"Fixing" 3e

[paladinn]

Hola all,

I am a huge game-mechanics-tinkerer. I've played and/or DMed every edition of D&D, as well as most clones, Pathfinder, and most D20 implementations. My typical preference is the simplicity of "Basic/Classic"; but I do appreciate many of the mechanics from AD&D, 3e and 5e.

When 5e came out, I was as giddy as most RPers. It was great that WotC had rethought some of their Bad decisions of 4e, and were bringing back a lot of the concepts from earlier editions. And I thought that it was cool that they were trying to simplify some things from 3e that got out of control toward the end of the 3e era (and went totally bonkers in Pathfinder). But I have since seen some of the limitations of "bounded accuracy"; and some of those limits have begun to feel like a strait jacket in some ways.

IMO, 3e was amazing in terms of fluidity and scalability, even if some character options, when stacked, really broke the game. Soo.. I am considering taking 3e and molding and tinkering. If anyone has suggestions of elements and mechanics from other D&D/D20-type games that can be grafted on, and/or ways to streamline 3e/D20, please chime in here.

One thing that is a definite: I'm so porting 5e's magic/"spell-slot" system. Vancian/ "Fire-and-forget" is my lifelong pet peeve. If everyone is a "spontaneous" caster, it does remove the need of a "sorcerer" class; but there is streamlining for you, and some of the sorc-ish features can be implemented otherwise.

Please feel free to elucidate:)

Michael

[Asmotherion]

Practically, what you're looking to do is develop a ceparate system based on 3e. 3.5 and PF were both initially conceived as a d20 fix to the problems of 3e. Both ended up becoming reverse compatible yet different systems to 3e.

Why I suggest a new system instead of a fix:

A) For a fix to be widelly accepted, it needs to be official. If you only want it for personal use at your table, it's fine. But don't expect it to become the next set of rules on every table.

B) To publish it under the name of "3e fix" you'd need official aproval from Wizards of the Coast, as D&D 3e is a trademarked term. This can be time consuming to obtain, let alone that it has high potential to amout to nothing in the end. Unless you intend to publish your work on the Wizards Website, but I think you have to somehow link it to the Forgotten Realms setting.

C) Making your own system is more likelly to attract attention as it's own thing, gathering a crowd in the process.

As a fellow independant tabletop rpg developer, I know the time and effort it takes to make a functioning system that stays fun and interesting without getting overcomplicated. I wouldn't want to see someone put their time, effort and overall resources into a project that a maximum of 20 people will even hear of.

[Xervous]

People have been rehashing 3.5e for over a decade now. 3rd party publishers over around pathfinder have hit upon some great success.

Observations from the contrast between 3.5 and pf.

-Multiclass penalty is stupid, delete it.
-streamline skills, no fiddly half ranks, condense skills (hide and move silently to stealth etc), int increases apply retroactively for skill points
-remove/lower the feat barrier for entry on things like TWF, tripping, etc.
-spending xp on stuff is an accounting headache, replace with gold costs as necessary
-encounter swinging save or lose effects should allow recurring saves
-some plot effects and adventuring conveniences should be available to everyone through rituals
-Martials need to be able to full attack and move, whether this be by initiator maneuvers or class features or baseline rules.
-the system math should probably be redone to exclude the need for the Big Six stat boosters. This reduces number juggling and invites players to seek out interesting magic items rather than passive bonuses the system assumes they will have for making benchmarks
-skills need more fantastical uses to better scale up through the teens.
-Martials need to get some exploration/social abilities. The fighter who just fights is an npc class.

[paladinn]

People have been rehashing 3.5e for over a decade now. 3rd party publishers over around pathfinder have hit upon some great success.

Observations from the contrast between 3.5 and pf.

-Multiclass penalty is stupid, delete it.
-streamline skills, no fiddly half ranks, condense skills (hide and move silently to stealth etc), int increases apply retroactively for skill points
-remove/lower the feat barrier for entry on things like TWF, tripping, etc.
-spending xp on stuff is an accounting headache, replace with gold costs as necessary
-encounter swinging save or lose effects should allow recurring saves
-some plot effects and adventuring conveniences should be available to everyone through rituals
-Martials need to be able to full attack and move, whether this be by initiator maneuvers or class features or baseline rules.
-the system math should probably be redone to exclude the need for the Big Six stat boosters. This reduces number juggling and invites players to seek out interesting magic items rather than passive bonuses the system assumes they will have for making benchmarks
-skills need more fantastical uses to better scale up through the teens.
-Martials need to get some exploration/social abilities. The fighter who just fights is an npc class.

Personally I prefer 3.x to PF. PF took all the issues of 3.x and went crazy with them.

I like the 5e-isms of limiting stats and Especially the number of feats. And stat-based saves. And a lot of other stuff..lol. But when giving a +1 to hit is considered game-breaking, things are a bit too tightly wound.

[Kyutaru]

Since campaigns and books have been built around extremely limited magic items and done well for it, because playing 3E doesn't require the optimization levels that players try to invest into it, something as simple as denying stacking can really fix the game right up. I mean like no stacking whatsoever. Things with natural armor tend to not have armor, there was never a need for them to stack. Shields can be counted as a separate bonus to armor which in 3.0 they were. But all these luck bonuses, profane bonuses, enhancement bonuses, inspirational dance bonuses, etc just lead to munchkin cheese that is wholly unnecessary for the game's CR encounters. You do not need an AC of 72 to defeat dragons and we've had CRPGs that didn't let you achieve such silliness.

Mute stat stacking abuse and you curb most of the problems with 3E. Just take the largest bonus. If you want certain spells to stack anyway then portray them as a +1 to the roll instead of to the attack bonus.

[Xervous]

Personally I prefer 3.x to PF. PF took all the issues of 3.x and went crazy with them.

