what needed to be fixed in 3.5?

[skade]

In both the changes of 3e to 3.5, as well as the changes made in the Pathfinder ruleset, there have been some mentions of rules that did not need to be changed, or rules that were changed and did not improve game play. I'd like to hear from others what those rules that should have been fixed in order to improve the game.

The first one that comes to mind is grappling, which i found to be overly complex, and so it was rare that my players ever used it. Pathfinder has a pretty significant change to the way that those combat maneuvers are resolved, and it seems to work well, though getting used to a new combat statistic has baffled some of my players.

High level play is the second concern, both in terms of character creation and combat. I had shortcuts I took to speed things up, but it is common complaint.

Trapfinding as an exclusive class feature is another common complaint.

[der_kluge]

I'm starting to trend towards the idea that AoOs should just be removed entirely. The entire mechanic is "not fun" because it discourages things like grappling, disarming, or other fancy combat maneuvers.

I don't know if 4e retained anything like AoO, but I'm guessing not.

[Ovinomancer]

Originally Posted by der_kluge

I'm starting to trend towards the idea that AoOs should just be removed entirely. The entire mechanic is "not fun" because it discourages things like grappling, disarming, or other fancy combat maneuvers.

I don't know if 4e retained anything like AoO, but I'm guessing not.

It did, but mostly for moving or doing obviously dumb things in combat (like rooting through your backpack). But 4e also made most of the combat maneuvers like grapple, trip, etc, into either powers or feats so you had to 'pay' for them, so that part's a bit moot.

[Underpants Gnome]

Too many spells that do the same thing and access to spells is too easy.

[Festivus]

I never thought of grapple as being difficult to grasp

Dispel magic and countless spell buffing effects. People complain about tracking marks in 4E... try tracking high level spell caster group effects and factor in dispel magic area dispel.

High level play is difficult to run and play. So many spells and effects, many of which do not stack, but how to stack them and be efficient about it? I haven't played high level 4E, but I have a much higher expectation that the focus will be on the story and the fun, and not an excercise in mathematics and organizational skills. E6 addresses some of this, as does limiting your game to core books only... but nobody wants to play core only.

My prediction is that 4E will become just as bloated as 3.5 has become in about 5-7 years, and then the edition wars will heat up once more as the cycle renews.

[Kid Charlemagne]

The main things that I came up with when I did a list were:

Multiple attacks - takes too much time at high levels
Too many resistances/immunities/DR of all kinds - creates some wierd interactions - many devils and demons cannot hurt each other due to their DR's.
Problematic spells - things like web, that stop the game (or the 3.0 Evards Black Tentacles, good god), and things like Raise Dead, which for thematic reason I like to limit.
Wealth by Level guidelines - this is tied in with magic item dependency and the magic item economy.
Magic item dependency
Creature type wonkiness - all undead attack as wizards (BAB=1/2 HD), for example
All or nothing saves - not so much "save or die" but the way you almost always make your good save and almost always fail your poor save.

I could go into detail on each of these.

[Festivus]

I should add that I love 3.5 up to about level 12, after which my hate for the complexity comes in.

[francisca]

Well, I don't really think it is all that busted up, it just isn't my preferred system to DM. Which is to say I really don't like it, but can't really get too picky about the innards, because it's just a damn game to me. However, I'll toss a few things out there for you guys to mock comment on.

Originally Posted by skade

The first one that comes to mind is grappling, which i found to be overly complex, and so it was rare that my players ever used it.

Trapfinding as an exclusive class feature is another common complaint.

Yes on the grappling. It is a PITA. I'm just fine with the trapfinding being exclusive, myself.

Originally Posted by der_kluge

I'm starting to trend towards the idea that AoOs should just be removed entirely.

I'd have to think it through further, but what if the ability to make an AoO was feat, with a couple of prerequisites? Off the top of my head, I'd say +6 BAB and Combat Reflexes to qualify.

Uh, let's see, what else?

I'd roll back to the 3.0 weapon size stuff.

