Rebuild 1E...

[Treebore]

The one thing to say about percentile versus the d20 is when you fail on a D20 you failed by 5%, period. With percentile you can fail by only 1%.

 

[Freakohollik]

I'm not sure where to start. I don't want to tear the system down. But I want to tear a lot of subsystems out.

There some new ideas here. Some of which I think are pretty cool. My thoughts:

Simplified ability score modifiers as in BECMI but even simpler: 1-4 -2, 5-7 -1, 8-13 +0, 14-16 +1, 17-19 +2, 20-22 +3, etc. This make 18 less special and hopefully reduces stat dominance in the system. When you are only get at most +2 bonuses from stats they are no more influential that circumstance modifiers (per 3e). It also means you can have races with +1 stat bonuses. Hopefully it also encourages the 3d6 6-times style of chargen.

So you will make stats do even less, then expect people to be happy with having lower stats? That doesn't work. You'd have to redo all the rest of the balance to account for low stat mods.

Strength modifies all damage (except machines like crossbows). Dex modifies all attack rolls. Con adds (never subtracts) to hit points. Int modifies all initiative rolls. Wisdom modifies all surprise checks. Charisma modifies spell resistance. Magic does not add to ability scores, it adds bonuses to ability score checks. Gauntlet of Ogre Power would be +2 to all strength checks and double your carrying capacity.

Not bad. Though str giving me to hit and damage is something I enjoy. I like the uses of the mental stats, especially cha. It's important here to keep the stats from doing too much as they do in 3e.

Weapons are special effects. Each class has a damage rating by weapon size and level. At 1st level: Fighters would do d8 with large weapons, d6 with medium, d4 with small. Clerics would be d6/d6/d4, Thieves would be d4/d4/d6 (even a sap does d6). And mages would be d4/d4/d3. Fighters would progress at 4th, 7th, 10th and 13th levels. Clerics and thieves would progress at 6th and 11th levels. Mages would progress at 7th and 13th levels. GENERALLY. Specific classes might work differently. At 13th level Fighters might be 3d8/2d10/d12, clerics 2d6/d10/d6, thieves d8/d8/d12, mages might get to d8/d6/d4. Fighters would gain ONE additional attack at 8th level.

Kinda cool. I like the weapon damage by class, but then again I also like weapon damage by weapon type. I'd probably want to see some combination of both. However, I like my extra attacks.

Individual weapons would have size and damage type (blunt, pierce, slash) and various armors would defend against weapon types differently. (Someone wrote about turning Armor Class back into armor classification above and I liked that idea. Switch it all to AC-A (humanoid flesh), AC-B (padded), AC-C (leather), AC-D (ring), AC-E (chain), AC-F (plate), AC-G (reptilian), AC-H (chitin), AC-I (rock), AC-J (extraplanar), etc.

Another table to reference every time I make an attack roll. Please no.

Shields (like magic armor) provide a penalty to attack.

Dislike it. I already often neglect shields for the two handed weapon damage.

Combat: I'd have two combat systems. One simplified: 1d6 per side of the conflict. Everybody on each team goes before the next team goes. Roll Init each round.

The other system would be a fully segmented wargame like combat sequence. IMO, 3e and 4e abstract away too much of what makes a good wargame good: Simultaneous actions, segmented movement, etc. The important thing is that both systems are fully supported by the rules such that neither seems like an afterthought.

Good idea. I remember 2e had something sort of like this with the different initiative systems. But the more complex one blew.

 

[jmucchiello]

So you will make stats do even less, then expect people to be happy with having lower stats? That doesn't work. You'd have to redo all the rest of the balance to account for low stat mods.

Yes, the idea is stats don't matter. In standard 3d6 6-times, with 8 players there is only a 2 in 9 chance that ONE of them has ONE 18 stat. It's only 8 in 9 that one player will have a single 17 or better. In 1e, the bonus charts start at 15 (generally). With 8 players, there are approximately 4 die rolls of 15 or better. So (presumably) the game is already basically balanced as if no one has a +1 bonus to anything. There is nothing to rebalance. 1e become wonky when people stated using 4d6 drop the lowest and that awful UA system where your prime state was 9d6 keep 3 and your next important stat was 8d6 keep 3.

