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

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, I was reminded in-game tonight of one other of the few changes I dislike.

The new command spell. Yuck. Ick. Ptui.

What, saying "any command you can get across in a single word" was too complex? We had to have a list? Command used to be a fantastic spell in the hands of a creative player. Now? Meh.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The problem is that IMC paladins are knights with loyal steeds, not conjurers. It is completely inappropriate for them to conjure a mount.

Fair enough, though I personally didn't have a problem with it because the idea of the paladin calling a mount from heaven seemed to fit in well with the flavor of the class. It's a calling, so the creature very real, not merely an apparition conjured from thin air. And now, you can travel six levels into the dungeon and call for your loyal steed in the lich's throne room.

I like.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Fair enough, though I personally didn't have a problem with it because the idea of the paladin calling a mount from heaven seemed to fit in well with the flavor of the class. It's a calling, so the creature very real, not merely an apparition conjured from thin air. And now, you can travel six levels into the dungeon and call for your loyal steed in the lich's throne room.

I like.

This is one of those rules that I take or leave based on the nature of the campaign setting. For something that feels a little more traditional/medieval, I stick with the old rules. For something a bit higher magic or more fantastic, I go with the new rules. (Alternatively, I go with the old rules, but let the paladin have weird things like pegasi or, as I did in one campaign, a giant monarch butterfly. It actually worked really well, oddly enough.)

Thing is, I love the tactical options made available by the new paladin mount rules--such as the fact that equipment put on the mount stays on the mount. I have this intense vision of an entire order of paladins who need to take out the military leadership of a heavily guarded evil city. They know they cannot get inside armed or armored. So, an entire train of unarmed men and women in monks robes, arms crossed before them, slowly shuffles into the city. As they get inside, each disappears down a seperate alleyway.

And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.

I'll be the first to admit, it doesn't work for all campaigns. But I think it's a darn cool image, though, and a great idea for those campaigns in which it does fit.

 

[TracerBullet42]

Thing is, I love the tactical options made available by the new paladin mount rules--such as the fact that equipment put on the mount stays on the mount. I have this intense vision of an entire order of paladins who need to take out the military leadership of a heavily guarded evil city. They know they cannot get inside armed or armored. So, an entire train of unarmed men and women in monks robes, arms crossed before them, slowly shuffles into the city. As they get inside, each disappears down a seperate alleyway.

And, a few moments later, a veritable tide of mounted steel crashes down upon the villainous soldiers in the city, as the paladins--now having retrieved their armor and weapons from the mounts they called to them while hidden in the alleys--ride out to do battle.

Ok...that just sounds sooo cool.

*suddenly has desire to play a paladin...

 

[Will]

I like most of what other people have complained about, which is, I suppose, normal.

I love the DR change. You can say 'golf bag,' or you can say 'preparation is rewarded.' My players fought nightwalkers. Next time they heard about these creatures, they made sure to research and get silversheen.

Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.

I used to dislike weapon sizes, but it's grown on me. I think it makes sense, and the optional '-2 for missized weapon' rule works fine. -2 isn't that huge a deal. I'm also fairly easy-going about selling and buying equipment, which might skew my reaction.

Square facing works great, IMO. I have no problem with the 'maneuver space' issue. The old 'horses are 5 x 10 but there isn't facing in this game' stuff made no sense to me. I also like the squeezing rule. It fixes some of the problems I had with, say, large companions getting through doors and the like.

Gnomes as bards... love it. Makes perfect sense to me. Just one of those things, I guess.

Now, personally, I like spell-less rangers. But rangers with spells is fairly canonical. The new ranger is HUGELY better than 3.0. I dislike the combat style tracks. I would prefer something along the lines of a bonus feat from a more diverse pool, plus a special dispensation that a ranger bonus feat from the archer or twf lists has no restrictions so long as the ranger is in light or no armor.

Buff limits. I go back and forth. I think I like it, though its at the point now where they are used only under very rare circumstances. The problem is that by the time you can actually use it reliably (like level 10), you can afford boosting items. 10 mins/level might be better.

Pokemounts rub me the wrong way. I houseruled this in my game. I don't think it's a bad decision, it just isn't to my taste.

