What About 3.5 Needs Fixing?


Alpha Release 1 General Discussion


Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed. It could serve as a "table of contents" or bullet list of sorts to be used as a platform for other threads. I love the idea that paizo wants to tweak 3.5 and also wants our input as I would rather stick with the 3.5 system. However, looking through the threads so far, there are a lot of interesting ideas and feedback, but it is bewildering to try and sort through it (for me anyway).

My first contributions to this list:

1) Eliminate at least the last iterative attack of good, average, and poor BAB tables. Reason: I currently run a 16th level campaign and they almost never hit. It slows down gameplay


Good call. That is one of the few things about 4E that I actually like. Melee types should be the only ones to get iterative attacks.

I am majorly in favor of removing the set class skills system and replacing it with "choose X skills as class skills at first level - add 1 new class skill every Y levels."

Also, feats....always feats....I feel have always felt the fighter gets too many while everyone else gets too few. No specific ideas here, just brainstorming a wee bit on a pet peeve.

Lastly, item creation feats. We homeruled in 3.0 that you could choose two of them for the price of one. Otherwise The only one ever taken at my table(s) has been brew potion.


In some ways I think wizards actually has a point on a few issues.

The game is hard to run at high levels.
The problem of remembering a lot of little situational bonuses, like multiple simultaneous buff effects.
Spell caster getting instant wins at high levels, with scry, buff, teleport, & kill.
The 15 minute adventuring day.

As for iterative attacks, a possible solution is to just allow you to hit equally well with every attack, instead of having less chance of actually hitting with each attack. The problem isn’t making multiple attacks, it’s making multiple that miss.

Dark Archive

anthony Valente wrote:

Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed. It could serve as a "table of contents" or bullet list of sorts to be used as a platform for other threads.

Excellent call, anthony Valente. Been thinking of such a list for some time.

My addition would be the weakness of fighters. Brief background: I'm still relatively new to 3.5e, especially as a DM. Also, I play spellcasters: magic-users when I played AD&D 1st edition and 3.5e wizards. Folks who have been playing a while and on the forums all indicate how "weak" fighters are at mid-to-high levels when compared to arcanists; one of my DMs recently said that, without their magic items, fighters are useless.

So if someone could explain to me why fighters, who have the best BABs, hit points, and feat selection (and how!) are weak compared to the other classes, I'll then be more effective in figuring out how to contribute to the PRPG. (Note: I play in a Tome of Battle game, which everyone says the classes are infinitely superior to fighters. I'll have to play a fighter one day to compare the two to find out. I admit, though, I find the stances/maneuvers very spell-casty :) )


Ismellmonkey wrote:

In some ways I think wizards actually has a point on a few issues.

The game is hard to run at high levels.
The problem of remembering a lot of little situational bonuses, like multiple simultaneous buff effects.
Spell caster getting instant wins at high levels, with scry, buff, teleport, & kill.
The 15 minute adventuring day.

I completely agree on these issues. You can house rule the scry/teleport problem pretty easily, but the others are just ugly and hard to do. I'm hoping Paizo tries to fix these things, I'm a little concerned the Alpha rules don't hit these core problems very hard.

As to Multiple attacks, I find part of the slow down is each attack has a different BaB, so you can't roll 3 or 4 dice at once. Its one at a time, and you have to think about the attack bonus for each one. We do iterative attacks as follow:
1 Attack: Full Bab
2 Attacks: -4/-4
3 Attacks: -6/-6/-6
4 attacks: -8/-8/-8/-8
It works pretty well.


joela wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:


So if someone could explain to me why fighters, who have the best BABs, hit points, and feat selection (and how!) are weak compared to the other classes, I'll then be more effective in figuring out how to contribute to the PRPG.

I thought the PathRPG fighter was quite powerful. The Armor and Weapon mastery feats when combined with the bonus feats are quite impressive. However, the final PathRPG released is going to need a huge feat otherwise fighters are going to run out of feats to choose from.


