First thoughts: D&D 3.5

[Bjorn]

So I've decided that it's time to get back into the dungeon hacking.  While I'm still looking for a group to play with, I figure the best thing to do is start learning the 3.5 rules -- the last I played was 2nd Ed, and that was years ago.

I've just finished my first read-through of the PHB.  I don't want to call this a review, because I'm how many years late to the table? and most of you are more than familiar with the system.  But here's my knee-jerk reactions to what I've read; you can tell me the ways in which I'm wrong.

Dwarves.  What the hell? Saving bonuses against all poisons and all magic?  Combat bonuses against the monsters that make up, what,  75% of the standard adventurer's fare?  A dump stat which is the dump stat?  Irreduceable base movement?  Stonecunning that doubles as detect traps?  Stability?  One of only two races with true darkvision? With no downsides at all?  Was anybody even thinking about balance?  I notice all the races only have bonuses, and there's no penalties per se.  Which I guess I can get behind on a conceptual level, but the dwarf really drives home that this can get pretty ludicrous -- a -2 to Spellcraft and/or Use Magic Device skills would be source appropriate and at least a nod at parity.  Of course, on that note, there's

Half-orcs.  What the hell?  Seriously, guys, if you don't want us playing half-orcs, just don't put them in the game. Net negative stat penalties and arguably the most useless ability ("treat as orc") ever, "balanced out" by darkvision.  Right.  Congratulations, you've finally solved the problem that humans are the most useless race!

Spiked chain.  What the hell?    In the real world, a useless weapon.  Here, it trips, it gets bonuses to disarm, it can be used with Weapon Finesse, it has reach, and oh yes it either negates or severely complicates all possible anti-AoO techniques, all while doing as much damage as a long sword.  Sure, it costs a feat to use it, but why is one weapon this lopsidedly good?

Attacks of Opportunity.  I like it.  I can see how it might get complicated and confusing, but it adds a very nifty tactical aspect to combat.  I'm really looking forward to seeing how a fighter-type character can make best use of them.

Skills.  Yeah, uh, I hate to be mathy and all, but static linear bonuses on top of fixed-range random numbers is not going to work.  Sooner or later, the amount of variability arising from the 1d20 is going to be trivial compared to the bonus -- and it looks like "sooner", based on skill progression.  Which leads into:

Feats. Very neat system.  Some of the feats are obviously useless, though -- I can see why there's been all this discussion about how to balance the "bonus to skills" feats.

Level progression.  Having stats increase with levels is a great idea.  The new multiclassing system is awesome.

Classes.  Not sure about this yet.  I've mainly been focussing on the non-spellcaster classes, as I doubt magic-users make a good choice for first time out (plus I like the non-magic types).  Making a high-level fighter would be a bit scary; feat choice would make you or break you.  Rogues seem pretty cool, but I'm a bit disappointed: the fact that the classic rogue functions (find/remove traps, open locks, etc) are now skills means that you depend on the skill system.  I'm also 90% sure that the incredibly punitive nature of the cross-class system is an attempt to keep rogues relevant and not just a fighter subtype.  Paladins... man, I hate paladins.  Looks like they're even more powerful than in 2nd Ed, with less restrictions.  Rangers are rangers, nothing really stood out here.  Monks look decidedly over-powered once you hit the higher levels, though it might be that getting there is the tricky part.

Book spread. Maybe I'm being nostalgic here, or maybe I'm missing something, but I really get the impression that in 3.5, unlike 2nd, the player also needs access to the DMG and the MM.

By and large, it looks like a fun system.  I'm a little worried by imbalance, though -- see my first three points.  In 2nd Ed, there wasn't that much difference between the races, and while there was usually an obvious "best" choice, the best choice depended on your class.  But in 3rd Ed, the dwarf just seems... really good.  That no matter what your class, other than bard, you just really can't go wrong taking a dwarf, putting them on pretty much even terms with the "versatile" human and ahead of the other races.  Similarly, sure, every fighter took a sword in 2nd Ed, but that was because it was a) archetypal, b) the most common weapon, and c) did the most damage, which seemed fair enough.  It didn't get a stack of special-case bonuses like the spiked chain.  Maybe these sorts of things were put in as deliberate twink warning signs -- see a dwarf with a spiked chain, know a player to avoid, sort of thing.  But it just seems like this is the sort of fanboyism that I normally expect to see in the splatbooks, not the core rules.

[Carthrat]

Yeah, dwarves are just plain better. They do have one issue; they have a slower movement speed than everyone else. Of course, that doesn't stop them making better wizards than elves or anything.

Never mind half-orcs, half-elves are the real underdogs. At least the orclings smash good.

AoOs: There's a few ways to take advantage of them, and a few more ways if you have a spiked chain. (You trigger an AoO for standing up, and improved trip lets you knock people over and get a free attack when you do! Hmm...)

