Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justin Bacon" data-source="post: 3123332" data-attributes="member: 3795">My turn: QFT.The character sheet design for 3rd Edition is just god-awful. Key information is absolutely buried in a morass of tiny print and numbers.To take one example, look at the Skills section: Even Rogues are unlikely to have ranks or bonuses in more than a dozen skills. So there is never a need to have every single skill listed on the character sheet. It would be better to shrink that section down and leave large spaces for players to write up to a dozen or so skills in.(A complete list of skills and their key attributes would be useful on a separate cheat sheet.)The 3.5 sheet represents an improvement over the 3.0 sheet, but it's still severely lacking. Just glancing at the first sheet for Barbarians, for example, reveals some odd oversights (given the half dozen pages of information the new Deluxe Sheets have): They include a section for "Carrying Capacity While Raging" and another small section for listing your Rage modifiers on a completely different page. What you should have is a half page dedicate to "rage stats": Modified AC, attack bonuses, bonus HP, saves... The whole nine yards. You're going into a rage? Flip to that page and you're good to go.EDIT: Another great place to look for streamlining changes to the rules is anywhere where an extraneous decision point is added to the rules. One I almost immediately houseruled was the Dodge feat: Deciding who to apply that +1 dodge bonus to AC against is an extra decision point and extra bookkeeping. It also disrupts the DM's ability to roll multiple attacks from identically-statted creatures all at once (because now, suddenly, one of the creatures has a different AC to hit). Replacing that with a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC completely elminates all of that hassle: The bonus is added to your AC in prep and never (or rarely) thought of again.Coming back to Trip, again, I'd look real long and hard at the defender's ability to "retaliate" against a failed trip by tripping in return. What are you really modelling here? Is there a need for that opportunity for retaliation in order to keep the rule balanced (remember, you're already provoking an AoO by attempting to trip them in the first place)? Can you just eliminate this unusual "out of turn" action without really suffering any meaningful side-effects?</blockquote>

Verification