3rd Ed 3.1b - Revising 3rd Editon once again [Archive]

Yora

2023-10-08, 09:44 AM

Of all the games to dig up again, this one certainly wasn't on my list.

I started with RPGs in 2000 just when the 3rd edition rulebooks came out, though I really only started running games regularly right about the time when we got the new 3.5e books in 2003, then switching to Pathfinder for a while six years or so later. I never ran much of the original 3rd edition, and I had barely any clue what I was doing, and when 3.5e came out it looked amazing, I immediately loved it, and I've never looked back. Until now. 20 years later.
I've been having a lot of nostalgia for early 3rd Ed. over the last year, while at the same time there's nothing that makes me think fondly of 3.5e and Pathfinder. 3.5e wasn't just a revision of the rules, in hindsight it was also a big turning point for what the whole concept of "D&D fantasy" was going to be. Early 3rd edition material feels a lot closer to AD&D in many ways, while 3.5e material feels more like 4th and 5th edition. At least to me.

I've been thinking recently about the vague idea of running a campaign with the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Monsters of Faerûn, Manual of the Planes, Lords of Darkness, and Unapproachable East, adapting The Sunless Citadel and The Forge of Fury to Thesk and the Great Dale. All of these can of course be easily adapted to the 3.5e rules, but I feel if we're going on a nostalgia trip, then let's go all the way! With the 2000 PHB and MM.

While I did applaud pretty much all the changes that 3.5e made, there are a couple that I now see as mistakes.
Making Damage Reduction overcome by different specific enchantments and materials really made the magic weapon golf bag effect more pronounced. It also meant that going from +2 weapon to a plain +3 weapon is now really just a +1 to attack and damage and no longer gives you the ability to deal vastly more damage against the more powerful monsters.
Lowering the amount of damage that DR and energy resistances absorbs for many creatures means that attacking with under-enhanced weapons is now only less effective instead of the monsters being nearly invulnerable. Sounds good at first, but it makes it much simpler to just brute force monsters with DR by hitting it a few more times instead of having to retreat and come back with some clever ideas how to hurt them with the weapons and spells you do have access to.
Large, medium, and small versions of the different weapon types might be more realistic regarding optimal handle sizes and weight balance, but it gets in the way of using the magic weapons taken from enemies larger or smaller than yourself.
And here I'm probably really in a far out minority position, but I think the many dead levels at which characters don't get any new abilities when they level up are actually a good thing. I think characters having gradual and barely perceptible improvements in power and endurance is preferable to always getting new toys every time you ding. I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization. Also, characters getting fewer new abilities when gaining new levels make the Fighter bonus feats more relevant.

But as I admitted before, the general idea of doing a revision of the original game rules was quite valid.
Cover and concealment have too many degrees with different modifiers. Distributing skill points is a chore. Haste is indeed broken.

With 20 years of hindsight. What are the things about the original 3rd Ed. rules that you think really should be fixed or completely redesigned before taking the game out for another campaign?
Any things from 3.5e that absolutely should be applied? Anything else where you think the original solution was much better?

paladinn

2023-10-08, 10:36 AM

Wow is this a topic for a year-long discussion..

I'm sure a lot will come to mind; but just off the top of my head, I'd like to see the fighter class have some actual features instead of just being a sack of feats. And the rogue could be made more thief-y. In 3e, every character has access to the same skills. Often a 3e rogue bears little resemblance to the AD&D thief.

If I had my druthers, I'd make all spellcasters "spontaneous" but use the 5e spellcasting system. It both nerfs and makes casters more flexible.

I actually think a lot of my issues with 3e were addressed by Castles & Crusades. It's been called "3e as it should have been." But there's always room for improvement.

Crake

2023-10-08, 11:04 AM

Yora

2023-10-08, 11:13 AM

5th edition style spell preparation is at the very top of my list of changes. Spells being lost after casting has always be the one thing that's been bothering me the most about D&D. It just doesn't feel correct for the fiction of the world. (And I think all the novels don't use it.)

Things I like a lot about 3.5e is reducing cover and concealment to just "partial" and "full". No greater granularity needed. Similarly, having all creatures take up a square area is much more practical than monsters that are longer than they are wide.

Then there's a bunch of much older mechanics from earlier days that should never have been forgotten, like reaction rolls and morale checks. I think a DC 15 Will save any time the first member of a group is out, when half the group is out, and when the leader is out should work just fine as morale. On a failure, the creatures becomes frightened.

I also really prefer an encumbrance system that only counts the number of items instead of adding up weights. Up to your Strength score as a light load, double Str as a medium load, and three times Str as a heavy load. (And dwarves are not slowed down by weight.)

I really want to try out having one character roll initiative for the entire group. The roll is made by whoever it makes the most sense, like the person opening the door, peaking around the corner, or guarding the rear, or who first draws a weapon. If multiple characters become aware of a threat at the same time, the roll is made by the one with the highest initiative modifier. Then the players go in whichever order they make a decision for their action.
The main impact of having all players have their turn at the same time is that you avoid the situation of "I have not been paying attention because I've been waiting 15 minutes for my turn, so now it's going to take me 5 minutes to figure out what I want to do on my turn". And when the GM is making the turns for the monsters, the players will also be paying more attention because "after the GM is done, I have to decide my next turn". In theory, this speeds up combat massively.

And a little house rule for opposed skill checks between two groups: If the party is trying to remain undetected, their check is made by the PC with the lowest skill modifier. The opposed check to detect them is made by the NPC or creature with the highest skill modifier. If the worst PC can beat the best NPC, then the whole party passes. (If you have four PCs roll Hide and six NPCs roll Spot, the odds that one NPC will spot one PC becomes extremely high, even when the modifiers are in the players' favor. And it takes a lot longer to roll.)

And since I am putting together an edited version of the original SRD so that the players can look up the rules for the campaign, I'm going to take out all the content that is only available to characters of 11th level and higher. We're probably never going to use any of that, so cutting class descriptions and feats by a quarter and spell descriptions by half should make it a lot easier to get your bearings with the rules document.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-08, 12:58 PM

Lowering the amount of damage that DR and energy resistances absorbs for many creatures means that attacking with under-enhanced weapons is now only less effective instead of the monsters being nearly invulnerable. Sounds good at first, but it makes it much simpler to just brute force monsters with DR by hitting it a few more times instead of having to retreat and come back with some clever ideas how to hurt them with the weapons and spells you do have access to.

The bigger issue is damage getting very large at high optimization, which makes any amount of damage reduction that is not de facto immunity to lower-op characters meaningless. You have to tighten up the range of damage output before you can do anything with DR either way.

And here I'm probably really in a far out minority position, but I think the many dead levels at which characters don't get any new abilities when they level up are actually a good thing. I think characters having gradual and barely perceptible improvements in power and endurance is preferable to always getting new toys every time you ding. I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization. Also, characters getting fewer new abilities when gaining new levels make the Fighter bonus feats more relevant.

The problem is that there are a lot of different things people want do with advancement. Rather than re-write the whole system to match your personal preferences, you should write the system to flex better between different preferences people can have.

5th edition style spell preparation is at the very top of my list of changes. Spells being lost after casting has always be the one thing that's been bothering me the most about D&D. It just doesn't feel correct for the fiction of the world. (And I think all the novels don't use it.)

Spell preparation is fine mechanically and the "preparation is casting most of the spell, the actual cast finishes the ritual" fluff they came up with eventually makes perfect sense. If you want casters that work other ways, write more classes.

Then there's a bunch of much older mechanics from earlier days that should never have been forgotten, like reaction rolls and morale checks. I think a DC 15 Will save any time the first member of a group is out, when half the group is out, and when the leader is out should work just fine as morale. On a failure, the creatures becomes frightened.

This sounds like it adds more complexity for no real reason. The primary effect of this is that low-level combat gets even more lethal, which is probably not desirable.

I really want to try out having one character roll initiative for the entire group. The roll is made by whoever it makes the most sense, like the person opening the door, peaking around the corner, or guarding the rear, or who first draws a weapon. If multiple characters become aware of a threat at the same time, the roll is made by the one with the highest initiative modifier. Then the players go in whichever order they make a decision for their action.
The main impact of having all players have their turn at the same time is that you avoid the situation of "I have not been paying attention because I've been waiting 15 minutes for my turn, so now it's going to take me 5 minutes to figure out what I want to do on my turn". And when the GM is making the turns for the monsters, the players will also be paying more attention because "after the GM is done, I have to decide my next turn". In theory, this speeds up combat massively.

This seems like it makes combat massively more swingy.

Logalmier

2023-10-08, 02:09 PM

I think just tightening up the math would go a long ways. Not implementing bounded accuracy per se, but establishing somewhere in the design documents an internally consistent set of expectations as to what sort of numbers PCs should be getting from where and at what levels. The alternative approach, where writers just stuck random number boosts in random places across the game's lifecycle, means that number bloat ranges vary in unhelpful, often silly ways. Bestiaries never really kept up with what it's possible to do with the system, and massive intra-table variance has always been a problem caused in part by there really being no standardized upper ceiling that the designers agreed upon when they set out (or if there was one, it was quickly abandoned).

icefractal

2023-10-08, 03:32 PM

It's interesting what different aspects people like from prior editions. I think mine will be something that many people think "good riddance" to, but ... 3E spellcasting.

Going from 2E to 4E, casting changes from "really potent, but also quite limited and sometimes difficult" to "easy and abundant, but no more impressive than any other type of power". As with the area of a rectangle, the mid point (3.5) is stronger than either of the extremes.

3E spells did a few things that 3.5 and onward shied away from, but also - no Abrupt Jaunt for safety, no reserve feats for stamina, it lacked a lot of the little conveniences that 3.5 casters have. 3E Haste is OP though, no argument there (although it might be fine if it always took a slot of the highest level you have and didn't apply the turn you cast it).

When I played it I was pretty new to the game, so I'm curious how it holds up with more experience. I'd run a 3E game, but it's harder to find books for, and I've become addicted to the easy and legal access to content that PF1 has.

glass

2023-10-08, 03:52 PM

I've been thinking recently about the vague idea of running a campaign with the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Monsters of Faerûn, Manual of the Planes, Lords of Darkness, and Unapproachable East, adapting The Sunless Citadel and The Forge of Fury to Thesk and the Great Dale. All of these can of course be easily adapted to the 3.5e rules, but I feel if we're going on a nostalgia trip, then let's go all the way! With the 2000 PHB and MM.Is the idea to maintain compatibility with all of those (at least to the extent 3.5/PF1* did)? Or are you willing to mess with the maths a bit more (thereby requiring new statblocks, at least)?

While I did applaud pretty much all the changes that 3.5e made, there are a couple that I now see as mistakes.Personally (and YMM-&-obviously-does-V), I approve of all** the changes individually, but I think there were too many of them for a minor revision but they were not significant enough for a new edition. I mention it, because I would suggest that you either rewrite a bunch of stuff and make much significant changes, or keep the total number of changes to something much more manageable than 3.5 did (given the thread title, probably the latter).

With 20 years of hindsight. What are the things about the original 3rd Ed. rules that you think really should be fixed or completely redesigned before taking the game out for another campaign?
Any things from 3.5e that absolutely should be applied? Anything else where you think the original solution was much better?The only one I can think of OTTOM that I think is really essential is the removal of "false facing" for things like horses.

The problem is that there are a lot of different things people want do with advancement. Rather than re-write the whole system to match your personal preferences, you should write the system to flex better between different preferences people can have.I think the OP should change things to work the way that they want and not worry too much about "flexing" to suit preferences other than their own. Unless you mean having different classes with different levels of "dead-levellines", in which case that's not a bad idea.

That said, I would suggest giving Fighters and spellcasters at least a couple of actual class features even if they do not fill in all the levels.

Spell preparation is fine mechanically and the "preparation is casting most of the spell, the actual cast finishes the ritual" fluff they came up with eventually makes perfect sense. If you want casters that work other ways, write more classes.You and I might think its fine (I actually think it is better than fine, I like it a lot). But if the OP doesn't it is their project....

This seems like it makes combat massively more swingy.How so? I generally roll separately for each group of monsters with a different bonus, but they always seem to end up clumped together anyway. Doesn't seem to change a great deal either way.

Things I like a lot about 3.5e is reducing cover and concealment to just "partial" and "full". No greater granularity needed. Similarly, having all creatures take up a square area is much more practical than monsters that are longer than they are wide.Funnily enough, I cannot remember exactly how cover worked in 3.0, but I have often thought recent editions could use a little bit more granularity in that area!

Then there's a bunch of much older mechanics from earlier days that should never have been forgotten, like reaction rolls and morale checks. I think a DC 15 Will save any time the first member of a group is out, when half the group is out, and when the leader is out should work just fine as morale. On a failure, the creatures becomes frightened.I think some kind of morale system is a good idea (and unlike RandomPeasant I do not think it adds any significant complexity in the aggregate, given that it should bring combats to a close which would otherwise drag on). That said, I do not think Will save is the way to go - when it comes to leading from the front and keeping morale up, I do not think of Wizards first....

I also really prefer an encumbrance system that only counts the number of items instead of adding up weights. Up to your Strength score as a light load, double Str as a medium load, and three times Str as a heavy load. (And dwarves are not slowed down by weight.)I am torn on this one myself: I am in favour of a more modern system (like PF2's bulk) in principle. But I also feel like there should be some accounting for weight, to stop characters carrying around giant osmium spheres like it was no big deal. Not sure myself how to square that particular circle, without making the whole thing even fiddlier.

* I am actually running the AP that began with The Sunless Citadel at the moment; we just started Heart of Nightfang Spire. We are using PF1. It is not strictly speaking compatible, because I do have to do a bit of converting but it is generally trivial enough to do on the fly.

** The ones I can remember now, at least. But see my notes above about too many small changes to keep track of, and cover.

paladinn

2023-10-08, 04:47 PM

"Bounded accuracy" in 5e has bounded a lot of things. The game is nearly impossible to hack.. er modify.. without breaking it. 3.x is very hackable, and that's a good thing.

Back to spell casting.. I love that in 5e, you don't need 5 renditions of Cure Wounds. Just prepare it once and cast with whatever level spell slot you want. Very flexible. At the same time, spell effects are limited in the same way, by spell level and not caster level. So you might be saving against a 9 HD fireball, but not a 20 HD fireball. This helps a little with the caster/martial gap.

Biggus

2023-10-08, 08:29 PM

Making Damage Reduction overcome by different specific enchantments and materials really made the magic weapon golf bag effect more pronounced. It also meant that going from +2 weapon to a plain +3 weapon is now really just a +1 to attack and damage and no longer gives you the ability to deal vastly more damage against the more powerful monsters.

I've often toyed with the idea of reintroducing 3.0 DR, or possibly trying to make some kind of hybrid of the two. I've recently introduced a feat to 3.5 which allows monsters to increase the enhancement bonus required to overcome their DR, instead of just requiring "magic" or "epic".

Incidentally, Greater weapon crystals require a weapon with a +3 bonus to function, including the very handy Greater Truedeath Crystal. Also, a +4 weapon plus a bane effect from a class feature or spell can allow you to overcome DR/epic.

From the monsters' side, especially egregious are those of CR10+ with just DR/magic: by that stage not only the PCs but even cohorts and animal companions almost certainly have at least a +1 enhancement bonus, so why bother giving them DR at all? Those monsters I've generally added an extra component needed to overcome it, or changed it to something else entirely.

Lowering the amount of damage that DR and energy resistances absorbs for many creatures means that attacking with under-enhanced weapons is now only less effective instead of the monsters being nearly invulnerable. Sounds good at first, but it makes it much simpler to just brute force monsters with DR by hitting it a few more times instead of having to retreat and come back with some clever ideas how to hurt them with the weapons and spells you do have access to.

