What book is in greatest need of a rewrite?

[danzibr]

I personally think all of 3.5 needs a rewrite. Not because of balance issues (there certainly are balance issues, but individual parties can handle that) but because it's evolved over the years (like the introduction of swift and immediate actions, and stuff like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289783)) and there are silly things happening in RAW. Probably the most useful book we could get is a dictionary clearly defining all D&D terms (even more useful with comprehensive lists, such as a list of all "true dragons," whatever they are, and a precise list of natural weapons).

I've skimmed numerous 3.0 and 3.5 books but I've only really, really looked at a couple. I think Magic of Incarnum would benefit most from a rewrite. The rules are all over the place and there's a lot of ambiguity. I also think a great many individual shape or bind effects are rather lackluster (why some of them don't get essentia bonuses I'll never know).

[eggynack]

Tome of Magic. Just, frigging Tome of Magic. Truenamers are an idea that's brimming with potential, and it just turned out terribly. My understanding is that shadowcasters didn't turn out all that great either. These are good ideas, and they deserve infinitely more love than they got.

[Alabenson]

I'd have to say the Epic Level Handbook is in the most dire need of a rewrite, because;
1) It was never given a real update to 3.5 beyond some cursory errata.
2) There are well-documented issues with epic spellcasting.
3) 3.5 introduced numerous sub-systems such as ToB that have received zero epic support.

[CRtwenty]

I'll second the Epic Level Handbook.

Deities and Demigods could use one too since it was written before the Epic Rules had been created, and because of that the Gods have some goofy stats.

[Big Fau]

Core. A vast majority of RAW issues can be found in the Core 3.

[Averis Vol]

Honestly, I think its the players handbook. there is way to much broken crap in there.

[TuggyNE]

Tome of Magic, ELH, CPsi, and PHB, I'd say. CPsi because of the absurd pages of feats, broken power/metapsionic combinations *coughLinkedsynchronicitycough*, Divine Mind, and weird nerfs and adjustments to things. PHB because spells and feats that set such a terrible precedent.

[Invader]

I'd have to echo the epic level handbook. Really anything above 20th just becomes almost immediately absurd.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'll second the Player's Handbook... but the kind of changes we'd want out of it may be to systematic to be practical/comparable with anything else.

After that, the Tome of Magic probably has the least functional systems in the entire edition (Shadow Magic and Truenaming). The Binder could use better organizing, too.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Tome of Magic. Just, frigging Tome of Magic. Truenamers are an idea that's brimming with potential, and it just turned out terribly. My understanding is that shadowcasters didn't turn out all that great either. These are good ideas, and they deserve infinitely more love than they got.

Tome of Magic is definitely high on that list. Binder is okay, Shadowcaster is mediocre, and Truenamer is... well, we all know about the Truenamer.

The worst part is that they all have decently interesting mechanics not used elsewhere! With some touching up, it seriously could have been the best book in all of 3.5.

[Krobar]

Another vote for the epic level handbook.

In our games we decided that only deities (divine rank 1 or higher) can channel sufficient power to cast epic spells. The mortal frame just can't take that much energy.

[karkus]

Here's a fresh one, in desperate need of a slight rewrite; Sandstorm.

Holy crap, that was the greatest sourcebook ever, but it was pretty much unfinished. Walkers in the Waste can create "Salt Mummies," and it says that one uses "dark energies," etc., but it offers absolutely no way of determining how you actually make them. Do you just walk up to them and *poof*? Is it an alternative to Create Undead?

It seems like one of the best options for a character without being overpowered, but it was effectively ruined by lack of actually writing out the rules. :smallannoyed:

[nyarlathotep]

Here's a fresh one, in desperate need of a slight rewrite; Sandstorm.

Holy crap, that was the greatest sourcebook ever, but it was pretty much unfinished. Walkers in the Waste can create "Salt Mummies," and it says that one uses "dark energies," etc., but it offers absolutely no way of determining how you actually make them. Do you just walk up to them and *poof*? Is it an alternative to Create Undead?

It seems like one of the best options for a character without being overpowered, but it was effectively ruined by lack of actually writing out the rules. :smallannoyed:

Salt mummies are in the fiend folio. So at least you know what they are.

[Humble Master]

Salt mummies are in the fiend folio. So at least you know what they are. Actually Salt Mummies are in Monster Manual 3.

However I would give another vote for Epic Handbook. It is horribly balanced in general not to mention that a lot of good material(Tome of Battle, Incarnum ect.) didn't get put into the Epic Handbook (though I feel that there is too little ToB support in general. There really should have been a sequel).

Oh, and then we have Epic Spellcasting which is bad beyond words.

[Darth Stabber]

I have to echo the epic level handbook sentiment, it really needs it.

I personally want ToM to get fixed more, but epic levels have a higher potential utility. I am absolutely in love with the truenamer concept, and the implementation is horrible. Shadowcaster has a cute concept, but with a boring and unnecessarily complicated implementation.

MoI, while being my favorite splat, does have some issues needing addressing, mostly a simplification of layout, de-blue-ification, and hammering soulborn into a playable class.

[Psyren]

I say forget the ELH - balance problems start long before epic levels, waiting that long to fix them is pointless without overhauling everything from the ground up.

ToM and MoI get my votes. MoI in particular has a lot of potential to patch up other weak spots in 3.5, such as letting VoP users, Monks or Fighters access some of their feats.

[lsfreak]

I say forget the ELH - balance problems start long before epic levels, waiting that long to fix them is pointless without overhauling everything from the ground up.

I'm of this opinion as well.

I'd say:
ToM - Points have been covered
PHB - It has not aged well, compared to things like the second round of Completes, PHB2, and ToB.
The first round of Completes: These suffer many of the same problems as the PHB, being early in 3.5's life. There are a small number of options that get widespread use, while the vast majority are too niche, too underpowered, or poorly implemented. Especially if a rewrite would incorporate ToB, ToM, and MoI.

[ddude987]

Honestly, I think its the players handbook. there is way to much broken crap in there.

Yeah Wizards Monks should just be removed because they are so busted

[NevinPL]

I personally think all of 3.5 needs a rewrite.
And it has been done. It's called 4th Edition ;)


I think Magic of Incarnum would benefit most from a rewrite. The rules are all over the place and there's a lot of ambiguity.
Hear, hear.

From the books other people mentioned:
- Complete Psionic (and EPH too, I really don't like the removal of psionic combat, and the psionic focus thing),
Other books like ToM\B, ELH I didn't really use, so I have no opinion.

[Grinner]

Player's Handbook, for sure.

[eggynack]

Yeah Wizards Monks should just be removed because they are so busted
Well, y'know, they actually are. If the game were all wizards all the time, the game would be pretty much balanced. The reason the PHB is so broken is because the power level has such a high level of variance. Core only has one tier three class, while the plurality of classes outside of core are tier three. So, monks probably should be removed. They exist at a significantly lower power level than every other base class. Moreover, they're rather poorly designed for many reasons, including the lack of a focal point to build around. The book is poorly designed on many levels, and one of those levels is the monk.

On another note, I get why the epic level handbook being crappy might not be a big deal, but it still probably deserves a rewrite. Just like the PHB, it has options with a ridiculous level of variance. People talk a lot about how borked epic spell casting is, but the other end is problematic in a lot of ways as well. I mean, epic monk gives you two feats, some speed increase, and an AC bump, over the course of ten levels. Epic levels take the regular issues in the game, and magnify them by a lot. I know that you're doing great at epic if you have spells, but who the hell came up with the mystic theurge progression? Why would they give alternating casting progression? It just makes no sense. The problems with epic levels might not be as important as the problems with high levels, but that's no excuse for poor design.

[INoKnowNames]

All of them need a rewrite, with newer books actually taking stock of what was written into older books, too.

My emphasis will be placed firmly on the Player's Handbook. Because that's the one book, bar none, that influences every other book in existance, bar none. So the root of all problems should be dealt with first.

After that, Epic Level Handbook at least should have multiple editions for all the awesome classes that came out afterward, or all other books should have epic progressions.... and then, out of personal bias, for all that I enjoy it, Book of Exalted Deeds (and subsequently Vile Darkness), with views on alignment that that are more concrete and mesh well with the rules and feel of the game.

[Eldariel]

PHB doesn't even contain the concepts of "swift action" and "immediate action" resulting in the obsolete "free action once per turn" wording for e.g. Quicken Spell and a very, very weird wording for Feather Fall. Not to mention Wildshape and such that have nothing to do with how they are originally written. The book contains stuff that lack definitions (what does "familiar" mean in the context of Wildshape, for instance?) and Grapple-rules (way to write an exclusive list in a game where you constantly create new abilities with splats...) and such.

This is not to even get to the stupid wordings that create massive balance problems (Gate/Planar Binding "control"-clause, Simulacrum's lack of limitations, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes-type effects, Polymorph-type effects, etc.), concepts such as full attack, and balance issues in general.

[Alienist]

I personally think all of 3.5 needs a rewrite. Not because of balance issues (there certainly are balance issues, but individual parties can handle that) but because it's evolved over the years (like the introduction of swift and immediate actions, and stuff like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289783)) and there are silly things happening in RAW. Probably the most useful book we could get is a dictionary clearly defining all D&D terms (even more useful with comprehensive lists, such as a list of all "true dragons," whatever they are, and a precise list of natural weapons).

I've skimmed numerous 3.0 and 3.5 books but I've only really, really looked at a couple. I think Magic of Incarnum would benefit most from a rewrite. The rules are all over the place and there's a lot of ambiguity. I also think a great many individual shape or bind effects are rather lackluster (why some of them don't get essentia bonuses I'll never know).

True Dragon is, in fact, a well defined term. It's a much more defined term than almost anything else in the game.

The problem is that people wilfully ignore the 90% of that which doesn't fit with their pet theory on how to break the game.

Also, and this is a systemic problem which other people have noted in this thread, that the curatorship of the game in general is lacking. E.g. when they come up with a new definition they don't bother back-porting it.

You have legions of rules-lawyers pouring over the rules looking for loopholes, and 3.5 is a very fertile ground for that. Rewriting any one rule-book isn't going to fix that.


And it has been done. It's called 4th Edition ;)


Hear, hear.

From the books other people mentioned:
- Complete Psionic (and EPH too, I really don't like the removal of psionic combat, and the psionic focus thing),
Other books like ToM\B, ELH I didn't really use, so I have no opinion.

One of my pet theories is that 3.5 is more popular than 4.0 because 4.0 is much better balanced.

Even in 4.0 you constantly see people asking which of two (or more) classes is better. A not insignificant fraction of the fanbase wants to gain more power through system mastery. It's the system mastery people (not all of whom are after power for its own sake of course) who buy all the sourcebooks.

Hence with 5th edition they basically threw balance right out the window, made the base fighter chassis blow goats again and so forth. There were complaints (surprise!), and I think they're setting themselves up for another backlash ... most epic fantasy has someone running around with a sword bashing in people's skulls, and so everyone who likes that role (which actually did what it said on the tin in 4.0) is going to hate 5th ed with a passion.

[undead hero]

Not a rewrite but...

Create the PHB again with all the definitions and feats and such but the classes and rules for the classes are...

Warblade
Swordsage
Crusader
Knight
Barbarian
Rogue
Incarnate
Totemist
Binder
Favored Soul
Dread Necromancer
Beguiler
Warmage
Bard

[Eldan]

I'll second the PHB. If we can do it really massively, I'd like to please change:

The basic attack system, the skill system, combat maneuvers, most feats, most spells and the way basic spellcasting works. Oh, and most of the classes.

Next is Epic. That book is the worst mess out of all there are, sure. But it comes up so rarely, I don't really care.

[BowStreetRunner]

I always felt that, while there were certainly poorly implemented mechanics in many books like Tome of Magic, the one book that really irked me was Complete Divine. There were so many contradictions between text and table and other obvious errors that were never corrected by errata, I just always felt that it had suffered from the poorest editing of any 3.5 source I had seen.

[Yora]

A book that is rather bad, but could have been really great?

I'd say that would be Tome of Magic.

[Shining Wrath]

Unearthed Arcana. Banned from Iron Chef competitions because there is just so much brokenness.

[Raineh Daze]

Unearthed Arcana. Banned from Iron Chef competitions because there is just so much brokenness.

Isn't that going to happen when one side is using alternate rules that the other isn't, regardless of brokenness? :smallconfused:

[CRtwenty]

Unearthed Arcana. Banned from Iron Chef competitions because there is just so much brokenness.

Unearthed Arcana being broken is kind of a D&D tradition. Balancing it would be sacrilege!

[NevinPL]

One of my pet theories is that 3.5 is more popular than 4.0 because 4.0 is much better balanced.
Don't know, don't want to. All the info I need about 4.0, I got from it's preview back in the day, and it was more than enough.

[CRtwenty]

Don't know, don't want to. All the info I need about 4.0, I got from it's preview back in the day, and it was more than enough.

There's no need to turn this into an edition debate.

[undead hero]

There's no need to turn this into an edition debate.

I doubt you can have an edition debate with someone who only read a preview of one....

Also can I vote for Darksun and Spelljammer? :smalltongue:

[The Dark Fiddler]

ToM and MoI get my votes. MoI in particular has a lot of potential to patch up other weak spots in 3.5, such as letting VoP users, Monks or Fighters access some of their feats.

Hmm.... a Vow of Poverty fix that works by replacing the magic items with Incarnum! Brilliant!


My emphasis will be placed firmly on the Player's Handbook. Because that's the one book, bar none, that influences every other book in existance, bar none. So the root of all problems should be dealt with first.

The problem there is exactly that: it influences every other book. If you're rewriting one book, and you choose the Player's Handbook, you're left with a decade of splatbooks that no longer work because what they were based on has changed completely.


Unearthed Arcana. Banned from Iron Chef competitions because there is just so much brokenness.

I thought it was less because it was broken and more because the majority of the book is optional rule variants, and it's easier to have everybody on the same page?

[NevinPL]

There's no need to turn this into an edition debate.
I think you quoted the wrong person.

[killem2]

Epic Level Handbook. Should have been 2 times thicker and branched into adventure paths and splatbooks just for epic levels. :smallfrown:

[Shining Wrath]

Isn't that going to happen when one side is using alternate rules that the other isn't, regardless of brokenness? :smallconfused:

Every book after PHB and DMG provides alternate rules. New class? Alternate rules. New feat? Alternate rules.

One set of alternate rules, those found in UA, are banned. Not because they are alternate, but because of The Brokenness.:smallbiggrin:

[CRtwenty]

I doubt you can have an edition debate with someone who only read a preview of one....

Also can I vote for Darksun and Spelljammer? :smalltongue:

Only if you include Planescape as well.


Every book after PHB and DMG provides alternate rules. New class? Alternate rules. New feat? Alternate rules.

One set of alternate rules, those found in UA, are banned. Not because they are alternate, but because of The Brokenness.:smallbiggrin:

The UA variants drastically change the underlying mechanics of the game. Something the other books don't do. They may add additional mechanics and such, but only UA changes the basic rules.

[Raineh Daze]

Every book after PHB and DMG provides alternate rules. New class? Alternate rules. New feat? Alternate rules.

