|
In reading these posts, something interesting seems to be emerging. Many (although certainly not all) of the ideas presented seem to be in line with many of the changes we have been hearing WOTC say they are actually making in 4E.
Now, I don't know how much of that is completely coincidence or even insight on the part of WOTC and how much is, at least to some degree, simply a function of people reading or hearing WOTC say a particular mechanic needs fixing which in turn gets one thinking about it and then deciding it does in fact need fixing.
In other words, were we all saying to each other long before 4E was announced that these various things need fixing only to eventually find out that Mearls and co are in fact fixing the very things we wanted fixed OR is it more the other way around? (or is it, as I suspect, some grey area somewhere in the middle?)
I guess my point is, although I am in no way a big "Whoopie for 4E" guy, I can't help but notice that many of the aspects of D&D 3.5 in this thread listed as needing fixed seem to line up pretty well with what is in fact being fixed.
I don't know ... maybe 4E may not be quite the big cluster-bang we originally though it would be ...
(for the record, I still believe 100% that these digital Dragon and Dungeon magazines suck in every possible way imaginable)
Well, a lot of us want to see fixes by tweaking things so that it is backwards compatible. The designers want to redo the whole system, so there is no backwards compatibility, so now you have to go out and buy 3 to 9 books to get all of the basic classes, races, monsters, and rules just to play.
|
In reading these posts, something interesting seems to be emerging. Many (although certainly not all) of the ideas presented seem to be in line with many of the changes we have been hearing WOTC say they are actually making in 4E.
That is what they are doing. MY problem with 4E is that they are fixing a lot of other things that simply aren't broken. +3 Wands sound cool and all, but its not as if we need that. I like Vancian Magic personally. I've played wizards and DM'd wizards. Vancian Magic never was a problem for the poor wizard. The only problem was with Clerics and healing. Beefing up the Heal Skill to actually Heal people (Heal check-15 = hps cured) after a wounding goes a long way to making the "rest up and heal" problem go away.
The Attrition on spellcasting isn't as bad as you might think. Fighters who can literally fight 24 hours a day without rest is a bit ridiculus. Why should wizards be able to do so as well? The problem is actually opposite, and I think WoTC knows it: hello fighter manuevers.
The biggest problems with 3E are in the adventure design that hasn't caught up with the system. Paizo is doing a damn good job, and getting better all the time. Less encounters per dungeon goes a long way to fixing the big problem of attrition. And for those who enjoy a long haul: Better stock up on potions and scrolls. Its all there, it just gets poorly utilized.
My fix for the complaints about a wizard having to resort to crossbows (or some other ranged weapon) when they run out of spells would be to do the following—
Remove crossbows from the list of items they are proficient with and instead let them choose one of the following spells: acid splash, or ray of frost
The wizard can use one 0 level slot for the day and cast their chosen spell a number of times equal to their intelligence score.
What do you guys think, pros/cons
I have wizards and sorcerers sacrifice hit points to cast spells once they run out. Wizards sacrifice twice times the level of the spell, sorcerers sacrifice three times the level of the spell. You can sacrifice until you run out of hit points, but NOT into negatives. I personally don't care for turning spells into x-times per day abilities. I've had lots of fun with the much maligned +2 to two separate skills, although I've altered the iron will, lightning reflexes and great fortitude to be +4, which has increased the fun of the game for my players substantially.
I've actually been working on writing my own variant player's handbook for use in my own games. It borrows heavily from Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved, as I feel that those two systems did a lot of innovative things that worked really well. Namely, the following points:
Skills are reworked so that each class has access to skill groups. For example, the Perception skill group includes the Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot skills. Each skill is still used independantly of the others, but investing one point into Perception grants one point in each of the subsequent skills. Each class receives slightly fewer skill points per level, and although all skills are treated as class skills, only certain classes get access to certain skill groups. This way, a character can branch out into skills it finds interesting while still retaining the central skills of any given class.
Spells are split into three categories, representing the difficulty they are to learn -- simple, complex, and exotic (I think someone already mentioned this). Simple spells can be cast by most hybrid caster classes, while complex spells are the sole domain of classes such as wizard. Exotic spells are rare, powerful spells that can only be learned by spending a feat.
