Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
-
2011-12-08, 09:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
As many others have before; i'm building a set of my own reworks to 3.5; There's some info i'd like to get from the experts on balance in here.
I'm basing my work off the 3.5 srd; as I think too many splatbooks is part of the problem (and too much to balance).
I have little experience with level 10+ play; so i'm relying more on what i've read about that, and some questions.
Q1: is caster growth actually quadratic? As opposed to being x^3, or some other exponent or more complicated formula.
Q2: How well does fighting type units damage stack up late game?
Q3: Would trying to make all classes tier 2 be too powerful a point to aim for?
what about tier 3?
Q4: How often are you denied your dodge bonuses in high level combat?
Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.
Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).
thank you for your time and answers
Zlefin :)
-
2011-12-08, 09:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Under the midnight sun
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Q3: well... giving SoD to every one might be fun... but really, with 2+ you lose all hope at avoiding breakage. you can try to contain it, but it really won't work. T3 is much more fun, as it lets people feel like they matter. heck T4 might be fun for makeing people think...
Avatar by Szilard, thank you sir for the fine work!
my home brew. you should PEACH them...
Telekineticist
Razor
Shield
blasterv4
mindbender
-
2011-12-08, 11:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Q5
I would strongly, strongly suggest that you establish a norm, a standard to go by. I think a huge part of the problem in 3.5 balance is that people are expecting, for example, the likes of Aragorn or Conan to be 15th to 20th level PCs.
When in reality, they're probably closer to 5th or 6th level.
So people set a bar at a certain height, and then things fall apart.
Personally, I think a near-epic level warrior-type should be breaking the laws of physics and doing earthshattering attacks. Gilgamesh slashed a mountain in half. You cited Mihawk as slashing a ship in two. Putting these guys in a group with a mage that can summon huge monsters and teleport across a continent is fair & balanced. If people don't want to be in a group at that power level, if they think it's over the top, then they should be made aware that what they really want is to play in a lower level game.
In much the same vein, CR needs a really, major, huge looking at. I think this is one of the areas where PF totally dropped the ball.
-
2011-12-08, 11:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
If you don't have experience with high level play 1) Don't try to include it in your game. 2) Don't aim for a tier 1 or 2 balance point.
Design what you know, not what you think other people will like. If it's good, people will come. If it's not good, it wouldn't have been any better with you trying to support something that you legitimately have no idea how it works.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-12-08, 11:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
x^3 = cubic, or "to the cubic power". IIRC.
Thing is, the term is to define how the classes grow. A Fighter gets new feats every two levels, and feats don't progress unless you take a feat chain and the next feat in the list. Hence, "linear"; one feat takes you to the next.
Wizards and other spellcasters work differently. Every new spell level they get, they get a plethora of new spells, but their old spells STILL grow in power. For example: at 3rd level, a wizard gets Scorching Ray, but its Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp spells increase in damage; Grease and Color Spray are still powerful but you also get Glitterdust and Web. Hence, they grow in a "quadratic" form: not only you gain an increase in power from better spells, but also from your old spells growing.
A way to solve the "fighters grow linearly" problem is to make feats scale, but ONLY for martial classes. Thus, Dodge grants a +1 dodge bonus at 1st level, but a +2 at 5th, and so on. Most of these increases become easily boring after a few levels, and most people recommend that scaling feats are both reasonable in terms of growth and fun to use. For example, Mobility would work better if at latter levels it granted some form of concealment while moving, as it makes choosing one feat a better return at the long run. Thus, your old feats improve, and you gain new feats that also grow. That doesn't make it "quadratic" but it makes it adopt a different shape (I say logarithmic, as you stop growing to an extent).
Q2: How well does fighting type units damage stack up late game?
Q3: Would trying to make all classes tier 2 be too powerful a point to aim for?
what about tier 3?
Q4: How often are you denied your dodge bonuses in high level combat?
Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.
Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).
thank you for your time and answers
Zlefin :)Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
On Lawful Good:
T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.
-
2011-12-08, 11:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
I might suggest just designing the rules for 1-10 to start with, then if you get that done, you like the feedback, and you're comfortable with the foundation you've built, you could do 11-15, then 16-20.
-
2011-12-09, 12:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
"Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" is meant to highlight the relation between the two classes, not specify the exact relation of power. Fighters gain power linerally, typically with bonuses adding to existing bonuses. Wizards gain power exponentially, not only gaining more spell slots of existing spells but also newer, more power spells.
A Wizard four levels higher will not only have around twice as many spell slots of existing spells known, but will also have two new spell levels of slots to work with. This is in addition to additional new spells of the same level and more powerful spells from two higher levels. Conversely, the Fighter will have +4 to hit and two new feats that are roughly as powerful as they were at the start of the game - a linear addition of abilities.
Poorly. 20 CON translates into +100 HP at 20th level, easily equaling the natural HP the Fighter gains through levels. Monsters can have 40 CON or 50 CON, granting hundreds of HP that requires high optimization to chop through.
This is entirely up to you. Some people like 3.5e because you can select your "tier" for different playstyles, so trying to make everything the same tier wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
Note that if trying to make everything Tier 2 (equal to a sorcerer), some people may question how a Fighter or Barbarian class fits such abilities. Tier 3 is generally considered a balance point because "mundane" classes can still have rather mundane abilities and perform at that level.
I'll leave this up to others, although a lot of higher level attacks will hit something other than AC, and miss chance gets used a lot more.
This is purely up to individual opinion, but Warblades, Swordsages, and various Barbarians are generally well accepted without complaint.
It should also be mentioned that exactly what abilities you mean will influence how certain people accept the idea. If the game setting implies that mortals can obtain the powers of the gods through valor and hard work, then high-level characters acting like Herakles will likely be more accepted. If nothing like that is present, then people ripping apart ships will likely be far less so.
Also note that the highest tier "mundane" characters, and their abilities, are nothing along those lines. Being able to detect invisible opponent, attacking by touch AC, or granting bonus actions to allies are all very good and generally accepted without slicing giant oaks in half.
Hard to say, because feats can vary so wildly. Evasion is far better than Endurance, but not nearly as good as Summon Elemental or Leadership.
I would probably say they are worth one feat, in general.SpoilerThank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
The full set is here.
Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread
A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
original image
-
2011-12-09, 12:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Oolitic, IN
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.
Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).Last edited by Jeraa; 2011-12-09 at 12:28 AM.
-
2011-12-09, 07:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Not quite; a tier 2 can be less versatile than a tier 3. They actually measure both.
A 20% miss chance is much better than 4 points of AC because it applies separately and uses a different dice.
Not really; hundreds of HP doesn't take high optimization to chop through if you're willing to take a few rounds.
I'll leave this up to others, although a lot of higher level attacks will hit something other than AC, and miss chance gets used a lot more.
-
2011-12-09, 09:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Beyond the Ninth Wave
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
The issue is that fighters have a solid mechanism for overcoming AC built right into their class: attack bonus. They buff up their attack bonuses in order to hit reliably.
Miss chance, on the other hand, ignores the existing mechanism. It functions on a different spectrum, and so planning for one doesn't help you plan for the other. With the presence of miss chances, fighters have to compensate for two different mechanical variables, dividing their total resources and producing less focused effects.
Except that many of those monsters with hundreds of HP have other supportive defensive mechanics as well: DR, fast healing/regeneration, miss chances, you name it. And many can hit as hard as or much harder than an less optimized player character, who will also typically lack those strong defensive mechanics (or have them at inadequate levels).
Every round you take is a chance for the walking tank to flatten you.Originally Posted by KKL
-
2011-12-09, 10:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Not sure if you were aware, but AC can be buffed up a lot more easily than attack bonus.
With the presence of miss chances, fighters have to compensate for two different mechanical variables, dividing their total resources and producing less focused effects.
Of course, in a rocket tag game things are different, but those are extremely difficult to balance, extremely volatile, and often mean that some party members don't have a chance to contribute even in the encounter type they're supposed to be best at, so I'd say that any rework should start off by ensuring that things don't devolve into rocket tag.
Except that many of those monsters with hundreds of HP have other supportive defensive mechanics as well: DR, fast healing/regeneration, miss chances, you name it.
And many can hit as hard as or much harder than an less optimized player character, who will also typically lack those strong defensive mechanics (or have them at inadequate levels).
Every round you take is a chance for the walking tank to flatten you.
-
2011-12-09, 10:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't understand the system, you cannot fix the system. You will either fix the wrong things, fix things wrongly, or likely both. If you're going to do this at all, then I'd recommend Hyudra's sentiment: make a good fix for low-level play, get feedback, & tweak it to a shiny polish. Only then will you understand the issues with the system enough to tackle mid-level & high-level play.