Skills: Perhaps the same could be said for all dicerolls in this system.

Classes: Making a high-level fighter isn't about the feats, it's about how bored you're willing to get before making a magic-user (or a rogue). Paladins are actually worse; they barely scrape through with spells like Holy Sword... and they still kinda suck. They get to use smite hardly ever, and when they're not using it, they're busy being sub-par fighters.

Rangers are kind of good... but rogues are better at sneaking around, and actually hurt things better when they surprise attack, too. Actually, rogues remain relevant for many reasons, in part because they can get around without being seen, and use magic items. Sneak Attack, if used right, can seriously outdamage any of the fighting classes- on a regular, expected basis. I'd also like to state that I think the skill system is a vast improvement over the ridiculous 2e system, which implied that a rogue had an x% chance of overcoming *any* particularly roguely check. It's true you could apply modifiers to that check... but I never, ever saw anything in the 2e books that suggested giving circumstantial bonuses.

Monks are a joke. They get owned by any real man's fighting class- their AC isn't high enough, they can't outdamage them, and they can sometimes barely *hit*. They don't get enough spell resistance, or useful tricks, to outplay a spellcaster. In fact, most of their tricks are a joke; I forget when they get Quivering Palm, but the save is too low and the caster can spam save-or-dies at that point anyway. Stunning Fist is admittedly pretty good... overall, though, I think they're basically crap rogues.

Casters are the shit. Clerics and Druids are unquestionably the most powerful classes in the game; once they get beyond around 6th level, they can effectively turn into fighters (only better), and THEN they have all their nifty spells and whatnot. Wizards have a better spell selection, imho, but half the HP and none of the armour. It's very hard for anyone to catch up, at this point.

The game usually works itself out in play despite these issues, but if you've got some group of yahoos who are out to produce optimized characters, they're going to pick clerics, wizards, and rogues, in that order.

Fighters win for ease of play- and before level 6-7 or so, they really are just as good as any of the other classes. But they rapidly start to fall behind, and wind up playing the catchup game; they get first pick of magic euqipment because they *need* it, they get a bunch of buff spells that the wizard really could be using for something better, etc. etc.

[Merc]

I was gonna make a post with more stuff, but a good deal Rat already covered (Like agreement over half-elves sucking worse, casters being -way- better than non-casters).

So I cut out a good part of my post. Here's what's left:

Feats. Very neat system.  Some of the feats are obviously useless, though -- I can see why there's been all this discussion about how to balance the "bonus to skills" feats.

They're nice, but they don't scale like spells do as levels improve, generally. A fighter that gets to level 20 is gonna get a lot more feats than a wizard at that level, but the wizard gets spells that can stop time, rewrite reality and so forth. A fighter can get...+4 to damage.

Some of the splatbooks try to fix this, but don't quite manage it, especially when you consider that the fighter is -still- not getting many fighter only feats.

There is a splatbook that tries to add something different than feats to allow melee/ranged characters to compete with spellcasters called Tome of Battle. It has something called a manuevers system that martial adept characters get access to. They're nice in that they scale up just like spellcasting does. Well, not quite as good as spellcasting does, but still pretty nice.

The standard classes would need to be modified such that they can use these manuevers though, otherwise they have to spend feats to use even one manuever, which isn't that nice. Right now the only way to get manuevers without spending feats are the three classes listed in the book.

Level progression.  Having stats increase with levels is a great idea.  The new multiclassing system is awesome.

It's not perfect, but it is nice to have freedom to multiclass that 2e doesn't allow except as certain combinations based on race.

Classes.  Not sure about this yet.  I've mainly been focussing on the non-spellcaster classes, as I doubt magic-users make a good choice for first time out (plus I like the non-magic types).  Making a high-level fighter would be a bit scary; feat choice would make you or break you.  Rogues seem pretty cool, but I'm a bit disappointed: the fact that the classic rogue functions (find/remove traps, open locks, etc) are now skills means that you depend on the skill system.  I'm also 90% sure that the incredibly punitive nature of the cross-class system is an attempt to keep rogues relevant and not just a fighter subtype.  Paladins... man, I hate paladins.  Looks like they're even more powerful than in 2nd Ed, with less restrictions.  Rangers are rangers, nothing really stood out here.  Monks look decidedly over-powered once you hit the higher levels, though it might be that getting there is the tricky part.

Look at spellcasters before you comment about the power of any melee class. Look at their spells -closely-. Then ask if you still think melee/ranged classes are powerful in comparison.

Fighters are in no way scary because of their feats. Keep in mind what I said earlier about feats not scaling up by levels, and then also keep in mind that fighters don't really have access to feats that other classes can't get besides the specialization tree. Which is pretty...weak, as far as trees go. Power Attack is their best option generally and that's available to everyone.

