A Modular Approach to Solving High Level Game Woes

joethelawyer

Banned
Banned
What if we just combine in a modular fashion the various versions of different systems and make up our own game? I realized today that essentially with our house rules, that’s all we really did. We houseruled 3.0 back to as close to AD&D as we could do, within the d20 rules, and kept the Feats and Skills from 3.0. We didn’t consciously houserule it that way. I guess our sensibilities and gaming preferences just lead us that way.

Also, I had been on the boards for a while before we hit high levels with our characters, and decided that in order to avoid a lot of the common high level problems, we ought to do some pre-emptive houseruling.

My question, what if we went all out and did this for real? Let’s say our group took the base AD&D rules, flat out. Then added the skills and feats from 3.x/Pathfinder, except for the ones that obviously wouldn’t work, like magic item creation, things that deal with attacks of opportunity, feats that give bonuses to saves would have to be changed, etc.

First, would such a system work? It brings back the old school flavor, and gives the classes some differentiation from each other, which is one thing my players say they like about 3.x---that fighters aren’t all the same. Heck, we can even use the d20 mechanic for combat and AC if need be, but it’s not a biggie because we were all fine with THACO.

My first thought is that this eliminates most of the problems associated with the high level game that people talk about.

·No more of the big 6 magic items, and no need for them, because the monsters aren’t scaled that way against you. The arms race is over. There is a definite limit to AC, and HP don’t get ridiculous.

·You’d use the old MM’s from AD&D for monsters, with their simpler stat blocks. Also the monsters aren’t classed, so monster and NPC generation is a breeze again, finally.

·No more long combats because attacks of opportunity don’t exist, and there are far less iterative attacks.

·Due to feats, fighters get a bump up as compared to magic users.

·Magic is rare in the game, due to the lack of magic item creation
feats---you are back to the old rules of hunting down the cobweb of a phase spider, dropping 50000 gp and then likely failing the check to make the item.

·This brings back the need to adventure in order to acquire magic, which lends itself to an old school feel game where the players adventure for killin’ and lootin’, rather than to “save the world” kinda crap.

·The spells are generally simpler in description and thus allow the players more creative use of them, making for a more fun game.

Does this work to solve the high level problem? What are the drawbacks?

As a side note, It seems that this approach could be used for all types of games. You like the OD&D rules, but want the spells from Pathfinder? Go for it. Once you break a game down to its component parts, you can pick and choose between them at will to get a game that suits your style of play.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


·Magic is rare in the game, due to the lack of magic item creation
feats---you are back to the old rules of hunting down the cobweb of a phase spider, dropping 50000 gp and then likely failing the check to make the item.


IMHO this was the suckyest part of 1e/2e. When our DM would allow us to make magic items, it was always some sort of epic quest to aquire the items to make it, when all I wanted was a scroll of Comprehend Languages. What's the point? Why not just go out and kill enough stuff to get it (which I guess IS the point, but IMHO not a great one for me). This also begs the question: if magic items are so hard to create, then why are they around in such abundance (even in 2e when we played)?

Damon.
 


Have you looked at RCFG? The whole game isn't ready yet, but it will be by next summer, with many of the things you are looking at. Over 400 monsters in a single tome (with varients, over 600 monsters), campaign focus, easy stat blocks, etc., etc. There is a weapon skill system that I first devised for 3.0; playtesting suggests that it works well. No feats, but fighters and rogues get a menu of special abilities. Very easy to use with materials from any edition of the game.


RC
 

IMHO this was the suckyest part of 1e/2e. When our DM would allow us to make magic items, it was always some sort of epic quest to aquire the items to make it, when all I wanted was a scroll of Comprehend Languages. What's the point? Why not just go out and kill enough stuff to get it (which I guess IS the point, but IMHO not a great one for me). This also begs the question: if magic items are so hard to create, then why are they around in such abundance (even in 2e when we played)?

Damon.


In that case take the magic item creation from 3.x. That's the point, its all modular. Or can be made so with some tweaking.

The solution has always existed, from the beginning of AD&D to the end of 3.5E. Simply don't play those high levels.

Unless of course you love to play high level guys. In which case 3.x needs a fix to make it more fun.

Have you looked at RCFG? The whole game isn't ready yet, but it will be by next summer, with many of the things you are looking at. Over 400 monsters in a single tome (with varients, over 600 monsters), campaign focus, easy stat blocks, etc., etc. There is a weapon skill system that I first devised for 3.0; playtesting suggests that it works well. No feats, but fighters and rogues get a menu of special abilities. Very easy to use with materials from any edition of the game.

RC


I just took a look at it. Very interesting. I look forward to reading the final product.
 

My solution for the past 4-5 years has been to basically ignore levels 11-20 for all purposes; 7-10 becomes 'high level', which was the way it was in 1e (certainly in UK-published materials), the game can still be run as-is and the problems simply vanish. This also fits with my gaming schedule, I can only run games twice a month; with some breaks. This way the PCs can reach close to maximum level within the typical duration of a campaign, ca 1.5 years.


I have not had good experiences with house-ruling 3e. I suppose feats could be added to 1e, though.
 

Unless of course you love to play high level guys. In which case 3.x needs a fix to make it more fun.

What elements of levels 16-20 play in 3e do you enjoy that you can't get at level 7-10? It seems to me that most of the major spell stuff affecting the nature of the play experience comes in at 9th - raise dead, teleport, plane shift etc.

If it's just the fact of being the baddest guys around, that is easily dealt with by the GM creating a level 1-10 world. I've done it that way for years and had no complaints, even from the powergamers. Of course some monsters in 3.5 have been designed only to be fightable at 16-20; this was not the case in 1e, so my solution if I want PCs fighting a balrog/balor is to base the stats off the 1e version. That said, the 3.0 Balor was pretty beatable anyway...
 

What elements of levels 16-20 play in 3e do you enjoy that you can't get at level 7-10? It seems to me that most of the major spell stuff affecting the nature of the play experience comes in at 9th - raise dead, teleport, plane shift etc.

If it's just the fact of being the baddest guys around, that is easily dealt with by the GM creating a level 1-10 world. I've done it that way for years and had no complaints, even from the powergamers. Of course some monsters in 3.5 have been designed only to be fightable at 16-20; this was not the case in 1e, so my solution if I want PCs fighting a balrog/balor is to base the stats off the 1e version. That said, the 3.0 Balor was pretty beatable anyway...


Two words: Meteor Swarm. :)

Seriously, I've always liked wizards the best. Wizards become badass at higher levels. We ran our original guys up to 32nd level in 1e and had a blast every step of the way. The system scaled well, and we never had issues with combat like we do in 3.x. We all liked taking a bigger part on the world stage at those levels. It wasn't so much save the word kinda stuff, it was more like "Hey world, look at me the badass. I just killed that Balrog at the front gates of Greyhawk!" **FLEX LIKE ARNOLD**

Our games were more about the ego and reputation, less about the gear. The gear we had even at 32nd level wasn't that great, looking back on it now. It was more what we did with it. And the more spells you have, the more options you have.

The sort of 1e agme with 3.x feats and skills would necessarily use the monsters from 1e. Therefore CR is a non issue. Also we would use the 1e XP progression for characters, and the 1e XP awards for monsters. The only thing we would carry over would be the skills and feats that dont conflict with 1e.
 

The best approach is to scale everything bad to old edition power levels; a balor is a 12th level threat and not the 20th level blashempy-spamming monster that 3.5e made it out to be.

Besides, the 12th+ level mechanics were always poorly considered(remember, the highest level PC in the Greyhawk campaign was 12th? 14th? level).
 

I don't see how meteor swarm is much different from fireball.

Wizards at high level remained playable in 1e (at least pre UA) because they combined great power with continuing vulnerability. 3e eliminated the Wizard's vulnerabilities (very few hp, combat casting very risky) while also nerfing the Fighter (no move + full attack).

It sounds like you are proposing a houseruled 1e (adding feats, a different skills system?), which is fine, and sounds like it should work well at high level, but doesn't really concern 3e.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top