Wow, do I not understand Wildshape....

[DrSpunj]

Also look at the stat blocks in the 3.5 MM.

Ah!

Thank you for literally spelling that out for me, Camarath! (Or at least bolding it! ) I was focusing so much on the second part of that section that I missed the first part, and then figured I was just being dense when reapersaurus pointed me back to the second section and I still didn't get it.

Again, much thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[Nail]

[QUOTE="Jack" Reapersaurus]In my eyes, the only rules aspect that saves the PC's from getting slaughtered is that those monsters are usually too stupid to know how to 'train' to be a fighter-type class, and use manufactured weapons.[/QUOTE]
Except for those monsters that are smart enough.

Let's think of one together, shall we? Let's see.......would "dragons" fit the bill?

There are more.......I'm not talkin' about brown bears here, folks.

 

[mikebr99]

Except for those monsters that are smart enough.

Let's think of one together, shall we? Let's see.......would "dragons" fit the bill?

There are more.......I'm not talkin' about brown bears here, folks.

But Dragons have that inherent Draconic Superiority complex, which precludes using "puny human weapons".

YMMV


Mike

 

[Nail]

But just in case we are talking about brown bears, let's look at that:

For example, a Brown Bear can use a ..... Large Longsword..... with the opposable enhancement in one hand.

That magical sword is going to have one attack at +12 for 2d6+9 damage. But the other claw was going to be at +11 for d8+8, and now it's at +6 for d8+4. That's a big hit on the off-claw, and it makes the whole weapon-using thing somewhat undesireable.

Not at all. (This depends on how you rule grapple works with natural attacks. Let's set that aside for the moment.)

Brown Bear, natural attacks, with 8HD:

• 2 claws +13 (1d8+8) and bite +8 (2d6+4)
  Average Damage per Round vs AC 24: 16.0 hp damage

Brown Bear, awakened so it can weild a longsword, now with 8HD, weilding a large long sword and two natural attacks:

• Large Longsword +13/+8 (2d6+8) and claw +8 (1d8+4) and bite +8 (2d6+4)
  Average Damage per Round vs AC 24: 17.5 hp damage

[EDIT]: Included criticals.

Point is: even for an relatively low level animal, having those iterative attacks from the manufactured weapons boosts damage.

Just think what it would do for a dragon.

 

[Nail]

But Dragons have that inherent Draconic Superiority complex, which precludes using "puny human weapons".

...which is the 3.5e systems way of crying "Uncle!" when we look at the rule set too hard.

 

[reapersaurus]

Nail - I agree that there is a lot of potential there for a problem, but......

Show me some examples of problems, and let's discuss them realistically.
Your brown bear example wasn't a problem, since
a) It's hardly any more damage
b) Awakening is something rare, IMO. If you start Awakening things that weren't meant to have much intelligence, you're asking for it as a DM (and the DM does control those things).

Your dragon example is better, but yeah - I don't picture a dragon using manufactured weapons, classically.
I CAN think of an outcast dragon, that was turned on by his race, that would resort to using anything that made him stronger - I think that's a cool idea for a memorable villian, but not something common enough to be a problem.

 

[Iku Rex]

There is *nothing* that legally binds WotC to issue errata or support their D&D products..

That's nice. But what has it got to do with anything? Did "responsibility" become an exclusively legal term while I wasn't looking? Try to stay on topic. (As such. )

(And unless the US has some very forgiving consumer laws, companies do indeed have a legal responsibility to correct flaws in their products. But again - this is beside the point.)

They issue errata and maintain their product because it is in their best interest. Not because they have a duty. They might say some pretty things about why they issue errata and make updates (and the people saying it might really believe it), but if it was in the best interests of the company to not maintain the product, somebody in a suit would prevent it.

Why is it in their best interest to correct their mistakes? Will some "God of RPG sales" become cross if they publish shoddy merchandise and refuse to fix it?

As for Andy 'messing' up: If you'd be so kind as to explain, in detail, the workings of the WotC design teams, I'll consider your opinion.

Players Handbook. Page 2. Credits. Players Handbook Revision: Andy Collins. There. Necessary detail provided. As the credited author of the revised PH, Andy Collins is the guy responsible for its content - for good or bad.

As for "my opinion": What is it you don't agree with?

1) Andy, just as anyone else in R&D, has a responsibility for the quality of his work.
2) If he messed up, he should fix it.

Notice that you (still) don't have to make a judgement over whether or not Andy or anyone else "messed up".

And as for those people that did 'fail', they did not have unlimited time or resources. The 3.0 design process had many years more time to be developed. The 3.5 crew worked on a smaller scale with far fewer resources. Expecting perfection is unreasonable. Their efforts were not ideal, but they were far from horrible as well.

3.5 was planned before 3.0 was published. WotC had plenty of time. The 3.5 team had resources the 3.0 team could only dream about with regards to playtesting and feedback. (Of course, they chose not to take advantage of most of it, but still...)

The individuals working on 3.5 may not have gotten the time they needed (though I have seen no indication that this was the case from the people involved), but that does not absolve them from the obligation to do a proper job. Both before and after 3.5 is published.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Politely, please. Thank you.