What would you have put in core? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Red Fel

2014-12-20, 03:18 PM

Base Classes: Add Favored Soul, for the spontaneous divine caster option. Replace Fighter with Warblade and Crusader. Sorry, but feats aren't a character feature. Replace Monk with Swordsage. Add Psion, Psychic Warrior, and Ardent. Add Binder, Warlock, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Incarnate, and Totemist. Include variants and ACFs.
Races: Add Lesser Planetouched, some Incarnum races, some Psionic races. Add environmental and elemental variants. Add Warforged, Tibbits, Goliath, Shifters, and Neraph. Add templates, including Dragonborn.
Feats: Add Dragonmark feats. Add feats for included subsystems (Binders, Initiators, Psionics, Incarnum). Integrate Heritage feats into Sorcerer (like in PF). Add racial feats for included races (Warforged, Shifter).
Prestige Classes: Add PrCs for included subsystems (Knight of the Sacred Seal; Eternal Blade, Bloodstorm Blade, Ruby Knight Vindicator and Jade Phoenix Mage; Illithid Slayer, Thrallherd; Ironsoul Forgemaster, Soulcaster, Soul Manifester). Add racial PrCs (Warforged Juggernaut, Reforged; Moonspeaker). Add Fist of the Forest, Frostrager, Champion of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch, Runescarred Berserker. Barbarians need some love. Add Dragonmark PrCs. Add the PrCs I used in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363006-Building-a-Tempest), because I'm selfish.Give all melees lightsabers.

eggynack

2014-12-20, 03:28 PM

I'd strongly consider just pulling everything into a narrow tier range around three. Fill core with the initiators and list casters to start with, put factotum in in exchange for rogue, maybe have an expanded list healer (perhaps with nothing but sanctified spells as explicit options), perhaps wild shape ranger for druid, and keep bard because bards are awesome. That's ten classes right there, with warmage and perhaps expanded healer as the lowest tier classes, and you can reasonably expand both enough that they won't fall behind. Seems like enough for core, though you could also add other systems, like incarnate and/or totemist, or maybe psychic warrior if you want psionics.

malonkey1

2014-12-20, 03:28 PM

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-20, 03:31 PM

Psionics and Martial Adepts. Those are probably the most important things I would bring in. I'd love to slip in like 5 or 6 of my favorite prestige classes but those probably aren't as important to include.

This way we could have 1st party psionics in pathfinder instead of this new occult junk that's just more vancian stuff. We could also have warblades and crusaders instead of cavaliers and swashbucklers.

Yes, this. Martial Adepts in core also means that Martial Adepts would get splat support (maybe Complete Warrior would've had new initiator classes and disciplines).

Psionics are already halfway core; they are OGL, but Paizo just couldn't be arsed to adapt it.

Feint's End

2014-12-20, 03:33 PM

Psionics and Martial Adepts. Those are probably the most important things I would bring in. I'd love to slip in like 5 or 6 of my favorite prestige classes but those probably aren't as important to include.

This way we could have 1st party psionics in pathfinder instead of this new occult junk that's just more vancian stuff. We could also have warblades and crusaders instead of cavaliers and swashbucklers.

I'm really split on this but generally I'm not sure it would be that good idea to include those. DSP did a marvelous job in transcribing those systems to PF and I'm fairly sure that paizo would have screwed them up in comparison.

If however you could guarantee me the same quality then yes ... It would be great if they had been core in the first place.

meemaas

2014-12-20, 03:41 PM

Jeff the Green

2014-12-20, 04:15 PM

Aside from what's been mentioned, the three specialist casters (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage), Scout, and ACFs.

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-20, 04:19 PM

I'm really split on this but generally I'm not sure it would be that good idea to include those. DSP did a marvelous job in transcribing those systems to PF and I'm fairly sure that paizo would have screwed them up in comparison.

If however you could guarantee me the same quality then yes ... It would be great if they had been core in the first place.

I completely understand and agree with what you're saying. My concern is that all the tables around me only allow 1st party pathfinder stuff. I love how DSP handled psionics but these close minded DMs won't let me use it!

Feint's End

2014-12-20, 04:27 PM

The folks at paizo just didn't like the power point system that makes up psionics from the OGL. If they had done psionics before DSP did, it would have been with some kind of Vancian system like the occult adventures uses.

That's exactly the reason why I'm glad paizo didn't do it.

I completely understand and agree with what you're saying. My concern is that all the tables around me only allow 1st party pathfinder stuff. I love how DSP handled psionics but these close minded DMs won't let me use it!

I hear what you are saying. Luckily the DMs I play with are very close friends and open so I can usually play whatever I want. I guess it would help psionic recognition if it'd be core, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't still be banned quite often.

Troacctid

2014-12-20, 04:35 PM

I don't know about putting psionics and ToB in the PHB. I'd lean more towards the 4th edition approach of putting out multiple PHBs and introducing the new subsystems in the subsequent ones. The first book should stick to the basics.

The classes I'd most want to add would be Duskblade and Warlock. They fill conceptual niches that aren't represented in the core classes. I'd also include the Unearthed Arcana and PHB2 variants for all the classes.

The Insaniac

2014-12-21, 12:02 AM

Classes:
I would say that core should hold a class balance that looks something like this:

2 arcane full casters
Wizard (power of knowledge)
Sorcerer (power in the blood)

2 divine full casters
Cleric (power of the gods)
Druid (power of nature)

4 (semi-) mundane melee classes
Berserker (victory through force)
Paladin/Crusader rebuild (victory though faith), I just don't find the crusader sufficiently divine and the paladin has too much baggage.
Swordsage (victory through skill) (give fully done unarmed variant)
Warblade (victory through perfection) (maybe give unarmed variant)

1 (semi-)mundane ranged class
This would really need an overhaul of the ranged combat mechanics and probably a new class. Might look something like the gunslinger.

2 gishes
Duskblade (arcane melee)
Paladin/Favored Soul rebuild (divine melee) 6th level casting, smite and maybe a divine companion/mount of some kind.

1 magical ranged class
Warlock, using one of the models on the forums for various pact options.

2 Skill focused classes
Factotum
Bard

That should allow you to cover the fantasy archetypes. I'd really want to do an extra book on full casters (and magic in general) as a fourth core book and not have them in the PHB. They just demand so much attention as far as balance and flavor go.

Psionics would probably get put in much the way it is now. Not core, but SRD. Ditto for Unearthed Arcana. I don't want to drop a huge pile of variants and alternate rules in core but it's really nice to have all of those options.

Races would be a little harder.
Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Orc gets you the classic fantasy races. For the rest, I'd try to get in a spread of creature types: fey, construct, undead, outsider, aberration and elemental. Definitely no dragons, I'd probably cut almost all creatures with the dragon type except for true dragons.

Feats would be support for core subsystems (vancian casting, initiating, invocations) and races. Can't think of anything else at the moment.

Crap... now I feel the need to go put this together.

Edited for clarity.

jedipotter

2014-12-21, 12:55 AM

Classes I see no need to add any classes. I'd always keep psionics, maneuver classes, and all the ''sub system'' classes like the Tome of Magic ones out of core.

I would add lots of more abilities. I don't like dead levels and think all mundane classes should get a mix of three abilities a level. Something like offensive/defensive/miscellaneous. Though I'm not a fan of the Pathfinder like ''you get Ability One: pick one of the 25 options'', I like it more that you just get X.

Races I'm all for adding more races. Though I'd want so many it would take up too much room. But a Core Race Book would be great.

Archtypes Pathfinder does this for a good start....but then they just run out of steam and let it putter and fall. Each class needs a good five solid ''classic'' ones for each.

Feats More feats. Ones that scale with levels and ones unique to each class(or at least do X+ for class A, and X- for all others).

Equipment More mundane equipment with higher bonuses for skills, feats and other roll based mechanics.

Adventuring if you bump Races and Spells to their own books, then the ''players handbook'' is 1/3 combat, 1/3 Adventuring and 1/3 everything else. Put a lot more into adventure and setting and background.

Experience Make experience more round for ''experiencing things'' and to just ''kill/defeat''.

Magic The game really needs Universal Magic Rules.

Spells I'd want more a Core Book of Spells. Add lots of spells and spell types to cover more bases.

Gnome Alone

2014-12-21, 01:06 AM

Feats More feats. Ones that scale with levels and ones unique to each class(or at least do X+ for class A, and X- for all others).

Yes. I don't mind playing core-only... until I get to the feats section of the PHB and it's like rummaging through a bargain bin at a music store. "Well, guess I'll get these since everything else is just crap."

