The big one is encounter tables, obviously.
Does the updated 3.5 MM have the monster design rules (as far as standard damages for bites/claws etc. by size, feats/skills by HD, etc.) that were first put out in the Skip Williams article and the MMII and FF prefaces? Can you build a monster from scratch using the rules there?
Those are the only two I can think of. Is there anything else that's missing?
Quote from: CalithenaThe big one is encounter tables, obviously.
Eh, these can be found in plenty (if not most of) the monster supplements.
QuoteDoes the updated 3.5 MM have the monster design rules (as far as standard damages for bites/claws etc. by size, feats/skills by HD, etc.) that were first put out in the Skip Williams article and the MMII and FF prefaces? Can you build a monster from scratch using the rules there?
It has
some rules, yes, though they aren't quite as focused as those that you mention.
Man ... where to even begin? :(
Okay ... that post was snarky and not helpful. Sorry. :deflated:
I'm too tired to think about this now, and the next week is going to be busy for me (off to Amsterdam on Sunday for 'business').
But a crude answer would be: 3e doesn't really 'lack' anything for 'old-school adventures'. Rather it has too much for 'old-school' adventures (in terms of rules and default assumptions). Also, there is a default assumption that PCs should live. This is somewhat different from Original/Basic/1eAD&D.
However, it is certainly possible to run 'old-school' style adventures with 3e, if you mash things up a bit. I did it in two 3e campaigns. (The key is to end the campaign long before the PCs reach level 10. And ignore the 3e assumptions about magic items. And cut experience rewards by half.)
Ummm ... other stuff ... :tired:
QuoteIt has some rules, yes, though they aren't quite as focused as those that you mention.
Can I build a monster according to the rules with the material in the core books or not?
QuoteEh, these can be found in plenty (if not most of) the monster supplements.
Not buying that. Core only. I'm keeping my 1e DMG, Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, Midkemia Cities, and Free City of Haven/Shadows on the Labyrinth supplements to make up the gap. It's not a game without standard random encounter tables, there's no guidance for what to do in the wilderness or the city.
Quote from: CalithenaCan I build a monster according to the rules with the material in the core books or not?
Well, yes, though it requires some handwaving. Much as building monsters in earlier editions did. The difference is in where that handwaving takes place. In AD&D, you had lists of basic damages, etc but no unified system for staging up (or down) creature size and hit dice, nor templates for modifying existing creatures to behave differently and or become different things.
In D&D 3.5, you pretty much have the exact opposite. In D&D 3.5, it's up to you to provide damage ratings, though rules are provided for staging up and down hit dice according to creature size and, as all armor works on the same scale in D&D 3x, you can use the basic rules for that as presented in the PHB. Likewise, many templates are provided that allow you to create (ostensibly) hundreds of variations thereof with just the core rules.
So, yes, it's possible to create creatures using just the core rules. The downside is that the rules provide a lot of nifty stuff that was totally ignored in AD&D, while simultaneously jettisoning rules for useful things that
were covered in AD&D. I wish they would have brought in the new while keeping the old.
QuoteIt's not a game without standard random encounter tables, there's no guidance for what to do in the wilderness or the city.
Okay, then, you may want to look at the random encounter tables in the D&D 3.5 DMG.
I've converted and run tons of old adventures in 3.0 and 3.5, ranging from Keep on the Borderlands to Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, to the Bloodstone trilogy. In my experience 3.x has everything you need to run an old school adventure, whether you're converting or going on the fly.
Quote from: James McMurrayI've converted and run tons of old adventures in 3.0 and 3.5, ranging from Keep on the Borderlands to Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, to the Bloodstone trilogy. In my experience 3.x has everything you need to run an old school adventure, whether you're converting or going on the fly.
Ironically, I'm actually buying Return to the Tomb of Horrors from Cal this payday, specifically to convert it to 3.5 as a sequel to the ToH redux :)
plot, setting, and attitude to rules determine old school in my opinion. The actual rule set can factor in getting people to play in the first place (people like to play what they know). But the three are what really makes old school, old school.
Neat essay on Enworld (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3605137http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3605137&postcount=30)
I told you so before:
1) no morale rules
2) no retreat option
Shitloads of random tables, and faster character creation rules.
