|
I thought I might re-post this here after getting some feedback on rpg.net.
I finally got round to putting together my list of optional rules for 3.5 to mimic the best bits of Pathfinder RPG and 4e.
So here it is so far:
Optional Rules Implemented
- Complex Skill Checks (Unearthed Arcana p81) - skill challenges basically
- Damage Conversion (Unearthed Arcana p112) - so at least some damage will be non-lethal meaning less magical healing is needed, and combined with Reserve Points below, a character can spend a Standard action to "heal" in combat ala Second Wind.
- Reserve Points (Unearthed Arcana p119) - ability to recover some hitpoints between encounters ala 4e's Short Rest.
- Action Points (Unearthed Arcana p122) - not like 4e's Action Points, I prefer these.
- Incantations (Unearthed Arcana p174) - ala 4e Rituals
- Retraining (Players Handbook 2 p192) - ala 4e Retraining
- Insanity & Madness (d20 Freeport Companion p43) – Freeport games only
Recommended Options
- Character Traits (Unearthed Arcana p87) – recommended allow for some simple differentiation and tailoring of mechanics that are theoretically inherently balanced.
- Character Flaws (Unearthed Arcana p91) – recommended to allow characters to take more feats at character creation, useful if several feats have a pre-requisite of the character being 1st level.
Recommended Class Options
- Bloodlines (Unearthed Arcana p19) – recommended for Sorcerers, GM permission is required for a Bloodline to be taken for other character classes.
- Spontaneous Divine Casters (Unearthed Arcana p64) – for players who do not wish to be overwhelmed by the choices of spells to prepare.
Recommended Feats
- Sacred Healing, Sacred Purification (Players Handbook 2 p89) – recommended to allow a Cleric to use Turn Undead uses to increase the benefit of healing and to heal all living character in a 60 feet radius. This mimic's PF's channelling but without healing so much damage, so it avoids the issue I have with Cleric's spamming healing so PCs start at full HP each day (or the GM has to throw loads of encounters to make the cleric use up all his channels)
- Reserve Feats (Complete Mage p36, Complete Champion p53) – recommended to provide a magic user with supernatural abilities usable at will, e.g. Acidic Splatter (Complete Mage p37) provides an at-will acid based ranged touch attack, Dimensional Reach (Complete Mage p41) provides an at-will minor instant summons ability, Charnel Miasma (Complete Champion p57) provides a deathly aura that can be used at-will to frighten foes, whilst Touch of Healing (Complete Champion p62) provides at-will healing to a creature with fewer than half its hit points.
- Able Learner (Races of Destiny p150) – recommended to allow human and doppelganger characters to have cross class skills cost 1 skill point per rank. Mimicking PF's skill point cost, albeit only for humans.
- Open Minded (Complete Adventurer page 111 & Expanded Psionics Handbook p48) - recommended to swap a feat selection for 5 skill points, similar to 4e's Skill Training feat.
So what other things do you like about PF and 4e that you think could be implemented in 3.5 (in some format) by using officially published optional rules, feats, class variants etc?
I don't know, I find Bloodlines better for non-casters in 3.5.
|
|
@Starbuck_II - thanks for the feedback, I have never seen 3.5 Bloodlines in use and I haven't read them all thoroughly yet so I will have to take your comment on board. Maybe see how they play.
All of those are things for 3.5. While they might change 3.5 to a flavor you like, they can not emulate either the balance of 4.0, or the basic core concepts of Pathfinder, among them being base classes don't suck.
You want the best of Pathfinder or 4.0... play those systems. There is nothing in 3.5 that will cure the problems that these systems were designed to fix.
I do play 4e and am going to be playing PF again, but I want to stick with 3.5 too. For me, balance and base classes sucking were never an issue for me (in that I didn't feel the base classes sucked) - so I am not trying to fix those issues, rather I am trying to get some of the things I liked in PF and 4e and introduce something similar into a 3.5 game.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
digital Mage,
My inclination would be to just house-rule the benefits and changes you like, rather than search official 3.5 material (you can put that in air-quotes, if you're using Unearthed Arcana material) for close analogues.
For example, if you think characters ought to begin with more Feats, give everybody (including the NPCs) an extra Feat or two. That solves the problem without implementing the troublesome "Flaws" mechanics.
The bloodlines from UA don't really work like the bloodlines for Pathfinder sorcerers, and if you do indeed allow them for other classes -- or for PCs who splace a level of Sorcerer to get the impressive benefits of bloodlines -- then you've diluted one of the reasons behind the mechanic in Pathfinder to help differentiate Sorcerers and make them cool.
