Subsystems Apply Within

[Waker]

I have made it known in many posts that I'm a big fan of certain subsystems, Incarnum being the foremost while largely disliking the main magic system, Vancian casting. So while there have been similar posts in the past, I come to you with a few questions. Would you play in a game where the only classes were
Crusader
Swordsage
Warblade
Binder
Incarnate
Totemist
Truenamer
Factotum (replacing SLAs with Soulborn meldshaping? Or maneuvers?)
Psychic Warrior
Psychic Rogue
Warlock
Dragon Adept

And would you see any problems with such a campaign, from the viewpoint of the player or DM?
Some of the houserule and tweaks to the system might include:
-No scrolls, wands or staffs.
-Magic items are created through the use of the Craft Skill. No feat requirement or caster levels. An example craft check might be DC=20 to create a +1 item, increasing the DC by 5 for each +1 on said item. No taking 20, limit one ally to use Aid Another.
-Make potions cheaper.
-Change Heal check to allow HP healing as well as removing status ailments.
-No PrCs. No multiclassing penalties.
-No class skills or cross-class skills. Maximum ranks in a skill is still Level+3.

TLDR-Would you play in a game with no Vancian casting and all characters are T3?

[Keld Denar]

Heck yea!

I'd even ban most of the DMG items and just use the superior selection from the MIC. Swift actions 4tw!

[Matticussama]

If you're allowing magic items to be constructed using Craft skills without magic item creation feats, then you should also allow certain Potions to be brewed using the Heal skill. It makes sense for many of them; Cure potions, Neutralize Poison, etc basically all become medical rather than magical. Bulls Strength, Bear's Endurance, etc basically become various types of steroids. It wouldn't make sense for things like Invisibility, but you could find other Craft skills for those (maybe Alchemy?).

[Waker]

If you're allowing magic items to be constructed using Craft skills without magic item creation feats, then you should also allow certain Potions to be brewed using the Heal skill. It makes sense for many of them; Cure potions, Neutralize Poison, etc basically all become medical rather than magical. Bulls Strength, Bear's Endurance, etc basically become various types of steroids. It wouldn't make sense for things like Invisibility, but you could find other Craft skills for those (maybe Alchemy?).

Hmm, an interesting point. I was planning on magic item creation to basically be along the lines of Craft (Alchemy) makes all the potions, Weapon/Armorsmithing for their respective items and so on. But it would make a certain kind of sense to have Heal allow you to craft anti-toxins and other restoratives.

[limejuicepowder]

If the story is good enough, and I get along with the other players, I would play in any game. In this instance, the classes being limited to flavorful t3's would give me high hopes for a very knowledgeable and adept DM.

Still though, I would question the lack of psionics, warlock, dragonfire adept, and prc's. In fact, I WILL question those things: why'd you take them out?

Edit: I'd also recommend splitting up crafting as much as you can. With these rules, the craft skill would be thrust to the forefront. Besides adding a lot of verisimilitude, it would make it not quite so OP.

craft (armor and weapons) - arms and armor
craft (tinkerer) - wonderous items
craft (alchemy) - non-healing potions
craft (jeweler) - rings and amulets
craft (woodworker) - wands and staves
healing - healing-related potions

[Waker]

Still though, I would question the lack of psionics, warlock, dragonfire adept, and prc's. In fact, I WILL question those things: why'd you take them out?

I suppose I could put in stuff like the Psychic Warrior and Psychic Rogue since their power is a bit more in line with the others. Psion and Wilder would be a bit too strong though. I was strongly debating about the Warlock/Adept, wasn't really sure. The tweaking of the magic items really limits some of the options available for them.
As for PrCs, that had more to do with support options for them, as well as reducing complications. Certain classes would be able to use PrCs specifically made for them, while others would face very limited options. Binders for instance have access to only 2(?) PrCs that they have access to that would progress their Soulbinding, whereas Initiators have access 5 that explicitly advance maneuvers.

None of these are really set in stone. It's mostly just thinking out loud, though I wouldn't mind running a game like this at some point. If I did run a game like this, one of the big reasons would be attempting to wean players off of vancian casting and trying something different.


craft (armor and weapons) - arms and armor
craft (tinkerer) - wonderous items
craft (alchemy) - non-healing potions
craft (jeweler) - rings and amulets
craft (woodworker) - wands and staves
healing - healing-related potions
That actually is pretty close to what I had in mind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Absa-flippin-lutely. You list of classes here reads like my dream list of characters.

Warlocks might need to be pumped up a bit to stand in a group like this, though, especially without access to Hellfire Warlock. Let 'em attack with their blast as a full-round action and they should be OK. I also might allow psionics. ToB classes can easily stack up the same levels of damage, and having a second major-magic class to put alongside the Truenamer makes a certain amount of sense.

