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

[seankreynolds]

Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.

{8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2),}

IMO, the "but they can't kill you" is a silly and unneccessary restriction. Slay living is one level lower and could kill a creature that fails its save, regardless of hit points.

{And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).}

Poo.

{18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.}

Not sure about this one. In the hands of a paladin, it's +5. It gets +1d6 vs. evil, so that's about a +1 (it's kind of a lesserholy). SR 15 just to the wielder is a +3 armor bonus, so in a 5 ft. radius I can see a +3 weapon bonus. UNlimited dispel magic at caster level 18 is pretty huge, too. Just from plus-bonuses it's +9, which is 162,000. Add in the dispel and it's more than that. And even though it's only +2 in the hands of a non-paladin, that shouldn't reduce the cost that much and certainly doesn't justify more powers to "justify the cost." :/

{22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.}

No reason for this. The playtesters they refer to were the original 3E playtesters, and if this revision is about taking into account customer feedback I think there is a significant population that realizes it is not needed.

 

[seankreynolds]

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.

I have marked up my playtest copy, and once the PH 3.5 goes live I'm going to post all of the changes I have noticed ... any my opinions of them.

 

[Vrylakos]

Well, if you substanially modify the setting (no ranged weapons) I would argue you then substanially modify the classes. Can a wizard do okay in an all jungle setting? No, because a large portion of his spell components won't be available (not that any pays attention to spell components). If you take X out of a setting, then any abilities tied to X need to leave. If you remove all non magical beasts, the druid gets hosed. You would have to adjust the druid. And so on....

My example may have been extreme, but I think that other classes, including the ones you mention, can fit into various fantasy settings a lot easier than the ranger - there are many flavors of fighter, wizard, rogue, bard, and so on.

But the D&D ranger is ONLY EVER the D&D ranger. He can't be Tolkien's ranger, he can't be Martin's Brotherhood of the Night Watch, and so on. Even the archetypal rangers of fiction DON'T fit the D&D ranger, as he's too specific a class - and Drizzt doesn't count for my purposes, as he arose from the material.

He can't be worked into many alternate settings, unlike the rest, as he's so straight-jacketed.

And I would point out that the people on this thread are not a representative sampling, nor have we seen and playtested the new rules. You can't get 50% of the people in house rules to agree on things. How could you expect that the new rules would satisfy everyone? They are all new house rules, but they have a wide playtest audience. I'm going to wait and see.

I'm only asking that they give options and allow for more than two angles or takes on a class. I would expect that the people who write to WOTC or post here be listened to. If people care enough to tell WOTC things, then they should be listened to, and the other sheep don't enter into the equation by their own inaction.

So is it the general assumption that sorcerors are a weak and useless class, compared to wizards? That's been the general opinion here in the thread, it seems. That's another thing I'd bet that not 50% of the population of ENWorld agrees with....

I can only speak from experience: I've never seen a player want to play a sorcerer into double digits. Wizards, OH yes, but not sorcerers. I myself don't see a compelling reason if wizards are allowed as PC classes as well. I've played them at low level, and they were a lot of fun, but again, I only speak from experience. I'd never play one high level, especially in a party with a wizard. They just need a little something of their own.



I also know players that play rangers now, without twf. Do they feel left out? Nah - they do it for skills, track, favored enemy, spells, rp, and flavor.

So.

And that's my point. How about giving them things they can use? The class let them down, even if they didn't know it. The classes should be their to help a player's concept, not restrict it.

You'd assume if a ranger was trained in something, it would be so they could use it, not abandon it.

"Today, young Aragohrn, I'm going to teach you to fight with two weapons."

"But, I REALLY want to fight with a whip. Or maybe a long spear!"

"TWO WEAPONS!!!"

How about enabling those non-TWF and non-Archery ranger-players? Why MUST rangers get their greatest benefits from twf and archery?

Vrylakos

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh my god!!!!!!

D&D is going to go the way of the Dodo... Wizards is owned by the devil... Hasbro doesn't give a rat's @ss about G.I. Joe. The sky is falling!!!

Heh, people that overreact are funny...

Very few of the current group at Wizards had ANYTHING to do with 3E. And they'll probably get the remaining few with the next round of layoffs.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by seankreynolds:

{8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2),}

IMO, the "but they can't kill you" is a silly and unneccessary restriction. Slay living is one level lower and could kill a creature that fails its save, regardless of hit points.

Good one, I didn't even think about that... For everyone tuning in I forgot to mention that 3.5e Harm cannot reduce a target's HPs below 1.

{And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).}

Poo.

They really should have *some* option. Limited, yes, but some option nevertheless.

{18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.}

Not sure about this one. In the hands of a paladin, it's +5. It gets +1d6 vs. evil, so that's about a +1 (it's kind of a lesserholy). SR 15 just to the wielder is a +3 armor bonus, so in a 5 ft. radius I can see a +3 weapon bonus. UNlimited dispel magic at caster level 18 is pretty huge, too. Just from plus-bonuses it's +9, which is 162,000. Add in the dispel and it's more than that. And even though it's only +2 in the hands of a non-paladin, that shouldn't reduce the cost that much and certainly doesn't justify more powers to "justify the cost." :/

Our game so rarely hits the kind of levels where you'd see a Holy Avenger, I can't even remember half of what it does... I'm inclined to agree with you... (To top it off I thought the HA was errata'd to inflict +2d6 vs evil.)

