TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Articles => Topic started by: Bedrockbrendan on January 16, 2015, 05:17:12 PM

Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on January 16, 2015, 05:17:12 PM
BY RICK MOSCATELLO

5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons (5e)  is often called a “throwback” to older versions of D&D. I tend to agree, but there have been many subtle and not-so-subtle changes over the years that have made it just a little hard to completely accept this claim.
     
Some folks want to play those “old school” games, but, bottom line, those old school rules were often crude, especially by today’s standards. In addition, people want to play the “new shiny”, and 5e, if nothing else, is new and shiny. So let’s talk about some changes we could make to 5e that would make gameplay more resemble old school play, or at least the old Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D, but I’ll often just call them “old”) rules.

An Appetizer: Falling Damage and the 10’ pit.
Both old and new rules give the same falling damage: 1d6 for each 10 feet fallen. So falling damage is already the same as old rules, no changes needed! Yay!
     
No.
     
See, hit points weren’t nearly as generous under the old rules, and nor were character ability scores. A wizard (called “magic-user” in AD&D) only used 4 sided dice for hit points, instead of the d6 in 5e. In addition, a Constitution bonus of +1 required a score of 15, as opposed to the Constitution 12 of 5e…not only did you need a higher score, you also had to roll for it (“3d6” were the official rules, but most players used something more akin to “4d6, drop the lowest”…a 15 is still not easy to get this way). Finally, in 5e, you start with maximum hit points at first level…in AD&D, you had to roll.
     
So, in AD&D, an above average magic-user started the game with 4 hit points. If you’re rolling a d6 for a 10’ drop, this means your typical first level wizard had a 50% chance of being dropped to 0 whenever he fell into a basic pit.
     
In 5e, a wizard starts with 6 hit points, and it’s pretty trivial to get a constitution bonus of at least +1 (I doubt there’s a single player in the country with a wizard and a Constitution of less than 1!) So, a first level wizard in 5e has a 0% chance of being dropped to 0 while falling into the same pit as before.
     
50% and 0% are not even close.
     
Using a D6 for falling damage in 5e, then, is not at all the same. For more of an old school feel, consider using a d12 for each 10’ of damage, so that now a basic pit at least has a decent chance of seriously injuring a low level character, instead of being a scratch that character can laugh about while recovering in a short rest (he’ll probably joke about how “old school play wasn’t so tough”, too).
     
Incidentally, in old school play, fighter type characters got a bigger hit point bonus for high Constitution than other classes. This wasn’t a simple random decision; with their larger hit die (a d10), a +2 bonus wasn’t as much for a fighter, relative to what it would do to a wizard’s hit points. By “unifying” the bonuses, the fighter rather got cheated (something of a trend in all later editions of D&D past the 2nd).
     
Even something as simple as falling into a 10’ pit requires some thought to understand what old school play was about. Let’s now take a closer look at old school play, especially at the lower levels.

Old School Magic, To Start:
Typical old school adventure: A bunch of young adventurers are just starting out. The fighter’s armor of splint and shield gives good protection: an orc has about a 25% chance of hitting him, a lowly kobold more like 15%. There is a cleric in the party, able to cast three spells a day (almost certainly “cure light wounds”). The wizard gets but one spell, and the wizard was lucky, as his master taught him sleep…awesome for annihilating a horde of weak monsters. Had he been unlucky, the wizard might have only learned magic missile—great for finishing off a wounded but heavily armored orc, but more useful at higher levels. That’s the spell the wizard prepared, but his spellbook contains a few other spells, all of questionable worth, like light and erase.
     
Watching the heroes walk into the cave, there’s no real indication that they’re any different than a motley band from the real world—there are no outward displays of magic (and even the non-humans are close enough to human looking that they wouldn’t draw a second glance at a costume party). Even in battle, it’s mostly about mundane weapons being inserted into “monsters”, which might be strange looking, but not much different than simply creatures from the real world, with lots of make-up.
     
To give some idea of how rare and unusual “everyday” magic was in old school play, consider about the only “permanent” first level spell there was in AD&D: find familiar. This spell would let you summon perhaps a toad, which you could use as a pet and gain small benefit from…and anyone looking at that toad could easily just confuse it as a pet. You might get something else, even better, but I’ll address this important difference in old school play, namely randomness in magic, later.
     
This is, of course, very different from 5e play, where even having a human in the party is not a given, and every combat is a fireworks display of spells and sorcerous power…adventurers in 5e and many modern games probably should wear sunglasses just to prevent their corneas from being burned out by all the spellfire. Let’s talk about what we can do about the magic, to make it “old school”.
     
