4E for the win! Down with 3E! Muaa haa haa
In all seriousness, I just can't get "into" most systems that don't have the sheer robustness of tactical combat that 4E does, and 4E manages to accomplish that by (among other things) having a shitload of things going on-the kinds of shitload that one man on a computer probably can't duplicate from scratch.
I have been contemplating getting into something 3.5y, but only if it involved Tome of Battle.
Yes, I think we all quite understood that particular opinion a while ago, thank you. (-_-)
I could make you a character to see where this is going, but I'm afraid I can't be involved in a campaign right now (my time schedule being incompatible with most tropers). Be aware that I might point out any loops and/or optimization I can find.
Tome of Battle goes a long way (perhaps even all the way, as I've never actually used it) in addressing the issues I have with 3.5.
EDIT: But somehow, I have not contributed to the thread...
What is the motivation behind making non-magic ranged less viable?
edited 12th Jun '12 4:38:19 PM by disruptorfe404
To B is definitely a huge step in the right direction, and actually, at lower levels (which I ALSO can't stand but that's not really system dependent) it's actually to the point where 3.5 isn't-at its core-bad. The main problem comes when you have Modifier vs Targets scaling at different rates. That is, saves D Cs scale at 1/2 level, but bonuses scale at 1/2 or 1/3 level-meaning that the higher level you are, the more intense the discrepencies.
Personally, I radically prefer a "Good is +X+Y, Average is X, Poor is X-Y" structure that's a linear model.
You've told us a bit about the setting, and the bit about helping melee classes out might be nice, but how else does the system differ from 3.5?
It's still in the early stages, but I can tell you what's going to be different.
I'm giving fighting classes better abilities and ways to fill other roles in the party. For example, the Viking class sub0classed Adventurer (need a beter name) can fill in the Bard's role in diplomacy, and is veyr adept at the sailing stat. Hoplites. I'm also diversifying fighting characters into three niches: attack, defence, and ranged. Though those sort of exist, I'm making the difference more pronounced. The idea is to make a much strong combat system, where a Marskman and a Viking can still be as useful as a Wizard.
I'm posting stuff in the Giant in the Playground forums, btw. I've already posted the first class here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246130
In all seriousness, I just can't get "into" most systems that don't have the sheer robustness of tactical combat that 4E does, and 4E manages to accomplish that by (among other things) having a shitload of things going on-the kinds of shitload that one man on a computer probably can't duplicate from scratch
I'll try my best. Combat is the main focus of my system - I guess it's like a mod of a computer game.
edited 13th Jun '12 6:54:39 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.If you like 3.5 and using fighting and sneaky characters, this mod will give you much more options and better classes. If you enjoy OP Clerics, Wizard, and Druids, then maybe not.
Besides, I'm going to be very bored, so this will be my project of the summer. So it doesn't have to get too much attention.
edited 13th Jun '12 7:13:27 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.Sounds like it's a lot less tactical than 4E
I probably should mentioned that tactics was another aspect I'm elaborating on, then. I may read the 4e rules to see what works.
A hoplite is a defence class, and the Viking offence. So the two could use the 5-foot steps effectively (especially if the hoplite has a spear) to do damage and avoid damage much better than two fighters.
edited 13th Jun '12 7:21:52 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.One thing to note about 4E is that, part of why it's so much more tactical is that status effects (generally) only last one round. So, that allows the game to throw a bunch more of them at the field.
It's minor differences like that-though ones that are probably more "controversial"-that make the game system.
Just read the Hoplite on Git P. One quick question, although the answer may be obvious: how do you select the subclass? I suppose you have to do it at character creation, or when you take the first level of the class. Can you multiclass in several subclasses of the same family (like a Hoplite (Laekonic) 3/ Hoplite (Aelympian) 2)?

Curious? Follow this link for classes, lands, and more info on my pet project:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246130
I have lots of ideas, some more fleshed out than others, about a adapted version of D&D 3.5 set in a fantastical (so magic and non-humans remain) and time-mashed (so hoplites and samurai can both happen) version of Earth. It won't be too different, as I don't plan of changing too much, but there is one big difference: the combat system will benefit melee fighters much ore, and ranged combat will not be something any martial class can do. Also, I plan to diversify melee and ranged roles, while leaving two magic archetypes - so we won't see parties with 50% magic users.
Now, I just want to know if anyone would be interested in even just making a character, never mind playing a campaign. Just having to explain a class to someone would definitely help flesh the ideas out.
(I'm doing this partially out of boredom that will happen in the summer, and partially because I would actually like to play this).
edited 14th Jun '12 3:43:40 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.