DnD 3.5 Class Changes/Rebalances (sans Paladin)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

I see why you chose Knowledge (history), but not why you didn't choose Knowledge (nature). Just curious, I'd think nature knowledge would be more easily acquired.

---

Well, the things I would expect the barbarian to know about nature is practical knowledge, which is covered under the Survival skill.

Quote:

---

I guess I failed to be clear...I was wondering if you'd considered the possibility of simply making it an ability of all creatures, and making everything else SR related a bonus to it. I imagine anyone could do well to resist the spells of lower-level casters. (It'd make for a nice universal SR system too; everything has SR equal to its HD, the full-BAB classes get a +2 bonus, everyone qualifies for whatever boosting feat, etc. etc.)

---

That concept was the basis for the idea, but I wanted to incorporate something that is compatible with the current SR system/spells/creatures/class abilities while boosting them all slightly. I currently have no intention of overhauling all aspects of SR in the game at this time.

Quote:

---

Oh, I understand that; but on the other hand accidents happen even if you take care. And given that you're retaining the AC/Str/Dex/HD bonuses (even though slowed), you're obviously still expecting the animal companion to participate in combat, which puts it at risk. I don't imagine you want druids to send their animal companions off to hide whenever combat comes.

---

Point taken.

Quote:

---

Where is it? Perhaps I'm blind, but I looked through the last seven pages of the homebrew forum and didn't see such a thread.

---

Did you try the first page? :)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78270

Quote:

---

Ahh. Well, only comment I have is: Gather Information, Knowledge (local), and Sense Motive are usually more city-oriented skills; not really well suited for a wilderness type (and indeed, the urban ranger variant gets those in lieu of some wilderness-oriented skills). Any particular reason those have been added?

---

I'm pretty much expanding the ranger flavor to include that variant. Also, I see Knowledge (local) to be anyone very knowledgable about the local area: something even woodsy ranger would be very good for. Finally, Sense Motive belongs on the skill list of any wisdom-oriented character, and is also pretty related to hunting and judging the claims of those you meet in your solitary emo travels through the woods cause nobody accepts you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kizara

That concept was the basis for the idea, but I wanted to incorporate something that is compatible with the current SR system/spells/creatures/class abilities while boosting them all slightly. I currently have no intention of overhauling all aspects of SR in the game at this time.

---

Well, a quick conversion for existing creatures with natural SR would be a bonus equal to its current SR minus its HD. (Very few things that I know of have SR that scales with level; honestly drow are the only example I can think of). For spells/magic items, it'd be the granted SR minus 10.

Well, maybe that last is a little much for things that scale with caster level (specifically spell resistance), but on the other hand it makes those Spell Resistance armor properties much better. (I mean seriously: +2 bonus equivalent for a flat SR 13? That puts the total armor price just over 9,000gp, which is slightly more then WBL for level 5....by the time you can realistically spend that much money on a single piece of gear, it's already neigh-useless and makes other improvements more expensive....)


Regardless, you said in that other thread that you have 12 pages of notes on spell changes. Looking at overhauling SR now might be a good idea while you're in the middle of spell changes; it'd be a pain if you decide it's necessary later and have to go over all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kizara

Did you try the first page? :)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78270

---

Yes, in fact I did. "Blind" it is, then. <<;

I agree with the sentiment that the sorcerer's metamagic familiarity and metamagic secrets are overpowered. Metamagic cost reduction is overpowered by default in (almost?) every single incarnation, and should certainly not occur in a base class at such a low level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

I agree with the sentiment that the sorcerer's metamagic familiarity and metamagic secrets are overpowered. Metamagic cost reduction is overpowered by default in (almost?) every single incarnation, and should certainly not occur in a base class at such a low level.

---

Well, the secrets variant is certinally less powerful. I mean, the best option (empower spell) allows you to pick one spell and have it be Empowered for free a few times a day. At level 10, lets say you pick Enervation and Empower spell. So, that grants you 1d4x1.5. If you roll a 3 or 4, you get one more. Really, this is overpowered? Let's say you take Fireball, 10d6 x1.5 (3.5x10=35 x1.5= 52) so that's 18ish bonus damage. I mean, that's pretty good, but I don't think 18 reflex half elemental damage is obscene at level 10.

Now, as for the main option, it's a bit more powerful. One thing to keep in mind is that it doesn't scale. Unlike DMM, you can't get a 4 or 8 level reduction, only 1. So, that means you can Quicken a spell for only a 3 level boost, or you can take Still and do it with no level increase. You really feel this is overpowered? I mean, its certinally GOOD, but I think getting free metamagic feats every 5 levels is pretty good too, and makes it easier to qualify for PrCs. (Note, although I don't say this here, I ban things like Incantrix, DMM, and Arcane Thesis, so stacking issues with that won't be an issue).

You have a ton of good changes and I was wondering what you thought of a Paladin change I thought of.

To me, the hardest thing about Paladins as a DM is the fact that they take out the 'is it evil' factor due to detect evil. You have to start making characters have hide alignment or rings or something else.... and magical beasts then have a big disadvantage. BUT! The whole point about detect evil is that it is needed for smite evil. But I got an idea from the berserk rage (I think that is the name) from PHB II where rage like benefits are given due to number of hp, not randomly 'turned on'. With that in mind, I made this new smite evil.

Smite Evil: When a paladin strikes an evil target with a melee attack it brings out the righteous fury of her attack. When such a strike hits, the paladin immediately is aware. The attack adds the paladin's charisma bonus to the damage roll of that attack. As long as she can maintain some perception of the target enough to know it is the same target she will continue to smite evil on each attack with the added bonus of one to attack and damage rolls for each previous successful Smite Evil up to equal to her Paladin levels. For example, a 4th level paladin with a 14 charisma (+2 bonus) successfully attacks a young red dragon with her long sword doing 1d8+2 damage in addition to any damage from other bonuses such as strength bonus or magical enhancements. Her next attack roll has a +1 bonus. If this succeeds her damage roll will be 1d8+2+1. She will increase this bonus for each hit till she reaches +4 to attack tolls and +2 +4 for damage rolls.
At level 5 Smite Evil attacks become good aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and at level 10 it becomes lawfully aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. At level 15 all melee attacks of a paladin become good and lawfully aligned as long as the attack will then cause her to smite her foe.
Greater Strike Evil: At level 20 a Paladin's smite evil become greatly more powerful. With Greater Strike Evil, a paladin will know she is attacking an evil target while she attacks. She will be made aware of this when the attack roll is made, gaining her charisma bonus to the attack roll, as well as any other attack roll made on such a target. In addition to Smite Evil's normal bonuses, a Paladin with Greater Smite Evil adds two times her charisma bonus to damage and there is no longer any limit to how high the bonus from Smite Evil can go.

As the others said, some quick notes and ideas (and nitpicks)

Barbarian: Danger sense adding more bonuses to AC in combat? This sounds a lot like the monk's bonuses to AC(even though he doesn't lose then when flatfooted). Adding it to all Reflex bonuses is cool, though.

Monk: The 1:1 Power Attack ratio already exists. The Power Attack feat entry especifies that unarmed strikes are always 1:1, even if US are usually treated as light weapons. Just to let you know. Giving him the ability to flurry as a default action gives him a much needed boost.

Sorcerer: I think the game already allows you to replace spells every 4 levels. Allowing it every level looks fine.

Fighter: You want to give him bonus feats to fill in the dead levels. As someone pointed out, it looks weird. Here's the mini-fix I did a long time ago, you may like it as it's simple, and makes it look like class features:

Spoiler

Show

1st level: Weapon Improvisation: You can use improvised weapons, and unproficient exotic weapons at -2, instead of -4. You are still not proficient with these weapons, unless you gain the related feats, as normal.
3rd level: Weapon Focus: You gain a generic +1 bonus to attack rolls when attacking with any weapon.
5th level: Weapon Specialization: You gain a generic +2 bonus to damage rolls when attacking with any weapon.
7th level: Armor Focus: The armor check penalty of any armor is reduced a given number (minimum 0) when you wear it. The reduction is 1 point for light armor, 2 for medium armor, and 3 for heavy armor.
9th level: Armor Specialization: The base armor bonus from any armor is increased a given number when you wear it. The bonus is +3 for llight armor, +2 for medium armor, and +1 for heavy armor.
11th level: Double strike: You can make two attacks as a default action. The first attack is made at your highest BaB bonus, the second at your highest BaB bonus with a -5 penalty.
13th level: Weapon Mastery: Choose a type of weapon: Melee slashing, melee puncturing, melee bludgeoning, ranged. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls and +2 bonus to damage rolls with weapons of that type. It stacks with the bonuses from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization
15th level: Double Step: You can make 10ft adjust moves, instead of 5ft adjust moves.
17th level: Armor Mastery: The size category of any armor you wear is reduced in one size category (minimum light). While wearing light armor you gain, instead, an additional +1 bonus to it's base AC. Doesn't stacks with Mithral armor.
19th level: Weapon Supremacy: Choose one weapon of the same type you choose for Weapon Mastery. You gain all the benefits of the feat Weapon Supremacy for that weapon (Player's Handbook 2). For ranged weapons, instead of being able to use it in grapple, you can attack without provoking attacks of opportunity.
20th: Armor supremacy: Your armor's armor bonus is changed into a deflection bonus, and also added to your Reflex saves.

Notes: All bonus from Weapon focus, specialization, mastery, and supremacy only applies to weapons you are proficient with.
All bonus from Armor focus, specialization, and supremacy applies only to armors you are proficient with, and doesn't apply to shield.
You can remove these feats (weapon focus, specialization, mastery, supremacy) from the feats list, as only the fighter uses them anyway.
This change gives a figther the whole Weapon Focus feat chain (that is considered weak), leaving him free to use his feats to something else, and encouraging a player to go all 20 levels to get some interesting bonuses, and giving him something every level. It may look overpowered at first, but in the end, it just gives the fighter a little boost, and gives him unique things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kizara

-You may Power Attack at a 1:1 ratio with your unarmed strike as part of an attack or full-action action.

---

Not a house rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD

Power Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Str 13.

Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Special
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

---

Although i do think that the SR thing for melee-oriented classes is necessary for balance between casters and meleers, i must say, that fluff-wise, it doesn't really make much sense.

Magic isn't innate to all creatures and classes, some have more contact with it, or were born in contact with it, some trained to resist their effects. A lvl 1 commoner is a possibility of a fighter, or a cleric, or a wizard. With dedication, they can overcome their common lives and become adventurer's themselves. At which point in that transition do they gain that SR? Unless you are saying that no creature is 100% vulnerable to magic, that doesn't really make much sense.

I reason and envision SR as being somewhat of a supernatural ability (Not in the strict sense of the rules), something you are just born with or you otherwise gain by supernatural means. That's why some races (like the Drow) have SR as a racial ability. I don't see a reason beyond balancing the rules for a fighter to have SR, or a barbarian for that matter. Sure, a monk can and should have SR, because they spend time perfecting their minds and their bodies to resist all kinds of hazards (that's why they have all those special abilities on their class progression list), and even the Monks only gain their SR at a later level, at a later stage of their training for perfection.

So, while i don't criticize your fix(on the contrary, i really think it brings balance), i think it overshadows a bit of the magic as being a "mysterious" and "wondrous" thing, and just some other form of attack. Think of it as kind of DR, you only gain DR if you wear special armor, or if you have thick skin. So you should only gain SR if you somehow are more resilient to magic than normal.

Although i think it's overly more complicated, fixing the spells and the casters is more fluff kind than the SR fix, but it's just my thoughts. If someone on my gaming table was using a wizard in a munchkin way, i would definitely house-rule this to minimize the hurting.

All in all, i think the other class fixes are just perfect. (Except the ranger, but that's because i simply can't think of a ranger using magic, so i prefer to use a non-magic variant that gains the animal companion at level 1)

Just my thoughts.

please don't hurt me

I have always thought that the classes were reasonably balanced until I realized that while a fighter is more essential to the party at low levels the wizard is essential to the party at high levels. Think about it, the cleric rouge, and/or bard could easily fill the fighters place at low levels, but at high levels a tarosque is only able to be beaten by a wish spell. The party at high levels could do with out a fighter. Granted at low levels the wizard could be done away with, although sleep and magic missile have saved my sorry but more than once.
That being said, I think you are all doing a fabulous job with the revisions and I will begin using them in the next game I DM.

Um. By RAW, Spell Resistance works on most friendly spells (buffs) as well as it works on hostile spells, unless you use a standard action to lower it.

If all the casters in the party are full casters, with the same level as their comrades, your Innate Resistance won't hurt anything. But if:

• there is a Ranger or (more likely) Paladin in the party who likes to buff
• there is a gish (e.g. Spellsword) in the party who likes to buff
• there is a weird underpowered multiclass character in the party who dips just a couple levels in Sorcerer to buff
• there are casters in the party who like to use in-combat buffs out of wands or scrolls
• there is a cohort or NPC (hired cleric?) that follow the party around and buff them

... then I would actually see Innate Resistance as a bad ability to have. More problems than benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draz74

Um. By RAW, Spell Resistance works on most friendly spells (buffs) as well as it works on hostile spells, unless you use a standard action to lower it.

If all the casters in the party are full casters, with the same level as their comrades, your Innate Resistance won't hurt anything. But if:

• there is a Ranger or (more likely) Paladin in the party who likes to buff
• there is a gish (e.g. Spellsword) in the party who likes to buff
• there is a weird underpowered multiclass character in the party who dips just a couple levels in Sorcerer to buff
• there are casters in the party who like to use in-combat buffs out of wands or scrolls
• there is a cohort or NPC (hired cleric?) that follow the party around and buff them

... then I would actually see Innate Resistance as a bad ability to have. More problems than benefits.