Haste is perfect. Still very handy, but not the game breaker it was before. Let this be a lesson to all game designers... ANY ability that adds actions in combat will almost certainly be broken. WW learned this with Celerity, too (gave bonus actions per round). I think their new game reduces what Celerity can do significantly.

As for Time Stop... it's handy for escape or preparation, yeah. But I'd gladly cast a 3.0 version of Haste as a 9th level spell instead. With my rod of quickening... hee.


There are some stuff I see as constant problems. Invisibility and see invisibility/true sight is a constant fight. At about 10th level, invisibility becomes near-useless.

Polymorph and Shapechange are moderately better, but still rife with problems.

 

[Grayhawk]

I still use my 3.0e houserule for haste -

1 target, get +4 hit, +4 Reflex ST, +4 AC, double movement.

Slow works in reverse... -4 to hit, AC and Ref ST, half movement.

I still like this conceptually and mechanically.

Cheers

This is pretty close to my house ruled Haste and Slow as well, as I too wanted them to mechanically cancel each other out.

When you say 'double movement', does it mean just that, in the way that you don't get to make any extra attacks?

Here's mine:

'Haste: Target gains an extra Partial action (non Magical), +2 AC, Attack Rolls & Ref Saves. Jump +5. (Run=6xSpeed)

Slow: Make only one partial action, -2 AC, Attack Rolls & Ref Saves. Jump -5.'

I believe the term 'partial action' has been removed from 3.5, but the effect of the spells should be clear enough.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I like most of what other people have complained about, which is, I suppose, normal.

I love the DR change. You can say 'golf bag,' or you can say 'preparation is rewarded.' My players fought nightwalkers. Next time they heard about these creatures, they made sure to research and get silversheen.

Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.

Preparation was rewarded in 3.0 too--Oil of Greater Magic Weapon anyone?

I don't like the new DR system for the simple reason that it IS doable to kill creatures with DR!
Whether evolution or Demon Princes or whatever, something would have made the DR such that the creature couldn't just be "hit enough" and die via normal weapons.

 

[Hawk764]

I'm going to go against the grain here. The weapon size rules are great. A longsword for a small creature is not and should not be the same as a short sword for a medium creature. Anyone who argues that they should be has clearly never held an actual longsword or short sword.

I like the new sorcerer. I like the new skills. I like the spell nerfs, for the most part. I like the new ranger, a lot. I love the new DR rules.

I can take or leave the new paladin's mount rules. I use them for high-magic campaigns, and go back to the old format for lower-magic ones.

In fact, if I have any single major complaint, it's the attempt to make 3.5 even more miniatures-reliant than 3.0.

However, I find that I like the vast majority of changes.

i'm with this guy, the paladin's mount being a summoned creature is the only thing i have found that i didn't like. the Ranger class rocks.

 

[Hawk764]

The spiked chain. IME, this thing is just a game killer. Once you have a spiked chain fighter on the loose, any other melee specialists are hosed. To keep the chain fighter challenged, you have to take a ton of care to sculpt opponents to threaten him. Otherwise, the game gets dumb.

The chain had a perfect storm of changes that all made it better - Power Attack 2/1 damage, the change to Improved Disarm, the change to Improved Trip, and the new rules for reach for Large and bigger creatures all make it too good. The annoying thing is I can see how, on their own, those changes make sense, but combined into the spiked chain it's too much.

On the plus side, it illustrates why game balance is important - if there's one really good option, it's hard to have a fun game that challenges the unbalanced character without making everyone else irrelevent or bored.

I can see why they did the weapon size rules, but they're too unwieldy IMO. I don't really like the entire move to make monsters more playable as PCs. I'd rather just have new PC races designed to evoke the feel of a monster, rather than duplicate its stats.

OTOH, I like a number of the changes. I like the changes to the paladin's mount (it actually makes it useful), and the DR rules are interesting.

Pet Peeve: I still think Moradin should have War as one of his domains. I have to chuckle with every warhammer toting dwarf that comes out in the D&D minis game. Those dudes aren't proficient unless they wasted a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency.

i have played in 2 games with spiked chain wielders, who, while very versitile, were no match for a good barbarian in a fight. if you want to see something broken, look at the Goliath with mountain rage.

 

[Hawk764]

That's a good idea.

no it isn't.