One set of alternate rules, those found in UA, are banned. Not because they are alternate, but because of The Brokenness.:smallbiggrin:

Umm, new content? No. Alteration of underlying game mechanics, though? Yes. I mean, hell, 3d6 instead of 1d20 and hexgrids alone are huge changes.

Rather odd that it also bans the ACFs found in UA, though.


Hmm.... a Vow of Poverty fix that works by replacing the magic items with Incarnum! Brilliant!

It's... flawed.

[137beth]

I'm gonna go with the ELH. The thing is, playing epic games without using a ton of homebrew is a lot like playing core-only, but with have of the character options removed. Epic games have almost no support whatsoever. It should be rewritten to include support for the various additional subystems.
Also, it seems like the ELH got little-to-no playtesting. The designers didn't seem to realize, for example, the extent of power that could come from WBL. They seemed oblivious the fact that increasing one skill astronomically through items was cheap, and would cause issues if an entire subsystem (epic spells) was based around a single skill check.

[undead hero]

Only if you include Planescape as well.



The UA variants drastically change the underlying mechanics of the game. Something the other books don't do. They may add additional mechanics and such, but only UA changes the basic rules.

Planescape
Spelljammer
Darksun
Updated PHB as I mentioned before.

What more would a PC/DM Need?

[CRtwenty]

Planescape
Spelljammer
Darksun
Updated PHB as I mentioned before.

What more would a PC/DM Need?

How about an official 3.5 version of the Tomb of Horrors that's actually faithful to the original dungeon? :smallamused:

[undead hero]

How about an official 3.5 version of the Tomb of Horrors that's actually faithful to the original dungeon? :smallamused:

I wouldn't have the guys at WotC do it then....

Perhaps hire some subcontractors, I hear TSR is back....

[Yora]

Planescape only needs a reprint. The content can be left almost entirely unchanged, even if you want to update it to a different rules system.

[The Viscount]

I agree that core is in greatest need. As mentioned, everything hinges on it, so to rewrite core would be to rewrite everything, but it could still do with one the most.

ToM indeed needs a rewrite, as the classes could do with better formatting and layout (Binder), balance fixing (Shadowcaster), or a complete fix of the core mechanic (Truenamer).

Now that those are out of the way, a few that I personally want rewritten.
Heroes of Horror. This book was simply not written using the correct game terminology, which results in all manner of problems. For an example, see the Font of Life feat, or half of Dread Necromancer's What does it say about a book that deals with the importance of fear that it doesn't note the duration of more than half of the fear auras?

Heroes of Battle. The text itself of this book is fine, but the formatting is an assault on the eyes. I mention that this one needs a rewrite because it'd be the easiest to fix.

MMIV and MMV. I don't know about other people, but I really prefer the monster statblocks from earlier books. The statblocks here are very bizarrely presented. Want to find what DR is? That's not in special qualities, that's up by hp. Want to find the radius of its fear aura? That's up at the top in an "auras" section. I could also live without the absolute hordes of dragonspawn of Tiamat in MMIV.

[Venger]

I agree that core is in greatest need. As mentioned, everything hinges on it, so to rewrite core would be to rewrite everything, but it could still do with one the most.

ToM indeed needs a rewrite, as the classes could do with better formatting and layout (Binder), balance fixing (Shadowcaster), or a complete fix of the core mechanic (Truenamer).

I feel this bears elaboration.

The binder's vestiges are listed alphabetically and not alphabetically by vestige level. This makes it very difficult for a new player to find anything. Starting at level 3 and only have access to 2nd level vestiges? hope you don't mind wading through 80% of the vestiges, because savnok's in there.

however, this still pales in comparison to the layout issues in MoI.

If I could pick one book to be reprinted, it would be MoI. To say nothing of:

-the complete lack of prestige support if you don't want to roll necrocarnate, ironsoul forgemaster, or a theurge

-the base classes in it being very multiclassing unfriendly (if your primary chassis is meldshaper, since as everyone knows, they're great for dips)

-soulborn being so wholly unusable that it doesn't even have a handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12681)

-the abilities you unlock from your melds being so behind the curve that you won't care by the time you get many of your utility melds (true seeing at 19 when the party has it at 11? immunity to energy drain at 14 when you need it at 7?)

-essentially not being allowed to use magic items even though your somewhat lackluster class features and the focus on melee combat means that you'll need them more than anyone

There is a much more pervasive and frustrating problem with the book that would require no actual effort to fix and wouldn't involve changing any of the content:

On page 54, there is a list of melds. This looks fine at first, even listing what chakra they're shaped to. However, this is where the things they do right end.

Each meld has a shaped effect, an essentia effect, and a bound effect.

some melds are +4 to 2 or 3 skills, +2 for each essentia invested, bound is some unique effect, sometimes an immunity, attack, or SLA.

however, the chart only gives the shaped effect. it also doesn't tell you what type the bonus (to skills, attacks, damage, etc) is, so you don't know if two melds stack or not. (oh cool, elder spirit + mage spectacles will let me make umd checks without rolling. nope: both insight)

it also doesn't tell you what the essentia effect is. some melds follow the 4/2 formula, but many don't. many have completely different effects for their shaped and essentia effects, such as the necrocarnum touch, or the impulse boots.

it does at least list what chakra they're supposed to be shaped to (and thus bound to, since melds can only be bound where they're shaped -except totem melds-)

but there's another problem here. many melds can be shaped (and thus bound) to different chakras, giving wholly different bound effects, such as the keeneye lenses or the elder spirit.

the keeneye lenses can be shaped to the brow or soul chakra. however, there's no symbol or asterisk or note of any kind on them that says "this can be bound to multiple chakras" much less indicating what those chakras are.

the melds are also, in the actual writeup section, all jumbled together for no adequately explained reason even though the incarnate and totemist share only two melds (the lammasu mantle and the riding bracers) so if I want to find melds for one class, I have to, again, as with binder, wade through everything alphabetically, but unlike with binder, where I'd have to deal with those vestiges eventually, I do not have to know all the totemist melds if I'm rolling straight incarnate

the soulborn has only 5 unique melds (soulspeaker's circlet, mauling gauntlets, gloves of the poisoned soul, fearsome mask, and thunderstep boots), pulling the majority of its list from incarnate with a few odd totemist melds here and there, so likewise there's no real reason for its weird melds to be mixed in with totemist and incarnate.



Now that those are out of the way, a few that I personally want rewritten.
Heroes of Horror. This book was simply not written using the correct game terminology, which results in all manner of problems. For an example, see the Font of Life feat, or half of Dread Necromancer's What does it say about a book that deals with the importance of fear that it doesn't note the duration of more than half of the fear auras?
Agreed



Heroes of Battle. The text itself of this book is fine, but the formatting is an assault on the eyes. I mention that this one needs a rewrite because it'd be the easiest to fix.
ppppppppppppppppqq Idon'tknow w h a t you'retalking a bout qqqqqqpppppp


MMIV and MMV. I don't know about other people, but I really prefer the monster statblocks from earlier books. The statblocks here are very bizarrely presented. Want to find what DR is? That's not in special qualities, that's up by hp. Want to find the radius of its fear aura? That's up at the top in an "auras" section. I could also live without the absolute hordes of dragonspawn of Tiamat in MMIV.
I agree, but want to mention all those zillions of thoonspawn in mm5. same problem as the rainbow coalition of tiamat

[rollforeigninit]

Kind surprised no one mentioned Weapons of Legacy. Awesome concept. Awful implementation. It also was meant to help cure magic mart bloat and they instead cemented it in place by making the alternative soooo godawful bad that no one uses it. I turned down the opportunity to buy it for 3$

All that being said, I'd go for Epic too.

[Raineh Daze]

ToB needs something done about its organisational abilities, probably. What sane person lists the schools alphabetically, including detailed writeups, but has the levelled list at the very beginning of that chapter? :smallconfused:

... there's probably more, because I know I've heard complaints about the way that's laid out before.

