3ed VS 3.5ed

[chomskola]

Comparing the 3rd EC and 4th ED core books, there are practically the same, but there are sections which differ or material removed from 3.5 Is thre anything removed from 3 ED which is useful and which you think was removed unneccessarily, more generally, are there sections in 3 ED core, that could prove handy when running 3.5?

[Larkas]

Comparing the 3rd EC and 4th ED core books, there are practically the same, but there are sections which differ or material removed from 3.5 Is thre anything removed from 3 ED which is useful and which you think was removed unneccessarily, more generally, are there sections in 3 ED core, that could prove handy when running 3.5?

Wait, what? :smallconfused: Could you please clarify your question? I couldn't make heads or tails out of it.

[chomskola]

are there sections in 3 ED core, that could prove handy when running 3.5?

[Larkas]

So it has nothing to do with 4E, right? Okay then. I don't think so. 3.5 is pretty much a condensed and distilled form of 3E, so you shouldn't be missing anything. You MIGHT want to use 3E's jump rules, as those were more realistic, but that's it. YMMV, of course.

[Malimar]

I sometimes get a bit sad that 3.5e did away with the Partial Charge action.

Other than that, I think the 3.5e ruleset is universally an improvement over the 3.0e ruleset.

I have no opinions I care to express about 4e (or 5e, or for that matter 2e or earlier editions).

[The_Ditto]

What's EC?
What's ED?

[willpell]

I sometimes get a bit sad that 3.5e did away with the Partial Charge action.

Other than that, I think the 3.5e ruleset is universally an improvement over the 3.0e ruleset.

There are a few things about 3.0 I like more than 3.5, though not very many I like so much as to actually regret the change (combat facing for instance was a nice idea, but not nice enough to be worth the amount of extra effort it requires, so getting rid of it was a sensible change, though not lossless).

I would say the #1 thing from 3.0 I have wanted to bring back into 3.5 is the more complicated system of spell school bannings for specialist wizards - a 3.0 wizard could give up just Conjuration or Transmutation to specialize in any other school, and could give up three schools including Divination if you so choose, but now you always have to give up two schools even if it's one of the Big Two (3.0 mistakenly identified Evocation as one of the Big Three along with Conj and Trans, that would be the one change I'd make to the 3.0 system if importing it). It was tricky to figure out this old system and changing it to a simpler one was not unreasonable of them, but I for one am perfectly willing to do the extra work, and I liked the extra flavor it granted as well as the fine-tuning and customization it offered.

#2 would be the 3.0 version of the Ranger, with x4 skills instead of x6 but with a d10 hit die. Somehow this seems more appropriate to me; I've never quite liked the 3.5 Ranger, and he's somewhat obsoleted by Complete Adventurer's Scout.

I don't know of a #3 offhand, but I'm sure there is one, and probably 4 and 5 as well. After that it starts to get into the "it was nice but I can live without it" territory like combat facing (and, somewhat more to my taste but inextricably tied to combat facing, non-square spaces for creatures like horses). Stuff I miss, stuff I might re-institute someday, but it'd be enough extra work that I might never bother.

[Malak'ai]

@willpell: I kind of agree with you about the 3.0 Ranger bit. I liked the upping of the skillpoints but hated the downgrade in HD; but could you please elaberate on what you mean in your third point? I found it a little hard to understand.

[Larkas]

--snip--

You know what's funny? I played 3.0 much more than 3.5, and so I sometimes simply forget all the changes. These are, indeed, notable changes. Like you, however, even though I think they came with losses, I also think they were an overall improvement. I REALLY miss the asymmetric combat facing, though.

[willpell]

@willpell: I kind of agree with you about the 3.0 Ranger bit. I liked the upping of the skillpoints but hated the downgrade in HD; but could you please elaberate on what you mean in your third point? I found it a little hard to understand.

Er, point 3 was just me rambling about how I probably had a point 3 (and thereafter) but couldn't remember what it was. So you didn't miss much.

[Malak'ai]

Er, point 3 was just me rambling about how I probably had a point 3 (and thereafter) but couldn't remember what it was. So you didn't miss much.

Ah, ok. I just saw the bit about combat facing and, even though I played 3.0, I never saw much change, so I was wondering what you were on about :smallredface:.

[willpell]

Ah, ok. I just saw the bit about combat facing and, even though I played 3.0, I never saw much change, so I was wondering what you were on about :smallredface:.

Oh, that. Well, that's actually one of the more noticeable changes so I'm not sure how you missed it (unless your DM instituted the Unearthed Arcana hack which restored facing to 3.5 rules, but that's optional). I forget exactly how facing worked, but one permutation I'm fairly certain of was that rogue Sneak Attack actually involved a backstab, and flanking was probably also affected.

It dawns on me that something I was thinking of as part of facing is actually separate - handedness. In 3.5, whether something is an off-hand attack can change from round to round, even if your weapons are glued to their respective hands; if you're using a scimitar in one hand and a morningstar in the other, you can apply the -6 and -10 penalties to them in whichever order you prefer. But in 3.0, you specifically had to say that one was in your primary hand, and couldn't necessarily change that decision on the fly. Which sounds like it's just a pointless nuisance, but I remember thinking there was some upside which had been lost (past the fact that Ambidexterity used to be a feat and is now just empty fluff, which I see as a downside, though I suspect I'm in the minority on that).

[Rogue Shadows]

--snip--

I miss Ambidexterity, too...but it was not worth the feat investment to have both Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting.

...or rather, there was no reason to take one unless you were going to take both, meaning you were functionally consuming two feats slots with just one feat.

I always wanted there to be a distinct branch-off of Ambidexterity that dealt with using a gun in one hand and a sword in the other but didn't have anything to do, necessarily, with two-weapon fighting...but then I likes me my piratey settings that actually have guns.

Arrr.

