Since 3.5e Core will be reprinted, what are your thoughts?

[Halinn]

You've got the math wrong for the scythe. You're doing *2 rather than *4.
I feel like trying some more realistic math.
Let's say a 10th level barbarian (+1 keen weapon, belt of strength +4). 26 strength when raging (16 base, 2 levels, 4 item, 4 rage). Power attack for 5, because more will result in hitting on only a 3+ or something.

3.0 stacking
Greatsword (15/x2) = (((7+12+10+1)*13)+(((7+12+10+1)*2*6))/20 = 37.5 average damage
Scimitar (12/x2) = (((3.5+12+10+1)*10)+(((3.5+12+10+1)*2*9))/20 = 37.1 average damage
Scythe (18/x4) = (((7+12+10+1)*16)+((7+12+10+1)*4*3))/20 = 42 average damage

3.5 stacking, replace keen with another +1
Greatsword (17/x2) = (((7+12+10+2)*15+((7+12+10+2)*2*4))/20 = 35.65 average damage
Scimitar (15/x2) = (((3.5+12+10+2)*13+((3.5+12+10+2)*2*6))/20 = 34.375 average damage
Scythe (19/x4) = (((7+12+10+2)*17+((7+12+10+2)*4*2))/20 = 38.75 average damage


20th level orc barbarian with 46 strength, +5 weapon, power attack for +40 damage:
3.0 averages, in order - 98.75, 105.7, 110.6
3.5 averages, in order - 90.85, 94.375, 98.75

[ksbsnowowl]

IMO, the big problem with the large threat ranges in 3.0 was the fact that Vorpal triggered on a critical, not merely a natural 20.

Everyone at high levels was running around with an Improved Criticaled +1 Keen Vorpal Scimitar that was made +5 via greater magic weapon.

I let them stack in my 3.5 games.  It's never been a problem.  Not a single person has asked for keen or taken improved critical.

It will have a nice combo with Telling Blow on some Barbarian/Fighter/Dervish//Rogues, though.

[NunoM]

Regardless of the math (although worthy of notice), if the developers really wanted to give less power to the advantages of Keen+Imp. Crit, there's a number of things they could have done, without disrupting the rules this much...

The main reasoning for opposing this, in my gaming group, is that we assume "Improved Critical" represents the technical ability of the character, and "Keen" a magical ability of a weapon. It feels right that a keen enhanced blade in the hands of an expert swordsman is a lot deadlier than in the hands of a "normal" swordsman.

One way (and we actually thought about this before we decided to keep the rules from 3.0) would be:
- Keen and Imp. Critical both add +1 to the threat range of the weapon
or
- Either one of them keeps the rule of doubling, and the other gives only a +1. It would be a question of deciding to favor magic power over technical ability or the other way around.

Another thing i have mixed feelings about, are the Cover rules. It's a lot simpler in 3.5E, yes, but it also adds more (unnecessary, IMO) decisions for the DM to make. In 3.0 we could actually see what kind of cover modifiers to apply to an archer behind a battlement or to a fighter around a corner. It took some case-to-case evaluation too, but only to the kind of cover...
I see good things and not-so-good things in both methods.

[ksbsnowowl]

Another thing i have mixed feelings about, are the Cover rules. It's a lot simpler in 3.5E, yes, but it also adds more (unnecessary, IMO) decisions for the DM to make. In 3.0 we could actually see what kind of cover modifiers to apply to an archer behind a battlement or to a fighter around a corner. It took some case-to-case evaluation too, but only to the kind of cover...
I see good things and not-so-good things in both methods.

Yes, the 3.0 cover rules were so much better.

Also, the 3.5 "simplification" of the concealment rules changed Shadow Mastiffs from having 9/10 concealment (40% miss chance, still targetable) to total concealment (50% miss chance, auto-succeeds at Hide checks; can't been seen, even in the middle of combat).

[Prime32]

Guys, they said they were going to reprint 3.5, not print 3.6. We'll be lucky if we get swift actions.

[ksbsnowowl]

Guys, they said they were going to reprint 3.5, not print 3.6. We'll be lucky if we get swift actions.

Oh, I'm not expecting anything more than incorporated errata; just bloviating.

[Halinn]

Something I missed in the average damage calculations - I should have used a Falchion instead of a Scimitar. 1.5 more points of average damage means that the larger crit range will beat larger base damage sooner.

[NunoM]

Guys, they said they were going to reprint 3.5, not print 3.6. We'll be lucky if we get swift actions.

but it kind of makes you wish they *were* printing a new edition, or sub-edition...
Along with a "best-of", they could also do a survey for the "worst-of" and tackle that as well, while they're at it.

And now a personal wish: i wish they would increase the Duskblade's spell list! (Yeah, i'm playing one now) Sure, the current list gives you obvious choices to sacrifice for "Arcane Strike" during the day, but still, more options would be nice... This class is always forgotten in the supplements with new spells. I now it's one of the "newer" classes and blah blah, but some kind of general rule for adding to the spell list could work, IMO. Example: the one for Warmages and the Evocation school.

[Unbeliever]

^ this is a general issue with all the classes with self-contained lists.  And, it's why they are always so far behind the power curve compared to those who can cast off of a "core" list. 

Any DM that wants to encourage people to play things like Duskblades and Dread Necromancers and Beguilers rather than Gishes, straight Necromancers, and god Wizards who do a bit of enchanting should be ready and willing to expand the spell lists to anything that seems thematically appropriate, both for the class and for the particular character.

