Evaluation of 3.5 Rule Changes.
- Thread starter satori01
- Start date
shilsen
Adventurer
I can't think of anything which has been a major problem. I've house-ruled a few to better fit my group and the specific campaign, but I can't think of one I really couldn't play with.
The 2-for-1 Power Attack, for example, is a little strong for my liking, so I retain it but add a cap of -5 to hit for +10 to damage, which also keeps it symmetrical with Combat Expertise.
The 2-for-1 Power Attack, for example, is a little strong for my liking, so I retain it but add a cap of -5 to hit for +10 to damage, which also keeps it symmetrical with Combat Expertise.
Scraht
First Post
iwatt said:
Oh yeah, I know that, it's useful in that regard, except... it's a nonstandard party. It's myself, and soon-to-be second wizard, a druid, and a Ranger. Oh! And a cleric.
If we had some delicious beef cake damage muffins, I'd be dropping it on them, however, we don't... As it is, we all tend to stay away from the monsters, and cringe when someone gets slammed.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
DM_Jeff said:
Nor mine, but then we don't use 3.5 rules. We use some of the new spells and classes from splat books, but the rules themselves default to 3.0. Most of the guys in my group haven't even purchased the 3.5 core books.
Particle_Man
Explorer
I found the new weapon size rules to sacrifice simplicity for unneeded realism.
And in my campaign almost *all* fighter types use greatswords and Power Attack, so I agree the 3.5 change was too much.
And Dwarves got better? Because they were so weak before or something?
As a minor note, I miss the "old" Holy Liberators.
That said, I think psionics was *vastly* improved. I liked the new Ranger and Bard a lot. And the monk at least was more comprehensible with multiple open hand attacks.
And in my campaign almost *all* fighter types use greatswords and Power Attack, so I agree the 3.5 change was too much.
And Dwarves got better? Because they were so weak before or something?
As a minor note, I miss the "old" Holy Liberators.
That said, I think psionics was *vastly* improved. I liked the new Ranger and Bard a lot. And the monk at least was more comprehensible with multiple open hand attacks.
How is power attack better for TWF than THF? With TWF, you take a -1 to attacks with EACH hand, and a +1 to damage with EACH hand. I've always found it worse, since I already have a -2 to attacks, I can't afford to use more before I start whiffing completely.
I would have prefered at the most a -1/+1.5 rule with THF power attack. It just doesn't need that kind of bump to stay competitive with Sword/Board or TWF. After all, let's not forget the THF bonuses to disarm and sunder rolls. Let's also not forget that a sword/board and TWF users have two objects in their hands to magically enchant. The THF only has one, so that's a little more money that can go right into the weapon.
I would have prefered at the most a -1/+1.5 rule with THF power attack. It just doesn't need that kind of bump to stay competitive with Sword/Board or TWF. After all, let's not forget the THF bonuses to disarm and sunder rolls. Let's also not forget that a sword/board and TWF users have two objects in their hands to magically enchant. The THF only has one, so that's a little more money that can go right into the weapon.
You went from machine guns to bolt-actions to fire your ammo from.
frankthedm
First Post
In 3.0 those who cranked thier dex to finesse two weapon fight would sacrifice their extra 'to hit' for power attack into thier improved crit, keen kukris.Stalker0 said:
Wotc was going to make PA 1.5 with a two handed weapon, but then decided "Math is hard." and made it a simple doubling.Stalker0 said:
IMHO two handed weapons already benefit those with high STR FAR too much. The Increase in weapon damage die in the 2E-3E was a good idea. but making it Str bonus and a half was the first nail in the coffin of the sword and board style. Treating the wielder as if 2 points of STR higher for damage would have been fine{+1 damage], maybe treating the wielder as if 4 points of STR higher for damage would have workable {+2 damage]. But the way it works currently, those with obscene STR get overly rewarded.
Power attack is supposed to be an entry level feat, like dodge. PA is fine as 1 for 1. 2 for 1 with a two handed weapon is strong enough where the feat chain should be Cleave, Great Cleave then Power attack [Bab+4].
Our group hasn't had any real problems - even with the Power Attack change. We house ruled a couple of the changes to keep them the old way but that was because we simply didn't like the changes instead of having problems with them.
Now that I think about it - the only change we didn't adapt might be that we kept Keen and Improved Critical stacking. If there was anything else that we didn't switch over; it never came up enough for me to remember it.
Now that I think about it - the only change we didn't adapt might be that we kept Keen and Improved Critical stacking. If there was anything else that we didn't switch over; it never came up enough for me to remember it.
Similar Threads
