| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Mr. Leet07-12-05, 08:47 PM | I've been wondering lately if the 3.5 edition is really worth spending the money on for a poor guy like me. What do you guys think are the pros and cons with 3.0 and 3.5? I haven't really rad any 3.5 books yet, so I wouldn't know. Maybe I could just houserule certain things to mimic the improvements of 3.5 and keep my 3.0 books? I don't really have enough money to upgrade at the moment, and I don't think my players would like to spend the extra do'. Anyone? |
| ATynam07-12-05, 08:56 PM | First of all there is a downloadable upgrade booklet here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a |
| VirgilCaine07-12-05, 09:05 PM | And second, the SRD is available for free. But third, except for, say, changing Haste to a move action instead of a partial and keeping Endure Elements worth casting...not a whole lot to change. Well, and rangers. |
| LordHell07-12-05, 09:09 PM | 3.5 IMO is overall more polished and probably the better system. Im playing in 3.0 right now and DMing 3.5 From a balance perspective however, it's not a huge improvement over 3.0. They fixed some things, they broke others. I think on the whole though there are less issues with 3.5 than there are in 3.0. |
| rbrt_Spade07-13-05, 10:13 AM | mr. leet i have 3.o core and just use the conversion guide to make it 3.5 use it its good.-i see no point on buying brand new core books. i use 3.0/3.5 things and just convert to 3.5 |
| Mr. Leet07-13-05, 11:51 AM | mr. leet i have 3.o core and just use the conversion guide to make it 3.5 use it its good.-i see no point on buying brand new core books. i use 3.0/3.5 things and just convert to 3.5 I was thinking the same thing, hon. Merci I'll have a looksie at the SRD and see what to change. Thanks guys |
| High Octane07-13-05, 01:33 PM | 3.5 is just a patched 3.0. They removed a couple of skills, lumped others into other skills, and renamed some skills to sound better. Also they eliminated class exclusive skills. Haste was edited because apparantly 3.0's version was game breaking. For some reason THAT of all things gets everyones attention. Gnomes have Bard instead of Illusionist as a favored class. Rangers and Monks got a major overhaul. The rest of the classes werent edited too much. Rangers are now worth playing after level 1. Some feats got revisions and a couple, like ambidexterity, got eliminated altogether. Taking damage doesnt automatically cause you to lose a spell, instead there is a concentration check. These are the types of things that were changed. Are they an improvement? In my opinion, absolutely. Are they worth buying a new set of books over? Hell no.best advice, use the upgrade packet, and have the next new guy buy the new books since he will have to anyway. |
| Always-Late07-13-05, 01:38 PM | Small characters can use cooler weapons in 3.5 |
| rbrt_Spade07-13-05, 01:40 PM | small people can still use greatswords etc.in 3.0 just lower the size and weight by 1/2- |
| Draconis V07-13-05, 02:01 PM | 3.5 is just a patched 3.0. They removed a couple of skills, lumped others into other skills, and renamed some skills to sound better. Also they eliminated class exclusive skills. Haste was edited because apparantly 3.0's version was game breaking. For some reason THAT of all things gets everyones attention. Gnomes have Bard instead of Illusionist as a favored class. Rangers and Monks got a major overhaul. The rest of the classes werent edited too much. Rangers are now worth playing after level 1. Some feats got revisions and a couple, like ambidexterity, got eliminated altogether. Taking damage doesnt automatically cause you to lose a spell, instead there is a concentration check. These are the types of things that were changed. Are they an improvement? In my opinion, absolutely. Are they worth buying a new set of books over? Hell no.best advice, use the upgrade packet, and have the next new guy buy the new books since he will have to anyway. You didn't mention that BARDS got an overhaul! Why doesn't anyone ever remember that? I went to make a Bard with my friend's 3.0 PHB, and ended up dropping it in disgust. Bards got shafted in 3.0. Their music was so much worse than 3.5 music--which is to say, heinously underpowered. Inspire Courage never improved after the +2 bonus, and as I recall their higher-level music abilities were either nonexistent or pathetically weak. That left them with a Fair BAB, two good saves, Bardic Knowledge, and a handful of semi-useful spells. Maybe not as God-awful as the 3.0 Ranger, but right up there. The 3.5 Bard is a bit underpowered, but at least he can do something useful with his music. Hail to 3.5! |
| Lycanthromancer07-13-05, 02:16 PM | And then there's 3.5 psionics. THE EXPANDED PSIONICS HANDBOOK IS DEFINITELY WORTH BUYING, even if you already have the 3.0 version *ptooie-yuck-ptooie*. I have to wash my mouth out for even mentioning that 3.0 piece of...Well, you know. Definitely have a look at the XPHB. :D |
| Mr. Leet07-13-05, 09:09 PM | I have a feeling that the game designers actually made some mistakes with 3.0 so they could release a 3.5 and make some extra cash, but who am I to judge :P *senses a flamewar* (but please... Why flames? Why don't you just see life as the beautiful thing it is, and stop wasting your time arguing over the internet?) |
| Vaelan07-14-05, 12:47 AM | Their music was so much worse than 3.5 music At least you only had to take one level of Bard to get all of their music. :P 3.5 fixed the Bard and changed the Ranger significantly. It also made the weapon size systems a little less complicated. For spells it is really a toss-up. We got rid of the broken Haste and Harm, but now we have Shapechange and a few area effect instant death spells that allow no saves. |
| WCH07-14-05, 01:09 AM | One thing no one has mentioned yet is Damage Reduction. DR now doesn't get as insanely high as it used to (where it got up to like 40/+5). Now it caps at 20 (I think? Or was it 15?) and has weaknesses based on type of weapon, not on strength of magic. So... DR/magic for magical beasts, DR/cold iron for fey and other chaotics, DR/silver for lawful creatures, etc. /magic is the only one of those I'm not completely happy with, as it means that a mere +1 weapon can bypass the DR of the strongest magical beast. Still, it's an improvement overall, replacing a system which was based on power with a system based on flavour. |
| Kazbadan07-14-05, 07:02 AM | One thing no one has mentioned yet is Damage Reduction. DR now doesn't get as insanely high as it used to (where it got up to like 40/+5). Now it caps at 20 (I think? Or was it 15?) and has weaknesses based on type of weapon, not on strength of magic. So... DR/magic for magical beasts, DR/cold iron for fey and other chaotics, DR/silver for lawful creatures, etc. /magic is the only one of those I'm not completely happy with, as it means that a mere +1 weapon can bypass the DR of the strongest magical beast. Still, it's an improvement overall, replacing a system which was based on power with a system based on flavour. .I disagree here: beating a monster with a silver weapon instead of +1 its more funny and more RPG. +1 or +2 doesnt mean nothing, now a silver weapon its more funny and you can mad adjustments. Lets say that PCs nows that a werewolf can be killed with a silver weapon. You can make things get harder by making werewolfes invulnerable to pure silver or silver that can be found in a certain place only. This will make PCs thinking "what the hell?" and make them investigate, etc. +1 weapon its just boring :) |
| VirgilCaine07-14-05, 09:31 AM | One thing no one has mentioned yet is Damage Reduction. DR now doesn't get as insanely high as it used to (where it got up to like 40/+5). Now it caps at 20 (I think? Or was it 15?) and has weaknesses based on type of weapon, not on strength of magic. More like 30/something and one example--the Tarrasque--of higher DR. Excepting the Big T and IIRC the Iron Golem, A greater magic weapon spell cast at 9th level was all you needed to bypass DR. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-14-05, 09:50 AM | Reasons Not To (http://www.ledgermaincomics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6) Seriously, save the Ninety or so bucks you'd blow on a gimped system and get something useful, like the DMG II or something from the Complete series and just make the DR and magic item prices sane again. Maybe get the new Bard and Ranger from the SRD, but for the love of mages, don't use the new/changed spells. Also, weapon sizing is halfling poison. |
| VirgilCaine07-14-05, 10:02 AM | And horses and centaurs are square now. |
| nephtis07-14-05, 10:43 AM | Druids are able to change any prepared spell into a 'Summon nature's ally' of the appropriate level. Much like clerics. Check the domain spells of clerics, some domains have different spell lists now. All in all I face the same problem. We're debating updating as well, but I'd hate to spend all that money a second time (not to mention the Masters of the wild, song & silence etc. source book that are 3.0). Some changes seem to be a way to make sure, every class has changed und therefor every player should buy a new book. (Or can any of you explain, why it was necessary to move Uncanny dodge I from 3rd level to 4th (3.0 to 3.5) and use trap sense +1 as the 3rd level gain instead of later on?) |
| High Octane07-14-05, 11:10 AM | Reasons Not To (http://www.ledgermaincomics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6) Seriously, save the Ninety or so bucks you'd blow on a gimped system and get something useful, like the DMG II or something from the Complete series and just make the DR and magic item prices sane again. Maybe get the new Bard and Ranger from the SRD, but for the love of mages, don't use the new/changed spells. Also, weapon sizing is halfling poison. WOW! I have never seen somebody **** and moan so horribly over a system where in the end the DM can rule 0 it. Allow me to go counterpoint your rants going step by step. Alchemy No one even notices this one until I point it out. Alchemy is not Craft Alchemy (no problems yet) but it now requires spell caster levels to use. WTF? >: . In case the designers missed something... the entire damn point of alchemy is that it ISN'T Magic! Alchemy is playing with chemicals, not crafting them like a damn potion. The Ramifications are many, especially now, the only two classes that use Alchemy (rogues and and experts) can't use it! Okay, ignoring your use of l33tspeak, here is my response: Potions are magical. They are single use magical items that give spell-like effects. The reason a rogue can't simulate it is because if they did they would basically be able to CAST the spell. They HAVE a rogue-like class that can make potions. The Artificer. If a rogue/fighter/everyone could make potions, there would be no real point in having spellcasters able to CAST the spells since they would just respond "Take a potion that YOU can make." Alchemy is not useless however, a quick read of Complete Adventurer tells you this. You can make alchemist's fire, anti-toxins, flash pellets, etc. And they dont cost you EXPERIENCE! Darkness The Darkness spell got a vicious raping in 3.$. Essentially, It doesn't exist, replaced by Relative Dimness (renamed darkness) that generates 'shadowy illumination' that causes a 20% miss chance (shadowy illumination is a light condition in the DMG, meaning that casting Dorkness (not a typo) in pitch black will light up the joint). Honestly, I dont understand Darkness, and I may be inclined to agree with you. Let me say this however, if Darkness makes everyone blind, not only is it overpowered since its blindness without a save, but it would be game-stoppingly aggravating. The type of spells necessary to get rid of it are high level and otherwise fairly useless. Haste Like darkness, Haste was out and out replaced with General Hurry, which grants no double speed, a crap +1 to attack, saves and AC, and can be cast on more than one person. Oh, and the mechanic that nerf monkeys howled about, the extra partial action (and spell) got the axe. The nerf-monkeys were adamant about that, even though Hasted spells generally meant the spell caster had nothing at the end of the day, making them prone to kidnap / ambush. If people were yelling about how haste was overpowered in 3.0, it's because it probably was. Game balance is the first and most important aspect when creating a game system for general use. Its not as important to the individual DM, but it has to be balanced if its played worldwide. The other option would have been to increase the spell level so you had to be higher level to cast it and use a higher level spell slot. Would this option have made you happy? I'm betting not. Feint Many were the cries of the nerf-monkeys about this one. "But I don't want a fighter to get SA'ed by a rogue because the rogue is smarter than him". Feh. Now, the fighter's general skill at hitting things is added to his ability to tell when he's being feinted, while the rogue doesn't get to add his. Oh yes, the guy whose sole occupation is melee combat should NEVER get a bonus to when a guy is trying to fake him out in MELEE COMBAT. I don't know if Sense Motive is a fighter class skill, but even if it is, the fighter has a ridiculously low amount of skill points and he cant afford to put them into a skill which is primarily meant for diplomatic purposes. The fighter generally depends on a sorcerer or bard or cleric to handle that. This was added since without it, a level 1 rouge could easily successfullly feint a level 20 fighter. Fighters and barbarians tend to have low wisdom scores in any case. Rangers and Paladins are a bit better. Rogues, however, have high charisma fairly often. Feints should not ALWAYS be successful, and if the BAB isnt added to the sense motive roll, it almost always WILL BE. Even with the BAB added in, the feint will still be successfull more often than not if the rogue invests max ranks in bluff. They dont even need a feat that increases their bluff score and they will still be 3 up on an equal level fighter ASSUMING the fighters wisdom score is equal to the rogue's charisma score, which it most likely will NOT be. Evil Undead This was just as stupid as the BoXD's that spawned the idea. Apperently, in 3.$, the act of being undead is evil (nevermind the many types that aren't), reflected in Mindless skelletons and zombies getting the NE tag. Undead are powered by negative energy. They are made by evil clerics. They are evil in the same sense as an item can be evil. Evil Spells Monte Cooke is a jackass. The BoVD suggested spells that induce 'negative emotions' get the [evil] tag. Thanks, moron >: . now Eyebite, Death Watch, Symbol of Pain, Emotion: Rage/Anger and Contagion have the [Evil] tag. To top it off, Cheat (guess what this spell does) in the Draconomicon got it too. Wracking a person in pain and causing mental trauma via emotional decay, as well as causing disease and mutilation doesn't strike you as evil? So they have the evil tag. So what? Neutral casters can still use it. If you are good you shouldnt be wanting to use spells like those anyway. Hell there are several spells that I think a good spellcaster should never use. "I spread blindness and disease! For the GREATER GOOD!" On top of that, it can be a benefit. People with the evil domain get a bonus on those spells. Crit effects Keen and improved Crit don't stack? Keen and improved Crit don't stack? What kind of ******** is that?! One is human ability, the other is a magical enhancement! This is so every attack doesn't crit. Consider it the tradeoff for fighters for the add attack bonus to sense motive. Game Balance before metaphysics. Arbitrary Renamings Pick pockets, wilderness lore, Imporved Invis. ; Now Sleight of hand, survival, and greater invis. That's just flictarded. Why are you complaining? It doesn't affect anything. Sleight of Hand I actually understand the change in name because the skill Innuendo was rolled into it, so it represents a larger skill area. It doesnt make sense also if the name of the skill you use to hide items is called "Pick Pocket." Damage Reduction I've always been a fan of silve jacking weres... but, when I need a golfbag to carry my: bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, magic, coldiron, adamantine, silver, good, evil, chaotic, lawful weapons around... someone needs a beating. The damage reduction got completely reworked. Bludgeoning, slashing piercing, etc... You carry 2 types of weapons most likely anyway. Most likely they are different types of damage. This is so arrows dont do the same damage to a skeleton as a mace. Also, to a certain extent, damage reduction doesnt matter that much. Since it was dropped from 30 points of damage reduced to 5-10, a fighter can still break through it. Of course, spells arent affected at all. Most of the time the weird damage reduction only comes into play when you are facing higher level hit die creatures and they generally are supernatural enough to have it justified. The rest of the time the DR is generally just /magic, which any +1 longsword can surpass no problem, and magic again is unaffected. By the way, there is no reason you shouldnt have an adamantine weapon by default. Also, if your DM is having you face Fey, werewolves, Demons, Devils, AND Golems in the same sitting without giving you prior oppurtunity to prepare and discover what you are up against before facing them and you dont have spells and abilities or potions to hopefully give you such ability to pass the DR, something is wrong. You don't have a balor as a BBEG without the DM giving you some sort of hint a Demon/Devil (I forget which the Balor is) is involved. At least he shouldn't. Spell Durations Granted, an hour/level was a bit high for buffs and utilities, but Andy and co. brutally violated all the spells that had this, going from one hour to one minute. Basically, mages should only be good for combat, in Andy's opinion and heaven forbid someone want a spell for non-combat or *gasp* weren't the attackers (who gain hella advantage from the change. They are meant to last 1 battle. 2 if they are right on top of another. If you think about it, at 1 hour/level, the 9th level wizard could just cast that on himself every day, and hes basically sacrificing a 2nd level slot to get a +4 to int permanently using fox's cunning. Thus enhancement items become worthless until you can get +6. Weapon Sizes Another thing that was just flictarded. Apperently Andy had not liked a shortsword being a halfling longsword (or halflings in general) so now, unless they have a 'small' longsword, that halfling longsword gives them a -2. The kicker to this one is that you can have a small orc-double axe -- Who in the Inferno would make one?!? I dont allow the double axe myself. I find it ridiculous. Think about it for a minute. Think of a longsword designed for a halfling and a shortsword for a human. Here is the thing about swords in general: They have similar width AND length in the handle. Also, short swords are wider than a longsword relative to length. So it will handle differently. A shortsword is going to be wider relative to a halfling longsword, and the handle is going to be longer and thicker. The blade is also probably going to be a bit shorter. That will handle a LOT differently since the balance center will be different. The penalty is only -2. Its -4 for non-proficiency. Remember also, it works both ways, so the human cant pick up the halflings longsword +2 and have a +2 shortsword without a penalty. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-14-05, 12:20 PM | WOW! I have never seen somebody **** and moan so horribly over a system where in the end the DM can rule 0 it. Or to save someone from wasting money on a 'fix' for a system that wasn't broken. I suggest you use a less baiting tone. This is why you fail. Okay, ignoring your use of l33tspeak, here is my response: Potions are magical. They are single use magical items that give spell-like effects. The reason a rogue can't simulate it is because if they did they would basically be able to CAST the spell. They HAVE a rogue-like class that can make potions. The Artificer. If a rogue/fighter/everyone could make potions, there would be no real point in having spellcasters able to CAST the spells since they would just respond "Take a potion that YOU can make." Alchemy is not useless however, a quick read of Complete Adventurer tells you this. You can make alchemist's fire, anti-toxins, flash pellets, etc. And they dont cost you EXPERIENCE! 'WTF' is an acronym, not leetspeak, first of all. You should be thanking me for not writing the 'F' out or you would have gotten a warn for quoting me. Never did I say a rogue should create potions. in fact, I specifically said alchemy was not about making potions. Read what you quote. As for your defense as per CA, CA is not Core, when is what I'm arguing against. CA did not exist when I wrote that. By the Core, Alchemical items cannot be created unless you have spellcasting ability. Let me say this however, if Darkness makes everyone blind, not only is it overpowered since its blindness without a save, but it would be game-stoppingly aggravating. The type of spells necessary to get rid of it are high level and otherwise fairly useless. It doesn't make you blind, it makes you effectively blind in a realatively small area of the spell. Big bloody difference. If people were yelling about how haste was overpowered in 3.0, it's because it probably was. Oh please, people said Magic Missile was overpowered. People think all magic is overpowered. Oh yes, the guy whose sole occupation is melee combat should NEVER get a bonus to when a guy is trying to fake him out in MELEE COMBAT. I don't know if Sense Motive is a fighter class skill, but even if it is, the fighter has a ridiculously low amount of skill points and he cant afford to put them into a skill which is primarily meant for diplomatic purposes. The failures in the design of the fighter class should not have been made a failure of the Bluff skill. 4sp/level and proper fighting skills should have been part of the class. Undead are powered by negative energy. They are made by evil clerics. They are evil in the same sense as an item can be evil. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! - negative energy is not evil. That's a load of crap from the BoVD - some undead are naturally occuring and most created ones are made by wizards. - They can evil in the same sense as an item can be evil Wracking a person in pain and causing mental trauma via emotional decay, as well as causing disease and mutilation doesn't strike you as evil? So they have the evil tag. So what? Neutral casters can still use it. If you are good you shouldnt be wanting to use spells like those anyway. Hell there are several spells that I think a good spellcaster should never use. Eyebite, Deathwatch, and Crushing dispair are 'evil', yet dealing grevious, blistering, painful wounds with Fireball, Crushing and Twisting thier mind with Dominate, and just good old fashioned jamming metal things in them are perfectly fine. Huh. This is so every attack doesn't crit. Consider it the tradeoff for fighters for the add attack bonus to sense motive. Game Balance before metaphysics. False game balance. Extanded Crits don't increase damage beyond other damage increasing enchantments and as many are so very willfully ignorant about, you have to confirm your critical. Why are you complaining? It doesn't affect anything. Pointless and arbitrary change just to add to the number of changes they put in the book. The damage reduction got completely reworked. Bludgeoning, slashing piercing, etc... You carry 2 types of weapons most likely anyway. Most likely they are different types of damage. Yeah, ranged and melee. Also, to a certain extent, damage reduction doesnt matter that much. Since it was dropped from 30 points of damage reduced to 5-10, a fighter can still break through it. That's the problem. DR should count. You should need silver to hurt that lycan. DR needed to be stronger, not weaker. Also, if your DM is having you face Fey, werewolves, Demons, Devils, AND Golems in the same sitting without giving you prior oppurtunity to prepare and discover what you are up against before facing them and you dont have spells and abilities or potions to hopefully give you such ability to pass the DR, something is wrong. You don't have a balor as a BBEG without the DM giving you some sort of hint a Demon/Devil (I forget which the Balor is) is involved. At least he shouldn't. Don't read many published adventures do we? They are meant to last 1 battle. I'm not trying to use them in battle. I want to pump my Dex for a performance, my Cha for a social encounter and my Int while doing research. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BATTLE. Think about it for a minute. Think of a longsword designed for a halfling and a shortsword for a human. Here is the thing about swords in general: They have similar width AND length in the handle. Also, short swords are wider than a longsword relative to length. So it will handle differently. A shortsword is going to be wider relative to a halfling longsword, and the handle is going to be longer and thicker. The blade is also probably going to be a bit shorter. That will handle a LOT differently since the balance center will be different. The penalty is only -2. Its -4 for non-proficiency. Remember also, it works both ways, so the human cant pick up the halflings longsword +2 and have a +2 shortsword without a penalty. Think about it a minute, the smaller races live alongside the mediums for the most part, and in general aren't really warlike people in standard settings. A halfling that learns weapons would learn with human weapons. Thus, his longsword is a human shortsword. They don't need thier own little, useless weapons. Besides, in 3.5, weapons don't resize so weapon sizing screws small characters. |
