Comments and questions on 3.5 from a Newbie

[Edena_of_Neith]

Wait a second, Kenobi. Consider the Moria combat in the film FOTR once more.
The orcs were so eager to get at the party they were jumping up on the walls to get past each other. They just came on in a deluge. Then the cave troll smashed his way in.

Remember how Jackson tried to use the camera to show it as if you were one of the combatants? Momentary glimpses of people. The shot reeling wildly? Sudden pans around the room. (In many cases, you had to slow-forward the DVD to actually see what happened.)
The room was filled with dust. Soon, orcs were falling over each other, stumbling over dead bodies, getting whacked across the room by their own cave troll, while nobody on either side had any idea of where anyone else was.
It was utter chaos. It was so confused that nobody noticed the cave troll attack on the hobbits initially. Then, a round or two later, Aragorn finally noticed, but nobody else did (Gandalf didn't notice until after Frodo was stabbed. Sam didn't notice as he was whacking everywhere with his pans. Even Legolas was busy somewhere else, and Gimli was always getting knocked down, or stumbling, or diving off of assorting things to avoid being hit.)

I mean, after about 5 rounds of that combat (30 seconds) I don't think anyone could know where anyone was. That shadow in the dust could be a friend, or a foe, or the cave troll, or part of the shattered room, or even one of the dead of Balin's people.

In a situation like that, you'd have orcs bumping into you blindly, you'd be bumping into orcs blindly, everyone is stumbling and half falling over bodies new and old, pieces of broken rock, and heaven knows what else.

Even an intelligent combatant couldn't avoid AOO in a situation like that. There are just too many opponents, the situation is too confused, and the visibility too poor. (Or, in the case of Boromir, being whacked by the cave troll might have made him a little confused concerning where ANYTHING was. Ah, the joys of being Dazzled ...)

In that battle, I certainly would want Dodge and Mobility! And Improved Unarmed Strike, as well, since brawling is inevitable in a crunch situation like that one.

-

Arilyn is a favorite character of mine, but if my evil character wanted to defeat her, Sundering that moonblade would help (not having to face 7 Elfshadows, in addition to Arilyn, would be nice for my character!)
Break her moonblade, and you might demoralize Arilyn. That weapon is incredibly important to her (can you blame her?)
Arilyn will still be a formidable opponent, but her famous moonblade is gone. You couldn't use it anyways, and selling it would be a major hassle. So why not break it? (I broke the mighty elf sword. Me! I showed the elves the power of the worms of the earth. So, It was Grummsh's Will for you to make me King of the Orcish Nation. All hail the King!)

Wulfgar's warhammer is another example. Break it, and you mess up Wulfgar's combat strategy (you also cause Bruenor to go utterly ballistic, but that's another story.)

Yes, breaking powerful magical items is hard, but once you are up to the daunting task of fighting Arilyn or Wulfgar, you've got a real Power Attack bonus, and a lot of attacks, all of which can be made as sunder attempts.

If an enemy mage or cleric is waving around that wand, stave, or rod, sundering it isn't so bad, is it? After all, that way they don't conjure up assorted abominations, outsiders, fey, and heaven knows what else. And they won't be throwing assorted lightning bolts, fireballs, and death spells at you!

 

[sniffles]

I mean, after about 5 rounds of that combat (30 seconds) I don't think anyone could know where anyone was. That shadow in the dust could be a friend, or a foe, or the cave troll, or part of the shattered room, or even one of the dead of Balin's people.

In a situation like that, you'd have orcs bumping into you blindly, you'd be bumping into orcs blindly, everyone is stumbling and half falling over bodies new and old, pieces of broken rock, and heaven knows what else.

Even an intelligent combatant couldn't avoid AOO in a situation like that. There are just too many opponents, the situation is too confused, and the visibility too poor. (Or, in the case of Boromir, being whacked by the cave troll might have made him a little confused concerning where ANYTHING was. Ah, the joys of being Dazzled ...)

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I tend to find that people spend too much time worrying about what provokes an AoO and trying to avoid it. I don't know how many times I've announced an action during a game and had another player immediately exclaim, "But that will provoke an AoO!" as if I'd just announced that I wanted my character to fall on his own sword. I used to reconsider my action every time, but now I don't, unless my character has only 2 HP left or there's some other roleplaying reason for him to change his mind.

