D&D 3.x "Just the Good Stuff" 3.x Ruleset Deckbuilding

[DeadlyUematsu]

I do the same thing.

It's a good rule. A DM I knew instituted it. I thought it was curious given, at the surface level, it didn't prevent anything. Then I overheard him hash over that specific rule with a very brusque prospective player. That was when I had the 'Aha' moment.

 

[DammitVictor]

1. Your Best Wild 3.x Collage ​

3.0, 3.5, and PF1 are one game; 4e and PF2 are the point at which they diverge. This is important.

• 3.0 and 3.5 classes/races get some extra benefits to keep up with Pathfinder classes/races; PF classes are simplified and lose a lot of ribbons. Complete classes and APG/ACG classes are wide open.
• No Fighter class; replace with Fighter Archetypes + Prestige Archetypes. Other +1 BAB classes and some3/4 BAB classes gain access to Fighter's Weapon Training and Armor Training, mostly for access to their Advanced versions.
  • All classes are Martial Initiators based on their martial combat (plus) and spellcasting/supernatural (minus) abilities.
  • Ki and psionics are finessed into a sort of underlying proto-magic; ki psionics and martial initiation replace cantrips/orisons. Characters who take mind blade feats can take blade skills.
• No Rogue class, as above. Skill-based classes and classes that get sneak attackget access to Rogue/Vigilante Talents and Ninja Tricks.
  • The Assassin class combines the 3.5 Assassin with the PF Assassin.
• No Druid, Cleric or Wizard; no class gets 9th level spells and full access to Sor/Wiz or Clr/Orl lists.
  • Other major (medium and full) spellcasters get more options for cherry-picking spells off of other lists.
  • Prepared casters use Arcanist preparation, and spells learned from feats or class features are always prepared. Spellcasting/caster level works similarly to 5e, with "caster level" being based on the spell slot used to cast the spell.
  • The Shaman class is a hybrid class between the OA Shaman and the ACG Shaman, and uses the D&D version of turn undead. It learns and casts spells as an Oracle, using the combined spell list of both Shaman classes, and may select its Domains from any available to the Cleric.
  • Shugenja replace their Order spells with Oracle Mysteries/Revelations (preferred element + 1) and gain the magical senses (only) of the Void Disciple PrC. Their prohibited element is "Pathfinder prohibited", learned normally but costing two spell slots to cast.
  • Sorcerer is a cross between Battle Sorcerer and Bloodline Disciple (applied to the PF Sorcerer) with aggressively nerfed spell lists based on bloodline bonus spells.
  • Wu Jen can specialize in any of the Pathfinder elemental arcane schools and add all of those spells to its class spell list; they get the same benefit as a PF Wizard specializing in the same school.
  • Occult Adventures is in, on the same level of Oriental Adventures/Rokugan Campaign Setting as being a "core rulebook". Kineticst badly needs simplified if I'm going to a run a game with it, but I really want it to be included.
• Multiclassing is a cross between Tipsy Tabby and Variant Multiclassing. Racial Favored Classes are more limited, maybe 4-5 classes per race, but get PF-style Favored Class Bonuses.
  • Prestige Classes replaced with Prestige Archetypes a la Purple Duck.
• Conflated/condensed feat lists with level scaling; partially to streamline player options, partially to make up for the loss of most bonus feats.
• Grouped Skills plus Skill Unlocks.

Setting? I'm not ready to let go of my Rokugan + Spelljammer bit yet. Shadow of the Spider Moon, Rokugan Campaign Setting, probably sprinkle in more than a little bit of Eberron, and lean heavily on lizardfolk, goblinoids, Kreen, and Gith as major races. Androids and Warforged/Forgeborn both exist, and have a weird unexplained antipathy for each other; Golarion's Distant Worlds and Dragon Empires races are all established as minor races/uncommon races.

I really hope that all of that explains the kind of vibe/feel and play experience I'm going for, because I'll be damned I can explain it any better.

2. For a New GM ​

I don't know if I could do this. Dropping the entire 3.5 SRD or d20PFSRD.com on a newbie GM to save money is both cheating and quite possibly sabotaging the point of the experiment. And unless someone is already thoroughly experienced with and nostalgic for 3.X/PF1, I'm not sure I'd actually recommend they learn. (Not that nostalgia is the only reason to play learn/play that game, but just there's so many other games I'd recommend for a new player/umpire to experience first.)

Time I spent rewriting it for a new umpire, I could spend writing up a whole new game I like better.

But I'd start with the simplifications above–Elephant in the Room, Grouped Skills, 5e spellcasting–limited selection of classes and disciplines. Knight, Marksman, Berserker, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Witch, Sorcerer (evoker), Mystic.

So my rules implement this by getting rid of prestige classes and typically turning prestige class abilities that have no other source into feats if that ability seems reasonable.

Real big fan of the way Purple Duck just combines the route for getting into a PrC with the PrC itself to turn it into a base class. The "prestige" is being 6th level in the first place.

Additionally, there are very low minimum requirements to get into a class - for example you have to have at least 9 strength to be a fighter - inspired by 1e AD&D. Also inspired somewhat by 1e AD&D, the more classes you have the higher the requirements are. Each prerequisite ability score increases by 2 for each class beyond the first. If you want to be a Fighter/Rogue, well you need at least 11's in both STR and DEX.

Oh, that's brilliant. I'll have to remember that.