Agreed with this. I think 3.0 DR was a bit OTT in some cases, but in at least as many cases 3.5 DR is so low it almost might as well not be there, especially at higher levels. I don't allow any of the really high-op stuff when I DM, and still DR quite often ends being nothing but a minor nuisance. I've been increasing it on a case-by-case basis.

And here I'm probably really in a far out minority position, but I think the many dead levels at which characters don't get any new abilities when they level up are actually a good thing. I think characters having gradual and barely perceptible improvements in power and endurance is preferable to always getting new toys every time you ding. I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization. Also, characters getting fewer new abilities when gaining new levels make the Fighter bonus feats more relevant.[/LIST]

Apart from the last line, I'm not really clear what you mean here. In particular, what do you mean by "I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization"?

Things I like a lot about 3.5e is reducing cover and concealment to just "partial" and "full". No greater granularity needed. Similarly, having all creatures take up a square area is much more practical than monsters that are longer than they are wide.

Ironically these are some of the changes I disliked the most about 3.5...

The bigger issue is damage getting very large at high optimization, which makes any amount of damage reduction that is not de facto immunity to lower-op characters meaningless. You have to tighten up the range of damage output before you can do anything with DR either way.

The game isn't designed to accommodate high optimization. At really high levels of optimization, pretty much everything becomes meaningless (CR, SR, AC, WBL, etc etc). It's called "breaking the game" for a reason.

Also, in my experience very few DMs allow high-op stuff in actual games, so this is mostly theoretical anyway.

Crake

2023-10-08, 09:13 PM

Also, a +4 weapon plus a bane effect from a class feature or spell can allow you to overcome DR/epic.

I weirdly had a DM insist this was not the case when i mentioned it for some arrows, despite us never coming across DR epic anyway. His insistence was that only epic items could overcome DR epic.

Might have something to do with the fact that the arrows in question were +1 chaotic, evil, magebane arrows, made specifically for taking out demons, and the idea of going from +1 to +7 for so cheap upset him. But imo, based on how insanely niche the targets are, i think its fine?

Biggus

2023-10-08, 09:39 PM

I weirdly had a DM insist this was not the case when i mentioned it for some arrows, despite us never coming across DR epic anyway. His insistence was that only epic items could overcome DR epic.

Might have something to do with the fact that the arrows in question were +1 chaotic, evil, magebane arrows, made specifically for taking out demons, and the idea of going from +1 to +7 for so cheap upset him. But imo, based on how insanely niche the targets are, i think its fine?

I agree it's not gamebreaking. Funnily enough, the rules-dubious part as far as I can see is not whether a +4 or +5 enhancement bonus plus bane overcomes DR/epic (bane says "its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus" with no qualifiers or exceptions) but whether multiple bane effects stack with each other (as well as the general principle that the same ability multiple times doesn't stack (there's a whole debate to be had about whether two bane types are the same ability or not) "+2 better than its normal enhancement bonus" read strictly means that even if the +2d6 damage stacks, the +2 enhancement bonus doesn't).

pabelfly

2023-10-08, 09:45 PM

Crake

2023-10-09, 12:09 AM

I agree it's not gamebreaking. Funnily enough, the rules-dubious part as far as I can see is not whether a +4 or +5 enhancement bonus plus bane overcomes DR/epic (bane says "its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus" with no qualifiers or exceptions) but whether multiple bane effects stack with each other (as well as the general principle that the same ability multiple times doesn't stack (there's a whole debate to be had about whether two bane types are the same ability or not) "+2 better than its normal enhancement bonus" read strictly means that even if the +2d6 damage stacks, the +2 enhancement bonus doesn't).

Yeah, i get that for sure. Personally I’m of the opinion that they do stack, because an evil bane arrow, against an evil outsider, NORMALLY has X+2, so add in chaos or mage bane, it should stack with that new “normal”. Also, lets be honest, if you’re making stuff that niche, why not.

Biggus

2023-10-09, 12:14 AM

Yeah, i get that for sure. Personally I’m of the opinion that they do stack, because an evil bane arrow, against an evil outsider, NORMALLY has X+2, so add in chaos or mage bane, it should stack with that new “normal”.

Yeah, I can see an argument either way. I just meant that if you're going to object to a +1 chaotic/evil/mage bane weapon, the bane stacking part is more questionable than the bane counting as epic part.

Crake

2023-10-09, 12:32 AM

Yeah, I can see an argument either way. I just meant that if you're going to object to a +1 chaotic/evil/mage bane weapon, the bane stacking part is more questionable than the bane counting as epic part.

Yeah for sure, though he did specifically have a kneejerk reaction to simply “you can use bane to overcome DR epic before epic levels”, which seems weird, since in core 3.5 thats the ONLY way to overcome DR epic, even artifacts are +5 weapons for the most part.

Prime32

2023-10-09, 05:12 AM

And here I'm probably really in a far out minority position, but I think the many dead levels at which characters don't get any new abilities when they level up are actually a good thing. I think characters having gradual and barely perceptible improvements in power and endurance is preferable to always getting new toys every time you ding. I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization. Also, characters getting fewer new abilities when gaining new levels make the Fighter bonus feats more relevant.

Distributing skill points is a chore.

A bunch of classes are front-loaded, which encourages dips. And skill points get awkward with multiclassing or increases to your Int score. One way of discouraging this is to break off some of these bonuses into "backgrounds", taking the place of the favored class system.

Let's say at 1st level you choose 2 backgrounds; one is determined by your class, and you also get a second one you pick freely. Some might have racial requirements, or extra-powerful races like aasimar might get only one background slot with the other subsumed by their race. Humans get to pick their backgrounds freely; possibly they have exclusive access to "enhanced backgrounds" where you select the same one twice for increased bonuses.

Something like the Occupation system in d20 Modern (https://spikefightwicky.tripod.com/occupations.html), but expanded a bit. E.g. the "Soldier (Fighter)" background gets +3 hit points, a few class skills, and increases your weapon/armor proficiencies by one step; Zealot (Bard, Barbarian or Cleric) gets +4 hit points and can increase a single morale bonus they're experiencing by +2, etc. Cantrips don't exist; instead there are Sorcerer backgrounds which give a specific cantrip or two as an SLA at-will (and read magic is either a wizard class feature or folded into skills).

And then add something like Level-Based Skills (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm) - no skill ranks, you just make skill checks at (1d20 + level + modifiers) for skills granted by your background, and (1d20 + half level + modifiers) for anything else. You could even unify this with BAB so that characters can have good/average/poor skill proficiency.

Simplify prestige classes to one-off abilities you add at certain milestones (lv6/11/16), since lv6 is around the point where characters start becoming superhuman. Not so much "paragon paths" as just stronger additional backgrounds, generally with increasing drawbacks/obligations attached to explain why high-level characters are less free to act.

Darg

2023-10-09, 10:29 AM

3E Haste is OP though, no argument there (although it might be fine if it always took a slot of the highest level you have and didn't apply the turn you cast it).

I would think a simple change would allow it to not be OP: if casting a spell as an additional partial action, it takes until the beginning of your next turn to come into effect like if you were to cast a full-round cast time spell. I guess it would require another rule that you can't cast a spell as a partial action while you still have a standard action available. This way it has vulnerabilities and doesn't immediately double the amount of spells thrown out. I actually like the partial action aspect of it. Then again I don't actually have experience with the 3.0 mechanic.

Biggus

2023-10-09, 11:28 AM

I would think a simple change would allow it to not be OP: if casting a spell as an additional partial action, it takes until the beginning of your next turn to come into effect like if you were to cast a full-round cast time spell. I guess it would require another rule that you can't cast a spell as a partial action while you still have a standard action available. This way it has vulnerabilities and doesn't immediately double the amount of spells thrown out. I actually like the partial action aspect of it. Then again I don't actually have experience with the 3.0 mechanic.

At the very least, it shouldn't give you an extra action in the same round you cast it (that's the way I'd always seen it played, I was quite surprised when people on here insisted that it did). In longer combats it would still be very powerful, but given that many are over within 3 rounds it's a significant limitation (also, combat tends to be over more quickly at higher levels, which is when you can more easily afford to cast several spells per round).

J-H

2023-10-09, 11:34 AM

Doctor Despair

2023-10-09, 11:45 AM

As a DM who has switched to 5e and will never come back (I saw this as a "last post" from the forum main page), one big thing is how long it takes to create monsters. Spending 30 minutes assigning every feat and skill point and HD and BAB for every single different monster is a huge timesink.

With 5e I can approximate HD, AC, add a short spell list, and be basically done with a mid-level NPC wizard in 5 minutes.

That's exactly what keeps me from switching to 5e. I like having the ability for characters to be customized, unique, and function completely differently from one another both mechanically and in terms of flavor. 3.5 feats, ACFs, and prcs offer that to a much greater extent than 5e's simplified system.

Yora

2023-10-09, 12:01 PM

Going from 2E to 4E, casting changes from "really potent, but also quite limited and sometimes difficult" to "easy and abundant, but no more impressive than any other type of power". As with the area of a rectangle, the mid point (3.5) is stronger than either of the extremes.

Convenience and reliability are the enemies of tension.

As might have come across in my opinions, I am personally aiming for something that is both more streamlined for ease of play, and revives some more oldschool elements that had become neglected throughout the 90s.

paladinn

2023-10-09, 12:17 PM

That's exactly what keeps me from switching to 5e. I like having the ability for characters to be customized, unique, and function completely differently from one another both mechanically and in terms of flavor. 3.5 feats, ACFs, and prcs offer that to a much greater extent than 5e's simplified system.

I'm kind of torn on this. Simplicity and streamlining are always a good thing. At the same time, there have been so many great possibilities for character specialization: subclasses, archetypes, kits, PrC's, Class+ (from C&C), replacement levels.

The question is, how do you allow variation without letting it become all crazy-pants?

Doctor Despair

2023-10-09, 12:36 PM

I'm kind of torn on this. Simplicity and streamlining are always a good thing. At the same time, there have been so many great possibilities for character specialization: subclasses, archetypes, kits, PrC's, Class+ (from C&C), replacement levels.

The question is, how do you allow variation without letting it become all crazy-pants?

Well, there will always be a trade-off between greater customization and greater simplicity. I personally think more options is always better long-term, and the "analysis paralysis" is easily avoided by a perspective shift that you don't need to know all the options to make a good choice. With that said, while I enjoy the character-building minigame, I think it really is just the emphasis on prerequisites that makes it a little stressful for players new to 3.5. That you need to plan your build 1-20 ahead of time to make sure you meet the prerequisites for the class ability or feats you really want punishes players with lower system mastery pretty severely. Simplifying prerequisites would help a lot with streamlining things without reducing variety of choices. I don't pretend to have the best answer for how to simplify everything, but some things clearly could be simpler. For example, sometimes a feat or prc has a prereq for 8 ranks in a skill. Why? Because they want you to get it at level 5 or 6 -- so why not just say that? There's certainly room for evaluate when a prereq just adds stress rather than value.

Darg

2023-10-09, 01:49 PM

At the very least, it shouldn't give you an extra action in the same round you cast it (that's the way I'd always seen it played, I was quite surprised when people on here insisted that it did). In longer combats it would still be very powerful, but given that many are over within 3 rounds it's a significant limitation (also, combat tends to be over more quickly at higher levels, which is when you can more easily afford to cast several spells per round).

I can see the RAW going both ways, but it still allows the spell to function like normal every other round. From what I can tell, the biggest power hike from the spell comes from the fact that it allows casting multiple spells in a round basically for free and no danger. Personally, casting two 1 action spells should be equivalent to casting 1 full round spell. Quicken spell exists if you need an extra spell out in the same round. Casting an extra spell with an extra partial would be like allowing a martial to full attack with a partial. Which they can't. They can only start a full attack action with it (actually a really nice thing that 3.5 got rid of). 3.0 just seems much more martial friendly to me, but that could just be my outside perspective..

J-H

2023-10-09, 01:53 PM

Doctor Despair

2023-10-09, 02:14 PM

Players build one character for the duration of the game...or maybe two or three if it's very high lethality.

It's not that easy for DMs.

Oh, absolutely. As a DM, I'm empathetic to that -- but that doesn't mean that overly streamlining it and losing that customization is the answer. Not every NPC needs to be hyper-specified. You can have a "elite array fighter" statblock that works for 10 different NPCs with only minor adjustments. 3.5 definitely entices DMs into over-customizing though, and I've been guilty of that before.

Biggus

2023-10-09, 04:18 PM

Players build one character for the duration of the game...or maybe two or three if it's very high lethality.

It's not that easy for DMs.

I guess it depends on your lifestyle. Personally I happily spend many hours making monsters and NPCs for 3.5, I get more enjoyment in total from the time I spend preparing than the relatively small amount of time I spend playing. But I get that for someone whose life is a lot busier than mine that's not going to be an option.

Crake

2023-10-09, 06:41 PM

And then add something like Level-Based Skills (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm) - no skill ranks, you just make skill checks at (1d20 + level + modifiers) for skills granted by your background, and (1d20 + half level + modifiers) for anything else. You could even unify this with BAB so that characters can have good/average/poor skill proficiency.

Iirc level based skills were basically functionally the same as “I max out x+int of my skills” instead of distributing the skill points around. It was a simplification of the skill system with no real gain on the player’s behalf, and was a step toward 4/5e skills.

Personally, I think being able to manage how much you invest into skills is one of the better things about 3e, though i think pathfinder solved a lot of the annoying bits about it, by making class skills a flat +3 bonus, all skills having 1:1 with skills to ranks, and int giving retroactive skill points when it goes up.

Darg

2023-10-09, 08:59 PM

Iirc level based skills were basically functionally the same as “I max out x+int of my skills” instead of distributing the skill points around. It was a simplification of the skill system with no real gain on the player’s behalf, and was a step toward 4/5e skills.

Personally, I think being able to manage how much you invest into skills is one of the better things about 3e, though i think pathfinder solved a lot of the annoying bits about it, by making class skills a flat +3 bonus, all skills having 1:1 with skills to ranks, and int giving retroactive skill points when it goes up.

I like the freedom 3.5 gives to distribute that +3 into other skills if I so choose. Some skills are valuable just being able to use them trained. Some have useful break points you can reach earlier by spreading around your early bonus. Don't get me wrong, I think 3.5 has problems in the skills department, but I think the +3 bonus and int bonus ranks were just simplification/QoL/appeasement changes. People feel pressured into maximizing skills even though the system doesn't actually require such a thing for skills to work reliably well. I don't feel that pressure, nor do I make my players feel that pressure, and we end up with not maxed out skills all the time because increasing skill variety is worth while. Removing cross-class skills on the other hand actually addresses some of the issues of the system in a way. I don't particularly prefer that direction, but it is my own opinion.

Crake

2023-10-09, 09:48 PM

I like the freedom 3.5 gives to distribute that +3 into other skills if I so choose. Some skills are valuable just being able to use them trained. Some have useful break points you can reach earlier by spreading around your early bonus. Don't get me wrong, I think 3.5 has problems in the skills department, but I think the +3 bonus and int bonus ranks were just simplification/QoL/appeasement changes. People feel pressured into maximizing skills even though the system doesn't actually require such a thing for skills to work reliably well. I don't feel that pressure, nor do I make my players feel that pressure, and we end up with not maxed out skills all the time because increasing skill variety is worth while. Removing cross-class skills on the other hand actually addresses some of the issues of the system in a way. I don't particularly prefer that direction, but it is my own opinion.

I think its a mixed bag. If you’re spreading skill points out, you can get much more value out of the +3 from class skills, because it essentially makes every level first level whenever you invest into new skills. Beyond first level though, its all bonuses, because you never have a cross class ranks issue, and you get free +3 to any new class skill you invest into, not to mention class skill gains are retroactive, so if you had a point in a skill, then later multiclass, it gets the +3. Net gain imo. Definitely get more benefit out of spreading points out in pathfinder because of it.

