Converting to 3.5 woes...

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Rushlight

Well, first I suppose I assumed that the point of WOTC moving from 2e to 3e was to allow other companies to make things for D&D so that the range of ideas and possibilities would be much greater. That's the whole d20 gig, man. To restrict yourself to only the 3 core books is a bit silly, and very ignorant of the large number of non-core excellent products out there. At the very least I imagine that 80% of the people use or have available the classbooks. If all you use are the 3 core books, you are missing out on alot.

IME there's a lot of broken stuff out there as well. There's a few broken things in the core books (even 3.5 - they didn't nerf Disjunction!), then it gets worse as you move on to classbook and third party products. Sometimes. Obviously there's a wide range of quality out there, and I think a DM should be able to tell what is reasonably balanced and what isn't.

PS use another example. If you can find a CR 25 creature that can't cast spells and can't fly and doesn't have a breath weapon ... etc ... then I'll agree with you (if you use only core rules, of course).

 

[rushlight]

I don't care if all of those weapon master abilities plus spells weren't overpowered at all. They aren't core and are overpowered but I just don't get because your fighter can do a lot of damage that he can "beat a dragon" in 3 rounds? Several people have pointed out a lot of points of why he can't. My quandry is HOW THE HECK DID HE GET WITHIN 300 feet of the dragon? That dragon has scent and listen checks of over 40 spells of a 20th level sorcerer and a breath weapon.

Your 18th level fighter should get 20000 exp just for getting close enough to even take a swing at the dragon. Maybe he was sleeping and permanent silenced and lost his ability of scent and forgot he's a more powerful arcane caster than your party members or the fact that no fighter could trade 3 rounds of full attacks with the dragon even if he is doing the damage you say. The dragon is doing just as much as you but has 660 hps. Bet you don't.

Why do people keep complaining that things aren't "Core"? Are you telling me that there's a whole bunch of people who just buy 3 books and never ever ever buy another d20 book? Not even those by WOTC? I mean, that's fine if you do, BUT THE POINT OF THE D20 SYSTEM IS TO ALLOW OTHERS TO MAKE SUPPORT MATERIAL. Get that? That's WHY they converted to d20. That's the point. So that you have more options. Therefore, the core rules need to be solid, so that as much of the additional stuff as possible is also stable. I was under the impression that several other D20 companies were selling things too, and at a decent volume. I would bet my collection that there are only a handful of you "Core-Purists" that just use 3 books and that's it. So don't judge me by your spartan standards.

Second, it's not hard for a fighter to get close to a dragon if you really want. Just get the cleric to scry and find one, cast fly, improved invisiblilty, and silence, and you're off. At 18th level, you've got over half a day to slowly approach the beast. Once you're near, 12 seconds later you've got one dead dragon.

Oh, but most of that has been fixed in 3.5, so that shouldn't be a problem any more.

Of course, you too missed the point of my comparison. See above for another explanation of what I was trying to achieve.

 

[enworldatemylogin]

This thread is degrading into a grudge match.

Back to the subject, how is my 8th level cleric going to change in 4th edition? Our party has 2 sorcerers, a druid, my cleric, and a new recruit using the greenbond (using druid spells), from AU.

From what I can tell, I will just be picking new spells, looking for an alternative to bull strength. I guess I'll be changing classes after I get to 9th level, since my strength is 10 and it's hard moving around in heavy armor with that low a strength. Maybe I'll take the craft magic crap feat so I can make myself some Gauntlets of Ogre Strength. Maybe I'll get Extend Spell and use it. Yeah, that'll make Bull Strength last 2 minutes per level. OH HELL YEAH! That rocks!

Maybe I'll be able to multiclass into one of AU's new classes.

 

[Grog]

Well, first I suppose I assumed that the point of WOTC moving from 2e to 3e was to allow other companies to make things for D&D so that the range of ideas and possibilities would be much greater. That's the whole d20 gig, man. To restrict yourself to only the 3 core books is a bit silly, and very ignorant of the large number of non-core excellent products out there. At the very least I imagine that 80% of the people use or have available the classbooks.

