Streamlining 3e

[hong]

You can let everything stack, but just place a limit on how much it stacks. +5 seems a good enough cap for most things, with +6 for stat boosts being an exception.

 

[hong]

There's a difference. There's only so many mechanics you can reduce when streamlining, unlike the many different kinds of cabinets you can make.

Bah. Half the fun is in the making, regardless of the result.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

People, people. Nathan is indulging his gearhead gene. It's very impolite to suggest to a gearhead that he use someone else's stuff. You wouldn't tell a DIY enthusiast that you can just buy it from IKEA, would you?

Actually, no - if people want to point me in the direction of an already-existing solution, I'm all for that. As much as I enjoy tinkering with rules, I also have comics to read and such!

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here - I just want to flag up a few things that I've found problematic, and get some workable solutions happening. I was going to wait for 4e to see what came about, but curse Wizards for not announcing it yet!

 

[Dragonhelm]

Castles & Crusades doesn't look like it either, and also requires that I spend money. Imminent wedding = not possible!

I can certainly understand that. I will say that C&C is relatively inexpensive. The PHB is only $20 in print, and the C&C Condensed PDF is about $12.

One thing I've discovered with C&C is that sometimes it's easier to build than it is to take away. If you use C&C as a foundation, and then add in the d20-isms you like, it should work out just fine. Taking elements away from D&D is a bit tougher since the rules are so integrated.

The same holds for True20, which I assume is not free.

Again, it can be bought relatively cheap in PDF format, though I know you're on a budget. This is also a great system, and for a while, I was using a variant of its feats in my games.

I've reached the conclusion that the only way for me to get a version of D&D I'm happy with is to roll up the sleeves and make it myself!

I hear that! My ideal system is somewhere between C&C and D&D. It doesn't exist. I'd be interested in hearing what you come up with.

If I might make a couple of suggestions, I would recommend first ditching attacks of opportunity. From there, I would recommend replacing the "If x, then Y" rules with ones that are more plug-and-play. For example, Dodge could give you a flat +1 bonus to AC instead of a bonus against one particular foe.

Best of luck with this project!

 

[Henry]

Ah, this is an idea I'll be tackling later when I want to tinker with slowing advancement.

One thing to keep in mind is that slowing advancement automatically slows stacking bonuses, without a lot of system tinkering. I like hong's idea too, though, just topping out stacks at +5 or +6.

Oh, and almost forgot --congrats on the engagement and marriage.

 

[greywulf]

I hear the next version isn't going to be called 4th Edition at all..... it's going to be "Dungeons & Dragons Vista Home Edition" and be exactly the same as 3.5e but with a much glossier cover. Combat will be a lot slower too unless you've got a really big table and huge dice.

But I digress.

Nathan, what's your thoughts on multiple attacks? Surely they're a candidate for your streamlining objective too.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

Nathan, what's your thoughts on multiple attacks? Surely they're a candidate for your streamlining objective too.

Yes, I've got some thoughts here. My current line of thinking runs towards the bonus attacks coming at +8 base attack instead of +6, with all attacks at the same bonus. Less attacks, but more likelihood of hitting - it could work, but it also might throw off the difficulty of combat as it stands. I'll have to playtest this one. But then again, it's not really an issue at the table, because all of the attack bonuses are calculated before the game starts. The only benefit I can see is that it'll speed up play a bit.

Edit - Scratch having all the attacks at the same bonus - it ends up with the cleric/monk/druid having the same number of attacks at 20th level, with much larger bonuses.

Henry - Thank you sir!

Hong - Good call on having a maximum bonus. It's a simple solution that seems to work pretty well.

 

[babomb]

Yes, I've got some thoughts here. My current line of thinking runs towards the bonus attacks coming at +8 base attack instead of +6, with all attacks at the same bonus. Less attacks, but more likelihood of hitting - it could work, but it also might throw off the difficulty of combat as it stands. I'll have to playtest this one. But then again, it's not really an issue at the table, because all of the attack bonuses are calculated before the game starts. The only benefit I can see is that it'll speed up play a bit.

Edit - Scratch having all the attacks at the same bonus - it ends up with the cleric/monk/druid having the same number of attacks at 20th level, with much larger bonuses.

What about capping the number of attacks at 2, but making the secondary improve faster? E.g., a fighter's progression would be
...
+10/+5
+11/+6
+12/+8
+13/+9
+14/+11
+15/+12
+16/+13
+17/+15
+18/+17
+19/+18
+20/+20

Monk's
...
+10/+5
+11/+6
+12/+7
+12/+8
+13/+9
+14/+10
+15/+12

and Wizard progression wouldn't change

I haven't run the calculation, but this weakens the fighter types somewhat, I expect. Perhaps you could allow a third attack that only hits on natural 20. Most of the time, that's all the lowest attack is good for at high levels anyway, and this way reduces the amount of addition necessary. It seems like an ugly hack, though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nathan, what's your thoughts on multiple attacks? Surely they're a candidate for your streamlining objective too.

Some interesting thoughts on multiple attacks, here.

 

[Quartz]

Mr Fisher is missing an important point: you normally only get iterative attacks if you use the Full Attack option. This is not always a good idea.