Rokugani_Minion

2023-10-09, 11:09 PM

G'day Gamers,

I have just joined the forum.

I'm also revising D&D 3.0. Specifically Oriental Adventures by James Wyatt and Rokugan - Oriental Adventures Legend of the Five Rings by Wulf, Carman and Mason.

Upgrading these to 3.5 Edition and using the Class Construction Engine by Khepri of Shadowcraft Studios.

Just in case anyone is interested, I can post the upgraded PC classes somewhere up here for posterity. Where would I put these?

Incidentally, I found an old copy of DM Genie that I had on file. That was a great resource for GMs, particularly for building PCs/NPCs quickly

The reason, I'm doing this is that I recently started a game of Oriental Adventures D&D 3.5 with my kids and their friends. Having a look at the Creatures of Rokugan by AEG, they do seem a little overpowered compared with the OA and Rok PC classes.

Cheers,

Craige

pabelfly

2023-10-09, 11:55 PM

I think any rework of 3e should rework skills.
- Half-ranks for cross-class skills is easy to mess up
- Skills become cross-class skills when multiclassing/prestige classing makes no sense
- Getting some skills as class skills for a character is comparatively difficult.

I would make Skill Focus automatically turn a skill into a class skill if it is not already a class skill.

Pathfinder did a good job of skills, as explained before. It kept the granularity of skill points, but made it a lot easier to do on level-up.

Lastly, there are also not enough skill points - there should be a minimum of 4 + INT skill points for a class.

Raunchel

2023-10-10, 02:10 AM

Personally, I never really struggled with making monsters and opponents. Many things just aren't necessary to do. Like the monster's skills. Only a few skills actually are relevent. No one cares how good of a swimmer a monster down in a dungeon is for instance. Spellcasters are more of a hassle but even then, you can often get away with standard spell lists that you have around somewhere and then just add some thematic spells. Most enemies, in a fight, will last only a couple of rounds so which cantrips a wizard has prepared is something pretty irrelevant really and they can always be added in when the need comes.

Generally, you don't need a full profile for an enemy or NPC. Only the bits that you expect to be relevant. The issue is that many DMs see the rules for the creation of enemies and think that they have to do everything.

When it comes to skills, I think that some consolidation is in order. Especially because some skills are far more valuable than others. Additionally, I agree that it's good to give everyone some more skill points. That way, martials and the like can also have a few more tricks up their sleeves.

liquidformat

2023-10-10, 09:31 AM

There are some things I really like about 3.0 and others I think were good fixes.
To start off lets jump into things that I don't like:

Skills were not handled well, you have too many and too few skill points. 3.5 was helpful in reducing and refining the skill list and PF even better.

The druid specifically I believe wild shape is more streamlined in 3.5; and I rather like both the 3.0 and 3.5 animal companions for different reasons. Honestly, I think maybe keep both and give 3.0 version to druids and 3.5 to rangers (but boost them up to only being effective druid level -3 instead of 1/2 ranger level).

I believe 3.5 did a better jump with refining creature types between animal and magical beast than 3.0 with animal, beast, and magical beast.

Things I did like:
Crit fishers, and the monkey grip oversized two weapon fighting were a lot of fun.

I liked the idea that different school specializations had varying cost, however, it wasn't implemented well since I don't believe the developers had a clear understanding of the strength of each school.

DR in 3.0 was just better and more important like has been said be quite a few people on this thread.

And here I'm probably really in a far out minority position, but I think the many dead levels at which characters don't get any new abilities when they level up are actually a good thing. I think characters having gradual and barely perceptible improvements in power and endurance is preferable to always getting new toys every time you ding. I feel the 3.5e way (and even more so 5th ed.) creates a stronger incentive to think about character builds and optimization. Also, characters getting fewer new abilities when gaining new levels make the Fighter bonus feats more relevant.

I might agree with you if every class had dead levels but that isn't the case. Every class that can get 9th level spells which also happen to be the most powerful classes have no dead levels. They get new spells and spell slots every single level which dramatically improves and empowers those classes. On the other hand, the mundane classes have to be happy with a couple skill points, some HP, and maybe an added bab or save bonus most levels. That is partly why mundanes scale linearly and casters scale quadratically.

paladinn

2023-10-10, 09:50 AM

I might agree with you if every class had dead levels but that isn't the case. Every class that can get 9th level spells which also happen to be the most powerful classes have no dead levels. They get new spells and spell slots every single level which dramatically improves and empowers those classes. On the other hand, the mundane classes have to be happy with a couple skill points, some HP, and maybe an added bab or save bonus most levels. That is partly why mundanes scale linearly and casters scale quadratically.

Which is one reason to adopt the 5e spellcasting model. Full casters still get spells/slots every level; but the effects are nerfed.

It's not the ultimate solution, but it does help.

liquidformat

2023-10-10, 12:47 PM

Which is one reason to adopt the 5e spellcasting model. Full casters still get spells/slots every level; but the effects are nerfed.

It's not the ultimate solution, but it does help.

I have actually had great luck with not allowing spells over 6th level pre epic. The way it works is you still get the slots for 7th + that can be used for metamagic but 7th+ level spells require the epic spellcasting feat. I have found players have been more open to PRCs that aren't full or 8/10 casting in that case since you aren't loosing as much. In situations where a 7th+ level spell is needed I have used Incantations/Rituals.

However, OP said they aren't planning on going past level 11 so that does somewhat blunt the power of casters.

paladinn

2023-10-10, 01:04 PM

I have actually had great luck with not allowing spells over 6th level pre epic. The way it works is you still get the slots for 7th + that can be used for metamagic but 7th+ level spells require the epic spellcasting feat. I have found players have been more open to PRCs that aren't full or 8/10 casting in that case since you aren't loosing as much. In situations where a 7th+ level spell is needed I have used Incantations/Rituals.

However, OP said they aren't planning on going past level 11 so that does somewhat blunt the power of casters.

I don't have a problem with higher-level spells, as long as the effects are spell-level-based, not caster based.

In 3e, an 11th level caster casts spells that have an 11th level effect.

In 5e, an 11th level wizard can cast one 6th level spell, which has a 6th level effect. A 20th level wizard can cast one 9th level spell. It has a 9th level effect.

It's a big difference.

Darg

2023-10-10, 01:42 PM

I don't have a problem with higher-level spells, as long as the effects are spell-level-based, not caster based.

In 3e, an 11th level caster casts spells that have an 11th level effect.

In 5e, an 11th level wizard can cast one 6th level spell, which has a 6th level effect. A 20th level wizard can cast one 9th level spell. It has a 9th level effect.

It's a big difference.

No, an 11th level caster can cast a 6th level effect at the power of an 11th level caster. There are many effects that aren't modified by the caster's caster level and many others that only increase in duration.

I haven't touched 5e beyond the BG3 game so I might not know what I'm talking about, but it appears to me that 5e simply got rid of long term buffs by turning them all into concentration spells and got rid of the need to scale spells by character level by limiting character numerical growth.

Tzardok

2023-10-10, 03:22 PM

In 5e, many spells don't scale with caster level anymore. Instead, if you want a stronger effect, you need to cast them from a higher level spell slot. Similiar in some ways to how psionic powers often don't scale with manifester level, instead needing to be augmented for stronger effect by spending more power points.

paladinn

2023-10-10, 03:37 PM

No, an 11th level caster can cast a 6th level effect at the power of an 11th level caster. There are many effects that aren't modified by the caster's caster level and many others that only increase in duration.

I haven't touched 5e beyond the BG3 game so I might not know what I'm talking about.

You're right; you don't.

Crake

2023-10-11, 02:14 AM

You're right; you don't.

His point still stands though. A magic missile cast at level 9 in 3.5 is not comparable to a fireball cast at level 9. They both have the same caster level, but they have different spell levels which put an effective cap on the scope of their capabilities. In 5e however, the only variable is spell level, cantrips aside

The way you framed it, it seemed almost like you were trying to compare a cantrip cast at CL11 to a 5e spell being cast at 6th level, as if the 6th level effect was somehow weaker. Remember that a lot of 5e spell effects start off STRONGER than their 3.5e counterparts. Fireball for example does 8d6 right off the bat, wheras it does 5d6 in 3.5 at the same level, so trying to call a CL5 fireball a 5th level effect vs a spell level 3 fireball in 5e a 3rd level effect is a completely disingenuous display of their power levels.

paladinn

2023-10-11, 09:29 AM

His point still stands though. A magic missile cast at level 9 in 3.5 is not comparable to a fireball cast at level 9. They both have the same caster level, but they have different spell levels which put an effective cap on the scope of their capabilities. In 5e however, the only variable is spell level, cantrips aside

The way you framed it, it seemed almost like you were trying to compare a cantrip cast at CL11 to a 5e spell being cast at 6th level, as if the 6th level effect was somehow weaker. Remember that a lot of 5e spell effects start off STRONGER than their 3.5e counterparts. Fireball for example does 8d6 right off the bat, wheras it does 5d6 in 3.5 at the same level, so trying to call a CL5 fireball a 5th level effect vs a spell level 3 fireball in 5e a 3rd level effect is a completely disingenuous display of their power levels.

But the limiting factor on a spell's power is no longer the caster's level; it's the spell/slot level. Yes you can upcast a spell and use a higher level slot, but it will not equal the power of a spell cast at your caster level. Thus an effective nerf.

Personally I prefer it. It doesn't completely close the caster/martial gap, but it helps.

Another thing, for fighters anyway: they get 2 extra ASI's in 5e. Not earth-shaking, but something easily ported.

Oh, one more.. From Chainmail to 1e, fighters facing foes of 1HD or less could have one attack for each level. It's the early "mook rule." I'd like to see that adapted as well. Maybe limit to 1/2 the fighter's level?

Darg

2023-10-11, 10:59 AM

But the limiting factor on a spell's power is no longer the caster's level; it's the spell/slot level. Yes you can upcast a spell and use a higher level slot, but it will not equal the power of a spell cast at your caster level. Thus an effective nerf.

Personally I prefer it. It doesn't completely close the caster/martial gap, but it helps.

Another thing, for fighters anyway: they get 2 extra ASI's in 5e. Not earth-shaking, but something easily ported.

Oh, one more.. From Chainmail to 1e, fighters facing foes of 1HD or less could have one attack for each level. It's the early "mook rule." I'd like to see that adapted as well. Maybe limit to 1/2 the fighter's level?

Except caster level isn't that much of a limiting factor on the power of a spell for a majority of them. Most of the power comes from spell level. Caster level just provides an extra lever of RPG mechanics. As far as I can tell, 5e has much less spell slots than available in 3e. It appears to me that the ability to upcast is to make up for the loss in spell slots and remove spell versions. Even in 5e you aren't getting those higher level spell slots without investing levels in your class, which is exactly like getting caster levels from your class levels in 3e. It's only a simplification of the caster/level progression system.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-11, 01:27 PM

Except caster level isn't that much of a limiting factor on the power of a spell for a majority of them. Most of the power comes from spell level. Caster level just provides an extra lever of RPG mechanics. As far as I can tell, 5e has much less spell slots than available in 3e. It appears to me that the ability to upcast is to make up for the loss in spell slots and remove spell versions. Even in 5e you aren't getting those higher level spell slots without investing levels in your class, which is exactly like getting caster levels from your class levels in 3e. It's only a simplification of the caster/level progression system.

One factor you might not be considering is that in 3e, spell save DCs depend on slot level, while 5e DCs are fixed per caster (8 + MOD + proficiency). The only things in 5e that care about your "class level" in spellcasting classes specifically are:

* number of spell slots, which depends on the aggregate of your levels, calculated as sum(full caster levels) + sum(half-caster levels/2)[1] + sum(third-caster levels/3)[1]. Full casters do not include warlocks, those are tracked separately and are the only set of slots tracked separately.
* what levels of spells you can prepare (and how many) from a given list (tracked by class, ignoring any other classes). So a wizard 1/cleric 19 can prepare 1 + INT 1st level wizard spells but 19 + WIS 1st-9th level cleric spells. He can absolutely upcast those 1st level wizard spells to 9th level, should he so choose.

Your DC does not depend on your spell-casting level aggregate. The effect of each spell only cares about the level of the slot, not where the slot came from. Your highest level spell slot is divorced almost entirely from the class level of any individual class--it only depends on the aggregate casting level.

The aforementioned wizard 1/cleric 19 has exactly the same slots as a wizard 20 or cleric 20, and can cast any spell he knows out of any slot that is >= the base level of the spell.

Is it 100% different than 3e? No. But there are a lot of subtle differences that are hidden by the re-use of similar names and structures that matter in actual play.

[1] there is some uncertainty and debate as to whether you round before summing or round after summing, but the clearest RAW is that you round before summing, meaning a ranger 1/cleric 1 has the spell slots of a cleric 1 (1 + floor(1/2) == 1). And a ranger 2/paladin 2 has the spell slots of a cleric 2. This can lead to some odd results for particular combinations. On the other hand, artificers explicitly round up in that calculation because they get spells at 1st level. Why? Blame Wotc :smallsmile:

paladinn

2023-10-11, 01:28 PM

5e has much less spell slots than available in 3e. It appears to me that the ability to upcast is to make up for the loss in spell slots and remove spell versions.

Exactly. Fewer spell slots = less spells = better balance. IMO.

Darg

2023-10-11, 03:51 PM

One factor you might not be considering is that in 3e, spell save DCs depend on slot level, while 5e DCs are fixed per caster (8 + MOD + proficiency).

We were talking about caster level. Bounded accuracy is definitely a different system tool that I don't particularly care for myself.

Exactly. Fewer spell slots = less spells = better balance. IMO.

I disagree. We use this term "balance" but it's not as if it's this single meaning word. We all have different understanding of what balance means. Any one claiming that some one else's version of balance isn't balanced is a hypocrit. I think 3e is balanced according to what it was trying to achieve and I think it hits that mark well enough. Is it what some people prefer? You can't satisfy everyone, but I like how 3e is set up.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-11, 05:13 PM

We were talking about caster level. Bounded accuracy is definitely a different system tool that I don't particularly care for myself.

That's not the point. The point is that caster level, such as it is, matters differently in 3e than in 5e. And means something entirely different. Thus, you can't simply say "well, in 3e caster level matters for XYZ, so 5e's is just a simplification". It's fundamentally different. That's one of the traps I commonly see with experienced 3e players when talking/playing 5e--assuming that because some of the names are similar, the underlying fundamentals are the same. They're not. And you conflate them at your peril.

spectralphoenix

2023-10-11, 06:38 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-11, 07:46 PM

Oddly enough, I feel that DR actually matters more in 3.5 because you have to actually care about what beats it. In 3.0 it was basically "you must be this tall to fight the monster." Either you have enough pluses to ignore it or you sit in the corner while the casters handle things.

In 3.5, the different kinds of DR mean you actually need the right tool for the job. Silver for shapeshifters, Cold Iron for fey, holy for demons, and so forth. Now admittedly some of the realities of gearing hurt that - non-archers were arguably better off taking their best weapon and power attacking through it instead of dividing resources among various different materials. But I liked the idea of monsters having particular weaknesses instead of just needing an uber enough sword. And the smaller values meant that fighting it wasn't completely useless if you couldn't beat it.

PF, incidentally, does meld those approaches though it's a bit buried in the rules and I'm not sure everyone knows it. Weapons with high enhancement bonuses can ignore material or alignment DR.

I like the concept of monsters having particular weaknesses. My problem is with doing it via damage resistance (either of the "can't hurt unless X" type or the "takes less damage except from X" type). Because that's boring and binary. And hurts weapon-users more than anyone else. Casters just aren't affected by it nearly as much--they almost always have a different type they can switch to without issue.

