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

[Gez]

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

I was responding to something from the previous page. But it took me some time to retrieve my PHBs.

 

[billd91]

Stop right there. Aragorn is not the only ranger in the Tolkien universe. He's the king. Faramir is not the king. No other ranger ever demonstrated these abilities - and I'm counting Beren here (he was a lycanthrope hunter with loads of wilderness skills).

But we don't really know what character class any of these characters, or any of the rangers in LotR actually were. Other rangers were probably a mix of classes and it's not like we ever see any of them long enough to tell that they CAN'T do some minor healing, speaking with animals and whatnot. Similarly with Robin Hood. A ranger? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just a fighter with a rogue level or two. There are plenty of valid interpretations of these characters, not all being the same. To my eyes, it looks like Aragorn has some minor magical abilities.
The ranger class in 1st edition is clearly modeled on Aragorn (it even includes the use of scrying devices) and that has been translated down to 3.5. In all versions, spells have been a component. I'm content that the spell list has become one that seems to fit well with the ranger's adventuring out in the wilds.
I find the ranger the best revision in 3.5.

My complaint about 3.5 is the large scope of minor changes that seem to have little real point to them. This is mostly in spells and monsters. I can see how you'd have to change a bunch of the spell-like abilities of monsters to match the changes in spells, I can understand regularizing the number of feats and skill points they get, and I can understand carefully going over named bonuses in spells to prevent crazy and unbalanced combinations. But why change celestials to angels? Why change the ettin's darkvision to low-light vision? Was there a compelling reason for the change? If not, why bother changing it? Why would you make niggling little changes if the originals aren't grossly broken or confusing?
Same with many spells which, I think, are adjusted too far with combat in mind and not other applications. I agree that the buff spells needed some nerfing, but at 1 minute/level, you might not even be able to use any of the mental buff spells to get you through a useful task like having an audience with the duke. Same with invisibility. One minute/level makes scouting out an enemy position a mile or more away impossible.
Now, I've heard people argue, mainly with invisibility, that no spell should completely be able to horn in on the niche of the sneaky character types like rogues and rangers. Well I think that's bunk. I don't believe in any character archetype having a necessary role in an adventuring party. I believe that other methods, including magic, should be available that can compensate for missing expertise.

 

[Steverooo]

Stop right there. Aragorn is not the only ranger in the Tolkien universe. He's the king. Faramir is not the king. No other ranger ever demonstrated these abilities - and I'm counting Beren here (he was a lycanthrope hunter with loads of wilderness skills).

No, you stop right there. Which abilities did no other Ranger demonstrate? I have already quoted where Elrond, Elladan, and Elrohir healed, and where Halbarad was prescient. I could do the same for Denethor, Gilraen, etc.

The original poster claimed that no archetypal Ranger ever cast spells. I believe that I have demonstrated otherwise. Tolkien's PCs don't announce "I will now cast X", as he wrote LotR before D&D was created.

If others want to believe that Aragorn is singing over the Morgul blade, instead of casting a spell, then that's their choice.

 

[Ferret]

I'm growing to like the new weapon sizes... And growing to dislike the square creatures. I dislike the new power attack, and the dwarven changes. I dislike the change to wildshape and the plant shape of the druid. The half-elf changes are in the right direction but not enough.

There not much else, but it might be jsut because I can't remember any.

 

[Henry]

My list contains a couple of things I've seen no one mention yet:

1. The changes to overrunning and charging. All this fuss to stop people from moving through friendly squares!?!? I never saw nor heard on these forums one single problem encountered by people with the 3E charging and overrunning rules. It's such a rare tactic that it's a miracle enough playtesting in the field was done to even point to a problem.

2. Polymorph Self changes - yet again. More problems added and loopholes because of unclear wording. In my opinion, WotC should have kept the version from Masters of the Wild, because it was not only clear, it worked with few to no problems that I had ever heard.

I'm of course miffed over being able to light a pitch-black area with a darkness spell, but that's been mentioned quite a few times. I remembered and preferred the 3E darkness, and had Deeper Darkness been pitch black compared to darkness' "shadowy illumination" I wouldn't have minded. However, it destroyed for me the usefulness of the darkness spell, and it seriously harmed 3E brainchild the Darkmantle - those things couldn't challenge a 1st level party now, unless it was in multiple numbers.

 

[maddman75]

On Polymoph, I feel there's truly going to be one way to fix the spell. That's to add another ability type. So that we would have Spell-like, Supernatural, Extraordinary, and Natural. The by-the-book rule that a wildshaped bat can't see or a snake can't constrict is right out in my book, but you don't want to give away Troll Regeneration either. My solution is to keep 3.0 polymorph, add a Will save or you think your natural form is the new one (stop that poly the party to trolls crap before it starts), and you can use any Ext ability that exists in the real world. Works rather well so far.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Mouseferatu, it isn't that the new weapon sizes are confusing, it is the fact that they are klunky.

*shrug* I never found them klunky. I like them a great deal, and when they popped up, we took to them like a fish to water. YMMV, as always, but I'm glad they're there, and I think they work pretty well.

As far as the races developing in conjunction with one another, and adventurers needing to be able to use what they find, well, they can. A halfling can pick up a human-sized short sword and use it. There's just a penalty--a relatively small one, IIRC--to do so. Makes perfect sense to me.

In regards other aspects of the conversation, I've played multiple wizard specialists--a necromancer and a conjurer come most immediately to mind--since 3.5 came out, and I've very much enjoyed them both. I don't for one second feel that two schools is too much to give up. Sure, it hurts occasionally, but those extra spells (and particularly the benefits offered by the specialist variants in Unearthed Arcana) are worth it most of the time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see those UA variants as core rules next time around.

And given that I've seen far more sorcerers played than wizards, in both 3.0 and 3.5, I have to figure they can't be too broken.

 

[Psion]

For me, it's not that weapon sizes are clunky. It's that I find it pedantic to assign modifiers for things on an order that other aspects of the D&D system would gloss over, and it doesn't guarantee sensible results -- I still don't understand why a halfling longspear would have a reach AND be difficult to wield by humans. I am just not seeing something in game that would make both be true.

 

[Swiftbrook]

#1 Weapon Sizing -- Absolutely stupid rule change. Even the sage has problems with it.

#2 Arrow bonuses don't stack with bow bonuses -- They changed it so a low level character who can make a +2 weapon can't compete with a high level character who can make a +4. +2 Bow +2 Arrow = +4 weapon. I allow the stacking.

#3 Bard as Gnome favorite class -- tradition, Gnomes have always been good at illusion.

#4 Paladin's Mount

#5 All creatures fit into squares -- yah right.

-Swiftbrook

 

[FireLance]

Since I've already touched on weapon sizing, the gnome favored class, the paladin's mount and the square spacing, I'll just address the stacking of bows and arrows (or projectile weapons and ammunition in general).

I doubt that competition between characters of different levels was the issue. After all, if a low level character can get +2 plus +2, a higher level character can get +4 plus +4.

The problem was that stacking enhancement bonuses made projectile weapons too good compared with melee weapons. A single strike with a melee weapons can get you +5 to hit and damage and +5 of some special abilities. With a projectile weapon and ammunition, you could get +10 to hit and damage and +10 more worth of special abilities. Yes, your store of ammunition does wear down, but you're a terror in the really important fights.

I would be interested to know how melee types feel in a campaign where the enhancement bonuses to projectile weapons and ammunition still stack.