| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
lummoxybez
Acolyte
United Kingdom
6 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Oct 2008 : 09:41:20
|
Hello to all. This is my first post and it is inevitable that it is to ask advice from some of you sages out there.
I'm planning to run a campaign set in the Realms, but I'd like to know whether my ideas regarding the system will work.
My first thought was to use the good old 2nd edition AD&D rules, which enable players to get stuck in straight away and not worry about the extra complications that the 3rd or 4th editions have.
However, the more I looked at 2nd edition, I though that 3rd edition could do such and such a mechanic much better and so forth.
So now I'm thinking of running it with 3rd edition but streamlining the rules to miss out the overly-complicated combat system (I'm not a fan or the half-action, standard-action gubbins, preferring the straight-forward roll to hit of 2nd ed.) My thoughts are to amend many of the feats so that they no longer affect combat as if it was based on a battle grid (no more 5-foot-steps) but to take them back to the simplistic days of 2nd edition whilst still keeping some of the feats and all of the skills or 3rd ed.
What I want to know is whether it is possible to still run a coherent game with a slimmed-down version of the 3rd edition rules or not? I don't like using battle-mats or miniatures, so it goes without saying that 4th ed is a no-go. I am concerned that 3rd edition wil break if I tamper with it too much, but I really want to use the great character-creation system and skills/feats that 3rd ed has to offer.
As an example, I would get rid of the 'Ride-by-Attack' or whatever it's called, as it relies on the fact that the combat system is well-structured and has strict rules that are adhered to on a battle-mat. I prefer my combats to be abstract and will allow a move action and an attack action of some sort. Thus a player will be able to move then attack or attack then move, drawn out on a scrap of paper if necessary. There will be no need for feats that change the structure of the exisiting combat system, so the riding attack will have to be out.
Hope this makes sense.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Zarro
Acolyte
Italy
12 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2008 : 09:58:51
|
Well the combat system in the 3rd ed. is almost completely based on the grid, miniatures and squares. Many rules (i.e. Attack of Oppotunity) and feats take in consideration the squares, the exact movement and the position, such as the sneack attack of a rogue when flanking. For that I don't think that slimmed-down version of 3rd ed. rules will work well. I would apply the AD&D 2ed. rules, with a self-made compendium to add some charateristic you like of the 3ed.
Did you even consider to use the D&D basic rules (the red box)? The semplicity and the basic rules for that edition will allow you to easily implement as many rules, feats you like. |
Zarro™ |
 |
|
|
lummoxybez
Acolyte
United Kingdom
6 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2008 : 10:14:07
|
Yeah, I considered using the rules compendium, but abandoned that idea early on.
I think that it's possible to play 3rd ed without a battle-grid. AoOs simply occur when someone tries to get away from melee or drinks a potion/casts a spell etc... there's no need for a grid to rule that an AoO happens in those instances.
As for sneak attacks, an enemy can only face a single opponent. If your rogue isn't that opponent, then he is considered to be flanking and can thus perform a sneak attack.
I don't see the necessity of a grid to make these rulings in a game, which is why I'm happy to bin it completely.
Most of my players feel the same way about miniatures and grids and will be perfectly happy to accept any ruling made by a DM regarding positioning and movement. As I said, a quick sketch of the situation usually helps if the narrative description isn't enough.
My concern was that I would have to get rid of lots of feats to take this into account, but after reading through the book I thought that there could be work-arounds for each case.
I take your points though, and thanks for responding so quickly.
(In addition, I just enjoy the feel and atmosphere of 3rd ed compared to that of 2nd ed or basic D&D, particularly when one has played NWN so much and loved every minute of it.) |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2008 : 10:19:31
|
There are lots of things I like about 3.x (everything going up for instance), but the combat section is not one of them, especially attacks of opportunity  .
I personally see no problem with you tweaking the game to have more abstract combat (hit and move) but keep feats and classes. You simply need to remove feats that don't work and then use common sense regarding monsters/characters as appropriate (i.e Giants still get reach and if "special" actually get an AOO against a PC, but this should be the exception rather than the rule etc).
I personally prefer to use the 3E OGL compliant Castles and Crusades system from Troll Lord Games as it echoes 1E/2E in gameplay but is easy to customise and add things (like feats etc) to make the game your own, (I find that adding to the game is easier than taking away, we tried to rewrite 3.x but some things did break the system).
Good luck and welcome to Candlekeep 
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
Edited by - crazedventurers on 05 Oct 2008 10:20:56 |
|
|
|
Arion Elenim
Senior Scribe
933 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2008 : 22:49:12
|
For what it's worth I've been running 3.0 and 3.5 games since 2000 without a combat map, and I just switched over to one last year.
To be honest, I felt like while it made game mechanics a lot easier (remembering EXACTLY how far away the PCs are from one orc to the other, for example), I missed the Hitchcockian sort of feel where the player's imagination does the work for you.
My advice would be to try it both ways and pick the style that's best for YOU as the DM...eventually, the PCs will follow suit, regardless of what 4th edition says...:D |
My latest Realms-based short story, about a bard, a paladin of Lathander and the letter of the law, Debts Repaid. It takes place before the "shattering" and gives the bard Arion a last gasp before he plunges into the present.http://candlekeep.com/campaign/logs/log-debts.htm |
|
|
|
Wenin
Senior Scribe
585 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2008 : 05:50:19
|
You should get feedback from the PCs, it is just as much their game as it is yours.
