While going back and forth between here, ENWorld and WOTC/Gleemax, I've read a lot of comments along the lines of "sure, there are things in 3.5 that are broken, but they can be fixed." I've heard several calls for "maybe a version 3.75" that can fix some of the "broken" rules in 3.5.
I'm curious as to what the Paizo family of designers, players, forum members, etc., think are specifically some of the "broken" game mechanics in 3.5 - and how you'd fix them. I'm talking about confining it to just the PHB/SRD here, game rules only. Also, lets confine it to game mechanics only; not fluff issues regarding elves/eldarin, the Great Wheel, or the like. I'll start off:
WHAT I THINK IS "BROKEN": Feat System. Too many feats that might be useful, but no one would take them due to limited number of feat slots over the course of a characters levels. Too many levels where you get nothing from leveling except a bump in HP and maybe a saving throw bonus.
HOW I WOULD FIX IT: In my home game, I've made a list of "secondary" mostly non-combat benefit-type feats, things like "Diligient" or "Acrobatic" (plus the item creation feats, wanted to jumpstart my player's making their own items for once). On levels where you would not normally get a feat (2,4,5,7,8, etc.) they get to pick a feat from this secondary list. This way they have something to look forward to each level. So far in our Pathfinder campaign, its working well.
Ok, your turn - what would you fix about 3.5?
BROKEN: The fighter class. Perhaps it's paranoia on the part of my fellow players, but in the past two campaigns we've had multiple players take a couple fighter levels and then gain levels in another class. Why? They just wanted a few hp and bonus feats, and in at least one case Weapon Specialization.
HOW (I WOULD TRY) TO FIX IT: Move the fighter bonus feats away from low levels and instead grant them a few class abilities to help them get some diversity in their lives beyond the bonus feats. Bonuses to certain combat maneuvers, a few ranks in Knowledge skills (engineering, history, etc.). Anything to keep the power gamers out of the class and to make the insecure players think about other means of getting a few hp.
And for the record, I was a single-classed monk in one campaign and I'm a single-classed ranger in the other. In the current campaign, we've got one fighter headed into dervish who I don't count for this purpose.
|
In both issues above, are they really 'broken'?
Feats - are there really too many feats in only the SRD/PHB? It doesn't seem like it. Also, none of those feats feel broken by themselves.
Fighter - does taking a couple of classes as fighter really make broken classes? So they get a couple of bonus feats and improved to hit. It is still at a cost of other levels from whatever other classes are involved. And much of the time, they then don't get some really nice abilities until much later.
I get the feeling that many of the "broken" things aren't really "broken", but rather could be done in a better way. Things like some of the combat mechanics (grappling, tripping, etc.), vancian magic, and I have heard that there are those that feel that wizards, etc. should also somehow 'roll to hit' similar to a fighter. But I wouldn't say that any of these are necessarily 'broken'.
For me, the two big issues are multiclass spellcasters, and the use of monsters with a Level Adjustment as PCs.
I don't really know how these are best fixed, but those are the two big things I would be looking at in any 3.75e.
I really don't see anything as "broken" in 3.5 (although I know if you search the net you can find some combos that break the system - but these just haven't come up in my games).
The only problem I have with 3.5 is the time it takes to play.
So, all I want is something that speeds up game play WITHOUT sacrificing options. Unfortunately, I have no solution to this problem.
I do like a couple of suggestions I have heard to make the game a little better (Monte Cook spoke of these suggestions):
1) Give a hp bonus at 1st level equal to the PC's Con score.
2) Start with 3 feats (4 for humans)
Stuff that bugs me:
1) The Gosh-Awful Quasi-Setting: I loved that Greyhawk was the core D&D setting. I got to learn and love it because I figured the developers were sick of the old "generic" D&D and felt like it would be easier to teach the rules if they stuck to one setting as the main one. Then as time went on came the waffling. Stuff was added in core books (like Spelljamming neogi and PC races exclusive to other settings) that made no sense in Greyhawk. Answer...oh well this isn't THAT Greyhawk. It's CORE Greyhawk which is totally different except that it's got the same gods and cities and everything. What? I'd make the 3.75 book like D20 Future. General rules first, then a page or two detailing four or five settings, then all the obligatory combat rules and spells.
2) PC Race Facelift: I love what was done to Halflings to take them out of the shire and into the city as gleeful ne'erdowell opportunists and survivalists. Other races need a similar reinvisioning. Elves living way out in some misty magic forest where they kill everyone that enters--who live hundreds of years and share mutual contempt with just about everyone--make cruddy PCs. Dwarves who live out in their mountain fortresses and care only for Clan politics and personal riches, who are grumpy and suffer from bad hygene are not good PC's. Half-orcs just aren't good PC's, they are even more crass than dwarves, are mistrusted and feared by most people and have a baffling or horrifying origin story. I'd rewrite the core races (as has been done with the elves, to my great pleasure) so they fit in better as the main PC races. I'd make them more social, more gregarious, with plenty of cultural color to be sure, but the kinds of folks that are likely to hang out together without having to all be princes in exile or outcasts from their homeland.
3) Feats: Most are relatively worthless and deserve total rewrites. A +2 bonus on a couple of skills becomes increasingly sad as levels go by, and not worth the huge investment. Being able to do things without triggering Attacks of Opportunity are likewise dry and relatively worthless. Interestingly a lot of the NAMES of feats are stellar and really get me excited--just the actual crunch is super dull. A rare few, on the other hand are just crazy and have the possiblity of wrecking suspension of disbelief--most notably the super ginsu ability Great Cleave and the uber-smashy Power Attack. The preponderance of combat feats is irritating because every time a player decides to do something cool and novel in combat, the DM has to figure out if some rule is being broken because there might be a feat they have to have to do it--oh and it stinks because less combat heavy people have to waste a lot of feat slots getting cruddy feats because none of the tons of combat-only feats make any sense for them.