I haven't played Paladins, but I'm told they're generally only nice to about level 6. It sounds believable though since they get so many dead levels after that and not a very good spellcasting progression.

Monks aren't really all that powerful, though they do get the nice all good saves and the mobility. Hit and run is pretty much what they're best at...but then they get flurry of blows which requires them to stand still to use. Go figure. They -are- one of the few classes that gets no dead levels however, so at every level they at least get something. Not that it really helps them be good.

Rogues...why the heck don't they get a level 20 ability? Why would they make it so that no one would ever get Rogue 20 over, say, Rogue 19/Fighter 1?

Book spread. Maybe I'm being nostalgic here, or maybe I'm missing something, but I really get the impression that in 3.5, unlike 2nd, the player also needs access to the DMG and the MM.

A player only needs the PHB unless they want magic items and don't want to create their own. Then they need the DMG as well. The DM needs all three books at least however.

[Anastasia]

I've just finished my first read-through of the PHB.  I don't want to call this a review, because I'm how many years late to the table? and most of you are more than familiar with the system.  But here's my knee-jerk reactions to what I've read; you can tell me the ways in which I'm wrong.

Sure! Also, table top experience can't be beat for gauging balance and brokeness.

Dwarves.  What the hell? Saving bonuses against all poisons and all magic?  Combat bonuses against the monsters that make up, what,  75% of the standard adventurer's fare?  A dump stat which is the dump stat?  Irreduceable base movement?  Stonecunning that doubles as detect traps?  Stability?  One of only two races with true darkvision? With no downsides at all?  Was anybody even thinking about balance?  I notice all the races only have bonuses, and there's no penalties per se.  Which I guess I can get behind on a conceptual level, but the dwarf really drives home that this can get pretty ludicrous -- a -2 to Spellcraft and/or Use Magic Device skills would be source appropriate and at least a nod at parity.  Of course, on that note, there's

I haven't really used dwarves much myself (Current game doesn't really have them around). They did look rather good, especially if your GM plays up to their combat strengths at all. Houserule 'em down a bit if you like or add some disadvantages.

Half-orcs.  What the hell?  Seriously, guys, if you don't want us playing half-orcs, just don't put them in the game. Net negative stat penalties and arguably the most useless ability ("treat as orc") ever, "balanced out" by darkvision.  Right.  Congratulations, you've finally solved the problem that humans are the most useless race!

Actually, humans are decent in 3.5. A free feat and extra skill points can help make some builds a whole lot more viable. Mm. I'm torn about half orcs - they take that negative stat penalty, but a buff to strength is pretty damn good. It's only possibly trumped by a con boost for any warrior type class. Give 'em a +2 con if that bothers you.

Spiked chain.  What the hell?    In the real world, a useless weapon.  Here, it trips, it gets bonuses to disarm, it can be used with Weapon Finesse, it has reach, and oh yes it either negates or severely complicates all possible anti-AoO techniques, all while doing as much damage as a long sword.  Sure, it costs a feat to use it, but why is one weapon this lopsidedly good?

Anything that gets into AoOs and reach tends to almost always be retarded. Just ban 'em is my opinion.

Attacks of Opportunity.  I like it.  I can see how it might get complicated and confusing, but it adds a very nifty tactical aspect to combat.  I'm really looking forward to seeing how a fighter-type character can make best use of them.

This is where I tend to disagree, especially if the GM is heavy on them. They're a considerable danger, crimping more stylistic or daring combat manovers in favors of free attacks.

Skills.  Yeah, uh, I hate to be mathy and all, but static linear bonuses on top of fixed-range random numbers is not going to work.  Sooner or later, the amount of variability arising from the 1d20 is going to be trivial compared to the bonus -- and it looks like "sooner", based on skill progression.  Which leads into:

Mostly works early on, tends to break down later. On one hand, a level 15 fighter should be able to pass most any swim check that would challenge a level 5 fighter, but on the other hand? One of 3.5's best strengths is that it's linear and easy to ramp up and down. It's also one of it's biggest weaknesses, DCs usually can't sanely keep up with bonuses.

Feats. Very neat system.  Some of the feats are obviously useless, though -- I can see why there's been all this discussion about how to balance the "bonus to skills" feats.

Feats are awesome. They're interesting, easy to add to and a great place for GM house rules/rebalancing.  The only downside is certain classes either drown in them or don't get nearly enough, but them's the breaks.

Classes.  Not sure about this yet.  I've mainly been focussing on the non-spellcaster classes, as I doubt magic-users make a good choice for first time out (plus I like the non-magic types).  Making a high-level fighter would be a bit scary; feat choice would make you or break you.  Rogues seem pretty cool, but I'm a bit disappointed: the fact that the classic rogue functions (find/remove traps, open locks, etc) are now skills means that you depend on the skill system.  I'm also 90% sure that the incredibly punitive nature of the cross-class system is an attempt to keep rogues relevant and not just a fighter subtype.  Paladins... man, I hate paladins.  Looks like they're even more powerful than in 2nd Ed, with less restrictions.  Rangers are rangers, nothing really stood out here.  Monks look decidedly over-powered once you hit the higher levels, though it might be that getting there is the tricky part.

