Skip to content

Do you prefer the original ruleset or would you rather get it replaced by something better ?

13»

Comments

  • AnonySimonAnonySimon Member Posts: 28
    I would like to see the rule system for NWN:EE remain with D&D 3.0; However, I do want the rules to be soft-coded so to easily allow the community to mod Rule-System Packages that significantly alter what game you are playing. For example, someone could download a D&D 3.5 [CORE] rule-system package (which updates spells and core classes to reflect those found in D&D 3.5). Additional rule-system packages may include:
    • D&D 3.5 [ToB:Bo9S] (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords - includes the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warlord base classes, and the Martial Maneuver combat system)
    • D&D 3.5 [Psionics] (Includes psionic classes such as: Ardent, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, and Wilder, and the Psionic Manifestation magic system)
    • D20 Modern [CORE] (Replaces base classes with Charismatic Hero, Dedicated Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, Strong Hero, Tough Hero; also includes advanced classes such as Acolyte, Bodyguard, Field Medic, Infiltrator, Mage, Occultist, and Shadow Hunter)
    • D&D 4th [CORE] (replaces classes, combat, and magic system to reflect the new ruleset)
    • D&D 5th [CORE] (replaces classes, feat, and magic system to reflect the new ruleset)
    • Pathfinder [CORE] (updates classes, feats, and spells to reflect the new ruleset)
    • Pathfinder [SoP/SoM] (replases base classes to use only those found in Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might; replaces the combat and magic system to reflect the new ruleset)
  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 909
    If you're modding I think it's good to stick with 3.5 but use some 3.0 where is seems more appropriate, and then maybe throw in a few ideas from 5e like more concentration spells, and some AD&D too for misc simulations and mechanics that better reflect class and race backstory. Pathfinder is good too to add some extra character options like faster feat progression but not all of the high powered stuff it adds.

    A lot of later editions did away with the heavy simulations which takes too long in a table top game to be fun but which a computer game can instantly calculate to add a layer of depth to the experience.
  • FluentFluent Member Posts: 74
    I'd love to see a way to mod in or accommodate 2nd Edition that was used in BG/IWD. :smile:
  • ThorssonThorsson Member Posts: 190
    Why not add the original Chainmail rules in as well while we're at it?

    It seems that there is a lack of understanding at just how much work would be involved in wildly different rulesets than 3rd Edition.
  • FluentFluent Member Posts: 74
    Chainmail rules would be awesome. I never saw those or played them yet. :smiley:

    I'm just talking in theory. I don't know nor care how much work it would be because I know it won't be implemented. l'm just mentioning it as a "gee I wish this were possible even though it's probably not" thing.

    Carry on.
  • ThorssonThorsson Member Posts: 190
    LOL. Yes, it would be awesome if we could have all of these things, but they belong in some "fantasy wish list" thread, not one about what we actually want from the game.
  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 909
    Some rules wouldn't be too difficult I imagine, besides the specific feat progression I think you can do most of 5e rules by ripping out 60% of the current options and slapping a concentration spellhook on most spells. 3.0 vs 3.5 is mostly a content question, so remove skills & add skills, remove feats & add feats. Pathfinder is a step more than 3.5 and needs feat progression unlocked. AD&D might need gui customization to get the stats displaying right.

    I think it's the domain of modding however, unless Wizards gives a go ahead for Beamdog to use a specific rules system, or however they have that negotiated.
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,985
    edited January 2018
    3.0 is by no means my favorite version, but I’d stick with it because the engine, campaigns, and mods were all designed to work well with things as they exist. Changing to another version would not onky be a lot of work for little-to-no gain, and it could skew things subtly but significantly. It ain’t broke, so why fix it?

    EDIT: bad typink
    Post edited by tbone1 on
  • 1varangian1varangian Member Posts: 367
    edited January 2018
    I would love 5e rules, or at least the option of using a community created 5e HAK.

    5e does so many things better. Bounded accuracy keeps low level threats relevant, less magic item spam, more relevant attributes with more upgrades, flexible Wizards, second winds..
  • ClisairClisair Member Posts: 15
    I voted to keep 3.0 but I would love to be able to change it up so that my house rules set based on 2 or 2.5 would be great. I know 3.0 is more comp friendly but we really need a way to more easily modify the rule sets.
Sign In or Register to comment.