Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Depends on the stats of the PCs involved, but yes, potentially.Except at low levels, when the Barbarian can totally wear Medium armor until they get higher AC naturally.
Depends on the stats of the PCs involved, but yes, potentially.Except at low levels, when the Barbarian can totally wear Medium armor until they get higher AC naturally.
I'm mostly used to point-buy, thanks to AL; a lot of DM's get nervous when players have rolled stats for some reason, lol.Depends on the stats of the PCs involved, but yes, potentially.
We've always rolled stats. My wife insists on it, and since she's by far the most honest gamer I've ever met, I really can't fault her for it.I'm mostly used to point-buy, thanks to AL; a lot of DM's get nervous when players have rolled stats for some reason, lol.
I grew up rolling stats, so it's my preferred, but I hate it when that results in an unbalanced party. The last time my group made characters, everyone rolled an array, and everyone had the option to use whatever array they wanted to.We've always rolled stats. My wife insists on it, and since she's by far the most honest gamer I've ever met, I really can't fault her for it.
Some of it may have been targeting some of the optimization - for example casting a few stat boosters with the maximize or empower and/or persistent metamagic feats to boost their effect. Others to nerf certain tactics like the one I just mentioned or the harm spell. And still others to fix up things that weren't working as hoped like the bard and ranger classes. Some of those changes were important to game play.It has been a long time but my impression was the change was mainly about fine tuning numbers, making miniatures more essential to the game, and nerfing some of the abilities (this last point may be debatable). My memory is it came out around the time that optimization was really a big thing, and so you could have wildly different experiences if you had players who were drawing on optimization boards. I don't remember 3.5 making a huge change to that though. It was also kind of odd because it was so filmier to 3E and came out pretty soon after, so I recall finding it awkward to read the new books and try to understand what had changed (sometimes you weren't sure if something was a change or a detail you just forgot about or missed in 3E). I do remember having fun with that edition. It had its problems and I didn't like the push towards miniatures but I did get a ton of gaming out of it and I had players who absolutely loved 3E
It was desperately important to remove tons of options from Small characters.But a whole lot of changes that affected the game weren't really classifiable as fitting any of those reasons. Changing how weapon sizing worked - 3.5 (and PF built off the 3.5 SRD) are still the only versions of D&D that went that route for small vs medium vs large weapons. And it was a hassle. As far as I can tell, that was just a bee in some developer's bonnet. Other changes started to reveal that WotC was increasingly focused on a combat encounter as the unit to balance things around - like the drastic reduction of spell durations from hours to minutes.
But a whole lot of changes that affected the game weren't really classifiable as fitting any of those reasons. Changing how weapon sizing worked - 3.5 (and PF built off the 3.5 SRD) are still the only versions of D&D that went that route for small vs medium vs large weapons. And it was a hassle. As far as I can tell, that was just a bee in some developer's bonnet. Other changes started to reveal that WotC was increasingly focused on a combat encounter as the unit to balance things around - like the drastic reduction of spell durations from hours to minutes.
If you read Art & Arcana, the art/history book that was created in conjunction with a ton of research and interviews with current and former WotC folks, the answer is ... money. The book is pretty clear that it wasn't done for game reasons.I absolutely love D&D history and "archeology". I played AD&D 2nd back in school, and then after a long hiatus in 2018 I returned to the hobby with 5e. I have since bought some 3.5 and 4e stuff so I could see what I have missed (and absolutely fell in love with 4e in the process).
There is one thing though I don't really understand: the need for 3.5. What was it in 3.0 that necessitated a new version with a new PHB and DMG so early in 3.0's life cycle? I have googled a bit but didn't really get a definitive anser. Perhaps there are some players from back then on this board that can enlighten me?