[RFLS]

I'm going to step outside the norm here and say that no, no I would not. There's basically no consistency in flavor, and the subsystems don't mesh. ToB, Warlock, Binder, and Factotum all go fairly well together, but really, the Incarnum classes don't mesh with them at all. Truenamer semi-works, but....we all know the issues it has. After that, you get to Psychic Warrior and Rogue, and they're like none of the other classes at all. I think it would be a mess of a game, despite the numerical balance. Let me see if I can find the relevant post to link from the "Why Balance?" thread.

[Matticussama]

I'm going to step outside the norm here and say that no, no I would not. There's basically no consistency in flavor, and the subsystems don't mesh. ToB, Warlock, Binder, and Factotum all go fairly well together, but really, the Incarnum classes don't mesh with them at all. Truenamer semi-works, but....we all know the issues it has. After that, you get to Psychic Warrior and Rogue, and they're like none of the other classes at all. I think it would be a mess of a game, despite the numerical balance. Let me see if I can find the relevant post to link from the "Why Balance?" thread.

But how is that criticism any different from an "all splat" game where there is already a mix of every subsystem with no flavor consistency? Furthermore, they can easily be made to work within the context of the game. Maybe certain styles are more common in other areas, thereby giving them an exotic feel. Certain kingdoms are dominated by Psionic systems, some by Incarnum, and others by ToB/Warlock. Add in environmental factors that led to those particular styles becoming dominant in certain regions, and you not only explain the mesh together but also add a more richly detailed gaming world with unique and interesting quirks.

[RFLS]

But how is that criticism any different from an "all splat" game where there is already a mix of every subsystem with no flavor consistency? Furthermore, they can easily be made to work within the context of the game. Maybe certain styles are more common in other areas, thereby giving them an exotic feel. Certain kingdoms are dominated by Psionic systems, some by Incarnum, and others by ToB/Warlock. Add in environmental factors that led to those particular styles becoming dominant in certain regions, and you not only explain the mesh together but also add a more richly detailed gaming world with unique and interesting quirks.

It's the same criticism. I'm saying that having 5 different subsystems available to a party of 4 almost guarantees that they all play with a different one, and it smashes verisimilitude. If you have geographic separation, that probably ends up fine, but 1 subsystem/player results in what I was objecting to.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's the same criticism. I'm saying that having 5 different subsystems available to a party of 4 almost guarantees that they all play with a different one, and it smashes verisimilitude. If you have geographic separation, that probably ends up fine, but 1 subsystem/player results in what I was objecting to.
Why? There's generally very little connection between fluff and mechanics. The amount of ways I can describe a Warblade is almost infinite.

[Palanan]

If the campaign had a compelling storyline, an innovative setting and a coherent rationale for the classes you list, plus a great DM...then I'd ask if I could play a beguiler.

:smalltongue:



Pure personal preference here, but ToB, MoI and psionics are my least favorite things in 3.5. I love my divine spellcasting.

An all-tier-3 campaign? Gladly. All-tier-4? I'd give it a try. --All-subsystem? Um.

[Eslin]

It's the same criticism. I'm saying that having 5 different subsystems available to a party of 4 almost guarantees that they all play with a different one, and it smashes verisimilitude. If you have geographic separation, that probably ends up fine, but 1 subsystem/player results in what I was objecting to.

I don't understand why you think that. Fluff is almost entirely mutable - fluffwise there's absolutely no reason you can't call a warblade a fighter and a warlock a sorcerer.

And even if you don't refluff, I don't get what the problem is. So one guy finds he is gifted at incarnum and becomes a totemist, another researches the power of dragons in order to become a dragonfire adept, a third trains at a monastery and becomes a swordsage while the fourth makes deals with vestiges for power, becoming a binder. Why can't they coexist? How is that any more verisimilitude breaking than a monk, a druid, a wizard and a paladin working together?

[Amnestic]

TLDR-Would you play in a game with no Vancian casting and all characters are T3?

Yes, though I'm not sure a Bard (or indeed any of the Spontaneous casters) are actually 'Vancian', since as far as I know that refers to the method of memorisation/preparing at the start of the day - Wizards, Clerics, Druids, but not Sorcerers, Favored Souls or Bards.

Still, even without my precious Bard, I'd play in such a game.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eslin
Why can't they coexist? How is that any more verisimilitude breaking than a monk, a druid, a wizard and a paladin working together?

Almost the exact same thought occurred to me when I saw the word "verisimilitude."

[Lans]

If the campaign had a compelling storyline, an innovative setting and a coherent rationale for the classes you list, plus a great DM...then I'd ask if I could play a beguiler.

:smalltongue:



Pure personal preference here, but ToB, MoI and psionics are my least favorite things in 3.5. I love my divine spellcasting.

