WotC mistakes that cause you headaches -

Why?

Because if I ever see a stat or rules mistake in any WotC book, I simply create the correct stat or rule myself and keep right on playing.

It is the difference between thinking of WotC books and products as resources to aid in my (and my fellow gamers') mental worlds and personal mental creations vs. bibles of unchanging law.

I personally do just as you describe, but the whole point of it is that I shouldn't have to do so, it detracts from the suspension of disbelief.

as far as "flying magic items" - I am referring to the chronic "recosting" of their effects in published products.

Anybody who has actually seen Time Stop used in action by someone who REALLY understands the spell (especially in an epic game) knows what I am discussing here. When you have to accord the spell a special section in the ELH related to it, "high end" game balance goes right out the window. Second only to Wish.


With Regards to 5
If players have a tough time accepting that, they just have to be aware that it's a holdover from versions of the game that existed probably before they were born. It'll most likely go away in 4E or 5E.

Ie - there is no plausible reason other than simply "game balance" that this cannot even be attempted. WotC changed the healing spells from Necromancy over to Conjuration in order to avoid the argument, and instead only made it worse to those players who have never seen 3.0 - much less 1e or 2e
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Gerion of Mercadia said:
Anybody who has actually seen Time Stop used in action by someone who REALLY understands the spell (especially in an epic game) knows what I am discussing here. When you have to accord the spell a special section in the ELH related to it, "high end" game balance goes right out the window.

Example?
 

Gerion of Mercadia said:
Ie - there is no plausible reason other than simply "game balance" that this cannot even be attempted.

Which, IMO, is the most important reason. If you feel that it should be different, try changing it in your next campaign. See what happens. Maybe with your group, and your players, it isn't broken.
 

Brian Gibbons said:
In 3e, saving throws auto-failing on a 1 was not in the rules. Depending on who you talk to, it was deliberately omitted. Skip Williams, however, decreed in the FAQ that a natural 1 auto-failed on a saving throw, based on pretty much nothing but that being the way he liked it. This became even more irritating when the errata came out for 3e, without any mention of this rule change, leading to much confusion.

(In 3.5e, however, for better or worse, it is clear in the rules that a natural 1 is an auto-fail on a saving throw.)

Personally, 1s auto-failing on saving throws is a bad thing. Randomness disfavors the PCs--they will be in many more encounters than any NPC and are more likely to have saving throws high enough that whether or not a natural 1 is an auto-fail or treated normally will matter.


However the auto-fail on 1 is balanced by the auto-succeed on 20, if you through one out you have to lose the other.
 

Amitiel said:
However the auto-fail on 1 is balanced by the auto-succeed on 20, if you through one out you have to lose the other.

Why? A benefit that applies to all but is not countered by a penalty (or vice versa) is not an automatic case for an unbalanced rule.

Example: there are critical hits, but not critical fumbles. If balanced equations are necessary for balanced rulesets, shouldn't you have to reroll attacks that miss with a one and if they miss again some negative effect occurs?
 

Hussar said:
EditorBFG- considering all of the complaints above have been fixed by 3.5, what mistakes in 3.5 do you see as being problems?
That it hit so shortly after I finished learning the first system, for one thing. Having learned both 3.0 and 3.5 so close together, I occasionally remember a 3.0 as a 3.5 rule, and vice-versa.

For other complaints, I could go on a bit, but instead I will quote someone a bit more on top of this stuff:
Monte_Cook said:
* Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell.

* The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.

* Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change and almost certainly the largest step backward 3.5 has to offer, the new way of handling weapons causes a lot of problems. As you know, in 3.0, weapons were categorized by size, and that size was compared to your own size. So a weapon of your size was a one-handed weapon for you, a weapon one size larger was a two-handed weapon, and a weapon one size smaller was a light weapon. Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword. So what's the difference between a large longsword and a medium greatsword? About 20 gp. Aside from that bit of humor, though, there's actually a serious design problem here. Because in 3.0, a halfling picks up a magical longsword and uses it in two hands -- no problem. In 3.5, that longsword (presumably a medium longsword) is -2 in the halfling's hands because it's the "wrong size." The DMG doesn't hint one way or the other, but logic assumes that you've either got to roll randomly to determine the size of the magic sword in the treasure hoard, decreasing the chances that any given character will actually find treasure he can use -- and that's not fun. It's more complicated, it's clunky, and it hurts game play.

* The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful. The NPC tables used to be there when you needed a 7th-level fighter or a 13th-level rogue right then and there, in the middle of a game. They came completely statted up and equipped. Now, if you want to use them in that way, you've got to stop in the middle of the game and decide which weapons the fighter uses and spend 8,000 gp on gear for the rogue. Thus, they are useless for the original goal. I guess the designers felt the charts were "boring," because you got the same 7th-level fighter every time. Now, they are clearly meant to be used as pre-game development aids to help make NPCs. Unfortunately, each 7th-level fighter is still going to be an awful lot like every other one using this method. What's more, if you're not in the middle of the game, there's no reason not to just make one up from scratch (or use one of the excellent character generators out there, many of which are free online).
There's more, but this stuff resonated most with me (especially weapon sizes). You can read more here (if you somehow didn't see it before):http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html. Old but still spot on.
 

Hydras, do they get one breath attack, one large one split into multiple heads, one breath attack for each head? Do they get attacks of opportunity up to the amount of heads they have? Just look for threads about them, they always inspire mondo debates.
The monk/Improved Natty debate has been along forever and some diehards insist that the FAQ isn't canon and is self contradictory on several occasions so monks can't take it.
 

Fishbone said:
The monk/Improved Natty debate has been along forever and some diehards insist that the FAQ isn't canon and is self contradictory on several occasions so monks can't take it.

"Sure, the company has released this in order to clear up some very specific rules questions, but it doesn't count." LOL!
 


Amitiel said:
However the auto-fail on 1 is balanced by the auto-succeed on 20, if you through one out you have to lose the other.

Agreed. To want it any other way is pure cheese. Personally I think the auto hit on 20 is more benefical to the PC's than the auto miss on the 1 is harmful. The natural 20 allows the slim chance of success when normally there would be none. Are there still a lot of saves that result in an auto-kill in 3.5? In previous editions there were a few but now it seems that alot of those auto-kill spells just result in damage or status effects and if it's the damage that kills you then, them there's the rules of the game.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top