D&D 3.1E: What to change?

[Chun-tzu]

The hit point system and Vancian magic aren't my favorites, but I wouldn't change them in a 3.1 version. What does need refining, besides the errata issues, are feats and prestige classes. These are, of course, new to third edition, and work great, although they could work even better.

I like Hong's suggestion of bonus feats for each class, chosen from a pool of suitable feats (along the lines of the fighter). It would be nice to see a few more feat chains like Whirlwind Attack, that might allow characters to plot their development along certain lines (yes, this can be done without feat chains, but feat chains do it well). With the splatbooks, we now have tons of feats that could be organized better if we had official feat categories (e.g., combat, skill-based, and so on).

The idea of prestige classes is great, but the mechanics are somewhat flawed. The only way to revise it is to change the core classes. Some classes (e.g., sorcerers, and to a lesser degree wizards, fighters, clerics, and rogue) give up little to nothing for (the right) prestige classes, while others give up a lot. Most ranger and paladin PrCs lose some or all of their spellcasting ability, and fourth level spells are nothing to sneeze at. Paladins, monks, and druids lose a ton of abilities no matter what prestige class they take. The classes need to be rebalanced to fit the vision of what prestige classes were meant to be: increased abilities or progression in one area, and decreased abiltiies in another.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

For a version 3.1, my suggestions would be (and I know most of 'em have already been covered by someone, but still...):

* Incorporate all the errata (of course)
* A bigger DMG. Put in all the stuff Monte says had to be left out.
* A bigger Monster Manual - more critters, not more descriptive text
*Go through and clarify some of the most contentious rules - such as attacks of opportunity

 

[LightPhoenix]

For a 3.1? Errata and rules clarifications. That's it. Any big change is going to be more than a .1 change.

For a 3.5, which I think is what many people are interpreting it as?

Rebalancing in general between classes and spells. There's a lot of little balancing that could be done. Especially in regards to Rangers and Wizards.

Rework, and more importantly clearly define the CR and ECL systems. These numbers are wholly arbitrary. Also, they really need to stop using Hit Dice as the end-all be-all determinant of CR/ECL.

I think that introducing alternative, optional systems is a good idea. Realistically, this won't happen with a magic system, unless it's in a seperate book. As it is, it really isn't hard to convert between Vancian/spell point/WoT systems. Just takes a little work and bookkeeping.

I would strongly encourage them to look at the classes. Really the Pali as written isn't much more than a Fighter/Cleric with some nifty special abilities. Same with the Ranger - you can pretty much reconstruct it as a Fighter/Druid with some alternative abilities. Make the Ranger original, and make the Pali an optional prestige class.

 

[Vaxalon]

Rework, and more importantly clearly define the CR and ECL systems. These numbers are wholly arbitrary.

I don't see how this could be done. Any system that wasn't tweaked here and there for odd situations would break down in , well, odd situations.

Also, they really need to stop using Hit Dice as the end-all be-all determinant of CR/ECL.

Already done.