If there was one thing about 3rdE that you could change, what would it be?

[Victim]

Higher Spell DCs.

10+Spell Level is awfully low, especially when compared to previous editions.

I personally think it should be more like 20+spell level (or maybe 15). As it is, I'm not going to bother with damage spells since the monsters will just save against them.

Maybe the DCs are too low because you are forgeting to add in your spell casting stat modifier. A first level fighter's save against against a spell in 2e: 17. In 3e, it's 11+int mod+ any relevant feats. People who are going to rely on certain types of spells had better take Spell Focus for them. With an 18 int and spell focus, the DC is 17.

And, at higher level, people don't save on 2s all the time.

 

[takyris]

I think that the BAB thing should be worked out using a similar method to the skill checks.... "I've never used a warhammer before, but since I'm a 10th level fighter I get +10 to hit with it..."

Actually, that's what I love about this edition. They understand, accept, and embrace the fact that any real fighter is going to have a legitimate understanding of most common weapons and the ability to use them effectively. I just pre-edited out a whole bunch of anecdotal martial arts stuff and learning to use anything I can pick up effectively, and how that's proficiency, and being GOOD with it means weapon focus... because that was really all I wanted to say.

If there WERE a skill-check system, I'd want it to stay high-level. I wouldn't want Dagger skill, Battle-Axe skill, and so forth. I'd accept three skills -- Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing -- for fighting. I'd accept extremely open weapon category skills -- Crushing, Bladed, Pointy, and Flexible. But I'd be annoyed with a fighter who could crush legions of foes with an axe but was useless with a broadsword, because I know for a fact that that's not how it works in the real world.

-tacky

 

[Urklore]

I'd bring back indiviudal weapon and armor proficiencies. Who ever heard taking martial weapon proficiencies and now you know how to use any number of 500+ weapons, even those you never sene before.

I'd also bring back the rate of fire for ranged weapon. A 20th level fighter can fire 5 sling bullets or arrows in a 6-second round, just does not make sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm mostly with the above:

You're All Crazy!

The *one* thing I'd change is to meld together the moster rules and the character rules better. It shouldn't be this hard to tell what ECL a monster is, or what CR it is.

...so maybe some "level absolutes"? Sort of that *everything* would be measured on levels, where a 6 meant about the same level of power for a monster, a character, a race, *anything*.

But that's a fairly minor clarifiation/simplification.

Most of the rest of these are kinda "I don't like it, it should leave!" as opposed to "It's hard to run a game without it like this"

(PS: Uklore, most of the time, you do gain only single proficiencies. Check the feats. The only time you gain more is when you mutliclass, in which case it's assumed that you were training with all of the weapons in the course of takign the first level in that class. Ya silly. )

 

[Sir Edgar]

This is not so much about 3e, but more D&D in general.

I'd give spell-casters less powerful magic but more hit points. In other words, let them engage in melee more than just standing back and casting spells.

After all, Gandalf who is the prototype for many wizard-types (although I think he was more likely a druid-type) fought more often with his sword than his magic.

Anyhow, some of the spells in D&D are too powerful. Like at 5th-level, a cleric can bestow and remove curses just like that! Curses should have only particular ways to remove them. They're not all alike! It should be some kind of a quest or something to remove a curse or have to kill the person who bestowed the curse in the first place.

As for 3e, I'd just change a few rules here and there, but I really like it overall. It's very tight and well-packaged. More scientific than some may like, but I think it really advanced the game and made it more logical.

If I had to change anything, it would just be how some of the books are organized and add more previous edition content. I'd also change a lot of the art. Some of it's quite good, but most of it I just don't care for at all.

 

[takyris]

I'd bring back indiviudal weapon and armor proficiencies. Who ever heard taking martial weapon proficiencies and now you know how to use any number of 500+ weapons, even those you never sene before.

I'd also bring back the rate of fire for ranged weapon. A 20th level fighter can fire 5 sling bullets or arrows in a 6-second round, just does not make sense.

See? I take out my anecdotal evidence, and this is what happens.

