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

[Storm Raven]

An AC of 27 is silly?

How many CR 8 creatures in the MM have ACs over 25? Not many. Most have ACs much lower than that.

Plus, you ignored the fact that your second attack is at a lower attack bonus, which makes the math very different.

You numbers and mine are slightly different....I'm sure we could work out why, but this isn't the thread for that.

I think the answer is that I worked through the math.

In any case, the problem stems from not a stright up fighter, but when you add in other ways to increase your base damage (not the extra dice, like sneak attack and energy). I've already listed how that could be done.

And to add those other ways requires you to invest feats, skills, and levels in something else. You have to add, for example, almost 2 points of base damage to the example falchion fighter for him to be able to draw even with the greatsword fighter, 2 points of base damage the greatsword fighter doesn't also add (since if he does, his expected damage output goes up, which puts him ahead again). Most of the ways you listed either reduce your damage overall (like Power Attack, which reduces your chance to hit at most points on the scale, except when dealing with very low AC opponents), or require sacrifices in other areas (like favored enemy damage, which requires you to take a level of Ranger, sacrifice your fighter feat progression, hit points and so on), and could easily be matched by the greatsword fighter.

Any bonus you can add to the falchion wielder can be matched by the greatsword wielder in the example, and the greatsword wielder will continue to stay ahead for quite a while at most AC points.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Should I point out, yet again, that my example chart takes all of this into account - and gives you average damage per round against all ACs between 10 and 40, inclusive?



The Falchion wielder does slightly better, on average, than the GS guy against trivial ACs - those which are only missed on a 1. They do roughly the same as the AC increases, and as the AC gets high enough to impact the falchion's improved critical threat range (as in, a 12 is no longer good enough to hit) the statistics favor the GS - and continue to favor the GS for all ACs up to an including infinity.

http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott...cleavepct=&2circlekickpct=&report=on&maxac=40

 

[Victim]

Nail, I found out why your numbers are different. You have the falchion and greatsword doing the same base damage, possibly due to a cut and paste error. You have 7 (2d6) + 7 (STRx1.5) + 2 (spec) + 2 (magic) = 16 when it should be 18.

 

[Bauglir]

I'm afraid your numbers are wrong.

Apologies on the str bonus gaffe - I was adding 8 when I should have been adding 7.

You've got a gaffe in there too though - the greatsword base damage is off (7 + 7 + 2 + 2 != 16)

let's see how it goes. I'll assume a probability to hit of 50%..

A valid point certainly, something I forgot to mention when I was typing out my post earlier - the situation is such that Bob has an equal chance to hit with either weapon - this (in theory, I think) should make the chance to hit irrelevant, as varying the target AC will just scale the values - the relative margin should stay the same (as such I just examined damage).

This is, thinking about it some more, not true. Bob is assumed to benefit from a crit range of 12-20 with the falchion, however if the target AC means that Bob requires a 13 or higher to hit, he won't enjoy the full crit range (as I believe the initial roll must both hit the target AC and threaten a critical).

Assuming Bob needs to roll a 5 or better to hit the target:
Greatsword: (7 + 7 + 2 + 2 + 3.5) * 0.75 * 1.2 = 19.35
Falchion: (5 + 7 + 2 + 2) *0.75 * 1.45 = 17.4
Falchion Expected Damage is 88.9% of Greatsword ED

Assuming Bob needs to roll an 11 or better to hit the target:
Greatsword: (7 + 7 + 2 + 2 + 3.5) * 0.5 * 1.2 = 12.9
Falchion: (5 + 7 + 2 + 2) *0.5 * 1.45 = 11.6
Falchion ED is 88.9% of Greatsword ED

Assuming Bob needs to roll a 16 or better
Greatsword: (7 + 7 + 2 + 2 + 3.5) * 0.25 * 1.2 = 6.45
Falchion: (5 + 7 + 2 + 2) * 0.25 * 1.25 = 5
Falchion ED is 77.5% of Greatsword ED

The falchion starts off worse than the greatsword, and drops as the target AC climbs.

Patryn, does your chart take this factor into account?

Another bit of calculation - the break-even point:
Greatsword (7+x+3.5) * 1.2
Falchion: (5+x) * 1.45

Breaks even at x = 21.4
(Point of interest: without stacking criticals, x is a whopping 61)
(Point of interest 2: without stacking criticals, and remembering to drop both the keen and the flaming enchantments, x comes back down to a much more reasonable 19)

So..

