D&D 3E/3.5 Spell/Rule Changes from 3.0 to 3.5 -- How did we survive 3.0?

[Nail]

Patryn-

I know this isn't quite the place for it (being a thread on 3.0e spells), but I keep noticing your chart numbers do not agree with mine. In part that must be because it is using 3.0e rules.....and there seems to be some sort of monkey business with "primary critical hit damage".

My spreadsheet (excel) is simple, by design, so I can freely modify the numbers as new feats and rule chanegs come up. I've tested it against several other spreadsheets available on these boards, and my numbers always agree with theirs.

So...I'm kinda wondering why yours and mine don't match.

For example, the Ftr 15 we keep talking about (Str 30, holy flaming +2 Greatsword, weapon focus and specialization, imp. crit, no power attack) tops out at 118.8 hp of damage per round...yet your chart shows it to top out at ~140. That's a pretty big gap!

Here's the basic numbers for this fighter, condensed:
Attack: +28/+23/+18
Damage: 26 + 10.5 "extra" (not multiplied by crits) damage.

So far, our numbers agree perfectly.

Now, have the Ftr 15 attack an AC 20....meaning he will hit on all but a 1 for all three attacks. Calculate his average damage per attack......
=0.95 x 26 x 1.20 + 0.95 x 10.5 = 39.6 hp/atk

....and he can attack 3 times per round: 39.6 * 3 = 118.8 ave. hp dam/round.

How do you get ~140 hp? Where did one of us (possibly me?) make a mistake?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Power Attack is another area where using NWN as your base rather than the P&P rules is likely to give a misleading answer. NWN Power Attack is always 5 points. 5 points is rarely the optimum amount to power attack. In my analyses above, you'll notice that 5 shows up only three times, three shows up once, and the rest of the numbers are above 5.

We should be able to agree that a higher damage bonus helps the falchion wielder in general. (If damage=dice+x+extra dice, then the higher x is, the better the falchion will do relative to the greatsword--all other things being equal). Power Attack makes it easier to get a higher damage bonus. Therefore, power attack should help the falchion wielder.
Expressing this in mathematical terms:
greatsword damage= %hit(2d6+x)+%crit(%hit(2d6+x))
and
falchion damage=%hit(2d6+x)+%crit(%hit(2d4+x))
With one threat range expansion (keen or imp crit), that works out to:
greatsword damage= %hit(7+x)+.2(%hit(7+x))
and
falchion damage=%hit(5+x)+.3(%hit(5+x))
Factored out, where h=%hit that works out to:
7h+xh+.14h+.2xh (Greatsword)
and
5h+xh+.21h+.3xh (falchion)
That adds up to:
7.14h+1.2(xh) (Greatsword)
and
5.21h+1.3(xh) (Falchion)
Factoring h out, it turns out that:
Greatsword damage/h=7.14+1.2x
Falchion damage/h=5.21+1.3x
Therefore, falchion damage will (in general) be greater than greatsword damage where:
5.21+1.3x > 7.14 +1.2x
That will be true whenever x > 19 (assuming, of course, the same attack bonus).

Since this comparison starts the greatsword and falchion wielder out at +19 (3.0-- +15 str, +2 enhancement, +2 WS) or +21 (3.5--+15 str, +2 enh, +4 GWS), the falchion wielder is reliably ahead of the greatsword wielder (though not by a lot since the base number is very close to 19). A lower level comparison would be favor the greatsword wielder more and might well show situations where the falchion wielder's optimal power attack is greater than the greatsword wielder's. In theory, that should occur whenever (h-.05)(5.21+1.3(x+2)) > h(7.14 +1.2x)
5.21h+1.3xh+2.6h-.2605h-.065h-.13xh > h(7.14 +1.2x)
7.485h+1.17xh > 7.14h+1.2xh
That works out to any time x < 12 (and all threats are hits), the falchion wielder can be better off than the greatsword wielder by power attacking for one point. Edit--I think I multiplied (h-.05) incorrectly in the above example. I've left my math so that someone with a better memory of high school can tell me where I went wrong.

The flipside which you seem to be focussing on is that power attack hurts the falchion wielder if it leads to some of his attacks that would threaten not even hitting. So, let's look at that analysis.
If we take our target level as 15 and use all of the same assumptions we have been using, our fighters should have an attack bonus of +29/+24/+19 in their 3.5 incarnations. The falchion will have a nonstacking threat range of 15-20 and a stacking threat range of 12-20. So, in order to lose any threats because of power attack, the falchion has to roll a 12 (or a 15), add his lowest attack to it, and miss after subtracting power attack.
That should look like this: AC=19+threat range-power attack.
Therefore, AC+power attack=19+threat range.
Therefore AC+power attack=31 (stacking) or 34 (non-stacking).