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-21, 01:11 AM

Yes. I don't mind playing core-only... until I get to the feats section of the PHB and it's like rummaging through a bargain bin at a music store. "Well, guess I'll get these since everything else is just crap."

Yeah it's like, there's Power Attack, Improved Initiative, Quicken Spell aaaaaaand...

Svata

2014-12-21, 01:23 AM

Natural Spell, Augment Summoning, Extra Turning, and Extend Spell are pretty good. Cleave is OK. Combat Reflexes is useful. Spell Penetration is ok in core-only. EWP spiked chain and Imp. Trip are fun. Imp. Critical is ok if you're out of other things to blow feats on. And then there's Leadership. Which is Leadership.

Ravens_cry

2014-12-21, 01:53 AM

I would take out the monk. It really felt just like a weird class to have in a core book about quasi-medieval fantasy. I'd add a way to get dex to damage, either as a second feat or as a power up to Weapon Finesse.

Bakkan

2014-12-21, 02:11 AM

I don't know about putting psionics and ToB in the PHB. I'd lean more towards the 4th edition approach of putting out multiple PHBs and introducing the new subsystems in the subsequent ones. The first book should stick to the basics.

I agree with you for the most part and as much as I like them, I would leave psionics and meldshaping out of the PHB (they would make up most of the PHBII though).

However, I would include the martial adepts. Spellcasters get a subsystem in core to play with, I think martials should as well. Ideally some of the gaps in the Tome of Battle, such as ranged disciplines, would be corrected in this version.

Petrocorus

2014-12-21, 02:34 PM

Weapon speed and 2nd edition experience differential.
I'm seriously considering giving exp penalties to all casting classes if i DM.

Psionics and Martial Adepts. Those are probably the most important things I would bring in. I'd love to slip in like 5 or 6 of my favorite prestige classes but those probably aren't as important to include.

Seconded, or nth-ed.

The classes I'd most want to add would be Duskblade and Warlock. They fill conceptual niches that aren't represented in the core classes. I'd also include the Unearthed Arcana and PHB2 variants for all the classes.
That's right, but they would need to be a bit reworked. The Warlock features are cool but don't scales well. The DB is fine, but its spell list is bonked. Maybe turn the DB in a fixed list caster with a real gish spell list.

weckar

2014-12-21, 03:39 PM

Race-wise I'd probably thin the flock a bit. Not entirely sure what I would cut, though.

Class-wise I'd strip out the Paladin, Bard and Druid. I'd add the Favored Soul, maybe the Swashbuckler.

Otherwise, I'd add skill tricks as a Core mechanic, as well as Tactical and Reserve feats.

Feats More feats. Ones that scale with levels and ones unique to each class(or at least do X+ for class A, and X- for all others).

Adventuring if you bump Races and Spells to their own books, then the ''players handbook'' is 1/3 combat, 1/3 Adventuring and 1/3 everything else. Put a lot more into adventure and setting and background.
I can't help but disagree with these two. For one, I HATE class-specific feats. I always felt like those should have been ACFs instead. ESPECIALLY with the dragon-focused Sorcerer ones. What, can't anyone ELSE have dragonblood? :smallconfused: Also, I think a Core book is a poor place to discuss setting, as there IS no one D&D setting. It's fluff, and makes the book too padded.

Red Fel

2014-12-21, 04:00 PM

ESPECIALLY with the dragon-focused Sorcerer ones. What, can't anyone ELSE have dragonblood? :smallconfused:

They can. Take Dragontouched, and you can take Draconic feats as if you were a Sorcerer of your character level. So, yeah; everyone can take them, although they might not all be that useful.

And I agree with Bakkan's point about adding ToB, although I would go the extra mile and make it the melee default. All non- or partial-casting classes should have some degree of martial maneuver progression. Or, at least, Fighters and Monks should. Casters have actual, diverse abilities that can contribute in myriad ways; many melee-focused classes are basically limited to attack rolls. Martial maneuvers should really be the default, rather than an optional subsystem.

Solaris

2014-12-21, 04:21 PM

The problem with replacing fighter with ToB (and it was my first impulse, too) is that some players don't really work well with something so complex. While we're all keen for beatsticks who can essentially cast spells, I have players who avoid casters precisely because they lack the wherewithal, time, or energy to learn spell lists and casting mechanics.

Fighter is perfectly acceptable for being in the core game for precisely that reason. You can add in ToB, but don't pull out the simple stuff like Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.

torrasque666

2014-12-21, 04:26 PM

I'd at least allow them to count for full progression.

squiggit

2014-12-21, 04:40 PM

I'd probably ditch the Sorcerer for the Warlock. Warlock is cool, does something other core classes don't and brings in a third system tree without being too crazy.

Sorcerer on the other hand... is a glorified Wizard ACF. Not even an interesting one.

might look at ditching the barbarian and simply expanding the fighter enough to accomodate that sort of option too.

Telonius

2014-12-21, 05:04 PM

A lot of the changes I'd make to Core would be things to leave out, rather than things to include. Multiclass XP penalties, Natural Spell, several offending spells, the "+2 to two skills" feats, most of the class-based alignment restrictions, a couple of items (like Candle of Invocation or Dust of Sneezing and Choking).

I'm going to go a little bit against the grain on Incarnum, Martial Adepts, and Psionics. All three systems are terrific, and I love playing with them. But they still feel like optional sub-systems to me. I'd also be a little worried that if you include them, the core books would get even more unwieldy than they are. Each system would have to bring in a pretty big chunk of the feats that enable it. Put too much stuff in the core product, and you run a real risk of confusing new players.

The unfortunate part about that is that Martial Adepts are much better balanced against the casters (particularly if you de-fang a lot of the "win" buttons that magic has). You could still increase the power of the Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, and Barbarian by making them a bit more versatile, a bit more powerful, and a lot less MAD.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-21, 05:12 PM

The core Rogue class has many problems, and I'd fix some of them.

All skills are class skills.
Penetrating Strike (the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft version) as the default, with trap sense as an ACF.
Camouflage (all terrains) and Hide in Plain Sight (all terrains) as Rogue class features at levels 3 and 6.
Another Special Ability at Rogue 7.
Something in the dead levels (12, 14, 18, 20): maybe SR 11+, 13+, 15+, and 17+ Rogue levels, respectively.
Craven feat should be in core, since it's as vital to Rogues as Power Attack is to most martial classes.
Darkstalker feat, extended to also have a chance to counter Lifesense, Mindsight, and Touchsight.
Savvy Rogue feat, with prerequisite lowered to Rogue 7.
Spring Attack as a feat with no other feat prerequisites.
A feat granting Golem Strike, Grave Strike, and Vine Strike as 3/day SLAs.

Coidzor

2014-12-21, 05:38 PM

I hear what you are saying. Luckily the DMs I play with are very close friends and open so I can usually play whatever I want. I guess it would help psionic recognition if it'd be core, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't still be banned quite often.

It would mean a reduction simply because of how often the line of thinking with such people is that it's either Not Core and thus bad or Not First Party and thus bad, so if you removed both of those objections to it, especially with the number of people who play PF that seem to have completely missed out on 3.5 so they wouldn't have the inherited prejudices of 3.X era anti-psionics...

We could piss in the wind all day about just how meaningful it would be, but it would be meaningful, even just being part of PFS play would have an effect.

Thy Dungeonman

2014-12-21, 05:38 PM

I'd have done like Pathfinder and made it so you can get away with using one book. Like others, I'd totally favor leaving out some content to make room for more useful things. And for the reasons given, I like ditching monk and sorcerer. I don't even have any classes I'd consider adding. I do like the idea of having psionics more integrated, but I'm thinking of page count here.

Once you've cleared up some space by getting rid of things that seem redundant (sorcerer) or not setting appropriate (monk) etc (hopefully more stuff to go, can't think of anything off the top of my head), then consider adding. Personally, I'd add the basic info on monsters (types, typical abilities, etc) and a small selection, and a modest selection of generic NPCs with quick modifiers to change the races a la 3.x's DMG.

With all that done, someone can more easily get away with using one book for a campaign, if they are poor folks like me. Really, books can still be important. We haven't quite reached the era when everyone can have internet foreva such that they can access online SRD stuff. I'm fortunate to have good internet where I am, and I pay for it.

Now if printing is off the table as a consideration, I say bring it. If we're doing all-digital core, ADD EVERYTHING LEAVE NOTHING OUT ARGLE BARGLE WHUZZAAAAAH! I'd make every monster playable, even mindless ones with the right templates and special classes for things with body shapes precluding normal equipment use. Rules for kicking magic up a notch, reducing it, or taking it out completely. Extensive info on custom world building.

What wouldn't I include? Probably just very setting specific or redundant stuff. Really, I kind of loathe the way there are dozens of prestige classes spread through dozens of books that are the same concept with different systems. Like, which should you use for that character concept? It turns into so much mechanics, which isn't my bag.

Troacctid

2014-12-21, 05:40 PM

The Warlock features are cool but don't scales well.

Scales better than the Fighter.

Calimehter

2014-12-21, 05:49 PM

I would actually replace *all* the base classes with the Generic Classes from UA. Let players choose their class skills and which (if any) 'class feature' feats they want to take, especially with an eye toward future prestige classes.

Solaris

2014-12-21, 06:10 PM

Johnmakuta

2014-12-21, 06:14 PM

I would have added the Ultimate Magus from Complete Mage. It seemed like such a normal and usable prestiege class that it should have made it into the core Rulebooks.

If I had to choose another one then I would say that all the dragons introduced in Dragon Magazine should have been put into the Monster Manual.

Petrocorus

2014-12-21, 06:18 PM

The core Rogue class has many problems, and I'd fix some of them.

Craven feat should be in core, since it's as vital to Rogues as Power Attack is to most martial classes.
Savvy Rogue feat, with prerequisite lowered to Rogue 7.

What book are those from?

Spring Attack as a feat with no other feat prerequisites.

Maybe. Personally, i would rather have the Dodge feat being actually useful and scaling with level.
Why not a +1 / 4 levels to AC when moving.

Scales better than the Fighter.
Well, yes, but that's not saying much given how badly the Fighter scales after level 6.

Coidzor

2014-12-21, 06:47 PM

I'd have undone the Fighter-based inflation of the Feat-chain system and have implemented more feats that scaled with character level or BAB or caster level or skil ranks.

I'd replace Spring Attack with something along the lines of Move-By Action (http://www.d20herosrd.com/5-advantages) from Mutants and Masterminds 3e, a thing-unto-itself rather than part of a Dodge>Mobility>Spring Attack feat chain that eventually ballooned up into Bounding Assault and I think one or two more feats past that.

All classes would either receive two Good saves or one Good save and one Moderate save, at minimum.

I'd bump up the number of skill points per HD for all HD types, possibly also split the skills up into different types so that different HD received different skill points for each variety of skill, which would be paired with an expansion of the skill system as well as suggestions about how to further expand it or utilize it beyond the listed examples of uses of skills.

The problem with replacing fighter with ToB (and it was my first impulse, too) is that some players don't really work well with something so complex. While we're all keen for beatsticks who can essentially cast spells, I have players who avoid casters precisely because they lack the wherewithal, time, or energy to learn spell lists and casting mechanics.

Fighter is perfectly acceptable for being in the core game for precisely that reason. You can add in ToB, but don't pull out the simple stuff like Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.

Well, Barbarian is nice and straightforward and preps for adding bonuses and penalties and taking those into account, Ranger and Paladin start out nice and simple and get more complicated as one levels, and not having Fighter means that there's less onerous feat chains due to Fighter-inflation or that bonus feats for martial-types are more equitably distributed.

So, yeah, Fighter could go die in a fire and improve the core mechanics of the game.

atemu1234

2014-12-21, 06:55 PM

I'd put everything in core...

Coidzor

2014-12-21, 07:39 PM

What book are those from?

Maybe. Personally, i would rather have the Dodge feat being actually useful and scaling with level.
Why not a +1 / 4 levels to AC when moving.

Craven is from Champions of Ruin and gives scaling +X sneak attack where X is equal to your character level or HD or something.

Savvy Rogue is from Complete Scoundrel and gives you better rogue special abilities or at least it improves a few of the rogue special abilities. One of the more notable abilities is the ability to "Take 12" instead of "Taking 10."

Scaling Dodge would be good, but I think I'd prefer both a scaling dodge and a spring attack separated from dodge as its own stand-alone feat-dealy.

Petrocorus

2014-12-21, 08:41 PM

Craven is from Champions of Ruin and gives scaling +X sneak attack where X is equal to your character level or HD or something.

Savvy Rogue is from Complete Scoundrel and gives you better rogue special abilities or at least it improves a few of the rogue special abilities. One of the more notable abilities is the ability to "Take 12" instead of "Taking 10."

Thanks.

Scaling Dodge would be good, but I think I'd prefer both a scaling dodge and a spring attack separated from dodge as its own stand-alone feat-dealy.

And while we're at it, why not a scaling spring attack allowing to make more attacks with levels.

Red Fel

2014-12-21, 09:02 PM

Well, Barbarian is nice and straightforward and preps for adding bonuses and penalties and taking those into account, Ranger and Paladin start out nice and simple and get more complicated as one levels, and not having Fighter means that there's less onerous feat chains due to Fighter-inflation or that bonus feats for martial-types are more equitably distributed.

So, yeah, Fighter could go die in a fire and improve the core mechanics of the game.

This. I'm fine with Barbarian being non-initiator; it's really good at what it does, which is being a straightforward smash machine. Want simple? Barbarian has you covered. Semi-casters have options, albeit limited ones. Even Rogues, although I think they're better off being subsumed into other classes, have enough fluff behind them to stand alone.

But Fighter is a bag of feats. That's it. For all that it's supposed to be the well-trained, tactical combatant, it fails on that front. An Initiator does it so much better it's not even funny. And Monk... Well, it just plain fails. Unarmed Swordsage Monks better than Monk does, and without the annoying alignment restriction. That's where core needs ToB - to replace those two classes with something functional.

Calimehter

2014-12-21, 09:38 PM

I'd be leery about that. It didn't work out so hot in d20 Modern when they did something similar.

This is true, but d20 modern kinda punted on the names for those, and it showed. Remember, when 3E first came out, people had been accustomed to a very small number of base classes in 2E (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief) so the notion of only have a few base classes in the new edition wouldn't have been strange or off-putting . . . especially since you would have been able to keep the iconic names instead of using the Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster that UA Generics were stuck with.

Solaris

2014-12-21, 11:10 PM

This is true, but d20 modern kinda punted on the names for those, and it showed. Remember, when 3E first came out, people had been accustomed to a very small number of base classes in 2E (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief) so the notion of only have a few base classes in the new edition wouldn't have been strange or off-putting . . . especially since you would have been able to keep the iconic names instead of using the Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster that UA Generics were stuck with.

You raise an excellent point - the UA Generics really are a lot closer to the AD&D classes than they are to the d20 Modern classes.

weckar

2014-12-22, 05:02 AM

I see no reason to get rid of Monk. Its abilities - incoherent and MAD as they may be - provide a unique take on the fighter archetype. Replacing this with any kind of initiator would make it feel generic, in much the same way that most of the casters feel the same in practice (IMO).

Der_DWSage

2014-12-22, 05:05 AM

Hm. Lessee...

Without retreading what a lot of people have said already, I'd either keep the Sorcerer as the only 9th level caster option, or keep the Wizard while the Sorcerer moves on to using the UA variant spell point system. This lets them not appear to be so...similar.

Half-Orcs and Half-Elves would get rebuilt entirely...or just taken out, with a new subsystem for building halfbreeds from the various races. (Humans don't get to be the only race that breeds with everything that moves!) Also, adding in a large race to counterpoint the small ones. Maybe make it the Orcs.

The Paladin would keep getting class features past 6th level, maybe even use the Pathfinder Paladin instead.

Prestige classes would be available from the get-go, some of them available from level 2 and up.

Starting HP would be changed significantly, to the point where 1st level adventurers don't have to worry about dying from a lucky stab from a Kobold. Maybe something like skill points, where you get 4x at first level and then the normal amount afterwards.

Speaking of skill points...changing cross-class skills to be only 1 point each, but keeping the same cap. And adding the rule of 'once a class skill, always a class skill.'

The Ranger gets a choice of full Animal Companion or Wildshape, while the Druid only keeps 9th level casting.

Nerf the ever-loving bajeezus out of some of those core spells and items. You all know the ones I mean.

Pull out a thesaurus and change some of the uses of 'level' that gets thrown around.

Made it so that Undead aren't immune to so many things.

Eldan

2014-12-22, 05:24 AM

Hmmm. Classes:

Arcane:
Binder, Beguiler, Dragonfire Shaman/Adept (merged), Dread Necromancer, Warlock, Bard. Though I'd make the Necro and the Beguiler prepared casting classes.

Martial:
Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Barbarian, Rogue/Scout/Factotum (merged)

Divine:
Spirit Shaman, Favoured Soul, Wildshape ranger (with something like PHB II's druid alternative)

(No psionics, I don't like the system. I find it flavourless by comparison).

