View Full Version : Massive D&D 3.5 Fix (PEACH)
D&D 3.5 has a massive power disparity between casters and martials. A lot of different fixes for this have been proposed, and I decided to create my own fixes after looking at them. My goal is to let the tier 4 and 5 become tier 3 or so. Right now Im worried if these fixes would break the game, not solve the issue the class is facing, or go against the fluff of the class. If you guys have any comments, ideas or suggestions please tell me
All classes (including prestige classes):
Your HP per hit dice is maximized
You gain twice as much HP from your Hit Die at level 1
Other benefits depending on the type of class
Martial classes get
+4 skill points per level
+1 bonus to two ability scores, for every 4 levels of that martial class. (This is in addition to the normal ability score improvements)
Half Casters (caster with half CL or only up to 4th level spells) get
CL is treated as full instead of only half the class level
2 bonus spell per day per spell level, and 1 bonus spell known per spell level, if applicable (gained at the level you gain access to that spell level)
+4 skill points per level
a +1 bonus to two ability scores, for every 4 levels of that half caster class. (This is in addition to the normal ability score improvements)
Incomplete Casters (casters with full CL with 5th or higher spells but not 9th level) get:
1 bonus spell per day per spell level, and 1 bonus spell known per spell level, if applicable (gained at the level you gain access to that spell level)
+2 skill points per level
a +1 bonus to one ability scores, for every 4 levels of that half caster class. (This is in addition to the normal ability score improvements)
Full Casters:
Gain twice as much 0th and 1st level spells at first level.
Lose one 4th, 5th and 6th level spells per day (to a minimum of 1)
Lose two 7th, 8th and 9th level spells per day (to a minimum of 1)
Multi class:
You can have up to 2 base classes before you get multi class penalties
Favored class is not counted in this limit
Skills:
Jump, climb and swim -> athletics
Spot and listen -> perception
Hide and move silently -> stealth, and maximum ranks is +6
Open lock and disable device -> disable device
Athletics, craft, balance, heal, perform, profession have no maximum skill ranks
Tumble DC = 10 + BAB of enemy (through an area occupied by an enemy DC = 20 + BAB)
Skill Tricks:
You can instead get up to 2 skill tricks per level
Maximum number of skill tricks you can have is equal to your level
You can purchase a skill trick multiple times, each time letting you use it once more
Combat:
At BAB +11, you can make 2 attacks using a standard action
If you have the TWF feat, you can make an off hand attack along with the main hand attack as part of a standard action attack. At BAB +11, you can make 2 main hand and offhand attacks.
Ranged and thrown weapon attacks add your DEX mod to the damage roll. If it already adds your STR mod, add both.
You add your full STR mod to the damage roll of your off hand weapons, not just half anymore.
Casting:
If your Caster level is lower than 3, it is treated to be 3 for the purpose of the effects of spells
You cannot cast spells with somatic components while wearing armor you are not proficient with
DC for casting defensively is now 12 + 2 x spell level
You do not increase the casting time of your spontaneous spells when you use metamagic feats
Feats:
Weapon finesse: You can now also use your dex mod instead of your str mod for damage rolls
Whirlwind attack: It can now be used with only a standard action. At BAB +11, you can make 2 whirlwind attacks, the second at a -5 penalty. The prerequisites are now either (Greater cleave, BAB +6) or (Spring attack, BAB +6).
Power attack: It no longer lasts the whole round, instead you choose the penalty separately for each attack
Weapon specialization and greater instead adds 1d8 to the damage roll.
The penalty of Many shot decreases by 2, and precision damage applies to each one.
Combat reflex grants at least 2 additional attacks of opportunity. It can be taken multiple times, but each additional time grants only 2 more attacks of opportunity
Skill boosting feats become +3 to the two skills
Skill focus grants +5 bonus instead
Magic Items:
Magic weapons, armor and shield have an enhancement bonus = total special ability price modifiers. You no longer pay for the enhancement and pay for special abilities only.
Prices of magic weapon = bonus squared x 1,000 gp
Magic armor and shield enhancement bonus also grants DR/- (that stacks with other sources of DR).
Potions have no spell level limits now
Prices of Potions = Spell level x CL x 25 gp
Prices of Scrolls = Spell level X CL x 20 gp Spell casting services have a base price of spell level squared X caster level. Some spells may not follow this.
Healing spells
Cure moderate wounds instead heals 3d8 + CL
Cure Serious wounds instead heals 5d8 + CL
Cure Critical wounds instead heals 7d8 + CL
Heal instead now only heals 8/ CL, and choose remove 1 point of ability damage/ CL or 1 other adverse condition.
Class Fixes:
Barbarian:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zw_n9lcge7oP9eYWaB7d6pMDu3vn-1oR5lvfBirdRUA
Rogue (WIP):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l2A1rSNAqX9OBUoB6mouuGI0gSrTUZeUJc04_2_t3Sk
Ninja (WIP):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tmy_g0kpA2eOuLXajEGZgYz1OvNFo20cWlIqGhyZ4eo
Scout:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IIqQuZF-Nw1rkDy2lNtbj7iZcSZ11p4P45bBpMEeJbw
Knight (WIP):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o9Ide-aunt3t7_4FR85dzugAALgyJ2CAdA0Tx-MiU_0
Factotum:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnLiBXPpkCJbrCDKd6UDf7lPh0caPVS0D4GLQU7jpRo
Soul Lurk (My weird fix by trying to combine soulknife, lurk and psychic rogue): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EmVrPLBnYw3BPn4zaxWEbLF1W1Bidovdol30FE7HmPE
Zombimode
2019-04-11, 12:22 PM
Hm, I'm probably not the target audience since
a) in my view most of the supposed "problems" of 3.5 are white room problems or are highly dependent on your group
b) I prefer small surgical changes over sweeping or extensive ones
Having that said, I find it difficult to evaluate your changes because you have not explained your rational for any change.
