The Great 3.5 Revamp [Long-Term Project]

[Maxymiuk]

I've been thinking about doing this for a long while, until I realized that unless I put words to paper - or fingers to keyboard, as the case may be - the idea will eventually die in the cradle, like so many others. So here I am, preparing to embark upon a project that may well prove too massive for me to handle.


What's the idea?

To reshape the D&D 3.5 Core rules into something that I like.

Don't get me wrong, the system is certainly playable, but there are a lot of elements that rub me the wrong way. Chief among them are the alignment system and the enormous power gap between casters and noncasters, but I'll also try to find time for the somewhat overbearing skill system and several aspects of the magic system, such as item crafting.


So what are you going to do about it?

Patiently work my way through each item on the below list, hopefully with the help of suggestions and criticisms from people reading this thread - that's why I'm making this project public after all.


A list?

Ok, let's see...

Alignment System

Throw out the alignment axis entirely (ties in with revamping the magic system)
Tie in alignment-dependent abilities/spells to deity worship
Consider other extraplanar influences


Classes

General:

Give each class a distinct shtick.
Make the classes more modular/introduce ability variants for each class
Close the power gap/even out the power curve - casters should be more useful at level one, martial characters shouldn't fade into obscurity past level 10.


Barbarian:

Consider removing Conan tie-ins.
Enhance wilderness aspect - bonuses in specific terrains?
Change Rage mechanic.


Bard:

Power through song - replace the current abilities with specific song effects (example: bard songs in Icewind Dale 2).
Ally buffer/Enemy debuffer variants.
Consider removing spellcasting and/or boosting melee ability.


Cleric:

Foist off the church militant aspect on paladins.
Cut down spellcasting - limit spells to domains?
Expand domain spell lists.
Rework the Turn Undead mechanic.


Druid:

Consider dropping the animal companion.
Split into caster/shifter variants.
Fix the shapechange mess.
Powers over nature as class abilities?


Fighter: (in progress)
First post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6046931&postcount=5)
Long-term goals:

Make the fighter class perform its stated function, i.e. fight well
Give the fighter utility outside of combat
Make the fighter attractive as a single-class progression

Shtick:

Ability to hit things well
Ability to deal serious damage across all levels
Ability to protect weaker party members

Specific goals:

Enhance martial master aspect.
- Fighters now get damage bonuses based on class level
- Consider tactical options/battlefield control
- Consider weapon styles
Make "fighter feats" grant special bonuses based on level.
- Fighter feats will scale based on class level
Consider strong/smart/dextrous fighter split.
- Skill tie-ins
- Light/medium/heavy armor split


Monk:

Enhance combat abilities.
Fix MAD.
Make key class abilities work.
Designate class as ultimate melee battlefield controller?


Paladin:

Champion of god, not champion of good.
More abilities: abilities based on deity.
Rework Smite. Deity specific? Main source of damage to keep pace with fighter?
Spell lists based on deity. Earlier spellcasting?


Ranger:

Boost animal companion. Passive bonuses to combat alongside companion?
Fighter lite - limited enhancements to specific weapon styles.
More combat styles.
Distinct wilderness/urban split.
Earlier spellcasting? Deity-specific lists?


Rogue:

Enhance sneakiness.
Enhance combat ability.


Sorcerer:

Consider gish.
Work on the wizard system first.
Do things to familiars.


Wizard: (in progress)
First post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6056443&postcount=13) Second post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6132001&postcount=17)
Long-term goals:

Boost the wizard's power at early levels
Lower the wizard's power at late levels
Preserve a degree of the classes' versatility

Shtick:

The wizards already perform their stated function well. The goal here is to stop them from performing everyone else's function as well.

Specific goals:

Introduce specialist split
- Every school represents a wizard subclass
- Wizards are defined by their primary school of magic. They can only cas spells from that school, as well as a secondary (and possibly tertiary) school, but the spells from these are weaker
- Introduce special class abilities and features based on specialization
Spells vs. specialization
- Option 1: rework every spell to perform better for a specialist
- Option 2: simple bonus to spells (caster level, DC to resist, etc.) from primary school
Consider boosting survivability at low levels
- Better melee ability?
- Better hit die?
- Consider impact on other classes



PrC's

Throw them out for now
Consider future revamp
Consider something akin to UA's bloodlines


Feat System

Consider making all feats scaleable
Rework feats like Diligent or Stealthy
Consider giving everyone more feats



Skill System

Introduce skill groups, eg.: Endurance (Climb, Jump, Swim), Stealth (Hide, Move Silently), etc.
Introduce skill specialization paths within groups, with special bonuses/abilities as path capstones, eg.: Stealth-->Move Silently bonus-->Trackless Step
Lower skill growth/sources of skill bonuses. Avoid "hit DC 40 at level 2" problem.
Alter RAW DC's where needed.
Cross-class skill groups
Skill tie-ins to class variants



Magic System

Reduce class dependency on magic items
Throw out/rework broken spells
Handle orphaned spells after divine caster revamp.
Handle magic items vs. new skill system
Codify popular "anyone can pay XP for crafting" homebrew rule.



Other

Make sure everything still holds together
MM creatures versus new classes
Playtest
Troubleshoot
Playtest more


Expect this list to grow and become more detailed
Note: The current plan incorporates only the Core books: the DMG, PHB and MM, and by extention SRD materials. I currently don't have any plans on reworking splatbook base classes, feats or PrC's.

***

I think I will begin by working on the fighter and the wizard, as the two classes are probably the most emblematic to D&D, occupy the opposite ends of the power spectrum, and I have a good idea for what to do with them.

I of course welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions. Expect the first update to go up in a few days.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Wow...there are so many such threads popping up lately! Which is, in my opinion, a good thing (variety is the spice of life, after all). I'll be keeping an eye on this, albeit with my own motives for doing so (hoping to come across interesting ideas I can incorporate into G7 in some manner). But I may lend opinions or a hand where needed, as practice in system balancing can do nothing but help me build up my own variant.

Good luck though! It's hard work...

Let me know if you want/need opinions or assistance! I'll be around. :smallbiggrin:

-The Djinn

[Arkaim]

I've got a great idea on how to balance wizards and ensure that they don't become the dreaded batman that can overshadow all other party members without actually crippling the wizard class. It works like this:
1. Each school of magic will has its own skill that a wizard can assign skill points into.
-There will be no limit as to how many skill points a wizard can assign to each school of magic. (Subject to change.)
-Only wizards(or other spellcaster. Haven't thought this part completely through yet) can assign skill points to a school of magic.
-Each school of magic skill will be considered a cross-class skill unless the wizard decides to become a specialist wizard. The wizard, however, will be prohibited from assigning skill points to two other school of magic.

2. If the wizard doesn't make the skill check DC to cast a certain spell, then the spell fizzles along with having a chance for a disaster occurring. The chance of a disaster occurring on a failed skill check is equal to the spell level times ten.
- For example, failing a skill check for a spell of level 5 will have a 50% chance of a disaster occurring.

I believe a system such as this can really work without having things becoming overly complicated or arbitrary. It just needs a bit more work and thought put into it.

[Drolyt]

Hmm, I came here looking for ideas, seems like some good ideas but I've come too soon :smallamused:. Nevertheless, because I feel I should try to contribute to any thread that helps me brainstorm for my own 3.5 revision, I'll put in my 2 cents.

Alignment: I agree with dumping alignment, but tying those spells to deity? What about characters that don't worship a deity? Some campaigns don't even have them for one reason or another. I say axe those spells altogether, or make it so they only work on characters that are obviously of those alignments, such as Clerics, Paladins, Demons, Angels, etc.

Classes: All your general points are good, especially the modularity and balance.

Barbarian: Too vague to comment
Bard: Don't remove spellcasting completely, but go back to your modularity idea and allow some bards to be powerful mages and others great warriors. Otherwise good ideas.
Cleric: Agree with everything here, and I say dump the church militant thing on the Paladin while the Cleric focuses on the more mystical side. You could treat domains like 2e spheres, giving every Cleric a much more defined and personal spell list. In that case you might want to make Clerics cast spontaneously.
Druid: I say don't axe it, but definitely make it different from just a nature focused Cleric. Maybe remove divine spells altogether, but I think they should still have some healing, I like the idea of a Druid as a hybrid class.
Fighter: All good.
Monk: Good, but also do something about the MAD.
Paladin: I can see making champion of a deity an option, but what about player's who want a champion of good? Or a champion of evil for that matter? I definitely agree with getting rid of the lawful good straitjacket though, even for champions of good. I also agree with either earlier spellcasting or none at all, cause right now it is rather pointless.
Ranger: I don't know. Differentiating Ranger from a Fighter who lives in the woods is hard, I was looking at going the 4e route and making Rangers more damage focused and Fighters more defensive, but whatever you do it is important to specialize the Ranger more than it currently is.
Rogue: I think Rogue needs a bigger job in combat, especially if you fix the other martial classes so they aren't so weak Rogues will need a boost to their combat abilities.
Sorcerer: I don't know about gish, but that is definitely an option. Whatever you do you need to give Sorcerer unique abilities Wizards don't have and vice-versa, and making familiars better or at least more interesting would be nice too.
Wizard: I'm not sure what you mean, but how I'm interpreting what your saying it doesn't sound like a good idea. Need more info.

Skill System: All good.

Magic System: All good, and definitely fix the magic item rules. If you rebalance the spells properly I don't think you'll even need to change Wizard much.

Overall it sounds like some good ideas, but needs lots of work.

[Maxymiuk]

Okay, let's start with the fighter.

First, what am I trying to achieve?

The 3.5 fighter has two major design weaknesses. First, it has no distinct class features, outside of getting all those bonus feats, which results in everyone ditching the class the moment they can take a PrC. Second, it starts to lag behind the rest of the party in terms of effectiveness (particularly the caster) around level 6-7, and can be regularly outperformed past level 10. Third, due to a dearth of skills and skill points, the fighter has virtually no way to contribute to tasks performed outside of combat.

Therefore, my two primary goals when redesigning the fighter are:

Make the fighter class perform its stated function, i.e. fight well.
Give the fighter something to do outside of combat
Consequently, make the class an attractive choice to stick with throughout levels 1-20



Redesign philosophy

I've seen a number of fixes to the fighter that attempted to bring it up to par by giving it one class ability after another, along the way turning the class into some sort of superman that can shrug off most spells and carry the entire party on his back for days at a time. At the same time, the fixes failed to address the fundamental issue of the fighter remaining incapable of making a significant contribution to combat past a certain level.

I don't think that's the way to go.

One of the things I'm keeping in mind when redesigning the classes, is that I should introduce as little "new" material as possible. What I mean by that is that rather than coming up with abilities "out of the blue" or inventing entirely new mechanics, I want to take what's already there and alter it in a way that improves the class. By doing so, I hope to preserve the "feel" the original classes have, thus making for an easier transition from RAW designs.

Lastly, I want to give the fighter both versatility and modularity. Currently, if a fighter wants to even attempt to stay competitive, he needs to lock himself into a single feat chain that defines his entire method of fighting. It's limiting, it's boring, and it leaves him at a loss in any situation where his one awesome trick cannot be pulled off.


The Fighter's shtick

A fighter's effectiveness is defined by three things: his ability to score a hit, his ability to deal damage, and his ability to protect the physically weaker party members from harm.

After taking a long, hard look at the PHB definition of the fighter, I decided that all the class gets is two new features.

Or, if you look at it another way, it's getting a couple dozen.


Features

The fundamental problem of a character focused on direct damage is that Hit Points scale much faster than damage does. Thus, the first defining feature of the fighter class will be its ability to deal more damage than anyone else. Every fighter level will grant the character a +1 competence bonus to damage dealt with any weapon he is proficient with. This damage will be treated as weapon damage for the purpose of determining damage type and rolling critical damage. Another benefit of this feature is that it will make other weapons aside from two-handers viable throughout a fighter's career – even ranged weapons, which usually become a sub-par choice around the time opponents hit the fourth hit die.

