How would you do 3.5e in 160 pages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ry
  • Start date Start date

log in or register to remove this ad






Without a major change, do an E6 book. You only need the first six levels of each class, the first three levels of spells, and monsters up to CR10 or so. Only use the 'core' monsters, focusing on ones with templates so players can roll their own.

Redoing the system to be more like Saga would be a boon as well, but the OP said he wasn't really talking about that.
 

I like the 1-12 level limit, that should eliminate a lot of spell space, not to mention paring down the lists to say 12-20 spells per level. I don't like the ideas about changing the magic system fundamentally, as this is an experiment specifically oriented towards 3.5D&D and, like it or not, the premade vancian spells are part of the territory: easy to understand, iconic, and has lasted for 30odd years.

One point I'm not clear on is the need to include monsters in the book. And if so, why is no DM material to be included?

What about 120p each for 3 core books, PHB, MM, and DMG?

Incidentally, if you remove Attacks of Opportunity from the game, you remove a whole lot of text from the book (not to mention a whole lot of time from your combat;-).

Paring it down to four classes may be a little too "basic". I see no reason not to include Ranger, Bard, and Paladin. Druids and Illusionists have lost their cachet ever since 2E unified the spell lists, so they are basically redundant. Monks never work right. Barbarians are just fighters with arbitrary bonuses and restrictions (a niche better represented by Rangers imho). Sorcerers are pointless unless your game is purely combat oriented.

So, 7 classes, 4 races.
 

Grimstaff said:
Paring it down to four classes may be a little too "basic". I see no reason not to include Ranger, Bard, and Paladin.
Nah, I think the basic four would be better: clear archetypes, all different, with well-defined roles. Rangers and Paladins are Fighters with some special abilities and flavor (I think OAD&D had it right calling them "subclasses"). And D&D Bards are usually the every-archetype, which is goofy, IMO. For the basics, stick to the basics; leave subclass-type, prestige-type, and farrago-type classes to the DM, or to supplements.
 

Philotomy Jurament said:
Nah, I think the basic four would be better: clear archetypes, all different, with well-defined roles. Rangers and Paladins are Fighters with some special abilities and flavor (I think OAD&D had it right calling them "subclasses"). And D&D Bards are usually the every-archetype, which is goofy, IMO. For the basics, stick to the basics; leave subclass-type, prestige-type, and farrago-type classes to the DM, or to supplements.
The basic four are certainly clear archetypes, but you are bound to have players who will be disatisfied with that "limitation". Rangers, Paladins, and Bards are well represented in historical and fantasy literature, and give players a little more "breathing room". An assassin base class would be a useful (re)addition to the game as well, imho.

We'll just have to agree to disagree :D
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top