An all-tier-3 campaign? Gladly. All-tier-4? I'd give it a try. --All-subsystem? Um.
Give the warlock 2 more skills per level, and an extra invocation of each grade, the incarnate a one step boost in HD, BA, and skills, and you'll have an all tier 3 campaign

[Waker]

As has been pointed out by others, fitting the classes together fluff-wise is simple enough if you rename things. Replace the psionics Power Points with Ki Points, say that Vestiges are Ancestor or Nature Spirits, Warlocks and Dragon Adepts channel chi leyline energy, say that Truenaming is astrology or something else. That took me as long to come up with as it did to type it out. If these systems are all presented at the same time as each other, they work together just fine, especially since the classes mentioned have roughly the same power levels.


Yes, though I'm not sure a Bard (or indeed any of the Spontaneous casters) are actually 'Vancian', since as far as I know that refers to the method of memorisation/preparing at the start of the day - Wizards, Clerics, Druids, but not Sorcerers, Favored Souls or Bards.
You would be correct, though for brevity sake I refer to any "X/day" casting mechanic as Vancian, since I don't offhand know what the term is for spontaneous casting.

Critiques of verisimilitude aside, does anyone see any mechanical issues with such a game? Any particular troubles that a party would face?

[Palanan]

I'm not nearly the connoisseur of subsystems as the rest of you, so I can't make deft comments on system design. But since I tend to run campaigns that focus on the wilderness and wide-open spaces, what strikes me--based on what I know of these classes--is the general lack of outdoors utility.

Would any of these classes be truly at home in the wilderness? I'm not really getting a woodsy vibe from this lineup.

[RFLS]

I'm not nearly the connoisseur of subsystems as the rest of you, so I can't make deft comments on system design. But since I tend to run campaigns that focus on the wilderness and wide-open spaces, what strikes me--based on what I know of these classes--is the general lack of outdoors utility.

Would any of these classes be truly at home in the wilderness? I'm not really getting a woodsy vibe from this lineup.

Totemist most definitely would. You could justify Dragon Adept.

[ArcturusV]

Short answer? Yes, I'd play it.

I've never had a chance to play any of those characters. Heck, I haven't even really seen them in any games I've DMed, not firing on all cylinders at the very least, a few who made characters, showed up to a session, never were heard from again, but that's it.

And it'd give me an excuse to really read up on them and mess around in all the best ways.

[AuraTwilight]

Hell to the yes.

[Big Fau]

How is that any more verisimilitude breaking than a monk, a druid, a wizard and a paladin working together?

Because those classes are meant to be used in the same party since they are all from the same book.


Give the warlock 2 more skills per level, and an extra invocation of each grade, the incarnate a one step boost in HD, BA, and skills, and you'll have an all tier 3 campaign

Warlocks need more than +4 Invocations. I'd wager doubling their Invocations Known would be enough.

Agreed on Incarnates though. I'd do the same for the Totemist myself (changing the chasis to match the Magical Beast stats).

[Eslin]

Because those classes are meant to be used in the same party since they are all from the same book.


Yes, but that doesn't make them actually mesh. I'll do it again with another four classes - a bard, a psion, a cleric and sorcerer don't mesh together any better or worse than a warblade, a totemist, a warlock and a binder.

They all have different power sources and lore behind them and they can all work together in the same setting.

[TuggyNE]

Yes, but that doesn't make them actually mesh.

Indeed; that was the purpose of the ironic blue tint, to signify that that's the sort of (foolish) response a hypothetical person might give.

[Greenish]

Critiques of verisimilitude aside, does anyone see any mechanical issues with such a game? Any particular troubles that a party would face?Well, as has been pointed out in many of the "no magic game" threads, fixing non-hp damage nasty stuff (curses, diseases, negative levels, whathaveyou) is tricky without cleric's spell list.

While this does good things to "find a cure for the plague/curse" style of plots, it's something to keep in mind before tossing mummies and werewolves at your players.


[Edit]:
I'd do the same for the Totemist myself (changing the chasis to match the Magical Beast stats).But, but, I don't want to be the Big Stupid Fighter, I like the 4+int skill points.

[Eslin]

Indeed; that was the purpose of the ironic blue tint, to signify that that's the sort of (foolish) response a hypothetical person might give.

Ah, I see your sig. Gotcha.

[Waker]

Well, as has been pointed out in many of the "no magic game" threads, fixing non-hp damage nasty stuff (curses, diseases, negative levels, whathaveyou) is tricky without cleric's spell list.

While this does good things to "find a cure for the plague/curse" style of plots, it's something to keep in mind before tossing mummies and werewolves at your players.
Well, as I said I would make potions easier to access, especially granted that anyone with the Craft skill can make them. But as you point out, some of the more dangerous effects can't be countered by normal potions. I will make a note to include effects like Restoration in the list of brewable potions.