Sales figures just don't bear that assumption out. A majority of players are working with just the core rules, maybe a couple of splatbooks, and maybe a supplemental book or two. Most players aren't combing through every new supplement that comes out looking for new ways to power up their character.

Second, there are many other things I like about 3.5 that I've already changed. There are other things I've changed that won't be in 3.5. IMC, poison, disease, and falling are all way more deadly than in the rules. Perhaps 3.5 will mention some of those. I am happy about the buff spells being shortened. People were using those in place of magic items, and that isn't what they are for (since a 2nd level spell shouldn't duplicate expensive items). I'm happy about the removal of stacking crit ranges, and if it doesn't go far enough, I'll help it along some more.

If you feel those changes are appropriate for your campaign, that's cool. By all means, change whatever you think needs to be changed. But not every campaign is like yours, and I'd venture a guess that very few campaigns out there feature a character like your Mega Fighter of Doom.

Third, the core rules aren't being "nerfed" they are being "fixed".

They can't be "fixed" if they weren't "broken" in the first place.

Don't get me wrong - I fully agree that there were some things in 3e that were very problematic and needed to be toned down. Harm, Haste, etc. are good examples of this. But the revision is also changing a bunch of things that there simply was no problem with before (ex. - stacking threat ranges).

Again, you miss the point. Here is the point: A 18th level fighter should not be able to kill a base CR 25 monster in 2 or 3 rounds. Sure I could make it more difficult. I'm not talking about an actual encounter here, I'm talking raw numbers. The fighter's ability to do damage vs a base monster's ability to take it. This is an example based on predictable numbers. I could make it impossible if I liked. As the DM I can bend the rules however I want. But players notice that. And if you do it too often, they will resent it.

A Great Red Wyrm has the spellcasting abilities of a 19th level sorceror. How, exactly, is using those spells intelligently "bending the rules"?

This particular dragon has a 26 Intelligence. That means he's very smart - one of the smartest creatures in the world, in fact. That means he is not going to go flying around without any of its considerable array of spells active. Mage Armor will last basically all day for him, as will stat buff spells and the like. Your fighter couldn't approach him invisibly, because he has blindsight out to 360 feet. As soon as he sees him, he starts buffing up. Boom - 56 AC or better right away. Suddenly, your fighter needs a 17 or better to hit, and his chance of a crit drops to 4% on his best attack.

None of this is "bending the rules." It's playing an intelligent foe intelligently.

I guarantee you that any properly-played Great Red Wyrm would absolutely destroy your Mega Fighter of Doom and his buddies 100 times out of 100. If you want me to prove it, I'm perfectly willing to head on over to Fight Club.

 

[tsadkiel]

I guess I'll be changing classes after I get to 9th level, since my strength is 10 and it's hard moving around in heavy armor with that low a strength.

Or you could, y'know, wear lighter armor. There's no law that says you must wear the heaviest armor your class permits.

 

[Mort]

Sure, it now costs one less feat to be a dual-wielder. But:

- The new DR rules screw over dual-wielders much more than two-handed fighters. Since DR applies on every hit, doing more low-damage hits means much less damage overall than fewer high-damage hits.

Then again, the dual wielder has twice the chance of having the appropriate material and ignoring DR alltogther.

- Light weapons can no longer Power Attack.

As has been endlessely debated, power attack was good for all the wrong reasons, and isn't all that amazing now.

- The change to Haste means it will be harder to get full-attack actions, and the two-handed fighter is far superior to the dual-wielder when they only get to take one swing. Also, the one extra attack granted by Haste is far more valuable to the two-handed fighter than it is to the dual-wielder.

That's somewhat true. But as I stated earlier, the dual-wielder has more options - such as a defending weapon in one hand, or two different types of damage (such as fire and cold).

