Rules Lawyers needed!

[MerakSpielman]

Oh, I am being nice.

Appologies. I meant 1st ed., not 2nd.

There's nothing wrong with 1st edition. But there's nothing wrong with 3rd edition either. The purpose of 3rd edition was to impliment the d20 system. I'm sure you know what that means, but I'll summarize anyway. To accomplish an action, you roll a d20 and add modifiers. You try to beat a set DC. If you beat the DC, your action succeeds.

That is the mechanic virtually all the rules of 3.x are based off of. The rest of the system can be changed to suit whatever flavor you like - low powered, high powered, whatever.

For simplicity there has to be some mechanism to determine who, sitting at the table, gets to go next. You can't all go at once, just for real-world logistics purposes. So the rules have you do what you do everywhere else - roll a d20 with modifiers.

For some reason you seem to think that rolling d20s and adding modifiers turns D&D from "simplicity and ease" to "super-hero inspired flashy action."

No offense intended, but I just don't see it. I see you, for some reason, wanting to make complicated and difficult-to-follow rules to replace the "roll d20 add modifiers" concept. I see you wanting to do this because you don't find the new, simpler rules to accurately reflect what you invision happening in a combat.

I'm trying to warn you that mixing the systems into an unrecognizable, complicated mish-mash might have unintented side effects.

I'm trying to explain to you that I see no reason why you can't play any game you like, with any flavor, with any system you like. Having a gritty, struggle-to-survive game is quite possible in 3.x without changing a single rule. Having a super-hero inspired munchkinfest is possible in 1st ed. without changing a single rule.

 

[Lamoni]

Also, the systems work well - first edition combat annihilates 3.5's clunky, super-hero inspired flashy action. MY GROUP AND I prefer the simplicity and ease of first edition combat without the 'hollywood' of 3.5. Is that a crime around here?

No crime at all. I am someone who was introduced to the game during 3rd edition and upgraded to 3.5 and I have found combat to be quite simple and straightforward. Most encounters we don't bother with any miniatures or a grid. 3.5 does leave a lot of options for you to do in combat, but 95% of the time we just move and attack, full attack, or cast a spell. The timing and initiative hasn't ever come up as anything hard to grasp and seems to make combats simple. Therefore it is hard for me to think that it could have been more simple than it is now and I am curious. Could you or someone else who is familiar with 1st edition give a more detailed description of its combat system? I was just curious what things were easier in 1st edition and what is easier in 3.5 Don't say that nothing was easier in 1st because I think it is hard to find two systems where one is inferior in every way... The majority of ways usually, but rarely every way.

 

[Nail]

Also, the systems work well - first edition combat annihilates 3.5's clunky, super-hero inspired flashy action.

This is an assertion, not a fact.

MY GROUP AND I prefer the simplicity and ease of first edition combat without the 'hollywood' of 3.5. Is that a crime around here?

Of course not. But, as you are posting in a 3.0e/3.5e forum, you might expect most posters to like it, rather than find it "clunky".

What I'm hearing you say is that you like your system of gaming. Good for you! I'm honestly happy that's the case....as I'm sure most other posters are.

What we are also saying is that the "problems" you are having are probably conceptual, rather than inherent in the system. (No offense is intended -- save that for rpg.net.) As someone who's played many different gaming systems, including all versions of D&D, I've found 3e D&D to be the simplest and "tightest" rules set. That makes gaming fun for me: I can rely on the system to quickly and easily handle just about anything I throw at it.

Your problems with initiative seem to stem from wanting to count how long things take. I get that. ...But I think you should consider this: it's probably hindering your game more than it's helping.

Try out some new ideas! You might like them!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Could you or someone else who is familiar with 1st edition give a more detailed description of its combat system? I was just curious what things were easier in 1st edition and what is easier in 3.5 Don't say that nothing was easier in 1st because I think it is hard to find two systems where one is inferior in every way... The majority of ways usually, but rarely every way.

1st Ed. -- Roll a d20, then look on a class-specific chart and cross-index your level with the opponent's armor class. The charts are not an orderly progression, so unless you have it memorized, you have to look it up. Movement isn't a part of combat. No attacks of opportunity. Rules for charging, grappling, disarming, sundering, etc., are either minimal, non-standard, contradictory, or just plain missing. No skills. No feats.

Most 1st Ed fights boil down to:

Player: I roll a 17.
DM: That's a hit. Roll damage.
DM: The orc rolls a 16. That's a hit. You take 5 points of damage.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you have a creative bunch, you might see people try swinging from the chandelier, etc., but there are no rules for adjudicating this, so everything becomes either DM's fiat, or rolling against some arbitrary number using arbitrary modifiers. (Not that that can't happen in 3rd ed. too).

1st edition was usually faster, at least at low levels. Combat ability didn't scale very high, though, so high-level melee combat could take forver. Slugfests between opponents with high armor classes combined with fewer iterative attacks and lower damage were absolutely painful.

1st edition was simpler in that your choices were more limited. You didn't have to assess the tactical benefit of multiple feats, account for AoOs, etc. But in terms of 'what do I need to roll to hit', 3rd is so much simpler it's not even a comparison.

 

[Spatula]

The timing and initiative hasn't ever come up as anything hard to grasp and seems to make combats simple. Therefore it is hard for me to think that it could have been more simple than it is now and I am curious. Could you or someone else who is familiar with 1st edition give a more detailed description of its combat system?

As I recall, in 1st edition initiative was rolled on a d6. The number you rolled was the "segment" you acted in. As each round was 1 minute, and there were 6 segments in each round, each segment would be 10 seconds. If two characters rolled the same initiative, then their actions determined who got to go first - this is where concepts like weapon speed and casting times came into play. For example, if I have a dagger and you have a two-handed sword, and we both roll a '3' for initiative, I get to go first because a dagger has a better weapon speed than a two-handed sword.

Also, initiative is re-rolled every round.

2nd edition had a different system where initiative was rolled on a d10, plus a modifier based on what you were doing that round (weapon speed, casting time, etc.). The concept of segments (a needless detail even in 1E) largely falls by the wayside in 2E, as the range of possible initiative values is no longer limited to numbers that easily divide into 60 (the number of seconds in a round). And initiative is re-rolled every round, as in 1st edition.

Initiative in 3E is loads simpler than it was in 1E or 2E. Everyone rolls a d20 at the start of battle, the combat order is established, and that's that.

 

[Lamoni]

Thanks a lot for explaining Spatula and Rodrigo. It does seem like it could be difficult to go from a system where time is so neatly spelled out to a system where the exact timing of things is quite vague. There is still the problem in 1st edition of what are the players doing when it isn't their 10 second turn? Is everyone idle for 50 seconds of every minute? Anyway, there will be obvious holes in any system that tries to simulate reality in a simple concise manner that is also playable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I recall, in 1st edition initiative was rolled on a d6. The number you rolled was the "segment" you acted in. As each round was 1 minute, and there were 6 segments in each round, each segment would be 10 seconds. If two characters rolled the same initiative, then their actions determined who got to go first - this is where concepts like weapon speed and casting times came into play. For example, if I have a dagger and you have a two-handed sword, and we both roll a '3' for initiative, I get to go first because a dagger has a better weapon speed than a two-handed sword.

That's before it gets really fun.

I'll need to look it up to get the forumla exactly right, but when you have someone with a weapon atttacking someone who's casting a spell, it's something like:

Subtract the weapon speed of the weapon from the winning initiative die roll and take the absolute value of the result. Compare this figure to the casting time in segments of the spell. If it's smaller, the attack occurs first and the spell is disrupted. If they're equal, the spell and the attack occur simultaneously. Otherwise the spell completes before the attack arrives.

-Hyp.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

There is still the problem in 1st edition of what are the players doing when it isn't their 10 second turn? Is everyone idle for 50 seconds of every minute?

That's what I meant in my earlier post about having to arbitrate what could happen in a round. One minute combat rounds (if you were one of those that actually used them) led to all sorts of trouble when you had some members of the pary engaged in combat and some not. It led to situations like "Ok, the fighter will attack the dragon guarding his treasure. While they are fighting in the first round, the rogue will run around behind the dragon, pick through the treasure, grab the magic sword, then run back out the front of the cave. What dou mean I can't do that? I have a whole minute to act!"

Thank you, no. Give me shorter combat rounds and defined actions.

 

[knifespeaks]

Ok, I guess I am going to have to go into gory details here

Apologies for my tone on the earlier post as well - I am not wanting to get all you folks offside.

Anyway, here we go:

1. Combat is a 6 second round (3.5)

2. Initiative is rolled as a d6, and the die roll indicates on what segment you act - hence, a 1 is best. (Hybrid/House rule)

3. Spells have casting times, drawn from first edition PH. For the new spells, they are given 1 segment/level (for 'standard action' spells) to a maximum of 5 segements. Full round action spells therefore take 6 segments, still a full round. (Hybrid/House rule)

4. Casters don't roll initiative - they merely state what spell they are casting prior to initiative. The casting time will then show if they are subject to any attacks prior to getting the spell off. (mainly 1st)

5. There is no casting on the defensive, and any attack which hits automatically disrupts the spell. (1st)

6. In the case of tied initiative, weapon speed determines who attacks first. (1st)

7. Only one action/round is permitted, but this is somewhat variable - movement within a 10' radius is fine to combine with another action. (1st)

8. Feats, such a quicken spell, all combat-related ones (power attack, cleave etc) are included, excepting those applying to AoO (as there are no AoO) and improved initiative is scaled down (no +4, just a -1 )

9. AC is exactly the same as 3.5.

10. All skills are in, except listening - listening is straight from 1st.

Stuff like Concentration checks to cast under damage being sustained ARE IN - but these abilities are aimed at higher level characters, not newbies.

That's pretty much it - it runs nicely, and I am happy to allow higher level characters the options of multiple attacks and all that.

Where 3.5 REALLY fall over for me is characters at first - they can just do too many things and I can't get that. High level folks doing funky stuff is fine.

The above really makes sense to us - no one ever gets confused about who is doing what and how long it takes. I like it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, glad *you* like it.

Personally, I'd be rather cheesed off if a DM of mine ever brought back the "you got a splinter in your foot, you fail to cast your spell" rule of 1st as you've done.