If you were to redesign core, what about the class/race system would you change?

[Gnorman]

Pretty self-explanatory from the title - how would you redesign the core class/race system, and why?

I'll get the ball rolling:

Class:

Spontaneous fixed-list casters - cuts down on the versatility of casters, if not their power level.

Remove the monk - it's just too narrow of a role, and plagued with mechanical problems

Add a dedicated duskblade-type class - core could really use a "gish-in-a-can," seeing how durable of an archetype it is.

Race:

Variable ability score bonuses - this removes the "ten different kinds of elf" problem. Instead of grey elves, moon elves, high elves, etc., you just have one type of elf, who gets a choice between Dexterity, Intelligence, etc.

Remove ability score penalties - these either pigeonhole race/class combos, or tend to encourage min-maxing.

Remove half-breeds - they suffer from a lack of definition and occasionally some unsavory background.

Add in a few more exotic races - some races have gained a fair bit of traction, enough to warrant inclusion in core. I'm thinking of things like tiefling, changeling, warforged, etc.

What are your thoughts?

[Phelix-Mu]

The first thing that needs to be done is to add some abilities to a couple of the mundanes that prevent them from sucking at what they are supposed to do.

1.) Combat Styles for the Fighter, along with a pool of combat bonuses that he can spend in combat to boost attack rolls and damage rolls, like Inspiration Points for Factotum (but only useful in combat-type things).

2.) Archery: Anyone that picks up archery shouldn't suck at it. This involves fixing the feat taxes and making archery itself less of a terrible option. Should also apply to slings and crossbows. Mainly, a way to add damage to the damage roll based on something. Also, I'd probably ditch AoOs on anyone using a ranged weapon, or at least get rid of the AoO in the first one or two feats of the feat tree. No one that specializes in archery should be eating AoOs after level 5-6, if that long into the game. If it's your schtick, you shouldn't suck at it.

3.) Better skill lists for mundanes: Ignoring that some casters get left out in the cold on this point, too, the skill lists for mundanes need tweaked. In a world with spells, not having spells should allow one to spend more time doing non-spell stuff, which is best modeled with a wider range of skills. Everyone could also probably benefit from +2 sk pts per level, or maybe by removing the double cost of cross-class skills (but keeping the cap on ranks). I am a big fan of skills, and believe they should be more influential.

[HunterOfJello]

I would remove the human's bonus feat and leave absolutely everything else exactly as is.

Then I would gleefully watch as people play in a fantasy world as fantasy races.

[OldTrees1]

I like Tier 3 since higher tiers are defined by gamebreaking abilities and low tiers are defined by being incompetent in their profession.

I believe core should have:
1 Generalist/Generic Tier 3 Warrior
1 Generalist/Generic Tier 3 Skillmonkey
1 Generalist/Generic Tier 3 Caster*
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Warriors
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Skillmonkeys
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Casters

1 Warrior Skillmonkey Prestige Class
1 Warrior Caster Prestige Class
1 Skillmonkey Caster Prestige Class
2 Warrior Prestige Classes
2 Skillmonkey Prestige Classes
2 Caster Prestige Classes

Expanded core would also have
1 Themed Warrior Skillmonkey Tier 3 baseclass
1 Themed Warrior Caster Tier 3 baseclass
1 Themed Skillmonkey Caster Tier 3 baseclass
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Warriors
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Skillmonkeys
2 Specialized/Themed Tier 3 Casters

*I am not sure how to create a Generalist/Generic Tier 3 Caster however it seems necessary for a complete game.

[Ivanhoe]

Yup, seconding Edit: Gnorman Edit :the monk would have to go.

Otherwise:
1) reduce the role of magic items for character power (say, by replacing it with more ex/sp/su abilities for everyone)
2) more important role for skills
3) provide the pc classes with basic roles which come with fluff suggestions, accoring to the four basic adventuring paths:
- arcane caster (prepared and spontaneous). fluff ideas: wizard, librarian, magic scentist, witch, magic music bard, blaster etc (plus, leave the specialisation of schools to get illusionists, blasters, necromancers etc.)
- divine caster (prepared and spontaneous). fluff ideas: priest, druid, holy man/hermit, prophet, inspired bard etc.
- psionic caster (prepared and spontaneous). fluff ideas: mentalist, wuxia martial artist, psychic, oracle etc.
- fighter. fluff ideas: knight, unarmed fighter, thug, weaponmaster etc.
- skilllmaster. fluff ideas: thief, dungeon specialist, explorer, scientist (mundane), artist. etc.
4) close the known infinite loops / rules controversies

Well, 1-3) look a bit like Rolemaster reoladed :smallbiggrin:

[Gnorman]

Do we really even need the distinction between arcane and divine magic?

[TechnoWarforged]

Monks:

Complete Redesign. No more MAD. (Their skill should be focused mostly on Str/Dex instead of Wis.)
Start with unarmed strike and Improved Unarmed strike, full BaB, not restricted to Lawful.
Cut out Flurry of blows completely.
Rework a majority of their powers/abilities to more of a Wu-Xia flavour. Basically they'll be unarmored fighter who can use weapons if they wanted to. They'll have "Stance" which, when used, will supplement their combat abilities and add new buffs to each stance as they level.

Fighter:
add more base abilities that'll help them "tank". They'll get free stuff like "Shield Ally", "taunt", and "distracting blow" to make sure they monsters are more focus on them then the squishy casters.
Allow more skills points so there's more option to customize, if not suppliment their skills into their combat/fighting style.
Buff fighters in general by giving them more feats/level so they can customize more and often.

[Frozen_Feet]

As far as classes go, I've already redone most SRD classes. See my signature.

I've not yet thought of what to do with races, if anything. Though one thing I'd likely copy from other systems would be racial traits gained at level up and/or age categories. Like, if you're a Dwarf, at level X you become immune to certain toxic substances, at level Y you become resistant to fire, that kind of stuff.

[OldTrees1]

Do we really even need the distinction between arcane and divine magic?

I do not think so. Sure a Cleric and a Wizard might have different spells known and different class features but I do not see a need for the Arcane/Divine split.

[Gnorman]

As far as classes go, I've already redone most SRD classes. See my signature.

I've not yet thought of what to do with races, if anything. Though one thing I'd likely copy from other systems would be racial traits gained at level up and/or age categories. Like, if you're a Dwarf, at level X you become immune to certain toxic substances, at level Y you become resistant to fire, that kind of stuff.

Scaling racial abilities are DEFINITELY on my list. Race should be more than a decision of which hat to wear at character creation.

[Alent]

I'm actually in the process of doing just this for my upcoming campaign and will be posting the whole mess over in homebrew when I get preliminary class tables finished. (I had hoped to be finished by now, but 4 weeks of flu and desperate dayjob catchup work. :smallfrown: )

My current changes to classes:

1) Level 8 and 9 spells are mostly just gone. Full divine casters have 1~7, and the "generic" list drops off around 5th level casting, past that point your spells come exclusively from circles/domains. Full Arcane casters are 1~6 and can only choose spells from their faction's spell libraries unless they somehow gain in world access to another faction's spellbooks, Specialist PrCs grant them 7ths for their specialty school at the cost of 6ths of non-specialty schools. Half casters have either 1~4 or 1~5 depending. Naturally, the spellbooks will be tweaked in places to keep casters closer to the redesigned "mundanes".

2) Classes are split by Extraordinary and Supernatural. (Distinction inspired by a thread here). Extraordinary classes have strong skill play and I've folded a simplified version of martial initiators into Fighter (1/2 progression), Rogue (1/2 progression), and Brawler (full progression, class formerly known as monk, renamed to emphasize how much has changed.). There's also a mundane version of incarnum called Steam Technician, a 1~5 "caster" called Alchemist I'm still trying to figure out, and Rangers aren't divine casters but have "animal" and "healing" circle emulating alchemy and an improved version of handle animal as a class feature. Supernatural classes are... well... too long to summarize, but basically, I went and asked people to point out their favorite 3.5 magic "subsystems" and tried to get 1~2 classes per balanced subsystem.

3) A fragile magical rock is abundant in the world that can be made into magical items at 1/4th cost, that break on a critical fail and have negative modifiers to opposed sunder checks. Fighters have class features that let them use weapons and tools of that rock at reduced/no chance of breaking. Grades of this rock too poor for crafting can be scavenged with survival checks utilized in certain skill tricks to fake a small list of cantrips like detect magic and so on. I still need to start a thread about this one asking for help with refining the WBL side of it.

4) It's not really a "class" thing but more a "general balance" thing... Magical Flight and long range teleportation's gone. Dimdoor and flying animals are about as good as you're getting.

I could probably ramble some more, but I have to head somewhere.

[Telonius]

Races:

- Add in more half-breeds (Tiefling, Aasimar) at LA +0, and make the existing half-breeds better balanced (make Half-Elves non-useless, lose the Cha penalty for Half-Orcs). They're fun to play, no reason to discourage them.

- Remove Favored Class, because multiclass XP penalties don't exist.

- Closely examine all of the racial abilities and make some of them "Social" and some of them "Natural." This would simplify any "human raised by X, do they get language/familiarity/etc bonus?" issues.

Classes:

- Warlock moves to core, and is renamed "Arcane Archer." Eldritch Blast is reflavored to different kinds of arrows, and improves its damage die as the Archer gains in level. There needs to be an archer archetype, and Ranger doesn't always cut it.

- Swordsage moves to core, and is renamed "Monk." Current Monk is removed. (Alternately, full rewrite of the class).

- Remove alignment requirements for Bards and Barbarians. (New Monk has no alignment requirements). If somebody wants to play a skald or a savage who respects the traditions of his people, the rules should support that.

- For the love of Olidammara, Rogue gets something at level 20. Also, add some more Rogue abilities that let Rogue get some sneak attack in to otherwise-immune enemies. Because I dislike class features that disguise themselves as Feats, Sneak attack adds +1 damage per level of Rogue.

- Rewrite the Paladin class and code. Paladins now take the alignment of their deity or cause, and must act as prime examples of that deity or cause. (Seriously, this one thing would prevent about 58,000 intra-group conflicts). Paladin's Mount is altered to become a manifestation of the Paladin's belief system. This can switch between an active manifestation (mount) or passive benefits, both of which improve by level. (This gives people a reason to take Paladin beyond level 6, and gives them something if they're in a dungeon too small for their mount to fit).

- Druid uses the Shapechange variant, because Druid.

- Ranger gets Druid progression for their companion, because they need something to set them apart from Fighter

- Fighter and Ranger would also have some of their features changed by altering the feats. TWF would scale with level, Improved and Greater TWF would decrease the penalties. More (and more interesting) melee and archery feats. Both classes are underpowered; this would go some way to fixing that.

- Barbarians get pounce after a few levels. DR improves to something useful, or gets axed in favor of something else interesting.

- Limit certain spells (ex: Divine Power to the War domain only) to prevent Clerics from going 'zilla; DMM isn't core but ban it anyway.

- ... and then there's Wizards and Sorcerers. I'm strongly tempted to just bump off Sorcerers, then take Psion and call it a Mage. Otherwise, go through the spell list with a fine-toothed comb and remove the worst offenders. Wizard gets bonus item creation feats (but not metamagics); Sorcerer gets Metamagic feats at the Wizard's progression (and no extra time for spontaneous metamagic), or possibly bonus bloodline feats.

[Phelix-Mu]

Love what you did with Warlock-> Arcane Archer, Telonius. That is an inspired and simple bit of tweak that solves a boatload of problems. I may have to lift that for my setting. Props on elegance.

[Coidzor]

I'd buff the multiclassing system a bit by taking the idea behind the whole +1/2 non-martial adept class levels to Initiator level concept from Tome of Battle and applying it more across the system. The exact specifics of how beyond applying it to manifester level, caster level, meldshaper level, and other similar concepts from other subsystems escapes me though I've seen some thoughts on the matter before which I enjoyed. Maybe have more class abilities that are based upon level (say, number of levels for purposes of determining number/uses of rage, bardic music uses) scale in this way and others just straight up scale with character level/HD/non-temporary HD.

Half-casters would start casting at level 1, have level 0 spells, and full caster level, epic progressions would include (at least the option of) getting regular access to the spell list of the fullcaster they're based off of as well as bumping them up to get 9th level spells as a matter of course during the ranges where epic is actually believed to occasionally be played.

Definitely agree with the general concept of making racial abilities scale with level/HD, as well as separating out nature and nurture as two different components that can be mixed and matched to some extent.

[wayfare]

The first thing that needs to be done is to add some abilities to a couple of the mundanes that prevent them from sucking at what they are supposed to do.

1.) Combat Styles for the Fighter, along with a pool of combat bonuses that he can spend in combat to boost attack rolls and damage rolls, like Inspiration Points for Factotum (but only useful in combat-type things).

2.) Archery: Anyone that picks up archery shouldn't suck at it. This involves fixing the feat taxes and making archery itself less of a terrible option. Should also apply to slings and crossbows. Mainly, a way to add damage to the damage roll based on something. Also, I'd probably ditch AoOs on anyone using a ranged weapon, or at least get rid of the AoO in the first one or two feats of the feat tree. No one that specializes in archery should be eating AoOs after level 5-6, if that long into the game. If it's your schtick, you shouldn't suck at it.

3.) Better skill lists for mundanes: Ignoring that some casters get left out in the cold on this point, too, the skill lists for mundanes need tweaked. In a world with spells, not having spells should allow one to spend more time doing non-spell stuff, which is best modeled with a wider range of skills. Everyone could also probably benefit from +2 sk pts per level, or maybe by removing the double cost of cross-class skills (but keeping the cap on ranks). I am a big fan of skills, and believe they should be more influential.

Thats actually the concept I built my favorite fighter revision on: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16146461
The 10 level version is even better!

I have been tempted for a while now to just divorce skills from classes entirely and let skill points be the sole arbiter of what you can invest in.

[Zharradan Marr]

Archery requires a tax of two feats - Precise Shot, which in turn requires a tax of Point Blank Shot - just not to be completely incompetent. This should never happen. Just as a Barbarian can swing a greatsword for 2d6 with no feat taxes required for basic competence, the Ranger should be able to deal his basic 1d8 with a longbow with no taxes.

[wayfare]

Archery requires a tax of two feats - Precise Shot, which in turn requires a tax of Point Blank Shot - just not to be completely incompetent. This should never happen. Just as a Barbarian can swing a greatsword for 2d6 with no feat taxes required for basic competence, the Ranger should be able to deal his basic 1d8 with a longbow with no taxes.

^agreed. I'd also suggest that attribute to damage should be less mad (letting dex count as precision fire or something) and should not require a special weapon.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Momentum Casting.

Momentum Casting means that mages can't whip out their best spells on the first turn, but they don't have to sit around and charge up for three rounds either; instead, each turn, the power of spells available to them has to be within a range of whatever they cast last turn. (Lazy implementation; you can only cast up to three spell levels higher than you cast last turn. So, if you want a 9th level spell, you have to wait for the third round of combat.)

It always struck me as the best balance option out there for balancing mages and mundane, while still keeping mages fun - assuming we did some reasonable spell balance as well, fighters would have a narrow window to try and take out enemy mages before they built up, or would be really valuable in protecting allied mages until they were able to do their glass cannon thing. Mages would have to be clever and careful, to get maximum utility out of their lower-level spells.

Oh, while I'm at it, abolish Vancian casting. Prepared casters always seem like the least fun part of the game, particularly the ones who have to research their spells. (To be clear, I love the idea of spells as loot or quest rewards - but doing it in character creation is just an annoying amount of book-keeping.)

[maniacalmojo]

I would change the way casters work and make a more defined split towards devine and arcane magic.

Keep the same basic formula but change it prepared casters for instance would be like this.

Wizards would prepare how many of what kind of spell they are going to use for the day and take a half hour to prepare, There spell list would be more restrictive mostly consisting of harry potterish magic. They would need to make a knowledge arcana roll whenever they cast magic as well. They would also get one spell that they can memorize for a day and use that one in place of other spells they prepare.

Sorcerers however would have to succeed a spellcraft roll to cast any magic and higher level magic would always have an arcane failure chance. All the spells would be more expressive and explody. Fireball, lightning, Teleportation. They would be able to mix certain spells together like a meta magic feat

Paladin / ranger spells would be changed more into multi day use abilities. Not spells. Paladins would gain a few more heroic styled abilities. Rangers would be a more stealth focused class with better ranged abilities. Not a fan of the racist stuff rangers deal with.

Druids would be restrictive to their climate on how they are able to use spells and things. They would be mostly starved in city's but flourish in their particular climate. Wild shape would be changed somehow.

Monk would be a bit more generally focused. Their abilities would be less MAD and would mostly tie into wisdom. (use wisdom in place of str and dex when using monk abilities)

[Kennisiou]

4e did a lot of things with races I really like. My suggestions would be changing some of them to 3e.

Wood Elves, High Elves, and Gray Elves are all changed. Wood Elves are now just Elves, Gray Elves are Eladrin. High Elves don't exist (they won't be missed). Gray Elf and High Elf kind of step on eachother's toes thematically and Gray Elf frankly just does High Elf better. The Eladrin/Elf distinction of 4e was also just a good idea in my book.

Dragonborn are a race not a template. They're core.

Aasimar has no LA. Same with Tiefling and the elemental genasi. They're core.

Orc and Goblin are core. Orc, Half Orc, and Goblin gain some more appealing racial features. Blue gets its level adjustment removed and loses one of the racial features of goblin for a bonus power point and the ability to once a day manifest far hand for free. (not core but XPH is SRD so close enough).

Any class without spellcasting up to at least level 6 spells gains more skill points and a wider skill list. Yes. Even Rogue. Give it some more knowledges and Survival. Rogue not having Survival honestly seriously bothers me, since it encompasses more than just outdoor skills. Skills also gain expanded uses. Appraise can be used to identify wondrous items.

Rogue has D8 hitdie.

Monk is replaced with Swordsage.

[Phelix-Mu]

Ugh. I really hated that grey elves turned into eladrin. Ever met a grey elf? Many of them have a serious stick up their ass on racial purity issues (at least by lore dating back several editions). By literally turning them into SuperElves, this opinion of theirs is upgraded from racist tendencies to virtual fact.

Plus, this also downgrades eladrin into...well...SuperElves. Any self-respecting celestial would be disgusted.

Finally, much as I love elves, I like them more as demihumans, to use the 2e term, and less as the Tolkien-esque beings of truly superhuman proportions. I like their arrogance to be cultural.

But, meh, /rant.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A bunch of the changes I'd want have already been listed (or close enough), so I'll just comment on a few things first, spoilered for length:
Spontaneous fixed-list casters - cuts down on the versatility of casters, if not their power level.

I don't like making every single caster fixed-list, personally, because all the utility magic is very fun to play with (and fairly iconic) but doesn't necessarily fit on the lists of the fixed-list casters for the same reason sorcerers can't really afford to pick up Leomund's secure shelter or passwall. So in my revision I'd make a bunch of fixed-list casters but also leave the wizard in as the guy who just gets the one-off oddball spells and has to use them creatively, kind of like how the 1e illusionist didn't have much combat oomph but was an excellent trickster type.


Add a dedicated duskblade-type class - core could really use a "gish-in-a-can," seeing how durable of an archetype it is.

Do we really even need the distinction between arcane and divine magic?

Originally, the cleric was the gish-in-a-can; D&D started off with just the fighting-man and magic-user, and the cleric split the difference as the guy with some armor and weapons and some magic. One could easily remove the arcane/divine distinction, shuffle some spells around, and make the cleric the gish once again.


Yup, seconding Phelix-Mu here: the monk would have to go.

Not necessarily; it sucks in its current incarnation, but the concept of "unarmed anti-caster skirmisher" is salvageable. Something like, I don't know, the scout's Skirmish ability + non-sucky Spring Attack tree + Ambush-feat-like debuffs + unarmed damage progression + Mage-Slayer-like benefits + a bunch of resistances and immunities could work.


Variable ability score bonuses - this removes the "ten different kinds of elf" problem. Instead of grey elves, moon elves, high elves, etc., you just have one type of elf, who gets a choice between Dexterity, Intelligence, etc.

- Add in more half-breeds (Tiefling, Aasimar) at LA +0, and make the existing half-breeds better balanced (make Half-Elves non-useless, lose the Cha penalty for Half-Orcs). They're fun to play, no reason to discourage them.

- Closely examine all of the racial abilities and make some of them "Social" and some of them "Natural." This would simplify any "human raised by X, do they get language/familiarity/etc bonus?" issues.

I've not yet thought of what to do with races, if anything. Though one thing I'd likely copy from other systems would be racial traits gained at level up and/or age categories. Like, if you're a Dwarf, at level X you become immune to certain toxic substances, at level Y you become resistant to fire, that kind of stuff.

I'm already doing a version of the above suggestions in my sort-of-in-progress 3e fix. Every character has 6 trait slots, 3 for "inherent" traits and 3 for "cultural" traits. Each race gives 2 inherent traits and 2 cultural traits, and then there are certain templates you can take (either at 1st level or left open for later) that give either an inherent trait, a cultural trait, or both; they're kind of a cross between subraces and regional feats. The templates can be terrain-based (Forest Folk makes wood elves and forest gnomes, Desert Dweller lets you survive in the desert), background-based (City Slicker gives you some urban/social benefits, Arcane Education gives you minor magic), heritage-based (Heavens-Born turns you into an aasimar, Dragon-Blooded makes you minorly draconic), and so forth.

The same applies to monsters, who get up 4 abilities as their "racial" traits, the rest from their type and/or role templates, and other stuff like DR or SLAs from lists of "class" features determined by their subtypes. It's possible to take enough templates to give you more than 2 extra traits, in which case they overwrite existing traits of your choice, so you can make a Dragon-Blooded Heavens-Born dwarf or a Fiendish Oozing dire bear if you really want to; in fact, some more powerful templates (e.g. Half-Dragon or Vampire) automatically take up more than 1 or 2 slots and replace more of your character.

You get more trait slots as you level; the basic races can choose off the existing template list, or certain monster lists (dwarves can choose off the Earth list, elves off the Fey list, gnomes off the Manipulator list, etc.).

This makes a whole bunch of racial manipulation easier.
Want a dwarf raised by humans? Take the Multicultural template and swap your dwarf cultural traits for human cultural traits.
Want an arctic dwarf instead of a mountain dwarf? Take Tundra-Born instead of Subterranean.
Want a half-breed? Take the Mixed Blood template and take 1 inherent and 1 cultural trait from each parent race, no icky backstory required.
Want to represent what you've learned from your adventures in the Evil Swamp of Evil? Take the Marsh Dweller template the next time you have a free trait slot.
Want to turn into another creature? Alter self, lycanthropy, etc. just swap your inherent traits for the other creature's instead of doing a bunch of extra stat fiddling.
Want to animate something as a skeleton? Just overwrite some traits with the Undead (2 inherent traits) and Mindless (1 cultural trait) templates.And so on and so forth.

And then some new things:1) No more skill ranks. Skills come in five grades (Apprentice, Journeyman, Expert, Master, Paragon), trainable at 1st, 2nd, 7th, 12th, and 17th level, each of which gives a constant benefit and also opens up new skill uses appropriate to their power level: Running through difficult terrain or jumping without a running start might require Journeyman Acrobatics, Expert Engineering might let you make checks to disable or build traps, Master Stealth might let you hide from special senses and even divinations, and so on.

Your skill bonus is equal to 2*grade, plus a "base skill bonus" for any skill you're trained in (1/4 level for most classes, higher for skillmonkeys and skill hybrids), and "class skills" are simply the skills that you automatically start with Apprentice rank in at 1st level. Maxing out a skill is thus like putting full 3e ranks in and you can put a single point into a skill to get a scaling level bonus, but you don't have to deal with everyone's skills all scaling at +1/2 level if you don't like that.

2a) Inherent math. Feats at every odd level, +1 to all ability scores at every even level, and remove all pure +X items. Items are no longer necessary to stay on the RNG, WBL can be spent on "interesting" items, everyone becomes more all-around capable as they level, and MAD becomes less of an issue.

2b) Fixed math. There are now 3 bonus types: inherent for racial or permanent magical bonuses, enhancement for equipment and temporary magical bonuses, and insight for training- or skill-based bonuses, and all bonuses are noticeable rather than having tons of +1s and +2s. Apart from making math easier at the table, it makes the numerical parts of CR calculations easier.

3) Unified, staggered caster multiclassing. There is one spellcasting table, and your effective spellcasting in a class is equal to your levels in that class (for full casters) or 3/4 your levels in that class (for partal casters) plus 1/2 all your other levels...however, you only get the benefits of your current spellcasting level when you actually take a level in a casting class instead of gaining the full progression. For instance, if the spellcasting table gives you 1 5th level and 1 3rd level spell per day at SL 10, then taking a level of wizard as a fighter 19 (giving you SL 10 for that wizard level from wizard 1 + fighter 19/2) gives you 1 5th level and 1 3rd level spell per day instead of full 10th-level wizard casting.

This means that dual-progression or gish-y PrCs are no longer necessary since going fighter 1, fighter 1/wizard 1, fighter 2/wizard 1, etc. or any similar even-split progression will reduce your spells per day but won't stunt your casting progression too badly (e.g. wizard 10/cleric 10 ends up with 7th level spells on one side and 8th level on the other), and it means that splashing in a few mid-level spells as a higher-level character is much more viable without needing to build for it specifically.

[Gemini476]

I'd buff the multiclassing system a bit by taking the idea behind the whole +1/2 non-martial adept class levels to Initiator level concept from Tome of Battle and applying it more across the system. The exact specifics of how beyond applying it to manifester level, caster level, meldshaper level, and other similar concepts from other subsystems escapes me though I've seen some thoughts on the matter before which I enjoyed. Maybe have more class abilities that are based upon level (say, number of levels for purposes of determining number/uses of rage, bardic music uses) scale in this way and others just straight up scale with character level/HD/non-temporary HD.

Half-casters would start casting at level 1, have level 0 spells, and full caster level, epic progressions would include (at least the option of) getting regular access to the spell list of the fullcaster they're based off of as well as bumping them up to get 9th level spells as a matter of course during the ranges where epic is actually believed to occasionally be played.

Definitely agree with the general concept of making racial abilities scale with level/HD, as well as separating out nature and nurture as two different components that can be mixed and matched to some extent.
I'd just have absolutely everything scale by class level +1/2 other class levels - a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 casts as a 15th level Cleric and Wizard, for instance. It solves a bunch of issues with class features not progressing, and encourages multiclassing. (A Wizard 1/Fighter 19 casts as a Wizard 10 - sure, why not?)
Give classes some special abilities as they get higher levels so you don't get people dipping one level in every class ever, but I'm not sure if capstone abilities should really be a thing. Single classed characters have a rather narrow focus.
I'm more fond of point-buy system than level systems, though, so maybe I'm biased.

Then again, if I were given the opportunity to go back in time and remake 3E I'd base it on Basic rather than Advanced D&D - Rules Cyclopedia 2.0, basically. There's way to much clutter in the rules and character creation takes too long as is. (That's the RC with most optional rules, so TWF and Weapon Mastery and Skills and who knows what. Still less complex than 3.X.)


If you just want quick-fixes, though, doing stuff like making feats better and replacing the Sorcerer with the Warlock would be a good start. Oh, and remove most minionmancy - it might be fun, but it is almost entirely impossible to balance. Limiting the number of minions is a good start, but limiting the power of them is even more important. Send a dragon against your PCs and suddenly they have a zombie dragon on their side. Yeah.
Oh, and change the scaling of... everything, pretty much. Skills go from -5 to >+23, low-level enemies are only dangerous on a crit because they literally cannot hit you otherwise, HP bloat means escalation of damage numbers... All of those need to get thrown out of the window, frankly. Make sure that all DCs are within a range of 20 or so (say, 10 to 25), and you can actually have your low-level PCs fight a dangerous dragon without it being completely hopeless.

I guess those aren't quick fixes at all, come to think of it. Alright, just make the classes ToB+Warlock/DFA+Psychic Warrior+Binder+Tier 3 Casters+Factotum and you're good. Or just replace 'em all with Tier 3 classes, I guess. The Shugenja can sub in as a healer and you've got all four of the classic archetypes (Tank (Crusader), Skillmonkey (Factotum), Healer (Shugenja), Controller (Beguiler)).

[Kennisiou]

Ugh. I really hated that grey elves turned into eladrin. Ever met a grey elf? Many of them have a serious stick up their ass on racial purity issues (at least by lore dating back several editions). By literally turning them into SuperElves, this opinion of theirs is upgraded from racist tendencies to virtual fact.

Plus, this also downgrades eladrin into...well...SuperElves. Any self-respecting celestial would be disgusted.

Finally, much as I love elves, I like them more as demihumans, to use the 2e term, and less as the Tolkien-esque beings of truly superhuman proportions. I like their arrogance to be cultural.

But, meh, /rant.

I definitely see where you're coming from there. I mostly like the idea of eladrin flavored as "magic elf-like beings," and the rest of the fluff I feel could be disregarded in this instance. Mostly I just feel like D&D's elf racial variants in 3.5 really did step all over eachother's toes. Gray Elf, Sun/Gold Elf, Moon/Silver/High Elf. They all occupy the same thematic space, they just look kind of different. There's no need for them all to exist really. Same with Wild Elves and Wood Elves. I think the only racial variants that aren't either thematically Wood Elves or Gray Elves are Drow, Aquatic, and Aerial elves.

[ngilop]

Id steal a page from Dawnforge; Age of Legends and races get extra goodies at certain levels ( cannot rmember what the ecaxt interval for Dawnforge is) to make for example a Dwarf feel more dwarfy than a human other than the bonus to Con and a few minor racial traits.

for me Id make it start at 2nd then every 4th level thereafter ( so 2nd, 6th, 10th 14th and finally 18th)

These would not be gamebreaking powers or abilities but flavorul and relevant ones.

Id also devalue the worht that WoTC but on heavy armor and a full base attack bonus

I would change the crap out of feats make them scale to BaB and make old combat rules inherent things again instead of making them feast ( see power attack and combat expertise)

I then would reinstate the good old drawbacks spells use to have some. that way you actually have to weigh a spell


Then i would hire Emperor Tippy of GiTP forum Tempest Stormwind of WoTC Forums and a few others pay them lavish amounts of money and spend half a year ( or mroe) going through books and re writing the rules so that everything falls into the 'Tier' 3 through 'Tier' 5 range ( 5 for NPC classes only) with the occasional "tier" 2 thing slipping in.

[Phelix-Mu]

I definitely see where you're coming from there. I mostly like the idea of eladrin flavored as "magic elf-like beings," and the rest of the fluff I feel could be disregarded in this instance. Mostly I just feel like D&D's elf racial variants in 3.5 really did step all over eachother's toes. Gray Elf, Sun/Gold Elf, Moon/Silver/High Elf. They all occupy the same thematic space, they just look kind of different. There's no need for them all to exist really. Same with Wild Elves and Wood Elves. I think the only racial variants that aren't either thematically Wood Elves or Gray Elves are Drow, Aquatic, and Aerial elves.

Except that this has been racial subrace territory since way back, fairly early in 2e. Grey elves are the racial purists, living away from the world in mountain palaces or secluded forests. Wood/Sylvan elves chose to abandon civilization to live close to the land. High elves are the more common elves that don't have hangups about cities or other races. Wild elves are elven barbarians that ancestrally have lived in the wild, in tribes (usually).

Sun, Gold, Silver, and Moon are all specific to certain settings, and you can only conflate them with their core brethren so far; I think several had significant mechanical differences.