As to Multiple attacks, I find part of the slow down is each attack has a different BaB, so you can't roll 3 or 4 dice at once. Its one at a time, and you have to think about the attack bonus for each one. We do iterative attacks as follow:

1 Attack: Full Bab
2 Attacks: -4/-4
3 Attacks: -6/-6/-6
4 attacks: -8/-8/-8/-8
It works pretty well.

I like your idea, it gives the player some options as well, if he makes one attack he has a much greater chance of success, but if he instead opts to do multiple attacks he increases his damage potential.


Sorry for some reason I didn't quote you properly.

Dark Archive

For iterative attacks, we could use a variation of the Furry of Blows ability: As a full action, you make any number of attacks you want. For each attack you make after the first, you take a -4 penalty to all your attack rolls for this action. The penalty can't be higher than your BAB.

Opinions?

Scarab Sages

What needs to be fixed by 3.75 or (as we, at the home boards, are calling it) 3P? Well there are few things that I can think of and I will try to take my personal preferences out of this as much as I can and stick to actual rules that are clunky or don't work very well.

Some pet pieves of mine are Grapple(Already addressed 'nuff Said).

Footnote rules that hide on you. Did you know that you get Synergy bonus to turn checks if you have Knowledge Religion 5+? No, neither did I until I reread the skill a few weeks ago.

The power creep of Core classes outside of the Core Rule Books. I know this is not a focus of this set of rules but it annoys me.

The number of feats needs to be pruned.

Skills need to be consolidated and I mean even more than what 3p has already done. (I mean 3P still have deception and disguise as seperarate things and it would seem they could be folded into one another but that is not the focus of this topic.)

High level characters and their playability are just a big pain in the current version of 3.5. I have a buddy that just cannot get into playing anything over 12 level because it is not fun. I think it is combination of keeping track of lots of powers and the sheer power creep that happens. That power curve it not as smooth as it could be.

Determining cover, illumination, concealment, and invisibility are all really an annoyance too. Every time they come up it stops the game while we look up the rules. I know that 3P is tying to fix the cover thing but I cannot say that I like it much either.

These are just a few things that come to mind right off but I'm sure there will be more and I'll be back when I remember them.

Peace

Jester


I fully believe that third edition has all of the issues which wizards is claiming it has, and I would also like to see them fixed.
My big disagreement with 4th edition is it doesn’t seem to address these issues in what I think is a proper and intelligent manner. It also seems to add to the problem with it’s powers and roles system, which I think are unnecessary additions.
I am curious if anyone feels the same way?

Dark Archive

Ismellmonkey wrote:

As to Multiple attacks, I find part of the slow down is each attack has a different BaB, so you can't roll 3 or 4 dice at once. Its one at a time, and you have to think about the attack bonus for each one. We do iterative attacks as follow:

1 Attack: Full Bab
2 Attacks: -4/-4
3 Attacks: -6/-6/-6
4 attacks: -8/-8/-8/-8
It works pretty well.

Huh. That's interesting. Could you give an example in use in your campaign?


I think that multiclassing needs to be fixed. The magic rating idea from Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm)
is a possibility and is open content. If used I think that column B should
give a bonus of 3/4ths lvl and column C a bonus of 1/2 lvl instead and arcane and divine magic should be separate, classes gaining Column B or Column C in the other kind of magic.


joela wrote:


Huh. That's interesting. Could you give an example in use in your campaign?

I left out 1 detail, you only get the extra attacks at the BaB where you would normally have gotten an extra attack. e.g. +6, +11, and +16.

So a fighter with a BaB of +6 could do 2 attacks as part of the full attack action at +2 for both Attacks (instead of +6/+1 as in the old system). It really starts to shine when your BaB is quite high, and hitting opponents gets a little easier than at lower levels. The number of attacks used are optional. So someone with +16 Bab can choose between doing 1,2,3,4 attacks on a Full Attack action.