[RFLS]

*sigh* The absolute worst part is that almost all of the best stuff isn't under the OGL, so a compilation/rewrite/revising of the system as a whole is illegal (well, is illegal if you make it available to the public).

[137beth]

I agree, but want to mention all those zillions of thoonspawn in mm5. same problem as the rainbow coalition of tiamat
I actually liked the Thoon stuff in MMV. Honestly, MMIV and MMV made the monsters feel like more than unconnected random encounters. I liked that.


*sigh* The absolute worst part is that almost all of the best stuff isn't under the OGL, so a compilation/rewrite/revising of the system as a whole is illegal (well, is illegal if you make it available to the public).
I think the worst part is a combination of the facts that the best stuff in not OGL, that WotC really doesn't want to do anything with 3.X anymore, AND that they seem to have no intention of licensing 3.X material out to anyone else:smallfrown:

Now, IIRC there is a 3rd party re-write of pact magic for PF, although it is so different that you could basically use it in the same game as a WotC binder. Which sorta seems like a waste, because if another publisher was going to completely redo a single ToM class to make it playable AND different enough to not be a copyright infringement, I would have preferred if they had picked a class other than the one that already works fine:smallannoyed:

[Grinner]

*sigh* The absolute worst part is that almost all of the best stuff isn't under the OGL, so a compilation/rewrite/revising of the system as a whole is illegal (well, is illegal if you make it available to the public).

What makes you say that? It's not like WotC has copyright to the rules, only the wording of rules. You could totally do it, but it's just extremely impractical.

How else do you think the Old School Renaissance people do their thing?

Edit: Oh, right. You'd also have to avoid using trademarks.

[RFLS]

What makes you say that? It's not like WotC has copyright to the rules, only the wording of rules. You could totally do it, but it's just extremely impractical.

How else do you think the Old School Renaissance people do their thing?

Wait, what? So, if I were to, say, do a rewrite of all the core rules, the subsystems, the classes, the feats, the skills, etcetera, and then make them available here, it'd be legal as long as the wording were significantly altered?

[Grinner]

Wait, what? So, if I were to, say, do a rewrite of all the core rules, the subsystems, the classes, the feats, the skills, etcetera, and then make them available here, it'd be legal as long as the wording were significantly altered?

Kinda. You couldn't call it D&D or use terms like Incarnum. You'd also need to be able to represent it as original work, meaning you would need to alter the premise significantly. And that still wouldn't stop WotC from being able to file a complaint, but at least you'd have some ground to stand on.

Again, it's highly impractical.

[RFLS]

highly impractical.

My middle name.

[Grinner]

My middle name.

You're talking about writing a decade's worth of books from scratch, minus the numbers. You're not talking about simply copying some books and juggling the words around.

[RFLS]

You're talking about writing a decade's worth of books from scratch, minus the numbers. You're not talking about simply copying some books and juggling the words around.

*shrug* I'm aware. I've got all of the non-setting books and most of the setting-specific ones. I have, sadly, a lot of spare time on my hands in the foreseeable future. And, while there are at least 90+ books to sift through, I'm not going to redo everything, I don't think. I dunno... I'll have a look and see what should be done.

[Eldan]

Planescape only needs a reprint. The content can be left almost entirely unchanged, even if you want to update it to a different rules system.

Not sure. I'd buy the Baator out of a third edition Planescape Monstrous Compendium.

[TuggyNE]

My middle name.

How does that work, exactly? RF Impractical LS? :smalltongue:

[NevinPL]

Wait, what? So, if I were to, say, do a rewrite of all the core rules, the subsystems, the classes, the feats, the skills, etcetera, and then make them available here, it'd be legal as long as the wording were significantly altered?
It's called "derivative work", or some other "layer talk" term.
But it boils down to this: who's got better lawyers, more "pull", who can afford months in court, to prove your side of it ?


I'm not going to redo everything, I don't think. I dunno... I'll have a look and see what should be done.
I don't thing you understand. You couldn't use anything that is considered "theirs", product identity, intellectual property, etc. That's why the small hairy leg DnD people, are called Halflings, not Hobbits, Treants, not Ent, and so on. So your wording would confuse the Nine Hells out of people reading it. + you probably couldn't make legend explaining what your terms mean in comparison to standard DnD (Soulfknife=SpiritFork, Tarraasque=BFMonster, etc). It all depends on what WotC (C), (R), and (TM).
But don't kid yourself. If they shut down people for making their own custom character sheets, or their own listings of WotC stuff, they would shut you down too.

[RFLS]

How does that work, exactly? RF Impractical LS? :smalltongue:

I was thinking I could just be described as really, foolishly, laughably simplistic.

[The Viscount]

The result of using only OGL terms to describe things would likely make a lot of things sound like the hilarious "slayer" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/slayer.htm) PrC.

[137beth]

I was thinking I could just be described as really, foolishly, laughably simplistic.

But...but none of those are "impractical":smalltongue:

The result of using only OGL terms to describe things would likely make a lot of things sound like the hilarious "slayer" PrC.
To be fair, the only class features that got really silly were the favored enemy (redacted) and blast feedback.

[Kuulvheysoon]

And it has been done. It's called 4th Edition ;)


Hear, hear.

From the books other people mentioned:
- Complete Psionic (and EPH too, I really don't like the removal of psionic combat, and the psionic focus thing),
Other books like ToM\B, ELH I didn't really use, so I have no opinion.

Good gods, man, are you insane?


Unearthed Arcana. Banned from Iron Chef competitions because there is just so much brokenness.

Technically, it's only the alternative rules that are banned in there (Fractional BAB, alternate skill systems). The Alternative classes are kosher, and the bloodlines are... iffy, but allowed.

[Darth Stabber]

Kind surprised no one mentioned Weapons of Legacy. Awesome concept. Awful implementation. It also was meant to help cure magic mart bloat and they instead cemented it in place by making the alternative soooo godawful bad that no one uses it. I turned down the opportunity to buy it for 3$

If you get the opportunity again, pm me, i'll buy it for $3.

[Beelzebub1111]

Monster Manual 2 needs work. The CRs are a mess for a lot of the monsters in it.

I don't think Tome of Magic is bad, It's 2/3rds good. Two out of three ain't bad.

[RFLS]

I don't think Tome of Magic is bad, It's 2/3rds good. Two out of three ain't bad.

Well, it's only 66%.

[Karnith]

I don't think Tome of Magic is bad, It's 2/3rds good. Two out of three ain't bad.
Shadowcasting has problems of its own, even if they aren't anywhere near as bad as those of Truenaming.

[Raineh Daze]

I don't think Tome of Magic is bad, It's 2/3rds good. Two out of three ain't bad.

This is not the time to be quoting song names. :smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'll submit for consideration Tome of Battle. If not for a rewrite, then for a proper edit. It's incredible how vague some of the powers are, and how poorly edited the book is. How exactly does a swordsage getting 6x skill points at first level get through?

[Darth Stabber]

This is not the time to be quoting song names. :smalltongue:

I would do anything for love, but I won't do that.

Excellent musician and what i'm making for dinner Wednesday.

But shadowcaster sucks, and is needlessly complex, yet the flavor would be interesting to explore were I to have a better class to do the exploring (as it sits beguiler is far better for exploring that space). People give it an unwarranted pass because it's in the same book as truenamer. Truenamer's aweful star doth shine to bright.


I'll submit for consideration Tome of Battle. If not for a rewrite, then for a proper edit. It's incredible how vague some of the powers are, and how poorly edited the book is. How exactly does a swordsage getting 6x skill points at first level get through?

