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

[Storm Raven]

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

Except that the crit multiplier wasn't improved by Keen or Improved Critical, only the critical threat range. A falchion was still just a x2 weapon.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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 rules changed beyond recognition!

Old jump rules

Check: The character jumps a minimum distance plus an additional distance depending on the amount by which the character's Jump check result exceeds 10. The maximum distance of any jump is a function of the character's height.

               		Minimum                                       Maximum
Type of Jump   		Distance       Additional Distance            Distance
------------   		--------       -------------------            --------
Running jump*  		5 ft.          +1 ft./1 point above 10        Height X 6

result = 40 meant that you jumped 5+(40-10) = 35ft.

It got harder to calculate for standing jumps and high jumps.

3.5e rules radically overhauled it so that the distance sets the DC for all kinds of jumps (which is what you needed 95% of the time anyway). I was able to throw away my jump DC calculator that I'd programmed and I've never been so glad to see the back of some of my own hard work

 

[two]

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?

Har har. The four feats required "(Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, and Improved Critical)" are hardly much of a drawbackfor an 8th level fighter-type! Power Attack is mandatory, WF, and WS mandatory (else why be a fighter?), and then there is Improved Critical, also quasi-mandatory with a weapon with a nice critical spread.

What else do fighters do than increase their strength? He's not scribing spells after all?

Most of your balancing factors are not really factors at all. An 8th level fighter-type already has most of them. And I didn't even bring up the infamous raging improved critical barbaian build (3.0 style) which only required PA and Improved Crit.

For the price of one feat (improved critical) and the keen enchantment you can be doing significantly more damage per round than the designers probably felt was reasonable. "Even" if it's just 30% of the time, let's say, that's .30 * expected damage per swing (damage for 8th level, I dunno, 20?) which is 6. Extra 6 per swing. That's too much for a feat.

Other people are better at math than me; let's just agree that developers saw too many keen+improved critical scimitar users with 3 attacks per round doing a critical every round or two, each critical worth an extra 20-30 damage. As levels ramp up, and expected damage increases per hit, criticals are just that much better.

 

[Storm Raven]

Har har. The four feats required "(Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, and Improved Critical)" are hardly much of a drawbackfor an 8th level fighter-type! Power Attack is mandatory, WF, and WS mandatory (else why be a fighter?), and then there is Improved Critical, also quasi-mandatory with a weapon with a nice critical spread.

They represent fully half of the feats availabale to a straight fighter of that level. If half of your class abilities isn't a significant investment in your book, then you just aren't thinking things through.

And mandatory? Hardly. I've seen a couple dozen fighter characters built in the last year, and only two of them had Power Attack, and only a few more than that had Weapon Focus. Perhaps you've noticed all of the other feat choices out there: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, and so on and so forth. Tying yourself to a single weapon, or tying yourself to a single combat style is often foolish.

What else do fighters do than increase their strength? He's not scribing spells after all?

Increase their Constitution. Increase their Dexterity. You know, those abilities that help keep you from getting hit, or getting killed.

Most of your balancing factors are not really factors at all. An 8th level fighter-type already has most of them.

Only in the bizarro universe where all fighters are built the same, and all fighters eschew the dozens of other options out there, many of which are more useful in combat.

And I didn't even bring up the infamous raging improved critical barbaian build (3.0 style) which only required PA and Improved Crit.

And was worse at it than the fighter, since he could only rage a limited number of times per day, and was brittle as an eggshell due to the incredible ease with which his opponents were able to hit him. A great way to get your character killed, quickly.

Basically, your examples make no sense, and assume a bizarre and unseen similarity in fighter builds. Further, even if you assume that all fighters are built this way, then you are basically saying that half of a character's class abilities shouldn't result in their being able to do significant damage to their foes, which is a ridiculous position to take.

 

[Kershek]

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?

This was explained by Plane Sailing, so I'll skip it.

AoOs
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.

Here is the actual rule: This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

It's clear by the rules above that each grapple attempt is a different opportunity and provokes an AoO. It doesn't look more complicated to me. I think the rule change better reflects how someone with combat reflexes can react to a situation.

Spider Climb
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.

