3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?

Derro said:
Please, someone explain what this means. I've seen the term but don't know what it's referring to. Clerics and Druids or something.

Help me out here, people!

Here's the original context:

Haunted, the good answers (DMing your own game, ditching this fool for some sensible DMs in college) have been given. You wish to win an argument with a DM, however (try actually facing 3 groups of 4 goblins each in a day at level 1, with time to cast a CLW or two in between, and see if he still thinks you can't have more than 1 encounter a day at low levels) and for that you have chosen the correct tactic.

It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics (or Warlocks, or Fochlucan Lyrists, or anything balanced that's come out of splatbooks that aren't munchfests like Complete Divine) isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill (Draconic Wildshape? Divine Metamagic?). So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions.

godzilla-9821.jpg

C.o.D.zilla's-eye-view of the DM.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

loseth said:
Interesting. Could you expand a bit on spells? How could they be easilly fixed without compromising backwards compatibility?
"Easily"? *shrug* Beats me... I'm no game designer. (Of course, I don't think anything in your original list is an "easy" change in terms of backwards compatibility either, so there we go.)

But, to answer your question, I would keep all the spells and their names (thus maintaining backwards compatiblity), but severely reducing their level of effectiveness through everything from ganking damage, durations, adding "Yes" to SR for virtually all of them, etc.
 

I'm amazed at how many people are proposing huge, sweeping changes to the game in this thread... :)

I can see it's going to be a nuanced and productive discussion.

Anyway, here are some mechanical areas that could be fixed:
  • Streamline natural attacks/unarmed attacks/grapple interaction.
  • Codify the concept of offensive/defensive stances. (There's a lot of "when you power attack for at least X" in the rules...)
  • Integrate swift actions into the core rules a bit better. There are a lot of spells/combat actions that would benefit from using that mechanic...
  • Polish up all the special combat actions which don't get much use.
 
Last edited:

Not so much a list of things that need fixing, but rather things that I would change given the chance:

Remove almost all effects that change a creature's basic stats. This includes the level-based stat increase, the various items that give a +2/4/6 to a stat, spells like Bull's Strength, and so on. I would leave the ability of Wish to increase a stat as-is, and the equivalent magic books, but everything else would be gone. I would probably also keep ability damage, except that as with hit point damage it wouldn't have any actual effect until a stat reached 0 (at which characters would die).

Re-balance the stats. Mostly, Charisma doesn't do enough.

Remove most of the elements from the racial packages, particularly trivial bonuses that apply at 1st level but rapidly become worthless. Each race would have two or three reasonably significant racial features that set them apart from other races. (Weapon Familiarity would be gone. I hate that rule.)

More flexibility in several of the classes. I like the "d20 Modern" talent trees; I would be using these for the Rogue, Ranger and Paladin, amongst others.

Remove all cure spells from the Cleric spell list. Leave the Healing domain as-is. And re-design the Bard so that instead of being a pseudo-Rogue, it acts more like a Cleric-replacement.

Something needs to be done with multiclass spellcasters. The fix I have in mind would make the game "not D&D", though.

Give all classes either 3, 5 or 7 skill points per level. Classes that currently gain 2 would gain 3 (except the Sorcerer), classes that get 8 would get 7, and the rest would get 5.

Likewise, give all classes either 3, 5 or 7 hit points per level (d4 -> 3, d10+ ->7, other -> 5). Barbarians gain the Improved Toughness feat for free. Introduce a "hit point advance" rule that gives characters triple hit points at 1st level, but thereafter they don't gain further hit points until their 'real' total would be higher than the advance total (for all single-class characters, that would be at 4th level).

Hit points are split into two pools, the Quick pool and the Dead pool. When characters have a chance to rest after an encounter, theyrefresh their Quick pool to full. The Dead pool only refreshes with an extended (long-term) rest - at the end of the adventure, effectively. Magic healing, however, applies to the Dead pool first - this is why the Cleric loses all those cure spells.

Consolidate a lot of skills. Listen/Spot become Perception, Balance/Tumble become Acrobatics, Climb/Jump/Run/Swim become Athletics, Spellcraft rolls into Knowledge(arcana), and so on. Craft, Perform and Profession each become a single skill - it's not realistic, but it's hardly game-breaking. (I'd probably also rename the various Knowledge skills to just Streetwise, Arcana, and so on.)