Simplify the skill system. Get rid of skill points. Each class has 3 sorts of skills: Good, Fair, Poor. Good skills get ranks equal to class level, fair equal to half level, no level based bonus for poor skills. All skills get the relevant ability mod. For every point of INT mod, you pick a Good skill and add +2 to rolls. At each level you would get a feat for advancement, you gain another +2 to add to a good skill. This means the classes would lose a bit of customization, as a result of this system, but that's not a big deal IMO. I'm sure other will beg to differ.

Also, consolidate some of the skills. Ditch spot and listen in favor of a combined Perceive/Notice/whatever (just like everyone else..)

[diaglo]

all of it.
my hat of d02 knows no limits.

[francisca]

Originally Posted by Festivus

E6 addresses some of this, as does limiting your game to core books only... but nobody wants to play core only.

My prediction is that 4E will become just as bloated as 3.5 has become in about 5-7 years, and then the edition wars will heat up once more as the cycle renews.

We basically play core, with a tad bit of the DL specific books tossed in.

On the 2nd point, I agree, but think you are off by a few years, 2-4 being my guess.

[Caesar Slaad]

CoDzilla.
Dimplomacy.
The skill list.
Availability of skills.
Flexibility of classes.

[Dacke]

Originally Posted by der_kluge

I don't know if 4e retained anything like AoO, but I'm guessing not.

Only for movement and for making Ranged or Area (that is, AoE powers that take effect at range - Fireball, not Burning Hands) attacks.

[Nerfherder]

Originally Posted by Francisca

We basically play core

Same here. Currently 3e core books + MIC in one game, and 3e core + Thieves' World handbook in another game. There hasn't been any great cry for psionics, ninja or cat-people...

[Festivus]

My 3.5ed players wouldn't be very happy if I ran a core only game, they are total min/maxers and derive a lot of pleasure from building the ultimate archer of doom or whatever. As DM it drives me nuts because that is X more rules to track. Perhaps that is why I have gravitated to 4E so much lately, It's so frikken simple to run. I bet 3.5 core only would be just as simple.

[Acererak Jr.]

To be perfectly frank, look at 4E

4E has solved at least as many, if not more, problems with d20 than it has created for D&D.

[skade]

Originally Posted by howandwhy99

To be perfectly frank, look at 4E

4E has solved at least as many, if not more, problems with d20 than it has created for D&D.

That's not the question I am posing. Whether 4e sufficiently fixes these issues, or whether it does so but causes others is really not what I am fishing for. If you, for instance, were to say that the problems with grappling I have are settled by 4e, tell me how. Otherwise, your statement sounds like the usual 4e/3e crap.

I'm all for seeing how these issues can be resolved, especially changes that do not mean a complete overhaul of the basic system.

My group is playing 4e in three weeks. I am finishing this Pathfinder issue then we will try keep on the shadowfell, so I am not one of the anti 4e crowd, but I enjoy Pathfinder and my own campaign world, so I am staying with 3.5 for a while, especially if I can improve and simplify my prep. There is a level of complexity that I enjoy in characters and play, but 3.5 loses its luster after a point, 15th level for me.

[Joshuas Randallus]

You're going to get a zillion different opinions here.

For every person who says grappling was annoying and took too long, they're be one who says it wasn't hard at all and you just aren't smart or fast enough to get it.

For every person who hates skill points (and would prefer a trained/untrained system like 4e or SWSE), you'll get someone who loves them.

For every person who wants to do away with iterative attacks, there's be someone who adores them because he likes rolling lots of dice.

Anyway, what are you trying to accomplish here?

Or just having a disucssion with no real purpose? (Which is fine, but will cause me to answer differently than if there is some end result in mind.)

[skade]

actual purpose? none.

vague, in the back of my head purpose is to clarify what I want to keep or modify should i decide to stay with 3.5/Pathfinder for my ongoing campaigns.

Here is a more direct question since you brought up iterative attacks, if you could how would you change them? My thought on a simple level was to simply add an additional die of damage at every point you would gain an iterative attack, but I had not decided whether a d6 should be used, or the same die used for the weapon.