| High Octane07-14-05, 06:44 PM | Or to save someone from wasting money on a 'fix' for a system that wasn't broken. I suggest you use a less baiting tone. This is why you fail. Please read the first 2 responses. SRD is free and there is an upgrade booklet. 'WTF' is an acronym, not leetspeak, first of all. You should be thanking me for not writing the 'F' out or you would have gotten a warn for quoting me. I would have gotten a warning for quoting stars? I concede the first point in that it is not l33tspeak, but it still makes an otherwise decent arguement seem childish. Never did I say a rogue should create potions. in fact, I specifically said alchemy was not about making potions. Read what you quote. As for your defense as per CA, CA is not Core, when is what I'm arguing against. CA did not exist when I wrote that. By the Core, Alchemical items cannot be created unless you have spellcasting ability. Magical potions cannot be made without magic ability. Mundane alchemical items can still be made. Mundane alchemical items include antitoxins, smokesticks, tindertwigs, alchemists fire, and sunrods. And those are all core. It doesn't make you blind, it makes you effectively blind in a realatively small area of the spell. Big bloody difference. An area that can move if cast on a magic item. 20 foot radius is not small. Thats a 40 foot wide area, and some rooms aren't that big. Anyway, Darkness as complete blindness basically made you say "Why bother" with it because it made everyone inside blind. The only exception is if they had blindsense or blindsight in which case it became game breaking. But I guess what you are getting at is that you think it was not overpowered, and I respect your opinion even if I don't agree. Oh please, people said Magic Missile was overpowered. People think all magic is overpowered. I'm pretty sure if you measure the percentage of people who think magic missle is overpowered verse the percentage of people who thought 3.0 haste was overpowered, the latter would be much more signifigant. Thats along the lines of responding to "People think Bush is doing a poor job" by responding with "People think bigfoot exists. People are stupid." The failures in the design of the fighter class should not have been made a failure of the Bluff skill. 4sp/level and proper fighting skills should have been part of the class. So what you are saying is that fighters should have gotten an ability that helps them on sense motive checks verse feints? They did. The only difference is that they got help in the form of rule changes instead of specific class changes. By the way, Sense Motive is not a fighter class skill, so even if they did have 4+int skill points per level and thusly have the skill points to spend on it, they still would be unable to match the rogue's bluff, which IS a class skill. - negative energy is not evil. That's a load of crap from the BoVD - some undead are naturally occuring and most created ones are made by wizards. - They can evil in the same sense as an item can be evil Although I think the BoVD is a piece of crap, what you are actually getting into is "Why are undead evil?" Now you have a philosophical debate that I am probably pretty ill-prepared for, but the way I see it is that undeath is a mocking of life. It is either a way for thus too selfish to allow their own eventual natural death to achieve immortality. It disturbs the natural order of life and death. Also, undeath when not willing is the animated corpse of a person who should have had a peaceful death (most likely), which is disrespectful to the dead. As for wizards making undead more often than clerics, I was not aware of that. Where does it say that? Eyebite, Deathwatch, and Crushing dispair are 'evil', yet dealing grevious, blistering, painful wounds with Fireball, Crushing and Twisting thier mind with Dominate, and just good old fashioned jamming metal things in them are perfectly fine. Huh. Dominate is one of those spells I think a good spellcaster should utterly avoid. Thats probably why Mindbenders can't be good. Crushing Despair isn't evil (in the sense of the evil descriptor), or I have a misprinted book. Ill admit that the arguement for Eyebite is weak. Ill also say that I agree about deathwatch. In my opinion either it should be eliminated as a spell or be changed from a Necromancy(Evil) spell to a Divination spell (no description) False game balance. What does this even MEAN? Extanded Crits don't increase damage beyond other damage increasing enchantments and as many are so very willfully ignorant about, you have to confirm your critical. This doesn't change the fact that you are getting 50% more criticals with the stacking than without. It still changes the game balance. And it DOES increase the damage more than other enchantments of equal level because when you critical, you double the strength damage AND the enhancement damage as well as the weapon damage. Lets not also forget that other magic weapon effects are dependant on criticals, such as the burst enchantments. Thats a lot more of a difference than an extra d6 to damage or one feat that doesnt have severe pre-requisites. Pointless and arbitrary change just to add to the number of changes they put in the book. The name changes are at best a minor footnote in the entire list of changes. Yeah, ranged and melee. Correct. That's the problem. DR should count. You should need silver to hurt that lycan. DR needed to be stronger, not weaker. You confuse me sir, weren't you saying that you were mad that you HAD to carry around several types of weapons in order to overcome Damage Reduction? Don't read many published adventures do we? They generally give the party a good idea what they will be up against. I'm not trying to use them in battle. I want to pump my Dex for a performance, my Cha for a social encounter and my Int while doing research. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BATTLE. I repeat the "Would make stat bonus items useless" arguement. It lasts long enough for a social encounter if cast at 5th level or higher. It doesn't generally take much longer than that if its a situation where you should be rolling instead of roleplaying it. Think about it a minute, the smaller races live alongside the mediums for the most part, and in general aren't really warlike people in standard settings. A halfling that learns weapons would learn with human weapons. Thus, his longsword is a human shortsword. They don't need thier own little, useless weapons. Besides, in 3.5, weapons don't resize so weapon sizing screws small characters. Weapons are randomly sized. 30% small, 60% medium, 10% DMs choice. (According to the DMG p. 213) This says to me that weapons are indeed made for the little people, since they are probably less than 30% of the population. By the way, this also means that 30% of items are going to enforce said penalty on medium creatures. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-14-05, 07:16 PM | Magical potions cannot be made without magic ability. Mundane alchemical items can still be made. Mundane alchemical items include antitoxins, smokesticks, tindertwigs, alchemists fire, and sunrods. And those are all core. You must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items. As a reference to alchemist fire, tinder twigs and the like. Hmm... Its almost as if Core says you must be a spellcaster to craft any of those items... I'm pretty sure if you measure the percentage of people who think magic missle is overpowered verse the percentage of people who thought 3.0 haste was overpowered, the latter would be much more signifigant. Unless you have hard facts on who says Haste was over powered vs the total number of people that kevtch about primary casters no matter what, you really don't have a leg to stand on. So what you are saying is that fighters should have gotten an ability that helps them on sense motive checks verse feints? Yeah, Sense Motive as a class skill like it should be. By the way, Sense Motive is not a fighter class skill, so even if they did have 4+int skill points per level and thusly have the skill points to spend on it, they still would be unable to match the rogue's bluff, which IS a class skill. That's the problem and its in the Fighter Class, not the Feint part of the Bluff Skill. Although I think the BoVD is a piece of crap, what you are actually getting into is "Why are undead evil?" Now you have a philosophical debate that I am probably pretty ill-prepared for, but the way I see it is that undeath is a mocking of life. It is either a way for thus too selfish to allow their own eventual natural death to achieve immortality. It disturbs the natural order of life and death. Also, undeath when not willing is the animated corpse of a person who should have had a peaceful death (most likely), which is disrespectful to the dead. You said you're unprepared, so I will spare you the reasons this is a bad argument. As for wizards making undead more often than clerics, I was not aware of that. Where does it say that? Look at the undead aiding and creating spells Wizards get. Now look at the ones non-Domained Clerics get. What does this even MEAN? The argument used to justify the change is a false matter of game balance. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to post the article by Sean Reynolds that points out how stupid the argument is. This doesn't change the fact that you are getting 50% more criticals with the stacking than without. It still changes the game balance. No, it increases your critical threats. Rolling a 15 with a fully extended rapier does not mean you hit and get to do damage. Plus, your rapier does less damage than a non-extended crit weapon of a weapon of equal power. And it DOES increase the damage more than other enchantments of equal level because when you critical, you double the strength damage AND the enhancement damage as well as the weapon damage. Lets not also forget that other magic weapon effects are dependant on criticals, such as the burst enchantments. Thats a lot more of a difference than an extra d6 to damage or one feat that doesnt have severe pre-requisites. Keen, shocking, +2 rapier. Well sir, we're already up to a +5 total on that weapon that naturally does a step less damage. Whoo. The name changes are at best a minor footnote in the entire list of changes. And yet, still very stupid. You confuse me sir, weren't you saying that you were mad that you HAD to carry around several types of weapons in order to overcome Damage Reduction? I'm talking two different things; first, the scatter brained overpiling of DR types (alignment, cold iron, adamantine -- They've gotta go), and secondly, I'm talking about how they've made DR pointless because of it. They generally give the party a good idea what they will be up against. No, they really don't. Most times you meet a werewolf, its a suprise. And most times you meet a Fey, they've already kidnapped you. It lasts long enough for a social encounter if cast at 5th level or higher. It doesn't generally take much longer than that if its a situation where you should be rolling instead of roleplaying it. NO. Weapons are randomly sized. 30% small, 60% medium, 10% DMs choice. (According to the DMG p. 213) This says to me that weapons are indeed made for the little people, since they are probably less than 30% of the population. By the way, this also means that 30% of items are going to enforce said penalty on medium creatures. So... you play in a world where after you beat the orcs, 30% of thier weapons will be small for no reason? The DMG's attempt at cleaning up the bad design of not having weapons resize doesn't clean up the problem of harvesting items from the enemy. |
| VirgilCaine07-14-05, 08:07 PM | The argument used to justify the change is a false matter of game balance. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to post the article by Sean Reynolds that points out how stupid the argument is. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html This one? |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-14-05, 08:25 PM | That'd be it, my good man. |
| Mr. Leet07-14-05, 08:28 PM | *senses a flamewar* (but please... Why flames? Why don't you just see life as the beautiful thing it is, and stop wasting your time arguing over the internet?) Sorry for quoting myself, but you guys are just hilarious! Thanks... You made me laugh... :) *mumbles something about how funny flames really are* |
| High Octane07-14-05, 08:40 PM | As a reference to alchemist fire, tinder twigs and the like. Hmm... Its almost as if Core says you must be a spellcaster to craft any of those items... If 3.0 did not have the same restriction, then point conceded. Unless you have hard facts on who says Haste was over powered vs the total number of people that kevtch about primary casters no matter what, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Yes, after all, Wizards of the coast as well as everyone out there are all out to get those primary spellcasters. Its a conspiracy. Im thinking my leg to stand on is the fact that the arguement of "Haste allows spellcasters to basically double their attack power per round and its only a 3rd level spell!" doesnt strike me as an attack on primary spellcasters so much as an attack on a specific spell. Unfortunately you have fallen victim to the dillusion that disliking one small portion of a class/classes is a personal attack on that class rather than that spell. Yeah, Sense Motive as a class skill like it should be. Arguable. However there is a problem. Sense Motive engulfs a larger area than just that opposed roll. If you add that as a fighter class skill, you make a fighter a sudden senser of more than just combat strategy. The Sense Motive skill is meant as a diplomatic/bargaining skill, meant to oppose bluff checks while speaking, not battling. Combat reflexes and instincts are a lot different than being a veritable lie detector. Not to mention that Rangers and Barbarians would lack this benefit. That's the problem and its in the Fighter Class, not the Feint part of the Bluff Skill. If you think the problem is limited to the fighter class, you are wrong. It applies to any class where melee combat is the focus of the class. You're base attack bonus represents your combat capability and experience more than any other stat. You said you're unprepared, so I will spare you the reasons this is a bad argument. Like I said, its a philosophical arguement. However, you can argue "Why is worshipping Vecna evil?" Simply put, evil is defined in D&D in much more definitive terms than should ever be applied to real world theology. Things are decided as "evil" because the ones that prefer them are generally the "Bad guys". Though I can of course ask you "When was undead ever not evil in D&D?" since just because it doesn't have the (evil) descriptor doesnt make it not evil. Look at the undead aiding and creating spells Wizards get. Now look at the ones non-Domained Clerics get. I'll take your word for it. The argument used to justify the change is a false matter of game balance. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to post the article by Sean Reynolds that points out how stupid the argument is. So what you are saying is that it doesn't affect game balance? Any arguement for a game balance change like this is "We made this rule because in theory it worked, but in reality after game testing it hasn't." No, it increases your critical threats. Rolling a 15 with a fully extended rapier does not mean you hit and get to do damage. Plus, your rapier does less damage than a non-extended crit weapon of a weapon of equal power. It still increases your chance of getting a critical strike by 50% if they stack. By the way, the rapier isnt the only weapon in the game. Keen, shocking, +2 rapier. Well sir, we're already up to a +5 total on that weapon that naturally does a step less damage. Whoo. Huh? Keen is a +1 enhancement bonus, as is shocking, so that totals +4.... I dont even know what you are saying! Use your math skills! Explain it to me! For I am stupid apparantly, or more likely, your sentence made no sense! And yet, still very stupid. So is taking the time of day to really care. I'm talking two different things; first, the scatter brained overpiling of DR types (alignment, cold iron, adamantine -- They've gotta go), and secondly, I'm talking about how they've made DR pointless because of it. As opposed to it only coming into play if the fighter has a +2 weapon instead of a +3? The entire idea of damage reduction is not utter immunity, its meant to be a class feature representing an overall toughness but a weakness to a certain material. No, they really don't. Most times you meet a werewolf, its a suprise. And most times you meet a Fey, they've already kidnapped you. Silver was already in 3.0 and being kidnapped doesnt generally give you the chance of using your weapons much anyway. At least not the way fey do it. I would think they would use spells and charms or get you while sleeping. Your point unfortunately falls into the whiney catergory of "Why doesnt my one or two weapons work perfectly against everyone?" NO. If a social encounter lasts longer than 5 minutes, it shouldnt be resolved with a diplomacy roll. It should be resolved via you playing your character. So... you play in a world where after you beat the orcs, 30% of thier weapons will be small for no reason? Why would they be carrying a spell scroll? (which is far more likely than a small sized magic weapon) Whatever reason applies for that, applies here. Another counterpoint: Why would the KOBOLDS be carrying a medium sized longsword? The DMG's attempt at cleaning up the bad design of not having weapons resize doesn't clean up the problem of harvesting items from the enemy. Yeah it does. In the sense that it puts everyone on equal ground. Your overall arguement falls flat though still, because you say "wasting money" when in fact, the upgrades are free. |
| VirgilCaine07-14-05, 08:59 PM | Another counterpoint: Why would the KOBOLDS be carrying a medium sized longsword? Because adventurers commonly carry them, and it's a weapon they don't have to make. For use in a trap or for their one kobold fighter type or for their orc allies to use. Or because a kobold rogue wants something better to stab with. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-14-05, 09:16 PM | Monetarily, the SRD is free, but most of the new edition is hardly an upgrade in a sense of making things better. I'm not going to waste time typing quotes on you anymore, so here's the counter. - Haste wasn't overpowered any more than the Wizard class was/is. This is my point. People complained and moaned and the loudest got Haste turned into the pathetic things it is now instead of just adding erratta that said the extra action as a move action or an extra attack on full roud action. The nerf was overkill even from the false belief that Haste was overpowered. - Sense Motive is a combat/tactical abilty. Reading someone's body language is the first thing a good teacher will tell you when you start martial arts. Anyone that can't deserves to fall prey to a feint. All combat classes should have Sense Motive. Maybe they can give it another cute name change, like 'perceive unspoken' - Read Sean's article for reasons why Keen and imporved crit should stack. Also, just because I use an actual example of a weapon doesn't mean I'm not unaware of the extended range of all curved blades. - 3rd edition DR was bad, 3.5 is just as bad. One made silver pointless, the other made DR pointless. This is where they fail. I'm working for a proper DR system for World of Ere. - I don't know about you, but I RP my Cha. I'm a lot less tactful with a Cha 12 than a Cha 16. Its a poorly run game that allows a Cha 6 barbarian to talk like Don Juan. - Most Dm's don't randomly roll for enemy equipment. Too many bad experiences with Shocking burst saps. - Parties will encounter Medium creatures more often than Small unless you're playing a Kobold Campaign. |
| The Wasp07-14-05, 11:49 PM | Because adventurers commonly carry them, and it's a weapon they don't have to make. For use in a trap or for their one kobold fighter type or for their orc allies to use. Or because a kobold rogue wants something better to stab with. I think you could apply similar logic to orcs having small weapons. - Read Sean's article for reasons why Keen and imporved crit should stack. Also, just because I use an actual example of a weapon doesn't mean I'm not unaware of the extended range of all curved blades. I wasn't impressed. If you want a simple comparison of whether Improved Critical and Keen stack, use the same constant weapon. A +1 holy greatsword vs a +2 keen greatswordwhere both characters have Improved Crit is a better comparison, and one that suffers much less from the Iterative Attack problem (which he vastly overstated anyways). Iterative attacks lessen the probability of crits,they don't eliminate them. |