Spells: severely pruned core spell list with some non-core spells added.

Races: planetouched (including Genasi), the entire suite, including tables of racial features like in the old Planescape guides. Shifters. Modrons. As far as I'm concerned, half-orcs can be kicked for another "brute" race, say full orcs or goliaths.

Prestige classes: preferably a theurge-like class for every combination. And not just of the "advance both power lists" variety. There are better theurges that actually give unique features regarding interacting power systems.

Items: thorough erradication of "+X to stat" items, and then a rewrite of monsters to take that into account.

Feats: similarly, no "+X to Y" feats like weapon focus or the skill bonus feats. Feats should give more abilities, I essentially see them as non-class specific abilities.

Other: ACFs for everyone as a standard.

Monsters: I demand a full page of fluff and ecology for every monster. If you can't make it interesting, take it out. I mean, have you looked at the MM1 lately? So many things that are barely ever used, plus one really only needs so many "human, but bigger, stronger and stupider".

Then, if I'm allowed to go crazy with hoembrew... rewrite the skill system. Instead of skill tricks, just give examples of advanced uses for skills. Actually, I don't like the commonly done merging of skills, I'd rather have more skills and more skill points for everyone.
New magic system. I've written my own and I like it. Then we don't need a Beguiler or Dread Necro and instead have the wizard and sorcerer back.
New combat system. I've written a few pages of notes. Kick the entire idea of battle maps first, we once had a thread where we talked about encounter areas and a loose idea of two creatures being "engaged in melee range".
New condition system, like we had in Gaols and Giants.
Vitality and wound points as a standard.

Then, I'd hire Tony Di'Terlizzi to do all the art, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

Judge_Worm

2014-12-22, 08:20 AM

I think I would take all the gods out of the PHB, then put all divine spell granting entities into the DMG. I would slap MMI onto the back of the PHB (just imagine, ogl flayers and beholders). Put all never-updated 3.0 content in (an updated version of them) into the dmg. I'd also put all the content from UA, the miniature handbook, and phb2 into the dmg.

I'd make fighters, paladins, and monks martial adepts (taking over for warblade, crusader, and swordsage respectively). Add the Truenamer and Warlock as base classes. Add the content from the xph (Expanded Psionics Handbook) into the players handbook and dungeon masters guide.

I'd add the epic level handbook to the phb. And make all the completes, the book of bad latin, book of vile darkness, book of exalted deeds, the fiend folio and both fiendish codices into a single 3rd core book (replacing the position of the monster manual).

Edit: I'd also add all the races of series to the phb and dmg in a similar way to xph.

Dr TPK

2014-12-22, 09:16 AM

I would've added incredibly powerful fighter feats that would've been available from the level 13 to 20.

Petrocorus

2014-12-22, 10:30 AM

Concerning classes, i would definitely like the Warlock. It's falvourful and potantially balanced. The features probably need to scale better. I like invocation mechanics and it can be used for several classes. Their could be 4 variant of the Warlock (depending on the bloodline, Faeric, Fiendish, Angelic and Draconic).
I was actually working on a Paladin variant using divine invocation.

Pull out a thesaurus and change some of the uses of 'level' that gets thrown around.

Oh yes, please!

Nerf the ever-loving bajeezus out of some of those core spells and items. You all know the ones I mean.

Spells: severely pruned core spell list with some non-core spells added.

According to me, the first and most useful step to have made 3.5 more balanced would have been this. You don't need to nerf the Wizard or the Cleric, they have almost no class feature beside spell casting. You need to nerf the spells. Too many spells are too powerful for their level, too many are just too powerful, and some are specifically designed to overcome the balancing limitations of the wizard (Spectral Hand for instance) and should not exist as a principle.

Monsters: I demand a full page of fluff and ecology for every monster. If you can't make it interesting, take it out. I mean, have you looked at the MM1 lately? So many things that are barely ever used, plus one really only needs so many "human, but bigger, stronger and stupider".

Oh yeah. And can we please get rid of all the ones which are properly ridiculous even sometimes to their names. Taking an ugly or dangerous animal and adding tentacles or more leg and giving him a weird name and some stats is not a right way to create a monster. It just serves to fill pages in order to have the customer thinks the books are worth his money.

LudicSavant

2014-12-22, 12:23 PM

I'd like to keep it about the same size, so I wouldn't add things without also removing things.

- Shapeshifter Druid instead of Wildshape Druid.
- The "polymorph replacement" spells like Trollshape instead of Polymorph & Friends.
- I'd replace much of the Magic Items chapter with material from Magic Item Compendium and a few other books.
- I'd do a complete pass over the spells chapter, getting rid of uninteresting or unbalanced (either too weak or too good) spells and slotting in some of the better non-core spell material (mostly those which were cornerstones for new archetypes and playstyles).
- Remove pretty much all of the prestige classes in the DMG. Replace with ToB prestige classes or and some of the more interesting non-core caster and hybrid PrCs (Unseen Seer, Ordained Champion, etc).
- Tome of Battle classes instead of Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
- No penalties. It's easy to forget that this is an important thing that should be in core, simply because so many people houserule that this rule doesn't exist that it's easy to forget that it exists.
- Fractional BAB and saves as the default rule.
- Different descriptions for some of the classes such as Cleric. For instance, Cleric would better present the variety of fluff options available for the class and the breadth of philosophies and character archetypes it allows, instead of making everyone think they're supposed to be generic MMORPG healbots.
- Remember how supplements made Bards go from a whipping boy used for comedy about how underpowered it was (the inspiration for Elan, even) to being on a relevant playing field with casters? That material comes to core. That means things like Song of the Heart, Song of the White Raven, Badge of Valor and so forth.
- Swift and Immediate actions covered properly in core instead of in every supplement.
- Profession skill removed entirely, and any reference to it expunged. If you want to be a basketweaver, that's flavor... not something you need to be spending your skill points on. The rules for Profession don't actually do anything except earn you a stipend that is actually less than if you had used anything else to make money. I find that this skill's existence constrains flavor rather than enabling it.
- Races would have to be outright rebalanced. High elves, half-orcs, and half-elves would need to be replaced with more competently designed versions that are competitive with humans and dwarves. Would-be PC races in the Monster Manual would have to be adjusted to be more appropriate for PC use (I'm looking at kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, drow, goblins, planetouched. Also vampires/lycanthropes/anything that PCs can be turned into mid-adventure; these things should be possible to have happen without screwing over the whole game).
- Undead monster type traits adjusted; less inherent traits, a couple more "tags" which add additional traits.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-22, 02:04 PM

I would added incredibly powerful fighter feats that would been available from the level 13 to 20.
If feats are your class features, it makes sense that at higher levels you'd have more powerful feats. Being able to fly in battle (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon style) would make a whole lot more sense as a FBF that required Fighter levels than feeble feats like Greater Weapon Specialization.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-22, 04:09 PM

So many things that are barely ever used, plus one really only needs so many "human, but bigger, stronger and stupider".

But this one heals itself! And this one throws rocks! And this one is even bigger and stronger, but it's smarter because it's a good guy!

malonkey1

2014-12-22, 07:40 PM

But this one heals itself! And this one throws rocks! And this one is even bigger and stronger, but it's smarter because it's a good guy!

And this one has a hat!

Vhaidara

2014-12-22, 08:09 PM

And this one has a hat!

And this one is a hat!

Seerow

2014-12-22, 09:08 PM

The biggest issue to me isn't what to include, but what do you cut to make room for the new stuff? There's a ton of stuff I'd like to see Core, but you can't add a Totemist in place of a Druid straight out because explaining the system and adding all the soulmelds is going to eat a ton of page space, where the Druid's system and spells synergize pretty well with the Wizard/Cleric so it eats far less space on its own.

So first order of business, what do we cut?

Let's go ahead and make the easy cuts first. Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are all out. These will eventually get replaced wholesale with Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage (possibly renamed back to Fighter/Monk/Paladin). Unarmed Swordsage variant is the default, as it replaces the Monk here.

Druid gets redesigned to drop down to 6th-7th level spells max, and gets the half-strength animal companion. Retains Wild Shape and other features.

Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, and Bard get shuffled together and redesigned into three new classes. Removing one class gives us an even 10, which should save page space overall:

1) Skilled Warrior. Mix of Fighter, Rogue, and Spell-Less Ranger. Gets 8+int skills, full BAB, good HD, a free combat style, some form of bonus damage, some free non-combat features (either tracking like ranger, or a selection of a few options of which tracking is one) and choice between either a activated self buff (a la rage) or a full powered animal companion to use as backup. This is your go-to class for people who want to play a mundane warrior without any subsystems.