The fundamental problem of having a class defined by feats is that the vast majority of feats provide a flat bonus. At low levels, that's great. At mid to high levels, this sucks. Thus, the fighter's second defining feature will be that most (if not all) feats defined as fighter bonus feats in the PHB will scale, depending on the level of the character's fighter level (this will have the additional benefit of avoiding the class dipping issue – a character who takes only a couple level of fighters will only gain as much benefit from a fighter feat as any other class would).

Essentially, this necessitates alterations to almost half the feats in the PHB. I will handle this in another installment, but for now I'll give you an idea of what I'm going for with these two feats everyone should be familiar with:

Weapon Focus
Fighter benefit: At every fourth fighter level, starting with level 4, the attack bonus with the chosen weapon increases by another +1, up to a maximum of +5 at level 16.

Power Attack
Fighter benefit: At every fourth fighter level, starting with level 4, when power attacking the character can add a .5x to his strength bonus multiplier, up to a maximum of 2.5x at level 16.


Class changes that need some more thought

The fighter will most likely receive a bonus to the skill points he receives, as well as see an expanded skill list. However, that will have to wait until I begin revamping the skill system.

I am debating adding Reflex as the fighter's good save. Depending on some other factors, I may end up giving the fighter the option to select his good saves at level one.

I'm also considering giving the fighter distinct weapon styles, but that runs the risk of accidentally pidgeonholing the class again, and besides I probably want to take the ranger more in that direction.

Weapon styles notwithstanding, I still need to tackle the "protect other party members" shtick. I'll see if I can do it through feat alterations before I start adding features though.

***

That's it for tonight's installment. Next, I'll probably gut the wizard class and attempt to define the point I want to aim for in terms of power across all classes.

I am eager to hear people's opinions and criticisms on what I have so far. Especially the criticisms (and no, I'm not being facetious – pointing out flaws in my work helps me focus better).

@Drolyt: Roughly, what I have in mind for a wizard is limiting them to a single school of spells from the start, and maybe letting them add one or two more as they go up in levels. Mainly, I'm trying to avoid the problem of "I can do everything better" wizards. I'll have to see how that works once I sit down and put things on paper. In exchange, they'll be getting more spell slots to start with (this goes for most other casters), so that they can contribute meaningfully in more than one combat during the first few levels.

[Zovc]

If you're consolidating skills, you're already effectively giving the fighter (and everyone else) more skill points. Keep that in mind.

The fighter is what he is, a fighter. He fights, and he should be good at doing that. Why should a fighter be good at doing other things? A fighter who used to be a farmer could easily be a Commoner 1/Fighter X (Not what a PC wants to do, sorry?), or one who used to be a blacksmith could be an Expert/Fighter. I'm not against making the fighter better, it's just that he is designed to be useful in combat, and there isn't any reason (aside from "balance," I suppose) for him to be good outside of it.

I also don't like the idea of tying a fighter (a generic fighter) down to one weapon, it just makes the DM have to give him his weapon or soften the class to what it was before you gave him that ability. I'm not arguing against the logic of "you becomming better with the weapon you're using," but that's why you would take (thus electing to have the ability) the weapon focus feat in the first place.

If I sound like a hater or a hoser, I'm not trying to be. I wish you luck in your project, and I may or may not have other opinions to voice on your other things.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

If all feats, not just fighter ones, scaled with level you'd find that the only thing one need to do when remaking the class is give fighters a feat every level.

If weapon focus was altered to combat focus (ie, grants the bonus to any weapon the fighter is proficient with), you'd find it a lot easier to sell. Fix feats, and you fix the fighter. Make "fighter" feats even better, and you might make a class worth playing to 20.

[Drolyt]

Okay, let's start with the fighter.

First, what am I trying to achieve?

The 3.5 fighter has two major design weaknesses. First, it has no distinct class features, outside of getting all those bonus feats, which results in everyone ditching the class the moment they can take a PrC. Second, it starts to lag behind the rest of the party in terms of effectiveness (particularly the caster) around level 6-7, and can be regularly outperformed past level 10. Third, due to a dearth of skills and skill points, the fighter has virtually no way to contribute to tasks performed outside of combat.

Therefore, my two primary goals when redesigning the fighter are:

Make the fighter class perform its stated function, i.e. fight well.
Give the fighter something to do outside of combat
Consequently, make the class an attractive choice to stick with throughout levels 1-20



Redesign philosophy

I've seen a number of fixes to the fighter that attempted to bring it up to par by giving it one class ability after another, along the way turning the class into some sort of superman that can shrug off most spells and carry the entire party on his back for days at a time. At the same time, the fixes failed to address the fundamental issue of the fighter remaining incapable of making a significant contribution to combat past a certain level.

I don't think that's the way to go.

One of the things I'm keeping in mind when redesigning the classes, is that I should introduce as little "new" material as possible. What I mean by that is that rather than coming up with abilities "out of the blue" or inventing entirely new mechanics, I want to take what's already there and alter it in a way that improves the class. By doing so, I hope to preserve the "feel" the original classes have, thus making for an easier transition from RAW designs.

Lastly, I want to give the fighter both versatility and modularity. Currently, if a fighter wants to even attempt to stay competitive, he needs to lock himself into a single feat chain that defines his entire method of fighting. It's limiting, it's boring, and it leaves him at a loss in any situation where his one awesome trick cannot be pulled off.


The Fighter's shtick

A fighter's effectiveness is defined by three things: his ability to score a hit, his ability to deal damage, and his ability to protect the physically weaker party members from harm.

After taking a long, hard look at the PHB definition of the fighter, I decided that all the class gets is two new features.

Or, if you look at it another way, it's getting a couple dozen.


Features

The fundamental problem of a character focused on direct damage is that Hit Points scale much faster than damage does. Thus, the first defining feature of the fighter class will be its ability to deal more damage than anyone else. Every fighter level will grant the character a +1 competence bonus to damage dealt with any weapon he is proficient with. This damage will be treated as weapon damage for the purpose of determining damage type and rolling critical damage. Another benefit of this feature is that it will make other weapons aside from two-handers viable throughout a fighter's career – even ranged weapons, which usually become a sub-par choice around the time opponents hit the fourth hit die.

