Mechanics From Other Editions

[astuertz]

What mechanics or otherwise do you like to include in your 3.5e games?

Personally, I am revisiting 3.5 again for the first time in forever. I have been playing in and DMing 5e games constantly for the past several years, but recently got the itch to play 3.5 again, and so, am DMing a 3.5 game for my friends in the near future (as soon as it's fully set up).

I can't say much for house rules I will use as of yet, but I will most-likely utilize the Mob Combat Rules from 5e at some point, as I think it could work well in a 3.5 game (given that it works using minimum dice rolls and doesn't interact with AC or modifiers directly).

But I was curious, have you ever tried incorporating any rules, mechanics, or otherwise from other editions in your 3.5 games, and how well did it work? Feel free to rant on about House Rules or Homebrew Rules you commonly use in your 3.5 games as well.

[Biggus]

I've borrowed some class abilities from 5E, such as Indomitable for the Fighter to help patch up their otherwise poor saving throws, and Stroke of Luck as the capstone ability for the Rogue, who currently has absolutely no reason to take their 20th level in a nonepic game.

From 4E I've taken the idea of three tiers of play, levels 1-10, 11-20 and 21+. I've shifted quite a few of the "epic" feats and prestige classes which aren't actually that epic at all to the middle tier, and a handful of the strongest normal feats into it also.

From 2E I sometimes use the "morale" mechanic for monsters, when I want to determine if an opponent flees or continues fighting.

From PF I've taken lots of stuff, too much to list here (and also independently arrived at the same solutions to broken mechanics as them several times), so much so that I'm considering changing to PF as the default system for my next campaign.

[One Step Two]

I've borrowed a few items from 5th: For players, I've brought the Short rests and the ability to roll HD to restore HP, and allowed cantrips to be cast at-will.

On the DM side of things, I've taken to using Lair actions and Legendary actions to help give the boss encounters an offset vs action economy.

[Biggus]

On the DM side of things, I've taken to using Lair actions and Legendary actions to help give the boss encounters an offset vs action economy.

I've been considering doing that, does it work well?

[Balthanon]

My house rules document has the following called out:

• Activity While Traveling (5th edition PHB; pg 182)
- Notable elements of this rule are that you can choose to perform activities while traveling. If you do so, then you do not get a chance to notice encounters. Furthermore, your passive Perception determines whether an encounter is noticed.
• Advantage / Disadvantage (5th edition PHB, pg 171)
• Short Rest / Long Rest (5th edition PHB, pg 186)
- Modifications: heal all subdual damage on a long rest; “hit dice” can be used to heal subdual damage or convert actual damage to subdual on short rest
• Disease (4th edition PHB)

Not sure if it was actually a 1E/2E rule or just a house rule that got passed along in my group, but I also used god calls. (Basically, roll d100 when you die, if you get close to 0, your god helps you survive, if you get unlucky, you can make things worse for your party.)

I also wanted to adapt the three pillars or whatever it was from 5E or 4E to 3rd edition at some point, with more formalized social/exploration/combat foci for encounters.

(If it counts, I also expanded Tome of Battle concepts back into older material in 3.5 quite a bit. Particularly the handling of multiclassing and then maneuvers themselves. I was also planning on stealing 4th edition powers to fill out the maneuver lists further.)

[Zombimode]

• Advantage / Disadvantage (5th edition PHB, pg 171)


How do you apply that rule?

In 5e instead of giving modifiers Advantage / Disadvantage is applied.
Which instances of modifiers in 3.5 will now give Advantage / Disadvantage under your houserules?

Sorry for probing, I'm just interessted in how this works as this doesn't seem to be a simple change.

[Balthanon]

How do you apply that rule?

In 5e instead of giving modifiers Advantage / Disadvantage is applied.
Which instances of modifiers in 3.5 will now give Advantage / Disadvantage under your houserules?

Sorry for probing, I'm just interessted in how this works as this doesn't seem to be a simple change.

I'll be honest-- off the top of my head I don't remember since it's been awhile since I played. :)

I think it was mainly replacing circumstance modifiers though. It could have just been something I flagged for review too, since the idea of 2d20 drop lowest (or highest) was an interesting one for me. It probably would have been granted or applied substantially less often too though.

[Jervis]

Cantrips are at will (exception being stuff like cure minor wounds that just gives infinite healing and gnome illusionist shadow craft mage cantrip gate shenanigans), but that’s mostly from pathfinder. I actually like 5E’s advantage mechanics. I still use static modifiers like bonuses from flanking and the like but I can’t be bothered to calculate the +7s or -3s for other various circumstance modifiers.

[Venger]

Aside from standard houserules everyone uses like no drownhealing, monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, no thought bottles, ignoring all the And Then They Walked rules (encumbrance, forced march, food and water, etc) I have 2:

If you acquire a negative level, when it's time to make the save 24 hours later, if you fail, instead of becoming permanent, the level is just "sticky" and persists for another 24 hours, then you get another save and so on. This way, negative levels are still dangerous in an actual combat, but they don't have the potential of creating a bunch of annoying clerical work and causing you to permanently lose a character level because of one bad die roll, which is just bad design.

The other is enemy summons give xp. If one balor is a cr 20 encounter, two balors is not also a cr 20 encounter. It doesn't matter how the second one got there. If you fight 2 of them, you get xp accordingly. Yes, I know summons can be dispelled, but using a slot on dispel magic to end an encounter instead of using a slot on glitterdust or stinking cloud to end an encounter is just normal use of resources, so there's no logical reason you shouldn't get xp for it.

[Mnemnosyne]

The other is enemy summons give xp. If one balor is a cr 20 encounter, two balors is not also a cr 20 encounter. It doesn't matter how the second one got there. If you fight 2 of them, you get xp accordingly. Yes, I know summons can be dispelled, but using a slot on dispel magic to end an encounter instead of using a slot on glitterdust or stinking cloud to end an encounter is just normal use of resources, so there's no logical reason you shouldn't get xp for it.
I think the reasoning on this is because the summon ability is supposed to be included in the CR. Like, a CR 20 for a balor supposedly already includes the fact that he can summon another balor, and that's already part of his CR20 in the first place.

As for me, I use initiative from 2nd Edition, and morale rules from 2nd edition. Along with this, a lot of the stuff you need feats and such to do in 3.5 is lessened. Like, the melee guy can stand in the 10 ft. hallway and say 'I'm not letting any monsters by without a fight' without having to have a bunch of feats in order to do that. They want past him, they need to interact in some way, not just run past and take an AoO. Cause even an untrained person can stand in a hallway and force someone to at minimum, interact and shove them aside.

I'm also considering including unlimited scaling cantrips from 5th edition, but I haven't done the work for that yet.

I also tend to use 2nd Edition reversible spells. Like Flesh to Stone and Stone to Flesh not being two separate spells but a single spell that's reversible to cast in either direction.

And I consolidate skills a bit, using several of Pathfinder's consolidated skills, like Perception.

[Venger]

I think the reasoning on this is because the summon ability is supposed to be included in the CR. Like, a CR 20 for a balor supposedly already includes the fact that he can summon another balor, and that's already part of his CR20 in the first place.

That is what the rules say, but that doesn't actually like, make any sense, which is why I choose to ignore it and give people xp for all the monsters they manage to overcome. If not a balor, then an enemy wizard. He's CR 20 if he has no summon spells or similar means of making the pcs fight more monsters than just him (dominated/charmed minions, golems created by wbl, etc). If he has all that stuff, I feel as though it's unfair to say the party shouldn't get the xp for them. But like I said, it's a houserule and I'm under no impression this philosophy is universal.

How do 2e init/morale rules work?

Not using a battlemap and letting mundanes say "I interpose myself between the wizard and the bad guys" was a big part of what made them actually useful in earlier editions. Do you find that restores some of their utility when using these rules in 3.x?

[Mnemnosyne]

This sort of initiative is something a lot of people seem to dislike (because it's a bit more complex, and it 'feels' like you're locked into actions) but it really models simultaneous events much better. 2nd Edition initiative order goes: 1. DM decides on NPC actions. 2. Players declare their actions. 3. Initiative is rolled for all combatants, modified by what action they're taking (faster actions have less penalty, slower actions have more). 5. Actions are resolved in order of initiative. People often feel like declaring actions first then resolving them is being locked into those actions, but really it's them all being resolved simultaneously; those who won initiative are slightly quicker and resolve their actions first. They just have to be resolved in order because we as players can't really handle all events occurring simultaneously; it's not like we can tell the players 'okay, everybody say what you're doing and roll for it on the count of 3...' and expect that to be anything but an incoherent mess.

