# 3.5e -- What REALLY needed fixing?



## loseth (Mar 31, 2008)

So, 4e went with a totally new version of D&D. That left Paizo saying, 'We'll make a new version of 3.5e, but we'll only fix the parts that genuinely didn't work, while making sure the new version is still compatible with the old.' I thought, 'Cool! No obsoleted libraries!' But then when I downloaded Pathfinder, it was IMHO* 10% fixing what was broke and 90% 'fixing' what wasn't. So, that got me to thinking: what REALLY needed fixing in 3.5e (i.e. 40-70% of all non-super-hardcore gamers complained about/had trouble with/disliked it) and could be fixed without disturbing backwards compatibility.

*Just my opinion--I'm sure everybody has their own opinion on Pathfinder, but that's definitely not what I want to discuss here. I'd prefer to keep the discussion fixed on 3.5 and what really, really needed fixing.

*THE UPDATED LIST OF PROBLEMS*
(Apologies—I have had to use my judgment in not including ones that a) seem like pet peeves rather than widely perceived problems or b) are widely perceived problems but do not appear to be easily fixable without compromising near-perfect backwards compatibility. Let me know if you think my judgment has erred)

--Wizards having nothing to do when they've cast all their spells appropriate to the situation
--People having trouble remembering 1-2-1 (YMMV)
--Statting up NPCs, including skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)
--Grappling
--Turning
--Calculating XP from CR
--AoOs too confusing/too many instances to remember
--Too many iterative attacks, contributing (along with SR, miss chance, crit confirmation, etc.) to too much die-rolling
--Players' turns taking too long to resolve due to multiple die-rolls often being required
--CoDzilla (though only if deliberately and expertly exploited)
--Infinite summoning (A summons B summons C summons...)
--Fighters not keeping up as the party level increases
--Scry-Buff-Teleport-Fly combo repeated ad nauseum, and campaign-breaking spells/magic in general (for some this includes resurrection et al)
--Identify
--XP for crafting
--buffing etc., especially remembering which buffs/effects/modifiers are affecting whom and for how long
--useless skills (use rope, craft [baskets], etc. YMMV)
--familiars and animal companions often crappy but time-consuming if used in combat
--save or die
--suckitude of multi-class spellcasters
--HP can vary too much due to fact that they are rolled (YMMV)
--Spell prep takes too long; spell-list resource management too cumbersome
--Necessity and ubiquity of munchkin magic items (Belt of Strength +3 etc.); inclusion of lots of magic items in the CR math 
--DR as a primary focus of most combats past a certain level (golf-bag syndrome)


So I ask: What else REALLY needed to be fixed (i.e. really large numbers of players had trouble with it) and could EASILY be fixed without destroying backwards compatibility.


----------



## Psion (Mar 31, 2008)

Buffs
Iterative attacks
CoDzilla

I have a more nuanced list I can repost when I get home, but those were the biggies.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 31, 2008)

For me:

Just the spells. 3.5 didn't go far enough in nerfing/ganking/name-du-jour all the spells. AFAIC, all the problems in D&D/3.5 can be traced back to _magic_.

Oh, and CoDzilla (mainly, though not entirely because of, wait for it, the spells).


Otherwise, though, 3.5 runs like a dream for my players and I.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 31, 2008)

spellcaster multiclassing


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 31, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> --Wizards having nothing to do when they've cast all their spells appropriate to the situation




That's a feature.  It's one of the trade-offs for the most powerful class (not counting the munchkin crap like summoning druids).



			
				loseth said:
			
		

> --Skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)
> --Grappling
> --Identify
> --XP for crafting
> ...




I definitely agree with the other stuff I've quoted.  Though I like some of the useless Craft skills, for NPC's.  I built a 7th level Expert (Basketweaver) once.      And I'm not sure XP for crafting is not a decent trade-off.  Otherwise crafting is a little too easy, I think.


----------



## Derro (Mar 31, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> My list so far is:
> 
> --Wizards having nothing to do when they've cast all their spells appropriate to the situation




In the RAW, yes, but both the GMs I play under and myself took some steps to get around this. Reserve feats and spell mastery (not the Wizard ability but more of a dedicated multi-use spell slot) addressed this nicely.


> --People having trouble remembering 1-2-1 (YMMV)



Never a problem


> --Skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)



Yes and no. As a GM I took to using the UA option of maximum ranks in a designated amount of skills. It was NPC building in general that was a real pain in the butt. I tend to hand wave stuff for NPCs just for the sake of getting things done expeditiously but that didn't make it much easier.


> --Grappling
> --AoOs too confusing/too many instances to remember



Yes and no again. Grappling could get confusing with multiple grapplers but if it was mano-e-mano or mano-e-monster it was never too much problem. AoOs were another case by case basis. Movement provokations, not an issue, other actions sometimes confusing. Combat Reflexes and multiple provokations throughout the round did sometimes get out of hand.


> --Too many iterative attacks



I didn't really have an issue with this until I started to think about it after seeing the SWSE system and playing d20 Modern where base attack tended to be lower. The worst offender in this case is the two-weapon fighter. There is a particular player in one of my games whose grasp of the rules is not great. Nearly every time his ranger would go into the full attack routine we'd have to break it down for him. I can see now where this is a stumbling block for newer players. Even as an experienced player I am willing to get rid of iterative attacks for singular, more potent attacks or maybe a feat or special ability to split your attacks ala flurry of blows or the like.


> --Players' turns taking too long to resolve due to multiple die-rolls often required



Yes and no. I think it's more reflective of the learning curve and knowledge of how your character works than anything else. 


> --CoDzilla (though only if deliberately and expertly exploited)



I'm not sure what the term means. Could someone explain please?


> --Infinite summoning (A summons B summons C summons...)



Never an issue. As a GM I Rule 0ed a "summoning sickness" of sorts early in 3.0 and it stuck with everybody I played with. And unless I'm mistaken outsiders summoned by another outsider with the Summon (Su) ability couldn't use their own Summon (Su) ability for the duration of their stay. Or is that an artifact of 3.0? 


> --Fighters not keeping up as the party level increases



That's a build issue as opposed to a rule issue IMO. Fighters in particular need multi-classing and prestige classes to remain flavorful and interesting. I know that is a bit inflammatory of me to say since all classes should be viable throughout all there levels but seriously, if your character concept hasn't progressed past "dude in heavy armor with board and sword" by 10th level there is no amount of rule re-writes that are going to improve your play or enjoyment. Paizo's take is a little fancier but still pretty damn boring in my opinion. NPCs, sure, but players should be able to come up with something better for a character that has been running that long.


> --Scry-Buff-Teleport-Fly combo repeated ad nauseum



Ugh. Once or twice, sure, if it becomes a routine then it's a GMing issue not a rules issue. Routines, by their nature, are easy to counter and ones like this should be countered with extreme prejudice.


> --Identify



(shrug) It's a 1st level spell. It should be kinda crappy. Personally I've always gone the route of using Bardic Knowledge, Knowledge (Arcana, History, Religion, etc.), Spellcraft and Detect Magic, consulting sages, and even Legend Lore. I think identify is just a throwback to the old days and there are much more interesting ways to find out about yr loot.


> --XP for crafting



Craft points are a decent fix. I also scrawled up some rules for binding outsiders and elementals into objects to give them powers.


> --remembering which buffs/effects/modifiers are affecting whom and for how long



Whoa, daddy, did you ever say it there. That is just something endemic to D&D. I don't know what to do to fix that. I just take lots of notes and pay real close attention to my bookkeeping. What else can you do?


> --useless skills (use rope, craft [baskets], etc. YMMV)



I think that Paizo did a pretty good job with this, taking the 4e route, and folding skills together. I've always thought that craft needed a severe overhaul both in its presentation and implementation. d20 Modern actually did a pretty good job with its concept of craft. There were like 6 or 7 well defined categories that performed whatever job you needed them to. Kinda like Knowledge. Check out the Modern SRD for what I'm talking about.


> --familiars and animal companions often crappy but time-consuming if used in combat



Never had a problem with this either way. Companions were always useful (sometimes they needed a hand with a feat or maybe a spell or magic item). Familiars just stayed out of combat. I found the real use of familiars is that they have _all of the skill ranks of their master and can therefore Aid Another on just about any skill check_. When I figured this out it blew my mind.


> So I ask: What else REALLY needed to be fixed (i.e. really large numbers of players had trouble with it) and could EASILY be fixed without destroying backwards compatibility.




Things I don't like about 3.x:

-Reliance on magic items
-Diminishing returns on feats
-NPC construction too time consuming
-A freakin' rule for everything which devolves in rules-lawyery way too often
-Skill synergies: nice idea, poor implementation
-Rules cascading: optional rules that rely too much on modifying existing rules instead of just changing them entirely OR supplemental rules that are superior to original rules but require re-working pre-existing assumptions. That's a bit unclear I know. I'll dig up some examples if anybody cares.
-I'm sure there are more rolling around in my head but nothing springs immediately to mind. 



> *Just my opinion--I'm sure everybody has their own opinion on Pathfinder, but that's definitely not what I want to discuss here. I'd prefer to keep the discussion fixed on 3.5 and what really, really needed fixing.




Yes, and please don't interpret my itemizing above as disagreeing with your opinions. I'm simply conveying my experience based on what you stated some of your problems were.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 31, 2008)

Grappling rule ambiguities.

Cleric healing dependence.

Buff/spell duration tracking.

Statting up complex opponents.

Save or Die.

I dislike:

Daily resource tracking.

spell list prep casters.

Wierd mechanical differences between natural weapons and weapons.

I generally throw in house rules for:

reserve points

Spontaneous divine casting

Save or Dieing.

Sometimes recharge magic

Level when I say so, skip xp tracking.

Going with my best interpretation on grappling

And others.


----------



## Derro (Mar 31, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Wierd mechanical differences between natural weapons and weapons.




Can you clarify? What are you referring to specifically? 



> I generally throw in house rules for:
> 
> Sometimes recharge magic




I like the concept behind recharge magic but isn't it just another layer of complex bookkeeping? I've never tried it myself but I'm familiar with it by reading. It looks finicky to implement.


----------



## jsaving (Mar 31, 2008)

Good list, here are a few more:

1) Metamagic

2) Some classes (especially druid and bard) not having a clear function

3) In-game penalties for having a particular alignment (for example, monster attacks that do more damage against Good-aligned characters, evil clerics being barred from spontaneous cures, etc)

4) "Legacy" spells like magic missile that are too strong for their current levels

5) Rolled hit points -- substantial effective ECL bonus to those who cheat or are lucky

6) Very little multiple-ability-score dependence

7) Very little use for mental stats in combat

8) Incoherent definition of lawfulness -- liking social order, telling the truth, judging those who fall short in their duties, behaving honorably, and lacking creativity aren't related to each other

9) Too few hit points for 1st level characters

10) Stackable BAB but nonstackable caster level makes multiclassing system work for melee/melee combos but not caster/caster combos


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 31, 2008)

1) Stacking.  There are way too many types.
2) Grappling and turning undead need simplification.  We *always* have to go to the PHB.
3) Being prone is far too brutal.
-blarg


----------



## Voadam (Mar 31, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Can you clarify? What are you referring to specifically?
> 
> 
> 
> I like the concept behind recharge magic but isn't it just another layer of complex bookkeeping? I've never tried it myself but I'm familiar with it by reading. It looks finicky to implement.




The animals one is actually only a pet peeve, not a major problem. Natural weapons have no iteratives, cause problems integrating with the poorly written ambiguous grapple rules, use different rules when multiattacking then weapons, etc. Does a grappled bear get 3 natural attacks, natural attacks based on iteratives, etc. I should have put it in the I dislike column.

Recharge I simplified by making it flat recharge times. These can be tracked with a die easily and quickly at the table. My group that uses it simplified it a little more by eliminating bonus spells for high stats. Slot recharge management and power choices is much more suited to my play style preferences than vancian daily resource management.


----------



## Devall2000 (Mar 31, 2008)

-I think there is too much dice rolling in regard to attacks, combat takes too long

-Munchkin items: Elven court blade, elven thin blade to some degree, and others

-The feats and presige classes(Fist of Raziel, anyone) got out of hand

-Some skills are way more valuable than others: spot, listen

-Some skills can take away from role playing: diplomacy, gather information

-too much consultation of the books during the game; debating falls in here

-they shouldn't have saturated the market; I haven't bought a WotC D&D product in some time because of it.  They could've reined things in.

Just my thoughts,
Jamie


----------



## Derro (Apr 1, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> The animals one is actually only a pet peeve, not a major problem. Natural weapons have no iteratives, use different rules when multiattacking then weapons, cause problems integrating with the poorly written ambiguous grapple rules, etc. I should have put it in the I dislike column.




Ok. That I get. My fix for that is to simply work off of the BAB of the animal when it comes to grappling unless the stat block says otherwise. I can understand your peeve though, it is pretty unclear. Does Multi-attack even exist as a feat anymore or is that just assumed for creatures that have 3 or more natural attacks.



> Recharge I simplified by making it flat recharge times. These can be tracked with a die easily and quickly at the table. My group that uses it simplified it a little more by eliminating bonus spells for high stats.




I would love to be able to do this but I just can't trust my players to be accurate. Well, 80% of my players to be fair. As it is I'm the one that tracks most of the buff spells and short term durations simply because there have been too many instances of, "you don't get that bonus, I'm pretty sure that spell expired 3 rounds ago..." But if it works for you, great. I just don't think I could handle the book-keeping.



> Slot recharge management and power choices is much more suited to my play style preferences than vancian daily resource management.




True dat. I've been leaning more and more toward innate abilities and spell-point systems. While reserve feats have addressed some of my problems I'm still very annoyed by the party coming back the next day when they've re-memorized the spells needed for the encounter. Just breaks the whole flow for me.


----------



## maggot (Apr 1, 2008)

Never had a problem with the rules for grappling or for AoO.  I did find that at high levels, grappling could make fighters obsolete without magic.

Never had a problem with wizards running out of spells except at level low levels.

Infinite summoning does not work by the rules, unless you are talking about gate which is broken anyway.

My 3.x stuff that needs to be fixed:

* Spell prep - can bring a game to a halt
* NPC prep - takes to freaking long, especially at high levels
* Some spells that don't work in game - gate, mord's dysfunction, etc.
* Some spells that don't work for a campaign - raise dead, teleport, etc.
* Scry, buff, teleport (bad enough to be pointed out individually)
* Save or die effects (basically requires that there be resurrection in the game)
* Slow combat due to numerous buffs (time to cast buffs, time to figure out effects)
* Prestige classes as better than core (no problem with stuff like eldritch knight or mystic theurge that created a new role)
* Multiclassing casters (requires prestige class to compete, and thus was a bit of a pain)
* Slow combat due to numerous roll (iterative attacks with miss chances and confirmation, spell resist and save, etc.)
* Reliance on magic items (requires ludicrous amounts of wealth for the PCs)
* Christmas tree of magic items
* DR was too annoying because it was encountered all the time.


----------



## jdrakeh (Apr 1, 2008)

For me, the biggest issue (as a mostly DM kind of guy) was the need for quick NPC generation rules. Taking half an hour or more to roll up a PC every once in a blue moon isn't an issue. Taking half an hour or more to roll up _every_ NPC in the setting, OTOH, is a _huge_ (and rediculous) time sink.

[Edit: I realize that you can handwave low-level, window-dressing, NPCs -- but if they ever become engaged in combat, that elevates them to the status of at _least_ extras. Since there aren't any rules for extras or mooks in D&D, you're stuck using the full-blown PC creation rules (alebit with a different class list) if you want to play by the RAW. This is rediculous and frustrating.]


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 1, 2008)

The big ones:

Combats that take hours at high levels, largely due to iterative attacks
Iterative attacks a disincentive to tactical maneuvering by physical attackers 
Fighters not playable except as a "dip" class
CoDzilla and Mage Supernova with way too many "save or stink/die" spells, making high-level combats about saves

The medium ones:
Grapple rules always require looking it up
Too much buff book-keeping

Easily fixed ones:
Useless or duplicating skills (listen/spot, MS/Hide, Intimidate worthless next to Diplomacy/Bluff, Use Rope)
Sorcerers w/o access to Diplomacy, GI, Intimidate, or SM, making their ability to fill the "face" role a farce
Warlocks, Warmages, and Beguilers obsoleting sorcerers


----------



## Derro (Apr 1, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> CoDzilla




Please, someone explain what this means. I've seen the term but don't know what it's referring to. Clerics and Druids or something.

Help me out here, people!


----------



## cougent (Apr 1, 2008)

AoO's (Actual acting out or LARP can quickly show how asinine the RAW really are)
Combat taking too long at high level
As someone else said, Cleric turning, we always had to go to the PH!
NPC creation
Grappling

There are more, but those are the big 5 for me that cause about 90% of all our problems.

and for our group:
Paralyze and CDG became the standard battle tactic, which was boring as hell for me (DM) and even somewhat boring for the players, but it was just too damned easy to do to NOT do it, especially when combats started getting very long.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Apr 1, 2008)

CoDzilla

Its when a druid wildshapes into a strong melee form and then they buff themselves up to the point that they are stronger then a fighter, while still having spells left. 

clerics do this by using Divine power and other spells and feats like persistent spells.


----------



## Kesh (Apr 1, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> That's a feature.  It's one of the trade-offs for the most powerful class (not counting the munchkin crap like summoning druids).




That's only a feature in the Microsoft sense of the word. If the problem is that Wizards are too powerful, making them "burn out" and be useless during the adventure isn't a fix.


----------



## hong (Apr 1, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Please, someone explain what this means. I've seen the term but don't know what it's referring to. Clerics and Druids or something.
> 
> Help me out here, people!



 "Cleric or druid"-zilla


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 1, 2008)

I never really got to play high levels of D&D, so many of the complaints other people have had don't exist in my personal experience.  Nevertheless I still managed to find things I did not like:

*Character Creation Traps: Too often I would make a character who I thought would be great but turned out to suck.  I don't mind having a weak character if I've agreed to it, but I thing D&D needs to be more transparent with how its mechanics translate into actual play.
*Either too few skill points or too many skills.  I frequently just could not make a character with the range of skills I wanted for them, even with the rogue.
*Per-day abilities and spells: Too much resource management.  It's a great discouragement to playing certain classes.  I much prefer the options that have cropped up to allow for at-will stuff.
*Equipment is a pain: Because they have prices listed in the PHB I'm afraid to take anything without carefully counting out every silver and copper piece I've spent.  Seriously, if it doesn't have a _serious_ mechanical impact leave out its price or put it in a "little details to tell your players" or whatever section of the DMG.
*Attacks of Opportunity.  I know these are supposed to encourage tactics but in my experience all they encourage is staying in one spot in expense of tactical or any other kinds of decisions.
*PET PEEVE (not really a mechanics thing): Alignment.  I don't agree with the given definitions, I don't agree with who it's assigned to, I don't agree with the existence of mechanical effects, I just hate the h***ing s**t out of it.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Apr 1, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> AoO's (Actual acting out or LARP can quickly show how asinine the RAW really are)




I don't think LARP makes any element of tabletop gaming look asinine by comparison.


----------



## Devall2000 (Apr 1, 2008)

In regard to multi-class spell casters, would a good fix to the stacking  be to allow the caster to cast at +1 casting level on the existing class for every two levels gained in a new spell casting class?

example:

A 5th level mage begins earning levels as a cleric.  After he has gained two levels of cleric, he would cast as  a 6th level magic user and a 2nd level cleric.


I'm not sure if this would work but it was something I thought about after reading this thread earlier.  Requiring the character to have a minimum amount of levels in the 1st class might be a way to go.

What do you all think?
-Jamie


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 1, 2008)

Christmas tree effect, spellcasting multiclassing, alignment, Vancian magic, Rangers having spells, Paladin not being more like Monte's Champion from Arcana Evolved (there aren't LN fanatics to defend their faith?), Sorcerer being thematically different from mages but in the end just being a walking platform of combat spells b/c wasting a spellslot on something else would be stupid considering how few spells you know.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 1, 2008)

Devall2000 said:
			
		

> In regard to multi-class spell casters, would a good fix to the stacking  be to allow the caster to cast at +1 casting level on the existing class for every two levels gained in a new spell casting class?




I think just let spellcasting work based on total character level.  You are a Wizard5/Cleric5.  You can only cast up to 3rd level spells in both class, but your Fireball does 10d6.  You still have the experience of a 10th level character, you just lack the depth in either class.


----------



## Derro (Apr 1, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I think just let spellcasting work based on total character level.  You are a Wizard5/Cleric5.  You can only cast up to 3rd level spells in both class, but your Fireball does 10d6.  You still have the experience of a 10th level character, you just lack the depth in either class.




The Magic Rating optional rule from UA is pretty good for this. It gives a reasonable balance for caster/non-caster multi-classing and a good option if you don't want divine and arcane magics to stack.

The caster level problem was never really an issue in any of my games. Not vocally so anyway. Most spell casters would find a prestige class they wanted and go with that. The odd divine/arcane combo usually took the Mystic Theurge. Course or games rarely progress much past 12th level so I imagine that is a major factor.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 1, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> That's a feature.  It's one of the trade-offs for the most powerful class (not counting the munchkin crap like summoning druids).




It's a lousy trade-off, however.  Brokenly powerful most of the time, plus occasional suckage, does not a well-balanced class make.


----------



## cougent (Apr 1, 2008)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I don't think LARP makes any element of tabletop gaming look asinine by comparison.



Off topic response, not worthy of rebuttal


----------



## loseth (Apr 1, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> For me:
> 
> Just the spells. 3.5 didn't go far enough in nerfing/ganking/name-du-jour all the spells. AFAIC, all the problems in D&D/3.5 can be traced back to _magic_.
> 
> Oh, and CoDzilla (mainly, though not entirely because of, wait for it, the spells).




Interesting. Could you expand a bit on spells? How could they be easilly fixed without compromising backwards compatibility?


----------



## Bacris (Apr 1, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Please, someone explain what this means. I've seen the term but don't know what it's referring to. Clerics and Druids or something.
> 
> Help me out here, people!




Here's the original context:



> Haunted, the good answers (DMing your own game, ditching this fool for some sensible DMs in college) have been given. You wish to win an argument with a DM, however (try actually facing 3 groups of 4 goblins each in a day at level 1, with time to cast a CLW or two in between, and see if he still thinks you can't have more than 1 encounter a day at low levels) and for that you have chosen the correct tactic.
> 
> It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics (or Warlocks, or Fochlucan Lyrists, or anything balanced that's come out of splatbooks that aren't munchfests like Complete Divine) isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill (Draconic Wildshape? Divine Metamagic?). So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 1, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> Interesting. Could you expand a bit on spells? How could they be easilly fixed without compromising backwards compatibility?



"Easily"? *shrug* Beats me... I'm no game designer. (Of course, I don't think anything in your original list is an "easy" change in terms of backwards compatibility either, so there we go.)

But, to answer your question, I would keep all the spells and their names (thus maintaining backwards compatiblity), but severely reducing their level of effectiveness through everything from ganking damage, durations, adding "Yes" to SR for virtually all of them, etc.


----------



## starwed (Apr 1, 2008)

I'm amazed at how many people are proposing huge, sweeping changes to the game in this thread... 

I can see it's going to be a nuanced and productive discussion.

Anyway, here are some mechanical areas that could be fixed:

Streamline natural attacks/unarmed attacks/grapple interaction.
Codify the concept of offensive/defensive stances.  (There's a lot of "when you power attack for at least X" in the rules...)
Integrate swift actions into the core rules a bit better.  There are a lot of spells/combat actions that would benefit from using that mechanic...
Polish up all the special combat actions which don't get much use.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2008)

Not so much a list of things that _need_ fixing, but rather things that I would change given the chance:

Remove almost all effects that change a creature's basic stats. This includes the level-based stat increase, the various items that give a +2/4/6 to a stat, spells like _Bull's Strength_, and so on. I would leave the ability of _Wish_ to increase a stat as-is, and the equivalent magic books, but everything else would be gone. I would probably also keep ability damage, except that as with hit point damage it wouldn't have any actual effect until a stat reached 0 (at which characters would die).

Re-balance the stats. Mostly, Charisma doesn't do enough.

Remove most of the elements from the racial packages, particularly trivial bonuses that apply at 1st level but rapidly become worthless. Each race would have two or three reasonably significant racial features that set them apart from other races. (Weapon Familiarity would be gone. I _hate_ that rule.)

More flexibility in several of the classes. I like the "d20 Modern" talent trees; I would be using these for the Rogue, Ranger and Paladin, amongst others.

Remove all cure spells from the Cleric spell list. Leave the Healing domain as-is. And re-design the Bard so that instead of being a pseudo-Rogue, it acts more like a Cleric-replacement.

Something needs to be done with multiclass spellcasters. The fix I have in mind would make the game "not D&D", though.

Give all classes either 3, 5 or 7 skill points per level. Classes that currently gain 2 would gain 3 (except the Sorcerer), classes that get 8 would get 7, and the rest would get 5.

Likewise, give all classes either 3, 5 or 7 hit points per level (d4 -> 3, d10+ ->7, other -> 5). Barbarians gain the Improved Toughness feat for free. Introduce a "hit point advance" rule that gives characters triple hit points at 1st level, but thereafter they don't gain further hit points until their 'real' total would be higher than the advance total (for all single-class characters, that would be at 4th level).

Hit points are split into two pools, the Quick pool and the Dead pool. When characters have a chance to rest after an encounter, theyrefresh their Quick pool to full. The Dead pool only refreshes with an extended (long-term) rest - at the end of the adventure, effectively. Magic healing, however, applies to the Dead pool first - this is why the Cleric loses all those cure spells.

Consolidate a lot of skills. Listen/Spot become Perception, Balance/Tumble become Acrobatics, Climb/Jump/Run/Swim become Athletics, Spellcraft rolls into Knowledge(arcana), and so on. Craft, Perform and Profession each become a single skill - it's not realistic, but it's hardly game-breaking. (I'd probably also rename the various Knowledge skills to just Streetwise, Arcana, and so on.)

Lower all fixed skill DCs by 3. Drop the 'quadruple skill points at 1st level' rule, and allow a max skill ranks equal to the character level. Drop class skills, synergy bonuses, trained and untrained skills, and the Trapfinding, Track and Stonecutting special cases.

Re-balance melee, thrown and projectile weapons. Basically, the damage done by an attack should be inversely proportional to the effective range of the attack. To that end, strength longbows should go. Stacking of magic bows and magic arrows (be it of the plusses, or more likely the flaming bow with shock arrows) needs to go. And there need to be 'bracers of throwing' or the like, that basically make any thrown weapon magical, as bows do for arrows.

Heavily reduce the number of 'named' bonus types. I reckon seven names is about the right number; everything else either becomes an unnamed bonus or is dropped entirely. As the types of bonuses is reduced, the magnitude of bonuses can be increased - a single +5 is equivalent to five +1 bonuses, but it probably _feels_ better to be wearing plate mail of the gods than to be wearing a magic hat, boots, amulet, ring and bracers that do the same thing.

Replace the raft of existing combat options and subsystems with a fairly detailed stunt system. Basically, a character leanrs various 'stunt components' through his choice of skills and feats. He then describes his stunt and the DM determines which components would be required. If the character meets the prerequisites, the player makes a 'stunt roll' to determine success or failure, and the game proceeds. A bonus would apply to the first use of any given stunt in the campaign, the magnitude being determined by the DM based on his chosen style of game. (Ideally, the game should be designed such that a character can be designed to be dull-but-effective (Gimli), or effective-through-panache (Legolas), allowing players a choice of approaches.)

Rebalance the spells (yet again). The change to _hold person_ to give a save every round is a not bad start, but it needs to be carried throughout the whole system. And something has to be done with the multitude of all-or-nothing save-or-die spells. Basically, we need a magical analogue to hit points, such that a failed _dominate_ isn't just wasted effort, and a failed save vs _finger of death_ doesn't prevent you from having fun for the hours until your buddies get you _resurrected_.

Speaking of _resurrection_, I would take steps to make character death, especially at high levels, less common, but also to make returning from the dead much rarer. Ideally, it would be the subject of a quest, but I can see how that wouldn't be ideal for the player of the dead character.

I would be strongly tempted to switch to 20 levels of spells, or however many PC levels there are in the game.

Remove XP as a spendable resource. Energy drain would need to do something else, item crafting will need to drain some other resource, and so forth, but that can be done. I would also disassociate XP gained with CR, and instead encourage DMs to mostly just wing it.

As with spells, the various magic items would need re-balanced. I think the fundamentals of what 3e does are actually fine, but there is some work needed.

Likewise, the fundamentals behind monster design are mostly okay, I think, but there are some holes. I think I would drop hit dice in favour of fixed numbers of hit points per 'level'. Then give Giants 14 hit points per level, rather than a d8 hit dice (this should get rid of their absurd BAB and saves, no?). Undead need many more hit points, or should apply their Cha modifier in place of Con (or both).

Spread out the so-called "low-level humanoids" across more of the level range. And change dragons to be a 'template lite' - we don't need 300 different dragons, each with 12 age categories, each marginally different from the next, and none of them easy to run from the Monster Manual - 20 really solid dragon stats would do us a whole lot more good.

Not really a rules change, but I would definately adopt the MM4 approach of providing a bunch of different examples of stats for all of the staple monster races (Orcs, Kobolds, Lizardmen...). Those things are really useful.

There's more, but some of the more radical changes would definately take the game to a "not D&D anymore" place (mana-based per-encounter spellcasting, for one), while others I think I would wait until my next edition to implement (separating the 'dodge' and 'ablative' components of AC, for example).

For the record, my list of things that actually *need* fixing is rather shorter:

1) Multi-class spellcasters
2) Level-adjustment races
3) Prep time is too long

IMO, any new edition (including Pathfinder) needs to fix, or at least signficantly improve, all three of these. Or, as 4e appears to do, it could change the game so significantly that existing issues are moot.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2008)

Oh, I forgot a big one: Attacks of Opportunity.

I would replace these with a larger concept of actions and reactions. Each round, a character gets a standard, move and swift action (plus free actions), plus a single 'reaction'.

A reaction is basically an immediate action, except that each reaction has conditions on its use, and each reaction must be learned separately. So, for example, to use the _feather fall_ reaction, a Wizard must have learnt it, and must be falling.

The 'attack of opportunity' reaction would therefore be a single melee attack, which could be made when the opponent lowers his defences, either by moving across a threatened area or by casting a spell/firing a missile weapon.

I would also include a 'lightning riposte' reaction, a 'defensive shift' reaction, and so forth.

Some monsters would have the ability to use more than one reaction in the round (giving solo dragons a better chance against a full party), and the Combat Reflexes feat would give additional reactions.

What this does is removes the need for everyone to know the AoO rules (since you only learn the reactions you actually have to know), expands the concept into something a bit fuller, and opens up some more options.

Of course, it might fail utterly.


----------



## wingsandsword (Apr 1, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> --Wizards having nothing to do when they've cast all their spells appropriate to the situation



Not a bug, a feature.  Wizard's aren't supposed to be doing things all day, they have a finite amount of power to manage.  That's the whole idea behind the class.  This whole idea of Wizards having infinite power by at-will abilities disturbs me, like it breaks the basic concept of the class.



> --People having trouble remembering 1-2-1 (YMMV)



Well, if the alternative is the 1-1-1 from 4e, I'll deal with 1-2-1.  1-2-1 isn't perfect, but the alternatives are far worse.



> --Skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)



In my statting-up experience as a DM, I typically just max out a number of appropriate skills and leave the fiddly-bit customization for BBEG's.  It was never a problem for me.



> --Grappling



I'll agree with this one, starting a grapple is a quick way to bog down a game.



> --AoOs too confusing/too many instances to remember



I know they are complicated in theory, but it never seems like we have a problem with it.  Then again, we might not be doing it 100% by the RAW.



> --CoDzilla (though only if deliberately and expertly exploited)



Not a big enough issue IMO to bother with.  I see lots of theoretical exploits on message boards, but in practice I've never seen this invincible uber-cleric/druid work.  I've seen it tried, but it always fails in execution for various reasons.



> --Infinite summoning (A summons B summons C summons...)



Easy one to fix, just assume summoned creatures can't summon anything themselves.  My group has been doing it that way for years.



> --Fighters not keeping up as the party level increases



Such is the lot of a fighter, just as a Wizard has awesome cosmic power for brief bursts but is very weak when they run out, a Fighter has sturdy power more constantly, but doesn't outshine spellcasters when they fire everything they have.  If a Wizard can bend reality to the point of a Wish, nothing a Fighter can do should ever be able to compare.  Fighters have piles of HP and don't have to worry about running about per-day attack abilities, that's their relative strength.



