3.0 to 3.5 Changes You Didn't Like

[Thurbane]

So, it's generally agreed that 3.5 was a good refinement of the 3E ruleset.

But I was wondering: what changes from 3.0 to 3.5 did you not like? What, if anything, do you think 3.0 did better than 3.5?

I'll start: I miss Rangers having d10 HD. It's a little thing, but it still irks me (one of the guys I play with still gives them d10 HD in his 3.5 game).

Cheers - T

[Nifft]

The Alienist prestige class.

3.0e it was a bit too strong, but quite fun.

3.5e it's worse in its niche (summoner) than the base class.

[Psyren]

I'll start: I miss Rangers having d10 HD. It's a little thing, but it still irks me (one of the guys I play with still gives them d10 HD in his 3.5 game).

That was mine too (and Pathfinder gave it back to them.)

Other than that though it's really hard to think of any.

I guess Monks get an honorable mention - their capstone made them true Outsiders, rather than simply counting as them in specific situations.

[Arael666]

The changes made to haste.

call me a dirty munchkin rollplayer powergamer all you want, haste is supposed to make you act faster, giving another partial action makes sense.

[RoboEmperor]

Polymorph Self into just Polymorph. This caused all monsters that have Polymorph Self to be errata'd to alternate form. From a power gamer's perspective this hurt quite a bit. No more hydras :(

Jking aside, I really can't think of any either. 3.5 basically improved everything. Any flaw in 3.5 is also in 3.0.

[Thurbane]

I hate that some really interesting martial PrCs from Sword & Fist all got rolled into "Exotic Weapon Master" in Complete Warrior. :smallfurious:

[Telok]

Beasts and Natural Spell.
In 3.0 you had animals, beasts (dire animals and dinosaurs and others), and magical beasts. Also, Natural Spell wasn't core.
In 3.5 beasts became animals and Natural Spell got into th PH. So you suddenly get spellcasting velociraptors who are sometimes humanoid druids.

[frogglesmash]

I miss being able to throw three shurikens at once. I also liked how flurry of blows worked in 3.0, though I don't know if it was any better/worse than its current incarnation.

[Kobold Esq]

The changes made to haste.

call me a dirty munchkin rollplayer powergamer all you want, haste is supposed to make you act faster, giving another partial action makes sense.

Casters are already stupid powerful, no need for them to be stupider powerfuller.

[Malimar]

I kind of liked that you used to be able to Partial Charge as a standard action. Now you can only do that if you don't have a move action.

[Remuko]

The way sizes worked. Yeah this makes it simpler but it also makes it more complex. I liked when each size had (long) and (tall), tall large+ have reach, long do not. creatures sizes actually matched the creature instead of being set. I like it better.

[AvatarVecna]

While I hardly think it should be allowed with too much metamagic reduction, I think the 3.0 rule letting you stack metamagic with itself gives you a lot more flexibility from those feats even with limited spells known. The possibility of stacking metamagic would make lower level spells more likely to be used by spontaneous people as you get into higher level, particularly if they're built around the idea of having a very narrow focus (a particular kind of thing, like blasting) or are even the kind of character who's obsessed with a single spell. You do similar things to an extent in 3.5, but only really with Heighten Spell and things that let you specifically stack one metamagic with itself once for a particular thing you specialize in (such as Thaumaturgist). Imagine an enchanter who isn't comfortable with outright mind control, but is more than willing to nudge things along a bit; a Dominate Person spell lasting 9 days might feel icky to them, but maybe a quadruple-Extended Charm Person lasting 6 days is something they're more comfortable with. Or maybe they're a high-level blaster mage, and they decide that they'd rather cast a small super-explosion (triple-Empowered Fireball, dealing 25d6 to a 20ft radius sphere) than a large mediocre one (Meteor Swarm, dealing 6d6 to four separate 40ft radius spheres).

Obviously, making metamagic-focused casters even worse isn't what I'd like, but as long as the balance is awful anyway, adding this in gives a lot more variety to metamagic casters, particularly spontaneous ones that might have relatively limited options. Taking away metamagic reduction entirely (or at least limiting it severely) would no doubt prove necessary for any game that wanted to include this old rule, though.

EDIT: Another possible neat caster tricks that aren't at all optimal but are certainly amusing: Sorcerer 18 casting a septuple-Extended Acid Arrow, which should last 896 rounds. I hope they have or can find a source of acid resistance, or enough healing/fast healing/regen to outpace the damage, or they're kinda screwed.

[The Viscount]

I'm irritated by Ninja of the Crescent Moon being folded into ninja in the update. It wasn't the best class, but it had some unique features that ninja doesn't have, and now by RAW you cannot take the class.

Tall and Long are a strange case in that they still sort of exist, but only for reach, not space. They don't really tell you in the entry, but generally speaking they follow the long and tall rules for reach.

[bahamut920]

There are some changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder that I don't like, but by and large, most of the changes made from 3.0 to 3.5 were for the better. I miss Weapon Master (which got folded into the semi-mystical Kensai), I miss Tall and Long designations for space (although I understand and agree with why it was done), and I think rangers should have a d10 Hit Die (although I greatly appreciate them and monks both getting 6 + Int skill points).

[Mordaedil]

I kinda liked the way DR worked in 3.0 edition. Needing to upgrade your magical sword to overcome that 35/+4 DR made some sense to me. Condensing it all into X/magic just made it lose its purpose to me. Upgrading weapons past +1 just didn't make sense anymore.

Now, after 7th level every monster that could use a weapon had adamantine weapons just to overcome the stoneskin spell.

[ksbsnowowl]

I kind of liked that you used to be able to Partial Charge as a standard action. Now you can only do that if you don't have a move action.

Minor related question: In 3.5 can you legally ready a "partial charge?" Or is there no way to do this other than in the surprise round, or if slowed?


My biggest gripe about the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 are the changes to shape-changing magic. The old versions more closely mimic what you would read about in legends, myths, and sagas. Then 3.5 only cared about being buffed up for one combat.

I also hate the fact they stripped away a bunch of the SLA's from many outsiders and other such creatures. Many of those SLA's that "aren't any good in a fight" were actually quite useful in crafting plots, schemes, and adventure premises. Heck, try to run Lord of the Iron Fortress in strict 3.5 with only the 3.5 Pit Fiend's SLA's... 3.5 stripped out many of his SLA's that are quite prolific in that module.


I kinda liked the way DR worked in 3.0 edition. Needing to upgrade your magical sword to overcome that 35/+4 DR made some sense to me. Condensing it all into X/magic just made it lose its purpose to me. Upgrading weapons past +1 just didn't make sense anymore.

Now, after 7th level every monster that could use a weapon had adamantine weapons just to overcome the stoneskin spell.I liked the old DR too; an ancient red dragon shouldn't care about someone with a +1 sword, but in 3.5 their DR is worthless. When I ran a Norse/Viking-themed game several years ago, I ran it in 3.5, but still treated all DR/Magic as being tiered as DR/+1, DR/+2, etc, modeling the correct "plus value" off of the 3.0 versions of the monsters, or extrapolating from the 3.0 Fiendish Creature template. I also used the 3.0 versions of Polymorph Other, Polymorph Self, etc. (again, wanting spells that more closely mimicked the magic described in the Sagas).

