Don't Hurt me but I think I love 3.5
- Thread starter KnowTheToe
- Start date
I cant really understand why people are bothered about codes and multiclassing rules for monks and paladins. The designers have flat out stated that they are there for flavour, so they are very easy to remove without affecting the game. The same goes with druids and weapons (I have always allowed druids to use any weapon they want, and it hasnt caused any problems at all)
Thels
First Post
Paladins also have a code to live by. I think that if your DM is fair, you could probably get to multiclass to 1 other class as long as you watch your code well.
Maybe you could make something similar for the Monk.
I really don't get how Half-Elves are balanced. They have only 1 thing over real elves, and that is that their preferred class is any. Though it could be usefull, it's not worth it. The halfelf should have some human ability to kick in.
Dunno about Half-Orcs. That +2 str bonus can be devastating to warriors. Of course it has to be stated that Orcs are not a playable class (while Elves are), so the fact that they're weaker than Orcs doesn't matter much. If you DO include orcs according to Savage Species, Half-Orcs might be underpowered in comparison, but then, I don't think any ECL 1 character with more than +2 total for bonusses (Orc, Grey Elf, Wood Elf, etc...) is balanced out.
Maybe you could make something similar for the Monk.
I really don't get how Half-Elves are balanced. They have only 1 thing over real elves, and that is that their preferred class is any. Though it could be usefull, it's not worth it. The halfelf should have some human ability to kick in.
Dunno about Half-Orcs. That +2 str bonus can be devastating to warriors. Of course it has to be stated that Orcs are not a playable class (while Elves are), so the fact that they're weaker than Orcs doesn't matter much. If you DO include orcs according to Savage Species, Half-Orcs might be underpowered in comparison, but then, I don't think any ECL 1 character with more than +2 total for bonusses (Orc, Grey Elf, Wood Elf, etc...) is balanced out.
Well, I like the changes that have been put forth online so far for 3.5. However, I am reserving judgment until I see the final product. The group I am in has been playing 3E for a while now, and still has no house rules after having a book of them for 2E. So, our general opinion is, "if it ain't broke, don’t fix it"
But, we never seem to have a problem getting folks to play rangers, either, even though some folks on these boards considered them underpowered in 3E. Of course, we have made very little use of prestige classes so far and actually have to have a legitimate in-game reason to multi-class (so, no Sorceror 3/Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Ranger 1 types in the group)
But, we never seem to have a problem getting folks to play rangers, either, even though some folks on these boards considered them underpowered in 3E. Of course, we have made very little use of prestige classes so far and actually have to have a legitimate in-game reason to multi-class (so, no Sorceror 3/Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Ranger 1 types in the group)
Arthur Tealeaf
First Post
Just to throw in my vote: I'm excited about 3.5 too!
Arnwyn
First Post
Because any DM with half the capability of a monkey can remove it in an instant. *Adding* something like that, on the other hand, is more difficult.Psion said:
I don't think *everything* is super-wonderful for 3.5, but to me, I'm quite happy with the vast majority of it. The new PrC's are close the point of idiocy for my campaign, but easy to ignore, and the "everything is square" facing has been quickly ignored. The nerfing of spells, though, has been particularly appreciated. Great stuff.
Corinth
First Post
You have that backwards. Such rules are setting material, and not at all appropriate for a setting-free rulebook.arnwyn said:
It would behoove you--and everyone else--to give the whole set of revised rules a fair shake before hacking away at it with house rules. Play with the game as written for a while; this way you'll have an informed opinion based on practical gameplay, and that means that what house rules you make will be more likely to do what you intend for them to do--no more, no less--with less of a chance that your players will balk.
i also am very excited about the revision. it might actually make me like playing D&D again.
i've got a jar of pocket change on my bookshelf that at last count was around $55-60, so i'm 2/3 of the way there already.
i doubt i'll break $90 by the release date, but that jar should take some of the sting out of my wallet. 
so for the record, up with 3.5, up with spell nerfs, up with square facings, and up with Red Dwarf!!
[so who's going to be the first to stat up Ace Rimmer?
]
i've got a jar of pocket change on my bookshelf that at last count was around $55-60, so i'm 2/3 of the way there already.
i doubt i'll break $90 by the release date, but that jar should take some of the sting out of my wallet. so for the record, up with 3.5, up with spell nerfs, up with square facings, and up with Red Dwarf!!
[so who's going to be the first to stat up Ace Rimmer?
]Similar Threads