RPGPundit
Ditch the following:
Prestige Classes
Item Creation Feats
Complete XXXX
Challenge Ratings
XPs for defeating monsters
Full hit points at first level
Spontaneous healing for clerics
I was there for the old days, so I know what the feel is, I just need some rules.
Sett, point taken on morale, should be easy to cobble something together though. The rules from the D&D minis game (will save at half hit points) wouldn't be a bad sort of ad hoc thing. You could make PCs do it too... :devil:
I don't understand what the retrreat problem is though. You take an AoO and run for it, what's the big deal? I suppose someone with equal or better movement can always screw you on this in a 1 on 1 fight (in a group it's often sufficient), but maybe a 'running roll' to boost movement or opposed running contest with modifiers for different base movement rates could take care of the chase situation?
That link has one heavily underutilized piece of advice:
Quote9) Make them explore hex by hex to find places, making a map as they go.
Quote from: SosthenesDitch the following:
Prestige Classes
Item Creation Feats
Complete XXXX
Challenge Ratings
XPs for defeating monsters
Full hit points at first level
Spontaneous healing for clerics
Those are some of the best things about D&D, though. Ditch those things? That's terrible advice.
The only reliable way to make it more like what I consider 'old school' (Not sure I like that term..) is quite simple:
De-emphasize acting and performance.
- this isn't to say players won't do it anyway. Even in the very earliest roleplaying games, people clearly spoke in character every once in a while. But simply remove the idea that they have to or should strive to, or should feel bad when they aren't doing it.
Re-Emphasize player skill and gamesmanship.
- It's a game, treat it as one.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThose are some of the best things about D&D, though. Ditch those things? That's terrible advice.
Well, good if you like them, but we're talking about "old-shool" gaming, from which the points listed clerly deviate. It seems we have different concepts about that one.
Quote from: jdrakehIronically, I'm actually buying Return to the Tomb of Horrors from Cal this payday, specifically to convert it to 3.5 as a sequel to the ToH redux :)
If you follow the 3.x philosophy that poisons and traps are never instant death it runs really well. It's still a meat grinder, with PCs dying left and right, but at that high level they'll be coming back soon anyway. I ran it as a follow-up to some home brewed stuff that had been a follow-up to Dragon Mountain (a mountain they barely stepped foot in during the entire campaign).
My group made it all the way to the final battle with Acererak during his Apotheosis and had a TPK when they were about 20 damage away from destroying the phylactery. They'd have made it if we were playing 3.5 instead of 3.0, because of the way they toned down the rules on vorpal weapons.
The next time I run D&D you can bet it'll be in a dark future where the negative material plane is alive and hungry. :)
It's hard to impart an old-school feel when playing 3.5.
With 3.5, there is a rule for everything and gamers will use those rules if it provides them benefit.
Whereas back in the day, you might say, "Make a Dex roll to climb that rope." In 3.5, you check the climb section to determine the DC. Then, if the character has any skill synergies, you apply those as a bonus and then if the equipment is of master quality another bonus applies. A lot of detail is offered and will be exploited by players.
Another thing I noticed is finding secret doors. Maybe it was just the way we played but we would describe what we are doing to find a secret door; "I carefully look at the wall, searching for a crack or pull the torch holder to see it anything happens." The DM may either say it opens or rolls a d6. In 3.5, you make a Search roll. The search roll is for every 10 ft. You need to check the Search section to determine the DC.
None of the above are deal breakers but 3.5 is a different mindset and hard, in my opinion, to play old school. If you want to ignore the many rulesin 3.5, that's fine but then you are not playing to the strengths of 3.5 (detail and power gaming).
My friends have a fine time playing 3.5 but they all enjoy the min-max of character builds and the power gaming aspect during play.
You will undoubtably have fun but it may not be "old-school" as you remember it.
Quote from: enelsonIt's hard to impart an old-school feel when playing 3.5.
With 3.5, there is a rule for everything and gamers will use those rules if it provides them benefit.
Whereas back in the day, you might say, "Make a Dex roll to climb that rope." In 3.5, you check the climb section to determine the DC. Then, if the character has any skill synergies, you apply those as a bonus and then if the equipment is of master quality another bonus applies. A lot of detail is offered and will be exploited by players.
Another thing I noticed is finding secret doors. Maybe it was just the way we played but we would describe what we are doing to find a secret door; "I carefully look at the wall, searching for a crack or pull the torch holder to see it anything happens." The DM may either say it opens or rolls a d6. In 3.5, you make a Search roll. The search roll is for every 10 ft. You need to check the Search section to determine the DC.
None of the above are deal breakers but 3.5 is a different mindset and hard, in my opinion, to play old school. If you want to ignore the many rulesin 3.5, that's fine but then you are not playing to the strengths of 3.5 (detail and power gaming).
My friends have a fine time playing 3.5 but they all enjoy the min-max of character builds and the power gaming aspect during play.
You will undoubtably have fun but it may not be "old-school" as you remember it.
You've certainly nailed my take on it. :D
-clash
The best place to start is to identify what you mean by "old school".
I think the detailed system is more flexible in play than some people are giving it credit for. In particular, if you're not anal about DCs and untrained checks, except for specialist stuff, and you adopt a 'say yes or roll' principle to smooth over bottlenecks, that stuff can be handled OK.
As to the incentivizing of powergaming and support for it, I totally agree, and I've decided I can live with it. Mainly by restricting multiclassing and race choice and substituting campaign-focused prestige classes and feats for the endless proliferation of splatbooks.
I guess what I really want to know is what support is missing for
1) making up my own monsters
2) randomly rolling encounters, map structures, dungeons, treasures, etc.
and then anything else you guys can think of.
I guess I should say that the kind of campaign I have in mind is this: limited map, limited information about the home culture, limited choices of race and class; then gradually expanding things as the players move out of their home base and explore the world.
So, support for making it up as you go, is what I'm looking for. Forget old-school (though it's always fun to argue about), just useful things for GM improvisation and default environments that haven't been detailed in advance.
Quote from: Calithena1) making up my own monsters
2) randomly rolling encounters, map structures, dungeons, treasures, etc.
Ther'es plenty of support for these two things if that's what you are interested in. Although, just as in the old days, it's not exactly a science. And monster-building is much more complex than it ever was in the past. (So maybe monster building kinda is a science now, whereas it wasn't before).
I may do some articles about it. I love makin' monsters.
I'm not a big fan of random stuff and have never regarded this as a hallmark of old school gaming, but even so, a "mad lib" style of randomness is probably a good idea if you want to go that way.
"The players discover a ____
____ _______ where a ___adjective___ ________ is _______ a(n) ___
(e.g. "The players discover a purple yacht, where an undeath slime-monster is torturing a elven golem")
Of course you've got to have a d00 table for each entry, or it wouldn't be True Scientific Realism.
Note: For added convenience, make it a " ".
Quote from: CalithenaI guess what I really want to know is what support is missing for
1) making up my own monsters
2) randomly rolling encounters, map structures, dungeons, treasures, etc.
1) I did not feel comfortable making my own 3.x monsters until I got my hands on Mearls'
Monster Handbook from AEG. I know a noncore book is a dealbreaker for you, but you might be able to do without. My general impression over the years has been that you're six shades smarter than I am. Still, I can't be the only one who needed that book, or the Dragon article on monster making.
2) For dungeon maps you're out of luck. But there are usable dungeon stocking and encounter charts in the DMG, as well as loot charts. I find them inadequate. For random dungeoneering I go to older sources, like the 1st edition DMG. The random encounter charts are usable, but I find them uninspired.
The only thing I hate about making monsters is choosing the skills, which always seems pointless, and takes me a lot of time. Choosing the stats is not great but I can deal with it; choosing extra feats for high hit die monsters that don't have obvious ones is a pain in the butt, but compared to the pain in the butt of designing my own perfect system, I guess I've learned the hard way that I'm willing to deal with it.
But anyway, Maw, is this stuff all in the core books, or are there particular supplements that aid in the process?
-----------------
Thanks Jeff - I'll take a look at that. I have the skip williams monster making article - that used to be on the wizards site, anyone got a link? - but i thought a lot of that was duplicated in the fiend folio or something like that. Not sure I'd need it any more....what's the jist of the Mearls system?
Oh yeah, and for random encounters, 1e DMG for wilderness and Midkemia Cities/Free City of Haven for urban are still the default standard in my book. Those books aren't going anywhere, and I'm holding on to the 1e MM and to D3: Vault of the Drow until I have collected stats for all the critters on those tables.
These are some old conversions from my 3.0 days, basically made up from sketchy old details. I know constructs have more hit points in 3.5 - is that covered in the 3.5 MM?
Metaljaws
Large Construct
(Calithena)
Hit Dice: 8d10 (36 hp)
Initiative: +2 (Dex)
Speed: 15 ft., jump 30 ft.
AC: 26 (+15 natural, +2 Dex, -1 size)
Attacks: Bite +12 melee
Damage: Bite 2d8+10
Face/Reach: 5’ x 5’/10’
Special Attacks: Superleap Charge
Special Qualities: Construct, Damage Reduction 15/+3, Fire Resistance 30, Acid Resistance 15, Cold Paralysis
Saves: Fort +2 Ref +4 Will +1
Abilities: Str 24 Dex 14 Con - Int - Wis 9 Cha 1
Climate/Terrain: Any land and underground
Organization: Solitary or gang (2-5)
Challenge Rating: 6
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: Large (9-15 HD); Huge (16-32 HD)
Metaljaws resemble great half-open bear traps attached to a squarish metal box with many gears and cylinders, which in turn is mounted on two squat, extremely powerful metal legs. They move slowly but can leap to the attack at blinding speed when the time comes. Inspired by the Vroats (q.v.) of the No Name Swamp, the wizard Pthak invented these to guard the upper floor of his manse.
Combat
Metaljaws usually leaps to the attack when an interloper into its assigned territory is spotted, continuing to bite its foes until it or all of them are dismantled.
Superleap Charge (Ex): Like the Vroats who inspired them, Metaljaws often leap to the attack. Metaljaws jump 60’ while performing a charge attack to reflect their prodigious jumping abilities.
Cold Paralysis (Su): Metaljaws do not take any damage from cold attacks. Instead, they are paralyzed for one full round for each five points of cold damage (or fraction thereof) which get through to them after saving throws, etc. During this time a Metaljaws’ AC drops to 19, and attacks against it are at +4, but opponents may not make coup de grace or sneak attacks because of its nature as a construct.
Construct (Su): As mindless constructs Metaljaws are immune to mind-influencing effects, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, necromantic effects, critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, or any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless that effect also works on inanimate objects). They also have Darkvision to 60’.
Morghoul (Rot Ghast)
Medium-Sized Undead
(The Arduin Grimoire, Compleat Arduin)
Yellow-green manlike shapes with blood red eyes and claws, Morghouls stink of rotting flesh. They typically have only a slime-rimmed hole where their nose should be, and no nipples or navels. These may be treated as D&D Ghasts with the following changes:
Rot (Su): Successful bite and claw attacks from a Morghoul cause festering, rotting wounds in addition to paralysis. A second Fort save (DC 15) must be made for each wound the Morghoul inflicts; if it is missed, the wound begins to rot and fester, causing the victim to lose 1 hp/rd (cumulative if more than one wound rots) until dead. Remove Disease will stop all such festering; failing that the only way to get rid of the rot is washing the wounds in holy water (max 2 wounds/vial), whereupon the rotting will cease. Healing spells work but do not stop the rot. Those who die of the rot will come back as Morghouls themselves unless the usual precautions are taken.
Turn Resistance +3
Vulnerability to Holy Water (Su): Holy water is especially efficacious against these disintegrating horrors, and causes 3d4 damage to them on a direct hit and 2 points on a splash.
Saurig, Swamp
Medium-Sized Humanoid (Aquatic)
(The Arduin Grimoires, Compleat Arduin)
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp)
Initiative: -1 (Dex)
Speed: 30 ft./swim 20 ft.
AC: 14 (+5 natural, -1 Dex)
Attacks: 2 claws +4 melee, bite +2 melee; or Greataxe +5 melee, bite +2 melee; or Trident +4 melee, bite +2 melee; or Trident +0 ranged; or Net +0 ranged touch; or Tail Sweep +4 melee
Damage: Claw 1d4+3, Bite 1d4+1, Greataxe 1d12+4 (x3 crit), Trident 1d8+3; Net Entangle, Tail Sweep 1d4+4+trip
Face/Reach: 5’ x 5’/5’
Special Attacks: Tail Sweep
Special Qualities: Rage
Saves: Fort +5 Ref -1 Will -2
Abilities: Str 17 Dex 8 Con 15 Int 8 Wis 7 Cha 11
Skills: Balance +6, Jump +12, Swim +14
Feats: Multiattack, plus either Weapon Focus (Greataxe) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Net)
Climate/Terrain: Temperate and warm swamps
Organization: Solitary, Patrol (2-5), Warband (6-36)
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: No coins, standard goods and items
Alignment: Usually chaotic neutral
Advancement: By character class
Hulking green reptile men with yellow bellies, the swamp saurigs are a semi-atavistic reptile race descended from the genetically engineered warriors of the dread Kthoi. Though they are ferocious fighters, they are little sought as mercenaries because of their lack of battlefield (or any other) discipline. They hate Phraints (Ardunian insect-men) with a passion. Saurigs generally will only eat fresh raw meat.
