For my upcoming game, I plan on running with a trimmed down d20. No feats, no ability score increases. Skill points are replaced with number of skills. Besides that, just HD, base attack bonuses, saves, and class features. Oughta keep things simple.
I disagree. More and more, I believe a strong GM and a strong world vision is necessary for a good game. While I do not balk at player input IF it supports the world the GM has in mind, I am opposed to players lording over a game as if they ever put in an amount of work proportional to the GM...
Yes, some things are broken, but other things, though not broken, are annoying. If there's something I don't want my players to use, I'll tell them not to use it beforehand and if they want to use it, they can go start up thier own game and allow it there.
About the topic at hand, the 1E DMG...
If they had did it like AE, it would have been a definite mustbuy. I mean, throw in the racial subclasses for dwarves, elves, halfling, and gnomes, assassin as a core character class, the content of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and I would have bought two or three.
Interestingly I know of this method and I've thought about using it. Unfortunately, I've seen other DMs use this and it failed dismally even with cooperative players. Should I go about using this method anyway, what steps can the DM take to make sure it is effective?
I really like 3E and the options it offers, but in my experience, many characters seem to be built solely for power. In numerous campaigns, I have had to scrap characters I would have gladly played because everyone else min-n-max to the extreme, either rendering half of the party obsolete or...
From Dragon #264...
1) AC goes up instead of down
2) Ignore level limits and multiclassing restrictions. Any class combination is possible and humans can multiclass. For every class taken in addition to the first, characters take a 20% penalty to all XP earned.
3) Use monks and assassins as...