Converting to 3.5 woes...

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Re: Re

Yet the new lower spell durations for things like Fly and Improved Invisibility leave me at the mercy of whatever monsters happen to be wandering the dungeon.

So you're supposed to fly through a dungeon and avoid all encounters? I guess that passes for challenging in 3.0

It's a combat spell, so cast it in combat. You use it to avoid being caught in melee. Some opponents won't be able to hurt you at all. You aren't supposed to use it to avoid encounters.

You can use invisibility between combats and you can use the combat spell, improved invisibility, during combat.

They should have realized that low hit points and often low AC are usually offset by the use of certain spells like Fly and Stoneskin. Its a damn shame. [/B]

Did you know stoneskin got better?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And so far, most of the posts I've seen in favor of the revision changes are by people who like them because they reduce the power of other peoples' characters.

For every implication of greed and selfishness on the part of those who prefer 3.0, there is an equally plausible way to imply that those who favor 3.5 are petty, and spiteful. IMO, discussion is best without either implication but those who play with fire should expect to get burned. ....

So, by this I have seen that the people who don't like the rivision changes don't like them because they reduce the power of personal characters.

 

[BryonD]

And so far, most of the posts I've seen in favor of the revision changes are by people who like them because they reduce the power of other peoples' characters.

For every implication of greed and selfishness on the part of those who prefer 3.0, there is an equally plausible way to imply that those who favor 3.5 are petty, and spiteful. IMO, discussion is best without either implication but those who play with fire should expect to get burned. ....

That is total bunk.

You may be able to find a stray oddball example here or there, but it has been extremely rare that I have seen anyone rejoicing in any way that someone else's character was getting nerfed.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

One thing I keep seeing that gets me...those against the Revision continually say that all the Revision is doing is supporting power, making it into a dungeon crawl only game, ignoring roleplaying, etc etc. Now...tell me something, do you want a game to DICTATE to you how to ROLEplay?
I don't. My players don't either. We can handle the roleplaying end of things without any problem at all, and that's how I see the rules for the Revision leaning towards. Kind of a "We'll do the hard stuff, you do what you already know how to" point of view from WotC.

 

[Valiantheart]

Did this whole board forget, somewhere along the way, that ALL of the rules in ALL of the books are only suggested? Unless you are playing some kind of CRPG or third party game you can change anything you want. If you dont like the reduced buffs then change them to 10 min/level or back to one hour. Make them permanent for all i care. Give hasted mages 14 actions per round if you dont want any other characters to have a role. Its your game and your rules.

I dont see WOTC running over to peoples houses and braining them cause they dont play the 'right' way.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I dont see WOTC running over to peoples houses and braining them cause they dont play the 'right' way.

But they might!!!

 

[sithramir]

this is hilarious

You are complaining because the most over powered over used/abused spells are being balanced? Oh my character was this and this and now he's not. So what that you can't haste and cast 2 spells per round? So what that every spell doesn't last all day long now. It sucks when you compare it to 3.0 but you still have extend feat/persistant feat and quicken feat. The spells you speak of were OVERPOWERED. If you're guy was a better scout than a ranger/thief why not kill them take their loot and play without them anyways? You can still scout with them perhaps you only need memorize it twice instead.

You complain about virtual feats when the ranger is 3 times the fighter now. He gaints tons of virtual feats that he doesn't even need to be balanced plus EVASION and HIDE IN PLAIN SITE! and other things. Monks now get all their abilities PLUS feats at levels 1 and 3 making them more powerful than ever before.

You MUST be a munchkin because I make characters that live a long time and i min/max just like you. The differencec is while your character is dying cause he depending on all day buffs that any 3 year old can abuse my guy will be using the other useful spells in new ways to do the same. Just because wizards were hugely overpowered and are STILL the most powerful class at higher levels is no reason to complain just because they aren't AS powerful as in 3.0.

You are taking things too personal. The reason the rest of your group likes 3.5 is because they fixed overpowerful things. Perhaps some things are too far. Perhaps not. If you are such a good player why can't you make the over dominating character WITHOUT the easy overpowering skills given to your class by default and try to be imaginative?

As for people who had a specific flavor character who lost an ability that fit like the cleric. Perhaps your guy shouldn't be all cleric? Try the druidic "nature" guy for those abilities or add a mix of levels of them or get a plant domain or animal domain taht gives the abilities. You're complaining because a 3.0 character doesn't fit PERFECTLY with a 3.5 world which it shouldn't. It can still be played just has to be tweaked to gain what your character wants power wise. Remember you can still role-play and have fun no matter what powers there are.

 

[Crothian]

Its your game and your rules.

Not always. It's actually the DM's game and the DM's rules. I've seen more then a few posts of people saying their DM is moving or not moving to 3.5 and they have no say in it. Of course how groups like that can exist is beyond me, but it does seem there are groups that everyone does not get an equal voice.

 

[Deadguy]

Whilst I, on the whole, like the changes in D&D3.5, I have some sympathy for Limper, our thread starter. He clearly plays in a quite complex and overlapping series of campaigns, some of which have advanced quite far. In these circumstances, I tend to feel the DM and players would do better to leave well alone and continue to use the ruleset they started with. I'm sure, if they've been running a while now, they've had to adapt to the issuing of new books by WotC. But 3.5 seems to amount to a whole pile of splatbooks all at once! It's gonna be disrupting for advanced characters, especially as Limper says he is one of those players who's naturally good at optimising his characters.

My advice would, however, still be: stick it out unless and until you find you no longer enjoy the game. It sounds like a really interesting series of campaigns, and it's a shame to drop out over this. Make sure the DM understands your concerns. Perhaps you should approach him and ask if you can slightly reconfigure your characters to take account of the 3.5 changes - for like them or loathe them I bet you can see the possibilities inherent within them! Doing that might satisfy the 'character designer' within you, who feels offended by the changes.

More generally, I wonder how many campaigns are going through, or will go through, the pains of transition? It seems more disruptive than was originally envisaged, and I hope that the conversion document contains some advice on if you should change, as well as how (since some DMs place a lot of store in what 'official' documents say). I don't want the introduction of 3.5 to divide the player base in the same way that the introduction of D&D3 hived off some older players who refused to change.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Not always. It's actually the DM's game and the DM's rules. I've seen more then a few posts of people saying their DM is moving or not moving to 3.5 and they have no say in it. Of course how groups like that can exist is beyond me, but it does seem there are groups that everyone does not get an equal voice.

Agreed. I see this time and time again where it seems like a group just decides things without actually considering all the players...or perhaps its just the people that come here to vent? Maybe a combination of the two? I've personally never seen a group like that...if one person didn't agree with something that big, there would usually be some kind of compromise.