If you are going to strip out fluff differences, and their sundry mechanical baggage, entirely, then you can probably trash all the dwarf, gnome, and halfling subraces, too. Most of them can be similarly whitewashed. Some people argue that gnomes themselves are disposable.

I generally just dislike things that remove variety from the game, and I generally view subraces as an interesting way to add nuance to existing archetypes.

Adding some more core races would be nice, though. Specifically something dragon-themed, but I'm not sure I would have chosen dragonborn (due to all the 3.5 baggage).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'd just have absolutely everything scale by class level +1/2 other class levels - a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 casts as a 15th level Cleric and Wizard, for instance. It solves a bunch of issues with class features not progressing, and encourages multiclassing. (A Wizard 1/Fighter 19 casts as a Wizard 10 - sure, why not?)
Give classes some special abilities as they get higher levels so you don't get people dipping one level in every class ever, but I'm not sure if capstone abilities should really be a thing. Single classed characters have a rather narrow focus.

Problem is, casting > martial. Giving up to 9 free levels of wizard casting is waaaay too good, and no amount of martial class features (that is still vaguely martial and that people will actually accept, even ToB stuff) will be equal enough so that caster 19/martial 1 would be anywhere near martial 19/caster 1 under that system. An evenly-split progression sorta kinda works with 1/2 level to everything, but a cleric 1/wizard 1/druid 1/warblade 17, with 9th-level wizard, cleric, and druid progressions and an 18th-level warblade progression? Yeah, no.


low-level enemies are only dangerous on a crit because they literally cannot hit you otherwise, HP bloat means escalation of damage numbers... All of those need to get thrown out of the window, frankly. Make sure that all DCs are within a range of 20 or so (say, 10 to 25), and you can actually have your low-level PCs fight a dangerous dragon without it being completely hopeless.

You're assuming that mooks being weak, powerful monsters having tons of HP, and low-level PCs being unable to take on high-level dragons is a problem. The only-hit-on-a-20 thing is actually beneficial in some respects, in that traditionally mid-level PCs were expected to gain land and lead armies of level 1-3 soldiers, and it's nice that a PC can be at the head of an army without dying in one round because 100 enemy archers focus-fired him for 40d8 damage; it also means that PCs are needed to slay dragons as opposed to hiring a bunch of mooks to shoot down a dragon from outside of Frightful Presence range.

This kind of stuff has been debated in the 5e thread for a while, so I won't derail this one to do that again, but suffice it to say that those changes would be more "drastic overhauls to the handling and playstyle of the game engine" and less "fixing some broken parts."

[Petrocorus]

Currently thinking about replacing all magic with psionic. The psionic system is overall more balance and more consistent than magic.

Replacing core melee classes with ToB classes. For the same reason.

Remain the druid, ranger, rogue and bard.
Bard can be adapted into psionic bard without a lot of difficulties. I'm working on it by now.
The rogue is replaced by factotum and psychic rogue.
The ranger is replaced by a wildshape variant champion of the wild variant (non casting) ranger with full lvl animal companion and by an homebrew ToB adapatation of the ranger.
For the druid, i'm still working on it. May be replaced, like the cleric, by the Ardent of homebrewing a wildshaping class with low level animal companion and some psionic warlock-like invocation.

[Seerow]

1) Everyone has a resource system of some sort. These let them do active things. Feats as we know them go away. Feats become the name for Mundane active abilities that tap into the Mundane resource system. Non-mundanes no longer get feats. For things like Metamagic, that gets handled within the spellcasting resource system, or with class features.

2) There is a universal level-based stat representing how awesome you are at doing supernatural stuff. Magic based classes utilize this to access their magical abilities. Mundane classes (and everyone else, but mundane classes tend to not have another use) use this for magic items, divine infusions (ie if a Fighter wants to be a Paladin he might acquire some divine powers), pacts with other supernatural entities, transformations (say you get bitten by a werewolf. If you don't want to break the curse and are cool with being a werewolf, it just costs some essence instead of having a crippling LA), and so on. Basically everyone is equally magical, but each individual character gets to choose how that gets used, depending on what they're comfortable with and their character type.

3) Spellcasting gets broken up into more limited subsections. Any given power source (ie Arcane, Psionic, etc) gets the equivalent of roughly 2-3 magic schools as they exist now.

4) Races are separated out between cultural things and physical things. Both of these are much more flexible than currently exists. For example Stonecutting rather than being a dwarf thing is "Grew up in the dwarven mountains" cultural thing. Each race has a number of different options to pick from, but are still considered the same race, rather than a different subrace. A human with some talent for Incarnum is still a human, not some totally new race that is just like a human but with different colored eyes. Accompanying this there would probably be fewer races overall, but those fewer races are capable of filling a larger number of concepts. 4-5 races with 3-4 options each in core, plus the choice of cultural traits, makes for a very diverse setup and no need to worry about where to fit a crapton of different races.

[Snowbluff]

2.) Archery: Anyone that picks up archery shouldn't suck at it. This involves fixing the feat taxes and making archery itself less of a terrible option. Should also apply to slings and crossbows. Mainly, a way to add damage to the damage roll based on something. Also, I'd probably ditch AoOs on anyone using a ranged weapon, or at least get rid of the AoO in the first one or two feats of the feat tree. No one that specializes in archery should be eating AoOs after level 5-6, if that long into the game. If it's your schtick, you shouldn't suck at it.
I think the feat lines should have innate scaling. TWF includes OTWF later on, ITWF would include TWD. PBS will include Precise Shot, and later Far Shot. Improved Precise shot would be rolled in with Aquatic Shot...


Momentum Casting.

Momentum Casting means that mages can't whip out their best spells on the first turn, but they don't have to sit around and charge up for three rounds either; instead, each turn, the power of spells available to them has to be within a range of whatever they cast last turn. (Lazy implementation; you can only cast up to three spell levels higher than you cast last turn. So, if you want a 9th level spell, you have to wait for the third round of combat.)

It always struck me as the best balance option out there for balancing mages and mundane, while still keeping mages fun - assuming we did some reasonable spell balance as well, fighters would have a narrow window to try and take out enemy mages before they built up, or would be really valuable in protecting allied mages until they were able to do their glass cannon thing. Mages would have to be clever and careful, to get maximum utility out of their lower-level spells.

Okay, I prep with a mind blank... dammit combat started and I turned into a 5 level noob/ Int 13 idiot. :smallconfused:



Oh, while I'm at it, abolish Vancian casting. Prepared casters always seem like the least fun part of the game, particularly the ones who have to research their spells. (To be clear, I love the idea of spells as loot or quest rewards - but doing it in character creation is just an annoying amount of book-keeping.)
Nope. It limits the max number of top level abilities. It's more evident with lower tier casters and those who don't have ways of replenishing spells quickly, but it's the truth.

[Gemini476]

Problem is, casting > martial. Giving up to 9 free levels of wizard casting is waaaay too good, and no amount of martial class features (that is still vaguely martial and that people will actually accept, even ToB stuff) will be equal enough so that caster 19/martial 1 would be anywhere near martial 19/caster 1 under that system. An evenly-split progression sorta kinda works with 1/2 level to everything, but a cleric 1/wizard 1/druid 1/warblade 17, with 9th-level wizard, cleric, and druid progressions and an 18th-level warblade progression? Yeah, no.
Then nerf casting. Limit the number of spells available to a given caster, and change their spell lists so that they're generally less overpowered than they currently are.

Oh, and make the Fighters better by having them be terrifying blenders of death and carnage to everything within sight so that there's an actual reason to target them rather than the casters. Oh, and give them abilities that actually scale - even if you don't go for ToB-style Weeaboo Fightan Magic, I would love to see the return of Rules Cyclopedia's Weapon Masteries. Weapons scale, basically.


You're assuming that mooks being weak, powerful monsters having tons of HP, and low-level PCs being unable to take on high-level dragons is a problem. The only-hit-on-a-20 thing is actually beneficial in some respects, in that traditionally mid-level PCs were expected to gain land and lead armies of level 1-3 soldiers, and it's nice that a PC can be at the head of an army without dying in one round because 100 enemy archers focus-fired him for 40d8 damage; it also means that PCs are needed to slay dragons as opposed to hiring a bunch of mooks to shoot down a dragon from outside of Frightful Presence range.

This kind of stuff has been debated in the 5e thread for a while, so I won't derail this one to do that again, but suffice it to say that those changes would be more "drastic overhauls to the handling and playstyle of the game engine" and less "fixing some broken parts."
The engine is so broken, however, so if you are going to redesign Core why not redesign the broken fundamentals? You'll lose compatibility with splatbooks, sure, but at least you'll have a better base to build from. The question in the OP was "If you were to redesign core, what about the class/race system would you change?", and I'd change it so that everything interacts more.



Mooks being weak isn't the issue, since in a low-HP scenario they all die pretty easily anyway. But if the mooks are so weak that they are unable to do damage, the PCs can just ignore them completely rather than having to worry about them - 4E's Minions avoids this by having 1HP but actually being dangerous unless dealt with, but if you send an army of Orcs at high-level players they can mostly just waltz through the army since they're mostly unhittable and if they're hit they still don't take that much damage. Unless if you advance the army and give them class levels, but then you get HP bloat. Some people might like being able to effortlessly slaughter an entire army without being too damaged, but I guess it's just different strokes for different folks. I prefer my casters squishy and fighters deadly-but-not-immortal.

As for fighting dragons? Fiction has a bunch of examples of the plucky young heroes getting lucky and defeating the seemingly undefeatable foe - if you have a Dragon with lower AC and HP but the same Breath Weapon damage and so on, it's still terribly deadly but also killable by a literal army of mooks. As for hiring a bunch of mooks to shoot the dragon from outside the Frightful Presence range, that just means that the dragon does more fly-by Breath Weapon attacks and landing in the middle of the congregation to scatter it and pick off the people who run away and such. Intelligent tactics, in other words. "Low level characters able to defeat dragons" does not mean that they should be able to do it reliably, nor does it mean that doing so would be easy - Breath Weapons are pretty much made for attacking entire groups at once, for instance.

I dunno, maybe I just want a different type of game that 3E just doesn't work for.

[Hurnn]

Races, no big changes, maybe give every non human race a fixed bonus feat. Fix La's half of them are totally unjustified or over valued.

Classes:

First up is Saves: everyone has a +2, +1 +0 save progression.

Second BaB: stays the same except fighter and barb start at +3 giving them their multi attacks sooner.

Third Skills: skill monkeys: rogue are all 12+ int, mundanes :fighter barb 8+int, caster/fighters: bard pally ranger monk 6+ int, magic guys:wizard, cleric, sorc 4+ int

HD fighters move to a d12, rangers to a 10 everyone else stays the same

Fighters get bonus feats every even level, and the bonus at first still, would add in the fighter pathfinder bonus stuff.

Pallies use the pathfinder one.

Monk, help with the mad issues by letting them use Dex instead of Str on skills and to hit and damage bonuses.

Magic: big nerfs everywhere.

Clerics: Lose heavy armor prof, all gods have 4 domains all divine spells are spilt into domains and general. Those are the only ones you can cast, you get all the domain bonuses still, can spontainiously cast from 1 of your domains. Can swap healing for 1 domain,but can never spontainiously cast from it. If healing was one of your gods domains you also get to double your bonus healing number ei: 5th lvl cure light wounds id 1-8 + 5 with the healing domain you would do 1d8+ 10.

Wizards: can cast form all schools through 3rd, after third you have to give up 1 school each time you gain a new spell level. So 8+ general at 1-3 level spells, 4th 7, 5th 6, 6th, 5 7th, 4, 8th 3, 9th 2 specialists only give up 1 school, divination is still not eleigible, and obviously have 1 school less avalible per level.

Sorcerer: more spells known per level (50%), but for every spell known you roll twice randomly and get to pick 1. Every even level you can give up a spell to roll again.

Druid: split into 3 flavors; Animal, plant, elemental.

Animal: gets the companion and wildshape before the others can only ever wildshape into an animal. Companion at 3rd, wild shape at 5th. can only cast heals, general spells and heals. Summon NA animals only.

Plant: no companion, Wild Shape at 7th Plant only. casts: general, plant, heals and weather. Summon NA plants only.

Elemental: no companion Wild shape at 9th, elementals only. Cast: general, heals,Elemental, plane related. Summon NA elementals only

MetaMagic, No meta magic items, posibly the worst idea WotC ever had. Meta magic now requires a spell craft check and the old level increae would act as a multiplier. formula would be (10+spell level)metamagic level. So maximised fireball would be 39 on your spell craft check, Quickened time stop, 76.


No psionics ever.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Then nerf casting. Limit the number of spells available to a given caster, and change their spell lists so that they're generally less overpowered than they currently are.

Oh, and make the Fighters better by having them be terrifying blenders of death and carnage to everything within sight so that there's an actual reason to target them rather than the casters. Oh, and give them abilities that actually scale - even if you don't go for ToB-style Weeaboo Fightan Magic, I would love to see the return of Rules Cyclopedia's Weapon Masteries. Weapons scale, basically.

Even with drastic magic nerfs and martial buffs, you really can't get things to the point where X levels of caster = X levels of noncaster without getting down to 4e levels of mechanical similarity.


As for fighting dragons? Fiction has a bunch of examples of the plucky young heroes getting lucky and defeating the seemingly undefeatable foe

Fiction is indeed full of plucky young hereos defeating the seemingly undefeatable foe, and they're "seemingly undefeatable" because throwing armies at them does nothing. If you want "plucky hero defeats dragon" and "dragon defeats army" without "plucky hero defeats army," you need to take the same route fiction does: authorial fiat and plot armor (i.e. action points, Edge, or other "get really really lucky at dramatically appropriate times" resources and abilities).


I dunno, maybe I just want a different type of game that 3E just doesn't work for.

Kinda. It looks like you want a system with a much flatter power curve than any edition of D&D has; you can get partway there without too much houseruling, but the level of change in system assumptions you're talking about would change it to the point of not really being 3e anymore.


MetaMagic, No meta magic items, posibly the worst idea WotC ever had. Meta magic now requires a spell craft check and the old level increae would act as a multiplier. formula would be (10+spell level)metamagic level. So maximised fireball would be 39 on your spell craft check, Quickened time stop, 76.

Honestly, without metamagic reducers of some sort, metamagic isn't really that amazing; Persist Spell or Quicken Spell without Divine Metamagic isn't anywhere near as good, and Maximize, Empower, Widen, and similar aren't anywhere near good, period. If you were to institude such a check, I'd make it closer to 10 + [spell level * metamagic level]; a maximized fireball is DC 19 (a token check requirement, considering it's inferior in most circumstances to a chain lightning or other 6th-level blasting spell) while a quickened time stop is DC 46 (still ridiculous, but actually achievable without totally breaking things).

[Rejusu]

I don't think 3.5 needs a balanced power curve. Too much focus on balancing the system is why classes in 4th are so homogeneous mechanically. A computer game needs strong system balance because the computer has to follow it, a tabletop system doesn't because the DM doesn't have to follow it to the letter.

But there's definitely some things that could do with fixing.

Paladins - They're supposed to fit the concept of a "holy warrior", a martial character with divine abilities. Unfortunately for them the plate wearing Cleric just does everything better than them. I might consider making Clerics less of a front line combatant and more squishy like Wizards by removing their heavy armour proficiency. They should also get turn undead at level one, and be at least as good if not better than Clerics at it. Improved divine spellcasting, revamp smite, and refactor class features after level 6.

Monk - I'd be tempted to just scrap it and start from scratch.

Fighter - Incorporate some stuff from dungeoncrasher. Maybe give them some specialisation options like the ranger, and give them bonuses to combat manoeuvres.

[Hurnn]

Honestly, without metamagic reducers of some sort, metamagic isn't really that amazing; Persist Spell or Quicken Spell without Divine Metamagic isn't anywhere near as good, and Maximize, Empower, Widen, and similar aren't anywhere near good, period. If you were to institude such a check, I'd make it closer to 10 + [spell level * metamagic level]; a maximized fireball is DC 19 (a token check requirement, considering it's inferior in most circumstances to a chain lightning or other 6th-level blasting spell) while a quickened time stop is DC 46 (still ridiculous, but actually achievable without totally breaking things).

At 20, spellcraft 22 ranks, 30 int for +9, skill focus +3, mwk tool +2, buff spells for +4, 1 lvl of martial so you can add your Cha +5: 45 total, not even trying hard. I will concede that there may be a happy medium somewhere between the 2.

[Coidzor]

Problem is, casting > martial. Giving up to 9 free levels of wizard casting is waaaay too good, and no amount of martial class features (that is still vaguely martial and that people will actually accept, even ToB stuff) will be equal enough so that caster 19/martial 1 would be anywhere near martial 19/caster 1 under that system. An evenly-split progression sorta kinda works with 1/2 level to everything, but a cleric 1/wizard 1/druid 1/warblade 17, with 9th-level wizard, cleric, and druid progressions and an 18th-level warblade progression? Yeah, no.

This kind of stuff has been debated in the 5e thread for a while, so I won't derail this one to do that again, but suffice it to say that those changes would be more "drastic overhauls to the handling and playstyle of the game engine" and less "fixing some broken parts."

Yeah, I feel that'd be a bit too far, since it'd really need a whole lot of rebalancing of everything as well as a rewrite of spellcasting & its equivalents in order to jive with that kind of change.

Agreed.

[Chambers]

I'm already doing a version of the above suggestions in my sort-of-in-progress 3e fix.

Intriguing. Tell me more. Perhaps you have a newsletter, etc.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

At 20, spellcraft 22 ranks, 30 int for +9, skill focus +3, mwk tool +2, buff spells for +4, 1 lvl of martial so you can add your Cha +5: 45 total, not even trying hard. I will concede that there may be a happy medium somewhere between the 2.

Considering that a masterwork Spellcraft tool, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and a marshal dip aren't standard fare for casters and non-Int-based caster will have around +27 Spellcraft, tops, and can expect a 5% success chance at best, I'd say that certainly falls into "ridiculous, but achievable without breakage" territory.

If your worry is metamagicking high-level spells being too powerful, just prevent that. As I said, metamagic reducers are the real problem; without those, a quickened time stop is a 13th-level spell and not available until well into epic, so take those out and the problem disappears. Much better than making it so that people who over-optimize Spellcraft keep breaking metamagic while low-op casters are weakened.


Intriguing. Tell me more. Perhaps you have a newsletter, etc.

It's nowhere near a post-able form yet, but the basis for Phase 1 of the system is all up there: rewrite races in a more modular form, rewrite monsters to be more class- or role-based than type-based and modularize things based on that, and propagate the changes appropriately.

Phase 2, of course, is actually doing all that rewriting, which is understandably taking a while. I'll put you down for a subscription as soon as it's finished. :smallwink:

[Chambers]

Phase 2, of course, is actually doing all that rewriting, which is understandably taking a while. I'll put you down for a subscription as soon as it's finished. :smallwink:

Cool. Drop me a line when you want to test it.

[Coidzor]

No psionics ever.

Now, I can see not liking them personally, but wanting to take them away from everyone ever? :smallconfused:

[Grod_The_Giant]

It'd probably look a lot like 4e, but with way more variety in terms of powers. And probably a functional ritual system. I did a bunch of brainstorming this summer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15557184#post15557184), but never really took it anywhere.

Races
Balance is obvious, but I'd also like to have all races formatted the same, like 4e did. Something like:

Stat adjustment (a single +2-- good idea, Gnorman)
Skill bonuses (2 skills; I'd probably steal "roll twice, take the better" from SWSE)
Bonus feat
Special sense (if any)
One free racial power, and access to a few more on leveling up


Classes
Again, I'd try to make classes homogenous-looking, with abilities at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

The main thing here, though, would be to convert all classes to use variants of the Maneuver system. The preparatory/recovery mechanisms would vary enough between classes-- a barbarian might recover maneuvers by hitting people, a sorcerer by draining his own health, things like that-- to prevent too much homogeneity on that front.

Maneuvers would be sorted into schools, just like in the ToB, with each class getting access to four "common" schools and one unique school-- shape-shifting for druids, music for bards, things like that. There'd also be race-based schools, so you could develop your dwarven stonecunning or whatnot.

Maneuvers would be more varied than either ToB maneuvers or 4e powers-- "fire magic" maneuvers, for example, might let you shoot fireballs, summon fire elementals, teleport from fire to fire, and channel a pheonix to fly and regenerate on "death," while a "strength" school might let you auto-sunder objects, leap huge distances, ignore size modifiers, and do the work of hundreds of normal men.

I'd replace multiclassing with dual-classing-- average out BAB, CL, and save progressions, pick 5/10 schools available to either class (with some limitations on unique schools), and pick between class features when they showed up. (There'd probably be a delay of some sort in there)

Skills
I'd cut the list down a lot, and I'd probably do away with ranks in favor of an "untrained/dabbler/specialist" system, which would set how fast the skill scaled (not at all, 1/2 level, or level). All your skills would start at dabbler, and you'd pick a certain number at first level to improve to specialist. You could also drop skills to untrained in order to get another to specialist. Most DCs would be written so that you could hit them as a dabbler, though.

--------

Less ambitiously, I'd use the Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, and a martial Ranger for mundane classes (tweaked appropriately-- trapfinding and rogue skills for the swordsage, a bit more paladin stuff for the crusader-- and with ranged maneuvers available) and the casters from my Fixed List Caster Project for the magical side. Copy skills from Pathfinder wholesale, combining Climb and Swim, and maybe ditching Fly. Make sure everyone has at least 5+Int skill points. Write a section full of good, interesting feats-- power attack, knowledge devotion, things like that.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Stupid question (asking here because I'm too proud to start another monk thread.)

MAD seems to be the big problem of the class, and even that other people seem to run into when trying to design a functional monk class.

So... why not just give them stat bonuses as class features? Like, every 4 monk levels = +2 to WIS, CON, STR and DEX. (That might be overkill.)

It makes sense thematically - monks are all about enlightenment and the perfection of self. It would even offset their BAB and HP issues. Wouldn't fix everything, but it seems like a solid option...

[Phelix-Mu]

Stupid question (asking here because I'm too proud to start another monk thread.)

MAD seems to be the big problem of the class, and even that other people seem to run into when trying to design a functional monk class.

So... why not just give them stat bonuses as class features? Like, every 4 monk levels = +2 to WIS, CON, STR and DEX. (That might be overkill.)

It makes sense thematically - monks are all about enlightenment and the perfection of self. It would even offset their BAB and HP issues. Wouldn't fix everything, but it seems like a solid option...

Certainly a simple fix, and if it was only started after level 4-5 or so, it's out of dippable territory. I tend to favor full BAB, Brains Over Brawn (wisdom-style), Wisdom to Attack and Damage, and move 1/2 speed as a swift action as my simple monk fix. Doesn't remove MAD, ofc, but avoids tweaking too much in lower-op campaigns where it might not be called for.

I, unlike previously noted, don't favor dropping monk. I like it as a fast-moving class with some barehanded awesome. But I see where other people feel that this isn't soaking up much thematic or tactical space in the big scheme of things.

[Snowbluff]

Stupid question (asking here because I'm too proud to start another monk thread.)

MAD seems to be the big problem of the class, and even that other people seem to run into when trying to design a functional monk class.

So... why not just give them stat bonuses as class features? Like, every 4 monk levels = +2 to WIS, CON, STR and DEX. (That might be overkill.)

It makes sense thematically - monks are all about enlightenment and the perfection of self. It would even offset their BAB and HP issues. Wouldn't fix everything, but it seems like a solid option...
Meh... Monk is still only 6 levels long, and that's a stretch. This is kind of like a VoP monk. If it were up to me, I would make them less reliant on Wis, maybe by letting them wear light armor like Swordsages. There BAB should be full, but I'd rather the class be revoked in favor of a matching flavor, like a Friar Tuck.

Paladin is another MAD class, but they handle it much better. 14 is the only Wis they'll ever need, and Cha only gives a few benefits. It's similiar to warblade, who have Int as a secondary stat; it's nice to have, but you won't get terribly mutilated by not having it.

[Kennisiou]

Stupid question (asking here because I'm too proud to start another monk thread.)

MAD seems to be the big problem of the class, and even that other people seem to run into when trying to design a functional monk class.

So... why not just give them stat bonuses as class features? Like, every 4 monk levels = +2 to WIS, CON, STR and DEX. (That might be overkill.)

It makes sense thematically - monks are all about enlightenment and the perfection of self. It would even offset their BAB and HP issues. Wouldn't fix everything, but it seems like a solid option...

MAD is not the only problem the monk has. It has the problems of a lot of class features being minor and not very good, lack of full BAB, low skill points/level, no class features that actually help with its out of combat utility, d8 HD, a capstone that is not just unimpressive but even occasionally worse than not having it... It's just not very good.

Like take a look at its level 19 ability. They can go ethereal for one round per monk level per day. Compare this to blink, wizard has access to from level 5 onward that lets them go ethereal and has a duration of one round/level. That's a monk class feature that they get at level 19 that is only slightly better than a level 3 wizard spell, and even then only because you can split the duration up while the wizard can instead just, you know, cast the spell again and get more than its level in rounds of etherealness.

At level 12 a monk can cast dimension door once a day. At level 7 a wizard can cast dimension door as many times a day as their spells/day allows.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the monk class, but only in the same way that I'm a fan of the swashbuckler class. Monks are great dips for martial characters. 2 levels of monk nets you three bonus feats and multiple great class features (wis to AC, evasion, etc). That's pretty freaking awesome. It's just a class that scales horribly, making it bad for anything but multiclassing.

[Phelix-Mu]

I move to stop any complex discussion of Monk's flaws before I get into full rant mode. It's clear that the class is not what it should be. Fixes are in line with the OP, but the existing mess is an old debate that most everyone is familiar with.

[erikun]

Basics

Fix combat so that melee and ranged actually work, and that one combat style isn't preferable to all others. A few changes here could probably make spellcasting a bit more dangerous as well.

Change all INT-casters into vancian prepared casters. Change all WIS-casters into full list spontaneous casters. Change all CHA-casters into using spell-like abilities. This makes the most sense to me: the whole concept of memorizing spells for vancian now depends on INT, being granted spells from another source (divine WIS casting) gives spells and depends on your ability for how much you can cast, and getting magic based on your natural ability (CHA casting) just gives you the spells, without any complicated lists or restrictions.

Fix skills. One idea I had was to have each class give automatic skill ranks in "class" skills and several skill points for any other skill they wished to pick up. Wizards would automatically get one skill rank in Kno: Arcane and Spellcraft, and then 2+INT skill points in whatever else they want. Rangers and Rogues would either have a lot of automatic skills, or perhaps a large number of skill points. (or both)

Classes

Improve spells based on character level, rather than class level. Spellcasters will be encouraged to actually multiclass out of their class more often.

Other class abilities should scale by character level as well. In exchange, give better class abilities at higher level, rather than just +1d6 Sneak Attack or +1/day Smite.

Races

One idea I had was to give characters a "free 0th level" of the race alongside the 1st level of their class. That is, a dwarf would be getting 1d12 and skill points relating to being a dwarf, while an elf would get 1d4 and skill points relating to being an elf. (and have abilities) One benefit would be that 1st level characters don't die to silly things like housecats. It would also make a bigger difference between dwarf wizards and elf wizards.

Races get the equivalent of paragon classes. This allows you to have "commoners" of the race, as they'll be improving their racial abilities. You can also have "0th level" characters, or characters without classes, to represent unskilled or young characters.

And finally, monsters could easily use the same system, meaning that playing a monstrous race (even from 1st level) would not be such a problem.

[Alent]

Basics

Fix combat so that melee and ranged actually work, and that one combat style isn't preferable to all others. A few changes here could probably make spellcasting a bit more dangerous as well.

...

Classes

...

Other class abilities should scale by character level as well. In exchange, give better class abilities at higher level, rather than just +1d6 Sneak Attack or +1/day Smite.

Races

One idea I had was to give characters a "free 0th level" of the race alongside the 1st level of their class. That is, a dwarf would be getting 1d12 and skill points relating to being a dwarf, while an elf would get 1d4 and skill points relating to being an elf. (and have abilities) One benefit would be that 1st level characters don't die to silly things like housecats. It would also make a bigger difference between dwarf wizards and elf wizards.

Races get the equivalent of paragon classes. This allows you to have "commoners" of the race, as they'll be improving their racial abilities. You can also have "0th level" characters, or characters without classes, to represent unskilled or young characters.

And finally, monsters could easily use the same system, meaning that playing a monstrous race (even from 1st level) would not be such a problem.

I like these ideas. The melee/ranged thing is something I've been working on in my own project, but I really like the idea of basing "physical" class features off something that scales (either BAB or HD) or scales via feat interlocking. (Eg: swift hunter) Initiator level sort of began to address that idea, but that came so late that nothing had a chance to get based off of it other than ToB.

I really like the Racial "level 0". I don't like first level rocket tag, my games all start at 3rd level to avoid it and give the players a chance to have some distinction from each other besides "wizard and fighter", but I'd love to do a real 1st level start where I didn't have to worry about killing the wizard with a domestic animal.

[Naanomi]

Small change but... I'd like to see Halflings with 30-foot move. They re-fluffed them in this edition to wandering tricksters instead of hobbits, but the lack of mobility hurts. Goblins and Kobolds are both small creatures with 30' move and haven't broken anything...

[Hurnn]

Now, I can see not liking them personally, but wanting to take them away from everyone ever? :smallconfused:

so psionics, magic powers you do with your mind, no spell book no study no preperation, gosh that sounds familliar........

[Scootaloo]

Do we really even need the distinction between arcane and divine magic?

Need? Maybe not. And in fact, there is no distinction. Spells do not work differently because of what class is casting them. My bard's cure spells work exactly the same way as a cleric's. The only difference is the fluff by which they acquire them.

The cleric prays to his deity to get the ability. A bard learns what sounds pull flesh back together. A wizard (if you have some weird variant that gets Cures, just go with it) would have medical diagrams and theorems about the channeling of magic to that end. But at the end of the day it's always 1d8+1 damage healed.

The division between arcane and divine magic is simply fluff.

Of course, you need fluff, if you're planning on there being classes at all... Which i think is necessary, since they're a defining point of the game. Jump out of that box, and you've got a game that is no longer D&D.

[Gnorman]

Need? Maybe not. And in fact, there is no distinction. Spells do not work differently because of what class is casting them. My bard's cure spells work exactly the same way as a cleric's. The only difference is the fluff by which they acquire them.

The cleric prays to his deity to get the ability. A bard learns what sounds pull flesh back together. A wizard (if you have some weird variant that gets Cures, just go with it) would have medical diagrams and theorems about the channeling of magic to that end. But at the end of the day it's always 1d8+1 damage healed.

The division between arcane and divine magic is simply fluff.

Of course, you need fluff, if you're planning on there being classes at all... Which i think is necessary, since they're a defining point of the game. Jump out of that box, and you've got a game that is no longer D&D.

It's more than just fluff - divine magic requires a focus, can be cast in armor, etc. That's more the distinction I was referring to.

And if I can pull the discussion back in scope a bit, I'm not necessarily referring to detailed changes to the spellcasting or skill system (though those are certainly valid ideas) - I was more thinking along the lines of, if you had to set a certain number of core classes/races, what would you pick?

[cakellene]

All the postst saying to remove monk make me sad.

[Firechanter]

Split the casting stat.
Spell access and bonus spells tied to Int/Wis,
Save DCs tied to Cha.

Why should casters be dependent on only one stat when every mundane needs at least two, sometimes even four abilities to function?

[OldTrees1]

Split the casting stat.
Spell access and bonus spells tied to Int/Wis,
Save DCs tied to Cha.

Why should casters be dependent on only one stat when every mundane needs at least two, sometimes even four abilities to function?