That is to say: for each point, what is the issue you are trying to fix?
Take, for instance, you first change:
Your HP per hit dice is maximized
You gain twice as much HP from your Hit Die at level 1
First, who exactly are the beneficiaries of the change? Just PCs? All "elites"? All?
That is a very important distinction.
Then: why do you feel the PCs/everyone should get more HP?
I would highly advise against applying this change to all creatures. If everything has higher HP, the pressure for optimisation becomes higher for all characters that contribute mostly by HP damage. On the other hand alternative win conditions (save or die, save or loose, save or suck, ability damage etc.) become even more valueable, naturally guiding your players to seek out those options.
Multi class:
You can have up to 2 base classes before you get multi class penalties
Favored class is not counted in this limit
Why do you want to deal with multiclass penalties at all? What problem are you trying to fix by limiting in any way if and how characters take classes?
Full attacks are standard actions
That full attacks are (for many creatures and characters at least) much more powerfull than standard actions but are harder to pull of because of the full round action cost is one of the core principles of D&D 3.5 combat model.
It is so important because it facilitates one key tactical option: the possibility to deny a full attack.
You can deny full attacks through a variety of means:
- forced movement
- terrain
- clever positioning
Without the distinction between single and full attacks all of those options, and with them a huge ammount of spells and abilities, become much less interessting. And the combat model becomes much more simple, closer to what some critics of 3.5 claim: that combat in 3.5 is just people standing in front of each other an bashing each other to death.
And that is the best outcome. I can get worse if this change guides your players to seek out ever more extreme ways of shutting down enemies: because with this change the only way of making sure you don't eat a full attack is to shut down your enemies before they can act.
It also distortes the difference between ranged and melee styles. One of the most important advantages of ranged combat is that it is so much easier to get off a full attack.
Hm, I'm probably not the target audience since
a) in my view most of the supposed "problems" of 3.5 are white room problems or are highly dependent on your group
b) I prefer small surgical changes over sweeping or extensive ones
Having that said, I find it difficult to evaluate your changes because you have not explained your rational for any change.
That is to say: for each point, what is the issue you are trying to fix?
Take, for instance, you first change:
First, who exactly are the beneficiaries of the change? Just PCs? All "elites"? All?
That is a very important distinction.
Well my main goal is to make the tier 4s and 5s into tier 3 classes. Improving some of their abilties and adding new options to make them more versatile. The changes would be mainly for the pcs, and other npcs with classes. I wanted to let martial characters have multiple options aside from just whacking the enemy or let them do that in a new way.
Then: why do you feel the PCs/everyone should get more HP?
I would highly advise against applying this change to all creatures. If everything has higher HP, the pressure for optimisation becomes higher for all characters that contribute mostly by HP damage. On the other hand alternative win conditions (save or die, save or loose, save or suck, ability damage etc.) become even more valueable, naturally guiding your players to seek out those options.
Our group actually does this on a regular basis already and it was fine as we had decent amounts of optimization. We did not maximize the HP for all creatures, some of the monsters they faced would not have their HP maximized, but the elites and bosses would definitely have their maximized. It made combat time a bit longer, but also made the overall situation less risky and more about setting it up for a final decisive strike or a battle of attrition. It opened up new ways to play for us. In our opinion it let tanks actually become tanks with their large HP difference over casters. In addition, since Im going to be improving a lot of the other classes, I felt the maximizing the HP would be justified overall, especially since I thought of making standard actions, full attacks.
Why do you want to deal with multiclass penalties at all? What problem are you trying to fix by limiting in any way if and how characters take classes?
At least for me, I never liked how you needed to have classes of nearly equal levels. It prevented so much possible combinations of classes I wanted to try. I limited it to 2 however (or 3 if favored class) to prevent too much dips.
That full attacks are (for many creatures and characters at least) much more powerfull than standard actions but are harder to pull of because of the full round action cost is one of the core principles of D&D 3.5 combat model.
It is so important because it facilitates one key tactical option: the possibility to deny a full attack.
You can deny full attacks through a variety of means:
- forced movement
- terrain
- clever positioning
Without the distinction between single and full attacks all of those options, and with them a huge ammount of spells and abilities, become much less interessting. And the combat model becomes much more simple, closer to what some critics of 3.5 claim: that combat in 3.5 is just people standing in front of each other an bashing each other to death.
I based of this idea using 5e, where characters can spread their movement and still attck, except here you can't spread your movement unless you have a class feature. For us at least, our group is more annoyed at how in general melee characters suck after moving more than 5 ft, making it very hard for them to even do any tactics. I believe however that in fact by letting people move more while giving them their full attacks, it would actually open up more strategic thinking. Like kiting for melee characters without spring attack, or making enemies retreat into a desirable position where the caster can cloud kill them all. Positioning would become important where everyone is mobile and can easily surround you and bash you full attacks. Standing in one place would be your doom. Especially with casters with cloud kill or something. In my opinion, it would become less of denying a full action, but on denying movement, and cooperating with allies to bring them down. This is more apparent on what I plan for the rogue like classes. Charge would replace the normal standard attack. Scouts and rogues have the ability to spread their move action movement throught out their movement. Letting them still get away from the 30 ft. speed and forcing the melee character to charge, which unless they built upon will only do so much damage compared to the full attack, forcing melee characters to find ways to shut down their movement like by tripping instead of attacking even if they do not have improved trip.
