3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[duo31]

Fine. In 3.0 haste was so much better for casters than Fighters.

Very true, they fixed the haste so that it doesn't give another action, but then they went and made metamagic rods of quicken. so the Wizard can still cast 2 freakn spells a round.

3.0 also had some really stupid fuckn prestige classes. There was one that had to destroy a kingdom's worth of magic items in order to maintain their supernatural powers. Stupid for a fucking PC, and I would punch the fuckin DM in the nuts with Wheaton's Cock Punch of Furious Anger, if he pulled that shit on the party.

[ubernoob]

I never played 3.0. That's kind of why I wanted to read this thread. That was before the fucking off topic ruined any hope of real discussion though.

*facepalm*

You could have said that before everything else you said.

Fine. In 3.0 haste was so much better for casters than Fighters.

I know it's already been covered, but only fleetingly. I mean, seriously, WTF WoTC?!

In 3.0 you could partial charge with the standard action and then full attack. 3.0 haste was also single target, so a caster didn't get a net gain on spells by casting it on themselves until round 3 unless they were high enough level to quicken it.

Yeah, I wanted to see if there was anything *new* that would be interesting to read about that I hadn't already read in previous discussions.

[Sarandosil]

Fine. In 3.0 haste was so much better for casters than Fighters.

Very true, they fixed the haste so that it doesn't give another action, but then they went and made metamagic rods of quicken. so the Wizard can still cast 2 freakn spells a round.

3.0 also had some really stupid fuckn prestige classes. There was one that had to destroy a kingdom's worth of magic items in order to maintain their supernatural powers. Stupid for a fucking PC, and I would punch the fuckin DM in the nuts with Wheaton's Cock Punch of Furious Anger, if he pulled that shit on the party.

You had quicken metamagic rods in 3.0 too, they were in Tome and Blood.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In 3.0 you could partial charge with the standard action and then full attack. 3.0 haste was also single target, so a caster didn't get a net gain on spells by casting it on themselves until round 3 unless they were high enough level to quicken it.

You'd still be better off hasting another caster, so that when her turn comes around she can haste you and cast whatever else (or simply cast two good spells and end the encounter--this works great with followers, hirelings, and cohorts).

[RobbyPants]

I'm just going to restate the important part because your thread shitting has ruined a thread that could have been interesting.

Your emotional investment into this argument is childish, and I feel embarrassed for you. Please, good sir, step away from the computer, go outside, and get laid.

If everyone just ignored him, this thread still could be interesting. Sure, the page will get interrupted by various double or tripple posts of "you have ignored this poster", but it would be far less distracting.

[Zinegata]

I'm just going to restate the important part because your thread shitting has ruined a thread that could have been interesting.

Your emotional investment into this argument is childish, and I feel embarrassed for you. Please, good sir, step away from the computer, go outside, and get laid.

If everyone just ignored him, this thread still could be interesting. Sure, the page will get interrupted by various double or tripple posts of "you have ignored this poster", but it would be far less distracting.

OTOH, maybe if you simply shut the fuck up, there'd be less distractions from the tenuous attention the forum has for the 3.0->3.5 thing.

This is the second time I've tried to steer back the thread back to that topic. I'm not bringing it back right again a third time because somebody does another off-topic thread crap and then blames me again for stuff they themselves are guilty of.

[ubernoob]

Not contributing to the discussion. Again.

Zine, I'm going to put you on ignore for a few days. I might take you off after a bit if your posting improves.

[Zinegata]

Not contributing to the discussion. Again.

Zine, I'm going to put you on ignore for a few days. I might take you off after a bit if your posting improves.

Nope, don't ever take me off. Because you asked a stop to the thread crap and I did it. And instead of a thank you, you're siding with guys who are thread crapping too.

So fuck off.

[souran]

I'd like to posit my own champion. Range.
Range beats skill, strength, conditioning, and training.
If you kill the other fucker before he has a chance to kill you, you win.

English longbows had longer range than their French counterparts.
US tanks in Desert Shield had longer range than Iraqi tanks.
When pikemen fought, the ones with the 15' poles beat the guys with 10' ones.
Woman with a gun, beats a giant man with a knife, if she can get outside of his reach.

Can i win the internets now?

Actaully, this is wrong.

English Longbows didn't have a greater range than their French Counterparts because their french counterparts where were crossbows. The differance mitigating factor was that the range differance was minimal compared to the firing time differance.

US M1 Abrams tanks have a limit of direct fire of 3 Km with the Sabot tank penetrator round. The Iraqi's were in Russian made T-72 variant tanks. The T-72 has a larger gun with a direct fire range of 4 km.

Why the Abrams a much better tank if the T-72 can start shooting a kilometer out?

The abrams has stabalizers that let it fire on the move the T-72s accuracy drops to basically nothing while shooting on the move. Additionally, the crews where better trainded. The Abrams has a MUCH better fire control and night fighitnig combat capability And the abrams uses a human instead of the T-72s autoloader for its main armament. Tank auto-loaders have always been considered quite unreliable.

A man can throw a knife accuractly at a range of 15+ yards. Many handguns (m1911 model automatics, lots of weapons in .38) are not accurate beyond 10 yards.

So its not range its effectiveness that really wins.

[Kaelik]

So its not range its effectiveness that really wins.

Really? Effectiveness? It's almost like winning is the effect, and if you can accomplish the effect of winning, you are effective.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is. Souran, your tautology is not appreciated.

[souran]

Really? Effectiveness? It's almost like winning is the effect, and if you can accomplish the effect of winning, you are effective.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is. Souran, your tautology is not appreciated.

