Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4595904" data-attributes="member: 4722">Thanks for all the replies so far.Done that. I boosted the low save to 4/10 instead of 1/3, so the difference at L20 is only 4 instead of 6. Once the EAS kicks in, the saves stay fairly close together.Yeah... I'm working on that too - I (with a suggestion from someone else) came up with an idea for bonuses - intrinsic (stuff that always applies, like armor, shield, and size), internal (stuff that applies from boosted abilities, like competence and enhancement), and external (anything that's applied from an outside source, like deflection or luck. How it works is that all intrinsic bonuses stack (assuming they're different types), and you get ONE internal and ONE external - the best/worst of each. I also cut down the number of bonuses a bit, and I changed the animal buffs to end-of-chain boosts - instead of buffing the stat itself, they act checks and rolls related to that stat. Bull's strength, e.g., grants a +2 bonus to anything modified by Strength, but not the actual Strength score itself.That's a tough one. I agree that some monsters have WAY too many SLAs and spells and such (angels!), but I'm not sure how to cut them down without underpowering them.Part of that is the players, too - the more familiar they are with their characters, the easier things would go.I've seen that; I saw it posted here as "The Rule of 20" a few years back. I thought about using it awhile ago, then dropped the idea for some reason. I'll have to look at it again.I also came up with an idea called <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/245190-fixing-high-skill-checks-rule-3-a.html" target="_blank">"The Rule of 3"</a>. Basically, the idea is to fix high skill scores by dividing them by 3 - you keep the existing score, but just divide it by 3, so the DM can scale the DCs down to reasonable levels; making something that would challenge both a cleric with a +15 Spot and a rogue with +45 Spot is impossible, but +5 and +15 is easily doable. Unfortunately, it met with a lot of negative criticism (mostly "Why bother when I can just scale the DCs to fit the skill scores?") so I decided to leave it as an optional rule.I'm got a solution for save-or-dies already (well, kind of - instead of "BAM, you're dead!" it's "BAM, you're dying and could die!" You're still out of the battle, but you're not completely screwed.Combats don't last very long to start with, IME. The number of hit points monsters have generally scales upward to keep pace with damage output.I've got a couple solutions to that one. One is to boost armor bonuses through mastercrafting; another is to give monsters EAB/EAS (which they really should have had to start with). So, PCs' ACs can get higher, and monsters won't have overwhelming ABs.Immunities. Yeah. I've always felt immunities should be special, not something that everyone and their dog Ralph has, so I've severely limited them. This should make more spells viable for a longer period of time, instead of forcing everyone to rely on stuff that either has no save, or specifically works against the target's low save. That's classic. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification