D&d 3.5

[Ura-Maru]

You don’t pick up the first “combat technique” until 2nd level in the class now; at 1st level you pick up a Favored Enemy and Wild Empathy. Strictly speaking, (and here I’m relying on people who I’ve read on ENWorld and Wizards own message boards) Two-Weapon fighting is a sub-optimal build for damage dealing in core 3.0. I’d be more concerned about the addition of all the archery feats to the core Ranger build.

Yeah, I noticed shifting back the combat feat back, but it doesn’t really matter. They still seemed to get something reasonably good at pretty much every level. Those 8 extra skill points, combined with the +1 combat bonus at level 1 still make the Ranger the best frontloading class for a fighter-type. I don’t see the ‘light only’ armor as a big issue as I never saw medium armor used if heavy or light was available.

What they SHOULD have done if they wanted to make the ranger make more sense is drop their spells and give them a slow-rising sneak-attack starting at level 5 or so.

Agree with you about the free archery feats, though. Honestly, the archery feats stack too well; a six-level fighter bow specialist (or even a fourth) has just obscene damage potential.

As for dual-wielding, even if it wasn’t ‘optimal,’ it was so popular that I don’t think it needed to be made cheaper . . .

My Ranger complaints were basically because they seem to have gotten even better than Rouges, and Rouges were too good to begin with, especially when it came to multiclassing. It also seems that they’re massively more flexible than fighters, or even monks and barbarians, while being only a scoche less good at hacking.

And the ‘one level of Rouge/Ranger/Bard’ is now even better, cause it makes all their skills permanently class skills.

The bard still @#$@ing sucks. But then, my opinion on classes is that they should be broadly defined and able to describe a wide range of character types. For most of them (Fighters, Rangers, Mages, Clerics, even Druids) this works. For Monks, Paladins and Bards it doesn’t, forcing them into anything but a Shaolin monk or an ‘AD&D Bard’ (related bitch: Classes shouldn’t exist just cause they seemed like a good idea in an issue of Dragon 15 years ago) requires so much effort its easier to just use the more generic classes.

There’s nothing wrong with a martial artist/duelist class or a ‘dealing with people’ class, in fact they’re both good ideas, but the former should be able to cover a kenshi as well as a kung-fu practioner, and the later should be able to cover a vamp or a military commander.

You have clearly had a very different play experience than I have. Toning Elves down? What about Halflings and Humans? I regret to say that Half-Orcs are still pretty weak.

They didn’t fix half-orcs? That’s too bad. Yeah, halflings and humans are defiantly near the top of the curve, race-wise, but one could argue that’s payback for sucking so much for so many years. Also, I have no bright ideas for ‘fixing’ humans, so I didn’t bring it up.
The Paladin thing is basically a combination of 1: A holy warrior fellowship with an extremely tight code of conduct and very little design flexibility seems like exactly the kind of thing that Prestige Classes were invented for, and 2) it’s a way to have less of them running around, which would be a good thing.

There’s Guyver Armor? I kinda liked the riding dogs, though. I mean, what the hell else is a 2 and a half foot gnome going to ride?

Does anyone have a game within 3-4 hours of Pittsburgh that I could join? Can anyone help an old campaigner who started with the First edition, down on his luck?

Well, I’ve moved away since, but if you can handle a drive to Philly, (That’s about four hours, right?) you might be able to join my old group. I THINK they’re still playing . . .

–
‘I waste ‘em with my crossbow!!’

[JDeMobray]

*Originally posted by Ura-Maru *
**What they SHOULD have done if they wanted to make the ranger make more sense is drop their spells and give them a slow-rising sneak-attack starting at level 5 or so. **

That would be cool. I’m not entirely happy with any of the partial caster classes; you would think with the easy multi-class rules there woiuld be a way of emulating a Ranger who casts Divine Spells, or a Bard who casts Arcane Spells without custom building it into the class. I want my 1st Edition Ranger who casts both back, too, if we’re taking requests.

**As for dual-wielding, even if it wasn’t ‘optimal,’ it was so popular that I don’t think it needed to be made cheaper . . . **

My ideal solution to the TWF thing would be to drop all the feats and make it into a skill. Class skill for Fighters, Rangers, Monks and Barbarians and just say that every 4 ranks reduces the penalties by 2 or some such down to -0/-0. You could either keep the new Improved TWF and Greater TWF feats as feats and just require skill rank X as a prerequisite or work those into the skill progression somehow. I don’t know.

Classes shouldn’t exist just cause they seemed like a good idea in an issue of Dragon 15 years ago.

I personally prefer games without classes myself, but I don’t think at this point we’re ever likely to get rid of them all together in the core rules. If we’re lucky we may see some supplement down the line along the lines of the 2nd Edition Skills & Powers book. Along the same lines, I recently picked up BESM d20 by Guardians of Order that contains a point based breakdown of all the core classes and races and their associated abilities. I haven’t had a chance yet to fully go through it and digest everything but it looks pretty good.