And that is the best outcome. I can get worse if this change guides your players to seek out ever more extreme ways of shutting down enemies: because with this change the only way of making sure you don't eat a full attack is to shut down your enemies before they can act.
Which is why I maximized the HP, with more damage, there must be more health, and also healing (except for the heal spell, that just heals too much). In combat healing and buffing would also probably be more of a thing in order for a group to survive full attacks.I wouldn't like to think that their choice would be to shut down the enemy (since essentially the goal of every battle is to shut down the enemy), but to find ways to deal with the high damage, such as by cooperating with allies or hiding behind the really high health tank.
It also distortes the difference between ranged and melee styles. One of the most important advantages of ranged combat is that it is so much easier to get off a full attack.
That is true, but I feel with being able to make full attacks, kiting like how casters can becomes possible for archers. They can focus on keeping a distance and advantageous terrain or something, and not just stand in 1 place to unleash a full attack
As for my fix on magic items, it was an idea of mine since martials spend way too much of their money on magic weapons or armor, while casters spend their money to become even more versatile or grant new options for them
And I actually buffed up lv 1 casters, because in all my experiences, a lv 1 wizard uses a crossbow for combat
RedWarlock
2019-04-12, 02:40 AM
Maximizing HP means that save-or-suck/die spells become more effective than dice-based direct-damage effects (mostly damage spells, but also compared to direct weapon damage). Those SoS spells were already considered stronger than DD by many, so it just increases the disparity in their power.
Maximizing HP means that save-or-suck/die spells become more effective than dice-based direct-damage effects (mostly damage spells, but also compared to direct weapon damage). Those SoS spells were already considered stronger than DD by many, so it just increases the disparity in their power.
I admit that this would make Save or die spells more effective, but I dont think there would be greater disparity in power since the hit die of most arcane casters are low, such that they would only get a few more hitpoints, compared to the martial classes who benefit more. With the new fixes of standard full attacks and the other class fixes I plan on their damage out put should also increase, which will hopefully balance out with the power of spells. Casters would also still have low health that they can be knocked out in 1 go.
From our group's experiences, characters die out very quickly with some lucky rolls, and only casters and other characters who have versatility and defensive options survive, while martial characters die out fast. Which led to our group deciding in maximizing HP and its been nice (it increases combat time though which can be a good and bad thing). The fighter lives long enough and becomes a really good tank while the casters can focus on blasting. In our group however we have an unspoken rule to never use Save or dies due to a very anti climatic encounter we once had.
Maybe I should add a specific rule that save or die spells have lower DCs? Or perhaps make it so that Save or Dies leave you at -1 HP
Currently I am working on the homebrew fixes for the Knight class, and im debating on whether the Knight's code should just be revised or completely removed. What are your opinions on this? Should I just scrap the code or revise it, and if so what should be changed?
Elves
2019-04-13, 01:35 PM
For balance, tier 1 is the real problem tier, not 2, and tier 1's advantage is that they get to pick freely from a giant spell list. So any fix has to deal with that, not spells per day. Basically, make them work more like sorcerer. The gap between mailmen and uberchargers is certainly there but it's more linear. Or at least, a sorcerer doesn't become a completely different character the next time you face him.
Making full attacks a standard action is defensible but I'd just give martials pounce (except perhaps rogue for whom a shadowy teleportation ability, or a "rapid creep up behind you" nonmagical ability similar to teleport sans passing through barriers, would be more appropriate.) That preserves some of the tactical element.
I don't see the point of the HP change. Giving wands no spell limits is a bad idea and also only fixes class balance by making rogues be people who steal a lot simply because they need a lot of money to keep pretending to be wizards.
There are a lot of fixes for the T4&5 martials out there, I haven't looked at yours but what's the concept?
DEMON
2019-04-13, 04:54 PM
Making full attacks a standard action is defensible but I'd just give martials pounce (except perhaps rogue for whom a shadowy teleportation ability, or a "rapid creep up behind you" nonmagical ability similar to teleport sans passing through barriers, would be more appropriate.) That preserves some of the tactical element.
Giving everyone pounce will make uberchargers even easier and a goto melee build over any other way.
My suggestion would be buffing standard action attacks while keeping them separate (and inferior to) from full action attacks:
- having 2 weapons equipped would allow you to take 2 attacks as standard action (-1/-1 with light weapon in off hand, -2/-2 for 1-handed weapon off hand; light or 1-handed weapon in main hand).
- having +11 BAB would allow you to attack twice (4x with 2 weapons equipped)) as astandard action
- the 2WF feat would allow you to reduce the penalties to -1/-1 with 1-handed weapon or remove the penalties with light/4-handed weapon in the main hand and light weapon in the off hand) and give you the ability to make as many off hand attacks an main hand attacks
I don't see the point of the HP change.
It's supposed to buff the 1st level gameplay where everyone is prone to day from a lucky crit... my suggestion would be, crazy as it may sound, to start every game @ level 2 by default. This will help with survivability of the less optimized players, while still allowing for supereasy NPCs/monsters to be pitted againts them. And the more optimized build will just face the higher level oposition from the get go.
For balance, tier 1 is the real problem tier, not 2, and tier 1's advantage is that they get to pick freely from a giant spell list. So any fix has to deal with that, not spells per day. Basically, make them work more like sorcerer. The gap between mailmen and uberchargers is certainly there but it's more linear. Or at least, a sorcerer doesn't become a completely different character the next time you face him.
