Non-Ranger 3.5E Changes

[DanMcS]

I agree TWF needs some work. hows it like in d20m?

Bah, um, what's it like in 3e? In 3e, you need ambidex and Two-weapon to get an extra attack with minimal penalties with your off hand. (-2/-2 total penalties if light weapon, etc). Then there's improved two weapon, which gives you another off hand at an additional -5, but requires a +9 BAB to get the feat. Then there's another with an even higher requirement, for an attack at -10, and another (perfect two-weapon? might be from the ELH) which gives you a last off-hand attack at -15. So basically, instead of an attack of +20/+15/+10/+5 due to BAB at 20th level, you can have +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3, eventually, and at the cost of 5 feats total (ambidex, two-wpn, improved-two-wpn, advanced-two-wpn, and perfect-two-wpn, something like that), but the BAB prereqs for the extra off-hand attacks are around +9, +14, and +19, high like that.

In modern, they combined ambidex and two-weapon, so it's a one-feat cost to buy-in. Then the improved and advanced two-weapon are available at +6 and +11 respectively, which makes sense in my mind because that's when you'd normally get those iterative attacks. So if you spend the feats then, your offhand can keep up with the main hand.

But in general, I'd be happy if they just combined ambidex and two-weapon, it would make a two-weapon fighter an easier buy for non-rangers and let it keep up with the other styles a bit better. People tend to buy those two as a set anyway, and the combination has worked ok in d20 modern as far as I have seen.

 

[John Crichton]

Some random thoughts:

I'd like to see Familiar made into a feat rather than an automatic class ability. Familiars always seemed like a very campaign-flavor intensive thing, and I've run campaigns where it doesn't really fit. Plus a lot of players find having a familiar to be a drawback at times, and they shouldn't be penalized (by not getting some Familiar bonus) for not summoning one.

I think it already is a feat at it's core (altho a fairly powerful one). It can be easily removed if the DM or PC doesn't want it or wants something else in return. You could just change it (at 1st Level only) to something like a foci (like what Monte is doing with AU) and tweak a few of the abilities to grow with the character. All for flavor tho depending on the world, of course.

 

[Merlion]

Bah, um, what's it like in 3e? In 3e, you need ambidex and Two-weapon to get an extra attack with minimal penalties with your off hand. (-2/-2 total penalties if light weapon, etc). Then there's improved two weapon, which gives you another off hand at an additional -5, but requires a +9 BAB to get the feat. Then there's another with an even higher requirement, for an attack at -10, and another (perfect two-weapon? might be from the ELH) which gives you a last off-hand attack at -15. So basically, instead of an attack of +20/+15/+10/+5 due to BAB at 20th level, you can have +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3, eventually, and at the cost of 5 feats total (ambidex, two-wpn, improved-two-wpn, advanced-two-wpn, and perfect-two-wpn, something like that), but the BAB prereqs for the extra off-hand attacks are around +9, +14, and +19, high like that.

In modern, they combined ambidex and two-weapon, so it's a one-feat cost to buy-in. Then the improved and advanced two-weapon are available at +6 and +11 respectively, which makes sense in my mind because that's when you'd normally get those iterative attacks. So if you spend the feats then, your offhand can keep up with the main hand.

But in general, I'd be happy if they just combined ambidex and two-weapon, it would make a two-weapon fighter an easier buy for non-rangers and let it keep up with the other styles a bit better. People tend to buy those two as a set anyway, and the combination has worked ok in d20 modern as far as I have seen.

Ahhh....I think their has been something in a Dragon issue or something that suggested they were going to do that. Me, I want a way(at higher levels of course) to do away with all penalties. and maybe some more core defensive feats...like the twin sword style in FR

 

[Zaruthustran]

Things I'd like to see

Barbarian illiteracy comes from the "wilderness warrior" archetype. That's why Barbarians get "Wilderness Lore" and the other outdoorsy skills. If you've got a smart barbarian, then spend those bonus skill points on literacy.

But it brings up a good point: some classes force an archetype, and that's bad. Which is why I'd like to see only 4 core classes: fighter, sorceror, priest, rogue. The other "core" classes would be prestige classes that could be taken at 2nd level: berserker, ranger, paladin, wizard, etc.

Of course, that's way out of scope for "3.5".

So, what I'd like in 3.5:

1. Rules for catching on fire and burning
2. Better rules for light sources (shadow areas)
3. Fix Archery--it's too powerful. Maybe stop the magic item stacking problem by making enchantments to Bows add "To-hit", and enchantments to arrows add to "damage"/DR penetration, and add a penalty to hit targets that have moved more than 5' within 1 round.
4. More skill points and skills. It's silly that Fighters don't have Profession: Soldier.
5. Remove multiclass restrictions for Monks and Paladins
6. Streamline and clarify the rules for Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate.
7. Make longswords, shorstswords, and rapiers deal "P/S" weapon damage. Or change the damage types to "Pierce, Edged, Impact". It's silly that according to the rules, a rapier can't slice a bowstring, and a Greatsword deals half damage to skeletons.
8. Add the "this weapon can be used to make trip attacks" descriptor to the quarterstaff.

Oye, there's too much to list. Let's just say I hope they make many, many changes.

-z

 

[Merlion]

Re: Things I'd like to see

4. More skill points and skills. It's silly that Fighters don't have Profession: Soldier.

-z

I agree fully that skills could and really should be made more accessible. however I assume your saying you'd like to see more delineated sub skills of Profession Craft Knowledge etc? Cause fighters already have Profession as a class skill...and you can just say Profession: Soldier.
It'd be nice to see rules for some small benefits from profession skills aside from being able to set up shop and make money with them. Its not even a good source of income for an adventurer since you have to spend weeks at it

 

[Zaruthustran]

Re: Re: Things I'd like to see

I agree fully that skills could and really should be made more accessible. however I assume your saying you'd like to see more delineated sub skills of Profession Craft Knowledge etc? Cause fighters already have Profession as a class skill...and you can just say Profession: Soldier.

Alas, Fighters do not have Profession as a class skill:

[SRD]
Class Skills: The fighter's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str).

 

[Al'Kelhar]

With respect to druids:

They should also change the spell reincarnation so that it is compatible with Savage Species and the LA/ECL system.

I have house ruled druids for the purposes of my particular campaign - which is loosely based on the premise underlying Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (archaic evil seeking to annihilate the world - you know the drill). The druid class has been revised so that it is not dependent upon an animal companion to balance the class with other classes. The weapons list includes weapons which are based on agricultural implements or weapons you might find in a rural community, power over the elements has been enhanced, it gets a few class-specific bonus feats, and the spell list greatly increased. See attached.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Merlion]

Re: Re: Re: Things I'd like to see

Alas, Fighters do not have Profession as a class skill:

Dear lord your right. why the heck doesnt everyone have Craft and Profession as a class skill? thats just moronic

 

[TroyXavier]

That will likely be changed. Also, nearly every class is supposed to have at least one knowledge skill now.

 

[Steverooo]

Paladins and monks need more options. They tend to be very vanilla, and they're the most restrictive in terms of multiclassing, which is how you can add a lot of flavor to other classes.

From the Revision Spotlight:

Q: Have the core classes become any more flexible, or is that still the province of prestige classes, feats, and multiclassing?

A: That's an interesting question. I'd say the core classes have always been more flexible than the prestige classes, but those are becoming more flexible now, too. The monk and some of the other "narrow" core classes gain a few more choices. Having more feats to choose from also increases the opportunities for customization.