| Eliza_Stormwhisper07-15-05, 01:34 AM | On the topic of undead being evil: Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos. 3.5 Player's Handbook, p. 103 |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-15-05, 02:09 AM | Which, oddly enough, mentions nothing about undead and left to itself means absoultely nothing. |
| Androcus Divinicus07-15-05, 02:30 AM | First of all, maybe I'm reading it totally wrong, but, to me, the 3.0 to 3.5 upgrade that was linked by ATynam in his original response to the OP, is totally useless for upgrading mechanics. Basically, it just tells you what changed (and not even all of what changed, the phrase "The highlights are:" appears more than once) not how it changed (i.e. what it would need to tell you in order for you to use it to upgrade your materials). I still play 3.0 mainly because I don't feel like buying all the new books. I don't feel like buying all the new books for two reasons: 1. I'm semi-broke, 2. I haven't seen anything that would make me think that 3.0e rules are broken enough for me to justify the upgrade. All that said, I do like a couple of changes that were made in 3.5 (e.g. the new weights for many of the weapons ... who uses a greatsword that weighs 15lbs anyway?, and allowing Power Attack to affect two-handed weapons differently makes that feat more than just a crappy step on the road to Cleave, and I like some of the class changes, but I do agree that most of the magic didn't need to be nerfed). Regards, Justin. |
| Eliza_Stormwhisper07-15-05, 03:29 AM | Which, oddly enough, mentions nothing about undead and left to itself means absoultely nothing. Only to those who can't form a coherent thought. Think about it, you'll get it after a while. |
| WCH07-15-05, 03:36 AM | Which, oddly enough, mentions nothing about undead and left to itself means absoultely nothing. In D&D, positive and negative energy are intrincally linked to Good and Evil, as Good and Evil are -- very true -- elemental forces, not philosophical concepts. They are linked in the same way that Heat and Light are linked in our world; not that something needs to be red hot to be visible, nor does something need to be glowing to be hot, but that the two are nevertheless associated. In the same way, positive energy is associated with Good, and negative energy with Evil. This is why Good clerics can spontaneously Cure, and Evil clerics can spontaneously Inflict. It's just the way the system works. Given that undead are held together by Negative energy as an elemental force, which happens to be heavily associated with Evil, undead are also by default evil. Does that mean that they have to be? Not really... a skeleton raised by a Cleric of Wee Jas to do manual labour is probably Neutral... but, by default, they're evil. It's just how the system works... if you don't like it, houserule it out, and allow Good Clerics who can spontaneously Inflict if they so choose (ie, give all Clerics the choice of positive or negative energy, not just Neutral Clerics). Hope that clears it up for you. :) |
| Antioch07-15-05, 04:05 AM | First of all yes, if you have the money to spend, pick up the new books. Many things were updated for the better. First of all some classes got a much needed boost, namely the ranger. Some classes got some modificatons or access to new things (like bards and armor, fighters and Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization). Other changes such as those to feats, confused me (such as the DC reduction from Spell Focus). Not sure if it was overpowering or what have you, but such is life. Also, on the tangent of weapon shrinkage. This is one change that while adding to complexity, is extremely realistic. I'm glad for it. Finally, I'm totally against all undead being evil no-matter-what-you-say. Many are mindless and therefore incapable of inflicting evil. Not to mentioned the Negative Energy Plane is neutral (always has been, and always will be). Also I should note that if you lack the cash or are doubtful, just keep your books and check out the SRD3.5 for free. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 04:07 AM | In the same way, positive energy is associated with Good, and negative energy with Evil. Actually both forces are neutral. Does that mean that they have to be? Not really... a skeleton raised by a Cleric of Wee Jas to do manual labour is probably Neutral... but, by default, they're evil. By default they should be neutral since they are incapable of rationale or moral thought processes. It's just how the system works... if you don't like it, houserule it out, and allow Good Clerics who can spontaneously Inflict if they so choose (ie, give all Clerics the choice of positive or negative energy, not just Neutral Clerics). I had to in the case of the undead because over several threads on the subject no one was able to give a single reason as to why they should be evil in the first place. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 04:09 AM | Which, oddly enough, mentions nothing about undead and left to itself means absoultely nothing. Mindless undead left to their own devices should technically just stand there and let you kill them unless their last orders were along the lines of "kill anything you see". I did construct a fluff-based theory as to why mindless undead have a tendency to attack living creatures and not eachother, however. Finally, if anyone here does think that undead should all be defaulted to evil, I've got a nice hefty report to back up my opinions should you want to go beyond the unstated rule. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 04:11 AM | Taking damage doesnt automatically cause you to lose a spell, instead there is a concentration check. You could always use a Concentration check for this, even in 3.0. Note that it also featured the Combat Casting feat. Otherwise Concentration seemed more or less useless, though I did adapt it to Grappling rules. |
| Light of Day07-15-05, 05:35 AM | Haste wasn't overpowered any more than the Wizard class was/is. This is my point. People complained and moaned and the loudest got Haste turned into the pathetic things it is now instead of just adding erratta that said the extra action as a move action or an extra attack on full roud action. The nerf was overkill even from the false belief that Haste was overpowered. Haste still grants +1 to attack rolls, AC and reflex saves, a 30ft increase in all movement speeds, and an extra attack on a full attack. Overall, that sounds pretty balanced to me. Evil Undead I'd just like to point out that unintelligent undead such as skeletons and zombies are created through the animate dead spell, which has the [evil] descriptor. Evil spells make evil things, is that too hard to understand? Read Sean's article for reasons why Keen and imporved crit should stack. I notice Sean conviniently forgets about the existance of several weapon properties that make critical hits a lot more powerful. Specifically, thundering, flaming/shocking/icy burst and vorpal. Any one of these properties can make a rapier or falchion easily as powerful as a battleaxe or greatsword, and they become vastly overpowered when you threaten on a natural 12. I'm sorry, but not knowing how to make the best of your threat range is NOT a valid argument for the stacking of keen and improved critical. Reduced duration on bulls strength etc. Contrary to popular belief, these spells are not substitute gauntlets of ogre power and headbands of intellect, nor is there an unwritten rule saying you can't cast more than one a day. For the vast majority of uses, the one minute per level duration is more than sufficient. If you find you do need hours at a time of increased intelligence, though, then maybe, just maybe it would be worth your while investing in a headband of intellect. Damage reduction Lets face it. 3.0 damage reduction was a farce. The changes for 3.5 are designed to fix two things: Firstly, the different types of CR encourage you to try to prepare for whats coming, and think a little. And there may actually be occasions where *shock* *horror* you'll have to fight a monster without a weapon that overcomes its DR. Secondly, the numbers are lower. This does not make CR pointless, however. Doing 10 less damage per attack is still a significant decrease, but at least it's still possible to hurt the monster unlike in 3.0 with its rediculously high DR numbers. I suppose you could say DR serves a slightly different purpose in 3.5. In 3.0, it punished you by making monsters virtually impossible to damage if your weapon didn't have a big enough + on it. In 3.5, it rewards you for thinking ahead and bringing the right weapons with you by making it slightly easier to get damage through. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 05:39 AM | Evil Undead I'd just like to point out that unintelligent undead such as skeletons and zombies are created through the animate dead spell, which has the [evil] descriptor. Evil spells make evil things, is that too hard to understand? Yes because they are mentally incapable of performing evil actions. Will their alignment gradually shift to Neutral because of their inaction? Finally, why is animating dead evil? |
| Light of Day07-15-05, 05:59 AM | Evil Undead I'd just like to point out that unintelligent undead such as skeletons and zombies are created through the animate dead spell, which has the [evil] descriptor. Evil spells make evil things, is that too hard to understand? Yes because they are mentally incapable of performing evil actions. Will their alignment gradually shift to Neutral because of their inaction? Finally, why is animating dead evil? Animating dead is the act of defiling someone's corpse, turning it into your personal slave, and preventing that person from being rasied in the process. Sounds pretty evil to me. As for being incapable of acting evil, they're incaple of ANY actions whatsoever apart form what they're directly ordered to do. I could argue they shouldn't have any alignment whatsoever, not even neutral as they're not even capable of acting neutral unless ordered to. As it stands, I think of their evil alignment not as they do evil things, but as they are evil in nature. An evil alignment means they show up on detect evil, and they take extra damage from holy weapons and the holy smite spell. This makes sense to me, considering they were animated by evil forces, and they lack the intelligence, the freedom of will to ever break free from that evil and move on. I dunno, maybe I should be arguing that they have the evil subtype instead, but that just seems to be overly complicating the whole thing if you ask me. |
| Vaelan07-15-05, 06:00 AM | I notice Sean conviniently forgets about the existance of several weapon properties that make critical hits a lot more powerful. Specifically, thundering, flaming/shocking/icy burst and vorpal. The burst properties benefit all weapons fairly equally (a possible difference of 10% between martial weapons), thus raising the power of weapons in general and not just the ones with good threat ranges/criticals. Also, Vorpal only activates on a 20 in 3.5, which would be the appropriate edition to look at as we're looking at the changes made to 3.5. Finally, why is animating dead evil? I would imagine it is considered evil because playing around with corpses is not looked highly upon in the society in which WotC wants to sell most of their books in. Personally, I think the whole good/evil as universal forces is rather silly. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 06:03 AM | Animating dead is the act of defiling someone's corpse, turning it into your personal slave, and preventing that person from being rasied in the process. Sounds pretty evil to me. What if the necromancer requested permission? What if it was used to save other people, then promptly dismissed? What if its based in a culture where the warriors are risen to defend the tribe, viewing it as an honor? As for being incapable of acting evil, they're incaple of ANY actions whatsoever apart form what they're directly ordered to do. I could argue they shouldn't have any alignment whatsoever, not even neutral as they're not even capable of acting neutral unless ordered to. Hence the most appropriate alignment is Neutral. They have no mind or soul, after all. As it stands, I think of their evil alignment not as they do evil things, but as they are evil in nature. An evil alignment means they show up on detect evil, and they take extra damage from holy weapons and the holy smite spell. This makes sense to me, considering they were animated by evil forces, and they lack the intelligence, the freedom of will to ever break free from that evil and move on. Evil forces in so far as the spell has an Evil descriptor, which I think was an unfair label in the first place. However, they should instead have an Evil subtype, not alignment, as demons do. I dunno, maybe I should be arguing that they have the evil subtype instead, but that just seems to be overly complicating the whole thing if you ask me. Nah, it works for fiends just fine, especially if you think the magic itself is evil and imbues them with evil energy. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 06:04 AM | Personally, I think the whole good/evil as universal forces is rather silly. I think thats a permissible notion, though I myself find the notion that undead are viewed as wholly evil beings regardless. |
| Carn Vandoril07-15-05, 06:51 AM | I wasn't impressed. If you want a simple comparison of whether Improved Critical and Keen stack, use the same constant weapon. A +1 holy greatsword vs a +2 keen greatswordwhere both characters have Improved Crit is a better comparison, and one that suffers much less from the Iterative Attack problem (which he vastly overstated anyways). Iterative attacks lessen the probability of crits,they don't eliminate them. But it still is.. just 1 or 2 extra die! As of today I have a new houserule, I am convinced! HR: keen and improvedCrit stack. :cool: Maybe some players would like to play fighters again now that it does.... *sigh* nope I don't think so.... :rolleyes: |
| Carn Vandoril07-15-05, 07:05 AM | Read Sean's article for reasons why Keen and imporved crit should stack. I notice Sean conviniently forgets about the existance of several weapon properties that make critical hits a lot more powerful. Specifically, thundering, flaming/shocking/icy burst and vorpal. Any one of these properties can make a rapier or falchion easily as powerful as a battleaxe or greatsword, and they become vastly overpowered when you threaten on a natural 12. I'm sorry, but not knowing how to make the best of your threat range is NOT a valid argument for the stacking of keen and improved critical. Oh yes, but that's beside the point that DM's should NOT allow for those! I mean: a keen vorpal? that's asking for trouble anyway. Also, in the case of flaming etc.. It would still just add an extra die.. At the level it would take to afford a keen+*+* type of weapon it wouldn't matter. So if you allow these kinds of weapons in your game: ... well why not stack? Maybe the fighterclass improves with this rule! :D |
| Nyferto07-15-05, 07:48 AM | Ooh look it's a barenuckle 3.0 v 3.5 dual! I love these. For the most part, i'm with Ash. Bards improved? They're facinate got overpowered, their spells are still gimped - they're just better in some respects, they got more skill points but more need to distribute them, they lost medium armour and shields and they have crap all ability to bypass DR. Monks Improved? Lets see, they're still a bit crap... no can't see an improvement anywhere. As for everything else.. Haste - now worthless or circumstantially overpowered and stupid. Polymorph - absolutely worse than it ever was, ever Clerics and Druids - got massive power-ups. All other classes that were "improved" got front loaded and jumped up. Weapon sizing raises so many questionable elements and screws up so many different aspects. There are so many reasons why things have actually been crapped up and not-actually improved, it's just ignorant to say it's all good. You really need to look at the whole thing and understand what you'll need to handle before you even bother. There are some good asepcts but they're either underdeveloped or nothing spectacular that didn't happen before in some form. I also, and absolutely hate the DR system. Ash, you need to update that thread with more explanations and the ton of other things. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 08:02 AM | All other classes that were "improved" got front loaded and jumped up. You mean the ranger? The one that actually NEEDED it? Weapon sizing raises so many questionable elements and screws up so many different aspects. Aside from the possible confusion as to the imposed penalty on wielding weapons you really shouldnt, I fail to see how its hard to grasp. The concept is perfectly logical. There are so many reasons why things have actually been crapped up and not-actually improved, it's just ignorant to say it's all good. You really need to look at the whole thing and understand what you'll need to handle before you even bother. There are some good asepcts but they're either underdeveloped or nothing spectacular that didn't happen before in some form. Such as? I also, and absolutely hate the DR system. Why, because now its actually flavorable and makes sense? Ash, you need to update that thread with more explanations and the ton of other things. Which should prove to be mentally taxing. |
| Nyferto07-15-05, 08:48 AM | *cracks knuckles* Rangers were fairly fine, they didn't need much, compared to what they got. Lets see, they lost d10, medium armour. Gained TWF - except now it's practically redundant thanks to the amazingly retarded DR system and the changes to Power Attack. The option to use Archery - except it's crap because you miss key feats and gain a bunch of useless ones combined with other abilities and you have the shoddy DR system and Enchantments to Arrows don't stack with Enchantment to Bows. No other options. A geater competitiveness for options with other classes - which is actually a bad thing as they didn't get anything and you're now front loaded. They did get some nice spell changes, except now - thanks to some stupid rules changes and rulling from the Sage - they're either overpowered or useless. So now they're even less effective in combat than they were before, they've got a crap load of other abilities that are supposed to compensate and they get some overpowered revisions like Favoured enemy and they compete better with other classes that effectively got the shaft - that's not a good thing. There's no point improving a class if you forsake/kill another in the process. I'd rather play a 3.0 Ranger - at least I'd feel like a Ranger. Weapon Sizing. When a Dragon casts Spiritual weapon, what size is the Spiritual weapon? When a Titan uses something like Flame Weapon, why is it sized for a medium user? Why aren't spells sized like weapons are? Why are weapons sized anyway, how much extra stock does a merchant have to carry? Why can I use an undersized reach weapon 1 handed to get all the benefits except for a -2 penalty? Where'd all those useful "small" version of weapons go? Why didn't they just add more "Halfling" weapons? DR system? Flavourable? It's crap - that's it. Favours THF, kills TWF, Favours those who can ignore it, Kill those who have to find ways through it, kills the effectiveness of enemies against it, stacks horribly with new weapon pricings and drastically hurts every single element of the game. There is nothing good about it at all. There is practically nothing that isn't effected somehow by the changes to the DR system. Flavour is easy, but worthless when it hurts the flow of balance in a game. There's so much more, I should keep my own blog of 3.5 crap-ups. The power attack changes, the Polymorph revisions, the overpowering of Wildshape - Clerics and Druids got stronger, caster spell nerfs, description changes, detrimental spell changes, wording changes, feat changes - practically everything about 3.5 is bad in some way. |
