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

[VladtheLad]

ThatÂ’s not how it works.
Under these rules, dying doesn’t cost you a level (nothing does actually). See XP “Payment” (last spoiler on post #5)

I understood this I just talked about how it is in 3.5 and pathfinder.

If you can make SoS spells do the job 30% of the times, then theyÂ’re worthwhile.
Statistically speaking, they do that. I once played a Beguiler focused on SoS spells and hiding his spellcasting ability and I totally dominated the game.

Ok, heh I remember you mentioning your beguiler again in the past. Beguiler is such a deceptively (ha!) powerful class.

The Mage does have Spellpower to shift things in her favor, but I guess thatÂ’s more class-oriented than item-oriented.

No idea what that is, will check it out.

I donÂ’t know all spells from all official source books, but until I know a spell is problematic, it is allowed as is.
It is a common consent that core has the most broken stuff, whereas in other sources you only get broken stuff if you read things RAW instead of RAI (which are easy to figure out).

Yes. When problems are pointed out, I deal with them.

Hmmm I had a list of out of core problematic spells, I used to ban them in my games.
I will check the out of core spells and pm if I find anything that could become too nasty.

The Paladin theme is covered by the Pries class. You can take the “Cleric” variant to build a full fledged Paladin. You don’t get full BAB, but what you do get more than compensates – and with a lot of extra.

I was 100% sure you had an alternate build, I just mentioned it because I remember it as the last prestige class in your houserules.

The pattern consistency is an actual goal. It makes things easier to remember and to fill in the blanks w/o asking for expansion.

And as far as “oldschool” feel goes – it goes beyond that.
One of the goals of this project is to allow you to role any fantasy character youÂ’ve ever seen in any story or on screen, and more.
- Raistlin Majere: Low-Con Tolerance-mage
- Verminaard (Dragons of Winter Night): Hexblade
- Elrik of Melnibone: Bladeweaver with Lifedrinker feat
- Leto Atreides ii: A high-level Wierding Channeler (IÂ’ve left out the sand-worms symbiosis, because itÂ’s more of a storyline thing)
- The shipwreck survivor from Star Trek TNG that transcended into a being of light: Radiant Soul
- Master Li Mu Bai: 9th level Monk with Whirling Steel feat
- Dr. jekyll & Mr. Hyde: Netherhost
etc.

Interesting. I especially like the mirror mage, since it reminds me of certain sidereal martial art from exalted rpg(which was cool though a bit too much).

[nonsi]

Hmmm I had a list of out of core problematic spells, I used to ban them in my games.
I will check the out of core spells and pm if I find anything that could become too nasty.

I actually prefer to fix things and make them viable over nixing them, but I do realize that sometimes things are beyond repair.
Bring it on and we’ll check them out

I was 100% sure you had an alternate build, I just mentioned it because I remember it as the last prestige class in your houserules.

Then you remember more than I do

Interesting. I especially like the mirror mage, since it reminds me of certain sidereal martial art from exalted rpg(which was cool though a bit too much).

Yes, Mirror Dancer is one of my favorite creations. Definitely one of my bigger challenges. Wish I had a character to match it with (never tried Exalted).

[nonsi]

.
Update:
Full Shifter adaptation is now part of the codex. The one race with inherent variations and built-in evolution mechanics.

[VladtheLad]

More Questions/Thoughts!

-Whats “Once a class skill always a class skill” ? As an aside, I would advice to a least rule that cross class skills don't cost double the ranks to raise. That said I am not a very big fun of removing cross class skills altogether as they did in pathfinder.

-Is there a difference between creating a magic item and buying a magic item?
Clarification:
“- All Save-or-Lose spells: spells that would directly impose (by definition of the effect, not situation/tactic related) a status on a target that limits the actions they can take:
• Dead
• Dying
• Paralyzed
• Petrified
• Unconscious
(basically anything that would render the target helpless or worse) "
What is it any spell that limit your actions? Or spells that make you worse than helpless?

-Does introspective the feat count as a skill feat or are its bonuses an exception to the skill feats?
“Skill-Feats
The two associated skills are always considered class skills, and you gain a bonus on them equal to 2 + 1/4 char-level."

