Psion's list of rules from 3.5 he will NOT be using...

[Gnarlo]

I've already been using a square spacing for the rectangular figures in my game so it will actually validate what my group already does In the above example, if we have a horse figure we set it diagonally across squares J and O, and it therefor controls them as well as I and P.

I still haven't decided how I feel about the summoning paladin... feels a little to EQish at times

/gnarlo!

 

[mmu1]

Your unilateral statement bothers me; I would accept "I think it's bogus and it's lame," but please try to avoid absolutes. Personally, I think it's neither.

The constant bogus and lame use of "IMHO" and its ilk is what bothers me. It's a given that he's stating an opinion... (like I just did) Although that "...personally, I think..." is redundant and bad writing is a fact.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, the whole facings rule isn't really relevant in my campaigns, because just about all of my players hate using minieatures in the game--they prefer that I just describe the scene as it is, and draw a quick map if necessary.

School Specialization: well, again, most of my players that play wizards play generalist mages, so this doesn't seem to have much of an impact. I'll have to review it more though. I don't really have much of a problem with the school specialization rules as they stand.

The others: I'll have to wait and see on them before making any judgments.

Pokemon Paladin: Eh. I have mixed feelings about this. Is it cool for one or a few paladins to have this ability? I think that might be really cool, but only in that context. I have used magic items that allow the same; but it isn't there for every paladin. I think providing this for every paladin is kinda dumb. As has been mentioned by Psion, not *every* class ability has to be *that* useful. In fact, some of the most dramatic moments in play have been where a paladin has seen his companion mount die heroically in battle. Being able to just whip up a new mount the next day seems kinda cheap to me, and more of a video-game effect.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Piratecat]

Aw, c'mon PCat, I think we can assume that people are posting their opinions, even when they don't use "I think" or "IMO". I don't think he was trying to say that his thoughts were facts. [/B]

Nah, James, that's a lousy strategy for trying to hold a discussion or a conversation. Stating opinions as absolutes sets off a tremendous amount of flame wars on the internet, because doing so doesn't allow for the possibility that anyone else can have an opinion that is different from your own - and if they do, then they're wrong and/or stupid. I'd just as soon avoid such an approach when possible.

Or maybe it's just something that I'm especially sensitive to because it totally gets up my nose.

But let's not hijack the thread!

 

[Gnarlo]

The 15 knights bear down on the square of 150 pikemen (15 wide and 10 deep

Old way: Facing of knights: 75', Facing of pikemen 75'

New way: Facing of Knights: 150': Facing of pikemen: 75'

Now the knights will wrap around the pikemen.

That's what's wrong with square facing.

The square facings work well for the type of combat the D&D system is made for, small unit skirmishes. It's pretty well known it is klunky for large combats; that's why so many of us are still waiting for a good mass combat system

/gnarlo!

 

[Zogg]

Actually, I think it is a seriosuly flawed analogy. Because it misses the whole point.

Now if a cleric had to use the turn undead ability daily or lose it and there were places where multiday adventures could occur and the cleric was banned from using turn undead there, the analogy would hold.

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.

 

[KDLadage]

I have a game to run tonight. I really didn't need this thread... [/B]

Sorry... I did not mean to get you upset.

MODS: Please close this thread. Thanks.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Wow I agree with Psion on a lot of things. But I'm just going to skip 3.5e all together. Pokemon Paladin's....I weep for the future of D&D.

 

[Piratecat]

The square facing work best for me when I consider something like a dragon or a purple worm. If they change position by 90 degrees, weird things happen. I'm much happier having them be able to control that whole region of space.

One last thought on the warhorse issue - I agree with SHARK in that the death of a warhorse should be a momentous and dramatic occasion. I don't think the summoning issue precludes this, but I'd want to make sure that it was a big deal in the game. Saying "Oh well, Trigger's dead. Let's summon Trigger Jr.!" wouldn't fly for me.

 

[Gargoyle]

Pokemon Paladin: ....... Being able to just whip up a new mount the next day seems kinda cheap to me, and more of a video-game effect.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Then you'll be glad to know that there is a penalty when the mount dies, and that "whipping up a new one" the next day isn't possible. But I can't violate the NDA by telling you how it works.

That's part of the problem with this thread; very intelligent posters like Shark can't really make informed opinions because they don't have all the info yet.

But I do see your point Shark. The penalty for the new mount dying is less than it used to be, and I could definitely see Alt Paladins that don't have the new special mount.