PDA

View Full Version : What needs to be fixed for 3.5?



Utgardloki
08-15-2010, 10:11 PM
I am deciding to update my homebrew Audor campaign. While I plan to stick close to the original 3.5 rules, I will want to fix what needs to be fixing without too much change.

So, the question is, what needs to be fixed in 3.5?

wizarddog
08-20-2010, 10:14 AM
Whatever you feel takes away from the enjoyment of the game for you and the players.

I am sure there are people who enjoy playing 3.5 just as it is.

yukonhorror
08-20-2010, 10:52 AM
I always hated the necessity of clerics and such. If you made healing less exclusive, that is always nice.

Utgardloki
08-22-2010, 12:32 AM
Parties in my 3.5 game have routinely set out without a cleric, so I guess they are not necessary.

As my current Pathfinder character says: "The more healing you have, the more trouble you get into."

d-_-b
08-22-2010, 05:08 PM
Paizo already fixed 3.5. Check out Pathfinder:)

Crom on his Mountain
08-23-2010, 04:47 AM
That really depends on what you want out of the game. For me, I prefer limiting it to level 6 (or even 5), reigning in spellcasters, and making huge changes (or even eliminating) to divine casters.

---------- Post added at 02:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 AM ----------


Paizo already fixed 3.5. Check out Pathfinder:)

Hardly.

Utgardloki
08-24-2010, 01:30 AM
I have Pathfinder, but in my opinion, Pathfinder is just a little bit "too sweet". I see how they've boosted the primary spellcasters at 1st level, but it does not really fit the concept I have my my D&D homebrew. The difference is that in my homebrew, magic is a resource that has to be used judiciously, while in Pathfinder, casters can cast magic all day. It's like the difference between the World of Greyhawk where there are people with major magic, but commoners won't be seeing it all the time, vs Glorantha where people will see minor magic all the time.

I have noticed that nobody in my homebrew game has played a primary spellcaster for long. I, myself, usually end up multiclassing. Even though practically everybody on every forum says "Never multiclass a primary spellcaster," in the games I run and play in, multiclassing is usually important for versatility even if I am sacrificing higher level spells.

I am willing to live with this, but perhaps I should boost Wizards and Sorcerers to 4 skill points a level to encourage taking more levels in those classes.

Crom on his Mountain
08-24-2010, 04:48 AM
That's an issue that was introduced in 3.5, earlier editions required casters to be far more careful. A 2nd edition caster required 10 minutes per spell level to memorize spells. While a 3e wizard regains all his spells by studying for 30 minutes once per day a 2e wizard required a full hour just to memorize a single 6th level spell. Wizards very rarely went nuke because of the huge time investment required to rememorize all their spells.

In addition to that 2e spells took a while to go off. A 3e wizard waits for his turn and then fires off his spell immediately. A 2e wizard casting a spell with a casting time of 5 could begin casting on initiative 14 and not finish up til 9, every person acting between 14 and 9 can interrupt the caster.

2e may be what you're looking for.

Utgardloki
08-25-2010, 01:39 AM
I like the 3.5 rules, and think they're just about perfect.

One thing I'm thinking of doing is addressing the fragility problem by allowing sorcerers and wizards to instantly convert unused spells into hit points if they need them.

Crom on his Mountain
08-25-2010, 02:34 AM
I like the 3.5 rules, and think they're just about perfect.

One thing I'm thinking of doing is addressing the fragility problem by allowing sorcerers and wizards to instantly convert unused spells into hit points if they need them.

You think wizards and sorcerers need to be MORE powerful?

wizarddog
08-26-2010, 03:39 AM
The difference is that in my homebrew, magic is a resource that has to be used judiciously, while in Pathfinder, casters can cast magic all day.


I have noticed that nobody in my homebrew game has played a primary spellcaster for long. I, myself, usually end up multiclassing. Even though practically everybody on every forum says "Never multiclass a primary spellcaster," in the games I run and play in, multiclassing is usually important for versatility even if I am sacrificing higher level spells.

I am willing to live with this, but perhaps I should boost Wizards and Sorcerers to 4 skill points a level to encourage taking more levels in those classes.

Perhaps the reason no one plays a full caster is because they way they have to play one in your world. Nothing wrong with that. This is the sort of thing that happens when you tweak the game.

Pathfinder did some justice to the other classes, such as a fighter, that was a piss poor compared to a wizard or cleric in abilities. It did not do much to increase the power of the wizard (personally I believe wizards lost balance in 3.5 when all the splat books started coming into existence). Instead, the system brought the class more on equal footing. The biggest class to get the nerf was the druid. Still, you have a lot of powers in the system, but is that such a bad thing?

Utgardloki
08-26-2010, 11:12 PM
I ran a game once with pregen characters, where the 11th level Sorcerer ended up biting the dust quite early on do to an area of effect attack. Converting spells into an emergency reserve of hit points would help the Sorcerer survive, although the cost is being unable to use her spells for casting, so she's motivated to keep her head down as much as possible. This idea is just intended as an emergency "Your character does not die from this unforseen event" thing.

Pathfinder just gave them d6 hit dice, but I think that takes away from the "flavor" of these classes as being the "glass jaws".

tesral
08-30-2010, 10:31 PM
Level skill points. Everyone but the rogue has far too few. Ditch class and cross class skills, they do nothing but reinforce stereotypes. I found it impossible to build a fighter in 3.5 that was anything but a dumb jock. I shouldn't need a dozen fighter variant classes.

Balance feats. Don';t short the other classes so much. Many things that are feats should not be feats.

Ditch a dozen variant classes per base class.

Utgardloki
08-31-2010, 01:10 AM
I plan to address the too few skill points in a few ways:

1. Each PC can choose a culture, and each culture has a list of cultural skills. The player chooses a skill from the cultural skills list, and the PC gets a free rank in that skill and it is treated as a class skill.

2. I'm planning to use the Pathfinder system where instead of charging double for cross-class skills, PCs get a +3 bonus for class skills. I'm thinking of actually changing that to a bonus based on character level, maybe +2 every 4 levels.

3. I plan to allow players to get one free skill point per level to be used on "special interests". This could be a knowledge, or a craft, or something like that.

tesral
08-31-2010, 01:58 AM
I give all classes 5 skill points base. Rouges get an extra pool.

Richard Littles
08-31-2010, 02:30 AM
I'm not too keen on D&D, but some of the classes need to be tweaked and the over abundance of splat books are the problem.

tesral
08-31-2010, 10:54 AM
Agreed. The need to move product casues the number of books to balloon to Library of Congress proportions. I apreciate that game companies need to make money, but when I risk a hernia trying to move my game, you have too much damn game. Every edition of D&D has been worse than that last for the sheer volume of print.

That and every splat book added is another chance that you have game breaking rules within. Not all rules are created equally or well play tested. The rate that Lizards is cranking them out they either have half of Seattle doing playtesting, or they are not playtesting much at all..

Lord.Sorasen
09-01-2010, 05:27 PM
Oh man I wrote way too much. Like, this could be a term paper. Sorry guys... I will accept any TLDR as fair game.

If I had to change DnD 3.5... A lot of people would hate what I would do to change 3.5 actually.

I think the game dictates too much. Say, for instance, that I want to make a character. My character in particular is a young noble in a large kingdom type city, who used to get his kicks by taking advantage of the non-nobles, until one day he sees the error of his ways. When praying that night, he is visited by an archon, who tells him that he must be a holy warrior for those who cannot defend themselves. The young noble in essence becomes a protector of the people from other nobles, using his knowledge of nobility to guide him.