Looking up at my optimal power attack numbers (which, keep in mind are for a +20 BAB character with a +5 weapon), we can see that, even with 5 more points of BAB and 3 more points of enhancement, optimal power attack+AC just barely exceeds power attack+AC at AC 30 without stacking and only slightly exceeds it when stacking. Running the numbers at BAB 15 with a +2 enhancement bonus:
http://www.distanceeducationconsult...d6&charge_mult=1&Ilove=Macy&button1=CALCULATE
http://www.distanceeducationconsult...d6&charge_mult=1&Ilove=Macy&button1=CALCULATE
you will notice that optimal power attack+AC never seems to exceed 31. So, with optimal power attack as calculated by this page, the falchion wielder will never have any of his threats miss unless he reaches a number where needs a 20 to hit anyway. (well, actually, the page's calculations seem to start when he needs a 17 to hit on his primary attack; I assume the chance of dealing lots of extra damage on the other two attacks (and the primary attack too) makes up for missing more often on the primary attack).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Odd, Nail. When working it out longhad, I get the GS wielder at an average of 118.8 damage per round as well...

I guess I better send Thott a bug report.

EB: Power Attacking for a fixed value - in this case, 5 - is no better or worse than allowing each particular set of attacks to vary, and may in fact be worse. In the interest of minimizing extraneous variables (and since the likelihood of a player calculating optimum PA ratios at table-time is rather small), I think it's a fine simplification. YMMV, of course.

 

[SteveC]

A lot of the changes in 3.5e were to reward people who sought a permanent solution to their problems.

Skills are better than permanent magic items are better than temporary magic spells.

Cheers!

Yes, it certainly seems like that was the idea. The problem is that the wizard and the sorcerer can't do anything besides use those temporary magic spells. This isn't an issue at higher levels, when wizards have unmatched combat ability and flexibility. The problem comes at low levels, when 3.5 reduced what a wizard can do. I think the idea of getting more towards the idea of "wimp at low levels, king at high levels" is a bad thing.

Even with that, I certainly don't think that my two example spells needed to be nerfed to make skill users more viable. A first level wizard with spider climb can cast one other first level spell the whole day, after all.

One of the things I really liked about 3E was that it gave you a number of different ways to get to the same result: it is about options. Now with all of us...err..."rules artists" we find that there are ways to be very effective in different things that an adventurer needs to do. What has bothered me about 3.5 is that some of these methods have been determined to be bad, while others have not. The result is fewer options to make an effective character, and more similarities.

The other debate in this thread is a good example of this: in 3.0 we have keen and improved critical stacking, which is one way to do a lot of damage at high levels. There are other viable ways as well: power attack, two handed weapons, huge numbers of attacks and two-weapon fighting and so on. There is no definitive consensus (at least that I've seen) as to what method makes for the absolute best damage dealing character. As we see in this very thread, people have different ideas as to how this works, and it ultimately doesn't matter who's right: so long as each of the different options is viable in one way or another. In 3.0 games I saw rapiers, scimitars, falchions, and two handed swords all described as uber.

In 3.5 we've eliminated the stacking of keen and improved crit, which makes a character concept that was viable before no longer available. Keen and Improved critical combine for a lot of damage, but that's what they're supposed to do. High level fighters are supposed to deal out hella' damage! The question is: do they do disproportionately more damage than any other kind of fighting style/magic item combo? From my experience, no they don't: in a medium to high level game it's too easy to completely negate critical hits for this to be an uber strategy. Now of course that's just my opinion, but I'm going to raise this question again: what was going on with the stacking that made it better than any other combat style? Haven't we just replaced "keen + improved crit" with "power attack, two handed weapon" in the new edition? Is having one less way to do hella' damage better for the game?

Let me now officially get off of my soapbox...

 

[Storyteller01]

Yes, it certainly seems like that was the idea. The problem is that the wizard and the sorcerer can't do anything besides use those temporary magic spells. This isn't an issue at higher levels, when wizards have unmatched combat ability and flexibility. The problem comes at low levels, when 3.5 reduced what a wizard can do. I think the idea of getting more towards the idea of "wimp at low levels, king at high levels" is a bad thing.

Even with that, I certainly don't think that my two example spells needed to be nerfed to make skill users more viable. A first level wizard with spider climb can cast one other first level spell the whole day, after all.

One of the things I really liked about 3E was that it gave you a number of different ways to get to the same result: it is about options. Now with all of us...err..."rules artists" we find that there are ways to be very effective in different things that an adventurer needs to do. What has bothered me about 3.5 is that some of these methods have been determined to be bad, while others have not. The result is fewer options to make an effective character, and more similarities.

The other debate in this thread is a good example of this: in 3.0 we have keen and improved critical stacking, which is one way to do a lot of damage at high levels. There are other viable ways as well: power attack, two handed weapons, huge numbers of attacks and two-weapon fighting and so on. There is no definitive consensus (at least that I've seen) as to what method makes for the absolute best damage dealing character. As we see in this very thread, people have different ideas as to how this works, and it ultimately doesn't matter who's right: so long as each of the different options is viable in one way or another. In 3.0 games I saw rapiers, scimitars, falchions, and two handed swords all described as uber.