{22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.}

No reason for this. The playtesters they refer to were the original 3E playtesters, and if this revision is about taking into account customer feedback I think there is a significant population that realizes it is not needed.

Not this playtester! Anyway, there's an poll running about this in the messageboards that currently have the "remove the restriction" crowd outnumbering the "keepers" over 2:1.


Cheers,

A'koss!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Are you serious? I can understand an argument made that Hasbro could give a rat's butt about D&D, but Wizards?

Do you know anything about how Wizards gained the rights to D&D to save it from the bankrupt TSR? Do you know that the main man behind Wizards at the time (CEO Peter Adkison) is a gamer and he has now bought Gen Con to stay involved in the industry now that he has left Wizards?

Wizards never looked at D&D as a huge money maker--they had Magic (and then Pokemon) for that. They bought D&D becuase they played the game. They wanted to make sure it never went off the radar and faded into obsurity. They rescued it. And by creating the OGL, they insured that even if Hasbro sandbags it, those d20 publishers you are raving about can still legally make D&D products for years to come.

Where do you get the impression Wizards doesn't care??

Edit Log: Me no spell good

Yes I know this. Wizards under Peter Adkinson was a good company, I thank them for saving D&D. I thank Peter Adkinson for buying (saving?) Gen-Con. But Wizards is not under Adkinson anymore it is under Ha$bro and is not the same company it used to be. Adkinson's love for gaming has been replaced by Ha$bro's love of the bottom line. SKR told a wonderful story of Elves and Bean Counters discussing this. Gone as well are others who brought the love of gaming to the company like Monte Cook who many consider the main creative mind behind 3E and Ryan Dancey who gave us the SRD. Additionally the R&D staff has been obliterated by layoffs leaving but a shell of the talent they once had. Just because a company previously under different management once did wonderful things doesn't mean I should support them now no matter what.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Will they get something else, then?

That makes sense

Cries for a house rule, then.


If I wanted to use house rules, I wouldn't need 3.5.


So this thread is representative? I doubt it. And there aren't actually so many people that complain about the rangers' paths, and a lot who like the idea (me amongst them) or are indifferent towards it.

Let me reiterate it: You and a handful of other guys in that thread here aren't 50% of Wizard's business. You exaggerate.


Maybe not this thread in particular, but where do you think they DO get their input? Unless they break into people's games at random and observe, or wiretap peopl'es phones, they get their info from here and from letters to Dragon. And I bet more people post here than send mail to Dragon.


I seriously doubt that Wizards will have to close their doors just because a single class (out of 11) was less than perfect for a percentage of the prospective customers. Close their doors, no. But as I said, I'll let MY vote show. That's how capitalism works.


That's like saying Ford will go bankrupt cause some people don't like the rims on the new Focus.

If rims are important enough to you, you'll buy something else. Again, voting with your dollar.



I have a perfect soulution: just ignore the paths on the ranger. You won't GET bonus feats that way, and can invest your normal feats on fighting feats.

Again, when 3.5 hits the shelves, show me one ranger that uses a fighting style other than the free ones.




There are general classes, and there are specific classes. The ranger is a specialist, at least in some ways. The monk is best when fighting unarmed, and noone seems to complain - even the "penalties" a monk gets when fighting with something else (less damage at later levels, possibly a worse attack routine, not being able to use stunning fist....) are more severe.


That's because unarmed fighting defines a monk. Bruce Lee didn't go around shooting people full of arrows.

As I said: if you don't like feats you'll never use, just don't take them. There's no rule against that.

When they are hard wired into the class, you HAVe to take them. To use your automobile analogy, it's like a deaf person buying a car with the latest $5,000.00 stereo and speakers. It irks me to pay for something I won't use. I'm not talking about the new books here. I'm talking about the ranger class. Why be a ranger? I have yet to see ANYONE take more than one level of ranger, now they'll take two, big improvement there.

 

[Narfellus]

skills

What did Ed say about how much time skills take? I really like the way SW did it, i sort of assumed they would take that and incorporate it.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Narfellus:

What did Ed say about how much time skills take? I really like the way SW did it, i sort of assumed they would take that and incorporate it.

IIRC, Ed specifically said they weren't going the Star Wars route but I forget his reasoning why...


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Oh God, people, do you want any cheese with your whine?

We finished a long term campaign not that long ago, and my human ranger ended up around level 25. All in ranger. The rest of the group was in that level range as well and were a rogue/paladin (higher in rogue); a straight monk; two straight human fighters; a fighter/ranger (equal split in levels), a straight Halfling rogue and an elf fighter/wizard (mainly fighter). Not to toot my own horn, but my ranger was probably the most effective overall character in the group when it came to non-roleplaying things – Heck, the guys were even complaining that I was overpowered because I could fight well, cast some spells, had a good selection of skills and had favored enemy damage bonuses.

And, why not only 2 weapon fighting or archery feats? Rogues are restricted to certain weapons… put them in a gladiator campaign with only greataxes, greatswords and longspears available, and the rogue is screwed. Why can’t he use big weapons? My God, I am really screwed if I wanted to play a Halfling rogue that wields a greatsword.

Heck, what if in the same gladiator campaign, they go out and strap a shield to everybody’s left arm and a longsword to everybody’s right? Boy, I am out of luck if I am a lefty, or if my best feature is unarmed fighting like the monk.

Or maybe instead of a shield, they strap a breastplate onto everybody, so nice bloody head shots are the way to go to kill combatants. With a breastplate, the rogue and monk are both screwed.