Will 3.5e change most characters?

[Angcuru]

I think it works out fine, since my DM doesn't attatch penalties to multiclassing, unless it's completely unreasonable. A ranger can multiclass to a fighter no problem, but a barbarian multiclassing to a wizard is going to entail MASSIVE penalties, if it's allowed at all.

 

[bret]

I think thats kind of the point.
or each of those things have specfic points. the Ranger has been complained about since 3e came out. Almost everyone has hhouse ruled Bards getting 6 skill points for some time...including many of the game designers themselves. and it makes sense...should a Bard really have the same number of skill points base as a Barbarian?

The skills that a Barbarian gets are so different than a Bard's, that it is extremely difficult to make a sensible comparision.

If the skills list is similiar to what is was in 3e, then the Bard and Rogue lists are very close. In many cases, the skill sets overlap.

You cite all mechanical reasons for why a person would use a Bard or Ranger instead of a rogue for certain character concepts. you forget the roleplaying aspects...and the fact that many of those classes abilities dont really fit those roles. Also I think it points out a new trend in the game design...they are worrying less about what is mechanicaly "better" and more about how to make each class: 1)Enjoyable at all levels and 2) fit their archtypes.

The roleplay aspects depend on what a particular character is good at. You need the mechanics to back up the roleplay.

As for the archtypes, they have just taken a step backwards with the Rogue. With these changes, the Rogue's main advantage is as a THIEF.

The 3e flavor text says: "Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness."

It looks like at least some of these have now shifted to the Bard or Ranger. The Ranger makes a better scout or thug. The tricksters, infiltrators, and diplomats are better handled by the Bard.

We are left with Spies and Theives. I leave spies on the Rogue list because of the Forgery skill, if that turns out to be a class skill for Bards in 3.5 then they would take that niche over as well.

I focus on the mechanical differences in the classes because that is the best way I've found of building a character in DnD. Ignore the class names and look at what the skills and abilities are of the various classes. Given a character concept, what class or combination of classes comes the closest?

The thing I'm seeing is that the archtypes are changing with this revision, and changes in the rules are likely to completely change how you try to achieve a particular character concept. Given the same concept, you would build the character differently under 3e than 3.5e.

I'm really not sure that qualifies as backwards compatible.



Guess I'll find out in a few months, when I look over the SRD and this forum to see what has changed.

 

[Merlion]

Well I mean no offense by this in any way but it strikes me as though you see the rogue as getting "shafted" as many see the fighter getting "shafted" by various things.
Unfortunitly the Fighter and Rogue by their very nature are going to get their toes stepped on a little bit in DnD.
And remember untill 3e the rogue WAS the Thief(not that I agree with that).
A Bard can be a better diplomat and a Ranger can be a better scout(only really in the wildnerness tho the Dungeon and City still belong to the rogue) but only the rogue can be a good diplomat or scout and be an excellent thief, spy, conman etc. Also since he gets all those skills and so many skill points he can be pretty good at several of those at once.

 

[zoroaster100]

Mystic Theurge scares me.

I am very concerned about that new prestige class shown on Wizard's website, and Sean K. Reynolds's harsh criticism made me even more worried. Its not just that its one overpowered prestige class. What worries me is that is sets a benchmark for all prestige classes in a way that I think is going to cause major problems for balance in the game. Reynolds seems to see this as a sign there will be much less backwards compatibility. In fact, this one prestige class preview has really changed my outlook on 3.5 ed. I was really looking forward to 3.5 up to now. Now I wish they'd left things alone. But it's going to be hard not to convert since all new material will probably be 3.5.

 

[jasamcarl]

Reynold's criticisms didn't amount to more than "Oh look how much more spells the Mystic gets!!" It was just as simplistic as any other criticism of the class I have seen. I feel pity for him as much as anything, that he has been reduced to a backseat commentator, but oh well...

 

[Piratecat]

I don't think it's going to change characters too much (single levels of ranger aside), although I do agree that we'll probably see more rangers, bards, druids and high-level barbarians. On the other hand, I won't be too surprised if the minor changes in spells have a farther reaching impact on most peoples' games.

Take haste, for instance. This sucker will fundamentally change how combats are fought in my campaign. Every fight begins with a mass haste on the part of the PCs; that's probably going to change. In fact, I suspect that combats will last longer, but will move more quickly from one person to the next, as people get to do less on their turn. It's going to be interesting to see the result.

There is no doubt in my mind that a new game I'd start would use the new rules, but I haven't yet decided whether or not I'm immediately switching over my ongoing campaign. I'll have to give it some thought.

 

[William Ronald]

I think there will be some changes.

In my own group, one player was annoyed with what happened to his 2E multi-class character, a hold over from 1st edition. The character took a hit in power on several levels. Perhaps I can draw him back to the group with 3.5.

As for some of the changes, I think the ranger has been too front loaded. I think it may still be possible to have rogues function as diplomats as well as spies and thieves.

Piratecat, good observation on the combat issues. I think many people were confused with partial actions, attacks of opportunity, and the grappling rules. Hopefully, Wizards realized that some of the rules need to be clarified.

Rangers, bards, and druids as well as monks seem to have been problematic characters in previous editions. What I did not like about the 2nd edition and the 3rd edition bards is that there seemed to be very little magic in his music. He seemed little more than a spell casting rogue. They did not seem to fit such archetypes as Orpheus.