Honestly, you're better off not wasting your time. It will take a ton of time & labor to fix the system, & others have tried before you. Fax Celestis's D20r, Paizo's Pathfinder, & the new Legend system from RoC are all based on the idea of fixing the d20 system; each has taken years to complete. I'm not sure if you even understand the sheer volume of work needed to fix the core system. Every rule, every sentence, every table, & every single number needs to be looked at, with a keen eye for how it fits in with everything else. This is something that, by your own admission, you do not have. Perhaps it would be best if you made a system of your own, one that is not based directly on the d20 system. That way, you'd be starting fresh, without the baggage of 10 years of revisions, opinions, & errata, & you would be the one who understands your system the best.
In conclusion, if you should probably not do this, but if you are going to do so anyway, then start small. Fix the feats, or rebuild the Fighter class, or adjust the grappling rules. Then assess what you've done, & what you'd like to do, & how that all fits together. Remember that fixing one thing can break something else, & that exploits can often turn up where you least expect them. There is no perfect solution for everyone's play style, so you're better off aiming for a specific way of doing things, & stick with that no matter what. You won't please everybody, but you just might end up pleasing yourself. Good luck.
-
2011-12-09, 11:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Broken Damaged Worthless
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
This is wisdom. Some friends of mine are working on a TCG that's actually coming together well, and they've roped me into it (over a decade of competitive Magic play gives me an understanding of TCGs they just don't have), and I can tell ya, you have to watch out for breaks EVERYWHERE.
It's best to just make your own system and call it a day. Trying to make something with the baggage and assumptions of a prior system is nigh-impossible without such an incredible understanding of the system that it nearly boggles the mind. IMO, no one really has that kind of an understanding without doing and failing for years at a time.
People like Doc Roc, Fax, and the Paizo guys, all of whom have spearheaded major revisions, they all have been doing this at all levels of design since the game was released. If you wish to become one of them, that's fine, but you need experience that, by admission, you lack. Start small, make a few things here and there, make it unique and distinct, then work on building up from there. It's a years long process and you best be prepared to fail a lot, because you will (we all did, it's nothing personal ).
Good luck, in any case, and welcome to the brew.
All that I say applies only to myself. You author your own actions and choices. I cannot and will not be responsible for you, nor are you for me, regardless of situation or circumstance.
-
2011-12-09, 01:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
It's more "action economy + versatility = power", from what I can see. But that's because versatility factors into power quite nicely.
For example: the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? A cleric, a druid and a favored soul? Between actual spellcasters and users of psionics? As described, the Tiers factor out of the box what exactly can you pull off, instead of what you can pull off with any level of optimization. The Tier 1 description states both things: that they can end battles in one round, and that they can do pretty much everything (not exactly as I say it, tho), but if you read it as it's stated, the former is only an application of the latter.
Actually, that's why it's inferior unless dealing with someone who already hits on 5 or misses on a 19. A 20% miss chance is 4 points out of 20 to miss; 4 points of AC is 4 points out of his existing number of numbers that hit (which is of course a maximum of 19).
In that description, a +4 bonus to attack rolls negates that 20% benefit of not getting hit from the AC, whereas the 20% miss chance will apply regardless of the bonus to AC (what it does, though, is that the earlier chance to prevent being hit increases, but you find a further stumbling block). Because it factors separately, it is superior, because you can find ways to increase your AC and maximize that AC increase, making you harder to hit. There are less ways to bypass concealment than to get a bonus to attack rolls, which should mean something.
Consider, then, what happens when creatures with high HD start getting more bonuses to attack than what you could get from AC. Consider, as well, what happens when your chances to get AC become limited: for example, having low Dex, using heavy armor without mithral, not wearing a shield. High AC usually requires having good scores and a lot of small items granting various different bonuses to AC; if you can replace a Ring of Protection +3 with a Ring of Protection +1 and maybe a Ring of Blinking, then you waste 3k more gold but you maximize the return. That doesn't mean you'll always have the right amount of GP or that you'll easily find Rings of Protection +3 and Rings of Blinking, or that you'll have a surplus of 3k GP to replace one thing for another, certainly. It's just the same as getting an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 and a Ring of Protection +1 instead of a Ring of Protection +2; same AC, perhaps the loss of 1 to touch AC, but in the end you'll get the same results.
And, of course, miss chances apply to many more things. If the enemy hits touch AC? Miss chance applies, unless the enemy can bypass concealment or miss chances as well. Diminishing returns with attack bonus? Miss chances become slightly better.
It's also the difference between +1 extra AC and +1 to all saving throws, because the latter applies to things that AC can't handle. That's the importance of non-AC defenses, because there will be times when AC can be bypassed, ignored, or downright unnecessary, whereas stuff like saving throws, miss chances, DR, resistances and whatnot become more important. That was the idea behind the recommendation: if you can get the chance for non-AC defenses, use them, because later on you can reinforce your AC and still get something better.Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
On Lawful Good:
T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.
