PDA

View Full Version : Large and very large changes to D&D



ambu
2006-12-31, 03:51 AM
Recently, I started a moderately successful thread about small changes being made to DnD to make it somewhat better. Well, I decided that we should get more ambitious coming the new year and thing big:

What BIG changes would you inflict on DnD to make it better? Would you change the core classes? Which ones? What would you do to the feat system? How would you change spellcasting?

Let's revamp DnD! Let them say of us "Never so many wer obliged to so few!" We will deign in the air, we will design in the sea, we shall never surrender!

And now I will start.

Spellcasting:This is where most of the problems start. Why is the wizard overpowered? Is it specific spells or specific combinations? Do we need to check is spell one by one or just ban some spells and be done with it? Maybe the suggestion of Monte Cook about specific paths that are inherent and non changeable and a small number of spells to be chosen afterwards? What about the clerics(also see below)?

Classes: If we take care of the wizard, what must we do with the other classes? My take is :
1)The fighter has to be somewhat rewritten. I have proposed a change http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30383
but I like Bears' take too
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692

2) The bard needs a slight power up, such as the one presented below, which is NOT my idea, but Mr. Nexx's and with which I agree:

Remove the table "Bard Spells Known". Bards may know as many spells as they can learn; they learn two spells from the Bard spell list every time they gain a new spell level. They are still spontaneous casters, limited to the Bard spell list, and keep no spellbook. Learning a Bard spell from a scroll is a Spellcraft check equivalent to a wizard's (15+spell level). Learning a spell from a scroll that was scribed by a non-bard requires a Perform check of (15+spell level) before the Spellcraft check can be attempted. Failure on either ruins the scroll. Learning a spell from another Bard requires both to make Perform checks equal to 15+spell level. If they both use the same Perform skill, then there is a +2 bonus.
Bardic Knowledge no longer necessarily gains a synergy bonus from Knowledge: History. Rather, it gains a synergy bonus from any relevant knowledge skill. It also gains a synergy bonus from Gather Information.
Bardic Music. Bardic Music may be used a number of times per day equal to Level + Charisma Modifier. At 1st level, a bard gains the abilities of Fascinate, Countersong, and a choice of one of the following.Inspire Courage (music bonus to AC, temporary HP, and save vs. fear)
Inspire Competence (music bonus to skills, hit, saves vs. confusion)
Another may be selected at 3rd, 9th, and 15th at which time these two are also available.
Inspire Heroics (music bonus to hit, AC, and temporary HP)
Inspire Greatness (music bonus to hit, damage, and saves)
Each of the inspire powers gains +1 at Bard level 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19, provided they also have a Perform skill of 3 times the bonus (so a 3 at level 1, a 6 at level 4, a 9 at level 7, etc). They last for as long as the bard is able to perform, which is 5 rounds per point of Constitution bonus (minimum 5 rounds) for vocal performances, or 10 rounds minutes per point of Constitution bonus for instrumental performances (minimum 10 rounds), and for five rounds thereafter. At the end of the duration, a bard may renew them as a free action, but with the cost of another daily use of Bardic Music. Bardic Music benefits apply to all the bard considers allies who can hear the bard.

At levels 6, 12, and 18, Bards also gain the following types of Bardic Music:
6th - Suggestion - as PHB
12th - Song of Freedom - as PHB
18th - Mass Suggestion - as PHB

New Feat: Sound Spike
Prerequisites: Bardic Music class ability, Perform (vocal or instrument type) rank 6
By expending a daily use of Bardic music, the bard is able to create a close-range cone that inflicts the bard's Perform check in sonic damage (reflex half), and forces a Fortitude save (equal to damage taken) to avoid being deafened. You may not take 10 on this Perform check. This is a standard action which provokes an attack of opportunity.

3) The cleric uses the cloistered cleric variant of UA, the druid the shapechange variant of PHII. I believe that makes them quite OK.

4) The paladin becomes the true fighting force of the church. He becomes a champion like figure, the true fighting cleric. He must have the alignment of his patron and promote the ideals of his faith. He becomes much more cleric-like. How? Maybe spellcasting early on? Maybe more abilities based on charisma? What?

5) The sorcerer gets 4 skill points and the feat progression of the mage. remember, if we tamper with the spells, he gets hurt too. Maybe even d6?

[B]Feats: Maybe scaling feats a la Iron Heroes are in order? Maybe we should check each individual feat, like Sean K. Reynolds did? Merge, delete or create new?

Miscellaneous: All other changes you believe are in order. No alignment? Psionics as core? Binders?

Ephraim
2006-12-31, 04:06 AM
Here are some of the big changes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30619) that I would make to D&D. In addition to those, I would force all casting classes to pay attention to at least two mental attributes...
Bonus Spells: INT for Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard
Save DC: WIS for Clerics and Druids; CHA for Sorcerers and Wizards
Maximum Spell Level: INT for Wizards; WIS for Clerics and Druids; CHA for Sorcerers

Maglor_Grubb
2006-12-31, 05:05 AM
I would be careful with giving bards more bardic music uses... There a plenty of feats to use it for other things than bardic music, and with too many, this can easely be broken. A bard focussing on crowd-control spellcasting could easily be a lot better in it than a sorcerer or even a wizard. Pumped cha= higher DC's+ more bardic music uses, which can also be used to heighten the DC's of your spells? Make all your buffs persistent without it taking a higher slot with bardic music uses? A 10th level bard with 24 charisma would have 17 uses of bardic music a day. Seven! teen! Uses you can substitute for level increases with metamagic, use to gain damage reduction, pump the DC of your spells, pump the useage of your normal bardic music, etcetera. No, bard's are fine, as long as they can use their bardic music for more usefull things than bardic music. So I say, give them a free bardic music feat every 6 levels or so.

Tokiko Mima
2006-12-31, 05:13 AM
I'd revise the way spell casters get spells to eliminate confusion when multiclassing with Ranger, Paladin, or Bard.

Make it so there is only three different types of spell classes: Arcane, Divine Clerical and Divine Natural. Both the Divine magics cap out at level 7 or 8 (whichever playtests better) and this would be reflected by their basic spell lists ending at that level.

There are only two different spells/day charts, and they depend on whether you're a spontaneous caster (Sorcerer/Favored Soul) or prepared (Wizard/Cleric/Druid). It doesn't matter what class of magic you use, the spells/day you get are the same as any other spontaneous or prepared caster.

Now, instead of having the spells/day listed in the description all you get is +1 spell level, just like the system for Prestige classes gaining spell levels works. Clerics and druids would miss a spell level every four or five levels (playtest) and instead get a nice feature instead, like Wildshape for Druids, or bonus domain spell slots or Domains for Clerics.

Wizards and Clerics would all be locked in as prepared casters only. Sorcerers and Bards would likewise only have the option of casting spontaneously, obviously. Paladins, Rangers and Druids would enjoy the option of choosing at their first spell level what flavor spellcaster they would be. They could also switch at their discretion, but have to start back at spell level 1 for the other flavor.