[Malak'ai]

*snip (no offense ment)*

When I first played 3.0, we didn't use minis or a battle map so it never really came up. We just said what direction we were engaging the "enemy" on, so that's most likely how I missed it.

And I agree, not having declare primary/secondary hand in 3.5e was an oversite. But I can understanf losing Amberdexterity as a feat... It was nice, but it really only became an extra tax your character couldn't afford to pay (unless you were a Fighter, or got it for free like you did with the Ranger).

[Darrin]

I don't know of a #3 offhand, but I'm sure there is one


I miss the weapon equivalency rules from 3.0... although there are quirks that cause headaches in both 3.0 and 3.5 weapon size rules.



and probably 4 and 5 as well.


3.0 haste! Also, I prefer the duration on the 3.0 versions of Bull's Strength/etc.

[Greenish]

Somehow this seems more appropriate to me; I've never quite liked the 3.5 Ranger, and he's somewhat obsoleted by Complete Adventurer's Scout.Not really. Ranger's not much to write home about, but it is a core class and thus has way more feat/spell/ACF support than Scout.

Of course, Swift Hunter (C.Scoundrel) means both is better than either. :smallcool:


I always wanted there to be a distinct branch-off of Ambidexterity that dealt with using a gun in one hand and a sword in the other but didn't have anything to do, necessarily, with two-weapon fighting...but then I likes me my piratey settings that actually have guns.Well, to be fair, you can do that now without burning a feat.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look up Versatile Combatant (DotU). You might like it.

[Rogue Shadows]

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look up Versatile Combatant (DotU). You might like it.

Seen it. It's neat, but then DotU came out pretty late in 3.5's run, meaning that for a long stretch I was living in a world without being able to first produce my pistol and then produce my rapier and say "Stand and Deliver! Or the Devil he may take ya!"

[Valdor]

Seen it. It's neat, but then DotU came out pretty late in 3.5's run, meaning that for a long stretch I was living in a world without being able to first produce my pistol and then produce my rapier and say "Stand and Deliver! Or the Devil he may take ya!"

I am not adding anything to this thread. I just wanted to let you know that, you sir, have just won at being awesome

[SiuiS]

Comparing the 3rd EC and 4th ED core books, there are practically the same, but there are sections which differ or material removed from 3.5 Is thre anything removed from 3 ED which is useful and which you think was removed unneccessarily, more generally, are there sections in 3 ED core, that could prove handy when running 3.5?

A lot of the flavor stuff. There's a section on how bards can use perform to achieve diplomatic change, for example, that's entirely absent from 3.5. Possibly for the better, since diplomacy is a skill for a reason, but being able to think outside the rules-box without throwing it away is a good lesson.



Seen it. It's neat, but then DotU came out pretty late in 3.5's run, meaning that for a long stretch I was living in a world without being able to first produce my pistol and then produce my rapier and say "Stand and Deliver! Or the Devil he may take ya!"

Rock. /)

[Flickerdart]

A lot of the flavor stuff. There's a section on how bards can use perform to achieve diplomatic change, for example, that's entirely absent from 3.5. Possibly for the better, since diplomacy is a skill for a reason, but being able to think outside the rules-box without throwing it away is a good lesson.
That stuff is in the Epic Level Handbook, so technically it's still kosher for a 3.5 game. The DCs are exactly the same as for Diplomacy.

[Spuddles]

I liked the spacing rules for bigger creatures. A horse took up a 5x10 space, for instance. A huge (tall) creature took up a 10x10x15 space. A 15x15x15 space just seems to big for, say, a giant. Colossal tall creatures (like giants) take up absolutely enormous amounts of space, despite being, well, big in a tall direction.

[Flickerdart]

I liked the spacing rules for bigger creatures. A horse took up a 5x10 space, for instance. A huge (tall) creature took up a 10x10x15 space. A 15x15x15 space just seems to big for, say, a giant. Colossal tall creatures (like giants) take up absolutely enormous amounts of space, despite being, well, big in a tall direction.
Combat spacing isn't about actual space. To determine how big a creature actually is, refer to the squeezing rules. Combat spacing is about the space that a creature requires to comfortably fight. A horse might not be 10x10, but in order to turn around and face a threat from the back, it needs that extra space. A giant might only be 5 feet wide in actuality, but its long arms and large weapons mean that it needs lots an lots of space to comfortably swing them around. Similarly, a human being is not five feet by five feet by five feet, but that's how much space we need (at least in 3.5) to go about stabbing things we don't care for.

[Greenish]

Seen it. It's neat, but then DotU came out pretty late in 3.5's run, meaning that for a long stretch I was living in a world without being able to first produce my pistol and then produce my rapier and say "Stand and Deliver! Or the Devil he may take ya!"Why, were you only playing one-handed characters? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I sometimes get a bit sad that 3.5e did away with the Partial Charge action.

Other than that, I think the 3.5e ruleset is universally an improvement over the 3.0e ruleset.

Huh? Partial Charges are in 3.5, the only difference is that you can only do them when you have no choice.


If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.

[Deadline]

Oh, that. Well, that's actually one of the more noticeable changes so I'm not sure how you missed it (unless your DM instituted the Unearthed Arcana hack which restored facing to 3.5 rules, but that's optional). I forget exactly how facing worked, but one permutation I'm fairly certain of was that rogue Sneak Attack actually involved a backstab, and flanking was probably also affected.

I'm reasonably certain it had nothing to do with the rogue sneak attack or flanking. I'd have to dig out my old 3.0 player's handbook to be sure, but I don't recall any of that.

As far as combat spacing goes, I don't miss the headache that was 3.0's combat facing system. I can't recall how many times we had to ask, "Wait, is that a large long creature, or a large tall?" The 3.5 method is so much more streamlined.

