WalkerInShadows's page

Also, for those of you who pound fists against XP costs, are you also people who complain about the Uberness of high level casters? Think about it.

You have a point, but I (personally) didn't like XP costs because they didn't make sense. XP represents learning, memories, and training - how do you *lose* that?

hmarcbower wrote:

I think the concept of returning to 1E/2E is most definitely NOT the point, and I think that's a point that a lot of people are missing in these discussions.

If there is a system in place that ends up making the game not fun for a subset of people that would like to run fighters after a certain level, shouldn't that be addressed or at least looked at?

Exactly!

Returning to 2e is not the point. In my games I have unhappy players that do not play fighters because of some of these issues in 3e.

<to hmarcbower> No, it's not the point. The point is that spellcasters are too powerful in 3E, relative to melee types. In previous editions they weren't. The reasons I pointed out in my post are WHY they weren't - so why don't we bring some or all of those mechanics forward into the d20 system? I don't want to play 2E again; I love d20.

The only reason 1e/2e/hackmaster was mentioned is because this specific issue is not an issue in those games - not because of some overriding desire to return to those games (after all, people still play them, myself included)

Right again.

If the core assumption is "It shouldn't be fun to play a melee warrior in combat because you will be outclassed by the wizard", then you are correct, we should change nothing in pathfinder.

And once again, I salute you, good sir. You have the right of it.

I've been reading this over with interest; several people have been alluding to the 1E/2E rules, but no one's seemed to realize exactly WHY spellcasters back then had it so hard. Yeah, they had longer casting times... but they also couldn't move. They had no Concentration checks - back then, you had to be pretty much *absolutely still* to cast a spell. The 2E PHB says that you couldn't cast a spell from the back of a mount travelling faster than a walk (now it's DC 10), riding in a bouncing wagon (DC 15), or on the deck of a storm-tossed ship (DC 20). It even says that you couldn't cast while riding in a chariot (I'd really like to see someone who's *actually* done that!) unless your friends are holding you steady.

Personally, I'd say if they move at all before casting that spell, they have to make a Concentration check - it disrupts their focus and the energy they're gathering to cast the spell. Make it DC 15 + 2 * spell level for a 5-foot step, or 10 + spell level + distance moved for anything more.

Casting a spell right next to the dragon? Hah, good luck - the DC is 10 + opponent's BAB + spell level.

Oh, and here's a good one - it specifically says that spellcasters lose their Dex bonus to AC while casting. That means, in d20 terms, that they're *flat-footed*. Try porting that over to your Pathfinder game and see how quickly spellcaster players learn to stay out of combat.

Which is the point, really - returning to the way it was back in 1E/2E, where spellcasters couldn't just step up into the middle of a melee and toss off spells left and right with impunity.

Absolutely agree, I had a pretty long post about this in the alpha, just before the beta was released. I've always thought having monster BAB/HD/Skills/etc. tied to creature type was a huge mistake.

...

I'd really like to see all the things currently lumped under type split into types and subtypes. With the Type (Fae, Monstrous Humanoid, etc.) adding special qualities, special abilities, bonuses/penalties to certain stats, alignment restrictions, etc.

And a subtype, something like "Brawler" or "Caster" controlling the creatures BAB, HD type, Saves, and Skill points.

Basically all the information in the SRD under the "Traits" section of a creature type would be a function of it's type, and all the information under "Features" would...

This is an excellent idea. I wouldn't want to go as far as 4E and define everything by role, though (even "Ogre: Large giant brawler" is too close, IMO); I'd just make the roles transparent. That is, they don't actually appear in the text anywhere. All monster types will have a default subtype (listed with the type information), and then in the back you can define how to create a monster with a different subtype - an ogre mage, for example, would just be an ogre with the caster subtype.

You can have 3-4 different subtypes: brawler, caster, sneak, and maybe healer. Each subtype would have a different stat array, BAB, and save progression; skill points remain a function of creature type, but the DM can swap out skills as needed to serve the new role.