Access: Int
Bonus Spells: Wis
Save DCs: Cha

[Ivanhoe]

All the postst saying to remove monk make me sad.

Even if there were not these many, many disappointments of players, the class somehow does not fit fluffwise into core. One Asian class and all others European style fantasy? Would really cause a headache for most campaigns.

[SinsI]

Remove all Tier 1 and 2 classes completely, together with Vancian magic.
Refluff and use psionics as a replacement. You also restore a bit of your power points every hour you don't use them.

Every class should have a new class feature at every level.

Races: remove all ability bonuses and penalties. Instead, first few levels for all races are Gestalt with Racial Paragon levels.Remove the concept of Level Adjustment.

Feats: make "feat points", assign a cost in them for every feat. Instead of "bonus feats", classes reduce the cost of the appropriate type of feats. Or use skill points for that.

[Rejusu]

Even if there were not these many, many disappointments of players, the class somehow does not fit fluffwise into core. One Asian class and all others European style fantasy? Would really cause a headache for most campaigns.

I never got this. It's a fantasy world, Asia doesn't exist there. There were also many western orders of monks. They obviously didn't follow the same principles of ki powers but you could still roleplay a monk that's more Brother John that it is Zhang Wei.



Improve spells based on character level, rather than class level. Spellcasters will be encouraged to actually multiclass out of their class more often.

If you're talking about gaining spells based on character level:

The problem is that by doing this you're also encouraging everyone else to multiclass into a spellcaster, a fighter can dip one level of Wizard and get 9th level casting at 18? Nope. You're also making the rest of the class levels completely redundant. The problem in 3.5 is actually that it doesn't do enough to encourage that you stay within a single class, multiclassing really doesn't need to be encouraged.

If you're talking about scaling spell effects (replacing caster level with character level) that wouldn't really work to encourage multiclassing that much. Sure they'd no longer lose out on the scaling factor, but they'd still be losing out on higher level spells and more spells per day. As it stands spellcasting is the most powerful thing in the game so anything that hinders that has to be comparably powerful.

Of course this purely from an optimisation standpoint. If there's a particular way you want to build your character then you'll do it even if your casting takes a hit. So it wouldn't really change anything all that much.


All the postst saying to remove monk make me sad.

I don't think it should be removed. But I agree with everyone else here that it's one of the biggest messes among the core classes and one of the hardest to fix. I think it'd just be easier to start from scratch than to try and shore up the existing incarnation.

[Snowbluff]

Remove all Tier 1 and 2 classes completely, together with Vancian magic.
Refluff and use psionics as a replacement. You also restore a bit of your power points every hour you don't use them.

Every class should have a new class feature at every level.

You could accomplish the same thing by giving everyone an infinite number of slots per day.

We all know why the second one is a bad idea. New spell access and maneuvers known would accomplish the same thing without bloating each class with monk type abilities.

[Coidzor]

so psionics, magic powers you do with your mind, no spell book no study no preperation, gosh that sounds familliar........

That didn't really communicate anything to me, sorry. :smallconfused:


It's more than just fluff - divine magic requires a focus, can be cast in armor, etc. That's more the distinction I was referring to.

And if I can pull the discussion back in scope a bit, I'm not necessarily referring to detailed changes to the spellcasting or skill system (though those are certainly valid ideas) - I was more thinking along the lines of, if you had to set a certain number of core classes/races, what would you pick?

Well, it has been fairly well established by now that being able to cast in armor is not really the horrible spectre that they were afraid of initially, I believe. So there's that.

Hmm. A certain number of classes and races. Depending upon whether I could do double duty by just including variants within the classes (so sorcerers and wizards are just variants of one another, for instance) I might drop it down to 10 classes or up it to 15ish, though I'd definitely need to give it more thought than something off the cuff like this. XD

As for number of races... I think I'd definitely bump it up to include a bit more than the races we initially had in core.

[erikun]

If you're talking about gaining spells based on character level:
I'm not. I'm talking about improving spells based on character level.

That is, a Fighter 4/Cleric 1 casts Cure Light Wounds at 1d8+5 and has spell durations of 5 rounds. Ranger 5/Wizard 5 casts Fireball for 10d6 damage. They're still limited to the spells of their class levels (1st level spells for the example Cleric, 3rd for the example Wizard) but the spells that the character does know still improves with them.

[Gemini476]

I really liked the idea of having class features scale like IL does, so I figured that I'd put together a table for dips.
{table=head]Dip level|Effective level
1|10
2|11
3|11
4|12
5|12
6|13
7|13
8|14
9|14
10|15[/table]
Any more than ten levels and I don't think you can call that a dip anymore.

Sticking it in a spoiler because I figure that people might not want to scroll past my walls of text:

I figure that you could probably have the incentive to not multiclassing one level in everything being that there are better class features at higher levels? Beyond the basic spellcasting/maneuvers/whatever system, that is. Make a straight wizard better at spellcasting because of class features that enhance that, like a blaster getting +1 damage/die and an illusionist getting enhanced ability with what he can do with his illusions (extra range/reality?)
Rogues get enhanced abilities for skill checks, social encounters, and traps, Fighters get extra attacks and damage and utility (Use a whip to grapple at range?).
Put in a bunch of archetype-esque things so that you can make a Fighter into a Monk/Barbarian/whatever, make your Cleric into a Druid, have one for each specialization for Wizards...

Give them one ability at each odd level (trading 0.5 IL for a class feature when multiclassing, basically), one crazy capstone ability (if you don't play past level 20, you won't get much use out of it so you might as well make it awesome) like Fighters Taking 20 on attack rolls or being able to swap an attack for being able to move their speed or splitting the atom with a single stroke of their sword or who knows what. (One class ability in common with all archetypes, eleven class abilities for each archetype. A Druid is a Nature Cleric who gets an Animal Companion at level one, while the standard Cleric gets Turn Undead. One variant Rogue gets Sneak Attack, another steals spells, another can shapeshift, another is basically a ninja and can run up walls. Fighters can get Rage, Smite Evil, the Crusaders ability to delay damage...)

Basically, if you make a Fighter 19/Cleric 1 you get a Paladin (10th level Cleric spellcasting, Fighter 19 fighting ability) although you'll be slightly worse at fighting than a straight Fighter (assuming a capstone) and half as good as a straight Cleric at casting. This does encourage multiclassing, but the entire IL mechanic does that.

Just make sure that none of the core mechanics (Rogue skillmonkeying, Fighter combat, Cleric buffing, Wizard utility) infringes on the others, or at least don't beat them at the thing they are supposed to be good at. So buffs are low duration and don't make you a better fighter than a level-appropriate Fighter (so a Cleric 20 might fight like a Fighter 15 if they buff themselves, but a Fighter 19/Cleric 1 fights like a Fighter 19+Fighter 5), magical utility is either slower than doing it without magic (but easier) or faster than doing it without magic (but harder) and immortality is pretty much impossible without becoming a Lich or something (rather than just being Astral Projection). Fighters are better at single target damage, but a Wizard hits twice as many targets for half the damage (and so on) or debuffs the opponents...

You need to have specific niches for each class and make sure that no-one outshines them in that niche, basically. As well as make sure that the niche is worthwhile, to avoid the 3E Monk's schtick of low damage and being hard to hit.

Yes, I realize that this requires changing a ton of things within 3E. I also realize that I might be talking complete nonsense, in which case I would like you to say that.

I'm just trying to brainstorm with myself for how to make that kind of system actually work.

Also with this system a Theurge-type character is kind of almost as screwed as a Mystic Theurge? You only get 8s in two classes, unless if you go Wizard 14/Cleric 6 in which case you only get CL17/13. That's the same as you get with a Wizard 7/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10, by the way.
You get more class features, though, although you miss out on high-level ones.

Oh, and I would support a system where races scale by level. A level 20 Elf might have way better vision than a human, and you can play Dragons from level one and so on. I'd like that. Kind of like Legend's track system but for all races, so a Dragon Fighter isn't worse at Fight than Elven Fighters.
That might be a hopeless dream, though.
(Humans get free-floating ability score bonuses and the ability to breed with absolutely anything. More flexible but worse at specifics or something like that.)

I'm tired and mostly writing this stream-of-consciousness, so please excuse any incoherence.

[OldTrees1]

The dip compatible IL scaling was a good idea. It even remains balanced when assuming Theurge prestige classes (assuming entry level is increased to 11th)

X 5 / Y 5 / XY 1
Effective X = 8/11
Effective Y = 8/11

X 5 / Y 5 / XY 10
Effective X = 17/20
Effective Y = 17/20

[TexAvery]

That didn't really communicate anything to me, sorry. :smallconfused:

I assume he's saying that that sounds an awful lot like sorcerer casting.

[OldTrees1]

I assume he's saying that that sounds an awful lot like sorcerer casting.

Or was it a Jedi reference?

[Coidzor]

I assume he's saying that that sounds an awful lot like sorcerer casting.

I don't want to assume, I want non-garbled communication that's actually somewhat relevant to what I said.

[fryplink]

I would move the thematic core classes (Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Monk but not Scor, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard or Cleric) into the UA Prestige Classes (or something similar). I would also add a spontaneous cleric, and redesign the remaining existing Base classes.

The base classes would have a few minor changes.

First, Fighter would have a D12, and gain feats on even levels (plus level 1). On the odd levels they would gain Weapon Focus/Specialization (or down that tree) or an Exotic Weapon Proficiency (this way they can use and be good with any weapon they so desire). Yes this means you'll have fighters doing Buku damage and capable of chain tripping if they stick with the class long enough. Remember to compare that to the Sorcerer (which is the hopeful upper limit for power on my revisions). Fighters would gain 8 skill points a level (so that when the inevitable dump INT, they are still fun to play out of combat). It sounds boring, but in this hypothetical system, you really aren't sticking to base classes for an extended period (IE, everyone dips, and that's ok, Figher is only used early game, you'll see in a minute). I would add a few feats to improve Archery as an option. Fuse a few entry feats. Add Power Attack (Archery) as an option. Add a "Well Aimed Shot" for Full Action Archery (yes even Iterative attacks) that adds your BAB into your Damage (yes, I know this dramatically ups archery damage; that's the idea, since if your fighter is doing this someone else needs to be soaking damage for him). The feat would have Power Attack (Archery) as an PreReq (but would stack with each other's damage) and would not work if the target is within 10ft of the Archer.

Next the Rogue would get two more skill points a level, as well as getting their highest mental stat into To-Hit and Damage. Sneak Attack effects everything, yes, even that.

The Casters all have an added weakness or drawback.

Wizards cannot cast without their familiars within 30 ft of them. The familiar must be alive to cast, and will have a feature that distinguishes it from a standard animal. Wizards may choose an Item Familiar. If they choose an item familiar, it must take the form of a Staff, Wand, Rod, Club, Dagger, Ring, or Amulet. When used to cast a spell, it will glow. If removed from contact with the Wizard he may no longer cast (until he designates a new Item Familiar). The item familiar need not be otherwise magical (IE, a wand could just be a stick, a Staff a Quarter staff, etc etc). If the Wizard needs a new familiar of either type, he may use the traditional designation option of changing what counts 24 hours later. Some of the largest offending spells will be removed or altered. If is Wizard's familiar takes damage, the Wizard takes twice that much damage.

Clerics instead will cast via their Turn Undead. While still requiring traditional spells per day, all spells are (by default) at caster level 0 and must be augmented with Turn Undead uses. Obviously, Clerics will receive many more uses of Turn Undead (perhaps three times as many as Cleric levels). You can't augment a spell to a caster level higher than your Cleric level plus your wisdom modifier. Spells with no elements that scale by caster level would have to be augmented to their lowest available level. Spells with elements that scale by caster level would have to be augmented to at least two levels lower than their lowest available level. By doing this a Cleric cannot repeatedly cast medium and long duration buffs without weakening himself in other areas. Also, spells Augmented beyond the Cleric's caster level or less than their traditional lowest Cleric level take a Full Round Action to cast. Clerics have a D6 Hit Dice. When you are out of Turn Undead uses, the Cleric may no longer augment spells. The Cleric can take ten minutes to cannibalize a spell per day into the equivalent number of Turn Undead uses, but must use a spell slot of the highest level available.

Whenever a Sorcerer casts a spell, he will take an amount of non-lethal damage that scales by spell level. (I haven't figured out scaling, but I'd make it so that casting the highest level spell available is a dodgy choice unless it's the perfect tool for the job) Sorcerers who cast to much too quickly pass out. Sorcerers who take a beating will pass out before dying. Non-lethal damage gained in this way disappear with a ten minute rest.

The idea behind these adjustments is to make the decision to cast more costly, while making investing in mundane methods of combat and interaction cheaper. I recognize in this scenario the Wizard is still pretty stong, but whipping out his familiar (and action required for casting) will make him very vulnerable (an archer with the new feat could easily destroy his familiar), as well as forcing him to expend resources to defend his power source.

This ended up a lot longer than intended. I guess I had a lot more opinion than I had initially thought. Spoilers for the Prestige classes

The prestige classes will exist to add flavor as well as quasi Theurge classes, and their only prereq is "character level 2".

The Ranger and Paladin provide a +1 to existing caster class on 2/3rds of levels. In the event that they took a non-caster as their first level, they choose a Base Caster and start gaining casting ability. The Paladin will gain TU uses as a cleric (even if he isn't emulating a cleric) which can be used to power certain religious artifacts. The Ranger will only gain TU uses if he is emulating a cleric.

Independently the Ranger will gain the same Animal Companion as a druid, and will gain either the TWF feats or the Archery Feats (including the new ones). The TWF feats would have to be adjusted some. A TWFing Ranger may make a Standard Action attack (just one) on his move action if he casts a spell with his standard.

The paladin may use his TU uses to power his new and improved Smite. On one iterative (probably the first) in an attack the Paladin may attempt a Smite (not tied to Alignment, in fact, the paladin is only tied to alignment in that he has a deity). When the Paladin uses this he gains a bonus to his To-Hit and his damage equal to his TU uses. He may also attempt to dispel any buffs or magic items on the creature (with a bonus on the dispel check vaguely tied to the number of TU uses burnt). There is also an optional save to deny the target's next standard action. The DC would be 8+TU uses used. A Paladin cannot use more TU uses on a Smite than his Paladin Level.

The Bard has 4/5 Caster progression, as well as Bardic Music. Probably ripped right from UA.

The Druid has 4/5 Caster progression, an Animal Companion, and Shapechange Variant Wildshaping.

[SinsI]

You could accomplish the same thing by giving everyone an infinite number of slots per day.

No. Powers don't scale with level, you have to augment them using up your PP reserve. Also, getting back something like (Max PP / (8 (hours of sleep to restore full points) * 5 (penalty since you are active) ) per hour is nowhere near equivalent to "infinite number of slots per day". It might be equivalent to making 1st pp used on manifesting any power free, akin to wizard's reserve feats.

[Amphetryon]

Off the top of my head:

Monks: Full BAB, using WIS to Hit/Damage relatively early on to minimize MAD. Change 'Flurry of Misses' mechanic to a Standard Action starting at low levels (3rd or below), to minimize the discontinuity of moving really quickly but needing to stand still to fight.

Base Classes: Give Fighters actual Class features related to directing the flow of action on the battlefield. Give Rangers the Druid's Animal Companion feature, and remove the option of an Animal Companion from Druids. Affix metamagic to Sorcerers as Class features rather than Feats, and do the same for Item Creation and Wizards/Clerics.

Prestige Classes: Convert a majority of Prestige Classes to Pathfinder-style Archetypes, including basic blueprints for adding other Archetypes. Reserve 'Prestige Classes' for organization-based Classes that require adventuring experience that can be incorporated into the storyline by working with the DM.

Casters: Remove 'casting defensively' as an option. Make taking damage while casting a Spell more likely to disrupt the Spell based on Spell level, removing Concentration except for non-damaging distractions. Implement OldTrees1's suggestion to make Casters need all three mental stats.

Races: Humans get a Bonus Feat but no bonus Skill points; Half-Elves get the bonus Skill point/Level that Humans currently get. Half-Orcs choose either INT or CHA as a -2 penalty, rather than both, and get Menacing Demeanor as a bonus Feat at 2nd level.

[Grim Reader]

Pretty self-explanatory from the title - how would you redesign the core class/race system, and why?

Make racial advancement tables with level-appropriate abilities. The abilities would favor mundanes somewhat. And cover some of their weaknesses.

Everyone plays a race/class gestalt.

Slow full-caster spell advancement somewhat past spell level 4. Let them have 9th level spells at level 20.

Decent PrCs with level-appropriate abilities for mundanes. Flexibility-enhancing ones.

[Oscredwin]

One big thing is I would have the full casters get effects slower than other classes. The monk should be turning ethereal and dimension dooring some levels before the wizard. The wizard can still have all the big, well known effects (eg invisibility but after the ninja, fly but after the dragon disciple, teleporting but after the horizon walker, etc) but others should get some of them too. Being a wizard means you get all the toys and can do synergistic things with them (wizards should be good at action economy, not celerity and craft contingent spell good but better than core) but any given trick they're doing later than when another class gets it.

[Hurnn]

That didn't really communicate anything to me, sorry. :smallconfused:


.

for all intents and purposes magic mind bullets EI: Psionics are nothing that cant be done by sorcerer with out adding a second set of even more broken casting rules.

[Hurnn]

The Casters all have an added weakness or drawback.

Wizards cannot cast without their familiars within 30 ft of them. The familiar must be alive to cast, and will have a feature that distinguishes it from a standard animal. Wizards may choose an Item Familiar. If they choose an item familiar, it must take the form of a Staff, Wand, Rod, Club, Dagger, Ring, or Amulet. When used to cast a spell, it will glow. If removed from contact with the Wizard he may no longer cast (until he designates a new Item Familiar). The item familiar need not be otherwise magical (IE, a wand could just be a stick, a Staff a Quarter staff, etc etc). If the Wizard needs a new familiar of either type, he may use the traditional designation option of changing what counts 24 hours later. Some of the largest offending spells will be removed or altered. If is Wizard's familiar takes damage, the Wizard takes twice that much damage.

Clerics instead will cast via their Turn Undead. While still requiring traditional spells per day, all spells are (by default) at caster level 0 and must be augmented with Turn Undead uses. Obviously, Clerics will receive many more uses of Turn Undead (perhaps three times as many as Cleric levels). You can't augment a spell to a caster level higher than your Cleric level plus your wisdom modifier. Spells with no elements that scale by caster level would have to be augmented to their lowest available level. Spells with elements that scale by caster level would have to be augmented to at least two levels lower than their lowest available level. By doing this a Cleric cannot repeatedly cast medium and long duration buffs without weakening himself in other areas. Also, spells Augmented beyond the Cleric's caster level or less than their traditional lowest Cleric level take a Full Round Action to cast. Clerics have a D6 Hit Dice. When you are out of Turn Undead uses, the Cleric may no longer augment spells. The Cleric can take ten minutes to cannibalize a spell per day into the equivalent number of Turn Undead uses, but must use a spell slot of the highest level available.

Whenever a Sorcerer casts a spell, he will take an amount of non-lethal damage that scales by spell level. (I haven't figured out scaling, but I'd make it so that casting the highest level spell available is a dodgy choice unless it's the perfect tool for the job) Sorcerers who cast to much too quickly pass out. Sorcerers who take a beating will pass out before dying. Non-lethal damage gained in this way disappear with a ten minute rest.

The idea behind these adjustments is to make the decision to cast more costly, while making investing in mundane methods of combat and interaction cheaper. I recognize in this scenario the Wizard is still pretty stong, but whipping out his familiar (and action required for casting) will make him very vulnerable (an archer with the new feat could easily destroy his familiar), as well as forcing him to expend resources to defend his power source.

[/SPOILER]


I'm pretty sure these changes make your pure casters unplayable. Wizard and familiar get hit by an aoe, wizard takes in effect 3X damage, "IF" he lives his familiar is dead, no casting for 24 hours. Wizards staff glows when he casts, disarm/ sunder, wizard is dead weight again. Wizard gets separated for any reason totally screwed.


Cleric and sorcerer are even worse.

Sorc loses initiative, takes a hit, sorry guys cant cast or I will pass out.

Cleric is totally useless at low levels, save dc's will be laughable no bonus on heals or buffs unless you burn all your turns good thing undead monsters aren't a thing. Not to mention you can cast 3 spells per DAY at full caster level.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'd make the choice of race primarily work as a 5 level class that you get as you level up. The same way that the whole gestalt thing happens, but everyone gets it.

For example, the first five levels of human gives two extra skill points and the human can select one skill as a class skill. There is a bonus feat at first level. At third level, the human gets a free skill focus feat. At fifth level the human gets a free language and another free feat.

Another example, at first level, elves get the usual elven proficiencies and low-light vision. At second level, they get the +2 bonus to spot, search and listen. At third level, they get +2 on saves against enchantment effects and an additional +2 vs sleep effects. At fourth level, they get +2 to dexterity. At fifth level they get immunity to sleep effects and the free check for passing within 5 feet of a secret door, in addition, getting another +2 bonus to spot, search and listen.

Doing it this way would get rid of the need for level adjustment, at least among the low level adjustment races. I guess one could break it out into a full 20 level progression as well, but if you're aiming to play something with a ridiculous +13 level adjustment or whatever you won't really get the feel of that race until a fairly high level anyway. And part of the point of doing it this way is to make low level adjustment races available at level 1.

But as for something like lizardfolk (which are awesome), you could tone them down quite a bit, such as their natural armor bonus being only 2 to start out with, then going up as the lizardfolk gains levels.

[Dienekes]

There would be less classes:
Warrior: Focus on combat, martial ability, and being a badass
Scholar: Knowledge skills and magic
Rogue: Skills
Noble: Mostly based on being the buffer and party face.

However, each class would have a list of optional abilities gained at each level. These abilities would be flavorful and allow some fluidity in party roles. A scholar can be the wise Gandalf party face, while a noble can work entirely behind the scenes if so inclined.
No cross-class penalties. The prerequisites for these abilities will be relatively simplistic: no more than one or two previous abilities from the same class, and a minimum class level. If multiclass 1/2 your other classes would count toward this prerequisite.

There would be prestige classes, mostly weird or overly specific classes:
Berserker
Duelist
Martial Artist
Ranger
Paladin
Alchemist
Swordmage
Necromancer
Elementalist
Assassins
Thief
Commander
You get the idea

These would be relatively easy to get into, just a minimum level (maybe divided between two classes), one or two feats, skills, or specific class abilities.

Magic spells would be feats available to everyone, if they're willing to put the effort into getting them. The Scholar class, and various prestige classes would be better at using them, however.

On races I haven't put much thought. I would probably just get rid of the half races. If people want them, that's what templates are for. I kind of like race as more of a flavor choice than an optimization one. Not sure how I would go about doing that, exactly, but I feel a halfling warrior should be possible without being useless. Maybe not as brutal as an orc warrior, but there should be plenty of options open to make it just as viable a build.

[Hytheter]

I would remove the human's bonus feat and leave absolutely everything else exactly as is.

Then I would gleefully watch as people play in a fantasy world as Strongheart Halflings.

Fixed that for you


I'd just have absolutely everything scale by class level +1/2 other class levels - a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 casts as a 15th level Cleric and Wizard, for instance. It solves a bunch of issues with class features not progressing, and encourages multiclassing. (A Wizard 1/Fighter 19 casts as a Wizard 10 - sure, why not?)

That just sounds like an invitation to take a level in every single class, getting 20 classes worth of level 10 class features. :P


I would move the thematic core classes (Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Monk but not Scor, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard or Cleric) into the UA Prestige Classes (or something similar).

What do you mean by thematic classes? What is it that makes "Divine Warrior" thematic but not "Divine Spellcaster" ?

[TuggyNE]

for all intents and purposes magic mind bullets EI: Psionics are nothing that cant be done by sorcerer with out adding a second set of even more broken casting rules.

Ah. Well, Psions do a lot of studying, so the analogy is rather flawed; psionics have no components but use displays instead, which cannot be mimicked by a sorcerer without substantial feat investment and extra spell level adjustments, and most of arcane magic's uniquely broken abilities like illusions, undead minionmancy, and planar minionmancy have no very good parallel in psionics (one notable exception being polymorphing; psionics are also quite good at action economy manipulation, and it is rather less difficult to get recharging loops going).

On the whole, psionics are generally a) less broken than arcane magic, b) substantially different both in fluff and in crunch, c) just as suitable for the flavor of most fantasy worlds.

[lumberingmenace]

I cant possibly start typing a list with every idea i have cause im at work at the moment but, i would start by improving fighters,rangers,and monks to help them keep up with the spell slingers. Secondly i would nerf the major spell slingers a bit for the means of bringing all the classes closer together. Oh and make a general spell resistance progression chart by class to make sr more common. I think the last one is big. I hate reading "no save" under spell descriptions. I think magic should always have some chance (even if its a small one) of being negated by a roll of the d20.

[Seharvepernfan]

I like a lot of what PF has done, now that I've been looking into it a lot. My group prefers it, though I always run 3.5 or my houserules when I DM. In my houserules, I use Ernir's Vancian-to-Psionic system, which is pure genius.

I like what they've done with the races (except half-orcs, whom they ruined). I like the classes (core, base, magus).
I have a love/hate relationship with the skill system.
The feat-every-odd-level is great. We needed that.
The magic is still broken, but eh.
Npc's are assumed to be more powerful than I'm comfortable with, and richer to boot, but it is a fantasy world, and nobody cares. Seriously.

I like what 4E did with the eladrin/elf split, though I haven't done that in my games.
In mine, there are just "elves". They span various cultures, but they're all one race with one set of stats/traits.
I'm not sure if I want dark elves or not, or what form they'll take if so - I've had some fairly far-ranging ideas for them.
Aquatic elves are out, though I do want a non-evil Abe Sapien-esque race (I even considered Argonians from Elder Scrolls), though I might have a group of magic-proficient elves that have given themselves an aquatic form, so that they can live underwater - I just don't know yet.
I like the idea of Avariel elves, but they might be an isolated strain of templated-elves, not a race.

Now that I think of it, it would be neat to run a game with no humans. Elves in the forest, dwarves in the mountains, gnomes in the hills, halflings running trade between them (living in wagons or boats), and the various evil races everywhere else. No big land-spanning kingdoms or open/cosmopolitan cities...
Very points-of-lightish, non magic-marty, nobody playing humans (and no half-elves or half-orcs to worry about racial traits for). I think I would do the Eladrin/Elf split for this game, however, and might even drop halflings for a double-culture of gnomes (hidden tinkerers and nomadic traders - like in my houserules).

Overall, I like my houserules, but I'm always tinkering with them, and I'm considering adding more PF stuff to them (like summoners). However, I can play core 3.5 or PF and be fine with it. I like D&D as it is, even if I prefer my own little customizations.

[Snowbluff]

No. Powers don't scale with level, you have to augment them using up your PP reserve. Also, getting back something like (Max PP / (8 (hours of sleep to restore full points) * 5 (penalty since you are active) ) per hour is nowhere near equivalent to "infinite number of slots per day". It might be equivalent to making 1st pp used on manifesting any power free, akin to wizard's reserve feats.
The end result would be your casters have significantly more resources than they should have. Power point scaling is inappropriate, and augmentation is poorly implemented, since a lot of the effects augments should scale with level rather than slot. Not to mention you could just as easily use spell levels to similiar effect.

Also, one PP power = Reserve Feat is pretty flawed reasoning. For instance, at level 3 a reserve feat would be able to 2d6 damage while a blasting power would deal 1d6 with 1 PP.

a) less broken than arcane magic

Everything else is pretty accurate, but this is biased slander. It's about even in terms of brokenness. :smalltongue:

[Zweisteine]

I'd change more stuff than I can list.

I'd give fighters some actual class features, more (4+int) skill points, and a d12 HD.

I'd give the primary casters (except druid) some minor class features, just to make things interesting (nothing that beats spells, of course).

I'd bump sorcerer casting up a level (i.e. get spells at same level as wizard).

I'd give the rogue something special at level 20. Same for all the other classes that don't already.

I'd replace high elves with gray elves.

I'd fix weapon weights.

I'd do a bunch of other stuff.

[Snowbluff]

I'd fix weapon weights.

I'd do a lot of the same of stuff (except for class features. I'd buff familiars instead), but could you explain this to me?

[Coidzor]

I'd do a lot of the same of stuff (except for class features. I'd buff familiars instead), but could you explain this to me?

IIRC, weapon weights are typically vastly inflated over what they'd have been IRL for the weapons that have IRL analogs in most fantasy media, as well as when they're discussed as historical phenomena, & D&D 3.5 is no exception. I believe the bulkiness and clumsiness of armor are similarly vastly inflated in a sort of telephone game-esque thinger.

[Dienekes]

IIRC, weapon weights are typically vastly inflated over what they'd have been IRL for the weapons that have IRL analogs in most fantasy media, as well as when they're discussed as historical phenomena, & D&D 3.5 is no exception. I believe the bulkiness and clumsiness of armor are similarly vastly inflated in a sort of telephone game-esque thinger.

Heh, not just vastly inflated, but with nonsensical distributions. Mail armor is much more restrictive and unbalancing than plate. You can do acrobatics in plate, but not in a mail shirt, where 3.5 at least, it's the opposite.

[Seharvepernfan]

Heh, not just vastly inflated, but with nonsensical distributions. Mail armor is much more restrictive and unbalancing than plate. You can do acrobatics in plate, but not in a mail shirt, where 3.5 at least, it's the opposite.

I was recently in germany, and I visited the Burg Altena and put on the chainmail tunic + coif + crusader helmet they had there...holy crap, I have above-average strength and I can't imagine having to wear that all day and fight in it.

[Amechra]

I would ignore the class and race system to begin with.

I would go back and vet every single piece of math. I'd check to make sure HP bloat wasn't a thing, make sure damage was reasonable, establish centralized scaling (no more of this "oh, the number ranges for skill DCs and reasonable AC are completely different" garbage.) I would establish a sensible relationship system (no, you can't just make the people you just met Fanatical.)

Then, I would sit down, and I would pour LOVE FROM THE HEAVENS on every class. Nowing how my brain works, the Fighter might end up stronger than the Wizard in the end (one of my pet ideas for a Fighter class feature is making people who fight them/witness them fight respect and like them more. Ideally, anyone whose faced them before should see them as an honorable foe, and they should have the ladies and gents a-swoonin' at their schmexy, schmexy feet. Other ideas are training those peasants you are protecting all Seven Samurai-like to fight good, being competent fighting man, and awesome.)

[SinsI]

The end result would be your casters have significantly more resources than they should have.
Low level casters have significantly less resources than they should have.
Adventuring day should be more than "You've cast Sleep and won the encounter? Go to sleep yourself, you are useless now".
Also, for every single encounter their resources are still limited by the usual limit, so it only affects their ability to face multiple encounters.


Power point scaling is inappropriate, and augmentation is poorly implemented, since a lot of the effects augments should scale with level rather than slot. Not to mention you could just as easily use spell levels to similar effect. "Linear warriors - square wizards" problem arises in part because you scale effects based on level. Augmentation solves that; it also allows to use fewer different spells/powers, contributing to a much more consistent and less broken magic system. In a way, Metamagic for arcane spells is Augmentation for psionics.

Also, "Points required for spells" should not equal "spell slot". Something like using Gate to call monsters should require almost every PP that the user has at the level he acquires it, while some other high level spells should cost even less than most lvl 1 staples do.



Also, one PP power = Reserve Feat is pretty flawed reasoning. For instance, at level 3 a reserve feat would be able to 2d6 damage while a blasting power would deal 1d6 with 1 PP.

