Converting to 3.5 woes...

[LightPhoenix]

Re: this is hilarious

<snip>You are taking things too personal. <more snip>

Um, I think you're the pot calling the kettle black there. I mean, getting riled up over a messageboard post about a situation you'll never see? Either way, I don't think insulting the original poster is in any way, shape, or form constructive.

As for my thoughts on the matter... if the DM isn't going to make an effort to accomodate your player, maybe you should find another group. The DM's function is to tell a good story, and if that's not happening for everyone, something isn't working. That's why a DM's job is so hard and so much more demanding than playing - and why not everyone is good at it, even if they are a good player.

I can see where 3.5 might mess with some character "builds" a lot - a mage/druid/cleric whose basic role is a supporting spellcaster is going to lose a lot of oomph with the new revision. I would be pretty upset if that was my character design too. The Ranger problem is a DM thing though, and not a fault of the system as a whole.

And for Brown Jerkin, I believe Bards get Speak with Animals and Speak with Plants in 3.5. I don't know if that helps any, but if it's really such a problem, again, you should talk to the DM and see if he can accomodate you.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Re: this is hilarious

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.

As the player of the nature cleric you refer to, sure I could redo my character entirely from the ground up but it still wouldn't be what I wanted or created. I could change my domains, but that still won't get me Speak with Plants. I had contemplated a druid originally as as an option but decided against it because that was not what I envisioned. If I have to build an entirely diferent character then I would rather build a new one that works well within the new rules than one that is patched together to meet some abilities but loses the overall flavor that I had been going for. If I must go to the new system then I would rather do it right and come up with a new character concept that will actualy work right within the new rules. As far as I am personally concearned this is 4.0 since it is not compatible with many 3.0 characters. I personally hope my DM will contiinue with 3.0 for the rest of this campaign so that my character can retire properly at the end of a long adventuring career. Then if we want to play 3.5(4.0), fine since it will allow a consistent campaign from start to finish.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Re: Re: this is hilarious

And for Brown Jerkin, I believe Bards get Speak with Animals and Speak with Plants in 3.5. I don't know if that helps any, but if it's really such a problem, again, you should talk to the DM and see if he can accomodate you.

See my post above for most of my reply. Hopefully my DM will be as reasonable as he always seems and we can come to a compromise on some form of 3.25 or staying with 3.0, but as far as 3.5(4.0) goes my character will retire before being so radically altered from its past experience.

 

[Technik4]

Re: Brown Jenkin

It seems like trading in all of your current levels for a straight 3.5 bard may fit the bill. The bard gets those speak with animals and speak with plants spells you need for the character, your singing abilities will be at least as good as before (probably better as 3.5 powered up some bard songs), you can take Gem Magic and Brew Potion as feats and sleep and Suggestion as spells (or songs).

The major differences are, as you pointed out, the loss of the mystic wanderer's Cha to AC and mage armor. You may be slightly mollified by the fact that 3.5 bard can cast bard spells in Light Armor, so you don't necessarily have to buy bracers of armor. The biggest losses I see are your familiar and Cha to AC, as well as generally going from being a divine spellcaster to an arcane spellcaster. Additionally, you will have lower average hp.

There are some benefits though! You will have many many more skill points to play around with and a higher overall caster level (which is good for spell durations as well as penetrating SR).

Its not a perfect fit, but I don't see too many snags with a lenient DM and a player who wants to change to 3.5. If you dont want to change, nothing in the world will help you.

Technik

 

[Valiantheart]

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.

Yes they are. If ytou dont like the rules the DM uses find another game, talk to him about, or DM yourself. Dont start ranting and raving about how all these rules suck because you simply dont like them.

 

[William Ronald]

Another solution for Brown Jenkin is to allow some campaign variation to the standard rules. For example, followers of some nature deities may have speak with plants and animals on their spell list instead of something else. This would be a relatively easy solution that is campaign specific and makes sense in terms of the character. Perhaps the characteris part of a specific order in his church which has access to these abilities. (One grumble I have had with clerics, which 3.0 partially solved, is that too many clerics are similar in terms of ability. There is a variety of religious practices within any given faith in our own world. A fantasy world can conceivably have religious organizations whose members have slightly different doctrines, practices, and abilities.)

To me, the rules are guidelines. If something does not make sense in the rules based on how my world is designed, then the rules can be tweaked. The story is the key to the matter. Rules exist to help tell a good story; the story does not exist for the sake of the rules.

The point of gaming to me is to have fun and tell a good story. I think too often people get caught up in the rules and lose sight of this. Of course, if someone is not enjoying a group, they might consider leaving or at least having a serious talk with one's DM.

I do not think a redesign of the character will be too difficult. I do have my concerns about 3.5. If spell power is being weakened, then there should logically be changes in the availability of items that impact saves. (I know that ability enhancing items will become more expensive.)