**There’s Guyver Armor? I kinda liked the riding dogs, though. I mean, what the hell else is a 2 and a half foot gnome going to ride?

**The Guyver Armor is just a crack at the art; check out the Full Plate picture on pg. 124 of the 3.5 Players Handbook sometime. The riding dogs are a seperate issue just for me I guess. I’ve owned too many dogs, I guess, to think that they are either physically built or tempermentally suited for riding. As to what else are they going to ride . . . well I don’t have a good answer aside from to question why they would need to ride in the first place.

[Zanshin]

Overall, I have to say I like what I’ve seen of 3.5. (Admittedly, I haven’t seen much, so I may be operating on limited information.) I like how they’ve amped up the Ranger skill points and un-front-loaded the class – it’s amazing how many munchkins take one level of Ranger just for the TWP and Ambidexterity. (Or maybe not so amazing.) I’m glad they gave him more of a ‘woodsy’ flavor… but I’ll have to check out the class a little closer to check out the problems Ura-Maru points out.

The only thing I’ve seen that I was unhappy about was monkeying with the spell durations. Many of the utility spells (Invisibility and Bull’s Strength) come to mind. Instead of 10 min/level for Invisibility, it’s now 1 minute per level IIRC. I was irritated at first – why tinker with something that works? But after some thought, I can see why those changes were made – that reduces the amount of all-day buffing you can do. Now your 8th-level caster can’t just wake up in the morning, cast Bull’s Strength, Cat’s Grace, Invisibility, etc etc etc and have them active all day, and you have to think about their use a little bit more.

I have to say my initial reservations about 3.5 (stated above in this thread) have been rethought. I’m glad Wizards dropped the price of the books to $30 (from what I’d originally heard would be $40) and with the SRD and all the info that’s been released, they’ve given existing players the option to use some of the 3.5 rules in their existing 3.0 games without having to buy new books. I don’t know that I wanna run out tomorrow and drop $90 on new books (we’ll probably keep it at 3.0 and slowly integrate new rules once players in our group start buying the 3.5 books), but I have to say I’m fairly impressed.

[smiling_bandit]

I’ve owned too many dogs, I guess, to think that they are either physically built or tempermentally suited for riding. As to what else are they going to ride . . . well I don’t have a good answer aside from to question why they would need to ride in the first place.

It would probably be possible to breed riding dogs for a gnome or halfling. And temperment would not be a problem with some breeds even now.

[gonzoron]

*Originally posted by Ura-Maru *
**What they SHOULD have done if they wanted to make the ranger make more sense is drop their spells and give them a slow-rising sneak-attack starting at level 5 or so.
**

I disagree. I think Sneak attack should be a Rogue (or PrC) ability ONLY. None of the other classes should get it, IMHO.

*Originally posted by Ura-Maru *
There’s nothing wrong with a martial artist/duelist class or a ‘dealing with people’ class, in fact they’re both good ideas, but the former should be able to cover a kenshi as well as a kung-fu practioner, and the later should be able to cover a vamp or a military commander.
**

I can’t comment much on the Monk, since I’ve never played/DM’ed one, I haven’t really bothered to know much about them. But for the Bard, there’s no reason why they can’t cover a vamp or military commander. Hint: Bard “songs” can be done with any type of performance, not just singing. Try poetry for the vamp, (Insert crude joke here about what other types of “Perform” a vamp would have :)) or oratory for the military commander. (“Once more into the breach…”)

BTW, you mentioned before that Rangers get something nearly every level. From what I’ve read, that was a conscious design decision. EVERYONE should get something interesting each level, instead of just a few points of BAB or Saves, and a few hp and skill points. New abilities make levelling fun, and make it mean something.

I’ve only done a brief perusal of 3.5, but for the most part, it’s either real good stuff, or at least not a disaster. I love what was done to the Ranger. They were boring as dirt before, and now they’re playable, and I don’t think any of it is too overpowered.

I’m glad the animal’s ability spells got toned down, although I would’ve gone with 10mins, not 1min. Having spells that last all day, and that get cast every morning without thought is boring, and tended to make wizards the class with magically good stats, instead of the class who casts spells.

From reading various boards I think a lot of people are pissed that one of their favorite spells/classes/feats/skills/races got toned down (either directly or in comparison to other stuff that got better) without realizing that there were people out there that were abusing it because it was so good.

(BTW, I get all oogy when people mention “optimal builds.” What happened to making choices based on what your character would do?)

[Ura-Maru]

Hint: Bard “songs” can be done with any type of performance, not just singing. Try poetry for the vamp, (Insert crude joke here about what other types of “Perform” a vamp would have ) or oratory for the military commander. (“Once more into the breach…”)

I know that, and in fact that’s what I did for my fighter/bard Griffith-type. But why does he have all these mage spells? (I know, I shouldn’t complain, he just got massively better with the extra skillpoints . . .) Mechanics are also a little clunky for non-standard ‘perfomance’ skills.

There was a halfling bard in an old campain I ran who was basically a failed comeidan and snake-oil salesman. Man, he was entertaining . . .

Basically, I think that casting spells should be relatively unusual, only the classses that specialize in it should be able to do it . . .

Remember, though, I only got a quick look at the books. I should probably keep my mouth shut until I’ve actually read it.

–
‘Everyone knows the big macho ugly guy can never win, especially when they’re fighting the exeptionally handsome, slender and popular main character! This battle was over the moment you showed up with your ugly face!’

[Johnny_Angel]

Ura-Maru wrote:

Basically, I think that casting spells should be relatively unusual, only the classses that specialize in it should be able to do it

The bard has been intended for a long time as a jack-of-all trades class. He’s a mage/fighter/thief. The drawback is that he’s a shitty-mage/shitty-fighter/shitty-thief. With the advent of 3rd edition, he’s also a shitty cleric. It bothers me that bard magic isn’t more clearly distinguished from wizard and cleric magic. In second edition, it made sense because the bard was literally just dabbling in the mage’s art. But in 3rd edition, they make it more explicit that the bard magic is a distinct branch of magic. Yet, they leave in the crazy spell component rules which are necessary for game balance, but which make it difficult to think of bard magic as importantly distinct.

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by Ura-Maru *
**Instead of toning down the clear favorites, (fighter and rouge) **

Dude: “Rogue”. R.O.G.U.E.

[Lear_s_fool]

OK here’s the truth non of the D&D versions are easy games to play.

And lets be honest 3rd ed is way easier to play the 2nd

Thaco what

I only have 3 saving throw types that make scence (why did i need a saving throw for breath weapons, poly morph and spell any way)

prestige classes are much better idea than kits

there is a lot less number crunching involved in 3rd ed to and no more people going “do i roll a 12 or a 10 sided dice for this.”

Dose this make it make 3rd ed easy to play? No
Is 3rd ed a broken and unplayable system? No
Is 3.5 really needed? I don’t think so (but if WftC has it for free download i don’t care)
prestige classes are much better idea than kits

there is a lot less number crunching involved in 3rd ed to and no more pepole going “do i roll a 12 or a 10 sided dice for this.”

Dose this make it maked 3rd ed easy to play? No
Is 3rd ed a broken and unplable system? No
Is 3.5 realy needed? I don’t think so (but if WftC has it for free download i don’t care)

[HomeSlice]

I suddenly have the urge to play D&D.

[JDeMobray]

*Originally posted by gonzoron *
**(BTW, I get all oogy when people mention “optimal builds.” What happened to making choices based on what your character would do?) **

Sure, I do too. But some people play that way; trying to squeeze every available point of damage or BAB out of the system and I thought that they would be good folks to cite in order to address the concern that Two-Weapon Fighting is overly strong.

[DeadlyAccurate]

I bought my books off Amazon for about $60 total (for all 3). I’m really liking what I see in them, with very few exceptions. I even converted an entire party of halflings over from 3.0 to 3.5 with limited issues. We’ll probably convert our main campaign over if we get enough votes on it.

[gonzoron]

*Originally posted by Ura-Maru *
**I know that, and in fact that’s what I did for my fighter/bard Griffith-type. But why does he have all these mage spells? (I know, I shouldn’t complain, he just got massively better with the extra skillpoints . . .) Mechanics are also a little clunky for non-standard ‘perfomance’ skills.
**

Yeah, that’s perhaps unavoidable bit of nostalgia. (Like the ranger’s TWF) If you ever got rid of the bard’s spells, it wouldn’t feel like the same class to people who’ve played previous versions. If it doesn’t fit your concept, though, I’d recommend one of three things:

1. Don’t ever use the spells. I know it’s harsh, and seems like you’re missing out on a major benefit of the class. But if your general has no reason for spells, don’t use them.
2. Multiclass after only 2 bard levels.
3. My personal recommendation, take only spells that you can explain away. If we stick with charasmatic military comander for the moment, I’d be comfortable using: Daze, Flare, Know Direction, Lullaby, Cause Fear, Charm Person, Hypnotism, Remove Fear, Sleep, Undetectable Alignment, Ventriloquism, etc. (I just scanned quickly through the 1st & 2nd level lists). All of these “spells” could be explained by him using his quick wit and convincing oration in an exceptional manner. Yes, it requires some fudging with dispel/detect magic and anti-magic zones, but it’s a fun twist on things.

(Got this idea from a “scientist” mage in Stu Turner’s Ravenloft campaign at www.kargatane.com)

*Originally posted by JDeMobray *
**Sure, I do too. But some people play that way; trying to squeeze every available point of damage or BAB out of the system and I thought that they would be good folks to cite in order to address the concern that Two-Weapon Fighting is overly strong. **

Gotcha… I guess they do have their uses.