What (else) got the shaft in 3E?

[mooby]

I think dwarven rogues not getting a bonus to opening locks or disarming traps stinks.

The thief skill adjustments by race was really kewl back in 1 and 2E

 

[Psion]

Psion, a non-specialist wizard with equal stats and xp has one less spell per spell level per day than a specialist wizard. That's a pretty big benefit for being a specialist, with little penalty, over his non-specialist buddy.

Why are you talking to me like I don't know the rules? I am aware of the situaiton, it's just the magnitude of the tradeoff is not so severe now that almost any 1st level wizard will have 2 spells WITHOUT being a specialist, that one additional spell is not such a "must have" as it was in 2e.

If "more spells per day" is all that it is about to you, then wizards totally got the shaft compared sorcerers. But wizards are also about breadth of spells compared to sorcerers; a hole in their list of knowable spells is not, as you say, "little penalty."

 

[Drawmack]

Psion, a non-specialist wizard with equal stats and xp has one less spell per spell level per day than a specialist wizard. That's a pretty big benefit for being a specialist, with little penalty, over his non-specialist buddy.

Can cast from this school and get one extra spell per day. But you have to choose AT LEAST one other school that you can't cast spells from. The more powerful the school the more schools go on the specialists list. This is pretty well balanced.


As far a PrCs. The good ones do not make the character more powerful in general. They make them a lot better at a given set of abilities. Generally the PrC will take about 1/5 of the abiliies a class is good at and make the character really good at them. 3/5 will stay about the same and 1/5 they will get bad at.

Another thing about PrCs is the DM allowing them. IMC you take a PrC when, in game, one is offered to you at my discretion. You don't just get to say I'm taking this or that PrC.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Re: What (else) got the shaft in 3E?

3) Ogres

Orges are plenty scary. That huge strength bonus, large size, 10' reach = bad news for PCs! Add a few barbarian or fighter levels = dead PCs.

That's very, very true. A 3rd level Barbarian Ogre is "officially" a CR5 creature. Give him some half-decent equipment (better-than-hide armor, a greatsword) and trust me, he's more than a match for most 5th level fighters. I heard that a couple barbarian levels added to ogres made them death machines . . . and tried it out on my PCs.

I heard right.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

coyote6,

Dangit, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Wizards in general (specialist or otherwise)

*The least powerful of the pure spellcasters. Druids get tons of specials AND a slightly greater spells/day AND insta-access to the full spell list. Clerics, ditto. Sorcerors? Well wizards can *cast* as much as the sorcs *know*. This wouldn't be as much of a problem, except
*all spells cost a minimum of (LV+1)*100 gp, thanks to the stupid spell scribing rules. Under the core rules, finding another wizard's spellbook is actually BAD. In fact, to actually gain any benefit from the "can learn anything" a wizard needs to spend a significant portion of his income (1/2 is easily reachable).
*Exercise of one the class's primary benies (item creation) can significantly slow down advancement. Wouldn't be a problem if their was an offsetting advantage.

Double-weapons, which cannot be weilded without penalty under the core rules (if you want both attacks).

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Why are you talking to me like I don't know the rules?

Sorry, didn't mean to. It's just that I think, especially as levels advance, the non-specialist wizard suffers in comparison to the specialist. What I'd like to see is something that makes the non-specialist as equally attractive to play again. For example how about feats that only the non-specialist wizard has access to?

 

[Asheron]

Wizards in general (specialist or otherwise)

*all spells cost a minimum of (LV+1)*100 gp, thanks to the stupid spell scribing rules. Under the core rules, finding another wizard's spellbook is actually BAD. In fact, to actually gain any benefit from the "can learn anything" a wizard needs to spend a significant portion of his income (1/2 is easily reachable).

People still do that?? As soon as we got the 3rd edition books we type-exed that one right out of the book

But your right off course........

 

[Sixchan]

*all spells cost a minimum of (LV+1)*100 gp, thanks to the stupid spell scribing rules. Under the core rules, finding another wizard's spellbook is actually BAD. In fact, to actually gain any benefit from the "can learn anything" a wizard needs to spend a significant portion of his income (1/2 is easily reachable).

I never liked this. I have my players make an INT check at a -7 penalty to scribe from a scroll. Of course, since I'm running a relatively high-magic campaign, scrolls are easy to find.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

I never liked this. I have my players make an INT check at a -7 penalty to scribe from a scroll. Of course, since I'm running a relatively high-magic campaign, scrolls are easy to find.

Wow... you take away the spell scribing costs for Wizards, and you've officially made Sorcerers pointless.

* * *

I'm with everyone on Half-Elves being a waste. Why not just be an elf? The one benefit you have to being a half-elf is multi-classing. So if you're a Rogue/Monk who's willing to sacrifice a feat to gain some bonuses, you should be a half-elf instead of a human.

Monks rule... but they do become less powerful at higher levels.

Specialist Wizards are more powerful, but they sacrifice a number of spells to cast.. and any wands/scrolls they find from an opposed school they can't use. A pretty good trade-off. I always specialize, though..