D&D 3E/3.5 Core 3.5 Upgrade: Multiclassing & Balance

[neceros]

Well, I've posted this in various threads, but I want to get information on it specifically, and it kept getting bumped around. So, I'll repost it.

I'm not a writer. I give you a fair disclaimer that what you see below has not been edited to much any great extent, and I have a chaotic mind. It's hard for me to put my thoughts down on paper.

Below you'll find some revisions to the core 3.5 system. These changes, so far as I notice, do not remove backwards compatibility. There may be instances where you will have to alter some aspects to fit it better with these new rules. For instance, monsters may need to be altered to fit. Then again, add a couple more hitpoints to each monster and call it good.

1. Save DCs
Any attack that opposes a saving throw is now calculated thus, including powers, spells and abilities: 10 + Half Caster level + Ability bonus.

2. Armor Class
Characters now gain half their Character Level as an unnamed bonus to their armor class.

3. Magic Items

• Enhancement bonus to armor class may only be applied to armor, and not to rings, bracers, etc. Cloth (Robes, shirts) may be enchanted like normal armor, but must fulfill all other requirements per normal (must be masterwork, etc).
• Miscellaneous magic items that provide a bonus to AC now provide a maximum +1 to AC (ie, ring of protection cannot exceed +1).
• Implements may be enchanted to benefit casters in their spell save DCs and bonuses to hit when using spells. These foci must be enchanted using the same rules for enchanting weapons, with the same enhancement bonuses applying to the attacks and damages of the user's spells. Example: A wizard enchants a staff with a +2 enhancement. His or her staff now gives an additional +2 item bonus to all his or her spell save dcs. This staff costs 8,000 gold, as is normal for a +2 weapon. Enhancements may apply to only one of either save dcs or bonus to attack with spells, but not both.

4. Death Effects
All spells and abilities that have an instant death effect (save or die) are removed. In exchange, those abilities may stun or deal damage depending on a case by case circumstance.

Alternatively, someone suggested that death effects be replaced with rules similar to the Death Domain, from 3.5 PHB special ability.

5. Caster Levels (Manifester Levels)
Caster level, spells know, and spells per level for spell casting classes are given a multiclass bonus equal to half the value of all classes not already giving you caster levels for that particular class. This multiclass bonus may not exceed the class level providing the original caster level. This bonus works in the same way a "+1 arcane/divine caster level" would work from prestige classes. This bonus does not give you any other benefits that you might acquire from leveling in your normal caster level class, including class abilities, only spells, spells known and caster levels. Below are examples.

• 4 Wizard / 10 Fighter: Wizard gains +4 to caster level from Fighter class. The Fighter actually gives a +5, but this bonus is limited because it may not exceed the Wizard class level of 4.
• 5 Cleric / 4 Druid: Gain +2 bonus for both the druid and cleric caster levels from the opposite classes. Druid now has a CL or 6, and Cleric has a 7, on a 9th level character.

6. Saving Throws
All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.

7. Iterative Attacks
When indicated to get another attack from your class table, you gain the attack as normal per your BAB score. However, instead of the -5 to attack, the character receives a -2 penalty per attack starting with the second attack. For example, a 16 level Fighter has a BAB of 16, as his table indicates he has four attacks: +16/+11/+6/+1. Instead of the normal -5 down the line, instead replace that with a -2, so it would be as follows: +16/+14/+12/+10. You still follow your table to determine how many attacks you get, but not the modifier to said rolls.

 

[neceros]

Bump.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Bump.

You've posted it in 3 threads that I have seen and had no response. So since you ask so persistently, I will comment.

I could quibble with parts of it, and agree with parts of it, but for the most part it speaks for itself and it is unremarkable. There is nothing in what you have posted that has not been seen here before, many times, and nothing that strikes me as particularly innovative.

But neither is there anything particularly objectionable about it.

In short, it looks like you have some decent, workable house rules, but I think you will continue to be disappointed if you are looking to be hailed as the savior of 3e.

 

[neceros]

You've posted it in 3 threads that I have seen and had no response. So since you ask so persistently, I will comment.

I could quibble with parts of it, and agree with parts of it, but for the most part it speaks for itself and it is unremarkable. There is nothing in what you have posted that has not been seen here before, many times, and nothing that strikes me as particularly innovative.

But neither is there anything particularly objectionable about it.

In short, it looks like you have some decent, workable house rules, but I think you will continue to be disappointed if you are looking to be hailed as the savior of 3e.

That's what I wanted! Thanks, Wulf.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's what I wanted! Thanks, Wulf.

Whew! I am glad you took that in the spirit it was intended.

 

[Aluvial]

Below you'll find some revisions to the core 3.5 system. These changes, so far as I notice, do not remove backwards compatibility. There may be instances where you will have to alter some aspects to fit it better with these new rules. For instance, monsters may need to be altered to fit. Then again, add a couple more hitpoints to each monster and call it good.

1. Save DCs
Any attack that opposes a saving throw is now calculated thus, including powers, spells and abilities: 10 + Half Caster level + Ability bonus.

