Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nonsi256" data-source="post: 5023873" data-attributes="member: 86164">>> Right... so what do you think? Are they interesting enough?  Not for me, but that’s not your fault. To find a class satisfyingly interesting, I need to see awesome new benefits in each and every level. bards get 8 + Int because their skill list expanded, and rogues get 6 + Int because theirs contracted. Given Bards have music + spell, this seems quite unfair to me.      And generally, I see the 10 repetitions of Sneak Attack progression as an unsubtle & uninspired means of rubbing sand in the RP-ers’ eye. Also, it’s awesome against some opponents, but as levels progress, it becomes dead weight more often than not – rendering you stuck with (supposedly)10 near-useless  class features (and it has no added value beyond damage augmentation). Which leads to my second point. I made several changes to the skill system: First, I eliminated cross-class skills  Actually, I’ve given a lot of thought to how skills are presented in 3.5.  I think that of all the characteristics of 3e, this is the one they almost hit dead on the nail.        In the Skills spoiler in my houserules I explain the motivations behind the few changes I’ve introduced, I also have several links to a website named “The Alexandrian”, which illustrates wonderfully why the skill system is so well designed in 3.5e. By your argument, there's no need even for rage feats. By mine, they at least have a justification.  In my HR, Rage is 3-feat worth (plus some of the CW ones are also decent) but...  I tend to think rage is overrated        <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATjJVR7I-d0&feature=player_embedded#" target="_blank">YouTube - Semmy Schilt vs Badr Hari k-1 final 2009</a> Which part - needing the overhaul or still needing work?        Both. True, but having a skill check be a DC for a save is overpowered.  I never said 3e doesn’t need a lot of work (and I do mean A LOT OF WORK).  To deal with this one, my HR ban all forms of magical skill-boosting (sans Inspire Competence, which is an inspiration, not a direct magical effect).        You wouldn’t believe the gametime improvement that’s achieved by preventing skill checks from shooting to the asteroid belt. I wouldn't call that "more than enough". Sufficient, maybe. But what's wrong with adding more songs, with the ability to choose between them?         Absolutely nothing. There are Bardic Music feats that do just that – give you new effects to choose from. (language)  I just don't like the "either you know it or you don't" thing 3.5 has. I like the concept of "well, I know some of this, and some of that, and a lot of the other". For example: I’m totally with you on this one. Here’s the best implementation I could find  <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74094" target="_blank">3.5 D&D Language System - Giant in the Playground Forums</a>        until I saw yours, which is also great. I think that combining both in some way could be the ideal evolution to languages in RPG. Given it has different mechanics and a maximum level of perfection, I think it should be detached from the skill system, but my inspiration is in a permanent state of coma as far as language mechanics go. Sure, if you didn't have max ranks and bonuses to boot. Those DCs were determined for a bard with, IIRC, 3/4 max ranks for the given level. Quite deliberately, obviously - one of the common complaints about the bard was having to max out Perform to gain new songs.  Result: a player would have to be practically brain dead not to maximize.  This phenomenon in general is named shoehorning: providing an option which is not really an option (or a really stupid choice making).        Wherever shoehorning was evidently unavoidable, I simply granted the requirement automatically in the form of bonus skill ranks. I recently added an <a href="http://project-phoenix.wikidot.com/classes:domains" target="_blank">alternative domain system</a>   You do notice that – flavor wise – the Animal domain makes the Druid redundant, right?      Furthermore, I think that the sheer volume of effort would not be worthwhile in the long run. (domains)  Negligible how?  I meant to say “no matter how I chose to go at it”        I played around with domain mechanics quite a bit and was never content with the result. I'm assuming by "numbers augmentation" you mean something other than simply adding bonuses, but I can't imagine what.  Take a look at my “3.5 HR – Codex Gigas”, download the archive and take a look at what I did with the various classes and you’ll get what I’m talking about.        The idea is to gain new options all the time – new stuff to do, or new ways to use old shticks. Elemental Lords control Earth, Fire, or Water; Storm Lords control Air.        I’m not aware of any folklore that makes this distinction finding a group in my area is about as easy as finding a virgin in a harem.        That’s a good one X-D (Hibernate)  Yeah... I wasn't too enthusiastic about that one either. It was really hard to fill that slot, and that was the best I could come up with.  Take a look at my Druid remake. (Fighters)  1) Boring how? The overall lack of options. All they do is attack, attack and attack some more. And it all boils down to stats. There’s little to no room for strategy in 3e for the melee dudes beyond choosing the target to attack (to deal with the issue they’ve invented ToB (memorizing your combat knowledge… give me a break <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />) ).      You’ll really have to dig into my Warrior (revised Fighter) to understand what I mean when I talk about combat strategy (the Weapons’ entry and some general modifications to actions and some other issues also do wonders on the strategy aspect – for most classes). 2) Loses the action economy? Quicken Spell  Split Ray  Twin Spell  Repeating Spell  Double Wand Wielder  Belt of Battle  Spells that grant battlefield control  Fly  Teleport  Polymorph  Water Breathing  Hold  Charm  Dominate  Stoneskin / Fire Shield  Telekinesis  Prismatic (whatever)  Scry & Die  . . .  And we haven’t even gotten to PrCs yet.  And what does poor ole’ Fighter do?  Makes a full attack from a stand-still (usually not an option) / moves and makes a single attack (quite ineffective) / goes for the Pounce build (which is ridiculously easily neutralized, or plain simple irrelevant in so many cases).    Yup. Fun to be a Fighter.     3) If you mean overcoming hazards, I addressed that in an earlier post. Please satisfy my curiosity and provide a link. 4) The base fighter can gain WF in multiple weapons at once (granted, not hugely powerful) and gets WS in multiple weapons for free.      So does mine, but in my case, weapon spec progression is not even the tip of the iceberg.   Each combat style also has several unique abilities that enable him overcome foes or set them up for teammates to handle. Ok, show me what I’ve been missing. What annoys me is that people who criticize the fighter seem to think that he should be able to handle all threats on his own. Last time I checked, D&D is a game centered around teamwork, not solo play. Every class has a role to play, and when done well, a party can overcome any threat, obstacle, or hazard with a minimum of effort.        My Warrior can do so much more than the core Fighter – that doesn’t make it viable for a solo player. Not by a long shot. It just puts it in a whole new scale of interesting to play. With my HR all classes can play in the same ballpark and have fun. Speaking of unarmed fighters... do you think giving the monk full BAB would be too much? I considered it a couple times, but eventually decided not to.      Going full BAB is an option, but the least elegant out there in my book. I’m applying the final polish to my Monk as we speak. (and technically, Oriental elements include Metal and Wood).        Not a very bright deduction – even for the old-ages times. Metal is worked out earth and wood grows on the earth. Any way you slice it, the origin is earth. Now that I look at the 2d10 damage, it was pretty balanced - compare to a rogue's +8d6 SA or a fighter's four attacks/round with a greatsword for 2d6 + bonuses each        Go to the WotC forums and seek out some Monk debates. They explain it over there way better than I can over here. Why not take the barbarian's totem abilities and give them to the ranger?        Staying old school, it seems reasonable. I added the extra abilities mainly because wizards have none. It's why players jump ship for a PrC with full (or even half) spellcasting ability at first chance - they keep getting spells along with cool abilities.        In my system this isn’t gonna be an option. You really wouldn’t want to go PrC if you valued everything your base class has to offer. In my system you go for a PrC if you’re looking for something else, not for the extra icing and the cherry on top. But... whatever you pick, you’ll neither get shafted nor overshadow ohers. Eh? You mean sorcerers?        I meant negligible changes to spells-per-day regarding several classes. I took a look through it and didn't notice anything obvious, beyond the cleric stuff I noted above.  Maybe it’s consistent with how you see the classes now, but there are several inconsistencies in accordance to the classes as they appear on the website (sorry, I really don’t have the strength to go over everything again).  Anyway, if you’re gonna make some more changes to the classes, then don’t bother at this time. </blockquote>

Verification