-Considering the lower wealth by level and lack of Book of Boccob, can scribe costs become too punishing for mages? Do you see a similar item existing?
I saw the archmage feat claiming that runes are more cost effective. So maybe I need to check these first.

-How do mage armor and shield work? Do they add shield and armor bonuses or deflection bonuses? What about different type of ac bonuses(insight etc) from spells, are they always deflection bonuses?

- Some spells I consider possibly problematic:
Wraithstrike,
Giant size+enlarged web weave.

-Xp awards, pathfinder balances them at 20 encounters but in 3.5 they were 16 encounters unless I am mistaken? Maybe you should award more xp if you want to remain within 3.5 benchmarks.

-At Level 17, you will have around 33 strain, you can cast 2 level 9, 1 level 8, 1 level 7 spell. If you have fortitude +12+6 con+3 saves=+22. Even 4th level have a risk of failing and being lost.
The maximum you can reach in a day is 16*3=48 more strain through rests for 2 more 8th level spells 16, 2 more 7th level 14 , 4 more 6th level spells, and a 5th level spell.
This is a total of 2 level 9th, 3 level 8th , 3 level 7th, 4 level 6th and a 1 level 5th spell. If he does no spell casting the rest 14 hours also gets 14 more strain.
This actually seems a bit on low side to me, though since you have infinite 2nd level spells things probably balance out.
If you HAD to reduce strain costs or increase strain how would you go about it?

[nonsi]

-Whats “Once a class skill always a class skill” ?

“Once a class skill always a class skill” is exactly that: If you ever have it as class-skill, it counts as class-skill regardless of future classes you take levels in.

Re-worded.

As an aside, I would advice to a least rule that cross class skills don't cost double the ranks to raise. That said I am not a very big fun of removing cross class skills altogether as they did in pathfinder.

On the realistic side, some people need to invest a lot more time to lern certain skills, and regardless of their efforts they never become good at them as others to whome they come naturally. So far I haven’t encountered a model to illustrate that better than the [double-coust half-value-cap] duality.
I’m open to suggestions if you have a better proposal.
I believe I’ve provided plenty of means to circumvent that drawback (via races, classes and feats).

-Is there a difference between creating a magic item and buying a magic item?
Clarification:
“- All Save-or-Lose spells: spells that would directly impose (by definition of the effect, not situation/tactic related) a status on a target that limits the actions they can take:
• Dead
• Dying
• Paralyzed
• Petrified
• Unconscious
(basically anything that would render the target helpless or worse) "
What is it any spell that limit your actions? Or spells that make you worse than helpless?

Nice catch.
“a status on a target that limits the actions they can take” is a leftover.
I just changed it to “a status on a target that makes it unable to take actions”

-Does introspective the feat count as a skill feat or are its bonuses an exception to the skill feats?
“Skill-Feats
The two associated skills are always considered class skills, and you gain a bonus on them equal to 2 + 1/4 char-level."

Again nice catch.
Fixed the description of Introspective.

-Considering the lower wealth by level and lack of Book of Boccob, can scribe costs become too punishing for mages? Do you see a similar item existing?
I saw the archmage feat claiming that runes are more cost effective. So maybe I need to check these first.

1. The codex does not directly address WBL. It just states that characters are far less dependent upon WBL to be effective. It’s the Weirding Channeler class in specific that states a restriction of no more than 1/3 the WBL agreed-upon by the group. With everything that’s going on in the codex, I see no reason for WBL to be different than the officially proposed WBL.
2. Nothing’s to stop you from formulating your own rules regarding high-quality books with thinner sheets of paper. This project has already exhausted its posting space and this issue doesn’t seem important enough to me to burden the readers, so I’ll leave it to you to figure it out according to your personal common sense. If it’s solid, I’ll reference it.

-How do mage armor and shield work? Do they add shield and armor bonuses or deflection bonuses?

I’d say armor bonus and shield bonus respectively.

What about different type of ac bonuses(insight etc) from spells, are they always deflection bonuses?