Bob gains a few levels, and now has a strength of 30, and wields:
Falchion +2 holy keen
Greatsword +2 holy flaming

Greatsword damage: (7 + 15 + 2 + 2 + 7 + 3.5) * 1.2 = 43.8
Falchion damage: (5 + 15 + 2 + 2 + 7) * 1.45 = 44.95

The Falchion is now outstripping the Greatsword on expected damage, and the margin will continue to grow as Bob reaches epic levels, gains GWS or uses Power Attack, and weapon abilities continue to add up. Nonetheless, due to the above effect, the Falchion's lead will quickly evaporate against hard to hit targets. On top of this, crit immunity is ever present (and arguably more common at higher levels, where heavily fortified armour can be more easily afforded). So the Falchion can at very high levels outstrip the greatsword, sometimes. That's with stacking criticals, and to me it looks pretty balanced, all things considered. (mixing additive bonuses and multiplicative bonuses inevitably causes headaches IMO)

Without stacking criticals, the Falchion passes the Greatsword earlier on the damage curve, but, I suspect at a slower rate of increase (Patryn one of your charts would come in handy here)

(Disclaimer: Apologies in advance for maths errors. I'm tired )

 

[Victim]

Bob gains a few levels, and now has a strength of 30, and wields:
Falchion +2 holy keen
Greatsword +2 holy flaming

Greatsword damage: (7 + 15 + 2 + 2 + 7 + 3.5) * 1.2 = 43.8
Falchion damage: (5 + 15 + 2 + 2 + 7) * 1.45 = 44.95

(Disclaimer: Apologies in advance for maths errors. I'm tired )

Holy and flaming aren't multiplied on crits. Therefore, damage is going be 41.7 for the greatsword, and 41.8 for the falchion. Of course, warriors that can afford a +5 weapon probably have multiple attacks. Since the secondary and tertiary attacks come in at lower bonuses, some of the falchion's threat range will be wasted on the unlikely shots.

Hmm. I think one of my characters will be switching weapons soon.

 

[SteveC]

The rules changed beyond recognition!

Old jump rules


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

Yep, I retrieved my old PH from it's trusty hiding place, and you are correct. First of all, I think that the new jump rules qualify as a serious improvement in rules in 3.5. With that said I still say "huh??" about nerfing Jump the spell. I just don't see why it's an issue that needed to be addressed. To answer my own question (hey...I won't start talking in the third person quite yet) I think the 3.5 team decided to nerf all forms of movement and mobility, presumably because these spells can make a GM's life more difficult: they need to be accounted for when a scenario is designed. I guess I come at it from the opposite angle, lots of mobility makes a game more interesting. If my players can easily move around it gives them more to do and makes the game more exciting. I guess I think I can keep up with first level characters who jump and spider climb. I guess this makes one huzah rule for 3.5 and two huh??? rules. At least for me anyway.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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?

Actually the best use of it was with x3 or x4 multipliers IIRC. And as others have noted, you get the static bonuses too.
Improved crit is still good enough that people take it, and keen likewise. I don't see how they've been turned into useless options, despite having their power reduced. That says to me that they were a bit too good originally.

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.

Poisons. Saves. Healing (an arcane spellcaster can add 2 hp/level to a target, something he can't do with any other spell).

I agree that 10 minutes per level would have been better, but 1 minute per level is better than 1hr/level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

OTOH, it IS a pit fiend.You're at least level 15 if you're expected to beat it. That means BAB +15 and another 8-10 points of modifiers. At level 15, you'll need some good tactics to take him on, or you may as well just throw the towel in now, so you can probably (one way or another) knock another 5 or 6 off his AC (tanglefoot bags, bardic music, flanking etc). Now you're power attacking.

And of course if you had any advance warning about him, you've got an oil of bless weapon and a silver weapon instead of about 3 points of those modifiers (from your uber-leet weapon). Or better yet, you've got silversheen and bless weapon.

But note - you don't NEED to have those things. You COULD do it with a bit of luck and some superior tactics.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the 3.5 team decided to nerf all forms of movement and mobility... I guess I think I can keep up with first level characters who jump and spider climb. I guess this makes one huzah rule for 3.5 and two huh??? rules. At least for me anyway.

I'm pretty sure it was to make climb and jump and balance valid skills.

They're still probably not good ENOUGH, but now they at least get a look in.

 

[MerricB]

I'm pretty sure it was to make climb and jump and balance valid skills.

They're still probably not good ENOUGH, but now they at least get a look in.

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!