A vision of a D&D retro-clone with new school elements

[scruffygrognard]

A lot of that sounds like Castles and Crusades--I haven't played the game myself, but I've heard good things about it on these boards.

Castles & Crusades is great... particularly if you'd enjoy a fast and loose d20 D&D variant that encourages (almost begs for) tweaking.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A concept I intend to include:

Gambits
Combat maneuvers that do other things besides a normal hit. Gambits come in several levels of difficulty. The number, and type of gambits learned depend on class, and weapon skills chosen.

Gambits are known abilities and may be used as often as there is an opening* to do so. There are no resources to keep track of.

Openings are created by winning initiative (team based no modifier rolls). The level of gambit available for use on a given round depends on the degree of opening (rolled with initiative). Suprise grants an automatic opening.

Higher levels of gambits can only be learned by fighters. Clerics and Magic Users will be limited to the lower level offerings since they will have both powers and spells.

Gambits can be flavored to complement certain weapon types and fighting styles and can simulate a large number of fighter types all within 1 class-fighter.

Rogues are created by selecting a combination of certain weapon training/gambits and selection of non-combat skills.

I intend to do something different for undefined "stunts" that will be handled on a risk/reward basis.

Thoughts?

 

[nedjer]

A concept I intend to include:

Gambits
Combat maneuvers that do other things besides a normal hit. Gambits come in several levels of difficulty. The number, and type of gambits learned depend on class, and weapon skills chosen.

Gambits are known abilities and may be used as often as there is an opening* to do so. There are no resources to keep track of.

Openings are created by winning initiative (team based no modifier rolls). The level of gambit available for use on a given round depends on the degree of opening (rolled with initiative). Suprise grants an automatic opening.

Higher levels of gambits can only be learned by fighters. Clerics and Magic Users will be limited to the lower level offerings since they will have both powers and spells.

Gambits can be flavored to complement certain weapon types and fighting styles and can simulate a large number of fighter types all within 1 class-fighter.

Rogues are created by selecting a combination of certain weapon training/gambits and selection of non-combat skills.

I intend to do something different for undefined "stunts" that will be handled on a risk/reward basis.

Thoughts?

Specialist stunt/ gambit/ drama systems for fighters/ fighting seem to be a real handy way of giving 'fighters' an extra dimension without bolting on out of profile abilities.

 

[paigeoliver]

Red Box Fantasy has a lot of the things you are looking for, although certainly not all of them.

Likes from 2e D&D:

1. A single page character sheet - Red Box Yes
2. 5 minute leveling up and 10 minute character creation - Red Box Yes
3. Meeting your character through random generation rather than crafting a character. - Red Box Yes
4. Playing without minis. - Red Box Yes
5. Faster combat - Red Box Yes
6. Capped attack bonus and AC - Attack bonus is capped by hit dice total. AC is determined by equipment, although there is no hard cap.
7. Rolling for exceptional strength (I wish I rolled for all other 5 abilities) - Don't have this.
8. Magical items that do not exist to fill an equipment slot, but instead change the way you play your character. - This is hard for me to judge because Red Box largely has the same magic items that all the other versions of D&D have (with a few dozen more). They are crafted quite differently though.
9. Classes for newbies and classes for more experienced players (though the "Points of Light" blog did make a convincing case for why advanced classes suck.) - Red Box Yes. Most of the classes I wrote are simple and straightforward, while the classes written by Ian Hardin are more suited for those with experience.
10. Different weapon speeds and different attack bonuses for certain weapons against certain armour. - Nope, not at all. However critical effects vary wildly from one weapon to the next.
11. Racial ability requirements - No, Red Box uses the idea instead that a 10 is average for any creature in any stat. A 10 strength just isn't the same thing on a halfling as it is on a human or a frost giant.
12. Secondary Skills and NWP - Red Box basically yes. Skill system is loose and based on static +4 or +2 bonuses recieved at 1st level (including background skills).
13, 14 Henchmen, Strongholds and Followers. - Red Box Yes. Detailed henchmen and follower rules, however their are no specific stronghold rules.
14.