Combat
A swamp saurig warband will typically attack in a berserk rage, either with greataxe and bite or with net or trident and bite. They also use their tail sweep to great effect, knocking opponents to the ground where the rest of the band will proceed to gut them.
Tail Sweep (Ex): A Swamp Saurig may forego its other attacks and instead make a whirling-smashing attack with its tail as a full-round action. In addition to normal damage, creatures of Large size or smaller hit with this attack must win a normal trip contest against the Saurig or be knocked prone. The opponent does not get a chance to trip the Saurig in return if they keep their footing.
Rage (Ex): Due to their primitive and irascible temperament, Swamp Saurigs can Rage as a barbarian once per day, adding +4 to Strength and Constitution and +2 to Will saves but inflicting a -2 penalty to AC for (3 + modified Con bonus) rounds.
Skills: Thanks to their tails, Swamp Saurigs receive a +4 racial bonus to Balance, Jump, and Swim checks. This extra balance and their great size also grants them a +2 racial bonus to all grapple checks.
Swamp Saurig Society and Characters
Relatively little is known of Swamp Saurig society or religion; from the outside it seems to be composed of near-savage bands of marauders. A Swamp Saurig’s favored class is barbarian; to find a Swamp Saurig in any class besides this or warrior is rare indeed.
Shock Bones
Medium-Sized Construct
(Welcome to Skull Tower, Compleat Arduin)
Hit Dice: 1d10 (5 hp)
Initiative: +4 (Dex)
Speed: 30 ft.
AC: 16 (+2 natural, +4 Dex)
Attacks: 2 claws +4 melee
Damage: Claw 1d4
Face/Reach: 5’ x 5’/5’
Special Attacks: Electric Blast
Special Qualities: Construct, Combat Wiring, Death Burst, Piercing and Slashing Weapon Resistance
Saves: Fort +0 Ref +4 Will +1
Abilities: Str 10 Dex 18 Con - Int - Wis 12 Cha 1
Climate/Terrain: Any land and underground
Organization: Any
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: Large (2-3 HD); Huge (4-15 HD); Gargantuan (16-31 HD), Colossal (32-64 HD)
Shock Bones were originally the practical joke of a mad techno, and have fooled several very smug clerics. They are the skeletons of those slain, wired together (chalk covers the wire so it isn’t noticeable) and electrically animated. Detect Life, Detect Magic, Detect Undead, and most similar spells come up blank on them because they are constructs.
Combat
Shock Bones will attempt to attack as skeletons with their claws. When they get hits with both claws they are allowed to make a free grapple attempt, which will eventuate their explosion succeed or fail. The DM should roll privately for clerics attempting to turn Shock Bones, since this will have no effect. Clerics who ask may note (if they beat their minimum roll to turn skeletons by five or more) that no ‘negative energy’ is radiated by these creatures as part of the turning attempt.
Electric Blast (Ex): When the Shock Bones hits with both claw attacks in a single melee round, it can automatically make a grapple attempt as a free action. If it succeeds, it ‘closes the circuit’ in its wires, ending its own existence and exploding for 3d6 electrical damage in a 5’ radius spread. A DC 12 Ref save will reduce damage by half. (Note: I have chosen to improve the radius of the Shock Bones’ explosion from the original.)
Combat Wiring (Ex): The powerful juice and fine construction that goes into a shock bones gives it a better combat value, allowing it to fight as if it had the Weapon Finesse feat for its claws (+4). This is reflected in the profile above.
Death Burst (Ex): When a shock bones is slain, its electric blast automatically goes off. Unless grappled however all in the spread should get a save. (This is also a change from Hargrave’s original.)
Piercing and Slashing Weapon Resistance (Ex): Like skeletons, Shock Bones only take half damage from these weapon types.
Construct (Ex): As mindless constructs Shock Bones are immune to mind-influencing effects, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, necromantic effects, critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, or any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless that effect also works on inanimate objects). They also have Darkvision to 60’.
Vroat
Medium-Sized Beast
(The Arduin Grimoire, Compleat Arduin)
Hit Dice: 4d10+8 (30 hp)
Initiative: +6 (+2 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 20 ft., jump 40’
AC: 16 (+4 natural, +2 Dex)
Attacks: Bite +6 melee
Damage: Bite 2d6+4
Face/Reach: 5’ x 5’/5’
Special Attacks: Improved Grab
Special Qualities: Fear Immunity, +4 to saves against Poison, Acid Resistance 10
Saves: Fort +6 Ref +6 Will +1
Abilities: Str 16 Dex 14 Con 15 Int 2 Wis 11 Cha 5
Skills: Hide +7, Jump +11, Listen +2, Spot +2
Feats: Improved Initiative
Climate/Terrain: Temperate and warm forests, jungles, rivers, and swamps
Organization: Colony (3-24)
Challenge Rating: 2
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: Medium-Sized (5 HD); Large (6-7 HD)
Sometimes referred to as “jumping jaws”, Vroats are the odd and dangerous result of crossbreeding crocodiles with giant toads. They are able to leap incredible distances, and like a pit bull their jaws generally do not come loose once sunk into a foe until they or their enemy is dead.
Combat
Vroats typically hop towards potential meals with great enthusiasm, whereupon they attack.
Improved Grab (Ex): If a Vroat hits with its bite, it gets a free grapple attempt. If it gets a hold, it automatically deals bite damage in subsequent rounds until its opponent breaks free of the grapple.
Skills: In addition to its automatic jumping ability, a Vroat gets a +6 racial bonus to any Jump checks it needs to make to accomplish some particular task. Vroats also receive a +4 racial bonus to Hide.
Quote from: CalithenaThe only thing I hate about making monsters is choosing the skills, which always seems pointless, and takes me a lot of time. Choosing the stats is not great but I can deal with it; choosing extra feats for high hit die monsters that don't have obvious ones is a pain in the butt, but compared to the pain in the butt of designing my own perfect system, I guess I've learned the hard way that I'm willing to deal with it.
But anyway, Maw, is this stuff all in the core books, or are there particular supplements that aid in the process?
Three things:
1) The Monsters Handbook is one I used to use quite often as well. It's got some 3.0 pecularities that will not apply to 3.5 but has soom good ideas. Basicly it's just a book about monster building. Another useful one is Savage Species.
2) For skills, I kinda have a process for that. The simple version involves throwing everything possible into listen and spot and not worrying about the rest.
3) The system I use relies on stuff in the Monster Manual and PHB. It's not that spectacular-- this is the reverse engineering and benchmarking technique that I assume everyone else uses.
QuoteThe rules from the D&D minis game (will save at half hit points)
No, no. The morale thing for individuals can be hand-waved and ad-hoc ruled.
It´s the group morale, that makes or breaks it.
Example:
Players sneak up on twelve Kobolds.
Players surprise the Kobolds.
Players kill two Kobolds from their ambush position.
Kobolds must make a morale check for the first casuality.
These Kobolds have a morale value of 7.
2D6 are rolled, if a eight or higher is rolled ALL Kobolds flee in panic.
That totally changes the game in my book, because it can be used as a viable tactic.
@fleeing: In AD&D and BECMI, you can flee, no matter the movement rate. That´s the big difference.
AD&D had an escape chart.
BECMI had move OR attack, as well as an escape chart.
In 3.5 you have neither.
Cal, a rules nitpicker might be able to take apart your creatures under a microscope, but there ain't nothing wrong with them for actual play. When I ran your Arduin module I had no difficulties whatsoever.
I do agree that skill selection is a pain in the ass. I hate doing it for my PCs as well.
Well, where do you end up in RC D&D? This is the breaking point of escape rules, IMHO. Unless you're going for a two-tiered Final Fantasy approach to maps.
