d20 publications seriously affected by 3.5

[Mark]

I'd be surprised if anyone cares that Joe Ranger NPC is missing a couple of skill points to his Intimidate skill.

Mrs. Joe Ranger might even be grateful!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Anything with Wooden Doors. The're a lot more viscious now.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030712a

[Edit: Look under B]

 

[Ysgarran]

2 extra skill points/level

Minor point:
(2 x 4) + (currLevel - 1) * 2 = extra skill points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: d20 publications seriously affected by 3.5

Any idea on the timing of said release?

I am juggling three books right now (Halflings, Gnomes, and The Book of Unusual Treasures)-- all while trying to keep Grim Tales on track.

It's a crapshoot which ones will go to print first-- I am at the mercy of a lot of outside factors. But the upshot is that you shouldn't have to wait past the end of September for any of the softcovers.

Side note: It is easy to be distracted by the awesome artwork rolling in for Grim Tales. It takes a lot of discipline not to jump tracks and start writing for Grim Tales every time I plop down in front of the keyboard.


Wulf

 

[Desdichado]

The alt.rangers in various d20 books (Mercenaries, Book of Hallowed Might, Three Arrows for the King, Path of the Sword) are also a fair bit less attractive than the upgraded 3.5 Ranger. They weren't necessarily more powerful than the core Ranger, just different in focus. It would be nice to see 3.5 upgrades to some of these guys. Sure, some DMs will be glad to do it themselves, but others aren't so flexible.

I don't see how so. All of those are equally viable options, even with the new ranger, and I don't see how they are less attractive than the new ranger. That assumes you think the new ranger is the ultimate ranger, which I certainly don't accept as true.

 

[Chun-tzu]

I don't see how so. All of those are equally viable options, even with the new ranger, and I don't see how they are less attractive than the new ranger. That assumes you think the new ranger is the ultimate ranger, which I certainly don't accept as true.

I hardly think it's the ultimate ranger. Anyone can plainly see how much more powerful the 3.5 Ranger is over the 3.0 Ranger. It gains a lot, and loses very little.

The Mercenary Ranger, Hunter, Outdoorsman, Archer-Ranger, and Scout were all balanced against the 3.0 Ranger. I'd like to see, for example, more skill points for variant rangers as well.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know that it's plain. The abilities are mostly better spread. There's not really tons of new abilities, and the loss in HD is fairly significant. I don't think the 3.5 ranger is more powerful relative to the 3e ranger, it's just better proportioned.

 

[Chun-tzu]

When looking at two classes that fill the same niche (in this case, both Rangers), and one has 1 good save, 4 skill points per level, and a few class features, versus a class with 2 good saves, 6 skill points per level, and class features at almost every level, it seems plain to me that the second is more attractive than the first. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more powerful, but the old one definitely looks much less attractive by comparison.

 

[Desdichado]

OK, I see what you're saying. However, since attractiveness is a completely subjective thing, I'll just say I disagree! The new ranger isn't terribly more attractive to me as a DM or as a player, and I also don't find it to be more powerful.

 

[Voadam]

When looking at two classes that fill the same niche (in this case, both Rangers), and one has 1 good save, 4 skill points per level, and a few class features, versus a class with 2 good saves, 6 skill points per level, and class features at almost every level, it seems plain to me that the second is more attractive than the first. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more powerful, but the old one definitely looks much less attractive by comparison.

Unless you only want to pick up one level