4) Prestige Classes: Colorful like crazy, but the prereqs are insane and a headache to keep track of. By the time you are a level appropriate to get one, they are such weak sauce that you wonder why you sacrificed all the dumb skill points and feats to get there. I would probably strike out any prerequisite that wasn't a roleplaying one, and a lot of them I would just make full classes out of. Others I would gift with loads more cool and useful special abilities and other goodness.
5) The Accursed Epic Level Handbook: This thing is trash. I feel like I need to sterilize my hands every time I touch it. Give me cool epic classes with new epic special abilities. Cut it out with all the dumb Dragonball Z epic feats and give me cool ones that reflect an older adventurer settling into more adult responsibilities and leadership roles.
6) Monsters: Monsters are written by all kinds of people and their abilities, hit points, and whatnot are all over the map. It would be nice to pull everything back and make it so that all these new monsters (many of whom are really cool) have a uniform feel to their mechanics. Some creatures seem to have cheesy powers they just don't need (like every bug creature with wings having some kind of "droning" ability or all the creature that can roar really loud and hurt people) that make them seem kind of video gamey--where if one or two creatures were known for the power it would make them infamous and interesting. The ideas behind the monsters need to be re-evaluated and stripped of some of the Monty Haul they suffer from.
7) The Multiclassing Bug: I love multiclassing and how flexible it is, but that said it is entirely broken. Not overpowered, it just doesn't work. The first and most noticable problem is that as a character goes on in his life, the amount of effort it takes to learn the basics of a starting class get more and more ridiculous. If a 10th level rogue decides it'd be a good idea to figure out how to swing a sword and practices every day with the fighter it takes 55,000 XP worth of adventuring before he gets the hang of it. That's just crazy. Plus frankly some classes should be harder to start off in than others. Becoming a rogue, ranger or a fighter, pretty darn easy--becoming a druid, a monk, or a wizard for crying out loud is supposed to take years and an entire change to your entire lifestyle and philosophy. The plug and play requires less bookwork, true...but you lose a lot to get simplicity.
8) Classes in general: Some of the classes are cool like crazy, like the monk, but are so weak and useless that you only play one if you really really like the roleplay value or are just a masochist. Others like the ranger are loaded like they should be with cool stuff. Some of the weapon choices have just never made sense either. It seems like every time I start a new player out there's just huge amounts of boggled disbelief about "this class gets this weapon...but not this one??"
In both issues above, are they really 'broken'?
Feats - are there really too many feats in only the SRD/PHB? It doesn't seem like it. Also, none of those feats feel broken by themselves.
Fighter - does taking a couple of classes as fighter really make broken classes? So they get a couple of bonus feats and improved to hit. It is still at a cost of other levels from whatever other classes are involved. And much of the time, they then don't get some really nice abilities until much later.
I get the feeling that many of the "broken" things aren't really "broken", but rather could be done in a better way. Things like some of the combat mechanics (grappling, tripping, etc.), vancian magic, and I have heard that there are those that feel that wizards, etc. should also somehow 'roll to hit' similar to a fighter. But I wouldn't say that any of these are necessarily 'broken'.
To be fair, I'm really not using the "proper" definition of broken. More like the "this needs fixing" version, as no one wants to remain in the fighter class for long. The one fighter who has stayed in it will qualify as a dervish soon, the powergamer dips long enough to get the bonus feats and Weapon Specialization; clerics get a few extra feats and hp. The warforged artificer took a level because she was afraid she'd die after a nasty fight with some shifter barbarians had nearly totalled her (like, down to 1 hp). But no one wants to just be a fighter, they want (I guess I should say WE) want to move on to other things. Hence, to me, the class is "broken" and needs fixing.
To be fair, I'm really not using the "proper" definition of broken. More like the "this needs fixing" version, as no one wants to remain in the fighter class for long. The one fighter who has stayed in it will qualify as a dervish soon, the powergamer dips long enough to get the bonus feats and Weapon Specialization; clerics get a few extra feats and hp. The warforged artificer took a level because she was afraid she'd die after a nasty fight with some shifter barbarians had nearly totalled her (like, down to 1 hp). But no one wants to just be a fighter, they want (I guess I should say WE) want to move on to other things. Hence, to me, the class is "broken" and needs fixing.
If you'll forgive me, I don't think the fighter needs to be fixed. It is your perception of it that needs to be fixed.
What is the big deal if players want to dip into a few levels of a(ny) class?
To use a horribly inaccurate modern day analogy: Would you really expect everyone to become full fledged stunt drivers before they could get their driver's license?
As long as the dipping doesn't create power vacuums, I don't see any problem with it.
The slippery slope tells me that you will want to "fix" longswords next, since they are such a common weapon. ;-)
|
I do like a couple of suggestions I have heard to make the game a little better (Monte Cook spoke of these suggestions):
1) Give a hp bonus at 1st level equal to the PC's Con score.
2) Start with 3 feats (4 for humans)
There are countless number of house-ruled solutions to perceived problems with 3.5:
Living Arcanis games have an optional "kid gloves" rule whereby 1st level characters can opt to receive maximum hitpoints as if they were 3rd level characters, but receive no additional hit points until they reach 4th level. Granted, Living Arcanis games can be more lethal for 1st level characters, because you can often find yourself playing at the same table as higher level characters, with monsters and challenges scaled according to average party level.