 

[Desdichado]

I think 3e and Co. (3.5, Pathfinder 1e, etc.) work fine with two simple house rules: 1) don't play with powergamers, and 2) slow down leveling and don't let the game get up above 6-7th level or so. Actually using E6 is optional.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I think 3e and Co. (3.5, Pathfinder 1e, etc.) work fine with two simple house rules: 1) don't play with powergamers, and 2) slow down leveling and don't let the game get up above 6-7th level or so. Actually using E6 is optional.

2. I never personally understood that perspective. When I want a lower powered game, I have other systems I would grab instead (Mythras or Rolemaster 4e or GURPS 4e). I personally think 3.x's 'sweet spot' is level 7-14 or so, and found level 1-6 rather tedious. But clearly many other people like those levels.

1. don't play with powergamers
This one though, I can understand. If you allow everything there will be a huge gulf between the optimised characters and the unoptimised ones; unless the optimisers help the rest of the players.

 

[cbwjm]

In every version of DnD, I felt the game really picked up at 5th level, I think that's why I like the idea of E6 since it's at a point where warriors are able to hit reasonably well and have plenty of hp to soak damage, spellcasters get 3rd level spells, rogues have 3d6 sneak attack dice, etc. 5e designers clearly thought 5th level was a good breakpoint as well since that's when extra attack comes online.

I do like the higher levels though, but if I was gonna play 3e again, I might suggest E6. Actually might use it to make use of all the world of warcraft books I have... maybe I should suggest it to my friends.

 

[Desdichado]

2. I never personally understood that perspective. When I want a lower powered game, I have other systems I would grab instead (Mythras or Rolemaster 4e or GURPS 4e). I personally think 3.x's 'sweet spot' is level 7-14 or so, and found level 1-6 rather tedious. But clearly many other people like those levels.

That's perfectly fine. I think, if you polled a wider variety of players, that you'd find that your perception is not what is most common. No edition of D&D scales well, and most people, in my experience, think that lower level D&D is the D&D that works best. 9th level is often seen as the cut-off where access to ridiculous magic "breaks" the game. WotC has done research, which they've referred to several times second-hand, that most people do not play above about 7th level. The design goal of E6 was to prolong the "sweet spot" of D&D indefinitely, as defined by the designer and (by implication) most players. Of course, if you disagree with where the sweet spot is, then E6 probably isn't for you.

Certainly I think that's as high as I prefer the game to go. I don't know why you'd suggest that I should play some other system. Mythras or Rolemaster is very little like low level D&D, and I like playing low level D&D. As do most D&D players. Telling them that they should either play a different system or like higher levels isn't very helpful.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm not so certain that I think E6 is the sweet spot because it might well be too high. Maybe I'd prefer E4. There's anecdotal evidence that the reason Holmes kept the original Basic set at levels 1-3 is because he thought that was the sweet spot and the game worked better if you didn't go higher level than that.

1. don't play with powergamers
This one though, I can understand. If you allow everything there will be a huge gulf between the optimised characters and the unoptimised ones; unless the optimisers help the rest of the players.

It's much more than that. Playing with powergamers just isn't fun because powergaming isn't at all a priority to me, and it makes the game much less fun to prioritize it. It's not just a handy fix for a problem that's specific to 3.5; it's a handy fix for making gaming much better for me over all.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Of course, if you disagree with where the sweet spot is, then E6 probably isn't for you.

Yes. Which is why my next 3.5 game is probably going to be something I've dubbed "2E6" - Maximum character level of 12, maximum class level of 6 (except for Fighters and certain NPC classes), and mandatory multiclassing for characters of level 7+ (except for those Fighters).

I consider the "sweet spot" to start at level 5 or 6, so E6 is too low-level for me. OTOH I do want to crimp off the 4th+ level spells - and I remember old USENET discussions about extending the useful level range of 3.5e by forced multiclassing of spellcasters, so as to delay the acquisition of higher-level spells.

 

[ssvegeta555]

Yes. Which is why my next 3.5 game is probably going to be something I've dubbed "2E6" - Maximum character level of 12, maximum class level of 6 (except for Fighters and certain NPC classes), and mandatory multiclassing for characters of level 7+ (except for those Fighters).

I consider the "sweet spot" to start at level 5 or 6, so E6 is too low-level for me. OTOH I do want to crimp off the 4th+ level spells - and I remember old USENET discussions about extending the useful level range of 3.5e by forced multiclassing of spellcasters, so as to delay the acquisition of higher-level spells.

I feel the same about where the sweet spot starts. I've been touing with the idea of 12 levels max but ban 6th level spells, but I'm liking your idea quite a bit. When you say fighters, do you just mean the base class or is it for martial classes in general that can level up to 12? I wonder if spell DCs might fall a bit too behind at higher levels though. Hmm...

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I feel the same about where the sweet spot starts. I've been touing with the idea of 12 levels max but ban 6th level spells, but I'm liking your idea quite a bit. When you say fighters, do you just mean the base class or is it for martial classes in general that can level up to 12? I wonder if spell DCs might fall a bit too behind at higher levels though. Hmm...

Fighter base class. Paladins and rangers would be limited to 6 class levels.

I see the spell DC's falling behind to be a feature rather than a bug. A frequent complaint is that saving throw bonuses fall behind spell-save DCs, with save-boost items being important must-haves at higher levels. So if spell DCs fall behind instead, how is this a bad thing?

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Fighter base class. Paladins and rangers would be limited to 6 class levels.

I see the spell DC's falling behind to be a feature rather than a bug. A frequent complaint is that saving throw bonuses fall behind spell-save DCs, with save-boost items being important must-haves at higher levels. So if spell DCs fall behind instead, how is this a bad thing?

I've came to a similar conclusion. Nerfing the spell progression = better game.