| High Octane07-15-05, 09:57 AM | *cracks knuckles* Rangers were fairly fine, they didn't need much, compared to what they got. Lets see, they lost d10, medium armour. Gained TWF - except now it's practically redundant thanks to the amazingly retarded DR system and the changes to Power Attack. The option to use Archery - except it's crap because you miss key feats and gain a bunch of useless ones combined with other abilities and you have the shoddy DR system and Enchantments to Arrows don't stack with Enchantment to Bows. No other options. A geater competitiveness for options with other classes - which is actually a bad thing as they didn't get anything and you're now front loaded. They did get some nice spell changes, except now - thanks to some stupid rules changes and rulling from the Sage - they're either overpowered or useless. So now they're even less effective in combat than they were before, they've got a crap load of other abilities that are supposed to compensate and they get some overpowered revisions like Favoured enemy and they compete better with other classes that effectively got the shaft - that's not a good thing. There's no point improving a class if you forsake/kill another in the process. I'd rather play a 3.0 Ranger - at least I'd feel like a Ranger. Weapon Sizing. When a Dragon casts Spiritual weapon, what size is the Spiritual weapon? When a Titan uses something like Flame Weapon, why is it sized for a medium user? Why aren't spells sized like weapons are? Why are weapons sized anyway, how much extra stock does a merchant have to carry? Why can I use an undersized reach weapon 1 handed to get all the benefits except for a -2 penalty? Where'd all those useful "small" version of weapons go? Why didn't they just add more "Halfling" weapons? DR system? Flavourable? It's crap - that's it. Favours THF, kills TWF, Favours those who can ignore it, Kill those who have to find ways through it, kills the effectiveness of enemies against it, stacks horribly with new weapon pricings and drastically hurts every single element of the game. There is nothing good about it at all. There is practically nothing that isn't effected somehow by the changes to the DR system. Flavour is easy, but worthless when it hurts the flow of balance in a game. There's so much more, I should keep my own blog of 3.5 crap-ups. The power attack changes, the Polymorph revisions, the overpowering of Wildshape - Clerics and Druids got stronger, caster spell nerfs, description changes, detrimental spell changes, wording changes, feat changes - practically everything about 3.5 is bad in some way. *pops neck* Ow. Rangers were the classic dipping class in 3.0. They got everything first level. After that all they got was favored enemies every 4 levels and spells that are pretty horrible. You may as well take one level in ranger than continued levels in fighter or barbarian. What did Rangers lose? hit die went from d10 to d8. What did they gain? A combat style that increases with levels. Increased skill points. Endurance as a bonus feat. Woodland Stride. Swift Tracker. Evasion at 9th level. Camoulflage. Hide in plain sight. In short, they became less powerful combat-wise and became closer to a mix of rogue, fighter, and druid. They are light combat instead of heavy combat, with more emphasis on stealth and grace rather than toughness and attack power. Why? Maybe to distinguish themselves from fighters and barbarians. Next you have "Two Weapon Fighting is gimped". First off, it requires one less feat to get. Second, you complain about the damage reduction, when in fact the damage reduction system seems to TAILOR to two weapon fighting. Since you are carrying 2 weapons, you can have them be of differing types. One can be cold iron and one can be adamantine. A two handed weapon is one weapon. Also, Ive noticed that the most common form of damage reduction is simply /magic, so if both weapons are +1 you surpass most of it. By the way, 2 +1 weapons are cheaper than a +2 weapon. As for the "Useless" archery feats, they arent. Rapidshot is rather nice if you have a lot of weak enemies or need to do a lot of damage fast. Manyshot is good for when you have to move in a round and fire you still get off your shots. Improved Precise shot is nice since you can fire THROUGH your allies without penalty. (Ignore soft cover) In order to "complete the set" you only have to throw 2 feats of your own down that area, Point Blank shot and Precise shot. As for your Damage reduction woes, Wah Wah Wah. "Favors those who can ignore it"? When the fighter is doing 10 less damage per strike, I dont think that he can ignore it. If the damage reduction is in effect, its going to be the wizard or cleric who is going to be doing most of the damage. At least with 2 weapon fighting you can get +1 to AC with two weapon defense. Also remember, the bards morale bonus, and all other magic boosting abilities apply to ALL attacks with 2 handed fighting, so their effectiveness grows. Especially in regards to damage. "Kills those who have to find ways through it" Finding a way through it usually entails either buying quicksilver coating (cheap and you wont have to use that much of it), having a +1 weapon, or your weapon has to be made of adamantine (which it should anyway at higher levels when you are facing these things) All the rest are higher level outsiders who you should be able to prepare for. You dont just face a balor out of the blue normally. "Kills the effectiveness of enemies against it" I dont know what you mean by that. "Stacks horribly with new weapon pricings" Since most of the damage reductions (with the exception of good/evil/lawful/chaotic, which are only common at high levels) are about weapon material, and weapon material prices dont stack with enchantment prices, I dont see how this arguement holds water. Again, you can just use silversheen also. As for the "Drastically hurts every element of the game" You sure are a drama queen. As for weapon sizing, Spiritual weapon is a spell, its not meant to be a weapon. It doesnt matter the size, it does 1d8 plus 1 per 3 levels (max+5). Dragons have to have levels in cleric to cast it anyway. Flame blade is ALSO a spell. Why should a druid of larger size get such a huge bonus to their spells? Both of these are spells, I repeat, SPELLS. Not weapons. Your last paragraph is so general in statement and lacks any real arguement besides "This sucks" so I cant rebute. For the record, what was power attack originally? |
| VirgilCaine07-15-05, 01:51 PM | (e.g. the new weights for many of the weapons ... who uses a greatsword that weighs 15lbs anyway It's not just weight, but bulk also. |
| A Man In Black07-15-05, 07:05 PM | Let's cut through the BS, shall we? Lets see, they lost d10, medium armour. Gained TWF - except now it's practically redundant thanks to the amazingly retarded DR system and the changes to Power Attack. The option to use Archery - except it's crap because you miss key feats and gain a bunch of useless ones combined with other abilities and you have the shoddy DR system and Enchantments to Arrows don't stack with Enchantment to Bows. Except that archery is the best style to deal with the new DR system. You say it like it's weakening archery; arrows of different materials are cheap and easy to get. You also forgot that they got +2 skill points a level. No other options. A geater competitiveness for options with other classes - which is actually a bad thing as they didn't get anything and you're now front loaded. Are you using "front loaded" in a way other than the common usage? In 3.0, rangers got the entirety of their class features (besides spellcasting) at first level. Now, their abilities are distributed throughout their levels, in addition to being more numerous. Also, you forgot that their spell list got better. You also neglected to mention that Favored Enemy is now more powerful and less likely to become completely useless. They did get some nice spell changes, except now - thanks to some stupid rules changes and rulling from the Sage - they're either overpowered or useless. Care to cite? I'd rather play a 3.0 Ranger - at least I'd feel like a Ranger. I dunno. After first level, it just starts to feel like you're playing a fighter with no feats. the overpowering of Wildshape Wild Shape got weaker. In 3.5, druids lost Extraordinary Special Qualities. No more scent as a wolf, blindsense as a bat, etc. Rant all you want about 3.5, but try and get stuff right. |
| YRM07-15-05, 07:21 PM | 3.5 is worth it. My group likes solid and well balanced rules, and almost everything they changed in 3.5 is significantly better, including the layout of the books. 1 - The weaker classes, like Rangers & Fighters are improved through class features or availability of better feats. 2 - Haste is fixed. It's better for melee and worse for spellcasters... but, affects the whole party. 3 - Damage Reduction MEANS SOMETHING now... you can't bypass it easily every time out, and it's usually not all or nothing, like DR 40/ +5 4 - Angels, Devils, & Demons are tougher/better/scarier. 5 - Prestige Classes in the DMG are pretty solid. 6 - Challenge Ratings are more balanced. 7 - Several other spells that were broken are fixed, and I think there are more spells... it's been so long since I upgraded. 8 - All the quality supplements and any important new books make sense with 3.5 9 - Wizards puts out a good game system for us geeks, they can't simply rely on selling the same book for 20 years in a row. They improved the books significantly, and it's worth supporting a company that supports our gaming needs. 10 - Everyone in my gaming group, though initially offended and reluctant to upgrade, felt that 3.5 is better. We all came to realize, "Hey, this is much cleaner, and our game is better." --- Use the SRD until you can afford it. |
| Antioch07-15-05, 11:59 PM | All in all it seems like most of the people who like 3.5 are actually capable of positing reasons why, while the opposite camp is just chanting that its bad, but they arent quite sure why. |
| High Octane07-16-05, 02:19 AM | All in all it seems like most of the people who like 3.5 are actually capable of positing reasons why, while the opposite camp is just chanting that its bad, but they arent quite sure why. Honestly, I think they are mad because the rules have changed and their favorite combos or abilities that they either had and were ludicrously successful with, or planned on having and hopefully being uber with, suddenly got dispelled in the revision. Although I dont think anyone who posted here went this far, I think that many would hate ANY change in the system. Some are traditionalists (but then again most of those people still play 1st edition). More often though, they are munchkins/min-maxer/twinks who had figured out a whole ton of combos and began to create a nigh-indestructable PC, but now that those super abilities that broke the game in their favor are gone, they have to utterly revise their characters and ideas. Even others get mad because they think their character is getting gimped. This is shown by them complaining over a race or class getting gimped. It happens all the time whenever a game patch rolls back an ability for a certain group of players. Inevitably, they see it as a personal attack on them, and complain that the video game company "hates X." It doesnt matter how minor the change, or how much X got improved in the last patch, when they weaken or remove ANY type of ability or bonus, it is never because of true game balance, it's because they hate X. One of the things that I notice is that rarely does someone mention a benefit added in 3.5 and complain about it. How often do you see "Well since Rogues dont have to put ranks in innuendo they have become way too overpowered!" or "Two weapon fighting sure has become too easy since you only need 1 feat for it!" Do I think 3.5 is perfect? No! There are some things I dont like. Of course, many of those might not have been different in 3.0 (I wouldnt know since I dont have a 3.0 manual) However from what I can tell the game improved because of it. I notice the expansions are clearer, the classes are more balanced and more focused when necessary, and many gamebreaking abilities were revised. Although anything "gamebreaking" should never be a complaint since it is still the DMs responsibility, it is nice to have suggested revisions that are play tested and thought out by more than one person. |
| Nyferto07-18-05, 09:21 AM | The difference is that I don't have time to post a full list, detail everything each and everytime, maybe I'll post it all on a compendium website one day. Lets see.. They gained two skill points a level, but they also got some skills combined down. Which is a double redundant empowerment - that's bad. It's not actually good when a Class gets excessive power-ups. They gained some very poor Archery Feats. Manyshot is rubbish, noway round it, it's just too poor to really bother using and they don't get any other feats to help with it. Rapid Shot is nice, but it requires standstill movement, which isn't too useful for a stealthy character. IPS is poor because you don't get the requirement feat so you still get a -4 to attacks each time you even try to use it, combine this with the attack reducing RS and manyshot and it's a bit pointless. Archery is better for bypassing DR, but now it does less damage (unless you overdrive favoured enemy and actually meet one) and it shouldn't be better than one style. How on earth can you seriously think that TWF is actually better than anything else for handling DR, have any of your players successfully used it RAW? Or does everyone dump it for Archery? That's two bad revisions. For starters, not only do you have to pay double to enhance your weapons, but you have to pay more anyway to enhance both of them than in 3.0 and you have to pay more again to handle all the different DR's. Not only that but you can't power attack whilst TWF without taking mismatched weapons (one being 1handed at least) and taking enourmous penalties to do so, even then it might not be enough thanks to the randomness of DR. Combine that further with the same cost in feats to make the style useful, only to find it's even worse than it was than before thanks to a mass of new factors (weapon costs, DR, power attacks) and it's actually worse than before. As for the level dipping issues, well, shows what you know. Now you get, more skills, better synergy with a majority of classes, better wands, more imediate bonuses, more bonuses. Seriously, a Rogue only needs to take 2 levels to get all the past benefits and more - I hardly see the improvement. As for why a 3.0 Ranger would go for 20 levels. Lets see - superior skill list, useful spells, free TWF feats that actually function and make sense in their unique output. Animal Companions can be quite useful. Typically 3.5 takes all of this and tries to make all of it more valid as a unique feature, Animal Companions are now forces to be reckoned with, especially with Bark Skin and Animal Growth being added and the new benefits for even the most lowly companions. This isn't actually a good thing, class features should be nice and flavourful, not standalone features with unprecdented comparable benefit to similar classes. There's the enhanced Stealth benefits, you practically have to invest in these or loose out on two powerful features, problem is they may not be that good because the DM decides if they're useful - just like most Ranger features. It's not a certified improvement if you can't take advantage of it. As for the spells, for no good reason Freedom of Movement got immunity to Grapple - an absolute killer these days, especially if you're a weak Ranger. Combine that with things like Animal Growth and new Polymorph rules and it's all poorly handled. Then there's the simple stuff like the changes to the more standard buff spells, the addition of Barkskin was nice until Skip decided it should stack with other forms of natural armour. That's ignoring the automatic Non-core stuff they can pick up - it's just freakishly bizzare how they've been beefed up in 3.5. Combine that with a general lack of direction and a practical force of choice as to what a Ranger is going to be and it's a very poor revision. The meanial things like Endurance and Diehard are minor at best, it's also not that hard to invent them yourself. Yes they needed a touch and some re-thinking - it doesn't excuse the mess we got. A revision does not mean a good revision. I know there's some detail missing there, but bare in mind - that's just the Rangers revision difficulty. -- For future refference, note that 3.5 didn't invent GTWF, also note that you could effectively TWF with only one of TWF or Ambidexterity in 3.0 |
| Eightbitmage07-18-05, 10:04 AM | I personlly believe that undead should be evil in most cases (exceptions mostly being ghosts). Even if something cannot think doesn't make it not evil. A sword with the right enchantments can register as evil just as a murder can. If negative energy doesn't do it for you, think of it more as negative energy + essential evil animates the corpse. P.S. Is there any sort of essense of evil? Since it is defined in the D&D world, i figure you could probably distil it somehow. |
| Fanged Fremont07-18-05, 10:36 AM | Now these were 3.0 books I was reading, but about everything I read that happened to be undead mentioned something about hating and life and wanting to consume/destroy it. Seems evil to me. Also I own about 25 3.0 books. Got them when the came out. I use 3.5 and don't own any of the books. Tells you something. |
| Bopple07-18-05, 10:48 AM | I think 3.5 is better overall. But is it worth buying when you have 3.0 corebooks? No, definitely not, especially when there is SRD out there. |
| RPGfish07-18-05, 11:00 AM | *points at DMG 3.5* Get that one! Ok the books are high priced but right now I am in a 3.0/3.5 game and it works. Keep the spells and monsters of 3.0 and take the magic weapons and rules of DMG 3.5 |
| astute107-18-05, 11:19 AM | I'm not going to jump into the flamewar too much. Many of the changes that 3.5 made to the system were houserules my group had already advocated. Those changes, along with the more balanced core classes convinced us to switch to 3.5. I would suggest that if you are low on money, you dl the SRD - or use the one at www.d20srd.org Otherwise, the 3.5 books are a nice investment. One last thing. The splatbooks that support 3.5 are far higher quality than the splatbooks for 3.0. Sword&Fist vs. Complete Warrior? |
| Nyferto07-18-05, 12:21 PM | Alright, some of the CW is good, yet on a general basis: Most of the good stuff is just hindsight, it's not exactly genius Hulking Hurler It's not exactly Exclusive to 3.5 There have been many complaints about the Swashbuckler and Samurai, and the Hexblade isn't completely do-able with the CW alone, nore is it amazingly well done. Look at the mess of a Complete Divine. As for Undead, no it was stupid making all Undead automatically evil. Skeletons and Zombies are mindless, I have no idea where the implication that they can think and only want the death of all living creatures came from, but I don't re-call a core D&D source saying so. It's quite obvious that all undead aren't evil, yet for some reason Heal and Harm are untouched inspite of all this Negativity changes. |
| High Octane07-18-05, 02:30 PM | I think that skeletons and undead are mindless, but they abhore life. Its not a concience hatred so much as they are either A. "Programmed" to hate it, since skeletons and zombies are basically machines, or B. They are powered by negative energy and life is powered by positive nenergy and it naturally feels aversion to it. |
| rbrt_Spade07-18-05, 02:42 PM | live on 3.o and pisonics handbook-better than the expanded one! |
| Lycanthromancer07-18-05, 02:52 PM | live on 3.o and pisonics handbook-better than the expanded one! You...are insane. No, really. Unless you're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. You are kidding, right? |
| astute107-18-05, 03:58 PM | live on 3.o and pisonics handbook-better than the expanded one! Gotta be joking, right? |
| Antioch07-19-05, 04:27 AM | I personlly believe that undead should be evil in most cases (exceptions mostly being ghosts). Even if something cannot think doesn't make it not evil. A sword with the right enchantments can register as evil just as a murder can. If negative energy doesn't do it for you, think of it more as negative energy + essential evil animates the corpse. P.S. Is there any sort of essense of evil? Since it is defined in the D&D world, i figure you could probably distil it somehow. Evil as we know it radiates from three of the outer planes (Abyss, Baator, and Gehenna). These planes actually register as evil due and taint the denizens that dwell there. With little doubt we can surmise that undead are animated by negative energy which is a neutral force. Furthermore, I've made several instances in which the animation of undead might be a neutral or even good act. So, non-evil energy, non-evil (daresay good?) circumstances. The arguement of "just because" doenst hold much water nowadays. |
| Antioch07-19-05, 04:58 AM | The difference is that I don't have time to post a full list, detail everything each and everytime, maybe I'll post it all on a compendium website one day. Good organization is important for the other side to refute your "points" in a clear and concise manner, but we work with what we got. They gained two skill points a level, but they also got some skills combined down. Which is a double redundant empowerment - that's bad. It's not actually good when a Class gets excessive power-ups. From what I recall, Wildnerness Lore was balled into Intuit Direction and made into Survival, and Animal Empathy was complete axed. This was good for more than just the ranger mind you (works for druids and barbarians). Not to mention that other skills (some less used than others) got merged to make skill pumping easier and allow you to use them more often. I was happy when Scry was removed and just balled in with the spell; one less thing to worry about as a wizard. They gained some very poor Archery Feats. Manyshot is rubbish, noway round it, it's just too poor to really bother using and they don't get any other feats to help with it. Yes, the ability to make multiple attacks against one target as only a standard action certainly does suck. Whatever was I thinking? To surmise; a 6th level fighter will get two attacks (base of +6/+1) when performing a full-round action. A ranger will get two attacks (base of +2/+2) as only a standard action. The total penalty does suck, but all of the attacks use the same one (increasing the odds of subsequent attacks hitting). Rapid Shot is nice, but it requires standstill movement, which isn't too useful for a stealthy character. And here I thought mobility could be a bad thing when you wished to avoid being seen. Also, the ranger is not an exclusively stealth-assassin type character. This feat is rather nice as it gives you the option for an additional attack early on. IPS is poor because you don't get the requirement feat so you still get a -4 to attacks each time you even try to use it, combine this with the attack reducing RS and manyshot and it's a bit pointless. Both of the feats accomplish different goals. IPS negates cover and concealment unless both are conferring total grades. However as a DM I wouldnt mind houseruling this to perform as PS since IPS also makes you automatically strike the target of your choice if both creatures are grappling. Archery is better for bypassing DR, but now it does less damage (unless you overdrive favoured enemy and actually meet one) and it shouldn't be better than one style. Its always done the same damage. I'm not sure of a change to the ranger class specfically made it worse. Also, you say it sucks though it shouldnt be better than one style (by which you mean the only other style). How on earth can you seriously think that TWF is actually better than anything else for handling DR, have any of your players successfully used it RAW? Or does everyone dump it for Archery? That's two bad revisions. For starters, not only do you have to pay double to enhance your weapons, but you have to pay more anyway to enhance both of them than in 3.0 and you have to pay more again to handle all the different DR's. Not only that but you can't power attack whilst TWF without taking mismatched weapons (one being 1handed at least) and taking enourmous penalties to do so, even then it might not be enough thanks to the randomness of DR. The two-weapon fighting tree allows you to make more attacks than a fighter could at the same level, so of course this will be balanced by a penalty. A 20th level ranger with a long sword and short sword will be making seven attacks (+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3) while the fighter just gets four. If he burns the feat slots and meets the insane Dex requirement (19+), he can do the same however. Again, for the benefit of numerous additional attack possibilities, it needs to be grounded with a balancing penalty to avoid abuse or powergaming. Combine that further with the same cost in feats to make the style useful, only to find it's even worse than it was than before thanks to a mass of new factors (weapon costs, DR, power attacks) and it's actually worse than before. I doubt finding more than one magical weapon is difficult. If need be, hawk off the useless weapons you get and have your party crafter make you something useful, or adventure for known weapons that provide benefits you will actually go for. As for the level dipping issues, well, shows what you know. Now you get, more skills, better synergy with a majority of classes, better wands, more imediate bonuses, more bonuses. Seriously, a Rogue only needs to take 2 levels to get all the past benefits and more - I hardly see the improvement. As for why a 3.0 Ranger would go for 20 levels. Lets see - superior skill list, useful spells, free TWF feats that actually function and make sense in their unique output. Animal Companions can be quite useful. Well, as I'm in the know, I KNOW that first of all, a 3.0 ranger CANNOT obtain an animal companion. So, lets chalk that off. Second, the 3.0 ranger has an inferior number of skill points (2 less in case you werent keeping count). Third, since 3.0 didnt bundle some less used skills together, you have to distribute your pitiful SP out even further, forcing a dive in other skills (which means that yes, you are even less effective than your newer iteration). Finally, you have only two real class features, meaning you just barely beat out the sorcerer in level progression boredom. Cheers however, I seriously doubt I could maintain a bubble of insolence in face of such glaring evidence. Typically 3.5 takes all of this and tries to make all of it more valid as a unique feature, Animal Companions are now forces to be reckoned with, especially with Bark Skin and Animal Growth being added and the new benefits for even the most lowly companions. This isn't actually a good thing, class features should be nice and flavourful, not standalone features with unprecdented comparable benefit to similar classes. There's the enhanced Stealth benefits, you practically have to invest in these or loose out on two powerful features, problem is they may not be that good because the DM decides if they're useful - just like most Ranger features. It's not a certified improvement if you can't take advantage of it. Not sure of what you are trying to imply here. You just previously mentioned how cool animal companions are despite the fact that rangers didnt get them. As for the spells, for no good reason Freedom of Movement got immunity to Grapple - an absolute killer these days, especially if you're a weak Ranger. Combine that with things like Animal Growth and new Polymorph rules and it's all poorly handled. Then there's the simple stuff like the changes to the more standard buff spells, the addition of Barkskin was nice until Skip decided it should stack with other forms of natural armour. That's ignoring the automatic Non-core stuff they can pick up - it's just freakishly bizzare how they've been beefed up in 3.5. Oh yes, I'm sooo depressed that freedom of movement got nerfed ever so slightly (if you insisnt, I'm not going to bother looking it up to determine if you are right or wrong), since I get grappled all the time. Combine that with a general lack of direction and a practical force of choice as to what a Ranger is going to be and it's a very poor revision. The meanial things like Endurance and Diehard are minor at best, it's also not that hard to invent them yourself. Yes they needed a touch and some re-thinking - it doesn't excuse the mess we got. A revision does not mean a good revision. Rangers need a revision, they were boring and useless before. Also, they are the ONLY other class that flaunts flexibility despite the fighter (unless you count primary spell casters). Monks, paladins, barbarians, etc all follow a set standard of class feature progression with no room for diversion if you follow the standard rules. Rangers get a choice to alter what you will get in addition to your feat, race, skill, and spell selection. If you think they are more constrained then you are completely wrong. I know there's some detail missing there, but bare in mind - that's just the Rangers revision difficulty. I'm waiting eagerly for more of your accusations. |