[Spuddles]

Combat spacing isn't about actual space. To determine how big a creature actually is, refer to the squeezing rules. Combat spacing is about the space that a creature requires to comfortably fight. A horse might not be 10x10, but in order to turn around and face a threat from the back, it needs that extra space. A giant might only be 5 feet wide in actuality, but its long arms and large weapons mean that it needs lots an lots of space to comfortably swing them around. Similarly, a human being is not five feet by five feet by five feet, but that's how much space we need (at least in 3.5) to go about stabbing things we don't care for.

Comfortably? I am not just gonna let that giant have comfortable space. When that horse swings its stupid horse face around, my buddy is going to stab it in the ass as it moves through his square. That's what I liked about the rules- something that takes up 10x30 feet doesn't just magically get another 200 square feetof space.

[Flickerdart]

Comfortably? I am not just gonna let that giant have comfortable space. When that horse swings its stupid horse face around, my buddy is going to stab it in the ass as it moves through his square. That's what I liked about the rules- something that takes up 10x30 feet doesn't just magically get another 200 square feetof space.
You will "let" the giant have whatever space he wants, because he's a giant and you are a tiny human. Try and enter into his combat space and you will, predictably, get clubbed upside the head.

[Phelix-Mu]

You will "let" the giant have whatever space he wants, because he's a giant and you are a tiny human. Try and enter into his combat space and you will, predictably, get clubbed upside the head.

Unless he doesn't seessss us, Precioussss. :smallwink:

But, seriously, it always seemed to me that dire animals were a lot cooler in 3.0. Also, Wild Shape (dire) was pretty nice, and it actually seems to me in retrospect that 3.0 druids were more balanced, though still landing pretty much atop the whole tier system thingy.

[chomskola]

Speaking of game balance, when does the wizard/druid thing start to really show, i mean at what level..at level 1 wizards don't seem that crazily powerful

[Darrin]

Speaking of game balance, when does the wizard/druid thing start to really show, i mean at what level..at level 1 wizards don't seem that crazily powerful

7ish. Basically when they get 4th level spells, several of which are encounter-enders. Thus why E6 was born.

[Jeraa]

Speaking of game balance, when does the wizard/druid thing start to really show, i mean at what level..at level 1 wizards don't seem that crazily powerful

There is no set level. It all depends on who is playing them. In some groups, it might not show up until mid to high levels. Others, it may start at low levels. I've seen people say as late as 15th level, and as early as 5th.

[toapat]

There is no set level. It all depends on who is playing them. In some groups, it might not show up until mid to high levels. Others, it may start at low levels. I've seen people say as late as 15th level, and as early as 5th.

The Wizard/Druid Rediculously powerful timeline depends on material available, who is playing them, and what ACFs they use. Clerics have to work pretty hard at that early a stage to do the same.

Both Wizard and Druid can eclipse a party at lvl 1, so long as they build specifically for doing so in that timeframe. As another playgrounder put it "At the end of the day, A wolf is still a wolf, and full spellcasting is still full spellcasting."

it is just that on average, lvl 5-15 is the range where a group will see mundanes end

[willpell]

I miss the weapon equivalency rules from 3.0... although there are quirks that cause headaches in both 3.0 and 3.5 weapon size rules.

Hm, how did those work?


3.0 haste!

Agreed. An extra standard action doesn't seem that overpowered to me without shenanigans; I wouldn't allow someone to cast a second spell with it, but allowing someone to attack twice was a good thing. If the spell was too strong for 3rd level, there should have been a Greater Haste spell at 6th or so that did the same, and Haste could just give a move action or something.


Combat spacing isn't about actual space.

I'm aware that this is the theory, but it doesn't make any real sense. Why are the spaces *square*? If anything, they should be circular, or hexagonal for a compromise (but hexagons kinda suck when combined; what should be a straight line instead turns into a weird zigzag kind of thing). The squares make it seem as though everyone is politely lining up to give everyone plenty of breathing room and to make sure the battlefield is nicely organized, all while the surrounding terrain has been manicured into right angles for convenience. It's not at all how a battle should actually feel, unless it's a formalized duel between Lawful armies fighting on a gigantic chessboard (which is admittedly an entire Outer Plane).


You will "let" the giant have whatever space he wants, because he's a giant and you are a tiny human. Try and enter into his combat space and you will, predictably, get clubbed upside the head.

But what if you're another giant? Why do you have to stand 40 feet away from him at all times? And why is the border between his personal space and your personal space a straight line? Keep in mind, as a Huge giant, you can still only take 5-foot steps under the rules. So if you want to go around another giant while full-attacking each round, you have to spend like eight rounds mincing your way 40 feet to the south to edge around a magic invisible corner which is nowhere near where the other giant is standing. (I may be misremembering exactly how silly this is, but at the bare minimim it's still pretty silly.)

[Story]

so long as they build specifically for doing so in that timeframe.

The beauty of druid is that doesn't require effort to optimize. You could pick a wolf as your companion because wolves are cool and you've already outclassed the fighter at level 1.

[willpell]

The beauty of druid is that doesn't require effort to optimize. You could pick a wolf as your companion because wolves are cool and you've already outclassed the fighter at level 1.

Hardly. Your Wolf doesn't follow orders without a Handle Animal check, so he'll spend half of every battle finding a tree to pee on, and is utterly baffled and rendered helpless by a closed door. Plus the fighter has access to weapons, and combat tricks other than trip. While a few more levels of full caster might leave the fighter hopelessly outclassed, at least at level 1 he's got rather a lot going for him.

[Andezzar]

Agreed. An extra standard action doesn't seem that overpowered to me without shenanigans; I wouldn't allow someone to cast a second spell with it, but allowing someone to attack twice was a good thing. If the spell was too strong for 3rd level, there should have been a Greater Haste spell at 6th or so that did the same, and Haste could just give a move action or something.What you wouldn't allow is precisely what made 3.0 Haste so overpowered. The casters could cast 2 (3 with a quickened one) spells in a round and still move around. An extra standard action is an extra standard action.

