Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derro" data-source="post: 4457561" data-attributes="member: 51010">You've clearly cut the power level of the game. That's not a bad thing if you can keep your encounters balanced. Published adventures would require fairly judicious pruning and existing CRs are no longer relevant.A few comments and questions though.This seems oddly out of place. You've limited power in so many other areas and then totally blown it away with these two rules. What is your rationale?It does seem to be a lot more effective at higher levels but I think that was intentional, right? I see what you're doing here but I think you might be shortchanging the recipients at lower levels when it is needed the most. By my rough calculations your cure light doesn't catch up with the RAW cure light until 4th level casting. There's obviously lots of variation on that since the target is as much a factor as the caster with your version. If you are looking to smooth the curve you could use twice as many d4s as the rules say d8s.  Oh. That's too bad. The 1e Bard and Thief-Acrobat were prestige classes.I wouldn't do this but it that is the style you prefer just keep doing your own thing, man.Over the years with 3.x I've turned the use of social skills into a kind of social combat system. It's very loose and guided by the role-playing but it's a mini-game that works well with lots of different situations. Plus bluff and intimidate have combat uses that get employed quite a bit in my games.The one thing you will find with this is that initiative is largely random. The d20 being linear means it is very rare to get consistent initiative without ungodly modifiers which you will not be having. You might want to trim down to just a d10 instead of a d20 or use 2d10 to give a more consistent result.That being said highly variable initiative might be your bag. I don't care much for it myself.Yikes. That cripples the rogue's combat effectiveness. I suspect you may not use a battle map. Flank is not as simple a matter as you might think when the chits are down. Two full rounds is unnecessarily punitive, IMO. It takes a round to hide, then two rounds to study opponent and finally a fourth round to actually strike. Since sneak attack damage is an added variable instead of a multiplier it gives more consistent results. At lower levels it is rarely more than 10 damage and at its highest level it only averages 35. With your alteration that relatively minor damage output is done once every 3 rounds at best. If you allowed the sneak attacker to hide then strike at least they can get of a bumper every other round if they are well favored tactically. Get rid of flank if it's a pain. Without a map it is difficult to adjudicate reasonably.I wish I had an alternative. Grappling is a mess but sometimes that cloud giant just has to snatch a guy and huck him 30 feet.Yup. Me too.Is this in addition to iterative attacks? I really can't see spending 5 feats on an extra attack even if it is with my greatsword.DCs for what? You've eliminated spell level as a factor in saving throws. Dispelling?That can start getting pretty big at later levels. At lower levels it's not as effective. Your doing fine at mid-range. Why not just use total defense with a +2 bonus at +6, +11, and +16 base attack? It gives roughly the same spread but doesn't screw the low level guys who have the shortest road to death.I get the impression you are going for a grittier early edition feel and that will work fine at lower and early mid levels. Published material probably won't be of too much use to after the early stages of the game. There is just too much assumed about the power of a party of a given level.Monsters from the MM are not to be judged based on their CR. Most monsters of CR 7 or higher will most likely be handing the party their collective buttocks. This doesn't apply to classed humanoids of equivalent level though since they have the same restrictions as PCs.Good luck!</blockquote>

Verification