Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

[Staffan]

I think the solution to that would be to stick multiple abilities on items.

The Magic Item Compendium introduced a rule where you could add a static bonus to an activated item without paying the 50% surcharge for multiple abilities in one item, because otherwise no-one* would use all the cool activated items in the book. I also believe the slots allowed for the bonuses were a bit more permissive than the standard stat bonus items.

* No-one who can control their equipment that is, which after all was the assumed default in 3e.

 

[Voadam]

I've been thinking more about this and I think that part of the solution here might paradoxially be to make those necessity items cheaper so that there's more cash left over for additional enchantments

I don’t think that would help until you max them out at +5s and so on. The incentive would still be to max out the core items where you can. So getting a +2 weapon quickly instead of a +1 weapon and something quirky.

 

[Reynard]

Star Wars Saga Edition.

Saga style rules should have been the basis of a fixed 3.5.

That's fair, although isn't Saga Edition pretty late in a game and actually a slight move toward 4E rather than a separate branch of 3E than 3.5?

 

[Belen]

That's fair, although isn't Saga Edition pretty late in a game and actually a slight move toward 4E rather than a separate branch of 3E than 3.5?

I called Saga 3.75. It was a beautiful upgrade of 3.5 that fixed a lot of my issues with the system. It had some 4e elements but stayed closer to 3.5.

 

[Staffan]

That's fair, although isn't Saga Edition pretty late in a game and actually a slight move toward 4E rather than a separate branch of 3E than 3.5?

I'd argue that SWSaga is more d20 Modern than D&D. You have a small number of highly generic classes, most of which mechanically consist of Talents (selectable class abilities) and bonus feats, and you alternate between the two at each level. In addition, you are expected to multiclass to get the character you envision, and the more flavorful options are usually done as Advanced classes (similar to prestige classes). But yeah, it does have some 4e-isms:

• Defenses instead of saves, with a level-based increase and a small fixed bonus based on class (so everyone would have e.g. Fortitude defense 10+level+Con bonus, and if you were a Soldier you'd get +2). And as a consequence, anything offensive is an "attack". E.g. in a 5e with modern/futuristic weapons, a grenade would require a Dexterity save vs a fixed DC, but in Saga you'd use an attack roll against the target's Reflex defense.
• Binary skills – you get a general bonus to all skills based on level, and if you're proficient you get a +5 (with the potential for +5 more for a feat).
• I think force powers refreshed with a fairly short rest period, essentially making them encounter powers.

But other than Force powers, you generally didn't have AEDU-style powers, and there wasn't anything close to healing surges.

 

[Alzrius]

The Magic Item Compendium introduced a rule where you could add a static bonus to an activated item without paying the 50% surcharge for multiple abilities in one item, because otherwise no-one* would use all the cool activated items in the book. I also believe the slots allowed for the bonuses were a bit more permissive than the standard stat bonus items.

* No-one who can control their equipment that is, which after all was the assumed default in 3e.

Yeah, that was a very welcome change which unfortunately went unnoticed by most people, simply because it came so late in the life of the edition (and wasn't ever added to the SRD). Likewise, it was an offshoot of the MIC's larger goal of making magic items cheaper overall so that PCs could afford to get some of the "sexier" stuff instead of having to spend everything on the useful-but-boring "Big Six."

Personally, I combine that with disregarding footnote 3 in the "Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values," which says "If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half."

This footnote not only doesn't exist in 3.0, but none of the magic items in 3.5 follow this guideline, at least as far as I can tell. Just look at the lantern of revealing, which is nothing more than a continuous-use invisibility purge spell (duration of 1 minute/level). It costs 30,000 gp (spell level 3 x caster level 5 x 2,000 gp), ignoring that footnote 3 says that its cost should be doubled for having a 1 minute/level duration.

Footnote 3 was added to 3.5 for the specific purpose of nerfing crafter PCs (and PF1 kept it because it didn't know any better), and the game ignores it otherwise.

 

[Pedantic]

I've gone back and reread True Sorcery recently, and wow am I full of nostalgia. I always wanted to try a game built around that casting system, and it honestly looks unthinkably heavy for anyone I play with now. I just don't think I could even sell my friends on why you'd want to mess with that level of detail, and get anyone interested in all the planning and calculation it would take to use that spell system. It's a shame, because it's a really clever way to do an open-ended casting system in the 3e framework, and I love the idea of tinkering with a few broad spell effects to craft the perfect solution to a problem, or a signature charm inducing iceball attack or what have you.

It's a particularly good 3pp supplement from the time, but I haven't read anything in the 5e space that hits the same sense of attention to detail. Everything is blurry and vague around the edges now; when you run up against a corner case, it no longer feels like an oversight, but an area of the design that was simply left as an exercise to the reader.

Really, that's the 3e ethos I'd love to see come back. I want rules written with the conviction that they can and should explain themselves fully, and be an effective model of something in the game world, instead of a representation that gets you close enough to feel like the thing they're portraying.

 

[Bohandas]

Going back to equipment solutions, what if we made amulets and rings not take up a body slot? That never made thematic sense anyway and it would mean that the amulet of armor and ring of protection don't take up a space

EDIT: or even just reduced the cost to make them unslotted

 

[Alzrius]

Going back to equipment solutions, what if we made amulets and rings not take up a body slot? That never made thematic sense anyway and it would mean that the amulet of armor and ring of protection don't take up a space

EDIT: or even just reduced the cost to make them unslotted

I'm pretty sure that any "slotted" item can be made unslotted if you double its price. In fact, given that you can upgrade magic items, there's no reason why this can't be done for any slotted item.

 

[aramis erak]

That's fair, although isn't Saga Edition pretty late in a game and actually a slight move toward 4E rather than a separate branch of 3E than 3.5?

Saga is very much the public alpha of 4e mechanics...
and the connective tissue showing a continuity of 3e to 4e, via 3.x to SWD20 to SWSE to 4E.