Thanks for the correction, and for the support. :)

I'll post what I've got this weekend, so anyone who's interested can adapt it for their campaigns.

As for turning, check out the Turning system I've got. It's a lot more flexible, in that you can use it against ANY creature, not just undead. I did this in part because several domains let you turn creatures other than undead (elementals and lycanthropes).

I'm not sure what to do with healing, or if I really want to make it a major focus of the cleric. That's what they do now, and they're called "healbots" because of it. With the sorcerer's ability to take divine spells (including healing), and the paladin's slightly expanded healing ability, it takes some of the strain from clerics to be healers, instead letting them be mortal representatives of their gods (as they should be).

The Cleric's major differentiating factor (what separates one from another) has always been spell selection, but that changes daily. What about a tree that is only useful with a certain type of spell, but expands the use of that spell? Something that allows the cleric to channel energy or spell effects into his weapon? A Bard-like ability to stack or expand buff spells?

The ability to Turn has always seemed a little confining to me. Why just Undead? What about a tree like the Ranger's Favored Enemy where the cleric can choose a creature type to which his god is opposed? Even if limited to outsiders and unnaturals (like Undead), the ability to turn (or supplicate) Lawful Outsiders, Evil, Undead, etc., and corresponding bonuses to fighting (or bargaining?) with them could really set each Cleric aside.

A major defining feature of the Cleric is, of course, healing… there's got to be something you can do with that…. Nothing comes to mind, but I'll give it some more thought.

~Joe

1st level, the sorcerer can reroll any damage roll or caster level check he makes with a spell, but he must use the second roll, no matter the result. He can wait until the roll has been made to make the alteration.

At 16th level, the sorcerer can wait until the roll is made to decide whether or not to attempt a reroll – this simulates his ability to predict the outcome before it happens and choose another one.

This seems to be either a mistake, or it's unclear. It seems like 16th level is saying exactly what is bolded in 1st level. clarification?

LOVING this ruleset, by the way! Fantastic job! Keep it up. :-)

~Joe

~Joe

Elves are taller… because I, like you, thought they were too short. No other reason, really - it was just a minor tweak just for the sake of tweaking.

Gnomes: Yes, actually, there was a justification for it. I say "was", because I ended up changing it. Originally, gnomes were changed to be seagoing - hence the racial enemy change. When I changed all the cultures around, I dropped the racial enemy entirely.

Psionics: No, I'm not using psionics at all, but I was drawing from the SRD. IIRC, all the feats are from the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, bnot the XPH.

Re: Starvation and thirst: Good catch. I fixed that.

Re: poison pricing: You would be correct, sort of.

Base price: 25 gp

Save DC 13: +30

Mild neurotoxin: +60 gp

Primary damage (1 point): +20 gp

Secondary damage (4.5 points): 90 gp (this should be 45, not 90)

Subtotal: 225 gp

Ingested: Multiply by 1.5 = 337

Common: Multiply grand total by 0.5 = 168.5 gp, or 170 gp

Looks like we both got it wrong. =P Thanks for pointing it out, though - I'll go over all the prices again and make sure they're correct.

BTW: since the secondary damage cost is 45, not 90, the correct end price is 135 gp.

"Elves are taller"
I've always thought that D&D elves are too short (although I seem to remember that Tunnels & Trolls elves were too tall). However, given that elven height wouldn't make the top 100 of most people's complaints about D&D 3.5, why bother to change it?

"Gnomes have bonuses against sahuagin and locathah"
I am primarily a world builder; I try and make sure that rules changes to have an in-built justification in the campaign world (as otherwise I find myself tinkering with the rules just for the sake of it). I don't like that 3.5 has an implied setting (slight as that setting is) and 4ed seems to be worse in that respect. Do you have an implied setting whereby gnome hatred of sahuagin makes sense? Is there a reason why sahuagin don't repay the favour and get bonuses against gnomes? (Or maybe they do.)

"Psionics Handbook"
The introduction refers to the Psionics Handbook rather than Expanded Psionics Handbook. Are you using 3.0 psionics?

Arsenic is a mild nuerotoxin, so 60 gp (60 x 1) is added to the base price (25). The DC is 13 (+30) , primary damage 1 point (+20), secondary damage 4.5 (+45) for a subtotal of 180 gp. It's ingested, so multiply by 1.5, for a before-rarity-cost of 270 gp. This makes the final cost, including a 'common rarity' modifier of .5, 135 gp.