The purpose of reserve feats is "to be able to do something more useful than sitting out encounters slinging with crossbow after you've used up all your big guns and are running on empty". Getting some points back from inactivity/concentration does the job.

[Seerow]

I would ignore the class and race system to begin with.

I would go back and vet every single piece of math. I'd check to make sure HP bloat wasn't a thing, make sure damage was reasonable, establish centralized scaling (no more of this "oh, the number ranges for skill DCs and reasonable AC are completely different" garbage.) I would establish a sensible relationship system (no, you can't just make the people you just met Fanatical.)

Then, I would sit down, and I would pour LOVE FROM THE HEAVENS on every class. Nowing how my brain works, the Fighter might end up stronger than the Wizard in the end (one of my pet ideas for a Fighter class feature is making people who fight them/witness them fight respect and like them more. Ideally, anyone whose faced them before should see them as an honorable foe, and they should have the ladies and gents a-swoonin' at their schmexy, schmexy feet. Other ideas are training those peasants you are protecting all Seven Samurai-like to fight good, being competent fighting man, and awesome.)

I'm curious, why should an average AC and an average skill check DC be the same? Why do these numbers need to scale at a remotely similar rate?

I'd also like to hear more about this proposed relationship system, if you have anything more than a half-baked idea on it.

[Snowbluff]

IIRC, weapon weights are typically vastly inflated over what they'd have been IRL for the weapons that have IRL analogs in most fantasy media, as well as when they're discussed as historical phenomena, & D&D 3.5 is no exception. I believe the bulkiness and clumsiness of armor are similarly vastly inflated in a sort of telephone game-esque thinger.

Yeah, 10 lbs is closer to the Dark Souls Zweihander (which is slightly larger than average) rather than a historical one.


Low level casters have significantly less resources than they should have.
Adventuring day should be more than "You've cast Sleep and won the encounter? Go to sleep yourself, you are useless now".
Also, for every single encounter their resources are still limited by the usual limit, so it only affects their ability to face multiple encounters.

The purpose of reserve feats is "to be able to do something more useful than sitting out encounters slinging with crossbow after you've used up all your big guns and are running on empty". Getting some points back from inactivity/concentration does the job. Sleepy 3 times per day for 3 encounters per day. It's not really hard math. More savvy players are capable of stretching there resources in meaningful ways, or are able to do more with less slots.

Really the problem can be summed up better with "You're a ranger. All you do is shot for a d8 every turn. You might as well go to sleep during a fight."

"Linear warriors - square wizards" problem arises in part because you scale effects based on level. Also, augmentation allows to use fewer different spells/powers, contributing to a much more consistent and less broken magic system.

Also, "Points required for spells" should not equal "spell slot". Something like using Gate to call monsters should require almost every PP that the user has
at the level he aquires it, while some other high level spells should cost even less than most lvl 1 staples do. That's not really the case for most things. Augmentations results in nerfing some styles (blasting) while having others (like Psionic Dominate) just work better despite being insanely powerful. A Quadratic Wizard is one who can make creatures to replace fighters or tear a whole in space and time.

There's nothing inherently more balanced about psionics. I do find the idea you presented more palatable if the costs of certain spells was increased immensely. Psionics and Spellcasting both do not allow for that in there current state, and it would entail a much larger change with many more unintended and unforeseen consequences.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm curious, why should an average AC and an average skill check DC be the same? Why do these numbers need to scale at a remotely similar rate?
It makes things easier to remember, and makes the whole system just seem a little more unified... but mostly it opens up the potential for all kinds of interesting substitutions without breaking things. Make a Tumble check instead of AC! Roll Bluff instead of attack!

[Hurnn]

Ah. Well, Psions do a lot of studying, so the analogy is rather flawed; psionics have no components but use displays instead, which cannot be mimicked by a sorcerer without substantial feat investment and extra spell level adjustments, and most of arcane magic's uniquely broken abilities like illusions, undead minionmancy, and planar minionmancy have no very good parallel in psionics (one notable exception being polymorphing; psionics are also quite good at action economy manipulation, and it is rather less difficult to get recharging loops going).

On the whole, psionics are generally a) less broken than arcane magic, b) substantially different both in fluff and in crunch, c) just as suitable for the flavor of most fantasy worlds.

soooo psionics can: do things that you can't with out feats, easier to use EI: no materials no verbal or somantic required, can manipulate action economy and set up loops easier than arcane and you are saying they are "LESS" broken?

As for being unique because they cant do a couple things arcane can? Then dont do them and you are still a unique and beautiful "psuedo psionic" sorcerer.

my favorite bit is 20-30% the powers are renamed spell effects.

[Amechra]

Like Grod said. Also, it feels kledgy to me that a +30 to one d20 roll costs as much as +5 to another, magic item wise...

But the relationship system... I'm seeing vague images of the one from Mecha RPG (the Bollywood supplement, if you know what I'm talking about) and a few other vague pieces of vague.

[TuggyNE]

soooo psionics can: do things that you can't with out feats, easier to use EI: no materials no verbal or somantic required, can manipulate action economy and set up loops easier than arcane and you are saying they are "LESS" broken?

That's not what I said. :smallannoyed:

Psionics allows for certain cool abilities that don't seriously affect game balance, like free Silent/Still. It does also have some unique mid- to high-op tricks that are much easier than for arcane.

However, arcane magic has more and more serious breakages at most op levels (an infinite Sanctum arcane fusion loop is something only a Sorcerer can pull off), and has its own cool abilities that don't seriously affect game balance, like reserve feats, illusions of all sorts, and automatic free CL scaling (you don't have to pay extra for extra fireball damage?!? teh borkens!). There are a great many infinite loops, only some of which are recharge-type, and arcane magic has at least as many all told as psionics, not that "number of loops" is usually a very useful metric.

The upshot is that, all things considered (including some I've forgotten about), yes psionics is better balanced. If you deliberately leave out all the problems on one side, sure, you're going to come up with a different result, ey? But just because you're used to those problems doesn't mean they don't exist. Perspective, please.


As for being unique because they cant do a couple things arcane can? Then dont do them and you are still a unique and beautiful "psuedo psionic" sorcerer.

Decerebrate. Trace teleport. Energy conversion. Quintessence. Hypercognition. Death urge. Fission. Object reading. And so forth; there's a ton of effects that a sorcerer cannot mimic, and most of them are perfectly inoffensive, balance-wise.


my favorite bit is 20-30% the powers are renamed spell effects.

You must really get hot under the collar when you look at divine magic then, given how maybe 70% of the spell list is straight-up shared with arcane without even changing names, right? :smalltongue:

But seriously. 30% duplication? :smallconfused: That's it? It's supposed to be a complete system of magic (loosely speaking), so of course it's going to be able to accomplish most things!

[Hurnn]

That's not what I said. :smallannoyed:


The upshot is that, all things considered (including some I've forgotten about), yes psionics is better balanced. If you deliberately leave out all the problems on one side, sure, you're going to come up with a different result, ey? But just because you're used to those problems doesn't mean they don't exist. Perspective, please.



Decerebrate. Trace teleport. Energy conversion. Quintessence. Hypercognition. Death urge. Fission. Object reading. And so forth; there's a ton of effects that a sorcerer cannot mimic, and most of them are perfectly inoffensive, balance-wise.


But seriously. 30% duplication? :smallconfused: That's it? It's supposed to be a complete system of magic (loosely speaking), so of course it's going to be able to accomplish most things!

ok great so add them to the existing spell list again no reason for a second system, hell make psionics their own spell list if you have to have them but they dont need a second system.

Honestly psionics is magic but with a second different rule system. It's all semantics, but a second set of rules just make more area to be exploited.

As for the problems with arcane and divine magic the bigest problem isnt the spells its the ability to use them all, yes there are broken spells yes they need to be fixed, I did however adress how to tone down the big 4 in core.

Beyond all that the discussion was "FIX CORE" which psionics havent been since 1st ed.

[SinsI]

There's nothing inherently more balanced about psionics. I do find the idea you presented more palatable if the costs of certain spells was increased immensely. Psionics and Spellcasting both do not allow for that in there current state, and it would entail a much larger change with many more unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Yeah. Might be a cool idea to reduce PP cost based on the casting time used: immediate/free/swift has no reduction in cost, standard has [1 + CL/8] PP reduction, full-round has a reduction of [2 + CL/6], 1 round has a reduction of [3 + CL/5].

This way you can churn out free spells the way reserve feats do without too much restriction, but also have an additional choice of doing it slower for more effect and more danger to yourself.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yeah. Might be a cool idea to reduce PP cost based on the casting time used: immediate/free/swift has no reduction in cost, standard has [1 + CL/8] PP reduction, full-round has a reduction of [2 + CL/6], 1 round has a reduction of [3 + CL/5].

This way you can churn out free spells the way reserve feats do without too much restriction, but also have an additional choice of doing it slower for more effect and more danger to yourself.

I think this sounds good, but I also think that 90% of spell power comes from out-of-combat buffing and utility stuff that just makes the caster better later on (or removes the threat posed by certain encounters entirely, like scrying or foresight). Those spells seriously change the way mid-to-high level play evolves, and would be unchanged by this change.

Might reduce the desire for some of the more bizarre action economy shenanigans out there now, but I'm not sure it really solves that problem, either.

[Dienekes]

It makes things easier to remember, and makes the whole system just seem a little more unified... but mostly it opens up the potential for all kinds of interesting substitutions without breaking things. Make a Tumble check instead of AC! Roll Bluff instead of attack!

Hell, I'd add the saves to the same. Suddenly, Diplomacy is less ridiculous if it's a Diplomacy is rolled against Will Saves instead of an easily obtainable number. And we'd get some cool things, like attack rolls vs Will Saves to feint (if you don't use Bluff already). Or whatever the designers come up with.

[Hyena]

Take out all the classes. Add ToB classes, beguiler, dread necromancer, warmage, favored soul. Take out human's bonus feat.

[nobodez]

So many people are going on about the "melee versus ranged" debate, but I don't see the problem. Heck, in my latest home game (admittedly Pathfinder) I wanted to play the ranged character and was forced to play a melee character. Ranged can focus on optimizing damage only, while melee needs to worry about defense as well.

As for the OP's question, it's complex. I'd steal the ability bonus selection from Pathfinder (either +2 for humans and kin or +2/+2/-2 for the rest) and then balance the "social" and "inherent" racial traits, so that reincarnate works properly.

I'd also use the 4e method of hp generation (triple at first plus con) and possibly integrate the WP/VP system (either from UA or Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign). Wound points allow you to get beyond the "damage sponge" mechanic, since VP are inherently "near misses" rather than hits (so injury poisons only work on attacks that deal wound damage, for instance).

I'd also use a ToB based system for both martial and magic (there's one already built up for magic that I'd adapt, though I'm on my iPad so I don't have the name handy). The big magical effects will be ritual based (either 4e or d20 Modern adaptation). Since magic is now quick and dirty, it's mainly combat focused, with the non-combat effects (resurrection, restoration, teleportation over large distances, walls and fortifications, permanent changes to objects and creatures) switched to rituals.

Oh, and for resurrection, use the Pathfinder rules (though add in "one negative level and one Con drain at 2nd level" so that 2nd level characters can actually be raised from the dead).

Shapeshifter Druids and full Companion Rangers. Allow melding of familiars and companions (as Arcane Hierophant PrC) with a feat for those with both abilities. Also, since using the ToB inspired magic, make sure to use the ToB rules for caster level (caster level equals class level plus half non-class level).

Use Pathfinder magic item creation rules, and fix the trap rules to preclude the Tippyverse (but since Wish, Teleportation Circle, Create Food & Water, and the like are rituals and not spells, there's less loopholes there). There is no way to actually lose XP, it's all negative levels (which perhaps change to Con drain in 1st level characters?) and other status effects.

Keep disposable magic items (potions, scrolls/martial scripts, wands) but switch all other magic items into internal slot-based effects (including weapon and armor effects, though priced similarly to amulet of mighty fists since it'll apply to everything, this will also make unarmed and unarmored characters more on par with their armed and armored fellows). Since magic items no longer take XP, why not remove them slightly from the economy, allowing to, instead of selling to "disenchant" the magic to allow for reformation.

Character rebuilding is core (again, Ultimate Campaign has a slightly better system with which to base this off of than UA does).

Also, integrate psionics into core (reformed like the other magic to be recharge based, but points recharge rather than slots, or something, to keep the distinct feel of psionics but to mesh with the new paradigm of ToB casters). Perhaps also Binders (more rituals!) and the like. I liked the idea of flavoring the warlock as an arcane archer type, though if the blasts aren't touch attacks, they'll need full BAB.

[Valtu]

Scaling racial abilities are DEFINITELY on my list. Race should be more than a decision of which hat to wear at character creation.

Absolutely. Why would a Half-Orc and an Elf both have d4 HD as a Sorcerer/Wizard, when a Halfling Fighter would be d10?

Some sort of hybrid class/race hit-dice system is what I would like.

Perhaps all races get a fixed HD base amount. Higher for Dwarves and Half-Orcs, somewhere around the middle for Humans, and of course lower for Elves, etc.

Then use the starting class as some sort of hit-dice modifier. Like -1 for a caster, but +1 or 2 for a typically physically tough class, something of that nature.

Maybe if your race's HD is normally a d6, a penalty might bring it down to d4 (which of course would be the minimum, these penalties/bonuses would have to cap), but a bonus might bring it up to d8 for that level. Some or maybe even most classes would have a 0 modifier, just bringing it up or down on the more extreme ends of the spectrum.

[ngilop]

Absolutely. Why would a Half-Orc and an Elf both have d4 HD as a Sorcerer/Wizard, when a Halfling Fighter would be d10?

Some sort of hybrid class/race hit-dice system is what I would like.

Perhaps all races get a fixed HD base amount. Higher for Dwarves and Half-Orcs, somewhere around the middle for Humans, and of course lower for Elves, etc.

Then use the starting class as some sort of hit-dice modifier. Like -1 for a caster, but +1 or 2 for a typically physically tough class, something of that nature.

Maybe if your race's HD is normally a d6, a penalty might bring it down to d4 (which of course would be the minimum, these penalties/bonuses would have to cap), but a bonus might bring it up to d8 for that level. Some or maybe even most classes would have a 0 modifier, just bringing it up or down on the more extreme ends of the spectrum.

Everstone: Bloodlegacy did this. your HD was a matter of your race, not class. though the example they gave was "why would a half-orc barbarian have the same HD as a halfing barbarian."

I like the idea of your race being your 'base' HD and your class being a modifier. maybe bring back the old 2nd ed HP after X level , so for example a fighter adds 3 HP per HD while a rogue gets 1.5 per level and full casters get .75 per level.

[Valtu]

Everstone: Bloodlegacy did this. your HD was a matter of your race, not class. though the example they gave was "why would a half-orc barbarian have the same HD as a halfing barbarian."

I like the idea of your race being your 'base' HD and your class being a modifier. maybe bring back the old 2nd ed HP after X level , so for example a fighter adds 3 HP per HD while a rogue gets 1.5 per level and full casters get .75 per level.

I'd like to come up with some sort of chart for it. Idk if my DM would go for it, but it's at least something to tinker with just for fun.

[SinsI]

Absolutely. Why would a Half-Orc and an Elf both have d4 HD as a Sorcerer/Wizard, when a Halfling Fighter would be d10?

Some sort of hybrid class/race hit-dice system is what I would like.

Perhaps all races get a fixed HD base amount. Higher for Dwarves and Half-Orcs, somewhere around the middle for Humans, and of course lower for Elves, etc.

Then use the starting class as some sort of hit-dice modifier. Like -1 for a caster, but +1 or 2 for a typically physically tough class, something of that nature.

Maybe if your race's HD is normally a d6, a penalty might bring it down to d4 (which of course would be the minimum, these penalties/bonuses would have to cap), but a bonus might bring it up to d8 for that level. Some or maybe even most classes would have a 0 modifier, just bringing it up or down on the more extreme ends of the spectrum.

Theoretically, that's what Con penalties and bonuses are there for. Too bad they are far too rarely used.

[Valtu]

Theoretically, that's what Con penalties and bonuses are there for. Too bad they are far too rarely used.

I was thinking about that, but I feel like all that means is you put a high enough number on your CON to avoid a penalty, or put one of your lowest rolls on it if you get a bonus, and save your higher rolls for a more class-specific attribute, and it ends up evening out to an extent.

[Gemini476]

For the race-based HD system, you guys know that going from d6 to d8 is effectively +1, right? Good? Then that's how you scale it.
That also means that you could have class/race combinations that are effectively d14 or d2 or whatever.

So what would it be? -1 for mage-types, +0 for rogue-ish, +1 for fighter-ish? Races either go between d6-d10 or d4-d12, depending on how much variance you want, and I guess Constitution penalties/bonuses are a thing of the past? Or Constitution doesn't add to HP. That could also work.

I actually kind of like this idea, although to be honest I'm more interested in flat HP rather than rolled. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Gnorman]

For the race-based HD system, you guys know that going from d6 to d8 is effectively +1, right? Good? Then that's how you scale it.
That also means that you could have class/race combinations that are effectively d14 or d2 or whatever.

So what would it be? -1 for mage-types, +0 for rogue-ish, +1 for fighter-ish? Races either go between d6-d10 or d4-d12, depending on how much variance you want, and I guess Constitution penalties/bonuses are a thing of the past? Or Constitution doesn't add to HP. That could also work.

I actually kind of like this idea, although to be honest I'm more interested in flat HP rather than rolled. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Initially, I scaled it like so:

-2: Wizard, Sorcerer
-1: Rogue, Bard
0: Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger
+1: Fighter, Paladin
+2: Barbarian

Dwarves and half-orcs would start at d10, humans, gnomes and half-elves at d8, elves and halflings at d6. It might be a good idea to make d4 the minimum, though. It needs some tweaking though, because all it really seems to do at this point is screw over halfling rogues/bards and elves (you'd probably have to remove their Constitution penalty to balance it out).

[SinsI]

If we are talking about hit points, its increase is supposed to reflect your additional ability to defend. But in that case, static amount of hit points healed by spells makes no sense.

It might be interesting to eliminate HD for classes altogether, replacing it with something almost static like 30 HP + (1 HP + Con bonus + Class Bonus)/level, similar to the way it is done in SPECIAL.

[Ziegander]

I would remove the Rogue class. As Seerow said recently in another thread, the only result of including a Rogue in D&D is that stuff like sneaking, trap finding, and acrobatics become class-protected abilities, making non-Rogue, non-casters (ie: Fighters) suck even more than they might have otherwise.

After that, give warrior classes more skill points per level and better skill lists. Make the skills themselves offer more non-Epic uses and more useful end-game content.

Races are easy enough. Leave Human as is, then rebalance everything else up to Dwarf-level.

[RFLS]

Hmm....well, for starters, I'd retool races entirely. Stat adjustments would be chosen on character selection, to encourage a greater racial variety. Races would also grant you access to entertaining abilities or passive qualities as you leveled up.

I'd retool the class system entirely. Everything would be point buy, from the ground up. Vancian casting would be gone; replaced with something akin to psionics. The skill system, too, would be entirely retooled, and the magic that's survived this far would be redone so as not to obsolete entire skills with one spell. Every character would have a pool of points to draw on that would allow them to do their thing, whatever it was ("stamina" for warriors, "mana" for mages, "stamana" for gishes? =P). I'd probably be inclined to include rules that introduced a tempo to combat; some way to replenish your resource, or push yourself to a (dangerous) limit if you had to.

Screw it, I'm going to go play Shadowrun.

[Valtu]

For the race-based HD system, you guys know that going from d6 to d8 is effectively +1, right? Good? Then that's how you scale it.
That also means that you could have class/race combinations that are effectively d14 or d2 or whatever.

So what would it be? -1 for mage-types, +0 for rogue-ish, +1 for fighter-ish? Races either go between d6-d10 or d4-d12, depending on how much variance you want, and I guess Constitution penalties/bonuses are a thing of the past? Or Constitution doesn't add to HP. That could also work.

I actually kind of like this idea, although to be honest I'm more interested in flat HP rather than rolled. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

That is a good point. Maybe not increasing the size of the hit-die itself, then. I just don't think the class should be the only thing that determines your hit-dice. And the CON bonuses/penalties seem like they would just keep people from using races entirely or make them put higher/lower scores in them to even it out.

[Morty]

I can imagine a few ways of doing it, really, so if I were to embark on such a mad quest, I would sit down and think for a while, about a consistent criterion around which I want to design the classes. What deserves a class and what doesn't? What is a class supposed to provide you? How broad or narrow should they be? Do I need some categories beyond "Spellcaster", "Non-spellcaster" and "Half-spellcaster"? The problem with 3e classes is that they run the gamut from extremely wide (fighter, rogue) to really narrow (monk, paladin). They're mostly thrown together from the previous editions without much thought. Most "fixes" for the system make the mistake of taking all those legacy classes and trying to make sense of them, which I think is approaching it from the wrong direction.

[Gemini476]

That is a good point. Maybe not increasing the size of the hit-die itself, then. I just don't think the class should be the only thing that determines your hit-dice. And the CON bonuses/penalties seem like they would just keep people from using races entirely or make them put higher/lower scores in them to even it out.

-1hp/level for squishy classes and +1hp/level for tanky ones might work - if the average racial HD is a d8, that makes mages effectively d6 and fighters d10. A d10 race gets effectively d8 mages and d12 fighters, and a d6 race gets d4 mages and d8 fighters.

If you go -2 to +2, d6 to d10 (like Gnorman said) you'd get an effective variance of d2 to d14 - which is a lot, to be honest. If you use average results -0.5 for hit points rather than dice, that means 0-7hp/level (as opposed to 2-6hp/level with the more moderate system).

Actually, doing HP this way might as well mean that you scrap Constitution entirely. If you don't have the Concentration skill or bonus HP from Con, you might just as well replace Constitution with Fortitude.


To be honest, I'd just do like 4e and make fort/ref/will into static defences that need to be beaten by the spellcaster. Maybe change the attributes around a bit as well, so charisma isn't the automatic dump stat. I kind of like Microlite d20's STR/DEX/INT split and hp-based casting system, but I'm unsure how that would work if extrapolated to a larger system.

I read through the Rules Cyclopedia recently. While you can lower some stats by two points to boost your prime requisite by one, you can't lower charisma. Probably because they figured that nobody ever used it.
Why is Charisma still a stat? Do we really need mechanical rules for diplomacy, or could that just be freeform roleplayed? If we have solid rules for diplomacy, why just one stat? As an example, both WoD and DtD40k7.6E have three separate social stats for use in social encounters.

[Gnorman]

I can imagine a few ways of doing it, really, so if I were to embark on such a mad quest, I would sit down and think for a while, about a consistent criterion around which I want to design the classes. What deserves a class and what doesn't? What is a class supposed to provide you? How broad or narrow should they be? Do I need some categories beyond "Spellcaster", "Non-spellcaster" and "Half-spellcaster"? The problem with 3e classes is that they run the gamut from extremely wide (fighter, rogue) to really narrow (monk, paladin). They're mostly thrown together from the previous editions without much thought. Most "fixes" for the system make the mistake of taking all those legacy classes and trying to make sense of them, which I think is approaching it from the wrong direction.

I agree with you on principle, though I think the paladin is a concept that can be salvaged. It needs to be divested of its alignment and code requirements, and turned into a more generic "champion of a deity/cause" class. I don't think the monk can be saved, honestly - it's far too narrow.

Fighter is at once too narrow and too wide.

I suppose, after thinking about it, that I would prefer to come at the problem by asking not "what classes do I want" but rather "what do I want my classes to DO" and designing them around those answers.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

It's not classes or races, but... wealth and magic items.

This is one of the things I dislike most about 3.5 - the mechanics so narrowly define the roleplay. You can't really have a party of high-level adventurers trying to make it to their next meal Cowboy Bebop style, or a party or rich kids just starting into the adventuring world. In fact, you pretty much can't have rich players at all, because the mechanics punish them for spending their wealth on anything other than magic items.

[Fax Celestis]

Already doing that. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3qtp2dkos0ji7j/d20r.docx)

[Zharradan Marr]

I know it sounds crazy, but I would try to reduce dependency on magic items. Too often, characters must have Flight, or See Invisibility, or some ability hit non-corporeals, just to avoid being completely useless in an encounter. Of course it's the martial classes that have most problems with that.

So, let's see...

Flight - give them the ability to make amazing jumps, or make archery better (Bard the Archer didn't need flight to take down Smaug, did he?), plus allow a mundane character to be competent in both melee and archery, no need to choose.

See Invisibility - the feat Blindfighting needs to be a lot better; for example, it can scale with levels into a true See Invisibility at some point.

Non-corporeal enemies - I'm drawing a blank here. Maybe another feat, or just turn incorporeality into Damage Reduction that you can Power Attack through.

Also, away with the ability-enhancing items. Just give more ability increases on level-ups, 4e-style.

[Morty]

I agree with you on principle, though I think the paladin is a concept that can be salvaged. It needs to be divested of its alignment and code requirements, and turned into a more generic "champion of a deity/cause" class. I don't think the monk can be saved, honestly - it's far too narrow.

Fighter is at once too narrow and too wide.

That's what I mean, actually. Neither Fighter nor Paladin are bad classes, on principle, they just don't belong in the same class framework. To say nothing of the question as to why a Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric multi-class.


I suppose, after thinking about it, that I would prefer to come at the problem by asking not "what classes do I want" but rather "what do I want my classes to DO" and designing them around those answers.

Yes, exactly.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

One notion I had for the system I'm designing is this:

"Detect Magic" is the only "Detect" spell that exists.

Basically, if you want to do any sort of scrying, magic-aided perception, whatever, what you're really looking for is active magical auras - spells actively being cast/maintained are the easiest to find, but there are also spells to detect recently cast magics, worn magical items, or even spellcasters who aren't currently using any magic at all. But, a 100% mundane rogue with good camoflauge moving through a dense jungle is more effectively invisible than any caster.

[KorbeltheReader]

Several people went straight to the class fix I'm planning to implement next game: ditching the core classes that are too powerful, and also the ones that have been effectively reworked and replaced by ToB. That means no fighter, monk, paladin, cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer.

Instead sub in Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage (including the unarmed version) from Tome of Battle. Then bring in beguiler, warmage, and dread necromancer to cover arcane casting. Then favored soul and spirit shaman for divine.

Give the ranger the druid's animal companion and bake improved TWF and greater TWF into the base TWF. That feat tax is completely unnecessary. You could probably do something similar on the archery side as a few people have suggested.

Finally, I noticed in my current campaign that dwarves are supposed to be disposed toward axes and hammers, but there's no incentive for PCs to follow suit. This can be fixed by continuing the logic of dropping waraxes and urgroshes to martial weapons for dwarves by also dropping battle axes, hand axes, throwing axes, warhammers, and throwing hammers down to simple weapons for dwarves.

And of course get rid of favored classes and multiclass penalties.

[Zharradan Marr]

Give the ranger the druid's animal companionMy favourite druid fix: the new-druid uses the Bard's spells-per-day progression (but keeps the animal companion and wildshape). Still makes for a solid T3.

[Morty]

Already doing that. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3qtp2dkos0ji7j/d20r.docx)

Huh. d20r has gone a ways since I last saw it. There seem to be no spaces between words, though, unless it's my Microsoft Word playing tricks...

[Fax Celestis]

Huh. d20r has gone a ways since I last saw it. There seem to be no spaces between words, though, unless it's my Microsoft Word playing tricks...

That's probably yours.

I'm currently working on getting the combat chapter together. After that is skills, the remaining spells, the remaining feats, and then...pretty much done.

[Knaight]

The first order of business is to unify the numbers somewhat. Attributes can be 1-10*, as can saves, as can skills, etc. Things rolled against (e.g. AC) range higher, but with the same general principles. Then die scaling can be added in combat. A high level fighter firing a bow darn well should do more damage, and adding another damage die every few levels handles that nicely. Basically, the growing specialization requirements just need to go, with the ceiling on what specialists can do being lower and the floor on general abilities higher.

That said, I'd be more inclined to just go with REIGN or GURPS anyways.

*And the whole attribute/modifier thing needs to go entirely.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Numbers unification is nice. This is why, in the setting I keep working on, average (for adventurers) is straight 0 - whenever you have a modifier, it's the same as your score.

[KorbeltheReader]

My favourite druid fix: the new-druid uses the Bard's spells-per-day progression (but keeps the animal companion and wildshape). Still makes for a solid T3.

That's an interesting idea. For me (admittedly as someone who never plays epic level campaigns) the overarching problem with the druid is it has enough class abilities to fuel at least 2, and possibly 3, playable classes. The spellcasting is definitely the druid's biggest gun, though, so that fix would help a lot.

[Morty]

That's probably yours.

I'm currently working on getting the combat chapter together. After that is skills, the remaining spells, the remaining feats, and then...pretty much done.

Let's see if I can do something about it, then. I also can't see a weapons table, so I assume it's one of the things yet to be done.

[SinsI]

Another idea is to make low and high stat values both good and bad:

Let' say Constitution ranges from 1 to 10. At 10 Con your body is incredibly tough, you get DR 15/- and a lot of resistances, but you are almost impervious to all forms of healing, including natural - even the most powerful Heal spell heals a paltry 2-3 HP. On the other hand, at 1 Con you get Fast Healing 5 - all your wounds close instantly - but you also receive +200% negative effects from all poisons and diseases.

[Fax Celestis]

Let's see if I can do something about it, then. I also can't see a weapons table, so I assume it's one of the things yet to be done.

Correct.

I can save it into a different format, if maybe you have an old version of Word or Word equivalent, it might not be reading the docx well.

EDIT: I'll make a pdf build of its current status. Here you go (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qfkc8737oq8aanu/d20r%20%281.28.14%20build%29.pdf).

[Valtu]

-1hp/level for squishy classes and +1hp/level for tanky ones might work - if the average racial HD is a d8, that makes mages effectively d6 and fighters d10. A d10 race gets effectively d8 mages and d12 fighters, and a d6 race gets d4 mages and d8 fighters.

If you go -2 to +2, d6 to d10 (like Gnorman said) you'd get an effective variance of d2 to d14 - which is a lot, to be honest. If you use average results -0.5 for hit points rather than dice, that means 0-7hp/level (as opposed to 2-6hp/level with the more moderate system).

Actually, doing HP this way might as well mean that you scrap Constitution entirely. If you don't have the Concentration skill or bonus HP from Con, you might just as well replace Constitution with Fortitude.


That's a good point. That's pretty much all Con seems to be used for, aside from contributing to Fortitude saves. Even if you didn't do a penalty at all, maybe most classes except for the tougher ones would be no change to the racial hit-dice, and the exceptionally tough guys (fighter or barbarian for instance) would just get a bonus that the others wouldn't. Maybe just 1 hp a level or every other level, then you wouldn't be punished for wanting to be an Elf Sorcerer, but a Human Sorcerer would be slightly tougher, and an Elf Fighter slightly tougher than either of them, but still not as tough as a Human Fighter. Then there'd be a little more variety. Half-Orc Barbarians would be tough as hell, but that seems like that's how it really ought to be in that case. :P Or there could just be a cap on it to keep things from getting too crazy.

[Morty]

Correct.

I can save it into a different format, if maybe you have an old version of Word or Word equivalent, it might not be reading the docx well.

EDIT: I'll make a pdf build of its current status. Here you go (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qfkc8737oq8aanu/d20r%20%281.28.14%20build%29.pdf).

That seems to have done it. Thanks.

[Hurnn]

Several people went straight to the class fix I'm planning to implement next game: ditching the core classes that are too powerful, and also the ones that have been effectively reworked and replaced by ToB. That means no fighter, monk, paladin, cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer.