Mike Kiscaden wrote:

As to Multiple attacks, I find part of the slow down is each attack has a different BaB, so you can't roll 3 or 4 dice at once. Its one at a time, and you have to think about the attack bonus for each one. We do iterative attacks as follow:

1 Attack: Full Bab
2 Attacks: -4/-4
3 Attacks: -6/-6/-6
4 attacks: -8/-8/-8/-8
It works pretty well.

Interesting. In an effort to keep things more compatable with 3.x, I would suggest making this:

1 att. = Full BAB
2 att. = -5/-5
3 att. = -10/-10/-10
4 att. = -15/-15/-15/-15


K. David Ladage wrote:


Interesting. In an effort to keep things more compatable with 3.x, I would suggest making this:

1 att. = Full BAB
2 att. = -5/-5
3 att. = -10/-10/-10
4 att. = -15/-15/-15/-15

The Reason I picked -4/-6/-8 as the progression is because of statistics:

Odds of rolling 11 or better on:
1 atk, Full Bab = 50%
2 atk -4/-4 = 51%
3 atk -6/-6/-6 = 49%
4 atk -8/-8/-8/-8 = 36%

So really, the -8 option isn't that great either, but its still useful if you have an easy to hit opponent.


Go the Star Wars Saga edition route.

Remove iterative attacks, but offer a bonus feat in it's place. Then have an iterative attack feat. If a player wants the iterative attack then cool. if not then the character is better at something else.

Dark Archive

My biggest two complaints about 3.5 has always been Level Adjustments and having to spend xp for Magic Item Creation. If those could be fixed, I'd almost never play any other game.

Dark Archive

Kirwyn wrote:

Go the Star Wars Saga edition route.

Remove iterative attacks, but offer a bonus feat in it's place. Then have an iterative attack feat. If a player wants the iterative attack then cool. if not then the character is better at something else.

So far I and my players haven't had a problem with iterative attacks but, then, they're at 7th level at the moment.

I have played SWSE. My concern with the above suggestion is backward compatibility with 3.0/3.5e modules/supplements.


Well high levels are bad, but thats an issue for its own thread.

I'd like to see heavy armor and AC changed. In 3.5e heavy armor gets useless fast since you can't get any dex. The characters with the highest ACs in 3.5e are the guys who wear no armor and get all their AC from dex. That is messed up.

We're starting a game right now at 7th level. We've got a psion, a warblade, and a rogue. We all have AC 22. Thats wrong. The fighter type should have significantly more AC than the wizard type. Furthermore, the warblade is using a chain shirt since using heavy armor wouldn't raise his AC and would hamper his mobility. The heavy armor isn't more protective than the chain shirt. Now that needs fixing.


Needs Fixing:
* At high level, Wizards throw out save-or-die effects round after round. Eliminate or change all save-or-die effects, or state that high-level combat is "Save Or Die" for both sides.

* High-Level Fighters don't feel very High-Level. They might swing bigger and / or more magical swords, but they fundamentally are using the same tricks as before. Combat Feat chains seem an obvious and really cool way to fix this, allowing Fighters to deal more damage and have cool effects. I'm already tinkering with this.

* Clerics are better fighters than Fighters. They're stronger and tougher with a higher attack bonus, and have a few spells left to heal with. This is Not Good. It's not as if Fighters have much of a niche; might as well let them keep what they have.

* Something should be done about Buff, Buff, Buff, Slaughter. It's a recurring problem in my games from mid-level on. And Dispel Magic, when used against highly-buffed PCs, renders the 20-30 minutes spent optimizing spell lists aggrivatingly wasted. But you have to dispel them, or all their buff-effects combine to make them an unstoppable behemoth... ...but Dispelling damages fun...

Liberty's Edge

One thing I've noticed with 3.5 is that the newer books don't seem to balance well all the time with the SRD or "basic" rules. It's almost like "here's a way around this rule". My only fear with the new Pathfinder RPG is this issue will be exacerbated even further. The more we get away from the original ruleset, the further we are away from 3.5. That said, I love options. IMO, that was one of the coolest things about 3rd edition- the rigid structure of the earlier editions was gone. My hope is that the new Pathfinder RPG will be able to mesh well with 3.5 and thus products made under that ruleset.


Oddly enough I believe there is a lot of ways to fix these problems.

Having a limit on the number of buffs an individual can have at a time.

Make save or die effects have a separate additional constitution check to see if it works otherwise it’s just a minor damage spell. High-powered monsters would be practically immune. Making the spell useful for whipping out lower powered mobs, what it should be used for.

Fighters, in fact all warrior types need a universal ability to shrug of damage.

