3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

[nonsi]

Another question: Do monsters also get the Dodge Armor Progression. They get the redefined Save modifiers, shouldn't they also get the Dodge Armor Progression? And the line of reasoning for Dodge Armor Progression also applies to them. On the other hand, this would really make some monsters broken...

1. Go to entry #3
2. Open spoiler: "AC Modifiers – The Whole Story"
3. Open inner spoiler: "Dodge AC Progression"
4. Focus on the bolded text: "for each 2 points of BAB gained by class-level advancement...".

Class levels grant HD progression, but class levels are worth more than just their HD contribution - they represent experience.
No. A monster doesn't gain AC advancement based on its HD, but it could gain AC advancement based on actual level progression.

Rationale: I prefer to think of the imaginary world of D&D to be as ecological as one could build it to be. In an ecological system, a predator evolves the perfect tools over time to hunt its natural prey. The prey usually develops the means to escape, not fight back, so the predator usually doesn't need to develop evasive maneuvers.
This also serves to avoid making monsters broken. They were built in advance by the designers to compensate for adventurers' gear.

[antymattar]

Short answer: I'm not for it.
Don't have the time to explain right now. Stay tuned . . .


[EDIT] . . .

My first days in D&D started with the red BECMI boxed set. I participated in a total of 4 groups under those rules, all the way to level 32.
Later on I took part in 2 AD&D groups – one under 1e rules and another under 2e rules.
Starting at the early 2Ks, I played in one group under 3e rules and three more groups under 3.5e rules.
One thing was consistent throughout all this time – we all felt that the characters didn't feel versatile or capable enough. We never min-maxed, but rather played in the average power levels intended by the designers (except maybe in our 3rd BECMI group, where there was a lot of damage output, but that didn't matter much for versatility). Yes, in 3.5 you can potentially become hellishly powerful if you're a full-scale prepared caster, but that's also your weak point - you have to guess-choose your spells.
What you're suggesting is to narrow down character-versatility significantly – and the ones who'll by far get hurt more than others are the melee classes…… as if they're not shafted enough. Now you'll have to multiply their class resources 6-fold just to make them keep up.

Your suggestion also defies common sense.
BAB, saves, AC etc. are abstractions that sum up a character's overall battlefield practice:
- How to position yourself on the battlefield
- Where and when to strike and at what angle
- Anticipation
- Patience
- Stamina
- Resolve
and many other parameters.

I could train from here to the afterlife with a single weapon – it wouldn't count as much as someone who's been on the battlefield for several years doing melee combat. Even if that someone took my fav. Weapon for the first time, chances are he'll still tear me a new one if we go one-on-one (and I know a thing or two about self-defense, w/ background in 4 different fields of martial arts – including training my son on his way to an early teen Shotokan European gold medal and one step from black belt).

Hmm, point taken I guess. Kind of upset because that just shoots down a big part of the idea. But thanks anyway :)
To be honest, the idea WAS to gimp everyone a bit. And make it so that weapons had abilities inherently tied with how mastered you are with them(unknown/familiar/proficient/masterful) while also making it so that there are no real dead levels. But I see now that removing things like BAB completely really makes it a pain to calculate the encounter difficulty too.

Can I ask a few more questions? I'l ask them regardless:

What do you think about all ability scores offering a saving throw? Like a STR INT and CHA saving throw along with the other ones? I read your overhaul and saw that it made the three saves scale with either of two attributes, which, honestly, is an idea I find really pleasing.

What do you think about having a sort of mental health bar(mental health as in the stress level of your mind, not a mental condition)?

Do you particularly enjoy the idea of multi-classing? Do you think it is a good thing to encourage?

Again, thanks for the response.

[nonsi]

What do you think about all ability scores offering a saving throw? Like a STR INT and CHA saving throw along with the other ones? I read your overhaul and saw that it made the three saves scale with either of two attributes, which, honestly, is an idea I find really pleasing.

Well, I proposed it, so that should hint I'm for it.
When I propose a rule/brew, aside from its mechanical benefit, it also has to make sense and contribute to the game as a whole.
- Con means passively resisting. Str means actively resisting.
- Dex helps you avoid things by reacting to them. Int helps you avoid things by anticipating them.
- Wis helps you resist mental assault via intuition. Cha helps you resist mental assault via willpower.
In all three cases above, there should be overlapping, not stacking. The point is make-sense and character-build versatility, not raw power-boost.

