The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 293
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by qazzquimby View Post
    I think it is good to make alternate houserules to things that are not necessarily broken in people's eyes, so long as the overall 3.5 fix comes in easily separated packages. I currently can't use much of it because it relies changes to crits and weapon damage that I don't like, with that rippling out to effect other areas.

    I think 4 progressions is fine, and necessary for modelling all kinds of magic users well.
    I'm curious... Did you try crit-substitution and didn't like the experience, or did you reject it for not liking the concept? (if it's the former, I'd like to know what didn't work for you)
    I'm asking because I added it to the codex only after I got feedbacks on the idea and cooked it until it felt right and then improved it afterwards.

    Btw, there's very little in the codex that addresses crit-substitution, so I'm not sure what's interfering with you just throwing it away.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    qazzquimby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    I rejected it because I enjoy crits for the dramatic moment and fun. Crits and crit failures are usually played up in my group, with the players given some narrative control so long as it adds to the experience.

    Has it changed since I commented on it? Note that I wasn't criticizing your system, I just didn't think it was for me.

    Btw, there's very little in the codex that addresses crit-substitution, so I'm not sure what's interfering with you just throwing it away.
    If I remember right, it was used to justify changes to health, and I think other things? It was both the crits and the weapon damage changes I didn't want.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    But I don't want to deal with lists if I can avoid it.
    Why? It solves 99% of problems with spellcasting.

    Hoards:
    - You can. You'll just have to keep in mind that if you overreach, you lose control on whatever "excess weight" you're carrying (or they vanish – case by case basis).
    - Dominator = Spellthief… Bard… Mage… You don't need specific class features to pull this one off. Also, skills don't carry the same limitation as spells. Whoever you manage to manipulate via Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate (Sleight of Hand sometimes) can serve as your pawn. Sometimes manipulation is more powerful/effective than direct domination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spellcasting Rules, Summoning & Domination
    You cannot maintain more than a single summoning spell effect at a time.
    AFAIK, that doesn't apply to dominates or undead. Interestingly, that means you nerfed the best balanced of the minions options the most. Still, you don't get nearly the horde under current rules that you used to.

    Sharing spells:
    - Check again on the Witch's "Familiar" feature.
    The point of Bonded Summoner is to have a familiar that is a capable combat monster on its own, and then to stack a bunch of buffs on it. The whole "pet small animal" thing doesn't capture that at all.

    Fear Stacking:
    - Check out the Intimidation Feats. (or did I misunderstand your intention?)
    I don't know where those are.

    Polymorph specialist:
    - Druid
    - Witch
    - Mage (transmutist)
    Don't seem to get form blending like Master Transmogrifist, value abilities like Warshaper, or Master of Many Forms stuff.

    Telepouncing:
    - Soulknife: Breach the Gap
    - Monk: Abundant Step / Boundless Reach
    Doesn't look like it, unless I'm misunderstanding action types. Telepouncing is a teleport that gives you a (full) attack at the end.

    What do you expect from a 1st level feat with no prereqs other than Whip prof.? (which a warrior can take at 1st level w/o feat investment).
    And how exactly does anything that I suggested so far "shaft" mundanes? The options are next to limitless. Nobody forces anything upon you. And again – check out how Whip feats combing with the Crit-Substitution rules.
    Extend Spell has no prerequisites at all. But more importantly, it's not level one you should look at. It's when a 13th level character finds a totally sweet whip, and wants to start whipping people. Should he start at 1st level abilities? No, obviously not. When a caster wants to pick up a necromancy shtick, he doesn't have to start with chill touch at level 13, he can just cast finger of death.

    How did you figure animate dead as a second level spell?! What loophole am I missing here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mage, Mage Spellcasting
    The Mage-Spells list encompasses all arcane spells from all officially published WotC materials, without distinction of the official arcane classes those spells are originally restricted to (e.g. Sorcerer only or Wizard only).
    The Death Master has animate dead as a 2nd level spell. The ... something cultist-y I think ... gets planar binding as a 4th level spell. Trapsmiths get haste as a 1st level spell.

    Umm… what?? : baffled: :scratchhead:
    I can cast 2nd level spells. If I try to Persist a 2nd level spell, do I just take the massive amount of strain an 8th level spell would cost, or can I not do that.

    High-level characters are heroes of their gameworld. Most royalty shouldn't even taste 10th level. When one starts posing a threat due to personal might rather than strength of office – that's the time to bring out the cavalry (adventuring parties… assassins) to eliminate the threat.
    Also, Nobility ==> Family ==> Vulnerable Relatives. Either you play in an "ecological gameworld" or in a campaign where you play "Brova with superpowers". If it's the former, then your assumption is not mandatory.
    What? You're just saying that people in power are going to be hard core, and the threshold to be the government is higher.

    Your call to remove ability damage from the equation in your campaign. I'm not gonna suggest it as a houserule for all.
    Then why are you nerfing spells that kill fools? ray of stupidity kills people (or rather, animals) just as hard as finger of death, but it is lower level and doesn't get nerfs.

    1. Where would you get all those dying small animals to repeatedly kill?
    2. About CL abuse: open the "Redefining Magical Items' Creation" spoiler >> take a look inside the "Banned Magical Items" spoiler. This alone kills a lot of power abuse. And in general, using my rules, throw away everything you ever heard in 3.5e about magical gear. "Redefining Magical Items' Creation" is exactly that. There, no CL boosting via gear anymore.
    1. A petting zoo? I dunno, I assume there are small animals out their somewhere. If nothing else, low level summon monster spells.

    2. You've nerfed that trick, but wish still exists. You need to do something about that.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    But I don't want to deal with lists if I can avoid it.
    Why? It solves 99% of problems with spellcasting.
    Maybe if done flawlessly it can, but doing it flawlessly is hard, it takes a lot of time and the probability is very low.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Hoards:
    - You can. You'll just have to keep in mind that if you overreach, you lose control on whatever "excess weight" you're carrying (or they vanish – case by case basis).
    - Dominator = Spellthief… Bard… Mage… You don't need specific class features to pull this one off. Also, skills don't carry the same limitation as spells. Whoever you manage to manipulate via Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate (Sleight of Hand sometimes) can serve as your pawn. Sometimes manipulation is more powerful/effective than direct domination.
    "" Originally Posted by Spellcasting Rules, Summoning & Domination
    You cannot maintain more than a single summoning spell effect at a time.
    AFAIK, that doesn't apply to dominates or undead. Interestingly, that means you nerfed the best balanced of the minions options the most. Still, you don't get nearly the horde under current rules that you used to.
    You could exploit undead minions even if you lose control over them and they run amok. And as I said earlier, when domination is exhausted or not an option, the next best thing is manipulation (sometimes even better, because they act on their own volition).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Sharing spells:
    - Check again on the Witch's "Familiar" feature.
    The point of Bonded Summoner is to have a familiar that is a capable combat monster on its own, and then to stack a bunch of buffs on it. The whole "pet small animal" thing doesn't capture that at all.
    1. Mage: Conjurer; 6th level.
    2. Augment Summoning.

    The Druid has to work a bit harder (pay the extra feat) for Augment Summoning, but has Greenbound Summoning for compensation and may combine their benefits.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Fear Stacking:
    - Check out the Intimidation Feats. (or did I misunderstand your intention?)
    I don't know where those are.
    Post #9.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Polymorph specialist:
    - Druid
    - Witch
    - Mage (transmutist)
    Don't seem to get form blending like Master Transmogrifist, value abilities like Warshaper, or Master of Many Forms stuff..
    You can emulate Master Transmogrifist and MoMF by creating several feature-emulating spells (5th SL access should suffice) + multiclassing your Druid/Mage/Witch with Warrior/Rogue/Monk. (actually, MoMF doesn't offer anything that's not already within the reach of my Druid… except for aberration & ooze forms, but the Blighter gets those instead of the regular Druid, for reasons explained in the Druid's post).

    As for the Warshaper (the only example given that doesn't have spellcasting as mandatory prereq), if you give a character Polymorph (or something similar) as SLA, then the PrC's features can all be emulated via feats (if nobody comes up with them, maybe I will some day).

    Specifically for the Druid, I'd allow form-blending as a single feat, where a druid could blend from any form available to him. A second feat would be required for Morphic Reach. Another for Manifest Senses. That's about it – whatever's left unhandled is abuseable (or uninteresting, for serving nothing beyond stat-augmentations).
    I'll take care of that, hopefully soon.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Telepouncing:
    - Soulknife: Breach the Gap
    - Monk: Abundant Step / Boundless Reach
    Doesn't look like it, unless I'm misunderstanding action types. Telepouncing is a teleport that gives you a (full) attack at the end.
    Notice that there's no action specified for those abilities. This means that they're part of whatever action you're already taking, not actions on their own.
    I'll specify accordingly.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    What do you expect from a 1st level feat with no prereqs other than Whip prof.? (which a warrior can take at 1st level w/o feat investment).
    And how exactly does anything that I suggested so far "shaft" mundanes? The options are next to limitless. Nobody forces anything upon you. And again – check out how Whip feats combing with the Crit-Substitution rules.
    Extend Spell has no prerequisites at all. But more importantly, it's not level one you should look at. It's when a 13th level character finds a totally sweet whip, and wants to start whipping people. Should he start at 1st level abilities? No, obviously not. When a caster wants to pick up a necromancy shtick, he doesn't have to start with chill touch at level 13, he can just cast finger of death.
    The difference between mundane activity and spellcasting is that the former simulates RL while the other doesn't.

    Nevertheless, notice this:
    "Starting at 12th level, a warrior may spend a full round action to completely re-select all of his Combat Adaptations"

    That's a start. However, it won't grant you the prereq skill points. This makes me wonder if I should extend the Warrior's Combat Training feature to prereq skill ranks s as well (with a minimum of 1 rank for skills that cannot be used untrained).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    How did you figure animate dead as a second level spell?! What loophole am I missing here?
    "" Originally Posted by Mage, Mage Spellcasting
    The Mage-Spells list encompasses all arcane spells from all officially published WotC materials, without distinction of the official arcane classes those spells are originally restricted to (e.g. Sorcerer only or Wizard only).
    The Death Master has animate dead as a 2nd level spell. The ... something cultist-y I think ... gets planar binding as a 4th level spell. Trapsmiths get haste as a 1st level spell.
    AFAIK, Dragon magazine doesn't count as official 3.5e materials. And AFAIK there's no official material that puts Animate Dead as a fullcaster's 2nd level spell.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Umm… what?? : baffled: :scratchhead:
    I can cast 2nd level spells. If I try to Persist a 2nd level spell, do I just take the massive amount of strain an 8th level spell would cost, or can I not do that.
    1. Moot, due to the Dragon magazine note above.
    2. I just noticed a very old leftover. I meant to address Persistent Spell feat quite a while ago, but it somehow fell between the cracks. There, I took care of it (see the Modified Feats spoiler, post #8). It doesn't even resemble the official feat of the same name.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    High-level characters are heroes of their gameworld. Most royalty shouldn't even taste 10th level. When one starts posing a threat due to personal might rather than strength of office – that's the time to bring out the cavalry (adventuring parties… assassins) to eliminate the threat.
    Also, Nobility ==> Family ==> Vulnerable Relatives. Either you play in an "ecological gameworld" or in a campaign where you play "Brova with superpowers". If it's the former, then your assumption is not mandatory.
    What? You're just saying that people in power are going to be hard core, and the threshold to be the government is higher.
    I can't support or object to those statements, because I don't know what they mean.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Your call to remove ability damage from the equation in your campaign. I'm not gonna suggest it as a houserule for all.
    Then why are you nerfing spells that kill fools? ray of stupidity kills people (or rather, animals) just as hard as finger of death, but it is lower level and doesn't get nerfs.
    I must be missing something in your pattern of reasoning. They're lower level, so I intend to nerf them to not be as effective (=deadly) as finger of death. Why is that a problem?



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. Where would you get all those dying small animals to repeatedly kill?
    2. About CL abuse: open the "Redefining Magical Items' Creation" spoiler >> take a look inside the "Banned Magical Items" spoiler. This alone kills a lot of power abuse. And in general, using my rules, throw away everything you ever heard in 3.5e about magical gear. "Redefining Magical Items' Creation" is exactly that. There, no CL boosting via gear anymore.
    1. A petting zoo? I dunno, I assume there are small animals out their somewhere. If nothing else, low level summon monster spells.
    Yes, but they have to be dying/stabilized. How do you manage a horde of those?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    2. You've nerfed that trick, but wish still exists. You need to do something about that.
    When my worries in life amount to "how to stop Wish from granting CL boosting", I'll be truly happy. Until then, I have more pressing matters to put my energy into.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Maybe if done flawlessly it can, but doing it flawlessly is hard, it takes a lot of time and the probability is very low.
    No, you just don't put broken crap on spell lists. It's much less work than spot checking everything that might be an issue.

    You could exploit undead minions even if you lose control over them and they run amok. And as I said earlier, when domination is exhausted or not an option, the next best thing is manipulation (sometimes even better, because they act on their own volition).
    So I get to hope that my undead will attack the appropriate targets? Have you got default instructions for uncontrolled undead somewhere? Ditto for social mechanics.

    1. Mage: Conjurer; 6th level.
    A 6th level Conjurer gets Spell Power, making him marginally better at casting glitterdust and web.

    Post #9.
    Don't help casters, also a much bigger investment for about the same effect.

    You can emulate Master Transmogrifist and MoMF by creating several feature-emulating spells (5th SL access should suffice) + multiclassing your Druid/Mage/Witch with Warrior/Rogue/Monk. (actually, MoMF doesn't offer anything that's not already within the reach of my Druid… except for aberration & ooze forms, but the Blighter gets those instead of the regular Druid, for reasons explained in the Druid's post).

    As for the Warshaper (the only example given that doesn't have spellcasting as mandatory prereq), if you give a character Polymorph (or something similar) as SLA, then the PrC's features can all be emulated via feats (if nobody comes up with them, maybe I will some day).

    Specifically for the Druid, I'd allow form-blending as a single feat, where a druid could blend from any form available to him. A second feat would be required for Morphic Reach. Another for Manifest Senses. That's about it – whatever's left unhandled is abuseable (or uninteresting, for serving nothing beyond stat-augmentations).
    I'll take care of that, hopefully soon.
    Okay, so those abilities don't exist now. Fine.

    The difference between mundane activity and spellcasting is that the former simulates RL while the other doesn't.
    No. That is bad design.

    AFAIK, Dragon magazine doesn't count as official 3.5e materials. And AFAIK there's no official material that puts Animate Dead as a fullcaster's 2nd level spell.
    Death Masters are in the Dragon Compendium, which IIRC counts. And Trapsmiths or ... whatever the cultist is ... should count too.

    I can't support or object to those statements, because I don't know what they mean.
    From the perspective of a medieval society where governmental legitimacy comes from providing protection to citizens, you are the government if you dispatch threats the government can't or doesn't. If governments have high level adventurers in them, you've only postponed the point where PCs have more legitimacy than the government, not removed it.

    I must be missing something in your pattern of reasoning. They're lower level, so I intend to nerf them to not be as effective (=deadly) as finger of death. Why is that a problem?
    What?

    Yes, but they have to be dying/stabilized. How do you manage a horde of those?
    They should have 1 HP or so. Drop a control temperature with Flash Frost. Does a DoT with a very big radius.

    When my worries in life amount to "how to stop Wish from granting CL boosting", I'll be truly happy. Until then, I have more pressing matters to put my energy into.
    What? wish as written grants everyone any item that exists as soon as they can find and defeat an Efreet. If you're going to fix carrying capacity, but not that, what are you even doing?

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    No, you just don't put broken crap on spell lists. It's much less work than spot checking everything that might be an issue.
    Too much work, too little gain. Not gonna happen. Let's move on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    So I get to hope that my undead will attack the appropriate targets? Have you got default instructions for uncontrolled undead somewhere?
    You stand by the door at the other side of the big room, bringing in the 2nd wave and splitting, shutting the door behind you.
    I can describe dozens of different scenarios where this could be viable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Ditto for social mechanics.
    Not if you motivate them properly – then they'll work diligently to execute your agenda. It's all a question of how convincing your arguments + skill rolls + RP (+ maybe deception spells) are.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    1. Mage: Conjurer; 6th level.
    A 6th level Conjurer gets Spell Power, making him marginally better at casting glitterdust and web.
    This is not a char-op discussion. You asked for theme and options. There's always something better than solution X – that doesn't mean that solution X doesn't work or is not viable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Don't help casters, also a much bigger investment for about the same effect.
    1. As if casters need help.
    2. I don't remember noncasters ever having all the proposed options using the official rules.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    No. That is bad design.
    You kind'a skipped the "Nevertheless…" part – and more importantly, you didn't express an opinion regarding my proposal for the Warrior.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Death Masters are in the Dragon Compendium, which IIRC counts.
    1. Says who? Counts for what? Where is that written?
    2. Nowhere in my codex do I claim to support nonofficial 3.5e materials from any source whatsoever.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    And Trapsmiths or ... whatever the cultist is ... should count too.
    When I say "fullcaster", I categorically refer to a class with 9th level spells. No exceptions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    From the perspective of a medieval society where governmental legitimacy comes from providing protection to citizens, you are the government if you dispatch threats the government can't or doesn't. If governments have high level adventurers in them, you've only postponed the point where PCs have more legitimacy than the government, not removed it.
    I don't subscribe to that perspective, and neither does anyone I ever played with.
    1. There's more power potential from behind the scenes, when you're not in the spotlight.
    2. Kingdoms are not run by rulers that go on adventures.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    What?
    I noticed that you said "Then why are you nerfing spells that kill fools? ray of stupidity kills people (or rather, animals) just as hard as finger of death, but it is lower level and doesn't get nerfs".

    1. Low-level spells do ability damage.
    2. You say (rightfully so) that this makes them deadly to low-Int (or in general, low-ability) opponents.
    3. I agree and suggest preventing them from becoming lethal.
    4. You resent.
    5. Me – confused.

    Then I noticed that earlier you said "It also makes everything short of Constitution damage, maybe Strength damage, and maybe damage to casting scores irrelevant. Better to just not put it on people's spell lists."

    So either they don't matter or they're too much. Which is it?



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    They should have 1 HP or so. Drop a control temperature with Flash Frost. Does a DoT with a very big radius.
    Good luck orchestrating that one on a regular basis while adventuring.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    What? wish as written grants everyone any item that exists as soon as they can find and defeat an Efreet. If you're going to fix carrying capacity, but not that, what are you even doing?
    Fair enough.
    Wish spell does not allow instant creation of magic items. That one always takes time and the usual chances for success/failure.
    Only deities can do that – through means that the rules don't specify.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Too much work, too little gain. Not gonna happen. Let's move on.
    So having to go through every single spell to spot check it for power level issues is less work than whitelisting spells that do what you want? I don't understand that position at all.

    You stand by the door at the other side of the big room, bringing in the 2nd wave and splitting, shutting the door behind you.
    I can describe dozens of different scenarios where this could be viable.
    So I'm going to wander around with a pack of uncontrolled undead and hope I can shunt them into areas with enemies? That seems like a super terrible plan. Also, what are they doing when not controlled? Following last instructions? Seeking and destroying the nearest living beings? Standing around?

    This is not a char-op discussion. You asked for theme and options. There's always something better than solution X – that doesn't mean that solution X doesn't work or is not viable.
    What? My point is that the ability makes you better at casting web et al, rather than gives you a big familiar type critter. Not that one of those strategies is better. And it is absolutely a CharOp discussion. The fundamental problem with 3.5 is that it presents options as equally viable when they are not. If you have not fixed that, I am not convinced you have fixed anything.

    1. As if casters need help.
    Fear Stacking was a viable-ish build for Dread Necromancers and Sublime Chords. And frankly, neither of them was too good. So you've removed viable options for no reason I can discern.

    2. I don't remember noncasters ever having all the proposed options using the official rules.
    There was a Fighter variant (Z-something), also technically Samurai.

    You kind'a skipped the "Nevertheless…" part – and more importantly, you didn't express an opinion regarding my proposal for the Warrior.
    No, "mundanes emulate RL, casters don't" is bad design. It means that mundanes are worse than casters.

    1. Says who? Counts for what? Where is that written?
    2. Nowhere in my codex do I claim to support nonofficial 3.5e materials from any source whatsoever.
    What is "official 3.5 material"? What's the line? Because I guarantee that wherever you draw that line, there are spells the Mage is getting way earlier than he's supposed to.

    When I say "fullcaster", I categorically refer to a class with 9th level spells. No exceptions.
    I don't understand how that's relevant here.

    I don't subscribe to that perspective, and neither does anyone I ever played with.
    1. There's more power potential from behind the scenes, when you're not in the spotlight.
    2. Kingdoms are not run by rulers that go on adventures.
    That's not a perspective, that's how legitimacy works. Now, it's totally possible that you've glossed over that, but it misses the point. Going way back up, what does your codex do for the economy/kingdom management/mass battle minigames 3.5 lacks?

    I noticed that you said "Then why are you nerfing spells that kill fools? ray of stupidity kills people (or rather, animals) just as hard as finger of death, but it is lower level and doesn't get nerfs".

    1. Low-level spells do ability damage.
    2. You say (rightfully so) that this makes them deadly to low-Int (or in general, low-ability) opponents.
    3. I agree and suggest preventing them from becoming lethal.
    4. You resent.
    5. Me – confused.
    I think I misunderstood your point somewhere.

    Good luck orchestrating that one on a regular basis while adventuring.
    If there is a way to get disproportionate power, PCs will get it. Period.

    Fair enough.
    Wish spell does not allow instant creation of magic items. That one always takes time and the usual chances for success/failure.
    Only deities can do that – through means that the rules don't specify.
    Eh. Not an ideal fix, but workable. I like a Wish Economy type fix better.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Too much work, too little gain. Not gonna happen. Let's move on.
    So having to go through every single spell to spot check it for power level issues is less work than whitelisting spells that do what you want? I don't understand that position at all.
    The only spells I know of that are so CL-broken are blasphemy and its counterparts. That doesn't seem to me like a lot to handle.
    Anyway, I heard you, so Spellpower Mage feature has been rewritten to prevent CL abuse. ATM, off the top of my head, I can't remember any means of bumping CL other than via the modified CArc Cooperative Spell feat (see the "Spell Cabal" spoiler in post #4).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    You stand by the door at the other side of the big room, bringing in the 2nd wave and splitting, shutting the door behind you.
    I can describe dozens of different scenarios where this could be viable.
    So I'm going to wander around with a pack of uncontrolled undead and hope I can shunt them into areas with enemies? That seems like a super terrible plan. Also, what are they doing when not controlled? Following last instructions? Seeking and destroying the nearest living beings? Standing around?
    No, you wander around with a pack of controlled undead, then you bring in the 2nd wave, then vanish and let them wreak havoc.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    This is not a char-op discussion. You asked for theme and options. There's always something better than solution X – that doesn't mean that solution X doesn't work or is not viable.
    What? My point is that the ability makes you better at casting web et al, rather than gives you a big familiar type critter. Not that one of those strategies is better. And it is absolutely a CharOp discussion. The fundamental problem with 3.5 is that it presents options as equally viable when they are not. If you have not fixed that, I am not convinced you have fixed anything.
    1. There's no game in the world where all options are equal all the time. The situation changes constantly. That's the whole point of the game – strategy in design and in-game tactics.
    2. I don't see how CL affects glitterdust and web in any way. Even the former lasts for the entire encounter by 6th level without any strategy.
    3. The angle of "either you made everything perfect or you've utterly failed" is nonproductive.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. As if casters need help.
    Fear Stacking was a viable-ish build for Dread Necromancers and Sublime Chords. And frankly, neither of them was too good. So you've removed viable options for no reason I can discern.
    I don’t know of any Sublime Chord feature that's associated with fear. I'm assuming you refer to the War-Chanter's "Inspire Awe" feature (and it's not stacking, but rather a more devastating effect depending on HD diff), which the codex' Bard comes with built-in. Actually, my proposal is closer in spirit to stacking than the War-Chanter's "Inspire Awe".
    I also see nothing in the DN's features regarding stacking fear effects.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    2. I don't remember noncasters ever having all the proposed options using the official rules.
    There was a Fighter variant (Z-something), also technically Samurai.
    Zhentarim Soldier (CoV web-enhancement) is a deception. The whole point of substitution levels is to trade something. The Zhentarim Soldier conveniently trades nothing. To make bast use of this option, you need Imperious Command feat and Fearsome Armor (DotU).
    Putting that note aside, since I didn't ban Imperious Command, all options are on the table and a lot more.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    You kind'a skipped the "Nevertheless…" part – and more importantly, you didn't express an opinion regarding my proposal for the Warrior.
    No, "mundanes emulate RL, casters don't" is bad design. It means that mundanes are worse than casters.
    According to that, D&D is bad design.
    Explanation: 3.5e models RL beautifully as far as feats, skills, skill-tricks and conditions go. To date I haven't found or come up with anything that comes even close. Why would they bother if not to make the game atmosphere feel as real as possible? You can always draw from other, less realistic games, if you don't like that aspect of 3.5e. For me – that's the beauty and allure of the game.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. Says who? Counts for what? Where is that written?
    2. Nowhere in my codex do I claim to support nonofficial 3.5e materials from any source whatsoever.
    What is "official 3.5 material"? What's the line? Because I guarantee that wherever you draw that line, there are spells the Mage is getting way earlier than he's supposed to.
    In the context of my overhaul codex, "Official" = [3.Xe materials that carry the "Wizards of the Coast" trademark].
    Web enhancement materials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and are addressed explicitly in the codex when relevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    When I say "fullcaster", I categorically refer to a class with 9th level spells. No exceptions.
    I don't understand how that's relevant here.
    No SL cheese (such as Animate Dead at 2nd SL).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    I don't subscribe to that perspective, and neither does anyone I ever played with.
    1. There's more power potential from behind the scenes, when you're not in the spotlight.
    2. Kingdoms are not run by rulers that go on adventures.
    That's not a perspective, that's how legitimacy works.
    Is that so?
    How many rulers of nations in the history of the world were among the most devastating opponents of their time one-on-one? Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King David, Charlemagne, a handful of early days' China conquerors… (and a few more here and there that currently don't come to mind). The overwhelming majority were not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Going way back up, what does your codex do for the economy/kingdom management/mass battle minigames 3.5 lacks?
    My codex doesn't address economy/kingdom management/mass battle minigames etc. To date I don't have suggestions for improvements on those angles (but if you have any, bring them on).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Good luck orchestrating that one on a regular basis while adventuring.
    If there is a way to get disproportionate power, PCs will get it. Period.
    I see nothing disproportionate about going out of your way for some situational HP and +2 to Str, just poor strategy. I assume you'd usually lose the HP race to damage for not putting your resources where it counts.
    Anyway, rethinking that spell makes me realize that it probably needs some constraint regarding one's HP source, but this one seems like no biggie to me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Fair enough.
    Wish spell does not allow instant creation of magic items. That one always takes time and the usual chances for success/failure.
    Only deities can do that – through means that the rules don't specify.
    Eh. Not an ideal fix, but workable. I like a Wish Economy type fix better.
    What is this Wish Economy type fix you're talking about?

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    The only spells I know of that are so CL-broken are blasphemy and its counterparts. That doesn't seem to me like a lot to handle.
    Anyway, I heard you, so Spellpower Mage feature has been rewritten to prevent CL abuse. ATM, off the top of my head, I can't remember any means of bumping CL other than via the modified CArc Cooperative Spell feat (see the "Spell Cabal" spoiler in post #4).
    Except CL boosting isn't the only part of casting that is overpowered. Look at the list of spells you've changed. Look at all the ancillary changes. Think about all the other spells you need to change.

    No, you wander around with a pack of controlled undead, then you bring in the 2nd wave, then vanish and let them wreak havoc.
    I am super confused as to how that is different from controlling a bunch of undead, which it seems like you can't do.

    1. There's no game in the world where all options are equal all the time. The situation changes constantly. That's the whole point of the game – strategy in design and in-game tactics.
    2. I don't see how CL affects glitterdust and web in any way. Even the former lasts for the entire encounter by 6th level without any strategy.
    3. The angle of "either you made everything perfect or you've utterly failed" is nonproductive.
    I think you're sort of missing the point. It's not the ability per se (which boosts DCs, and hence stinking cloud or cloudkill), it's the attitude that it is not necessary for options to be of as equal power as possible. That game design should not be considered through the lens of CharOp.

    I don’t know of any Sublime Chord feature that's associated with fear. I'm assuming you refer to the War-Chanter's "Inspire Awe" feature (and it's not stacking, but rather a more devastating effect depending on HD diff), which the codex' Bard comes with built-in. Actually, my proposal is closer in spirit to stacking than the War-Chanter's "Inspire Awe".
    I also see nothing in the DN's features regarding stacking fear effects.
    Yes, you take those classes then PrC into Dread Witch and Nightmare Spinner.

    Zhentarim Soldier (CoV web-enhancement) is a deception. The whole point of substitution levels is to trade something. The Zhentarim Soldier conveniently trades nothing. To make bast use of this option, you need Imperious Command feat and Fearsome Armor (DotU).
    So? It's an option that exists. Unless you think it is too powerful to be a Fighter with fear stacking, I don't see why you object.

    According to that, D&D is bad design.
    No, it's not bad design for one part of the game to model real life. That's necessary for player actions to have meaning. What is problematic is you have nominally equal options (classes) one of which is constrained by realism and one of which is not. That will result in power inequalities.

    No SL cheese (such as Animate Dead at 2nd SL).
    Or, you could write up spell lists. Incidentally, that also lets you fix evocation by moving spells down to levels when they are good.

    Is that so?
    How many rulers of nations in the history of the world were among the most devastating opponents of their time one-on-one? Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King David, Charlemagne, a handful of early days' China conquerors… (and a few more here and there that currently don't come to mind). The overwhelming majority were not.
    Yes, because there aren't people in the real world who can break society's monopoly on force. 3.5 has as a basic assumption of the CR system that you will eventually (by about 10th level) be able to kill an entire kingdom's army without breaking a sweat. Also, you shouldn't be looking at individuals who are stronger, you should look at cases where regime changes occurred because the new government could better provide for the security of the people. Which is really just about every time there was a regime change that wasn't a coup.

    I see nothing disproportionate about going out of your way for some situational HP and +2 to Str, just poor strategy. I assume you'd usually lose the HP race to damage for not putting your resources where it counts.
    Anyway, rethinking that spell makes me realize that it probably needs some constraint regarding one's HP source, but this one seems like no biggie to me.
    Don't you remember where this discussion started? You also get a bunch of caster level bumps. Then you cast an uncapped damage spell and kill people.

    What is this Wish Economy type fix you're talking about?
    In the Tomes by Frank and K, wish is fixed by adding the constraint that you can only create items worth up to 15,000 GP. That removes most of the abuse, while also allowing players to ignore the accounting for low level items. It also lets you split the economy into things which can be bought for gold (i.e. anything that can be created by wish) and things that can't be bought for gold (i.e. anything that can't be created by wish), which means that you can have dragons with actual hoards of gold or castles made of diamond without PCs getting disproportionate power.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Look at the list of spells you've changed. Look at all the ancillary changes.
    Ok, pick the ten that poke your eye the most (if we're gonna start, we have to start somewhere).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Think about all the other spells you need to change.
    Ditto.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    I am super confused as to how that is different from controlling a bunch of undead, which it seems like you can't do.
    The difference is that you get your allotted quota and then some – and it requires strategy and you can't add your weight without being exposed to "friendly fire". It doesn't let you maximize summoning + controlled undead + domination out the wazoo. You overreach to free your hands to get busy somewhere else, not because it's convenient, and you can overreach only so far.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    I think you're sort of missing the point. It's not the ability per se (which boosts DCs, and hence stinking cloud or cloudkill), it's the attitude that it is not necessary for options to be of as equal power as possible. That game design should not be considered through the lens of CharOp.
    You said it – "as possible".
    Given the time and inspiration on my hands, that's the best result I came up with (with a lot of feedbacks over a great period of time). It's not perfect (probably never will be), but it's the best I have so far.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Yes, you take those classes then PrC into Dread Witch and Nightmare Spinner.
    That is exactly why I've been trying for so long to find a formula to get rid of PrCs – the need for game-mastery from here to infinity. It so happens that not only did I manage to get rid of them, but I find the end result even better (you don't agree, but that's ok).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    So? It's an option that exists. Unless you think it is too powerful to be a Fighter with fear stacking, I don't see why you object.
    Yes – for a specific class with a specific build and a specific set of items. With the codex it's now an open market (in the sense that many classes allow specialization in intimidation – it's just so happens that it's easier for the Warrior than any other class).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    No, it's not bad design for one part of the game to model real life. That's necessary for player actions to have meaning. What is problematic is you have nominally equal options (classes) one of which is constrained by realism and one of which is not. That will result in power inequalities.
    Look at my Warrior or Rogue for a minute – the most mundane of my proposed classes. Do they look like easy prey to you? Do they look like they lack options?
    Sure, you can always say that spellcasters have more options, but they can do things that the other classes can't do just as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Or, you could write up spell lists. Incidentally, that also lets you fix evocation by moving spells down to levels when they are good.
    As I said – I have neither the time nor the inclination to get myself involved in fixing and re-positioning all spells.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Yes, because there aren't people in the real world who can break society's monopoly on force. 3.5 has as a basic assumption of the CR system that you will eventually (by about 10th level) be able to kill an entire kingdom's army without breaking a sweat. Also, you shouldn't be looking at individuals who are stronger, you should look at cases where regime changes occurred because the new government could better provide for the security of the people. Which is really just about every time there was a regime change that wasn't a coup.
    According to that assumption, the world of mortals is ruled by pit fiends, balors and solars (each of which can singlehandedly decimate a nation without even breaking a sweat).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Don't you remember where this discussion started? You also get a bunch of caster level bumps. Then you cast an uncapped damage spell and kill people.
    Ok, I believe that CL bumps are no longer an issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    In the Tomes by Frank and K, wish is fixed by adding the constraint that you can only create items worth up to 15,000 GP. That removes most of the abuse, while also allowing players to ignore the accounting for low level items. It also lets you split the economy into things which can be bought for gold (i.e. anything that can be created by wish) and things that can't be bought for gold (i.e. anything that can't be created by wish), which means that you can have dragons with actual hoards of gold or castles made of diamond without PCs getting disproportionate power.
    I prefer a game where the characters can't and don't need to rely on having the option to pluck magical items out of thin air.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    .
    @Brova: Regarding the decision to eliminate PrCs from the equation.......

    First we have the big 5 that stand on their own: Planar Shepherd, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, IotSfV, Earth Dreamer.

    Now take a look at the following combos you can build using the official materials:
    - Wizard 10 / Ur-Priest 2 / Mystic Theurge 8
    - Cleric 5 / Divine Oracle 2 / PrC Paladin 3 / Radiant Servant of Pelor 10
    - Rogue 2 / Bard 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 1 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyrist 9
    - Bard 4 / Druid 3 / Arcane Hierophant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / Arcane Hierophant 7 / Mystic Theurge 2
    - Wizard 6 / Fighter 1 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Knight Phantom 7
    - Paladin 2 / Sorcerer 4 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Sacred Exorcist 8
    - Warlock 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 2 / Eldritch Disciple 8 / Hellfire Warlock 3

    Took me less than 30min to find those combos. Those are just the obvious ones. If you try real hard, you can get to Pun Pun and other some such.
    With hundreds of classes, nobody really knows all the paths to abuse, and you certainly can't write a system that's immune to abuse.


    If there are no PrCs, then not only do I not open the door for abuse – there is no door to open.
    Assuming you have all the required rules to fill the gap left by the absence of PrCs, then feats/races/spells/skilltricks/templates can easily fill whatever character-concept gaps you encounter.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Ok, pick the ten that poke your eye the most (if we're gonna start, we have to start somewhere).
    I'm not actually going to comment on the spells you've changed, because that would involve reading the entire codex and a bunch of ancillary materials. I'm going to comment on all the spells that need to be changed.

    1. shapechange needs to be simpler. Even simpler than the PF version that "just" points you to five different spells rather than "every monster ever, including ones that don't exist yet".
    2. gate cannot allow you to do the "free vacation, no save" trick.
    3. ice assassin can't exist.
    4. planar binding requires limits (no, you can't have infinity demons) and standards (though they're somewhat closer than 12 HD Undead, 12 HD Outsiders are not created equal).
    5. simulacrum needs definitions (the hell is "half power") and limits.
    6. wish can't allow you to make magic items at all.
    7. genesis can't let you set traits, at least not all traits.
    8. Spells based off of/similar to the above (planar ally, dragon ally, spirit binding) need fixing.
    9. Anything with unlimited CL scaling needs to be at least looked at, particularly if it scales to "you die" at any point.
    10. shadow evocation and any other spell that lets you ignore spell costs other than level is broken.

    Now, it's possible you've fixed some of those, but at lot of them are broad, and that's a fairly small fraction. Also, spot nerfing is not going to work.

    The difference is that you get your allotted quota and then some – and it requires strategy and you can't add your weight without being exposed to "friendly fire". It doesn't let you maximize summoning + controlled undead + domination out the wazoo. You overreach to free your hands to get busy somewhere else, not because it's convenient, and you can overreach only so far.
    What? I don't understand the tactic you're describing.

    That is exactly why I've been trying for so long to find a formula to get rid of PrCs – the need for game-mastery from here to infinity. It so happens that not only did I manage to get rid of them, but I find the end result even better (you don't agree, but that's ok).
    You didn't get rid of the need for them. There are still concepts missing. Also, your system is more complex because it requires people to learn new stuff rather than modifying existing stuff.

    Yes – for a specific class with a specific build and a specific set of items. With the codex it's now an open market (in the sense that many classes allow specialization in intimidation – it's just so happens that it's easier for the Warrior than any other class).
    Except you nerfed the option for casters to do it.

    Look at my Warrior or Rogue for a minute – the most mundane of my proposed classes. Do they look like easy prey to you? Do they look like they lack options?
    The Rogue was actually fine in 3.5, so you can't win points there. I see a fairly large number of words on the Warrior, but it mostly looks like fiddly crap. Also, I am totally unconvinced that the small numeric bonuses it gets (+5 at level 19, seriously?) are worth caring about or including.

    According to that assumption, the world of mortals is ruled by pit fiends, balors and solars (each of which can singlehandedly decimate a nation without even breaking a sweat).
    Well it totally would be. Except that they are far away, and can get what they want without interacting with mortals.

    I prefer a game where the characters can't and don't need to rely on having the option to pluck magical items out of thin air.
    That's not what the wish economy means. The specific thing that happens with the wish economy is that eventually +1 swords and mundane gold stop being things you care about. That doesn't really matter from a character power perspective, because you already have better gear. If +1 swords are not fungible with +3 swords, it doesn't matter (excluding kingdom management) how many +1 swords you have if you have a +2 sword. What the wish economy (particularly in conjunction with the 8 item limit and scaling items) does is let you have enemies with gear and magical locations without PCs stripping them for better pants.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    First we have the big 5 that stand on their own: Planar Shepherd, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, IotSfV, Earth Dreamer.
    Also any fast progression class. 9 levels of casting in 10 levels is dumb, especially with theurges.

    - Rogue 2 / Bard 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 1 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyrist 9
    - Bard 4 / Druid 3 / Arcane Hierophant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / Arcane Hierophant 7 / Mystic Theurge 2
    - Warlock 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 2 / Eldritch Disciple 8 / Hellfire Warlock 3
    - Wizard 10 / Ur-Priest 2 / Mystic Theurge 8
    These use accelerated progression classes, and that's obviously broken. Some of them might be okay (the Warlock one, notably), but that's because one of the sides blows.

    - Cleric 5 / Divine Oracle 2 / PrC Paladin 3 / Radiant Servant of Pelor 10
    You gave up a caster level for some extra spells, minor light powers, and scrying. That certainly makes your character more interesting, but I really doubt it makes him more powerful. Do you think that guy does notably better than a straight Cleric with the same optimization otherwise on the Same Game Test?

    - Wizard 6 / Fighter 1 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Knight Phantom 7
    Holy carp, you're a decent melee dude. That seems like a concept it is totally okay for a character to have, particularly for two entire levels of casting. Seriously, you get as much Wizarding as your cohort does. I don't think that's a problem.

    - Paladin 2 / Sorcerer 4 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Sacred Exorcist 8
    You're planning to spend your entire life being a level and a half behind the Wizard?

    With hundreds of classes, nobody really knows all the paths to abuse, and you certainly can't write a system that's immune to abuse.
    You haven't identified any paths to abuse, except that getting fast progression PrCs is good. I don't even care. Frankly, the problem with Wizard PrCs isn't that they're too good. It's that most of them suck. The Mindbender lets you do things you could already do just by casting spells, and it costs you five levels of casting. That's terrible. All caster PrCs should be full progression. Things that are broken with full progression (Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, Hathran) should be banned.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    One priest using consumptive field and a bag of 400 stabilized unconscious toads will get +800 strength(due to untyped bonuses stacking) and mostly defeat any fighter(even by using a thrown weapon since they have crazy strength) and with each attack one shot someone and it is even worse if he can use a phantom steed(possibly with a scroll he can use in the beginning of his work day) to get to proximity of its opponents and follow with a full round attack killing three opponents.
    Last edited by noob; 2015-09-11 at 07:56 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    One priest using consumptive field and a bag of 400 stabilized unconscious toads will get +800 strength(due to untyped bonuses stacking) and mostly defeat any fighter(even by using a thrown weapon since they have crazy strength) and with each attack one shot someone and it is even worse if he can use a phantom steed(possibly with a scroll he can use in the beginning of his work day) to get to proximity of its opponents and follow with a full round attack killing three opponents.
    What does "you gain 1d8 temporary hit points per death caused by this spell and +2 Strength until the spell's duration expires" mean?! (LM)

    They just re-worded if badly in SC.


    Furthermore, where the heck are you gonna get 400 stabilized unconscious toads?!

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Ok, pick the ten that poke your eye the most (if we're gonna start, we have to start somewhere).
    I'm not actually going to comment on the spells you've changed, because that would involve reading the entire codex and a bunch of ancillary materials. I'm going to comment on all the spells that need to be changed.
    A single spoiler for individually modified spells: "Spell Tweaks". Everything else regarding spell changes is packed right above it – in a nice and tidy way within post #4.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    1. shapechange needs to be simpler. Even simpler than the PF version that "just" points you to five different spells rather than "every monster ever, including ones that don't exist yet".
    2. gate cannot allow you to do the "free vacation, no save" trick.
    3. ice assassin can't exist.
    4. planar binding requires limits (no, you can't have infinity demons) and standards (though they're somewhat closer than 12 HD Undead, 12 HD Outsiders are not created equal).
    5. simulacrum needs definitions (the hell is "half power") and limits.
    6. wish can't allow you to make magic items at all.
    7. genesis can't let you set traits, at least not all traits.
    8. Spells based off of/similar to the above (planar ally, dragon ally, spirit binding) need fixing.
    9. Anything with unlimited CL scaling needs to be at least looked at, particularly if it scales to "you die" at any point.
    10. shadow evocation and any other spell that lets you ignore spell costs other than level is broken.

    Now, it's possible you've fixed some of those, but at lot of them are broad, and that's a fairly small fraction.

    1. Already taken care of.
    2. Ditto.
    3. Agreed.
    4. What is "infinity demon"? And why do I care that 12HD outsiders are not created equal?
    5. I'll think about what to do with that one. I'm not a fan of Clone either.
    6. That's exactly my approach (but notice that this doesn't reconcile with what you wrote at the end regarding wish).
    7. As far as I'm concerned, it can and should be nixed altogether. The game can do just fine without 17th level mages being able to create realities.
    8. I'm all for removing anything that summons dragons or spells that allow you to transform into a dragon. They're not planar monsters – no reason to allow that. Spirit Binding could be initially handled by equalizing HD to Planar Binding. Further than that, what did you have in mind specifically regarding Planar Binding?
    9. AFAIK, most of them don't require special attention. If you know of a specific one that's problematic – I'm listening.
    10. I don't see anything in Shadow Evocation that lets you ignore spell costs. But for 20% efficiency, I wouldn't worry too much about replication effects from the least potent spell school.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Also, spot nerfing is not going to work.
    Where did you see that?



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    The difference is that you get your allotted quota and then some – and it requires strategy and you can't add your weight without being exposed to "friendly fire". It doesn't let you maximize summoning + controlled undead + domination out the wazoo. You overreach to free your hands to get busy somewhere else, not because it's convenient, and you can overreach only so far.
    What? I don't understand the tactic you're describing.
    You have only so many creatures under your control. Attempting to control/summon more creatures first breaks your control over currently dominated creatures (caster's choice which ones). That's the limiting factor.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    That is exactly why I've been trying for so long to find a formula to get rid of PrCs – the need for game-mastery from here to infinity. It so happens that not only did I manage to get rid of them, but I find the end result even better (you don't agree, but that's ok).
    You didn't get rid of the need for them. There are still concepts missing.
    Just because I don't currently have a solution for Green Star Adept (and maybe a handful of PrCs I'm probably not even familiar with) doesn't mean that I need PrCs as a work tool.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Also, your system is more complex because it requires people to learn new stuff rather than modifying existing stuff.
    Sure, you have to put some effort learning some new stuff, but the gain is dealing with 15 classes rather than over 1000.
    "More complex" is definitely not an appropriate title.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Yes – for a specific class with a specific build and a specific set of items. With the codex it's now an open market (in the sense that many classes allow specialization in intimidation – it's just so happens that it's easier for the Warrior than any other class).
    Except you nerfed the option for casters to do it.
    What, you mean the part of increasing casting time of spells that force conditions? That was intentional – to narrow down spellcasters owning the game.
    Other than that, me adding some feats doesn't remove anything from the options on the table.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Look at my Warrior or Rogue for a minute – the most mundane of my proposed classes. Do they look like easy prey to you? Do they look like they lack options?
    The Rogue was actually fine in 3.5, so you can't win points there.
    That's your opinion. Many think that SA is weak and that the Rogue depends too much on UMD to count for something. Also, most special abilities are weak and uninteresting, and the Rogue gets only 4 of them over 20 levels. Oh, and let's not forget the "awesome" Trap Sense class ability.
    No, the core Rogue really amounts to skills and SA. That's not enough to define a class in my book (double meaning).



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    I see a fairly large number of words on the Warrior, but it mostly looks like fiddly crap. Also, I am totally unconvinced that the small numeric bonuses it gets (+5 at level 19, seriously?) are worth caring about or including.
    Those "small numeric bonuses" (with everything that comes along with them) replace the Weapon Focus line altogether (and a heluvalot more) and replace the Warblade's entire repertoire of unique class features (except Stance Mastery, which is not relevant) using but two Warrior class features (levels 3 & 5) that do more than just that. (and that's about 10% of what the Warrior class has in its toolbox)
    They once culminated at +7, but after discussing it (don't remember exactly where ATM), the conclusion was that it was a bit too much, so I reduced them.
    AFAIK, the only thing I can think of that martial adepts have a noticeable advantage over my Warrior are those handful of 9th level maneuvers that deal 100HP damage. Anything else that the Warrior class doesn't provide on its own can be replicated via multiclassing or SLAs (or has equally potent alternatives).


    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    According to that assumption, the world of mortals is ruled by pit fiends, balors and solars (each of which can singlehandedly decimate a nation without even breaking a sweat).
    Well it totally would be. Except that they are far away, and can get what they want without interacting with mortals.
    Exactly that – they can get what they want without putting themselves in the spotlight and get their hands busy running a country.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    First we have the big 5 that stand on their own: Planar Shepherd, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, IotSfV, Earth Dreamer.
    Also any fast progression class. 9 levels of casting in 10 levels is dumb, especially with theurges.
    That's not necessarily true. IIRC, because of high BAB requirement and low spell output, Divine Crusader (CDiv) is not susceptible to the same abuse as Ur-Priest. (but that's sidetracking from our discussion)



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    - Rogue 2 / Bard 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 1 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyrist 9
    - Bard 4 / Druid 3 / Arcane Hierophant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / Arcane Hierophant 7 / Mystic Theurge 2
    - Warlock 6 / Mindbender 1 / Ur-Priest 2 / Eldritch Disciple 8 / Hellfire Warlock 3
    - Wizard 10 / Ur-Priest 2 / Mystic Theurge 8
    These use accelerated progression classes, and that's obviously broken. Some of them might be okay (the Warlock one, notably), but that's because one of the sides blows.
    Yes, the 2nd one is probably ok as presented, but could be abused if you import Green Whisperer (Dragon #311, p.69).
    I'm not sure I entirely agree about the Warlock build. Full casting + empowered blasting + PrC-Features are far from trivial.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    - Cleric 5 / Divine Oracle 2 / PrC Paladin 3 / Radiant Servant of Pelor 10
    You gave up a caster level for some extra spells, minor light powers, and scrying. That certainly makes your character more interesting, but I really doubt it makes him morepowerful. Do you think that guy does notably better than a straight Cleric with the same optimization otherwise on the Same Game Test?
    A single spellcasting level progression delay for Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, immunity to fear & disease, buffed-up saves, empowered healing and turning, and some other benefits seem more than a fair deal to me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    - Wizard 6 / Fighter 1 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Knight Phantom 7
    Holy carp, you're a decent melee dude. That seems like a concept it is totally okay for a character to have, particularly for two entire levels of casting. Seriously, you get as much Wizarding as your cohort does. I don't think that's a problem.
    1. I wouldn't use the brokenness of Leadership as an argument. Most DMs ban it outright (never played in a group where cohort wasn't banned).
    2. Wiz 18 / Fighter 17 + goodies seems way better than Wiz 20 to me. For each bonus feat you lose, you at least gain one PrC feature.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    - Paladin 2 / Sorcerer 4 / Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / Sacred Exorcist 8
    You're planning to spend your entire life being a level and a half behind the Wizard?
    I'm not planning anything – I dropped PrCs, remember?



    Quote Originally Posted by Brova View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    With hundreds of classes, nobody really knows all the paths to abuse, and you certainly can't write a system that's immune to abuse.
    You haven't identified any paths to abuse, except that getting fast progression PrCs is good. I don't even care. Frankly, the problem with Wizard PrCs isn't that they're too good. It's that most of them suck. The Mindbender lets you do things you could already do just by casting spells, and it costs you five levels of casting. That's terrible. All caster PrCs should be full progression. Things that are broken with full progression (Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, Hathran) should be banned.
    Notice that Mindbender (a single level) is there just to speed up your way into Ur-Priest (and now I'm aware of another standalone broken PrC: Hathran).

    Anyway, it's not just the power abuse issue. It's the ability to easily find your options for creating a character concept – and if it doesn't exist (something that's also easy to notice), you can easily add it without busting your head about how PrC [X] interacts with every other class out there.
    Currently, the only thing that I have no answer for is slowly drifting into another creature type. I'm sure it'll come to me sometime soon. And if it doesn't, I'll live in peace without GSA (I'm perfectly ok with keeping constructs something that's only manufactured – plant-based creatures overlap in most resistances/immunities anyway).

    Bottom line is that I've axed PrCs for good and I'm not looking back.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    .
    So, what's new…

    Here are the things that have changed since the last update report:
    - Finally figured out Spell-Points (actual spell points, not Strain & Tolerance) in a way that's balanced.
    - "Spellpower" Mage feature has been rewritten to prevent CL abuse.
    - The Druid's build options have been massively expanded and enriched on multiple aspects, to cover more character archetypes and duplicate several official PrC abilities... and more.
    - The Disciple of the Weirding Ways class has received several improvements.
    - Osteomancer-inspired powers are now available via bone-shaping feats.
    - Whip combat doesn't suck anymore.
    - An arcane whip-wielding dominator is now viable as an archetype via feats.
    - Rules for Heroic Surges (sort of "action-points" rules) were added.
    - Deflect Arrows feat has been improved.
    - There's now a rule for shooting down an arrow that targets someone else in midflight.
    - The "New Feats" section has been categorically organized.
    - Warlock: It is now possible to remove someone's face
    - Mithral Weapons: Rules for Mithral Weapons were added in the "Weapons & Armors" spoiler.
    - Noncasters may now navigate the planes without magical aids... and hitchhike on others' teleportation
    - A handful of spells were added (post #26).
    - Retraining Rules: I've been talking about my lenient approach toward retraining for quite a while, but I suddenly realized that I never defined retraining rules. I have them now.
    - Completed the definition of spell ranges and durations.
    - 3 character archetypes made accessible: Telepath, Whip Dominator and Living Construct.
    - Spellthief: an essential 6th level improvement was added. Also, it occurred to me that the class had no spells-known cap, so I added a relevant progression table.
    - Ogre race taken almost as is from Amechra.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    .

