A 3e revision drawing on 2e instead of 4e?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Howdy, all.

It seems everyone is making their own 3e revision these days. Most folks here and on other forums, when making their own personal 3e/d20 system, want to either go in an entirely new direction based on their own personal preferences or borrow a lot from 4e to make a 3.75 or the like. My group, however, has a few players (including myself) who've been playing since 1e and 2e, and most would like to see a bunch of 1e/2e elements put back into 3e; I figured that I'd work up a system for them and see what I end up with.

So the question is, what does everyone think good additions to 3e would be? If I'm bringing back 1e elements, I'm not going to make level limits and prime requisites my first priority. :smallwink: It's harder to do a direct translation than it is for 4e stuff, since the base system is radically different, but it should be doable. So far, things they've requested (in no particular order):

Only "martial" characters (fighters, paladins, monks, etc.) get multiple iterative attacks.
All iterative attacks can be made with a standard action.
Armor and shields work differently (no more max Dex for armors, proficiencies are changed, etc.).
Weapon proficiencies are rarer and harder to get.
A 3e-ish version of multiclassing exists (called dual-classing), to complement the 3e version of dual-classing (which 3e calls multiclassing).
Bonus types are condensed and simplified.
Resurrection is limited (you can't be rezzed an unlimited number of times).
The full cleric spell list is broken up into spheres.
Rangers get limited wizard casting in addition to limited druid casting.
Plentiful alternate class features bring back a version of kits.

What ideas does everyone else have? Do you see any problems with the above? All feedback is appreciated.

[SurlySeraph]

Only "martial" characters (fighters, paladins, monks, etc.) get multiple iterative attacks.

I don't think so. It is good for combat rogues to be viable, and it's nice for high-level wizards to be able to kick some ass physically, as well. With that said, it's not a terrible rule.


All iterative attacks can be made with a standard action.

Yes! This isn't crucial if you use Tome of Battle (since maneuvers make single attacks useful again), but it's still a good rule to use.


Armor and shields work differently (no more max Dex for armors, proficiencies are changed, etc.).
Weapon proficiencies are rarer and harder to get.


I'm not sure these are necessary, but they aren't game-ruiners.


A 3e-ish version of multiclassing exists (called dual-classing), to complement the 3e version of dual-classing (which 3e calls multiclassing).

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Don't bring back the 2E dual-classing/multi-classing system, though; making multi-classing less clunky was one of 3E's best features.


Bonus types are condensed and simplified.

Please.


Resurrection is limited (you can't be rezzed an unlimited number of times).

No. People get attached to their characters, especially if they've died and been resurrected, and arbitrarily saying "Whoops, you've died too many times, looks like the cleric can't raise you after all" is a good way to piss them off.


The full cleric spell list is broken up into spheres.

Yes.


Rangers get limited wizard casting in addition to limited druid casting.

Well, I have a massive and irrational love of necromancy-using rangers, so yes. It would be nice if they got enough spells per day for this to be actually helpful before high levels, though.


Plentiful alternate class features bring back a version of kits.

Yes. Alternate class features are awesome.

[Chronos]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Don't bring back the 2E dual-classing/multi-classing system, though; making multi-classing less clunky was one of 3E's best features.Exactly what I was going to say. My greatest joy on seeing 3e was the realization that someone had finally managed to make a multiclassing system that was actually sane. It's still got its flaws, as evidenced by what happens when you try to multiclass a spellcaster, but it makes far more sense, and causes far fewer headaches, than either of the 2e methods.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't think so. It is good for combat rogues to be viable, and it's nice for high-level wizards to be able to kick some ass physically, as well. With that said, it's not a terrible rule.

"Martial" characters would essentially include any nonspellcaster, so rogues would get iterative attacks as normal. This would basically serve to prevent clerics from buffing themselves to Baator and back and taking over the fighter's job, prevent druids from out-fighting martial types while wild shaped, etc.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Don't bring back the 2E dual-classing/multi-classing system, though; making multi-classing less clunky was one of 3E's best features.


Exactly what I was going to say. My greatest joy on seeing 3e was the realization that someone had finally managed to make a multiclassing system that was actually sane. It's still got its flaws, as evidenced by what happens when you try to multiclass a spellcaster, but it makes far more sense, and causes far fewer headaches, than either of the 2e methods.

The existing 3e multiclassing system would remain as-is (I agree with you that it's one of the best aspects of 3e). Multiclassing and gestalt are logical progressions of dual-classing and multieclassing anyway, so there's no reason to get rid of multiclassing.

Dual-classing would be added on as a lower-powered kinda-gestalt system, and would serve to make 75% of prestige classes (the mystic theurge/rage mage/eldritch knight "I want to make a character who can do two things well" ones) no longer necessary. The player who suggested it usually plays gish types, so I'm not sure he'd necessarily be fair and balanced when giving suggestions for those rules (:smallwink:), but I think it could be done.


No. People get attached to their characters, especially if they've died and been resurrected, and arbitrarily saying "Whoops, you've died too many times, looks like the cleric can't raise you after all" is a good way to piss them off.

I don't think I phrased this quite well--it's not necessarily a "You can be rezzed 7 times, and no more" kind of rule, but something closer to the old system shock idea, where resurrection is more uncertain and chanting for a while over some diamond dust isn't 100% guaranteed to bring you back.


