Xenolith234
Adventurer
Is it possible to simplify 3e/.5 to a point where it’s easily runnable? I know removing things likely wouldn’t go over well with the folks who love 3e, but if you just want to use it as a chassis…
D&D General Simple, Gritty,Modern. Unpopular Opinions
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I haven't looked at player classes, but for DMs, monsters and NPCs can be simplified a bit. I made some notes around doing that ages ago and have been trying to find them. Essentially though, monsters can be made a little like other editions instead of going through the entire build and adding feats and skill points. This would take a bit of the load off the DM.
Xenolith234
Adventurer
I would imagine you only “have” to do all the monster math correctly if you have a pedantic player second-guessing it (though they shouldn’t really know the specific monster stats anyway), but I’d think for modern players coming from 5e as their first game, they wouldn’t know any better or likely care.
I’ve been doing a similar mental exercise lately of what system to run - something OSR like Swords & Wizardry with bits and pieces from AD&D 2e, 3e (very complex but complete), or a major hack-job on 5e to have it suit my tastes. The issue I have with doing that is that I’d have to modify it so heavily with house-rules and constantly fight the system. It also just doesn’t have the same game feel as OSR/AD&D/3e. Something along the way has been lost.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
Not really short of rewrite.
Otherwise ban list. By that ban the worst offenders in the prestige classes, feats, spells etc.
Or PHB+1 use UA druid.
Rewrite you would eliminate the worst offenders and use 4E or 5E engine tidy up skill list.
Or find old guides ban all the good and red stuff (S and D tier now).
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I think one of the best ways to limit prestige classes is to go back to the old 3e meaning of the term and tie them into an actual organisation rather than just something you're capable of picking up whenever you have the requirements met. Can't be an assassin without joining an assassin's guild, the loremasters might require a membership in a wizards guild or ties to the temple of knowledge, etc. I'd probably also reduce the requirements a little and instead just add a level requirement alongside some skills without skill rank requirements so an assassin needs the skills of disguise, hide, and move silently and must be 6th level to enter the prestige class, assuming they've joined a guild.
Zardnaar
Legend
Yeah. I think it's already kinda lije that each one is DM dependent anyway. RaW iirc.
I liked the concept.
Horwath
Legend
while I like the flavor of prestige classes requirement, it should NEVER be implemented in mechanics of getting the class.
Unless you are running option of needing a trainer for every level up.
some prestige classes "need" an organization and some don't in description, but it's unfair for the players.
IE: you are hitting 6th level and 2 players get their prestige class and 2 players do not because they need to meet one old guy at the mountain top to teach them "secret ways of the super ninja".
now, implementing roleplay hooks because a player is a specific prestige class and some one will try to use that fact for better or worse is a good tool to play off that mechanic:
an assassin might get offered a lucrative job,
or entire party might be hunted for the assassin as rumor mill got the assassin as the guilty party by mistake for removing heir apparent prince from the succession line.
Sure. Because combat is not the primary reason I run or play RPGs.
Edgar Ironpelt
Adventurer
I run 3.5e with a blanket ban on prestige classes. I see the PC classes as already being the top-level 'prestige' classes, not as 'starter' classes to qualify a PC for something better/cheesier.
I like - strike that, I love feats and skills, and am wary about 'simplifications' that nerf them. That said, I have house rules to make skill less fussy (similar to some of the Pathfinder 1e ideas on skills, but developed independently), and I do curate the feats I allow. I'll also shamelessly modify feats to fit my personal philosophy about what they should and shouldn't be able to do, as opposed to the 'official' philosophy. (E.g. Dodge feat. Gives a +1 Dodge bonus, lost if flatfooted. None of this "pick an opponent..." business.)
I also look for other changes that simplify things 'in the heat of play.' I depreciate temporary ability score changes, because a +2 to e.g. DEX has cascading effects that are elegant in theory but a pain in the ass in actual play.
Poisons are depreciated as well, partly because they do ability score reduction and partly for the other reasons why poison use is a PITA in the heat of play.
I've dropped increased reach for bigger creatures. Those creatures get a 5 ft/1 square reach; they don't get extra reach just for being big.
I'm considering dropping Concentration in favor of an "If an archer can loose arrows" rule: If an archer in a given circumstance can loose an arrow, a spellcaster can cast a spell. If not, then not.
I'm also considering a simple nerf for critical hits: All critical multipliers are reduced by 1. That means most weapons don't do critical hits at all, due to the x2 damage multiplier dropping to a to-be-ignored x1.
And I have a few other "clean up and simplify" house rules and house rule ideas.