Clerics just need power down.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Joela wrote:


So if someone could explain to me why fighters, who have the best BABs, hit points, and feat selection (and how!) are weak compared to the other classes, I'll then be more effective in figuring out how to contribute to the PRPG. (Note: I play in a Tome of Battle game, which everyone says the classes are infinitely superior to fighters. I'll have to play a fighter one day to compare the two to find out. I admit, though, I find the stances/maneuvers very spell-casty :) )

Fighters, in my opinion, are not as weak as everyone makes them out to be. They may not be as powerful as the Tome of Battle classes, but still, I'd say Fighter is one of the best classes in the PHB.

Often, when people complain about the fighter, they are complaining about their ability to stand up in a one-on-one fight with other classes, or to solo. Okay, sure, Druids can solo better and clerics can cast a few spells to have the same attack bonus and better strength. However, D&D is a team sport. The cleric could cast those spells on himself and sometimes that's warranted, but he should be casting a lot of them on the party's fighter. A fighter with all of his feats and the party's best buffing spells can stand up front and do his job of absorbing most of the damage and dealing some decent damage as well while the rest of the party fulfills its various roles a few feet behind.


I believe that the problem with fighters is that in high-level play they really just can't contribute as much as a caster (either arcane or divine). Heck, those other classes can summon something that is more effective than a fighter, and then continue on with their other spells. The problem may be that fighters are designed to go for a long time (ie. you can power attack 100 times a day whereas a caster will run out of Big Spells after a few encounters). Of course, the whole party camps when the casters run out, so the fighter seems weak. At high level, the fights are also very short sometimes. Casters can end a conflict with one spell but it usually takes a fighter several rounds to win a fight. So again they seem weak by comparison.

- - - - -

But on topic, here are my personal opinions on what I see 'wrong' with 3.5 (and I realize these pertain more to me than most folks, but there are probably a lot of us crotchety old grognards playing the game):

"What's wrong with 3.5", in order of importance:

1) The game feels old and tired. Been there done that.
2) Too many expansion books, with each one upping the complexity and power level.
3) Complexity increases too much with level, making game mechanics bog down the action at higher levels.
4) Only one style of play (ubiquitous magic, item-based characters, expotentially increasing threats) is really supported.

Unfortuneately, you can't really get something new and fresh without adding expansions - except by moving to a new edition. The other stuff might be fixable, except that it's really ingrained into the gamer psyche by this point.

And the above is just talking about the stuff that doesn't change the core of D&D. For me personally, I think classes, hit points, armor, and the spell system are all poorly designed and just bad. But that's a whole herd of sacred cows that even I would not try to slaughter and still brand D&D.


Hello all,

I think I'll peruse these posts and compile a list of what everyone thinks doesn't work or needs fixing to create that "Bullet List" I was thinking of creating when I opened this post. It may take me a couple of days to get to it however because I have a busy weekend ahead of me. If someone wants to compile it before I do feel free. I was thinking of just a list with a very brief reason for a change.

Add to the list:
2) Light Shield vs Bucker: Reason: Buckler is clearly superior.


Here was my totally crazy idea that i posted to my group:

Go through the spells available. Determine if they are of 3 categories. Offense, Defense, or Utility.

Offense Spells: These spells are usually blasting, summoning, or debuffs. Durations, if they have them, are usually 1 round/level, since they are intended to used only in combat.
1)Blasting or Attacks: These spells are a standard action to cast. They usually follow standard rules, either damage and save or attack and no save. Durations usually don't matter here.
2)Summoning: The summoned creature lasts until the encounter ends or the creature dies.
3)Debuffs: They last till the victim saves. They get one save per round.

Defense Spells: These are buffs, and yes, some are offensive in nature. This is controversial, but here's my idea. Make all buffs/defense spells an Immediate Action (I think you only get one of these per round). BUT they only last till your next turn. This keeps the Buffgloat from happening and keeps from casters totally overpowering the melee classes.
(Think about the war-cleric. I don't care how you rationalize it, this combo is ALWAYS going to overshadow a fighter. Spells are just much more powerful than a feat. Dispel Magic is the only counter for an enemy, but its really a wasted action.)
Make them one immediate action, and the cleric can still attack with his buff or give the other characters a quick boost.