Some players find 1st level play boring, others find it too deadly. If this is true for you, then maybe 1st level play isn't your thing, try starting your games at 2nd or 3rd level instead, which is basically what "kid gloves" or bonus hps and feats attempt to accomplish anyway.
|
|
I really don't see anything as "broken" in 3.5 (although I know if you search the net you can find some combos that break the system - but these just haven't come up in my games).
I do like a couple of suggestions I have heard to make the game a little better (Monte Cook spoke of these suggestions):
I agree, I don't think 3.5 is necessarily "broken". The problem is, whenever you ask how to "fix" 3.5, everyone will come up with different solutions. Several people have already attempted 3.75 by publishing their own variants (Monte Cook) or house-rules.
I have expressed before, I don't think we need another 3.5 variant to fragment the market. I think Paizo are doing the right thing by marketing to Core 3.5 customers, which is the shared D&D experience. Anything new, they can introduce in their Pathfinder series or related supplements.
WotC will be releasing new PHB, MM, DMG every year containing new 4.0 races, classes, powers, monsters etc that will be considered "Core". This is what I was expecting from 3.5 PHBII, an alternate PHB containing all the rules to play, but with new races, classes, feats, spells, etc. If Paizo or anyone else were to follow this model with the 3.5 SRD, I would be very happy indeed - not creating 3.75 variant rules, but using the 3.5 rules we're all familiar with and expanding our character and story options.
|
|
Actually, Paizo could publish the 3.5 SRD using Pathfinder art and iconic characters, include Varisian feats, re-flavour Gnomes as fey-touched, provide their unique spin on Goblins, Ogres, Stone Giants, etc making them cool again. Along the way, they could update any rules that weren't explained clearly or required updating, eg grapple (have the new wildshape rules been made available to the SRD?), anyway you get the idea. Not so much a 3.75, but a 3.5 done the Paizo way.
This would help keep 3.5 alive by having a pretty close representation of the PHB, MM etc in print, giving more exposure to Paizo and the Pathfinder product line, but it would be 3.5 familiar enough that anyone could use it as a replacement PHB, MM etc.
I know when I start my Pathfinder campaign shortly, I'll be introducing several new players to D&D for the first time. They'll each need a 3.5 PHB - how cool would a Pathfinder branded d20 SRD be? And I'm sure many loyal Paizo and Pathfinder fans would snap these up for their cool collector appeal.
I'm curious as to what the Paizo family of designers, players, forum members, etc., think are specifically some of the "broken" game mechanics in 3.5 - and how you'd fix them. I'm talking about confining it to just the PHB/SRD here, game rules only. Also, lets confine it to game mechanics only; not fluff issues regarding elves/eldarin, the Great Wheel, or the like.
Just off the top of my head: If I were to do a 3.75...
1. Drop the Half-elf and Gnome. Drop a couple things off the Elf and give him some variant of the Gnome's spell-like abilities. Turn the half-orc into some kind of other variant humanoid race, or just make it 'orc'. Drop multiclassing limits.2. Drop the Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian. Drop the sorcerer and give the Wizard some form of spontaneous casting ability similar to the cleric - possibly just for 'utility' spells, perhaps not.
3. Add in a few class abilities to the remaining classes, then simulate the Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian with substitute class abilities. Clerics get the Paladin Lay On Hands ability, as well as their resistances - they pay for that by becoming weaker in some way - perhaps restricted to Medium armor, or Light armor? Something, anyway, so they become more of a spell caster and less of a fighter.
4. Change the skill point values for each class. Each class gets to choose, oh, four skills at first level and maybe an additional one every, oh, three levels? - those become class skills. This also becomes how to gain back some of the lost classes flavor. Want a Ranger? Take a fighter, add in Survival, Sneak, and Handle Animal as class skills.
5. Feat every other level.
6. Fighters automatically confirm crits.
7. Pare down the spell lists. Drop at least half of the spells, including most of the redundant spells and the 'game breaker'spells.
8. Break up the remaining spells into Simple, Complex and Exotic spells. Clerics get Simple spells, Wizards get simple and Complex spells. Spend a feat and you gte to cast 1 exotic spell.
9 'Turning' undead causes simple damage or imposes a condition.
10. Simplify the combat chapter down to about eight pages. I don't much care what needs to get cut but it goes on for far too long.
11. Feats can be modified in some obvious ways, such as 'no more +2 to X and +2 to Y' feats. At the very, very least if you had those, then those skills become class skills for you from then on.
Oh, so much else I could change. One thing I'd do is make sure that sucker fit into one 120 page book.
Just off the top of my head: If I were to do a 3.75...
That seems more like a completely new and different game, not exactly fixing a few bugs. It's like taking your Volvo to a garage to get it fixed, and getting a Toyota back.
If you'll forgive me, I don't think the fighter needs to be fixed. It is your perception of it that needs to be fixed.
What is the big deal if players want to dip into a few levels of a(ny) class?
To use a horribly inaccurate modern day analogy: Would you really expect everyone to become full fledged stunt drivers before they could get their driver's license?
As long as the dipping doesn't create power vacuums, I don't see any problem with it.
The slippery slope tells me that you will want to "fix" longswords next, since they are such a common weapon. ;-)
You might be right about my perception. I'd just like it more if people didn't specifically dip into fighter and then move on to other classes. I'm the only person who's contemplated playing a fighter in our group to high level-even our soon-to-be dervish was originally going to be a fighter/sorcerer. In the last campaign, the dipping DID cause some issues. The bladesinger needed fighter levels to qualify. Perfectly reasonable. Why did the sorceress need fighter levels? No idea. The cleric? Good role-playing, I'll grant. The ranger considered it. I'll admit I considered it when creating the monk. But that was a messed-up party without a tank. So yeah, maybe my perception is off. No one but me plays wizards either, so who knows?