---

which is one of the reasons that lowering spell resistance for certain effects is a free act in my games--and i've never had a problem with it yet.

overall, cool stuff.

i love that the barb has know (history). it is truly fitting, and anyone that has ever studied a tribal society would know that without having to think about it.

the sorcerer is the coolest fix i am seeing, and i am very interested in trying it out. i don't think that the metamagic issues will be a problem at all. but i do agree with jasdoif, who said:

Quote:

---

I don't like this. It penalizes someone hasn't picked sufficient metamagic feats. I would suggest something similar to the Wu Jen's spell secrets, where you pick a metamagic feat from a short list and get it for free (no slot increase) on a particular spell, and don't need to know the feat in question.

---

some casters really don't utilize metamagic much. for them, i'd suggest allowing them to either take a sorcerous heritage feat, an item creation feat, or (for those that want at least one or two), a normal metamagic feat in place of the metamagic familiarity.

aaron out.

My goodness. These are some wonderful changes you've made, especially to the sorcerer. It's my favorite class, but it didn't really feel like anything other than a less powerful wizard. This, coupled with the varient in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, would make the class that is awsome in it's own right.

I do have one question though. Would it be too much of a stretch to allow the sorcerer to use his cantrips at will? And even 1st and 2nd level spells at higher levels?

Overall pretty awesome. One issue: SR 2+level is basically useless because it isn't actually scaling, just treading water to stay as good as it was.
Caster level check vs. SR:
1d20+caster level vs 2+level
It is a flat 5% chance, or if the enemy has any bonuses to caster level then no chance at all. If you want it to be meaningful, increase it to at least 5+level, increasing at higher levels to 10+level.

Seems inbalanced.


























No, seriously. Have you playtested this? I don't see why people think their untested guesses will be lucky enough to be better than what's already there. At least that's been tested on a bunch of games; whether you agree with it or not. Take the fighter, as the simplest example. The most common "fix" is to boost his combat numbers even more. He's already on top there. That's not why people complain about him. If anything they think he's underpowered because of limited options. I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but no matter which side you're on it makes absolutely no sense to fix him by boosting his combat stats. So it's conceivable that someone somewhere might find a good fix by totally changing what each class can do, but to just change some numbers around / etc. while doing 1000 times less testing than the original developers and then expect it to be better is silly. I have run the numers on several things in 3.5, to a level of extreme detail that might make you question my sanity. That's not the issue. Instead I found the developers must have been even crazier than me when it came to balancing the numbers. They're spot on.

Personally ericgrau, I don't think homebrewing is about balance, it's about fun. You sometimes have to change things to suit the game and even your own tastes. A class can be good in concept, but in practice it could suck big time. Take my example for instance: The sorcerer is a very nice in theory, but in practice it's really just a weaker version of the wizard.

And besides, balance is completely subjective to a situation. There are those who say druids are HORRIBLY balanced, which they sort of are. Some say that fighters are perfectly balanced (don't know, never played one).

And what you said about the developers being spot on? Remember Complete Psionic? Yeah. Sucked.

That language skill change is just what I have been looking for, I was greatly annoyed at the fact that you apparently could spend one skill point to become automatically fluent in a language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericgrau

No, seriously. Have you playtested this? I don't see why people think their untested guesses will be lucky enough to be better than what's already there. At least that's been tested on a bunch of games; whether you agree with it or not. Take the fighter, as the simplest example. The most common "fix" is to boost his combat numbers even more. He's already on top there. That's not why people complain about him. If anything they think he's underpowered because of limited options. I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but no matter which side you're on it makes absolutely no sense to fix him by boosting his combat stats. So it's conceivable that someone somewhere might find a good fix by totally changing what each class can do, but to just change some numbers around / etc. while doing 1000 times less testing than the original developers and then expect it to be better is silly. I have run the numbers on several things in 3.5, to a level of extreme detail that might make you question my sanity. That's not the issue. Instead I found the developers must have been even crazier than me when it came to balancing the numbers. They're spot on.

---

The fighter is on top in combat stats at low levels, sure. By mid levels, though, he loses out to the cleric or druid with buffs, and by high levels he loses out to the wizard with buffs as well. Also, he's pretty much irrelevant by high levels anyway. There are ways to fix it by changing how you run games (if there are a lot of moderate encounters, as the DMG suggests, rather than the current norm of four very taxing ones per day, the fighter is more relevant in slogging through the mooks) but there is still a serious problem when the fighter is not always the best fighter on the field.