Table top like d&d 3.5 but without as OP magic?

[Gwazi Magnum]

So... In an attempt to make d&d 3.5 not have ridiculously OP magic users I worked on two systems.

First was E6 which my group is interested in playing, but for the only solution to be limited at level 6 seems kind of rough.

The other was an attempt to combine 3.5 and 4th edition (no, not pathfinders. That's more d&d 3.55 edition).

But the second I got the magic classes balancing wasn't possible.

I either got to 3.5 like and made them too powerful or went too much like 4th where spells were only good in combat and has little to not use out of combat.

So this has led to me ask the question. What other table top roleplays are there out there that still feel similliar to d&d but where magic isn't broken beyond belief.

Note: The closer it is to d&d 3.5 mechanics the better so the group doesn't complain too much about learning new mechanics if we do make a switch, but obviously if anything close to 3.5 doesn't work feel free to suggest something different.

[Barsoom]

D&D 3.5. All full-casters have the Bard's spells-per-day progression (and therefore no one gets spells above 6th level). Done.

[JoshuaZ]

Banning T1 and T2 works pretty well.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

In the homebrew forums, I think that they have been working on it.

[Gwazi Magnum]

D&D 3.5. All full-casters have the Bard's spells-per-day progression (and therefore no one gets spells above 6th level). Done.

I've seen players break the game with Level 3-5 spells all the time.


Banning T1 and T2 works pretty well.

True, this might be the best option.


In the homebrew forums, I think that they have been working on it.

I'll be sure to take another look then.

Are there any specific forums or topics there though that I should be looking at?

[Aegis013]

Isn't this what Legend was supposed to be about? I've never actually played/looked at it though. So my understanding is quite limited.

[Gildedragon]

JoshuaZ is right
an alternative is to bring D20 modern's magic system in
it relies on incantations a lot for higher level effects. It is a bit more work on the DM's side to figure the incantations' mechanics and descriptions but (in my experience) players love them.
Getting an iron plaque or ancient grimoire that tells anyone how to perform a ceremony to get cool magical effects...
I have in a party a barbarian doing healing ceremonies and cursing people through elaborate rituals, a bard summoning ancient unknowable forces to do divinations...

[Gwazi Magnum]

Isn't this what Legend was supposed to be about? I've never actually played/looked at it though. So my understanding is quite limited.

No idea, never even heard of this until now though. I'll give it a look.


JoshuaZ is right
an alternative is to bring D20 modern's magic system in
it relies on incantations a lot for higher level effects. It is a bit more work on the DM's side to figure the incantations' mechanics and descriptions but (in my experience) players love them.
Getting an iron plaque or ancient grimoire that tells anyone how to perform a ceremony to get cool magical effects...
I have in a party a barbarian doing healing ceremonies and cursing people through elaborate rituals, a bard summoning ancient unknowable forces to do divinations...


True.
Honestly it was something recently suggested to me in my E6 topic.

I am very interested in this system but there are some worries I have still

1. Players find a way to abuse this and use rituals like crazy and/or do nothing but rituals

2. Players getting mad and feeling like their being oppressed if I do anything to stop said abuse.

[Gildedragon]

start off with a couple of things:

metamagic can't be added to a ritual's effects (or maybe yes, with exotic components that are hard to find); thus persisted bonuses can't be made. This coupled with their long casting time makes them great for utility, but it limits their world shattering power

the dm handles the acquisition of rituals. that is to say, the dm says which spells can be ritualized and where these instructions are found.

The instructions could be unwieldly: carved in massive letters in a cyclopean ruin; or generally the instructions destroyed in the enacting of the ritual

they allow mundanes to perform the magic; evening the playing field.

If you restrict spellcasting to be as a bard, adept, or magewright, or ban tier 1-2 classes outright, adding invocations is a good way to grant the players power back. If a more egalitarian power.

[Eugenides]

I'ev always like melee classes. It's a thing. THey are weaker than spellcasters, but you end up with a problem if you neuter casting: high level monsters also need to be brought down a notch.

Honestly, I think a new system, or the D20 introduction that has been mentioned are both good ways to do it. I've looked at Legend a little, and it seems...more manageable.

[Gwazi Magnum]

start off with a couple of things:

metamagic can't be added to a ritual's effects (or maybe yes, with exotic components that are hard to find); thus persisted bonuses can't be made. This coupled with their long casting time makes them great for utility, but it limits their world shattering power

the dm handles the acquisition of rituals. that is to say, the dm says which spells can be ritualized and where these instructions are found.

The instructions could be unwieldly: carved in massive letters in a cyclopean ruin; or generally the instructions destroyed in the enacting of the ritual

they allow mundanes to perform the magic; evening the playing field.

If you restrict spellcasting to be as a bard, adept, or magewright, or ban tier 1-2 classes outright, adding invocations is a good way to grant the players power back. If a more egalitarian power.

If I were to nerf classes with the Bard spell tree then I'd buff them in terms of higher BAB and/or hit dice to make up for it and so the spell casters could be more able to join the rest of the party in other things.

Metamagic feats I can becoming largely useless though if restricted to rituals, but that might be a good thing...

If we stay with the E6 idea I defelently will keep track of which spells can be made rituals as DM for the purpose of keeping the worlds flavour in line. If we switch back to normal d&d though with nerfed magic, not sure how much of that I could do I'd try though but I've found any spell that's 7 or up is really broken anyways, I've seen most encounters conquered with a single level 3-5 spell at times.

Mainly fireball, teleport, fly or invisibility.

Instructions won't count for much once the players learned how the ritual works though. They'll be able to argue they've already done it once, why can't they repeat it? And is a good argument where if I were an outsider would side with the players on.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'ev always like melee classes. It's a thing. THey are weaker than spellcasters, but you end up with a problem if you neuter casting: high level monsters also need to be brought down a notch.

Honestly, I think a new system, or the D20 introduction that has been mentioned are both good ways to do it. I've looked at Legend a little, and it seems...more manageable.

I like the melee classes a lot too.

Sadly no amount of class buffing can compete with all the extra utility a spell caster has with their spells.

Higher level monsters my plan is to pretty much avoid the really big ones or if they need a spell to kill find another way for it to work.

Is there any general advice people can give though for on making monsters still useable where a magic nerf will normally make them unstoppable or much harder than intended to be?

[Gildedragon]

Mainly fireball, teleport, fly or invisibility.

Instructions won't count for much once the players learned how the ritual works though. They'll be able to argue they've already done it once, why can't they repeat it? And is a good argument where if I were an outsider would side with the players on.

A complicated ceremony that takes over an hour to do, which (even with instructions) requires constant mental exertion (kn checks) to perform all the steps just so. Sure, just double the dc's or require autohypnosis checks to memorize and then remember each step.

[Gwazi Magnum]

A complicated ceremony that takes over an hour to do, which (even with instructions) requires constant mental exertion (kn checks) to perform all the steps just so. Sure, just double the dc's or require autohypnosis checks to memorize and then remember each step.

Good point

[Eugenides]

Is there any general advice people can give though for on making monsters still useable where a magic nerf will normally make them unstoppable or much harder than intended to be?

Nerf the magic the monster have as well.

Don't really worry about it until mid-high levels.

But mainly, the first one. Monsters with magic/SLA's/SUP's are gonna rip through a party with lessened magical ability.


Also keep in mind that certain classes with high Will saves suddenly have that aspect slightly lowered in usefulness.

[Gildedragon]

I like the melee classes a lot too.

Sadly no amount of class buffing can compete with all the extra utility a spell caster has with their spells.

Higher level monsters my plan is to pretty much avoid the really big ones or if they need a spell to kill find another way for it to work.

Is there any general advice people can give though for on making monsters still useable where a magic nerf will normally make them unstoppable or much harder than intended to be?

Give them mundane material vulnerabilities. if it has SLA's have something be noxious to it.

[Ashtagon]

I've heard good things about the Sovereign Stone sourcebooks wrt to low-magic worlds.

[Fyermind]

All DR / magic becomes a DR vs specific technique or material (or both)

Techniques take the form of a special knowledge check modified by BAB/2 against a DC 15+CR.

Allow non-versatile magic items to be crafted by non-magic users.

The limiting factor on magic becomes material components, location focuses, casting time, and time focuses, and knowledge of the ritual. You can control of these, but you should probably tell them in advance what the research DC is for knowledge of a ritual (I like 15+2*spell level modified by different ability scores depending on the school of the spell). When the research a ritual you can tell them how they would cast it.

The biggest difference is going to be lack of flight for players. Make sure every character has some ranged attack options. I might actually suggest making as many ranged combat options as possible and then granting them for free in some limited manner so that PCs all stay relevant when their enemies are dragons breathing fire on them from 100' up.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Nerf the magic the monster have as well.

Don't really worry about it until mid-high levels.

But mainly, the first one. Monsters with magic/SLA's/SUP's are gonna rip through a party with lessened magical ability.


Also keep in mind that certain classes with high Will saves suddenly have that aspect slightly lowered in usefulness.

True, reducing their spells would help.
My main concern was their their resistances but that is something I could easily house rule out.


Give them mundane material vulnerabilities. if it has SLA's have something be noxious to it.

Good idea, main materials that come to my mind are...

Bronze, Iron, Steel, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Cooper, Mithral & Adamintine


I've heard good things about the Sovereign Stone sourcebooks wrt to low-magic worlds.

I'll be sure to check that out too.

[Knaight]

So this has led to me ask the question. What other table top roleplays are there out there that still feel similliar to d&d but where magic isn't broken beyond belief.

Note: The closer it is to d&d 3.5 mechanics the better so the group doesn't complain too much about learning new mechanics if we do make a switch, but obviously if anything close to 3.5 doesn't work feel free to suggest something different.

Learning new mechanics is probably necessary, though you might be able to keep a d20 roll and add class based system. Bailing further, towards a system with new mechanics that nonetheless has a somewhat similar feel is probably a better idea. Burning Wheel could work - it's different in a fair few ways, but it is still a rules heavy system, still fairly influenced by similar source material, and honestly, I'd consider it a better game. REIGN could also work - again, the mechanics are quite different, but the core of REIGN is a brilliant system, and it can cover D&D style games, while also being better at branching beyond D&D's core strengths. Plus, the rules are much shorter.

[Gwazi Magnum]

All DR / magic becomes a DR vs specific technique or material (or both)

Techniques take the form of a special knowledge check modified by BAB/2 against a DC 15+CR.

Allow non-versatile magic items to be crafted by non-magic users.

The limiting factor on magic becomes material components, location focuses, casting time, and time focuses, and knowledge of the ritual. You can control of these, but you should probably tell them in advance what the research DC is for knowledge of a ritual (I like 15+2*spell level modified by different ability scores depending on the school of the spell). When the research a ritual you can tell them how they would cast it.

The biggest difference is going to be lack of flight for players. Make sure every character has some ranged attack options. I might actually suggest making as many ranged combat options as possible and then granting them for free in some limited manner so that PCs all stay relevant when their enemies are dragons breathing fire on them from 100' up.

By Techniques are you refering to stuff from Tome of Battle?

With the magic items I assume you mean stuff like wand of cure light wounds or something?

I'll defelently inform the players of what the rule changes are and they they work before hand.
I always make sure then only alterations I add are those the players like and agree too (unless if it's something the players only don't agree with because they're trying to abuse/break the game somehow).

I also hate doing stuff like throwing penalties at the players for the sake of challenge or anything. In my opinion a challenge should be a challenge because it is legit hard, not because the DM took your gear, made you sick, gave you an accuracy penalty etc.

As for ranged combat, best I can really think of is bows, a wand or something like a catapult.
Any other ideas that people can put forward?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Learning new mechanics is probably necessary, though you might be able to keep a d20 roll and add class based system. Bailing further, towards a system with new mechanics that nonetheless has a somewhat similar feel is probably a better idea. Burning Wheel could work - it's different in a fair few ways, but it is still a rules heavy system, still fairly influenced by similar source material, and honestly, I'd consider it a better game. REIGN could also work - again, the mechanics are quite different, but the core of REIGN is a brilliant system, and it can cover D&D style games, while also being better at branching beyond D&D's core strengths. Plus, the rules are much shorter.

I'm not necessarily looking for heavy rules, just similliar mechanics so my players don't feel alien to the game.

What is it about Burning Wheel though that makes it a better game?

Also what is REIGN like? It sounds like simplier d&d.

[The Dodr Dragon]

You could always go into the books and find the spells you find op and either nerf or ban those spells. I would suggest lowering spell's durations considerably or making spells like Commune be 1-3 questions ect.

If that is too much work(probably is) and the you or the players don't want to learn a new system. You could always just urge them away from casters because you obviously don't like their op-ness. Or just tell them not to be power-gaming-poop-heads.

[Dsurion]

I think Mongoose's 2nd Edition Conan RPG is perfect for exactly this. Well, the Magic is still pretty ridiculous, but everything that is, is either high level, or requires you to be the baby-eating villain into which most people are sticking swords.

[Gwazi Magnum]

You could always go into the books and find the spells you find op and either nerf or ban those spells. I would suggest lowering spell's durations considerably or making spells like Commune be 1-3 questions ect.

If that is too much work(probably is) and the you or the players don't want to learn a new system. You could always just urge them away from casters because you obviously don't like their op-ness. Or just tell them not to be power-gaming-poop-heads.

It's not a matter of too much work, I just finished college a week ago and work doesn't need me for until July so I got the time to do that. The issue is if I'd pretty much be nerfing and banning almost every spell.

In that sense it pretty much does become the low magic world.

Note this is a group that did agree to do a non-spell casters campaign for the challenge and to avoid the magic OPness so their not power gamers. The issue is the campaign this was put in place for was one where the DM is choosing to reinforce to such an extreme that even gnomes are banned...

Last thing I want is for another campaign they're in to also be low magic for them. I figure one campaign non-magic (at all) campaign is enough for them may it be due to their own agreement or DM enforcement.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think Mongoose's 2nd Edition Conan RPG is perfect for exactly this. Well, the Magic is still pretty ridiculous, but everything that is, is either high level, or requires you to be the baby-eating villain into which most people are sticking swords.

Though high level will come and that is where brokeness will come.

Plus, I don't put it past my group to become the baby-eating villians.

In a star wars roleplay they recently blew up a crowded hospital for only about 10% of the credits they would need to buy a cheap runned down freighter.

[nobodez]

I think using d20 Modern's spell system (the 0-5 plus rituals) works pretty well.

If you're going low-magic, though, you might want to increase the tech level a bit, perhaps early guns (flint locks). If you do introduce guns, double/triple the loading times (since they're way too fast in D&D and Pathefinder, three rounds is about right for a flintlock musket). The reason why is that, without magic to distract the smart people, they'll be more inclined to invent mechanical things. Not as much as in a no-magic world, but at least more than in a high-magic world.

The easiest would probably be to nix the T1/T2 classes and substitute rituals for the required high level spells (Wish, Gate, Etc.).

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think using d20 Modern's spell system (the 0-5 plus rituals) works pretty well.