And they still have all their old disadvantages:

- Dual-wielders have to spend four (now three) feats on their fighting style, while two-handed fighters don't have to spend any.

Really the dual wielder has to spend one, the rest are gravy. If the dual wileder spent 3 feats by level 11 his BAB on a full attack is +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1 over the standard +11/+6/+1 add in all the bonuses from strength, feats, weapons, etc. and I think it's pretty competative. And if you don't believe me, do a search on all the threads claiming that dual wielding is now overpowered (anytime 1/2 the complaints say overpowered and 1/2 say nerfed, the balance tend to be good).

- Dual-wielders have a -2 penalty to hit.

Sure but your actual chance to hit goes up because you have more attacks.

- They have to pay for two magic weapons, rather than one (which can potentially be a huge expense).

True, but we'll have to see how special materials impact pricing.

Dual-wielding is really only a viable option for rogues (due to sneak attack). For fighters, dual-wielding significantly handicaps your character.

Even in 3e when it cost more feats, the prereqs for more attacks were higher, and no one used two weapon defense my groups dual wielder and the two-hander were pretty even, though the two-hander pulled out ahead. I'll bet things will be more even now, but I'll draw a conclusion after I see it (which won't be for some time because we've agreed to finish the current story arc without shifting around the rules).

 

[Fast Learner]

It matters if they're not core because if someone is complaining that the rules are "broken" but is using a variety of rules from a variety of sources the complaint becomes meaningless: there's no such thing as the rules anymore.

Here's a new feat. It's called "Slay Dragon" and has no prerequisites. Any dragon who comes within 1000 miles of someone with the Slay Dragon feat instantly dies, no save, no magic resistance. Nothing -- not even the power of the gods -- can stop this effect.

There's a rule. It's even published online! Now are the rules broken?

----

On conversion: If a DM is going to have characters convert from 3.0 to 3.5 he absolutely should allow the players to recreate their characters from scratch. What, did my character just suddenly forget some things, magically have new skills, and did all of the magic in the world suddenly warp? What a rip off.

Would Player A have trained himself in that feat if it knew what it does now? No? Then why would he have selected it? Would Player B have trained in those classes if he knew how poorly they work together now, changing the very nature of who he is? No? Then why would he have done it? Would Player C have studied and copied those spells if they were useless to him now? No? Puh-lease, why should he be stuck with the selection?

Oh, and btw, I'm a DM.

 

[Grog]

Then again, the dual wielder has twice the chance of having the appropriate material and ignoring DR alltogther.

Well, sure, if his weapons are different materials. But if he only has one weapon that can bypass the DR, he's effectively not dual-wielding for the duration of that fight.

As has been endlessely debated, power attack was good for all the wrong reasons, and isn't all that amazing now.

But it is important for fighting monsters with DR that you can't bypass. Two-handed fighters have this option; dual-wielders don't.

Really the dual wielder has to spend one, the rest are gravy. If the dual wileder spent 3 feats by level 11 his BAB on a full attack is +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1 over the standard +11/+6/+1 add in all the bonuses from strength, feats, weapons, etc. and I think it's pretty competative. And if you don't believe me, do a search on all the threads claiming that dual wielding is now overpowered (anytime 1/2 the complaints say overpowered and 1/2 say nerfed, the balance tend to be good).

Or it could just be that one side or the other is wrong.

And I wouldn't say the extra two feats are gravy. If you want to even approach the effectiveness of a two-handed fighter (to say nothing of equalling it) you need to spend those two extra feats.

Also, because of the penalty for dual-wielding, the full attack BAB is effectively +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1 vs. +11/+6/+1. And the two-hander has three extra feats to spend. He's also likely to have a better weapon and/or more magic items, because he doesn't have a significant portion of his character wealth devoted to a second weapon.