Utility Spells: Make these spells all take 10 minutes to cast...but if they have a duration...make them last till either sundown or sunup.


Mike Kiscaden wrote:
K. David Ladage wrote:


Interesting. In an effort to keep things more compatable with 3.x, I would suggest making this:

1 att. = Full BAB
2 att. = -5/-5
3 att. = -10/-10/-10
4 att. = -15/-15/-15/-15

The Reason I picked -4/-6/-8 as the progression is because of statistics:

Odds of rolling 11 or better on:
1 atk, Full Bab = 50%
2 atk -4/-4 = 51%
3 atk -6/-6/-6 = 49%
4 atk -8/-8/-8/-8 = 36%

So really, the -8 option isn't that great either, but its still useful if you have an easy to hit opponent.

...Or if you have a really difficult to hit opponent. The fact that hits and misses have a ceiling/floor effect at 20 and 1 really screws with this strategy. Your analysis works because you started assuming you needed an 11 to hit, but if you move your starting point significantly above or below that point things get weird. Think about it, if you need to roll a 20 to hit your enemy, wouldn't you rather take a -8 penalty to attack 4 times with the exact same chance to hit?

In fact, four chances to roll a 20 will give you 0.2 expected hits, and you'll get at least one hit (possibly more) roughly 20% of the time. (18.55%) Meaning if you need a 17 or better to hit you're actually better off flailing as wildly as possible; you'll probably do just as well, and if you're lucky you might even hit 4 times, but you won't do any worse.

Meanwhile, say an attack at standard BAB will hit on a 2. Why your 15th level character is butchering crippled baby kobolds is not the point, let's just assume. Odds are (95%) you'll get one hit. If you go all out ("all out" being four hits at -8 each) each one will hit 55% of the time. 2.2 expected hits.

So we have a situation where for any easy OR difficult situation one should make as many attacks as possible, and only in an increasingly narrow middle scenario should one even consider making fewer attacks.

Was that the goal?


OzyB wrote:
My biggest two complaints about 3.5 has always been Level Adjustments and having to spend xp for Magic Item Creation. If those could be fixed, I'd almost never play any other game.

I always looked at the XP for Magic Item Creation as a balancing factor to slow down the wizards a little bit; so a wizard loaded down with magic items he created would potentially be a level behind the rest of the party.

Its often said that wizards are more powerful than the other classes at higher levels afterall.


Polevoi wrote:


I always looked at the XP for Magic Item Creation as a balancing factor to slow down the wizards a little bit; so a wizard loaded down with magic items he created would potentially be a level behind the rest of the party.

Which means he earns more experience per encounter until he catches back up to them (which really doesn't take that long) and after a level or so he's right back where he started, plus his toys.

Meanwhile, the party had the joy of taking up the slack from their selfish low-level wizard and earning extra experience for him.

In fact, in some cases, if experience is awarded when the wizard is just below leveling up but the rest of the party is already at the next level, the larger award actually catapults him past their experience.


Hmm, I havent actually played in the upper levels in a very long time so i'll just take what you say at face value, BUT, i'm having a hard time seeing this happen:

Moon-Hawk wrote:
In fact, in some cases, if experience is awarded when the wizard is just below leveling up but the rest of the party is already at the next level, the larger award actually catapults him past their experience.

And if it did get to that point I would have to use DM fiat to just tell the Wizard he's tied with the rest of the party again


anthony Valente wrote:

Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed.

To the OP's question...

IMHO the following needs a fix:

- Aerial (combat / movement) rules
- Grapple
- Turn Undead
- Too few skill points and too many notso usefull skills
- Epic level subset rules need unification with "standard" 01-20 rules
- Too many spells on each spell list. Even after years of playing 3.5, we still flip the pages of the PHB to reference spells - this is timeconsuming and play grinds to a halt
- Reworking of some spells such as Detect Magic
- Reworking / rebalancing of some feats

Of less importance:
- Reduce chance of low-level (1st through 3rd) PC-Death
- Reduce iterative attacks
- No empty class levels


What need fixing in 3.5:

If anything, give fighters more feats, not fewer. That's really all they get, and it's what makes them worth the money. Up the damage from Weapon Specialization from +2 to +4, and make Greater Specialization +8, and let combat be as vicious in game terms as it should be. In a Ravenloft game in which I play a 16th lvl paladin, a 16th level fighter did 163 points of damage to me in two rounds. Fortunately, through judicial spell use (and him being evil) I did 208 points over that same period. Magic, divine and arcane are powerful enough as it is. Give the Tome of Battle classes (which I love) limited uses of powers per day. Let rogues use open lock to bypass arcane locks. My Rogue 16/Gatecrasher 10 can open a portal sealed by the gods, but a 2nd lvl spell stumps him.