Class balance can be summed up nicely as:

Low levels: Some semblance of balance.

Mid levels: Casters>Non casters

High levels: Casters>Gods>Epic>Non casters.

To specific comments? Yeah, fighters depend almost entirely how you build 'em featwise. They get enough feats to where wasting one isn't critical - my last PC fighter had levels where he took semi random feats just because there wasn't much better.

Rouges don't suck now! I've been pleasantly surprised since I came over to 3.5; they're no longer just gimped fighters. Sneak attack, reflexes, decent BAB and some really good choices make them...viable.

Paladins look good on paper, but I hear a lot that they don't hold up at all past a certain level. Not so sure here.

Just be wary of casters. Mages, Clerics and Druids all become utterly unbalanced later on. The limitations of 2nd edition(Not being able to move when casting, casting charge times each round, disruption if you take damage at any point before casting that round, ect ect) are by and large gone. Combine that with absolutely amazing versatility and damage that can outpace warrior types even early on? Boom.

Anyway, to your last point? 3.5 is balanced in it's own messy way - it works on paper, and it's not too hard to fix up for a GM. The system completely sucks for new GMs, though - it's too easy to get builds that'llj ust intimadate you.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, dwarves are just plain better. They do have one issue; they have a slower movement speed than everyone else. Of course, that doesn't stop them making better wizards than elves or anything.

Out of a bit of a disbelief, I went back to check what 2e dwarves were like.  To my surprise, just about everything -- the saving throw bonuses, the stonecraft, the combat bonuses -- was there.  Somehow, it stood out less.  Partly because there were less bonuses (no stability), partly because there were actual disadvantages (20% chance of magical item failure; class restrictions), and partly, well, partly because the other races got nerfed.  Elves in particular seem to have taken a bit hit from 2e.

Never mind half-orcs, half-elves are the real underdogs. At least the orclings smash good.

Hm.  I think that the half-elves have a better set of abilities.  But they don't get a stat boost, and that leads you straight into the question: does immunity to sleep, spot and listen bonus checks, bonuses against enchanments, and low-light vision balance out a bonus feat and more skill points?  In retrospect, I'm guessing that the edge goes to the humans.  Still, unless you want that +2 STR to make a really smashy fighter or barbarian, the half-orcs just plain suck.

Skills: Perhaps the same could be said for all dicerolls in this system.

Very true.  I don't think it's as big an issue with combat, since everyone is going to be scaling up at the same time -- maybe not to the same degree, but enough (I hope) to get this comparable.  On the other hand, with, say, Bluff, you're early on going to hit the point where either the bard is making all Bluff checks, since he's the only person with even a hope against the DC, or the bard is making all the Bluff checks, because he doesn't even have to roll.

Paladins are actually worse; they barely scrape through with spells like Holy Sword... and they still kinda suck. They get to use smite hardly ever, and when they're not using it, they're busy being sub-par fighters.

Paladins look like they cap out around level 6 or so; looking at it closely, I can see why you'd say they're inferior to fighters.  They're a little strange.  The abilities they get through to level 3 are so obviously good that they've had to put in special mulitclassing rules to prevent everyone from taking at least through to Pal 2, but they're not really giving you any reason to stick with paladin for the long run.

Rangers are kind of good... but rogues are better at sneaking around, and actually hurt things better when they surprise attack, too. Actually, rogues remain relevant for many reasons, in part because they can get around without being seen, and use magic items. Sneak Attack, if used right, can seriously outdamage any of the fighting classes- on a regular, expected basis.

Sneak attack does look very powerful.  Also very tactical -- I have some (hopefully) clever ideas for using a fighter-rogue build.

I'd also like to state that I think the skill system is a vast improvement over the ridiculous 2e system, which implied that a rogue had an x% chance of overcoming *any* particularly roguely check. It's true you could apply modifiers to that check... but I never, ever saw anything in the 2e books that suggested giving circumstantial bonuses.

Well, that's true, but on the other hand, the straight-percentage approach did keep things honest on the GMs part -- no setting "your skill + 21" DCs.

Even if willing to concede the straight-percentage was a problem, I'm still not sure I like the current system.  It seems to me reading the rules (and I get the impression that many people seem to share this opinion) that the cross-class aspect of skills is really painful.  You can't make a barbarian knowledgeable in the ways of trickster wizards because it's impossible to get him a decent amount of Spellcraft ranks; similarly, a fighter who got his start by acting as a mercenary for the local temples isn't going to know much at all about religion, because it isn't worth his points to buy that skill.  It'd be nice to do something to fix that, but because a lot of the core features of the rogue class are now skills, making it easier for other classes to take cross-class skills effectively makes rogues less relevant.  Which leads to stupidity like "haha no using Search for traps with DC 21 unless you are a rogue!"  If they're supposed to be class-specific abilities, make them class-specific abilities.  