[Joshuas Randallus]

I would take the SWSE/4e approach and eliminate iteratives -- they simply cause too many problems (too many dice being rolled, turns take too long, strongly discourages movement in combat). In their place you need a damage bonus of some sort... SWSE uses one tied to your level.

Note that for monsters you may want to preserve their iteratives, but let them do them as a standard action. So they can still move around, but they can also claw/claw/bite you -- probably need to playtest this, though.

[der_kluge]

I think the E6 approach to the game is damned near perfect. The game is a thing of beauty up to about level 6 - level 8 for my tastes. Then it becomes a completely different game after that.

The GM in my current RL game refuses to continue our game past level 15, at which point we'll stop and play something different.

The entire structure and mechanic of the game simply breaks down and becomes too complicated for most folks past about level 12. Which is why 4th edition probably takes such a radical approach to the game. There are some concepts in 4e which I'd really love to implement in 3rd edition, but I'd be afraid it would require far too much work. I think 4th edition would have been damned near perfect if it A) retained all the classes/races from 3rd edition so I could actually convert my game over and B) didn't read like a superhero RPG, and maybe C) the art didn't suck so bad in places.


If you want some simple ways to retain some semblance of sanity with 3rd edition, try these:

Remove sorcerers. Keep wizards. For my money, wizards help retain that Tolkienesque feel far better, and you can keep them under control far more easily. At high level, sorcerers rarely run out of spells, and tend to be boring, one-trick ponies.

Remove, or severely limit AoO. Give fighters improved ____ at various levels of the game to mitigate this. Giving fighters a few bonus feats will not unbalance them.

Remove Druids. 'nuff said.

Remove monks. Ok, that's more a personal choice for me, because I hate monks. But I tend to find that monks are the exception to many rules, and tend to complicate things.

Feel free to pare down the spell list - remove scry/teleport if you don't want them ruining your game. There are a few other high level spells which are good candidates for removal because they're just too complicate (black tentacles and confusion come to mind).

[Dire Wolf]

My biggest problem with 3.XE is the play at higher levels. Too many things to track: bonuses (do they stack, do they not stack), spell durations, damage types, SR, DR, spell effects, etc.

I tried to used Dispel Magic the other night in combat, the area dispel version and after about 15 minutes of trying to figure it out I just gave up and did something else. That drives me batty!

I'd change some of the skills, combine stuff like spot and listen into perception like way 4e does.

I am definitely planning on limiting the stuff that is allowed in the next 3.5 campaign that I run, but I am sticking with 3.5 for the foreseeable future if only because I have shitloads of material for it that I want to use.

[Creamsteak]

With a lot of the problems I've had with any iteration of D&D, I've found 'fixing' is not as effective as just omitting things. After that, what might need 'fixing' is a much smaller list for me.

[Caesar Slaad]

Originally Posted by der_kluge

Feel free to pare down the spell list - remove scry/teleport if you don't want them ruining your game. There are a few other high level spells which are good candidates for removal because they're just too complicate (black tentacles and confusion come to mind).

I think all campaigns should be willing to pare down spell lists or change the way spells work, ESPECIALLY if you are using supplements. New spells tend to directly inflate the power of spellcasters, especially clerics and druids who, under default rules, don't need to go to any extra effort to add new spells to their lists.

[Underpants Gnome]

Originally Posted by Creamsteak

With a lot of the problems I've had with any iteration of D&D, I've found 'fixing' is not as effective as just omitting things. After that, what might need 'fixing' is a much smaller list for me.

Omitting things works for us. Most of the time the PCs are not even aware things are missing. I ran one game up to 39th level and it was highly different from what I hear other people post about their high level games.

[der_kluge]

Originally Posted by Caesar Slaad

I think all campaigns should be willing to pare down spell lists or change the way spells work, ESPECIALLY if you are using supplements. New spells tend to directly inflate the power of spellcasters, especially clerics and druids who, under default rules, don't need to go to any extra effort to add new spells to their lists.