Instead sub in Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage (including the unarmed version) from Tome of Battle. Then bring in beguiler, warmage, and dread necromancer to cover arcane casting. Then favored soul and spirit shaman for divine.

Give the ranger the druid's animal companion and bake improved TWF and greater TWF into the base TWF. That feat tax is completely unnecessary. You could probably do something similar on the archery side as a few people have suggested.

Finally, I noticed in my current campaign that dwarves are supposed to be disposed toward axes and hammers, but there's no incentive for PCs to follow suit. This can be fixed by continuing the logic of dropping waraxes and urgroshes to martial weapons for dwarves by also dropping battle axes, hand axes, throwing axes, warhammers, and throwing hammers down to simple weapons for dwarves.

And of course get rid of favored classes and multiclass penalties.


Whats with all the fighter hate? The class would be fine with some minor tweeks, personally I prefer it to the TOB classes. It is a pretty solid t4 class with the splat books and Alt levels avalible, and has more flexability thatn the TOB stuff.

[Amphetryon]

Whats with all the fighter hate? The class would be fine with some minor tweeks, personally I prefer it to the TOB classes. It is a pretty solid t4 class with the splat books and Alt levels avalible, and has more flexability thatn the TOB stuff.

Could you clarify what you mean by "flexibility" in this context, please?

[Dienekes]

Whats with all the fighter hate? The class would be fine with some minor tweeks, personally I prefer it to the TOB classes. It is a pretty solid t4 class with the splat books and Alt levels avalible, and has more flexability thatn the TOB stuff.

It's generally considered a pretty high tier 5, bordering into tier 4 only for very specific builds at early-mid levels before dropping back down again.

Ultimately I think it depends on what you mean by flexibility. There are more builds for a fighter, sure, but a lot of them don't exactly function. The Warblade has less, but each one fulfills a style of fighter better than the actual fighter does.

Now can it be saved? In a new edition? I would say, yes. However, it would have to rework ALL feats to the point that they're as easy to access and as powerful as maneuvers. Then adding to that some specific fighter only tricks as well.

Ultimately, it's just easier to put in a Warblade and maybe make a couple more schools. Maybe one dedicated to cavalry, one to archery, and any other style you think should be covered by a fighter.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

It's generally considered a pretty high tier 5, bordering into tier 4 only for very specific builds at early-mid levels before dropping back down again.

Ultimately I think it depends on what you mean by flexibility. There are more builds for a fighter, sure, but a lot of them don't exactly function. The Warblade has less, but each one fulfills a style of fighter better than the actual fighter does.

Now can it be saved? In a new edition? I would say, yes. However, it would have to rework ALL feats to the point that they're as easy to access and as powerful as maneuvers. Then adding to that some specific fighter only tricks as well.

Ultimately, it's just easier to put in a Warblade and maybe make a couple more schools. Maybe one dedicated to cavalry, one to archery, and any other style you think should be covered by a fighter.

I really wouldn't have a problem with just giving something like a slowed version of fighter bonus feats to every full BAB class, and an evil slower version to the 3/4 BAB classes.

[Gnorman]

I'm sorry, Hurnn, but I agree that the fighter as-is is unworkable, even with some minor tweaks. Not to say that it can't be fixed, but it's going to be a fairly drastic overhaul.

Much as wizards can change their loadout each day to face new challenges, the fighter should be able to adapt to different situations. One method of doing so is floating bonus feats. I consider floating bonus feats a necessary but not sufficient condition for the fighter being "fixed" - more is required (primarily abilities that allow the fighter to exploit ally/enemy positioning and the action economy), but it's a start.

[Dienekes]

I'm sorry, Hurnn, but I agree that the fighter as-is is unworkable, even with some minor tweaks. Not to say that it can't be fixed, but it's going to be a fairly drastic overhaul.

Much as wizards can change their loadout each day to face new challenges, the fighter should be able to adapt to different situations. One method of doing so is floating bonus feats. I consider floating bonus feats a necessary but not sufficient condition for the fighter being "fixed" - more is required (primarily abilities that allow the fighter to exploit ally/enemy positioning and the action economy), but it's a start.

I'll be honest, when I think about re-creating D&D, the first thing I feel the need to get rid of is the casters ability to change their load out every morning. I don't think they should be able to just decide to be a Conjurer today, and an Illusionist tomorrow. But that's just me.

But, despite that, I think your view is a bit limited. Sorcerers are considered a solid Tier 2 and they don't get a new load out each morning. They simply have enough spells available for them to be useful. Similarly, I think a Fighter could theoretically be designed with enough useful feats and abilities to have that same level of usefulness. The feats and abilities would, however, have to be amazing and powerful unlike any feats that WotC really printed.

For example, imagine if a Fighter (using the term loosely) received a feat every level. And each feat was as varied and powerful as the highest level spell a Wizard could cast at that level, at will. Sure he may only know 20 spells, but he'd be absolutely broken. The problem is, feats are nowhere near that level of strength, and spells are (in my opinion on how to make a fun, balanced game) insanely strong. Both need to be brought to similar levels, which would take a whole lot of work, and a lot of double checking.

[Hurnn]

Fighter is not unworkable. Manuvers are better than feats? OK give fighters a feat that give them access to them and stances; or just give them access to them.

Fighters have a laughably low skills per level give them more 6+ int seams fair. I dont think any class should have 2+ int it's just stupid. Clerics and pallies don't have evough skill points to know about their religion, fighters are only good at their class skills because their stat is so high. On average you will have a 4 in 3 skills starting out "IF" you are a human.

I said give them some of the pathfinder stuff: armor training, and weapon training are great, the bravery thing is handy too.

The other side of the coin is you are saying T4-5 is unworkable but it's not because they are inherently bad its T1-2 are so absolutely bat **** crazy BROKEN! rather than scrap classes that need a little to a fair amount of work T1-2 need to be nerfed to the point they are at least playing the same game as everyone else. Right now they are the starting QB in the super bowl and everyone else is at home playing super tecmo bowl on their NES. (except maybe T3 they are playing city league flag or something)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Fighter is not unworkable. Manuvers are better than feats? OK give fighters a feat that give them access to them and stances; or just give them access to them.

Fighters have a laughably low skills per level give them more 6+ int seams fair. I dont think any class should have 2+ int it's just stupid.

So...replace the fighter wholesale with the warblade? Gotcha. :smallwink:


The other side of the coin is you are saying T4-5 is unworkable but it's not because they are inherently bad its T1-2 are so absolutely bat **** crazy BROKEN!

Nope, T4-5 classes are unworkable without bringing T1-2 classes into it. The "fighter vs. wizard" debate doesn't mean "fighter PC compared wizard PC" (though many people try to turn it into that sort of arena battle), it means "fighter vs. challenges compared to wizard vs. challenges." A party of fighter, warmage, ninja, and healer just can't contribute as well against standard encounters--whether combat, exploration, interaction, or otherwise--as a part of warblade, wizard, factotum, and cleric, and in many cases they can't contribute at all unless you play monsters unintelligently, load them down with extra magic items, give them lots of plot devices and friendly NPCs, etc.

In fact, the high-tier classes are actually better designed than the lower-tier classes when just looking at the class vs. game equation and not comparing the two groups to each other. Drop the T4-5 classes from the game, and the T1-3 classes still have lots of options and potential builds, can do well against expected challenges in a more reactive game and be proactive in a sandbox game, and work well with practically any party composition given the right build, all without needing to rely overmuch on fiated solutions to things. Drop the T1-3 classes from the game, and the remaining classes can sorta kinda get by in combat and in purely roleplayed social scenes, but they need a lot of DM pity to face level-appropriate challenges past low levels.

Yes, the T1-2 classes need to be reined in a bit to get to the ideal balance point, but the T4-5 classes need to be nuked from orbit and rebuilt from scratch to achieve their desired balance point.

[Hurnn]

So...replace the fighter wholesale with the warblade? Gotcha. :smallwink:



Nope, T4-5 classes are unworkable without bringing T1-2 classes into it. The "fighter vs. wizard" debate doesn't mean "fighter PC compared wizard PC" (though many people try to turn it into that sort of arena battle), it means "fighter vs. challenges compared to wizard vs. challenges." A party of fighter, warmage, ninja, and healer just can't contribute as well against standard encounters--whether combat, exploration, interaction, or otherwise--as a part of warblade, wizard, factotum, and cleric, and in many cases they can't contribute at all unless you play monsters unintelligently, load them down with extra magic items, give them lots of plot devices and friendly NPCs, etc.

In fact, the high-tier classes are actually better designed than the lower-tier classes when just looking at the class vs. game equation and not comparing the two groups to each other. Drop the T4-5 classes from the game, and the T1-3 classes still have lots of options and potential builds, can do well against expected challenges in a more reactive game and be proactive in a sandbox game, and work well with practically any party composition given the right build, all without needing to rely overmuch on fiated solutions to things. Drop the T1-3 classes from the game, and the remaining classes can sorta kinda get by in combat and in purely roleplayed social scenes, but they need a lot of DM pity to face level-appropriate challenges past low levels.

Yes, the T1-2 classes need to be reined in a bit to get to the ideal balance point, but the T4-5 classes need to be nuked from orbit and rebuilt from scratch to achieve their desired balance point.


Not to nit pick but in your second party the warblade is completely irrelevent, You have 2 t1 and a high high t3 maybe low t2 class.

The first party is actually "chalanged" in that senerio the second is "do we have the right spell or ability to insta-win".

Honesltly it seams most peoples opinion on this subject (atleast in this thread) is if it's not at the very least bordeline op its not worth playing/unplayable.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Not to nit pick but in your second party the warblade is completely irrelevent,
[...]
Honesltly it seams most peoples opinion on this subject (atleast in this thread) is if it's not at the very least bordeline op its not worth playing/unplayable.

Funny you talk about unplayability, because you're the one saying that the warblade is unplayable because it's lower tier than the others, despite the facts that the warblade and factotum are both generally considered T3 and fact that each character's exact build can change how the party dynamics work.

That's one of the other nice things about T1s and T2s: they can "play down" to fit well in a party of T3s or below, whereas you can't really "play up" a T4 or T5 to work well in a party of T3 and above characters; even an ubercharger or similar verging-on-broken low-tier class is going to be less useful than another T1 character because their brokenness is overkill and it's better to have two clerics who can deal good damage and also do utility than to have one damage/utility cleric and one "overkills it by 10,000 damage" fighter.

[OldTrees1]

So...replace the fighter wholesale with the warblade? Gotcha. :smallwink:

Nah, make tactical feats that grant the effects of multiple maneuvers / stances without using the maneuver mechanics.

Warblades get more maneuvers that this new fighter but this new fighter does not need to refresh their abilities.

[KorbeltheReader]

That's one of the other nice things about T1s and T2s: they can "play down" to fit well in a party of T3s or below, whereas you can't really "play up" a T4 or T5 to work well in a party of T3 and above characters; even an ubercharger or similar verging-on-broken low-tier class is going to be less useful than another T1 character because their brokenness is overkill and it's better to have two clerics who can deal good damage and also do utility than to have one damage/utility cleric and one "overkills it by 10,000 damage" fighter.

But ideally players shouldn't be asked to play down either, right? That's my opinion, anyway. Hence why I think it's better to just lop off both the overpowered and underpowered in one fell swoop. Sure, it's theoretically possible that you could brew up a fighter class that has an answer for a greater variety of challenges and can share a party with stronger classes without starting to feel inadequate a la a t3 class, but WotC already did that in the Tome of Battle. Same with the wizard: sure, you could sift through dozens or hundreds of spells and cull all the ones you think are unbalancing, but rebalanced wizards already appear in other books as beguilers, warmages, and dread necromancers, with nearly all of the worst spells gone from their lists.

This is all personal preference, so if it's worth it to you to keep the fighter and rework it, that's awesome. I personally am not interested in significant class reworking or going through spell lists with a fine-tooth comb, so where WotC has already come up with an answer I'm happy to sub that in and move on.

[Amphetryon]

But ideally players shouldn't be asked to play down either, right? That's my opinion, anyway. Hence why I think it's better to just lop off both the overpowered and underpowered in one fell swoop. Sure, it's theoretically possible that you could brew up a fighter class that has an answer for a greater variety of challenges and can share a party with stronger classes without starting to feel inadequate a la a t3 class, but WotC already did that in the Tome of Battle. Same with the wizard: sure, you could sift through dozens or hundreds of spells and cull all the ones you think are unbalancing, but rebalanced wizards already appear in other books as beguilers, warmages, and dread necromancers, with nearly all of the worst spells gone from their lists.

This is all personal preference, so if it's worth it to you to keep the fighter and rework it, that's awesome. I personally am not interested in significant class reworking or going through spell lists with a fine-tooth comb, so where WotC has already come up with an answer I'm happy to sub that in and move on.

The difference is you can ask a T1/T2 Character to 'play down' and - assuming the Player is willing - expect it to work. You can't really ask a T5 Character to 'play up' to, say T3.

[Snowbluff]

I said give them some of the pathfinder stuff: armor training, and weapon training are great, the bravery thing is handy too.

What? Fighter probably got the worst direct treatment in PF. Paladin is a better example of an improvement, and it's still not better than a cleric.

So...replace the fighter wholesale with the warblade? Gotcha. :smallwink: Yes.



Yes, the T1-2 classes need to be reined in a bit to get to the ideal balance point, but the T4-5 classes need to be nuked from orbit and rebuilt from scratch to achieve their desired balance point.

I agree with this. I strongly recommend the T3 classes to my parties. The only real exception is Warmage, since a Blaster isn't really an effective niche role, but some people just want that.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But ideally players shouldn't be asked to play down either, right?

Ideally, yes, but we don't always play in ideal games, and it's always better to be able to play down if necessary than not be able to. That's not just a T1-2 thing, either; in a party of a monk with Weapon Focus (Shuriken), a knight with Skill Focus (Profession: Noble), a scout with Run, and a fighter with Power Attack and Shock Trooper, it's the fighter who is playing down to the rest of his team.


Same with the wizard: sure, you could sift through dozens or hundreds of spells and cull all the ones you think are unbalancing, but rebalanced wizards already appear in other books as beguilers, warmages, and dread necromancers, with nearly all of the worst spells gone from their lists.

Which is great if you want to play an enchanter, an evoker, or a necromancer, but they don't cover the five other D&D wizard archetypes, nor do they cover some non-wizardly-but-still-arcane-casterly archetypes like "earth mage" and "ritualist" and similar. If you're going to have to brew up a dozen classes to fill the gaps, you might as well do a wizard fix instead or in addition to those.

[Fax Celestis]

Which is great if you want to play an enchanter, an evoker, or a necromancer, but they don't cover the five other D&D wizard archetypes, nor do they cover some non-wizardly-but-still-arcane-casterly archetypes like "earth mage" and "ritualist" and similar. If you're going to have to brew up a dozen classes to fill the gaps, you might as well do a wizard fix instead or in addition to those.

hey would you look at that, someone went ahead and did that already (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309205)

[Hurnn]

So;

Pair o dice: I never said warblade is unplayable I said irrelevent. Having to ask 2-3 people in your party to tone it down to make the 4th member matter is still **** balance.

Oldtrees: yes this is exactily what I'm talking about. Honestly the manuevers are pretty meh and situational in my mind, stances are cool though so haveing access to them would be good.

Korbel: thats great but where is my druid and cleric replacement, what do you do about items that give access to broken spells and abilities? This is about redesigning core. Those spells and abilities are "part of core" are you going to remove ring of wish from the game no more monsters that have access to said powers that can be bound or charmed? Not to mention:

Pair o dice: thank you I dont have to make the argument now,



Which is great if you want to play an enchanter, an evoker, or a necromancer, but they don't cover the five other D&D wizard archetypes, nor do they cover some non-wizardly-but-still-arcane-casterly archetypes like "earth mage" and "ritualist" and similar. If you're going to have to brew up a dozen classes to fill the gaps, you might as well do a wizard fix instead or in addition to those.



Snowbluff: You pick 1 thing and ignore the 4 others I listed to give the fighter. The PF stuff is still an improvement over the base 3.5 throw in the other things and I'm pretty sure I made fighter a solid T4.

[KorbeltheReader]

Ideally, yes, but we don't always play in ideal games, and it's always better to be able to play down if necessary than not be able to. That's not just a T1-2 thing, either; in a party of a monk with Weapon Focus (Shuriken), a knight with Skill Focus (Profession: Noble), a scout with Run, and a fighter with Power Attack and Shock Trooper, it's the fighter who is playing down to the rest of his team.

Not sure what this argument is about, since nobody's saying players should be unable to play down. So, I guess we're in agreement?


thats great but where is my druid and cleric replacement, what do you do about items that give access to broken spells and abilities? This is about redesigning core. Those spells and abilities are "part of core" are you going to remove ring of wish from the game no more monsters that have access to said powers that can be bound or charmed?

Your druid and cleric replacements can come in the form of spirit shamans, favored souls, rangers, wildshape variant rangers, totemists, and crusaders. Add in the appropriate prestige class and you can make whatever archetype you want.

Meanwhile, beguiler also covers the illusionist, duskblades cover gish builds, and the warmage is fine for blasters without the presence of wizards and sorcerers to outshine him. Some other archetypes are covered by prestige classes. Yes, you do lose a few wizard archetypes by ditching the wizard class. That's a flaw in this approach, but no approach will be without its flaws, and I think this one will be cleaner and easier to implement than many others while lessening the yawning class imbalance without unduly homogenizing the classes.

The world will survive without abjurers, and survive much better without conjurers.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

hey would you look at that, someone went ahead and did that already (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309205)

Indeed, and a very fine reworking that is, good sir. Grod_the_Giant also has his wizard and full-list caster project, and there are a few others out there too. My point is that you can't just replace the wizard with the beguiler, dread necro, and warmage, you have to fill in the gaps somehow whether it's your own homebrew or borrowing from elsewhere.


So;

Pair o dice: I never said warblade is unplayable I said irrelevent. Having to ask 2-3 people in your party to tone it down to make the 4th member matter is still **** balance.

Except the warblade isn't irrelevant; as I said, the warblade is T3, just like the factotum, and the warblade isn't nearly as obsolete-able as the fighter is. Unless the wizard or cleric is specifically building for melee, the warblade will fit in just fine--and even if they do you'll have two slightly melee warriors as opposed to a fighter who is outdone in all respects.


Oldtrees: yes this is exactily what I'm talking about. Honestly the manuevers are pretty meh and situational in my mind,

Hardly; being able to attack touch AC, replace saves with skill checks, take extra actions, and such are very nice even compared to spells--and that's just looking at Diamond Mind.


The PF stuff is still an improvement over the base 3.5 throw in the other things and I'm pretty sure I made fighter a solid T4.

Nope. It just gets more numbers, and some aspects of the combat system (like certain feats) get worse; it's more of a "side-grade" than an upgrade, taking the rest of the system into account, and even plopping the PF fighter into 3e it's a trivial upgrade at best. Again, a ground-up rebuild is needed, not throwing a few useless +1s and +2s at it.

[thompur]

I would take spells away from the Paladin and Ranger and replace them with more interesting class features: SLA's, more smites/day and Smite Abilities for the Pally, and SLA's, improved archery abilities(including trick shots), and upgrade the AC to Druid type levels for the Ranger.

[Seerow]

I would take spells away from the Paladin and Ranger and replace them with more interesting class features: SLA's, more smites/day and Smite Abilities for the Pally, and SLA's, improved archery abilities(including trick shots), and upgrade the AC to Druid type levels for the Ranger.

I see no reason why not give those more interesting abilities, and still keep spells.

Rangers and Paladins both get a number of spells unique to them, and is probably the best utility they have. Trying to give them set class features to make up for it needs to be MUCH better than what you described, and probably better than what most people are going to accept as regular class features.

[Valtu]

I would take spells away from the Paladin and Ranger and replace them with more interesting class features: SLA's, more smites/day and Smite Abilities for the Pally, and SLA's, improved archery abilities(including trick shots), and upgrade the AC to Druid type levels for the Ranger.

I like that. Rangers being casters is kind of odd. It kinda makes sense, but at the same time, it seems like a purely non-magical hunter/survivalist makes more sense. If you want to be a woodsy spellcaster, isn't that what Druids are for?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like that. Rangers being casters is kind of odd. It kinda makes sense, but at the same time, it seems like a purely non-magical hunter/survivalist makes more sense. If you want to be a woodsy spellcaster, isn't that what Druids are for?

Rangers were originally made casters in 1e because the archetypal ranger was Aragorn, who had nigh-magical skills with herbalism, tracking, and such due to his Numenorean heritage. You certainly could remove all the magic from the ranger, but there are some good reasons to keep it:

1) To have the same utility after losing spells, the ranger would need another sort of resource mechanic. It's simpler to have fewer resource mechanics in the game, and spellcasting is better than the fighter's mechanic for giving out-of-combat utility.

2) Having spells lets the ranger interact with the magic system as a whole. The 3e ranger got a lot of mileage from being able to use wands and scrolls to shore up its few spells per day, and it let the writers give new woodsy druid spells to the ranger as well.

3) The ranger sort of is to the druid what the paladin is to the cleric and the duskblade is to the wizard: a partial caster with a slightly different take on the theme than the full caster so there are multiple ways to play a nature-y guy with plant spells, an animal companion, etc.

4) If all you're going to do is say "the ranger can do exactly what he could before, but now it's not magic," that's a less elegant design that wastes a lot of space when the nature-magic explanation works just fine normally and can be reflavored to taste.

Giving the ranger a different subsystem would make those abilities more combat-focused (as WotC and many 'brewers tend to do with martial types), reduce overlap between the ranger's list and other lists to give him fewer Nice Things, require creating (and people learning) a new resource mechanic, and make the druid have to shoulder more concepts on its own. Spells are probably the best option for the ranger overall.

[KorbeltheReader]

I see no reason why not give those more interesting abilities, and still keep spells.

Rangers and Paladins both get a number of spells unique to them, and is probably the best utility they have. Trying to give them set class features to make up for it needs to be MUCH better than what you described, and probably better than what most people are going to accept as regular class features.

Agreed. If you're going to fix the paladin, I would strongly advocate for readjusting the level in which he gets his abilities. Creating a paladin is absolutely infuriating compared to creating well-designed classes because nothing lines up cleanly. For instance, a human character with 2 flaws is going to accrue 10 feats on the road to level 20, but fully half of them come by level 3. Meanwhile, a paladin doesn't get spellcasting, turn undead, or special mount until level 4 and 5, so half of the paladin's feats cannot be used to buff up his potentially nice -- but weak out of the box -- class abilities. Furthermore, probably 8 out of 10 paladins take Leadership at 6, so he struggles through his first NINE levels as basically a fighter with lay on hands.

I see no reason why the paladin can't get most or all of this stuff at level one.

[Hurnn]

Except the warblade isn't irrelevant; as I said, the warblade is T3, just like the factotum, and the warblade isn't nearly as obsolete-able as the fighter is. Unless the wizard or cleric is specifically building for melee, the warblade will fit in just fine--and even if they do you'll have two slightly melee warriors as opposed to a fighter who is outdone in all respects.



Hardly; being able to attack touch AC, replace saves with skill checks, take extra actions, and such are very nice even compared to spells--and that's just looking at Diamond Mind.

Nope. It just gets more numbers, and some aspects of the combat system (like certain feats) get worse; it's more of a "side-grade" than an upgrade, taking the rest of the system into account, and even plopping the PF fighter into 3e it's a trivial upgrade at best. Again, a ground-up rebuild is needed, not throwing a few useless +1s and +2s at it.


Ok you say he isnt irrelevent but what levels are we talking about here because at 7th - 9th level spells he is. Oh he can skill monkey a little bit too how cute except Factotum; well that and he is still 4+ int. Sure he gets some goodies for having a higher int but that just makes him MAD Needs High str,dex,con, int.

Diamond mind ..... Make a skill check instead of a save great oh that skill is concentration useless to you outside side of that ability.

Once again because I havent said it 5 times now the PF fighter is the start of the improvement. No where did i ever say anything about using the crap-tastic PF feats. Im pretty sure at 7th ignoreing your armor for movement and getting your full dex mod in hvy armor is pretty good. Getting effectivly 2 feats focus and specilization (every 4 levels) is pretty good on an entire class of weapons. I said start them at full BAB but at +3 which gives you multiple attacks sooner, and means you will actually hit with the second and third ones Adding 6+int in skills per level, and adding to the class skills list. Giving access to stances. Plus all the splat book crap that exists for them already.

[Corenthius]

For Cross-class skills, I told my players that once you invest 2 ranks (4 points) in a C-CS, you are therefore considered "trained" and treat it a class skill for future points. This could be an alternative rule.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Ok you say he isnt irrelevent but what levels are we talking about here because at 7th - 9th level spells he is. Oh he can skill monkey a little bit too how cute except Factotum; well that and he is still 4+ int. Sure he gets some goodies for having a higher int but that just makes him MAD Needs High str,dex,con, int.

It doesn't bring the same power to the table as a T1 at high levels--no one without access to a wide variety of level 7+ spells does--but it isn't irrelevant either. It could certainly stand some beefing-up at the higher levels in terms of variety and power of options, but once he gets teleported or plane shifted to the adventure locale with the rest of the party, he can contribute just fine, unlike the lower-tier classes.


Diamond mind ..... Make a skill check instead of a save great oh that skill is concentration useless to you outside side of that ability.

Spending 1 skill point per level to be able to all but automatically succeed on saves a few times per combat (at 10th level, 13 ranks + at least +5 Con vs. DC 10+5 level+6 stat means rolling a 3 to succeed; at 20th level, 23 ranks + at least +5 Con vs. DC 10+9 level+10 stat means automatic success) is certainly useful.


Im pretty sure at 7th ignoreing your armor for movement and getting your full dex mod in hvy armor is pretty good. Getting effectivly 2 feats focus and specilization (every 4 levels) is pretty good on an entire class of weapons. I said start them at full BAB but at +3 which gives you multiple attacks sooner, and means you will actually hit with the second and third ones

No, it's not really that great, because an extra few points of AC, an extra 10 feet or so of speed, and +X to attack rolls does not meaningfully change the fighter's capabilities.

Incremental improvements to the fighter (and monk and all the other martial classes) will not work. Incremental improvements means adding more of what the fighter already has, and what the fighter already has is made of suck and fail. The combat system, the fighter's conceptual space, weapons and armor, feat design philosophy, and related aspects of the game need to be redesigned for the fighter to work. Fiddling with a few numbers will not do it.

[Lans]

It doesn't bring the same power to the table as a T1 at high levels--no one without access to a wide variety of level 7+ spells does--but it isn't irrelevant either. It could certainly stand some beefing-up at the higher levels in terms of variety and power of options, but once he gets teleported or plane shifted to the adventure locale with the rest of the party, he can contribute just fine, unlike the lower-tier classes.
.
How does a warblade contribute when an improved fighter, with pathfinder+skill point boost+other upgrades is incapable of contributing?

Any class can hit touch ACs at high levels,

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Any class can hit touch ACs at high levels,

Which would be great, except that Emerald Razor is available at 3rd level, and the only class features fighters and monks get to let them do that are grappling-related and thus stop working at mid-high levels. :smallwink:


How does a warblade contribute when an improved fighter, with pathfinder+skill point boost+other upgrades is incapable of contributing?

The warblade (and swordsage and crusader) have the defenses, utility, debuffing, and action economy that fighters (and monks, and knights, and...) lack. Diamond Mind gives amazing saves, extra movement, blindsense, extra immediate and full-round actions, ability damage, and much better standard-action damage; Iron Heart gives condition removal, ranged AoE damage, action denial, save rerolls, healing, and attack negation and redirection; Tiger Claw gives attack penalties, scent, lots of free movement, and improved grappling; White Raven gives buffing, tons of extra actions for allies, and excellent action denial.

Again, nothing that is not a full caster will ever have the world-shaping or plot-enabling power of full casters, but where a fighter needs to load up on lots of items to shore up weak saves, compensate for weakening AC, deal with exotic environments like the floating cubes in Acheron or sludge on Minauros, reach flying or fast opponents, and so forth, the warblade can do it with his own class features and use his WBL for things beyond reaching the "You must be this tall to play at high levels" bar.

So you can talk about "an improved fighter with skill boosts and other upgrades," but unless those upgrades are at least as good as a warblade's full complement of maneuvers (and it should honestly be better; warblades contribute, they don't excel) then it won't make a difference, and starting with the idea that the fighter just needs more numbers is the wrong approach entirely.

[Hurnn]

How does a warblade contribute when an improved fighter, with pathfinder+skill point boost+other upgrades is incapable of contributing?

Any class can hit touch ACs at high levels,


He Doesn't. The problem is everyone is arguing a singular point in a discussion that has a plethora of points. T1-2 "NEED" to be nerfed down to T3 levels for anyone else to matter. Some people are saying that you have to be T3 to matter at all or are unplayable trash (ironicly I belive that warblade is really a high T4 class not a true T3). I think that this issue is skewed do to the overwhelming power that the top 2 teirs have had for so long, ie: Making everyone else irrelevent.

[Lans]

Which would be great, except that Emerald Razor is available at 3rd level, and the only class features fighters and monks get to let them do that are grappling-related and thus stop working at mid-high levels. :smallwink:


Other than taking emeral razor as a bonus feat you mean?



The warblade (and swordsage and crusader) have the defenses, utility, debuffing, and action economy that fighters (and monks, and knights, and...) lack. Diamond Mind gives amazing saves, extra movement, blindsense, extra immediate and full-round actions, ability damage, and much better standard-action damage; Iron Heart gives condition removal, ranged AoE damage, action denial, save rerolls, healing, and attack negation and redirection; Tiger Claw gives attack penalties, scent, lots of free movement, and improved grappling; White Raven gives buffing, tons of extra actions for allies, and excellent action denial.

That stuff looks nice, how does it compare to a deep impact boomerang on the offense/debuff/attack penalty front?

Iron Heart surge has questionable use in removing conditions.



Again, nothing that is not a full caster will ever have the world-shaping or plot-enabling power of full casters, but where a fighter needs to load up on lots of items to shore up weak saves, compensate for weakening AC, deal with exotic environments like the floating cubes in Acheron or sludge on Minauros, reach flying or fast opponents, and so forth, the warblade can do it with his own class features and use his WBL for things beyond reaching the "You must be this tall to play at high levels" bar.

How does a warblades features let it reach flying opponents? Or deal with sludge? Fighter can dimension door, and walk on water with his class features, so I'm wondering how the warblade does it.


So you can talk about "an improved fighter with skill boosts and other upgrades," but unless those upgrades are at least as good as a warblade's full complement of maneuvers (and it should honestly be better; warblades contribute, they don't excel) then it won't make a difference, and starting with the idea that the fighter just needs more numbers is the wrong approach entirely.

A fighter with bigger numbers is going to do just fine compared to the warblade. Unless scent is some game breaking ability or something.

[Hytheter]

How does a warblades features let it reach flying opponents? Or deal with sludge? Fighter can dimension door, and walk on water with his class features

Wait what?

[Zharradan Marr]

Wait what?I think he is (somewhat ironically, possibly) referring to the Fighter's ability to take Martial Study with his Fighter bonus feats.

[jjcrpntr]

In my limited play experience. I'd like to see skills play a more active roll. Something like if you have high balance and tumble you aren't slowed by difficult terrain, or could go X feet without penalty. Maybe something like if you have a high spot check you get a bonus to hit on ranged attacks because of your keen eyes.

I'd like to see stuff like that. Would make skills more useful then just for skill checks.

[Hytheter]

I think he is (somewhat ironically, possibly) referring to the Fighter's ability to take Martial Study with his Fighter bonus feats.

That would be a poor argument though, since Warblades can take the same feats. Much earlier in fact, because he's not held back by a halved Initiator Level.
Sure, the Fighter can get Shadow Jaunt via Martial Study. But it's a level 2 Maneuver, which requires IL 3, which requires 6 levels in non-initiating classes (ie Fighter). Meanwhile the Warblade can take the same feat, but at level 3. Not to mention that he can also use it more than once per encounter.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Other than taking emeral razor as a bonus feat you mean?

Yes, because if the fighter needs to achieves the same thing the warblade is by poaching maneuvers (at half the initiator level, usable less often, and only 3 maneuvers total, as Hytheter pointed out), then it should be self evident that the fighter isn't keeping up with the warblade.


That stuff looks nice, how does it compare to a deep impact boomerang on the offense/debuff/attack penalty front?

Pretty well, considering that the warblade can take Boomerang Daze et al. just like the fighter (and at the same level) so he can have his cake and eat it too, and that the warblade isn't limited to a single fighting style to accomplish any of his tricks.


How does a warblades features let it reach flying opponents?

Lightning Throw. Sudden Leap + Leaping Dragon Stance. Dancing Mongoose + a longbow.


Or deal with sludge?

Sudden Leap + Leaping Dragon Stance to avoid it. Quicksilver Motion, to make up for being slowed in difficult terrain. Dancing Mongoose + double move to be able to move his speed and still attack. Martial Stance (which he can use sooner and more effectively than a fighter can) for Step of the Wind.


A fighter with bigger numbers is going to do just fine compared to the warblade. Unless scent is some game breaking ability or something.

At high levels, raw numbers are not nearly as important as options and capabilities when determining contribution and competence.

+1000 to hit at 20th level means nothing if you can't see an invisible creature to hit it, or can't reach it because it's flying and you're specced for melee, or fail a save against a hold person before you can attack it, or the like. Scent and blindsense aren't game-breaking at all, but a lack of extra senses like scent and blindsense can be game "breaking" in the sense that if you can't overcome invisibility, stealth, illusions, etc. at high levels, you're at a large disadvantage against Team Monster.

Everyone needs these tools, and you can either get them from yourself, from your items, or from your teammates. It's much better to get as many tools from yourself as you can, because then you can get different tools from items and teammates for better synergy and capability coverage. If the fighter doesn't bring any useful contributions to the table and can be replaced with a warblade, DMM:Persist cleric, or other melee type to gain good utility and options without losing any basic melee competence, there's no reason to keep the fighter around.

[Zharradan Marr]

That would be a poor argument though, since Warblades can take the same feats.Not as a class feature, though. They can take those feats as their 1-per-3-levels feat, which every characters gets. A terrible argument, I know, I don't actually subscribe to it myself.

[SinsI]

Can't Incarnum approach be the answer to the problem "T3-T5 need to spend their WBL on magical items with essential abilities that T1-T2 get from class levels"?
Being able to soulmeld those items for free and switch them daily might solve that problem.

[Coidzor]

Can't Incarnum approach be the answer to the problem "T3-T5 need to spend their WBL on magical items with essential abilities that T1-T2 get from class levels"?
Being able to soulmeld those items for free and switch them daily might solve that problem.

As written, I don't believe it does entirely. The general idea though? It seems like a great one, especially without the giant blue stuff that materializes or pseudo-materializes.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Can't Incarnum approach be the answer to the problem "T3-T5 need to spend their WBL on magical items with essential abilities that T1-T2 get from class levels"?
Being able to soulmeld those items for free and switch them daily might solve that problem.

It's a fairly common assumption that MoI was basically a big test to see if "replace magic items with inherent class features that kinda function like magic items" and/or "start out with a set of magic items that level up as you do" were viable options for 4e wealth management, just like ToM was a big test of what alternate magic systems people liked and might want to see in 4e.

As Coidzor said, the actual implementation of incarnum was overly complicated, overly blue, and fell short of the goal of replacing WBL, but conceptually it could work; it's not the first bound-items-scale-to-your-power-level system D&D has seen and the idea has some pretty good cultural traction as well.

[Gnorman]

One might also wish to impose, as Legend and other systems did, a numerical restriction on magic items. This may help to mitigate the Christmas Tree Effect, but would require an overhaul of the magic item system to accomplish.

[Gemini476]

It's a fairly common assumption that MoI was basically a big test to see if "replace magic items with inherent class features that kinda function like magic items" and/or "start out with a set of magic items that level up as you do" were viable options for 4e wealth management, just like ToM was a big test of what alternate magic systems people liked and might want to see in 4e.

As Coidzor said, the actual implementation of incarnum was overly complicated, overly blue, and fell short of the goal of replacing WBL, but conceptually it could work; it's not the first bound-items-scale-to-your-power-level system D&D has seen and the idea has some pretty good cultural traction as well.

Ah, so that's why the Binder reappeared in 4E (albeit combined with the Warlock.)
And maybe part of the reason behind the Shadow power source, as well.


Speaking of later editions, for all of its faults Next has some promising things. Having a universal Proficiency bonus to skills/saves/attacks is a great idea, for instance! It also messes up by not giving mundanes many Nice Things and giving casters too many Nice Things (presumably in reaction to the people who disliked how everyone in 4E had magic etc.), but it has a bunch of things that are salvageable.

One other thing I would backport from 5e is how few spells people have! Take a look at this chart:
{table=head]Level|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th
1|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2|3|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3|4|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4|4|3|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5|4|3|2|-|-|-|-|-|-
6|4|3|3|-|-|-|-|-|-
7|4|3|3|1|-|-|-|-|-
8|4|3|3|2|-|-|-|-|-
9|4|3|3|3|1|-|-|-|-
10|4|3|3|3|2|-|-|-|-
11|4|3|3|3|2|-|-|-|-
12|4|3|3|3|2|1|-|-|-
13|4|3|3|3|2|1|-|-|-
14|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|-|-
15|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|-|-
16|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|1|-
17|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|1|1
18|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|1|1
19|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|1|1
20|4|3|3|3|2|1|1|1|1[/table]
Cantrips are at-will (and honestly a bit too good), but still! If you are only expecting four encounters a day and have four "daily" high-level spells then that actually kind of seems like something that can be balanced.
They just still have the spells being a bit too good.

They might change a lot before the release, but I'm sure that it'll still have a bunch of mechanics that can be plugged into better games.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Cantrips are at-will (and honestly a bit too good), but still! If you are only expecting four encounters a day and have four "daily" high-level spells then that actually kind of seems like something that can be balanced.

Except, well, four encounters per day was never the expected standard. Four encounters of roughly CR = APL, sure, but you might instead have six battles with mooks, or four battles with mooks and an infiltration mission, or three social encounters and a big chase scene, or a major boss battle, or a massive three-way conflict between armies that takes up a whole session and goes for 100 rounds, or something else.

Cutting down the full casters' spells/day is great, but trying to balance things by matching up number of spells at a certain level to number and length of expected encounters (and expected combat encounters, at that) doesn't really work because they're so variable based on party composition, player skill, group playstyle, and other factors. A major part of 4e's initial grind problem was WotC trying to match the power schedule too closely to the expected number of rounds in each encounter and the expected number of encounters per day; underestimating those two numbers due to monster HP inflation and other factors led to boring at-will spamming in every encounter for many parties.

Judge the appropriate number of slots based on what those spells can do against the opposition and in concert with each other, not on combat metrics, and things will probably work out much better.

[Lans]

Not as a class feature, though. They can take those feats as their 1-per-3-levels feat, which every characters gets. A terrible argument, I know, I don't actually subscribe to it myself.

Going with general feats, there are better options, or at least different options.

Like Animal Devotion, and shape soulmeld.

Also, we are discussing an altered fighter where I believe the pathfinder buffs, a feat a level, and 6 skill points a level was the start.



Yes, because if the fighter needs to achieves the same thing the warblade is by poaching maneuvers (at half the initiator level, usable less often, and only 3 maneuvers total, as Hytheter pointed out), then it should be self evident that the fighter isn't keeping up with the warblade. Depends on whether the fighter needs to hit the touch AC of a monster as often as the warblade. Expecially, at high levels when his attack bonus with his chosen weapons is higher.




Pretty well, considering that the warblade can take Boomerang Daze et al. just like the fighter (and at the same level) so he can have his cake and eat it too, and that the warblade isn't limited to a single fighting style to accomplish any of his tricks.
So are you saying all of the warblades offensive manuevers options are less effective than a feat? Is the warblade using it as effectively as the fighter? Considering it takes at least 3 feats, it brutal throw and proficiency to use it effectively, and another 6 to be awesome at it, and every additional point of damage just adds to its effect. The Fighter isn't limited to a single fighting style either.



Lightning Throw. Sudden Leap + Leaping Dragon Stance. Dancing Mongoose + a longbow.



Sudden Leap + Leaping Dragon Stance to avoid it. Quicksilver Motion, to make up for being slowed in difficult terrain. Dancing Mongoose + double move to be able to move his speed and still attack. Martial Stance (which he can use sooner and more effectively than a fighter can) for Step of the Wind.
So, all of his abilities save for quicksilver motion are massively trumped by a mid level buff from the wizard?



At high levels, raw numbers are not nearly as important as options and capabilities when determining contribution and competence.

+1000 to hit at 20th level means nothing if you can't see an invisible creature to hit it, or can't reach it because it's flying and you're specced for melee, or fail a save against a hold person before you can attack it, or the like. Scent and blindsense aren't game-breaking at all, but a lack of extra senses like scent and blindsense can be game "breaking" in the sense that if you can't overcome invisibility, stealth, illusions, etc. at high levels, you're at a large disadvantage against Team Monster.


Again he can get scent and blindsense from his class features, or use a general feat or 2 to see invisibility, what does a warblade do against a hold person before he attacks? Considering fighter and warblade have similiar will saves.


Everyone needs these tools, and you can either get them from yourself, from your items, or from your teammates. It's much better to get as many tools from yourself as you can, because then you can get different tools from items and teammates for better synergy and capability coverage. If the fighter doesn't bring any useful contributions to the table and can be replaced with a warblade, DMM:Persist cleric, or other melee type to gain good utility and options without losing any basic melee competence, there's no reason to keep the fighter around.

What is the warblade bringing to the party of high level tier 1's? His utility and defenses are trumped by the cleric giving the party +14 to every bodies saves, his mobility options are trumped by a buff from the wizard, his attacks seem less effective than the barbarian or fighters.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Depends on whether the fighter needs to hit the touch AC of a monster as often as the warblade. Expecially, at high levels when his attack bonus with his chosen weapons is higher.

Once again you're focusing on high levels, when the whole point is that the warblade can attack touch AC starting at level 3, which is worth +4 to +10 attack against level-appropriate enemies like the young black dragon (19 AC vs. 10 touch), Large earth elemental (18 vs. 8), six-headed hydra (16 vs. 9), manticore (17 vs. 11), and so forth.

Even assuming the fighter is taking the Weapon Focus line and/or that he has +X class features instead of real options, that's a larger bonus than the fighter has, the fighter can't pick it up for 3 more levels, and taking it as a fighter locks you out of 1 of the 3 maneuvers you can ever take as non-initiator.


So are you saying all of the warblades offensive manuevers options are less effective than a feat?

No, I'm saying that anything the fighter can do, the warblade can also do, and then he has all of his maneuvers on top of that.


Is the warblade using it as effectively as the fighter? Considering it takes at least 3 feats, it brutal throw and proficiency to use it effectively, and another 6 to be awesome at it, and every additional point of damage just adds to its effect. The Fighter isn't limited to a single fighting style either.

If it really takes 9 feats to get really good at it, then the earliest a fighter can have all of those feats (assuming a human with 2 flaws) is level 6, at which point it's his only fighting style (albeit a very effective one). At the same level, a human warblade with 2 flaws has 6 of those 9 feats, and also has 6 maneuvers and 2 stances which he can either use to enhance that fighting style or to pick up a different fighting style or two, making him actually more versatile than the fighter.


So, all of his abilities save for quicksilver motion are massively trumped by a mid level buff from the wizard?

1) Assuming the challenges at hand are indeed solved by fly, yes, however those maneuvers are useful against many obstacles, of which terrain and range issues are only two.

2) All of the fighter's abilities are not just trumped but perfectly duplicated by divine power and heroics, something that can't be said about the warblade's abilities.


Again he can get scent and blindsense from his class features, or use a general feat or 2 to see invisibility, what does a warblade do against a hold person before he attacks? Considering fighter and warblade have similiar will saves.

Moment of Perfect Mind, Iron Heart Focus, and Moment of Alacrity say hi.


What is the warblade bringing to the party of high level tier 1's? His utility and defenses are trumped by the cleric giving the party +14 to every bodies saves, his mobility options are trumped by a buff from the wizard, his attacks seem less effective than the barbarian or fighters.

1) I'm not seeing how the warblade's attacks seem less effective than the barbarian's or fighter's, since for the umpteenth time the warblade can do absolutely anything the fighter or barbarian can (including the vaunted Weapon Focus/Spec line, which he uses better than the fighter does).

2) A 20th-level fighter will have a Fort save of +19, assuming a 24 Con. Assuming the same Con, a warblade will have the same Fort save--except when he uses Mind Over Body, which he can do once every other round, in which case he'll have a +30 and can't auto-fail on a natural 1.

3) Even though some of the warblade's options could be trumped by a buff, the fact that he has those means he doesn't need the buffs: where a fighter going up against, say, a pit fiend might need freedom of movement, superior resistance, death ward, and bless weapon just to have a chance to hurt it and not die, the warblade can handle those on his own and could instead get an energy immunity (fire), true seeing, and delay death for even more all-around buffage...and when the pit fiend starts spamming its at-will greater dispel magic, the fighter is screwed while the warblade is merely inconvenienced.

And all of this is of course assuming that the party has a cleric and a wizard who each have a bunch of buffs to give the designated beatstick; if you have a party with a wild shape-focused druid instead of a buffer cleric, or a beguiler instead of a buffer wizard, or a favored soul or sorcerer who didn't spend precious spells known slots on divinations and can't pick up all the right spells to face the pit fiend he didn't know is coming, the warblade can still compete while the fighter is screwed.

--------------------------------

Once again, I'm not saying the warblade is perfect, that it's Tier 1 or 2, or even that it's a definitive fighter fix. I'm saying that the fighter brings nothing useful to the table that the warblade doesn't and that the warblade does what a fighter fix should (give it a lot more options and not just more numbers), so any approach to fixing the core should scrap the fighter entirely and redesign it along the same lines as (and/or borrow material from) the warblade.

[unbeliever536]

This is a bit disorganized, BUT:

I'd like to see weapon schools, in addition to magic schools. Each class would, in addition to its features, allow you to advance your proficiency in around two primary schools of magic or weapons/mundane combat (determined by class), plus a few secondary schools. Primary schools you get from classes you already have count as secondaries for multiclassing, with some kind of limit (not sure what). Come to think of it, you could do a throwback to old editions and have everything be based on proficiency, scrapping skills entirely (replacing them with "skill school" or something more evocative). Classes have a bundle of primary and secondary proficiencies in addition to their class features, allowing players to easily create their own gish and other combo type characters, and also allowing the designer(s) to make gish/combo classes. The multiclassing tradeoff becomes more proficiencies (or a unique proficiency combination) for abilities that allow you to specialize in particular styles. It wouldn't be reasonable to pick up more than four or five total schools, though, and you wouldn't be as awesome with some of them as a specialist.

Fighter, wizard, and other "generalists" of their field would be broken into specialty classes, because multiclassing is a thing; if you want to be a generalist you multiclass. Sorceror becomes a gish-in-a-can, or at least has the option to be such. Paladin I would redesign to more of a "crusader" archetype, with relatively little magic and lots of leadership-related abilities, and let Ranger attack the gish thing from the mundane side.

I'd also change mundane combat as follows:
Steal from Warhammer and give lots of weapons pre-defined special rules to differentiate them, even if they deal the same damage. Also based on warhammer, dual-school weapons/spells have two versions/profiles: one for each school. Some might also have a "combined" version that benifits characters who use both schools. Switching weapon profiles would be a swift action, possible after a move or at the start of your turn. Here's an extended example that would replace the current greatsword:
A zweihander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder) (I think German words are cool. You agree, right?) is a weapon in both the Shortspear and Longsword schools, which deals the same damage on each profile. However, it has different special rules. The sword profile makes disarming easier, and the shortspear profile makes attacks more likely to hit (maybe more stuff? not sure). Both profiles also have the "Rapid shift" special rule, which allow the wielder to change between profiles as a free action, allowing the user to change from sword to spear style in the middle of his attack routine. This way, a fighter specializing in this particular weapon would bash away his opponent's weapon and then lay in with the stabs, keeping his opponent on the defensive and unable to attack while still doing fierce damage himself. He would also still be capable with other two-handed swords and smaller spears, just on the two proficiencies he uses to master his favoured weapon, and he would have several other proficiencies beyond that.

Basically, weapon-based combat needs to be as rich and varied as spell combat in order to function properly, but different enough that you don't get stuck with the "weaboo fightin' magic" problem that ToB has. (ToB is great, but it's a little to mystical for someone who just wants to be awesome at swingin' his sword, and it feels a lot like per-encounter spells). From your fixes to mundane combat, you should be able to derive your class changes.


Races...I dunno.

As to stats, I like the six stats in D&D from a flavour perspective, but that might just be first-system bias. Or complexity addiction. Certainly, I think it should be possible to have two humans (or elves, or whatever), one of whom is tougher than the other, even though they might be equally strong.

I like Int=spell level, Wis=bonus spells, Cha=DCs, though I think other things would have to change to make it work. CL caps need to go, for one. Artificially obsoleting spells is not cool, no matter how borked the spellcasting system as a whole is. The way I fluffed the mental stats for my setting, Int is your ability to use/manipulate magic, Cha is how much raw power you have available, and Wis is how much you can channel through your body.

[OldTrees1]

No, I'm saying that anything the fighter can do, the warblade can also do, and then he has all of his maneuvers on top of that.

The Warblade can do anything that the Fighter can do but cannot do everything the Fighter can do.

A Fighter can get 2 attacks, Stagger, Daze, Knockback, and Trip per iterative attack/attack of opportunity(Combat Reflexes). [14 feats]

A Warblade can do some but not all of that with their mere 8-9 feats (only 1 of the feats is on the warblade bonus feat list).

A Warblade also gets maneuvers on top of the fraction of Fighter that they get to emulate.

[SinsI]

Fighter, wizard, and other "generalists" of their field would be broken into specialty classes, because multiclassing is a thing; if you want to be a generalist you multiclass.

Oh, completely forgot that I wanted to change this. You should be able to take specialist levels after taking some generalist levels ( akin to the way students study general science knowledge for first 2-3 courses, and choose their specialization afterward).
Specialist shouldn't prohibit using items or spells from the "prohibited schools".
Instead, Generalist advances casting ~twice slower than Specialist in his specialty area, but Specialist advances only that specialty and 1-2 adjacent disciplines (those at the same speed as Generalist).
You should never be able to reach lvl 9 spells with only Generalist while staying non-Epic.

Another idea is to remove freedom of what spells to choose by giving spells prerequisites:
If you want to learn Fireball, you first have to know Burning Hands, etc.

Also, core mechanic to play "quasi-gestalt": when you have enough XP to advance a level, you can choose to add that level not as your next character level, but as a gestalt with one of your earlier class levels. This way if you had made some bad multiclass choice you can always "play it back" by turning it into gestalt.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The Warblade can do anything that the Fighter can do but cannot do everything the Fighter can do.

A Fighter can get 2 attacks, Stagger, Daze, Knockback, and Trip per iterative attack/attack of opportunity(Combat Reflexes). [14 feats]

A Warblade can do some but not all of that with their mere 8-9 feats (only 1 of the feats is on the warblade bonus feat list).

So, that's one very feat-intensive style the fighter can pull off. How many of those things can be accomplished with maneuvers as well (at the very least the multiple attacks and extra AoO, depending on which other feats you're thinking of)? How many of those things are worth having instead of maneuvers? How many styles like that does the fighter have, compared to the myriad of warblade fighting styles that a fighter can't duplicate?

Again, the fighter has offense already, and while letting him layer on lots of status effects and move enemies around gives him a few more flavors of offense, it doesn't address the fundamental problem with the fighter: it fights, and only fights, with nothing noteworthy in the way of utility, versatility, and special defenses.

[OldTrees1]

So, that's one very feat-intensive style the fighter can pull off. How many of those things can be accomplished with maneuvers as well (at the very least the multiple attacks and extra AoO, depending on which other feats you're thinking of)? How many of those things are worth having instead of maneuvers? How many styles like that does the fighter have, compared to the myriad of warblade fighting styles that a fighter can't duplicate?

Again, the fighter has offense already, and while letting him layer on lots of status effects and move enemies around gives him a few more flavors of offense, it doesn't address the fundamental problem with the fighter: it fights, and only fights, with nothing noteworthy in the way of utility, versatility, and special defenses.

Can it be called a style if it works on any attack? I would consider it merely enhancement of a chosen style.

Yeah it is feat intensive, however multiple effects require multiple feat chains. Remember you are getting multiple effects on the same attack per iterative attack/attack of opportunity.

How many can be replaced by manuevers?
Well here is the question: Is getting 1 effect once per turn every other turn a replacement (Dazing Strike vs save or Daze every iterative attack)?
The doubling of attacks and Tripping is merely 3 feats but Manuevers can only replace one or the other at a time without also taking some of the feats.
Stagger and Knockback are not duplicated by maneuvers to my knowledge. (Unless you count throws)

How many styles does this fighter have?
Pick of an Aptitude weapon of the styles you wish and take the required feats for the styles with you remaining 4-5 feats. So a few similar styles. They all are "attack for several debuffing effects" but so is most of Warblade's styles.

How many styles is it missing that Warblade gets?
I believe the list is:
Touch Attacks
Ability Damage
Save or Die

It is a fair point that Fighter only fights. However I never contested that. I merely pointed out that Warblade, for all of its well deserved glory, can duplicate anything a Fighter can do but cannot duplicate everything a Fighter can do.

I consider the difference between Anything and Everything to be relevant when one is casually dismissing material. Both Fighter and Warblade play differently as a consequence of neither being able to duplicate everything the other can do.

[Lans]

Once again you're focusing on high levels, when the whole point is that the warblade can attack touch AC starting at level 3, which is worth +4 to +10 attack against level-appropriate enemies like the young black dragon (19 AC vs. 10 touch), Large earth elemental (18 vs. 8), six-headed hydra (16 vs. 9), manticore (17 vs. 11), and so forth.

The scenario was one with high level casters, spell levels 7+ with eiher a fighter or a warblade. If hitting touch ACs is an issue the fighter has the option of grabbing hammer and piton style



Even assuming the fighter is taking the Weapon Focus line and/or that he has +X class features instead of real options, that's a larger bonus than the fighter has, the fighter can't pick it up for 3 more levels, and taking it as a fighter locks you out of 1 of the 3 maneuvers you can ever take as non-initiator.

True, but there are other options for touch ACs


No, I'm saying that anything the fighter can do, the warblade can also do, and then he has all of his maneuvers on top of that.

And I'm asking what the warblade can do offensively, that is comparative to a fighter using Boomerang Daze



If it really takes 9 feats to get really good at it, then the earliest a fighter can have all of those feats (assuming a human with 2 flaws) is level 6, at which point it's his only fighting style (albeit a very effective one). At the same level, a human warblade with 2 flaws has 6 of those 9 feats, and also has 6 maneuvers and 2 stances which he can either use to enhance that fighting style or to pick up a different fighting style or two, making him actually more versatile than the fighter.

1 You are off, on the feat count, a human fighter with 2 flaws would have 10 feats, 3 for levels, 4 from fighter, 1 human and 2 from flaws. Granted I miss counted the required feats and it took 1 more than I thought it did.

2 Your assuming the feats don't bring anything to the table besides the 1 style, with 1 being power attack, and being strength focused, 2-handed is on the table.

3 One of the suggested fixes included a feat every level, this would give the fighter a bit more versatility, with its higher skill points, and pathfinder enhancements.






1) Assuming the challenges at hand are indeed solved by fly, yes, however those maneuvers are useful against many obstacles, of which terrain and range issues are only two.
What are the other obstacles that they solve?


2) All of the fighter's abilities are not just trumped but perfectly duplicated by divine power and heroics, something that can't be said about the warblade's abilities. Tier 1 casters being overpowered is nothing new.




Moment of Perfect Mind, Iron Heart Focus, and Moment of Alacrity say hi.
Flat footed say what?



1) I'm not seeing how the warblade's attacks seem less effective than the barbarian's or fighter's, since for the umpteenth time the warblade can do absolutely anything the fighter or barbarian can (including the vaunted Weapon Focus/Spec line, which he uses better than the fighter does).

Then add in +5 from the pathfinder enhancements, and any other feats that add to that fighting style. The Weapon focus/spec line is 6 feats, boomerang daze takes 2, add in rapidshot, precise shot, brutal throw, and others.


2) A 20th-level fighter will have a Fort save of +19, assuming a 24 Con. Assuming the same Con, a warblade will have the same Fort save--except when he uses Mind Over Body, which he can do once every other round, in which case he'll have a +30 and can't auto-fail on a natural 1.
Again, with the cleric giving +14 to every body's saves the fighter would have a save of 33 and not have to worry about being flat footed, or having to make 2 saves in a round, which means relying on things like Mind Over Body would actually be a liability.


3) Even though some of the warblade's options could be trumped by a buff, the fact that he has those means he doesn't need the buffs: where a fighter going up against, say, a pit fiend might need freedom of movement, superior resistance, death ward, and bless weapon just to have a chance to hurt it and not die, the warblade can handle those on his own and could instead get an energy immunity (fire), true seeing, and delay death for even more all-around buffage...and when the pit fiend starts spamming its at-will greater dispel magic, the fighter is screwed while the warblade is merely inconvenienced.

Why does the fighter need those buffs, but not the warblade? Is the warblade relying on 1/round abilities and leaving himself open to the pit fiend having equipment like a belt of battle or a buddy or something?

With out any buffs, the fighter can hit and force a DC 28+ save or stun,


And all of this is of course assuming that the party has a cleric and a wizard who each have a bunch of buffs to give the designated beatstick; if you have a party with a wild shape-focused druid instead of a buffer cleric, or a beguiler instead of a buffer wizard, or a favored soul or sorcerer who didn't spend precious spells known slots on divinations and can't pick up all the right spells to face the pit fiend he didn't know is coming, the warblade can still compete while the fighter is screwed.

It was your scenario with the warblade being able to contribute as long as the tier 1's bring him a long with the fighter not being able to contribute.

--------------------------------


Once again, I'm not saying the warblade is perfect, that it's Tier 1 or 2, or even that it's a definitive fighter fix. I'm saying that the fighter brings nothing useful to the table that the warblade doesn't and that the warblade does what a fighter fix should (give it a lot more options and not just more numbers), so any approach to fixing the core should scrap the fighter entirely and redesign it along the same lines as (and/or borrow material from) the warblade.

I'm saying that the warblades options aren't that good compared to a fighter with bigger numbers ie More feats, hit/damage skills, saves

[Razanir]

*All casting uses the power point mechanics from psionics.
*Races and classes both give ability bonuses (like 5e)
*No ability penalties for races or classes
*(Not quite about races or classes) You can use Int for AC if that's higher than your Dex.
*Use PF's system for HD. 1/2 BAB = d6, 3/4 BAB = d8, Full BAB = d10, Barbarian or dragon = d12 (for historical reasons)
*Different classes use different abilities for bonus HP. So a monk might use Wis instead of Con.
*No game-breaking spells.
*More flexible spells. Something like Elemental Burst instead of Fireball, Iceball, Thunderball. (I'm not very familiar with non-Core, so those two are hypothetical names)
*More flexible races. You don't need 37 flavors of elf if your one elf race is more variable.
*Legend's track system. Mix and match ability tracks to make new classes. This also makes multiclassing a more viable option.
*Give melee nice things, but NOT maneuvers. Just give them cooler abilities than MOAR FEATS!!!1!

[unbeliever536]

Oh, completely forgot that I wanted to change this. You should be able to take specialist levels after taking some generalist levels ( akin to the way students study general science knowledge for first 2-3 courses, and choose their specialization afterward).
Specialist shouldn't prohibit using items or spells from the "prohibited schools".
Instead, Generalist advances casting ~twice slower than Specialist in his specialty area, but Specialist advances only that specialty and 1-2 adjacent disciplines (those at the same speed as Generalist).
You should never be able to reach lvl 9 spells with only Generalist while staying non-Epic.

Another idea is to remove freedom of what spells to choose by giving spells prerequisites:
If you want to learn Fireball, you first have to know Burning Hands, etc.


I wouldn't want to limit spells like that, though. I'd rather just fix the spells. If you don't have auto-access to everything, and everything isn't ridiculous, the level system works fine for limiting spells. Otherwise you punish fixed-list casters without actually removing their ability to break the game.


Also, core mechanic to play "quasi-gestalt": when you have enough XP to advance a level, you can choose to add that level not as your next character level, but as a gestalt with one of your earlier class levels. This way if you had made some bad multiclass choice you can always "play it back" by turning it into gestalt.

I would put almost every level in a kind of "quasi gestalt" status. My proficiency idea is super vague right now, but it would come down to, essentially, leveling up a bunch (think 4-6) super narrow classes at once, with major class features comming from an overarching idea tying them together.

Overall, I'm thinking four subsystems right now, each with a group of proficiencies associated: Combat, Spells, Psionics, and Skills. Spells would be psuedo-Vancian along the lines of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281765) fix, and would include a ritual school for utility effects. Psionics would be similar to current psionics, but divorced from spell/power levels, with conversion/transparency baked into the system more directly. Combat and Skills both provide abilities that work all day long; combat deals with weapons and armor, skills with everything else. Skill proficiencies come in broad categories like 4e's skills, but those skills allow you to make multiple different kinds of checks using different key abilities, as appropriate to the check. Skill tricks would be baked in and would appear at certain proficiency levels.

Oh yeah, I might just dump feats entirely. They're a nice idea, but I feel like they don't belong in a class-based game with open multiclassing, at least as long as the classes are flexible enough.

[SinsI]

I wouldn't want to limit spells like that, though. I'd rather just fix the spells. If you don't have auto-access to everything, and everything isn't ridiculous, the level system works fine for limiting spells. Otherwise you punish fixed-list casters without actually removing their ability to break the game.
For casters with limited lists, the whole "spell known prerequisites" can actually work as "bonus spells" - if your Sorcerer learned Burning Hands, later he gets Fireball for free.

One of the problems with spells is that each new book adds to the caster power for wizards: grab a Contingency in one book, Ice Assassin in another, Locate City bomb in books 3,4,5,6,7,8, etc., - and your caster has infinite power. Requisites will be akin to "soft" spell school specialization - if you want spells of Divination level 4, you need 8 ranks in Knowledge: Divination... Spells in additional books will commonly require new feats printed in them as prerequisites - so while "versatility" in character creation increases, power level rises far slower than usually.

[Waker]

I'll admit that I didn't read through the rest of this thread, as there are already quite a few pages. Anyways, I've had these ideas for awhile and one day will maybe even get around to implementing the changes.

