A simplified D&D? Aren't you all forgetting something...

Storm Raven said:
Or, you could play such a character as a junior member of a ninja clan who has not yet been initiated into the deeper mysteries of the organization. Run the prestige class as senior members and special secrets, while the rogues and so on who make up the lower ranks just haven't been taught the "secret ways" yet.

and you can do this with OD&D, BECMI D&D, 1edADnD, 2edADnD too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Before I start going into details: I want to congratulate you. You're the first person who ever said he prefered AD&D 2e over D&D 3e, and who isn't one of the "Old Veterans" of the other game who are too set in the ways to ever get friends with the fact that they can have a paladin of a race other than human.

Johnnie Freedom! said:
Absolutely. It's a simple case of overload, which quickly spirals into burnout. For instance, with AD&D 2e, we're all determined to avoid all of the "Handbook" supplements (both for race and class) and just use the basics. For cryin' out loud, we have imaginations, don't we? Why do we need a friggin' new supplement every week? :(

Hm... what about simply using the D&D 3.5 core rules and nothing else? You'd have a lot less feats to choose from. Then using the simple method of taking x+int skills (where x is the amount of skill points the class gets) and maxing them out.

The supplement thing was in 2e as well, after all (though back then it mainly lifted restrictions)



Beyond that, I'll join the "death before 2nd edition" crowd here. Having separate XP-tables for all the classes (or at least several different ones), one table for each ability score (with some additional benefits for certain classes), a big large table for the 5 different saving throws, a separate thieves skill system and all doesn't exactly spell out "simple" for me. Besides all the restrictions were a real pain, the saves made less sense than, and there was no difference whether you sneaked past a blind oaf or an eagle-ey, or wheter you had to save against the magic missile of an apprentice, or vecna's wail of the banshee (at least difficulty-wise) - and a clumsy rogue had the same chance to evade a fireball than a nimble one, and a lot of other thigns, don't sit well with me.


yipwyg said:
I also thought kits, eventhough most were unbalanced, were better than Prestige Classes. In 2nd edtion you started out as a fledgling character based on your concept. If you wanted to be a ninja you began as a fledgling ninja.

In 3.0/3.5 you create a character who dreams of one day joining a ninja clan. I do not know off hand how many start-stop games I have had were I never got to the level to even get the prestige class my character was after.

Ah, the old "I can't now be a ninja from 1st-level on" problem. Or, to stay within western concepts, an assassin. Sure, you have to wait till level 6 or so before you can take a level in the DMG's Assassin PrC. But ask yourself. Do you need "Assassin" written on your character sheet in order to be an assassin? If you say yes, just go ahead and write it onto your sheet. Sure, you can't be an Assassin before level 6, but you sure can be an assassin from the beginning. Take the right skills, and then go and get yourself hired to kill a bloke. BAM! You're an assassin. The PrC just gives you a specialized set of abilities that help you in your job.
Don't get tangled up in terminology.

And in 3e, it is actually easier to make an assassin than in 2e. In 3e, you just have to choose the right skills. In 2e, you have to take a kit (which isn't in the core rules, either). In 3e, you don't have to be a rogue in order to be an assassin. Be a fighter with the right skills. In 2e, fighters can't take "thieve abilities"...
 

I'm not forgetting something. Perhaps you are...

Just because whole loads of combat options and DC listings exist in the 3e core books doesn't mean you must use them. As far as I can tell, there's nothing that you seem to think of as important in your recent 2e experience that can't be reasonably duplicated with 3e. There's no reason to sell off the 3e books and buy 2e again.

People don't need to think about a simplified D&D to make it playable. They ought to think about it merely to make it unified. From a business standpoint, there's something to be said for producing a single simple D&D, instead of having each DM buy the 3e books and cut out different things.
 

Well, a year ago, I would have been in the "death before 2e again" crowd, although that has been changing. I would almost welcome a 4th edition of the game, except that I do not want Hasbro/WOTC or the current designers to work on it. They seem stuck repeating the same track over and over again.

3e has become too weighted. Even the core material is heavy. I truly believe that all the advanced combat options (bull rush, sunder etc) need to be replaced by a single mechanic that governs all special actions. And all the feats surrounding these advanced options should be removed from the game. This would include feats that provide situational bonus only such as point blank shot.