Well, I have a massive and irrational love of necromancy-using rangers, so yes. It would be nice if they got enough spells per day for this to be actually helpful before high levels, though.

Well, of course if the spell selection were messed with the spells/day lineup would probably change as well. I'm thinking of having the ranger start gaining spells/day around 4th level but gain additional spell levels at the same rate as the wizard, capping out with 4th-level spells gained at 10th level.

----------------------------

Thanks for the quick feedback! Anyone have any additional ideas?

[Pronounceable]

Looks good. And jamming the revolving door to afterlife is great.

*Magic with REAL risks. "Teh win button" is the root of (almost) all problems in 3E.

*Different XP tables. Because 5 levels in fighter are not equal to 5 levels in wizard. Anyone claiming otherwise is wrong.

*Old initiative (that changes with weapon and casting speeds). Clunky, but (assuming it's streamlined somehow) awesome.

*Stop HP inflation of 3E.

*Keep 3E saves. And To Hit. [/obvious]

[MeklorIlavator]

One point about Theruge classes: while the older ones are obsoleted by this method, the more recent ones generally give useful bonuses/things not available elsewhere. A great example of this are the ones from Complete Mage. Of course, this might be rectified by having kits and the like.

[Draz74]

The full cleric spell list is broken up into spheres.

This one I'm particularly a big fan of. As long as it involves limiting how many spheres a divine caster can access. (Note than in 2e, the Druid "spell list" was just a different set of spheres to access than the Cleric.)

That said, if you don't want to have to go through every single divine spell in 3e and classify it, there are a couple things people have come up with that work in this direction anyway.

One is the Spontaneous Divine Casters variant in the SRD. Since divine casters there have limited spells known, but automatic knowledge of their Domain Spells, Domains suddenly become a large amount of the character's power.

Another is the Ardent class. Unless you're switching your magic system to psionics mechanics (which wouldn't be very 2e-ish), you can't just adopt and re-flavor the class, but at least it might give you some guidelines about how many Spheres a divine caster should have access to at different levels. (The Ardent picks 2 "spheres" to access to start out, and gains another at levels 2, 5, 10, and 15.)

[TheLash]

I just played 2ed D&D for the first time. I LOVE it. THAC0 is not hard to understand at all. However I do have a few players who have trouble with it.

I was thinking of ways of taking the best of second edition and making it my own with 3rd edition rules. I'm not to sure quite yet, but I have been kicking the idea around for about 2 days now.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

*Magic with REAL risks. "Teh win button" is the root of (almost) all problems in 3E.

I've been wondering how exactly I'd fix this problem. I was thinking of bringing back some system shock/aging drawbacks, but I'm not sure exactly how I'd implement them, given that no one seems to care about the age of their character anymore.


*Different XP tables. Because 5 levels in fighter are not equal to 5 levels in wizard. Anyone claiming otherwise is wrong.

Hmm...on the one hand, it's harder to do this now that there's a unified multiclassing system; on the other hand, I did like the way this differentiated classes. I'll see about that.


*Old initiative (that changes with weapon and casting speeds). Clunky, but (assuming it's streamlined somehow) awesome.

Rather than bringing back weapon/casting speeds for different weapons and spells, perhaps different types of weapons (light/one-handed/two-handed) and different levels of spells (0-3/4-6/7-8/9) give positive or negative initiative modifiers? So your shortsword-wielding rogue might have a +2 to initiative, the greataxe-wielding fighter gets a -1, and the caster whipping out a meteor swarm has a -4.


*Stop HP inflation of 3E.

I'm not sure if going back to the "1 HP and no Con from 10th on" model will work, but that's a good suggestion.


One point about Theruge classes: while the older ones are obsoleted by this method, the more recent ones generally give useful bonuses/things not available elsewhere. A great example of this are the ones from Complete Mage. Of course, this might be rectified by having kits and the like.

Well, the PrCs would still exist if you wanted to enter them, but for character whose entire purpose is being a fighter/wizard, you could start out that way instead of waiting to enter the PrC. I was thinking of folding theurge benefits into the dual-classing system--if you're, say, a druid//wizard, you automatically get Arcane Heirophant-type abilities. My ideas on this point aren't quite solid yet, so I'll see what happens when I actually get down to writing some of this up.


This one I'm particularly a big fan of. As long as it involves limiting how many spheres a divine caster can access. (Note than in 2e, the Druid "spell list" was just a different set of spheres to access than the Cleric.)

Yep. The whole point of the spheres is to break up the spell list so clerics don't know every single spell on it.


That said, if you don't want to have to go through every single divine spell in 3e and classify it, there are a couple things people have come up with that work in this direction anyway.

One is the Spontaneous Divine Casters variant in the SRD. Since divine casters there have limited spells known, but automatic knowledge of their Domain Spells, Domains suddenly become a large amount of the character's power.

I think clerics should still "know" each spell on their list, to differentiate them from arcanists, but the list should be much smaller. Think of it like taking a sorcerer and doubling the spells known, but deciding the character's spells known for him.


Another is the Ardent class. Unless you're switching your magic system to psionics mechanics (which wouldn't be very 2e-ish), you can't just adopt and re-flavor the class, but at least it might give you some guidelines about how many Spheres a divine caster should have access to at different levels. (The Ardent picks 2 "spheres" to access to start out, and gains another at levels 2, 5, 10, and 15.)

I'm thinking each deity would have 3-5 spheres granted, and you'd start out with minor access to one sphere chosen from those. As you level, you can either add another sphere with minor access, or increase your level of access to an existing sphere. If you worship Pelor and start out with a minor in Healing, you could either focus on healing by increasing your Healing access, then later on decide you want to go the undead-smiting route and add Holy with minor access.

Of course, this brings up some of the problems with spheres, namely that most PCs would want to pick up clerics with Healing. Some spells would still be universal and any clerics could access them; these would include the basic cure X wounds spells, with Healing granting access to things like restoration and the resurrection spells.

---------------------------

Great ideas; keep 'em coming. I'll work out some rules on the tricky issues (like dual-classing and weapon speeds) and post them here for review.

[lesser_minion]

Keep 3E saves. And To Hit. [/obvious]

I'm not seeing the 'obvious' there. Aside from changing AC to an ascending system, I would certainly not discourage using T.H.A.C.0. The only justification for not using it is because it is inconsistent with the 3e "roll d20, add bonuses and compare to target number".

I'm definitely in favour of cutting hitpoints for most characters. If you don't want to do 'no hit dice past 10th' then you could always just cut hit dice for everyone except the rogue and the bard.

I'd suggest looking back to 3.0 and 1e/OSRIC for possible inspiration regarding some spells. Not all changes are for the better.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm definitely in favour of cutting hitpoints for most characters. If you don't want to do 'no hit dice past 10th' then you could always just cut hit dice for everyone except the rogue and the bard.

I'm not necessarily against cutting them down past 10th level, I just haven't looked at the changes that would be needed to make that work. I'm fairly sure it could be done, but I don't want to finish everything up and then have things fall apart because I missed something.


I'd suggest looking back to 3.0 and 1e/OSRIC for possible inspiration regarding some spells. Not all changes are for the better.

Definitely. I have my 1e books here at college, so I've been browsing them the past few days looking for ideas, spells included.

[erikun]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that any 3e revision should be looking at both 4e and 2e for ways to improve the game. Contrary to the preceived popular opinion, not everything improved between 2e and 3.5e. :smallbiggrin: (Although quite a bit did.)



Only "martial" characters (fighters, paladins, monks, etc.) get multiple iterative attacks.

There are kind of two ways to handle this. One is the Tome of Battle/4e way, which gives fighters "neat" abilities to use in battle, which are stronger than the basic swing of a sword. The other is the 2e/3e system here, which gives iterative attacks. The plus of this one is that it's simplier, and makes combat quicker. The minus is that it makes fighters, well, dull. It's nice for the 2e "YOU ARE GOING TO DIE SOON" theme, but not popular with everyone.



Armor and shields work differently (no more max Dex for armors, proficiencies are changed, etc.).

Are you referring to 2e? Because only things like Mithral Elven Chain - a powerful magic item - granted full Dex bonus.



Weapon proficiencies are rarer and harder to get.

This is one where I preferred 3.5e to 2e. One the one hand, yeah, a fighter with a bastard sword was an impressive feat in 2e. On the other hand, saying "I use a sling because I can't figure out how to use a crossbow" felt rather silly.

That, and the "bludgeoning only for clerics" was just annoying to silly at times. So the cleric of the death god has to execute me with a cudgel?



The existing 3e multiclassing system would remain as-is (I agree with you that it's one of the best aspects of 3e). Multiclassing and gestalt are logical progressions of dual-classing and multieclassing anyway, so there's no reason to get rid of multiclassing.

Dual-classing would be added on as a lower-powered kinda-gestalt system.

Hmm, nice. With some minor tweaking to the base classes, multiclassing would go pretty smoothly. For example, wizards should still be capable spellcasters after multiclassing out, and a Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Ranger 1 should have the saves of a level 3 character, not +6 Fort and +0 Will.

The "low power gestalt" will be a lot tougher to implement, especially beside multiclassing. You'll need to consider what a Rogue/FighterMage Gestalt should reasonably be able to do/not do.



Resurrection is limited (you can't be rezzed an unlimited number of times).

If I recall, System Shock (your chance to survive large damage, or resurrection) was tied to your Con, which didn't change any when rezzed. A beginning 16 Con bumped this up to 100%, meaning you always rezzed. (Although it didn't help any when the party couldn't find your body afterwards.)



The full cleric spell list is broken up into spheres.

There are two ways to go about this. One is to make the cleric kind of like the 3.5e Psion - there is one basic spell list, then several spheres which only specific clerics could access. For example, all clerics could heal, ward, and pray. But only clerics of Pelor with the Sun sphere would have the undead-nuking Sunbeams and Flaming Brand, while clerics with the War sphere would have Battle Chants or enchanting weapons.

The other is what Draz74 touched upon, and make them like the 3.5e Ardent - each cleric only has spells from their sphere. While it makes the cleric amazingly versatile, the result might not look like a cleric at all. It is highly likely that you'll have a cleric who can't heal, can't buff, and can throw around fireballs like an armored wizard. Take consideration into which variant you want.



Rangers get limited wizard casting in addition to limited druid casting.