Polevoi wrote:

Hmm, I havent actually played in the upper levels in a very long time so i'll just take what you say at face value, BUT, i'm having a hard time seeing this happen:

Moon-Hawk wrote:
In fact, in some cases, if experience is awarded when the wizard is just below leveling up but the rest of the party is already at the next level, the larger award actually catapults him past their experience.
And if it did get to that point I would have to use DM fiat to just tell the Wizard he's tied with the rest of the party again

Upper levels has nothing to do with it.

Let me give you an example: Party of 5th level characters. The wizard takes Craft Wand, and makes himself a toy or two. Let's say he's 100XP behind the rest of the group, just to keep the numbers simple. Now let's say most of the group makes it to 6th level, just barely. So they're at, what, 15,000XP exactly? So the wizard is at 14,900, and still 5th level, but he's enjoying his wand.

They fight a CR 8 creature. Certainly not unreasonable for what should be a party of 6th level characters. I could use a higher CR or a series of multiple fights (since I don't know about you, but I don't award XP after every single fight) but I'm trying to stay far from the realm of hyperbole and just show a simple example of how it happens, and you can imagine there are situations where it can be a lot worse than this. So a party of 4 fighting a CR 8 creature yields, let's see, consulting the table: a quarter of 3600XP for sixth level characters, so they each get 900XP, putting them at 15,900. The 5th level guy gets a quarter of 4500, so he gets 1125, putting him at 16,025.

As you say, this can be fixed with fiat, but there it is. We could run into the same problem at 3rd-4th level if it were a potion instead of a wand, but since the experience table flattens around levels 1-3 I wanted to stay away from there, for simplicity.


Moon-Hawk wrote:
snip *good example of point trying to make* snip

Okay, i see your point, thats retarded, looks like we found something else that needs to be fixed.


Moon-Hawk wrote:


...Or if you have a really difficult to hit opponent. The fact that hits and misses have a ceiling/floor effect at 20 and 1 really screws with this strategy. Your analysis works because you started assuming you needed an 11 to hit, but if you move your starting point significantly above or below that point things get weird. Think about it, if you need to roll a 20 to hit your enemy, wouldn't you rather take a -8 penalty to attack 4 times with the exact same chance to hit?

My goal was to illustrate how if you are going to give a character multiple attacks all at the same penalty, you want to have the odds of getting one hit stay about the same no matter how many attacks you do. Which is why I picked 11 as the target number to get on a d20, its right in the middle of the linear possibilities.

I think there will always be a viable middle section where you don't want to do all 4 attacks at -8 each. -8 is a pretty stiff penalty. Also when combined with feats that are only used for the first attack when doing a full attack action (i.e. Stunning Fist), not taking a huge penality on your first swing may be desirable.


Mike Kiscaden wrote:


...you want to have the odds of getting one hit stay about the same no matter how many attacks you do.

You do? I'm not so sure. If all the options result in the same chance of getting a hit, what's the point of the options?

I suspect that isn't exactly what you were trying to say, but it doesn't matter, because unless you're always looking to roll an 11 the odds don't stay the same.

Mike Kiscaden wrote:

I think there will always be a viable middle section where you don't want to do all 4 attacks at -8 each. -8 is a pretty stiff penalty.

Indeed. And that middle section is when your regular BAB will hit on a roll of 11 to 16 (inclusive) Outside of that range you're statistically better off taking the 4 at -8. Or if there are other feats in play, as you mention. Or if, y'know, I botched my math. :-)

I don't mean this as criticism, I just wanted to make sure your goals matched the effect.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
anthony Valente wrote:

Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed. It could serve as a "table of contents" or bullet list of sorts to be used as a platform for other threads. I love the idea that paizo wants to tweak 3.5 and also wants our input as I would rather stick with the 3.5 system. However, looking through the threads so far, there are a lot of interesting ideas and feedback, but it is bewildering to try and sort through it (for me anyway).