> --Scry-Buff-Teleport-Fly combo repeated ad nauseum



My favorite fix for that is anti-scrying (or false image projecting) or anti-teleport (or teleport-redirecting) warding spells or effects.  Every BBEG worth their salt is going to have countermeasures out there to stop a SWAT team of adventurers from knocking down their door like that.  If they can't cast them themselves, there are probably high level NPC illusionists and abjurers for hire that can set up all sorts of lair-protecting wards and illusions.



> --Identify



What's wrong with Identify?   I don't know of any serious issues with that spell.



> --XP for crafting



It's a lot better than the old AD&D way of come up with some random rare items to find, then permanently lose a point of constitution to make any permanent non-consumable item.  The best solution I've seen is the idea of an XP reserve automatically available to spend on item creation.



> --useless skills (use rope, craft [baskets], etc. YMMV)



Then don't take those skills, don't remove them from the system.  The flexibility of skills like Craft and Profession to represent a very wide variety of aptitudes is a feature, not a bug.

Honestly, while I see lots of little "bug fix" issues with 3.5, none of them are things that I think would warrant massive rewrites.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 1, 2008)

Multiclassing as written has problems.

1 xp penalties, poor mechanic leading to power loss for non archetype characters leading to balance problems

2 save and BAB extremes. Strong saves get that huge +2 bonus at level 1 of a class while weak saves and BAB can easily be hurt by multiclassing before the break points where they get plusses. This leads to multiclasses stronger or weaker than similar concept single classed characters.

3 multiclassing spellcasters being very weak.

My house rule fixes:

1 eliminate xp penalty. Humans are still fine and popular.

2 go with save and BAB progressions from levels in fractions from strong, weak, or medium progressions that continue progressing with new similar classes instead of starting over from level 1 charts.

3 Arcana evolved spellcasting spell slots, spell knowledge, and caster level stacking. I keep considering having caster level = character level but have not implemented it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 1, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> Oh, I forgot a big one: Attacks of Opportunity.
> 
> I would replace these with a larger concept of actions and reactions. Each round, a character gets a standard, move and swift action (plus free actions), plus a single 'reaction'.
> 
> ...




WOW. That's scary. I wrote this over the weekend:

Combat Reactions
Reactions allow you to take certain actions when it is not your turn. You gain your first Reaction at BAB +1. For each additional 5 BAB (6th, 11th, and 16th) you may make an additional Reaction each turn.

Aid Attack
You may assist another character’s attack on his turn. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a Reaction. On your ally’s turn, you make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent, as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Aid Defense
You may assist another character’s defense. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a Reaction. On the opponent’s turn, you make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains a +2 bonus to his AC against that opponent’s next attack, as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Dive for Cover
You may attempt to dive for cover against an area of effect attack that requires a Reflex save. As a reaction on your opponent’s turn, if there is cover within 5 feet of your character, you may move your character into cover before making your Reflex save.

Dodge
You may attempt to dodge a single melee or ranged attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, roll 1d20 before your opponent makes his attack. Your AC against that attack is calculated using the result of the d20 roll, plus ½ your BAB, plus all applicable AC bonuses, instead of 10+all applicable bonuses. 

Opportunity Attack
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an opportunity attack from you. As a Reaction, you may make a single melee attack at your normal attack bonus.

Parry
If you are engaged in melee, you may use your Reaction to parry your opponent’s melee attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, you gain DR against your opponent’s attack equal to ½ your BAB. If you are parrying with a buckler or shield, add the shield’s AC bonus to the amount of DR.

Re: Combat Reflexes
A character with Combat Reflexes adds his DEX modifier to his BAB for the purposes of determining how many Combat Reactions he may make per turn.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 1, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Not a bug, a feature.  Wizard's aren't supposed to be doing things all day, they have a finite amount of power to manage.  That's the whole idea behind the class.  This whole idea of Wizards having infinite power by at-will abilities disturbs me, like it breaks the basic concept of the class.




It depends what fantasy you're reading.  In Raymond Feist's Riftwar series casters can cast pretty much whenever they want.  Some very complex spells will drain the casters and weaken them, but those are typically pretty intense ritual pieces.  Robert Asprin's Myth series has casters casting whenever so long as they are near a force line and/or have enough energy stored.  Jordan's Wheel of Time doesn't appear to have any limitations except how much Saidin/Saidar you can control.  Just a few examples.



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Such is the lot of a fighter, just as a Wizard has awesome cosmic power for brief bursts but is very weak when they run out, a Fighter has sturdy power more constantly, but doesn't outshine spellcasters when they fire everything they have.  If a Wizard can bend reality to the point of a Wish, nothing a Fighter can do should ever be able to compare.  Fighters have piles of HP and don't have to worry about running about per-day attack abilities, that's their relative strength.




I would like to think we can have a game where mages actually feel magical.  Nothing feels magical about having 3 spells and then not being able to use magic again till the next day. I'm not saying give everyone spells, but I got sick of throwing daggers or pulling out a crossbow.  Warlocks proved that having some magical ability to use whenever you wanted could work.  4E will just amplify that and I think that's a great thing.[/QUOTE]


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> WOW. That's scary. I wrote this over the weekend:




Cool. Good to know I'm not totally crazy. Or, if I am, at least I'm not alone in my madness. 



> Dodge
> You may attempt to dodge a single melee or ranged attack. As a Reaction on your opponent’s turn, roll 1d20 before your opponent makes his attack. Your AC against that attack is calculated using the result of the d20 roll, plus ½ your BAB, plus all applicable AC bonuses, instead of 10+all applicable bonuses.




This one seems a little powerful, especially when combined with a high Dex and Combat Reflexes.

Otherwise, lots of good stuff. I particularly liked your moving of "Aid Another" into reactions, and that parry mechanic is nifty.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 1, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> (re: Dodge) This one seems a little powerful, especially when combined with a high Dex and Combat Reflexes.




I know. It is. I've been playing Warhammer FRP recently, and while admittedly it's a much more gritty system where Dodge is pretty much _required_, the idea stuck with me. 

I like giving the player the choice of using their Dodge as the attacks come, trying to decide whether to save it for later-- and of course balancing the (clearly, most powerful option) Dodge against the other Reactions you have to choose from.

I believe that UA has an optional rule that lets you roll your AC from round to round (instead of using the default Take 10); this option is more powerful in that you get to add half your BAB-- but that's my little nod to class-based AC bonuses. As a Reaction, I think it'll play fine. 

(It will surely annoy the "Rolling is bad!" crowd. I don't understand this complaint myself, as all my players seem to enjoy rolling dice. It's why they show up.)

With respect to Combat Reflexes, you might note that I changed its function to be a bit more in line with this system. Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more Reactions at a flat rate; it does give you more Reactions (based on BAB) sooner.



> Otherwise, lots of good stuff. I particularly liked your moving of "Aid Another" into reactions, and that parry mechanic is nifty.




We've used Aid Another a lot IMC, and for sure, it's great for dog-piling those big nasty critters (Magma Hurler, I am looking at you). But at the same time, it is very frustrating for it to be a player's only viable option in combat, and to basically have to lose your own turn in order to chip in. 

Our monk was consistently told that her "best option," if she wanted to help the party to win (or even survive-- Magma Hurler, I am looking at you again), was to use Aid Another to help the barbarian, the rogue, and the fighter land their Power Attacks/Sneak Attacks. That's all well and good, but I am sure she would have been much happier if she'd at least been allowed to _try_ something, even something sub-optimal, with her own action.

re: Parry, I haven't crunched the numbers, but I suspect that against very low damage, and very high BAB creatures, Parry is probably better than Dodge.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 1, 2008)

The idea that casters give up power at low levels to get it at high levels is a feature only so long as a given campaign uses a spread of levels from low to high.  What about people who only get to play casters in low levels (for whatever reason)?  They haven't gotten anything out of the trade.  What about people who only play casters at high levels?  They haven't had to trade anything.

Additionally isn't the adventuring day presupposed around the idea that the party has the casters to buff them and work on magical threats?  So if there are more encounters than the limit of the casters' spells they have to be ones that can be reliably taken on in melee.  And somehow the idea that enemies change type simply because the casters ran out stretches believability.


----------



## doghead (Apr 2, 2008)

general - fixing 3.5

I was thinking about this last night. I made the mistake of accepting a cup of brewed coffee after dinner, and well, I had some time on my hands.

The conclusion that I came to surprised me somewhat. I couldn't really think of anything that was broken. Broken in the sense that it doesn't work. 3E is a reasonably comprehensive and cohesive set of rules for playing a high magic blockbuster fantasy game with lots of character options and the ability to go from dud with sword battling a couple of goblins to a plane hopping, god topping, city popping uber-person.

Sure, there are lots of things that I don't particularly like about 3E. Its not my ideal system by a long shot. But that is more about what I want a system to do, rather than the system not doing what it is supposed to do. Its a bit like saying the Porsche 911 is broken because it won't carry mum and dad, the 2.5 kids, the dog and the picnic gear.

So 'fixes' really need to identify what design objectives they are trying to achieve. This I think is important for those looking to develop a post 3.5 game. There are lots of things that you can change, and whether or not they are good or bad changes depends on what you want the system to achieve. 

I tend to ditch the class/cross-class skill distinction. All skills cost the same and players may take whichever skills they think appropriate for their character. This does have a impact on the compartmentalisation of classes, and class balance to some degree. But for me, the loss in the latter is outweighed by the gain in the simplicity and ease of use. And fun.

doghead
aka thotd


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 2, 2008)

I think doghead has a very good point: you can change a system all you want, and it still may never meet your expectations.  In my case I find D&D too restrictive to my concepts, and like point-buy systems better.  No matter what changes may be made to D&D, short of making it point-buy it will never come close.


----------



## Derro (Apr 2, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> I think doghead has a very good point: you can change a system all you want, and it still may never meet your expectations.  In my case I find D&D too restrictive to my concepts, and like point-buy systems better.  No matter what changes may be made to D&D, short of making it point-buy it will never come close.




Check out the Eclipse: Codex Persona at RPGnow. There's a shareware version for free download. I found it to be a bit intensive as a pdf but I'd definitely use it if I had a hard copy. The character creation seems very well thought out and probably is pretty near limitless as advertised. I can't speak for the implementation but like I said, it looks really good.


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 2, 2008)

Wow, looking over this thread, I can only be glad you folks didn't design the game. . .   The only thing I can think of that really needed fixing is the number of skill points for the classes, and some tweaks to the skill lists. Otherwise, I've never had any of the problems mentioned, and I simply disagree with many of the proposals that don't seem like things in need of fixing, but rather, simple personal rules preferences (a completely different thread I think, for which, I'd have more suggestions).


----------



## delericho (Apr 2, 2008)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Otherwise, I've never had any of the problems mentioned,




Now, is that because you don't see them as problems, or is it because they've just never come up? For example, I've never had an issue with Grapple, since I've never had a PC initiate one, and have barely made use of monsters that grapple.



> simple personal rules preferences (a completely different thread I think, for which, I'd have more suggestions).




Well, I for one am interested. Do tell?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 2, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Check out the Eclipse: Codex Persona at RPGnow. There's a shareware version for free download. I found it to be a bit intensive as a pdf but I'd definitely use it if I had a hard copy. The character creation seems very well thought out and probably is pretty near limitless as advertised. I can't speak for the implementation but like I said, it looks really good.



I checked it out and found it a bit too wrapped up in D&D conventions (class skills were mentioned), still having a "progression" base for some of its elements (apparently you bought your spell progression rather than individual spells and levels), and not entirely dedicated to a "build your own" approach (the "companion" ability simply mentioned using existing progressions).

I don't think it's a document for fulling branching out into point-buy from standard d20, but it might be useful to those who want a system for building their own classes.


----------



## Derro (Apr 2, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a document for fulling branching out into point-buy from standard d20, but it might be useful to those who want a system for building their own classes.




Fair enough. I must say though, I was under the impression that each level gained alloted you points to purchase your abilities at that level. Effectively this is standard point buy without the convention of class. It does still maintain the convention of level though. So while you are building your own class you build each level as you gain it.

M&M 2e or BESM d20 may be to your liking.  

Other than building characters organically what else would you consider integral to a point-buy system?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 2, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I must say though, I was under the impression that each level gained alloted you points to purchase your abilities at that level. Effectively this is standard point buy without the convention of class. It does still maintain the convention of level though. So while you are building your own class you build each level as you gain it.



Could use a bit better presentation about its assumptions.


			
				Derro said:
			
		

> M&M 2e or BESM d20 may be to your liking.



Use M&M2e already.  It's also not perfect, but I think it has less holdovers from d20.


			
				Derro said:
			
		

> Other than building characters organically what else would you consider integral to a point-buy system?



Possibly we should start a new thread for this discussion.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 2, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> I think doghead has a very good point: you can change a system all you want, and it still may never meet your expectations.  In my case I find D&D too restrictive to my concepts, and like point-buy systems better.  No matter what changes may be made to D&D, short of making it point-buy it will never come close.




Point buy D&D


----------



## Woas (Apr 2, 2008)

I hear yea on that. I read some of the changes in this thread and I think jeez why not just cut to the chase and make 4e? There really isn't that much to fix. A lot of it could be 'fixed' by just being more clearly re-written.



			
				danzig138 said:
			
		

> Wow, looking over this thread, I can only be glad you folks didn't design the game. . .   The only thing I can think of that really needed fixing is the number of skill points for the classes, and some tweaks to the skill lists. Otherwise, I've never had any of the problems mentioned, and I simply disagree with many of the proposals that don't seem like things in need of fixing, but rather, simple personal rules preferences (a completely different thread I think, for which, I'd have more suggestions).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 2, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> I hear yea on that. I read some of the changes in this thread and I think jeez why not just cut to the chase and make 4e? There really isn't that much to fix. A lot of it could be 'fixed' by just being more clearly re-written.




Honestly, that'd be the primary thing, tightening up the writing.

Brad


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 2, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Point buy D&D



The abilities offered don't feel open enough.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 2, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> The abilities offered don't feel open enough.




My understanding from talking with Spencer (the author) is that Buy the Numbers is exactly D&D point buy advancement using xp. I never got it as that is not something that appeals to me but it always sounded perfect for those who wanted D&D with point buy instead of levels.

If the ability to buy individual feats, skill points, class abilities, spells, HD, save bonuses, and BAB with xp instead of in levels is not open enough then I don't think point buy in D&D is what your looking for. Sounds like you are desiring different open ended mechanics such as say spontaneous spell formulae in Elements of Magic but expanded out into other areas of D&D beyond spell casting. Guidelines for creating character abilities.

The closest I can think of is the Expeditious Retreat Monster Builder book that provides guidelines for new monster creation using OGC monster abilities.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 2, 2008)

They should have done a SAB (Spell Attack Bonus) type thing, wtih wizards and clerics getting a full progression, and fighters and barbarians getting the worst.  Spells known and spells per day would be based on the total SAB, and class abilities would determine spellbooks, etc.  It would have neatly solved the whole multi-classed caster issue, and used a consistent mechanic that they were already using for saves and attacks.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 2, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> They should have done a SAB (Spell Attack Bonus) type thing, wtih wizards and clerics getting a full progression, and fighters and barbarians getting the worst.  Spells known and spells per day would be based on the total SAB, and class abilities would determine spellbooks, etc.  It would have neatly solved the whole multi-classed caster issue, and used a consistent mechanic that they were already using for saves and attacks.




That sounds like a fine idea to me.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 2, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> They should have done a SAB (Spell Attack Bonus) type thing, wtih wizards and clerics getting a full progression, and fighters and barbarians getting the worst.  Spells known and spells per day would be based on the total SAB, and class abilities would determine spellbooks, etc.  It would have neatly solved the whole multi-classed caster issue, and used a consistent mechanic that they were already using for saves and attacks.





From Unearthed Arcana 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Apr 2, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> If the ability to buy individual feats, skill points, class abilities, spells, HD, save bonuses, and BAB with xp instead of in levels is not open enough then I don't think point buy in D&D is what your looking for. Sounds like you are desiring different open ended mechanics such as say spontaneous spell formulae in Elements of Magic but expanded out into other areas of D&D beyond spell casting. Guidelines for creating character abilities.



I probably shouldn't have said what I said about D&D and point-buy the way I said it.  You're probably right: I don't like buying D&D-style character pieces.  I prefer Mutants & Mastermind's style where pretty much every character piece can be reduced to nearly a few key effects and built up from there.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 2, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> My understanding from talking with Spencer (the author) is that Buy the Numbers is exactly D&D point buy advancement using xp. I never got it as that is not something that appeals to me but it always sounded perfect for those who wanted D&D with point buy instead of levels.



