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

[Darth K'Trava]

I'd hazard a guess that the logic behind that is as follows:

The druid doesn't have nearly as strong an empathic link with its companion. Plus, it's a change from a previous edition (3.0) where this ability was based on a spell, which could be cast as often as desired (within reasonable limits).

The paladin's mount is far more likely to die than the familiar, due to its presence on the front lines and in the midst of combat. (Show me a mage who regularly sends his familiar into melee, and I'll show you a mage who's either got a really good improved familiar or is way behind on XP. ) Therefore, the paladin needs to be able to replace the mount more quickly.

Not saying I agree with all that, just that I'm willing to bet that's at least part of the logic behind it. Personally, I don't enforce the year and a day thing for familiars; I think the XP loss is sufficient penalty, thanks.

And heck, remember that back in 1E, a paladin could only call one mount every ten years!!

I've seen familiars used as scouts and have gotten in battle (usually inadvertantly).

Unless you have a DM who likes to take out the paladin's mount for the sheer hell of it. My paladin's mount has been in the thick of battle numerous times and hasn't been hit once. But then it hasn't attacked anyone, just carrying the pally around as she attacked foes.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I don't even mind IC use of the term "+2 longsword," unless I've given the players alternate in-game terminology to use. Sometimes I come up with something. Sometimes I just use the OOC term as the IC term to save time.

The only time we refer to a sword's magical bonus is when we're talking to a merchant to purchase one or getting a wizard to identify it's properties. Then we refer to a +2 sword as a sword with the 2nd circle of magic.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'd think it'd be fairly trivial to test the sharpness and hardness of enchanted weapons. For example, I'd allow a skilled alchemist to create a range of acids to "etch test" magic blades.

Or just use the standard things to determine hardness, though what would be required for an enchanted adamantine blade would be...interesting.

As long as my players' PCs don't start calling it "my +2 longsword" in character, I'm quite okay with the PC knowing his +2 longsword is better than a +1 longsword but not as impressive as a +3 longsword.

I try to name my character's weapons, though, of course, all the good names have been taken.

Brad

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Or just use the standard things to determine hardness, though what would be required for an enchanted adamantine blade would be...interesting.

What are "the standard things"?


Jeff

 

[Victim]

What are "the standard things"?


Jeff

There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials. Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.

Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.

 

[Hammerhead]

There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials. Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.

Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.

Engineers...

 

[Jeff Wilder]

There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials. Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.

In a quasi-medieval environment, wouldn't most of these tests damage the object tested?

"Well, it used to be a pretty damned powerful sword ... here are the remaining shards."

That's why I'd allow harmless alchemical testing.


Jeff

 

[Plane Sailing]

Unless you have a DM who likes to take out the paladin's mount for the sheer hell of it.

Of course, the ability of the Mounted Combat feat to allow the paladin to potentialy negate one attack on his mount per round has to be a darn handy one (assuming he is putting plenty of ranks into Ride of course)

Cheers

 

[Psion]

There are a number of tests for measuring hardness of materials. Most of them involve poking the test material with a probe of given dimesions and materials with a known amount of force, then measuring the size of the identation.

Others cover the strength of a material when pulled or torn, etc.

Engineer chimes in...

Qualities of a material that have to do with it being pulled or torn aren't hardness, but other qualities (tensile strength, ductility, etc.)

We now return you to discussion that would have anything that you would want to concern yourself with in a game...

 

[Victim]

Engineer chimes in...

Qualities of a material that have to do with it being pulled or torn aren't hardness, but other qualities (tensile strength, ductility, etc.)

We now return you to discussion that would have anything that you would want to concern yourself with in a game...

Yeah, but DnD hardness seems a bit different than say Brinell hardness since it protects against almost all types of damage. So it includes corrosion resistance too, among other things. But yeah, tensile strength would probably work against Break DC, rather than hardness/HP.

The hardness tests are rather non destructive. They'd put some small marks on the blade, not break it. Of course, those marks might act as stress concentrators later.

It might be better to GMW up an equivalent sword, then test that. Then, if you mess it up, you're out 15 gp plus the casting cost (possibly nothing if you can do it yourself), instead of 18k.