D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Scaling Issues - What are your thoughts?

[Trance-Zg]

1st. you can rule that 10ft fall gives 20% max HP damage, 20ft fall 40% etc...
immersion in lava would be 30-40% max HP per round.

2nd you can make skills more expensive to level up:
i.e. 1st 4 ranks are 1 for 1, 5th to 8th rank is 1,5 for 1 rank and from 9th on all ranks cost 2 skill points. That would encourage wide specced characters as you would only have 1 or 2 skills maxed, maybe 3 as rogue.

 

[the Jester]

What are your thoughts on these scaling issues? Oh - it occurs to me I should mention I have heard about (and played) E6, but for the purpose of this discussion let's assume I want to play 1-20. Thanks!

They are some of the hidden flaws of 3e that eventually drove me away from it.

The single biggest issue at higher levels, imho, is the "bonus gap". An AC that challenges the fighter is impossible for the monk to hit. The monster that can get through the monk's insane AC can't miss the wizard or rogue. The wall that challenges the rogue's climbing ability is impossible for the wizard or cleric (given antimmagic or sufficiently depleted spells). And so on.

I'm not sure how to fix it without substantially rewriting the game, though.

 

[Niccodaemus]

It is obvious that all of this is a result of playing a game with a variation of rules that were designed for a different type of game.

D&D as originally designed was never meant to be played at level 20. Tweaking those rules so they evolve into something like 3.5 or Pathfinder isn't going to make any difference.

While E6 might be a bit extreme, I've never seen the appeal of playing a character that was over 12th level at most.

 

[kitcik]

I've never seen the appeal of playing a character that was over 12th level at most.

Nothing stopping you from playing E12

 

[Dandu]

Turning the ground under an enemy's feet into lava.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Nothing stopping you from playing E12

'Tis true. As for me, I've decided on Labyrinth Lord, with AEC.