PDA

View Full Version : What would be in 3.75 edition?



Xandros
09-30-2008, 09:38 PM
I'm not dissing 4th ed. It's not my game though. 3rd edition is. In fact if they would have put out another revision (3.75) I probably would have bought it up. So what do people think shoulda/woulda been in a 3.75 edition? Personally I would have wanted a mana point based magic system to do away with the vancian system. I know there has been a lot of argument about the balancing of point based vs. vancian style magic systems. When we play roleplaying games we are living the heroes and adventures we see in movies, tv. and books. Magic in fantasy stories don't seem to work off a system of _ many _ level spells per day. In most cases it seems to be spells burn energy, smaller spells less energy, big earth shattering spells, more energy until all the casters power is burned out. It just seems to fit the fantasy magic theme better to me. What would other people have liked to have seen changed from 3.5 to 3.75?

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-30-2008, 09:49 PM
Alot of people refer to this as DnD 3.75:
https://secure.paizo.com/paizo/account/assets

Xandros
09-30-2008, 10:09 PM
My group plays with variations from Unearthed Arcana, Advanced Players Guide an our own invention. We refer to it as 3.75. It's not officially D&D 3.75 though and everyone probably has different opinions of what they think should have been included if D&D had gone in that direction rather than 4th. So call it D&D 3.95 or whatever. What should be included or changed in your opinion?

Valdar
09-30-2008, 11:13 PM
Mana seemed to work well for GURPS Fantasy, though the way the numbers crunched out, it was imperative to have your "at will" spell be little or no mana, or you'd be spent fairly quickly, which sucked up a lot of character points...

If I were redesigning a mana-based system, I'd want to make sure that the amount of mana a given character had was pretty consistent with other characters of his class and level, and that spells didn't have different costs for different characters (one mana point per spell level would work well for normal spells, with bigger spells costing more)- you'd want to make sure you didn't have a spell (like Resurrection) that cost more mana than a character would have upon getting it, unless you had a "ritual magic" system (also similar to GURPS...) Basically figure out how many spells per encounter you want a given character casting, and work backwards from there.

Of course, there would be little difference between the sorcerer and the wizard if you took vancian magic away- I suppose you could simulate that by giving the sorcerer more mana, and the wizard a larger spell list...

tesral
10-02-2008, 01:48 AM
Mana points are not something I long for. If a good one was invented I would look at it. Frankly I think the reason most systems don't work is they eliminated spell slots, but not spell levels. You need to change the thinking on spells period. For example Fireball. Why a minimum spell level? make is castable at any level with the effect varied by how much mana you pump into it. Want a 15d6 fireball? Put 15d6 worth of mana in it. Some spells are going to have mana requirements that require higher level casters.

Skills: I think the system way under uses them and is far to niggardly about skill points. I'll offer up my version. More skill points all around.

Give the Rogue and the Bard their class features back.

Ditch that hydra of alignment once and for merciful all.

Fix the feats. It's clumsy, a quarter are over powered a quarter are worthless. They seldom do anyone but the fighter any good. Some could stand to be skills instead of feats. There are too damn many, period. Organize them by class and general use. I would hand out one every other level. Yea fighters get to keep a bonus feat every level.

Caeric
10-05-2008, 12:04 PM
I personally like aspects from both versions. I haven't gotten to experiment, but I'd probably take 3.5 and apply a lot of the easier rules from 4th. Like Healing Surges, dying at negative your bloodied value, A proficiency bonus instead of a nonproficiency penalty... can't think of anything else right now, but I'm sure there's more in my mind. Mostly stuff that involves adding half our level to it.

But I'm liking the ease of 4th Edition, and I don't play enough to bother melding the two.

nijineko
10-05-2008, 10:42 PM
as mentioned earlier, pathfinder from paizo is touted as 3.75 or 3.8 depending on whom one asks.

a decent spellpoint system exists in the unearthed arcana book. basically built off the psionic system. it's not perfect, as i agree with tesral on the points he brought up.

zergrusheddie
10-06-2008, 09:39 AM
Paizo has some really neat stuff in it. I like the Domain Powers for the Clerics and I like the meat that is being put back in Fighters (You know, making them the best fighters...). The stuff on the Monk is interesting, as is the Sorcerer stuff.

It's pretty clear that Pathfinder is a play on peoples need for new material without having to relearn the entire game in order to play 4.0.

MortonStromgal
10-06-2008, 11:09 AM
I really like Witchhunters hermetic magic system for a D&D system. Basically its a skill check, where the more you beat the DC the better the effect. Each spell is a feat you need to take. They also have 3 tiers of spells. You can memorize a spell ahead of time to shorten the casting time. You also need to wait a certain amount of rounds before casting again or take damage from casting another spell. I'm not sure how it would all work but I think thats a mechanic I could sign onto for my D&D games.

nijineko
10-06-2008, 04:17 PM
one could wish for improved combat rules, but then one would also be wishing for more complexity, belike.

Webhead
10-06-2008, 04:59 PM
...a few lessons from Star Wars Saga Edition. Namely:

1) No more multiple attack progression. All multi-attack options covered by appropriate feats (Double/Triple Attack) or special circumstances (dual weapons/autofire). To compensate for fewer attacks, include "plus half character level" bonus to damage rolls.

2) Abilities that attack multiple targets (i.e. Whirlwind Attack) are handled as AoE's using 1 attack roll compared to all defenders.

3) Situational bonuses and penalties for all attacks, skills and ability checks applied on a consistent "scale", a la -2/-5/-10 progression.

4) All saving throws converted to "static" difficulty numbers, attacks against saves using (roll + modifiers).

5) Removal of "negative hit point" rules. Replace with "Damage Threshold" mechanic. Incorporation of the "Second Wind" rules.

6) 1 or 2 additional Hit Dice of HP at first level.

7) Removal of independant Skill Ranks and incorporation of "Skill Training" system.

8) Incorporation of "minion" rules.

9) Substitute the "class feature" system with the "Talent Tree" system. Each class gets a Talent at each odd level and a "bonus feat" at each even level.

10) Remove "favored multiclass" rules.

...There are more, but I can't think of them at the moment.

Jcosby
10-06-2008, 05:35 PM
...a few lessons from Star Wars Saga Edition. Namely:

1) No more multiple attack progression. All multi-attack options covered by appropriate feats (Double/Triple Attack) or special circumstances (dual weapons/autofire). To compensate for fewer attacks, include "plus half character level" bonus to damage rolls.

Interesting idea.. I don't know about people wanting to add more feats, I would actually like to see the game go to LESS feats and more class abilities. I want D&D to get away from the "cookie cutter" builds. I'm of the opinion that certain classes having certain abilities is a good thing. Not everyone should be able to do everything equal. I would take your inital idea and move the extra attacks as class abilities. Would you then have x-attacks at y-modifier? Would your attack bonus not be staggered now?

2) Abilities that attack multiple targets (i.e. Whirlwind Attack) are handled as AoE's using 1 attack roll compared to all defenders.

This is a very good idea. I really like this a lot. It would speed up the game. Seems pretty simple too.

3) Situational bonuses and penalties for all attacks, skills and ability checks applied on a consistent "scale", a la -2/-5/-10 progression.

Another thing that would serve to simplify the game without taking away the options. Not a bad idea at first. Would have to look at it further.

4) All saving throws converted to "static" difficulty numbers, attacks against saves using (roll + modifiers).

Give some examples, not sure when you are leading too here.

5) Removal of "negative hit point" rules. Replace with "Damage Threshold" mechanic. Incorporation of the "Second Wind" rules.

Don't care for the Second Wind rules, and think the -negitive hp rules work fine. Never had a problem with them, although I use the -CON and not -10hp for death.

6) 1 or 2 additional Hit Dice of HP at first level.

