Left out by rules-lite RPGs?

[Angel Tarragon]

How about the Basic Fantasy RPG? It has old school feel while remaining D20 and is free to boot!

 

[Dragonhelm]

How about the Basic Fantasy RPG? It has old school feel while remaining D20 and is free to boot!

Looks a bit like C&C, though a bit more old school than that, at a glance.

What I've done is use C&C as a foundation, worked on rewriting the classes a bit to be full 20-level progressions (in progress), and kept d20's skills at their basic level, though with some tweaks. I don't use primes, and I don't use feats. It feels like a hybrid D&D/C&C game leaning towards the C&C side.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I want (modern) D&D, just simpler.

So.. which aspects of D&D are you willing to sacrifice, and which aspects are you not willing to sacrifice?

edit --- looks like someone already posted more or less the same question.. my mistake..

 

[resistor]

The major simplification I'd like to see is a de-emphasizing of both tactical and strategic planning. In terms of combat, neither I nor my players are tactical geniuses, and we find it hard to take into account all the combat options, particularly special maneuvers and attacks of opportunity.

On the strategic end (and this one's a more specific complaint), I find that prepared casters are too complicated. Nobody I've ever played with actually wanted to invest the time in working out a good set of spells to prepare each day. Consequently, almost all the arcanists I've seen played were sorcerers, and the few wizards who were were generally very ineffective. In my ideal system, all casters would be spontaneous.

While they're not major issues for me, I could also stand to see some simplifications of skills and feats. Something like skill bundles or Mastery Feats from Iron Heroes.

 

[Treebore]

Hmmm.

Take C&C, throw out the varied xp tables because the classes as is probably won't start breaking down until about 9th level.
Use feats and skills the way I do, except for the non-item creation metamagic feats, I haven't decided how to implement those yet. Plus I haven't found my mage player missing them. Also throw out the skill bonus type feats, pretty useless in 3E and even more so in C&C.

The way I do feats. Player tells me they want to attempt one. Lets say Cleave, since they just took down an opponent. They tell me they want to attmept an extra attack at the ogre standing next to them. I say OK, your TN (DC) is a 12 +4 if DEX is your Prime or TN 18 + 4 if it isn't. roll. If they fail the roll/attempt then some undefined action/movement occured that prevented the extra attack. Otherwise things moved perfectly into place for them to attempt the extra attack.

Same "template" pretty much applies for every "action" type feat. No lists. Everyone can try to attempt a feat like action.

Skills: I took the class lists and told my players their character has the full list available to them. The only limit, and the only thing they have to write down on their character sheet, is knowledge and craft skills. Each are limited by their PC's INT bonus. EACH, not both together. I threw out professions. Craft absorbed it.

I don't find skills breaking a game, no matter how many they may have.

What are the other things you are looking for?

Oh yes, prepared casters. Then say the spellcasters all work like sorcerors in 3E.

Combat complexity. There is no AoO in C&C. You still have a lot of the basic things possible, but it is up to the players and the DM to use them or not. Feat type actions again only complicate things as much as your players want to attempt them.

Spells. Use the 3E spells if you want, or use the shorter spells lists of C&C. Same with magic items.

What else are you looking to change?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The major simplification I'd like to see is a de-emphasizing of both tactical and strategic planning. In terms of combat, neither I nor my players are tactical geniuses, and we find it hard to take into account all the combat options, particularly special maneuvers and attacks of opportunity.

On the strategic end (and this one's a more specific complaint), I find that prepared casters are too complicated. Nobody I've ever played with actually wanted to invest the time in working out a good set of spells to prepare each day. Consequently, almost all the arcanists I've seen played were sorcerers, and the few wizards who were were generally very ineffective. In my ideal system, all casters would be spontaneous.

While they're not major issues for me, I could also stand to see some simplifications of skills and feats. Something like skill bundles or Mastery Feats from Iron Heroes.

Scrounge up a copy of Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG. It's essentially "d20 Lite" using 2d6 as the core mechanic. Combat is simplified much along the lines of what you want, and while skills and the Edges (basically feats renamed) are similar to 3e's system, the game still has fewer rules to keep track of than D&D. And, yeah, you can play it without using the Middle-earth setting, which the designers discuss in one of the very good essays on running the game, which are all in the core rulebook.

 

[Hussar]

The major simplification I'd like to see is a de-emphasizing of both tactical and strategic planning. In terms of combat, neither I nor my players are tactical geniuses, and we find it hard to take into account all the combat options, particularly special maneuvers and attacks of opportunity.

On the strategic end (and this one's a more specific complaint), I find that prepared casters are too complicated. Nobody I've ever played with actually wanted to invest the time in working out a good set of spells to prepare each day. Consequently, almost all the arcanists I've seen played were sorcerers, and the few wizards who were were generally very ineffective. In my ideal system, all casters would be spontaneous.

While they're not major issues for me, I could also stand to see some simplifications of skills and feats. Something like skill bundles or Mastery Feats from Iron Heroes.

As far as special maneuvers and AOO's, the easiest answer is don't use them. Just cut them out of the game. Not that much will change and it will run a lot easier.

Don't like prepped spellcasters? Ok, remove the wizzie and use sorcerers, remove clerics and use Favoured Souls. Flat out remove Druids.

That and capping out at around 12th level and you're golden.

 

[Akrasia]

Heh.

But seriously, I've looked at C&C, and too many of the rules seem to exist solely for the purpose to reinstate some "old school" feel. Things like the different XP charts for each class and the six different saves don't do anything for me in terms of bringing back non-existance old times, and they needlessly change the base system.

No, I'm pretty confident that C&C isn't what I'm looking for.

Here are two options:

A.Take C&C, then:

1 Unify the experience charts (give thieves, bards, monks, and assassins a few extra abilities to compensate for their now slower progression).

2 Use the 3e save system (it is easy to plug the Will/Fort/Ref system into C&C).

3 Add some feats (if you want them): all PCs get 1 feat/3 levels. (Remove all feats that refer to skills or require AoOs.)

4 Use the sorcerer 'spells/day' and 'spells known' for all casters (clerics, druids, illusionists, and wizards). Clerics & druids continue to use WIS as their spell ability score, and illusionists & wizards continue to use INT, but all spellcasters are 'spontaneous' (a la sorcerers in 3e).

DONE!

B Alternatively, use the 3.5 D&D rules, but figure out some way to remove AoOs, limit all spellcasters to spontaneous casters (use the optional 'spontaneous divine spellcasters' option from UA, and remove wizards, or replace them with the 'generic spellcaster' from UA), and limit progression to 10th-12th level.

 

[jmucchiello]

The major simplification I'd like to see is a de-emphasizing of both tactical and strategic planning. In terms of combat, neither I nor my players are tactical geniuses, and we find it hard to take into account all the combat options, particularly special maneuvers and attacks of opportunity.

Have you seen Narrative Combat? I'm not positive it is what you want but it certainly is far removed from tactics.

On the strategic end (and this one's a more specific complaint), I find that prepared casters are too complicated. Nobody I've ever played with actually wanted to invest the time in working out a good set of spells to prepare each day. Consequently, almost all the arcanists I've seen played were sorcerers, and the few wizards who were were generally very ineffective. In my ideal system, all casters would be spontaneous.

I don't see why you want to call it D&D if you don't want spell preparation. Most other spell systems will be more complicated.

 

[Hussar]

As far as removing AOO's go - that's relatively easy. Anything that would draw an AOO you cannot do in combat. So, no casting if threatened, no searching in your backpack, pretty much no special combat maneuvers without the requisite feat (which means the player better be able to figure it out), that sort of thing. Not my bag, but not a lot of work either.