The nice part about this change is what it allows you to do with Paladins that multiclass to Clerics or Rangers that multiclass Druid: They can apply their Ranger/Paladin spell casting levels to their Druid/Cleric spells. Their spell progression would be every other level they accrue a +1 spell level, so they would always be weaker but they could gain directly by taking another class. In the case of Bards, they would get spontaneous Arcane spells just like before, but get spell levels three out of every four levels.

Certain classes would still grant knowledge of particular spells. Some Bard-only spells for example would require Bard levels to add to your spell list and likewise with some Paladin and Ranger only spells. Some spells (not nearly as many as their are now) would also be off limits to all but Sorcerers/Wizards/Druids/Clerics.

Prestige classes for Divine Clerical and Divine Natural casters would all be required NOT to have +1 spell level at level 1, and be missing 1 or 2 more spell levels spread evenly if they formally had full spell levels.

Using this revised system would make balancing and generating high level casters much easier, and remove some of the bizarre clunkiness found in Gish builds. Ideally, I would like to base class features that improve by class level off of this system by including systems for classes that don't cast spells at all but I think this is a good start.

MrNexx
2006-12-31, 05:15 AM
2) The bard needs a slight power up, such as the one presented below, which is NOT my idea, but I cannot remember where I got it. Sorry!

I recognize it well enough.

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/7951.html

ambu
2006-12-31, 05:58 AM
Thank you MrNexx, I will edit the post now! Maybe you can even answer Maglor's concerns?

Caewil
2006-12-31, 06:11 AM
For Paladins, an emphasis on smiting. Make it something like the blast shapes, etc that warlocks can apply to their eldritch blasts. So smiting would have variations.

MrNexx
2006-12-31, 06:58 AM
I would be careful with giving bards more bardic music uses... There a plenty of feats to use it for other things than bardic music, and with too many, this can easely be broken. A bard focussing on crowd-control spellcasting could easily be a lot better in it than a sorcerer or even a wizard.

Bards, at best, have 5 spells known per level, and selects from a far smaller list from the sorcerer/wizard list. He lacks the breadth of spell knowledge to be better than a sorcerer, much less a wizard, who put his mind to being a crowd controller.

Bardic music uses can only be used to further heighten the DC of spells (or otherwise metamagic spells) if the bard in question spends a feat to do so. And, as others have pointed out, the divine metacheese cleric is a broken application of the cleric... why shouldn't the singing metacheese bard be regarded as any less broken, but a perfectly reasonable modification to a bard's central feature be made because someone MIGHT abuse it? If you're going to change the bard, CHANGE him, then ban the things that break the game, such as singing/divine metacheese.


No, bard's are fine, as long as they can use their bardic music for more usefull things than bardic music. So I say, give them a free bardic music feat every 6 levels or so.

I disagree that Bards are fine; I think they're crippled by an unclear concept of what they wanted to make, leaving them stuck between a jack-of-all-trades and a magical musician, which left them with jack-of-all -magic stuck to a musician.

Valairn
2006-12-31, 07:03 AM
On the smiting thing, you can't just have it be smite "opposite alignment" either. It has be something that is useful, after all even two lawful good characters can be completely and utterly opposed to each other.

Generally speaking, feats need a lot of work, fighters get a whole bunch of them, and most of them suck, which is part of the reason why fighters suck is cause while they get to take a lot of feats, none of them really help enough to kick them into that oooooooo nice level.

ambu
2006-12-31, 09:15 AM
Thanks to all for your time! I am glad so many people contribute. How about we focus a little more (just a suggestion):
-What about the bard that Mr. Nexx proposes? I believe it is fine. Mr. Nexx, would you consider finalizing it, listing all changes/bans etc etc?
- What feats should we change? How? Let us be specific!
-Anyone care to take on the paladin? I would, but I am very inexperienced in playing one.

ken-do-nim
2006-12-31, 09:38 AM
I think it was Bears with Lasers who proposed that bardic music can be started as a swift action. What isn't addressed by all these changes is the fun factor. A number of us have found that playing bards means starting bardic music at least every 2 out of 3 rounds. Once you've got inspire greatness, there's always someone that wants that boost. Then every 5 rounds inspire courage runs out. You know how no one wants to play the "healing b*tch cleric"? Well playing a bard can get similar. You've got some really cool abilities that you want to use against your enemies (song of discord being the best), but you get stuck boosting.

heroe_de_leyenda
2006-12-31, 10:37 AM
When I first read "big changes" I thought we'd go more "system-wise", not just making changes for a Dnd 3.59. So... I would make some big changes:

-First: the alignment system! I know what they say about being just guidelines and stuff, but I do feel it does limit you and makes you act less spontaneously. Maybe the concepts of good, evil law and chaos could be well difined to 'know' where you move.

-Then... Ranged attacks! (At least proyectile weapons) Theres NO WAY you could fire 5 arrows (at different targets) in 6 seconds! I was thinking of a way you could get less attacks with bows, etc but thy could be more effective... Maybe get just a second attack at BAB +11 and get extra d6s or d8s at 6ft and 16th levels. With rapid shot you could get one adittional attack and that's it, 3 shots per roud tops!
1-5 level One attack, normaly
6-10 levels: One attack that delas 2d6 or 2d8
11-15 levels, Two attacks, the second at BAB-10 dealind 2d6 or 2d8
16-20 levels, Two attacks deal 3d6 or 3d8
+1 attack if using rapid shot
Or any other way that could give it more realism!

Next... Arcane Magic: yes,it's too powerful at high levels and too lame at lower levels

I can't think of anything else right now, but I think Major changes are more than just balancing existing classes

ambu
2006-12-31, 10:37 AM
Well, this IS what bards excel at... But if you do not want to, don't !

ambu
2006-12-31, 10:40 AM
I agree Heroe. I even agree about the alignment thing. But that seems what most want to discuss, as it seems. Let's try again:
- The wizard spells just need rewriting case by case or does the whole magic system needs reworking, you believe? Maybe just some things banned?

Kantur
2006-12-31, 10:54 AM
The Paladin...Hmm, thinking off the top of my head here partly...
What about something like:

Paladins no longer need to be LG, instead they must match the alignment of their Deity.

HD: D8

Skill Points as a paladin currently gets.
Class Skills: As current Paladin

BAB: 2/3 levels, as Cleric table

Saves: Good Fortitude and Will, poor Reflex saves.

Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Paladins are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with all types of armor (heavy, medium, and light), and with shields (except tower shields).

Bonus Feat: At first level a Paladin gains Weapon Focus with their deity's favoured weapon.

Smite Opponent: A Paladin may call upon their Deity against any foe who's attacking them. As Smite Good/Evil currently but without restrictions on who it can be used against with one obvious exception; other followers of that Deity. Number per day as current progression.

Lay on Hands, Aura of Courage, Divine Health, Divine Grace: As current

Turn Undead, Special Mount: One level later

Code of Conduct: Unless for a very, very, very good reason, a Paladin will never associate with those who are followers of deity's who're enemies with their own, or with those of completely opposed alignment. (E.g. LG Paladin won't associate with CE, but may with CG or LE - but I doubt they'll be too trusting of the latter two...)