If you're going low-magic, though, you might want to increase the tech level a bit, perhaps early guns (flint locks). If you do introduce guns, double/triple the loading times (since they're way too fast in D&D and Pathefinder, three rounds is about right for a flintlock musket). The reason why is that, without magic to distract the smart people, they'll be more inclined to invent mechanical things. Not as much as in a no-magic world, but at least more than in a high-magic world.

The easiest would probably be to nix the T1/T2 classes and substitute rituals for the required high level spells (Wish, Gate, Etc.).

You mean nerf guns so they aren't valid options in battle but are there for purpose of making people going 'wow'?

Looking over Legend a bit, I noticed the same issue I did with 4th. It's too combat oriented, not enough out of combat uses. So I'm thinking it's more likely I'll stick with a d&d rule set with magic limits like the T1/T2 thing and rituals.

I will take a look at the d20's system too though.

[Flickerdart]

You mean nerf guns so they aren't valid options in battle but are there for purpose of making people going 'wow'?

Looking over Legend a bit, I noticed the same issue I did with 4th. It's too combat oriented, not enough out of combat uses. So I'm thinking it's more likely I'll stick with a d&d rule set with magic limits like the T1/T2 thing and rituals.

I will take a look at the d20's system too though.
3.5 has guns (stats are in the DMG). They're already useless without needing to be nerfed further.

Legend has quite a bit going for it when it comes to non-combat stuff - there's a lot of non-spellcasting utility in the feats and Lesser items, the skills actually allow you to accomplish things, and the social combat and skill game systems make opposed skill challenges more interesting than just seeing who rolls higher.

[Ashtagon]

You mean nerf guns so they aren't valid options in battle but are there for purpose of making people going 'wow'?

Realistic flintlock guns should have a reload time of 5-10 rounds. Three rounds is there as a gesture to playability. Historically, it was not uncommon to carry a brace of pre-loaded pistols ready to fire in order to get around this problem. This imagery is, in its own way, quite cool.

Besides, rate of fire is something that needs to be contrasted with damage per shot before you call out nerf.


Looking over Legend a bit, I noticed the same issue I did with 4th. It's too combat oriented, not enough out of combat uses. So I'm thinking it's more likely I'll stick with a d&d rule set with magic limits like the T1/T2 thing and rituals.

I will take a look at the d20's system too though.

Suggestion:

* Paladins and rangers must play as non-caster variants.
* Ban the adept NPC class.
* Ban wizard, cleric, sorcerer, druid, and bard.
* Homebrew a "prestige cleric" and "prestige wizard" (and possibly also druid and sorcerer and bard) that are designed for early entry from the expert NPC class. The character's 4th class level should be in an actual caster class if this is built right, just as for d20 Modern. The spell progression should be slowed to suit your campaign needs, but should be probably be capped at 5th level for full casters.
* Allow d20 Modern style incantations.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I wouldn't say spells were useless out of combat in 4th edition. And I'm not even talking about Rituals, but things like Wizard Spells. Just typically most DMs I've seen (And WotC modules/WotC ran campaigns) didn't reward that playstyle, so most people didn't really learn to use it.

I suppose though, an early step to be quite clear about is to make a firm, early design choice. And that is "Just what CAN magic do?"

The reason Magic is OP in 3rd, and not in 4th, is because there was that conscious design decision that seems to have been made. In 3rd it was "Pssh, it's Magic! It can do anything!". This design choice is why you have singular spells that can negate entire challenges. The idea that it was supposed to be balanced against is that your limited per day power was going to trade off, so you'd solve 1/2 issues a day and otherwise be carried. Or the old ADnD balance point of being carried from level 1-4, start pulling your own weight at 5-10, then start ruling the world at 11+.

In 4th they made the design choice that magic is just another way of doing things. It's not "Pssh, it's Magic! It can do anything!" it was "Eh. Just another way to get the mortgage paid".

I mean, sticking to tier 3 and less casters isn't going to really change all that much. A bard is firmly in tier 3 territory. A bard who knows what they are doing however will take a carefully crafted campaign and just destroy it. It's not the tier thing so much as the Magic Bullet thing. Almost any spellcaster in the game as is has magic bullets to just negate or bypass challenges. I mean the ones you listed as problems for yourself, Fireball, Fly, Teleport, Invisibility, all available to quite low tier casters.

Banning schools might be a better thing, depending on your choice. But if you're banning schools to keep people away from I Win buttons you'll probably be left with nothing but Evocation, maybe Abjuration. Even the much maligned Enchantment school can be cruise control to victory if your DM isn't just "Noping" you.

Culling the list to remove those spells would be a time consuming, pain in the butt project. So I wouldn't quite suggest it. Going back to ADnD roots, remove the concentration skill, spells slow your initiative (thus instead of just a standard action to cast a spell you start casting it on your initiative count, and it takes 5 to cast, thus if you had a 12 for Initiative, you start casting on 12, finish casting on 7), you get hit, you lose it, might be something.

[Actana]

I know it might not be exactly what you're asking, but if you're looking for a lower magic setting, there's a 3.5 variant called Iron Heroes which focuses solely on martial characters, and provides a lot of variety for them. There is a spellcasting class too, but it's fairly limited overall and not as broken as 3.5's casters (though I have no personal experience with the Iron Heroes caster).

And Legend gets another vote from me. I haven't played it yet, but it does appear to handle things very neatly.

[JaronK]

E6 works somewhat well too, just because at lower levels the differences aren't as severe.

JaronK

[Gildedragon]

* Paladins and rangers must play as non-caster variants.
* Homebrew a "prestige cleric" and "prestige wizard" (and possibly also druid and sorcerer and bard) that are designed for early entry from the expert NPC class. The character's 4th class level should be in an actual caster class if this is built right, just as for d20 Modern. The spell progression should be slowed to suit your campaign needs, but should be probably be capped at 5th level for full casters.

or the prestige variants with base reduced casters (or remove spells above certain level but allow higher level slots to be used for metamagic-ed up versions, or broken down into lower level slots)

[Fable Wright]

E6 works somewhat well too, just because at lower levels the differences aren't as severe.

No, Wizards are still OP. Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, and so on are still available and never go down in power. One spell still ends the encounter. Tier 3/4 E6, however, is excellent at balancing melee and magic and makes for an interesting world, especially when you have the concept of ancient magic that people can't use anymore added into the system. (4th+ level spells, or 5th+ if you let Versatile Spellcaster grant higher spell access for Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage.) I'm a big advocate of this variant.

If you want to go from levels 1-20, Legend is probably the best way to go, but I agree with your point about it being too gamist: The rules are meant to be streamlined and easy to use, and kept combat applicable so that you don't have the problem of people specializing in non-combat stuff and being underpowered. While they do have good ways of handling non-combat encounters, like investigation and social interaction, the problem is that magic is mostly limited to combat stuff. The problem, of course, is that when you have magic in non-combat stuff, magic tends to win at that. Legend does remedy this to a degree with their items: You get items like Siege Walls, Menhir Circles, Eye of Wrath, Sweet Springs, Ancient Reliquary, Map of the Master Strategist and so on. If you want more versatile magic available to people, you could allow for rituals that allow people to make those magic items. This makes sense, to a degree: the magic that users want on hand all the time is the magic that gets them out of scrapes, and the magic they don't know they can get access to in downtime. However, being a new system waiting for a 1.0 release, there aren't very many of those options.

However, the feel in combat is very similar to a streamlined 3.5e. Pick any class/build/race/monster from 3.5, and Legend can simulate it reasonably well. Except for Bards. There are no tracks that add static bonuses to allies for when you sing. Yet.

[WhatBigTeeth]

You might read up on FantasyCraft. It shares quite a bit with D&D 3e (level and class-based d20 fantasy game with complex character-building).

I've only read the system, but it looks like it's reined casters in from several angles (far more limited casting/day, sizable failure chance on spells and almost all the spell effects are weaker and leveled higher than any 3e equivalents), and the added options for noncasters look like they might make it more interesting to play a fighter-type.

There are a couple elements that make me tentative to say fighter-types' problems were solved until I see the game in play, but the system's definitely worth a look.

[Flickerdart]

Besides, rate of fire is something that needs to be contrasted with damage per shot before you call out nerf.
Base damage dice are irrelevant past the lowest of levels because of how damage scales, and especially for ranged combat a high rate of fire is vital because it's tricky to get very many bonuses. Even if you match the dice (say, a crossbow that you can fire and reload in one round does 1d6, so a pistol you can reload and fire in five rounds does 5d6) all you're doing is adding even more gratuitous rocket tag to low levels, and making the guns still useless at high levels, when adding a measly +5 damage to each shot puts the gun massively behind. Oh, and don't forget weapons that can be used to take iterative attacks. How is your five round reload supposed to match up to four or five shots from a bow per round? By dealing 20 times the damage?

[JusticeZero]

First was E6 which my group is interested in playing, but for the only solution to be limited at level 6 seems kind of rough.That's because you're going from the system you know to the system you don't know. You don't stop at 6, the world does. That said, E6 isn't low magic; it might even be a higher magic setting than others, in terms of quantity. Its main virtue isn't based on making everyone low powered but in making the worldbuilding work more sensibly.

[Gwazi Magnum]

3.5 has guns (stats are in the DMG). They're already useless without needing to be nerfed further.

Legend has quite a bit going for it when it comes to non-combat stuff - there's a lot of non-spellcasting utility in the feats and Lesser items, the skills actually allow you to accomplish things, and the social combat and skill game systems make opposed skill challenges more interesting than just seeing who rolls higher.

I'm aware they are there, infact there was a campaign where I considered using them (the DM approved them) but chose not to because the reload time already made it inferior to a bow and arrow.

I'll give legend another look though.


Realistic flintlock guns should have a reload time of 5-10 rounds. Three rounds is there as a gesture to playability. Historically, it was not uncommon to carry a brace of pre-loaded pistols ready to fire in order to get around this problem. This imagery is, in its own way, quite cool.

Besides, rate of fire is something that needs to be contrasted with damage per shot before you call out nerf.



Suggestion:

* Paladins and rangers must play as non-caster variants.
* Ban the adept NPC class.
* Ban wizard, cleric, sorcerer, druid, and bard.
* Homebrew a "prestige cleric" and "prestige wizard" (and possibly also druid and sorcerer and bard) that are designed for early entry from the expert NPC class. The character's 4th class level should be in an actual caster class if this is built right, just as for d20 Modern. The spell progression should be slowed to suit your campaign needs, but should be probably be capped at 5th level for full casters.
* Allow d20 Modern style incantations.

Why only from expert?

[nobodez]

Base damage dice are irrelevant past the lowest of levels because of how damage scales, and especially for ranged combat a high rate of fire is vital because it's tricky to get very many bonuses. Even if you match the dice (say, a crossbow that you can fire and reload in one round does 1d6, so a pistol you can reload and fire in five rounds does 5d6) all you're doing is adding even more gratuitous rocket tag to low levels, and making the guns still useless at high levels, when adding a measly +5 damage to each shot puts the gun massively behind. Oh, and don't forget weapons that can be used to take iterative attacks. How is your five round reload supposed to match up to four or five shots from a bow per round? By dealing 20 times the damage?

If you want faster reloads, than you might as well go with cartridge based firearms, and then you're practically playing d20 Modern anyway.

The advantage that firearms had (and still have) over bows is that, IRL, they didn't require nearly as much training, nor as much strength, to use properly. While they were slow to reload, especially compared to bows (though comparable to crossbows, which, if realistic, should also have a multi-round reload time) they could be used by practically anyone.

[Ashtagon]

Why only from expert?

Like any prestige class, there's normally more than one route into it. What I meant was that the expert base/NPC class should be the "natural" route into a "prestige wizard" (or Prc cleric/bard/whatever). I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't enter such classes in other ways.

[Flickerdart]

If you want faster reloads, than you might as well go with cartridge based firearms, and then you're practically playing d20 Modern anyway.

The advantage that firearms had (and still have) over bows is that, IRL, they didn't require nearly as much training, nor as much strength, to use properly. While they were slow to reload, especially compared to bows (though comparable to crossbows, which, if realistic, should also have a multi-round reload time) they could be used by practically anyone.
I'm aware. However, the scale you're talking about (training for years with a bow vs training for weeks with a crossbow/firearm and then being deployed in formations with a hundred other chumps) is completely irrelevant to the scale at which D&D operates (a handful of inhumanly tough and skilled warriors). Multi-round reload weapons have no place in that context, and being easier to use is not a relevant factor because bows are already trivial to use (martial weapon proficiency, done) and are vastly superior in every respect.

[zlefin]

I'd say 3.5 can easily be modified; just ban all tier 1-2 casters gets rid of half the spellcasting problem; add in buffs for skills, and some tighter controls on skill bonuses to keep level appropriateness better. A various few bonuses for the lower tier classes if you want to fix their tier levels.
The problem isn't making 3.5 less about magic, it's that no standard fix has widespread acceptance.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Crap, sorry guys.

I read over the 1st page forgot there were more replys on page two. :/


Well, I wouldn't say spells were useless out of combat in 4th edition. And I'm not even talking about Rituals, but things like Wizard Spells. Just typically most DMs I've seen (And WotC modules/WotC ran campaigns) didn't reward that playstyle, so most people didn't really learn to use it.

I suppose though, an early step to be quite clear about is to make a firm, early design choice. And that is "Just what CAN magic do?"

The reason Magic is OP in 3rd, and not in 4th, is because there was that conscious design decision that seems to have been made. In 3rd it was "Pssh, it's Magic! It can do anything!". This design choice is why you have singular spells that can negate entire challenges. The idea that it was supposed to be balanced against is that your limited per day power was going to trade off, so you'd solve 1/2 issues a day and otherwise be carried. Or the old ADnD balance point of being carried from level 1-4, start pulling your own weight at 5-10, then start ruling the world at 11+.

In 4th they made the design choice that magic is just another way of doing things. It's not "Pssh, it's Magic! It can do anything!" it was "Eh. Just another way to get the mortgage paid".

I mean, sticking to tier 3 and less casters isn't going to really change all that much. A bard is firmly in tier 3 territory. A bard who knows what they are doing however will take a carefully crafted campaign and just destroy it. It's not the tier thing so much as the Magic Bullet thing. Almost any spellcaster in the game as is has magic bullets to just negate or bypass challenges. I mean the ones you listed as problems for yourself, Fireball, Fly, Teleport, Invisibility, all available to quite low tier casters.

Banning schools might be a better thing, depending on your choice. But if you're banning schools to keep people away from I Win buttons you'll probably be left with nothing but Evocation, maybe Abjuration. Even the much maligned Enchantment school can be cruise control to victory if your DM isn't just "Noping" you.

Culling the list to remove those spells would be a time consuming, pain in the butt project. So I wouldn't quite suggest it. Going back to ADnD roots, remove the concentration skill, spells slow your initiative (thus instead of just a standard action to cast a spell you start casting it on your initiative count, and it takes 5 to cast, thus if you had a 12 for Initiative, you start casting on 12, finish casting on 7), you get hit, you lose it, might be something.

The Initiative rule sounds nice, that might be something I end up implementing.

Not sure I like any of WotC approaches to it yet though...

