PDA

View Full Version : Downgrading (prestige)classes? (3.5 to 3.0)



Threeshades
2007-04-13, 06:19 AM
Greetings

I have a very weird problem. Our D&D party has ever been using the 3.0 rules. But naturally we also want to get new books for our games. So i sometimes buy books of the 3.5 edition. In these books unfortunately some classes are built in a way that contradicts the 3.0 rules, which makes it necessary to apply some changes to these classes.

Now you might be asking yourself why dont just go to Edition 3.5. It's really easy: The rules of the 3.5 edition are simplified too much in our opinion. And we thought they are not able to represent realism enough (3.0 is already a bit too simple but in 3.5 it's just too much), so we stayed with 3.0.


So I'd like to ask some help to downgrade these classes, to make them at least vaguely balanced with the basic classes of the Player Handbook.

i would like to start with the basic classes offered in Complete Warrior:

A swashbuckler gains the feat Weapon Finesse at first level. The problem is in 3.0 you only got that feat for a single weapon and had to take it several times to also use it with different weapons. Now would it be better if you still allowed the Swashbuckler to get weapon finesse for all applying weapons or just one, or maybe just a certain number of chosen weapons (like 2 or 3)? (an alternative in this case also would be upgrading the feat, because personally i think this is one of the positive changes of 3.5)

The next is the Samurai. A level 2 samurai gains two-weapon fighting. This feat includes ambidexterity in 3.5 while you had to get that feat separately in 3.0. Would you suggest letting him have ambidexterity too for free or should it take ambidexterity as a separate feat?

And the last i would like to ask about is the Dervish:
A Dervish gets to use a Scimitar as light weapon instead of single-handed. In 3.0 the weapons all were restricted to one size. So a scimitar would be light for a large character anyway and double-handed for a small character. So what i was thinking about is to simply replace "scimitar" with the size appropriate weapon for each size category. Which would be the Kukri for small characters and the Falchion for large ones. Do you think this should work?

Or do you have any other suggestions how to adjust these classes?


I would be very thankful for any help and I might be resurrecting this thread later if i find other cases a class or maybe a feat doesnt work well with 3.0 rules. Also if i might get another book.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 06:24 AM
...before you downgrade the Samurai, keep in mind that it's the single worst base class in D&D.
Isn't making it worse kind of, well, cruel?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-04-13, 06:33 AM
...before you downgrade the Samurai, keep in mind that it's the single worst base class in D&D.
Isn't making it worse kind of, well, cruel?

3.0 also already has a perfectly fine Samurai.

Most of the stuff in the Complete Books appeared in 3.0 first anyway.

Threeshades
2007-04-13, 08:17 AM
3.0 also already has a perfectly fine Samurai.

Most of the stuff in the Complete Books appeared in 3.0 first anyway.

but you cant get them anymore.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 08:19 AM
Er... how is 3.0 more realistic than 3.5?

I'm not sure why the swashbuckler learning to fight dexterously with light weapons in general rather than one specific one is unrealistic. If you can use a rapier with finesse, why would using a shortsword or a dagger with finesse require the same amount of training learning the rapier took?

Belkarseviltwin
2007-04-13, 08:40 AM
but you cant get them anymore.

eBay, my friend, eBay...

Threeshades
2007-04-13, 08:48 AM
Er... how is 3.0 more realistic than 3.5?

I'm not sure why the swashbuckler learning to fight dexterously with light weapons in general rather than one specific one is unrealistic. If you can use a rapier with finesse, why would using a shortsword or a dagger with finesse require the same amount of training learning the rapier took?

as I said that's one of the few changes i thought are better about 3.5

But for example how lots of skills are folded into each other even if they work different sometimes.

Another example is the TWF feats. Just because im trained to use 2 weapons at once doesnt mean both my hands suddenly become equally dextrous.
Just one example.