| Antioch07-19-05, 05:00 AM | live on 3.o and pisonics handbook-better than the expanded one! No, its not. There are many obvious reasons in conjuction with some that perhaps you simply are not capable of seeing if you are adamant in your standpoint. Attemptig to prove you wrong would probably be a fruitless endeavor considering that even if shown hard evidence I'm willing to bet you wouldnt falter in face of the truth. |
| Eightbitmage07-19-05, 07:23 AM | Evil as we know it radiates from three of the outer planes Ah, so evil is a wave not a particle. Or is it both like light? :D With little doubt we can surmise that undead are animated by negative energy which is a neutral force. Furthermore, I've made several instances in which the animation of undead might be a neutral or even good act. So, non-evil energy, non-evil (daresay good?) circumstances. The arguement of "just because" doenst hold much water nowadays. Yes, but there are many times when you could use a soul stealing sword, or an unholy scythe for a good purpose. You don't even have to kill anything. What if you just used the scythe as a way to harvest grain? It doesn't make the scythe not evil to be used in a non-evil circumstance. The weapons are evil just because they are evil, the same way undead are evil just because they are evil. |
| Antioch07-19-05, 04:31 PM | Yes, but there are many times when you could use a soul stealing sword, or an unholy scythe for a good purpose. You don't even have to kill anything. What if you just used the scythe as a way to harvest grain? It doesn't make the scythe not evil to be used in a non-evil circumstance. The weapons are evil just because they are evil, the same way undead are evil just because they are evil. Except that the weapons you mention have been imbued with evil force, while the undead have not. Negative energy and onyx gems do note equate to evil, so the undead are "just evil" because the game designers for some reason figured that they should be, which is not sufficient in my book. |
| rbrt_Spade07-19-05, 04:33 PM | ok dead threads back..... :) :) ok, what happend about talking about 3.0/3.5 than evil and un hloy sythe? :confused: |
| Antioch07-19-05, 04:35 PM | Oh you know, this and that. |
| Eightbitmage07-19-05, 11:00 PM | Except that the weapons you mention have been imbued with evil force, while the undead have not. How do you know that they haven't? And how do you know that the weapon has? From what I can tell the fact that the weapon is evil is why you would think it is imbued with evil, since the spell is evil why wouldn't you think the undead are imbued with evil? |
| Antioch07-20-05, 03:32 AM | How do you know that they haven't? And how do you know that the weapon has? From what I can tell the fact that the weapon is evil is why you would think it is imbued with evil, since the spell is evil why wouldn't you think the undead are imbued with evil? Well for a weapon to be evil I would assume that it would have to have some kind of evil power channeled into it. On the other hand there is nothing to suggest undead being channeled with any evil force except for the reason-lacking [Evil] descriptor by animate dead, which unlike other spells doesnt actually do anything evil. |
| WCH07-20-05, 04:29 AM | I guess what it comes down to is an arbitrary moral ruling. That is, since Good and Evil are actual specific forces in D&D, not abstract concepts, it is up to the game designers to decide what is "Good" and what is "Evil." Those decisions are, of course, influenced by the society the game designers live in -- a society which says human life is to be valued, that the dead are to rest in peace, etc. In the same way, it would have been acceptable (although politically incorrect) for the game designers to rule that homosexuality is evil. Really, they could rule that anything is, as it's all arbitrary... that's what you get when you take an abstract concept which is open to philosophical debate and turn it into a concrete elemental force. On certain issues you need to come down on one side or the other -- the game designers decided to make undead evil, and to leave sexual orientation out of the game (quite wisely), but they could easily have done the reverse, and as a DM you should feel free to do so. The same applies to other moral issues... say, cannabalism. Really, this is a cultural issue, and there isn't anything inherently "evil" about it in my understanding (I use the term evil to refer to helping yourself at the expense of someone else), and certain cultures have celebrated the practice without being "evil" otherwise -- our culture says it's evil, so it's reasonable that in D&D it could be seen as evil. I'd use some sexual examples as well (fetishes and same-age-incest, mainly), but that should probably stay on the Mature Boards... in any case, you see how there can be moral ambiguity on certain subjects, and it doesn't work to have ambiguity in the rules. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 06:59 AM | I guess what it comes down to is an arbitrary moral ruling. That is, since Good and Evil are actual specific forces in D&D, not abstract concepts, it is up to the game designers to decide what is "Good" and what is "Evil." Those decisions are, of course, influenced by the society the game designers live in -- a society which says human life is to be valued, that the dead are to rest in peace, etc. Non-intelligent undead (and possibly intelligent depending on type) do live in peace. The spirit or memories do not linger in any shape, way, or fashion. The departed may not even know that his decaying remains are being used for good or evil (or just to chop wood). You see, life and death are neutral forces; they are part of the natural cycle of life. In a world where magic, the outer planes, and the whims of the gods are "natural" aspects of the order, I would be hard pressed to label things as unnatural. Since negative energy is a natural force, I tend to lean that spontaneous animation (such as that you might find on an old battlefied) is a "natural" occurance. Also, since life and death are neutral, and positive and negative energy are neutral, my ruling is that non-intelligent undead are neutral by default and that the designer's are wrong. This ruling still follows the model of some things being good or evil as well. They are a tool and nothing more. In the same way, it would have been acceptable (although politically incorrect) for the game designers to rule that homosexuality is evil. Really, they could rule that anything is, as it's all arbitrary... that's what you get when you take an abstract concept which is open to philosophical debate and turn it into a concrete elemental force. On certain issues you need to come down on one side or the other -- the game designers decided to make undead evil, and to leave sexual orientation out of the game (quite wisely), but they could easily have done the reverse, and as a DM you should feel free to do so. Thats a pretty great leap for an analogy. The difference is that clearly homosexuality is not evil in the least, while undead are icky and look funny, which seems to be why they are all considered evil in the first place. Also, its not an either/or thing; undead could have just as easily been neutral. Contrary to popular belief D&D does have shades of gray. The same applies to other moral issues... say, cannabalism. Really, this is a cultural issue, and there isn't anything inherently "evil" about it in my understanding (I use the term evil to refer to helping yourself at the expense of someone else), and certain cultures have celebrated the practice without being "evil" otherwise -- our culture says it's evil, so it's reasonable that in D&D it could be seen as evil. I'd use some sexual examples as well (fetishes and same-age-incest, mainly), but that should probably stay on the Mature Boards... in any case, you see how there can be moral ambiguity on certain subjects, and it doesn't work to have ambiguity in the rules. Sex and cannabalism probably arent major points of focus in D&D in any case, while undead are (typically as villians or stupid mooks that you find standing around in dungeons doing nothing of importance). |
| Eightbitmage07-20-05, 07:19 AM | Yes but lets compare: Evil weapon evil because it is called evil, probably because its imbued by an evil force. Undead (due to alignment, and spell) evil, bprobably because its imbued by an evil force. You can't say that undead aren't filled with evil force, just because the game doesn't say it. The game also doesn't say it about the nine lives stealer. All it says is that the sword is evil, I think since its safe to assume that the sword can be evil without the game saying why its evil, you can make the same argument about undead, because they are simply objects. Also just because its natural doesn't make it not evil. There are a number of creatures that are both natural and evil. |
| Nyferto07-20-05, 12:47 PM | They gained two skill points a level, but they also got some skills combined down. Which is a double redundant empowerment - that's bad. It's not actually good when a Class gets excessive power-ups.[/b] From what I recall, Wildnerness Lore was balled into Intuit Direction and made into Survival, and Animal Empathy was complete axed. This was good for more than just the ranger mind you (works for druids and barbarians). Not to mention that other skills (some less used than others) got merged to make skill pumping easier and allow you to use them more often. I was happy when Scry was removed and just balled in with the spell; one less thing to worry about as a wizard. Good? Maybe they should've gone further, maybe they went too far in some catagories, maybe we'll never get an explanation of why you need a high Spot skill to read lips, who knows? Can't we have a Sneak skill, rather than Move Silently and Hide? How about a Combined Concentration and Spell Craft ability? More importantly in this case, why do both? Scry is another issue, taking it from the spell isn't a good thing now that it's got a will save. It's a double improvement, not only that but it does help other classes more, but it only helps the ones that use lumped skills - no-one else. Essentially it's still a double power-up that adds a number of questionable and often unrelated elements to the character. They gained some very poor Archery Feats. Manyshot is rubbish, noway round it, it's just too poor to really bother using and they don't get any other feats to help with it. Yes, the ability to make multiple attacks against one target as only a standard action certainly does suck. Whatever was I thinking? To surmise; a 6th level fighter will get two attacks (base of +6/+1) when performing a full-round action. A ranger will get two attacks (base of +2/+2) as only a standard action. The total penalty does suck, but all of the attacks use the same one (increasing the odds of subsequent attacks hitting). Multiple attacks against the same opponent - within 30ft. That's natural reach for some people, it can't be used with shot on the run, it can't be used without taking a hideous penalty, it eats up ammunition and only one arrow will have precision based damage on it. Meaning it's not too handy at all. Rapid Shot is nice, but it requires standstill movement, which isn't too useful for a stealthy character. And here I thought mobility could be a bad thing when you wished to avoid being seen. Also, the ranger is not an exclusively stealth-assassin type character. This feat is rather nice as it gives you the option for an additional attack early on. If he's not using stealth, why go on about the benefits of HIPS and Camoflage? If he's not using stealth, what's the problem with 4 skill points per level? If he's not using stealth - he's missing out on two key class features If he's staying mobile - he's not using Stealth very effectively, you can't snipe with Rapid Shot. IPS is poor because you don't get the requirement feat so you still get a -4 to attacks each time you even try to use it, combine this with the attack reducing RS and manyshot and it's a bit pointless. Both of the feats accomplish different goals. IPS negates cover and concealment unless both are conferring total grades. However as a DM I wouldnt mind houseruling this to perform as PS since IPS also makes you automatically strike the target of your choice if both creatures are grappling. House rulings are meaningless, it is useful, but when one of the prime uses is firing into melee, it's not too hot to have a -4 penalty. Put Rapid Shot or Many shot on top of that and it's fairly redundant. Archery is better for bypassing DR, but now it does less damage (unless you overdrive favoured enemy and actually meet one) and it shouldn't be better than one style. Its always done the same damage. I'm not sure of a change to the ranger class specfically made it worse. Also, you say it sucks though it shouldnt be better than one style (by which you mean the only other style). No it does less damage, because you can't stack arrow enchantments ontop of Bow enchantments, the performance of Archery effects the Ranger who takes Archery as a combat style. As for other styles of combat - that's a very different thing. Things like mounted combat and THF aren't specifically helped by being a Ranger. How on earth can you seriously think that TWF is actually better than anything else for handling DR, have any of your players successfully used it RAW? Or does everyone dump it for Archery? That's two bad revisions. For starters, not only do you have to pay double to enhance your weapons, but you have to pay more anyway to enhance both of them than in 3.0 and you have to pay more again to handle all the different DR's. Not only that but you can't power attack whilst TWF without taking mismatched weapons (one being 1handed at least) and taking enourmous penalties to do so, even then it might not be enough thanks to the randomness of DR. The two-weapon fighting tree allows you to make more attacks than a fighter could at the same level, so of course this will be balanced by a penalty. A 20th level ranger with a long sword and short sword will be making seven attacks (+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3) while the fighter just gets four. If he burns the feat slots and meets the insane Dex requirement (19+), he can do the same however. Again, for the benefit of numerous additional attack possibilities, it needs to be grounded with a balancing penalty to avoid abuse or powergaming. At first level, a Fighter with TWF will have the same number of attacks, at 6th they'll be level, at 11th the Ranger will have an advantage for one level. Difference is the Fighter can go with many other options beside, The Ranger only gets one other style to pick from and it's not too hot. This has nothing to do with bypassing DR, stick to the point or don't make one. You did however highlight something else I hate about 3.5 - the increasing Dex requirements for TWF - why? I do prefer the older system. [b]Combine that further with the same cost in feats to make the style useful, only to find it's even worse than it was than before thanks to a mass of new factors (weapon costs, DR, power attacks) and it's actually worse than before. I doubt finding more than one magical weapon is difficult. If need be, hawk off the useless weapons you get and have your party crafter make you something useful, or adventure for known weapons that provide benefits you will actually go for. Have you actually played in a campaign where someone tries to TWF normally? Consider the pain a standard Sword and Board warrior has to go through just to handle the DR system, then double it and make it even more costly thanks to High Dex requirements. Then compare it all to the cost of someone who just goes for the big two handed weapon and power attack. Finding one magical weapon is easy, finding more than one is easy two. Finding one of the right type is costly, finding two is even more so, compensating for all the other weaknesses of TWF is even worse and it's not like the Ranger gets any help for that. As for the level dipping issues, well, shows what you know. Now you get, more skills, better synergy with a majority of classes, better wands, more imediate bonuses, more bonuses. Seriously, a Rogue only needs to take 2 levels to get all the past benefits and more - I hardly see the improvement. As for why a 3.0 Ranger would go for 20 levels. Lets see - superior skill list, useful spells, free TWF feats that actually function and make sense in their unique output. Animal Companions can be quite useful. Well, as I'm in the know, I KNOW that first of all, a 3.0 ranger CANNOT obtain an animal companion. So, lets chalk that off. Second, the 3.0 ranger has an inferior number of skill points (2 less in case you werent keeping count). Third, since 3.0 didnt bundle some less used skills together, you have to distribute your pitiful SP out even further, forcing a dive in other skills (which means that yes, you are even less effective than your newer iteration). Finally, you have only two real class features, meaning you just barely beat out the sorcerer in level progression boredom. Cheers however, I seriously doubt I could maintain a bubble of insolence in face of such glaring evidence. Animal Friendship is a first level Ranger spell, which isn't the first mistake you've made. Certainly isn't the last one you made either. Remember that I'm the one who actually took the Ranger to 20th on a frequent basis. How many 3.0 skills did a Ranger need to max? What's so hard about raising Int a bit to get a few more points? I never said the 3.0 Ranger was perfect, but I prefer it in general to the 3.5 version, combine it with all the other faults of 3.5 - and the 3.5 Ranger is bad even before you go non-core. Typically 3.5 takes all of this and tries to make all of it more valid as a unique feature, Animal Companions are now forces to be reckoned with, especially with Bark Skin and Animal Growth being added and the new benefits for even the most lowly companions. This isn't actually a good thing, class features should be nice and flavourful, not standalone features with unprecdented comparable benefit to similar classes. There's the enhanced Stealth benefits, you practically have to invest in these or loose out on two powerful features, problem is they may not be that good because the DM decides if they're useful - just like most Ranger features. It's not a certified improvement if you can't take advantage of it. Not sure of what you are trying to imply here. You just previously mentioned how cool animal companions are despite the fact that rangers didnt get them. No, I said they were useful, you can maintain a small contingent of Animal companions who will be useful, in D&D they're far more powerful. For no good reason you can pick Raptors up and other Dinosaurs, then there's the other more powerful creatures that can serve you. It's a far stronger feature and it's something few other classes can match all by themselves. As for the spells, for no good reason Freedom of Movement got immunity to Grapple - an absolute killer these days, especially if you're a weak Ranger. Combine that with things like Animal Growth and new Polymorph rules and it's all poorly handled. Then there's the simple stuff like the changes to the more standard buff spells, the addition of Barkskin was nice until Skip decided it should stack with other forms of natural armour. That's ignoring the automatic Non-core stuff they can pick up - it's just freakishly bizzare how they've been beefed up in 3.5. Oh yes, I'm sooo depressed that freedom of movement got nerfed ever so slightly (if you insisnt, I'm not going to bother looking it up to determine if you are right or wrong), since I get grappled all the time. No, it got beefed up to include the dangerous grappling ability in it's list of immunities. If you don't know how dangerous being grappled can be, I doubt you've played 3.5 for that long. Combine that with a general lack of direction and a practical force of choice as to what a Ranger is going to be and it's a very poor revision. The meanial things like Endurance and Diehard are minor at best, it's also not that hard to invent them yourself. Yes they needed a touch and some re-thinking - it doesn't excuse the mess we got. A revision does not mean a good revision. Rangers need a revision, they were boring and useless before. Also, they are the ONLY other class that flaunts flexibility despite the fighter (unless you count primary spell casters). Monks, paladins, barbarians, etc all follow a set standard of class feature progression with no room for diversion if you follow the standard rules. Rangers get a choice to alter what you will get in addition to your feat, race, skill, and spell selection. If you think they are more constrained then you are completely wrong. You'd be stupid to take the TWF tree - or have a cunning plan to work round it. Two new class features relate to stealth. Favoured Enemy gets beefed up to ridiculous levels They're absolutely bound into Woodland scenario's without houseruling and changes thanks to Spell choices and spell seleciton - that was hardly improved only damned further. They're too spread out in terms of ability, and they don't have very strong abilities in the first place. You'd be stupid to do anything for a rolepplay reasons, like choose a companion that can't maul everything in site. It has very little PrC flexability. I didn't say the other classes were exempt, but that doesn't mean they're better or worse - perhaps it's a common theme - I haven't got to those classes yet. [b]I know there's some detail missing there, but bare in mind - that's just the Rangers revision difficulty. I'm waiting eagerly for more of your accusations.