And group morals are good for group minds. Communist gaming ;)
Settembrini:
I think it's actually easier than you're making it sound. Make one saving throw for the whole band, make or break. I do this sometimes for spells as well...it's not a big deal with groups of similar monsters.
If those twelve kobolds have an ogre leader, well, they're probably not going to break, but if the ogre gets wounded, fails his individual morale save, and breaks, then you can roll for them as a group too.
I don't see this as one of those tweaks which makes or breaks the system.
Well, I´m just saying you have to consider it.
It´s definitely well within the realm of 3.5 mechanics, especially if you take into account the nice "fear levels".
Not to derail this thread...
but based on those great Stormbringer+Dwarven Forge pics...
You should most definitely take pics of your 3.5+Dwarven Forge game.
Skills: don't stress it. Give them what skills you think they'll need, or ignore all but spot and listen altogether (unless it'sa climber or sneaky-type critter).
Morale: Again, don't stress it. If you really need a random roll you can use the will save. Usually though, it can be kinda obvious when things have gone South and it's time to flee.
Monster creation: again, don't sweat it. Make what you think will be the appropriate challenge for the scene and eyeball its CR at that. If it turns out in play that it was more or less powerful than you thought, scratch that CR out and award XP based on the actual challenge. CR is just a guideline anyway, with it's value directly tied to how close to the playtesters' characters your PCs are. A well-built 2nd level party can waffle stomp some CR 5 encounters, and vice versa.
Quote from: enelsonIt's hard to impart an old-school feel when playing 3.5.
With 3.5, there is a rule for everything and gamers will use those rules if it provides them benefit.
Whereas back in the day, you might say, "Make a Dex roll to climb that rope." In 3.5, you check the climb section to determine the DC. Then, if the character has any skill synergies, you apply those as a bonus and then if the equipment is of master quality another bonus applies. A lot of detail is offered and will be exploited by players.
Another thing I noticed is finding secret doors. Maybe it was just the way we played but we would describe what we are doing to find a secret door; "I carefully look at the wall, searching for a crack or pull the torch holder to see it anything happens." The DM may either say it opens or rolls a d6. In 3.5, you make a Search roll. The search roll is for every 10 ft. You need to check the Search section to determine the DC.
None of the above are deal breakers but 3.5 is a different mindset and hard, in my opinion, to play old school. If you want to ignore the many rulesin 3.5, that's fine but then you are not playing to the strengths of 3.5 (detail and power gaming).
My friends have a fine time playing 3.5 but they all enjoy the min-max of character builds and the power gaming aspect during play.
You will undoubtably have fun but it may not be "old-school" as you remember it.
OTOH - one of the things that made "old school" "old school" was the willingness of the participants to ignore rules that seemed cumbersome or did not facilitate play well - weapon speed anyone?
So while all of those rules exist in 3.5, and while using them will alter the feel in a way that to many might feel anit-"old school," true old school would screw the climb check and do the Dex check.
This will depend heavily on the "old school"ness of the specific group...
Quote from: James McMurrayA well-built 2nd level party can waffle stomp some CR 5 encounters, and vice versa.
Here's a huge difference from old school right here! You don't "build" a character in old school. The entire concept make no sense!
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceHere's a huge difference from old school right here! You don't "build" a character in old school. The entire concept make no sense!
-clash
Sure you did - it was simply a less complex buid. At least, I knew people who did. Paladin's, IIRC, seemed to get abused a bit; YMMV, of course.
QuoteUsually though, it can be kinda obvious when things have gone South and it's time to flee.
Nonono.
It´s about getting basically a spell effect affecting ALL enemies after just one went down. That cannot be ad-hoc-ruled. It´s about strategy, tactics, not believability.
A friend introduced me to a great 3.5 utility for monster advancement...
Monsterforge!
It currently has, IIRC, the SRD monsters, MM2, 3, and Fiend Folio. Only downside is that you need Excel.
You can mess with creatures easily & it makes skills & feats a breeze.
Now, it's no good for monsters from scratch. Really, though, you could still say, "I want a huge creature - kinda like a giant - but he has these other special abilities"; use a Giant base, and build from there.
-O
Quote from: James J SkachSure you did - it was simply a less complex buid. At least, I knew people who did. Paladin's, IIRC, seemed to get abused a bit; YMMV, of course.