[ZeroNumerous]

Your Wolf doesn't follow orders without a Handle Animal check, so he'll spend half of every battle finding a tree to pee on, and is utterly baffled and rendered helpless by a closed door.

This is just plain wrong. Druid animal companions start off knowing a single trick regardless of Handle Animal, and those tricks explicitly state that they do not require Handle Animal checks. It is trivial to select "Defend" and get all the benefits of a fighter without actually needing a fighter.

Further more: If your entire argument is that the fighter can at least destroy loot(sunder), waste a standard action against unarmed enemies(disarm), and open doors. Then you really should spend some time rethinking the fighter's purpose in a party.

[TuggyNE]

Hardly. Your Wolf doesn't follow orders without a Handle Animal check, so he'll spend half of every battle finding a tree to pee on, and is utterly baffled and rendered helpless by a closed door.

Druids and Rangers can make Handle Animal checks as free actions and gain a +4 bonus as well (as well as what ZeroNumerous said). This is not a problem.

[Flickerdart]

I'm aware that this is the theory, but it doesn't make any real sense. Why are the spaces *square*? If anything, they should be circular, or hexagonal for a compromise (but hexagons kinda suck when combined; what should be a straight line instead turns into a weird zigzag kind of thing). The squares make it seem as though everyone is politely lining up to give everyone plenty of breathing room and to make sure the battlefield is nicely organized, all while the surrounding terrain has been manicured into right angles for convenience. It's not at all how a battle should actually feel, unless it's a formalized duel between Lawful armies fighting on a gigantic chessboard (which is admittedly an entire Outer Plane).

You don't like squares? Use hexes. Problem solved.



But what if you're another giant? Why do you have to stand 40 feet away from him at all times? And why is the border between his personal space and your personal space a straight line? Keep in mind, as a Huge giant, you can still only take 5-foot steps under the rules. So if you want to go around another giant while full-attacking each round, you have to spend like eight rounds mincing your way 40 feet to the south to edge around a magic invisible corner which is nowhere near where the other giant is standing. (I may be misremembering exactly how silly this is, but at the bare minimim it's still pretty silly.)
40 feet? That's not even close. Assuming a Large giant (which most giants are) you get a distance of under 10 feet between the giants - inside each other's melee reach, but only just.

Also, yes, if you're fighting, you don't get much walking done at the same time. That's just common sense.

[awa]

also keep in mind that the animal in question is a companion my dog is not trained to do anything other then very basic commands but if someone attacked me you bet they would come to my defense i wouldn't need to say or do anything its not one of his tricks its just what she would do.

and while its true the fighter has hands and can open doors the wolf can track and run fast and has scent so while the fighter can do things the wolf cant the wolf can do things the fighter cant. Keeping in mind that the druid can also open doors having a wolf is a net increase in versatility.

[Waker]

I was really disappointed by the shortening of the duration of many Transmutation buffs. Bull's Strength, Fox's Cunning, Eagle's Splendor and so on used to have a duration of minutes/level if memory serves me. That meant that you could buff right before combat and have it reliably last the entire battle, now you have to waste time during combat, which many people aren't as likely to do unless they are playing a dedicated buffer.

[Andezzar]

I was really disappointed by the shortening of the duration of many Transmutation buffs. Bull's Strength, Fox's Cunning, Eagle's Splendor and so on used to have a duration of minutes/level if memory serves me. That meant that you could buff right before combat and have it reliably last the entire battle, now you have to waste time during combat, which many people aren't as likely to do unless they are playing a dedicated buffer.Eagle's Splendor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/eaglesSplendor.htm) et. al. now have a duration of 1 min./level. Not sure, what their duration used to be in 3.0

[Waker]

Eagle's Splendor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/eaglesSplendor.htm) et. al. now have a duration of 1 min./level. Not sure, what their duration used to be in 3.0

Then it must have been hours/level. My not remembering how long they last now just goes to show you how long it's been since I actually played D&D.

[Amphetryon]

Eagle's Splendor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/eaglesSplendor.htm) et. al. now have a duration of 1 min./level. Not sure, what their duration used to be in 3.0

Hour/level, if memory serves. It used to be part of the Cleric's morning ablutions.

[Psyren]

Weren't the summon monster spells also hour/lvl?

*shudders upon remembering 3.0 Haste and Harm*

[Agent 451]

*shudders upon remembering 3.0 Haste and Harm*

Why? What's wrong with having practically any opponent taken down to a rolled d4 for hit points from a single level 6 (?) spell? :smalltongue:

[Deadline]

But what if you're another giant? Why do you have to stand 40 feet away from him at all times?

Because, again, combat spacing is about the room to maneuver and fight in, not packing them in like sardines. Short of the various styles of grappling, you'd probably be hard pressed to find many combat styles that didn't involve some distance as part of their style.


So if you want to go around another giant while full-attacking each round, you have to spend like eight rounds mincing your way 40 feet to the south to edge around a magic invisible corner which is nowhere near where the other giant is standing.

Actually, you can move through your ally's space. You can also squeeze into the space of another creature. In the case of the rules, "squeeze" is a defined term that basically means the creature doesn't have an ideal amount of room to move in. Which reflects combat spacing perfectly. It takes more effort to swing that greatclub around when you have to be concerned with hitting your moron buddy who just doesn't seem to understand why you don't want to be close. So to use your example, the second giant could absolutely 5ft step into his buddy's space (which provokes an AoO from his pal, who probably won't take it), but then they would both be suffering penalties because they now have to be careful not to interrupt/stumble into/hit each other.