My approach is that while magic can collect information for you, it can’t hone your skills in any way, thus I’m firmly against insight bonuses via magic.

- Some spells I consider possibly problematic:
Wraithstrike,
Giant size+enlarged web weave.

Wraithstrike is a single-round spell. How broken can it be when it comes at the expense of another spell?

Good call on Enlarge Webweave and personal spells gaining range: touch. Seems like a good call to make an exception here that such spells are limited to a single target.

-Xp awards, pathfinder balances them at 20 encounters but in 3.5 they were 16 encounters unless I am mistaken? Maybe you should award more xp if you want to remain within 3.5 benchmarks.

My groups always progressed on average after about 20 encounters and it felt reasonable. It’s their survival that was problematic.
The good news is that you never lose XP by any means.
You’re free to tweak the numbers to your heart’s content.
You can also make things more challenging on average, but that’d probably come at the expense of longer encounters, so no real gain there.

-At Level 17, you will have around 33 strain, you can cast 2 level 9, 1 level 8, 1 level 7 spell. If you have fortitude +12+6 con+3 saves=+22. Even 4th level have a risk of failing and being lost.
The maximum you can reach in a day is 16*3=48 more strain through rests for 2 more 8th level spells 16, 2 more 7th level 14 , 4 more 6th level spells, and a 5th level spell.
This is a total of 2 level 9th, 3 level 8th , 3 level 7th, 4 level 6th and a 1 level 5th spell. If he does no spell casting the rest 14 hours also gets 14 more strain.
This actually seems a bit on low side to me, though since you have infinite 2nd level spells things probably balance out.
If you HAD to reduce strain costs or increase strain how would you go about it?

We talked about encouraging using lower level spells. The above observation seems like a powerful incentive for that.
You also have overtaxing in case of emergency.

I wouldn’t recommend lowering the costs, because that might make things too easy. But you’re welcome to try and see where it puts things.
You could lower the starting costs and stretch the cost reductions, but that'd make it difficult for you to formulate a noticeable pattern.

You could adopt the level-associated increased recovery that’s proposed for the spell-points system. That might work decently.
Instead of spell-points you recover strain at the same rate.

From a practical point of view of easier game-management and faster game-flow, choosing the spell-points system would probably make things simpler.
It would also make things simpler if you’d want to play with the numbers to find your personal sweet spot.
The tradeoff would be losing the flavor of overtaxing and having certain spell levels cost nothing at high levels.

If you’re a fan of the Strain & Tolerance approach, adopting the proposed recovery of the spell-points system would probably be your best bet.

[VladtheLad]

“Once a class skill always a class skill” is exactly that: If you ever have it as class-skill, it counts as class-skill regardless of future classes you take levels in.

Ok cool!

On the realistic side, some people need to invest a lot more time to lern certain skills, and regardless of their efforts they never become good at them as others to whome they come naturally. So far I haven’t encountered a model to illustrate that better than the [double-coust half-value-cap] duality.
I’m open to suggestions if you have a better proposal.
I believe I’ve provided plenty of means to circumvent that drawback (via races, classes and feats).

Ok understood.

Nice catch.
“a status on a target that limits the actions they can take” is a leftover.
I just changed it to “a status on a target that makes it unable to take actions”


Again nice catch.
Fixed the description of Introspective.

Both of these make sense.

1. The codex does not directly address WBL. It just states that characters are far less dependent upon WBL to be effective. It’s the Weirding Channeler class in specific that states a restriction of no more than 1/3 the WBL agreed-upon by the group. With everything that’s going on in the codex, I see no reason for WBL to be different than the officially proposed WBL.
2. Nothing’s to stop you from formulating your own rules regarding high-quality books with thinner sheets of paper. This project has already exhausted its posting space and this issue doesn’t seem important enough to me to burden the readers, so I’ll leave it to you to figure it out according to your personal common sense. If it’s solid, I’ll reference it.

I think you mentioned half the wealth by level. Though you also seemed ok with my suggestion to just get the random loot and just restrain reselling and buying stuff from a magic market.
Regarding magic markets what are your thoughts? My experience is that most players just don't care enough to spent the time to buy and sell, but obviously there are exceptions.

