D&D 3E/3.5 Core 3.5 Upgrade: Multiclassing & Balance

[Kerrick]

Also, how are your save DCs different than standard? that seems to be the usual way it works, with the spell level added for spells.

Almost. Sorcerers are 1/2 level, bards are 1/2 level then 1/2 level-1 then 1/2 level-2, and everyone else is 1/2 level-1. His system would not only unify everyone to the same progression, but would kill the problem of spell DCs not scaling after L17/18 (when you get L18 spells).

See, L9 spells are DC 19 + mod; since there are no L10 spells, there's no more scaling. (Sure, you can keep boosting the DC via the mod and feats and such, but that's not true scaling.) Using 10 + 1/2 level + mod means that DCs will scale infinitely - a L45 caster's DC for a L9 spell would be 32 + mod instead of 19 + mod.

 

[neceros]

See, L9 spells are DC 19 + mod; since there are no L10 spells, there's no more scaling. (Sure, you can keep boosting the DC via the mod and feats and such, but that's not true scaling.) Using 10 + 1/2 level + mod means that DCs will scale infinitely - a L45 caster's DC for a L9 spell would be 32 + mod instead of 19 + mod.

Exactly.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

1. Save DCs
Any attack that opposes a saving throw is now calculated thus, including powers, spells and abilities: 10 + Half Caster level + Ability bonus.

This I like. Very, very yoinked for the Tale!

7. Iterative Attacks
When indicated to get another attack from your class table, you gain the attack as normal per your BAB score. However, instead of the -5 to attack, the character receives a -2 penalty per attack starting with the second attack. For example, a 16 level Fighter has a BAB of 16, as his table indicates he has four attacks: +16/+11/+6/+1. Instead of the normal -5 down the line, instead replace that with a -2, so it would be as follows: +16/+14/+12/+10. You still follow your table to determine how many attacks you get, but not the modifier to said rolls.

I like the idea but not the implementation. Anyway, your math is wrong. The modified bab for lvl 16 ftr would be +16/+14/+9/+4. Otherwise you are looking at base/+3/+6/+9.

My idea is to use the following feat.
[sblock=Powerhouse Feat]Powerhouse [General]
You are well knowledged in martial combat and are able to make connecting blows more often.
Prerequisite: Strength 15, second iterative attack
Benefit: You lessen the penalty of your secondary iterative attacks by one point. This modifier applies to the characters additional iterative attacks beyond the first. For example, Jordan the 10th level bard has a base attack bonus of +7/+2. With the application of this feat Jordan has a base attack bonus of +7/+3. When Jordan attains 15th level, she has a base attack bonus of +11/+7/+2.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times, each time the Strength prerequisite increasing by two points. Each time this feat is chosen the penalty of your iterative attacks decreases by an additional point. You cannot lessen your iterative attack penalty by more than -2. Fighters may select Powerhouse as one of their fighter bonus feats.[/sblock]

 

[neceros]

My math was based on a 16th level fighter, which would gain 4 attacks. I was not taking into consideration TWF, or anything else.

16/14/12/10.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

My math was based on a 16th level fighter, which would gain 4 attacks. I was not taking into consideration TWF, or anything else.

I fully realize that. But how does a +3 modifier to all secondary attacks net a +9 to the final attack bonus. This is truly a brainbender.

The only thing I can think of is that you mena up to +3 for the first secondary attack, up to +6 for the second secondary attack and up to +9 for the last secondary attack.

 

[Kerrick]

Have you thought about simply reducing the number of iterative attacks altogether? It would reduce dice-rolling, for one thing, which would reduce time in combat. An idea I've been tossing around is that you get a second attack at BAB +10 (at the normal -5, so it'd be +10/+5), and a third at +20 (+20/+15/+10). And that's it - once you hit +20 BAB, you flip over to EAB and gain no more iteratives (I've institued another rule whereby you don't automatically flip over to EAB at L20, but BAB +20 - it actually works).

Of course, that would play havoc with the mid-BAB classes, who wouldn't gain a second attack until L14, but fighters would regain their position as the kings of combat and TWF fighters (esp. rogues) would be nerfed. Mages don't really need iterative attacks, since they're primarily casting spells; Tenser's gives them BAB = level, which gives them iteratives if necessary.

Hey, while I'm here, I might as well comment on some of this other stuff...

Enhancement bonus to armor class may only be applied to armor, and not to rings, bracers, etc. Cloth (Robes, shirts) may be enchanted like normal armor, but must fulfill all other requirements per normal (must be masterwork, etc).

That could work. Bracers follow a wonky pricing progression (compared to armor), and having clothing provide an armor bonus makes more sense; they can use the bracers slot for stuff like bracers of Dex or bracers of the blinding strike.

On a side note, I've never understood why magic items had to be masterwork - the logic of it breaks down when you realize that there are no rules (or at least mechanical benefits) for making masterwork rings, gems, orbs, cloaks, or whatever. The prices for said items are subsumed into the cost of making the magic item (a crystal ball, e.g.), making it a moot point in any case.

Miscellaneous magic items that provide a bonus to AC now provide a maximum +1 to AC (ie, ring of protection cannot exceed +1).

Why? You're giving no-armor classes like mages and monks something with one hand and taking something else away with the other. They need those rings of protection to keep up with fighters in armor. And, really, the fighters need them to keep up with the monster BABs. Course, if you want to use the level bonus to AC, I guess you wouldn't need this.

4. Death Effects
All spells and abilities that have an instant death effect (save or die) are removed. In exchange, those abilities may stun or deal damage depending on a case by case circumstance.

Here's what I did: Death spells, on a failed save, reduce the victim to negative hit points based on the spell's level: -1d4 (6th), -1d6 (7th), -1d8 (8th), or -1d10 (9th), and he can't recover on his own - he must be healed by someone else.

6. Saving Throws
All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.

I don't like this. You're boosting the low save (which needs it) at the cost of nerfing the good save (which is good enough, IMO). I was thinking of going with (level * 0.4) instead of (level * 0.33), which gives a slight boost, and gets better overall starting at L13 (which is where it really needs it) - you end up with +8 at L20, and the gap between high/low saves is closer - only 6 points at L40, vs. 9 with the normal progression.