What do you think about having a sort of mental health bar(mental health as in the stress level of your mind, not a mental condition)?

I'm all for it. I just never encountered a persuasive implementation.
It has to be something relatively simple to manage and track, and mental health deterioration should be reversible w/o slowing down your game (this of course means that it has to be something that would feel intuitive).

Do you particularly enjoy the idea of multi-classing? Do you think it is a good thing to encourage?

I have nothing for or against multiclassing.
For me, multiclassing is a tool that aids you in defining your character. You shouldn't use it for minmaxing (I believe that my multiclassing formula achieves just that) - otherwise it's the obvious choice and it wouldn't leave room for single-classed characters (making the higher levels of some classes moot).

[armloc]

And again two questions (hopefully this time not totally unnecessary):

1. You mention redefined spell duration times. However, I cannot find the categories you mention in the spell descriptions (from short to extended). Am I missing something?

2. You wrote: "Int-bonus determines bonus spells known". However, I cannot find any rules about bonus spells in the section of the Mage or Druid (I haven't checked the cleric). How is this implemented?

Oh, and a point about multiclassing: In the section were you present the multiclassing rules (which I like a lot by the way) you merely mention that one's spellcaster levels benefit from non-spellcaster levels. However, in your examples you make it quite clear that one's spellcaster levels also benefit from other spellcaster levels. I think a bit of clarification is needed there in order that it becomes obvious that one's mage levels also benefit from one's cleric levels and so on.

[nonsi]

And again two questions (hopefully this time not totally unnecessary):

No such thing. If you don't get it, then it's my job to explain.

1. You mention redefined spell duration times. However, I cannot find the categories you mention in the spell descriptions (from short to extended). Am I missing something?

Post #4 (Spellcasting Rules); 5th spoiler (Spell Durations Redefined).

2. You wrote: "Int-bonus determines bonus spells known". However, I cannot find any rules about bonus spells in the section of the Mage or Druid (I haven't checked the cleric). How is this implemented?

1. Extra Spells Known is a general rule that works the same for all spellcasters. You don't need specifications per-class. It uses the same core table that specifies extra spells-per-day and comes instead. It's no oversight that no ability score grants extra spells per day, because each spellcaster's primary spellcasting ability score amplifies one's spellcasting tolerance (which defines your spellcasting output capacity).
2. That's Priest, not Cleric. Cleric is a specific Priest variant.

Oh, and a point about multiclassing: In the section were you present the multiclassing rules (which I like a lot by the way) you merely mention that one's spellcaster levels benefit from non-spellcaster levels. However, in your examples you make it quite clear that one's spellcaster levels also benefit from other spellcaster levels. I think a bit of clarification is needed there in order that it becomes obvious that one's mage levels also benefit from one's cleric levels and so on.

If by examples you mean the stuff under the "Resolving the Elusive Multiclassing Balancing Point" title . . .
Notice that it's inside the "Feats for multiclassing 2 or more spellcasting classes" spoiler.
You need to spend a feat (Magical Synthesis) in order for two spellcasting classes to benefit from each other's level progression.

[armloc]

Post #4 (Spellcasting Rules); 5th spoiler (Spell Durations Redefined).

I saw this. In fact it is the reason for my question. You present there redefined spell durations. However, the categories your redefine there do not exist in the original spell descriptions of the SRD. Or am I missing something? I can only find durations like "1 round/lvl" or "10 minutes/lvl" etc.

Extra Spells Known is a general rule that works the same for all spellcasters. You don't need specifications per-class. It uses the same core table that specifies extra spells-per-day and comes instead.

I have already pondered whether you mean that. Thank your for this clarification.

If by examples you mean the stuff under the "Resolving the Elusive Multiclassing Balancing Point" title . . .
Notice that it's inside the "Feats for multiclassing 2 or more spellcasting classes" spoiler.
You need to spend a feat (Magical Synthesis) in order for two spellcasting classes to benefit from each other's level progression.

Urgs, how awkward. I had already read this spoiler - even most of the feats. I was even looking intentionally whether there is a feat to allow spellcaster multiclassing synergy. And I didn't find the obvious. How embarrassing

[nonsi]

I saw this. In fact it is the reason for my question. You present there redefined spell durations. However, the categories your redefine there do not exist in the original spell descriptions of the SRD. Or am I missing something? I can only find durations like "1 round/lvl" or "10 minutes/lvl" etc.

