SKR's Opinions on 3.5

[BrooklynKnight]

yeap.

 

[Psion]

I believe that it takes a certain minimum amount of strength to get the sling rotating at the necessary speed, and any strength beyond that just lets you get it there faster (and since there isn't a game mechanic for the time needed to get a sling up to speed, the added strength has no effect). Any increase in rotational speed is really negligible because of the way you have to move your arm. I think I'll question a physicist on this, though, and post a followup.

Gah!

Y'know, sometimes I think Sean is right on the money.
But when he starts talking about science in reference to D&D of all things, it makes me wince. (I'll never forget the invisibility/infravision thing.)

When you are talking about strength in D&D, you should be using mythical heroes as reference points, not physicists. Otherwise you get into real trouble when you get to that sticky HP thing.

Instead of four bonus weapon proficiencies, elves now get "Weapon Familiarity: Elves may treat longswords, rapiers, longbows (including composite longbows), and shortbows including composite shortbows) as simple weapons rather than martial weapons."

Am I the only one not seeing the difference this causes in game terms. Other that it prevents elves from meeting the prerequisite of "proficient in X" for feats and classes, which is an effect I would not think is sensible.

The good part is that it really play's into the gnomes archetypical prankster nature and even to their affinity with animals. The bad part is that it's a significant character change for 3.0 characters, and most DMs should grandfather in the old favored class rule for existing gnome illusionist characters. House rule: Gnomes treat bard or illusionist as their favored class, whichever is more advantageous.

This is a moment where he is right on the money.

WotC's current design staff pays WAY too little attention to the subject of backwards compatability. If they are going to put out changes every few years, they really need to start.

I think the bonuses to Diplomacy and Gather Information skills are the clincher for this race; without them (in 3.0) they're not quite good enough for me to want to play one, but with them it's enough of a boost that even your low-Charisma half-elf is decent at talking to people.

Fair enough, though I think that it would have made more sense for the bonuses to be disguise and bluff for a race that 1) resembles 2 other races and 2) might be considered an outcast and shunned if they can't "fit it".

House rule: Half-orcs do not have a Charisma penalty. Half-orcs get a -1 penalty to Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Handle Animal checks.

Fair enough, but I could live without it. I see no driving need to have half-orc sorcerers and don't mind the race modified driving them away from such.

This isn't really a 3.5 vs. 3.0 issue, but I thought I'd mention it here since I'm doing an analysis of each chapter. Looking back over D&D in all its forms, it's weird that fighty classes (bbn, ftr, pal, rgr, war) are only barely ahead of non-fighty classes in terms of BAB. The 18-year-old who spend the last four years training in the local militia, army, or fighting academy is a 1st-level fighter with a +1 BAB and maybe Weapon Focus. His twin brother who went into the clergy at 14 has a +0 BAB and probably no Weapon Focus. His twin sisters went to the wizard school and thieves' guild, and they have a +0 BAB. So the guy who spent four years learning how to fight -- and nothing else -- is 10% more likely to hit than the guys who studied fighting as a sideline to their main career (barring ability score differences, which don't reflect training), and that's only in one weapon ... in all other weapons, he's probably only 5% better (again, barring differences in weapon proficiencies*). Isn't that strange?

I can see where he is coming from, but it doesn't really bother me beyond how BAB in general bothers me (make these class skills for fighters and cross class skills for other "non fighty" classes and notice how the difference immediately becomes more stark...) He neglects proficiencies, but it is a pretty significant factor to neglect, and it means a good difference in damage and other weapon statistics. Further, I don't see first level characters as exactly "seasoned". It's probably a good thing that my wizard can still hold his own with a light crossbow once he has burned of his 2 first level spells.

This version of the class is greatly refined and cleaned up. I prefer it to the previous version.
(...)
Spells: Bards can now swap out old Spells Known for new ones, meaning at high levels you won't be stuck with sleep and other weak-foes-only spells. Personally I think they could have let the bard swap a spell at every even level; it lets the bard have a little more variety and doesn't use an ungainly and non-intuitive "starting at 5th and every 3rd level after that" progression. House rule: Bards can swap out one spell each time they gain a bard level.
Bardic music abilities (at least the more powerful ones) are now based on bard level instead of ranks in the Perform skill. This is nice because in 3.0 you could take 1 level of bard, multiclass into something else, keep inflating your Perform skill, and get all of the bardic music abilities.