In 3.5 we've eliminated the stacking of keen and improved crit, which makes a character concept that was viable before no longer available. Keen and Improved critical combine for a lot of damage, but that's what they're supposed to do. High level fighters are supposed to deal out hella' damage! The question is: do they do disproportionately more damage than any other kind of fighting style/magic item combo? From my experience, no they don't: in a medium to high level game it's too easy to completely negate critical hits for this to be an uber strategy. Now of course that's just my opinion, but I'm going to raise this question again: what was going on with the stacking that made it better than any other combat style? Haven't we just replaced "keen + improved crit" with "power attack, two handed weapon" in the new edition? Is having one less way to do hella' damage better for the game?

Let me now officially get off of my soapbox...

(Applause and bronzing of soap box insues)

So far, every OGL game I've read printed after the advent of 3.5 (limited as that is, with my reading schedule) has revoked this rule and gone back to stacking these abilities.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, it certainly seems like that was the idea. The problem is that the wizard and the sorcerer can't do anything besides use those temporary magic spells. This isn't an issue at higher levels, when wizards have unmatched combat ability and flexibility. The problem comes at low levels, when 3.5 reduced what a wizard can do. I think the idea of getting more towards the idea of "wimp at low levels, king at high levels" is a bad thing.

Define "low levels".

At 5th level, the Wizard can craft slippers of spider climbing, gauntlets of ogre power and a bunch of other permanent items. However, they've sacrificed XP and gold for the ability.

At 1st level, sleep is still a very, very potent spell. (1 round to cast it isn't as bad as it sounds - it just means that the opponents get one chance to act).

At 3rd level, cat's grace works for one combat. +2 AC and +2 to hit with ranged effects isn't that bad. Or +2 to hit and +3 damage for bull's strength (2h weapon, obviously!). Compare with divine favour, and suddenly it looks pretty good.

The Keen/Improved Crit stacking doesn't interest me much. Power Attack has a trade off; there is none for Keen/Improved Crit. Consider that many +1 weapon bonuses give you the equivalent of possessing a feat. Now Keen/Improved Crit. works the same way.

The major flaw with the stacking is simply it reduces criticals to a yawn factor. With the right weapon, almost every hit is a critical! Boring!

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

A lot of the changes in 3.5e were to reward people who sought a permanent solution to their problems.

Skills are better than permanent magic items are better than temporary magic spells.

Cheers!

Wait - was that an agreement or a disagreement?

My point is that how you stated it is how it SHOULD be, and what 3.5 moved towards.

Is that what you meant?

 

[MerricB]

Wait - was that an agreement or a disagreement?

My point is that how you stated it is how it SHOULD be, and what 3.5 moved towards.

Is that what you meant?

Yep.

I'm a strong 3.5e supporter.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

One of the aspects of 3.5e is that it should always be worth taking ranks in skills - you can't just say "Oh, I'll get that item or that spell and that will always fix the problem".

The one real exception to this is Climb, which is often trumped by spells and magic items. However, because Climb is such a non-essential skill in many campaigns, those spells and magic items may well not be taken. (Would you rather have slippers of spider climbing or boots of speed? The latter? Ah, yes!)

Compare this with the importance of skills like Spot, Hide and Move Silently. Almost every combat encounter in my game begins with a Spot or Listen check. Items that give bonuses to these are necessarily lesser.

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Of course, this is assuming he doesn't have unholy aura activated. Which the MM entry assumes he does.

It assumes he does IF he has time to prepare. Which he may or may not.

Or invisiblity etc. Oh, and every group has a paladin to cast bless weapon? Even if you do have Oil of Bless Weapon or silversheen, Do you realize, what he's doing to you while you prep your weapon?

A 15th level party has access to mighty divination spells, has probably fought demons and devils before, and should damn well be prepared for this kind of thing (especially invisibility). If they're not, then they don't deserve to beat a foe 5 crs above them.

The only way you have a chance against this fellow is advanced knowledge, which the MM assumes you don't have.

I don't call owning silversheen and oil of bless weapon 'advanced knowledge'. I call it basic adventuring protocol for levels 11-20. If you're coming up against a major demon as a BBEG (he IS 5 crs above you, remember?), then you SHOULD have some inkling of what he is.

Even then I don't know that I want to be in grappling range of a Pit Fiend. Especially one with unholy aura activated. But with his weaknesses, that is your best bet. If he allows it, which isn't guarenteed, with flight and greater teleport.

Flight is passe at this sort of level. If parties are still being stumped by flight, then they deserve to get dropped.

Greater Teleport will help set him up as a recurring BBEG, but it's unlikely to help him take on the party, unless their quest is to slay him (in which case they're probably prepared).

Either he's fighting to keep them away from something (which he won't succeed at if he teleports away) OR he's fighting to kill them (which... again...).

Regardless - you're complaining that going into a fight 5 crs above you, which you've given a chance to prepare, and know nothing about is going to be tough.

Well, duh.