Morale, well...every NPC has a morale rating based on what they are and how brave they're supposed to be. Then there are modifiers based on what's going on in the fight. You roll 2d10 at various points in the fight, when something happens that would trigger a morale check. For example: if a group of organized goblins, we'll consider them 'regular soldiers', giving them a morale of 12, are fighting the PCs, then morale gets checked when something happens. For instance, the players have killed 25% of the goblins - that calls for a morale check. Roll 2d10 either for each goblin or as a group, as the DM decides. If they fail, they prioritize getting out of the encounter alive. That may mean fleeing, or it may mean surrendering if they think their surrender will be accepted. Hell, it might just mean hiding for the remainder of the fight. Hirelings were much more common in older editions, so this also applied to NPC hirelings and allies the PCs had, too. Really, a DM can do the 'we decide to flee/surrender' entirely ad-hoc and simply decide it, but morale gives a nice codified way of doing it that isn't pure DM decision, because I often simply am not strongly inclined one way or another myself and am happy to leave it up to some form of mechanics instead of have to make the decision.

Between the initiative making it far less certain for casters to get their spells off uninterrupted (because if they lose initiative then they might be damaged mid-cast and have to make a concentration check to keep their spell) and mundanes being able to do things that's reasonable, like rushing out to block the monsters' approach - assuming they win initiative and go before the monster - I definitely find it makes mundanes more useful. Sure, they're still playing bodyguard for the casters, but at least the playing bodyguard is actually reasonably effective without having to eat up an unreasonable amount of feats and build resources, and those can be more devoted to doing cooler stuff.

[RandomPeasant]

That is what the rules say, but that doesn't actually like, make any sense, which is why I choose to ignore it and give people xp for all the monsters they manage to overcome.

How does it not make sense? I could agree with a claim about some specific case, but the idea that it categorically doesn't make sense to count summons as part of the creature seems pretty unfounded. Trivially, you could imagine a "Night Ogre" that was a CR 5 monster with the stats of an Ogre, plus an ability that gives it a pet Shadow. That would have exact same EL on its own that you'd get from combining the constituent parts, so it seems entirely fair not to give the PCs any extra XP because the Night Ogre they fought had a pet Shadow. Most abilities like Summon work in roughly this way, it's just when you get to things like planar binding or dominate person which have no inherent cap that things start to break down.

[daremetoidareyo]

Bloodied. It’s convenient to know when things are at half hp

[Balthanon]

I'm also considering including unlimited scaling cantrips from 5th edition, but I haven't done the work for that yet.

I also tend to use 2nd Edition reversible spells. Like Flesh to Stone and Stone to Flesh not being two separate spells but a single spell that's reversible to cast in either direction.

And I consolidate skills a bit, using several of Pathfinder's consolidated skills, like Perception.

Skill consolidation is definitely something I use as well-- Perception, Stealth, etc... I've taken some skills from other editions such as Endurance as well and consolidated some existing skill uses under those. I actually put together a fairly comprehensive document for it for my group: https://www.lands-beyond-reality.com/dnd/documents/ar-skills-feats.pdf

One of the other things I started doing is actually allowing what I called "Spell Arrays" and "Spell Chains" for reduced costs in "spells known" (or presumably the cost to add it to your spellbook, though that's slightly less relevant.) That lets a sorcerer get a series of similar spells at different levels (spell chain) or a similar set of spells that are only slightly different at the same level (protection from good, evil, chaos, etc...) for a fraction of the cost of getting all of them. (But not just a single spell slot.) I never really got a chance to test that one from what I recall, but I could see making the ability to use those into feats. (https://www.lands-beyond-reality.com/dnd/documents/ar-magic-spells.pdf)

Scaling cantrips sounds interesting-- I'll need to check that out. The "reserve" feats are always nice on spellcasters, seems likely that could be a good fit.

[RandomPeasant]

I think 5e's idea of scaling spells is reasonable, but it's pretty limited in scope. Spells like summon monster want to work that way already, and I can see something like the silent image line making more sense expressed as "from slot X you can ignore restriction Y". But using slots for scaling the way 5e does only really makes sense in the context of 5e's much flatter power curve. A 9th level spell isn't supposed to just be a 3rd level spell with bigger numbers, it is supposed to be qualitatively better.

I do think the Sorcerer probably needs more spells known, but to be honest my preference is just something like "you get an extra top-level spell and an extra not-top-level spell at each level". If you want a bunch of related spells, play a Warmage or a Beguiler or a Dread Necromancer (and if you want that for Conjuration or Abjuration, find or make a homebrew one).


Bloodied. It’s convenient to know when things are at half hp

Doesn't Bloodied not do anything on its own?

[Venger]

How does it not make sense? I could agree with a claim about some specific case, but the idea that it categorically doesn't make sense to count summons as part of the creature seems pretty unfounded. Trivially, you could imagine a "Night Ogre" that was a CR 5 monster with the stats of an Ogre, plus an ability that gives it a pet Shadow. That would have exact same EL on its own that you'd get from combining the constituent parts, so it seems entirely fair not to give the PCs any extra XP because the Night Ogre they fought had a pet Shadow. Most abilities like Summon work in roughly this way, it's just when you get to things like planar binding or dominate person which have no inherent cap that things start to break down.
Because two things that are CR x are more challenging than one thing that is CR x.

If you fight two Xs, you get xp for 2 Xs. If one was a summon, apparently, you get xp for one X. That doesn't make sense and is unfair, so I ignore this rule and reward xp fairly instead. Like I said, I'm under no delusion this is a common houserule.


Bloodied. It’s convenient to know when things are at half hp

Oh yeah, I do this too.


I think 5e's idea of scaling spells is reasonable, but it's pretty limited in scope. Spells like summon monster want to work that way already, and I can see something like the silent image line making more sense expressed as "from slot X you can ignore restriction Y". But using slots for scaling the way 5e does only really makes sense in the context of 5e's much flatter power curve. A 9th level spell isn't supposed to just be a 3rd level spell with bigger numbers, it is supposed to be qualitatively better.

I do think the Sorcerer probably needs more spells known, but to be honest my preference is just something like "you get an extra top-level spell and an extra not-top-level spell at each level". If you want a bunch of related spells, play a Warmage or a Beguiler or a Dread Necromancer (and if you want that for Conjuration or Abjuration, find or make a homebrew one).Yeah, that's one of the things that's very appealing about psionics.


Doesn't Bloodied not do anything on its own?
It does not impose mechanical fx on enemies, no, but it lets PCs see who has less then half health so they can do triage appropriately. If I've got an attack that will deal a lot of hp damage, I will probably target a non-bloodied monster with it and try to cherry tap the bloodied monster with a cheaper ability.

[Malphegor]

First thought without reading the rest of the thread would be to condense skills.

For example I don’t think there needs to be seperate athletics, acrobatics, swim, jump skills as some other editions do. Sure consolidating them means that all characters are better at that stuff overall, but it seems superfluous. If you’re good at physical activity as an adventurer, you’re probably good at all of it. Or have the capability to be good at it if you try it out a couple of times: a professional long jumper probably isn’t a great swimmer to the same level but perhaps they’re more fit than someone completely untrained.

I’d probably also steal the spirit shaman inspired spellcasting of the 5e wizard and backport it to the 3.5e wizard as a slightly more spontaneous casting variant of a wizard if someone asked me on what mechanics I feel could benefit the game, as that’d make a spell point using wizard pretty indistinguishable in practice from an erudite beyond an inability to use psionics and of course the wizard needs to prep their spells for the day that they can blast spontaneously from possible slots, rather than retroactively lock ‘slots’ as an erudite does.

[Biggus]

I actually put together a fairly comprehensive document for it for my group: https://www.lands-beyond-reality.com/dnd/documents/ar-skills-feats.pdf


I think there might be minor mistake there, Geography (underground) appears twice, I guess Knowledge (Nature) is actually meant to cover Geography (overground)?

[Balthanon]

I think there might be minor mistake there, Geography (underground) appears twice, I guess Knowledge (Nature) is actually meant to cover Geography (overground)?

Yep, that's accurate, I'll have to fix that in my source document.

I have some old references to when I was calling Martial Lore 'warcraft' in there too now that I look. And I'm second guessing the Ride / Handle Animal merger again due to the split stats. :) I kept going back and forth on that one.

[RandomPeasant]

If you fight two Xs, you get xp for 2 Xs. If one was a summon, apparently, you get xp for one X. That doesn't make sense and is unfair, so I ignore this rule and reward xp fairly instead. Like I said, I'm under no delusion this is a common houserule.

Your summation ignores the key fact that, in this case, one of the abilities of an X is to summon another X. It's not some blanket rule where a Hill Giant can have another Hill Giant that was "summoned" and doesn't count. The Balor has an explicit Summon ability that summons a Balor. How is that any different from the fact that a Cleric who cast righteous might is stronger than one that didn't? Do players get more XP for enemy buff spells?

[astuertz]

Like, the melee guy can stand in the 10 ft. hallway and say 'I'm not letting any monsters by without a fight' without having to have a bunch of feats in order to do that. They want past him, they need to interact in some way, not just run past and take an AoO. Cause even an untrained person can stand in a hallway and force someone to at minimum, interact and shove them aside.