 

[kenobi65]

Wait a second, Kenobi. Consider the Moria combat in the film FOTR once more.

I'll grant you everything you say about that combat (which, BTW, I've used as an example of D&D melee for my non-gamer friends). However...the core D&D rules don't do a good job of capturing the "fog of war" that you describe.

Using a battlemat, it's very hard to avoid having all the players know where everyone is, and what they're up to, unless the DM very strictly enforces "no metagaming / no OOC knowledge" (and I've rarely, if ever, seen such).

And, while there are rules for poor visibility, they mostly tend to give concealment, which just makes combatants harder to hit. AFAIK, there aren't rules for mistaking friend from foe in combat, short of magical effects like confusion.

In that battle, I certainly would want Dodge and Mobility! And Improved Unarmed Strike, as well, since brawling is inevitable in a crunch situation like that one.

You're in love with Improved Unarmed Strike, I think. "Brawling" must come up in your games more often than it does in mine. When I think of "brawling", I think of the stereotypical barroom brawl, in which the goal is not to kill the opponent. In that case, not having Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't hurt you one bit...you can only do non-lethal damage, which is just fine. The only time you'd run into trouble is if your opponent either (a) drew a weapon, or (b) had Improved Unarmed Strike himself (and thus, is effectively armed). In either case, you're probably better off just drawing a weapon, because this is no longer a barroom brawl.

It sounds like you're more concerned about being able to attack effectively when you don't have a weapon in hand (e.g., if someone's disarmed you). That's why I have my PCs carry a backup weapon or two...1d3 with a punch just ain't doing much; even a dagger is a better weapon. Even so, I've rarely run into situations where it's an issue...it's come up, but not often enough that I'd blow a feat slot on it.

Yes, breaking powerful magical items is hard, but once you are up to the daunting task of fighting Arilyn or Wulfgar, you've got a real Power Attack bonus, and a lot of attacks, all of which can be made as sunder attempts.

Honestly, if you decide to be a Sunder Monkey, you can pretty much break anything, even if it takes a couple of swings. With Power Attack and a two-handed weapon, you can do a metric buttload of damage once you get to 7th level or so.

And, even powerful weapons don't have *that* many hit points. A +5 longsword has hardness 20 and 60 hit points. We have one fighter in our group that's built to sunder stuff, if need be. If he gets all his bonuses cooking, he routinely does 40+ points of damage with a swing...three swings, and he breaks that +5 sword.

 

[kenobi65]

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I tend to find that people spend too much time worrying about what provokes an AoO and trying to avoid it.

Yeah, I have some players who are that way...and others who are more like you, and weigh the threat versus what they're trying to do. A goblin with a short spear getting an AoO on you isn't going to put much fear in you if you've got 75 hp.

 

[monboesen]

Ok, you say that this did not happen in that game.
How did the DM compensate for the higher power level?
How did you handle the Feats? Can you elaborate further? It sorta sounds like you took a kind of Gestalt approach to feats, as it were ... you allowed more, but required generalization and forbid specialization.
Can you elaborate further?

I can try.

Your table of when we acquire feats is correct, but the ones we gain on 3, 6, 9 and so on must be picked from a small selection. That selection is determined by race and cultural background. For instance a Dwarf might have the option of taking:

Bullheaded (+1 Will saves; +2 Intimidate), Deft Hands (+2 Sleight of Hand and Rope Use), Dwarven Armor Proficiency (Proficient with all dwarven exotic armors), Great Fortitude (+2 Fort saves), Heavy Armor Proficiency (Proficient with heavy armors.), Improved darkvision (Extends Darkvision to 120 ft.), Improved Weapon Familiarity (Racial weapons are martial.), Nimble Fingers (+2 Disable Device and Open Lock.), Skill Focus (+3 to any Craft skill.)

If we use my character as an example. He is a tough human fighter from a mountainous region. His family has been cursed with an uncontrollable battle rage, dangerous to enemies and allies alike.

In game terms he is a barbarian/fighter and his feat progression looks like this.