Warlocks need more than +4 Invocations. I'd wager doubling their Invocations Known would be enough.

Agreed on Incarnates though. I'd do the same for the Totemist myself (changing the chasis to match the Magical Beast stats).
I will agree that the Warlock could use a little love in the form of more invocations. I could tweak the incarnum classes a bit as well.

Otherwise the forum response looks promising. I just may consider talking to the players in the game I'm about to start running and see if they would object to the slight alteration in the class set-up.

[stack]

Or use rituals for any spells you need but can't get. They're in UA and could make things interesting, like a mini-quest to gather the components for restoration or trying to break a mummy's curse before its too late.

[Waker]

Or use rituals for any spells you need but can't get. They're in UA and could make things interesting, like a mini-quest to gather the components for restoration or trying to break a mummy's curse before its too late.

You know, I was going to have rituals available. Knew I forgot something in this thread.

[Krazzman]

I would say yes... but I think I would ask about a few PrC's.

I don't know anything about Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic or the one with the Truenamer, but a few other Complete [X] things could be included. Warshaper(PrC) for example can be taken by everyone who has the ability to "shapechange". I think Psionic and Incarnums as well as DFA and Warlocks are able to get this.

For other "vancian" casters maybe try working with Spellpoints (Unearthed Arcana)? Maybe only for Bards, Beguilers and such.

Will your normal "Houserule" setup be incorporated in this too or do you exclude a few of them?

I seem to miss something raging... or did the Totemist cover that?

Else I think your rulings covered everything not already mentioned in this thread.

[Lans]

Because those classes are meant to be used in the same party since they are all from the same book.



Warlocks need more than +4 Invocations. I'd wager doubling their Invocations Known would be enough.

Agreed on Incarnates though. I'd do the same for the Totemist myself (changing the chasis to match the Magical Beast stats).

I didn't want to over do it, would 50% more invocations and EB damage and range work for you?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Warlocks need more than +4 Invocations. I'd wager doubling their Invocations Known would be enough.
I'd give 'em one invocation/level and let them full attack with their eldrich blast. That and 4 skill points/level should be enough. Maybe also add Hide and Move Silently to the skill list, I dunno.

On that note, you might add a feat to grant Trapfinding and Search as a class skill-- I think the Factotum's the only class on the list that actually gets it.


Well, as has been pointed out in many of the "no magic game" threads, fixing non-hp damage nasty stuff (curses, diseases, negative levels, whathaveyou) is tricky without cleric's spell list.

While this does good things to "find a cure for the plague/curse" style of plots, it's something to keep in mind before tossing mummies and werewolves at your players.
A fixed Truenamer can handle that sort of thing, methinks. I'm pretty sure Kyeduo's Book of Words fix could; I dunno about Kellus.'

[Eldest]

Well, would the other two classes from that Truenamer fix be available? I'd play this line up either way, just curious.

[Draz74]

There's not a great way with this lineup to play a Ranger archetype. (Well, I guess a Factotum could handle it, depending on what replaces his SLAs.)

I was going to say people were being overly generous with the Warlock features, and that giving him just a pinch of the Hellfire Warlock class features tacked on might be enough by itself (plus upping his skills to 4+Int, natch) ... but then I considered that his most distinctive ability (crafting items via a skill) is being given to everyone. So maybe that means he deserves more of a boost.


Well, as has been pointed out in many of the "no magic game" threads, fixing non-hp damage nasty stuff (curses, diseases, negative levels, whathaveyou) is tricky without cleric's spell list.

While this does good things to "find a cure for the plague/curse" style of plots, it's something to keep in mind before tossing mummies and werewolves at your players.

Alignment-based DR, too. Although the Tome of Battle classes have ways to mitigate that problem, better than others. Still an issue for e.g. Totemists.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Draz74
There's not a great way with this lineup to play a Ranger archetype.

Sort of what I was thinking, although a number of these are unfamiliar to me.

Can anyone in the lineup actually communicate with an animal, or affect its attitude? (Without taking Wild Cohort or whatever.) Can any of these classes breathe water in a pinch, or track a creature through a primeval forest?

I'm aware of the Playground's prevailing opinion about Track and its uses, but I actually take this seriously in my campaigns, so that would be a question I'd ask before playing the OP's variant.

[Fyermind]

I'd worry about the Psychic warrior and Psychic rogue personally. I think Their lack of power points would make them run out of cool things significantly before their friends. Crusaders never need to rest. Ever. DFA's can fight an infinite line of zombies with a little bit of work. It could be a great game.

In fact I was just running something similar through RHoD in gestalt, and realized it wasn't going to work because of the Bard I let in and the way buffs interacted with a flurry archer.

