For anyone out there who uses the BECMI/Rules Compendium system, have you added any house rules that you borrowed from D20-based D&D?
For anyone out there who uses the BECMI/Rules Compendium system, have you added any house rules that you borrowed from D20-based D&D?
Not doing so myself (using the BECMI system that is), but I'd think it wouldn't be too hard to port over some of the things like Feats. You'd have to adjust some mechanics here and there, but they could replace and/or supplement the Combat Mastery rules pretty well, while also adding some other non-combat elements.
Or something like taking the 5 saving throws and reducing it to 3 (something I'm considering. I dunno, I'm kind of coming back to BECMI after playing D20/3e since it was introduced and I would like to put in some D20-ized things a little bit... here and there where it makes the BECMI rules even more streamlined.
Anyways...
Otherwise, you could easily break down the existing tables into flat bonuses to hit like in d20 (for example, looking over the charts, fighters have basically a +18 to hit AC 9 by 36th level, so you could break them down into a +1 to hit/2 levels or thereabouts). This would also help fill out the non-progressing combat charts for Companion level characters (who keep a To Hit AC 9 of 2 for a long period in their development), and make the classes more distinct combat wise.
Now, if you wanted to keep the "automatic hit except on a natural 1; add this number to damage" portion of the chart, then it would get a lot more problematic.
(And, again, the demihuman rules get messy. You either have to have separate charts for each class- halfling, elf, and dwarf- or else you need to figure out another alternative. Actually, it's pretty much the dwarf that screws things up, as his Attack Rank D is at level 12; the attack ranks for the elf/halfling are slightly problematic, but at least they occur at the same levels- 8/A, 9/B, 10/C, etc. If the Dwarf got his attack rank D at level 11 instead of 12, it would work.)
Another idea is to get rid of the Demihuman classes and have them able to adopt any of the human classes (with exceptions if you'd like- such as no wizards for dwarves/halflings), and then you could streamline all the saving throws and combat numbers.
Offhand, I'd say that adopting the d20 rules for AC would streamline the combat process (by avoiding the messy tables and all of that). The only problems I can see would be switching to the THAC0 method (since AC in BECMI has AC 9 as the baseline rather than AC 10- so would require adjusting monster, PC, and NPC armor classes), and the Demihuman tables would make things kind of ugly.
I generally assume that AC values remains as they are crossing from OD&D to AD&D, except for unarmored humanoids, who are mostly described in the standard rules (Goblins, Kobolds, etc. are AC 10 if unarmored). AC values for most non-standard races are also already available in either the MMCA or the Savage Coast books, so it's just matter of using the AD&D values instead of the OD&D ones.
Now, if you wanted to keep the "automatic hit except on a natural 1; add this number to damage" portion of the chart, then it would get a lot more problematic.
You'd be better off by simply computing the extra damage with a fixed formula -- e.g., max (ToHitBonus - (Target_AC + 20), 0), times a correction factor (x1, x1.5 or x2).
Note that since the OD&D chart is nonlinear, there isn't any way you could obtain exactly the same results with a linear approximation such as THAC0 or the 3e bonus. I'd just aim at preserving a good approximation for the central part of the curve (i.e., levels 1-12 and AC 10-0).
Another idea is to get rid of the Demihuman classes and have them able to adopt any of the human classes (with exceptions if you'd like- such as no wizards for dwarves/halflings), and then you could streamline all the saving throws and combat numbers.
For balance purpose, you'd have to give XP penalties to demihumans -- as for OD&D Rakasta and Lupins (who have a 20% XP penalty, IIRC).
Otherwise, let Demihumans use the chart, THAC0 or bonus for Thieves/Clerics (the best one if they differ) of equivalent level (where each Attack Rank equals two levels). This preserves the combat effectiveness of the Demihuman classes as in the original chart (they are exactly equivalent to Thieves and Clerics, except that their chart is smoother).
You'd be better off by simply computing the extra damage with a fixed formula -- e.g., max (ToHitBonus - (Target_AC + 20), 0), times a correction factor (x1, x1.5 or x2).
I see what you're going for, but it seems to be more complicated than what the point of the posts is. I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble or not, either (it never really came into play all that much in high-level games I recall playing under BECMI rules).