Monks are a joke. They get owned by any real man's fighting class- their AC isn't high enough, they can't outdamage them, and they can sometimes barely *hit*. They don't get enough spell resistance, or useful tricks, to outplay a spellcaster. In fact, most of their tricks are a joke; I forget when they get Quivering Palm, but the save is too low and the caster can spam save-or-dies at that point anyway. Stunning Fist is admittedly pretty good... overall, though, I think they're basically crap rogues.

Interesting.  A lot of their higher-rank abilities (like SR, and quivering palm, and ethereal form) look really good, but I guess they're not so great compared to what casters can do at equivalent ranks.  And having started to read up on casters, the Spell Penetration feat means that the monk's SR is pretty crappy.

Casters are the shit. Clerics and Druids are unquestionably the most powerful classes in the game; once they get beyond around 6th level, they can effectively turn into fighters (only better), and THEN they have all their nifty spells and whatnot. Wizards have a better spell selection, imho, but half the HP and none of the armour. It's very hard for anyone to catch up, at this point.

Druids are undeniably disgusting.  (Why do they get alter self?  It is a mystery.)  Clerics look pretty good, too, but I don't see why you'd say they become fighters around level 6.

[Bjorn]

They're nice, but they don't scale like spells do as levels improve, generally. A fighter that gets to level 20 is gonna get a lot more feats than a wizard at that level, but the wizard gets spells that can stop time, rewrite reality and so forth. A fighter can get...+4 to damage.

Yeah, there's a definite unevenness in the quality of feats.  Combat Reflexes, for example, strikes me as good -- it basically gives you a fixed number of extra attacks, so as your attacks level up, so does it.  Cleave and Great Cleave, even more so -- the stronger you get, the more powerful these feats become.  Weapon specialization... doesn't.  Max out weapon focus, and you get a +2 to hit -- which is pretty much trivial by level 10.  I suppose it'll make a difference in getting your additional attacks to hit in a full attack, but....

Still, I think 3.5 is a lot better in this regard than 2e was.  In 2e, pretty much from level 3 on, the only way a fighter's damage output was getting better was equipment.

It's not perfect, but it is nice to have freedom to multiclass that 2e doesn't allow except as certain combinations based on race.

You don't have to decide on your multi-classing at character creation, you can have asymmetric levels, everyone can do it -- all huge steps up.  The EXP penalty thing is a little strange, but I can see how it, say, keeps everyone from taking 1 level in fighter for the bonus feat.

Look at spellcasters before you comment about the power of any melee class. Look at their spells -closely-. Then ask if you still think melee/ranged classes are powerful in comparison.

Oh, I'm not claiming melee classes are more powerful than casters.  They never have been, except at low levels, in any D&D version.  I just don't really like playing casters.

Rogues...why the heck don't they get a level 20 ability? Why would they make it so that no one would ever get Rogue 20 over, say, Rogue 19/Fighter 1?

I hadn't noticed that.  Though technically they do keep increasing; they'd get another special ability at 22. And really, you could ask that question about most of the non-caster classes -- why should a Fighter 18 take his next two levels in Fighter when he could switch to Paladin and replace one feat with smiting evil, healing, and saving throw bonuses?  Or switch to rogue and get evasion and some sneak attack?  This is just going back to what you and the others have said before -- above a certain level, the ability gains of the non-caster classes just don't keep up with the gains in the caster classes.

To what extent is multiclassing a viable option in this regard?  Is it viable to use some, say, cleric levels with metamagic feats to make a self-buffing fighter?

I haven't really used dwarves much myself (Current game doesn't really have them around). They did look rather good, especially if your GM plays up to their combat strengths at all. Houserule 'em down a bit if you like or add some disadvantages.

Probably good advice.  I wouldn't be GMing though.  Learn the system first, I say. :D

Regarding AoOs:

This is where I tend to disagree, especially if the GM is heavy on them. They're a considerable danger, crimping more stylistic or daring combat manovers in favors of free attacks.

I guess I can see that.  On the other hand, I've always wanted to play a counter-heavy, "don't-turn-your-back-on-me" vicious sort of fighter, and it seems like AoOs will give me the chance to do something that in 2e just wasn't really an option.

Anyway, to your last point? 3.5 is balanced in it's own messy way - it works on paper, and it's not too hard to fix up for a GM. The system completely sucks for new GMs, though - it's too easy to get builds that'llj ust intimadate you.

That's good to hear.  Though I haven't even looked at the splatbooks yet, and I imagine that throws whole new levels of complexity into things.  I figure the thing to do is find a group, and then find out what their splatbook policy is, and then work from there.

