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

[SteveC]

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

I will have to look this up to be certain. As far as I know, old rules jump result = 40, you jump 40'. New rules jump result =40, you jump 40'. The jump spell removed the limitation for maximum jump distance based on height, which is gone altogether in 3.5. Is that what you meant?
AoOs

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).

Actually you can get more than one AoO for doing the same thing, provided they do it more than once, just not for movement. If you have combat reflexes and your being grappled by someone with more than one attack, you can get an attack of opportunity each time they try it. *Shrug* I think this new rule is more complicated, and doesn't really offer much to the game since it only affects people with combat reflexes. The old rule was simple "only on AoO against an opponent each turn," and didn't have any exceptions. Was combat reflexes not powerful enough? I didn't hear that it was.
Spider Climb

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.

• By the spell's wording, points 1 and 4 are correct. The others are not...err...spelled...out that way (sorry...). Levitate has one big advantage over spider climb: it doesn't need a wall at all. I think I'm starting to sound like a broken record here (yep, I know I am) but what was broken here that needed to be fixed? Were there some spider climb smackdowns that I somehow missed out on?

Okay, I'm starting to sound whiny here, "waaah, 3.5 is lame!!!" which isn't what I mean at all. I'm just saying that while it had some good points to it (Ranger, Haste, Harm) it also had a lot of "what???" as well. If you like it, more power to 'ya!

 

[Shadowdweller]

I can't imagine playing with 3.0 haste, honestly. At this point I would feel totally muchkin even casting it, should I be stuck in a 3.0 game. I just feel 3.5 haste makes for a far better combat experience.

Go ahead. Shoot me: From a powergaming standpoint, I'd take the 3.5 Haste over the 3.0 Haste any day simply because the multi-target aspect to it (or is it powergaming if you do your best to min/max the PARTY you travel with?).

 

[two]

Go ahead. Shoot me: From a powergaming standpoint, I'd take the 3.5 Haste over the 3.0 Haste any day simply because the multi-target aspect to it (or is it powergaming if you do your best to min/max the PARTY you travel with?).

Er, no. Powergaming wise, 3.0 is the clear victor, period. 2 spells per round for spellcasters is such a great advantage it over-rides the "single-target" drawback, and remember, 3.0 haste "cost" no time to cast. You cast it, then cast another spell immediately that round. 3.0 haste gets better as you get more powerful (2 9th level spells a round? sure, sign me up!).

I can't begin to tell you how often this scenario played out in 3.0:

Wizard round 1: haste, confusion
Wizard round 2: confusion, glitterdust

After 2 rounds, bad guys have to make too many high DC save-or-be-screwed spells to be effective. (substitute any other save-or-be-screwed spell here). Or just an obscene combo like Evard's and a cloud spell.

Or:

Wizard round 1: haste, fireball
Wizard round 2: fireball, fireball

3.0 haste was all about spellcasters. If you don't have any in your group, 3.5 haste will be better. But then, who is casting 3.5 haste?

Seriously, 3.5 haste has nowhere near the same ability to simply END battles due to a failed save (which must be made one after another after another). It just don't. I've lived it, played it, learned to love it (3.5 haste).

Only exceptions as I said before, are parties without casters. Even 3.0 bard using 3.0 haste was a force to be reckoned with! (cast a spell, ready an action to interrupt the enemy spellcaster, then repeat).

 

[Saeviomagy]

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

Because at low levels it essentially is a save-or-die spell for multiple opponents.

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

You move twice as fast with spider climb as you do with levitate. It lasts 10 times as long. Enhancements to your speed usually apply to it.

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

Taking ranks in jump was made a(n even more) futile exercise.

4. Darkness (yep, it makes light!)

I think most people realise this is a simple screwup. Most people realise that the spell description is supposing an original "lighted" condition within the area. Personally I like the fact that people with darkvision can still see a LITTLE in a darkness spell.

5. Keen/Improved Crit (another old argument)

Stacking them WAS getting a bit too good.

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?)

If you want them all day, buy the items. It's that simple. They're still good for a short small boost to attributes. To me, they're still worthwhile.

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

Buh? Shot on the run didn't change. Manyshot did.

Personally I think "move from cover, full attack, move to full cover" was a bit too good.

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

Eh. Never took them before. Don't take em now.

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

I don't really see how they got any less useful. I don't see much of a point to the change, but it's hardly a bad thing.

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

Because otherwise the "move 10 feet to provoke an AoO so I can grapple/cast unhampered/whatever" trick works every time. The big bennie given to tripping was that standing up provokes an AoO (which makes sense to me).

 

[Shadowdweller]

Er, no. Powergaming wise, 3.0 is the clear victor, period. 2 spells per round for spellcasters is such a great advantage it over-rides the "single-target" drawback, and remember, 3.0 haste "cost" no time to cast. You cast it, then cast another spell immediately that round. 3.0 haste gets better as you get more powerful (2 9th level spells a round? sure, sign me up!).

