D&D 3E/3.5 3e, Old School Style

[Jacob Marley]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION] - That is not what I am asking. What I am asking is for what sort of play style he is trying to imitate. Offering advice and criticism on his changes is meaningless unless we know what sort of outcome he is trying to achieve. And, quite frankly, I cannot fully tell from what he has written thus far as to what he means with "old school style."

For instance, my experiences with 1st Edition included: characters who started play with 1 hit point (!), and characters who acquired followers at name level. Both of these aspects I found were integral in defining old school play. However, in the case of the former the OP has substantially increased starting hit points. In the case of the latter, it isn't addressed. Hence, why I am asking for him to define what he means.

 

[Greg K]

Some interesting ideas.

On the issue of multiclassing to cherry pick, I agree with you, but go beyond saves. My own solution was that multi-classing does not grant the default armor class and weapon proficiencies of the new class nor does it grant the new classes default good save progression.

For good save progressions, I too reduced them by 2 to again discourage multiclasing to cherry pick. Instead, a first level character gains +2 to each good save granted by his initial class. Anyone multi-classing into the class does not get this +2 bonus. A character wanting a +2 save bonus can use one of their feat selections to take the appropriate save feat.

Now, I did put the light, medium, and heavy armor feats, the martial weapon proficiency feat, and greater fortitude feat to the fighter bonus feat list so a multiclassing character can spend a feat to reflect new training. When I utilize spellless paladins and rangers that gain bonus feats instead of spells, I make similar additions to their bonus feat list.

 

[Dandu]

@kitcik - That is not what I am asking. What I am asking is for what sort of play style he is trying to imitate. Offering advice and criticism on his changes is meaningless unless we know what sort of outcome he is trying to achieve. And, quite frankly, I cannot fully tell from what he has written thus far as to what he means with "old school style."

For instance, my experiences with 1st Edition included: characters who started play with 1 hit point (!), and characters who acquired followers at name level. Both of these aspects I found were integral in defining old school play. However, in the case of the former the OP has substantially increased starting hit points. In the case of the latter, it isn't addressed. Hence, why I am asking for him to define what he means.

We could grant him the Leadership feat as a bonus feat and an ability similar to the Orc Warlord's Gather Horde ability which lets him recruit more minions than usual.

Might Makes Right would make a good bonus feat if we do that, as it lets you add your Strength score to your leadership score for purposes of determining how many followers you can recruit.

 

[airwalkrr]

Perhaps you should consider writing an article defining what you mean by "old school style?" As is, I am having difficulty seeing how either the fighter or rogue reflect old school style play - at least, the style of 1st Edition AD&D that I play.

I am not saying that you are wrong in labeling your changes as "old school." It is just that how one defines "old school" seems to vary from person to person.

You make a good point. There is a method to my madness so I'll explain.

First of all, I want classes that do not require a large amount of preparation to create. I want a character that can literally be built in 5 minutes without a lot of thought. Hence the weapon groups and skills being automatically chosen (as I mentioned I will rectify this with the original fighter I posted soon as I noticed I was working at cross purposes). I want characters that don't take a lot of time to level up. Hence not a lot of decisions to make during the leveling process. Finally, I am looking at getting rid of feat prerequisites almost completely, which means you wouldn't have to build your character with a certain goal in mind such as "I want to have the X feat by level Y." So easy character creation and easy leveling are objectives.

Second of all, I want a game that doesn't get easily interrupted by complicated rules or other things. While AD&D had a lot of complicated rules tables, it usually wasn't necessary for the players to know them. The DM was the one who had to master those, and even if the DM didn't, he could fudge it. You will see a lot of this when I release my rules on skills. Many skills have been cut down to their combat advantages primarily, and those are simplified. D&D is an action and adventure game, not a negotiating and politicking game. As for "other things," low hit points at 1st level was one of those problems that often kept a lot of DMs from starting their games at 1st level because a character death slows down the game.

I also want a game where characters are defined by their classes, not the other way around. 3e has a lot of great combat mechanics that are solid, straightforward, and reasonable, but most 3e characters I have come across are hodgepodge multiclass monstrosities that don't make a lot of sense on paper. I like the concept that there should be some level of customization, but it should be limited. So I have narrowed down the number of choices characters make during the life of their character.