I love minis as well, but the core rules should be less focused on this area. I actually miss the more cinematic combat where people would try truly cool things. Not that they cannot try them in 3e, it's just that the rules imply that they cannot be done without x feat or y skill.

The myriad of "options" and "mechanics" have really come to dominate the game while taking away some of the more fantastical elements.
 

Umbran said:
Just because whole loads of combat options and DC listings exist in the 3e core books doesn't mean you must use them.
Yes and no.

If it's in the rules, then the entire play group has to think about it, then decide not to use it. That's why they're rules after all; they're agreed upon. Thus, if your whole group agrees, ahead of time, that they'd like a simplified game, more like original D&D, you can easily strip down the current edition to its d20 core. On the other hand, if you decide, as DM, in the middle of a campaign, that things are a bit clunky, and you start ignoring well defined rules, you've got chaos.
 

Johnnie Freedom! said:
We rolled up characters and played through a modified Tomb of Horrors using basic AD&D 2e (I say "basic" as opposed to the dreadful "Player's Option" stuff that came later). Guess what? We loved it.
I had a similar experence in the mid-1990s. Just substitute GURPS/Rolemaster/Hârnmaster/Fantasy Hero for 3e & T1-4 for ToH. :)

You might want to check out Dragonsfoot. There are forums there for discussing 2e, 1e, classic D&D, & C&C, among others.
 

I recently started a thread i House Rules, where I was looking for input on how to hange stuff in D&D 3x to make it simpler, primarily by rewriting and changing things. I now believe that that was the wrong approach, as few can agree on how things should be changed.

But maybe it's easier to remove (overly complicated) things instead, so I made this new thread.

So if those of you who (in this thread) have said that there's no reason to go back to an earlier edition to play a more fluidently running game ('cos you can just cut back on the complex parts of 3x), please swing by my new thread and share your ideas on how to go about it.

Thanks a lot!
 

mmadsen said:
Yes and no.

If it's in the rules, then the entire play group has to think about it, then decide not to use it.

True enough for the core rules.

Beyond that, I really think that most supplemental and third rules are in the state where you have to pretty consciously DECIDE to use it.
 

Ugh, 2e was the reason that I left D&D products. I had some fun with it, but overall I think 3e (.0 or .5) is a MAJOR improvement. I am glad that someone is getting use out of it though!

As for a simplified D&D, I've been kicking around the idea to more easily allow pick-up and go games for when either I'm unprepared or we're running with a couple people gone. I've bascially got it down to setting array that players can use for stats, removed some skills/spells/feats, and I'm removed some abilities from the races. Basically, I've got it down to a game that offers a LOT more customization than Warhammer Quest (our usual pick up and run game), but is still pretty much down to the basics of combat and action. It can be done, but for the most part I like running campaigns with D&D 3.5 (combined with AU) with all the bells and whistles.

Kane
 

Curiously, I've found that the more detail is on the table, the more likely people are to try cool things.

Recently I ran a module that featured a battle in a tavern and printed out 0-one games tavern in order to do it. I had a player (2nd or 3rd level I think) try the following: OK, I tumble away from the barbarian, jump on that table (automatically make the check), jump from there onto that stack of barrels, hop up onto the bannister, slide down the bannister (balancing--DC 20 check) and attack into the flank from higher ground.

None of that would be likely to have happened without the specific placement on the detailed battlemap.

Personally, I suspect that what causes a lack of "cinematic" combat is laziness when drawing battlemaps and unfamiliarity with the jump and balance rules. If battlemaps show a series of blank walls and nothing else, there's not enough set dressing to be cinematic. If you don't know the balance rules, you're not likely to mess with them. If there aren't any open pits, canals, balconies, fireplaces, etc, you won't see many bullrushes. Having both consistent, workable rules, and a cinematic environment allows for much more cinematic combat than is often seen but you need to put detail on the battlemap for it to happen. Nothing will kill cinematicness faster than a flat, gridded plain. However, I don't think anything encourages cinematic combat like a detailed battlemap and familiarity with the rules.

BelenUmeria said:
I love minis as well, but the core rules should be less focused on this area. I actually miss the more cinematic combat where people would try truly cool things. Not that they cannot try them in 3e, it's just that the rules imply that they cannot be done without x feat or y skill.
 

Remove ads

Top