This could work if you really wanted it too, but it is not much different then the existing system. A 14th level caster, say Wizard, who can cast 7th level spells has a DC of 10+7+Int mod. Your system is exactly the same number. The only problem with your system is that it does not account for spell level at all. Your 14th level caster will have the same DC's for a 1st level spell as they would for their 7th level spells. I really don't think that's right.

2. Armor Class

Characters now gain half their Character Level as an unnamed bonus to their armor class.

I have huge problem with this. This completely screws up the way BAB and AC work. Bad idea here.

3. Magic Items

• Enhancement bonus to armor class may only be applied to armor, and not to rings, bracers, etc. Cloth (Robes, shirts) may be enchanted like normal armor, but must fulfill all other requirements per normal (must be masterwork, etc).
• Miscellaneous magic items that provide a bonus to AC now provide a maximum +1 to AC (ie, ring of protection cannot exceed +1).
• Implements may be enchanted to benefit casters in their spell save DCs and bonuses to hit when using spells. These foci must be enchanted using the same rules for enchanting weapons, with the same enhancement bonuses applying to the attacks and damages of the user's spells. Example: A wizard enchants a staff with a +2 enhancement. His or her staff now gives an additional +2 item bonus to all his or her spell save dcs. This staff costs 8,000 gold, as is normal for a +2 weapon. Enhancements may apply to only one of either save dcs or bonus to attack with spells, but not both.

So you have changed tons of the already workable magical items to serve your new AC idea... This is just one of the problems with drastically changing one of the core rules of a system. Once you do so, the ripple effect on the other rules becomes trouble. Think about all of the spells that allow for AC bonues....

4. Death Effects

All spells and abilities that have an instant death effect (save or die) are removed. In exchange, those abilities may stun or deal damage depending on a case by case circumstance.

Alternatively, someone suggested that death effects be replaced with rules similar to the Death Domain, from 3.5 PHB special ability.

I suppose if you want to do this, then you have that option. This could be a house rule... but then again, I like death effects.

5. Caster Levels (Manifester Levels)

Caster level, spells know, and spells per level for spell casting classes are given a multiclass bonus equal to half the value of all classes not already giving you caster levels for that particular class. This multiclass bonus may not exceed the class level providing the original caster level. This bonus works in the same way a "+1 arcane/divine caster level" would work from prestige classes. This bonus does not give you any other benefits that you might acquire from leveling in your normal caster level class, including class abilities, only spells, spells known and caster levels. Below are examples.

• 4 Wizard / 10 Fighter: Wizard gains +4 to caster level from Fighter class. The Fighter actually gives a +5, but this bonus is limited because it may not exceed the Wizard class level of 4.
• 5 Cleric / 4 Druid: Gain +2 bonus for both the druid and cleric caster levels from the opposite classes. Druid now has a CL or 6, and Cleric has a 7, on a 9th level character.

This is not a good idea. Again, you are fooling around with a system that is designed on a specific mechanic. If you change the mechanic, then you are fooling around with the other game effects... Take a 8th level Wiz/8th lvl Fighter. In your system, the caster level of the Wizard is 12. So, you get both the Fighter BAB and saves, bonus feats + the Wizard goes up.... I'd multiclass everytime.... who wouldn't. And then you've outmatched the appropriate monsters for those characters... and it continues to ripple out.... like the magical items a character can create based on level, defeating SR, Dispel Magic, etc.

6. Saving Throws

All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.

Again, this could work, but then again, it fools around with the a few of the benefits of multiclassing. If you were trying to defeat that, this would work. The problems that I see are in recalculating every save for monsters, but you would get used to it quickly if you were constantly converting.

7. Iterative Attacks

When indicated to get another attack from your class table, you gain the attack as normal per your BAB score. However, instead of the -5 to attack, the character receives a -2 penalty per attack starting with the second attack. For example, a 16 level Fighter has a BAB of 16, as his table indicates he has four attacks: +16/+11/+6/+1. Instead of the normal -5 down the line, instead replace that with a -2, so it would be as follows: +16/+14/+12/+10. You still follow your table to determine how many attacks you get, but not the modifier to said rolls.

I don't know why you would do this... Why not -3, or -1... -2 seems odd. Now, if you made it a feat for a specific weapon, say with Fighter's Weapon Specialization as a prereq, then I could see it. Of course, with you new AC system, you may need these attack changes.

Overall, I hope that you can see that when you change one of the core mechanics in a game, that the trouble you cause all other rules integrated with that rule also have to change. You may think that you are fixing one problem, and might be, but then you are causing yourself 10 others... I don't think changing one thing, that you may have a problem with helps you with your issue because it changes so many other aspects of the game. While you have tried to address this, I wonder how your game would play. Remember, the 3.5 system was tried and playtested by thousands.... I didn't agree with every change in the rules, or even in all of the concepts, but it does fix many of the problems that I had with previous editions; i.e., it clarifies many of the rules for those who need such clarification.

Aluvial

 

[timbannock]

As for the "remove death effects" rule, I like the theory of this. Save or die is silly to me, and possibly the worst part of 3.5E.

