Campaign World from the Rules Up

[Krazman]

I have recently started to design a new campaign world - (actually take an old one I had the bare minimums of, and really flesh it out)

I have a lot of problems with 3E (3.5) - nothing horribly different, just differences of opinions with a few of the creators.

So I decided to take the SRD, and rewrite it, adding in the rules that I wanted to change (so I had a single document that had the rules for my players)

I decided to start with combat...

So anyways, to make a long story short (too late)...

the following website http://piratia.blogspot.com has a web log of the changes I am making on going. Again, right now I'm in combat (i explain why I started there).

There are places to comment if someone has comments or questions...

Just check it out (if you want) and let me know what you think...

CK

PS - I will probably be updating the web log at least 1x per week, if not more often. So hopefully, those interested in dogging me with comments / feedback - will continue to check it out. I mainly put it up there for my players to see where I'm at, and what is happening!

 

[CRGreathouse]

Welcome to the boards!

I have to say the changes don't make a lot of sense to me. That is, I see what you're trying to do but the explanations for each change seem... odd.

I'll give some examples. Really, though -- I'm trying to be constructive here.

Initiative is still going to be highest to lowest. However, instead of continually reusing the same initiative, initiative will be rerolled on a round to round basis.

My idea behind this that it may be possible due to certain combat conditions that the heavy armored swinging the really heavy great sword will go faster than the lightly armored rogue wielding a dagger, but more often than not, the rogue will go first.

However, with the current system, provided the rogue doesn't skip a round, if he were to lose to the fighter, he would always go after the fighter.

I liked this from 2nd Edition, and am reimplementing it in my home campaign. When I get to equipment, each weapon will have a weapon speed that is deducted from initiative (thus some weapons will be much faster, while others much slower).

The initiative order is cyclic. The realization of this was the reason behind the change from 2E to 3E -- the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 1), then the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 2). If initiative was rerolled, the rogue might go twice in a row, which makes much less sense than having them alternate.

To put it another way, there's no real significance to the end of one round or the beginning of the next -- it's all a part of flowing time. The rogue isn't going 'after' the fighter any more than before him, except that the fighter was the one to act first in the combat.

Should a player make a natural roll inside this range, then the character has an opportunity for a critical hit. The DM then rolls to confirm the critical hit. If the DM rolls a 16 or better, then the character has successfully made a critical hit.

This takes away almost all aspects of skill from critical hits. The 1st-level elven wizard with the longsword is more likely to score a critical hit than his fighter buddy with an axe. He's just as likely to score a crit as the fighter with the greatsword.

That doesn't work for me.

The only change is damage is that sneak attacks get the multiplier (from crits) and strength doesn't

This makes picks the best weapons for rogues... doesn't it? I don't see any good reason for the change, and I can see consequences for the game world that would be bad.

Character speed is now based on size, not race. Meaning taller creatures move faster...

I never understood how a 20' tall creature could only move 40' in a round...

This takes away all possiblity for a ponderously slow creature. Sloths are Medium or Large (don't know, haven't been to a zoo for a while), but they sure don't have 30-40' speed.

Activating magic items: Command word items are no longer a standard action to use, they are a free action to activate.

This seems quite abusable. How many lightning bolts per round, given a wand or two?

It will be noted that casting spells, and firing missile weapons no longer provodes AoO.

I have trouble seeing why these actions wouldn't provoke, or why you'd want to ecourage characters to do them in melee range. Archers didn't do that historically, for sure.


OK, maybe I'm a little negative looking at what doesn't make sense to me, but I'm trying to post feedback here.

 

[Dogbrain]

The initiative order is cyclic. The realization of this was the reason behind the change from 2E to 3E -- the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 1), then the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 2). If initiative was rerolled, the rogue might go twice in a row, which makes much less sense than having them alternate.