Lower all fixed skill DCs by 3. Drop the 'quadruple skill points at 1st level' rule, and allow a max skill ranks equal to the character level. Drop class skills, synergy bonuses, trained and untrained skills, and the Trapfinding, Track and Stonecutting special cases.

Re-balance melee, thrown and projectile weapons. Basically, the damage done by an attack should be inversely proportional to the effective range of the attack. To that end, strength longbows should go. Stacking of magic bows and magic arrows (be it of the plusses, or more likely the flaming bow with shock arrows) needs to go. And there need to be 'bracers of throwing' or the like, that basically make any thrown weapon magical, as bows do for arrows.

Heavily reduce the number of 'named' bonus types. I reckon seven names is about the right number; everything else either becomes an unnamed bonus or is dropped entirely. As the types of bonuses is reduced, the magnitude of bonuses can be increased - a single +5 is equivalent to five +1 bonuses, but it probably feels better to be wearing plate mail of the gods than to be wearing a magic hat, boots, amulet, ring and bracers that do the same thing.

Replace the raft of existing combat options and subsystems with a fairly detailed stunt system. Basically, a character leanrs various 'stunt components' through his choice of skills and feats. He then describes his stunt and the DM determines which components would be required. If the character meets the prerequisites, the player makes a 'stunt roll' to determine success or failure, and the game proceeds. A bonus would apply to the first use of any given stunt in the campaign, the magnitude being determined by the DM based on his chosen style of game. (Ideally, the game should be designed such that a character can be designed to be dull-but-effective (Gimli), or effective-through-panache (Legolas), allowing players a choice of approaches.)

Rebalance the spells (yet again). The change to hold person to give a save every round is a not bad start, but it needs to be carried throughout the whole system. And something has to be done with the multitude of all-or-nothing save-or-die spells. Basically, we need a magical analogue to hit points, such that a failed dominate isn't just wasted effort, and a failed save vs finger of death doesn't prevent you from having fun for the hours until your buddies get you resurrected.

Speaking of resurrection, I would take steps to make character death, especially at high levels, less common, but also to make returning from the dead much rarer. Ideally, it would be the subject of a quest, but I can see how that wouldn't be ideal for the player of the dead character.

I would be strongly tempted to switch to 20 levels of spells, or however many PC levels there are in the game.

Remove XP as a spendable resource. Energy drain would need to do something else, item crafting will need to drain some other resource, and so forth, but that can be done. I would also disassociate XP gained with CR, and instead encourage DMs to mostly just wing it.

As with spells, the various magic items would need re-balanced. I think the fundamentals of what 3e does are actually fine, but there is some work needed.

Likewise, the fundamentals behind monster design are mostly okay, I think, but there are some holes. I think I would drop hit dice in favour of fixed numbers of hit points per 'level'. Then give Giants 14 hit points per level, rather than a d8 hit dice (this should get rid of their absurd BAB and saves, no?). Undead need many more hit points, or should apply their Cha modifier in place of Con (or both).

Spread out the so-called "low-level humanoids" across more of the level range. And change dragons to be a 'template lite' - we don't need 300 different dragons, each with 12 age categories, each marginally different from the next, and none of them easy to run from the Monster Manual - 20 really solid dragon stats would do us a whole lot more good.

Not really a rules change, but I would definately adopt the MM4 approach of providing a bunch of different examples of stats for all of the staple monster races (Orcs, Kobolds, Lizardmen...). Those things are really useful.

There's more, but some of the more radical changes would definately take the game to a "not D&D anymore" place (mana-based per-encounter spellcasting, for one), while others I think I would wait until my next edition to implement (separating the 'dodge' and 'ablative' components of AC, for example).

For the record, my list of things that actually need fixing is rather shorter:

1) Multi-class spellcasters
2) Level-adjustment races
3) Prep time is too long

IMO, any new edition (including Pathfinder) needs to fix, or at least signficantly improve, all three of these. Or, as 4e appears to do, it could change the game so significantly that existing issues are moot.
 

Oh, I forgot a big one: Attacks of Opportunity.

I would replace these with a larger concept of actions and reactions. Each round, a character gets a standard, move and swift action (plus free actions), plus a single 'reaction'.