Finally, I want a game where magic items are incredible and awesome things that you feel lucky to have, not something that is expected when you get to level X. I am completely throwing the expected equipment out the window and have been designing monsters based on the concept that PCs aren't expected to have a certain amount of magical equipment at each level.

That is it, in summary. I believe that I could probably cite BECMI as a bigger inspiration for this rule set than AD&D, although I think there are a lot of great AD&D concepts to borrow from. Either way, both are "old school." Ultimately, I want a game that is easier to play and doesn't require as much planning as 3e, but still retains some of the more internal consistency of 3e.

You also made a note about henchmen. Leadership is a skill in this system, one that any character will be able to take advantage of to gain followers and establish a stronghold or base of operations. It didn't make it into my initial draft for the fighter due to me mixing up some of my notes, but I will say that the fighter and cleric are the only classes so far who get it as a trained skill by default. I am considering possibly giving it to the rogue as well, but not so certain it is necessary given the dangers typically associated with a classic thief setting up his own stronghold.

Hopefully that gives you an idea of the old school style I am trying to get at. I think the idea of writing an article to define my vision of "old school style" is a good idea. I'll look into that.

 

[Rampant]

I just think playing around with the BaB is cool. I started in 3e so I don't get a lot of stuff referring to older editions, but these look like interesting variants to me.

 

[Greg K]

D&D is an action and adventure game, not a negotiating and politicking game.

I don't know that I would agree. Been playing since Holmes and I have seen a lot of negotiating and politicking and, occasionally, multiple sessions go without combat. So, I think it whatever the group wants it to be, but that is just based on my experience.

but most 3e characters I have come across are hodgepodge multiclass monstrosities that don't make a lot of sense on paper.

This is DM/player communication.

The DMG gives options for controlling this under the "Training". The DM just needs to communicate upfront that they are using some of the DMG training suggests. Want to multi-class? The class needs to be available in the game and the character needs access to a trainer, to convince them to train the character and have the time to train.

The above is true for PrCs if they are used and, by default, are under purview as stated in the DMG.

 

[Rampant]

one question about the fighter, if the various focuses and specializations only apply to the first weapon group chosen, why do you keep handing out extra groups?

 

[airwalkrr]

This is DM/player communication.

The DMG gives options for controlling this under the "Training". The DM just needs to communicate upfront that they are using some of the DMG training suggests. Want to multi-class? The class needs to be available in the game and the character needs access to a trainer, to convince them to train the character and have the time to train.

The above is true for PrCs if they are used and, by default, are under purview as stated in the DMG.

I don't know about you and the kinds of games you've played in, but I've seen precious few DMs put such strictures in place in actual play of a 3e game. In fact, the DMG notes these rules are variants, which implies they are not the expected standard for the game. 3e intentionally threw the door wide open for multiclassing. Too wide open. Players expect it and cry foul if it is taken away from them. Just whiny and immature players? Maybe. But it's also a flaw in the system.

one question about the fighter, if the various focuses and specializations only apply to the first weapon group chosen, why do you keep handing out extra groups?

A fighter is always learning how to use more weapons for the sake of versatility. If a fighter discovers a powerful magical axe, it is easier for him to learn how to use the axe properly than other classes. I should also note that I am in favor of allowing players to retrain certain features within reason. It should be possible for a fighter to swap his weapon focus if he takes the appropriate downtime for practice and training.

 

[Rampant]

Well when you get to that section of the rules don't forget to mention the re-training thing, otherwise it could be a problem if you design these classes with retraining in mind and another DM doesn't have that as a default option.

One option might be to consider the 3.5 ranger's favored enemy as inspiration.

 

[airwalkrr]

Owning the entire 3e library, having read most of it, and having run 3e for over ten years now, I feel like I have some good perspective on the rules. One of the things that I feel is an excellent evolution of the rules is the introduction of retraining in the PH2. I plan to make that a core rule. I feel like it gives players more latitude when making character build decisions since they are not going to be forever forced to be stuck with a certain choice forever. This means it is easier to make choices (what few are required in my rules set relative to the standard 3e rules set) because you don't have to worry that you will find something better later on and not be able to adjust your character.

And since you mention the ranger, I actually see the ranger's combat style as a model for how the retraining of a fighter's Weapon Focus ability will work. Under the retraining rules in the PH2, a ranger can change his combat style choice at level 2 and effectively change his feats gained from higher levels in this combat style at the same time. That is how it would work for the fighter with Weapon Focus.