What (else) got the shaft in 3E?

[Skullfyre]

Ogres - good challenge at low levels but they need boosting for higher levels.

Add levels as a character class to them

 

[Michael Tree]

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 wonder how much D20 modern's changes are a preview of the changes to D&D v.3.1 Haste, Jump, and Shield, spells that were thought to be broken, were changed in d20m. Most significantly for this conversation though, D20M mages can freely copy spells into their spell book.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I am getting ready to play in my 4th 3E campaign and I have dm'd one 3E campaign and one thing that has been consistent in all of the circumstances is the total lack of sorcerors. We had one person play a sorceror in the first 3E game we ever played. By 5th level he was taking levels in rogue because he hated the limited amount of spells known. Since then, all of our arcane casters have been specialist wizards and our parties are all top heavy with clerics. There are 10 of us in the group, so out of 5 campaigns, we have had a minimum of 45 characters (9 players x 5 campaigns) not counting deaths and we have yet to have a second sorceror. All of us who are the 1e and 2e veterans seem to prefer the larger range of known spells that are available to wizards. Plus, we eliminated the costs for scribing spells since we have had no sorcerors for years.

Just my 2 cents.

wow, your games are totally different than mine. I have been in 4 3E games since it came out, and so far we have had one monk in each (played by different people), one sorceror in each, sometimes two sorcerors in the same campaign, of course the usual cleric, and rangers. Those are the four most common classees. We have not had one single person play a wizard, specialist or general, we have not had a single druid, and sometimes we will get the occasional rogue, fighter or barbarian. Heck, we have more psions than fighters. Its like totally weird.

As for what I think got the shaft in 3E, I think general wizards got the shaft if you give specialist wizards the bonus feats every 5 levels, but in our games we have decided that since specialist wizards get those wonderful spells per level they don't get the bonus feats. That's how we interpreted the game for that.

As for races played in our campaigns, we always have a dwarf, elf and half-orc, and one person won't play anything that isn't human (which is cool because no one else will play a human no matter what). No one has played a gnome or half-elf, and rarely does someone play a halfling.

 

[Sir Edgar]

You guys are all talking about PCs, but I'm rooting for the monsters. What about all the monsters that got the shaft? Huh? Does nobody agree with me that giants got screwed around with? Huh?

 

[I'm A Banana]

1) Bards are fine. They're probably just given the wrong flavor. Think of them as the "Red Mages" of D&D, and you're closer to the mark. They're jacks of all trades -- they shouldn't be pigeonholed into the Bard class.

2) Monks are fine. They specially kick ass. They can't hack big meanies to bits, but they can certainly help. They can't rob the vault, but they can provide non-noisy backup while the rogue does it. They can't cast the spells, but they can survive any spell cast at them.

3) Specialty wizards may suck a bit of booty. That's why I've had a spectacular idea about them that I hope to be selling to some intrigued d20 company someday... A lot of what I'm sensing is that specialist wizards aren't really specialized enough...you'd expect a diviner to get more than extra spells...

4) Half-elves do kinda blow. Especially once you realized they used flavor (mutliclassing restrictions) to limit mechancis...they'd probably be improved with a bit of skill points, maybe...though honestly I'd just as soon get rid of all half-breeds.

5) Elves are fine. So they're a bit woody, by nature...whadya expect? They're *elves*. They live in trees and eat berries and such. They're fine and princely....I'd like them to have a bonus to Cha, personally, but that's because I like my elves a bit more farie and a little less "bad ass!"

6) Clerics may be a bit over-the-top...but no one wants to play Dr. Heal All....it's frustrating only being useful passively, never actively. So they need a bit more to make them desirable. (trust me....I had a player playing a white mage in my last campaign....my white mage is basically a cleric with anything that blows stuff up removed, and focused really tightly on the healing...she didn't have much fun).

7) Rangers are only shafted because of the same reasons the bard is, and the Monk -- people want them to fill a niche that they just don't fill. Ranger = Stealthy Fighter (NOT two-handed kick-butt roxxors!) Bard = Jack of All Trades/Charm Mage (NOT singy-songy magic man). Monk = Survivor (NOT bare-fisted Fighter)

8) Druids are pretty OK, too. A bit lacking in focus, but they blow stuff up better than a cleric does.

