|
After spending the last few weeks reading the various threads on 3.x problems and 4th ed rumours, I have decided to play around with the rules a bit for my next campaign (ROTR actually).
Here's what I'm doing:
Feats at odd levels instead of every 3rd (yes, fighters get one at every level, but don't double up at 6th and 12th). This is to give other characters a chance to break free of the standard feat paths.
150% Base Skills. ie Clerics get 3+Int/level, Rogues get 12+Int. The extra skill points can only be chosen from a list given by me at each level, based on character actions and role-playing needs.
I'm also looking at trying out some of the Death and Dying variants suggested in the 4th Ed area.
What are others planning? Any input?
ps In the interest of disclosure, I'm not particularly keen on a new edition, but recognize that no system is perfect, especially for a broad audience. Of my 3 groups totalling 16 players, only 2 have expressed interest in 4th ed (in the same group).
If (a BIG if) I were to run D&D again, I would make the following changes:
1) PHB only.
2) Attack Option: One Big Swing - As a Full-Attack Action, for every attack you elect not to take, you gain additional damage equal to the weapon type.
Example: Boris Backbreaker caries a Great Axe and has a BAB of +11, giving him three attacks at +11/+6/+1 (we’ll ignore all the other modifiers for this example). Boris knows his opponent is both difficult to strike and has a lot of stay power (hit points), so he elects to make only one attack at +11. If he hits, he will deal his normal damage (1d12 plus modifiers, plus 2d12 for the attacks he had foregone. As a side effect, you’d be amazed at how fast combat might flow when implemented.
3) Power Attack: 1 BAB for 1 damage, one handed or two. Give the guy with a shield a reason to live.
4) Limited Spell Selections: Not all spells are available from the PHB. Those that remain may have their spell levels modified. Other spells (polymorph, alter self, shapechange) will work exactly as the spell was intended to, no more, no less.
5) Active Defense: Perhaps the most radical change to the game is an active defense. That is, no more AC. Someone attacks, you dodge, parry, block (gives the guy with a shield a reason to live – see #3), resist, or give, all requiring a roll. Depending on how ambitious I am, there may be new attack options available as well. (This combat system, tried and true from our home grown roleplaying games Transformers and Marvel Super Heroes, would be used as a model).
6) Critical Hit Charts: This is a component of #5 above.
These are just a few of the changes I have in mind, and truth be told, I have a gaming system that does all of the above without conversion, so I don’t really see a need for conversion. The question is really whether players would want to play with these constraints. Time will tell.
One thing is certain: I’ll never run a RAW game again.
These are the variant rules I have been considering adopting for some time now. First, the easy ones:
*No Alignment
For me, this one's a no-brainer. Sure, some acts are irredeemably vile or diabolical. Some are unquestionably beatific. Most fall into a murky middle. Plus, it completely ignores the fact that pretty much everybody is the good guy in their own head. Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin all thought they were right. None of them thought of themselves as EEEEEVIILLL.
*Streamlined Skill List
Things like combining Spot and Listen into Perception, and Hide and Move Silently into Stealth. Plus, doing away with cross class skills altogether.
*Armor as DR
I actually don't feel very strongly about this one, I just have a preference for Armor as DR. Shields would add to your defense bonus. Which brings us to...
*Opposed Combat Rolls
Instead of attacking a static AC, attack rolls would be opposed checks against a defense roll. Melee attacks would be melee attack roll v. melee defense, and ranged attacks would be ranged attack roll v. Reflex save or some other dodge roll. And since we're on the subject of attack and defense rolls...
*Skill Based Attack and Defense
Instead of being based on class and level, Attack and Defense are bought up like skills.
Now those are the variants I consider the easiest to implement and easiest to convince D&D players to try. The rest are a little more complicated on both counts:
*No More Vancian Magic
I'm not terribly fond of mana point based systems either. I have a few ideas for a completely home brewed system, skill check based, with feats defining how you use magic, and probably without a spell list. I haven't ever figured out exactly what I do want from a magic system, but that's a subject for another day.
