Disappointed in 3.5 books

[Elvinis75]

Sorry gang I would have to agree with Iron on the issue of whether Cleric should have sense motive. Looking at most of todays organized religions it is easy to say that the goal of the priest, rabi …etc is to connect with the people. This means that they are not just speaking. They are listening and trying to understand a persons problems and situation.
I’m not sure that it applies to all religions but they are sometimes marriage counselors and need to be able to see people are not telling the whole story. Priests deal with people and thus should have a good sense of them. They talk to them and have people that confide in them. Help people to deal with tragedy and would have need to be able to see through people that are blocking. Just my opinion but I think that Iron Chef nailed this one.

As to the idea that this is a stereotype I say so what. So What! Every class in that PHB is a stereotype. All PCs of this or that class having all the same skills. What is that if not a stereotype? So if they are going to use stereotype why not try to get it right.
Heck for some priesthoods, read evil priesthoods, bluff should be a class skill. Lying and brainwashing to make them do what you want.

I don’t have the 3.5 Yet and I’m going to look over the combat section and see if it is worth buying. I also think that the lack of new art is disappointing.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I am a little confused as to what you thought 3.5 was going to be. As mentioned above we have had exhaustive information on the changes before publication. This was a revision of the game, revisions that are supposed make the game better. The new books are not required purchases for people who already play because the SRD will cover most of the changes. It is our own impulses that required us to pre-order it. I personally do not think WoTC could have done a better job of letting their current fan base know exactly what was going to be provided. I am very impressed with how I was treated.

 

[Desdichado]

Although I think Iron_Chef's complaint is almost laughable (what did he think they were going to be, anyway?) I certainly do agree with him on one issue - - the art. Sure, at the end of the day, the artwork doesn't affect too much how my game plays or anything like that. But I'm a big artwork fan, and a gaming book without good art is unlikely to even end up in my collection at all, unless it's really, really good. And I'd have liked to see more new art than we did.

 

[Skaros]

Belphanior, nice arguments. I agree 100%.

Iron_Chef, sorry you had such a dissapointment, but personally, I'm glad you're 'simple' and 'obvious' changes didn't make it in.

Personally, I'm seeing only minor things in the books now that I have all 3 that I didn't know about already from the messageboards and from wizards.com, so I'd say I'm neither disappointed, nor the opposite.

I'd say I'm more on the 'pleasantly surprised' side, actually, as some of the minor changes I wasn't spoiled on, I really like.

Skaros

 

[MerricB]

Although I think Iron_Chef's complaint is almost laughable (what did he think they were going to be, anyway?) I certainly do agree with him on one issue - - the art. Sure, at the end of the day, the artwork doesn't affect too much how my game plays or anything like that. But I'm a big artwork fan, and a gaming book without good art is unlikely to even end up in my collection at all, unless it's really, really good. And I'd have liked to see more new art than we did.

I'm more of an audial person. I'd like to see the 3.5E books with a new soundtrack. Preferably by Howard Shore.

Cheers!

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm unhappy with 3.5 so far IMO (at least the PHB & DMG). Here's why:

It's basically 3.0 with a little spit and polish, a couple new things, a couple changed things (some good, some bad) and barely any new art!

(snip)

In short, the new PHB and DMG did nothing to excite me. I could have designed a better rules revision myself!

Have your receipt? Take 'em back and use the SRD. That doesn't have any art at all!

-The Gneech

 

[sithramir]

You are just a hack-n-slasher, aren't you? The role of a cleric is to champion his faith (by adventuring or performing great deeds/miracles), spread his god's word, tend to the needs of the faithful (adventuring companions or whoever) and to convert others, or barring the possibility of conversion, to destroy infidels, heretics and blasphemers. Clerics are not just guys in heavy armor casting spells grabbing treasure. They have a responsibility to a higher power, and to a whole heirarchy of church officials. Most clerics belong to a religion, right, and if you have a religion, you have to have somebody running this religion, or nothing gets done and it falls apart. I swear, you are just being contrary, or you're simply not grasping the concept of what a cleric is, and trying to say that only Christian priests should be insightful, while their D&D counterparts should be mace-wielding idiots.

Um no this is NOT their role. Maybe you should read the players handbook. Paladins are the champions of that faith. The role of a cleric is that of a servant. Tend the needs of the faithful is correct other than its not just the faithful. Converting others, not necesarily the clerics role but an acolyte which wouldn't necessarilly get spells from his god.

Basically what you've said even if it was totally correct shows no reason for him to gain sense motive just because its wis based. You obviously don't understand how the skill system works. Cross class means its a normal skill that anyone could have but most don't cause they didn't spend skill points. A cleric could still be good at this.

Having it as a class skill means you are an EXPERT at it. That orc tries to lie to you and you say "No way". If he told you his age you could tell how many months he was off just by the way he looked at his feet or his left eye started to wonder. This is something you'd have to spend lots of time to acquire like a thief would do to learn how to live the streets and bargain.