    Ogres

    The story of the Ogre race is a long and sad one. millennia ago, back when the kingdoms of men were just groups of squabbling tribes, ogres had carved out a vast empire, using the strength of their arms and the powers of their primordial mages to establish their might. Blessed with a form of natural magic that allowed them to gain stature and strength far beyond that of their ancestors, the Ogre people developed spells to warp both flesh and steel, building vast fortresses with walls of iron and cultivating suites of spells of self-augmentation that beggared belief.

    Alas, the ogres were proud - they strove too far, and lost control. While the events that followed are foggy, the ultimate effect is not - ogres are nothing but brutes, their citadels rusted to nothing, the stores of their knowledge lost to the world. However, there are some "clean" ogres left - small bands of men and women attempting to raise children free of the taint their ancestors so cavalierly placed upon them.

    Personality: Ogres are a proud and tempestuous race, given over to emotion and argument. While they are not an evil race, they are fiercely individualistic - as they seem to find many laws to be polite suggestions more than hard rules. Within their tight-knit family groups, however, ogres work well together. If one ogre declares that you are their ally, their entire family is likely to treat you well for as long as the original ogre decides you are still their friend.

    Physical Description: Ogres are a slight and slender race - most of them are less than 5ft tall, and the vast majority weigh less than 100lbs. Their small size, however, belies their built-in strength and endurance; it is far from uncommon for an ogre to carry more than their own body weight without complaint. Their skin tone varies from a dull yellow to a dull brown, with small black eyes glaring out of faces fringed with dark hair, which varies from brown and black to dull ocher and jade.

    Relations: Ogres tend to be considered undesirables amongst other races. Small villages of ogres are often harassed by other, nearby towns - no one wants to leave prime farmland to ogres, let their sheep graze too closely, or let their children play near Ogre lands.

    Alignment: Ogres have a strong natural tendency towards Chaos, though sane ones have no real tendency towards Good or Evil. Years of being treated as an outcast tend to beat the tendency for goodness out of you.

    Lands: Ogres do not own land - instead, they squat on whatever land other races will let them keep. As such, any territory that Ogre hold tends to be less than desirable.

    Religion: Ogres will pray to any deity that will accept their prayers, with a strong tendency towards gods of Travel and Weather.

    Language: Ogres mostly speak an old dialect of Giant amongst themselves, though they learn (oftentimes broken) Common for the purposes of interacting with other races.

    Names: Ogre names tend towards being short and descriptive - they see no need for names that mean nothing. A common trend is naming them after the place where they were born, or giving their children names commemorating allies or deities (the number of ogres named Blessed-of-Fharlanghn is simply staggering).

    Adventurers: To many ogres, adventuring parties lend a feel of solidarity that they might not be receiving otherwise in their lives. As such, most ogre adventurers have been deprived of their families in some way, either through being exiled or through the deaths of their parents.


    Ogre Racial Traits:

    • Zero-level HP: 8
    • Str +2, Con +2, Int -2, Cha -2; Ogres have strong backs and strong arms, but tend to have their minds elsewhere, and their stubbornness is a well-known trait.
    • Size and Type: Ogres are Medium Giants, with no bonuses or penalties due to their size. Because of their relatively small size, ogres don't suffer the usual penalties when wielding weapons designed for small creatures.
    • Base Land Speed: 30'.
    • Low-Light Vision: Ogres can see twice as far in conditions of poor lighting.
    • Darkvision 60ft: 60'.
    • Natural Armor: Ogres receives a +1 Natural Armor to their AC.
    • Ogre Secrets (Ex): Whenever an Ogre is under the effect of a spell or effect that provides a bonus to one of their physical ability scores, they also gain a +10' bonus to their Base Land Speed, as well as a +1 bonus to their Natural Armor bonus. This effect does not stack with itself, and class features that permanently increases their physical ability scores do not trigger the effects of Ogre Secrets.
    • Cursed Nature (Ex): If an ogre consumes the flesh of another creature that possesses an Intelligence score greater than 3, they immediately gain one Giant HD (8HP + 4 skill points + 3/4 BAB increase) and improve the effects of Ogre Secrets (see the Warped Secrets sidebar below). This effect does not stack with itself.

    Warped Secrets
    Spoiler
    Show

    Whenever an ogre's Cursed nature comes to the fore, they gain the following additional benefits and drawbacks when receiving the benefits of Ogre Secrets:
    • The bonus to natural armor from Ogre Secrets increases by +1.
    • The ogre gains an additional +2 bonus to their Str & Con.
    • The ogre takes an additional -2 penalty to their Int & Cha.
    • The ogre's alignment temporarily shifts one step towards Evil; this shift lasts until the effects of Ogre Secrets end.

    Additionally, the ogre becomes mildly addicted to the benefits of Ogre Secrets; they may not voluntarily dismiss or end any effect that supplies the benefits of Ogre Secrets.





    Size Increase & Ogre Evolution
    Spoiler
    Show

    Feats
    Spoiler
    Show

    Deeper Secrets
    Some ogres are born with an innate (Su) ability to increase their size. This ability is discovered and honed just before the character reaches adulthood.
    Requirements: Ogre, on character creation
    Benefit: You possess the (Su) ability to change your size while your Ogre Secrets are in effect. This transformation is similar to Enlarge Person, but unlike the normal effect of the spell, you remain in this new size indefinitely, until you dismiss it as a move action.
    In addition, this alternate form is not itself Supernatural, meaning it is not suppressed within an Antimagic Field or other, similar effects.
    Unlike the spell effect, this growth affects nothing but your own body, not your clothes or equipment (better watch out for increasing size while donning armor).
    When so enlarged, the bonus to your natural armor from Ogre Secrets increases by +1.

    Embrace the Curse
    Requirements: Ogre, Deeper Secrets, your Cursed Nature must be in effect, you must maintain Large size when you take this feat.
    Benefit: Instead of seeking atonement for your transgression, you choose to embrace your feral form.
    Your nat. armor increases by +1 and your ability scores shift further by +/-2 (for a total of +6/-6 when Ogre Secrets takes effect) for the last time (reminder: your Large size further modifies your Str & Dex).
    You are now trapped in your Large form (with your +6/-6 ability modifiers and your +4 nat. armor) indefinitely. You may no longer atone to avert the Ogre curse.
    When embracing the racial curse of the ogres, your alignment shifts one step towards Chaotic.
    Special: If the character's alignment ever permanently shifts to LG (by some unorthodox and unforeseen means), the character gains the opportunity to retrain this feat and later on atone to revert the Ogre curse.


    Warlock ACF: Ogre Magoi
    Spoiler
    Show

    Embracing the Ogre curse delivers a serious blow to one's aptitude for spellcasting, however, one door remains open: invocations.
    An ogre warlock that has taken Embrace the Curse feat, upon attaining 4th Warlock level may choose to give up SR in favor of recovering the mental faculties he once lost to his feral side.
    The character's dealings with eldritch energies reverses his mental deterioration to what it was before the Ogre curse took place, setting his racial Int & Cha modifiers back at their original -2.
    Special: Becoming an Ogre Magoi forever removes the option of ever averting the Ogre curse (by any means).


  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    .

    Yet some more updates:

    - Blood Magic Feats
    - Soul Reaper Feats
    - Class-Combo Feats
    - Possessing a corpse



    Ok, this is the point where my entire wish list for this project is just about satisfied.
    The only thing that stands between this codex and completion is to resolve my re-imagined Binder. Once I have that figured out, I'll finally be able to put down my writing pen, so if anyone feels inspired and motivated, I'd be most happy to see you there and hear your thoughts.


    . . . . . . .

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    I am amazed. This is a marvellous piece of work. I really love your approach. Reading through this thread makes me angry of selling all my 3.5 stuff some months ago (and buying all the pathfinder equipment). I think I will incorporate a lot of these rules in my current project! Thank you a lot!

    My current project is working on a complete core rule set for the DARK SUN Campaign setting. At the moment I work on taking a lot of the 3.5 dark sun material to the pathfinder rules . After reading your thread, it seems that the project have changed: I want to compile a complete core rule set (including psionics) and monstrous compendium for DARK SUN, based on the rules I found here (and marrying them with what I consider to be worthy in Pathfinder, like part of the skill system and the combat manoeuvres).

    Some technical things I did not understand fully, when reading it:
    1. Racial Hit Points: In your rules, a character has racial hit points/a racial hit dice. Is this a real HD? E.g. if I have a dwarf 3rd level warrior, are the effective HD for a sleep spell 4?
    2. Is there a way for mages to have familiars?
    3. Can double weapons used for two-weapon fighting? There is a feat that seems to suggest otherwise, I have noted?
    4. You speak of a racial maximum for abilities. How they are determined?
    5. Your rules state that it is not possible to summon a creature of CR>CL+3. Am I right that it follows from that that you cannot summon creatures throughout CL 1-3?
    6. Why is Weapon Focus an omitted feat? Yes, the Warrior has compensation for that, but what about the other classes? The reason for omitting stuff like weapon specialization was that it is anyway linked to the Fighter class, but that is not the case for Weapon Focus.

    Some general questions about your aims:
    A.) You wrote that your system needs less bookkeeping. After reading through a lot of your rules, I am not sure how this is achieved?
    B.) Cutting the christmas tree. I love cutting the christmas tree. Part of it is compensation for save boosting gear. How is this achieved in your rules?

    An two further questions:
    I.) AoO: I was surprised by your change of the AoO rules. One of your aims is that a warrior does not simply attack. The original AoO rules managed at least a little bit to achieve that. Why did you change it? It was part of the fun, that you could not simply attack a larger creature, but had to manoeuvre your way to it.
    II.) Critical Hits: You aim at speeding up the system. Do your rules not slow it down when it comes to crit hits? You always need to calculate the exact margin of your hits in order to determine damage. Compared to the original rules, the crit hits merely slowed down the game in 5 to 10% of all possible situations.

    Thank you for your answers in advance. And again thank you for your work. It is really fantastic and I already enjoy working with it!

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Orc in the Playground
     
    tsj's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Eberron
    Gender
    Male

    Post Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Indeed very very interesting and lots and lots of stuff that I will want to use directly in my 3.5 games.... awesome! !!

    Regarding rope trick... what if it were a level 6 spell?

    Regarding invocations. .. what if a wizard and/or sorcerer gets the option to use a feat to gain an invocation? Could also allow for eldritch blast ... advancing the blast with each time the blast feat is taken....

    All blast damage and increases as well as invocations is restricted to minimum the levels the warlock could have gained them??


    Maybe requires one or more heritage feats ?

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    I am amazed. This is a marvellous piece of work. I really love your approach. Reading through this thread makes me angry of selling all my 3.5 stuff some months ago (and buying all the pathfinder equipment). I think I will incorporate a lot of these rules in my current project! Thank you a lot!
    Glad to help and to know this project will be put to good use.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    My current project is working on a complete core rule set for the DARK SUN Campaign setting. At the moment I work on taking a lot of the 3.5 dark sun material to the pathfinder rules . After reading your thread, it seems that the project have changed: I want to compile a complete core rule set (including psionics) and monstrous compendium for DARK SUN, based on the rules I found here (and marrying them with what I consider to be worthy in Pathfinder, like part of the skill system and the combat manoeuvres).
    I can understand the motivation behind the PF skill condensation. Me being a sucker for realism, I preferred to expand rather than condense - and compensate with a bit more skill points (and quite a few more to begin with).
    As for Psionics - I find that redundant, because theme-wise, a mage who focuses on illusions, enchantments and transmutation (maybe also divination) is, in effect, a psionically inclined character - especially if Silent Spell and Still Spell feats are involved (if you feel like it, you could create a homebrew feat that has both as prereqs and grants both effects for 1 SL modifier). I just don't see psionics as something that's required within the rules to tell a story that I could already tell with arcane spellcasting.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    Some technical things I did not understand fully, when reading it:
    1. Racial Hit Points: In your rules, a character has racial hit points/a racial hit dice. Is this a real HD? E.g. if I have a dwarf 3rd level warrior, are the effective HD for a sleep spell 4?
    In D&D in general and 3e in particular, one of the most prominent absolutes is HD. I see no reason to change that. So yes, a 3rd level humanoid warrior is at the very least a 4-HD character (augment the spell if you find it appropriate).



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    2. Is there a way for mages to have familiars?
    This codex is as loyal to historical folklore as it is to D&D legacy.
    In the middle ages they tagged girls w/ pets as witches - goats and black cats in particular.
    You can take things anywhere you want, but my view of things is that a familiar is part of a witch's essence, not an adopted animal. I find it a desired result that the Witch has something that other classes don't...... and a witch could be very much arcane-inclined, just not the top-of-the-food-chain arcane. She has other goodies to compensate.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    3. Can double weapons used for two-weapon fighting? There is a feat that seems to suggest otherwise, I have noted?
    No. TFW and DWF are completely different.
    Take a long stick and take 2 short sticks. You move entirely different with them. One's maneuvers are not a subset of the other's. The end result is that you gain more attacks, but that's all they have in common.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    4. You speak of a racial maximum for abilities. How they are determined?
    18 +/- racial modifier (e.g. +2 Con for Dwarf, -2 Str for Halfling etc.)



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    5. Your rules state that it is not possible to summon a creature of CR>CL+3. Am I right that it follows from that that you cannot summon creatures throughout CL 1-3?
    CR <= CL – 3 to be exact.
    Maybe it would be ok to make it CR <= CL – 2. That way you could summon things with 2nd level spells.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    6. Why is Weapon Focus an omitted feat? Yes, the Warrior has compensation for that, but what about the other classes? The reason for omitting stuff like weapon specialization was that it is anyway linked to the Fighter class, but that is not the case for Weapon Focus.
    Actually, if you look at the warrior class, and go to the writer's note for Combat Edge feature, it states: "This feature comes instead of all Weapon Focus tree feats (except for Weapon Focus itself)."
    Guess it should be clearer in the Feats section itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    Some general questions about your aims:
    A.) You wrote that your system needs less bookkeeping. After reading through a lot of your rules, I am not sure how this is achieved?
    1. PrC strategy is blown out the window – that alone is at least 50% of what 3e players spend time and effort on.
    2. Mitigating the Christmas tree problem (see below) is at least another 20%.
    3. The Combat Rules & General Rules sections cover a lot of things that all D&D incarnations have neglected. Now you don't have to improvise anymore.
    4. Each class (and as a result each character) is a lot more capable in solving problems or at least addressing them. This is an extension of #3.
    5. The classes were written with the primary goal of being as balanced as possible. I've found a formula that even multiclassing maintains this balance, so you can save all the energy that would be put into character optimization in other systems. Now all you need to do is build your character according to your character-vision, knowing that you'll have a blast. You could mess up a character build if that's your intention, but it will require some effort, so you're quite safe on that angle.
    6. The skill system now gives you a far better coverage of thing you could do (or at least attempt to do).
    7. Thanks to the "Spoilers" option in each post (upper-right corner), this page serves both as an organized summary and a complete document you can search text through.
    8. All the alternative rules you were always looking for are already here. Take what you want and discard what you don't want.
    9. You can play just about any character concept that you'd conjure to mind using this document alone w/o the need to go looking anywhere else.
    . . .

    There's more, but those are the big ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    B.) Cutting the christmas tree. I love cutting the christmas tree. Part of it is compensation for save boosting gear. How is this achieved in your rules?
    1. See #4 and #5 above.
    2. In these rules, it's physically harder to amass magical gear.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    An two further questions:
    I.) AoO: I was surprised by your change of the AoO rules. One of your aims is that a warrior does not simply attack. The original AoO rules managed at least a little bit to achieve that. Why did you change it? It was part of the fun, that you could not simply attack a larger creature, but had to manoeuvre your way to it.
    1. I had enough experience with AoOs to know that as written they choke down the game flow. You move – you get wacked, and there's usually not much you can do about it, no matter how smart or a good tactician/strategist you are.
    2. Combat Reflexes, just like PA, is a "wouldn't leave home without it" tool. In a game where feats are so essential to defining your character, making 2 of them a must have means that you've effectively robbed your melee dude of 2 feats. That's why both are now incorporated into the rules.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    II.) Critical Hits: You aim at speeding up the system. Do your rules not slow it down when it comes to crit hits? You always need to calculate the exact margin of your hits in order to determine damage. Compared to the original rules, the crit hits merely slowed down the game in 5 to 10% of all possible situations.
    It's actually really easy:

    Short answer: 18 – 12 – 2 = 4. There, you're done.

    Long answer:
    1. You need 12 to hit.
    2. You rolled a modified result of 18.
    3. You have BAB +4.
    Result: your score grants you +6HP to damage, but your BAB means that you only get to benefit from +4HP to damage.
    It keeps the numbers small at lower levels. This is good for 2 reasons: easy calculations and preventing power abuse.
    As levels go up, you become a more powerful combatant while the other characters become more powerful in other ways… and you become ever more practiced in calculations.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    Thank you for your answers in advance. And again thank you for your work. It is really fantastic and I already enjoy working with it!
    Feel free to ask whenever you feel like it and for whatever reason.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by tsj View Post
    Regarding rope trick... what if it were a level 6 spell?
    I evaluated it to be no lower than 5th. Whatever you do with it - that's entirely up to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by tsj View Post
    Regarding invocations. .. what if a wizard and/or sorcerer gets the option to use a feat to gain an invocation? Could also allow for eldritch blast ... advancing the blast with each time the blast feat is taken....

    All blast damage and increases as well as invocations is restricted to minimum the levels the warlock could have gained them??

    Maybe requires one or more heritage feats ?
    I wouldn't waste my feat resource on that.
    A better strategy would be to multiclass (see post #10 for more details).

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Although I am only familiar with Pathfinder, I can appreciate the effort that went into this. It looks really incredible. I have a question to you, the creator. I'm currently working on a d20 system similar to and based off of pathfinder. One of the ideas was to remove general BAB and instead focus on putting in class features and feats for weapon classes and attack types. The idea was that if a player wants to play an astute scholar who has never wielded a weapon, he should not somehow become better at fighting over time. Also, if you are a sword master, that doesn't make you a spear master. In general the idea is to get rid of the stats that keep scaling upwards without the players input, like saves, BAB, CMD, CMB and make it so that they are gained in some way only if the player chooses to invest in them. I'm curious what are your thoughts on this. Also, your strain based spell system looks VERY appealing.
    Last edited by antymattar; 2015-11-17 at 06:15 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    As for Psionics - I find that redundant, because theme-wise, a mage who focuses on illusions, enchantments and transmutation (maybe also divination) is, in effect, a psionically inclined character - especially if Silent Spell and Still Spell feats are involved (if you feel like it, you could create a homebrew feat that has both as prereqs and grants both effects for 1 SL modifier). I just don't see psionics as something that's required within the rules to tell a story that I could already tell with arcane spellcasting.
    Generally, I totally agree. I couldn't see the point when TSR initially released psionics. However, that changed completelly with the DARK SUN campaign setting. There they are so intrinically interwoven with the history and society of the world that they are absolutelly necessary. For any other campaing setting I would not give a *** for psionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    In D&D in general and 3e in particular, one of the most prominent absolutes is HD. I see no reason to change that. So yes, a 3rd level humanoid warrior is at the very least a 4-HD character (augment the spell if you find it appropriate).
    This seems to affect a lot of spells and effects that are dependent on target's HD. However, because I will compile a complete new Player's Handbook/Monstrous Compendium that can be solved easily :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    This codex is as loyal to historical folklore as it is to D&D legacy.
    In the middle ages they tagged girls w/ pets as witches - goats and black cats in particular.
    You can take things anywhere you want, but my view of things is that a familiar is part of a witch's essence, not an adopted animal. I find it a desired result that the Witch has something that other classes don't...... and a witch could be very much arcane-inclined, just not the top-of-the-food-chain arcane. She has other goodies to compensate.
    That sounds reasonable. In the DARK SUN setting, however, there is no space for witches, but familiars do also not fit a DARK SUN Mage, so there is no problem at all. I was merely interested.


    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    No. TFW and DWF are completely different.
    Take a long stick and take 2 short sticks. You move entirely different with them. One's maneuvers are not a subset of the other's. The end result is that you gain more attacks, but that's all they have in common.
    So, what are the rules for DWF without the feat? Is it simply not possible? Or have I missed something (in that case sorry for asking the obvious)?


