An unholy abomination sewn together from bodies of 2E and 3E

[Pronounceable]

I have been blackmailed into running a "core 3E" game this weekend. Ignoring the fact that I despise it, what my victims really want is actually an "old school ADnD feel". What they seem unable to grasp is that it's impossible with "core 3E". They're afraid of THAC0, the spineless sissies...

Sooo being the overbearing DM that I am, I'm going to impose my will upon them by making myself a 2.5E (in addition to the adventure itself) before saturday evening.

What will happen:

Basic mechanics from 3E (to hit, AC, 3 saves)
Skills from 3E (no cross class, maybe a trimmed list)
Feats from 3E (maybe some removed prereqs)
Capped stats (25)
XP tables from 2E
Class and XP restrictions from 3E (or rather the lack of them)
No gnomes
Magic from 2E (spell effects, number known, cast per day, no bonus slots, no metamagic crap)
HP from 2E (no con bonus to nonfighters)
Initiative from 3E
No gnomes
No multiclass
No concentration checks
Rare to no magic items (possibly except healing potions)
Undecided on play level but definitely below 10.
No gnomes


This should be enough to capture that magical "old school feel" without scaring the sissies with THAC0. What do you forumgoers think about this? Will this hold on for 6 hours or so?

[Flickerdart]

Isn't "no gnomes" 4E rather than 2E or 3E?

[Draz74]

What will happen:

No gnomes
No gnomes
No gnomes


Totally violates the feel of 2e, as Gnomes were even more annoying back then (what with their stat adjustments being +Int, -Wis). :smallwink:

[taltamir]

Isn't "no gnomes" 4E rather than 2E or 3E?

haw haw, it is...
have you considered playing a straight 4e game?
ok, just kidding... I doubt an old schooler like you wants that.

It seems like you have things under control and got yourself a 2.5e system. it seems solid to me.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Sounds like it's going to be a hassle for casters. How will they know what all their spells do? It's sort of hard to cram the whole 2e spell section.

[Flickerdart]

Also, you'll probably want to keep 3.5's Psionics. 3E and 2E Psionics were, well, not very good.

[deuxhero]

If you are axeing gnomes, axe elfs dwarfs orcs and hobbits with the serial numbers filed off along with them. Even if you only have access to core stuff, you can allow planetouched and Goliaths (it's in a preview somewhere, can't find the link right now) at +0 la, Deep Imaskari (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031003b), Raptorians (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050106b&page=1) kobolds (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a)and the psionic races from the SRD.

[Gamerlord]

Isn't "no gnomes" 4E rather than 2E or 3E?

Gnomes are in PHB2.

OH! You mean core books.

[Tyndmyr]

Needs more gnomes.

[oxybe]

Gnomes are in PHB2.

OH! You mean core books.

you mean the monster manual?

[Tyndmyr]

It's good someone finally see gnomes for the monsters they are.

[Aldizog]

No gnomes is hardcore Classic D&D. Cool.

I'd leave in the 3.5 XP tables and multiclassing. Multiclassing with the core classes (or even just the basic 4) is pretty good for customization so you don't have to keep inventing new base classes; there was multiclassing in 2E, after all, and 3E's system is simpler.

I'd use the 2E version of Con bonus for non-fighters; they only get up to a +2 max, not NO Con bonus.

Capped stats are a great idea. Maybe bring back the AC cap as well?

[Asbestos]

Gnomes are in PHB2.

OH! You mean core books.

PHB2 is core.

Rename 'Gnome' as 'Kender'. Problem solved (or made worse?)

[Pronounceable]

I'd use the 2E version of Con bonus for non-fighters; they only get up to a +2 max, not NO Con bonus.

Did they? Maybe I should read those 2E books again.


If you are axeing gnomes, axe elfs dwarfs orcs and hobbits with the serial numbers filed off along with them.

I would, but I sorta need painted cannibal pictdwarves and ruins of the ancient evil empire of Acheronelves for the pliagrisation of Age of Conan's Thunder River region. Or maybe I should use hobbits instead of dwarves? But savage hobbit thing's been done with Darksun so it wouldn't be as novel.

