To quote someone (perhaps Spinal Tap?): "Too much is never enough."
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3E/3.5 Anyone still making 3.5e material?
- Thread starter haakon1
- Start date
To quote someone (perhaps Spinal Tap?): "Too much is never enough."
About Trailblazer, I see why you'd like it. But it doesn't help me. I'm fine with the rules in 3.5 (and would be fine with these or Pathfinder rules, if it was my group all new and had). I'm really just looking for more new stuff, and I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Trailblazer is all Operating System and no apps, right?
That said, there's some good stuff here. I'll snip and talk to it.
My comments:
-- Spellcaster multiclassing: I follow the Unearthed Arcana rule that every class has some Arcane or Divine magic to it, and the levels (or partial levels) stack for Caster Level. That's weaker than this rule, but it seems to work fine for us. (We're not build-interested anyhow.)
-- Allies not getting in the way makes sense. I don't have a formal house rule on that, but that's probably how I'd actually adjudicate it. Certainly true on not providing cover.
-- Ranger is the class I (and my players) were least happy with in 3.x e. I modified it (with a player) to have it be more a "fighter specialty" with additional skills subclass. One ranger in my campaign took a "hoplite" specialization, based on ancient Greek shield & spear-related feats, instead of archer or dual-wielding swordsman specializations. Later on, that character became more of a spy/scout, while multiclassing in rogue. I also let people drop class features, like special enemy focus (whatever it's called) and animal companion in exchange for feats.
-- Monk more like AD&D (Trapfinding and Disable Device) + more skill points. Love it. The monk in my campaign has an Int 18 (again, we're not build-concerned!) and has a penchant for learning, which makes sense to us for a monk. I gave him bardic lore ability after he piled a lot of effort into Knowledge skills and feats.
So what I get from all this: Maybe a house rule for monks to get 6+Int skill points.
That said, there's some good stuff here. I'll snip and talk to it.
My comments:
-- Spellcaster multiclassing: I follow the Unearthed Arcana rule that every class has some Arcane or Divine magic to it, and the levels (or partial levels) stack for Caster Level. That's weaker than this rule, but it seems to work fine for us. (We're not build-interested anyhow.)
-- Allies not getting in the way makes sense. I don't have a formal house rule on that, but that's probably how I'd actually adjudicate it. Certainly true on not providing cover.
-- Ranger is the class I (and my players) were least happy with in 3.x e. I modified it (with a player) to have it be more a "fighter specialty" with additional skills subclass. One ranger in my campaign took a "hoplite" specialization, based on ancient Greek shield & spear-related feats, instead of archer or dual-wielding swordsman specializations. Later on, that character became more of a spy/scout, while multiclassing in rogue. I also let people drop class features, like special enemy focus (whatever it's called) and animal companion in exchange for feats.
-- Monk more like AD&D (Trapfinding and Disable Device) + more skill points. Love it. The monk in my campaign has an Int 18 (again, we're not build-concerned!) and has a penchant for learning, which makes sense to us for a monk. I gave him bardic lore ability after he piled a lot of effort into Knowledge skills and feats.
So what I get from all this: Maybe a house rule for monks to get 6+Int skill points.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
I guess I could go with that analogy. It's mostly an attempted patch on the spine everything runs on with a pit of a realignment of class balance. After a deep look at Pathfinder's and Trailblazer's attempted class fixes, I'd say that Pathfinder's design for classes was informed by the power level of classes at the final days of 3.5, Complete Champions/Fiendish Codex, that Nine Swords book and brought all the classes up to that power level; while Trailblazer took the classes in the core PHB and rebalanced them against each other.
Trailblazer doesn't fix all my peeves, like high level games becoming intolerable. Though there is a nod towards acknowledging the issue, and a passing attempt at alleviating it a tad. The math of iterative attacks are made easier. Adding action points can solve most of the excessive Save or Die effects of high level spells. Buffs are a challenge to track, but Trailblazer's designers proposed that the simplest fix was to change how dispel magic debuffed characters. I'd personally rather reduce the availability and necessity of buffs, but I can see this being the simplest fix short of wholesale realignment of the 3.5 conceit of magic item dependence.
I never mentioned one of Trailblazer better innovations. I can't believe I'd forgotten. They developed an encounter budgeting system that is worth the price of the $5 .pdf alone to me. True, the encounter budgeting rules take up 2 pages and one of those pages is all tables. But it gets the exact same results as the 3.5 CR/EL system. And it lets me monitor more easily my PC's progression to their next levels and is MUCH less byzantine.
And it feels more compatible with my 3.5 books than other post-3.5 attempts. I dunno why.
New stuff? Hmm, it's like PHB and DMG in 188 pages of tightly packed (smallish font) info. The only thing truly missing are spells and monsters, otherwise it is a complete ruleset. It was really meant to plug right into the game as we know it, accentuating a high action swords and sorcery playstyle with the creatures and spells we already use. They didn't feel a big need to redo all spells for this, just a handful (which are enumerated in the book). I dearly with they took on 3.5 spells. They are polishing off a redesign on the 3.5 SRD monsters as we speak, tackling such things as monster advancement. They expressed a hope to take 3.5 spells next, though who knows.
For 5 bucks though, I'd wager you could find $5 worth of ideas to pilfer for your house rules.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
In the works....
Voadam
Legend
I generally mix monsters and adventures from 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, d20 Modern, Iron Heroes, and Arcana Evolved together with no problem even though they each use different skill sets and slightly different OGL systems. Mechanical conversions or not depending on taste for things like feats or items or spells, generally only grapple/CMB for pathfinder needs to be changed to get to immediately useable in 3.5.
Pathfinder monsters use the standard D&D ones but update/change a bunch of them mechanically. All the updates use the same CR though so if you want to use your 3.5 MM succubus instead of the PF one from the module it will not be a CR changing problem.
