Changes you would have made to classes and mechanics if you worked at WOTC

[DMVerdandi]

Game design. It's hard. So a lot of the issues we have all had with 3.5 can really be chalked up to that knowledge. A decade and change later after it debuted, I think we have all had thought experiments and such on how this and that class could have been improved. So let's see it. What changes would you have made to the base classes and or Mechanics, classes available, etc.


Rogue
I would have given the rogue the monk's speed bonus. I mean, if it is going to be the "fast/agile" class, it should be able to actually move right?

Lastly, I would have made the beguiler a variant class.


Fighter
Outside of the obvious "add maneuvers" answer, I would have given the fighter floating feats. 8 of them over the duration of the class levels. Secondly, I would have given them the ferocity class ability.

Even in real life, soldiers, combatants, etc. All speak of having moments of "flow(psychology)", in which they are completely in the moment when fighting, and process information faster, hit harder, and DODGE.

But definitely the add maneuvers thing too.

Monk
I would have taken it, the shugenja, the Ninja, and the Samurai and made a 3.5 oriental adventures campaign. Completely retooled it, and made it so. I would have made them all psionic classes that manifest from constitution. Completely new powers based on the difference in mindset that the mystical "rokugan" has from the west.


Sorcerer/Wizard
Definitely would have smooshed the two classes together. Mage class.
Int casting. Casts like an arcanist, and instead of having a mundane spell book, Would have either had the option to have a familiar and cast from memory, or have a grimoire.

The grimoire would be manifested from the wizard's mind as a crystallization of knowledge, representing all the spells known, but also providing bonuses to casting as a spell focus depending on which school you chose. Essentially It would be a tool for:
A. Making transference of spells between mages easier
B. Focusing one's magic

When grimoires are destroyed instead of re-absorbed, they would require XP to be recreated, and a ritual that would take at least a week to recreate. Until the ritual ends, it would be impossible to cast spells.

Also, would have the ability to cast any arcane spell outside of the list up to level 5. Would require either the familiar or grimoire to absorb a magical item which had the spell, or being taught by another class. XP required to learn a new spell.
Reserve feats in core book

Bard
Would have been a mage variant class.
Instead of casting mainly from the Wiz/Sorc list, It would have casted from the Bard list(9 levels), while still being able to learn other arcane classes spells, but only up to 5th level spells.
Would have gained bardic inspiration and knowledge,
Instead of a grimoire or a familiar, it would use an instrument as a focus item. If no instrument, voice, acting or dance can be used, but they would get no school specialization bonus.
Bardic feats in core book


Cleric
Definitely would have changed Turn undead into Channel Divinity.
Domain spells would have been spontaneous.
Divine feats in core book
Paladin
Cleric variant class.
Give up channel divinity, and reduce maximum spells per day by 1 per spell level for High BAB, Martial weapons proficiency, Smite(Which would work identically to arcane strike feat), and 2 floating feats or mount.



Druid
Cast like spirit shaman. Can now cast spells in wild shape without feat tax. Wildshape feats in core book
That's pretty much it.


Ranger
Druid variant class.
Give up Wild shape and -1Spellperday/spell level, gain 4 floating feats, full BAB, and the ability to wear metal armor without losing spell casting.


Barbarian
Fighter Variant. Name change to berserker
Lose 4 Floating feats, gain Rage instead of ferocity, Unarmored DR = 1/2 levels, Con to AC, while raging.
Different maneuver system if used.

Rage feats in core book.

Also, Rage/Ferocity/Frenzy/whateva rules would be different. They would be closer to inspiration points. In every battle, or after a short rest, they recharge, and you get a number of rounds (Lets say equal to level) in each combat using the mode. After you use it, fatigue.
Rage feats would modify the rules even more, not unlike metamagic.

Some might take one or more extra points to use, others give you extra points, etc.


ABILITIES
I have always been one for adding in variant ability scores. I like honor, taint, and sanity scores already so those are a go.

Secondly, Not as a variant rule, but a core one, I would have added a pure magic ability score. Soul (So). Instead of casting off of a mental stat, Spellcasters would use that stat and soul, to cast and gain bonus scores. To cast a 9th level spell, Both Soul and the secondary score would have to be at the same level (18).

Secondly, there would be new skills that used the score. Gaining them all would be under a single feat in the core book. Casters get them as class skills.

-see supernatural
-Resist supernatural
-Meditate (Used to recover points, spell slots, etc)


Yay, Nay?

What changes would you all have made if you were a designer at WOTC.

[defiantdan]

3.5 has been about high magic fantasy gaming. For me any change that I would implement would be that there are no mundane or half casting classes. if you want to play sword and board find a different gaming system. I would get rid of blanket immunities so that all schools of magic measure up well. Next i would get rid of wish and it's variants. Lastly I would get rid of material components. If it's that important to have for the spell that saves the day the DM will make a mcguffin out of it. I would add more varied magical systems. Tome, truenaming, soulmelds and psionics are fun and could be brought up in power to match normal casting.

[Lorddenorstrus]

3.5 has been about high magic fantasy gaming. For me any change that I would implement would be that there are no mundane or half casting classes. if you want to play sword and board find a different gaming system.

No offense but that's just wrong on many levels. A lot of people highly enjoy mundanes even if they aren't the all powerful God wizard. In fact I can't convince my own group to even try wizards. They've seen how broke they can be and simply refuse to touch the entire class. The go to caster is Sorcerer for everyone and last time someone went metamagic blaster he had a book thrown at him. "Skipping the dice rolls in an game about rolling dice." Also, I've run almost pure ToB campaigns before with limited spellcasters in it..

[Troacctid]

All those classes like Sorcerer and Wilder that have delayed casting... that's dumb. Any class that has to wait until level 4 to get 2nd level spells, I'd bump their spells known and spells per day up a level. It's not really fair the way it is now.

Also, I'd switch the animal companions of Druids and Rangers. Rangers get them at full strength at level 1, Druids get them at half strength at level 4. Because come on.

Fighters should get a bonus feat at every level. Dead levels suck. In fact, I'd try to generally weed out dead levels and obvious breakpoints in all the classes. Players should feel like they're getting something at every level.

Paladins and Rangers and similar classes would get a more generous spellcasting progression akin to what they have in 5th edition. And none of this halved caster level nonsense. Spells are what set them apart from boring Fighters, so they should be a bigger part of the class.

Shadowcasters would use recharge magic. Or just get their mysteries per encounter rather than per day. As is, they're way too starved for resources. Giving them more staying power would not only make them more fun to play, it would set them apart more from standard casters, where currently they don't feel very different from a Wizard with fewer spell slots.

Knights would get a mount as a class feature, right from 1st or 2nd level. It's really a travesty that they don't already have one. I'd also give them more abilities to clean up the dead levels and make their defending abilities more reliable. Something like the "mark" mechanic from 4th edition would fit well.

Divine Minds would need to get their **** together. Give them real auras from the start instead of holding them hostage and doling them out piecemeal. Give them better class features instead of increasing their aura range by 5 feet and declaring that level no longer dead. It's a fine class conceptually, but it needs way more punch. What if they could use low-level powers from their mantles at will as psi-like abilities? I'd definitely playtest something like that.

