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

[Lord Rasputin]

Say, could someone sort all this new stuff into something readable? Like, sort changes by SRD chapter or something, so we can see all changes to the bard in one spot, all changes to feats in another, and so on and so forth. Morrus hasn't updated the 3.5 Scoops page lately.

 

[dead_radish]

Re: Racial Familiarity:

Elves already get it - all elves are proficient with bows and rapiers or longswords. Now Dwarves will as well. And the halfling skiprock isn't a core weapon - it's a Sword and Fist weapon. There might be an errata somewhere that adds it in, or they may only be playing with the SRD.

Re: DnD won't die.

Um, yes, yes it will. If we were to stop buying Wizards products right now, DnD would die off quickly. Wizards might sell it, might not. But we need to keep buying products. I was pissed when 3.5 first was mentioned. Now I see they have done a lot of revisions, and that they will be SRD'ing it - bully for them. 3+ years is fine for a revision. Support your favorite d20, sure. But don't think that since the SRD exists, DnD will remain - we need new players, since old players drop off. If there is no new marketing, and no new official material, many players will fade out, and no new ones will come in. That is death for the game. It's a niche market - it has to be fed.

 

[Ron]

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.

Still they are shoe-horning the ranger. My last ranger character used to fight with a spear, dismissing his 2WF abillity. Under 3.5 he will still be penalized for not accepting non-sense restrictions. Why not giving the ranger a limited choice of military feats like the fighter, but in reduced number?

Worse is that they insist in stupid 2ed favorite enemy. I would rather see it replaced by something more ranger-like such as advantages in the wilderness.

I guess that, after a few months, we will go back to the alt-ranger design contest.

BTW, I have seen a player very happy with his 1ed barbarian, who was found of using throwing axes as his primary weapon.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re: Racial Familiarity:

Elves already get it - all elves are proficient with bows and rapiers or longswords.

No, they don't. They got some proficiencies for free, which are martial weapons, no exotic ones, and anyway they're in their racial package, while dwarves get bonus to saves against all magic, a dodge bonus against giants, a racial attack bonus against orcs.... Now the dwarves will get something on top of that, but what will the elves get?

And will the half-elves gain something new? They're off even worse since they were a little on the weak side before, and now the gap's getting bigger

Now Dwarves will as well.

Familiarity isn't the same as proficiency. An elven fighter will gain nothing from the free proficiencies, but a dwarven fighter will gain something from the familiarities (and fighting characters get the most use out of weapons!)

And the halfling skiprock isn't a core weapon - it's a Sword and Fist weapon. There might be an errata somewhere that adds it in, or they may only be playing with the SRD.

I know, but maybe they incorporate a racial weapon for each race. And the warsling and skiprocks would be ideal for halflings.

Re: DnD won't die.

Um, yes, yes it will. If we were to stop buying Wizards products right now, DnD would die off quickly.

"would" and "will" is not the same...
And I doubt that everyone will stop buying Wizards stuff now. Even if they don't pick up the revised core rules, there are other works for D&D and d20.

Wizards might sell it, might not. But we need to keep buying products. I was pissed when 3.5 first was mentioned. Now I see they have done a lot of revisions, and that they will be SRD'ing it - bully for them. 3+ years is fine for a revision. Support your favorite d20, sure. But don't think that since the SRD exists, DnD will remain - we need new players, since old players drop off. If there is no new marketing, and no new official material, many players will fade out, and no new ones will come in. That is death for the game. It's a niche market - it has to be fed.

Who says that there will be now new D&D books?

IMO the best way to gain new players is to recruit them. I know not a single roleplayer who started roleplaying because of an Add. They all entered existing gaming circles.

And new players need the core rules first. They won't start out with MM2 and A&EG...

 

[NewJeffCT]

Don’t laugh, but, back in 2E days, we had a house rule that allowed each class to get weapon specialization, if they wanted it.

We had quite a few levels of specialization (specialization, double specialization, signature move, master, grandmaster), but if a wizard wanted to specialize in a weapon, he or she could spend extra weapon proficiency slots over time and they would eventually become specialized. (I think at around 12th level, or 18th) I don’t think a wizard could progress beyond specialization, and most classes could double specialize at the most. A fighter could specialize, then double-specialize, then they get a special “signature” move (like, extra damage or init bonus) or become a weapon master, then a grand master. I think warrior classes (ranger & paladin), and a fighter multi-class, could get the signature move, but only pure fighters could become weapon masters.

