Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pants" data-source="post: 1159588" data-attributes="member: 8849">I'd like to chime in here on a few issues that keep coming up, both for 3.5 and against it:Square Facing: I don't honetly understand why this is an issue at all.  It makes perfect sense in a game that does not distinguish which direction a character is facing in combat.  Take for example, the Tendriculous, a creature which had a facing (in 3.0) of around 30 by 90 (can't remember).  Now say for example that we have a situation like this:   C                        C=Cleric, R=Rogue, F=Fighter, B=Barbarian TTTT TTTT TTTT TTTT TTTTF TTTT TTTTB TTTT TTTT   RNow say, for example, when the Tendriculous wants to attack the Fighter or the Barbarian, does it simply move it's head or does it's position change?  What about the Rogue?  If it's attacking the Cleric and it starts to attack the Rogue, does its head and butt simply switch places or does it move?  Does moving its body provoke an attack of opportunity?  Is the current way more realistic? Not really, but unless D&D suddenly starts distinguishing which direction a character is facing, it's a needless hassle.As for it being a needless change, this issue was brought up countless times on the WotC message boards, most of them proclaiming that the current Facing rules didn't make sense.  So it wasn't a changed just to be changed.Spell Changes: I find it absolutely hilarious that some are crying that Spellcasters have been nerfed, ESPECIALLY considering that during 3.0, spellcasters were often targeted as 'overpowered.'  Suddenly, 3.5 comes along, some spells are changed and Spellcasters are now 'useless.' Thankfully, the number of posters saying this is low, but I still get a kick out of it whenever I read it.The Buff spells were not on the needed to be changed list, but it's nice that they were.  Why buy a stat boosting item when you can buff yourself for nearly all day by using a 2nd level spell slot?  They're still usefull in 3.5.  Fly should have been changed as well.  In fact, I pretty much abused that spell back in 3.0.  Gate is still very powerful, but that 1,000xp cost does hurt.  Polymorph is much better.  Horrid Wilting change?  It's still one of the most useful direct damage spells out there. Why?  The damage it deals is only negatable by SR.  Evasion does not apply.  It affects only enemies.  Its area is quite impressive.  Still a very potent 8th level spellAbout the only spell changes that I disagree with are that Emotion and Symbol have been broken up into many different spells.  This hurts Sorcerers and Bards quite a bit.Class Changes:  All for the better, IMO.  Some may say that the Barbarian is not the principle damage dealer in the game.  This is true, however most overlook the fact that the Barbarian is likely going to have a pitiful AC compared to a Fighter.  At 20th level, the Barbarian can soak up a lot of damage, however when he gets below 80 hp (80 HP for crying out loud!) he's going to need healing, because as soon as he drops out of his Rage, he's either dead or dying.Bard, Ranger, Monk, Druid, Barbarian, and Sorcerer changes are all good IMO.DR: I love the new DR and I was always mystified by why Lycanthropes had DR/silver back in 3.0.  A magic weapon was always better than a silvered weapon so why even get a silvered weapon?  Now there's a reason to.Skill Changes: I like this, if only because Scry has been removed, which I considered one of the dumbest skills ever.  It also made making Scry checks impossible to fail, even at low levels. Craft (Alchemy) makes more sense as does Survival.  Getting rid of the Restricted Skill rule really helps the 'Options not Restrictions' approach.Powering up the Outsiders: A good thing IMO.  They were weak as hell for their CR back in 3.0 and now they're an appropriate challenge.  In fact, I'd say that most of the Devils are a bit too challenging for their CR's now.Weapon Size Rules: Did anyone honestly have a problem with the old weapon size rules? It would have been much easier to just leave the Weapons alone and put in the alternate damage rules for weapons of different sizes.Editing: I don't want to sound like a jerk, but does WotC even have an editing department anymore?  The gratuitous amount of stuff that needs errata and clarifications is mind boggling.  I wasn't surprised, especially after Savage Species.All in all, I'm happy with 3.5, but I can see why some wouldn't like it.  WotC really shot themselves in the foot when it was said that two players could be using both the 3.0 rules and the 3.5 rules and not know the difference.  It's obviously not so.</blockquote>

Verification