I’d say armor bonus and shield bonus respectively.


My approach is that while magic can collect information for you, it can’t hone your skills in any way, thus I’m firmly against insight bonuses via magic.

That's what I thought.You pretty much clarify that spells give deflection bonus. That's why I was wondering about mage armor and shield. What about dodge bonuses, haste can grant a dodge bonus?
If yes basically spells grant either an armor/shield/dodge or deflection bonus. Any "other" bonus becomes a deflection bonus. Thinking about it fluff wise you could turn insight bonuses into a dodge bonus.

Wraithstrike is a single-round spell. How broken can it be when it comes at the expense of another spell?

Good call on Enlarge Webweave and personal spells gaining range: touch. Seems like a good call to make an exception here that such spells are limited to a single target.

Considering wraithstrike. I am not sure, I haven't seen a 3.5 gish or allowed the spell for that matter for a long time. It is a swift action spell with a personal range. I guess I could see it being very good with enlarged web weave even if it affects only the fighter, then again tbh I am not certain.

Thanks!

My groups always progressed on average after about 20 encounters and it felt reasonable. It’s their survival that was problematic.
The good news is that you never lose XP by any means.
You’re free to tweak the numbers to your heart’s content.
You can also make things more challenging on average, but that’d probably come at the expense of longer encounters, so no real gain there.

Understood, I was just mentioning the 3.5 maths.

We talked about encouraging using lower level spells. The above observation seems like a powerful incentive for that.
You also have overtaxing in case of emergency.

I wouldn’t recommend lowering the costs, because that might make things too easy. But you’re welcome to try and see where it puts things.
You could lower the starting costs and stretch the cost reductions, but that'd make it difficult for you to formulate a noticeable pattern.

You could adopt the level-associated increased recovery that’s proposed for the spell-points system. That might work decently.
Instead of spell-points you recover strain at the same rate.

From a practical point of view of easier game-management and faster game-flow, choosing the spell-points system would probably make things simpler.
It would also make things simpler if you’d want to play with the numbers to find your personal sweet spot.
The tradeoff would be losing the flavor of overtaxing and having certain spell levels cost nothing at high levels.

If you’re a fan of the Strain & Tolerance approach, adopting the proposed recovery of the spell-points system would probably be your best bet.

Ok I will have to mull over this a bit and also check your spell points approach. I am also considering to simply increasing the strain given from levels from 1 to 2.

[VladtheLad]

Also from your codex:
"Throughout D&D's different incarnations, one of the more tedious aspects was tracking how much XP each monster is worth.
In Pathfinder 2, they finally simplified things by:
Setting XP requirement for the next level to a fixed value of 1000.
Subtracting 1000XP once a level was obtained (without re-calculating whatever XP left).

While this direction is definitely an improvement, I find the Minor (10) — Moderate (30) — Major (80) division too rough and inaccurate, and a bit unfair."

Pathfinder 2e doesn't make this distinction for monsters you are referencing awards for accomplishments.
See here https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=575
There is a table for xp awards from monsters.

[nonsi]

I think you mentioned half the wealth by level.

If so, then it’s an undesired leftover.

Regarding magic markets what are your thoughts? My experience is that most players just don't care enough to spent the time to buy and sell, but obviously there are exceptions.

Given that the vast majority of the population in any fantasy game world are non-adventurers and never encounter the dangers that adventurers do, then the rationale is that there’s no institutionalized network of magic shops.
Any item-gold exchanges shold be managed on a case-by-case basis (i.e. price haggling), where in most cases the potential buyed would probably not possess the funds to make the purchase.

That's what I thought.You pretty much clarify that spells give deflection bonus. That's why I was wondering about mage armor and shield. What about dodge bonuses, haste can grant a dodge bonus?
If yes basically spells grant either an armor/shield/dodge or deflection bonus. Any "other" bonus becomes a deflection bonus. Thinking about it fluff wise you could turn insight bonuses into a dodge bonus.

Ok, I see what you mean.