The fundamental problem of having a class defined by feats is that the vast majority of feats provide a flat bonus. At low levels, that's great. At mid to high levels, this sucks. Thus, the fighter's second defining feature will be that most (if not all) feats defined as fighter bonus feats in the PHB will scale, depending on the level of the character's fighter level (this will have the additional benefit of avoiding the class dipping issue – a character who takes only a couple level of fighters will only gain as much benefit from a fighter feat as any other class would).

Essentially, this necessitates alterations to almost half the feats in the PHB. I will handle this in another installment, but for now I'll give you an idea of what I'm going for with these two feats everyone should be familiar with:

Weapon Focus
Fighter benefit: At every fourth fighter level, starting with level 4, the attack bonus with the chosen weapon increases by another +1, up to a maximum of +5 at level 16.

Power Attack
Fighter benefit: At every fourth fighter level, starting with level 4, when power attacking the character can add a .5x to his strength bonus multiplier, up to a maximum of 2.5x at level 16.


Class changes that need some more thought

The fighter will most likely receive a bonus to the skill points he receives, as well as see an expanded skill list. However, that will have to wait until I begin revamping the skill system.

I am debating adding Reflex as the fighter's good save. Depending on some other factors, I may end up giving the fighter the option to select his good saves at level one.

I'm also considering giving the fighter distinct weapon styles, but that runs the risk of accidentally pidgeonholing the class again, and besides I probably want to take the ranger more in that direction.

Weapon styles notwithstanding, I still need to tackle the "protect other party members" shtick. I'll see if I can do it through feat alterations before I start adding features though.

***

That's it for tonight's installment. Next, I'll probably gut the wizard class and attempt to define the point I want to aim for in terms of power across all classes.

I am eager to hear people's opinions and criticisms on what I have so far. Especially the criticisms (and no, I'm not being facetious – pointing out flaws in my work helps me focus better).

@Drolyt: Roughly, what I have in mind for a wizard is limiting them to a single school of spells from the start, and maybe letting them add one or two more as they go up in levels. Mainly, I'm trying to avoid the problem of "I can do everything better" wizards. I'll have to see how that works once I sit down and put things on paper. In exchange, they'll be getting more spell slots to start with (this goes for most other casters), so that they can contribute meaningfully in more than one combat during the first few levels.

Alright, personally I would've just dumped the bonus feats in favor of better defined class abilities, but I think maybe I like your idea of scaling feats better. It would require an almost complete redesign of almost every feat though, and if I were you I'd make almost every feat scale so as to even things out (feats needed to be made more interesting anyways); Fighters would still get the most benefits from this, especially if you make more Fighter only feats or have certain benefits only apply to Fighters. I also like the idea of increasing damage, but why don't you just increase the power of Weapon Specialization, which was Fighter only? In fact almost all of your ideas, like the weapon styles, could be shoved into Fighter only feats. Then you would still have weapon styles for the Ranger, but they wouldn't require a feat and would be more powerful. Funny, I was going to do the opposite of this and remove all the bonus feats but I think I like your idea better, if you don't mind I'd like to steal it :). Oh, and definitely allow Fighters to choose between Fortitude and Reflex, that was a great idea, and also provide more feats to allow Swashbuckler style Fighters.

As for the Wizard, I'm not too terribly fond of that idea, I would just force a more limited spellbook and power down most spells. If you do go through with that you'll need to look at what spells are what school, since some schools are hopelessly overpowered/underpowered. A great idea would be to adopt multischool spells from PHB II, allowing some limited versatility, and you would need to make sure each school has some useful combat ability. More generally maybe you could increase the size of the Universal school, adding basic stuff like Magic Missile and utility spells like teleport. Anyway that's my two cents.

By the way, I like your layout, especially the rationale part.

[Severedevil]

I'm not so keen on the single-school wizards. Maybe let them pick one school for free, and then for each additional school, lose one spell per day from their highest level of spells cast? You can't afford very many schools that way, unless you want to completely give up your top level of spells.

Also, Paladins of God rather than Good turn me right off. Aren't they just clerics?

[Maxymiuk]

If you're consolidating skills, you're already effectively giving the fighter (and everyone else) more skill points. Keep that in mind.

Absolutely. One of the models I'm currently considering is creating skill "sets" and letting a character choose at level one which sets he wishes to pursue during his career, opening room for specializations within a set and the like. I'm also toying with the idea of cross-class sets - they'd advance as fast as any other, but a cross-class set would cost twice as much to enter as a class set.


The fighter is what he is, a fighter. He fights, and he should be good at doing that. Why should a fighter be good at doing other things? A fighter who used to be a farmer could easily be a Commoner 1/Fighter X (Not what a PC wants to do, sorry?), or one who used to be a blacksmith could be an Expert/Fighter. I'm not against making the fighter better, it's just that he is designed to be useful in combat, and there isn't any reason (aside from "balance," I suppose) for him to be good outside of it.

I'm opposed to the idea of making any class have one purpose and one purpose only. In core, a bard can contribute in combat and act as the face for the party. A cleric can contribute in combat and cast a wide variety of spells. A ranger can contribute in combat and get along in the wilderness or help the party find their way. A fighter can contribute in combat and...?


I also don't like the idea of tying a fighter (a generic fighter) down to one weapon, it just makes the DM have to give him his weapon or soften the class to what it was before you gave him that ability. I'm not arguing against the logic of "you becomming better with the weapon you're using," but that's why you would take (thus electing to have the ability) the weapon focus feat in the first place.

In 3.5 a fighter gets tied down to a single weapon anyway, since he's forced to invest a lion's share of his wealth into a magical weapon in order to stay competitive. I suppose another one of my general goals for this revamp is to reduce everyone's dependence on magical doohikeys. The bonus damage based on level is the first step to rectifying that - now a fighter can pick up any weapon and dish out a lot of hurt with it.