[Waker]

For other "vancian" casters maybe try working with Spellpoints (Unearthed Arcana)? Maybe only for Bards, Beguilers and such.
When I first posted this thread, it was my dislike of the vancian casting that first prompted me to exclude it. I'll say right now that Bard is my favorite class, but even so I would still avoid any of the normal arcane or divine casters. I'll elucidate my thinking in a bit.


On that note, you might add a feat to grant Trapfinding and Search as a class skill-- I think the Factotum's the only class on the list that actually gets it.
Though I realize that I hadn't included it in my opening post, I really dislike the Trapfinding class feature. It's one of my houserules that anyone with Search can find a trap and if they make the Disable Device check, they can disable it. Trapfinding works similar to the PF version at my table.


Well, would the other two classes from that Truenamer fix be available? I'd play this line up either way, just curious.
Yes, they would both be available. I only mentioned the Truenamer because I expected there would be a few people who couldn't be bothered to check the post and instead start questioning "What's a Lexeme? Never heard of it"


There's not a great way with this lineup to play a Ranger archetype. (Well, I guess a Factotum could handle it, depending on what replaces his SLAs.)
If you define a "Ranger archetype" solely as someone who has martial proficiency, limited nature magic and a companion, you are correct. If you are willing to broaden the scope a bit more, then the role can be filled by other classes without much difficulty. Since I already removed the skill restriction, anyone can take the requisite nature-themed skills like Knowledge (Nature), Survival and the like. None of these classes has an animal companion, though anyone can take the Wild Cohort feat. As for the magic there are several that can do that: Totemist, Binder, Psychic Warrior. It's just a matter of fluff.


Can anyone in the lineup actually communicate with an animal, or affect its attitude? (Without taking Wild Cohort or whatever.) Can any of these classes breathe water in a pinch, or track a creature through a primeval forest?
Communicating-Totemist has wild empathy
Water Breathing-Warlock with the Swimming the Styx Invocation, Truenamer with a Reversed Word of Drowning, Totemist with the Kraken Mantle. Maybe more. Any character can brew Water Breathing potion or craft a magic item that grants it.
Tracking-Totemist with the Hunter Circlet, Binder with Buer bound
There could be other options for each of these. That was what I could come up with off the top of my head.


I'd worry about the Psychic warrior and Psychic rogue personally. I think Their lack of power points would make them run out of cool things significantly before their friends. Crusaders never need to rest. Ever. DFA's can fight an infinite line of zombies with a little bit of work. It could be a great game.
I was a bit worried about that too. They were a later addition to the list, but I didn't want to ignore psionics.

Anyways, my initial reason for posting this thread stemmed from my love of the subsystems in the game. However, I also had been recently bothered by an observation I had made in a player in a game I'm about to run. He had told me he wanted to play a ninja. So I gave him a big list of classes that could fit the role: Swordsage, Factotum, Spellthief... In the end he choose to play the Ninja class, because it's a ninja.
Now this sort of behavior I had noticed in other players, but it always bothers me. It reminds me of a certain discussion between a bard and samurai. Joking aside, I can't understand why a character needs to be so defined by their class title. I rather doubt that in character, someone would say "Yeah, I'm a Factotum" or "Me barbarian", rather they would say "I'm a traveling scholar" or "Greetings, my name is Unthok. I am a tribal warrior hailing from the Grey Bear Clan."
The last reason I would like to run a game like this is that I feel these systems and classes don't get enough love. Though I frequently see them mentioned here in the forums, my own experiences has painted a rather different picture. I have never seen any ToB or ToM class played, or Psionics, or Warlock/Adept. And it's not just one group, I've played with groups all over the country and even outside it. I just don't understand it.

[Draz74]

When I first posted this thread, it was my dislike of the vancian casting that first prompted me to exclude it. I'll say right now that Bard is my favorite class, but even so I would still avoid any of the normal arcane or divine casters.
Which is why, in the unlikely event that I ever run another 3.5e campaign, my first action (among many many houserules, probably) will be to declare that Vancian casting is replaced with Ernir's Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194002). (Don't use the Spell Points variant from UA. It's horrid. Ernir's is waaaaay better.)


Though I realize that I hadn't included it in my opening post, I really dislike the Trapfinding class feature. It's one of my houserules that anyone with Search can find a trap and if they make the Disable Device check, they can disable it. Trapfinding works similar to the PF version at my table.
I do think it makes sense to have specialized training for finding traps, separate from the default uses of Search/DD. Personally, I'd just make it a skill trick, so anyone who meets a prerequisite (e.g. 4 ranks of Search, 2 ranks of Disable Device) can buy Trapfinding for 2 skill points. I'd do the same thing with Track.


