Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jack Daniel 03-24-07, 04:32 PM	I came quite close to giving up on 3rd edition D&D for good. Some features of the game were really starting to rub me the wrong way, and to be honest, they still do; but rather than pitch all my d20 books (they're just so shiny...), I decided to incorporate them into the mish-mash of house rules that I wanted to invent. And so, I've finally done up what I belive all DMs must eventually: the big-binder-o'-house-rules. The homebrew bible, if you will. It was fun, it was anguish, I laughed, I cried, and now I'm through the ordeal. And my game feels... different. New and shiny, like when I first cracked open that 3.0 PHB. Old and nostalgic, cracked with character, like an old 2nd edition game (or even a boxed-set Basic D&D game). It works for me. I wanted to give y'all the gist, the basic run-down, a quick summary to show you what things look like for my game. Ability scores are rolled on 3d6 (no point buy, no drop lowest, just old school 3d6), but you get to roll nine scores and then keep the best six and assign them where you will. The modifiers follow a bell curve, like basic D&D, so the chart runs 3 (-3), 4-5 (-2), 6-8 (-1), 9-12 (0), 13-15 (+1), 16-17 (+2), 18 (+3). There are no racial ability adjusments, and even with stat increases, you can't bring a score above 20 without the use of wishes. Saving throws are rolled against a DC determined by your own level, not by the attack. It starts at 16 and drops by a point at every three levels, to a minimum of 10 (at 18th level). Otherwise, a saving throw is just a normal ability check. Ability checks, by the by, operate on a system of standard DCs that make things work a little more like they did in 2nd edition. Now, a given check result indicates a degree of success: 4-6, Easy. 7-9, Simple. 10-12, Ordinary. 13-15, Challenging. 16-18, Difficult. 19+, Heroic. This allows the DM to quickly and easily set the DC of a check on the fly ("Break the rusty metal bars? That's Difficult. Roll a Strength check, DC 16.") Opposed rolls also become a matter of degrees, rather than discreet numbers, so if characters tie degrees of success, something inconclusive happens. (The guard rolls 10 on his Alertness and the theif trying to sneak by rolls 12 on his Stealth. They both have Ordinary results, so the DM rules that the guard saw something out of the corner of his eye and now becomes a little more suspicious.) Feats and skills, such as they are in 3rd edition, are gone. Characters gain a weapon proficiency slot at every 3rd level (and they can spend up to 5 slots on a single weapon to earn Weapon Mastery). They gain a skill slot at every 4th level, and they can spend up to 4 slots on a single skill (each slot grants a +1 bonus to skill rolls, which are just ability checks made vs. the standard DCs, described above). Base attack bonuses are the same as in 3rd edition (equal to level for warrior types, three-quarters level for second-stringers, and one-half level for bookworm types), but multiple attacks are different. When your BAB reaches +13, you get two attacks per round (the second attack comes at no penalty). When your BAB reaches +17, you can also made two attacks per round with your off-hand. This means that a fighter can make, at most, four attacks per round (if he wields two weapons), while a rogue or cleric can make three, and a mage can make, at most, two. (Monks are special, but not so hard to deal with as they have been in the core rules of all editions.) While I'm on combat, the full attack action is gone. If characters are able to make multiple attacks, they can do so with a standard action. And they can move some of their speed at any time before, between, or after attacking, so it's like all characters have Spring Attack by default. Attack rolls are still automatic misses on natural 1s and automatic hits on natural 20s, but a natural 20 no longer threatens a critical hit. Instead, whenever you roll max damage on a weapon damage die, you get to re-roll the die and add the damage on (like the 2nd edition arquebus). This makes wepaons with small damage dice (like daggers and rapiers) more likely to crit, while weapons with big damage dice (like bastard swords and great axes) are still generally more useful, especially against critters that are immune to crits... but not so much as in the 3e core rules. So the distinction between simple, martial, and exotic weapons goes away, and the weapons are all a lot more balanced. There are nine starting classes: fighters, monks, rogues, nobles, clerics, shamans, mages, psychics, and scientists. Fighters work kind of like they do in 3e. A fighter gains a bonus weapon proficiency at every odd level. On top of that, they gain Rapid Reload at level 2, Power Attack at level 4, Cover Allies at level 6 (take half the damage dealt to an adjacent ally onto self), Far Shot at level 8, and Whirlwind Attack at level 10. A 12th level fighter treats any weapon he wields as magical for the purpose of beating DR, and this improves at every other level, until a 20th level fighter can even ignore DR/--. Oh, and fighters roll d12s for hit dice. Monks roll d10s and attack as fighters now. They get a second attack at 5th level and a third attack at 9th level (and they also get the extra attack that comes whenever their BAB reaches +13, as well as the extra off-hand attack whenever it reaches +17) so a monk, at best, can attack four times per round in the main hand (just like they could in older editions of D&D) and two per round in the off-hand. This really gives monks back their exclusive mastery of the multiple attack thing. Their open-hand damage (like in older editions) also starts at 1d3 and goes up every other level, until it caps at 3d10 at 19th level. Coversely, they have fewer superpowers. Quivering Palm, for example, doesn't even come until 19th level, and they only get half the bonus speed that the 3e monk gets (+10 feet every 6 levels instead of every 3), and no special AC bonus. (But now they can wear leather armor.) This makes monks generally easier to deal with, especially as far as multi-classing goes, and the multiple attacks, since they're based entirely on monk levels rather than on BAB, end up working just fine for multi-classed monks, with no weird problems or foibles. Rogues roll d8s for hit dice, and they gain a bonus skill slot at every odd level. Other than that, they work a lot like 3e rogues. Nobles are taken pretty much straight from Star Wars. d8 hit dice, Inspire Confidence, Coordinate, Call in a Favor. You know the drill. Except, at 6th level, they get the Leadership ability (only nobles get lackeys and flunkies.) Clerics roll d6s. They cast as clerics do (except, no domains), but they also have all the abilities of the healer (Miniatures Handbook). Turning undead now works a lot more like it did in 2e: you just roll a Charisma check, and the degree of success tells the max hit dice of undead turned. Then you turn 2d4 + your Cha