Likewise, incantations are similar to 4th Edition Rituals, but if you like the ritual rules for the reasons the 4th Edition Design Team intended, keeping spellcasters from clogging their combat casting options with non-combat spells, then UA incantations don't really solve the same problems.
And you don't have to limit yourself to Pathfinder or 4th Edition. If there's something that you found in Green Ronin's "Advanced" series, or Malhavoc's "Books of Blankety-blank Might" that you like, add it to your game.
Or am I missing something, some reason that you need to find offiical 3.5 analogues to the rules you want to include?
|
|
My inclination would be to just house-rule the benefits and changes you like, rather than search official 3.5 material (you can put that in air-quotes, if you're using Unearthed Arcana material) for close analogues.
[...]
Or am I missing something, some reason that you need to find offiical 3.5 analogues to the rules you want to include?
I know its odd but I really don't like houseruling nowadays, also I am not as well versed with teh d20 rules as I would like so I feel that using official rules, while not maybe great for balance, will still be better balanced than I could come up with.
the troublesome "Flaws" mechanics.
What did you find particularly troublesome about it? Was it abused, did it throw off balance?
The bloodlines from UA don't really work like the bloodlines for Pathfinder sorcerers, and if you do indeed allow them for other classes [...] then you've diluted one of the reasons behind the mechanic in Pathfinder to help differentiate Sorcerers and make them cool.
I think sorcerers are cool anyway :) But yes, that is why I suggested limiting to Sorcerer PCs only, and only allowing other PCs to take a Bloodline with GM permission (and a good character concept). I understand they aren't exactly the same as the PF ones, but I hope they will fill a similar role at a concept level.
Likewise, incantations are similar to 4th Edition Rituals, but if you like the ritual rules for the reasons the 4th Edition Design Team intended, keeping spellcasters from clogging their combat casting options with non-combat spells, then UA incantations don't really solve the same problems.
Yes, I understand Rituals are more aimed at level 6 to 9 spel levels and are quite specific, still they will be great for plot points and I would still be interested to see how they could be used as a PC. I need to try converting a few spells to Incantations to see how easy it is to do and how hard it would be for a PC to cast.
And you don't have to limit yourself to Pathfinder or 4th Edition. If there's something that you found in Green Ronin's "Advanced" series, or Malhavoc's "Books of Blankety-blank Might" that you like, add it to your game.
As sources for rules, I would be interested to see what they can provide to help emulate PF and 4e. As things I am aiming to emulate, well I have limited myself to PF and 4e because I have those and have seen things in them I like and would like to emulate, with other books I don't know what I would even want to emulate, never mind how to. :)
You do realise that if a 3.x sorcerer is forced to take a Un.Arc. bloodline, that he will be _even further_ behind in spell levels than a wizard?
The minor bloodline uses up one character level of XP by L 12, while the intermediate and major use up two and three levels respectively. And those are not just "dead levels" where one gets only hit points, skill points, and a few more spells known. For those bloodline levels, there are no hit points, no skill points, no base save increases, no BAB increases, and no extra daily spell slots or spells known. Only a spell's caster level is increased.
In my opinion, that's pretty harsh for a sorcerer. A 3.x sorcerer would be better off taking a bloodline _feat_ as described in the Dragon Compendium (originally found in Dragon issues 311 and 325). At one point, I was offering a free bloodline feat at Sorcerer 1 to the players in my campaigns. (Then PF came along ...)
In general, I think that the Un.Arc. bloodlines are best for non-full caster characters (the loss of spell levels can hurt too much). I'm not even convinced that full BAB characters would get as much out of those bloodlines as rogues, bards, or even monks would.
|
I know its odd but I really don't like houseruling nowadays, also I am not as well versed with teh d20 rules as I would like so I feel that using official rules, while not maybe great for balance, will still be better balanced than I could come up with.
The thing is, if you're using material that fundamentally changes how the game works, it's a house rule, whether it came from a WotC book or not. In fact, your primary source, Unearthed Arcana, is nothing but a big book of house rules.
|
|
You do realise that if a 3.x sorcerer is forced to take a Un.Arc. bloodline, that he will be _even further_ behind in spell levels than a wizard?
A good point and one that I will take into account. However I would never force a player of a sorcerer to take a blood line just indicate that it is an option.
Also, for my games at least I don't imagine having both a sorcerer and a wizard, though I guess it is possible if the players wanted a more magic orientated campaign.
And again, I doubt any campaign of mine would go above level 12 (more likely not break level 8) so for a Minor bloodline technically a player could get away without spending a level, and for an intermediate bloodline only spending 1 level.
But yeah, thanks for highlighting that to me.