Now, this isn't quite, "Go home, dual-wielder, you're useless", but the playing field is definitely tilted in favor of the two-handed fighter. And if they run up against a monster whose DR they can't bypass, the dual-wielder is basically screwed, while the two-hander has a good chance to remain at least partially effective.

 

[rushlight]

"PS use another example. If you can find a CR 25 creature that can't cast spells and can't fly and doesn't have a breath weapon ... etc ... then I'll agree with you (if you use only core rules, of course)."

Alright, I hope this puts to bed the whole "but the dragon would..." arguments that were missing the point.

I don't know if you consider Monster Manual 2 to be core, but since there are only 3 monsters of CR 25 or more in the MM and they're all dragons, I had to use other WOTC books. BTW, the only reason I used a dragon was to give a stable AC and HP total. I could have (and probably should have, since many people ignored the point and focused on the wrong information) not used any creature and just show that it was possible for a 18th level fighter to do upwards of 1000 points of damage in 3 rounds.

So, here's what we'll do. Cleric scrys on a Leviathan. Then he casts freedom of movement, followed by water breathing, and then teleports without error to the Leviathan. Ok, the Leviathian has 496 HPs, and an AC of 22. Using the math above, nearly all 5 swings a round will have a chance to hit, and to crit as well. So it will take 1, and with bad rolling maybe 2 rounds to kill it. Even if the Leviathan uses it's Gulp ability to swallow the fighter, that just means he has no chance to miss (not that he really had one anyway) so that's moot. He might get in a Bite attack, or a few Tail Slaps for for 26 or 44 points of damage respectively. Oooh! Fighter scared!

On other D20 products: "Sales figures just don't bear that assumption out."

Then why are there so many different companies producing things? Are there that many people producing products no one buys? How are they producing more than one product? What about the larger houses like White Wolf? Didn't the Scarred Lands series do alright? They sure made alot of products for that line. I find it difficult to believe that they were cranking out books that never sold. WW is an established game company which probably knows when to cut it's losses and when something is doing well.

On whether some of the rules needed fixing:

Yes, they did. Many people believe this, including those designers who worked on the game. There is only a small (but vocal) minority who feel they've been "nerfed". And considering the use of that word, I don't really mind the changes too much. Better yet, if you don't like the new rules, don't buy them. For those of us who do, we will. It's that simple.

 

[Mort]

Or it could just be that one side or the other is wrong.

And I wouldn't say the extra two feats are gravy. If you want to even approach the effectiveness of a two-handed fighter (to say nothing of equalling it) you need to spend those two extra feats.

Also, because of the penalty for dual-wielding, the full attack BAB is effectively +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1 vs. +11/+6/+1. And the two-hander has three extra feats to spend. He's also likely to have a better weapon and/or more magic items, because he doesn't have a significant portion of his character wealth devoted to a second weapon.

Now, this isn't quite, "Go home, dual-wielder, you're useless", but the playing field is definitely tilted in favor of the two-handed fighter. And if they run up against a monster whose DR they can't bypass, the dual-wielder is basically screwed, while the two-hander has a good chance to remain at least partially effective.

Woops on the dual wielding BAB, still though the % chance to hit is still actually higher.

As for cost, it can get high – but in some cases it’s lower and you get more bang for your buck. +1 frost short sword and +1 flaming shortsword = 16,000 g.p’s. A +1 shocking/flaming greatsword is 18,0000. (though I heard they overhauled item pricing so this may or may not be true for 3.5)

Remember also that at higher levels the base damage is not as meaningful anymore and the extra damage from using two weapons each with their own (lots of) extra bonuses really adds up.

Since DR is going down across the board the 25+/x DR is hopefully a thing of the past and dual wielders should have less trouble forcing through it.

And after all that, It’s still better than it was in 3e, which was really my original point. Whether dual wielding has “caught up” to 2 handed remains to be seen for me.

Sorry for anyone who's probably getting a headache from reading the 2-3 different debates in the thread.