As a PC, I always hated situations like:
Ok your party of 4 characters encounter 8 orcs. Roll initative
Ok, orcs attack, each character gets two orcs each.
Me, "Ummmm what happened to protecting the Mage?"
3.5 eliminated that scenario =) |
Session Reports posted at RPG Geek.
Stem the Tide Takes place in Mistledale.
Dark Curtains - Takes place in the Savage North, starting in Nesmé. I wrapped my campaign into the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, but it takes place in 1372 DR. |
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2008 : 07:40:59
|
The combat grid / miniatures - or any other way of showing who stands where and next to whom - is a playing aid which helps communicate this to the players. I had played without miniatures for a long time and every round - being a wizard - I had to ask the DM "how far am I to this guy? and the other one? and the next?", so the game got bogged down by needless descriptions and kinda fuzzy for me. Even if you dont have a grid with an exact scale you can still eliminate the need to describe to your players that there is a guy trying to outflank them on one side.
The thing is: You cant really make a fight as "graphic" as they are shown in your action movies ... well you can, BUT its impractical IMO because the effort is a lot bigger. Usually its the people who try to describe fights like roleplaying who dont play with miniatures, but that doesnt work for everyone and most of all not for every fight. Describing the way you swing your sword when fighting 15 Kobolds is kinda tedious, so I think its better to "get on with the show" and get the fight done as fast as possible. The way to do this is to use a grid / miniatures and get rid of that "Errol Flynn feeling" during the fight. To make up for it 3rd edition has introduced the tactical gaming aspect to the fights, which in itself is not bad because its a different kind of challenge / aspect.
So to get back to the question of "Is it feasible to add feats to 2nd edition?" I would say YES, BUT there are two considerations:
1. Is playing without miniatures all important? I would suggest adding almost no feats to your game, because that is the way to get bogged down in game mechanics.
2. If feats are really too nice to play without I would suggest using miniatures as well, because they usually make a fight more easy to understand from a players point of view. Nothing is as bad as players having to ask every round "How many monsters can I hit with my Whirlwind attack?" With miniatures and a battlemat they can look for themselves.
If you try to find a compromise and still add feats without miniatures I would say that ...
- Wizards are probably powerful enough already, so they dont really need them as much as fighters,
- Fighters (and other melees) get many feats which are bound into the tactical aspect too much, so you might want to stick to "general effect stuff" like Weapon Focus or such for them and maybe invent feats for "special moves" yourself (to add some more descriptive flavor for the game?). |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
|
|
|
lummoxybez
Acolyte
United Kingdom
6 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2008 : 00:46:33
|
Thanks for the help everyone.
I've decided to run a game with 3.5 ed rules that are modified to play without miniatures.
I think it will only needs a couple of feat modifications to do this so the work involved is minimal.
I'm happy to stick to descriptive combats rather than ones on a grid, as all my players will prefer it (as will I) and there will only be 2 or 3 combats per session anyway.
I prefer an RP approach to gaming for the immersion rather than the mini-tactics in un-modded 3.5
It may sound silly to choose to play 3.5 rather than any other system but I really want to run a campaign in FR and this system is ideal for it. |
|
|
|
Leon_Stryfe
Acolyte
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2008 : 02:45:30
|
| If you're dead set on playing without a battle-map, I suggest trying 3.X with all the feats (including tactical) and seeing what your players can visualize. The group I'm in almost never uses grids (the exceptions being extremely large battles with many dozens of opponents), and we still use the tactical feats (one player almost always has a horse with RBA, Charge, etc.). Most of us just visualize the "map" and go from there. If we ever have a question, it usually along the lines of "at what facing can I hit the maximum number of enemies without harming my friends". So long as the DM can answer questions like that, no worries. The only snag we've ever hit with this method is when a new person joins in. We occasionally have to encourage them to use their imagination and common sense. |
You ask me what I crave above all things? Knowledge. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 06:49:38
|
I thought I'd throw in my two coppers...
My experiences have been very similar to those of Leon_Stryfe. I've been playing in three campaigns over the last eight months, all of them in 3.5, and in two of them we have never used battle mats or miniatures, keeping all combat abstract, and haven't really needed to tweak the rules at all. In the third, we only occasionally use a battle mat, for the larger battles with complex battlefields (walls, trees, and the like). Of course, as you say, some feats are much less useful without miniatures-based combat, but if you excise those feats as options, things should be fine; we never bothered to state such things explicitly as all of the gamers I play with have been playing since at least before 3.5 was released. I personally have been playing since late 1st edition, and I find that in 3E, the battles actually take less time without miniatures as long as they're smaller (less than a dozen combatants per side). I also think that reducing the game's reliance on miniatures encourages the role-playing element of combat, which is often overlooked, and I suspect that if the game's development continues on its current course, 5th edition will be (and maybe 4th edition already is) a miniatures game with incidental roleplaying, rather than the role-playing game with incidental miniatures combat that 3E/3.5 is to me now.
Hope this helps. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 10 Oct 2008 06:57:09 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Advice on system modification needed
