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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4428244" data-attributes="member: 4722">I agree with you on those points. Your post is well-though-out and coherent... but you don't say what you WANT to see. What do you perceive as problems with the system that need to be fixed? I'm honestly curious, not trying to attack you. Several people have already mentioned high-level play (the big bugaboo of d20), multiclassing, and a couple other things.I think everyone's too stuck on "backwards compatibility" instead of "fixing the system". When you get right down to it, 3E is backwards compatible with 2E. Yes, I said that right - they are compatible systems. You can convert your 2E (or even 1E) PCs, monsters, etc. to 3E/3.5. It takes a little work, sure, but it's still possible. With 4E, however, you could possibly convert your PCs/monsters/whatever from previous editions, but you'll pretty much end up having to rewrite the entire thing in the process. That's not "backwards compatible". I think you can rewrite the system, keeping the core mechanics, and fix a lot of the problems inherent with it. d20 for most rolls, and higher is better? Check. Six abilities? Check. 11 core classes and 7 races? Check and check. I think you get the idea. Yes, making changes to one part of the system can (and usually does) have a trickle-down effect... but if all parts of the system are internally consistent, it will work. You can fix 3E without making it look like 4E, AND keep compatibility with existing material. The combat maneuver system. Sheer genius, IMO, using a single roll for everything. I altered the base CMB to be 1d20+BAB+modifiers, + Str or Dex mod depending on the maneuver (Disarm, e.g., uses Dex instead of Str).</blockquote>

Verification