Can't you already accomplish this with a readied action? For example, if the door is 10 ft wide (and the character is Medium with a reach of 5ft.), couldn't he move to one square of the door and ready an action to grapple whoever comes within range?

In this case, he obviously cannot stop every creature from coming through, unless he has a feat or ability that allows him to grapple multiple creatures, and he can only use his readied action once per round. But generally, I think that as long as this works with the rules, it is pretty reasonable to assume that he could only block one attempt to pass him without changing his size (like with Enlarge Person) or having additional feats/abilities to do so.

That being said, if you like the rule, there is no reason to change it.

Edit: In retrospect, it seems the trip ability is better suited to this purpose. A character can specialize in blocking movement by taking Combat Reflexes, allowing him to take additional attacks of opportunity each turn (making it possible to trip multiple targets) and feats like Improved Trip (to increase his chances of success). Either way, it seems to me that being able to only stop 1 enemy without Combat Reflexes is pretty reasonable, but again, that is on you.

[Jay R]

From 2E I sometimes use the "morale" mechanic for monsters, when I want to determine if an opponent flees or continues fighting.

My morale mechanic is described in my Rules for DMs:


29. When the party’s victory is assured, the encounter has lost all suspense. Mop-up combat is boring, so end it.

a. Remember, the NPCs don’t want to die; they would usually rather flee, negotiate, or surrender.
b. One round earlier, when you know the PCs have won and they don’t yet, is a great time for the NPCs to offer to negotiate.
c. This is your opportunity to force-feed them that obvious fact they’ve been missing.

I didn't get this from the rules, but I've used it since the 1970s, in original white-box D&D

[Elkad]

I've never codified it in a houserule, but I think I will now. Other thread made me think of it, and it's relevant here too.

Wishes/Tomes (inherent bonuses) work similar to 1e. You can get to base18 at 1:1, with no "consecutive" requirement or cap on the number used (so you could use 14 wishes to raise your Cha from 4 to 18 at any point over your career).

Past base18, it gets hard. 1e is 10 wishes for a single point (though it was past 16, not 18). That seems in the ballpark.

[Balthanon]

I've never codified it in a houserule, but I think I will now. Other thread made me think of it, and it's relevant here too.

Past base18, it gets hard. 1e is 10 wishes for a single point (though it was past 16, not 18). That seems in the ballpark.

Was the XP cost the same in 1e? 50k XP is roughly 3 epic levels assuming you were paying for it in XP. 250k gold is a little more readily accessible in epic levels, but still pretty significant. Prior to epic, it just wouldn't make sense ever unless you let your players perform use gold raising tricks.

[paladinn]

Grab the 5e spellcasting system as a whole. It is The best feature of 5e, IMO. Besides tossing fire-and-forget, it limits casters' power to the spell level (as opposed to caster level) while also allowing a lot of flexibility. It's a win-win-win!

Also, for sorcerers, use the spell point variant while adding metamagic "sorcery points" to the pool. Makes the class worth-playing (along with the Divine Soul subclass and the Transmuted Spell metamagic).

[Elkad]

Was the XP cost the same in 1e? 50k XP is roughly 3 epic levels assuming you were paying for it in XP. 250k gold is a little more readily accessible in epic levels, but still pretty significant. Prior to epic, it just wouldn't make sense ever unless you let your players perform use gold raising tricks.

1e didn't have an xp cost. It had a temporary weakening effect, but was largely left up to the DM

XP tables were also wildly different. Every level beyond 11th (IIRC) was 375,000xp for a M-U (Wizard). Other classes had different xp tables.

In 2e, a Wish aged you 5 years, and again had a DM judgement. Still no XP cost.

[Zaile]

Something we're toying with going back to 3e from 5 is porting the combat mechanics and cantrips of 5 into 3.5 (in addition to the existing ones) after all there are the "reserve" feats that are essentially scaling cantrips. Allowing the martials to full-attack and move really frees up a lot of builds and also makes things like dragons much more deadly as they can move fly by and do their dragon things. Not sure exactly how it will all work out.

[Kilthak]

One thing I've fiddled with to try and apply to 3.x is the movement rules in 5e. One of my players is aggressively irritated about how pre-5e you can't move-attack-finish moving as a default. She'll rant at length about it any time it comes up.

So I've been trying to work out how to make that a doable thing in 3.x. So far, I've made that a default and changed Shot on the Run and Running Attack to allow Full Attacks, but I haven't had the chance to really test how much that changes balance or what other issues might arise as a result of the changes.

The things we do to try and keep our players happy. If it was just me, I'd have never even thought of it.

[Elves]

Besides tossing fire-and-forget, it limits casters' power to the spell level (as opposed to caster level)
It's definitely how spell lines like summon monster and cure should work, but it has a problem -- as you gain levels, lower-level slots either become waste space on your character sheet, or you never prepare low level spells that have scaling effects (because they can't deliver a worthwhile benefit for the action cost).

The advantage of CL scaling is it lets lower level spells remain numerically relevant, with higher-level spells being distinguished by their better effect. I think this is a happier medium -- lower level spells scale numerically, but the effect scales by slot level. Condensing them into a single scaling spell at that point is just a matter of saving page space, which is good.

Using a low level spell as a high level character should be like "I'm going to stun one person, instead of using the big guns and stunning everybody", not "I'm going to deal a piddling amount of damage instead of an amount that's relevant for my level".

[martixy]

5e

Advantage/Disadvantage is a really valuable tool.

A d20 advantage roll has an average of 13.82
d20+3 has an average 13.50

So Adv/Dis is roughly equal to a +3/-3 bonus. About as close a comparison we can get.

Advantage however will never exceed the range of the d20 (this is valuable for 5e's design goals of more constrained math).
A +3 instead raises the extreme values however.

Also, for the people who like rolling dice, seeing that high number come up is satisfying.

So while I dislike 5e's bounded accuracy, I admire how elegantly Advantage achieves the design goal. I haven't actually found good common uses for it in 3.5 tho.

I've used Lair actions, or something to the same effect with success as well.

4e

Bloodied - at least the idea of it.
25% hp and -2 on just about everything - including most notably caster level, meaning casters are probably losing their highest spell level.

Skill challenges - If you google this you will mistakenly conclude it's a 5e invention. But no, these actually came with the maligned 4e. They just weren't very good. Do this instead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvOeqDpkBm8)
...
That's kind of the theme of 4e - lots of great new ideas and poor implementation.


PF

I don't expect considering pathfinder an edition of D&D to be controversial. So lets do that.
...and I borrow about half of PF1, too many things to list.
Though the skill system is of particular note.

[Psyren]

When I play 3.P, I use PF as the base for sure. Then I add in a few 3.5 things like Skill Tricks and Legacy Weapons.

The big thing I pull in from 5e are Legendary Resistances. It sucks to have your big boss monster randomly fail their first save and ruin the encounter, and this lets you deal with that without fudging.

I also use Advantage/Disadvantage for situations where the +2/-2 feels too small but I don't want to do a bunch of modifier math.

From 4e, Bloodied is good.

[One Step Two]

I've been considering doing that, does it work well?

Apologies for the delayed reply, but it's been super good! Giving the boss encounter the equivalent of an extra spell or attack helps when I have 6 players at the table to round out interactivity, and makes some monsters more threatening than usual, especially when they are the Dungeon Boss Monster. Just make sure you're aware of some abilities which has more bite in 3.5 than 5e, Paralyzed is bad in both editions, but a 3.5 Lich paralyzes permanently vs 1 minute. Remember the tone of your game at the end of the day, and pick actions as appropriate.

Lair actions are a lot like encounter traps introduced in Eberron I believe? It's a great way to make the fights more varied and dramatic, the terrain being more than a static backdrop makes it all the more memorable to players.

Oh, and as mentioned by others, I also use the bloodied condition to let the players know what's happening in their fights.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget to adjust the saves for lair actions to 3.5's scale, otherwise it becomes pretty trivial.

[Balthanon]

5e

Advantage/Disadvantage is a really valuable tool.

A d20 advantage roll has an average of 13.82
d20+3 has an average 13.50

So Adv/Dis is roughly equal to a +3/-3 bonus. About as close a comparison we can get.

Advantage however will never exceed the range of the d20 (this is valuable for 5e's design goals of more constrained math).
A +3 instead raises the extreme values however.

Also, for the people who like rolling dice, seeing that high number come up is satisfying.

So while I dislike 5e's bounded accuracy, I admire how elegantly Advantage achieves the design goal. I haven't actually found good common uses for it in 3.5 tho.



Advantage actually seems like it would end up being functionally more powerful than the straight math implies though because in combat at least, a natural 20 is essentially infinity since it's an automatic hit. Increasing your chance of bypassing an AC that is functionally impossible for you to hit likely bumps that higher than a +3 equivalent.

