NOT AN EDITION WARS THREAD: 1E'ing 3E

[Raloc]

Tarek, that is a lot of what I would do, if I were trying for the old school feel. Although, IMC, I make the all the characters train or do in character things to train for next level etc.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Feats and skills are too ingrained into the system (you can't remove feats from a fighter for instance).

Actually, you can. Just call them class abilities. Weapon focus and specialization at first level, greater versions of both at 8th level, throw cleave in their at 3rd maybe.

 

[Quasqueton]

You use a combat system streamlined enough that you can resolve a fight between a party of five characters and nine henchmen on one side and twenty-six orcs with a shaman on the other, in about thirty minutes. Realistically this means dropping an awful lot of the 3e combat mechanics.

You’d have to drop an awful lot of AD&D1 combat mechanics to fit that in 30 minutes, too. But of course, a fireball or two tossed among stock orcs will shorten the battle time in any edition.

Quasqueton

 

[Treebore]

Indeed. My main point was that the overall "feel" IMO, does not come from any specifics of mechanics, but from the style and capabilties of the players/DM involved, and that the actual "feel" of a D&D game varies less between edition than it does from player to player or DM to DM.

(That is, assuming the game is not rules-centric. Games which tend towards more of the crunchy aspects rather than RP aspects, I guess, would be significantly different since combats play out differently. But in a game where the rules are guidelines (which is my personal style ) I don't think this is the case, very much.)

About a year or so I would have agreed with you. But having been using C&C and rerunning old 1E modules for my group a lot of memories have come back. A lot of good ones, and a lot of good feelings. This is because (for me, I am not saying anyone else would) playing C&C and looking at and using 1E materials my 15 to 20 year old memories are coming back with much greater clarity.

So I would put to you how clearly are people remembering their 1E experiences? It is presumably clouded by 15 or so years of experiences. IT definitely was for me.

All I can say is that C&C gives me the fun and simplistic experiences and feeling of 1E while allowing me to use feats and skills my way, plus the positive AC and to hit numbers. I also prefer C&C's use of all stats for a variety of saves. A throw away stat is going to bite you in the backside sooner or later.

I also like how it takes so long to level up. Not only do characters have a history, you, the player feel like it is a history. IT took a long time to earn it. IT is an accomplishment.

I like all of those elements and much more. All I can say is if your looking for something different from 3E, that harkens very strongly back to 1E, then C&C is a excellent starting point to build from. All I have added is a simplified feat mechanic and a simplified skill system. I've been happy and my players don't miss 3E. They have come to like many of the elements that I hoped they would.

Now when talk of playing a 3E game comes up the funny faces are about the thought of playing 3E instead of C&C, the opposite of what it was over a year ago.

So C&C did a great job of bringing back the 1E feel for me. Plus it has actually increased my enjoyment of 3E books. I now appreciate them for the excellent ideas and concepts instead of dreading how they can break my game.

Plus with C&C I have been easily using my modules from every edition with ease. I also find it funny that when I want to beef up monsters I just go to 2E or 3E versions.

Gaming has been a joy for me again with C&C.

So obviously those of you who enjoy 3E, none of this means anything to you, but if any of you are feeling burn out like I was, give C&C a try rather than walk away from the game.

If your looking to put more 1E into your 3E game give C&C a look. ITs an excellent middle ground, like it was designed to be, so you can use anything you want from any edition, with minimal fuss.

 

[howandwhy99]