It's actually quite easy - just find the closest match.
- If you have 1 minute / level, make it 10 min.
- 10 min / level - make it an hour.
- 1 round / level - make it Short (Concentration + 5 rounds).

and so on . . .

It's not perfect, but nothing ever is really.

[armloc]

What are the reasons for these redefined spell durations (and for the redefined spell range categories)?
It seems counterintuitive that a spell has the same parameters, no matter how experienced a caster is (like a fireball with an always fixed dmg). And it might lead to way too much nerfed high lvl spells, where there is no point, if they merely last for 5 round + concentration.

[nonsi]

What are the reasons for these redefined spell durations (and for the redefined spell range categories)?

Mostly balance issues.
If you combine Long range as presented in core with swift-action spells, by the time a non-caster gets to where he can really pose a threat in melee, the enemy wizard has enough action economy to eliminate him several times over.
240' still effectively grant you 2 rounds of bombarding your opponent (that's 4 spells, if you maximize your action-economy strategy) w/o him having anything to say about it.

It seems counterintuitive that a spell has the same parameters, no matter how experienced a caster is (like a fireball with an always fixed dmg).

Spellcasters already have the upper hand w/o increased ranges and durations. Potency needs to increase to keep up with HP and saving throws improvements. Except for the Monk, noncasters hardly ever have their movement significantly increased.
As for durations - most encounters end in about 4-6 rounds, which means that even if you don't bother concentrating, you have the effect active for the entire encounter more often than not. anything beyond 7 rounds is in effect Duration: the entire encounter.

And it might lead to way too much nerfed high lvl spells, where there is no point, if they merely last for 5 round + concentration.

It's part of my agenda to close the gap between casters and noncasters, and to make spellcasters require noncasters-associated strategy for optimizing their encounter-based effectiveness.

[armloc]

That sounds reasonable. I'll try it. :-)

[armloc]

This time no questions, but two proposals:

1. Flanking: Actually, I like your changed flanking rules quite a lot. As you mentioned, there is the problem of corners when flanking large+ creatures. How about this: In order to flank a large creature, the line drawn has to go through two squares the creature occupies (and accordingly more for larger creatures).

2. Initiative: I like your rules for AC improvement linked to BAB increase. However, the same rationale seems to me could be applied to initiative. A fighter improves through time, but never learns to react faster to an opponent? Stupid. What about adding your BAB (or half) to your initiative? And also your size modifier.

Oh, yet a question: I remember that I read in your rules that size modifiers are doubled, but I cannot find where I read that. Do I remember that correctly?

[nonsi]

1. Flanking: Actually, I like your changed flanking rules quite a lot. As you mentioned, there is the problem of corners when flanking large+ creatures. How about this: In order to flank a large creature, the line drawn has to go through two squares the creature occupies (and accordingly more for larger creatures).

I see what you'r trying to accomplish here.
Basically, you don't want C1 and C2 to be flanking M:

	C2
	M	M
C1	M	M

Well, I have a simpler formula that should work all the time w/o edge cases:
1. Draw imaginary lines between the centers of opposing parties' members.
2. Whenever 2 members of one side form an angle that's greater than 90 degrees with an opponent, they flank that opponent.
3. No one's flanking more than once at any given time

2. Initiative: I like your rules for AC improvement linked to BAB increase. However, the same rationale seems to me could be applied to initiative. A fighter improves through time, but never learns to react faster to an opponent? Stupid. What about adding your BAB (or half) to your initiative? And also your size modifier.

Oh, that one's a case of bad editing on my part.
In the Omitted Feats section; PHB I spoiler, Improved Initiative is omitted and it's stated that base Ref-save bonus is added to initiative. Ill add it to the combat rules post.

Oh, yet a question: I remember that I read in your rules that size modifiers are doubled, but I cannot find where I read that. Do I remember that correctly?

I know of nothing in the rules that says that.
The closest thing I could find to what you're suggesting is that size also has 1/2 the effect on Move Silently (+/-2 per size shift).

[armloc]

And again some more question:

1. In the description of Combat Threat warcraft you write: "Whenever a creature within the worrior's threatened area "ignores" the fighter during its combat turn (does not target him with an attack, combat maneuver, special ability or a spell)". Does this also include leaving the threatened area (like the original threatening rules)?