[The Viscount]

I liked 3.0 Drunken Master better than 3.5's Drunken Master. Quite a few monsters from 3.0 books were just decidedly weird in an enjoyable way, and I didn't get that from 3.5 as much. I'm talking about fluff text as well as abilities. A great example is the Fensir. Giants that are all born as twins, can convert rock to mud and back at will, and occasionally the women become even bigger giants after childbirth? And everybody casts as 4th level wizards? Now that's weird.

[willpell]

What you wouldn't allow is precisely what made 3.0 Haste so overpowered.

Well, that's easy. "You gain an extra standard action; you may not use this action to cast a spell." Bam, instant awesome.


This is just plain wrong. Druid animal companions start off knowing a single trick regardless of Handle Animal, and those tricks explicitly state that they do not require Handle Animal checks. It is trivial to select "Defend" and get all the benefits of a fighter without actually needing a fighter.

"Defend" is not "Attack". If the encounter consists of monsters attacking you, it'll do the job, but if you're trying to stop an evil cultist before he summons an army of demons, your wolf will continue to slink about your ankles, ready to bite the balor in the toe just before it squishes you and the wolf into pink goo under its foot. And if the selected trick is "attack", then you'd better make sure you don't accidentally scratch your nose and then point at the Duke who you're here to negotiate with, having forgotten that this was the signal which tells your wolf who to kill. The point is, the animal companion is *not a person*, and the DM can and should take full advantage of that fact as a balancing factor for its supposed superiority.


Further more: If your entire argument is that the fighter can at least destroy loot(sunder), waste a standard action against unarmed enemies(disarm), and open doors. Then you really should spend some time rethinking the fighter's purpose in a party.

The fighter can destroy loot that would kill him otherwise, and unless he's just as dumb as a wolf, he won't Disarm against opponents who at least look armed (occasionally it'll turn out to be an Incarnate Weapon and he'll be screwed, but that's perfectly fitting and dramatic). Okay yes, the druid can also open doors, but has fewer HP and worse armor, so he's more likely to die if the door explodes upon being touched. Which is why opening doors, and then standing in the opening regardless of what pops out, is indeed among the fighter's major purposes. He could stand to be a little better at it than he is, mechanically speaking (better saves for instance), but he's still a danged sight better at it than the wolf.


You don't like squares? Use hexes. Problem solved.

As I pointed out, hexes have their own problems. Chief among which is that every single rulebook is written to assume squares, and thus every single rule has to be recalculated if you want to use hexes instead.


40 feet? That's not even close. Assuming a Large giant (which most giants are) you get a distance of under 10 feet between the giants - inside each other's melee reach, but only just.

The giants occupy 4x4 spaces, and the actual giant is in the center thereof, physically occupying about a 2x2 space as per the Squeezing rules (unless I misremember them badly). Thusly, there are two entire giant-lengths between them, room for a third giant to stand between them with his non-squeezed area not touching either of their squeezed areas.


Also, yes, if you're fighting, you don't get much walking done at the same time. That's just common sense.

You clearly don't watch enough action movies. Think of the swordfights in The Princess Bride; apart from the one where Inigo is almost dead on his feet, they both involve a ton of running and jumping around without ever ceasing to slash at one another. And yes the theory is that in D&D your ting-tang-tink-tank is constantly happening, represented by AC and AoOs and such, and you only make Attack Rolls for the most decisive strokes - but, well, I'm just not feeling it. If you want a feel like that, it should be more like each combatant making ten attack rolls per round and having the best five on both sides count as actual hits, which counteract each other until only one side takes damage in a given round...something like that, I'm just thinking aloud here.

[Spuddles]

Druids have the most out of the box, regardless of material available. A riding dog or wolf animal companion and entangle pretty much have more going on than any other class within Core.

Outside of Core you get options like Ashbound and Greenbound and Natural Bond, all of which make low level druids absolutely stupendous. Warbeast is another great template for your pet.


The beauty of druid is that doesn't require effort to optimize. You could pick a wolf as your companion because wolves are cool and you've already outclassed the fighter at level 1.

Hardly. With 13 str it isn't going to be hitting much, and the 2 HD worth of HP disappears quick without armor proficiency and low AC.

There are of course ways to trivially get your animal companion to eclipse a fighter at level 1, but it won't accidentally do it unless you have a spectacularly bad fighter.

[Augmental]

"Defend" is not "Attack". If the encounter consists of monsters attacking you, it'll do the job, but if you're trying to stop an evil cultist before he summons an army of demons, your wolf will continue to slink about your ankles, ready to bite the balor in the toe just before it squishes you and the wolf into pink goo under its foot.

The druid gets a second Trick for his animal companion at level 3, and keeps gaining new tricks as he levels up. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#theDruidsAnimalCompanion)

I don't know anything about your campaigns, but stopping an army of demons from being summoned into the world is usually reserved for double-digit levels.


And if the selected trick is "attack", then you'd better make sure you don't accidentally scratch your nose and then point at the Duke who you're here to negotiate with, having forgotten that this was the signal which tells your wolf who to kill.

There are only two ways this could happen:
1: The Druid player forgets the signal for "Attack" and says that his character scratches his nose and points at the duke: Unlikely. Why would a player mention his character scratching his nose unless it's important?
2: The DM says the player's druid randomly scratches his nose for no reason: Can anyone say DM Fiat?


The point is, the animal companion is *not a person*, and the DM can and should take full advantage of that fact as a balancing factor for its supposed superiority.

Nerfing through DM Fiat is not the way to balance full casters.

[Flickerdart]

The giants occupy 4x4 spaces, and the actual giant is in the center thereof, physically occupying about a 2x2 space as per the Squeezing rules (unless I misremember them badly). Thusly, there are two entire giant-lengths between them, room for a third giant to stand between them with his non-squeezed area not touching either of their squeezed areas.

