D&D 3.5 -- Compiled Information Page

[Dalamar]

A gnome has listed under his equipment a "gnome-sized dagger" (which deals 1d3 damage) and a "gnome-sized light crossbow" (which deals 1d6). This could well mean that the double-listing of halfling and normal versions of weapons is at an end, just having clear rules for making smaller weapons in the PHB. Or this could just be something done for this adventure, since these weapons arent given in the PHB as is.

Maybe this was done to get rid of the different weapon proficiencies for different-sized rogues.
Or we could be seeing what is the magical armor resizing extended to magical weapons.

 

[jmucchiello]

An illusionist has as his forbidden schools Conjuration and Necromancy. A transmuter has Conjuration and Enchantment. Either 3.5 requires stiffer forbidden schools or Conjuration has been reduced in power has a forbidden school, or both. Even if conjuration were reduced to the level of medium-weight schools like illusion and enchantment, however, its hard to see it not alone off-setting taking Illusion as a specialty school. A mandatory two forbidden schools may well be implemented.

Well, that puts a krimp in my willingness to follow up my Book of Enchantment with another school book until 3.5 is released. This also invalidates the analysis of the schools in my existing Book of Enchantment. Most annoying.

 

[Jhyrryl]

3.5 Mythos Expansion

One of the things that I've found most annoying about the way that WotC has handled their product line thus far, is that in their attempt to introduce "familiar" material from previous editions in new products, they have wittled away their own mythos to a shell of what it has been in previous editions.

For example, take Gnolls. The MM states that gnoll clerics generally worship Erythnul. Everyone familiar with gnolls from previous editions who read that probably blinked and asked, "What happened to Yeenoghu?" When Defenders of the Faith came out, Yeenoghu was given a small blurb, and in Book of Vile Darkness we got a full write up of the demon prince. All well and fine for the players, but those products have no Open Game Content in them - d20 publishers can't technically utilize that proper name, as it is Product Identity.

WotC has done this kind of thing in most supplements that they've released since 3rd Edition originally published. The end result is that the common mythos of the D&D cosmos now exists in two categories: 1) the stuff that D20 publishers can use; and 2) the stuff that, if they are following the rules, D20 publishers have to ignore and instead make up their own conflicting mythos.

So my question is, has anyone seen any indication that 3rd.5 attempts to correct this problem?

 

[MerricB]

You have one big misconception there:

The deities in the PHB and MM are not part of the SRD and are not Open Game Content.

A 3rd-party publisher may NOT use Pelor, Erythnul or Yeenoghu.

So, no, 3.5 will not bring the other deities into open content, because none of them are, nor should they be. WotC do have to protect their IP, especially the brand elements of the D&D game.

Cheers!

 

[Jhyrryl]

Heh, I didn't word that very well. Yeah, none of the deities are OGC.

But that really only strengthens my complaint. By completely disallowing the use of certain names that are part of the common mythos, WotC hamstrings D20 publishers from strengthening the mythos in the same way that the Cthulhu mythos was strengthened. When Lovecraft openly gave other writers permission to plagerize in part, certain elements of his works so that their works would have a common thread with his, it didn't hurt his sales, it strengthened them, and defined a genre. To some degree, WotC has the opportunity to do the same.

Gnolls worship Yeenoghu, elves worship Corellon, orcs worship Gruumsh, and dwarves worship Moradin. These have been the norm for most official D&D worlds. I just want to see some mechanism by which D20 publishers can recognize the existence of that mythos in their works, rather than watching them eventually band together to define an OGC mythos of their own that has to compete with 30 years of previously published material.

 

[Valiantheart]

There is a non-ranger character listed who has the feat Two-Weapon Fighting, but this does not have the expected effect on his attacks. His attacks are listed as follwos:

+4 melee (1d8+2/19-20, longsword) or +0 melee (1d8+2/19-20, longsword), -1 melee (1d6+2/19-20, shortsword)

I should mention that this character has Weapon Focus (longsword) explaining his extra bonus with this weapon. Other than this, however, this character receives no off-hand penalty but receives a -4 penalty to both attacks even though he uses a light weapon as one of his attacks. Additionally, he gets his full Str bonus to damage with each attack. It seems that Two-Weapon Fighting now grants the old benefit of Ambidexterity (no -4 off-hand penalty) as well as allowing full Strength bonus to the secondary weapon, but does not grant the reduction to -2, -2 as in the 3.0 version of Two-Weapon Fighting. Or perhaps that bonus is only given for using a light weapon in both hands?

