- Races. In 3.5, some of the core races are generally regarded as statistically superior to others. In particular, the half-orc and half-elf are routinely derided as being underpowered. To what extent do I need to add goodies to some of the underutilized races to make them more attractive, or subtract them from some of the overused races to make them less so? How much can I affect the distribution of races by way of the setting -- if I give Elves roleplay-based advantages, will more people play them? How can I ensure that such campaign-specific advantages and disadvantages remain significant in play?
- Clerics. Clerics are superior to Wizards and Sorcerers in every statistical category and get a number of additional class features, supposedly as compensation for a weaker spell list. Does the cleric spell list actually reflect this weakness? What, if any, spells need to be deleted from this list (or moved to the Wizard list) to ensure that the Cleric is not just a Wizard who's better at everything?
- Fighters. At mid-high levels (5-10) for this campaign, fighting classes will start to become overshadowed by spellcasters. In particular, the straight Fighter has very little to recommend it after level 2, and even the Barbarian and the Ranger have only features that benefit very specific character concepts after the first few levels. To what degree do I need to improve the individual fighting classes, and how? Is giving them additional abilities on a par with their existing abilities adequate, or do the abilities available to them need to improve? A Wizard at 7th level gains access to at least 2 4th level spells per day; how does this compare with what a Fighter can gain at that level, and to what extent is that difference likely to be balanced by external factors (difficulty of gaining new spells, adventures with heavy time pressure, etc.)?
- Sorcerers. The mechanic where a player selects a small number abilities at each level and can rarely if ever change his selections means that he will be stuck with those abilities for quite a while. How can I make sure that a Sorcerer player retains enough flexibility to be useful to the party in a broad array of situations? What additional options can I offer to Sorcerers to ensure that when they do select abilities, they don't need to keep selecting better versions of the same thing merely to remain effective (Charm Person, Suggestion, Dominate Person; Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning; etc.)?
- Weapon Sizing. The 3.5 weapon sizing rules add considerable complexity over the 3.0 rules (or even over ignoring weapon size altogether), and make possible some strange results. What benefit do they offer (if any) in return for this additional complexity? If I don't elect to use the default rules, what, if any, changes are required for smaller than normal characters (halflings, etc.)?
- Direct Damage Spells. Hit points have been substantially inflated in 3.0 and 3.5 over previous versions, and damage for most spells has remained the same -- so direct-damage spells are relatively less effective, meaning that enchantment, illusion, and transmutation spells are preferred by 3.5 Wizards. Does this fit in with the role I envision for Wizards in my campaign? If so, how can I make sure that players don't unintentionally select this suboptimal strategy? If not, what changes should I make to direct-damage spells to compensate for the degree to which they've been weakened?
- Death from Massive Damage. By default, characters in 3.5 have a chance of dying instantly when they suffer damage over a certain threshold. This is one of the most commonly houseruled parts of 3.5, but before changing it, have I considered what effects my changes will have? To what degree do "hit points" represent physical ability to withstand damage under my campaign conception, as opposed to representing luck, divine favor, near misses, etc.? Does my concept of hit points mesh with whatever variation of the DFMD rule I've chosen?
- Problematic Spells. A large number of spells in 3.5 have effects that are confusing, difficult to adjudicate, or often deemed undesirable for a campaign. Many of these spells won't appear in games below 10th level, but a substantial number still do; see the "Problematic Spell Forum" on the Wizards boards. For those spells that might appear in my game, are any changes needed? What spells, if any, ought to be removed entirely? Am I aware of what problems others have found with these spells in play, and am I prepared to address them in play if I do not do so preemptively?
- Economic Issues. The default D&D setting assumes that characters can transform money into power via purchase of magic items. Spellcasters have options that permit them to trade downtime for a half share of the money required for a particular item. This assumption has all kinds of bizarre effects on a campaign -- high-level characters have a strong motivation for eating gruel and wearing rags because these things have no game effect, while purchasing magic items does. To what degree should magic items be available for purchase or creation in my campaign? If I intend to allow significant levels of magic item purchase, have I taken care to avoid allowing players to accumulate amounts of money out of proportion to their level, whatever method they employ to do so? If I do not intend to allow this, have I made sure to build sufficient flexibility into the items I place as treasure to account for player preference?
- Powerful NPCs. The default D&D setting assumes that there are large amounts of high-level NPCs -- higher level than the campaign is intended to run -- in cities of significant size. What role do NPCs play in my campaign world? How widely distributed are NPCs of equal or superior ability to the PCs, throughout the planned duration of the campaign? How do I intend to handle interaction between such NPCs and the PCs?
Etc. There's lots more, but these are some of the issues that trouble me most. I hope that's the sort of thing you had in mind?
--d.
