3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?

[SSquirrel]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=82858&highlight=Dr+Spunj's+classless

Point Buy D&D (replacing magic w/Arcana Evolved magic to simplify the number of progression charts). Each level gives you a number of points, you then spend those points how you want. Progression on caster charts is purchased and total caster level referenced for spell slots. Fairly easy to make a bare bones spell point system for D&D if that was needed too.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

From Unearthed Arcana

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm

What Rodrigo described is not accomplished by UA.

Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities.

UA doesn't do that.

(But I have...)

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What Rodrigo described is not accomplished by UA.

Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities.

UA doesn't do that.

(But I have...)

:twitch: You have?

Yeah, UA wasn't a bad idea, just didn't go far enough, and was essentially stillborn since it wasn't core. Plus, I also would have done 20 levesl of spells.

 

[Kerrick]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've got a few things that aren't on the list:

Crafting

Traps

Vague or poorly-written skills and feats (Appraise, Listen, Spot, Dodge)

The sorcerer

Most of the PrCs in the DMG (either they're underpowered or they just plain suck, but this is likely just IMO)

 

[Derro]

UA doesn't do that.

(But I have...)

Is this in Grim Tales or something new? I know, I know, I still haven't bought it. Just make it so the bruises don't show, okay?

 

[SSquirrel]

Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities.

The link I provided only has 2 caster progressions, full and half caster. If you look at Arcana Evolved, you will notice that there are only 2 spell progressions spread between all the classes and that is the difference. Rather than one for mage/cleric, one for sorcerer, bard, pally, druid, assassin, ranger, etc etc. Several of which are the same I'm sure.

EDIT:Also, Monte's recent Book of Experimental Might broke D&D spells into 20 levels.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

:twitch: You have?

Is this in Grim Tales or something new?

A little sump'n I've been working on lately.

I think before it's "ready" I'll have to rope in some more of Monte's AU/AE stuff. Basically, one Base Magic Bonus determines caster level, spells readied, spell slots, and top spell level-- but you'll need pretty much one Unified spell list to balance it out. You can't really rely on "spells known" as a limiting factor.

So as class abilities, for example, clerics get bonus spells readied and spell slots, but they have to be domain spells; wizards get bonus spells readied but no more spell slots; sorcerers get bonus spell slots but fewer spells readied.

It's coming along nicely.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Entangle. Not the spell itself, or the level, but the fact that so much page turning is required to remember exactly what the implications of it are.

Same with Magic Circle X, Protection from X, Desecrate, Hallow....it would have been nice for everything that the spell does to be fully stated in the description instead of referring to condition descriptions in the glossary or referring to other spells on different pages.

the SM, SNA, and CW/IW spell chains were ok, as they all did the same things but to a different level.

 

[wingsandsword]

Entangle. Not the spell itself, or the level, but the fact that so much page turning is required to remember exactly what the implications of it are.

Same with Magic Circle X, Protection from X, Desecrate, Hallow....it would have been nice for everything that the spell does to be fully stated in the description instead of referring to condition descriptions in the glossary or referring to other spells on different pages.

This is one of those "you can't please everybody" things. If they did what you are suggesting, other people would have complained about how much repeated information was in the rules and how much the page count (and presumably the price) of the books was inflated.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

How does this run in actual play? I would imagine it could bog down the game even more than the game is slow at high levels now. Before each attack you need to check if anyone wants to interrupt it first. I'm also guessing any combat with lots of opponents could be hellish for the DM to keep track of which opponents have or haven't used these reactions. At least with AoOs you generally only have one per round.