[martixy]

Advantage actually seems like it would end up being functionally more powerful than the straight math implies though because in combat at least, a natural 20 is essentially infinity since it's an automatic hit. Increasing your chance of bypassing an AC that is functionally impossible for you to hit likely bumps that higher than a +3 equivalent.

Oh, this gives me an idea for a potential good use of Advantage in 3.5 - manipulating critical hit chances.
Something like a tactical feat, where u take -4 to hit, but gain Advantage on the roll. A 17-20 threat goes from 20% to 36%


essentially infinity

On that note, did you know about the no-auto variant in DMG p.25? A roll of 1 counts as -10, a roll of 20 counts as 30. I really like it. It's functionally the same for EL-appropriate encounters, but it adds the fantasy of the hyper-competent warrior wading into a horde lowly goblins/zombies and mowing them down without skipping a beat. And you can create dramatic brick-shart moments where even a 20 fails to hit some major big baddie.

[Balthanon]

Oh, this gives me an idea for a potential good use of Advantage in 3.5 - manipulating critical hit chances.
Something like a tactical feat, where u take -4 to hit, but gain Advantage on the roll. A 17-20 threat goes from 20% to 36%


That could work fairly well.


On that note, did you know about the no-auto variant in DMG p.25? A roll of 1 counts as -10, a roll of 20 counts as 30. I really like it. It's functionally the same for EL-appropriate encounters, but it adds the fantasy of the hyper-competent warrior wading into a horde lowly goblins/zombies and mowing them down without skipping a beat. And you can create dramatic brick-shart moments where even a 20 fails to hit some major big baddie.

I've seen it, don't know if I've ever used or been in a campaign where it's used though. That would be a tough call to say whether those kind of moments would be better versus the last ditch hail mary 20 saving the day.

[martixy]

last ditch hail mary 20 saving the day.

You don't lose those though. And you can always tune the number to be more than +/-10.

[astuertz]

On that note, did you know about the no-auto variant in DMG p.25? A roll of 1 counts as -10, a roll of 20 counts as 30.
I think that, overall, that isn't a terrible rule. However, I do think there is some excitement to be said rolling a nat 20 on something that is very difficult (and therefore succeeding), which almost necessitates the opposite (a nat 1 being an auto-fail).

Treating a 1 as a -10 makes sense, and I think you can borrow this rule without adopting the nat20 as 30 part. It effectively means that a player who is highly skilled at something can avoid the 5% chance of failure.

However, ultimately, here iss my thoughts on it:
Typically speaing, if a character is incredibly well-trained at something, they will auto-succeed at certain tasks whenever they "take 10." If the DM asks the player to roll instead (ergo, that the player is not allowed to "take 10" in that moment), it means that the action is urgent and that failure will have consequences. Thus, rolling a check (whether it's an attack roll or an ability roll) means that the results of that check are going to matter and that consequences will happen if the first attempt is unssuccessful (such as setting off a trap, triggering some event, being unable to retry, or giving the enemy monster the opportunity to retaliate or otherwise take actions).

The -10/30 rule is similar to the idea of taking 10 in respect to the fact that you are treating a nat1 as modifier - 10 and a nat20 as 30 + modifier. It sets a clear limit on the range of possibilities.

In battle, in particular, a nat 20 roll represents a momentary success of an attempted attack or action where success may not have otherwise been possible. It is reasonable to think that a low-level monster like a kobold could score a hit on a high-level, high AC character in battle, since it is always possible for the warrior to slip up and permit the kobold to land a hit. Assuming we're talking about a character with a really high AC, treating a nat20 as a 30 could make it theoretically impossible for a kobold to ever hit the player, which might sound realistic but actually subtracts from the realism.

More so, I think it just generally subtracts from the fun of the possibility of getting a nat1 or nat20.

Personally, I don't generally use fumbles in my games. (I used to, but got bored of the, really.) If it is a skill check, I discribe the results as if the character had failed in the worst possible way. If it is a 20, I generally describe the event as extraordinary, even if the character had little chance of failing in the first place.

Sometimes, I'll even have my players roll a 1d100 to see how extraordinary the outcome really was. On a high roll, a describe the results as being extraordinarily grand. (Whether I have them roll a d100 or not depends on the circumstances of the roll, as well as whether or not I have some idea of what could possibly happen.)

Further, treating a 20 as a 30 puts a hard cap on a check. In many circumstances, the players may want their characters to do something that is plainly impossible, and in such circumstances, it is more appropriate for the DM to just say, "That isn't possible." To allow a roll implies that it is possible, even if the probability is extremely low.

If something was extraordinarily impossible, I might go as far as to make the player roll a d100 to see if I am even going to allow the player to attempt a chceck. With an extremely high DC, it's likely that the player would have to roll a nat20 to succeed, but if they roll high on the d100, I would allow them to attempt that 5% success. Either way, if something has no chance of succeeding, I don't allow any roll of any kind, and for most circumstances, a simple d20 roll is all that I require.

Let's say one of my players said, "I want to pray to my god to see if he'll send a lightning bolt down on the BBEG to destroy him." Generally, this is just a laugh, but if I'm amused enough by what the player wants to do, this is the kind of circumstance where I would say, "Okay, give me a d100 roll, and if you roll about a 95, I'll let you make a religion check to see if it happens." This is something I use to allow the player to attempt something just because I think it sounds cool, and then the players are all-the-more excited when it happens because the player had not, not only succeed with a nat20 check, but also had to roll high enough on the d100 to even attempt a check. Then, if they succeed, we are all implicitly aware of how unlikely success was, which makes it all the more entertaining when it does.

(Of course, I probably wouldn't allow a player to ruin the final boss battle of a campaign with a lucky roll of the dice; it was just the best example I could come up with in a pinch.)

I definitely wouldn't be opposed to the -10/30 rule, but I do like the standard nat1/nat20 rules more.

[Balthanon]

(Of course, I probably wouldn't allow a player to ruin the final boss battle of a campaign with a lucky roll of the dice; it was just the best example I could come up with in a pinch.)

I definitely wouldn't be opposed to the -10/30 rule, but I do like the standard nat1/nat20 rules more.

We use god calls as well in our campaign (which is what we call the d100) and I've never really found it to "ruin" a final battle even when successful. (Though they're also situational, since we kind of set a character dying as the baseline for when one is likely to be successful.) The successes (and failures) honestly made for some of the most memorable moments of some of our campaigns though.

We had one where we were ending a run that had gone from like 10 to 17 with a dragon that was basically an avatar of shadow-- there was a pretty good chance we had it wrapped up, but we had several people die to the breath weapon. One of them actually succeeded on their god call and it ended up calling down Correllon Larethian to fight beside us as we finished the battle.

In another case (my first game session ever actually), we had a party of Banites where three of us actually failed our god calls horribly. It ended up calling down Torm, Bane (because my character was secretly a Cyricist that had infiltrated the party, admittedly, not intentionally, I just hadn't realized that Cyric was mortally opposed to Bane when I selected my patron deity), and one other god that I don't recall at the moment. That one ended up ending the campaign and having Torm kill Bane and restructure the pantheons a bit given the artifacts the party was carrying around at the time. Despite the failure though, we talked about it for years afterwards. (I particularly enjoyed the part where my character got rewarded with an extremely pleasant afterlife because his actions directly led to Bane's death. :P)

Likewise, we've had a lot of moments with natural 20's saving an otherwise impossible situation that were a lot of fun too, so I don't think I'd ultimately get rid of the pure success option for those.

[martixy]

treating a nat20 as a 30 could make it theoretically impossible for a kobold to ever hit the player, which might sound realistic but actually subtracts from the realism

I'm not sure what realism you're chasing, but I'm chasing a fantasy instead. And that fantasy definitely includes the idea that a lowly kobold can't even scratch my super high AC.

And then everything below that doesn't have anything to do with the mechanic, just general DM craft.


Likewise, we've had a lot of moments with natural 20's saving an otherwise impossible situation that were a lot of fun too, so I don't think I'd ultimately get rid of the pure success option for those.

You guys are misunderstanding the point of this rule.

I don't know how to explain it properly. The limited values are not meant to prevent hail mary rolls. In fact values outside this range should almost never show up in critical encounters. They should almost be a kind of roleplay guide. Instead of turning your high-level warrior's encounter with a kobold into roll-initiative combat, because kobold could always roll a 20 and you could roll a 1, it should make it evident that we're doing something else here. In a sense, it's exposing what should be handled by your normal combat rules and what shouldn't.

And once again, much of this depends on the style of the game. High char-op games might need to move the values to -20/40. Another game might do -5/35 (curious myself how that plays - it seems like it'd weaken casters, since enough in high saves could make you unafraid of many spells; on the other hand it might weaken just blasting - already a weak style, and strengthen buffing builds - already a strong style).

[astuertz]

I'm not sure what realism you're chasing, but I'm chasing a fantasy instead. And that fantasy definitely includes the idea that a lowly kobold can't even scratch my super high AC.

And then everything below that doesn't have anything to do with the mechanic, just general DM craft.



You guys are misunderstanding the point of this rule.

I don't know how to explain it properly. The limited values are not meant to prevent hail mary rolls. In fact values outside this range should almost never show up in critical encounters. They should almost be a kind of roleplay guide. Instead of turning your high-level warrior's encounter with a kobold into roll-initiative combat, because kobold could always roll a 20 and you could roll a 1, it should make it evident that we're doing something else here. In a sense, it's exposing what should be handled by your normal combat rules and what shouldn't.

And once again, much of this depends on the style of the game. High char-op games might need to move the values to -20/40. Another game might do -5/35 (curious myself how that plays - it seems like it'd weaken casters, since enough in high saves could make you unafraid of many spells; on the other hand it might weaken just blasting - already a weak style, and strengthen buffing builds - already a strong style).
Generally, I agree with you, but only in part.

First, I do acknowledge that it is fantasy, but part of good story telling is making it believable. Even in a world with magic and dragons, it is important to establish some rules grounded on what we know of our own world. So the argument that it is fantasy is fine, but the more believable the fantasy, the more engaging the story telling.

As for the rest, I likewise don't see any point in playing out a drawn out battle that the players can easily win. As a general practice, when my players reach a sufficient level, I will occasionally engage them in narrative encounters which can quickly turn to combat with easy monsters that pose no real threat. In these circumstances, I play the battle out as a narration, rather than a combat. I simply ask the players what they want to do, and allow them to do it without much rolling (unless it seems appropriate). It loosely follows combat rules, like if a character has four attacks, he can only attack four times before someone else (including the monster) can do something, but it doesn't follow strict initiative rules and it is assumed that he fells any weak creature he atracks without effort.

This only applies to battles where the players outmatch enemies by a lot. In a battle with challenging enemies but smaller minions as adds, I will play out the battle as normal.

I have no problem just letting my players feel powerful without bogging it down with combat rules.

As for nat20s, I think this rule is mostly for the players' benefit, giving them a small chance to do something very difficult. And as a general rule, anything I make a rule for players also applies to monsters/NPCs.

For example, in my 5e games, I largely dislike the optional flanking rule which gives Advantage simce it negates the ability Pack Tactics. Instead, I applied a +2 modifier to attack like in 3.5, but applied it also to monster attacks as well.

[martixy]

Generally, I agree with you, but only in part.

First, I do acknowledge that it is fantasy, but part of good story telling is making it believable. Even in a world with magic and dragons, it is important to establish some rules grounded on what we know of our own world. So the argument that it is fantasy is fine, but the more believable the fantasy, the more engaging the story telling.
~

You misunderstand my usage of the word "fantasy". I use it as presented here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mr0PjFkJC4).

*sigh* I obviously failed to explain the no-auto rule properly, seeing as you latched onto my one specific example instead of gleaning the general idea. I'm just giving up.

[astuertz]

You misunderstand my usage of the word "fantasy".

*sigh* I obviously failed to explain the no-auto rule properly, seeing as you latched onto my one specific example instead of gleaning the general idea. I'm just giving up.
It's alright. If it works for you, then that's good. I'm sure there are some good advantages to using a rule like that, and if I have failed to see what you mean, it shouldn't be any skin off your nose.

You've definitely given me some thought, however, and maybe I'll change my mind about it at some point. It's not critical that we all agree on this either way. I appreciate the effort to help me understand.

[olskool]

How do you apply that rule?

In 5e instead of giving modifiers Advantage / Disadvantage is applied.
Which instances of modifiers in 3.5 will now give Advantage / Disadvantage under your houserules?

Sorry for probing, I'm just interessted in how this works as this doesn't seem to be a simple change.

Just add up all the modifiers AND THEN apply ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE to take the appropriate roll. Where is it written in stone that you have to abandon modifiers to use this rule? I see no reason why you cannot use BOTH.

[paladinn]

I've gotten to like the ability-stat-based saves in 5e. Is there a problem with using that in 3e? I like that it makes All stats important. No real dump stats!

Are there any things from Pathfinder that they do better than 3e? PF always struck me as just a "power bloat" version of 3e. I have no desire to promote power bloat; but anything that might streamline something would be of interest. I hear the way skills are done is better; but the extensive feat trees/chains are not.

[astuertz]

I've gotten to like the ability-stat-based saves in 5e. Is there a problem with using that in 3e? I like that it makes All stats important. No real dump stats!

Are there any things from Pathfinder that they do better than 3e? PF always struck me as just a "power bloat" version of 3e. I have no desire to promote power bloat; but anything that might streamline something would be of interest. I hear the way skills are done is better; but the extensive feat trees/chains are not.
While it is true that there are saves for each ability in 5e, Charisma, Intelligence, and Strength saving throws aren't heavily utilized, effectively accomplishing the same thing.

Conversely, I feel that 3.5 does a great job of making use of all the ability scores. Str affects your damage (even if you're an archer who uses a bow), Dex AC Reflex Saves and ranged, Con Fortitude Saves and hp, Intelligence affects languages knowledge and skill points, Wisdom affects Will saves, and Cha affects your social/rp modifiers.

I would say that Cha and Str are the most viable dump stats depending on what kind of character you're playing, but they are hardly useless.

That being said, making ability checks for various stats in 3.5 is not out of thr question; but if you import that from 5e, you're not going to see much change since it is mostly unused in 5e.

To make it viable, I would say pairing stats for saves would make sense. Use Fortitude bonuses for Str saves and Will Saves for Intelligence and Charisma, since those both fall under mind stats.

Otherwise, you could create a whole new list of saving throw modifiers for each, but that would take a bit more effort. You'd also have to decide what requires that kind of check.

Overall, it doesn't seem very worth the effort, honestly.

Alternatively, you might treat Str, Int, and Cha saves as a skill that you can put ranks into, making it a class skill for classes where it makes sense, or a cross-class skill for others.

Idk. But there's some thoughts on that idea.

[Balthanon]

*sigh* I obviously failed to explain the no-auto rule properly, seeing as you latched onto my one specific example instead of gleaning the general idea. I'm just giving up.

You explained it fine for me, it's just not something I'd want to apply to my games (at the moment anyways)-- I realize I can adjust values appropriately or design encounters such that the +10/-10 or whatever I desire is going to move the needle appropriately, but I just prefer it as is. I like the successes against truly unbeatable foes and the occasional failure too. And honestly, I like the fact that armies are actually still a threat-- because otherwise, your fantasy world probably shouldn't bother with them for the most part. By and large, your warrior is still going to be able to wade in with a fair amount of impunity, but if they really want to focus on that they're going to need something above and beyond like damage reduction.


I've gotten to like the ability-stat-based saves in 5e. Is there a problem with using that in 3e? I like that it makes All stats important. No real dump stats!


The biggest issue is probably just either having to retrofit every class to have 6 save stats; you can't use ability scores without some modifier because the DCs in 3.5 are geared with the expectation that you have more than just your ability score by higher levels.

Another option might just be to have your Fortitude save apply to Con and Str saves, your Reflex score apply to Dex and Int, and your Will save apply to Wisdom and Charisma saves. That should be fairly safe, though it introduces some oddities like Wizards being bad at Int saves.

[paladinn]

While it is true that there are saves for each ability in 5e, Charisma, Intelligence, and Strength saving throws aren't heavily utilized, effectively accomplishing the same thing.

Conversely, I feel that 3.5 does a great job of making use of all the ability scores. Str affects your damage (even if you're an archer who uses a bow), Dex AC Reflex Saves and ranged, Con Fortitude Saves and hp, Intelligence affects languages knowledge and skill points, Wisdom affects Will saves, and Cha affects your social/rp modifiers.

I would say that Cha and Str are the most viable dump stats depending on what kind of character you're playing, but they are hardly useless.

Not sure I agree. Dex, Con and Wis saves would work as normal; Str saves would be against paralysis/hold; Int saves against illusions ("disbelieving"); Cha (your "strength of personality") would save against death magic.

In 5e, your class gives you "proficiency" in 2 stats, 3 for humans. That would translate into 2 stat-saves as "good" saves, and the rest as "normal" saves.

[Zanos]

I quite like the -10/30 instead of the autofail/pass rolls.


It rarely comes up but it's more simulationist and adds a bit of extra value to saves/AC. There is a point where odds are so overwhelmingly against you that no stroke of good fortune can save you. A level 1 warriors arrow will never piece the hide of an ancient wyrm(yes, even if it is a +1 arrow). A level 1 commoner will never shrug off the epic necromancers finger of death. And really, if a +/-10 won't save you, you're in a situation where you weren't going to make it anyway.

The Nat 20/1 rule means that it doesn't matter how incompetent the warrior, there's always a chance he'll get a hit in, no matter how thick the armor and tough the wardings. And it doesn't matter how strong the ancient lich's will is, 5% of the time he will just fail the save on command undead, even if it's from a dinky wand. Personally I find that to actually diminish verisimilitude rather than reinforce it. I could understand bad luck really screwing you, but 5% of the time an epic warriors will is subverted by a wand of charm person because he nat 1s the save, it doesn't matter how strong his will is? That's quite silly to me. That's far too often.