Instead, I prefer a model where particular types of creatures (not creature types, necessarily, but more specific than that) have thematic features that are both strengths and weaknesses. Such as something like

Theranthropes (were creatures) have stupid-high regeneration that ignores non-lethal damage. As long as their maximum HP is greater than zero, they're going to get up again. The only things that can take them down are:

1. An honest to goodness "you just die" effect. 5e's power word: kill (if less than 100 HP, you die outright, no save) as an example. 5e's disintegrate (turns you to dust if it reduces you to 0 HP) as a different example.
2. A full round action to chop off its head with a slashing weapon, only usable at 0 HP.
3. Reducing their maximum hit points to zero in some fashion.

#3 is where silver comes in--their regeneration has a flaw. Hits from silvered weapons (and only silvered weapons, no amount of +X matters) deal damage to both current and maximum HP. So you get two effects--both the possibility of taking them down entirely and making their rebirths less and less effective.

For a fey or something, cold iron might give them a penalty to all of their checks for a time. Or might make them unable to use their SLAs. Etc. Might even dispel any spells they have active on themselves. Using the old "cold iron banishes fey magic" thematics.

I haven't worked out all the kinks and details yet, but I like that model way more than "you hit and do X less damage. Yay. So fun. So interactive." or especially "sorry, you can't do anything because you didn't read the monster manual and didn't bring the right weapon for this fight. Have fun sitting there doing nothing."

Darg

2023-10-11, 08:45 PM

That's not the point. The point is that caster level, such as it is, matters differently in 3e than in 5e. And means something entirely different. Thus, you can't simply say "well, in 3e caster level matters for XYZ, so 5e's is just a simplification". It's fundamentally different. That's one of the traps I commonly see with experienced 3e players when talking/playing 5e--assuming that because some of the names are similar, the underlying fundamentals are the same. They're not. And you conflate them at your peril.

How is it fundamentally different? You gain levels in x spellcasting class -> You become a more powerful x caster. 5e doesn't change that paradigm. What it does do is change how it accomplishes that. 5e removes caster level. Simplification isn't of itself a bad thing and in 5e works really well. However, that doesn't mean the system wasn't simplified to streamline gameplay more.

I like the concept of monsters having particular weaknesses. My problem is with doing it via damage resistance (either of the "can't hurt unless X" type or the "takes less damage except from X" type). Because that's boring and binary. And hurts weapon-users more than anyone else. Casters just aren't affected by it nearly as much--they almost always have a different type they can switch to without issue.

Instead, I prefer a model where particular types of creatures (not creature types, necessarily, but more specific than that) have thematic features that are both strengths and weaknesses. Such as something like

Theranthropes (were creatures) have stupid-high regeneration that ignores non-lethal damage. As long as their maximum HP is greater than zero, they're going to get up again. The only things that can take them down are:

1. An honest to goodness "you just die" effect. 5e's power word: kill (if less than 100 HP, you die outright, no save) as an example. 5e's disintegrate (turns you to dust if it reduces you to 0 HP) as a different example.
2. A full round action to chop off its head with a slashing weapon, only usable at 0 HP.
3. Reducing their maximum hit points to zero in some fashion.

#3 is where silver comes in--their regeneration has a flaw. Hits from silvered weapons (and only silvered weapons, no amount of +X matters) deal damage to both current and maximum HP. So you get two effects--both the possibility of taking them down entirely and making their rebirths less and less effective.

For a fey or something, cold iron might give them a penalty to all of their checks for a time. Or might make them unable to use their SLAs. Etc. Might even dispel any spells they have active on themselves. Using the old "cold iron banishes fey magic" thematics.

I haven't worked out all the kinks and details yet, but I like that model way more than "you hit and do X less damage. Yay. So fun. So interactive." or especially "sorry, you can't do anything because you didn't read the monster manual and didn't bring the right weapon for this fight. Have fun sitting there doing nothing."

The point of enemies having resistances is that they are allowed to have strengths just like the players. Players can adapt and provide themselves with similar or better defenses while monsters tend to be stuck with simple options. It's a type of play variety. Some creatures are strong, some are weak, some are strong with weaknesses, or some are weak with niche strengths.

That said, how is regeneration with a weakness to silver any different than DR/silver? Both fundamentally perform the same function: reduce the likelihood of death from a particular source. One just makes fights impossible in that particular direction, while the other allows you to muddle through if you do enough damage. I think they both have their place. Then again, I don't find being at a disadvantage not fun. I like the story elements it can add to the game. Say I did run into a creature I couldn't harm. What should I do? Try to find something for me to overcome the challenge? Run? Turtle up and hope help comes soon? All of these aspects can provide a fun experience as you problem solve something instead of just beating on it until a solution presents itself.

pabelfly

2023-10-11, 09:31 PM

DR works well to model how some enemies are strong against certain attack types and weak to others. That's good mechanical design to me.

However, most martials aren't really able to switch their weapon to something more suitable for a particular enemy. Builds choices are are geared towards one weapon type. At best, initiators get a small selection of weapons they can use. Carrying two weapons just for different damage reduction types is also impractical due to how much each weapon costs when you start factoring in weapon enchantments, and a martial is never short on things they want to spend money on.

Normally, I'd just put up with damage reduction if I'm ever playing a martial.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-11, 09:40 PM

How is it fundamentally different? You gain levels in x spellcasting class -> You become a more powerful x caster. 5e doesn't change that paradigm. What it does do is change how it accomplishes that. 5e removes caster level. Simplification isn't of itself a bad thing and in 5e works really well. However, that doesn't mean the system wasn't simplified to streamline gameplay more.

Everything is identical when you strip out all the ways it differs. And as someone with extensive experience with both systems, believe me. There is a palpable difference in how they play. For one thing, in 5e you can become a more powerful wizard by taking cleric levels! At least in some ways/cases (very frequently useful ones). Whereas in 3e, "don't lose caster levels" is the first commandment of caster optimization.

The point of enemies having resistances is that they are allowed to have strengths just like the players. Players can adapt and provide themselves with similar or better defenses while monsters tend to be stuck with simple options. It's a type of play variety. Some creatures are strong, some are weak, some are strong with weaknesses, or some are weak with niche strengths.

That said, how is regeneration with a weakness to silver any different than DR/silver? Both fundamentally perform the same function: reduce the likelihood of death from a particular source. One just makes fights impossible in that particular direction, while the other allows you to muddle through if you do enough damage. I think they both have their place. Then again, I don't find being at a disadvantage not fun. I like the story elements it can add to the game. Say I did run into a creature I couldn't harm. What should I do? Try to find something for me to overcome the challenge? Run? Turtle up and hope help comes soon? All of these aspects can provide a fun experience as you problem solve something instead of just beating on it until a solution presents itself.

There's a difference, to me, at least, between things that are interactive and things that are binary "find the right answer, then do that." Especially when the binary ones punish the people who are already struggling. That's what straight up DR/silver does. Didn't bring a silver weapon? Sorry, you're screwed. You can't contribute meaningfully at the one thing you're capable of doing! Know your place silly muggle, sit back and let the casters show you why you're worthless. maybe if it went both ways a lot, I'd feel differently. But it's always the same direction. Martials get screwed by "complex mechanics" while casters just press win button 43 instead of 42. And it's not like you can really go back in time and find a silver weapon, and with the crippling overspecialization required to even contribute at all for a 3e martial (the only people who are affected by these kinds of mechanics), it's not like you have any other tactics you can try. Grappling? Good luck without all the feats. Tripping? Lol no. Etc. So it really is just "you don't get to play this fight."

As a matter of personal taste, I find "gatekeeping" mechanics to be a design smell. Things where if you don't have the required "key", you're out of luck, but if you do, you can just ignore the mechanic entirely. They're a sign of pure laziness on the developers part and mostly a form of wasted effort at that (a double whammy!). And a form of system-enforced railroading. Same goes for puzzle bosses. That troll? Works once in an entire gaming career. After that, it's a joke. Same goes for "no immunity to X? Sorry, you're screwed." Which is most of high level 3e. Aren't wearing your ring of death ward (or whatever)? Sorry, you just die. But if you are, you just ignore huge swaths of the mechanics. That's horrible binary design. You either lose entirely or you win entirely, entirely based on what you were wearing going into the fight.

The good "complex" mechanics (which not every fight needs, IMO) are ones that can be approached in multiple ways, each with tradeoffs. Do you whittle them down and then go for the beheading? Do you just trust the guy with the silver sword to chop them down to size (dealing with the fact that you're going to get battered)? Etc. All the ways work, some just work faster and cleaner than others, at an alternate cost. Tactical choices, not "did you read ahead in the module and buy that silver sword" meta-gaming choices. I dislike hard counters for anything, on either side, preferring soft counters. X is more effective against Y, not X turns the fight into a joke OR X is absolutely necessary for Y. Or maybe the reverse.

Now maybe the regeneration model isn't the best one. As I said, I haven't worked out all the kinks. But I think something along those lines works way better, at the cost of a bit more work to set up, than just straight up DR/X. But as a side note, regeneration + max HP reduction from silver is a way better model for the thematics of the werewolf, in particular. Bullets do pierce a werewolf, but the wound just closes up. A big enough hit can knock it flat on its butt, but it's gonna get back up. It's relentless, not invulnerable. And the whole thing about wounds is that they don't regenerate, the werewolf can't heal from it. And way better than 3.5e's DR, where it just means you have to hit a bit harder.

Crake

2023-10-12, 04:48 AM

Exactly. Fewer spell slots = less spells = better balance. IMO.

I dunno, I kinda disagree with this statement. Fewer spell slots just means that the party has to rest more often. A spellcaster can nova their spells in one combat if they decided to.

There's only 2 ways to PROPERLY nerf spells, and that's to a) neuter their effects to the point where they are on par with martials, but as a result cease to feel like magic, and just fluff, like was the case in 4e or b) buff martials to the point where they're on par with casters, at which point the martials just feel like refluffed spellcasters, and everything breaks because highlevel spellcasting is just kinda insane anyway.

Of course, there's the middle ground, where you kinda do both, and reserve the super high level effects for rituals/incantations/macguffins/story

Darg

2023-10-12, 10:18 AM

I dunno, I kinda disagree with this statement. Fewer spell slots just means that the party has to rest more often. A spellcaster can nova their spells in one combat if they decided to.

There's only 2 ways to PROPERLY nerf spells, and that's to a) neuter their effects to the point where they are on par with martials, but as a result cease to feel like magic, and just fluff, like was the case in 4e or b) buff martials to the point where they're on par with casters, at which point the martials just feel like refluffed spellcasters, and everything breaks because highlevel spellcasting is just kinda insane anyway.

Of course, there's the middle ground, where you kinda do both, and reserve the super high level effects for rituals/incantations/macguffins/story

Or do what I try to do and make spell selection not predictable by providing varied encounters and increase attrition. On average I would say that a caster should find that they don't use around 40-50% of their slots based on what they picked at the beginning of the day. Fear of needing spells in the future so that casters hold back some ammunition is a powerful balancing factor in 3e. Going nova is powerful, but not as much if it leaves you vulnerable in the next few encounters.

Crake

2023-10-12, 10:47 AM

Darg

2023-10-12, 12:23 PM

Eh, I'll be honest, as a DM, I much prefer magic to being more of an out of combat plot driving mechanic, rather than in combat, because I just think the whole notion of "attrition" for casters is bs. Fact is, once the caster is out of spells, unless there's REALLY some sort of crunch time drive, the party's just gonna stop and rest, so attrition as a balance mechanic is honestly just an example of grod's law, though I think that applies to all per-day abilities, martials included.

Imo, allow 5e style cantrips in combat that are on par with the sorts of things martials can do, and then make plot-based spellcasting something that involves the whole party, for example, a clear-minded cleric to lead the ritual, a fighter with high constitution to channel the magic, a rogue with steady hands to precisely draw the sigils and runes, and a cunning wizard who pieced the whole thing together through combing the ancient kingdom's archives.

Attrition isn't some anti-player mechanic. And it's rare that I actually have to use attrition. The threat of it tempers players well enough. As for crunch time drive, there should always be some sort of that. A dragon rampaging the country side isn't going to sit and wait for the group to craft weeks worth of goods and then when they are ready resume the devastation. It's going to do weeks worth of damage and possibly affect the groups reputation based on when they bragged they were going after the dragon. It's the same concept of invading a stronghold causing damage to just teleport out to rest and recoup. The inhabitants aren't going to just sit around knowing you could just teleport back in to whittle them down. They might end up abandoning the stronghold and setting up elsewhere causing mayhem and destruction that could have been stopped by judicial use of resources. Part of the story surrounding wizards and other spellcasters is that they are judicial in its use because it is a limited resource. Warlock/DFA classes exist for players who want an infinite magic loop. So supporting limited resources as a player limitation is something I do because I know I'm not the only player that enjoys the mental gymnastics of logistics and it's a fundamental assumption of the game.

As for out of combat uses of magic, that is also a fundamental part of the attrition. A cleric could use the find traps spell to speed up the discovery of traps for example. Have the casters expend spell slots to fuel the ritual, the rogue sets up traps and scouts. The fighter with higher strength moves the room furniture into defensive positions. Let classes play as their roles instead of making everyone a spellcasting expert.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-12, 12:39 PM

Or do what I try to do and make spell selection not predictable by providing varied encounters and increase attrition. On average I would say that a caster should find that they don't use around 40-50% of their slots based on what they picked at the beginning of the day. Fear of needing spells in the future so that casters hold back some ammunition is a powerful balancing factor in 3e. Going nova is powerful, but not as much if it leaves you vulnerable in the next few encounters.

The problem with this as a system-level balance factor is that it is exquisitely fragile. Even small changes in consumption rates or encounter rates mean wild swings in power in both directions. I don't disagree that some amount of "you have to watch your resources" is necessary, but it's very vulnerable to any of

1) DMs deciding your perfect attrition rate isn't applicable to their campaign
2) players getting annoyed by never getting to use their big guns because they were saving it for a big fight...that never came
3) players mistaking this as a big fight and blowing their big guns...and then TPK because the next fight was balanced around having their big guns
4) etc.

In general, to have proper (loose) balance IMO[1], you most crucially need to decide what power level (and what deviation from that level) is acceptable in your system. No system handles wide disparities in power well. GURPS (et al) handle it somewhat by relying on the DM to carve down all the options into that power band for that game...and then still doesn't work well in many cases.

Options (or combinations of options) outside of those acceptable limits need to get pruned or adjusted back into band. No more "I can be a god...once per day" options (unless that's in your normal power band). It's fine to have bursty abilities, where the steady-state is down at the bottom of the acceptable band (but not below it!) and the peaks are near the top. In that case, however, you probably shouldn't have ability-groups who are more constant and are at either the top or the bottom of the band--non-bursty ability-groups should be somewhere midline.

The placement of the centroid and the width of the band are fairly open. IMX, 3e D&D particularly does best where the centroid is somewhere around the fixed-list casters (low-mid T3/high T4) and the band goes from the top of T3 (but not T2) down into mid T4. You can make games where everyone is T1. Sure. But the system itself basically gives up at that point and you're rebuilding things out of the shattered mess left behind, making your own monsters entirely, basically not using any of the rules as presented.

[1] I emphasize loose balance. IMO, 4e and PF2e thought they could do tight balance, where the acceptable range is more point-like. And that has its own consequences that I, personally, dislike. But that's a separate topic.

Darg

2023-10-12, 12:40 PM

Everything is identical when you strip out all the ways it differs. And as someone with extensive experience with both systems, believe me. There is a palpable difference in how they play. For one thing, in 5e you can become a more powerful wizard by taking cleric levels! At least in some ways/cases (very frequently useful ones). Whereas in 3e, "don't lose caster levels" is the first commandment of caster optimization.

