Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 9160979" data-attributes="member: 8863">I prefer 3.0 to 3.5 myself.  All the so-called "improvements" tended to be a lot of hype to drive sales of the new books.  There was some errata that was useful, but not enough to warrant reprinting core entirely.  Some material from 3.5 is useful though.My thoughts on how to handle things go like this:Cull or disallow a lot of the new races and base classes from 3.5, as they tend to be bad filler and attractive to min-maxers for charoping.  Too many races, especially the new stuff from 3.5, have an appeal of ability bonuses and penalties that are optimal for the favored class.  And very few of the races introduced in 3.5 ever impressed me.  Base classes usually have the problem of having too many hybrids and they have one of two problems. Either they hybrid two non-casters and end up being a crap class when non-caster multiclassing didn't have too many serious issues, or they hybridize a caster with a non-caster which powercreeps the non-casters.  Or they're junk classes to begin with; the trash from the Miniatures Handbook is a bad example of this with three base classes -- Healer, Marshal, and Warmage -- that are watered-down versions of the Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard.  Their limited abilities are fine for a miniatures game I guess, but they're overshadowed by their original archtypes.  Or junk classes that are just broken like the Truenamer.As someone who started before 3e, I roll my eyes at empty level whining.  In the old days, damn near all your levels were empty!  It was mostly better chances to hit, more hp and better saves.  You might get followers at name level.  Some classes, like the paladin, druid, or bard might pick up abilities every so often, but it sure as hell wasn't every level.  The one class that had the fewest empty levels was the monk, and they always suck.Dial back the PrCs.  Min-maxers might tack on whatever PrCs they want but they're supposed to be under DM control.  And the DM doesn't have to allow a single one.  I won't allow more than one PrC because I feel they should require some level of dedication.  The best abilities should require full progression through a PrC and there should be no dipping.  Probably rewrite the decent PrC concepts to 5 levels instead of 10 to make them more focused.In fact, I think I'd limit multi-classing to three classes, including a PrC to keep characters more focused, dial back the dipping, and to prevent less knowledgeable players from chaining together too many classes that aren't working together properly.I'm okay with the 3.5 skills.  I think 5e ripped too many out or mashed them together.  I'd consider increasing the number of skill points classes receive each level by two though.Magic items need to be more closely under the DM's control.  Spell acquisition as well.  There needs to be much more limitations on anything from outside core, though that won't fix all the problems.  Definitely get rid of the divine wands, that creates too many problems with easy healing.  Maybe reduce the number of charges on a freshly created wand too, but I'm not certain about this one.  Wands are there so that as wizards get more powerful, they can use the wand to crank out the combat spells, but I'm not bothered by wizard utility wands either.  The tricky case here is bards, since they're considered arcane casters but have a mix of arcane and divine spells, plus their own unique stuff.DR I'm divided on.  It's closer to its roots in folklore and mythology by having some enemies be vulnerable to certain materials, but then that leads to the golf bag problem.  And the +x is a classic element of D&D as well.  Reducing the target numbers is fine though and the 3.5 revision book made it a good argument for it.I like the typed bonuses of 3e, but I'm thinking of capping at 3 bonuses and eliminating some of the less used bonus types.No reduction of LAs or levels added by metamagic feats.  You need to pay for that power.E6 I think is too limiting.  E10 or E12 might be fine, but E6 just seems like it limits things too much.  Or add caps somewhere around or after 10th level.Some of [USER=6670763]@Yora[/USER]'s ideas I'm considering.  He's got two ideas that look like old-school reaction and morale checks which I've been thinking of myself.  The reaction checks I need to do some thinking on, I've only got some vague ideas on how to adapt them to a 3e game.  Morale I've put more thought into.  I'd probably do a Will save too I think, and use 2e's triggers, but I'm definitely thinking of doing more: having Charisma scores play a role, including opposed Charisma checks, affect it with the Intimidate skill, and maybe use Sense Motive to resist being intimidated.  Haven't fully worked this out though.Encumbrance I'm thinking of porting in 5e's system which just uses multiples of Strength instead of a table as a start.  A more developed approach would be to give encumbrance slots based on Strength scores that would be equal to 5-10 lbs and count items as bundles of related items or something instead of itemizing every single item.  And I'd set it up so it can be used across editions.</blockquote>

Verification