A different way of handling it might be to take a page from 4E and play around with it. For instance, you could change all save-or-die effects to this:

- Keep the save DC the same.
- If the PC saves, their all set.
- If the PC fails the save, they are dazed. Next round, they save again at the beginning of their turn.
- If they succeed on this second save, they are fine. If they fail, they are stunned (dazed, but worse). Next round, they make a third save.
- If they succeed on the third save, they are fine. If they fail, they go unconscious and are at 0 hp (and thus helpless). They save again next round.
- If they succeed on this final save, they are simply unconscious at 0 hp until healed. If they fail, they are dead.

Basically, I just took the "3 death saves and you're out" rule from 4E and translated it into an ever-worsening effect using 3E mechanics. The character isn't immediately dead, and frankly, has several chances to get out of it (but still also has several chances of losing actions and getting wailed on). The possibility of death is still there, but not nearly as likely.

If you don't like having PCs lose actions (even potentially) -- which I personally hate doing to Players -- you could just go with the same idea but instead of "dazed -> stunned -> unconscious -> dead" you could go "fatigued -> exhausted -> unconscious -> dead" or take out unconscious...or whatever.

Anyway, just a thought. This way you have a clear rule to replace the save-or-die without worrying about adjudicating a "case-by-case" basis as you said.

Beyond that, listen to Alluvial...good points there about changing a fundamental mechanic.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

deleted

 

[neceros]

This could work if you really wanted it too, but it is not much different then the existing system. A 14th level caster, say Wizard, who can cast 7th level spells has a DC of 10+7+Int mod. Your system is exactly the same number. The only problem with your system is that it does not account for spell level at all. Your 14th level caster will have the same DC's for a 1st level spell as they would for their 7th level spells. I really don't think that's right.

That's not a problem: That's the intent. Why wouldn't a wizard make his spells harder to resist? Do you think he really can't figure out how to increase the difficulty of a lower level spell and would just let it sit there for his whole career?

I have huge problem with this. This completely screws up the way BAB and AC work. Bad idea here.

Again, the intent. AC is extremely wacky, and almost all of it comes with gear. That used to work, but now we can see the alternatives. Armor Class is now part of the inherent character, and the AC from items has been taken away almost entirely. It's balanced, just not the way you're used to.

So you have changed tons of the already workable magical items to serve your new AC idea... This is just one of the problems with drastically changing one of the core rules of a system. Once you do so, the ripple effect on the other rules becomes trouble. Think about all of the spells that allow for AC bonues....

I have. Wizards can't wear armor. They should get spells to off set that.

I suppose if you want to do this, then you have that option. This could be a house rule... but then again, I like death effects.

To each their own.

This is not a good idea. Again, you are fooling around with a system that is designed on a specific mechanic. If you change the mechanic, then you are fooling around with the other game effects... Take a 8th level Wiz/8th lvl Fighter. In your system, the caster level of the Wizard is 12. So, you get both the Fighter BAB and saves, bonus feats + the Wizard goes up.... I'd multiclass everytime.... who wouldn't. And then you've outmatched the appropriate monsters for those characters... and it continues to ripple out.... like the magical items a character can create based on level, defeating SR, Dispel Magic, etc.

Yep, being a wizard is doable, now! Multiclassing is gimped by Prestige classes. A prestige class should never help you achieve what multiclassing should have done. Prestige classes are so bonkers and fray all over the place, that they become too powerful. You should not have to take Eldritch Knight, but just a normal Fighter/Wizard. It's balanced: A normal wizard will be way more powerful. This lack of power is made up for in Fighter stuff, yet the fighter will be better at it then the mixer. However, you won't be dead weight and uesless.

Again, this could work, but then again, it fools around with the a few of the benefits of multiclassing. If you were trying to defeat that, this would work. The problems that I see are in recalculating every save for monsters, but you would get used to it quickly if you were constantly converting.

This is to help with multiclassing bonus stacking and weird math giving you unpredictable saves and poor saves (Or really good ones.) Plus, now Save DCs are reliable and won't suddenly fail you or hinder you because your opponent has just the right mix of... whatever.

I don't know why you would do this... Why not -3, or -1... -2 seems odd. Now, if you made it a feat for a specific weapon, say with Fighter's Weapon Specialization as a prereq, then I could see it. Of course, with you new AC system, you may need these attack changes.

As it stands, Iterative attacks only really net you one or two extra attacks. How many times have you swung and mixed on your last few attacks? They are worthless.This game is balanced on BAB vs AC and a -2 attack is more than penalty enough to give the first attacks merit, but not penalty enough to make them worthless. Fighters need it.[/QUOTE]
Of course I see the balance issues and the "Ripple" effect. I've spent 8 years learning this system and I see it's weaknesses. Fourth Edition has enabled us to understand the intent behind the math, thus these rules are much more easily issued now, than before.

 

[Sylrae]

Soem of those are the same as houserules I use.

why do you add half character level to ac? and why the reduction of magic armor? is it just to reduce gear dependency?

Also, how are your save DCs different than standard? that seems to be the usual way it works, with the spell level added for spells.