I certainly hope those stats are in error because otherwise whats the point of using a long sword and shortsword instead of two long. Maybe ambidexterity is still in the game but the character doesnt posses it. Does the character have a Dex listed?

 

[frankthedm]

"support a secondary market that allows players to sell off the miniatures they don't want and hand-pick the ones they do,"

Sheesh! I guess it would have been to hard (ie. they wouldn't have made as much money though they would have allowed their customers more choices) to just do this in the primary market. I'm not buying their minatures, so there's a few lost sales.

Actually, if he really said what they were doing it would have been something like....

"FORCE a secondary market ... that allows players to hand-pick the ones they want" Lame.

Thanks for the updates!

joe b.

It could work, Mage knight's secondary market [singles]has some pretty sweet minis in it, look here www.pjccmall.com for them.

EDIT>>>>>>>>....>>>>

As for Gnolls, simply hint and allude to a Particular Demon lord, just not by name.

And on a pedestal in the defeated gnoll priest's lair, there rest a peculiar statuette of unwholesome caricature directly in front of a noxious scented stain on the cavern floor. The foot tall statue appears to be an unnaturally gaunt gnoll wielding a 3-balled flail. The figurine seems to have almost a ghoul like quality to its shape and stance. But the most disquieting thing on the statue is that, if the string of gnawed skull trophies it wears; human, elf, dwarf and orc skulls are in proportion to this creature, It would stand well over thrice the height of a man.

A chill runs down your spine as you begin to wonder if that curious sounding final howl of the Gnoll priest was a petition to this Thing. The malignant feeling is compounded by what almost seems to be malice filled contempt within the unmoving visiage of hunger it bears, which you would swear is focused solely upon you.


Any dm who is going to be using the demon lord of gnols and ghous should recognize who the staue is of.

 

[Cassander]

I certainly hope those stats are in error because otherwise whats the point of using a long sword and shortsword instead of two long. Maybe ambidexterity is still in the game but the character doesnt posses it. Does the character have a Dex listed?

It could be that the penalty for using two non-light weapons is harsher still, but it seems odd to have separate stats for two light rather than a light and a non-light. Frankly, it may well be that there is an error in the stat-block.

Or maybe they decided to balance Two-Weapon fighting not by taking a way the extra strength but by enforcing a -4 penalty on both rolls minimum... but this would hurt non-super strong characters.

In any case, the character in question has 15 Dex. I don't see how there can be an Ambidexterity feat if this statblock is correct... this guy gets no extra penalty with his off-hand and gets his full strength bonus to both attacks.. what more could ambidex do? Given d20 Modern and this statblock (even if the math in it is wrong), I'm guessing Ambidexterity has gone the way of the 3/2 attacks per round.

 

[William Ronald]

Morrus,

Thanks to you and everyone who has helped get the news out about D&D 3.5. Heck, it might actually get some of my group to visit the site regularly. (Any suggestions, besides bribery, on how to get them to visit the boards? )

 

[Garmorn]

Heh, I didn't word that very well. Yeah, none of the deities are OGC.

But that really only strengthens my complaint. By completely disallowing the use of certain names that are part of the common mythos, WotC hamstrings D20 publishers from strengthening the mythos in the same way that the Cthulhu mythos was strengthened. When Lovecraft openly gave other writers permission to plagerize in part, certain elements of his works so that their works would have a common thread with his, it didn't hurt his sales, it strengthened them, and defined a genre. To some degree, WotC has the opportunity to do the same.

Gnolls worship Yeenoghu, elves worship Corellon, orcs worship Gruumsh, and dwarves worship Moradin. These have been the norm for most official D&D worlds. I just want to see some mechanism by which D20 publishers can recognize the existence of that mythos in their works, rather than watching them eventually band together to define an OGC mythos of their own that has to compete with 30 years of previously published material.

I Don't agree that the mythos is common to all campain wolrds. Every one has their own set. To do what you are asking is paramont to making one required for all campain worlds. I doudt very much that elves in The Wheel of Time or Kalamar uses the those deities. I know that I don't use them in my home brew. The only place I see them is in Greyhawk and the Forgoten Relams (FR stole alot of Greyhawk deites to begin with.)

Garmorn