Note that since the OD&D chart is nonlinear, there isn't any way you could obtain exactly the same results with a linear approximation such as THAC0 or the 3e bonus. I'd just aim at preserving a good approximation for the central part of the curve (i.e., levels 1-12 and AC 10-0).
For certain, and that's why I suggest spreading it out over the course of the levels more than was done in OD&D; there are a bunch of "dead" levels where there doesn't seem to be any noticeable change in to hit bonuses (although, frankly, I was only looking at the AC 9 "base", and didn't think to check out any of the other ACs, so I'm probably wrong.)
For balance purpose, you'd have to give XP penalties to demihumans -- as for OD&D Rakasta and Lupins (who have a 20% XP penalty, IIRC).[/QUOTE}
That's a good point.Otherwise, let Demihumans use the chart, THAC0 or bonus for Thieves/Clerics (the best one if they differ) of equivalent level (where each Attack Rank equals two levels). This preserves the combat effectiveness of the Demihuman classes as in the original chart (they are exactly equivalent to Thieves and Clerics, except that their chart is smoother).
That could work, although, again it's not a direct comparison to the original chart (which I didn't even notice until tonight isn't quite the same across the board for demihumans anyway, due to the level 12/D discrepancy of the dwarves)
I see what you're going for, but it seems to be more complicated than what the point of the posts is. I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble or not, either (it never really came into play all that much in high-level games I recall playing under BECMI rules).
Not any more complex than Power Attack in 3e or the like, expecially if no multiplier is used -- all the to hit bonus points that are not needed to get an automatic hit can be added to the damage roll.
If you feel it's too difficult to use, you might just assume that something like Power Attack is available in the OD&D Fighter Options.
For certain, and that's why I suggest spreading it out over the course of the levels more than was done in OD&D; there are a bunch of "dead" levels where there doesn't seem to be any noticeable change in to hit bonuses (although, frankly, I was only looking at the AC 9 "base", and didn't think to check out any of the other ACs, so I'm probably wrong.)
That's a slightly different problem -- I was referring to the nonlinearity of the chart for some AC ragnes, i.e., if you need 20 to hit AC 0, then you need 21 to hit AC -5. There's no way to map this to the THAC0 or BAB systems (which, OTOH, are basically equivalent).
The problem you're mentioning, OTOH, is due to the fact that to hit bonuses are spread over a wider range of levels in OD&D (but it's still a linear growth, luckily): where AD&D Fighters have a 1/1 THAC0 growth, OD&D have a 2/3 (two points per three levels), while OD&D clerics and Thieves get 2/4 (rather than 1/2!) and Magic-Users get 2/5.
This means that a 30th level OD&D Fighter has the same attack effectiveness of a 20th level AD&D Fighter.
Here is a full table:
Class Rate in points/level
OD&D F 2/3
OD&D C/T 2/4
OD&D MU 2/5
AD&D Warrior 1/1
AD&D Priest 2/3
AD&D Rogue 1/2
AD&D Wizard 1/3
(OD&D Demihumans progress as Fighter up to max level, then as Cleric/Thief)
Therefore:
OD&D attacks as AD&D
F27 -----------> F18
C24 -----------> C18
T18 -----------> T18
MU15 ---------> W18
That is, OD&D Magic Users are stronger than AD&D Wizards in combat, while Fighters and Clerics are weaker than their counterparts. Odd.
That could work, although, again it's not a direct comparison to the original chart (which I didn't even notice until tonight isn't quite the same across the board for demihumans anyway, due to the level 12/D discrepancy of the dwarves)
Dwarves of level 12 have Attack Rank C, IIRC.
Anyway, the main point is that OD&D Demihumans use the Fighter progression up to their "maximum" level, then the Cleric progression (normalized at 1/2 instead of 2/4) for the equivalent of 2x attack ranks levels (not considering the attack ranks included in the standard level progression, of course).
However, a simpler way of handling this is to "straighten" the curve (i.e., linearize it), by adopting the Cleric progression for Dwarves and Elves on their entire career (up to level 36), and the Magic User (or Thief, if using the AD&D progression rates) for Halflings.
This way, low level Demihuman are somewhat weaker, of course, but as they approach the very high levels, the difference disappears.
I guess something I am most curious about is how folks have taken the BECMI rules and made them work better. To me, things that seem to be very similar, but use wildly different methods of resolution. Such as, if anyone bothered to take the Thief special abilities that work like skills and convert them to Rules Compendium-like skills...
Or something like taking the 5 saving throws and reducing it to 3 (something I'm considering. I dunno, I'm kind of coming back to BECMI after playing D20/3e since it was introduced and I would like to put in some D20-ized things a little bit... here and there where it makes the BECMI rules even more streamlined.
Anyways...
There is a lot of that stuff being discussed over at dragonsfoot.org, although any mention of 3E there gets people all grumpy
I'd say it would be interesting to use the RC with the D20 mechanic and skills, though the Saves would probably be too much of a bother for me. Id also separate class/race if ever going back to the RC. There are plenty of quick and easy ways to do that.
Id also use a simplified version of weapon mastery, using only bonuses to hit and damage instead of all the other complex effects, though Power attack and a similar ability allowing increase of AC at the expense of "to hit" bonus might be given for free for those with a certain level of weapon mastery. I'd probably allow usage of Wpn Mastery slots for buying off class limitations too...
BTW, Im enjoying the comments posted by GP and Andrew so keep postining in this thread
Havard
There is a lot of that stuff being discussed over at dragonsfoot.org, although any mention of 3E there gets people all grumpy
...
BTW, Im enjoying the comments posted by GP and Andrew so keep postining in this thread
Thanks! Since I only lurk at Dragonfoot, I've to get grumpy here ;)
Anyway, what I'd likely add if I were using OD&D would be:
* Independent class/race combination for most or all races (with class/race combination limits, of course)
* Flexible Thief Skills management as in AD&D (and possibly some other bonus, the Thief class in OD&D is rather weak, IMO)
* A stunt system, either Jacob Skytte's (http://www.pandius.com/c_stunts.html) or the one from the Dragonfist AD&D variant, or the Panache system from Savage Coast -- as a consequence, special effects of weapon mastery would be folded into the stunt system (i.e., parrying blows as a stunt would be easier if the weapon used allowed it in the original WM system)
* Spells from AD&D, and possibly wizard specialists as well.
Not any more complex than Power Attack in 3e or the like, expecially if no multiplier is used -- all the to hit bonus points that are not needed to get an automatic hit can be added to the damage roll.
I guess the formula just looked a bit too complex for me to grasp at 2 in the morning. (Especially if it's basically a "behind the scenes" formula- ie, the table thus generated would only show the "+x" statistic, and not the math behind it- much like the tables from 3E- which actually, I was interested to discover in Unearthed Arcana, are fractional themselves).
If you feel it's too difficult to use, you might just assume that something like Power Attack is available in the OD&D Fighter Options.
Yeah, that's another point- if one were to decide to bring the feat concept into BECMI, you'd have to choose one or the other system, I'd think. Either the bonus damage for high THAC0 from BECMI, or the Power Attack concept.
This means that a 30th level OD&D Fighter has the same attack effectiveness of a 20th level AD&D Fighter.
Interesting- like I said, I hadn't really looked at the entire table last night (which was foolish of me, but I'll claim grogginess as the excuse ;)), so it's cool to see it laid out here.
(BTW, that note about 30 vs. 20 impacts another idea that I'd been wondering about lately, notably the comparisons of power levels between AD&D and BECMI and how those might thus be used as a bridge between 3E.)
(OD&D Demihumans progress as Fighter up to max level, then as Cleric/Thief)
They have a more tiered progression, though- as they have Attack Ranks that fall between C/T tiers.
That is, OD&D Magic Users are stronger than AD&D Wizards in combat, while Fighters and Clerics are weaker than their counterparts. Odd.
Very- I never noticed that before either. Not only do BECMI magic-users have more spells/level than AD&D wizards, they also have better combat capability and higher caps on their spell damage (at least for certain spells, notably fireball and lightning bolt). AD&D wizards only have a 1HD advantage over them. I guess the Alphatians are really the most powerful magic-users (well, compared to any AD&D world that is.)