Yes, it is completely freeform. He reverse engineered every SRD character ability plus feats, bab, saves, ability boosts, etc and turned it all into an a la carte xp spending system. Want a feat? When you spend x xp, you gain it. Want +1d6 sneak attack, pay the cost. No levels, no classes. Just earn xp. Spend xp.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 2, 2008)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=82858&highlight=Dr+Spunj's+classless

Point Buy D&D (replacing magic w/Arcana Evolved magic to simplify the number of progression charts).  Each level gives you a number of points, you then spend those points how you want.  Progression on caster charts is purchased and total caster level referenced for spell slots.  Fairly easy to make a bare bones spell point system for D&D if that was needed too.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 3, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> From Unearthed Arcana
> 
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm




What Rodrigo described is not accomplished by UA.

Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster  level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities. 

UA doesn't do that. 

(But I have...)


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What Rodrigo described is not accomplished by UA.
> 
> Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster  level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities.
> 
> ...




:twitch:  You have?

Yeah, UA wasn't a bad idea, just didn't go far enough, and was essentially stillborn since it wasn't core.  Plus, I also would have done 20 levesl of spells.


----------



## Kerrick (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've got a few things that aren't on the list:

Crafting

Traps

Vague or poorly-written skills and feats (Appraise, Listen, Spot, Dodge)

The sorcerer

Most of the PrCs in the DMG (either they're underpowered or they just plain suck, but this is likely just IMO)


----------



## Derro (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> UA doesn't do that.
> 
> (But I have...)




Is this in Grim Tales or something new? I know, I know, I still haven't bought it. Just make it so the bruises don't show, okay?


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Rodrigo is suggesting a unified spellcaster progression-- spells known, spell slots per day, caster  level. With further class distinctions defined by class abilities.




The link I provided only has 2 caster progressions, full and half caster.  If you look at Arcana Evolved, you will notice that there are only 2 spell progressions spread between all the classes and that is the difference.  Rather than one for mage/cleric, one for sorcerer, bard, pally, druid, assassin, ranger, etc etc.  Several of which are the same I'm sure.

EDIT:Also, Monte's recent Book of Experimental Might broke D&D spells into 20 levels.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 3, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> :twitch:  You have?





			
				Derro said:
			
		

> Is this in Grim Tales or something new?




A little sump'n I've been working on lately. 

I think before it's "ready" I'll have to rope in some more of Monte's AU/AE stuff. Basically, one Base Magic Bonus determines caster level, spells readied, spell slots, and top spell level-- but you'll need pretty much one Unified spell list to balance it out. You can't really rely on "spells known" as a limiting factor.

So as class abilities, for example, clerics get bonus spells readied and spell slots, but they have to be domain spells; wizards get bonus spells readied but no more spell slots; sorcerers get bonus spell slots but fewer spells readied.

It's coming along nicely.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Apr 3, 2008)

Entangle.  Not the spell itself, or the level, but the fact that so much page turning is required to remember exactly what the implications of it are.

Same with Magic Circle X, Protection from X, Desecrate, Hallow....it would have been nice for everything that the spell does to be fully stated in the description instead of referring to condition descriptions in the glossary or referring to other spells on different pages.  

the SM, SNA, and CW/IW spell chains were ok, as they all did the same things but to a different level.


----------



## wingsandsword (Apr 3, 2008)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> Entangle.  Not the spell itself, or the level, but the fact that so much page turning is required to remember exactly what the implications of it are.
> 
> Same with Magic Circle X, Protection from X, Desecrate, Hallow....it would have been nice for everything that the spell does to be fully stated in the description instead of referring to condition descriptions in the glossary or referring to other spells on different pages.



This is one of those "you can't please everybody" things.  If they did what you are suggesting, other people would have complained about how much repeated information was in the rules and how much the page count (and presumably the price) of the books was inflated.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Combat Reactions
> Reactions allow you to take certain actions when it is not your turn. You gain your first Reaction at BAB +1. For each additional 5 BAB (6th, 11th, and 16th) you may make an additional Reaction each turn.



How does this run in actual play? I would imagine it could bog down the game even more than the game is slow at high levels now. Before each attack you need to check if anyone wants to interrupt it first. I'm also guessing any combat with lots of opponents could be hellish for the DM to keep track of which opponents have or haven't used these reactions. At least with AoOs you generally only have one per round.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 4, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> How does this run in actual play?




I'll let you know when I try it. (First line: "I just wrote this over the weekend.")

I can tell you how it works in WHFRP/40K: Just fine.



> I would imagine it could bog down the game even more than the game is slow at high levels now.




The only thing I've found that slows down high level combat is the trailing math of iterative attacks, which we've killed in favor of 1/2 BAB damage bonus.



> Before each attack you need to check if anyone wants to interrupt it first.




At first, probably. After a while I am sure my players will get used to responding, "I'll parry!" as soon as I say, "The troll is going for Joe." I feel pretty confident we can get our delay into the 1-3 second range.



> At least with AoOs you generally only have one per round.




Yes, and they're very exciting. My player dive on the chance to roll an AoO. Spines stiffen around the table and fingers go for the dice.

I suspect they'll eat Reactions up, too.

Giving players things to actually DO and DECIDE during the DM's turn is a feature, not a bug. It's not a "delay" if you're engaged.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Apr 4, 2008)

My major dislike stems from the fact that, as previous posters have stated, the CR system assumes a certain amount of magic items to buff the party's stats, and also that IMO magic items are too easy to manufacture.  

IMO, characters shouldn't be able to manufacture permanent magical items until they're at least 16th level.  This keeps the number of actual magic items low, and avoids the 'Christmas tree' effect.  That way, magic remains something special and out of the ordinary, and not just another tradeable commodity, which is something I personally hate.  

There should, IMO, be some sort of alternate or optional rules that can be used to address balance depending on what kind of game the DM wants to run.  I myself would want a game where players treat +1 swords like cherished treasures, since for the most part they can't buy magic items aside from potions, low-level scrolls, and the very occasional magic wand.  

If you like this play style, great, but I don't.  There should be at least some way of balancing things out depending on the play style different groups want to go for, instead of factoring in that PCs are supposed to have X number of magical bonuses by a given level.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 4, 2008)

One of the major things that I think needs fixing in 3.x is in part a side effect of how the math scales as characters progress in level.

3.x is all about specialization.  It rewards extensive specialization excessively and makes characters with more generalized skillsets feel useless.

Now, every version of D&D has had strongly-defined roles, and that's part of what makes it D&D; I just find that 3.x has taken it to an extreme.  Many have complained about the way that 3.x allows for very freeform multiclassing, and how that leads to characters who are good at everything and how nobody has a distinct role to play, and such -- but in reality, it often doesn't work out that way.  The "one-level-dip" that gets complained about so much ends up severely hindering a character after a few levels as often as it helps.  There are certainly cases where it is beneficial, but those cases are generally when such a dip reinforces the specialization that you are going for.

Many skill DCs increase to the point where if you're not maxing out the skill as you advance, then you might as well not even bother to attempt a skill check.  Cross-class skills make this a huge pain for multiclass characters.  And you can pretty much forget about the charismatic Fighter who acts as the "leader" or "face" of the party, unless he takes levels in other classes and/or spends a couple of feats just to not get hosed.  In doing so, he's likely to lose a fair bit of effectiveness as a Fighter.  Monster ACs scale up to the point where you've got a pretty poor chance to hit if you don't have a full BAB progression.  Spellcasters get really screwed by taking levels in anything that doesn't increase their caster level and progression.  

At low levels, characters with a bit more breadth don't seem to out of place, but as they start to hit the middle levels, they are severely outperformed by specialized characters, and it just gets worse into the higher levels.  I don't think that every character should be able to do everything, as that would be boring.  But the payoffs for specialization result in the focus on character builds with a couple of levels in 4 prestige classes, decked out in boring stat-boosting items.  A lot of interesting character concepts lead to players mainly sitting there, feeling ineffective while the tweaked-out specialists dominate everything.

When you have to create dozens of prestige classes that are essentially an archetype of a common core class combo just to make the concepts not suck in play, then you know the system is broken.  Some gamers have always been into build optimizations, but it's gotten kind of ludicrous in 3.x.


----------



## Derro (Apr 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The only thing I've found that slows down high level combat is the trailing math of iterative attacks, which we've killed in favor of 1/2 BAB damage bonus.




I noticed your mention of this in the house rules you posted some time ago. Do you still have things like flurry of blows or other means to split attacks? If so how do you reconcile them with the improved damage bonus? I've toyed with this system as well and can't decide whether multiple attacks should hit less or do less damage. 




> Giving players things to actually DO and DECIDE during the DM's turn is a feature, not a bug. It's not a "delay" if you're engaged.




So totally true.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 4, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> I noticed your mention of this in the house rules you posted some time ago. Do you still have things like flurry of blows or other means to split attacks? If so how do you reconcile them with the improved damage bonus? I've toyed with this system as well and can't decide whether multiple attacks should hit less or do less damage.




We draw a distinction between _iterative_ attacks, and _multiple_ attacks.

All sources of multiple attacks remain. TWF, flurry, and for most monsters, Claw/Claw/Bite routines.

The 1/2 BAB bonus to damage only applies to attacks that previously enjoyed iterative attacks. Iterative attacks typically applied to manufactured weapons for monsters that used them. Creatures with both (Balor, Marilith, etc.) get the bonus to manufactured weapon attacks that were previously iterative, but not to natural attacks.

For the record, the math on the 1/2 BAB "works out" only as far as the base weapon didn't have any damage added in. It breaks down, however, if your fighter had as simple as a flaming sword. So I think the jury is still out on whether or not this bonus is "equivalent."

That being said, I don't philosophically have a problem with damage going down at high levels. It makes combat more "ablative," which I think is a good thing. At high levels, combat becomes a process of wearing each other down and not so much whether you can hit or avoid being hit. 

I've never really had a problem with high level AC being outpaced by high level BAB. The purpose of high level AC, as far as I was concerned, was getting your AC high enough *to avoid the 2nd, 3rd, 4th iterative attack.*

If those iterative attacks are gone (for monsters as well as PCs) then I'm perfectly satisfied for AC to "fall behind."

It remains to be seen whether slogging away at each other (ablative combat) will be more or less satisfying than 4e's shift to "We hit and get hit roughly half the time across all levels of encounters."


----------



## Derro (Apr 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> We draw a distinction between _iterative_ attacks, and _multiple_ attacks.
> 
> All sources of multiple attacks remain. TWF, flurry, and for most monsters, Claw/Claw/Bite routines.
> 
> The 1/2 BAB bonus to damage only applies to attacks that previously enjoyed iterative attacks. Iterative attacks typically applied to manufactured weapons for monsters that used them. Creatures with both (Balor, Marilith, etc.) get the bonus to manufactured weapon attacks that were previously iterative, but not to natural attacks.




Makes sense. And inspires another question. Does the damage bonus only apply when the attacker would qualify for a full attack routine or even during standard attacks? I suspect by your wording that it is the latter. Which doesn't break anything, IMO.



> It remains to be seen whether slogging away at each other (ablative combat) will be more or less satisfying than 4e's shift to "We hit and get hit roughly half the time across all levels of encounters."




Ablative is likely more enjoyable because it extends the duration of encounters on a round for round level rather than on an individual action level. In that manner there is more room for sudden reversals of fortune, longer term maneuvers and set-ups, and villainous monologues.    So while combats may last relatively the same amount of real time there is actually more action during the encounter. And there is less likeliness of somebody's poor initiative combined with a statistically improbable full attack destroying a quarter of the parties resources in one round. 

Combined with your reaction system (which I have already yoinked, thank you very much) I can see combat being much more dynamic with less by rote tactics. This will most likely solve some of the higher-level issues that many claim to be present.

It's heartening to see the ideas of a proven game designer parallel (though unquestionably further along) to some of my own ideas. Even without large amounts of playtesting or number crunching I feel like a may have been on the right track. 

So thanks, Wulf, and good gaming to you.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 5, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> Makes sense. And inspires another question. Does the damage bonus only apply when the attacker would qualify for a full attack routine or even during standard attacks? I suspect by your wording that it is the latter. Which doesn't break anything, IMO.




That's right. Although I am still not sure if I want the bonus to be strictly 1/2 BAB, accrued level by level, or to apply the bonus only when the iterative attacks would have previously occurred (6th, 11th, 16th). Obviously, one power curve is smooth and the other is 'jumpy.' But I don't mind a little bit of jumpiness as something to look forward to.



> It's heartening to see the ideas of a proven game designer parallel (though unquestionably further along) to some of my own ideas. Even without large amounts of playtesting or number crunching I feel like a may have been on the right track.




I feel the same thrill when my ideas parallel the thoughts that are running through the playerbase. I'm loving this thread, for example; it's a huge validation of what I have been working on lately.

Every DM is a game designer. It's in our nature. I'm not sure that my ideas have any greater validity because I'm willing to sink a little extra money into publishing as an extension of my hobby. Though it gives me access to more people to validate my ideas, it doesn't necessarily make them any better than the ideas you expose to your players and friends.

But thank you for the kind words regardless.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But I don't mind a little bit of jumpiness as something to look forward to.




I like jumpy.  I like character progression to ebb and flow a bit.  I like those levels when you're a little more of a badass than those around you, and then the growing challenge as the curve catches up and passes you.  I think in the urge to hand out cookies every level lest the players get bored, we forget that having to wait sometimes makes the presents extra special.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 5, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I like jumpy.  I like character progression to ebb and flow a bit.




Then let me recommend, instead of 1/2 BAB, adding +1d6 to weapon damage at 6th, 11th, and 16th levels.

It's jumpy _and_ swingy!


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's jumpy _and_ swingy!



It's like rickrolling, but different.  It's rickrollabilly.


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I like jumpy.  I like character progression to ebb and flow a bit.




This is why you have levels in the first place. Lumpiness in power progression by level is superfluous to the task.


----------



## tricky_bob (Apr 5, 2008)

3.5 fix.

*Melee:* Offer the ToB classes as the only melee options. Or possibly offer Manoeuvres on non-Feat levels for the Fighter [would probably stick with Crusader options]
*Cleric:* Remove any Feat that gives alternative uses to Turn attempts. Use the Pathfinder Turn rules [30ft burst dealing/healing positive or negative energy] and give Undead with Turn Resistance a DR value against the damage. Make more of their spells/day come from Domains [start with 3 Domains]
*Rogue:* Allow Sneak attack damage on more enemies. Excluding Oozes, Incorporeal, Ethereal & Elementals. However I would use a DR system for some Undead etc. based on Hit Dice. Also up Rogue hit die to d8.
*Wizard:* Hit die changed to d6.
*Spells:* Ban Gate and Time Stop. Imposed a +3 spell level adjustment to the multi-form spells like Alter Self and Poly-whatsit. And Ray of Enfeeblement is level 2. Plus judge other problematic spells on a case by case basis.
*Full Casters:* Use the Spirit Shaman spell progression chart, basing all spell casting around 2 stats [one for bonus spells and one for save DC's]. Possibly adjust it based on whether spells are gained spontaneous or via preparation.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 5, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> It's like rickrolling, but different.  It's rickrollabilly.




Best Rickroll Ever.


----------



## Derro (Apr 5, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Cleric:[/B] Remove any Feat that gives alternative uses to Turn attempts.




Yow. That's one of my favorite cleric features. What's your reason for moving it? Too much power for an already powerful class? I doubt that since you've gone with three domains.





> Best Rickroll Ever.



Tee-hee. Beakeroll.


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Jun 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> ...That being said, I don't philosophically have a problem with damage going down at high levels. It makes combat more "ablative," which I think is a good thing. At high levels, combat becomes a process of wearing each other down and not so much whether you can hit or avoid being hit.
> 
> I've never really had a problem with high level AC being outpaced by high level BAB. The purpose of high level AC, as far as I was concerned, was getting your AC high enough *to avoid the 2nd, 3rd, 4th iterative attack.*
> 
> ...




I agree quite a bit here and would add a SWSE style condition track to the mix. Throw in some cool abilities/spells/feats to move you enemy down the track without having to whack on him for 20 rounds would add some excitement to the "I swing again, is he dead yet" syndrome that can occur with high-level foes.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 24, 2008)

The big ones (for me) were already on the list: 

1. DMs needed a more eloquent and less time consuming method of statting up NPCs. Having hundreds of options is perfect for PCs or PC-classed NPCs (read "BBEGs" for convenience), but just plain stupid for commoners who served primarily as window dressing. It shouldn't take more than one minute (tops) to draw up stats for a potato farmer. He shouldn't need a class, skill ratings, etc. 