[Anastasia]

I guess I can see that. On the other hand, I've always wanted to play a counter-heavy, "don't-turn-your-back-on-me" vicious sort of fighter, and it seems like AoOs will give me the chance to do something that in 2e just wasn't really an option.

Coooool. Just check with whomever would GM that, GM usage/encouragement of AoOs does vary and all that. Nothing sucks in 3.5 like finding out your build doesn't mesh well with the GM, or that he really tends to nerf it in execution.

That's good to hear. Though I haven't even looked at the splatbooks yet, and I imagine that throws whole new levels of complexity into things. I figure the thing to do is find a group, and then find out what their splatbook policy is, and then work from there.

A word of advice? THere's a little phrase that'll help you out when in doubt.

"Core books only, please."

[Bjorn]

Just be wary of casters. Mages, Clerics and Druids all become utterly unbalanced later on. The limitations of 2nd edition(Not being able to move when casting, casting charge times each round, disruption if you take damage at any point before casting that round, ect ect) are by and large gone. Combine that with absolutely amazing versatility and damage that can outpace warrior types even early on? Boom.

Personally, I'm going to give a big huge shouted "Hallelujah!" that the whole stuipd segment system is gone.  Casting as "either standard or full-round action" thing is a nice piece of simplification, and it ties into the whole AoO thing.  Concentration and the ability to keep casting through damage is, I think, a bit of needed balance.  Certainly, casters weren't at all popular in my group back when I was playing 2e, simply because it was far too easy to shut them down.  Casting defensively, though, seems a bit unbalanced -- with sufficient Concentration skills, it means that standard-action spells are now effectively uninterruptable except with ready actions.  It seems to me that it ought to be an opposed check, Concentration vs a BAB attack roll, or something.

Movement... the 5' move thing is strange.  I don't see any game balance reason that it shouldn't provoke an AoO.  If casters want to spend skill points on getting tumble, or are willing to burn an action to withdraw clear of melee damage, then fine.  But unless I'm missing something, "no AoO on 5' steps" does nothing but weaken the role of a melee combatant.

[Anastasia]

Personally, I'm going to give a big huge shouted "Hallelujah!" that the whole stuipd segment system is gone.  Casting as "either standard or full-round action" thing is a nice piece of simplification, and it ties into the whole AoO thing.  Concentration and the ability to keep casting through damage is, I think, a bit of needed balance.  Certainly, casters weren't at all popular in my group back when I was playing 2e, simply because it was far too easy to shut them down.  Casting defensively, though, seems a bit unbalanced -- with sufficient Concentration skills, it means that standard-action spells are now effectively uninterruptable except with ready actions.  It seems to me that it ought to be an opposed check, Concentration vs a BAB attack roll, or something.

You're starting to see more of why casters are so unbalanced. There's not a whole lot you can do about them, especially as they level up Concentration. Say what you will about second, but at least casters had considerable drawbacks to balance the power they have. These don't exist in any practical sense in third.

[Ebiris]

This is where I tend to disagree, especially if the GM is heavy on them. They're a considerable danger, crimping more stylistic or daring combat manovers in favors of free attacks.

It's not daring if there's no risk to doing it!

[Anastasia]

This is where I tend to disagree, especially if the GM is heavy on them. They're a considerable danger, crimping more stylistic or daring combat manovers in favors of free attacks.

It's not daring if there's no risk to doing it!

When you want to do something that may be iffy on success and you combine a chance of taking a free hit against you with it? The odds just get sourer and sourer towards it, not to mention you may waste a turn. Considering the high damage output of most 3.5 encounters, that can be quite fatal.

[Merc]

Clerics look pretty good, too, but I don't see why you'd say they become fighters around level 6.

There are three spells that Core only clerics will almost certainly always have.

Level 1: Divine Favor - Get a +1 luck bonus to attack and damage rolls for every three caster levels.

Level 4: Divine Power - Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level, get +6 Strenght, and +1 temporary HP/caster level

Level 5: Righteous Might - Increase in size, get +8 Str, +4 Con, +4 natural armor, and DR 5/evil. At 12th level, DR becomes DR 10/evil and at 15th level it becomes DR 15/evil. Your equipment changes size with you, so your weapons do more damage too.

Now, clerics get access to these spells at levels 1, 7, and 9 respectively.

Consider a cleric who at level 7 casts divine power with the same stats/weapons as a fighter. He suddenly has the same base attack bonus, meaning his attack bonus will be +3 higher (from the +6 strength) and do +3 more damage (with a one-handed weapon anyhow). He also gets +7 temp HP. Not only that, but he still has 13 spells available, whereas the fighter only has... four feats over the cleric.

Now consider a cleric at level 9 who casts divine power along with quickened divine favor round one and righteous might round 2.