2. In the description of the Battleshaper ability you write: "A 15th level warrior gains an extra swift or immediate action every combat round (meaning, in a single combat round you can either take 2 immediate actions, 2 swift actions, or 1 immediate action and 1 swift action)." This puzzles me. In your system a character has anyway an immediate and 1 swift action. Shouldn't it therefore say: "can either take 3 immediate actions and 1 swift action, or 1 immediate action and 3 swift actions, or 2 immediate actions and 2 swift actions."?

3. In the description of the Find the Mark ability you write: "As a swift action, the warrior can expend his Combat Focus to gain his Combat Edge bonus on all attack and damage scores until the beginning of his next turn." Does that mean that he gets it doubled for weapons he has weapons training in and normally for all other weapons, or does it simply mean he gets it normally for all weapons, no matter whether he has weapons training in them or not.

Thanks again in advance for all answers.

[nonsi]

1. In the description of Combat Threat warcraft you write: "Whenever a creature within the worrior's threatened area "ignores" the fighter during its combat turn (does not target him with an attack, combat maneuver, special ability or a spell)". Does this also include leaving the threatened area (like the original threatening rules)?

It took me some thinking to decide where to go with this one.
I decided that addressing the warrior denies him of this Warcraft's benefit, so if a warrior's opponent breaks contact w/o acting against him, the opponent basically renders himself exposed.

2. In the description of the Battleshaper ability you write: "A 15th level warrior gains an extra swift or immediate action every combat round (meaning, in a single combat round you can either take 2 immediate actions, 2 swift actions, or 1 immediate action and 1 swift action)." This puzzles me. In your system a character has anyway an immediate and 1 swift action. Shouldn't it therefore say: "can either take 3 immediate actions and 1 swift action, or 1 immediate action and 3 swift actions, or 2 immediate actions and 2 swift actions."?

Wow, nice catch.
The "or 1 immediate action and 1 swift action" is a leftover that should've been omitted.

3. In the description of the Find the Mark ability you write: "As a swift action, the warrior can expend his Combat Focus to gain his Combat Edge bonus on all attack and damage scores until the beginning of his next turn." Does that mean that he gets it doubled for weapons he has weapons training in and normally for all other weapons, or does it simply mean he gets it normally for all weapons, no matter whether he has weapons training in them or not.

A 17th level warrior can already rain hell upon his foes, so I rule it's the former (you're left exposed w/o the defensive benefits of Combat Focus after all).

[nonsi]

I see what you'r trying to accomplish here.
Basically, you don't want C1 and C2 to be flanking M:

	C2
	M	M
C1	M	M

Well, I have a simpler formula that should work all the time w/o edge cases:
1. Draw imaginary lines between the centers of opposing parties' members.
2. Whenever 2 members of one side form an angle that's greater than 90 degrees with an opponent, they flank that opponent.
3. No one's flanking more than once at any given time

I wish to refine this one.

Two allies are flanking an opponent if:
1. Both have the opponent within their reach.
2. The imaginary lines from the center of the space they occupy meet in the center of the space that their opponent occupies in an angle greater than 90 degrees.
A creature may only be counted once as part of a flanking pair at any given time.

[antymattar]

I was wondering what your ideas are on alignment. I know a lot of people take issue with it, do you?

[nonsi]

I was wondering what your ideas are on alignment. I know a lot of people take issue with it, do you?

I'm not a big fan of alignment-oriented mechanics, however . . .
1. Since the dawn of D&D (BECMI at least), alignment has always played a part in the game's mechanics. In 3.Xe, alignment-oriented mechanics are so interwoven into the game that any attempt to purge them (spells/monsters/feats/gear/realms/adventures) would most probably require you to reinvent the game from the ground up. I tried several times to address the subject and found that the scope of work was just too great and comprehensive a task for me to complete.
2. If you'd think of it, alignment-oriented mechanics don't really harm the game in any way and the majority of RP-ers actually like them.

Practicality dictates to leave that aspect of the game untouched. I learned about practicality the hard way - when I tried to add two ability scores that made a lot of sense to me (Agility & Perception), only to find out that it was too much for the majority of readers (who're so accustomed to 6 ability scores) to process.
Making waves is not a healthy ingredient when dealing with homebrewing and houseruling.

[armloc]

I wish to refine this one.