[StreamOfTheSky]

- The rules for weapons of inappropriate size. I don't care that 3.5's is more "realistic," non-Medium martial characters get shafted w/ 3.5's rules.
- The grossly inflated prices of wondrous items in the 3.5 DMG. Like, just compare things like Goggles of Night or Cloak of Arachnida (which got price jacked AND nerfed!) in 3.0 and 3.5 some time. It's crazy how expensive that stuff became, which hurts non-casters more, since casters can replicate some of those effects w/ spells.
- The fact that for some stupid reason, they removed the info about starting encounter distances. It's lead WAY too many people to actually think that Spot checks determine maximum sight range, which nerfs archers pretty badly since a 1st level archer can technically shoot over 1000 ft but has no prayer of actually seeing anything beyond ~250 ft at most by that (again, INCORRECT) interpretation.
- On the note of archers, in 3.0 projectile launcher (bow/xbow) and missile (arrow/bolt) enhancements stacked, which gave them a leg up in a system they've always been pretty weak in. It also meant the Arcane Archer had a purpose (beyond hilarious casting time abuse tricks w/ Imbue Arrow).
- I understand why they made buff durations shorter, but it kinda just amplified the "15 min. adventuring day" issue.
- I think reach weapons simply adding +5 ft to reach (and taking away the 5 ft adjacent to you) was more balanced than 3.5's straight up doubling of reach. It helps martials so it's less an issue, but makes reach weapons a bit too good compared to other options and can also make monsters have ridiculous reach.
- Tall and Long designations officially going away...yet still clearly there unofficially with clearly "long" creatures still having 5 ft less reach than "tall" ones even though the rule itself is gone
- I know someone mentioned the combining of the Polymorph spells as a joke, but iirc in 3.0 Rangers got one of the Polymorph spells (Polymorph Self, I think) while as in 3.5 they took it away since it got merged, which is definitely a nerf to high level Rangers.
- I kind of liked the niche protection of UMD being class-specific to only Rogues and Bards (in core; obviously other splat base classes should also be given access if re-instating said rule for 3.5), and you couldn't take ranks in it as other classes at all.
- In general, a lot of martial prestige classes got nerfed in the transition :smallfurious:

[Fizban]

- The fact that for some stupid reason, they removed the info about starting encounter distances. It's lead WAY too many people to actually think that Spot checks determine maximum sight range, which nerfs archers pretty badly since a 1st level archer can technically shoot over 1000 ft but has no prayer of actually seeing anything beyond ~250 ft at most by that (again, INCORRECT) interpretation.
It's still there? Each terrain type under Wilderness Encounters has encounter distances. But agreed that most people aren't even aware of that, since it's under Wilderness Encounters rather than Starting an Encounter.


Alter Self went from being an improved version of Disguise Self with some minor utility, to the poster child for overpowered low-level buffs. Polymorph needed nerfing, but now there's no way for anyone who's not a druid or monster to reasonably turn into something else for more than a few minutes, which is kindof a major trope. The DMG was partially re-arraigned, so you have to bounce back and forth in the encounter and rewards sections. The Orb of X spells used to be cool variable use spells you could take if you wanted, and instead are now the poster children for "lol-unstoppable caster win even though damage sux."

[Eldariel]

- Heal and Harm being "fixed"; Heal I can see (though given HP totals in the game I'd argue a Heal-like effect is needed) but Harm is...eh, it's a melee range SoD that doesn't actually kill in a game full of lethal SoDs. Mostly the problem is the "penetrating" save-and-still damage but they could've just fixed that.
- Paladin getting Lay on Hands on level 1. I really, really preferred the old Pally in low level adventures; now you can't be the healer before level 2 which really sucks. We had a party collapse because we had no real way of sustaining our health through the encounters so even a small scratch meant long bedrest. I know it's to discourage dipping but honestly, it's based on Pally levels anyways so it's not like dipping for it does much.
- Natural Spell in Core - oh god, why break the Druid even more?! It needs to have some drawback like being a +1 metamagic or requiring full round cast times or consuming an extra lower level slot or whatever. Yeah, Natural Spell existed in Masters of the Wild but they had the perfect chance to fix it and didn't.
- Animal Companion - Speaking of Druids, Animal Friendship is much more logical and interesting and has interplay. Animal companion? "Nature-revering Druid" gets a companion that they lose nothing if it dies and they can just replace it trivially. The old one required doing stuff to get underlings and they didn't magically get superstrong. The new one is just...stupid and kinda even more broken since it's so easy.
- Polymorph Other/Self; they were superbroken (and Alter Self was nothing like it is now) but they were at least consistent and everyone had access to all the forms all day. Now you can't do it...until you hit PAO when you can do all that and then some more. Given how classic a fairy tale subject the permanent polymorph shapes are, I think they need to come online before level 15. And they should've been balanced around that.
- Enlarge/Reduce into Enlarge/Reduce Person - Enlarge is logical and interesting. Enlarge Person is oddly specific, ridiculously strong for its level and less interesting to boot.
- Stat buff spells not lasting hours/level and having fixed outcomes - okay, balance-wise this makes sense but it just feels stupid that there's no way to achieve the buffs provided by magic items with spells. Perhaps at 6th-7th level slots? I dunno, I just find old Bull's Strength more interesting overall, even if it's about using metamagic.
- Metamagic stacking with itself. Oh boy, this is a biggie. Metamagic reducers break it of course, but this actually allows using high level/epic slots for massive area/duration/whatever spells. There was a way to fix this without removing metamagic self stacking (by making metamagic reducers a bit more reasonable for instance).
- Actually useful Fighter PRCs - Master of the Chain? 3.0. Weapon Master? 3.0. Deepwood Sniper? 3.0. Peerless Archer? 3.0. Disciple of Dispater? 3.0. 3.5 has like Exotic Weapon Master (that can't master normal weapons for...some reason) as a 1-level dip while 3.0 is full of full progression (sadly requirement feat heavy) PRCs that are interesting, different and powerful.
- Crit stacking - Yeah, there's no reason it shouldn't stack. It's already restrictive and the math is built around Keen and Improved Crit stacking and this enables PRCs to build upon it but the change basically kills crit fisher archetypes for no good reason without giving anything back.

But I sorta like the change to Haste (since old Haste was stupid broken), and the stat buff/polymorph changes are reasonable balance-wise even if I think they were terribly implement. And some of the class alterations and rules simplifications are cool. They could've done something better with facing though; stuff like Tower Shields and Beholders are really weird with 3.5 rules. I'm sure there's more I can't think of right now.

[Cosi]

Jking aside, I really can't think of any either. 3.5 basically improved everything. Any flaw in 3.5 is also in 3.0.

This is not true. Most notably, 3.0 had a 15k GP cap on magic items made by wish, which 3.5 removed. This turned SLA wish from "fairly good" to "game destroying and absurd" instantly.


Casters are already stupid powerful, no need for them to be stupider powerfuller.

I'm not sure I believe it, but I've seen convincing argument that changing haste made imbalance worse. At low levels, haste for extra spells was relatively inefficient -- you weren't ahead until the second round, and when you only have two to four third level spells, spending one to cast two is not a great deal. At mid levels it was something of a problem, though martials could get it from items. At high levels, mass haste gave everyone extra actions. There were reasons to make the change (extra actions make fights take longer, it was centralizing), but it was largely okay on a balance level. The issue though is that as 3.5 went on, they gave casters back their extra actions (free Quickens, celerity, arcane spellsurge, arcane fusion), but never did anything for mundanes. As a result, casters got the benefits of haste, but martials didn't, amplifying the power gap even though casters were less powerful on paper.

The better fix would likely have been to make the extra action a move action, which is much better for martials (who would like to move and full attack) than casters (who get relatively little value out of another move action).


- I kind of liked the niche protection of UMD being class-specific to only Rogues and Bards (in core; obviously other splat base classes should also be given access if re-instating said rule for 3.5), and you couldn't take ranks in it as other classes at all.

I think this is a reasonable thing to want, but the obvious way to do it would be to make UMD a class feature, rather than screwing around with skills. If you want certain classes to have an exclusive ability, giving it exclusively to those classes is by far superior because it makes the game dramatically more legible. Having it somewhere else makes it too easy to miss.

[RoboEmperor]

This is not true. Most notably, 3.0 had a 15k GP cap on magic items made by wish, which 3.5 removed. This turned SLA wish from "fairly good" to "game destroying and absurd" instantly.

15k GP cap on wish SLAs isn't "fairly good". It's game destroying. Watch me create 9999999999999 scrolls of gate and tell me that's not game destroying. 15kgp cap removal is a good thing. It lets normal users of wish create any magic item they want as long as they pay the XP cost where as before, the feature was utterly useless for normal users of wish.

[Cosi]

15k GP cap on wish SLAs isn't "fairly good". It's game destroying. Watch me create 9999999999999 scrolls of gate and tell me that's not game destroying. 15kgp cap removal is a good thing. It lets normal users of wish create any magic item they want as long as they pay the XP cost where as before, the feature was utterly useless for normal users of wish.

And it's somehow better to let you create a Ring of Infinite gates? New wish is broken in all the ways old wish is broken, and also additional ways. That is, by definition, worse.

[Grod_The_Giant]

15k GP cap on wish SLAs isn't "fairly good". It's game destroying. Watch me create 9999999999999 scrolls of gate and tell me that's not game destroying. 15kgp cap removal is a good thing. It lets normal users of wish create any magic item they want as long as they pay the XP cost where as before, the feature was utterly useless for normal users of wish.
But 9999999 scrolls of Meteor Swarm wouldn't affect your game much. The problem in your scenario is Gate, not Wish. (Also, experience point costs).

[Cosi]

But 9999999 scrolls of Meteor Swarm wouldn't affect your game much. The problem in your scenario is Gate, not Wish. (Also, experience point costs).

Actually, I agree with him that wishing for scrolls is problematic, but it's still problematic without the 15k GP cap, so it's not like removing it fixed anything. Consumables are hard to balance, particularly when you consider people's psychological issues around them (how many campaigns have you ended with unused scrolls/potions/staves/wands?).

[Nifft]

And it's somehow better to let you create a Ring of Infinite gates? New wish is broken in all the ways old wish is broken, and also additional ways. That is, by definition, worse.

Yeah, this.

3.0e Wish was broken.

3.5e Wish is even more broken.

Going back to broken-but-not-as-much isn't a fix, but it is less broken.

IMHO the fix might be something like: gate is very powerful and disruptive, so if you try to use gate more than once per day it costs extra each time. This cost can only be paid by you, the player, in pizza and scotch.

[Pex]

It's been so long I don't remember. I have a feeling changes that bothered me no longer do. I know this is true in some of the spells, being able to grasp why the changes were necessary. The one thing I can say that does bother me is that the 3.0 books became obsolete. I don't regret I bought them, but I'll never use them again. Since I've moved on to Pathfinder I could say the same thing about the 3.5 books. I don't quite have the word for it. It's not disappointment. Sad, maybe but slightly. I miss them? :smallfrown:

[Cosi]

Yeah, this.

3.0e Wish was broken.

3.5e Wish is even more broken.

Going back to broken-but-not-as-much isn't a fix, but it is less broken.

IMHO the fix might be something like: gate is very powerful and disruptive, so if you try to use gate more than once per day it costs extra each time. This cost can only be paid by you, the player, in pizza and scotch.

I think the better fix is just to change the price schedule on scrolls. Bring back the 15k GP cap, make scrolls cost (level * level * 1000 GP) which means you can only wish for scrolls of 3rd level or lower spells*. Then implement the Wish Economy (hard gap between wealth that can be created by wish and wealth that can't, but keep the nominal prices). That also has the knock-on effect of limiting Wizard spells known, particularly high level ones, somewhat more.

*: You can change the fixed part if you want. 750 GP gets you 4ths. 500 GP gets you 5ths. Either might be reasonable, depending on when you expect people to enter the wish economy.

[KillianHawkeye]

I thought it was really cool how Psions of different disciplines each used a different ability score to determine their manifesting power. I played a Psion[egoist] (Strength-based) with a level of Fighter in a 3.0 game, and it was pretty good. Having different primary abilities for the different disciplines was something unusual, something special that really made psionics feel different from magic. Now Psions just feel like alternative Sorcerers.

And although I know they were complicated and maybe weren't implemented in the best way, I sorta miss the old psionic attack/defense modes. Turning them into ordinary powers just means that I'll never use most of them.

Don't get me wrong, 3.5's Expanded Psionics Handbook was about 99% an improvement over the 3e psionic system, it just lost a little something along the way to making everything more usable.

[RoboEmperor]

You gotta look at wish without SLAs. Casting wish yourself to create a 15k gp item is worthless. Casting wish yourself to create any item you want as long as you pay the xp cost has its niche uses.

Wish isn't broken. Infinite free wishes are. You might have a case if a person can have only 1 free wish, but that's not the case, it's either infinite free wishes or no free wishes.

15k gp cap removal does absolutely nothing. It made something broken even more broken? Who cares, no one uses it because it's broken already, so getting upset that it got broken even further is meaningless.

Also the difference between meteor swarm and gate is that Gate has an XP cost you can completely circumvent with the 15k gp cap free wishes. And infinite meteor swarms do break games consideirng you get them the moment you can buy a candle of invocation.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You gotta look at wish without SLAs. Casting wish yourself to create a 15k gp item is worthless. Casting wish yourself to create any item you want as long as you pay the xp cost has its niche uses.

Wish isn't broken. Infinite free wishes are. You might have a case if a person can have only 1 free wish, but that's not the case, it's either infinite free wishes or no free wishes.

15k gp cap removal does absolutely nothing. It made something broken even more broken? Who cares, no one uses it because it's broken already, so getting upset that it got broken even further is meaningless.

I will get annoyed by it because it shows that the Game Designers either didn't know, or didn't care about fixing the problems with the system. And considering that the whole point of 3.5 was to fix 3.0 that's pretty egregious.

[Cosi]

You gotta look at wish without SLAs. Casting wish yourself to create a 15k gp item is worthless. Casting wish yourself to create any item you want as long as you pay the xp cost has its niche uses.

The "use" for non-SLA wish in item creation is that it lets you skip crafting times (it also lets you trade XP for GP, but that is a terrible deal). Insofar as that is good, it is good because crafting times for expensive items are too long, so the solution should be to change that.

Also, you can't just ignore the SLA case. It went from "powerful, but largely fair" to "probably the best ability in the game". That's a problem, and you shouldn't just wave it away.

[Kish]

Weapon sizes. Instead of halflings using longswords two-handed, now there are "small greatswords," to which the only redeeming feature is that the phrase is ridiculous enough to be funny, and a great deal of loot has been pushed in the direction of "to be sold, not used," which doesn't strike me as a good change.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Weapon sizes. Instead of halflings using longswords two-handed, now there are "small greatswords," to which the only redeeming feature is that the phrase is ridiculous enough to be funny, and a great deal of loot has been pushed in the direction of "to be sold, not used," which doesn't strike me as a good change.

Vendor Trash wasn't as much of a thing in 3.0? I did not know that.

Also, yes, Vendor Trash sucks.

[Westhart]

I hate that some really interesting martial PrCs from Sword & Fist all got rolled into "Exotic Weapon Master" in Complete Warrior. :smallfurious:

There's mine :smallbiggrin:

[Nifft]

Weapon sizes! Right, I totally forgot about those. Yeah, we house-ruled the 3.0e behavior back.

The idea of a frost giant's dagger being used as a human's greatsword was just fun.


Regarding 3.0e exotic weapon classes... I liked the Lasher (whip-user). It was full of tricks that I'd associate with Indiana Jones.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Actually, in regard to weapon sizes, it makes much more sense with the way 3.5 does it. A weapons size relative to its user doesn't determine what type of weapon it is, you can't just give a shortsword to a Halfing and call it a longsword, there are differences between the two. Let's use a greatsword and dagger as an example.

First off, what is a Greatsword? Well it's probably either a Zweihander or a Claymore.


https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/warehouse/getpubliccontent?contentId=e7f5947e-43c8-4be9-a285-7a7dc005893b
http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/SH2060.png

Both of these are pretty similar to the Greatsword depicted in the PH.

