Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mimdalf 10-07-04, 04:01 PM	I am an "Old" DnD gamer, and was looking for a classic feel to my play. I really like the new 3.5 rules and would like to use them in a campaign. However they do allow a "free range" for the players to go crazy with customization. This is great but I want to fall back to a simple time. I miss a one page character sheet, glance and play. Now, its like a five page ledger. Our time is quite limited and I've no wish to have the game boged down in red tape. I want a quick and fun campaign, a reminder of the old days. Triming the fat would be like setting lots of limits and allowing only so much to be used in the game. Quite a feat, no pun intended, with all the rules we have out there now. Thanks for any suggestions anyone might have.
primemover003 10-07-04, 04:07 PM	If you want to K.I.S.S. you should just restrict your campaign to the 3 core books for the players. You may even want to disallow any PrC's. That would keep it with a classic feel. With feats, skills, and the much simpler multiclass rules there is enough customization in the PHB alone to make most people happy for at least one campaign.
LukiLoki 10-07-04, 04:35 PM	Yeah, just stay core. Limit PrC's to those in the DMG, or, as suggested, do away with them altogether. Don't allow monster/LA races. The only thing that will be alien to a 1e/AD&D type game is the free availability of multiclassing for all races. IMO, this will be OK, because the "classic" combos will still be superior to some of the more outlandish builds, which often depend on "dips" into PrC's or non-core classes. I run a 3.5 rules/1st ed. flavor campaign, and it's pretty fun. Almost all the monsters I use are classics, but occasionally I'll throw in something new to change it up and keep the players (all old hands like me) on their toes. Also, NPCs can be time-consuming to make in 3.x, but there's so much cool stuff to customize them with that it's just as much fun as it was in the old days to come up with the baddies.
Mimdalf 10-07-04, 04:40 PM	Thats exactly what I'm looking the basics but being able to drop in something from one of the many supplements or taking off in a new direction. Thanks abunch just trying to wade through all the rules, and there are quite alot of those.
Graz'zt, Prince of Shadow 10-07-04, 05:05 PM	Something I'm considering is starting a new campaign at level 1 that's core only. Everytime the party gains a level, the party as a group can vote on one noncore to add to the list of "allowed" books. That book is now allowed for character building purposes and feats/spells/skills can be taken at the new level. All and any multiclassing and prestige classing would have to make sense and any roleplaying requirements on PrCs would be enforced.
The Shaman 10-07-04, 05:31 PM	I run a 3.5 rules/1st ed. flavor campaign.... Well-said - I might have to make that my signature: "3.5 mechanics - 1.0 flavor." ;) The advice about sticking with core is sound.
Rian Lightblade 10-07-04, 05:32 PM	I'm going to go with others here have already said. One. Stick with the races, classes, equipment, feats, skills, and spells found in the PHB. Nix the PrCs and start at 1st level. Two. For an even more classic feel. If you want to show new players what is was like back in the day, then add. No multi-classing for humans, but sure to allow humans to dual-class. Level limits for demi-humans. Make AC go backwards, etc. (Although I wouldn't bring those crappy rules back into the game since they never made sense in the first place and pretty much everyone was happy that they were gone). Oh and don't forget, no half-orcs and no Sorcerers. Frankly I think my first suggestion will work just fine.
Wildonion 10-07-04, 05:47 PM	I am going to spring a trap next meeting and bring my friends into 2.0, it should be fun. Anyway you can say only the four base classes...... NAAAA! Anyway, set restrictions like you can only play a ranger if you have this # in this ability score. This will bring back how cool it was to be able to play a ranger or a paladin because it was HARD! (Well most of the time) If you want the restrictions for the classes then pm me and I will pm them to you!
Rian Lightblade 10-07-04, 05:51 PM	Anyway you can say only the four base classes...... NAAAA! Anyway, set restrictions like you can only play a ranger if you have this # in this ability score. This will bring back how cool it was to be able to play a ranger or a paladin because it was HARD! (Well most of the time) If you want the restrictions for the classes then pm me and I will pm them to you! Now, come to think of it, that's something I would like to see back in the game. It seem like now days Paladins, Rangers, and Bards are a copper a dozen.
Aliquid 10-07-04, 07:23 PM	It's interesting... listening to people suggesting playing "core only".... and then I realise that this is something that few people actually do… To be honest, that’s all I ever play. Virtually every game I have played (player or DM), has been restricted to the three core books only, no PrC classes, and no LA monster classes. I guess that is because I grew up playing the Basic/Expert/Companing OD&D rules, where you had the choice of playing a Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic User, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling, and that’s it. Note that the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were character classes, not just a race. So, playing 3.x by the core rules seems like a huge increase in options for me.... going further would just be overwhelming :) :)
Bahamut 10-08-04, 05:29 PM	I'm starting a new 3.5/3.0 hybrid campaign myself and I'm trying to inject the 1e simplicity into it. It will be a difficult task but I'm limiting the players' options of feats, classes, etc. to the core books. Anything extra has to be specifically approved by me and only after I've looked at it. I'm not allowing any of the splatbooks or anything like that to start. I may let the players expand into other books later but to start things off I want to keep it simple.
wereooze 10-08-04, 05:45 PM	Toss out FEATS while you're at it. Nothing bogs down a game and makes a munchkins wet dream like no more feats, heaven forbid they have to roleplay their way out of a situation.... Munchkin: I'm making a 1/2 orc fighter with great cleave, improved bull rush, tendons of doom, and blah blah blah DM: I'm sorry, but to speed game playing up... I've decided to drop FEATs all together. Munchkin: You mean I have to suffer through combat the hard way?!?:weep: OK, I'm going to play something else then.... Also forbid dark elves, dark drawrves, 1/2 races, monster PC's, evil characters, and psions.
Mimdalf 10-10-04, 10:09 AM	Ha let's put the Dungeon Master back in DM, yea with all the new options I think somewhere I had forgotten who is in control of the game.
caeruleus 10-11-04, 01:20 AM	I made a suggestion on how to capture an older edition feel with 3.5 rules in the following thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=311656 However, it uses the gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana, which would go against the suggestion to keep things core.
amethal 10-11-04, 10:46 AM	I seem to be missing the point here... I play with the core rules, and if any of my players want to play anything non-core (or even a race from the Monster Manual, which I suppose could be argued to be core) they ask first. I assumed everybody's players did that. Surely it is just rude to take the halfling outrider prestige class, or even the loremaster prestige class, without checking with your DM first? Some people have been posting to complain that DMs have rejected prestige classes, feats etc. "for no reason"; however, I think a new DM is perfectly entitled to limit players to the core rules until he gets the hang of things, so that shouldn't be a problem. Of course, the rules don't apply to me. I can't wait for them to meet their first blighter, with her arrow demon allies.....