3.5: Magic does everything!
4th: It's for combat, you don't have use magic other than killing people... right?
AD&D: You suck... ok you're better... oh Hello Jesus

As for banning schools... That honestly sounds more like completely butchering the magic system,
Though to be honest, I can't say I homemade magic system for E6 is much different.

It just took specific spells and allowed only though. Granted this was more for flavour of the world, not for balance reasons but still.


I know it might not be exactly what you're asking, but if you're looking for a lower magic setting, there's a 3.5 variant called Iron Heroes which focuses solely on martial characters, and provides a lot of variety for them. There is a spellcasting class too, but it's fairly limited overall and not as broken as 3.5's casters (though I have no personal experience with the Iron Heroes caster).

And Legend gets another vote from me. I haven't played it yet, but it does appear to handle things very neatly.

Where can I find this variant? Is it a book of is it's own or can I find it inside another manual?


No, Wizards are still OP. Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, and so on are still available and never go down in power. One spell still ends the encounter. Tier 3/4 E6, however, is excellent at balancing melee and magic and makes for an interesting world, especially when you have the concept of ancient magic that people can't use anymore added into the system. (4th+ level spells, or 5th+ if you let Versatile Spellcaster grant higher spell access for Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage.) I'm a big advocate of this variant.

If you want to go from levels 1-20, Legend is probably the best way to go, but I agree with your point about it being too gamist: The rules are meant to be streamlined and easy to use, and kept combat applicable so that you don't have the problem of people specializing in non-combat stuff and being underpowered. While they do have good ways of handling non-combat encounters, like investigation and social interaction, the problem is that magic is mostly limited to combat stuff. The problem, of course, is that when you have magic in non-combat stuff, magic tends to win at that. Legend does remedy this to a degree with their items: You get items like Siege Walls, Menhir Circles, Eye of Wrath, Sweet Springs, Ancient Reliquary, Map of the Master Strategist and so on. If you want more versatile magic available to people, you could allow for rituals that allow people to make those magic items. This makes sense, to a degree: the magic that users want on hand all the time is the magic that gets them out of scrapes, and the magic they don't know they can get access to in downtime. However, being a new system waiting for a 1.0 release, there aren't very many of those options.

However, the feel in combat is very similar to a streamlined 3.5e. Pick any class/build/race/monster from 3.5, and Legend can simulate it reasonably well. Except for Bards. There are no tracks that add static bonuses to allies for when you sing. Yet.

The main thing I liked about Legend was that tracks let you multiclass without other class ideas being slowed down. It was kind of like Gestalt, and I'm a big fan of gestalt because your character as trapped by their classes such as "You are a Fighter, you do ______ and can't do ______" where the real way to break out of that normally is multiclassing that ends up making your character too weak.


You might read up on FantasyCraft. It shares quite a bit with D&D 3e (level and class-based d20 fantasy game with complex character-building).

I've only read the system, but it looks like it's reined casters in from several angles (far more limited casting/day, sizable failure chance on spells and almost all the spell effects are weaker and leveled higher than any 3e equivalents), and the added options for noncasters look like they might make it more interesting to play a fighter-type.

There are a couple elements that make me tentative to say fighter-types' problems were solved until I see the game in play, but the system's definitely worth a look.

I'll give a look, thanks :)


Base damage dice are irrelevant past the lowest of levels because of how damage scales, and especially for ranged combat a high rate of fire is vital because it's tricky to get very many bonuses. Even if you match the dice (say, a crossbow that you can fire and reload in one round does 1d6, so a pistol you can reload and fire in five rounds does 5d6) all you're doing is adding even more gratuitous rocket tag to low levels, and making the guns still useless at high levels, when adding a measly +5 damage to each shot puts the gun massively behind. Oh, and don't forget weapons that can be used to take iterative attacks. How is your five round reload supposed to match up to four or five shots from a bow per round? By dealing 20 times the damage?

Personally if I allowed such weapons in a campaign I run I'd run it like fable where they're don't really need that much reloading.

I mean, you've got wizards and **** all over, why can't you have guns that don't take 5 minutes to reload?


That's because you're going from the system you know to the system you don't know. You don't stop at 6, the world does. That said, E6 isn't low magic; it might even be a higher magic setting than others, in terms of quantity. Its main virtue isn't based on making everyone low powered but in making the worldbuilding work more sensibly.

The characters still stop as level 6, they just gain a new feat every 5000 experience.


Like any prestige class, there's normally more than one route into it. What I meant was that the expert base/NPC class should be the "natural" route into a "prestige wizard" (or Prc cleric/bard/whatever). I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't enter such classes in other ways.

So what would the requirements be?

Skill ranks? There's not really anything the expert has outside of skills and that's something Rogues can easily cover too.

[nobodez]

I'm aware. However, the scale you're talking about (training for years with a bow vs training for weeks with a crossbow/firearm and then being deployed in formations with a hundred other chumps) is completely irrelevant to the scale at which D&D operates (a handful of inhumanly tough and skilled warriors). Multi-round reload weapons have no place in that context, and being easier to use is not a relevant factor because bows are already trivial to use (martial weapon proficiency, done) and are vastly superior in every respect.

You're right. I'm just a sucker for verisimilitude.

From an IRL standpoint, guns were superior from the flintlock on (aside from niche uses such as hunting or other stealthy pursuits).

From a game standpoint, until you get to cartridge based firearms with more than 20 rounds in a magazine and semiautomatic fire, bows are better.

[Draz74]

Legend is a great system.

But I'm not sure it's the right answer for the OP, who expressed a desire for the high-tier magical classes getting nerfed down to the same level as everyone else. Legend is closer to bringing the nonmagical classes up in power to match the casters. (It does both, but the overall power level comes out higher than 3e unless 3e is being played by optimizers who are using Tier 1-2 classes.)

I'd throw in one of my periodic shameless plugs for my own in-development system, but I'm not sure it's what the OP is looking for either, since it's based on E8 (similar to E6) from its foundation.

A system that "feels like 3e, but more balanced" has been the holy grail that a LOT of homebrewers and houserulers and publishers have been seeking for years. There has definitely been no consensus of a ruleset that manages this to everyone's satisfaction. Good luck finding one that works for you!

(P.S.: Legend also doesn't "feel" much like 3e, to me, because after the first 3 levels or so it is built to model a crazy rule-of-cool based setting, rather than a more verisimilar setting. But again, it's an awesomely fun system and well worth checking out for a certain style of game.)

[zlefin]

so, is there a clear and thorough specification of all the requirements you want the system to have? Just homebrewing a modification to 3.5 that fits those would be simpler than learning a whole new system.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Legend is a great system.

But I'm not sure it's the right answer for the OP, who expressed a desire for the high-tier magical classes getting nerfed down to the same level as everyone else. Legend is closer to bringing the nonmagical classes up in power to match the casters. (It does both, but the overall power level comes out higher than 3e unless 3e is being played by optimizers who are using Tier 1-2 classes.)

I'd throw in one of my periodic shameless plugs for my own in-development system, but I'm not sure it's what the OP is looking for either, since it's based on E8 (similar to E6) from its foundation.

A system that "feels like 3e, but more balanced" has been the holy grail that a LOT of homebrewers and houserulers and publishers have been seeking for years. There has definitely been no consensus of a ruleset that manages this to everyone's satisfaction. Good luck finding one that works for you!

(P.S.: Legend also doesn't "feel" much like 3e, to me, because after the first 3 levels or so it is built to model a crazy rule-of-cool based setting, rather than a more verisimilar setting. But again, it's an awesomely fun system and well worth checking out for a certain style of game.)

It's not that I desire to weaken the spell casters.

I would love to just buff the martial classes and have that be the fix.

But attempt after attempt taught me that no amount of melee buffing will fix it.
Sure they may be on par combat wise, but once you get out of combat or introduce any kind of imagination among the players magic will win over again.

I'm half tempted to make a gestalt like game where one class must be martial and the other be magical... but that kind of kills it for players and concepts who didn't want to be martial or didn't want to be magical. And my biggest goal has always been to keep players happy and allow them to have the concepts they want.

[Gwazi Magnum]

so, is there a clear and thorough specification of all the requirements you want the system to have? Just homebrewing a modification to 3.5 that fits those would be simpler than learning a whole new system.

If I knew the exact requirements I'd just homebrew them in.

To try to get more specific however, I'm looking for a system where...

1) Magic can still be used in combat and out of combat creatively
2) Magic can be used in such a way without being broken and overshadowing martial classes
3) Martial classes are now strong and capable enough to compete with magic users in combat (at all levels, not just low levels) without feeling like they're the weaker half
4) Perhaps the most challenging, out of combat the martial classes have just as many ways to handle situations and challenges as the spell casters do.

[zlefin]

just as many may be difficult; but providing reasonable options should be feasible; but you HAVE to ban tier 1-2 casters; well, not have to, but buffing martial types up to tier 1-2 would likely grate against some players sense of reality.
aiming everything for tier 3, or at least tier 3-4 should be quite feasible; and leaves balance in a good place.

are those terms satisfactory? if so something can be generated readily enough;

[Gwazi Magnum]

I probably will end up banning the tier 1-2 classes.

Tricky though on how to Buff the tier 4-5 classes though.

I know with Fighter I gave them more skill points, diplomacy as a class skill and some passive bonuses to AC.

Monk I handed them weapon finesse and shadow blade for free to reduce MAD. As well as boosting their BAB to high and allowing you to walk up walls and on water.

[MirddinEmris]

I'll second Fantasy Craft here. You'll have to learn new stuff obviously, but it'll be worth it - it's a d20 game, so some things will be familiar and get your players same feelings as dnd, but it's much more interesting, balanced and flexible. Spellcasters here doesn't overwhelm mundanes by tons of options, melee is much more interesting than charge-hit-damage-hit-damage, skills are relevant ( try to be a stupid fighter here without gimping yourself, i dare you :) ) and feats are really good and make a difference ( no such things like weapon focus or dodge, or skill focus ), character creation are much more flexible and you don't have to bare your op-fu JUST to make character to do things you want him to do, there are narrative control options for players and the most important part - the system is modular, you can take almost any part out and it still will be balanced AND interesting. Wanna play high fantasy with lots of magic, strange races and gods who grant power to their followers? Here you go. Feel more like Lord of The Rings or Song of Ice and Fire? You are good to go - your group of human soldiers feel more like Five Deadly Venoms, than a Clone Wars). The list can go on and on...

On the downside - there isn't much of a supplements: Core book, Adventure Companion (most of it is a description of a three settings for your FC games, but a very interesting and beautiful ones), couple of Call To Arms ( class + one or two feat trees ) and there will be Spellbound supplement soon, bu that's it. On the other hand it quality over quantity, so when you buy a book you wouldn't end up with tons of options with a couple of actually useful ones that you care about. And there are very informative and thorough guidelines at their website for creating classes and origin options if you feel that official stuff isn't enough for you ( there are tons of a fan made stuff already ).

It's a good stuff))

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'll second Fantasy Craft here. You'll have to learn new stuff obviously, but it'll be worth it - it's a d20 game, so some things will be familiar and get your players same feelings as dnd, but it's much more interesting, balanced and flexible. Spellcasters here doesn't overwhelm mundanes by tons of options, melee is much more interesting than charge-hit-damage-hit-damage, skills are relevant ( try to be a stupid fighter here without gimping yourself, i dare you :) ) and feats are really good and make a difference ( no such things like weapon focus or dodge, or skill focus ), character creation are much more flexible and you don't have to bare your op-fu JUST to make character to do things you want him to do, there are narrative control options for players and the most important part - the system is modular, you can take almost any part out and it still will be balanced AND interesting. Wanna play high fantasy with lots of magic, strange races and gods who grant power to their followers? Here you go. Feel more like Lord of The Rings or Song of Ice and Fire? You are good to go - your group of human soldiers feel more like Five Deadly Venoms, than a Clone Wars). The list can go on and on...

On the downside - there isn't much of a supplements: Core book, Adventure Companion (most of it is a description of a three settings for your FC games, but a very interesting and beautiful ones), couple of Call To Arms ( class + one or two feat trees ) and there will be Spellbound supplement soon, bu that's it. On the other hand it quality over quantity, so when you buy a book you wouldn't end up with tons of options with a couple of actually useful ones that you care about. And there are very informative and thorough guidelines at their website for creating classes and origin options if you feel that official stuff isn't enough for you ( there are tons of a fan made stuff already ).

It's a good stuff))

I tried looking for it and sadly there is no pdf download.

Meaning I'd have to go out and buy it and I don't believe anything nearby is selling it.

Plus one thing I hate to do is buy books only to find it either doesn't work that way I hoped or the group veto's it.

[zlefin]

buffing tier 4-5s isnt' that hard; and revamping the skill system to make skills more powerful a la legend would fix a lot of the issues; by making skills truly powerful at high levels (this also necessitates keeping a closer eye on skill bonuses of course, and reducing the values on some of them).

the main thing is to ask your group whether they'd accept martial characters doing awesome things like jumping 50 feet in the air or more because they're awesome.

[Flickerdart]

You could go a long way towards making skills useful by simply reducing the DCs provided in the ELH.

[Gwazi Magnum]

buffing tier 4-5s isnt' that hard; and revamping the skill system to make skills more powerful a la legend would fix a lot of the issues; by making skills truly powerful at high levels (this also necessitates keeping a closer eye on skill bonuses of course, and reducing the values on some of them).

the main thing is to ask your group whether they'd accept martial characters doing awesome things like jumping 50 feet in the air or more because they're awesome.


You could go a long way towards making skills useful by simply reducing the DCs provided in the ELH.

Spellcasters still have skills too, wouldn't this be more of a buff all around than a martial only buff?

[zlefin]

you'd also give more skill points to the martial classes; and an all around-ish buff is still going to only raise the tier of lower tier classes for the most part; it's certainly a lot more likely to boost the tier of a low tier class than a higher tier one.
you'd also probably give some other buffs to the low tier classes as well; but the skill one should cover the flexibility issue well enough.

[Actana]

Where can I find this variant? Is it a book of is it's own or can I find it inside another manual?

It's a book of its own. It's got two expansion books, Mastering Iron Heroes and a Player's Companion, plus a bestiary, which provide more options and stuff. I'm not sure if it's in print anymore, but the pdfs should be on sale online, and shouldn't cost too much, I think. Be sure you're getting the revised edition, by the way.

[Gwazi Magnum]

you'd also give more skill points to the martial classes; and an all around-ish buff is still going to only raise the tier of lower tier classes for the most part; it's certainly a lot more likely to boost the tier of a low tier class than a higher tier one.
you'd also probably give some other buffs to the low tier classes as well; but the skill one should cover the flexibility issue well enough.

Is basically what your suggesting is make skills more powerful so players can invest more points in other skills?

The main flexibility restrictions I found with classes was with Hit Dice, BAB, class skills or skill points per level.

Hit Dice being if it was low you're normally left to hide

BAB being if it was low you can't take part in any grand melee or anything

Class Skills: This is the most restricting one, apparently no fighter can be a master diplomat, or no wizard can be really good at hiding. Apparently it's beyond the laws of the universe for such a thing to happen...

