[3.5] Let's Actually Fix Something!

[Phelix-Mu]

Alright, there are a few mistakes made in 3.x, I think we can all agree. However, there are one or two things for which the amendment process is pretty clear cut. The goal of this thread is to create a list of things that can be easily fixed in a concrete manner. I'll put down my examples and you should get an idea of where I'm headed with this.

Things to Fix:
- Arachnomancer: Two PrCs share this name, but they are clearly different PrCs. One should be "Arachnomancer," while the other should be called something else.

- Spells with same name but different effects: I remember there were a couple of these (ball lightning jumps to mind). Please add any spells with redundant names that you know of, and suggestions for which gets its name changed and what to change the name to.

Are there other things along these lines that we can agree need to be fixed and for which relatively simple solutions exist? SHould I just have read the numerous "dysfunctional rules" threads?

[Pluto!]

- Spells with same name but different effects: I remember there were a couple of these (ball lightning jumps to mind). Please add any spells with redundant names that you know of, and suggestions for which gets its name changed and what to change the name to.
Critical Strike may be in this camp.

It has two printings in different books with two different effects, but both effects are 1-round "boost" spells like Wraithstrike with effects relating to sneak attack.

SpC (and presumably an earlier source -- I'd bet CAdv) makes it a sneak attack-like damage bonus for a round (+1d6, power critical+improved critical).

CMage makes the next one attack ignore concealment.

I've always allowed them to coexist because they're distinct and useful -but by no means broken - effects that are usable by an archetype I enjoy (sneaky spellcasting fighters), but the similar names may mean one overwrites the other, which is a shame for all involved. So I move to retitle the CMage version with the uninspired but more or less applicable title "Accurate Strike."

[gr8artist]

Doing away with the term "spell levels" and using instead "spell tiers".
Take a look at weapon damage increase patterns. Sometimes a weapon moves up one die step, sometimes it moves up much further. The weapon damage pattern should be universal, and should include xd10 steps.
1, 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, 4d6, 4d8, 4d10, 8d6, 8d8, 8d10
This makes a much more uniform curve than the current one.
Lastly: Monks.

[Phelix-Mu]

Monks are rather more complicated to fix than what I was aiming for. Renaming stuff that has been erroneously conflated due to what seems to be clerical errors is fairly uncontroversial, and we can maybe come up with "the official unofficial name for x."

Anyway, it's just an idea.

I do kind of like the thing with the die steps, but it really goes quite a bit farther than that and will involve what I think will be a lengthy discussion involving math, bell curves, and "mundanes can't have nice things." Still, worth considering.

[JaronK]

Obvious one: Monks should be proficient with unarmed strikes. War Domain Clerics should be able to take Weapon Focus at level 1 without prerequisites.

JaronK

[Starchild7309]

How about this. The feat Sacred Healing. It's in Complete Divine, however, its all in PHII, same name, two totally different effects...

Only found this out because our Cleric was being NPCed since he had work and it turns out he has one(the PHII version), and not the Complete Divine one and caused like a 15 min stop to figure out what abilities he had.

[BWR]

Obvious one: Monks should be proficient with unarmed strikes.

I keep hearing this one but I can't see anything that says unarmed strikes count as weapons. Without a proficiency, you take a -4 on attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes are attacks without a weapon.
Am I missing something?

[Eldariel]

I keep hearing this one but I can't see anything that says unarmed strikes count as weapons. Without a proficiency, you take a -4 on attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes are attacks without a weapon.
Am I missing something?

Unarmed strike is a simple weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons).

[Gwendol]

Mounted charging and ride by attack. You must be allowed to trace a line that allows the intended movement, and to attack from where you can reach the target, not the mount.

[eggynack]

Weapon finesse shouldn't have a prerequisite of +1 BAB. You end up with a really awkward feat progression for rogues, along with any other rogue-likes who may want it (whether they're procedurally generated or not). It'd be fine to just give weapon finesse to everyone for free, but getting rid of the prerequisite is a fine first step.

[Vizzerdrix]

I wouldn't mind seeing the rules for shapesand cleaned up.

[AMFV]

These are probably in the dysfunctional rules more than anything else. But according the PHB Glossary Divine casters don't have "known spells" and to scribe a scroll, it must be from a spell you know. Meaning that divine casters can't scribe scrolls per the rules as written. This probably should be in the dysfunctional rules section rather than here, but it is an easy fix.

[Chronos]

- Spells with same name but different effects: I remember there were a couple of these (ball lightning jumps to mind). Please add any spells with redundant names that you know of, and suggestions for which gets its name changed and what to change the name to.
At least in the case of spells that appeared in the Spell Compendium, this is already fixed. The version of the spell in SC replaces the previous version. So there's only one spell by that name, it's just a different spell than it used to be, and the old spell doesn't exist any more.

[tricktroller]

On the topics of monks I would say one of the biggest fixes would be to make them a full martial class. Full BAB and better HD to start so they aren't already worse than a fighter at fighting hand to hand.... Damage die increase shenanigans are already possible so no need to increase that.

Reducing MAD would be nice. Instead of keying abilities off of wisdom I would do Con, much like real shaolin monks, their bodies are tuned and honed to be perfectly in balance.

I would say that monk weapons do monk unarmed damage, sort of like an extension of their body allowing them to take power attack with a quarterstaff and go to town with some crazy large damage.

I would also consider giving them some more bonus feats based around martial prowess, effectively more of the combat expertise line as they level and probably an increasing with level bonus to these abilities so a 20th level monk could grapple a dragon and win.

[tricktroller]

Also allowing soulknives to pick what mindblade they use at first level would be a good start on fixing that class.

[Draz74]

Boots of Sidestepping have completely different effects in Dungeonscape and in Magic Item Compendium; I suspect that they just happened to use the same name twice, and that the MIC version wasn't intended to replace the (superior) Dungeonscape version.

[cakellene]

Lion Barbarian name overlap.

[eggynack]

Lion Barbarian name overlap.
Ya mean the ACF's? They kinda have different names already, because the CChamp one is a spirit totem, and the one in UA is a regular style totem. Notably, the only spirit totem that isn't also a normal style totem is fox. Bear, eagle, lion, and wolf are the other spirit totems, and they all pop up on the normal totem list.

[RedWarlock]

At least in the case of spells that appeared in the Spell Compendium, this is already fixed. The version of the spell in SC replaces the previous version. So there's only one spell by that name, it's just a different spell than it used to be, and the old spell doesn't exist any more.

Except he mentioned the two different versions being from Spell Compendium and Complete Mage. CM came out *after* SpC.

[peacenlove]

My 2 cents:
Shadow Magic: Removal of the shadowcaster's arbitrary restriction about feats.
Also a clear formula about metamagic to metashadow feat conversion (a +n metamagic converts into an equivalent metashadow that has n-1 other metashadow feats as prerequisites). +0 metamagics are constant effects. Variable metamagic (Such as heighten), when converted, have a pool of uses per day equal to your number of metashadow feats. If you subtract n uses per day, then you modify the effect by n levels.

Metamagic: Metamagic modifiers (in general) shouldn't pump a spell to more than a 9th level equivalent. This should tone down some magic power.

[TuggyNE]

Weapon finesse shouldn't have a prerequisite of +1 BAB.

What I've never figured out is why Power Attack has no BAB prerequisite.

[eggynack]

What I've never figured out is why Power Attack has no BAB prerequisite.
That is also something of an oddity, though the intrinsic nature of the feat forms something of its own BAB prerequisite. Weapon finesse is a way crazier thing, I think. You get that weird effect where you're putting your values in a certain manner such that you'll absolutely suck at everything for a couple of levels.