• Remove ability modifiers
• Remove feats
• Remove skills
• Stop advancement at level 10.
• Call multiclassing dual classing and only allow it for humans
• Allow demihumans to take partial gestalt classes and call it multiclassing
• Remove 0-level spells
• Consolidate all spells in to levels 1-5 with Wish as the most powerful 5th level spell
• Remove costs from magic items
• Completely reconfigure monster stats by removing ability modifiers to all stats, halving all HD for creatures over 4HD, halving AC & ability scores & DCs for the portion over 10
• Change saving throws into an unchanging invisible list so the player doesn't know which one he is rolling
• Remove Special Attacks in the combat section and a number of other specific combat actions
• Make the descriptions of classes (the portion before "Game Rule Information") as or more important as the game rule information
• Place Special Substances in the DMG
• Put in all the original MM monster histories and culture
• Include mass wargaming rules, rules for running organizations / fiefs.
• Include combat rules for warmachines
• Include quality chase rules for all means and modes of travel
• Fix traps to work without skills but by observation, trial and error, and critical thinking
• Remove the campaign advice from the DMG and flesh out the wandering monster tables
• Change rules liberally as desired without regard to system balance. Things like race and class abilities, all spell and magic item descriptions, etc.
• Include references to actual world histories for the core world as well as in game sensical descriptions for every portion of the rules (single or several) or remove entirely base world details

There are more, but what I listed just seems too much to bother with when other rule systems are available.

 

[Henry]

Y'know, HOw and why's list just reminded me of a thread by Wulf Ratbane on "extending the sweet spot" for D&D -- namely, levels 1 through 10. I have a feeling some of the wisdom generated there may be useful.


http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170445

This second thread is by Hussar and entitled "a rebuttal":
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=176755

Don't know if it will help, but the theme of the thread was taking all of the "magic" of low-level 3E play and preserving it over the whole 20 levels, some lessons of which might apply here.

 

[Dragonhelm]

There are alot of things I really like about 3.x. e.g. balancing of classes through the levels, the skill system, feats (as a general idea), the basic mechanics and the inherent "makes sense" attitude they take, etc etc.

<snip>

C&C I like, but I feel has gone too far in the opposite direction..more towards a Moldvay/Cook type type of simplification with just a few more classes and spells...though thematically I think its on the right track.

Here’s another thought, which goes right along with what Treebore was saying. Rather than taking 3e and making it more like 1e, how about taking C&C and adding in the things you like about 3e?

For example, let’s say you take C&C and add skills and feats back in. Where a C&C class has an ability that matched a D&D skill, just give a +2 bonus to that skill (i.e. a C&C rogue with Pick Pockets would grant a +2 bonus to Sleight of Hand checks). And, the basic mechanics of 3e are there with everything scaling up. The terminology isn’t all the same, but it is close enough to make sense. You would want to drop primes for skills, but that’s okay. It isn’t going to break the system.

In my last campaign, I switched the rules to C&C. I brought in D&D’s skills (with minor tweaking), and was able to adapt other D&D items as necessary. I was worried about power level since I was running a 3e module, but with minor tweaking, it worked out beautifully.

In my mind, the key selling point of C&C is that it is adaptable to different subsystems. If you’re old school and want to use Non-weapon proficiencies and secondary skills, you’re all set. If you prefer Castle Zagyg’s skill system, that works too. Or if you like 3e’s skill-and-feat system, you’re all set.

What I’ve gone through in my time is that I wanted to find something in between D&D and C&C. I wanted something that felt like my old games, but with the upwards scaling and modularity of d20. So when I started adding some subsystems from d20 to C&C, I was finally getting to where I wanted to be.

There’s two trains of thoughts on this. You can either take things away from D&D, or add to C&C. What I found was that D&D was very integrated, so it made it harder to drop the things you didn’t like. C&C is very open-ended, so you could add just about anything.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on long enough. My advice is to find the middle ground, and don’t be afraid to adapt. I wish you the best of luck, as your journey is similar to the one I’ve traveled.

 

[Lanefan]

Many, many excellent ideas so far.

A few I haven't seen mentioned yet, that might help:

- Potions, scrolls (I think) and wands in 3e are limited to spells or spell effects. Take that limit off...allow Wands of Wonder, Scrolls of Protection From Lycanthropes, etc.
- Bring back the more chaotic spell effects e.g. rebounding lightning bolts, fill-the-volume fireballs, etc...and take the damage dice limits off.
- Not so much a rules thing, but for the world and the adventures (particularly the adventures) underdesign and improvise, rather than overdesign.
- Again not so much a rules thing, but simply renaming a lot of the basic monsters can go a long way towards bringing the sense of mystery back.

Lanefan