Weapon Focus as it's currently written is a horrible feat. The only reason most people take it is because it's a prerequisite for so many other feats. If I were to remove that (and I actually may), hardly anyone would pick it. My revamp means that yes, now a fighter has a very good reason to take a feat and as a consequence gain a favored weapon. But I'm hoping that the independent damage bonus and some other stuff I'll introduce will make carrying 3-4 lesser magic weapons a more attractive option to having a single powerful one.


If I sound like a hater or a hoser, I'm not trying to be. I wish you luck in your project, and I may or may not have other opinions to voice on your other things.

Hey, I asked for criticism, so I'm not going to complain when I get it. Especially if it's as constructive as yours. :smallsmile:

***


If all feats, not just fighter ones, scaled with level you'd find that the only thing one need to do when remaking the class is give fighters a feat every level.

I considered that, actually. However, if I made all feats scale, it would lessen the impact of the fighter's shtick. I don't know, I'll have to think on this a bit more.


If weapon focus was altered to combat focus (ie, grants the bonus to any weapon the fighter is proficient with), you'd find it a lot easier to sell.

Now this is an interesting idea. It could probably go a long way to fixing the fighter if I were changing only that single class. As it is, keep in mind that I'll be lowering the individual power of high-end classes, so I can't make the fighter too powerful.

***


Alright, personally I would've just dumped the bonus feats in favor of better defined class abilities, but I think maybe I like your idea of scaling feats better. It would require an almost complete redesign of almost every feat though, and if I were you I'd make almost every feat scale so as to even things out (feats needed to be made more interesting anyways);

Heh, guess I won't escape revamping the feats system as well... :smallsigh:

I'll definitely be reworking feats like Acrobatic, Diligent and whatnot, since they likely won't work under the revamped skill system. I agree that feats have to be made more interesting, but I'll hold off on making all of them scale until I get to reworking the other martial classes and see how they compare to the fighter.


Fighters would still get the most benefits from this, especially if you make more Fighter only feats or have certain benefits only apply to Fighters.

I want to avoid making up completely new feats. Chances are that even if I did so, I'd find out that some splatbook or other has already done so.


I also like the idea of increasing damage, but why don't you just increase the power of Weapon Specialization, which was Fighter only? In fact almost all of your ideas, like the weapon styles, could be shoved into Fighter only feats.

As I said in my reply to Zovc, one of the problems I see with the current fighter is that at later levels he essentially ends up married to his chosen weapon. Keeping the damage bonus tied to the class instead of the weapon gives him some versatility that he sorely needs.


Then you would still have weapon styles for the Ranger, but they wouldn't require a feat and would be more powerful. Funny, I was going to do the opposite of this and remove all the bonus feats but I think I like your idea better, if you don't mind I'd like to steal it :).

Go right ahead. Re: Ranger, my current idea is to give him partial fighter benefits to his chosen weapon style and have the animal companion be able to make up for the loss of power. Maybe some passive bonuses to fighting alongside your companion?


Oh, and definitely allow Fighters to choose between Fortitude and Reflex, that was a great idea, and also provide more feats to allow Swashbuckler style Fighters.

That's part of the idea. Skill choices will definitely tie into this somehow. I'll probably have to look into differentiating light/medium/heavy armor fighters somehow.


As for the Wizard, I'm not too terribly fond of that idea, I would just force a more limited spellbook and power down most spells. If you do go through with that you'll need to look at what spells are what school, since some schools are hopelessly overpowered/underpowered.

I'm already planning on reworking some spells, and the first step to revamping the wizard will be to sit down and split all the PHB spells by school and level, so that I can see what I have to work with.


By the way, I like your layout, especially the rationale part.

Thanks. I figure that if I let people know why I'm introducing a given change, they'll be able to tell me why it may not work and/or give specific suggestions on how it can be improved.

***


I'm not so keen on the single-school wizards. Maybe let them pick one school for free, and then for each additional school, lose one spell per day from their highest level of spells cast? You can't afford very many schools that way, unless you want to completely give up your top level of spells.

Interesting idea. I'll definitely keep it in mind.


Also, Paladins of God rather than Good turn me right off. Aren't they just clerics?

The problem is, currently once you've seen one paladin, you've seen them all. There's maybe three variants you regularly get: a sword&board tank, a greatsword smiter, and a charge-happy lancer. Making them deity-specific gives me room to introduce varied spell lists, deity-based powers and class abilities, and so on.

Regarding clerics, I'm currently leaning towards Drolyt's suggestion, to make the paladin the militant arm of the church, while the clerics lose their martial ability in favor of remaining a primary caster.

[Severedevil]

The problem is, currently once you've seen one paladin, you've seen them all. There's maybe three variants you regularly get: a sword&board tank, a greatsword smiter, and a charge-happy lancer.

I built an unarmored catfolk paladin who fought with her claws. There are other mechanical options. (Especially if you give the paladin a few bonus feats, or let her trade out Animal Companion/Turn Undead/whatever. Then she can afford to imitate one of the fighter's styles, in addition to having smite and spells and so forth. Archer paladins? Yes, we can!)


Making them deity-specific gives me room to introduce varied spell lists, deity-based powers and class abilities, and so on.

Hmm... perhaps you could give the paladins the domain spells and powers of their deity? That's certainly the easiest way.


Regarding clerics, I'm currently leaning towards Drolyt's suggestion, to make the paladin the militant arm of the church, while the clerics lose their martial ability in favor of remaining a primary caster.

Is there a reason Paladin has to be distinct from a half-Fighter, half-Cleric build? Does it actually need a base class of its own?

[Roderick_BR]

I like your ideas. My thoughts on some classes that I'll actually try to change for an upcoming game:

Fighter: Give him more options in combat (as it is, unless you especialize like heck, you can't do something well, like trip, bullrush, etc). Simpler feat chains (3 or 4 feats long) that allow you to do something well could work. A non-fighter class could speciallize in one chain, while a fighter could specialize in 3 or 4 at once. Some minor abilities in between the feat levels wouldn't hurt either.

