What's your 3.5e wishlist?

[zorlag]

-

Most of my wishes have been mentioned here already, but there's one thing more:

Paladins and Blackguards rolled into one base class, could be called "Holy Warrior" or something like that. Book of the Righteous has great, flexible holy warrior class but it still lacks options for evil holy warriors. Basically it works so that player chooses two "domains" (which are different from cleric domains) that grant certain special abilities to the holy warrior and then gets some other abilities based on his god. Check the book (BotR) out if you haven't already, it's great...

Z.

 

[Apok]

I hate to break it to everyone, but the ranger was a two-weapon wielder -before- 3E...

Yes, but the statement is still pertinent if you look at it from outside the context of 3e. The Ranger was made into a "two-fisted wildernazi" around the time of 2e (don't recall the 1e ranger, but I know they got wizard spells). It was a mistake then and it still is.

 

[LostSoul]

Honestly, I'd like to see a lot edgier stuff. Things that would probably fit into the Book of Vile Darkness (don't have it yet) or the Netbook of Sex. But handled in a mature way. (Nothing like Skill Checks for sex, or anything like that; more like rules for pregnancy and benefits for intimacy.)

I'd also like to see a lot more about building adventures outside of the dungeon, and what that means to the balance of PC groups.

 

[Kithmaker]

Yes, but the statement is still pertinent if you look at it from outside the context of 3e. The Ranger was made into a "two-fisted wildernazi" around the time of 2e (don't recall the 1e ranger, but I know they got wizard spells). It was a mistake then and it still is.

Fair enough, but why is it a mistake? It's a somewhat exclusive ability that the Ranger is known for. It's like Barbarian rage or Monk unarmed strikes. I'd just like to know what people would have in place of it if it were removed.

(as an aside, I really detest the way they handled Tracking in 3E)

 

[kengar]

I just thought of another, less drastic, change I'd like to see. Make the chain shirt medium armor, or drop the max DEX bonus to +3, or lose it entirely.

I consider it the single most unbalanced piece of mundane equipment in the game. IME, EVERYONE ALWAYS wears the chain shirt for armor if they wear any at all. I have never had a player choose chainmail or plate. Only once in a while (like with druids) will a character choose leather or hide.

In the DMG, it talks about creating items or spells for your campaign and says if the item (or spell) created is so useful that everyone would take it, then it's probably unbalanced. By that rationale, the chain shirt is unbalanced.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Wyckedemus]

Chain Shirts and the Mithral Problem

My problem with Chain shirts, Breastplates, and Full plate is the super cheap price of MITHRAL. Now Mithral is supposed to be good stuff...just about the BEST stuff, and I don't think it should be lessened in power, but the bang for the buck...?

1,100gp for a mithral chain shirt? That's sick!

The price suggests that it is common enough that someone with the money could buy it. This kind of money isn't that hard to get in a fantasy game. All it takes is to find a +1 weapon that no one can use properly or a weak magic item that costs about 2,000gp and the super special mithral chain shirt is buyable! (I'm even assuming selling the unwanted item for half price.)

The statistics that mithral provides is by far more valuable than a magical version of the armor. AND it costs less by about 150gp. (Mithral is 1,100gp 'cause it is already MW... Magical chain shirt requires MW quality to enchant and is therefore 1,250gp)

What would you choose? +1 mithral chain shirt for 2,100gp or a +2 steel chain shirt for 4,250gp?

That last question proves my point. There's no contest.

I believe that the prices for these (supposedly rare and highly prized) metals such as mithral and adamantine should be either be raised or have their mechanic altered.

Perhaps the price raise could be one step up from what it currently is. The price for Medium armor would become the price for Light, the price for Heavy would be the price for Medium, and the price of Heavy would be even higher.

Perhaps a mechanic change could look like this...Mithral (or adamantine) when crafted into armor acts as an enhancement already when it is first crafted. Therefore, to enhance a Mithral Chain Shirt further with magic, you would need to pay the price of a +2 armor to make it a magical +1. This hearkens back to an archaic idea that elven chainmail was so good it couldn't be enchanted. But now it would just be just harder.

