My 'dream' version of 3e... does it sound interesting?

[vivsavage]

I'm working on a game heavily inspired by 2e AD&D. My goal is to make a game that can easily use 2e supplements but develops in a way that I, personally, wish 3e had. Sort of a 2.5e. Here are some examples of what I'm thinking:

- each race/class combination will be very different. An elf fighter will be entirely different than a dwarf fighter. It won't just be a collection of "+1 to this thing", but a very different approach to the way they fight. Each race/class combo has a list of ten unique abilities they may choose from as they level up, somewhat similar to what the Skills & Powers Player's Option book had. These are not mere bonuses to test attempts, but actual abilities that other classes don't have.
- weapon damage is based on your race/class combo, not on the weapon you use. This is obviously a massive departure from 2e. This damage increases as you level up. So a 1st level dwarf fighter might deliver 1d10 damage upon a hit, while an elf fighter does 1d6 damage but is able to attack 3x every two rounds.
- each class may select any of the six attributes as its favored attribute. So a thief could have charisma is his primary attribute instead of dexterity. You get a special ability for each one. Each class has different abilities for each primary attribute, so the thief's special CHA ability is different than the cleric's special CHA ability.
- any race can be any class, but certain races really excel at certain classes. And, again, each race's approach is very different. A dwarven wizard uses different techniques than a human wizard; while the latter uses Vancian fire & forget, the dwarf doesn't. And many of their spells are very specific.
- NWPs are there, but they are not given a hard value. You either know it or you don't. When you use the NWP, the DM can just say 'you succeed' or select any of the six attributes to test against, depending on the situation. I haven't decided if you add your level.

It sounds very different than 2e, but the rules will hew pretty close. THAC0 is there. Descending AC is there. Alignment is there (with FATE aspects reflecting your alignment). It uses the same monster stats. You can use kits with it.

Thoughts?

[Arduin]

How would an arrow fired from a particular type of bow have different damage? Or, a dagger just based on someones race?

[vivsavage]

How would an arrow fired from a particular type of bow have different damage? Or, a dagger just based on someones race?

The type of bow doesn't make a real difference here. Damage is based on your combat style and race. Elves deliver more damage with a bow than humans, and dwarves rule with axes. Etc. Elves use lots of quick, precise strikes, while dwarves deliver single devastating blows. I've always disliked the 1d4 dagger damage versus 1d8 for a bow. I find it lacks drama. Conan was just as effective with a big knife as he was with a sword.

[Arduin]

Conan was just as effective with a big knife as he was with a sword.

Not really. That's why he didn't hit the battle field with a dagger but, larger weapons like a sword. I wouldn't change a given weapon damage by more than a +1 or 2. It's just not plausible. But, if it works for your players go for it.

[vivsavage]

Conan was just as effective with a big knife as he was with a sword.

Not really. That's why he didn't hit the battle field with a dagger but, larger weapons like a sword. I wouldn't change a given weapon damage by more than a +1 or 2. It's just not plausible. But, if it works for your players go for it.

The problem I have with the traditional damage values is that they take away from dramatic impact when compared to fantasy lit. Bilbo used Sting to great effect, and Legolas was just as good/almost as good with knives as he was with a bow. In other words, it rarely matters what weapon a character uses in fantasy lit; what matters is the character and the dramatic effect that wielding the weapon has. It is also worth noting that countless fantasy RPGs place different emphasis on different weapons, and there is rarely consistency. In some games, maces are superior to swords. In others, arrows are more lethal. Eliminating differing weapon damage emphasizes the character, IMHO.

[TheMetal1]

Sounds interesting in presentation, with a uniqueness not often seen. Might want to mine Hackmaster 4e along with Adventures Dark & Deep for some additional ideas.

[redwullf]

Sounds interesting in presentation, with a uniqueness not often seen. Might want to mine Hackmaster 4e along with Adventures Dark & Deep for some additional ideas.

And, Myth & Magic...

[vivsavage]

Sounds interesting in presentation, with a uniqueness not often seen. Might want to mine Hackmaster 4e along with Adventures Dark & Deep for some additional ideas.

And, Myth & Magic...

M&M is good, but my vision is quite different overall

[Lord Dynel]

Sounds interesting, viv, but that's asking a lot. Some things, not so much (like the NWPs you mention, which sound more-or-less like Secondary Skills from previous editions) but other things might be a little tougher. It sounds like you want multiple versions of one class - like a dwarven wizard, elf wizard, human wizard...human fighter, dwarf fighter, halfling fighter...etc) which I agree sounds cool, but it would be a huge undertaking. What's funny is that a lot of that used to be handled in older editions using player ingenuity and roleplaying. That was the case a lot back then - roleplaying decisions were pretty much all one had...characters of the same class were pretty much the same back in the day. Customization finally came about in newer editions, but those newer editions of D&D focused more on character choices than cultural differences. Now, my fighter looks and acts different than yours, but not because you're a dwarf and I'm an elf, but because we took different specialization paths where we could (feats, skills, prestige classes).

The other stuff isn't too hard to implement, though. Monks, rangers, knights, and paladins do 1d8, rogues and assassins do 1d6, clerics, druids, bards do 2d4, fighters and barbarians do 1d10, illusionists and wizards do 1d4, Or something along those lines. Bring back the secondary skill list, and have character roll on it. But yeah, the majority of the stuff you'd want to do isn't too difficult.

As an aside...sort of...and no disrespect to redwullf or TheMetal1, but I wouldn't mine other games. Try to do your own thing. As you said, it's your vision. While I know they're trying to help, if you're going to undertake a project like this, you obviously have your own ideas. Go with it.