The hell kind of giants you field? 4x4 is Gargantuan. Even the mightiest giants are only Huge. When you have creatures of such size duking it out then yes, you're going to get a lot of space between the creatures. Take a look at some kaiju movies and get back to me.
Also, the combat space is not the creature just standing in the middle of a zone. They move around inside it when they dodge attacks, or make attacks, or take any other actions. It's quite possible that clashing giants will close to the edge of their combat spaces, make their attacks, and then fall back for a moment to insult one another's goats.



You clearly don't watch enough action movies. Think of the swordfights in The Princess Bride; apart from the one where Inigo is almost dead on his feet, they both involve a ton of running and jumping around without ever ceasing to slash at one another. And yes the theory is that in D&D your ting-tang-tink-tank is constantly happening, represented by AC and AoOs and such, and you only make Attack Rolls for the most decisive strokes - but, well, I'm just not feeling it. If you want a feel like that, it should be more like each combatant making ten attack rolls per round and having the best five on both sides count as actual hits, which counteract each other until only one side takes damage in a given round...something like that, I'm just thinking aloud here.
You are not the judge of how many action movies is the "correct" amount to watch, and D&D is not obligated to fit 100% with one particular fighting style. You want to make lots of attacks while running around? Grab a Belt of Battle or Travel Devotion or something. It's not complicated. But not everyone leaps around like a maniac every single time they need to stab someone in the eyeballs.

[JaronK]

You clearly don't watch enough action movies. Think of the swordfights in The Princess Bride; apart from the one where Inigo is almost dead on his feet, they both involve a ton of running and jumping around without ever ceasing to slash at one another. And yes the theory is that in D&D your ting-tang-tink-tank is constantly happening, represented by AC and AoOs and such, and you only make Attack Rolls for the most decisive strokes - but, well, I'm just not feeling it. If you want a feel like that, it should be more like each combatant making ten attack rolls per round and having the best five on both sides count as actual hits, which counteract each other until only one side takes damage in a given round...something like that, I'm just thinking aloud here.

If you want that sort of feel, may I suggest playing a Martial Adept with lots of Tiger Claw moves? Plenty of bouncing to be had there.

JaronK

[willpell]

Nerfing through DM Fiat is not the way to balance full casters.

Is that so? I say it's the only possible way; the very existence of Tier 1 makes that clear enough. Without DM fiat to stop you, you'll just polymorph into a noble djinn and grant your own wishes, or do a thousand similarly absurd things.


The hell kind of giants you field? 4x4 is Gargantuan. Even the mightiest giants are only Huge.

Ah, I stand corrected. I thought it doubled for each size category (large = 2x2, Huge = 4x4, Gargantuan = 8x8). I guess there's no room in D&D for a creature which is physically the size of a small mountain, even though such creatures abound in fiction.


You want to make lots of attacks while running around? Grab a Belt of Battle or Travel Devotion or something.

A Belt of Battle is a magic item that someone has to intentionally craft to overcome a limitation; Travel Devotion is a statement on your character's religious piety. The ability to have a running sword-battle should be available to anyone with a human (or whatever) body and some decent amount of training in how to wield a sword; it should be a basic function of the combat system, because there's no reason why it should be limited to a tiny handful of specialists who all wear the same kind of belt or worship the same god.


But not everyone leaps around like a maniac every single time they need to stab someone in the eyeballs.

Not everyone stands there for half an hour repeatedly trading swings either, not unless they're a Rockem Sockem Robot. Five-foot steps might be good enough for boxing, but wrestlers go flying all over the ring, to say nothing of MMA fighers or fencers or SKA simulationists. The as-written rules are exactly what gives us the "melee can't have nice things, casters are tier 1" status quo; you're allowed to have a level 4 spell that can teleport you virtually anywhere in the world based on a picture, but OMG the game would break if you were able to move 10 feet and then full attack without purchasing or selecting a special widget which allows it.


If you want that sort of feel, may I suggest playing a Martial Adept with lots of Tiger Claw moves? Plenty of bouncing to be had there.

Growling like an animal is distinctly something Prince Westley does in that movie. Besides which, to get ANY tiger claw maneuvers you have to start by taking Wolf Fang Strike, which is useless if you don't carry a second weapon or take Improved Unarmed Strike. TC is not the best-designed martial discipline IMO.

[TuggyNE]

Well, that's easy. "You gain an extra standard action; you may not use this action to cast a spell." Bam, instant awesome.

I'd prefer "you gain an extra move action", personally, if only because "you get a standard action except you can't use it for all the usual standard action stuff" just seems weird and arbitrary.


"Defend" is not "Attack". If the encounter consists of monsters attacking you, it'll do the job, but if you're trying to stop an evil cultist before he summons an army of demons, your wolf will continue to slink about your ankles, ready to bite the balor in the toe just before it squishes you and the wolf into pink goo under its foot. And if the selected trick is "attack", then you'd better make sure you don't accidentally scratch your nose and then point at the Duke who you're here to negotiate with, having forgotten that this was the signal which tells your wolf who to kill. The point is, the animal companion is *not a person*, and the DM can and should take full advantage of that fact as a balancing factor for its supposed superiority.

Fortunately, that's only the bonus trick accounted for. A wolf can learn up to six others, activatable by free actions, or be pushed as a move action to do something it's not even trained for. (Also, what kind of weird newbie animal trainer would use such an ambiguous non-verbal signal? That's just "roll DC 5 Wis check to not ruin your quest" right there. Single verbs are probably fine, like "Victrix, attack!" or whatever. And anyway, the exact command used is flavor text at most, and abstracted away at least, unless you want to play Schutzhund: The Training. :smallwink:)


And yes the theory is that in D&D your ting-tang-tink-tank is constantly happening, represented by AC and AoOs and such, and you only make Attack Rolls for the most decisive strokes - but, well, I'm just not feeling it. If you want a feel like that, it should be more like each combatant making ten attack rolls per round and having the best five on both sides count as actual hits, which counteract each other until only one side takes damage in a given round...something like that, I'm just thinking aloud here.