This is I'd set the default role for each type:

Aberration: Depends on creature (most likely brawler)

Animal: Brawler or sneak (again, depends on creature);

Construct: Brawler

Dragon: Hmm. This is a tough one, because they're brawlers AND casters.

Elemental: Brawler

Fey: Caster

Giant: Brawler (can be healer/caster, but those are most likely going to be covered with class levels instead).

Humanoid: Depends on creature

Magical Beast: Brawler

Monstrous Humanoid: Depends on creature, usually brawler

Ooze: Brawler

Outsider: Depends on creature

Plant: Brawler

Undead: Depends on the creature. Liches et al would be casters; mindless undead, mummies, and "tough" undead would be brawlers; ghouls, wights, incorporeal, and other "sneaky" undead would be sneaks.

Vermin: Brawler, for the most part; I could easily see spiders as sneaks, though.

Here's what I've used for an evil bard PrC, the Dark Harlequin:

Cursed Music (Su): A Harlequin's bard levels stack with his class levels to determine the total level for purposes of his bardic music abilities. However, his music is also corrupted by the dark energy infusing his being - many of the bardic music abilties have the opposite effect when used while playing the special instrument, as noted below (alternate names are noted in parentheses, for those who wish to use them):

Fascinate (Dirge of Despair): Creatures are rooted in place from fear instead of enchantment. All other specifics of this ability remain unchanged, but creatures immune to fear cannot be affected (and those who gain a bonus to saves vs. fear also have it applied to this ability).

Inspire Courage (Inspire Fear): The Harlequin's singing and playing gives his enemies a -1 penalty to attack rolls, and a -1 penalty to saves vs. charm and fear effects. It has no effect on his allies.

Inspire Competence (Litany of Curses): The Harlequin inspires self-doubt in one being by denigrating its abilities and generally filling it with hopelessness. The target suffers a -2 competence penalty to skill checks for as long as the Harlequin plays and the target can hear him, up to 2 rounds per class level.

Suggestion: No change.

Inspire Greatness (Inspire Weakness): The target suffers a -2 penalty to Constitution, a -2 competence penalty to attack rolls, and a -1 penalty to Fort saves.

Song of Freedom: No change.

Inspire Heroism (Inspire Cowardice): The target suffers a -4 morale penalty to saves and a -4 penalty to attack rolls.

Mass Suggestion: No change.

They get other abilities like Dark Lullaby (put someone to sleep), song of discord (causes enemies to attack each other), requiem of the damned (his music can affect undead as well as the living), shattermind (feeblemind effect on one target), and symphony of destruction (as wail of the banshee, 1/day).

Here's a quick little idea I had... make lay on hands 1d4*level*Cha bonus. If the paladin wants to heal someone, he states a number of dice and rolls them. All other uses of lay on hands (cure disease, heal ability damage, etc.) use dice of healing instead of uses/day - cure disease would use 2 dice, remove curse 3, etc.

Con drain could work; I think I mentioned that wraiths already drain Con (so you might have to account for them). The main problem with ability drain in general, though, is the "cascade effect" draining ability scores has - if you drain Con, for instance, you have to adjust Fort saves, hit points, Con-based skills, etc.

I'd prefer to keep ability drain to long-term (preferably permanent) effects - that way it's easier to keep track of the changes. Stuff like bestow curse, which lasts for 1 day/level, or feeblemind (permanent) are all right. I suggested draining hit points because it's easy to keep track of - it's one number.

I'm sorry, what? I believe PF wants to reduce the use of magic items, as I do, but only to the point where we don't feel like we have to use them, Ability score increasers, AC increasers: These are the big ones.

Exactly. If you remove the addition of Int/Wis/Cha to the spellcasting DC, you remove the necessity of those stat-boosting items. Yes, they're still useful - they boost skill points, Will saves, and... well... skills - but they're not essential.

How'd you get a 29 Save DC? 10 + 10 + Ability... which would be a +7 on average, actually probably a bit lower, but we'll save +7. That's 27. I've never once seen a spell caster take spell focus because a +1 is, well, diddly compared to people's saving throws today. Wasn't worth it back then.

+1/8 levels from stat ups, +1/5 levels from item boosts = +9. +7 is probably closer to the mark; I've since changed my assumed stat modifier at a given level to 1/3 level + 1, which would give the optimized high save a 65% success, and the low save 25%. I wasn't counting feats at all.

So, a 29 if the wizard is casting a spell from his school and he has Spell Focus and greater spell focus. One feat could counter spell focus: Lightning Reflex, or whatever.

Those feats need to go back to +2/+4.

So yes, while I do believe that we need balance a Wizard has his spells and that's it. I see no reason that the person who devotes himself to magic has a slight edge over the person who doesn't have a high defense stat. If the defender had a high ability score versus the appropriate save, then it would be evenly matched.

Say huh? You don't see why the person who's totally devoted to magic should have an advantage over someone without a high defense stat? Am I missing something here?

If we make the save dc be based on spell level and not ability score then the wizard has no way of altering the score whatsoever, without expending precious feats that other characters don't have to spend on defending.

Sure... feats he's going to take anyway. It lets them spends their precious magic item slots on things besides headbands of intellect and cloaks of charisma - the mage can get a helm of telepathy, frex, or the sorcerer a cloak of the manta ray. Isn't one of the stated goals of PF to reduce the reliance on stat-boosting items?

Honestly, DC 29 for a L20 wizard casting a L9 spell is pretty impressive, considering the base save bonus (for a GOOD save) is +12. An optimized high save will be ~+20, which means he's only saving 55% of the time. An optimized low save will be ~+10 - that PC has little to no chance of saving. Seems like it's little different than before...

My biggest gripe with your proposal is not the raising of the DC values, but the fact that the mechanic flattens out the difference between a fireball and a wail of the banshee in terms of efficiency.

I'm fine with a 20° level wizard casting fireballs with higher-than-usual DCs, but they should be nonetheless lower than the DC for his most powerful spells.

Change it to 10 + 1/2 level + spell level. Leave ability mods for determining max spell level you can cast. This also eliminates figuring spell DCs on the fly when your ability scores change (animal buffs, ability drain, etc.) and eliminates some powergaming (epic spells that boost ability mods sky-high, frex).

He's got a point, Anfalas - you're not adding the extra bonuses multiple times, like you should be. Thanks for pointing this out - I totally missed it myself.

So I had this idea about immunity to crits and sneaks. Immunity sucks - it's a gamebreaker, and it makes certain classes (rogues) pretty well useless.

The idea: creatures that normally have immunity gain minor, lesser, or greater resistance. Minor would be 1/2 damage on sneaks and 1 less multiplier on crits (so a greataxe would do x2 damage on a crit instead of x3); lesser is 1/3 damage and 2 less; greater is 1/4 damage and 3 less.

Elementals and oozes* would get greater resistance; constructs and undead have lesser; and plants would have minor. Incorporeal creatures are still immune.

*Oozes have greater resistance to crits and immunity to sneaks because of their lack of a discernable anatomy.

On a semi-related note, I was thinking about crits on the way home from work, and I came up with another idea for dealing with them. Let's face it - randomly-rolled crits kinda suck. You roll a nat 20, confirm the crit... and roll minimum damage. WTF? So I thought of this:

Either the first die of damage is automatically maxed (so a longsword deals 8+1d8 damage),

or all but the last die of damage are maxed. For example, a greataxe (x3) would deal 20+1d10; a scythe (x4) would deal 24+2d4.

I'm not sure about the second option, since it would make high-crit weapons exceptionally powerful, but I think at least the first die should be maxed, to properly reward rolling a critical hit.