I prefer the Pathfinders; MAX_1ST_LEVEL_HPS + RACIAL_BONUS + CON_BONUS for starting hps. More hps at first level but not to many to trivalize the game at low levels.

7) Removal of independant Skill Ranks and incorporation of "Skill Training" system.

Again, I'm a fan of moving things into the Classes as class abilities and away from Feats and or Skills. Maybe a move back to 2nd Ed. with Class skill tables, haven't really given this a lot of though. I do like the current 3.x skill system enough. Although as I've stated before I would like some skills to move out of the skills table were everyone can take them.

8) Incorporation of "minion" rules.

No. Think that pretty much sums up my opinion of minions.

9) Substitute the "class feature" system with the "Talent Tree" system. Each class gets a Talent at each odd level and a "bonus feat" at each even level.

I would have to take a look at the Star Wars system to see how they did this to get a real opinion on this.

10) Remove "favored multiclass" rules.

I'm on the fence on this, it's really NOT needed but its something that helps the Human race which I'm always for. The Human race need enough perks that people will actually play them. With the new Pathfinder system the Human race gets plenty of perks, including favored class for all classes and when you are in a favored class you can choose extra hp per level or extra skill point. I'm always in favor of more options, not less; unless you have a very good reason.

...There are more, but I can't think of them at the moment.

JC..

nijineko
10-06-2008, 06:19 PM
the star wars system comes from the d20 modern books. it seems like it might be one good way to go. i would have to look into it in further detail as well before really having a strong opinion.

Webhead
10-06-2008, 06:36 PM
Interesting idea.. I don't know about people wanting to add more feats, I would actually like to see the game go to LESS feats and more class abilities. I want D&D to get away from the "cookie cutter" builds. I'm of the opinion that certain classes having certain abilities is a good thing. Not everyone should be able to do everything equal. I would take your inital idea and move the extra attacks as class abilities. Would you then have x-attacks at y-modifier? Would your attack bonus not be staggered now?

Yes, the Feat selection does need to be streamlined a bit, but Saga actually does this while also including the feats Double and Triple Attack.

Saga edition actually manages to distance itself from "cookie cutter" characters, but that is through its "Talent Tree" system. There are more Talents to choose from than one gets slots to pick them, so 2 characters of the same class might never have any of the same Talents and thus will play completely differently. This is how Saga actually reduces the number of classes (there are only 5 core classes) and yet opens itself to more possibilities than 3.X.

Back to attack progression...each class would still have a certain BAB progression. A Fighter's attack bonus still increases faster than a Wizard. the difference is that having a higher attack bonus doesn't necessarily mean you get multiple attacks. In that way, it would actually make classes more distinct because the Fighter would get much more use (and would thus be much more likely to take) the feats that give multiple attacks.

They way Saga handles those feats is very simple. With Double Attack, you can make 1 extra attack per round, but if you do, you take a -5 penalty to all attacks. Triple Attack allows 2 extra attacks, but all attacks suffer a -10 penalty.


This is a very good idea. I really like this a lot. It would speed up the game. Seems pretty simple too.

I agree. I am very fond of this. I believe I first encountered the idea in M&M, but Saga brought it more attention.


Another thing that would serve to simplify the game without taking away the options. Not a bad idea at first. Would have to look at it further.

One of the best examples of how Saga cleaned up d20. No more "this gives a +4 bonus, but this gives a -6 penalty and this gives a +2 with an additional +1 for elevated terrain". A bonus/penalty is either 2, 5 or 10. Easy to remember and easy to shift up or down.


Give some examples, not sure when you are leading too here.

In Saga, your "Saving Throws" essentially work like Armor Class. They are a "static" DC number that the attacker must equal or exceed to affect you. Instead of (Reflex +5, Fortitude +3, Will +6), you would have (Reflex 15, Fortitude 13, Will 16). As my brother pointed out, this makes all defensive attributes a "Target Number" and all offensive attributes an "Attack Roll". Further streamlining to the "d20" core mechanic.


