D&D 3E/3.5 Twenty Years On. Modern 3E?

[Zardnaar]

Assuming Pathfinder 2 or 4E had gone in a different direction what would you like in a new 3.X?

What would you take from 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder 1/2. What would you cut?

Here's some things I would do.

1. Unified BAB/proficiency bonus.

There's a reason all the modern D&D's. Rather than 5E +6 by level 20 I think I would use +10 a'la 4E or +15. ACs would top out around 30. Bit more variety and range.

2. Overhauled feats. More 5E super fears broken up into micro feats. Better designed feats. Merge crap feats, remove broken ones.

3. Strip out easy to create magic items. Back to 2E spells and magic item creation. But you don't lose a con point.

4. Feats divided up into various types a'la Pathfinder 2. Non combat feats won't be competing with combat feats. Probably not as excessive as PF2 system.

5. Floating ability score. Get away from the pigeonholed races. Thanks PF2 for this idea.

6. Eliminate most of the small bonuses. +2/+5 a'la 4E or +2/advantage.

7. 4E or 5E round structure.

8. Multiple attacks suffer no penalties.

9. Retain fort/ref/will saves. All saves scale a'la PF2 and OSR.

10. Cap ability score at 20.

11. ASI are freebies.

12. 5E spell DCs.

13. Overhaul the spells. If you can't fix the broken spells remove them. Nerfbat for more than a few.

14. Damage dealing speljs would scale but be capped. Fireball would deal 5-10d6 damage.

15. Less higher level spell slots.

 

[Orius]

I don't really understand 5e's proficiency bonus at all. To me a fighter is supposed to have a better base attack than a wizard. I can't wrap my head around 5e's approach. It's mostly unfamiliarity with the system and a lack of desire to run it.

Definitely improve feats somehow. They're supposed to be where the fighter is strong, yet the fighter ends up being one of the weakest base classes instead. Sure, I prefer wizards, but it still feels wrong.

I'm considering dropping penalties for multiple attacks at least for the fighter.

Some bounded accuracy, but an ability cap of 20 might be too low for 3e. 25 might be a better limit.

I'm wondering how things would work if I shifted to Epic Save Progresions at level 11.

Magic item creation can be a little too easy, but I want to be careful how I nerf it. I think I want to continue with 3e as written as the base, but require formulas like 5e to control how much can be created, and to bring back some DM control over the process. 2e's approach makes it too hard for the player and makes too much work for the DM.

I'd stick with a base of 3.0, add the 3.5 errata that were actually necessary, then add stuff on a case-by-case basis. I don't buy the "3.5 is always better" line at all because it added a ton of broken crap, worsened some of the problems instead fixing them, and started going with more flavor I don't like. Some of the fixes make sense though, and are worth using.

I also would not use most of the base classes not in core, and have sharp limits on PrCs.

Spell access would be restricted somewhat too, players would only be able to choose from the core spells, while anything outside is under my control to add to the campaign. This is not a new approach though. It's based on the spell rarities from 2e's spell compendiums which was a rule that I never dropped in my game, just adapted things to serve new spells that were added.

 

[R_J_K75]

Assuming Pathfinder 2 or 4E had gone in a different direction what would you like in a new 3.X?

The one thing that always mildly irked me about D&D and still does is the dice modifiers, +1 here, +3 there, etc. 5E was on the right track with advantage/disadvantage but didnt quite hit the mark for me. I think its safe to say that Alternity was the prototype for D&D 3E and the one thing I wish that they had kept was was the control and situation die mechanic and ported it over to D&D. Thats definitely the one thing I would want to see in either another edition of 3.x or even the next iteration of the rules for 5.x or 6E. Anything to eliminate the need for players and DMs to have to deal with fiddly math and speed up play would be welcome at my table.

 

[Imaculata]

One big thing that I would change, is to make it easier to uplevel monsters and to calculate their challenge rating. At higher levels it is a mess to find proper monsters for high level characters, and leveling up low CR monsters to the appropriate level is way too complicated in 3.X.

I would probably borrow 5E's legendary actions and lair actions for monsters. It is simply a really good rule to create boss monsters and works just fine in 3.X.

I would get rid of several feat requirements to take other feats. While it makes sense to have progressively stronger feats (like taking Cleave before you can take Great Cleave), some feats are absolute garbage and are only included as a requirement for better feats.

Get rid of spell components entirely. Who even bothers with those?

Get rid of class-specific special abilities that add just another use of an already weak ability. I don't think I've ever used Remove Disease as a Paladin, so getting more uses of them as I level up is like someone wrapped up a brick for xmas and handed it to me. Thanks... I guess?

I would make some variant rules from the class-specific books core rules, such as the ability to choose between Turn Undead and Destroy Undead.

I would also balance the saves of monsters better in regards to spells and abilities, such as Turn Undead, so they don't become useless at higher levels. Monsters at higher levels always save against some of these, rendering them useless.

I think a first level spell should still remain useful at higher levels, without having to waste a feat on it just to up the DC. All spells should scale with your level, so that your choices of useful spells only increases per level.

Get rid of feats that provide a +2 to a skill. They are all garbage.

Get rid of class-skills. It is a mess having to remember which skills are not core to your class, and require double skillpoint investments. Plus as a DM I have no way to check if my players are following this rule at all. It leads to situations where some of my players have ludicrous bonusses to their Spot, when Spot is not a core skill for their class. Which raises a lot of eyebrows.

Keep the +1 and +2 bonusses, but tone down the amount of spells and abilities that provide such bonusses. I don't want my players to keep having to remind their fellow players about their aura. I like that effects can stack in 3.X, but there is just too much of it.

Every core class should get an interesting new special ability every 2 levels or so. No class should have a bunch of blank spaces where their special ability should be, and they should be diverse. So not just a bunch of Favored Enemies in a row. Those do not make me excited to progress my class.

Multiple attacks suffer no penalties. I think this is a good suggestion, so I'll borrow it. Why make calculating your attack bonus to complicated?

Put some hard limits on wishes and all wish related spells and abilities.

Make all experience points party-wide. This may be controversial, but I have never understood why you would want individual exp. This is a game where you don't want players competing with each other.

Crafting a magic item should not cost experience points. The last thing a DM wants, is for their players to be on unequal levels (see above). If anything, it should require the completion of a quest to obtain a rare ingredient. The whole point of crafting a magic item is to become stronger, not weaker at the same time.

 

[R_J_K75]

Get rid of spell components entirely. Who even bothers with those?

I don't really use them unless its a powerful high level spell that I dont want thrown around at will or secondly even low level spells if a player just decides to cast a spell in the middle of the kings court room and expects to get away with it. Yeah, cause no one noticed you dig through your belt pouch, strike a pose and shout abracadabra for no reason? Even then I just acknowledge the fact the spell has components not whether the player has them. Regardless if they were removed from the game entirely I wouldn't care.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't really use them unless its a powerful high level spell that I dont want thrown around at will or secondly even low level spells if a player just decides to cast a spell in the middle of the kings court room and expects to get away with it. Yeah, cause no one noticed you dig through your belt pouch, strike a pose and shout abracadabra for no reason? Even then I just acknowledge the fact the spell has components not whether the player has them. Regardless if they were removed from the game entirely I wouldn't care.

I think in most people's campaigns they have always been more fluff than actual rule. Otherwise a spellcaster would constantly need to maintain a shopping list. Shopping for spell components also bogs down the game, plus it allows the DM to arbitrarily make some spell components unavailable, which would be unfair to the player. Plus no DM is going to check if a player actually has the required components for a spell. What it is, is unnecessary busy work. It has always been a bad rule, in EVERY edition of D&D.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think in most people's campaigns they have always been more fluff than actual rule. Otherwise a spellcaster would constantly need to maintain a shopping list. Shopping for spell components also bogs down the game, plus it allows the DM to arbitrarily make some spell components unavailable, which would be unfair to the player. Plus no DM is going to check if a player actually has the required components for a spell. What it is, is unnecessary busy work. It has always been a bad rule, in EVERY edition of D&D.

I was a player in a 2E campaign that took place in the North of the Forgotten Realms. This was around the time of Players Options Spells & Magic. That book had a table(s) which gave the percentage chance of finding and buying components. The DM actually did make me keep track of my spell components. On one hand it was annoying but on the other hand it really portrayed the North as being dangerous and isolated while travelling in winter. It made me give careful consideration to what spells I used and when. It was cool for that point in my life when we played alot, and it was pretty cut and dry whether certain components were available but Id never play that detailed now.

 

[Horwath]

@Zardnaar, from your post you do not want to fix 3.Xe. You want to add to 5E a small twist of 3.X and PF1/2

 

[Aldarc]

No mention of Star Wars Saga Edition? At the time, most thought that it would be the basis for 4e D&D.

 

[Zardnaar]

@Zardnaar, from your post you do not want to fix 3.Xe. You want to add to 5E a small twist of 3.X and PF1/2

I would still keep a lot of 3Eisms. Prestige classes for example.

Some things were also in AD&D.