Now let's look at a dagger.

http://www.darksword-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/norman-medieval-dagger-1803-6.jpg

As you can clearly see, there are significant differences in terms of ratio, most notably in the handle. You can't just size up a dagger and expect someone to wield it like a greatsword.

[The Viscount]

One of the biggest inspirations for D&D is the works of Tolkien, where Bilbo does exactly that. May have been why they included the rules, and I was fine with it even if it's not perfectly realistic. I seem to remember there's still an optional chart for using those rules somewhere in 3.5, i just forget where.

[Kish]

I knew someone was going to say "it's more realistic."

I do not know why anyone would find that a compelling argument--yes, let's make sure our rules for gnomes using swords are highly realistic!--but I knew someone would make it. It does not, however, make me think better of the rule change and thus it does not change my post.

[Psyren]

I agree that "small greatsword" is pretty clunky. But on the other hand, I'd rather not have to come up with a slew of different words for what a pixie, hobbit, human, bugbear and cloud giant would each call the "dagger" at their hip either, or differentiating the halberds that the gnomish army are using from the one my Minotaur whips out, etc. So I can see advantages to {size} {weapon} that have nothing to do with realism.

[The Viscount]

Found it. DMG pg 27 has a chart for some weapon equivalences, which isn't quire the same as the old rule but applies a similar sort of principle.

[Tainted_Scholar]

One of the biggest inspirations for D&D is the works of Tolkien, where Bilbo does exactly that. May have been why they included the rules, and I was fine with it even if it's not perfectly realistic. I seem to remember there's still an optional chart for using those rules somewhere in 3.5, i just forget where.

I'm well aware that Bilbo did that, however it still doesn't really work.


I knew someone was going to say "it's more realistic."

I do not know why anyone would find that a compelling argument--yes, let's make sure our rules for gnomes using swords are highly realistic!--but I knew someone would make it. It does not, however, make me think better of the rule change and thus it does not change my post.

By this logic we shouldn't even bother with any semblance of realism, cause Dragons Y'all! I'm well aware that D&D isn't the most realistic game in the world, but that doesn't mean you can just dismiss attempts at realism.

Additionally it's also much simpler to have the weapons just be different sizes than to have to constantly check and see whether a troll uses a greatsword or a longsword as a dagger, and if a gnome needs martial weapon proficiency to use a shortspear. Which is probably the reason WotC did it in the first place.

All in all, it's better this way.

[atemu1234]

Yeah, this.

3.0e Wish was broken.

3.5e Wish is even more broken.

Going back to broken-but-not-as-much isn't a fix, but it is less broken.

IMHO the fix might be something like: gate is very powerful and disruptive, so if you try to use gate more than once per day it costs extra each time. This cost can only be paid by you, the player, in pizza and scotch.

I like this idea, if only because of my own habit of DMing and nascent alcoholism.


Weapon sizes! Right, I totally forgot about those. Yeah, we house-ruled the 3.0e behavior back.

The idea of a frost giant's dagger being used as a human's greatsword was just fun.


Regarding 3.0e exotic weapon classes... I liked the Lasher (whip-user). It was full of tricks that I'd associate with Indiana Jones.

On the weapon size thing, I still sometimes use it by having a large creature use a greatsword as a dagger or something. It's probably worth a homebrewed feat or something.

[RoboEmperor]

It went from "powerful, but largely fair" to "probably the best ability in the game". That's a problem, and you shouldn't just wave it away.

How is 9999999999 scrolls of gate "largely fair"? How is access to Astral projection, and other level 9 scrolls super low level "fair"?

How is creating infinite 15kgp items, selling it all, and then using that money to buy 100k+ items "fair"?

[GilesTheCleric]

Changes to the skills system. In 3.0, you needed Know: Undead to know about undead, not Know: Religion, which to me makes far more sense if your religion has nothing to do with undead. There was also the Scry skill, which I think is a good additional balance on the power of the spell. Did PF need to scryify Fly? Hmn, maybe not, but Scry definitely needs it.

[Cosi]

How is 9999999999 scrolls of gate "largely fair"? How is access to Astral projection, and other level 9 scrolls super low level "fair"?

You notice how all your examples are one specific kind of item? Something that is broken in one case and not other cases is "largely fair".

How is creating infinite 15kgp items, selling it all, and then using that money to buy 100k+ items "fair"?

Because that's not a problem with wish. It's a problem with WBL, and with the economy not being well implemented. Replace wish with wall of iron, or flesh to salt, or fabricate, or any number of other things, and you still have the problem. Change the assumptions of WBL or the economy and you don't have the problem. This should be a hint that wish is not the problem. In any case I still have no idea how you have convinced yourself that a paradigm where you can just wish for "whatever you want" and skip the intervening steps of "get a bunch of wishes", "sell the crap from your wishes", and "buy the stuff you wanted to begin with" is better.


Changes to the skills system. In 3.0, you needed Know: Undead to know about undead, not Know: Religion, which to me makes far more sense if your religion has nothing to do with undead.

No. There are already too many Knowledges in 3.5. If you start adding any more the game goes nuts. The best solution might to be change to a paradigm like Speak Language (or IIRC 3.0 Perform) where there is one check and you get a number of specialties equal to your rank. But the idea that there should be ever more obscure Knowledges into which you can sink your skill points is a non-starter.

[Fizban]

I wonder how many people have actually checked the small weapon damage on the 3.5 table: small weapons got buffed. Specifically the oft-mentioned small greatsword is a d10, not a d8. Basically all the small two-handed weapons are better than medium one-handed weapons.

If you consider medium creatures to be the dominant race and primary forgers of nearly all weapons, then the 3.0 method has better verisimilitude along with its loot assigning convenience. But it actually makes small weapon users weaker mechanically.

[Quertus]

First and foremost, I hated every nerf to muggles: removing crit stacking, downgrading rhino hide armor, making vorpal only work on a natural 20, nerfing buffs, nerfing stacking empower (etc) on buffs, nerfing Haste, making shuriken ammo, making bonuses on ammo not attack with bonuses on bows etc, nerfing partial charges, nerfing Heal, nerfing body feeder, and raising the prices on so many useful items like winged cloaks, portable holes, etc. And wasn't there some sort of flanking nerf, too?

I also disliked the changes to DR that put the final nail in the coffin of "only a great fool enchants their weapon beyond +1", and making animal companion a class feature instead of a UMD-able spell (I guess you could call that a nerf to muggles, too).

And I'm sad that my ogre psions aren't as cool in 3.5. And that horses went from handy cover to battlefield liability.

I'm sure there's more.

[Gemini476]

The problem with the removal of the 15kgp limit on Wish is that for a whole lot of campaigns the players are going to get free wishes before they reach level 17 and get non-free wishes (if that even happens).

With the 15kgp limit, you can toss a genie in a bottle or whatever at the players and have it be a nice bonus - without it, you can actually wish for more wishes. A scroll of Wish costs 25kgp from experience alone! (You can get a scroll of three Gates within the limit, but then unless you've got CL17 you're risking 9d6 mishap damage with every attempt.)

Whether or not it's still broken with the limit, it's clear that it's more broken without it. A 3.0 genie can't get you a Ring of Infinite Wishes, With Infinite XP Per Wish.

[RoboEmperor]

Whether or not it's still broken with the limit, it's clear that it's more broken without it. A 3.0 genie can't get you a Ring of Infinite Wishes, With Infinite XP Per Wish.

My point is two fold:
1.the 15kgp removal was mandatory for casting wish yourself because of that initial 5,000xp cost. With the cap no one would ever, ever use the magic item creation feature of wish where as without the cap some people like me would rather pay xp than gp for expensive magic items at levels 17+.
2. Free wishes are broken, so I think making this broken thing less broken by removing the above reason is not a good trade. If breaking something broken even further results in an enhancement of a useless feature into a non-useless feature, I'd say lets go for it.