So, I go into the source books and look for a class. cleric seems nice for the idea here, but I see more a crusader than a healer, and the fact that I wouldn't have martial weapon proficiency isn't that great either... Fighter is sort of the right warrior I want but then he has no real holy bent, and I want my warrior to be almost celestial... Finally, I come across the paladin. Thinking I've found the perfect class, I begin to roll my stats... But the DM stops me. He points out that paladins have to be lawful, and my character definitely has an unlawful bent. He further specifies that a special mount will do me little good as I will be spending much time in cramp city spaces. Discouraged, I'm forced to go with a favored soul, which isn't really what I wanted but one makes do.

What I'm trying to say is every class a written personality, a written religion, a written relationship with other classes. And prestige classes, which the DM guide says are made to give players more options, really do the opposite, as now I have to pick a specific class, a specific feat, generally be a human if I want to make feat and skill requirements without too much loss... Some prestige classes even require you be a certain race, for instance.

One question you'll see beginners ask on DnD forums a lot is: Hey, so I'm building a character, and I'm thinking of going with a two weapon type fighter. The ranger looked good but I don't want to be a nature based or nimble character but rather just a two weapon powerhouse. Any suggestions? There's one suggestion for this concept, and that is fighter, which happens to be a fairly tly, boring, option. If so many people want it, it must be a simple build... Why does it not exist?

That's my issue. Simple builds simply don't exist, save the fighter and maybe the wizard. Want an assassin with a specialty "one hit kill?" Sounds like you want a rogue. Do you also want to be able to identify traps? No? Well you get it anyway. Even if it really doesn't match your storyline, you get it. How about a noncombatant treasure hunter? Also a rogue, and you will end up with a powerful sneak attack regardless of how it matches your character.

A lot of people say the big issue with DnD 3.5 is that there's too many options. But I think it's bigger than that. I think the issue is that people feel a need for new splat books because they can't find what they want within the classes available. So I suggest: Do away with the class system. I call it the build system. It would essentially be like classes but with a couple differences, one being that each class has only a single power. Encourage multi-classing, and get rid of allignment requirements for classes. Fighter would really remain the same. Rogue, however, would split into maybe 3 classes: the slayer (who gains the sneak attack,) the dungeoneer (who gains trap sense and has a high number of skill points,) and the Nimble warrior (who gains dodge, uncanny dodge, etc.) Barbarian would split into Berserker (with rage) the tank (with damage reduction) and the Nimble warrior (already discussed.) And it would continue like this forever. People would make a character by writing down their character's background, and then picking "builds" to match it: Their characters are chosen by the players: Why should rules dictate what sort of character you can make? The management of characters is left up to the DM, as it should be.

Prestige classes would become widely like the mystic theurge: They would be around to encourage people to duelclass and gather a variety of skills to match a character, as apposed to making dull but more powerful characters, by providing bonuses that benefit characters is more specific ways than the general classes provide.

People would pick skills as an expert: Pick ten at character creation. Players could use feats to provide more class skills if they so desire. The number of skill points per level would be dictated by build.

Utgardloki
09-02-2010, 01:00 AM
Sounds like you are describing GURPS D20 (or is it D20 GURPS). It doesn't actually exist. The Mutants and Masterminds game does exist, and could easily be adapted to a fantasy setting with little effort.

However, I like the class/level system of Dungeons and Dragons. In my opinion, part of the game is an identity. This archon comes to you and gives you your quest, he also has to give you an identity that fits into the setting. I'm fixing the "too many splatbooks" problem by only picking and choosing from the splatbooks what works in my setting. This limits Mr. Archon's options, but that is the way that it is.

I could always run a Runequest game and let players put together whatever they want.

For your character, I would suggest maybe a Fighter/Cleric. I've removed all penalties for multiclassing. In fact, I will removed Favored Class entirely. It's like a remnant of the old 1st/2nd edition ruleset that said "dwarves have to be fighters, elves have to be fighter/wizards, halflings have to be thieves..." As a Fighter/Cleric you get the martial weapon proficiencies and divine powers.