Dwarves of level 12 have Attack Rank C, IIRC.
You're right, I meant to say C.
But it still compounds the problem. Dwarves effectively have 22 levels, then, as compared to the elves (20) and halflings (18), but the elves and halflings Attack Ranks at least match up.
I'd almost be inclined to just change the Dwarves table to 12/E, and extend the Attack Ranks to O (while keeping elves and halflings maxes at M and K, respectively), if only for my own aesthetic needs. (Which would make max level dwarves the equivalent of a Fighter 31-33 in combat, but I could live with that.)
But I'm going off on a tangent now.
However, a simpler way of handling this is to "straighten" the curve (i.e., linearize it), by adopting the Cleric progression for Dwarves and Elves on their entire career (up to level 36), and the Magic User (or Thief, if using the AD&D progression rates) for Halflings.
That's not a bad idea, though at this point, I think I'm more inclined to go with the race/class split, and adopt your xp penalty idea.
It's not really streamlining the game like the original post asked, but I just thought I'd mention it.
* Flexible Thief Skills management as in AD&D (and possibly some other bonus, the Thief class in OD&D is rather weak, IMO)
Yeah- I liked the percentile system myself. Of course, I dig the 3E system, too, but you'd definitely have to give more to the Thief if you went with a skill system.
* A stunt system
I'd probably try some variant of the Feat system, folding in the Weapon Mastery rules/effects into that.
* Spells from AD&D, and possibly wizard specialists as well.
Yeah- I'd go this route, too probably. One major change that I'd make to specialists (one that I'm still trying to figure out how to do in 3E) is to have wizards start as generalists, and later specialize if they choose to. The "specialist from 1st level" idea of 2nd Edition didn't ever really sit all that well with me- I guess I just found it counterintuitive (maybe it's because of modern views of general education to specialized education).
I'd like to do something more along the lines of the Secret Crafts to represent later specialization for wizards.
I'd also try and do something different with Saving Throws and Ability Scores. I like how the various Ability Scores are a bit more balanced in 3E than in previous editions- it pays to not always use, say, Charisma as a dump stat depending on what kind of character you choose to build. The addition of Skills in the Gazetteers and RC helped to mitigate that somewhat, but I'd try and take it a step further. The first thing that comes to mind is to tie the bonuses to saving throws more. Maybe. I'm not sure.
Or something like taking the 5 saving throws and reducing it to 3 (something I'm considering. I dunno, I'm kind of coming back to BECMI after playing D20/3e since it was introduced and I would like to put in some D20-ized things a little bit... here and there where it makes the BECMI rules even more streamlined.
I'd say it would be interesting to use the RC with the D20 mechanic and skills, though the Saves would probably be too much of a bother for me. Id also separate class/race if ever going back to the RC. There are plenty of quick and easy ways to do that.
This is getting me to thinking more. One thing I think I'd do with BECMI/D20 would be to use the D20 modifiers to Ability Scores. If you're looking for a simplification, that's probably the easiest place to start and use. Simple linear adjustments- 10-11 base (no mod), every 2 pts above or below is a modifier of 1. It's a lot cleaner than either the AD&D or OD&D versions. You wouldn't even have to modify the Ability Requirements for demihumans/mystics/druids if you wanted to keep those.
From there, you could make use of the Skill/Rank system of D20. The main thing I can think of that you'd have to be careful of here is when it comes to Thief skills. Some of the Gazetteers (Gaz10 and Gaz13) set a precedent for using skills in place of Thief abilities, but you'd have to do something to really balance out the Thief as a result of him not having an exclusive niche anymore.
Under D20/3E, the Rogue is basically the Skill monkey- he has access to more skills, and more skill points than other classes, as well as a few "extra" features. Unless you limit the access to skills (like in D20, but not in BECMI), and skill points, you're basically shutting that class out. And he still needs something extra besides. So it's something to really consider.
On saves, I don't know. I'd probably try and clean it up a bit, I think the old system is a bit messy, but I don't think I'd try and bring over the save rules from D20 necessarily. I'd try and come up with a level progression mechanic similar to the base attack bonus one, but keeping the general nature of the old save system.
Yeah, that's another point- if one were to decide to bring the feat concept into BECMI, you'd have to choose one or the other system, I'd think. Either the bonus damage for high THAC0 from BECMI, or the Power Attack concept.
They are similar, but not identical -- the high THAC0 thing has a finer grain, but is not available below a given threshold, i.e. you can't trade to hit odds with a bonus to damage, the hit probability must stay at 95%.
(BTW, that note about 30 vs. 20 impacts another idea that I'd been wondering about lately, notably the comparisons of power levels between AD&D and BECMI and how those might thus be used as a bridge between 3E.)
Yes, I suppose comparing Fighters would be easier, since other considerations (skills, spells) don't count -- using Fighters as a basis, it would be a straight 2/3 levels (hit points, which are the only other relevant element, more or less match, since AD&D Fighters have slightly more than OD&D at lower levels).
I'd almost be inclined to just change the Dwarves table to 12/E, and extend the Attack Ranks to O (while keeping elves and halflings maxes at M and K, respectively), if only for my own aesthetic needs. (Which would make max level dwarves the equivalent of a Fighter 31-33 in combat, but I could live with that.)
It could be fair, indeed, though I'd agree that splitting races and classes would be better.
I'm starting a new RC game soon, as a DM, while still playing in 2 other 3e games. But I've recently started thinking about a few things. The biggest complaint that gamers have against classic D&D is the lack of options. Why? I figure that if 3e comes out with 3 new classes every month, why can't RC fans do the same? Instead of seperating Race/class, why not use that distinction as an advantage? We already have the standard elf (fighter/wizard), and the non-magic elf (fighter), and even the elven shaman (cleric). Why can't we create the Elven rogue, which effectively replaces, but is culturally distinct from the human Thief?
AD&D/3e spells can be ported to classic no problem.
After a little bit of creativity, providing RC with all the options and versatility of 3e, the only thing left to "fix" is combat. I like the swiftness of classic combat: one turn, one action. And I didn't need a map spread all over the floor for a minor encounter. On the same hand I do like the ability to utilize tactics to my advantage, a great bonus to 3e.
As a comprimise, I'm going to test a compiled combat system I've been mulling over. Basically mixing the best features of both.
The main idea is that combat is fast, and you don't always know every detail of every moment. So I'll keep the 10' scale of od&d maps, and ignore minor details like the 5-foot step. Otherwise, use the 3e combat tactics (as it affects action), and classic combat matrixes (as it affects numbers and die-rolls).
Just a few random thoughts, will let you know how it works out after a few games worth of testing.
Roger
Yeah- I liked the percentile system myself. Of course, I dig the 3E system, too, but you'd definitely have to give more to the Thief if you went with a skill system.
The skills system ranks among my least favorite 3e things, so I'd keep the Thief Skills as class abilities. The choice of d100 or d20 actually matters little.
One bonus that could be given to the OD&D Thief would be a d6 Hit Die -- make it equivalent to a cleric from the combat point of view.
I'd probably try some variant of the Feat system, folding in the Weapon Mastery rules/effects into that.
IMO, it would be very difficult to keep more than a few feats (basically, those that came from the AD&D high level fighter options could easily be carried -- cleave and whirlwind attack), but most are 3e-specific (all those related to attacks of opportunity) or replaced by class features (item creation, weapon/armor proficiencies, power attack).
However, the main idea behind the stunt systems is to allow flexibility and a cinematic style in combat -- feats generally offer a single, static effect.
Yeah- I'd go this route, too probably. One major change that I'd make to specialists (one that I'm still trying to figure out how to do in 3E) is to have wizards start as generalists, and later specialize if they choose to. The "specialist from 1st level" idea of 2nd Edition didn't ever really sit all that well with me- I guess I just found it counterintuitive (maybe it's because of modern views of general education to specialized education).
I'd like to do something more along the lines of the Secret Crafts to represent later specialization for wizards.
Either that, or subclassing -- like the druid w.r.t the cleric class. Actually, I think I'd use subclasses accessible at any level rather than Secret Crafts.