That's another good suggestion - limit the number of supplements you use. For my money, I stick only to the 4 core splat books, and UA. And that's pretty much it. I never bought MIC.

[WayneLigon]

Really, the main thing wrong with 3.5 is that it's D&D I think there are two big-ass core problems that never go away no matter what edition you play: the class/level system and the magic system. And the way damage works. Heh.

Now, the main thing I'd fix in 3.5 would be the spell lists. Make a list of the game breaking spells like Find the Path, Orb of Force, and get rid of them. Then make a list of the spells that break verisimlitude for your world and get rid of them. I'm planning this city campaign where travel is a Big Deal, so I'd get rid of teleport, overland flight, wind walk and a number of other things. If I wanted a Dark Ages game, I'd probably wind up with a list smaller than the OD&D lists or simply make any caster take a level of some non-caster, doesn't-add-to-spell-progression class every other level.

Another vote for 'limit the supplements'. Take an axe to the ones you will use. Do the line-item veto thing with them.

I really do love Arcana Unearthed. Love it to death. I love how you can weave spell slots and break them apart. It really helps add in some versatility to the game. That and the spell templates are two ideas I'd steal right away. I like it's spell selection as well. I like the way it kinda-sorta scales spells.

If I wanted to take things further, the next fix I'd make to the magic system would be to intrioduce spells that scaled in effect to the level you cast them at. That way the number of spells goes way down, since there are like a bajillion 'do x fire damage to target plus [some other effect]' spells.

[Mistwell]

The turning mechanic sucks ass.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by skade

That's not the question I am posing. Whether 4e sufficiently fixes these issues, or whether it does so but causes others is really not what I am fishing for. If you, for instance, were to say that the problems with grappling I have are settled by 4e, tell me how. Otherwise, your statement sounds like the usual 4e/3e crap.

I'm all for seeing how these issues can be resolved, especially changes that do not mean a complete overhaul of the basic system.

My group is playing 4e in three weeks. I am finishing this Pathfinder issue then we will try keep on the shadowfell, so I am not one of the anti 4e crowd, but I enjoy Pathfinder and my own campaign world, so I am staying with 3.5 for a while, especially if I can improve and simplify my prep. There is a level of complexity that I enjoy in characters and play, but 3.5 loses its luster after a point, 15th level for me.

Hmm - there are plenty of rules in 4e that *are* able to be backfit into 3.5.

Skills - pared down list, trained or untrained. No more keeping track of skills.

d20 + 1/2 level as the base mechanic. Helps solve skill rolls, and when combined with spell DCs and saves, it simplifies that as well. Fort/Ref/Will are based on 10 + 1/2 level + attribute modifier (and any bonuses from items, etc.) The base progression for saves goes away, but I'd keep any deltas between a core class and prestige class (i.e. if you got a +1 to Reflex from Ranger but +2 to Reflex due to a prestige class, just add +1 to the save). Likewise, spell "DCs" become d20 + 1/2 level + attribute modifier (and bonuses). The spellcaster rolls an "attack" against the relevant save rather than the defender attempting to roll to save. Makes it much more likely that there are no "all or nothing" saves. Also equalizes "save or die" vs. "attack roll" spells - they are all attack rolls.

Opportunity Attacks as per 4e - much simpler.

Movement/concealment/cover as per 4e - much simpler.

Regress a bit - the only classes that have iterative attacks are fighter-types, and then, 1, 3/2, 2/1 only.

