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

[Psion]

Having given scry quite a workout in an RttToEE campaign, both before and after the change to 3.5, I really like the 3.5 changes and how it worked with the skill... The drawback is of course as Psion pointed out that lots of old 3.0 NPCs are statted out with the skill.

It's not just NPCs I speak of. Second World had multiple classes that hinged around it and a magic subsystem that was built upon it. I felt Monte's modifications in BoEM III did the trick for scry, so I just used those instead of the 3.5 changes and everything was happy.

 

[Psion]

But what do I know, I'm still flabbergasted that people lacked the basic math skills to figure out THAC0.

Oh, I didn't lack the math skills (though I know some players who did). I just know it adds an additional step to each attack rolls, a process which is slow enough as it is.

 

[Staffan]

That one could have been done better... by letting it stack but NEVER allowing an effect to multiply. Always just a +1 threat range.

This would make sword-like weapons (19-20/x2 or 18-20/x2) inferior to axe-like weapons (20/x3 or 20/x4).

Basic crit weapons (20/x2) do 5% more damage on average, good crit weapons (19-20/x2 or 20/x3) do 10% more damage, and super crit weapons (18-20/x2 or 20/x4) do 15% more. Doubling the threat range (what we do now) changes these to 10%, 20% and 30%, equally within the category (ignoring for the moment both the marginal effect of "wasted threat range" and "wasted damage"). If you instead increase threat range by 1, you still get 10% for basic weapons, 20% for good axe-like weapons (19-20/x3) (net increase 10%), and 30% for super axe-like weapons (19-20/x4) (net increase 15%). However, good sword-like weapons (18-20/x2) only get a 15% increase (net plus 5%), and super sword-like weapons (17-20/x2) only get a 20% increase (also net plus 5%).

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

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.

The problem with 3.5e Improved Trip is that in exchange for one attack, you get two attacks (first as a direct result of Improved Trip, second as an AoO when he gets up), plus that you're putting your opponent at a disadvantage (being prone) and costing him half a round (getting up). That's a lot of advantage for one second-tier (i.e. only one prereq) feat.

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).

I like the 2-for-1 Combat Expertise better. The two-handers get their bonus as part of a feat they're likely to take anyway, so the sword&boarders should too - it shouldn't require a separate feat.

IMO, one small failing of 3e in general (with 3.5e being slightly worse in this regard on account of 2-for-1 power attack) is that two-handed weapons are superior to sword & board, when in our world the opposite would seem to have been true.

 

[Psion]

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.

Same here, except it goes beyond that for me. It's not just absurd when it comes to movement. It is also absurd when it comes to line of sight when your 10-ft wide mounted soldier cannot hide behind a 5-foot wide hut. Similar bizarreness comes up when you consider things like horse drawn chariots.

Sure you can make exceptions, but when you make exceptions for so many situations, it seems obvious to me that the abstraction does not serve its intended function.

 

[reanjr]

I still play 3.0 but was considering updating.

From what I can see, there's a lot of good changes and the game is now even more streamlined.

However, I'd like to know if there were any changes that people think just should NOT have been made.

Thanks.

Weapon size is nonsensical in the real world, but works fine for the game. The face and reach change is probably the worst in the game, in my opinion. All creatures fill a square shape, now. So huge snake can't fit through a 5ft. hallway if you go by that. It's dumb. It's pointless. It creates more corner cases than it removed.

 

[Gez]

Actually, about square facing, there are rules about squizzing in passageways smaller than your facing.

The square facing represent the space you take when you're madly jumping and spinning and otherwise doing funky moves. Not the space you occupies when you're quietly walking in a corridor.

Lookit page 149 of your 3.5 Player's Handbook. (It's page 149 in both English and French edition; if you have an Italian/German/High Devirian edition, I don't know where it is, but probably nearby.)

 

[Psion]

This would make sword-like weapons (19-20/x2 or 18-20/x2) inferior to axe-like weapons (20/x3 or 20/x4).

(snip analysis)

Good point. However, I am not always concerned when an *option* is inferior. Hopefully players will recognize when their resources are best spent, frex, if an axe fighter might be better off taking improved crit where a sword fighter would be better off with weapon specialization.

Further, with some rules variants, this might be a desirable counterbalance. For example, if you give options during a threat, or assign the possibilities of impairment when a crit is rolled (like in Torn Assunder, the value of a wider threat range is greater.

I like the 2-for-1 Combat Expertise better. The two-handers get their bonus as part of a feat they're likely to take anyway, so the sword&boarders should too - it shouldn't require a separate feat.

I'd just as soon do away with the 2-for-1 altogether, as it makes it too easy to generate large numbers. Frex, in my 3.0 game, overcoming hardness came up at several junctures; 2-for-1 power attack is the simple solution to that. Likewise, 2-for-1 combat expertise seems like it would be the key to extreme ACs that bog combat down to fighters continually missing one another. IOW, they are mathematially fair, but can create situational problems.

(Not that I have a real good alternate solution to the two-weapon thing, I just don't like *this* one.)

 

[Psion]

Actually, about square facing, there are rules about squizzing in passageways smaller than your facing.

The square facing represent the space you take when you're madly jumping and spinning and otherwise doing funky moves. Not the space you occupies when you're quietly walking in a corridor.

I thought Testament's post made it clear that was understood.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

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.

THAC0 calculations were pointless. If they required Lebesgue integration I might be impressed, but there is nothing special about subtracting negative numbers.

*cough* Sting

*cough* Barrow knives

I'd see a doctor about that cough. In the meantime, it might help to realize that Tolkien was not a weaponsmith.

 

[The_Universe]

I'm also not a big fan of square-based creatures. Horses should be longer than they are wide, and ogres should be wider than they are long. Apart from that, I don't have a lot of complaints. Polymorph rules are still not perfect, and baleful polymorph (in particular) should have more options.

And some consistent complaints that I disagree with: I don't like gnomes, anyway - and the only player I've ever had who played one seriously played a gnome bard, so the favored class change seemed fine and dandy to me (although it will never come up, because my players *know* I don't like gnomes).

Also, the new ranger is INFINITELY better than the 3.0 version.