Or maybe Mr. Archon makes you a Fighter/Sorcerer, granting you sorcery to aid in your quest for justice.

Also, just because you are a "Ranger" or a "Monk", that doesn't mean that you have to be Mr. Stereotypical Monk. Maybe you're a guy who grew up in a bustling port city and got beaten up all the time, so you learned to fight. You found that keeping yourself centered helped you make your way through a life where so many people were out to get you.

As for unwanted abilities, maybe they're either corrollaries of your training, or maybe they're just "gifts of the gods". You don't have to be holy in my campaign to receive a gift from the gods. Maybe the gods just bless your strikes every once in a while (when you arrange a sneak attack).

The one thing I'll ask as a DM is where your character got the training. That's one reason why you can't be a Favored Soul: the Favored Soul training is not available in my setting, and the gods don't work that way -- they give sorcerer levels to those they favor.

tesral
09-02-2010, 12:34 PM
What I'm trying to say is every class a written personality, a written religion, a written relationship with other classes. And prestige classes, which the DM guide says are made to give players more options, really do the opposite, as now I have to pick a specific class, a specific feat, generally be a human if I want to make feat and skill requirements without too much loss... Some prestige classes even require you be a certain race, for instance.

You just described my game. Someone wants a basic class tweaked? I have only one reply. "I can do that." Your first example. OK, Paladin is what you are looking for. Now we have Shadowhawk the god of cites and the outcast. That is a perfect fit with your description. They don't bother with the shiny armor, but can wear it. No horse, unless needed. The Disciplines (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/fantasy/hawk.htm). This is an older version I need to update it with the Paladin order information.

What you are dealing with is Old School: Anything not prohibited is permitted. vs. New School: Anything not permitted is prohibited. It is a matter of attitude toward the rules, not the rules themselves. An Old School DM sees the rules as the starting point, not the final word.

Lord.Sorasen
09-02-2010, 02:12 PM
Exactly. And ignoring rules I don't like is something I plan to do as well. And it is beautiful that way. It's the reason I play DnD but not WoW. Because one makes me the story teller, and the other makes the game the story.

About Splat-books... I think people are looking at them the wrong way. I just got gifted with 4 splat books, and really random books at that (Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Frostfell, Book of Exalted Deeds...) I decided to read them in order of which I thought would be more interesting, going with frostfell, warrior, exalted, arcane... Warrior is sort of garbage. I imagine Arcane will be the same. But Frostfell and Exalted are really fantastic. Why? Most of Complete Warrior is prestige classes and feats. It's more ways to play a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a rogue, and a monk. I already know how to do that, and all these new options don't really add anything... What I had didn't feel broken until I was presented with stronger options. And the prestige classes feel more like power grabs than story grabs. Turning into a bear, specifically? I never really asked for that. If I did I could be a druid.

But frostfell was fun, and exalted is fantastic. Why? They're mostly concepts. Exalted explores the ideas of good and evil in a more mature setting... It gives me ideas which I can apply in my own campaign... For instance, what if two "good" civilizations fought a war? How would the paladins respond? What if an enemy begs for mercy, and what if that enemy is a devil who has no chance of redemption? It's just fun ways to roleplay, and then new classes, feats and weapons to allow a new style of play to compete with the current way, which encourages killing everything in sight. Frostfell was less so, but it did suggest how a cold campaign would be more about survival than combat.

The worst part of splat books is how they present character classes for certain professions, and then manage to make it less fitting than a class that already exists, because most gamers will feel obligated to use the new one. Ninja, for instance.. His major power is phasing out of existence into another plane. Since when was that the major ability of the ninja? It seems a ninja would have the power to deal a deadly blow to an unsuspecting foe, have some understanding of advanced martial arts maneuvers, and no a good amount about avoiding traps and security. In other words, the ninja is already a rogue. Maybe with a level of monk (to gain weapon proficiency with Asian weapons) and a couple levels of ranger (as to learn a bit about duel weapon fighting, killing a specific sort of unit, and most importantly being impossible to track.) Any fencer realizes that light weapon combat is less about strength and more about bluffing, keeping vigilant, and taking opportunities. Is that a skirmisher? No, it's also a rogue. The knight? I can't imagine anybody wanting to play a knight, but finding the fighter and paladin to not be fit enough for the roll.