Dislikes from 2e D&D

1. Descending AC - Don't have this.
2. Class and level restrictions for certain races. - Race and Class are combined into archetypes, so yes Red Box basically has this (although currently unrealeased material will change that somewhat).
3. Most of the racial abilities - Eh, hard to say.
4. Less and more powerful classes depending on level - The Red Box classes are far more balanced against each other at most levels than they are in other retro games.
5. Thieves suck and bards suck harder. - Red box sneaks aren't all that bad, and Bards haven't been published yet (although they are completed and DO NOT SUCK).
6. Multi-classing and Dual-classing. - These are relegated to a minor option listed in the gamemaster's guide.
7. The Schools of Magic - Do not exist in the system.
8. Level and Ability score draining - There is no level drain, there is hit die drain, but those do heal when you gain a level. Ability score drain does exist but is 50 times less common than in 3.5.
9. Resurrection Survival Rolls - Don't have this.
10. Vancian spell system - Of course I have this.


Things I'd want to keep from 4e.
I am not familiar enough with 4th edition to really compare Red Box to 4th edition.

Things I want to grab from prior editions:

1. Named Levels - Nope.
2. XP based on succeeding at objectives and gaining treasure. Yes, treasure XP.

 

[Remathilis]

How would you combine old and new school elements if you like both?

My general idea would be an "Advanced" Basic Fantasy RPG (yes, I'm aware of the contradiction). Take the BFRPG template, and adjust.

* Alignment
* More Races (gnome, half-orc, half-ogre)
* More Classes (Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Jester, Monk, Assassin, Druid, Gravemaster, Illusionist).
* Additional Multi-class combos (Fighter/Thief, Thief/Mage)
* A Non-Weapon Proficiency/Skill System.
* Additional Ability-Score bonuses for "primes" (Int/Wis adding bonus spells, Dex adding to Thief %).
* Weapon Specialization for Fighters.
* Either Upped HD (each class 1 die-higher) and/or Max Hp at 1st, Con bonus throughout.
* Clerics/Druids Get spells at level 1.
* Additional Spells, perhaps giving Wizards 7th level magic.
* Thieves get backstab multiplier increases. They can use Dex to hit/damage when fighting with a dagger.
* Added Weapons and Armors. More Mundane Gear.
* More Monsters. Dark Elves, Demons, Aberrations, Liches etc.
* A bit more Monster Info: Int Scores (or even whole ability sets), Alignment, Type (Humanoid, Undead, Planar, Fey, Beast, Abberant).
* A Simple Template System for customizing (giant creature, fiendish creature).
* More Magical Items, including some of the weirder ones. Intelligent Items a must.
* 4e's General Cosmology (Fey Realm, Shadow Realm, Elemental Sea, Abyss, Astral, Dominions).
* Lots and lots of module support.

It would end up looking like something between 3e's general mechanic, Basic's Ease and tone, and 2e's added options without the thoroughness of 3e or the abstraction of 4e (IE powers and surges).

 

[Roadkill101]

I haven't run D&D as my system of choice since just before 3e came out. I hit a dry-spell trying to think of campaign idea's in my preferred system but had all kinds of ideas for a D&D based system. Being able to find fault with any edition of D&D when running a game (per Raw), I just recently (November) cobbled together the various elements I liked from the various editions of D&D (B/X, 1/2e, 3.x & 4e) into a house-ruled system just to get those idea's out and hopefully break that dry spell.
My Hybrid version is currently undergoing a slow lengthy play-test.

From the B/X Editions
Class and Race
Initiative & Surprise
Class XP/Level Progression tables
Morale
Any tables/charts for hiring Hirelings/Henchmen
Turning Undead table
Weapons Mastery (for hit & damage bonus only).

From 1/2e
Spell Descriptions from the PHB
Weapon Proficiencies
Monster XP Values

From 3.x
Ascending AC
BAB
Saving Throws
From 4e:
Skills
Defense & Skill Advancement