Longswords? No problem with them. Don't get me started on rapiers, though . . . ;-)
|
|
Okay, so far I've been resisting the whole concept of 3.75. I don't want a new game, but I would appreciate a better organised game, with so many of the tacked-on rules subsystems from a proliferation of supplements over the lifespan of 3.5, folded back into the Core rules.
Let's take the Ranger as an example. In 3.0, the ranger didn't have too many career options. In 3.5, he could choose between Archer or Two-weapon Fighting combat styles. In later products, racial substitution levels were introduced for all classes; and in PHBII, alternate class features. All of these different subsystems do much the same thing - provide a class with different class feature choices at each level.
What I wonder in hindsight is if all this diversity couldn't have been designed into a more consistent package right from the start, as options built into each classes level advancement in the PHB. Game developers could then use this format to introduce new class options consistently in the future. This is probably exactly what WotC have in mind with 4.0 talent trees.
There are many examples of these after-thought subsystems throughout 3.5 supplements - Divine Feats substituting a Cleric's daily uses of Turn Undead, being another - things that weren't anticipated when the PHB was developed, but could have been better integrated if they were.
These are prime examples of the type of innovation I'd like to see in 3.75. Not so much different rules as proposed by Wayne Ligon, or the radical changes coming with 4.0, but the same rules we're already using, just better organised.
A 3.75 Ranger could fight alongside a 3.5 Ranger in the same game, because although they may have access to different options, they're still playing by the same Core rules.
|
|
Okay, so far I've been resisting the whole concept of 3.75. I don't want a new game, but I would appreciate a better organised game, with so many of the tacked-on rules subsystems from a proliferation of supplements over the lifespan of 3.5, folded back into the Core rules.
Let's take the Ranger as an example. In 3.0, the ranger didn't have too many career options. In 3.5, he could choose between Archer or Two-weapon Fighting combat styles. In later products, racial substitution levels were introduced for all classes; and in PHBII, alternate class features. All of these different subsystems do much the same thing - provide a class with different class feature choices at each level.
What I wonder in hindsight is if all this diversity couldn't have been designed into a more consistent package right from the start, as options built into each classes level advancement in the PHB. Game developers could then use this format to introduce new class options consistently in the future. This is probably exactly what WotC have in mind with 4.0 talent trees.
There are many examples of these after-thought subsystems throughout 3.5 supplements - Divine Feats substituting a Cleric's daily uses of Turn Undead, being another - things that weren't anticipated when the PHB was developed, but could have been better integrated if they were.
These are prime examples of the type of innovation I'd like to see in 3.75. Not so much different rules as proposed by Wayne Ligon, or the radical changes coming with 4.0, but the same rules we're already using, just better organised.
A 3.75 Ranger could fight alongside a 3.5 Ranger in the same game, because although they may have access to different options, they're still playing by the same Core rules.
I am one of those pro 3.75 people, although I think it would be better to call it 4.0, but we use 3.75 to avoid confusion with the upcoming WoTC product. I think Darkwhite hit the nail on the head. 3.75 would be about claeaning up and integrated certain "tacked on rules" and not so much about "fixing multi-classing".
Multi-classing is less of a problem if you consider the base classes as the MAIN classes. I don't. I consider them the...well, BASE classes. I think Base classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, etc) ought to have only a 10 level progression much like prestige classes. That may be unsatisfying, but that is a legacy of 3E mechanics.
I think any so-called "3.75" ruleset should have the mantra "make it work" rather than "start all over" like 4E does.
I think any so-called "3.75" ruleset should have the mantra "make it work" rather than "start all over" like 4E does.
That's no way to run a business!
That seems more like a completely new and different game, not exactly fixing a few bugs.
Nah, that's just the minimal stuff I'd do to fix some bugs. If I were really going for the 'whole new game' thing, I'd start with:
1. Have only Str, Dex, Con and Int as stats.
2. The only die used would be a d6.
3. The only classes would be Fighter, Spellcaster, Expert; feats, talent trees, class ability selections and skill packages would modify them from there.
That seems more like a completely new and different game, not exactly fixing a few bugs.Nah, that's just the minimal stuff I'd do to fix some bugs. If I were really going for the 'whole new game' thing, I'd start with:
1. Have only Str, Dex, Con and Int as stats.
2. The only die used would be a d6.
3. The only classes would be Fighter, Spellcaster, Expert; feats, talent trees, class ability selections and skill packages would modify them from there.
While your ideas may make for an interesting non-D&D game, therein lies the key problem: it's not D&D. It's a video game. Diablo. Titan Quest, etc... All awesome games, but still not D&D. This is the core problem of the direction WotC is heading in. They want to appeal to the kids of today who only know video games. Make it like "Diablo the pen and paper" version and we can make $$$.
It's wise to simplify the rules from the over-complexity that 3.0/3.5 became, but your concepts take away almost all the "D&D-ness" of it and make it just another D&D-inspired video game. Might be very fun to play, but can't really call it D&D because it isn't.
While your ideas may make for an interesting non-D&D game, therein lies the key problem: it's not D&D. It's a video game. Diablo. Titan Quest, etc... All awesome games, but still not D&D.
Certainly it is, just like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Midnight, Conan and several others are 'D&D'. Just because you change the stats around and change the classes doesn't make it 'not D&D'. By that line of thinking, you're not playing D&D right now and possibly never have because you're not using races as classes, not all monsteres and classes have the same hit dice, and there are more than seven levels of cleric spells. Changing those were at least as sweeping as the changes I'd make.
Did I mention I'd get rid of spells entirely and just go with powers?