This is why despite taking 2 rounds to fully get these benefit, Clerics become better fighters than fighters at around level 7. This is with core books only.   With splatbooks? It can only get worse.

[Bjorn]

You're starting to see more of why casters are so unbalanced. There's not a whole lot you can do about them, especially as they level up Concentration. Say what you will about second, but at least casters had considerable drawbacks to balance the power they have. These don't exist in any practical sense in third.

This particular aspect seems to be a relatively easy issue to balance.  Mages have only two skills that matter to their class: Concentration and Spellcraft.  They tend in general to get a lot of skill points, which makes it easy for them to max those skills out, and both skills are used for unopposed checks at fixed DC, which makes them easy to max out.

So the obvious solutions are: either give them more skills worth spending points on, keeping them from maxing out just the few, or (better yet) make the skill checks opposed, or have the DC dependent on the level of the person you're dealing with.  A higher-level wizard ought to be able to better conceal the spell he's casting.  It should be a lot harder to keep from giving an opening to a lv. 15 fighter than a lv. 5.

To me, at least, it comes down to: a wizard within reach of a fighter's sword should be in serious trouble, but not automatically dead.  Giving the caster a chance to get a spell off in those conditions is part of that, but making it really bloody hard is another part.

[Bjorn]

Clerics look pretty good, too, but I don't see why you'd say they become fighters around level 6.

There are three spells that Core only clerics will almost certainly always have.

Oh.  I see.

That's kind of... stupid.  Why are they Personal?  If they were just single-target buffs, then this sort of stuff might be reasonable, but as it is, they're just like you say, something that makes clerics better than fighters.  Of course, in theory this sort of thing is countered by Dispel Magic, but making sure that every enemy has Dispel Magic is worse, from game balance perspectives, than just taking the spells out.

I can see the justification for these spells, I guess.  In 2e, clerics were just support machines, and not a lot of fun to play.  Spells like Righteous Might are attempts to give them a more pro-active role.  But to balance them, I'd either make them single-target touch spells (you can make yourself equal to the fighter, or you can make the fighter really good -- it's your call), or (and I think this is my preference) make the more powerful self-buffing spells incompatible with spell-casting.  If you have to drop Divine Power or Righteous Might to cast a spell, not only would it make things more tactical (is the ability to do damage more important right now than the ability to heal?), but it would prevent stacking the bonuses, which is probably the biggest game-breaker.

[Dracos]

Man, lots of comments.  Good ones too.  I'll poke in here and there since there's so much. =D

Dwarves.  What the hell? Saving bonuses against all poisons and all magic?  Combat bonuses against the monsters that make up, what,  75% of the standard adventurer's fare?  A dump stat which is the dump stat?  Irreduceable base movement?  Stonecunning that doubles as detect traps?  Stability?  One of only two races with true darkvision? With no downsides at all?  Was anybody even thinking about balance?  I notice all the races only have bonuses, and there's no penalties per se.  Which I guess I can get behind on a conceptual level, but the dwarf really drives home that this can get pretty ludicrous -- a -2 to Spellcraft and/or Use Magic Device skills would be source appropriate and at least a nod at parity.  Of course, on that note, there's

For all of that, I almost never see people playing dwarves.  The base lower movement seems to scare away (and should in the case of GMs actually using grid systems.  The whole party down or leave the dwarf behind).  They did make them stronger in 3.5 as I recall.  That said, dwarves are definitely among the strongest races.  They also used to (maybe still do) had a stack of dwarf only equipment and magic stuff built for them.

Additionally, in fairness, there's no longer a true dump stat in 3.5.  You can have dump stats for specific builds, but between skills and the fact cha backs a very sizable number of abilities, all of them are pretty much equal in worth, class blind.

Half-orcs.  What the hell?  Seriously, guys, if you don't want us playing half-orcs, just don't put them in the game. Net negative stat penalties and arguably the most useless ability ("treat as orc") ever, "balanced out" by darkvision.  Right.  Congratulations, you've finally solved the problem that humans are the most useless race!

True.  That said, I'm playing one now and managing to have a fair deal of fun with it.  Really, half-orcs continue (as many races do) to suffer from a deceptive perception that strength outweighs everything, even before classes come into measure.  This is part of how fighters get pretty maligned in the system.  They're  quite playable though, or at least, have been in Eb's campaign and Eb survived a good long while as one in Rat's campaign.  It's unbalanced, but thankfully not as boringly so as 'humans: get nothing, hah'.

Spiked chain.  What the hell?    In the real world, a useless weapon.  Here, it trips, it gets bonuses to disarm, it can be used with Weapon Finesse, it has reach, and oh yes it either negates or severely complicates all possible anti-AoO techniques, all while doing as much damage as a long sword.  Sure, it costs a feat to use it, but why is one weapon this lopsidedly good?

Because they're fucknuts.  See whip for its side version.  Spiked Chain and whips are both spawned of stupid in the system.

