Recapturing 1st Edition Feelings

[ruleslawyer]

Sounds like it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck to me...

I did say "nothing else" for a reason, Psion. It seems like the biggest AoO problems for gamers wanting a simpler system are the movement-related ones and the concept in general...

Okay, not quite, but your advice appears to be simply to throw out large chunks of 3.x D&D. Fair enough, but coming up with a quicker version of D&D should be easier than that.

"Easier"? That list of suggestions was something that I figured any DM could implement in about ten seconds. Of course, a simpler system is possible, but I wouldn't consider it "easier to com[e] up with." There's a reason why they had to have designers enlisted for C&C.

This is not the problem (insofar as slowness is a problem with 3.x, that is).

The problem is that many/most NPCs and monsters in 3.x are as complex as PCs! Consequently, the DM must put a lot of prep work into the game, and has to keep track of many rather complicated characters during the game.

Did you really not find this a problem when DM-ing earlier editions of the game? I know I did. IMHO, that's not edition-specific at all. A back issue of Dragon has a quiz on how to run some difficult 2e NPCs, including an 18th/19th-level drow cleric/wizard with some pearls of power and (worse still!) a tinker gnome using the invention tables from Dragonlance Adventures. Off the top of my head, I can't imagine how either of those two NPCs would be easier to run than an equivalently high-level 3e NPCs. In fact, they seem harder.

IMHO, the only quick solution to the NPC design problem is to use stock NPCs. The nice thing about 3e (well, actually, about 2004) is that there are scads of those floating around on the Web, and scads of programs to generate 'em. I myself have photocopies of the NPC stats from RttToEE, CotSQ, The Banewarrens, and a bunch of online sources (with 3.5 changes inked in) for use as appropriate. I have only had to design a rare few "boss monsters," a task that takes mere minutes using some of the NPC generators out there.

Sure, you'll be re-using similar feat and spell "builds," but that's really the same thing as removing feats and skills altogether in favor of fixed-progression class abilities, the only difference being that the option of building more uniquely-customized NPCs is always there, given time.

As to running them: I don't actually see combat as being more difficult to run than in 1e/2e, provided you handwave movement and cut back on AoOs. The one tip I might make is to never use wizard NPCs; sorcerers are much, much easier to DM on the fly. Also, cribbing round-by-round tactics from the MM and Dungeon adventures is easy; several NPC "types" have similar enough abilities that the round-by-round tactics can be applied more generally than might otherwise be thought possible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm sure that I miss the 1e grappling, pummeling and overbearing tables.

Honest.

No, no. My favourite 1E rules are for determining initiative between someone with a melee weapon, and someone casting a spell.

Something like "Subtract the speed factor of the weapon from the spellcaster's initiative die roll, and compare the absolute value of the result to the casting time (in segments) of the spell..."

-Hyp.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

No, no. My favourite 1E rules are for determining initiative between someone with a melee weapon, and someone casting a spell.

Something like "Subtract the speed factor of the weapon from the spellcaster's initiative die roll, and compare the absolute value of the result to the casting time (in segments) of the spell..."

Hey, I actually liked the casting time vs. initiative rules from 1e. Weapon speed factors I could do without.

 

[Storm Raven]

I did say "nothing else" for a reason, Psion. It seems like the biggest AoO problems for gamers wanting a simpler system are the movement-related ones and the concept in general...

How are movement related AoOs complicated? They break down to exactly four rules, which can be rendered as simple single sentence statements.

 

[Psion]

I did say "nothing else" for a reason, Psion.

And I'm saying what is seems to me like you are really doing is house ruling AoO's, not making "no AoO's".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven: All of that sounds good, but that is no longer d20.

Only because I am considering throwing in a new XP system. Otherwise, the base mechanic stays the same. Neither a new magic system, nor changing races/classes, prevents a ruleset from being D20, as Monte Cook so amply demonstrated.


RC

 

[ruleslawyer]

And I'm saying what is seems to me like you are really doing is house ruling AoO's, not making "no AoO's".

Y'know, I'm never going to post anything helpful on these boards if I get jumped on like this...

If you will observe what the topic of this thread is, it is about "recapturing 1st edition feel." Several earlier posters on this thread commented that they were unhappy with 3e complexity, but more comfortable with 1e/2e rules about allowing a free attack on a spellcaster casting a spell, etc. AoO by another name or no, the fact is that the concept and some aspects of implementation (move-related AoOs, for instance) tend to scare a lot of people. I use the AoO rules in my game and don't have a real problem with them, but some folks get scared off. Therefore, I suggested "eliminat[ing] AoOs", by which I meant the concept as understood in 3e, and just allowing a free attack in a few select situations. This may be easier to understand for gamers conversant with the 1e/2e systems. From the viewpoint of someone familiar with the AoO rules, it looks like a house rule. From the standpoint of someone not willing to deal with the AoO rules to begin with, it's a different way to deal with certain situations and one that avoids touching on a number of others that the 3e AoO rule deals with: ergo, a different mechanic.