The editors of 3.5 D&D weren't the best, especially at that timeframe, at least it seems like ToB got a proper playtest (either that or it ws the best stab in the dark in the history of game design), where as ToM didn't even seem to get that. I don't get it, the M:tG team does an amazing job of ensuring things are well written, templated, and much more thoroughly tested (I know some crap still gets through {*cough*JTMS*cough*}, but that just shows you the power of crowd sourcing). They needed more cross pollination between departments (though I am afraid of what would happen if you let MaRo write a D&D splat).

[Drachasor]

I'd say the PHB. Take a page from the TOB, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, etc, and rework all the classes into tier 3. (Personally, I'd like to see all classes have the same BAB progression, as that is one of the nice things about 4E, imho). I'd be in favor of removing iterative attacks as well -- taking a page from the ToB doesn't make this painful.

A lot of stuff can be fixed and made to work better right there. And we can get a proper glossary for all the terms that are used.

[TuggyNE]

But...but none of those are "impractical":smalltongue:

Clearly, he discovered that the acronym just wasn't working. It was too impractical.

And now you know!

[toapat]

though I am afraid of what would happen if you let MaRo write a D&D splat.

I imagine he did write a sourcebook. from his MTG blog, it sounds like over 99% of his card ideas are scrapped for every reason ever.


I imagine such a book would be so glorious, so terrible, and so perfect, that it would make all gamers, everywhere, ever. Weep, for Game hath been completed in totality.


Anyway, Every single system book barring UA is in need or revision, for different reasons.

PBH: Total System Rebuild
XPH: probably the book least itself in need of rework (or perhaps tied with Dungeonscape), however, sweeping reworks would require changes
Incarnum: Formating
ToM: So much broken
ToB: not even sure this book would survive a proper rewrite, if only because fixing everything so that its properly balanced (actual balance, not 4th Ed's bulldozer method) means this book is more a second Complete Warrior.
ELH: Final book, split into at least 3 parts itself, actual epic spellcasting rules.
UA: While UA survives to each edition, it also dies to each edition, because UA thrives off of the core of that edition



Honestly, i think Path of Exile's skill system holds the ideas (but not the ideal execution) required to create a simple system for all things mythical and mundane.

[eggynack]

ToB: not even sure this book would survive a proper rewrite, if only because fixing everything so that its properly balanced (actual balance, not 4th Ed's bulldozer method) means this book is more a second Complete Warrior.

What does this even mean? Tome of Battle is generally considered to be one of the most balanced books in the game, due to every single class within it being at tier three. There are a couple of things that definitely need reworking, like iron heart surge, and white raven tactics, but the book certainly isn't imbalanced on an intrinsic level.

[Eldariel]

What does this even mean? Tome of Battle is generally considered to be one of the most balanced books in the game, due to every single class within it being at tier three. There are a couple of things that definitely need reworking, like iron heart surge, and white raven tactics, but the book certainly isn't imbalanced on an intrinsic level.

He's saying if the whole system were sensibly written, ToB classes would probably be integrated to the Core and the basic combat system, and thus there'd be no extra material for the book to offer beyond additional maneuvers, feats, items and PRCs. Ergo, CW.

[eggynack]

He's saying if the whole system were sensibly written, ToB classes would probably be integrated to the Core and the basic combat system, and thus there'd be no extra material for the book to offer beyond additional maneuvers, feats, items and PRCs. Ergo, CW.
That sounds a lot more like everything else being in need of a rewrite, with ToB serving as the new basis for melee in core. That'd make ToB more of a PHB than a CW.

[Eldariel]

That sounds a lot more like everything else being in need of a rewrite, with ToB serving as the new basis for melee in core. That'd make ToB more of a PHB than a CW.

*shrug* One way to look at it. The way he was putting it involved Total System Rework of PHB which would involve ToB and thus a rework of ToB would be extraneous as it had already been rewritten into the PHB. I suppose. That is, if ToB were to exist separately of this PHB, it would be like CW unto this reworked PHB, and thus might not have a reason to exist alongside the new CW. That, I believe, was his fundamental idea.

[eggynack]

*shrug* One way to look at it. The way he was putting it involved Total System Rework of PHB which would involve ToB and thus a rework of ToB would be extraneous as it had already been rewritten into the PHB. I suppose. That is, if ToB were to exist separately of this PHB, it would be like CW unto this reworked PHB, and thus might not have a reason to exist alongside the new CW. That, I believe, was his fundamental idea.
Yeah, that makes enough sense, I think. I'm not entirely sure that that was what he was implying, but it would probably be a logical enough implication. If we're reworking the system to be more balanced, incorporating ToB stuff into the core mechanics would be a good first step.

[Roguenewb]

Complete Psionic? Among the pile of things it introduces, it includes a weak class, the lurk, a class that literally doesn't work, almost as poorly as truenamer, Divine Mind. It includes a whole chain of feats and a PrC that literally cannot exist inside the given fluff (Illithid Heritage stuff). 1 half decent PrC, soulbow, and 1 good PrC, Anarchic Initiate (and even this has problems in the skill reqs) and the rest of the PrCs are absolute trash. Most are on the -1 PrC tier, and a couple are on the -2 list. Truely trashy. The feats are wildly overexpanded. Like 10 feats are just variations on Exotic Mind Blade Shape. And somehow, on top of all that, includes the horribly broken Linked Power and Anticipitory Strike!!!

To make it far worse, as insult to injury, it's the only dedicated psionic book after XPH. The scraps of material hidden in other books are actually more usable content than the only other psionic book!!! It was a massively lost opportunity.

[Kuulvheysoon]

How has this thread gotten so far without anyone mentioning Complete Psionic? Among the pile of things it introduces, it includes a weak class, the lurk, a class that literally doesn't work, almost as poorly as truenamer, Divine Mind. It includes a whole chain of feats and a PrC that literally cannot exist inside the given fluff (Illithid Heritage stuff). 1 half decent PrC, soulbow, and 1 good PrC, Anarchic Initiate (and even this has problems in the skill reqs) and the rest of the PrCs are absolute trash. Most are on the -1 PrC tier, and a couple are on the -2 list. Truely trashy. The feats are wildly overexpanded. Like 10 feats are just variations on Exotic Mind Blade Shape. And somehow, on top of all that, includes the horribly broken Linked Power and Anticipitory Strike!!!

To make it far worse, as insult to injury, it's the only dedicated psionic book after XPH. The scraps of material hidden in other books are actually more usable content than the only other psionic book!!! It was a massively lost opportunity.

Ummm... dude?


Tome of Magic, ELH, CPsi, and PHB, I'd say. CPsi because of the absurd pages of feats, broken power/metapsionic combinations *coughLinkedsynchronicitycough*, Divine Mind, and weird nerfs and adjustments to things. PHB because spells and feats that set such a terrible precedent.



- Complete Psionic (and EPH too, I really don't like the removal of psionic combat, and the psionic focus thing),
Other books like ToM\B, ELH I didn't really use, so I have no opinion.

[NevinPL]

Good gods, man, are you insane?
I don't see anything insane about dislike, caused by removal of one of the few things, that set psionics really apart from magic, that make it interesting not just: "magic with points".
I didn't say that the idea, and execution was flawless.

[SaintRidley]

I always felt that, while there were certainly poorly implemented mechanics in many books like Tome of Magic, the one book that really irked me was Complete Divine. There were so many contradictions between text and table and other obvious errors that were never corrected by errata, I just always felt that it had suffered from the poorest editing of any 3.5 source I had seen.

I thought the same up until they released Complete Psionic.

But answering Complete Psionic is basically cheating at this question, so I'll echo the ELH sentiment and throw in Complete Divine as well.