If you disagree then ok, this is where we agree to disagree.

[Cosi]

Why not just cut out the XP cost if you wanted people to use wish to make items? Doing that, but keeping the cap, is dramatically better than doing the reverse. Yes, it breaks WBL, but WBL is already broken so you should fix that instead of routing around it.

[illyahr]

I miss that Improved Grapple was basically a feat version of the Improved Grab ability. Punch a guy, initiate a grapple as a free action without provoking.

Also, the monk's Flurry of Blows math was easier to calculate. Got an extra attack every 3 BAB of monk (or monk equivalent) levels rather than 5 BAB.

[Ashtagon]

I'm well aware that Bilbo did that, however it still doesn't really work.

...

By this logic we shouldn't even bother with any semblance of realism, cause Dragons Y'all! I'm well aware that D&D isn't the most realistic game in the world, but that doesn't mean you can just dismiss attempts at realism.

Additionally it's also much simpler to have the weapons just be different sizes than to have to constantly check and see whether a troll uses a greatsword or a longsword as a dagger, and if a gnome needs martial weapon proficiency to use a shortspear. Which is probably the reason WotC did it in the first place.

All in all, it's better this way.

I'm fine with it. D&D is, at heart, a fantasy novel simulator. That means any realism has to give way to the tropes present in the source material. And that means hobbits can wield troll knives as longswords.

[Hecuba]

Call me crazy (and I know people will), but I actually liked the underlying chassis of 3.0 Psion. The system had implementation problems, balance problems with the with the rest of 3.0 and p-combat in particular was cancer.

But 3.0 Psion effectively gave an option for more-or-less classless D&D, with ability scores acting as the gateway for specific abilities rather than classes. I still revisit it occasionally for custom settings (generally with lots of piecemeal updates and enemies using the same chassis).

[Chronikoce]

How is creating infinite 15kgp items, selling it all, and then using that money to buy 100k+ items "fair"?

Where are you selling these items? Does anyone actually play in a game where the DM has cities with absurd wealth on hand to allow WBL breaking?

If someone has the necessary wealth, they must have a way of protecting it. Also, why would they be willing to part with their wealth for the random items your trying to convince them to buy?

[Mordaedil]

Wish isn't that broken if you still force the players to pay the cost for it. That xp cost is pretty huge.


Call me crazy (and I know people will), but I actually liked the underlying chassis of 3.0 Psion. The system had implementation problems, balance problems with the with the rest of 3.0 and p-combat in particular was cancer.

But 3.0 Psion effectively gave an option for more-or-less classless D&D, with ability scores acting as the gateway for specific abilities rather than classes. I still revisit it occasionally for custom settings (generally with lots of piecemeal updates and enemies using the same chassis).

I agree actually, it felt really unique when it was a caster that relied on every attribute, while the 3.5 Psion was too much like the wizard to what I like. Yeah, it probably plays better, but 3.0 looked more interesting on paper. I might bring up with my DM a way to have a merger of the two systems.

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, the monk's Flurry of Blows math was easier to calculate. Got an extra attack every 3 BAB of monk (or monk equivalent) levels rather than 5 BAB.

It worked fine for single-classed Monks or if you went into a Monk-friendly Prestige Class. Any other multi-classing caused a lot of problems with it, though. The 3.5's Flurry is not only more powerful than the 3e version, it's also much easier to math for multi-classers because everything is based on your total BAB like normal.

[illyahr]

It worked fine for single-classed Monks or if you went into a Monk-friendly Prestige Class. Any other multi-classing caused a lot of problems with it, though. The 3.5's Flurry is not only more powerful than the 3e version, it's also much easier to math for multi-classers because everything is based on your total BAB like normal.

Why would you multi class out of monk? It's the strongest class! Just look at all those class features!

[ShurikVch]

Alchemical items: "You must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items" :smallfrown: Why? Just - why?

Dragon Disciple: 3.0 version got +1 size at 5th level, which may be very useful for gishes
Elemental Savant was 9/10 CL (and "lost" level is 10th); 3.5 Energy Focus is +2 at 10th, 3.0 Elemental Focus - +3 at 9th
Mindbender was 7/10 CL



Casters are already stupid powerful, no need for them to be stupider powerfuller.As erik at The Gaming Den (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50412&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50) said, "Losing the ability to move+full attack hurt fighters way more than the double-casting wizards."



15k GP cap on wish SLAs isn't "fairly good". It's game destroying. Watch me create 9999999999999 scrolls of gate and tell me that's not game destroying.:smallconfused: What's are you talking about?
The "9999999999999 scrolls of gate" will take 9999999999999 casts of 3.0 Wish - hardly game-destroying
If you meant "use the called Genie" - then it will still take 3333333333333 casts of calling spell
Infinite and free Wishes are a reason for hard ban at the best case, and at the worst - "Corrupt a Wish" minigame



Changes to the skills system. In 3.0, you needed Know: Undead to know about undead, not Know: Religion, which to me makes far more sense if your religion has nothing to do with undead.AFAIK, Knowledge (Undead) wasn't Core skill in 3.0
No, I know it's existed (because there are examples of it in Defenders of the Faith, Deities and Demigods, and Monster Manual II), but from where it?
Also, similar logic can be applied to another monsters:
Dragons are Knowledge (arcana)? But what if our character is from Deep Imaskari? Their magic doesn't have anything to do with Dragons - because was invented when Dragons weren't a thing yet. Will need the Knowledge (dragon lore).
Goblins are Knowledge (local)? But what kind of (local)? What if wherever "local" we know weren't any goblins? Knowledge (goblins) is necessarily.



Also, the monk's Flurry of Blows math was easier to calculate. Got an extra attack every 3 BAB of monk (or monk equivalent) levels rather than 5 BAB.Flurry of Blows wasn't a thing in 3.0 - Monk just hit that fast when unarmed, without FoB penalty(/bonus)



I'm irritated by Ninja of the Crescent Moon being folded into ninja in the update. It wasn't the best class, but it had some unique features that ninja doesn't have, and now by RAW you cannot take the class.AFAIK, no such RAW; you can take it if you want, or even go Monk 2/Ninja 5/Ninja of the Crescent Moon
I hate that some really interesting martial PrCs from Sword & Fist all got rolled into "Exotic Weapon Master" in Complete Warrior. :smallfurious:Actually, Exotic Weapon Master was in 3.0 too - in Masters of the Wild; and I don't seen anywhere RAW about "rolling into" it 3.0 classes
- Actually useful Fighter PRCs - Master of the Chain? 3.0. Weapon Master? 3.0. Deepwood Sniper? 3.0. Peerless Archer? 3.0. Disciple of Dispater? 3.0. 3.5 has like Exotic Weapon Master (that can't master normal weapons for...some reason) as a 1-level dip while 3.0 is full of full progression (sadly requirement feat heavy) PRCs that are interesting, different and powerful.Any 3.0 PrC which wasn't outright reprinted for 3.5 is still available "as is"
Exceptions are cases such as the Tamer of Beasts, which is required ranks in skill which doesn't exist anymore, ability to cast spell which doesn't exist anymore, and rely on mechanics which doesn't exist anymore
If you want to be thorough, can also look into 595 CY Conversion Guidelines (http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LG_595CY_Conversion.zip), which specifically removes (by replacing with closest 3.5 analogues) the Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, Shifter, Tamer of Beasts, and Templar.

[Thurbane]

AFAIK, no such RAW; you can take it if you want, or even go Monk 2/Ninja 5/Ninja of the Crescent MoonActually, Exotic Weapon Master was in 3.0 too - in Masters of the Wild; and I don't seen anywhere RAW about "rolling into" it 3.0 classesAny 3.0 PrC which wasn't outright reprinted for 3.5 is still available "as is"

I can't find the document right at the moment, but I'm fairly sure somewhere in errata or a conversion document pdf, it was explicitly stated that several PrCs from S&F, including Lasher and Master of Chains, were considered replaced by the CW (3.5) version of Exotic Weapon master. Same with Psychic Weapon Master too, IIRC.