[Urpriest]

Everything would be keyword-based. Every ability would explicitly be either Ex, Su, Sp, or some other category invented for that purpose, and this would be denoted in a standardized way the first time the ability is mentioned in the book. Instead of referring to things like "normal" duration in the descriptions of metamagic feats, spells would have a Duration: entry, and the spellcasting rules would explain that you calculate a Modified Duration when casting a spell, and the feats would be explicit as to which they were referring to. There would be no creatures named Earth Elemental, Fire Elemental, etc...rather they would be called Classical Earth Elemental, Classical Fire Elemental, etc, so that they could be clearly distinguished from an Elemental [Earth], Elemental [Fire], etc., and the Druid's Elemental Wild Shape would specify which they were intended to refer to.

Basically, anything that would make people be unable to playtest the game consistently shouldn't be in the game.

[(Un)Inspired]

I would just add a small disclaimer at the beginning of the classes section of the PHB pointing out that not all classes are equal.

If players want to be fighters or monks that's super great but if they're bored or outclassed they only have themselves to blame.

Then I would leave the rest of the books as is.

[dextercorvia]

I would eliminate Heighten Spell and change all feats/abilities that modify the spell level (like Sanctum Spell and Improved Krau Sigil) to instead increase the saving throw DC. I would have the saving throw DC based on the level of the slot that a spell is cast from instead of its native level adjusted by a variety of factors. Globe spells would determine immunity keyed off of of the slot used to cast the spell. Yes, this would be a minor boost to Metamagic users, but along the line of what Psionics gets already. Mainly it would eliminate most of the early entry spell level shenanigans.

In addition, Precocious Apprentice would give an invocation-like SLA (it would still have components/ASF and require a CL check, but would not count as spellcasting). Similarly for Magical Training, and Dragonsblood pools.

[kellbyb]

3.5 has been about high magic fantasy gaming. For me any change that I would implement would be that there are no mundane or half casting classes. if you want to play sword and board find a different gaming system. I would get rid of blanket immunities so that all schools of magic measure up well. Next i would get rid of wish and it's variants. Lastly I would get rid of material components. If it's that important to have for the spell that saves the day the DM will make a mcguffin out of it. I would add more varied magical systems. Tome, truenaming, soulmelds and psionics are fun and could be brought up in power to match normal casting.


No offense but that's just wrong on many levels. A lot of people highly enjoy mundanes even if they aren't the all powerful God wizard. In fact I can't convince my own group to even try wizards. They've seen how broke they can be and simply refuse to touch the entire class. The go to caster is Sorcerer for everyone and last time someone went metamagic blaster he had a book thrown at him. "Skipping the dice rolls in an game about rolling dice." Also, I've run almost pure ToB campaigns before with limited spellcasters in it..

I'd say the solution is to split mundanes/partial casters and high/full casters into two separate games. High fantasy and low fantasy are both fun and completely legitimate play styles, but it's almost impossible for them to coexist.

[SimonMoon6]

(1) I'd lose Vancian spell-casting. If you can cast a spell, you can cast it as many times as you like.

Thus, the "magic-user" (Sorcerer/wizard) class would be a lot different. The sorcerer version would have the opportunity to get spells from any school, but would have a harsh limitation on number of spells know. The wizard version would be strictly limited to one school of magic (plus universal), having a larger pool of spells to draw from than sorcerers, but a lot less flexibility. Because of this, the spell schools would be re-organized and re-balanced (though Divination might still be not a wise choice for a PC... which would support the idea that PCs must go looking for an NPC sage wizard who has Divination specialities).

Wizards would only be able to use spell-activation items using spells from the school they specialize in. Sorcerers would not be as limited.

(2) Clerics would be similarly re-balanced along similar lines, but with "domains" instead of "schools". A peace-loving hippy god might have the Healing and Sun domains; those would be the only spells that a cleric of such a god may use. No, he can't cast Harm just because "every cleric should be able to".

(3) Ability scores would be completely gone, replaced by modifiers. You wouldn't have a STR of 18, giving you a modifier of +4, you would have a strength of +4, giving you a modifier of (duh) +4.

(4) Wisdom would be gone. It's a dumb ability score. Anything resembling mental willpower would be filed under Charisma. Anything resembling perception would go into a new ability score called Perception. Charisma would no longer be "eveyrbody's dump score".

[Seerow]

Different resource options available right in core. As it stands your options are Spell Slots or one ability that you gain 1-5 times a day. Basically nothing else.

I'd go for at least 3 different resource designs.
1) Spell Slots. The fire and forget mechanics we all know and love. Main difference here would be I'd drop the sheer number of slots characters get, and instead have a set number (like 6-8) that level up as the character levels. So at 1st level you might have 3 1st level and 3 0th level slots. By 10th level you probably have 3 5th level and 5 4th level slots. To make up for the decrease in longevity, give most spells an "at-will" benefit that may be used as long as the spell is prepared but has not been cast.

2) Stamina. An effectively at-will resource pool that regenerates round to round and can be spent on various active abilities or to passively augment themselves. Character can choose to increase their stamina for 1 round in exchange for their cap being lowered for the rest of the encounter, and greatly increase stamina for 1 round in exchange for cap being lowered for the rest of the day.

3) Cooldowns. Something along the lines of Binders, where abilities have a 3-5 round cooldown. Have a daily based resource that lets you reset the cooldown on an ability, or to unlock a more powerful version of the ability.


Anyway, that's the general idea, to have a few distinct resource systems while making sure all of them have both longevity and nova potential. While each obviously has a focus on certain types of work days, all of them are useful within a one encounter work day and a 20 encounter work day, and can easily be adapted for both "Simple" and "Complex" style classes (a Simple Caster gives up the ability to spend spell slots in exchange for powering up the ones they have. A simple Stamina user gets some more stamina but only gains passive stamina effects, and might not even be able to reassign stamina points depending on how simple you want to go. Cooldown based characters just don't get the add-on mechanics and get enough cooldown abilities to spam a "rotation").

[kellbyb]

(2) Clerics would be similarly re-balanced along similar lines, but with "domains" instead of "schools". A peace-loving hippy god might have the Healing and Sun domains; those would be the only spells that a cleric of such a god may use. No, he can't cast Harm just because "every cleric should be able to".

Healing doesn't win fights. For a pure healer to be worth using, they have to be able to do truly remarkable things that extend beyond mere hitpoint damage. greatly expanding the potency of dedicated healers also tends to put you in the unfortunate position of having to balance fights around powerful dedicated healers, which often leads to the unpleasant choice between healers either being dead weight or being 100% mandatory for party survival. I don't like either of those. Giving healers combat capability is the healthiest way to keep healing classes relevant.


(3) Ability scores would be completely gone, replaced by modifiers. You wouldn't have a STR of 18, giving you a modifier of +4, you would have a strength of +4, giving you a modifier of (duh) +4.

How would you generate said modifiers?

[Mendicant]

I assume you'd use a point-buy system. Thats how true20 works anyway. There's no way to create a not-zany distribution if you roll for scores that low.