Ok, this sounds good. I like these ideas. I think -1 might be kinda week however. But over all, it is still scary. So what happens if an energy level draining nasty hits you say 4 times in a battle? What then?....-4?

-1 what? He was talking about the existing rule, where if you lose a level (or "gain a negative level") you suffer a -1 penalty to attack rolls, skill checks, etc. So yeah, under that rule, they'd stack.

Ok, it is not a great idea and yes this is abstract. But how do you deal with it? A -1 on rolls for a day? Are you kidding? Some crazed incoporeal undead just sucked the life litteraly out of you. Again, I cant stand leveling down. Bt how best can you deal with the effects of life-draining energy?

XP represent learned experiences - effectively, memories and training. It has little to do with "life force".

I would love to come up with a way to accurately model energy drain. Draining Con points is, perhaps, the closest; my hit point idea kind of fell on its face. Although, gaining all the hit points you drain is a nice benefit. You could increase the number of points drained by 1 (2 for 1d4, 3 for 1d6, etc.); thus, an enervation would drain 5-20 hp from a fighter. You could also have someone who failed his save be slowed for a couple rounds from the draining. Course, this would make some undead extremely dangerous, if they hit and drain every round.

You could even up the number of "levels" drained with enervation via the hit point rule, to make it more powerful; maybe 1d4+1/level (up to +15), and energy drain would be 2d4+1/level (to +25). That would make them nasty spells (and much better than now, IMO), but not necessarily insta-kill.

If you go the Con drain route, you'd have to change the wraith's special attack (they drain 1d4 Con/hit), but it could otherwise be a workable solution too. Then, you simply rule that some spells/creatures deal Con damage (enervation or wraiths, e.g.; can be regained through rest) and some deal Con drain (energy drain, specters and vampires; can only be regained via spells). No waiting 24 hours, no second save - it's checked once and done with.

Vampiric touch needs to be nerfed, though, whatever you do with energy drain - draining 10d6 hp and gaining them as temp hp (even for a touch attack) is a bit much, IMO. I'd drop it to 1d4/level. While enervation would still drain less, it's a ray vs. a touch attack.

All I do is keep the -1 penalty as normal for a negative level (and the few other things that go along with it)...then keep it if they fail the save 24 hours later. They are stuck with the negative level (-1 penalty) until the character gains another level. They don't lose XP, don't lose feats or skills, etc. They still gain XP as normal. When they gain another level then the negative level goes away.

Isn't that how PF does it? I know I've seen that rule somewhere.

In that way, for a sorcerer or mage its better to cast magic missile. You take a 3 in the dice, if im a fighter i'd lost only 12 hit points with a level 4 spell.

True. I forgot to mention the caster gains those hit points as healing, but it's still worse than vampiric touch. =(

You could just make it Con drain, and a secondary effect like temporary fatigue... this follows the idea of "draining the life force". If the second save fails, the Con drain becomes permanent like normal.

I dont like level drain either. Too much to keep track of. I do like negative XP however. Here is my idea.

I'd have to agree with Neceros on this one. Not only is draining XP a bad idea (because XP is NOT life force), but stopping play to divide numbers by some arcane formula is a really bad idea. Division is difficult (it requires a calculator, most times). D20 is all about simple math - addition and subtraction.

As I was looking over enervation and energy drain a little while ago, I had an idea. Energy drain is kind of cool, but negative levels are stupid - even with them being simplified in 3.5, it's still more stuff to keep track of, AND you lose XP if they become "permanent".

So, I thought, why not just make it hit point drain? The number of hit points drained depends on your HD type: 1 (1d4), 2 (1d6), 3 (1d8), 4 (1d10), or 5 (1d12). In the case of multiclass PCs, negative levels are always taken from the highest class first; if that class is drained to 0 levels, then it starts on the next highest, etc. If two or more classes are equal, then it goes with the highest HD. 24 hours after losing the HD/hit points, you make a second Fort save as normal or lose them permanently. If the creature's effective HD total is reduced to 0, or its hp total to 0 (or negative Con score for PCs), it dies.