Now here I can definitely sympathize, but I'm just wondering how you'd cope with having to make all those extra attack rolls, practically speaking. Seems a bit annoying. (Probably not a deal-breaker, but even such seemingly minor problems can be significant in a system.)

[JaronK]

You can trade out Wolf Fang Strike when you want, so that's hardly an issue, you know.

JaronK

[Augmental]

Is that so? I say it's the only possible way; the very existence of Tier 1 makes that clear enough. Without DM fiat to stop you, you'll just polymorph into a noble djinn and grant your own wishes, or do a thousand similarly absurd things.

Just ban the Wish spell and its counterpart Miracle. That's not DM Fiat, that's fixing a problem with the system. When I say DM Fiat, I mean stuff like "Oh, you accidentally performed the hand motions for plane shift while swinging your arms. You wind up on the Negative Energy Plane." If arbitrary stuff like that is how you choose to nerf casters, you'll wind up with some justifiably ticked off players.

[Andezzar]

Well, that's easy. "You gain an extra standard action; you may not use this action to cast a spell." Bam, instant awesome.
The ability to houserule something does not change the fact that the RAW is overpowered.

[willpell]

I'd prefer "you gain an extra move action", personally, if only because "you get a standard action except you can't use it for all the usual standard action stuff" just seems weird and arbitrary.

You can use it for all the usual standard action stuff except spellcasting. Just say that the universe can only stand to be rewritten so many times within six seconds, and so you can't gain a second spell in a round except with Quicken.


Now here I can definitely sympathize, but I'm just wondering how you'd cope with having to make all those extra attack rolls, practically speaking. Seems a bit annoying. (Probably not a deal-breaker, but even such seemingly minor problems can be significant in a system.)

It'd hardly be extra work compared with how much you have to deal with in the system already - summoning creatures, applying templates, figuring out what Feat X does with Skill Trick Y - to-hit rolls are relatively straightforward, and doing ten of them at once wouldn't be especially difficult.


You can trade out Wolf Fang Strike when you want, so that's hardly an issue, you know.
JaronK

There are rules restricting when you can retrain or change magic known (in fact I recently discovered that Psions, who I assumed could change powers known the way sorcerers could, in fact cannot; if you learn something stupid like Slow Breathing at level 1, you're stuck with it forever). Besides, you'd still have a reputation as that guy who used to fight with two weapons earlier in his career. If my concept is to be Swordy McSworderson, Wielder of the One Sword To Rule Them All, then I don't want anything to dilute the one-swordedness of that characterization.


Just ban the Wish spell and its counterpart Miracle. That's not DM Fiat, that's fixing a problem with the system.

There are non-broken uses of Wish and there are broken things that aren't Wish, many of which I first learn of in the middle of a game since I don't have time to take a flippin' college course on everything the rules contain. I fix problems in the system as fast as I detect them, and that's what I mean by "fiat".


When I say DM Fiat, I mean stuff like "Oh, you accidentally performed the hand motions for plane shift while swinging your arms. You wind up on the Negative Energy Plane." If arbitrary stuff like that is how you choose to nerf casters, you'll wind up with some justifiably ticked off players.

Well that's not fiat, that's bad fiat. I try to be a little more reasonable about it than that. But I suppose one reductio ab absurdum deserves another.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Not everyone stands there for half an hour repeatedly trading swings either, not unless they're a Rockem Sockem Robot. Five-foot steps might be good enough for boxing, but wrestlers go flying all over the ring, to say nothing of MMA fighers or fencers or SKA simulationists. The as-written rules are exactly what gives us the "melee can't have nice things, casters are tier 1" status quo; you're allowed to have a level 4 spell that can teleport you virtually anywhere in the world based on a picture, but OMG the game would break if you were able to move 10 feet and then full attack without purchasing or selecting a special widget which allows it.

If your characters and NPCs are just standing there trading blows during a fight, that's your own fault for describing things in a boring way. When enemies are swinging at each other, they're taking steps forward and backward and sideways; dodging out of the way is probably going to be a side-step of some sort; a solid blow, even, might push somebody back a foot or two until they can regain their footing. The reason your actual position doesn't change is that idea of battle space, where the space you take up is actually your maneuvering space.

[Story]

Just ban the Wish spell and its counterpart Miracle. That's not DM Fiat, that's fixing a problem with the system. When I say DM Fiat, I mean stuff like "Oh, you accidentally performed the hand motions for plane shift while swinging your arms. You wind up on the Negative Energy Plane." If arbitrary stuff like that is how you choose to nerf casters, you'll wind up with some justifiably ticked off players.

There's nothing wrong with the Wish spell, assuming that you stick to what the description actually says it can do. If anything it's too weak, (IMO there should be no XP cost for spell duplication like Miracle).

Gate is a lot more problematic. One possible change you could say is that 9th level spells and SLAs don't count a an "immediate service". And Shapechange obviously requires a lot of thought.

If you want to fix a broken combo, try to fix the part that's actually broken.

[willpell]

If your characters and NPCs are just standing there trading blows during a fight, that's your own fault for describing things in a boring way. When enemies are swinging at each other, they're taking steps forward and backward and sideways; dodging out of the way is probably going to be a side-step of some sort; a solid blow, even, might push somebody back a foot or two until they can regain their footing. The reason your actual position doesn't change is that idea of battle space, where the space you take up is actually your maneuvering space.

I get what you're saying, but it completely breaks down in practice. The distinction between "takes a five foot step every six seconds before performing several attacks during which the opponent makes no response" and "moves freely about within a given area while constantly parrying and thrusting with an opponent who also thrusts and parries" is just not even remotely possible to pretend it's not relevant, IMO. D&D just does not even remotely give me a "this is a battle" feeling. It's more like chess, where the entire thing is completely abstracted and whoever moves into an occupied square just takes the occupying piece, only with slightly more complication than that - but nowhere near enough to actually replicate the frenzied activity of an action scene.


