D&D 3E/3.5 3e, Old School Style
- Thread starter airwalkrr
- Start date
AlucardD20
First Post
Old School Roleplaying can be done with ANY Game with a good DM. Old School defines a style of playing, not a decade anymore where certain games were produced. Anyone can play 3E old school style, its simple.. do more roleplaying then using just the dice.
airwalkrr
Adventurer
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you talking about using the favored enemy as a template for the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization ability? As in, at 1st level a fighter gets +1 to hit with one weapon group. At 1st + x a fighter gets +1 to hit in two weapon groups, then at 1st + 2 * x a fighter gets +1 to hit in two weapon groups again?
If that is what you are referencing, I personally have never liked the implementation of the ranger a whole lot in 3e. What I WAS saying was that the way retraining of the fighter Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization feats would work would be similar to the way retraining a ranger's combat style works. You're the one who brought up the favored enemy. I never said anything about the favored enemy ability, but since you brought up the ranger, I figured I'd bring up something related to the ranger. So perhaps you misunderstood.
I disagree on the point that "old school" means more role playing. D&D was born out of wargaming and the very first D&D campaigns were effectively wargaming campaigns that focused on the heroes rather than large battlefields. Hence the rules in old editions of AD&D deal mostly with combat (not entirely, but there is a definite bias there). The fact that these heroes developed personalities and pursued intriguing plots was more a by-product from my perspective. Both are great things to have in a game. But I'm designing a "fast-play" version of 3e wherein one can more quickly create a character while still using the robust 3e combat system and action economy. In other words, its still about the focus on the dungeons and the dragons. As a matter of fact, my skills rules get rid of almost everything that has to do with social interaction and deals with subjects as they pertain to action and combat. Diplomacy, for example, is a tool to stall battles you aren't ready for or compel captured prisoners to tell you what you want to know. But more on that later.
Last edited:
I just wanted to be sure that we were talking about the same idea, we were as it turns out. I made a suggestion based on what I thought was a fairly clever implementation, you said you preferred your way, I double checked to confirm we'd understood each other (because I've seen some major confusion regarding the ranger abilities before), and then your reply indicated that everything checked out.
we're good
though i would like to see your iteration of the retrain rules
we're good
though i would like to see your iteration of the retrain rules
airwalkrr
Adventurer
The level 20 cap is one of the things that really grated on me when 3e was first released. AD&D had different level caps for all classes in the core rules because all of the classes had abilities of a different nature. For magic-users in AD&D 1e the level cap was 18 to reach the archmage title or 29 to reach maximum spells. Meanwhile the illusionist had a cap of 12 for title and 26 for maximum spells. This was largely arbitrary, but partially based on the relative power level of the classes and total XP earned.
For an internally consistent spell system like 3e the most natural cut-off point seems to be around 17th or 18th level when the casters stop gaining spells. Although an extrapolation to higher levels is certainly possible, there isn't a need to actually put anything down on a chart beyond this point. So it seems logical enough to me to end standard levels at 18.
For an internally consistent spell system like 3e the most natural cut-off point seems to be around 17th or 18th level when the casters stop gaining spells. Although an extrapolation to higher levels is certainly possible, there isn't a need to actually put anything down on a chart beyond this point. So it seems logical enough to me to end standard levels at 18.
Similar Threads