So, it did happen before.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Well, yes, it looks like some classes got a "boost", as one poster put it. However, in defense of Wizards, I would think it would be easier to boost 3 or 4 classes and races than to tone down the advantages of 8-10. Because, then you would have people complaining about things going the other way... "Why could I do this before, but not I can’t? Waaahhh"

 

[bret]

Well, since the Rogue still gets unique skills, sneak attack, unique ability to disarm traps, uncanny dodge & evasion, plus a range of other interesting abilities from 10th level... I'd imagine that we would see pretty much as many rogues as we do now.

This skill point fix for the Bard and Ranger is long overdue IMO - it was one of the early house rules in my campaign and I don't think it downplays the rogue one iota.

Rogue Unique skills: There aren't that many skills that a Rogue gets which a Bard doesn't.

Bard gets Alchemy, Speak Language, Scry, Concentrate, the Knowledge Skills, and Spellcraft.

Rogue gets Disable Device, Forgery, Innuendo, Intimidate, Open Lock, Search, Read Lips, and Spot.

The traps ability really isn't that much fun. Traps are the rogue's version of healing spells. I get to have the GM roll a dice to decide if I'm going to die. Either the player has put enough points into the two skills (Search and Disable Device) to do the job, in which case they have the same number of remaining skill points as the Bard and Ranger, or they didn't put enough points in and die.

In many groups, the Rogue is expected to invest in both search and disable device just like the cleric is expected to heal. In some groups, it can be a little more fun if the GM allows the Rogue to set traps.

Read Lips is the only skill that is truely exclusive to the rogue.


There are so many ways to prevent Sneak Attacks, it isn't even funny. At high levels, a fair number of fighters are going to want armor with Fortification on it just to prevent the wild critical hits. It has the added bonus of stopping Sneak Attacks. Any concealment stop it. Many summoned creatures can not be sneak attacked.

The sneak attack is nice, but that is about the only thing the rogue has that is effective in combat. Compare it to the BAB of a ranger or the spells that a Bard can pump out, it starts looking a bit weak.

Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are available in any number of PrCs. Speaking of which, almost every rogue PrC only gives 6 skill points or less.


I've seen a lot more people take rogue for the skill points than other reasons. I can't help thinking that bumping the Ranger and Bard is going to take away from the rogue.

Guess we will find out about a year after the new edition is out what effect it really had.

BTW: The Rogues skills have steadily decreased with each edition. They allow you to choose how to specialize, but the total skill ability has steadily decreased.

 

[Lalato]

IMO the best way to gain new players is to recruit them. I know not a single roleplayer who started roleplaying because of an Add. They all entered existing gaming circles.

Speak for yourself... I started playing DnD because me and my friend happened to be browsing through a train hobby shop one day. We saw the DnD stuff... and the rest is history. Not everyone starts playing DnD through some mysterious network of gaming groups.

As much as I like my local gaming stores... I'm happy to see gaming materials at places like Barnes and Noble because it increases the possibility that some random person might get into the game.

New products like revised rules offer companies like WotC an opportunity to make gameplay better for existing players and future players. The revisions also offer them an opportunity to have a good marketing push... something that is difficult to do with old gaming products. That's why you don't see advertisments for Monopoly... unless it's the Sesame Street edition or somesuch.

--sam

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Don?t laugh, but, back in 2E days, we had a house rule that allowed each class to get weapon specialization, if they wanted it.
So, it did happen before.

Yes, but the fighter still had the edge, because he got stuff the others couldn't get, like Grand Mastery.

Now there's nothing more then specialization, and that should be fighter only. Plus, you can focus on a weapon (2e specialization is the same as 3e Focus plus Specialization).

 

[kingpaul]

Of course, you might have a question of how your bard alignment (any non-Lawful) and Paladin alignment (Lawful Good) stack up... Are you going to be an ex-Paladin, or an ex-Bard, and which abilities are lost from which class

This is a personal peeve of mine, the Bard non-lawful requirement...never sounded kosher to me.