bonus individual undead. Shamans also roll d6s for HP. They cast as druids, and they mostly have all the abilities of druids (except for the variant Wild Shape from Unearthed Arcana), and some of the abilities of spirit shamans (Complete Divine). Shamans can turn elementals in the same way that clerics turn undead. Mages are your classic blaster-caster. They can cast spells from the schools of Divination, Transmutation, Abjuration, Conjuration, and Evocation, and at 6th level, they can specialize in any one of those schools except Divination. (Specializing doesn't bar you from any schools, but it does grant you a bonus to Spellcraft checks and saves, as well as your own save DCs, with all spells of that school.) Psychics are the flip side of that coin. They get access to Divination, Transmutation, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Illusion. They're the mages you fool your mind with charm and hypnotism, beguile your senses with illusions, and "see dead people". At 6th level, they can specialize in any of their schools except Transmutation. Scientists are item-builders. They work just like scientist characters from d20 Past/Pulp Heroes do, except that instead of mage and celric spells, they use psionic powers as the effects that they "discover" and turn into inventions. An invention works just like a big, bulky wand (or dorje, as the case may be): 50 uses, and it burns out. On top of all this, there are twelve prestige classes that can be taken to 15th level: Berserker, Samurai, Paladin, Ranger, Mystic, Engineer, Templar, Bard, Ninja, Sorcerer, Sage, and Oracle. The samurai is more like a kensai than anything else: pick a favorite weapon, get ki powers and sick hit and damage bonuses when using it. The mystic is like a monk-druid gish, and the engineer does the same thing for fighter-scientists. The templar is your classic red mage, a warrior who casts cleric and mage spells to 5th level (and it gets duskblade-style quick casting and spell channeling). The sorcerer is a cleric or shaman who learns to summon big, bad esper-type monsters. The sage gishes clerics and mages (mystic theurge style), while the oracle does the same thing for shamans and psychics. Strength Skills: Climbing Jumping Swimming Dexterity Skills: Acrobatics Legerdemain Piloting (choose vehicle) Riding (choose animal) Sabotage Stealth Constitution Skills: Concentration Charisma Skills: Animal-Handling Deception Inquiry Intimidation Performance (choose from Acting, Dancing, Drums, Keys, Singing, Speaking, Strings, or Winds) Persuasion Intelligence Skills: Craft (choose from Chemistry, Mechanics, Structures, Writing, or Visual Art) Demolitions Investigation Knowledge (choose from Arcane Lore, Art, Behavioral Sciences, Business, Civics, History, Natural Sciences, Physical sciences, Streetwise, Tactics, Technology, or Theology & Philosophy) Linguistics Navigation Research Spellcraft Wisdom Skills: Alertness Gambling Healing Insight Profession (choose profession) Survival The skill list includes 30 skills, some of which fold multiple 3e skills in together. Initiative! This is simplified a lot. Each side just rolls 1d10 for initiative. A party that rolls a 1 is taken by surprise, and starts the battle flat-footed. A party that rolls a 10 gets a pre-emptive strike (a partial action before regular rounds begin). Spell casting... this is cool too. Magic-users only prepare a tiny fraction of their spells, equal to their level plus their ability adjusment. A 5th level mage with Int 13? He can prepare 6 levels worth of spells (like one 3rd level and three 1st levels, or whatever). The spells that he has prepped can be cast on the fly, from spell-slots (all characters use a spells-per-day chart like the 3e sorcerer). For spells he doesn't have prepped, the mage has to go riffling through his spell-book to cast them. Casting still usually takes 1 standard action, but the problem is, opening your spell-book to a given spell, or flipping to a new spell, also takes a standard action. So let's say you're facing a monster, and you shoot magic missiles at it. No effect. That was the only blaster spell you have prepped, so next round, if you want to try something new, you have to take your action to open up your spell-book and flip to burning hands. Now, the round after that, let's say you cast that and it works. Your spell-book is open to burning hands, so as long as you have spell-slots, you can keep casting it every round, as if it were prepared... but if it didn't work, it'd be another standard action to go flipping through for something else to try. Oh, and no attacks of opportunity! They're just gone. End of story. (Makes combat WAY faster and more exciting.)
Patera_Quetzal 03-24-07, 07:53 PM	Thanks for this JD. Can you give us your reasons for each rule -- what you didn't like about the RAW, and how the house rule fixes the problem, makes the game more realistic, more balanced, or whatever. I'm not so much talking about rolling ability scores and that sort of thing. But why do you prefer your own rules on Saving Throws, Feats (or lack thereof), Multiple Attacks, Attacks of Opportunity, etc.? If you could fold these into the text above, that would be especially helpful.
trapspringer 03-24-07, 07:58 PM	...where do I start? WTF? Why? Ditching the feats system is bailing on basically 3/4 of everything that is third edition. That's the big addition. The source of character variation in an otherwise droll and uniform world. Feats are good for more than killing things. Your skills system looks good. Sabotage should be intelligence-based. It gunna' be a lot more dice-based this way, though. The character isn't gunna' matter as much as the roll, but this is a personal choice and I can see it working well in the right game. It's simplified and streamlined. Thumbs up. Your magic system is a very minor shift that will power up wizards a lot because they won't have to prepare utility spells. The will basically have all the advantages of every utility spell in the book without a limit on their raw killing power in trade-off. Your initiative ****s over sneak attack. Overall, this system reeks of an inexperienced DM. It shows numerous signs of hack-and-slash play with a total disregard for anything other than open combat. That is my honest examination and critique. Oh, and your save system makes no sense. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) you get better at resisting spells as you level, and you represent this by decreasing the DC of the save, which has a negative correlation to your level? Isn't that gunna' make all save vs effect spells useless at higher levels when the DC is 10? 50/50 modified by what will be more magic and an ability score will become something like -10% chance of failure very quickly, thus negating all save or X spells.
FeceMan 03-24-07, 09:25 PM	Go back to 2e, IMO. Your system is infinitely more complicated than 3.5, and that's saying something, since a lot of 3.5 is a bunch of memorization and confounding rules.
