Quote from: Exploderwizard;686490Yup, but actually doing it is tougher in the turn based initiative environment when the wizard can simply move out of reach before casting.

To me thats like moving your ships around after a game of Battleship starts.

Make casting a full-round action.

Have you looked at Fantasy Craft?

It's a toolkit approach to 3.x that is simple awesome. It addresses almost every single issue in d20. It might look complex at first blush - but it's only as complex as you want to make it.

Classes are extremely balanced. Feats and class abilities are balanced against one another. No chokepoints for Feats, they're all meaty and awesome. No restrictions on Class armor or weapons - some classes may have to pay a proficiency to learn them, but can can use them without penalty otherwise. Armored up Mage with a sword? No problem!

Class mathematics scale to 14th level where the main class skill comes online (instead of the arbitrary and mathematically god-awful 20th level in 3.x). Fantasy Craft recognizes the sweet spot of d20 being between 7th and 14th - like Gygax never planned for people going to 20th+. As in 1e and 2e 9th level is the point where PC's are lords and powerhouses of the realm. True luminaries are beyond that - Fantasy Craft reflects this *mechanically*.

Skills are balanced and far more useful. Some combat abilities are actually skills - like Grappling. So a non-fighter can actually fisticuff/brawl/grapple as well as anyone else. Soldiers are just a bit better based on their natural stat choices and other skills.

Stats are balanced - all classes need multiple stats so no stat dumping. Spells are balanced against one another. Vancian "cast and forget" is out, no 15-minute day. Melee vs. Caster powerlevels are equitable in a positive way - Melee are *much* more lethal. Casters are about the same in Pathfinder but more focused (usually) and retain a lot of flexibility - they do the magical healing, not Priests (unless their God's province is healing).

Priests are completely DIFFERENT than Arcane casters. They use a Miracle system that allows them to do wonderous things (based on the provinces of their God). It sounds WEIRD until you see it in action. It's awesome.

Social combat - check. I shouldn't call it combat - there are LOTS of social mechanics that stem from GM's running their campaign and having values rise and fall with the actions of the PC's (factioning, reputation, purchasing various background stuff like lands, minions, resources, etc. and how PC's can manage them)

Multi-classing - seamless. You literally can't make a bad choice. The downside is that you lose getting more badass at your original schtick. The upside is Prestige Classes in Fantasy Craft are actually prestigious - they are different and arguably more powerful in their focus. PRC's in Fantasy Craft are usually culturally based (but not always) or they're schticks specialists.

Magic Item inflation: Gone. Magic items/weapons scale. The more powerful your PC, the more powerful your magic items become. That +1 Heirloom Longsword your father hands you at 2nd level, is a +5 Mandoonian Flaming Sword of Fire at 12th level.

Best part: OPTIONS. All of these things I've related to you are flexible within the context of the game you want to run. Very few are even mandatory to use.

I'm casually writing up a full review in more detail. I'll post it when it's done. You should look into it. I was once like you, wanting to fix 3e in a meaningful way. I wrote a lot of published 3e stuff, worked with the Paizo folks (good peeps), and even Mearls on a couple of things - I was totally ruined on d20 afterwards. It was a mathematical pile of fucked up shit. I was initially very skeptical of Fantasy Craft. Now I'm a believer. It is the d20 game I always wanted. (and I'm working on my own Fantasy Craft world I plan on publishing.)

(please note I don't mean for this to be a thread-crap. I truly do understand the intent of your post and the concerns you've made. I really do. I'm just proffering this as a ready-made solution to your concerns.)

Quote from: Imp;686172I have long thought that the fighter class in particular should top out at 8 or 10 levels. The reason is that, conceptually, a lot of people disagree about what a high-level fighter should be and most of that should really be tied into the setting. Do they become quasi-divine Herculesoid figures? Do they gain some sort of wuxia power? Resist magic due to their heroic spirits but otherwise remain essentially human(oid)? Confer inherent magic into the weapons they wield? Do they incorporate sorcery into their bodies to boost their fighting powers beyond the merely mortal? These are all setting concerns and no one path should be the default for all campaigns, I don't think.

That's the exact issue: no one debates what a caster SHOULD be able to do at high levels, because it's MAGIC /waves hands in the air.

non-casters have historically gotten the shaft-in-ass because everyone plays D&D free of context. What one person posts on their FEEEELINGs of what a non-caster should be - makes another poster on a forum puke.

The system should not be cordoned off to promote *one* style of play like that. Otherwise you're really talking about creating a d20 genre-specific game. Does anyone blink twice at a powerful spellcaster in Conan the Barbarian? Nope. Does anyone blink twice at a powerful spellcaster in a Wuxia-style Chinese fantasy? nope. Would anyone blink twice at Conan running across the surface of a pool then leaping 100-feet into the air with his sword dragging behind him leaving a con-trail then slamming into the earth on the shore, blasting a 40-foot crater amidst his foes who go sailing 200-feet back?

Yes.

There needs to be a standard of equal proportion - that means a Caster might indeed be able to do feats of mighty magic, like stop a fight with a single spell (if as a GM that is to your likeing). Melee characters need to be able to be as effective in certain circumstances. How you do that is in the mechanics of the class/system with options to allow a Player to craft his character to do it his way (within the context of the GM's campaign).

So using the above example -

Mako the Sorcerer - Casts Buddha Iron Palm - that slams down and kills everyone on the shore in a 40' diameter.

Conan might dive into the water and come up on shore, and do a Heroic Fray (bullshit made-up ability/feat etc.) and whirlwind the heads off of everyone in a 40-foot diameter killing them. (same as blasting them in a 40-foot crater). This might be a signature move that has restrictions on it (like they have to be specific foes, or a type of creature) or not. the idea is that *this* thing is what Conan does and built himself towards.

OR

Nimble the Rogue - can indeed run across surface tension and do a short-range hail of sleep-pellets/daggers/motes of dust/whatever - that incapacitates everyone in a 40' radius. As with Conan - Nimble has built his character towards this.

And no character should necessarily be limited to one thing... that's where the GM inserts his own adjudication for balance in the needs of his game. The system should be built with this in mind IMO.

Quote from: Piestrio;686493Make casting a full-round action.

I kinda like that.

In general, I don't like being hit ruining spells, but full round to cast sounds great.

Quote from: Ladybird;686401Oh dear.

Are you one of the people that believes "balance" is obtained by, if something is overpowered, making everything else overpowered too so that you don't lose your special toys? Because that way leads to things being a fucking mess and your system eventually breaking.

You need to establish a clear baseline, and work towards that. Not work out what's the most powerful and work towards making everything that level.

How would you define a clear baseline to everyone on this thread in a system (without a setting)?

It's difficult without being generic. I'm not saying it can't be done. 1e and 2e did it pretty well in fact (but still require that DM touch to get the mix right for his respective group). But doing it in 3e is a different matter altogether.

The problem with the OP's proposition is that 3e *is* already a mess RAW. Salvaging it requires far more effort than I think he believes (and as with my previous long-winded posts - it's been done. As to the degree with which he, or anyone else, agrees with me, is probably moot.)

As I've said before having powerful casters in ones game is *not* really the issue in fantasy gaming (obviously). It's about not penalizing non-casters to the degree that they remain relevant. That's where 3e/PF fails on real mechanical levels.

Quote from: Bill;686571I kinda like that.

In general, I don't like being hit ruining spells, but full round to cast sounds great.

When you consider that the 3e combat round is 6 seconds long, it seems like a lot more actions need to take a full round, really. 3e makes everyone into Jackie Chans that way.

(Personally I think 10-20 seconds is an ideal length for a combat round but that's a sidetrack.)