And becoming a more powerful wizard by being a cleric doesn't make logical sense. I'm not arguing that 5e or 3e is doing something better, just that they aren't so dissimilar. As for optimization in 3e, if that is something you want to do then yes, caster levels are mandatory. That doesn't mean you can't optimize a suboptimal playstyle and have fun that way. Not everyone is going to play the 8d chess wizard from level 1 to 20. Many people like playing as a character with human flaws without the knowledge of what the future will bring.

Martials get screwed by "complex mechanics" while casters just press win button 43 instead of 42. And it's not like you can really go back in time and find a silver weapon, and with the crippling overspecialization required to even contribute at all for a 3e martial (the only people who are affected by these kinds of mechanics), it's not like you have any other tactics you can try. Grappling? Good luck without all the feats. Tripping? Lol no. Etc. So it really is just "you don't get to play this fight."

You're arguing the execution of the mechanics while condemning it on the whole. You appear to not like how people do it to 5e but are falling into it here. I think everyone here can agree that the WBL system is full of holes and flaws that doesn't account for the DR shift from 3.0 where you didn't really need different material weapons to 3.5 where it became the norm.

Psyren

2023-10-12, 12:41 PM

There have been multiple attempts to rewrite the 3e rules and improve upon 3e. The obvious and most successful attempt at this is Pathfinder, but there's also d20, Savage Worlds, Legend, and a whole bunch of other attempts which I only vaguely recall.

If this is a thread to discuss what's good or bad about the system, I'm happy to join in - I've been playing long enough to have opinions. If this is to get feedback before starting your own system rewrite, I'd suggest looking at other rewrites and finding something that's close to fixing what you see as issues and save yourself a lot of work in doing so.

+100. Starting from naked 3.5, or worse, 3.0, strikes me as throwing out literal decades of lessons learned and progress.

If I were to redo 3.x, I would start from some basic design goals. Things like "class progression including multiclassing should be level-by-level," and "players should have granular control over their skill progression" and "spells should generally scale passively with caster level" and "characters' mathematical progression should be unbound, resulting in large differences between characters that train to do a thing and those that don't." Things that are core to 3.x relative to other editions that do things differently.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-12, 12:58 PM

And becoming a more powerful wizard by being a cleric doesn't make logical sense. I'm not arguing that 5e or 3e is doing something better, just that they aren't so dissimilar. As for optimization in 3e, if that is something you want to do then yes, caster levels are mandatory. That doesn't mean you can't optimize a suboptimal playstyle and have fun that way. Not everyone is going to play the 8d chess wizard from level 1 to 20. Many people like playing as a character with human flaws without the knowledge of what the future will bring.

I'm not arguing 5e is better. Just different.

You're arguing the execution of the mechanics while condemning it on the whole. You appear to not like how people do it to 5e but are falling into it here. I think everyone here can agree that the WBL system is full of holes and flaws that doesn't account for the DR shift from 3.0 where you didn't really need different material weapons to 3.5 where it became the norm.

I don't like how any of 3e, 3.5e, or 5e do it. That's the point. None of them provide what I want!

And WBL is broken in so many ways that this isn't even the beginning of them. And nothing I said is about WBL, particularly--it's about interactivity in the moment. Even if you have infinite wealth, you can't go back in time and retroactively have purchased a silver sword. And if you need one and don't have one, you're screwed. Unless you're a caster, because they just switch from one win button to the next. Yawn. There's no interactivity with any of the DR systems--it's one of the following

1) a complete non-issue, not even relevant (if you have the required key item)
2) a simple "you do less damage" statement. Something that is isomorphic to just giving the monster more HP.
3) a complete block. Do not pass go, do not survive.

And none of those, to me, are worth the space spent printing them. If you want the monster to live longer, give it more HP. If you want it to have strengths and weaknesses, find some non-DR way to do so. DR, as a concept, to me, is not fun. It provides nothing of value.

And 3e, in particular, feeds that problem by making martials (and martials only, really) hyper-specialize just to keep up even in the best case. No, your ubercharger can't switch to grappling--if his charging doesn't work, he's basically SOL. Same with the grappler--he's hard-blocked by freedom of movement, and his non-grappling output is very much below system expectations. Basically, for a martial, if you can't do your one tiny narrow thing, you might as well not even show up for that session. That is horrible design. And DR just adds one more "you don't get to play today" note to the pile of crap.

Darg

2023-10-12, 01:18 PM

The problem with this as a system-level balance factor is that it is exquisitely fragile. Even small changes in consumption rates or encounter rates mean wild swings in power in both directions. I don't disagree that some amount of "you have to watch your resources" is necessary, but it's very vulnerable to any of

1) DMs deciding your perfect attrition rate isn't applicable to their campaign
2) players getting annoyed by never getting to use their big guns because they were saving it for a big fight...that never came
3) players mistaking this as a big fight and blowing their big guns...and then TPK because the next fight was balanced around having their big guns
4) etc.

In general, to have proper (loose) balance IMO[1], you most crucially need to decide what power level (and what deviation from that level) is acceptable in your system. No system handles wide disparities in power well. GURPS (et al) handle it somewhat by relying on the DM to carve down all the options into that power band for that game...and then still doesn't work well in many cases.

Freedom tends to make things extremely fragile. And yet it's that exact freedom to create environments and encounters that allow a 20th level fighter shine compared to a level 20 wizard despite the differences in capability that really make it fun and interesting. I'm not saying 3e is perfect to my tastes; I've done my share of homebrew and even use a RAW interpretation that radically alters the way the game is played before discovering online that no one plays the same way. However, I relish the challenge of creativity that can provide a tier 5 class the same fun experience as a tier 1. My personal experience in learning the game and designing adventures and settings was completely freeform. Basically learning everything on the job without outside resources or assistance besides players learning with me. Maybe this allows me to be more adaptable in this style of system than others. I don't know, but it's not like an imaginary situation that shatters from fragility can't be used as a stepping stone rather than a complete derailment.

1) That would happen for any game that has resource based economies.
2) Inexperience causes this. It happens everywhere in life and the goal should be to get players to open up and realize they are playing fictional characters and it's ok to screw up big time. Many laughs and heartfelt moments can be had.
3) This happens because the DM isn't paying attention to the player's resources and hasn't taught them the skills necessary to be prepared for attrition.

My job as the DM is to give players the environment to learn the skills necessary to thrive under my DMing. And yes, TPK IS a way to teach players. I find it exceptionally useful because it as a DM allows me to break the immersion and talk to the players about the options they had at their disposal. People learn more from failure than success.

pabelfly

2023-10-12, 01:33 PM

+100. Starting from naked 3.5, or worse, 3.0, strikes me as throwing out literal decades of lessons learned and progress.

If I were to redo 3.x, I would start from some basic design goals. Things like "class progression including multiclassing should be level-by-level," and "players should have granular control over their skill progression" and "spells should generally scale passively with caster level" and "characters' mathematical progression should be unbound, resulting in large differences between characters that train to do a thing and those that don't." Things that are core to 3.x relative to other editions that do things differently.

Seconding the design goals. They would also tell me what needs to be fixed and what was good with 3e. Everyone thinks 3e needs changing but there's a lot of disagreement with what to change, let alone how to do it. The design goals also lets people know how much time and effort they'll want to put into your system rework - if they disagree on what needs to change, for example, then they'll know that the system isn't for them.

Telonius

2023-10-12, 02:08 PM

It's been a very, very long time since I DM'd a 3.0 game. That said:

Large, medium, and small versions of the different weapon types might be more realistic regarding optimal handle sizes and weight balance, but it gets in the way of using the magic weapons taken from enemies larger or smaller than yourself.

Agreed there. "Sorry guys, that awesome magical axe from the Frost Giant Jarl is totally useless to you, except to sell; and yes, somebody will be willing to pay you for an item too big for anybody in the kingdom to use," isn't fun and breaks verisimilitude. I wish - at least for magic weapons - they were treated the same way as other magic items, resizing to fit the character.

3.x vs 5e monster creation aside, I do think that 3.5 does a better job at monster advancement than 3.0. Advancing monsters is standardized in 3.5, with different creature types giving a standard amount of hit points, BAB, saves, and skills. You don't need to look up half a dozen different tables if you're trying to advance a Construct. The Template pyramid from Savage Species was an extra layer of complexity for not much gain.

For skills, 3.5 simplified them a bit. I'd personally take it a step further and collapse them in the same way that Pathfinder did.

Keep the 3.5 Ranger. It's not where it needs to be for power, but it's a much better class than the 3.0 version.

Darg

2023-10-12, 02:15 PM

Crake

2023-10-12, 07:24 PM

And WBL is broken in so many ways that this isn't even the beginning of them. And nothing I said is about WBL, particularly--it's about interactivity in the moment. Even if you have infinite wealth, you can't go back in time and retroactively have purchased a silver sword.

Thats actually one thing i really like about d20 modern’s wealth system, it actually has a retroactive purchase system like that, called “on hand items” where you can attempt a purchase check at a penalty to just have said item on hand, so no, you dont have a silver sword, but you DO just happen to remember that silver bullet you had tucked away in your back pocket, what luck!

Part of the game is about being prepared. If preparedness isn't an interesting mechanic to you then it's not going to interest you. To me it's a very importantj thing because it provides an extra lever in diversity and it reinforces the fact that running away is an option and helps players to learn to fight the sunk cost fallacy.

Right, but your characters live and breath in this world, wheras the players are there once a week for a few hours. Its not infeasible to suggest that the characters have more time and energy to spend on being prepared than the players do, and so having some mechanics to reflect that is no less out of the question than having a bonus to social skills for a socially awkward player playing a highly charismatic character.

Darg

2023-10-12, 10:39 PM

Right, but your characters live and breath in this world, wheras the players are there once a week for a few hours. Its not infeasible to suggest that the characters have more time and energy to spend on being prepared than the players do, and so having some mechanics to reflect that is no less out of the question than having a bonus to social skills for a socially awkward player playing a highly charismatic character.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. Gathering information is a skill. Knowledge is a skill. Scouting is a combination of skills. Casters usually have more slots than they know what to do with by mid levels so using them to cover bases isn't hard.

Crake

2023-10-12, 10:52 PM

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. Gathering information is a skill. Knowledge is a skill. Scouting is a combination of skills. Casters usually have more slots than they know what to do with by mid levels so using them to cover bases isn't hard.

Im saying that characters will have hours upon hours of downtime to plan and procure the right set of gear, having a perfectly curated toolkit to deal with a whole slew of problems, but PLAYERS dont have that same time or luxury. Example, youre in the wilderness on a hunt, and you come across a cliff face that you want to scale. Nobody has climbing equipment, but your characters had days or weeks to prepare, which was passed over in minutes at the table. It would make sense to be able to say, in that literal days of prep time the party had, someone may have had the idea of buying some climbing equipment.

liquidformat

2023-10-12, 11:26 PM

Im saying that characters will have hours upon hours of downtime to plan and procure the right set of gear, having a perfectly curated toolkit to deal with a whole slew of problems, but PLAYERS dont have that same time or luxury. Example, youre in the wilderness on a hunt, and you come across a cliff face that you want to scale. Nobody has climbing equipment, but your characters had days or weeks to prepare, which was passed over in minutes at the table. It would make sense to be able to say, in that literal days of prep time the party had, someone may have had the idea of buying some climbing equipment.

At quite a few of the tables I play with we standardly have the 'mundane' equipment rule. Where you can comfortably assume you have whatever little bobs and trinkets you need under price X and as your character grows in level X also increases in level. So at level 1 having things under say 5sp, by level five things under a hundred gold and so forth. I mean especially after you start having your portable holes and what not its like why wouldn't I happen to have that useless McGuffin that would be perfect for this event but otherwise useless in 99% of adventures...

spectralphoenix

2023-10-13, 12:47 AM

One thing I do dislike about 3.5 (PF helped with this a little, but not enough) is the issue of cross class skills. It's actually really hard to get a skill that isn't on your list as a class skill (there's a list floating around somewhere, and it's all weird races and feats from obscure sourcebooks that give you one specific skill.) And outside of qualifying for certain prestige classes, cross-class ranks are almost useless. Would it really have broken the game that hard to have a fighter who could talk his way out of a problem or a wizard who could pick locks?

Crake

2023-10-13, 01:28 AM

pabelfly

2023-10-13, 04:49 AM

Would it really have broken the game that hard to have a fighter who could talk his way out of a problem or a wizard who could pick locks?

I suppose they wanted to have multiple ways in which classes were differentiated from other classes, and having a limited list of class skills helps with that, especially mundane classes.

I'd fix it by making Skill Focus give you the skill as a class skill, but I suppose you could come up with a custom feat list that gives you several skills at once, in the same vein that Education gives you all Knowledge skills as class skills. Like, a feat named "Diplomat" could grant "Bluff", "Diplomacy", "Intimidate", "Gather Information", "Knowledge: Nobility" and "Sense Motive" as class skills.

glass

2023-10-13, 08:13 AM

[1] I emphasize loose balance. IMO, 4e and PF2e thought they could do tight balance, where the acceptable range is more point-like.If 4e's "maximally optimal character is 3-400% as effective as a just-pick-whatever character" is considered tight, then put me down for tight balance!

+100. Starting from naked 3.5, or worse, 3.0, strikes me as throwing out literal decades of lessons learned and progress.I don't think the OP has specified how many or how great changes are acceptable (apologies if I missed something), but "throwing out literal decades of lessons", at least partially, seems to be part of the point.

Yeah, this is why i like pathfinder’s implementation of skill ranks and the benefit of what a class skill means, making it a bonus for having, rather than a penalty for not having...and doing that while keeping the overall numbers (or at least, the overall maxima) the same. I'd suggest the OP adopts the PF1 method of ranks and class skills even if they stick with the 3.0 skill list. Assuming they are trying to maintain compatibility with extant 3.0 statblocks that is - if not, then I'd suggest ripping out the whole skill system and starting over, but I doubt they want to go that far.

icefractal

2023-10-14, 02:43 PM

Darg

2023-10-14, 09:51 PM

On the subject of WBL, my preference is either to make it inherent to your level (whether by virtual WBL, automatic progression, etc), meaning that you get the same amount of power regardless of how much gold you have, or go fully "this is a world/story simulator, balance can get to the back of the line" and say that what you get, you get. 1st level character manages to get a full set of +6 stat gear? Yup, so it goes, they'll be pretty powerful then. 20th level character has nothing? Too bad for them, hopefully they can use their class abilities to compensate. In this model, level doesn't determine your power, it's one of several inputs to it.

But the middle ground, where getting gold is nominally important, and you're supposed to care about it, but having too little or too much is a problem that the GM is supposed to counteract by steering events? To me, that's the worst of both worlds. See Starfinder for a particularly egregious example.

The only way to decouple wealth and power is to remove any and all uses that can directly impact gameplay. That means potions, scrolls, choice in what magic items you use, hired services, purchased property, trade, components, etc. No matter what you do you'll always be in the middle of the sandbox:on rails dichotomy. Like most things in life, it's a spectrum and nobody is ever able to be an extreme example on either side because it's simply too ridiculous.

I do agree though that Starfinder's wealth system makes it really hard to engage with it. I mean, who the hell would be willing to sell perfectly functional items at a 90% discount? Udderly absurd.

icefractal

2023-10-15, 12:00 PM

That's true on the "all power innate" end, though I practice I find that "merely" having permanent magic items be innate abilities still ties power pretty strongly to level - most groups don't use a huge amount of consumable items or mercenaries.

On the "you get what you get" end, there is no limit. You can totally run things fully sandbox with no external balancing factors whatsoever. And if the group is reasonable about intra-party balance, it works fine IMO.