A cleric also has to spend a lot of time in prayer for spells, SPREADING the word, etc. He doesn't have time to spend like the thief HAD to to become an expert. Thats why its cross-class and considered what any typical person could do and learn if they put points in it.

You should try reading the cleric class description in the PHB to see the truth:

"...the gods, however, work mostly through their intermediaries--their clerics..." Do the gods want dummies representing them?

"...a good cleric, for example helps those in need. If, through noble acts, he can improve the reputation of his god and his temple, that's even better." A cleric who can't sense what is the right course of action is going to embarrass his deity/temple quick. Helping those in need means more than whacking some orc over the head. It means helping the faithful, whether through undertaking a quest (adventure or finding a lost sheep) or helping sort out their personal problems in a confessional setting.

Correct. What does sense motive have to do with this? NOTHING. He should be wise which he is. Theres a difference between being wise and being able to read people like an EXPERT. He can still do it pretty darn well. Lvl 5 he has 4 points in it plus like a +4 from his wisdom so he's got +8 total. He's still great at it. The difference is a thief isn't wise but is well versed and practiced at it and therefore at lvl 5 can have 8 ranks. He probably doesn't even have a wis bonus or maybe a +1 and therefore is equal to that priest in it but in different ways. Sensing the right course isn't a sense motive. Your example above is purely wisdom not a skill.

"...clerics sometimes receive orders, or at least suggestions, from their ecclesiastical superiors, directing them to undertake missions for the church." If a cleric is part of a temple (and most are), then they must have some need to sense the motives of others, not just of their faithful, but also of their brethren: Church heirarchies are notorious hotbeds of politics. The high priest could be sending you on a suicide mission under a false pretext, after all. Your rival for the position of bishop could be plotting against you and only pretending he is dropping his candidacy.]

So he grew up his whole life in a temple. He might have some "need" to sense motives but he wouldn't because he's not a people person. He prays to his god, does jobs for his god, sets up things for church mass, etc. He doesnt' have the time to be an expert.

And nobody in my games takes ranks in cross-class skills unless they have to to meet some PrC requirement. They are just wasted skill points when you hardly get any per level.

Who's the hack n' slash ? Whoever you called that to you better rethink your ways. EVERY character in my group has cross-class skills. Its the only way to be a good role player and have a non combat oriented character. A fighter is no expect a bluffing but he can still put points in it to fit his character and try. A thief is just naturally better at it because he had to to live on the streets.

No offense but your character wouldnt' probably make it past lvl 3 or so without making sure they mixed skills right in MY game. I actually use them all. So what does your players ignoring skill points or saying that isn't what their character would do have to do with the roles of any class? When you understand better the ideas the design team had and what is written in the book for skills, you'd see why they sholdn't get skills like that.

Of course my thief has a high spot because he's always watching his back. Doesn't mean the cleric shouldn't be good at it, but he has no reason to be an expert at it. If he wants to remember that he could trade that skill for a class skill by dropping another class skill to cross class when he was a first level character with DM's discretion.

Remember also in YOUR world you can make clerics have it. Just in others world when they've read what a "cross-class" skill is and isn't they see why not everyone can have every skill. That is why clerics have spells taht do it. Their god says they "need" to detect lies and they can. Who says they should be expects at it without spells?

 

[Gallo22]

oh boy

With how much bashing is going back and fourth I must say I could give a hoot about meeting some of you at Gen Con. Come on folks lighten up! I'm glad my group doesn't carry on like this. We all have different ways we like to play the game. Can't you just politely respect each others opinions.

I personally am disappointed with the new books. But that does not mean for me that I not think those who like it are wrong about liking it.

I think both sides have good points. I was looking PHB last night and was really disappointed. I think (for the most part) the spell changes are unwarrented and were only made to give us changes to buy the book, as with other changes. The character class changes could be easily done with home rules and many of the combat clairifications are nice but again could have been done with home rules.

I have not looked at the DM guide yet, but I hear its good. The MM just looks the same to me at first glance, very disappointing!!

On the "gamers who like" side I must say that WoTC did say it was just an update, not tons of changes.

But I was hoping for more...

Gallo22

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Okay, for the paladin, there's no reason to go up in it past level 6. Extra smites and extra remove disease are lame. Extra feats would be cool; not sure how to implement them, though. Paladin spell progression is too slow and starts too late. The paladin is really a poorly designed class, IMO. The blackguard isn't much better, but at least it's got a cool picture now.

I only disagree with this partly (for the reasons that have been stated by others more than once above). I think the 3.5 is a wonderful improvement over the 3.0 paladin but I'm also extremely fond of Monte Cook's "Book of Hallowed Might" paladin. I guess, I'll probably fuse the two....

-Zarrock

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

<-- likes 3.5