Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: Spriggan on July 18, 2003, 11:23:53 PM
-
ok so here's a thread to talk all things 3.5.
Wizards has released a PDF that will help you in converting your 3.0 D&D books to 3.5
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a
-
As Slant mentioned in another topic Monte Cook has said some intresting things about 3.5
http://www.montecook.com/review.html
-
I found his list of specific pros and cons to be very interesting, but the rest was pretty standard. Of course 3.5 was planned from the beginning, and of course it's both bigger and sooner than it needed to be. I don't need an insider's scoop to figure that out.
Like I said, though, the specific list of good and bad changes was really interesting. I'd like to see more game reviews from a design perspective.
-
Incredibly curious
Well, I think I'm disappointed by what Cook points out. He predicts people playing 3.5 and "house ruling" portions of it back to 3.0. I'll probably do the other way.
And it looks like they haven't paid any attention to confusing and/or "broken rules" like AoO and such.
-
I don't think I'm going to get hooked into buying them. Now if they become presents... well thats a different story. :P
I like Cook's review. It was good to hear something from a marketing viewpoint. The good points and bad points made me want them, but then not want them. So I'm really very confused actually. So lucky for me I'm just playing d20 Modern right now.
-
I had the opportunity to peruse the 3.5 PG and was not impressed.
Maybe I'll get it when 4.0 comes out a year from now.
-
What i do not understand is the new facing rules. He says it is likely for models. Yet, all of the models in my collection, both clix and lead, that are not square (ie, cavalry and chariots) use non-square bases. So, i think WOTC are using dodgy minitures.
And i am not gonna buy it - the nearest i have got to a D&D game for the last year or so is the AORP being on this forum. I'll save the money and spend it on X-Box games, like Fable and KOTOR :)
-
I'll save the money and spend it on X-Box games, like Fable and KOTOR :)
What? Not tea or crumpets? Again, Entropy, your lack of hardcore Britishness disappoints me.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
;D
-
He's scottish and dosen't even wear kilts! What's up with that.
-
If I had any way of finding kilts around here I'd have one for almost every day.
-
Every day of the week or every day of the year?
-
Thankfully, he doesn't mean every day of the day. Which could get icky.
-
I get tea and food free off of my parents. So i will play KOTOR _while_ drinking tea. With my third hand. Yeah...
And the only thing i will say on the subject of kilts:
Scotland is the only country in the world to include a concealed weapon in its national dress.
-
Texas thinks its its own country, does it count?
-
I was thinking about every day of the year, but that'd be a big wad of funds that would be needed. So until I can do that, no. But every day of the day, now that, that I am considering. Thank you SE.
-
Texas WAS its own country once.
And Gemm, remind me never to think about your clothes wearing habits
-
It legally still could be, if 80% of Texans decide (vote) to secede. Kilts or no kilts.
-
I think that our federal government would use the same logic we used in the 1860's and would use the military to prevent such a secession and re-write the state's constitution.
And yes, even W., a "Texan" would do so. After all, when he was a "Texan" he claimed that using the military to "solve" such problems as Iraq would be against our national interests in the long run, and he still send a large force to take care of business there (sorry, just had to work in some Bush-bashing)
-
Well, for your information SE, I have no kilts, yet. I have pants and shorts, and t-shirts and polo shirts, and socks and whatnots. So :P
-
I have never actually worn a kilt in my life. About the only time you do wear it now is to some weddings. I have yet to work out the kilt/no kilt wedding dynamic yet.
-
I have never actually worn a kilt in my life.
You never wear pants either so that's not saying much:)
-
pants are over rated
-
Like what!
-
*dry voice*
Down with pants. Down with oppression.
-
Up with kilts! Er... in a nonsensical fashion!
-
up YOUR kilt!
-
*sniff* That hurt my feelings SE. Even if I don't have a kilt you don't have to knock my dreams around.
-
What use are pants if they aren't comfortable? I used to have a pair of uncomfortable pants, and I threw them away, as I simply couldn't wear them.
-
you want to know what else is funny about pants? Monkeys don't wear them! HAHAHAHAHAH!
