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

[shilsen]

No, it comes from someplace where--GASP--a DM didn't think things out just a bit farther than was done for him by the developers.
Besides, it just shows how little was thought about 3e sometimes...

Well, if you're throwing in stuff not covered in the rules, it seems a little redundant to discuss whether DR in 3e or 3.5e is better, since you can just change them too.

 

[SteveC]

I honestly can't think of anything in 3.5 that I say "man, I wish they'd stuck with the 3.0 rule". Do I think sometimes that it could be better than both 3.5 and 3.0? Sure. But there's not a single thing I can think of that is actually worse in 3.5.

Well here are a few suggestions (IMHO of course):
1. Sleep (why is it a full round spell?)
2. Spider Climb (why is it the same level as levitate?)
3. Jump (a +30 bonus was unbalancing?, in JUMP?)
4. Darkness (yep, it makes light!)
5. Keen/Improved Crit (another old argument)
6. Buff spells. (Let's see: they last too long, and can be empowered multiple times, so let's fix the bonus--so they can't be empowered, reduce the duration so they're only useful for a combat, and also remove the ability to stack multiple empowers. Perhaps pick any two of those?)
7. Manyshot. Let's nerf shot-on-the-run just because of this feat.
8. Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus (yes, let's nerf these abilties because of third party feats)
9. Cover and Concealment. (<chef>whyfor, children</chef> They weren't too complicated before, even having a neat illustration of how they worked).
10. Multiple AoO's against a single target. (Why change a simple rule in order to make tripping even more effective?)

That's just with a few moments thought. Of couse I understand that not everyone will agree with all of these things being bad but they should

I'm not saying there aren't a number of improvements in 3.5: there are. The ranger, haste and harm changes are very good. I run a 3.5 game, but it actually has more house rules than my 3.0 game. My problem is that if there were 10 things that were widely talked about as being broken or getting the shaft in 3.0, 3.5 fixed 3-4 of them, made about a dozen changes that make me go "what???!" and also introduced at least 3-4 new broken or shafted ideas.

I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that the new design team had it's own ideas about what to do with the game, but they weren't always on the same page as Tweet/Reynolds/Cook. That's a hard thing to do, because we're talking about some of the best in the business in the first place...

 

[babomb]

I only have three real issues with 3.5: weapon sizing, the new charging/overrun rules, and changing the names of spells. And the spells don't bother me as much, now that I'm used to it.

Also, I houseruled buffs up to 10 min./level, which is sort of a happy medium. The wording on darkness is strange, it DOES seem strange that sleep is a full round spell (though I didn't notice that until it was pointed out in this thread), and I don't understand why the cover rules were changed.

 

[The Souljourner]

Just to preface... I figured there was probably some things I had forgotten, but I figured that if I had forgotten them, then they must not be that bad.

Well here are a few suggestions (IMHO of course):
1. Sleep (why is it a full round spell?)

...And has a save and only hits 4 hitdice (instead of 2d4). However, since it was mass instakill in 3.0, I don't necessarily think it's worse.

2. Spider Climb (why is it the same level as levitate?)

'cause they're usually used for different things. Levitate is for getting up somewhere you otherwise couldn't, spider climb is for sneaking around on the ceiling as well as getting somewhere you otherwise would have difficulty.

3. Jump (a +30 bonus was unbalancing?, in JUMP?)

Whatever, I've never seen anyone cast jump in 3rd edition regardless of what it did.

4. Darkness (yep, it makes light!)

Ok, this one I'll grant you. Friggin' stupid that darkness doesn't just make it friggin' dark.

5. Keen/Improved Crit (another old argument)

I actually think it's more balanced this way.

6. Buff spells. (Let's see: they last too long, and can be empowered multiple times, so let's fix the bonus--so they can't be empowered, reduce the duration so they're only useful for a combat, and also remove the ability to stack multiple empowers. Perhaps pick any two of those?)

I specifically was thinking of the buff spells when I said I thought 3.5 was better than 3.0, but that something else could be better than both. I think a flat +4 with 10 min/level would be perfect.

7. Manyshot. Let's nerf shot-on-the-run just because of this feat.

Don't know what you mean here.

8. Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus (yes, let's nerf these abilties because of third party feats)

Again, I think this is actually balanced. +4 to spell DCs was crazy. Screw anything else, just a flat +4 is insane. 13th level... your Wizard casts Mass Hold Person. DC is 24 *minimum* with those feats, probably more like 26. A fighter even *with* a +5 cloak of resistance has probably about a +10 will save. That's a 75% chance of failure. With the 3.5 feats, it's only 65%.

9. Cover and Concealment. (<chef>whyfor, children</chef> They weren't too complicated before, even having a neat illustration of how they worked).

There's a line saying the DM can assign a higher bonus if he thinks it's deserved by the amount of cover. I kinda like the flat +4... Ican't tell you how many arguments we had about exactly how much cover someone had in 3.0.

