D&D N. I. M. B. Y.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Swap "demihuman races" for "fiddly encumbrance" rules, and that's our house rule list.

Whoops! I guess I should add "fiddly encumbrance" to my list, as well (I can't ever recall using encumbrance rules, which is why it slipped my mind earlier). The "demihuman races" thing was a later adjustment made to better honor the Swords & Sorcery genre that most players in the group favored (I recall one person griping about it).

In 3E, I run an AoO-lite game, since I don't have the interest or the ability (in pbp games) to use a grid or miniatures. The world has failed to end as a result.

For me the issue was, honestly, space and portability. Battlemats suck for both. Admittedly, my purchase of flip mats from Paizo has made this less of an issue but, at the time being, I'm so familiar with not using AoOs that introducing them wouldn't feel right.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Mark said:
What have you removed from past editions of the rules?
OD&D
- See here
Holmes:
- spell limits by Int
- number of attacks by weapon size
B/X:
- nothing that I recall at the moment.
BECM/RC
- no general skills
- no weapons mastery
OAD&D
- usually didn't use weapon vs. armor type
- often didn't use wepon speed
- often used simplified (B/X-style) initiative
- no non-weapon proficienies
- no psionics
- house-ruled unarmed combat
* note that I also ran some by-the-book OAD&D games, though
2E
- no non-weapon proficiencies
- no kits
- stuck to core, basically (didn't play much 2E)

What have you removed from this edition of rules?
I don't usually run 3E, anymore. If I did, I don't know that I'd remove anything -- I'd probably be running it because I wanted what it has to offer (e.g. feats, skill system, etc).

What would you remove for the next edition of the rules?
Feats (make them purely optional).
Granular Skill system (make it purely optional).
Grid/Squares references in rules.
Emphasis on balanced everything.
Monsters/NPCs built with same rules/detail of PCs (usually overkill)
 

Note that not all the following changes are/were mine; they've been a 25+ year group effort.

Mark said:
What have you removed from past editions of the rules?
Weapon speed, weapon-vs.-armour-type, Barbarian as a class, ExP-for-treasure-found, action must be stated before beginning of each combat round, 10-segment rounds for casting times (made 'em 6-segments to agree with the initiative system), various useless spells, Bards as written, psyonics as written, lots of class-race level limits, two-classing, Clerical spell memorization, ability for one character to function in 3+ classes, Elf auto-proficiencies in sword and bow regardless of class, etc.

**Added question** What have you changed in past editions of the rules?

Re-designed psyonics (several times), made Bard a core class, went to a spell-point system (and am in process of changing that again, to more like how the 3e Sorceror works), tweaked effects of various spells, redesigned Monks from the ground up, sped up level advancement somewhat (to account for no ExP for treasure), allowed humans to multi-class, put Cavaliers on d10 hit dice, tweaked to-hit table, tweaked turning-undead table, expanded and tweaked item saving throw matrix, made half- races into part- races to allow for greater genetic variability, gave level-gaining ability to all sorts of monsters, shield gives 2 AC instead of 1, multiple actions get their own initiatives e.g. two melee swings in a round from the same character get separate init. rolls, initiative is re-rolled each round, *lots* more.

**Added question** What have you added to past editions of the rules?

Necromancer as a core class, critical hit and fumble tables, body-fatigue points (hit point system strikingly similar to SW's wound-vitality points but predates it by 20+ years), racial taints, various spells, wild magic surge effect tables and chances, all sorts of magic items and functions, magic herbs, strength bonuses to hit and damage for all monsters that deserve such, Barbarian as a sub-race of human, Arctic elf as a sub-race of elf, Clerics may and must be proficient in deity's weapon of choice even if such is otherwise normally banned, lots more.
What have you removed from this edition of rules?
Haven't DM'ed this edition but I've played it; if I ever were to try DM-ing it the rules'd never know what hit 'em, and by the time I got done it'd look suspiciously 1e-like in many ways. :)
What would you remove for the next edition of the rules?
Outright remove? Not sure. There's a friggin' boatload of things I'd like to see changed and some of those involve massive reductions e.g. whittle 1000+ prestige classes down to about 8...but I can't think of what I'd remove completely.
What would you definitely not want to see added to the rules?
Anything that forces the use of either miniatures or a computer to play the game. I use both, but others don't; I'd prefer that choice remain.

Lanefan
 
Last edited:

Mouseferatu said:
Not In My Backyard.

It's one of those acronyms that actually (gasp!) predates the internet! :eek:

;)
But has no relevance I can figure to the questions. :confused: (esp since in it's usual context it's preceded by "We need it, BUT....")
 

Mark said:
What have you removed from past editions of the rules?

Never played a previous edition.

What have you removed from this edition of rules?

Elves and half-elves.

What would you remove for the next edition of the rules?

I'd make humans less versatile or the other races more geared towards a niche of some kind.
I loathe having lots of humans in a party. Humans are boring.

What would you definitely not want to see added to the rules?

I'd want things kept in the rules, really.
I definitely want to stay with Vancian magic, and I'm happy with the way the game works as of 3.0...I'd keep the longer buff durations and the material component-less Reincarnate and non-Evil Eyebite, letting Improved Critical and Keen stack and lots of other little changes like that.
 


Kahuna Burger said:
But has no relevance I can figure to the questions. :confused: (esp since in it's usual context it's preceded by "We need it, BUT....")


I am of the belief that it is more properly prefaced by, "It might be inevitable but . . ." Without getting politically specific, I think there are alternatives to much of what become expediant.
 

I am surprised too how many people removed weapon speeds from 1E to me it was an important mechanic which added value and incentive to using lighter weapons like short swords etc.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top