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

[FreeTheSlaves]

What am I missing here?! What's wrong with the Ranger?

Ah, the 3.0 Ranger, where to begin. Let's see we've got:

- frontloaded at 1st level
- counter intuitive favoured enemies that requires you take you high level foe at low level
- not enough skill points to cover the basics
- no mid to high level class features
- pitifully weak animal companion (has it improved?)
- good HD & medium armour promotes tanking but stat requirements and scouting role discourage tanking

Have I missed anything?

 

[FireLance]

Funny, a lot of things that I like about 3.5e are what a lot of people don't. I must have terrible taste.

Weapon sizes: I disliked the 3.0 weapon sizes because Small races that would benefit most from Weapon Finesse could only use that feat with the dagger and a few other exotic weapons. Now, a halfling can use a rapier appropriately sized for him.

Square spaces: Rectangular spaces seemed really odd to me because it implied that creatures only ever faced one way in a fight, even if they were attacked from the side or the rear. Square spaces fit better with the concept that creatures turn every which way in a fight to strike at and defend against opponents on all sides.

Summon Mount: A paladin's god gives his champion the ability to summon a helper whenever and wherever he needs it, and people complain? So what if it's never been done before? It's a great idea, and even lawful good gods can innovate, you know. If it makes you feel better, have the paladin transform his pet dog into a dire lion or something.

The whole golf bag of DR issues: I liked the lowering of DR values so that it is now difficult but not impossible to injure a creature when you don't have the right weapon. I'm happy with the existing special materials and alignments. I will start to get annoyed if other special materials are added. I will make an exception for byeshk in Eberron because I like Eberron. Yes, that's terribly biased of me.

Gnome bards: In my own campaign, I was cracking my head over how to give gnomes more of a niche, and decided to re-invent them as a race of fun-loving tricksters whose favored class was bard instead of illusionist. You can imagine how delighted I was when 3.5e was released. Yes, this is another example of personal taste.

And now, back on topic. Things I didn't really like about 3.5e:

1. Needing to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy). I can see why some of the semi-magical substances need spellcasting ability, but it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to distill acid.

2. The buff spells may have been over-nerfed. 10 mins./level sounds good to me.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

I gotcha. Okay, think about this:

(1) It's only an issue in combat.
(2) Remember, D&D combat is all about controlling your space.
(3) Granted, a naga should have no problem slithering down a 5' corridor ... except when she's worried about the space behind her.

See what I'm getting at? The movement penalty for "squeezing" isn't because the creature doesn't actually fit down the corridor ... it's because -- for whatever reason, length, height, bulk -- they have to proceed more cautiously to maintain vigilance and the ability to defend themselves on all sides. (Consider a warhorse in a 5' corridor, being attacked from "behind," and maybe the visualization is easier.)

Does that help?

I find it interesting that you dislike the Ranger's spells. Ah well, more a flavour thing I'd guess.

Robin Hood didn't have spells. Aragorn didn't have spells. (Yes, Aragorn was a skilled herbalist and healer, but he wasn't a spellcaster.) Menion Leah didn't have spells. Are there any archetypal rangers that were spellcasters?

So, yeah, it's primarily a flavor issue. I think the Unearthed Arcana ranger is closer to perfect.

(BTW, I also dislike that assassins have spells, for the same reason.)

 

[Spatula]

Robin Hood didn't have spells. Aragorn didn't have spells. (Yes, Aragorn was a skilled herbalist and healer, but he wasn't a spellcaster.) Menion Leah didn't have spells. Are there any archetypal rangers that were spellcasters?

I don't know, are there any archtypical D&D rangers from earlier editions? Drizzt perhaps? I don't care one way or the other, but complaining about rangers casting spells when they've been doing so for their entire game existance (20+ years now) strikes me as more than a little futile.

 

[Testament]

I gotcha. Okay, think about this:

(1) It's only an issue in combat.
(2) Remember, D&D combat is all about controlling your space.
(3) Granted, a naga should have no problem slithering down a 5' corridor ... except when she's worried about the space behind her.

See what I'm getting at? The movement penalty for "squeezing" isn't because the creature doesn't actually fit down the corridor ... it's because -- for whatever reason, length, height, bulk -- they have to proceed more cautiously to maintain vigilance and the ability to defend themselves on all sides. (Consider a warhorse in a 5' corridor, being attacked from "behind," and maybe the visualization is easier.)

Does that help?

That is, by far, the best justification ANYONE has ever given me. Congratulations Jeff, you just changed my mind on that whole manner.

I also hate the Assassin having spells, and your views on the Ranger are valid. I don't entirely agree with you (can't say why though :\ ), nor do I disagree.

FreeTheSlaves, I'm not talking about the abomination that is the 3.0 Ranger (AKA the one level class), I'm talking about the 3.5 ranger, with 6+Int skill points and a heck of a lot less front loading. The animal companion now scales (hallelujah!), and the favoured enemy bonuses can be kicked up when you pick up a new one. If you pick up Dragons as your third, for instance, you can immediately kick it to +4. Take a look at a 3.5 PHB, or the SRD.

 

[Mr. Kaze]

I've grumbled about it before, I'll grumble about it again.

Spell Resistance: No.

While the general concept behind this is probably something along the lines of "I've just conjured something that is real and is no longer magical but is actually here and therefore SR doesn't apply because it's really here and stuff", that line of reasoning means that the persistent force effect that has to pound through all of that real armor, Spiritual Weapon, is just as not-all-here as a lightning bolt, which is substantially less-all-here than the ranged touch attacks of Acid Arrow or Crystal Shard (Psionics -- power points are closer to a fantasy mechanic than spell slots ) or the "just point and wait" Cloudkill.

While I can't complain much about Acid Arrow -- despite it leading to some mind numbingly dull and uncinematic suggestions involving trapping golems and using the sorceror to plink them to death with Acid Arrow -- it would seem to me that the Duergar would've used Cloudkill against the Drow (all of the Drow) a long time ago. And using augmented Crystal Shards against a golem just deserves the kind of punishment that a DM who can see it coming would return for it.

Really, it's a crystal shard that's real enough to not get stuck on spell resistance -- why the heck isn't it getting stuck on that adamantine full plate and tower shield the fighter is hiding behind, hrm? How is it putting holes in that adamantine golem of mine, hrm? If it were a straight ranged attack, then we could talk about it -- but it's a ranged touch, meaning that it's circumventing all standard armor slots that stop real things (like real crystal shards) from carving up what's inside.

The thing that made SR valueable in 3.0 was that it worked against virtually everything. The thing that can make SR valueable in 3.5 is that the PCs don't expect it and therefore don't spend precious slots on SR-avoiding spells. But that's not the case, is it? From Drow to Duergar to Illithid (iirc), with most of the demons, devils and other outsiders in between, SR is a staple of monsters with a CR greater than 8 -- so why would any caster looking at high-level play seriously consider burning a pair of feats to help with Spell Penetration checks when they don't have to go making them at all?

AFAIC, binding the golems' Spell Immunity to SR was dang foolish -- especially if the actual spell Spell Immunity really does mean "Spell Immunity".

::Kaze (notes that City of the Spider Queen is like a guided tour of all of the things that got nerfed or otherwise "rebalanced" for 3.5e which makes it pretty difficult to DM to the players' expectations)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Forgive my presumption, FreeTheSlaves- but I think Testament was asking what was wrong with the 3.5 ranger...which I think is a pretty good class myself.

As for: Weapon size, the nerfing of buff spells, bard as a gnome's favored class -they bug me a lot.

As does the continued hosing of the half-orc.

The racial weapon familiarity makes sense to me, but should have been expanded to all of the non-human races (see statement immediately previous).

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

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If it makes you feel better, have the paladin transform his pet dog into a dire lion or something.

"I am Prince Adam, and this is Cringer, my faithful friend..."

 

[green slime]

My beefs are these:

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

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

3. Pokemount.

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

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

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

7. Dwarves.

8. Gnomes. Bards? wtf?

9. Weapon familiarity.

10. Keen not stacking with Improved Crit.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't know, are there any archtypical D&D rangers from earlier editions? Drizzt perhaps?

Justifying a D&D rule because of characters based on that rule doesn't seem kinda, you know, silly to you? It's like arguing in favor of the DH because the Yankees have had DHs for a long time.

I don't care one way or the other, but complaining about rangers casting spells when they've been doing so for their entire game existance (20+ years now) strikes me as more than a little futile.

Well, considering that complaining about the ranger got us a slew of unofficial 3E rangers, and then got us the 3.5 ranger, and then the Unearthed Arcana ranger (which, BTW, doesn't cast spells), I suppose I have a slightly higher bar for use of the word "futile."