Jack Daniel 03-24-07, 10:13 PM	Patera_Quetzal: Well, I'll try to address what I can. With regard to saving throws, I wanted to make things more uniform and easier to deal with. It's much easier to have one number on the character sheet than to have to deal with a whole row of numbers for every spell-caster or monster. The way I have things going now, a saving throw is just an ability check that starts at Difficult and slowly becomes Ordinary as characters advance. (That makes things integrated with my ability check system.) Ultimately, though, the end result looks like a much more simplified, streamlined version of the way saves worked in older editions. It used to be that for 1st level characters, you had an array of saves (five of them) that started between 16 and 11, and by the time that you were 18th-21st level (depending on your class), they bottomed out somewhere between 8 and 3. There was usually no modifier to the save (except for a Con bonus to saves vs. poison, or a Wis bonus to saves vs. "Spell" or "Rod, Staff, or Wand") -- you just rolled a d20 and tried to beat your own save number. Especially difficult saves might have a penalty (ghoul paralysis was a classic example -- you saved at -4 vs. that). My system takes that and makes it simpler, based on your own ability score adjustments. Now, let's say that you have a character with abilities of Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Cha 12, Int 10, Wis 8. (Modifiers Str +1, Dex +1, Con +1, Cha 0, Int 0, Wis -1). Str is used for saves vs. paralysis or entanglement; Dex saves are vs. area effects, like fireballs and dragon's breath; Con saves resist poison, disease, and similar attacks on your health; Cha saves resist energy drain, death magic, and negative energy; Int saves resist illusions and miscellaneous spell effects; and Wis saves counter charm, gaze, confuse, and mind-affecting spells. The example character, at 1st level, would thus have save DCs of: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 16, Int 16, Wis 17. By 20th level, this same character would have save DCs of Str 9, Dex 9, Con 9, Cha 10, Int 10, Wis 11, plus any improvements to ability scores, or magical bonuses to saves. It winds up looking a whole heck of a lot like saves did in basic D&D and AD&D, and I like that. My philosophy here, you see, is to throw out needless complications wherever possible and clean up the character sheet. The more white space I see on that character sheet, the more I know my PCs are paying attention to their characters and not their statistics. Feats are a case in point. Ever since I started playing 3e, I've noticed players caring way more about "building" their characters than playing them. A character became a list of feats, not a personality. I tried everything in my powers as a DM to get my players to actually play some personalities, but after many, many, many 3.0 and 3.5 campaigns (most of which tend to run about a year), I've given up. It is my belief that, in my campaigns at least, feats and good role-playing cannot co-exist. And what do you know... as soon as the party berserker stopped worrying about when his next feat was going to come along, he actually started playing a character. It's convinced me more than anything that they're detrimental to the game -- ever since I removed them, the quality of the players' involvement has improved by 200%. More than that, though, it seems to me that half the feats in the game are just there to prevent attacks of opportunity in certain situations, and without attacks of opportunity, many feats are worthless. I don't like AoOs. They slow the game down, and they make tactical movement more an issue of "don't try it -- it'll draw an AoO" than a matter of position and party cooperation. I didn't use them in 2nd edition (even though I used and loved most of the rest of the Combat & Tactics rules) and I've stopped using them now. In any case, both feats and AoOs tell more about what you can't do than what you can. I like to let my PCs get away with daring stunts in combat, and opening things up encourages them to try things. As for multiple attacks, I've been trying to hit upon a perfect system for a long, long time, and in the end, I've decided to go with a mix of basic D&D's and 2nd edition AD&D's version of the rule. The whole 3rd edition iterative attacks thing always put me off -- the idea (as the stated intent of the game designers went) was supposed to make combat more exciting, since your first attacks always hit, but your extra attacks were hit-or-miss. I never noticed that it made actual play more exciting, though, and so I decided to go with what I knew and loved from older editions; and it had the happy effect of letting monks' attacks mesh with other classes better. In basic D&D, a monk got a 2nd attack at level 5, a 3rd attack at level 9, and a fourth and final attack at level 13. Meanwhile, a fighter got a 2nd attack at level 12, a 3rd attack at level 24, and a 4th attack at the highest attainable level, level 36 (which is equivalent to level 20 in an AD&D or 3e game). In 2nd edition, a monk gained half an attack at every 3 levels, to 3/2 at level 4, 2 attacks at level 7, 5/2 at level 10, 3 attacks at level 13, 7/2 at level 16, and 4 per round at level 19. A fighter got 3/2 attacks at level 6, and 2 per round at level 13. I wanted to put these rules together in a way that preserved the number of attacks per round (they should cap at 2 per round for a fighter, or 4 per round for a monk, two-weapon-fighting excluded, to preserve the feel of the old rules). But it also had to be worked out in such a way that a monk could multi-class without getting shafted. It seemed that combining the two progressions for attacks would be logical, so that a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attack for a monk could still come at levels 5, 9, and 13 (as in basic D&D), and a 2nd attack for a fighter could come at 13th level (as in 2nd edition), and if the monk’s last attack was the same as fighter’s last attack, that made it really easy to mesh the rules together in a coherent, consistent way. The house rule regarding spells was just something that I hit upon after playing a game of Magic: the Gathering. No reason for it; just one of those inspired moments that, once I play-tested it in the game, proved to be so damn cool that we (DM and players alike) decided to keep it for good. House-ruling at its purest. Trapspringer: Yes. I’ve bailed on what makes 3e 3e. And I’ve never been happier. My players are playing with characters rather than building blocks now. Helm Bearkiller, the half-ogre berserker who runs around with two katanas, is now unique apart from other berserkers because he runs around with two katanas and grumbles about his fellow party members to their faces, not because he has Power Attack and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Eddy the shaman is unique from other shamans because he has funky green hair and wears a trench-coat, not because he took Brew Potion at 3rd level. I’m immeasurably happier now that I’m running a game that feels more like 2nd edition D&D, without all the stupid, arbitrary, clunky rules surrounding non-weapon proficiencies, hit dice and experience levels, and multi-/dual-classing. Sabotage is the Open Lock and Disable Device Skill. I could’ve gone either way with Dex or Int, but decided in the end that it encouraged rogues to take the skill if it were based on Dex (and it made rogues better at sabotaging devices than mages -- that's important). As for my magic system, I have to say, it actually kind of nerfs the blaster-casters in combat. Their flexibility shoots way down. Utility spells (which often don’t get memorized in the first place, and never get taken by a 3e sorcerer) actually see the light of day now, since casters don’t have to waste valuable slots on them. So all in all, it works out more beautifully than I ever could have imagined. I can’t say that I appreciate your critique on my DMing style, but I will tell you that I’ve DMed a lot of games for a lot years, and I know the rules behind all editions of the game pretty much inside and out. So… no, that’s not the case at all. But with regard to hack-and-slash play, what’s wrong with that? My whole point here is to make combat fast and furious, so that it ends quick and players can get on with the in-between parts that make the game fun. Lots of hack, lots of slash, lots of crunch (so long as it’s rules-lite), and lots of fluff. That’s my ideal. FaceMan: See the aforementioned notes on how utterly crappy some of 2e’s rules were. Going back to 2e would require going back to thieves leveling up twice as fast as mages, twinky elven fighter/mage/clerics, humans needing 15s and 17s to dual-class, and nobody but humans being monks or pallys (or anything at all past 15th level). Ain’t gonna happen. And what you see up there in that post? That is pretty much the whole extent of the rules I wind up using at the table (excluding the list of races, classes, weapons, spells, items, and monsters, which will make up the bulk page count of any good fantasy RPG). One page, give or take, vs. whole chapters in the 3e core rulebooks? And you’re saying that what I’ve got is more complicated? Okay…
Khementari 03-25-07, 01:28 AM	I'm quite happy to see someone bend 3rd edition over their knee and give it a much needed spanking. You have taken the game and made it yours in a way that let's your group play it better. Pay no heed to the various posts that inform you how wrong you are. Doing something like this takes a lot of effort and these boards should be a place to share in such efforts, not discount them. I am in the process of addressing many of the same issues. I'm solving them in an entirely different way but it's great to see other people put effort into their game. ...and yes, AoO is a flawed mechanic! Maybe we can exchange some thoughts about it all.
