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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6217271" data-attributes="member: 22424">For the most part, I agree with the Pathfinder approach - a huge segment of the problems in 3.5e is actually a matter of the detail of spells and magic items. That's why a systematic fix is always going to be a problem - there's not a "magic bullet", but rather some thousands of individual items needing dealt with.The problem I see with your big fix is this: too many of the "save or suck" spells also have no (or little) effect if the save is made. So by making the change you describe, you condemn your spellcasters to spending most of their time casting really cool spells that don't actually do anything.Agreed. A lot of this can be done simply by sharply reducing, and then tightly controlling, the number of bonus keywords - instead of the 30+ in the "Rules Compendium", there should probably be no more than about 7.Note that Power Attack was indeed capped in Pathfinder.For the rest of it, I actually disagree. If anything, Fighters should be getting more feats, and feats should be more powerful (and, especially, should scale better with level). In that regard, 3e's Power Attack is actually one of the better feats.(Or, alternatively, my preferred solution would be to split feats into two - 'feats' and 'talents', where the 'feats' are the small, always-on numeric bonuses (Weapon Focus), while the 'talents' are the new powers (Power Attack), and put each on a separate progression.)Mostly agreed. In fact, I would eliminate everything that changes a character's ability scores - including ability damage/drain, spells, magic items... but also the bonus as level increases and even racial adjustments. I might make an exception for wish, but that's it.Agree about Pathfinder having the best skill system. I still feel it needs some more consolidation of skills, though.These days, I'm actually tempted to roll the Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Monk into a single class that effectively has all the feats of the Fighter and all the skills of the Rogue (with the other classes powers becoming Talent chains).But I'd certainly expand the range of class skills for most classes. I probably wouldn't cap the DCs though - assuming we're keeping high-level play then we need to keep sufficiently difficult challenges for them to grow into.Yes. Make them a feat chain. And I agree that a character with multiple attacks should get them all at the same bonus. In fact, I'd go so far as to apply that even to characters who use two different weapons.Sort of agree. Early 3.0e was built on the assumption PCs would find their items, and would make or buy them extremely rarely. The "Wealth by Level" table was nothing more than the average results from rolling on the "Treasure per Encounter" tables 13ish times at the previous level - so it was what PCs were likely to find, not the amount PCs at that level should be given to buy.However, it very quickly became clear that the ability to make items was an enormous boon to PCs who had it, and that the rest needed to be able to buy items to stay close.But... the problem is that late 3e materials, and all of PF, is built on the assumption PCs will buy most of their items. Everything is for sale, and especially PCs will have the "Big Six". So, reversing that will have a massive impact on the game.It's probably the right way to go, but tread carefully.I never had a problem with criticals.Yep. Good luck - that's going to be a major undertaking!Ouch. No thanks. Rewrite the combat chapter, by all means... but gridless please.</blockquote>

Verification