Lost hit points can be recovered at the rate of 1 HD's worth per day of rest; a lesser restoration will restore 1d4 HD, restoration 1d6+1, and greater 1d8+2 (the latter two will restore permanently lost hp).

In any case, there are NO other penalties applied. Since the spell is not actually draining HD/levels, there is no need for it.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ...

Unarmed strikes are natural weapons. The align weapon and magic fang spells both state this. Making monk unarmed strike both manufactured AND natural is a stupid move made simply to allow them to benefit from spells like GMW (whereas greater magic fang would work just as well).

One idea I was toying around with (regarding the buff thing) was making a "buff cap" a la Neverwinter Nights. In NWN, you can't have greater than +12 to an ability score (from any combination of sources), +50 (I think) to skills, etc. If you applied this to D&D, it would be a very unobtrusive rule (no recalculation needed) and would serve quite nicely to keep rampany power creep in check.

As far as keeping spells in check... longer casting times across the board is a bad idea. In some cases, yes - I'm going to make teleport 1 standard action for a single person, plus 1 round per extra person. I changed save or die spells to save or dying (failed save = negative 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, or 1d10 hp, depending on spell level, and you can't recover on your own). I've got plenty more, but that's just the basics.

That is why I believe that eliminating the option of full-round actions is a stem in the right direction. The mechanics have to be re-built to leave at least a certain amount of options and keep the game compatible and equivalent to older prints.

Agreed. I was thinking of reducing iteratives to every +10 AB (so you get a second attack at +10, and a third at +20; after that, the EAB kicks in). Reducing the number of attacks has two benefits: a) combat lasts longer than 5 rounds; and b) the PCs might actually do something besides "I full attack" because other options might be as good or better.

I think the easiest way to encourage full-round actions with attacks is to make some high-level feats like Quick Step (I changed this one to let the PC get half his move and a full attack). Make some feats that allow you to take an action and make one or two or all of your attacks. Make a feat like Pounding Strike that lets the PC make a single attack with a bludgeoning weapon as a standard action, but it deals extra damage and knocks the opponent prone. PHB II has some interesting stuff toward this end.

CMB 15+12 = +27

Make a CMB check to maintain the grapple D20+27, possible 47 or 3.5 Rules make opposed grapple check D20+12! possible 32.

The 15 + CMB thing is for the opposed roll. It's a static number - you don't add 1d20 to it. Your PC's CMB would be 1d20+12, not 1d20+15+12.

As far as ASF - why not change it to a Concentration check penalty? You can wear armor, and cast spells while in armor, but you have to make a check to do it, and the type of armor provides a penalty to the check.

Ranger HiPS only applies in natural settings - it's not nearly as powerful as the SD's HiPS. I also agree that rogues shouldn't get HiPS - if they want it, they should take levels in SD. They've got plenty of abilities as it is.

The dying rules you sugest sound a lot like the 4ed rules, but never the less I like them.

Parallel development - I came up with my version about 6 months ago.

The SoD cap sound great but I would go even further with the cap.

For example Single-taget So: max HD = caster level, multi target SOD = casterlevel / 2.

The single target caps for L6-7 spells are already HD = CL; L8 is CL = HD+2, and L9 is CL = HD+3. Multiple targets just build off an already-existing progression. Circle of death works exactly as I stated above, and cloudkill (L5) also acts as a SoD for anything up to 6 HD (up to 3 HD is no save).

The way they work now they are kind of boring because they add to the list of "just damage" spells and at the same time are still SoD spells when you factor in the massive damage rules.

Yeah, I don't like that either.

Actually that is just as it is supposed to work in Pathfinder (see Alpha 3 page 155).

That's a pretty common house rule.

I've been looking over the death spells, seeing how I can change them to not be so "save or suck".

