The Ultimate (A)D&D Kitbash

[irontyrant]

What a great thread. There are so many cool ideas that I have read. There are a lot of great posters here. I'm pretty much a lurker because everytime I post something on a board I tend to get banned for trolling or flaming( I'm the best example I know of how someone with a moderately high intelligence and an extremely low wisdom and a relatively low charisma should be role-played). Kudos to the Op. You really got me thinking about thid topic. I have been playing D&D since 1979, started with the Moldvay set and moved on to AD&D,2e, RC,3.0, 3.5 AND NOW 4e. I am kit bashing all of them right

 

[irontyrant]

What a great thread. There are so many cool ideas that I have read. There are a lot of great posters here. I'm pretty much a lurker because everytime I post something on a board I tend to get banned for trolling or flaming( I'm the best example I know of how someone with a moderately high intelligence and an extremely low wisdom and a relatively low charisma should be role-played). Kudos to the Op. You really got me thinking about thid topic. I have been playing D&D since 1979, started with the Moldvay set and moved on to AD&D,2e, RC,3.0, 3.5 AND NOW 4e. I am kit bashing all of them right now to try and get a cohesive whole. The foundation I am using is RC

 

[irontyrant]

What a great thread. There are so many cool ideas that I have read. There are a lot of great posters here. I'm pretty much a lurker because everytime I post something on a board I tend to get banned for trolling or flaming( I'm the best example I know of how someone with a moderately high intelligence and an extremely low wisdom and a relatively low charisma should be role-played). Kudos to the Op. You really got me thinking about thid topic. I have been playing D&D since 1979, started with the Moldvay set and moved on to AD&D,2e, RC,3.0, 3.5 AND NOW 4e. I am kit bashing all of them right now to try and get a cohesive whole. The foundation I am using is RC with the stat charts from the Immortals boxed set(i.e. 1-100).

 

[irontyrant]

What a great thread. There are so many cool ideas that I have read. There are a lot of great posters here. I'm pretty much a lurker because everytime I post something on a board I tend to get banned for trolling or flaming( I'm the best example I know of how someone with a moderately high intelligence and an extremely low wisdom and a relatively low charisma should be role-played). Kudos to the Op. You really got me thinking about thid topic. I have been playing D&D since 1979, started with the Moldvay set and moved on to AD&D,2e, RC,3.0, 3.5 AND NOW 4e. I am kit bashing all of them right now to try and get a cohesive whole. The foundation I am using is RC with the stat charts from the Immortals boxed set(i.e. 1-100). I tend to do a lot of multi-genere adventures. So I really need the big stat chart. I am using the classes from 1e, including Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures. I personally like the barbarian,thief-acrobat and cavalier classes. I am using the RC level progressions up to the Immortal level ranges. From 2e, all the fluff from the many different campagin worlds. I use all of them the Realms,Dark Sun,etc. I am using the NWPS and kits from 2e, as well. I also use High Level rules for 2e with the 10th level spells. I agree with another poster on the awesomeness of the 2e black Mostrous Manual. I use it for Dragons and Giants, I like the added HD for these creatures. From 3e I use the encumbrance rules, especially for how they reflect the carrying capacity of large creatures. This might seem a bit anal on my part but in 1e my own personal strength based on my military press is 18(05) and in 3e its like 14 or 15. I like the ranges in 3e better.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Irresistable as that New Reply button might be. . .

Just sayin'.

 

[irontyrant]

thnx

 

[irontyrant]

Good looking out, I'm 40 and not too keen on posting replys.

 

[Derro]

I would combine the 3.0 emphasis on customization and the 1E idea of modular systems that can be interchanged without breaking each other (much).

I really like what you've done here. I've been thinking in this direction lately. I started to redesign the cleric to be closer to 2e specialty priests. I've had seeds of other ideas that sound like the scheme you've laid out.

I'd add on UA/True20's idea of archtypical 'classes' and pare everything down to Warrior/Caster/Expert, then build characters based on several 'paths'. For ease of play, we'd return to the idea of kits, plug-in sets of paths and abilities that mirror your major literary and genre figures: Old Wizard, Farmboy Hero, etc.

I've been trying to make the three class system less bland and this looks like a great way to do it. True20/Blue Rose sort of does this with the starting kit for the roles but doesn't expand on them in any meaningful way.

Instead of a million seperate feats, we have several overarching options that change based on level, 'class', and 'path'.

That sounds like the bulk of the work. I don't know if I'm envisioning the same thing as you but you've definitely given me an idea.

We use some of the 'skill blocks' ideas from Iron Heroes and 4E to create customizable 'class' skills (really 'my skills') packages that go up per level, while leaving the rest of the skills as 'hobby' skills that you might pick up a few ranks in here and there; these are the things skill points get used for.

This is great. Skills have been a thorn in my side. You just addressed every problem I was having.

Weapons are skills, now, and we use something like the weapon mastery rules in Rules Cyclopedia for high skills in particular types of weapons. Of course you're going to know more tricks and be able to 'wring' more of of your weapon as a weapon master than some kid who just picked up a sword yesterday.

My memory of the Rules Cyclopedia has faded to indistinct but I think I get the picture. You could design fighting styles that can be used with certain weapon skills that replicate combinations of existing feats.

Spells are replaced by powers, which can scale and mutate according to options you choose and 'campaign dials' you set when you create a campaign. In essence, you create a new game every time you fiddle with these things. People can buy the various campaign books if they wish, which set these dials for them, or deal with them themselves. I can have a grim-and-gritty dark ages campaign where a notched sword is the equivilant of the atomic bomb, or a carnival-like magic-faire fairy-tale setting where we go to the moon on hippogryph-back to fight pistol-weilding space-hippos.

The last thing we steal is from M&M, where we replace the dice with just the d20.

This reminds me a lot of HERO which was awesome for somethings but hard to actually play, in my experience. I don't know that I would go the single d20 route, personally. Most of the guys I game with like rolling fistfuls of dice.

Thanks for all the ideas.

 

[aurance]

I've played since Red Box days, I'd say 1987 or so.

Foundation would be 4e.

Some things I would add:

Open-ended and balanced multiclassing. Trade skills. High mechanical support for fancy maneuvers that does not rely on a combat grid. Some gradient between in-combat magical effects and rituals.

I don't feel any edition of D&D pulled off the above exactly to my tastes, so I generally play 4e "as-is." It's certainly not perfect, but it works fine enough for what I want. And these days my energy for modifying game systems is much lower than what it used to be.