Spells:
Remove Disease is gone as an innate power.
The current Paladin spell list/progression is gone, instead at every level wholly divisible by 3, and the one before that level (so 2,3,5,6,8,9,11,12,etc), the Paladin gains a spellcasting level as if they were a Cleric, including Domain slots. (So a 12th level Paladin would have the spells per day and spell list of an 8th level Cleric) If a Paladin multiclasses as a Cleric, these levels stack. (So a Paladin 12/Cleric 3 would have the spells per day and spell list of an 11th level Cleric). If a Paladin multiclasses with any other divine caster class (alignment permitting of course) these levels do not stack.
A Paladin's caster level counts as their equivalent Cleric level.
A Paladin's spell casting attribute is now Charisma.
A Paladin may only cast spells containing the Good, Evil, Law or Chaos descriptor if their alignment matches the descriptor.

Ex-Paladins:
A Paladin who loses their deity's favour (See Losing Favour) loses all Paladin benefits (Including benefits from Domains) apart from BAB, Skills and Saving throws (Though the Charisma Bonus is lost).
They also lose all spell-casting abilities as a Cleric if they multiclassed to Cleric.
They must atone before a deity will even consider accepting them as a Paladin again, and once they atone enough, they lose two levels of Paladin and regain their lost abilities only after gaining another level of Paladin.

Losing Favour:
A Paladin can lose favour in favious ways:
Turning away from their deity (Including becoming a Cleric of another, even if identically aligned, deity)
Falling out of their deity's alignment by even one step.
Acting in accordance of the views of a wholly opposite deity, even once. (E.g. CG Paladin acts like LE) Unless under a mind-affecting spell or compulsion that force them to act that way. Thoughts don't affect this, though obviously acting upon them will (E.g. Lawful Anything's family member's been murdered and thoughts of delivering person revenge don't make a Paladin lose favour, actually doing it would however).


Thoughts?

heroe_de_leyenda
2006-12-31, 11:08 AM
Maybe I'm flying off too high or too far here, but I think it would be nice if (Insppired in Video games and the like -RPGs or even adventure ones) but in general "fighters" and "wizards" should have roughly the same power, balanced in each level. The difference could reside in that "fighters" do phisycal damage, are very armored, etc. "Wizards" do more "elemental damge, and have a variety of exotic efects. But this overall power should match in every level... not having lame weaking mages at low level and demigods at levels 15+!!!
Maybe having a rechargeable MP (Magic point) system could work, spells could be nerfed, but maybe you could cast them more often... and stuff like that.
In a world of magic, maybe fighters could perform awesome martial-oriented powers, like limits of Final Fantasy, Special attacks from Guilty Gear or Samurai Showdown games, etc.

I mean... if you face a High level wizard you get blown up right away with aaaall his prepared spells for the day thrown at you at once, while the evil fighter stil,l has four attcks per round and could take out someone in one or two rounds... but... the partys wizard already neutralized him with a will save spell opr something! Something should be done. I just don't know what exactly

Neo
2006-12-31, 11:29 AM
You could try tie it into Con somehow, under the idea of magical wear and tear. A few worlds, mostly in books, have it that after you use magic you need to rest and recover from the exertion of casting.

Something like a number of spells/spell levels equal to your Con score/modifier per encounter or until you need to rest for X rounds.

Just an idea, haven't really thought it through.

Jades
2006-12-31, 12:08 PM
Unlimited Spells.

But it is a Spellcraft Check to cast them.

Far range adds 15 to the check.
30' AOE, +6
Fire Damage +5
5d6 Damage, +15

Spellcraft DC for your basic fireball would be 41. If it is written in a Wizard's spellbook, he gets 10 taken from the DC. 31.

Now, we change the components to being optional.

Verbal Component, reduced DC by 5
Somantic Component, -5
Pinch of Bat Guano, -1. (1/2 of gp value rounded up)

DC 20 to cast a fireball if it is in your spellbook, and you use components. Theoretically, a first level wizard could pull it off 60% of the time (+4 INT, +4 ranks, Skill Focus (Spellcraft)), but to counterspell, all you need to do is beat their DC.

Maybe make certain components feats. Elemental Attunement - allows you to add elemental descriptors to your spells. Ranged Spell - allows you to give your spells ranges other than touch.


this could also allow other classes to take a feat and gain the ability to cast spells, as long as they have ranks in Spellcraft.

ambu
2006-12-31, 01:08 PM
Kantur I really like your built! Very nice. I would consider though tying the spells to Charisma. So as not to have MAD.

Kantur
2006-12-31, 01:18 PM
Admittedly I had been thinking that, but, in the SRD at least, (Still waiting for Amazon to deliver my core books) Paladins already ue Wisdom for spells, though I suppose looking at it again it was probably to boost their will save really...Yeah, Charisma might be better for it in retrospect.

Valairn
2006-12-31, 01:22 PM
A Paladin's spell casting attribute is Wisdom.


I do have a thought on that particular item. I know this would lean paladins power even more into their charisma, but ultimately I think Charisma should be the Paladin's casting stat. After all a Paladin doesn't need to be wise, he needs to be strong and courageous and have the force of personality to do what he's told more or less. Clerics are wise, Paladin's are the metal arms not the thinking caps.

So I think for the new Pally I think it would be more appropriate if his casting stat was Charisma, other than that Kantur, I really like the class.

Valairn
2006-12-31, 01:26 PM
Unlimited Spells.

But it is a Spellcraft Check to cast them.

Far range adds 15 to the check.
30' AOE, +6
Fire Damage +5
5d6 Damage, +15

Spellcraft DC for your basic fireball would be 41. If it is written in a Wizard's spellbook, he gets 10 taken from the DC. 31.

Now, we change the components to being optional.

Verbal Component, reduced DC by 5
Somantic Component, -5
Pinch of Bat Guano, -1. (1/2 of gp value rounded up)

DC 20 to cast a fireball if it is in your spellbook, and you use components. Theoretically, a first level wizard could pull it off 60% of the time (+4 INT, +4 ranks, Skill Focus (Spellcraft)), but to counterspell, all you need to do is beat their DC.

Maybe make certain components feats. Elemental Attunement - allows you to add elemental descriptors to your spells. Ranged Spell - allows you to give your spells ranges other than touch.


this could also allow other classes to take a feat and gain the ability to cast spells, as long as they have ranks in Spellcraft.

I like this idea and we should expand upon it. Part of the reason magic is so god awful powerful in the game is that it NEVER fails, unless counterspelled. The mage is always successful at casting it, even if he may be stopping time, or reshaping the very universe, meh he's too good to fail. Spell casting should be hard, at least if its as powerful as it is now, it should be hard.

