Ad&d 3.0

[ruleslawyer]

It's "Anonymous," FYI Aust.

While I wouldn't say that previous editions "sucked" (in fact, OD&D and AD&D 1e/2e were the games I knew and loved for 15 years), I will say that the revisions you've suggested are just a way to bring back everything that was inferior about those systems in terms of consistency, flexibility, and playability, as Destil points out.

Fact is, I'd think long and hard about what it is you don't like, specifically, about 3e if I were you. Maybe it's just nostalgia, y'know. If so, I'll tell you on faith that IMX, it's quite easy to duplicate the flavor of iconic 1e/2e gaming using the 3e ruleset. Is it unrestricted multiclassing? Why? "Power creep" Well, what does that mean relative to 1e/2e?

Personally, I think the 1e/2e multiclassing/dual-classing system was terrible, but if you want something that gives multiclassed characters a bit more punch, use the gestalt variant; its easy, consistent, and makes sense. If you think that humans shouldn't be able to multiclass freely, or that certain combinations shouldn't be allowed, well, it's your game: Ban particular multiclassing combos, or limit them to elves/half-elves/whatever, and watch your players squirm.

If it's power creep: Double the XP needed to advance in level, or keep your game at low character levels. I can tell you right now that 20th-level wizards in 2e were far scarier than their 3e counterparts, relative to the other PCs; it's just that now, the other classes can catch up.

But anyway, the reason you didn't get much of a response is a) because that's a REALLY long post and b) given the topic and content, most posters weren't inclined to receive it with much interest.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I am completely changing the game, that was the whole point.

The ac bonus of the monk does not include dex or wisdom. And with the magic item restriction, his ac will be considerably less than a 3e monk at 20th level.

I should have realized that this being primarily a 3e site that I wouldn't get much constructive criticism.

Thanks for those that did have something to say, whether constructive or not, and to those with the useless "it sucks" or "meh" comments, piss off.

 

[Michael Morris]

Folks, let's be nice here. Even if you don't agree with a post you don't need to be rude about it. If you feel the urge to type something rude step away from the keyboard for half an hour.

That should do until the mods have a chance to take a look and decide upon further action.

@JRR - Take a look at Kenzer & Co. Hackmaster line. It takes a lot of the better ideas of 3e and keeps them in an AD&D context. Indeed, I know more than a few folks that consider Hackmaster more a proper AD&D 3e than 3e is. If nothing else, it might give you some ideas to play with.

 

[Bagpuss]

I am completely changing the game, that was the whole point.

Wouldn't it have been easier to start with 2nd edition and add the few bits of 3rd edition you decided to keep. Than start with 3rd edition and basically add all the stuff most people didn't like from 2nd edition and then remove all the stuff people seem to like about 3rd edition?

Or why not just stick with 2nd edition as what you have described has little relation to third editon.

I like some of the changes, such as removing flat-footed and attacks of opportunity.

But then there are a whole load of pointless changes like why get rid of Armor proficiencies? Virtually no one ever takes them anyway.

Multiclass fighters don't gain any of their class abilities? Why? The other classes do why are fighters picked on?

I'ld rather play a 2nd edition AD&D game than this miss-mass of 3rd and 2nd.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Fair enough, it IS a mish-mash of 3rd and 1st edition, really.

I took what I like about both editions, and as I said, it is a work in progress.

 

[Melan]

JRRNeiklot: it may indeed be easier to start with AD&D as a baseline and add stuff to that. Or, since I know you are on the Troll Lord boards, Castles and Crusades. Aren't you signed up with that?

 

[Henry]

Seconding Spoony Bar'd post to keep it civil.

As for me, it wouldn't work. A lot of the rules seemed basically, "you can't do this, you can't do that, this is gone, that doesn't exist," etc. While I enjoyed 1E and 2E, I used to house-rule the heck out of it to DO the things being denied here. If one wanted to simple path to making a hybrid game, it would possibly be simpler to keep WotC's "10 things you can do to play 3E right now" than make a large corrective rules set. Examples include:

1) AC scales UP. All bonuses add a + to your THACO, not subtract it.
2) Clerics can spontaneously swap cure spells
3) Mages and Specialist Wizards get INT bonus for spells per day

I don't recall the whole list (it was in a Year 2000 Dragon) but someone may know it and post it for me.

That way, one could keep the rest of the rule set coherent, and make only the neatest changes without altering the whole kit-kaboodle of AD&D.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

From Dragon #264...

1) AC goes up instead of down
2) Ignore level limits and multiclassing restrictions. Any class combination is possible and humans can multiclass. For every class taken in addition to the first, characters take a 20% penalty to all XP earned.
3) Use monks and assassins as presented in the Scarlet Brotherhood.
4) Use 4d6, drop lowest for ability scores
5) Treat exceptional strength entries as integers over 18 (18/01-50 becomes 19, 18/51-75 becomes 20, etc.)
6) Roll initiative only at the beginning of combat
7) Six second combat round.
8) Spellcasters use bonus spells chart for priests.
9) A attack roll of 20 is a threat, roll again for confirmation.
10) Spontaneous healing

You might also want to check out this site: Chronikos. The DM's basically using 2E as a baseline and importing the stuff he likes from 3E. It looks pretty neat.

 

[RangerWickett]

No offense intended to JRRN, but if I hadn't recognized your screen name, I would have thought this a troll. May I ask why you want to reintroduce so many of the rules that made 2nd edition irrational and complicated?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Between your changes to spells (dropping all stat enhancers except bull's strength, which is made more powerful; weakening many wizard spells), races (elves +1 long bow/sword), classes (only fighters, rangers, paladins, and monks gain multiple attacks), hit points (9d4+9C+11 vs. 20d8+20C), and so forth, you've made fighter-types supreme; wizards, who were already fairly weak in 3.5, aren't even PC-grade anymore. Why?

With the multiclassing rules, characters can't change and develop (they need to stick with 1st-level choices). Why?