Recent Chat Activity (Main Lobby)
Join Chat

Loading Chat Log...

Prefer not to see ads? Become a Community Supporter.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

  Click here to go to the first special guest post in this thread.   Thread: What needs to be fixed for 3.5?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    What needs to be fixed for 3.5?

    Prefer not to see ads?
    Become a Community Supporter.
    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sylmar
    Posts
    1,017
    Blog Entries
    44
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rapid City
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,320
    Blog Entries
    107
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I always hated the necessity of clerics and such. If you made healing less exclusive, that is always nice.
    "I'm not going crazy. I'm going sane in a CRAZY world!"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Odense C.
    Posts
    145
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Paizo already fixed 3.5. Check out Pathfinder

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mesa
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by d-_-b View Post
    Paizo already fixed 3.5. Check out Pathfinder
    Hardly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mesa
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mesa
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
    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?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sylmar
    Posts
    1,017
    Blog Entries
    44
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dearborn
    Posts
    7,305
    Blog Entries
    14
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    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.

    Garry AKA --Phoenix-- Rising above the Flames.
    My favorite game console is a table and chairs.
    The Olde Phoenix Inn

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dubuque
    Posts
    138
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dearborn
    Posts
    7,305
    Blog Entries
    14
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    I give all classes 5 skill points base. Rouges get an extra pool.

    Garry AKA --Phoenix-- Rising above the Flames.
    My favorite game console is a table and chairs.
    The Olde Phoenix Inn

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Blank Screen While Registering Fixed
    By Farcaster in forum News & Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 08:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •