What do you most wish you were able to do by the rules?

[No brains]

See an effective user of solely (Ex) abilities who can hunt down and kill squishy wizards without just getting their ass handed to them instantly or precognitively.

[JaronK]

So... a Wizard then?

I know I know, not what you meant.

JaronK

[Hiro Protagonest]

See an effective user of solely (Ex) abilities who can hunt down and kill squishy wizards without just getting their ass handed to them instantly or precognitively.

It's called warblade.

[The Glyphstone]

It's called warblade.

Warblades can't really beat wizards any better than Fighters can. Iron Heart Surge only goes so far for handling debuffs, and it doesn't help with Foresight, Celerity, Contingency, or any of the other stuff that make endgame wizards truly unstoppable.

Unless you define "unable to defeat a wizard" as the condition IHS is used to end.

[druid91]

It doesn't fail to understand measurements; it simply states that mathematical equivalency does not create rules equivalency. Rewriting the rules means you're creating a house rule (immediately not eligible anywhere except in your own game).

No. There is no difference at all, between an hour, and 60 minutes.

You are not even rewriting the rules, you are changing it to read in a different form that says the exact same thing.

You might as well say that any D&D books written in foreign languages don't count, because they are using a different method to say the exact same thing.

[Incanur]

Cut off an enemy's arm with a sword blow.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Cut off an enemy's arm with a sword blow.

You know, I think there's a variant rule in the DMG for criticals, you roll a die to see where you hit (arm, leg, ear, eye, etc.).

[Curmudgeon]

No. There is no difference at all, between an hour, and 60 minutes.

There is a difference in a rules context. A contract can specify that only "Brand X" parts be used. If "Brand X" has two product labels, one "Brand X", and an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) version, you can be in violation of the contract if you use the OEM version ─ even though they're identical parts coming off the same production line, with only the label on the package being different.

D&D is a system of rules. I've showed that the game authors do make a distinction between 10 rounds and 1 minute, even though in a measurement context these are identical. It's only the rules context that matters, though, so your mathematical equivalency argument has no standing.

[Incanur]

You know, I think there's a variant rule in the DMG for criticals, you roll a die to see where you hit (arm, leg, ear, eye, etc.).

Yeah, but it only imposes a dinky -2 penalty on associated skill checks or some such. And such hits would be rare. On the other hand, the sunder rules allow for cutting the ring off an opponents finger. And it's not even very difficult to accomplish!

[No brains]

So... a Wizard then?

I know I know, not what you meant.

You know, not even wizards can beat wizards. If you cross-cloned Batman and Chuck Norris with the dark and terrible feeling in our hearts that there is indeed a god mocking our lesser existence, you would get a human wizard. With stringent WBL rules.

Also, I'm stealing your sig. >:/

[Ajadea]

Tank as a viable, valuable, role.

Melee having more tactics to use (sword-and-board as a viable fighter build, parrying as a mechanic that doesn't require a feat, chopping off limbs, delaying strikes for increased power). Don't even mention Tome of Battle-not everyone has access to it, it doesn't fix everything, and some people don't want Per-Encounter Powers in their 3.5.

Magic not being the be-all-end-all.

[Epsilon Rose]

1. I'd like to see a magic system that allowed experimentation so it felt like you could actually progress the craft and where manipulating unseen forces rather than just using set skills (like a programer/hacker vs. someone confined to macros).
2. A decent LA system. As it stands I have a bunch of concepts that would require a monster race, if for nothing but the flavor, but with the current LA rules they'd be completely impractical.
3. Better melee combat.
4. Much Much better grapple rules.
5. Better crafting.
6. More diverse weapons and materials (I don't mean more of them, I mean better/more relevant distinctions).
7. Called shots.

[Drglenn]

Tank as a viable, valuable, role.

Melee having more tactics to use (sword-and-board as a viable fighter build, parrying as a mechanic that doesn't require a feat, chopping off limbs, delaying strikes for increased power). Don't even mention Tome of Battle-not everyone has access to it, it doesn't fix everything, and some people don't want Per-Encounter Powers in their 3.5.

Magic not being the be-all-end-all.

So... to play 4e then?

My suggestion:
To have rules justification in slapping people upside the head (OOC) who utter the phrase 'That's what my character would do' when they act like a complete douche IC and/or get the rest of the party killed/messed up

[No brains]

Much Much better grapple rules.

