D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[LostSoul]

That is a somewhat circular statement. If they have a desirable quality, e.g. they help produce a desirable feel in the game, then they are not by definition sacred cows... tehy are useful components.

I was trying to point out that the "sacred cows" are not necessary to provide the feel that is associated with D&D.

In my opinion.

 

[Sulimo]

IMHO, ultimately RM is the better game, because it allows me to play a grittier style that I prefer. But the change of pace that D&D has brought will be an absolute ball for the two or three years that the campaign runs, before I return to my trusty RM.

Yeah. Thats why I'm glad 3e kept the super-heroic feel where you have warriors mowing down vast hordes of monsters. When I want that style of game I play that, and when I want to go back to my normal grittier game I return (and have just recently, albeit using Scarred Lands as a setting) to my beloved Rolemaster.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Alternate Grim-N-Gritty Rules

Okay, how about this for a quick and easy compromise grim-n-gritty, combat is deadly type of game?

Everything in the game stays the same, except:

Hit Points = CON + Class HD (at 1st level only, maxed) + size modifier + Toughness feats + misc. modifiers.

NOTE: CON modifier is not added to HP, just Fort saves/skills/ability checks. You may only take the Toughness feat once per level, and not more times than your CON modifier (so a PC with an 18 CON could take Toughness four times).

You only get class HD as a 1st level character, so the type of class you start in determines how many extra HP you get for the rest of your character's life.

Assuming a CON score of 10 with no toughness feats:
The average commoner, sorcerer or wizard will have 14 hit points.
The average expert, rogue or bard will have 16 hit points.
The average warrior, cleric or druid will have 18 hit points.
The average fighter, paladin, ranger will have 20 hit points.
The average barbarian will have 22 hit points.

The max hit points anyone could probably have at 1st level would be a human barbarian with one toughness feat and an 18 CON. He would have 33 hit points (18 CON + 12 HP + 3 from Toughness).

When you level, you gain class features as normal, except no new hit points are rolled.

Magic damage would not scale per level to account for the lower hit points, so a fireball or lightning bolt would only ever do 5d6 damage. Spells that give you extra attacks at higher levels (like magic missile) would still gain the extra attacks, but not any increase in base damage.

Armor provides AC as normal 3e.

Any thoughts on this? It seems even easier to implement than the VP/WP mechanics...

 

[UnDfind]

Customizable classes

Well, if you're doing a conversion and not creating an entirely new game, the customizing thing brings about a little difficulty (unless you want to spend the time to break up all abilities and give them ratings). My suggestion for greater customization in D+D would be to come up with an experience/purchase system.

Characters create a character as normal. When they reach 1,000 xp, they do not automatically gain a level. Instead, xps are saved until the player decides to trade them in for stuff.

Cost...................................Benefit

xp for next level.................Gain another class level*

xp for next level/3**..........Gain either Save, class abilities, skill points, or Base Attack for next class level.

xp for next level/2**..........Gain HD roll and Skill points for next class level.

500***................................Extra feat


*Only this option may be used to determine true class and character level.

**all class benefits (abilities, base attack, saves, hd rolls, etc) that are gained without actually gaining the full level may only be applied to classes the character has at least one level in. When a class benefit is gained without raising the full level in that class, the character is considered to be a level higher in regards to the gained benefit only.

***The cost for feats doubles each time a feat is purchased (500 for 1st purchased feat, 1,000 for 2nd, 2,000 for 3rd. Feats and bonus feats are still gained for raising class and character levels as normal.


Yes it's quirky, confusing, and full questionable mechanics...but it might be a good start towards a more customizable D+D.

 

[LostSoul]

I wonder... has anybody thought of "stretching out" the level gains? So you wouldn't gain all your abilities in one, big lump; they'd trickle in, a little at a time.

I've thought about it, and I'm not sure how it would work (without changing anything else about the game). Of course I'd only apply it to PCs.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Re: Customizable classes

Yes it's quirky, confusing, and full questionable mechanics...but it might be a good start towards a more customizable D+D.

I appreciate the thought you put into this, but it seems too confusing, at least for the simple "fix" I'm looking for...

 

[hong]

First, no one ins Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is wearing plate armor -- or at least he never spells that out. He's pretty explicit about most warriors wearing mail (chain mail), and mithril mail seems top of the line.

To recap, this subthread started because I noted how most depictions of heroes in modern fantasy, and even in myth and legend, rarely feature them encumbered by heavy armour. The only people who wear plate tend to be the bad guys. What you are essentially saying is that yes, I'm right. So, thanks. I think.

(Although you are actually incorrect. In _The Return of the King_, Imrahil, prince of Dol Amroth, alerts the Rohirrim to the fact that Eowyn is still alive by pointing out the mist of her breath on his vambrace. So one good guy, at least, wears plate armour. However, Imrahil is at best a minor character, so the point still stands.)

Second, a knight is defined by his horse, at least historically. In most other languages this is pretty explicit: French - chevalier, Spanish - caballero, German - Ritter; they all mean "horseman" or "rider". And, of course, medieval heavy cavalry were shock troops in heavy armor wielding lances.

This would be relevant if we were talking about simulating history. However, we're not. You'll note that one of the examples I gave previously of mooks wearing armour was the stormtroopers in Star Wars.

 

[hong]

Which is more heroic, 50 hit points or 20 hit points and +10 Defense?

50 hit points.

All other things being equal, the system that minimises the influence of random chance on outcomes is more conducive to a heroic, kick-butt-and-take-names style of play. A system that replaces ablative hit points with a DR system risks getting bogged down in combats where neither side scores any hits for a long time, because the DR is enough to absorb 99% of all blows. Eventually one side gets a critical hit that bypasses DR, and kills the other guy outright.

This has the advantage of reminding super-high-level characters (or their equivalent) that they're still mortal, and even lowly mooks can take them out if they're not careful. It has the disadvantage of discouraging players from adopting the devil-may-care attitude that marks a "heroic" campaign.

 

[Psion]

Thank you Hong for so elegantly and precisely encapsulating my point whilst I was getting drug down in the rhetoric.

 

[LostSoul]

Thank you Hong for so elegantly and precisely encapsulating my point whilst I was getting drug down in the rhetoric.

Even though hit points "work" (and work really well), it doesn't mean that you couldn't improve on the existing mechanic, even if the improvement was as simple as offering alternate hit point systems.

I think it would be great if they offered a book stacked with "alternate rules" and some kind of system that rated the effects of each one.