Oh! Another thing I would change is charisma. The other mental stats are strange... But they're still adaptable. You can be a barbarian with high intelligence - and still not be able to read or write. Your intelligence will just show in your more refined combat technique and athleticism. Wisdom is trickier because there really isn't a single explanation for the difference between int and wis in the real world. (I'd say intelligence is knowledge you gain from study, and wisdom is knowledge you gain from experience, myself) 3.5 seems to interpret it as ability to read the world around you, which is fine. It allows for different sorts of "smarts." But Charisma is no good. The Player's handbook says it's not nessecarily how good you look, but how much presence you have... Which is fine, except for that 3.5 has determined that the standards of charisma are determined by historic nobility. So, if you want to play a character with "A towering figure and a towering presence" you will have some trouble: big classes like orcs almost always have low char. Which means that, ironically, they can't intimidate. For some reason, an orc who's lived with orcs and knows of the ways of orcs can't negotiate with orcs as well as the paladin who's lived with nobles and has never met an orc outside of the battlefield.

What's more.. I want to play a young magical adept, born in a small community, who discovered that he could wield magic by intuition alone. The civilization is dwarven, and they don't appreciate this at all. And because he's been shunned all his life, he has no social skills in the real world. The sorcerer matches what I want perfectly, and in this case there's no other option, as only sorcerers can learn magic intuitively. But wait! I can play this character, but he's either A) Going to absolutely suck, or B) be a really great people person despite his history. Since Charisma dictates magical power for sorcerers, there's no way to get what I want. You might say "well your idea breaks the DnD world, which says sorcerers are very charismatic." But it says that they are gifted at birth. Does this imply that the best way to kill a sorcerer is to humiliate him in front of the cheerleaders, thus making him unpopular and stunting his powers forever? Would salem's witches lose there powers as soon as soon as they were accused and therefor disliked, thus making trials impossible? Actually, no: In the DnD world charisma is given at birth, and therefor the worst that could happen is that you'd have no ranks in diplomacy, and only be a likeable guy as apposed to a really likeable guy. The worst part about this is, unlike the class issue, A DM can pretty much just go "sure, play that class, ignore the alignment requirement." and there's no issue. To make a character with a large form and a large presence, which one of my players wants to do right now, I have to really modify the system! It really bites. A lot.

Sorry for spamming this thread with walls of text, everyone. I am DMing for the first time, and I'm finding out that there are aspects of it I just don't care for. Which makes me wonder... Would it be a bad idea to make a thread in which people post the homebrew rules they use and why they use them? Beginners like myself could probably really use the help of people more experienced, and I'm sure even those who already spent time perfecting their style could get new ideas by seeing others.

Utgardloki
09-04-2010, 02:27 AM
When I get organized I can post some of the homebrew rules I've been using. Most of them are for character creation, to allow for more options. I have a couple that handle corner cases in combat such as an Extended Charge manuever I invented (which actually solves a problem that came up twice in games I've been in). I don't think I've really modified a lot of the rules; a few things I tweaked for taste such as letting characters get to minus CON in hit points rather than minus 10. I'm considering a rule that PCs do not take a Constitution penalty to their hit points. (NPCs still do.)

I do agree that a lot of the "splat" is looking at the game the wrong way. We already have the Fighter, who excels at fighting, the Rogue, who excels at roguing, and the Wizard, who excels at casting spells. Why do we need prestige classes to uber special excel at fighting, roguing, or spell casting?