Kantur
2006-12-31, 01:40 PM
The Paladin's now had that minor edit to Charisma based casting. It does make sence for the class after all...

ambu
2006-12-31, 02:17 PM
So Bard is done, Paladin is done. Only spellcasting remains! And I found this great thread about feats:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=761528

Golthur
2006-12-31, 03:14 PM
- The wizard spells just need rewriting case by case or does the whole magic system needs reworking, you believe? Maybe just some things banned?
Option B - the magic system needs a substantial rewrite. Here are the problems as I see them:
Magic never fails (as mentioned by Jades, above).

Too many save-or-lose and save-or-die spells that are way, way, way too effective. This is compounded by most classes having two bad saves, and by the ease with which a caster can increase their save DCs.

Too many spells that eliminate the need for skills - making the rogue obsolete. The core spell list establishes the precedent that low level spells can completely replace all rogue skills (e.g. knock, spider climb, invisibility, etc.). Ditto for social skills (charm person, etc.). Things like flight and teleportation should be much higher level than they currently are.

The arbitrary "4 encounters" balancing vs. all other classes just plain doesn't work. If given the opportunity, all casters will rest between encounters - and it's difficult to always enforce the 4-encounter limit without being cheesy. Balancing it at 4 encounters also makes PvP (or credible fighter bad guys) not work.

Too much dependency on a single ability score. Casters need MAD in a bad way. As it is, a wizard can boost their Intelligence through the roof, and gain bonus spells, higher DCs, etc., etc. all with one ability boost. Same with divine casters and Wisdom, or sorcerers and Charisma.

Exponential power increase of primary casters, as opposed to the linear power increase of most other classes.

Matthew
2006-12-31, 06:46 PM
That sounds about right to me. A very slow Magic Point restoration rate is how I handled the rest thing. Either 1 per day per level or a flat 1-3 per day.

krossbow
2006-12-31, 06:53 PM
Heres one thing I like: take action points from D20 modern, and then change them slightly so they refill daily. Call them "hero points" or something.

(Action points let you add 1d6 to any roll at any time you wish when used--limit one per round-, and fuel other abilities)

have them refill each day, and everyone gets a number each day equal to their level +3.

Use them to fuel things liek smiting, evasion, spells that are considered broken, ect.



But yeah, magic is the main problem.

Golthur
2006-12-31, 09:45 PM
That sounds about right to me. A very slow Magic Point restoration rate is how I handled the rest thing. Either 1 per day per level or a flat 1-3 per day.
I did similarly (setting my healing and mana recovery rates around the same), but I also cut the active mana pool down to a small size (limiting spells per encounter to either a small number of very high level spells, or more lower level ones). This keeps PvP balanced in a single fight.

Then, to give "staying power", I allow casters to recover their mana from a mana pool (and I allow the same for vitality and a vitality pool) outside of combat. This gives everyone a few encounters before they need rest.

Caewil
2006-12-31, 10:16 PM
Meh, for most of my games, I ban arcane spellcasting. Psionics are just much more balanced and IMO, fun.

ambu
2007-01-01, 06:32 AM
I do not know if the 'magic could fail' fix is better. With the spells as they are that means that the wizard could be awesome most of the time and useless in other times. It could be better if he could always contribute but not with so much power. That would entail:
- A mechanism like "All damage dealing spells are ranged attacks. If they miss, roll for splash"
-The rewriting of "Save or..." spells. But if most classes had better saves, this would solve itself, wouldn't it?
-The banning of all things broken, as proven by experience.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-01-01, 06:45 AM
I like the magic could fail fix- it is actually pretty flavourful. Because, if I am not mistaken, you cast magic by saying all but the very end of a spell at the start of the day and use a trigger to set it off when it is needed, right? So with more complicated spells you could have flopped when you prepared it which would make the spell fail. You make a Spellcraft check when you cast it too determine whether you screwed up when preparing it. You still have the spells per day system, but maybe increase it somewhat so that casting is still nerfed, but not over much. When I am doing things like this, I like to put a lot of stuff on flavor, cause if you do not, the game because really illogical (even more so that clerics running around and mages casting the equivalent of a nuclear bomb)

ambu
2007-01-01, 07:45 AM
And if the spellcraft fails? You do not get to cast the spell or you lose it? And in what DC? A wizard would have what chance of miscasting a spell?
It is not a bad idea. But I do not like the flavor "If I cast it, I am god, if not I am useless". This becomes in my mind a situation where the enemy tries to diffuse the atomic bom.... eh wizard before it goes of. There are I believe better ways to make missing possible and they are saves, opposed rolls or ranged touch attacks. Especially the latter. Maybe there is Magical AC that characters have? Improved by the assorted stat, as defined by spell?

silvermesh
2007-01-01, 01:00 PM
On fighters...

Less dependency on specific equipment...

Three words: Base Defense Bonus

Similar to the alternate rule in UA, but I don't like giving monks such a disgusting AC. making it based on whether or not the class is an armor user skews the balance in favor of unarmored characters(DR from armor simply isn't good enough) Base Defense Bonus should be based on BAB. the better you are at fighting, the better you are at fighting, right? fighting is about offense and defense. I say as a starting point, every character gains a point of BDB for every two points of BAB he has.

Wearing armor should lower your AC and raise your DR. there should be fighter feats that lessen the AC penalties of armor. also, expand the dodge feats a bit.
this makes fighters viable unarmored and it also makes them more effective in armor than a less feat-friendly class. more feats make better fighters.
You might say it makes fighters less unique, as anyone can take feats, but I say what makes fighters unique is not any one thing, but their ability to do so many things, or become so much better at one combat related thing than anyone else.

the major drawback of the BDB is that it greatly lessens the usefulness of touch and ranged touch based spells.

Matthew
2007-01-01, 01:03 PM
I don't at all see why wearing Body Armour reduces a Character's ability to defend himself. Base Defence Bonus is a good idea, though, and well implemented elsewhere, such as in Conan D20.

silvermesh
2007-01-01, 01:48 PM
you don't see why wearing a big heavy suit of metal would reduce your ability to avoid incoming attacks?

Matthew
2007-01-01, 02:42 PM
The anecdotal evidence for wearing such Body Armour suggests that there is very little loss of mobility. The strain of wearing such things for long periods is a different matter, but not one I would model by loss of Armour Class. So, no I don't see that wearing Body Armour reduces a combatants ability to defend himself.

MrNexx
2007-01-01, 04:10 PM
Not to mention the fact that, even if you can't necessarily jump out of the way of an attack, you've got all of this handy metal around... being proficient in the armor means that you know how to move to put that handy metal in the right place... so if I'm wearing half plate, I may not be able to dance ballet, but I don't need to move very far to get a chunk of plate in between my tender bits and your axe.

Golthur
2007-01-01, 04:28 PM
- A mechanism like "All damage dealing spells are ranged attacks. If they miss, roll for splash"
Yeah, I've thought about adding this to area of effect spells - to prevent precise pinpoint targeting. It's not so easy to visually estimate distances down to the foot from 400' away.