My complaint is that if you make something so inexpensive that everyone wants it, then it is too cheap. At least make it a choice that people have to consider before commiting to. Every armored PC I know (including mine) wears mithral armor. Mainly because it is so cheap for the benefit.

-Sam E.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yes, but the statement is still pertinent if you look at it from outside the context of 3e. The Ranger was made into a "two-fisted wildernazi" around the time of 2e (don't recall the 1e ranger, but I know they got wizard spells). It was a mistake then and it still is.

No, no it isn't. The 1e ranger had a lot of... shall we say quirks... that didn't make it the best class in the world. For one thing, no stealth skills. The original ranger was best played in platemail. Another thing, the double hit dice at level 1, like the monk -- major rules inconsistency -- and the twin spell lists, arcane and divine. The 1e ranger was every ninja fan's dream. But at least it had a class focus: tracking, and goblin/giant-slaying. That's what a ranger is.

2e cleaned it up. d10 hit die, like the other fighers. Divine spells only, like the other fighters (meanwhile, the rogue group was arcane spells only in 2nd edition). And more importantly, they added Move Silently, Hide and Shadows, and Two-Weapon fighting, when the ranger wore light armor. These were three huge benefits available to the ranger who stuck to studded leather. Species enemy had been so nerfed in 2e that people seemed to forget that the ranger's prime focus is monster-slaying, and that woodcraft was a means to that end. But 2-weapon skill made sense if you knew anything about the 1e rules.

In 1st edition, like in 2nd edition, 2-weapon fighting was available to any warrior or rogue, at -2/-4 penalties, offset by your Dexterity bonus to ranged attacks. That meant that rangers, who required a Dex 15 and often had a higher score there, could often fight with 2 weapons at no penalty in 1st edition anyway. And since 1st edition allowed only daggers and hand axes as off-hand weapons, the ranger with his hunting knife and woodsman's hatchet was in gold. The fact that the 2e rules expanded two-weapon fighting to include same-size weapon pairs at a further -2/-2 was quite realistic; in 1st edition, only dark elves could carry two swords (when real-world human martial artists have been doing so with broadswords for centuries ).

 

[Victim]

I disagree. To effectively use Mithral, you already have to have a high dex, which will cost you in some way or another. When your character has an 8 Dex, that Mithral plate doesn't look so spiffy. The arcane failure is better as are the check penalties, but chances are that if you're plate wearing class with 8 dex, failure at the skills modified by armor will be assumed. If I only have 12 dex, most of the extra cost for a mithral chain shirt is a waste.

And, for the high dex characters that Mithral appeals to, it can eventually become a limit. For example, a halfling rogue can reasonably start with 18 Dex. He'll probably increase with magic items and level points, since it affects his skills, Reflex save, attacks with finessed daggers, AC, etc. In time, the chain shirt that he wore at level 1 or 2 will start to slow him down (max dex +4). But by then he'll probably have enough money to get a mithral shirt. However, that only caps at +6. An 8th level halfling or elf can have that with minor magic or a lucky roll. By level 16, it will be a bit confining.

The last 2 characters I saw with Mithral armor were a Spellsword who used at for the arcane failure reduction, and a rogue who was planning on switching armor because a 22 dex was too low.

 

[Tom Cashel]

This just occurred to me...

The most important thing I'd like to see included in D&D 3E is....

(cheap drumroll)

A functional INDEX!!!!

 

[buzz]

Minor tweaks

Rangers could be cooler, yeah, but the things I really want to see are fairly simple:

Take the rules for Delay, Jump, and Stabilization from d20M and drop them into 3e unchanged.

Seriously. All of these make way more sense in d20M than they do in 3e.

I'd also like to see more variant rules presented in the DMG. E.g., incorporating level-based defense bonuses to AC for use in low-magic campaigns, how to import the VP/WP mechanic properly, ditto armor as DR, etc.

I'd also love more "toolkit" advice, e.g., how to make *balanced* prestige classes, how to properly design monsters, and all that.