2) Inspirational Leader. Basically a spell-less Bard/Marshall hybrid. Combination of active and passive bonuses to boost allies and increase action economy. Add Some class features emulating stuff like snowflake wardance to let it be cha primary and still be effective actually attacking itself if desired.

3) Magical Warrior. Use Mystic Ranger/Duskblade casting progression. Give some of the unique spells from Ranger/Paladin to this class (Stuff like Arrowmind/Arrowstorm, Bless Weapon, etc), along with general buff spells, mobility spells and a few touch spells, possibly with the Duskblade's channeling feature. Basically a gish in a can class.

About half of the core feats, the useless stuff nobody ever takes? Go ahead and cut those. Anything that people only take as a prerequisite, or got reprinted later with a different name and better effect later? Cut them. Replace these with some of the more useful non-caster feats from other sources. Feats like the TWFing line that should be a single feat? Combine them together. Bonus points if you remove aforementioned useless prerequisites from feats added in.

The Magic chapter and Spells Chapter both need to be trimmed significantly to make room for maneuvers for the 3 initiator classes. The Magic Chapter probably stays mostly in tact, but there's a few sections where you can cut half the words and still say the same thing. Basically just look for any word bloat here to try to make some extra room.

Actually on that note, the Combat and Adventuring Chapters tend to have a lot of overlap and bloating. Make a pass through these to trim the fat, simplify, and clarify wherever possible.

The Spells Chapter you're going to have to prune some spells. Start with the upper level druid spells and any Ranger/Paladin/Bard spells that don't get reused for Magical Warrior. From there proceed with cutting any spells that are just "____, Greater", and bake the relevant scaling into the base spell somehow or another. From there start pruning any particularly problematic spells (looking mainly at the polymorph and planar binding/ally lines here), or dramatically underused spells. Overall it should be possible to cull about 30-40% of this chapter, which will free up around 40 pages worth of space, conveniently this is just slightly less than what the ToB maneuvers take up, which lets us squeeze that in there with some pruning of the ToB content to make it fit.

Edit: Reading above posts reminded me of a few things. Mostly I forgot Core wasn't just PHB.
-Swift and Immediate Actions are core.

-Remove most of the boring +X items. Bake these into the default math of the game (inherent bonuses at X level, higher base progressions, especially for stats and saving throws).

-Core Prestige Classes are swapped out for more interesting options. 4-6 Caster Options(split between stuff for Arcane, Divine, and Gish), 4 Maneuver Options (1 for each maneuver class, plus 1 accelarated progression class for a non-initiator to move into), 2-4 no-subsystem options (ie split between Skilled Fighter and Inspirational Leader)

-Epic rules are replaced by an E6-style variant. Every X exp beyond level 20 gain one bonus feat, spell slot, or maneuver known/readied. Gain an extra hit die/stats/bonus to saves every Y milestones after 20. Replace 10 pages of material with 2 paragraphs. Makes more room for other stuff.

-Stripped down rules for stronghold building, business running, city/kingdom management, and a factions/reputation/politics minigame included in the DMG. These can probably replace most of the world building advice under campaigns, in addition to eating up the extra page space from the epic rules. More in depth versions can wait for their own books, so it only needs maybe 5-10 pages per subject, but each should be covered in core.

Edit 2:
One other thing. Quick fix for the skill system.
-Use Pathfinder's gain +3 at first trained rank instead of x4 ranks at first level.
-Combine Spot/Listen (Perception), Bluff/Forgery (Deception), Disable Device/Open Lock (Manipulate Device), Jump/Swim (Athletics). Hide/Move Silently (Stealth) are combined.
-Perform, Profession, Knowledge, Speak Language, and Craft Skills are now a separate category of Background skills. You gain 2+int background skills per level. Increasing Int permanently provides these ranks retroactively.
-All base Skill Ranks are increased by 50% across the board, no longer gain int bonus number of regular skill points earned. So a Wizard gains 3 skill points per level. The Skilled Warrior gets 12 skill points per level. Swordsage gets 9. And so on.

LudicSavant

2014-12-22, 09:41 PM

And this one is a hat!

And this one is a slightly darker shade of green.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-22, 10:25 PM

So first order of business, what do we cut?

Let's go ahead and make the easy cuts first. Fighter, Monk, and Paladin ...
Why are you cutting other classes? The whole chapter on base classes is 40 pages long, with 6½ pages of that overhead. By contrast, the Spells chapter takes up 123 pages. The right place to start cutting is overpowered, contentious core spells like Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Baleful Polymorph, Gate, Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding, Greater Planar Binding, ...

Chopping existing classes, at about 3 pages each, doesn't actually free up that much room. It's easy to not use a class you don't like. Removing it from the game for everyone just because you don't like it strikes me as mean-spirited.

Seerow

2014-12-22, 10:37 PM

Why are you cutting other classes? The whole chapter on base classes is 40 pages long, with 6½ pages of that overhead. By contrast, the Spells chapter takes up 123 pages. The right place to start cutting is overpowered, contentious core spells like Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Baleful Polymorph, Gate, Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding, Greater Planar Binding, ...

Chopping existing classes, at about 3 pages each, doesn't actually free up that much room. It's easy to not use a class you don't like. Removing it from the game for everyone just because you don't like it strikes me as mean-spirited.

If you kept reading you'd see that I did continue on to cut down spells by around 1/3rd and specifically cited Planar Binding and Polymorph lines as prime targets. Too much more than that and you don't have quite enough variety for people to be happy with without splats. Less than that there isn't enough room for maneuvers to be added.

I'm aware of how little page space the specified classes actually take up, and other cuts were made from other areas to make up the difference. But fact is the classes specified are both weak and redundant. Providing a more balanced array of core classes between weakening spells and introducing a mix of more competent martially oriented characters (Including two distinct non-caster and non-initiator classes for people who don't want to deal with that) helps set the tone and overall balance for the game at a much more reasonable level.

I'm really not sure where you are getting mean spirited, and suspect you are taking it personally due to getting enjoyment from playing those classes regardless of their power level. Whether the class can be played and enjoyed is irrelevant from the context of what is a desirable inclusion into the core foundations of the game.

JusticeZero

2014-12-22, 10:58 PM

Add ToB. Add Psionics, but not the Psion. Remove Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer. Remove Fighter, Monk, Rogue. Remove the Paladin's code. Add some form of full BAB armored skill monkey class with inspirational abilities. Add some more races that aren't Tolkien.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-22, 11:01 PM

I'm aware of how little page space the specified classes actually take up, and other cuts were made from other areas to make up the difference. But fact is the classes specified are both weak and redundant.
My objection is that you're dismissing these classes out of hand as role archetypes by cutting them. Other people have suggested putting new content into the core game which would (at least in the case of the Fighter: the build-your-own warrior option) make the class viable. (I agreed, and mentioned a Fighter feat for combat flying a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an example of what I'd like to see for the class.) Many people don't like the fiddly bookkeeping of ToB maneuvers, which makes Warblade not an acceptable replacement. A class which has user-selected feats as its main class feature is a pretty nifty idea. The execution (sucky FBFs, with the notable exception of Power Attack) is the problem — not the concept.

Vhaidara

2014-12-22, 11:06 PM

Thinking about it, I would probably add Eberron races: Warforged, Shifters, and Changelings. Make robots, mini werebeasts, and shapeshifters core races, and more widely available.

Seerow

2014-12-22, 11:17 PM

My objection is that you're dismissing these classes out of hand as role archetypes by cutting them. Other people have suggested putting new content into the core game which would (at least in the case of the Fighter: the build-your-own warrior option) make the class viable. (I agreed, and mentioned a Fighter feat for combat flying a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an example of what I'd like to see for the class.) Many people don't like the fiddly bookkeeping of ToB maneuvers, which makes Warblade not an acceptable replacement. A class which has user-selected feats as its main class feature is a pretty nifty idea. The execution (sucky FBFs, with the notable exception of Power Attack) is the problem — not the concept.

And for people who don't want to deal with any of the fiddly book keeping, the Skilled Warrior (whatever it ends up named) exists. It basically exists to take over the role of mundane warrior, it just gets the skills and features necessary to make them useful out of combat. It would probably end up looking closer to a Hybrid Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger than a Fighter, but ultimately what you're looking for in a Fighter is a mundane dude that can hold its own in combat, and the class would accomplish that.