I like the 5e-isms of limiting stats and Especially the number of feats. And stat-based saves. And a lot of other stuff..lol. But when giving a +1 to hit is considered game-breaking, things are a bit too tightly wound.

Could you elaborate on this more? I only see a few objective shortcomings of PF1, to separate them from the differing thematic approaches (archetypes vs PrCs to note one example)

You haven’t detailed what you take issue with so we are left guessing on some fronts.

[paladinn]

Could you elaborate on this more? I only see a few objective shortcomings of PF1, to separate them from the differing thematic approaches (archetypes vs PrCs to note one example)

You haven’t detailed what you take issue with so we are left guessing on some fronts.

I don't mind the archetype model. And it's not quite the same thing as PrCs. It says something that WotC has gone to an archetype model for 5e.

When I think of PF issues, I think of the great increase in character power, as well as ongoing power creep. I don't subscribe to the "something new and shiny every level" concept; a lot of the above power creep has come about because of this. It started in 3e, but PF took it to a whole other level!

While feats need to be available (especially for fighters), I do not think they need to get a new feat every level. Feats need to be a happy medium between the crazy-abundant "micro feats" of 3e and the "macro feats" of 5e.

And some of the "advanced classes" of PF are just crazy OP. Looking at the Slayer class, for example; why would anyone ever play a "normal" ranger?

[Xervous]

I don't mind the archetype model. And it's not quite the same thing as PrCs. It says something that WotC has gone to an archetype model for 5e.

When I think of PF issues, I think of the great increase in character power, as well as ongoing power creep. I don't subscribe to the "something new and shiny every level" concept; a lot of the above power creep has come about because of this. It started in 3e, but PF took it to a whole other level!

While feats need to be available (especially for fighters), I do not think they need to get a new feat every level. Feats need to be a happy medium between the crazy-abundant "micro feats" of 3e and the "macro feats" of 5e.

And some of the "advanced classes" of PF are just crazy OP. Looking at the Slayer class, for example; why would anyone ever play a "normal" ranger?

If the Slayer had come first why would they ever release a normal ranger? PF couldn’t very well errata whole swaths of their core books to bring classes up away from monk tier so their only recourse was to release fixed versions. In my eyes this is far better than never providing players with the options.

On feats I agree with how many pathfinder gives out, customization is the name of the game here, but feat chains certainly need condensing if they are not simply rolled into the baseline rules.

A feature every level is a distraction when many features are ribbons. Ribbons are good distractions to be sure, but there’s nothing in terms of growing martial power that compares to the bump spellcasters get every odd level.

Again Feater, I mean Fighter is at its core an npc concept class. Some sacred cows need a disintegrate right between the eyes.

[Kurald Galain]

I think you do need to give players a meaningful character choice for each levelup, because otherwise what's the point of having levels?

[paladinn]

I think you do need to give players a meaningful character choice for each levelup, because otherwise what's the point of having levels?

Every level you get more hp and better chance to hit. That's D&D - Every edition of D&D. Up till 2e, that's all fighters really got. I agree that fighters (and maybe thieves) need to get a feat every few levels. Clerics and wizards get new/more spells every level, so they really don't need feats (except wizards do need to be able to get proficiency with something besides a staff - Gandalf has Glamdring)

And fwiw, I do Not care for the title "magus" for a gish class. A magus is a MU/wizard or possibly a wizard/cleric mix. Think "magi" in the Bethlehem sense :)

[Kurald Galain]

Every level you get more hp and better chance to hit. That's D&D - Every edition of D&D. Up till 2e, that's all fighters really got.
Not quite. 2E fighters do get weapon proficiencies (which are, essentially, feats); and in 4E/5E you don't get a better chance to hit at every level, either.

I'm not saying that all editions of D&D do give a meaningful choice each level (although 3E/PF/4E/P2 clearly try for that), but I'm saying that they should.


And fwiw, I do Not care for the title "magus" for a gish class. A magus is a MU/wizard or possibly a wizard/cleric mix.
FWIW I've never cared for the term "MU" unless you want to rename the fighter to "sword user" and the cleric to "divinity user". :smallamused:

[Xervous]

Not quite. 2E fighters do get weapon proficiencies (which are, essentially, feats); and in 4E/5E you don't get a better chance to hit at every level, either.

I'm not saying that all editions of D&D do give a meaningful choice each level (although 3E/PF/4E/P2 clearly try for that), but I'm saying that they should.


FWIW I've never cared for the term "MU" unless you want to rename the fighter to "sword user" and the cleric to "divinity user". :smallamused:

What does thief become, TU?

Dusutumu! Assemble!

[Tvtyrant]

Hola all,

I am a huge game-mechanics-tinkerer. I've played and/or DMed every edition of D&D, as well as most clones, Pathfinder, and most D20 implementations. My typical preference is the simplicity of "Basic/Classic"; but I do appreciate many of the mechanics from AD&D, 3e and 5e.

When 5e came out, I was as giddy as most RPers. It was great that WotC had rethought some of their Bad decisions of 4e, and were bringing back a lot of the concepts from earlier editions. And I thought that it was cool that they were trying to simplify some things from 3e that got out of control toward the end of the 3e era (and went totally bonkers in Pathfinder). But I have since seen some of the limitations of "bounded accuracy"; and some of those limits have begun to feel like a strait jacket in some ways.

IMO, 3e was amazing in terms of fluidity and scalability, even if some character options, when stacked, really broke the game. Soo.. I am considering taking 3e and molding and tinkering. If anyone has suggestions of elements and mechanics from other D&D/D20-type games that can be grafted on, and/or ways to streamline 3e/D20, please chime in here.