[Curmudgeon]

To keep it simple: single-class Fighters automatically get all the Fighter Bonus Feats if they meet the non-FBF qualifications.

Any class which has no spells and no Spell-like abilities (or powers, or mysteries, or soulmelds, or ...) gets full BAB.

Every class gets a feat at level 1, and at every even level (similar to the Pathfinder allocation without their nerfing). Weapon Finesse is an automatic option with finessable weapons rather than a feat.

Rogue special abilities start at level 1, not 10, and then follow the same (every 3 levels) progression. Camouflage (all terrain types) and Hide in Plain Sight (all terrain types) are available as special abilities. The Savvy Rogue feat is available from level 1 as well. Rogues don't get Trap Sense, because they're supposed to be finding traps, not triggering them accidentally. At every empty level (now 6 & 12 as well as 14 & 20) the Rogue gets a bonus feat, chosen from: Craven, Darkstalker, Savvy Rogue, and Staggering Strike (the usual feat taxes for the class), all [Ambush] feats, and Penetrating Strike (a feat version of the Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF, requiring Rogue 3). The Rogue must meet the prerequisites for all bonus feats.

The base number for skill points is boosted by 50%, so Wizards and Clerics get 3 + INT mod points per level, Barbarians and Druids get 6 + INT mod points per level, Bards and Rangers get 9 + INT mod points per level, and Rogues and Scouts get 12 + INT mod points per level. Most skills allow you to accomplish more things, making them comparable in power to Diplomacy (making people fanatically devoted to you while also discounting all market prices by 10%). Jump allows Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon-style flying (1 round limit), and a Tumble check does what the Deflect Arrows feat permits. Sense Motive allows you to anticipate and avoid spells.

Full spellcasters get bonus spells only up to level 3; it's been my experience that full casters never run out of spells above low levels, and spell allocation should require a bit more thought from the players. All full casters use the Sorcerer/Favored Soul spells per day mechanic, so Wizards, Clerics, and Druids aren't a level ahead in spell availability. Spells get a major reworking to keep casters from having unbeatable overrides. For example, Glibness's boost to Bluff is +2/level, maximum +20; Glitterdust's penalty to Hide is -2/level, maximum -20; Guidance of the Avatar is limited +2/level, maximum +20; and similarly Pass without Trace adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic. No spell is unbeatable without magic. (That's not the same as saying it's even close to easy, but the Escape Artist DC to get past a Wall of Force is no more than 60 rather than the listed 120.)

Favored classes are implemented using my current house rule.Favored classes under the normal rules help avoid multiclassing XP penalties, but provide nothing favorable for those class choices. These house rules accentuate positive qualities more than negatives.

If your first class level is in a favored class you get your choice of either a bonus [Racial] or [Regional] feat or 100 gp as a one-time benefit. (You need to meet the feat prerequisites as usual.) Favored Class: Any does not qualify for the bonus feat option (just the gold).

Favored classes listed for your character receive 1 extra skill point each level (4 at 1st level). The only Favored Class: Any race which qualifies for this is Half-Elf. (Humans already get both a bonus feat and extra skill points; Half-Elves need a little extra love.)

Multiclassing XP penalties don't happen as long as you have at least 1 level in a favored class. Favored Class: Any does qualify for this exception, so Human characters never have multiclassing penalties.

(Favored Class: First one chosen works the same as Favored Class: Any.)

[nedz]

(4) Wisdom would be gone. It's a dumb ability score. Anything resembling mental willpower would be filed under Charisma. Anything resembling perception would go into a new ability score called Perception. Charisma would no longer be "eveyrbody's dump score".

Whilst lots of people do dump charisma, it's possibly the most powerful stat in the game.

As to the OP's question; see below for what I'd fix.

[arkangel111]

Personally I'd go to more of an ADnD system as far as caster's go. Many myths that surround your god wizards do not have them at same level(especially age) as others. Gandolf is old as crap, merlin, Zifnab, Ged, and many others reach their pinnacle at a much later age.

I would probably put casters on a half level progression. I wouldn't cap it like there is in ADnD though just make the progression much slower. You can still be a god it just takes longer to get there. Any non full caster would also have to be tweaked though it could get a little more complicated, it might actually be easier to just have full casters be a 40 level class and break up their abilities so they can be divied up at a slower rate than currently.

Martials would get a little more love as well perhaps giving them some of the ToB goodness though with the reduced magic it might not be fair to straight gestalt in. I'd also reduce the MAD on a lot of classes perhaps just making it one primary stat and 2 secondary, but let each of the classes be able to get some way to boost saves AC or to hit with varying stats, perhaps you want a tanky intelligent fighter, maybe allow his int to boost AC and will saves while his con could be used for dmg and to hit boosters.

Speaking of gestalt, I love the idea just never got in a game with it, perhaps make it so you can gestalt and tristalt within core rules and just take an xp hit similar to wizards. It never fails every fantasy hero is best expressed as a gestalt rather than a straight class, except wizards of course though some of them too.

Of course I'd also love to get a thing similar to PFS but not as limiting, I hate that I have to essentially remake a character rather than bring him out of retirement, if I move or switch groups. or that PF releases new books only to ban 95% of the content, seems like very poor marketing idea. why buy a book for 5% of its material?

Oh and BAB, I think it should eventually give you more attacks on a charge. perhaps at 16 it gives a 2nd atk on charge. Epic progression can increase this but never more than 1+(1/2 your max attacks), and I'd let martials get an additional attack on full at 25 and 30. speaking of which I'd probably have all martials get full bab (rogue/monk etc...) half casters get the 3/4 and full including cleric get 1/2. Perhaps offer a domain or spell to increase BAB for a limited time but only to the 3/4 and only for rnds/lvl.


Lastly I'd give some feat love. There is no reason why a character should have to dedicate his feats to either being good roleplay options or good at combat. Feats would be re-categorized into non-combat and combat. combat feats would get a progression like PF, every other level. Noncombat feats would probably be 2 at creation, and then perhaps 1 every level. Now you can be a very savvy jewel salesman (skill focus: appraise) rogue that also adventures occasionally to refill his stock. Or perhaps you wanted the classic fantasy background as a farmer (skill focus profession farmer) that found a magic book that you picked up and started shooting lasers out of your eyes.

[defiantdan]

No offense but that's just wrong on many levels. A lot of people highly enjoy mundanes even if they aren't the all powerful God wizard. In fact I can't convince my own group to even try wizards. They've seen how broke they can be and simply refuse to touch the entire class. The go to caster is Sorcerer for everyone and last time someone went metamagic blaster he had a book thrown at him. "Skipping the dice rolls in an game about rolling dice." Also, I've run almost pure ToB campaigns before with limited spellcasters in it..

This was about what you would change if we worked at WOTC. So it's not wrong. As the system is it doesnt work. You are agreeing with me just by pointing out how you had to seperate or no one wants to play it. Like one of the other posts said, they should be two different gaming settings. So like I said before. if you want to play sword and board pick a different system. One that is low or no magic. I personally love playing d20 modern. Shadowrun. Cthulu. Just started playing edge of empire. Hell Dark heresy has magic but only the truly insane wants to gamble with that power. 3.5 is all about the magic. it does not play like lord of the rings without some serious hand waving and homebrew.