*No More Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, or Half-Anythings
Believe it or not, I actually have high fantasy stories I want to tell that don't involve elves and dwarves and hobbits split into to two different kind-of-like-a-hobbit-but-not-really races.
*No More Hit Points
It's okay. Take a deep breath. There's a few more doozies coming. Pace yourself. I'd replace hit points with a descriptive condition/status track. This complicates using Armor as DR, but I'll worry about that after get the No More Hit Points thing figured out.
*No More Classes
Yep. I keep kicking around the idea of getting rid of classes altogether, and instead have characters defined through a greatly expanded and reworked feat/talent tree system. Guess what's stopping me from doing this yet. Go on. Guess.
*No More Levels
Point system for character generation, and point system for character improvement. All sub-systems (skills, feat/talent trees, ability scores, saves) have an increasing point cost system, so the better you get at something, the more expensive it becomes to improve.
And there's other little tweaks I would include with that - getting rid of the Magic Item Christmas Tree factor, nixing grappling for something much simpler... But really, what real D&D player would still be listening/reading at this point? I doubt I'd be able to convince my players to give all this a try, and besides, I really don't know when I'll find the time to actually type out all this home brewed crunch.
It's too bad. If I could get all these rules hammered out, or find a system (based on the d20 mechanic, mind you) that achieves all of these goals, I think it would be my dream system.
LOL
I think Sean hit on some of the other ideas I had in changing 3.X. No hit points is pretty radical, though. Most of the game systems I have or have played use hit points, only a handful did not including any d6/d10 system (WEG Star Wars d6 and Whitewolf games d10), James Bond 007, the Marvel Super Heroes card-based roleplaying game and Paranoia.
Star Wars uses a condition track. I wouldn't use it verbatim, but it might get you on track. It doesn't quite work for Star Wars because you still have hit points which means now you've got two things tokeep track of instead of one.
LOL
I think Sean hit on some of the other ideas I had in changing 3.X. No hit points is pretty radical, though. Most of the game systems I have or have played use hit points, only a handful did not including any d6/d10 system (WEG Star Wars d6 and Whitewolf games d10), James Bond 007, the Marvel Super Heroes card-based roleplaying game and Paranoia.
Star Wars uses a condition track. I wouldn't use it verbatim, but it might get you on track. It doesn't quite work for Star Wars because you still have hit points which means now you've got two things tokeep track of instead of one.
I'm not entirely sold on doing away with hit points. As I said, it seriously complicates wanting to use Armor as DR rules, but it has a lot of advantages going for it, not the least being that less point by point bookkeeping would help speed combat. There was a damage track system for a European horror roleplaying game called Kult (that I still have an English rulebook for) that I liked a lot. Probably wouldn't be too hard to port to d20.
If I kept hit points, I would probably use something like CON for starting HP, and while you can buy up HP somewhat, it would generally be a pretty small number all the way through the life of a character.
Really? I think I'm trying to synthesize d20, GURPS, Runequest and Shadowrun into my perfect system.
Yeah, hi. My name is Sean, and I'm a gameaholic.
We've been using simplified skill lists and we just started using the death/dying rules wotc put out. I like it.
|
|
*Lots of Cool Ideas*
Ah...
To clarify, I originally intended this thread to be about ways to tweak your existing 3.x campaigns, so that you could continue playing them as 3.x, while eliminating some of the flaws of the system.
Some really good ideas, Sean. I've often thought about running strictly human campaigns myself.
No Alignment
I completely agree with Sean here. I have been ignoring it since Basic anyway.
Streamlined Skill List
Personally, I like options. I do see the advantages of a streamlined list, though.
Armor as DR
Again, I completely agree. Armor Class destroyed my immersion every time someone attacked a dragon with a dagger.
Opposed Combat Rolls
Pretty much most of the other systems I have played do this. I find players enjoying having some control over their own destiny even if it is illusionary.