If you define a "Ranger archetype" solely as someone who has martial proficiency, limited nature magic and a companion, you are correct. If you are willing to broaden the scope a bit more, then the role can be filled by other classes without much difficulty. Since I already removed the skill restriction, anyone can take the requisite nature-themed skills like Knowledge (Nature), Survival and the like. None of these classes has an animal companion, though anyone can take the Wild Cohort feat. As for the magic there are several that can do that: Totemist, Binder, Psychic Warrior. It's just a matter of fluff.
The magic isn't so much what I'm worried about. Or the companion (which, as you say, is perfectly doable with Wild Cohort). And I suppose with a more open system of skill selection, Swordsage or Warblade can actually emulate a decent melee Ranger.

So I guess when I analyze it more, my complaint is mostly that your class selection isn't very archer-friendly. The best options for someone who wants to use archery are

Psychic Warrior
Factotum
certain specialized Totemist builds, which don't scale well to high levels
certain specialized Warblade builds, which don't really get going until high levels

... and even these aren't great archers, merely passable. And PsyWar, which is possibly the best archer of the four, doesn't get enough skill points to cover the stealthy, scouting, nature, & other skills that are important to the Ranger archetype.

So you might want to look up some homebrew archer-friendly classes ... maybe the ranger "fixes" that essentially make a single class based on a Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger hybrid, or the ones that utilize homebrew archery Martial Disciplines, or the ones that make a single class based on a Soulknife/Soulbow.


The last reason I would like to run a game like this is that I feel these systems and classes don't get enough love. Though I frequently see them mentioned here in the forums, my own experiences has painted a rather different picture. I have never seen any ToB or ToM class played, or Psionics, or Warlock/Adept. And it's not just one group, I've played with groups all over the country and even outside it. I just don't understand it.

Alas, my experience is similar. The only time I've really seen subsystems used was when I ran a short summer campaign, and I basically made the two newbies' characters for them, based on their character concepts. (One ended up as a Rogue with a Swordsage dip, the other a Psion.) But most groups, in my experience, are just averse to adding subsystems to their game in general. :smallfrown:

[otakumick]

Not strictly a D&D 3.5 subsystem, I like the D20 Slayers casting system... its a lot more flavorful to me... plus I love the Anime its modeled off of.
Also, I love psionics.

[Coidzor]

My only reservations with the OP are the lack of PrCs and the potential for accidentally running into situations that are insurmountable without a T1/T2 support, but the latter can at least be alleviated via DMing and the way adventures are set up.

[nobodez]

For your magic items, I'd grab the Master Craftsman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) feat from Pathfinder (as well as their entire magic item creation rules), perhaps allowing Brew Potion to work similarly with Craft (Alchemy). So potions, weapons, armor, and wondrous items are all that's there (without Vancian casters you don't need scrolls, rods, staffs, or wands, so no need for those feats).

[Coidzor]

You may or may not want to make some of the personal-only buffs potion compatible if you're keeping potions in there.

[Krazzman]

When I first posted this thread, it was my dislike of the vancian casting that first prompted me to exclude it. I'll say right now that Bard is my favorite class, but even so I would still avoid any of the normal arcane or divine casters. I'll elucidate my thinking in a bit.


My concern was not about the bard class as it, more the theme of magic through music. Maybe even homebrewing a class that uses music to empower auras or something like that. Maybe mixing Dragonshaman with Bard. As I really don't know the classes except for ToB and Dungeonscape + the ones out of the completes...

About having seen them ingame...
I DM Pathfinder. In the 3.5 games I'm in with our current group I played a Warlock, a Warblade and now I am playing a "going-to-be" Eldritch Disciple.
In those campaigns we had 1 Cleric5/Crusader1 and a Ninja/Fighter, a Favoured Soul, Druid, Rogue and "Bardlock" (Bard with Warlock dip). And in the current one we have a Halfling Swordsage (Unarmed Variant), Halfling Factotum, Elven Sorcerer, Elven Wizard, Human Druid.

Magic of Incarnum is available since christmas and will be corporated into the DnD game where I play a Warblade. IF we play that one again, we'll see.

The DM where I play the Warblade and Warlock has a few own opinions. He doesn't like when "normal" characters suddenly have wings and can spit fire and brag about how awesome and descended from dragons they are.

An interest I have is... playing a (Races of the Wild) Raptoran. But don't have a concept for it.

Since unusual races... the most unusual race I have seen in play in (not in a Monster group) all of my gaming groups was: Genasi and a mongrelfolk. After that Goliath and Gnomes... In the current group the most unusual thing was: a Sun elf.

[Waker]

My only reservations with the OP are the lack of PrCs and the potential for accidentally running into situations that are insurmountable without a T1/T2 support, but the latter can at least be alleviated via DMing and the way adventures are set up.