10. Multiple AoO's against a single target. (Why change a simple rule in order to make tripping even more effective?)

OhMyGod... this is a definite *positive* in my book. First, it doesn't help trippers, you can't trip someone who's prone, so you can't trip someone who is getting up from prone, because your AoO happens before the action. Second... I hated the fact that in 3.0, if you walked by someone, and they missed with an attack of opportunity, that you are now perfectly safe and can grapple them, move through their square, cast a spell, etc etc, and not draw any attacks of opportunity. It makes so much more SENSE this way.

Btw, you forgot the poke mount for the paladin. It's useful, in some ways, but I don't like the flavor, and I would houserule it in my game.

So I guess these are the beefs I have - Darkness is just stupid, and the summoning of a paladin mount is dumb.

-The Souljourner

 

[DrSpunj]

...Darkness is just stupid...

Hey! Let's try to keep things civil! I always thought Darkness was a pretty stand up guy, you know?

On the topic at hand, my own personal House Rules list is substantially shorter with the 3.5 rules set than with 3.0, but I don't think Collins & crew got it as close as they could have. Polymorph & Wild Shape really need some loving, Pokemounts are...silly, etc.

I'm not unhappy with my purchase of 3.5 overall, but it still needs some tweaking. <shrug> Probably always be that way though with so many different people playing; I know from a business perspective they need to find some sort of "middle ground" to appeal to the masses.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[SteveC]

Just to preface... I figured there was probably some things I had forgotten, but I figured that if I had forgotten them, then they must not be that bad

No problem, after all it's just a matter of opinion, after all
sleep

....And has a save and only hits 4 hitdice (instead of 2d4). However, since it was mass instakill in 3.0,

Sleep had a save in 3.0 as well, and the rolling of 2D4 served to balance the spell a bit: if your rolled below average you weren't able to affect a 4HD creature after all. I think they really missed an opportunity with this spell: they could have made a save possible each round (like they did with Hold). That would have made the spell more balanced, and used the same mechanic for both effects. Oh, and they still left color spray as is. As it is, sleep is a spell that won't be used nearly as often...it's been made a "strike from surprise" spell. Sleep has always been a low level wizard's friend. As it is, they have few friends left. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I thought we were trying to move more towards balance for all classes at all levels. Sleep is a step away from that.
levitate

I don't necessarily think it's worse.'cause they're usually used for different things. Levitate is for getting up somewhere you otherwise couldn't, spider climb is for sneaking around on the ceiling as well as getting somewhere you otherwise would have difficulty.

Except that you can use levitate to move around on the ceiling at half speed, so it can serve exactly the same purpose. I have to ask, who thought spider climb was unbalanced? Although I don't post here often, I've been on ENworld since just about day one. I can't recall a single discussion about how spider climb was broken. I think this one falls into my "huh???" category for changes: a change that I have to wonder at why they did it and what problem was being addressed.
Jump

Whatever, I've never seen anyone cast jump in 3rd edition regardless of what it did.

Another example of "huh?" what was being fixed with this? Our group uses this low level spell to give improved mobility on the battlefield. It's also a dramatic way to move around the battlefield. I'm just not sure what was actually made better by changing the spell.
Buffs

I specifically was thinking of the buff spells when I said I thought 3.5 was better than 3.0, but that something else could be better than both. I think a flat +4 with 10 min/level would be perfect.Don't know what you mean here.

Ahh, that's why I wrote "pick any two." I didn't have any problems with buffs in 3.0: any character who relies on a second level spell to buff their primary stats at high level is asking for it at high levels. I really only saw these series of spells used at medium level (e.g., before stat boost items are common). I don't think this is an area that we'll agree on, so I'll just say that I do agree with you that keeping the duration at 10 min/lvl would have been a better idea.

Again, I think this is actually balanced. +4 to spell DCs was crazy. Screw anything else, just a flat +4 is insane. 13th level... your Wizard casts Mass Hold Person. DC is 24 *minimum* with those feats, probably more like 26. A fighter even *with* a +5 cloak of resistance has probably about a +10 will save. That's a 75% chance of failure. With the 3.5 feats, it's only 65%.

First of all, I think that yes, it's perfectly acceptable for a save to be in this range for a 13th level caster. Especially because the opponent will get a new save each round. High level characters need to deal with spells that target their weak saves, especially if it's a will save, since the DCs reach the point where they need the help. That's a problem with the D20 poor save mechanic period. Now with that said, the solution to this is to have one feat that increases save DCs by +2 and leave it at that. There is simply not a good enough return for spending two feats to get a +2 DC on one school of magic. I just don't see it. This is a good example of addressing something that was a problem (spell DCs were a problem, especially with some prestige class/third party abilities) but they just didn't get it right.
Cover

There's a line saying the DM can assign a higher bonus if he thinks it's deserved by the amount of cover. I kinda like the flat +4... Ican't tell you how many arguments we had about exactly how much cover someone had in 3.0.OhMyGod... this is a definite *positive* in my book.