9) I basically totally agree on the PrC's being a bit too good in many cases. And the problem with the Wizard is really a dillemia...there's not a lot you can take away from them , other than spells and feats, and sorcerers are similarly suffering (worse, because they don't get feats).

 

[nopantsyet]

Small monks. I can't believe everybody is hung up on sorcerers and specialist wizards when with small monks there is nothing subjective about it. They get the shaft plain and simply. Lower damage and speed by 30%--who thought of this and were they on crack?

Last time I checked, STR15 = STR15 regardless of what size the creature/character is. No other class penalizes characters by size. And if small characters are slower, they should be slower regardless of race. And it just gets worse as they advance because the disparity grows. At lvl20 speed is 60 vs. 90, and damage is 2d6 vs. 1d20.

So they are penalized pretty severely with no compensating bonus. They should at least have improved defense in the form of a better AC bonus, or compensate lower damage with higher BAB. As it is, you get screwed if god forbid you want to play a small monk because you will be 4 levels behind a medium monk in damage, and almost 5 levels behind him in speed. And all that for...nothing. Preposterous.

But as for specialty wizards, I think rather than a bonus spell, each school should have a restricted list that only specialists have access to, and at least one spell for each level must be from that list. That better offsets the prohibited school/s and would really make you think about whether you wanted to specialize or remain general. Something along those lines anyway...

 

[Celtavian]

Re

1. I don't usually play specialist wizards, but then I never played specialilst wizards in the old rules.

I do feel that for one extra spell, all the specializations should have been able to select any single school of their choice be barred from.

2. Prestige classes are often better, and certain prestige classes stand heads and tails above others. I can really find no reason not to play a prestige class, but I thought that was the intent of prestige classes.

3. Ogres are far more badass than any previous version. They can actually have class levels and get an immense strength bonus to both attack and damage.

Ogres are far scarier than in any previous edition, just not when an entire party is beating on one.

4. Monks: I just don't have enough experience with monks. From what I have experienced, they seem like a DM nightmare at higher levels. Huge Armor Class, high number of attacks for full damage with a high damage die, virtually immune to magic, and able to kill creatures with low fort saves at will.

I don't know about monks being weak. It seems to me that most folks who make this comment only have experience with low level monks.

5. Half-elves: Personally, I like half-elves. They get no ability penalties, though no bonuses. They get a +1 bonus to Search, Listen, and Spot, Immunity to Sleep, the use of elven magic items (More useful in the Forgotten Realms than Greyhawk), and I believe a bonus on will saves versus charm spells. And no multi-classing penalty.

All in all a fairly good trade off.

 

[Chun-tzu]

And the problem with the Wizard is really a dillemia...there's not a lot you can take away from them , other than spells and feats, and sorcerers are similarly suffering (worse, because they don't get feats).

Ah, but there is. There ARE ways to limit spellcasting, besides slowing their progression. How about forbidden schools, or if not entire schools, forbidden spells? Look at the Elemental Savant, which many feel is far too powerful. Wouldn't it make sense to forbid Fire Savants from learning Cold or Water-related spells? Or take the Mindbender, a master of subtlety. Instead of losing 4 spell casting levels, forbid him from learning flashy energy spells: no lightning, fire, cold, or acid spells, but he can learn force spells (and maybe sonic). This may not totally balance the benefits (why would a fire wizard learn cold spells in the first place?) but it's somewhat better than the current system, where they lose next to nothing, or they lose too much.

Or instead of forbidden schools, place other restrictions on their spellcasting. Imagine spellcasters that need to spend a full round to cast spells, or ones that must pay an extra spell level for any metamagic modifications, or ones that cannot use physical weapons at all, or ones that must YELL any verbal components when casting spells.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Small monks.... So they are penalized pretty severely with no compensating bonus. They should at least have improved defense in the form of a better AC bonus, or compensate lower damage with higher BAB...

I agree with you... but Small Monks have higher ACs. That's the tradeoff. Halflings get +1 AC size bonus, +1 attack rolls, and +1 to all saving throws. Gnomes get almost the same.

So without a penalty, why would anyone playing a monk NOT want a halfling or gnome? Gotta have balance.

 

[Psion]

Small monks. (...)
Last time I checked, STR15 = STR15 regardless of what size the creature/character is.

Not so. Consult the monster creation rules. Monsters' combat damage is based on their size.

Likewise, smaller weapons do less damage, and the size of weapon you can wield is based on size.