Don't care for the Second Wind rules, and think the -negitive hp rules work fine. Never had a problem with them, although I use the -CON and not -10hp for death.

I don't really care for the direction 4e went with "Healing Surges", but I did like "Second Wind" in Saga. Basically, once per day, you can restore a small number of your hit points for those situations when it really counts. It's a nice emulation of dramatic media where the hero is trashed but manages to bounce back in a moment of need.

I didn't like "negative hit points" because they were an over-complication. Saga does a nice job of eliminating them and yet distinguishing between "unconcious" and "dead" when you reach 0 hp. That is thanks to the "Damage Threshold" rules. I also like the "Condition Track" that Saga uses which makes it possible to hamper characters without running them completely out of hit points.


I prefer the Pathfinders; MAX_1ST_LEVEL_HPS + RACIAL_BONUS + CON_BONUS for starting hps. More hps at first level but not to many to trivalize the game at low levels.

I'm not sure what the best path would be, but it is clear to me that low-level (especially 1st-level) D&D PCs need a few more hit points. Perhaps 1 extra hit die at first level would suffice. Saga goes with 2 additional hit dice, but then, weapons in Saga do a lot more damage than weapons in D&D. A blaster pistol does 3d6, so characters kind of need a few extra hp's.


Again, I'm a fan of moving things into the Classes as class abilities and away from Feats and or Skills. Maybe a move back to 2nd Ed. with Class skill tables, haven't really given this a lot of though. I do like the current 3.x skill system enough. Although as I've stated before I would like some skills to move out of the skills table were everyone can take them.

Then again, I'm a fan of skill-based systems, probably because I've been playing them since I first got into RPGs. Skill Ranks work okay for the fine-toothed customizability of what your character is good at, but it is just too particular for me. The 3.X skill list needs to be condensed a bit more and should be made a little quicker to manage by way of "skill picks".

I shy away from ideas of "skills as class-specific features" if only because that encourages less deviation from a stereotype...and what if your character concept is atypical?


No. Think that pretty much sums up my opinion of minions.

I've never played 4e, so I don't know how the minion rules from that system play out, but I've loved "minion" rules from every other RPG that I've played that has them. It felt really frustrating to only be able to send a first level party up against 4 to 6 monsters per encounter. I want them fighting their way through a village full of zombies to get to the sinister priest who is controlling them. The games I've played with "minions" really let you heap on the bad guys without dooming your PCs to an early grave and it makes them feel cool in the process. Win, win.


I would have to take a look at the Star Wars system to see how they did this to get a real opinion on this.

Again, the "Talent" system really opens PCs up to more possibilities without over complicating the system. Basically instead of predetermining what abilities each class gets at what level, you get a list of features that you pick from every couple of levels. Mix and match however best fits your character. 2 characters of the same level and same class might look nothing alike depending on their selection of Talents.

It's hard to describe and do it justice. It's best to read it for yourself.


I'm on the fence on this, it's really NOT needed but its something that helps the Human race which I'm always for. The Human race need enough perks that people will actually play them. With the new Pathfinder system the Human race gets plenty of perks, including favored class for all classes and when you are in a favored class you can choose extra hp per level or extra skill point. I'm always in favor of more options, not less; unless you have a very good reason.

In my experience with 3.X and with Saga, I have found that most of my players sway in the direction of playing Humans. The extra skills and feats are very tempting to a lot of players, despite some of the offerings of other playable races. In my current Saga campaign, 4 of the 5 PCs chose to play Human. All 4 said that it was hard to turn down the advantages of being Human for another choice. With Saga's switch from a "Skill Rank" to a "Skill Training" system, that makes Human even more tempting because an extra "trained skill" is much more valuable than "4 extra skill ranks, plus 1 per level".

That aside, I've just always been at odds with the idea that 3e was trying to open up multiclass characters while simultaneously penalizing those who step outside the box.