D&D 3E/3.5 3e Sword & Sorcery

[Aus_Snow]

Curiosity got the better of me, so I checked out the 4e thread (it was visible from the /forum page) that happens to have a very similar title to this one's, read some interesting things, and thought, 'Hey, it's been a while since I've seen a thread like that for 3e, so. . .'

So, here we are.

Do you have any ideas, or actual house rules, for using 3e as a system for a S&S setting? Whatever the term (i.e., Sword and Sorcery) means to you, that is.

 

[slwoyach]

I start by using Conan D20, make it E6, and go from there. I also prefer a critical hit system that can result in actual wounds that take time to heal and can hinder your ability to fight. In my system a 5 point wound to your arm gives a -5 penalty to all attacks and skill checks with that arm and heals at one day per point. In games with magical healing, a wound can be healed at a rate of 1 point per hd of healing. Hit points have nothing to do with toughness, they represent the ability to avoid wounds and represent fatigue more than anything else. Characters heal hps in minutes rather than days.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I used Iron Heroes, slightly modified, with great success for several years.

Lately I've been trying out Trailblazer and while I don't have enough data to be conclusive, it certainly feels like a good attempt.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'm intending to run at some point a campaign along the lines of...

• Slightly modified E6, with wounds/vitality and BDBs
• Heavy on the fighter/rogue types, especially non-magical variants. Spellcasting classes can only be taken every other level, and require a feat buy-in (Literacy or Background for preppers, Bloodline for sponts) [possibly with ability to retroactively retrain into a full caster, after 6th level.]
• Action points variant.
• Silver standard economy (ie, wealth and most treasure is in sp, but most prices remain as in core). Steel swords and good horses are expensive.
• Low magic: magic items are rare, but relatively potent. No magic shops. Many spells unavailable except as rituals, etc.
• Xp for wasting gp on wine'n'wenches

 

[Philosopher]

I've recently been giving this some thought. Keep in mind that S&S can take a variety of forms, and my suggestions are not meant to imply that anything different would not be S&S.

Personally, the only race I'd allow is human, and the only classes I'd allow are barbarian, fighter, ranger (replacing spellcasting with some bonus fighter feats), and rogue. (I'd probably also allow some of the UA variants for these classes.) Other races may exist (although even if they did, I probably wouldn't use the standard PHB races), and spellcasters will definitely exist, but I would want to them to be sufficiently rare and exotic.

I also like the idea of magic being something only granted through a pact with unspeakable beings. For this reason, I'd only use sorcerers, as the high Charisma could be seen as necessary in dealing with such beings. (Part of this would involve re-flavoring the sorcerer. Rather than gaining their powers through a bloodline, they gain them through a pact. I wouldn't feel the need to introduce any mechanical differences, other than the possibility of having one's magic stripped.) I may also be tempted to use the insanity and/or taint rules from UA when dealing with magic. (If spellcasters are NPCs only, this wouldn't directly affect PCs, so I would probably not need to use the finer details of these mechanics.)

I would remove alignment from the game. S&S almost never has objective good/evil; the world doesn't care about you. (This is why, incidentally, I would not allow the paladin, even if spellcasting were removed.)

Without healers, I'd give some boost when it comes to taking and recovering from damage. Not too much - I would want combat to be a danger still. I'd use one of the variants from UA (not sure which one).

Given the prevalence of bare-chested barbarians in S&S, I'd make armor less necessary. I would use some sort of defense bonus to AC. However, there should still be a benefit to wearing armor, so I would allow it to grant damage reduction instead of an AC bonus. My preference would be to use the Iron Heroes method, and have a die roll for each armor type to determine how much damage is reduced by per shot.

I'd use Action Points.

In terms of setting, I'd use a sandbox style campaign, probably centered on a city. The city would be rife with corruption.

As I said above, all of this isn't necessary for S&S, but it has the sort of features I'd enjoy.

 

[Philosopher]

There's another point that occurred to me. While I can appreciate granting XP for spending money on "wine'n'wenching", I'd rather not have any mechanical consequences for that. Rather, it should follow naturally from having a low magic campaign. If there are no magic shops around, you're not going to be able to spend money on gearing up your character anyway. Any PC that hordes his/her wealth won't be able to do too as much with it as in a regular D&D campaign. Plus, the longer the gold sits around, the more likely it will be taken by thieves. (Without bags of holding, it will become harder and harder to carry it all around.) Wine and women (or men) will be the only reasonable option left.

 

[ValhallaGH]

There's another point that occurred to me. ... If there are no magic shops around, you're not going to be able to spend money on gearing up your character anyway. ... Wine and women (or men) will be the only reasonable option left.