Dumb as it may sound, I like how grapple works. I think the awkward and slow rules capture the dicey struggle that is a grapple.

Every other thing on the list- yeah. I would like that.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

A warblade can, can not will, beat batman. If you mean batman as presented in the origional Being Batman guide however, a lot of people have pushed the envelope of batman further and further into the realm of God/TO and nothing can kill that.

[faceroll]

There is a difference in a rules context. A contract can specify that only "Brand X" parts be used. If "Brand X" has two product labels, one "Brand X", and an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) version, you can be in violation of the contract if you use the OEM version ─ even though they're identical parts coming off the same production line, with only the label on the package being different.

D&D is a system of rules. I've showed that the game authors do make a distinction between 10 rounds and 1 minute, even though in a measurement context these are identical. It's only the rules context that matters, though, so your mathematical equivalency argument has no standing.

For instance:
An ability that increases duration from rounds to minutes and minutes to hours would have a radically different effect on something that had a duration listed as "1 minute" as opposed to a duration that lasted "10 rounds".

[Geigan]

I also want better rules for dropping things on people. As it is it's either too simple to the point of overpowered or it's a ridiculously garbled bit of RAW that just feels like a pain to use for something so simple.

As it is I just have them roll a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, but this doesn't cover all situations and feels too generalized for others.

[Epsilon Rose]

Dumb as it may sound, I like how grapple works. I think the awkward and slow rules capture the dicey struggle that is a grapple.

Every other thing on the list- yeah. I would like that.

I don't know how much experiance you have with grappling, but my limited training in jeet kune do leads me to disagree. More importantly, I was complaining about what you can do. The current grapple rules do a terrible job of simulating locks, pins, and the various other nasty techniques to can pull off (I dare you to find me an equivalent to an arm bar).

I also want better rules for dropping things on people. As it is it's either too simple to the point of overpowered or it's a ridiculously garbled bit of RAW that just feels like a pain to use for something so simple.

As it is I just have them roll a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, but this doesn't cover all situations and feels too generalized for others.

Jah, better mechanics for the physics of the fall might be nice too (orbital cannons would be a whole lot more fun with a blast radius).

I'd also like to add to my list A replacement for the alignment system. As it is the current alignment system doesn't really work (as evidenced by the many threads about it) and has a tendency to encourage bad role-playing and jerkishness. I'd much rather have a system of adjectives (like Innocent, Ruthless, Lackadaisical, or Tapioca) that actively encourages changes and character growth and possibly allows more than one adjective.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

A whole lot of what I wanted got half-implemented in Pathfinder one way or another. In general, they took one step in the right direction when I would have preferred three.

I want racial classes, with subrace archetypes. Favored Classes, Paragon Classes, and Substitution levels all rolled into one package with 20 levels and a capstone.

I want to play an arcane healer. Bard's almost good enough, but they don't have the ability to remove status effects without jumping through a lot of hoops. The Graft system is nice, but I rather wish that it were more robust; I'm a big fan of the Xixchil. Being able to play an effective evil-aligned healer would be a nice plus.

I want different Sorcerer bloodlines to have different class abilities and spell lists.

I want Clerics of different deities to have different abilities.

I want to be able to multiclass. Specifically, I want to be able to advance my abilities in any combination of two or three classes of my choice and remain a viable character, as was possible in AD&D. I've more or less got the rules for this worked out, but it would be nice to see people other than me using them.

I want immortality. Timeless body sucks. I want to become a god, and continue adventuring as a god, and fight things that can kick my ass as a god. I want to shake the heavens and turn the campaign setting inside out.

[Togo]

Play a Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Rogue with high charisma and have it mean something, instead of just being a waste of points/high rolls.

Use martial, from minature's handbook,a dn then go to town on special moves. I build a good tripper/bullrusher doing that.

See an effective user of solely (Ex) abilities who can hunt down and kill squishy wizards without just getting their ass handed to them instantly or precognitively.

Master of Many Forms not close enough then? They make pretty good wizard killers.

What I'd really like to do is be able to choose to use the Seeker of the Song refrains as move or standard actions, as well as swift actions. Makes the class viable. Never met a DM that would allow me to do it though...

[druid91]

Make walking corpses from the very beginning.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Tank as a viable, valuable, role.