The thing is, if you're using material that fundamentally changes how the game works, it's a house rule, whether it came from a WotC book or not. In fact, your primary source, Unearthed Arcana, is nothing but a big book of house rules.
I can sort of see your point, but for me the difference between house rules and official optional rules are that:
a) I can point people to the source, and as UA is OGC they can access the details easily,
b) as stated it is likely more balanced and well thought out than what I could come up with,
c) players are more accepting of official options than a GMs own creations.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
DM, it's your campaign, and you can do as you please. You know your players and I don't.
But, let me address your last three points.
a) I should hope that any hoserules as substantial as these would be written out and available for the players to read. Contrariwise, I would hope that your players have access to all the supplemental books they'd need.
b) Manifestly not. Unearthed Arcana was relesed in February of 2004. 3.5 was still shiny and new, and the design team for UA (Collins, Decker, Noonan, Redman) was in no way as familiar with the rules as Buhlmann and the Paizo designers were last year. Moreover, UA was admittedly "stuff we haven't quite playtested enough, but we think works." Compare that to the tens-of-thousands of hours that went into playtesting the Pathfinder rules, or the D&D 4th Edition ruleset.
Material like Races of Destiny or Complete Champion are a little better than UA, but Wizards was churning out a rule book every month at that point. The designers and development teams had a better understanding of what would make a good D&D rule, and they probably did some quick playtesting for things like reserve feats, but, again, nothing like the work that went into balancing Pathfinder.
Porting over the Pathfinder rules for sorcerous bloodlines will do what you want them to do, add into your 3.5 game an attractive aspect of PF RPG. Opening up the rules for PC bloodlines from UA probably won't do what you want, as Bellona explained.
Annnouncing that characters in your 3.5 game get a new Feat every other level will do what you want. Opening up the Character Flaws rules, to allow extra Feats at character creation, won't play the same way. (And yeah, the Flaws are one of the buggiest sections of the UA rules. If the DM makes use of the PCs flaws on a regular basis, it feels like she's picking on her players; if she seldom makes use of the Flaws, they're pointless.)
If you want to allow healing akin to 4th Edition's Short Rest, simply do so; it'll do what you want. I use a variation of UA's Reserve Points, and I tell you, they do not work the same way. In particular, mixing Reserve Points and Damage Conversion is something that's never been carefully developed.
--
If you're using 3.5 "analogues" to the rules designs you like in Pathfinder and 4th Ed, because it suits your sense of wimsey, go ahead. But if you're doing so because you think they're better balanced, I respectfully disagree.
--
In particular, any houserule implemented by a Game Master is going to be better adapted to the particular gaming group, the needs and playstyles of the people around the table, than a generic rule by a Big Name Designer. Not only would your houserules be as good as something in a WotC hardcover, but they would be better.
c)That may be, for your playgroup. But it's still the GM's own decision as to which rules to open up, and how to interpret the plethora of rules questions which will arise.
|
|
DM, it's your campaign, and you can do as you please. You know your players and I don't.
I don't actually have a campaign or a group yet :) (I am running a 4e campaign at present and my players will change between campaigns). This is more in preperation and partly as a challenge to myself to see what is out there in 3.5 and how flexible it is.
a) I should hope that any hoserules as substantial as these would be written out and available for the players to read. Contrariwise, I would hope that your players have access to all the supplemental books they'd need.
I have written up the summary as above, and will explain the rules briefly. All books listed I own (in fact I will restrict stuff to only books I own) and will be available to all players to reference.
I will also point people to the SRD so they can reference the rules in their own time.
b) Manifestly not. Unearthed Arcana was relesed in February of 2004. 3.5 was still shiny and new, and the design team for UA (Collins, Decker, Noonan, Redman) was in no way as familiar with the rules as Buhlmann and the Paizo designers were last year. Moreover, UA was admittedly "stuff we haven't quite playtested enough, but we think works."
Well, even given that (and thanks for pointing that out, it will mean I will be a bit more wary of how things play out) I still think Collins, Decker, Noonan, Redman probably knew the 3.5 rules better then than I do now :)
Compare that to the tens-of-thousands of hours that went into playtesting the Pathfinder rules, or the D&D 4th Edition ruleset.
Well, i was comparing US etc with anything that I could come up with, not Paizo or WotC:)
Porting over the Pathfinder rules for sorcerous bloodlines will do what you want them to do, add into your 3.5 game an attractive aspect of PF RPG. Opening up the rules for PC bloodlines from UA probably won't do what you want, as Bellona explained.
Well I really don't want to mix PF into the mix - it isn't 3.5 (despite the logos Paizo keep attaching to the products) and it again introduces some level of input from me regarding conversion issues and whether just adding something to a class would potentially unbalance it.