Point 2: Since you don't need a wall at all, if you are levitating in the air without being able to hold onto something, you are subject to winds (such as gust of wind).
Point 3: Interesting. In 3.0, it said "A creature with a Strength score of at least 20 +1 per caster level can pull the subject off a wall." That passage isn't in 3.5. I concede this point.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kershek]

And was worse at it than the fighter, since he could only rage a limited number of times per day, and was brittle as an eggshell due to the incredible ease with which his opponents were able to hit him. A great way to get your character killed, quickly.

A +2 to AC, basically giving +10% to hit, makes you as brittle as an eggshell? They might get a little more often, but that 1d12 hit die more than makes up for it.

 

[Bauglir]

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.

I smell an opportunity to crunch some numbers!
Weapon 1: +2 Keen Fachion
Weapon 2: +2 Flaming Greatsword

Wielder: Bob the Fighter, Str 20, Weapon Spec, Improved Crit

Average expected Damage with Weapon 1 = (5 + 8 + 2 + 2) * 1.45 = 24.65
Average expected Damage with Weapon 2 = (7 + 8 + 2 + 2 + 3.5) * 1.2 = 27

So where's the problem?

 

[Nail]

I smell an opportunity to crunch some numbers!
Weapon 1: +2 Keen Fachion
Weapon 2: +2 Flaming Greatsword

Wielder: Bob the Fighter, Str 20, Weapon Spec, Improved Crit

Average expected Damage with Weapon 1 = (5 + 8 + 2 + 2) * 1.45 = 24.65
Average expected Damage with Weapon 2 = (7 + 8 + 2 + 2 + 3.5) * 1.2 = 27

So where's the problem?

The problem is in stacking the threat ranges of keen, improved crit, etc.

It's really quite simple. Where's the confusion?





For the record:
the average damage per attack uses the following formula:

A = PD[1+Pc(Mc-1)] + PDb

where:
A: average damage per attack
P: Probability to hit, as a fraction
Pc: Probability to critical, as a fraction
Mc: Critical Multiplier
Db: average damage of extra dice that are not multiplied by a critical.

I'd be happy to walk you through this, if you'd like.

For a longsword (19-20/x2), the equation simplifies to:
A(longsword) = PD(1.1) + PDb

For a scimitar (18-20/x2), the equation simplifies to:
A(scimitar) = PD(1.15) + PDb

For a stacking keen, Improved crit scimitar (3.0e), the equation simplifies to:
A(thankgoodnessitsgone) = PD(1.45) + PDb

Those differences are significant, bud.

 

[Nail]

I smell an opportunity to crunch some numbers!

I'm afraid your numbers are wrong.

Given these facts:

• Bob the fighter
• Str 20,
• Imp. Crit. for either weapon
• Keen stacks with Improved Crit (3.0e)
• weapon specialization

.....let's see how it goes. I'll assume a probability to hit of 50%.:
Weapon 1: +2 Keen Fachion
Weapon damage = 5(weap)+7(str)+2(magic)+2(spec) = 16
Ave Damage Per attack= .5*16*(1.45) = 11.6

Weapon 2: +2 Flaming Greatsword
Weapon damage = 7(weap)+7(str)+2(magic)+2(spec) = 16
Extra weapon damage= 3.5(fire)
Ave Damage Per attack= .5*16*(1.2) + .5*3.5 = 11.4

.....but that's without including power attack. Or favored enemy. Or PrCs that increase the threat range. Or any number of other smack-down techniques.

Try it with one-handed weapons! Fun, fun, fun!

 

[rangerjohn]

Ah, you must have missed the memo! They actually went from the "warrior with his mystic weapon who happens to be screwed if he meets something with the wrong DR since his weapon is useless against it" to the "warrior who can still be useful even with the wrong weapon because the lowered DR allows some damage through". DOn't feel bad - it's a common error.

Unless its something like the Pit Fiend. Then its worse than before, if you don't a good and silver weapon, not only do you have to deal with 15 dr or 10 energy resistance or immunity. He also regenerates 5 hp a round of the damage that gets through, along with a ac of 40. I doubt your power attacking through that.