Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 955805" data-attributes="member: 5868">So let's see here:1) Square facings.I've played with both now (switched when the change was first announced) and generally prefer the square facings becuase it does away with awkwardness in 5' steps and rotations for long critters.  I am interested to see what the details are on mounted combat and movement in smaller areas, because I see some potentail for awkwardness there, but see no reason to reject this right off until I see how that is handled.  I can think of one fix for horses (treat as medium creatures -- 5' square -- yep, a strange abstraction, but so is the whole thing, and it works).2) School SpecializationCan't really judge until I see the full spell lists.  If the other schools have been improved such that Divination is clearly weaker, then I'll be fine with this -- my fear would be abuse of Divination specialization more than anything else at that point.  Undecided, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  I don't see specialists so defined by what they are prohibited, anyway (the specialists played IMC cast virtually ALL their spells from their specialty schools, so it really wouldn't have mattered what was prohibited).3) Spell Focus*Shrug*.  Didn't think this was broken, but I could see the potential for it to be so before.  I don't think it's a game breaking change -- wizards would still be viable if there were no other way to boost their save DCs.  Need to playtest this, but I expect it will work out OK.4) Power Attack.Well, I though 1.5 * would be more elegant/consistent, but that makes the math a pain.  TWF seems to have been made much more viable, too -- so it looks like the overall balance in styles is preserved.  While I'm hesitant to say this is a perfect solution, the initial analysis done by the Rules Board guys seems to indicate this will be OK -- again, I'll play it first, but think it will work out OK.5) Deflect ArrowsYeah, poorly designed feat, but frankly doesn't have enough impact for me to even get excited about -- plenty of other stuff in the game is automatic that we don't think twice about.  Not even worth the effort of changing.6) Paladin's MountNeed to see the exact text on this before making any opinion, really.  Frankly, it just sounds like the Paladin's getting the ability to cast a Mount spell once per day, with minor variations.  Given that the druid can now spontaneously pull badgers out of his butt, I hardly think a daily casting of Mount by a Paladin is a big deal for flavor or any other reason.  Heck, the game mechanics of the familiar-in-a-pocket, who grants a continuous benefit to a character without ever making an in-game appearance *cough*toad*cough* are much more worrisome in comparison.7) DRNice flavor change, mechanically, I expect there will be no net change, though again, I really need to see it in action first -- but I'm not bothered by it.So in summary, there's maybe two items I've really raised my eyebrows at -- and there are a heck of a lot more things than that that I think are broke in 3.0 that aren't changing, and no one's suggesting a return to 2E -- so if that's all that's wrong with 3.5, I'd call it a win.  And even those things I really need to see the whole package in play first before I can really judge.Maybe once I've gotten to play with the full rules set I can afford to get my knickers in a bunch and start creating new house rules, but I'm willing to give the base rules a shot first.</blockquote>

Verification