2. DMs needed a consistent method for creating monsters. Let's face it -- for all the boasting that WotC did about balanced gameplay, the fact that the 'monster creation systm' was pretty much "make stuff up as you see fit and refine it via playtesting" undid any potential good that the CR system and other, related, mechanics might have accomplished. This basis for CR was deeply, deeply flawed. 

Some less important concerns (or pet peeves, if you will) that aren't yet on the list, AFAICT,  follow: 

1. I hate, hate, _hate_ systems that arbitrarily assign class-based bonuses for some learned aptitudes (e.g., melee skill) and 'skill' ratings to other learned aptitudes (e.g., bluffing). Pick a system and stick to it already! You're either a class-based game or a skill-based game, but for the love of god, _choose one or the other_. Lack of decisive design in this regard leaves me cold, both as a player (Why can I custom-tailor my character's non-combat aptitudes, but not his weapon aptitude?!?!) and as a DM (who has to answer this question on a regular basis). 

2. Why are all of the core classes based on vocation save for one? Why is "Barbarian" a class? In fiction and history, barbaric cultures have shamen, warriors, hunters, sailors, etc. In D&D, the fact that the barbarain is pigeon-holed into the role of 'berserker warrior' has never sat right with me because it's neither internally consistent, nor does it reflect the diversity of primitive cultures.


----------



## der_kluge (Jul 10, 2008)

I'm probably a little late to this thread, but in my mind:

E6/E8 + Artificer's Handbook (spell slot system) - XP (removed from game completely) - Druid - Monk = nearly a perfect game, IMHO.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 10, 2008)

Gnomes and bards.  They needed to go.


----------



## Derro (Jul 10, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> I'm probably a little late to this thread, but in my mind:
> 
> E6/E8 + Artificer's Handbook (spell slot system) - XP (removed from game completely) - Druid - Monk = nearly a perfect game, IMHO.




Artificer's Handbook? Where is this from?

And is advancement arbitrary without XP? What is your method?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2008)

Personally, I don't have problems with most of the stuff people in this thread want to change, like strengthening multiclassing spellcasters, or changing the way they managed resources.

I always felt that multiclassing was a choice between power and flexibility.  If you multiclass, then you're not going to be spending as much time improving yourself as a caster.  The resultant power drop is logical and internally consistent.

I always liked the resource management style of spellcasters in D&D, and it forced me and other players of my acquaintence to learn how to play spellcasters without "going nova"...or at least being competent in something else for when I ran out of spells.  However, I also agree that the Reserve feats were a stroke of genius (much better, IMHO, than the 4Ed system) that should be expanded...and could even be incorporated into the full caster classes as a class feature.

My dislikes?

Critter sidekicks were too vulnerable in a standard, high-magic D&D campaign (a problem not new to 3.X).  IME, the only ones to survive more than a few game sessions were Paladin mounts.

The vocabulary.  It seems to me that there were many instances in which the game's designers tried to get fancy with the lingo, and by doing so, caused endless chains of confusion, speculation and probably a bunch of unneccessary house rules.  See the innumerable threads on Natural Weapons/Unarmed Strikes/Manufactured Weapons for a good example (including various and sometimes conflicting responses from WizCustServ).  My fix?  There are only Natural & Manufactured Weapons- everything else is just some flavor of one or the other.  ("Unarmed Strike" would then be exactly what the PHB glossary and WizCustServe repeatedly told me- a successful strike using no manufactured weapon.)

Simpler, clearer language & resultant mechanics would probably have made the game much more enjoyable.

XP for crafting didn't bother me much.  The one change I made was at least 50% of the XP had to come from the intended end user.  IOW, if the spellcaster was making something for himself (or an unspecified spellcaster), he paid the full XP amount.  If, OTOH, he were making something for someone in his party, that PC would have to contribute at least half of the XP involved in item creation.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 10, 2008)

Seriously; I think mid to high level play was really clunky and tedious.

I also think that once you got to multiple attacks per round that combat got really boring.  Suddenly, doing anything at all interesting during combat became suboptimal compared to just standing and full-attacking.


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Jul 10, 2008)

The biggest problems for myself (and to a lesser extent, my group):

- Spell Lists for NPC's:  I could rarely use anything other than sorcerers or the Dragonlance equivalent for clerics (I forget the class name) for enemies simply because pouring over a laundry list of spells for an enemy that wouldn't last more than perhaps 1 or 2 rounds was a huge waste of time.. Which brings me to..

- Enemy nuke:  At mid levels this started to become a problem when you'd have a BBEG lose initiative and get wiped off the map outright in the first round or two after the ranged party members unleashed on them.  This was especially bad when the BBEG was a caster type.  Those D4 hp don't go too far.

- Fight/rest/fight/rest syndrome:  Or the 15 min. work day.  While I had house rules in place for some situations, and had to load the group up with healing potions from the start (more so if there wasn't a cleric in the group), I disliked the need to rest so often after clearing one or two encounter.

- Iterative attacks:  These started to bog things down in our games.  Even with rolling say 3 d20's at once along with any damage dice, it still took ages for it all to be added up.  Even more so if any one of those attacks were a crit.  This was compounded to ridiculous levels when I had a 2 weapon fighter who could easily take up a good 10 min. of a fight just on their turn alone.

- Low starting HP/Swingy HP: Self explanatory.

- CR system:  I never cared for the CR system as much more than something to help me eyeball how hard an encounter would be.

- Monster advancement:  To this day I'm sure I still advanced monsters incorrectly.  Even worse is that for some inexplicable reason if you advanced a monster by a few levels they would gain a size category.

- Magic dependance:  Self explanatory.

- Magic item creation:  Didn't much care for the xp costs or the strange math required to create items.

- Save or Die effects: Self explanatory.

- Condition tracking: Self explanatory.

That's my list, anyway.


----------



## Solodan (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't know that it could be fixed in a 3.5 system, but disproportionate leveling.

Some levels are huge, some are so minor it almost doesn't mean a thing.  Probably the first huge level is wizard 4-5.  A +1 BAB class getting the first iterative attack isn't half bad either.  

But, that system can't really be fixed without a MAJOR overhaul.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 10, 2008)

My list of pet peeves. Its actually not that big...

1.) Unrestricted (laissez-faire) multi-classing. It lead to cherry-picking and its evil twin: suckage builds. It was really easy to build a character who could no longer fill his "spot" in the group and spread himself thin. 

2.) Prestige Classes. Such a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, they had to balance against the base classes, which were lacking in oumph. So you ended up with PrCs that, in order to introduce something "cool" often had to neuter the PrCs primary function (spellcasting levels every other level, skill-monkey classes with 4 skill points, warrior types with 3/4 bab and/or d8 hd). While in theory this made for a "trade off" between a PrCs power and a base classes versatility, it often meant "balanced" PrCs were left untaken and broken ones (RSoP anyone?) were no brainers. Hundreds of good ideas lay in the PrC dustbin, victims of "balancing" that made them weak or poor choices (looks at dragon disciple...)

3.) Ability Score Modification mid-game. It seemed so easy: set ability scores on a simple slide-scale, and then allow the game to raise/lower your score and gain the benefits/penalties associated with it! Sadly, it meant a lot of math. Bob's Str was raised by 4 points, he got hit with a _Ray of Enfeeblement_ for 6 str, and he's taken 2 points of Str damage. Whats my "to hit" again? It also meant the DM had to look up the stat-block everytime a foe was poisoned, bull strengthed, or any of the hundred-other stat-changing effects 3e had. Speaking of which...

4.) HUGE stat blocks. Lots of things for a DM to remember to apply every round (DR, SR, Resistances, Immunities, Regeneration/Fast Healing, Ongoing spell effects, etc) that could make or break a combat. Far to many "vanity" effects that didn't help the monster out (do Demons really need "_detect good_?"). 

5.) Summoning. Oh god. A high level caster who focuses on summoning often took 2-3 times as long as anyone else to complete their turn. He could easily have multiple monsters to activate, resolve, etc, and then take his own turn to boot! No joke, a high level wizard I saw took 15 minutes to resolve his turn EVERY ROUND due to summons, spellcasting, and magical item use. 

6.) Long, High-level Combat in General: High level D&D falls into two categories: over in a round, or grab yourself a cold one, its gonna be a while. If the caster(s) can't down it in a round, your in for a long night of full-attack actions, summoning, animal companions/familiars/like, spell-looking-up, SR, DR, spell-like-abilities which are in the PHB, not MM, multiple buffs/debuffs, and other "When is it my turn?" action. Wake me when its my turn...

7.) Whats that do again? So much book-looking up! How do I resolve a grapple? Whats the Save DC for Harm? What does a Pink Rhioband Ioun Stone do again? How do you resolve a _Web_ spell? Whats the DC for Dispel Magic? The Vrock has _Unholy Word_, what does that do again? 

8.) Total Eclipse of the Non-caster. Right around that name-level/double digit point in D&D, spellcasters take off like rockets and non-magical "melee" classes are left in the dust. CoDzilla replaces the need for fighters, wizards with scrolls and wands no longer need rogues. Non-casters rely much heavier on magical gear to keep pace, and still lose do to the versatility a cleric or mage has to tailor himself to a specific encounter. 

9.) Over-reliance on "big-six" magical items. Magic swords are good. Magic Armor is cool. Requiring a PC to have +X items in order to survive? Bad. The flaw of accounting for magic items in the math is that you know NEED said items. Every PC buys, makes, earns or steals a magical weapon, magical armor/bracers/robe, a cloak of resistance, a ring of protection, an amulet of Natural Armor, Boots of Striding/Springing, and A stat-booster item. Typically, that meant that 4-6 item slots were filled with "necessities" that left little room for "cool stuff". Cloak of Resistance or Cloak of the Bat? Gauntlets of Ogre Power or Gauntlets of Missile Snaring? Those other items were usually bundled and sold to buy big six items because...

10.) The Math doesn't scale. The difference between good and poor saves becomes so pronounced at high level, that targeting a "poor save" is always the best tactic. A high level rogue cannot possibly fail most reflex saves (barring a 1) and he cannot make the same DC will save (barring a 20). While it appears to be a valid tactical choice, it leads to a lot of charmed/dominated/held fighters, a lot of SoD on the wizard, a lot of poisoned rogues, and a lot of "just nuke him" clerics. Similarly, the ACs a fighter can hit without effort on his first attack the monk or rogue cannot hit on a good day (aka the flurry of misses). HP becomes ridiculous, and the game becomes very "exception" based, requiring "alternate" attacks like Save or Die to be remotely effective at "challenging" the other side (be it PCs or Monsters). 

So is the problem with D&D. So far I'm happy 4e has fixed these problems for me, and I'm sure that unless Pathfinder re-wrote 3.5e from the ground up (not likely, due to compatibility issues) I'm sure they will remain.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 10, 2008)

(I'm considering 3.5 as including most supplements, not just core)

-Inequality among the six ability scores.
-Some high-level spells are too powerful
-Infinite possibility spells (polymorph and related)
-Caster save DCs too complicated
-Casters don't have at-will powers (at least not until warlock, etc.)
-No class defense bonus (related to this: confusion between ref saves and AC)
-Damage doesn't cause harm (i.e. you're fine until you start dying)
-Healing is too easy (with and without magic)
-Resurrection is too easy
-Magic Item dependency
-Complicated buff spells
-Dead levels
-Prestige class proliferation
-Skills don't advance unless you advance them
-Not enough skill points to spread around
-Racial inequality (in the sense that half-elves suck, I mean)
-Race doesn't influence the character as much at high levels
-Races often suck for their "favored class" (see elven wizards)
-There's just too many rules


Many of these problems are either unavoidable (see last entry) or are dealt with in 4e (with varying results, IMO)


----------



## Delta (Jul 11, 2008)

In general, I thought that 3.5 was a big slip-up compared to what came before; I never used anything past 3E. If I was fixing 3.5 I'd first go back to 3.0 and then make some minor modifications.

Now, I'll basically jump in and flag the ones in the current OP list I agree with. The others (i.e., most of them) I disagree with.

--Statting up NPCs, including skill points too fiddly for DMs statting up monsters/NPS (but not PCs--most players seem to like the customization)
--AoOs too confusing/too many instances to remember
--Scry-Buff-Teleport-Fly combo repeated ad nauseum, and campaign-breaking spells/magic in general (for some this includes resurrection et al)
--buffing etc., especially remembering which buffs/effects/modifiers are affecting whom and for how long
--Spell prep takes too long; spell-list resource management too cumbersome

Regarding fiddly skill points, I *do* consider those an aggravation for PCs as well (esp., point-of-view of new players tothe game). My players responded very well to suggesting the UA "skills by level" plan that disposes of individual skill point allocation.

Some of the stuff above didn't exist in prior editions, and would be easily solved by stepping backwards a bit. Spell prep time is partly because 3E plastered on a bunch more spell slots as part of eternal power creep (esp. cantrips); undo that. Buffing issues were aggravated when they expanded the long-time "Strength" spell to cover every other ability; undo that. For those who mentioned the DR "golf bag" issue, that didn't exist until 3.5; undo that, too.

When I'm working on my house rules, the prior things I try to get down from 3E are -- reduce PC & NPC construction time (fewer feat & skill choices), reduce overwhelming cleric spell selection, possibly reduce available healing (cleric spells/powers), reduce numbers of magic items (with a simple 5-item cap), etc. There's also some very specific spells I have grief with, but not nearly as many as 3.5 screwed around with.


----------



## Mircoles (Jul 11, 2008)

I got this definition of "CoDzilla" from the Urban Dictionary.

Refers to a specific sort of character in a Dungeons and Dragons game. A CoDzilla is a Cleric or Druid who excels in one field, such as melee damage, far beyond the limits of any other class, while still more than capable at anything else he or she chooses. While a Fighter might have good consistent attack power, or a Sorceror a broader selection of spells, a CoDzilla can outdo either at any given moment and still be ready to do it again. 
"You can survive multiple direct hits from an iron golem, you can cleave its head off in a handful of attacks, you can heal the rest of the party to full, you can drive away scores of undead, and you still have enough time for a cup of tea?" 
"Behold the awesome might of CoDzilla."


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 11, 2008)

loseth said:


> So I ask: What else REALLY needed to be fixed (i.e. really large numbers of players had trouble with it) and could EASILY be fixed without destroying backwards compatibility.




I would have a much smaller list than you of things that I think REALLY needed to be fixed.

For my money it would be:

*Change everything which cause knock-on recalculation.* 
Anything which increases or decreases an ability score means that tons of other stuff gets recalculated (saves, skills, attacks...). This ripple-through effect could be a pain to manage. Probable solution? Make everything give a primary benefit directly, rather than a knock on effect (e.g. "Bulls strength gives +2 hit and damage and skill checks" or something similar)

*Eliminate stacking problems.* 
Stacking of multiple overlapping and additive bonuses is a pain to keep track of, especially at higher levels when things get shuffled around during the combat. e.g. the prayer always works (except for the guy who has the luckstone), the bless doesn't have any effect at the moment because the bard is singing, but 5r after he stops singing it will give a benefit, the magic circle against evil is giving everyone +2 ST and +2 AC except for those two guys who already have +3 cloaks and that chap who has a +2 ring; the guy with a dozen magic effects on him and 6 of them are taken off by dispel magic etc. etc.

Individually they are small bonuses and would be easy to add up, but the dynamic way they interact and change throughout a melee was a pain - and the reason why all our DMs used electronic tools to support their game.

*Caster Multiclass problems*
Partially solved via prestige class solutions, but that was really a patch - a complete solution would have been better (some have been suggested up-thread)

*Full attacks encouraged static combat*
High level fighter types could churn out the damage if they stood still and did full attacks - often far more than the wizards could do to a single target - but it tended to mean that most fights devolved into 'move to nearest target - full attack until dead - move to next target".

*Non-spellcasters lacked interesting options*
The one time I played a basic fighter rather than a class with some casting ability, I found it quite frustrating that I had very few real options. I could attack things with my sword, or use a missile weapon, and had a few 'tactical' options (grapple, disarm, trip etc), but many of those were not much actual use. The caster classes (even the partial caster classes) had interesting additional options both inside and outside combat.

There are plenty of little 'flavour' things which I would have liked to see changed (or even reverted from 3.5 to 3.0 style), but the above are the only things that I thought could really do with being addressed.

Cheers


----------



## der_kluge (Jul 11, 2008)

Derro said:


> Artificer's Handbook? Where is this from?