Meh. I play mostly lower level (below 10th) games. And for those, 3.0 Haste provides almost no actual benefit for that 3rd level slot until the second round when the double-spell per turn thing kicks in-- provided you keep to the back lines like a smart little eggshell. Whereas 3.5 Haste increases damage output by those able to and geared towards taking Full Attack Actions by some 50-120%, EACH, immediately.

I'll not deny that 3.0 Haste was great for wizard duels and nuking a single (or few) very powerful fight(s). But your average caster doesn't live in a vaccuum, and four spells per fight is pretty costly unless you want to ignore utilitarian considerations.

 

[Storm Raven]

Stacking them WAS getting a bit too good.

Really? Why? Was it really that big of an advantage to have an 8+ level fighter use a rapier to do 2d6 damage somewhat less than 40% of the time?

If you want them all day, buy the items. It's that simple. They're still good for a short small boost to attributes. To me, they're still worthwhile.

Explain the usefulness of a six minute long use of the spell "Bear's Endurance". Ten minutes per level would have fixed the "all day long" issue, without making the spells into little more than prerequisites for crafting items.

 

[two]

Meh. I play mostly lower level (below 10th) games. And for those, 3.0 Haste provides almost no actual benefit for that 3rd level slot until the second round when the double-spell per turn thing kicks in-- provided you keep to the back lines like a smart little eggshell. Whereas 3.5 Haste increases damage output by those able to and geared towards taking Full Attack Actions by some 50-120%, EACH, immediately.

I'll not deny that 3.0 Haste was great for wizard duels and nuking a single (or few) very powerful fight(s). But your average caster doesn't live in a vaccuum, and four spells per fight is pretty costly unless you want to ignore utilitarian considerations.

Well even a 6th level Wizard can pull off (with 3.0 haste):

Haste, Web
Glitterdust,Grease

In two rounds, do it twice per day, and a failed save is bad. Or for the blaster:

Haste, MM
Scor-Ray, MM

Rather boring, but can be done 3 times per day.

In my experience, more than 3 battles a day is very rare for a Wiz6th. Once you get to 8th level, 3.0 haste is even more owwie (with Evards + anything being a brutal combo).

Below 6th level, you are right -- you don't have enough spells to go crazy with 3.0 haste, unless you only fight once a day (can't be counted on).

But 3.0 haste got seriously crazy at levels 6 - 20, the higher the more crazy. That's why it had to be changed, really. Starting at about level 8, I'd say, every battle always started with the wizard/bard/sorcerer casting haste, and boots of haste going off. Inevitably, and boringly.

But I agree, if you play at levels <6 or 7, 3.0 haste won't seem that bad.

 

[two]

Really? Why? Was it really that big of an advantage to have an 8+ level fighter use a rapier to do 2d6 damage somewhat less than 40% of the time?

Er, it wasn't that. It was the fighter using a falchion at 8th level that was keen/improved crit. He's got a 20 strength by now, that's +8 to damage, plus specialization, that's +2, plus a +2 weapon, that's +12. Throw in power attack for 2, that's +4 damage, making +16 damage. That's without any particular effort of maximizing.

Now when you critical you don't just double the weapon damage, of course, you double the total damage... making for weapon damage + 16 more pain. Something around 40% of the time. That made the critical-specialist quite the power against stuff that can be critted. It was seen I suppose as too much, over the top, etc.

It was never the "uber" build because it's useless against constructs, undead, and anything with fortification, but you get what they were responding against.

 

[Storm Raven]

Er, it wasn't that. It was the fighter using a falchion at 8th level that was keen/improved crit. He's got a 20 strength by now, that's +8 to damage, plus specialization, that's +2, plus a +2 weapon, that's +12. Throw in power attack for 2, that's +4 damage, making +16 damage. That's without any particular effort of maximizing.

So, for an investment of four feats (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, and Improved Critical), maximizing his Strength score, and several thousand gold pieces of financial investment he gets some bang for his buck? Less than 40% of the time to boot (he's gotta confirm those critical threats, and they are of no value to him if his attack isn't good enough to hit his foe to begin with, and of no value against the wide array of foes immune to critical hits). And he's making it less likely he's going to confirm by Power Attacking to get a fair amount of his bonus damage.

What's the problem here again? That 8th+ level fighters who've invested a bunch of feats in a combat style are dangerous to fight?

 

[Nail]

That made the critical-specialist quite the power against stuff that can be critted. It was seen I suppose as too much, over the top, etc.

Absolutely. Allowing lots of stacking of crit. multipliers is insane.

Even so, with Complete Warrior's Power Critical, a keen weapon is still a great idea. I have one player who worked up a ranger with a hooked hammer (x4 crit). By the time you add in Str, Favored Enemy, and Enhancement bonuses, a confirmed critical can do 100 hp+ damage. Add in the Power Critical feat a few times, and suddenly each threat is (essentially) automatically confirmed.

Owwie.