A reaction is basically an immediate action, except that each reaction has conditions on its use, and each reaction must be learned separately. So, for example, to use the feather fall reaction, a Wizard must have learnt it, and must be falling.

The 'attack of opportunity' reaction would therefore be a single melee attack, which could be made when the opponent lowers his defences, either by moving across a threatened area or by casting a spell/firing a missile weapon.

I would also include a 'lightning riposte' reaction, a 'defensive shift' reaction, and so forth.

Some monsters would have the ability to use more than one reaction in the round (giving solo dragons a better chance against a full party), and the Combat Reflexes feat would give additional reactions.

What this does is removes the need for everyone to know the AoO rules (since you only learn the reactions you actually have to know), expands the concept into something a bit fuller, and opens up some more options.

Of course, it might fail utterly. :)
 

loseth said:
--Wizards having nothing to do when they've cast all their spells appropriate to the situation
Not a bug, a feature. Wizard's aren't supposed to be doing things all day, they have a finite amount of power to manage. That's the whole idea behind the class. This whole idea of Wizards having infinite power by at-will abilities disturbs me, like it breaks the basic concept of the class.

--People having trouble remembering 1-2-1 (YMMV)
Well, if the alternative is the 1-1-1 from 4e, I'll deal with 1-2-1. 1-2-1 isn't perfect, but the alternatives are far worse.

--Skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)
In my statting-up experience as a DM, I typically just max out a number of appropriate skills and leave the fiddly-bit customization for BBEG's. It was never a problem for me.

--Grappling
I'll agree with this one, starting a grapple is a quick way to bog down a game.

--AoOs too confusing/too many instances to remember
I know they are complicated in theory, but it never seems like we have a problem with it. Then again, we might not be doing it 100% by the RAW.

--CoDzilla (though only if deliberately and expertly exploited)
Not a big enough issue IMO to bother with. I see lots of theoretical exploits on message boards, but in practice I've never seen this invincible uber-cleric/druid work. I've seen it tried, but it always fails in execution for various reasons.

--Infinite summoning (A summons B summons C summons...)
Easy one to fix, just assume summoned creatures can't summon anything themselves. My group has been doing it that way for years.

--Fighters not keeping up as the party level increases
Such is the lot of a fighter, just as a Wizard has awesome cosmic power for brief bursts but is very weak when they run out, a Fighter has sturdy power more constantly, but doesn't outshine spellcasters when they fire everything they have. If a Wizard can bend reality to the point of a Wish, nothing a Fighter can do should ever be able to compare. Fighters have piles of HP and don't have to worry about running about per-day attack abilities, that's their relative strength.

--Scry-Buff-Teleport-Fly combo repeated ad nauseum
My favorite fix for that is anti-scrying (or false image projecting) or anti-teleport (or teleport-redirecting) warding spells or effects. Every BBEG worth their salt is going to have countermeasures out there to stop a SWAT team of adventurers from knocking down their door like that. If they can't cast them themselves, there are probably high level NPC illusionists and abjurers for hire that can set up all sorts of lair-protecting wards and illusions.

--Identify
What's wrong with Identify? I don't know of any serious issues with that spell.

--XP for crafting
It's a lot better than the old AD&D way of come up with some random rare items to find, then permanently lose a point of constitution to make any permanent non-consumable item. The best solution I've seen is the idea of an XP reserve automatically available to spend on item creation.

--useless skills (use rope, craft [baskets], etc. YMMV)
Then don't take those skills, don't remove them from the system. The flexibility of skills like Craft and Profession to represent a very wide variety of aptitudes is a feature, not a bug.

Honestly, while I see lots of little "bug fix" issues with 3.5, none of them are things that I think would warrant massive rewrites.
 

Multiclassing as written has problems.

1 xp penalties, poor mechanic leading to power loss for non archetype characters leading to balance problems

2 save and BAB extremes. Strong saves get that huge +2 bonus at level 1 of a class while weak saves and BAB can easily be hurt by multiclassing before the break points where they get plusses. This leads to multiclasses stronger or weaker than similar concept single classed characters.

3 multiclassing spellcasters being very weak.

My house rule fixes:

1 eliminate xp penalty. Humans are still fine and popular.

