|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 6, 2007 6:27:05 GMT -5
Hi @all!
This thread is not a Wishlisht (as thread above), but should serve to identify problems you have with 3.5 rules, so that they can be polished in 3.75. It is not about presenting solutions or houserules and it is not about personal style of play, preferences or campaign flavor.
So to be more specific: what 3.5 rules cause the most problems to you and why? What rules do you have to constantly look up because they are rarely used, too complicated or whatever? What rules are "badly" interacting with other rules or cause a major stop in play?
Here are some of mine:
- Aerial Movement: too complicated with all those types of flyers who turn at different angles, must move forward or not, can move backward or note, etc. I alsways have to reference the rules and can barely remebers them. So I tend to not use flying monsters. Too bad, since this makes interessting encounters.
|
|
|
|
Post by elquillar on Dec 7, 2007 8:58:55 GMT -5
Well
The rules should be simplified in general at some points. Sometimes it takes too much time to lookup certain rules. Combat is to cumbersome at the moment. Tha't the only thing that bugs me.
Otherwise 3.x works fine for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by brasten on Dec 7, 2007 17:07:18 GMT -5
It doesn't have mathematical bases for calculating the power/befit of abilities based on level?
One of the problems my group bumps into almost constantly is the "weakness" of spell caster at lower levels. This ranges from not having the ability to contribute in fights to having spells fail to overcome monster savings throws.
The savings throws for spells and various powers is also an issue when it comes to 1/day use abilities. The *solution* has become to target a weakness instead of trying to overpower a strength. However it becomes almost like a game of rock-paper-scissors in this regard. Do you memorize a Fort, Ref, or Will bases spell? This problem is what makes a good number of Psionic Powers seem so much more powerful compared to Wizards spells. Energy Missile is a good example since it can produce either a Fort or Ref based save.
I do hate to say it but the Attack of Opportunity system does present it's share of head aches. When it comes to some of my less mechanically/tactically inclined players they are often very frustrated when they suddenly provoke AoOs or aren't actually in position to make them. Along with that is also the confusion over various attack types, Melee Weapon, Ranged Weapon, Natural Weapon, Unarmed Attack, Melee Touch Attack, Ranged Touch Attack, Improved Unarmed Attack*, natural ranged weapons, and all that intreacts with AoOs and the number attacks you can make in a round and at what penalties/damage-loss.
*Improved Unarmed Strike is something that could really use some major attention. In the course of dispensing rules advice on other forums I've come to realize Improved Unarmed Strike is not quite what most people assume it to be based on the name. A good number of people make the assumption that you are considered to be armed for all prepossess which isn't true. You are only considered armed when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity, taking and provoking them.
Personally I would think that a good cleaning of the 3.5 rules should involve a line by line dissection of the rules as they are written and in order. That kind of careful analysis should reveal plenty of the gaps in the rules and what should be done about them in the simplest way. This will likely not be easy or overly fun. If it were easy to spot the underlying *problems* we wouldn't be seeing Wizards dumping the edition and building a new one from scratch. I think they are deathly allergic to math, play testing, and real work.
*edit* Dec 08, '07
Search Checks! This is a must fix mechanic. When dealing with traps. or anything for that matter, it slows down game play more then combat is alleged to.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 9, 2007 9:47:06 GMT -5
Search Checks! This is a must fix mechanic. When dealing with traps. or anything for that matter, it slows down game play more then combat is alleged to. Well I circumvent the problem by placing traps/secret doors in/on appropriate areas/objects and not in some random corridor who leads to the toilet. So, my players are encouraned to think of where such devices are placed and thus tend only to search areas which a likely to be protected...Not a perfect solution, but a start. What i especially hate about search is the elves ability to pass and area and automatically have a chance to detect these things....it not only slows down the game, but my players are smart enough to know what i roll for most of the time and then make a big search of the area if the elf's ability failed to detect the secret door.... |
|
|
|
Post by Brix on Dec 10, 2007 13:09:06 GMT -5
That's true.
Much too often this is reduced only to a "make a search check".
You solution works absolutly fine. What would you suggest for elves?
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 10, 2007 16:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 11, 2007 10:07:17 GMT -5
You are only considered armed when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity, taking and provoking them. No you are actually wrong: here is the SRD snippet with important passage in bold "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL] Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack. Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it. A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats." Nowhere is it mentioned that you are considered to be armed against AoO only... |
|
|
|
Post by brasten on Dec 11, 2007 14:07:46 GMT -5
It's actually that bold section that makes me say that. Reading the full sentence and the clarification makes it seem like the armed part of improved unarmed strike only applies to attacks of opponents from armed opponent's. The second sentence just adds to confusion by about something the character could already do if the he really were considered armed.
A simple clean clean up:
"Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option."
Would work just as well and without the confusion. All it requires is that people know what armed and unarmed mean in the rules. That is if Improved Unarmed Strike is supposed to work that way. As it stands I'm not sure that a character would even have a threatened area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brix on Dec 11, 2007 14:50:57 GMT -5
<offtopic>
Hmm.
Would be cool if such clarifications after they are discussed are added to a "cleansed" SRD (in the wiki)
Of course the changes should be marked and explained. Maybe a different color.
Other additions (like new stuff) could be placed there as well (other color)
However this is a lot of work, especially with all the table. But I'll think about that.
</offtopic>
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 11, 2007 16:10:26 GMT -5
<offtopic> Hmm. Would be cool if such clarifications after they are discussed are added to a "cleansed" SRD (in the wiki) Of course the changes should be marked and explained. Maybe a different color. Other additions (like new stuff) could be placed there as well (other color) However this is a lot of work, especially with all the table. But I'll think about that. </offtopic> yeah would be great to have some kind "structuring thing" |
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Aug 10, 2008 13:11:19 GMT -5
The feat is quite clear. If you make an unarmed attack against someone with a weapon and you don't have IUS, you provoke an AoO. If you have IUS, you're considered armed when making unarmed attacks - you don't provoke AoOs.
Many people don't know what "armed" and "unarmed" mean, and having them referenced in the feat itself makes things a lot easier - they don't have to flip to another section of the book to look it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dagretto on May 13, 2009 23:53:57 GMT -5
The two things my group complains about in 3xe is the iterative attacks and the status of buffs or bumps. Granted, some of the guys in my group go out of their way to make insanely complex characters (one...our regular DM sittiing on the other side of the screen for a while...made a dwarf ranger he needed a spreadsheet to track his attacks with), but iterative attacks is a complaint. I really don't see it myself, but anything to speed the game would be good. Also the problem with buff spells is that with judicious preparation, one could have multiple effects going simultaneously, ang get into a bonus stacking number crunch. Granted the latter is something that can be controlled in-game by the DM, but nonetheless...
Damon.
|
|