There's nothing wrong with the Wish spell, assuming that you stick to what the description actually says it can do. If anything it's too weak, (IMO there should be no XP cost for spell duplication like Miracle).

Well keep in mind that with Miracle, your God can say "no".


Gate is a lot more problematic. One possible change you could say is that 9th level spells and SLAs don't count a an "immediate service".

Yeah, that's the least I'd do. Honestly, every time I previously read the spell, I managed not to notice any mention of you being able to control the called creature. Being able to get a 30-HD outsider as your b**** for 15 rounds is definitely worth more than 1000 XP. I don't really have a plan for dealing with that spell at the moment, but it's a long way off anyhow.


And Shapechange obviously requires a lot of thought.

I actually think "a lot of thought" is what breaks these spells; if you just use them for what they appear to do, and don't go looking for exceptionally strong uses, there shouldn't be an issue. If I cast Shapechange and turn into a dragon, it's because I want to fly and breathe fire, not because I want to get several levels of sorcerer spells that are normally barred to me because of my school specialization. I tend to believe that "playing fair" and not using things in an obviously unintended fashion is really all you need; setting down a formal list of bans is just me being nitpicky.

[Andezzar]

If I cast Shapechange and turn into a dragon, it's because I want to fly and breathe fire, not because I want to get several levels of sorcerer spells that are normally barred to me because of my school specialization. I tend to believe that "playing fair" and not using things in an obviously unintended fashion is really all you need; setting down a formal list of bans is just me being nitpicky.Is it really? I think you use shapechange to do things you could not do in your normal form. I don't see how flying and breathing fire is any different or less unfair from casting prohibited spells or even getting SU abilities you otherwise would not have.

I agree though that shapechange can be reality breaking, but isn't that the purpose of the wizard?

[willpell]

Is it really? I think you use shapechange to do things you could not do in your normal form. I don't see how flying and breathing fire is any different or less unfair from casting prohibited spells or even getting SU abilities you otherwise would not have.

Sure, like flying and breathing fire. But a lot of shenanigans with Shapechange are simply due to the system not having been given an extra layer of robustness to ensure that it couldn't be abused to an unreasonable extent. If there were "Preternatural" abilities that were exactly like (Su) abilities except that Shapechange didn't grant them, then creatures who have abilities as game-breaking as a noble djinn's Wish could have those as Preternatural abilities, and there'd be no breakage. The problems in the system are due to the system not having been sufficiently well-designed to eliminate all its problems.


I agree though that shapechange can be reality breaking, but isn't that the purpose of the wizard?

No. Wizardry is part of the reality of D&D's milieu; it is the ability to discover secret methods of manipulating the world through superior intelligence and careful preparation, but it should still always feel like part of that world, not an excuse to fold, spindle, and mutilate the integrity of the setting. If you're gaming the system and using out-of-setting rules to justify why something works contrary to in-setting logic, you're not playing a wizard, you're playing a rules lawyer. And those have the distinction of being the only out of game monsters for which a Slayer's Guide has been published. :smallcool:

[awa]

i dont think you get spells or spell like abilities anyways. one of the reason shape change is broken is becuase your items still work assuming they fit and most basic items re-size. that means for example turning into a titan is going to add 20 to your ac. It also affects the dc of any of the monster special abilities making them much harder to resist so even if all you do is turn into something and start pounding on stuff its still broken the fighter still cant compete with a druid whose decided to be a dragon today even if all the dragons doing is using his breath weapon and chewing on stuff.

[Andezzar]

But a lot of shenanigans with Shapechange are simply due to the system not having been given an extra layer of robustness to ensure that it couldn't be abused to an unreasonable extent. If there were "Preternatural" abilities that were exactly like (Su) abilities except that Shapechange didn't grant them, then creatures who have abilities as game-breaking as a noble djinn's Wish could have those as Preternatural abilities, and there'd be no breakage. The problems in the system are due to the system not having been sufficiently well-designed to eliminate all its problems.Sure, the rules could make such a restriction but neither you nor I know whether the lack of this restriction is incidental, an error or intentional.


No. Wizardry is part of the reality of D&D's milieu; it is the ability to discover secret methods of manipulating the world through superior intelligence and careful preparation, but it should still always feel like part of that world, not an excuse to fold, spindle, and mutilate the integrity of the setting. If you're gaming the system and using out-of-setting rules to justify why something works contrary to in-setting logic, you're not playing a wizard, you're playing a rules lawyer. And those have the distinction of being the only out of game monsters for which a Slayer's Guide has been published. :smallcool:This is where we disagree. I don't see how changing into a Zodar for an SU Wish is any less "manipulating the world through superior intelligence and careful preparation" than shapechanging into a dragon. Exploiting obvious errors in the rules like drown-healing is something else entirely.

[Flickerdart]

The ability to have a running sword-battle should be available to anyone with a human (or whatever) body and some decent amount of training in how to wield a sword; it should be a basic function of the combat system, because there's no reason why it should be limited to a tiny handful of specialists who all wear the same kind of belt or worship the same god.
No it shouldn't, because such a fighting style is reserved for a few action heroes. Do you really want random peasant #15 with a pitchfork to start doing cartwheels?



Not everyone stands there for half an hour repeatedly trading swings either, not unless they're a Rockem Sockem Robot.
Which is why they don't, which I'm getting tired of explaining to you. They move around inside their combat space.
Why would you hold up wrestling (a half-acting non-lethal form of fighting) as a good example? Wrestling is a sport. Think about what fencing would look like with real swords instead of crummy foils. That's what a real swordfight looks like. Parry, parry, stab, dead guy, move on to the next guy. Nobody "stands there for half an hour" because they're either dead or already killed everyone around them and left.