'It's like a video game' is the ultimate disingenous statement that really means simply 'I don't like it', simply because the statement itself makes no sense. It seems that people have the idea that video games are simplistic, or only for children, or some-such nonsense. They're not roleplaying games; if you're concerned about rules changes making D&D 'not a roleplaying game', then that's not going to happen. I could use FATE, Vampire, or Traveller rulesets and run a game that, except for the type of dice you were rolling and some mechanical aspects, would be exactly identical to D&D. In fact, I'd defy anyone to tell the difference. 'D&D' lies in how you convey the game, not in the details of rules or the fluff involved.
I've never run a D&D game with the Great Wheel, short elves, tubby hobbits/halflings, Asmodeus, or spells that started with 'Bigby'. In fact, I've never used almost anything from the 'implied setting' or the 'implied fluff'. Does this mean I've never run D&D?
While your ideas may make for an interesting non-D&D game, therein lies the key problem: it's not D&D. It's a video game. Diablo. Titan Quest, etc... All awesome games, but still not D&D.Certainly it is, just like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Midnight, Conan and several others are 'D&D'. Just because you change the stats around and change the classes doesn't make it 'not D&D'. By that line of thinking, you're not playing D&D right now and possibly never have because you're not using races as classes, not all monsteres and classes have the same hit dice, and there are more than seven levels of cleric spells. Changing those were at least as sweeping as the changes I'd make.
Did I mention I'd get rid of spells entirely and just go with powers?
'It's like a video game' is the ultimate disingenous statement that really means simply 'I don't like it', simply because the statement itself makes no sense. It seems that people have the idea that video games are simplistic, or only for children, or some-such nonsense. They're not roleplaying games; if you're concerned about rules changes making D&D 'not a roleplaying game', then that's not going to happen. I could use FATE, Vampire, or Traveller rulesets and run a game that, except for the type of dice you were rolling and some mechanical aspects, would be exactly identical to D&D. In fact, I'd defy anyone to tell the difference. 'D&D' lies in how you convey the game, not in the details of rules or the fluff involved.
I've never run a D&D game with the Great Wheel, short elves, tubby hobbits/halflings, Asmodeus, or spells that started with 'Bigby'. In fact, I've never used almost anything from the 'implied setting' or the 'implied fluff'. Does this mean I've never run D&D?
It's not D&D. Period. No spells? Now that's ridiculous. Not D&D. Doesn't mean it would be a bad game, but NOT D&D. :)
And no, most video games are not for kids, they are for adults. But video games are video games, no matter how simple or complex. D&D is D&D. No spells... lol
|
|
I think Base classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, etc) ought to have only a 10 level progression much like prestige classes.
I begin playing characters from 1st level, and have never played a campaign beyond 10th level, which has more to do with the difficulties of co-ordinating a team of players with busy schedules together over the course of a long campaign. However, it probably also confirms WotC's "sweet spot" theory, that high level characters, monsters, challenges etc become complicated and difficult to manage at higher levels. All this points towards your 10 level progression theory.
However, 3.5 is structured to play until 20th level (and beyond if you go Epic). I think most players probably multiclass or prestige class by the time they gain 10 levels of any base class. However, they shouldn't be forced to, its all about choice. Full 20-level progression is also necessary for players with access ONLY to the PHB.
In all my games, I have yet to take a prestige class. This is largely due to my characters not having progressed far enough to have qualified for them yet, which really frustrates the hell out of me. Some prestige classes look appealing, but I know I'll never reach them. I much perfer a variety of flavourful base classes, or prestige classes with lower requirements, so I can call myself a "Dragon Disciple" (with flavourful abilities appropriate to my level) as a low level character, maybe even first level. Dragon Shaman (PHBII) and Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic) are a couple of good examples.
Although designed for character levels 6-10, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft introduced an idea I'd like to see used more in adventures - Prestige Classes and Substitution Levels tailored to organisations featured in the adventure with easily met entry requirements. The examples are:
Knight of the Raven (10-level prestige class)
Entry requirements: Any good, +4 BAB, ability to cast 1st level divine spells, plus a story element; and
The Lightbringers (organisation)
Entry requirements: any class, any level, 4 ranks in an associated skill, commitment to destroy a minimum number of undead each year.
Substitution levels available:
- Lightbringer Bard: Undead Bardic Knowledge 1st, Inspire Turning 1st, Repel Domination 6th
- Lightbringer Cleric: Destroy Undead 1st, True Daylight 1st, Positive Healing 1st
- Lightbringer Paladin: Detect Undead 1st, Pelor's Blessing 3rd, Warded Special Mount 6th
- Lightbringer Rogue: Penetrating Strike 3rd
I would like to see these kind of character options introduced in more adventures, even low level ones with lower entry requirements. Maybe even short prestige classes that can be taken at first level to represent organisation membership or cultural background, such as a few levels of Shoanti Tribesman (tailored for each tribe, of course!).
I think it would be a great idea for Prestige Classes to offer substitution levels for lower level characters who are working toward the class, but haven't yet met the entry requirements. For example, you might not qualify for the Pathfinder Historian prestige class until 7th level, but could take substitution levels at 1st, 3rd and 5th levels to keep you on track and feel the part.
I think these type of character options would suit Pathfinder very well. They involve the characters closer with the adventure, kind of like the freebie 1st level Feats in the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide, but things they can work toward or be rewarded by throughout the campaign.
I don't feel that strongly about this but what about a smaller skill list.
The idea behind this is you create one new skill that replaces two old skills. For example, new skill Stealth would contain all the benefits of old skills Move Silently and Hide.