One thing that is a definite: I'm so porting 5e's magic/"spell-slot" system. Vancian/ "Fire-and-forget" is my lifelong pet peeve. If everyone is a "spontaneous" caster, it does remove the need of a "sorcerer" class; but there is streamlining for you, and some of the sorc-ish features can be implemented otherwise.

Please feel free to elucidate:)

Michael
I don't think a "fixed" version of 3E is really important at this point. I think looking at what you want the system to do and explain why other systems aren't doing it for you is a better approach; Legend was a fixed version of 3E that got almost no interest because it was overly crunchy and too focused on balancing an existing edition, for instance. What it didn't do was actually give you a reason to play it.

[InvisibleBison]

That's D&D - Every edition of D&D.

The fact that older editions of D&D did something in a certain way isn't a reason to do it that way in future editions.


(except wizards do need to be able to get proficiency with something besides a staff - Gandalf has Glamdring)

But Gandalf wasn't a wizard. He was a minor god in the form of a human who usually refrained from using his powers.

[Kyutaru]

FWIW I've never cared for the term "MU" unless you want to rename the fighter to "sword user" and the cleric to "divinity user". :smallamused:
Yeah but in old D&D it served more as a base class. Magic-user meant you could be anything that wasn't a wizard too. Shaman, psychic, necromancer, wugenja, witch doctor, warlock, whatever really. The old books had all kinds of examples and it reflected the idea that there was no "theme" to magic, everyone had access to the same class regardless of what fictional novel they came from. Fighter is generic enough and Thief was a specialist that came later but Cleric could definitely use another word for it if there existed one that described some universal clergyman. It was more a replacement for the healers from the Men and Magic version of the game.

[paladinn]

Not quite. 2E fighters do get weapon proficiencies (which are, essentially, feats); and in 4E/5E you don't get a better chance to hit at every level, either.

I'm not saying that all editions of D&D do give a meaningful choice each level (although 3E/PF/4E/P2 clearly try for that), but I'm saying that they should.


FWIW I've never cared for the term "MU" unless you want to rename the fighter to "sword user" and the cleric to "divinity user". :smallamused:

Like I said, fighters didn't get anything per level besides hp and hit bonus Until 2e.

Clerics and wizards (I'd prefer "mages") get new/more spells each level. Thieves (in 2e) got skill ungrades that they could distribute as they wished. All these are "meaningful choices."

I'm on board with feats for fighters, just not Every level. 5e allows feats instead of ASIs every few levels. That is probably sufficient.

Looking at the "champion" archetype (i.e. the "basic" fighter).. there are a lot of features thrown in Just to give something new and shiny. I don't think it's necessary.

[Xervous]

Like I said, fighters didn't get anything per level besides hp and hit bonus Until 2e.

Clerics and wizards (I'd prefer "mages") get new/more spells each level. Thieves (in 2e) got skill ungrades that they could distribute as they wished. All these are "meaningful choices."

I'm on board with feats for fighters, just not Every level. 5e allows feats instead of ASIs every few levels. That is probably sufficient.

Looking at the "champion" archetype (i.e. the "basic" fighter).. there are a lot of features thrown in Just to give something new and shiny. I don't think it's necessary.

It sounds like you’re describing something as much akin to 5e as it is to 3.5e. Why post the thread here vs dropping it there?

[Lagtime]

Like I said, fighters didn't get anything per level besides hp and hit bonus Until 2e.


If your holding up 1E fighters as the standard you want, then you will want to add the fixes to 3E of:

*Fighters get way more hit points then all other classes
*Only Fighters(and a couple others) ever get more then one attack per round
*Fighters need a big plus to saves
*AC needs to be lowered for all things so it is rare for even an AC of 20
*Remove most all of the spells that enhance fighting

The AC is a big thing. In 1E during a typical game, an AC of 20 (aka 0) was rare....that was for tough foes. And AC's above 20 (aka below zero) were for very powerful foes. Even a red dragon in 1E only had an AC of -1 (aka 21), that is only a young red dragon in 3.5E. An iron golem was only a 3, not like the 30 in 3.5E.

I give fighters a bonus fighter hit of one per level, and that works out good in my game.

Also, giving the fighter and other martial classes bonus actions works out great.


One of the big chances to make is to make martial abilities more like spells in:

1.There are a large number that do a mix of attack, defense, utility and other effects.
2.The character can switch them at will
3.Most are versatile enough to 'do' at least three specific things

Really the last one is the big one. Weapon focus gives a plus and that is it. Any fire attack spell can be used to A)Attack, B)Set a flammable object on fire and C)Be used to send a signal. Most martial feats should be like this with many ways to use the feat. Even just 'warrior focus' where the character can block out other things and focus on one thing is better.

And if you like 1E, I do recommend bringing back all the negative magic effects too.

[Kyutaru]

And if you like 1E, I do recommend bringing back all the negative magic effects too.
- No Concentration checks; taking damage means you lose the spell
- Spells have casting times; you can fail the spell any time during them
- Wizards have to spend extra time memorizing spells beyond the 8 hour rest
- Specialists are BANNED from opposition schools
- Subtle Spell isn't a thing; having your hands tied and your mouth gagged means you're useless
- Wizards do not learn 2 spells of their choice for free when leveling up; go find some scrolls
- Powerful spells have severe costs; aging 1 year or losing XP points or expensive reagents
- Wish isn't guaranteed to work
- Learning a spell from a scroll can fail

[paladinn]

It sounds like you’re describing something as much akin to 5e as it is to 3.5e. Why post the thread here vs dropping it there?

Ultimately I'm going for a hybrid game with the best features of multiple editions. 5e is too bound up with "bounded accuracy" to work as the chassis for this. 3e is more easily tweaked.

[paladinn]

If your holding up 1E fighters as the standard you want, then you will want to add the fixes to 3E of:

*Fighters get way more hit points then all other classes
*Only Fighters(and a couple others) ever get more then one attack per round
*Fighters need a big plus to saves


I'm fine with these. I do Not want to make martials attack "like spells". Feats are fine,, but not every level. I'm thinking a "fighting style" at 1st level like 5e, maybe more like what was in 2.5e Make weapon focus work more like weapon specialization in 2e, and can be take for a given weapon multiple times so it also emulates BECMI's weapon mastery.

[martixy]

I don't think a "fixed" version of 3E is really important at this point. I think looking at what you want the system to do and explain why other systems aren't doing it for you is a better approach; Legend was a fixed version of 3E that got almost no interest because it was overly crunchy and too focused on balancing an existing edition, for instance. What it didn't do was actually give you a reason to play it.

I'm on board with this. "Fixed" is a term relative to each group, even each individual!

I have my own large set of houserules, some you'll see commonly mentioned on these boards, some more controversial.
What's important is they take the game in a direction which I like.

The question you need to ask and answer for yourself is, "What kind of game am I looking for?"
Optionally you can post the answer here to satisfy our curiosity and maybe gather a few ideas from others.

[paladinn]

I'm on board with this. "Fixed" is a term relative to each group, even each individual!

I have my own large set of houserules, some you'll see commonly mentioned on these boards, some more controversial.
What's important is they take the game in a direction which I like.

The question you need to ask and answer for yourself is, "What kind of game am I looking for?"
Optionally you can post the answer here to satisfy our curiosity and maybe gather a few ideas from others.

As I've mentioned, I'm working on a hybrid game that will hopefully blend the best mechanics from all editions. Not sure if I'll ever try to sell it; but I've been doing RPG's (and D&D in particular) so long that I've seen a lot of good and some less-good ideas. I'm wondering if it would work best on a 3e chassis, since 5e is pretty locked down and Classic has other limitations.

I know I want basic stuff like the 5e magic/spell slot system, ascending AC, limiting feats to fighters (and Maybe thieves), etc. It's a labor of love that will probably never be done..lol

[martixy]

As I've mentioned, I'm working on a hybrid game that will hopefully blend the best mechanics from all editions. Not sure if I'll ever try to sell it; but I've been doing RPG's (and D&D in particular) so long that I've seen a lot of good and some less-good ideas. I'm wondering if it would work best on a 3e chassis, since 5e is pretty locked down and Classic has other limitations.

I know I want basic stuff like the 5e magic/spell slot system, ascending AC, limiting feats to fighters (and Maybe thieves), etc. It's a labor of love that will probably never be done..lol

That is not a reasonable response at all. It lacks and and all specifics.

Try to sell me a book like this (or anything really) and I will laugh in your face, then ignore you.

What is your elevator pitch? Or even the boardroom pitch.

Why is it special? What does it do I can't get anywhere else?

Do you even know why you want any of the things you want? (5e magic/spell slot system, etc.) What they do for you?

[Hellpyre]

That is not a reasonable response at all. It lacks and and all specifics.

Try to sell me a book like this (or anything really) and I will laugh in your face, then ignore you.

What is your elevator pitch? Or even the boardroom pitch.

Why is it special? What does it do I can't get anywhere else?

Do you even know why you want any of the things you want? (5e magic/spell slot system, etc.) What they do for you?

I don't know, the part where he implies it's for personal use seems like a perfectly reasonable response. If it isn't intended for distribution, why should he need to focus on a sales pitch?

[Kurald Galain]

I don't know, the part where he implies it's for personal use seems like a perfectly reasonable response. If it isn't intended for distribution, why should he need to focus on a sales pitch?

Because he flat-out mentions selling it, in his post :smallamused:

[Kayblis]

As you mentioned playing most d20 variants, I assume you'll know about it already, but it doesn't hurt to mention:

Add in Conan's Manoeuvres system.
Conan RPG(specially 2e) has a great system called 'Manoeuvres'. Basically, it's a long list of minor abilities that a character can perform whenever he meets the prerequisites. You don't have to buy them, they don't cost any resources at all, but all of them have prerequisites.
For example, Human Shield requires Str 13 and Imp Grapple, and you need to be grappling one foe and be attacked by a second foe. If these are met, you can use the grappled foe as a shield to parry the attack, and if you beat the enemy's attack, the grappled foe takes the damage.
Another example, Locked Weapons. If your attack is exactly the same as an enemy's parry(or AC), or if your enemy's attack is the same as your AC, you can use an immediate action to lock weapons with him. You two then roll an opposed grapple check, and the winner can push the loser back 5ft. If you win by 10 or more, the target is also knocked prone.

These make martial combat much much richer, add special options for characters as they progress and as they choose their feats, and makes usually bad options(Dodge, Endurance, etc) prime material for flavorful abilities. This also raises the skill ceiling of martials, because a Master Swordsman isn't just a fighter with BAB +15, but a fighter played by a knowledgeable player that knows his options. You pretty much kill the idea of "I do my turn, I turn off for the rest of the round" that happens with most martial characters in D&D.

[paladinn]

Because he flat-out mentions selling it, in his post :smallamused:

I believe my words were: "Not sure if I'll ever try to sell it." This really is more for personal use/ theorycraft if nothing else. And a "sales pitch" is the last thing I'm contemplating now.

This all has obviously been taken the wrong way. Sorry if it has been offensive somehow.

[Kurald Galain]

Locked Weapons. If your attack is exactly the same as an enemy's parry(or AC), or if your enemy's attack is the same as your AC, you can use an immediate action to lock weapons with him. You two then roll an opposed grapple check, and the winner can push the loser back 5ft. If you win by 10 or more, the target is also knocked prone.
That's a very nice idea.

It's also an overly-clunky and implementation that's slow to resolve and unlikely to do anything, so I hope he makes a smoother variant :smallcool:

[Kayblis]

That's a very nice idea.

It's also an overly-clunky and implementation that's slow to resolve and unlikely to do anything, so I hope he makes a smoother variant :smallcool:

Sounds like it, right? Most of them sound clunky as hell, but the execution is actually simple. You just go "My AC is 25 and he hit with 25? Lock weapons." Rolls grapples. "Ok, I push him back". Combat flows normally after the first time you do it, and it takes a few seconds to do.

[NigelWalmsley]

The first thing you have to do when talking about fixing something is define what it means for it to be fixed. 3e does a bunch of stuff. Some of that stuff is good, some of it is bad, some of it is subjective. Just going through and randomly adding new stuff (such as "hey, let's bring back all the ways AD&D screwed over Wizards"), is not going to fix anything. Trying to "fix" things by making random mechanical changes inevitably paints you into a corner. What you need to do is define what the system is supposed to be doing. What kinds of stories do you think D&D should try to model? What challenges should be people be able (or unable) to overcome at what levels? How complex should the system be? How much power progression should it have? Those are the questions you have to answer first, not jumping straight to "we just need to make this mechanical tweak". Only once you have a rigorous definition of how the system is supposed to look can you set out to fix it with any hope of success.

[Batcathat]

I don't know, the part where he implies it's for personal use seems like a perfectly reasonable response. If it isn't intended for distribution, why should he need to focus on a sales pitch?

Even if it's never sold or distributed in any way, I think having some sort of high concept or elevator pitch could still be helpful in developing it. In my experience, a big project like this can easily get bogged down in more and more details and ideas, so having a concrete goal (preferably a little more specific than "Making a D&D-version I like better") can be helpful. Probably not an ideal method for everyone, but still.

[Kurald Galain]

Sounds like it, right? Most of them sound clunky as hell,
The execution is also clunky as hell, yes. Rolling opposed checks is unnecessary, an extra effect when passing by ten is unnecessary and unlikely to ever happen, and using grapple checks to push someone is just plain weird.

It could have been something as "when the attack is tied, you may make a bull rush as an immediate action". Much more elegant. And, of course, use a single standard roll vs CMD, not opposed checks of strength plus "what were the grapple modifiers again"?

[NigelWalmsley]

Even if it's never sold or distributed in any way, I think having some sort of high concept or elevator pitch could still be helpful in developing it. In my experience, a big project like this can easily get bogged down in more and more details and ideas, so having a concrete goal (preferably a little more specific than "Making a D&D-version I like better") can be helpful. Probably not an ideal method for everyone, but still.

You also have to convince people to actually use whatever you write once it's written. 3e works pretty well. 3e + your houserules/gentleman's agreements works very well. If you want people to read through a new system's worth of mechanics, you better have a damn good pitch.

[paladinn]

Even if it's never sold or distributed in any way, I think having some sort of high concept or elevator pitch could still be helpful in developing it. In my experience, a big project like this can easily get bogged down in more and more details and ideas, so having a concrete goal (preferably a little more specific than "Making a D&D-version I like better") can be helpful. Probably not an ideal method for everyone, but still.

My "high concept" is simple: to take a D&D/D20 chassis, drop things that don't work or are over-complicated, and incorporate things from Any other edition that Do work. I've already mentioned replacing Vancian casting with a 5e-like spell slot system. I want to limit feats to those specific to martial abilities; metamagic can be handled differently.

I like the 5e idea of only giving out feats every few levels, as opposed to Every level as in 3e. Not sure if I want to require choosing a feat or an ASI. I also want to emulate BECMI's weapon mastery (without all the special effects). And while hypothetically every character can "try anything or acquire a given skill, thieves/rogues should be the Best at certain skills.

I also like the idea of keeping all classes as sub/classes of the 4 main ones: fighter, mage/wizard, cleric and rogue/thief.

That for starters:)

[NigelWalmsley]

My "high concept" is simple: to take a D&D/D20 chassis, drop things that don't work or are over-complicated, and incorporate things from Any other edition that Do work.

What does it mean to "work"? Any rule has some effect on the game. If you like that effect, the rule is working. If you don't like that effect, the rule isn't working. Saying you have replaced things that "don't work" with things that "do work" is meaningless.


I want to limit feats to those specific to martial abilities; metamagic can be handled differently.

Feats cover a lot more than just "martial abilities" and "metamagic". Feats provide character customization in innumerable ways. Anything you replace feats with that can do that is just going to end up also being feats.


I like the 5e idea of only giving out feats every few levels, as opposed to Every level as in 3e.

...that's not how 3e works. It's not even how Pathfinder works. But once again, you've failed to lay the groundwork for your decision. "Less feats" isn't a design goal, it's a means of implementing a design goal. The thing you need to think about is why you think people have too many feats. Do you think it's too complicated? Do you think feats should have more impact than they currently do? Something else?

What you are doing now is throwing out a list of things you like. And that's fine, you can like those things. But you can't fix a game by just adding random stuff to it. You have to understand what is problematic about the system and why, then make targeted changes to address those things.

[paladinn]

...that's not how 3e works. It's not even how Pathfinder works. But once again, you've failed to lay the groundwork for your decision. "Less feats" isn't a design goal, it's a means of implementing a design goal. The thing you need to think about is why you think people have too many feats. Do you think it's too complicated? Do you think feats should have more impact than they currently do? Something else?

I'm looking at feats as a means of buffing fighters. And yes, currently fighters get feats every level. Everyone gets feats every other level, and fighters get combat feats on all the other levels. I think that's a bit much. I am not crazy about a fighter accumulating 20 micro-feats and trying to figure out what stacks with what. Combat already takes too long.

I originally started with a Classic chassis in mind, but it ended up truly being a different game. And 5e, as I mentioned, is too locked down by the bounded accuracy "prime directive." So I'm looking into using 3x/D20.

[martixy]

I believe my words were: "Not sure if I'll ever try to sell it." This really is more for personal use/ theorycraft if nothing else. And a "sales pitch" is the last thing I'm contemplating now.

This all has obviously been taken the wrong way. Sorry if it has been offensive somehow.

I was trying to coax you into giving us something - anything of substance, because I like tinkering with the rules as well, and I'd like to help. But it's not like I can make you if you don't want to.

[paladinn]

I was trying to coax you into giving us something - anything of substance, because I like tinkering with the rules as well, and I'd like to help. But it's not like I can make you if you don't want to.

I've mentioned a number of things.

[Remuko]

I'm looking at feats as a means of buffing fighters. And yes, currently fighters get feats every level. Everyone gets feats every other level, and fighters get combat feats on all the other levels. I think that's a bit much. I am not crazy about a fighter accumulating 20 micro-feats and trying to figure out what stacks with what. Combat already takes too long.

I originally started with a Classic chassis in mind, but it ended up truly being a different game. And 5e, as I mentioned, is too locked down by the bounded accuracy "prime directive." So I'm looking into using 3x/D20.

fighter in 3.0/3.5 doesnt get feats every level. the class gives them every other level, and then they get the base feats every character gets regardless of class every 3 levels. even if you combine these its less than 1 per level on average.

[Endarire]

Years ago I started overhauling D&D 3.5 into a system I thought was better: Everyone was higher power and got more abilities.

I didn't finish it because it was a lot of work and I realized after I did tens of hours of work on it that I couldn't sell it and was probably just making something elaborate for me.

For any rules fix to work, you must know what you want changed. (How is also vital, but secondary at this point.) D&D 3.5, at least for the first ~10-12 levels, is pretty well balanced. You can break the game if you try, or sometimes disrupt the game by accident by picking interesting or "random" things, but you can also not break the game or just veto/modify items on a case-by-case basis.

Now, if you're concerned that level 7+ spells are so powerful as to change the very nature of the game, I agree. Character level 1 abilities were fine for level 1 characters and were seemingly appropriate for level 1 characters. The game changed when higher level and more powerful abilities were available, such as becoming character level 6 or 8 or 11. If you're willing and able to handle characters becoming mini GMs in the double digit character levels, 3.5 works well. If you want to cap the game at level 12 or 15 or so, that's also within your right.

[Xervous]

I've mentioned a number of things.

Care to give us a pitch on what you feel the scope and functionality of the revision should achieve?

For example, Shimmering Reach is a dicepool based system that features resource trading and tempo in its combats, eschews most numeric abilities in favor of active or reactive features, skews somewhat gritty, has MTG thematics, aims to cover a similar span as 1-13 3.5e, and is structured with build points to encourage diversification while still rewarding specialization.

What key points are you aiming to hit in your rework? What is central to the experience?

[paladinn]

Care to give us a pitch on what you feel the scope and functionality of the revision should achieve?

For example, Shimmering Reach is a dicepool based system that features resource trading and tempo in its combats, eschews most numeric abilities in favor of active or reactive features, skews somewhat gritty, has MTG thematics, aims to cover a similar span as 1-13 3.5e, and is structured with build points to encourage diversification while still rewarding specialization.

What key points are you aiming to hit in your rework? What is central to the experience?

I'm developing a hybrid game with (hopefully) the best features of any D&D edition and even some of the better retroclones/simulacra like C&C. I want to use 3e as a chassis, because it seems more extensible than Classic and more tinkerable than 5e.

I want to retain a lot of the features of Classic, use ascending AC, bring in the 5e magic system and ability-based saves, etc. I would like to place limits on the number of feats, and have them mostly for martial characters. I think there should be limits on class/race combos (i.e. no dwarf mages), but not on levels or multiclassing. I like the 3e skill paradigm; 5e is too limited when it comes to skills and weapon proficiencies.

Stuff like that. But it needs to still be recognizable as D&D.

[Kayblis]

I'm developing a hybrid game with (hopefully) the best features of any D&D edition and even some of the better retroclones/simulacra like C&C. I want to use 3e as a chassis, because it seems more extensible than Classic and more tinkerable than 5e.

I want to retain a lot of the features of Classic, use ascending AC, bring in the 5e magic system and ability-based saves, etc. I would like to place limits on the number of feats, and have them mostly for martial characters. I think there should be limits on class/race combos (i.e. no dwarf mages), but not on levels or multiclassing. I like the 3e skill paradigm; 5e is too limited when it comes to skills and weapon proficiencies.

Stuff like that. But it needs to still be recognizable as D&D.

I'm not on the discouraging side, but I believe you didn't understand what they're saying. You listed a bunch of mechanics, a couple system preferences and then some opinions on how the systems should work. You didn't explain anything about your objective. What you're trying to achieve. What do you want someone to feel with the system when they sit down and play.

That's what people are asking about. This is a common thing you should have sorted out, because most "fixes" for systems fail exactly because of that: no clear picture or direction. You can rewrite all you want, if you can't explain what kind of game you want to make, you'll end up with an unplayable frankenstein of systems. You should have a clearer picture of your project than "It's D&D but with half the systems changed, I'm not sure why".

Are you aiming for maximum functionality, reducing the system to the most simple base? Well no, that's 5e. Maximum realism? Not really, no one wants that. The most 'traditional fantasy' feeling? Doesn't look like it, you haven't talked about anything but mechanics and D&D editions so far. Everyone here knows about the mechanics you talk about, yet no one can figure out what this is all about.

Trust me for a second here. Forget the mechanics side and answer a simple question: What are you trying to achieve? This is the most important question.

[Xervous]

I'm developing a hybrid game with (hopefully) the best features of any D&D edition and even some of the better retroclones/simulacra like C&C. I want to use 3e as a chassis, because it seems more extensible than Classic and more tinkerable than 5e.

I want to retain a lot of the features of Classic, use ascending AC, bring in the 5e magic system and ability-based saves, etc. I would like to place limits on the number of feats, and have them mostly for martial characters. I think there should be limits on class/race combos (i.e. no dwarf mages), but not on levels or multiclassing. I like the 3e skill paradigm; 5e is too limited when it comes to skills and weapon proficiencies.

Stuff like that. But it needs to still be recognizable as D&D.

I will contest the notion that there can be any Best of anything in absence of measurable criteria. Putting your goals to words allows you to measure how well the system achieves what you’re setting out to do. It’s not to be the best system for everyone, no system can be, but if a group comes along with a list and your system does a good job of checking all those boxes then you have a good solution for a given puzzle.

How broad? D&D pitches a heroic ascension. 1-20 can encompass all so many degrees of power. Are you keeping the high end of 3.5 or are you cutting parts off and stretching the rest to fit?

Treadmill? In 3.5 people fell off the treadmill or outran it. In 5 as you’ve noted people are held in place by cords such that they are mostly stuck in the middle regardless of action or inaction. How much of the number growth will be baked in, how much will players have to opt in on?

What’s the purpose of a spellcaster (or a fighter or a rogue). I hope you’re not aiming for Pizza Run tier mechanics where everyone must sit on their thumbs while the X handles the Y (so named for what happens when a shadowrun hacker does his thing and everyone else checks out to order pizza).

3 pillars, will all classes be able to effectively interact with them? This ties to questions of mundane relevance at higher levels.

[NigelWalmsley]

I will contest the notion that there can be any Best of anything in absence of measurable criteria. Putting your goals to words allows you to measure how well the system achieves what you’re setting out to do.

Exactly. Mechanics are not good or bad in a vacuum. Consider a very basic choice: dicepools or d20s? Which is "best"? Well, it depends on what you're trying to do. There are various minor concerns, but the big difference is that in a d20 + bonus system, you eventually reach a point where you can't fall at an action, and in a dicepool system you don't. So d20s tend to be more suitable for heroic fantasy, where you want to eventually let players take on hundreds of orcs at once. Whereas dicepools are better for stuff that aspires to a more modern setting, where no matter how hard core you are, you can still get outgunned by a large enough group of cops. So you can't just point to one or the other and say that it's the correct action resolution mechanic. You need more detail.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

People have been rehashing 3.5e for over a decade now. 3rd party publishers over around pathfinder have hit upon some great success.

Observations from the contrast between 3.5 and pf.

-Multiclass penalty is stupid, delete it.
-streamline skills, no fiddly half ranks, condense skills (hide and move silently to stealth etc), int increases apply retroactively for skill points
-remove/lower the feat barrier for entry on things like TWF, tripping, etc.
-spending xp on stuff is an accounting headache, replace with gold costs as necessary
-encounter swinging save or lose effects should allow recurring saves
-some plot effects and adventuring conveniences should be available to everyone through rituals
-Martials need to be able to full attack and move, whether this be by initiator maneuvers or class features or baseline rules.
-the system math should probably be redone to exclude the need for the Big Six stat boosters. This reduces number juggling and invites players to seek out interesting magic items rather than passive bonuses the system assumes they will have for making benchmarks
-skills need more fantastical uses to better scale up through the teens.
-Martials need to get some exploration/social abilities. The fighter who just fights is an npc class.



I agree with pretty much all of this but I'd like to add a few

-magic needs to be dialed back a bit at the higher levels
-alignment dependent classes need to be less punishing to stray from or have an opposite you can switch to if you get flipped on the chart (i.e monk>chaos monk)
-maybe work in a 5e style rest system?
-vatican style casting should be swapped out
-maybe port archetypes from PF?

[Xervous]

I agree with pretty much all of this but I'd like to add a few

-magic needs to be dialed back a bit at the higher levels
-alignment dependent classes need to be less punishing to stray from or have an opposite you can switch to if you get flipped on the chart (i.e monk>chaos monk)
-maybe work in a 5e style rest system?
-vatican style casting should be swapped out
-maybe port archetypes from PF?

I took aim at the low hanging fruit. One might argue that Martials deserve to measure up to casters post (whatever level) and it is more a smattering of individual problems and martial impotence/inflexible concepts rather than a blindly picked suite of spells that yields the high level contrasts.

5e rest is probably beneficial, though the absolute biggest takeaway is the need to inform GMs that they should pick the rate of pacing that fits their campaign.

Vancian can stick around on the wizard, other classes aren’t bound to that fluff.

Archetypes vs PrCs is a debate, do you want prebuilt choices or piecemeal options? Dull as I find them, they are more manageable in a classed system and produce smoother results.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

Archetypes vs PrCs is a debate, do you want prebuilt choices or piecemeal options? Dull as I find them, they are more manageable in a classed system and produce smoother results.

I see no reason you can't have both, archetypes to help point a build in a direction and prc's to help higher level characters feel more specialized or to get features that would be to strong for a base class.

[paladinn]

I see no reason you can't have both, archetypes to help point a build in a direction and prc's to help higher level characters feel more specialized or to get features that would be to strong for a base class.

I seem to recall most PrC's, especially spellcasting ones, having such "high level features" as "+1 to spellcasting class." Didn't seem all that strong really.

[Xervous]

I see no reason you can't have both, archetypes to help point a build in a direction and prc's to help higher level characters feel more specialized or to get features that would be to strong for a base class.

Let me be clear on my functional definitions. Archetypes are full course meals that lock in your progression of menu items. ACFs or otherwise tiered lists to mix from are a separate thing, my personal preference, but admittedly much harder to balance while still catching the level of potential flavor bake in that archetypes have.

The ideal sweet spot is probably a hybridization of ACFs and archetypes. Casters that make use of school prohibition/specialization mechanics embody this, with their baseline boons framing “this is an abjurer” while the rest of the stuff they have is “Johnny the wizard has spent his time on these spells, unlike Abjurer Jimmy”. Most Martials simply don’t get anywhere near that without initiator levels or ACFs.

[Kayblis]

I see no reason you can't have both, archetypes to help point a build in a direction and prc's to help higher level characters feel more specialized or to get features that would be to strong for a base class.

That's a bit short-sighted. The idea of "getting features that would be too strong for a base class" only exists at all because you already assumed the existance of PrCs and the necessity to enter one to have good stuff. In a game with no PrCs, you don't have the "no one has strong features" scenario that you have with base classes in a game with PrCs. You give strong abilities to the archetypes, and gate them with the desired level. You give specialized features to the archetype that focuses on that combat style.

The problem here is inflexiblity, not power. With Archetypes you're forced down a path, under the threat of never getting to the good stuff if you multiclass. A Two-Handed Fighter archetype recieves specialized features for THF, but he's basically tied to a chair and reminded "You won't get the best THF features" whenever he thinks about picking other classes. In exchange, it's much much easier to build your character. If you want to be the big sword guy, just pick all levels of Two-Handed Fighter and forget about classes entirely. It's down to personal choice here.

I'm on the field of "PrCs > Archetypes", for two reasons. One, PrCs are easy to implement - anyone can come up with a 5-level PrC for a super specific thing and design around that concept alone. You can think about who's most likely entering it and direct it, but you have the freedom make something without having to tie a player to only playing that thing. Two, it allows you to make building blocks that 3 or 4 different styles can use, no matter their base class. Some PrCs are seen as all-purpose classes that can build onto wildly different playstyles, and that's a great thing.

All in all, it's still a design preference. If you want players to have a complete roadmap to their characters with one single pick, go Archetype. If you want to put in the work and have the players build their character how they want to, go PrCs. You shouldn't make base classes weak to justify a "PrCs need to get the good stuff" mentality.

[NigelWalmsley]

It seems to me that the answer is obviously "do both". Some things are low level options, some things are high level options. Some things are different options within the same concept, others change your concept. These things don't trade off in any real sense, you can and should include both of them. Your Wizard should be able to be an "Enchanter" (which is recognizably an archetype), but then later become an "Archmage" (which is recognizably a PrC). It's like asking if you should have feats or skills.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

It seems to me that the answer is obviously "do both". Some things are low level options, some things are high level options. Some things are different options within the same concept, others change your concept. These things don't trade off in any real sense, you can and should include both of them. Your Wizard should be able to be an "Enchanter" (which is recognizably an archetype), but then later become an "Archmage" (which is recognizably a PrC). It's like asking if you should have feats or skills.

Pretty much exactly this is what I was trying to say but I suck with words

[D+1]

E6. Honest to goodness it's all the fixing 3E really needs. My 3E house rules amounts to 4 pages. That's just E6 and a few personal tweaks that I can count on one hand.

It's not for everyone understandably. The pill that is REALLY hard for some people to swallow is to lose 4th and higher level spells. Again, a VERY few exceptions needed for specific things that you have to address with 4th+ magic, but cutting that high-magic dependency also frees you from ALL the endless buckets of conflicts and spell nerfs and BAGGAGE that comes with everything above 3rd level. Unless your goal is genuinely to reach SuperHero PC abilities, you just don't need it - you don't want it - so... let it go.

Seriously, if you're looking to "FIX" everything about 3E it is worth your time to look into it.

[NigelWalmsley]

"Just use E6" is a perfect example of why you need to define your goals before you can talk about fixing things. There are some things E6 does really, really well. If you want to do simple, straightforward dungeon crawling, E6 is probably the best way to do that in any edition of D&D. But there are absolutely aspects of 3e that are lost by doing that, and that's not necessarily a tradeoff people want to make. Playing E6 means you lose high-level concepts like armies of demons, plane-hopping adventures, or ancient dragons. If those things are compelling to you, E6 is a bad solution, even if it works very well at what it does. But if you don't care about them, playing E6 is all the fixing you're likely to need, and you can happily dedicate your time to world-building or adventure-writing.

[paladinn]

E6. Honest to goodness it's all the fixing 3E really needs. My 3E house rules amounts to 4 pages. That's just E6 and a few personal tweaks that I can count on one hand.

I think E6 is Way too limited in scope. Heck, even B/X had 14 levels, with plans for more.

I would think 20 levels is sufficient for a "core" system. Always room for an Epic expansion if anyone really wants it. I don't remember Epic level play being that great in 3E.

[NigelWalmsley]

The number of levels doesn't really matter. It's like Spinal Tap having amps that go up to 11. It's not louder just because the number is bigger. Similarly, more levels doesn't allow you to have more powerful characters, or even a wider range of character power. What it gives you is more granularity. In 3e, there are two levels of power a Wizard can be where he can cast Cloudkill but not Planar Binding. In some other system, there might be one or four or zero. But that would not change how powerful any particular Wizard is, or can be.

[Florian]

My "high concept" is simple

That's not really a high concept, rather your to-do list for homebrewing.

A high concept could be "Redesigned core D20 Framework without clinging to the D&D legacy".

We could simply work with two core class frameworks, one with, one without spells. From there on, we could well work out the individual core frameworks based on their individual "power sources". For example, we could start with three core classes on each side, total of six, based on "skill", "devotion" and "pact".