I would be more than happy to be wrong on this one.

The bad news can be found here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x

The good news is it only seems to apply to Weapon Master and Master of Chains, not Lasher or Psychic Weapon master

[Nifft]

were considered replaced by the CW (3.5) version of Exotic Weapon master. Same with Psychic Weapon Master too, IIRC.

There was a half-casting 3.5 Psychic Weapon Master: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d

... but it's not great when compared to the 7/10 PWM from 3.0: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20020927a


Both version require SIX feats, three of them very bad (Dodge, Psi Dodge, Mobility).

It's not good for a full-BAB half-caster to require 3rd level powers.

[Knaight]

I'm fine with it. D&D is, at heart, a fantasy novel simulator. That means any realism has to give way to the tropes present in the source material. And that means hobbits can wield troll knives as longswords.

The source material is several different works with mutually contradictory assumptions, and there's plenty of fantasy novels which make a point of having the weaponry be somewhat grounded (including Lord of the Rings, but not The Hobbit).

[Quertus]

Flurry of Blows wasn't a thing in 3.0 - Monk just hit that fast when unarmed, without FoB penalty(/bonus)

Um, what? "Flurry of Blows" is under the 3.0 monk's 1st level Unarmed Strike ability, on p.39 of the PHB. Extra attack, -2 penalty, blah blah blah.

[StreamOfTheSky]

As erik at The Gaming Den (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50412&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50) said, "Losing the ability to move+full attack hurt fighters way more than the double-casting wizards."

Meh, 3.5 eventually gave back a lot of ways to move + full attack, so I'd bewary of letting casters double-caster again (plus quickened spells!).
Ideally, Haste would work like the opposite of Slow and give you an extra MOVE action (you know, slow reduces you to a standard, so it's effectively taking away a move action....anyway...). Then the fighters can move and full attack and the casters can...move/cast/move, I guess?
The martials get a nice thing, the casters get little value, everyone wins!
(Could let the hasted person choose each round to get an extra move or an extra attack, if you want, too....)

[Psyren]

Meh, 3.5 eventually gave back a lot of ways to move + full attack, so I'd bewary of letting casters double-caster again (plus quickened spells!).
Ideally, Haste would work like the opposite of Slow and give you an extra MOVE action (you know, slow reduces you to a standard, so it's effectively taking away a move action....anyway...). Then the fighters can move and full attack and the casters can...move/cast/move, I guess?
The martials get a nice thing, the casters get little value, everyone wins!
(Could let the hasted person choose each round to get an extra move or an extra attack, if you want, too....)

Agree completely with this; it's quite possible to make Haste better for martials without making it double all your casters' power.

[Forrestfire]

Heck, look at Starfinder's haste. Thanks to the changes to full attacks, they made it give you a pseudopounce instead. A simple buff to the spell to aid martials without getting double-casters would just be "the 30 feet of movement given is free, instead of a speed bonus." Or, as suggested, make it a choice between a free move and an extra attack.

[Nifft]

Even as a bonus Move action, it's still useful for casters -- especially spontaneous metamagic users.

It doesn't double their casting power, but it is tactically significant.

[Forrestfire]

Yes, that's true. It is tactically-significant, but it's not a power increase to the same level as 3.0 haste, and overall seems vaguely okay to me. If you wanted, you could make it so that it only lets you move during a full attack, or gives pounce, or similar, I suppose.

[Anymage]

The devs overestimated the benefit of spontaneous metamagic, and the existing costs are enough that it'd be balanced without the cast time extension.

Even if that weren't the case, being able to "spell spring attack" (move out of cover, cast, move back behind cover) would be a far bigger benefit than being able to metamagic + move. And of course, de facto pounce for martials would make casting it on the fighter a worthwhile option.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The devs overestimated the benefit of spontaneous metamagic, and the existing costs are enough that it'd be balanced without the cast time extension.

Even if that weren't the case, being able to "spell spring attack" (move out of cover, cast, move back behind cover) would be a far bigger benefit than being able to metamagic + move. And of course, de facto pounce for martials would make casting it on the fighter a worthwhile option.

"Spell Spring Attack" is still nice. But most of my casters have that anyway, because Flyby Attack exists.
C.Arcana also has a feat explicitly to move-cast-move, but requires a concentration check and is overall just worse than picking up Flyby attack.

So while Haste that grants a bonus move would still be useful to casters...it's not adding that much to them. But for the monk, rogue, fighter, etc...? Pretty helpful.

[Cosi]

Agree completely with this; it's quite possible to make Haste better for martials without making it double all your casters' power.

Sure, but as I (I think) pointed out earlier in this thread, if you take haste away from both casters and martials, then give casters arcane spellsurge, arcane fusion, DMM: Quicken, and Supernatural abilities from shapechange all you've achieved is to take extra actions away from martials, which is clearly less balanced.

[ShurikVch]

3.0 Lion's Charge was a Druid 1 or Sorcerer/Wizard 2 spell, with Touch range and 1 minute/level duration; 3.5 Lion's Charge is Ranger 2/Druid 3 spell with personal range and 1 round duration



[edit] The bad news can be found here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110xThankfully, this page isn't errata - we aren't obliged to obey it
Clearly, somebody who thought Weapon Master and Exotic Weapon Master is the same class is never read the books
It looks more like a result of autocorrection (Dawizard strikes again!)
I suggesting to regard it like the Rules of the Game (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) article series



Um, what? "Flurry of Blows" is under the 3.0 monk's 1st level Unarmed Strike ability, on p.39 of the PHB. Extra attack, -2 penalty, blah blah blah.I'm sorry.
I was incorrect: actually, 3.0 Flurry of Blows exists - as a part of Unarmed Strike class feature
But you was incorrect too: "extra attack every 3 BAB" wasn't a part of Flurry of Blows - you got it anyway (presuming usage of "correct weapon"); 3.0 Flurry of Blows was a melee variant of Rapid Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidShot) - one extra attack by the cost of -2 to all attacks



Meh, 3.5 eventually gave back a lot of ways to move + full attackYeah, it did...
Kinda...
Tome of Battle is a good book, but appeared really really late
Two Weapon Pounce feat allows only 2 attacks. Meh!
Catfolk Pounce feat is racial (for race with LA +1!), and works only against flatfooted opponents
Lion Tribe Warrior and Snow Tiger Berserker feats are regional (and light weapon only)
Anthropomorphic and Feral creatures are ECL-heavy
The easiest way is (as we know) a Lion Totem Barbarian.
But it became a problem - apparently, any character who want to be competent melee is Lion Totem Barbarian nowadays:
Knight?
Paladin?!
Monk?!!
Lion Totem Barbarian!

[DEMON]

Order of the Bow Initiate suckage and the general lack of decent archer-PrCs converted from 3.0 to 3.5.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Agree completely with this; it's quite possible to make Haste better for martials without making it double all your casters' power.

Does 3.5 not have Pathfinder's "No casting more than two spells per turn, ever" rule?

[Cosi]

Does 3.5 not have Pathfinder's "No casting more than two spells per turn, ever" rule?

Is that a real rule in Pathfinder? They didn't trust themselves to not accidentally put in some way of getting off three spells in a turn so, they hardcoded it in?

[Nifft]

Does 3.5 not have Pathfinder's "No casting more than two spells per turn, ever" rule?

I never saw such a thing in 3.0e nor in 3.5e, so I suspect there is no such rule.

