To actually address something related to the OP's point, however, I agree that 3.5e has "too many rules." Having a sub-ruleset for everything is wonky and painful - sure, you *can* learn all of it, but do you get any value out of that?
…
It's also very unhelpful to go in with the "Well then maybe you'd like Castles & Crusades instead!" You can want the variety of options that 3.5e gives you without needing them to be built cruftily.
Ernest, it sounds like you understand and share my aim at a point. I don’t want to bring decadence in D&D but to see it be revived in a better shape than before. Don’t hesitate to share more ideas about simplicity of that kind inside this thread.
By the way I’ve linkified your web address here:microlite20-beauty-in-terseness
However, the people giving the rules away aren’t trying to sell products. Again perhaps, a rules-lite version of Pathfinder might ultimately drive more sales of adventures or even the full version.
I’m quite more sold to that thought. If not, Paizo efforts in PFRPG will be irrelevant. It is even true for any kind of rules they would publish: if they don’t improve the sales of their other Pathfinder products by it that is a flop IMHO.
Two of you addresses linkified jdh417:Basic Fantasy
OSRIC
To be clear, I don'tpromote or even think/pretend these alternate rules proposed by Ernest and jdh417 are the aim I ask for in my plea. However, this efforts show how it is sounded to work for an PFRPG as efficient in Simplicity than in other ways.
Be creative
Thanks for the link Ernest. I’m looking over Microlite20 right now.
Here’s a couple of others:
Basic Fantasy
www.basicfantasy.orgOSRIC
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/It occurs to me that it would perhaps not be in Paizo’s best interests to produce a rules-lite fantasy game, given that they would be competing with people who are giving away basically the same product for free.
However, the people giving the rules away aren’t trying to sell products. Again perhaps, a rules-lite version of Pathfinder might ultimately drive more sales of adventures or even the full version.
Or maybe the simplicity focus should be on just making specific complex rules and situations less onerous in Pathfinder.
That's what I'd suggest. Not "fewer" options, classes, spells - that's what's frustrating to me about C&C, it's too much like 1e in that there's not enough "to do". (I'm no "yay let's go back to 1e" kind of guy - I happily moved from 1e to 2e, and then from 2e to 3e.) I'm just talking about making those options cleaner, no mini-rulesets, consistency where possible. A simple example is cleaning up all the trip/disarm/bull rush rules so they work exactly the same. Same number of options, but streamlined complexity.
In this post I complete the simplified “Acting“ rules description I started in another post above.
Surprise!
When you are surprised you are not allowed to take any but Reflexes action (Saving Throw).
The mix of Initiative & Acting presented before is useful to track the rounds and the actions in a very simple way. It will be even better if you prepare the initiative chart(s) before the game. It is now possible because we don’t have to bother with Initiative roll and delayed / readied action.
Your chart should have 4 main columns.
A is for Player and Monster ID
B is for Player and Monster Initiative
C is for Max number of actions (usually 2) / Max number of reactive (usually 1)
D is for the action count with these symbols:
/ = no action (when surprised)
! = proactive
? = reactive
Repeat column D for each subsequent round.
Be creative.
I have put together my posts of this thread which are dealing with alternate rules to streamline a 3.x D&D IMHO. I have also corrected some flaws and typos to make it clearer.
You can have a look on the (temporary) result at A plea for Simplicity - Alternate rules suggestions
It looks like not a lot of you have made some comment on that stuff... Is something wrong about sharing that kind of ideas here ?
Be creative
I see PFRPG as simplifying the bsic rules of the game, especially involving combat actions, whcih seem more intuitive than ever. I do not however see them toning down the options for characters; this is a good thing. Numerous choices allows for wonderful and varied customization while meaning that little new knowledge is needed by starting players. Once someone learns to use feats, they don't need a new mechanc for every feat, te bonuses tend to be fairly self explanitory.
So here's how I see it...
Complex Basic rules: Bad
Complex choices built on simpler rules: Good
So here's how I see it...
Complex Basic rules: Bad
Complex choices built on simpler rules: Good
I have exactly the same feeling too. Thanks for your comment.
I move forward a little bit more my crusade for Simplicity in violating a sacred D&D taboo: … the AC.
In this – again long post – I propose an alternative rule which streamlined the game but without expecting to reduce dice roll or (basic) calculation involved in the Hit process.
I explain first, and IMHO, how to reconsider AC in its two basic components so that the game becomes more instinctive. The AC is a mix of active and passive defence. It is sounded that the passive defence should be subtracted to the damages and not to the hit. About the active defence we can imagine it like a manoeuvre to be safe from an attempt to hit you. So this one has to act against the hit chance, and more, it is a saving throw type of thing.
The new AC (nAC) definition
It is a not rolled save and so consider it at 10. To that 10 are added:
1 – actual / current Reflexes Save modifier
2 – modifier from class abilities, feats, skills and magical effect which are applying only on nCA
3 – modifier from shield or spell-shield effect
Note: all the spells, effects, modifiers which apply to Reflexes will also apply on nAC by design. It is worth to recall a nAC is a Saving-Throw type thing here. The limits (in DEX) which can affect Reflexes Save because of the armour will also be detrimental to the nAC. Each enhancement to a shield is a direct enhancement to nAC. As usual bonuses coming from a same type of effect don’t stack.
The new DR (nDR) definition
To take care of the passive defence we define the nDR – please note that nDR is not supposed to be compatible with the actual DR / …. of the 3.5 Ed.
The nDR is subtracted to any damage but the continuous damages and the falling damages. It is:
1 – brought by a vestment or a protection – or a spell like – we call an armour nDR
2 – brought by a natural toughness – or a spell like – of the creature hide we call a natural armour nDR
Note: All the enhancement to an armour give a 1 for 1 nDR bonus. For conversion purpose and compatibility with weapon damages it is worth to calculate the nDR of any armour like halve (rounded up) of the AC bonus given by 3.5 Ed. – I fully catch that it means we have always two armours with same nDR but I think the differences in between armours can also be implemented thanks to other factors than nDR.
A very resistant material like adamantine add a flat +2 to the nDR of an armour. You should halve the natural armour AC modifier calculated like we do for armour.
As usual, bonuses coming from a same type of effect don’t stack.
Conversion and Compatibility
Compatibility with the 3.5 can only come from a conversion. Luckily is quite a basic process to do. The main stream is:
a – to calculate the nAC with 3.5 Reflexes mod + Shield (if any) + other related feats which apply,
b – to calculate the nDR with {halve of (3.5 natural armour mod – 3.5 Reflexes mod)} + armour nDR (or like).
What about the 3.5 Ed DR ?
If it is a DR / - then you can definitely add it straight to the nDR. For those DR with / something, I guess it can be addressed like the invulnerability to all but something. It is a basic rule but it has a lot of flavour to make some enemies very frightful. I do prefer having a lycanthrope immune to all but silver for example.
If you are not pleased with this you can either keep the DR rule of 3.5 but it will add a lot of complexity with quite few advantages IMO (like it does actually).
Side note: A very important rule to implement with the nDR is that the critical roll always goes through it. It gives a streamlined and natural rule for critical hit. You have no longer to confirm your critical. If it’s a critical but not a hit then you dont take care of the nDR and deal with regular damages, if it is a critical and a hit then you apply the critical effect on damage and don't consider the nDR.
I hope some of you are still with me and find some interesting ideas here. Your feed back is welcome guys.
I have put together my posts of this thread which are dealing with alternate rules to streamline a 3.x D&D IMHO. I have also corrected some flaws and typos to make it clearer.
You can have a look on the (temporary) result at A plea for Simplicity - Alternate rules suggestions
Be creative