: But what about the Gestalt. THAT makes my character powerful relative to the challenges. He's first level, but double the power against a DC 1 Encounter. Haha, found a way around you!
Rules: No, you did not. Gestalt rules are for parties with fewer than 4 characters ... the fighter, mage, rogue, and cleric. The man who caries the ammo, the man who carries the weapons, the man who carries the water, and the man who carries the food: now, one or more of them is missing. Such a group could not survive on it's own, so Gestalt steps in and rectifies this. In a 4 player game, you probably will not be allowed to play Gestalt.
Player: Who says?!
Rules: The DM says.
Player: Well, I can influence the DM into doing what I want. He can change you to suit himself!
Rules: Yes, the DM can change me. But if he does, he risks wrecking the game for everyone. That includes you, Mister. No game means no fun, no advancement, no anything for you.
Player: What if I play one on one. THEN I would need to be self-sufficient.
Rules: Yes you would. But such a situation is rare, since D&D is a group game. In such a rare situation, special exceptions to myself can be made, on a one-time basis.
Player: Yes. And then I can take my self-sufficient character back into a multiplayer game!
Rules: Forget it. That character is permanently restricted to one player games. I have instructed all the DMs to forbid it in multiplayer games ... because it would lessen the mandatory compulsion I enforce to cooperate and perform out of all the players.
Player: Well, I'll find a way around you somehow!
Rules: I hope not, since that will merely destroy the game. And then nobody, especially not you, will have any fun. You will have wasted what little free time you had, when time is precious to you, and all for naught.

Player: What about 2nd Edition. Back then, alpha males shone and dominated, many players sat back and did nothing, people argued and fought, rogues stole from the party, and everyone still survived.
Rules: I was not around back then. Had *I* been around, I would have killed all their characters forthright. Death is the penalty for argumentative characters, characters who refuse to be a part of the team at all times, and for parties who refuse to honor and value all of their members. And there ARE NO EXCEPTIONS made, by me, to this reality.
Player: The DM would prevent you from killing them all.
Rules: Not even the DM could save them. I am too well entrenched, and my requirements are too stringent and absolute. If the DM forcibly altered me enough that they would have survived, the game would have collapsed, which is effective death for the characters in itself. Either way, whether they die in-game or because the game collapsed, they die.

Player: You are too harsh.
Rules: I am not harsh at all, merely relentless. Relentless, about creating an atmosphere where all the players can enjoy themselves equally. And you will live with me ... or play another game.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey, thanks for the comments and answers to questions you'all made above. Thanks for feedback on my hypothesis.

I'll have to redo the grapple combat between Joe Fighter and Joe Orc to reflect the changes.
I noticed that none of you stated that holding onto a one-handed weapon and a heavy shield while grappling was illegal. So, I guess you can grapple while holding pretty much anything (even a double weapon, for instance.) No?

No AOO while grappling, against the character you are grappling? Are you certain of this?
It would seem to me that AOO would be particularly likely, with opponents so locked together in face to face grappling like that.

A pinned person is not prone?
What exactly is he considered to be?
What can a pinned person do, besides attempt to break the pin?

You say that the Joe Fighter and Joe Orc aren't going to hit each other.
Yet, isn't an opposed grapple check simply a matter of who rolls highest? (which in the case of Joe Fighter and Joe Orc, would mean a 50/50 chance both ways.)

-

I like the DM's Best Friend rule, the + 2 / - 2 rule. That sets other things in perspective.
I looked the list of possible bonus types in chapter 2 of the DMG. LOL.
You may not be able to stack like bonuses, but there sure are a lot of different kinds of bonuses, just within the core rules. And then there are special bonuses in the optional books, too.

I was talking with a friend last night. We discussed what a dragon might do to enhance it's armor class.
One of the things that came up were Bracers of Defense, which would stack with the dragon's Natural Armor bonus.
If the dragon had spells, and pre-cast them, it could create Deflection bonuses.
And any dragon worth it's salt could create situational bonuses. (Turn out the lights, and those without Darkvision have a real problem.)

If the dragon can't create the items himself, it can get others to create items for him.
Since dragons seem to have an AC around 40 base, this could get to be nasty.

High level party: We attack the dragon!
High level party: (misses because the dragon is AC 60 or 70.)
Dragon: (does not attack) We will discuss the terms of your surrender now.

-

People keep telling me how nerfed magic is in 3.5. My friend brought up the spell Shocking Grasp.
Back in the heyday of 2E (you know, the game with all those powerful spells? ) Shocking Grasp did what, 1d10 points of damage plus a small bonus?

NOW, a 5th level mage deals 5d6 with Shocking Grasp. That's as much as a Fireball for her level! And with a 1st level spell.
And it gets better. In 2E, she had to touch the opponent through all armor (not very likely, in the case of an opponent with heavy armor and shield, or good natural armor.) Now, all she need do is overcome dexterity and dodge modifiers. And if the hapless target is wearing typical metal armor, she gets + 3 to the roll.

Can we say, Fighter Fried Chicken? Or how about, Monstrous Fried Chicken.

The poor fighter (or monster) can't even make a run for it. That provokes an AOO. And even if the foe isn't struck by the AOO, the mage will just chase him or it, then attack. Because now, in 3.5, she can hold a charge (hold the Shocking Grasp until she hits with it.)

 

[kenobi65]

A pinned person is not prone?

Nope; prone is "lying on the ground".

People keep telling me how nerfed magic is in 3.5. My friend brought up the spell Shocking Grasp.
Back in the heyday of 2E (you know, the game with all those powerful spells? ) Shocking Grasp did what, 1d10 points of damage plus a small bonus?

NOW, a 5th level mage deals 5d6 with Shocking Grasp. That's as much as a Fireball for her level! And with a 1st level spell.

It's not a bad spell, but I've never heard anyone consider it to be "broken". Keep in mind that (a) it affects one target (compare to Fireball, or even Magic Missile, which can affect multiples), and (b) does require that touch attack (with a couple of exceptions, damage-dealing spells in 3E require either (a) an attack roll, or (b) a saving throw, but usually not both).

And it gets better. In 2E, she had to touch the opponent through all armor (not very likely, in the case of an opponent with heavy armor and shield, or good natural armor.) Now, all she need do is overcome dexterity and dodge modifiers. And if the hapless target is wearing typical metal armor, she gets + 3 to the roll.

Still not an auto-hit by any means. Your 5th level wizard has a BAB of +2. He almost undoubtedly has a 10 Str or less, so his melee attack is not going to be any better than +2. Even with that +3 bonus for metal armor, he's still got a fair chance of missing (esp. if the opponent has a Dex bonus to AC, a Ring of Protection, etc.)

Can we say, Fighter Fried Chicken? Or how about, Monstrous Fried Chicken.

On average, that's doing 18 points of damage. If your 5th-level wizard is fighting a level-appropriate fighter-type opponent, they're going to have significantly more than 18 hit points.

And, now you find out the downside. Wizard casts Shocking Grasp, reaches out, touches armor-clad bad guy, delivers the spell. Bad guy is nowhere near dead, and now Mr. Wizard is next to him. Can we say, Chopped Wizard?