-The rewriting of "Save or..." spells. But if most classes had better saves, this would solve itself, wouldn't it?
Yes, somewhat, but it's a very fine line - you want the spells to be effective enough that they're worth taking, but not so effective that they're an automatic win.

You have to be careful setting class saving throw bonuses, because you don't want save-or-lose/die spells to be completely ineffective against a BBEG several levels higher than the party. This is exactly the circumstance when the party really, really needs magic to work. In some CRPGs, I've despised the magic systems specifically because of this - magic only works on mooks; but, the mooks aren't really a threat anyway, so why waste magic?

Some people, also (e.g. me), dislike being taken out of a fight (or the campaign) based on the result of a single die roll.

The best approach, I think, is to change the save-or-lose/die to have graduated effects - that is, make the save and you're fine; fail the save by 5 or under, and you have this minor effect; fail by 6-10 and you have this somewhat greater effect; etc.

Valairn
2007-01-02, 02:57 AM
Watch the history channel, people in full plate could do cartwheels without trying very hard. Of course certain things are out of the question, like jumping over a large chasm for instance.....

ambu
2007-01-02, 03:00 AM
Ah Golthur I see now. But is it really necessary to have the "save or ..." spells be effective against the BBEG? I would believe that it would be a spoiler to face the 'final boss fight' only to win in three rounds because you blinded him etc etc.

ambu
2007-01-02, 03:08 AM
On an unrelated note, what about armor? First of all, is the UA variant on defense bonus/armor as DR better, worse or the same? And secondly, Arcaba Evolved has an excellent system of armors that cap higher than standard DnD, with exotic feats required etc. Is it me, or do standard armors cap too soon? That could also affect the balance in favor of the fighter, I believe

Golthur
2007-01-02, 10:36 AM
Ah Golthur I see now. But is it really necessary to have the "save or ..." spells be effective against the BBEG? I would believe that it would be a spoiler to face the 'final boss fight' only to win in three rounds because you blinded him etc etc.
They need to be effective, but not "or lose" effective, if you know what I mean.

Maybe instead of blinding him, he gets a 20% miss chance because he just failed his save by 9. Not enough to take him out immediately, but enough to tip the odds a bit more in the party's favour.


On an unrelated note, what about armor? First of all, is the UA variant on defense bonus/armor as DR better, worse or the same? And secondly, Arcaba Evolved has an excellent system of armors that cap higher than standard DnD, with exotic feats required etc. Is it me, or do standard armors cap too soon? That could also affect the balance in favor of the fighter, I believe
I like defense bonuses and armour as DR, personally, but you have to be careful with them.

As written in UA, armour as DR favours casters more than fighters - e.g. every fighter loses X points of damage on each attack, but a wizard's spells aren't affected that way. Another issue with armour as DR, as written, is that it completely negates the use of certain weapons (e.g. daggers), although Iron Heroes resolves this by making the DR variable.

Defense bonuses tend to favour fighters (since only they have the BAB necessary), and essentially eliminates touch/ray spells as viable options.

Journey
2007-01-02, 11:48 AM
Where, oh where to begin. I'll provide a rough sketch based on the house rules I've written up. I'd pretty much allow only the Core + Psionics rules; most of the expansion material in my opinion is almost 100% cheese.

General
- Trait/Flaw system would be used, but all characters have a chance at having one or the other (or both), possibly without benefit (or negative consequence in the case of a positive Trait).
- Vitality/Wound point variation. Weapons can cause minor wounds or instead injuries--a character wouldn't "use up" his Vitality points first; instead whether a vitality or wound point is incurred would be determined by the damage caused and other circumstances

Deleted Classes
Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, all Prestige Classes; some of their class skills would be incorporated into a Traits/Flaws system, classified as skills similar to Feats, etc.

Arcane caster changes
- There is a chance of spell failure equal to 5% per spell level less 5% per intelligence bonus (negative Int modifier adds 5% per point, so a person with -2 would have a +10% in addition to the 5% per spell level) (min. 5%). On failure the spell is lost.
- Material components vary by region, so the component pouch may or may not be filled with the necessary ingredients to cast every spell in a given area
- No more automatic spells at a level--casters have to research new spells or rely on finding scrolls, books, etc.

Cleric changes
- Reintroduce Major/Minor Spheres (Domains, in the new terminology)
- Piety, Attribute Score like value. Clerics may call upon the favor of their deity (i.e. cast a divine spell) only if they make a "Piety Check" with "DC" 10 + Spell level, modified by Piety. Non-clerics begin with 1d6 Piety; Clerics with 10.
- Clerics restricted to spells-per-day allotment as usual, but no requirement to prepare ahead of time--they can ask for any divine favor they have access to based on their piety alignment and Domain access.
- Strict requirement to be involved in church and other religious duties, or else Piety suffers (but can benefit by deeds).
- Chance for the god to be angered by the cleric's request, especially if the cleric is excessively demanding of divine intervention, lacking piety, etc. The punishments range from deafening/muteness for a short period all the way up to smiting the cleric and his allies then and there for more evil inclined deities and especially egregious requests by the cleric.

Multi-Classing
- Depending on the campaign either banned or treated under a revised "dual class" system from 2nd Edition: characters can still use the old class abilities but suffer XP penalties if they don't use the new class abilities significantly more often
- Characters must have access to an appropriate teacher for their new class
- Characters who take a new class may never again take a level in their previous class, regardless of what it was--they've moved on in their lives to something new.
- Maximum of two classes
- Subject to DM approval, especially as regards disparate classes (e.g. good cleric/rogue would be extremely unlikely, but of course it depends on the flavor of the campaign and the events leading up to such a decision).

Skills
- Weapon Group system used, except treated as a quasi-skill--characters use their class BAB and never need to allocate improvement points into this skill to have a better attack bonus
- Beginning with the variant rule: characters start at max rank in a number of skills equal to their base + Int bonus + Weapon Skill Allotment (which must be used only for weapon group skills)
- Thereafter receive ONLY their Int bonus to improve skills once per character level; other improvements as follows: if a skill check results in a natural 1 or 20, roll d20; if higher than current rank, the skill improves. No skill may be improved twice per character level (i.e. if all skills improved during an adventure by the chance of the roll, the Int bonus points at the next character level are simply lost)

Feats
- A much more truncated list of them would be divided up and restricted by class (with some "general" category that every class can take from (things like metamagic feats would be banned))
- Then treated as skills--if a character wants to use the effect of a Feat he'd have to make a skill check with it first
- Some might be incorporated as "optional" class abilities that characters in a given class would be allowed to choose from at a given level

ambu
2007-01-02, 12:25 PM
Journey your suggestions are a handful:

General: Maybe the vitality thing is a good idea. Maybe the character has vitality points equal to his Constitution above his HP. When his HP finish and starts losing vitality, he starts suffering progressively more handicaps. Vitality can also be drained directly by several factors (Falling? High level Spells?)