    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    CR <= CL – 3 to be exact.
    Maybe it would be ok to make it CR <= CL – 2. That way you could summon things with 2nd level spells.
    That makes Summonig Monster I quite superflous. However, that spell gave me headache anyway (because in DS setting I do not like summoning anything that is not 100% an inner planes outsider). Hence, dropping that spell I like quite a lot!

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Actually, if you look at the warrior class, and go to the writer's note for Combat Edge feature, it states: "This feature comes instead of all Weapon Focus tree feats (except for Weapon Focus itself)."
    Guess it should be clearer in the Feats section itself.
    Ah, so I misread it in the feat sections. Because it is listed there as omitted feat, I thought the entire Weapon Focus tree is entirely gone. If I understand you correctly now, none of them are gone only the prereqs have changed. Does that mean that a Fighter can have Combat Edge and the entire Weapon Focus tree?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. See #4 and #5 above.
    2. In these rules, it's physically harder to amass magical gear.
    I can see that. But how does it compensate for save bonuses of magical gear. If you take a 12 lvl wizard. considering normal rules, he has something like a +3 bonus on all saves due to magical gear. I cannot see how your mage has any compensation for those +3.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. I had enough experience with AoOs to know that as written they choke down the game flow. You move – you get wacked, and there's usually not much you can do about it, no matter how smart or a good tactician/strategist you are.
    2. Combat Reflexes, just like PA, is a "wouldn't leave home without it" tool. In a game where feats are so essential to defining your character, making 2 of them a must have means that you've effectively robbed your melee dude of 2 feats. That's why both are now incorporated into the rules.
    Ok, I will give it a try.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    It's actually really easy:
    And this one as well :-)

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Orc in the Playground
     
    tsj's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Eberron
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Hm.. if each bab increase is tied to a single weapon type
    Then it could be gained by spending a feat.

    Likewise the ability to cast a spell could be a feat that allows you to cast a specific spell once per day

    This should of course be limited on what spell level you can select... limited by your class level and possibly by other things like wisdom score and the number of existing spells you can cast and their levels

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    In the DARK SUN setting, however, there is no space for witches
    Why not actually?



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    So, what are the rules for DWF without the feat? Is it simply not possible?
    Haven't given it much thought to be honest. I guess you could choose to use the backside (unproficient) instead of the front side (not that I see much point in doing this).



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    Ah, so I misread it in the feat sections. Because it is listed there as omitted feat, I thought the entire Weapon Focus tree is entirely gone. If I understand you correctly now, none of them are gone only the prereqs have changed. Does that mean that a Fighter can have Combat Edge and the entire Weapon Focus tree?
    The intent was (and is) that:
    1. Weapon Focus lingers.
    2. The other feats in that tree are eliminated.
    3. Combat Edge supersedes Weapon Focus. Given Ever Vigilant practically doubles the bonuses of Combat Edge about 1/2 the time, and given that if they exist (and stack) they'll be practically an unfair must-have, they have to go.



    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    I can see that. But how does it compensate for save bonuses of magical gear. If you take a 12 lvl wizard. considering normal rules, he has something like a +3 bonus on all saves due to magical gear. I cannot see how your mage has any compensation for those +3.
    1. There's ability-score redundancy where saving throws are involved.
    2. You get an ability increase at x4 the rate in core (+1 per character level).
    3. Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes are much better in these rules.
    4. Each class is packed with abilities that further compensate for a lot, including inner resistances and immunities.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by antymattar View Post
    Although I am only familiar with Pathfinder, I can appreciate the effort that went into this. It looks really incredible. I have a question to you, the creator. I'm currently working on a d20 system similar to and based off of pathfinder. One of the ideas was to remove general BAB and instead focus on putting in class features and feats for weapon classes and attack types. The idea was that if a player wants to play an astute scholar who has never wielded a weapon, he should not somehow become better at fighting over time. Also, if you are a sword master, that doesn't make you a spear master. In general the idea is to get rid of the stats that keep scaling upwards without the players input, like saves, BAB, CMD, CMB and make it so that they are gained in some way only if the player chooses to invest in them. I'm curious what are your thoughts on this. Also, your strain based spell system looks VERY appealing.
    Short answer: I'm not for it.
    Don't have the time to explain right now. Stay tuned . . .


    [EDIT] . . .

    My first days in D&D started with the red BECMI boxed set. I participated in a total of 4 groups under those rules, all the way to level 32.
    Later on I took part in 2 AD&D groups – one under 1e rules and another under 2e rules.
    Starting at the early 2Ks, I played in one group under 3e rules and three more groups under 3.5e rules.
    One thing was consistent throughout all this time – we all felt that the characters didn't feel versatile or capable enough. We never min-maxed, but rather played in the average power levels intended by the designers (except maybe in our 3rd BECMI group, where there was a lot of damage output, but that didn't matter much for versatility). Yes, in 3.5 you can potentially become hellishly powerful if you're a full-scale prepared caster, but that's also your weak point - you have to guess-choose your spells.
    What you're suggesting is to narrow down character-versatility significantly – and the ones who'll by far get hurt more than others are the melee classes…… as if they're not shafted enough. Now you'll have to multiply their class resources 6-fold just to make them keep up.

    Your suggestion also defies common sense.
    BAB, saves, AC etc. are abstractions that sum up a character's overall battlefield practice:
    - How to position yourself on the battlefield
    - Where and when to strike and at what angle
    - Anticipation
    - Patience
    - Stamina
    - Resolve
    and many other parameters.

    I could train from here to the afterlife with a single weapon – it wouldn't count as much as someone who's been on the battlefield for several years doing melee combat. Even if that someone took my fav. Weapon for the first time, chances are he'll still tear me a new one if we go one-on-one (and I know a thing or two about self-defense, w/ background in 4 different fields of martial arts – including training my son on his way to an early teen Shotokan European gold medal and one step from black belt).

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Why not actually?
    The short answer would be that a witch is medieval archetype, whereas the DARK SUN campaign setting is about ancient times. But that is an abstract argument. To give it more content: Let us consider two witch types. 1. The wise woman living outside society, but helping small communities with their wisdom about nature and her magical abilities. This archetype would work in the DARK SUN campaign setting, but it is already completely covered by the DARK SUN druid. 2. The witch who has her powers because a pact/relation/heritage to some eldritch powers. This witch either presupposes a certain medieval like good vs. evil or light vs. dark dualism incorporated by demon like creatures where her power comes from - which does simply not exist in the DARK SUN campaign setting (there is something like this dualism in DARK SUN, the defiler vs. preserver dualism, but this one is already otherwise covered). On the other hand a witch could have something like a fey background. Again this does not exist on Athas (the world of the DARK SUN campaign setting). In fact, it breaks down quite close to the medieval vs. ancient distinction I started with: demons (in a non-ancient meaning of the word), feys, the battle between light and darkness are themes that are strong in a medieval or pseudo-medieval setting. The medieval fantasy gets its medieval part (or believes to get it, historical details are better neglected) from paradigmatic medieval (or early modern) areas like the British Isles, the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire of Germany (quite a contradiction in it self). Their mood is heavily influenced by northern folklore (celtic and norse myths) and the christian ethics, aesthetics and dualism. The DARK SUN campaign setting on the other hand is exactly not that. It is non-nothern and pre-christian (at least in many aspects; of course northern and christian influence leaks in on every corner, because it was written in a culture of exactly that tradition). And this is the reason why I think that there is no room for witches on Athas (like there is not room for knights or priests in the medieval sense).

    Two further questions:
    1. Do you still use NPC classes like the original warrior?
    2. If all player races have one racial Hit Dice they also get their Con bonus for that? And since you work with fractional BAB and saves, shouldn't the player races also have them?
    Last edited by armloc; 2015-11-18 at 06:40 AM. Reason: Further question

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Quote Originally Posted by armloc View Post
    The short answer would be that a witch is medieval archetype, whereas the DARK SUN campaign setting is about ancient times. But that is an abstract argument. To give it more content: Let us consider two witch types. 1. The wise woman living outside society, but helping small communities with their wisdom about nature and her magical abilities. This archetype would work in the DARK SUN campaign setting, but it is already completely covered by the DARK SUN druid. 2. The witch who has her powers because a pact/relation/heritage to some eldritch powers. This witch either presupposes a certain medieval like good vs. evil or light vs. dark dualism incorporated by demon like creatures where her power comes from - which does simply not exist in the DARK SUN campaign setting (there is something like this dualism in DARK SUN, the defiler vs. preserver dualism, but this one is already otherwise covered). On the other hand a witch could have something like a fey background. Again this does not exist on Athas (the world of the DARK SUN campaign setting). In fact, it breaks down quite close to the medieval vs. ancient distinction I started with: demons (in a non-ancient meaning of the word), feys, the battle between light and darkness are themes that are strong in a medieval or pseudo-medieval setting. The medieval fantasy gets its medieval part (or believes to get it, historical details are better neglected) from paradigmatic medieval (or early modern) areas like the British Isles, the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire of Germany (quite a contradiction in it self). Their mood is heavily influenced by northern folklore (celtic and norse myths) and the christian ethics, aesthetics and dualism. The DARK SUN campaign setting on the other hand is exactly not that. It is non-nothern and pre-christian (at least in many aspects; of course northern and christian influence leaks in on every corner, because it was written in a culture of exactly that tradition). And this is the reason why I think that there is no room for witches on Athas (like there is not room for knights or priests in the medieval sense).

    Two further questions:
    1. Do you still use NPC classes like the original warrior?
    2. If all player races have one racial Hit Dice they also get their Con bonus for that? And since you work with fractional BAB and saves, shouldn't the player races also have them?
    Ok, I see your point with the Witch.

    NPC classes - I don't see any reason to use them. If you really feel that you couldn't do w/o NPC classes, I'd suggest using Unearthed Arcana's generic classes for that. The Commoner class - probably 3e's least justified explanation for how things work.

    PC racial HD - they're necessary to explain how come humanoids live and breath w/o having class levels. I see no reason why a humanoid's racial HD contribution to Base Attack Bonus would be anything above absolute zero. The common folk don't practice combat in any way. This also simplifies calculations (and a 1st level mage having the same BAB as a 1st level warrior just doesn't feel right).

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e Overhaul – Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

    Another question: Do monsters also get the Dodge Armor Progression. They get the redefined Save modifiers, shouldn't they also get the Dodge Armor Progression? And the line of reasoning for Dodge Armor Progression also applies to them. On the other hand, this would really make some monsters broken...

Posting Permissions

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