Evaluation of 3.5 Rule Changes.

[Moon-Lancer]

Animated Shields are a big mistake. Regardless of whatever you do to two-handed weapons or power attack, a greatsword + animated shield always beats every other style.

Cheers!

I agree, i don't think thf (or power attack) should be ripped on because someone in wtcmessed up on shield enhancements. Its easy just to disallow it, then everyone can be happy.

You have most damage with a thf
you have most armor with a sword and board
and finally

you have utility knife/sneak attacking with twf.

they all fall into a nitch and without animated shields, all work nicely.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

in my opinion, power attack is fine. Anything less then a 2 for 1 is not worth the investment of a possible missed attack.

 

[Sir Elton]

D&D Basic is still a better game, however . . .

I believe D&D 3rd Edition is a much better game overall. Although, they need to do something about the monk.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

yeah, i think 20bab would do nicely
or get a touch attack 1once a day that kills a arcane mage without a save

 

[Sir Elton]

Dim Mak a touch attack?

Actually, Dim Mak is a ki strike to a very specific pressure point in the body; as it destroys the Solar Plexus Chakra. No, my problem with the Monk is that . . . the class sucks. Big time.

 

[Aaron L]

The 3.5 Ranger saved me from having to mull through all the Alt. Rangers to find a suitable one, or making my own. Rangers straight jacketed into dual wielding dervishes based on Drizzt Do'Urden, basically a straight port of 2E Rangers, was my biggest disappointment with 3E.

I still don't like what they did with Bull's Strength and the like. I like the idea of magic-users cloaking themselves in mantles of spells that last more than one fight. When we used the changes, no one even bothered to use the spells at all. Losing a round of combat to give a +2 to hit and damage or a few extra hit points isn't worth it. They're a waste of a spell.


I still dislike the change to Keen and Improved Critical stacking. They severely hurt the finesse fighter who relied on crits, and made two handed brutes almost the only viable damage dealing melee fighter type.


I really dislike the Paladin summonable mounts. It nearly ruins the flavor of the class for me. Paladins poofing in their horse for a few hours a day seems so ridiculously silly to me.


All the other changes I either like, or couldn't care less about.

 

[airwalkrr]

Sorry, I dont buy into the idea that the best design was someone's initial messy rules fumblings.

Interesting factoid: more time was spent play-testing AD&D than play-testing 3rd edition.

Ideally, everyone's contribution should be roughly equal at all levels of play. If the group doesnt play past 4th level, how is the wizard's theoretical late game edge worthwhile if it never comes to pass? If you start in the teens, why play a fighter? Its kind of like choosing to play the guy with a broken leg during a superbowl RPG. "That's how its always been!" is a pretty bad reason for not correcting something.

And your low level caster induced reaming? Check color spray and get back to me.

That's a fine idea for a game. But it is not D&D.

 

[Aaron L]

Interesting factoid: more time was spent play-testing AD&D than play-testing 3rd edition.

Source?

 

[airwalkrr]

Source?

The man himself. Unfortunately, I don't have hours to pour through the tens of thousands of posts made on the Gary Gygax FAQ to prove it, but at one point I did ask him how thoroughly the AD&D rules were play-tested, to which he responded "years, many years" or something to that effect. He left me with the definite impression that it was at least 5 or 6 years based on when he started running basic D&D and when AD&D was pubished. There is probably someone with a fantastic memory who can cite an early Dragon article with a similar comment, but I don't have the energy to go through my 250 issue disks either. Based on my reading of Dragon magazine through the years, unless WotC had a super-huge coverup about the play-testing and lied to the interviewers, 3rd edition was only play-tested for about 2 years, if that, before going into production. I suppose you could make the argument that the 21 years of AD&D was play-testing for 3rd edition, but I wont.

So unless Gary or WotC are lying...

 

[enrious]

... unless WotC had a super-huge coverup about the play-testing and lied to the interviewers, 3rd edition was only play-tested for about 2 years, if that, before going into production. I suppose you could make the argument that the 21 years of AD&D was play-testing for 3rd edition, but I wont.

So unless Gary or WotC are lying...

Or perhaps you're not considering man-hours?

If Gary had 6 groups who spend 5 years and WotC had 30 spending 2, theoretically that's about the same, no?