[Balthanon]

Mentioned this above as something I was planning to do, but I'm wondering if anyone actually tried pulling martial powers from 4th edition (or 5th I suppose) back into 3rd as maneuvers? While 3.5 has no lack of spells, Tome of Battle was sadly cut short by 4th edition before it could get any actual support from WotC in setting expansions and it always felt like some of the better powers out of 4th could probably be pulled back with some normalizing for damage and tweaking of requirements to expand options, particularly for classes that I go back and modify to have access to maneuvers. (Though as I skim through Martial Powers 2 right now, I'm starting to question that-- I was hoping for unique mechanics, but... most of these are almost identical and even the ones near 30 barely seem worth it.)

[StSword]

Mentioned this above as something I was planning to do, but I'm wondering if anyone actually tried pulling martial powers from 4th edition (or 5th I suppose) back into 3rd as maneuvers? While 3.5 has no lack of spells, Tome of Battle was sadly cut short by 4th edition before it could get any actual support from WotC in setting expansions and it always felt like some of the better powers out of 4th could probably be pulled back with some normalizing for damage and tweaking of requirements to expand options, particularly for classes that I go back and modify to have access to maneuvers. (Though as I skim through Martial Powers 2 right now, I'm starting to question that-- I was hoping for unique mechanics, but... most of these are almost identical and even the ones near 30 barely seem worth it.)

Which reminds me, I like the idea of boons from Dnd 5e.

I'm reminded because someone did a series converting 4th edition abilities- martial, divine, arcane, nature into boons.

Providing alternative rewards for games that don't have common magic items or uses alternatives appeals to me.

Like for example a Midnight based game- You'd be hard pressed to find Ye Old Magick Shops, but a grizzled warrior teaching a player how to kill several foes with one swing, or a nature spirit teaching one how to command vines to entrap your foes, that seems quite in theme.

[Elves]

I could understand bad luck really screwing you, but 5% of the time an epic warriors will is subverted by a wand of charm person because he nat 1s the save, it doesn't matter how strong his will is? That's quite silly to me. That's far too often.
This is where you have to realize it's a system made for depicting dramatic action scenes, not a world simulation that's constantly running. 5% is high in aggregate but in the context of small scale scenes it's about right for those long shots. Yes, the podunk shot his arrow true. In the real world it would be 1000 to 1 but in this scene it's 19 to 1 so that dramatic outcomes are more likely.

[Zombimode]

Just add up all the modifiers AND THEN apply ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE to take the appropriate roll. Where is it written in stone that you have to abandon modifiers to use this rule? I see no reason why you cannot use BOTH.

Eh... sure. But WHICH modifiers do you replace with advantage/disadvantage? All of them like in 5e? A bad idea since the expected numbers are different in 3.5
If not all you will have to decide that pretty arbitrarily - which counters the increase in usability the system provides in 5e. Which begs the question of why even trying to shoehorn this into 3.5 if you dont gain anything from it.

Not to mention all the side-issues that can arise from replacing a modifier with a reroll when there are other systems/abilities that interact with that modifier (replace Flanking bonus with advantage, but then an ability comes up that changes the Flanking modifier - now what?; replace cover with disadvantage, but then an ability comes up that halfs the penalty from cover - now what?; etc.)
All issues might be individually solvable (with more or less convoluted patches) but then you have added complexity to a system that you have introduced with the goal of reducing complexity.

[Balthanon]

Like for example a Midnight based game- You'd be hard pressed to find Ye Old Magick Shops, but a grizzled warrior teaching a player how to kill several foes with one swing, or a nature spirit teaching one how to command vines to entrap your foes, that seems quite in theme.

So kind of like legendary locations where you can potentially pick up a feat or other ability for completing the location. Seems like a pretty easy fit for 3.5.




All issues might be individually solvable (with more or less convoluted patches) but then you have added complexity to a system that you have introduced with the goal of reducing complexity.

To be fair, they introduced the system to reduce complexity, I suspect we're mainly looking at backporting it because it sounds like a cool idea. :)

[martixy]

To be fair, they introduced the system to reduce complexity, I suspect we're mainly looking at backporting it because it sounds like a cool idea. :)

"Sounds like a cool idea" is the raison d'être for most house-rules. It's why most of them suck.

Also if we're talking advantage, 5e's reason might include reduced complexity, but not solely, look at my posts above.

[RandomPeasant]

Eh... sure. But WHICH modifiers do you replace with advantage/disadvantage?

I think there is some merit to changing the DM's call on favorable/unfavorable circumstances from +2/-2 to advantage/disadvantage (I can see how rerolls would be less disruptive than recalc-ing bonuses on the fly, even in small ways). But it doesn't really seem like a big deal either way, and I don't think advantage is particularly massively better than bonuses.

[StSword]

So kind of like legendary locations where you can potentially pick up a feat or other ability for completing the location. Seems like a pretty easy fit for 3.5.

Yes, that seems an apt comparison, conceptually.

It would probably be easiest to use the magic item rules as a basis. Mechanically being able to turn invisible because one was blessed by the God of Thieves and Night isn't too different from invisibility because one has a magic tattoo, after all.

[Seward]

Not sure if it was actually a 1E/2E rule or just a house rule that got passed along in my group, but I also used god calls. (Basically, roll d100 when you die, if you get close to 0, your god helps you survive, if you get unlucky, you can make things worse for your party.)

AD&D had a divine intervention rule. I had a situation where the PC's were doing stuff that might get divine notice and they needed quite a bit of luck to arrive home safely with their jury-rigged-planar-travel via opening a rift with a leomund's secret chest and a bag of holding combination. So everybody picked their patron deity (or at least a favorite one for the less religious) and rolled.

The party thief actually made the roll. I forget the exact mechanics but it was not a high probability, certainly less than a crit or a fumble.

Having the elf god of thieves intervene made things work out very well for her. The rest of the party....while they did get safely to their home plane lets just say there was about 100k gold piece value in the treasure they were bringing back that they never found out about until after the campaign ended and I did a writeup. (the thief had been refraining from stealing from the party for ages and the deity wanted to correct her behavior)

If you don't want that kind of thing to happen, you shouldn't both entrust the portable hole to a thief, and then let her attempt a divine intervention to a god of thieves...(and narrow escapes, which was quite in theme for him answering)

This was a party with a paladin and that same thief adventured with her for like 6 levels pretending to be a fighter-mage before she was outed by a levelup-trainer. "Get that thief out of my fighter training hall!"



Another option might just be to have your Fortitude save apply to Con and Str saves, your Reflex score apply to Dex and Int, and your Will save apply to Wisdom and Charisma saves. That should be fairly safe, though it introduces some oddities like Wizards being bad at Int saves.

Actually most mages have roughly similar saves in all areas, and this would skew the fort save a little, not the reflex save.

Most wizards have decent con and dex, and dump wisdom, so the good save offsets the bad attribute, and the good attribute offsets the bad save. Wis+Cha - both are bad for wizards. Int+Dex - both are good. It's the str bringing down the con score that will cause your wizards to squeal in outrage. While sorcerers would have stronger wills than they do in actual 3.5 but worse reflexes. From a flavor standpoint though, I like the idea of charisma helping with will saves, as it is a force of personality and seems fitting for resisting mind control, fear and such. Likewise int and dex really are used in reactions (dex is raw speed, int is mentally not freezing up). The last is iffy...str+con usually indicate a physically larger person if you have both, which does help irl with poison, although not so much with disease. But I guess good scores in both indicate good physical fitness, where a weakness in one or the other has you unbalanced somehow.

[Balthanon]

Actually most mages have roughly similar saves in all areas, and this would skew the fort save a little, not the reflex save.

That comment was actually in light of having 6 different saves-- so basically you have a Str save, a Con save, a Dex save, an Int save, etc... So rather than adding or averaging both Str and Con into Fort (though that's an interesting idea for a variant rule in itself, I could actually see that being an interesting house rule to play around with), it was saying that your Str save is your base Fort + Str, your Con save is base Fort + Con, Dex is base Reflex + Dex, etc...

[Asmotherion]

I use cantrips at-will which makes sence to me. I also scale them as per pf2e to do 1/2 caster level damage dice and round up the damage dice of cantrips to d4 instead of d3.

I also completely remove damage caps (so, at 20 level, a fireball deals 20d6). Technically a mechanic from 1e, though I discovered that backwards.

I also borrow the PF1e feat progression, because more feats=happier players.

Finally I let my players create their own spells or maneuvers, which is definitelly an influence from Mage the Awakening, as, from what I understand, most DMs don't want to go the extra mile with this.

[Elkad]

A nat20 is treated as an additional +5, not an auto success.