Skill Points: Second worst, it pretty much says, Rogues you go and do everything, Fighters... swing your sword and stay in your place.


It's a book of its own. It's got two expansion books, Mastering Iron Heroes and a Player's Companion, plus a bestiary, which provide more options and stuff. I'm not sure if it's in print anymore, but the pdfs should be on sale online, and shouldn't cost too much, I think. Be sure you're getting the revised edition, by the way.

D&D 3.5 pdfs have been free for a long time now :P

[Flickerdart]

Spellcasters still have skills too, wouldn't this be more of a buff all around than a martial only buff?
Spellcasters don't need skills. Let's take a look at what the ELH actually provides.

Appraise: Detect Magic. Casters can do this from level 1 with a spell.
Balance: You don't need balance if you're flying (level 5).
Bluff: Suggestion, Undetectable Alignment, a limited effect comparable to one aspect of Nondetection. 3rd level effects, all.
Climb: See flying, above.
Concentration: You can leave this one where it is, it doesn't matter.
Craft: This is already part of the base crafting rules.
Craft (Alchemy): Making actually useful alchemical items can only benefit non-casters. Casters just use fireball if they really want to deal area damage.
Decipher Script: Read Magic, 1st level effect.
Diplomacy: Charm Person, 1st level effect. I mean, you could argue that Fanatic is as good as Dominate, so 9th.
Disable Device: Who cares about traps when you turn ethereal and pass through them, or blow them up?
Disguise: Alter Self has you covered. 3rd level effect.
Escape Artist: I'm sorry, I didn't see you trying to squeeze through that tiny hole because I just Dimension Door wherever I please. 7th level.
Forgery: Nobody cares about Forgery.
Gather Information: Hello, the entire school of divination!
Handle Animal: Ok, this is one (along with Diplomacy) that can get a little broken, but it's also broken even before messing with the DCs.
Heal: Wow, an hour of effort to heal someone 3 HP per level, once a day. Even the cure spells are better than that, and they stink.
Hide: Invisibility, 3rd level effect.
Listen: Actually a unique thing, but how often to auditory illusions really come up?
Open Lock: Knock, 3rd level effect.
Perform: Same as Diplomacy.
Ride: If a caster is riding on a mount, it's because they didn't feel like turning into a dragon that day.
Search: An even crappier version of detect magic.
Sense Motive: Detect Alignment and Detect Thoughts. Welcome to 3rd level.
Spellcraft: Identify, 1st level effect.
Spot: See Invisible, 5th level effect.
Survival: This becomes hilariously useless as soon as teleportation comes into play, but sucks even before that with spells like Create Food and Water.
Swim: Swim up a waterfall? Try flying.
Tumble: Feather Fall does all of this except one thing, which Jump (the spell) handles. 1st level effects.
Use Rope: Wow, animate rope. Say hello to level 1.

Is letting casters access a bunch of low-level spell effects really going to make a difference? What about letting mundanes access them?

[MirddinEmris]

I had a fun times playing Iron Heroes, though it's a system for playing melee mundane mostly (don't play Arcanist, it's hard and unforgiving and STILL can get broken easily). There are many parts that clearly aren't finished, but there are also many interesting ideas and if playing tough, hard man, who don't give a...nything to anybody is your thing, than try it)

"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death."

[Gwazi Magnum]

Spellcasters don't need skills. Let's take a look at what the ELH actually provides.

Appraise: Detect Magic. Casters can do this from level 1 with a spell.
Balance: You don't need balance if you're flying (level 5).
Bluff: Suggestion, Undetectable Alignment, a limited effect comparable to one aspect of Nondetection. 3rd level effects, all.
Climb: See flying, above.
Concentration: You can leave this one where it is, it doesn't matter.
Craft: This is already part of the base crafting rules.
Craft (Alchemy): Making actually useful alchemical items can only benefit non-casters. Casters just use fireball if they really want to deal area damage.
Decipher Script: Read Magic, 1st level effect.
Diplomacy: Charm Person, 1st level effect. I mean, you could argue that Fanatic is as good as Dominate, so 9th.
Disable Device: Who cares about traps when you turn ethereal and pass through them, or blow them up?
Disguise: Alter Self has you covered. 3rd level effect.
Escape Artist: I'm sorry, I didn't see you trying to squeeze through that tiny hole because I just Dimension Door wherever I please. 7th level.
Forgery: Nobody cares about Forgery.
Gather Information: Hello, the entire school of divination!
Handle Animal: Ok, this is one (along with Diplomacy) that can get a little broken, but it's also broken even before messing with the DCs.
Heal: Wow, an hour of effort to heal someone 3 HP per level, once a day. Even the cure spells are better than that, and they stink.
Hide: Invisibility, 3rd level effect.
Listen: Actually a unique thing, but how often to auditory illusions really come up?
Open Lock: Knock, 3rd level effect.
Perform: Same as Diplomacy.
Ride: If a caster is riding on a mount, it's because they didn't feel like turning into a dragon that day.
Search: An even crappier version of detect magic.
Sense Motive: Detect Alignment and Detect Thoughts. Welcome to 3rd level.
Spellcraft: Identify, 1st level effect.
Spot: See Invisible, 5th level effect.
Survival: This becomes hilariously useless as soon as teleportation comes into play, but sucks even before that with spells like Create Food and Water.
Swim: Swim up a waterfall? Try flying.
Tumble: Feather Fall does all of this except one thing, which Jump (the spell) handles. 1st level effects.
Use Rope: Wow, animate rope. Say hello to level 1.

Is letting casters access a bunch of low-level spell effects really going to make a difference? What about letting mundanes access them?

Point taken.

Though Listen and Spot do have uses beyond seeing past spells.
But essentially what's also being suggested her is giving them almost maximized skills around levels 3-5.



I had a fun times playing Iron Heroes, though it's a system for playing melee mundane mostly (don't play Arcanist, it's hard and unforgiving and STILL can get broken easily). There are many parts that clearly aren't finished, but there are also many interesting ideas and if playing tough, hard man, who don't give a...nything to anybody is your thing, than try it)

"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death."

So how exactly does it help ramp up the martial characters?

[zlefin]

Is basically what your suggesting is make skills more powerful so players can invest more points in other skills?

The main flexibility restrictions I found with classes was with Hit Dice, BAB, class skills or skill points per level.

Hit Dice being if it was low you're normally left to hide

BAB being if it was low you can't take part in any grand melee or anything

Class Skills: This is the most restricting one, apparently no fighter can be a master diplomat, or no wizard can be really good at hiding. Apparently it's beyond the laws of the universe for such a thing to happen...

Skill Points: Second worst, it pretty much says, Rogues you go and do everything, Fighters... swing your sword and stay in your place.



D&D 3.5 pdfs have been free for a long time now :P

no, making skills more powerful means skills are actually powerful, and aren't completely outpowered by spells; which means the skill points keep doing things even at higher levels.
how thoroughly have you studied balance and tier lists and such?

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a system out there to do spellcasters like ToB classes. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224508) Use that for magic, and ToB for melee?

Alternately, if we're throwing out alternate systems, Mutants and Masterminds (http://www.d20herosrd.com/) works well for most things. Although it's really hard to capture the numerical buffs in 3.5, all characters are built the same way and use the same rules-- you really wind up with as much or as little variation and out-of-combat stuff as you want to have. People will say it requires a lot of DM oversight to prevent broken characters, but that's true for a lot of systems, and you have to work to get abilities as broken as standard D&D spells. I've been working on converting D&D material over (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503).

[Gwazi Magnum]

no, making skills more powerful means skills are actually powerful, and aren't completely outpowered by spells; which means the skill points keep doing things even at higher levels.
how thoroughly have you studied balance and tier lists and such?

My knowledge in the tier list is basic.

My concern here though with skills is that I've seen people pull off amazing feats with their skills already. Granted some like Jump could use a boost, but over all I found players can capitalize on skills to terrifying extremes already.

[zlefin]

that depends on the skill; a few skills are known to be problems and require adjustments, but a great many are rather weak and don't get that powerful even at higher levels.
amazing feats other than those on the known problem skills (like diplomacy) would be a result of dm interpretation rather than the skills listed abilities.
and what are these amazing feats and how do they compare to the effect of spells?
there're also effects that result from some of the skill boosting methods going far outside the baseline numbers.

[Gwazi Magnum]

There's a system out there to do spellcasters like ToB classes. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224508) Use that for magic, and ToB for melee?

Alternately, if we're throwing out alternate systems, Mutants and Masterminds (http://www.d20herosrd.com/) works well for most things. Although it's really hard to capture the numerical buffs in 3.5, all characters are built the same way and use the same rules-- you really wind up with as much or as little variation and out-of-combat stuff as you want to have. People will say it requires a lot of DM oversight to prevent broken characters, but that's true for a lot of systems, and you have to work to get abilities as broken as standard D&D spells. I've been working on converting D&D material over (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503).

Interesting, though from the parts I managed to skim through (if I read the whole thing now no one here will be getting replied too it will take so long), it looks like magic is restricted to just combat.

Which although is an easy way to balance it, expecially for a dungeon crawl group (which mine is not, they despise combat claiming it too slow, even though it's been highlighted to them by outside DMs even that it's because they never prepare anything) it doesn't allow magic to be used much at all outside combat.

I'd rather whatever balance is used still gives spell casters some roleplay opportunities with magic, I don't want to just strip that away from them.

[Gwazi Magnum]

that depends on the skill; a few skills are known to be problems and require adjustments, but a great many are rather weak and don't get that powerful even at higher levels.
amazing feats other than those on the known problem skills (like diplomacy) would be a result of dm interpretation rather than the skills listed abilities.
and what are these amazing feats and how do they compare to the effect of spells?
there're also effects that result from some of the skill boosting methods going far outside the baseline numbers.

Listen and Spot as allowed people to hear pretty much every little thing that can happen.

But honestly, outside of that really I'm thinking in hindsight it probably was the DM's interpretation.

But part of the reason I'm looking to balance magic isn't just cause they're more powerful than martial, but they're so powerful they can solve many challenges and encounters with a simple spell.

And I'm worried Martial classes may be just as broken if when they are buffed it is with the intention of matching them with magic classes rather than making them more viable.

In practice I'd rather ramp up the Martial classes, ramp down the magical classes and have them meet somewhere in the middle.

[Razanir]

Legend is a great system.

But I'm not sure it's the right answer for the OP, who expressed a desire for the high-tier magical classes getting nerfed down to the same level as everyone else. Legend is closer to bringing the nonmagical classes up in power to match the casters. (It does both, but the overall power level comes out higher than 3e unless 3e is being played by optimizers who are using Tier 1-2 classes.)

Overall, I'd say it nerfs casters SLIGHTLY, while buffing melee classes. As in melee range and speed increase as you level up. Up to 25 ft melee range at level 20 :smallbiggrin: But hey, at that level in any game, running at like 30 mph to go 75 ft for your move then run 25 ft and back to attack is the least reality breaking.

The thing I really like about Legend, and the reason I want to try the system, is because monsters are built like any other NPC or PC. You pick tracks (kinda like classes) and can build any monster idea at any challenge rating. Also, myriads are perfect for building Dead Hand from OoT. I already know one boss I'll use :smallbiggrin:

[Gwazi Magnum]

Overall, I'd say it nerfs casters SLIGHTLY, while buffing melee classes. As in melee range and speed increase as you level up. Up to 25 ft melee range at level 20 :smallbiggrin: But hey, at that level in any game, running at like 30 mph to go 75 ft for your move then run 25 ft and back to attack is the least reality breaking.

The thing I really like about Legend, and the reason I want to try the system, is because monsters are built like any other NPC or PC. You pick tracks (kinda like classes) and can build any monster idea at any challenge rating. Also, myriads are perfect for building Dead Hand from OoT. I already know one boss I'll use :smallbiggrin:

Swords can get 25 foot range? o.O

At least magic has the excuse of it's magic and there's powers involved we may not understand fully (though our characters would possibly).

But without magic (which barbarians certainly are not unless if you multi-classed with a magical track), how can you possibly explain a sword with 25 foot range?

[Actana]

So how exactly does it help ramp up the martial characters?

Skills are put into categories, and placing one point into a group that you have as a class skill group puts a point into each skill in the group. Attack bonuses are higher (High BAB goes up to +25). Saves are +1/level, and characters have a defense bonus to their AC that scales by level.

More importantly, each class gains access to a few feat trees, which improve automatically as they gain levels. The Archer class gains a very good progression on the "Projectile" feat tree, and if they pick the base feat of that tree, they will automatically gain the later effects as they gain more levels. Feat number is also increased to one every two levels.

Healing is handled through "reserve points", which is a pool equal to your HP. When not in combat, you can transfer one point of reserve HP to your normal HP per minute.

There are also "challenges" and "stunts" as mechanics in combat, providing freeformish abilities based on flavor to provide combat bonuses. Like throwing sand in the opponent's eye or utilizing the terrain in some other way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But without magic (which barbarians certainly are not unless if you multi-classed with a magical track), how can you possibly explain a sword with 25 foot range?
A rapid advance, attack, and retreat?

But given all you've said-- your group dislikes combat for being slow and suchlike-- you might want to look farther afield than d20. FATE, perhaps.

[Razanir]

Swords can get 25 foot range? o.O

At least magic has the excuse of it's magic and there's powers involved we may not understand fully (though our characters would possibly).

But without magic (which barbarians certainly are not unless if you multi-classed with a magical track), how can you possibly explain a sword with 25 foot range?

Like I said, it's not the sword getting that big of a range. I can't find the actual quote, but I'll explain the rationale. Characters don't just stand rigid in a 5' square. They dart around within the square to get to adjacent enemies to attack. The difference is just them darting around in a 25' range to hit the enemies they need to

[Gwazi Magnum]

Skills are put into categories, and placing one point into a group that you have as a class skill group puts a point into each skill in the group. Attack bonuses are higher (High BAB goes up to +25). Saves are +1/level, and characters have a defense bonus to their AC that scales by level.

More importantly, each class gains access to a few feat trees, which improve automatically as they gain levels. The Archer class gains a very good progression on the "Projectile" feat tree, and if they pick the base feat of that tree, they will automatically gain the later effects as they gain more levels. Feat number is also increased to one every two levels.

Healing is handled through "reserve points", which is a pool equal to your HP. When not in combat, you can transfer one point of reserve HP to your normal HP per minute.

There are also "challenges" and "stunts" as mechanics in combat, providing freeformish abilities based on flavor to provide combat bonuses. Like throwing sand in the opponent's eye or utilizing the terrain in some other way.

So Skill Points not only cover several different skills but increase combat capabilities as well?

[Gwazi Magnum]

A rapid advance, attack, and retreat?

But given all you've said-- your group dislikes combat for being slow and suchlike-- you might want to look farther afield than d20. FATE, perhaps.

That's the conflicting bit.
They want to stay with 3.5
They've heard 4th be slandered by others too much to ever bother trying it and they want to stay with 3.5 because they 'want to say with what they know' but then continue to hate on combat even though it's a result of them not being prepared and not 3.5's fault.