Jack Daniel 03-25-07, 02:40 AM	I'm quite happy to see someone bend 3rd edition over their knee and give it a much needed spanking. You have taken the game and made it yours in a way that let's your group play it better. Pay no heed to the various posts that inform you how wrong you are. Doing something like this takes a lot of effort and these boards should be a place to share in such efforts, not discount them. I am in the process of addressing many of the same issues. I'm solving them in an entirely different way but it's great to see other people put effort into their game. ...and yes, AoO is a flawed mechanic! Maybe we can exchange some thoughts about it all. Gotta love the free exchange of ideas! Preach it, soul-brother... ;) Anyhow, go ahead and post your version of things. I'm always interested in new variations on a theme. Regarding AoO's, I don't think that it's neccessarily a flawed idea. They just put a different spin on what "tactics" means in a battle. When certain actions carry a penalty like that (move through a threatened area, cast a spell or shoot a bow in a threatened area, etc.), those actions are heavily discouraged. People who know the game system well will avoid doing those things (which isn't really a problem), but noobies will have yet another pile of rules to learn when picking up D&D for the first time (which is, IMHO, a huge problem, and one of the main reasons I've dropped them from my game). That said, I simply prefer that AoOs not figure into my combats, since, as I said before, having restrictions on what you can do in a fight tends to discourage players from trying out cinematic stunts and from using maneuvers beyond "I hit it with my sword... again."
Ra-Tiel 03-25-07, 07:41 AM	I came quite close to giving up on 3rd edition D&D for good. Some features of the game were really starting to rub me the wrong way, and to be honest, they still do; but rather than pitch all my d20 books (they're just so shiny...), I decided to incorporate them into the mish-mash of house rules that I wanted to invent. And so, I've finally done up what I belive all DMs must eventually: the big-binder-o'-house-rules. The homebrew bible, if you will. It was fun, it was anguish, I laughed, I cried, and now I'm through the ordeal. And my game feels... different. New and shiny, like when I first cracked open that 3.0 PHB. Old and nostalgic, cracked with character, like an old 2nd edition game (or even a boxed-set Basic D&D game). It works for me. I wanted to give y'all the gist, the basic run-down, a quick summary to show you what things look like for my game. An interesting approach, indeed. But, if you don't mind, I still have some questions regarding your proposed changes. Ability scores are rolled on 3d6 (no point buy, no drop lowest, just old school 3d6), but you get to roll nine scores and then keep the best six and assign them where you will. The modifiers follow a bell curve, like basic D&D, so the chart runs 3 (-3), 4-5 (-2), 6-8 (-1), 9-12 (0), 13-15 (+1), 16-17 (+2), 18 (+3). There are no racial ability adjusments, and even with stat increases, you can't bring a score above 20 without the use of wishes. What was wrong with linear ability modifiers? The current system already penalizes characters with even scores (with the exception of Strength), as in that uneven scores do not actually benefit you at all. For example, a sorcerer improving his Charisma at 4th level from 16 to 17 gains absolutely nothing. Your bell curve progression aggravates this even more, effectively preventing characters with close-to-average scores benefiting from ability increases or magic items, while characters with already high scores benefit even more. Imagine a rogue with Str 10 and a fighter with Str 14 putting on gauntlets of ogre power +4. The rogue gains little benefit (modifier changes from +0 to +1), while the fighter benefits greatly (modifier changes from +1 to +3). [...] Ability checks, by the by, operate on a system of standard DCs that make things work a little more like they did in 2nd edition. Now, a given check result indicates a degree of success: 4-6, Easy. 7-9, Simple. 10-12, Ordinary. 13-15, Challenging. 16-18, Difficult. 19+, Heroic. This allows the DM to quickly and easily set the DC of a check on the fly ("Break the rusty metal bars? That's Difficult. Roll a Strength check, DC 16.") Opposed rolls also become a matter of degrees, rather than discreet numbers, so if characters tie degrees of success, something inconclusive happens. (The guard rolls 10 on his Alertness and the theif trying to sneak by rolls 12 on his Stealth. They both have Ordinary results, so the DM rules that the guard saw something out of the corner of his eye and now becomes a little more suspicious.) Your example is - imho - horrible. Breaking metal bars is not just "difficult" that anyone could accomplish, but rather an extremely hard task that only the very strong ones could even hope to accomplish. From what little understanding I gained from your description, anyone could break the bars, barring he has average Str and rolls a 16 or higher on the d20. Sorry, but that somehow reminds me of "The Gamers". Feats and skills, such as they are in 3rd edition, are gone. Characters gain a weapon proficiency slot at every 3rd level (and they can spend up to 5 slots on a single weapon to earn Weapon Mastery). They gain a skill slot at every 4th level, and they can spend up to 4 slots on a single skill (each slot grants a +1 bonus to skill rolls, which are just ability checks made vs. the standard DCs, described above). Which leads me to the question: how do you prevent characters playing on the same archetype having the exactly same mechanical stats? Feats and skills were a great tool to differ fighters and rogues from their competitors, even if they all catered to the same stereotype. While I'm on combat, the full attack action is gone. If characters are able to make multiple attacks, they can do so with a standard action. And they can move some of their speed at any time before, between, or after attacking, so it's like all characters have Spring Attack by default. Don't you think that's a little over the top? With that system, combat movement and battlefield control becomes close to non-existant. Why should you use hit-and-run tactics, if that doesn't net you anything and you still get hit with all the opponent's attacks in the end. Attack rolls are still automatic misses on natural 1s and automatic hits on natural 20s, but a natural 20 no longer threatens a critical hit. Instead, whenever you roll max damage on a weapon damage die, you get to re-roll the die and add the damage on (like the 2nd edition arquebus). This makes wepaons with small damage dice (like daggers and rapiers) more likely to crit, while weapons with big damage dice (like bastard swords and great axes) are still generally more useful, especially against critters that are immune to crits... but not so much as in the 3e core rules. So the distinction between simple, martial, and exotic weapons goes away, and the weapons are all a lot more balanced. So you say that a rapier is equal to a spiked chain? [...]Initiative! This is simplified a lot. Each side just rolls 1d10 for initiative. A party that rolls a 1 is taken by surprise, and starts the battle flat-footed. A party that rolls a 10 gets a pre-emptive strike (a partial action before regular rounds begin). Which completely ***** rogues and other characters that are dependent on their quick reflexes. Also, a character's wits and reflexes have no influence on how quick he can react to a situation, which is imho even worse than currently. Spell casting... this is cool too. Magic-users only prepare a tiny fraction of their spells, equal to their level plus their ability adjusment. A 5th level mage with Int 13? He can prepare 6 levels worth of spells (like one 3rd level and three 1st levels, or whatever). The spells that he has prepped can be cast on the fly, from spell-slots (all characters use a spells-per-day chart like the 3e sorcerer). For spells he doesn't have prepped, the mage has to go riffling through his spell-book to cast them. Casting still usually takes 1 standard action, but the problem is, opening your spell-book to a given spell, or flipping to a new spell, also takes a standard action. This is in my eyes a two-bladed edge. On the one hand you give a great boost to casters, but on the other hand you make them even more dependent on their spellbooks (can you say "sunder"?). And while under the current system a wizard can prepare for these eventualities with the feat "Spell Mastery", under your system a mage is completely worthless if his book gets destroyed. Oh, and no attacks of opportunity! They're just gone. End of story. (Makes combat WAY faster and more exciting.) I agree that AoOs were poorly implemented. In the system I'm currently working on I remove AoOs in their current form, too. Instead of the opponent gaining a free attack on the provoking character, the character now suffers a penalty to his defense against potential attacks made by the opponent. This still keeps characters on their toes, and prevents them from jumping around like "Disney's Gummi Bears".
Jack Daniel 03-25-07, 08:52 AM	Whew. Lots of points to address. I think I can mostly clear things up, though. An interesting approach, indeed. But, if you don't mind, I still have some questions regarding your proposed changes. What was wrong with linear ability modifiers? The current system already penalizes characters with even scores (with the exception of Strength), as in that uneven scores do not actually benefit you at all. For example, a sorcerer improving his Charisma at 4th level from 16 to 17 gains absolutely nothing. Your bell curve progression aggravates this even more, effectively preventing characters with close-to-average scores benefiting from ability increases or magic items, while characters with already high scores benefit even more. Imagine a rogue with Str 10 and a fighter with Str 14 putting on gauntlets of ogre power +4. The rogue gains little benefit (modifier changes from +0 to +1), while the fighter benefits greatly (modifier changes from +1 to +3). Dealing with this problem is deceptively simple. All you have to do is change magic items that boost ability scores by +2, +4, or +6 into items that boost ability score modifiers by +1, +2, or +3. (Remember, in older versions of D&D, you didn't get to raise your scores by leveling up, and spells and items didn't add to your scores, they set them at some specific value, like "Str 19" for gauntlets of ogre power.) The way it works now is that what used to be gauntlets of ogre power +4, now become gauntlets +2. The fighter with Str 14 (+1) who puts them on suddenly has Str 14** (+3). The rogue with Str 10 (+0) who wears them gets Str 10** (+2). (I find that that also really helps players keep track of their own equipment, and which stats are being boosted by temporary effects or magic items vs. which stats have been raised by natural or inherent bonuses.) A similar system works in reverse for ability damage. Your example is - imho - horrible. Breaking metal bars is not just "difficult" that anyone could accomplish, but rather an extremely hard task that only the very strong ones could even hope to accomplish. From what little understanding I gained from your description, anyone could break the bars, barring he has average Str and rolls a 16 or higher on the d20. Sorry, but that somehow reminds me of "The Gamers". This is an issue of realism vs. playability. I much preferred the way that ability checks worked in older versions of the game, where you only had to roll lower than your own score to pass the check (or, for easier actions, your stat +3 or +6, or for more difficult actions, your stat -3 or -6). I was trying to capture that, including the greatly increased chances of success for heroic actions that are ultimately independent of character level. And I said "rusty" metal bars. I think any captured PC fighter worth his salt, after finding the one loose, rusty, weakened bar, ought to have a pretty good chance of breaking it off with a Str check. ;) Which leads me to the question: how do you prevent characters playing on the same archetype having the exactly same mechanical stats? Feats and skills were a great tool to differ fighters and rogues from their competitors, even if they all catered to the same stereotype. I... see absolutely no need to prevent such a thing. None whatsoever. D&D played just fine for 20+ years with only the players to differentiate their characters, so it's not like feats are essential or anything. I find that a few token skills and weapons proficiencies do the job just fine, but they less they actually impact the game mechanics, the better. Don't you think that's a little over the top? With that system, combat movement and battlefield control becomes close to non-existant. Why should you use hit-and-run tactics, if that doesn't net you anything and you still get hit with all the opponent's attacks in the end. I guess you'd just have to try it to see for yourself. So you say that a rapier is equal to a spiked chain? You're assuming that I still allow spiked chains! Which completely ***** rogues and other characters that are dependent on their quick reflexes. Also, a character's wits and reflexes have no influence on how quick he can react to a situation, which is imho even worse than currently. Getting rid of Dex to Init is, IMHO, very important. Dex is too loaded as a stat already. I don't think *any* stat should influence who goes first in a fight. So I went back to the AD&D initiative system (another mechanic that always worked fine just the way it was). That said, rogues may not get a lot of sneak attacks just by winning the initiative anymore, but to that I say: good. Sneak attack shouldn't be a "first round of combat only" ability. It should come from maneuvering around the battlefield. And since I use a group initiative system, that means that on the party's turn, the rogue can act after all the other PCs have gone if he wants to -- after, say, the cleric has cast bull's strength or cat's grace on him, and the two warriors have moved to set up flanks -- and if the rogue carries two weapons, he could move a few steps, flank the first bad guy, sneak attack him, move again, and if he has enough speed, flank and sneak attack the other one. So, no... rogues: not shafted. In fact, they get rewarded for doing rogueish things like skulking around the edge of the battlefield until their friends have already placed themselves in harm's way. This is in my eyes a two-bladed edge. On the one hand you give a great boost to casters, but on the other hand you make them even more dependent on their spellbooks (can you say "sunder"?). And while under the current system a wizard can prepare for these eventualities with the feat "Spell Mastery", under your system a mage is completely worthless if his book gets destroyed. OD&D had a system for mages who lost their spell books. One intelligence check per spell allowed the mage to recover his own spell-book from memory. It was just a costly and time-consuming process that still resulted in some spells getting lost. But, yes, having your spell-book sundered or roasted is definietly a feature of my system, and a very intentional one, I assure you. It encourages mages to hang back, and it replaces AoOs in my game as "the reason you don't cast magic while standing next to the ogre." I agree that AoOs were poorly implemented. In the system I'm currently working on I remove AoOs in their current form, too. Instead of the opponent gaining a free attack on the provoking character, the character now suffers a penalty to his defense against potential attacks made by the opponent. This still keeps characters on their toes, and prevents them from jumping around like "Disney's Gummi Bears". Maybe I just like wire-fu movies so much that I don't mind the PCs practically ice-skating around the battle-grid... :) But sice the monsters can do that too (and they usually have way more attacks than the PCs), it does make them think a lot about position and tactical speed.
Ra-Tiel 03-25-07, 11:03 AM	Whew. Lots of points to address. I think I can mostly clear things up, though. Thanks for answering my questions. I hope they don't sound too stupid - I'm just pointing out things that were a bit unclear for me. :) Dealing with this problem is deceptively simple. All you have to do is change magic items that boost ability scores by +2, +4, or +6 into items that boost ability score modifiers by +1, +2, or +3. [...] I see. A definitively interesting idea. However, imho the step from that to getting rid of the scores altogether and only play with the modifiers like - iirc - Blue Rose d20 does wouldn't be too steep, and simplify gameplay even more. This is an issue of realism vs. playability. I much preferred the way that ability checks worked in older versions of the game, where you only had to roll lower than your own score to pass the check (or, for easier actions, your stat +3 or +6, or for more difficult actions, your stat -3 or -6). I was trying to capture that, including the greatly increased chances of success for heroic actions that are ultimately independent of character level. Well, I think it breaks suspension of disbelieve if any not extraordinarily strong character can break open doors and stuff. In the normal d20 system it's impossible for a character with an average Strength to bust open a break DC 21 door, while under your system it becomes just a question of "trying often enough" until any character can break open any doors. I also think that it doesn't factor into account scaling very well, and that a "heroic" action for one character could be an "average" action for another one. It's this discrepancy "The Gamers" make fun of, with the Strength 18/98 barbarian and the Strength 10 elf both trying to break open a sewer portcullis, and the barbarian failing with a rolled 100 while the elf succeeds with a rolled 01. If you haven't seen that movie, I greatly recommend it. :D And I said "rusty" metal bars. I think any captured PC fighter worth his salt, after finding the one loose, rusty, weakened bar, ought to have a pretty good chance of breaking it off with a Str check. ;) Well, but rusty != weak. Only if you mean "more rust than metal and already starting to fall apart under your gaze". :P I... see absolutely no need to prevent such a thing. None whatsoever. D&D played just fine for 20+ years with only the players to differentiate their characters, so it's not like feats are essential or anything. I find that a few token skills and weapons proficiencies do the job just fine, but they less they actually impact the game mechanics, the better. Hmmm... you may be right. However, I still find it better if there are certain mechanical differences to characters going for the same concept. After all, options are almost always a good thing and roleplayers are [usually] not so stupid they couldn't handle 2 or 3 alternatives. I guess you'd just have to try it to see for yourself. I think you're right. However, as my last group I played with just fell apart (with 2 other players not having been able to get their asses together for almost 3 months now... :banghead: ) and myself working on my own system/setting in addition to my studies I guess I won't have time to try your system for myself. Anyways, is there any chance you might be putting up a compiled sheet similar to a small SRD regarding your system, putting all the changes and rules in one place? You're assuming that I still allow spiked chains! Well, you didn't mention you did not. ;) But there are other things that create a certain "unequalness". Any reach weapons that give bonuses to special maneuvers for example, or the whip. These are usually more powerful than "normal" weapons or require extensive training to be used efficiently. Getting rid of Dex to Init is, IMHO, very important. Dex is too loaded as a stat already. I don't think *any* stat should influence who goes first in a fight. So I went back to the AD&D initiative system (another mechanic that always worked fine just the way it was). I agree, Dex is a too important stat already. However, removing any influence a character can make from his initiative is a not so good step. What about the classical "scouting" role in the party? If the rogue scouts ahead by, let's say, 60 ft of the party, is he still considered part of the party or already a seperate party? How can you explain a party of sharp-witted, keen-eyed and -eared elven rangers patrolling in their homeland forrests being as likely to be surprised as a party of orc dim-wits who wouldn't see the broad side of the barn if it was pointed out to them? That said, rogues may not get a lot of sneak attacks just by winning the initiative anymore, but to that I say: good. Sneak attack shouldn't be a "first round of combat only" ability. It should come from maneuvering around the battlefield. But