What I like about D&D 1,2,3 and how it influenced my houserules

[Kaodi]

...xp bonus for high stats...

I saw this in your own thread; I do not understand the rationale at all.

In fact, with the obvious exception of classes that get bonus xp from intelligence, and maybe wisdom, it seems to be almost more intuitive to have bonus XP for -lower- stats.

Take for instance a fighter. If you have the strength of a storm giant, it is going to be pitifully easy to kill a run of the mill orc. All you really need to do is swat at him a little bit and you can probably take him down through sheer strength. What do you really learn killing a foe this way?

On the flip side, if you are a fighter with the strength of your average halfling, you are forced to learn technique to actually down that same orc. It is challenging. And challenge makes people learn in order to succeed.

Now imagine these two example characters kill 100 orcs in succession. Who is going to be an amazingly skilled warrior by the end? Not the guy with insane strength. Killing orcs was trivial for him. For the halfling though, to have survived 100 one-on-one combats with an orc would be phenomenal and almost impossible, starting from a position of having no skills.

 

[the Jester]

I saw this in your own thread; I do not understand the rationale at all.

This goes back to the "no ability bonus" thing- the original idea in OD&D (as I understand it) is that a high-strength fighter should be better at being a fighter than a low-strength fighter. Since a higher strength doesn't inherently bring bonuses to attack and damage under my system, the model for "stronger = better fighter" is pushed via xp bonuses and prerequisites for various things.

 

[dagger]

I agree that combat in 1e is very fast, even if you use the tables. I hardly use the tables now (just use thaco) and we rarely did in the past. I also have 3 copies of the 1e DM screens (both) so it makes things easier if I did use it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Electrum pieces....never saw the need to ruin the decimalness of everything else.

A purely decimal monetary system feels very inauthentic and modern to me. Even the American monetary system has $2 and $5 bills, after all, as well as 5 and 25 cent coins (and formerly 50 cent coins).

Just adding in the electrum piece seems like a believable bit of organic monetary growth without throwing the 3E decimal monetary system baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Lanefan]

Question for Raven Crowking: did you take anything out of 4e for your system?

I ask because were I to rebuild from the ground up like you've done there's one 4e element I'd look long and hard at including in a reduced form, and that's movement effects in combat - particularly abilities that can drive an adjacent opponent back or sideways if it makes sense. (by that I mean a Human isn't going to push a Giant around very much but the Giant can push the Human all over the room if she wants)

It comes up reasonably often in my game - either the PCs or the opponents see some advantage in driving their foe backward or (occasionally) trying to move them sideways - and I always end up just winging it with dice.

Lan-"everybody dance now"-efan

 

[Keldryn]

In fact, with the obvious exception of classes that get bonus xp from intelligence, and maybe wisdom, it seems to be almost more intuitive to have bonus XP for -lower- stats.

Take for instance a fighter. If you have the strength of a storm giant, it is going to be pitifully easy to kill a run of the mill orc. All you really need to do is swat at him a little bit and you can probably take him down through sheer strength. What do you really learn killing a foe this way?

Think of it as aptitude. The Fighter with a high Strength score is naturally gifted and simply progresses faster and with less effort than does the Fighter with average Strength. It isn't meant to model learning, but achievement. Given an equal amount of effort and experience, those with a natural aptitude are generally going to be outpacing those who don't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Question for Raven Crowking: did you take anything out of 4e for your system?

Nope. You could say that "Shake it Off" was remotely inspired by healing surges, though. Of course, IMHO, SiO is a much better mechanic.

I ask because were I to rebuild from the ground up like you've done there's one 4e element I'd look long and hard at including in a reduced form, and that's movement effects in combat - particularly abilities that can drive an adjacent opponent back or sideways if it makes sense. (by that I mean a Human isn't going to push a Giant around very much but the Giant can push the Human all over the room if she wants)

I've got two things you can try in combat, called Drive and Lure. They are opposed checks, in lieu of an attack.


RC

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You had me right up to that point. WSF's died a well-deserved death with 3E. They did not work in 1E the way they were really meant to. I could go into detail but... why?

The much maligned 1e weapon speed rules work fine - when used as written. I think most people confuse them with the 2e trainwreck weapon speed rules. In 1e, weapon speed rarely comes up. It's only used in formal duels (admittedly, this could be used in any one one fight) or as an initiative tiebreaker. As a tiebreaker, natural weapons always go first, so speed factor almost never comes up. In our 1e game, it's come up once in several months of play, as a tiebreaker, and then it was easy to adjucate, as the pc was using a 2 handed sword.

 

[the Jester]

The much maligned 1e weapon speed rules work fine - when used as written. I think most people confuse them with the 2e trainwreck weapon speed rules. In 1e, weapon speed rarely comes up. It's only used in formal duels (admittedly, this could be used in any one one fight) or as an initiative tiebreaker. As a tiebreaker, natural weapons always go first, so speed factor almost never comes up. In our 1e game, it's come up once in several months of play, as a tiebreaker, and then it was easy to adjucate, as the pc was using a 2 handed sword.

They're a pretty silly fiddly bit, though. I don't really feel that they add much to the game (except for occasional extra attacks for the guy with a dagger).

 

[Ariosto]

In our 1e game, it's come up once in several months of play, as a tiebreaker, and then it was easy to adjucate, as the pc was using a 2 handed sword.

Should it not come up on average once in six melee rounds of play, i.e., on tied initiative dice?