3.x Hybrid

[paladinn]

I'm considering starting a hybrid game. Originally I'd thought to use an OSR system (like Labyrinth Lord) as the basis and port in elements of 3.x and 5e. But the more I ponder, the more I realize how versatile 3.x is (and the crunch potential might be a Good thing here). There is a reason that it sparked the D20 revolution. Eventually I would like to possibly open this up to other genres as well.

So going with the assumption of using 3.x/D20 as the chassis, I would like input on a few things:

1. Is there a good/compelling reason to start with 3.0 instead of 3.5? If I bring in elements of BXECMI, OSR, 1e or 2e, would they mesh better with one or the other?

2. Are there any elements of the older systems that would make sense in such a hybrid game? I've thought of limiting attribute bonuses, HD, etc. to more Basic-level. And some limits on race-class combos (dwarf wizards are just wrong)

3. What elements of 5e would make sense ported to the hybrid? I'm already intending to grab the magic system, and debating using the 5e saves model. Probably dis/advantage too. Is there a reason Not to?

4. I know that Pathfinder went off the deep end with the feat explosion. But I do think there is a place for feats in character customization, Especially for "plain" fighters and thieves/rogues/experts/whatever. But 5e feats are pretty powerful to give out with every level (fighters) or even every other level (everyone else). What would be a reasonable feat progression for martials (and maybe others - Gandalf needs to be able to wield a sword!)?

I know 5e is claimed to be the "rosetta stone" of D&D; but as much as I appreciate bounded accuracy, I think it might be handicapping this project too much; thus, starting with 3.x.

Please share any relevant thoughts ("You're wasting your time" isn't helpful), and please keep it respectful. I don't want to start an edition war, just want to meld the best of all worlds.

Peace!

Michael

[JNAProductions]

What do you mean by 5E's magic system? That may or may not be a good idea.

(Dis)Advantage is a good thing to use, though.

[paladinn]

What do you mean by 5E's magic system? That may or may not be a good idea.

(Dis)Advantage is a good thing to use, though.

I mean abandoning "fire-and-forget." All "spontaneous" casting. The spells/day chart would be spell Slots/day, unless I use it for both spells known/prepared And spell slots.

5e uses a different means of calculating the total number of spells one can prepare/know, but I think it comes out the pretty close to the same thing.

[JNAProductions]

I mean abandoning "fire-and-forget." All "spontaneous" casting. The spells/day chart would be spell Slots/day, unless I use it for both spells known/prepared And spell slots.

5e uses a different means of calculating the total number of spells one can prepare/know, but I think it comes out the pretty close to the same thing.

That's a significant buff to Wizards and other prepared casters. But it does make the system easier to approach.

[paladinn]

That's a significant buff to Wizards and other prepared casters. But it does make the system easier to approach.

I think it's still a matter of resource management. If you have 3 1st level slots, it's your choice to cast Magic Missile 3 times.

The idea of "forgetting" a spell once it's cast has always seemed silly to me.

[Powerdork]

I want you to know I'm not saying "you're wasting your time" or demeaning your playstyle any when I say this, I intend this as general advice for everyone:

Look at other games. Play some, if you can. Look at some Star Wars RPG, Traveller, Stars Without Number, MASKS, Firebrands, anything that doesn't have D&D or d20 on the label. Poach good ideas, and look at the kinds of things different games encourage.


With that out of the way: Regardless of which D&D version you use as your base, refresh yourself on the update-to-3e guidelines and 3.0-3.5 conversion rules so you know how the different editions handle similar concepts. Personally, I think 3.5 was an essential update that cut a lot of nonsense out of 3e's first run and injected a lot of flavour where there was previously arbitrary gating (such as by having typed damage reduction (cold iron and good) rather than checking the enhancement bonus that the attacker is using; DR 10/+2 just doesn't do it for me).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A big part of D&D's feel is Vancian casting to me, although the 3e-style run had plenty of alternative mechanics. Pathfinder has the Arcanist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/arcanist/), which is basically what you want instead of the Wizard. They prepare spells known and then spontaneously cast from that prepared list like in 5e.

Edit: Regarding 3.0 versus 3.5, the only mechanics I might consider back-porting are allowing keen and improved critical to stack (because why not), and if I were running a more "old school" type of game where wealth is non-fungible I might back-port the duration of some buff spells like Bull's Strength and Fly to compensate.

[Psyren]

1. Is there a good/compelling reason to start with 3.0 instead of 3.5? If I bring in elements of BXECMI, OSR, 1e or 2e, would they mesh better with one or the other?

3.0 is even more unbalanced in the casters' favor than 3.5 so I would probably not use that. Hours-long summons and stat buffs, Haste letting you cast two spells/round, the darkness+infravision combo, etc. Personally I'd start with PF as the base, but if you'd rather build on D&D specifically then I'd pick 3.5 as the edition of choice.


2. Are there any elements of the older systems that would make sense in such a hybrid game? I've thought of limiting attribute bonuses, HD, etc. to more Basic-level. And some limits on race-class combos (dwarf wizards are just wrong)

Race/class restrictions are a step backwards imo, especially when the class in question has no conflicts with the racial features of that race. Discouraging certain combinations (like dwarf sorcerers) should mostly be cultural, perhaps with a hint of biological inclination - not a hard metaphysical barrier.


3. What elements of 5e would make sense ported to the hybrid? I'm already intending to grab the magic system, and debating using the 5e saves model. Probably dis/advantage too. Is there a reason Not to?

The best things I can suggest leveraging from 5e are infinite+scaling cantrips along with the removal of bonus spells. Ammunition is one of the main reasons casters can afford to usurp the roles of non-casting classes, because they have too many spells to throw around at mid-high levels, while at low levels they break out the crossbow far too often. 5e's spellcasting system solves both problems, and still allows for spellcasters who can take on another role in a pinch.

I would also consider porting in a version (most likely relaxed) of 5e's concentration mechanic, to limit the number of buffs a caster can pile on before wading into melee.


4. I know that Pathfinder went off the deep end with the feat explosion. But I do think there is a place for feats in character customization, Especially for "plain" fighters and thieves/rogues/experts/whatever. But 5e feats are pretty powerful to give out with every level (fighters) or even every other level (everyone else). What would be a reasonable feat progression for martials (and maybe others - Gandalf needs to be able to wield a sword!)?

Pathfinder landed on "every other level" for feats and I think that's a fine progression. I do agree that there is feat bloat - see the "Feat Taxes" article in my sig as a starting point for remedying that.


I think it's still a matter of resource management. If you have 3 1st level slots, it's your choice to cast Magic Missile 3 times.

The idea of "forgetting" a spell once it's cast has always seemed silly to me.

Technically you're not "forgetting" anything, rather you've only done the "pre-casting" for that magic missile 3 times.

With that said, I do prefer the 5e wizard/PF arcanist method of prepared casting (i.e. prepare one copy of each spell, use that one copy as many times as you have slots of that level.)

[Fizban]

I1. Is there a good/compelling reason to start with 3.0 instead of 3.5? If I bring in elements of BXECMI, OSR, 1e or 2e, would they mesh better with one or the other?
Many of the other d20 systems began before 3.5 was written, so comparing them to 3.5 core and splatbooks may have problems. Those based upon a particular franchise like Wheel of Time or Slayers may have brute-forced magic system changes to match the source material which expect you to buy into those changes rather than complaining that they don't work with DnD content. "Martial" content from that early tends to have high costs for what people nowadays call insignificant benefits, especially compared to magic, even if the magic in that system is actually heavily truncated. D20 Modern has a system where magic still exists, but it's in prestige classes you can't enter until later, but DnD monster progression expects certain magic at certain levels.

2. Are there any elements of the older systems that would make sense in such a hybrid game? I've thought of limiting attribute bonuses, HD, etc. to more Basic-level. And some limits on race-class combos (dwarf wizards are just wrong)
I'm not very familiar with the older editions, but not-using massive point buys or uber rolling methods and limiting char-op of stats into the stratosphere is a good idea. It's amazing how many people don't recognize the fact that their character with +3-4 attack and damage (save DC, etc) higher at all times compared to the playtest characters is not in fact balanced. That using 30 or 35 or 40 point buy and races with +4 or higher stat bonuses, when the DMG says 25 standard right there and no PHB race has more than +2, might actually be more powerful and cause certain expectations to no longer match.

3. What elements of 5e would make sense ported to the hybrid? I'm already intending to grab the magic system, and debating using the 5e saves model. Probably dis/advantage too. Is there a reason Not to?

I mean abandoning "fire-and-forget." All "spontaneous" casting. The spells/day chart would be spell Slots/day, unless I use it for both spells known/prepared And spell slots.
5e uses a different means of calculating the total number of spells one can prepare/know, but I think it comes out the pretty close to the same thing.
As long as everyone uses the same system, and that system works, no worries. What does worry me is that you don't recognize the massive differences between the 3.5 and 5e spell charts. 3.5 includes bonus slots for ability scores which cause massive differences between average, elite, and uber abilty scores, as well as domain and specialist slots that further rock the boat. 5e does not, and also massively truncates slots that are above 5th level, while limiting the short rest recovery to those lower level slots, effectively creating a two-tiered system- this helps somewhat with the problem of way too many spell slots overall and high level slots specifically, but also depends on their changes to many spells which have fixed damage and the removal of dice/caster level. Then they further reduce spells per fight by switching from "4" encounters per day (rather, 20% resources per fight), to "6 encounters per day with 2 short rests"- this is why basic attacks and cantrips are more important in 5e.

And of course those cantrips do have their own problem, as they have long stretches between break points. Ironically, though one of the favorite Warlock buffs in 3.5 is to give cha to damage*, 5e's "all casters have not-eldritch-blast" does not include stat to damage. So while the weapon users get more attacks and bonuses to damage, the caster basic attack just has bare dice (highly random d10's). The 5th and 11th level breakpoints on basic attacks and cantrips plus the high hit points of enemies mean using a monster even 1 CR above level at the wrong time can mean the party is at literally 1/2 the consistent DPS that monster expects, and the highly random cantrip damage means a caster will often feel their turn was wasted. Leading them to burn more slots earlier, when they have fewer slots to stretch over more combats, and then they hit the boss and their cantrips *really* suck, and oh man you better hope no one multiclassed (I've watched some streams).

The two systems do not come out to nearly the same, is what I'm saying.
*(I don't actually agree with stat to blast for 3.5 Warlocks, but in 5e it's funny that caster attacks aren't attacks).

4. I know that Pathfinder went off the deep end with the feat explosion. But I do think there is a place for feats in character customization, Especially for "plain" fighters and thieves/rogues/experts/whatever. But 5e feats are pretty powerful to give out with every level (fighters) or even every other level (everyone else). What would be a reasonable feat progression for martials (and maybe others - Gandalf needs to be able to wield a sword!)?
5e feats aren't even what I'd call a feat system anymore- they're specifically competing with ability score increases which are tied to a much tighter expectation of character numbers. Some people complain that "everything in 3.5 requires a feat," but in 5e that's *actually* true for some things (though it's been a while since I read them). It's a system that has deliberately reduced spellcasting, class features, and parallel advancements.

I know 5e is claimed to be the "rosetta stone" of D&D; but as much as I appreciate bounded accuracy, I think it might be handicapping this project too much; thus, starting with 3.x.
Ha.


Anyway, you've got two main things that make 3.x, 3.x: the spells, and the monsters. The basic HD/BAB/skills/feat systems are not unique, those are in all d20 systems and you can mash them until they fit or not. But let us ask this question:

If you run a character from another system against 3.5 monsters, does it work? If you run that character as part of a 3.5 party against those monsters, does it work?

The only thing preventing stuff from another d20 system from working in 3.5 DnD is whether or not it works against the slate of published material, which is essentially a list of monsters, as only a badly written adventure for this combat-focused game will just stonewall you for failing a one-time skill check for a skill that wasn't explicitly called out.

And the thing that guarantees the party can interact with those monsters, is the spell system. Specifically the pile of status removal and occasional problem solving the Cleric has, and the AoE/physical defense piercing the arcanists have, all of which are given laborious detail and ranking in the long spell lists of the PHB. If the party has sufficient access to these effects at the appropriate levels along with a couple bodies that can take hits and deliver basic attacks, they can function. Then modules are written including other obstacles which are also guaranteed passage with this spell and magic item system in mind.

The question then becomes whether you want these added elements to work alongside the existing 3.x spell list and classes (against these foes), or replace some of them, or replace all of them. Or alternatively, if you intend to make up your own progressions- you're going to need to write an entire new bestiary to go with your changes to the magic progressions.

A lot of people seem to completely gloss over this fact. And sure, there are plenty of systems where the foes are built exactly the same as the characters and the GM is just supposed to figure it out. But really the most significant feature of 3.x is that in addition to character creation, it *also* has book after book of pre-made monsters which *don't* use the same mechanics as characters, which (are supposed to) form asymetrical fights, and are all given rankings that should make them immediately usable against normal characters made with that system. I don't know how many other games do this (as I said, I haven't actually read any of those you're mentioning), but alternative systems I've read have not, at best providing a few examples, or existing in a world which has few monsters to begin with.

This is the primary problem you'll have to grapple with in making a new system. It's easy to slap together a bunch of mechanics for character creation. Making it match up against something, or making something to match up against it, is the hard part.

3.0 is even more unbalanced in the casters' favor than 3.5 so I would probably not use that. Hours-long summons and stat buffs, Haste letting you cast two spells/round, the darkness+infravision combo, etc. Personally I'd start with PF as the base, but if you'd rather build on D&D specifically then I'd pick 3.5 as the edition of choice.
Infravision doesn't exist in 3.0, nor do hour long summons. Maybe you're getting confused with Neverwinter Nights? Problems with a specific spell are specific.

I would also consider porting in a version (most likely relaxed) of 5e's concentration mechanic, to limit the number of buffs a caster can pile on before wading into melee.
A good limitation if you wish to build in that direction, but for the love of any and/or all gods, don't call it "concentration!" That's not how concentration works! That's not how the concentration skill works, that not how spells which you concentrate on works, and 5e still tries to have both. There's already a word that immediately tells you how many spells you can maintain, it's "maintain!" How anyone let that happen is beyond me. And WotC, kings of never backing down, won't even consider changing it until 6e. :smallfurious:

[Quertus]

Oh, what a delightful thread! Pity that I'm lost on the basic premise.

So, you want to… what? Create a brand new, highly derivative system? Create a platform via which to run crossovers? House rule 3e by means of copying other systems?

Now, I know you said that you didn't want edition wars, but several people have told me that 4e D&D is muggle heaven. So, even though I hate the edition personally, I'll recommend that you add 4e to your list, and see if there's any good muggle minigames that are worth importing. (Thus, I obviously second "look at other systems, see what they do well (and poorly)")

I'll second the notion that banning race/class combos is a step backwards.

I'll also second the "infinite scaling Cantrips".

I'll even second 3.0 crit stacking rules, and raise you (most) 3.0 cheaper item prices, and Vorpal triggered on crit, because Fighters should have nice things.

(EDIT: and I absolutely second the "expected abilities" curve comments, but… then fly hard in the opposite direction and ask, "but do you care?". Does it matter to you that a party of 20th level Aies Sedai and Jedi have no ability to de-petrify a character, no ability to hit incorporeal creatures, no ability to see invisibility? IMO, both "yes" and "no" are valid answers; "I hadn't thought of that", OTOH, is not.)

I am… concerned… that you like bounded accuracy. What part of "experts should be replaced by a dozen idiots; adventurers by armies" seems appealing to you (unless what you like is "the players playing armies", in which case, more power to you).

Oh, and insert my obligatory comments that implementing "maintenance" limits will limit buffs to muggles (which limiting Wizard spells also does), and 3e Haste was a stealth nerf to Wizards (causing them to run out of ammo faster).

[Lans]

3.0 is even more unbalanced in the casters' favor than 3.5 so I would probably not use that. Hours-long summons and stat buffs, Haste letting you cast two spells/round, the darkness+infravision combo, etc. Personally I'd start with PF as the base, but if you'd rather build on D&D specifically then I'd pick 3.5 as the edition of choice.


Maybe look into a half way point between the hastes and have it give a bonus move action, or an extra attack.

[MR_Anderson]

I'm considering starting a hybrid game...But the more I ponder, the more I realize how versatile 3.x is (and the crunch potential might be a Good thing here). There is a reason that it sparked the D20 revolution.

So going with the assumption of using 3.x/D20 as the chassis, I would like input on a few things:

1. Is there a good/compelling reason to start with 3.0 instead of 3.5?

Yes, Flexibility. In our group we built off 3.0 when it was released, 3.5 is up to DM to allow, sometimes we allow both sets and combine effects. Example: You can cast the stat buffs at hour per level for +3 or the minute per level for +5, no more rolling a d4+1 for each person and having to track.

2. Are there any elements of the older systems that would make sense in such a hybrid game?

We have some house rules, but older edition wise…

0-Level Character Levels for Players from 1st Edition
Spell Casting times from 2nd Edition was something we really liked.
Multi Classing rules from 2nd Edition had pros and cons
D100 for certain skill success was easier to know chance of success.

4. I know that Pathfinder went off the deep end with the feat explosion. But I do think there is a place for feats in character customization, Especially for "plain" fighters and thieves/rogues/experts/whatever.…?

3.x Has Skill Tricks


Please share any relevant thoughts…

3.x Is easily flexible and customizable to anything.

If you think something is overpowered, as the DM you aren’t using every tool in your arsenal. In our group they thought Archers, specifically Arcane Archers made the game unplayable. A rise in one offensive tactic leads to the implementation of a new defensive tactic, and that has happened throughout history.

I don’t see a reason to play any other edition, but my nephew likes 4th & 5th because he doesn’t like casters, so I am guessing they got screwed over in those editions, but I’m not buying more books to find out.

[paladinn]

Thanks for the input, guys! By all means, please keep it coming.. I'll chime in as work and family life allow.

I definitely want to port the 5e magic system, or at least 2 parts of it: simultaneous casting (or something close) and the ability to upcast a spell. I shouldn't have to have 5 versions of Cure Wounds.

One of the good things about 5e is limiting the number of feats, if you use them at all. I know they're more powerful. I'm not sure they should be taken instead of ASI's, but I know they are way too frequent in 3x. Fighters get them Every level! One of the things I don't agree with is that characters need to get something new and shiny every level. Fighters should get them more than others, IMO, but not every level. Other classes should get them too, but not every other level. I'm not sure what the balance point is. I like the idea of fighters getting a mega-feat (fighting style) at 1st level.

What limits would y'all suggest for multiclassing?

As for "bonus spells", I am thinking to allow bonus spells Known for high INT, but bonus spell Slots for high WIS or CHA.

I'm also considering borrowing PF2's "skill system", where you have Unskilled, Basic, Adept, Expert and Master (+3 max, the titles are whatever)

As for "bounded accuracy", I know all the versions before 3e had different limits, whether it was 9HD, 18 attribute stats, etc. 3e removed most if not all the limits, and I'm not sure that was a good thing. 5e has 20 attribute stats and other limits as well. Just not sure which limits to adopt.

Good ideas are good ideas:)

[paladinn]

One other thing.. I very much want to keep the D20 for most if not all dice rolls (other than the D6's for attributes). And I want to avoid wonky subsystems, like the battlemaster's "superiority dice". That just seems entirely bolted on.

[Quertus]

As for "bounded accuracy", I know all the versions before 3e had different limits, whether it was 9HD, 18 attribute stats, etc. 3e removed most if not all the limits, and I'm not sure that was a good thing. 5e has 20 attribute stats and other limits as well. Just not sure which limits to adopt.

So, this is the second thread today where I'm going to say that, in a thread I read recently, it was said that, before one changes a rule, one should really, thoroughly understand just what that rule does.

5e Bounded Accuracy keeps lowly orcs and goblins a threat to epic adventurers… meaning that Minionmancy and armies are the optimal play, even moreso than in other editions.

2e limited HD… prevents the necessity to upscale damage, so you don't need to be dealing 1d8+367358744+74886 damage to remain relevant (EDIT: that is, it kept the numbers small; removing that led to HP bloat in 3e, and the optimizers' stance that Evocation is garbage)

No edition of D&D I remember caps stats at 18. IIRC, BECMI capped stats at 25 (well, technically, 100); 2e did as well.

So, what end result do you *want* when you claim to want "bounded accuracy"? (Also, note that, unless your answer is, "for muggles to be garbage", you'll have to be very careful, and put forth the effort to acquire a more thorough understanding of rules interactions, and diligence in evaluating the ramifications of your implementation, or else you can easily get that result added in as a side effect of your efforts.)

[FaerieGodfather]

1. Is there a good/compelling reason to start with 3.0 instead of 3.5? If I bring in elements of BXECMI, OSR, 1e or 2e, would they mesh better with one or the other?

I'm not seeing anything here. I might suggest going with PF1 to have access to Archetypes.


2. Are there any elements of the older systems that would make sense in such a hybrid game? I've thought of limiting attribute bonuses, HD, etc. to more Basic-level. And some limits on race-class combos (dwarf wizards are just wrong)

Well... limiting attributes/attribute bonuses is the antithesis of what I want from D&D, but it does seem to be the way of things-- can't be too bad if everyone's doing it. Limiting hit point inflation might be worthwhile.

Race-as-Class is the hill I'll die on... but restricting race-class combos is a step in the right direction. Dwarves should never be Wizards or Druids. Elves should not be Paladins or Clerics and never not be Arcane or Primal casters.



3. What elements of 5e would make sense ported to the hybrid? I'm already intending to grab the magic system, and debating using the 5e saves model. Probably dis/advantage too. Is there a reason Not to?

I would absolutely recommend viking the Adv/Dis mechanic and the spell slots system. The way Extra Attack works-- if you're not using d20 multiclassing-- and the Action Economy are all pretty solid. Concentration is a good mechanic, even if I think it needs to be loosened up a little.

I don't have a single good thing to say about the Proficiency system, the Saving Throw system, or how they interact.

The problem with the Saving Throw math in 3.X was that the Base Save DC of a caster's highest-level spell (or a monster's special abilities) scaled as fast as a PC's Good Save categories... while the total Save DC was based on a single ability score that was usually the caster/monster's highest. Effectively, Save DCs scale faster than Good Saves and much faster than Bad Saves.

In 5e, the Save DC for all spells and all abilities scales at the same rate as your Good Saves, again based on a single Ability measured against all six of the PC's Abilities. Your Bad Saves don't improve at all unless you're putting your ASIs into them.


4. I know that Pathfinder went off the deep end with the feat explosion. But I do think there is a place for feats in character customization, Especially for "plain" fighters and thieves/rogues/experts/whatever. But 5e feats are pretty powerful to give out with every level (fighters) or even every other level (everyone else). What would be a reasonable feat progression for martials (and maybe others - Gandalf needs to be able to wield a sword!)?

If you're doing meaty 5e style feats? I would say one at 1st, one every 4th, but not replacing ASIs.

[DrMartin]

Starting from the system is a bit like picking your plates without knowing yet what kind of dinner you want to serve. My suggestion would be to start by asking yourself what kind of stories you want to tell, which kind of media you want to emulate, and then you can figure out which system is the better base.

A total legit answer to the question is "dnd" (which has arguably become its own genre) - but maybe you have something else specific in mind, that can help shape your homebrewing in a more focused way.

Once that is out of the way: older systems, like old school d&d/BECMI and its modern reincarnation like labyrinth lord and old school essentials, are a bit more modular than more modern system. It is harder to bolt things and break something using older games rather than modern games with elegant and slick design, as a specific consequence of their nature.

You can port modern edition's initiative system into od&d and it won't break much. But replace the skill system from 3.5 with something else entirely (or remove it, for a true old school feel) and you now have to deal with class abilities that won't really work without those skills, or feats/prestige class pre-requisites, or spells that enhance specific uses of those skills etc etc - all of this can of course have a solution, but is a lot of work.
On the other hand, plug the skill system from whatever of those editions on od&d and it will work pretty much as-is.

TL/DR: if you want to build a frankenstein (or a Mr Potato), start with something that has modularity at its core, rather than a smooth, integrated, slick system.
A good inspiration could be Riddle of Steel, a whole system based on the premise that you shouldn't use all of it.


(Also - am not too familiar with the forum's guideline, but maybe this would fit better in homebrew? I don't know if the advice you get would be better, as the one you got upthread is already really good, but it is, technically, homebrew)

[Kayblis]

Many people have stated most of my opinions, so instead of echoing the above, I'll try to summarize a few points of interest:

-3.5 is the superior version of 3e and the most customizable D&D system. There's no discussion here. If you need a base, none is as solid as 3.5.

-Rules interactions between editions have always been extremely iffy. Only backport or adapt something if you know the system you're using as base very well. 2e and 1e have little to offer to 3.5 that's actually new, and arbitrary limits are not a good addition. Remember, the math is completely different between editions.

-5e is a simple system that, at first glance, looks like 3.5. It's actually very very different. The whole of 3.5 can't operate within a bounded accuracy system, so if you're not using 5e as a base system, don't try to implement that idea. It's way more trouble than it's worth, trust me.

-Quality of Life changes from Pathfinder and 5e are actually welcome, like the 5e prepared spells system and the infinite cantrips. Mechanical adaptations on the other hand, like 5e's lack of scaling, the saves, and the upcasting mechanic are very hard to do right, and you'll see yourself rewriting most spells if you do try. Same as above, not worth it. Do note that you could just give everyone Heighten Spell as a baseline, and other feats like Earth Spell or Fortify Spell can be picked to simulate that upcasting effect.

-The systems were made to be self-contained. No one on the design team had "what if people mash 4 or 5 different editions together?" in mind when developing each system. Expect to have a resulting system that's about 90% base system, 5% other systems, 5% homebrew. This is not a bad thing. Make it too complicated with too many conflicting sources and no player will be able to figure out how to play this mess.

All in all, I wish you good luck with the project, and if it does result in something your players love, post about it in the Homebrew section!

[paladinn]

Re: attribute limits: In 2e and below, all characters were limited to 18. Up to 25 was for monsters and deities. 3x started the unlimited progression. 5e limits characters to 20. I'm thinking to limit to 20 at Most.

Re: infinite cantrips: I mostly agree with it, but I want to limit the "combat cantrips" to two, a low-level version of Shield and Magic Missile. They can be upcast as leveled spells to burn slots for more power. A low-level magic missile/bolt/whatever is a better "last resort" for a wizard than grabbing a hand crossbow (and missing)

Re: "Riddle of Steel": This is the first I've heard of it. Definitely need to check it out!

Re: Proficiency system: I have mixed feelings about this. If we're reining in bonuses and such, the 3x BtH system seems kind of "out there", especially for fighters. +20 to hit for 20th level fighters?? But the 5e model seems almost too restrictive. +6 to hit for 20th level fighters?? What is the happy medium?

I also have issues with the proficiency save system, where if you're proficient you always save and otherwise you never do. High level characters should save more often than low, methinks.

[Quertus]

The problem with the Saving Throw math in 3.X was that the Base Save DC of a caster's highest-level spell (or a monster's special abilities) scaled as fast as a PC's Good Save categories... while the total Save DC was based on a single ability score that was usually the caster/monster's highest. Effectively, Save DCs scale faster than Good Saves and much faster than Bad Saves.

In 5e, the Save DC for all spells and all abilities scales at the same rate as your Good Saves, again based on a single Ability measured against all six of the PC's Abilities. Your Bad Saves don't improve at all unless you're putting your ASIs into them..

I like 2e, where the saves scale, but the save DC is static.


2e and 1e have little to offer to 3.5

2e has…

Roll initiative every round, which keeps battles more tense, and players more engaged.

Casting times, which are a cool minigame of caster vulnerability.

Random treasure, no magic item shops, which makes play much more dynamic.

Cool item creation rules, including flavorful exotic components and XP for item creation.

No automatic spell acquisition for Wizards, which makes play more dynamic, and makes random loot (which was weighted very heavily for the Fighter) even cooler for the Wizards when it gave them new spells.

Dead simple monster / NPC creation rules.

Full BAB on Iterative attacks. 'Nuff said.


Re: attribute limits: In 2e and below, all characters were limited to 18.

Nope. Racial modifiers could take you to 19 just in "core" (elves, dwarves), 20 with "expansions" (like "Minotaur" or "Drow" or Dark Sun - possibly 22 with some races in Dark Sun), and 25 with items or Wishes.

Also, Gauntlets of Ogre Power were cumulative with Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, giving you numbers superior to a 25 Strength.


Up to 25 was for monsters and deities. 3x started the unlimited progression. 5e limits characters to 20. I'm thinking to limit to 20 at Most.

Yes, please, bring the 3e gods' stats back down to 20.

That's going to be a lot of reworking of the Monster Manuel, though.


Re: infinite cantrips: I mostly agree with it, but I want to limit the "combat cantrips" to two, a low-level version of Shield and Magic Missile. They can be upcast as leveled spells to burn slots for more power. A low-level magic missile/bolt/whatever is a better "last resort" for a wizard than grabbing a hand crossbow (and missing)

"You want"… why? What is the purpose this limit?


Re: Proficiency system: I have mixed feelings about this. If we're reining in bonuses and such, the 3x BtH system seems kind of "out there", especially for fighters. +20 to hit for 20th level fighters?? But the 5e model seems almost too restrictive. +6 to hit for 20th level fighters?? What is the happy medium?

Do your games really go to 20th level? If so, have you considered 2e's XP system?

In 3e, a party of 3 levels from 1st level to 2nd level after killing, what, 20 goblins? In 2e, a 1st level Wizard in a similar 3-man party would need to wade through 500 goblin corpses before seeing 2nd level.

Also, is it really that crazy that the epic "god on earth" Fighter has a 50/50 shot on something that the similarly epic scholar or telepath can hit on a 20, or has only just reached the level of skill to only miss on a total flub targets that said epic scholar or telepath peg roughly half the time? Does the Fighter really need to be worse than that?

C'mon, show muggles some love. I'd happily give Fighters +40 BAB by level 20, personally. (EDIT: well, given Power Attack, maybe a +20 BAB and +20 untyped bonus to hit, or, heck, a +∞ "you hit" untyped bonus to hit, for that matter)


I also have issues with the proficiency save system, where if you're proficient you always save and otherwise you never do. High level characters should save more often than low, methinks.

Have you tried flying spaghetti monster 2e?

No, I'm not a cultist of 2e / a 2e pusher, why do you ask? :smallwink:

[Efrate]

I would run a 3.pf or pf with some Qol from elsewhere. If you do not run 3.0/5/pf1e as the majority of your system none of the other elements work. Or whatever your base system is.

Bounded accuracy makes there no need for heroes, just armies. It makes sense for world bulding, but there literally no need for heroes. Hence why I steer away from 5e as a base.

QoL: infinite cantrips like pf/5e but have them scale better and faster. If you use 5e casting your cantrips need to be at least like half to 3/4 a 3.5 warlock EB damage but every other spe especially if limiting slots needs to get ratcheted up in power, which means you need to give commiserate buffs to other sources of damage ie the mundanes.

Ad/disadvantage for favorable/unfavorable circumstances instead of 3.5s +/- 2 circumstance shouls be kept.

5e feats are a bit much but for the mundane juat waive all Avility score prereqs and have each feat line be it TWF, bull rush from PF or whatever grant all feats from that chain at point X. Or just grant dodge (mobility),combat reflexes combat expertise, and power attack to all martials at level 1 for free, plus weapon finesse, PBS, or WF (character choice).

[Kayblis]

Re: attribute limits: In 2e and below, all characters were limited to 18. Up to 25 was for monsters and deities. 3x started the unlimited progression. 5e limits characters to 20. I'm thinking to limit to 20 at Most.

I wish you luck, this will mean rewriting almost all monsters above CR 4.


Re: infinite cantrips: I mostly agree with it, but I want to limit the "combat cantrips" to two, a low-level version of Shield and Magic Missile. They can be upcast as leveled spells to burn slots for more power. A low-level magic missile/bolt/whatever is a better "last resort" for a wizard than grabbing a hand crossbow (and missing)

The thing is, why must you upcast to get a better version of a cantrip, when you could just use a better spell? 5d4+5 might look good in a vacuum, but if you need to spend a 4th level slot for it, it's useless. You can let people have low-power options at will, just like you can fire your crossbow at will. "Marginally better than nothing" is not "too strong".


Re: Proficiency system: I have mixed feelings about this. If we're reining in bonuses and such, the 3x BtH system seems kind of "out there", especially for fighters. +20 to hit for 20th level fighters?? But the 5e model seems almost too restrictive. +6 to hit for 20th level fighters?? What is the happy medium?

I'd say the happy medium is already the +20 to hit. It's simple, it allows for granularity between builds, and it gives you something meaningful for your 20 levels. Bound accuracy makes sure that if you don't have a shiny exclusive high-level trick, you're obsolete at high levels, because "I swing a sword at +12" doesn't justify your paygrade being 500x that of the low-level "I swing a sword at +6" soldier. With the scaling bonuses of 3.5, you can actually justify armies being ineffective against high-level threats, so being a high-level adventurer means something.


I also have issues with the proficiency save system, where if you're proficient you always save and otherwise you never do. High level characters should save more often than low, methinks.

This is fixed somehow in 3.5 because you can actually get bonuses to saves other than proficiency. Resistance is the standard, yes, but there are also Insight, Sacred, Circumstance, Untyped, etc. A level 20 fighter with no magic items is not a level 20 adventurer balance-wise.


2e points

I do have some appreciation for 2e, don't get me wrong. But their additions aren't really necessary. The initiative every round drags down the game if the system is more complex than 2e, and the ones you cited as 'dynamic' actually mean "better pray you're lucky or your character will just suck". They're not even real additions, the DMG has random tables for loot and rewards, so you can do it if you want to - they're even expanded in the last pages of MIC. I do agree that the casting time and creation rules are fun and good, but implementing them would basically mean 'rewrite the spell system'. I do appreciate the simple creation rules, they're good for new DMs and would lower the work needed from beginners.

[Quertus]

I do have some appreciation for 2e, don't get me wrong. But their additions aren't really necessary. The initiative every round drags down the game if the system is more complex than 2e, and the ones you cited as 'dynamic' actually mean "better pray you're lucky or your character will just suck". They're not even real additions, the DMG has random tables for loot and rewards, so you can do it if you want to - they're even expanded in the last pages of MIC. I do agree that the casting time and creation rules are fun and good, but implementing them would basically mean 'rewrite the spell system'. I do appreciate the simple creation rules, they're good for new DMs and would lower the work needed from beginners.

Good points. I'd quibble that "Dynamic" not only means "your character might have to fight to earn their bread" to "your character might be stronger than the gods", but that it also means that you might end up with a +3 trollbane sunblade and, having no item shops to sell it to, actually use it (gasp), or I might quibble that you can "fake" casting time without completely rewriting the spell system by simply setting it to spell level for the general case.

But the big issue is our differences on initiative.

Let's ignore my "who cares if it takes the entire session, so long as people are having fun doing it?", as it's kinda axiomatically true (after all, "D&D" takes the entire session).

The real difference, IMO, between the two systems is in how they function - or, rather, how they dysfunction, and how fixable they are.

Static initiative leads to predictability and boredom: OK, I went on 47 last round; call be when we get to 47 next round. It dysfunctions hard with people ignoring the boring and ignorable space between their turns.

Dynamic initiative, OTOH, keeps everyone engaged in the game, which makes their turns take less time, which makes it unintuitively run faster than dysfunctional static initiative. Where it dysfunctions is with sometimes allowing characters to take their turn twice in a row, but 3e players should be used to doing this already, thanks to White Raven Tactics.

[MR_Anderson]

I do have some appreciation for 2e, don't get me wrong. But their additions aren't really necessary...

...I do agree that the casting time and creation rules are fun and good, but implementing them would basically mean 'rewrite the spell system'.

Creation for spells especially was much easier and flexible. I am too broke with 3rd edition between creations of items and spells with spell book pages.

You can add into 3.x a system that creates casting times without a rewrite of the spell system.


Adding Casting Times
Use Spellcraft to make a check for cast time based off spell duration, modified for level of spell and any modifier for meta-magic feats applied.

In theory a spell that last longer takes longer or more precisely more application to weave it into existence.

First you have seven categories for the check’s base:

Instantaneous (DC 5)
Rounds (DC 10)
Minutes (DC 15)
10’s of Minutes (DC 20)
Hours (DC 25)
Days (DC 30)
Permanent (DC 35)


Second, add the spell level as modified to the base of the check.

Example: Empowered Maximized Fireball = +8

Third, add +5 to the DC of the check for each meta-magic feat used.

Example: Empowered Maximized Fireball = +10

Final; example Empowered Maximized Fireball would have a DC of 23.

If your Spellcraft check misses the DC, you don’t fail, it just isn’t instantaneous. For however much you missed the check by, subtract that from your initiative and that is when it would be finished.

For spells that state an actual cast time, use it, or if the quicken meta-magic feat is used, there should be no cast time.

And just like that 3.x has casting times added.

I really feel this shows how flexible the D20 system is, and it is one of the reasons our group never progressed past it, after playing since 1st Edition.

I’m not going to implement casting times in my world, unless there is a caster duel, but it sure is interesting.

[WhyBother]

My 2 cents:

As has already been mentioned, 3.5 is a better base than 3.0. 3.0 had a lot of fiddly-in-a-not-fun-way elements that 3.5 purged. For example, games tended to drag while player argue that their figure being positions _just so_ meant they really should get a bonus for 9/10 cover instead of 3/4 cover.

Also, IIRC monsters in 3.0 aren't constructed the way players are.

Most of the WotC non-D&D d20 RPGs -- Call of Cthulhu, Wheel of Time, Star Wars -- are closer to 3.0 rules than 3.5 rules. Sadly, there's not a lot to recommend from any of those systems.

In a similar vein, 5e replaced the remaining fiddly bonuses/penalties with advantage/disadvantage. This is generally a good change for speeding up play (even thoughI'd argue the odd +2 bonus or -1 penalty is good for flavor on some monsters).

One thing I've noticed that I haven't seen a lot of comments on is that pretty much _all_ monsters would be better off using d8+CON for their hit dice. (And yes, that means giving Constructs and Undead CON scores.) In AD&D, all moster HD were d8. Almost every monster type in 3.5 has a d8+CON HD. Dragons, Oozes, Undead, and Constructs have larger dice... but that's mostly because 1) Undead and Constructs in 3.x need to compensate for a lack of a CON bonus (and for some weird reason, that was true of Oozes too in 3.0) and 2) Dragons in earlier editions got max hp per HD, so a larger die is just a different way of putting them in the same league as in AD&D. Constructs and Undead would be better off using d8 just ignoring the aesthetic issue of non-living things with a CON score. Pathfinder has moved to just giving undead d8+CON instead of d12+0, so this isn't exactly unheard of. On the flip side, only Fey had a d6+CON or smaller HD, and designers confessed those always ended up very fragile at their CR. Everything in the combat math sort of hovers around d8 hit dice.

Making this change, you find that monsterous classes and templates that change type to Undead become much easier to manage. (Otherwise, as Monte Cook once admitted on his site, the templates really should have different CR modifications based roughly on how many HD the base creature has.)

Otherwise, the move by Star Wars Saga Edition, D&D 4e and D&D 5e away from skill points also made sense, because most of thet time the "correct" play is to find your niche skills, and always max them out. It's just easier (and equivalent) in 3.x to say "I have the following skills, and all are at rank <my character level + 3>:...." There are a few skills that I could normally see taking to 5 ranks and then abandonning for minor benefits, but those mostly feel like unecessary taxes, and not really worth tracking.

[Fizban]

Also, IIRC monsters in 3.0 aren't constructed the way players are.
3.0 racial hit dice can grant feats at less than 1/3 levels- however, the 3.5 updates for those monsters pretty much universally fill their new empty feat slots with pointless bonuses, because they didn't actually want to make them more powerful. So a bajillion entries suddenly have Alertness, or Toughness x4, etc. Lots of 1HD tiny and smaller creatures also fail to qualify for Weapon Finesse which they need to attack, so it's added as a bonus feat and the now empty slot is again just jammed with filler.

[Aotrs Commander]

OP, how many months of work are you planning to put into this? 'Cos it's going to take that for a project of this magnitude; a few pages of rules is not going to be enough.

(It's taken me months of work just to satistfactorily hybridise 3.5 with PF (two fundementally largely compatible systems), with only a couple of aspects nicked from 5E. (Advantage/disadvantage, even if only applied as terminology, is just better than "roll twice and take best/worst."))

It seems to me from the OP like you haven't got a clear idea of what you actually WANT and that's the single most critical thing you need to know before you start on something of this scale.

You need, in essense, to do as my chemistry teacher always said and start by writing down the equation that gives you the answer.

The first question you need to ask is "what do I want to happen," and "what do I want to achieve" and then fit your rules to make that what happens. Slapping a mishmash of various editions of D&D together without thinking about that first is going to just make the system a mess. It might give you something in the short-term - if you're only going to use it for a short campaign once or something, then this probably doens't MATTER, since the stuff therein is going to be more or less functionally on a case-by-case basis and you can probably muddle through. But if you're planning to do something that is going to stand up to the test of time, you need to be prepared to put A LOT of hours in for something as complicated as trying to hybridise across all of D&D to make sure you iron out all the bits.

(For example it likely means doing the entire of the bestiary again. Which sound managable - you don't need to do much for a given advanture, right? Right up until the point the PCs want to start using summons or polymorph and you need to stat that out. Or, if you grab the 5E magic sysem and don't use its saves, you have to rewrite all the spells. Or you have to rewrite all the effects from 3.5 that have saves to match the 5E saves. You can do it on a case-by-case basis, of course, but that means the players have to submit every choice past you to check it doens't need altering/adjusting.)

I'm not saying "don't do it," I'm just saying, be aware that this is likely a very large undertaking and you have to be as daft/keen on rules-smithing like me.




Static initiative leads to predictability and boredom: OK, I went on 47 last round; call be when we get to 47 next round. It dysfunctions hard with people ignoring the boring and ignorable space between their turns.

Dynamic initiative, OTOH, keeps everyone engaged in the game, which makes their turns take less time, which makes it unintuitively run faster than dysfunctional static initiative. Where it dysfunctions is with sometimes allowing characters to take their turn twice in a row, but 3e players should be used to doing this already, thanks to White Raven Tactics.

My exerience is the exact opposite.

"Dynamic" iniative - by which you mean "rolling every round" - leads to far more record keeping, snaps the flow of the game in half by meaning you have a five-minute pause between every round of combat while the DM has to have everyone roll AGAIN and set the turn order up AGAIN ("but Bleakbane, what about-" try it with six to eight players plus accompaning monsters in a two hour per week session; nope, five minutes per combat round arsing about is too long, I don't even have them roll it anymore, I do it on a spread sheet before the campaign begins) so actively detracts from the flow as everyone sits and twiddles their thumbs. (I have never in thirty years of gaming been excited by Waiting for the DM to Write Up the Initative Order, I want to get to DOING stuff.) It means that the value of "per round" duration becomes variable (and excessive randomisation is bad for the players) making them either too good or worthless, means that a character (or worse, monster) potentially can go twice before anyone else does and a player who consistently rolls poorly is screwed worse than usual. (Bonus disavantage, players don't know when they can safely pop down to the bar or pop to the loo between their turns. This is an issue which doesn't affect me personally on either count (because I don't Bar and because Lich respectively), but certainly does all my players and I suspect the latter is likely an issue from anyone who DOESN'T have a table of magical space liches, especially as the age of the player advances.)

Note this is system agnostic problem, AD&D just happens to be the last (and rightly so) D&D system to use it.

Hell, I ditched roll for initative more than once in my starship rules, where you only had two things to roll for each round because it placed FAR to much emphasis on the RNG at the expense of flow and tactics and placed the success of the combat on "whoever rolled best" which is a terrible system; if I wanted a game that was dependant on RNG, I'd play ludo.

I'll come right out and say it: rolling dice is not interesting or engaging in and of itself. The game is not its dice rolls, the RNG is not a substitute for the DM (or created content, computer games, yes, lookin' at you) and I will defend that hill to the death (of everyone else).



If you want ACTUAL dynamic initative, then you want to go steal Spycraft/Stargate SG-1's initative system, which is dynamic in the sense that actions you take change your initative (in fixed, non-random amounts), which is managable, if still largely more hassle than it's actually worth.

[paladinn]

I'm thinking that my project might be better using BECMI as a basis. The core is solid and simple, easily hacked, and capable of surviving some pretty wonky extensions.

Thanks for the input, everyone! If anyone is interested, I'll try to post progress on the "older system" forum.

Michael

[Quertus]

My exerience is the exact opposite.

"Dynamic" iniative - by which you mean "rolling every round" - leads to far more record keeping, snaps the flow of the game in half by meaning you have a five-minute pause between every round of combat while the DM has to have everyone roll AGAIN and set the turn order up AGAIN ("but Bleakbane, what about-" try it with six to eight players plus accompaning monsters in a two hour per week session; nope, five minutes per combat round arsing about is too long, I don't even have them roll it anymore, I do it on a spread sheet before the campaign begins) so actively detracts from the flow as everyone sits and twiddles their thumbs. (I have never in thirty years of gaming been excited by Waiting for the DM to Write Up the Initative Order, I want to get to DOING stuff.) It means that the value of "per round" duration becomes variable (and excessive randomisation is bad for the players) making them either too good or worthless, means that a character (or worse, monster) potentially can go twice before anyone else does and a player who consistently rolls poorly is screwed worse than usual. (Bonus disavantage, players don't know when they can safely pop down to the bar or pop to the loo between their turns. This is an issue which doesn't affect me personally on either count (because I don't Bar and because Lich respectively), but certainly does all my players and I suspect the latter is likely an issue from anyone who DOESN'T have a table of magical space liches, especially as the age of the player advances.)

Note this is system agnostic problem, AD&D just happens to be the last (and rightly so) D&D system to use it.

Hell, I ditched roll for initative more than once in my starship rules, where you only had two things to roll for each round because it placed FAR to much emphasis on the RNG at the expense of flow and tactics and placed the success of the combat on "whoever rolled best" which is a terrible system; if I wanted a game that was dependant on RNG, I'd play ludo.

I'll come right out and say it: rolling dice is not interesting or engaging in and of itself. The game is not its dice rolls, the RNG is not a substitute for the DM (or created content, computer games, yes, lookin' at you) and I will defend that hill to the death (of everyone else).



If you want ACTUAL dynamic initative, then you want to go steal Spycraft/Stargate SG-1's initative system, which is dynamic in the sense that actions you take change your initative (in fixed, non-random amounts), which is managable, if still largely more hassle than it's actually worth.

1) in the event of incompetent players, initiative can be automated (a concept which it sounds like you at least halfway get, since you apparently automate static initiative rolls). So no "5 minutes per rolling of initiative" - that is simply too suboptimal to be tolerated. Also, if your players are taking 5 minutes to make a single roll, there's something wrong with them - get better players :smalltongue: You do have a point about large groups of monsters (or an NPC team, such as the ones OOTS has fought) - I can see GMs having issues there. Myself, I've used programs, and handfuls of color-coded dice to make that a non-issue - maybe some day, I'll make a thread discussing how to optimize the experience.

2) calling dynamic initiative "whoever rolls best" completely ignores all of the play of the initiative minigame! Which… is kinda my whole point. so, let me give a few examples to illustrate the differences:

2a) It's been a tough fight, but the Dragon is on its last legs. Can you hit it before it breathes again?

2e - there's tension, first as players roll their dice, then as the GM calls out initiative: will enough of the right characters get to go before the Dragon?

3e - (looking at or remembering the initiative chart) "Bob and I have got this"

2b) Suppose your usual "mage harrier" has dropped, and the party Fighter is trying to fill that role.

3e - most likely, they hold an action to attack during the spell (although I must admit, there are other options, including threatening the Dark Arts of the grapple system)

2e - 2e had weapon speed. It's actually a meaningful choice as to which weapon they use. Initiative and rate of fire now compete with damage and attack bonus.

My point is, initiative is a minigame in 2e, in ways that it is not in 3e. And, when the GM was simply calling out the initiative count, rather than your name, you had to pay attention - leading (curiously enough, I know) to players actually paying more attention.

From what I can see, your problems understanding this include your belief in the GM "writing up the initiative order" (that's highly suboptimal), your inability to see any tactical gameplay in initiative beyond "whoever rolled best" (more a feature of 3e, tbh), and the gross incompetence of your players. I'm not sure if we can have a productive conversation unless you can see that other possibilities exist on these counts.

Where we actively differ - and the PoV was so foreign, I didn't actually catch it on my first read through - is that you consider the ability to disengage when it's not your turn to be a *good* thing!

I mean, yes, age is a thing, and gaming with space Liches seems more optimal, but… there are actually more optimal times to schedule a "zone out zone" than in the middle of combat. Maybe I'll make a thread about that some day.

Funniest thing is, I'm not inherently advocating dynamic initiative. I'm really not. What I *am* doing, however, is trying to get people to see and acknowledge *exactly* what we've lost by moving to 3e's static initiative.

2e dynamic initiative gives you tension, tactical decisions, and dynamic gameplay, with "more attentive players" as a nice side bonus, at the cost of predictability.

3e static initiative gives combat a flow, allows deterministic planning (both for the character, and for potty breaks), at the cost of player attentiveness and gameplay.

Which is better? That is for the *informed* individual to decide. Myself? It depends on the group. If I'm playing 3e, and the group hasn't had a problem with it, I'm sticking with the default static initiative. If, for example, player attentiveness becomes a problem? Well, I know somewhere to turn for a potential solution.

Which (if I'm not too senile, and I'm in the thread I think I am) circles back to the OP needing to answer the Shadow question, "what do you want?".

[Kayblis]

I'm completely on Aotrs Commander's side in initiative. 3.5 operates in a somewhat strict 'personal turn' basis. Many effects work "until the start of your next turn", "until the start of the enemy's turn", "until the end of your next turn", and those are all different points in a round. You need deterministic values to make these abilities useable. Setting up for the next round is a core thing to 3.5.

Quertus, you pointed out some edge cases in which players may get more tense if initiative was rolled every round. To that, I present you MUCH more common cases that would make this system frustrating and overall worse for the game:

A) You act after the enemies. in your turn, you activate one of many "until your next turn" abilities, like readying a counterattack, raising AC(ex: fighting defensively, total defense, Combat Expertise), preparing a counterspell, setting up against a charge, and many more. Next turn, you act before the enemies. Your last turn was wasted(ot ar least severely limited) for no reason at all. If you're not at the top of init in a given round, don't bother to prepare for the future actions because of the large chance of it being a waste. Also creates the backwards situation of "aw ****, I rolled well, my last action is useless". Either you're forced to delay(hope the effect pays off not using a good initiative), which goes against the minigame's idea, or you just sucked for a round because of the random chance. If you want to use tactics and can't always be the first, you better suck it up and always be the last. This is not engaging for any player with a decent grasp of the system.

B) The enemy acted last in round X. In round X+1 it acted before the PCs. The creature now had 2 turns to act with impunity, like casting two big spells in sequence, or a dragon casting a spell and breathing fire to kill the survivors. Due to how damage output works in 3.5, an extra turn in sequence can very well be the difference between a simple fight and three people dying. Good luck dealing with two rounds' worth of debuffs, or damage, or both. Random chance dictating your battle is fun.

These are not "oh the big boss is about to crush us" or "a player's down and we need to act quick" or some other rare/contrived action. These are things you'll see very often, almost every session. And I assure you I've seen people go "Yeah, initiative screwed me again. Pick up my dead body after those 5 enemies are done, I'll go have a drink" in other d20 systems that used this initiative model. It became a houserule in my main table to roll initiative once per combat regardless of what a particular system says.

Not to mention, "your DM sucks" or "your players take too long" is not a valid argument for why a system should or shouldn't work. Other than the very common reasons I pointed above, you are making the case for raising the bookkeeping. Not everyone plays with apps, and you do have to take the time to roll initiative again and to note it down again regardless. To me, it's a bad option even if you didn't but this adds yet another layer of suck.

Edit: Also, if you want engagement out of your turn, players have Immediate actions. These are also part of why static initiative is better than random, because no one wants to be on the short end of "I had the ability to save us, but the enemy acted twice and my immediate action still hadn't refreshed".

[MR_Anderson]

My exerience is the exact opposite.

"Dynamic" iniative - by which you mean "rolling every round" - leads to far more record keeping, snaps the flow of the game in half by meaning you have a five-minute pause between every round of combat while the DM has to have everyone roll AGAIN and set the turn order up AGAIN ("but Bleakbane, what about-" try it with six to eight players plus accompaning monsters in a two hour per week session; nope, five minutes per combat round arsing about is too long, I don't even have them roll it anymore, I do it on a spread sheet before the campaign begins) so actively detracts from the flow as everyone sits and twiddles their thumbs. (I have never in thirty years of gaming been excited by Waiting for the DM to Write Up the Initative Order, I want to get to DOING stuff.) It means that the value of "per round" duration becomes variable (and excessive randomisation is bad for the players) making them either too good or worthless, means that a character (or worse, monster) potentially can go twice before anyone else does and a player who consistently rolls poorly is screwed worse than usual. (Bonus disavantage, players don't know when they can safely pop down to the bar or pop to the loo between their turns. This is an issue which doesn't affect me personally on either count (because I don't Bar and because Lich respectively), but certainly does all my players and I suspect the latter is likely an issue from anyone who DOESN'T have a table of magical space liches, especially as the age of the player advances.)

Note this is system agnostic problem, AD&D just happens to be the last (and rightly so) D&D system to use it.


We’ve used initiative rolls every round for decades, it doesn’t take long. As the DM you just need to know how to drive the count down with the understanding that if a player misses their spot, they are delaying.

While that method doesn’t take long, in longer battles where you want people to move quicker a single initiative for the entire encounter helps form a clear repetitive path.

With starting my new campaign as one of the other DMs had his campaign closing its story arc, I laid out the new rule of only one initiative rolled for an encounter. While initially they were apprehensive about it, the overwhelming feedback was that they like it, once they saw how quickly it moved along in game. However, it only took the first encounter of someone rolling a 1 to realize they were last every round that encounter.

This led to me saying that in what I would consider a “boss fight” or when characters were in range of dying within a round where going first could make the difference in life or death I would have initiative rolls each round.

Creating a special time when initiative rolls are made each round adds to the drama and excitement of one more roll between life or death each turn, but it wouldn’t do so if it was normal every round of battle in every day of the game.

That solved the only downside they players were worried about and the other DMs are already talking about adding it into their campaigns.

[FaerieGodfather]

I'm thinking that my project might be better using BECMI as a basis. The core is solid and simple, easily hacked, and capable of surviving some pretty wonky extensions.

Forum needs a like function. This is what I'm doing, and this is what I would have recommended if I thought you'd been looking for recommendations.

[paladinn]

Forum needs a like function. This is what I'm doing, and this is what I would have recommended if I thought you'd been looking for recommendations.

Definitely looking for recommendations:) I'll be posting something over there soon

[Quertus]

We’ve used initiative rolls every round for decades, it doesn’t take long. As the DM you just need to know how to drive the count down with the understanding that if a player misses their spot, they are delaying.

While that method doesn’t take long, in longer battles where you want people to move quicker a single initiative for the entire encounter helps form a clear repetitive path.

With starting my new campaign as one of the other DMs had his campaign closing its story arc, I laid out the new rule of only one initiative rolled for an encounter. While initially they were apprehensive about it, the overwhelming feedback was that they like it, once they saw how quickly it moved along in game. However, it only took the first encounter of someone rolling a 1 to realize they were last every round that encounter.

This led to me saying that in what I would consider a “boss fight” or when characters were in range of dying within a round where going first could make the difference in life or death I would have initiative rolls each round.

Creating a special time when initiative rolls are made each round adds to the drama and excitement of one more roll between life or death each turn, but it wouldn’t do so if it was normal every round of battle in every day of the game.

That solved the only downside they players were worried about and the other DMs are already talking about adding it into their campaigns.

It's airways nice, when I see a thing of beauty, to know that there exists at least one other person who can see and appreciate that beauty.

I like how you've invented a way to add even *more* tension to dynamic initiative through selective application. Kudos!


I'm completely on Aotrs Commander's side in initiative. 3.5 operates in a somewhat strict 'personal turn' basis. Many effects work "until the start of your next turn", "until the start of the enemy's turn", "until the end of your next turn", and those are all different points in a round. You need deterministic values to make these abilities useable. Setting up for the next round is a core thing to 3.5.

Quertus, you pointed out some edge cases in which players may get more tense if initiative was rolled every round. To that, I present you MUCH more common cases that would make this system frustrating and overall worse for the game:

A) You act after the enemies. in your turn, you activate one of many "until your next turn" abilities, like readying a counterattack, raising AC(ex: fighting defensively, total defense, Combat Expertise), preparing a counterspell, setting up against a charge, and many more. Next turn, you act before the enemies. Your last turn was wasted(ot ar least severely limited) for no reason at all. If you're not at the top of init in a given round, don't bother to prepare for the future actions because of the large chance of it being a waste. Also creates the backwards situation of "aw ****, I rolled well, my last action is useless". Either you're forced to delay(hope the effect pays off not using a good initiative), which goes against the minigame's idea, or you just sucked for a round because of the random chance. If you want to use tactics and can't always be the first, you better suck it up and always be the last. This is not engaging for any player with a decent grasp of the system.

B) The enemy acted last in round X. In round X+1 it acted before the PCs. The creature now had 2 turns to act with impunity, like casting two big spells in sequence, or a dragon casting a spell and breathing fire to kill the survivors. Due to how damage output works in 3.5, an extra turn in sequence can very well be the difference between a simple fight and three people dying. Good luck dealing with two rounds' worth of debuffs, or damage, or both. Random chance dictating your battle is fun.

These are not "oh the big boss is about to crush us" or "a player's down and we need to act quick" or some other rare/contrived action. These are things you'll see very often, almost every session. And I assure you I've seen people go "Yeah, initiative screwed me again. Pick up my dead body after those 5 enemies are done, I'll go have a drink" in other d20 systems that used this initiative model. It became a houserule in my main table to roll initiative once per combat regardless of what a particular system says.

Not to mention, "your DM sucks" or "your players take too long" is not a valid argument for why a system should or shouldn't work. Other than the very common reasons I pointed above, you are making the case for raising the bookkeeping. Not everyone plays with apps, and you do have to take the time to roll initiative again and to note it down again regardless. To me, it's a bad option even if you didn't but this adds yet another layer of suck.

Edit: Also, if you want engagement out of your turn, players have Immediate actions. These are also part of why static initiative is better than random, because no one wants to be on the short end of "I had the ability to save us, but the enemy acted twice and my immediate action still hadn't refreshed".

*Facepalm*

1) "how 3e works" is completely irrelevant to the value and beauty of a dynamic initiative system. It's like saying, "men don't have wombs, so women cannot carry children".

2) "how 3e works" is relevant for determining how much effort it would take to convert various static initiative systems, or how much value their abilities would have if simply copied wholesale.

3) if static initiative abilities were copied unchanged, and a player whose character went last in a round, declared that they were using an "until the start of their next turn" ability with limited use or that carried significant opportunity cost, I would likely facepalm, or at least ask, "are you sure?", because they seemingly just didn't get how dynamic initiative works.

4) your example actually helps demonstrate how static initiative systems lack that tactical depth: consider how the value of an "until your next turn" ability changes based on your initiative, and your ability to manipulate your turn order. This is more engaging, with more tactical depth (and, yes, frought with more risk) than the static turn order counterpart guaranteeing that everyone will always have exactly one turn between your turn X and your turn X+1, for every value of X.

5) you seem ignorant of the way initiative in 2e (and, to a lesser extent, in 3e) works. In 2e, the huge Dragon has a +12 on initiative, added to the base d10 roll. The fast elf with a +5 dagger may be subtracting 5 or more from their d10 roll. The Dragon literally cannot go before the elf, who literally cannot go before the guy with a Weapon of Speed. The Barbarian (whose tribe stubbornly stuck around from the 1.5e days), with nothing but his mighty thews and a mundane great sword (because Real Barbarians™ hate Magic), is looking at adding +10 to his initiative roll, and takes turns with the Dragon going last. If he decides that he absolutely *has* to beat the Dragon in initiative this round, he can pull out his perfectly mundane (because Barbarian) "eating knife", dropping to a +2, guaranteeing (because math) that he will be faster than the Dragon's physical attacks. Of course, the Dragon also has a breath weapon, and spells, each with their own initiative modifiers. So there's potential for play in the initiative minigame, even before looking at all the ways to get modifiers (which, yes, might contradict my "literally impossible" statement).

In 3e, I believe the slowest character I've ever played subtracted 7 from his d20 roll; the *slowest* character (an NPC we picked up) in my BDH party was looking at +7 initiative. Unlike *most* 3e parties, my BDH party did not let Arangee,as you say, "dictate the battle": they went first, and, with their great alpha strike potential, showed their opponents what their kidneys looked like / how it felt to have a chest plug / just how deep a great sword can go / the true meaning of Christmas¹.

6) because combat healing is generally considered highly suboptimal, in order for your position to hold any water, you will need to explain how "the Dragon getting to go twice in a row" is in any way worse than, "the Dragon getting to go twice, period". In fact, given the way math works, it is *far* more likely for the Dragon to go first in a static initiative system, than it is for it to go last the first round, then first the second in the dynamic initiative system (and I don't need to actually spell this simple math out, right?). So, in order for your case to hold water, you'll actually need to show how the "the dragon goes last, then first" dynamic initiative edge case you've described is not just worse, but Significantly Worse than the "the Dragon goes first" scenario that the static initiative party already faces, and already faces far more often. Or, put another way, would your player be leaving to have a drink any less if the energies had dealt damage him *even earlier*? :smallconfused:

7) No, you do not have to spend time to "note [initiative] down again", even without apps. If this conversation can get past the miscommunication and gross misconceptions phase, perhaps I'll have time to explain how.

Again, dynamic initiative / 2e is not strictly superior to static initiative / 3e. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. But one cannot make an informed decision between them without actually understanding them, and, thus far, it's not really clear if we're actually talking about the same things.

¹ "you brought us presents!"

[Powerdork]

It's like saying, "men don't have wombs, so women cannot carry children".

Not to be one of those people, but if you could find a different example for the future that isn't wrapped up in generalization about sex and gender? I can't be certain about whether it reflects on your views and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but sayings like this do deepen the depression of vulnerable people who are just trying to enjoy their time on a website they like.