Not so. It makes quite a lot of sense, from my experience in various forms of combat sports (and the fights of a mis-spent youth). It is quite possible for someone to "steal initiative" in a fight. However, the problem in D&D is that initiative is utterly devoid of skill, and it's been my experience that skill and a cool head count for more than mere "quick reflexes" when it comes to gaining the initiative.

 

[wizardneedsfood]

Looking over it I think that changing the combat round was a mistake. The six seconds works well for a lot of reasons, one of which being is that 10 makes a minute. Keeps things nice in the base ten system we are used to. Fifteen seconds is also a really long time for one round. Especially since you are only allowing 4 attacks per round max. Remember, with the abstract combat system of D&D, the character is presumed to always be involved in the fight during a melee. Even still, 6 attacks in 6 seconds like you say really isn't that much.

 

[Krazman]

In response to CRGreathouse...

Welcome to the boards!

Thanks

I'll give some examples. Really, though -- I'm trying to be constructive here.

Don't worry - i'll take it as such!

I wouldn't have put them here if I didn't want feedback/criticism, and I'm not stupid enough to think that everyone is going to go "We should all be using these - they make perfect sense."

I wanted to get opinions of other 3e/3.5 DM's on the balance/semblance of rule changes. Do they make sense (whether or not you agree with them), things like that. I don't expect them to be universally popular, but hopefully, you all will point something out that I missed, or some flaw in my logic (like that never happens... ;D)

The initiative order is cyclic. The realization of this was the reason behind the change from 2E to 3E -- the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 1), then the fighter goes then the rogue goes (round 2). If initiative was rerolled, the rogue might go twice in a row, which makes much less sense than having them alternate.

One of the things I really liked about 2nd Edition Initiative was an optional rule where you used weapon speeds. So all things being equal, a combatant using a dagger was going to be faster than a combatant using a great sword.

Ocassionally, the GS wielder would get 'the jump' so to speak (luck of the die) on the dagger wielder, but more often than not, the dagger wielder would go first.

In 3E - that is not the case. If the GS wielder got the jump in the initial round, then he would ALWAYS go faster than the dagger wielder, unless the dagger wielder gave up his action in a round to go at the beginning of the next round.

Weapon speeds will be added when I get to the equipment section.

The other thing I liked about it is this (and this is mainly due to my players):
In 3e, my players would do their action, and then stop paying attention until their next action, which would kind of surprise them, and then they would take time to figure out what they are going to do now.

In 2e, that didn't happen as much, becuase usually they paid attention from the initiative roll to their action, and then stopped paying attention until I said Initiative again... (i didn't want to penalize them for being human beings - I just think they were used to this in 2e)

This takes away almost all aspects of skill from critical hits. The 1st-level elven wizard with the longsword is more likely to score a critical hit than his fighter buddy with an axe. He's just as likely to score a crit as the fighter with the greatsword.

That doesn't work for me.

Well - to me there shouldn't be a 'skill' to critical hits. The longsword is more likely to score a crit as it's designed that way (having a higher natural threat range). The way it is now, weaker characters are penalized from being able to crit as it's harder for them to get through. My point behind this is once you've broken through a combatants defense and hit him (and have done so in a way to score a crit (threat range)), no matter how hard or easy it was to get to this point, you have a base chance to do this crit.

This makes picks the best weapons for rogues... doesn't it? I don't see any good reason for the change, and I can see consequences for the game world that would be bad.

well what isn't posted is that sneak attacks aren't just what they used to be (opponent flat-footed, or without dex). [this would be setup in the character class section] Sneak attacks are going back to being like 'backstabs' in 2E, where the combatant has to be unaware of you (hide and movesilent ahead of time, etc) - and again, only piercing weapons will be able to be used for a sneak attack.

This takes away all possiblity for a ponderously slow creature. Sloths are Medium or Large (don't know, haven't been to a zoo for a while), but they sure don't have 30-40' speed.