Not quite. There's other uses for cash than gear or pleasures of the moment. The classic land purchase, making the character at least a Yeoman if not part of the landed gentry, is always available; in the same vein, purchasing shops, mercantile firms, trading corporations, or shares in any of the previous, can be a very profitable and interesting investment that inspires further adventures. Then there's the purchase of influence through gifts, charitable donations, hosting galas, or simple bribery; the benefits of which can include practical immunity from prosecution, major influence on legislation, warning of coming trouble or competition (a.k.a. plot hooks), political office, or any number of other affairs.
Successful adventurers are one part rock star, one part financially independent playboy (or playgirl), one part hero of glory, and one part murderous psychopath.

 

[Philosopher]

Not quite. There's other uses for cash than gear or pleasures of the moment. The classic land purchase, making the character at least a Yeoman if not part of the landed gentry, is always available; in the same vein, purchasing shops, mercantile firms, trading corporations, or shares in any of the previous, can be a very profitable and interesting investment that inspires further adventures. Then there's the purchase of influence through gifts, charitable donations, hosting galas, or simple bribery; the benefits of which can include practical immunity from prosecution, major influence on legislation, warning of coming trouble or competition (a.k.a. plot hooks), political office, or any number of other affairs.
Successful adventurers are one part rock star, one part financially independent playboy (or playgirl), one part hero of glory, and one part murderous psychopath.

Yes, I'll grant that, to a point. But I still don't think it should be handled with mechanics. After all, lands can be raided, bribed officials can turn on you, etc. More is needed than the possibility of direct theft, but it need not be in terms of game mechanics.

Not that I would disallow PCs from trying (and even succeeding at) these things. But if you drive home an ethos of "who knows what will happen in the future, now is what matters", then I think you'll do more to evoke the S&S feel than merely reinforcing "I can get more XP this way".

But that's me.

 

[ValhallaGH]

And then there's the whole "I could die any day; I'm in an incredibly dangerous profession," thing.

Living for the moment is the more realistic view (I hate talk of realism in gaming but there we are). I certainly don't claim it should be the XP system, though it can be and that does reinforce the "loot big, live big" mindset that pervades much of the source material.

I'm just pointing out that there are always more options. Especially when it comes to those most dangerous and unpredictable of creatures: player characters.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I also like the idea of magic being something only granted through a pact with unspeakable beings. For this reason, I'd only use sorcerers, as the high Charisma could be seen as necessary in dealing with such beings. (Part of this would involve re-flavoring the sorcerer. Rather than gaining their powers through a bloodline, they gain them through a pact. I wouldn't feel the need to introduce any mechanical differences, other than the possibility of having one's magic stripped.)

I rather like this. That's sort of what I had in mind with the bloodline, though I'd use "Bloodline Levels" (5e games) rather than UA bloodlines. By gaining levels, the PC sacrifices class utility for traits of "unspeakable beings"-- but also allow for more prosaic backgrounds, like long extinct giant blood. Imho, a good selection of bloodlines is a good way to really flavor the campaign in particular directions.

I would remove alignment from the game. S&S almost never has objective good/evil; the world doesn't care about you. (This is why, incidentally, I would not allow the paladin, even if spellcasting were removed.)

Agreed.

Without healers, I'd give some boost when it comes to taking and recovering from damage. Not too much - I would want combat to be a danger still. I'd use one of the variants from UA (not sure which one).

Also agreed. I'd like to see a more useful Healing skill, frankly. I think that, with some weak "herbal" remedies would be enough to offset a lack of healing.

There's another point that occurred to me. While I can appreciate granting XP for spending money on "wine'n'wenching", I'd rather not have any mechanical consequences for that. Rather, it should follow naturally from having a low magic campaign.

Definitely makes sense, and imho the ideal way to run things. I'm pondering this mainly for two reasons. One is that it's got a heavy "old school" vibe, which (in my mind, at least) meshes well with S&S; I wouldn't allow such an exchange in a different sort of campaign. Also, I don't the think the exchange would be 1-for-1; not sure what, though!

Second, and more important, is that it takes money away from the PCs so they don't spend it on any of those useful things that you & ValhallaGH mentioned (business, land, titles, equipment, etc). Effectively, it's a reward for an in-game activity that doesn't have any other attached non-xp advantage associated with it. The question for the player becomes: "Do I buy the expensive steel sword to improve my combat ability, or do I go and party for the XP?" Really the XP are for the wining'n'wenching, not the gp directly-- and it's optional, a choice each PC has to make based on his goals.

Actually, i'd probably also tailor this to the character. While a barbarian would get his xp for partying, someone aspiring to dark sorcery likely would not; his would be earned instead by bribing thugs to "acquire" unwholesome spell components or something like that. The wannabe sorc can party, too-- but he doesn't get xp for it! Of course in practice this is really just fluff, and agreed to by the player and GM before play, based on the character concept.

In any event, i think it would be interesting to try out, since I've never used a mechanic like that before.