Houseruled Tweaks
Levels; no pregression beyond 10th level.
Ability generation; roll 4d6, re-roll any values of 1, keep the highest 3.
Armor; gave all armor a hit value so that as it's damaged it loses protective value until repaired.
Spellcasting: dropped vancian for a mana type system. casters get 2 points per level plus ability mod., a spell costs it's level in mana. Casters must have the spell in their repetoire to be able to cast it (barring anything cast from a scroll). All damage/healing uses a d8 based off the casters level.
BAB & Weapon Proficiency; BAB is tied to character level, so a fighter who learned the long sword at 1st level would have a BAB of +10/+5, while that mace he picked up at 3rd would be +7/+2 upon reaching 10th level.
Weapons; divided them up into 1 handed simple (1d6 dmg.), 2 handed simple (1d8 dmg.), 1 handed martial (1d10 dmg.) & 2 handed martial (1d12 dmg.). Class dictates what class of weapons are useable.
Hit Dice; are based off of size and apply to characters as well as monsters (small creatures use a d6, medium creatures a d8, large creatures a d10...)
Hit Points; using a wound/vitality system, where for characters the first two levels and all con bonuses represent actual physical damage. depending on a creatures current value a penalty comes into play representing wounding. All other higher levels of gained HD function as an abstract concept accounting for fatigue, skill at avoiding damage, luck etc.
Crossover Packages; at 3rd, 6th & 9th levels characters get to choose from one of several packages that allow for gaining abilities of another class taking the place of dual/multi-classing (opend up druidical and illusionist spell lists for spellcasters).
Ability Scores; characters get a point to add to one ability at 4th & 8th levels. No scores over 19 unless through a magical means.
Saving Throws; characters get 2 points to divide between the 3 types at odd levels and 3 points at even levels.

 

[Lanefan]

Some really interesting ideas in this thread...

Likes from 2e D&D:

1. A single page character sheet
2. 5 minute leveling up and 10 minute character creation
3. Meeting your character through random generation rather than crafting a character.
4. Playing without minis.
5. Faster combat
6. Capped attack bonus and AC
7. Rolling for exceptional strength (I wish I rolled for all other 5 abilities)
8. Magical items that do not exist to fill an equipment slot, but instead change the way you play your character.
9. Classes for newbies and classes for more experienced players (though the "Points of Light" blog did make a convincing case for why advanced classes suck.)
10. Different weapon speeds and different attack bonuses for certain weapons against certain armour.
11. Racial ability requirements
12. Secondary Skills and NWP
13. Henchmen
14. Strongholds and Followers

Personally, I can live without 10 and 11 above, and I've become used to minis. The rest of these are just fine, and a good starting point. Oh, and 10 and 5 above directly contradict each other; you'll need to pick one.

Dislikes from 2e D&D

1. Descending AC
2. Class and level restrictions for certain races.
3. Most of the racial abilities
4. Less and more powerful classes depending on level
5. Thieves suck and bards suck harder.
6. Multi-classing and Dual-classing
7. The Schools of Magic
8. Level and Ability score draining
9. Resurrection Survival Rolls
10. Vancian spell system

Again I mostly agree, except for 8 and 9. These, along with other elements of bad-things-that-happen-to-characters, are essential.

Things I'd want to keep from 4e.

1. Racial abilities (though not the extra-planar and monstrous races)
2. Static Defenses to Ref/Fort/Will rather than saving throws
3. Conditions (unconscious, slowed, dominated, weakened etc)
4. Dungeoneering focused skill list (combined with NWP)
5. The Cosmology (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos etc)
6. Healing Surges
7. Standard, move and minor actions
8. Philosophy of choosing unifying mechanics over subsystems
9. Players can survive two hits from an orc at 1st level.
10. Level progression rate.

Don't 3 and 7 here get in the way of speeding up combat? Also, take a long look at 10: this is where you need to ask yourself how long you want a campaign in this system to last and-or to what level the game will playably go. I'm not a fan of the rest of these (except maybe #4, tweaked), but it's your system, so let's keep 'em in and proceed.

Things I want to grab from prior editions:

1. Named Levels
2. XP based on succeeding at objectives and gaining treasure

I'd keep some ExP for combat as well; you could have a combination of all three of combat-based, mission-based, and treasure-based.

Now, a few thoughts and ideas:

To replace Vancian spellcasting, take a very long look at how 3e Sorcerers work. Simple, elegant, no need for pre-memorization - yes, they use Vancian-style slots, but that's it.

I'd suggest making a list of what PC races you want to have in your system, then working out what abilities each one has built-in. Then, ban the rest.