In my mind, there should be a metaphysical reason why the prestige class exists in the game. The Judge in my homebrew exists because of a need for characters who can track down evildoers, defeat them in combat, and bring them to justice. The focus is on fighting techniques specialized to the types of enemies they might fight, detective skills and, since this is a fantasy setting, they also learn some arcane spells. (somebody once described my PrC as an "I hate rogues" prestige class, but that's just because Judges are likely to be bringing Rogues in to face justice.

I decided not to make a Samurai class or prestige class because, essentially, a Samurai is just somebody who's trained incessently with a sword, and that is also the definition of a Fighter. So what is there for the Samurai to do? Just make a Fighter and call yourself a Samurai.

As for Charisma and Intimidation, I was thinking about that myself, and thinking that that particular skill should probably be tied to Strength instead of Charisma.

As for Charisma in general, I define it as "sense of self'. A person can have a high sense of self without being attractive, and for NPCs I made a comeliness stat to drive home the point that the 17 charisma Priestess might not be a total babe, but people will do what she says. A person can have a high sense of self without being popular: this could be modeled with a Reputation score, so the powerful sorcerer who is mistrusted and disliked would have a negative Reputation even though she has a high Charisma. In fact, her absolute sense that she is right and machiavellan manipulation of people's hopes and fears are two of the things that people most hold against her.

As an example of how I see Charisma, when I designed a Favored of Luthic prestige class designed for orcs and half-orcs, one of the things they get is increased Charisma as they gain prestige class levels. They don't necessarily get more attractive, but they gain in self-confidence and awareness.

Perhaps Charisma can be described as a third way of being smart.

tesral
09-04-2010, 10:32 AM
When I get organized I can post some of the homebrew rules I've been using. Most of them are for character creation, to allow for more options. I have a couple that handle corner cases in combat such as an Extended Charge manuever I invented (which actually solves a problem that came up twice in games I've been in). I don't think I've really modified a lot of the rules; a few things I tweaked for taste such as letting characters get to minus CON in hit points rather than minus 10. I'm considering a rule that PCs do not take a Constitution penalty to their hit points. (NPCs still do.)

This is something I will not do. One set of rules. No one has a label over their heads that says "PC" or "NPC". I will walk on a GM I find doing it, to my benefit or not.

DM_Running_Farland_3.5
09-04-2010, 12:03 PM
I am thinking of having all classes run their skill lists a little like the expert. Any 5-7 skills plus a few (2-6, depending on the class) that everyone who is a member of the class gets (all paladins get ride, all rangers get handle animal and survival).

tesral
09-04-2010, 12:09 PM
All casses 5 skills/level, no cross class skills. I reorganize the knowledge skills based on Medieval/Renaissance sciences. Lots of bonus skills for race and culture.

Utgardloki
09-05-2010, 03:04 AM
This is something I will not do. One set of rules. No one has a label over their heads that says "PC" or "NPC". I will walk on a GM I find doing it, to my benefit or not.

I agree with you in almost all cases. PCs and NPCs should use the same set of rules.

But on the other hand, the PCs are special. I've toyed with the idea of not having NPC classes and just giving some NPCs fewer feats to reflect the fact that some NPCs don't train as hard as the PCs do. This is similar to an approach I'm planning for Runequest Modern, where the PCs automatically get certain skills for having graduated from High School with decent grades (e.g. literacy, driving, computer usage), but not all NPCs would have these skills.

In fact, your argument convinces me that instead of having "NPC classes", I should have classes, but some NPCs don't gain the full benefits of their class due to lack of motivation. PCs are assumed to be fully motivated, and therefore get the full benefit.

On the other hand, while Warriors and Adepts can be replaced by Fighters and Sorcerers, there is really no PC class to base a Commoner on. Perhaps make them like Experts who don't get all the skills they are alloted.

Hit points in particular are something that NPCs might not get if they are not trained for combat.

