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

[TracerBullet42]

I think the only thing I don't like (so far) is the new Deflect Arrows feat. Automatic deflection just stinks...

And yes, I'm bitter about having a potentially heroic moment ruined by that feat...

 

[Psion]

And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.

Paladins-cum-commandoes?

Jot this down as one more reason pokemounts won't be seeing the light of day in my game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd hardly say that infiltration of an evil city automatically equals commandos. I'm talking about using tactics to start the battle, not black-clad assassins or that sort of thing.

But hey, as I said, the idea doesn't work for all campaigns. It doesn't even work for all of my campaigns. But for a slightly higher-magic world, I think it fits just fine.

 

[DanMcS]

I think the only thing I don't like (so far) is the new Deflect Arrows feat. Automatic deflection just stinks...

And yes, I'm bitter about having a potentially heroic moment ruined by that feat...

Bah. It was a nonscaling DC for a minor benefit (what kind of archer shoots only 1 arrow?). If it had been, say, let the monk roll an unarmed attack or reflex save versus the attack roll of the shot, that would have been one thing, but once the monk hits 4th or 5th level, the DC 20 roll was a speedbump. Doing away with extra rolls in combat == good.

 

[Victim]

I'd hardly say that infiltration of an evil city automatically equals commandos. I'm talking about using tactics to start the battle, not black-clad assassins or that sort of thing.

But hey, as I said, the idea doesn't work for all campaigns. It doesn't even work for all of my campaigns. But for a slightly higher-magic world, I think it fits just fine.

It's a cool idea. However, if I were the evil overlord guy, I'd be extra suspicious of a bunch of unarmed, unarmored people in monk's robes. Monks don't need armor or weapons to beat up guards.

I'm not overly fond of the poke-mount idea either. However, being able to summon the critter when needed allows the paladin to actually use the feature more of the time.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's a cool idea. However, if I were the evil overlord guy, I'd be extra suspicious of a bunch of unarmed, unarmored people in monk's robes. Monks don't need armor or weapons to beat up guards.

Heh. My bad; my western-oriented thought processes coming forth again. I meant "monk" as in "the harmless religious types who make wine or raise grain in monestaries, and occasionally solve murder mysteries if their name is 'Cadfael,'" as opposed to "monk" as in "Using all manner of martial arts to beat the crap out of people who threaten the world or insult their sensai."

 

[Vocenoctum]

This is one of those rules that I take or leave based on the nature of the campaign setting. For something that feels a little more traditional/medieval, I stick with the old rules. For something a bit higher magic or more fantastic, I go with the new rules.

I think the old system works better if everyone is mounted. The new system works better if the party doesn't have horses to take care of.

If everyone is mounted and it's the type of campaign where that is handy, it's fine to have a perma-steed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y'know- despite asking a couple of pages ago- I still haven't been told what a "pokemount" is!

Never heard the term- what does it mean?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Y'know- despite asking a couple of pages ago- I still haven't been told what a "pokemount" is!

Never heard the term- what does it mean?

Actually, it was answered a few times (or maybe that was another thread I'm thinking of).

In any case, some people who dislike the new paladin's mount rules call it a pokemount, after the whole Pokemon-appearing-out-of-a-bright-colored-ball thing. Because as we all know, the ability to summon a creature cannot be portrayed in any way more seriously than a poorly written kids' cartoon. :\ [/sarcasm]

 

[Will]

I use the term not to be derisive, but because it's a lot quicker than saying 'the ability to summon up a mount' or even 'summonable mount.'

And, to me, it's not how serious it is, but it is another in a series of elements that I (and others) find mood-breaking.