As for classes, again make a list of what classes you want to have in the game. If you're using original 2e, it only had 4 classes; others came in later. You mention Bard above, so I'm assuming you want more than just 4. I'll offer this list as a starting point of archetypes you probably want to give thought to:
- Fighter or Warrior (foot soldier)
- Ranger or Scout (woodsy tracker type, can include archer)
- Knight or Cavalier (heavy metal)
- War Cleric or Paladin (divine warrior)
- Cleric or Priest (diviner, healer, can fight)
- Druid or Nature Cleric (healer, naturist)
- Magic User (generalist wizard type)
- Magic Specialist (illusionist and necromancer go here)
- Thief or Rogue (sneaky type)
- Assassin and-or 1e-style Bard (sneaks who can fight)
- 3e-style Bard (magic via music)
- Monk and-or Brawler (weaponless combat type with/without skill)
- [cultural classes e.g. oriental classes, setting-specific classes, etc.)
Then, for multiclassing, determine which of these can logically multiclass with which other(s) and open it up. Paladin/War Cleric, for example, strikes me as a class that should not be allowed to multi-class; it's too single-minded. To keep things sane, you could always place an arbitrary limit on how many classes one can have (in my game, that limit is 2).

Take a long look at alignment and the cosmology. You mention you like the way 4e has done it, and that's fine; but were it up to me I'd expand it somewhat to factor in the various earth-cultural deities etc. that the game will inevitably be asked by its players/DMs to support. As for alignment, there's a good case to be made for keeping it and an equally good one for scrapping it. Your call, but do one or the other. 4e couldn't make up its mind and so got stuck somewhere between.

Work out how level-bumping is going to function. Will training be required, or will characters just get their new abilities etc. on the fly?

Decide at the macro level just how much bad stuff the PCs will have to endure. You mention you don't like level drain. What about death? Item loss? Skill or ability loss (as opposed to outright level loss)? Then, design to this decision. For my part, if the threat of real badness happening isn't present, the game loses its thrill - its edge, if you like.

Hope this helps...

Lanefan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh, and 10 and 5 above directly contradict each other; you'll need to pick one.

Not necessarily. 'Faster combat' could simply mean faster than. . . well, certain other systems/editions/whatever. Therefore, you could quite easily use weapon speeds and types vs. armour types and suchlike, and still be 'better off', so to speak. Actually, this could be a fun project (making weapon speeds and types vs. armour types really zippy in play) - hmm. . . I mean yeah, a cheat sheet / DM screen section is perhaps the most straightforward solution there, but I'm sure there are other things that could be done.

Anyway, I find this kind of discussion interesting, even if I'm not so keen on the idea myself. That is, I don't see much of a need (or, I suppose, I don't have much of a want) for mixing up D&D editions. But, so as to make this completely clear - just in case! - it really is quite intriguing, nonetheless.

If I actually think of anything much to contribute, I'll be sure to do so, but like I said, not really my 'field' to begin with.

 

[Votan]

Dislikes from 2e D&D

6. Multi-classing and Dual-classing

I sometimes wonder if I am the sole person who liked the AD&D and 2E multi-classing rules (as opposed to dual classing rules). It was a fixed list of combinations, started out strong (characters with 2 classes were only 1-2 levels behind full classed characters) but peaked early (when XP become fixed needing to split it between classes meant you fell behind pure class characters).

It was a fixed list so the manner in which class features combined could be adjudicated individually.

It felt balanced without being over-powered. It lacked flexibility but flexible systems (think 3E and 3.5E D&D) are inherently more vulnerable to balance issues (as the combinations can grow rapidly and unbalanced options can arise). It's much easier to outlaw the Half-Orc Cleric/Thief, if such is deemed unbalanced, then to worry about how 3 different prestuge classes combine.

But maybe I'm unique in this regard.

 

[Starfox]

If you want to start at and edition of DnD, I think 4E and cutting down is the best way to go. Probably eliminate 75% of all feats, especially class-specific ones. Maybe give a lower allotment of feats too. The main problem is probably the magic items - 4E magic items taste like cardboard. I'd take the DMG2 no-magic-items rule and then make up my own magic items along 1-2E lines.

My second choice would be to start from 1E. I never liked 2E much.

Dislikes from 2e D&D [...]
5. Thieves suck and bards suck harder.

One thing you did not mention that is a major difference between 1/2 E and later editions is the fixed xp table for all classes. The bard did not suck if you took his much faster level progression in mind. Sure. the rogue part of the bard was not impressive, but by xp a bard was almost as good a spellcaster as a wizard. But a unified xp table for all classes is a blessing, especially if you want to start the game at a certain level. In 1-2E, you should not start at a certain level but with an xp budget if things were to work out.