[Dragon] First D&D 3.5 Update

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't think I approve of anything that encourages those godawful double weapons, I'm sorry.

All the other changes sound good, though. I'm looking forward to seeing those books now.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm hoping they change the Dwarf Weapon familiarity to Dwarven Waraxe so Dwarf PCs will stop having to use an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat just to use it. I understand the rational but it still seemed odd.

Also, what's the point of breaking down the PrC's into those categories? Surely the need for generalized discussion on allowing PrCs in your game can't actually call for sub-groupings of PrCs for the sake of that discussion alone. Not to mention some of those terms seem ambiguous and open to interpretation...situational? Party role? Iconic? Come on...and why isn't there one for religious-specific PrCs? Specific religions, more than anything else, generate new PrCs.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I received my copy last night and D&D 3.5 was the first thing I read. I am very happy with the approach and specifcs they fed. I look forward to reading the future articals.

 

[Ashy]

I'll post this separate from the rest of issue #304's contents, as it might divide up the conversation more efficiently.

Where did you post the bit about contents, Aitch Eye? I cannot find it anywhere!

 

[Destil]

PHB: Racial Benefits. The example given is exotic weapons specific to certain races, like the Ugrosh. Dwarves now have "Weapon Familiarity" as a racial ability, which lets them treat it as a martial weapon.

Just the Ugrosh? This is accualy an okay change, since double weapons are still less effective than two handed, and you need more feats to use these properly. So it's a nice jump start, but you'll still two more feats to use these to their potential.

But if they get the dwarven waraxe, for instance, there could be big problems (dwarves already have a big bonus for physical combat and lots of smaller misc. bonuses, giving them a free upgrade to 1 handed weapon damage is hardly warrented).

They've separated PrCs into seven roles: race, party role, situational, iconic, game function (does things other characters can't, like the Spellsword), transformation (turns into something else), and world-specific.

Very smart move. Clearly PrCs do very diffrent things. While I could mention that transormation should be a subgroup of game funtion I think this is a nice approach. Is there a description beyond thses terms, though? What's a situational, how's it diffrent from party role? Is party role a fancy way of saying "built for class X to take?" Iconic, I'd take it, is stuff like the assissian?

 

[Spatula]

I'm hoping they change the Dwarf Weapon familiarity to Dwarven Waraxe so Dwarf PCs will stop having to use an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat just to use it. I understand the rational but it still seemed odd.

The dwarven waraxe is just an axe version of the bastard sword. A dwarven fighter can use it in two hands with no feats just fine.

Also, what's the point of breaking down the PrC's into those categories? Surely the need for generalized discussion on allowing PrCs in your game can't actually call for sub-groupings of PrCs for the sake of that discussion alone. Not to mention some of those terms seem ambiguous and open to interpretation...situational? Party role? Iconic? Come on...and why isn't there one for religious-specific PrCs? Specific religions, more than anything else, generate new PrCs.

Religions are world-specific, so religious PrCs should fall into that category.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm not sure this revision will be dramatic enough to qualify for D&D 3.5. Maybe just D&D 3.1.

 

[Astalanya]

That sounds great!

It also makes the wait that much more frustrating, since I've been parrying with some of these rules/changes/ideas for sometime now.

 

[Aitch Eye]

Re: Re: [Dragon] First D&D 3.5 Update

Where did you post the bit about contents, Aitch Eye? I cannot find it anywhere!

Sorry, but a sudden bout of messy but not serious illness with our not-quite-three year old interupted me while I was putting it together. Hopefully I'll get it up this afternoon. (I'm being asked to draw a kitty right now.)

What's a situational, how's it diffrent from party role? Is party role a fancy way of saying "built for class X to take?" Iconic, I'd take it, is stuff like the assissian?

Situational would be like the Loremaster, suited to specific circumstances. Party role fills "specific needs for an adventuring party or individual roleplaying experience." They mention the Shadowdancer for this. Iconic would be Assassin and Blackguard.

Also, what's the point of breaking down the PrC's into those categories?

I think part of the reason they divided them up into categories may be that they'll be including expanded guidelines and rules on how to create your own, beyond those in the "How to Build a Prestige Class" in Dragon #274. (Sorry I neglected to mention this in the original post.)

 

[Ashy]

Re: Re: Re: [Dragon] First D&D 3.5 Update

Sorry, but a sudden bout of messy but not serious illness with our not-quite-three year old interupted me while I was putting it together. Hopefully I'll get it up this afternoon. (I'm being asked to draw a kitty right now.)

No prob - having 4 little ones myself, I understand COMPLETELY....