I have considered making rules for "Sedentary" characters, which are characters that have not trained for and are not prepared for combat. There was even a PC in a game I ran once, whom I might have threated with granting Sedentary status to because he holed himself up in his castle and refused to go out, relying on his business schemes to bring in money.

On the other hand, the D&D rules for Commoners, Warriors, Fighters, et al seem to work well enough, so maybe I should just not worry about it and get on with the game.

alms66
09-05-2010, 03:29 AM
Hmmm, fix D&D?
Take the D&D out of it would work...
LOL, I can't stop making fun of D&D tonight, sorry...

Thanks to this douchebaggery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIWPRGRBIo&feature=related

tesral
09-05-2010, 10:40 AM
But on the other hand, the PCs are special. I've toyed with the idea of not having NPC classes and just giving some NPCs fewer feats to reflect the fact that some NPCs don't train as hard as the PCs do. This is similar to an approach I'm planning for Runequest Modern, where the PCs automatically get certain skills for having graduated from High School with decent grades (e.g. literacy, driving, computer usage), but not all NPCs would have these skills.

In fact, your argument convinces me that instead of having "NPC classes", I should have classes, but some NPCs don't gain the full benefits of their class due to lack of motivation. PCs are assumed to be fully motivated, and therefore get the full benefit.


Appendix B: Other classes (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/fantasy/fantpdf/X2_Appendix%20B_Classes.pdf) (Yes there are some typos I need to fix.) Of note the "General Class" That is the class I use for people without classes. Barrmaids, shopkeepers, anyone that isn't one of the other classes. Mind you there are plenty of NPCs that are other classes.


I don't agree that the PCs are "speical" beyond that fact they are PCs and played by the players. They really do not need anything special beyond that point.

NPCs can and should be as motivated as PCs in what they are doing. Remember, NPCs do not know they are NPCs. They are people living in the world just like other people. The universe does not make special cases.

For example a farmer is a highly motivated person. Farming is difficult, it is a skilled profession. Said farmer might not have the soft clothes and book learning of the scholar, but they know the land the weather the season to great degree. If they were not good at their profession they and their families would starve, as well as quite a few other people. Farmers feed the people. Don't make the mistake of considering them "mere unlearned bumpkins". Drop you on a farm and let's see how well we all eat.

NPCs are running the world. Not something a bunch of illiterate unmotivated people could not accomplish. RPG is not a video game where anything you do not control is a stupid AI without a pea worth of brains. You are an NPC, your Mom and Dad are NPCs, you boss, your teacher, the guys running the electrical power planet and the ones that designed and built your computer are all NPCs.

Give the NPC the credit they deserve.

Utgardloki
09-06-2010, 03:01 AM
Actually, I'd be an "NPC". Granted, I do enough competent work that my boss figures it's worthwhile keeping me around and the company continues to pay my paycheck, and this work helps keep our civilization running.

But right now, instead of working on improving my software engineering skills or taking levels in another class, I'm wasting my time browsing the Internet, without really a clear purpose, while listening to some dumb TV program I don't even care about. If I did more with my life, maybe I'd be more PC-like.

I think this is the difference between a Warrior and a Fighter or a Barbarian or a Ranger. About 80% of the guys with swords are Warriors who train enough that they can put up a reasonable fight. About 20% are more motivated and seek to be the best that they can be, even though that means less time for drinking and playing dice.

But I will concede point: if I don't apply a Constitution penalty to the PCs' hit points, then I shouldn't apply it to the NPCs' hit points either.

This also makes it harder to kill people with CON damage, but I can live with that.

tesral
09-06-2010, 09:43 AM
I don't use the warrior. You are either a fighter or you are not. All the warrior is is a fighter without as much in the way of goodies for the same experience. A way to apply different rules to the same profession. If you are a fighting type, you are a fighter. If you are an unmotivated slacker who fights you are a lower level. If the tailor apprentice (general 1st level) joins the army.he gains a level in fighter (now G1, F1) Comes home from the war a hardened veteran (G1, F2) and never touches a sword again but works hard to be the best tailor he can so he gains a few levels. (G3 F2). That would be a moderate level NPC in one of my towns.