I have played since 1980, and have even used a character that started out in 1st edition (circa 1984) in D&D 3.5. I hope to play the same character, who remains vital despite changes in editions, in D&D 3.5.

 

[rushlight]

"I see this time and time again where it seems like a group just decides things without actually considering all the players..."

Well, usually my group takes an informal poll. As I said earlier, I was opposed to Skills and Powers, but all the players wanted it. My options were basically 1) stop running the game in the middle of the campaign or 2) deal with it. I chose the latter. It wasn't the end of the world (or even the campaign) but it was annoying because of the extra work involved balancing the players against the encounters. When 3e came around, we didn't convert immediately, but within a few months. Everyone wanted to try it out though, so there was no issue. With 3.5 no one is seriously opposed, so we will be converting.

As for the guy with the cleric, I would go one of two ways: 1) let you redesign your guy with new classes or 2) let you keep the classes you've got and just add those few abilities in that 3.5 takes out. Problem solved.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Personally, I just started changing rules when necessary. I'm still working on a fix for an 18th level fighter PC who can kill a CR 25 dragon in 3 rounds, by himself. That's a fighter made by the rules. It also destroys the balance and fun for everyone else. Why bother using a party when the fighter can do it all? In order to give the fighter a challange (something that he can't kill in 3 rounds) then the creature would probably slay everyone else in 2 rounds. That isn't fair or fun for everyone else.

I don't quite understand how an 18th level fighter can single-handedly kill a CR 25 dragon in 2 or 3 rounds. What magic did you give him to be able to do this? Wouldn't it have been easy for the dragon to grapple him and carry him off to his death?

 

[Celtavian]

re

My point is the only thing the rules support now is power. With all these 1 min/level spells spell casters are being channelled into damage spells, preffably from a distance. In other words evokers, because everything else will wear off before it can be used, whether its hold person, or bulls strength of fly, or invisibilty. I guess Andy didn't like any spell but fireball.

I don't quite understand Andy's reasoning either. I can only assume that his particular experience playing and running the game has given him the impression that 10 minute durations were unwieldy to track and gave to much of an advantage to casters since they might argue that their spell was still in effect due to the inability of a DM to accurately track the spell duration.

So I believe this change is completely campaign dependent. My gaming group did not have much trouble eyeballing and tracking 10 minute duration spells. We kept track of the approximate time it takes to explore and scout a dungeon, fully loot treasure, discuss our next course of action, prepare for battle, negotiate with creatures, and any other event that might take time.

By keeping a relatively accurate track of time, spells with 10 minute durations usually lasted anywhere from 2 to 4 battles. All in all, this seemed balance to us. The change would only make people slot the Fly spell more or work to obtain magic items that permanently allow flying rather than use their personal spells.

Since I feel the change was campaign specific for those folks who have trouble eyeballing 10 minute durations. We will not be adopting this rule since we did not have this trouble. Fly and Invisibility are great scouting spells, and the 1 minute per level duration would be absolutely worthless for scouting purposes. Improved Invisibilty is a great sentry removal, quick scout spell for a party taking down a fortress. This duration won't be changing either.

The one thing the Revised edition made quite clear. We all have different views on how this game should be played, and I for one am extremely glad that Third edition is even more friendly to House Rules than any previous edition. I like some of the changesl, but there are many that I will never implement in my games.

I don't particularly blame Andy for the changes. Heck, if I had the chance to design games for WotC, I would incorporate as many of my own house rules into the game as I was allowed.. Who doesn't want to see D&D made into their own view of how it should be played?

 

[Celtavian]

re

IMO the opposite is the case. With some durations shortened some really easy options fall away. No longer is there a ready spell to solve every problem of movement or concealment.

Now you must choose between using the fly spell to cross the chasm, or using it against your opponent next encounter.

Now you must choose between bypassing the guards at the gate with your invisibility, or easily sneaking inside of the castle toward's the king's bedroom to overhear that essential conversation.

The old spells, especially when coupled with extend, provided automatic solution to such problems. Less power, yes, more challenge yes!

Do you want to explain why a WIZARD shouldn't have spells that make such things easy? Do you and I read different books? That is what wizards do, make things easy through the use of magic.

If your idea of a greater challenge is limiting wizards duration on important utility spells then I don't know what to tell you. I never had much trouble challenging wizards. The Fly spell really only worked for the wizard, so the other party members still had to find a way across the chasm.

If the wizard was the only going into the king's castle to listen in on the conversation, then his invisibility better not drop. A wizard is not a rogue and will not be able to hide or move silently well to evade the gaurds. As far as I am concerned, the rogue would be the one most likely to enter that castle and the wizard would be casting the invisibility on him to help him further.

The only thing this change did is force dependency on magic items. There will now be more Rings of Invisibility, more purchasing of magic items that provide Fly and more purchasing of stat enhancing magic items.

I think they should have just stuck with a few of the changes such as limiting how many times the Empower Spell feat can be applied and limiting the effects of other abusive metamagic feats rather than altering so many spells.