Now, one thing I've done is to change the death/dying rules so that a) you die when you hit negative Con score, not -10; and b) each round, you make a Con check to stabilize; if the check succeeds by 0-5, there's no change; if it's 6+, you go to 0 hp, and if it fails, you lose 1 hp. 3 failures and you die.

So, with death spells, what I did is instead of "save or die", it's "save or be reduced to dying, but you automatically fail the stabilize rolls". Which means there's still a good chance of dying if your friends don't get to you in time.

One other idea I'm toying with (and the reason I'm posting this) is putting a HD cap on what can be affected by a given spell level (like the damage caps). For instance, circle of death is L6; it affects 1d4 HD/level (20d4 max), with a 9 HD cap. So what I suggest is:

L6 single-target: 12 HD; multi-target: 9 HD

L7 single-target: 15 HD; multi-target: 12 HD

L8 single target: 18 HD; multi-target: 15 HD

L9 single target: 21 HD; multi-target: 18 HD.

These caps are for arcane and divine - there's no difference.

Thus, a spell like wail of the banshee could kill up to 1 creature/level that has no more than 18 HD.

While this system is interesting, I'd have to agree that it wouldn't work for PF's paradigms of adhering as closely to backwards compatibility as they can.

We used to use much the same system in 2E, and it worked quite well. Cyclical initiative, I believe it's called; Rifts uses the same thing.
Those systems used attacks only, though - your first attack would go on your initiative count (x), the second on x - weapon speed (2E) or x - a flat number (Rifts; IIRC). In 3E, you could just do x - 5 for iterative attacks.

The good point about it is that it more closely imitates the ebb and flow of combat, instead of just "blow off all my attacks in the blink of an eye." The bad point, as mentioned, is that you need to keep track of when your next action comes up, but if you have reasonably intelligent players/DM, I don't see this as that bad a problem. It would make a great optional system, but I wouldn't make it core because it breaks the d20 paradigm of "simplicity over all" - it's more a system for experienced players, IMO.

I don't get why move actions use the bottom action slot instead of the next available one - it'd be much easier to keep track of things. For example: The ranger moves to close with the goblin (first slot), attacks (second slot), drops his daggers and draw the bow (third), and shoots (fourth). See? Simple.

Anti-Magic Shell works just fine. NOTHING magic works inside, not magic items, not spells, not spell casters. It's the same level as Globe of Invulnerability because it's centered on the caster and it completely blocks the caster from casting spells.

Sure, but if you rule that globe of invulnerability DOES work like AMF (which I think it should), suddenly AMF becomes the no-brainer choice for L6 spells over globe. It should be bumped up in level anyway - no other spell provides blanket immunity to every spell of every level above it, and it's completely immune to everything short of a disjunction (and even then it's only a 1%/caster level chance).

And, of course, there's the problem I mentioned before of permanent magic items suddenly losing their bonuses - suddenly everyone has to recalculate their attack/AC bonuses and whatnot. And, of course, it leads to questions like "Can I stand at the edge of an AMF and swing my weapon outside it and still get the bonus?" (Honest, I've actually seen someone ask that.) Or, "Do magical ranged weapons regain their bonus if I throw them out of an AMF?"

Globe of Invulnerability:

Clean this up. In previous editions, it was pretty straightforward. In 3.x's legalese, it's a nightmare.

Nah... you want to know what's a nightmare? Antimagic field. I've got some proposed changes for that one...

It has limited effect on permanent magic items. That is, enhancement bonuses are not suppressed - they're part of the item, just like constructs ("imbued with magic during the construction process," if you will). Additional effects, like elemental damage, keen, alignments, etc. ARE suppressed. This eliminates a lot of problems - recalculating bonuses and AC - while still maintaing some of the spell's power.

Items that use/cast spells (including some permanent magic items) don't work. A wand of fireballs, for instance, just fizzles - no charges are used, no spell comes forth; it's just suppressed.