[Deepbluediver]

Meh, 3.5 eventually gave back a lot of ways to move + full attack, so I'd bewary of letting casters double-caster again (plus quickened spells!).
Ideally, Haste would work like the opposite of Slow and give you an extra MOVE action (you know, slow reduces you to a standard, so it's effectively taking away a move action....anyway...). Then the fighters can move and full attack and the casters can...move/cast/move, I guess?
The martials get a nice thing, the casters get little value, everyone wins!
(Could let the hasted person choose each round to get an extra move or an extra attack, if you want, too....)
If we start talking about missed opportunities we'll be here all day.
Anywho, I think the whole action-economy system need to be revamped (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?521471-A-New-Way-to-Handle-Actions-and-Timing) for increased flexibility, but AFAIK WotC keeps passing by on anything that dramatic. Maybe for fear of making D&D not feel like D&D, but it seems like they keep sticking with very specifically defined actions that make it hard to adjust your TURN as opposed to merely tweaking specific things you can do.

[Forrestfire]

I never saw such a thing in 3.0e nor in 3.5e, so I suspect there is no such rule.

It's not stated, merely implied.


A spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

[Nifft]

It's not stated, merely implied.

Neat, thanks.

[Psyren]

Does 3.5 not have Pathfinder's "No casting more than two spells per turn, ever" rule?


It's not stated, merely implied.

It's also immediately overridden, so it can be disregarded. For example:


Quicken Spell [Metamagic]

Benefit
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity.

But the question in this thread was regarding 3.0 Haste, which gives you a partial action. Remember that in 3.0, a "standard action" includes moving up to your speed; a partial action is a standard action but without the ability to move (or at least, move without a 5-foot step.) "Cast a spell" is explicitly allowed as a partial action per the 3.0 table. Worse, 3.0 does not appear to have the language above about "one spell per round" either.

[Mordaedil]

The wording for quicken spell and "normal casting time" is there because they had not yet invented swift and immediate actions. Quicken spell is meant to be a swift action with the new terminology and the wording is a result of trying to keep free action a thing, even if there's very few things left that are free actions.

[Svata]

Changes to the skills system. In 3.0, you needed Know: Undead to know about undead, not Know: Religion, which to me makes far more sense if your religion has nothing to do with undead. There was also the Scry skill, which I think is a good additional balance on the power of the spell. Did PF need to scryify Fly? Hmn, maybe not, but Scry definitely needs it.

Eh, skill-list consolidation is a good thing, IMO. You barely get enough skill points for them to be useful as-is, no need to make there be even MORE skills no one ever has points to drop into. Also it exacerbates the Wizards>Sorcerers problem, as sorcs get far fewer skill points because their casting stat doesn't give them.

[Psyren]

The wording for quicken spell and "normal casting time" is there because they had not yet invented swift and immediate actions. Quicken spell is meant to be a swift action with the new terminology and the wording is a result of trying to keep free action a thing, even if there's very few things left that are free actions.

Indeed, I'm aware of that, but the fact remains that it explicitly overrides the "one spell per round" line in the same book.


Eh, skill-list consolidation is a good thing, IMO. You barely get enough skill points for them to be useful as-is, no need to make there be even MORE skills no one ever has points to drop into. Also it exacerbates the Wizards>Sorcerers problem, as sorcs get far fewer skill points because their casting stat doesn't give them.

Agreed, and in fact, Starfinder has consolidated the skills even more (while making 4+Int the minimum.)

[Eldariel]

Honestly, while skill consolidation is good, the game would really benefit of a bit more indepth skill system in general. Divide all the skills to categories, pick proficient categories with overarching bonuses and then have the ability to specialize in subskills. Would make things like skill limits, animal skills ('cause it totally makes sense that animals have no skill points for climb/move silently/hide/etc. due to their hardcap 2 Int but would have no problems taking ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, Use Magic Device and Spellcraft with their 1 point per HD...), etc. make sense. Then just a better resolution mechanic at least for social skills. One with options and personality types and slightly more in-depth attitudes and so on.

But yeah, for the trainwreck that is 3.X skill system (I started by giving everyone 8+Int skills and then 20+Int for the actual skill monkeys), yeah, it's absolutely necessary unless you vastly increase the skill point allotment. And even then, some skills are just way too bad and some too good.

[Deepbluediver]

Agreed, and in fact, Starfinder has consolidated the skills even more (while making 4+Int the minimum.)
I've seen the occasional complaint that consolidating skills and increasing the number of skill-points is an indirect nerf to skillmonkey classes because it makes their main shtick less special. I'd say that's an argument for improving the class, not having 101 skills, 80% of which are useless outside of very narrowly defined situations.

I've got a fix in the works where I've condensed the 3.5 list down to about 30, and I heard that 5th edition has an even slimmer list than that.

[Eldariel]

I've seen the occasional complaint that consolidating skills and increasing the number of skill-points is an indirect nerf to skillmonkey classes because it makes their main shtick less special. I'd say that's an argument for improving the class, not having 101 skills, 80% of which are useless outside of very narrowly defined situations.

I've got a fix in the works where I've condensed the 3.5 list down to about 30, and I heard that 5th edition has an even slimmer list than that.

I much would prefer if the system gave some general competence in an area you learn; it's hard to buy a very suave diplomatic guy who can't tell a lie for the life of him. And socially skilled characters who can't be intimidating are equally implausible. General areas of competence and further specialization in subskills carries many advantages over the default system.

[Deepbluediver]

I much would prefer if the system gave some general competence in an area you learn; it's hard to buy a very suave diplomatic guy who can't tell a lie for the life of him. And socially skilled characters who can't be intimidating are equally implausible. General areas of competence and further specialization in subskills carries many advantages over the default system.
In general I think you're right, though you always lose something when you shift from many small choices to just a few bigger ones. For example, I remember one campaign where I intentionally didn't put any ranks in "sense motive" because I was play a naive, unworldly character, despite the fact that I was the only party member with both Sense Motive as a class skill and who benefited from stacking Wisdom. I had great fun playing THAT GUY, who'd be like "yes we'd be happy to deal with your totally accidental rampaging skeleton problem for no reward because it threatens the local orphanage".

[Luccan]

I've seen the occasional complaint that consolidating skills and increasing the number of skill-points is an indirect nerf to skillmonkey classes because it makes their main shtick less special. I'd say that's an argument for improving the class, not having 101 skills, 80% of which are useless outside of very narrowly defined situations.

I've got a fix in the works where I've condensed the 3.5 list down to about 30, and I heard that 5th edition has an even slimmer list than that.

5e does it by having you select a list of skills you apply a static, level-based bonus to. The rogue gets to select more and eventually double their bonus in some of those skills. I think one type of bard gets it too.

[bahamut920]

I much would prefer if the system gave some general competence in an area you learn; it's hard to buy a very suave diplomatic guy who can't tell a lie for the life of him. And socially skilled characters who can't be intimidating are equally implausible. General areas of competence and further specialization in subskills carries many advantages over the default system.
I'd be fine with the game mechanics conceit of giving people general competencies instead of more narrowly defined skills and then allowing for "specializations" in the 3.5 skills, but I don't understand why you find the concept of a diplomatic fellow unable to lie or be scary so confusing. How many times do you hear something like "he's a nice guy, but he can't tell a lie to save his life" (high Diplomacy, no Bluff), or "he's just a big teddy bear; nobody would be scared of him" (high Diplomacy, no Intimidate). How many times have you felt scared of a used-car salesman (high Bluff, no Intimidate)?

[Eldariel]

In general I think you're right, though you always lose something when you shift from many small choices to just a few bigger ones. For example, I remember one campaign where I intentionally didn't put any ranks in "sense motive" because I was play a naive, unworldly character, despite the fact that I was the only party member with both Sense Motive as a class skill and who benefited from stacking Wisdom. I had great fun playing THAT GUY, who'd be like "yes we'd be happy to deal with your totally accidental rampaging skeleton problem for no reward because it threatens the local orphanage".