Cleric: One idea I have is to píck all the spells that are not under any domain, and put them into new domains (with many spells in more than one), then allow a cleric to pick which ones he'll use. Like, pick 2 main domains, you can cast them up to level 9. Pick 4 others to cast up to 6th level. Finally, when you reach higher levels, pick 4 others as minor, to cast up to 3rd level. Very akin to the spheres from AD&D. Also, picking a domain subjects you to a minor code of conduct (picking healing means you need to heal wounded people, if you pick war, you suffer penalties if you run from a non-hopeless battle, etc).

Paladin: Champion of a deity works fine. When you need a champion of good, you just need to pick a good deity, like Heroneous, for example.

[Maxymiuk]

I fully expect that over the course of this project, I will hear the most objections when dealing with full casters. That's understandable – By and large, I'm going to be reducing caster power, and no one likes to see the class they may like "lose" something for what they may consider an inadequate reason. Still, in my an attempt to rebalance the classes, the two options I have is to either reduce the power level of the casters, or supercharge everyone else. I've touched upon some of the reason for why I don't want to do the latter in my last post. On the other hand, I'm aware that if I were to leave the melee classes unchanged and just power down the casters, I would have to go way too far. Therefore, I'm attempting to find a middle road.

What am I trying to achieve?

The wizard has two major design weaknesses. First, at low levels, the class is very much a glass cannon which, to make matters worse, doesn't have nearly enough ammo. I lost count of the sessions where a wizard expended his two spells one after another and then spent all the following encounters plinking away with a crossbow.

Second, past a certain level the wizard does a complete 180 and becomes the be-all-end-all on the battlefield. The sheer number and variety of spells available to him, give him unmatched versatility and a decisive voice in the outcome of any encounter.

On the other hand, this versatility and the ability to (often through indirect means) influence the outcome of a fight (not to mention the grab-bag of tricks to use out of combat) is very much what defines a wizard. These are the qualities I feel the class should retain.

Therefore, my primary goals when redesigning the wizard are:

Improve the wizard's ability to contribute at low levels
Curtail the wizard's tendency to dominate at high levels
Preserve the wizard's versatility and battlefield control skills



Redesign philosophy

An oft-expressed sentiment about the wizard is that direct damage is overall the weakest form of magic, and consequently that a spell which does nothing but damage is a waste of a spell slot. While I think that there's always a time and place for a well-aimed fireball, I find myself in agreement with that opinion. Additionally, since my ultimate goal is to give every class its own niche (while allowing for some overlap), I am inclined to leave damage to the martial classes and retain the wizard as a battlefield control class.

At the same time, there is the problem of the wizard being just too damn good at what he does. The number and variety of spells available to him at high levels make it possible for him to cover almost any conceivable situation using just the Core spells, and the manyfold splatbooks only served to exacerbate the issue. My solution is that while the wizard will still have the potential to learn any spell, in practice he will be limited to only a few schools.


The Wizard's shtick

A wizard's effectiveness is defined by being able to change the nature of the battlefield, be it by buffing allies, inflicting enemies with status effect, or altering the battlefield itself. Furthermore, a wizard can perform a multitude of tasks outside of combat, relating to travel, investigation, manufacture and many others.

A 3.5 wizard can already do all of these things. My goal in this is to limit his options, rather than expanding them.


Features

The solution to the wizard's problem that I've been pondering is to make him a true specialist wizard – he's allowed to learn and cast spells from one school, and that's it. After due consideration, I've decided that this is a bit too harsh, especially in the light of the upgrades some other classes will receive.

Currently, I'm considering allowing a wizard to pick his primary specialization, which will grant him bonuses to spells cast from the chosen school of magic (I'm also considering allowing this to be the only school he can apply metamagic to). He will also have his pick of two secondary schools, the spells from which will not receive bonuses, and he may be penalized in terms of the number of spells he can learn, or their maximum level. This will allow for building a versatile, but focused class.

The number of spells known at low levels will be boosted. Tentatively, I'd say that a level 1 wizard should be able to cast about 4-5 spells before running dry. As he levels, he'd gain less new spell slots, possibly even ending up with less overall slots than the 3.5 version (since he'll be able to know only a fraction of his current spell selection anyway, this shouldn't pose much of a problem).

Evocation will still be a valid choice as a school. However, in keeping with the battlefield control theme, a primary evoker should be able to gain abilities that allow damage spells to inflict additional status effects (for example, a fireball setting enemies on fire, or a lightning bolt causing stun).

In general, every primary specialization should offer a bonus (or a selection thereof) not directly related to spellcasting. For example, an abjurer could gain elemental resistances or AC bonuses as he progresses in level. A conjurer could gain the permanent service of an elemental, an unseen servant or a magical mount, etc.

***

That's it for now. In the next installment, I'll start expanding on wizard specializations and take the first steps on the road to fixing the most problematic spells.

As always, any comments or criticisms are welcome.

[Zovc]

I don't have any information at my fingertips right now, but perhaps you should look at features nonwizards have (Warmage, Beguiler, etc) for inspiration in school-specific class abilities.

Before you read my accounts, consider that I've only played two serious sessions of dungeons and dragons, neither of which had a wizard or sorcerer in the party.

Arcane spell failure really hoses a wizard, I know that probably seems like an obnoxious statement. In order for a wizard to wear armor, he needs to spend a feat. Once a wizard spends one of his (10?) feats, he can then wear Light armor after he obtains it, I believe that nets him a maximum +3 to his AC. In order to wear medium armor, he needs to use another feat, and heavy will cost him yet another. After spending three feats, the wizard now moves slower, and is harder to be hit. If you really wanted, you could have Armored Mage (Light, Medium, Heavy) as feats, and possibly allow wizards to take those with their bonus feats.

What is going to be the fate of sorcerers? Perhaps they could take a page out of the warmage's book? I hear that the warmage is a weak class, but perhaps you could tone the sorcerer down a bit, then give him some of he warmage's features?

[Draz74]

Alignment System

Throw out the alignment axis entirely (ties in with revamping the magic system)
Tie in alignment-dependent abilities/spells to deity worship
Consider other extraplanar influences

Tying alignment explicitly to your pantheon is ok for some campaign settings, not so much for others. For example, it would make absolutely no sense in Eberron.