[/QUOTE] First you need to check your facts on this simple issue. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 01:27 PM | [QUOTE=Eightbitmage]Yes but lets compare: Evil weapon evil because it is called evil, probably because its imbued by an evil force. Evil weapon is evil due to the creation method. The in-depth processes of magic item construction are not revealed to us so we cant be sure what exactly goes on or whats used aside from a spell or two. Undead (due to alignment, and spell) evil, bprobably because its imbued by an evil force. Undead are evil because for some reason necromancy and undead in general gets a bad rap. Nevermind that skeletons and zombies are mindless (only doing what their creator says), and are labeled as such from the start without even doing anything evil (and even then, their master has to tell them to do it). You can't say that undead aren't filled with evil force, just because the game doesn't say it. The game also doesn't say it about the nine lives stealer. All it says is that the sword is evil, I think since its safe to assume that the sword can be evil without the game saying why its evil, you can make the same argument about undead, because they are simply objects. I can because it states that the sword you mention is evil. Since the description blatantly states its evil, I think its safe to say it is so. The fact that mindless undead are shambling about with an Always Neutral Evil alignment makes no sense. Since they can be used for good or evil depending, their alignment should be Neutral (the shades of gray area). Also just because its natural doesn't make it not evil. There are a number of creatures that are both natural and evil. I didnt say natural = not evil, but many people seem to think that unnatural = always evil. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 02:22 PM | Good? Maybe they should've gone further, maybe they went too far in some catagories, maybe we'll never get an explanation of why you need a high Spot skill to read lips, who knows? Because its relatively useless otherwise? Also, how is DC 15 a "high" Spot skill? Pretty easy for even a first level rogue to pull off. DCs are explained in the Skills chapter. Can't we have a Sneak skill, rather than Move Silently and Hide? How about a Combined Concentration and Spell Craft ability? Move Silently and Hide being balled into one kinda sorta makes sense, though different factors modify your bonus so I guess it really doesnt. Your second match however, is a very, very stupid idea, since both skills are completely different in nature. More importantly in this case, why do both? Scry is another issue, taking it from the spell isn't a good thing now that it's got a will save. It's a double improvement, not only that but it does help other classes more, but it only helps the ones that use lumped skills - no-one else. Many skills were lumped, so many classes gained a benefit of this process. I'd also rather not have to buy a skill to use a spell, which is probably why they changed it in the first place. Now it makes sense (more so than being able to use a skill untrained that you cannot buy ranks in does, anyway). Essentially it's still a double power-up that adds a number of questionable and often unrelated elements to the character.[/b] Multiple attacks against the same opponent - within 30ft. That's natural reach for some people, it can't be used with shot on the run, it can't be used without taking a hideous penalty, it eats up ammunition and only one arrow will have precision based damage on it. Meaning it's not too handy at all. Dragons come to mind, and not much else. Also, the penalty is only slightly more than a fighter would suffer for his extra attacks, and he must still make a full-round attack, meaning he really cant move. If he's not using stealth, why go on about the benefits of HIPS and Camoflage? If he's not using stealth, what's the problem with 4 skill points per level? If he's not using stealth - he's missing out on two key class features If he's staying mobile - he's not using Stealth very effectively, you can't snipe with Rapid Shot. Oh...my...god...you are actually making my brain hurt. Do go over this spread out and ill thought bout of complainery, I'll take it from the top. 1.) I said the ranger is not exclusively a stealth-assassin, which is what you implied despite the fact that the feat is perfect for this. 2.) Despite the fact that your additional whining of skill points is irrelevent, I will point out that more SPs allows you to max out more skills. I'll let you try to put the proverbial 2 and 2 together here. 3.) See number one. 4.) Yes you can. *whew* Wasnt as hard as I thought. House rulings are meaningless, it is useful, but when one of the prime uses is firing into melee, it's not too hot to have a -4 penalty. Put Rapid Shot or Many shot on top of that and it's fairly redundant. Actually they arent, but even if we pretend so my point is stil valid. No it does less damage, because you can't stack arrow enchantments ontop of Bow enchantments, the performance of Archery effects the Ranger who takes Archery as a combat style. As for other styles of combat - that's a very different thing. Things like mounted combat and THF aren't specifically helped by being a Ranger. I actually had to go get my 3.0 DMG for this...now my bookstand is crooked. You may laugh at your only moment of glory now, shortlived as it is. In 3.0 the ruling is that the bonuses to attack are the only aspect that attacks. In the cited example, a +1 bow and +1 arrow provide a +2 attack. This goes against the bonus stacking rule first of all, but the other important thing to note is that only the ammunitions bonus counts for purposes of overcoming DR (so in this case its only good if the DR is wahtever/+1), the benefit of the bow in this case is ignored. In 3.5 however, things work differently (dare I say, more logically). The highest bonus is used (makes sense). This means that now projectile weapons now confer their benefit to ammo (a plus for all classes). Since DR is more logical also, you dont need to rack up insane bonuses to deal normal damage also (to note: this benefit also applies to any class that engages in combat using normal weapons). At first level, a Fighter with TWF will have the same number of attacks, at 6th they'll be level, at 11th the Ranger will have an advantage for one level. Difference is the Fighter can go with many other options beside, The Ranger only gets one other style to pick from and it's not too hot. This has nothing to do with bypassing DR, stick to the point or don't make one. You are the one who whined about DR (among other things). Your incessant complaining aside, there arent a whole lot of Dex 15 fighters out there since A) many fighters do not take a high Dex due to armor restrictions and B) Dex does not affect melee attacks, which is also what many fighters use. From personal experience fighters that decide to be archery types will not use two weapons at all. You did however highlight something else I hate about 3.5 - the increasing Dex requirements for TWF - why? I do prefer the older system. Then use it. Combine that further with the same cost in feats to make the style useful, only to find it's even worse than it was than before thanks to a mass of new factors (weapon costs, DR, power attacks) and it's actually worse than before. Again you whine about DR. Have you actually played in a campaign where someone tries to TWF normally? Consider the pain a standard Sword and Board warrior has to go through just to handle the DR system, then double it and make it even more costly thanks to High Dex requirements. Then compare it all to the cost of someone who just goes for the big two handed weapon and power attack. Finding one magical weapon is easy, finding more than one is easy two. Finding one of the right type is costly, finding two is even more so, compensating for all the other weaknesses of TWF is even worse and it's not like the Ranger gets any help for that. Oh, the new DR system is sooo complex. Even if we ignore the fact that there is one nice broad DR category called magic that makes even a +1 spoon useful against dragons, the fact that its only good for shaving off a paltry sum of hit points at low levels doesnt make the fight a one-sided battle like it was before (DR30-50?). Animal Friendship is a first level Ranger spell, which isn't the first mistake you've made. Certainly isn't the last one you made either. I dont know how I can make more than one when I havent at all. Rangers cannot gain animal companions. They can get normal animals using the spell to a point, but those animals will quickly become useless, especially compared to the druids animal companion. You really need to check your sources. This is all 3.0 stuff and I still know more than you. Remember that I'm the one who actually took the Ranger to 20th on a frequent basis. I'm sorry. How many 3.0 skills did a Ranger need to max? More than the 3.5 one, and with less skill points to boot. Its pretty easy to figure out since 3.0 had more skills to choose from, and the ranger had less skill points. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. What's so hard about raising Int a bit to get a few more points? Those Int boosting tomes only go so far. Also, if I were to play a ranger I'd like to first have a Wisdom capable of allowing me to cast my pidling divine spells, not to mention wanting a good Str or Dex depending on my style, not to mention hopefully having Con above as well for some extra hit points seeing as anything better than light armor hinders my only real class feature. Talk about MAD. I never said the 3.0 Ranger was perfect, but I prefer it in general to the 3.5 version, combine it with all the other faults of 3.5 - and the 3.5 Ranger is bad even before you go non-core. I've shown you valid proof that it is inferior. The statistics are obvious, and yet you still stand adamant. There isnt a word that describes how ignorant and stubborn you are. No, I said they were useful, you can maintain a small contingent of Animal companions who will be useful, in D&D they're far more powerful. For no good reason you can pick Raptors up and other Dinosaurs, then there's the other more powerful creatures that can serve you. It's a far stronger feature and it's something few other classes can match all by themselves. There is a mechanic in the game called Challenge Rating. Dinosaurs are not magical things that move outside of these bounds. This means that they are not mystically more powerful than other animals of a similar CR so long as they designer's did so accurately. This nifty CR thing (it was in 3.0 as well), prevents you from snagging a massive creature early on (since the 3.0 animal friendship was only HD based, you had the capability of getting something far more broken). I'm inclined to think you are whining because there is less chance of rules abuse, but you are contradictory in that you like an underpowered class, so I'm not sure whats going on in your head. No, it got beefed up to include the dangerous grappling ability in it's list of immunities. If you don't know how dangerous being grappled can be, I doubt you've played 3.5 for that long. Dragon: Attempts to grapple rogue. Rogue: Stabs dragon with dagger for one point of damage. Dragon: Has to drop rogue because of stupid Grappling rule. You can tailor this scenario to any creature that does not have an Improved Grab attack or the Improved Grapple feat. Grappling really isnt a dangerous combat utility at all thanks to how gimped it really is. I suppose if you are trying to capture someone and you all mob him/her it has its uses, but otherwise this has never seen widescale use in any game (why try to grapple a kobold when you can just stab it, or deal subdual damage to guarantee a capture?). If you think its so dangerous, I doubt you've even used it. Two new class features relate to stealth. Makes sense for a hunter-type class. Favoured Enemy gets beefed up to ridiculous levels. You mean its useful. Also, now you get to tailor it around a bit as you level so you can have a better chance at making sure it sees use. They're absolutely bound into Woodland scenario's without houseruling and changes thanks to Spell choices and spell seleciton - that was hardly improved only damned further. They were just the same as in 3.0...oh wait, they didnt have class features then, my bad. Seriously though, they are not any more bound than a druid. Finally, since D&D often takes place outside of a city, this isnt a problem. They're too spread out in terms of ability, and they don't have very strong abilities in the first place. As opposed to having none in 3.0. You'd be stupid to do anything for a rolepplay reasons, like choose a companion that can't maul everything in site. It has very little PrC flexability. I didn't say the other classes were exempt, but that doesn't mean they're better or worse - perhaps it's a common theme - I haven't got to those classes yet. As opposed to not having an animal companion at all? They are actually more flexible than the earlier ranger due to a heighted skill selection. First you need to check your facts on this simple issue. I did, I actually looked up animal friendship because I wasnt sure if the animals were a permanent addition or had a set duration. So again, please check your facts. |
| WCH07-20-05, 03:53 PM | Non-intelligent undead (and possibly intelligent depending on type) do live in peace. The spirit or memories do not linger in any shape, way, or fashion. But their bodies are tampered with. Does anyone in our society think that the spirit of the dead stays in the body? No? So why then is it seen as immoral to tamper with bodies? Religious folks say that the souls have gone on to the afterlife, atheists say that there wasn't a soul to begin with -- no one thinks that if you cut up a corpse that the person it belonged to is suffering as a result, but yet many of us still think that doing so without express permission from the person before they died is immoral.Thats a pretty great leap for an analogy. The difference is that clearly homosexuality is not evil in the least, while undead are icky and look funny, which seems to be why they are all considered evil in the first place. Also, its not an either/or thing; undead could have just as easily been neutral. Contrary to popular belief D&D does have shades of gray.Are you saying sex isn't icky and funny looking? Ever seen the faces some of us make? :D Joking aside, when you say "clearly homosexuality is not evil in the least," that's kind of my point. You're saying the same thing about undead, and I'm saying that it's up to the game designers to decide that in both cases. How exactly are you not understanding this?I can because it states that the sword you mention is evil. Since the description blatantly states its evil, I think its safe to say it is so. The fact that mindless undead are shambling about with an Always Neutral Evil alignment makes no sense. Since they can be used for good or evil depending, their alignment should be Neutral (the shades of gray area).I'm starting to think that you're simply unable to listen to other opinions in this matter. You just blatantly contradicted yourself and you don't even seem to realise it! Look what you just said. "Sword says it's evil. Undead say they're evil. Sword I agree is evil because it says so, and I don't need an explanation of why. Undead aren't evil even though it says so, because there's no explanation of why." How are those two different in any way? Neither give an explanation, both just say "evil," and yet you accept one at face value, but argue the other one for several pages on a forum. Why? |
| Antioch07-20-05, 03:59 PM | But their bodies are tampered with. Does anyone in our society think that the spirit of the dead stays in the body? No? So why then is it seen as immoral to tamper with bodies? Religious folks say that the souls have gone on to the afterlife, atheists say that there wasn't a soul to begin with -- no one thinks that if you cut up a corpse that the person it belonged to is suffering as a result, but yet many of us still think that doing so without express permission from the person before they died is immoral.Are you saying sex isn't icky and funny looking? Ever seen the faces some of us make? :D Joking aside, when you say "clearly homosexuality is not evil in the least," that's kind of my point. You're saying the same thing about undead, and I'm saying that it's up to the game designers to decide that in both cases. How exactly are you not understanding this? Well we all know that in D&D there are souls and an afterlife by default (Eberron breaks this mold, which I find refreshing). However, as I had said some pages ago, there could be instances where using dead bodies is a good thing, even lawful. This gray area is why I'm saying such a prospect should be neutral (ie, the spell should not be evil, and they should not come out automatically evil). Not every case is going to be fraught with evil, and not every case should be fraught with good. And I know that various aspects are under the venue of the designer's, I'm just saying that I've yet to see a single reason why all mindless undead should, automatically, regardless of situation, come out as evil. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 04:13 PM | I'm starting to think that you're simply unable to listen to other opinions in this matter. You just blatantly contradicted yourself and you don't even seem to realise it! Look what you just said. "Sword says it's evil. Undead say they're evil. Sword I agree is evil because it says so, and I don't need an explanation of why. Undead aren't evil even though it says so, because there's no explanation of why." How are those two different in any way? Neither give an explanation, both just say "evil," and yet you accept one at face value, but argue the other one for several pages on a forum. Why? There is nothing do indicate that the sword might be otherwise. See, its possible that I'm not explaining this in the right way, but I'll try again. Do keep an open mind. I'm willing to accept that the sword is evil because it states in the description that it is blatantly evil. I've no doubt in my mind that yes, it is imbued with evil. This is probably due to the construction methods, which will vary from game to game; we need not dwell on that matter further. In the case of undead, and the animate dead spell, I DO have doubts. First of all, animate dead can only create mindless undead. This means things with an Int of 0 that are incapable of doing anything other than what it is told, such as you would a computer or for a more D&D term, a golem (another neutral creature). This lack of ability to even process what you are doing or the implications of said actions (no morals). Such a personality type suggests neutral. The arguments that have been submitted include such misinformation such as that the soul is restless, or that the soul feels some form of pain or discomfort. This is not detailed in the spell, and I see no reason as to why this would be the case. Other arguments flaunt the use of negative energy, which is a neutral force (the plane is also neutral). The last stretch that comes to mind is that it tampers with the body, but this can be countered with the society I'd mentioned earlier, or in cases where to save many lives its the most viable option, or even only option. So we now have a large gray area going on. The fact that the actual use of the spell can be performed for both good and bad reasons, it includes no evil forces of any kind or rituals (no sacrifice, no bargaining with demons, no draining of souls or anything of the sort), and creates critters with no ability to fathom morality. All of this indicates a mislabeled alignment descriptor on both the undead in question as well as the spell. Why? Well its not under the Evil domain (though create undead is). Perhaps they wanted it so you could protect yourself via protection from evil, though thats a very, very poor rationale to make such a large deviation. I could see other undead creation methods as evil, but only if you used it to create an evil undead beast (an intelligent one such as a ghoul or wight), but not something that just stands there and could just as easily be used to harvest wood as to attack small dogs. |
| High Octane07-20-05, 04:22 PM | Yes, but there are many times when you could use a soul stealing sword, or an unholy scythe for a good purpose. You don't even have to kill anything. What if you just used the scythe as a way to harvest grain? It doesn't make the scythe not evil to be used in a non-evil circumstance. The weapons are evil just because they are evil, the same way undead are evil just because they are evil. Except that the weapons you mention have been imbued with evil force, while the undead have not. Negative energy and onyx gems do note equate to evil, so the undead are "just evil" because the game designers for some reason figured that they should be, which is not sufficient in my book. The game designers said that evil weapons are "evil because for some reason they figured they should be" in the first place! First and second edition didnt have items having the evil descriptor (that I know of) and then when 3rd came out certain spells and items were GIVEN the evil descriptor. Its a rules REVISION. And for the most part, the same game designers that changed the rules are also the ones who MADE 3.0. I swear the way you talk you act as if some magical divine force caused 3rd edition to fall out of the sky and yet these mere mortal game designers gone and ****ed it up! For the record, I know you arent like that, but thats just how you sound. |