No it doesn't - it just means that the standard is that taller creatures have longer strides, so they can move a bit more in the same amount of time. There have been and always will be exceptions to the rule.

This seems quite abusable. How many lightning bolts per round, given a wand or two?

not really - wands are spell trigger items, and don't fall under the command word.

when I get to equipment (and magic items) it will be noted that command word items are going to be like sword special abilities (activate the flaming sword, ring of invis, etc).

I have trouble seeing why these actions wouldn't provoke, or why you'd want to ecourage characters to do them in melee range. Archers didn't do that historically, for sure.

While I agree that they should not be happening in melee so to speak, I find that in 3e especially, melee comes to them, period. As far as it goes, what is the difference if I am standing 5 feet from you waving a sword, pulling a bow, or casting a spell, that casting a spell or pulling a bow gives you a bonus attack, that waving a sword doesn't give? that's why I made the rule change. Other things that force you to pay much less attention to the combatant (reading a scroll, digging something out of a pack) still provoke the AoO. It also seemed stupid that if I have a spell in hand (like vampiric touch), and I go to touch you, I don't provoke an aoo, but if I cast a magic missile and point it at you, I do. There were too many odd situations that didn't make sense for the most part, so I just got rid of them all, and said here is what ALWAYS provokes. Here is the stipulations that you can take advantage of it, and so on.

OK, maybe I'm a little negative looking at what doesn't make sense to me, but I'm trying to post feedback here.

[/quote]

again - thanks - i don't mind defending my responses, and I don't mind reading others responses... It makes me make sure that I'm doing what I'm doing for my right reasons...

 

[Krazman]

In response to wizardneedsfood...

Looking over it I think that changing the combat round was a mistake. The six seconds works well for a lot of reasons, one of which being is that 10 makes a minute. Keeps things nice in the base ten system we are used to. Fifteen seconds is also a really long time for one round. Especially since you are only allowing 4 attacks per round max. Remember, with the abstract combat system of D&D, the character is presumed to always be involved in the fight during a melee. Even still, 6 attacks in 6 seconds like you say really isn't that much.

Having watched my friends fight (they belong to the SCA), I realized that Wizards fixed this the same way the fixed a lot of things, by going to far to the other spectrum with their remedy. 2E's problem was that 1 minute was way to long for a combat round. To me 6 seconds is way to fast. It takes 9-11 seconds to walk 30' (depending on the person), plus add in a free AoO attack, your normal single attack, and a cleave. That is a TON of action in 6 seconds, that really takes much more than 6 seconds.


The 4 attacks per round limit is somthing that I'm trying. I may remove it, I may not. It's something that I'll beta once the rules are done to see if it hurts the PC's too much.


As far as timing goes, it's not a big deal. The only real concern I'll have is changing spells that have 1/min per level duration, as this will go from begin 10 rounds to 4 rounds. I'll worry about that when I get to spells (which is technically next on the list after combat). I could care less about the base 10 system. I'll just go to a Turn is 5 minutes, and there are 20 rounds in a turn. Once the players are used to this it will be simple (plus it makes more sense, because then there are 20 rounds in a turn, and 20 turns in an hour - easy enough)


But thanks for your feedback!

 

[Aaron2]

Not so. It makes quite a lot of sense, from my experience in various forms of combat sports (and the fights of a mis-spent youth). It is quite possible for someone to "steal initiative" in a fight. However, the problem in D&D is that initiative is utterly devoid of skill, and it's been my experience that skill and a cool head count for more than mere "quick reflexes" when it comes to gaining the initiative.

The problem is there is not such thing as "gaining the initiative". If you check the numbers, it is equally as likely for someone with +12 inititative to get double actions as someone with +1 inititative. Remember, going last in a round is just as good as going first in the next round. Initiative only really matters on the first round.


Aaron

 

[Aaron2]

One of the things I really liked about 2nd Edition Initiative was an optional rule where you used weapon speeds. So all things being equal, a combatant using a dagger was going to be faster than a combatant using a great sword.