You can find the full version on rpgnow.com.

Or, download this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?hmj2zmwundk




> And is advancement arbitrary without XP? What is your method?




Arbitrary. I coincide advancement with story.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 11, 2008)

Bacris said:


> Here's the original context:
> "the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill (Draconic Wildshape? Divine Metamagic?)."



Draconic Wildshape is actually quite balanced.  You can't get it until level 12, it limits you to small and medium dragons, and so on.  It gives some versatility, but by that point the breath attacks are pretty sad.  Even the Reserve feats are outdamaging them.  As for Divine Metamagic, it's not broken.   Persistent Spell is.  It's a common misconception.  

As for the things that I find wrong:

-Takes too long to build a classed NPC, it'd be nice to just have books full of different premade builds for each class and each level.  I'd pay handsomely for that.

-Grapple rules aren't complicated enough.  Yeah, you heard me.  It's too simplified.  I want specific rules for side-guard pinning, and joint locks, arm bars, rules for chokes that cut off bloodflow versus airflow...  Really, I'm just very sad ToB didn't make a grappling focused discipline to cover these things.

-There's no built-in hindrance to make casters think twice about spell dumping their heaviest hitters right away.  I'd like some kind of rule to force them to wait till later rounds to use higher level spells (same for psionics and intiators) or something, to balance fights more, as well as make them more cinematic, where the big guns are saved for the final blow.

-I hate all spells that make a skill obsolete.  Any such spell should add CL bonus to the check and let the recipient count as being trained in the skill, if it matters.  So, Charm Person would add to Diplomacy, Knock would make the caster about as good as a Rogue at lockpicking, etc...

-Save or Dies.  These were a sacred cow that needed to be killed.  I'm trying to make a version where it instead leaves the person at -9 and bleeding, so if he has allies, they have a chance to save him, but keep finding technical problems in making it actually work as intended.

-Reliance on magic items, especially by the people who can't cast magic.  There's now rules like dragonscale husk, VoP, and so on, but there should be more ways to escape the problem.  That said, I like the wealth of options and items available.  Reading MIC literally made me feel like the main guy from Duck Tales, diving into a giant pile of gold coins, feeling giddy.  Probably the best thing to do is just accept standard D&D is magic item heavy, and make houserules for the occasional low-magic game.

-Random stat rolls and hp.  This is one thing 4E did right, and I've advocated static numbers for these hugely important figures to my friends for years to no avail.  Point buy should be the standard option, not rolling.  It may seem small, but when faced with a DM insistent on using rolling, you have a better arguing position to also allow point buy if it's HIM who's trying to use the houserule.  I'm sick of feeling helpless in new games to the DM's whim of rolling, knowing I'll probably get poor results that make my character concept impossible.

-Odd stats aren't worth !  There's no reason for this.  You could make all opposed ability checks add score instead of modifier, for starters.  Also, I believe the current rules are for any opposed roll (and initiative): higher mod wins, if the modifers are the same, reroll.  Why not, if modifiers are the same, check to see if one has a higher score in the corresponding ability, and only after THAT reroll?  It's little things, but there's no reason not to incorporate them.

-Flanking isn't harsh enough.  A +2 to hit is pretty trivial, considering how bad it is to be surrounded.  It's nasty with Rogues, sure, but I think the general benefit should be increased a bit.  Not sure how, though.

-Monster stuff such as how much natural armor they get at a given CR is way too random, with no real rhyme or reason.  Which makes it a pain to design new ones.

-Races should get to choose favored class from a list.  Just one option is too limiting, and it'd be nice to get some non-core classes as favored options.

-Spellcasting prestige classes fell into two categories: full casting progression and no reason not to take, and not full casting / crazy prereqs and never worth taking, with no middle ground.

-Severe racial imbalance.  Humans and Dwarves just blow the rest out of the water, and the half races are beyond useless.

There's more, that's just all I can think of right now.  Despite that large list, most of those are easily fixable, unlike those with any other edition of the game, all of which would also comprise a much longer list of issues.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Draconic Wildshape is actually quite balanced.  You can't get it until level 12, it limits you to small and medium dragons, and so on.  It gives some versatility, but by that point the breath attacks are pretty sad.  Even the Reserve feats are outdamaging them.  As for Divine Metamagic, it's not broken.   Persistent Spell is.  It's a common misconception.
> 
> As for the things that I find wrong:
> 
> ...



An unusual opinion on first glance, but what you really seem to want is more options. That doesn't have to mean it's complicated, if you can describe each option in a neat packages using standard game terms.


----------



## kensanata (Jul 11, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Takes too long to build a classed NPC, it'd be nice to just have books full of different premade builds for each class and each level.  I'd pay handsomely for that.




I found that NPC Generator 2 was good enough for me. Only bosses would have needed optimization (but I prefer devils and demons for bosses…).


----------



## Derro (Jul 11, 2008)

kensanata said:


> I found that NPC Generator 2 was good enough for me. Only bosses would have needed optimization (but I prefer devils and demons for bosses…).




The problem with NPC generators is that they are never optimal and usually incomplete. Feats rarely scale properly and equipment is either undesignated or just plain wrong.

If it works for you, awesome. My experiences have always been a basic stat block that I have to tinker with so much I may as well have started from scratch and gotten exactly what I wanted.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 11, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> -Takes too long to build a classed NPC, it'd be nice to just have books full of different premade builds for each class and each level.  I'd pay handsomely for that.




Can't you get these in the DMG?



> -There's no built-in hindrance to make casters think twice about spell dumping their heaviest hitters right away.  I'd like some kind of rule to force them to wait till later rounds to use higher level spells (same for psionics and intiators) or something, to balance fights more, as well as make them more cinematic, where the big guns are saved for the final blow.




This may or may not actually be part of "Save or Die" but what I have done is to embrace the "bloodied" mechanic. There is a large category of "Save or Suck" spells (pretty much anything that kills you OR denies you actions) and my fix is to give the target TWO saving throws if he is NOT bloodied.

That tends to mitigate the "gunslinger" mentality a bit. 



> I hate all spells that make a skill obsolete.




Agree here. Pretty sure Monte fixed this very thing in most of his spell lists. Not sure I agree with you on Charm Person-- but only because I was expecting Knock and haven't seen Charm singled out before. It certainly is an interesting take.



> Save or Dies.  These were a sacred cow that needed to be killed.  I'm trying to make a version where it instead leaves the person at -9 and bleeding, so if he has allies, they have a chance to save him, but keep finding technical problems in making it actually work as intended.




Yeah, it pretty much doesn't work. There are a lot of spells that qualify as "Save or Die" though they do not actually affect your hit points. Obvious ones like Flesh to Stone, or Hold Person. In some cases even Dominate, Confusion, or Hideous Laughter. These can be game enders for a PC or a BBEG. Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is a Boss Killer in every way, and I don't see it popping up on many "Save or Die" hit lists.



> Reliance on magic items, especially by the people who can't cast magic. Probably the best thing to do is just accept standard D&D is magic item heavy, and make houserules for the occasional low-magic game.




I agree. I actually kind of like the "default" level of magic items in D&D. But the _dependency_ is certainly a problem. The "Big Six" issue is a problem not necessarily (nor even primarily) because the bonuses are "baked in" to the game balance, but because they edge out other, more interesting magic items. I think WotC got this one exactly right, at least in identifying the problem.

I am not sure I agree with the mathematical fix of 4e, however. I'd just as soon see the enhancement bonuses on these items level up with the character.



> Random stat rolls and hp.




Definitely.



> There's more, that's just all I can think of right now.




What you laid out was, in the whole, pretty darn good, I thought.

You're friggin crazy for wanting grapple to be more complicated, though.


----------



## Psion (Jul 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Can't you get these in the DMG?




The 3.0 DMG. The 3.5 DMG is a bit less useful in that regard, for reasons I still don't understand.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jul 11, 2008)

So has anybody tried to re-level the D&D spells and place them buy actual power level than by tradition?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 11, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> So has anybody tried to re-level the D&D spells and place them buy actual power level than by tradition?




You'd have to be more specific, but I _have_ deconstructed the spells, and most of them are placed according to actual power.

(Magic Missile is still pretty darn good for its level.)

Unless by "tradition" you also mean, "Divines are better at healing, buffing, and debuffing and get these spells before Arcanes; Arcanes are better at direct damage and get these spells before Divines."

I generally consider that a good distinction but if your mileage varies, I recommend any of Monte Cook's AU/AE spell lists, which are more "universal" lists with an internal balance.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 11, 2008)

Derro said:


> And unless I'm mistaken outsiders summoned by another outsider with the Summon (Su) ability couldn't use their own Summon (Su) ability for the duration of their stay. Or is that an artifact of 3.0?



Nope.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have....



Anyone having a problem with "infinite summons" has it because of house rules.  It doesn't exist in 3.5 RAW.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> This may or may not actually be part of "Save or Die" but what I have done is to embrace the "bloodied" mechanic. There is a large category of "Save or Suck" spells (pretty much anything that kills you OR denies you actions) and my fix is to give the target TWO saving throws if he is NOT bloodied.
> 
> That tends to mitigate the "gunslinger" mentality a bit.



That's a cool idea! You could even delay the second save by one round, so PCs have time to react. Particularly useful against Bodaks - if you give the Cleric one round to cast Death Ward, he can at least save one character, even if he's totally surprised by one...


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 11, 2008)

Strictly speaking, nothing NEEDED fixed, because D&D is a game and ultimately not that important.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's a cool idea!




*cough* Trailblazer *cough*


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 11, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Nope.
> 
> Anyone having a problem with "infinite summons" has it because of house rules.  It doesn't exist in 3.5 RAW.




I agree that it's the province of pedants and obsessive-compulsives, but I think the argument uses _Gate_. (Which isn't, strictly speaking, a summons...)

Anyhow, I never had a problem with it either. Some folks are just fixated on closing loopholes that any half-decent DM would just close himself with a quick " off." to his abusive players.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> *cough* Trailblazer *cough*




You know, I am seriously considering picking it up, but on the other hand, I really don't see me ever using it. I like a lot of your ideas, but I still don't have the feel they will "fix" the game for me. There are things you accept I just don't (like to-hit outpacing AC). Not all of them might need fixing in the playability or balance point of view, but they are just "aesthetically" displeasing to me.

Well, maybe I can still steal something from it, or it will be just a read for a train ride home...


----------



## Mercule (Jul 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I agree that it's the province of pedants and obsessive-compulsives, but I think the argument uses _Gate_. (Which isn't, strictly speaking, a summons...)



Gate?  Seriously?  Isn't that a 9th level spell?  That's just shy of epic level and summoning a swarm of red dragons.  

I think daisy-chaining balors at is pretty minor by 17th level, especially considering only the first one is under compulsion.  

Actually, the ability to summon another balor is still a _summoning_ effect, so there isn't a way to daisy-chain them.  You'd need to _gate_ in something that itself has _gate_.

I love a good academic abomination as much as the next guy, but I still don't see that this one was put together by someone who actually followed the rules.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 11, 2008)

Mercule said:


> I love a good academic abomination as much as the next guy, but I still don't see that this one was put together by someone who actually followed the rules.




What can I say? I don`t spend a lot of time working through these pointless exercises.

Maybe the trick is Wish related? You could find it on Paizo if you really wanted to. I remember reading it and being unimpressed.

It was the sort of thing that pretty much requires the DM to play along with a clear abuse of the rules. I mean, any game can be broken if the DM is working in concert with the players to do it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 11, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Actually, the ability to summon another balor is still a _summoning_ effect, so there isn't a way to daisy-chain them.  You'd need to _gate_ in something that itself has _gate_.




Solar is the creature of choice for this.

Interesting to see it used in Sepulchrave II's story hour, where it was known as the "Solar Cascade" or something similar and it ended that battle pretty sharpish. To his credit Sepulchrave embraced it into the story (which was outsider heavy anyway) and campaign implications played out after that.

Cheers


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 11, 2008)

Oh, and AC was problematic.  Specifically that it doesn't come anywhere close to keeping up with BAB without tons of magic.

Granted; fixes have been in place as optional rules for a long time, but why that needed to be fixed (or why it wasn't at the 3.5 breakpoint) kinda mystifies me.


----------



## OneWinged4ngel (Jul 12, 2008)

Pssh, I could give a hundred of these.

1) Uneven Progressions hinders customization, particularly multiclassing.
2) Most weapon styles suffer heavily from breaking points.
3) Armor is significantly unbalanced, to the point that there is always one "best" armor for any given class.
4) "Top down" combat flow, particularly with spellcasters. Blow your best and slug it out with whatever's left. In 3e, usually no one survives the nova, and in 4e, you're left with an extended at-will slugfest. Top down flow lends itself to falling action rather than rising action. Fixing this would actually also fix Save or Dies in the process; the problem with save or dies is their setup, not the fact that they cause death. For example, when was the last time someone complained about Coup De Grace?
5) Optional level-based skill bonuses are inherently divergent from the RNG.
6) No rules to facilitate chases.
7) Social interactions are broken, due to the inherently divergent skill system and a downright awful mechanic for Diplomacy.
8) Aerial combats cause headaches for all.
9) The economy is difficult to manage, WBL is not nearly as reliable a mechanic to manage the second scaling tier of power as the level system.
10) Items are severely unbalanced, to the point that 90% of them are never, ever used, quite simply because they're priced too high for their benefit and everyone would rather have one of the Big Six.
11) Little love is given to the extraordinary mundane, to the point that extraordinary mundane items tend to arbitrarily become "magical." The greatest smith of legend produces a "masterwork" sword, and it's the sole domain of a level 2 character. This bias applies to a lesser extent in the class system.
12) HP and healing is flavorfully inconsistent at best. For example, it's an abstraction that doesn't necessarily represent real damage, but then you need bigger and bigger spells to heal the same wounds.
13) Barbie Dress Up itemization. The problems with this are myriad.
14) Skills are inherently unbalanced, and some simply are too high "cost" to ever take with the very limited amount of skill points you have. Use Rope cannot compare in any way to UMD, and playing a knowledgeable scholar comes at the cost of most other practical skills.
15) Skill points tend to be too limited in comparison to the scope of skill selection choices.
16) Cross class skill restrictions.
17) Little room for interesting flaws. The existing flaws system is deeply, well, flawed. The ones available don't really affect your character, but merely an optimization tool. "I have slightly less Dex, but... not really. Can I have another feat?"
18) Non-caster/ToB classes have far too little abilities, and tend to grow boring and repetitive. They tend to stay much the same over the level progression, and tend to scale linearly, while classes with the levelled (1-9) ability selections wholly renew their playstyle every 2 levels and tend to scale geometrically.
19) Current spell preparation system requires far more preparation time as you increase in levels, to the point where you have some 50 minor spells of little consequence to prepare.
20) Many systems need to be unified. There is no particularly good reason why, say, saves should be a wholly different mechanic than AC. And there is simply no defending things like Turn Undead.
21) Item damage is a headache at best, right up to needing to guess out thickness. Object hps and such need to be more easily referenced.
22) Combat tends to be too immobile for the types you'd expect to be most mobile (the guys running around with swords, not the ones pulling spell components out of their pants).
23) Crazy bonus stacking. Problems are obvious.
24) RNG divergence or making the RNG obsolete. Problems are obvious, and the main reason why higher levels break and no one likes them.
25) Irregular and erratic and overly varied scaling models for various systems (skills, BAB, AC, saves, etc etc).
26)  LA does not even remotely come close to working at all.
27)  Racial penalties in practice only serve to shoehorn, rather than make someone more of an adherent of that race.  In fact, they can even make them LESS so.  For example, you have a Human wizard (going for grapplemancer, so he wants strength too) and a half-orc wizard (going for grapplemancer, so he wants strength too), both building with point buy.  They both take 16 Int.  The half-orc pays 6 points more for his 16 int, but he gets +2 strength and has 10.  But the Human uses his extra 6 points to get 14 strength.  The human and orc have spent the same number of skill points.  The human has 16 int and 14 strength, and the half-orc has 16 int and 10 strength.  Tell me, who came out being more "orcish" in this equation?

Can go on...


----------



## Vague Jayhawk (Jul 12, 2008)

Some of the posts in this thread make me want to remind people that there are games other than D&D out there.  

3.5 was a mostly solid system.  I have some mild preferences, but there was little of the core that was actually "broken".  

Stat bonuses, buffs, penalties, and losing levels would grind the game to a halt.  

It became very hard to balance hundreds of prestige classes.  

DM prep time was retarded long.  Leading to burn out.


----------



## Aelryinth (Jul 12, 2008)

The summoning problem is the result of 

1) Using Called creatures that can summon.  they aren't under summoning restrictions.  Planar Binding and Planar Ally, as well as Gate, fall under this category.

2) Summoning creatures with caster levels.  They can still use their cast spells to summon other monsters.

The Celestial Cascade was the result of gating in a Solar who summoned a Planetar and _gated _in another solar, and then the Planetar would use its cleric levels to bring in a Deva, and the new Solar would summon another Planetar, and the first solar would cast Planar Ally or something, ad infinitum.

====
CODzilla draws its strength from using multiple buffs.  Its typically using Wildshape to assume forms that mean the Druid doesn't need to have good physical stats of their own, which enhances their spellcasting ability, and for the Cleric using Divine Favor, Divine Power, and righteous Might to emulate a Fighter while still retaining full spellcasting power.  Add in some other powerful buffs and a cleric could easily fill a melee tank role and still change his spells around the next day to be a nuker, skill monkey, healbot, or summoning/controller.

I mean, truly, how does a melee compare with Bite of the werebear, giving +16 Str, +8 Con, +2 Dex, a nat AC bonus, etc?  There's so many stacking buffs, it's just nuts.
=============
There's a poster that said Persistent Spell was broken, not DMM.  that's not true.  DMM allows a cleric to break the metacap on casting spells over their knee.  Persistent spell is a +6 LA.  Divine Favor all day as a 7th level spell isn't that bad.  Nor, really, is Divine Power as a 10th level spell (epic).  When you can cast it at level 7?  yeah, that's broken.  Likewise, take out Persistent and they just use Quicken to buff instafast before a fight.  You can get a lot of turn attempts very easily to power this stuff.

Although I strongly advocate that Persistent Spell should be in a class like Permanency, and only spells specifically listed as working with it do so.  Others, well, too bad.  Actually, you could almost restrict it to the Permanency list, and it'd be pretty balanced. heh!

===================



There's a couple more issues I haven't really seen.

The importance of Reach.  This is so critical in melee builds you either are told to walk around permanently enlarged or to use a spiked chain (or a polearm with Short Haft).  Reach should be made much less powerful.

The power of Touch Attacks to ignore AC.  4E gets around this by forcing a target on reflex saves and so forth, but when you have things like brilliant and wraithstrike ignoring all armor and shields, well, why wear them?

The easy access and dominating power of size and size bonuses to Str, Dmg and reach.  There are almost no negatives to speak of for just plain being BIG.

Severely broken spell combos and rules, and just plain stupid magic items.  We all know these from the optimizer boards...they should just be struck from the game.

Unlimited spell lists.  Clerics and Druids have access to ALL cleric and druid spells that come out!  Notice that many of the more recent classes have VERY tight spell lists, but can cast anything on it.  CoD should have the same, with the main expansion being their domains.  new spells should all fall under the aegis of being accessible to characters with X domain.  Another option is restricting spells by level according to stat, as 1E did...you had to pick and choose what spells you might EVER want to cast, meaning each divine caster has a custom and much smaller spell list.

Spells that replace the roles of other classes.  Uber buffage spells that give physical stats higher then a melee can match (or magic items provide).  Spells that give huge skill bonuses so you don't need a skill monkey...or just render a skill useless (like knock).

The thinking that because I can do this all day, I'm balanced with a caster that can do it a couple times a day so much better then me.  newsflash, when the caster is out of spells, your day stops, too, unless the DM is feeling particularly mean.  This is why the warlock, with his huge potential/day for dmg, and the melees, are overwhelmed by casters with fewer but stronger attacks.

One hit anything attacks.  That goes for uber charging for melees to save or suck/dies for spellcasters.

Horrible language.  I'm in a debate on the WotC site over the language of Animate Dead.  By the language it uses, 'the eye or mouth socket of the corpse', it is effectively assuming every corpse is a cyclops!  If a corpse has multiple sockets, it's basically saying the spell doesn't work (too many sockets) or you have to fill them all!  And we all know examples of equally oblivious language.

Overhauling the skill system.  restrict what can be done by skill ranks instead of DC's.  Bonuses only help you do something faster, or reduce penalties.  You can't create super skill effects with high bonuses without high ranks (and levels) coming first.  So, no +20 UMD rings letting everyone in the party use the Wand with Persistent Divine Favor on it.

Fixing weapon dmg via style.  The advantage of THW, especially reach weapons, over TWF and Sword and Board, is just plain dumb.  4E did this by getting rid of the str bonus and folding it into the weapon itself, and making shields actually important.

Different bonuses should either not stack or cancel each other out.  For instance, Sacred and Profane bonuses should cancel.  Insight (taking advantage of coming opportunities) and Luck (coming opportunities naturally benefit you) should not stack.  One just sees them coming, the other does not.   COmpetence and Morale bonuses shouldn't stack...one is emulating the fact you are good with a skill, the other makes you think are better at something then you are.

Feats should be condensed and scale, being worthwhile at low as well as high level.

PrC's should NEVER grant better benefits then a core class...only different ones.  If you have a different concept to try out for a melee, make a feat tree for it.  4E is adhering VERY strictly to this.

Multiclassing useful without being predominant as it was in 1E.  I use a variant where you get sort of a gestalt class, but your level is limited to your main class/2 levels, +1, and your benefits are very core-restricted (Int bonus for skills only in main class, for instance...skill points for multiclassing cannot be spent cross class, etc.).    Thus, if you are a f/10 and want to learn divine magic the best you can be is a cleric/6...which makes clerical magic a useful supplement, but your main class is still your focus.

'taking advantage' of paying xp for stuff to be lower level and earn more xp from encounters.  Ugh.

==Aelryinth


----------



## greyscale1 (Jul 12, 2008)

Mialee


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 12, 2008)

And Regdar, apparently.


----------



## greyscale1 (Jul 12, 2008)

Yeah, no place for a _snowflake_ like him.

But seriously, Mialee.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 12, 2008)

I believe they should have allowed 3 feats per level, not including fighter feats (1st, 2nd, 4th, etc.) and metamagic feats (which should have been speeded up to 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.)
  The 1 (or 2) starting feats should have been retained, but considered gained at 0 level.  1st level should have brought those 3 feats mentioned above.

  Since many feats require higher levels to take, and many feats don't work well until higher levels, a glut of feats at low level merely allows for flexibility, not great power. 

  An example of this is a fighter at 1st level somehow taking Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Brutal Throw, and Power Throw.
  Yes, said fighter has all these abilities.  But he still has only a BAB of +1 to back them up with (if he has high Strength bonuses, he still won't have over a +3 to BAB.)
  He will have the potential, but won't realize it immediately.

  Now, when he gains BAB +5, plus gauntlets of strength +6, plus an axe +3 and sword +3, that's another matter.  : )


----------



## Andre (Aug 22, 2008)

Ok, taking on some of the issues one at a time, here's a suggestion for hit points, save or die, and character toughness.

All characters and creatures have two damage pools, hit points and vitality points.

*Hit Points* = by class level, +20 points at 1st level

Class Hit Points
Ftr/Brb/Rgr: 6 + 1d4 (Barbarians gain Improved Toughness at first level)
Cle/Rog/Dru/Mnk: 4 + 1-4
Sor/Wiz: 2 + 1-4

Creature Hit Points:
per normal rules

*Vitality Points* = 1 per level or HD, + one-time bonus based on class

Character Vitality Points:
Ftr/Brb/Rgr: +4
Cle/Rog/Dru/Mnk/Sor/Wiz: +2
Multiclass: use whichever bonus is better

Creature Vitality Points:
1 per HD (no bonus)

*Damage*

Hit point damage occurs per the normal rules. If a creature's hit points reach zero or below, the creature is unconscious. Hit points recover completely with five minutes of rest. 

Vitality point damage only occurs in special situations:
- a critical hit does 1 VP
- coup de grace does 1 VP per 2 levels or HD of attacker
- a sneak attack does 1 VP per 1d6 sneak attack damage sacrificed (in other words, each sneak attack die can do 1) +1d6 hit point damage, OR 2) 1 VP.
- any save or die effect instead does VP damage based on the spell and whether or not a save is made (need to determine on individual spell basis)

If a creature's vitality points reach zero or below, the creature is dead. VP wounds heal at a rate of 1 VP per day of rest.

Healing spells, fast healing, regeneration, etc. heal hit point damage per the normal rules. In addition, healing spells heal 1 VP per level of the spell. Regeneration heals one VP per minute.

This system would make it more difficult to kill characters in most situations (an attack by multiple rogues could be nasty, but that's true with RAW too). More often, characters will fall unconscious, perhaps with a wound or two. This would be true of creatures too, so for games where you don't want most creatures knocked unconscious before they are killed, you can simply rule that monsters die when either hit points or vitality points equal zero.

It also has the effect of encouraging characters to continue adventuring, as hit points recharge fairly quickly. But once the characters have taken some VP wounds, they'll then have to consider carefully whether or not to press on. This would reduce the need for a cleric, or other forms of healing, but not eliminate that need entirely.

Thoughts?


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 22, 2008)

It seems like one of the most popular complaints about the 3.5 Edition is how multiclassing breaks the game.  I agree.

I don't know if this fix will work for everyone, but it seems to work just great for us.

[SBLOCK=Assign Prerequisites to Core Classes]Note that these prerequisites only apply to multiclassing...a character does not need to meet these requirements in order to _start_ as one of these classes...just to _multiclass_ into one.

I tried to keep the requirements as "even" as possible from one class to another.  Each core class has the same three elements, in addition to any alignment restrictions the class might have:

- an ability score of 12 or higher,
- 5 ranks in one skill, and
- a skill-enhancing feat

In other words, I treat them like prestige classes.

*Barbarian*
Con 12
Nonlawful alignment
Survival 5 ranks
Toughness feat

*Bard*
Cha 12
Nonlawful alignment
Perform 5 ranks
Investigator feat

*Cleric*
Wis 12
Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks
Negotiator feat

*Druid*
Wis 12
Neutral alignment
Knowledge (nature) 5 ranks
Animal Affinity feat

*Fighter*
Str 12
Intimidate 5 ranks
Athletic feat

*Monk*
Wis 12
Lawful alignment
Tumble 5 ranks
Acrobatic feat

*Paladin*
Cha 12
Lawful good alignment
Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks
Negotiator feat

*Ranger*
Dex 12
Survival 5 ranks
Self-Sufficient feat

*Rogue*
Dex 12
Open Locks 5 ranks
Deft Hands feat

*Sorcerer*
Cha 12
Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks
Magical Aptitude feat

*Wizard*
Int 12
Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks
Diligent feat[/SBLOCK]

Perhaps this should be forked to the 3.5E House Rules forum...


----------



## Taraka (Sep 19, 2009)

*Infinite summoning does not exist in 3.5*



wingsandsword said:


> Easy one to fix, just assume summoned creatures can't summon anything themselves.  My group has been doing it that way for years.




According to the _Summon Monster I_ spell description in the 3.5 PH, "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."

Putting this rule only in the _Summon Monster I_ spell description makes the rule fairly hard to locate when this question arises since it usually pertains to fiends summoning other fiends, so no one is generally going to look at this spell description to resolve the issue.  I started out looking at all 2nd edition Planescape materials, and I was unable to locate anything regarding the topic.  After a time-consuming Google search that didn't help, I had then searched in 3.5 edition places like the "Outsider" entry with no luck before finally stumbling upon it in the _Summon Monster I_ spell description.  If anyone can point out a second edition Planescape book that addresses the summoning abilities of summoned fiends in detail, I would very much appreciate knowing about it.


----------



## Primal (Sep 19, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> For me, the biggest issue (as a mostly DM kind of guy) was the need for quick NPC generation rules. Taking half an hour or more to roll up a PC every once in a blue moon isn't an issue. Taking half an hour or more to roll up _every_ NPC in the setting, OTOH, is a _huge_ (and rediculous) time sink.
> 
> [Edit: I realize that you can handwave low-level, window-dressing, NPCs -- but if they ever become engaged in combat, that elevates them to the status of at _least_ extras. Since there aren't any rules for extras or mooks in D&D, you're stuck using the full-blown PC creation rules (alebit with a different class list) if you want to play by the RAW. This is rediculous and frustrating.]




DMG includes exemplary stats and equipment for all the classes (levels 1-20), including the "non-Heroic" classes such as the commoner; unless you wish every NPC to have individual stats, those tables were easy to refer to.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 19, 2009)

whoa.  Thread resurrection.  Oh well.


Wulf Ratbane said:


> > Save or Dies. These were a sacred cow that needed to be killed. I'm trying to make a version where it instead leaves the person at -9 and bleeding, so if he has allies, they have a chance to save him, but keep finding technical problems in making it actually work as intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it pretty much doesn't work. There are a lot of spells that qualify as "Save or Die" though they do not actually affect your hit points. Obvious ones like Flesh to Stone, or Hold Person. In some cases even Dominate, Confusion, or Hideous Laughter. These can be game enders for a PC or a BBEG. Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is a Boss Killer in every way, and I don't see it popping up on many "Save or Die" hit lists.



Save-or-die is a problem that designers, in their continued ignorance, have always left for DM's to solve. To a VERY limited extent save-or-die is okay. There ARE some things in a game world which should be able kill characters definitively, and without hesitation while still allowing PC's SOME chance of survival. The problem is that DM's need to be KEENLY aware of when and why they want to introduce such things into the game because it is then up to the DM to ensure that sufficient warnings and chances for avoidance or alternate solutions are given to the PC's.

Save-or-die is acceptable - but only when players CAN anticipate the danger level actually being faced, AND have opportunity to avoid it or alleviate the danger. Save-or-die is most eggregious when it occurs suddenly, without a sign of the actual danger and then the ONLY possible means of success is a SINGLE lucky die roll which players are then specifically in no position to even adjust circumstantially. PC's SHOULD die if they blunder _unprepared_ into situations of certain death, ignoring danger signs and warnings.

And PC's and NPC's do NOT play by the same rules here. It's not generally a problem if PC's can whip out a few save-or-die effects on the bad guys. Kill all you want - I'll just make more. But _players_ should have a reasonable expectation (especially as their characters gain levels) of being able to ensure their characters survival beyond a single, arbitrary die roll.

Making alterations to how "deaths door" is handled can be one solution, but the only proper solution is a studious_ process_ of finding those save-or-die effects and fixing them one by one. The fixes for each also need not be, indeed _should_ not be universal. Some should be fixed by changing death effects to hit point damage, some to ability damage, some single/instant effects changed to ones that need to be sustained for a time or repeated to achieve full effect, some just dropped summarily, some provided with warning signs, others with onset time for their effects, and so on and so forth. In summary, they must be carefully _written out_ of the game. There is no magic-bullet solution for them.


----------



## Set (Sep 19, 2009)

Number one thing that needed fixing, IMO, was the problems inherent in trying to design a fantasy game, while holding one side of the system (PCs) to a different standard than the other side of the system (NPC / monsters).

The problem with Summoning/Calling spells, Shapeshifting, Mind Control spells, etc. isn't that any of those absolutely vital fantasy staples are unbalanced in a vacuum, since all of them are dependent on allowing the PCs to access abilities normally only available to NPCs.  If there wasn't a CR 8 creature able to grant 3 Wishes / day, few people would give a rat's rearend about the Candle of Invocation.  If the Fleshraker / War Troll / Solar / etc. weren't so darn unreasonable for their CR / HD, nobody would care if the Druid / Wizard / whatever turned into one.

You can go one route and just nerf shapeshifting, control spells, summoning spells, etc. into the ground (or just utterly remove them from the game), or go *even further* into desperate attempts to justify giving someone a 'Summon' power that creates ectoplasmic imaginary creatures that don't have the unbalanced and ridiculously arbitrary abilities that some creatures have (such as Spawn, Feed, Split, etc.).

Or you can do it right from the start, accept that this is a game where wizards and druids are supposed to be able to shapeshift, various casters are supposed to be able to summon up (or control) various creatures, and even Bob the Fighter and Jen the Rogue can take Leadership or insane ranks in Diplomacy and gain access to monsters as followers or allies.

If various creatures weren't inherently unbalanced, then no amount of polymorphing, summoning, candle of invocating, wild shaping, etc. would be unbalanced.

