A Mechanicaly fixed 3e (Or house-rules for a mechanically fixed 3e)

[Scowling Dragon]

Im looking for a mechanically fixed 3e.

I tried Legends (It was too simple), as well as Point buy systems (Not my thing). Also tried Fantasy Craft.

Are there any good 3e (In terms of magic and martial might) like games that are more mechanically sound that are not point based?

[erikun]

Not too much.

I mean, there are games that tone down the magic aspect of classes - Iron Heroes is very D&D3e and the classes are rather useful, although I've heard the Arcanist has the Wizard problem. Mutants and Masterminds is generally very good at fixing a ton of faults in D&D3e, although does so by generally bypassing most of the core system altogether. It is also, despite the levels, fundamentally point-based.

However, there is just so much that I find faulty in the core D&D3e system that it is hard for me to suggest a system I'd consider "fixed" and still have much relation. Pathfinder has a free SRD with most of its core content, if you wanted to check it out without spending any money. Pathfinder is intentionally very similar to D&D3e, and might fit what you want.

[magwaaf]

they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

[Hiro Protagonest]

they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

I can't think of a way to adequately express how I'm going berserk, so I'm just going to appeal to reason: SKR is the lead designer.

[Jeraa]

Pathfinder, while it does make some good changes, still has one major flaw. Its still based on 3.5 D&D. If the mechanics of 3.5 D&D are the problem, then using Pathfinder won't fix that. It does improve it a bit, but its not a fix.

If you want a more mechanically sound game, avoid anything that uses 3.5 as a base.

[Fearghus]

Out of curiosity, what are the major broken areas of 3.5 that are causing issues?

[Gavinfoxx]

Let's see...

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

For Example:

Legend:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator, a bit old though, doesn't contain everything or the current version. Were you adding the splat stuff or just using the core rules only?

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutan...third-edition/

Also, someone is trying to make D&D stuff with mutants and masterminds *3e*:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
and
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewt...706712#p706712

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/midden...oject/frankpdf

True20 is here:
http://true20.com/

And could you explain what was too simplistic about Legend? Especially with all of the extra options and the extra sets of rules posted online?

[erikun]

Out of curiosity, what are the major broken areas of 3.5 that are causing issues?

There are a lot of areas in the game where the rules work poorly, work not as expected, or just don't work at all. It would take a lot of space to list them all, but to try to be brief:

Melee combat, unless you optimize Power Attack, scales very poorly compared to HP. This means that, while 1st or 2nd level encounters can be deadly, higher than that you start seeing HP damage become irrelevant. Ranged combat requires a lot of feats to just use competently, and has the same damage problems as melee (without the Power Attack option). Combat maneuvers are so hard to pull off and so heavily penalized that they are frequently useless, even with the feats, while monsters with the same attacks get them for free off a successful hit and have massive built-in bonuses. Skills are awkward, with the ability modifiers meaning little by mid-levels; most skill DCs at that time either being "character with ranks passes" or "character without ranks fails"; and the whole skill point mini-system is just bulky. Constitution modifier means far more to HP than class does, with a high-CON wizard frequently getting more HP and moderate-CON frontline classes. Classes are sold as equally viable, despite some (Fighter and Monk notably) being rather poor or just working awkwardly. Spells can do nearly anything, spellcasters get tons of magic, and it is remarkably easy to avoid any penalities or danger preventing a caster from casting a spell.

I'm sure I could go into more detail if needed, but I don't think I want to have that conversation again.

[Scowling Dragon]

Let's see...

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

I Tried Pathfinder, Trailblazer (Both didn't seem to fix the math), Fantasy Craft (It has some rules that force the game too be only one type of game), and Legends.

And could you explain what was too simplistic about Legend? Especially with all of the extra options and the extra sets of rules posted online?

The tracks system means that I can't create monsters unless I lump in useless stuff with it that I don't need.

The system allot of times doesn't fix the issues with 3e as much as often just skipping them. Like instead of making weapons matter, they just skip it altogether.

Also I want this for Fantasy games.

[Seharvepernfan]

By all means, check mine out. They're in my sig.

[shadow_archmagi]

they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.

[Scow2]

I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.

Heheheheh... no. Those are tiny compared to the real problem with the system - Magic users and spells.

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

[jindra34]

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

This I disagree with. 4e isn't a 'fixed' version of any prior DnD system. its an entirely, from the ground up NEW system that just happens to share a lot of key terms. A mechanically fixed 3.5 would still use a lot of the constructions and rules of 3.5 but with selective and precise changes. Potentially starting with removing stats as boni to everything by default.

[Jeraa]

Heheheheh... no. Those are tiny compared to the real problem with the system - Magic users and spells.

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

Or, if you are willing to wait, maybe 5th edition. Its far closer to 3.5 in feel and mechanics then it is to 4th edition. Spell slots and all that, instead of at will/encounter/daily powers.

[Seharvepernfan]

I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.

Could not possibly disagree any harder.

[Grinner]

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

Not true. Like jindra said, they're two different systems, the most obvious difference being that 4e knew what it wanted to accomplish. Yes it was basically skirmish boardgame, but it was a very good skirmish boardgame.

3.X, on the other hand, overextended itself by trying to be too many things at once. It tried to be realistic in its treatment of economics in addition to being balanced in gameplay, leading to the divide between mundane and magic economies. It tried to be viable for many sorts of genres, but the fact that spellcasters could actually do anything by the sheer number of different spells they had prohibited everything but Gygax's vision of high fantasy.

Pathfinder attempted to address 3.X's flaws, but all it did was patch up the most obvious holes. Truly, the whole thing needs to be rebuilt from square one, built on shaky foundations as it is.

[Gavinfoxx]

The system allot of times doesn't fix the issues with 3e as much as often just skipping them. Like instead of making weapons matter, they just skip it altogether.

You do know that they are working on rules for more expanded weapons with Legend, right?

And it's Legend, not Legends.

And the 1.0 version of Legend will arrive tomorrow. So... that should probably include some stuff, yea?

[Zeful]

they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

No. Pathfinder fixed nothing in 3.5. It generated several cosmetic changes and then closed the matter. Actually fixing it would have nuked the backwards compatability that was supposed to exist.

[Scowling Dragon]

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

No, thats like saying the fixed version of a dented banana is an Orange.

You do know that they are working on rules for more expanded weapons with Legend, right?

Eh. Lets see how it ends up.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

While I hate to be the one to potentially open this can of worms, there is also the opinion that Pathfinder exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the balance problems of 3.5.

[Tholomyes]

True20 works pretty well, or alternatively Mutants and Masterminds if some of the True20 mechanics seem restrictive. M&M falls on the problem that if you don't make an effort to make characters feel distinct, they might not. PL limits prevent certain archetypes like glass cannons, so unless you distinguish characters in other ways, a ranged +5 to hit, Damage 7 attack will be the same, coming from a Wizard as from a ranger.

Still, there are some interesting things you can do with the ruleset to mitigate this. For example, using M&M3e rules, (and the very underutilized Trigger rules) I made these options to mechanically capture the flavor of distinct class options:

Sheild of Faith: Deflect 4 (Triggered 4; When a nearby ally is attacked) [8pp] (Basically, it's activated as a standard action, and for the first 4 times an ally within range is attacked, the shield goes off, treating their Defense as though it were 1d20+4, adding 10 to all rolls natural 10 and under, so effectively 1d10+14, which isn't too shabby, assuming a PL 6 character)

Attack of Opportunity: +3 Reaction (An enemy moves past him, or disengages him) to Damage 6 [18pp] (M&M doesn't have built in rules for AoOs, but with this, you can make a fighter able to tie down enemies, to be "tank-y"; If you really wanted to have fun with it, you could also apply an alternate effect to your Damage, to make it an affliction that stops/slows movement somehow, to make the fighter not deal damage, but prevent them from moving away)

[Edge of Dreams]

Personally, I've given up on D&D clones entirely. Now I play Runequest (6th edition) for all my generic medieval fantasy needs. It is sort-of a point buy system instead of class-and-level, but you're not buying spells and special abilities with points, just your basic stats and skills. There's no feats to worry about, but there's five different systems of magic, each of which can be tweaked by the GM to create dozens of different magical traditions to choose from that can all exist side-by-side in a setting (a Sorcerer of the Viper Cult and a Sorcerer of the Brotherhood of Scholars both use the Sorcery rules, for example, but would have access to very different spell lists and emphasize different values, tactics, and goals).

RQ 6 also balances melee and magic very well, if that's what you're going for. The rate at which casters recover spent magic points from casting spells is up to the GM to determine based on what is appropriate for their setting. I went for a low recovery rate for my setting, but made learning magic readily available - there are lots of powerful mages, but they have to conserve their resources and choose when to cast spells very carefully. Also, I love that RQ doesn't make you have to invest resources (like feat slots) just to be decent at things like tripping a foe. If you know how to fight, you know how to trip, disarm, parry, shield bash, overextend, impale, or stun a foe, plus another dozen or so tactical combat options in addition to just dealing damage. Every character gets a combat style which determines which weapons they are proficient with (which matters! Maces and hammers can't impale, swords are bad at doing knockback, etc.) and grants one special ability unique to that style.

My absolute favorite thing about RQ 6, though, is that the most effective and powerful characters are often magical warriors who buff themselves before engaging the enemy and use only a few carefully chosen, properly timed combat spells to get the job done when the sword alone won't cut it, so to speak. In fact, there's an entire sub-system of magic (Mysticism) based around spells that ONLY buff the caster and grant him special abilities (perfect for doing monks, paladins, jedi, etc.).

[Tholomyes]

While I hate to be the one to potentially open this can of worms, there is also the opinion that Pathfinder exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the balance problems of 3.5.

Which is a legitimate complaint. It solved some things that were way out of line, but also provided more goodies to each class, which in the case of some classes which no one was really saying needed them (like for the case of full-casters) only served to make them better. However, it's largely a matter of taste. Personally, I think balance wise, it's about even. PF fixed some things, but exacerbated others, to the point where I'd argue it's a toss up. However, I prefer Pathfinder, because it fixes a lot of the non-balance based problems, like skill consolidation and eliminating cross-class skills, and Archetypes making certain concepts viable, even if Multiclassing wasn't, and eliminating empty levels, to make every level feel like an actual progression, rather than just the numbers going up.

