Help Me Give 3.5 a AD&D Feel!

[wayfare]

My old AD&D gaming group is finally back home, and they are thinking of transitioning to 3.5. One of my gaming buddies expressed some puzzlement at iterative attacks -- in AD&D is was pretty hard to get extra attacks, they were considered a class feature for fighters and dual wield rogues/bards. He also wondered why the fighter had such bad saves and why there are only two types of save categories (good saves and bad saves). After some talking, we decided to make a list of changes that we would like to see to 3.5 for our gaming sessions.

Can Anyone Suggest More Changes or Critique the Ones Listed?

1) Extra Attacks are class features: Not every class gets extra attacks, and those that do, do not suffer iterative attack penalties.

Fighters get extra attacks at level 6, 12, and 18
Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get extra attacks at level 7 and 14
Rogues and Monks get an extra attack at level 11
Clerics, Mages, and Bards do not get extra attacks
Druids don't get extra attacks, but their animal forms have their natural attack progression.

2) Bonus Spells Don't Exist. Saves become (10 + Attribute Mod + 1/2 level)
High casting stats don't grant bonus spells. Saves follow a regular progression.

High Con really only benefits combat classes
Your constitution modifier determines the minimum number of HP you gain each level, capped by your hit die. A mage with a +8 constitution modifier only gains 4 hp each level, with no need to roll his hit points.

Casting is easier to interrupt
There is no defensive casting (though some PrCs might get a similar ability as a class feature). Taking damage when casting a spell requires a Will Save (15 + Damage dealt) or the spell is lost.

Introduce the average save category
There is now an average save category that ends with +9.

Any thoughts?

[Diarmuid]

I dont mean for this to come off as harsh, but you're probably better off either coming to terms with 3.5, or just playing AD&D.

To address your specific changes:

1) With the supplements to AD&D (S&P), they pretty much opened extra attacks up to anyone. With the complete revamp of multiclass, you are severely hampering anyone who wants multiple attacks but also doesnt want to be just Fighter8.

2) Spell Saves didnt go up with level in AD&D either. I dont see how this is a "throwback" at all.

3) That's really poorly written. As you have it there, a Fighter with a 16 Con is only guaranteed to get 3HP per level. I'm assuming you mean for that alternate rule to apply to "non-combat" classes...but how would you rule it for things like Battle Sorceror? How is a Cleric or Druid handled.. "Combat" or not?

4) Why would you make this a Will save as opposed to Concentration? This still doesnt make interrupting all that "easier" in the long run with the ability to 5' step away and then cast. In AD&D spells had their own casting times, and if you got hit anytime between when your initiative started and the spell was finished, you lost the spell. If you got hit at all before you started casting a spell you couldnt cast at all for that round. You're not really coming close to the AD&D feel with this one.

5) What classes do you introduce this for and for which saves? What about the various monster races? Do you give something to any race/class that already has all good saves so you're not just making weak races/classes better?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Do you know OSRIC? (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/)
It's an AD&D clone that uses the more systematic methodology of d20, while still giving you a 90-99% AD&D-compatible game.

[Alefiend]

2) Bonus Spells Don't Exist. ... High casting stats don't grant bonus spells.

For whatever it's worth, a high Wisdom has always granted extra spells/day to clerics. Arguments can be made in AD&D for granting them to druids (as a subclass of cleric) and paladins/rangers as well. And if druids get the bonus, so do bards (who cast as druids because of the unique bard rules).

[wayfare]

I dont mean for this to come off as harsh, but you're probably better off either coming to terms with 3.5, or just playing AD&D.

To address your specific changes:

1) With the supplements to AD&D (S&P), they pretty much opened extra attacks up to anyone. With the complete revamp of multiclass, you are severely hampering anyone who wants multiple attacks but also doesnt want to be just Fighter8.

2) Spell Saves didnt go up with level in AD&D either. I dont see how this is a "throwback" at all.

3) That's really poorly written. As you have it there, a Fighter with a 16 Con is only guaranteed to get 3HP per level. I'm assuming you mean for that alternate rule to apply to "non-combat" classes...but how would you rule it for things like Battle Sorceror? How is a Cleric or Druid handled.. "Combat" or not?

4) Why would you make this a Will save as opposed to Concentration? This still doesnt make interrupting all that "easier" in the long run with the ability to 5' step away and then cast. In AD&D spells had their own casting times, and if you got hit anytime between when your initiative started and the spell was finished, you lost the spell. If you got hit at all before you started casting a spell you couldnt cast at all for that round. You're not really coming close to the AD&D feel with this one.

5) What classes do you introduce this for and for which saves? What about the various monster races? Do you give something to any race/class that already has all good saves so you're not just making weak races/classes better?

That was pretty much my thought (I really like AD&D, for all its limitations), but the general consensus was "these were the changes we need to make the game work. I thionk it coul be a fun experiment.

To respond to a few points:

1) Well, yeah. Thats the point. Being a fighter is what gets you those attacks. It will get dicey with multiclassing, but that's something we should probably limit to 1st level anyway (as AD&D).

2) This was just for clarity, so people don't have to memorize different DCs for each spell.

3) It shoudl probably be written as something like "...is only helpful for classes with high HD." The group though that mages just had the capacity for too much durability. This eliminates that tendency.

4) You are right. Hany ideas for getting rid of that pesky 5 foot step?

5) Monsters, I am not so worried about. A full class list of revised saves will be decided by the party.

[Lapak]

The two biggest spellcaster weaknesses in AD&D would translate readily enough, if you want to include them. Simplified and translated to 3e:

- Spells don't go off on your initiative count, but (Spell Level) initiative counts afterward. Getting hit at any point in this window has the chance to ruin the spell.

- Recovering spells takes longer if you have more spells, takes less time for low-level casters. 4 hours of rest base time + 15 minutes per spell level.

[Siosilvar]

The two biggest spellcaster weaknesses in AD&D would translate readily enough, if you want to include them. Simplified and translated to 3e:

- Spells don't go off on your initiative count, but (Spell Level) initiative counts afterward. Getting hit at any point in this window has the chance to ruin the spell.

- Recovering spells takes longer if you have more spells, takes less time for low-level casters. 4 hours of rest base time + 15 minutes per spell level.

Actually, the biggest spellcaster weakness in AD&D is less useful spells and spells with side effects. Haste sounds like a good spell... until you realize that it ages the target a year, meaning they need to make a system shock roll or die. Identify doesn't give perfect information. Flame Arrow... sucks as a spell, because it's 3.5's Scorching Ray except a level higher. Likewise with Enchanted Weapon, a fourth level spell that lets you hit creatures that need a +1 to hit but doesn't give a bonus. Teleport has a good chance of putting you in the ground or up to 300 feet in the air if you've never seen your target before.

[Tyndmyr]

I dont mean for this to come off as harsh, but you're probably better off either coming to terms with 3.5, or just playing AD&D.

I had the same worry...

Honestly, just go grab Castles and Crusades. Or just get comfortable with one of the two systems as they are.

[Alefiend]

Do you know OSRIC? (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/)
It's an AD&D clone that uses the more systematic methodology of d20, while still giving you a 90-99% AD&D-compatible game.

I just looked this over, and I don't find any d20 methodology at all—just a few magical items that have been back-converted. OSRIC is essentially a free-download version of Hackmaster, with British spellings in place of American.

Thanks for the free book! :smallwink:

[nyarlathotep]

Actually, the biggest spellcaster weakness in AD&D is less useful spells and spells with side effects. Haste sounds like a good spell... until you realize that it ages the target a year, meaning they need to make a system shock roll or die. Identify doesn't give perfect information. Flame Arrow... sucks as a spell, because it's 3.5's Scorching Ray except a level higher. Likewise with Enchanted Weapon, a fourth level spell that lets you hit creatures that need a +1 to hit but doesn't give a bonus. Teleport has a good chance of putting you in the ground or up to 300 feet in the air if you've never seen your target before.

You probably just didn't look for the right spells. Flame arrow still exists in 3.5 and still sucks scorching ray was in 2nd edition and was still better. Identify didnt have a material component back then if I recall. Haste was overcome with the plethora of anti-aging abilities in AD&D, system shock wasn't call for on every aging effect either.

You still had stoneskin, gate, maze, etc..

[Chambers]

Probably better off playing a retro clone.

Swords & Wizardry. (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=2)
Castles and Crusades. (http://www.trolllord.com/cnc/index.html).
Dungeon Crawl Classics. (http://www.goodman-games.com/5070preview.html)

Or if they want to try something different, Hackmaster Basic (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_94). The new edition is not a parody and is a decent game. Also, Dragon Age RPG (http://www.greenronin.com/dragon_age/) is a solid rules lite fantasy RPG.

[MeeposFire]

My old AD&D gaming group is finally back home, and they are thinking of transitioning to 3.5. One of my gaming buddies expressed some puzzlement at iterative attacks -- in AD&D is was pretty hard to get extra attacks, they were considered a class feature for fighters and dual wield rogues/bards. He also wondered why the fighter had such bad saves and why there are only two types of save categories (good saves and bad saves). After some talking, we decided to make a list of changes that we would like to see to 3.5 for our gaming sessions.

Can Anyone Suggest More Changes or Critique the Ones Listed?

1) Extra Attacks are class features: Not every class gets extra attacks, and those that do, do not suffer iterative attack penalties.

Fighters get extra attacks at level 6, 12, and 18
Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get extra attacks at level 7 and 14
Rogues and Monks get an extra attack at level 11
Clerics, Mages, and Bards do not get extra attacks
Druids don't get extra attacks, but their animal forms have their natural attack progression.

2) Bonus Spells Don't Exist. Saves become (10 + Attribute Mod + 1/2 level)
High casting stats don't grant bonus spells. Saves follow a regular progression.

High Con really only benefits combat classes
Your constitution modifier determines the minimum number of HP you gain each level, capped by your hit die. A mage with a +8 constitution modifier only gains 4 hp each level, with no need to roll his hit points.

Casting is easier to interrupt
There is no defensive casting (though some PrCs might get a similar ability as a class feature). Taking damage when casting a spell requires a Will Save (15 + Damage dealt) or the spell is lost.

Introduce the average save category
There is now an average save category that ends with +9.

Any thoughts?

1) Bad idea. As much as fighters need help this will cause unforseen ramifications on the game. I also think making paladins and ranger go up differently is foolish as they progressed at the same rate in 2e. Your progression is also too slow. If you do do it make sure all the attacks are at full bonus rather than iteratives to get the previous feel and allow full attacks after a move action just like in 1e/2e. Notice this will cause balance issues but it will be closer to what it was. Also bards should have the same umber of attacks as rogues. 1e bards had more attacks (since they were part fighters) and 2e bards had exactly the same.

2) Bonus spells belong on clerics and druids but nobody else. Saves should no longer be at spell level but if you want to be accurate they should never improve the DC's at all and they should be really difficult at first if you want to get the AD&D feel.

3) mages would get 6 HP as they used to be able to get up to the +2 bonus. Same with all non-warriors.

4) If you want to be accurate it should be based on being hit not damaged. 2e rules were based on being hit not damaged though that is not well known. Also no check either, if hit it is disrupted period. That would be accurate. This is the one rule that I would think about.

5) I guess not worth it in my opinion.

I honestly don't think this is worth it. It would be better to play AD&D or just learn to accept the evolution to the game.

[Tvtyrant]

My old AD&D gaming group is finally back home, and they are thinking of transitioning to 3.5. One of my gaming buddies expressed some puzzlement at iterative attacks -- in AD&D is was pretty hard to get extra attacks, they were considered a class feature for fighters and dual wield rogues/bards. He also wondered why the fighter had such bad saves and why there are only two types of save categories (good saves and bad saves). After some talking, we decided to make a list of changes that we would like to see to 3.5 for our gaming sessions.

Can Anyone Suggest More Changes or Critique the Ones Listed?

1) Extra Attacks are class features: Not every class gets extra attacks, and those that do, do not suffer iterative attack penalties.

Fighters get extra attacks at level 6, 12, and 18
Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get extra attacks at level 7 and 14
Rogues and Monks get an extra attack at level 11
Clerics, Mages, and Bards do not get extra attacks
Druids don't get extra attacks, but their animal forms have their natural attack progression.

2) Bonus Spells Don't Exist. Saves become (10 + Attribute Mod + 1/2 level)
High casting stats don't grant bonus spells. Saves follow a regular progression.

High Con really only benefits combat classes
Your constitution modifier determines the minimum number of HP you gain each level, capped by your hit die. A mage with a +8 constitution modifier only gains 4 hp each level, with no need to roll his hit points.

Casting is easier to interrupt
There is no defensive casting (though some PrCs might get a similar ability as a class feature). Taking damage when casting a spell requires a Will Save (15 + Damage dealt) or the spell is lost.

Introduce the average save category
There is now an average save category that ends with +9.

Any thoughts?

1. Does this apply to enemies? If the Balor can only make one attack a round as well then your actually only boosting the Fighter, so its not that bad. It changes 3.5 a lot, but since 3.5 is a train flying off the rails so fast it begins flying this isn't a bad thing. If enemies do get extra attacks it just wrecked melee so hard it can never recover :P

2. Doesn't change the game much, I would suggest just using weaker casters and refluffing them as those classes. Bard, Nature/Divine Bard, etc.

3. This one needs playtesting to really see if it works, and I would suggest instead having con do 1.5 times in HP on none casters. A Fighter with a mod of 4 gets 8 HP a level. Unless your problem is HP inflation, in which case cut con to HP all together for monsters and people except Fighters and Barbarians.

4. I like this one. Makes over time damage effects useful.

5. Don't really see the point.

[Eldariel]

1) Extra Attacks are class features: Not every class gets extra attacks, and those that do, do not suffer iterative attack penalties.

Fighters get extra attacks at level 6, 12, and 18
Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get extra attacks at level 7 and 14
Rogues and Monks get an extra attack at level 11
Clerics, Mages, and Bards do not get extra attacks
Druids don't get extra attacks, but their animal forms have their natural attack progression.

Try:
- 1 attack 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter (so 1, 5, 10, 15, 20). This means full BAB classes will end up with one attack more than anyone else.
- Remove standard attack entirely. All attacks are full attacks (or rather, all attacks on your turn are full attacks). This is one major difference between AD&D and 3.X.
- Streamline the current TWF into one feat. While AD&D TWF only ever granted one extra attack, 3.X TWF doesn't scale the same way AD&D TWF did. "Whenever you gain an extra attack with your main-hand, gain one with your off-hand too". Basically advanced versions just granted bonuses and reduced penalties more than anything else. If you want to maintain the Improved and Greater variant, allow Improved to negate the -2 penalty and Greater to e.g. grant some +1-2 AC, +1 to hit and +2 to damage or some such; kind of like a tailored Melee Weapon Mastery.


2) Bonus Spells Don't Exist. Saves become (10 + Attribute Mod + 1/2 level)
High casting stats don't grant bonus spells. Saves follow a regular progression.

You'd have to rework or import the tables entirely for this to make any sense whatsoever. I think you're better off sticking to the better save system unless you fancy the 6-separate-progression save system of AD&D.

As for high casting stat extra spells, I think that's one of the better changes in 3.X (makes low level casters somewhat more useful in the long run) so I don't think that's the best place to touch unless you literally are trying to run AD&D in 3.5 (in which case...why aren't you just running AD&D?)


High Con really only benefits combat classes
Your constitution modifier determines the minimum number of HP you gain each level, capped by your hit die. A mage with a +8 constitution modifier only gains 4 hp each level, with no need to roll his hit points.

This is kinda arbitrary. One good fella on this forum suggested this genius version:
- You gain your Con-modifier*BAB (minimum 1) to your HP. This way high BAB classes (that is, warriors) get way more HP from their Con but everybody gets some.


Casting is easier to interrupt
There is no defensive casting (though some PrCs might get a similar ability as a class feature). Taking damage when casting a spell requires a Will Save (15 + Damage dealt) or the spell is lost.

I think "Concentration or lose spell" is fine; tying it to Will-save makes it kinda free for Druids and Clerics. Touch spells should definitely be castable defensively (hell, they allow you to treat yourself as armed) but otherwise the game wouldn't suffer at all from the removal of the defensive casting mechanic.

You'd have to eliminate 5' steps somehow too tho. I like to tie them to full attacks and only allow them towards the opponent you're attacking. Defensive 5' steps make the melee threat equally irrelevant as Defensive Casting so both have to go. In AD&D you don't go casting spells if someone capable of harming you is next to you with a weapon drawn (you either draw a weapon of your own or run for your life). In 3.5 you just 5' step back and cast.


Introduce the average save category
There is now an average save category that ends with +9.

*shrug* Makes sense. If you want to retool the save tables, this could be a useful tool (indeed, AD&D had more variety in the save progressions than just "good" and "bad").

[DonEsteban]

1) Extra Attacks are class features: Not every class gets extra attacks, and those that do, do not suffer iterative attack penalties.

Fighters get extra attacks at level 6, 12, and 18
Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get extra attacks at level 7 and 14
Rogues and Monks get an extra attack at level 11
Clerics, Mages, and Bards do not get extra attacks
Druids don't get extra attacks, but their animal forms have their natural attack progression.

It is certainly AD&Dish to make rogues useless in combat, but whether this improves the game I doubt. ;) Otherwise... I don't think it is a very big deal. Magic users don't need iterative attacks anyway...



Casting is easier to interrupt

I see a few possibilities to achieve this. "There is no defensive casting" is a good start. Then
1) allow one additional 5-foot step for opponents if the caster also makes a 5-foot step.
or 2) let the caster fumble if he took damage this round,
maybe with 2b) roll initiative every round.
3) increase the casting time of all spells to at least 1 round
4) add casting times to spells and make it fumble if he gets hit in the meantime (as suggested above).

I must say, however, that I don't like either of the possibilities. The would have to be playtested and, other than your other suggestions, would change the game quite a bit.

One more thought: In AD&D it was possible to protect a magic user by positioning fighters in front of them (at least that's the routine in our group). This is no longer possible (usually) with the movement rules of 3rd edition.

[Urpriest]

Perhaps you could explain what you like about 3.5 that's making you choose it over a retclone? Most people who like 3.5 do so because of its options and consistent ruleset, and you'd like to remove both from what I'm hearing. Tell us what you want to keep and what you want to change, and chances are there's a game that already does it.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

1) requires too much work for the many base classes. Try the free TWF tree and attacks at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 mentioned above combined with 1 less attack per 3 spell levels of the highest level spell one can cast (rounded down).

So pally looks like (for dominant hand attacks):
1: 1 attack
5: 2 attacks
10: 3 attacks
11: 2 attacks
15: 3 attacks
20: 4 attacks

cleric looks like (for dominant hand attacks):
1: 1 attack
5: 1 attack
10: 2 attacks
11: 1 attack
15: 2 attacks
17: 1 attack
20: 2 attacks

wizard looks like:
1: 1 attack
5: 0 attacks (allows the one off hand attack)
10: 1 attack
11: 0 attacks (allows off both hand attack)
17: -1 attacks (allows one off hand attack)
20: 0 attacks (allows both off hand attacks)