1. Power attack, Extra rage
2. Improved unarmed strike, Cleave (fighter bonus feat)
3. Peak hopper (+2 balance and climb, this is a cultural background feat)
4. Faster healing
5. Improved bullrush
6. Shock trooper (fighter bonus feat), Open minded (+5 skillpoints, human background feat)
7. Weapon focus (greatsword)
8. Improved critical (greatsword)
9. Open minded (+5 skillpoints, human background feat)

Is he better than a standard rules character? Obviously yes. Had we used standard rules my feats would likely have been.

1. Power attack, Extra rage
F1. Cleave
3. Improved bull rush
F2. Faster healing
6. Shock trooper
9. Improved critical (greatsword)

So compared to this I have 10 extra skillpoints, +2 bonus to two skills, the ability to fight unarmed and +1 to hit with my weapon of choice IMO that's not really something that makes the character much more powerful.

In game it represents my background well. The skillpoints allow me to take some skills I would never have put points in, but suit my history.

The raging curse quickly builds up in peaceful times and leaves my character spoiling for a fight. Frightened of his own rage he lets of this building rage in unarmed brawl (sometimes organised one for money) to minimize the chances of killing someone. Thus unarmed strike fits nicely.

Lastly the weapon focus, yeah that’s just gravy.

How do we balance it. Well our DM is old school style so less magic items, no item creation feats (doesn't matter as we presently don't have any player casters). We also have an unwritten agreement on spending skillpoints on background skills that may or may not have any effect in game. For instance my character has a fair bit of ranks in Profession (manservant) and Profession (soldier). Two skills that don't often come up in game.

We have never used the standard XP system, so it hardly matters that we perhaps can win fights a bit higher in CR than we should.

I think that about covers it.

 

[Dr Simon]

th 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.)

True, *but*:

There are more HP floating around in 3rd Ed. than in earlier editions. Recall how Tiamat had something like 93HP or something weedy like that. A Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (rated as a challenge for about 12th level parties, i.e. mid-range for 3rd Ed.) has something like 210HP. 5D6 is pretty small beans really.

The fighter *can* run for it without provoking an AoO - if they make a "double move" action (i.e. move their movement rate twice but take no other action, directly away from the wizard). Assuming a human in Plate mail, that's 2x20ft = 40ft which is out of reach of the wizard next round. If you've got a dwarf in plate mail, that's only 2x15ft = 30ft so the wizard *could* make a 30ft move *and* cast another touch spell. (Remember how you wondered why anyone would wear Light Armour?)

However: as others have pointed out - chances are the fighter would survive the jolt and then be able to clout the wizard for almost as much damage. 5th level wizard, average about 12 hp, average sword damage from your typical fighter (assume some Strength bonus), about 7 or so. 5th level fighter, average 32 HPs at least (and will more than likely have a Con bonus). Potentially each opponent could take out the other in two hits, but if the wizard is standing casting spells he needs to make that Concentration check to not provoke an AoO. It's quite potent but not a game-breaker by any means!

 

[amethal]

There are no rules that allow you to bulk up on large numbers of extra feats. And there never will be.

The only loophole which comes to mind is the Flaws, from Unearthed Arcana.

Basically, you can start the game with up to two disadvantages, each of which gives you a bonus feat.

The flaws are worse than a "negative feat" would be, because obviously people will normally choose feats which will be useful a lot of the time, but will choose flaws which affect them as little as possible or penalise them in areas they don't care about anyway.

So if you start with two flaws you can have a whole 2 extra feats.

Some other d20 games are more generous with feats.

True20 gives you a feat every level (but doesn't have any class abilities).

Iron Heroes gives you a feat every 2 levels, and has plenty of class abilities to go with them, but is designed for a game with few or no magic items.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

When I say Woah!, I'm not trying to say it's game-breaking. I'm merely expressing surprise. (As in, woah, they really changed this from 2nd edition!)
The only thing that I thought might be game-breaking, so far, was a massive increase in feats allowed, and it would appear I'm quite wrong about that one (which is fine with me, because my first impression was that a faster feat progression should be possible.)

EDIT: Flaws allow up to 2 extra feats at 1st level? Interesting.