| Falfeir07-20-05, 04:40 PM | [QUOTE=Eightbitmage]Yes but lets compare: Undead are evil because for some reason necromancy and undead in general gets a bad rap. Nevermind that skeletons and zombies are mindless (only doing what their creator says), and are labeled as such from the start without even doing anything evil (and even then, their master has to tell them to do it). i dont know anything about 3.5, and don't have anything to say about the topic but since its already on the loose, i'll comment on the evil thing. in one of margeret weis novels (death gate cycle i guess- not a d&d novel exactly though) they explain how necromancy works. When you animate a corpse in any way using the negative energy you cause in the cosmos a random death. The caster always knows this, so the spell and the caster is evil. I use this logic in my campaign to have some solid ground. about the thing you created, well, use the one you like. one seems more logical, other is the official one thus has better balancing issues. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 04:45 PM | Well, I'd never said the game was perfect, nor do I expect it to be. However I have played D&D from its previous incarnation (2nd Edition) to present day, and having years to learn and interpret how the rules work, this is a problem that I noticed. I actually harbor a lot of respect for the designer's for the most part, even the new ones. My respect for Skip Williams is the reason in my particular circle of friends (both in RL and online) bestowed upon me the title of Sage. Now, its not really a balance issue (whether they are good or evil probably wont upset the flow of the game, unless there are groups that exist that rely heavily on protection spells when pitted against skeletons), but more of a flavor issue. Things with the [Evil] descripter, from how I've come to perceive it, are things (creatures areas, or objects) that have been heavily ingrained with an evil force. Demons from the lower planes are literally charged with such a force (which accounts for their descriptor and alignment tendency). Such descripters make them vulnerable to certain effects regardless of their actual alignment (that succubus paladin fanboys are drooling over is still susceptible to a magic circle against evil, for example). Spells that specifically harm/ward/effect only good creatures are also evil due to the requisite alignment, so its not like they just labeled evil for the sake (some seem to be, however). So again, in the case of the sword, its evil because its construction method implies the use of effects or energy that is is harmful to good creatures which is mechanically detailed in its description, not "just because". Mindless undead have no special abilities or side effects that pertain to good characters, and have no association to any evil forces. Lacking descripters then it would seem that even if they started out as evil they would quickly change to neutral since they lack moral output, making them no longer viable targets of spells that target evil creatures. |
| High Octane07-20-05, 05:01 PM | Ooookay, Im going to take this in another direction by stating that under 3.5 rules an animated corpse is not, I repeat is not autometically evil. HOWEVER, if the spell that MADE said undead DOES have the evil descriptor, then it is. Case and point, the flesh golem. The flesh golem is made using a golems manual, not a spell with the evil descriptor. At least not directly. However it is still an animated corpse, but it is considered neutral. The difference is that the undead created by animate dead are walking incarnations of said spell, and the spell has the evil descriptor. So the spell is actually permanently ACTIVE inside the zombies. Let me also say this, the zombies and skeletons arent actually evil. They lack the mental capacity needed to understand good and evil. However they are evil in alignment for the sake of smite evil and protection from evil and other things that are dependant on the evil descriptor. The reason is this: If you cast runes that emit evil power against good people, protection from evil the spell should apply against those runes correct? Well why shouldnt it apply to creatures CREATED by an evil spell? |
| Antioch07-20-05, 05:03 PM | [QUOTE=Antioch] i dont know anything about 3.5, and don't have anything to say about the topic but since its already on the loose, i'll comment on the evil thing. in one of margeret weis novels (death gate cycle i guess- not a d&d novel exactly though) they explain how necromancy works. When you animate a corpse in any way using the negative energy you cause in the cosmos a random death. The caster always knows this, so the spell and the caster is evil. I use this logic in my campaign to have some solid ground. about the thing you created, well, use the one you like. one seems more logical, other is the official one thus has better balancing issues. For D&D in general, my understanding of how undead and undead animaton works is that you simply charge the remains with some negative energy (this causes no noticeable disruption in the cosmos, and certainly causes no death) and bind the energy in place with the spell. The creature is then under your control until it is destroyed or you make more than you can control. As the rules state, the undead will not do anything other than what you tell it to, so they dont perform evil actions unless instructed to do so. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 05:11 PM | Ooookay, Im going to take this in another direction by stating that under 3.5 rules an animated corpse is not, I repeat is not autometically evil. HOWEVER, if the spell that MADE said undead DOES have the evil descriptor, then it is. The problem is that every spell in the PH that allows you to create undead possesses the [Evil] descriptor, so your undead will all be evil at the start (though I guess in a couple days they will change to neutral or something). Case and point, the flesh golem. The flesh golem is made using a golems manual, not a spell with the evil descriptor. At least not directly. However it is still an animated corpse, but it is considered neutral. All golems are made by binding an unwilling elemental (a living creature) into servitude. This action seems far more selfish and evil than simply charging a corpse or pile of bones with a small amount of natural energy. However, the golem is neutral, despite being otherwise identical to undead? Thats one problem. The difference is that the undead created by animate dead are walking incarnations of said spell, and the spell has the evil descriptor. So the spell is actually permanently ACTIVE inside the zombies. Actually its not. The spell emulates a ritual that is just used to bind the energy into place, but otherwise does not linger at all (which is why dispel magic and antimagic shell will not hamper them). Also, there has still not been a cited rationale as to why the spell is [Evil] in the first place. There is nothing to suggest that it is evil, or that the effects will result in evil. Let me also say this, the zombies and skeletons arent actually evil. They lack the mental capacity needed to understand good and evil. However they are evil in alignment for the sake of smite evil and protection from evil and other things that are dependant on the evil descriptor. Those effects are dependant on either a descriptor or an alignment. Since the alignment is listed as evil, that suggests that the zombie/skeletons are not imbued with evil, but think mean thoughts. The descriptor designates actual infusion, the alignment designates action. Thats another problem. The reason is this: If you cast runes that emit evil power against good people, protection from evil the spell should apply against those runes correct? Well why shouldnt it apply to creatures CREATED by an evil spell? Evil spells are those that harm specifically good creatures or only are used to perform wholly evil actions. This is not the case with some aspects of undead animation. In the spell you are depicting, that would be what the descriptor is used for; showing that the spell is charged by evil. It doesnt have an evil alignment, it has an evil descriptor. |
| Eightbitmage07-20-05, 06:58 PM | I'm willing to accept that the sword is evil because it states in the description that it is blatantly evil. I've no doubt in my mind that yes, it is imbued with evil. ok so we agree that the sword is evil I'm willing to accept that the sword is evil because it states in the description that it is blatantly evil And we agree that the reason you believe it is evil is because the book says so. This is probably due to the construction methods Once again agreed. They don't give the construction methods. They don't anywhere, and you even say that it can vary game to game. Which I agree with. This leads me to the conclution that both you and I believe that there is evil involved in the construction of the item. We also don't know the process. Evil weapon is evil due to the creation method. The in-depth processes of magic item construction are not revealed to us so we cant be sure what exactly goes on or whats used aside from a spell or two. You back that conclution up with that statement. Now the point: Here is what you believe about the creation of undead For D&D in general, my understanding of how undead and undead animaton works is that you simply charge the remains with some negative energy (this causes no noticeable disruption in the cosmos, and certainly causes no death) and bind the energy in place with the spell. The creature is then under your control until it is destroyed or you make more than you can control. The books say all of the things that you say, but they don't say thats all that happens. I believe that there is room within what the books say about the creation of undead to reasonably assume that some degree of evil method, possibly similar to the construction of the above sword, and that since we do not know the exact methods employed by the spell, once again just like the sword above, and adding in the fact that all intelligent undead are evil, we can say that undead with the aligment of evil, are created through an evil process, possibly imbuing them with evil. Further evidence: Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. From the MM. I believe that this implies that the magic bringing them to unlife is evil in and of itself. So to recap: Evil sword created through unknown process, no intelligence, no evil abilities, and no ability to harm good more than any other, is evil. Zombies stated to be created in a dark and sinister ritual. Although we know that negative energy is involved, we have not seen anything that says that is all that is involved. The zombies aligment is evil. Therefore, the magic used to create undead could reasonably be seen as evil, and undead could be reasonably seen to be evil, because the magic itself could be, and is very hinted at being, evil magic. |
| Antioch07-20-05, 07:31 PM | They say dark and sinister as part of flavor text. The actual spell that accomplishes this makes no mention aside from an onyx being used. The spell takes one action to cast, so a lengthy ritual involving some kind of sacrifice is right out, and because of that I take that one-liner as a kind of artistic licensing on the writers part. Assuming that the spell did involve some eldritch evil force, that would give the zombie the evil descriptor, not the alignment (this is a fact I pointed out in the case of the sword, which you made no notation of). Again, I believe that the sword is imbued with evil (by means of a decriptor, indicated infusion), but as an object would not have an evil alignment (action). In the case of the zombie, if I thought that the magic was wholly evil then it would have the evil descriptor (infusion), and not evil by alignment (action). |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-20-05, 08:03 PM | An evil sword is evil because someone took the time to specifically make it evil. It is evil by design, not by accident. A spellcaster sat down and went 'I want this sword to be evil.' and set about doing that. Zombies aren't made just to be evil. In the default game, they're made to fight, to be tools. Like a normal sword. I guess if you wanted to make them evil, you could go about doing that, but just making them should make them evil. They aren't there specifically for and evil purpose. |
| A Man In Black07-20-05, 09:07 PM | An evil sword is evil because someone took the time to specifically make it evil. It is evil by design, not by accident. A spellcaster sat down and went 'I want this sword to be evil.' and set about doing that. Zombies aren't made just to be evil. In the default game, they're made to fight, to be tools. Like a normal sword. I guess if you wanted to make them evil, you could go about doing that, but just making them should make them evil. They aren't there specifically for and evil purpose. As written in 3.5, the default nature of zombies is evil, as mindless things that seek to destroy living things. If they were created for a purpose or are given orders, the orders come first, but zombies naturally seek to destroy living things in the same way that a mindless living thing seeks to eat. This may or may not be true in your own game; if zombies are just tools, make them neutral. |
| High Octane07-20-05, 10:32 PM | What part of creating zombies and skeletons could not be considered evil? I mean you are desecrating the dead and using them as your personal puppets. How would you feel if someone ripped your dead grandmthers head off and used it as a puppets head in a comedy routine? I'm not too sure but I cant think of ANYONE who would willingly let their own corpse be used to walk around rotting and attacking people. Seriously. |
| Antioch07-21-05, 02:29 AM | Vaal seems to have come to my aid, mentioning something that I hadnt thought of (well, a way of further explaining it anyway). I think I'd offended him in the past, so I shall look to him as an unlikely ally in these dark times! :cool: ...as mindless things that seek to destroy living things. If they were created for a purpose or are given orders, the orders come first, but zombies naturally seek to destroy living things in the same way that a mindless living thing seeks to eat. Wrong, zombies do nothing aside from what they are ordered to do. Otherwise they simply stand there. Since they cannot act without instruction, this should make them neutral. The same can be said for a skeleton (the "flavor" text could almost be cut and paste), though the skeleton makes no mention of dark or sinister magic. Hmm, how odd? Both are drawn from the same spell, but only in one instance does it state dark and sinister (the zombie). Since the spell makes no mention of anything dark and sinister about it (perhaps the spellcaster must swear profusely in the three seconds she is alloted :rolleyes: ), my conclusion is that there is in fact nothing dark or sinister about it (unless they are referring do negative energy, which is in fact not sinister at all). What part of creating zombies and skeletons could not be considered evil? I mean you are desecrating the dead and using them as your personal puppets. How would you feel if someone ripped your dead grandmthers head off and used it as a puppets head in a comedy routine? I'm not too sure but I cant think of ANYONE who would willingly let their own corpse be used to walk around rotting and attacking people. Oi, if you go back to the beginning where I actually stated this the FIRST time, I make mention of several instances. You however are making a very one-sided assumption. 1). A necromancer saves a village from an orc horde, then animates the fallen orcs to become the town's new protectors? 2.) A tribal culture raises their fallen warriors to protect them after death. This fate does not prevent their spirits from passing on or linger at all, and they view it as an honor to protect their families even after death. 3.) A necromancer animates a very large skeleton to defend his party. 4.) A necromancer politely requests the spirits to allow him to use their remains as part of a noble quest. You need to step away from your narrow-minded presumptions that all necromancers are irrevocably evil and think outside the box at the various applications undead usage can bring (tireless workers, unswavering soldiers, etc). |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-21-05, 02:49 AM | What part of creating zombies and skeletons could not be considered evil? I mean you are desecrating the dead and using them as your personal puppets. How would you feel if someone ripped your dead grandmthers head off and used it as a puppets head in a comedy routine? I'm not too sure but I cant think of ANYONE who would willingly let their own corpse be used to walk around rotting and attacking people. Seriously. What part of Dominate could not be considered evil? I mean shackling someone's mind and using them as your personal puppet. How would you feel if someone violated your grandmother's free will and used her as part of a mime routine? I'm not too sure but I can't think of ANYONE who would willingly let thier mind be enslaved to another's will and used to walk around attacking people. Seriously. See what you can do with a little groundless flavor text and meaningless emotional terms? |
| High Octane07-21-05, 11:18 AM | Dominate is temporary. Its also the same as say, chucking a guy in jail using telekinesis. There are situations where dominate is simply used as a means of non-lethal force. It can EASILY be abused, but it also can be used correctly in a good manner. In no case does the creation of a zombie not desecrate the dead. No person, no matter HOW horrible, deserves that fate. |
| Nyferto07-21-05, 12:51 PM | So really it demonstrates that the caster is evil because of his actions. If you did dominate someone and made them do bad things, they wouldn't be evil. Same with mindless creatures - they're not evil, they haven't been for a very long time. Then all of a sudden - 3.5 says otherwise with no good reason. I'll get back to the Rangers tommorow, surfice to say - you're wrong on many accounts. |
| Antioch07-21-05, 01:58 PM | Dominate is temporary. Its also the same as say, chucking a guy in jail using telekinesis. There are situations where dominate is simply used as a means of non-lethal force. It can EASILY be abused, but it also can be used correctly in a good manner. In no case does the creation of a zombie not desecrate the dead. No person, no matter HOW horrible, deserves that fate. Nice attempt to ham it up. Undeath does not affect their soul or spirit, it just uses remains, so therefore they are not bound to any fate. |
| High Octane07-21-05, 02:44 PM | Okay, then Dominate should have the evil descriptor AS WELL. I wont argue that the zombies and skeletons dont have the mental capacity for good and evil as Ive said before, but the fact is they are powered by evil power. "Just cause the text says so" is the same reason that evil weapons are evil, and thus that can apply to undead as well. You have yet to present any sort of arguement other that "Why did they add this NOW?" and "Just because they were created using evil forces and are incapable of performing anything but the bidding of evil doesnt mean they are evil!" All of them tend to lean towards an arguement I would expect from a person who made a neutral cleric and is arguing why he should be allowed to stay neutral and still make undead. I dont even know why you are upset! Skeletons and zombies being evil just means that smite evil and protection from evil will affect them, which is why I think they changed it. |
| astute107-21-05, 03:28 PM | Okay, then Dominate should have the evil descriptor AS WELL. That's silly. It's like saying: "swords should have the evil descriptor because you use them to kill people." Dominate in and of itself isn't evil - however, when you dominate someone, you can choose to do evil things to them. In one of the campaigns I'm playing in, we houseruled that mindless undead are neutral creatures, but that they can still be affected by smite, etc, because negative energy is used in their creation. I play Eberron, so the alignment thing isn't as important, but I do feel that the evil alignment is probably wrong for mindless undead. A better way to resolve the problem would have been to give them the Evil descriptor. |
| rbrt_Spade07-21-05, 03:57 PM | this proves evil :schemes: :schemes: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: |
| A Man In Black07-21-05, 04:04 PM | What part of Dominate could not be considered evil? I mean shackling someone's mind and using them as your personal puppet. How would you feel if someone violated your grandmother's free will and used her as part of a mime routine? I'm not too sure but I can't think of ANYONE who would willingly let thier mind be enslaved to another's will and used to walk around attacking people. "Set down those weapons. Tie yourself up. Come along quietly." I think ordering someone to do that at bladepoint and magically compelling them to follow those orders are morally equivalent. The argument is that animating mindless undead is in and of itself a desecration, instead of a means to ends that could be evil. No matter what you do with the bodies, you've already committed the act of desecration by animating them in the first place. Seriously. See what you can do with a little groundless flavor text and meaningless emotional terms? Yeah. The ridiculous examples are getting silly, especially when both 3.0e and 3.5e conflicted at numerous points on whether undead are inherently evil or not. Can't anyone deal with a little canon uncertainty? |
| Eightbitmage07-21-05, 05:15 PM | They say dark and sinister as part of flavor text What exactly is flavor text? What you describe is something that is easily dismissed from the game, but if it brings flavor why would you dismiss it? The actual spell that accomplishes this makes no mention aside from an onyx being used. Well no mention besides the evil notation next to the name The spell takes one action to cast, so a lengthy ritual involving some kind of sacrifice is right out Who ever said it had to be lengthy? Grabbing a bit of evil energy and mixing it with negative energy then slapping it into a body may not take very long at all, but it doesn't make the ritual less evil. Also why does there have to be a sacrifice? I haven't seen anything that says that you can't just have evil magic without a sacrifice before. Assuming that the spell did involve some eldritch evil force, that would give the zombie the evil descriptor, not the alignment Well if this is true then the caster is guilty of creating a creature with the evil descriptor (what is a descriptor by the way) which I would assume is evil, and therefore animate dead is an evil spell. I also believe that while action does normally determine aligment that if a creature is made up of something of a specific alignment it should gain that alignment by default (due to lack of action). An evil sword is evil because someone took the time to specifically make it evil. It is evil by design, not by accident. A spellcaster sat down and went 'I want this sword to be evil.' and set about doing that. I'm sure that if someone could make a sword that has the abilities of the sword in question but wasn't evil they would, but there is something about the sword that inherently calls on the forces of evil. They didn't make it evil because they thought it would be a really keen thing to do, they made it evil because they want it to do something and the best way for it to do it is to be evil. The same could be said of undead. They aren't just tools like a normal sword. They are the best way to do something, even if that best way means that they have to be created with evil within them. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-21-05, 08:39 PM | Can't anyone deal with a little canon uncertainty? Oh, I sure can. But I can't just stand by and accept stupid, baseless rules. Bad habit, I guess. What exactly is flavor text? What you describe is something that is easily dismissed from the game, but if it brings flavor why would you dismiss it? There is good flavor and bad flavor. This is bad flavor to shoddily prop up bad rules. |