[sonofzeal]

I don't see anything insane about dislike, caused by removal of one of the few things, that set psionics really apart from magic, that make it interesting not just: "magic with points".
I didn't say that the idea, and execution was flawless.
Wanting psi to be different than magic is understandable. Wanting psychic combat back is completely incomprehensible. The idea was a total trainwreck from day one. It's not that it suffered poor implementation so much as the entire concept was terrible. You'd have to change it almost beyond recognition* to have any real chance of salvaging it.



* Make attack and defence modes instead a set of powers automatically granted to anything with enough pp/ML. Make attack modes simple standard action attacks that work like any other offensive power and have specific effects on success. Make defence modes an Immediate action that gives a certain benefit, like a bonus to saves or resistance to certain kinds of damage.

If this is now basically identical to spells like Hold Monster on the one side and Energy Aegis on the other.... well, there's a reason for that. :smallwink:

[RFLS]

Clearly, he discovered that the acronym just wasn't working. It was too impractical.

And now you know!

Okay, I'm just going to set this straight. That's not what my user name stands for. It doesn't actually stand for anything. It's just a random four letter string.

[Karnith]

Wanting psi to be different than magic is understandable. Wanting psychic combat back is completely incomprehensible.
Obligatory psychic combat copypasta:

I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

[NevinPL]

Wanting psychic combat back is completely incomprehensible. [...] You'd have to change it almost beyond recognition* to have any real chance of salvaging it.
:D
So which one it is ?
It's: "completely incomprehensible", thus shouldn't\couldn't be done, or: "You'd have to change it almost beyond recognition" ?


Obligatory psychic combat copypasta:

I don't understand the hate, and mocking of psionic combat. I can think of couple of more broken\annoying things in 3E than that:
- +5 wooden club bypasses damage reduction /silver
- Dwarven Urgrosh is exotic weapon for all Dwarfs,
- so you want to write a scroll - give me a piece of your soul (XP),
- Arcane Magic is unholy, and thats why you can't wear armor like "The Most Holy One",
- full plate armor - still can be beaten to death with a stick (quarterstaff),
- the whole alignment thing.

[RFLS]

:D
So which one it is ?
It's: "completely incomprehensible", thus shouldn't\couldn't be done, or: "You'd have to change it almost beyond recognition" ?

You're sorta putting words in his mouth with the second part of that first sentence there. I think his point was that it's such a convoluted and specific system that, if you were to fix it, it would not really be recognizable as what you started with.


- +5 wooden club bypasses damage reduction /silver
- Dwarven Urgrosh is exotic weapon for all Dwarfs,
- so you want to write a scroll - give me a piece of your soul (XP),
- Arcane Magic is unholy, and thats why you can't wear armor like "The Most Holy One",
- full plate armor - still can be beaten to death with a stick (quarterstaff),
- the whole alignment thing.


[citation needed]
It's... a racial weapon. That that race uses. Because they made it. And other peoples don't. How does that not make sense? Realized what you actually meant. Then someone gave an answer to that point anyway.
XP is a meta-concept anyway. It's not actually part of your soul. The XP costs were introduced to keep crafting abuse down.
Uh...the reason that's actually in the rules is that the arcanists have very precise motions they have to make to use magic, and armor interferes with that by being, you know. Heavy. And bulky.
I guarantee you that you could kill someone with a quarterstaff if they're wearing full-plate. It just wouldn't be very pretty. Kinda like dropping an apple over and over and then peeling the skin off and letting all the sludge run out.
Wow, the alignment system is silly.

[Karnith]

[citation needed]It was a 3.0 thing. Any weapon enchanted to at least +1 automatically overcame DR/+1 or DR/Special material. They phased it out in 3.5.

Though thinking that any of those things (alignment excepted) are remotely as complex and unworkably broken as 3.0 psionics is, uh, questionable. Not to mention that characters dependent on all 6 ability scores are kind of terribad, even pretending that psionic combat isn't a thing.

[Vedhin]

I don't understand the hate, and mocking of psionic combat. I can think of couple of more broken\annoying things in 3E than that:
- +5 wooden club bypasses damage reduction /silver
- Dwarven Urgrosh is exotic weapon for all Dwarfs,
- so you want to write a scroll - give me a piece of your soul (XP),
- Arcane Magic is unholy, and thats why you can't wear armor like "The Most Holy One",
- full plate armor - still can be beaten to death with a stick (quarterstaff),
- the whole alignment thing.

+X weapons bypassing DR was removed in 3.5
Complete Warrior lets you trade on Dwarven X proficiency for a Dwarven Y proficiency
XP is a river so you get the XP back eventually
Not anything to do with "holiness"-- though Complete Mage does have a discussion about this subject
In real life, full plate won't do much against bludgeoning weapons
Alignment is widely known to be messed up

Psionic combat however, is just needless complicated for something that is required. Seriously, needing to keep track of all of that is just a pain for everyone, and the lack of a "neutral" defensive state with +/-0 across the board makes it even harder.

[Raineh Daze]

I don't understand the hate, and mocking of psionic combat. I can think of couple of more broken\annoying things in 3E than that:
- +5 wooden club bypasses damage reduction /silver
- Dwarven Urgrosh is exotic weapon for all Dwarfs,
- so you want to write a scroll - give me a piece of your soul (XP),
- Arcane Magic is unholy, and thats why you can't wear armor like "The Most Holy One",
- full plate armor - still can be beaten to death with a stick (quarterstaff),
- the whole alignment thing.

... how are a magic weapon, exotic weapon, cost for enchanting, not letting arcane spellcasters run around with even more defences, and AC not equalling DR broken? :smallconfused:

Alignment is unfortunate, but it's not exactly a completely nonfunctional, class-sabotaging wreck.

[Grinner]

- Dwarven Urgrosh is exotic weapon for all Dwarfs,

They don't need to spend a feat on them. Dwarves have cultural familiarity with urgoshes, allowing them to treat them as martial weapons. But yes, exotic weapons are pretty damn useless, chains aside.


XP is a meta-concept anyway. It's not actually part of your soul. The XP costs were introduced to keep crafting abuse down.

Agreed.


I guarantee you that you could kill someone with a quarterstaff if they're wearing full-plate. It just wouldn't be very pretty. Kinda like dropping an apple over and over and then peeling the skin off and letting all the sludge run out.

I think he's talking more about how useless heavy armor is. You could be a mountain of steel plates atop a steed of hate and hellfire, and that guy with two daggers and leather armor is still going to kick your ass.


Wow, the alignment system is silly.

No argument there.

[rollforeigninit]

Any chance we can keep this on topic? XPH is probably one of the books least in need of a rewrite, soulknife excepted. That bring said, DSP did rewrite it and expanded it. Did a fantastic job actually. Sadly that rewrite is PF so there's a fair amount of hate involved. CPSI could use a rewrite, though.

[Squirrel_Dude]

OT: I would also recommend that, if we're including Pathfinder books in the discussion, Ultimate Combat needs a rewrite. I hate, haaaaate, that book.



I think he's talking more about how useless heavy armor is. You could be a mountain of steel plates atop a steed of hate and hellfire, and that guy with two daggers and leather armor is still going to kick your ass.Yeah, IME, there is one guaranteed truth of D&D, regardless of houserules, RAW, etc.

No matter how much of X you have, guy Y is still going to kick your ass if the DM wants him to. He will have your one weakness, will have the strategic advantage over you, and do the one thing you have difficulty dealing with, and if that's not enough he'll be a wizard.

[Talderas]

Tome of Magic. Just, frigging Tome of Magic. Truenamers are an idea that's brimming with potential, and it just turned out terribly. My understanding is that shadowcasters didn't turn out all that great either. These are good ideas, and they deserve infinitely more love than they got.