2 go with save and BAB progressions from levels in fractions from strong, weak, or medium progressions that continue progressing with new similar classes instead of starting over from level 1 charts.

3 Arcana evolved spellcasting spell slots, spell knowledge, and caster level stacking. I keep considering having caster level = character level but have not implemented it.
 

delericho said:
Oh, I forgot a big one: Attacks of Opportunity.

I would replace these with a larger concept of actions and reactions. Each round, a character gets a standard, move and swift action (plus free actions), plus a single 'reaction'.

<snip>

Of course, it might fail utterly. :)

WOW. That's scary. I wrote this over the weekend:

Combat Reactions
Reactions allow you to take certain actions when it is not your turn. You gain your first Reaction at BAB +1. For each additional 5 BAB (6th, 11th, and 16th) you may make an additional Reaction each turn.

Aid Attack
You may assist another character’s attack on his turn. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a Reaction. On your ally’s turn, you make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent, as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Aid Defense
You may assist another character’s defense. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a Reaction. On the opponent’s turn, you make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains a +2 bonus to his AC against that opponent’s next attack, as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Dive for Cover
You may attempt to dive for cover against an area of effect attack that requires a Reflex save. As a reaction on your opponent’s turn, if there is cover within 5 feet of your character, you may move your character into cover before making your Reflex save.

Dodge
You may attempt to dodge a single melee or ranged attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, roll 1d20 before your opponent makes his attack. Your AC against that attack is calculated using the result of the d20 roll, plus ½ your BAB, plus all applicable AC bonuses, instead of 10+all applicable bonuses.

Opportunity Attack
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an opportunity attack from you. As a Reaction, you may make a single melee attack at your normal attack bonus.

Parry
If you are engaged in melee, you may use your Reaction to parry your opponent’s melee attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, you gain DR against your opponent’s attack equal to ½ your BAB. If you are parrying with a buckler or shield, add the shield’s AC bonus to the amount of DR.

Re: Combat Reflexes
A character with Combat Reflexes adds his DEX modifier to his BAB for the purposes of determining how many Combat Reactions he may make per turn.
 

wingsandsword said:
Not a bug, a feature. Wizard's aren't supposed to be doing things all day, they have a finite amount of power to manage. That's the whole idea behind the class. This whole idea of Wizards having infinite power by at-will abilities disturbs me, like it breaks the basic concept of the class.

It depends what fantasy you're reading. In Raymond Feist's Riftwar series casters can cast pretty much whenever they want. Some very complex spells will drain the casters and weaken them, but those are typically pretty intense ritual pieces. Robert Asprin's Myth series has casters casting whenever so long as they are near a force line and/or have enough energy stored. Jordan's Wheel of Time doesn't appear to have any limitations except how much Saidin/Saidar you can control. Just a few examples.

wingsandsword said:
Such is the lot of a fighter, just as a Wizard has awesome cosmic power for brief bursts but is very weak when they run out, a Fighter has sturdy power more constantly, but doesn't outshine spellcasters when they fire everything they have. If a Wizard can bend reality to the point of a Wish, nothing a Fighter can do should ever be able to compare. Fighters have piles of HP and don't have to worry about running about per-day attack abilities, that's their relative strength.

I would like to think we can have a game where mages actually feel magical. Nothing feels magical about having 3 spells and then not being able to use magic again till the next day. I'm not saying give everyone spells, but I got sick of throwing daggers or pulling out a crossbow. Warlocks proved that having some magical ability to use whenever you wanted could work. 4E will just amplify that and I think that's a great thing.[/QUOTE]
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
WOW. That's scary. I wrote this over the weekend:

Cool. Good to know I'm not totally crazy. Or, if I am, at least I'm not alone in my madness. :)

Dodge
You may attempt to dodge a single melee or ranged attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, roll 1d20 before your opponent makes his attack. Your AC against that attack is calculated using the result of the d20 roll, plus ½ your BAB, plus all applicable AC bonuses, instead of 10+all applicable bonuses.

This one seems a little powerful, especially when combined with a high Dex and Combat Reflexes.

Otherwise, lots of good stuff. I particularly liked your moving of "Aid Another" into reactions, and that parry mechanic is nifty.
 

Remove ads

Top