I'd also try and do something different with Saving Throws and Ability Scores. I like how the various Ability Scores are a bit more balanced in 3E than in previous editions- it pays to not always use, say, Charisma as a dump stat depending on what kind of character you choose to build. The addition of Skills in the Gazetteers and RC helped to mitigate that somewhat, but I'd try and take it a step further. The first thing that comes to mind is to tie the bonuses to saving throws more. Maybe. I'm not sure.
I think the dump stat thing is not that different in 3e. Actually, it only pays to have high Charisma if it is a primary score, otherwise it's a dump stat -- of course, there are Charisma-based skills, but since most characters have few skills, and skill points quickly become much more important than stat bonuses, having high Charisma is not going to help much.
In the OD&D skill system, a low Charisma means that high Charisma-based skills are going to cost a lot -- and since OD&D has a large number of skills (actually, unlimited), it's even more costly.
As for Saving Throws, they seem good as they are to me. The 3e version may is simpler, but not overly so. It is really only necessary in 3e because of the multiclassing rules.
(fighter/wizard), and the non-magic elf (fighter), and even the elven shaman (cleric). Why can't we create the Elven rogue, which effectively replaces, but is culturally distinct from the human Thief?
Actually, we already have:
Elf Lord (figher/wizard, progression as fighter at higher levels)
Elf Wizard (fighter/wizard, progression as wizard at higher levels)
Elf Treekeeper (fighter/wizard/druid, progression as wizard/druid at higher levels)
Elf Paladin (figher/wizard/cleric, progression as fighter at higher levels, loses wizard abilities)
Elf Cleric (figher/wizard/cleric, progression as cleric at higher levels, loses wizard abilities)
Elf Warrior (fighter, may change to any other later)
(Shadow) Elf Shaman (fighter/wizard/cleric, progression as wizard/cleric at higher levels)
Moreover, any elf (at least any shadow elf, since the option is added in the SW GAZ) can get Thief Skill at the cost of a Skill Slot (the skill has the same percentile rank as for a Thief of the same level of the Elf, minus the level at which the skill was taken)
The skills system ranks among my least favorite 3e things, so I'd keep the Thief Skills as class abilities..
But what about making BECMI thief class abilities into BECMI skills? Then do the math such that the thief class gets bonuses to using those skills-that-used-to-be-class-abilities such that the chance of success using them is nearly identical to when it was a percentile chance.
I think there are two things one can do when bringing ideas over from 3e. Borrow concepts that [b]streamline[/b] the BECMI game, and borrow options not previously available in the BECMI game.
I'm mostly looking for things that streamline, mostly because there are a ton of fine ideas scattered throughout Known World/Mystara accessories over the years that offer a bounty of options. I plan on using the demihuman extended experience table variant from the Rules Cyclopedia... it seems to flatten out the whole Attack Rank clutsiness. I'd like to put together a similar extension for the dwarf-cleric out to 36 levels... *shrug*
But what about making BECMI thief class abilities into BECMI skills? Then do the math such that the thief class gets bonuses to using those skills-that-used-to-be-class-abilities such that the chance of success using them is nearly identical to when it was a percentile chance.
It's possible, but it would be so different from the standard skill mechanism that it wouldn't probably streamline things that much. Basically you would give a -10 penalty to everyone, and a level based bonus to Thieves.
Thieves would also get the initial skills for free.
- Poison Saving Throws
- Skills and Skill Checks
IMO, the poison system is far better than the vague system used in previous editions. The initial effect and followup effect add drama and lethality without the "save or die" nature of most poisons in BECM adventures, and the option of effects beyond the usual damage/paralysis/death from old school poisons, things like ability score damage, allows for some variety and mystery when a save vs poison is called for. I do still throw in a save or die now and then to keep things interesting though. I also don't bother changing the saving throws mechanic. Poisons just use the poison save, rolled normally per the BECM rules.
I like the idea of skill ranks and difficulty targets, and use that pretty much as written in 3rd edition, except that I don't bother much with cross-class skills, I just let anyone take whatever they want. Obviously some classes will benefit more from certain skills, but most players aren't going to load up on skills they cant really use anyway.
I don't try and use 3rd edition combat mechanics. IMO the old system works fine and isn't broken, so there's no need to change it.