Based off of one of Monte Cook's suggestions in his blog, I've split feats into "Minor" and "Major" feats, costing 1 or 2 "feat points," respectively. A character recieves 1 feat point per level. Under this system, it's possible to design feats that have very specific purposes or are flavorful but not quite as useful as standard feats, yet still viable character choices because they cost less to purchase.
By my own design, many class abilities are removed and become feats. This, combined with the increased volume of feats noted above, allows characters to customize their characters more and create characters based on their own vision, instead of being guided along a rather direct advancement path.
There's more, but that's the major stuff.
Ok, your turn - what would you fix about 3.5?
I'm all for the keeping it simple. Flavor issues should not be addressed, as any competent DM can deal with flavor issues (especially if he's playing with a group of reasonably like-minded players).
My biggest gripes with 3.5 are:
1] That high-level play gets bogged down with stacking effects.
2] The combat section could be cleaned up quite a bit.
3] Multiclassing bites it for spellcasters and, in 3.5, the only "fix" is to take PrCs like the Mystic Theurge.
4] Weapon size rules are lame!
5] Too many sourcebooks = power creep.
--------------------------------------
How would I fix this? (This is a rough guidelines... the devil's in the details)
Make a 3.75 PHB that:
1] Streamlines overly-complicated spell effects and lay out a more intuitive means of tracking "stacking" effects.
2] Streamline the combat section by making combat maneuvers more intuitive (make them all opposed ability checks and have them use the same die-roll mechanic). NEVER use action types other than Standard Actions, Move Actions (including Move-Equivalent Actions) and Free Actions.
3] Fix multiclassing so that multiclassed casters don't take such a hit. At the same time, provide guidelines for making balanced PrCs so that players don't need splatbooks. Give examples from the SRD and show how they are built.
4] Go back to 3.0 weapon charts.
5] If a self-contained game can be made and Pathfinder & Game Mastery adventures only need the 3.75 PHB, DMG and Monster Manuals, the game wouldn't have to worry about a glut of sourcebooks mucking up the works.
All I want is a single system for all special attacks.i want grapples, trips, bull-rushes and suchall to have one rule I can remember. A maneuver rule, with an opposed check. That's it.
Everything is is fine, within the lmits of house-rules.
While we're posting rules variants, here's my turn undead variant.
A cleric may turn an undead creature of a maximum number of HD equal to his cleric level plus his CHA mod. To turn undead, you take a standand action as normal, and roll 1d20 + 1/2 your cleric level + your CHA mod. The result is the total number of HD worth of undead you can turn. For example, If you're a 2nd level cleric with a CHA bonus of +2, you can turn a 4 HD undead. Let's say 10 zombies get all in your face, each having 1 HD. You attempt to turn, and you roll a 4, plus 1 (half your lv), plus your CHA (2), for a total of 7. 7 zombies are now lurching away, but 3 remain. All other aspects of turning are the same, including range, effect, and conditions for destroying undead. Rebuking/commanding works in a similar manner as turning. Turn resistance works the same as before.
I think this variant keeps turning undead viable at higher levels, and somewhat prevents the chance that you'll roll poorly on either your turning range or your turning damage and suddenly be unable to turn even a much weaker undead than yourself. I checked the calculations using the undead from the MM1 (reasoning it provided a good sample), and comparing their HD total to their CR (and thus what level your cleric would likely be fighting them at). Almost all of the undead in there can be turned simply by rolling well and having a average Charisma score. Having a good Charisma makes it that much easier, of course. (The exceptions to this are the mohrg and some of the larger zombies/skeletons, which I have compensated for by beefing the effects of the Improved Turning feat.)
Skills are reworked so that each class has access to skill groups....
Spells are split into three categories, representing the difficulty they are to learn -- simple, complex, and exotic (I think someone already mentioned this)....
Based off of one of Monte Cook's suggestions in his blog, I've split feats into "Minor" and "Major" feats, costing 1 or 2 "feat points," respectively....
By my own design, many class abilities are removed and become feats....
There's more, but that's the major stuff....
I'm on your wavelength dude.
And the one other thing I'm keen on is replacing AC with a Defense value that depends less on armour and more on dex and level. Armour should provide DR. I hear Monte did this somewhere but I don't own it.