Still, if any spell needs a level adjustment, it's this one. It's WAY better than globe of invulnerability, but it's the same level! I'd bump it up to 9th - it's effectively a greater globe, thus it'd be +3 levels over globe.

Rather than go over all the other problematic spells I've found, I'll just point you to a document of stuff I've fixed. It's a little out of date; I haven't gotten around to making some further changes, but it should give you a good base to work from.

I never really thought about the rules for teleport and didn't really link Dimension Door to Teleport mechanically but I now have to. I have an Eberron campaign with 2 marked Oriens one of which is a blade. They constantly do stupid cool but stupid things with Dimensional Leap and their other powers. Both are greater marks and the blade is up to 4 or 5 DLs every day. We have had to address repeatedly questions like:

I'm sorry, but most of this is common sense. Lessee...

Can I teleport by Dead Reckoning? Dimension Door says yes, Telport says no.

DD requires that you can see the endpoint. Teleport doesn't.

Can I teleport into thin air?

Sure, why not? It just means you'll fall.

Can I teleport into Water? Snow? Rain?

You can't teleport into solid matter (to include water or a snowbank). Rain is not solid matter.

Does Teleportation make noise?

Now this is actually a smart question. You could rule this either way - that the body and the air in the space it's going to occupy instantaneously swap space, or that the body simply leaves a vaccuum, which collapses with a loud pop and displaces the air at the end point. I've usually seen it done the second way in literature.

What happens if someone is standing where I teleport?

What if someone moved the furniture?

See #3, above. If solid matter suddenly appears in the intended destination space, the spell would shunt you to the nearest open space automatically - it's a failsafe.

I want to take a look at this. Drop me a copy at mistmane at yahoo dot com.

I was thinking of doing it as only one sneak attack/round, though you could still make your full complement of attacks (and the sneak attack applies on the first hit, not the first attack). The reasoning behind this is that once you've stuck a blade in the target, he'll be aware of you and guarding against you sticking a blade in the same place again.

Okay guys, check this out. It's a new take on the paladin called the champion (working title; I don't really like the name). Champions are holy warriors of their gods - they can be of any alignment (though it's very easy to restrict it to good or even LG if you want). I took some bits from my Divine Champion, some from Paizo's paladin, added some extra stuff, and mixed it all together to come up with something new.

The Champion has auras, similar to Pathfinder; smite the unbelievers (those of opposing alignment or faith); added versatility for their lay on hands (it's a separate ability, but similar mechanic) - they can cure or inflict disease, poison, ability damage, or negative levels; bonded weapons/mounts; and slightly boosted spell progression. They also have a high Will save - rangers get two good saves, and clerics have a high Will save, so why shouldn't champions too? Besides, giving them a high Will save makes up for their loss of Wis as a primary stat.

The "minions" table mentioned in there is a unified animal companion/mount/familiar table; I haven't done the improved mounts thing yet, but it'll be similar to the druid's improved animal companions.

The Champion. A warrior that uses divine power to fight on behalf of his deity or for a particular cause.

There would be alternate class features at certain levels based on alignment.

Something like this?

One thing I'm thinking of doing is changing the way they work - instead of getting a new attack when you hit +6, +11, etc., you gain a second attack at +10, and a third at +20*. The new attack is always at BAB -5, so it would be +10/+5, and then +20/+15/+10. This accomplishes several things:

Eliminates the lowest attack, which has a very small chance of hitting anything anyway (trust me, I've done an analysis to prove it);

Cuts down on dice rolling (and thus makes combat move faster);

Eliminates the need for Perfect TWF (admittedly minor, but still).

*I've also instituted a rule whereby everyone's BAB increases to +20 - the epic attack bonus doesn't kick in until you get +20. This eliminates the Ftr 20/Wiz 20 vs. Wiz 20/Ftr 20 problem, as well as fiddling around with PC/NPC class levels to get the most out of BAB before they hit 20th level and everything is standardized.

I know you're not asking me, but do you mean something like this?