The only big problem is infinite loops and such, which exist unrelated to wealth as well. But if you're not trying to run D&D as a competitive game (which it isn't good at anyway), those are easily handled case by case.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-15, 07:16 PM

If I were to redo 3.x, I would start from some basic design goals. Things like "class progression including multiclassing should be level-by-level," and "players should have granular control over their skill progression" and "spells should generally scale passively with caster level" and "characters' mathematical progression should be unbound, resulting in large differences between characters that train to do a thing and those that don't." Things that are core to 3.x relative to other editions that do things differently.

I agree that you should start with design goals, but I think these are bad examples of design goals. "Don't do the things 5e does" isn't a good design goal, because it doesn't tell you what you should do. "Do 3e-style skills rather than 5e-style or PF-style skills" is similarly a bad design goal because it's not a goal at all. It's the thing you're using to implement that goal. The goal is something like "characters should have a large amount of customization, even if it means the complexity required to learn the system is high".

Unless you're a caster, because they just switch from one win button to the next. Yawn.

Genuinely how does this follow from the rest of your argument. It can't both be that "you have to prepare the exact options you need to overcome the encounter" and "you have a wide variety of options and you choose the right ones for a particular encounter" are bad.

a simple "you do less damage" statement. Something that is isomorphic to just giving the monster more HP.

This is the critical fault in your reasoning. "You do less damage" is not isomorphic to the monster having more HP, because you do less damage per attack and with specific attack types. If you have, for instance, the ability to attack twice for 20 damage or once for 30 damage, the former is better against a creature without DR and the latter is better against one with 10 points of DR. Or if you have the ability to do energy damage, or inflict effects on saves, or variously attack in ways that are not subject to DR. The reason DR is boring is because martials are boring. Casters are quite capable of adapting their tactics to deal with the (broadly-equivalent) energy resistance.

I'll give you that typed DR is less meaningful from a tactical perspective, but I think it mostly suffers from overuse. There are cases where DR (or something equivalent to DR) is the obviously-best way to represent what exists in the fiction. Werewolves being the obvious example. Werewolves are not afraid of silver or allergic to silver or some "other way of having a weakness". They are vulnerable to silver and not vulnerable to other things. It really should be hard to kill a werewolf with something other than silver, and whatever mechanic you use to model that ends up looking a lot like DR.

Im saying that characters will have hours upon hours of downtime to plan and procure the right set of gear, having a perfectly curated toolkit to deal with a whole slew of problems, but PLAYERS dont have that same time or luxury. Example, youre in the wilderness on a hunt, and you come across a cliff face that you want to scale. Nobody has climbing equipment, but your characters had days or weeks to prepare, which was passed over in minutes at the table. It would make sense to be able to say, in that literal days of prep time the party had, someone may have had the idea of buying some climbing equipment.

In general, preparation is only really interesting if it involves tradeoffs. If you could have gear for climbing a cliff or gear for fording a river and you choose the latter, that's interesting. If you could have gear for climbing a cliff and you just forgot, that's really just trap options, except instead of the trap being "Monk sucks" it's "forgetting to by your skill gear so you can use your skills".

One thing I do dislike about 3.5 (PF helped with this a little, but not enough) is the issue of cross class skills. It's actually really hard to get a skill that isn't on your list as a class skill (there's a list floating around somewhere, and it's all weird races and feats from obscure sourcebooks that give you one specific skill.) And outside of qualifying for certain prestige classes, cross-class ranks are almost useless. Would it really have broken the game that hard to have a fighter who could talk his way out of a problem or a wizard who could pick locks?

I always felt like one thing 3e was missing was some sort of "background" system where you could have a character who was "a little bit" something without needing to go all the way to spending a class level on it. If you want to have a Wizard who's good at sneaking, take the Street Rat background. Fighter that's good at talking? Diplomat. Stuff like that.

The only way to decouple wealth and power is to remove any and all uses that can directly impact gameplay.

Sure, and the only way to have perfect balance is to have exactly one possible build and allow no player decisions that impact results during the game. Nevertheless, it's possible to do a much better job of balance than 3e does. Ditto with wealth.

smetzger

2023-10-15, 10:11 PM

I suppose they wanted to have multiple ways in which classes were differentiated from other classes, and having a limited list of class skills helps with that, especially mundane classes.

I'd fix it by making Skill Focus give you the skill as a class skill, but I suppose you could come up with a custom feat list that gives you several skills at once, in the same vein that Education gives you all Knowledge skills as class skills. Like, a feat named "Diplomat" could grant "Bluff", "Diplomacy", "Intimidate", "Gather Information", "Knowledge: Nobility" and "Sense Motive" as class skills.

That is what I do.

Skill Focus gives you +3 in any one skill or +2 to any two skills and the chosen skill(s) become class skills.

Darg

2023-10-15, 10:55 PM

Nevertheless, it's possible to do a much better job of balance than 3e does. Ditto with wealth.

Your opinion is noted.

pabelfly

2023-10-16, 01:05 AM

Nevertheless, it's possible to do a much better job of balance than 3e does. Ditto with wealth.

In a system that allows a person to go from "person who hits things" to "person who hits things, but faster" and "spellcaster with a few small spells" to "spellcaster that can rewrite reality itself", I'm not sure how it can be fixed without wholesale removing a bunch of options and mandating casting or an equivalent, which seems counter to the design goals of a game derived off of 3.5.

Crake

2023-10-16, 02:23 AM

Tzardok

2023-10-16, 03:59 AM

Probably by codifying tiers of play by classes? Making it apparent and clear that class a and class b are not fundamentally well-equipped to share a space together, rather than presenting them as equal options? Earlier editions also attempted to resolve this by having variable xp progression rates, classes like spellcasters just required more xp to level.

This, coupled with a flat xp system to remove the “xp is a river” thing of spending xp in order to gain xp faster, and also since it wouldnt really make sense anyway, due to classes leveling at different rates.

It would make multiclassing a pain to work out, but that could be resolved by overhauling the multiclassing system in general, since the way it is currently is pretty hamfisted considering the power curves. Some kind of gestalting of classes rather than stacking would probably work better

That sounds a lot like returning to 2e.

Glimbur

2023-10-16, 08:03 AM

RandomPeasant

2023-10-16, 08:35 AM

In a system that allows a person to go from "person who hits things" to "person who hits things, but faster" and "spellcaster with a few small spells" to "spellcaster that can rewrite reality itself", I'm not sure how it can be fixed without wholesale removing a bunch of options and mandating casting or an equivalent, which seems counter to the design goals of a game derived off of 3.5.

I don't think "martials suck" was a design goal of 3e (particularly because the low-level parts of the game are what was actually tested, and at those parts martials don't suck), and I think the simple way to square the circle is "make martials not suck at high levels". And "or an equivalent" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yes, everyone should have some sort of ability that is as powerful as casting at high levels. But there are a lot of abilities that are potentially like that.

Probably by codifying tiers of play by classes? Making it apparent and clear that class a and class b are not fundamentally well-equipped to share a space together, rather than presenting them as equal options? Earlier editions also attempted to resolve this by having variable xp progression rates, classes like spellcasters just required more xp to level.

I never really got the nostalgia people have for variable XP. If you think a Fighter needs the abilities of a 10th level Fighter to keep up with a 5th level Wizard, just increase the abilities of a 5th level Fighter. You could do explicit in-system tiering, but that seems like giving up to me. I think you can produce a character that is plausibly a Barbarian and can play in the same game as a Wizard (in the same way that Thor and Hulk are Barbarians and operate on similar power levels to Doctor Strange), and at some point you are going to do that even if it's as the "Tier One Barbarian". So just do that.

My 30 second thought on multiclassing is that each level you get the abilities of whatever class at that level. Fighter 6 taking a wizard level at 7th? Get a 4th level spell and the slot for it.

This seems unworkable with any class that has a resource management mechanic more complicated than spell slots. What happens if you multiclass Incarnate at a level where they get a chakra unlock, but no additional essentia or soulmelds? What about Binder at a level where they get access to higher-level vestiges, but no additional vestiges bound? And that's just the "can we make this work at all" concerns. I still think you'd have huge balance problems, and the subtler problem of encouraging people to multi-class as much as possible so that they got e.g. at-will Warlock invocations to go with their limited-use Wizard spells (which gets even worse if you do what 3e did and commit to having lots of resource management mechanics).

glass

2023-10-16, 08:52 AM

Another thread reminded me: On subject of Pathfinder skill ranks, the other thing that Pathfinder does is make Int increases for levels and Inherent bonuses fully retroactive. Which makes character creation and auditing so much easier.

Probably worth considering!

EDIT: Items that give enhancement bonuses to Int give max ranks in a particular skill (chosen at item creation) in lieu of freely spendable skill ranks, so it is obvious which ranks go away when you take the headband off. Although prewritten adventures rarely remember to specify what skill for found items (and basically never remember to specify the extra language that is also supposed to be fixed).

Darg

2023-10-16, 09:12 AM

My 30 second thought on multiclassing is that each level you get the abilities of whatever class at that level. Fighter 6 taking a wizard level at 7th? Get a 4th level spell and the slot for it.

Then you can sneak a Foundational ability in at level 1, like Wizard 1 gives you an extra slot of your highest wizard spell level. Barbarian gives rage, etc. At level X you get a class feature from anywhere from 1 to X except a Foundational ability. So focus is rewarded but you can also get variety.

Prestige classes get pretty weird, first thought is they are mostly single levels with a fixed class feature but you have to qualify for it. Mystic Theurge gives a wizard and cleric slot, and gives some kind of bonus for alternating wizard and cleric spells in combat (more DC, more caster level, something). Assassin gives Death Attack and a couple lower level spell slots from a fixed list. Runescarred Berserker... a bit tougher. And some PrC like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil can still be multiple levels, but mechanically they are separate PrCs with the pre-req of taking the previous PrC level.

I think multiclassing would work best as a modified gestalt with slowed progression layered on top of the 1-20 level system. Using the 20% increments the game already uses for imbalanced multiclassing per extra class seems like a reasonable number to balance it out. Basically a dual class would end up 17/17 by level 20 or a triple would end up at 15/15/15. I think it's a reasonable trade off. Basically you level up like normal, but you'd recieve features as if you had x% increment. Personally I'd make the stat distribution more nuanced based on class selection because the default "use the best one" for gestalt is not as RPG like.

Crake

2023-10-16, 06:30 PM

I never really got the nostalgia people have for variable XP. If you think a Fighter needs the abilities of a 10th level Fighter to keep up with a 5th level Wizard, just increase the abilities of a 5th level Fighter. You could do explicit in-system tiering, but that seems like giving up to me. I think you can produce a character that is plausibly a Barbarian and can play in the same game as a Wizard (in the same way that Thor and Hulk are Barbarians and operate on similar power levels to Doctor Strange), and at some point you are going to do that even if it's as the "Tier One Barbarian". So just do that.

Well, firstly, its not nostalgia, I've never played 2e before. Secondly as was noted, ramping up martials into effectively "casters with a coat of paint" doesn't really fix the issue either, because a lot of people will feel unhappy with something so over the top when they just wanted to play conan the barbarian.

The xp solution was simply a suggestion to get the two to work together, but the idea of explicit in-system tiering could be as simple as "wizard and barbarian are not on equal ground, don't expect them to have equal levels of contribution" as a statement written within the rules, simply to inform players of the decisions they're making.

Doctor Despair

2023-10-16, 06:51 PM

The xp solution was simply a suggestion to get the two to work together, but the idea of explicit in-system tiering could be as simple as "wizard and barbarian are not on equal ground, don't expect them to have equal levels of contribution" as a statement written within the rules, simply to inform players of the decisions they're making.

Could codify that with level adjustment. Give every class a ratio at which it accrues level adjustment: tier 1 classes accrue +1 LA for every level, tier 2 classes accrue +.75 per level (rounded up), tier 3 classes accrue +.5 LA per level (rounded up), tier 4 or lower accrue no LA.

Therefore, at level 9, the fighter would have 9HD, the bard would have 6HD, the sorcerer would have 5HD, and the wizard would have 4 or 5HD.

Or maybe you do 1, .5, and .25 instead, so it would go... ECL9 has fighter at 9, bard at 7HD, sorc at 6HD, and wiz at, again, 4 or 5HD.

None of this really addresses the issue that the fighter doesn't get real class features to solve out-of-combat problems, but I suppose in a sense having more WBL kinda does? You can gp to get macguffins and whatnot to make up for not being able to DIY the effects yourself

RandomPeasant

2023-10-16, 07:55 PM

I think multiclassing would work best as a modified gestalt with slowed progression layered on top of the 1-20 level system. Using the 20% increments the game already uses for imbalanced multiclassing per extra class seems like a reasonable number to balance it out. Basically a dual class would end up 17/17 by level 20 or a triple would end up at 15/15/15. I think it's a reasonable trade off. Basically you level up like normal, but you'd recieve features as if you had x% increment. Personally I'd make the stat distribution more nuanced based on class selection because the default "use the best one" for gestalt is not as RPG like.

Formalizing Theurges as the standard for multi-classing is one of the more workable solutions, but there are still fundamental issues. The same ones you get in regular Gestalt, namely that not all combinations of classes are equally good. If you have a small number of abilities you can use once per day, you benefit more from at-will abilities then from passive bonuses that apply when you use your existing abilities. If you have a very action-intensive combat style, you benefit more from minions than additional options to use your actions for. If Wizard/Fighter means "Wizard 17 + Fighter 17", that does a much better job of balancing against Wizard 20 and Fighter 20. But the balance in comparison to Druid/Rogue or Warblade/Cleric is still pretty intractable.

Secondly as was noted, ramping up martials into effectively "casters with a coat of paint" doesn't really fix the issue either, because a lot of people will feel unhappy with something so over the top when they just wanted to play conan the barbarian.

Sure, people who want to play Conan don't (necessarily) want to play Hulk. But they also don't want to play in a party with Doctor Strange. The solution isn't separate advancement speeds or "these classes just suck, sorry". It's to have clearer expectations of what levels mean. Conan is some particular level. Hulk is some other, higher, level. If you want to play Conan but not Hulk, you set up a campaign where people get to the Conan level but not the Hulk level.

None of this really addresses the issue that the fighter doesn't get real class features to solve out-of-combat problems, but I suppose in a sense having more WBL kinda does? You can gp to get macguffins and whatnot to make up for not being able to DIY the effects yourself

If you want the Fighter to solve his problems by having items, just give him a "more WBL" class feature and set aside the whole fractional LA thing for the overcomplicated mess it is. The basic issue with Conan/Hulk is not that casters scale too fast, it's that the game does a bad job of explaining what power levels are expected at what character levels. There are CR 20 demon lords. That means that, as a 20th level character, the expectation is that you can walk into a room and find the ruler of a realm of fiends as one of your encounters for the day. Not the end-of-campaign or even end-of-adventure blowout, just a fight you have with a thing in the same way you might fight a wolf at 1st level. That's not an idiom where "Conan" is an appropriate character, and neither the people who like that idiom nor the people who like Conan's idiom gain anything by pretending it is.

Crake

2023-10-16, 08:18 PM

Sure, people who want to play Conan don't (necessarily) want to play Hulk. But they also don't want to play in a party with Doctor Strange. The solution isn't separate advancement speeds or "these classes just suck, sorry". It's to have clearer expectations of what levels mean. Conan is some particular level. Hulk is some other, higher, level. If you want to play Conan but not Hulk, you set up a campaign where people get to the Conan level but not the Hulk level.

I mean, you're correct... to a degree. The level range in which conan and hulk exist ALSO depends on the classes involved. A mutagen alchemist or synthesist summoner becomes hulk far earlier than a barbarian for example. And it wasn't so much as "these classes just suck, sorry" it was "these two classes don't mix well together, try playing classes that mesh more easily".

If the goal is to have a system where conan and hulk can exist at the same level, which I think is what some people really LIKE about 3.x, then there doesn't need to be a mechanical solution, but players DO need to be INFORMED that some choices are just weaker than others, and fit into different tiers of play.

pabelfly

2023-10-17, 12:42 AM

I think some people here are too hung up on tiers in this thread. They're a useful tool for understanding DnD, but I think they're being overemphasized.

1) Tiers are tertiary to player ability and character optimization. I've known players who struggle to properly utilize a caster, while the Barbarian/Fighter combo is the game MVP.
2) Tiers talk about ability to solve all sorts of problems, but the most important problem in DnD is always combat and, in a game where WBL is around standard amounts, mundane martials can generally contribute to combat just fine.
3) There should be low-complexity options in any system based off 3e, and mundane martials fit that bill quite fine. Not everyone wants to learn spellcasting, manage spells and spell slots, and optimize a spell list. Some players are happy working out how they're putting an axe through the head of their enemy each turn.

How I would rework martials:
1) Make Pounce a feat
2) Add options for dealing with swarms and large-scale mobs that are easier to access than Whirlwind Attack
3) Make classes like Fighter, Scout, Barbarian, etc as "Martial Classes" and you need so many "martial class levels" to gain access to these feats. Classes like Paladin and Ranger give half their class levels as "Martial Class levels".
4) Add high-level options for mundane martials that are simple mechanically and assist them in combat. Stuff like spell resistance, miss chances, and immunities to certain spell types would be stuff I would consider. You need to have so many "martial class levels" to access these feats.

Satinavian

2023-10-17, 02:38 AM

3) There should be low-complexity options in any system based off 3e, and mundane martials fit that bill quite fine. Not everyone wants to learn spellcasting, manage spells and spell slots, and optimize a spell list. Some players are happy working out how they're putting an axe through the head of their enemy each turn.
While i agree that providing low complexity and high complexity options is good, i am not sold on marrying them to the fiction of martial and caster. There are a lot of people bad with complex rules who like the idea of magic and a lot of people who do dig all those fiddly rule bits who like the idea of a martial character.
Late 3.5 eventually provided Warlocks as easy-to-use casters and ToB classes as martials with complexity. And i think that generally improved the game.

pabelfly

2023-10-17, 03:55 AM

While i agree that providing low complexity and high complexity options is good, i am not sold on marrying them to the fiction of martial and caster. There are a lot of people bad with complex rules who like the idea of magic and a lot of people who do dig all those fiddly rule bits who like the idea of a martial character.
Late 3.5 eventually provided Warlocks as easy-to-use casters and ToB classes as martials with complexity. And i think that generally improved the game.

I didn't say that low complexity was the sole provenance of mundane martials, or that high complexity wasn't. I merely said that mundane martials were a good, low-complexity option in 3e. As for Warlock, I'd say it's a nice middle point between mundane martails and spellcasters, in terms of complexity.

Darg

2023-10-17, 09:30 AM

Formalizing Theurges as the standard for multi-classing is one of the more workable solutions, but there are still fundamental issues. The same ones you get in regular Gestalt, namely that not all combinations of classes are equally good. If you have a small number of abilities you can use once per day, you benefit more from at-will abilities then from passive bonuses that apply when you use your existing abilities. If you have a very action-intensive combat style, you benefit more from minions than additional options to use your actions for. If Wizard/Fighter means "Wizard 17 + Fighter 17", that does a much better job of balancing against Wizard 20 and Fighter 20. But the balance in comparison to Druid/Rogue or Warblade/Cleric is still pretty intractable.

*shrug* the goal wasn't to make classes themselves balanced. I'm just not a fan of the out of the box 3e multiclass system. So the point was to make that less frustrating.

And you keep arguing from the point of view of optimal play. I think everyone understands this millionth beaten horse already. However, some people can conceptualize characters that don't know what to do in every situation, that have particular quirks and interests. Is it really that hard to believe that some people don't actually have the problem you're insinuating and that the freedoms and limits of the game can provide the same enjoyment you crave out of a more "balanced" system?

I think some people here are too hung up on tiers in this thread. They're a useful tool for understanding DnD, but I think they're being overemphasized.

1) Tiers are tertiary to player ability and character optimization. I've known players who struggle to properly utilize a caster, while the Barbarian/Fighter combo is the game MVP.
2) Tiers talk about ability to solve all sorts of problems, but the most important problem in DnD is always combat and, in a game where WBL is around standard amounts, mundane martials can generally contribute to combat just fine.
3) There should be low-complexity options in any system based off 3e, and mundane martials fit that bill quite fine. Not everyone wants to learn spellcasting, manage spells and spell slots, and optimize a spell list. Some players are happy working out how they're putting an axe through the head of their enemy each turn.

How I would rework martials:
1) Make Pounce a feat
2) Add options for dealing with swarms and large-scale mobs that are easier to access than Whirlwind Attack
3) Make classes like Fighter, Scout, Barbarian, etc as "Martial Classes" and you need so many "martial class levels" to gain access to these feats. Classes like Paladin and Ranger give half their class levels as "Martial Class levels".
4) Add high-level options for mundane martials that are simple mechanically and assist them in combat. Stuff like spell resistance, miss chances, and immunities to certain spell types would be stuff I would consider. You need to have so many "martial class levels" to access these feats.

1) pounce being a feat makes it basically a tax just like taking 1 level of barbarian is. At this point you may as well just make it baseline or even allow full attacks when making any attack.

2) dungeonscape added the swarmstrike weapon special ability to the roster of options. For most swarms, a single casting of flame arrow is good enough to take down multiple swarms. Energy substitution can also help with this

4) I think a more nuanced approach to WBL (for example side grades being worth less toward the total) and more systematized actions integrated into the skill system and combat action special attacks. Of course, an overhaul of class skill point distribution should be done. Non spellcasting classes should naturally have more skill points to spend to take advantage of these new interactions.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-17, 10:35 AM

I mean, you're correct... to a degree. The level range in which conan and hulk exist ALSO depends on the classes involved.

Sure. The system is not balanced and does not communicate clear expectations of what levels mean. That's just something you should conceive of as a problem to fix, not an inherent reality of class design. I do think there's another problem, which is easy to gloss over when you're talking about the Hulk end of things, namely that the system does a bad job of allowing you to build Conan at low levels. You should fix that too, but the way to fix that is to fix it, not try to have a "Conan 20th level" and a "Hulk 20th level".

If the goal is to have a system where conan and hulk can exist at the same level, which I think is what some people really LIKE about 3.x

I have never encountered this "people really like the imbalance" thing in the wild. It's always someone trying to explain why you shouldn't do anything to improve the lot of non-casters in an online argument. People really do dislike being underpowered compared to the rest of the party. It's not fun.

ITiers are tertiary to player ability and character optimization. I've known players who struggle to properly utilize a caster, while the Barbarian/Fighter combo is the game MVP.

Anecdotal evidence aside, this is a lot less true than people think. Yes, you can play "down" to a pretty large degree. But it's really hard to play "up" to a comparable one. That is to say, you might have a scenario where the Barbarian/Fighter can keep up with casters who know what they're doing, but there's no amount of player skill (and separating "character optimization" from "class choice" is sort of like separating "spells known" from "character level") that makes up the gap between even a modestly optimized caster and a mundane. You can Ubercharge all you want, it doesn't cancel out teleport.

Tiers talk about ability to solve all sorts of problems, but the most important problem in DnD is always combat and, in a game where WBL is around standard amounts, mundane martials can generally contribute to combat just fine.

I would reject the premise. Yes, combat is "the most important problem". But that's because all the other problems are one where half the party has little or nothing to do. If you have a problem where teleport and plane shift are necessary tools to contribute, that's equivalent to saying to the people playing the Fighter and the Rogue "sit down while the adults handle it". People don't being told that (or telling it to their friends), so tables avoid those problems.

Also, while this is somewhat true in combat, martials still tend to fall short of what (IMO) a character should be able to contribute in combat. They tend to be very one-dimensional, meaning that encounters have to be carefully designed to allow them to contribute (and, at high levels of optimization, to allow them to contribute without instantly nuking the opposition). Consider the Barbarian. The Barbarian can, with various levels of optimization, hit various targets for "appropriate combat contribution". But it is essentially always going to do that by virtue of being good at closing to melee with a specific opponent and hitting them very hard. What does it do when it's hard to close to melee? What does it do when there are multiple enemies? What does it do to resist enemy attacks? What does it do if the enemy has specific defenses? By the class features the Barbarian gets, the answers to these questions are "hope someone else can deal with it". That's bad, even if the damage the Barbarian deals once in melee with a Vrock or Polar Bear or Great Wyrm Red Dragon is adequate by whatever standard.

There should be low-complexity options in any system based off 3e, and mundane martials fit that bill quite fine. Not everyone wants to learn spellcasting, manage spells and spell slots, and optimize a spell list. Some players are happy working out how they're putting an axe through the head of their enemy each turn.

Mundane martials are low-complexity in one sense (if you are a Fighter, you probably have one combat action that is worth taking in any particular combat), but pretty high-complexity in another sense (it takes quite a bit of optimization and system mastery to execute even moderately competent martial builds). To be honest, one of the real problems with 3e is that there isn't a good easy-to-build, easy-to-play option, particularly if you want to clear any kind of power floor.

3) Make classes like Fighter, Scout, Barbarian, etc as "Martial Classes" and you need so many "martial class levels" to gain access to these feats. Classes like Paladin and Ranger give half their class levels as "Martial Class levels".
4) Add high-level options for mundane martials that are simple mechanically and assist them in combat. Stuff like spell resistance, miss chances, and immunities to certain spell types would be stuff I would consider. You need to have so many "martial class levels" to access these feats.

This is just class features with extra steps. Also, "having a lot of feats" is not particularly something martial classes do, especially outside Core. The Barbarian doesn't get any bonus feats. Neither do the Swashbuckler or the Ninja. And sticking the tools the classes need to operate into the Feats subsystem is directly counter to the goal of having these classes be simple. The Fighter is very complicated to build precisely because all its "class features" are pointers to a big list of options that have a bunch of dependencies and interactions. It is, frankly, easier for a new player to build a Cleric or a Druid.

Is it really that hard to believe that some people don't actually have the problem you're insinuating and that the freedoms and limits of the game can provide the same enjoyment you crave out of a more "balanced" system?

I can imagine some people enjoying all sorts of systems. Some people enjoy no form of multiclassing whatsoever. Some people enjoy completely open multiclassing. I'm sure there's even someone out there who enjoys multiclass experience penalties. So it seems to me that "maybe some people will like this" is a rather useless argument. What matters, for the purpose of analyzing a system, is what behaviors it encourages (that "optimal play" you seem so interested in ignoring). So let me ask you again: why is it desirable to have some multiclass combinations that are better than others? Why not look for a way to allow people to play Druid/Rogues or Ranger/Wizards that did not make the former significantly better than the latter (as is undoubtedly the case in a Gestalt game of 3e)? What is the case for your system over other systems? Why is it better on the merits than something else, or why is "a lot of people would like this" a merit it demonstrably has over other systems?

Darg

2023-10-17, 05:13 PM

I can imagine some people enjoying all sorts of systems. Some people enjoy no form of multiclassing whatsoever. Some people enjoy completely open multiclassing. I'm sure there's even someone out there who enjoys multiclass experience penalties. So it seems to me that "maybe some people will like this" is a rather useless argument. What matters, for the purpose of analyzing a system, is what behaviors it encourages (that "optimal play" you seem so interested in ignoring). So let me ask you again: why is it desirable to have some multiclass combinations that are better than others? Why not look for a way to allow people to play Druid/Rogues or Ranger/Wizards that did not make the former significantly better than the latter (as is undoubtedly the case in a Gestalt game of 3e)? What is the case for your system over other systems? Why is it better on the merits than something else, or why is "a lot of people would like this" a merit it demonstrably has over other systems?

I did advocate for a more nuanced approach rather than a strait 1:1 gestalt which I do have issues with. That said, it's quite surprising to hear that some one thinks that druid/rogue is better than wizard/anything.

Anyways, about balance. The point is that your frame of reference for balance is not some one else's frame of reference for balance. The extreme point of balance is that everyone will contribute/perform exactly the same. It's an impossible goal. Therefore the determination is how much imbalance is permissible and how much is necessary to achieve the goals the game tries to convey. Simple fact of the matter is, the more different things are the more imbalanced it becomes. It's quite obvious 3e achieves something just like how 5e achieves something. Some people like the tighter balancing of 5e. Some people prefer the looser balancing of 3e. However, if you think 5e is more balanced than 3e you might want to step back and reexamine the direction you are looking from.

Crake

2023-10-17, 06:48 PM

I have never encountered this "people really like the imbalance" thing in the wild. It's always someone trying to explain why you shouldn't do anything to improve the lot of non-casters in an online argument. People really do dislike being underpowered compared to the rest of the party. It's not fun.

I think you misunderstood what I meant, I wasnt suggesting that people wanted conan and hulk IN THE SAME GAME, merely that they like having it IN THE SAME SYSTEM. Having the option to play either or, depending on the context of the game they're in, without having to necessarily escalate to the top of the level bracket, or stop playing near the start of it is something people have many times expressed as a pro of the system in their opinions. If you strictly limit it by saying "Hulk should only be able to exist from level 12+ and conan cannot exist past level 8" then you're narrowing the scope of play available to people.

I can imagine some people enjoying all sorts of systems. Some people enjoy no form of multiclassing whatsoever. Some people enjoy completely open multiclassing. I'm sure there's even someone out there who enjoys multiclass experience penalties. So it seems to me that "maybe some people will like this" is a rather useless argument. What matters, for the purpose of analyzing a system, is what behaviors it encourages (that "optimal play" you seem so interested in ignoring). So let me ask you again: why is it desirable to have some multiclass combinations that are better than others? Why not look for a way to allow people to play Druid/Rogues or Ranger/Wizards that did not make the former significantly better than the latter (as is undoubtedly the case in a Gestalt game of 3e)? What is the case for your system over other systems? Why is it better on the merits than something else, or why is "a lot of people would like this" a merit it demonstrably has over other systems?

Well, personally I believe this is just an inherent problem with class-based systems. You cannot possibly make all class combinations equally good choices without entirely homogenising their features to the point where they all fit together like lego bricks. Personally, I would just tear down the class and level based design entirely, but then we're not really looking at 3.x anymore, are we?

But again, it also goes to my previous point, if you make all options equally good, then you limit the scope of play. Not everyone wants every character at every level to feel the exact same.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-18, 07:27 PM

I did advocate for a more nuanced approach rather than a strait 1:1 gestalt which I do have issues with. That said, it's quite surprising to hear that some one thinks that druid/rogue is better than wizard/anything.

I'm pretty sure the last time people did tiering conversations, Druid ended up fractionally higher than Wizard to begin with, so it's odd that you're surprised by that. That said, you're sort of missing the point. Maybe it is the case that Druid/Rogue is weaker than Wizard/Ranger because Wizard is really, really good. But if it's closer than straight Druid v straight Wizard, the point stands.

Simple fact of the matter is, the more different things are the more imbalanced it becomes.

No it isn't. Variety doesn't cause imbalance, and in fact variety provides a powerful tool to address imbalance. If every class is the same and the only difference is tuning, that means that a class that is tuned higher is always better than a class that is tuned lower and you can ignore anything undertuned. If, on the other hand, classes have unique mechanics that are relevant in particular situations, there are reasons to care about classes even if they are "objectively" underpowered.

You can see this in all sorts of ways in all sorts of games. For instance, Age of Empires II (a heavily-symmetric RTS) does not have massively better balance than Starcraft II (an extremely asymmetric RTS). Clearly, the fact that the Zerg are more different from the Protoss than the Franks are from the Celts does not have some ruinous effect on game balance. It is, trivially, the case that a game like Rock-Paper-Scissors is more balanced than any more complicated game, but once you get away from the trivial examples, there's not much compelling evidence for a "variety causes imbalance" thesis.