The system above increases the odds of getting +1 and greatly reduces everything above +1. That I feel is a better balance.

 

[jmucchiello]

Another table to reference every time I make an attack roll. Please no.

But it isn't 1e without charts!!

 

[Lanefan]

That is pretty much an illusion. If you have a degree of success system, then the % basis can be a big deal. But in a system with mostly yes/no results, the difference is much closer to completely meaningless than you seem to think.

Tell that to the Elf in my current game that has made her sleep resistance* check by, at different times, 1%, 2%, and 3%, with each time failure meaning a TPK!

* - we don't have Elves be immune to sleep; they get a high % chance to resist it, and if they fail that then normal save applies if any.

I'm not saying I'm against % systems. I'll take them happily as well. But the significance of a couple percent shift is an illusion.

In a pure d20 system my system shock/resurrect survival can never be better than 95% unless I auto-survive; with a 99% chance it's *almost* guaranteed but nothing is ever sure.

Lan-"I've made too many resurrection rolls in my career"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Some fascinating ideas here which, if I were embarking on a complete rebuild, I'd take a long look at.

Simplified ability score modifiers as in BECMI but even simpler: 1-4 -2, 5-7 -1, 8-13 +0, 14-16 +1, 17-19 +2, 20-22 +3, etc. This make 18 less special and hopefully reduces stat dominance in the system. When you are only get at most +2 bonuses from stats they are no more influential that circumstance modifiers (per 3e). It also means you can have races with +1 stat bonuses. Hopefully it also encourages the 3d6 6-times style of chargen.

Perhaps a bit too simple but I don't mind where this is going. That said, I've always preferred breaking out to-hit bonuses and damage bonuses due to Str. like 1e does rather than have them always the same like 3e does.

Strength modifies all damage (except machines like crossbows). Dex modifies all attack rolls. Con adds (never subtracts) to hit points. Int modifies all initiative rolls. Wisdom modifies all surprise checks. Charisma modifies spell resistance.

With minor changes, this is brilliant. I'd have Str. modify all damage, and melee to-hits. Dex. modifies missile to-hits and AC. Cha. should also modify some other things: Cleric undead-turning, opponents' save vs. any mind-affecting spell you cast, etc.

That said, what die would you use for initiative and surprise checks? Any modifier on a d6 is going to be *much* more relevant than on a d20.

Magic does not add to ability scores, it adds bonuses to ability score checks. Gauntlet of Ogre Power would be +2 to all strength checks and double your carrying capacity.

I'd rather have it just modify the ability score - it's simpler.

There are a fixed set of experience point progressions shared by various classes and multiclass gestalts. So a ftr-5 might have the same xp as a ftr/mu-3. As an example, 1-1000 xp might be base for swarthy-types, 1-1500 xp for fighters, 1-2000 xp mages and then ftr/thf might be 1-2500 xp and ftr/mu 1-3000 xp. Or something. Ultimately the numbers would work out that the multiclasses were about 1.5 levels behind the single classes. Triple-class would be optional and pin about 3 levels down from single classes.

While working out an ExP progression for every possible multi-class combination would be useful, it's a lot of work that I'm not about to do. (and I allow a lot more multi-class combinations than the RAW do). Also, I'd still like to keep the variable progression rate.

Weapons are special effects. ...

Someone wrote about turning Armor Class back into armor classification above and I liked that idea. ...

Shields (like magic armor) provide a penalty to attack.

Does nothing for me. I'd prefer that a weapon's actual rolled damage always be the same - thus, for a longsword you roll d8/d12 regardless what level you are. Messy otherwise, and asking players to book-keep their weapon damage at every level just wouldn't fly here.

Combat: I'd have two combat systems. One simplified: 1d6 per side of the conflict. Everybody on each team goes before the next team goes. Roll Init each round.

The other system would be a fully segmented wargame like combat sequence. IMO, 3e and 4e abstract away too much of what makes a good wargame good: Simultaneous actions, segmented movement, etc. The important thing is that both systems are fully supported by the rules such that neither seems like an afterthought.

Excellent. I'd like to see a third option somewhere between the two, however, and have that as the default; with these presented as rules-supported alternatives.