Two allies are flanking an opponent if:
1. Both have the opponent within their reach.
2. The imaginary lines from the center of the space they occupy meet in the center of the space that their opponent occupies in an angle greater than 90 degrees.
A creature may only be counted once as part of a flanking pair at any given time.

This works for large creatures. But with larger creatures the problem returns again.

[nonsi]

This works for large creatures. But with larger creatures the problem returns again.

I find it hard to imagine why larger sizes would be problematic when measuring angle > 90.
Can you show an example of a problematic positioning vs. a huge opponent that by my rules would count as flanking but shouldn't? (you could use the grid format from post #102 and add rows & columns accordingly).

[armloc]

Umpf, my mistake. I haven't read it thoroughly enough. I overlooked the crucial phrase "in the center of the space that their opponent occupies." Hence, it works well!

[nonsi]

Umpf, my mistake. I haven't read it thoroughly enough. I overlooked the crucial phrase "in the center of the space that their opponent occupies." Hence, it works well!

Think nothing of it. Happens to me from time to time.
Just don't let it discourage you from asking anything else if in doubt, or if you encounter stuff you suspect to contain errors of any sort.

[Defiantnight]

.

- Portable Hole and other trans-dimensional containers: Way too Disney. There are no reserved "pockets" on other planes/dimensions waiting for someone to "log-in" onto them
[/SPOILER]

Does that include Bags of Holding? They're like, staples of 3.5, not sure about the other editions

...

Offensive and Defensive Magical Plusses:
[SPOILER]
There are no longer standalone offensive or defensive magical plusses to gear.
The basic magical plusses are derived from 5 spells:
- (Greater) Magic Weapon
- (Greater) Magic Fang
- Magic Vestment

This kills the need to tie magical plusses to SLs – something that would either make them too weak or break the RNG.
To keep Rings of Protection viable, Magic Vestment is modified to apply to any donned object – including rings.

Note: some high-level magical effects grant multiple modifiers and that's fine by me.
Make them emanating and you get magical items that grant multiple modifiers.

What does this section mean, at all? I have a small headache at the moment, so sorry if it's obvious.

...

Body 'Slots':
Given that the problem of over-stacking magical effects via gear doesn't exist anymore, there's no more reason to limit body slots.
Nothing should prevent a character from donning as many as 20 rings (10 fingers & 10 toes).
The only limitation on body slots is that the same body slot cannot benefit from multiple items with emanating effects.
When multiple items with emanating effects occupy the same body slot, they cancel each other out.

What is an emenating effect? Are earrings and etc. unslotted or also ring slots?

...

You get 4 rests per day: two short 10-minute ones, one 1-hour one, and one 8-hours of sleep (except for elves).

Technically as written doesn't that last note mean that elves just get 3 rests and are excluded from having an 8-hour one? I'm aware that's not the point and probably not even how it's written, but it could be read that way.

...

2. Officially noted modifiers to crit threat/multiplier are ignored for all weapons.

I think I read it right, but just to make sure, this is supposed to remove any and all things that make attacks crit more often and only apply crits to damage, right?

...

Burst effect is set as a swift action and is triggered upon the next successful strike to come before the beginning of the character's next combat turn. After Burst effect is triggered (or if not set in the first place), the weapon functions like a regular Flaming/Frost/Shock weapon.

Yay, a use for Burst weapons

...

For each cumulative +5 total modifier to both Str & Dex a creature gains above its racial average (+0 for all character races), its speed increases by +5'. This increase is capped by 1/2 extra Dex modifier.

This applies to players too, right? So if I had +2 Str and +3 Dex in mods at any race (and any combination up to +5) I would get +5 extra land speed, I believe. What exactly is the cap? If I had +3 Dex, would my cap be 15' (3 increases) or no increase at all (3 <5)?

My responses are bolded and italicized.

Loving what I see so far, but the sheer info dump is giving me a headache, so I'll finish reading it some other time, hehe.