Like I said, it's not the sword getting that big of a range. I can't find the actual quote, but I'll explain the rationale. Characters don't just stand rigid in a 5' square. They dart around within the square to get to adjacent enemies to attack. The difference is just them darting around in a 25' range to hit the enemies they need to

Shouldn't that be provoking attacks of opportunity beyond all belief? And why would the person always run back to the same spot afterwards them assuming you did a full attack action?

[zlefin]

Listen and Spot as allowed people to hear pretty much every little thing that can happen.

But honestly, outside of that really I'm thinking in hindsight it probably was the DM's interpretation.

But part of the reason I'm looking to balance magic isn't just cause they're more powerful than martial, but they're so powerful they can solve many challenges and encounters with a simple spell.

And I'm worried Martial classes may be just as broken if when they are buffed it is with the intention of matching them with magic classes rather than making them more viable.

In practice I'd rather ramp up the Martial classes, ramp down the magical classes and have them meet somewhere in the middle.

that's why I've been specifically saying to aim for tier 3; that's what I've been saying the whole time. that's what everyone here has been saying; tier 3 is a good spot, and it ramps down the overpowered magic classes (but not the ones that are ok as they are).
Are you the dm now? I forget with all this thread detail whether that's ben covered.
And ramping up martial classes to put them in tier 3 but not tier 1-2 isn't hard at all; there's a huge step up to tiers 1-2.

[Gwazi Magnum]

that's why I've been specifically saying to aim for tier 3; that's what I've been saying the whole time. that's what everyone here has been saying; tier 3 is a good spot, and it ramps down the overpowered magic classes (but not the ones that are ok as they are).
Are you the dm now? I forget with all this thread detail whether that's ben covered.
And ramping up martial classes to put them in tier 3 but not tier 1-2 isn't hard at all; there's a huge step up to tiers 1-2.

Agreed, sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
I relise that's what most people were saying but the recent post made me think you were suggesting to make them T2/T1 classes.

As for DM, currently I am not DM but I will be DM in a few weeks, and this is to plan for when that happens.

[Actana]

So Skill Points not only cover several different skills but increase combat capabilities as well?

The combat stunts often use skills to make them happen, but they're very freeform and don't give any specific uses outside a few examples. The GM eventually decides what skills are used for stunts. Regardless, they encourage using your imagination in combat and explaining how the use of what skill might help the character.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's the conflicting bit.
They want to stay with 3.5
They've heard 4th be slandered by others too much to ever bother trying it and they want to stay with 3.5 because they 'want to say with what they know' but then continue to hate on combat even though it's a result of them not being prepared and not 3.5's fault.
I... don't think you're going to be able to resolve this. I'm sorry to say such a thing, but I honestly believe that there's no way to resolve 3.5's issues without rewriting it so much it is a new system that just happens to use some of the same terminology.

Banning T1 classes, or turning them into spontaneous casters, helps. Finding homebrew fixes for low-tier classes helps. Good DMing helps*. But nothing is going to deal with the sheer versatility of magic. It's really hard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689)to deal with the binary nature of most spells (you save or you suffer) compared to melee attacks. Nothing is going to make combat less of a slow tactical thing.


*I hate complaints that boil down to "waah, my group learned teleport and now they can get from place to place instantly, magic is teh broken." Quit whining about how high-level play isn't like low-level and learn to tell a stories takes that into account. And if you can't do that, don't play high-level games.

[Larkas]

Swords can get 25 foot range? o.O

At least magic has the excuse of it's magic and there's powers involved we may not understand fully (though our characters would possibly).

But without magic (which barbarians certainly are not unless if you multi-classed with a magical track), how can you possibly explain a sword with 25 foot range?

That's the beauty of it: you can explain it however you want. The problem most people have isn't so much understanding what the dichotomy between magic/mundane means, but the inability to suspend the disbelief that someone without magic skills can do something really, really extraordinary. If you have the time, read this essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). It is part of the rationale behind E6 itself, but it can be expanded to encompass the whole of 3.5. Bear with me, as this is the most important conclusion in that essay IMO:


The problem with having false expectations about what “Strength 20” or “15th level” really means is that it creates a dissonance between what the rules allow characters to do and what you think characters should be able to do. For example, if you think that Conan should be modeled as a 25th level character, then you’re going to be constantly frustrated when the system treats him as a demigod and allows him to do all sorts of insanely powerful things that the literary Conan was never capable of. From there it’s a pretty short step to making pronouncements like “D&D can’t do Conan” (or Lankhmar or Elric or whatever).

The rationale is that the best of the best of the best characters we can base in real world people will be, at most, level 5. Einstein wasn't a 20th level Expert with maxxed-out Knowledge (physics) and Profession (physicist). No, he can be accurately modeled after a 5th level Expert, as shown on the essay. All epic, fantastic characters, like Achilles, Aragorn or even Merlin, will probably fall into the 6-10 interval, tending heavily towards the lower end of the spectrum. You can find characters for the 11-15 interval in wuxia-style eastern movies and Dragon Ball-like anime, and 16-20 characters are better modeled after deities and demigods.

Why am I saying all of this? Simple. If we're talking about a 20th-level barbarian, it should make as much sense, if not more, for it to be able to easily hit 25ft. away as it is for a bard to make people start dancing incontrollably, or for a wizard to casually rewrite reality.

Now, this is where you must calibrate your expectations in order to find a system that better suits your needs. Do you find a barbarian hitting 25ft. away without provoking any AoO ridiculous? Then to be fair to the tough guy, you should nix pretty much all the high-end spell effects too. 4E, dull as it may be, should fit your needs perfectly then. If you feel, however, that most characters should be balanced against each other, as it seems you do, you might want to give Legend a try. Forget your preconceptions about what a mundane character should be able to do and focus on what you think a 20th level character should be able to achieve. Lastly, if, on the contrary, you feel that it is only fair for that barbarian to not only do that, but to also rip a hole in reality with his axe and go kick Asmodeus' butt in his own lair with nothing but sheer force of arms, then Exalted might be the thing for you. :smallwink:

Anyways, be it how it may, as some people around here like to say, the system (D&D3.5) lies to you. It wants you to believe that it is as powerful an option to choose a Wizard as to choose a Monk. Not only that, it wants you to believe that being a Monk is better than being an Adept. The truth of the matter is entirely different. Even though I don't like the form of that saying, the content is perfect. It doesn't mean that it is a bad system. It's just that you would benefit greatly from knowing the truth of it, of "lifting the veil of lies", if you will. It helps to know what you can and can't do with the system as it is. And if you want to fix the system, or choose an alternative one that fits your needs, you need to know what exactly is wrong with the system in order to make an informed decision. Anyways, that is my opinion on the matter. :smallsmile:


D&D 3.5 pdfs have been free for a long time now :P

If you're talking SRD, several of these systems have them as well, or are outright free, like Legend! ... Otherwise, this (http://cristgaming.com/pirate.swf) might be relevant. :smallbiggrin:

[Gavinfoxx]

Seconding to try Legend instead. It is completely free... but you can still donate if you want.

http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf <-- this is the actual link to it!
http://www.ruleofcool.com/donation-thresholds/ <-- some bonus content
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here (this is arguably low magic):
http://true20.com/

Pathfinder, I am not linking to because it doesn't fix your problem.

Good luck!

Again, if free content is important (ie, a reason to choose Pathfinder), LOOK UP LEGEND!! It is, as far as I can tell, superior in all ways to Pathfinder.

If, on the other hand, you want low magic more than simply 'balanced magic', look up:

Codex Martialis:
http://www.codexmartialis.com/
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

This works well when combined with E6, where the only classes in the entire setting (and also no monsters) are: Rogue, Warrior, Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, Fighter. Codex Martialis adds enough rules such that you can get interesting combat even with that restriction.

and

Iron Heroes:
http://fierydragon.com/dragonsbreath/?p=504


And the 25 foot range for Legend thing is easy to describe as a Superhero super-speed lunge and dancing back.

[GoatBoy]

Another vote for Iron Heroes, here. I had a lot of fun in the one game I was in, and a friend of mine has just finished his second successful campaign with the system.

It lets players advance their character progression without magic items, while still gaining new abilities. The challenges and stunts add another layer of depth to everyday combat, encourage creative thinking, and could easily be added to 3.5 with little variation.

The only problem is that, while using 3.5 monsters is mostly possible, it is important to remember that the PC's will be without certain options like energy resistance and alignment-based attacks to overcome DR.

So, yeah. Iron Heroes.

[Fable Wright]

T
Shouldn't that be provoking attacks of opportunity beyond all belief? And why would the person always run back to the same spot afterwards them assuming you did a full attack action?

Seconding the above rationale of 'however you want to explain it.' If could be that your Samurai can strike the air so fast with his sword that the gust of wind generated is sharp enough to carry his blow. Perhaps the Barbarian can now uses an uprooted tree for a weapon and that gives them the reach needed. Perhaps touch spells now can be transmitted over a short range. Maybe someone finally figured out how to properly use a whip sword. Maybe the Rogue figured out how to toss his stabbing (not throwing) dagger to ricochet back at just the right angle to use it like a melee weapon.

Though, Gwazi, out of curiosity: what out of combat things can you do in 3.5 that you can't do in Legend? While less non-combat systems are spelled out, given streamlined skills with potent effects at high levels (see Vigor and Acrobatics), items, feats, and tracks like True Mage, Tactician casting and Just Blade, it seems like most every worldbuilding noncombat venues are open, and the system was designed to give each class out of combat utility to players who want it. I can think of half a dozen clever uses of traps from Professional Soldier and bombs from Demo Man off the top of my head, nevermind the potential of Just Blade, Arcane Secrets, or pretty much any of the SLA or casting tracks. And then there are the skills, as previously mentioned, that are potent in and out of combat, and not restricted by class. And then there's the items that have immense utility all around, feats that grant supernatural abilities (lightbending, telekinesis, senseshift) and the readily available teleport effects...

Honestly, Legend covers all of the points you wanted in your system of choice well. It's just that a lot of stuff is in the feats/items/skills sections that people just glance over when looking at a system.

[Daftendirekt]

4th edition. Say what you will about it, it's pretty well balanced. Magic is no longer OP (although wizard is still undeniably the best in its class - the sheer amount of options and support for it make it the best controller).

[Shyftir]

I've heard tell of something called "13th Age" which sounds interesting, susposed to be combining best elements of 3.5 and 4e but I've only heard vague things.

They might like DungeonWorld but it is a new system.

Also I've heard the Dragon Age tabletop is less "omg wizaaaards rule."

[Razanir]

4th edition. Say what you will about it, it's pretty well balanced. Magic is no longer OP (although wizard is still undeniably the best in its class - the sheer amount of options and support for it make it the best controller).

Eh... From what I know of it, it seems overbalanced, in a way. If you've seen the Generic Class 2.0 from the playground, or how Legend handles leveling up, that's what it should look like. You get abilities at the same time, but not necessarily a per-encounter at this level, a utility at this other level...

That and healing surges. Admittedly I've never played 4e, but it just sounds like the type of thing that could nerf Clerics

[MirddinEmris]

I wouldn't consider Fantasy Craft as 3.70, not eve 3.X at all - it's a diffirent system with a different goal, which is a good thing from my perspective.


Skills are put into categories, and placing one point into a group that you have as a class skill group puts a point into each skill in the group. Attack bonuses are higher (High BAB goes up to +25). Saves are +1/level, and characters have a defense bonus to their AC that scales by level.

More importantly, each class gains access to a few feat trees, which improve automatically as they gain levels. The Archer class gains a very good progression on the "Projectile" feat tree, and if they pick the base feat of that tree, they will automatically gain the later effects as they gain more levels. Feat number is also increased to one every two levels.

Healing is handled through "reserve points", which is a pool equal to your HP. When not in combat, you can transfer one point of reserve HP to your normal HP per minute.

There are also "challenges" and "stunts" as mechanics in combat, providing freeformish abilities based on flavor to provide combat bonuses. Like throwing sand in the opponent's eye or utilizing the terrain in some other way.

Actually, you a wrong, feat trees does not progress automatically, you still need to buy them, though you don't need to buy all of them (you need to have a base feat and have a certain mastery level in this feat category to buy a feat, so you can take Cleave 1 and Cleave 10 only, or you can take entire tree)

[Flickerdart]

Seconding to try Legend instead. It is completely free... but you can still donate if you want.

You can't, actually - ChipIn closed its doors a couple of weeks ago, so that service is down.

[Aramyth]

It pains my heart to see Legend not suggested more. It's a very good system, especially at keeping things balanced. It's my personal favorite, and is joy to play.

[Actana]

Actually, you a wrong, feat trees does not progress automatically, you still need to buy them, though you don't need to buy all of them (you need to have a base feat and have a certain mastery level in this feat category to buy a feat, so you can take Cleave 1 and Cleave 10 only, or you can take entire tree)

I could've sworn I reread the rules that way just before posting. I originally thought it was that way too, but decided to doublecheck, and then my brain decided to selectively choose which parts to understand. But you're right, now that I read the rules again. Though on a tangent, I think it's kinda silly, and restricts characters once again to specialize in a single area. You only get so many feats after all.

[MirddinEmris]

I could've sworn I reread the rules that way just before posting. I originally thought it was that way too, but decided to doublecheck, and then my brain decided to selectively choose which parts to understand. But you're right, now that I read the rules again. Though on a tangent, I think it's kinda silly, and restricts characters once again to specialize in a single area. You only get so many feats after all.

Well, since you get two feats on the first level and at each odd level, you'll get plenty of them and certainly could master several feat trees (especially that you don't have to take each feat from the tree). And if you want to play waith lot's of them - play Man-At-Arms, he is awesome)

[Amphetryon]

Gavinfoxx, I get a 404 error on the link to the Legend Character generator you provided.

[Gavinfoxx]

Gavinfoxx, I get a 404 error on the link to the Legend Character generator you provided.

Fixed, try it now.

[Gavinfoxx]

So how exactly does it help ramp up the martial characters?

As far as I know, it doesn't. It's just a game with their 4/5 as its balance point.

[Draz74]

Fixed, try it now.

Although the applet itself still hasn't been updated for over 6 11 months.

[G.Cube]

What if you house ruled that caster classes had to choose only a single (or possibly two, depending on how much of a nerf you want placed) school of magic they could learn from, then adding only a few touches of other things to their class so they could remain useful in other ways? Perhaps classes with their own spell list simply get a few spells trimmed from each of the spell level lists?

[Flickerdart]

What if you house ruled that caster classes had to choose only a single (or possibly two, depending on how much of a nerf you want placed) school of magic they could learn from, then adding only a few touches of other things to their class so they could remain useful in other ways? Perhaps classes with their own spell list simply get a few spells trimmed from each of the spell level lists?
Then everyone picks either Transmutation or Conjuration (or both) and goes on kicking ass. There's no effective "quick fix" for general spellcasters.

[Gavinfoxx]

What if you house ruled that caster classes had to choose only a single (or possibly two, depending on how much of a nerf you want placed) school of magic they could learn from, then adding only a few touches of other things to their class so they could remain useful in other ways? Perhaps classes with their own spell list simply get a few spells trimmed from each of the spell level lists?

