Mortality Radio # 30: Ed Stark interview available...

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Green Knight:

Did they mention the prerequisites? Do you need a Dex of 15+ like for Ambidexterity?

No mention, I'll ask though (and I suspect that it will).

Originally posted by KaeYoss:

Does that mean that Elves get weapon familarity? For what weapons? Is the Thinblade in?

No word, but seeing as how Elves already have automatic racial proficiencies...

Regarding Half-Orcs, it is infact because they are only Half-Orcs that they don't gain any weapon familiarity.

No skiprocks for halflings apparantly in 3.5e either.


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[green slime]

I'm with bret on this, I feel a slight concern about the rogue being sidelined. The main reason for playing a rogue in 3e is the humungous amount of skill points. (Twice as much as any other class). Of course that was a poor reason, due to the large number of relatively cheap magic items that granted large bonuses to skills.

So making the skill boost items more expensive is a step in the right direction. But I'll be carefully weighing the changes to see how the rogue fares. I can better accomadate the Bard's skill pint increase (he still has a "must" to train in, performance, in order to gain class abilities), whereas the ranger just seems to keep on getting...( I thought they were great at 4 skill points per level...) Perhaps they no longer gain spell casting?

I guess we'll just have to keep on waiting.

 

[Someone]

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both. You'll still require the additional TW Fighting feats in order to gain the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extra off-hand attacks however.


Cheers,

A'koss.

That´s my house rule!! They read minds at intercontinental distances now??

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Ya know what? Everyone should go and buy the books if you can afford it regardless if you like it or not. Why? Because if you want the game to keep going (improving, whatever) then you need to show your support for WoTC.

And if you do not like the 3.5 books you know what you can do? GIVE them to someone who is just starting out in gaming or give them to an organization like Goodwill or something like that. We want to make the hobby grow (and D&D in particular). Don't we?

I wouldn't force this crap on my worst enemy.

 

[kingpaul]

I wouldn't force this crap on my worst enemy.

Crap? You haven't seen the product, only heard/read info on it, and you're passing harsh judgement without having 1st hand information?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

How many barbarians do you see that focus on ranged combat?
How many paladins do you see that focus on sneaking?
How many sorcerers do you see that focus on melee?

My point is, just because they've limited the most effective use of a ranger to two different styles of combat, doesn't mean that they've shoe-horned the ranger any more than they've shoe-horned any other class.

The ranger can focus on either melee or ranged combat and still be effective. If he chooses melee, he has some advantages when fighting with two-weapon style. That hardly begins to define the class.

I think you are overreacting in this case.

Who wants abilities that they never use? What good is point blank/rapid shot when using a sword and shield? Go tell the fighter with the greatsword he has to spend feats on two weapon fighting when he really wants the spring attack chain.

"Uh, sorry, Regdar, you'll have to wait a few levels, you gotta take two weapon fighting first."

"What? I use a great sword."

"Tough nookies."


And a ranger is even worse. He doesn't get a bazillion feats to choose from. Show me one person who will play a ranger and use a fighting style NOT granted by his class abilities and I'll eat my Dungeon Master's Guide. It will be worse than it is now. You'll have archers taking two levels for the archery feats and Drizzt wannabes taking it for twf. They'll just have to take two levels instead of one. Whoopee.

 

[DrSpunj]

I just picked up a new 3.5e tidbit from over on r.g.f.d. - Ambidexterity is being dropped.

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both. You'll still require the additional TW Fighting feats in order to gain the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extra off-hand attacks however.

Great! Sounds like they're going with the d20 Modern version of 2WF then.

BTW, what's "r.g.f.d"?!?

DrSpunj

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Crap? You haven't seen the product, only heard/read info on it, and you're passing harsh judgement without having 1st hand information?

From what has been said about the ranger alone, it appears they have listened to no ones comments. Look back at this thread. At least half tose who have posted disagree with the fighting styles approach. Any company that alienates 50% of their business is producing crap. It would have been all too easy to satisfy both camps. Bonus feats from a specific list, for example. And weapon focus, twf, pbs, etc, shouldn't be on that list. As it stands, a raner could have twf at first level anyway. Give them a list of non-combat feats - alertness, etc.

At any rate, that's the way capitalism works. I vote with my wallet. If enough people feel the same way, they'll either fix the damn ranger or go bankrupt. Either way, I'm through spending money on WOTC. I WILL, however, support D20.

 

[Remathilis]

If you want some bonus feats for you sword-n-board or greatsword ranger, take a few levels of fighter and use the bonus feats. You can even get weapon specialization out of the deal.

How soon we forget the flexibility of multi-classing when breaking class stereotypes.

 

[Psion]

I just picked up a new 3.5e tidbit from over on r.g.f.d. - Ambidexterity is being dropped.

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both.

Good. It has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that TWF didn't cut the mustard compared to two handed weapons; charging two feats for it was a bit much.

BTW, what's "r.g.f.d"?!?

rec.games.frp.dnd, usenet newsgroup.