Except when they do, which enhances the funny-level of both the pants and the monkeys!
Then, you could try having them wear kilts! THAT WOULD BE HILARIOUS!
All this just goes to prove my theory about monkeys.
-
I think you are talking like a retard.
A drunk retard.
...and that fulfills my "be unnecessarily evil to someone" quota for the day.
-
/me cries, then thinks of monkeys in kilts. Heheheh. monkeys.
-
Okay so I actually have a copy of a 3.5 manual. So now I have some comments. Not about kilts. Other than there was a guy I went to High School with who wore kilts. He soon stopped wearing kilts after he progress to skirts and then dresses. I don't know what happened to him after that, but I don't think it was good.
So about D&D 3.5, well it's not ground-breaking. I think the biggest change is organizational. Things are easier to find. There are more tables and some new art. A lot of things are just tweaked a little. A lot stuff was rewritten and edited, like AoO.
What I like is that they pulled in a lot of commonly used stuff from other resources. For those of us who have no intention of buying every D&D book made, this is nice. I think Monte Cook is just whining about stuff being in other manuals. I just don't care because I haven't purchased every D&D book and I think most d20 players don't purchase everything put out there.
-
Speaking of Attack of Opportunity, care to give us a brief sampling? I'm very curious what they may or may not have done with that section in particular.
-
Well, on the Wizards website they basicly explain it as such:
Attacks of opportunity are important to the overall balance of the D&D combat rules. They're also a little bit confusing and easy to ignore. One of the many, many goals of D&D 3.5 is to deal with issues just like that. The new combat chapter is both shorter and easier to understand than the earlier version. As an example of the type of change we're talking about, here's the new description of attacks of opportunity.
As always, remember that nothing is complete or final until you buy the book in the store.
Attacks of Opportunity
The melee combat rules assume that combatants are actively avoiding attacks. A player doesn't have to declare anything special for her character to be on the defensive. Even if a character's miniature figure is just standing there on the battle grid, you can be sure that if some orc with a battleaxe attacks the character, she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide.
Sometimes, however, a combatant in a melee lets her guard down, and she doesn't maintain a defensive posture as usual. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Combat).
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack -- the 5-foot-step (see Miscellaneous Actions) and the withdraw action (see Full-Round Actions).
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule. For instance, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat doesn't incur an attack of opportunity for making an unarmed attack.
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to.
An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus -- even if you've already attacked in the round.
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you -- such as by moving out of a threatened square and then casting a spell in a threatened square -- you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your normal attack bonus. You do not reduce your attack bonus for making multiple attacks of opportunity.
There are also lots of diagrams.
-
That phrasing still leaves the obnoxious and grievous problem of AoO when moving from one threatened square to a different sqaure threatened by the same creature. AoO has still not been fixed, apparently.
-
Well, not everyone sees that as meaning the AoO is broken. In fact some people like that moving from one square to another square threantened by the same creature provokes an attack of opportunity.
As a DM, it's helpful that the player just can't move where they want on the battlefield.
I find that there is a very bi-polar attitude towards AoO. Some people love them and other absolutley despise them with a fiery hatred. So anyone is welcomed to feel as annoyed about the rule as they want. It just won't subtract from the enjoyment of those who do like AoO.
-
it doesn't make sense if you're fighting the same opponent. It's a restriction that may "help" the DM, but as DM, whatever some referees like to think, your job is not to control the players. If I move from the backside of a 20' long dragon and move to the front, I should not suffer an AoO. It's a meaningless rule except for with things not combat related. I don't like rules that exist for balance but don't make sense in any other way. This is definitely a broken rule, and always has been, which is why it's the center of 50% of all D&D arguments among players.
-
Then don't use it, no ones holding a gun to your head.
-
I don't.
I just want to know why anyone thinks that's rational and not broken.
-
I don't think it's "broken", maybe a little unrealistic but most things in D&D are. Also It benafits players as much as DM's. It you take a 5 foot step then you don't cause one, makes since to me.