Trying to make a bunch of high level fighter exclusive feats to help the Fighter keep up seems like a really lame proposition when Tome of Battle already went out of its way to do that, just with a resource schedule to keep it balanced. Make feats better, sure. But you can make better feats without having a class that does nothing but get more feats.

Troacctid

2014-12-22, 11:30 PM

Petrocorus

2014-12-23, 12:03 AM

My objection is that you're dismissing these classes out of hand as role archetypes by cutting them. Other people have suggested putting new content into the core game which would (at least in the case of the Fighter: the build-your-own warrior option) make the class viable. (I agreed, and mentioned a Fighter feat for combat flying a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an example of what I'd like to see for the class.) Many people don't like the fiddly bookkeeping of ToB maneuvers, which makes Warblade not an acceptable replacement. A class which has user-selected feats as its main class feature is a pretty nifty idea. The execution (sucky FBFs, with the notable exception of Power Attack) is the problem — not the concept.

Indeed, even without completely reworking the Fighter, just giving him 4 skill points per level with a better skill list and giving him much better feat chains, and some fighter only feats which are actually useful would make the class both beginner-friendly and much more useful and balanced.
All TWF could be done with a 3 feat chain including everything. Same for archery. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation should scale with levels and could be one single feats. Comparing them with Knowledge Devotion and Holy Warrior make them cry at night about themselves.

On a related note, what does FBF means?

Vhaidara

2014-12-23, 12:08 AM

On a related note, what does FBF means?

Fighter bonus feat

Seerow

2014-12-23, 12:14 AM

I was under the impression we were just rearranging existing materials, not rebalancing classes or adding new ones. If you're reworking stuff to be all balanced and stuff, you're basically just backporting 5th edition.

You're probably right, and I went a bit overboard in terms of suggesting entirely new/rebalanced content rather than just shuffling stuff around. The big problem I have is some archtypes simply aren't supported by existing material. Can probably replace my thoughts for Magic Warrior with straight up Duskblade, and leave Bard where it is rather than redesigning it with less magic and more action economy... but that still leaves a needed niche for a skilled mundane warrior. I guess the spell-less ranger variant (ie Ranger with 4 bonus feats in place of its casting) is a decent enough fit when combined with improved feat offerings, especially if sitting alongside the Barbarian (rather than rolling the two basically together), but still is going to have a lot of really specific abilities that I would rather have as one among a set of options.

That said, calling making rebalancing efforts "backporting 5e" is pretty ridiculous. It first presumes that 5e is balanced, and second assumes you want your end result to look anything like what 5e does now. I would hazard a guess that anyone who likes 5e as it is is playing 5e, not talking about what they'd do to the core of 3e.

Indeed, even without completely reworking the Fighter, just giving him 4 skill points per level with a better skill list and giving him much better feat chains, and some fighter only feats which are actually useful would make the class both beginner-friendly and much more useful and balanced.

On a related note, what does FBF means?

FBF is Fighter Bonus Feat.

And no, the Fighter is never going to be truly beginner friendly. Any class that is "Pick your feature set from this really long list and changing those options is hard if not impossible" is going to be devastating to a new player. Not unless you somehow manage to make the long list of options (in this case feats) incapable of having synergy with each other and all are equally balanced individually. Which is a pretty impossible, and honestly undesirable, design goal. For a new player class you want something with more limited sets of options that you select between (ie "Pick A, B, or C"), if any options at all. Honestly I think the core Barbarian is one of the best new player classes out there.

Petrocorus

2014-12-23, 12:15 AM

Fighter bonus feat

Oh my... Stupid me! I was looking for a specific feat chain which could have this acronym.

Solaris

2014-12-23, 11:27 AM

And no, the Fighter is never going to be truly beginner friendly. Any class that is "Pick your feature set from this really long list and changing those options is hard if not impossible" is going to be devastating to a new player. Not unless you somehow manage to make the long list of options (in this case feats) incapable of having synergy with each other and all are equally balanced individually. Which is a pretty impossible, and honestly undesirable, design goal. For a new player class you want something with more limited sets of options that you select between (ie "Pick A, B, or C"), if any options at all. Honestly I think the core Barbarian is one of the best new player classes out there.

It strikes me that a few pages of the designers explaining some good combos and builds in the vein of the class handbooks you find online would be a good thing to include in Core. They wouldn't have to cover everything, just enough to get the new kids started.

Seerow

2014-12-23, 11:35 AM

It strikes me that a few pages of the designers explaining some good combos and builds in the vein of the class handbooks you find online would be a good thing to include in Core. They wouldn't have to cover everything, just enough to get the new kids started.

Designers are notoriously bad at optimizing for their own games. Do I need to bring up SKR's feat point system?

Vhaidara

2014-12-23, 11:39 AM

Designers are notoriously bad at optimizing for their own games. Do I need to bring up SKR's feat point system?

No, but please do bring up the playtest druid.

strangebloke

2014-12-23, 12:25 PM

The better question is: What to take out?

A huge percentage of the most overpowered spells in the game are right there in core. Time stop, gate, polymorph, etc. Remove them and give the martial classes some of the more decent martial feats from later on, like shock trooper, combat brute, robilar's gambit, craven etc. and you're a decent ways toward making the game, if not balanced, at least playable for martial guys at the high levels.

Sorceror is a Wizard ACF. Completely pointless. They tried to fix this in later books by making them the 'dragonblooded' arcanists, but in core they're just weaker, less complicated wizards.

sorceror->warlock

Personally I never saw the point of having druids AND rangers. The archetypes just aren't that different. 'druid with a bow' is not an archetype, and there are better classes to emulate an archer.

ranger->scout

Same thing applies to clerics and paladins. Both wear heavy armor, are super religious, beat people with a stick, and cast divine spells. That clerics are better in every way just exacerbates the issue.

Cleric -> Cloistered cleric
or
Paladin -> knight/crusader

I'd also like to see a fix for the martial classes that doesn't involve martial adepts. I like the martial adepts, but I really don't feel like an illiterate barbarian if I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of my barbarian spells. Since they never really did that in all of 3.5, I really can't think what I'd include in core to do this, though.

Der_DWSage

2014-12-23, 12:34 PM

Curmudgeon

2014-12-23, 12:44 PM

Ah, right. While I'm not entirely sure how I'd do it...let's change the economy, shall we? While I like the idea that high-level adventurers are rarely unable to shell out a few copper for a hotel, I still find it ridiculous that by 5th level, a party of four is likely to have a literal king's ransom between equipment and pocket change.
That would take quite a bit of work, I think. The game is set up to encourage the "Christmas tree" adventurer, wearing their +n armor, +n natural armor, +n deflection, +n resistance, +n armior enhancement, +n natural armor enhancement, +n melee weapon(s), +n ranged weapon(s), +n STR enhancement, +n DEX enhancement, +n CON enhancement, +n INT enhancement, +n WIS enhancement, +n CHA enhancement, ... all to meet level-appropriate challenges.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-23, 01:03 PM

No, but please do bring up the playtest druid.

What was up with that one? I haven't heard this story.

Red Fel

2014-12-23, 01:03 PM

Trying to make a bunch of high level fighter exclusive feats to help the Fighter keep up seems like a really lame proposition when Tome of Battle already went out of its way to do that, just with a resource schedule to keep it balanced. Make feats better, sure. But you can make better feats without having a class that does nothing but get more feats.

This.

Here's the thing. Fighters already existed. And people have complained almost since that time that feats are not a class feature.

So let's try to step outside of our experience for a moment. Suppose that, In The Beginning, there was no Fighter. Suppose instead that the Crusader and Warblade took the place that Fighter took in the very earliest publications.

Do you think, speaking hypothetically, that anyone would say, "Yeah, these options are nice, but I really just want more feats?"

That's the point. I think a lot of the sense of "We don't need ToB in core, Fighters are sufficient," comes from the fact that we already have Fighters, and have had them for years. I honestly think that if Fighters had never existed, few if any people would actually be asking for the class.

That's why I would see ToB in core. Barbarians are great as-is, wouldn't change them for the world. But Fighter only seems to exist because people want bonus feats and little-or-no bookkeeping or system mastery. As others have said, effective Fighters do require system mastery - you need to be able to differentiate between the rubbish feats and the decent ones. And any feat that requires action - such as tactical feats, or even Power Attack - requires some degree of bookkeeping.

Also, Monk really needs to be replaced. It's just bad.

strangebloke

2014-12-23, 01:31 PM

Monk definitely needs to go.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-23, 01:34 PM

Monk definitely needs to go.

Indeed. Replace with Unarmed Swordsage.

