Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dark Jezter" data-source="post: 871376" data-attributes="member: 1015">D&D has always been about numbers.   I find it odd that you are saying D&D has always been bad about this, as though "real role-playing" is an inherently better style of play than playing a campaign with lots of combat & dungeon exploration.Actually, 3.5 does include non-combat feats, such as Athletic (+2 to climb and swim checks), Stealthy (+2 to all hide and move silently checks), and many more.I'm sorry, but this sounds way too much like the "proficency slots" system of previous editions.  I'm glad that's gone.  Good riddance to bad rubbish and all that.Under the proficency slots system, you could have a fighter who was a grand-master with a bastard sword, but completely clueless about how to use simple weapons like daggers or maces effectively.  It made a lot less sense than the current system of warrior classes automatically being proficent with all simple and martial weapons.The idea for a set amount of XP per monster is a bad one, since it would allow a party to simply kill goblins and kobolds until they hit level 20 (granted, it would take a long time, but it's still possible).  Under the current system, a character will get deminishing returns as they level up, which encourages them to go after bigger game, so to speak.Also, I don't like the idea of giving XP awards only for solving puzzles and stuff like that.  How will solving a murder or finding a noble's runaway daughter increase the fighter's combat prowess or the wizard's spellcasting skill?I don't know what WP/VP means, so I can't respond to that one.I also wouldn't object to suggestions for running low-magic, non-magic, etc. in the DMG.All rules are optional.  If you don't like it, you can always come up with your own system.  The treasure by level chart was made for game balance reasons, so that characters would recieve enough treasure to afford typical items a character of their level should possess.  CRs for monsters take in more to account than just the party's level, but also the items and spells the party is supposed to possess at the time.IIRC, that actually is included as a variant rule in the DMG (I could be wrong, though).  I'm currently a PC in a Scarred Lands campaign where the DM uses fumble rules, and it certainly has it's ups and downs; it can be aggrivating when you fall off your horse in the middle of combat due to rolling a 1, but it can be fun when an enemy rolls a 1 and stumbles, provoking an attack of opportunity. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />That's actually an intruiging rule, but it really wouldn't make much of a difference.  Let's say you have a level 20 wizard with 30 intelligence (extremely high intelligence scores are very possible for a typical high-level wizard under the current system, due to magic items, wish spells, etc).  Under the current system, the saving DC if the wizard cast a 9th-level spell would be 29.  Under your system, the saving throw DC would be exactly the same.Now, I know that that example wouldn't apply to most situations, but considering that a smart caster usually looks for items that increase their most vital ability score, the biggest difference between your system and the current one would be a DC difference of 1 or 2 at most.I don't know how well it worked in your own campaign, but I can already see a lot of abuse coming out of this system.  Every party would force their cleric to take the domains that had the best healing and buffing spells, and nobody would ever take the other domains.  I know that there are currently domains that are very powerful (a cleric who takes the Strength and War domains, for instance, can pretty much assume the roles of both front-line fighter and healer), but grouping ALL spells by domain would make some domains REQUIRED if you wanted a decent cleric.Currently, the game does reward focusing on a single class in most cases.  A wizard who decides to take a few levels in fighter for weapon proficencies and extra hit points will often be shooting himself in the foot because he'll be lacking the higher-level spells that are expected for a caster of his character level.It's supposed to represent adventurers becoming physically tougher and more resistant to all forms of harm as their adventuring carrers progress.  A seasoned warrior who has been exposed to dozens of poisons and diseases, as well as surviving countless wounds is naturally going to be more resistant to punishment than a youngster who just picked up his first sword.Whoo!  That was a long post.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Now, back to the subject at hand, if I could make any changes to 3.5e, I would get rid of the "you can't be a cleric of a racial deity unless you are a member of that race" rule.  Why is it that a gnome can be a cleric of Gond and a halfling can be a cleric of Tymora, but a human couldn't be a cleric of Moradin?</blockquote>

Verification