Ranger casting has always been an oddity to me - and this is from someone who prefers the Ranger/Mage. Yes, Aragon could cast spells, but I don't play a ranger just to Be Like Aragon. (I also don't play one to Be Like Drizzt, even if two-weapon fighting is kinda cool.)





Stop HP inflation of 3E.

I'm not sure if going back to the "1 HP and no Con from 10th on" model will work, but that's a good suggestion.

Gah, no. :smallfurious: Well, I suppose it could work, but still... gah, no!

The problem with 3e HP lies somewhere between the new stat-rolling method and the ability bonuses. In 2e, having a 16 Con granted you +2 HP each level, and that's the best you got. 15 Con was +1, and 14 Con gave you nothing. Warriors (Fighters, Paladins, Rangers) could get more with higher Con, but the other classes couldn't.

Plus, 3d6 doesn't give you many high rolls. 16 immediately got put into your high stat, not into Con for a measly +40 HP throughout your career. (Assuming you lived that long, which you won't.)

Stats are higher in 3.5e, with 4d6-drop-lowest or point buys. 16 is pretty common, and it's not surprising to see an 18 and 16 on most characters. Bonuses are a flat (stat/2 - 5) for all abilities, meaning that even 12 Con got you extra HP. Add to that the relatively common stat-boosting items, and it isn't too surprising to find everyone in the party with 20 Con. (+5 HP/level, +100 HP total!) Stopping HP growth at level 10 isn't really going to resolve that issue too much.

Oh, and this affected monsters, too. Just check out the HP on anything with 30+ Constitution.

....okay, I think I'm done ranting.



Plentiful alternate class features bring back a version of kits.[/list]

Kits are awesome, enough said. :smallbiggrin: Can be confusing for beginners, though.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

There are kind of two ways to handle this. One is the Tome of Battle/4e way, which gives fighters "neat" abilities to use in battle, which are stronger than the basic swing of a sword. The other is the 2e/3e system here, which gives iterative attacks. The plus of this one is that it's simplier, and makes combat quicker. The minus is that it makes fighters, well, dull. It's nice for the 2e "YOU ARE GOING TO DIE SOON" theme, but not popular with everyone.

One idea my players had is including a bunch of abilities that let you give up attacks to achieve something, like several of the fighter class features that let you make a single attack as a full-round action (instead of your normal 4 or 5) in exchange for increased damage, status effects, or other condition. That would allow you to have multiple attacks while providing a way to integrate maneuver-type abilities in with the core mechanics.


Are you referring to 2e? Because only things like Mithral Elven Chain - a powerful magic item - granted full Dex bonus.

Well, I was referring more to 2e weapon proficiencies (i.e., you get few of them, don't get them from multiclassing, and can get more benefits by spending more slots) than 2e max dex. To my recollection, however, 1e didn't really have a max dex system, and I'm including 1e inspirations as well as 2e.


This is one where I preferred 3.5e to 2e. One the one hand, yeah, a fighter with a bastard sword was an impressive feat in 2e. On the other hand, saying "I use a sling because I can't figure out how to use a crossbow" felt rather silly.

That, and the "bludgeoning only for clerics" was just annoying to silly at times. So the cleric of the death god has to execute me with a cudgel?

I was considering folding in some weapons groups rules, so you wouldn't be quite as limited as that, but I see what you mean. I just don't really like the idea of someone taking a single level of fighter and suddenly be proficient with every single simple and martial weapon.

As to the bladed weapons restriction...yeah, hated that too. They were trying to emulate Crusades-era Catholic monks (who weren't allowed to spill human blood), so I threw that out whenever the religion I used wasn't a monotheist and/or peaceful one.


The "low power gestalt" will be a lot tougher to implement, especially beside multiclassing. You'll need to consider what a Rogue/FighterMage Gestalt should reasonably be able to do/not do.

Well, if I recall correctly the 1e/2e multiclassing averaged everything out, whereas gestalt takes the better of the two HD, saves, BAB, etc. Taking the worse of the two classes' abilities might tone the power down sufficiently, though again this would have to go through extensive number-crunching before I posted anything.


If I recall, System Shock (your chance to survive large damage, or resurrection) was tied to your Con, which didn't change any when rezzed. A beginning 16 Con bumped this up to 100%, meaning you always rezzed. (Although it didn't help any when the party couldn't find your body afterwards.)

It was indeed, though given the prevalence of ability boosters in 3e I'd have to bump up the difficulty a bit. Something around a 22 Con might make rezzing a certainty, but your average character (not Con-specced) shouldn't get that chance to 100%.



There are two ways to go about this. One is to make the cleric kind of like the 3.5e Psion - there is one basic spell list, then several spheres which only specific clerics could access. For example, all clerics could heal, ward, and pray. But only clerics of Pelor with the Sun sphere would have the undead-nuking Sunbeams and Flaming Brand, while clerics with the War sphere would have Battle Chants or enchanting weapons.

The other is what Draz74 touched upon, and make them like the 3.5e Ardent - each cleric only has spells from their sphere. While it makes the cleric amazingly versatile, the result might not look like a cleric at all. It is highly likely that you'll have a cleric who can't heal, can't buff, and can throw around fireballs like an armored wizard. Take consideration into which variant you want.

