What changes from 3.0 to 3.5 should *not* have been made?

[billd91]

I'll grant that the ranger is closer in 3.5 to a rogue than he was in 3.0, but why is that a problem? A wilderness warrior, almost by definition, is a guerilla fighter. The 3.5 ranger is incredibly well-suited for that role.

The 3.5 ranger has the HP of a fighter/rogue, the BAB of a fighter, the weapons knowledge of a fighter, the shields proficiency of a fighter, the saves of both ... looks like a wilderness warrior to me.


Why is evasion a problem? The ranger is more lightly armored than a fighter, and usually quicker. He relies more on avoiding damage than absorbing it.


Well, compared to the 2E and 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger has double the choices. How in the world you can count that as a negative is beyond me.
<snip>

While we may disagree on whether a ranger should have spells, I certainly agree with you that I can't really understand JRRNeiklot's beef with the revised ranger. It seems to me that he just wants to play a fighter with tracking skills, for the most part.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No, it gives ONE extra attack. With a weapon.

To multiple targets. That's extra "attacks."

(3.0 haste only provided one extra attack, BTW. Its use on melee or missile combatants wasn't the problem.)

At any rate, it doesn't do what it did in 3.0 and it should not have been mangled so.

Well, if you don't agree that 3.0 haste was broken, there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you do agree that 3.0 haste was broken, how would you have fixed it without "mangling" it?

My group is perfectly happy with 3.5 haste. It remains a common spell for wizards and sorcerers to choose, but it's no longer a complete no-brainer. That's a good thing, IMO.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Regarding Haste, they could have bumped it up a level or two instead of changing it.

Not only would current haste-haters be complaining even more about that, but it would still be broken as a fifth-level spell.

In D&D combat, there is nothing more precious or powerful as "actions." Game mechanics that add actions are usually broken, almost by definition, no matter what level they are. The problem is that higher-level characters (read "spellcasters") can do correspondingly more powerful things with extra actions, so just delaying when they get those extra actions doesn't help much.

A 5th-level wizard under 3.0 haste can cast an extra fireball in a round. An 11th-level wizard could cast an extra disintegrate or circle of death. Changing haste to be a fifth-level spell wouldn't affect the 11th-level wizard much at all.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Get your mind out of the dungeon for a minute. Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart? It bothers me. That and the horde of minis and counters I own that assume a horse is 1x2. Plus its a fix to a problem I never had, nor do I recall others complaining about.

Do the unit of pikemen readying against their charge have to stand 5' apart?

If so, they're dead meat, because they won't be presenting a 'forest of pikes.' They'd be even worse off if they were axemen holding a shieldwall against a cavalry charge.

If you want units charging on a battlefield, then just play with Warhammer, Warmachine, War Gods, Warlord (... there's a pattern here, I'm just not spotting it ...) or some other miniatures rules.

D&D doesn't model units; it models individuals in a melee. 10 ft. represents the model's zone of control, not the space it fills.

Of course, the problem with 1 x 2 horse miniatures still stands.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

People who want to keep their extra spell casting actions... Rods of Quicken are now core and priced appopriately high.

 

[dimonic]

3.5 why not

I still play 3.0 but was considering updating.

From what I can see, there's a lot of good changes and the game is now even more streamlined.

However, I'd like to know if there were any changes that people think just should NOT have been made.

Thanks.

The trouble with this question is that there are enough people out there that there will be someone who will disagree with every change. This will then be multiplied by the fact that only the people who feel strongly will bother to reply. You will then get mostly opinionated rants by people who have been personally hurt by the changes, who will mostly be people who have been taking advantage of a 3.0 weakness in the first place.

At least 9/10 people prefer the ranger, but there is always one person who hates him. Probably every DM is happier with crit increases not stacking anymore, but every player who built their character round them will hate them. People who actually played their Paladin, and had the DM say, "no your horse will not go there", will like the new mount. The DM, and perhaps other "realism conscious" players will dislike it. Wizards will hate the changes most: their uber-build spell focus wizards, with daily buff spells that lasted all day suddenly have to start thinking. Druids will hate the new polymorph, because they cannot totally dominate game-play. The weapon sizes make much more logical sense, but halfling players are crying foul. DMs will prefer the new DR rules, players will not.

Some things people are complaining about are more or less flavour text anyway. It makes no difference to game balance if you ditch the new square facings and play with the old ones. They even suggest this, and also the old weapon size system as /options/ in the new DMG.

What this all says is that you will have to deal with your group's complaints. This will be your biggest problem with 3.5. I just pushed it down their throats (after all, none of them wanted to DM). After a while, they realized they liked it better.

 

[Ozmar]

Relative weapon sizes. What a confusing, needless complicated mess!

A Small Sword is a short sword for a human and a longsword for a halfling. I much prefer the elegance and simplicity of this approach over the 3.5 paradigm of a Small Long Sword and a Medium Short Sword that are not the same weapon. It really makes things needlessly complicated vis-a-vis treasure acquisition and weapons.

Ozmar the Grump

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Get your mind out of the dungeon for a minute. Do a unit of charging horsemen have to stay 10' apart? It bothers me.

Mini's don't make horsemen stay 10 feet apart, either. If you think mounted horses should take only, says, 4 feet wide, put them next to each other does not make them 5 feet apart on a 5 foot-wide base. It makes them inches apart.

Charging horsemen DO put more than 12 inches between themselves, or more!

Add a reasonable space the space the horse and rider already takes up and you are getting close to a 10 foot wide base. 3 feet space on the left, the 4 foot width of the horse and rider, 3 feet space on the right. The 3 feet on a side of each charging horseman adds to 6 feet of space between charging horseman, if you put them on 10 foot wide bases.

As believeable as seeing horsemen inches apart charging at a full clip, because they would be on 5 foot-wide bases. IMO.

 

[Lars Porsenna]

Mini's don't make horsemen stay 10 feet apart, either. If you think mounted horses should take only, says, 4 feet wide, put them next to each other does not make them 5 feet apart on a 5 foot-wide base. It makes them inches apart.

Charging horsemen DO put more than 12 inches between themselves, or more!

Perhaps for certain types of horsemen, but medieval knights and ancient Cataphracts charged into combat literally knee to knee, and this is supported by sources. With the new facing style can't have, say, a unit of knights charging in this style...the new facing system forces you into a "skirmish" deployment.

Damon.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Aaaand I'm OFF on a tangent

For the paladin's mount, I use a simple houserule. I let the "spirit" of his celestial mount infuse the mount he's riding, so when he calls it his present mount turns into his Paladin's Mount. He can also summon it per the rules if he has no mount. This gets past the whole "what do I do with my normal mount?" questions.

Basically, I'm just there to play a game and have no problems with the paladin's mount as written. Just a little change for flavor, really.

Ok...

Back to your regular debate.