Druids seemed to always lack a certain flair. I will be interested in seeing how they handle the druid. Someone who can summon beasts or command elementals should not be considered a fifth wheel in an adventuring party.

There has been no shortage of barbarians in my campaign.

I would hope that they make all characters a little more versatile.

 

[Michael Tree]

I doubt that we'll see less characters with 1 level of Ranger. Now they don't get a silly number of bonus feats, but the temptation for fighter-types to take a level of ranger at 1st level to take advantage of the (6x4=24) skill points plus the Track feat, without losing a point of BAB, will be large. 2 levels of ranger will probably be common, since they get a bonus pseudo-feat at 2nd level.

 

[Eridanis]

For players that want an infiltrator-type scout, I doubt you'll see many people dropping rogue levels completely in favor of ranger levels. Rogues are still the skill point kings, and are far more likely to receive bonus points from INT than rangers (who will want to spend mental attribute points on WIS instead, to put them in position to cast 4th level spells). (FWIW, I'm firmly in the "let rangers keep spells" camp. Think of their spells more as cool tricks, learned on-the-job, rather than gifts received for divine worship.)

From what little we know, I think the ranger will be much better respected than before, really taking the role of the "skillful" combatant, while the fighter remains the "feat-driven" combatant, and the barabarian the beat-down-the-doors-cum-HP-sponge combatant.

And bards look like they'll really be able to actually fulfill the role that has been defined for them.

 

[Kaffis]

Examples:
1. Rangers and bards now get 6 skill points per level. I believe that many characters that are now being built as Rogues will switch to either ranger (sneaky/hidey scout who is alert to danger) or Bard (charming diplomat that takes over character interaction).

The ranger will make a better scout because he will now have enough skill points for all of Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide, and Wilderness Lore. He has the track feat. He has the best BAB. Even now, the ranger is tempting for this role. With 3.5e, it looks like it may become the best character for this role.

On top of better HD and BAB, the ranger has spells.

The bard has almost the same skill list as the Rogue. In exchange for the sneak attack, evasion, and uncanny dodge he gets the song ability and spells. The main things he can't do skill wise are traps and read lips. For many of the character concepts where people were taking the diplomacy skills, the Bard now becomes the obvious winner.

2. Multiclass spellcasters. As shown by the Mystic Theurge, PrCs are now going to be the way that you're supposed to make a multiclass spellcaster worthwhile. There are other examples, such as the Spellsword and Arcane Trickster, but those were just as much about adding style and abilities related to that style as they were about game mechanics. The Mystic Theurge is all about mechanics.

3. Changes to spells. I can't help but think that many Sorcerers are going to want to change their spells known after the new books come out, as some spells (such as Haste) change the way they work and other spells change in spell level.



Looking over the material, I can't help but feel that the changes will have unexpected consequences on all characters and the way they are built.

I agree, in that new characters may see some new avenues and possibilities open to them with 3.5e. I disagree, however, that 3.5e will radically change current characters (straight rangers or bards and spell selection among sorcerors aside).

To point out my meaning with your examples:
1. Yes, I think that many character concepts that currently flock to rogue as their solution may find they would rather do ranger or bard as their central point. But many won't. You have the option of being a scouting ranger or a diplomatic bard or the corresponding rogue. You trade the spells (and BAB/combat paths of the ranger) for sneak attack and a few exclusive skills, in addition to being able to add 2 full-level skills MORE than the base concept in the corresponding non-rogue. You could be a scout ranger, or you could trade your ranger spells and a bit of BAB for sneak attack and, say, disarm traps and bluff, for example.

As for current characters 'changing' their rogue levels to ranger or bard, I just don't see it as a prevalent desire. Here you've got a character that's been played for a while, and has developed into the party's solution for situations x, y, and z. He can do this because of his 8 skill points. Sure, he could change to be a ranger or bard, and still handle the party's x and y situations, but he'd be swapping z for some other situation/ability w. And while the player might want to play an x, y, and w character someday, that isn't what this character is.

2. Multiclass spellcasters have always been something that just didn't work well in 3e. Or have they, on a limited basis? Could one argue that the paladin, ranger, and bard are (or could be considered), on some level, multiclass cleric/fighters, druid/fighters, and wizard/rogues? The Mystic Theurge isn't, in my opinion, some harbinger of doom, it's just a stab at trying to make multiclassing spellcasters with another spellcaster feasible.

While I can't say that I think it doesn't look a bit, well, strong, I haven't seen it in action, and in any case I think it provides a good template from which you could model a customized PrC to fit your campaign and the multiclass your player wants. If you think it's fine as is, but want to multiclass two divine classes, just change the requirement from arcane/divine to divine/divine, modify the skill set, and see how it looks, maybe clarify how spontaneous healing works, and go with it. If you think it's too strong, up the ante on prereqs, thus lowering the eventual maximum caster levels.

As for whether people will want to change their 10th level mage to a MT, I think MT will merely just be tacked on to a player's "to play in the future" list, since the MT really looks like it needs to be the focus from the get-go of the character to be worthwhile.

3. Sorcerors and changes to spells are one area where I do think there will be some retroactive character adjustment going on. But I can't think of a way to prevent it, and it's not like it's a major change to the way the character will be modeled.

As always, YMMV, and I do expect some exceptions to my predictions about widespread character alterations.