I went over PHB I & II and Spell Compendium. What I noticed is that most spells that grant insight bonuses are caster-only spells.
I can see the common sense in a spellcaster that wields magical energies to draw insight directly via magic.
OTOH, It strikes me as unreasonable that an effect (which in and on itself is a mindless phenomenon) would give any other recipient any insight.
Therefore it seems to me that the best reconciliation between common sense and limitation of power abuse would be to rule that spells that grant insight bonuses are ridgidly personal spells and no manipulation could ever extend their range or make them applicable for magical items.

Regarding Haste . . .
it seems to me that the best way to regard the AC bonus is as circumstance bonus (when hasted, you perceive the world around you to be moving a bit slower).
So yes, limiting magic-based AC modifiers to deflection only is probably impractical.
Therefore I suggest expanding the definition to deflection/armor/shield/circumstance bonuses – and you can’t stack any of them.

Ok I will have to mull over this a bit and also check your spell points approach. I am also considering to simply increasing the strain given from levels from 1 to 2.

Yes. Doubling the level-based tolerance could work nicely . . . or increased recovery . . . or both.
Let me know what you make of the numbers.




p.s. I’ll have to think about the XP issue and get back at you . . . hopefully no later than this coming weekend. What I can say is that I already have a game plan.

[nonsi]

Pathfinder 2e doesn't make this distinction for monsters you are referencing awards for accomplishments.
See here https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=575
There is a table for xp awards from monsters.

Yes, that’s my bad.

When I went over PF2 roulebook, one of the first concepts that cought my eyes was the action breakdown of 3 action units per combat turn.
I also tried my luck with proposing a new approach to combat actions, but no one showed any interest.
That certainly didn’t start things for me on a positive note.

I also noticed the critical success and critical failure approach.
I liked the idea a lot, but I got discouraged very quickly when I realized that it would be impossible to import the concept to 3e without rewriting the game from the ground up.
So instead of going over the book cover-to-cover, I just skimmed the document and pretty much tossed it aside.

Both factors kinda took the wind out of my sails as far as PF2 goes, so I didn’t go deep into the document and missed the distinction between gaining XP for accomplishments and gaining XP for defeating opponents.



Now, going over the page you shared, here’s what I came up with. Tell me what you think.


Encounter-CRs and XP Awards:

Spoiler

Show

Throughout D&D's different incarnations, one of the more tedious aspects was tracking how much XP each monster is worth.
In Pathfinder 2, they finally simplified things by:

1. Setting XP requirement for the next level to a predetermined fixed value (800/1000/1200 suggested for Fast/Medium/Slow level progression).
2. Subtracting 1000 XP once a level was obtained (without re-calculating whatever XP left).

While I do find this solution a huge improvement, I think it can be further streamlined and simplified.
I’m working under the assumption that a level advancement should be achieved after roughly 20 level-appropriate encounters, which should amount to about 4 game sessions (i.e. 50 XP for a level-appropriate encounter).

The numbers below are adjusted for a Medium level-progression rate (1000 XP):

Encounter CR                       XP
===========================================================================================================================
Party Level - 5 or less		ZERO (even if there is a threat, you can't learn anything new from such trivial encounters)
Party Level - 4			10
Party Level - 3			20
Party Level - 2			30
Party Level - 1			40
Party Level			50
Party Level + 1			60
Party Level + 2			70
Party Level + 3			80
Party Level + 4			90
Party Level + 5 or more		100 (there's only so much you can learn/improve from a single encounter)

In the above table, a single CR [X] creature is a level-appropriate challenge for a party of 4 characters with an average level [X].

If all characters are of the same ECL, each receives the stated XP from the encounter.

For each character of higher/lower ECL than the average, simply shifts individual XP award in the opposite direction. Round fractions closest*
Example: In case of a party of four characters, three of 5^th level and one of 6^th, when they finish a CR 5 encounter, three of them gain 50 XP while the higher-level character gains only 40 XP.
* If the party's average level is exactly midway between two levels, then round the encounter’s XP awrards down. I.e. a party of two 5th level characters and two 6th level characters is a 6^th level party.