Ashtagon

2014-12-23, 01:37 PM

Races: Drop the half-elf. It's basically an elf variant with all the good bits removed. Replace the half-orc with full-blooded orc. Play u[p the fey aspect ogf gnomes, maybe even make them full fey. Add: warforged (or other "robot/construct" race), add rakasta and lupins (cats and dogs), add planetouched (x6), add a "plant" race.

Occupations: Take the d20 Modern concept and run with it. Obviously, these need to be changed to make them fit in with a fantasy milieu. Rather than just have them as one-off packages, make them into base classes that NPCs might take for several levels. Possibly even make these the actual base classes, and the standard adventurer clases then become prestige classes that PCs can prestige into at level 4. Alternately, having an occupation might be a one-off base bonus, but also open up feats at later levels (the occupation would be a feat prerequisite).

Classes:

Berserker (barbarian, shapeshift druid)
Fighter (fighter, samurai, knight, marshal)
Monk (monk, swordsage, sohei; a small amount of casting could be an ACF)
Rogue (rogue, factotum, swashbuckler, spellthief)
Ranger (ranger, scout)

Templar (paladin, crusader; powers vary by deity)
Cleric (mostly cloistered cleric, he should be the "shield" to the holy warrior's "sword")
Wizard (arcane studious caster; generalist wizards progress slower than specialists somehow; multiple subclasses)
Warlock (sorcerer, warlock; this was the sorcerer done right)

Rebalance caster classes so you never have the "quadratic wizards" issue again. Gishes should be built as multiclass characters. Druids might be berserkers, clerics (with a nature theme), or rangers, possibly multiclassing, depending on their focus.

Psionics would be dropped from core. Incarnum also remains as outside core.

Skills: I favour having a broader range of skills, with an understanding that some of them will likely be NPC skills primarily. There should be an expectation that an NPC specialist should be hired for specific skills as needed. Make the skill tricks into basic functions of the skills.

Feats: Get rid of feat chains, and replace them with single feats that improve as you level up.

Prestige Classes: Get rid of these. Most of the more interesting ones can be converted into feats and/or ACFs for base classes. Where a base class has merged two or more old base classes, some source classes features should be made ACFs or feats.

Spells: Fix these. You know which ones.

Swift/Immediate actions: These should be core.

ToB stuff: This should be integrated into the martial classes as potential ACF features.

Vhaidara

2014-12-23, 01:52 PM

What was up with that one? I haven't heard this story.

Apparently (I haven't actually looked it up to confirm), the playtest druid didn't bother with Animal Companion, didn't take Natural Spell (or particularly use Wild Shape), and prepared a high level (I believe 7 or 8) SNA. You know, the spell they can cast spontaneously.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-23, 02:18 PM

Apparently (I haven't actually looked it up to confirm), the playtest druid didn't bother with Animal Companion, didn't take Natural Spell (or particularly use Wild Shape), and prepared a high level (I believe 7 or 8) SNA. You know, the spell they can cast spontaneously.

:smalleek:
The devs really are bad at their own game. Natural Spell is the feat designed specifically for druids and for druids only, and the playtester didn't take it?

Curmudgeon

2014-12-23, 02:29 PM

And people have complained almost since that time that feats are not a class feature.
The reason people have made this complaint is that the vast majority of feats are clearly of less worth than most class features. However, that's fixable. If there were a single feat which granted flight (let's say 60' with good maneuverability), but you had to discard a class feature when you took that feat, I'd wager most D&D builds would include the flight feat.

Solaris

2014-12-23, 02:43 PM

Designers are notoriously bad at optimizing for their own games. Do I need to bring up SKR's feat point system?

You say 'notoriously', I say 'hilariously'. Reading the stuff on SKR's website suggests he's definitely of the 'badwrongfun' school and has only the vaguest notion on how D&D works as a game.

But if we're assuming a fantasy land with designers who put the stuff we're suggesting in Core, we might as well assume we're in a fantasy land where designers can actually not suck hard vacuum at their own games.

Red Fel

2014-12-23, 02:44 PM

The reason people have made this complaint is that the vast majority of feats are clearly of less worth than most class features. However, that's fixable. If there were a single feat which granted flight (let's say 60' with good maneuverability), but you had to discard a class feature when you took that feat, I'd wager most D&D builds would include the flight feat.

But at that point, you're making up not only feats, but a way to obtain them.

Yeah. If anybody could trade their inferior class features for a superior feat, they probably would. Again, that's nothing specific to Fighters; it's simply a profitable exchange rate for everybody. That doesn't make the feat a good class feature; it makes it an optimal feat choice.

And it doesn't justify a class whose entire list of class features is composed of feats.

LudicSavant

2014-12-23, 03:23 PM

How about some ground rules for this thought experiment? No inventing new mechanics, but you may omit or delete rules or choose which errata to include. No significantly increasing the size of the books, so where you add you must also cut.

Designers are notoriously bad at optimizing for their own games. Do I need to bring up SKR's feat point system?

That's a rather hasty generalization to make, given that there are a number of companies which explicitly put optimizers and competitive gamers on the design payroll.

Let's not lump in all designers when we have a problem with some.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-23, 03:37 PM

But at that point, you're making up not only feats, but a way to obtain them.
You misunderstood. The sacrifice of a class feature would be an additional cost on top of the normal feat allocation — and that flight feat would still be worth taking.

jedipotter

2014-12-23, 03:50 PM

I can't help but disagree with these two. For one, I HATE class-specific feats. I always felt like those should have been ACFs instead. ESPECIALLY with the dragon-focused Sorcerer ones. What, can't anyone ELSE have dragonblood? :smallconfused: Also, I think a Core book is a poor place to discuss setting, as there IS no one D&D setting. It's fluff, and makes the book too padded.

There is nothing wrong with ''class'' specific feats. Silent spell is class specific for spellcastes, for example. And a wizard can take an martial feat, like power attack, but it is not best feat they can take.

And by Setting I was talking like the more generic world rules, not ''the Graywawk Town of Marshwater''.

Add ToB. Add Psionics, but not the Psion. Remove Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer. Remove Fighter, Monk, Rogue. Remove the Paladin's code. Add some form of full BAB armored skill monkey class with inspirational abilities. Add some more races that aren't Tolkien.

This sounds more d20 Anime then D&D to me....

Indeed. Replace with Unarmed Swordsage.

Oh, please no Tome of Battle in Core. That should stay the ''book over there''. Though I don't mind a couple monk fixes.

Seerow

2014-12-23, 03:55 PM

There is nothing wrong with ''class'' specific feats. Silent spell is class specific for spellcastes, for example. And a wizard can take an martial feat, like power attack, but it is not best feat they can take.

Silent Spell is not class specific, it can be used by around half the classes in the game. Class specific means just that, specific to a single class. If it is usable by a general category of characters, it is fine.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-23, 03:56 PM

Oh, please no Tome of Battle in Core. That should stay the ''book over there''. Though I don't mind a couple monk fixes.

Well, it's the best Monk replacement we've got if all we're doing is replacing things and not altering existing classes.

Jeff the Green

2014-12-23, 04:06 PM

I was thinking about it, and I would also modify the wizard with SonofZeal's minimum intervention fix. Basically, you must specialize, and in addition to the bonus spells you get from specializing, your bonus spells from Intelligence and most of your higher-level slots must be in your specialty. You're limited to the spells per day of an adept for anything outside of your favored school.

It's probably need to be combined with limited choices for banning. Conjurers must ban transmutation while evokers and enchanters have more freedom.

Petrocorus

2014-12-23, 07:14 PM

:smalleek:
The devs really are bad at their own game. Natural Spell is the feat designed specifically for druids and for druids only, and the playtester didn't take it?

I don't know for 3.5, but from what i gathered, they playtested 3.0 by playing the same way they played 2E. Not surprising since the brokenness (in one way or another) of several classes (monk, paladin, druid) comes from the fact they have been ported into 3.0 with minimal adaptation.

jedipotter

2014-12-23, 08:00 PM

Silent Spell is not class specific, it can be used by around half the classes in the game. Class specific means just that, specific to a single class. If it is usable by a general category of characters, it is fine.

So as long as a feat can be taken by two classes, your ok with that then right?

Seerow

2014-12-23, 08:07 PM

So as long as a feat can be taken by two classes, your ok with that then right?

I'd broaden that to all classes within a grouping. So while an Incarnum feat like Increase Essence Capacity usable only to the three classes that use Incarnum is fine, something like Weapon Specialization usable only to the Fighter and the Warblade is not.

I consider the Divine Feats to be on the borderline, but would consider them more acceptable if all divine classes got a mechanic similar to turn undead that could power them (rather than feeling like you need a dip into Cleric or Sacred Exorcist to have access to half the toys intended for divine characters, even while playing say a Spirit Shaman or Favored Soul).