Arcane casters: The spell malfunction thing has the problem, in my opinion that Spellcraft checks above have. If it works, you rock if not you are a useless character with a funny hat. As for the spell components, I do not see how oit could no any good. The character would demand to stop in every region to collect components and if the DM says no, there goes the complaints. And how does the DM decide of spell components do exist?

Cleric: Here I also disagree. We open the 'paladin behavior' problem with these rules. When does Piety suffer, why, was it wrong to kill the goblin babies etc etc. Effectively, the cleric character gives a leash to the DM.

Multiclassing: My personal opinion was the ADD system of multiclassing was a terrible terrible thing. I find current design much better. I also think that you are the first on a while to voice protest against it. Why is that? Just curious, since you play Core only as it seems.

Well my post got a little negative. Sorry!

Golthur, why not just make all spells follow the conversion to DR as stated?

Journey
2007-01-02, 12:50 PM
Ambu, I think largely my house rules are designed to reign in what I consider are the excesses of the 3.5e/d20 system. Your mileage may vary. The sketch I put up here doesn't really do justice, though, especially as regards clerics. There's a pretty well-defined system I've created to significantly reduce DM whim in the decision regarding clerical behaviour and Piety. Of course "Rule 0" always applies in any situation. As with any other rule system, house-kludged or not, the kind of DM one is playing with will have a large part in determining whether the system is "good" or not.

As far as multi-classing, I take a different view it seems than has become the custom. I view the Archetype/Class system as imposing upon a character a choice for how he grew up. I find it difficult to suspend belief when confronted with a situation where a character who spent better than 25% of his natural life learning a trade (i.e. Class) decides that he wants to do something different. I liken it to, for example, a Ph.D. biologist suddenly deciding he wants to be a Ph.D. Historian--he can't just spend a year studying and have the same level of skill and knowledge that even a "novice" Ph.D. Historian would, and his tendencies and mode of learning as a biologist might very well be a hindrance to him. Likewise for Classes in D&D. It seems that the custom these days, however, is that players feel compelled to multi-class and then rationalize it afterward by claiming it as a role-playing need ("my wizard is shifty and bluffs a lot and likes to tinker with toy locks, so he should take a level of rogue to reflect this"). I just don't buy it, and I've never cared for it, even when it was much more difficult under the 2nd edition rules.

ambu
2007-01-02, 03:15 PM
I see your point Journey. It all comes down to personal favorites I suppose, since RL justification is not a good argument in Dnd mechanics. Usually. However, many accomplished scientists DO change fields with relative easiness, mostly because they know what to learn. A PhD scientist has learned a lot of things in his pregraduate days that he never uses. Maybe the same applies to classes?

Yakk
2007-01-02, 04:12 PM
Spells suck because they devolve down to "save or die" and "save or suck".

The d20 system means that as you gain levels, more and more contests become "almost certain success" or "almost certain failure". Binary spells don't balance well when those are the two possibilities.

Which reduces monsters to "immune/highly resistant to all effects" or "will suck/die quickly and cheaply".

The main other combat mechanic of D&D -- damage -- is based around attrition. Many random events added up that drain away resources. Creature HP goes up fast -- and a single save or suck/save or die spell is almost as useful as doing a full creature's worth of HP damage.

You will notice that the hit/miss system sort of falls apart at higher levels. A mixed group of characters will either have characters that cannot hit their opponents, or characters that are nearly guaranteed to hit their opponents. The variance in total bonus goes up as characters gain levels, but a d20 system's chance of failure/success is based off the difference between two quantities.

The same problem happens with spellcasting as DCs and Saves climb.

In combat, this is delt with with aforsaid attrition system. But spellcasting isn't attrition -- it is "you fail a save, you are pretty much useless" -- and in some cases, it avoids the save.

If spells always land, mobs are instantly defeated.
If spells never land, casters are useless.

How to fix this?

Resource-based systems can help. Some kind of partial save system.

Journey
2007-01-02, 05:39 PM
I see your point Journey. It all comes down to personal favorites I suppose, since RL justification is not a good argument in Dnd mechanics. Usually. However, many accomplished scientists DO change fields with relative easiness, mostly because they know what to learn. A PhD scientist has learned a lot of things in his pregraduate days that he never uses. Maybe the same applies to classes?

But of course I wasn't using real life to justify my position so much as describe it. Of course it's absurd to justify game mechanics with real life constraints because the very core of such games is that they are distinctly not real world. It does boil down to a matter of personal opinion and the tolerance one has for suspending disbelief in such a way that the game mechanics lend themselves to an internally consistent and "internally realistic" adventure.

The way it's done in 3.5e, in my opinion, the various classes are basically just convenient labels under which to group special abilities and powers a character might possess with equal ease as any other, rather than the basis upon which a character has built his own self-identity. I believe something orthogonal to this should be true: a character chooses a class that he is, and his personality is revealed by how he uses the abilities and skills associated with his class. This is what I meant previously: every little detail of a character seems to justify to a player "taking a level" in the class that might be associated with it. The other benefits that come with "taking a level" in the new class are conveniently ignored with a wink-and-nod.


How to fix this?

Resource-based systems can help. Some kind of partial save system.I think perhaps a better fix is to implement a more appropriate damage system, such as one analogous to the one used in Harnmaster, but tailored to the spirit of the points-based system that characterizes D&D.

ambu
2007-01-02, 05:50 PM
Journey you put it very eloquently. However, this would mean that classes be broken into constituent parts and then a point based system installed in order to gain abilities. Not a bad idea but very difficult to implement.

About the spell issue: What about a symmetrical "Anima component" be added to DnD. All characters acquire an Anima Defence (similar to AC) which replaces the ... will save? and Anima Points that mimic HP. Spells need to bypass AD in order to have effect and then AP are subtracted. When all Anima Points have been depleted the blindness, curse or whatever takes effect. In second thought, maybe the Anima Defense is enough. What say you?

Journey
2007-01-03, 10:14 AM
Journey you put it very eloquently. However, this would mean that classes be broken into constituent parts and then a point based system installed in order to gain abilities. Not a bad idea but very difficult to implement. I don't see why. My idea isn't to simply impose a burden on a character to obtain a class ability; it's to completely ban it, or else impose the condition that he should give up improvements in his old abilities forever upon seeking a new course. I wouldn't, for example, allow a wizard to "purchase" the ability to backstab under your proposed point-based-ability-buy system (as I've interpreted you to mean). That would further defeat the purpose of the Archetype/Class system. If a skill based system is what you're after, D&D would have to be completely revamped in an entirely new incarnation. I do enjoy such systems, and my favorite so far is Harnmaster, but they're different entirely from D&D except in the sense that they share the "fantasy role playing system" label.


About the spell issue: What about a symmetrical "Anima component" be added to DnD. All characters acquire an Anima Defence (similar to AC) which replaces the ... will save? and Anima Points that mimic HP. Spells need to bypass AD in order to have effect and then AP are subtracted. When all Anima Points have been depleted the blindness, curse or whatever takes effect. In second thought, maybe the Anima Defense is enough. What say you?