[ZamielVanWeber]

All casters progress at sorcerer rate and all use two stats to cast off of, like Favored Soul or Spirit Shaman. It wouldn't bring casters in line, but would take a little edge off their silliness.

[Extra Anchovies]

To keep it simple: single-class Fighters automatically get all the Fighter Bonus Feats if they meet the non-FBF qualifications.

Hm. I like. Makes them even more of a dip class, but that's not really preventable for a feat-based class anyways. HERP DERP I'M JUST BLIND


Any class which has no spells and no Spell-like abilities (or powers, or mysteries, or soulmelds, or ...) gets full BAB.

It's a little ironic that the monk doesn't benefit from this.


Rogue special abilities start at level 1, not 10, and then follow the same (every 3 levels) progression. Camouflage (all terrain types) and Hide in Plain Sight (all terrain types) are available as special abilities. The Savvy Rogue feat is available from level 1 as well. Rogues don't get Trap Sense, because they're supposed to be finding traps, not triggering them accidentally. At every empty level (now 6 & 12 as well as 14 & 20) the Rogue gets a bonus feat, chosen from: Craven, Darkstalker, Savvy Rogue, and Staggering Strike (the usual feat taxes for the class), all [Ambush] feats, and Penetrating Strike (a feat version of the Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF, requiring Rogue 3). The Rogue must meet the prerequisites for all bonus feats.

This. I like this. Rogue special abilities are the coolest part of the Rogue, and they need more of them.


The base number for skill points is boosted by 50%, so Wizards and Clerics get 3 + INT mod points per level, Barbarians and Druids get 6 + INT mod points per level, Bards and Rangers get 9 + INT mod points per level, and Rogues and Scouts get 12 + INT mod points per level. Most skills allow you to accomplish more things, making them comparable in power to Diplomacy (making people fanatically devoted to you while also discounting all market prices by 10%). Jump allows Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon-style flying (1 round limit), and a Tumble check does what the Deflect Arrows feat permits. Sense Motive allows you to anticipate and avoid spells.

Would Sense Motive negate spells, or just grant a bonus (either to saves or AC) against them? Because providing an at-will ability that can negate the limited-per-day-use abilities of spellcasting classes doesn't seem super balanced (unless you need to take an action to prep for a spell that you think is incoming, in which case the action economy makes it kinda not useful).


Full spellcasters get bonus spells only up to level 3; it's been my experience that full casters never run out of spells above low levels, and spell allocation should require a bit more thought from the players. All full casters use the Sorcerer/Favored Soul spells per day mechanic, so Wizards, Clerics, and Druids aren't a level ahead in spell availability. Spells get a major reworking to keep casters from having unbeatable overrides. For example, Glibness's boost to Bluff is +2/level, maximum +20; Glitterdust's penalty to Hide is -2/level, maximum -20; Guidance of the Avatar is limited +2/level, maximum +20; and similarly Pass without Trace adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic. No spell is unbeatable without magic. (That's not the same as saying it's even close to easy, but the Escape Artist DC to get past a Wall of Force is no more than 60 rather than the listed 120.)

Changing all the flat bonuses to scaling would definitely fix a lot of item abuses. The change to bonus spells and eliminating the spontaneous/prepared level gap are both good.

[Necromancy]

Top of my head ideas, untested

Skills- you get bonus points based off all stats. Example- Fighter gets 2 points free, 2 points for dex skills, 4 pts for str skills, etc. Probably add more skills too.

At least 2 good saves per class

Low level bonus hit/damage from stats cannot exceed level. If a fighter is better at high level he does not need to "shine" at low level

Better feat lists and organization into combat/non combat

Fighters - Add 1 bonus hit and damage per level to even out the later levels. 1 feat per level, free feats for all maneuvers (trip, grapple, etc) Auto bypass restrictions on some feats (double axe needs high dex twf feats whaaaa?)

Ranger - more feats and better spell progression mainly.

Paladin - pathfinder paladin changes work really well, maybe better spells

Monk - full BAB, more feats, no flurry. Spellcasting! (Self only, buffs and heals etc)

Rogue - HIPS without prestige classes, seriously. Special feats and skills. Ability to use rogue level as CL on UMD scrolls

Casters - no bonus spells from stats. More feats free ( item creation anyone?) better use of magic items (use your own stats for wand or scroll casting?)

[atemu1234]

Top of my head ideas, untested

Skills- you get bonus points based off all stats. Example- Fighter gets 2 points free, 2 points for dex skills, 4 pts for str skills, etc. Probably add more skills too.

At least 2 good saves per class

Low level bonus hit/damage from stats cannot exceed level. If a fighter is better at high level he does not need to "shine" at low level

Better feat lists and organization into combat/non combat

Fighters - Add 1 bonus hit and damage per level to even out the later levels. 1 feat per level, free feats for all maneuvers (trip, grapple, etc) Auto bypass restrictions on some feats (double axe needs high dex twf feats whaaaa?)

Ranger - more feats and better spell progression mainly.

Paladin - pathfinder paladin changes work really well, maybe better spells

Monk - full BAB, more feats, no flurry. Spellcasting! (Self only, buffs and heals etc)

Rogue - HIPS without prestige classes, seriously. Special feats and skills. Ability to use rogue level as CL on UMD scrolls

Casters - no bonus spells from stats. More feats free ( item creation anyone?) better use of magic items (use your own stats for wand or scroll casting?)

Monks need more skills and a bigger hit die.

[Necroticplague]

First thing: axe the alignment system. Alignment can keep existing as a physical force, but it doesn't have any bearings on morality; and [good] isn't always good.
second: make classes more suitable to refluffing, getting rid of ridiculously over-specific abilities
Third:Sub point of both of the above; replace the Paladin with the Crusader.
Fourth: Axe the stupid, nonsensical vancian casting system for a combination of psionics and words of power (i.e, you form a spell by combining components, more components mean it costs more mana, and not all components have equal costs, limit on how expensive a spell you can make that scales with level).
sixth:remove resources that take longer than an encounter to refresh.
seventh: make it so that all resources have some means of refresh before an encounter ends (I.e, if you run out of spell points, you can use up actions to meditate to restore some so you aren't completely useless; crusader can focus to try and find the spark of insight instead of moving).

Essentially, I'd have made something similar to 4e, the hangers-os I think are bad for DnD as a game.

[torrasque666]

It's a little ironic that the monk doesn't benefit from this.

He said Sp not Su. Monk should still qualify, especially given that it seems to be what it was meant to fix.

[Extra Anchovies]

He said Sp not Su. Monk should still qualify, especially given that it seems to be what it was meant to fix.

Huh. I was certain that Abundant Step was a spell-like, but I guess I was wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

Hm. I like. Makes them even more of a dip class, but that's not really preventable for a feat-based class anyways.
It's not a dipping option; I restricted it to single-class Fighters.