But they actually removed the rules. Yes, the DM can assign a higher bonus, but there were examples and actual illustrations of how the mechanic worked! This rule came up in our last session where we were attacking a castle. Opponents behind arrow slits should get a better AC bonus than +4...and they used to.
Attacks of Opportunity

First, it doesn't help trippers, you can't trip someone who's prone, so you can't trip someone who is getting up from prone, because your AoO happens before the action. Second... I hated the fact that in 3.0, if you walked by someone, and they missed with an attack of opportunity, that you are now perfectly safe and can grapple them, move through their square, cast a spell, etc etc, and not draw any attacks of opportunity. It makes so much more SENSE this way.

On the first point, that is your opinion (and a valid one: it's how I would probably run it) but it is not explained that way in the rules or really even discussed by them. I can see a perfectly valid interpretation that an AoO for standing up happens "in between" being prone and standing, so the target is not prone (no AC bonus) but can be knocked down again. When you take an AoO you're doing something at exactly the same time as the target is doing something else: moving, drinking a potion or something else. It has to happen at the same time because otherwise the trigger wouldn't be met. As far as it making sense to provoke more than one AoO in an action, I think the current rules make no sense: if I'm moving up to grapple with you as part of a continuous movement, why should you get two AoOs? Wasn't combat reflexes powerful enough?

Btw, you forgot the poke mount for the paladin. It's useful, in some ways, but I don't like the flavor, and I would houserule it in my game.

That's a good point, but I actually don't mind this one too much. Perhaps it's all the time playing Final Fantasy or something... Seriously, though, I'd give a paladin a choice about how to do the mount. These rules do help a lot where the GM had to kludge what happened with the mount before. It is a fairly unpopular rule, though...

-The Souljourner

Again, not to say that there aren't improvements with 3.5, but it seems like each week when we discover a new rule, it's usually something we don't like, or that just makes us go "huh?"
Once again, though, it's all IMHO and, of course, YMMV (and probably does) .

 

[Plane Sailing]

But they actually removed the rules. Yes, the DM can assign a higher bonus, but there were examples and actual illustrations of how the mechanic worked! This rule came up in our last session where we were attacking a castle. Opponents behind arrow slits should get a better AC bonus than +4...and they used to.
Attacks of Opportunity

SRD:

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

So they didn't remove the rules, they just simplified it basically. +4 for standard cover, double for improved cover. Arrow slits are fairly obviously improved cover. Ta-dah!

Cheers

 

[Nail]

It would have been a *good* idea to let the fans contribute to the 3.5e rule-set. I can only assume thr 3.5e designers perused the boards of various fan sites, as well as at WotC...but I don't know that.

After all, the political candidates float ideas in "focus groups"....why couldn't they have done that with rules like "Paladin's Poke-mount"?

Another "good thing" with 3.5e was the standardization of spells, with terms like Lesser and Greater. That was quite helpful...why didn't they do that with Darkness? (grumble grumble)

 

[Kershek]

Well here are a few suggestions (IMHO of course):
3. Jump (a +30 bonus was unbalancing?, in JUMP?)

The jump mechanic is completely different now. A +30 is much more that it was in 3.0.

10. Multiple AoO's against a single target. (Why change a simple rule in order to make tripping even more effective?)

If you perform multiple AoOs against a single target, they have to be for different reasons. You cannot attack someone twice for going through two squares of your threatened area. However, you can attack them twice if they move through your threatened area and then attempt a grapple, trip, etc. (assuming they don't have a feat to negate the AoO).

On levitate:
Except that you can use levitate to move around on the ceiling at half speed, so it can serve exactly the same purpose. I have to ask, who thought spider climb was unbalanced? Although I don't post here often, I've been on ENworld since just about day one. I can't recall a single discussion about how spider climb was broken. I think this one falls into my "huh???" category for changes: a change that I have to wonder at why they did it and what problem was being addressed.

Reasons why spider climb is better than levitate:

• Spider climb lasts 10 mins/level and levitate is 1 min/level.
• Wind cannot blow you around.
• You are attached to the surface and a strength check is necessary to pull you away.
• You do not get progressively worse on your attacks due to floating in the air.
• You have a climb speed and can easily traverse a ceiling, while with levitate you have to find leverage to be able to push against the ceiling.

 

[SteveC]

SRD:

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

So they didn't remove the rules, they just simplified it basically. +4 for standard cover, double for improved cover. Arrow slits are fairly obviously improved cover. Ta-dah!

Cheers

Actually they did remove the rules: for 25% and 75% cover. They also didn't give any guidelines for when to apply the rules for greater cover. I'm not necessarily saying these rules are bad just that they're not any better than 3.0...and they made me go "huh?" when I saw them. What exactly were these rules trying to fix, anyway? I thought the cover illustration in 3.0 was the second coolest drawing in the entire book, with the coolest being the picture of relative sizes of characters. I guess what I'm saying is that time and effort went into redoing these rules, when it didn't on other things that were widely thought of as being unbalanced (both broken and shafted). I wonder who thought "man, those cover rules need to change!"