Too many 'fixes' focus on the PHB, and try to balance things from the Druid, Wizard, etc. lists, which does *nothing* to prevent someone with Diplomacy from convincing that Efreeti that for every Wish he grants you, you'll let him write two Wishes for his own benefit, and have them 'grant' them to you.  (Assuming that the Efreeti isn't a total moron and doesn't already have a dozen mortals lined up for that very duty, pestering him to allow them to to be his wish-proxies for the day...)  Like one of those assassins targetting Inspector Clouseau, the designers trying to 'fix' Wild Shape, Polymorph, Gate, etc. are missing the darn target, killing all sorts of class features indiscriminately, while the culprits in the Monster Manual laugh their heads off.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 19, 2009)

In the case of the efreeti, I think they should have either bumped him up to CR 10 and let him use the wishes however he wants, or not have such a low HD creature able to cast wish at all, or come up with a price of some kind for the wish to replace the XP limit, or written in some text about why they can only grant the wishes for others and explain where the wishes come from. Virtually anything other than letting the wish ability be a one phrase tucked into a stat block, waiting to leap and savage your campaign.

Going by Vance, efreeti could be like sandestins, using wish left and right. If you wanted to nerf them, givem them a reason not to use all their wishes every day, or burn through them in three rounds. In Palladium, genies can grant wishes as proxies of the evil supernatural forces they serve (devils have a similar ability in 3.5 if you use the Fienish Codex). 

Probably a better option in general would be not to give creatures with a CR of 18 or less or so access to wish, instead spelling out what sort of "wishes" an efreet could cast. Fabricate, polymorph any object, plane shift, teleportation, and a powerful illusion might be my short list. Maybe give them some ability to use permanency as well.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 19, 2009)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I believe they should have allowed 3 feats per level, not including fighter feats (1st, 2nd, 4th, etc.) and metamagic feats (which should have been speeded up to 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.)
> The 1 (or 2) starting feats should have been retained, but considered gained at 0 level.  1st level should have brought those 3 feats mentioned above.
> 
> Since many feats require higher levels to take, and many feats don't work well until higher levels, a glut of feats at low level merely allows for flexibility, not great power.
> ...



.......I think you forget just how few feats were in the core rules to begin with.  Everyone would have a ton of Skill Focus and Toughness feats just for lack of anything else to choose after 2nd-level or so, with an occasional feat of higher prerequisites added as they grew in level, and there would be a lot more homogeneity between members of any given class then, since they'd all have the same feats.

And this would be a notable power increase once you introduced a bunch of supplemental materials, which would only moderately alleviate the sameness between character feat-choices from the glut of feats each PC would have.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 19, 2009)

Set said:


> Like one of those assassins targetting Inspector Clouseau, the designers trying to 'fix' Wild Shape, Polymorph, Gate, etc. are missing the darn target, killing all sorts of class features indiscriminately, while the culprits in the Monster Manual laugh their heads off.




Hmm. Of course, some players are hell-bent on bending and breaking the rules against the clear intent of the designers, and certainly to the detriment of their DM and their fellow players.

Agreed: Playing whack-a-mole against player exploits isn't the best way for designers to proceed.

As a designer, my most sincere recommendation is for the DM to just banish these players from his table.

"Because I said so," is a perfectly reasonable and rational response to any exploit.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 20, 2009)

Just a note, you can't use diplomacy to convince efreeti to give you more wishes.  That's CharOps rule bending BS, which incidentally is one of the things that killed 3e.

If I had to list things I dislike in 3.5 compared to previous editions, I think three things come up.

1) Casting.  Take 2e.  If a wizard is trying to cast and a thief with those delicious speed daggers is standing next to him, he's all but limited to instant cast spells only.  There was no concentration check, and that thief was almost gurenteed to go faster.  In 3e, concentration brought about it being stupifyingly simple to cast in the midst of combat.  Furthermore, you saw wizards gain a LOT more spells per day, as well as the ability to easily and cheaply make scrolls for those "needed once" spells.  Not only that, the spells themselves lost a lot of restrictions.  A lot of spells that have durations of hours or ten minutes were spells that had durations of *turns*, and several other spells saw a significant power upgrade.

2) Saves vs HP.  Limiting it to only three saves isn't a bad thing, but the way save increases were handled was.  Fighters went from having some of the best saves to having the absolute worst.  At the same time, you saw a *huge* increase in monster health.  The end result is that doing actual _damage_ became much less of a big deal, and instead the save-or-dies ruled.  This combined with 1 is what lead to "spellcasting edition."

3) Nothing is static.  4e unfortunately took this and charged merrily along with one of the things I saw to be the worst change.  AC saw the skies as it's limits, ending up with each person having natural armor, insight bonuses, dodge bonuses, armor bonuses, shield bonuses, magic bonuses...etc, etc, etc.  Stats, too, went from being static on creation to going through the roof, which incidentally heavily altered items in a way I think is bad - you lost the Belt of Giant's Strength, which gave you the strength of a giant, and instead gained "Belt of +2 strength."  And of course, with so many ways to increase your stats and saving throws...well, just refer to problem #2.

I could probably find other issues, but those are the big three I'm seeing right now while playing a 2e game.  Don't get me wrong - 3e had a *lot* of *really* positive changes, and there are a few 3e-isms I'm missing in the 2e game.  But those big three are the ones that make me  pretty hard.


----------



## ggroy (Sep 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 3) Nothing is static.  4e unfortunately took this and charged merrily along with one of the things I saw to be the worst change.  AC saw the skies as it's limits, ending up with each person having natural armor, insight bonuses, dodge bonuses, armor bonuses, shield bonuses, magic bonuses...etc, etc, etc.  Stats, too, went from being static on creation to going through the roof, which incidentally heavily altered items in a way I think is bad - you lost the Belt of Giant's Strength, which gave you the strength of a giant, and instead gained "Belt of +2 strength."  And of course, with so many ways to increase your stats and saving throws...well, just refer to problem #2.




Wonder how much this is related to how some people who like to see bigger and bigger numbers, whether it is AC, damage, to-hit, etc ...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 20, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how much this is related to how some people who like to see bigger and bigger numbers, whether it is AC, damage, to-hit, etc ...




Oh, as someone who played WoW for some time, I know *all about* the love for hueg numbers.

And as someone who played a class that wasn't based on heug numbers, I have grown a healthy disrespect for them, especially if they're alliance pansies ;p


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 20, 2009)

Set said:


> Number one thing that needed fixing, IMO, was the problems inherent in trying to design a fantasy game, while holding one side of the system (PCs) to a different standard than the other side of the system (NPC / monsters).
> 
> The problem with Summoning/Calling spells, Shapeshifting, Mind Control spells, etc. isn't that any of those absolutely vital fantasy staples are unbalanced in a vacuum, since all of them are dependent on allowing the PCs to access abilities normally only available to NPCs.  If there wasn't a CR 8 creature able to grant 3 Wishes / day, few people would give a rat's rearend about the Candle of Invocation.  If the Fleshraker / War Troll / Solar / etc. weren't so darn unreasonable for their CR / HD, nobody would care if the Druid / Wizard / whatever turned into one.
> 
> ...




QFT.


I really don't like what pathfinder did with wildshape, polymorph spells, and animal companions.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 20, 2009)

Off the top of my head.

My major things
1. Reduce absolutes (see Sean Reynolds' Fewer Absolutes)

2. Level Drain needs to be removed.  Turn into penalty to attacks, penalties to ability/skill rolls (works also for stat debuffs)

3. XP Costs for spells needs to be removed.  Find another solution. XP should be for leveling only.

4. XP Costs for Item Creation to be removed. Find another solution. XP should be for leveling only.

5. Christmas Tree Syndrome

6. Starting hit points. Characters need more hit points (Wizard vs. house cat).  I, personally, like Con score (or 10+ con modifier) as the base.

7.  Action Points as core: This provides some protection from SoD and linear die roll plus gives some narrative control to players  (My preference is for an implementation like Mutants and Masterminds Hero Points). 

8. Classes
a. Clerics, Druids, and Wizards need to be powered down at mid to high level
b. Clerics spells/abilities should be more focused on deity domain
c.  Fighters need more cool things (I like the Book of Iron Might maneuver approach)
d. Add a hybrid Arcane Warrior class to core.  Something along the lines of AEG's Myrmidon that is generic rather than Duskblade.  Make channeling through aweapon into a feat (this is something we often see wizards do in fantasy)
d.  Specialist Wizards:  use Unearthed Arcana variant abilities instead of bonus spells

9.  Character customization
a. Remove non biological racial abilities from the write-up and make them feats.  This makes it easier for the DM to customize races to their campaign.
b. Institute d20 Modern style occupations/backgrounds.  Gives players more customization.
c.  Add several Unearthed Arcana class variants and Complete Champion spellless Paladin and Ranger as examples of character customization
 d.  add the city/wilderness skill switches from the Cityscape enhancement

10. Multiclassing
  a. Armor and Weapon Proficiency via multiclassing gains circumvent feats.  Limit class armor and weapon proficiency to  starting characters.  After first level, characters must use feats (including fighter bonus feats) to acquire new armor or weapon proficiency
  b. Saving throw stacking and circumventing feats.  Change so everyone has the same progression with an initial  bonus to specific saves determined by their initial class.  After first level, take feats like Iron Will to improve a save.
  c. Caster level for multiclassed characters

11. Skills
a.  More Skill Points for the 2+Int classes
b.  add complex skill checks (Unearthed Arcana)


12. Combat
a. institute class based defense
b. add a star wars style condition track
c. institute death and dying rules (UA) and do away with negative hp
d. add a second wind mechanic but tie to Action Point expenditure
e.  redo grappling rules (my preference is for a Hero System approach)

13.  Spells  
a. Rework spell level, effects
b. Remove alignment based spells
b. Add Unearthed Arcana Incantations.  Make summoning, resurrection, scrying, long distance teleport etc. incantations


14. Quick NPC generation (see Adamant's Foe Factory)


My other things.
15. add weapon groups
16.  Turning rules need reworking and what clerics and turn should be based upon domain of their deity.  If all clerics turn/rebuke undead,  those without proper domain should do so at reduced rate like the paladin.
17. Add 4e style disease track
18.  Move thin blades, spiked chains, double weapons, halfling riding dogs, sunrods, tanglefoot bags, etc to a supplment


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 20, 2009)

Greg K said:


> 10. Multiclassing
> a. Armor and Weapon Proficiency via multiclassing gains circumvent feats.  Limit class armor and weapon proficiency to  starting characters.  After first level, characters must use feats (including fighter bonus feats) to acquire new armor or weapon proficiency



That's a good idea, now that I think about it - it doesn't make a lot of sense that you've been a rogue for 10 levels, you take a level in fighter, and all of a sudden you know how to use all martial weapons. Course, I did away with the "I know how to use all weapons" thing anyway; I went with weapon groups for fighters.



> b. Saving throw stacking and circumventing feats.  Change so everyone has the same progression with an initial  bonus to specific saves determined by their initial class.  After first level, take feats like Iron Will to improve a save.
> c. Caster level for multiclassed characters



Fractional BAB/saves, and caster level from UA. I love that system.



> 17. Add 4e style disease track



Can you explain this one? I"m not familiar with the 4E disease track (or 4E mechanics in general).


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 20, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> Can you explain this one? I"m not familiar with the 4E disease track (or 4E mechanics in general).



He can explain how he would adapt it, but basically with a 4e disease you start out infected, with a small penalty.  Then every so often you make an endurance check.  If you fail, you drop down along the track one step, taking an additional or greater penalty.  If you succeed, you move up.  In this way the disease can come run a course in which you become infected, your condition degrades, and then eventually you recover.

This sort of system is adaptable to describe lots of encroaching effects that your internal biology or mental fortitude might fight off.  Encroaching paralysis, mental assault, its pretty flexible if you feel like modding it up.

The 4e disease system also has some other wrinkles like characters with the heal skill helping you fight off a disease, or ritual magic cleansing you of disease instantly, but with some nasty side effects: basically, unless the ritual caster is really, really good, you're going to take some hit points damage during the ritual.  If the ritualist botches his work badly enough, the damage can be very, very severe.  And you're already weakened by the disease, so this can in fact kill you if your situation was sufficiently dire and your ritualist sufficiently bad.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 20, 2009)

Add "Thread Necromancer" as a prestige class. You can bring a thread back from the dead so long as it's only one year old per class level...


----------



## Votan (Sep 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 3) Nothing is static.  4e unfortunately took this and charged merrily along with one of the things I saw to be the worst change.  AC saw the skies as it's limits, ending up with each person having natural armor, insight bonuses, dodge bonuses, armor bonuses, shield bonuses, magic bonuses...etc, etc, etc.  Stats, too, went from being static on creation to going through the roof, which incidentally heavily altered items in a way I think is bad - you lost the Belt of Giant's Strength, which gave you the strength of a giant, and instead gained "Belt of +2 strength."  And of course, with so many ways to increase your stats and saving throws...well, just refer to problem #2.




Curiously, the stat adders (along with bonuses scaling so high) actually killed off another thing that I liked about 2E which was the ability to play an effective character with weak startng stats.  

If you had a Fighter with 14 strength in AD&D then she still could find gauntlets of Ogre power and end up with the same strangth as the 18/51 character wearing the same magic item.  In 3E, a charceter with 14 strength goes to 16 with this item while a charcter with 20 strength goes to 22.  In 2E, the characters would actually start to even out as magic items became available -- in 3E the gap only seems to increase.  It also meant that giving the magic item to the weak fighter was the better movie in 2E while in 3E making the strong fighter stronger (so they can hit tough monsters) seems better.  

This also shows up with Constitution -- with no cap for non-fighters, wizards are able to make their hit die meaningless compared to the hit point ained from a con in the 20's.  

Finally, it makes rolling for stats into a bad idea.  If one player rolls poorly they can be surprsingly ineffective compared to another player; 3E granted +1 LA for +2 to 2 stats (plus minor powers).  It's quite possible to end up with gaps much larger than that with 4d6 drop one.  SInce so much more of the game is powered by stats (right down to feat pre-requisites), the character with bad stats just feels permanently weakened.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 20, 2009)

Votan said:


> Curiously, the stat adders (along with bonuses scaling so high) actually killed off another thing that I liked about 2E which was the ability to play an effective character with weak startng stats.



To the contrary, I believe that the 3e approach got rid of the problems that came with low starting stats.

In AD&D, if you started with a 15 or 16 INT as a Wizard the highest level of spells you could cast was already set and you'd never be casting 9th level spells, end of story, and you also had a total cap on the number of spells you could know unless you had a 19 INT so it could be quite possible to have your character's spellcasting permanently cap out long before the end of the campaign.  With 3.x as long as you started with a 15 you'd never be unable to cast your highest level spells, even without stat boosters, just by raising your scores as you level, and they got rid of the maximum spells known per level.  

The uniformity of constitution bonuses to HP meant that there were real reasons for characters other than Fighters, Rangers and Paladins to have a high CON score.  Yes, a Wizard or Sorcerer with a 20 CON getting 1d4+5 per level might not need good rolls as much, as they would otherwise, but that's compared to them getting no difference from a 18 CON as a 14 CON (especially with no bonuses to saving throws from a high CON until 19 in 2e IIRC, there really was little mechanical difference for a nonwarrior to have an above-average CON score aside from System Shock and Resurrection Survival chances).  

In AD&D 2e you only needed a 9 STR to be a fighter or a 9 DEX to be a Rogue, the biggest direct aid you got from high ability scores was the XP bonus for a high prime requisite.  In 3.x if you for some reason wished to play a rogue or fighter with middling physical stats, you could have that character gain significantly throughout their career, as opposed to the AD&D way of hoping to find Wishes to ramp up your scores and that's pretty much it.  

Well, there were strength-boosting items, but no items for other ability scores and the game was very heavily intended to make it so you could never outright buy magic items and having to permanently spend a Constitution point to make magic items other than potions and scrolls meant that PCs never, ever wanted to make magic items, ever.  They might not have gotten as much benefit from their CON score most of the time, but they didn't want to trade a time they could be resurrected (and the odds of it succeeding) for a party member to be able to hit harder.  In my experience, magic items in most campaigns were rare until 3e with even parties in their teens having maybe one or two items per person, and they were randomly determined so you weren't likely to get really useful items like Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, and only the fighters having magic weapons (and often having to quest and beg/bargain/steal to get those), but of course YMMV.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 10, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> To the contrary, I believe that the 3e approach got rid of the problems that came with low starting stats.




I had a druid PC (1e) who couldn't be translated into 3e because of their stats  a Con of 8 and Dex of 6 which was survivable in 1e became horrendously bad for a PC in 3e!

I'm sorry that your experience was with 'randomly rolled' magic items turning up all the time. I think in any versions of D&D it would be more difficult if the DM doesn't decide carefully what he is going to place most of the time!


----------