[deuxhero]

Use Kobold for the savages and Dromite for the empire (Dromite have the unique fluff advantage of going through generations quicker, handy if you want the empire to selectively breed it's men, have them use their racial blind fight for night attacks)

[Flickerdart]

Capped stats are a great idea. Maybe bring back the AC cap as well?
AC cap isn't necessary, since AC is trivial to hit for anyone that's trying.

[Sewblon]

No sentient races except Gnomes.

[Haven]

Did they? Maybe I should read those 2E books again.


Yes, that's correct.

I actually liked 2e's psionics. ._.

[deuxhero]

If you really want gnomes, go Wisperer (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=3).

[Platinum_Mongoose]

What will happen:

Capped stats (25)
XP tables from 2E
Magic from 2E (spell effects, number known, cast per day, no bonus slots, no metamagic crap)
HP from 2E (no con bonus to nonfighters)
No multiclass
No concentration checks
Rare to no magic items (possibly except healing potions)
Undecided on play level but definitely below 10.




So what you're saying is that if they're playing a caster, you hate them. Seriously, if you're going to use 2e magic, 2e XP, and 2e Con bonuses with 3e classes, feats, and skills (except concentration), the balance between casters and non-casters is horribly unbalanced. Why not just play 2e? All THAC0 does is use negative numbers and a backwards progression. Make a chart that shows it flipped to the way that makes sense. Visual aids. They're your friend.

Heck, you could go full-on classic mode and bring out the Basic set if you have it. Remember? When you could be a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling? Those were the classes. None of this Elven Thief nonsense. And you rolled 3d6 for ability scores, and the order you rolled them was the order you wrote them down on the sheet. Good times, good times. (It's possible I'm too young to be allowed to remember this.)

[Evard]

I love this idea please tell me how it turns out. I'm currently trying to create my own game along with a side project with my friend.

There are a lot of things about 2e that i love along with some aspects of 3.x and i think that the best of both systems will complement each other nicely

[tbarrie]

Heck, you could go full-on classic mode and bring out the Basic set if you have it. Remember? When you could be a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling? Those were the classes. None of this Elven Thief nonsense.

"Magic-User". Not "Wizard". The idea that you could be an honest-to-God Wizard at first level is obviously absurd.:)

[Platinum_Mongoose]

"Magic-User". Not "Wizard". The idea that you could be an honest-to-God Wizard at first level is obviously absurd.:)

Right, clearly! My mistake.

[Alcopop]

Needs less gnomes.

[Decoy Lockbox]

HP from 2E (no con bonus to nonfighters)


Characters in 1e/2e got their full con bonus to all HD rolled, but it capped at +2 for non-fighter types (i.e. anyone who wasn't a fighter, ranger or paladin). So an 18 CON mage who was level 8 would have 8d4+16 hp, while a level 8, 18 CON fighter would have 8d10+32.

And in 1e, a level 8, 18 CON ranger would have either 9d8+32 or 9d8+36 hp, depedning on how your DM ruled :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

Wow. This sounds like a complete mess.

Uh. Be sure to tell us about the trainwreck after the fact, okay?

[jmbrown]

Gnomes in 2E were more David the Gnome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_the_gnome) nature loving, brownie hugging, fun loving burrow dwellers unlike 3E's "Gnomes are tricksters and tinkerers" so I say they're arguably less annoying. They lived in hollow logs, talked to beavers, and threw rocks at loggers.

Edit: And I agree that you're better off just using 2E rules with the player options books which were mostly convoluted and clunky to the point where it felt like you were playing 2.5.

[Swordguy]

So what you're saying is that if they're playing a caster, you hate them. Seriously, if you're going to use 2e magic, 2e XP, and 2e Con bonuses with 3e classes, feats, and skills (except concentration), the balance between casters and non-casters is horribly unbalanced.

Really? REALLY? Removal of all these limiters from 2e to 3e is what unbalanced 3e in favor of "Magic Uber Alles" in the first place. The spells are still big and scary and tend to be fight-enders...the trick is that you aren't guaranteed to be able to cast them in the first place. Just like in 2e.

Now, assuming there's a list of what melee feats he's banned in his game (for example, if there's no shock trooper or power attack), then there's quite the potential for it to work. There's even MORE potential for it to work if he has players who aren't going to deliberately set out to break the system and complain that they can break it, as players seem to be wont to do. The trick for balancing melee will be scaling the damage dealt with the generally lower number of HP available to PCs...and with a limited feat list and capped attributes, it's at least got a chance of working. A PC with a longsword and an 18 strength is doing 1d8+4 HP in 3e, and 1d8+3 in 2e. That's close enough. It's when you add in the damage-enhancing feats things get ugly.

Regardless, we'd need to see a more comprehensive ruleset to know it it's gonna work well or not. I think, if you have good-natured players who are honestly in it for the "experience" and not out to break the game, it'll work fine. At the very least, I don't think it's going to be the "trainwreck" that others claim.

EDIT: And good on you for banning gnomes. With a sole exception (a wonderful girl I dated for a time), I've not yet met a player who doesn't take playing a gnome as an excuse to be a squeaky kleptomaniacle pain-in-the-party's-ass. Screw them.

[Optimystik]

EDIT: And good on you for banning gnomes. With a sole exception (a wonderful girl I dated for a time), I've not yet met a player who doesn't take playing a gnome as an excuse to be a squeaky kleptomaniacle pain-in-the-party's-ass. Screw them.

I think you're confusing gnomes with kender (and poor players with good ones.)

[Swordguy]

I think you're confusing gnomes with kender (and poor players with good ones.)

The issue is that people (with said exception noted) who I've gamed with, who are otherwise EXCELLENT players, mistake the following phrase:

All Kenders are Gnomes, but not all Gnomes are Kender.

for this one:

All Gnomes are Kenders. Cut loose and ignore details like "good party dynamics" and "not annoying everyone at the table". You have a right to play your character however you damn well please, after all, and everyone else can leave if they don't like the way you play!


Me? I ban gnomes too. In my home setting (4 campaigns over 9 years now), gnomes are dangerous nomadic barbarians, roving the plains in ramshackle steam-powered Land Leviathans and will just as soon kill you as look at you - like highly organized and technologically advanced tiny Orcs, really. Think the wicked gnomes from Terry Brooks's Sword of Shannara series rather than good old David the Gnome, and you'll get the idea. The other races pretty much kill them on sight, and they don't even do that to Goblins...

Heck, I tend to run Tolkeinesque games, and I'll let a PC play a hobgoblin or an Orc before I let them play a gnome.

[awa]

the degree of annoyance of gnomes in 2end edition was largely dependent on if the gnomes player/dm read dragon lance.

[Swordguy]

the degree of annoyance of gnomes in 2end edition was largely dependent on if the gnomes player/dm read dragon lance.

Truly.

Gnomes aside, I'm rather curious as to whether anyone has a detailed analysis of the rules, or whether the OP will be more forthcoming regarding specifics.

[Pronounceable]

So what you're saying is that if they're playing a caster, you hate them.
Yes, if they're 3E casters I hate them. In fact, I hate more than half of everything 3E related. Hence, the exercise.


Why not just play 2e? All THAC0 does is use negative numbers and a backwards progression.
Tell that to my players.


Gnomes aside, I'm rather curious as to whether anyone has a detailed analysis of the rules, or whether the OP will be more forthcoming regarding specifics.

There's no specifics. I don't have time for specifics, except utterly nothing out of PHB 2E or 3E, all of whom are already subject to rule0. I still gotta do the adventure itself. But yes, this sort of thing could be made into a coherent system (which I suspect would work well with some ironing and testing). That's beyond my scope, though. I'll fly this mostly as is and deal on site with whatever issues crops up on.

...
That said, I decided things to be around 8000xp mark. Which means lv4, except for wizards who are at 3. Which means no third lvl spells. Things are looking all right with hordes of lv1-2 melee enemies and various bosses in 3-4 region. Then there's the occasional 25HD crocodile that serves as the insurmountable waist high fence.
I estimate no PC deaths with healing potions.