DEMON

2014-12-23, 08:08 PM

Add martial adepts. Remove prepared full casters and replaces with Sorcerer variations (e.g Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman; maybe Warmage, Dread Necro and Beguiler).
Add Warlock and 1/2 casters (i.e. Hexblade and Spellthief).

Remove most PrCs and include all dual-class progression PrCs instead.

Prestige classing would result in less power but more variety, options for each character would be more limited overall, resulting in a sort of specialization and less complexity.

Mehangel

2014-12-23, 08:18 PM

Well, i would have the core rulebook include the following:

Classes:

Full Casters:
Wizard
Psion
Favored Soul (Replaces Cleric)
Spirit Shaman (Replaces Druid)

Gishes:
Duskblade
Psychic Warrior

Melee:
Warblade (Replaces Fighter)
Crusader (Replaces Paladin)

Ranged:
Scout (Replaces the Ranger/Rogue)
Warlock (Replaces Sorcerer)

Stealth:
Swordsage (Replaces Monk/Rogue)
Spellthief (Replaces Rogue)

Support:
Factotum (Replaces Rogue/Bard)
Dragon Shaman/Marshal (Replaces Bard)

Races:
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Orc
Warforged
Shifter
Changeling
Gnome
Halfling

Feats:
Include Reserve Feats
Include Domain Feats
Include Sudden Metamagic Feats
Include Class Feature Feats (i.e. feats that grant class features such as a familiar or animal companion)

Skills:
Make Skill Tricks Core
Include Epic DCs for all skills

Variants:
Include a chapter that has variant class and racial features but instead of being class/race specific make them ability specific. (I.E. Sneak Attack for X, Familiar for Y, Rage for Z, etc, etc.)

Magic Items:
Make Augment Crystals Core

jedipotter

2014-12-23, 08:29 PM

I'd broaden that to all classes within a grouping. So while an Incarnum feat like Increase Essence Capacity usable only to the three classes that use Incarnum is fine, something like Weapon Specialization usable only to the Fighter and the Warblade is not.

It takes away the uniqueness of a feat when you just say everyone can do it. I like unique characters, not the bland ''everyone is the same''.

Would you like feats by class. Like Dodge: If a Rogue or Barbarian takes this feat they get a +5 to AC from all attacks. If a Bard or Ranger takes it the bonus is +3. If a fighter takes it the bonus is +1. And if any other class takes it the bonus is +1 and they have to pick a single target and only get the bonus to their ac for that target.

How do you feel about feats that have the requirement like ''ki pool'' or ''luck points'' or whatever? I'd guess they were ok, right, as in theory anyone can get whatever is needed some way...

Seerow

2014-12-23, 08:42 PM

It takes away the uniqueness of a feat when you just say everyone can do it. I like unique characters, not the bland ''everyone is the same''.

But not everyone can do it. Only people who take the feat can. The trick is having a diverse enough set of feats that people take different feats so are different.

Would you like feats by class. Like Dodge: If a Rogue or Barbarian takes this feat they get a +5 to AC from all attacks. If a Bard or Ranger takes it the bonus is +3. If a fighter takes it the bonus is +1. And if any other class takes it the bonus is +1 and they have to pick a single target and only get the bonus to their ac for that target.

This would be pretty awful. It causes a ton of accounting, makes it prohibitive to introduce new classes (as you then have to update every feat in the game to account for the new class). And it actually takes away choices, because it makes certain feats go-to options for some classes and worthless for others. It encourages all characters of a class to have very similar feat choices, which is less diversity overall, not more.

How do you feel about feats that have the requirement like ''ki pool'' or ''luck points'' or whatever? I'd guess they were ok, right, as in theory anyone can get whatever is needed some way...

These are both fine, because as you point out anyone can pick up those resources. Though a class that has a luck pool as its primary resource would be nice.

Svata

2014-12-24, 12:50 AM

Well, i would have the core rulebook include the following:

Classes:

Full Casters:
Wizard
Psion
Favored Soul (Replaces Cleric)
Spirit Shaman (Replaces Druid)

Would have gone Sorcerer instead, as the others are Tier 2 like it, not T1 like the Wizard.

Gishes:
Duskblade
Psychic Warrior

Melee:
Warblade (Replaces Fighter)
Crusader (Replaces Paladin)

Eh, I'd keep the Barbarian, and probably include bith paladin and crusader. Sure, the concept is similar, but the actual things they do in-game are different. Maybe just have UA's Prestige paladin be a thing...

Ranged:
Scout (Replaces the Ranger/Rogue)
Warlock (Replaces Sorcerer)

Stealth:
Swordsage (Replaces Monk/Rogue)
Spellthief (Replaces Rogue)

Support:
Factotum (Replaces Rogue/Bard)
Dragon Shaman/Marshal (Replaces Bard)

Eh, bards are the best-balanced class in core. Why are they being cut? Also, bards are awesome. Martial is a dip class, at best. Keep the bard.

Races:
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Orc
Warforged
Shifter
Changeling
Gnome
Halfling

Feats:
Include Reserve Feats
Include Domain Feats
Include Sudden Metamagic Feats
Include Class Feature Feats (i.e. feats that grant class features such as a familiar or animal companion)

Skills:
Make Skill Tricks Core
Include Epic DCs for all skills

Variants:
Include a chapter that has variant class and racial features but instead of being class/race specific make them ability specific. (I.E. Sneak Attack for X, Familiar for Y, Rage for Z, etc, etc.)

Magic Items:
Make Augment Crystals Core

The rest sounds pretty good.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-24, 03:16 AM

Well, i would have the core rulebook include the following:
...
Support:
Factotum (Replaces Rogue/Bard)
The Factotum is probably the most poorly written class in all of D&D, and I banned it outright until I could spare the time to work through all its issues. Here's the effort I had to put into that one class (spoilered for length):
The Factotum's Cunning Breach actually does work in my game, despite the authors not having the slightest idea how spell resistance functions in D&D. Strike the last, nonsensical, sentence of the paragraph.

Ninjas, Scouts, Factotums, and other classes with Trapfinding can use Search (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/search.htm) to find traps with DCs higher than 20 and Disable Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) to disarm magic traps, just as Rogues can. However, this does not override explicit limitations stated elsewhere in the rules, including the following spells:

Explosive Runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Fire Trap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Glyph of Warding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Spike Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeGrowth.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Spike Stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeStones.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Symbol of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfFear.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfInsanity.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPain.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Persuasion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPersuasion.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfSleep.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Stunning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfStunning.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Weakness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfWeakness.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Teleportation Circle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.

Factotum inspiration points aren't gained when an encounter ends, or after a few minutes; they're only gained at the beginning of each encounter (when you roll initiative), exactly as stated. Also, I've decided among the various possible meanings of "gains" to treat it as synonymous with "attains" (rather than "adds") here; IPs thus refresh to the specified total rather than keep accumulating. (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

House Rule: Bonus damage from the Factotum's Cunning Insight is negative energy damage when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage, making it consistent with the treatment of bonus damage from sneak attack when used with weaponlike spells. (This follows the pattern of a WotC Rules of the Game (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) article, months before Complete Arcane made that Skip Williams house rule official.)

Because Factotums do not cast spells, the metamagic feats they use must be those which affect Spell-like abilities (Empower Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#empowerSpellLikeAbility), Quicken Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#quickenSpellLikeAbility), and the like). Metamagic feats applicable only to spells do not benefit the Factotum. From Dungeonscape page 16:

By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability.

The Factotum has a caster level, but not an arcane caster level or a divine caster level. Factotums use SLAs; they are not spellcasters — either arcane or divine. From Complete Arcane page 72:

... requirements for feats and prestige classes based on specific levels of spells cast (“Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells,” for example) cannot be met by spell-like abilities or invocations—not even spell-like abilities or invocations that allow a character to use a specific arcane spell of the appropriate level or higher.

The Factotum's Cunning Strike is limited to 1 inspiration point for 1d6 sneak attack, as that class feature doesn't stipulate an exception to the stacking rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking). (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

The Factotum's Cunning Brilliance can't be used to imitate any ability without an explicit (Ex) label. That is, you can't assume an unlabeled class ability is Extraordinary; that's not the default. (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.) From Player's Handbook page 180:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
I don't ban the Factotum any more, but it was a pain in the posterior getting to where all the stupidities had been addressed and the class was usable without regularly bringing the game to a halt.

Consequently, any attempt to put Factotum into the game's core is just asking for trouble.