Impressions on 3.5?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Don't forget eliminating certain races and classes, and renaming whole categories of monsters to be politically correct.

Adding nonweapon proficiencies and THAC0 was not new with 2e, since those were already in 1e (THAC0 appeared in the 1e DMG, and nonweapon proficiencies appeared in the 1e Oriental Adventures and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide).

However, note that as has been stated, several core class and races were eliminated. Also note that some classes were given major revisions (the 1e and 2e ranger have very little in common, the rogue's thieving abiltiies were revised, and so on), and wizard specialization was vastly expanded.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Grog said:

Well, what changed from 1e to 2e, as far as core rules go? To-hit tables were replaced with THACO, nonweapon proficiencies were added, some spells were changed (fireball and lightning bolt were capped at 10 dice)... Dragons were powered up. What else changed? It's been a while.

Um, you are the one that claimed one was bigger than the other. Why is it my responsibility to list these differences. If you are right, show me.
 

I was initially against the changes to damage reduction as well for the same reasons most people have brought up (fighters needing a golf-bag of swords, etc). Then I noticed that the # before the slash had in most all cases gone down. Your party does not *NEED* a mithral sword (or whatever) to cut down the baddie with damage reduction. You don't need the weapon, but having one makes the encounter easier.

Damage eduction has always bothered me. The way it was set up, damage reduction only served as a marking post for DMs to see if the party had enough magic items. 'Hmm, i am gonna use some demons, but oh it has DR #/+2, I guess I better throw a +2 sword in a treasure pile for em....' most DMs would say. In my experiece DMs rarely used monsters that PCs were not equiped to cut through the DR. Whats the point of having a defense if it never is a factor.

Not only that, but once you got that +2 weapon, you were set against anything with DR that you would probably be facing until you gained enough power to fight thigns with DR +3 - by which point you probably had a +3 weapon. I like the new DR because it makes monsters unique. It will make encounters for PCs who don't have the right weapon tougher but not impossible and force them to do a little figuring out and work if they want to make the encounter easier.

I like the idea. I'll have to wait until the rules come out and I use them a bit to see if it works well in practice.
 
Last edited:

WotC decided not to call this a 4th edition because the changes from 2nd to 3rd edition were much bigger than the changes being made to 3rd edition now (This is regardless of the fact that the chenges between 1e to 2e might have been smaller).

New D&D players don't even know about the specifics of that change, but they do know about 2e-to-3e.

Calling this edition 4th will freak them out.

Also, the changes in 3.5 are very rarely systematic: the basic mechanisms (BAB, spells, skill points, Hit Dice, feats, Levels and XP) remain the same.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

BryonD said:


Um, you are the one that claimed one was bigger than the other. Why is it my responsibility to list these differences. If you are right, show me.

I listed all the ones I could remember. But others pointed out the removal of races and classes. I'd forgotten that, but they did get rid of the assassin and some other classes too, I think. So 1e to 2e probably was a bigger change than 3e to 3.5e, but I don't think by much.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Grog said:

I listed all the ones I could remember. But others pointed out the removal of races and classes. I'd forgotten that, but they did get rid of the assassin and some other classes too, I think. So 1e to 2e probably was a bigger change than 3e to 3.5e, but I don't think by much.

OK. But I still disagree.

After 2e came out, I still played 1e a lot. It was always very obvious which game I was playing.

I already use the 3.5 rules in my game now. I barely notice the change. Just some things are better. (A few are not, and I may house-rule them back after some fair chance, but overall they are much better).

Or as a true blind test, most of my players are not NDAed. So I simply mentioned some rules here and there as new house rules
or even "this is just how it works". They did not notice any significant change. (They didn't care for the buff nerf, but they certainly didn't decide that made this a new edition)

Compared to the 2e change this isn't even a blip. (And the 2e change was small compared to the 3e change)
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Grog said:


Well, what changed from 1e to 2e, as far as core rules go? To-hit tables were replaced with THACO, nonweapon proficiencies were added, some spells were changed (fireball and lightning bolt were capped at 10 dice)... Dragons were powered up. What else changed? It's been a while.
They totally revised the ranger and bard. :D
 

re

Personally, I think the revised edition of D&D is going to further divide the d20 community. People will be more open to alternatives like Monte Cooke's AU. I think he will have a more receptive audience than he might have previously.

Over the last few days I am becoming somewhat disenchanted with D&D 3.5. Certain things don't gel well.

1. Damage Reduction: The #/Magic is going to be defeatable by any magic weapon. I really don't understand why they didn't incorporate their original mechanic into the knew system. A higher + magic sword to hit creatures would have fit well into the new damage reduction system.

I don't like seeing damage reduction types like #/lawful as I see on the Titan. Why is a titan struck by a Lawful weapon? Why does that matter? It doesn't sit well conceptually IMO. If a titan has thick skin, then it should be struck by a powerful magic weapon. I guess they are turning Titans into forces of Chaos. Whatever.

Golems from what I understand are only going to be struck by Adamantine? or at least Iron Golems are this way. Why? Objects have the DR of their material, why shouldn't golems also have the DR of their material? this change just doesn't make sense IMO.

I am beginning to become less pleased with the changes to the DR system now that they have released a few examples. It is starting to seem too cumbersome.

2. The power attack change seems bad. It may not be so bad when a person is facing a creature with an extreme armor class, but by god are the yard trash monsters going to be dying like flies to a power attacking, great cleaving fighter type.

3. Casters were seriously weakened IMO. I don't know what game the designers play, but casters had a hard enough time dealing with SR, energy immunities, enemy spell casters with erected defenses, outsiders and dragons with all favorable saves and huge hit points, general spell immunities, and a spell system that only scales well if you take into account having huge stat enhancing items.

Even I'll admit that a few spells such as Haste and Harm needed to be changed, but did they have to lower Spell Focus and change hold spells? I just hope they didn't lower Spell Penetration. I didn't see the need, then again I always have clerics, NPC and PC, memorize spells like Remove Paralysis and other types of counters.


I don't know about most people who play D&D, but I like to play in games that closely mirror what I see in Fantasy novels. When I play FR, I read the novels and try to adjust the powers of certain abilities to fit the novel versions of that ability. I don't want to play watered down D&D where the designers are concerned with game balance over story.

It is difficult to make an absolute decision until the books are out. At the moment, I am becoming more and more interested in seeing what other folks can do to make more interesting rules. I know am going to pick up Monte Cook's AU, if only to see how far you can outside the standard D&D core rules when using the OGL.
 


At first I was jazzed about all the new changes, they were all common sense and much needed. But now I am seeing things I don't get at all or are just plain dumb. It really seems like they are trying to compensate for the extreme powergamers and they are going overboard. This would be fine if I didn't notice some other suprising trends like the considerably beefed up monsters and the buffing up of unneeded things, such as dwarfs, barbarians, and 2h fighting. I really think they should tap into the powergamers if they are going to rebalance the system, that and maybe playtest the changes. Of course I could be wrong and the full game will be perfectly balanced.
 

Remove ads

Top