(shrugs) Why not allow gestalt characters to have double feat progression rates? That is, 2 feats at 1st level (plus 2 feats if human) plus 2 feats at 3rd level, 2 feats at 6th level, 2 at 9th, etc. They're supposed to be powerful variants on characters, anyways.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Just an attempt at solving the Fog of War thing:

What if a Spot check is required to find out what is happening with your friends, since you have to deliberately attempt to look through the chaos and enemy fighters (orcs, in this case) to find your friend and see what his personal situation is?
The Spot check is not needed if your friends are 10 feet away and/or if you are not under attack this round.

For example, Gandalf didn't see that Frodo was under attack. Nor did he try to make a Spot check to see what was happening to Frodo. Aragorn, however, did make a Spot check (as shown by that look on his face when he first saw the danger.)
Merry and Pippin were close to Frodo, so they obviously saw what the cave troll was doing, and took actions against the cave troll before and after Frodo was stabbed.

There is no real way to avoid AOO in a mass battle, IMO. Just hope you have Dodge and Mobility. (In real world mass combats, they wore the heaviest armor they could, and hoped it would save them. Mail was resistant to the knife in the back type of attack.)

-

Yeah, I have sorta fallen in love with Improved Unarmed Strike.
I watched Terminator 2, and here you have the Terminator and the T1000 brawling like crazy, whenever firearms are not in play.
Lurtz didn't hesitate to brawl with Aragorn, instead of using weapons. He almost won that way, too.
If I am a warrior, I'm not just going to try to kill the foe with a sword or other weapon. I'm going to punch, kick, knock dirt up in his face, throw every object at him that is handy, wrestle with him if he closes, try to drown him in the horse trough, and every other dirty tactic I can think of. Because I'm no paladin or cavalier! LOL. James Bond was a brawler.
As Zaknafein said to Drizzt: You are a dancer (implied: you are not a killer.) A true fighter is a killer. He dances with the sword when needed, and brawls when needed. Whatever it takes to win, is his mentality.
Why should it be otherwise? Even an elven bladesinger - an honorable, noble elven warrior - is going to brawl, if it will add an advantage to her bladesong methology.

If Lando had been better at brawling (and, perhaps, worse at betraying everyone) they would not have had to have saved his sorry hide from the Sarlaac in Return of the Jedi.

Captain Kirk was ALWAYS brawling with his foes (LOL) So were the characters portrayed by John Wayne. Flash Gordon did a lot of brawling. In the Matrix, everyone involved had Improved Unarmed Strike (and a lot more than that, obviously.)

What do you'all think?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm doing a mental comparison of a 5th level wizard with Shocking Grasp versus a 5th level fighter - using 2nd Edition rules - against the same scene in 3rd edition.

In 2nd Edition, the wizard would simply miss. A 2nd Edition Wizard had a BAB + 0 at 5th level, while that fighter would have amassed an Armor Class bonus of + 10 or more. After missing, the Shocking Grasp would fizzle and be lost.
The fighter wouldn't run: the figher would stay right there and attack. BAB + 5, the wizard has little or no Armor Class bonus, and if the fighter hits the wizard cannot get off a spell of any sort, period! (Translation: one very dead wizard.)

In 3rd Edition, the wizard has initiative (which is well for her, since the fighter is right in her face: she took the Improved Initiative Feat!) and strikes with a touch attack against the heavily armed and armored fighter, using Shocking Grasp. She hits and inflicts 5d6, rolling 18 points of damage.
18 points doesn't kill the fighter, but it convinces him to run. (He sees her allies in the distance approaching, or he wants the protection of his allies, or he is a coward, perhaps.)
The fighter moves his Double Move of 40 feet (20 feet x 2.)

Next round, the wizard - realizing she cannot reach him with a move of 30 - open fires with Magic Missile on him. He takes 3d4 + 3 points of damage: it comes to 10 points of damage. He now has 28 hit points against him, out of his 42 points (he has a 16 constitution.)

He's got a problem. He can charge, and attack once. If that does not kill her, she'll hit him with Shocking Grasp (or a 2nd level spell that's even better) and kill him. He can fire arrows at her, if he has his bow out and strung. He can throw one weapon at her (any number, if he has Quick Draw, but he didn't take that feat.) But will his arrows or thrown weapons kill her, before she launches another distance strike next round?
One thing he cannot do is keep running. He will remain within spell range long enough for her to kill him twice over.