The One Hour Game, continued (BD&D as a baseline)

[paladinm]

I agree that one of the more annoying things of 3.x was the Huge accumulation of power by All classes, and the constant power creep of each new splat book. Pathfinder has done the same thing, only moreso. I don't think the classes need more power as much as more options.

Has anyone seen the Greybook? It's a collection of all the 1e classes, only presented as they originally appeared in the LBB's, supplements, Strategic Review, etc. It's soo interesting to see how each class was originally. Clerics didn't have spells at 1st level, paladins didn't have spells at all, etc. If we used that and BECM or B/X as baseline, we could add a lot of options without over-powering the classes.

I would also recomment scrapping the Feats system and just allowing a few fighter/thief "tactics", including weapon mastery (from BECM)

One more thing.. in some of the Princess Ark articles, if an elf (for example) wanted to become a cleric, s/he could do so; but if s/he gained a level of clerical magic, s/he also Lost a level of arcane magic. The original psionics worked the same way. There's game balance for you!

 

[Hassassin]

Using a BECMI base, I would pick from other editions.

AD&D: Some magic items. Monstrous manual.

3e: Unified core mechanics. Multi-classing and UA class variants (modular options).

4e: Class balance, where it doesn't conflict with other concerns. Grid combat (modular option).

PF: The skill system with the BB skill list (modular option). Archetypes (mix with UA variants above).


Edit: Oh, round structure and action types as a hybrid of 3.5/PF and 4e. Standard/Minor/Move, with Full = Standard + Minor (Full Move = Run = Standard + Move). Before any modules, Std = Attack, Minor = Draw Weapon, Full = Cast Spell / Multi-Attack.

 

[delericho]

I would actually take a bit of a reverse engineering approach.

I would take 4E Essentials and refine that system so that I could play BD&D.

This would remove the clunky elements of 4E (battlegrid, conditions, triggers, etc) while retaining the class balance, action economy, ease of DMing, and all of the other things that 4E has done the best over all the editions.

Broadly speaking, I agree with this approach. Mechanically speaking, 4e probably has the cleanest presentation of the rules to date; it's just that WotC then proceeded to layer more than a few too many complexities on top.

The fundamental difficulty I always have with cutting down the game is that whatever I end up with, I always want "one more thing". But then, if you add that thing, then there is another "one more thing", and so on...

If doing a BD&D-like version of 4e, I would probably reduce the classes down to just a handful, and reduce each of the classes down to a single pre-select build. Eliminate multi-classing entirely.

And, as the post above notes, I would also try really hard to eliminate reliance on the grid, conditions, marking conditions, and the other areas of complexity that plague 4e.

The problem is, while such a game would be fun to play for a while, I suspect there would very quickly be a desire to expand it - instead of having only one Fighter build we'd want two, and then three, and then... And so, it begins again.

 

[paladinm]

Continuing with the topic.. I think I would pretty much leave the casters as they were in BD&D, except I would give them the spells-per-day from OD&D. They were more powerful, especially at high levels; but I'm wanting to do away with feats for most casters, so it kind of balances out.

For mages, I'd like to give the option of One 1st level spell as a spontaneous spell, which could be substituted for any known spell (Yes, this would be Magic Missile for most everyone). Or give them an eldritch bolt that would do about the same damage as an arrow or dagger. Or allow a different spontaneous spell for school specialists.

For clerics, I kind of like being able to swap a healing spell for others, so the spell list would need to include one healing spell at each level. Or allow a different spell for specialty priests.

For druids, I would use the variant from Princess Ark that included wildshape and allowed druids from level 1.

For "hybrid" casters (paladins, avengers, bards, etc.) I kind of like the model from BECM, where a combat-oriented character can cast spells at 1/3 of his level. This is "canon" for paladins and avengers. The same PA article deals with the "druidic knight", which is the BD&D "ranger" (unless you count the Forester, a human Ftr/MU), and can also druid spells at 1/3 level. A bard was originally a thief with charm abilities.. I might open the class up to MU spells at 1/3 level. But then, that would make the bard the default "gish" character.

For "pure" thieves and fighters, I would actually allow a lot of "cross-pollinating" to allow for nimble fighters and brawny rogues. The main difference would be hit dice, # of skills, BAB. And I find myself preferring the simplicity of the 1e/2e "weapon specialization" over BD&D's weapon mastery system. For these "purely martial" characters I would allow a "feat"/tactic choice at levels 1,2,4,6,8 and 10, and possible one more at every 5 levels afterward. This is where weapon skill, 2-handed fighting, evasion, uncanny dodge, raging, etc. come in to play.

Just thinking out loud.. more to come.. Any thoughts?

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Magic needs to be magic. Wizards should be able to do anything, not reduced to simply pulling rabbits out of a hat.

Then it needs to come with some sort of drawback. Temporary constitution damage, taking several rounds during which the Wizard is vulnerable, or something.

If Ascending Armor Class is used there should be a hard cap on how high it can get. 30 (the equivalent of -10, which was exceeded in both BECMI and 2e, but that was a mistake).

No--Not unless attack bonus is also capped. Defense should not take a backseat to offense. I want my Knight-In-Shining-Armour Fighter or Paladin-type to actually enjoy some concrete benefit to wearing his armour, and I'd like to enjoy it just as much at level 20 (or 36 or whatever) as I do at level 1. Placing a cap on armour class without also capping attack bonus (and making reaching that attack bonus cap extremely difficult) will render armour worthless at higher levels again, just as it was in 3rd edition.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd start with BECMI as the base, but rather than pick certain things that other versions did well, I'd go for a "lessons learned" approach on every version--good and bad. Then with that set of lessons, I'd set out to modify that BECMI base to get a better game.