Aside from the lowered amount of spells, I was also planning on giving prepared casters their own "spells known", where they can only choose those spells to prepare. Of course their "spells known" will be larger than the spells known of spontaneous casters.
Making full attacks a standard action is defensible but I'd just give martials pounce (except perhaps rogue for whom a shadowy teleportation ability, or a "rapid creep up behind you" nonmagical ability similar to teleport sans passing through barriers, would be more appropriate.) That preserves some of the tactical element.
I agree with DEMON, I feel like giving all martial characters pounce makes it more destructive and make martial character creation inclined towards charging builds. With standard full-attacks, it is more open to other builds.
I don't see the point of the HP change. Giving wands no spell limits is a bad idea and also only fixes class balance by making rogues be people who steal a lot simply because they need a lot of money to keep pretending to be wizards.
The HP change is there so that martial characters can feel like they are actually tanking, instead of dying of almost as quickly
as casters If they get hit. The casters would actually have ways to defend themselves despite their low HP, while martial characters only have a bit more health, no real defensive options and poor scaling AC. So the simplest thing I could think of was to increase the HP. This should also the balance out the fact that I would be buffing the general damage of martial characters. I do see your point on the wands though. Do you think it should remain capped at 4th level or should wands be capped at a higher spell level?
There are a lot of fixes for the T4&5 martials out there, I haven't looked at yours but what's the concept?
Well generally my concept was to make martial characters more extraordinary, less captain america and more like thor or hulk. The fixes are meant to increase their power, let them do their own roles better, and give more versatility or options for them in and out of combat. The maximized HP lets them take in a ridiculous amount of damage. Martial classes would also get a stat increase to two ability scores of their choice at every 4 levels of that class. This is to help out the MAD classes, or let the SAD martial classes actually get extraordinary stats. Then they get 4 additional skill points. Added skills where just the simplest thing I could think of that let martial characters do something outside of combat. Then lastly the magic weapon and armor changes, is to solve the problem that martial characters spend way too much money on magic weapons, and at the same time make magic weapons really powerful.
My suggestion would be buffing standard action attacks while keeping them separate (and inferior to) from full action attacks:
- having 2 weapons equipped would allow you to take 2 attacks as standard action (-1/-1 with light weapon in off hand, -2/-2 for 1-handed weapon off hand; light or 1-handed weapon in main hand).
- having +11 BAB would allow you to attack twice (4x with 2 weapons equipped)) as astandard action
- the 2WF feat would allow you to reduce the penalties to -1/-1 with 1-handed weapon or remove the penalties with light/4-handed weapon in the main hand and light weapon in the off hand) and give you the ability to make as many off hand attacks an main hand attacks
Yeah this sounds better, but I feel like the penalties for having no feat should be larger. Maybe the no feat penalty should kept at -4 like how the TWF originally worked
PairO'Dice Lost
2019-04-16, 12:46 PM
My suggestion would be buffing standard action attacks while keeping them separate (and inferior to) from full action attacks:
- having 2 weapons equipped would allow you to take 2 attacks as standard action (-1/-1 with light weapon in off hand, -2/-2 for 1-handed weapon off hand; light or 1-handed weapon in main hand).
- having +11 BAB would allow you to attack twice (4x with 2 weapons equipped)) as astandard action
- the 2WF feat would allow you to reduce the penalties to -1/-1 with 1-handed weapon or remove the penalties with light/4-handed weapon in the main hand and light weapon in the off hand) and give you the ability to make as many off hand attacks an main hand attacks
As a point of comparison, Trailblazer (a 3rd-party "let's analyze the core math of 3e and see what we learn" product from the late 3e period) showed that the following setup was equivalent in hit rates and damage to a standard full attack as long as you aren't up against ridiculous ACs ("hit on a 2" and "miss on a 19" territory):
At 6th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5 from full BAB, attack at -2/-2.
At 11th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5/-10 from full BAB, attack at -1/-1.
At 16th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5/-10/-15 from full BAB, attack at -0/-0.
So rather than being slightly worse than a normal full attack, your proposal actually ends up being slightly better.
Of course, you could go with the above solution for standard-action attacks and then buff up full attacks further, not like you're going to overpower fighter types that way. A common idea is to change the iterative progression from -0/-5/-10/-15 to -0/-5/-5/-5 so the last attacks actually have a reasonable chance at hitting near-even-level opposition, or you could reduce iterative penalties to e.g. -0/-3/-6/-9, or whatever else you'd like.
It's supposed to buff the 1st level gameplay where everyone is prone to day from a lucky crit... my suggestion would be, crazy as it may sound, to start every game @ level 2 by default. This will help with survivability of the less optimized players, while still allowing for supereasy NPCs/monsters to be pitted againts them. And the more optimized build will just face the higher level oposition from the get go.
I'd agree with this. There's not much room to "build down" at 1st level if everything weaker than a human has to have 1 HD, so allowing for a bit more range gives you some room to make early-game threats more variable and avoids the "housecats kill commoners" problem.
Aside from the lowered amount of spells, I was also planning on giving prepared casters their own "spells known", where they can only choose those spells to prepare. Of course their "spells known" will be larger than the spells known of spontaneous casters.
Back in 1e, Magic-Users had a limit on how many spells they could learn per spell level based on their Int, and they also had a random chance of learning each spell: if you wanted to learn fireball, you rolled d% and if the roll failed you couldn't learn it until you leveled again. (With various edge cases like being able to re-test for certain spells if you couldn't learn anything you wanted and so forth.) That helped a lot in reining in Magic-User power, since you couldn't just choose a bunch of optimal spells to learn when leveling and if you found a scroll of an awesome spell there's no guarantee you could learn it immediately or at all.
For reference, here's the actual table:
Int ScoreChance to Know Each SpellMinimum Spells/LevelMaximum Spells/Level
935%46
10-1245%57
13-1455%69
15-1665%711
1775%814
1885%918
1995%10All
So for the vast majority of magic-users (those with 10-14 Int, since starting rolls weren't as high and increasing Int was rare and difficult), you had about a 50/50 chance to learn any given spell and maxed out at ~63 spells over your entire career. In 3e terms, a cap of 3+Int spells per spell level would work nicely, since at a minimum that covers all the spells you learn for free at level-up and at maximum with +8ish permanent Int (18 base + 4 level + 5 inherent) that means roughly 2/3 of your total spells can come from other sources.
As a point of comparison, Trailblazer (a 3rd-party "let's analyze the core math of 3e and see what we learn" product from the late 3e period) showed that the following setup was equivalent in hit rates and damage to a standard full attack as long as you aren't up against ridiculous ACs ("hit on a 2" and "miss on a 19" territory):
At 6th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5 from full BAB, attack at -2/-2.
At 11th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5/-10 from full BAB, attack at -1/-1.
At 16th level, instead of attacking at -0/-5/-10/-15 from full BAB, attack at -0/-0.
So rather than being slightly worse than a normal full attack, your proposal actually ends up being slightly better.
Of course, you could go with the above solution for standard-action attacks and then buff up full attacks further, not like you're going to overpower fighter types that way. A common idea is to change the iterative progression from -0/-5/-10/-15 to -0/-5/-5/-5 so the last attacks actually have a reasonable chance at hitting near-even-level opposition, or you could reduce iterative penalties to e.g. -0/-3/-6/-9, or whatever else you'd like.
I have seen those kinds of solution already, but then I thought that if this was done, raising AC would be of little value. Since raising attack rolls is easily done, while AC scaling is harder. So I was thinking that having the low accuracy irretatives would at least make raising AC a bit more useful.
Back in 1e, Magic-Users had a limit on how many spells they could learn per spell level based on their Int, and they also had a random chance of learning each spell: if you wanted to learn fireball, you rolled d% and if the roll failed you couldn't learn it until you leveled again. (With various edge cases like being able to re-test for certain spells if you couldn't learn anything you wanted and so forth.) That helped a lot in reining in Magic-User power, since you couldn't just choose a bunch of optimal spells to learn when leveling and if you found a scroll of an awesome spell there's no guarantee you could learn it immediately or at all.
For reference, here's the actual table:
Int ScoreChance to Know Each SpellMinimum Spells/LevelMaximum Spells/Level
935%46
10-1245%57
13-1455%69
15-1665%711
1775%814
1885%918
1995%10All
So for the vast majority of magic-users (those with 10-14 Int, since starting rolls weren't as high and increasing Int was rare and difficult), you had about a 50/50 chance to learn any given spell and maxed out at ~63 spells over your entire career. In 3e terms, a cap of 3+Int spells per spell level would work nicely, since at a minimum that covers all the spells you learn for free at level-up and at maximum with +8ish permanent Int (18 base + 4 level + 5 inherent) that means roughly 2/3 of your total spells can come from other sources.
Sounds interesting but I was thinking more of giving each prepared class their own maximum spells learned to balance each one out. So the druid would have the least maximum spells learned while wizards the most, and for a basis 3x the spells known of a sorcerer. Does this seem too much or is just right?
PairO'Dice Lost
2019-04-16, 11:14 PM
I have seen those kinds of solution already, but then I thought that if this was done, raising AC would be of little value. Since raising attack rolls is easily done, while AC scaling is harder. So I was thinking that having the low accuracy irretatives would at least make raising AC a bit more useful.
In general, anything that narrows the range of expected values for a given roll makes it easier to tweak the balance in a desired direction, because the outcomes are more predictable. Currently AC at high levels is mostly good for cutting off the last few iteratives or preventing enemies from dropping oodles of Power Attack damage on you, but if you narrow the range of expected attack bonuses by dropping iteratives or reducing the iterative penalty, you can then lower attack bonuses or raise AC across the board to the point that AC is actually useful at making primary attacks miss like it is at low levels.
Sounds interesting but I was thinking more of giving each prepared class their own maximum spells learned to balance each one out. So the druid would have the least maximum spells learned while wizards the most, and for a basis 3x the spells known of a sorcerer. Does this seem too much or is just right?
You could do that, though once you cut things down from "unlimited" to "single-digit N" shifting spells known by plus or minus 1 somewhere is going to have a negligible effect on balance so having separate spells known for everyone may not be worth it and worrying about the fine details certainly isn't worth it.
A good rule of thumb for maximum spells known for a prepared caster is "enough to let them prepare separate loadouts for different kinds of days"--your prepared spells for clearing a dungeon, exploring the wilderness, assaulting the BBEG, hanging in town crafting and socializing, and so forth are going to be different. So if you want to support a wizard being able to have, say, 3 loadouts that somewhat overlap (say, combat vs. exploration vs. downtime), then 10 spells per spell level is good and 3×sorcerer spells known is perfectly fine.
King of Nowhere
2019-04-18, 06:48 PM
I've also dabbled with the concept, but I learned that the system is so complex that you can't pull a string without screwing up a dozen unforseen side effects.
Anyway, you've given more attack power to martials. that, I discovered for experience, is wrong. the rreason casters are more powerful is not the capacity to deal damage, but the versatility. Also, the out-of-combat options. Put a fighter against a door, the fighter can try to break the door. the wizard can break the door, can teleport, can go ethereal, can use passwall, can polymorph into a tiny creature and try to snuck through some gap...
Similarly, a fighter can't do anything against an opponent with too high an AC, or too high damage reduction, or that he cannot reach. To protect against a wizard you'd need instead a list of immunities several pages long.
So, giving more skill points is a step in the right direction (though by giving +4 to all you hurt those classes that are supposed to be skill momkeys, making them weaker). But I don't see anything else.
Personally, to make fighters more versatile I'd help them overcome obstacles: mage slayer, pierce magical concealment, pierce magical defence, blind fight, better chances on will saves, all those kind of things that would cost precious feat, give a bunch of them for free.
I've also dabbled with the concept, but I learned that the system is so complex that you can't pull a string without screwing up a dozen unforseen side effects.
Anyway, you've given more attack power to martials. that, I discovered for experience, is wrong. the rreason casters are more powerful is not the capacity to deal damage, but the versatility. Also, the out-of-combat options. Put a fighter against a door, the fighter can try to break the door. the wizard can break the door, can teleport, can go ethereal, can use passwall, can polymorph into a tiny creature and try to snuck through some gap...
Similarly, a fighter can't do anything against an opponent with too high an AC, or too high damage reduction, or that he cannot reach. To protect against a wizard you'd need instead a list of immunities several pages long.
I don't really agree on your statement that fighters do not have a damage problem, at least compared to casters. Casters can do a lot more damage than your average martial build. So I gave them a bit more power, but I focused more on letting them make numerous attacks (the standard action full round attacks or improved standard attacks). The way I see it at least, the bulk of a martial's strength lies in their number of attacks and damage of attacks, but they can't actually make those extra attacks unless the enemy just stands in one place.
So, giving more skill points is a step in the right direction (though by giving +4 to all you hurt those classes that are supposed to be skill momkeys, making them weaker). But I don't see anything else.
I planned on letting there be only minor additions to the class skill list of non skill monkeys, so the additional skills helps the martial classes a bit and lets them get some cross class skills here and there, while the skill monkeys can use those new skill points in more useful skills.
Personally, to make fighters more versatile I'd help them overcome obstacles: mage slayer, pierce magical concealment, pierce magical defence, blind fight, better chances on will saves, all those kind of things that would cost precious feat, give a bunch of them for free.
My idea for having better and cheaper magic weapons and armor, should improve the martials combat ability, and let them buy other utility magic items.
As for each of the classes themselves, I am making fixes for each one (which can be found in the second post) to make them more versatile. The class fixes are focused on granting new combat options, or improving them, as well as giving them new out of combat options.
For example:
The barbarian has rage powers, special powers that it can use to augment its rage or grant them new options, at the cost of shortening rage.
The knight has more uses of knight's challenge and new types of knight's challenge abilities, as well as a new class feature that makes them a party face.
The Ninja, I gave them more ki points, and jutsus, which basically mimic spells or give other nice effects.
nonsi
2019-04-21, 03:38 PM
.
You gain twice as much HP from your Hit Die at level 1
This rule causes the problem of a-symmetry. It creates a huge gap between Barb 1/Wiz 1 and Wis 1/Barb 1 (same as with 1st level skill-points x4 multiplier).
You should go for a fixed (or racial-associated) addition at first level.
Martial classes get
+4 skill points per level
. . .
Half Casters (caster with half CL or only up to 4th level spells) get
+4 skill points per level
Do you really think that barbarians need 8 skill points per level and bards need 10 skill points per level?
The combination of a lot more skill points with skill folding and the modification to skill feats totally trivialize skill checks.
Multi class:
You can have up to 2 base classes before you get multi class penalties
Favored class is not counted in this limit
Getting rid of this unnecessary concept is long overdue.
It doesn't serve its purpos (or any purpos for that matter)
Spot and listen -> perception
Hide and move silently -> stealth, and maximum ranks is +6
FYI: This titls the balance in favore of the one that's trying to be stealthy (just saying).
You do not increase the casting time of your spontaneous spells when you use metamagic feats
. . .
Power attack: It no longer lasts the whole round, instead you choose the penalty separately for each attack
Good calls.
Weapon specialization and greater instead adds 1d8 to the damage roll. [LIST]
[LIST] The penalty of Many shot decreases by 2, and precision damage applies to each one.
Hit probability and damage output were never a problem of martial classes, but rather the opportunity to even make an attack roll to begin with.
Combat reflex grants at least 2 additional attacks of opportunity. It can be taken multiple times, but each additional time grants only 2 more attacks of opportunity
This turns Combet Reflexes feat into a no-brainer, and would render any martial character that doesn't take it an idiot.
When a feat is a no-brainer, you know that it's poorly designed.
Magic Items:
The game already suffers from too much dependency in magic items. Don't promote the symptom even further.
Spell casting services have a base price of spell level
squared X caster level. Some spells may not follow this.
Sounds reasonable.
.
This rule causes the problem of a-symmetry. It creates a huge gap between Barb 1/Wiz 1 and Wis 1/Barb 1 (same as with 1st level skill-points x4 multiplier).
You should go for a fixed (or racial-associated) addition at first level.
Yeah im probably going to remove that, and just go with the advice of starting at lv 2.
Do you really think that barbarians need 8 skill points per level and bards need 10 skill points per level?
The combination of a lot more skill points with skill folding and the modification to skill feats totally trivialize skill checks.
Casters already trivilized skill checks, they have spells like knock or jump which make them automatically succeed, so I see no problem with giving them a large skill boost. This should also help characters get skills which are well forgoten like craft or proffession or other good skills that are great for role playing.
Getting rid of this unnecessary concept is long overdue.
It doesn't serve its purpos (or any purpos for that matter)
I feel the existence of multiclass penalties is needed to prevent too much dips. A lot of the class fixes I am working on have improved 1st levels, so dipping is more effective now. In addition I really do not like for the sake of optimizing taking dips in like 4 different classes which do not make any thematic sense.
FYI: This titls the balance in favore of the one that's trying to be stealthy (just saying).
Yeah I was going for that, since im adding perception to nearly all of the martial classes, the stealthy characters should have a bit of an extra edge.
Hit probability and damage output were never a problem of martial classes, but rather the opportunity to even make an attack roll to begin with.
On the aspect of damage, I highly disagree. Unless martial characters take on a damaging build path, their attacks generally do low damage. The weapon specialization should help in the more non damaging builds, such as a fighter TWF, or a fighter going sword and board.
As for the hit probability, yeah I agree but I was thinking since I was giving all other characters more attacks with standard actions, then it makes many shot seem useless, so the best way I thought of was to just lower the penalties.
This turns Combet Reflexes feat into a no-brainer, and would render any martial character that doesn't take it an idiot.
When a feat is a no-brainer, you know that it's poorly designed.
I admit its a great feat, but in the first place martial characters are way too feat starved, so they still have to think if they need to take combat reflex or another nice feat like combat brute or something.
The game already suffers from too much dependency in magic items. Don't promote the symptom even further.
Idk, our group always fancied the idea of magic items (which is why we found the 5e magic item system bad). The only problem is martial classes spend too much money on magic weapon or armor, and not on boots of flying or rings of freedom of movement. Casters can already do a lot of those things without magic items, so I thought the best way to bridge the gap in that aspect without making martials magical on their own, was to make magic items cheaper.
nonsi
2019-04-22, 05:30 PM
Yeah im probably going to remove that, and just go with the advice of starting at lv 2.
Well, that won’t fix the skill multiplication issue, but at least it won’t create a new issue either.
Casters already trivilized skill checks, they have spells like knock or jump which make them automatically succeed, so I see no problem with giving them a large skill boost. This should also help characters get skills which are well forgoten like craft or proffession or other good skills that are great for role playing.
Wizards have a limited resource to choose from at low levels. If they take Knock or Jump, it’s usually at the expense of even more potent effects.
Sorcerers have a very small repertoire of known spells. I wouldn’t advise a sorc to invest in skill-spells.
Craft and Profession are not neglected because they’re forgotten, but because they’re just crappy core-wise.
I feel the existence of multiclass penalties is needed to prevent too much dips. A lot of the class fixes I am working on have improved 1st levels, so dipping is more effective now. In addition I really do not like for the sake of optimizing taking dips in like 4 different classes which do not make any thematic sense.
The proper way to handle front-loading a class is to make sure that the 1st-level extra remains more useful to the character by remaining single-classed and that any deviation toward multiclassing would come at the expense of synergy. A good example is that a lot of combat prowess doesn’t even up with losing CL.
I admit its a great feat, but in the first place martial characters are way too feat starved, so they still have to think if they need to take combat reflex or another nice feat like combat brute or something.
Then a better solution would be to give more feats to those who really need them.
Wizards have a limited resource to choose from at low levels. If they take Knock or Jump, it’s usually at the expense of even more potent effects.
Sorcerers have a very small repertoire of known spells. I wouldn’t advise a sorc to invest in skill-spells.
There are wands or scrolls for situational spells for the sorcerer, as for he wizard, eventually they will get those, and the problem is not only seen in skill spells like knock (which is more acceptable). There are spells which makes skill ranks uselesss (invisibility, guidance of the avatar, glibness, fly etc) In the end, casters in general have useful utility spells which let them no longer need to make skill checks, so as a resolution, shouldn't martial classes be able to auto succeed in skills they invest in.
Craft and Profession are not neglected because they’re forgotten, but because they’re just crappy core-wise.
Yeah thats what I meant on forgotten, not literally forgotten, just neglected and left alone without giving much thought on. They are crappy, but since martial characters have a skill point or 2 to spare, maybe they can invest in it for role play purposes, and as a DM, I can find ways to integrate it into a campaign.
The proper way to handle front-loading a class is to make sure that the 1st-level extra remains more useful to the character by remaining single-classed and that any deviation toward multiclassing would come at the expense of synergy. A good example is that a lot of combat prowess doesn’t even up with losing CL.
True
Then a better solution would be to give more feats to those who really need them.
I will be doing that for each of the individual classes, but even then there are numerous other nice feats they can take in place of combat reflex, since only certain builds truly require it. In a handbook guide I feel like combat reflex would be a blue, but there are a lot of other blues or even light blues to chose from
+4 skill points per level
People are fond of giving out extra skill points, but skills are fundamentally not very good. For this to be relevant, skills themselves need to be relevant.
You can have up to 2 base classes before you get multi class penalties
Just kill multiclass penalties.
Skills:
Increasing skill points and combining skills is good to do some weird things. Uncapping skills seems like a worse solution than fixing the math on skills to do what you want with reasonable numbers of ranks (rank-threshold unlocks are particularly good here).
If your Caster level is lower than 3, it is treated to be 3 for the purpose of the effects of spells
Why not just start at 3rd or 4th level? Actually, a couple of these feel like you should instead be starting characters out with a couple of levels. One interesting fix I saw suggested having people start as NPC Class 4/PC Class 1, which might work here.
You cannot cast spells with somatic components while wearing armor you are not proficient with
Do people try to do this often?
For balance, tier 1 is the real problem tier, not 2, and tier 1's advantage is that they get to pick freely from a giant spell list.
This is wrong. The problem is not the classes, it is a fairly small list of specific spells, and those spells are generally broken on their own. By way of argument, consider the following thought experiment: divide all the spells into a list, from worst to best. If it's true that casters get their power from versatility, we would expect that a Wizard with the bottom 75% of that list would be better than one with the top 25%. Do you think that's the case? Remember that the second character is getting planar binding, simulacrum, dominate person, ice assassin, shapechange, and mindrape (and technically wish, but let's ignore that).
nonsi
2019-04-23, 11:20 PM
There are wands or scrolls for situational spells for the sorcerer, as for he wizard, eventually they will get those, and the problem is not only seen in skill spells like knock (which is more acceptable). There are spells which makes skill ranks uselesss (invisibility, guidance of the avatar, glibness, fly etc) In the end, casters in general have useful utility spells which let them no longer need to make skill checks, so as a resolution, shouldn't martial classes be able to auto succeed in skills they invest in.
I have a solution for you to radically cut spellcasters down to size when it comes to stepping on the toes of other classes via magic items:
1. Eliminate magic marts. Situations where magic items trading occurs will be dictated solely by the DM.
2. To craft a magic item - a spellcaster would have to physically craft it via one of the Craft skill branches themselves. This will replace the various Craft feats.
This will deny spellcasters the ability to stockpile "an item for every situation". Now stepping on the toes of skillmonkeys on one aspect would come at an actual expense of some other useful option and un-trivialize that symptom.
Yeah thats what I meant on forgotten, not literally forgotten, just neglected and left alone without giving much thought on. They are crappy, but since martial characters have a skill point or 2 to spare, maybe they can invest in it for role play purposes, and as a DM, I can find ways to integrate it into a campaign.
I actually have a significant improvement to the Craft skill (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777390&postcount=7) (see the "Modified Skills" spoiler).
Never managed to crack Profession though.
I will be doing that for each of the individual classes, but even then there are numerous other nice feats they can take in place of combat reflex, since only certain builds truly require it. In a handbook guide I feel like combat reflex would be a blue, but there are a lot of other blues or even light blues to chose from
To my better judgement, any frontliner would be a downright idiot not to take it.
People are fond of giving out extra skill points, but skills are fundamentally not very good. For this to be relevant, skills themselves need to be relevant.
It's not fully relevant, I made it more like an add on, since it will still benefit them, the main fixes are the improved standard attacks, cheaper magic items, and individual class fixes
Just kill multiclass penalties.
Hmm I guess I'll remove it then
Increasing skill points and combining skills is good to do some weird things. Uncapping skills seems like a worse solution than fixing the math on skills to do what you want with reasonable numbers of ranks (rank-threshold unlocks are particularly good here).
I was actually kinda going for breaking the math and see what happens. With this a martial character can use epic balance to balance on clouds or epic athletics (swim) to swim up waterfalls, or do other stuff at around lv 10 if they devote in doing so.
Why not just start at 3rd or 4th level? Actually, a couple of these feel like you should instead be starting characters out with a couple of levels. One interesting fix I saw suggested having people start as NPC Class 4/PC Class 1, which might work here.
Oh this is actually not just to help the lower level casters, but also high level characters who just want to take a dip or 2 in casting classes. I had a player before who wanted to play a martial character who just slightly dabbled in magic and went something like fighter 8, wizard 2, where those 2 levels were pretty bad due to the low CL. While making the changes I happened to remember the character and thought to boost characters like that, those who just wanted to very slightly dabble in magic.
Do people try to do this often?
One of the class changes I am making is for cleric to lose heavy and medium armor proficiency, so I dont want clerics and other divine casters where I removed the armor proficiencies to just continue donning heavy armor and accept the armor penalty.
I have a solution for you to radically cut spellcasters down to size when it comes to stepping on the toes of other classes via magic items:
1. Eliminate magic marts. Situations where magic items trading occurs will be dictated solely by the DM.
2. To craft a magic item - a spellcaster would have to physically craft it via one of the Craft skill branches themselves. This will replace the various Craft feats.
This will deny spellcasters the ability to stockpile "an item for every situation". Now stepping on the toes of skillmonkeys on one aspect would come at an actual expense of some other useful option and un-trivialize that symptom.
Our group actually really likes the freedom of magic item system in 3.5 (compared to 5e's system which we do not like). But so far our group has never had problems with casters mass crafting, since the only time we had a caster that crafted in our group was a warlock. No one else took crafting feats.
I actually have a significant improvement to the Craft skill (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777390&postcount=7) (see the "Modified Skills" spoiler).
Never managed to crack Profession though.
Oh nice thankyou
To my better judgement, any frontliner would be a downright idiot not to take it.
Well this is good I guess, I wanted to let martials have the power to act more threatening outside of their turn.
RedWarlock
2019-04-25, 01:25 AM
If you're looking to make things easier on multiclass caster-dabblers, you could implement the same booster that Initiator Level uses, where you get half your non-caster class levels as a caster level bonus. So a 8th level fighter/2nd level sorcerer would have an effective caster level of 6 (8/2=4 + 2)
If you're looking to make things easier on multiclass caster-dabblers, you could implement the same booster that Initiator Level uses, where you get half your non-caster class levels as a caster level bonus. So a 8th level fighter/2nd level sorcerer would have an effective caster level of 6 (8/2=4 + 2)
Oh I haven't thought of that, thanks
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.