Sounds like a good idea to me. I reworked the encumbrance rules some time back (see here), and I'm going to yoink this rule too.

Reason I think no one's posted is that encumbrance isn't really that important to 90% of groups. As long as the PCs aren't trying to haul around 2903840 pounds of junk, the DM handwaves it.

The main problem here is that certain feats require you to be proficient with a given weapon. For example, monks can't select weapon focus (unarmed) if they're not proficient with with unarmed strikes.

Monks get all their other bonus feats for free, even if they don't qualify for them (see Stunning Fist), so maybe the designers simply applied the same assumption to IUS too. (Hey, I never said it made sense...)

Technically, only weapons require proficiency to avoid the -4 to attack. Manufactured weapons and natural weapons are described as being weapons. Unarmed attacks are never described as being weapons. So technically, there is no bug. No one suffers a penalty for making unarmed attacks because unarmed is not a weapon.

Well if it's not a weapon, then you can't use it in combat.

I think the easiest solution would be to declare it an improvised weapon. Humanoids are tool-makers and -users - we rely on weapons first, fists second, so unless you're a brawler, boxer, or martial artist, you don't know how to use your fists effectively. IUS is effectively the "Weapon Proficiency (Unarmed Strike)" feat. Ditch the "if you use fists you're unarmed thing", which drops the AoO (fewer things that incur AoOs is a good thing, IMO). Unless you have IUS, you suffer a -4 to attacks with unarmed strike. See? Simple.

I did something similar, except that instead of percentages (because I hate percentage chances and absolutes), I did:

Heavy fortification: Reduces sneak attack by 15d6, crits by 3 steps (a scythe deals x1 damage on a crit, e.g.); oozes and elementals have this.

Medium fortification: Reduces sneak attacks by 10d6, crits by 2 steps; constructs and skeletal undead have this.

Light fortification: Reduces sneak attacks by 5d6, crits by one step; plants and most corporeal undead have this.

Incorporeal creatures are still completely immune to crits and sneaks.

Things i'd like to see:

- Removel of meta magic restrictions from this class, as this would make the most of the sorcerers advantages.

I've been lurking for awhile, reading various threads, and after seeing this come up repeatedly, I just had to post.

While this may seem like a good idea, it's not. In Neverwinter Nights, sorcerers don't suffer the increased casting time for metamagic. I play in an NWN persistent world (basically an NWN MMO); not long ago, a bunch of us were talking about sorcerers vs. wizards, and I asked - since the sorcerer doesn't suffer increased casting time, how does he stack up against the wizard? One player, who has a L33 sorcerer (L39 overall, and one of the most powerful PCs in that world) said that pre-epic, a sorcerer will wipe the floor with a wizard of equal level. After 20th, when the wizard gets Auto-metamagic (remember, back in 3E they added 3 levels of spells each), the playing field is levelled.

Now, you might say "Well, that's one player, with a powerful sorcerer." Sure... but he also does a lot of coding for the team who runs that world, mostly spell systems. He's been playing that PC for years, and he's not a stupid person either - he's going to school for a law degree. Several other sorcerer players also chimed in with similar sentiments - unlimited metamagic gives sorcerers too much of an edge over wizards, even with the limited spell selection.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing them get their spells earlier, though (and be able to swap spells more than once/2 levels); I think the increased casting time is enough to balance out the spontaneous metamagic. Limited spell selection is balanced by lack of versatility. Nothing, however, balances out the delayed spell progression.

I think there should be support. Even if you guys decide, for whatever reason, not to, you should take a hard look at the things that make epic play break down - immunities, for instance; subsystems like turning undead; and skill checks. Especially skill checks. D&D was designed around the idea that a "difficult" check is DC 15, which is absurd to begin with - someone with 4 ranks can make that 45% of the time. DC modifiers should be increased so that there are some things that a 1st level character simply cannot do - craft masterwork plate mail, for instance, or track a Fine spider (a Fine creature has a DC modifier of +8. +8!!).