When I first saw this idea presented I thought "less options=bad", what if I want to create a character that is really silent but can't hide worth a crap ;)
It has grown on me. I have grown tired of spending time on NPCs deciding how many points to put in Diplomacy, how many points in Bluff, and how many points in Intimidation; lets just call them all Negotiation and be done with it. Plus it will take up less room in the stat blocks and on character sheets.
Down & dirty fix: Group the two old skills together like they are in the Feats section, use the Feat name for the new skill name. So, new skill Deceipt would replace Disguise and Forgery; new skill Negotiation replaces Diplomacy and Sense Motive; etc.
Each character would then receive half the number of skill points they received under the old system.
Leftover skills: Speak Language already cost 2 skill points; Craft, Profession, Perform and Knowledge, characters can choose 2 subcategories in them; Concentration I don't know, still have to think of something.
Classes: Gone
Vancian Magic: Gone
Armor making you more difficult to hit: Gone
Hit Point bloat: Gone
Rewarding Hack'n'Slash: Gone
Item bloat: Gone
A Skill system that works.
A Magic system that makes sense.
Armor that reduces damage.
|
|
Classes: Gone
Vancian Magic: Gone
Armor making you more difficult to hit: Gone
Hit Point bloat: Gone
Rewarding Hack'n'Slash: Gone
Item bloat: GoneA Skill system that works.
A Magic system that makes sense.
Armor that reduces damage.
I have the perfect game for you. It has none of those things and fits all your design parameters. You can see it here: CLICKY
:P
Less prestige classes. Prestige classes are supposed to represent specialization and special societies, yet most are just excuses for cool abilities that could just as easily be standard character options (feats, spells, substitution levels) and most prestige classes are not specialized enough to be associated with any specific organization.
That seems more like a completely new and different game, not exactly fixing a few bugs.Nah, that's just the minimal stuff I'd do to fix some bugs. If I were really going for the 'whole new game' thing, I'd start with:
1. Have only Str, Dex, Con and Int as stats.
2. The only die used would be a d6.
3. The only classes would be Fighter, Spellcaster, Expert; feats, talent trees, class ability selections and skill packages would modify them from there.
GURPS, isn't it? :-)
Classes: Gone
Vancian Magic: Gone
Armor making you more difficult to hit: Gone
Hit Point bloat: Gone
Rewarding Hack'n'Slash: Gone
Item bloat: GoneA Skill system that works.
A Magic system that makes sense.
Armor that reduces damage.
... GURPS too .... :)
No, stop bashing, I do like 3.5 and love to play it - as I play GURPS when I need a logical, nice system.
GURPS, isn't it? :-)
G.U.R.P.S.'s older brother...Hero.
|
Let's see;
#1 Race: Race is the one last "front end loaded" aspect of the game. You get all these special abilities at 1st level and nothing after that. Remember Gestalt Classes in Arcana Unearthed? What if instead of a second class, you use 1-20 levels of your race. Dwarves would get bonus hit point, elves bonus skill points in search/listen/spot and etc. This would balance out the "powerfull" races and open another door to organizations. Yes, you could make being a memeber of an organization as part of your race and take feats as a part of racial leveling. In Eberron, this would mean Dragonmarked house or in L5R: Rokugan your clan.
#2 Skills & Feats: Yes there are a lot, but many of these do not need to exist! First the skill list does need to be simplified like in the New Star Wars RPG. Another aspect from the new Star Wars is "Trained skills", instead of a +2 bonus, "Skill Training" allows several new uses for an existing skill to come available, such as Tracking for the Survival skill.
Second, we need to re-examine the list of feats, remove those that should be available to anyone, remove those that could become a trained use of a skill, remove those that have the same or similar effects and those that could be merged into a single feat. That should trim the list down a little. I would also add leveling into feats, sort of like those in Iron Heroes. Basically you take it again, with a level pre-requisite, and improve the feat instead of having a chain of Improved feats.
#3 Class Options: Some classes have very limited options, Paladin, Monk & Druid offer very little to differentiate one PC from another. With more and more "Variant class levels" I would consider a version of D20 Modern Talent Trees that would allow for making your Monk different from everyone else at the Monestary.
#4 Prestige classes: Yes there are too many and some are unbalanced compared to others. I think the best Prestige classes I have seen were in the D20 Rokugan Secrets of the Clans and Way of __ books. They were all 5 levels and get right to the point of what they were trying to do.
Also, there are many prestige classes that could be replaced by a couple new feats and spells.
|
Please, PLEASE, call it 3E Revised -- NOT 3.75 (which indicates something less than 4.0.)
I would support it in spite of WotC.
So, what's the latest scenario Necromancer and Paizo have publically detailed for us: If WotC doesn't give enough 4E material in time for these companies to design material at the "grand release" of 4E then these companies "MIGHT" "HAVE TO" do 3E Revised because they have to put something out there to market when WotC puts 4E on the shelves.
So, my hope (SLIM that it is) is that WotC will
A) be a "little" late in providing the other companies 4E info
B) the info will be "somewhat" incomplete and/or flawed
C) the other companies have to "settle" for producing 3E Revised at the WotC 4E release date
D) consumers (who've spent bundles on 3E) will like the revised version significantly more than the WotC "crap."
-W. E. Ray
GURPS, isn't it? :-)1. Have only Str, Dex, Con and Int as stats.
2. The only die used would be a d6.
3. The only classes would be Fighter, Spellcaster, Expert; feats, talent trees, class ability selections and skill packages would modify them from there.
I think D&D could learn a lot from GURPS in the general design catagory though my main reasons for using only d6 would be to (1) ensure a bell curve distribution instead of the flat line of the d20 and (2) they're cheap.
