3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?

[Wulf Ratbane]

How does this run in actual play?

I'll let you know when I try it. (First line: "I just wrote this over the weekend.")

I can tell you how it works in WHFRP/40K: Just fine.

I would imagine it could bog down the game even more than the game is slow at high levels now.

The only thing I've found that slows down high level combat is the trailing math of iterative attacks, which we've killed in favor of 1/2 BAB damage bonus.

Before each attack you need to check if anyone wants to interrupt it first.

At first, probably. After a while I am sure my players will get used to responding, "I'll parry!" as soon as I say, "The troll is going for Joe." I feel pretty confident we can get our delay into the 1-3 second range.

At least with AoOs you generally only have one per round.

Yes, and they're very exciting. My player dive on the chance to roll an AoO. Spines stiffen around the table and fingers go for the dice.

I suspect they'll eat Reactions up, too.

Giving players things to actually DO and DECIDE during the DM's turn is a feature, not a bug. It's not a "delay" if you're engaged.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

My major dislike stems from the fact that, as previous posters have stated, the CR system assumes a certain amount of magic items to buff the party's stats, and also that IMO magic items are too easy to manufacture.

IMO, characters shouldn't be able to manufacture permanent magical items until they're at least 16th level. This keeps the number of actual magic items low, and avoids the 'Christmas tree' effect. That way, magic remains something special and out of the ordinary, and not just another tradeable commodity, which is something I personally hate.

There should, IMO, be some sort of alternate or optional rules that can be used to address balance depending on what kind of game the DM wants to run. I myself would want a game where players treat +1 swords like cherished treasures, since for the most part they can't buy magic items aside from potions, low-level scrolls, and the very occasional magic wand.

If you like this play style, great, but I don't. There should be at least some way of balancing things out depending on the play style different groups want to go for, instead of factoring in that PCs are supposed to have X number of magical bonuses by a given level.

 

[Keldryn]

One of the major things that I think needs fixing in 3.x is in part a side effect of how the math scales as characters progress in level.

3.x is all about specialization. It rewards extensive specialization excessively and makes characters with more generalized skillsets feel useless.

Now, every version of D&D has had strongly-defined roles, and that's part of what makes it D&D; I just find that 3.x has taken it to an extreme. Many have complained about the way that 3.x allows for very freeform multiclassing, and how that leads to characters who are good at everything and how nobody has a distinct role to play, and such -- but in reality, it often doesn't work out that way. The "one-level-dip" that gets complained about so much ends up severely hindering a character after a few levels as often as it helps. There are certainly cases where it is beneficial, but those cases are generally when such a dip reinforces the specialization that you are going for.

Many skill DCs increase to the point where if you're not maxing out the skill as you advance, then you might as well not even bother to attempt a skill check. Cross-class skills make this a huge pain for multiclass characters. And you can pretty much forget about the charismatic Fighter who acts as the "leader" or "face" of the party, unless he takes levels in other classes and/or spends a couple of feats just to not get hosed. In doing so, he's likely to lose a fair bit of effectiveness as a Fighter. Monster ACs scale up to the point where you've got a pretty poor chance to hit if you don't have a full BAB progression. Spellcasters get really screwed by taking levels in anything that doesn't increase their caster level and progression.

At low levels, characters with a bit more breadth don't seem to out of place, but as they start to hit the middle levels, they are severely outperformed by specialized characters, and it just gets worse into the higher levels. I don't think that every character should be able to do everything, as that would be boring. But the payoffs for specialization result in the focus on character builds with a couple of levels in 4 prestige classes, decked out in boring stat-boosting items. A lot of interesting character concepts lead to players mainly sitting there, feeling ineffective while the tweaked-out specialists dominate everything.

When you have to create dozens of prestige classes that are essentially an archetype of a common core class combo just to make the concepts not suck in play, then you know the system is broken. Some gamers have always been into build optimizations, but it's gotten kind of ludicrous in 3.x.

 

[Derro]

The only thing I've found that slows down high level combat is the trailing math of iterative attacks, which we've killed in favor of 1/2 BAB damage bonus.

I noticed your mention of this in the house rules you posted some time ago. Do you still have things like flurry of blows or other means to split attacks? If so how do you reconcile them with the improved damage bonus? I've toyed with this system as well and can't decide whether multiple attacks should hit less or do less damage.

Giving players things to actually DO and DECIDE during the DM's turn is a feature, not a bug. It's not a "delay" if you're engaged.

So totally true.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I noticed your mention of this in the house rules you posted some time ago. Do you still have things like flurry of blows or other means to split attacks? If so how do you reconcile them with the improved damage bonus? I've toyed with this system as well and can't decide whether multiple attacks should hit less or do less damage.

We draw a distinction between iterative attacks, and multiple attacks.