Here goes, in no particular order.

* Multiclassing is broken in 3.5. PCs get nerfed if they take two dissimilar classes (such as Rogue and Sorcerer) until they can buy into a prestige class that lets them advance in both their core areas (such as Arcane Trickster). Using prestige classes to fix this is a massive hack.

* Level Adjustment for monster levels should be shot, buried, and the grave paved over into a parking lot. Races with inherent advantages need a balance mechanism, but sacrificing hit dice isn't it. You either end up with horribly overpowered or horribly underhitpointed PCs. Yes I'm quoting myself from another thread.

* Damage Resistance tends to render certain characters unable to affect the monster, particularly at lower levels. (My group tends to groan heavily when they have to fight any creature with high DR. We just went through this when they had to fight Malfeshnekor the Barghest in Burnt Offerings. As 3rd levels they didn't all have magic weapons that matched their proficiencies yet.)

* PCs shouldn't be dependent upon acquiring the right magic items along the way in order to be able to operate effectively at high levels. This is a particular issue for the AC buff items, but it also impacts the odder classes like Monks who don't have a lot of thematically matching items to look forward to ("oh look, another magic longsword...throw it into the wagon, we'll sell it in town.").

* 100 gp pearl material component for Identify spell, per magic item...

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

My peeve is with tracking duration of spells and other effects. I do like the idea of 1 round/encounter/day duration limits on spells. My players NEVER track this, so it might as well be simpler in the rules themselves.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Simplification of multiple attacks:

Player makes a single attack roll.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +6, and exceeds the target AC by 5 or more, he hits twice.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +11, and exceeds the target AC by 10 or more, he hits three times.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +16, and exceeds the target AC by 15 or more, he hits four times.

Two-weapon fighting is resolved with another attack roll, with similar results (but improved / greater two-weapon fighting feats needed to get the extra hits).

If a critical is rolled, it only applies to the first attack.


My number one "must fix" is the multiple stacking buffs which become an accounting nightmare at high levels, and which make a buffed party much, much more powerful than an unbuffed party. One particularily annoying effect of this is the super slow and tedius resolution of a targeted greater dispel magic on a buffed high level PC or NPC, or a Mordenkainen's Disjunction on the fully buffed and equiped party.

My proposed solution: change the buff types. Instead of sacred bonus, morale bonus, natural armor bonus, etc., change it to just a couple of types based on source. I think there would only be a couple: magic bonus (from spell or magic item), class bonus (from class feature or feat) and situational bonus. Natural armor would not be a bonus, but instead monsters with natural armor start out with a higher base AC than 10. You can only get one magic bonus to AC at a time, no others stack. You can only get one magic bonus to attack rolls, saves, etc. This way you can keep all the 3.5 spells and minimize backwards compatibility problems. But it is pointless to try to cast all your defensive spells at once if they affect the same attribute (AC, attacks, Reflex saves, etc.) as they won't stack. Also, if you already have a magic item that gives you a bonus, spells that further boost that attribute are pointless.


delabarre wrote:

[

* PCs shouldn't be dependent upon acquiring the right magic items along the way in order to be able to operate effectively at high levels. This is a particular issue for the AC buff items, but it also impacts the odder classes like Monks who don't have a lot of thematically matching items to look forward to ("oh look, another magic longsword...throw it into the wagon, we'll sell it in town.").

Which is why the monks get a poop load of special abilities.

I recently played a game with a Half Dragon monk with special monk items (Damaging gloves, Magic monks suits, etc...) with her movement speed and hit/damage capabilities she ran ahead of everyone cleared out a room then when we got there we got to heal her, [sarcasm] amazingly fun game if do say so myself. [/sarcasm]

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dragon Lover wrote:
I recently played a game with a Half Dragon monk with special monk items (Damaging gloves, Magic monks suits, etc...) with her movement speed and hit/damage capabilities she ran ahead of everyone cleared out a room then when we got there we got to heal her, [sarcasm] amazingly fun game if do say so myself. [/sarcasm]

Comment #1: Half Dragon template can be abusively powerful.