Can you think of any situations that would explicitly require T1/2 classes? Part of the reason for this thread is to find and identify those situations so that I can avoid them. The only one that I could think of was resurrection and treating status ailments.


For your magic items, I'd grab the Master Craftsman feat from Pathfinder (as well as their entire magic item creation rules), perhaps allowing Brew Potion to work similarly with Craft (Alchemy). So potions, weapons, armor, and wondrous items are all that's there (without Vancian casters you don't need scrolls, rods, staffs, or wands, so no need for those feats).
The Master Craftsmen feat was what actually was inspired the use of a scaling craft check to allow mundanes the ability to make magic items.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I know the typical "We need high tier caster" situations that come up in games I've played in/ran are basically two things.

1) You drew the wrath of a creature from another plane.

Mostly because you need a way to get to that other plane in order to stop them. And it's usually the high tier casters that actually have things like Plane Shift and other spells/effects that allow people to transfer to another plane.

2) High Speed Fliers.

I'm sure someone mentioned this, but yeah. High speed fliers. I know there are item based ways to get flight. But generally it's slower flight. Speeds rating between 20-50' per round or so. So if you are fighting some flying enemy that has a 200' per round fly rate, especially if they have a variation of Ride by Attack, etc, it usually means that there's no way you can effectively engage them. Bows are... generally not effective. So it's usually down to a caster to do something to ground the flier or slow it up.

I don't know if it necessarily does need high tier casters to deal with. But that's typically the answer. It's the easy answer I should say. It's by no means impossible to deal with otherwise... readied actions, using things like nets, bolas, overruns, grapples, etc, all various options.

But a lot of it is something where, short of the Plane Popping thing, just unusual options people don't normally consider, good planning, or just simple rejiggering of how you typically run/approach such encounters will fix it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1) You drew the wrath of a creature from another plane.
Quest for a long-lost portal?


2) High Speed Fliers.
If it's flyby-attacking with a ranged weapon, you're in trouble. But if it's doing hit-and-run melee tactics, just ready an action to attack it as it gets close.

Archers might be a problem, though. I suppose you could always just say/make a feat to allow ranged attacks with any strike that makes sense-- Emerald Razor, say, could totally be used on a ranged attack. Battle Leader's Charge, not so much.

[Waker]

1) You drew the wrath of a creature from another plane.
As pointed out by Grod, the characters would either have to go on a quest to find a portal, a magic device or a ritual to go off plane. Which I think is just fine. Certainly makes for a more interesting story. The Lord of the Rings would've been a lot shorter if Gandalf prepared Greater Teleport.

2) High Speed Fliers.
The pcs would be forced to be more clever with their combat actions. They couldn't just blast whatever out of the sky or use a SoS spell to paralyze it. Even so, I wouldn't see myself relying on such a tactic very often.

So I guess when I analyze it more, my complaint is mostly that your class selection isn't very archer-friendly. The best options for someone who wants to use archery are •Psychic Warrior
•Factotum
•certain specialized Totemist builds, which don't scale well to high levels
•certain specialized Warblade builds, which don't really get going until high levels

3.5 isn't very archer friendly. I know of certain things that help make it workable like Hanks Energy Bow or Splitting, but it's generally just a subpar combat style regardless of who you are.

[Amnestic]

3.5 isn't very archer friendly. I know of certain things that help make it workable like Hanks Energy Bow or Splitting, but it's generally just a subpar combat style regardless of who you are.

Aren't there a few homebrew archery-based ToB disciplines out there? If you're open to minor fixes here and there, adding in some of those could probably work - if you're interested in making archery semi viable, of course.

[ArcturusV]

More or less my view. Like I was trying to say, it's not the critical, crippling flaw it's necessarily made out to be when people suggest things like cutting out high tier casters. Just were the only two situations that might commonly come up that I could think of.

Other ones are slightly more niche like... you're being attacked by the Tarrasque and need someone that can cast Wish, so a Sorcerer/Wizard or a Cleric with the appropriate Domain.

But then again I've never actually seen someone use the Tarrasque unless they wanted to TPK the party or were softballing it anyway.

[Greenish]

Other ones are slightly more niche like... you're being attacked by the Tarrasque and need someone that can cast Wish, so a Sorcerer/Wizard or a Cleric with the appropriate Domain.

But then again I've never actually seen someone use the Tarrasque unless they wanted to TPK the party or were softballing it anyway.There's a couple of classes on that list that might be able to grapple the big T and drown it in the ocean.

[Waker]

Aren't there a few homebrew archery-based ToB disciplines out there? If you're open to minor fixes here and there, adding in some of those could probably work - if you're interested in making archery semi viable, of course.

If a player desires an archery type character, I would allow it.


As an added note, my players are receptive to this class idea. I do still want to replace the Factotums Arcane Dilletante ability, preferably with one of the subsystems. Does anyone know of a tweak to it? Otherwise I will be lazy and just slap on the Soulborn meldshaping.

[Eldest]

Here's one giving them maneuvers. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11321.0) Here's a bunch of others. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8875250&postcount=3)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Here's one merging factotums with the rogue or swashbuckler (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259254). /selfpromotion

[TuggyNE]

There's a couple of classes on that list that might be able to grapple the big T and drown it in the ocean.

Keep in mind that that's just sealing evil in a can sea. Doesn't actually kill it, just leaves it at negative however-many HP. Ripe for aboleths or something to rescue and unleash!

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, you do need that Wish to put it down and out. Which is why I mentioned it. I mean without a Wish all you did was just put it on ice for a bit.

I'm sure that somewhere, out there, there are similar examples. It was just the first one that came to mind. It's the only enemy/encounter I know that specifically does need something like that to end.

[Waker]

Alright, here is a little update for the houserules that I intend to run in this little experiment of mine. If you have any questions or comments, make them.

Class tweaks
Factotum- Replace Arcane Dilettante with these
Incarnate- D8HD, 4+Int skill points, Medium BAB
Dragonfire Adept- Invocation gained every two levels (Total 10)
Warlock-Invocation gained every level

Skill tweaks
No more class and cross class skills. All skills available. Maximum still lvl+3.

Item Creation
No more Item Creation feats, magic items can be created with the following rules. XP no longer required to create magic items, just gold and materials. For all effects that require a minimum caster level, the crafter uses their ranks-3 in the craft skill in place. A character does not need to know a spell or have access to a scroll in order to meet crafting requirements. Wands, Staffs, Scrolls and Rods do not exist.
Craft (Smithing, Leathworking, Woodwork) -Need Craft ranks X3 for enhancement bonus. Thus a +2 swrod would require a minimum of 6 ranks in Craft (Smithing).
The base DC is 20, with +5 for each +1 enhancement applied. Thus a weapon with a total of +3 enhancement would be a DC35 to craft.

Craft (Jeweling)-Creates Ring, Amulets and Crystals. The DC to craft any of these items is DC 15 +(CL X 2). For instance a ring of Climbing would require a CL 5 to craft, thus the DC is 25 (15+10).

Craft (Tinkering)-Creates any non-amulet or crystal wonderous item. DC 15+(CL X 2). Thus crafting a Tan Bag of Tricks (CL 9) would be a DC 33 (15 + 18)

Special rules for Potions
The cost of any potion is 25gp X spell level, minimum 25gp. The caster level effect for a potion is determined by the HD of the imbiber and is equal to the HD of the imbiber (CL=HD). The DC for crafting a potion is 0 level (DC20), 1st level (DC 23), 2nd level (DC 26), 3rd level (DC 29), 4th level (DC 32). Note that 4th level potions only specific curative potions like Restoration.
Craft (Alchemy)-Creates non-curative potions.
Heal- Creates curative potions, like Cure Light Wounds, Neutralize Poison and Restoration.

Ok, any thoughts on the mechanics for this?

[TuggyNE]

For all effects that require a minimum caster level, the crafter uses their ranks in the craft skill in place. […]
Craft (Smithing, Leathworking, Woodwork) -Need Craft ranks X3 for enhancement bonus. Thus a +2 swrod would require a minimum of 6 ranks in Craft (Smithing).

The craft ranks are wonky, due mostly to the level + 3 bit, so I'd suggest introducing an "effective crafting caster level" of (relevant Craft skill ranks - 3) and using that in all cases. Otherwise, you end up being theoretically able to make a +2 sword at third level, which is kinda weird. (DC 30 is sticky, but not impossible to meet even there and with restrictions.)

[Waker]

The craft ranks are wonky, due mostly to the level + 3 bit, so I'd suggest introducing an "effective crafting caster level" of (relevant Craft skill ranks - 3) and using that in all cases. Otherwise, you end up being theoretically able to make a +2 sword at third level, which is kinda weird. (DC 30 is sticky, but not impossible to meet even there and with restrictions.)

A valid point. CL will be Craft ranks -3 then.

[Amnestic]

Alright, here is a little update for the houserules that I intend to run in this little experiment of mine. If you have any questions or comments, make them.

Class tweaks
Dragonfire Adept- Invocation gained every two levels (Total 10)

I am, completely unbiased, going to say I prefer my DFA changes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264562).

Shameless plug out of the way, I'd say
a) Give the DFA an additional Breath Effect (8th level would be my recommendation)
b) Increase the Invocs to 12, giving 3 per 'rank' (Least, Lesser, Greater, Dark) across the board. This might be more of an aesthetic change on the character sheet, but having an asymmetric number of Invocs (outside of those gained via feats) would feel weird.