Arsenic is not the only victim of this error, if it is indeed an error.
Black adder venom is another mild nuerotoxin. Base (25), mild nuerotoxin (+60), save DC 11 (+10), primary damage 3.5 (+70), secondary damage 3.5 (+35), for a subtotal of 200. It's injury-based (x1), so the before-rarity-factor cost is 200 gp, not the 185 that you have listed.
Now, had you calulating with a DC of 12 (as it is in the DMG; you've since changed it to 11), and been forgetting the 60 gp due to Type costs (nuerotoxin = +60 gp x strength rating), and been multiplying secondary damage by 20 (as you did in the example, and not by 10, as the table says one should), then indeed the before-rarity-factor cost would be 185 gp.

I think the other poisons may have also been mispriced by the same errors; I have not checked all of them. I just thought I would bring this to your attention. Sorry if my post is hard to understand at any point.

Also, every now and then I attempt to download/open your grand Monsters file (the zip file). I am always unable.

Originally, Power Attack was a single attack as a standard action (the visualization is a single, powerful blow); you could take up to 5 points from your BAB and add it to damage. There was probably a disconnect between the feat and the Combat section - I found a few such mistakes.

I later changed it to the version you see now and cleaned everything up so it all says the same thing.

I will take another look at the other spells and see if I find anything else about them.

Give me a list of the other spells you're talking about, and I'll look them over.

Other spells follow the same road.

+1 hit/damage is combat improvement: I can hardly call just saves as combat improvement especially when it seems redunant for the text to read improve saves and saves.

Oh, you mean "improves saves and combat ability". I totally missed that, but the above change will take care of it. Thanks for the feedback.

"Actually, my bard has MORE spells than the 3.5 bard - I gave them 1 spell at every level where they get 0. you do have a point about giving them 1st level spells at 1st character level, though; it might be a good boost. "

But then you admit:
"I thought they were a bit too front-loaded (5 abilities at 1st level), so I moved Inspire Courage down, and renamed Inspire Competence into Collaborative Chant, part of the buff song path (which is now available at L1 instead of L3)."

See, you see that you move abilities around giving them less low level impact on battles.

Front-loading is only a bad thing when used for 1-2 level dips: which I doubt anyone did with the Bard.

I mean, when you gut Inspire Courage's combat ability: yeah that kinda weakens them.

"It gives a +2 morale bonus to saves vs. charm and fear effects."

A Buff isn't really as impressive if it is followed by a nerf to same ability.

Yes, +2 is higher than +1, but remember your version only improves saves. The Old version improved everyone's hit and damage.
And it stacked with other 1st level buffs.

Remember, the difference between everyone and a warrior type like a Fighter's BAB is only +1 at level 1.
While singing (or whichever he did) the Bard can fight with +1 hit/damage (while buffing the team) or just hang back and buff them.

+1 hit/damage is combat improvement: I can hardly call just saves as combat improvement especially when it seems redunant for the text to read improve saves and saves.

I rather think I would rather play the 3.5 Bard except maybe at higher levels: then yours starts catching up (since it has more spells/day) and gets improvements due to performance.

Why the Bard nerf? You state:
[quote]
their songs were weak (except for fascinate, which was horribly broken),
[/quote]
But in fact, only the new Bard's song are weak.
Look at the old Bard for a second. Look at first level, heck for comparison, look at 1-7th level.

What does your Bard do in battle?
Nothing but melee/range? Yeah…pretty much since so little casting and no Bard music that does anything useful in battle.

You make Inspire Courage to be level 2 (switching Inspire Competence with it?)
In addition, your flavor test now doesn't even fit.
Have you even looked at it? You say: Bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities.

But there is no improvement; copy + paste error?

Now compare your Bard versus 3.5 Bard:
Your Bard has: Bardic Knowledge (some improvement), Jack of All Trades: improves skill(s).
3 songs: While nice all they do is negate sonic stuff (mostly unchanged from Countersong other Bard has), improves saves (but not attack/damage), and stuff like skills.

Now I applaude the improving bonus based on performance (gives a reason to have more than base skill ranks).

But compare to 3.5 Bard:
Improve skill, saves, damage, attack bonus, countersong also, Fascinate, suggestion, and Bardic Knowledge (useful to research legendary people aka Level 11 people).

Now, yours gets nifty stuff, but mostly just rp value.

3.5 Bard has +2 minimum bonus to Inspire Courage, but with non-core up to +6 with just 8 levels of Bard.

Now even in comparison with Core: I'd rather have a Bard improving the party in battle then just skills (wait, we have inspire competence as well).

I mean, if you are going to take away the Bards combat value at level 1: Could you at least improve their spell acquisition?

Give them 0 level 1 spells (and 1 known level 1). That way they have more ability even if that isn't much.