Skill Based Attack and Defense
Agreed again. Combat should be treated just like any other skill. If you want to be a fighter, you train in combat skills. If you want to be a thief, you train in stealth. If you want to be good at both, you simply divide your resources between the two. In my opinion, simple, elegant and immersive or, if you prefer the catchphrase of the day…realistic.
No More Vancian Magic
Alright, out of my head!
No More Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, or Half-Anythings
I disagree here, although I would tone them down some. Why are there even humans if ever single other race is better at everything? I prefer point buy systems where all those exotic races have to pay for all those neat-o cool abilities while the humans just pump more into skills. Serves you right, you pointy eared freaks.
No More Hit Points
I really like this idea. I like what Green Ronin has done with this idea.
No More Classes
O.k. Are you one of my aliases?
No More Levels
Without classes, where would you have levels? I think skills would need levels unless you have some kind of concept to eliminate the need for skill levels. I would be very curious to see that.
I consider those just tweaks to 3.5! That would make it my personal D&D 3.Ultimate.
I'll pick up a 4e PHB and try it out, but while it sounds like it might do some things I want, others not so much. I'm hoping I can port the good bits back to 3.5. I don't care what the 4e designers say about being able to convert between systems, I've been doing this long enough to know that anything can be ported to anything if you're creative, bored, and have the spare time.
|
*No Alignment*Streamlined Skill List
*Armor as DR
*Opposed Combat Rolls
*Skill Based Attack and Defense
*No More Vancian Magic
*No More Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, or Half-Anythings
So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore? Just some sort of d20-based fantasy game? I mean, at least to my eyes, stripping out all of that renders it just a 20-sided die based game. True20 is closer to D&D than what you describe, and it's a completely different game. If that's the kind of game you want to play, hey, more power to you, but can you even really get away with calling it D&D if you make all those changes?
My completely opinion-derived point aside, I do agree with you on simplifying the skill lists. I'm finishing up DMing Age of Wyrms right now and dealing with 21st level Rogue-ish characters is insane when it comes to their skill lists. "Yeah, you have 288 skill points to distribute. Show your math." I can also see a point to dropping all alignments other than "Exalted" and "Vile". It's a change from D&D canon, but not one that really damages the game, as far as I can see. And not just because I have a paladin, a troubadour of stars, a vow of poverty warforged monk, and a rogue/shadowbane stalker in my game either... (All 4 can detect evil at will.)
So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore?
How do you define D&D? I define it as High Fantasy, so all of those rules changes still fit.
*No Alignment*Streamlined Skill List
*Armor as DR
*Opposed Combat Rolls
*Skill Based Attack and Defense
*No More Vancian Magic
*No More Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, or Half-Anythings
So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore? Just some sort of d20-based fantasy game? I mean, at least to my eyes, stripping out all of that renders it just a 20-sided die based game. True20 is closer to D&D than what you describe, and it's a completely different game. If that's the kind of game you want to play, hey, more power to you, but can you even really get away with calling it D&D if you make all those changes?
I really like a lot of your ideas Sean. In fact i've looked at stripping away the idea of levels and classes and just making everything feats and skills that can be bought with experience. But I have to agree with Kvatum, with all the tweaks you want to make it really becomes an entirely different system (and i'm not at all opposed to that)
That being said. IF you can find a copy of it, the d20 version of "A Game of Thrones" has a combat variant that does nearly what you want (with the exception of making combat a skill): Armor acts as DR, characters make opposed defense checks with their dex and shields giving them a bonus. There are a couple of other things involved with combat -fatigue rolls, and taking wounds- that i also really like. All in all combat is a lot more taxing and lethal for the characters in that system, though there's certainly stuff you can take and leave from it. Only problem is, "A Game of Thrones" d20 is out of print. And it's going for more than the original price (which was a hefty $50 new). But if you can find a copy, or know some one who has one, definitely check it out.
So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore? Just some sort of d20-based fantasy game? I mean, at least to my eyes, stripping out all of that renders it just a 20-sided die based game. True20 is closer to D&D than what you describe, and it's a completely different game. If that's the kind of game you want to play, hey, more power to you, but can you even really get away with calling it D&D if you make all those changes?
I don't know. I was just describing 3.5 rules tweaks I've considered adopting.
I might still call it D&D. You probably wouldn't. And probably most other D&D players wouldn't. Is it important who calls what what?
Wow.
4e has convinced me to reinstate some older rules not adopt the new ones. It made me realize that I don't like high fantasy. At least not on a regular basis.
I like sword and sorcery better. My variant rules (all being compiled at the moment and then possible released as per The Tequila Sunrise Tome of Collected House Rules and Variants) reflect my desire to reduce reliance on magic items, make the world more gritty, get rid of racial gods, etc.
Things inspired(ish) from 4E: Possibly optional armour AC & DR and reducing magic items (though more then WotC seems to want to). That is all so far.
IF you can find a copy of it, the d20 version of "A Game of Thrones" has a combat variant that does nearly what you want (with the exception of making combat a skill): Armor acts as DR, characters make opposed defense checks with their dex and shields giving them a bonus. There are a couple of other things involved with combat -fatigue rolls, and taking wounds- that i also really like. All in all combat is a lot more taxing and lethal for the characters in that system, though there's certainly stuff you can take and leave from it. Only problem is, "A Game of Thrones" d20 is out of print. And it's going for more than the original price (which was a hefty $50 new). But if you can find a copy, or know some one who has one, definitely check it out.
Sitting right here on my gaming shelf. Quite the purchase, that. Though I managed to get it with a 30% discount, so I didn't have to pay the full cover price.
And yes, it's one of the main references I've been using as a model for some of my changes. I don't want combat to be quite as brutal and deadly as in GoT. They were trying to mimic the swift brutality of combat from the books, and the books were trying to be very realistic about actual combat with armor and swords.
I do still want to play a fantasy game, after all. Just with a little more combat realism.
IF you can find a copy of it, the d20 version of "A Game of Thrones" has a combat variant that does nearly what you want (with the exception of making combat a skill): Armor acts as DR, characters make opposed defense checks with their dex and shields giving them a bonus.
G.U.R.P.S., Heroes and True20 also do most of the things Sean is suggesting.
Armor as DR
Vitality and Wound Points
Also useful:
Reputation
Honor
G.U.R.P.S., Heroes and True20 also do most of the things Sean is suggesting.
I like GURPS, but it's almost too dry and technical, especially when it comes to magic (or super powers, but thank the gawds it's not Champions comlicated!). I also miss the ability to gain iterative attacks as you improve, when I play GURPS.
Although, another rule tweak I would consider adopting for 3.5 is to remove automatic iterative attacks, and make you have to buy them through feats, to help keep it under control. I'd also use tight weapon group proficiencies.
One of the main reasons I like d20 is that it GURPSifies D&D. It makes it possible to do all kinds of settings and genres, not just the basic world presented in the 3.x PHB. That's basically the main selling point of 3.x, isn't it?
Unfortunately, some of the stories I want to tell and involve the players in require whole new ways of thinking about your character and her relationship to the world, magic, religion, gods, monsters, and even economics that I promise you are just not possible under the existing system of classes, levels, alignment, magic, religion, gods, monsters and even economics.
But in my head, they're still D&D games.
Okay, WOW! I'll stop jacking the thread now. Promise.
So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore?How do you define D&D? I define it as High Fantasy, so all of those rules changes still fit.
I swear I had this same phone conversation one hour ago about the topic: "Do levels and classes define D&D?"
I'd also use tight weapon group proficiencies.
IF you can find a copy of it, the d20 version of "A Game of Thrones" has a combat variant that does nearly what you want (with the exception of making combat a skill): Armor acts as DR, characters make opposed defense checks with their dex and shields giving them a bonus.G.U.R.P.S., Heroes and True20 also do most of the things Sean is suggesting.