[Pants]

My problems with 3.5:
High Level Play (Level 12-13+) - Too complicated to run, actually most of my problems stem from high level play. Plus, statting up high level opponents can really suck sometimes.
Too Many Buffs - Dispel Magic becomes a bitch
Iterative Attacks - Takes too long to calculate, I'm thinking of fixing it by only having feats that grant an occasional additional attack and granting a dmg bonus to attacks equal to the character's BAB
Grapple - Grapple takes too long and at some point, becomes a near-death sentence for some characters if they get grappled
Save Or Die - Too many of them and they're not fun. I'd much rather have a character get cut down in a heroically bloody battle rather than have some old, pointy-hatted douchebag point a finger and say "Lose a level, dick!" Fuck that shit. Other spells that entirely remove a character from play for extended periods of time also suck hard
Not Enough Skills - Some classes don't get entirely enough skill points to do anything with them. Poor Mr. Fighter can barely tie his shoes!
Not Enough Feats - The average, human non-fighter gets 7 feats over the course of his career, not enough in my book.
Magic Item Dependency - I'd rather a majority of the character's power come from the character rather than what pair of boots he's wearing.
Monsters - After spending some time making homebrewed monsters, I've come to dislike the fact that a monster's statistics come frome what type it is rather than what role it fills in a game. 4e has the right idea with how monsters work.

That's my laundry list of stuff I don't like. Granted, I still really enjoy 3e, but after running a high level game for almost a year, I've gotten tired with some of its eccentricities.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Originally Posted by Pants

My problems with 3.5:
High Level Play (Level 12-13+) - Too complicated to run, actually most of my problems stem from high level play. Plus, statting up high level opponents can really suck sometimes.

All of the below things tie into each other to make high-level play rough. I've got a lot of the same issues, so I'll toss out what I'm considering - I'm running a 12th level game that's planned to go to 20th, so I've been giving this a lot of thought.

Originally Posted by Pants

Too Many Buffs - Dispel Magic becomes a bitch
Iterative Attacks - Takes too long to calculate, I'm thinking of fixing it by only having feats that grant an occasional additional attack and granting a dmg bonus to attacks equal to the character's BAB.

Not Enough Feats - The average, human non-fighter gets 7 feats over the course of his career, not enough in my book.

Magic Item Dependency - I'd rather a majority of the character's power come from the character rather than what pair of boots he's wearing.

These all tie together, in my mind, and for future games I think I will up the number of feats, but take away most buffs (certainly the Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace type ones), and limit magic items in exchange. Hopefully that will even out.

Originally Posted by Pants

Grapple - Grapple takes too long and at some point, becomes a near-death sentence for some characters if they get grappled

I'm strongly considering taking the size modifier out of the grapple equation. I can make a case for a bigger creature being clumsy enough that it can't bring its strength to bear as much as it does - a smaller creature can slip out of a larger creature's grasp. Otherwise, its like you said; a death sentence unless you're really good at grappling or escaping.

Originally Posted by Pants

Save Or Die - Too many of them and they're not fun. I'd much rather have a character get cut down in a heroically bloody battle rather than have some old, pointy-hatted douchebag point a finger and say "Lose a level, dick!" Fuck that shit. Other spells that entirely remove a character from play for extended periods of time also suck hard

I'm probably going to eliminate these; I already never give them to NPC's, so the only way a PC wizard can find one is to pick one as one of the two spells he gets each level.

Originally Posted by Pants

Not Enough Skills - Some classes don't get entirely enough skill points to do anything with them. Poor Mr. Fighter can barely tie his shoes!

I'm giving consideration to upping the 2 skill point per level classes to 4 per level. For NPC's, I'm going with the Unearthed Arcana simplified skill system, mixed with the 4E class/cross-trained system, so I'll pick X skills for an NPC and he'll have max ranks in those skills, and 1/2 level +stat bonus in all cross-class skills.

Also giving thought to making wizards and sorcerors a d6 HP per level.

Originally Posted by Pants

Monsters - After spending some time making homebrewed monsters, I've come to dislike the fact that a monster's statistics come frome what type it is rather than what role it fills in a game. 4e has the right idea with how monsters work.

Here's my plan on this - creating templates for roles. For example, a soldier template might give a creature a full BAB progression rather than what they ordinarily have (fey having 1/2 per HD, same with undead, etc.). This has the added advantage of being a really easy fix to apply in E-Tools, which I use for NPC generation. I haven't given thought to what other roles would require templates, and what that would entail.