You also end up with funky things when someone really doesn't act the same way as their god. To name one simple example, a Druid could worship Obad-Hai (and therefore, in your system, be considered Neutral alignment) even if they act pretty extreme a lot of the time, even like a saintly type who goes around finding nonviolent solutions to conflicts. But depending on your point of view, you may consider this a feature rather than a bug -- it will force characters not to take their Detect [alignment] spells too seriously.

Me, personally, I'll base my variant's alignment substitute on the Taint rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm).


General:
[list]
Give each class a distinct shtick.
Make the classes more modular/introduce ability variants for each class
Dangerous goal IMHO.

Currently, the Core classes span a wide range of specific character concepts vs. generic character concepts. I agree that this needs to be smoothed out.

However, once you start giving a class too many sub-class choices, you start to wonder why all of them are still considered the same class. Why must the archer-Ranger, the beastmaster-Ranger, the TWF-Ranger, the urban-Ranger, and the skirmish-Ranger all be considered one class? Why can't I multiclass between them? You get the idea.

Therefore, it seems to me it's best to go all the way one way or the other when deciding the breadth of classes. You can either go with something like the Generic Classes UA system (or beyond it, to a classless system), or you can make each class a tightly focused archetype and just make a lot of classes. You're welcome to try to find a balancing point in between, but I think eventually you'll get frustrated -- at least, if you want your system to allow for the variety of character concepts that some of us want.


Close the power gap/even out the power curve - casters should be more useful at level one, martial characters shouldn't fade into obscurity past level 10.
Casters are plenty powerful at level 1 until they run out of ammo. Their few shots they get (before switching to crossbow-plinking) are already pretty nasty. So beware. Also, the ammo issue means that, unless the DM is unusually skilled or the casters just don't worry too much about dying, you just end up with the "narcoleptic adventurer" or "15-minute work day" problem, where casters already are the most powerful at early levels.

Also, there are lots of common complaints about the core rules that I haven't seen you addressing yet. You mentioned after the fact that you want to re-work magic item dependency -- good. Edit your opening post and mention that there. Now, what about the abstract HP system, where you're never sure whether a hit was actually a hit? What about the general melee warrior's nightmare problem of dependence on full attacks? What about the bookkeeping nightmares that come with ability damage, summoning, or polymorphing?

Just want to make sure you recognize the scope of what you're biting off if you join the "3.75-seekers' club." :smalltongue:

[lesser_minion]

Generally, workarounds exist to 15-minute workdays - it isn't until pretty high level that a wizard can batman his way easily out of every single one of those.

Ars Magica pointed out that proactive adventures are about the only thing that can work at high levels because the game provided the tools for powerful wizards to easily solve a problem - however, these are also the hardest to prevent 15-minute workdays.

I'm OK with the class idea, although I agree with Draz on the problem with not being able to multiclass between the various variants of a particular class.

One thing I would like to see is a higher baseline for a character's weakest abilities - basically, it would be pretty cool for a wizard to be able to walk up to something and hit it without committing suicide, buffing himself through the roof or being yelled at for using such a stupid tactic.

[Maxymiuk]

I was going to do this sooner, I swear I was. Things came up.

First, let me address the "15-minute workdays" problem that a couple people mentioned. I could just say that it lies in the GM's discretion to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen, but it seems like a cop-out. Core D&D already took a step in the direction of preventing this issue with the Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruption rule (PHB, p. 178) but I'm sure it can be taken further. However, that will have to wait until I get deeper into reworking the magic system itself.

Now, where were we…


The specialized wizard

Let's face it, magic is cool. Being able to alter reality with a snap of your fingers, cause decisive shifts in combat and frighten small children with realistic renditions of Aston Kutcher is wizard's bread and butter. And therein lies the problem. With all the spells available to them, wizards can do anything and everything.

The solution I will be using is a simple idea, that is at once complex in execution. Give the wizard a primary school of magic which he chooses at level one. The choice of this school defines the rest of his career – this is the only school he can apply metamagic to, and he gets various bonuses to most spells from that school when he casts, as well as a number of features based on the specialization.

He can also choose a secondary school, and later, at around level 10, a tertiary. The secondary school spells function as normal, and so do the tertiary school, with the exception that his selection of tertiary spells will never match that from the other two schools.


The breakdown

This is all of course still tentative and subject to change – it's here only to serve me as a target to aim for once I start setting down rules in detail.

The largest decision I'll have to make, one that will define future work on this class is whether I want to take spells the same route I'm taking the fighter feats (so, for example, a primary conjurer's Mage Armor would scale the AC bonus based on level), which would require that I make a "specialist" variant for each and every one, or do I want to make things easier on myself and simply introduce a uniform, flat bonus to spells of each specialist.

Additionally, I think that every specialist should gain a small set of distinct class features as he continues to gain levels. I'm detailing some of my ideas below – new ones are always welcome.

Abjurer
Looking at the abjuration school, its main focus is denial. While it lacks the means to directly influence opponents (aside from Dispel and Dismiss spell groups), it makes up for it with numerous ways to boost AC and damage resistances, or to outright say "no" to many magical and mundane effects. The class should reflect that, making the caster a more difficult target, even if one discounts the spells he'd ordinarily use for personal defense.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Gains energy resistances or AC bonuses as he progresses in level
- Gains spell resistance as he progresses in level (5+level? Or still too strong?)
- Gains bonuses to all/chosen saves as he progresses in level

Conjurer
The conjuration school is arguably the most versatile from those available to a wizard. It has a healthy mix of summoning, battlefield control and damage dealing spells, and also gives him access to many ways to ease travel, from summoning mounts, to teleporting large distances. Unsurprisingly, this makes it difficult to pin down the niche a conjurer would occupy, and consequently the direction the classes' bonuses should take.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Summoning spells last longer/are harder to dismiss. Augment Summoning as a bonus feat.
- Eventually gains limited uses of Dimension Door as an SLA.
- Multiple familiars? Familiar enhancements? (needs work on the Sorcerer first)

Diviner
The divination school focuses on information. In Core D&D, it's considered the "weakest", allowing a wizard specializing in it to ban only one other magic school instead of two. In reality, while the school has almost no combat spells, it's considered a vital part of any wizard's repertoire. The wide array of detection, divining and scrying spells allow the diviner to prepare for the problems he's likely to face.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Gains bonuses to Spot/Listen/Search checks
- Something akin to the Lore ability of Bards and Cloistered Clerics?
- Prescience/ability to reroll failed checks

Enchanter
The enchantment school focuses on subversion. Most of its spells reduce the opponent's abilities, be they attributes, means to resist spells, or simply the capability to carry out meaningful actions. It could easily be the most powerful school, if it weren't for three harsh realities: the "all or nothing" nature of most enchantments, the sheer number of creatures immune to mind-affecting spells, and the ease of acquiring such immunities for those who are not.

