FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Monte said that he didn't get it exactly right, in particular he realized that his ranger variant is frontloaded feat-wise.Brennin Magalus said:
Last edited:
What changes from 3.0 to 3.5 should *not* have been made?
- Thread starter dead
- Start date
Brennin Magalus
First Post
Testament said:
Psion already mentioned one of my beefs--the combat styles. Also, I like the ranger as a wilderness warrior, not as a wilderness rogue.
Brennin Magalus
First Post
FreeTheSlaves said:
I don't think we are talking about the same ranger. The one I have in mind is from the BoHM
I disagree with most of the spell & spell feat nerfs, and the general mucking about with the spell lists. Haste & harm needed to be changed, the duration of the 2nd-lvl stat buffs needed to be reduced, but aside from some very minor tweaks I wouldn't have changed much else.
Removal of interesting or unusual spell-like abilities from monsters, especially the fiends, apparently because the SLAs weren't power-gamey enough.
Making the dwarf an even better race but giving nothing to the half-orc.
Changing the gnome's favored class to bard.
The keen/improved crit thing.
EDIT: Alchemy only being available to spellcasters. Blech.
Removal of interesting or unusual spell-like abilities from monsters, especially the fiends, apparently because the SLAs weren't power-gamey enough.
Making the dwarf an even better race but giving nothing to the half-orc.
Changing the gnome's favored class to bard.
The keen/improved crit thing.
EDIT: Alchemy only being available to spellcasters. Blech.
Last edited:
Krieg
First Post
Personally I find the 3.5 rules more trouble mechanically than they are worth. It really wasn't that freaking hard to move up or down one die size when scaling weapons.
But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.
*cough* Barrow knives
However, I do know a dwarf (terrestrial homo sapien variety) who is involved in WMA and wields a 3.5' warsword with absolutely no difficulties.
But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.
*cough* StingMouseferatu said:
*cough* Barrow knives
Ever held a longsword designed for a small size creature or a shortsword designed for a large one? That would be far more relevant.Anyone who argues that they should be has clearly never held an actual longsword or short sword.
However, I do know a dwarf (terrestrial homo sapien variety) who is involved in WMA and wields a 3.5' warsword with absolutely no difficulties.
Last edited:
I certainly am not missing the loss of the Scry skill, but this statement is false. There's nothing stopping you from taking 10 with the skill, it can be used untrained, and the DCs are rather low. If you're a wizard, you're likely never going to need ranks in it at all. Other casters will probably not need more than a few ranks, depending on the character's Int score.DanMcS said:
Jeff Wilder
First Post
mearls said:
At GenCon four years ago I ended up unknowingly discussing the spiked chain with Jonathan Tweet. (I was creating a Living Greyhawk character over my complimentary continental breakfast at my crowded hotel, and he asked to share my table.) When he saw what I was doing, he asked me what I thought of the 3E rules, and I told him, honestly, that they brought me back to D&D, but that I did think there were some minor issues. One of the things I mentioned was the spiked chain.
That's when he said, "Yeah, I'm the one who put that in the game." I did a double-take and he identified himself (and then asked if Bruce Cordell could also sit with us). As we talked about it, my impression was definitely that he felt the spiked chain was too powerful, though he never came right out and said so. (He gave me a little friendly hassle because I was creating a semi-martial conjurer who weilded a greatsword. He said that after the spiked chain, the greatsword was the most powerful weapon in the game.)
And this was before the 3.5 changes mentioned made the spiked chain just plain absurd.
As for the original topic, I don't much care for the paladin's mount rules. Most of the other rules they changed, I also would have changed ... I just would have changed them better. For instance, the new ranger is a hundred times better than the old ... but it still has spells. For another instance, the buff's attribute spells needed their durations dramatically shortened ... but they should provide a +5 bonus (to give a tiny bit more utility to odd stats). For a third instance, the DR rules really do add a lot of flavor ... but they're thrown the pricing for magic weapons way outta whack.
One thing I don't understand is why people have so much trouble with square facings. You can accept that a gnome fully controls a 5' square, but not that a warhorse can fully control a 10' square, or a dragon can fully control a 20' square? What's so wrong about that?
Non-square creature-representation clearly implies facing rules. While for experienced gamers, that implication is easy to ignore (which, for 3E, we did), for inexperienced gamers it's just confusing. (Hell, there are players still who don't understand that D&D doesn't have facing.) Square facings is just another combat abstraction ... and not even a major one. I just don't get the problem.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Krieg said:
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.
Testament
First Post
Jeff, I can't speak for others, but my beef with the square facings is not actually with facings or the like. Its with movement. It strikes me as odd that a horse needs to squeeze their movement to fit down a 5' wide corridor, and absurd that a naga has to.
Your comments about facing are interesting, and I agree with you. And there is no argument whatsoever about the Spiked Chain here. That thing is truly absurd.
I find it interesting that you dislike the Ranger's spells. Ah well, more a flavour thing I'd guess.
Your comments about facing are interesting, and I agree with you. And there is no argument whatsoever about the Spiked Chain here. That thing is truly absurd.
I find it interesting that you dislike the Ranger's spells. Ah well, more a flavour thing I'd guess.
