Ad&d 3.0

[Axegrrl]

Seriously... check out Hackmaster. I think you may find much of your work already done.

There are a couple of things I like about what you've got, but it's internally inconsistent. When I read that the tumble skill doesn't exist, but that rogues automatically tumble, I quit reading the initial post.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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?

Yep, but until C&C is released, and even then, I'll have to convince my players to give up 3e, which won't be easy, so I started making my own rules.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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?

I for one did not find FIRST EDITION either irrational or complicated. I am only considering the above changes in order to make the game more like the game I fell in love with long ago, yet still be (somewhat) compatible with D20. There are several things I dislike about D20, yet the base system seems to work fine. Here's a small list:

1: Multiclass system - Unless your cherrypicking for certain abilities, multiclassing just plain sucks. I know there's the eldritch knight and mystic theurge, but I don't like prestige classes in general. And yes, you get locked into a class at first level, but what's wrong with that? It worked for 25 years. Plus I like archetypes. With free multiclassing you throw those right out the window.

2: I abhor sneak attacks. Or rather, the way D20 makes it so easy to do, just by flanking a target. A sneak attack should be sneaky.

3: AOOs. I understand why they're there, but in my opinion, they cause two problems. One, it slows down gameplay. Two, it forces players to think in terms of mechanics instead of roleplaying terms. I've seen players plan their tactical moves out until it sounds like I'm watching an RTS computer game.

4: The inherent power scale of D20. Characters with 200 plus hit points and 40 plus acs both slow gameplay to a crawl, and almost force players to powergame. As it stands, they NEED buff items and insane acs just to survive. I want characters to be heroes, not a collection of magic items. In the last D&D game I ran, a character pulled the wrong card in a deck of many things and lost all of his magic. He wanted to retire his 17th level character and roll up a new one because he thought his character stunk without magic. And, the way D&D by the rules is played, I can't say he was too far off the mark. By scaling the buff items down, and toning hit points down, as well, combats are fast and efficient. What's the difference in a fighter with 100 hit points fighting a dragon with 200 and a fighter with 200 hps fighting a dragon with 400? Nothing but the length of the battle, imo.


Anyways, you get the picture. I'm not happy with D20 as it stands and I'm trying to "fix" it in my own way. For those of you who are happy with your game, great - I'm not trying to change YOUR game, just mine.

I just wanted a little input on my changes so far, and I got 'em. Not exactly what I expected, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't love D20/3e as it stands.

Anyways thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Agamemnon]

Here's a newsflash: mystic theurge and eldritch knight suck. Also, "it worked for 25 years" is not that good of a reason to stick with anything. Several disagreeable customs and practices have long histories attached to them, as well. To me, limiting multiclassing 2e-style is such a practice, now that I have seen the alternative.

The point of multiclassing has never been primarily to make more powerful characters, but more interesting ones. Comparing a dwarf Fighter 20 to a dwarf Fighter 2 / Wizard 8 / Eldritch Knight 10 in terms of power is not feasible, but the latter is a more unique person with more roleplaying potential and interesting story hooks.

Archetypes are all well and good, but they get stagnant after a while. It's always nice to be able think outside the box and come up with new ideas. "Hmm... dwarven fighter/druid... why not?"

Now, you're by no means the only one who doesnt love d20, but this is, as you pointed out, a 3e site. Myself, I'd like to change the magic system and do some adjustments to the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Staffan]

I just wanted a little input on my changes so far, and I got 'em. Not exactly what I expected, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't love D20/3e as it stands.

Not trying to be snarky, but as you yourself pointed out this site is rather d20/3e-friendly. You'd probably get more constructive criticism at a site like dragonsfoot.org.

 

[RangerWickett]

Here's a newsflash: mystic theurge and eldritch knight suck. Also, "it worked for 25 years" is not that good of a reason to stick with anything. Slavery worked for a long time, too.

Agamemnon, I'd like you to edit your post to be less inflammatory, please. Several moderators now have asked people in this thread to keep things civil, and comparing someone's ideas for house rules to the institutionalized servitude of millions of people is a bit beyond the boundaries of polite conversation.

JRRN, I understand where you're coming from. I house rule a lot of 3e to try to make things less item dependent, less number crunch-y. I can understand where you're coming from with points 2, 3, and 4, and while I disagree with number 1, I can kinda understand why you'd want to do it. I just don't think the 'simultaneous leveling' thing works that well. It just makes more sense to me that you'd be able to pick up a few skills here, a few there, adding things as you go, instead of being set in a certain path.

The way of handling skill points in such a system is confusing to me.

I can see that you want to tone down the power of high-level characters, such as by cutting down the number of hit points and such. I think you might just be happier off playing lower-level games. As you said, there's no great difference between a 100 hp fighter and 200 hp dragon, and a 200 hp fighter and 400 hp dragon, so why not bypass a lot of the extra rules and just slow down character advancement, or put in a level cap for your games?

Honestly, your variant classes do have some nice flavor. It's just that the initial changes at the beginning of the post set things back to the way they used to be, and bring back a lot of the things I remember having a problem with in the older rules, which is why I think many people didn't read far enough to give adequate feedback.

In your position, though, I'd probably just keep the rules as is, but just stop following the assumptions of gear and XP that the core rules try to force you into. Ignore CRs, and just run games by ear. Drop AoOs; no one will really worry about it. Sneak attack I disagree with, since changing it turns rogues from 'ninjas who sneak and kick butt' back into 'sneaky guys.' A valid change, but not one I'd go for. If you require sneak attacks to be made with sneaking and not just surprise or tactics, then people aren't going to like the rogue class as much. Did they get anything to make up for losing evasion and useable sneak attack?

 

[GlassJaw]

Here's a newsflash: mystic theurge and eldritch knight suck

Why? I like them both.

I also find your choice of words questionable at best...

I am only considering the above changes in order to make the game more like the game I fell in love with long ago, yet still be (somewhat) compatible with D20. There are several things I dislike about D20, yet the base system seems to work fine. Here's a small list:

Well after you are done slicing and dicing, there isn't much left of the "base system". d20 is meant to be a linear system in that every level is independent of one another. You choose each class level one at a time and in doing so, you get increased saves, hp's, BAB, etc.

The d20 system also strives to make the rules more black and white and eliminate the gray. I scratch my head when people want to cut out things like AoO's or sneak attacks. Doing do introduces a whole slew of balance issues, most of which you probably won't anticipate.

I'm going to give the same advice that mostly everyone else has given you: Stick to 1/2ed and borrow what you want from d20/3ed.

For those of you who are happy with your game, great - I'm not trying to change YOUR game, just mine.

Perfectly fine. You just have to realize that in order to offer suggestions, people have to at least "understand" what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[JimAde]

In your position, though, I'd probably just keep the rules as is, but just stop following the assumptions of gear and XP that the core rules try to force you into. Ignore CRs, and just run games by ear.

This is what I do. I don't like my PCs being item platforms either, so I just don't give out the items. Then I make sure I don't throw too much at them (using lower CR encounters because I know they are item-light). This has the added benefit of slowing down advancement if I give by the book experience for the CRs used.

My 7th-level PCs have one reasonable magic item each, plus a few potions. They won't be getting much more in the future either.

 

[Agamemnon]

Why? I like them both.

I like the ideas between both classes, and consider them playable, though far from über. The first reaction people had to the Theurge was, IIRC, "oh my god, that's broken" but then we all realized what you had to do to become one. Playing a Wiz3/Clr3 in order to make it into Theurge, while you could be playing Wiz6 with substantially superior arcane might, is a definite cost. At level 10 Theurge, you'll be casting as Wiz13 and Clr13, but the sacrifices you've had to make to get there are not insignificant.

The Eldritch Knight is slightly better off. You only have to sacrifice 2 levels of spellcasting, and by level 17 (assuming you started with a wizard), you can cast as a 15th level wizard with superior BAB and more oomph in melee combat.

In both cases, the PrCs allow one to play a multiclass combination that's otherwise unfeasible power-wise. There are certainly oodles of more powerful classes, but neither class is "bad" by any means, and thus the word "suck" might have been an overstatement on my part.

 

[GlassJaw]

I like the ideas between both classes, and consider them playable, though far from über

Why does something have to uber in order to play it? I'm playing a Drd 3/Wiz 3/MT 9 right now and it's a BLAST! I'm having the most fun I've had in 3ed in a long time. It's all in the way you play it. If you are a good player, you can make it work.

You can ask the other players and the DM in my group if my character is "uber" or not. He's saved their hide (and frustrated the DM) more than once.

Ok, enough hijacking the thread. Sorry.