What kind of homebrewed rules could I use in order to reduce the tier gap between spellcasters and physical fighters in DnD 3.5?
Put more limitations to magic? Give or improve class features for fighters, monks, etc.? Introduce something like unbreakable anti-magic fields or something like a moon cycle system that weakens or disable magic powers on new moon or something like that? I'd rather buff weak options rather than nerf or ban overpowered ones, I don't want to give too many restrictions to people who choose to play wizard or cleric and I'd rather let players roll a core fighter or monk rather than feel forced to use Tome of Battle.
half all damage spells do, remove all save or die spells. Cut monster life total in hald but keep their damage the same so martials are the only ones who can tank them while being able to murder more effectively.
No need to get into the guts of the system.
Magic is rare, tough to learn, and greatly feared.
You wanna be a mage? Be 40+ years old, learn at a wizarding tower that keeps tabs on you, and deal with everyone suddenly focusing on you the second sparkles come flying out of your hands. Mechanically I just get rid of the material componants and just charge them money for each cast by spell level. Simplifies it and encourages them to USE THEIR FUCKING DOWNTIME.
>>46328183
The best homebrewed rule is to toss 3.5 in the dustbin and use any other version of D&D or play with a system like Barbarians of Lemuria
>>46328183
>What kind of homebrewed rules could I use in order to reduce the tier gap between spellcasters and physical fighters in DnD 3.5?
None, whatsoever.
Striving for balance in an RPG is a travesty. RPGs should never be balanced. They should resemble fantasy, not MMOs.
3.5 is trash, but fuck homebrew, use the Tome of Battle. It's one of the few truly great 3.5 supplements. Any concept you could make as a corebook martial will work better as a ToB class. That's the entire point.
>>46328393
Fuck you you ignorant dipshit.
Balance is important in cooperative games, especially narrative focused ones. Because even if it's okay in a book or a film for one character to be a useless tagalong while the hero solves every problem, that is utter bullshit in RPGs. Everyone should feel able to contribute to their success and to influence the events of the game. That's why balance matters.
>>46328341
>>46328396
Thank you for being shitheads and of no help whatsoever.
Ban the T2+ casters. If you want magic, you have to be one of the specialists like Beguiler or Warmage. Classes with unlimited access to all forms of magic are strictly prohibited.
>>46328183
>I'd rather buff weak options rather than nerf or ban overpowered ones
But that is exactly what you should do. 3.5 magic is retarded and far beyond the power level of most of the fiction DnD is supposedly inspired by. There are outright GODS in myth and legend who are not capable of the shit high level 3.5 wizards are.
>>46328183
play pathfinder and use Path of War
>>46328457
>HOW DO I TURN MY SUV INTO A SPORTSCAR
>You don't, just buy a sportscar
>HURR WHY YOU NO HELP
3.X causes brain damage.
>>46328625
You seem mad.
>>46328643
You seem dumb.
>>46328643
It is a good point, though. Why do you want to keep a system you need to house rule the fuck out of to make playable instead of just getting a system that does what you want out of the box? Is it just a thought experiment?
>>46328708
Maybe because I want to play that specific system because I enjoy some of its features?
>>46328708
Sunk cost fallacy. People are so invested in 3.PF they will constantly find excuses to not step beyond their comfort zone.
>>46328183
Nothing really.
The easiest way to enforce balance is to not let the wizard take short rests all the time. That way they will have to choose their spells wisely and not just spam them.
If you're in a dungeon, no resting, something will kill or capture you if they find you sleeping in their domain.
If you are traveling, try and limit the amount of times they are able to rest.
>>46328726
So why not find a system that has the features you enjoy without the ones you hate?
Seriously, what is it that 3.X does so well that nothing else can do?
>>46328726
What features of 3.5 do you like? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that another system has them and probably does them better.
Unless it's "m-muh sourcebooks" in which case you're too far gone.
>>46328457
>ToB isn't valid advice when wanting to help martials
3.x, kids. Not even once.
Why do editionwarfags(most likely 5kiddies), gurpsfags and other assorted hipsters have to ruin any single 3.5/PF thread?
>>46328802
Not only can you literally not do shit about a medium level wizard resting if he wants to rest short of fudging his spells...
Not only wizards running out of spells means that everybody else is also out of resources (nevermind that a properly built mid-level wizard has enough spells to last him for more than 24 hours of encounters, at which point everyone starts getting fatigue stuff anyway)...
But you did nothing to help the martial actually succeed in its duties. Now he has to fight things without haste, flight, whatever other buffs the wizard usually bestows him/debuffed enemies, etc.
In other words, you think you only screwed over the wizard, but you actually screwed everyone in the party, by removing the most important piece from their repertoire that can actually help deal with level appropriate encounters.
The fixes I've used have been
>letting non-full casters gestalt (with the additional limit that one half of your gestalt has to be something purely flavorful, so suddenly useless classes that you wish you could play like gladiator or soul knife are viable). >flesh out feat progression in classes like ranger, so they keep getting feats to support their fighting style rather than getting nothing in their latter levels (also allowing alternate fighting style progressions from dragon mag or letting them just pick feat chain/tree for themselves).
>Druids progress their animal like rangers, rangers get progression.
>I made leadership and landlord fighter only feats.
>If you're playing a game where you expect players to manage their resources, enforce spell components. No eschew materials or pouches or anything like that.
Do allow ToB as an option. The gestalt fix lets players have ToB toys while still being able to get flavorful monk stuff, for instance.
>>46328919
If you want hugs and kisses, go to PFG, I can't remember the last time it was edition war trolled.
Or the paizoboards, even the fucking mention of 4e gets deleted there as edition war baiting.
>>46328919
The question is "how do I fix a serious and intrinsic problem with 3.X". "Don't waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel and use a system that doesn't have this problem" may not be the answer you want, but it is a valid answer.
>>46328919
Because the system is fundamentally busted, and when someone points that fact out the fans plug their ears and shout "LALALA CAN"T HEAR YOOOOUU!"
It's hard to ruin a thread that was already ruined in the first place by its very concept.
>>46328956
>Wizard is too OP, how nerf?
>Limit his spell usage.
>But how will wizard use all his spells then!? Wizard still OP.
Magic is a solution, but should never be the solution to everything.
Build your encounters around the mundane characters, the wizards will find a clever way to use magic and beat the encounter. It's your job as DM to make sure they don't trivialize the game.
>>46328919
Because they ask for NERF CASTER PLEASE without understanding that the problems lay not strictly in class design but in fundamental, system-basis design that requires significant work from the ground up. You cannot put a band aid on 3.x, which is something you'd understand if you played literally any other game that functions the way it tells you it does.
>>46328183
Here's a complex piece of magic nerfing. It only works in longer duration games.
A) use spell points from unearthed arcana
B) Every spell cast ages you one week per spell level
C) casters gain the overchannel bonus feat, can gain +5 effective caster level if they burn a year of their life per spell level
D) spellcasting can be slowed to a full round action (or double casting time if it's already a full round action) to only cost a day
E)defiling magic exists, and allows a caster to avoid aging
This allows you to have careful PCs and reckless NPCs. You should come up with some sort of arcane ghoul. Something which drains magic with a touch, and can cast all the spells it knew in lifesometimes for free, like the meta mind.
This way, you're not stopping mages from doing their crazy "solve every problem thing," but on their character sheet is "effective age."
That ticking clock will make humans hate being mages, but some aspirants will dare. High level Druids become more powerful because (I believe) they stop aging at some point, yeah?
>>46328183
1) Remove magic item crafting. If it's essential to your game, add it back in based on skills and things that anyone can do. Control what kind of magic items drop in a game. Most loot should be for fighter/rogue types.
2) Make it impossible to take a 5' step when you're threatened by someone/something with a higher BAB.
3) Make casting on the defensive a full-round action or ban it. All damage taken in a round is cumulative for 1 harder concentration check.
4) Remove the +2 initial save bonus for every base class beyond the first and for every prestige class beyond the first.
5) Grant monks fighter BAB and their dimension door can be used as a move action.
6) Require stacking DC spellcraft checks for adding multiple buffs to a single target. This will greatly simplify combat.
I love 3.5 and ran successful games with advanced players using rules like these (and more that I forget) but honestly you're better off playing 2e or 5e.
Stop being little bitches. Just because 3.5 is a trash system doesn't mean it can't be fun. I enjoy making and playing interesting characters in it because there are so many options. It's like trying to solve really complex puzzle. I do admit by playing janky tier 3 or 4 things and then hyperoptimizing them so that their useful, and not everyone wants to play that way. I can't say that my janky VoP natural attacks build isn't fun, but it's definitely cheesed as fuck. The thing is, it's VoP, so cheesed as fuck puts it just barely in the usable range, so who cares?
>>46328476
I've always wanted to do this. It's just that I figure we'd need to round out the caster list
>>summoner from pathfinder
>>some sort of abjurer/diviner, like a gatemage (maybe using a bardic music like mechanic as spell craft checks?)
>artificer as transmuter
>>46329119
If you beat all your encounters so that the fighter can handle them without the wizard, the wizard will absolutely steamroll them with a single spell.
This is less true at low levels, admittedly, which is why e6 is a thing.
>>46329169
So in other words you're a MTG shitbrewer who got tired of being stomped so you use 3.X as you special snowflake hugbox.
>>46328919
>not accepting bad game design makes you a hipster
What a sad argument.
>>46329143
That requires players who are capable of roleplaying the idea of being horrified by the idea of burning their lives for power. And won't just play elves or immortal races.
>>46329119
That's exactly the issue. It isn't just "wizards can do everything!" it's also "fighters can't deal with level appropriate shit without the help of a fuckload of magic".
And if you somehow reel in the fighting potential of the wizard and like, hand the fighter a Scrooge McDuck vault of magic items, one of them will still be able to make his own demiplane and bind demons, make wishes that the universe is forced to grant, etc. while the other one, at best, can swing a sword really fucking hard.
>>46329169
You've pointed out the issue in your own post. Not everyone wants to play like that. Some people don't want to dig through splatbooks and feat lists and power options just so they can get something semi-alright.
If a system requires you to optimize your character just so you can stay relevant in the party, it's not a well-built system. You can still enjoy it, but you really shouldn't be surprised when other people have complaints about how it works.
>because there are so many options!
That just makes it sound like a really shitty version of GURPS.
>>46329210
Not sure what the connection to MTG is. Are you sure you're not just mad that I'm having badwrongfun?
>>46328476
>>46329194
What about allowing Wizards, Sorcerers, etc. as well, but they are restricted to much fewer schools? Specialist Wizards can only cast from their school of choice, Generalist Wizards from 3 and Sorcerers can only learn spells from 3 pre-selected schools.
Cleric and Druids start working like Wizards and instead of knowing all the spells in their list they can learn a limited number and have fewer uses to limit their CoDzilla tendencies.
Also Wizards, Clerics and Druid can prepare their spells only once per-day, making gathering intel a necessity and Divination a useful choice.
First off: don't come here, go to a forum friendlier to 3.5 like Giant in the Playground or MinMaxBoards. They've hashed around this question a number of times, and have many answers to this question for you to choose from.
Now, if you want a direct answer to this question: do you have anything against Tome of Battle, or was your previous reply more aimed at the "don't homebrew" line? Tome of Battle is actually pretty good advice. You can still homebrew a little bit, to make the classes more generic, but the mechanics are fun and sound. What I do, for example, is merge the Swordsage and Warblade into one class. Manoeuvres and stances as Swordsage, except chosen from any list. Full BAB, 6+int skill points, all saves good, but losing all other class features except Dual Boost, Stance Mastery, Sense Magic, and Weapon Aptitude. This makes for a good, generic, open martial character with lots of options.
If you do not want Tome of Battle, then I cannot really help you, as you play a very different 3.5 than I play.
>>46329210
Woah, daddy issues. Sounds like you're compensating for something by being a spike. Don't give people who are good at the game a bad name by bringing your shit into it.
>>46329308
Fight ruining spells are disproportionately weighted on conjuration and transformation, so that barely fixes anything. Which you would know if you actually understood why casters are strong.
Ban core, allow psionics (weaker and easier to manage than W/C/D) and allow TOB (Stronger than F/B/R).
Houserule that enemies that attack in hordes have collective hitpoints. 20 5HP goblins? 100 HP, 5HP to the goblin, 10 damage kills two gobbos.
Houserule that crits do not need to be confirmed. Any feats that improve confirm rolls add the bonus to damage instead.
>>46329255
Fully immortal races can't utilize it obviously. Elves would take a strange place in elven society, because while they're invariably more powerful, Warriors live much longer lives. A brash elvish wizard might be lucky to reach 150.
The thing about the mod is that it scales as power increases. A level 4 wizard can cast five level two spells per day (and that's it), which is two months of aging. A level eleven wizard with 22 intelligence can cast level 6 spells 17 times per day. That's 3 years of aging.
Like I said, this only works on long term games
One way to do it is to roll for the casters maximum age during character creation and have a few d10s counting down the weeks left in their life
>>46328457
Fuck off back to ribbit or the charop forums then if you don't like it, faggot.
>>46329474
Funny because the only one sperging here are anti-3.5fags being mad that someone tried to discuss what they dislike (How dare him!)
>>46329411
>Fully immortal races can't utilize it obviously.
The only obvious reason I'm seeing here is that the DM is implementing a hasty patch to his flawed homebrew rules.
And it is deeply flawed. No one's going to touch a caster with a 10 foot pole with those rules in place, and it effects the PCs much more than the NPCs.
>>46329612
Or they'll play the same as always and roll new characters each time the old one keels over.
>>46328183
>I'd rather let players roll a core fighter or monk rather than feel forced to use Tome of Battle.
Why? I mean, you could just rename Warblade and Swordsage into Fighter and Monk, modify them slightly to be a bit more like Fighter and Monk (as in, trade those int- and wis- based class features for bonus feats and the like). What is so special about the core Fighter and Monk that you want to keep them around?
>>46329519
>how do I drive a screw with a hammer?
>don't, use a screwdriver
>wooooooooow thanks for nothing
Some of us have been repeating ourselves for a decade. Good manners ran thin years ago.
>>46328183
Try Fantasy Craft.
It's 3.5, except done right.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jrz4i33jcpjqkqr/Fantasy_Craft_%282nd_printing%29.pdf?dl=1
Guys, OP is gone, we can stop replying to him now.
>>46330412
I'm still here.
>>46329119
Did you miss the memo about not being able to stop any decent wizard resting most of the time? Sure rope trick can be countered by enemies with see invis, but there's still a problem unless the entire dungeon is full to the brim with 'em wandering around. Besides, you also missed the point that wizards in general have enough spells to get them through an average adventuring day. Push the party past that and everyone suffers, the frontliners with HP and the wizard with spells alike. Your solution is like finding a sparking toaster in your house, and deciding the best solution is to disconnect your house from the power supply.
>>46330494
Ah. Well, you aren't replying to anybody, even those who are pro-3.5, so it was hard to tell.
Here's my question, to help with your question: what exactly makes you dislike using Tome of Battle mechanics? Would it be okay if I recommended just straight-up giving the Fighter and Monk classes manoeuvres? If no, why not?
Because right now, you are asking for a seeming contradiction: you don't want to put many restrictions on wizards and clerics, you don't want to use better classes than the Fighter and Monk classes, and yet you want to reduce the tier gap. Fighter sucks specifically because it depends on feats as its sole mechanic, Monks suck because they are inconsistent messes of mechanics that don't work well together. Which elements of the Fighter and Monk classes do you specifically want to keep? What is it specifically that you do not want to change about them?
In 1st ed, classes had different xp requirements.
The thief would be level 3 about when the mage turned 2nd level.
Leave everything alone except adjust xp needed to advance levels. Then have parties at a specific XP amount. Something like 7th level fighter, 8th level rogue, 5th level wizard
>>46328233
>how to make CoDzilla even more overpowered than they normally are: the post
>>46330291
Listen to this guy. He's right.
>>46328183
Make wizards level slower, maybe?
Swinging a sword seems to be easier to learn that to operate magic.
>>46328183
>What kind of homebrewed rules could I use in order to reduce the tier gap between spellcasters and physical fighters in DnD 3.5?
At the point you're willing to homebrew that hard, don't play 3.5... or D&D really. Make your own system and avoid the headache of trying to make something as "balanced" as everything else in the edition.
>>46328393
Fantasy doesn't tend to have god poking his head in to whine that the guy who has a sword can't do that because it's too unrealistic for his feeble grognard ass to imitate in real life.
God only has the free time to do this because he did nothing to stop the wizard from usurping him and giving him a wedgie an hour ago because magic.
At least an MMO is designed on the assumption the player will be able to successfully contribute to every aspect of the game without having to choose the inherently better classes despite the game presenting all classes as equally valid choices.