I'm familiar with GURPS, though i'm not particularly thrilled with the system though. I don't know Heroes at all, though I've seen some very good things on these boards about it. True20 is actually the next rules set that I intend to pick up (well Shadowrun 4th Edition, because I'm currently playing in a Shadowrun game).
I really the changes to combat in "A Game of Thrones" overall, I too would probably not adopt all of the changes as I like the characters to survive.
Next time I start a game (which may be soon. I'm guaging if I can support DMing a PbP with my schoolwork), I'll be using thise rules:
SRD-only. Splatbook feats and PrCs at special request. No splat-book races or base classes, period.
No PC half-races.
Armor as DR.
Weapon groups.
Cleric spontaneous domains (no spont. cures)
A spell-point/vancian homebrew magic system I'm working on now, inspired by discussions on CourtFool's Vancian thread.
Cleric spontaneous domains (no spont. cures)
Whats wrong with the spontaneous cures?
If you do not like G.U.R.P.S., you probably would not like Hero. They are very similar. Of course it depends on why you do not like G.U.R.P.S. I have also been very intrigued by True20. Although I think I would see about using Mutants & Masterminds with some tweaks before I would try True20.
A spell-point/vancian homebrew magic system I'm working on now, inspired by discussions on CourtFool's Vancian thread.
How dare you use my obvious trolling for good!?
|
I might still call it D&D. You probably wouldn't. And probably most other D&D players wouldn't. Is it important who calls what what?
It is if someone agrees to join your D&D game, drives 20 miles to your house, to tell you about his character that he's plotted out for 20 levels, and you stop him with "Aah. Hmmm. Did I forget to tell you about my homebrew system?".
It is if someone agrees to join your D&D game, drives 20 miles to your house, to tell you about his character that he's plotted out for 20 levels, and you stop him with "Aah. Hmmm. Did I forget to tell you about my homebrew system?".
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't do that. 'Cause, you know... not a d!@#.
If and when I ever do get around to hammering out my full homebrew rules, I'd show them to my players and ask if they wanted to play. I've already discussed some ideas with them, so they wouldn't be a total surprise or anything.
...drives 20 miles to your house...
Do I smell a personal experience here?
|
|
Skill Based Attack and Defense
Agreed again. Combat should be treated just like any other skill. If you want to be a fighter, you train in combat skills.
Isn't this what already happens?
Melee attack is a STR-based skill.Ranged and Finesse based attack is a DEX-based skill.
Warriors get 1 free rank in each skill every level.
Rogues and cleric-types get 3 free ranks in each skill every 4 levels.
Wizard-types get 1 free rank in each skill every 2 levels.
If you want to emphasize defense, you can drop 4 from your attack bonus, to increase your defence by 2.
If you have 5 ranks of Tumble, you can drop 4 from your attack to raise your defence by 3.
If you have Expertise, you can freely swap them 1-for-1 (up to +/-5).
TA-DA!
Isn't this what already happens?
Melee attack is a STR-based skill.
Ranged and Finesse based attack is a DEX-based skill.Warriors get 1 free rank in each skill every level.
Rogues and cleric-types get 3 free ranks in each skill every 4 levels.
Wizard-types get 1 free rank in each skill every 2 levels.If you want to emphasize defense, you can drop 4 from your attack bonus, to increase your defence by 2.
If you have 5 ranks of Tumble, you can drop 4 from your attack to raise your defence by 3.
If you have Expertise, you can freely swap them 1-for-1 (up to +/-5).TA-DA!
I don't like the way the values are locked to your class choice. It's one of the things that makes multiclassing not work as well as it could or should.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Wow, lots of those changes look to be complete variants, and not strongly based on what we've seen of 4E so far. As for the original question, I'm only using 2 things so far.
4E toughness feat - 3hp + 1hp/level and eliminating the improved toughness feat, since it is now part of the main toughness feat.