At the point where people are trying to define range as the decisive factor in combat we might as well just say effectivness.

I mean honestly, this thread long ago left the field of the reasonable to the land of slippery slopes and bullshit.

I mean hell this thread has taught me that all weapons are the same, and thats fine because it doesn't matter becasue the most athletic person is going to win. English longbowmen were no more skilled than 10 year olds and that any skill whose practice might improve conditioning is not actually making people more skilled only more conditioned. Fortuantly for all of westeren civilazation its not even skill or technology that wins battles and wars. As FrankTrollman teaches us its entirely logistics! Its a good thing too because if the Germans had had more tanks thank France in 1940 they might have been able to beat the French, overrun the whole continent and drag the whole world into a bloody conflict that would forever change the nature of the world. Instead they just get defeated by the numerically superior in every way French.

This has got to be the most historically instructional thread on the whole god damn board. I am merely contributing to it in the way that previous posters have shown is the level of logical discussion desired.

[duo31]

We are Legion?

I didn't know that we were a we.

and my post was made of sarcasm and silly in order to stop the arguing and get back on topic.

-duo

[Zinegata]

I am not putting this thread back together again.

Somebody say something 3.0->3.5 related .

[souran]

Somebody say something 3.0->3.5 related .

3.5 Monster descriptions are usually cleaner, and there stat block makes it easier to determine their touch AC and there flat footed AC......

[Username17]

3.5 Monster descriptions are usually cleaner, and there stat block makes it easier to determine their touch AC and there flat footed AC......

In general, outsiders became less powerful as spellcasters and more powerful as fighters. I believe this was to make fighters feel small in the pants - although the listed claim was that it made them easier to run - since they mostly just go "Rawr!" and attack in melee after 3.5 came out, rather than sitting back and casting nasty death spells. Of course, this made it even harder for Fighters to actually kill them.

Case in point: the Erinyes no longer has enchantment spells and giant boobs. Now she has a whole lot more hit dice and does a lot of damage as a flying archer.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

In general, outsiders became less powerful as spellcasters and more powerful as fighters. I believe this was to make fighters feel small in the pants - although the listed claim was that it made them easier to run - since they mostly just go "Rawr!" and attack in melee after 3.5 came out, rather than sitting back and casting nasty death spells. Of course, this made it even harder for Fighters to actually kill them.

Well mostly that was because of the weird deceptive stuff in 3.5 where you'd see this awesome badass looking demon (such as the balor), but it would pretty much suck ass in melee and was better off sitting back spamming spells, since it was a total pussy in melee combat. And a lot of people wanted to see it go to town on people with the sword and flaming whip as opposed to being yet another evasive flying kite caster.

But that was the norm with 3E anyway. If you weren't a caster, you sucked.

I was really disappointed that everything you fought at higher levels that was worth a damn was basically just a wizard or cleric that used spell-likes instead of actual spells. It was so dull.

[RobbyPants]

Case in point: the Erinyes no longer has enchantment spells and giant boobs. Now she has a whole lot more hit dice and does a lot of damage as a flying archer.

Wait a minute. Really? Are you talking about something different in the art work? I don't remember the 3.0 MM pictures anymore.

[Username17]

Case in point: the Erinyes no longer has enchantment spells and giant boobs. Now she has a whole lot more hit dice and does a lot of damage as a flying archer.

Wait a minute. Really? Are you talking about something different in the art work? I don't remember the 3.0 MM pictures anymore.

Yeah, the 3.0 Marilith is kind of hot, the 3.5 Marilith is all melty-face. Fiends got significantly less fuckable in 3.5 art.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

And I got rid of my 3.0 MM several years ago. Now I'll have to look through my friend's and see all the differences.

[Sarandosil]

My 3.0 MM doesn't have a picture for the Marilith or the Erinyes, so I'm kind of curious about this myself.

[Username17]

My 3.0 MM doesn't have a picture for the Marilith or the Erinyes, so I'm kind of curious about this myself.

The Marilith is bizarrely pictured in the Dungeon Master's Guide I think, fighting some dude. The Erinyes is similarly drawn elsewhere as our favorite red-skinned sexy chick with white wings.

The 3.5 Monster Manual is longer. In part because they add a few monsters (Githyanki for example), but also because they add more pictures. But a lot of the new pictures are pretty disappointing. Like their decidedly unsexy Marilith. Goes hand in hand with them errataing out her Human Form and Charm Monster spell-like. It's like Andy Collin doesn't want you to be fucking Mariliths.

I think this ultimately may have been the point that caused Andy Collins to leave the company, considering the 4e position on sexy mariliths:

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

I totally have to pour through my old 3.0 books now. It's been about six years. Should bring back some fun college memories.

[Crissa]

She's pretty hot, like Tia Dalma but with a bad photoshop of a snake.

Why draw, if you can't do better than a bad photoblend? Geez.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

I think this ultimately may have been the point that caused Andy Collins to leave the company, considering the 4e position on sexy mariliths:

I would laugh my ass off if that was what actually caused him to leave the company.

"Make this marilith sexy or you're fired!"

[K]

3.5 had this group of born-again Christians writing for them that tried to rewrite all the 3.5 fiends into some Christian metaphor. This is why known (and awesome) perverts like Erik Mona wrote the passable Fiendish Codex I, and fundies wrote the sucktastic Fiendish Codex II.

Cutting all the spell-likes also stopped the outsiders from being boss monsters, which I always thought was weird.