Magic: My solution to the problem of magic getting powerful as you rise in level is to put off the speed of its rise. Mages and clerics gain access to new spell levels every 3rd level (at 1st, 4th, 7th) etc. Some monsters might have to be altered because certain spells would become available later but that's a balance issue that is easily fixed. Clerics would have prayer books, just like magic users have spell books and both are limited to casting spells in their spell books.

Before getting too deep into this, we need to ask at what level the game will "cap out" at. If, like original 1e, it's going to cap out around 10th-12th, then only being able to cast 4th level spells by that point isn't much fun (particularly for Clerics, who really come into their own with their 5th-level spells). But if you think the redesign will remain playable well into the level-20's, then the slower spell gain is a good idea.

Clerics having books as well I'm not a fan of. They get their power straight from the divine. Also, I'd prefer to see pre-memorization done away with for all casters - the 3e designers really stumbled on to something good when they dreamed up the Sorcerer: all casters should work this way.

Not sure how I'd handle "saving throws". There are benefits to all 4 edition's takes on saving throws. Without spending a lot of time thinking about retooling all the spells too I'm going to leave this up in the air.

No real need to mess with them, I'd say; some minor tweaking to the tables and other than that 1e already has it pretty well nailed.

Lanefan

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

9. Remove System shock and ressurection. Use Con checks or saving throw instead

Why? This was one of the most elegant mechanics 1e ever had! And, % is much more granular than a d20, so one's chance to succeed can change by 1 or 2% per Con. point rather than a minimum of 5%.

There shouldn't be a roll in the first place, IMO. Resurrection exists in the game PURELY for meta-game reasons. Whoever first introduced it, Gary, Dave, whoever didn't include it because they wanted NPC's to keep coming back from the dead - it exists in the game ONLY because it serves to keep PLAYER CHARACTERS coming back.

Now, if you accept that that is its purpose then it's stupid to make that an arbitrary roll. You either want to allow players to bring their dead characters to life or you don't. Obviously it shouldn't be without cost or penalties of some kind, but even those shouldn't be too onerous because again - you either want to allow players more than one shot with unfortunate characters or don't.

It's probably safe to say that a LOT of 1E games had house rules to circumvent the consequences of failing the resurrection roll. Why would they do that? They do it because having to make the roll defeats the purpose of allowing characters to be raised AT ALL. Still, removing the survival roll entirely is also not without unintended, undesireable consequences.

Even under strict 1E rules, players of fighters (who always have high Cons for logical reasons when players are allowed to place scores as desired) would often display a too-cavalier attitude towards death. When the BTB strictures were eased with house rules then that attitude become more frequent. In 3E when it was removed entirely I personally found it to be a significant, chronic problem. Also, when every NPC uses resurrection as frequently and freely as PC's then the logic surrounding simple life and death crumbles and the entire game world doesn't make sense.

First, NPC's should EXTREMELY rarely, if EVER, return from the dead. Death = paradise, and the only people who anybody typically hears about returning from the dead would be... someone with an unfulfilled destiny. Well the DM ALWAYS has control over NPC's in that regard. With the rarest of exceptions dead NPC's STAY DEAD. The choice of bringing a PLAYER character back from the dead is simply a meta-game choice for the player - do I want to run this character more or just roll up a new one?

Yet clearly, characters being raised over and over and OVER (for ANY reason) quickly begins to destroy verisimilitude and a proper roleplaying attitude regarding a characters own death. Now the number of times that a DM cares to allow a PC to be raised should be up to the DM but it should be an IDENTICAL limit for all PC's given that it IS supposed to be a meta-game mechanic. I'd suggest that your 3rd resurrection by any means - including Wish - is your LAST. There has to be fear of death and even for a players favorite PC's a FINALITY to death. Exceeding that limit should be up to a DM and for meta-game reasons - NOT up to the arbitrary results of the dice and not favoring one class of character or higher ability score over another.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

3. 3 save categories as per 3e

I agree that the categories for 3E work better, but they have to function as 1E saving throws do. That is, your ability scores do not adjust your saves - they are a function of class and level only; adjusted only by magic items and the occasional spell.

5. Extend abilty scores past 25

I, on the other hand propose that PC ability scores NEVER EVER be allowed to exceed 19 except by persistent influence of magic.

8. Constitution bonus only factors into hit points once rather than each level

Hit points are hardly excessive even with a good Con bonus. I don't see any reason for this.