A variant on the new Death and dying rules recently previewed.
Cleric spontaneous domains (no spont. cures)Whats wrong with the spontaneous cures?
Nothing, inherently. But the point of Sponanteous Domain casting is to make Clerics of different Gods feel different. Since you have two domains, that's already more versatility than the cleric gets with cure spells. If you want Spontaneous Curing, take the Healing Domain. You still have a whole domain left over. To balance that, you lose the domain slot. (Which you don't need anymore anyway.)
Now, I just need to figure out how to make 'Turn Undead' differ between gods.
I don't like the way the values are locked to your class choice. It's one of the things that makes multiclassing not work as well as it could or should.
If you fix fractions, it gets better. Under RaW, a Wiz1/Rog1 has an attack bonus of 0, worse than either class. With fractions, a Wiz1/Rog1 has an attack bonus of 3/4 + 1/2 = 5/4, which rounds down to 1, which is more fair. Similarly, a Clr2/Mnk2 would have a +2 bonus under RaW, worse than either class. With fractions, he has a +3, which is appropriate, since that's the progression those classes share.
If I ran a D&D game right now, I'd probably homebrew the following changes in:
-No Favored Class (they're for NPCs and tell the player what kind of society that race generally has)
-1 extra skill point beyond what the book says.
I think that's good.
It is if someone agrees to join your D&D game, drives 20 miles to your house, to tell you about his character that he's plotted out for 20 levels, and you stop him with "Aah. Hmmm. Did I forget to tell you about my homebrew system?".Well, yeah, but I wouldn't do that. 'Cause, you know... not a d!@#.
If and when I ever do get around to hammering out my full homebrew rules, I'd show them to my players and ask if they wanted to play. I've already discussed some ideas with them, so they wouldn't be a total surprise or anything.
Full disclosure is always the best policy.
That said, its my experience that makes me wary of a gamer who desires to play the game by the rules as written.
As with any set of rules that has ever, ever passed into my or my group's hands, 3.5 has been steadily bent, twisted and hammered into what I consider an improved state (though compared to most 3.5 started from a mechanically superior start).
Stuff we've had in from the beginning are things like off-hand weapons doing full Str bonus.
We have a long list of houserules (my newest campaign Dreemaenhyll has kasquillions); mostly, the changes are things like buffing the Fighter (feat evey level, special Fighter class only boosts to some feats) and other, weaker classes.
Dreemaenhyll replaces the front end vancian casting with Mana Points which allow it to come a little closer to 'per encounter' and getting a feel for magic that's closer to every magic system I've encountered outside of D&D. (This is a relatively simple conversion, since it leaves the spells intact, whilce only changing slightly how many you get per day.) I've started attempts on removing flat + item bonuses by intergrating them into level progression and reducing numerical reliance on magic items (I think not unlike 4E is attempting to do). First test of this went fine, though the level based AC may need some fine tuning. Dree chucked out the entire MM, and I have been reimaging the entire bestiary from first principles (with some Tolkien thrown in, naturally).
In the unlikely event I do anything more with 4E than steal the best bits (XP, maneuvers to retrofit and improve fighters along with any other good ideas they have), that too will eventully - or more likely in the first five minutes - be tweaked and modified.
No set of rules shall ever be RAW while I stand by (heck, not even the ones I WRITE MYSELF survive without out of RAW tweaks! Seriously!)
I'm not sure what the 4e changes will be, but I have a partial list of houserules I plan on using the next time I GM a 3.x adventure or campaign:
Static XP as per UA - each CR = a fixed value; PC XP chart is bigger.
(Is 4e going back to this too?)
+2 Skill Points for every class.
No more class skills, cross class skills - you pick what you want 1 for 1.
Bards have the same number of spells known, but double the times per day. (Maybe only bump up a little...on the fence on this one).
Combined similar skills ala Mutants and Masterminds: Notice, Stealth
Triple HD as HP at 1st level ala Saga Star Wars.