You should share that with your DM.  It's all about creating the right incentives for players.  If you want people to play "lower tier" classes you need to not have them look longingly constantly at the higher tier ones who are getting things that they really should be getting, and just aren't due to publishing dates and other little things.

[SorO_Lost]

You've got the math wrong for the scythe. You're doing *2 rather than *4.

Numbers make my head hurt. So the Scythe comes out ahead, but still same order of weapons, just a larger gap between them.

I think that's the second time you've corrected my math this month, of the only two math-like posts I've done, in totally different sub-forums. Stop stalking me here and stalk me in real, I could you your skills when I go shopping

Guys, they said they were going to reprint 3.5, not print 3.6. We'll be lucky if we get swift actions.

Oh, I'm not expecting anything more than incorporated errata; just bloviating.

I'm expecting copy/paste 3.5 rulebooks with a flier in the back saying "Download the Errata at http://adf.ly/564553/spbdc-128!".

[Kethrian]

^ this is a general issue with all the classes with self-contained lists.  And, it's why they are always so far behind the power curve compared to those who can cast off of a "core" list. 

Any DM that wants to encourage people to play things like Duskblades and Dread Necromancers and Beguilers rather than Gishes, straight Necromancers, and god Wizards who do a bit of enchanting should be ready and willing to expand the spell lists to anything that seems thematically appropriate, both for the class and for the particular character.

You should share that with your DM.  It's all about creating the right incentives for players.  If you want people to play "lower tier" classes you need to not have them look longingly constantly at the higher tier ones who are getting things that they really should be getting, and just aren't due to publishing dates and other little things.

So true!  That's why I let my players (and suggest to my DMs) that those non-core classes be allowed to swap out spells on their lists, though the new ones should be readily recognizable as belonging on their list.  For instance, if it's a BFC or damage spell, it's good for Warmage.  If it has a touch range, Duskblade.  If it's illusion or enchantment, Beguiler.  Etc.

[NunoM]

I may need some more convincing than that, unfortunately... I've been trying to find RAW ways to include "Combust" as a spell for my Duskblade list. It has all the right stuff to go in, IMO: Evocation (aka combat oriented) and touch range... ah well...

I went as far as quoting the rule on researching spells in the DMG and, for now, that appears to be the only way i can get close to the spell. I just have to get some downtime in the adventure and research my version of the spell (which will be very close to the original one, of course...)

[Halinn]

AFB, but isn't the Extra Spell feat worded so you can use it to learn non-class spells?

[Jackinthegreen]

AFB, but isn't the Extra Spell feat worded so you can use it to learn non-class spells?

Yes.

[sirpercival]

AFB, but isn't the Extra Spell feat worded so you can use it to learn non-class spells?

Yes.

Except, in the good tradition of the FAQ:

Can the warmage (CAr) benefit from the Extra Spell
feat?
No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells
known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list.
Since the warmage already knows all the spells on his class
spell list, this feat has no effect.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

  ... so far.


One of the things discovered recently
was the debate about whether PrCs
counted with the Multiclassing penalty.
iirc - there's convincing evidence that
that was supposed to happen, but idk.
Obviously nobody has played it that way.

Anyway, here's the basic multi-penalty mathyness:

(click to show/hide)

I haven't run the math on the 20% exp penalty for a long time.

step 1 ... You get .8* exp at the same level as the party.
step 2 ... Then you get 1.2* exp when you're 1 level down.
step 3 ... Then it see-saws back and forth steps 1+2, while you slowly fall behind.
step 4 ... Then you get 1.6* exp when you're 2 levels down.
step 5 ... Then it see-saws back and forth steps 2+4, you stay here the rest of the way.

result = 1 level down almost all of the time
assume = 1 level down as simple answer
debate = is 1 level down worth it for ecl 10+ (or so) ??

If you get to the 40% exp penalty, it's a lot more aggressive, and worse.

[NunoM]

According to this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Multiclass_Characters, the rule on prestige classes clearly states:

Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.

...so i guess we've all been playing it correctly

[Jackinthegreen]

According to this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Multiclass_Characters, the rule on prestige classes clearly states:

Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.

...so i guess we've all been playing it correctly

Dandwiki is a fan site and not recognized as official information in any way.  The part about prestige classes and multiclassing, however, is not present in the 3.5 books.  In 3.0 it was, and there is at least one thread around here or on ENworld where someone mentioned getting an official answer to the effect of "We meant to leave in the part about prestige classes not counting for multiclass penalties."  I'll see if I can dig it up, or if someone else who has it handy would be kind enough to post.

[Kethrian]

I'd have to browse my older posts to find it, but it was mentioned in an interview with one of the designers that the PrCs not incurring multiclassing penalties line was just forgotten about when they were rewriting the rules for 3.5e, and was always meant to be in there.

[NunoM]

Dandwiki is a fan site and not recognized as official information in any way. 

I had no idea about this, sorry! :/

Although i'm almost positive about the rule itself. I remember this "exception" being given for Prestige Classes in 3.0 - can't seem to find it, though - and i guess we just let it slide naturally into 3.5. This was discussed the very first time one of our players wanted to take on a prestige class and i remember it perfectly.
This never hurt anyone or the rules, IMO.

However, following the spirit of this topic, then this would definitely be one of the things to include in the reprint. Yay or Nay doesn't matter, but at least some kind of ruling.