I toy with the idea of writing up my own flavor of D&D from time to time, and I currently have the bug again. Right now I'm fixated on a 3.5/Pathfinder take on OSR. The simplicity and speed of the latter, but the modernity of the former.
First thing I've jumped into is classes. I think all of the core classes can be easily merged into the core 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Priest), using multiclassing and other options to take up the slack (not including the stuff I'll just be removing because I don't really like it).
First, my changes to the 4 core:
Priests are clerics without the fighting abilities. My starting template is the "cloistered cleric" from the 3e Unearthed Arcana. This will allow for more clarity when multi-classing; players who want templars can take levels of priest and fighter, while pure divine spellcasters can stick to the former. Edit: whoops, forgot the work I did on this late last night, where I diverged significantly from the "cloistered cleric," which really didn't suit my needs, but did quantify the sacrifice involved in loss of martial abilities. I basically chucked all of the stuff the cloistered cleric received in return for loss of martial abilities, and decided to re-tool how priests cast spells. Haven't decided on the particulars yet, but it's more or less going to be:
Priests can only cast spells from domains offered by their patron
Patrons offer substantially more domains
Priests can, in lieu of casting a spell they've memorized, cast a spell of the same level spontaneously from any of their chosen domains.
Besides this, there will be quite a bit of stripping-down of class specializations (e.g., I've chucked specialist magic-users for now, and moved about half of the divine spell domains to the kind of optional rules that appear in DMG or UA.)
My strategies for emulating the excised classes:
Barbarian. Rage goes. I'm thinking maybe feats can replace rage, if I don't just chuck it. After that a barbarian's not worth his own class; he's just a fighter with a specific cultural (and consequently, skill) background and no money for armor. In other words, a fighter sub-class, at most (more like a kit, really, but I think making it an "official class" helps with players who want to be "barbarians," not "boring old fighters."). I don't believe in giving characters right back the thing they just gave up; I've never liked the idea of giving barbarians an AC bonus to compensate for their eschewing of armor. Giving them a modicum (never full; if armor wasn't an absolute benefit, overall, people wouldn't wear it) of compensation in other areas is okay, when appropriate (light armor really is way stealthier than heavy).
Bard: Magic-User sub-class. Tentatively, and in a nutshell: magic-user gives up a spell of each level he can cast (or something appropriate) for Bardic Performance and Versatile Performance, all of his spells require a verbal component, and he uses a different spell list. Still haven't decided how to handle spontaneous casting in the wake of merging sorcerer and wizard into a single magic-user class, so I don't know where the Bard will stand in relation to all of that. If a bard wants rogue abilities, he takes rogue levels. If he wants fighter abilities, he takes fighter levels.
Druid: Priest sub-class. Haven't worked this one out yet, but I plan to have it be subsumed under the domain/patron deity selection process. If a druid wants a "traditional D&D druid," he adds fighter levels to his character.
Ranger: Fighter sub-class. Most of the fiddly bits go. If a player wants stealth and such, he takes rogue levels. If he wants to wear lighter armor, good for him, he gets a fat stealth and mobility bonus, and that's it (I'm going to be reviewing heavier armor and stealth rules; the two are mutually exclusive IMO). If he wants a "traditional D&D ranger," i.e., spells, he can take levels of priest or magic-user. As for nature skills, it'll be part of a "kit" that goes with the sub-class.
Paladin: Fighter sub-class to make the character lean toward the noble-religious-knightly end of the spectrum. If the player wants magical healing, turning undead, etc., he can take priest levels, with the appropriate patron deity. Other abilities particular to the paladin (holy weapon/mount) can be relegated to paladin feat trees.
Sorcerer: Magic-User.
Wizard: Magic-User.
As for other rules, I haven't gotten that far yet. I know I want the default rule set to only go to 10th level, with later levels going to subsequent rule sets. I know I want DC checks, saves, skills, and feats to work like 3e/PF, and that I want to chuck most of the complicating crunch like AoOs, relegating it to optional rules at most. I want the gameplay to work like OSR, not 3e/PF.
I'm also thinking of ways to standardize the practice of defining characters at the top of their sheets in a new way. One that gives the total number of levels of the character, and the "class" the player chooses, with the actual, rules-listed classes and levels the character has listed below. Basically, the player calls the character whatever class he likes.
***
Given the enormous number of PRCs for 3.5 & PF, I found the early research into how to make some of this work to be pretty encouraging.
But, I can't help wondering if someone's already published a system like this. Anyone know of anything?
First thing I've jumped into is classes. I think all of the core classes can be easily merged into the core 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Priest), using multiclassing and other options to take up the slack (not including the stuff I'll just be removing because I don't really like it).
First, my changes to the 4 core:
Priests are clerics without the fighting abilities. My starting template is the "cloistered cleric" from the 3e Unearthed Arcana. This will allow for more clarity when multi-classing; players who want templars can take levels of priest and fighter, while pure divine spellcasters can stick to the former. Edit: whoops, forgot the work I did on this late last night, where I diverged significantly from the "cloistered cleric," which really didn't suit my needs, but did quantify the sacrifice involved in loss of martial abilities. I basically chucked all of the stuff the cloistered cleric received in return for loss of martial abilities, and decided to re-tool how priests cast spells. Haven't decided on the particulars yet, but it's more or less going to be:
Priests can only cast spells from domains offered by their patron
Patrons offer substantially more domains
Priests can, in lieu of casting a spell they've memorized, cast a spell of the same level spontaneously from any of their chosen domains.
Besides this, there will be quite a bit of stripping-down of class specializations (e.g., I've chucked specialist magic-users for now, and moved about half of the divine spell domains to the kind of optional rules that appear in DMG or UA.)
My strategies for emulating the excised classes:
Barbarian. Rage goes. I'm thinking maybe feats can replace rage, if I don't just chuck it. After that a barbarian's not worth his own class; he's just a fighter with a specific cultural (and consequently, skill) background and no money for armor. In other words, a fighter sub-class, at most (more like a kit, really, but I think making it an "official class" helps with players who want to be "barbarians," not "boring old fighters."). I don't believe in giving characters right back the thing they just gave up; I've never liked the idea of giving barbarians an AC bonus to compensate for their eschewing of armor. Giving them a modicum (never full; if armor wasn't an absolute benefit, overall, people wouldn't wear it) of compensation in other areas is okay, when appropriate (light armor really is way stealthier than heavy).
Bard: Magic-User sub-class. Tentatively, and in a nutshell: magic-user gives up a spell of each level he can cast (or something appropriate) for Bardic Performance and Versatile Performance, all of his spells require a verbal component, and he uses a different spell list. Still haven't decided how to handle spontaneous casting in the wake of merging sorcerer and wizard into a single magic-user class, so I don't know where the Bard will stand in relation to all of that. If a bard wants rogue abilities, he takes rogue levels. If he wants fighter abilities, he takes fighter levels.
Druid: Priest sub-class. Haven't worked this one out yet, but I plan to have it be subsumed under the domain/patron deity selection process. If a druid wants a "traditional D&D druid," he adds fighter levels to his character.
Ranger: Fighter sub-class. Most of the fiddly bits go. If a player wants stealth and such, he takes rogue levels. If he wants to wear lighter armor, good for him, he gets a fat stealth and mobility bonus, and that's it (I'm going to be reviewing heavier armor and stealth rules; the two are mutually exclusive IMO). If he wants a "traditional D&D ranger," i.e., spells, he can take levels of priest or magic-user. As for nature skills, it'll be part of a "kit" that goes with the sub-class.
Paladin: Fighter sub-class to make the character lean toward the noble-religious-knightly end of the spectrum. If the player wants magical healing, turning undead, etc., he can take priest levels, with the appropriate patron deity. Other abilities particular to the paladin (holy weapon/mount) can be relegated to paladin feat trees.
Sorcerer: Magic-User.
Wizard: Magic-User.
As for other rules, I haven't gotten that far yet. I know I want the default rule set to only go to 10th level, with later levels going to subsequent rule sets. I know I want DC checks, saves, skills, and feats to work like 3e/PF, and that I want to chuck most of the complicating crunch like AoOs, relegating it to optional rules at most. I want the gameplay to work like OSR, not 3e/PF.
I'm also thinking of ways to standardize the practice of defining characters at the top of their sheets in a new way. One that gives the total number of levels of the character, and the "class" the player chooses, with the actual, rules-listed classes and levels the character has listed below. Basically, the player calls the character whatever class he likes.
***
Given the enormous number of PRCs for 3.5 & PF, I found the early research into how to make some of this work to be pretty encouraging.
But, I can't help wondering if someone's already published a system like this. Anyone know of anything?
Last edited:
