Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[Grayhawk]

It's easy to say "we need a simplified D&D", but it might be more useful to discuss exactly how it would simplified.

I agree. But before getting into the 'hows', I wanted to see if anyone shared my view.

Almost all simplifications involve removing choices from the game, and people generally like to have the choices available to them.

I mean, what specific changes would you have in this simplified D&D? Would you eliminate multi-classing, prestige classes, or something like skill points? What about all the different combat options? Should we eliminate things like Sunder and Grapple?

I already don't use prestige classes, so they would be one of the first things to go. I would like to keep some way of multiclassing, though. For skills, maybe something a long the lines of Unearthed Arcana's 'Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices' variant, but with fewer (some consolidated) skills. About combat options, I'd like to keep stuff like Sunder, Grapple, Trip, etc - but overhauled to a much simpler, unified mechanic.

I think it depends on several factors - the quality of the DM, the experience of the players, and the groups' desire to stretch the system (includes desire to learn the system despite its complexity).

Agreed. Especially about the group's desire to learn the rules. My players still haven't quite gotten the grip on AoO's, grapples, etc. All of them only own the PHB and none are as dedicated as me, so they don't read messageboards like this one or even know of the existence of Prestige Classes (which is just as well, since I don't use them).

you could wait for TLG's Castles and Crusades game

I recently learned about this product and went to their boards and signed up, only to learn that their PHB forum were closed to non play testers(?)

If you want to stick with 3.x, just use the core rules, and avoid the "rules bloat" out there as much as possible.

I already am

I think you may find Castles & Crusades fulfills your desires for a simpler D&D; but, of course, it has its own problems.

What are these?

...And so forth - the actual rules are identical to 3.5E, but various options would be removed.

That's what I'm looking for.

All these combat rules and tables and subsystems that all mesh in a universal way causes people to look at the system and get the distinct impression that D&D is a math game that is supposed to be calculated for maximum efficiency. Ruins the feel of the game.

Exactly. I truly feel that this system is great for computer games, where the bulk of the rules applications and calculations can take place behind the scenes, but I don't feel it lends itself well to a fluid tabletop game.

This is edging toward house rules...

It might, but when I started it I just wanted to see how people felt about it, without necessarily getting into specifics. If the thread turns into that, I guess someone can move it. Regarding your suggestions, I was thinking about reducing skills in much the same way and obviously also getting rid of AoO's. But I don't think that the number of classes need to be scaled that far back.

If anyone has specific information on the Castles and Crusades game, as well as to what's really in the D&D Basic Game box, I'd like to hear about it.

(And please excuse me for this abysmally long post )

 

[Tuzenbach]

I think that if there were complete books containing:

1. ALL Feats
2. ALL Prestige Classes
3. ALL Core Classes

then a lot of the perceived complexity would vanish. It's basically the difference between using four books to create your character versus 47 books/supplements.

 

[Trainz]

Good ideas RangerWicket, but you are only adressing character creation.

I think the real complexity of the game lies somewhere else i.e. the mechanics themselves. You pointed out one, AoO, which would indeed make things simpler. Also remove reach, and you don't need a battle map anymore (like in 1st ed and 2nd ed).

Something that really bogged down the game are named bonuses from magic items and spells. These can really cut down on game time. Remove named bonuses and tweak/remove a few spells and items and you're set. If it gives a +3 to ac, you gain +3 to AC. Incorporeal crits have a +10 to hit you, no need to check AC bonuses.

Etc...

It takes a little tweaking to simplify the game, but it's far from impossible.

I would also remove prestige classes. I hate 95% of them anyways.

NPC classes: I really hate those. Why should someone that has trained as an expert to have more skill ranks have a better BAB and Hit points ? Nonsense.

My two cents. YMMVAAT

 

[Grayhawk]

I think that if there were complete books containing:

1. ALL Feats
2. ALL Prestige Classes
3. ALL Core Classes

then a lot of the perceived complexity would vanish. It's basically the difference between using four books to create your character versus 47 books/supplements.

No, that's not at all what this is about. I'm only using the three core books and they alone hold enough options and variety to keep a group such as mine (with a reduced playing frequency) with fresh stuff for a long time. In fact, there's so many options that I don't believe our game would suffer from a reduction.

And with just the three core books, the game can still be overly complicated at times, especially for a group who don't think you should need a doctorate in the game mechanics to run a combat with some sort of fluidity.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I think that's the key to your post. With the older rules, players would act more reasonably and not treat the rules as tools to kill and become more powerful. All these combat rules and tables and subsystems that all mesh in a universal way causes people to look at the system and get the distinct impression that D&D is a math game that is supposed to be calculated for maximum efficiency. Ruins the feel of the game.

I agree with this. I think, however, that the basic d20 idea is sound: trying to beat the DC. And I like many of the suggestions in this thread.

This is just spur of the moment, but a simplification of the Skills could be to only have six skills:

Strength-skills, Dex-skills, Con-skill, Int-skills, Wis-skills, Cha-skills. A Fighter's class skills could be str and con, perhaps with the others as cross-class. Then each level they would be add one to their class-skills and every other level one to one of their cross class-skills... Well as I said, I haven't really thought about this before, but perhaps something like it could work.

I would keep the multi-classing though, but shave the classes back to a bare minimum and let roleplaying fill in the gaps.

About combat: I agree: Remove the AoO and reach. Remove special attacks as ruledefined but of course allow the players to do what they want by just adjusting the DC.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually been developing a Basic D20 system in my (hah!) spare time. I've discussed it with a publisher, but right now it's all in the realm of hypothetical--especially until we see if Castles & Crusades does the job for us.

But yes, I'd love to see a true Basic D&D, not to replace 3.5, but simply as another option.

 

[Iron Sheep]

I've thought a bit about what would be needed to make a nice "Basic D&D" or "D&D Lite," and I think that the most important thing is that while many options and complexities would have to come out, to be a successful first-step to "Real D&D" you have to be able to put the options and complexities back in without resetting the game.

In other words, any character you create with the "Lite" rules should still be a valid character with the "Real" rules.

So simplifications like Unearthed Arcana's "Max Ranks" skill system (where you just pick skills, and automatically get max ranks in them) would be good, since they still produce valid characters.

In fact, you could probably have a quite enjoyable game where you simply present a collection of character packages like "Dwarven Fighter," "Swashbuckler," or "Halfling Rogue" that consist of valid, reasonably optimised characters where your skill and feat choices have already been made. You could even construct packages using multiclassing.

The biggest problem would be finding the sweet spot of just how many packages you should have: Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Cleric is probably too few; spelling out every possible race/class combination and class variant is too many.

As far as the more intricate rules, a lot of the intricacies go away if you remove the exceptions. No tumble skill, or Mobility or Combat Reflexes feats, and limit combat special actions, and attacks of opportunity become much simpler; if you do a bit of work you could probably get it down to the level of "if you move through a threatened square, you get attacked." It's less important to have these rules be precisely compatible with "real" D&D since they apply to specific, transitional situations, and it's much easier to later say "OK, we're playing with this more detailed, but slightly different rule now."

In summary: keep characters upward compatible between versions of the game; other rules can be simplified if it really helps the level of complexity.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I love the complexity and options of 3.5 D&D and wouldn't trade them for the world, sooo... I'm basically on the far, far side of the spectrum here. With that said, I can think of a few (relatively) simple ways to streamline the game.


Simplified Attacks of Opportunity
1. Eliminate AoOs for movement. This was stated before, but it bears repeating. It bogs down combat more than almost any factor other than spells.
2. Eliminate AoOs for basic combat actions other than spellcasting. Laying down and taking a nap provokes an AoO; turning your back to an enemy to rummage through a saddlebag provokes an AoO; getting up from prone, drawing a weapon, firing a bow, sundering a weapon or grabbing and drinking a potion do not provoke AoOs.
3. Eliminate the Combat Reflexes feat.
3. Keep AoOs for spellcasting.

Simplified Classes
1. Replace the 11 core classes with the three generic classes from Unearthed Arcana, or the six base classes from d20 Modern/Grim Tales.
(Warrior, Expert & Spellcaster) or (Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated & Charismatic), but not both.

Simplified Skills
1. Combine Move Silently/Hide into Sneak (ala Arcana Unearthed), Spot and Listen (and Search?) into Alertness, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive and Bluff into Conversation, Balance, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, and so on.
2. Eliminate cross-class skills.
3. Use the 'max ranks' variant from Unearthed Arcana.

Simplified Feats
1. Eliminate the Improved series of feats (Disarm, Unarmed Strike, Sunder, Trip) and, if those actions are allowed, incorporate them into the basic abilities of all combatants.
2. Eliminate all Metamagic feats (see below).

Simplified Spells
This is the number one thing players (and DMs) spend time looking up, in my experience.
1. Use only Sorcerer spellcasting with a very limited spell list (perhaps based off the Lineage Sorcerer here on ENWorld), make spellcasting the province of advanced classes like d20 Modern's Acolyte and Mage, base spellcasting off the Psion, or use a feats/skills or limited spell system like Conan d20 or Grim Tales.
2. Eliminate the arcane/divine divide, which is largely counterintuitive.
3. Dramatically reduce the number of spells, but increase their versatility. I'm thinking that they should be changed to reflect 3.5 Psionics, with augmentation replacing higher-level spells.
4. Eliminate metamagic. With augmentation, a 'basic' system doesn't need it.
5. Eliminate spell components.

Simplified Alignment
1. Eliminate alignment.
2. Eliminate the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. With extreme prejudice.

Personally, I would use the d20 Modern base classes and create a Spellcaster advanced class, designed like the 3.5 Psion. I'd keep PrCs and AdCs, multiclassing and most feats. By simplifying spells, skills and combat actions while leaving the players with lots of character creation options, I think you'd find the game runs smoother and faster but still appeals to 3.x players.

 

[Ourph]

IMO, D&D 3e makes the mistake of trying to give every choice some numeric value. You choose A you get +X to this roll, you choose B you get minus Y to this check. With all the choices available in the game, eventually it becomes a little overwhelming for some players ( me included ).

This is what I would do if I were publishing a "Basic" D&D.

1. Races, Classes and Character creation stay basically the same (a few exceptions).

2. The list of skills gets shortened. Roleplaying skills get tossed. Everyone gets access to basic skills like Spot, Listen, Jump, Climb, Search, etc. (stuff that everyone can do). Skill check DCs are based on a specific set of numbers rather than a fluid range (5, 10, 20, 30 for example).

3. Feats get changed to provide special abilities rather than bonuses (especially situational bonuses). Irrelevant feats due to changes in the combat system are gone.
Deflect Arrows is a good example of a simple feat. It allows you to do something extra that nobody else can do.
Iron Will is another example of a simple feat. It provides a bonus, but it's one you get all the time.
Point Blank Shot is an example of a complex feat. It provides a situational bonus. You have to know how far you are from your target in order to know whether to apply it or not. Feats like this get "simplified".

4. Combat gets simplified dramatically.
Surprise is determined by a simple dice roll instead of opposed Spot/Hide - Listen/Move Silently checks. The way I would do it is to compare Initiative rolls. Any combatant whose Initiative roll is 5 or below is surprised. They cannot act in the first round of combat.
Attacks of Opportunity are gone.
Flanking is gone (sneak attacks only occur vs. surprised opponents or against creatures who are unaware of you).
Casters MUST make Concentration checks to cast in a threatened square.
Charging, running and other movement options are gone (except for the double move).
Lots of actions become free actions (drawing/sheathing, standing up, etc.)
Tripping is gone.
Disarming is a simple opposed attack roll with your weapon's damage roll added to the total (so for example, a Fighter wielding a greatsword would make his attack roll and then add 2d6+X to the roll [where X is his normal damage modifier]). If the defender beats the attacker by 5 or more, the attacker gets disarmed.
Grappling is already fairly simple. I'd keep it pretty much as-is.
Sundering is gone.

5. Magic is pretty much unchanged (there are a few tweaks to metamagic and the way magic items work).

6. XP is changed to a simple formula. (Avg level of party/CR of monster) x 100XP. The advancement chart stays the same.

7. Instead of having individual DCs listed for monsters special abilities and attacks, the DC if a monster (or NPC) forces a save comes from the simple equation [(HD + CR)/2] + 10 = DC. (Try it for some monsters in the MM. It's not exact, but most DCs from this equation end up within 2-3 points of the ones listed).

 

[RangerWickett]

For combat, how about this option to replace the battle mat without getting rid of the importance of movement.

Move checks.

Everyone has a Move score, or maybe it can be like a skill. It represents your skill with, well, moving. Particularly getting within striking distance of a foe, or getting out of combat in a hurry.

You divide combat into three areas - Melee (a 30 ft. radius), Medium (a 150 ft. radius), and Long (an 800 ft. radius). Anything beyond this range is outside of combat.

It takes a full round to move from Long to Medium, or vice versa. It takes a move action to get from Medium to Melee, or vice versa. There is usually only one Melee area in a combat, but there can be more.

The Melee area is basically the chaotic field of battle, where theoretically anyone can fight anyone. To get within range to hit someone, you make a Move check against as DC that's set by, I dunno, we'll figure it out later. If you succeed, you can attack. If you delay your attack so that you and a friend attack at the same time, if you both succeed, you flank. If you fail your engage check, your opponent gets an attack against you.

I think the Engage in Combat DC would be a base of 0, modified by your opponent's reach and speed, and perhaps terrain. Usually, bad terrain slows you down and limits your ability to approach your foe safely, but some types of terrain might give a bonus to the attacker.

Most spells have a range of Touch, Melee, Medium, or Long. All ranged weapons have an attack roll modifier at each range increment, and most weapons can't even attack at Long range.