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

[Rampant]

One thing I've never been clear on: The alignment rule says you can only be neutral if your god is This seems to contradict the one-step away rule.

Is it that you can only be true neutral if your god is? or are clerics of lawful good gods locked into the LG alignment?

Also wouldn't it make more sense if a low level cleric (1st or 4th level) gained the weapon group favored by his deity?

Also I gotta ask how the turning thing works in your system, I get you roll the die to determine how many you can effect but past that point how much similarity doe sit bear to 3.5 turning?

Finally I gotta sk why the wiz get a second attack? Everyone else gets knocked down one attack, why does the wizard the one least likely to need or want a second attack get one?

 

[Croesus]

I like the feel of the classes, for the most part, but I am a bit leery of the spells per day for clerics and wizards.

When the cleric runs out of spells, he can still wade into melee and be effective. The wizard? Stand around and shoot at (and usually miss) stuff using a crossbow or dagger? Sounds rather boring. Yet at virtually every level, the cleric has more spells than the wizard does. I agree that this matches better how classes were designed in 1E, but there's a reason why 3E gave the wizard more spells. Just something to consider.

 

[airwalkrr]

One thing I've never been clear on: The alignment rule says you can only be neutral if your god is This seems to contradict the one-step away rule.

The general rule is one step away. True neutral is the sole exception to that rule. The only way to play a true neutral cleric is to worship a true neutral deity.

Is it that you can only be true neutral if your god is? or are clerics of lawful good gods locked into the LG alignment?

Clerics who follow a lawful good deity may be LG, LN, or NG.

Also wouldn't it make more sense if a low level cleric (1st or 4th level) gained the weapon group favored by his deity?

As opposed to just the single weapon? Clerics are powerful enough. I do not believe they need proficiency with an entire weapon group. I want to encourage all clerics to use their deity's favored weapon as a status symbol and way of strengthening the associations of each religion with their holy warriors.

Also I gotta ask how the turning thing works in your system, I get you roll the die to determine how many you can effect but past that point how much similarity doe sit bear to 3.5 turning?

To put it simply, turning works as in 3e with the following exceptions.

1) Turning damage is 2d6 + Charisma modifier only (4d6 + Charisma modifier at 8th level and 6d6 + Charisma modifier at 16th level). This replaces the rule of turning damage being 2d6 + cleric level + Charisma modifier.

2) Turning is not restricted to 3 + Charisma modifier uses per day. It can be done without limit. Of course a turning check is still a standard action so the action economy and the turning damage are the primary limitations.

Finally I gotta sk why the wiz get a second attack? Everyone else gets knocked down one attack, why does the wizard the one least likely to need or want a second attack get one?

With a 1/2 BAB per level, the wizard is still not going to resort to fighting with weapons except as a last resort. And even then the wizard is much worse at it than the other classes. I am considering returning to a 1:1 ratio for fighter, 3:4 ratio for cleric, 1:2 ratio for rogue, and 1:4 ratio for wizard however. But I will have to think on this more.

I like the feel of the classes, for the most part, but I am a bit leery of the spells per day for clerics and wizards.

When the cleric runs out of spells, he can still wade into melee and be effective. The wizard? Stand around and shoot at (and usually miss) stuff using a crossbow or dagger? Sounds rather boring. Yet at virtually every level, the cleric has more spells than the wizard does. I agree that this matches better how classes were designed in 1E, but there's a reason why 3E gave the wizard more spells. Just something to consider.

A wizard gains a liberal amount of item creation feats which he rightly ought to use to create magic items to help him fill in the gaps for when he is low on spells. This is the primary balancing factor here.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I like the chages made to the cleric's turning ability; making it at-will certainly brings it closer in line with 1st Edition. This does beg the question, though, how do you intend to handle certain 3.5 options such as Divine Metamagic?

Also, are you planning on going into greater depth on the changes to Leadership? I am interested to see how that will work as a skill as opposed to it's previous incarnations as a feat (3rd Edition) and a class ability (1st Edition).

 

[Croesus]

A wizard gains a liberal amount of item creation feats which he rightly ought to use to create magic items to help him fill in the gaps for when he is low on spells. This is the primary balancing factor here.

I figured as much, but I'd prefer not to have to rely on items.

That said, the advantage of your writeups so far is that they are relatively simple. It would be easy to add a class feature that allows the wizards to shoot "mage bolts" or whatever that function much like a typical ranged weapon, but have a more arcane feel and could be customized with feats and such.

Looking forward to your next post.

 

[airwalkrr]

I like the chages made to the cleric's turning ability; making it at-will certainly brings it closer in line with 1st Edition. This does beg the question, though, how do you intend to handle certain 3.5 options such as Divine Metamagic?

Personally, I never liked Divine Metamagic. The feat is too powerful for a class which is already arguably the most powerful class in the game. On another note, this rules set is not intended to be 100% compatible with existing 3e material. That said, Divine Metamagic could exist within the rules set in another way. One example one might use is to allow clerics to use Divine Metamagic a number of times per day equal to their Charisma modifier or some function thereof. Another way would be to allow a cleric to sacrifice a spell slot of a level equal to that of the increase in spell level the metamagic feat in question would normally raise the spell level. So, for example, a cleric might sacrifice a 1st-level spell slot to cast a Silent Spell version of another spell.

Also, are you planning on going into greater depth on the changes to Leadership? I am interested to see how that will work as a skill as opposed to it's previous incarnations as a feat (3rd Edition) and a class ability (1st Edition).

Absolutely! More details on Leadership and skills in general shall be forthcoming in the following weeks. I will probably be tackling skills next after I discuss the changes to ability scores.

 

[airwalkrr]

Part 5: Ability Scores is posted for your enjoyment. Please post comments and questions.

 

[Rampant]

I'm not so certain this ability score set up is going to have the effect you intend. In fact it seems like players will be more likely to throw themselves off cliffs since it's even harder to get a good score now.

If you're so concerned about the character's destiny not being determined by rolling a few d6 at the start of its lifespan, you might wanna consider point buy.

 

[airwalkrr]

The whole idea here, [MENTION=52859]Rampant[/MENTION], is that ability scores are not intended to make the character. Rather character building choices like race, class and feats are the things that make the character. I prefer ability scores get in the way as little as possible. I do not intend for the rules of the game to assume that characters need a certain ability score to have a fun character. Having a high ability score is a rarity that ought to be nice to have, but not necessary. Having played AD&D before, I never found that having average ability scores got in the way of having a compelling character.

And for the record, I abhor point buy. Still, I will be including a point buy option with this rules set because I know some players just cannot fathom the possibility of playing a fighter without an 18 Strength or a wizard without an 18 Intelligence. Still, I think such attitudes are decidedly anti-old school. I believe rolling for ability scores is part of the experience, and getting that occasional high score is a great rush of excitement even though you can play the game without it. Most players will get at least one exceptional score (15+) out of the standard rolling method anyway.

 

[Rampant]

Admittedly I have a severe bias for point buy due to my inability to roll decent stats to save my life.

I generally average about 2-3 points lower in every single score than the rest of the party.

I've had a half-orc barbarian in the same party with an elf wizard who did more damage with a greataxe than he did.

Rolling stats sucks when you're the only one not cheating.