Edit: Sorry for the wall of text, I'm not sure how to multi-quote

[nonsi]

- Portable Hole and other trans-dimensional containers: Way too Disney. There are no reserved "pockets" on other planes/dimensions waiting for someone to "log-in" onto them
[/SPOILER]

Does that include Bags of Holding? They're like, staples of 3.5, not sure about the other editions

Bag of Holding being dimension-associated is removed.
But if you wish to emulate its functionality, you could do it with:

1. Shrink Item spell. "An ever repeating effect (once per round)". Shrink Item effect on objects that go in, Dispel Magic on objects that come out.
Price: 3 * 10000 + 1500 (Reactive power). Twice.
I could also add Shrink Item to the list of reversible spells (more manageable and elegant than reversing Shrink Item with Dispel Magic). Would omit the "twice" factor and make the spell more useful without breaking anything.

2. A 4th level small-AoE of Shrink-Unshrink. Would remove the need for adding Dispel Magic, and reduce the price category to "emanating ***(always-active) effect".
Price: 4 * 6000.

3. (The cheapest option) a dedicated 6th level effect with permanent duration that creates a sack which shrinks items that go inside (they inflate when they come out).
Not as cinematic as this), but more or less the concept.
Price: 0. (you should add costly materials to avoid spamming)

The implication in all cases is that money doesn't buy you everything at low-level.
Also, given the general agenda of making characters more competent prior to gear kicking in......... and given none of the epic tales had adventuring parties loaded with gear, I'm ok with making it harder to effortlessly carry stuff in mass quantities.

Offensive and Defensive Magical Plusses:
[SPOILER]
There are no longer standalone offensive or defensive magical plusses to gear.
The basic magical plusses are derived from 5 spells:
- (Greater) Magic Weapon
- (Greater) Magic Fang
- Magic Vestment

This kills the need to tie magical plusses to SLs – something that would either make them too weak or break the RNG.
To keep Rings of Protection viable, Magic Vestment is modified to apply to any donned object – including rings.

Note: some high-level magical effects grant multiple modifiers and that's fine by me.
Make them emanating and you get magical items that grant multiple modifiers.

What does this section mean, at all? I have a small headache at the moment, so sorry if it's obvious.

It means that you no longer have longsword +3 or breastplate +2, but lobgsword w/ Greater Magic Weapon and breastplate w/ Magic Vestment (to varied degree of CL).
Pluses are no longer a criteria for pricing and they never correlated well with SLs anyway, so no reason to keep them as separate game mechanic.

Body 'Slots':
Given that the problem of over-stacking magical effects via gear doesn't exist anymore, there's no more reason to limit body slots.
Nothing should prevent a character from donning as many as 20 rings (10 fingers & 10 toes).
The only limitation on body slots is that the same body slot cannot benefit from multiple items with emanating effects.
When multiple items with emanating effects occupy the same body slot, they cancel each other out.

What is an emenating effect? Are earrings and etc. unslotted or also ring slots?

An emanating effect is an effect that's continuously active (e.g. amulet of Protection from Arrows)

You get 4 rests per day: two short 10-minute ones, one 1-hour one, and one 8-hours of sleep (except for elves).

Technically as written doesn't that last note mean that elves just get 3 rests and are excluded from having an 8-hour one? I'm aware that's not the point and probably not even how it's written, but it could be read that way.

Ok, fair enough: "except for elves, which require only 4 hours to complete long rest"

2. Officially noted modifiers to crit threat/multiplier are ignored for all weapons.

I think I read it right, but just to make sure, this is supposed to remove any and all things that make attacks crit more often and only apply crits to damage, right?

Right.

For each cumulative +5 total modifier to both Str & Dex a creature gains above its racial average (+0 for all character races), its speed increases by +5'. This increase is capped by 1/2 extra Dex modifier.

This applies to players too, right? So if I had +2 Str and +3 Dex in mods at any race (and any combination up to +5) I would get +5 extra land speed, I believe. What exactly is the cap? If I had +3 Dex, would my cap be 15' (3 increases) or no increase at all (3 <5)?

I guess this needs re-wording.
The intent is that regardless of the total, any Str modifier above the Dex modifier is ignored. Speed is more tied to Dex than Str. You need muscle strength, but you need muscle speed even more.

My responses are bolded and italicized.

Loving what I see so far, but the sheer info dump is giving me a headache, so I'll finish reading it some other time, hehe.

Edit: Sorry for the wall of text, I'm not sure how to multi-quote

Multi-quote is easy.

each block starts with:

[QUOTE=Defiantnight;20195103]

(the number changes according to the message you're quoting)

and ends with:

[/QUOTE]

[nonsi]

.
Another character-build-versatility breakthrough achieved: Post #10, "Multiclassing and Path-Devotion" spoiler.


