Using 5e rules in 3.5?

[Feddlefew]

For an upcoming campaign I'm torn between using 5e or 3.5. I do like a lot of the changes in 5e, but since it's a newer system there's not much content for it, especially for campaigns where the setting isn't a standard medieval fantasy one.

So, if I do decide to use 3.5, I was thinking of porting over a bunch of rules from 5e because they make combat run smoother. Other changes don't seem like they'd mesh well with the overall 3.5 rules, even if I do prefer them to the 3.5 version.

Interactions- AKA That thing where characters can manipulate one object each round of combat- including drawing/sheathing weapons and opening or closing doors- as long as it doesn't require a check.
-Makes quick draw and similar useless feats.
-decreases the danger of being caught off guard.

Dividing movement up between actions- works between attacks and actions, if a character gets more than one.
-Doesn't prevent AoO
-Makes some feats useless.
-Makes flying creatures significantly more dangerous.

Disengage- Replaces withdraw action and 5ft step.
-Disengage is a full-round action that prevents all AoOs, but only allows characters to move up to their speed.

Shove- Replaces trip. By using the attack action a charter can replace one of it's attacks with a shove, and push another creature 5ft away or knock it prone. Opposed check determines success. Doesn't cause or provoke AoO.
-Once again, probably makes a feat or two useless.
-Functions exactly like trip, except doesn't provoke AoO and provides the option to move someone away from you. Also can't be used on creatures more than one size category larger than you. Maybe that could be the use for the improved trip feat?

Legendary and lair actions- Makes "boss" monsters significantly more powerful and exciting.
-Why didn't we do this before?

Assorted changes to spell casting- I'm weary of mixing these into 3.5, honestly, because they completely overhauled how spell casting worked between 3.5 and 5e.
-I like that characters pick what slot they use for their prepared spells, and spells with multiple, different level or closely related versions have been condensed into one spell, but I don't feel confident including any of the changes in a 3.5 game.
-Spellcasting is already insanely powerful in 3.5.
-The new system is easier for book keeping purposes.
-prepared casters only need to prepare spells when changing their prepared spell list
-Limits the number of different spells the spell castercan prepare per day (Int+class level instead of up to one for each spell slot). This probably weakens wizards and clerics.
-Only sorcerers get metamagic.

Cleric Domains- I prefer the old system better, TBH, but I do like that spontaneous domain casting is default in 5e.
-One domain with more nifty powers instead of two domains and broader spell access.
-Probably going to make spontaneous domain casting default anyway.

Any thoughts/comments/concerns/dire warnings?

[Afgncaap5]

I think Legendary/Lair actions were technically already thing in 3.5, but only for the people who wanted to homebrew things. Ultimately, I think 5e made the right decision by including rules for things like that. It lets players and GMs know they have permission to do it.

So... yeah. I'm a huge fan of merging 3.5 and 5e. They go well together, I think.

One question I'd have... do you have thoughts on Backgrounds? I've often felt like Backgrounds are good at fulfilling a lot of the story-purposes that prestige classes were suggested to fill in the DMG's description of them, so it seems to me like a cross between backgrounds and prestige classes would make a lot of sense. I've got something like that in the works for my Eberron game, actually, a sort of prestigious order of all-female dwarvish knights who gradually turn themselves into living suits of armor, complete with story hooks about the rare male dwarves who join in secret hoping no one will notice so that they can get the combat prowess, and the Warforged who wants to know if it can join since it's already basically a living suit of armor. It's more of a story-based background, but I feel like I'll have to add mechanical options for it in time.

[Feddlefew]

I like backgrounds, especially since it forced my players to actually write coherent backstories. However, I'm not sure how to incorporate them into character creation, since they determine about 50% of a character's skills and provide a RP perks.

Wait. Aren't backgrounds given an optional rule in 3.5 somewhere? I could have sworn I saw them in PHB2. Which I don't own.

[Troacctid]

Wait. Aren't backgrounds given an optional rule in 3.5 somewhere? I could have sworn I saw them in PHB2. Which I don't own.

It's in Unearthed Arcana. You can also find it in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterBackground.htm)

[OldTrees1]

Those first 2 (especially with Standard Action Full Attacks) are big improvements to 3rd edition. They just enable so much stuff.

Examples:
Grab rope, release weight, fly through the air while slicing some foes, and land with a bow.
Move up, backstab, retreat through doorway, shut door, jump to hide on ceiling.

[Feddlefew]

It's in Unearthed Arcana. You can also find it in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterBackground.htm)

No, that's not what I was thinking of. It was more like everyone gets an extra free feat that goes with their backstory, but it only gave +2 or 3 to two skills.

[GilesTheCleric]

No, that's not what I was thinking of. It was more like everyone gets an extra free feat that goes with their backstory, but it only gave +2 or 3 to two skills.

You're probably thinking of Traits, also from UA.

If you want your players to have neat backgrounds and don't mind a little more post-game paperwork, then I've used a "bonds" system that worked okay. Basically you have pairs of players come up with something in their character's background in which the two previously interacted, either positively or negatively. Once the event that happened in the backstory has some closure in-game (via RP), they both get xp for "completing" the bond. You could also have bonds with NPCs or other events.

[Feddlefew]

I found something I'd been using in 5e but forgot about- the "shove" action.



If you want your players to have neat backgrounds and don't mind a little more post-game paperwork, then I've used a "bonds" system that worked okay. Basically you have pairs of players come up with something in their character's background in which the two previously interacted, either positively or negatively. Once the event that happened in the backstory has some closure in-game (via RP), they both get xp for "completing" the bond. You could also have bonds with NPCs or other events.

I like this idea. Unfortunately it's not applicable to the next campaign I'm running. About how much xp do you usually give?

[GilesTheCleric]

I like this idea. Unfortunately it's not applicable to the next campaign I'm running. About how much xp do you usually give?

No worries! I give at least 250xp per completed bond (in addition to whatever other RP xp I'd also given out -- I see bonds as "RP quests"). I think I gave out a bit less for easier bonds (150), and more for more complex ones (300-500). I liked using it to speed up progress in low-combat games (I like to run city sandboxes with lots of politics).

Edit: I think PF has rules for shoving; it's something like if your CMB roll is 5 higher than their CMD, you can push them 5', +5' per extra 5 over.

[Feddlefew]

I have never played pathfinder.

Honestly, I've just been kind of.... Dissapointed by the lack of content for 5e, especially in the non-damage spells and monster departments? Like, there's only 8 domains. That's not enough to get a diverse pantheon going.

On the other hand, one of the reasons I picked it up is that I have so many complete newbies playing, and it's been hell trying to get them up to speed on how things work in 3.5, and everyone wanted to play magic user. The RP-heavy group loves it, too, And I like a lot of the things it's brought to the table, like backgrounds and subclass thingys and changes to combat, but there's still a lot of stuff I miss from 3.5.

:smallsigh:

[T.G. Oskar]

For backgrounds, you can do cross-backporting: use the Occupations concept of d20 Modern (it has an SRD, BTW), take what you feel are given backgrounds and work around those. Occupations are native to the 3rd Edition in one way or another, and work by giving a starting gold bonus, access to permanent class skills and also some minor feats, though in the case of Modern Occupations it gave access to proficiency-based feats (Armor Proficiency [Light] or the d20 Modern equivalent to Improved Unarmed Strike, which is Combat Martial Arts, as examples). You could take most of the Craft and Profession skills, divorce them from classes (with the exception of Artificer, and since Experts and Factotum have skill choices, they serve as exceptions as well), and create backgrounds that offer those.

You technically can already do a Shove as part of a full attack: it simply replaces one of your attacks during the round. Same for Disarm, Grapple and Sunder; if it mentions "a melee attack", then it can be used as a replacement of one (ToB maneuvers notwithstanding). What you're basically doing is blending Bull Rush and Trip into the same action: you sacrifice one attack, check if the opponent can counter your move, then choose between pushing or tripping. What you can do is eliminate the "counter action" that all creatures get, and simply go for an opposed ability check (Strength vs. highest of Strength or Dexterity). You *could* use Pathfinder's CMB/CMD concept, but it can be somewhat disadvantageous and complicated. Best chance is "Strength vs. Str/Dex; Str + BAB vs. Str/Dex if attacker has Imp. [Maneuver], Str vs. Str/Dex + BAB if defender has Imp. [Maneuver]"; in effect, the feat gives you the "proficiency bonus" you'd otherwise get in 5e through the Athletics skill. It also makes BAB more attractive to have, and makes the feat scale very, VERY nicely. It also helps with the bonus discrepancy against larger creatures. You could assume monster abilities like Improved Grab, or the wolf's Trip ability, count as the feats for that purpose.

Giving everyone the equivalent of Spring Attack as per 5e is basically fixing a huge mistake of 3rd Edition IMO. IIRC, all previous editions worked under the same rule (though I could be wrong): that makes Pounce not so desirable (though still worthwhile for the +2 bonus to attack). It also makes full attack pointless, but you could do so that the Full Attack action (requiring you to stand still) remains existing, but with a given bonus. You could have your attacks with all iteratives, but as a Full Attack action, all your iteratives are done at your highest attack bonus (after reductions like TWF or Rapid Shot).

[tsj]

Are there some free rules anywhere that details the
Legendary and lair actions?

A free article was mentioned but I can't find it?

And the free 5e pdfs don't seem to mention it?

[Troacctid]

Are there some free rules anywhere that details the
Legendary and lair actions?

A free article was mentioned but I can't find it?

And the free 5e pdfs don't seem to mention it?

Page 263 of the SRD (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd) has the relevant rules.

[hymer]

Dividing movement up between actions- works between attacks and actions, if a character gets more than one.
-Doesn't prevent AoO
-Makes some feats useless.
-Makes flying creatures significantly more dangerous.

Beware of the dreaded Goblin Conga Line!Consider a fighter in a five foot wide hallway, trying to hold the line against a bunch of goblins. The first goblin attacks him, and then goes away, taking an AoO. It's the AoO or waiting around for the fighter's full attack, which will be at least as bad, so the goblin takes the AoO. Next goblin steps up, attacks, and moves off. And so on, untill some five or six goblins have all attacked, if they coordinate it properly. Easier if there's a room nearby.

[Kurald Galain]

Well,

Interactions - Good idea. I never liked quick draw as an (overly narrow) feat anyway, and letting characters use the environment is something that should be encouraged.

Dividing movement up between actions - The problem is that this encourages "polka line" tactics, where e.g. twenty goblins all move up to a character, hit it, and move back even if normally they wouldn't be able to get close to him all at the same time. Plus it slows down gameplay. I have no problem with requiring either move+act or act+move (but not move+act+move some more).

Disengage - Same thing as withdraw, really. I actually prefer withdraw, because it shows characters that getting surrounded is really bad for you, and encourages them to invest in other escape abilities (like tumble or teleportation).

Shove - Well, you can already replace one of your attacks with a trip or bull rush anyway, so I'm not seeing the big deal here. I do think that these should provoke AoOs, though.

Legendary and lair actions - Good.

[OldTrees1]

Beware of the dreaded Goblin Conga Line!Consider a fighter in a five foot wide hallway, trying to hold the line against a bunch of goblins. The first goblin attacks him, and then goes away, taking an AoO. It's the AoO or waiting around for the fighter's full attack, which will be at least as bad, so the goblin takes the AoO. Next goblin steps up, attacks, and moves off. And so on, untill some five or six goblins have all attacked, if they coordinate it properly. Easier if there's a room nearby.

Mechanical response:
3rd edition allows AoOs coming in or going out. So the Fighter pulls out a reach weapon for 2 reach AoOs and 1 spikes AoO (probably waived).

Thematic response:
In Dark Souls I tend to walk backwards away from groups of enemies in order to maintain distance. If the incoming mobs are faster than my retreat and not synced up with each other, then I see something remarkably similar to the Goblin Conga Line. What happens is each of the foes catches up to my retreat at a different time/distance (remember I am stepping backwards), they slow down as they attack which allows the laggards to catch up and pass them. While my experience of this comes from Dark Souls, this seems a rather realistic simulation in this regard.

[Feddlefew]

I use the rules variant where everyone (including creatures under my control) declares their action at the beginning of the round, looks up the modifier for the action on a handy table I give them, and then rolls their initiative for that round. So the goblin conga line problem is very, very unlikely to come up in my game.

Edit: To make it a little more clear, you can change the target of your action (or change it to a movement type thing) on your turn. I've allowed players to use bluff or the feint action to hide what they're doing that round, but usually most people just roll with it.

[Kurald Galain]

Mechanical response:
3rd edition allows AoOs coming in or going out. So the Fighter pulls out a reach weapon for 2 reach AoOs and 1 spikes AoO (probably waived).
That doesn't help. Most characters aren't reach fighters.



Thematic response:
In Dark Souls I tend to walk backwards away from groups of enemies in order to maintain distance. If the incoming mobs are faster than my retreat and not synced up with each other, then I see something remarkably similar to the Goblin Conga Line. What happens is each of the foes catches up to my retreat at a different time/distance (remember I am stepping backwards), they slow down as they attack which allows the laggards to catch up and pass them.
That doesn't help either. In most situations you can't keep retreating (nor can you do that in real time) and as you already show, this situation is pretty ridiculous in dark souls as well.

[OldTrees1]

That doesn't help. Most characters aren't reach fighters.


That doesn't help either. In most situations you can't keep retreating (nor can you do that in real time) and as you already show, this situation is pretty ridiculous in dark souls as well.

Non reach fighters are proficient in and can easily afford a reach weapon. In fact my original sentence does not make any sense if I were talking about a reach fighter rather than the non reach fighter I was talking about.

Considering the scale of retreat I was talking about (walking/stepping backwards) it not only can be done in real time and in most situations, but it also is fairly reasonable to contain it inside the 5ft fighting space that facing represents. (this is a thematic rather than mechanical reason so it can get away with a bit when snapping to the grid)

[Taejang]

Honestly, I've just been kind of.... Dissapointed by the lack of content for 5e, especially in the non-damage spells and monster departments? Like, there's only 8 domains. That's not enough to get a diverse pantheon going.
If you like 5e's rules but want 3.5's number of options, maybe you'd find it easier to bring 3.5 stuff into 5e. I've brought monsters and items from 3.5 into 5e with minimal effort, and don't see why you couldn't bring in spells or even races, feats, and classes, though some may be more problematic than others.

[Feddlefew]

If you like 5e's rules but want 3.5's number of options, maybe you'd find it easier to bring 3.5 stuff into 5e. I've brought monsters and items from 3.5 into 5e with minimal effort, and don't see why you couldn't bring in spells or even races, feats, and classes, though some may be more problematic than others.

Let it be said that I am a lazy human, and porting a handful of rules I really like is a lot less work than porting dozens of spells, monsters, and other bits.

[Crake]

Dividing movement up between actions- works between attacks and actions, if a character gets more than one.
...
-Makes flying creatures significantly more dangerous.

I think you meant to say "Gives flying creatures a bonus feat" because that's fly-by atack in a nutshell. I don't think too many people would find a single bonus feat "significantly more dangerous".

[Chronos]

Quoth OldTrees1:

Non reach fighters are proficient in and can easily afford a reach weapon.
Well, some of them are. But can non-fighters afford to spend a feat on Combat Reflexes? Remember, most characters only get one attack of opportunity per round.

[OldTrees1]

Well, some of them are. But can non-fighters afford to spend a feat on Combat Reflexes? Remember, most characters only get one attack of opportunity per round.

Fair point. It is true that a lot of initiators and a minority of other non-reach fighters (clarification note: I am presuming non-fighter is a typo given I was talking about non-reach fighters) can't afford Combat Reflexes. However the goblins have no incentive to conga-line an initiator since distance does not improve their security (same is true of all fighters if you allow Standard Action Full Attacks like 5E). So your point about combat reflexes is limited to a minority of the non-initiator non-reach fighters. It still is a fair point though.

[hymer]

However the goblins have no incentive to conga-line an initiator since distance does not improve their security (same is true of all fighters if you allow Standard Action Full Attacks like 5E).

It does allow them to all attack on their turn, though. If they ready attacks, there's a risk they won't get to attack until their next round. Isn't that incentive enough?

[OldTrees1]

It does allow them to all attack on their turn, though. If they ready attacks, there's a risk they won't get to attack until their next round. Isn't that incentive enough?

Considering goblins are on their home turf? I would expect them to use a terrain solution instead. However I will grant you that is an incentive.

[Kurald Galain]

However the goblins have no incentive to conga-line an initiator since distance does not improve their security

Conga line has nothing to do with security. It has to with much more characters attacking one target in melee than would normally be able to stand around him, and with making choke points (and thus, most terrain-related tactics) completely irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

Conga line has nothing to do with security. It has to with much more characters attacking one target in melee than would normally be able to stand around him, and with making choke points (and thus, most terrain-related tactics) completely irrelevant.

Sorry, I hyperfocused on the "take 1 AoO rather than be the goblin that gets full attacked" that I forgot that aspect completely.

Being able to intersperse action within movement is more realistic but while movement IRL would result in more attacks on a choke point than just standing would, the increased number has a limit IRL. What causes the limit IRL and how can that be simulated without losing the interspersed action?

[Feddlefew]

Re: AoO on bull rush/ shove and trip attacks.

What if they only triggered AoO if the attempt fails, and the improved ____ feats added BAB to the check like some of you mentioned?

(I'm also kind of curious about how merging 5e spellcasting with 3.5 would work out now, but I think that might need a separate thread)

[GilesTheCleric]

Re: AoO on bull rush/ shove and trip attacks.

What if they only triggered AoO if the attempt fails, and the improved ____ feats added BAB to the check like some of you mentioned?

That's a good way to give mundanes some nice things, I think. How do you think it might interact with things like dropping your weapon? If you're using a weapon to trip but fail, you can drop it to avoid the AoO, perhaps? That trades off damage now for damage later (when you're fighting unarmed and provoking more AoOs, or provoke to pick up the weapon).

[Sian]

For backgrounds, what I've had done at different points is giving everyone a Regional feat (From Forgotten Realms) of their choice as a bonus feat, or the Apprentice feat from DMGII, with a mentor of their choice (being willing to homebrew additional types)

[Feddlefew]

That's a good way to give mundanes some nice things, I think. How do you think it might interact with things like dropping your weapon? If you're using a weapon to trip but fail, you can drop it to avoid the AoO, perhaps? That trades off damage now for damage later (when you're fighting unarmed and provoking more AoOs, or provoke to pick up the weapon).

I think having to provoke an AoO to initiate a trip/bullrush is why my Players never seem to use those actions in combat. Same with grappling, actually.

From a verisimilitude standpoint, I think it doesn't make sense to have the AoO happen in the case of a successful bullrush or trip. Not too sure about grappling, though...

[Forrestfire]

I've been considering bringing over some 5e rules to 3.5 myself, although haven't implemented many because my game is still ongoing.


Interactions- AKA That thing where characters can manipulate one object each round of combat- including drawing/sheathing weapons and opening or closing doors- as long as it doesn't require a check.
-Makes quick draw and similar useless feats.
-decreases the danger of being caught off guard.

Note that Quick Draw's main utility was always for people who need to draw multiple weapons or objects per round. In 3.5, where people have far more attacks per round, it would still be absolutely necessary to take for anyone whose combat style is, say, drawing and throwing six to eight daggers/flasks/katanas (or more).


Dividing movement up between actions- works between attacks and actions, if a character gets more than one.
-Doesn't prevent AoO
-Makes some feats useless.
-Makes flying creatures significantly more dangerous.

You didn't indicate about whether or not this would give everyone a free move action while full attacking (like in 5e), so in the case where they don't, this change will make people a bit safer and be a huge boon for ground-based creatures, but overall just end up saving flyers a feat (Flyby Attack). In the case where they do, it saves people resources trying to get a source of pounce or Travel Devotion, which is nice. Pounce was trivial to get but shoehorned you into straight line movement, so this might make for a lot more mobile and fun combats. Goblin conga lines will be an issue (as will pl


Disengage- Replaces withdraw action and 5ft step.
-Disengage is a full-round action that prevents all AoOs, but only allows characters to move up to their speed.

Terrible idea, in my opinion. The 5-foot step is one of the main things keeping archers usable in most fights (able to step out of reach then full attack), a very useful tool for casters (which they don't quite need with defensive casting, but is still important. Your mileage may vary on whether or not it's a good change here), and important for making full attackers able to have at least a little mobility once they're stuck in.


Shove- Replaces trip. By using the attack action a charter can replace one of it's attacks with a shove, and push another creature 5ft away or knock it prone. Opposed check determines success. Doesn't cause or provoke AoO.
-Once again, probably makes a feat or two useless.
-Functions exactly like trip, except doesn't provoke AoO and provides the option to move someone away from you. Also can't be used on creatures more than one size category larger than you. Maybe that could be the use for the improved trip feat?
Instead of limiting it by size, why not keep the same (admittedly messy) math from 3.5? That way, people who specialize in it will likely make it work the same way as current trippers.


Legendary and lair actions- Makes "boss" monsters significantly more powerful and exciting.
-Why didn't we do this before?

Heh, yeah. Great idea that I've been taking design cues from 4e about for years.


Assorted changes to spell casting- I'm weary of mixing these into 3.5, honestly, because they completely overhauled how spell casting worked between 3.5 and 5e.

Honestly, I think that if you're playing 3.5, the best way to handle spellcasting's power is a gentleman's agreement, rather than bans or removing things from the game. The system is broken in enough places that the only real reason to still play it is the vast amount of options, so stuff like "only sorcerers get metamagic" is an awful houserule, in my opinion.


-I like that characters pick what slot they use for their prepared spells, and spells with multiple, different level or closely related versions have been condensed into one spell, but I don't feel confident including any of the changes in a 3.5 game.
-Spellcasting is already insanely powerful in 3.5.
-The new system is easier for book keeping purposes.
-prepared casters only need to prepare spells when changing their prepared spell list
-Limits the number of different spells the spell castercan prepare per day (Int+class level instead of up to one for each spell slot). This probably weakens wizards and clerics.

I like this change though. Spirit Shaman casting was always fairly neat, and it'd make an interesting nerf (and buff, at the same time). I would consider giving Heighten Spell for free to these casters, for the "augmentation" of spell slots, and encourage them to pick up other metamagics for their spells.


-Only sorcerers get metamagic.
5e metamagic is an entirely different animal from 3.5 metamagic. Don't do this, it kills off almost every blasting archetype other than straight-classed sorcerers, kills off a lot of buffers, removes a lot of other interesting functionality and versatility...


Cleric Domains- I prefer the old system better, TBH, but I do like that spontaneous domain casting is default in 5e.
-One domain with more nifty powers instead of two domains and broader spell access.
-Probably going to make spontaneous domain casting default anyway.

Cleric domains in 3.5 served a dual purpose of being okayish abilities for a cleric on top of their casting, and making Cleric 1 an amazing build component for martial classes that wanted to become slightly more versatile, especially when the concept was "intelligent skirmisher" (Knowledge Devotion, Travel Devotion). Spontaneous Domain Casting's a great ACF that I'd be tempted to make the default as well, but I wouldn't remove their domains. I might consider allowing people to choose from 3.5 or Pathfinder domains when they take the class—3.5 domains are far better in one level and give immediate rewards, while Pathfinder domains are better for a cleric who's investing lots of levels, but useless to someone who wants to use Cleric's utility as one of the only possible tools to get a concept to work.

There's one thing that I think would be (and has been, in my games) amazing to bring from 5e that you didn't mention:

Death Saves—reduces the overall rocket tag and makes people go from full to down, rather than full to dead, once a moderate amount of optimization is around. It has about the same effect on a fight, but it makes it slightly harder for the characters to die and cause the game's plot and fun to grind to a halt.

[GilesTheCleric]

I think having to provoke an AoO to initiate a trip/bullrush is why my Players never seem to use those actions in combat. Same with grappling, actually.

From a verisimilitude standpoint, I think it doesn't make sense to have the AoO happen in the case of a successful bullrush or trip. Not too sure about grappling, though...

I agree with you.

If you think of grappling more as "restraining" than "scrumming", it makes sense you wouldn't provoke when successful. Grappling is just such a vague mechanic that I don't think any single fluff explanation is going to work for it (much like unarmed strikes).

[Feddlefew]

Okay, a lot of replies. In order:

@ Sian-
The apprentice feat from the DMG was what I was thinking of earlier. With some modifications I can get this to work pretty well. Thanks!

@ Forrestfire-
Re: Movement:
I think I'm going to stick with standard 3.5 movement for now, but keep the interaction rule from 5e.

Re: Magic
I didn't mean that I thought it was a good idea that only sorceress get meta magic, just that it was a change in 5e.

What I'm concerned about is that spell power in 3.5 is based on caster level instead of spell level, but I guess if I give casters heighten spell for free and say that it doesn't count towards feat prerequisites it should be good. I also think I'll try 5e style spell prep with a test group and see how it goes. I'm going to need some time to get an equivalence list going. On the other hand, I have to decide how I'm going to handle cantrips.

As for Cleric domains, if 5e style spell prep works there would be no reason NOT to have spontaneous domain casting. Alternatively, I could have it so clerics get one free spell prepared per day per level from their domains.

Re: Death Saves

I knew I was forgetting something.

[Fitz10019]

3rd edition allows AoOs coming in or going out. So the Fighter pulls out a reach weapon for 2 reach AoOs and 1 spikes AoO (probably waived).

In 3.5, you get 1 AoO per enemy's move action, not per threatened square exited. An enemy could walk a circle around you as one move action and you'd only get one AoO, choosing which one weapon to use once.