I say no. The purpose of magic is to transcend the usual rules associated with physical contests. I might expand the number of saves to incorporate a wider variety of kinds of magic but I think the spell save mechanic itself is adequate. The tradeoff for a wizard or cleric having such potency is the risk that sometimes it just won't work. I think this is a fair and adequate tradeoff.

Controversial statement: I think the "casters are overpowered" argument stems more from DM laziness than a necessary condition of the rules. There's nothing in the RAW that requires an arcane caster to have access to every spell in the list just because he's an arcane caster--it's just a list of pre-made spells that Gygax started and TSR and then WoTC (and others) expanded upon. (Clerics are a bit more contentious and one of the biggest mistakes/broken mechanics that was introduced with the new edition, in my opinion; that's why I developed the system I did.)

The DM can easily rule that only a limited number of spells is available, restrict components by geographic region and climate, etc., without running into the ever-present "too much bookkeeping" counter-argument and without altering the RAW. For example, the restriction on spell components doesn't mean that a caster can't go out of his way to obtain the components to stick in his spell pouch and then never worry about it afterward, or that he has to keep track of the number of components he does have geographic/climate access to--his spell component pouch is still filled with them without worry unless they carry a cost. The only change I've made, really, to the RAW in this regard is the elimination of automatic spells upon rising a level (which I'd waive for campaigns in which I'd prefer to see higher levels of magic).

Matthew
2007-01-03, 10:24 AM
For the most part I agree with you, Journey, but I think DMs do have to alter D&D 3.x RAW to keep Spell Casters under control. Limiting Spell Access is the best way to do it.

(However, I wouldn't be too bothered about allowing Wizard's Sneak Attack under a Point Buy System, though I would keep an eye out for other abuses)

Valairn
2007-01-03, 01:09 PM
Personally I love the class system of 3.5 its one of my favorite parts, my character concept is not limited by a class.... I am not just a wizard, I am a wizard that also spends some time thieving or maybe practicing swordplay, or whatever. I can be anything in the current class sytem. The fact that it has turned into an optimize fest is simply because when someone wants to fulfill a character concept, they don't want to make it and then suck mechanically.

However a new system is designed it should allow people to make conceptual decisions about a character without gimping them for it. If someone wants to be an acrobat/wizard/fighter they should be able to do that just as well as the guy who is ARCHMAGE MAN casting spells only an ARCHMAGE MAN CAN!

That's my two cents.

krossbow
2007-01-03, 01:16 PM
yeah, I think a combination of casting times and partial saves would be good.


The casting times for example adds a lot more complexity to casters strategies, as they now need to make sure they're safe while doing so, and save or die effects can be negated with a bum rush when you see the caster chanting; kind of like ghosts in starcraft annoncing their nuke 10 seconds before it goes off.


this would allow for more defenses vs. save or die.






One thing I'd love would be "Specialty feats" and "miscelaneous feats".

In essence, you'd have a group of feats on one side which work like iron heroes feats in a 1-10 tree, and then on the other side you'd have the feats which are cool but not distinct enough to warrant a feat (bonus bardic music, green music, ect.)

Gurgeh
2007-01-03, 07:25 PM
Journey, I have to disagree with... well, virtually all of your proposed changes.

First up, multiclassing. I hated 2e AD&D because it shoehorned each player into a tiny, pre-defined role purely on the basis of the class they had chosen - and anybody who wanted to multiclass or dual-class ended up horribly underpowered because they would either miss out on a ton of HP and save bonuses (dual-class) or never ever gain any high-level abilities (multiclass). The current system offers much more flexibility and lets players create their own characters - no two 3.5e (or even 3e) characters will ever be identical. Obviously a lot of this flexibility stems from feats and the skill system, but much of it also comes from the ability to multiclass freely. Characters are still strongly encouraged to level their classes evenly (or throw one of them away) and to avoid picking up too many classes because they'll get hit with a multiclass XP penalty very quickly - that or sacrifice power by spreading it out over too many classes. Prestige classes are another great feature of 3.x, as they're another way of adding flavour.

This can lead to cherry-picking of abilities, but it tends not to, as most classes (with exceptions being the fighter and not much else) give much better returns at high levels than low ones. A somewhat more pointed objection to this system is that it can lead to characters simply picking up levels in classes for apparently no reason - but that argument falls because classes are not an accurate representation of what a character does with their life - they're just a description of their skills.

My favourite example here is the Duellist prestige class. A duellist is... well, a dashing swordsman (although for the duellist the bad puns are optional) who relies on agility and wit to survive in battles rather than brute strength. They fight unarmoured and are fast on their feet, attacking with precision and finesse. But there's no core class that really describes them. They could just as easily be a fighter as a rogue, or even a bard - after all, the Scarlet Pimpernel spent most of his time flirting and composing bad poetry. As such, the classes that the player will choose to reflect this character will be a mixture - probably a little from each of two of the base classes, although they could certainly make it as a single-class character. But the character won't have gone 'oh, I'm not going to be a fighter any more, now I'm a bard! And now I'm a duellist!' - they'll have been a duellist all along and will have roleplayed as such, and the gains in classes will simply have reflected their written-rules abilities changing to reflect this.

As for your changes to casters... just no is all I have to say. Anything that makes playing the game needlessly complicated is a bad thing, and your proposed changes would suck all the fun out of playing a caster, balanced or otherwise. Playing as a wizard is already a royal pain in the arse (which is why I tend to prefer sorcerers) and your changes would make it plain intolerable for most players.

ambu
2007-01-04, 03:21 AM
Let's try this from a different angle. Which spells do you believe need changes? From level 1 to 9, which spells are "Save or..." that make dancers own everything in sight> Forcecage? Irresistible dance? What?

Come on people, help out as I don't have experience myself in high level play!

Journey
2007-01-04, 06:51 AM
Gurgeh, I think you and I simply have a different view of the purpose of the rules. I would also point out that your own words, "classes are not an accurate representation of what a character does with their life - they're just a description of their skills," are exactly why I object to the revised class and multi-class system in 3.5e. I've even said something almost exactly the same, "The way it's done in 3.5e, in my opinion, the various classes are basically just convenient labels under which to group special abilities and powers...." This is exactly why I object to the system. I do believe that a character's class should have real, in-game effects on his role in the campaign and that it shouldn't be merely a label.

I would also argue that the 3.5e system is less flexible, as you argue nicely, albeit unwittingly. Players now feel that for every kind of role there must be a class. If there's no class, why that means the character can't play that role. The real objection, of course, is that the character can't play that role and get the juicy extra powers and benefits without the new class (which is what I referred to previously with my "wink-and-nod" comment). The character can still be played in that "non-traditional" role without having the class and its extra abilities, complete with appropriate skill checks and so forth, as many of us have experienced time and again in pre-3.5e days. This is not to claim that I find AD&D or 2nd ed. (or earlier editions) are superior to 3.5e (in fact I've indicated already that I modified rules as heavily with those--particularly with respect to Proficiencies and to create a marginally wider variety of class abilities that characters could choose).