That said, I would want to hear people's thoughts on an idea I have for a modification (not necessarily tied to this project, but a general idea for 3.Xe) that might somewhat narrow the gap between fullcasters and the other classes.
The idea is to postpone access to SLs 7^th, 8^th and 9^th as follows.

Spell-Level Access
0th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
X	X
X	X
X	X	X
X	X	X
X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X

[Neoxenok]

I'm... sure it would help, but I can't help but think that it would just delay the inevitable.
People usually cite two main reasons as to why full casters are better than non-casters.

1) Versitility
2) Power

Spells are individually powerful and can be combined in ways to achieve even greater power.
Personally, I don't believe that nipping a wizard's/cleric's/whatever's versatility to be an ideal solution but I think if you're already fixing spells individually, you're already fixing the problem. People often tend to cite the warlock as being a balanced caster because it limits both of those things. Personally, I think fixing spells is 98% of the work.

That being said, a combination of things (including a delayed casting progression) could help.

[nonsi]

Personally, I don't believe that nipping a wizard's/cleric's/whatever's versatility to be an ideal solution but I think if you're already fixing spells individually, you're already fixing the problem.

That I did to the best of my ability and knowledge, and I'm always receptive to further suggestions.

People often tend to cite the warlock as being a balanced caster because it limits both of those things. Personally, I think fixing spells is 98% of the work.

That being said, a combination of things (including a delayed casting progression) could help.

I'd give it ~80%
Given the gamechanger spells come at 7th & 8th and the reality changers come at 9th, my motivation was to allow the other classes to "build up some more mass" before they arrive, and to give fullcasters something to aspire fore at the high-end levels.

[nonsi]

I'm... sure it would help, but I can't help but think that it would just delay the inevitable.
People usually cite two main reasons as to why full casters are better than non-casters.

1) Versitility
2) Power

Spells are individually powerful and can be combined in ways to achieve even greater power.
Personally, I don't believe that nipping a wizard's/cleric's/whatever's versatility to be an ideal solution but I think if you're already fixing spells individually, you're already fixing the problem. People often tend to cite the warlock as being a balanced caster because it limits both of those things. Personally, I think fixing spells is 98% of the work.

That being said, a combination of things (including a delayed casting progression) could help.

After giving it some thought, I decided against the SL shifts.
It will cause too many ripples, and with the spell tweaks and class leveling, I believe it's not really necessary.

In the meantime, a new class has been introduced into the codex: "Netherhost".

[nonsi]

.
Status report:

Arcane Rune Casting added - combining the concepts of Runemage and Geometer into one.

[Pakis54]

my only thought would be have you playtested all this stuff?
and when will you put them all together in a pdf?! cause i cant wait to playtest them myself!

[nonsi]

my only thought would be have you playtested all this stuff?
and when will you put them all together in a pdf?! cause i cant wait to playtest them myself!

PDF:
I currently have no plans of putting this codex into PDF. Frankly, I don't see what good can come out of it.
When you need easy-search, use the 2-clicks Expand-All-Spoilers option. (top-right corner of each post - in the brown header line near the post number)
For easy navigation, use the 2-clicks Collapse-All-Spoilers option.


Play-Testing:
I haven't playtested the system as a whole, nor did I receive feedbacks from people that declared intentions to try the system as is. However.......
1. Everything in here serves at least 3 purposes (that's the goal anyway) out of:
1.1. Balance
1.2. Common sense (as in not breaking suspension of disbelief)
1.3. Gameflow
1.4. Game options (I want to play a character that... / I wish my character to...)
1.5. Fun
2. The creation of this codex was anything but solo flight. A lot of the stuff in it originated in / taken from other brewers with a lot of game mileage - including on several min-mix boards
3. This codex has slowly been evolving for years. I believe that at its current state, the system is clear of things that are there just to serve my personal taste. There's nothing in it that hasn't undergone several incarnations. Furthermore, there are a lot of elements that were in the codex in the passed and were thrown out the window when I realized they do more harm than good.
4. Except for the last 3 classes in the codex, nothing has remained un-feedbacked to some degree. I always invite harsh (yet civilized) criticism and adjust when compelling arguments are brought up.
5. Quite a lot in the codex has actually been playtested with reported positive results. I'm unaware of any current codex elements that have failed playtesting.