[erikun]

Personally, I've given up on D&D clones entirely. Now I play Runequest (6th edition) for all my generic medieval fantasy needs.

Would you be interested in explaining more in-depth about RuneQuest 6, either in PM or in another thread? I am curious about how the game works and runs, and such a conversation would probably end up taking over this thread.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Not asking too much huh?

"Fixed" is a more of an opinion depending on what you actually want aesthetically because the solutions are actually different.

You can "fix" 3.5 by for example going around and selecting various base classes (and homebrew base classes) that all have rough equivalency and making only those available for play. Then just tell people to refluff so their Rogue is now a Beguiler or whatever. Find Tier 1 "versions" of everything even.

Or you could alternately you could cook up a major spellcasting nerf since that's the central issue. Attack the methods of casting spells to smash the action economy to bits by making them longer casting. Up the Glass in Glass Cannon. Weaken the centralized Save DC structure with say penalties on certain effects to account for their severity and everything else getting re-rolls. Some specifics like not allowing Summons to be "disposable" through some means.

(A nerf would work better on a PF base since they actually did reign in a lot of things, just look at Polymorph. And made all the classes more fun to play)

[Edge of Dreams]

Would you be interested in explaining more in-depth about RuneQuest 6, either in PM or in another thread? I am curious about how the game works and runs, and such a conversation would probably end up taking over this thread.

I'd be happy to. Expect a PM soon.

[Ravens_cry]

Mutants and Masterminds is probably your best option. While some options are objectively better than others, taking all those options and what fluff you give them is your choice. As long as you are willing to be flexible and work with a point buy system (I tend to find they have just so many choices that I get overwhelmed) I think it could really work out.

[Gavinfoxx]

Legend just came out for 1.0.

They have a LOT more tracks, and lots more information on weapons. Maybe it has that complexity you were looking for now?

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Which is a legitimate complaint. It solved some things that were way out of line, but also provided more goodies to each class, which in the case of some classes which no one was really saying needed them (like for the case of full-casters) only served to make them better. However, it's largely a matter of taste. Personally, I think balance wise, it's about even. PF fixed some things, but exacerbated others, to the point where I'd argue it's a toss up. However, I prefer Pathfinder, because it fixes a lot of the non-balance based problems, like skill consolidation and eliminating cross-class skills, and Archetypes making certain concepts viable, even if Multiclassing wasn't, and eliminating empty levels, to make every level feel like an actual progression, rather than just the numbers going up.

Yeah, I was using passive voice to remain somewhat neutral, but I brought up the complaint because I agree with it. I wouldn't even really say it's a toss-up, since a lot of the streamlining had unforseen consequences; rogues got hit especially hard with "collateral damage," while the consolidation and simplification of skills basically made int-based casters de facto skill monkeys. I like a few of the changes, mostly the addition of flavorful abilities to unfortunately dry classes (sorcerer and paladin, specifically; regardless of balance, they feel like holy warriors or whatever, now, at least to me), but I'd come down on the side that it hurt balance more than it helped.

Moreover, most of the fixes removed the opportunities for blatant exploitation at the expense of cool, flavorful mechanics; shapeshifting may not be broken anymore, but it's also a lot less fun and doesn't even make sense a lot of the time. I'd much rather just have a DM just say "Newwwwp," when That Guy tries to pull something cheap than have something that used to be fun relegated to "numbers going up."

Anyway, that's kind of an aside, so to draw it back into the conversation, I think that a lot of the problem with balancing 3.5 is that, as someone else put it, the balanced version of 3.5 is 4th edition and, as other people pointed out in response to that, they're really not the same thing at all. Most of the attempts to "balance" 3.5 tend to edge more and more into making an essentially different game and, in a lot of cases, a duller and more homogeneous one. While it's certainly not ideal for casters to run roughshod over mundanes in the way that they do, I'd prefer dealing with that and planning around it to simply running in a system where all of the characters feel essentially the same. I guess what I mean is that I'm of the opinion that the best "fix" to 3.5's balance is a good DM and a Gentleman's Agreement. I'm sure that's one of the newfangled internet fallacies, the names of which I can never recall (Is that Stormwind? One of them is Stormwind.), but it's my opinion, all the same.

[Scowling Dragon]

They have a LOT more tracks, and lots more information on weapons. Maybe it has that complexity you were looking for now?

Where? From what I seen they just took the tracks they had before separately and combined them together into one document.


The game itself is geared more towards pure adventure rather then any form of world development, so the "No Golems, undeads, or any kind of minion creation" bugs me. Also I dislike the "Movie" based recharge system because it doesn't work at all.

When watching a movie you don't want to be constantly reminded that your watching a movie, just like in a RPG I don't want to be reminded that Im playing a game. Its not cinematic. Its just distracting.

Some more weapon qualities are OK, but not enough, and weapons still begin to matter little at around 7th level.