Again, on the money.

In general, this class is too strong

I think running the numbers, we all agree with that (and have commented on this since early 3.0)

However, in play, it still doesn't trip the one "balance litmus test" I have: people don't seem to preferentially play them.

I agree with his house rule suggestion, but more on flavor grounds. The cleric, as written, is a somewhat martial class. I use the priest from AEG's Good for this reason.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: It's really nice that druids who take the appropriate armor or weapon proficiency feats are no longer penalized for it.
(...)
Spontaneous Casting for druids is very nice and gives them a nice flavor -- no matter what the druid prepared for spells that day, she always has the option to call some animal buddies.
(...)
Animal Companions: This changed a lot in 3.5. The biggest change is that you can't get more than one animal companion at a time. This change is good because it's too easy for druids to end up surrounded by a zoo of animals, and in combat that means the druid takes far longer than other characters. This change is bad because it means 3.0 druid characters now need to be reworked, losing extra animal companions (which were often selected to fit a theme).

Again, money.

Fighters and monks... money. Especially this:

House Rule: Monks do not have a multiclassing restriction.

Preach it, brutha Sean! This was the change to 3.5 that I was hoping for but DIDN'T see.

Paladin... let's just say I think you know how I feel about Pokemounts.

Class Skills: Rangers now also have Knowledge (dungeoneering) as a class skill, which makes sense because this new skill covers three of the favored enemy types, and is a native environment for underground-native races.

Not to mention, it doesn't pidgeonhole the class too much. (Would that the bard should be so broad.)

Combat Style: This is interesting, and gives the ranger a little more variety. There's no reason they couldn't have just given the ranger a selection of bonus feats to choose from, similar to the monk, and not have them locked in a feat chain.

My house rule for rangers... and there is a benefit, it doesn't lock all NPC rangers into being archer or drizzt-like commandoes. Adding feats like mounted combat could explain horseman style scouts, run for plainsrunners, etc.

House Rule: Sorcerers get Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Use Magic Device as class skills.
(...)
House rule: Sorcerers get a bonus metamagic feat at level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, just as wizards get a bonus item creation feat at those levels. Sorcerers are natural spellcasters and would have a better understanding of squeezing, twisting, and expanding their spells than any other spellcasting class. House rule: Sorcerers do not have a casting time increase when using metamagic feats. Same reason as the other house rule (the core rule just hoses sorcerers anyway, and they already got the short end of the stick).

Sorcerers do seem to lack a little and I could see the first two house rules here. The third combined with the second? No way. It would turn the balance the other way.

School Specialization: Now all specialists (except diviners) have to choose two prohibited schools (never including divination). This makes sense, as later sourcebooks have rounded out the spell selection so it's not so skewed in favor of evocation and transmutation, and the PH spell list was similarly added to and altered to take this into account, so you don't have to pay extra to be an invoker/transmuter, or pay less if you're a different kind of specialist and choose either of those schools. It sucks that this means 3.0 specialists often have to choose another school (and might lose a few spells they know in the process), but it's more balanced this way. I'd consider grandfathering in those "newly prohibited" spells for wizards who go through this change, or perhaps limit the grandfathering to one spell per spell level.

I agree, again, that there is a compatability problem.

I disagree that the schools are all balanced now (this depends as much on the role of the school as the spells available), and attempts to push it that direction result in some painful distortions to the spell list (like power words, parsing out the symbol, etc.) The single most appropriate change was moving teleportation to conjuration.

But beyond that, I fail to see that anything was wrong with the 3.0 specialist wizards.

House rule: A wizard can only use her bonus feats on item creation feats or Spell Mastery, not metamagic feats. This makes wizards the master crafters in the game and lets the sorcerer be the natural metamagicker.

Oooh, no like. That would, as you say, make the wizard into something more specific. This is not a good thing IMO, as I prefer my classes to be broad.

The only improvement I would make would be to add one phrase to the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section: "... make these changes in this order." That would 100% clear up the "When I reach 6th level, can I take feat X that I need for a prestige class, then choose level 1 of that prestige class as my 6th-level class level?" (Answer: No, because you choose your new class level before you choose your feat.)

I can see from a design-for-abuse standpoint why one might want this to be true.

But my players aren't uber-optimizers and often forget an important feat early on and it's nice to be able to do some last minute planning to get the character that they want.

One of the reasons given for Prestige Classes over kits (and I agree with) is that prestige classes can be added to existing characters. You make it too hard to enter prestige classes, you nullify one of their reasons for existings.

Not to mention, if you are going to make a character wait 3 more levels for a class that they could have otherwise entered at 6th if they were human, you are making the boon of getting a feat at first level too influential in terms of permitting character design freedom.

In short, I think that forcing that rules conclusion is not only not a good thing for the game, in some ways it is harmful.

 

[Henry]

Sorcerers do seem to lack a little and I could see the first two house rules here. The third combined with the second? No way. It would turn the balance the other way.

I agree with keeping metamagic as written, and I came up with that very thought about extra metamagic feats for Sorcerers about 2 years ago. They're natural mages, they need to look like it more.

I disagree that the schools are all balanced now (this depends as much on the role of the school as the spells available), and attempts to push it that direction result in some painful distortions to the spell list...

I agree in that I think the schools are MORE balanced than they were; fact is, no one that I read or saw was taking necromancy, or abjuration, and transmuters were the most dump-all category you ever saw. You could be a transmuter and strike conjuration in 3.0, and not have a care in the world, since about the only really necessary thing you lost was mage armor.

Oooh, no like. That would, as you say, make the wizard into something more specific. This is not a good thing IMO, as I prefer my classes to be broad.

I like this idea, conversely, and correlate it directly with giving Sorc's bonus metamagic feats; it pins the Wizard more solidly as a "mechanic" (to borrow a term from Robert Aspirin's Myth series) and the Sorcerer as a "Natural." Then again, I think Elves should be natural sorcerers, too, but you can't have 'em all...

 

[diaglo]

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Drow Jones]

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

Heh, you really need to put this in your signature. Saves you some typing when you post "See the sig!" in random threads.

Even an empty post by Diaglo would work for 90% of the forum readers...

- DJ

 

[diaglo]

but this isn't a random thread. i usually only post my signature statement in threads which contain Edition Wars comparisons.

this one is EW material.

 

[Elrik_DarkFury]

3.5 screws wizards in many ways,thus adjusting sorcerers' power with extra feats and futher reducing wizards flexibility with metamagic feats seems really dumb and stupid to me and really unbalancing for the game.

 

[Klaus]

Psion -> Re: Elves' Proficiencies: If elves were to treat Longswords, Shortswords, Longbows and Shortbows as simple weapons, classes that don't get Simple Weapon Proficiency (monk, druid, wizard) don't get these four weapons. As is, all elves, regardless of class, get these four feats.

That's the difference Sean was aiming at.

As for the Half-Orcs, I agree that -2 Cha doesn't reflect the "must-be-tough-'cause-everyone-hates-me" nature of the half-orc. I think doing away with it and replacing with -1 to Diplomacy, Gather Information and Bluff (NOT Handle Animal, I don't think animals mind them, but people wouldn't trust a half-orc much). In fact, I'd add +2 to Intimidation checks (and to level checks to resist intimidation) to those House Rules!

 

[Pants]

3.5 screws wizards in many ways,

Eh... how so?

Further I agree that limiting a Wizard to merely bonus Craft feats is... not such a good idea. I am, however, in favor of giving the Sorcerer bonus metamagic feats at every 5 levels AND letting them utilize Quicken Spell dagnabbit!

 

[johnsemlak]

In fact, I'd add +2 to Intimidation checks (and to level checks to resist intimidation) to those House Rules!

Isn't there a feat that lets you use STR instead of CHA for intimidate checks?