Magic needs a huge overhaul. It can simply do too much, giving you very little mechanical reasons to ever play a non-caster. I would definitely pair down the list a bit and make sure that it doesn't have an answer for absolutely every situation.
Furthermore I would try to change the classes casting mechanics enough so that there are greater differences between the two. I find it odd that a guy who studies books casts spells the same way as a guy who is a conduit for a divine entity and another who is inherently magical because of his bloodline and another... There should be much bigger differences not only in spell lists but also how they are cast. To that end I would change the classes as follows.
Wizard- All of their spells take a long time to cast, like multiple rounds at the shortest. However as they grow in strength they can pre-cast a number of spells that can be activated as a standard action.
Sorcerer- Use spell points and basically function like Psion/Wilder. They have a completely different spell list than Wizards.
Cleric- Use Invocations like Warlocks (but with better SLAs). This class is basically just acting as an outlet for the power and will of a deity, they can keep casting as long as their patron is alive and connected.
Druid- Use Vestiges like a Binder. Rather than just casting spells that are thematically different from a Cleric, they take on aspects on Nature itself.

And of course the mundanes need big hugs all around to make sure they aren't left out.

[SinsI]

Wizard- All of their spells take a long time to cast, like multiple rounds at the shortest. However as they grow in strength they can pre-cast a number of spells that can be activated as a standard action.
While you are at it, you can call those "multiple rounds" spells Rituals, and the "pre-cast a number of spells that can be activated as standard action" thingy can be called "spell memorisation". Oh, wait, it is already the official rule!

[Fax Celestis]

I'll admit that I didn't read through the rest of this thread, as there are already quite a few pages. Anyways, I've had these ideas for awhile and one day will maybe even get around to implementing the changes.

Magic needs a huge overhaul. It can simply do too much, giving you very little mechanical reasons to ever play a non-caster. I would definitely pair down the list a bit and make sure that it doesn't have an answer for absolutely every situation.
Furthermore I would try to change the classes casting mechanics enough so that there are greater differences between the two. I find it odd that a guy who studies books casts spells the same way as a guy who is a conduit for a divine entity and another who is inherently magical because of his bloodline and another... There should be much bigger differences not only in spell lists but also how they are cast. To that end I would change the classes as follows.
Wizard- All of their spells take a long time to cast, like multiple rounds at the shortest. However as they grow in strength they can pre-cast a number of spells that can be activated as a standard action.
Sorcerer- Use spell points and basically function like Psion/Wilder. They have a completely different spell list than Wizards.
Cleric- Use Invocations like Warlocks (but with better SLAs). This class is basically just acting as an outlet for the power and will of a deity, they can keep casting as long as their patron is alive and connected.
Druid- Use Vestiges like a Binder. Rather than just casting spells that are thematically different from a Cleric, they take on aspects on Nature itself.

And of course the mundanes need big hugs all around to make sure they aren't left out.

So, about that Druid… http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164574

[Waker]

So, about that Druid… http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164574

Fax, how is it that you always manage to create something near enough to what I want/have worked on and I always discover it much, much later? Are you some sort of doppelganger? Or are you me from an alternate time line?!

[Fax Celestis]

Fax, how is it that you always manage to create something near enough to what I want/have worked on and I always discover it much, much later? Are you some sort of doppelganger? Or are you me from an alternate time line?!

I am a time traveler.

I travel through time at the exciting rate of ONE SECOND PER SECOND.

EDIT: I tried your cleric idea too, but it didn't work out so well.

[unbeliever536]

For casters with limited lists, the whole "spell known prerequisites" can actually work as "bonus spells" - if your Sorcerer learned Burning Hands, later he gets Fireball for free.

One of the problems with spells is that each new book adds to the caster power for wizards: grab a Contingency in one book, Ice Assassin in another, Locate City bomb in books 3,4,5,6,7,8, etc., - and your caster has infinite power. Requisites will be akin to "soft" spell school specialization - if you want spells of Divination level 4, you need 8 ranks in Knowledge: Divination... Spells in additional books will commonly require new feats printed in them as prerequisites - so while "versatility" in character creation increases, power level rises far slower than usually.

Free specific spells instead of bonus spells is a very nice idea; I'll have to keep it in the back of my mind in the hypothetical event that I ever implement a massive system overhaul. As to the rest, while I am not an optimizer, my understanding is that there is always plenty for a Tier 1 (and even a Tier 2) in single books. Sure, the very best wizards pull from everywhere, but no wizard needs to in order to break the game.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Spoilering the "should a new core's fighter be like the warblade" discussion since it's getting to be a pretty long tangent:

Can it be called a style if it works on any attack? I would consider it merely enhancement of a chosen style.

I'd say yes, considering that the fighter's focusing all his resources on getting a lot of status effects on a thrown weapon attack, as opposed to focusing on long-range archery, PA-multiplier charging, etc. It's certainly a very effective style, as I said, and it's a lot broader than some fighting styles (like any used by the atrocious [Weapon Style] feats), but it's still a fighting style.

You could similarly consider each ToB discipline a "fighting style," since maneuvers require others in the same discipline as prerequisites, generally work well together, and follow the same general theme. The difference being, of course, that a mid-level maneuver is usually equivalent to the fourth or fifth fighter feat in a chain, and only a few feats like Boomerang Daze manage to be actually powerful enough for a mid-level ability without having a half-dozen prerequisites.


Well here is the question: Is getting 1 effect once per turn every other turn a replacement (Dazing Strike vs save or Daze every iterative attack)?

Not a replacement, no, but it's still a tool in his toolbox.


The doubling of attacks and Tripping is merely 3 feats but Manuevers can only replace one or the other at a time without also taking some of the feats.

Dancing/Raging Mongoose + any tripping-related strike.


Stagger and Knockback are not duplicated by maneuvers to my knowledge. (Unless you count throws)

Charging Minotaur does knockback as well.


How many styles does this fighter have?
Pick of an Aptitude weapon of the styles you wish and take the required feats for the styles with you remaining 4-5 feats. So a few similar styles. They all are "attack for several debuffing effects" but so is most of Warblade's styles.

That's the aptitude enchantment giving him all that versatility, though, not the fighter class, and "fix the fighter by giving him an item that drastically increases his power and options" isn't exactly a popular route. :smallwink:


It is a fair point that Fighter only fights. However I never contested that. I merely pointed out that Warblade, for all of its well deserved glory, can duplicate anything a Fighter can do but cannot duplicate everything a Fighter can do.

I realize, hence my saying "anything" and not "everything." But there are very very few things that a fighter can do with all his feats that a warblade can't, because so few feat combos are actually worth all that investment and because maneuvers can copy and improve on so much that the fighter can do.

That the fighter can do a few unique tricks doesn't justify keeping the fighter around as a class; the CW Samurai can be made into a terrifying god of Intimidate checks, but 90% of the material for that build comes from things that are not intrinsic to the class and the remaining 10% is not going to see common enough use (nor is it essential enough to the concept) to justify the waste of ink from printing the class.

Same with the fighter. That one status-effect heavy fighting style is not what most people build, and doesn't exemplify the knight in shining armor, mercenary, hero, or whatever other archetype people associate with the fighter, so it's not really necessary to have the fighter as the status effects guy and you could easily graft that onto another class. As for what people do build, looking at a list of the most common optimized fighter builds, the fighter isn't actually the best at any of them:
Lockdown is done best by the Crusader
Dungeon Crasher is only notable because fighters don't have good ways to deal lots of damage with a single attack and/or optimize bull rush, both of which martial adepts have.
For TWF, Tiger Claw says hi.
Three Mountains can be met or outdone with anyone with status effects.
Jack B. Quick can be done by a martial adept, who can use his maneuvers to be useful on his turn as well as off it.
For the Horizon Tripper, a Setting Sun/Shadow Hand swordsage says hi.

So there's nothing in there that really screams "fighter," and no reason a redesigned core has to have a "fighter" class to support any of them



The scenario was one with high level casters, spell levels 7+ with eiher a fighter or a warblade. If hitting touch ACs is an issue the fighter has the option of grabbing hammer and piton style

Yes, and the warblade can handle both that scenario and the low-level scenario, without having to invest a ton of build resources on a very niche feat to do so.


And I'm asking what the warblade can do offensively, that is comparative to a fighter using Boomerang Daze

As I've repeatedly stated, Boomerang Daze is not a fighter class feature, it is a feat that any martial character can take--and if the warblade loses his boomerang or finds himself in a situation where it's not a workable tactic, an hour will let him swap out the EWP (Boomerang) for something else.


1 You are off, on the feat count, a human fighter with 2 flaws would have 10 feats, 3 for levels, 4 from fighter, 1 human and 2 from flaws. Granted I miss counted the required feats and it took 1 more than I thought it did.

I said that 9 feats requires level 6, not that level 6 gives you only 9 feats.


2 Your assuming the feats don't bring anything to the table besides the 1 style, with 1 being power attack, and being strength focused, 2-handed is on the table.

Given just PA and no multipliers or mitigators like Leap Attack or Shock Trooper, the warblade can likely do the same or more damage with strikes.


3 One of the suggested fixes included a feat every level, this would give the fighter a bit more versatility, with its higher skill points, and pathfinder enhancements.

So the fighter gets 20 feat-equivalents from his class, yay. Meanwhile, the warblade gets 21 feat-equivalents most of which are on par with the last feat in a chain rather than a subpar intro feat, plus some other meaningful class features, so he's still ahead by leaps and bounds.

If feats were comparable to maneuvers in power and scope--which is certainly doable in a redesign of core, except that no one really does that with feats--"moar bonus feats!" might be a good solution, but without that it's really not.


Tier 1 casters being overpowered is nothing new.

And yet that doesn't change the fact that it's the fighter getting obsoleted and not the warblade.


Flat footed say what?

Stance of Alacrity says hi, and specific-overrides-general says hi for many groups--and again, even when it doesn't, the warblade has the same good and poor saves that a fighter has and similar ability scores.


Then add in +5 from the pathfinder enhancements, and any other feats that add to that fighting style. The Weapon focus/spec line is 6 feats, boomerang daze takes 2, add in rapidshot, precise shot, brutal throw, and others.

All of which the warblade can still do. Many maneuvers give +4 to hit, and there are maneuvers to multiattack, throw melee weapons, and more.


Again, with the cleric giving +14 to every body's saves the fighter would have a save of 33 and not have to worry about being flat footed, or having to make 2 saves in a round, which means relying on things like Mind Over Body would actually be a liability.

Again, if your cleric is giving out +14 save bonuses, the warblade has the same saves as the fighter and can also pull out the save-replacers in a pinch; in a more realistic scenario when the cleric is just giving out +5 or +6 because most save buffs are single target and/or have a short duration, the warblade is definitely ahead.


Why does the fighter need those buffs, but not the warblade? Is the warblade relying on 1/round abilities and leaving himself open to the pit fiend having equipment like a belt of battle or a buddy or something?

Note the phrasing: the fighter needs those buffs. A warblade would certainly benefit quite a bit from having them, but if the party doesn't have time to put all their buffs up, the fighter is highly vulnerable to being disabled where the warblade has panic buttons to avoid that.


With out any buffs, the fighter can hit and force a DC 28+ save or stun,

With out any buffs, the warblade can hit and force a no-save stun, with an extra 6d6 damage for kicks.


It was your scenario with the warblade being able to contribute as long as the tier 1's bring him a long with the fighter not being able to contribute.

As I pointed out, a non-buffing-focused cleric, a control-focused wizard, and a wild shape-focused druid are all T1. In a party with those casters, a fighter won't get the buffs he needs to contribute while the warblade can still contribute with his own capabilities.


I'm saying that the warblades options aren't that good compared to a fighter with bigger numbers ie More feats, hit/damage skills, saves

And I've been pointing out that high-level D&D isn't about numbers, it's about options. +100 to attack doesn't matter if you can't reach your target, +20 feats don't matter if you already took all the ones that don't suck.

While you are at it, you can call those "multiple rounds" spells Rituals, and the "pre-cast a number of spells that can be activated as standard action" thingy can be called "spell memorisation". Oh, wait, it is already the official rule!

Thank you. I can't count the number of times people have complained that it doesn't make any fluff sense that casting times for powerful spells are so short (despite the fact that they've already cast 90% of the spell during spell prep), or that spells don't all require a roll to control them (despite the fact that the actual spellcasting happens in calm surroundings in the morning), and so forth. Hate on Vancian casting all you want, just get the thing you're complaining about right before you do it!

--------------------

And now, to give some more actual suggestions instead of arguing about stuff:

1) Give more mechanical structure to roleplaying and exploration. Bring back the 15-minute exploration turn, exploration actions, long term endurance, etc. so exploration and survival missions have some heft to them and are more interesting to play through than just making a bunch of Con and Survival checks. Introduce a 1-minute "scene" for roleplaying actions to go with turns and rounds, and add more interesting rules for gaining allies, persuading people of things, attacking someone's reputation, and so forth. Also have rules for reaction rolls, quickly persuading people not to attack, etc. so that roleplaying has a chance to happen at all in dangerous circumstances.

AD&D was much more exploration-focused than later editions (and more exploration-focused than it was combat-focused in many ways), and it similarly placed an important emphasis on leadership and world interaction. Making face characters and survivalist not only well-supported archetypes but archetypes that don't have to sit out when their specialty isn't happening should be a priority for any system fix.

2) Make the available eras of play more modular. D&D is often viewed as "Medieval Europe plus magic!" but it's actually a weird fusion of Iron Age morals and views on heroism, Renaissance technology and philosophy, Medieval aesthetics and trappings, with weapons, classes, and other bits and pieces from each era.

I think a lot of the concerns about "Why is my unarmored swashbuckler terrible compared to a plate-armored knight?" and "How do adventurers fit into the world?" and such could be solved by having explicit era divisions with different city generation tables, available weapons and armor, and so forth, to make it easier to play pirate campaigns, generate more primitive settings, etc.

3) Unified rules for damaging things by chucking them around. There are tons of ways for people to be smashed into things (bull rush, falling, throwing boulders, telekinesis, explosions, etc.), and you'd be hard-pressed to find two of them that share the same mechanics. Not only would unified mechanics for that make those abilities more comparable, it allows for easier adjudication of things like chandelier-swinging attacks, rolling boulder traps, and so forth, making for more dynamic combat without requiring explicit "you can push and damage people" abilities.

[Razanir]

My opinion on the Warblade discussion:

No, fighters shouldn't be initiators. Of course, still give them more abilities- PF was a step in the right direction- but those abilities shouldn't be maneuvers. I'll relate it to 4e. Part of my problem with it, which I know many people agree with, is that there was no real mechanical difference between any classes abilities. Sure, different classes got vastly different abilities, but when you get the same type at the same time, and the game mechanics for using them are the same, it's really all the same. So my fear in trying to make mundane more useful with maneuvers is that we reach that. Everyone has their "+20 to one attack" ability. Everyone has their "Do better in social situations" ability. Part of why I might play a mundane is to take a break from spell management.

So how would I fix it? Threefold. First off, archery shouldn't have such a prohibitive feat tax. Second, mundane really should have nice things. Some classes, like the rogue or barbarian, are fine as is. But there's so much that could have been done with the fighter. In their goal to make it a mundane everyman, they over-generalized the fighter. Instead, they should have focused on making a military commander, perhaps. Borrow from the marshal. And finally, mundane can't be viable as long as magic is so overpowered. So tone it down greatly. Wizards really don't need a spell for every occasion.

[OldTrees1]

Spoilering the "should a new core's fighter be like the warblade" discussion since it's getting to be a pretty long tangent:





I'd say yes it's still a fighting style.

Accepted then.



You could similarly consider each ToB discipline a "fighting style," since maneuvers require others in the same discipline as prerequisites, generally work well together, and follow the same general theme. The difference being, of course, that a mid-level maneuver is usually equivalent to the fourth or fifth fighter feat in a chain, and only a few feats like Boomerang Daze manage to be actually powerful enough for a mid-level ability without having a half-dozen prerequisites.

Sidenote: Daze was not from Boomerang Daze. I used the melee version just in case Aptitude was (reasonably) struck down

Since the vast majority of maneuvers are related to one effect or another in the above melee status build, and since you counted status effects as a single combat style, I don't think you get to count each Discipline as a fighting style.



Not a replacement, no, but it's still a tool in his toolbox.

Ok so since a Strike maneuver(usable on 1 attack every other turn) is not a replacement for a passive/triggered feat, Dazing Strike, tripping manuevers and Charging Minotaur do not count as replacements. (though they do still count as tools in the toolbox)

Honestly Mongoose(usable every other turn at most, cannot be modified by strikes) almost is demoted to "tool".



That's the aptitude enchantment giving him all that versatility, though, not the fighter class, and "fix the fighter by giving him an item that drastically increases his power and options" isn't exactly a popular route. :smallwink:

Fair enough.



I realize, hence my saying "anything" and not "everything." But there are very very few things that a fighter can do with all his feats that a warblade can't, because so few feat combos are actually worth all that investment and because maneuvers can copy and improve on so much that the fighter can do.

I initially replied to you since you were (intentionally or unintentionally ) dismissing all the viable feat chains by saying a warblade could pick them up. While you kept saying "anything" you were wielding your argument as if claiming "everything".



That the fighter can do a few unique tricks doesn't justify keeping the fighter around as a class

Those redeeming tricks don't deserve to be replaced by Strikes since we both agreed that Strikes did not count as replacements (only as tools in the toolbox) due to the inherent limitation on rate and frequency. Perhaps the difference in fighting style between "Daze per attack" and "Dazing Strike" should be represented with different classes?



Same with the fighter. That one status-effect heavy fighting style is not what most people build, and doesn't exemplify the knight in shining armor, mercenary, hero, or whatever other archetype people associate with the fighter, so it's not really necessary to have the fighter as the status effects guy and you could easily graft that onto another class. As for what people do build, looking at a list of the most common optimized fighter builds, the fighter isn't actually the best at any of them:
Lockdown is done best by the Crusader
Dungeon Crasher is only notable because fighters don't have good ways to deal lots of damage with a single attack and/or optimize bull rush, both of which martial adepts have.
For TWF, Tiger Claw says hi.
Three Mountains can be met or outdone with anyone with status effects.
Jack B. Quick can be done by a martial adept, who can use his maneuvers to be useful on his turn as well as off it.
For the Horizon Tripper, a Setting Sun/Shadow Hand swordsage says hi.

So there's nothing in there that really screams "fighter," and no reason a redesigned core has to have a "fighter" class to support any of them

Sidenote: We were just discussing the high level version of the Three Mountain build (although at mid levels Three Mountain is replaced by Daze and Stagger) [/sidenote]

Honestly I can see a point to having a class that can do more than 1 interesting attack on their turn and can repeat the same ability on consecutive turns. Warblade gets 1 interesting attack per turn + dancing mongoose for some less/not interesting attacks and cannot repeat without taking a turn off.

Do you see the two points I am driving at?
1) A Fighter's tricks should not be dismissed merely because Warblade can duplicate fewer of them.
2) Fighters fighting is mechanically different from maneuvers and this diversity is worth keeping unless you want to repeat WotC's mistake.

So I would recommend we buff the fighter class (with a rename if necessary) without making it use Strikes and let players choose between Strikes(Warblade) and non-Strike(fighter) combat.

[Meowmasterish]

I, myself, wouldn't remove the monk. Instead, I would instead design a Ki system to make it a little better at fighting. It would be like psionics, a power point based system, but instead of the powers being based off of the mind, they would be focused around buffing the user and dealing massive amounts of damage to the enemy. (Think Dragonball Z.) Instead of wisdom being the predominate stat, constitution would be, closely followed by strength.

[kirerellim]

Fix the monk.

No seriously. FIX THE MONK.

lol I love the idea of the monk. But playing it effectively is such a pain vs the other classes.

[Fax Celestis]

Fix the monk.

No seriously. FIX THE MONK.

lol I love the idea of the monk. But playing it effectively is such a pain vs the other classes.

...about that... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98238)

[Phelix-Mu]

There are about a million fixes for monk, and about a million threads discussing them.

Three step tweak to make them a little less suck:

1.) Full BAB: You hit things. NOW HIT THEM.

2.) Wisdom to attack and/or damage. There are a number of ways to gauge this; my usual is Wisdom mod replaces Strength mod to attack and damage.

3.) Brains Over Brawn for Wisdom: Monks add their Wisdom mod to all Str and Dex-based skills and checks. Not aggressive enough? Add it to all combat stuff too (grapple checks and so forth), and add a scaling bonus to the skill checks in addition to the Wisdom modifier (usually equal to monk level or 1/2 monk level).

4.) Swift Movement: Each round, a monk may move up to half their speed as a Swift action. This adds some huge tactical movement capability, and elevates FoB from the scrapheap to plausible tactic.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My opinion on the Warblade discussion:

No, fighters shouldn't be initiators. Of course, still give them more abilities- PF was a step in the right direction- but those abilities shouldn't be maneuvers. I'll relate it to 4e.
[...]
Part of why I might play a mundane is to take a break from spell management.

I'm not sure why "give fighter maneuvers" implies "make it same-y like 4e," given that 3e is the poster child for games with tons of different subsystems and that ToB was the exact opposite of "give fighters more numbers."

The fighter doesn't need "maneuvers" at all. It could have a stamina system, stances, swappable fighting styles, a monk-esque combo system, a skill-based system a la Truenaming, power selection based on positioning, or any other suitable resource mechanic, as long as the actual abilities it gets are those it needs to survive and contribute against level-appropriate challenges.

Continuing the digression:
Since the vast majority of maneuvers are related to one effect or another in the above melee status build, and since you counted status effects as a single combat style, I don't think you get to count each Discipline as a fighting style.

I wasn't counting "status effects" as a fighting style, I was counting "load up a ton of status effects on every attack and spam it" as a fighting style, which would be different from an assassin-like "go for one-hit KOs with tons of sneak attack and paralytic/Con poison" style or a Bloodstorm Blade-style "pick up one or two status effects and apply them to every single enemy in throwing range" style.

As an example of what I mean, take Batman. Batman has two distinctive styles of "beat people up from the shadows" and "pull out a bat-gadget to solve the problem." Even though those are both very broad styles, you can still predict what two major strategies Batman will use to defeat his enemies in his movies or comics, and he doesn't do well in situations where his enemies can render one or both of them useless (e.g. fighting him in daytime without his gear). Same thing with a fighter who just focuses on status effects: in any given fight, he's going to have the same modus operandi of attacking people and then sitting back while they roll a dozen saves, and if he only has one real shtick then it gets repetitive and it can be fairly easily countered.

To bring things back to the overarching point, it's great that the fighter can be very effective in that one area, but it's like building an Ubercharger who can one-shot anything as long as he can charge but sucks in every other area or a Mailman who gives up all his utility and buffs to be able to kill things with fireballs: having only one schtick that beats everything gets boring and doesn't work as well in actual play where your shtick will only come up part of the time. It's much better for the fighter to have easy access to several different fighting styles than to be forced into finding one super-style and sinking all his resources into that, even if those multiple styles aren't as effective as the one.


I initially replied to you since you were (intentionally or unintentionally ) dismissing all the viable feat chains by saying a warblade could pick them up. While you kept saying "anything" you were wielding your argument as if claiming "everything".

Because "all the viable feat chains" basically boils down to "short chains that the warblade can indeed pick up" and "long chains that only the fighter can use but that turn him into a one-trick pony." See my last point as to why being able to sink all of the fighter's resources into one trick isn't necessarily a good argument in favor of the fighter.


Do you see the two points I am driving at?
1) A Fighter's tricks should not be dismissed merely because Warblade can duplicate fewer of them.
2) Fighters fighting is mechanically different from maneuvers and this diversity is worth keeping unless you want to repeat WotC's mistake.

As I've said several times, I haven't been claiming that just replacing the fighter with the warblade and calling it a day is the best answer, I've been claiming that designing a fighter to do the same things that the warblade does (give it options, enable multiple styles without too much investment, etc.) is the right approach and all the arguments that the fighter approach works in 3e can be countered by the fact that no, it doesn't, the warblade does it better.

A fighter's tricks should not be dismissed; the fighter class should. If we did go with a maneuver system for Core 2.0, those fancy tricks could be changed from 14-feat chains to 3-4 maneuvers for the martial types. If we wanted to stick with non-maneuver combat, those fancy tricks could be given out as barbarian or knight class features, ranger or hexblade spells, etc. None of those tricks require a fighter class, feel particularly iconic for the fighter, or otherwise benefit from having a generic fighter class around at all.


Having the wizard and cleric as generic spellcasters works because (A) the vast majority of possible selections of wizard or cleric spells is practically guaranteed to work and work well--as was said a few years ago about the crusader's recovery mechanic, "a random selection from a pile of awesome is still awesome"--and if that particular selection doesn't work you can sit down and pray or go out and buy scrolls and ta-da, you have a working set of spells known and (B) the "generic" spellcasters still have strong thematic, mythological, and pop-cultural traction. It works mechanically, and it works flavor-wise...and even then, people would prefer splitting them up because there's too much stuff concentrated in those two classes, diluting the flavor and edging out other possible caster class concepts.

The same approach doesn't work for the fighter because the current set of feats is not a pile of awesome, and if the martial classes were updated to having Nice Things you either make the fighter the generic guy with access to all the other classes' stuff and no identity of his own (in which case he's mechanically effective but still flavorless and without traction) or the generic guy that could be built to have any given styles and has certain class features to support those styles (in which case the specific classes are going to outdo him at their own schticks and there's no real reason to have him).


Think of it this way: what classes are Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, and Gandalf in the popular consciousness? Wizards. Technically you can best model the first two as sorcerers and the second two as druids, but the flavor of "people who gain power by studying dusty tomes of all different sorts of magic and have lots of tricks at their disposal" points to Wizard, and if you give people a generic Wizard class with that bare minimum of flavor and access to an eclectic mix of magic, people have a good idea of what they want to build.

Now, what classes are King Arthur, Aragorn, Cu Chulainn, and Joan of Arc? Knight, ranger, barbarian, and paladin. "Fighter" isn't anyone's first choice because there's no fighter archetype in myths and pop culture to support a generic fighter, and all the other martial and martial-hybrid classes take away from the fighter's thematic space. If we were starting over with just the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue (which is a possible option but not a popular one for everyone who likes the alternate classes), it could work because there is only the fighter to build all of those concepts, but if those other classes exist then the fighter needs to either get its own defining concept (and thus by definition stop being the bland, generic "fighter" class) or go away.

[unbeliever536]

"Giving fighters manuvers" isn't necessarily "making it same-y like 4e", but it would be nice if there was a class with always-on (or at least impossible to expend) powers, and fighter seems like a good way to fill that role. to bridge the gap between Vancian and inexhaustible (not sure how to say this...) characters, you could have something like the above-mentioned recharging psionics.

In short: my problem with manuvers is not that they feel like 4e, it's that sometimes I want to play a character whose primary mechanic isn't "I expend one of my once-per-day/encounter preselected abilities."

e: That's not to say I think manuvers are bad or anything, I just don't always want to play "character with limited daily/encounterly resources".

[Snowbluff]

Fix the monk.

No seriously. FIX THE MONK.

lol I love the idea of the monk. But playing it effectively is such a pain vs the other classes.

Monk is more useful for not being the monk. Remove it.

It has been fixed through quite a few classes. Binder. Tashalatora. Swordsage. A bunch of other builds.

I dislike the concept in core. Weapons give you reach and mechanical advantage over punching things.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

"Giving fighters manuvers" isn't necessarily "making it same-y like 4e", but it would be nice if there was a class with always-on (or at least impossible to expend) powers, and fighter seems like a good way to fill that role.

Or monks (barring a few SLAs which could be gone in a rewrite), or barbarians (if rage were made unlimited-use, again possible in a rewrite), or rogues, or.... Heck, even incarnum and binders have at-will or every-few-round powers rather than expendables.

Again, "give martial classes Nice Things" does not mean "give martial classes per-encounter or otherwise expendable powers." It's entirely possible to write Nice Things in such a way that you never run out of them.

[OldTrees1]

Wrapping up the digression:
I still think you are dismissing the Fighter's ability to take more short feat chains in a single build than the Warblade can pick up/mimic in a single build.

However that is less important. Upon reading your expanded position, I find myself agreeing with you that the generically themed Fighter class should be replaced with better and more versions of the flavorful fighter classes (Barbarian, Ranger, Knight, ...).

Honestly I think some of the abilities should still remain in feat form (properly rebalanced rather than remaining underpowered/expensive) so that more classes can use them. However class features that grant the feats and expand on them would be an interesting design.

I apologize for assuming you wanted to do away with non-maneuver combat. That was unfair and created a strawman that has persisted a couple of posts.

[Knaight]

Again, "give martial classes Nice Things" does not mean "give martial classes per-encounter or otherwise expendable powers." It's entirely possible to write Nice Things in such a way that you never run out of them.

Maneuvers fit within this category, seeing as they refresh really easily. I don't consider the Warblade a fighter fix by any stretch of the imagination (mostly because the fighter should be able to fight at range and the Warblade's ranged capability is pathetic), but the maneuver system fits within this.

[ryu]

Maneuvers fit within this category, seeing as they refresh really easily. I don't consider the Warblade a fighter fix by any stretch of the imagination (mostly because the fighter should be able to fight at range and the Warblade's ranged capability is pathetic), but the maneuver system fits within this.

Significantly less pathetic than the fighter's ranged capability though. There's an entire pile of maneuvers that while not explicitly designed for ranged still work for it.

[OldTrees1]

Maneuvers fit within this category, seeing as they refresh really easily. I don't consider the Warblade a fighter fix by any stretch of the imagination (mostly because the fighter should be able to fight at range and the Warblade's ranged capability is pathetic), but the maneuver system fits within this.

While maneuvers are well designed and should be in a redesigned core, maneuvers are expendable abilities and there should be viable martial classes that are not reliant on expendable abilities like maneuvers.

[Knaight]

Significantly less pathetic than the fighter's ranged capability though. There's an entire pile of maneuvers that while not explicitly designed for ranged still work for it.

There's a handful of boosts, plus a few of the action granting maneuvers, and at least Fighter's are actually proficient with ranged weapons. I will grant that archers are pretty hosed system wide, outside of areas where they get to shoot at somebody from the time they enter the edge of their range to the time they get up close (and even then, it's often less than ideal).

[ryu]

There's a handful of boosts, plus a few of the action granting maneuvers, and at least Fighter's are actually proficient with ranged weapons. I will grant that archers are pretty hosed system wide, outside of areas where they get to shoot at somebody from the time they enter the edge of their range to the time they get up close (and even then, it's often less than ideal).

One the warblade can become proficient with some of the better ranged weapons around plus all the other exotic weapons with a single feat thanks to class features. Two Those things you agreed were assets are much better than the swill the fighter gets. Three this amounts to a warblade being a more effective archer than a fighter as a side project while also being several orders of magnitude better at close ranged engagements.

[unbeliever536]

Or monks (barring a few SLAs which could be gone in a rewrite), or barbarians (if rage were made unlimited-use, again possible in a rewrite), or rogues, or.... Heck, even incarnum and binders have at-will or every-few-round powers rather than expendables.

Again, "give martial classes Nice Things" does not mean "give martial classes per-encounter or otherwise expendable powers." It's entirely possible to write Nice Things in such a way that you never run out of them.

And I absolutely agree with you. I just don't feel that maneuvers fulfil that objective (contra Knaight above), and I'm leery of any statement that the Warblade or other initiator should replace the fighter in core for that reason. Initiators are great, but they don't adequately fill the role of classes with interesting at-will mundane abilities. The lack of this type of class is one of the big things I would like to see rectified in a revised core.