It was thac0 only in 1e, but I've extended it to saves as well.

Yes, sometimes is IS hopeless.

[AsuraKyoko]

I use cantrips at-will which makes sence to me. I also scale them as per pf2e to do 1/2 caster level damage dice and round up the damage dice of cantrips to d4 instead of d3.

I also completely remove damage caps (so, at 20 level, a fireball deals 20d6). Technically a mechanic from 1e, though I discovered that backwards.

I also borrow the PF1e feat progression, because more feats=happier players.

Finally I let my players create their own spells or maneuvers, which is definitelly an influence from Mage the Awakening, as, from what I understand, most DMs don't want to go the extra mile with this.

Do you have a system/guidelines for how the spell/maneuver creation works, or is it more ad-hoc? I'm a big fan of M:tAw, in particular the spell improvising, and I'm curious to see what ways something similar has been done in 3.5.

[martixy]

Do you have a system/guidelines for how the spell/maneuver creation works, or is it more ad-hoc? I'm a big fan of M:tAw, in particular the spell improvising, and I'm curious to see what ways something similar has been done in 3.5.

Well, 3e already has guidelines for both spell and maneuver creation.

For spells, it's on p.198 of the DMG, Researching original spells.

For maneuvers, it's on p.46 of ToB.

[Asmotherion]

Do you have a system/guidelines for how the spell/maneuver creation works, or is it more ad-hoc? I'm a big fan of M:tAw, in particular the spell improvising, and I'm curious to see what ways something similar has been done in 3.5.
Glad you asked :)

The process goes like this:

A) Player describes to me what they want the spell/maneuver to do.
B) Together with the player, we find an existing spell or maneuver that does something as close to the desired effect as possible.
C) We modify the spell or maneuver and finally, decide on the spell/maneuver level, taking original spell/maneuver level as a basis and adding or substracting depending on the desired outcome.

For example, a player wanted a Paralising Ray. Ghoul touch, a second level spell does just that for 1d6+2 rounds. It's Fortitude Negates, and SR:Yes.

Since it's a ranged touch attack (ray) instead of a melee touch attack, I would give it +1 Level. It also does not spread the sickened condition, so -1 Level. The player wants the Ray to be a Conjured Lightning effect, and thus not subject to Spell Resistance, so I calculate +1 for that. He also wants the spell to not be limited to Humanoids for +2 Level. Finally, he wants the spell to deal some damage, and I suggest a d4 per caster level for +1 Spell Level.

We thus have:

Stun Beam
Conjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 25 feet + 5 feet/2 Levels
Target: Living creature
Duration: 1d6+2 rounds
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: No
This spell allows you to paralyze a single living creature for the duration of the spell with a successful ranged touch attack. The ray also deals 1d4 per caster level electricity damage.

The spell is also similar to Hold Monster, a 5th level spell that does not deal damage, so the math checks out IMO.

[Zanos]

This is where you have to realize it's a system made for depicting dramatic action scenes, not a world simulation that's constantly running. 5% is high in aggregate but in the context of small scale scenes it's about right for those long shots. Yes, the podunk shot his arrow true. In the real world it would be 1000 to 1 but in this scene it's 19 to 1 so that dramatic outcomes are more likely.
Then it fails in both respects. The most common consequence of "20 always hits" isn't that a single shot from a podunk archer can down in dragon...it's that a hundred podunk archers firing at our 40 AC hero are going to kill him before he reaches the walls of the fort because he doesn't have expensive secondary defenses typically found only on monsters like damage reduction. And the most common result of "1s always fails save" is that, oh, the boss is dead because he isn't immune to flesh to stone and rolled a natural 1 on his fortitude, or the inverse of that, with a PC automatically dying. So they actually rob the scenes of drama.

If you want a system that's good at depicting dramatic action scenes you need something like a proficiency die from the FFG star wars games, where you can miss a guy and still make something important happen in the scene by rolling triumph or advantage.

[martixy]

And the most common result of "1s always fails save" is that, oh, the boss is dead because he isn't immune to flesh to stone and rolled a natural 1 on his fortitude, or the inverse of that, with a PC automatically dying. So they actually rob the scenes of drama.

Can confirm that. Had this EXACT situation occur (the second one), where a PC failed Flesh to Stone, then the DC 15 fort save of Flesh to Stone with a bonus of ~15 and died. Unrelated to the nat20 auto-or-not argument, since they would have failed either way, but it absolutely was a dumb and particularly anti-dramatic way to die.

[AsuraKyoko]

Glad you asked :)

The process goes like this:

A) Player describes to me what they want the spell/maneuver to do.
B) Together with the player, we find an existing spell or maneuver that does something as close to the desired effect as possible.
C) We modify the spell or maneuver and finally, decide on the spell/maneuver level, taking original spell/maneuver level as a basis and adding or substracting depending on the desired outcome.

For example, a player wanted a Paralising Ray. Ghoul touch, a second level spell does just that for 1d6+2 rounds. It's Fortitude Negates, and SR:Yes.

Since it's a ranged touch attack (ray) instead of a melee touch attack, I would give it +1 Level. It also does not spread the sickened condition, so -1 Level. The player wants the Ray to be a Conjured Lightning effect, and thus not subject to Spell Resistance, so I calculate +1 for that. He also wants the spell to not be limited to Humanoids for +2 Level. Finally, he wants the spell to deal some damage, and I suggest a d4 per caster level for +1 Spell Level.

We thus have:

Stun Beam
Conjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 25 feet + 5 feet/2 Levels
Target: Living creature
Duration: 1d6+2 rounds
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: No
This spell allows you to paralyze a single living creature for the duration of the spell with a successful ranged touch attack. The ray also deals 1d4 per caster level electricity damage.

The spell is also similar to Hold Monster, a 5th level spell that does not deal damage, so the math checks out IMO.

Ok, that's pretty cool! I'll have to try that out; I have a character who wants make some custom spells, and this will help immensely. (Also, the spells she wants to make are relatively standard in effect, so there's nothing really out there to worry about)

[Elkad]

Glad you asked :)

The process goes like this:

I've been doing similar as a player and DM for better than 4 decades now.

Note that most of the named spells ( Tenser, etc ) in every edition (plus more unnamed ones) happened the same way.

It was just at the tables of the book authors, so they went in the next book.

My house rules have a couple hundred custom spells in them. Same with magic items and creatures.

Create, test, balance if necessary, play.

[martixy]

My house rules have a couple hundred custom spells in them. Same with magic items and creatures.

Create, test, balance if necessary, play.

You got those anywhere public?

I've only managed to collect 16. Hundreds is... impressive.

[Balthanon]

You got those anywhere public?

I've only managed to collect 16. Hundreds is... impressive.

Almost the same number I have in my house rules document. I'm at 18 custom spells I've created here and there throughout campaigns. :)

[astuertz]

I use cantrips at-will which makes sence to me. I also scale them as per pf2e to do 1/2 caster level damage dice and round up the damage dice of cantrips to d4 instead of d3.

I also completely remove damage caps (so, at 20 level, a fireball deals 20d6). Technically a mechanic from 1e, though I discovered that backwards.

I also borrow the PF1e feat progression, because more feats=happier players.

Finally I let my players create their own spells or maneuvers, which is definitelly an influence from Mage the Awakening, as, from what I understand, most DMs don't want to go the extra mile with this.
When I was first getting back into 3.5, I did get hung up on the limited casting if cantrips. Overall, I think spellcasters would end up with enough spells that they wouldn't really care that they couldn't cast cantrips an unlimited number of times.

I think what changed my mind on thinking over the problem is the way wands and other magical items work in 3.5. I eventually figured that by the time it would be reasonable for a wizard to cast a cantrip 100 times per day, he probably already has a wand that can more or less let him cast it at will. Want to cast prestidigitation every 5 seconds? Just get a wand. Problem solved.

But I do understand the appeal of making them at will. I think, if anything, the number of castings could have been more than what they are. I appreciate that sorcerers get more than 4 castings of a spell, but I think it is generally assumed that 3.5 is designed for high magic games, and so, with the availability of magic items, it still becomes a moot point, I think.

[astuertz]

Can confirm that. Had this EXACT situation occur (the second one), where a PC failed Flesh to Stone, then the DC 15 fort save of Flesh to Stone with a bonus of ~15 and died. Unrelated to the nat20 auto-or-not argument, since they would have failed either way, but it absolutely was a dumb and particularly anti-dramatic way to die.
I think that a good way to handle this would be crit confirms and fumble confirms. In other words, it is only a critical success if it is confirmed with another nat 20 and only a critical failure if it is confirmed with another nat 1. Otherwise, take the number as is and evaluate it.

In effect, this reduces the random chance of failure and success from 5% to .25%. It still leaves the possibility of a natural success or failure, but reduces the chances quite substantially. In such a case, I would argue that doing this means you should increase the effect that occurs from natural successes and failures. Make them far more grand, even increasing the mechanical benefits that follow.