getting a surprise round or initiative is quite important for "maneuvering" in the first place, imho. Also, putting all characters of one side under one initiative value can be quite detrimental to the combat flow. Like all 30 orcs in the ambush with heavy xbows and poisoned bolts going first, and the party not having the slightest chance to do anything about them. And since I use a group initiative system, that means that on the party's turn, the rogue can act after all the other PCs have gone if he wants to -- after, say, the cleric has cast bull's strength or cat's grace on him, and the two warriors have moved to set up flanks -- and if the rogue carries two weapons, he could move a few steps, flank the first bad guy, sneak attack him, move again, and if he has enough speed, flank and sneak attack the other one. [...] Right, but delaying and readying worked quite well in d20 imho. I really see a key problem in that scouting becomes even more suicidal to the rogue as it already is. If there is only a 50/50 chance of the rogue acting before any monster he encounters, why should anyone volunteer to scout at all? OD&D had a system for mages who lost their spell books. One intelligence check per spell allowed the mage to recover his own spell-book from memory. It was just a costly and time-consuming process that still resulted in some spells getting lost. But, yes, having your spell-book sundered or roasted is definietly a feature of my system, and a very intentional one, I assure you. Hmmm but why then bother with spellbooks at all? Why not just make them similar to spirit shamans in casting, in that they have access to their whole list but only can prepare a small part of it? One could make it so that a mage knows a certain "basic list" with many sterotypical spells (fireball, magic missile, mage armor, fly, ...) on it, and spellbooks would extend the list from which he could memorize each morning. It encourages mages to hang back, and it replaces AoOs in my game as "the reason you don't cast magic while standing next to the ogre." I thought having not nearly enough HPs to survive more than 1 round in melee was enough encouragement for arcane casters to stay in the background anyways. ;) Maybe I just like wire-fu movies so much that I don't mind the PCs practically ice-skating around the battle-grid... :) But sice the monsters can do that too (and they usually have way more attacks than the PCs), it does make them think a lot about position and tactical speed. Well, I personally prefer "grim'n'gritty" systems myself more. Although I'm not partial to "[super]hero" games at all, but in fantasy I like to keep it dark and as "realistic" as it can get (which is also a reason why I'm writing on my own system, as normal d20 doesn't cut it for me in that regard). :)
bartleby42 03-25-07, 01:06 PM	Well, I'll try to address what I can. With regard to saving throws, I wanted to make things more uniform and easier to deal with. It's much easier to have one number on the character sheet than to have to deal with a whole row of numbers for every spell-caster or monster. The way I have things going now, a saving throw is just an ability check that starts at Difficult and slowly becomes Ordinary as characters advance. (That makes things integrated with my ability check system.) Ultimately, though, the end result looks like a much more simplified, streamlined version of the way saves worked in older editions. [...]My system takes that and makes it simpler, based on your own ability score adjustments. Now, let's say that you have a character with abilities of Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Cha 12, Int 10, Wis 8. (Modifiers Str +1, Dex +1, Con +1, Cha 0, Int 0, Wis -1). Str is used for saves vs. paralysis or entanglement; Dex saves are vs. area effects, like fireballs and dragon's breath; Con saves resist poison, disease, and similar attacks on your health; Cha saves resist energy drain, death magic, and negative energy; Int saves resist illusions and miscellaneous spell effects; and Wis saves counter charm, gaze, confuse, and mind-affecting spells. The example character, at 1st level, would thus have save DCs of: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 16, Int 16, Wis 17. By 20th level, this same character would have save DCs of Str 9, Dex 9, Con 9, Cha 10, Int 10, Wis 11, plus any improvements to ability scores, or magical bonuses to saves. It winds up looking a whole heck of a lot like saves did in basic D&D and AD&D, and I like that. How does this make things simpler and reduce the amount of numbers on the charecter sheet? You have changed from having three numbers to having 6 numbers. This doesn't save time, this adds to confusion, as opposed to have 3 clearly deliniated saves, you now have 6, and a whole lot of wacky loop holes. One of my biggest gripes about 2nd ed is the fact that you had the same chance of advoiding the breath weapon of a young dragon as you do an elder dragon, you return us to those days. As far as simplicity goes, you have doubled the amount of saves a PC has to track, and you have added 2 numbers to every monster (removed the save DC (-1), removed the saves (-3) added six new saves (+6)). I don't see how this achives any of the goals you were striving for. My philosophy here, you see, is to throw out needless complications wherever possible and clean up the character sheet. The more white space I see on that character sheet, the more I know my PCs are paying attention to their characters and not their statistics. So adding 3 new saves makes the charecter sheet less crowded? You'll probally argue that you can derive the save from an easy to remeber table and that it really isn't hard to get. But I rememeber the days of thac0 and 2nd ed saves, most charecter sheets had one to two more pages with tables on them and boxes to fill in numbers. If you would rather your PCs had a table as one of their charecters sheets go for it, but I don't see how looking at a table rather than 3 numbers will make you think of your charecter more. The house rule regarding spells was just something that I hit upon after playing a game of Magic: the Gathering. No reason for it; just one of those inspired moments that, once I play-tested it in the game, proved to be so damn cool that we (DM and players alike) decided to keep it for good. House-ruling at its purest. Check out Arcana Evolved by Monte Cooke, the spellcaster class presented in it (it's name escapes me for the moment) has a very simmilar system that has been streamlined and is a little more balenced when it comes to multiclassing. Most of your ideas don't seem to be needed, such as the bell curve ablitiy scores, but aren't harmful to the game, though you have expressed that it is the only way for your group to function, so let it be. But your saving throw plan will cause headaches and slow down the game. Not for it being incomprehensable, but because it is a step from a simple, easy to understand system, to a complex system.
