* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Converting from 1 to 3.5e Started at 07-16-04 12:07 PM by Weeds Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=277068 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Weeds Date : 07-16-04 12:07 PM Thread Title : Converting from 1 to 3.5e I finally broke down and started converting from 1e to 3.5e, but I am having an extremely hard time dealing with the way 3.5e does initiative in the 3.5e. I mean this is a total complete simplification and in my opinion moronic way of doing things. They should have at least made a variant rule or something. I mean it makes no sense that a Holy Word would take as long to do as taking a full round of attacks because its just a Holy "WORD" being spoken. Is anyone using a special or custom initiative system that tries to keep the segment style. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Elendur Date : 07-16-04 12:29 PM Why not just keep the 1e initiative system? Or subtract the weapon speed or casting time from the players initiative score? Personally I thought the speeds and casting times just slowed things down. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Escef Date : 07-18-04 12:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Converting from 1 to 3.5e Originally posted by Weeds Is anyone using a special or custom initiative system that tries to keep the segment style. Here's a heads up for you. A round in 3.x is 6 seconds. That is a segment. The designers came to the conclusion that a 1 minute combat round was too much time for people to put all that stuff into and not wonder "Is my character just standing there checking his watch while he waits for the round to end, or does he spend the time chatting it up with the monsters?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : GreyLord Date : 07-18-04 02:33 PM Actually in D&D with a combat round, that was with all the parry, attack, blow, counter attack, etc. It was more than just one strike, it just represented one's chances of landing a good hit in a minute's time. The people who made 3e either didn't understand this, as they didn't understand a LOT of the rules and hence decided to change them for no good reason... OR thought that they had a better way and method. Now, in 6 seconds one attacks...however, I sure hope it doesn't represent one attempted strike in that time period, or those D&D characters are Sure slow... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Nick Soapdish Date : 07-18-04 10:15 PM Originally posted by GreyLord Now, in 6 seconds one attacks...however, I sure hope it doesn't represent one attempted strike in that time period, or those D&D characters are Sure slow... Nope. It's the same as 2nd edition. They just decreased the duration of the round. From the 3.5 PHB An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword I don't think that 3rd edition really lends itself towards complicating initiative. There's certain game effects that work from your action one round to right before your action in the next round. Having variable initiatives from round to round (and things like casting speed or weapon speed will do that) can really mess that up. I'm not sure that weapon speed really added any realism anyway. Sure, you're faster with a dagger, but the two-handed sword has a lot better reach. You'll probably get cut up while trying to reach in with it. Sean K. Reynolds has an article on Weapon Speeds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html) on his website. BTW, Holy Word does take less time than a full round of attacks. It's a standard action so you can still move whatever your move rate is, but with a full round of attacks, you can only move 5'. It's still not the same as just saying a word, but if it was, then anyone could just say that word, right? You've got to concentrate and draw upon your deity's might to properly channel the power (or however you want to describe spellcasting). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : James McMurray Date : 07-19-04 10:20 PM The people who made 3e either didn't understand this, as they didn't understand a LOT of the rules and hence decided to change them for no good reason... Actually, in 3.x a round is more than just one attack. You still have the understood background activity of swings, parries, etc. The attack of opportunity mechanic takes this from just a background activity to something that has an actual effect on combat. If someone does somthing that would lower their defenses momentatrily (such as casting a spell) you get a free attack on them because one of your many attacks that would have been parried has a chance of getting through. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Weeds Date : 07-20-04 10:56 AM Thread Title : -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Nick Soapdish Date : 07-22-04 08:33 PM So a character can cast a non-quickened spell and use a wand in the same round? I'm a bit leery of that (particularly after playing through 3.0 Haste). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Weeds Date : 07-22-04 08:57 PM The one thing you need to remember is that NPC/Monsters follow the same rules. Right now the way things are is that melee classes have really not much to fear from casters. Something like this might actually bring the spell casters balance this a bit closer. Since I am restartiing my campaign I have the advantage of starting this from scratch. I think it will work for me, only because I am used to 1e and this is more of a combination of the two but leaning to the 35e ruleset. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 07-23-04 12:57 AM Originally posted by Weeds Right now the way things are is that melee classes have really not much to fear from casters. Something like this might actually bring the spell casters balance this a bit closer. Your experience and mine apparently differ vastly with this game then. After 5th level, casters (especially arcane) basically own every other class. I'm sure your fighter is really tweaked, but when I'm flying 500ft in the air blasting him with fireballs, he's not going to be very happy. After 7th level (when Improved Invisibility and Charm Monster kick in) the other classes are even more in the dust. I play an 11th level Wizard in a friend's campaign. I'm fairly confident I could take out everyone else in our party of 5 given a single round to cast a spell before being attacked (Freedom of Movement, if anyone is interested, grappling is your only good defense against a high level Wizard with decent Con). BTW - I will gladly play a Wizard in your campaign ANY DAY if you're allowing spellcasting and wand use in the same round. That would ROCK! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : James McMurray Date : 07-23-04 05:09 PM I have to agree with blackprince. I also would like to know your rationale for changing the actions system. I've played 3.x since it came out and we've never had any problems with the init system as written. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Nick Soapdish Date : 07-25-04 02:26 AM Originally posted by Weeds The one thing you need to remember is that NPC/Monsters follow the same rules. Right now the way things are is that melee classes have really not much to fear from casters. Something like this might actually bring the spell casters balance this a bit closer. Since I am restartiing my campaign I have the advantage of starting this from scratch. I think it will work for me, only because I am used to 1e and this is more of a combination of the two but leaning to the 35e ruleset. I'll agree that that would've been the case in 1st edition and particularly in 2nd edition. By the time the casters get the good spells, everyone saves on a 2 anyway. Meanwhile, they can run up to you and hit you two times for half your hit points (or in 2nd edition, 4 times for all of them). But that's not the case in 3rd edition. Saving throw DCs go up (as do saving throws, but they don't go up as fast). I played what was basically the only melee character in a 3.0 campaign. (The cleric was also a strong melee character, but he could throw tons of spells as well.) My main job was to hold the enemy off (usually by distracting them) for a round or so while the wizard and sorcerer pounded them into dust. Usually, the cleric also fought face to face, but sometimes he joined in the fun with a deluge of Flame Strikes. Part of the reason for our success was the 3.0 Haste which allowed the casters to be burning 2 spells a round. A pair of Prismatic Sprays from the sorcerer and a Chain Lightning and Cone of Cold from the wizard can usually clear a room pretty quick. And that's just the brute force approach. Limiting this to wands should lessen the effect though. The wand has a much poorer DC on the saving throw so they'd probably just be used for buffing spells so the caster could use an offensive spell and buff up at the same time. Or buff up twice as fast. I really don't think they need that help though. Even the 1st level spellcaster is valuable. They aren't as strong as the 1st level fighter, but the disparity isn't as grotesque as in previous editions (and by 5th it's evened out). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Weeds Date : 07-25-04 11:21 AM Guys, most if not all Wands fall into the Spell Completion Items catagory which is considered a Primary action. The post earlier was about a quickened spell and then using a wand, yes that could be done, but casting a non-quickened spell and using a wand for the most part is not possible. You also have to understand that my campaigns tend to be combat orientated and I try to push my players to the extreme meaning every combat could possibly TPK. If everyone walks away from a fight alive, then I did something wrong. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 07-25-04 04:39 PM Originally posted by Weeds Guys, most if not all Wands fall into the Spell Completion Items catagory which is considered a Primary action. Wands and Staves are spell trigger items. (3.5 DMG pg.314, 3.0 DMG pg.175). You have spell trigger items listed as a secondary action. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Mindshred Date : 07-25-04 05:56 PM Huh...I'd just play for a few months with teh new system before you change it around...it really works pretty well. Plus, and this may not be an issue for you, the change in terminology is going to play havok with anyone who already plays 3.X. But, heck, have fun with you game, and welcome to 3.X :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Nick Soapdish Date : 07-27-04 10:20 PM Scrolls are spell completion items. Wands and staves are spell trigger items. Rods vary. I don't think there are many weapons, armor, or wondrous items that are either although I can think of at least one bow from Sword & Fist that's a spell trigger item. Obviously, you're more than welcome to house rule otherwise. I'm just trying to explain why we critiquing your system. I really would suggest playing with it as written for a while before mucking around with it. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that you'll want to change, but this'll give you a better frame of reference to why you should change them and to what. And that way, when we ask, you can say that you did try it and it sucked. :D And BTW, my earlier example did use a non-quickened spell and a wand. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Weeds Date : 07-28-04 09:36 AM Man, the game is totally different now then it was in 1e. Going from 1e to 35e is more then a shock. BUT... Its not as screwed up as my first assumptions by reading the rules. I just had to quit comparing it to the old way of doing things. BTW, I am still using altered actions in combat, but they look basically like the SRD 35s. 5 Foot step still renamed as Battle Step (Combat Step), because thats what it is. So get your "I told ya so" out of the way now.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : diaglo Date : 07-28-04 09:49 AM yeah forget what you already know it will just cause you more headaches. if you are learning the new system. learn the new system. it is a different game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : vader42xx Date : 07-28-04 10:00 AM As someone who has played 2e, 3e, and 2e again I couldn't agree with Diaglo more. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-29-04 04:00 PM Yep. When I was a 3e advocate, that's what I'd tell people. Don't assume that anything about OAD&D or 2e holds in 3e. Otherwise, you aren't going to be giving the game a fair chance. Approach it as if it were a completely new game without the D&D name on it. Oddly enough, I'm tempted to give the same advice to people about 3.0e v. 3.5e. They didn't change so many big concepts, but they changed so many little things. You almost have to assume everything you know is wrong. The other advice I have is to avoid changing rule systems in the middle of a campaign. Whether it's OAD&D to 3e, 3e to OAD&D, GURPS to D&D, D&D to GURPS, or even 3.0e to 3.5e. It just isn't worth the potential trouble. Finish the campaign & start a new one with fresh PCs under the other system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.