A wizard with only Conjuration or Transmutation would still kick ass. You would have to rewrite every single spell. Like Legend did. It is the spells themselves that is the problem, and there is no easy fix!!

[Larkas]

Pretty much. A Transmuter or a Conjurer can go to town only with spells of their respective schools and not have a worry in the world. An Abjurer is pretty much screwed, however. A Diviner can try avoiding death every day, and an Enchanter can try choosing his enemies, but that doesn't work very well in a campaigning scenario unless the DM tailor every encounter ever to your capabilities and/or you like avoiding every apparently insurmountable challenge that comes your way. An Illusionist will be a little gimmicky, but at least they can rely on shadow spells, and a Necromancer will be minionmancing without much self-support. An Evoker is the only one who has enough utility on his belt to stand on its own and not be under or overpowered. If only every school was built like Evocation, then you might be on to something. As it stands, however, they are not.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The combat stunts often use skills to make them happen, but they're very freeform and don't give any specific uses outside a few examples. The GM eventually decides what skills are used for stunts. Regardless, they encourage using your imagination in combat and explaining how the use of what skill might help the character.

I have admit I'm more eager to see this Iron Heroes now.

I didn't get time to read it yesterday due to other plans.


That's the beauty of it: you can explain it however you want. The problem most people have isn't so much understanding what the dichotomy between magic/mundane means, but the inability to suspend the disbelief that someone without magic skills can do something really, really extraordinary. If you have the time, read this essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). It is part of the rationale behind E6 itself, but it can be expanded to encompass the whole of 3.5. Bear with me, as this is the most important conclusion in that essay IMO:

That was a very interesting read, and honestly it has me more excited for the E6 game now that I'll be running soon :).


The rationale is that the best of the best of the best characters we can base in real world people will be, at most, level 5. Einstein wasn't a 20th level Expert with maxxed-out Knowledge (physics) and Profession (physicist). No, he can be accurately modeled after a 5th level Expert, as shown on the essay. All epic, fantastic characters, like Achilles, Aragorn or even Merlin, will probably fall into the 6-10 interval, tending heavily towards the lower end of the spectrum. You can find characters for the 11-15 interval in wuxia-style eastern movies and Dragon Ball-like anime, and 16-20 characters are better modeled after deities and demigods.

Why am I saying all of this? Simple. If we're talking about a 20th-level barbarian, it should make as much sense, if not more, for it to be able to easily hit 25ft. away as it is for a bard to make people start dancing incontrollably, or for a wizard to casually rewrite reality.

Now, this is where you must calibrate your expectations in order to find a system that better suits your needs. Do you find a barbarian hitting 25ft. away without provoking any AoO ridiculous? Then to be fair to the tough guy, you should nix pretty much all the high-end spell effects too. 4E, dull as it may be, should fit your needs perfectly then. If you feel, however, that most characters should be balanced against each other, as it seems you do, you might want to give Legend a try. Forget your preconceptions about what a mundane character should be able to do and focus on what you think a 20th level character should be able to achieve. Lastly, if, on the contrary, you feel that it is only fair for that barbarian to not only do that, but to also rip a hole in reality with his axe and go kick Asmodeus' butt in his own lair with nothing but sheer force of arms, then Exalted might be the thing for you. :smallwink:

Anyways, be it how it may, as some people around here like to say, the system (D&D3.5) lies to you. It wants you to believe that it is as powerful an option to choose a Wizard as to choose a Monk. Not only that, it wants you to believe that being a Monk is better than being an Adept. The truth of the matter is entirely different. Even though I don't like the form of that saying, the content is perfect. It doesn't mean that it is a bad system. It's just that you would benefit greatly from knowing the truth of it, of "lifting the veil of lies", if you will. It helps to know what you can and can't do with the system as it is. And if you want to fix the system, or choose an alternative one that fits your needs, you need to know what exactly is wrong with the system in order to make an informed decision. Anyways, that is my opinion on the matter. :smallsmile:

Personally, I get what you're saying.
But at the same time it kills basic martial features for those who want them.
I mean, who wants to engage your foe blade to blade in the thick of combat when you can just swing your sword from 25ft away with no draw back?

Dueling, face offs, anything meant to be close and person is killed.
Granted it can still be done roleplaying wise, it means combat wise the fighter staying with the concept of engaging up close is only gimping themselves.


If you're talking SRD, several of these systems have them as well, or are outright free, like Legend! ... Otherwise, this (http://cristgaming.com/pirate.swf) might be relevant. :smallbiggrin:

^I have no problem with this :smallbiggrin:


Seconding to try Legend instead. It is completely free... but you can still donate if you want.

http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf <-- this is the actual link to it!
http://www.ruleofcool.com/donation-thresholds/ <-- some bonus content
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here (this is arguably low magic):
http://true20.com/

Pathfinder, I am not linking to because it doesn't fix your problem.

Good luck!

Again, if free content is important (ie, a reason to choose Pathfinder), LOOK UP LEGEND!! It is, as far as I can tell, superior in all ways to Pathfinder.

If, on the other hand, you want low magic more than simply 'balanced magic', look up:

Codex Martialis:
http://www.codexmartialis.com/
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

This works well when combined with E6, where the only classes in the entire setting (and also no monsters) are: Rogue, Warrior, Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, Fighter. Codex Martialis adds enough rules such that you can get interesting combat even with that restriction.

and

Iron Heroes:
http://fierydragon.com/dragonsbreath/?p=504


And the 25 foot range for Legend thing is easy to describe as a Superhero super-speed lunge and dancing back.

I had already looked up legend, and I have same argument for lunge as I did in the post above.

A lot of tools and sources here, I'll be sure to check them out.


Another vote for Iron Heroes, here. I had a lot of fun in the one game I was in, and a friend of mine has just finished his second successful campaign with the system.

It lets players advance their character progression without magic items, while still gaining new abilities. The challenges and stunts add another layer of depth to everyday combat, encourage creative thinking, and could easily be added to 3.5 with little variation.

The only problem is that, while using 3.5 monsters is mostly possible, it is important to remember that the PC's will be without certain options like energy resistance and alignment-based attacks to overcome DR.

So, yeah. Iron Heroes.

The concept I have is majority humanoid and military like opponents anyway's so monsters shouldn't be much an issue.



Though, Gwazi, out of curiosity: what out of combat things can you do in 3.5 that you can't do in Legend? While less non-combat systems are spelled out, given streamlined skills with potent effects at high levels (see Vigor and Acrobatics), items, feats, and tracks like True Mage, Tactician casting and Just Blade, it seems like most every worldbuilding noncombat venues are open, and the system was designed to give each class out of combat utility to players who want it. I can think of half a dozen clever uses of traps from Professional Soldier and bombs from Demo Man off the top of my head, nevermind the potential of Just Blade, Arcane Secrets, or pretty much any of the SLA or casting tracks. And then there are the skills, as previously mentioned, that are potent in and out of combat, and not restricted by class. And then there's the items that have immense utility all around, feats that grant supernatural abilities (lightbending, telekinesis, senseshift) and the readily available teleport effects...

Honestly, Legend covers all of the points you wanted in your system of choice well. It's just that a lot of stuff is in the feats/items/skills sections that people just glance over when looking at a system.

^Last thing I want is for traps and demolitions to be the groups main solution for problems.

As for skills, honestly this may because I've played so much of 3.5 but Legend and 4th seem to share the problem that skills have been cut down and limited. Granted some improvements such as Perception and Stealth instead of several different skills, but other than that the range of what you can be skilled in is limited greatly.


Eh... From what I know of it, it seems overbalanced, in a way. If you've seen the Generic Class 2.0 from the playground, or how Legend handles leveling up, that's what it should look like. You get abilities at the same time, but not necessarily a per-encounter at this level, a utility at this other level...

That and healing surges. Admittedly I've never played 4e, but it just sounds like the type of thing that could nerf Clerics

The Generic Class actually reminds me of a concept I had at some point called 'The Adventurer' which was a build your own class so players could make their concept rather than be restricted by the confines of a certain class and stereotype.

It was called off because the group I tested it with (same group I'll be doing E6 with) found it was too broken and easy to manipulate to make powerful characters. However, if I were to a find a way to fix this issue then I'd probably gladly reintroduce the feature into my next campaign.


As far as I know, it doesn't. It's just a game with their 4/5 as its balance point.

You mean tier 4 and 5?


What if you house ruled that caster classes had to choose only a single (or possibly two, depending on how much of a nerf you want placed) school of magic they could learn from, then adding only a few touches of other things to their class so they could remain useful in other ways? Perhaps classes with their own spell list simply get a few spells trimmed from each of the spell level lists?

That just leads people to specialize in the most troublesome and destructive schools of magic.

[Flickerdart]

An Evoker is the only one who has enough utility on his belt to stand on its own and not be under or overpowered.
Ehhhhno. There are very few non-blasting spells in Evocation, and most of them are awful.

[Larkas]

I'm glad you liked the read! It is one of the most interesting pieces I've ever read about the game, I just wish I could bring it up more often. :smallsmile:


The Generic Class actually reminds me of a concept I had at some point called 'The Adventurer' which was a build your own class so players could make their concept rather than be restricted by the confines of a certain class and stereotype.

It was called off because the group I tested it with (same group I'll be doing E6 with) found it was too broken and easy to manipulate to make powerful characters. However, if I were to a find a way to fix this issue then I'd probably gladly reintroduce the feature into my next campaign.

You HAVE to check out BESM d20, then. I've been weary of pointing it out because I didn't know if you'd like its modular nature, but it has an Adventurer class that successfully does EXACTLY what you want. There is an SRD, but alas the publisher went bankrupt a few years ago and the site it could be found on has long been offline. It CAN be found on the Wayback Machine, though I'm not home right now to dig it up for you. It is a pretty generic system (a la GURPS). Even though it was made for anime-like scenarios (BESM stands out for Big Eyes Small Mouth), you can easily ignore that, since there is no intrinsic fluff. Really, be sure to check it out!

[Deepbluediver]

I've seen players break the game with Level 3-5 spells all the time.

With regards to D&D specifically, the short answer is "No", there is no quick and easy way to balance classes and magic. To achieve true balance you need to rework many core mechanics and much of the spell list.


If you are looking for other game systems, exhalted usually gets pretty good reviews in the balance department, or so I've heard. Though it's less fighter-rogue-bard and more like everyone is a magic swordsman/magical creature (I'm sure others can tell you more)

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, there is a writeup for converting mutants and masterminds 3e to work with D&D...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=706712#p706712



Personally, I get what you're saying.
But at the same time it kills basic martial features for those who want them.
I mean, who wants to engage your foe blade to blade in the thick of combat when you can just swing your sword from 25ft away with no draw back?

Dueling, face offs, anything meant to be close and person is killed.
Granted it can still be done roleplaying wise, it means combat wise the fighter staying with the concept of engaging up close is only gimping themselves.


Also, you can do that with Legend... but such characters are, by definition, low level. You can not say 'I want my melee guy to be powerful', and then remove that power. High level characters are high level characters, and that includes agency to affect things away from themselves, by definition.



You mean tier 4 and 5?

Yes, that's what I said, Tiers 4-5, 4/5, 4 & 5, etc. etc.



As for skills, honestly this may because I've played so much of 3.5 but Legend and 4th seem to share the problem that skills have been cut down and limited. Granted some improvements such as Perception and Stealth instead of several different skills, but other than that the range of what you can be skilled in is limited greatly.

No, it isn't, because Legend assumes that high level characters are competent at just about anything, and you won't have to roll for mundane, non-heroic things that the skill system doesn't cover! It is explicitly NOT simulationist, which you seem to want. So Legend characters aren't 'not skilled at those things the skill system doesn't cover', they are, instead, 'really skilled at everything the skill system doesn't cover', because of differing assumptions of what the skill system itself is for!

[Larkas]

Ehhhhno. There are very few non-blasting spells in Evocation, and most of them are awful.

I'm sure you've read the God Wizard handbook. Read the part about Evocation and focused specialists again. It is very viable. An Evoker with only Evocation spells clock easily into hight T3 territory. And isn't that a good thing in this case?

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you are looking for other game systems, exhalted usually gets pretty good reviews in the balance department, or so I've heard. Though it's less fighter-rogue-bard and more like everyone is a magic swordsman/magical creature (I'm sure others can tell you more)
Hahahahaha! Ahahahahaha! Bwahahahaha! No. I've played Exalted 2e; it's a hideous mess. Combat is clunky as all get out, "balance" exists only so far as "any character can take the broken options," and-- in a reversal of 3.5-- casting is painfully obnoxious. I love the world and the fluff, but godDAMN the mechanics are painful.

[Amphetryon]

I'm sure you've read the God Wizard handbook. Read the part about Evocation and focused specialists again. It is very viable. An Evoker with only Evocation spells clock easily into hight T3 territory. And isn't that a good thing in this case?

Except that it would almost certainly be bringing very little to the table in the way of unique abilities, relative to the other Classes in the hypothetical party.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'm glad you liked the read! It is one of the most interesting pieces I've ever read about the game, I just wish I could bring it up more often. :smallsmile:

You HAVE to check out BESM d20, then. I've been weary of pointing it out because I didn't know if you'd like its modular nature, but it has an Adventurer class that successfully does EXACTLY what you want. There is an SRD, but alas the publisher went bankrupt a few years ago and the site it could be found on has long been offline. It CAN be found on the Wayback Machine, though I'm not home right now to dig it up for you. It is a pretty generic system (a la GURPS). Even though it was made for anime-like scenarios (BESM stands out for Big Eyes Small Mouth), you can easily ignore that, since there is no intrinsic fluff. Really, be sure to check it out!

Does this work with d&d 3.5 then?


With regards to D&D specifically, the short answer is "No", there is no quick and easy way to balance classes and magic. To achieve true balance you need to rework many core mechanics and much of the spell list.


If you are looking for other game systems, exhalted usually gets pretty good reviews in the balance department, or so I've heard. Though it's less fighter-rogue-bard and more like everyone is a magic swordsman/magical creature (I'm sure others can tell you more)

Perhaps, but that does at the same time kill concepts like a martial character who doesn't need magic to excel.


Also, there is a writeup for converting mutants and masterminds 3e to work with D&D...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=706712#p706712



Also, you can do that with Legend... but such characters are, by definition, low level. You can not say 'I want my melee guy to be powerful', and then remove that power. High level characters are high level characters, and that includes agency to affect things away from themselves, by definition.



Yes, that's what I said, Tiers 4-5, 4/5, 4 & 5, etc. etc.



No, it isn't, because Legend assumes that high level characters are competent at just about anything, and you won't have to roll for mundane, non-heroic things that the skill system doesn't cover! It is explicitly NOT simulationist, which you seem to want. So Legend characters aren't 'not skilled at those things the skill system doesn't cover', they are, instead, 'really skilled at everything the skill system doesn't cover', because of differing assumptions of what the skill system itself is for!

