-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?
- Thread starter loseth
- Start date
tricky_bob
First Post
3.5 fix.
Melee: Offer the ToB classes as the only melee options. Or possibly offer Manoeuvres on non-Feat levels for the Fighter [would probably stick with Crusader options]
Cleric: Remove any Feat that gives alternative uses to Turn attempts. Use the Pathfinder Turn rules [30ft burst dealing/healing positive or negative energy] and give Undead with Turn Resistance a DR value against the damage. Make more of their spells/day come from Domains [start with 3 Domains]
Rogue: Allow Sneak attack damage on more enemies. Excluding Oozes, Incorporeal, Ethereal & Elementals. However I would use a DR system for some Undead etc. based on Hit Dice. Also up Rogue hit die to d8.
Wizard: Hit die changed to d6.
Spells: Ban Gate and Time Stop. Imposed a +3 spell level adjustment to the multi-form spells like Alter Self and Poly-whatsit. And Ray of Enfeeblement is level 2. Plus judge other problematic spells on a case by case basis.
Full Casters: Use the Spirit Shaman spell progression chart, basing all spell casting around 2 stats [one for bonus spells and one for save DC's]. Possibly adjust it based on whether spells are gained spontaneous or via preparation.
Melee: Offer the ToB classes as the only melee options. Or possibly offer Manoeuvres on non-Feat levels for the Fighter [would probably stick with Crusader options]
Cleric: Remove any Feat that gives alternative uses to Turn attempts. Use the Pathfinder Turn rules [30ft burst dealing/healing positive or negative energy] and give Undead with Turn Resistance a DR value against the damage. Make more of their spells/day come from Domains [start with 3 Domains]
Rogue: Allow Sneak attack damage on more enemies. Excluding Oozes, Incorporeal, Ethereal & Elementals. However I would use a DR system for some Undead etc. based on Hit Dice. Also up Rogue hit die to d8.
Wizard: Hit die changed to d6.
Spells: Ban Gate and Time Stop. Imposed a +3 spell level adjustment to the multi-form spells like Alter Self and Poly-whatsit. And Ray of Enfeeblement is level 2. Plus judge other problematic spells on a case by case basis.
Full Casters: Use the Spirit Shaman spell progression chart, basing all spell casting around 2 stats [one for bonus spells and one for save DC's]. Possibly adjust it based on whether spells are gained spontaneous or via preparation.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
blargney the second said:It's like rickrolling, but different. It's rickrollabilly.
Best Rickroll Ever.
The Black Kestrel
Explorer
Wulf Ratbane said:
I agree quite a bit here and would add a SWSE style condition track to the mix. Throw in some cool abilities/spells/feats to move you enemy down the track without having to whack on him for 20 rounds would add some excitement to the "I swing again, is he dead yet" syndrome that can occur with high-level foes.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
The big ones (for me) were already on the list:
1. DMs needed a more eloquent and less time consuming method of statting up NPCs. Having hundreds of options is perfect for PCs or PC-classed NPCs (read "BBEGs" for convenience), but just plain stupid for commoners who served primarily as window dressing. It shouldn't take more than one minute (tops) to draw up stats for a potato farmer. He shouldn't need a class, skill ratings, etc.
2. DMs needed a consistent method for creating monsters. Let's face it -- for all the boasting that WotC did about balanced gameplay, the fact that the 'monster creation systm' was pretty much "make stuff up as you see fit and refine it via playtesting" undid any potential good that the CR system and other, related, mechanics might have accomplished. This basis for CR was deeply, deeply flawed.
Some less important concerns (or pet peeves, if you will) that aren't yet on the list, AFAICT, follow:
1. I hate, hate, hate systems that arbitrarily assign class-based bonuses for some learned aptitudes (e.g., melee skill) and 'skill' ratings to other learned aptitudes (e.g., bluffing). Pick a system and stick to it already! You're either a class-based game or a skill-based game, but for the love of god, choose one or the other. Lack of decisive design in this regard leaves me cold, both as a player (Why can I custom-tailor my character's non-combat aptitudes, but not his weapon aptitude?!?!) and as a DM (who has to answer this question on a regular basis).
2. Why are all of the core classes based on vocation save for one? Why is "Barbarian" a class? In fiction and history, barbaric cultures have shamen, warriors, hunters, sailors, etc. In D&D, the fact that the barbarain is pigeon-holed into the role of 'berserker warrior' has never sat right with me because it's neither internally consistent, nor does it reflect the diversity of primitive cultures.
1. DMs needed a more eloquent and less time consuming method of statting up NPCs. Having hundreds of options is perfect for PCs or PC-classed NPCs (read "BBEGs" for convenience), but just plain stupid for commoners who served primarily as window dressing. It shouldn't take more than one minute (tops) to draw up stats for a potato farmer. He shouldn't need a class, skill ratings, etc.