Would Sense Motive negate spells, or just grant a bonus (either to saves or AC) against them? Because providing an at-will ability that can negate the limited-per-day-use abilities of spellcasting classes doesn't seem super balanced ...
Both approaches could work, with the DC to negate spells without saves being substantially higher than the DC to resist spells that already have saves. Again, I don't want it to be easy to bypass spells, but I do want it to be possible. If some character has dedicated most of their build resources to bypassing spells, then the spellcasters won't be able to target them directly — but could always use their spells on the environment nearby and get at them indirectly.

[torrasque666]

It's not a dipping option; I restricted it to single-class Fighters.
Question regarding that. How would that work for things like Weapon Focus? Would it apply for all weapons then? Because you can take that feat multiple times and it is a FBF. Not that I mind. Or how about Martial Study/Stance? So they get 3 martial maneuvers and then all the stances that they could know?

[mabriss lethe]

Truenamers!- I'd make them..um... work. That's what I'd do.
TBH, I've been piddling around for years with a truenamer fix that uses Truespeech in much the same way that force users work in Saga Edition, with a few ToB-like innovations to cover things like recitations.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Leaving aside the specific changes-- which, admittedly, I've done in detail (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions)-- the biggest thing I'd have tried for was more separation by tier. Not in the sense of "tier 1 class," but more like how 4e did it, where you move from "heroic" to "paragon" to "epic." Explicitly talk about how gameplay expectations change with higher levels, and present E6, E12, and E20 options for groups who don't want to leave their favorite tier. And then make sure classes actually had abilities that worked for all tiers.

And I'd, you know, break up the casters into thematically-limited classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-%283-5%29&p=16545265#post16545265), and make sure martial classes have actual options (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328113), and simplify combat manuvers, and all that jazz.

[Curmudgeon]

Question regarding that. How would that work for things like Weapon Focus? Would it apply for all weapons then? Because you can take that feat multiple times and it is a FBF. Not that I mind. Or how about Martial Study/Stance? So they get 3 martial maneuvers and then all the stances that they could know?
Yes to all of it. That's even supported by the official statement about the purpose of the class (Player's Handbook, page 37):
Characteristics: Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name).
Note that there's no mechanism for characters who aren't martial adepts to use more than one stance at a time, there's no recovery mechanism for maneuvers, and non-adepts have a low IL; in short, this isn't a huge power-up for a class which has nothing but feats.

[Urpriest]

Yes to all of it. That's even supported by the official statement about the purpose of the class (Player's Handbook, page 37):
Note that there's no mechanism for characters who aren't martial adepts to use more than one stance at a time, there's no recovery mechanism for maneuvers, and non-adepts have a low IL; in short, this isn't a huge power-up for a class which has nothing but feats.

The weapon focus one is, though. You're giving the Fighter potentially hundreds, or even thousands, of feats. Sure, by default they all just give +1 to attack for different attacks...but all it takes is one idiot to publish something like Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos, and the Fighter's TO potential skyrockets. The premise of the thread is that you're one designer, not that you're all of them.

[Curmudgeon]

You're giving the Fighter potentially hundreds, or even thousands, of feats.
The mechanism would be to give the Fighter the benefits of all those feats, not the individual feats themselves. That would just be a huge burden to the player, having to record and keep track of all of those.

No, it's just a single class feature: the benefit of all [Fighter] feats, for which they meet all (other) prerequisites.

[SinsI]

I don't like that there are so many weak and situational feats and PRCs that see absolutely no play.
I would've added some kind of way to get them for free or at greatly reduced cost, i.e. as much cheaper than usual Gestalt levels, or even as some Gestalt levels that you pay for with your wealth and not with your XP (i.e. something like Shadowsmith from Tome of Magic).

It is also bad that retraining characters is so hard - if you have made an error in your build you often have to start a new character to fix it.
I would've made several levels of decisions that you make when building your character, with major decisions (i.e. "Divine Gish build", "Full Warrior Build", "Full Divine Spellcaster Build" being set in stone, but individual decisions in each category being much easier to adjust (i.e. change Archivist into Cleric or Favored Soul), and some decisions being flexible on "select in the morning" or "change with equipped equipment" basis (i.e. Fighter Bonus Feats - get a Spiked Shield and some spikes on your armor and you are Dungeon Crasher, get a new weapon - and change your Weapon Focus and Specialization to that weapon via a quick training session in the morning).

[137beth]

--Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are replaced in the PHB by their ToB counterparts.
--Rogue is replaced in the PHB by the factotum.
--The (Su) abilities of the swordsage and factotum become (Ex)
--Actually, I'd have made them a bit more versatile than they are currently, since tier 2 is my preferred balance point.
--A lot of feat chains become scaling feats. Dodge/mobility/spring attack becomes one scaling feat. The TWF chain becomes one scaling feat, as does the point-blank-shot chain. In my current house rules, they scale based on BAB.
--Alignment is introduced in the PHB as-is...except all game mechanics which depend on alignment are altered to be alignment-independent. Basically, I'd put my alignment house rules into the core of the system.
--At BAB +6, you get an extra move action in each round (hence, pounce is still valuable, but not necessary to get off a full attack).
--At BAB +11, you get an extra swift action in each round. This does not allow you to cast an extra spell or manifest an extra power in a round.
--At BAB +16, your bonus move action (from BAB 6) becomes a bonus standard action. This does not allow you to cast an extra spell or manifest an extra power in a round.
--Divine Power grants a scaling untyped attack bonus in place of BAB, so it does not grant any of the BAB-based advantages in my house rules.
--More baseline uses for skills and more skill-tricks. 101 new skill uses (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/95425/101-New-Skill-Uses-PFRPG?term=101+new+skill) is a good start, but not enough. Basically, I like that there is a spell for pretty much everything, but I'd prefer that there were a skill-trick for pretty much everything too.

--No wizard, cleric, druid, articifer, archivist, or euridite.
--Wilder, soulknife, and psychic warrior swapped for their pathfinder versions.

[Curmudgeon]

--Rogue is replaced in the PHB by the factotum.
This strikes me as a really awful idea, basically for two reasons:

The Factotum has next to nothing in the way of support outside Dungeonscape. (What it does have is problematic: Font of Inspiration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606).) No multiclassing options. No class variants, ACFs, racial substitution levels, or whatever.
The Factotum may be the single worst-written class in all of D&D. I had to ban it at my games for a very long time until I could block out enough time to address all of the class issues.

Here's the effort I had to put into that one class:
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. I use the same definition for Font of Inspiration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606). (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.)

House Rule: The Factotum's Cunning Surge (an Extraordinary ability) can be used as a swift action.
Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted. This class ability does not note otherwise, but following the RAW here would make it have no use at all (use a standard action and pay 3 IPs to get a standard action).

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.

[SinsI]

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:(snip)
That's absolutely wrong. The part that says "Rogues Only" is in the Notes section, not in the spell description. As such, it is a commentary about generic inability of other classes to disable magic traps. But classes published later that have Trapfinding also have the required ability - just as the Rogue does, since it has the "see the rogue class feature" in class feature description. Notes are not additional rules or properties, but a reminder of existing rules and properties specified elsewhere or clarification about non-obvious interaction of such rules.

If a Changeling rogue trades away his Trapfinding from his 1st substitution level, would you still allow him to find and disable those traps?

[Curmudgeon]

That's absolutely wrong. The part that says "Rogues Only" is in the Notes section, not in the spell description. As such, it is a commentary about generic inability of other classes to disable magic traps.
Can you cite an actual WotC rule which says that content in the "Notes" section of a spell isn't a rule? Content in other spell sections, like "Material Component", are certainly treated as rules. WotC had plenty of time, starting with the Scout class, to explicitly address Rogue-only spells, and they didn't remove that exclusivity.

This all sounds like your house rule rather than something real.

[SinsI]

Can you cite an actual WotC rule which says that content in the "Notes" section of a spell isn't a rule? Content in other spell sections, like "Material Component", are certainly treated as rules. WotC had plenty of time, starting with the Scout class, to explicitly address Rogue-only spells, and they didn't remove that exclusivity.

This all sounds like your house rule rather than something real.
Read the description of, say, "Explosive Runes".
"Note" says:
"Magic Traps, such as explosive runes, are hard to detect and disable. A Rogue (only) can use the Search Skill to find and Disable Device to thwart them".

It is not a rule about "explosive runes", it is a rule about magic traps such as explosive runes, and as such you should look all the relevant rules up under the appropriate section of DMG (page 67).
So you making exception for explosive runes and thus singling them out from the other magic traps is an absolute mistake - all magic traps follow the same rules. Explosive Rune in this case is an example, what that note says is that all magic traps can only be disabled by Rogue (only) (which agrees with the actual rule entry in DMG).
That rule also says that "Magic traps may be disarmed by rogue (and only a rogue)".
But Factotum class ability says "you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps", explicitly overriding that rule, and also referring to the Rogue's class feature "trapfinding" that is the actual limiting rule that says that "Rogues (and only rogues) can do that".

[Troacctid]

This all sounds like your house rule rather than something real.

I don't know if you saw the thread title, but... :smalltongue:

[JyP]

Personnally I would have liked more meta rules :

- more meta rules to create custom base classes - like in AD&D2 you could take class features from many base classes to create your own base class - or use Skills & Powers. This is partially done in Unearthed Arcana, but does not take into account the tiers system.

- more meta rules to create custom prestige classes - a list of prestige class features according to global level should be sufficient.

- more meta rules to assess level adjustment for all creatures (partially done in Savage Species in fact)

- more meta rules to create custom spells, Ars Magica style.

- more meta rules for feats / skill tricks, and so on...

[jedipilot24]

I would do a great deal to prevent the 10 Minute Work Day; per-day class features are instead per-encounter. Feats would be given much more frequently, like say one at every level, and some feats would be "half-feats", that is only taking up half of a feat slot. There would be no dead levels in classes AT ALL. No favored classes.

Races: like Pathfinder, all races would be balanced toward a +2 ability bonus.
Human: like Pathfinder, +2 to any one ability.
Elf: would have Dexterity and Charisma bonus and be natural Sorcerers.
Dwarf: would have Constitution and Intelligence bonus and be natural Wizards.
Half-Elf: +2 to any one ability and the UA Skilled variant; would count as both Elves and Humans.
Halfling: +2 Dex and +2 Wis, move them back more closely to their Tolkein roots as the simple and humble folk.
Gnome: + Dex and +2 Cha, these are the main Rogue race; give them their own niche that makes them distinct.
Half-Orc: +2 Strength, no other ability modifiers.

Barbarian: don't like the name, would be called something like 'Berserker' instead. You can only rage once per encounter.

Bard: would be renamed "Task Mage" (like from MTG) with 'Bard', 'Beguiler' and 'Warmage' as different archetypes or variants. The whole point of this class would be to make characters like Jaya Ballard, mercenary spellcasters with a minor talent, but who are really good with that talent and who also have non-magical skills.

Cleric: Turn Undead would follow the Complete Divine/Expedition to Castle Ravenloft variant, i.e. the variant that actually does something worthwhile and that doesn't stop the game for ten minutes every time you use it.

Druid: would not be a divine spellcaster; one of the few things I like about 4e is the Primal Power source; this class would basically import Dark Sun style magic (Preserve vs. Defile) as Primal Magic; Wild Shape would function more like the PHB II Shapeshift variant.

Fighter: would have class features besides his bonus feats, probably something like what Pathfinder did.

Monk: renamed 'Martial Artist' or something like that and would be much better designed; full BAB.

Paladin: get rid of stupid 'Cure Disease', fold that into Lay on Hands like what Pathfinder did, and give this class more class features so that people actually have a reason to take it past 5th level. spellcasting is given earlier like Bard.

Ranger: more fighting styles and the Distracting Attack ACF is the default; spellcasting is primal and given earlier like Bard.

Rogue: they deserve a speed bonus like the Barbarian, also give them an ability that allows them to sneak attack more often, like Improved Feint as a bonus feat that later upgrades to a swift action and then finally a free action.

Sorcerer: would not have the delayed spellcasting progression; also would probably do something like Pathfinder and actually give them class features so that players have a reason to stay in the class instead of PrCing out at the first opportunity. Gets Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.

Wizard: give him class features so that PrCing out after 5th level isn't the default choice.

Magic:
all the direct damage spells are Evocation.
Mage Armor is Abjuration.

Other classes:
Duelist PrC: Remake into the Dashing Swordsman.

[SimonMoon6]

Healing doesn't win fights.
[snip]
Giving healers combat capability is the healthiest way to keep healing classes relevant.

Right. But clerics get *two* domains, so they better choose their second domain wisely (if we assume they'll *always* want the Healing domain. And I have no problem with the idea that healers would be mostly NPCs. That doesn't mean *clerics* would mostly be NPCs though. Clerics don't *have* to be healers.

It's like how I suggest that anyone casting arcane divinations would most likely be an NPC, a wise sage for the PCs to track down. PC wizards would still exist, just not as divination wizards.

And besides, clerics still have armor and weapons.


How would you generate said modifiers?

A point buy system (as if any other system should exist). If you want to go nuts, you could roll (d3+d4)-3, generating bonuses from -1 to +4, I suppose, but that would be crazy. Definitely a point buy system.

[kellbyb]

Right. But clerics get *two* domains, so they better choose their second domain wisely (if we assume they'll *always* want the Healing domain. And I have no problem with the idea that healers would be mostly NPCs. That doesn't mean *clerics* would mostly be NPCs though. Clerics don't *have* to be healers.

That doesn't change the fact that healing is still sub-optimal. I'd just take two combat-oriented domains.


It's like how I suggest that anyone casting arcane divinations would most likely be an NPC, a wise sage for the PCs to track down. PC wizards would still exist, just not as divination wizards.

Speaking of this, exactly how would you rebalance the schools? As it stands there would be huge power disparities between certain wizard specializations.


And besides, clerics still have armor and weapons.

Well yeah, but their melee combat capabilities are completely dependent on certain spells.


A point buy system (as if any other system should exist). If you want to go nuts, you could roll (d3+d4)-3, generating bonuses from -1 to +4, I suppose, but that would be crazy. Definitely a point buy system.

Yeah, I guess. I suppose I've just become that accustomed to standard ability scores.

[SimonMoon6]

That doesn't change the fact that healing is still sub-optimal. I'd just take two combat-oriented domains.

And I have no problem with that. The idea of every cleric being able to heal is a strange one. Let the NPCs be the healers.


Speaking of this, exactly how would you rebalance the schools? As it stands there would be huge power disparities between certain wizard specializations.

I have a perfect explanation, but alas, the margin of this page is too small...

This would take a *lot* of work, but it would be worth it.


Yeah, I guess. I suppose I've just become that accustomed to standard ability scores.

And yet, mechanically, they do absolutely nothing except provide modifiers.

[kellbyb]

I have a perfect explanation, but alas, the margin of this page is too small...

PM it maybe?

[SimonMoon6]

PM it maybe?

Er, I, uh, haven't actually done the work. But I'm positive it could be done. But it would take a lot more time and effort than I have, for a project that I wouldn't get paid for.

[kellbyb]

Er, I, uh, haven't actually done the work. But I'm positive it could be done. But it would take a lot more time and effort than I have, for a project that I wouldn't get paid for.

I just want a couple sentences.

[Urpriest]

I just want a couple sentences.

It was a joke. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem)

[Mr. Bitter]

I'd eliminate attacks of opportunity. Any time an enemy enters a space next to a player, their movement ends. And vice-versa.

I'd ditch multiple attacks except for the non-casters, who would cap out at two attacks per round. Their weapon damage would increase to compensate.

I'd get rid of all the useless feats. I'd replace them with the best balanced, most interesting feats from other supplements.

The first two will speed up the game and remove tedious complication. The latter is just a better usage of pages.

[bekeleven]

If I got a ground-up blank check I'd make mundanes equal. That means:

Remove or nerf any spell that allows spellcasters to bypass encounters significantly more effectively than a mundane built specifically to bypass that encounter.
Remove or nerf any spell that allows spellcasters to be more effective in any area than a mundane built specifically to exceed in that area. They are more versatile at a systemic level, deal with it.
Greatly, greatly increase the power of feats. All feats should be at least half as awesome as power attack. Bam, fighters are worthwhile.

There are a number of system redesign/balance attempts on the boards. Many of them completely overhaul spells or whatnot. My attempt (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361894) is pretty simple and has a few main changes and shoots to make every player tier 3:

All spellcasting classes with more than bard casting are banned. 7-9th level spells mostly don't exist. Some classes are allowed back in with bard casting progression.
Mundanes have access to the Professional (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332829). he is tier 3 and mundane. Again, if I could do a ground-up rework he wouldn't be necessary, but as of now I'm basically giving mundanes a Fighter/Barb/Rogue/Marshal quadstalt.
Remove the most egregious abuses and "broken" issues, as I see them. Then a bunch of smaller stuff I won't get into.

[Urpriest]

One thing I just thought of: if we're just one designer then in general anything we're implementing could be messed up by the other WotC designers doing what they do best.

What about rules that apply only to designers? I'm thinking of a rule, in Core, that if a DM finds a rule you wrote that accidentally contradicts a rule in a previous book, they can give you a surprise negative level once per session until the erroneous rule is errataed back to correctness. The same goes for miscalculated example characters, and the like. Basically, make it clear that there will be long-term social consequences if mistakes in the rules aren't corrected, and bake that into the game itself.

[Telonius]

I would switch around some of the classes to make them more like (a well-edited version of) Incarnum. You're a Paladin? You can invest a certain number of Paladin Points (or whatever you would call them) in powering your Mount, getting divine defenses, getting bonuses to attacks, or other Paladin-y things. You can rearrange those points tomorrow if you want. You're a Monk? You can spend your Monk Points to improve your mobility, attach effects to your unarmed strikes, hit faster, or something else Monk-ish.

For some of the other classes, stop it with the Feat Taxes. If something is so obviously a choice that everybody would want to take it, then it should be a class feature. Give a very stern look to any feat that gives a flat +x bonus to anything. They should scale with level.

Give Charisma something to do for classes that aren't Bard, Sorcerer, or Paladin. Maybe base Will Saves on it, maybe do something else. Dumping it should have consequences, just like dumping any other stat.

Get rid of Single Ability Dependency. Every class should have important features that are powered by different stats.

Using Strength or Dexterity to attack would be a property of the weapon, not the character. Weapon Finesse would still exist as a feat, but it would allow you to use Dex for an (ordinarily) Str-based weapon. A similar feat would let you use Strength on an ordinarily Dex-based weapon.

Streamline the Grapple and Turn/Rebuke Undead rules. No, I don't know how. But it needs to be done.

[Seerow]

Give a very stern look to any feat that gives a flat +x bonus to anything. They should scale with level.


Strongly disagree with this. I think if anything a big problem with 3.X's RNG is that it has too many scaling +Xs. Mind you at least some of those should scale. 2-3 scaling numbers being applied is fine, especially if they're predictable (so having say scaling BAB, scaling weapon enhancement, and scaling primary stat? Totally acceptable). But once you add optional feats to the things that should scale, those optional feats either become mandatory (and thus become the feat taxes you just got done complaining about), or make the RNG irrelevant, with very little middleground.

Basically imagine you have a level 1 character with +5 to hit vs a 15 AC, and a level 20 character with +35 to hit vs a 45 AC. A +2 to hit will actually affect both of these characters equally, despite it being a smaller portion of the overall total to the higher level character. But if you instead make that a scaling +1 to +5 bonus, at level 1 the feat is practically worthless (the +1 to hit isn't a big enough bonus to make a noticable difference most of the time), and at level 20 it is very powerful (because it just cut your miss chance in half).

The thing with feats that grant a flat bonus isn't that they should be made to scale upwards with level, it's that they should provide enough of a bonus to be noteworthy. A flat +1 is always going to be weak. +3 tends to be the sweet spot for a benefit you will actually notice overall (though you still have to worry about having too many +3 modifiers to the roll or you're back at breaking the RNG). I'm making a point of this because all the time I see stuff like the way to fix weapon focus or dodge or similar feats is to make them scale with level, where really they'd be better off either being reworked into more interesting options, or be given a higher bonus that applies regardless to level. Scaling those kinds of options don't actually fix anything, and tend to make them worse.

Now what could (and probably should) scale with level is +X bonuses to non-RNG things. If you have a bonus to damage, THAT should scale with level, because while +2 to hit means the same at level 1 and level 20, +2 damage at level 1 is 25% or so of your average opponent's hitpoints, while +2 damage at level 20 even when added to 5 attacks is like less than 5% of your opponent's hit points. Any other bonuses that apply to non-RNG based things should scale as well (though HP, Damage, and Damage Reduction are the major ones that come to mind in a D&D context)

[SinsI]

Remove numerical bonuses from magic items - no +1 sword or +5 sword, just a magic sword; no Cloak of Charisma +6 or +4 - just Cloak of Charisma.
Instead, everyone would have their own ability to power up items (both Incarnum Essentia-like and more permanently by investing special Skill Points in appropriate item-using skills) to get greater mileage from them. Many spells would also work the same way - if a wizard casts Bite of a Werewolf on a fighter, his bonuses would be much greater than if he casts it on himself. Cure Light Wounds cast on a Lvl 20 Fighter would cure 10% of his hit points, just as it would if cast on 1st level Wizard.