-
2011-12-09, 01:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- WOTC ≱ my opinion
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
Going to just echo the above sentiments.
If you want to use the CORE d20 rules, i.e. the dice mechanism, cool.
Trying to retain anything else, or at least more than one thing, is going to become chaos.
My own "revision" wasn't ever intended like that, but after I'd pulled out everything I didn't like in 3.5, all I was left with was the Fighter class and the dice mechanics. Beyond that, it was actually far quicker building everything else around what i'd got left than trying to "revise" anything.
I got the bulk of it done in about 8 weeks, but this was the 3rd or 4th system I'd designed by this point and I had very clear design goals [not "better game" but "risky, cover intensive, class scaling Victorian gunslingery"], which, at present, you don't seem to have.
Get some goals, know what you're working towards and then you can actually start on your way.Mine is not so much a Peter Pan Complex as a Peter Pan Doom Fortress and Underground LairTM!
Fae-o-matic Want a fae from folklore stated? Give me the lore and I'll do it for you!
Le Cirque Funeste Evil Fairy Circus! Ray Bradbury, refined down to snortable powder!
-
2011-12-09, 01:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
thank you for all the comments, and more are still welcome.
As to the difficulty - I am well aware of how hard of a problem it is to solve, and how extensive. But it is the process itself of solving it that I find most interesting, rather than the utility of the solution.
In this it is much like solving a very difficult puzzle; so working on a hard puzzle is just fine.
I'm already developing some ideas for how to address the overall balance issues; and yes, as expected they'll break alot of other things, or at least require tweaking of them; but once you address core problems, then the others become more issues of adjusting numbers rather than of fundamental changes.
My objective is straightforward to describe: balance, between the classes; a tall goal, and i don' t expect to achieve it; but if I can get the casters all down to tier 2; and the fighters mostly all up to tier 3; then that'd be close enough.
-
2011-12-09, 02:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.
As does action economy. But so does simply having the ability to kill someone with a single spell.
For example: the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? A cleric, a druid and a favored soul? Between actual spellcasters and users of psionics?
Uh...it doesn't work that way. The best way to put it is like this: with a 50% to hit (you hit on a 11 or higher on a d20 roll), a +4 bonus to AC is a direct 20% increase to your defense.
In that description, a +4 bonus to attack rolls negates that 20% benefit of not getting hit from the AC, whereas the 20% miss chance will apply regardless of the bonus to AC (what it does, though, is that the earlier chance to prevent being hit increases, but you find a further stumbling block).
Because it factors separately, it is superior, because you can find ways to increase your AC and maximize that AC increase, making you harder to hit.
There are less ways to bypass concealment than to get a bonus to attack rolls, which should mean something.
Consider, then, what happens when creatures with high HD start getting more bonuses to attack than what you could get from AC.
Consider, as well, what happens when your chances to get AC become limited: for example, having low Dex, using heavy armor without mithral, not wearing a shield.
Also, at high levels getting mithral armor and gloves of DEX are quite worth the investment.
High AC usually requires having good scores and a lot of small items granting various different bonuses to AC; if you can replace a Ring of Protection +3 with a Ring of Protection +1 and maybe a Ring of Blinking, then you waste 3k more gold but you maximize the return.
But yes, ring of blinking is extremely good. That's a statement about the item, not about miss chance in general. (An item giving +10 to AC, for instance, would be far better than the ring of blinking almost all the time.)
It's just the same as getting an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 and a Ring of Protection +1 instead of a Ring of Protection +2; same AC, perhaps the loss of 1 to touch AC, but in the end you'll get the same results.
And, of course, miss chances apply to many more things. If the enemy hits touch AC? Miss chance applies, unless the enemy can bypass concealment or miss chances as well.
Diminishing returns with attack bonus? Miss chances become slightly better.
It's also the difference between +1 extra AC and +1 to all saving throws, because the latter applies to things that AC can't handle.
That's the importance of non-AC defenses, because there will be times when AC can be bypassed, ignored, or downright unnecessary, whereas stuff like saving throws, miss chances, DR, resistances and whatnot become more important.
That was the idea behind the recommendation: if you can get the chance for non-AC defenses, use them, because later on you can reinforce your AC and still get something better.
In reality, both have their places.
That said, boosting ways for martial classes to boost either touch AC or miss chances is definitely a good idea; I find touch AC is a better approach there, as it rewards focusing far more.