Ultimately it just comes down to viewpoint, and I've offered the rules changes I have made that in my experience offer a better role-playing experience for me and the players I've played with.

Tormsskull
2007-01-04, 09:27 AM
Big changes...

-Remove spellcasting from rangers & bards. Replace it with selectable spell-like abilities chosen from a list. These spell-like abilities should be minor non-flashy things. Compensate rangers by increasing the power of their animal companion. Compensate bards by giving them a Heroic Surge ability that allows them to act more powerful than they really are for a short duration a certain number of times per day.

-Paladins are modified a bit and become a PrC.

-Merge wizards and sorcerors into one class.

-Magic:

All spellcasters become spontaneous casters. Spell slots replaced with Spell Points. Spell Points are gained at a slow rate. Every spellcaster can choose to pump their spells by investing more spell points into them. Each spellcaster has a level of skill (based on character level) to which they can comfortably pump their spells, if they go beyond that they must save or incur negative effects that increase in severity based on the level of pumping past comfortable range.

Number of spells is reduced. Divine casters do not get every spell for a level simply because they gained the appropriate character level. Certain spells of a spell level will be tagged with the [rare] descriptor. These spells cannot be chosen by leveling up and must be discovered on a scroll or taught by another spellcaster.

No material components for regular spells. Some very powerful spells will require significant components (like a relic, holy symbol, but NOT like bat guano, piece of silk cloth)

There are no generalist wizards, everyone must specialize. Wizards will be very good at 1 or 2 schools of spells (schools would have to be reorganized), average at 1 or 2, poor at 1 or 2, and unable to cast 1 or 2.

Druids shapechanging ability limited to a list. If they want to expand on their list they have to study the animal they want to become intimately and must pay Exp and then make a successful skill check to learn the new form. Failure results in half the Exp lost and the druid cannot attempt to learn that form again until they attain a new character level.

-Remove monks and add in martial art forms.

-Add in a mechanism that is easily to track for durability on weapons & armor.

Jalil
2007-01-04, 10:01 AM
It seems to me that, while these changes are moving the system in a generally great direction, you'd be better off with a new type of D20. I've heard or read somewhere of a system that looked like
Found it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm).

Maybe not exactly like this, but if we could apply some of the tweaks to the spellcasting, combined with this, should definately balance things out.

Journey
2007-01-04, 10:43 AM
It seems to me that, while these changes are moving the system in a generally great direction, you'd be better off with a new type of D20. I've heard or read somewhere of a system that looked like
Found it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm).

Maybe not exactly like this, but if we could apply some of the tweaks to the spellcasting, combined with this, should definately balance things out.

Why not just use a completely skills based system, like GURPS, Harnmaster, or the like? The thing that sets d20 apart from these is the Archetype based rulesystem. The current multi-class rules, "generic classes" as you list, and so forth, erode this distinction. Coupled with the other mechanics rules that are designed specifically for a class-based system, we get a sort of broken hybrid of the two kinds of rulesystems.

Matthew
2007-01-04, 11:52 AM
I don't know about that. I quite like the idea of D&D via point built Classes, but then that's how I play my homebrewed and housreuled (A)D&D 2.x game...

Valairn
2007-01-04, 11:56 AM
Maybe its just cause I like anime, but I like flashy fantasy, running on walls high adventure, Indiana Jones kind of run and gun fun. I mean I like role-playing a lot, but when combat comes along, I want to be a hero, feeling gimped for the sake of balance is lame, personally I like it where everyone is powerful, and balance is found in tactics and timing more than who chose the right class. I think the system should represent that.

This brings up my point, before you can move onto how you want the system to look, you need to define the flavor you are looking for, what kind of fantasy are we talkin here, Eberron/FR/Greyhawk/Dark Fantasy/High Fantasy..... it makes a huge difference in how you want to construct your rule sets.

Matthew
2007-01-04, 12:04 PM
It surely does. D&D 3.x is a lot more power orientated than previous editions (in my opinion), which is why some traditional Classes (such as Fighter) are viewed as being left behind.

Still, if you just play Core and low level, it's fairly unproblematic for running a low magic style game; the amount of additional material you allow and the higher level you play at has the potential to alter the style of game, which is basically one of the strengths of D&D. [i.e. it can be tailored to preference]

Tokiko Mima
2007-01-04, 12:22 PM
Hmm...

I think I'd also allow a larger selection when taking the the Weapon Specialization/Focus/Power Critical/Improved Critical/Exotic Weapon Proficiency line of Feats. When you take one of those feats, you get to pick 3 weapons but they have to be different. i.e. you couldn't take Weapon Focus (longsword) and Improved Critical (Longsword)

Matthew
2007-01-04, 12:24 PM
Consider allowing them to apply to broader categories, such as Weapon Focus (Sword) (Short Sword, Long Sword, Bastard Sword, Great Sword) or Weapon Focus (Axe) (Hand Axe, Battle Axe, War Axe, Great Axe) and so on...

Jades
2007-01-04, 12:55 PM
Hit Points.

We use Racial Hit Die instead of class hit die. A dragon that starts training as a wizard shouldn't gain a d4 hit die!

Primary Caster classes should get one size lower than their racial hit die. Humans, a d8, so human wizards/sorcerers get a d4.

"Expert" classes, those that arn't spellcaster and arn't pure melee get the racial hit die.

Melee classes get one size larger.

MrNexx
2007-01-04, 01:38 PM
Hit Points.

We use Racial Hit Die instead of class hit die. A dragon that starts training as a wizard shouldn't gain a d4 hit die!

Primary Caster classes should get one size lower than their racial hit die. Humans, a d8, so human wizards/sorcerers get a d4.

"Expert" classes, those that arn't spellcaster and arn't pure melee get the racial hit die.

Melee classes get one size larger.

Shouldn't that be that Wizards/Sorcerers/Druids/Clerics get d6, Experts get racial (d8), and melee get d10?

Would barbarians then have, as a class feature "Enhanced hit die: class hit die is two steps above racial HD, not one"?

Jades
2007-01-04, 01:40 PM
Bleh, yeah. Sorry, my mind is a bit on the fritz today.

Valairn
2007-01-04, 01:43 PM
That's actually a really good idea! Hats off!

Yakk
2007-01-04, 04:00 PM
d20 is both an archtype and a level based system.

The advantage of level based systems is that it is easier to guage and balance character power. In most skill based system, the range of power amoung equally experienced characters is huge. In a level based system, the range is smaller -- even with the difference between a L 20 fighter and a L 20 wizard in power.

I'd be somewhat interested in an abstract archtype level based system. Instead of classes that fit a particular character concept, abstract hybrid archtypes.

Make a set of active adventuring archtypes:
Melee damage
Melee defence
Spell damage
Spell defence
Combat healing
Spell control

And a set of non-combat archtypes:
Melee buffing
Spell buffing
Out of combat healing
Utility magic
Skill monkey
Diplomacy
Resource Gathering

then make classes that are a combination of 2 combat and 1 non-combat archtype...