Psion's 3.5 house rule list

[BryonD]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mini does not represent the creature anymore than a chess bishop represents the clergy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay. My clerics are represented by clerics. Or close facsimiles.

Well, KDLagage covered this very well in the other thread. So I'll be brief unless you request a rehash for some reason.

Bottom line: We are talking about rules.
You stated that the first purpose of a mini is to represent the shape. I totally disagree.
The first purpose was and is to represent the combatant tactically. Only later did soembody first say, "Gee, it be cool if this little chit actually looked like a cleric."

You can use a 1" square base of warhammer40K snotlings to represent your cleric and it will not matter a hill of beans to the validity of the 3E vs 3.5 rules.

 

[BryonD]

Uh....no. First of all, the paladin's mount is not a 'use it or lose it' ability, and while he certainly can't successfully take his mount down a '45 decline into the underdark or into a thieves guild with winding passageways, he CAN leave it at the stable of the nearest town after which he can retrieve it.

Likewise, a cleric can go weeks if not months without using his turn undead ability. In 3E, both classes only get to use their special abilities (or creatures) when the right conditions are present - paladins on relatively flat, clear land and clerics when undead are present.

And in my experience, adventuring parties find themselves on flat, clear land a LOT more often then they find themselves facing undead.

Sorry Zogg, but you have missed my point.
Part of what I said was "going somewhere where the mount can not be used either severly disrupts the flow of the game or permanently disables the paladin by removing a class feature"

Just casually stating that "he CAN leave it at a stable..." assumes a lot of flexibility. VERY frequently running back to town can be far closer to my "severe disruption" than it is to just something you do.

Next, you are treating the mount like any other horse. If I am to choose between a paladin saying:

A) This is my Holy Steed, gifted to me by the Lord of Dawn. He is a majestic, intelligent and faithful servant, mount and companion. Now excuse me while I go find what stable boy in this shanty can keep his oat bag full.

or

B) My Celestial Steed resides in the eternal grasses of the holy realm. He comes to my in times of need and serves me well. When my need passes, he returns to run with the winds of paradise.

I know which one sounds like a cool paladin to me.

Lastly, it is a far stretch to assume that dumping a mount "in the nearest town" makes that mount safe. (unless the DM metagames security, which instantly defeats the "pokeman is not believable" arguement). Once the mount is left behind, the paladin does not have it period. Eventually he can go back to get it. If it is still there. If it is lost, the paladin permanetly losses a class feature. (And a year of game time equal forever in many campaigns). I do not care if the party fights on 50 plains between every undead encounter. Turn Undead remains a class feature available whenever it is needed, with no concern that it may be lost. A lost mount is gone.

 

[Corinth]

I don't see the point is making house rules before actually playing the game, as written, all the way through at least once. Chances are that what looks broken on paper isn't; it gets the job done right in actual gameplay. Once you've got practical experience with the full panapoly of the ruleset, then make your house rules; by then you'll know exactly what's wrong as well as how to fix it so that it works right.

 

[BryonD]

Let's take a chariot with two horses pulling it. In 3.0. the horses would be able to attack to either side of them within 5'. Does a horse really attack to the side? Well, probably not really. But is is reasonably within the level of abstraction to assume the square grid is not exat, and the horse is slightly askew for long enough to affect a character there, or to have hit it while dashing by.

Now under 3.5, all of the sudeen the horses can attack creatures 10' to either side of them, which is ludicrous. You see, the shape of the creture should define what it can do and where it can reach. This "tactical zone of control" thing is silly, because with the reach and AoO rules, creatures already have a tactical zone of control.

Why is it ludicrous?

I mean, you have intentionally selected a low maneuverability item to make your example. But, in a system with no facign the idea of "attacking to the side" is irrational, so any arguement based on it falls apart.

During the 6 seconds that a melee round lasts, a creature should be assumed to be in action. Just because it can only move on its turn does not make it frozen at any point. The whole arguement seem to get hung up on the idea that the combatants actually take turns, rather than simulating a continuous interaction.

The horse can not attack 10 feet to his side. He CAN turn 90 degrees and attack using his normal reach.

Far better to use a rule that makes sense for 99% of creatures and allow DMs to account for oddball cases, like a chariot, where the idea of simply turning 90 degrees is unreasonable.