2. DMs needed a consistent method for creating monsters. Let's face it -- for all the boasting that WotC did about balanced gameplay, the fact that the 'monster creation systm' was pretty much "make stuff up as you see fit and refine it via playtesting" undid any potential good that the CR system and other, related, mechanics might have accomplished. This basis for CR was deeply, deeply flawed.
Some less important concerns (or pet peeves, if you will) that aren't yet on the list, AFAICT, follow:
1. I hate, hate, hate systems that arbitrarily assign class-based bonuses for some learned aptitudes (e.g., melee skill) and 'skill' ratings to other learned aptitudes (e.g., bluffing). Pick a system and stick to it already! You're either a class-based game or a skill-based game, but for the love of god, choose one or the other. Lack of decisive design in this regard leaves me cold, both as a player (Why can I custom-tailor my character's non-combat aptitudes, but not his weapon aptitude?!?!) and as a DM (who has to answer this question on a regular basis).
2. Why are all of the core classes based on vocation save for one? Why is "Barbarian" a class? In fiction and history, barbaric cultures have shamen, warriors, hunters, sailors, etc. In D&D, the fact that the barbarain is pigeon-holed into the role of 'berserker warrior' has never sat right with me because it's neither internally consistent, nor does it reflect the diversity of primitive cultures.
Desdichado
Hero
Gnomes and bards. They needed to go.
Derro
First Post
Artificer's Handbook? Where is this from?
And is advancement arbitrary without XP? What is your method?
Personally, I don't have problems with most of the stuff people in this thread want to change, like strengthening multiclassing spellcasters, or changing the way they managed resources.
I always felt that multiclassing was a choice between power and flexibility. If you multiclass, then you're not going to be spending as much time improving yourself as a caster. The resultant power drop is logical and internally consistent.
I always liked the resource management style of spellcasters in D&D, and it forced me and other players of my acquaintence to learn how to play spellcasters without "going nova"...or at least being competent in something else for when I ran out of spells. However, I also agree that the Reserve feats were a stroke of genius (much better, IMHO, than the 4Ed system) that should be expanded...and could even be incorporated into the full caster classes as a class feature.
My dislikes?
Critter sidekicks were too vulnerable in a standard, high-magic D&D campaign (a problem not new to 3.X). IME, the only ones to survive more than a few game sessions were Paladin mounts.
The vocabulary. It seems to me that there were many instances in which the game's designers tried to get fancy with the lingo, and by doing so, caused endless chains of confusion, speculation and probably a bunch of unneccessary house rules. See the innumerable threads on Natural Weapons/Unarmed Strikes/Manufactured Weapons for a good example (including various and sometimes conflicting responses from WizCustServ). My fix? There are only Natural & Manufactured Weapons- everything else is just some flavor of one or the other. ("Unarmed Strike" would then be exactly what the PHB glossary and WizCustServe repeatedly told me- a successful strike using no manufactured weapon.)
Simpler, clearer language & resultant mechanics would probably have made the game much more enjoyable.
XP for crafting didn't bother me much. The one change I made was at least 50% of the XP had to come from the intended end user. IOW, if the spellcaster was making something for himself (or an unspecified spellcaster), he paid the full XP amount. If, OTOH, he were making something for someone in his party, that PC would have to contribute at least half of the XP involved in item creation.
I always felt that multiclassing was a choice between power and flexibility. If you multiclass, then you're not going to be spending as much time improving yourself as a caster. The resultant power drop is logical and internally consistent.
I always liked the resource management style of spellcasters in D&D, and it forced me and other players of my acquaintence to learn how to play spellcasters without "going nova"...or at least being competent in something else for when I ran out of spells. However, I also agree that the Reserve feats were a stroke of genius (much better, IMHO, than the 4Ed system) that should be expanded...and could even be incorporated into the full caster classes as a class feature.
My dislikes?
Critter sidekicks were too vulnerable in a standard, high-magic D&D campaign (a problem not new to 3.X). IME, the only ones to survive more than a few game sessions were Paladin mounts.
The vocabulary. It seems to me that there were many instances in which the game's designers tried to get fancy with the lingo, and by doing so, caused endless chains of confusion, speculation and probably a bunch of unneccessary house rules. See the innumerable threads on Natural Weapons/Unarmed Strikes/Manufactured Weapons for a good example (including various and sometimes conflicting responses from WizCustServ). My fix? There are only Natural & Manufactured Weapons- everything else is just some flavor of one or the other. ("Unarmed Strike" would then be exactly what the PHB glossary and WizCustServe repeatedly told me- a successful strike using no manufactured weapon.)
Simpler, clearer language & resultant mechanics would probably have made the game much more enjoyable.
XP for crafting didn't bother me much. The one change I made was at least 50% of the XP had to come from the intended end user. IOW, if the spellcaster was making something for himself (or an unspecified spellcaster), he paid the full XP amount. If, OTOH, he were making something for someone in his party, that PC would have to contribute at least half of the XP involved in item creation.