Essentially, what I'm going for is something like "domains, but more so." Every cleric could heal to a small degree, buff to a small degree, etc. Your spheres would give you more options, but there would still be a small list of spells that all clerics have access to. For instance, every cleric might have cure X wounds but only priests of Pelor could resurrect someone; every cleric might have magic weapon but only priests of Kord could summon a spiritual weapon to smite their enemies.


Ranger casting has always been an oddity to me - and this is from someone who prefers the Ranger/Mage. Yes, Aragon could cast spells, but I don't play a ranger just to Be Like Aragon. (I also don't play one to Be Like Drizzt, even if two-weapon fighting is kinda cool.)

Rangers are supposed to be One With Nature, so it makes sense that they'd have limited supernatural abilities.


Gah, no. :smallfurious: Well, I suppose it could work, but still... gah, no!

The problem with 3e HP lies somewhere between the new stat-rolling method and the ability bonuses. In 2e, having a 16 Con granted you +2 HP each level, and that's the best you got. 15 Con was +1, and 14 Con gave you nothing. Warriors (Fighters, Paladins, Rangers) could get more with higher Con, but the other classes couldn't.

Plus, 3d6 doesn't give you many high rolls. 16 immediately got put into your high stat, not into Con for a measly +40 HP throughout your career. (Assuming you lived that long, which you won't.)

Stats are higher in 3.5e, with 4d6-drop-lowest or point buys. 16 is pretty common, and it's not surprising to see an 18 and 16 on most characters. Bonuses are a flat (stat/2 - 5) for all abilities, meaning that even 12 Con got you extra HP. Add to that the relatively common stat-boosting items, and it isn't too surprising to find everyone in the party with 20 Con. (+5 HP/level, +100 HP total!) Stopping HP growth at level 10 isn't really going to resolve that issue too much.

Oh, and this affected monsters, too. Just check out the HP on anything with 30+ Constitution.

....okay, I think I'm done ranting.

Well, the monsters' HP would take a hit too, of course; one thing I don't want is the 4e "players have high damage and low HP, monsters have low damage and high HP" paradigm. One of my favorite aspects of 3e is that everyone is on the same system, whether PC, NPC, or monster.

Were I to scale down HP (which I'm not sure I'm going to do yet), it would be a gradual thing--reduce HD by one step, maybe cap bonus HP from Con, etc. Nothing too drastic.


Kits are awesome, enough said. :smallbiggrin: Can be confusing for beginners, though.

Agreed on both points.

[Thane of Fife]

Well, I was referring more to 2e weapon proficiencies (i.e., you get few of them, don't get them from multiclassing, and can get more benefits by spending more slots) than 2e max dex. To my recollection, however, 1e didn't really have a max dex system, and I'm including 1e inspirations as well as 2e.

Actually, 2e doesn't have maximum dexterity, either. I'm not sure what erikun is thinking of.


As to the bladed weapons restriction...yeah, hated that too. They were trying to emulate Crusades-era Catholic monks (who weren't allowed to spill human blood), so I threw that out whenever the religion I used wasn't a monotheist and/or peaceful one.

I believe that the point was to balance clerics - they were prohibited from using most of the best weapons. I think that the actual inspiration was some Crusades-era bishop, rather than monks at large.



If I recall, System Shock (your chance to survive large damage, or resurrection) was tied to your Con, which didn't change any when rezzed. A beginning 16 Con bumped this up to 100%, meaning you always rezzed. (Although it didn't help any when the party couldn't find your body afterwards.)

Being raised did lower your constitution. And I believe that 18 was where the "Resurrection Survival Chance" reached 100%.

[Ellye]

The Cleric related changes are quite nice. Not so sure about the weapon proficiency thing, tho.

----

Well, I have a massive and irrational love of necromancy-using rangersOh, that reminds me of Guild Wars.

[Matthew]

I believe that the point was to balance clerics - they were prohibited from using most of the best weapons. I think that the actual inspiration was some Crusades-era bishop, rather than monks at large.

A historical myth perpetuated all through the twentieth century and beyond; there is some good discussion on the subject here: Cleric as an Archetype (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3824). As you say, though, the rule was originally an attempt to keep the cleric from intruding too closely into fighter territory (magic swords being the most common and powerful sort of weapon). Of course, in AD&D 1e, and 2e especially, there were plenty of deities who allowed the use of a variety of weapons.

Personally, I do not care much for multiclass or dualclass rules, but the rest of this sounds perfectly fine to me. When I was still playing D20/3e and seeking to tweak it more to my liking, I dispensed with iterative attacks in favour of an additional attack at eleventh level for fighters, paladins, barbarians, and rangers.

[Another_Poet]

I love the ideas.

As I recall 1/2e didn't have skills until 2e added non-weapon proficiencies. With that in mind I'd reduce the number and types of skills available. A possible list:

Social (diplomacy, gather info, bargaining, etc)
Deceitful (bluff, forgery, etc)
Athletic (jump, climb, swim, etc.)
Tumbling (should still be its own skill if it can be used to avoid AoOs)
Animal (ride, handle animal)
Criminal (open lock, disable device)
Outdoors (survival, kn:nature)
Arcane (spellcraft, kn:arcana)
Scholarly (alchemy, all other knowledge skills)

That should about do it. Note that I'm outright ditching some skills, like Heal and use Magic Device, since these would be handled more by class abilities or roleplay. You don't know how to make the magic boat fly because of skill ranks, instead you guess and try things until it either kills you or starts flying around. It's a puzzle, not a DC.

For simple things like wands, I think that you could simply give Wand Use to rogues and bards at 8th level or so, and everyone else is out of luck, or else offer Wand Use as a feat with some steep prereqs.

The above system also requires less skill points, so get rid of the x4 at level 1. I personally would get rid of cross-class skills, making all skills class skills for all classes, but that's probably a step away from the rigid class archetypes of the older editions.

ap

[Thane of Fife]

A historical myth perpetuated all through the twentieth century and beyond; there is some good discussion on the subject here: Cleric as an Archetype (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3824). As you say, though, the rule was originally an attempt to keep the cleric from intruding too closely into fighter territory (magic swords being the most common and powerful sort of weapon). Of course, in AD&D 1e, and 2e especially, there were plenty of deities who allowed the use of a variety of weapons.

Well, the game is, to an extent, based upon historical myths, so....

But yeah, I don't think it would have been a huge problem to let clerics use more weapons, though restricting them to bludgeons does lend them a sort of interesting flavor.

[Fostire]

Make healing magic part of the necromancy school again!
I don't know why they even changed that in 3e.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

With that in mind I'd reduce the number and types of skills available. A possible list:

Social (diplomacy, gather info, bargaining, etc)
Deceitful (bluff, forgery, etc)
Athletic (jump, climb, swim, etc.)
Tumbling (should still be its own skill if it can be used to avoid AoOs)
Animal (ride, handle animal)
Criminal (open lock, disable device)
Outdoors (survival, kn:nature)
Arcane (spellcraft, kn:arcana)
Scholarly (alchemy, all other knowledge skills)

That should about do it. Note that I'm outright ditching some skills, like Heal and use Magic Device, since these would be handled more by class abilities or roleplay. You don't know how to make the magic boat fly because of skill ranks, instead you guess and try things until it either kills you or starts flying around. It's a puzzle, not a DC.

I've already begun condensing skills in my games, and here's what use:
Device Lore (Appraise, Disable Device, Open Lock, KN: Architecture+Dungeoneering)
Concentration
Heal
Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble)
Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim)
Background (Craft, Perform, Profession)
Linguistics (Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language, UMD: scrolls)
Diplomacy (Diplomacy, Handle Animal, KN: Nobility, Sense Motive)
Persuade (Bluff, Intimidate, Gather Information, KN: Local)
Stealth (Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Disguise)
Perception (Spot, Listen)
Wilderness Lore (Ride, Survival, Use Rope, KN: Nature+Geography)
Spellcraft (Spellcraft, UMD: wands & staffs, KN: Arcana)
Knowledge (KN: Religion+Planes+History)

Not quite as condensed as yours, but it works. Heal is kept in there because I've added in a few functions from the psionic Autohypnosis skill that might make it actually worthwhile putting ranks in it; also, you can now heal some hit points with it, so a non-divine character can treat wounds if necessary.


For simple things like wands, I think that you could simply give Wand Use to rogues and bards at 8th level or so, and everyone else is out of luck, or else offer Wand Use as a feat with some steep prereqs.

I'm thinking that anyone can use scrolls easily (with a few Linguistics ranks) and can possibly use wands (with a few more Spellcraft ranks), but using staffs, rods, some rings, and some wondrous items woulds require class features.


The above system also requires less skill points, so get rid of the x4 at level 1. I personally would get rid of cross-class skills, making all skills class skills for all classes, but that's probably a step away from the rigid class archetypes of the older editions.

What I've been doing for a long time is letting players buy ranks at a 1:1 ratio, but still having a lower cap (1/2 level + 3) for cross class skills--it's just as easy for a wizard to learn to mess with traps as it is for a rogue, but he'll just never quite have the knack since he's busy with other things.


Make healing magic part of the necromancy school again!
I don't know why they even changed that in 3e.

100% agreed. Conjuration already gets too much stuff, and half of it doesn't even make sense.

[Yakk]

How about a (gasp) unified Talent system?

Each class has a collection of Talents. These Talents are rated by class level.

When you gain a level, you pick a Talent from that class.

The maximium level of a talent you can have from a class is your proficiency level in that class, which is:
Min of (Class Level *2) OR (Class Level + Character Level)/2 rounded down.

On top of that, there are other proficiency classes that PCs do not take directly. Classes add to these proficiencies explicitly.

These include Arcane[School] Class Proficiency, Divine[Diety] Class Proficiency, Combat [Weapon] Class Proficiency. Skills also use this system.

...

Being able to cast an arcane spell from a particular school of level X once per day is an example of a wizard class talent.
Being able to cast a divine spell from a particular sphere of level X once per day is an example of a cleric class talent.
Being able to make iterative attacks is an example of a fighter class talent.
Being able to make a sneak attack that does Xd6 damage once per round is an example of a rogue class talent.
Being able to do a smite evil that does +Y damage once per day is an example of a Paladin class talent.

...

The goal here is to make multi-classing and dual-classing work.

A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would have access to both level 15 Fighter and level 15 Wizard talents.

A Paladin 10/Fighter 10 would have access to both level 15 Paladin and level 15 Fighter talents.