This would fix WBL, the second greatest problem of D&D.

[Telonius]

Strongly disagree with this. I think if anything a big problem with 3.X's RNG is that it has too many scaling +Xs. Mind you at least some of those should scale. 2-3 scaling numbers being applied is fine, especially if they're predictable (so having say scaling BAB, scaling weapon enhancement, and scaling primary stat? Totally acceptable). But once you add optional feats to the things that should scale, those optional feats either become mandatory (and thus become the feat taxes you just got done complaining about), or make the RNG irrelevant, with very little middleground.

Basically imagine you have a level 1 character with +5 to hit vs a 15 AC, and a level 20 character with +35 to hit vs a 45 AC. A +2 to hit will actually affect both of these characters equally, despite it being a smaller portion of the overall total to the higher level character. But if you instead make that a scaling +1 to +5 bonus, at level 1 the feat is practically worthless (the +1 to hit isn't a big enough bonus to make a noticable difference most of the time), and at level 20 it is very powerful (because it just cut your miss chance in half).

The thing with feats that grant a flat bonus isn't that they should be made to scale upwards with level, it's that they should provide enough of a bonus to be noteworthy. A flat +1 is always going to be weak. +3 tends to be the sweet spot for a benefit you will actually notice overall (though you still have to worry about having too many +3 modifiers to the roll or you're back at breaking the RNG). I'm making a point of this because all the time I see stuff like the way to fix weapon focus or dodge or similar feats is to make them scale with level, where really they'd be better off either being reworked into more interesting options, or be given a higher bonus that applies regardless to level. Scaling those kinds of options don't actually fix anything, and tend to make them worse.

Now what could (and probably should) scale with level is +X bonuses to non-RNG things. If you have a bonus to damage, THAT should scale with level, because while +2 to hit means the same at level 1 and level 20, +2 damage at level 1 is 25% or so of your average opponent's hitpoints, while +2 damage at level 20 even when added to 5 attacks is like less than 5% of your opponent's hit points. Any other bonuses that apply to non-RNG based things should scale as well (though HP, Damage, and Damage Reduction are the major ones that come to mind in a D&D context)

I wasn't even thinking of feats that give bonuses to hit - Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus would probably be something I'd combine into Fighter class features. I was thinking more of the plethora of +2/+2 skill feats, or Skill Focus, or the "+2 to a Save" feats, or even something like Improved Initiative or Toughness (which I'd replace with Improved Toughness). I like the idea of them - making your character much better than "usual" at a particular set of skills, or saves - but the bonuses are too small to be meaningful. My issue with making them be a single huge increase is that it could be too much of a bump in the lower levels.

[NichG]

Honestly, the biggest thing to do would be to write a series of design guidelines that explain what specific things are within the wheelhouse for each major force in the game you wish to have, and to bake those guidelines into the cosmology at a deep level. Then at least when new designers come onto the scene, they can reference somewhere that it explicitly says 'only the divine can heal' or 'there is an inner strength which can only be developed via mastering the self' or things like that.

The actual specific mechanics we have right now are remarkably easy to live with if you know what you're doing. But the biggest issue is dilution and diffusion - some classes have expanded to the point where they can replace any other thing in the system, whereas others have failed to expand as quickly. The result is a sort of regression towards generic-ness, where its more important to know what particular options just happen to (at some point during their progression) get the right set of wildcard powers than it is to understand the overarching theme or pattern.

Part of the reason there is that kind of blurring is because there's nothing that explains the 'why' of particular design decisions, just the 'what'. So designers who come in later come up with their own 'whys', which each draw the line at different places. So in the end, that original 'why' gets lost. Even if the original 'why' is a miscalculation or doesn't quite follow, if you explain the reasoning then that provides the ability for people to come by later and fix things up while retaining the core idea. Without some explicit statement of the 'why', the core character of the system tends to become increasingly generic with time.

[Seerow]

I wasn't even thinking of feats that give bonuses to hit - Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus would probably be something I'd combine into Fighter class features. I was thinking more of the plethora of +2/+2 skill feats, or Skill Focus, or the "+2 to a Save" feats, or even something like Improved Initiative or Toughness (which I'd replace with Improved Toughness). I like the idea of them - making your character much better than "usual" at a particular set of skills, or saves - but the bonuses are too small to be meaningful. My issue with making them be a single huge increase is that it could be too much of a bump in the lower levels.

Skill and Saves are also RNG based activities that don't really need a big scaling bonus, just a big enough bonus to matter. Though I could see an argument for making the save based feats "Treat one bad save as a good save. If you already have a good save gain a +3 bonus to that save"; because the big trouble with the save boosting feats is that you want to boost your weakest save... but your weakest save is usually far enough behind that a +2-3 doesn't help it. Being able to turn a bad save into a good save would be good, but giving a scaling +2-6 bonus that someone can add to their good saves is probably too strong. This would however require having a saving throw progression that remains consistent even as you multiclass.

Skills you can probably get away with boosting more just because they're so weak nobody cares (and DCs tend to jump by 5 rather than going up 1 by 1)... but if we're talking about systemic level redesigns, rather than boosting skill focus, I'd make skills more worthwhile baseline so a flat +X from skill focus means something. Like imagine if you took something like PF Unchained's skill unlocks, and made them baseline for all skills, and made skill focus "Treat your skill rank as though it were 3 higher for all purposes", getting you a +3 and your higher level skill unlocks early.

Improved Initiative is already one of the better feats in the game and doesn't need to scale further.

[SinsI]

Change saves and BAB, so that BAB and Saves for any multiclass/prestige classed character is in the range of what you get from Poor and Good for a single classed character to allow proper challenge design.
No stacking of 20 monk-variant classes to get +40 in all saves, and no 0 BAB characters at lvl 20.

[turbo164]

I would switch around some of the classes to make them more like (a well-edited version of) Incarnum. You're a Paladin? You can invest a certain number of Paladin Points (or whatever you would call them) in powering your Mount, getting divine defenses, getting bonuses to attacks, or other Paladin-y things. You can rearrange those points tomorrow if you want. You're a Monk? You can spend your Monk Points to improve your mobility, attach effects to your unarmed strikes, hit faster, or something else Monk-ish.


One of my rough draft homebrew Paladin fixes came up with something similar. At level 1 and 10, choose from a list of Divine Paths. Divine Smiting gives you a free Smite per encounter (similar to Maneuvers) and at higher levels gives you AC and Temp HP when you smite. Divine Wisdom adds spell slots (including Orisons!) and removes the half caster level penalty. Divine Cavalry gives a bonus to Ride checks and grants Mount as a level 1 SLA, with faster Special Mount progression later. Divine Hand upgrades Lay On Hands a'la the Dragon Shaman's Touch of Vitality. Etc

I've also considered something similar for like Druids. Instead of getting full Wildshape/AC/Casting by default, you get like half progression on each, then every X levels choose one to boost by Y.