Ocassionally, the GS wielder would get 'the jump' so to speak (luck of the die) on the dagger wielder, but more often than not, the dagger wielder would go first.

In 3E - that is not the case. If the GS wielder got the jump in the initial round, then he would ALWAYS go faster than the dagger wielder, unless the dagger wielder gave up his action in a round to go at the beginning of the next round.

By virtue of weapon length, a great sword wielder should get the first attack on a dagger wielder. Why should the weapon I have in my hand affect when I move? If I'm holding an 8 pound bag of treasure I'm ok, but an 8 pound sword makes me stand still for a while. That makes no sense.

The winner of the intiative does not "ALWAYS" go faster. Initiative only matters on the first round. After that it is always ABABABABAB; you always go after the other guy but before the other guy goes again.

Well - to me there shouldn't be a 'skill' to critical hits. The longsword is more likely to score a crit as it's designed that way (having a higher natural threat range). The way it is now, weaker characters are penalized from being able to crit as it's harder for them to get through. My point behind this is once you've broken through a combatants defense and hit him (and have done so in a way to score a crit (threat range)), no matter how hard or easy it was to get to this point, you have a base chance to do this crit.

In no way does a critical hit mean that you have "broken through a combatants defense". A critical hit is simply a hit that does more damage than usual. Nothing else. If you critically hit a 20th level fighter for 20 points of damage, that may just be a tiny scratch. All it does is make weapon damage more variable. Don't read too much into it.

For example, a first level wizard with 4 hit points gets hit by a ogre's club and takes 22 points of damage. That will turn the wizard into a pile of goo. A critical hit by the same club doing 44 points of damage to our 20th level fighter is just a slight bruise. You judge the effectiveness of a hit by the ratio of damage to hit points. Whether the hit is a "critical" hit is meaningless.

It also seemed stupid that if I have a spell in hand (like vampiric touch), and I go to touch you, I don't provoke an aoo, but if I cast a magic missile and point it at you, I do. There were too many odd situations that didn't make sense for the most part, so I just got rid of them all, and said here is what ALWAYS provokes.

This actually isn't true. If you cast Vampiric Touch within a threatened area it draws AoO just like Magic Missile. Only if you cast the spell and then move into the threatened area does it not. Just like Flame Blade.


Aaron

 

[Dogbrain]

The problem is there is not such thing as "gaining the initiative". If you check the numbers, it is equally as likely for someone with +12 inititative to get double actions as someone with +1 inititative. Remember, going last in a round is just as good as going first in the next round. Initiative only really matters on the first round.

Then the REAL problem is that the numbers are wrong. You have proven, quite nicely, that the official initiative system is a bunch of crap that should be eliminated.

 

[FireLance]

Then the REAL problem is that the numbers are wrong. You have proven, quite nicely, that the official initiative system is a bunch of crap that should be eliminated.

The existing initiative system has the advantage of simplicity. I suppose you could have some kind of "delay" mechanism where every combatant gets to act 1d20 + Delay Modifier "time-segments" later, where Delay Modifier is some kind of inverse initiative based on the action attempted, and using different weapons and casting different spells would have different Delay Modifiers. I think it would be a little troublesome to keep track of in combat, though:

"Okay, who's acting on 157? 158? 159? 160? 161?"
"Wait, I think I'm acting on 158. Let's see, I last acted on 139, plus I rolled a 14 and a delay modifier of 5... yeah I'm acting on 158. Is the Haste spell still in effect?"
"I dunno. When was it cast?"
"30-something, I think. I wrote it down somewhere. Ah, 34. Unless that's how much damage I've taken."
"20 time-segments equal 1 round, right? So it should still be in effect even if it was cast in 34."

Anyway, I prefer the current system to re-rolling initiative, and while a delay system may be more realistic, I'd rather have a system that may be more abstract, but is more playable. YMMV, of course.