A level 15 Wizard talent might be "Can memorize one 7th level spell".
A level 15 Fighter talent might be "Can, as a standard action, make a set of 3 attacks at -0/-5/-10 to the attack roll".

Note that one of these is a per-day ability, and the other is something that you can do whenever you want. A talent is just any ability the class gives you.

The idea is that you can

...

Hmm. Actually, how about a pool of talent points? That's pretty 2eish.

You have 1 + 2 + ... + N talent points.

A level X talent from a class costs X talent points.

In order to have a level X talent, a level N character must have at one talent of each lower level. They don't have to be from the same class. (so you aren't buying "all max level powers").

Each level you can retrain (replace) or drop (and get refunded) up to your current level in talents from your list. Note that you still need to have purchased 'one for each level under your top level talent'.

So a level 10 Fighter level 10 Wizard would have 210 talent points. And only able to buy level 1 through 15 Fighter and Wizard talents.

Buying one level 1 through 14 talent would cost 30 talent points, leaving 180.

180 talent points is enough to buy 12 level 15 talents. The talents this character buys could be any mixture of Fighter and Wizard talents.

A level 20 Wizard would have the same 210 talent points. If the Wizard wanted a level 20 talent, the Wizard would have to buy one from level 1 through 20 -- costing all 210 talent points.

It is closer to being balanced than giving the character only the powers of level 10 fighter plus a level 10 wizard... (which would cost 110 talent points under this system)

...

For things like BaB, one could create a variant on the Talent system. The problem (that linear differences in an affine system diverge) remains.

Another option would be to have Talents to boost your BaB: (round down)
Fighter Level X talent: Your BaB with a particular weapon group is now the average of your level and X+6.
Wizard Level X talent: Your arcane spellcasting power in a particular school is now the average of your level and X+6.
Paladin Level X talent: Your BaB when doing a smite is now the average of your level and X+8.
Rogue Level X talent: Your BaB while you have combat advantage is now the average of your level and X+8.

That gives pure characters an edge, without making it overwealming.

At high levels, the hybrid still runs into problems with the above mechanics. Maybe I could do better...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

@Yakk: A unified talent system would be an interesting idea, but it's a bit further from the 2e/3e class system than I think would be feasible for a variant on 3e; it could work, but it'd be heading towards something like a GURPS/4e crossbreed. Having some form of talents within some classes could work, though.

[Drolyt]

I like this idea, although as said above I think it should draw on both 2e and 4e, and there's no reason you can't have new ideas too (I should note I've never played 1e, and to be honest the vast majority of my experience is 3.5). 4e had several good ideas, along with several bad ones, and one of the worst is forcing people into archetypes without allowing customization (ie only Rangers can shoot bows), so any attempt to bring some 2e rules into the mold should avoid moving towards more restrictive gameplay (something 2e was just as guilty of as 4e, for example restricting Cleric weapons). I also think that working from the perspective of creating the best possible system using 3.5 as the base is the right idea, not only because of the OGL but because it is the most modular and easy to modify system (at least as far as DnD goes). Ok, that said, here is my Critique of some of your ideas:

Only Martial Characters get multiple iterative attacks- Very good, but martial characters should include all nonspellcasters, especially Rogues (I like the idea of Rogues being the striker class) and you would need to determine how hybrid classes work with this (I'm looking at you Bard). One idea stolen from WoW (not sure why everyone hates WoW so much...) would be to give Druids multiple iterative attacks only in Wild Shape form. Then you could give Wild Shape like a five minute cooldown or something so that a Druid could be either a combat specialist or a spellcaster in each encounter, but not both (the cooldown idea is from 4e, so instead of saying you can wild shape 3/day or something you can do it once per encounter, but that destroys verisimilitude in my opinion so I say use a cooldown for a similar effect). Clerics should definitely not be melee, but they should be able to make some kind of magical offensive.

All iterative attacks made with a standard action- Agreed. I don't know why they thought melee types needed a handicap when most spells cast with a standard action are better than 4 iterative sword strikes. An idea I came up with would be to make a full-round action combining your iterative attacks with movement, allowing you to make your attacks as you move; otherwise you make all your attacks then move which destroys my verisimilitude ideas (verisimilitude is important to me).

Weapon Proficiencies are rarer and harder to get- If you mean that 1 level of fighter doesn't grant all proficiencies, then yeah. No real world warrior trained that extensively, I don't know why DnD fighters do (maybe that's why they can't beat spellcasters, never learned to specialize). But getting new proficiencies should be a simple matter, just a feat or maybe even skill points (I would like to make feats more precious than they have become, like in 3.5 no splats where most characters only got 7, but that would make weapon proficiency feats sub-par).

Bonuses Simplified- Would be nice, but would be tricky. Personally I'd like to reduce the impact of magic items on your stats, which would have the added effect of simplifying bonuses. (By the way, what does this have to do with 1e/2e?)