Comment #2: Monks throw a lot of damage per round but are balanced by being somewhat more fragile than fighters -- generally lower AC and HP.
Comment #3: If your DM is setting out encounters that one party member can routinely solo, then he's not really challenging your party.


Russell Barnson wrote:

Simplification of multiple attacks:

Player makes a single attack roll.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +6, and exceeds the target AC by 5 or more, he hits twice.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +11, and exceeds the target AC by 10 or more, he hits three times.

* If attacker has a BAB of at least +16, and exceeds the target AC by 15 or more, he hits four times.

Two-weapon fighting is resolved with another attack roll, with similar results (but improved / greater two-weapon fighting feats needed to get the extra hits).

If a critical is rolled, it only applies to the first attack.

A variant of the autofire rules...LOVE IT!! Excellent way to cut down on dice rolling. Question...how does this take Nat.20's into account? Do all attacks hit, or just the ones that normally would?


anthony Valente wrote:

Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed. It could serve as a "table of contents" or bullet list of sorts to be used as a platform for other threads. I love the idea that paizo wants to tweak 3.5 and also wants our input as I would rather stick with the 3.5 system. However, looking through the threads so far, there are a lot of interesting ideas and feedback, but it is bewildering to try and sort through it (for me anyway).

y

My List would be, in priority order.

1. Magic item dependacy (christmas tree effect)
2. High level DMing problems. I won't DM 3.5 past 10th level, its way too much hard work and no fun.
3. 15 minute adventuring day.
4. Low levels spells are mostly wasted at higher levels.
5. Setting portability. By this I mean the ease with you can run a different setting with minimal rule change.


A couple years back I stopped playing 3.5 and started playing Castles & Crusades. I say this so people who read my suggestions will have an idea of the kind of game I like (simpler, more streamlined), and can accept or dismiss them as they see fit. I'll mention right off the top that I like the new skill system and the combat maneuvers, and I like that the use of one combat feat seems to set up another. Finally, I also like that many of the "innovations" of 4th edition seem to be addressed in Pathfinder while still keeping the game largely backwards compatible. That shows a willingness to adapt coupled with a respect for long-time players.

1. Fewer bonuses and an end to bonus types. As a player and DM, I'd like less bookeeping.

2. A simple core system with optional rules, as opposed to a complicated system that is difficult to houserule. I'd hold up the old Rules Cyclopedia as an example of this.

3. As the game wore on, I thought there were too many action types. I like the 4E method of standard, move and minor action, with some minor actions occuring outside of the normal turn structure.

4. Simpler monsters, again not unlike the 4E or older editions allowing monsters to use somewhat different rules than PC's.

5. Standardized DC's. DC's were the thing I had to look up the most often while refereeing the game.

6. The 15-minute day is another problem I had, though this is pretty common in all iterations of the game. I solved it in our group by allowing the PCs to rest for an hour after a combat to regain 75% of the hit points they had just lost in that combat; this was based on the idea that hit points represent fatigue and luck.

Obviously, your mileage may vary.

Dark Archive

Shaun Kelso wrote:


Fighters, in my opinion, are not as weak as everyone makes them out to be. They may not be as powerful as the Tome of Battle classes, but still, I'd say Fighter is one of the best classes in the PHB.

I totally agree.

I played a fighter who single classed up to level 13 as a ranged specialist, and let me tell you in an average fight I could easily keep pace with a spellcaster.

The simple reason is resources. Ya the wizard can toss out fireballs for 35+ HP damage, but he can only do it for so long.

A fighter using full attack, with the right gear can do that every round, and all day long! (assuming I have enough ammo).

I think people have lost sight of the fact that a fighter's main goal is to soak up as much damage as possible, not always being the one dealing the most of it.


Monks and Bards. Monks and Bards. Monks and Bards. Think of the G!$ D#&med Monks and Bards. The 15 min work day and the gear power level of what it costs for the fight to become good. I.E. how to out last the wizard on a shoe string budget.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / General Discussion / What About 3.5 Needs Fixing? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion
Please Change Half-Orcs