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

[Jeff Wilder]

4. Cone-shaped spells having their area reduced to a fixed size.

I don't get what you mean here.

5. Darkness that isn't. A nice spell as it is, it should have been a seperate spell, and Darkness should still be...dark.

I agree, but I really think this was an unintentional screw-up, and could be fixed as early as Complete Arcane.

6. Wizard specialization. Now almost all specialists are Diviners.

Say what? I've seen three or four specialists in my group since 3.5, and not a single diviner.

8. Gnomes. Bards? wtf?

Why not? It's not like they outlawed gnome illusionists. Gnomes have always been gregarious sorts, getting along with pretty much everyone. Making them natural bards seems like a justified extension of that to me.

10. Keen not stacking with Improved Crit.

I guess this one depends on whether you think that fights lasting only until the fighter rolls a natural 15 are fun or not. (Put me down for "not." But I'm a DM, and I would never build a PC-killer like a min-maxed fighter with Improved Critical and a keen weapon. And if it's cheesy for me to use, in my role of creating fun encounters, it's damned sure cheesy for players to use.)

 

[Steverooo]

I have to agree that the changes to Alchemy (or Craft (Alchemy), as it now stands) were a step down, instead of up. While I agree that Wizrads, Sorcerors, Clerics, and Druids should all be able to ID potions, I thought IDing by an Alchemist was also a good thing. Likewise, I agree that Non-Spellcasters should also be able to make acids, etc.

The changes to Tanglefoot Bags made them TOO weak, especially at higher levels. They quickly become obsolete, especially compared to Web, a first level spell.

Profession (Herbalist) 5+ should still grant the +2 Synergy Bonus to Heal checks.

Darkness, cast in the dark, shouldn't produce light, nor should evil creatures be able to see through it when Darksight can't.

Weapon & Equipment weights/bulks are still badly out of whack.

Caster Levels for Rangers & Paladins should be Class Level - 3, instead of 1/2 CL, and the same for a Ranger's Animal Companion.

PCs should be able to acquire henchmen (or whatever you want to call them) without needing a Feat for it, even if there is a level requirement placed upon it. Generally, you can buy a dog or a warhorse, but most GMs won't let you buy much else, and acquiring a Pseudo-dragon or a "special mount" (such as a Griffon, Hippogriff, Pegasus, or Unicorn) is a no-no for pretty much any GM. It used to be that ANY PC could do this, at level 10+. Now you need a Feat!

Hide requiring Cover/Concealment. This hurts both the Rogue and the Ranger (as well as any PC who developed it Cross-Class). Combined with "no facing", this makes sneaking up in too many situations a useless skill.

Invisibility is STILL too powerful! It needs to be toned down to the point where, say, it gives the +20 to Hide, but beating the DC means that you know which square to attack, instead of having to beat the DC (at +20) BY 20! That is just too much!

Magic is STILL too much more powerful than skills. Spells still do too much more damage than weapons. It's all about the magic, and High-level Fighters or Rogues really aren't worth as much as Wizards and Clerics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

6. Wizard specialization. Now almost all specialists are Diviners.

Well, I've been playing specialist mages since I first had the option (2Ed, don'cha know). Diviners have always been a favorite of mine, but I play just as many Transmuters.

And I'm the only person in my 2 groups who plays any specialists besides illusionists or evokers! Most just play straight mages or sorcerers.

 

[FireLance]

1. Weapon Sizing. I just didn't see the problem. It was simple enough to create rapiers for halflings if you wanted to.

Yup, as simple as applying the optional weapon equivalency rules if you don't like the revised weapon size.

2. Improved Trip. IMO, this is a major contributor to the problem with spiked chain, together with the AoO for standing up.

I thought it was great because it gave the Int-based fighter a nice power-up. My first 3.5e character was a human bard with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.

 

[green slime]

Clarification: Cone-shaped spells went from having a range (long, medium, close), that was level dependant to having a fixed range.
Frex:

3.5 Cone of Cold range: 60ft. Area: cone-shaped burst.
3.0 Cone of Cold range: Close. Area Cone.

Because it was simpler to adjudicate? Is it really that tough to calculate the area? What is this? Gaming for the retarded?

With regards to specialists:
IMX, the loss of two schools of magic is too heavy a hit for specialists. Of course you may evaluate this differently. In a group that already contains a wizard (of any sort) the cost to the group is lower, of course.

In the campaigns I have played, DnD went from (3.0) having a greater variety of specialists (more players were willing to try different flavours of wizards) to only a very few (3.5). Of course your mileage may vary.

 

[FireLance]

Enlighten me, guys- what are pokemounts? I've not encountered that term before.

"Pokemount" is a derogatory term used to describe the 3.5e paladin's special mount because he now calls it magically once per day for 2 hours per paladin level instead of having it stick around 24-7. To me at least, it is annoying and almost as bad as some other words that would be replaced by smileys by this site's filter.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am nowadays quite mild on the 3.5 changes, we still play a 3.0 campaign and there isn't one of the two which seems to work generally better or to be more fun.

Obviously, some of the specific changes I like a lot and some I don't. Just to list a few changes I don't like and haven't been mentioned so far:

- AoO when standing up from prone (realistic but a pain if overexploited)
- automatic Deflect Arrows (unrealistic, unfair, ugly and out of control, even if it rarely comes into play)
- the removal of multiple animal companions (could be difficult to handle but were nice)

 

[Darren]

Enlighten me, guys- what are pokemounts? I've not encountered that term before.

Pokemount is a derisive term sometimes given to the paladin's mount in the 3.5 flavor of the game. In 3.5 a paladin can summon his mount from the "celestial realms" once a day. It stays around for 2 hours per level or until dismissed. It's sort of like the way little pocket monsters are summoned in the pokemon game. So somewhere a terribly creative person with too much time on his hands somehow put pokemon + paladin mount together to get a pokemount. I love the internet.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

- DR: Golfbag; 'nuff said on this. I like Monte's idea of relating materials to magic boni. (material = magic +X)
- Wizard Specialisation: in 3.0 it was a true alternative but in 3.5 its uninteresting IMO. The point in the wizards class is its multitude of spells. Two lost schools seem too much.


Kodam

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Clarification: Cone-shaped spells went from having a range (long, medium, close), that was level dependant to having a fixed range.
Frex:

3.5 Cone of Cold range: 60ft. Area: cone-shaped burst.
3.0 Cone of Cold range: Close. Area Cone.

Oh, I see. Wow, I didn't even notice that change. (Obviously it didn't bother me ... )

Because it was simpler to adjudicate? Is it really that tough to calculate the area?

I suspect it was more to balance the spells more easily with one another, while further standardizing area of effect rules. Consider that there's a big difference between cone of cold (60' cone) and burning hands (15' cone), and no difference (beyond the obvious) between cone of cold (close-range cone) and burning hands (close-range cone).

I think a 5th-level spell should have a much longer cone than a 1st-level spell, but on the other hand a 150'+ cone (if you step it up to Medium range) is kinda over the top.

IMX, the loss of two schools of magic is too heavy a hit for specialists. Of course you may evaluate this differently. In a group that already contains a wizard (of any sort) the cost to the group is lower, of course.

I haven't found that to be the case. Losing the schools sometimes hurts, of course -- if it didn't, it wouldn't be a drawback, after all -- but I've found the extra power makes up for it, or at least somewhere close. Combined with that and the increased flavor of specialized wizards -- mmm, peppery! -- we rarely see non-specialized wizards in our games.

(To be fair, part of my feeling on this is shaped by the fact that I dislike the Illusion school. I think many Illusion spells and effects are very difficult to fairly adjudicate, and that player and DM expectations often differ sharply. So all my specialists lose Illusion pretty much automatically, and then I pick the other school based on the character.)