4) That will save should simply be equal to damage. That 15 looks awfully arbitrary. It gives the caster a remote chance DC60 saves for fully buffed DMM clerics aren't impossible while needle pricks are auto-succeed (DC1)



One good fella on this forum suggested this genius version:
- You gain your Con-modifier*BAB (minimum 1) to your HP. This way high BAB classes (that is, warriors) get way more HP from their Con but everybody gets some.3)I prefer class HD + con mod * attacks from permanent BAB

so barb has more hp than fighter but rangers still have more than clerics. Also the HP values won't be too high, but still high enough to avoid 1-shotting by the

[Yahzi]

Can Anyone Suggest More Changes or Critique the Ones Listed?
First, scrap all of those. Just forget them. Don't even worry about iterative attacks for other classes. It won't come up, and when it does, it won't matter. Seriously, you'll never even care. Same for CON bonuses and bonus spells - it's just not going to affect the feel of the game much.

There are many other minor tweaks the game could use, but to recreate the old Edition feel, I suggest these few simple things, in order of importance:


All magic item creation feats require 17th level before taking them. Seriously, one of the big things about the old edition was that you couldn't make magic items. In 3.5, wizards can make scrolls at level 1. This completely destroys the only weakness the wizard class ever had. Don't let that happen!

Everybody (monsters included) gets the Step Up feat (from Pathfinder). Basically, anytime anybody adjacent to you takes a five foot step, you can immediately move into their square.

Fighters get good saves all around and 4 x skill points. That's just to make them not completely blow. You can also give them a feat every level. Really, it won't make them overpowered.

Fighters get Leadership for free at 5th level. They immediately attract their share of 1st level fighters, who serve loyally without pay. Should any of those NPCs die, they are replaced the next day by new volunteers. Think of it as "Summon Monster," but it lasts 24 hours.


I think if you use these 4 simple changes, it will make the game feel a lot more like 1/2E. Casters will be scared of melee, Fighters won't suck worse than they did before, and magic items will be rare and precious instead of ordinary commodities.

[Eldariel]

Oh yeah, and don't forget to give all warrior classes (Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin) at least good Will-save progression and remove Max Dex Bonus from armor (so heavier = better like in AD&D).

[Amphetryon]

I've skimmed the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating advice here. One of the ways earlier iterations of D&D sought to 'balance' caster and non-caster classes was to make caster classes need more XP to level up, so they took longer to get their Phenomenal Cosmic Power (tm). Consider increasing XP requirements for full-caster classes to level by 20%, without giving *extra* XP to them if they are a level behind but at an equal XP total to their non-caster teammates. I'd advise against doing this with the half-caster classes like Paladin and Ranger, because they aren't as strong, relatively, as they were in earlier versions of D&D, and the Bard probably only warrants a 10% penalty (at best) because it's already widely considered Tier 3 and therefore relatively well-balanced in the system.

[Alefiend]

All magic item creation feats require 17th level before taking them. Seriously, one of the big things about the old edition was that you couldn't make magic items. In 3.5, wizards can make scrolls at level 1. This completely destroys the only weakness the wizard class ever had. Don't let that happen!

I agree with you in spirit, but the 1st Edition Rules Lawyer within me must object to the specifics. Per the DMG, player characters can create scrolls of spells they know and can cast as of 7th level. Wizards—I won't call them magic-users:smallyuk:—can make potions at 7th level if they work with an alchemist NPC, or at 11th level without one.

Other items are on a case-by-case basis, but level 11 for clerics, druids, and illusionists, or level 12 for wizards, is the stated minimum. Further, non-rechargeable expendable items, like wands and javelins of lightning, don't require permanency. Enchant an item is a 6th-level wizard spell, so that is all they need, apart from the appropriate spell to charge the item.

I won't describe the creation process, material requirements, or rest/exhaustion issues, but it's fair to say that enforcing them will make item creation more trouble than it's worth.