11. Humans get +2 to one ability score of their choice

THIS I think has potential.

21. a complete overhaul of unarmed combat: Drop the pummelling/grappling charts of 1e and the 2e unarmed to hit tables.

I do find it fascinating that unarmed combat in 1E, 2E, and 3E is such a useless mess.

22. PO: Combat and Tactics crit determination

Crits should be optional and the option presented should be pretty much limited to something like double damage. Any special results should be left not for random application but as specific effects that characters could inflict somehow.

23. PO: Spells and Magic: spell point system

No. Never. Nuh uh. NOT the 1E way. It's Vancian magic or forget it.

26. replace level drain with something else

Definitely.

27. monsters get abiity scores and ac breakdown (I was happy to see this in 3.x)

EMPHATICALLY no. This way lies DM prep load MADNESS. Leave it in 3E where it belongs. Monsters do what they do - they don't need to conform to ability score charts to do it.

28. Seperate attack bonus from hit die

An idea worth pursuing I suppose since I've had thoughts along those lines before myself, but its ultimate worth depends on execution. Doing this adds just one more thing to note for a "stat block" but even just ONE addition is adding to a DM's prep load. Then there's another and another and pretty soon you have 3E's half-page stat blocks and hours of additional prep time.

29. Rework Paladin's Detect Evil

Just one of many tentacles that alignment has entwined in the system that need to be removed.

31. Spellless class versions of the Bard and Ranger

Certainly we will have none of that Drizzt-based stuff. Rangers need to be based first and foremost on Aragorn with a few other woodsy-outdoorsy tree-hugger bits. If it must be spells it must be clerical/druidic spells only - NEVER wizard spells. Wizard spells should be associated with a different "multi-class" archetype.

33. add weapon specialization and weapon groups from Complete Fighter

No. LESS complication in this area - not MORE.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Can't sleep - waiting for Santa.

Strength modifies all damage (except machines like crossbows). Dex modifies all attack rolls. Con adds (never subtracts) to hit points.

The problem with this is it makes a basic fighter SEVERELY multiple-attribute dependant. Can't hit without dex, can't damage without str, can't survive without con.

Int modifies all initiative rolls.

Init should still be rolled anew each round btw, but dex is the only stat that makes sense to modify it - if ANYTHING should - and I'm not sure anything should.

Wisdom modifies all surprise checks.

3E got surprise right - it either exists or it doesn't. No checks to make there.

Charisma modifies spell resistance.

And I suppose everything would get spell resistance? Isn't that what a saving throw is for?

Weapons are special effects. Each class has a damage rating by weapon size and level.

Not a horrible idea as such but it's far too "not 1E" for me.

 

[Freakohollik]

Yes, the idea is stats don't matter. In standard 3d6 6-times, with 8 players there is only a 2 in 9 chance that ONE of them has ONE 18 stat. It's only 8 in 9 that one player will have a single 17 or better. In 1e, the bonus charts start at 15 (generally). With 8 players, there are approximately 4 die rolls of 15 or better. So (presumably) the game is already basically balanced as if no one has a +1 bonus to anything. There is nothing to rebalance. 1e become wonky when people stated using 4d6 drop the lowest and that awful UA system where your prime state was 9d6 keep 3 and your next important stat was 8d6 keep 3.

The system above increases the odds of getting +1 and greatly reduces everything above +1. That I feel is a better balance.

Ah but 1e does not assume you do 3d6 in order. As someone mentioned upthread, 1e has a bunch of stat rolling methods that all make sure you get some awesome stats. 3d6 in order is not one of them. From the 1e DMG:

While is is possible to generates some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks in the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters have a short life expectancy

I read that as Gary telling me to make sure my stats rock. I'm all for reduced importance of stats and reconstructing the bonuses. Your approach though will not be self contained and will require a lot of changes to the monsters. This is "rebuild" 1e, so as long as we note this then it's fine. But I'm looking at this more from a "house rules" standpoint and I'd rather take an approach that requires very few changes to other areas.

But it isn't 1e without charts!!

Well as long as I can ignore it, it's fine. I certainly prefer it to the weapon type vs AC table in the book. It isn't 1e without lots of stuff to ignore!!