No, James. I was there. A character build is a concept I never heard of before 3.0, and remember how old I am and how long I've been playing. Planning the character's future evolution from the beginning was, AFAIK, not done. Optimizing for the present, yes. That's power gaming and has been there from the beginning.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceNo, James. I was there. A character build is a concept I never heard of before 3.0, and remember how old I am and how long I've been playing. Planning the character's future evolution from the beginning was, AFAIK, not done. Optimizing for the present, yes. That's power gaming and has been there from the beginning.
-clash
Yeah..I forgot...you might even be older than me :p
Yeah, see, I can remember guys talking about what they were going to do with their character 4 and 8 levels from present. They were
far more limited in their choices (but I do seem to recall the multiclassing thing being a big topic of discussion).
Now I'm talking mostly about my second run of AD&D days which would have been around...I'm guessing..1990, perhaps. My early runs of AD&D from 1979 or so - you are correct, we didn't think about it that much. We just drew cool dungeons on this 5-to-the-inch graph paper my father got from work for me and kicked ass.
So, obviously, even my own moves varied across the same system depending on group and era...
Yeah - but by 1990 or so, it wasn't old school any more. Things had changed by then - actually by the mid 1980s. In old school, you "rolled up" a character. I don't mean you took the dice rolls in exact order, even then we allowed re-arranging stats. :D
-clash
QuoteI don't mean you took the dice rolls in exact order, even then we allowed re-arranging stats.
Fairy-ass narrativist wanker.
Am I the only one who has contemplated diechart driven character advancement for 3.5? You earned a feat? Roll percentile dice and I'll tell you what you get.
Quote from: CalithenaFairy-ass narrativist wanker.
Hehehe! :D
-clash
Quote from: jrientsAm I the only one who has contemplated diechart driven character advancement for 3.5? You earned a feat? Roll percentile dice and I'll tell you what you get.
kind of like traveller meets 3.5? sounds pretty cool, i'd give it a go :raise:
Abyssal Maw and enelson nailed, IMNSHO. The key is looking to player skill instead of character skill. You get there by making the players be more detailed in what they want to do.
In 3e, if you want to find a secret door, you make a Search check and the DM says something like, "You notice that if you pull on the candelabra a secret door will open." In 1e, you had to specifically figure out that you had to pull that candelabra.
IMO, the key to getting there is to pull back the autopilot nature of skills. For instance, the Search check might reveal a secret door in the area, but it doesn't show how to open.
Same thing for Listen and Spot. You might tell the players, "You hear a weird, grinding noise from up ahead," and leave it to them to figure out what that means.
As for monster creation, 90% of the fiddly math is a waste of your time. You could create monsters and give them total skill mods of CR +3, and you'd be fine 90% of the time. Don't bother with math that you can just eyeball.
IMNSHO, if you want to design monsters look at a creature with the same basic schtick and CR in the MM, use its stats, and apply different special abilities.
Quote from: mearlsIn 3e, if you want to find a secret door, you make a Search check and the DM says something like, "You notice that if you pull on the candelabra a secret door will open." In 1e, you had to specifically figure out that you had to pull that candelabra.
If only 3e modules would supply the neccessary information, as 1e modules did.
Calithena,
If you want to use D&D 3e rules to run 'old school' style adventures, you might consider the E6 variant rules. While not exactly intended to recapture 'OS', it might have that effect insofar as E6 prevents the high-level 'over-the-top' abilities that PCs get in 3e.
I've started a thread on E6 here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=116851#post116851
Quote from: CalithenaDoes the updated 3.5 MM have the monster design rules (as far as standard damages for bites/claws etc. by size, feats/skills by HD, etc.) that were first put out in the Skip Williams article and the MMII and FF prefaces? Can you build a monster from scratch using the rules there?
For what purpose? Porting creatures?
Very few creatures haven't been ported
somewhere.
But the balance may be different. A 3e mountain giant is much stronger than a 1e mountain giant. For one game I converted, I threw in a jazzed up hill giant (using a template in Advanced Bestiary) rather than the over-the-top mountain giant.
Tome of Horrors revised has almost all the missing creatures I've needed to run old school adventure.
No, for the purpose of scratch-building my own creatures. I want to know if all the rules for this are in the MM and DMG or not. (Sample rules: DCs depending on attribute scores and hit dice, the number of feats you get based on the number of hit dice, etc.) That's all.