3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?

[Wulf Ratbane]

(re: Dodge) This one seems a little powerful, especially when combined with a high Dex and Combat Reflexes.

I know. It is. I've been playing Warhammer FRP recently, and while admittedly it's a much more gritty system where Dodge is pretty much required, the idea stuck with me.

I like giving the player the choice of using their Dodge as the attacks come, trying to decide whether to save it for later-- and of course balancing the (clearly, most powerful option) Dodge against the other Reactions you have to choose from.

I believe that UA has an optional rule that lets you roll your AC from round to round (instead of using the default Take 10); this option is more powerful in that you get to add half your BAB-- but that's my little nod to class-based AC bonuses. As a Reaction, I think it'll play fine.

(It will surely annoy the "Rolling is bad!" crowd. I don't understand this complaint myself, as all my players seem to enjoy rolling dice. It's why they show up.)

With respect to Combat Reflexes, you might note that I changed its function to be a bit more in line with this system. Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more Reactions at a flat rate; it does give you more Reactions (based on BAB) sooner.

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

We've used Aid Another a lot IMC, and for sure, it's great for dog-piling those big nasty critters (Magma Hurler, I am looking at you). But at the same time, it is very frustrating for it to be a player's only viable option in combat, and to basically have to lose your own turn in order to chip in.

Our monk was consistently told that her "best option," if she wanted to help the party to win (or even survive-- Magma Hurler, I am looking at you again), was to use Aid Another to help the barbarian, the rogue, and the fighter land their Power Attacks/Sneak Attacks. That's all well and good, but I am sure she would have been much happier if she'd at least been allowed to try something, even something sub-optimal, with her own action.

re: Parry, I haven't crunched the numbers, but I suspect that against very low damage, and very high BAB creatures, Parry is probably better than Dodge.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The idea that casters give up power at low levels to get it at high levels is a feature only so long as a given campaign uses a spread of levels from low to high. What about people who only get to play casters in low levels (for whatever reason)? They haven't gotten anything out of the trade. What about people who only play casters at high levels? They haven't had to trade anything.

Additionally isn't the adventuring day presupposed around the idea that the party has the casters to buff them and work on magical threats? So if there are more encounters than the limit of the casters' spells they have to be ones that can be reliably taken on in melee. And somehow the idea that enemies change type simply because the casters ran out stretches believability.

 

[doghead]

general - fixing 3.5

I was thinking about this last night. I made the mistake of accepting a cup of brewed coffee after dinner, and well, I had some time on my hands.

The conclusion that I came to surprised me somewhat. I couldn't really think of anything that was broken. Broken in the sense that it doesn't work. 3E is a reasonably comprehensive and cohesive set of rules for playing a high magic blockbuster fantasy game with lots of character options and the ability to go from dud with sword battling a couple of goblins to a plane hopping, god topping, city popping uber-person.

Sure, there are lots of things that I don't particularly like about 3E. Its not my ideal system by a long shot. But that is more about what I want a system to do, rather than the system not doing what it is supposed to do. Its a bit like saying the Porsche 911 is broken because it won't carry mum and dad, the 2.5 kids, the dog and the picnic gear.

So 'fixes' really need to identify what design objectives they are trying to achieve. This I think is important for those looking to develop a post 3.5 game. There are lots of things that you can change, and whether or not they are good or bad changes depends on what you want the system to achieve.

I tend to ditch the class/cross-class skill distinction. All skills cost the same and players may take whichever skills they think appropriate for their character. This does have a impact on the compartmentalisation of classes, and class balance to some degree. But for me, the loss in the latter is outweighed by the gain in the simplicity and ease of use. And fun.

doghead
aka thotd

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think doghead has a very good point: you can change a system all you want, and it still may never meet your expectations. In my case I find D&D too restrictive to my concepts, and like point-buy systems better. No matter what changes may be made to D&D, short of making it point-buy it will never come close.

 

[Derro]

I think doghead has a very good point: you can change a system all you want, and it still may never meet your expectations. In my case I find D&D too restrictive to my concepts, and like point-buy systems better. No matter what changes may be made to D&D, short of making it point-buy it will never come close.

Check out the Eclipse: Codex Persona at RPGnow. There's a shareware version for free download. I found it to be a bit intensive as a pdf but I'd definitely use it if I had a hard copy. The character creation seems very well thought out and probably is pretty near limitless as advertised. I can't speak for the implementation but like I said, it looks really good.

 

[danzig138]

Wow, looking over this thread, I can only be glad you folks didn't design the game. . . The only thing I can think of that really needed fixing is the number of skill points for the classes, and some tweaks to the skill lists. Otherwise, I've never had any of the problems mentioned, and I simply disagree with many of the proposals that don't seem like things in need of fixing, but rather, simple personal rules preferences (a completely different thread I think, for which, I'd have more suggestions).

 

[delericho]

Otherwise, I've never had any of the problems mentioned,

Now, is that because you don't see them as problems, or is it because they've just never come up? For example, I've never had an issue with Grapple, since I've never had a PC initiate one, and have barely made use of monsters that grapple.

simple personal rules preferences (a completely different thread I think, for which, I'd have more suggestions).

Well, I for one am interested. Do tell?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Check out the Eclipse: Codex Persona at RPGnow. There's a shareware version for free download. I found it to be a bit intensive as a pdf but I'd definitely use it if I had a hard copy. The character creation seems very well thought out and probably is pretty near limitless as advertised. I can't speak for the implementation but like I said, it looks really good.

I checked it out and found it a bit too wrapped up in D&D conventions (class skills were mentioned), still having a "progression" base for some of its elements (apparently you bought your spell progression rather than individual spells and levels), and not entirely dedicated to a "build your own" approach (the "companion" ability simply mentioned using existing progressions).

I don't think it's a document for fulling branching out into point-buy from standard d20, but it might be useful to those who want a system for building their own classes.

 

[Derro]

I don't think it's a document for fulling branching out into point-buy from standard d20, but it might be useful to those who want a system for building their own classes.

Fair enough. I must say though, I was under the impression that each level gained alloted you points to purchase your abilities at that level. Effectively this is standard point buy without the convention of class. It does still maintain the convention of level though. So while you are building your own class you build each level as you gain it.

M&M 2e or BESM d20 may be to your liking.

Other than building characters organically what else would you consider integral to a point-buy system?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Fair enough. I must say though, I was under the impression that each level gained alloted you points to purchase your abilities at that level. Effectively this is standard point buy without the convention of class. It does still maintain the convention of level though. So while you are building your own class you build each level as you gain it.

Could use a bit better presentation about its assumptions.

M&M 2e or BESM d20 may be to your liking.

Use M&M2e already. It's also not perfect, but I think it has less holdovers from d20.

Other than building characters organically what else would you consider integral to a point-buy system?

Possibly we should start a new thread for this discussion.