[Swordguy]

Yes, if they're 3E casters I hate them. In fact, I hate more than half of everything 3E related. Hence, the exercise.

Good for you. I approve. :smallbiggrin:



There's no specifics. I don't have time for specifics, except utterly nothing out of PHB 2E or 3E, all of whom are already subject to rule0. I still gotta do the adventure itself. But yes, this sort of thing could be made into a coherent system (which I suspect would work well with some ironing and testing). That's beyond my scope, though. I'll fly this mostly as is and deal on site with whatever issues crops up on.

Ok, then. That helps. You're going to want to REALLY watch out for the large amounts of damage available to the PCs vis a vis the generally lower hit point totals in 2e. Of especial note is the Power Attack line (including UberCharger builds) and Rogues - their Sneak attack in 3.x is potentially far more damaging than the simple x2 Backstab they used to get. x3 and x4 critical weapons will also be very scary (a scythe is, without checking, doing an amount of damage equivalent to about a 16th level Thief in 2e).

If I were you, I'd simply limit Rogues to the 2e-style Backstab (NOT sneak attack, so they actually have to be behind the target, etc) and ban Power Attack and the related damage-increasing feats completely. In 2e, even mid-to-high level Fighters were only doing about 1d8+strength (+2-3 damage, usually) +magic bonuses. A max damage roll for a fighter rarely exceeded 20 points of damage without significant magical assistance. That was fine with the lower hit point totals - so make sure your fighter-types aren't doing the much higher damage results possible under 3.x rules.

The mages seem fine, by the way. Clerics may become an issue, but if you're nerfing casting in general, I don't think it'll be too bad. Use the 2e Druid rules wholesale - you get 2 animal shapes, they have to be natural animals that you have specific knowledge of (so no going through the MM and cherry-picking stuff), and so forth. Paladins and Rangers aren't too different between the editions, actually, as long as you're killing the damage-enhancing feat lines, and monks may actually be useful under these rules. Barbarians will be VERY scary, but I don't think they'll be overpowered. If you feel they're too good, cut the Rage Attribute boosts (and penalty) in half; that'll go a good ways, since you're on a shortened attribute scale.

[Eldariel]

That sounds pretty good, actually. 2e Magic just fixes a ton of otherwise hairy issues and is as fun as ever. The only thing I'd dislike is the lack of multiclassing; you could very well introduce free 2e-style Dual Classing for everyone and get a very 3eistic feel to that without really breaking away from 2e other than by doing away with the racial restrictions.

I'm also not sure whether capped stats are really optimal, though lacking magic items, they're not as like to be an issue. And I'd probably leave casters with bonus spells from high stat since on low levels, playing a caster capable of casting more than 1 spell per day makes for much more interesting an experience. At least introduce cantrips.

[jmbrown]

Another thing you'll have to be wary of is monitoring to-hit and AC. 3E allows even the lowest level character to artificially inflate their attack bonus to ridiculous levels. In 2E, a monster with -5 AC (the equivalent of 25 in 3E) was practically a walking iron wall.

[kjones]

Uber-chargers won't be a problem - he said core-only 3e, and you can't really make an ubercharger in core. I might suggest making PA 1-to-1 for 2-handers, though, since THF didn't dominate sword-and-board in 2e the way it does in 3e.

I'd also recommend replacing SA with backstab. That really changes the way rogues - sorry, thieves - behave in combat. They go from skirmish-y tumbling fellows to weaker fighters with a few tricks up their sleeves. (Which is fine with me. I think that thieves shouldn't be going toe-to-toe in the first place.)

[The Corinthian]

Be sure to tell us how it went! The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that this is, very roughly, what 3.0 should have been.

Edit: 2E backstab is a bit too limiting, I think, and really tricky without facing rules of some kind.

[Draz74]

The only thing I'd dislike is the lack of multiclassing; you could very well introduce free 2e-style Dual Classing for everyone and get a very 3eistic feel to that without really breaking away from 2e other than by doing away with the racial restrictions.