Tome of Magic needs a rewrite solely because of the True Namer section, though Shadow Magic could use a pretty big touchup as well. When what amounts to a third of a book simply doesn't work, you have bigger problems indicating a rewrite than any sort of balance issues that might arise from content. The latter can at least be reasonably corrected by most tables with houserules guided by what's listed while the former provides absolutely no guidance on how to fix it making it practically wasted content.

[Ignominia]

As with numerous other posts,

EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK.

3.5 needs it to be complete. The errata makes it useable, but Id still like a premium reprint along side the core rules, spell and magic item compendium.

Hopefully someone from WotC reads this.:smallsmile:

[HylianKnight]

PHB doesn't even contain the concepts of "swift action" and "immediate action" resulting in the obsolete "free action once per turn" wording for e.g. Quicken Spell and a very, very weird wording for Feather Fall. Not to mention Wildshape and such that have nothing to do with how they are originally written. The book contains stuff that lack definitions (what does "familiar" mean in the context of Wildshape, for instance?) and Grapple-rules (way to write an exclusive list in a game where you constantly create new abilities with splats...) and such.

This is not to even get to the stupid wordings that create massive balance problems (Gate/Planar Binding "control"-clause, Simulacrum's lack of limitations, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes-type effects, Polymorph-type effects, etc.), concepts such as full attack, and balance issues in general.


Honestly, this is the reason that I became such a big fan of Pathfinder, because the Core Rule Book felt like the closest to a PhB rewrite that we'll ever get. The problem with PhB is that it's meant to be the base of 3.5, but it was written before they knew what 3.5 was or would become. They don't know what feats are used for or what they're worth, they don't know how valuable spell slots are, they don't yet have necessary terms like swift actions, the skill system is ridiculous etc. etc.

Pathfinder made a Core Rule Book having all that information ahead of time. Thus they had much more success in making it all coherent and usable. So yeah, I feel like it's the closest we'll ever get to a rewrite that still is very much recognizable as 3rd Edition.

[The Viscount]

Complete Psionic? Among the pile of things it introduces, it includes a weak class, the lurk, a class that literally doesn't work, almost as poorly as truenamer, Divine Mind.
Why does Divine Mind not work? I know it's certainly not good, but it certainly seems at least functional.

[NevinPL]

1. People, for Asmodeus sake, read what I wrote. Especially those of you that imply\say, that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. That whole list was about 3E, that's 3rd\Third Edition. And I was talking about missing psionic combat, not psionics in general. If you don't know the difference, you really should be quiet, or just get on with the main topic, which is:"What book is in greatest need of a rewrite?", and not try to "shine" your wisdom on the new guy. I got enough of "straw man" people in my life, I don't need it in my hobby too.

2. What' makes thing broken ? Majority ? So million of million of flies can't be wrong ?


I think his point was that it's such a convoluted and specific system that, if you were to fix it, it would not really be recognizable as what you started with.
So ? And ?


I think he's talking more about how useless heavy armor is. You could be a mountain of steel plates atop a steed of hate and hellfire, and that guy with two daggers and leather armor is still going to kick your ass.
Actually no. I was talking about the absurdity of armor vs some weapons. As for the (full)plate, daggers, and ruining your day, ask your medieval games buddies, if it's as far fetched as it sounds.

[Roguenewb]

Remember, this is a Game. It needs things to work properly and create a fair level of risk/protection/threat all while allowing a diversity of character classes. Yes, lets say that Full-plate should give immunity to bludgeoning. Now imagine that Bob's got an awesome Dwarf who fights with a warhammer. Oops, this adventure is fighting a bunch of knights, he's utterly useless for a whole adventure. Great. Oh, you say, what about just immunity to small bludgeoning weapons and scaling DR against bigger ones! Go look up the 2E weapon/armor interactions. It gets so mind-boggling byzantine to attack anyone that you might as well pull all your hair out. It also makes adding a new weapon nearly impossible.

Its a game, it needs a simple way of handling everything. It does so by simply converting all protectiveness of armor and shields into AC bonuses. Get over it. We all get it, you have this absurd fetish for medieval combat and how blah blah blah. Most of us are here to play as Robin Hood and Sir Lancelot and Merlin fighting satan, not recreate Duke Sir Thomas's bold ride at the ford of who-gives-a-damn in 1218 where the four-flanged mace made all the difference.

[Drachasor]

Remember, this is a Game. It needs things to work properly and create a fair level of risk/protection/threat all while allowing a diversity of character classes. Yes, lets say that Full-plate should give immunity to bludgeoning. Now imagine that Bob's got an awesome Dwarf who fights with a warhammer. Oops, this adventure is fighting a bunch of knights, he's utterly useless for a whole adventure. Great. Oh, you say, what about just immunity to small bludgeoning weapons and scaling DR against bigger ones! Go look up the 2E weapon/armor interactions. It gets so mind-boggling byzantine to attack anyone that you might as well pull all your hair out. It also makes adding a new weapon nearly impossible.

Its a game, it needs a simple way of handling everything. It does so by simply converting all protectiveness of armor and shields into AC bonuses. Get over it. We all get it, you have this absurd fetish for medieval combat and how blah blah blah. Most of us are here to play as Robin Hood and Sir Lancelot and Merlin fighting satan, not recreate Duke Sir Thomas's bold ride at the ford of who-gives-a-damn in 1218 where the four-flanged mace made all the difference.

I'd also note that the historic warhammers were actually really good against plate.

[Ashtagon]

Wait, what? So, if I were to, say, do a rewrite of all the core rules, the subsystems, the classes, the feats, the skills, etcetera, and then make them available here, it'd be legal as long as the wording were significantly altered?

Worked for Paizo.

[Just to Browse]

Worked for Paizo.

And it can work for you!

But seriously, game mechanics can't be patented or copyrighted or anything, that's why M&M and PF and E20 all use the same Str/Con/etc. attribute array and they all have really similar conditions, die mechanics, and so on. The Tabletop Drop just released a game called Tiers that explicitly builds of the d20 SRD and that's even totally legal.

Go ahead and publish your fixes. As long as it doesn't run into product identity problems you're absolutely fine.

[137beth]

And it can work for you!

But seriously, game mechanics can't be patented or copyrighted or anything, that's why M&M and PF and E20 all use the same Str/Con/etc. attribute array and they all have really similar conditions, die mechanics, and so on. The Tabletop Drop just released a game called Tiers that explicitly builds of the d20 SRD and that's even totally legal.

Go ahead and publish your fixes. As long as it doesn't run into product identity problems you're absolutely fine.

Those were under the OGL. However, it should be noted that OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Mazes and Minotaurs, Mazes&Perils, Swords and Wizardry, Spellcraft and Swordplay, and all the other retroclones of pre-3rd edition are fine:smalltongue:

[MilesTiden]

I feel this bears elaboration.

The binder's vestiges are listed alphabetically and not alphabetically by vestige level. This makes it very difficult for a new player to find anything. Starting at level 3 and only have access to 2nd level vestiges? hope you don't mind wading through 80% of the vestiges, because savnok's in there.

however, this still pales in comparison to the layout issues in MoI.

If I could pick one book to be reprinted, it would be MoI. To say nothing of:

-snip-

-soulborn being so wholly unusable that it doesn't even have a handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12681)

-snip-

Sorry about drudging up a post from two pages back to make some not really relevant comments (>_>), but the reason that handbook (which is mine by the way, although I had just started) is not complete is because the BG site imploded, and I never carried it over to the new site. However, back on the Wizard boards a while back, there was a Soulborn handbook written by Gerdreg which Larkas went through the trouble of porting over (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9735.0), if you want to go check it out.

[TuggyNE]

1. People, for Asmodeus sake, read what I wrote. Especially those of you that imply\say, that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. That whole list was about 3E, that's 3rd\Third Edition. And I was talking about missing psionic combat, not psionics in general.

I think most of the posters here actually did read and understand what you wrote; it's merely baffling in the extreme that you would want 3.0 psionic combat back, and puzzling also that you listed other 3.0/3.x quirks for some sort of comparison: no one necessarily* thinks those should be brought back/kept, and all of them seem to be a great deal less obnoxious (to my admittedly limited knowledge).

*I.e., they were not previously part of the conversation, and have little or no inherent connection.

[NevinPL]

We all get it, you have this absurd fetish for medieval combat and how blah blah blah.
No you don't. You (you as in you, and in general meaning of the other people that do it too) are just making assumption, on top of assumptions, and some other things like, ignoring things I've mentioned, that can be "uncomfortable" for you to elaborate, explain.


I'd also note that the historic warhammers were actually really good against plate.
Never said they weren't.


Worked for Paizo.

Based on the original roleplaying game rules designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and inspired by the third edition of
the game designed by Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, and Peter Adkison.
Noticed anything "interesting" ? Some missing words, brand name ? Wondered why ?


But seriously, game mechanics can't be patented or copyrighted or anything...
Any-thing can be patented as long as you have enough cash, power. Just search the web for "Monsanto". Apple patents, and patents for "algorithms" in general, could do too.


The Tabletop Drop just released a game called Tiers that explicitly builds of the d20 SRD and that's even totally legal.
SRD if "free". That's why even in rules of this forum, there's: "Posting Copyrighted Content" section that says, you can post anything from SRD, but other sources, books are a no-no.


I think most of the posters here actually did read and understand what you wrote...
Then why in the hell, there' s a couple of posts after my list of other things in 3E that I consider broken, annoying, that say: "it was fixed in 3.5 ?"
Trolling for fun and profit ?


...it's merely baffling in the extreme that you would want 3.0 psionic combat back...

I didn't say that the idea, and execution was flawless.
DnD game mechanic is just a framework, not "written in stone", holy scripture, no matter what some people may tell you. So you can use it as a whole, use just a portion, or house rule the Baator out of it. Even WotC know, or at least knew that, vide Unearthed Arcana.

So to make this clear as Glassteal:
I do miss the 3E psionic combat system, with psionic attack, and defense modes. I don't miss how it was working, because it wasn't. But as a people on forum that have a: "Homebrew Design", as a whole section, not a sub sub sub forum, you should know what comes next.


...and all of them seem to be a great deal less obnoxious...

2. What' makes thing broken ? Majority ? So million of million of flies can't be wrong ?



As for the topic, if sky was the limit, then the whole 3E and 3.5 books need to be consolidated\updated, using one "language", wording. The mentioned 3E free, and 3.5 swift, immediate actions, other people mentioned, are great example of what I'm talking about. WotC did something like that (Rules Compendium), but there's a lot of 3E material that doesn't even have 3.5 update, or the update brings on more confusion (I think I saw discussion about 3.5 Gloves of storing vs Glove of the Master Strategist here).
After that, there would be a need for standard errata, that one for typos, omissions, and stuff.
But WotC are preparing 5th edition, so don't hold your breath.

[Drachasor]

I completely agree with the people saying a proper glossary of all terms is needed. Another reason for a PHB rewrite!

[TuggyNE]

DnD game mechanic is just a framework, not "written in stone", holy scripture, no matter what some people may tell you. So you can use it as a whole, use just a portion, or house rule the Baator out of it. Even WotC know, or at least knew that, vide Unearthed Arcana.

So to make this clear as Glassteal:
I do miss the 3E psionic combat system, with psionic attack, and defense modes. I don't miss how it was working, because it wasn't. But as a people on forum that have a: "Homebrew Design", as a whole section, not a sub sub sub forum, you should know what comes next.

OK, so you liked the idea of it, but not so much how 3.0 actually implemented it. Therefore, logically, you don't actually want 3.0 psionic combat back; you want something that's similar but better, which is not perhaps wholly unreasonable.

This was not, however, immediately apparent, and while many of us are familiar with Homebrew Design (and may even post quite a bit there), it's actually more common when pining for vanished mechanics to port them into 3.5 with as much faithfulness to the original as possible.

So, I'm sorry, but I actually have to say that, to the extent that people misunderstood you, it may well have been that you were unclear. Don't snap at people for that. Text is a difficult medium to master.

[sonofzeal]

:D
So which one it is ?
It's: "completely incomprehensible", thus shouldn't\couldn't be done, or: "You'd have to change it almost beyond recognition" ?
Psionic Combat, as-written, was abominable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15546894&postcount=86). Salvaging it into something that's not outright detrimental to the game would involve removing most of the distinguishing elements that make it so much different from Arcane magic, which was kind of its one selling point in the first place. It'd basically have to be reduced to "Here's Hold Person and a few similar offensive powers, and here's Energy Aegis and a few similar defensive powers; you get them as Powers Known for free". Which I don't really consider that akin to what you're referring to as Psychic Combat.

Basically - wanting something that's recognizably Psychic Combat in more than just name is incomprehensible to me. And I can't see any way to salvage it without turning it into something rather distinct.




OT: I would also recommend that, if we're including Pathfinder books in the discussion, Ultimate Combat needs a rewrite. I hate, haaaaate, that book.
..........why?

[Ashtagon]

Noticed anything "interesting" ? Some missing words, brand name ? Wondered why ?

Well yeah, the term "Dungeons & Dragons" is not there. Paizo, and you for that matter, can't legally appropriate WotC's product identity. Or was there something else you were getting at?

[Drachasor]

I'd also note that the historic warhammers were actually really good against plate.
Never said they weren't.

And I never said that you said they weren't. Naturally you are aware of that. I am also aware that you know that I never said that you said they weren't, and further aware of the fact that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I never said that you said they weren't.

I trust this makes everything clear.

[Togo]

Psionic Combat, as-written, was abominable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15546894&postcount=86).

It was an attempt to keep the main themes of psionic combat from previous editions. The problem is, there's never been an edition of D&D where psionic combat really worked.

[Venger]

Sorry about drudging up a post from two pages back to make some not really relevant comments (>_>), but the reason that handbook (which is mine by the way, although I had just started) is not complete is because the BG site imploded, and I never carried it over to the new site. However, back on the Wizard boards a while back, there was a Soulborn handbook written by Gerdreg which Larkas went through the trouble of porting over (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9735.0), if you want to go check it out.

My apologies. I didn't mean to blame you personally for not finishing it. I had wrongly assumed that you'd started and then realized that you were writing about soulborn. I didn't check the date very carefully, I guess (I was even around for the BG blowup and everything) thanks for the link, I'll check it out

[Squirrel_Dude]

..........why?Off the top of my head?

Things from ultimate combat that could probably do with some "tweaking"

Convincing Lie (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/convincing-lie-ex)
Gunpowder crafting rules

Archetypes:
- Merciful Healer (I'll admit this is more of a personal vendetta, Gimpzilla isn't that bad)
- Titan Mauler probably doesn't work like you think it does
- Pistolero and Mysterious Stranger archetype stack.

Rules for Vehicles:
It describes boats in terms of 5x5 squares. That's nice until you remember that boats are 3D objects and don't all sit at the same height on the water. And why is a Galley as fast as mid-19th century clipper ships?

Equipment:
- The Fire Lance is the worst thing ever.
- Eastern Armor that mages can wear, with their 0% arcane spell failure chance and 0 armor check penalty.

Variant Rules:
- Wounds and Vigor doesn't properly explain how to incorporate the rules with Undead (and changing into an undead character) and golems.
- Armor as DR is interesting in that it makes all nonmagical armor completely useless as soon as someone has a way to create a magical weapon. *cough* (http://paizo.com/prd/spells/magicWeapon.html)