D&D 3E/3.5 What 3.5'isms do you use you swore you wouldn't?

[Lousifer]

Stat boost nerf, bah

My primary issue is with the debuff of the buff-spells. The only way they were "ba-roken" is if you multi-empowered them. They would've been just fine with the clarification (which is already in 3.5) that you can't use the same metamagic feat on a spell multiple times.

Whiny RPGA gms (oops, I meant DMs, don't wanna get flamed by rpga'ers ) wanted the bonuses to always be consistent so they couldn't be empowered. See above for the solution. They also didn't like the buffs lasting all day. I don't see the problem with the 3.0 versions of the spells. I would NEVER use the 3.5 versions.

I like randomness. D&D is about rolling dice. Sure, the new stat-boost spells give you better-than-average results compared to the old spells. But they may as well not exist for how much use they see. 1 minute/level = 1 encounter. Sheesh.

I think the spell changes other than the Haste update (which I'm 50/50 on, anyway) are all bunk.

Oh, and they no longer give any playtest credit to the 3.0 teams. There's gratitude for ya.

</rant>

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I like a lot of the changes. I wish they had done something to make the sorceror more exciting beyond adding bluff to their class skills and letting them swap a few spells in their career. I still have a hard time seeing the sorc as anything other than a reason to keep spellcaster encounters from giving Wizards access to more spells.

New bard = better. I'd still use Monte's bard for my games, but it's an improvement. New Ranger = great. Still haven't looked at all the implications of the new Druid/Monk yet. So far I like what I've seen for character class changes.

New DR + New material effects are good. I really like the new DR a lot. It has so much more flavor than "Your weapon magic, it pierces all."

Anyway, that's all for today folks. Back to lurking.

 

[youspoonybard]

I think Improved Trip is bad now, mainly because the AoO + Extra attack means that you'll be getting an additional attack per round, and builds can easily be made that abuse this.

Still, 1d20 on an opposed ability score check can go either way. If everyone was medium sized, I could see this being ok. But once you add in Size, Str (Increases as a function of size), and stability bonuses, Trip can really, really be abused.

I would personally be happier if they got rid of the extra attack for successfully tripping someone. That way, the person has to spend an AoO for the extra attack, which may or not be a good thing...

 

[Hypersmurf]

If everyone was medium sized, I could see this being ok. But once you add in Size, Str (Increases as a function of size), and stability bonuses, Trip can really, really be abused.

'cos, let's face it, the only Trip-Monkeys not using Enlarge Person will be the ones using Animal Growth...

-Hyp.

 

[youspoonybard]

Well, there's Shapechange, too. : P.

But yes, Huge Wildshape + Animal Growth = Gargantuan Tripping monster.

Since the Druid can rely on shifting throughout most of her career, she, more than anyone else, can take feats to accomidate for these combat-specific builds, and will come out on top. She could pick Disarming, Tripping, or (my favorite) Grappling and come out on top. Sundering would work, too, with GMF.

But Grappling (for the most part), Sundering, or Disarming doesn't grant you free attacks....at that point, however, if a fighter goes toe-to-toe with a Gargantuan Druid, he's probably screwed no matter what...

Hmmm...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And about the buff spells - they're terrible. 1 minute per level might as well be 1 round per level. You're never going to have them for more than one fight, which means you have to compare them against what else you could be using those spell slots for in that fight. Not to mention that since they're enhancement bonuses, they don't stack with items on the same stat, so once you even get a +2 item to a stat, casting the spell on you is pretty much a waste.

There is a difference between 1 round/lv and one minute/lv. I play a cleric and had several 1 minute/lv spells for more than one combat, and we were in no hurry. 1rd/lv, OTOH, can expire within the combat (3rd level cleric will be without his strength in the 4th round. Of course, combats are usually quite short, so it is often no issue).

I really liked the spells before, but I admit that they were way to good. Especially on higher levels, where you can afford to blow some spell slots, they were effectively free slotless magic items.

And while the spells aren't very useful if you have a stat-booster item for that ability score, you can use these spells and save yourself the money for that item. This way you can get another item you need more, for the money is there and you have another free slot.

Before, they were used all the time, now you consider using them or some other spell. I think they're OK now (if a spell's a no-brainer, something's wrong).

Uh, you realize very little has changed as to the utility of power attack? It's better than it used to be, but before, it was never worth using. I believe others have borne this out with the numbers.

Blast the numbers. I found power attack to be very useful. Not every enemy has incredibly high AC.

 

[Li Shenron]

Before, they were used all the time, now you consider using them or some other spell. I think they're OK now (if a spell's a no-brainer, something's wrong).

I think this is more important than everything: they were not overpowering spells definitely, but they were boring after a few levels, since they lasted almost all your daily worth time of adventuring. I think it is the same reason why Improved Invisibility was shortened (IIRC, or wasn't it?). They could have shortened Mage Armor too at this point, but probably they didn't want to hurt the most traditional wizard's defense, and since it doesn't stack with armor, not everyone can benefit from it.

On the overall, I had some changes in 3.5 I liked from the start, and some I didn't. Nowadays I believe it's just fine to play 3.0 as it is 3.5: once you have a good DM and players who don't delight in contesting every DM's call, both systems are worth playing, and better than every other system I yet have to read.

 

[Henry]

Guys and gals, Let's please not be so belligerent towards one another. We can be a little more civil than to resort to name-calling. If not, the topic needs a breather.

 

[DM2]

Apparently it isn't time for a "What do you use from 3.5 that you swore you wouldn't" thread, as this one is just another "What don't you like about 3.5" thread.

Given the thread topic change, I'll say I'm very satisfied with 3.5.

I think most of the changes were very postive for my games, after playing with the rules since release.

I even like the 1 min/lvl buff spell durations.

I completely disagree that endurance is worthless now. Its a great thing to drink a potion of or cast before combat. An extra 2 HP per level that will easily outlast any reasonable combat, with time to spare afterwards to heal up, is quite useful.

I can easily house rule ridiculous "power loops" or whatnot when they come up.

DM2

 

[NPC]

For me, it was the new diagonal movement (5-10-5) rule. I hated the Sage's ruling in Sage Advice for 3.0e and swore I'd never use it.

But now I do and it's not the hassle that I thought it would be.

 

[The Souljourner]

NPC hit the nail on the head. We had never even heard of the diagonal movement rule, and were perfectly happy without it. Now we use it, and it's not so bad. It makes it take slightly longer to do movement, but not by much, and seeing as we're all engineers, we appreciate the mathematical sense it makes.

-The Souljourner