For example, an easy one is that races as classes is very restrictive. There are some positive aspects to races as classes, but it is highly unlikely that the positives overcome the negatives. However, one could get too bogged down into "race as classes" or not, and fail to see what I think is the larger lesson there--a few set of key, clear elements that you can mix and match is a powerful way to introduce variety. If you find yourself making race and/or class lists a mile long, that is an immense signal that you need at least a third element (like "theme" or "culture" or something). Contrawise, if you find that third element is making the game too complex, then those long lists are a signal that you are letting it creep out of scope. Race as class does sort of work, after all, when you only have as many as BECMI has.

Whether I'd go with a third (or even fourth and fifth) element in my hypothetical game, I don't know. I might find it better to keep it simple enough that race and class could handle it. But I do know that I wouldn't have more than 10-12 classes or 10-12 races. Either more variety is important enough to include theme or culture or something similar, or the variety isn't that important.

 

[fuindordm]

Lots of good ideas here, but some of them add too much complexity for the hypothetical 1-hour game. Character creation needs to be quick, and player options shouldn't slow down play. Specialty priests, for example. I loved them to death when 2e was the game of choice, but there are just too damn many of them!

From AD&D: All the PH classes except the Monk up to level 9 or so. Make the bard a base class, give wizards an Int bonus to spells. None of the UA additions. Spells (but with capped damage dice) and magic items. d6 initiative roll, extra attacks only for fighters, AoO only for retreating or getting inside someone's reach.

From 3E: Feats, but only as a short menu of special abilities for fighters and thieves. AC and BAB both point in the same direction. Fort, Refl, and Will saves. Cleric swapping spells for heals, as one possible domain power.
Critical hits.

From 4E: If I have a skill system, I prefer it to be closer to this one than to 3E. But having characters pick a theme and use ability score rolls sounds better for a pick-up game. Fighters marking opponents. A warlord class.

Make each class simple. BAB, HD, Saves, armor & weapon proficiencies, Spells if needed and no more than 2 special abilities.

For example:
Fighter: +1 BAB/level, d10 HD, Fort strong, Refl medium, Will weak, prof. with all armor, shields, and weapons. Special Abilities: Marking. Choose a specific weapon (big bonus), fighting style (medium bonus) or no specialization at all (small bonus).

Cleric: +3/4 BAB/level, d8 HD, Fort medium, Refl weak, Will strong, prof. with medium armor, shields, simple weapons. Special Abiliites: Spells, Turn/Command Undead, choose one Domain power for patron god.

And finally, I would add one thing that's entirely new:

Each major weapon category has a different special effect on critical hits. Maybe these are only available to fighters, or occur more often for fighters. I have not put a lot of thought into this, but after hearing so much in the runup to 4E how they would make weapon choice matter, the design elements they included were really a letdown. I'd like to see effects that come into play fairly often, but that the player doesn't have to think about (like weapon vs armor adjustment, shudder).

Axes: +2D damage, degrades non-metal armor/shield
Swords: +1D damage, 19-20 threat range, bleed
Hammers: +2D damage, stun
Maces/Picks: +2D damage, locks joint of metal armor
Bows: as sword

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would actually take a bit of a reverse engineering approach.

I would take 4E Essentials and refine that system so that I could play BD&D.

This would remove the clunky elements of 4E (battlegrid, conditions, triggers, etc) while retaining the class balance, action economy, ease of DMing, and all of the other things that 4E has done the best over all the editions.

Exactly. There are MANY things about B/X that are clunky and non-intuitive. 4e's core engine cleans ALL of that up, and quite nicely. You can play a stripped-down game that is in all but some 'nostalgia for rules details of yore' way accomplishing what B/X did in terms of simplicity, yet is even simpler in practice and then if you want to build more complex stuff on top for people that want it, you've got it.

I just don't see a reason to go back to things like decending AC that has magical pluses from armor being subtracted from it and weirdness like that. The horribly arbitrary and unclear list of saving throw categories, etc. If it is pure nostalgia that people want, there's nothing like the real thing. For a NEW game that will be released in the 21st Century, not really seeing it.

In other words B/X D&D has no monopoly on simplicity, and has many non-simple things in it that existed purely because it was closely based on OD&D, not because they made sense. We're past that now and don't need to go back to get simplicity. Nor do we need to have things like "must have a cleric" or casters that end up far outstripping any other character, nor arbitrary class/race restrictions, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then it needs to come with some sort of drawback. Temporary constitution damage, taking several rounds during which the Wizard is vulnerable, or something.





No--Not unless attack bonus is also capped. Defense should not take a backseat to offense. I want my Knight-In-Shining-Armour Fighter or Paladin-type to actually enjoy some concrete benefit to wearing his armour, and I'd like to enjoy it just as much at level 20 (or 36 or whatever) as I do at level 1. Placing a cap on armour class without also capping attack bonus (and making reaching that attack bonus cap extremely difficult) will render armour worthless at higher levels again, just as it was in 3rd edition.

what if no bonus that stacked (not countint +x swords) gave more then +3, and your class/level bonus maxed at +10, and magic items went +1 -+3 and getting a str over 20 was almost impossble, you would end up wit the best warrior ever having a +21 to hit. If the AC capped at 30 that would be fine

 

[Ratskinner]

Then it needs to come with some sort of drawback. Temporary constitution damage, taking several rounds during which the Wizard is vulnerable, or something.

I prefer a whole mess of quirky side effects, many of them built into the spells. Generally agree, though, the CoDzilla is a side-effect of eliminating risk from magic.