Melee having more tactics to use (sword-and-board as a viable fighter build, parrying as a mechanic that doesn't require a feat, chopping off limbs, delaying strikes for increased power). Don't even mention Tome of Battle-not everyone has access to it, it doesn't fix everything, and some people don't want Per-Encounter Powers in their 3.5.

Magic not being the be-all-end-all.

I'm going to disagree with you here. Anyone with access to the internet has access to the juicier portions of ToB.

The Warblade
The Maneuvers
The Feats

All legal, all free. Sadly, you don't get the Crusader, which is one of the best ways to play a viable tank.

As for things I'd like, I want any class race combination to be adequate at worst. I want Freddy Fluff-lover to be able play in the same in the same campaign as Olivia Optimizer and not feel totally worthless. Yes, I want Olivia to be rewarded for her efforts, but I don't want Freddy to be punished for wanting to try something fun. Lazy Larry should also be able to show up twenty minutes late for character creation, roll up his stats, grab the first three feats he recognizes, and still contribute to the campaign.

What this comes down to is balance. Again, I'm going to bring up ToB. One of the best parts of this book is how narrow the optimization range is. Sure, some maneuvers are better than others, but at the end of the day the swordsage with all Desert Sun maneuvers will be able to participate in the same fight as the Warblade/Crusader lockdown build using Stormguard Warrior, Robilar's Gambit, and Defensive Sweep.

In summary, if I want to play a terrible character, make me work for it.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Make walking corpses from the very beginning.

Necromancer ACF in UA.

[druid91]

Necromancer ACF in UA.

That wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but it is close enough for you to have my thanks.

[Zaq]

Make walking corpses from the very beginning.

Is level 2 early enough? Evil Incarnate. Necrocarnum Circlet bound to the Crown chakra. Check it out.

[Incanur]

I want immortality. Timeless body sucks. I want to become a god, and continue adventuring as a god, and fight things that can kick my ass as a god. I want to shake the heavens and turn the campaign setting inside out.

D&D allows for this, though admittedly without any semblance of game balance beyond what the DM imposes. Perhaps my favorite 3.x moments involved a divine ascension plot, despite the difficulty of epic-level combat by the rules. (I've vowed to never run it again.)

[JaronK]

I want immortality. Timeless body sucks. I want to become a god, and continue adventuring as a god, and fight things that can kick my ass as a god. I want to shake the heavens and turn the campaign setting inside out.

Epic does this already. There's immortality options even below epic (such as a necromancy spell that makes you younger by stealing the lives of others) for mages, and there's even a few classes that just grant immortality of the real kind. Also, there's undeath. And the Ritual of Change to become an outsider. Really, it's quite doable.

JaronK

[No brains]

I don't know how much experiance you have with grappling, but my limited training in jeet kune do leads me to disagree. More importantly, I was complaining about what you can do. The current grapple rules do a terrible job of simulating locks, pins, and the various other nasty techniques to can pull off (I dare you to find me an equivalent to an arm bar).

I'm guessing getting a pin on someone and dealing unarmed strike damage (you only need to win a grapple check, not an attack roll) isn't close enough, it looks like there may be some STR damage in there- but D&D is full of weird stuff that would require broader meanings to some maneuvers. "I want to give it a flying arm-bar!" "It's a griffin." "Cool! Literal flying arm-bar!"

The +4 from improved grapple represents the increased difficulty of someone who knows more than average (took a feat) trapping someone in an arm bar. A +4 is a big bonus at levels 1-4, which is where most 'real' people stand. I hope that was good enough.

One thing I want to see gone is bluff-related feinting. While I get that the use of bluff helps a cha-rogue get in more sneak attacks, feinting is already integral in any attack and is represented in the BAB. Mastery of hitting must entail something more than an ever faster swing speed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

One thing I want to see gone is bluff-related feinting. While I get that the use of bluff helps a cha-rogue get in more sneak attacks, feinting is already integral in any attack and is represented in the BAB. Mastery of hitting must entail something more than an ever faster swing speed.

Oh yeah, one of Drizz't Do'urden's key moves is feinting, but none of the classes he has have bluff as a class skill. The fact that it's a standard action, and that a foe has a choice between BAB+wis or sense motive for their check makes it one of the worst things about 3.5

[AlhazTheRed]

I wish the rules made it impossible for PCs to munchkin, min-max, or metagame.

Asking the impossible, I know.