I like PF changes and will enjoy them when playing PFS, but for my 3.5 games I would prefer to emulate them using 3.5 stuff than houserule and fudge things in from PF (if I was going to do that I would just use the PF RAW, but then I would need to convert my setting stuff, so I would probably give up on that and just go Golarion with PF only books).
Annnouncing that characters in your 3.5 game get a new Feat every other level will do what you want. Opening up the Character Flaws rules, to allow extra Feats at character creation, won't play the same way.
I guess I could do this and there is precedent (PFS Season Zero), but would still like to explore how flaws work - but I guess it will be a balancing act.
[b]If you're using 3.5 "analogues" to the rules designs you like in Pathfinder and 4th Ed, because it suits your sense of wimsey, go ahead. But if you're doing so because you think they're better balanced, I respectfully disagree.[b/]
I don't think they are necessarily better balance, but I do think they are designed for 3.5 and that placates my OCD tendencies about mixing editions.
I admit it is a bit irrational, but I get really uncomfortable mixing and matching editions. I disliked that the fact that there wasn't a Revised Core Rules version of Starships of the Galaxy for Star Wars d20, I avoid 3.0 material for D&D (and only got MM2 because it would be worse to have MM1, 3, 4 & 5 without 2).
Anyway, thanks for your feedback - any things you like about PF or 4e that I haven't tried to emulate but you feel I could?
|
|
Have you looked at Trailblazer, by Bad Axe Games. I know it's not by WotC (shock horror BADWRONGFUN), but it is an attempted re-balancing of 3.5, and in doing so it ends up emulating many of the mechanics of PFRPG and 4E.
|
|
Have you looked at Trailblazer, by Bad Axe Games. I know it's not by WotC (shock horror BADWRONGFUN), but it is an attempted re-balancing of 3.5, and in doing so it ends up emulating many of the mechanics of PFRPG and 4E.
I have a copy of the PDF, and I do keep meaning to look at it, but the font is so small I really struggle to read it. Thanks for the reminder though.
|
|
Have you looked at Trailblazer, by Bad Axe Games. I know it's not by WotC (shock horror BADWRONGFUN), but it is an attempted re-balancing of 3.5, and in doing so it ends up emulating many of the mechanics of PFRPG and 4E.I have a copy of the PDF, and I do keep meaning to look at it, but the font is so small I really struggle to read it. Thanks for the reminder though.
If it's the PDF, then you can just zoom in and make the text as big as you like, can't you?
|
|
If it's the PDF, then you can just zoom in and make the text as big as you like, can't you?
Yes, but then I need to scroll a lot more :)
Anyway, I actually took another brief look at it this morning. I like some of the ideas, but I can't work out whether it is trying to be a selection of optional rules, a supplement you need to use in its entirety or even its own RPG (as it reprints so much stuff from the core books).
I also really did not like the idea of the 10 minute rest - why it was felt to be needed and how it was implemented.
Are there any rules or options in particular that you like?
Anyway, I actually took another brief look at it this morning. I like some of the ideas, but I can't work out whether it is trying to be a selection of optional rules, a supplement you need to use in its entirety or even its own RPG (as it reprints so much stuff from the core books).
Indeed; if you're excluding Pathfinder stuff for not being D&D/d20, then I don't see why you'd include Trailblazer stuff (or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or whatever, for that matter). In fact, I'm not sure why you'd include Unearthed Arcana stuff either, but chacun a son gout. :-)
|
|
Indeed; if you're excluding Pathfinder stuff for not being D&D/d20,
I exclude Pathfinder for not being D&D3.5 specifically (depite the logos the books bear, it isn't 3.5).
then I don't see why you'd include Trailblazer stuff (or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or whatever, for that matter).
TBH, I doubt I will be including anything from Trailblazer as I still don't understand what it is, and haven't yet asceertained whether it is a set of options for 3.5, or more a general 3.x.
In fact, I'm not sure why you'd include Unearthed Arcana stuff either
UA was written for D&D3.5, simple as that really :)
then I don't see why you'd include Trailblazer stuff (or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or whatever, for that matter).TBH, I doubt I will be including anything from Trailblazer as I still don't understand what it is, and haven't yet asceertained whether it is a set of options for 3.5, or more a general 3.x.
I don't distinguish between the two.
In fact, I'm not sure why you'd include Unearthed Arcana stuff eitherUA was written for D&D3.5, simple as that really :)
See above. :-)
Having said that, I think the intention with Trailblazer is that you can use the bits you like and ignore the bits you don't (a la Unearthed Arcana), but there are some bits that interoperate.