Groups of Different Sizes:
Intuition would dictate that for groups of a different number of characters N, one should apply the following formula to encounter XP: [XP * 4 / N].
While this is a reasonable possibility, there's a better option. Read on.




Going from [Creature CR] to [Encounter CR]:

Spoiler

Show

It’s an obvious observation that 2 CR [X] opponents are not CR [2X] in any way fashion or form.
So, instead of trying to figure out the contribution of each opponent to the encounter’s CR, a DM should simply assess the overall threat level of the encounter.
This should take into account the following factors and more:
- Surprises / Ambushes
- Advantageous / Disdvantageous terrain (being surrounded, undersea combat, flying opponents with range attacks etc).
- How well the opponents are equipped compared to the party in terms of gear, spells, minions etc.

The encounter’s in-practice CR should be evaluated after the encounter is over.
If players make bad choices during an encounter, this should not increase the DM’s decided-upon encounter CR. That one's on them.

At first glance, it seems as if this approach makes XP-Awards less accurate.
In practice, CR is no more than a rough assessment of one subject vs. a huge variety of party builds.
Therefore, the best assessment tool in practice is the DM’s familiarity with the party’s overall set of capabilities.
While this approach is not really applicable for designing PC/XBox games, it is the best tool where the human factor is present (i.e. the DM).

Notes:
1. When applying this approach of assessing [Encounter CR], one doesn’t need to make complicated calculations as proposed under “Groups of Different Sizes”, so this actually simplifies things.
2. It’s perfectly within reason to decide that an encounter is worth [level – 1.5] threat and grant 35 XP for completing it. Very easy challenges could award 3 XP and that’s fine as well. Same goes for above-level-appropriate encounters.

XP – not just for defeating monsters:

Spoiler

Show

Hazards and Obstacles:
XP should be awarded for overcoming/avoiding non-monster threats.
A threat should be evaluated vs. 2 things:
1. The variety and potency of options at the characters’ disposal for dealing with the threat.
2. The DM’s assessment of how well the players handled the problem.
Examples:
- A typical trap could be regarded as a [level – 3] threat, granting 20 XP to those who found and disabled it.
- A trap room, which is probably a more significant threat, could be regarded as a [level – 1] threat, granting 40 XP to each party member.
- Solving a difficult puzzle/riddle that required some brainstorming could award 30 XP to the one who actually came up with the solution, as well as 10 XP to anyone else who had contributed to the solution.

Basically, the more surprising, unorthodox and out-of-the-box-thinking a solution to a threat is, the more XP it should award.

Because the gane is run by people and not software, I don’t suggest adopting PF2’s approach of compiling a list of threats and assigning supposedly-accurate numbers to them.
DM’s gut feeling could save huge amounts of game time in this case and should be no less accurate in assessing the actual value of a challenge.



Accomplishments:
XP awards should also be given to characters for accomplishing actual stated campaign goals, such as:
- Securing a major alliance
- Establishing an organization
- Causing an NPC to have a change of heart
The significance of such accomplishments determines the size of the XP award.
Determine whether the achievement was a Minor / Moderate / Major accomplishment.

Minor accomplishments include all sorts of significant, memorable, or surprising moments in the game.
A Minor Accomplishment should count as [level – 3] or [level – 4] encounter (10 to 20 XP per player)

A Moderate accomplishment typically represents a goal that takes most of a session to complete.
A Moderate Accomplishment should count as [level – 2] … [level appropriate] encounter (30 … 50 XP per player)

A Major accomplishment is usually the culmination of the characters’ efforts across multiple sessions.
A Major Accomplishment should count as [level + 1] and up (60 … 100 XP per player)

As a general guideline, in a given game session, you’ll typically give several minor awards, one or two moderate awards, and only one major award, if any.



Design Notes:

Spoiler

Show

Granting XP for any and all game-contributing activities can have a significantly positive effect on the attitude of playes.
In a game where an overwhelming percentage of the XP is granted for combat, players always urge the DM to bring on more opponents, which would probably lead to a drastic decrease of the story’s significance.

The above approach should maintain a high level of interest in just about anything that happens in the game.

Individual awards of XP should definitely be encouraged. This should highly motivate the game effort and enthusiasm of all players.
Just take care not to push it to a point where less inventive/imaginative/resourceful players find themselves frustrated for being left behind.

XP Management Proposal:
It is highly advisable for DMs not to share how much XP is awarded per encounter and update XP on character sheets only in the end of game sessions. This eliminates XP-award arguments around the gaming table.
The exception to this suggestion is when a character is entitled a level advancement. It actually feels very rewarding to gain level advancement while playing and it raises players’ morale.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Any plans for an incarnum class?

[VladtheLad]

Interesting, I will have to read this a bit to form an opinion.

Sorry for not responding earlier work, stuff and dming two games has me swamped at the moment.

[nonsi]

Interesting, I will have to read this a bit to form an opinion.

Sorry for not responding earlier work, stuff and dming two games has me swamped at the moment.

Take your time. No pressure

[nonsi]

Any plans for an incarnum class?

TBH, I never really understood the pattern of thought behind Incarnum.
I also didn't implement Psionics, Shadow Casting, Truenaming or ToM Binding.
All of those are covered to the fullest with the already proposed spellcasters.
The goal in this approach was to make things easier to play and to make the game flow faster.
I'm quite convinced that if you don't insist on rigid mechanics, any story that you could tell using the official D&D materials, you could also tell with these rules . . . and many many more.

For example: If it's all about Chakra Binding, then these rules cover the aspect of binding magical powers to one's self in a far more flexible way.
See the Monk's 8th level feature "Tempered Body".
Also, any character can acquire almost any spell effect via "Bestow Spell-Like Ability" and "Spell-like to Supernatural Conversion" feats, provided one of the group's spellcasters is kind enough to take them.
And all classes are bursting with special abilities, which enables you to produce groups that can do anything you'd want them to be able to do.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I really like the mirror dancer class, but I've got a few questions.

How do you calculate the save for the Mirror Blast feat? I assume it's something like (10 + half class level + Cha modifier)?

The Mirror Blade table column references Cha, but the text only mentions Str to damage.

Last, the Conjure Mirror mentions that it can be summoned as a shield; does it provide a shield bonus to AC if you do so? And what are the rules/stats for sundering a conjured mirror or mirror blade?

[D&D_Fan]

Are you going to call this 3.6, or 3.55?
Also, I've never played 3.5, but I think I should, Is 3.55 as I'm calling it ready to be played yet?
Also, you should consider 3.55 as a name.

Class Idea:
Anachronaut
From the future.
They can use future firearms and other future weaponary. They don't need to uses spells.
Proficient with: all ranged martial weapons. Light armor, one kind of tools plus some other stuff
Starting Gear: Plasteel Armor, 2 laser pistols or a laser rifle and 20 energy cells, a grenade or hyposray (a healing item), and one set of tools
Abilities: Teleportation, Time travel, Invisibility

I don't know what the sci fi rules for 3.55 are/will be, but it would be cool if you could add them.

[nonsi]

How do you calculate the save for the Mirror Blast feat? I assume it's something like (10 + half class level + Cha modifier)?

That’s exactly it.
Will be fixed soon.

The Mirror Blade table column references Cha, but the text only mentions Str to damage.

Right again

Last, the Conjure Mirror mentions that it can be summoned as a shield; does it provide a shield bonus to AC if you do so?

Good question.
I’m thinking of a regular small shield with a reflective surface.

And what are the rules/stats for sundering a conjured mirror or mirror blade?

I’m guessing you could regard it as a regular item, but I’m open to suggestions here.




And now that I’ve checked again, I noticed that Shatter Mirror doesn’t really state how to check if the mirro on the other side yields or breaks.
I could actually use some inspiration on this one.




