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

[Buttercup]

Uniformity of space. Nagas have to squeeze down halls? This is probably my biggest beef.

This is what I meant by facing. I should have said square facing. It's just dumb that a horse is square.

And anyone who dislikes sorcerors musn't have ever seen a well built one in action, with their bottomless clip.

They still got the skills wrong, and a few other things. Doesn't matter, I use my own build. However, in 3.0 it was the only core class I felt was unuseable as written. In 3.5 I think the ranger, paladin and bard need to be tweaked to fit my needs. So I'm not a happy camper.

But that's ok. I've got enough 3.0 meterial to last me a lifetime, and my players aren't interested in "upgrading" so WotC can suck eggs.

 

[S'mon]

Power Attack 2-for-1 deal without a shield-wielder getting 2-for-1 AC from Combat Expertise

Wow, what a cool idea! I was going to say 3.5's 2-for-1 PA, I generally like most of the 3.5 changes. This sounds like a very interesting house rule.

 

[Darklone]

Power Attack 2:1. I'd have preferred to see the 1.5 factor from strength for twohanded weapons here as well. And a limit.

Kobolds. THEY GOT NERFED IN 3.5!!!?!?!?!?! Argh.

Imp Crit & Keen should stack. Crit special abilities for weapons only on 20s. ALL of them.

Polymorph etc.

Druids and clerics: Still too strong. Animal Growth plus wildshape into Giant Octopus?

Improved Trip: Scratch the extra attack. Or the AoO for standing up. Or give more options to stand up without AoO.

Spiked chain. A weapon that would still be too good with 1d3 damage for medium sized creatures.

Bards. The new spell list is an improvement, but made archer bards impossible. Where's Magic Weapon? They made the bard stronger as a spell slinger with enchantments but made him useless as versatility character.

 

[Buttercup]

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.

If a change means that nobody wants to play the class in question, it probably wasn't a good change. But eh, that's what house rules are for. IMC, pick a school to specialize in, and pick an opposition school of your choice. Simple.

 

[green slime]

If a change means that nobody wants to play the class in question, it probably wasn't a good change. But eh, that's what house rules are for. IMC, pick a school to specialize in, and pick an opposition school of your choice. Simple.

Which is exactly what we do! Great minds think alike! Like most of my pet peeves, they are all already house-ruled! But this thread wasn't about my house rules, it was about what we (everyone on this board) feel shouldn't have changed in the core rules.

And wilder_jw? Burning hands wasn't a cone in 3.0, it was a 10 ft. radius semi-circle...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never said that people couldn't wield weapons that weren't sized for them. I simply said that such weapons aren't truly equivalent, Tolkien or no. The fact is (just for instance), short swords are weighted differently than longswords. They have a different ratio of blade-length to handle. One is not simply a smaller version of the other, and I like the fact that the game system as now written reflects that. I frankly don't find the new rules even remotely confusing, and I was surprised to learn that others do.

I think the main reason the original rules make sense is because most of the races didn´t exist isolated from each other. Each of them is roughly familiar with the weapons of the other races, and probably the weaponsmiths designed weapons that could be used by most races, while the weapon training would consist in learning how to use the weapons that are not 100% and perfectly suited for your weapon.
Especially adventuring heroes must know how to handle this - a halfling can´t be sure he will find a halfling-optmized sword when he enters a human town and needs to find a replacement for his old sword that just has been sundered ...

 

[green slime]

Mouseferatu, it isn't that the new weapon sizes are confusing, it is the fact that they are klunky. Klunky and unnecessary. It provides for a level of detail in which I am uninterested. Who worries about blade-length to handle ratios? Does it chop/slice-n-dice? Can it kill the Beholders?

Does it make sense that a 3' halfling threatens as large an area as a 6' human? Hardly. Given this kind of granularity, I'm not going to worry about handles and blade lengths.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Wow, what a cool idea! I was going to say 3.5's 2-for-1 PA, I generally like most of the 3.5 changes. This sounds like a very interesting house rule.

Well, at first I didn't like the new PA. But after playing with it for a while I don't mind the extra damage. What I do mind is that taking it completely invalidates the Sword-and-Board style of fighting. So I figure that if Power Attack is 2-for-1 for the 2H fighters in the game (and it should be, the greatsword/axe should do the most damage in the game, hands down), then Combat Expertise should be 2-for-1 for the S&B fighters in the game (and it should be, using a shield should provide the best defense in the game, hands down.)

Only Light or Heavy shields, though.

I just like the symmetry of it. Both styles are still able to gain access to the opposite feat, but it works better for that combat style that most emphasizes its purpose.

 

[S'mon]

I'll suggest this to my players as a house rule.

 

[S'mon]

Here's my suggested Sword & Board feat - I've toned it down from your suggestion but I think it's probably still worth taking:

Shield Expertise:
Prereqs: BAB +1, Shield proficiency
In combat the Wielder of a light or heavy shield can shelter behind their shield as a free action, by giving up 1 or 2 points of BAB they get a +2 or +4 AC cover bonus, ie +2 AC for-1 to-hit, +4 AC for -2 to-hit. This feat is a form of Defensive Fighting and replaces Defensive Fighting's -4 to-hit for +2 AC, it cannot be used in conjunction with Combat Expertise or a Full Defense action (+4 AC no attack).