Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaiyanwang" data-source="post: 9352936" data-attributes="member: 91656">The lack of restraints is less than you think, it only became a staple in certain circles, especially game forums. But I agree the authors should have been clearer. That's really on them and I can defend it up to a certain point.Class only skills ended in 3.5. Only 3.0 had "X" on the skill table. Cross class skills are absolutely important, because they guarantee niche protection. This is shown in PF1e in which the Rogue quickly stopped to have sense existing. I personally found the 3e forcing to pay double for cross-class too much, so I currently compromise: cross class still costs 1 like in PF, but you can only add half level if the skill is not a class skill. In this 3.PF mix I fancy, I merged some, re-introduced others like Search. Skill points are important becauseallow the players to feel rewarded in investing them and making choices, and avoid the flattening "if you are strong X, you are skilled X in Y".Now, addressing what I feel, respectfully, are misconceptions about feats. While I think that the base combat in 3e should allow more actions:1) You can totally attempt a disarm without the feat. You have to eat an AOO, which can hit or not. If you are a fighter type trying to disarm a wizard, is probably going to work anyway. More importantly, you can attempt maneuvers on flat-footed enemies (not everyone is going to have combat reflexes) with no repercussions. Or on enemies which already used their AOO. Teamwork helps in that regard. So do miss chances and AC optimization, which are totally possible in 3e.2) This one is trickier and I can completely understand the sentiment behind it. I would probably be completely OK with a crafting system based on skill ranks as an example (I mean ranks substitute for prerequisites like caster level). I have to admit tho that homebrewing I found myself re-introducing the crafting feats because of the above (certain type of player enjoys the choose/reward cycle) and because it would allow an hyper-production from the players that had this with no sacrifice. What I did is that for Arms and Armor etc I allowed skill ranks anyway in place of caster level to allow warriors to craft their own armor.Your 3) & 4) points are for 4e and 5e? In case they aren't, as follows3) In 3e incantations do not require feats to use. I am in fact quite shocked by that. A similar activity, Use Magic Device, requires skill points. with an hybrid system as proposed above,  it looks like only Artificers, Rogues, 3e Warlocks (they were a different thing) and Bards can use them, remember that in older editions only Thieves had a % roll for scrolls, the others had to use spells from their list or give up, unless I am mistaken.4) Is this again 5e? In 3e, anyone can charge unless restrained or exhausted or in similar conditions. Some feat improves this tactically, increasing charge damage or allowing "prepared action charges". In a similar way to what happened with the crafts, I initially allowed the prepared charge as normal combat option but I had to go back to the feat because it created a sort of deadlock. It really must be represented by rare warriors that know how to choose the perfect timing in the flow of the battle. I overall gave more combat feats to warriors, and options to improvise some like the PF1e Brawler, to compensate for such backtracking. I wish the original designers did the same.Mounted charge in 3e is similar. With the feats you deal triple damage with certain weapons like the lance. But without the feat, you still deal double damage! No feats needed. Same thing for "brace" weapons (say an halberd or pike) dealing double damage on the receiving end. This creates very thrilling fights. It also allows me to recall what I wrote above: weapon selection is very important, and while a lot of weapons are kind of meh, many are just different tools, good or excellent, or sometimes just decent, for a given job.</blockquote>

Verification