I'm a martial artist. I have more training than you do (he says, guessing). I HAVE heard of taking martial weapon proficiency and knowing how to use 500+ weapons, because I can do it. "Taking martial weapon proficiency" means years of training and learning how the wonderful world of physics works, and then learning how to apply that to anything you can pick up. You can give me just about any weapon you want, and I'll be able to use it to defend myself. It won't be as pretty as someone who trained since birth with the katana using his family weapon, but that's not what your standard BAB reflects. Heck, last Wednesday I did a self-defense technique empty-handed, and then while holding a stick, a knife, a jump-rope, and a stapler. The week before that I did another technique empty-handed, and then with knives, sticks, a staff, and a scarf.

Some stuff is harder, yes -- that's why we have exotic weapons. And you're obviously gonna be better at something you focus on -- hence the feat WEAPON FOCUS.

So don't tell me that my fighter who's completely dedicated to his craft isn't going to know how to use an axe because he's only used broadswords up to this point. You're thinking of focus and specialization not general self-defense training.

-Tacky

 

[cybertalus]

Higher Spell DCs.

10+Spell Level is awfully low, especially when compared to previous editions.

I personally think it should be more like 20+spell level (or maybe 15). As it is, I'm not going to bother with damage spells since the monsters will just save against them.

I'd rather have DCs go up as spellcasters go up in level. Similar to BAB, different classes would go up at different rates. Sorcerers and Wizards are supposed to be better at offensive magic, so their save DCs would climb fastest. Clerics and Bards are less about raw offensive power, so theirs would go up the slowest, with Paladins, Rangers, and Druids somewhere in the middle.

Though my vote would be for a better index. I can never find the stuff I want in the current one, and I really miss having one that cross-indexes the DMG and Player's Handbook.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Maybe the DCs are too low because you are forgeting to add in your spell casting stat modifier. A first level fighter's save against against a spell in 2e: 17. In 3e, it's 11+int mod+ any relevant feats. People who are going to rely on certain types of spells had better take Spell Focus for them. With an 18 int and spell focus, the DC is 17.

And, at higher level, people don't save on 2s all the time.

1e/2e: First level fighter's save versus Sleep or other first level spell : 17.

3e: 1st level fighter's save vs Sleep or other first level spell : 11+Caster's Bonuses-Ftr' Save Bonus. For a CR 4 or 5 caster, the caster bonuses are probably just straight Int, and maybe Spell Focus. Assume the unlikely 18 Int and Spell focus. Assume the 1st level fighter has no bonuses from his stats. Save DCs are 15/17/17. More typically, the save DCs will be much lower; Given typical stat bonuses for a 1st level fighter (+2 Con, +1 Dex, +0 Wis) those save DCs drop to 13/16/17; no spell focus knocks another 2 off. And a CR 4 or 5 wizard is likely to only have a 16 or 17 Int, losing another point. Typical tally? 10/13/14

Actually thinking about it though, I'd buy another DMG at $10 higher for a CR/EL system that worked!

 

[bret]

Picking just one is tough.

I guess I would vote for consistently using terminology throughout the book. They came up with the idea of spell slots, but then hardly ever use the terms. Look at Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, by a technical reading a 9th level caster could put 3 quickened magic missles in the RME.


Some annoyances I've got:

Rogue: Why not just give them Simple Weapons proficiency. It would have actually saved space in the rulebook and been easier to remember. As it is, they list almost every simple weapon except spears and guantlets.

Spellcasters: Don't have multiclassing hurt them quite so much. Not having the highest level spells is a big hit, allow for a better caster level.


Not following their own rules for balancing spells. They gave guidelines in the DMG, but there are many spells who don't follow them.

 

[BryonD]

I declare Colonel Hardisson and Hong my heros for this thread.
IMO, they completely get it.

BTW Colonel, your mandatory multiclassing rule for ME spellcasters is one of the most simple and brilliant ideas I have seen in a long time. One tiny nudge and 3E is a low magic game with zero balance issues. BRAVO