The average young adult in my world is a second level general class. That is the standard on which other NPCs are judged. A Master craftsman will be a minumim of G5. They might have more going on. The Capitan of the Watch is usually F6. His men F2 to F3 depending on how much action they get.

Currently in the Saturday game the city of Seahaven has taken a major hit from an Earthquake. They have crushed buildings with dead and dying people everywhere. The whole city that makes it through is likely to gain a level. Certianly anyone that works to aid others. That is how my world works, it is not static.

Utgardloki
09-07-2010, 11:14 PM
You're ideas are pretty close to mine, Tesral. Finding "expert level" tailors (level 4-7) is relatively easy if there are tailors to be found. I Audor, with all the fighting with orcs and goblins and hobgoblins, many villagers have a couple levels in Warrior. (I think I am going to grandfather the Warrior and Commoner in, just to avoid having to do more rework than I have to).

tesral
09-08-2010, 01:20 AM
"Commoner" "General class" same difference. I just came up with the idea years before 3 anything hit the shelves.

DMMike
09-16-2010, 08:43 PM
3.5 is perfect. PER-FECT. Anyone who differs has to deal with me. :mad:

The issue of classes pigeonholing characters was addressed at the creation of 3.0. That's why they designed skills and feats to be relatively free-floating. Customizable.

The level of detail in each of the classes is most likely an effort to expedite character creation and advancement. Would you rather have a system built in to help the newbs gain a level quickly, and require experienced players to do a little DM negotiation, or have a completely flexible system, so that you're torn at the end of your level-up, because Two-Winged-Crossover-Attack costs 7 level-points, and Advanced-Fire-Conjuring costs 5 points, but you need another 3 points to make it cool and purchase Trained-Fireball-Manifester?

Exactly.

The negotiation by Paladins and Half-Orcs is already addressed as well: the DM sets the DC. Evidently, the DC for the Paladin to make his case to the orc hordes should be higher than the DC for the half-orc to do the same.

Anything else I should clear up? :whoo:

Utgardloki
09-16-2010, 11:04 PM
Your views are also close to mine, DMMike. Before 4th Edition and Pathfinder came out there were really only about three things I wanted to fix for 3.5:

* Cross class skills are a pain. The way Pathfinder handles it is much simpler.

* CR is so bad, it is almost as bad as what came before. If I could eliminate CR, I would.

* In my opinion, Sorcerers and Paladins need a boost. That is easy enough to do as DM.

tesral
09-16-2010, 11:30 PM
Cross class skills are the killer, they shove every class firmly back in the pigeonhole.

DMMike
09-17-2010, 11:22 PM
Cross-class solutions:

Some feats make (among other things) a skill or two into permanent class skills. Tinker a bit.

Also, cross class skills really don't look so bad from the low-level lens. In my game, an "expert" is someone at 3rd level. This person gets a skill modifier in his chosen skill of 6, 3 for levels and 3 for being a class skill. Add in an ability modifier of maybe +2 for being well above average, and experts get +8 to their Take-10s. Compare this to PCs, who, even if they're cross-classing, can reach a +8 (expert) by level 7 by taking full ranks and simply having a decent ability score.

tesral
09-18-2010, 12:51 AM
I solved it by ditching cross class and giving all the classes 5 points a level +Int. YOu still have the maximum skill limits, so people take more skills.

Utgardloki
09-18-2010, 10:35 PM
Pathfinder has already fixed what I perceive to be the problem, which is that cross-class skills make picking skills a lot more complicated. But in Pathfinder, you just get a +3 bonus when you have at least one rank in any of your class skills, so it's as simple as anything else.

tesral
09-18-2010, 11:57 PM
For my case Pathfinder was late to the party. I did this before Pathfinder came out.