That means certain traits and concepts are just low level'ed and a concept that's kind of standard for a martial class to boot, be face to face with your foe? In most epic duels do you see people sprint forward 30 feet, swinging and then sprinting back quickly?

As for the skills, my characters are expert performers, craftsmen etc?

I am Conan! Epic Barbarian! I am also a master basket maker, comedian, performer, miner, cook, violin player etc...

Granted these don't come up often and are regarded as the more token skills... but still.
They're put in so characters can expand outside dungeon crawling ideas.

[Larkas]

Except that it would almost certainly be bringing very little to the table in the way of unique abilities, relative to the other Classes in the hypothetical party.

They can buff, debuff, blast, and do battlefield controlling. They even have some utility spells. That's more than most T3 classes can contribute to the party, and more than pretty much any T4 can. I don't see the Barbarian being bashed for not being able to summon creatures, or being anything other than a one-trick pony.

@Gwazi Magnum: Yes! That's the beauty of it! It is entirely based on D&D3.0, and was revised for 3.5. They even have adaptations for D&D's base classes! You can hybridize it however you like without much effort!

[Draz74]

Then everyone picks either Transmutation or Conjuration (or both) and goes on kicking ass. There's no effective "quick fix" for general spellcasters.
Well, the "quick fix" that says "drop all the high-tier casters to Bard-like spell progressions" does get rid of most of the problems. I'm sure tricks like Planar Binding + Efreeti Wish Abuse can still break the game, but the overall "oomph" of spellcasting is much more tightly reigned.

In fact, I think the biggest problem with this "quick fix" is that it makes Wizards, Sorcerers, and many Clerics dreadfully boring to play at low levels.


Personally, I get what you're saying.
But at the same time it kills basic martial features for those who want them.
I mean, who wants to engage your foe blade to blade in the thick of combat when you can just swing your sword from 25ft away with no draw back?

Dueling, face offs, anything meant to be close and person is killed.
Granted it can still be done roleplaying wise, it means combat wise the fighter staying with the concept of engaging up close is only gimping themselves.
This is why I warned you that Legend is very "rule of cool" based, very cinematic; not simulationist at all. The 20-foot melee range of high-level characters, and the way area effects automatically reach "high enough" to affect flying creatures were the things that made me realize that Legend worked much better in my head if I imagined it taking place in a sort of cartoony universe.

So if this is still bothering you, you're probably trying to imagine battles playing out in too-real, too-detailed style.


As for skills, honestly this may because I've played so much of 3.5 but Legend and 4th seem to share the problem that skills have been cut down and limited. Granted some improvements such as Perception and Stealth instead of several different skills, but other than that the range of what you can be skilled in is limited greatly.
Funny how everyone has slightly different ideas about which skills should be kept vs. condensed. Personally, I see some value in having Spot and Listen separate, but I seem to be in the minority.

I've even met people who disagree with consolidating Open Lock and Disable Device together. :smallconfused:

In any case, in Legend, the "trained or not trained" dichotomy, with no "dabbled" skills, bothers me more than the consolidation of (for example) Sleight of Hand, Forgery, Disguise, Open Lock, and Disable Device into "Larceny." Because those skills were all too narrow, judging by how often PCs actually specialized in them. And that's probably the most extreme skill consolidation that Legend uses.

It is kind of annoying that Knowledge (Religion) has been killed off and had its material divided between Arcana, History, and Medicine. But I can see why they didn't want to keep it as a separate skill either.


The Generic Class actually reminds me of a concept I had at some point called 'The Adventurer' which was a build your own class so players could make their concept rather than be restricted by the confines of a certain class and stereotype.
Many such things have been tried over the years. Since before 3e existed. I'm still trying. :smallbiggrin:
Ehhhhno. There are very few non-blasting spells in Evocation, and most of them are awful.


Except that it would almost certainly be bringing very little to the table in the way of unique abilities, relative to the other Classes in the hypothetical party.

I think I'm gonna start a separate topic on this ...

[Flickerdart]

I think I'm gonna start a separate topic on this ...
There is already a massive guide on Evocation spells by good ol' Treantmonk (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869246/Treantmonks_guide_to_Evocation_Spells:_Gods_tools) that already does the job quite well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Perhaps, but that does at the same time kill concepts like a martial character who doesn't need magic to excel.
It's... kind of complicated. Basically, players take the role of Exalts, who were mortals who did something so utterly awesome that they were gifted with Incredible Godly PowerTM. Literally godly-- the Gods made the Exalts in a bygone age to overthrow the Primordials, the ones who created the Gods and the world itself. They did it, too.

You don't have magic warriors in the sense that D&D thinks about it. Exalts aren't really gish. Instead, everyone channels Essence, which is kind of like the Force, to do things which range from ToB-type maneuvers (attack your opponent a lot) to stupidly over-the-top stuff ("treat any surface more substantial than a human hair as if it were 3 feet wide and could support a thousand pounds) to "yes, OK, I'm flying because **** you." Magic exists, certainly, but it takes multiple rounds to cast anything.

There's a lot of really cool setting stuff, and a standard game really isn't "lol, we're demigods, let's ignore all the stupid mortals," but the system is very high-powered, high-impact-on-the-world, and is very much not d20. In fact, I really can't think of any significant mechanical similarities between Exalted and D&D.

[Amphetryon]

They can buff, debuff, blast, and do battlefield controlling. That's more than most T3 classes can contribute to the party, and more than pretty much any T4 can. I don't see the Barbarian being bashed for not being able to summon creatures, or being anything other than a one-trick pony.



1. I wasn't bashing.

2. They have a very limited ability to do most of those things aside from blast, relative to other caster types and relative to other prospective members of a group of roughly analogous tiers (presuming the same Class isn't represented multiple times).

3. It's not, actually, "more than most T3 Classes can contribute to the party;" any of the list casters that fit T3 (which, if you'll notice, excludes Warmage by most reckonings) can fulfill all those roles, as can a Totemist, a Binder, a Psychic Warrior, or any of the ToB Classes.

4. Yes, a Class that sits somewhere near T3 is probably better overall than Barbarian, which sits firmly in the middle of T4. That's not an even comparison. However, since you brought it up. . . the Barbarian isn't being asked to do the number of jobs that a caster is generally expected to handle, and the Barbarian can, barring corner cases, compete with the raw damage output of the Evoker on a Round-by-Round basis, which lends credence to my comment about the Evocation specialist not bringing much in the way of unique abilities to a party.

[Larkas]

There is already a massive guide on Evocation spells by good ol' Treantmonk (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869246/Treantmonks_guide_to_Evocation_Spells:_Gods_tools) that already does the job quite well.

That's the guide I was referring to. It doesn't redeem Evocation from an optimizer's point of view, but it is quite an eye opener about its utility. And we're not talking optimization here, right? :smallsmile:

@Amphetryon: Oh, I know you weren't bashing! Sorry if I came oh too strong. And I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the versatility, then, as I do think that an exclusive Evoker do bring more to the table than most T3s. Regardless, that isn't the point, the point is that, unlike other hypothetical exclusive specialists, the exclusive Evoker will be able to contribute to the party healthily without breaking the game.

[Immabozo]

Do a low magic world. For every so many levels (for example, 3) in a class (or PrC) that grants spells, you must take a level in one the does not grant spells. My old DM did that, magic items were hard to find, so a 10th level character with items more than +2 was really good. We had to make most everything ourselves. As far as magical monsters, we once encountered a vampire, but as far as spell casting ability, levl 3 warmages were as tough as it ever got. We just encountered larger numbers.

The most memorable encounter is that game was an ambush that lured us into the real ambush and when I ran over the hill, 20 war mages all hit me in the face with (held action) magic missles for like 85 damage. I was playing a wild shaping druid and, due to us not knowing, at the time, any errata for wildshaping druids, I had stupid amounts of hitpoints. (It was also my first time playing and in an effort to make sure I had fun, the DM aged my character for an added boost to the character's ability)

[Flickerdart]

That's the guide I was referring to. It doesn't redeem Evocation from an optimizer's point of view, but it is quite an eye opener about its utility. And we're not talking optimization here, right? :smallsmile:
Its "utility" is extremely limited, especially when you factor in the relative scarcity of spell slots for a significant portion of the game.

[Larkas]

Its "utility" is extremely limited, especially when you factor in the relative scarcity of spell slots for a significant portion of the game.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking utility spells here, I'm talking useful spells. What's the word I'm looking for, then? Usability?

ANYWAYS, that's enough derailing for this thread. :smallbiggrin: Sorry, Gwazi!

[Flickerdart]

The vast majority of Evocation's best spells are some variation on "do some damage and maybe a small debuff or combat maneuvers". The fighter can do that.

[Doug Lampert]

This is why I warned you that Legend is very "rule of cool" based, very cinematic; not simulationist at all. The 20-foot melee range of high-level characters, and the way area effects automatically reach "high enough" to affect flying creatures were the things that made me realize that Legend worked much better in my head if I imagined it taking place in a sort of cartoony universe.

Flight is definitely non-simulationist.

But in your first DAY of handling an actual foil in a fencing class you will be expected to do a lunge/recover attack routine that hits a target 12-15' away and ends right back where you started within far less time than a D&D round.

I really don't see how a level 20 character being able to strike and recover 25' is horribly unrealistic when it's ROUTINE for real people who aren't yet even proficient in D&D terms to be able to strike and recover well over half that distance.

[Gavinfoxx]

I am Conan! Epic Barbarian! I am also a master basket maker, comedian, performer, miner, cook, violin player etc...

Do you have any idea how many skills Conan actually had in the original source material? It was insane! And the way you get those sorts of skills in Legend is the same as in 4e D&D -- you just tell the GM, "I am good at this, it is part of my backstory".

As far as Conan, he had huge amount of lore of different places, blacksmithing, huge amounts of weapon skills, medical skills, survival skills, gambling, sailing, carousing, leadership skills, navigation, occult lore, tactics, being streetwise, a huge amount of languages, etc. etc.

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, for non-sport type fighting with swords, ie, historical reconstruction of martial skills from when they were actually used to KILL PEOPLE, the technique of "closing, killing in a minimum amount of movement and actions, and then withdrawing" is completely core to these sorts of fighting techniques...

[Hecuba]

Presuming you don't just want to restrict things to the existing tier 3 casters or play Iron Heros, I've had some luck with these progressions:

Wizard/Sorceror/Cleric Progression (normally cap at 9)

Char. Max Spell Rituals Equivelent to
Level Level Spell Level
1 1 1
2 1 1
3 1 2
4 2 2
5 2 3
6 2 3
7 3 4
8 3 4
9 3 5
10 4 5
11 4 6
12 4 6
13 5 7
14 5 7
15 5 8
16 6 8
17 6 8
18 6 9
19 7 9
20 7 9


Bard Progression (normally cap at 6)

Char. Max Spell
Level Level
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 2
8 2
9 2
10 2
11 3
12 3
13 3
14 3
15 4
16 4
17 4
18 4
19 5
20 5


Ranger/Paladin Progression (Delayed, normally caps at 4)

Char. Max Spell
Level Level
1 —
2 —
3 —
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 2
12 2
13 2
14 2
15 3
16 3
17 3
18 3
19 4
20 4


Magewright/Adept progression (Normally Caps at 5)

Char. Max Spell Rituals Equivelent to
Level Level Spell Level
1 0 1
2 0 1
3 0 1
4 0 1
5 1 2
6 1 2
7 1 2
8 1 2
9 2 3
10 2 3
11 2 3
12 2 3
13 3 4
14 3 4
15 3 4
16 3 4
17 4 5
18 4 5
19 4 5
20 4 5


The changes to the spell acquisition of rangers/paladins, and to a lesser extent bards, is somewhat punitive. It's included to maintain the three tiered casting progression. Those characters will likely need some buffs to counteract this.

Druids can probably safely be dropped down to the same progression as the Bards are put at.

This won't really slow down skilled and aggressive optimizers, but it does create a magic progression closer to the cleric progression from earlier editions than to the 3.5 regime.

You'll also need to take a hard line approach on open ended spells. Most of them should be relegated to ritual status (see UE).

Edit: Please excuse the lazy tables. My notes on this are in text format, and I'm not in the mood to do forum table formatting at the moment.

[Larkas]

You HAVE to check out BESM d20, then. I've been weary of pointing it out because I didn't know if you'd like its modular nature, but it has an Adventurer class that successfully does EXACTLY what you want. There is an SRD, but alas the publisher went bankrupt a few years ago and the site it could be found on has long been offline. It CAN be found on the Wayback Machine, though I'm not home right now to dig it up for you. It is a pretty generic system (a la GURPS). Even though it was made for anime-like scenarios (BESM stands out for Big Eyes Small Mouth), you can easily ignore that, since there is no intrinsic fluff. Really, be sure to check it out!

Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070823003408/http://www.guardiansorder.com/games/d20/srd/) is the archived version of the page!

[Gwazi Magnum]

This is why I warned you that Legend is very "rule of cool" based, very cinematic; not simulationist at all. The 20-foot melee range of high-level characters, and the way area effects automatically reach "high enough" to affect flying creatures were the things that made me realize that Legend worked much better in my head if I imagined it taking place in a sort of cartoony universe.

So if this is still bothering you, you're probably trying to imagine battles playing out in too-real, too-detailed style.


Funny how everyone has slightly different ideas about which skills should be kept vs. condensed. Personally, I see some value in having Spot and Listen separate, but I seem to be in the minority.

I've even met people who disagree with consolidating Open Lock and Disable Device together. :smallconfused:

In any case, in Legend, the "trained or not trained" dichotomy, with no "dabbled" skills, bothers me more than the consolidation of (for example) Sleight of Hand, Forgery, Disguise, Open Lock, and Disable Device into "Larceny." Because those skills were all too narrow, judging by how often PCs actually specialized in them. And that's probably the most extreme skill consolidation that Legend uses.

It is kind of annoying that Knowledge (Religion) has been killed off and had its material divided between Arcana, History, and Medicine. But I can see why they didn't want to keep it as a separate skill either.

Yea... I don't like imagining my D&D like anime and I doubt anyone I play with would either so I'm going to have to pass with Legend.

For skills I have no problem lumping some together like spot & listen or hide & move silently where it really them being seperate either...

a) Becomes a skill point tax because it's unrealistic to be good at one but awful at the other
b) Training in only one gives a DM an open door to just abuse the one you're low with

I'm curious as to why you think spot and listen should be seperate though. Everyone I've discussed this with before we of agreement they should be joined (unless if their only argument was 'But I want to DM in a way that plays need to waste all their skill points or I can troll them!") so I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on the matter.

As for Knowledge (Religion), I agree... not everyone whose a religious expert should be an expert in a ton of different fields as well. Plus, in a world like d&d where all the gods are assumed to be real it makes sense it's in it's own category.



It's... kind of complicated. Basically, players take the role of Exalts, who were mortals who did something so utterly awesome that they were gifted with Incredible Godly PowerTM. Literally godly-- the Gods made the Exalts in a bygone age to overthrow the Primordials, the ones who created the Gods and the world itself. They did it, too.

