Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jedavis" data-source="post: 5267698" data-attributes="member: 35933">Currently running heavily-modified 3.0 with rules borrowed from PF and TB (and a dash of Iron Heroes, actually).From 3.5:Barbarian, Ranger, MonkDarknessHasteRay of EnfeeblementFrom TB:Class modifications (except Druid, which I'm still tinkering with on and off.  Currently looking at stealing PF's shapeshifting spells, putting them on the Druid list, and giving Druids bonus slots and readies)Unified spellcastingCombat reactionsSome featsFrom PF:Races (mostly)TurningItem creationCleave (probationary pending playtesting)0th-level spells at will (and the corollary Cure Minor -> Stabilize change)From IH:Skill groups (we reduced SP/level, but assigned classes appropriate groups)So, why not PF?  Probably because our tendency is to assimilate systems we like rather than to adopt them wholesale.  Their setting is OK, but nothing to get really excited about.  Not a huge fan of the APs (not due to lack of quality, but because they're too linear in structure), so that's no selling point.  We never had trouble with grappling, so upgrades to that went unnoticed.</blockquote>