All sources of multiple attacks remain. TWF, flurry, and for most monsters, Claw/Claw/Bite routines.

The 1/2 BAB bonus to damage only applies to attacks that previously enjoyed iterative attacks. Iterative attacks typically applied to manufactured weapons for monsters that used them. Creatures with both (Balor, Marilith, etc.) get the bonus to manufactured weapon attacks that were previously iterative, but not to natural attacks.

For the record, the math on the 1/2 BAB "works out" only as far as the base weapon didn't have any damage added in. It breaks down, however, if your fighter had as simple as a flaming sword. So I think the jury is still out on whether or not this bonus is "equivalent."

That being said, I don't philosophically have a problem with damage going down at high levels. It makes combat more "ablative," which I think is a good thing. At high levels, combat becomes a process of wearing each other down and not so much whether you can hit or avoid being hit.

I've never really had a problem with high level AC being outpaced by high level BAB. The purpose of high level AC, as far as I was concerned, was getting your AC high enough to avoid the 2nd, 3rd, 4th iterative attack.

If those iterative attacks are gone (for monsters as well as PCs) then I'm perfectly satisfied for AC to "fall behind."

It remains to be seen whether slogging away at each other (ablative combat) will be more or less satisfying than 4e's shift to "We hit and get hit roughly half the time across all levels of encounters."

 

[Derro]

We draw a distinction between iterative attacks, and multiple attacks.

All sources of multiple attacks remain. TWF, flurry, and for most monsters, Claw/Claw/Bite routines.

The 1/2 BAB bonus to damage only applies to attacks that previously enjoyed iterative attacks. Iterative attacks typically applied to manufactured weapons for monsters that used them. Creatures with both (Balor, Marilith, etc.) get the bonus to manufactured weapon attacks that were previously iterative, but not to natural attacks.

Makes sense. And inspires another question. Does the damage bonus only apply when the attacker would qualify for a full attack routine or even during standard attacks? I suspect by your wording that it is the latter. Which doesn't break anything, IMO.

It remains to be seen whether slogging away at each other (ablative combat) will be more or less satisfying than 4e's shift to "We hit and get hit roughly half the time across all levels of encounters."

Ablative is likely more enjoyable because it extends the duration of encounters on a round for round level rather than on an individual action level. In that manner there is more room for sudden reversals of fortune, longer term maneuvers and set-ups, and villainous monologues. So while combats may last relatively the same amount of real time there is actually more action during the encounter. And there is less likeliness of somebody's poor initiative combined with a statistically improbable full attack destroying a quarter of the parties resources in one round.

Combined with your reaction system (which I have already yoinked, thank you very much) I can see combat being much more dynamic with less by rote tactics. This will most likely solve some of the higher-level issues that many claim to be present.

It's heartening to see the ideas of a proven game designer parallel (though unquestionably further along) to some of my own ideas. Even without large amounts of playtesting or number crunching I feel like a may have been on the right track.

So thanks, Wulf, and good gaming to you.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Makes sense. And inspires another question. Does the damage bonus only apply when the attacker would qualify for a full attack routine or even during standard attacks? I suspect by your wording that it is the latter. Which doesn't break anything, IMO.

That's right. Although I am still not sure if I want the bonus to be strictly 1/2 BAB, accrued level by level, or to apply the bonus only when the iterative attacks would have previously occurred (6th, 11th, 16th). Obviously, one power curve is smooth and the other is 'jumpy.' But I don't mind a little bit of jumpiness as something to look forward to.

It's heartening to see the ideas of a proven game designer parallel (though unquestionably further along) to some of my own ideas. Even without large amounts of playtesting or number crunching I feel like a may have been on the right track.

I feel the same thrill when my ideas parallel the thoughts that are running through the playerbase. I'm loving this thread, for example; it's a huge validation of what I have been working on lately.

Every DM is a game designer. It's in our nature. I'm not sure that my ideas have any greater validity because I'm willing to sink a little extra money into publishing as an extension of my hobby. Though it gives me access to more people to validate my ideas, it doesn't necessarily make them any better than the ideas you expose to your players and friends.

But thank you for the kind words regardless.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

But I don't mind a little bit of jumpiness as something to look forward to.

I like jumpy. I like character progression to ebb and flow a bit. I like those levels when you're a little more of a badass than those around you, and then the growing challenge as the curve catches up and passes you. I think in the urge to hand out cookies every level lest the players get bored, we forget that having to wait sometimes makes the presents extra special.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I like jumpy. I like character progression to ebb and flow a bit.

Then let me recommend, instead of 1/2 BAB, adding +1d6 to weapon damage at 6th, 11th, and 16th levels.

It's jumpy and swingy!

 

[blargney the second]

It's jumpy and swingy!

It's like rickrolling, but different. It's rickrollabilly.