| A Man In Black07-21-05, 08:48 PM | Oh, I sure can. But I can't just stand by and accept stupid, baseless rules. Bad habit, I guess. Half the rules are based on one idea, and one on the other. They are only stupid when considered from the opposite viewpoint. |
| tiercel07-21-05, 09:56 PM | On the miniscule chance the original poster is still keeping track amidst the sea of flames over "Undead: Evil or Not?" and "Do Rangers Suck?".... I like 3.5. Many small (and some medium) things were changed. The best way to judge for yourself is to read the rules for free: System Reference Document (http://www.d20srd.org/) A lot of them are very similar, and it won't be immediately obvious on a first pass where *all* the changes are, but it will get you a feel for what you're getting into, and won't cost you a thing. If you are strapped for cash, just use the SRD. (If you want to keep a local copy, you can download one from the Wizards site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35) that is in RTF files (readable by Microsoft Word). If you are going to use them a lot, it may be worth buying a new set of books. The PHB, DMG, and MM will run you around $60 at Amazon.com (and has free shipping). If you are careful and patient and lucky, you may be able to score a slightly better deal buying them used (through eBay or Half.com or what have you -- just watch the shipping costs!). If you like what you see from the System Reference Document and you think you'll use the change, then if you can conscionably afford it, $60 is well worth the investment -- compare that to the cost of a new console game, or going to see a handful of movies at the theater. You can get a lot more mileage out of those three books. (Of course, eventually you may be tempted to succumb to expansion books like the Complete X books, but you can go amazingly far without ever opening one of them.) |
| Antioch07-21-05, 11:51 PM | I see you conveniently dismissed the point I made that under the skeleton flavor text it makes no mention of evil rituals, though both are made from the same spell. What exactly is flavor text? What you describe is something that is easily dismissed from the game, but if it brings flavor why would you dismiss it? I'm not even sure what the heck you are trying to say here. Flavor text isnt rules text. What you are trying to support your argument is baseless flavor text that a writer took artistic license with without keeping the rules in mind (not to mention contradicting himself). Well no mention besides the evil notation next to the name Which is the very thing I am trying to refute. I also believe that while action does normally determine aligment that if a creature is made up of something of a specific alignment it should gain that alignment by default (due to lack of action). Wrong. If you somehow create a creature that is infused with moral energy, it gains the subtype. In case you werent listening, alignment is dictated by action. I'm sure that if someone could make a sword that has the abilities of the sword in question but wasn't evil they would, but there is something about the sword that inherently calls on the forces of evil. They didn't make it evil because they thought it would be a really keen thing to do, they made it evil because they want it to do something and the best way for it to do it is to be evil. Wrong again. The weapon is simply on in a list of sample weapons. Feel free to actually use your creativity to invent more. The same could be said of undead. They aren't just tools like a normal sword. They are the best way to do something, even if that best way means that they have to be created with evil within them. Wrong again (again). Mindless undead are just tools. They are incapable of any direction without instruction, and are definately not the best way to do every task (if nothing else due to limited ability to perform tasks). I wont argue that the zombies and skeletons dont have the mental capacity for good and evil as Ive said before, but the fact is they are powered by evil power. "Just cause the text says so" is the same reason that evil weapons are evil, and thus that can apply to undead as well. If you have no ability to disagree with the rules when there is a logical fallacy, why are you bothering to post on this thread? If you can do nothing more than say "well its in the rules" without actually providing any form of support, then you arent proving anything. You have yet to present any sort of arguement other that "Why did they add this NOW?" and "Just because they were created using evil forces and are incapable of performing anything but the bidding of evil doesnt mean they are evil!" So you assume that any and all necromancers are evil? How closeminded of you. I dont even know why you are upset! Skeletons and zombies being evil just means that smite evil and protection from evil will affect them, which is why I think they changed it. To provide an unbased advantage to certain abilities? Thats a poor reason to do so. |
| ManinDarkness07-22-05, 08:28 AM | Negative energy, the force of entropy, is seldom, if ever, portrayed as good. Destroyer and good is something one rarely sees. I think that is why manipulating negative energy is seen as evil. |
| Antioch07-22-05, 01:19 PM | Negative energy, the force of entropy, is seldom, if ever, portrayed as good. Destroyer and good is something one rarely sees. I think that is why manipulating negative energy is seen as evil. It shouldnt be portrayed as anything. It simply exists to be a check and balance to positive energy. Also, both planes are neutral, so thats that. |
| High Octane07-22-05, 03:29 PM | Ugh MAKING UNDEAD! It's evil IN THE RULES, its evil IN THE DESCRIPTOR, its evil IN THE FLAVOR TEXT, and its evil by the measure of COMMON SENSE! Want more evidence? Fine. How come evil clerics rebuke/control undead while good clerics turn/destroy it? Its because good clerics have control over good forces which can destroy evil, and evil clerics have control over evil forces which destroy good. By that measure, the good clerics when they are turning are in fact summoning good energy in order to either repel or destroy the evil energy inside the undead. Evil clerics however, reach in and control the dark energies within the undead. That is why they CONTROL the undead. |
| Antioch07-23-05, 01:20 AM | It's evil IN THE RULES, its evil IN THE DESCRIPTOR, its evil IN THE FLAVOR TEXT, and its evil by the measure of COMMON SENSE! Its evil in the spell descriptor, yet evil in the alignment for the creature created. The flavor text espoused holds little weight when you roll over to skeletons, who lack the so-called evil ritual yet are made with the same spell. Also, its not automatically evil by common sense, which I've made numerous mentions of that you have ignored. Want more evidence? Fine. How come evil clerics rebuke/control undead while good clerics turn/destroy it? Its because good clerics have control over good forces which can destroy evil, and evil clerics have control over evil forces which destroy good. Wrong. Good aligned clerics govern positive energy because it heals. Turning is akin to releasing a burst of positive energy, which destroys undead. Since negative energy harms the living, it would be hard to do good if you only controlled the death-force. Regardless, both energy types are neutral. By that measure, the good clerics when they are turning are in fact summoning good energy in order to either repel or destroy the evil energy inside the undead. Its not "good" energy, its positive. Evil clerics however, reach in and control the dark energies within the undead. That is why they CONTROL the undead. Negative energy is not dark and evil, please read any Planescape book regarding the subject, or if you want "official" material, read the MotP. |
| High Octane07-23-05, 02:15 AM | If Negative energy is not evil, then why are good clerics prohibited from channeling it? (As is done when you rebuke undead) |
| WCH07-23-05, 02:27 AM | If Negative energy is not evil, then why are good clerics prohibited from channeling it? (As is done when you rebuke undead) I used this argument a page or two ago. Compared the relationship to the way that heat and light are related... things can be bright without being hot, or hot without being bright, but they tend to go along together; in the same way, while positive energy is technically neutral, it ends up usually being found in association with Good, as Good is also an elemental force in D&D. He kind of shrugged my logic off, and I don't really blame him... it isn't that compelling an argument, although it's certainly reasonable, and I think it explains the mechanics of the Multiverse quite well, even if not explaining why they're that way. :P |
| Antioch07-23-05, 03:59 AM | Good clerics are not completely prohibited from channeling negative energy, as is evidenced by the various inflict spells. Also, I'm inclined to think the main reason is balance; if good clerics can do either/or, whats the point of having an alignment in the first place? Finally, I do agree that positive/energy are usually used by certain alignments, but I look at that as that convenience; undead are common themes for use in grim, evil games, so allowing the BBEG cleric to easily harm the party while healing his minions makes it more interesting/challenging. |
| WCH07-23-05, 04:02 AM | So, tell me, why are undead common themes in grim, evil games? If they're neutral, why is it that all the evil spellcasters use them and the good ones never do? Self fulfilling prophesy, I know... but can you really picture a Cleric of Heironeous creating a group of zombies and having them fight for him? |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-23-05, 04:15 AM | So, tell me, why are undead common themes in grim, evil games? If they're neutral, why is it that all the evil spellcasters use them and the good ones never do? Icky = evil In the achetype, of course. But just because its the archetype doesn't mean we have to be slaved to it. You never see the good guys with black armor or white hair either, that doesn't make them evil. Edit: Come to think of it, how many times do you see good spellslingers using Dominate, Polymorph, Scry, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or even teleport? All the dramatic, flashy magic is usually reserved for the baddies to prove how badass they are. Poetic lisence and all that aside, maybe evil is just better at magic than good is... The good guys usually only had an apprentice mage or some bumbling book jockey with them while the badguy is always an uber mage who's just dropping fireballs like candy and polymorphing his minions for jollies. |
| EvilDuck07-23-05, 04:34 AM | I bought the 3.5 books because I started out when 3.5 was out. Hee hee! |
| Antioch07-23-05, 04:53 AM | So, tell me, why are undead common themes in grim, evil games? If they're neutral, why is it that all the evil spellcasters use them and the good ones never do? I have and do in some of the games I play in which I'm a little more leniant and logical. As an example, one of my players managed to rack up a LG elven necromancer to 12th level, followed by a small horde of undead that he accrued over the course of the campaign (some orc skeletons there, a dinosaur zombie there, etc). Self fulfilling prophesy, I know... but can you really picture a Cleric of Heironeous creating a group of zombies and having them fight for him? I could, I just cant see him going to a graveyard outside of a thorp to call them forth to chop his wood. Such a scenario could be rationalized however, say if orcs were marauding towards the town and could feasibly be stopped by a large mob of zombies and skeletons led by a singular cleric. Raise them, fight the orcs, send them back to their graves and dismiss them. For the greater good, really. As for the good guy bit, the last paladin I played was a paladin of Bahamut. He viewed his role with a sense of undesired responsibility. He did what he did because he was told to do it, not because he wanted to. He was a jerk, but was still lawful and good, which is all that matters. His armor was muddy, clothes torn and used, and greataxe stained with the blood of many a heretic. His appearance very much strayed from the typical iconific paladin. |
| EvilDuck07-23-05, 04:58 AM | Wait, so why are undead evil? Negative energy isn't evil. Just like positive energy isn't good. Personally, I hate "deathless"because A. They only further the undead=evil stereotype B. They further the dualistic BS of D&D's good vs. evil fetish |
| Antioch07-23-05, 05:05 AM | I have no idea. I had long thought that mindless undead were neutral. Soon after 3.5E was released this fallacy was brought to light. |
| EvilDuck07-25-05, 04:32 PM | I have no idea. I had long thought that mindless undead were neutral. Soon after 3.5E was released this fallacy was brought to light. I always thought undead alignment should match to that of their creator. But then again, I hate the alignment system. |
| Antioch07-25-05, 04:39 PM | *shrugs* The alignment system is fine, but some people have varying interpretations on how it should work. |
| EvilDuck07-25-05, 04:45 PM | *shrugs* The alignment system is fine, but some people have varying interpretations on how it should work. Eh, I find things to be too black and white. Alignment should work like in the real world, where there's no clear cut good or evil and people have to decide for themselves what they believe is right or wrong. |
| Antioch07-25-05, 04:51 PM | Nah, there are plenty of shades of gray. Eberron takes this view on it, and while I tend to keep unimportant creatures as a default alignment, I have qualms about using evil celestials and good fiends. As long as you dont overuse them its all good, but dont think that you cant just because its not likely. The alignments are only guidelines, and if players deviate now and then its fine. |
| Millennium07-25-05, 05:02 PM | Eh, I find things to be too black and white. Alignment should work like in the real world, where there's no clear cut good or evil and people have to decide for themselves what they believe is right or wrong. D&D is not reality. Why should it have to be bound by reality? |
| Antioch07-25-05, 05:37 PM | D&D is not reality. Why should it have to be bound by reality? D&D is a reality; it typically defaults to the standard laws of reality and physics that we do. |
| Koga:The ninja trick07-25-05, 05:46 PM | 3.5 is everything 3.0 should've been and more.. Rangers and bards don't suck. (Though people still complain..) Psionics were fixed. (Though people still complain..) Some spells were nerfed, some were overhauled, overall it's still the same though people still complain.. Size categories, weapons to them, and the techinichal stuff make more sense. Course people are still going to complain. Damnit Wizards! You need to make a people version 3.5! :P |
| High Octane07-25-05, 06:18 PM | D&D is a reality; it typically defaults to the standard laws of reality and physics that we do. No it doesn't necessarily. Case and point, the level system. |
| cutsleeve07-25-05, 06:38 PM | The whole point of the undead evil or neutral debate here is all mainly a matter of flavor. It can change depending on the setting provided by the DM whether it is a published setting or a homebrew setting. D&D as it stands has no setting it has a meta-setting meaning it has no real ecology no true mythology it has no historical or sociological base. What it has is alot of rules and minor background notes which allow people to pick it up and play in a generic undefined fantasy setting. This can also be said for the whole realism versus cinematic arguement. It can all be changed based on setting and using the meta-setting to defend a setting convention doesnt work. Its like going to a foreign country breaking the law and expecting their court system to work just like ours. Then you suddenly find out your only allowed to speak to an attorney once, your trial will commence in three days, and its a good idea to plead guilty so you dont get a sentance that will be more harsh. Other then that the whole issue of aguing over meta-setting issues, in a thread that asks whether their are significant improvements to warrant purchasing the new game rules, seems like massive derailment. :D |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-25-05, 06:47 PM | No it doesn't necessarily. Case and point, the level system. People don't become better at what they do through hard work and adversity? |
| jukar07-25-05, 06:54 PM | [b]Non-intelligent undead (and possibly intelligent depending on type) do live in peace. The spirit or memories do not linger in any shape, way, or fashion. The departed may not even know that his decaying remains are being used for good or evil (or just to chop wood). You see, life and death are neutral forces; they are part of the natural cycle of life. In a world where magic, the outer planes, and the whims of the gods are "natural" aspects of the order, I would be hard pressed to label things as unnatural. Since negative energy is a natural force, I tend to lean that spontaneous animation (such as that you might find on an old battlefied) is a "natural" occurance. Also, since life and death are neutral, and positive and negative energy are neutral, my ruling is that non-intelligent undead are neutral by default and that the designer's are wrong. This ruling still follows the model of some things being good or evil as well. They are a tool and nothing more. Indeed. I've often wondered why skeletons are considered to be iconic scary monsters... after all, what can a skeleton do to you? It's just a skeleton, it doesn't even have the muscularture required to properly *****slap someone. I've always been of the mind that when it comes to skeletons, it's not the bones you need to fear, it's the force that is animating them. So while the skeletons themselves are strictly neutral, it is quite possible that an evil force is what causes them to be animated- however, it is also quite possible that a neutral force could animate them. Example: While an evil necromancer could animate skeletons as minions, and the skeletons could be ordered to do evil acts, the skeletons themselves aren't evil as they are merely acting as an extension of the evil being that brought them up from the grave in the first place. A lot of different kinds of forces could make use of skeletons. For example, a party wandering into a cave in which an easily-angered nature spirit might reside might very well animate the remains of those that dared to infiltrate it's home to repel any further intruders. Does this make the skeletons evil? No. Is the nature spirit evil because it resorted to necromancy? No, it wouldn't be. For starters, as a non-humanoid creature, it is removed from any form of social stigma or morality that would apply to a human, and is utterly neutral, much like an animal- in fact, the entire act is really no different than an animal defending it's home. To say that something is evil just because there are skeletons involved is arbitrary at best. |
| ManinDarkness07-25-05, 06:59 PM | It shouldnt be portrayed as anything. It simply exists to be a check and balance to positive energy. Also, both planes are neutral, so thats that.Well, think about the deities that represent entropy. I can't think of anyone that could be thought as good, neither in history or fiction. Then, some sacrality of the dead bodies remains as an under-philosophy in D&D. Cannibalism is still evil. No it doesn't necessarily. Case and point, the level system.What do you mean? I use D&D to gain levels in occult magik-user. |
| High Octane07-25-05, 07:01 PM | People don't become better at what they do through hard work and adversity? Yeah they do, but not in sudden chunks. I should have been more specific, the hit point system. I mean, why can the same man go from unable to take a fireball without dying to able to take a dozen fireballs without even going unconcious? |
| A Man In Black07-25-05, 08:32 PM | People don't become better at what they do through hard work and adversity? People don't learn how to shrug off direct hits from a ballista by killing things. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland07-25-05, 09:55 PM | People don't learn how to shrug off direct hits from a ballista by killing things. People do, however learn to hone thier reflexes to the point they can dodge a ballista bolt and come away with just a nasty fletching burn. |
| Antioch07-26-05, 05:08 PM | I should have been more specific, the hit point system. I mean, why can the same man go from unable to take a fireball without dying to able to take a dozen fireballs without even going unconcious? Ah, you dont understand the hit point system. First of all, when I speak of a reality, I'm referring to the fact that any given D&D world probably has the laws of physics that we have here. However, in addition to "our" real-life laws our the fantasy laws that include things like magic, metaphyiscal forces of good and evil, outer planes, psionics, etc. There are not unnatural things, as some people label them. As for hit points, you need to understand that in D&D the rules use abstractions to make things simple, fast, yet still logical. Hit points are a representation of a combination of physical endurance, toughness, and combat skill. What they actually mean varies from character to character and also by creature type (for undead or elementals, I imagine its just natural durability). For example, if someone goes to stab Bill the farmer, he will probably stand there like a deer in headlights and get run through, or not be fast enough to aovid it. Tim the fighter will actually attempt to maneuver out of the way, and get left with nothing more than a scratch. Its not that Tim's body is magically altered to where he can become a walking pin cusion of arrows. |
| A Man In Black07-27-05, 12:34 AM | People do, however learn to hone thier reflexes to the point they can dodge a ballista bolt and come away with just a nasty fletching burn. People don't learn to survive 10-story falls by killing things. People don't learn to be more diplomatic by killing things or disarming traps. It's not realistic that any development of skills or magical ability comes with a proportional increase in fighting skill and toughness. The level system is an abstraction, and a particularly abstract one at that. Then again, it wasn't any less abstract in 3.0. What were we arguing about again? |
| Antioch07-27-05, 01:10 AM | [b]The level system is an abstraction, and a particularly abstract one at that.[b/] But it works as a catch-all system. You gain experience by doing numerous things, not just by killing orcs. Characters who want to enhance the role-playing experience will select options that reflect what they've been doing. Also, magical abilities can increase by killing critters because you continue to use it over and over. |