Jack Daniel 03-25-07, 02:04 PM	How does this make things simpler and reduce the amount of numbers on the charecter sheet? You have changed from having three numbers to having 6 numbers. This doesn't save time, this adds to confusion, as opposed to have 3 clearly deliniated saves, you now have 6, and a whole lot of wacky loop holes. One of my biggest gripes about 2nd ed is the fact that you had the same chance of advoiding the breath weapon of a young dragon as you do an elder dragon, you return us to those days. As far as simplicity goes, you have doubled the amount of saves a PC has to track, and you have added 2 numbers to every monster (removed the save DC (-1), removed the saves (-3) added six new saves (+6)). I don't see how this achives any of the goals you were striving for. So adding 3 new saves makes the charecter sheet less crowded? You'll probally argue that you can derive the save from an easy to remeber table and that it really isn't hard to get. But I rememeber the days of thac0 and 2nd ed saves, most charecter sheets had one to two more pages with tables on them and boxes to fill in numbers. If you would rather your PCs had a table as one of their charecters sheets go for it, but I don't see how looking at a table rather than 3 numbers will make you think of your charecter more. This is what the upper left of one of my character sheets winds up looking like: Ability Score Mod ========================== Strength 15 +1 Dexterity 14 +1 Saving Throw Constitution 13 +1 16 Charisma 12 0 Intelligence 10 0 Wisdom 8 -1 So, yes, I do find that simpler. Not only does it eliminate Fort/Ref/Will, it also does away with the aforementioned row of save DCs on the spell sheet. And I do find it to be a great deal more intuitive to have saves based on all six abilities rather than on only three. It more completely unites the saving throw and ability check mechanics in a way that better allows the DM (in my experience, anyway) to adjudicate situations on the fly. (And newbies have a much easier time learning how things work this way.)
Khementari 03-26-07, 01:33 AM	Gotta love the free exchange of ideas! Preach it, soul-brother... ;) Anyhow, go ahead and post your version of things. I'm always interested in new variations on a theme. I'm still writing it out. I could be tempted to send you something privately so you can check it out but as it is a far-reaching rewrite of d20 I wouldn't want it to hit the street. It's more like an alternative PHB and I'm not sure of the legalese in producing such a thing just yet. Regarding AoO's, I don't think that it's neccessarily a flawed idea. I completely agree. My system removes them from normal play. Character movement is no longer bogged down and encounters run more like a raging battle intead of four people sitting around a table for three hours counting squares. Attacks of Opportunity do return with selection of certain feats and class abilities in the form of a free attack under very specific circumstances. That said, I simply prefer that AoOs not figure into my combats, since, as I said before, having restrictions on what you can do in a fight tends to discourage players from trying out cinematic stunts and from using maneuvers beyond "I hit it with my sword... again." AoO is the exception instead of the rule in my game. It will happen and you will probably be surprised by it. It would be difficult to detail on these boards because most of the people I've encountered here are argumentative when they see a post that goes beyond RAW. I usually get someone who attacks my creation because when he uses X feat from X splatbook it breaks the game. That's the whole point. I rewrote RAW! PHB feats no longer apply, nor feats from any other sourcebook.
FeceMan 03-26-07, 02:12 AM	FaceMan: One page, give or take, vs. whole chapters in the 3e core rulebooks? And you’re saying that what I’ve got is more complicated? Okay… It's FeceMan. And your houserules, though they might be a single page, aren't typed up like actual D&D rules. Your rules would be a number of pages if they were organized and printed out "officially."
bartleby42 03-26-07, 02:40 AM	Okay, it does take up less space, somehow I was stuck thinking of 2nd ed save tables >.> But that doesn't mean it's the best of all solutions, and the issues with it are more abstract but still important. 1. The Thac0 problem. Thac0 wasn't all that difficult to use, but it was counter intutive and by virtue made determining effects of items more about intent than written words. --------Counter intuitive, in your system you want a lower number on your sheet, this is less than ideal. I get that it is a target number, but there is still the cognitive dissonance when looking at your sheet. (Like inititive in 2nd ed, low was good? Why, it always was a gripe) While this doesn't make the system any "worse" it doesn't help it at all, seeing as it goes against the best part of 3rd ed, higher is always better. --------Confusing modifiers, how many times in 2nd ed did you find a magic item or spell that gives a small bonus and has the line "You also gain a +1 to your AC"? How many times did you wonder whether it made your AC better (that is lower) or if it made it worse (that would be doing exactly what it says, which is different from how +1s are worked everywhere else, and not at the same time). It was a problem. In your small game it shouldn't be an issue, because there will be no published material your aren't familiar with, but it does point to a problem with ease of comperhension. If an item or a class feature gave you a "+1 to your saves" would you get a +1 to the rolls or a -1 penalty. The nasty bit about it is if you know the current save system and look at any ablilty or item you will understand the intent of a penalty or bonus and be able to transfer it to your system, but this brings about a problem akin to learning latin in order to learn itailian. 2. The Power issue. A party of 1st level PCs are attacked by a barrage of foes, an Ogre mage, a young dragon, an elder dragon, a lich, a 9th level wizard and a 20th level wizard. They all cast cone of cold on the unforunate party, who's spell is harder to resist? Under your system they are all the same, a novice of magic is no more talented in targeting and potency and focusing energy than the thousand year old hermit. Sure you can give penelties to saveing throws, like for ghouls, but on a whole you will have a balance of power where there shouldn't be. 3. A party of clones. Everyone will have the same saves. Coupled with your bell curve ability stats and limits a party of 20th level charecters will have an adjusted save of about 7 for all of thier stats, one will be a 6 and maybe one will be a 11 due to really bad rolls, but everyone has about the same chance to avoid every attack, and might I add it's a goofy high chance at that. Your rogue who should be better at jumping out of the way of things has the same "save vs. traps" as a dex based fighter. Sure the dexy fighter (DF) should be better at jumping out of the way as a non-dex fighter (SF), but the DF shouldn't be just as good as a rogue of the same level. I goes beyond that, all the saves are about the same, here's an example: Larry, Rogue 6, dex 18, save 14, adjusted dex based save 11 Fred, Commoner 1, dex 8, save 16, ADBS 17 So under your system a below average commoner at one 6th the level of a rogue is just 30% less likely to make a save? Under 3.x the difference is huge a whooping 50%. It's hard to see how you can have much difference in saves in a party, where everyone is the same level and will probally have stats at least near one and another. With such a lack of diversity why not just assing a saving throw target number to each PC at charecter creation and regardless of stat, level or class it is what the PC needs to roll, it would be easier for newbies to understand;) Well, those are the more abstract gripes about the system, none of them are immidiate "game breakers" but they do pile up and make one wonder if it really is an improvement. While the 3.x rules might not be satifactory, this feels more like a step backwards in innovation than a step forward. I would be be more apt to remove saving throws all together and make them ability checks, but then comes the difficulty of rebalencing the save DCs.....