Attacks of Opportunity.  I like it.  I can see how it might get complicated and confusing, but it adds a very nifty tactical aspect to combat.  I'm really looking forward to seeing how a fighter-type character can make best use of them.

I generally do like these as well, though more in concept than I think execution.

Skills.  Yeah, uh, I hate to be mathy and all, but static linear bonuses on top of fixed-range random numbers is not going to work.  Sooner or later, the amount of variability arising from the 1d20 is going to be trivial compared to the bonus -- and it looks like "sooner", based on skill progression.  Which leads into:

Skills are retarded.  I've seen (and written) dozens of patches on them.  Nothing changes the fact that at the very core of the system, they're retarded.  2nd ed skills were better.  I'd much rather have most of them that are abilities folded into classes (or chooseable via some level system) and something that adds more flavor to the game.  Almost nobody touches flavor skills and I think that's a shame and odder ones (disguise) barely get touched.

Feats. Very neat system.  Some of the feats are obviously useless, though -- I can see why there's been all this discussion about how to balance the "bonus to skills" feats.

Feats do rock and were an excellent addition moving up from 2nd.

Level progression.  Having stats increase with levels is a great idea.  The new multiclassing system is awesome.

Agreed for the most part.  Sometimes multiclassing gets a bit complex..but then, most people don't need to do anything but simple ones  anyway.

Classes.  Not sure about this yet.  I've mainly been focussing on the non-spellcaster classes, as I doubt magic-users make a good choice for first time out (plus I like the non-magic types).  Making a high-level fighter would be a bit scary; feat choice would make you or break you.  Rogues seem pretty cool, but I'm a bit disappointed: the fact that the classic rogue functions (find/remove traps, open locks, etc) are now skills means that you depend on the skill system.  I'm also 90% sure that the incredibly punitive nature of the cross-class system is an attempt to keep rogues relevant and not just a fighter subtype.  Paladins... man, I hate paladins.  Looks like they're even more powerful than in 2nd Ed, with less restrictions.  Rangers are rangers, nothing really stood out here.  Monks look decidedly over-powered once you hit the higher levels, though it might be that getting there is the tricky part.

Fighters were underpowered in 3.0.  I think they're still mathy side underpowered in 3.5.  They are a lot more fun to build I find.  And yeah, I could do with roguish abilities getting rolled into roguish class abilities.  Heck, I could do with that for a lot of them.  Give clerics and paladins religion for free or whatnot.

Cross class is retarded.  I've argued about it before but it's a fix that's double dipping and frankly, it's really not necessary.  Even smart fighters don't have nearly enough skill points to fake being a rogue without it.

I used to be a big monk fan, but Rat's right.  Monks suck.  They were BRIEFLY fixed at the end of 3.0.  Then all that was retconned out and they returned to being mediocre with just a bit of stuff.  Whereas mages have gotten far more capable in knocking past monk defenses, monks have remained largely stagnant in the core and I've not seen any splatbooks that really return them to having the cool schools and whatnot that  existed for them in 3.0 and gave ways to expand monk repitoire.

As it stands, they can't go down any of the fesiable paths they reflect strongly enough to really make it matter  and they suffer from double rolling with most of their abilities: They all depend on their middling to hit.

I think they may have changed it so you can use dex without a feat for unarmed attacks, but I don't remember reading that anywhere and that also was silliness (I am superfast...but can't hit you because my strength is 8...)

Book spread. Maybe I'm being nostalgic here, or maybe I'm missing something, but I really get the impression that in 3.5, unlike 2nd, the player also needs access to the DMG and the MM.

For advanced builds, yes.  Otherwise, no, it's really quite possibly to play without having read either of them.  Unless the GM requires such knowledge...  And admittingly, most  do expect you to recognize things from the MM (and otherwise) by name dropping alone.

By and large, it looks like a fun system.  I'm a little worried by imbalance, though -- see my first three points.  In 2nd Ed, there wasn't that much difference between the races, and while there was usually an obvious "best" choice, the best choice depended on your class.  But in 3rd Ed, the dwarf just seems... really good.  That no matter what your class, other than bard, you just really can't go wrong taking a dwarf, putting them on pretty much even terms with the "versatile" human and ahead of the other races.  Similarly, sure, every fighter took a sword in 2nd Ed, but that was because it was a) archetypal, b) the most common weapon, and c) did the most damage, which seemed fair enough.  It didn't get a stack of special-case bonuses like the spiked chain.  Maybe these sorts of things were put in as deliberate twink warning signs -- see a dwarf with a spiked chain, know a player to avoid, sort of thing.  But it just seems like this is the sort of fanboyism that I normally expect to see in the splatbooks, not the core rules.

It's fun.  Could be better in a lot of ways, but is fun and easy to pick up.  And you're right, spiked chain is retarded.

Dracos