I prefer doing that with "drawbacks"/"flaws"-sort of mechanic; I think baseline concept should be the default and the one-job prodigies the exceptions.


I'd be fine with the game mechanics conceit of giving people general competencies instead of more narrowly defined skills and then allowing for "specializations" in the 3.5 skills, but I don't understand why you find the concept of a diplomatic fellow unable to lie or be scary so confusing. How many times do you hear something like "he's a nice guy, but he can't tell a lie to save his life" (high Diplomacy, no Bluff), or "he's just a big teddy bear; nobody would be scared of him" (high Diplomacy, no Intimidate). How many times have you felt scared of a used-car salesman (high Bluff, no Intimidate)?

Well, I don't especially think "Nice guy" goes for Diplomacy - Diplomacy is someone who's skilled at persuading people to take their side. In general, I'd say Diplomacy takes more than a good deal of skills in manipulation and altering the ways people look at things, which translates naturally into Bluff and Intimidate. I'd see the hyperdiplomancer with no skills at any other kind of social manipulation more of an exception (implemented via. drawbacks) rather than the rule.

[GilesTheCleric]

Eh, skill-list consolidation is a good thing, IMO. You barely get enough skill points for them to be useful as-is, no need to make there be even MORE skills no one ever has points to drop into. Also it exacerbates the Wizards>Sorcerers problem, as sorcs get far fewer skill points because their casting stat doesn't give them.
I agree skill list consolidation is good, but I think PF's linguistics/ perception/ athletics solution was better. 3.5 tying creature types to the existing knowledges rubs me the wrong way.

[Svata]

I've seen the occasional complaint that consolidating skills and increasing the number of skill-points is an indirect nerf to skillmonkey classes because it makes their main shtick less special. I'd say that's an argument for improving the class, not having 101 skills, 80% of which are useless outside of very narrowly defined situations.

I've got a fix in the works where I've condensed the 3.5 list down to about 30, and I heard that 5th edition has an even slimmer list than that.

5e doesn't have a skill system. 5e has you pick a handful of skills at L1, get a marginal bonus to them that will only help you pass skill checks a tiny amount of the time, unless you're a rogue, in which case you have actual progression, but are guaranteed to make every skill check.

[Luccan]

5e doesn't have a skill system. 5e has you pick a handful of skills at L1, get a marginal bonus to them that will only help you pass skill checks a tiny amount of the time, unless you're a rogue, in which case you have actual progression, but are guaranteed to make every skill check.

Basically this. 5e does consolidate skills a lot (much like 4e, if I remember the player's handbook correctly), but the actual system is so poorly defined that the 5e forum had an argument for weeks (might still be ongoing) about whether or not you can actually make use of your skills in any meaningful way.

Edit: And perhaps the most important thing, the default game rules don't allow feats or multiclassing, which are the only way to get new skills. And if you do take a feat, you give up attribute boosts, which are very important in 5e.

[Psyren]

I've seen the occasional complaint that consolidating skills and increasing the number of skill-points is an indirect nerf to skillmonkey classes because it makes their main shtick less special. I'd say that's an argument for improving the class, not having 101 skills, 80% of which are useless outside of very narrowly defined situations.

I've got a fix in the works where I've condensed the 3.5 list down to about 30, and I heard that 5th edition has an even slimmer list than that.

You got me curious, so I quickly thumbed through my books.

Rough skill counts by edition core (not counting subselections like Knowledge, Perform and 3.0 Ride)

3.0: ~44
3.5: ~36
Pathfinder: ~26
4e: 17
5e: 18
Starfinder: 20

I don't have 20/20 vision so if someone wants to double-check those they can feel free.

EDIT: And yes, the 5e count is for "proficiency bonuses to ability checks" rather than true skills.

[Nifft]

The best way I found to do skills was to have overlapping competencies.
- Many skills are wide, and apply to a large number of checks, but at a penalty as the check becomes less central to the skill.
- Some skills are narrow, and apply to a smaller number of checks, but never suffer a penalty.


An example: let's say you have Athletics and Acrobatics.

What is a Jump check? Usually it's whichever is better, between Athletics or Acrobatics. If you have both, then you have an advantage on tricky edge-cases (like mid-air attacks or unusually difficult landings) -- maybe +5 to that check, or maybe roll-both-keep-best (per 5e).


Another example: let's say you want to tie a knot. You can roll Survival for basic knots, Profession (sailor) for nautical knots, Escape Artist for esoteric slip-knots, Athletics for basic knots used in mountaineering, or any applicable Craft... and if you're that one guy who took Use Rope, you probably tie the best knots.

Let's say you want to untie (or escape from) a knot. Do you have the same skill, or the same family of applicability, as the skill used to tie the knot? If you were tied up by River Goblins, then the knot is probably nautical -- Profession (sailor) would have no penalty. That one guy who took Use Rope always makes these checks without a penalty, of course. It's a narrow skill so it always applies perfectly within its focus.


This requires a good shared understanding between players & DM, but if you've practiced that with broad-competence games like FATE, then you might find it usable in D&D as well.

[Svata]

3.5 HAS that. Skill Synergies, they're called. (you get a +2 bonus to skill x if you have 5 ranks in skill y. Example- If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get +2 on Disguise checks when you know that you're being observed and try to act in character.)

[Luccan]

3.5 HAS that. Skill Synergies, they're called. (you get a +2 bonus to skill x if you have 5 ranks in skill y. Example- If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get +2 on Disguise checks when you know that you're being observed and try to act in character.)

I think the main problem is its very specific what helps what and synergies that should go both ways don't.

[Svata]

True, it isn't a perfect system, but it IS in place

[Deepbluediver]

You got me curious, so I quickly thumbed through my books.

Rough skill counts by edition core (not counting subselections like Knowledge, Perform and 3.0 Ride)

3.0: ~44
3.5: ~36
Pathfinder: ~26
4e: 17
5e: 18
Starfinder: 20

I don't have 20/20 vision so if someone wants to double-check those they can feel free.
Counting all the Knowledge skills individually, I get 52, but that includes stuff from non-core sources like Use Psionic Device and Martial Lore, stuff that's class-specific like Truename, and stuff from Oriental Adventures like Iaijutsu Focus and Knowledge (War) (mentioned once in the introduction, AFAIK, and never again). I also think I only included Perform once and left out Knowledge (Shadowlands) as being overly-setting reliant.

[Nifft]

3.5 HAS that. Skill Synergies, they're called. (you get a +2 bonus to skill x if you have 5 ranks in skill y. Example- If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get +2 on Disguise checks when you know that you're being observed and try to act in character.)

That's not at all the same thing, but it was part of the inspiration for what I described.

So: kinda yes, but mostly no.

[ShurikVch]

I didn't like the fact: duration of Divine Might feat was reduced to 1 turn

[Psyren]

Counting all the Knowledge skills individually, I get 52, but that includes stuff from non-core sources like Use Psionic Device and Martial Lore, stuff that's class-specific like Truename, and stuff from Oriental Adventures like Iaijutsu Focus and Knowledge (War) (mentioned once in the introduction, AFAIK, and never again). I also think I only included Perform once and left out Knowledge (Shadowlands) as being overly-setting reliant.

I limited it to core for each because in 3e's case, splats added a whole bunch of obscure ones like Lucid Dreaming and I didn't feel like counting them all. If you do include those (and split out the knowledges) then yes, it gets even more unwieldy and the gap grows.

[Deepbluediver]

I limited it to core for each because in 3e's case, splats added a whole bunch of obscure ones like Lucid Dreaming and I didn't feel like counting them all. If you do include those (and split out the knowledges) then yes, it gets even more unwieldy and the gap grows.
I'm not familiar with most of 3.0- I only included the stuff from OA because Iaijutsu Focus is occasionally mentioned in some Charisma-based melee builds.

I'd be kind of curious what other 3.0 stuff they invented.