Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 5039072" data-attributes="member: 813">My reason for removing Strength is simplicity. All attacks get your dex bonus to the to hit roll. Simple. No questions. Damage is affect by Strength unless it is obvious that the user's strength is not involved: crossbows, guns, catapults, cannons, etc.Undead turning is a sore spot with me. I'd probably do something simple like d8 per level of damage to one specific undead creature, once per creature. Or 1d6 per level of damage to a group of undead, hitting the lowest level undead creature first and carrying damage over to the next lowest undead creature until used up. This makes it formidable against a serious undead threat and against underling undead as it always was.d10. d6 was always too small and d20 was too big.I think you misunderstood. There would be only a set number of charts 5, maybe 6. And each class and multiclass combo would refer to one of the charts: Cleric = B, Fighter = B, Mage = D, Thief = A, Cl/thf = C, Cl/ftr = D, ftr/thf = C, ftr/mu = E, etc. So you still have variable progression rates. They just aren't as arbitrary as 1e originally was.Messy? I can understand not like effects based damage. But calling an effect that changes by level messy means you don't want 1e. Second, most people focus on 1e being a class system and ignore that it is a class and level system. I want level to have more meaning in my 1e. And weapon damage by class AND LEVEL is a great place to get it. A 7th level fighter is more formidable with ALL weapons than a 1st level fighter not only because he hits more often but because his hits are more dangerous.No, I'd rather have a really simplistic and a really complicated system and let everyone combine them however they like. Since the system supports the two extremely completely, any hybrid of the two should be equally supported. Supporting 3 system internally sounds wrought with difficulty.My experience with 1e never stopped at 10th-12th level. In fact, we usually started at 20,000 xp (around 4th-5th level depending on class/multiclass combo) and stopped in the teens. Adventuring with 6th-8th level spells in play is a lot of fun that I continue to be surprised by how many people avoided it when reading threads about 1e here and elsewhere on the net.For the record, I would have there be levels 1-36 like in BECMI and move name level to 15th level. The details would be in the spells and monsters and I'm not going to go too deeply into that. (Name level: This is of course the spot where owning castles comes into play as an option in the DMG. I always hated that stuff being in the PHB.)Here I'm torn. If I'm rewriting D&D completely, I'd nick Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed spell system which combines preparation and spontaneous spell casting into a coherent whole which I wish he had come up with 5-6 years sooner and had made it the default for 3e.Clerics are annoying on so many levels. I can imagine a whole pantheon of bureaucratic deities that will not lift a finger to help their clerics if the forget to bow at precisely a 37 degree angle when casting a spell and as such clerics of that religion carry around prayer books so that they don't make even the slightest error when casting a prayer. I can also imagine a deity with only one 5th level cleric who will show up at the drop of a hat to do anything to keep that cleric alive. Between these extremes there are many kinds of deities and many levels of strictness to their requirements for clerics to cast spells. I picked the most restrictive method because it mirrors the wizard's method of prepping spells and is therefore somewhat more balanced. That makes it a great default. DMs are free to lift these restrictions however they like.</blockquote>

Verification