[Waker]

Thank you. I can't count the number of times people have complained that it doesn't make any fluff sense that casting times for powerful spells are so short (despite the fact that they've already cast 90% of the spell during spell prep), or that spells don't all require a roll to control them (despite the fact that the actual spellcasting happens in calm surroundings in the morning), and so forth. Hate on Vancian casting all you want, just get the thing you're complaining about right before you do it!
I am complaining about the variable time taken for casting times on spells and I do know what I'm talking about. Yes, you can say that most of the time taken to cast spells is actually taking place during the spell preparation phase, but even then the spells aren't necessarily equivalent. Wish can literally alter the universe, but takes a standard action to cast, while Clairaudience/Clairvoyance takes 10 minutes to cast. So there is already a lack of parity between effect and effort, at least so far as time invested is concerned. And yes, of course I am aware of the level differences between the spells I mentioned earlier, I just did so for the sake of brevity and those were two spells I could remember offhand that had very disproportionate casting times.
Furthermore the time required to prepare spells is also lacking in consistency. Whether you are preparing one spell or two dozen, the amount of time spent is an hour.
What I am suggesting is that a Wizard can in essence "prepare" a spell in advance and then trigger it later with a standard action similar to what they can do already. The biggest difference is that a wizard can in effect spontaneously cast any spell without prior preparation, but this requires a longer casting time compared to what is currently in use. My suggestion is also used by different authors in their fantasy series, such as the Slow Magic employed in Michael Gehraghty's Mage War series and also the High Magic in Mallory/Lackey's Obsidian Trilogy.


EDIT: I tried your cleric idea too, but it didn't work out so well.
One day I'll get around to it. The biggest issue is the time spent to come up with Invocations that are versatile without being too strong on account of infinite usage.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

One last reply:
Upon reading your expanded position, I find myself agreeing with you that the generically themed Fighter class should be replaced with better and more versions of the flavorful fighter classes (Barbarian, Ranger, Knight, ...).

Excellent, I have achieved my objective. :smallcool:


Honestly I think some of the abilities should still remain in feat form (properly rebalanced rather than remaining underpowered/expensive) so that more classes can use them. However class features that grant the feats and expand on them would be an interesting design.

I'd actually fold most of the basic stuff--Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and other "this is the first feat everyone takes to do X style"--into the combat system to avoid the There's A Feat For That pitfalls of basic 3e; they could be limited by BAB or something else that ensures only martial classes can really take advantage of them, but 3e is already "unrealistic" in the wrong direction (many things that are easy or at least achievable in real life are impossible or require long feat chains in 3e) and I'd rather err on the side of more freebies for fighter types where possible.


I apologize for assuming you wanted to do away with non-maneuver combat. That was unfair and created a strawman that has persisted a couple of posts.

No offense taken; there are enough people who do want to go that route that it's not surprising you got that impression.


Yes, you can say that most of the time taken to cast spells is actually taking place during the spell preparation phase, but even then the spells aren't necessarily equivalent. Wish can literally alter the universe, but takes a standard action to cast, while Clairaudience/Clairvoyance takes 10 minutes to cast. So there is already a lack of parity between effect and effort, at least so far as time invested is concerned.
[...]
Furthermore the time required to prepare spells is also lacking in consistency. Whether you are preparing one spell or two dozen, the amount of time spent is an hour.

Both of these can be fixed by bringing back AD&D casting times. (I really need to get myself a "This worked fine in AD&D" image I can copy-paste everywhere. :smallwink:)

Back in the day, spells took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare, per spell; a 20th-level caster could require one or two solid days of nothing but spell prep if they were so unwise as to use up all their spells at once. So a wish spell actually had a "casting time" of 90 minutes + 1 round, compared to clairaudience/clairvoyance's 40 minutes or an average 3rd level spell's 30 minutes + 1 round. It was reduced to just an hour period in 3e because, hey, they were already removing all the limitations on casters, why not screw around with prep times as well, right?

The spontaneous-casting-from-spellbook idea was also implemented, sort of. Wizards could cast spells right out of their spellbooks, but it was treated like casting from a scroll so it would remove the spell from the book and, this being AD&D, had a good chance of wiping out a few more spells or even the whole book. Casting spells right from the book without filling a slot was a common houserule in my experience to help out low-level and/or utility-focused magic-users; it wasn't overpowered at all given all the other restrictions on AD&D casting and probably wouldn't be in 3e either if some of those restrictions were brought back.

[Gnorman]

My suggestion for fixing the monk: graft on Psychic Warrior manifesting.

[SinsI]

Both of these can be fixed by bringing back AD&D casting times. (I really need to get myself a "This worked fine in AD&D" image I can copy-paste everywhere. :smallwink:)

Back in the day, spells took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare, per spell; a 20th-level caster could require one or two solid days of nothing but spell prep if they were so unwise as to use up all their spells at once.

It can be explained if you assume that pre-casting spells have a lot of components that can be re-used, especially if you do it with multiple copies of the same spell. If 39 minutes out of 40 minutes casting time is due to drawing a huge magical circle that you can use for all the copies, total preparation time for all of them won't be that different from preparation time for one of them.

[Drachasor]

I'd probably rewrite most of the classes. I'd aim for Tier 3 stuff. I'd get rid of Save or Die and Rocket Tag effects. I'd get rid of Absolute Immunities. Etc, etc.

Actually, when I sat down to do all this I decided it would just be easier to make my own system. Funny that.

[Wargamer]

I would nerf magic and make mundane classes less reliant on gear. Fighters should be awesome and dangerous regardless of their equipment, not just when they have a +5 Vorpal Greatsword.

[Lans]

:
[spoiler]



Yes, and the warblade can handle both that scenario and the low-level scenario, without having to invest a ton of build resources on a very niche feat to do so. I'm sure The low level fighter is doing fine.




As I've repeatedly stated, Boomerang Daze is not a fighter class feature, it is a feat that any martial character can take--and if the warblade loses his boomerang or finds himself in a situation where it's not a workable tactic, an hour will let him swap out the EWP (Boomerang) for something else.


Again I want to know what the warblade is doing that is more effective than a fighter that sunk less than 1/2 of his feats into


I said that 9 feats requires level 6, not that level 6 gives you only 9 feats.

You also said assuming a human with 2 flaws.


Given just PA and no multipliers or mitigators like Leap Attack or Shock Trooper, the warblade can likely do the same or more damage with strikes.

If we add in the feat a level then he would have enough for shock trooper, and I know some peoples idea for a fighter fix adds more than that. This is assuming that all the feats can be got by level 6, which if not the case would parse the build out more.


So the fighter gets 20 feat-equivalents from his class, yay. Meanwhile, the warblade gets 21 feat-equivalents most of which are on par with the last feat in a chain rather than a subpar intro feat, plus some other meaningful class features, so he's still ahead by leaps and bounds.

The fighter is also getting a bonus go hit and damage, an AC boost, more skills, and other options are on the table including better base saves and fighting styles.


If feats were comparable to maneuvers in power and scope--which is certainly doable in a redesign of core, except that no one really does that with feats--"moar bonus feats!" might be a good solution, but without that it's really not.

I for one have an idea for feat redesighn, and there are frank and k's tome feats to look at.


And yet that doesn't change the fact that it's the fighter getting obsoleted and not the warblade. Is the caster shutting down enemies with a swift action no save like the fighter can? Or getting access to the fighter ACFs like dungeoncrasher or twice dex to damage?




Stance of Alacrity says hi, and specific-overrides-general says hi for many groups--and again, even when it doesn't, the warblade has the same good and poor saves that a fighter has and similar ability scores.
Luckily nobody is saying we have to use the base fighter with low saves. There is also a fighter ACF that adds 1/2 your base attack to your will saves for a round. Specific trumping general is questionable at best as there is no wording on it being able to be used when flat footed like there is with nerve skitter iirc



All of which the warblade can still do. Many maneuvers give +4 to hit, and there are maneuvers to multiattack, throw melee weapons, and more.


As well as a fighter?



Again, if your cleric is giving out +14 save bonuses, the warblade has the same saves as the fighter and can also pull out the save-replacers in a pinch; in a more realistic scenario when the cleric is just giving out +5 or +6 because most save buffs are single target and/or have a short duration, the warblade is definitely ahead. Except that your warblade seemed to have wanted to forgo them because he thought a once every other round ability was good enough, so those manuevers seem to be trap options to some players.




Note the phrasing: the fighter needs those buffs. A warblade would certainly benefit quite a bit from having them, but if the party doesn't have time to put all their buffs up, the fighter is highly vulnerable to being disabled where the warblade has panic buttons to avoid that.

Again you haven't shown that he needs them.


With out any buffs, the warblade can hit and force a no-save stun, with an extra 6d6 damage for kicks. If he can hit it as that is a melee attack and your attack bonus is likely lower than the fighters.




As I pointed out, a non-buffing-focused cleric, a control-focused wizard, and a wild shape-focused druid are all T1. In a party with those casters, a fighter won't get the buffs he needs to contribute while the warblade can still contribute with his own capabilities.


Those are still tier 1 casters who can still pull buffs off even when not focused and you haven't shown that the fighter can't contribute with his own abilities



And I've been pointing out that high-level D&D isn't about numbers, it's about options. +100 to attack doesn't matter if you can't reach your target, +20 feats don't matter if you already took all the ones that don't suck.
And I'm sure the fighter who is throwing boomerangs is just as capable of getting to the enemy as the warblade, and that we can add a few pages of good feats in a PHB redesign. Actually I'm pretty sure that would be easier than adding 50 pages of initiator stuff.



However that is less important. Upon reading your expanded position, I find myself agreeing with you that the generically themed Fighter class should be replaced with better and more versions of the flavorful fighter classes (Barbarian, Ranger, Knight, ...).
]

My stance is that at the very least swashbucklers, knights, marshals, and others can be fighter variants or ACFs

[OldTrees1]

My stance is that at the very least swashbucklers, knights, marshals, and others can be fighter variants or ACFs

Obviously there would be several classes each with several ACFs. Why are you in favor of slightly fewer classes and slightly more ACFs?

[Lans]

Obviously there would be several classes each with several ACFs. Why are you in favor of slightly fewer classes and slightly more ACFs?

I think those classes are similar enough to play on the same base.

[OldTrees1]

I think those classes are similar enough to play on the same base.

Similar enough as WotC designed them or similar enough in theory?

If those were all collapsed into one class, then what would the other martial classes be (I assume there would be several martial classes)?

[Lans]

Similar enough as WotC designed them or similar enough in theory?

If those were all collapsed into one class, then what would the other martial classes be (I assume there would be several martial classes)?

Maybe barbarian? Warblade is an option as well, I would like the class to be as broad as possible, so you can be a knight/archer/marshal or just a weapons master. It seems like as envisioned by wizard you could just add one or two of those to the fighter class in exchange for a few fits

[OldTrees1]

Maybe barbarian? Warblade is an option as well, I would like the class to be as broad as possible, so you can be a knight/archer/marshal or just a weapons master. It seems like as envisioned by wizard you could just add one or two of those to the fighter class in exchange for a few fits

I think there is a disconnect when you have a extremely packed class and a lightly packed class. One class is used to mimic Knight/Swashbuckler/Archer/Gladiator/Marshal/WeaponMaster and the other is merely Barbarian? The unevenness does not feel right. Now I can see having either heavily packed classes or lightly packed classes.

[NotScaryBats]

Its always been weird to me that a wizard can be an enchanter, abjurer, necromancer, illusionist...

and then a fighter and barbarian and rogue are so different they need different classes?

[Socksy]

Give the Maenad the half-orc's bonuses and penalties, take away their bonus PP, and change their energy ray to a sonic-based Burning Hands 3/day, still using the scream of rage, CL = half HD. Give them Kiai Shout at 5HD and Greater Kiai Shout at 15HD if they qualify. Give them the Pathfinder ability allowing them to be barbarians regardless of alignment. Change their favoured class to Barbarian.

Replace the half-orc's bonuses and penalties with +2 STR, -2 INT, -2 WIS. Give them 2 bonus power points per day (and add a Psionic Orc variant with more). Give them weapon proficiency: ray. Change their favoured class to Wilder(raised in human society) or Warlock(raised in orc society).

Also, more Knowledge skills. Undead, Myths and Legends, Urban (gang signs, youth culture, etc), Culture (any given race), etc.

[Lans]

Its always been weird to me that a wizard can be an enchanter, abjurer, necromancer, illusionist...

and then a fighter and barbarian and rogue are so different they need different classes?

In most fictions yes, but one could argue for a convergent class so a rogue and fighter are the same class who took different starting options and at 20th they would look a lot more similar.


I think there is a disconnect when you have a extremely packed class and a lightly packed class. One class is used to mimic Knight/Swashbuckler/Archer/Gladiator/Marshal/WeaponMaster and the other is merely Barbarian? The unevenness does not feel right. Now I can see having either heavily packed classes or lightly packed classes.

Well are those actually different in how they function in combat on a mechanical level? They all seem to basically be about using a weapon and combat styles to achieve the results in combat. Arguably any one of those is too narrow for a class that compares beguilar, dread necromancer or sorceror.

[OldTrees1]

Well are those actually different in how they function in combat on a mechanical level? They all seem to basically be about using a weapon and combat styles to achieve the results in combat. Arguably any one of those is too narrow for a class that compares beguilar, dread necromancer or sorceror.

Personally I would expect a Swashbuckler and a Gladiator to be similar (cha skill influenced combat) but I would not expect much class feature overlap between them and a Knight(defense focused with mount features).

There is about the same variation in a Beguiler or Dread Necro population as there would be in a Swashbuckler/Gladiator population. Sorcerer is broader thematically and is more on par with the thematic breadth of a Knight/Swashbuckler/Gladiator/Marshal/Archer/Weapon Master class.

[Oko and Qailee]

TBH 3.5 is pretty enjoyable, but I'd make some changes.

-Buffs to Sword and Board, just give it more options. Feat options, increase AC granted by shields. Give a Defense Power attack adding +2 shield bonus for every -1 you take.

-Archery, make it a lot less feat intensive in terms of "I'm getting this because I need it" and make it have a lot more feats of "pew pew, yay!". The idea that Archers are firing an arrow every 10 seconds is misconception, trained archers could fire nearly an arrow per second, accurately (up to 4 arrows before they need to redraw from the quiver (takes 3-4 seconds)). Also, Archery could use a buff.

-Move Warblade into Core, Remove Fighter. Warblade is what everyone wanted when they picked a Fighter.

-Add maneuvers to core then add more maneuvers. Maneuvers are awesome and fun, let's have more of them.

-Improve the Duelist. You know, because dueling should be decent. Give Int to AC at level 1, better parrying, and probably more Int bonuses.

-Buff Clerics, I love clerics. Yes, I know they're already good, I don't care, I'm a jerkbutt.

-Monk has full BAB, Monks would get nearly all their features except Wis to AC changed. No damage from falling would be a level 3 feature, not a level 20. Their SR works for any spells they choose for it to work on.

-Grant Bards Knowledge: Metagame as a class skill. Honestly, don't know how WotC screwed up on this one.

[Lans]

-Move Warblade into Core, Remove Fighter. Warblade is what everyone wanted when they picked a Fighter.

-Add maneuvers to core then add more maneuvers. Maneuvers are awesome and fun, let's have more of them.


What would you get rid of to make room for 30+pages on and of manuevers?

I would also make prestige classes into advanced classes that also advance the previos classes abilities like spell casters and monks get

[Oko and Qailee]

Not sure what I'd get rid of. Obviously Fighter alone isn't enough.

I'd start with a smaller font size or increasing book price

[ryu]

What would you get rid of to make room for 30+pages on and of manuevers?

I would also make prestige classes into advanced classes that also advance the previos classes abilities like spell casters and monks get

More pages in the book. Just because the way things turned out the warrior types can mostly be described in terms of class features within a paragraph or a page tops doesn't mean that should be the case in an actual properly fun and option-rich system. It's not like maneuvers are hard to learn by reading them.

[Fax Celestis]

What would you get rid of to make room for 30+pages on and of manuevers?

There really isn't a finite size for a corebook. Pathfinder put everything from the PHB and DMG in one volume just fine.

[DMVerdandi]

World
I would from the start have exploration be dependent on travel to different planes, right from the start. Each plane would be an exposition of real world myths and cultures.

Marchen would be the land where european fantasy creatures lived, and the civilization would be ruled by the faeries (sidhe,dwarves, ogres and goblins are the societies here. They are not at odds with each other per say, but all have territories which they rule sovereignly).

Loka would be a hindu-arabian world populated by genasi and devas(which would come in the form of aasimar and tieflings representing the elements of earth wind water fire light and dark.) They would all live in suzerains which were not divided racially but simply by warlords conquering pieces of land.

Atlantia would be the plane most similar to earth. It has humans, and technology similar to the 1700's. It also has magic as well.

Classes
Instead of there being the standard base classes, The base character is educated in different professions through training. Generally, those who teach the professions will require certain forms of payment, usually money if they are private tutors, but guilds, companies, and armies train people in classes for relatively cheap means.

The intelligence score is what determines how many professions one can hold at once(At max 3 for humans).
Each profession has five levels from neophyte to adept.

The professions one can have are (agent,brave,medic,sorcerer,wizard,warlock,)
[For Atlanteans]

The professions don't grant increases in scores however, they only allow the characters to learn further mysteries (new name for class features).
Level one mysteries are good enough to keep an adventurer alive on a basic quest, level five mysteries are extremely potent powers that are unique to the professions.

All professions are magical, and have their own brand of special mysteries that the other classes are not privy to.

Agents are masters of deceptive mysteries called enchantments and illusions. They can control the minds of others as if they were playthings.

Braves are fierce warriors who are masters at transmutation and abjuration mysteries. They can enhance themselves and others physical attributes,and change the nature of things altogether, as well as protect them.

Medics are masters of Biomancy and can repair damage to living things, to the point where they can raise the dead.

Sorcerers are the masters of the conjuration, the creative mysteries, and can construct raw materials, items, and even duplicates of living creatures.

Wizards master the divining mysteries, allowing them to see into the nature of all things, learn secrets long forgotten, and reach omniscience.

Warlocks master the evocation mysteries, allowing them to manipulate forces, the universal principles of movement and command them at a whim. They also are users of negromancy , black magics, which include commanding shadows, the dead, and creating curses which alter the fortunes of others.

[Morty]

What would you get rid of to make room for 30+pages on and of manuevers?


Trimming the hideously bloated spell lists seems like a decent start.

[Gemini476]

What would you get rid of to make room for 30+pages on and of manuevers?

I would also make prestige classes into advanced classes that also advance the previos classes abilities like spell casters and monks get

Three columns/page, make the font 33% smaller. Suddenly you cut out what, a hundred pages?

Maybe throw the DMG and MM into the same book, if you really want to gibe the Rules Cyclopedia a run for its money.

[Talionis]

I'd removal all of the alignment and racial prerequisites from Prestige Class entry. They are essentially fluff and should be left up to individual DM's to handle role play access to Prestige Classes.

You might think about granting all classes access to "Magic", but in different ways. Granting Fighters ways to enchant weapons and do things that are not physically possible would go a long way to making a balanced tier 3 or 4 level campaign with "mundanes" who can still do really neat things. Rogues get access to Knock and Dispel Magic (maybe a gimped version that only targets objects) as Spell Like Abilities at level 9, for example).


Make Race something covered in the Monster Manual. So that Players have a far larger source of playable creatures as characters.


Eliminate Templates and especially template stacking.


Change Prestige Classes so that they work like Racial Level Adjustment and or Bloodlines (depending on your assumptions about how Bloodlines were supposed to function). This way you get some new things from the prestige class, but don't lose the original class you were advancing. Thus if you want to be an alchemist savant as a Bard instead of as a Wizard, you advance both Bardic Music and spellcasting.


Simplify prerequisites for Prestige Class entry so that if a Spellthief wants to enter a Prestige Class that advances spellcasting he can enter at the same level a wizard can enter the prestige class. I'm not a fan of caster level vs character level vs ability to cast 3rd level spell. Paladin needs more help than cleric, but it shouldn't be harder for Paladin to get into a prestige class than Cleric. Especially weird are classes like Factotum and Warlock that have spell like abilities that aren't exactly casting.

[Amphetryon]

You might think about granting all classes access to "Magic", but in different ways. Granting Fighters ways to enchant weapons and do things that are not physically possible would go a long way to making a balanced tier 3 or 4 level campaign with "mundanes" who can still do really neat things. Rogues get access to Knock and Dispel Magic (maybe a gimped version that only targets objects) as Spell Like Abilities at level 9, for example).

I could probably get behind making the creation of Magic Weapons and Armor something tied directly to the Craft Skill, rather than a Feat. Make it so that most Wizards don't know enough about weaponry and armor to properly enchant them beyond the temporary bonuses of (Greater) Magic Weapon.

Granted, this would remove Permanancy as a viable Spell option, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Knaight]

There really isn't a finite size for a corebook. Pathfinder put everything from the PHB and DMG in one volume just fine.

There are some practical limits though. Past a certain point they are bulky enough to just get unwieldy to carry and use. I don't consider D&D at that point, but I've had text books that were and would consider an RPG that eats that much space with one book in serious need of some splitting. That said, that does give somewhere in excess of 1000 pages. There's also the practical limit past which a book is just too expensive, which would get hit first, probably around the 600-700 page range assuming paper dimensions similar to D&D 3.5.

[nobodez]

I could probably get behind making the creation of Magic Weapons and Armor something tied directly to the Craft Skill, rather than a Feat. Make it so that most Wizards don't know enough about weaponry and armor to properly enchant them beyond the temporary bonuses of (Greater) Magic Weapon.

Granted, this would remove Permanancy as a viable Spell option, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

So the Magical Craftsman feat from Pathfinder (Requires 5th level max ranks in a Craft or Profession skill, and allows you to use it as a substitute for CL and the Spellcraft requirement for non-spell trigger/activation weapons, armor, and wondrous items)?

[Amphetryon]

So the Magical Craftsman feat from Pathfinder (Requires 5th level max ranks in a Craft or Profession skill, and allows you to use it as a substitute for CL and the Spellcraft requirement for non-spell trigger/activation weapons, armor, and wondrous items)?

Yeah, probably. I'm a relative n00b to Pathfinder, so hadn't looked at that particular Feat.

[Fax Celestis]

There are some practical limits though. Past a certain point they are bulky enough to just get unwieldy to carry and use. I don't consider D&D at that point, but I've had text books that were and would consider an RPG that eats that much space with one book in serious need of some splitting. That said, that does give somewhere in excess of 1000 pages. There's also the practical limit past which a book is just too expensive, which would get hit first, probably around the 600-700 page range assuming paper dimensions similar to D&D 3.5.

Sure, but honestly D&D's formatting preferences are space consuming nightmares. Two columns on every page (three for spells!) eat a lot of page real estate, and the preference towards 14pt fonts instead of the more reasonable 12pt or even 11pt adds easily 20-30 pages to every volume in itself.

[NotScaryBats]

I was surprised when I found out that 3.5 had a Druid spell list of unique spells that were still divine and a Cleric spell list of unique spell that were still divine. And Ranger. And Paladin. Sure, there's some overlap, but a lot of 'get this one level early, that one level later'

If you added maneuvers to the game, and had martials get maneuvers and casters get spells, then maybe simplified the lists a bit with a big ol' Spell Compendium and Maneuver Compendium splat book that came out later...

Well, that's pretty similar to 4e, I guess, and a lot of people didn't like it.

I enjoy the idea of rituals -- kind of like the Gramarie powers that take a while to do, so they aren't in combat activities, but can shape and change the game world. Stuff like long range teleportation, making a campsite, divination, etc. You could open these abilities up for anyone who wanted to foot the cost.

[Fax Celestis]

So the Magical Craftsman feat from Pathfinder (Requires 5th level max ranks in a Craft or Profession skill, and allows you to use it as a substitute for CL and the Spellcraft requirement for non-spell trigger/activation weapons, armor, and wondrous items)?

That is a terrible feat. It doesn't let you craft anything in and of itself, it just lets you take a few of the crafting feats without the spellcaster prereq. Plus, you're three ranks behind on craft skills because you don't have Spellcraft as a class skill, and if you choose the Craft skill option, it only applies to one specific one (so guess what? You have to take it for each thing you want to make!). Furthermore, it also doesn't obviate the need for casting the spell in question to make an item, so you also have to shell out extra cash and cross-class UMD (or get a friend to get and cast a particular spell just for you).

The only thing the feat actually does is let you spend an extra feat to be vastly more limited and moderately more terrible than someone who just decides to drop a level on wizard.

[Drachasor]

In PF you can also take Spell Focus and Magic Tattoo, then any crafting feat you want. Spell-likes in PF can be used for crafting feats, and with no caster level given they default to your hit dice.

[nobodez]

That is a terrible feat. It doesn't let you craft anything in and of itself, it just lets you take a few of the crafting feats without the spellcaster prereq. Plus, you're three ranks behind on craft skills because you don't have Spellcraft as a class skill, and if you choose the Craft skill option, it only applies to one specific one (so guess what? You have to take it for each thing you want to make!). Furthermore, it also doesn't obviate the need for casting the spell in question to make an item, so you also have to shell out extra cash and cross-class UMD (or get a friend to get and cast a particular spell just for you).

The only thing the feat actually does is let you spend an extra feat to be vastly more limited and moderately more terrible than someone who just decides to drop a level on wizard.

First - It replaces the instance of using Spellcraft for crafting with the Craft/Profession skill in question, so no problem there, plus fi gives you a +2 bonus on the relevant skill checks.

Second - If you don't have the spell, it just increases the DC by 5 (since the created magic item is, by definition of being created by way of this feat, not a spell-trigger or spell-activation item, and thus doesn't have the requirement of actually casting the spell in question to make the item).

Third - Getting UMD in pathfinder is easy, I mean, just take the Cosmopolitan feat (I know, another feat, so four total required to make mage items without actual magic) to get UMD as a class skills (you also get a couple of free languages in the mix, not that Linguistics isn't a totally broken skill already).

[Valtu]

I had another idea a few days ago: split feats into levels, such as minor/major, or something very basic like that, then grant PCs feats a bit more often in general. The more powerful, combat-oriented feats should be major, or things like most metamagic feats, like empower/maximize, but then you'd have all those ones that either exist only as a prerequisite to others, or otherwise just aren't all that big of a deal IMO (such as adding a couple points to a skill).

You could still get the major feats every 3 levels, but maybe throw a minor one in at some other increment and not waste your good slots on the more bland feats you need to meet others :P

[Gemini476]

I had another idea a few days ago: split feats into levels, such as minor/major, or something very basic like that, then grant PCs feats a bit more often in general. The more powerful, combat-oriented feats should be major, or things like most metamagic feats, like empower/maximize, but then you'd have all those ones that either exist only as a prerequisite to others, or otherwise just aren't all that big of a deal IMO (such as adding a couple points to a skill).

You could still get the major feats every 3 levels, but maybe throw a minor one in at some other increment and not waste your good slots on the more bland feats you need to meet others :P

If you want to have a Fighter's bonus feats compete with a Wizard's spells, each feat needs to be more broad. So make every combat feat more like the tactical feats or something; have them give multiple options.
That won't make a Fighter that much better in itself, but it will help. (Also, each option should be at least as powerful as a hour/level or more spell of the appropriate level. "Spells are temporary and consumable" only works as a defense if they don't last the entire adventure.)
Also, Cleave/Whirlwind Attack and the like are already pretty similar to metamagic feats. Make an archery feat that makes the attack an AOE, make Cleave give extra attacks on ever Full Attack, maybe have a feat for Reach weapons that lets you push them away from you and into your threaten range... There's so many options, yet many of them went unexplored. How many mundane Area effects are there even?

Minor feats could just be skill tricks (that is, you buy them with skill points.)

[Osiris]

There would be no "2+int mod skills"
The very least should be 4+int mod
Clerics have NO skill points, and Wizards want even more. Here's for the skill points!

[SinsI]

A Fighter has to buy a very expensive Weapon - or even a set of them if he wants to be effective against various monsters.
A Wizard, besides some cheap components, needs only his mind, and gets 2 new Weapons(spells) per level for free.

So, my changes:
1) expanding list of spells known should always require a very significant cost for all casters. No free spells on level ups.
2) To use (almost) any spell effectively, a caster would have to have a Rod of appropriate level. (I.e. Fireball requires +3 Rod).
3) All metamagic rods become such Rods. The caster can use metamagic powers of those rods only on spells cast using that very rod.
4) To compensate a bit, metamagic capacity of those rods should be increased
5) But having situation-appropriate metamagic is going to be as important as having a Bludgeoning Weapon for a fighter against enemies with DR/Bludgeoning

[Fax Celestis]

First - It replaces the instance of using Spellcraft for crafting with the Craft/Profession skill in question, so no problem there, plus fi gives you a +2 bonus on the relevant skill checks.

Second - If you don't have the spell, it just increases the DC by 5 (since the created magic item is, by definition of being created by way of this feat, not a spell-trigger or spell-activation item, and thus doesn't have the requirement of actually casting the spell in question to make the item).

Third - Getting UMD in pathfinder is easy, I mean, just take the Cosmopolitan feat (I know, another feat, so four total required to make mage items without actual magic) to get UMD as a class skills (you also get a couple of free languages in the mix, not that Linguistics isn't a totally broken skill already).

So four feats to do what a caster can do for one. Hooray.

You're still missing out on spellcraft as a class skill, since spellcraft isn't a option for Master Craftsman: it specifies you have to use your relvant craft or profession skill (which, by the way, further limits your crafting: even if you put ranks in Profession (Leatherworking), you still can't make a glove of storing, since Master Craftsman is skill-specific and you chose Profession (Jeweler).).

Spellcraft is the only globally applicable craft skill. And Master Craftsman only let's you make two kinds of items: arms and armor, and wondrous. No wands, scrolls, staves, potions, rods, rings, thassilonian rune, or whatever future craft they come up with.

It's a pittance that makes an already feat-intensive focus into a more feat intensive one while simultaneously further limiting ability because non-casters can't have nice things.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A Fighter has to buy a very expensive Weapon - or even a set of them if he wants to be effective against various monsters.
A Wizard, besides some cheap components, needs only his mind, and gets 2 new Weapons(spells) per level for free.

So, my changes:
1) expanding list of spells known should always require a very significant cost for all casters. No free spells on level ups.
2) To use (almost) any spell effectively, a caster would have to have a Rod of appropriate level. (I.e. Fireball requires +3 Rod).

As I mentioned the last few times this sort of change was suggested on these forums, the problem here isn't that a wizard doesn't have to spend a needlessly large proportion of his WBL just to have the basic privilege of accessing his primary class feature, but rather that the fighter does.

If a 20th level fighter wants a +10 weapon with +5 actual attack bonus and +5 worth of abilities, the difference between buying a +10-equivalent weapon or buying a +6 weapon and having his cleric buddy spend ~1/60 of his free daily spells to cast greater magic weapon on it is a whopping 128,000 gp (1/6 of his entire WBL!), and most of the special abilities he'd want on his weapon (like keen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm), dancing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm), speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), flaming burst (http://dndtools.eu/spells/savage-species--47/weapon-of-energy--3244/), etc.) that martial characters have to pay out the nose for will merely cost high-level casters a trivial fraction of their (again, completely free) daily spells.

And what about concerns like wizards overshadowing those poor TWFers--they have to buy two +6 weapons, would using Quicken Spell require a wizard to use two implements? There are many ways that caster get things for free (or effectively for free) that cost martial characters quite a bit of gold to match or (rarely) exceed, not all of which charging a caster for a primary "weapon" would address.

If the problem you're trying to solve is "It sucks that fighters have to waste a whole lot of gold on achieving basic expected performance for their level," the appropriate solution is not "...and therefore wizards should have to waste a whole lot of gold as well to make fighters feel better," it's "...and that's bad, so let's find a way to not force them to do that."