I second this -- as long as you're using 2e-style XP tables, I see no reason not to allow 2e-style multiclassing. Elven Fighter/Mage/Thieves were fun to play, and startlingly close to well-balanced.

[Swordguy]

I second this -- as long as you're using 2e-style XP tables, I see no reason not to allow 2e-style multiclassing. Elven Fighter/Mage/Thieves were fun to play, and startlingly close to well-balanced.

Well it was what made up for the racial level limits.

[Aldizog]

Revised suggestion on HP Con bonus: cap it at half the die size for all PCs and monsters.

[Pronounceable]

And I'd probably leave casters with bonus spells from high stat since on low levels, playing a caster capable of casting more than 1 spell per day makes for much more interesting an experience. At least introduce cantrips.
Cantrips! I'd forgotten them. I'll make cantrips and orisons at will powers. I've also changed my mind and will use 4E defenses as well. That's the couple of things 4E managed to do right. Fair is fair.


Of especial note is the Power Attack line (including UberCharger builds) and Rogues - their Sneak attack in 3.x is potentially far more damaging than the simple x2 Backstab they used to get. x3 and x4 critical weapons will also be very scary (a scythe is, without checking, doing an amount of damage equivalent to about a 16th level Thief in 2e).
I've thought about that. But they're lv4, so PA or SA doesn't worry me much. If this was gonna be a proper system however, yes.


The mages seem fine, by the way. Clerics may become an issue, but if you're nerfing casting in general, I don't think it'll be too bad. Use the 2e Druid rules wholesale - you get 2 animal shapes, they have to be natural animals that you have specific knowledge of (so no going through the MM and cherry-picking stuff), and so forth. Paladins and Rangers aren't too different between the editions, actually, as long as you're killing the damage-enhancing feat lines, and monks may actually be useful under these rules. Barbarians will be VERY scary, but I don't think they'll be overpowered. If you feel they're too good, cut the Rage Attribute boosts (and penalty) in half; that'll go a good ways, since you're on a shortened attribute scale.
I have no idea what classes they'll play but I'm somewhat sure it won't be druid or paladin. I'll also remove sorcerer, odds of them wanting it is quite low and trying to work that out isn't worth the time. In fact, I think there might not be any caster in the group. I'll make something up with barbarian rage if anyone wants to play one. NPC barbarians will have flat extra HP and damage. We'll see.

I'll use priest spheres too.

As for multiclass or dualclass, those could be work. But I'll still remove it since I don't care to make a full 2.5E system.Yet.

[Swordguy]

Ah! Just thought of this - are you using rolled stats or point-buy? In either case...keep the attribute minimums for various classes. In older games, the game started as soon as you decided to play - rolling the statline in part of the game, and a big part of the old D&D experience was trying to make a (occasionally startlingly non-optimal) statline work.

As a milksop to player who whine about getting to play what they want (and missing the entire point), if they don't have the stats required to play the class, allow some way of hitting the attribute minimums for the class they want by tanking the other stats. Stuff like the Paladin and Ranger were flat-out better than the fighter, because access to them was a reward for good dice-rolling. Sure, it's not a character creation philosophy that people generally appreciate now, but it's a big part of the "old school" feel. Remember, generate attributes first, then choose classes. :smallcool:

[Aldizog]

Stuff like the Paladin and Ranger were flat-out better than the fighter, because access to them was a reward for good dice-rolling.
The fighter dominated in 2E until the splatbooks gave weapon specialization to the other warrior classes. The extra attacks were just a much bigger bonus than the fairly minor benefits paladins and rangers got.

On 3d6 in order (the default method for 2E), the odds of rolling a paladin-capable character would be:
Str 12+: 37.5%
Con 9+: 74.1%
Wis 13+: 25.9%
Cha 17+: 1.85%

Total: about 1 in 750. You had to roll incredibly good, and even then the benefits weren't all that great unless you got a Holy Avenger sword.

[Matthew]

So... how did this turn out, or is it still planned for the future?