Also, I just came up with two new feats:

Secondary Mirror Blade
Requirements: Mirror Dancer level 7, TWF
Benefit: When forming your Mirror Blade, you may create an offhand counterpart to it.
By spending one use of Mirror Sight, you may produce an offhand Mirror Blade that’s two steps weaker than your primary Mirror Blade ([1d4+STR ; 1d4+Cha] if you’re a 7^th level mirror dancer)
By spending two uses of Mirror Sight, you may produce an offhand Mirror Blade that’s one step weaker ([1d6+STR ; 1d6+Cha] if you’re a 7^th level mirror dancer).
By spending three uses, you may produce an offhand Mirror Blade of equal power.
Your Secondary Mirror Blade lasts for 1 minute.


Two Bladed Mirror Sword
Requirements: Mirror Dancer level 8, Proficiency with Two Bladed Sword, Double Weapon Fighting
Benefit: By spending one use of Mirror Sight, you may fashion your Mirror Blade as a Two Bladed Sword.
Both sides deal your regular Mirror Blade damage.
Your Two Bladed Mirror Blade lasts for 1 minute.

[nonsi]

Are you going to call this 3.6, or 3.55?
Also, I've never played 3.5, but I think I should, Is 3.55 as I'm calling it ready to be played yet?
Also, you should consider 3.55 as a name.

As far as I’m concerned, you can call it whatever you fancy.
I’m not counting on making money out of this project, so it doesn’t really bother me how catchy the name is.

Class Idea:
. . .

Well, I have three issues with that proposal:
1. I wouldn’t want to associate class with gear. A regular warrior/rogue/monk should do perfectly fine with futuristic gear if you’d want to attack that angle.
2. I dare not confront the SciFi angle, because I know it will suck me in hard. I’m content with sticking to fantasy (but don’t let my reservation hold you back).
3. What about ammunition? (laser charges, grenades, etc.)? In a video game you usually have those laying on the ground wherever you go. If that was the case in an actual campaign, it would really damage the credibility of the story. If not, then you’re gonna find yourself stuck pretty quick.

[nonsi]

Ok I will have to mull over this a bit and also check your spell points approach. I am also considering to simply increasing the strain given from levels from 1 to 2.

Yes. Doubling the level-based tolerance could work nicely . . . or increased recovery . . . or both.

Actually, after revisiting the notion, I believe it will be a poor decision to double the level-based tolerance buildup.
Reason: One of the primary objectives for me to redesign spellcasters was to profoundly increase their flexibility of choices, but at the same time discouraging going NOVA. Your suggestion will pretty quickly grant spellcasters access to 2 extra spells of their highest available SL. That's practically begging them to go NOVA.
If you leave the Tolerance pool as it is, but grant them faster recovery throughout their daytime activities, it will keep their NOVA potential the same, but will allow them to make better use of their Work Day.
I won't tell you by how much to increase the recovery rate. I'll just wait to see what you come up with and take it from there.

[nonsi]

.
I’m happy to inform that the subject of deities and divine beings/characters is finally complete.
Everything on the subject is now here in this thread, with no need to turn to external sources.
All additions, modifications, omissions, tweaks and corrections are done.
All known inconsistencies corrected.

[nonsi]

.

There's something I wish to clarify.

I was addressed several times in the not so distant past with requests regarding this project.
One request involved turning this entire project into a PDF.
Another was to make an adaptation of all classes to 3.5e and potentially other systems.
Another was to break down all ideas presented here into topics and reference them all in My Extended Signature.

While I personally don't have the time on my hands or the drive for such endeavors, I certainly have no objection and would actually be glad to contribute my thoughts if anyone wishes to give it a go.

I'd also like to reiterate that I grant full permission in advance to anyone who finds anything of interest in here to take and use whatever they fancy and insert
changes as they see fit.

Happy gaming everyone

[nonsi]

It's sad for me to see 3e fall from grace as it did. I still think that as far as character-creation goes, it's the best platform of them all.
It's been quite a long time since I last saw suggestions for innovative large scale changes as far as the game fundamentals go, so just for any 3e fans that are still out there, here's one last revival of my 3e overhaul codex before I let it die out, just in case it might come in handy to someone.
If anyone has any questions/notes/suggestions - now's the time.

[AshFall]

Does this by any chance exist as a handy pdf or other document that I may have missed while looking? :)

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread necromancy.