You don't have magic warriors in the sense that D&D thinks about it. Exalts aren't really gish. Instead, everyone channels Essence, which is kind of like the Force, to do things which range from ToB-type maneuvers (attack your opponent a lot) to stupidly over-the-top stuff ("treat any surface more substantial than a human hair as if it were 3 feet wide and could support a thousand pounds) to "yes, OK, I'm flying because **** you." Magic exists, certainly, but it takes multiple rounds to cast anything.

There's a lot of really cool setting stuff, and a standard game really isn't "lol, we're demigods, let's ignore all the stupid mortals," but the system is very high-powered, high-impact-on-the-world, and is very much not d20. In fact, I really can't think of any significant mechanical similarities between Exalted and D&D.

Ok, so it's not arcane magic but it still has the magical like feel to it that although does work for some characters will take away from those who want to be purely martial.

I dislike how a purely magic character excels but a purely martial one is left in the dust.


Do you have any idea how many skills Conan actually had in the original source material? It was insane! And the way you get those sorts of skills in Legend is the same as in 4e D&D -- you just tell the GM, "I am good at this, it is part of my backstory".

As far as Conan, he had huge amount of lore of different places, blacksmithing, huge amounts of weapon skills, medical skills, survival skills, gambling, sailing, carousing, leadership skills, navigation, occult lore, tactics, being streetwise, a huge amount of languages, etc. etc.

Tbh, I've never even watched Conan. I just took a random barbarians name as an example.
But no one should realistically be the master of everything, it's just bull****.

Btw, didn't he spend his whole childhood pushing a wheel? How the hell could he learn all that stuff from wheel pushing?


Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070823003408/http://www.guardiansorder.com/games/d20/srd/) is the archived version of the page!

I looked a bit over, but it does have classes of it's own in it.

[Draz74]

Flight is definitely non-simulationist.

But in your first DAY of handling an actual foil in a fencing class you will be expected to do a lunge/recover attack routine that hits a target 12-15' away and ends right back where you started within far less time than a D&D round.

I really don't see how a level 20 character being able to strike and recover 25' is horribly unrealistic when it's ROUTINE for real people who aren't yet even proficient in D&D terms to be able to strike and recover well over half that distance.


Also, for non-sport type fighting with swords, ie, historical reconstruction of martial skills from when they were actually used to KILL PEOPLE, the technique of "closing, killing in a minimum amount of movement and actions, and then withdrawing" is completely core to these sorts of fighting techniques...
OK, sure, but the way a Legend character doesn't even have to pass through the squares in between still puts the long-distance melee attacks in cartoony-land for me. (Even assuming the character is skilled enough not to provoke AoOs, what if there's a Ranger Trap on those squares, or a hostile aura/bfc spell effect?)

Plus stuff like putting the Throwing property on a natural weapon in order to attack from much further away. (Granted, now it's a ranged attack, but ... natural weapon.)

One of the reasons I respect Legend is because it's come to be perfectly upfront about its apathy towards simulationism, its adoption of ridiculous things for the sake of Rule of Cool. (I mean, they even made that the corporation's name!)


Yea... I don't like imagining my D&D like anime and I doubt anyone I play with would either so I'm going to have to pass with Legend.
Fair enough. You are missing out on some great balanced mechanics and crazy-fun character optimization options, though.


I'm curious as to why you think spot and listen should be seperate though. Everyone I've discussed this with before we of agreement they should be joined (unless if their only argument was 'But I want to DM in a way that plays need to waste all their skill points or I can troll them!") so I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on the matter.
I dunno, maybe just because people in real life are often way more observant through one sense than through the other. And it's kinda flavorful to have characters that go one way or the other. I was pretty fond of my Dwarf Rogue whose eyesight was nothing special, but could hear a bat's wing flap from two caves away.


As for Knowledge (Religion), I agree... not everyone whose a religious expert should be an expert in a ton of different fields as well. Plus, in a world like d&d where all the gods are assumed to be real it makes sense it's in it's own category.
To be fair, Legend's default setting doesn't necessarily have real, provable gods like D&D's default settings.


Tbh, I've never even watched Conan. I just took a random barbarians name as an example.

I think when he said "original," he meant the books, rather than something that one would "watch." :smalltongue:

[Larkas]

I looked a bit over, but it does have classes of it's own in it.

Of course it does. That's why I told you about it, remember?


You HAVE to check out BESM d20, then. I've been weary of pointing it out because I didn't know if you'd like its modular nature, but it has an Adventurer class that successfully does EXACTLY what you want.


That's the beauty of it! It is entirely based on D&D3.0, and was revised for 3.5. They even have adaptations for D&D's base classes! You can hybridize it however you like without much effort!

The point about the Adventurer class is that it is modular to its core. It has the worst chassis possible, but you can improve upon it with all the character points you gain when leveling up, so you could pull off pretty much any foreseeable archetype with it. Just think of "character points" as a kind of currency you have to spend on character abilities, and you can buy everything, from increased BAB to an increase in spellcasting capabilities, with pretty much everything that could be considered a class feature in between. Most classes get a few of these; only the Adventurer gets lots of them, and at every level.

Hint: it is very expensive to advance spellcasting in that system.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I dunno, maybe just because people in real life are often way more observant through one sense than through the other. And it's kinda flavorful to have characters that go one way or the other. I was pretty fond of my Dwarf Rogue whose eyesight was nothing special, but could hear a bat's wing flap from two caves away.


To be fair, Legend's default setting doesn't necessarily have real, provable gods like D&D's default settings.



I think when he said "original," he meant the books, rather than something that one would "watch." :smalltongue:

You can get stuff like traits to represent good in one sense, bad at another too.
Probably not as well, but it's something if in a game that just has Perception.

@Legend: Makes sense, surprised there isn't though. Legend sounds like the biggest contender for slaying the gods sort of deal.

@Conan: True, I forgot there were Conan books :P


Of course it does. That's why I told you about it, remember?

I think there was a misunderstanding, I'm looking for a simple where your person isn't restricted by class and can simply be their own character in their own vision.

[Draz74]

You can get stuff like traits to represent good in one sense, bad at another too.
Probably not as well, but it's something if in a game that just has Perception.
Yeah, that's basically what I do in CRE8.

But if a game system is keeping all kinds of niche skills like Forgery, Use Rope, Swim, Knowledge (nobility), and Gather Information ... then I feel like it might as well keep Spot and Listen separate too.


@Legend: Makes sense, surprised there isn't though. Legend sounds like the biggest contender for slaying the gods sort of deal.
True. When Legend 1.0 finally comes out, I'm looking forward to making some settings where the gods are just Level 18-20 characters statted up with the normal rules. :smallcool:

[Gwazi Magnum]

Yeah, that's basically what I do in CRE8.

But if a game system is keeping all kinds of niche skills like Forgery, Use Rope, Swim, Knowledge (nobility), and Gather Information ... then I feel like it might as well keep Spot and Listen separate too.


True. When Legend 1.0 finally comes out, I'm looking forward to making some settings where the gods are just Level 18-20 characters statted up with the normal rules. :smallcool:

True, but if I'm bothering to make it into one skill Perception, I'm probably taking some of the niche skills and pairing them up as well.

Have fun with the God Killing :P

[Draz74]

True, but if I'm bothering to make it into one skill Perception, I'm probably taking some of the niche skills and pairing them up as well.

OK, but I thought you said you didn't like whittling it down to 16-17 skills like Legend/4e? I guess there's some middle ground. Good luck finding it!

(I guess I don't think Legend/4e went far enough! In CRE8, only 10 skills remain: Athletics, Brawn, Charisma, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, Knowledge, Nature, Perception, Stealth. Most of them can be made more specialized, like you suggested for sight/hearing, via skill tricks.)

[Gwazi Magnum]

OK, but I thought you said you didn't like whittling it down to 16-17 skills like Legend/4e? I guess there's some middle ground. Good luck finding it!

(I guess I don't think Legend/4e went far enough! In CRE8, only 10 skills remain: Athletics, Brawn, Charisma, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, Knowledge, Nature, Perception, Stealth. Most of them can be made more specialized, like you suggested for sight/hearing, via skill tricks.)

I don't like it when they're simplified too much.
I'm fine with grouping some skills together when they really should be with each other.

Example: Hide and Move Silently

Plus: 4th and Legend both also just threw out a number of skills which I didn't like. Even if minor mostly useless skills I like the options.

[Gavinfoxx]

You see, that's why there should be a 'Know-How' skill, as a catch-all for mundane, non-adventuring things...

[Gwazi Magnum]

You see, that's why there should be a 'Know-How' skill, as a catch-all for mundane, non-adventuring things...

If it covers them in one? No.

Individually, agreed and give people some extra skills to train specific to that so they can flesh out their guy some more.

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually, yea if it covers all of them in one. If all the other skills are down to 10? Than yea, a Know-How skill is about as broad as all the others. So let there be one to cover 'non adventuring stuff'.

[DMVerdandi]

Are you asking for variant Open source content games, or suggestions on modifying D&D?

And do you want Low magic, Low Martial, Mid or High?
From the sound of it, you want some sort of balance between casters and martials. Well, you can't really do that without changing the classes from ground up. Honestly, I suggest doing just that. Create your own classes and homebrew that ish from the ground up. As long as you have the direction you can do it.

Here is how I would homebrew it all.

NPC's use Npc classes.

Pc classes are warrior, expert and spellcaster.

Warrior has fighter bonus feats AND Maneuvers. Instead of using the tob maneuvers, create your own schools based on stuff you think is cool.
Really aside from the names, TOB REALLY did an excellent job on maneuvers, so you can have similar stuff going on. Instead of schools, I would call them styles.

1. Raging Beat. ( bludgeoning damage focus: sunders, ignoring hardness, counters do CON damage, Boosts grant rage.)

2. Rending slash ( Slashing damage focus. Bleeding effects with strikes and limb cutting, Counters sunder and do precision damage and debuffs, Boosts increase speed and initiative)

3. Piercing stab (Bull rushes, Throws, charging. Boosts increase spot and perception checks,)

Perhaps create an archery/gunnery style as well.
Create your own maneuvers while still using the boost,counter,strike, and stance mechanics.
Warriors are proficient with all weapons and armors, and get 6+ skill points at every level, and can choose any 15 skills they want.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Experts don't get spells or maneuvers, but get bonus feats at every level, and can switch out their feats one at a time every day.
Experts get all skills as class skills. 8+int skills
Experts are proficient in all simple and martial weapons, and all light armors.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Casters are different based on their casting lists.
Each can choose which list they use, and what mental attribute they use to cast from it.
Once they choose a certain list, they are stuck in that list permanently, and cannot cast from any other list.

Druid, wizard, cleric are the lists.

Casters know every spell on their lists, and must prepare their spells every day. They can cast any spell they prepare as many times as they have slots for it. They need no foci, materials or books.

Spellbooks are used to gain a spell from another list in research. Once the spell is learned it is added to their "Acquired spell repertoire"


Spellcasters are proficient in simple weapons and get 2+int skills per level.



Any characters that don't fit in these archetypes are NPC classes.
Barbarians,rogues, and all those other types are just NPC warriors.
hedge wizards, low key priests, and various supernatural dudes are adepts, ect.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Are you asking for variant Open source content games, or suggestions on modifying D&D?

And do you want Low magic, Low Martial, Mid or High?
From the sound of it, you want some sort of balance between casters and martials. Well, you can't really do that without changing the classes from ground up. Honestly, I suggest doing just that. Create your own classes and homebrew that ish from the ground up. As long as you have the direction you can do it.

Here is how I would homebrew it all.

NPC's use Npc classes.

Pc classes are warrior, expert and spellcaster.

Warrior has fighter bonus feats AND Maneuvers. Instead of using the tob maneuvers, create your own schools based on stuff you think is cool.
Really aside from the names, TOB REALLY did an excellent job on maneuvers, so you can have similar stuff going on. Instead of schools, I would call them styles.

1. Raging Beat. ( bludgeoning damage focus: sunders, ignoring hardness, counters do CON damage, Boosts grant rage.)

2. Rending slash ( Slashing damage focus. Bleeding effects with strikes and limb cutting, Counters sunder and do precision damage and debuffs, Boosts increase speed and initiative)

3. Piercing stab (Bull rushes, Throws, charging. Boosts increase spot and perception checks,)

Perhaps create an archery/gunnery style as well.
Create your own maneuvers while still using the boost,counter,strike, and stance mechanics.
Warriors are proficient with all weapons and armors, and get 6+ skill points at every level, and can choose any 15 skills they want.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Experts don't get spells or maneuvers, but get bonus feats at every level, and can switch out their feats one at a time every day.
Experts get all skills as class skills. 8+int skills
Experts are proficient in all simple and martial weapons, and all light armors.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Casters are different based on their casting lists.
Each can choose which list they use, and what mental attribute they use to cast from it.
Once they choose a certain list, they are stuck in that list permanently, and cannot cast from any other list.

Druid, wizard, cleric are the lists.

Casters know every spell on their lists, and must prepare their spells every day. They can cast any spell they prepare as many times as they have slots for it. They need no foci, materials or books.

Spellbooks are used to gain a spell from another list in research. Once the spell is learned it is added to their "Acquired spell repertoire"


Spellcasters are proficient in simple weapons and get 2+int skills per level.



Any characters that don't fit in these archetypes are NPC classes.
Barbarians,rogues, and all those other types are just NPC warriors.
hedge wizards, low key priests, and various supernatural dudes are adepts, ect.

Interesting ideas.

But wouldn't the spell casters still be far more powerful/broken?

They sound just like wizard, just instead of a familliar and bonus feats they can choose a different ability score and spell list at character creation.

[DMVerdandi]

Interesting ideas.

But wouldn't the spell casters still be far more powerful/broken?

They sound just like wizard, just instead of a familliar and bonus feats they can choose a different ability score and spell list at character creation.

Cut off the level of spells they can use to five, and just increase the spells per day, Spells prepared, and don't cap level increases.
Now, some of the spells that required stronger evolutions don't. Also, some of the really crazy higher level spells aren't there.

Another thing is you can't use metamagic so much. Metamagic is the elephant in the room that many people don't look at.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Cut off the level of spells they can use to five, and just increase the spells per day, Spells prepared, and don't cap level increases.
Now, some of the spells that required stronger evolutions don't. Also, some of the really crazy higher level spells aren't there.

Another thing is you can't use metamagic so much. Metamagic is the elephant in the room that many people don't look at.

I've had our game broken just by spamming invisibility, fly and fireball before which are level 3 spells.

And these were without any metamagic done.

[wayfare]

All in all, I think the least effort is actually brewing a few casters to hit T3, like the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, and thier less versatile cousin, the Warmage.

(I brewed a sweet diviner version you can find here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244491)

These classes have thematically limited spell-lists that remove a lot of the versatility from casting. Makes it that much harder to break the game (though not impossible).

If you go that route, you need a T3 cleric, druid (well, sort of, you could just make a nature themed cleric)...and thats pretty much it.

You still have "high" magic, but your casters are limited in what they can accomplish. Fill any missing stuff with invocations.

Just my 2 cp. Hope you find what you are looking for!