OSR [Shadowdark] What's missing from the 3.5 SRD that is worth converting?

[GMMichael]

One of the first things I look at when looking at a D&D-style RPG is whether I can play a traditional D&D illusionist in it, where there are gnomes and how much of the 3.5 SRD is woven through it, as it's a good lingua franca for fantasy RPGs to use, given how many people are familiar with WotC-era D&Disms.

Hmm. Now I wonder if my game passes the Dustyboots test:
Can play a gnome? Small size perk, speak with animals (hero point)...check.
Can cast illusions? Alter 1, Illusion 4, Lamp 1, Ruse 3...check.
How much 3.5 woven through it? I really hope it's not more than 5%. Or a natural 1.

Are there things you wish had been brought forward from the 3.5 SRD?

Didn't... Pathfinder do this? Shadowdark looks awesome, but I would just ruin it for myself if I looked at it and asked, "how aren't you 3.5?"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm a sucker for a good necromancer.

A Diablo-style necromancer would be relatively easy, but a D&D style one will probably take fleshing out the spell list quite a bit.

 

[Aldarc]

A Diablo-style necromancer would be relatively easy, but a D&D style one will probably take fleshing out the spell list quite a bit.

Diablo Style > D&D Style

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Didn't... Pathfinder do this? Shadowdark looks awesome, but I would just ruin it for myself if I looked at it and asked, "how aren't you 3.5?"

That's not what I'm suggesting, and I'm sorry if I failed to make that clear.

I've been playing D&D for a long time (the multicolored 1E modules are still "the new ones" in my mind), and some of the 1Eisms are what I want out of any dungeon-crawling game now. Things like flaming swords, cursed weapons that force the wielder to fight until they drop, ettins and anti-paladins are just table stakes to me.

If there was a 1E SRD (I am not holding my breath about WotC putting one of those into Creative Commons), I would be working off that. But at the moment, the 3.5 SRD is what we've got.

I'm certainly not interested in half-dragon, half-fiend sorcerer/dragon disciple/rogue/assassin/archmages running around with axiomatic thundering double-axes or anything, although I suspect there's an audience for that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Diablo Style > D&D Style

I will see what I can do on the make-a-class thread. Off the top of my head, I'd probably steal the armor talent from my chaos warrior write-up and have that be the necromancer learning how to make and wear bone armor equivalent to chainmail.

 

[Autumnal]

I'm certainly not interested in half-dragon, half-fiend sorcerer/dragon disciple/rogue/assassin/archmages running around with axiomatic thundering double-axes or anything, although I suspect there's an audience for that.

I’m patient. I’m directed. I’m Grendel. Supplements and Shadowdark 2e will happen in due season.

 

[Bill Zebub]

• Warlord
• Psion
• Druid / Shaman
• Enchanter / Illusionist

I've come to the conclusion that those labels, which carry so much baggage in D&D, are meaningless in the context of Shadowdark. At least to me.

In D&D those labels usually signify a collection, sometimes quite long, of very specific abilities. But Shadowdark distills classes down to just a couple iconic things, while jettisoning much of what D&D players consider core. For example, the new Bard (created by livestream today) is not a lecherous rascal and does not cast spells. The Ranger does not dual wield (or cast spells). And I'm really hoping that if Kelsey ever makes a Barbarian, it doesn't rage.

So it's not really helpful...again, to me...to say, "Shadowdark needs a Druid" (or whatever). Does that mean Shadowdark needs a nature priest? A naturist but without spells? A shapechanger? What sort of shapechanger?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I feel similarly, @Bill Zebub.

A Shadowdark warlord, for me, would be someone who can prevent his comrades from feeling feared on the battlefield and maybe buff them in combat a few times a day, but that would be it.

A shapechanger (probably a "skinchanger" or something to make it clear what they were about) would probably get a few creatures it could turn into and then maybe have a chance to roll a few more forms from talents, but wouldn't also be a spellcaster and naturalist.

 

[Aldarc]

I've come to the conclusion that those labels, which carry so much baggage in D&D, are meaningless in the context of Shadowdark. At least to me.

In D&D those labels usually signify a collection, sometimes quite long, of very specific abilities. But Shadowdark distills classes down to just a couple iconic things, while jettisoning much of what D&D players consider core. For example, the new Bard (created by livestream today) is not a lecherous rascal and does not cast spells. The Ranger does not dual wield (or cast spells). And I'm really hoping that if Kelsey ever makes a Barbarian, it doesn't rage.

So it's not really helpful...again, to me...to say, "Shadowdark needs a Druid" (or whatever). Does that mean Shadowdark needs a nature priest? A naturist but without spells? A shapechanger? What sort of shapechanger?

Even when I try to get into Shadowdark, someone comes along saying something like this and yet again pushes me away. sigh Yeah, maybe this game really isn't for me. Oh well.

 

[Krachek]

Kelsey follow an old school advice : ”feel free to adapt the game to fit your needs”.
she do it to the point that she made an entire new game!
But we can feel the call to make this game our own. My self I have a lot of fun rewriting the spell mishap table.
The game has basic rules, it is quite easy to add new classes.
The PC are also quite fragile, and balance don’t matter that much, so if you do bad job for a home brew rule it will be more funny than frustrating.