@Belkarseviltwin
Ebay doesn't help you quite as much around here as it does for example in the USA (and it hates me anyway)

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 08:54 AM
as I said that's one of the few changes i thought are better about 3.5

But for example how lots of skills are folded into each other even if they work different sometimes.
Like what, Innuendo into Bluff? Characters get a limited number of skill points. The more skills they are, the thinner they're spread. Therefore, it's useful to fold very similar skills into each other (Hide and Move Silently should really be Stealth, IMO; Spot and Listen could be Awareness with only slightly more issues). Innuendo is something someone good at Bluffing would probably be good at.
The skill system is already "unrealistic". Does Innuendo being folded into Bluff and so on really change that to a remotely significant extent?


Another example is the TWF feats. Just because im trained to use 2 weapons at once doesnt mean both my hands suddenly become equally dextrous.
Just one example.
No--but fighting with two weapons doesn't require being ambidexterous. Realistically, people who fought with two weapons usually weren't. The weapons were used synergistically, but not in the same way. D&D's TWF is already an unrealistic abstraction; there's no need to add the additional unrealistic abstraction of the Ambidexterity feat into it.

Threeshades
2007-04-13, 09:12 AM
Like what, Innuendo into Bluff? Characters get a limited number of skill points. The more skills they are, the thinner they're spread. Therefore, it's useful to fold very similar skills into each other (Hide and Move Silently should really be Stealth, IMO; Spot and Listen could be Awareness with only slightly more issues). Innuendo is something someone good at Bluffing would probably be good at.
The skill system is already "unrealistic". Does Innuendo being folded into Bluff and so on really change that to a remotely significant extent?


No--but fighting with two weapons doesn't require being ambidexterous. Realistically, people who fought with two weapons usually weren't. The weapons were used synergistically, but not in the same way. D&D's TWF is already an unrealistic abstraction; there's no need to add the additional unrealistic abstraction of the Ambidexterity feat into it.

then for innuendo you might get a combination bonus when you are good at bluffing. But just because you are a good liar/deceiver you dont automatically get a good ability to make hidden suggestions.

Another example is read lips into spot. You might get better at reading lips if you have a good sight, but it doesnt mean you are good at reading lips at all. You still need to know what the motion of the lips indicate, you have to be able to abstract because different people (andespecially different races) speak differently and finally you have to be trained at following the lip movement and deciphering it at the same time.

Wilderness lore and intuit direction. I also would say it only would be worth a combination bonus for intuit direction but not the same skill. It's still about 2 different skills. One is to find your way, not only in wilderness (you might also get lost in a huge city or in a dungeon maze) and the other is survival in its basics (what fruits can you eat, what will this animal do if i shoot and arrow at it, is it a good idea to touch that plant), you might get bonuses on intuit direction if you have a good wilderness lore/survival skill (knowing that moss only grows on the north side of a rock etc) but its still a different skill.


PS: the weapon rules in 3.5 are only causing trouble

Telonius
2007-04-13, 10:10 AM
For the Weapon Finesse issue, I'd suggest using a version of the Weapon Group Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm). Weapon Group Feats are a variant rule from Unearthed Arcana. I would allow Weapon Finesse to apply to anything from the Light Blades group (Dagger, Punching Dagger, Rapier, and Short Sword) to start with. Add a new feat, Improved Weapon Finesse. You can take it multiple times, and it lets the player select any one additional weapon group for Finesse each time it's taken.

Or, just use the 3.5 version.

EDIT: Just to note, I would remove the +1 BAB requirement of the 3.5 version. It is a silly rule. Rogues should be able to get this feat at first level.

Matthew
2007-04-13, 04:39 PM
The Swashbuckler should get Weapon Finesse, as it appears in 3.0 (i.e. for one Weapon).

The Complete Samurai should get Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting. Oriental Adventures is still available for purchase in stores, as far as I know, the Samurai in that book is better and fully compatable. Alternatively, you should be able to find it on Amazon or Ebay.

The point in the Dervish being able to treat Scimitars as a Light Weapon is to decrease the associated penalties for Two Weapon Fighting. Just treat them as a size smaller. It's pretty pointless if you have Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, but I don't recall if that was available in 3.0. Consider allowing to straight decrease penalties associated with using Scimitars. Remember that in 3.5 this prevents one using Power Attack with Dervish Scimitars, but in 3.0 it would have no effect.