But that would be if I was going far, far into 5E territory. For a '3.75' my changes would be far less radical.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My 3.75
Remove the restriction on Quicken spell for sorcerers.
Use Book of Iron Might feats and maneuvers.
Allow a Luck/Action Point/Hero Point mechanic.
Revise monsters by ear, so that they don't always have a level adjustment. (Example: Succubus, if you increase it's base HD to 9, and scale the abilities out to those 9 HD, I don't think it still needs a +6 LA)
I like the idea of the +2 skills feats making the skills class skills as well. Hamanaptra's Divirsified Talent does something similar.
Fold the Archmage perstige into the core Wizard and Sorcerer classes. Give the Sorcerer the high arcana 'tricks' at 13, 15, 17, and 19 and the Wizard at 14, 16, 18, 20.
Use the Hamanaptra Sorcerer and Ranger.
At 20th level the Sorcerer no longer needs a full round action to cast metamagicked spells.
Use the Hamanaptra Sorcerer and Ranger.
Hamunaptra, the thing from GR, has variant classes in it? I might have to look at getting it, then.
This came up in a discussion with my RL game group last night:
A broken 3.x mechanic that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread?
Movement. In so many ways, movement is overly complicated and more or less broken under 3.5 rules. First off, the fact that every single unarmored human moves exactly as fast as every other unarmored human, provided there's no barbarians or monks in the mix, is stupid. So the only way to move fast is to be a monk or a barbarian? And if you take barbarian, you're just pretending, you don't really want to be fast. If you did, you'd be a monk.
Plus, once you start counting movement as a seperate action in combat (necessary to so strongly tie the game into the lucrative miniatures sales), you've set up idiotic and unrealistic combat situations. It is practically impossible under 3.x rules to move and do something else at the same time. Everybody moves to where they need to be, stops, and then performs their action, or vice versa. Even with Mobility, you're really moving, stopping, doing something, and then moving again.
I think changing that, by removing movement as an action in combat, and making it something you're either doing or not doing while doing something else, would go a long way toward extracting the video game/glorified miniatures game feel that seems will only be exacerbated under 4E.
As it is, I've taken to generally not using miniatures in my game any more. As much as I loved the idea of cheap, pre-painted plastic miniatures, I don't like the collectibility element (I walked away from Magic: The Gamer's Crack, and dangit I am NOT going back to that money suck). But more importantly, by using miniatures and a battlemat, and drawing out even so much as just the basic walls of the room and placing the bad guys in their proper squares, you've given your players more information at the start of a fight than any single real person in a real actual fight in the entire history of everything has ever had.
Fight's are visceral, thrilling, scary experiences, and I used to be able to feel that and capture that all the time when I used to play 1 & 2e way back when. We occsionally used miniatures to set up a vague picture of the battlefield to help fire our imaginations, but it was on the carpet, with no battlemat or grid of any kind, but we never actually moved the miniatures much, we did it all in our heads. I've never had a battle with miniatures and a battlemat thrill my players in that visceral way, but I've been able to do it pretty consistently when I don't use them.
Mostly I just dislike the squareness of the grid. Eveybody's always standing in a grid spot, instead of wherever. And five feet is a pretty large amount of space. Using meter-wide hex grid is better, but using your imagination is best.
|
|
Sean, I came up with "free movement" as well, put didn't dare to introduce it into my game, as I fear it would interfere too much with a lot of skills or feats.
If you play without moving as a combat action (meaning, pcs can move as they like while still doing their combat actions) I would love to hear how that worked out!
Just moving a character (like back in 2E) and hit an enemy while running by would be nice to have again...
I wonder, if the WotC announced 4E and started checking every available board for ideas which new rules to use...
Sean,
Movement as an action in 3e came into play some years before the miniatures stuff came out. Within the 3e framework, more than a smidge of movement is the great balancer to multiple full-damage attacks in the 3.0 framework, less so thanks to all the splat in 3.5. In short, movement is not often mentioned as a 'game breaker' precisely because it is so vital in game mechanical terms as well as being one of the easier mechanics for n00bs to grasp within 1 or 2 sessions.
I do applaud how you seem to run your combats - they sound exciting. For some groups however, and especially with players new to the game, the grid+mini movement combination in my experience has proven too valuable. Even veteran players (again, in my experience) really eat up the sheer visualization elements having miniatures (plastic or otherwise) and a 'battlemat' and comment accordingly.
Even over the past few years, old tricks are getting dusted off for the "griddinmini" combat element of the game... such as big fluffy wads of cotton or similar material coming out of a baggie to more literally simulate the 'fog of war' that either environmental or spell-based changes can wreak on the battlefield. Makes a note to himself to get more fluffy cotton for the next session. They also double nicely for darkness effects, using thicker wads for total concealment compared to thinned-out ones to simulate regular concealment and webbing. That kind of thing. ^_^
Long, long story short - to each thier own! My hat's off for being able to run a flavor-text combat effectively. Not many that I have seen can really do that well and do it consistently, myself included.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Movement grids help what I used to call the 'Teleporting halfling' problem.
Waht was happening in our games was people would lose track of where they were. Suddenly the character 30 feet away from one section of a fight would find themselves with out a target and would 'pop' up next to the rest of the fight. The minis help prevent this.
They're a bit pricy, but I do like the wall counters from Gale Force for Hero clix and the like.
I wasn't worried so much about grids against the goblins in RotRL 1, but it will be more important later on.
I'll keep the movement in -my- 3.75, but then again, I've palyed Battletech for years, so it doesn't seem too jarring.
I tried to fix several parts of DnD, using 3rd edition mechanics as much as possible(to make it easy for people's game).
