D&D3 minus some rules

[Bullgrit]

Forked from: AD&D is not "rules light"

Okay. Explain to me how you would throw out the following? And remember, I'm talking about throwing out here, not house-ruling. This isn't where you replace a rule you don't like with a rule you do. This is where you simply ignore a rule you don't like, without it having a massive effect on gameplay.

• Grappling rules. (Keep in mind that the Monster Manual is loaded with monsters that have improved grab.)
• Ability score damage and the resulting cascade of effects. (Ditto poison.)
• Iterative attacks where you subtract 5 each time.
• Feats.
• Skill points.

That's just off the top of my head. I could probably come up with others after some thought.

Once again, you may not replace any of these with anything. You have to chop them off and play with the bloody stump. And the game still has to play just as smoothly, and all the base classes and most of the monsters have to work just as well, without them.

Removing grappling rules: that just means all those grappling monsters do straight damage with their attacks -- just like it worked in AD&D, yes? What monster could you not play straight out of the MM with any reference to grappling erased?

Ability score damage/poison: What would be hurt by removing this? I hate the bookkeeping that comes from ability score damage, so in my games, when I DM, I don't use it. The Players haven't missed it, and it hasn't hindered my game in any way. If I use a poison, I just have it do HP damage, or paralyze, or kill, like in AD&D. But I guess this breaks your rule for this exercise.

Iterative attacks where you subtract 5 each time: I hear D&D4 works fine without this rule.

Feats and skills: The game will *work* without feats and skills. AD&D worked without them, and I see nothing about D&D3 that would end a game if they were taken out.

Will removing some of these rules change the game play? Sure. But then if you were used to using weapons vs. AC and rate of fire in AD&D, removing them from the game would change the play there, too.

But the game will play without them. The proof is that the game played without them in AD&D.

Bullgrit

 

[karlindel]

I have to say that I think it's a silly argument, inasmuch as any of those things pulled away from AD&D would have similar issues, i.e. it would change the way the classes balanced against one another if you didn't make some minor adjustments to account for it. A slightly better argument would be to ask how much work it would take to these systems to make them rules-light in play.

As far as grappling, some monsters can be better off not using improved grab when they have it. I don't think removing grappling from 3E is a problem for the monsters, so if none of the players use it, you can remove it with no problems.

Ability score damage is easily handled by not using or allowing anything that causes it. I didn't use it often in any of my 3E games for that to matter.

Iterative attacks can be removed just as easily as you can remove the AD&D ability of fighters to master weapons and get extra attacks, i.e. it'll make the fighters weaker but otherwise won't hurt the system. It's trivial to adjust damage upward to account for a lack of iterative attacks, or to keep the multiple attack rolls by applying a single penalty to all attacks. As a quick example (actual numbers should probably be different to keep damage similar), at lvl 6 a full attack can be used to get two attacks at a -2 to hit each, at lvl 11 to get two attacks at normal bonus or three attacks at -2 to hit each, etc.

Feats can be removed if you don't like them, although it obviously will have a significant impact on class balance, but otherwise won't change the system.

Skills can be done away with if you don't like them, with the same impact having no non-weapon proficiencies and the rogue's percentile skills would have on an AD&D game. It's also easily replaced with a different system, such as something similar to 4E with static bonuses to all skills and training for additional bonuses, or a simple AD&D-esque roll under your stat rule.


In summary, it's just as easy to remove or modify things in 3E to suit your tastes as it was to do it in AD&D. I've had several friends use the d20 system as a basis for personal systems designed to have a more "old school" feel to them.

 

[Crothian]

But the game will play without them. The proof is that the game played without them in AD&D.

Just because the game can be played without them doesn't mean it should. There are games that work with out classes and levels and attributes and dice and dungeon masters; should we also get rid of all of those too?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You guys are using the wrong standard, and this is a false question.

The question isn't can you play the game without these things, but if these things are removed will they be missed.

In AD&D, you could take races and classes, spells, magic items, the base combat system, and monsters, keep those and remove the rest and what you removed wouldn't be missed.

All of those things you gave as examples for 3E were things that would be missed on some level.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Grappling rules. (Keep in mind that the Monster Manual is loaded with monsters that have improved grab.)

Any grappling situations can be resolved through a single attack roll or opposed attack roll. Creatures with improved grab automatically grapple their opponent on either a critical hit or if they hit by 5 or more on their attack roll, whichever is preferred.

Ability score damage and the resulting cascade of effects. (Ditto poison.)

One of the following options: 1) change ability damage to hit point damage, 2) assign equivalent penalties instead of ability score loss (Strength damage = penalty to attack and damage rolls, Wisdom damage = penalty to Will saves, etc.), or 3) only use poisons that inflict a status effect, paralysis, unconsciousness, or death.

Iterative attacks where you subtract 5 each time.

Give the warrior classes multiple attacks where you don't subtract 5 each time. All other classes don't get multiple attacks.

Feats.

Toss them out. Take the feat requirements away from crafting magic items and give the fighter some additional combat bonuses if desired.

Skill points.

Toss them out. Allow rogues to do rogue-like things by rolling 1d20 + their rogue level or through DM fiat.

 

[rounser]

Removing feats from fighters in 3E is like removing magic from elves in BECMI. Yes, the game will still run, but you might have trouble convincing anyone to play a fighter.

In fact, everyone with an eye for minmaxing would immediately dump the fighter for the barbarian in such a campaign. The only thing the fighter had over the barbarian was feats.