[RandomPeasant]

IMO, people should get at-will cantrips just because it feels out-of-concept to fall back on a crossbow. It's not even really a power thing, since outside of some optimization tricks (Eschew Materials launch bolt, Gnome Illusions for cantrip silent image), cantrips are generally going to be worse than that crossbow, but getting to consistently do magic is important for feeling properly like a Wizard. Doctor Strange doesn't pull out a glock when he doesn't want to spend the time on an incantation.

[Balthanon]

But I do understand the appeal of making them at will. I think, if anything, the number of castings could have been more than what they are. I appreciate that sorcerers get more than 4 castings of a spell, but I think it is generally assumed that 3.5 is designed for high magic games, and so, with the availability of magic items, it still becomes a moot point, I think.

Honestly, I think the problem is worst at low levels really-- my nieces wanted to try D&D because they watched Big Bang Theory and in the first encounter, the one that selected a druid was basically able to cast a single relevant spell and then... that was it. She was done basically unless she wanted to run up and hit things with a stick (and she didn't).

It wasn't a great introduction to the battle aspect of D&D honestly, though they seemed to enjoy the overall session regardless.

Personally, I kind of like the approach they used in Tome of Battle best though versus just making it at will-- make the player do something in combat to renew an encounter resource. It doesn't need to be as simple and easy as the Warblade, but it just has a nice feel to it in my opinion while still letting the player do something that feels relevant in most rounds.

[Seward]

When I was first getting back into 3.5, I did get hung up on the limited casting if cantrips.

Yeah, 3.x messed that one up. Cantrips get ignored if they are a limited resource. If they aren't, they become an interesting part of the character. It takes like a level 6 reserve feat to do what a detect magic cantrip does in Pathfinder, and Pathfinder is just better on that front.

And nobody crafts/buys wands of cantrips. WBL is too important for consumables that won't save your rear. They will sometimes make permanent magic items of cantrips (my gnome in 3.5 bought a spoon that flavored any meal he ate, basically a prestidigitation-spoon. It cost a few hundred gp, was at will, and did absolutely nothing except flavor, but it is something he would want more than another potion of cure critical wounds)


Doctor Strange doesn't pull out a glock when he doesn't want to spend the time on an incantation.
No, that would be Harry Dresden. And it's something older than a glock with simpler mechanics, probably a revolver, so his wizardry doesn't mess it up.

Some wizards are into crossbows as an alternative (a lot of the folks who grow into ray specialists start that way). A lot though would prefer ray of frost or acid splash if forced to sully their hands with direct damage.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Advantage actually seems like it would end up being functionally more powerful than the straight math implies though because in combat at least, a natural 20 is essentially infinity since it's an automatic hit. Increasing your chance of bypassing an AC that is functionally impossible for you to hit likely bumps that higher than a +3 equivalent.

Advantage is far more powerful than the +3 bonus indicated by the previous poster's math. Exactly how powerful depends upon the bonuses and DCs involved. Ignoring crit chances (which are meaningful but only apply to attack rolls), in a scenario where only a nat 1 fails, advantage reduces the chance of failure by 95%, but no numerical bonus has any impact. In a scenario where you are natively 50% likely to succeed, (need an 11+) advantage increases your success chance to 75% which is equivalent to a +5 bonus. If need a 20 to succeed, advantage changes a 5% chance into a 9.075% chance which is roughly similar to a +1 bonus. Looking at some non-extreme scenarios, at 25% native success (16+), advantage provides a 43.75% chance of success which is closer to +4 than +3 but still in the zone. At 75% success (6+), advantage on the roll increases success chance to 93.75 which is again +3.75.

Obviously 1 and 20 scenarios are unusual--though failing only on a 1 is pretty relevant for 3.x saving throws (or attack rolls if you use fumbles). Absent that, the impact of advantage is usually between +3.75 to +5 within the bounded accuracy range of rolls with 25 to 75% native success chance. This is the most relevant area for analysis because this is where favorable circumstances matter most. If you need much more than a 16 to succeed, you should probably be doing something else--even if you can get a bonus and if you are going to succeed on less than a 6, then the action is probably a solid choice even if you don't have the extra bonuses.

That said, impact on extreme success chance (the only fail on a 1 scenario) also shouldn't be ignored because advantage increases the certainty by an order of magnitude which has tactical advantages that outweigh the simple improvement in the odds.

[olskool]

Eh... sure. But WHICH modifiers do you replace with advantage/disadvantage? All of them like in 5e? A bad idea since the expected numbers are different in 3.5
If not all you will have to decide that pretty arbitrarily - which counters the increase in usability the system provides in 5e. Which begs the question of why even trying to shoehorn this into 3.5 if you dont gain anything from it.

Not to mention all the side-issues that can arise from replacing a modifier with a reroll when there are other systems/abilities that interact with that modifier (replace Flanking bonus with advantage, but then an ability comes up that changes the Flanking modifier - now what?; replace cover with disadvantage, but then an ability comes up that halfs the penalty from cover - now what?; etc.)
All issues might be individually solvable (with more or less convoluted patches) but then you have added complexity to a system that you have introduced with the goal of reducing complexity.

You obviously didn't read my comment properly AT ALL. I said: "where is it written in stone that you cannot use both?" Simply add up all the modifiers you have, roll TWO DICE and take the higher number to add to them for ADVANTAGE. Do the opposite and take the lower roll for DISADVANTAGE. When did I ever say ANYTHING about "exchanging modifiers?"

[Elder_Basilisk]

IMO, people should get at-will cantrips just because it feels out-of-concept to fall back on a crossbow. It's not even really a power thing, since outside of some optimization tricks (Eschew Materials launch bolt, Gnome Illusions for cantrip silent image), cantrips are generally going to be worse than that crossbow, but getting to consistently do magic is important for feeling properly like a Wizard. Doctor Strange doesn't pull out a glock when he doesn't want to spend the time on an incantation.

On the other hand, Gandalf and Elric pull out swords an awful lot. A lot of wizards and sorceresses in pre-D&D literature and folklore either don't fight at all (such as Circe, Morgana le fey, or Merlin) or use physical attacks in combat (Sauron, Morgroth, the Witch King of Angmar, Imrik the elf earl, the White Witch, the queen of underworld/Green Witch). The wizard who only uses magic in battle is more of a post D&D artifact than a feature of the source material. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But there's nothing wrong with expecting the wizard who's out of good spells to pull out a sword or crossbow either.

[Zombimode]

You obviously didn't read my comment properly AT ALL. I said: "where is it written in stone that you cannot use both?" Simply add up all the modifiers you have, roll TWO DICE and take the higher number to add to them for ADVANTAGE. Do the opposite and take the lower roll for DISADVANTAGE. When did I ever say ANYTHING about "exchanging modifiers?"

I did read your comment. My reading was that your suggestion was to keep some modifiers as they are while replacing others with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic and thus "have both" in the game.

Obviously that was not what you meant. But your clarification leaves me puzzled as well.
So you're saying that all modifiers remain the same and that you apply advantage and/or disadvantage on top of that. But under what condition?

[martixy]

Advantage is far more powerful than the +3 bonus indicated by the previous poster's math. Exactly how powerful depends upon the bonuses and DCs involved. Ignoring crit chances (which are meaningful but only apply to attack rolls), in a scenario where only a nat 1 fails, advantage reduces the chance of failure by 95%, but no numerical bonus has any impact. In a scenario where you are natively 50% likely to succeed, (need an 11+) advantage increases your success chance to 75% which is equivalent to a +5 bonus. If need a 20 to succeed, advantage changes a 5% chance into a 9.075% chance which is roughly similar to a +1 bonus. Looking at some non-extreme scenarios, at 25% native success (16+), advantage provides a 43.75% chance of success which is closer to +4 than +3 but still in the zone. At 75% success (6+), advantage on the roll increases success chance to 93.75 which is again +3.75.

Obviously 1 and 20 scenarios are unusual--though failing only on a 1 is pretty relevant for 3.x saving throws (or attack rolls if you use fumbles). Absent that, the impact of advantage is usually between +3.75 to +5 within the bounded accuracy range of rolls with 25 to 75% native success chance. This is the most relevant area for analysis because this is where favorable circumstances matter most. If you need much more than a 16 to succeed, you should probably be doing something else--even if you can get a bonus and if you are going to succeed on less than a 6, then the action is probably a solid choice even if you don't have the extra bonuses.

That said, impact on extreme success chance (the only fail on a 1 scenario) also shouldn't be ignored because advantage increases the certainty by an order of magnitude which has tactical advantages that outweigh the simple improvement in the odds.

It's not more powerful, it's functionally different. That was the point being made.
+3 vs Advantage (https://anydice.com/program/7c3c)

[Dante & Vergil]

It's been a while since I've seen Pathfinder, but from what I remember, being a Necromancer is much nicer, same with turning your character Undead as they get their Charisma modifier to Hit Points.