If you strictly limit it by saying "Hulk should only be able to exist from level 12+ and conan cannot exist past level 8" then you're narrowing the scope of play available to people.

I don't think that's true. You can't meaningfully have a level where both Hulk and Conan are playable characters, because they go on different adventures and face different challenges. If someone throws Hulk through space until he crashes on a planet populated by magma-people, that's Tuesday for him. If someone does that to Conan, he dies instantly. So at whatever level "get thrown through space to the planet of the Magma Men" is an appropriate adventure, Hulk is an appropriate character and Conan isn't (and, similarly, the adventure where Conan has to bypass guards and break into the dungeon to rescue a fair maiden doesn't work for Hulk, who can just rip the castle off of the dungeon). The system needs to own up to that for the people who want to have Hulk adventures or the people who want to have Conan adventures to get what they want.

Well, personally I believe this is just an inherent problem with class-based systems. You cannot possibly make all class combinations equally good choices without entirely homogenising their features to the point where they all fit together like lego bricks.

The Wilder, Bard, Totemist, Swordsage, Warlock, Binder, Crusader, Warblade, Warmage, Psychic Warrior, and Duskblade are all in the same tier, and all represent modestly-to-significantly different play patterns and mechanics. Similarly, there very few classes that are horribly overpowered or horribly underpowered in an E6 environment. It is true that only perfect homogeneity guarantees perfect balance, but you can get very good balance with a great deal of heterogeneity. You just have to make balance a priority when you develop the system, and clearly define what balance means (which, to bring it back to the earlier point, is essentially impossible if you are trying to present a system where "Conan" and "Hulk" can both be 12th level Barbarians).

icefractal

2023-10-18, 07:36 PM

4E tried giving explicit (although fairly general) descriptions of what each tier "meant" - and people hated it. I don't really get why, because it seems like a positive to me, but the negative response (against that specifically, separate from 4E in general) was quite strong.

My theory is that many people have a strong attachment to "playing 1-20", or whatever the level range is. So even if they want a relatively low-power fantasy game where characters get to "action movie star" level but not outright superhuman, they want the entire 1-20 range to meet those criteria, instead of just ... playing 1st-8th level instead. And TBF, it goes the other way too - people will complain about 1st level being too limited instead of just starting at a higher level.

Now ok, I get that there's a perspective where that makes sense - you're not the GM, and the GM doesn't listen to you (or does but you get overruled by the rest of the group). If you can convince your group to play "D&D" and you can convince WotC to make D&D only contain the power range you personally enjoy, then you get to win the discussion/vote about power range without there even being a vote. But IDK, it seem simpler to just find a group who enjoys the same stuff you do.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-18, 07:51 PM

I think part of the issue with 4e's tiers was that they were not very well thought out. You'd get to Paragon Tier and your Fighter would become a Pit Fighter and instead of fighting Orcs you'd fight Grimlocks (who are like Orcs, except their tools are made of stone and they are blind). It wasn't really obvious why a lot of the stuff in Paragon Tier had to wait for Paragon Tier, and the decision to spread the limited pagespace of the PHB and MM over 30 levels meant a lot of content was lost.

That said, I do think you've identified a real tendency. There are people who, somehow, think that having "Conan" exist from 1-8 instead of 1-20 is "excluding" something, but not having Hulk exist in the system at all isn't. I don't understand those people, because their position seems to me facially absurd, but I have seen an argued with them. That said, I don't think "you can play Conan 1-20 but the game will explicitly tell you that's worse than playing Hulk" will satisfy them either, so I think it's sort of a wash in this particular case.

Crake

2023-10-18, 09:33 PM

I don't think that's true. You can't meaningfully have a level where both Hulk and Conan are playable characters, because they go on different adventures and face different challenges. If someone throws Hulk through space until he crashes on a planet populated by magma-people, that's Tuesday for him. If someone does that to Conan, he dies instantly. So at whatever level "get thrown through space to the planet of the Magma Men" is an appropriate adventure, Hulk is an appropriate character and Conan isn't (and, similarly, the adventure where Conan has to bypass guards and break into the dungeon to rescue a fair maiden doesn't work for Hulk, who can just rip the castle off of the dungeon). The system needs to own up to that for the people who want to have Hulk adventures or the people who want to have Conan adventures to get what they want.

I never said they had to go on the same adventures, in fact, im fairly sure i said the opposite.

The issue is, not everyone wants to start play at level 12 to play the hulk, and not everyone wants to stop playing at level 8 when they play conan. This is where different tiers at the same level come into play. Having level 6 conan and level 6 hulk being able to exist at the same time, while they may not fit in the same game, at least allows people to play what they want when it’s appropriate to their table.

But i feel like i said this is exact same thing already, so i guess its just being ignored

paladinn

2023-10-19, 10:43 AM

So here's a crazy thought to throw in the mix: subclasses. I know they really weren't a thing in 3.5; but eventually, the idea of alternative class features took hold. Then PF started doing more complete archetypes, again based on ACF's. 5e has codified and structured subclasses much more.

Is there a place for any of this in a 3e revision? If so, what would it look like?

Crake

2023-10-19, 10:59 AM

Darg

2023-10-19, 03:23 PM

I'm pretty sure the last time people did tiering conversations, Druid ended up fractionally higher than Wizard to begin with, so it's odd that you're surprised by that. That said, you're sort of missing the point. Maybe it is the case that Druid/Rogue is weaker than Wizard/Ranger because Wizard is really, really good. But if it's closer than straight Druid v straight Wizard, the point stands.

I was honestly surprised because all I hear online is how more powerful wizards are.

No it isn't. Variety doesn't cause imbalance, and in fact variety provides a powerful tool to address imbalance. If every class is the same and the only difference is tuning, that means that a class that is tuned higher is always better than a class that is tuned lower and you can ignore anything undertuned. If, on the other hand, classes have unique mechanics that are relevant in particular situations, there are reasons to care about classes even if they are "objectively" underpowered.

Being different is inherently unbalancing. Take something simple for example: weapons with the exact same damage but one with reach vs not having reach. One isn't inherently stronger than the other, but are circumstantially better than each other. If you ever have an unequal amount of times where one is better than the other then you end up with an imbalance.

icefractal

2023-10-19, 09:01 PM

I was honestly surprised because all I hear online is how more powerful wizards are.They are a powerful class, no question. But they're also the GitP 3.x optimization community's mascot / favorite, so you see a lot of examples of "Wizard being extremely powerful" that could really be "any full-caster with a broad list being extremely powerful". Or at a TO level - "any character who can wrangle a single Gate spell by any means".

TBF, it's not like I'm immune to the appeal myself, Wizard has several points in its favor as a basis for optimization:
1) Thematically a good fit. Doing weird, unintuitive, seemingly nonsensical things that somehow lead to absurd power is pretty much on-brand for Wizards.
2) Tons of material, more than any non-core class has. If a new spell exists, it's more likely to be on the Sor/Wiz list than any other list, probably.
3) Unimpressive chassis makes the results of optimization more dramatically obvious.
4) Versatile from low-level. Sorcerer eventually has complete flexibility (better than a Wizard in fact), but that's once you're casting Limited Wish to emulate Psychic Reformation, which is by the point where many campaigns have already ended or are close to ending.
5) No questions about "would your deity / nature approve of this method?"

Naaman

2023-10-20, 07:37 AM

A bunch of classes are front-loaded, which encourages dips. And skill points get awkward with multiclassing or increases to your Int score. One way of discouraging this is to break off some of these bonuses into "backgrounds", taking the place of the favored class system.

Let's say at 1st level you choose 2 backgrounds; one is determined by your class, and you also get a second one you pick freely. Some might have racial requirements, or extra-powerful races like aasimar might get only one background slot with the other subsumed by their race. Humans get to pick their backgrounds freely; possibly they have exclusive access to "enhanced backgrounds" where you select the same one twice for increased bonuses.

Something like the Occupation system in d20 Modern, but expanded a bit. E.g. the "Soldier (Fighter)" background gets +3 hit points, a few class skills, and increases your weapon/armor proficiencies by one step; Zealot (Bard, Barbarian or Cleric) gets +4 hit points and can increase a single morale bonus they're experiencing by +2, etc. Cantrips don't exist; instead there are Sorcerer backgrounds which give a specific cantrip or two as an SLA at-will (and read magic is either a wizard class feature or folded into skills).

And then add something like Level-Based Skills - no skill ranks, you just make skill checks at (1d20 + level + modifiers) for skills granted by your background, and (1d20 + half level + modifiers) for anything else. You could even unify this with BAB so that characters can have good/average/poor skill proficiency.

Simplify prestige classes to one-off abilities you add at certain milestones (lv6/11/16), since lv6 is around the point where characters start becoming superhuman. Not so much "paragon paths" as just stronger additional backgrounds, generally with increasing drawbacks/obligations attached to explain why high-level characters are less free to act.

I like this. I've tried to come up with some background flavor in an attempt to get more of the skill-boost feats into actual play (because I think they're interesting, but not appropriate as "feats").

I also really like the idea of cantrips not being spell slots. I have never played a caster (just not my thing), but have some minor at-will magical abilities for magical characters really helps the rules to express the concept better, I think.

Darg

2023-10-20, 08:48 AM

Rereading that quote highlighted a problem I have with the PrC system as expressed in 3.5. Basically you have casting progression classes that can progress a single feature that provides more features than whole classes combined and yet almost all PrCs don't progress feature heavy classes and instead focus on singular features to progress. The disparity between the two types just furthers the divide between mundane and casters.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-20, 09:07 AM

Having level 6 conan and level 6 hulk being able to exist at the same time, while they may not fit in the same game, at least allows people to play what they want when it’s appropriate to their table.

So does having them exist at different levels, and that gives "level" objective meaning. That's really useful, because it means that you can print one set of "CR 10" monsters, and not two or three or six or however many tiers you formally recognize. The proposal here is that we at least double the amount of content we have to write, and what we get in exchange is that you can write "20" on your character sheet when you have a wider variety of capabilities. But the whole point of level in the first place was to have "20" represent a specific level of capability!

So here's a crazy thought to throw in the mix: subclasses. I know they really weren't a thing in 3.5; but eventually, the idea of alternative class features took hold. Then PF started doing more complete archetypes, again based on ACF's. 5e has codified and structured subclasses much more.

Mechanically it's all the same thing. So just pick a name and stick to it. I tend to prefer "alternate class features", because I think "subclass" works better as a multiclassing alternative.

I was honestly surprised because all I hear online is how more powerful wizards are.

Basically everyone who complains about "Wizards" is using them as a standin for "T1 classes" or "fullcasters". The specific mechanics of the Wizard (spell preparation, scribing spells from scrolls, being able to specialize) are all neutral-to-positive, and the power level is not particularly higher than other casters. I do think they're somewhat better than Druids at mid-to-high optimization, but at that point Artificers are better still. And, as noted, it's all rather irrelevant to the point in question.

Being different is inherently unbalancing. Take something simple for example: weapons with the exact same damage but one with reach vs not having reach. One isn't inherently stronger than the other, but are circumstantially better than each other. If you ever have an unequal amount of times where one is better than the other then you end up with an imbalance.

This is a useless standard. Yes, the only things that are balanced 100% of the time are identical things. However, it is also true that things that are different can be more or less imbalanced, so "different is inherently unbalancing" doesn't tell us anything useful. To use your example, suppose we have two weapons. One does 1d8 damage, the other does 2d8. The latter is strictly better. But suppose we increase the reach of the former. We have now made them more different. But we have also made them more balanced, because there are now a wider variety of situations (i.e. any situations at all) where you might prefer the former to the latter.

They are a powerful class, no question. But they're also the GitP 3.x optimization community's mascot / favorite, so you see a lot of examples of "Wizard being extremely powerful" that could really be "any full-caster with a broad list being extremely powerful". Or at a TO level - "any character who can wrangle a single Gate spell by any means".

Exactly. The Wizard is, frankly, a worse example of many of the problems people complain about than other classes. Wizards don't, outside of pretty high levels of optimization, know every spell. They know a specific, though often fairly broad, list of spells. Unlike a Cleric or a Druid, a Wizard can't wake up in the morning and decide to prepare some obscure Wizard spell they hadn't heard of yesterday that happens to solve their exact problem. Similarly, saying that Wizards are broken because they can cast planar binding or shapechange is a bad analysis, because none of the reasons those spells are broken have anything specific to do with Wizards. planar binding is every bit as game-destroying when you cast it as a Dread Necromancer, and if shapechange were somehow a Tome of Battle stance rather than a spell, that would make it even more game-destroying.

Versatile from low-level. Sorcerer eventually has complete flexibility (better than a Wizard in fact), but that's once you're casting Limited Wish to emulate Psychic Reformation, which is by the point where many campaigns have already ended or are close to ending.

TBF if you're doing that the Wizard can do Hathran + acorn of far travel and be comparably versatile as well. Really high-op characters are all everythingmancers, it's just the pieces you use to get there that vary.

I also really like the idea of cantrips not being spell slots. I have never played a caster (just not my thing), but have some minor at-will magical abilities for magical characters really helps the rules to express the concept better, I think.

At-will cantrips are a really good idea because they increase the power level of casters by ~0 (particularly once you get past 1st level), but completely remove the fairly stupid thing where your mage's fallback action is shooting stuff with a crossbow.

Crake

2023-10-20, 05:22 PM

So does having them exist at different levels, and that gives "level" objective meaning. That's really useful, because it means that you can print one set of "CR 10" monsters, and not two or three or six or however many tiers you formally recognize. The proposal here is that we at least double the amount of content we have to write, and what we get in exchange is that you can write "20" on your character sheet when you have a wider variety of capabilities. But the whole point of level in the first place was to have "20" represent a specific level of capability!

I think your proposal would instead fundamentally destroy one of the pillars that attracts people to 3.x to begin with, namely a far greater level of freedom and ability to play games with vastly different themes within the same system at all levels. If you want a system with codified level brackets, 4 and 5e both do this

Darg

2023-10-20, 10:14 PM

This is a useless standard. Yes, the only things that are balanced 100% of the time are identical things. However, it is also true that things that are different can be more or less imbalanced, so "different is inherently unbalancing" doesn't tell us anything useful. To use your example, suppose we have two weapons. One does 1d8 damage, the other does 2d8. The latter is strictly better. But suppose we increase the reach of the former. We have now made them more different. But we have also made them more balanced, because there are now a wider variety of situations (i.e. any situations at all) where you might prefer the former to the latter.

You literally just agreed with what I said. Differences bring inherent imbalances (1d8 vs 2d8). What brings them back into balance are the opportunities to use those differences (situations where reach has more value than straight damage). Every complaint I've heard about the imbalances in 3e can be boiled down to "wizard nukes city from orbit and fighter sits out on the bench." A fighter is plenty different and has plenty of advantages over the wizard, but isn't given the opportunity to shine. Like a reach weapon cornered with an opponent inside the reach range for every combat. Almost every solution for this imbalance I've heard is about making the fighter and the wizard less different to make them conform more to the scenarios being presented and attempts to suggest not cornering the reach weapon every combat is usually met with disbelief. Sometimes the suggestion is met with being called an oberoni fallacy because it requires the DM to change what they are doing.

Even your AoEII/starcraft example is an example of this. Each of the civilizations/races follow the same basic structural similarities so that they can perform similarly in the same scenarios. In starcraft each race gets access to flying transport. It would be pretty bad for balance if say zerg didn't get flying transport. However, what if their transport was a tanky ground transport that could travel through walls? With that assumption, let's change the scenario to a fictional map where you play under ground trapped in cave pockets and air units can no longer travel. Does the fact that the zerg can now perform better than their counter parts on this map make it balanced that they can't perform on other maps? The average win rate is still 1:1:1 on a random map selection. At a macro level it's completely balanced. However, the designed point of balance is more micro than that at the specific scenario level where it became completely imbalanced.