[Quertus]

Not to be one of those people, but if you could find a different example for the future that isn't wrapped up in generalization about sex and gender? I can't be certain about whether it reflects on your views and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but sayings like this do deepen the depression of vulnerable people who are just trying to enjoy their time on a website they like.

… we're outside both my knowledge and my social skills here, but… is the issue with my referencing *biological* gender (or whatever the kids are calling it these days), as opposed to… gender identity (that's the term, right?).

(As to the behind the scenes, I would contend that the two contributing factors for my choice of example would be my biology professor grandfather (who may not have said this *exact* quote, but…), and my own (pseudo transhumanist?) desire for the ability to, uh, "carry" children)

[Powerdork]

… we're outside both my knowledge and my social skills here, but… is the issue with my referencing *biological* gender (or whatever the kids are calling it these days), as opposed to… gender identity (that's the term, right?).

(As to the behind the scenes, I would contend that the two contributing factors for my choice of example would be my biology professor grandfather (who may not have said this *exact* quote, but…), and my own (pseudo transhumanist?) desire for the ability to, uh, "carry" children)

It's the predication of gender on the ability to bear children that throws up this kind of flag for me. There are men with the ability to bear children, and women without (both cisgender and transgender), and statements that ignore the reality of them can cause significant bouts of dysphoria or be (I hate using this term on the internet since imageboard culture has shredded its impact) triggering, even with the context that the statement is there to be knocked down.

I don't want to discuss this further because A) it's off-topic and B) I anticipate Some Kinds coming out of the woodwork, so I'll leave it at that.

[Efrate]

I see how dynamic initiative could have some interests but having playing with each for years I'll take static anytime. Dynamic reduces tactical and strategic options for potentially increased dramatic options. There is something to say about that but it really boils down to the dynamic options messing up more than they give. Swift actions/immediate actions, delaying, readied actions, full round actions and more all get messed up. More variance inevitably hurts players more than monsters and that's a while different can of kobalds but I'll leave that for now.

Not knowing when you can do stuff makes planning turns and actions near impossible, and runs the high risk of having several do nothing turns. Your average mundane will feel it less than a caster but it can easily invalidate charging, ruin grappling and more. It turns the tactical aspect of combat into a coin flip where you do not know if you will have an option. That can happen normally as well but you increase the odds and it potentially removes a lot of player agency just randomly and that is no fun for anyone. My 2 copper.

[Quertus]

I see how dynamic initiative could have some interests but having playing with each for years I'll take static anytime. Dynamic reduces tactical and strategic options for potentially increased dramatic options. There is something to say about that but it really boils down to the dynamic options messing up more than they give. Swift actions/immediate actions, delaying, readied actions, full round actions and more all get messed up. More variance inevitably hurts players more than monsters and that's a while different can of kobalds but I'll leave that for now.

Not knowing when you can do stuff makes planning turns and actions near impossible, and runs the high risk of having several do nothing turns. Your average mundane will feel it less than a caster but it can easily invalidate charging, ruin grappling and more. It turns the tactical aspect of combat into a coin flip where you do not know if you will have an option. That can happen normally as well but you increase the odds and it potentially removes a lot of player agency just randomly and that is no fun for anyone. My 2 copper.

Are we talking about the same things? :smallconfused:

In 2e (because that's so much shorter than "dynamic initiative"), held/readied actions and delaying did not hurt your initiative for the next round. Subsequently, I and a great many people used them *far more often* in 2e than in 3e, leading to a lot more tactical versatility, and a lot more cool things happening than 3e's monotone action dirge.

And, in case it wasn't obvious, that means readied actions and delaying (as well as swift actions/immediate actions and full round actions) all worked perfectly fine in 2e.

And 2e *increased* the tactical and strategic options.

Does more variance hurt players more than monsters? Maybe. Thing is, players have *much more control* over 2e initiative than the monsters do: they can choose which weapon to use / which spell to cast / which action to take on a round by round basis, whereas most monsters are stuck with a static initiative modifier (the aforementioned Dragons being an obvious exception).

Does not knowing what card you're going to draw in MtG make planning impossible? No. It just means that your plans need to be more flexible than in chess. It involves *more* thinking, not less.

And this whole idea of "turns where you do nothing"? I mean, in 2e, casters who took damage couldn't cast spells that round… otherwise, I can't think of any time "I can't do anything, because initiative" would ever be a valid statement.

[Efrate]

Was approaching it from a 3.x standpoint. My first 10 or so years of 3.x we used roll every turn and it was awful. I did not play nearly any 2e pnp so I cannot comment but I have used it in 3.x and it was never good.

[Quertus]

Was approaching it from a 3.x standpoint. My first 10 or so years of 3.x we used roll every turn and it was awful. I did not play nearly any 2e pnp so I cannot comment but I have used it in 3.x and it was never good.

Which only speaks to a bad *implementation*, not a bad *concept*.

(EDIT: at least I'm happy that we weren't actually talking about the same things, after all :smallbiggrin:)

[Gnaeus]

And some limits on race-class combos (dwarf wizards are just wrong)

The dwarves of yore laid mighty spells
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep where dark things sleep
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

Mythological dwarves were often wizards. Dwarves in the original D&D source material (Tolkien) were apparently casters (since wizard means something else in that context). They are common in other fantasy games (warhammer, rolemaster, shadowrun etc all allow dwarf wizards). They have specific dwarf wizard themed PRCs (runesmith). I would expect dwarf themed options (like earth elemental specialization) to be more common. But don’t be dwarfist.

[paladinn]

The dwarves of yore laid mighty spells
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep where dark things sleep
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

Mythological dwarves were often wizards. Dwarves in the original D&D source material (Tolkien) were apparently casters (since wizard means something else in that context). They are common in other fantasy games (warhammer, rolemaster, shadowrun etc all allow dwarf wizards). They have specific dwarf wizard themed PRCs (runesmith). I would expect dwarf themed options (like earth elemental specialization) to be more common. But don’t be dwarfist.

"Dwarfist"? Welcome to "Woke-D&D"!

Seriously, I get the mythology. It doesn't make a lot of sense for dwarves to be able to enchant items without actually being able to cast. At the same time, dwarves and halflings are so very magic-resistant that at least "arcane" casting seems a bit off. I guess this is a rationale for having an artificer class of some sort?

In BECMI, it was a big deal for dwarves to even have clerics. Evidently their immortal had to do some serious work to make a race that was magic-resistant and could cast even "divine" spells.

[FaerieGodfather]

Seriously, I get the mythology. It doesn't make a lot of sense for dwarves to be able to enchant items without actually being able to cast.

It makes perfect sense to me. There was no reason to assume these two things were connected until AD&D made it a spell and 3.X gave all of the magic item creation feats spellcaster level prerequisites.

[Quertus]

At the same time, dwarves and halflings are so very magic-resistant that at least "arcane" casting seems a bit off.

How about Drow? Or Demons & Devils? They are both (statistically) a lot more magic resistant than Dwarves. Any dissonance in them being Wizards, or having inate arcane abilities?

[paladinn]

How about Drow? Or Demons & Devils? They are both (statistically) a lot more magic resistant than Dwarves. Any dissonance in them being Wizards, or having inate arcane abilities?

Well we're really talking about characters, not "monsters". Drow are elves, so they would have the same level of abilities as "regular" elves.

[paladinn]

It makes perfect sense to me. There was no reason to assume these two things were connected until AD&D made it a spell and 3.X gave all of the magic item creation feats spellcaster level prerequisites.

This may be something else to raid from 5e. The artificer might be easier to adapt.

[Gnaeus]

How about Drow? Or Demons & Devils? They are both (statistically) a lot more magic resistant than Dwarves. Any dissonance in them being Wizards, or having inate arcane abilities?

That’s actually an excellent question. In that mythological dwarves are closely related, and often indistinguishable, from dark elves. They often possessed powers like shape shifting, divinations and invisibility. Certainly artificer is also a good, perhaps a better fit. But wizard would likely be the second most appropriate class.

[Doctor Despair]

That’s actually an excellent question. In that mythological dwarves are closely related, and often indistinguishable, from dark elves. They often possessed powers like shape shifting, divinations and invisibility.

Are you talking Tolken, or some sort of older mythology?

[FaerieGodfather]

Are you talking Tolken, or some sort of older mythology?

Tolkien's Dwarves are largely derived from Norse mythology.

[paladinn]

Tolkien's Dwarves are largely derived from Norse mythology.

I don't see dwarves Using magic as much as Investing magic. The question becomes, can they place enchantments into weapons and other items that they themselves don't possess? If they are artificers I'd say yes.

[FaerieGodfather]

I don't see dwarves Using magic as much as Investing magic. The question becomes, can they place enchantments into weapons and other items that they themselves don't possess? If they are artificers I'd say yes.

Why restrict it only to Artificers, with all the other magical abilities they have? Why can't a Dwarven master smith-- or a Human one-- not simply forge arms and armor that are magical in the first place? Why can't an alchemist brew potions without taking levels in a class that grants spells?

Granted, there are some magic items I would only allow a spellcaster (or an Artificer) to create... but why is everyone so attached to the idea that they're the only craftsmen that matter?

[QuadraticGish]

PF offers the Master Craftsman (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman/) feat, which allows for taking a couple of item creation feats.