D&D 3.x A more "old-school" 3.5E

[Darklone]

I'll add comments where I think it can be done easier or better.

• No feats.
  For the fighter and the monk, make one list of feats he gains at the relevant levels. Power Attack/Cleave, Weapon Focus, Rapid Shot, PBS, Precise Shot etc. I'd give Cleave to the barbarian at level 9 too. Same for the ranger
• No skills, except for rogues.
  Yeah, simply assume maxxed ranks for Open Lock, Disable Device and stuff.
• No normal multiclassing.
  see below
• A character can have two classes, using the gestalt rules from UA, but XP is split up between both classes.
  I would handle it with normal multiclassing, but only two classes and not more than one level apart. Nearly same result but easier/more balanced.
• The XP tables are exponential (1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, etc.).
  You're the DM, hand out XPs as you want.
• No attacks of opportunity.
  Ok... that's not a problem if you don't allow all manoevers that would provoke an AoO. Many people do this and it works fine.
• People declare their actions at the start of the round, then initititve is rolled to determine the order the actions are resolved.
  Every round? If you like it. That works fine till that ogre attacks twice in a row and half of the party is dead.
• To generate ability scores, roll 3d6 six times and assign them as they choose, the ability modifiers are 3 (-3), 4-5 (-2), 6-8 (-1), 9-12 (+0), 13-15 (+1), 16-17 (+2), 18 (+3)
  Tough. Hardcore game. Let's hope the players roll similarly, otherwise some will rule the game.
• Instead of granting bonuses to ability scores, races improve ability modifiers; for example, an orc gets +1 Strength modifier, -1 Intelligence modifier, -1 Charisma modifier (this change is mainly so I don't have to create a big table to find ability modifiers for higher than human possible ability scores)
  Should work.

Does that seem like it would result in a rules system pretty similar (in a general sense) to previous versions of D&D/AD&D?

Nope. But it's an easier, stripped version of 3rd edition.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think the OP has gutted pretty much all of what makes 3e 3e. Not that I don't respect the effort mind you. There are some good ideas there. The initiative rolling each round and multiclassing is something I like and actually use IMtC (in my theoretical campaign). But getting rid of feats mean the fighter is pointless. And I think the ability score change will have a domino effect on too many game statistics.

One thing I never understood is the 3d6 for ability scores. Maybe I don't have an early enough copy, but it seems like my 1e DMG recommends 4d6, drop lowest, and lists the 3d6 method as optional for tough campaigns.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think it's a good idea, but if you're going to go that route, I'd suggest saving yourself the trouble and just run one of the following:

Basic Fantasy (Free!)
Castles & Crusades
B/X (Moldvay/Cook edition)
Rules Cyclopedia (compiled Mentzer edition)
AD&D 1st edition
or
OSRIC (Free!)

 

[RainOfSteel]

No skills, except for rogues.

Throw out the task system?

Micro-rant
[sblock]To me, 3e's creation of an integrated task system (not the best one, but still not bad, either) was a better feature than the replacement of the 1e/2e combat system with its reversed positive/negative numbering system, the replacement of the dual-class/multi-class system with one multi-class system, the elimination of level and class restrictions by race, or even the introduction of a unified rolling high is good and rolling low is bad dice mechanic.[/sblock]If you're going to throw out the task system, along with all else, well, I don't know. I wouldn't consider going to 1e/OSRIC or 2e. Perhaps one of the alternate systems proposed so far might work.

 

[howandwhy99]

I was thinking of doing this when I started a new campaign last Spring. It's just too much house ruling and reconfiguring of everything in 3.5

Think about it. You need to reconfigure all the monsters, spells, magic items, classes, combat rules, and plenty more.

I agree with you though. The skills and feats rules are wonderful as a business plan, but they suck as game mechanics. They're like the opposite of laws. Instead of saying "you can doing anything, but this list of laws", the rules now say "You can do these things only". What happens if a players wants to do something typically covered by a feat or skills the character doesn't posses? It's just plain "No". The rules say no.

 

[Infiniti2000]

3d6, if you run by Orlando, I'll give you a set of 1e (AD&D) books.

 

[RainOfSteel]

What happens if a players wants to do something typically covered by a feat or skills the character doesn't posses? It's just plain "No". The rules say no.

For the most part, they don't. If a player without Jump or any Jump-related feats wishes to try and jump a 30-foot gap, that can certainly be attempted. The likely result is failure, of course. But for someone who has no training or ability in that area, that is as it should be.

On those occasions when the rules do say that, such as skills that cannot be used untrained, that is also as it should be.

 

[kaomera]

For the most part, they don't. If a player without Jump or any Jump-related feats wishes to try and jump a 30-foot gap, that can certainly be attempted. The likely result is failure, of course. But for someone who has no training or ability in that area, that is as it should be.

On those occasions when the rules do say that, such as skills that cannot be used untrained, that is also as it should be.

I don't want to try and say that I know what is or is not "as it should be" for your game, but for some players / DMs ("Hi!" ) having to say "No." to these types of things is less fun than saying "Yes.". I don't think there's much need to change rules to accomplish this, the DM can simply adjudicate situations with an eye out for what the players expectations are (either way). But I do find that I sometimes ignore "standard" DCs in situations where otherwise a poor (or even average) roll by a player is going to create a situation that I judge will be un-fun. Of course, I'm more likely to simply place a 7' or 8' gap in place of the 30' one, make walls that may need to be climbed suitable for that use, etc. Characters with high skills can still shine, since they can often simply ignore such obstacles while the rest of the group struggles through, but I don't (as much) simply need to block an action...

 

[Space Coyote]

You just made the fighter completely useless by taking away the feats. Maybe, you should go through the feets and make up lists of "class abilities" that a character can take every third level. Fighters get to take one every third level and one every other level.

Strangely enough, previous D&D versions fighters did not get many abilities. Fighters got the highest hit dice (d10), the highest BAB (Or THACO in previous editions), were skilled in any armor or weapon and could take more weapon proficiencies than other classes. The only real "ability" that fighters had was weapon specialization, which would slightly increase their number of attacks (at 1st level they would get 3 attacks every 2 rounds) and +1 to hit and +2 on damage, with a specific weapon.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Strangely enough, previous D&D versions fighters did not get many abilities. Fighters got the highest hit dice (d10), the highest BAB (Or THACO in previous editions), were skilled in any armor or weapon and could take more weapon proficiencies than other classes. The only real "ability" that fighters had was weapon specialization, which would slightly increase their number of attacks (at 1st level they would get 3 attacks every 2 rounds) and +1 to hit and +2 on damage, with a specific weapon.

Actually, the original D&D fighter had it much better than that. True, the 2nd edition AD&D fighter was the only guy who could specialize in a weapon (until Combat & Tactics came along and flubbed everything up with its weapon expertise/mastery rules). But in classic D&D, the fighter was the only guy who got "fighter combat options" -- parry/total defense; set spear vs. charge; and "smash attack", which let a 9th level fighter take a -5 penalty to an attack roll and add his strength score to the damage if he hit. (Although, if memory serves, I believe elves, dwarves, halflings, and monks also eventually earned the ability to use these actions.) Of course, in OD&D, you didn't have to be a fighter to take weapon mastery either.

Incidentally, I recently decided to re-write D&D to make it more "old-school" as well. I'm going to strip out feats, skill points, and attacks of opportunity, and really, really pare down the list of classes and prestige classes to make the game look a little more like OD&D. Back in the day, it was manageable -- your options were fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user, monk, elf, dwarf, or halfling, and if your cleric was neutral he could go druid at level 9. I'm not going that far, but I do prefer a short list to our present day array of eldritch knights, spellswords, duskblades, hexblades, shamans, spirit shamans, dragon shamans, dragon adepts, dragon disciples, duelists, dread pirates, swashbucklers, beguilers, healers, wilders, warmages, warlocks, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my.