Do a Google search for:
"Races of War"
"Tome of Necromancy"
"Tome of Fiends"
"Dungenomicon"
or just look for "Frank and K", since several people have made sites and PDFs of our stuff.
While it's not sounding like 4e is the game for me based on how its been described so far, there are a couple things they've said that make me curious enough to want to see that adapted to the 3.5 that I'm most comfortable with.
Vancian magic is iconic to D&D, but I have to agree about the one-shot nature of wizards and other spellcasters. I'm very curious about the orb & wand (or whatever) aproach they're taking. In the end, it's really just a symptom of the "we camp here and rest up" road block. I've had more game sessions break down when the players decide they want to heal up over a couple days and bust out the calculators to determine how long they'll have to hide in the forgotten room while they do it. 4e sounds like it addresses that issue too and I'd like to see how they do it.
I'm also really exited about the idea of reducing the dependence on magic items since I prefer my characters to succeed by their own abilities rather than just what they're carrying with them. If I had a reliable way to calculate ECL without magic items, I'd be even stingier with gear than I am. As it is, I'm not 100% how handicapped a level 10 party is against EL 10 threat if they don't have the assumed level of magic items.
Those are the only two areas that 4e looks to be fixing for me, so I'd be content with a 3.5 that just addresses those problems.
Off the top of my head, the damage saves introduced in the Unearthed Arcana (via Mutants & Masterminds), looks like it could alleviate the "gotta rest up" syndrome since there's no absolute "life guage" that the players can refer and decide they want to fill up on hit points. I've never used it, though, and it still looks awkward to execute.
|
|
Off the top of my head, the damage saves introduced in the Unearthed Arcana (via Mutants & Masterminds), looks like it could alleviate the "gotta rest up" syndrome since there's no absolute "life guage" that the players can refer and decide they want to fill up on hit points. I've never used it, though, and it still looks awkward to execute.
In my experience, it's the magic meter rather than the life gauge that people tend to be watching when they decide to stop for the day...
|
|
Increase skill points per level across the board, add more skills to each class' skill list, make some skills class skills for every class (Knowledge (local) comes to mind as do a few others). Beef the fighter at higher (10+) levels. Fix casters and how multiclassing affect their class abilities (there's a difficult one).
...more later, likely.
|
|
Increase skill points per level across the board, add more skills to each class' skill list, make some skills class skills for every class (Knowledge (local) comes to mind as do a few others). Beef the fighter at higher (10+) levels. Fix casters and how multiclassing affect their class abilities (there's a difficult one).
...more later, likely.
My skill fix; All PCs have all Class Skills with ranks equal to their level. You are a 5th level Rogue, you got 5 ranks in all class skills.
Skill points are what you use to better than that other 5th level Rogue next to you, who will be better than you at other skills. This also makes Ability bonuses stand out more.
And for DMs, basic NPC and Mooks would just have their class level. This simplifies NPC creation and reduces the wasted spaces in descriptions.
|
|
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)
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 suspect that this is at least partly true. Unfortunately, I don't think that my suggestion will be echoed in 3.75 or 4.0. Not many people seem to feel that there are too many PrCs like I do.
I suspect that this is at least partly true. Unfortunately, I don't think that my suggestion will be echoed in 3.75 or 4.0. Not many people seem to feel that there are too many PrCs like I do.
I agree with you on that point, actually. Once you start getting into splat books, it seems like everyone and their cousin has levels in one or more prestige classes. I have no problem with classes from the DMG (at least their existence). World-specific prestige classes are fine with me as well. But it seems like every new book has to have a bunch of feats, some new spells, and a mound of prestige classes. The flavor gets to be a little weak with so much dilution. Now, I love me some P-Class as much as the next guy (come to think of it, more than most in my group), but after a point I feel like there should be a book: the Complete Prestige Class.
Guess with 4th ed. coming, I should put that in the past tense, huh?
|
|
The only "problem" I ever had with 3e/3.5e rulewise was the whole cover system... everything adds + something to your armor class.. cover, if you can figure out what kind of cover it is.. brings back the percentages that 3e was getting away from.
Aside from that, most of my "problems" with 3e have been design choices.
1) I'd have no base additional base classes. The PHB classes are only the base classes.
2) Prestige classes are in player books, not DM books.
3) Campaign setting creatures and classes are in campaign settings, not core books.
If I were experimenting with classes, changes I'd make are as followed.
1) I'd remove the fighter feats. Replace them with (in this order) Exotic Weapon Proficiency OR Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization. Why am I doing all this? Because I'd make the fighter class like wizard, you get to X level and you'll be multiclassing or taking a Prestige class. Duelist, Swashbuckler, Knight of something, etc etc etc would all spawn off being a fighter. Prestige classes would limit what type of armor the character wears if it wants it's abilities.
2) I'd remove Two Weapon Fighting from Ranger. Drizzt didn't get Two Handed Weapon fighting from Ranger, he had it in the Underdark before he was a ranger. The stupid AD&D multiclass rules forced him to be a Ranger and thus forced it on Rangers. Rangers would be the default Archer class and also favor 2hd weapons (since they don't have shields.) Rangers would NOT have the 0 spells silliness. As soon as they can cast, they have their spells. This will give people wanting to Archers to multiclasses to whatever if they don't want Ranger spells (hi Drizzt.)
3) Monk, like Fighter, would be bland as well. I'd make Prestige classes the limiter of the monk. If you want to be a martial artist, here you go, if you want to be some weird outer worldly guy, here.
4) Blackguard would NOT be a prestige class. You choose your alignment. You get 5 default levels, then you get abilities based on being good or evil. Your god determines if you can multiclass or not.
I'm just there is more, but that's all I can think of.