-
I think that if I'm running from one end of a dragon to another, he's going to have the opportunity hit me. Hence, an Attack of Opportunity. If I advance slowly along his length in 5-foot steps, however, then I can defend myself as I go and he won't have the chance to take a free swipe. Makes sense to me.
-
A dragon who ISN'T looking at you can attack you with impunity (remember, he gets an EXTRA attack for this, no matter what he's doing) even if you move along his side FACING him? You can move sideways faster than that. Sorry, I just don't see it.
-
Dragons have tremor sence so yes they know your there even if they cannot see you ::) . And 1 round is only a matter of seconds so yes you could move several feet in that time but not defensivly or as I see not to call atention to yourself as much as bolting along side it.
-
Yet you can APPROACH an enemy at that speed. Sorry, no, still doesn't jibe.
And let's make it somethign like a Stone Giant, that doesn't have tremor sense. YOu do realize that's a problem with the example, not the principle, right?
-
you can only approch them at a high speed if your able to charge in a straight line, and then your threating an area with your weapon and others can still AoO you. And as for the Stone Giant, it fits the rules better then a dragon because it's not so long. I could easly tell if someone who wasn't trying to sneak came running up behind me. I think that argument us mute. The chances of a person geting a good wack at someone in that case isn't very good.
-
it still has the distance. Try a wormlike creature, or any of a dozen other monsters. You can still hold your weapon/shield between you. I don't think your argument changes the essential problem. You're still engaged with the creature, yet it gets a free attack, even though you're actively fighting it.
-
SE, your really not making a lot of sense. If the rules assumed that you didn't have your weapon or shield between you and the monster, than there would be a penalty to your AC during an AoO.
Also remember that in D&D a round is 6 seconds. By all logistics, the way combat is set up, things are moving much faster than they would in reality.
-
I always figured combat moved slower in D&D than in reality. A trained warrior can only hit a guy once in 6 seconds? Come on.
And for the AoO thing, I don't think you're fighting a monster if you're spending your time running past it rather than hitting it. You stopping your attack in order to move, and that provokes an AoO.
-
back when I fenced I could easly have a parley with another person that could easly be 10-15 attacks in 6 seconds (between both of us), but there wasn't a lot of movement.
-
actually 42, you're nto making a lot of sense. I know what the rules assume. What I'm saying is that rules make assumptions that have more to do with rules balance than combat.
for clarification on the "6 second round" the only time it's "6 seconds" is when you have to keep strict track of time. And the assumption is that you are trading a lot of blows and swings, but that the number of attacks you have are the number of attacks that actually have a chance of doing any damage. You do a lot of attacks just to try out defenses and make it past them, trying to draw the opponent out.
That's what the rules assume anyway (except for my 6 second comments, that's practical game application).
I've measured it off and paced it. You can move sideways 30' in 6 seconds. It's not hard for me to imagine that a trained warrior can move that distance with a shield or weapon up to defend against attacks.
-
Just to add 2 more bits:
I've read the combat section of the new book now, and I'm even less pleased. I was hoping there would be better wording in the actual rules, but no. In fact, the examples only make the idea more ludicrous
For example, if you enter the threat area of say, a troll, with a 10' reach, you don't incur an AoO. But if you actually ENGAGE the troll by moving in, then you do. I don't see any sort of logic here. This is one of the examples they use, so it's not like this is a too literal understanding of the rules.
Also, unarmed attacks provoke AoO, but unarmed touchh attacks by spellcasters do not. Why does a trained warrior provoke additional risk when actually fighting when a non-combat trained wizard does not? This, again, is something explicitly stated. No, it's not new material, but it's bugging me really bad.
You can't even circle an enemy you're dueling with (as he circles you) because you'll be provoking AoO from each other. What kind of combat is this? They say that you're doing a whole lot of weaving, ducking, and blocking, but from the rules standpoint you really ARE just standing there with your feet planted.
I think that there are good uses for AoO, one of the primary being against spellcasters, and by the time the spellcasters are any sort of real threat, AoO isn't even an issue due to defensive casting and the improbability that their concentration check will fail even by third or fourth level. But they've taken it too far, it doesn't make sense and it's just more of a bother that adds more die rolls to a combat round