Resurrection is limited- I don't think so. I'd like to put a stop to the revolving door of the afterlife, but making more difficult to keep playing your character doesn't cut it. There was a solution over at The Alexandrian, where dead characters were simply dead but a character at -10 hit points was only mostly dead (yay Princess Bride) for 24 hours, until which point they could be saved by bringing them back above -10 hit points; after that their soul passed on for good. You could extend this duration with gentle repose. I don't know how this worked with disintegrate type spells, but if it were me I'd add a cleric/druid spell that allowed you to reform the body as long as it was done before the soul passed on, also making gentle repose a rather low level cleric/druid spell would be a good idea (what spell level is gentle repose? PHB not with me). This would have the effect of making sure PCs almost never die, but without the game world repercussions of "The king was assassinated, the world is sent into chaos!" "why don't you just rez him?" It would however have the effect that anything less than a total party wipe would be no threat to players, whether or not this is good I don't know.

Cleric Spheres- Definitely a good idea, both for flavor and balance. One of the big mistakes Wotc made with 3e was underestimating versatility; a character with access to all Cleric spells is more powerful than with only a limited list, even if the spells were balanced and they only got a limited amount each day. Moreover it could give more freedom in what a spells a Cleric was allowed; if everyone used one giant spell list than giving Clerics Fireball would be a terrible idea, but if instead you had to give up another spell in exchange it could work (Fireball being maybe a poor example, but you get the idea). Certain abilities should be universal though, I'm thinking every Cleric should have cure spells, although you could make curing a class ability rather than a spell and tie it in with Turn Undead. Also if we kill the Cleric's melee ability by not giving them iterative attacks then they should have some sort of default attack, a sort of Inflict Wounds ability, although I think Cleric's ability to Inflict Wounds should be much less than their ability to heal them.

Rangers get limited Wizard casting in addition to limited Druid casting- I like the idea, but some people don't like Rangers having any casting at all. I say make Player's choose one: Druid Casting, Wizard Casting, or improved martial skills. They should also get casting from the get go, but it shouldn't be very powerful until at least fourth level, and even then it should only be a small part of their total power, although I think it would be fine to make their casting stronger than it is now.

Kits- What were kits again? I say we need more alternate class features, but they don't necessarily need to bear resemblance to how 2e did it.

Dual-Classing/Multi-classing- Heck yeah! I think 3e multi-classing was the best DnD ever had, but it wasn't perfect. Also I don't know why when they released 3.5 they got rid of the apprentice rules that allowed you to start out as a Fighter/Wizard, instead of suddenly gaining Wizard powers several months into your adventuring career. A sort of Gestalt but weaker would be great, I say average all vital statistics and provide a toned down version of each classes abilities. Don't go for lower of each, that would make Warrior/Mage combos useless, and would also work horrors with saves (although saves are a problem with averaging anyways, I'm thinking maybe making saves work more like 4e would help this- everyone adds say somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 their level, but each class offers a set bonus). This doesn't obsolete Theurge type prestige classes, it just means that instead of being there for no other reason than to fix multi-classing they will have to add additional abilities, perhaps helping to synergize certain iconic combos. Also allowing characters to continue gaining abilities while multi-classing would be great, like Wizards could continue gaining spells and caster level at half rate while taking another class, but there would have to be a limit to stop people from say taking 1 level each of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer than going fighter the rest of the way, maybe capping it so that while multi-classing you can continue adding to Wizard (or whatever) abilities but only up to double however many class levels you already put in, or else limiting this option to only increasing one of your other classes at a time, or both. Finally I like the idea of multi-class feats, even if they were poorly done in 4e, so maybe that could be an option too, for someone who only wanted to dip.

Now on to other people's ideas:

Magic with real risks- No. Magic needs to be brought into balance with other options based on its merits alone, not by trying to make it less attractive through various penalties (I'm looking at you vancian system.) I say re-balance all the spells and increase the power of non-spellcasters, but don't add arbitrary penalties.

Different XP tables- Again, balance the classes, don't throw in arbitrary penalties as a fix.

Old Initiative- I have no opinion, but 3e combat is clunky as it is.

Stop HP Inflation of 3e- I'm surprised at how much support this has. I think it's a terrible idea, although I'm all for giving fixed hp each level instead of rolling. If you don't increase hp after 10th level you would also have to stop increasing damage. As for magic items adding to hp, I agree that was a bad idea, but at least in 3.5 core you never used them cause there were better neck item slots. So if by stop hp inflation you mean don't allow bonuses left and right, then sure that's a good idea, but slowing or even stopping hp advancement in latter levels is just a terrible idea.

Condense Skills- Great idea, although choosing which skills might be hard. The list I came up with a while back is: Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Disguise, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate, Linguistics, Nature, Perception, Perform, Religion, Stealth, Thievery, Use Magic Device. Essentially I took ideas from both Pathfinder and DnD 4e to make that list, and with the exception of Profession, Ride, and Use Rope all of the 3.5 skills were rolled into these, with Endurance being the only new one I added. I also got rid of sub-skills, so now anyone with Craft can craft anything, although Alchemy still requires Arcane spellcasting (I was thinking of making alchemy require both Arcana and Craft, and making it more useful, but that's another discussion).

Talents- Might be a good idea, but hard to pull off. Also it wouldn't really fix multi-classing as some have suggested, since as I noted under the Cleric spheres section versatility is extremely powerful. Still might be something to look at though.

[lesser_minion]

A solution I was thinking of using for resurrections was to make several characters participate in the ritual and hit all of them for level drains. I was also planning to make the ritual harder - it would have to involve at least a summoner, a cleric and a wizard to cast all of the incantations.