Possible bonuses/features:
- An eventual ability to make the spells work on a chosen type of creature normally immune to them (vermin, constructs, etc.)
- Gains resistance/immunity to mind-affecting spells

Evoker
The evocation school focuses on force. Its spells are the most direct application of magic, with most of them (with a few notable exceptions) dealing direct damage. For this reason, experienced players consider evocation the weakest school – opponent HP scales far faster than damage, making "save or die" spells a far more attractive option. One of my goals is to make evocation an equally viable choice as far as magic schools go.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Bonuses to evocation spell damage based on level (akin to fighter bonuses to weapon damage)
- Ability to inflict status effects with evocation spells (setting opponents on fire with a Fireball, etc.)
- Ability to substitute energy types in damage spells

Illusionist
The illusion school focuses on misdirection. Aside from the iconic ability to create images of things that aren't there, it features a mix of defensive and offensive spells that mislead and confuse opponents. Furthermore, it adds insult to evocation's injury by being able to replicate most of that school's standby spells. Similarly to enchantment, the only thing that tempers this school's power somewhat is the wide array of creatures that can ignore its effects.

Possible bonuses/features:
- An automatic miss chance against the illusionist that scales with level
- Greater "realness" of the Shadow spell group (though that in itself needs to be reworked – see below)
- Bonuses to disbelieving/ability to automatically recognize hostile illusions

Necromancer
Necromancy is yet another school that escapes easy classification. It has an eclectic selection of spells: the iconic ability to create and control undead, the equally iconic ability to instantly kill an opponent on the spot, and spells that reduce the target's attributes or scare him away. On top of that, it's a somewhat problematic school, since some of the spells it includes are evil while others, seemingly arbitrarily, are not - they may all see some changes once I rework alignment. Still, even if morally dubious, it's one of the more useful schools to have in a wizard's repertoire.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Bonuses to created undead – either number or raw power.
- Limited protection against ability drain/damage and level loss

Transmuter
The transmutation school focuses on the very broad definition of change. In 3.5 it's considered a "must have" school, due to the sheer number and diversity of useful spells it provides. It covers various buffing spells, weapon enchantments, the ever-popular flight and shapeshifting spells, and a wide array of environment-changing effects. Many of what I call "problematic" spells belong to the transmutation schools and will be eventually reworked, but I'm hoping that simply cutting off a transmuter's access to most other schools will be enough to curb in this school's power.

Possible bonuses/features:
- Ability to grant oneself temporary stat boosts (something in the spirit of Wild feats from Complete Divine?)
- Limited doppelgangerish abilities

Universal
With five spells to its name, the universal school barely classifies as such in the first place. Arcane Mark, Predistigation and Permanency will of course remain as valid spell choices for all specialists, while Limited Wish and Wish are currently being considered for deletion.


Multiclassing as a wizard

I will touch upon the multiclassing problem a few people have brought up in a later part of this post. But here I'm going to make it clear that it will most likely be impossible to multiclass between different wizard specializations, since this would present too much opportunity for abuse. Multiclassing into another class would still be fine.


The problem spells

This is my first stab at dealing with the most problematic or balance-altering spells. These are only preliminary ideas, subject to change upon further review:


Shadow Evocation group – these spells will most likely be getting the axe, since they invalidate the need for most of the "standby" evocation spells.
Fly/Teleport groups – flight spells will most likely suffer from a drastic reduction in duration, to make them a situational rather than a natural choice. Teleportation spells may need better defined restrictions on their use – personal familiarity with the destination, reduced range, etc.
Polymorph group – ah, THE headache of 3.X. A commonly proposed fix is to severely limit the available forms one may change into. Let's go with that for now.
Wish, Miracle and the like – I'll either get rid of them completely or curb in the open-endedness of the spells. Or throw up my hands and cry "Let the GM deal with this intelligently!"
Image group – I have nothing against players being inventive with illusions, but among the things I've witnessed them used for was making a level 0 spell simulate a level 2 spell(Silent Image pretending to be a Fog Cloud) with the forewarned party suffering none of the drawbacks of the latter. I'm not considering anything drastic – a simple "can't simulate a spell of a greater complexity" caveat, at most.


***

Now to address some of the other issues that people brought up:

Multiclassing between subclasses – I'm aiming for revamping the classes into something that's both unified and modular, allowing for a number of options one may freely choose between. Ideally, making one choice shouldn't block the player from making another, later in his character's development (ok, so wizards are the exception here). So, hypothetically, a "smart" fighter could at the same time be a "strong" fighter which, in a perfect world, would give him enough extra options to make up for the loss of power in comparison to a "pure" "strong" fighter. In the next installment I'll be returning to the fighter, so I'll be handling this problem in more detail then.

Abstract HP – when I decided to start this project, I've made two unbreakable rules for myself: I won't replace the Vancian system and I won't touch how HP works. The reasons being, if I do that, I might as well go and write my own RPG. D&D is, at the core, heroic fantasy. It isn't equipped to deal with all the aspects of gritty fantasy – limb loss, disease, battle fatigue, etc. I don't like it either, but I learned to deal with it. If someone really wants to, once I do all the other work, I may adapt the VP/WP system from UA, but for now the HP stays.