No version of fantasy pseudo-medieval Europe has an internet. Just because some wizard in some city 50 miles away knows an awesome spell, it doesn’t mean every wizard everywhere has access to that spell. Thus, in old school play, when you rolled up a wizard, you didn’t have to flip through the entire spell list to figure what are the absolute bestest most amazing things to get, and then chose spells that work in every possible situation you could want when you play. Instead, your spells were basically random, at least initially (and to some extent, even as you play), and you have to actually think a bit about how to use your limited tools to do what you’d like (gust of wind to disrupt an enemy spell is unheard of in modern play, but that’s the kind of thing you did in old school…).
     
The spells of 5e are laid out in column by class, so it’s a simple matter just roll percentile dice randomly and see what comes up. Yes, players probably won’t stand for not having the bestest, most powerful wizard or whatever, but old school play really was more about figuring what you could do in the dungeon, as opposed to what you could do on your character sheet. Granted, some players will instead simply complain about how lame their characters are, in which case they should have picked different characters. Not everyone is cut out to be a wizard, after all.
     
You don’t need every class in a party…in old play, it was perfectly acceptable to have two characters of the same class in a party, and, in fact, “one” was roughly the maximum number of wizards in the party in any event. This further made wizards unique in old school play: they were rare, and the spells one wizard had could easily be completely different than another wizard.
     
Clerics have access to all spells, in both old and new rules, but they also have a fairly small spell list (12 spells at most per level in the old rules). This brings up the next difference between old and new play.
     
The AD&D spell lists are much, much, smaller than in 5e. In new play, there’s basically a spell for everything, every possible issue an adventurer might have, there’s a trivial spell that solves it, no problem at all. When you toss in the “you get any spell you want” of new play into that mix, spellcasters are ridiculously useful…and often carbon copies of each other. The best possible spells are usually pretty easy choices, after all.
     
In old school play, wizards spent time trying to acquire new spells, instead of simply having the bestest, most useful, spell handed to them. They also, after a certain level, started to research their own spells…with magic item creation not much of a factor in 5e, paying and spending time on spell research is definitely something worthwhile to have in old school play.
     
Cantrips are of course very problematic—infinite, re-useable magic that can do anything is just not compatible with the fantasy pseudo-medieval Europe of old school play. Again, cantrips should be given randomly, and their use should be somewhat restricted. Every time the player uses a cantrip, an additional d20 is rolled: on a 1 or 2, the character can’t cast any more cantrips until after a long rest. This puts cantrips back where they’re supposed to be: weak, unreliable, somewhat pathetic magic, instead of “go to” spam spells (yes, this could screw the Warlock, which instead gets his cantrips back after a short rest like he does everything else…please note, these are just suggestions I’m making here to give 5e more of an old school feel).
     
This random approach to cantrip use and spell acquisition represents another old school approach, but this takes some explanation.
     
It was also possible, in old school play, that a wizard might not even be able to learn a spell, such as magic missile, or whatever. While possible, it wasn’t much of an issue—one wizard’s magic missile wasn’t identical to another’s, so if the wizard that previously couldn’t learn magic missile found a new scroll of magic missile, he might learn it from that…and he could always just research it.
     
The idea of “magic missile isn’t the same as magic missile” leads to an important different approach to magic between old and new school play. I’ll address that first next time, and then touch on ever more changes to 5e to make it have a better feel as an old school game.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Spinachcat on January 17, 2015, 03:46:52 PM
Next up! How 5e can be GURPS! :)

5e is 5e, for better or worse. We can throw all the marketing language around, but nothing about 5e makes it "old school" - there are just far too many opposing assumptions baked into the rules - again, for better or worse.

People who enjoy it should enjoy it for what it is and whatever it does for them. Anyone who wants an "old school" experience has a bazillion free clones to choose from and the Troll Lords print new "not editions" of C&C ever 42 minutes.

BTW, I've heard Gygax claimed 1e falling damage was a typo. Somebody can hunt down the discussion on Dragonsfoot or wherever. My understanding was falling was supposed to be 1D6 for 10ft, 2D6 for 20, 4D6 for 30, 8D6 for 40 etc.  It's odd 5e would not recognize the Falling Damage vs. HP issue. Even 4e had 1D10 per 10 feet.

As for magic, any teen or young adult who bought 4e or 5e comes from a video game background where magic users cast magic with every action. The concept of limited magic is foreign to modern fantasy fan culture. WotC has to sell to the modern fanbase so they tailor products to their customers. No surprise, but it cheapens magic from something...magical into just a mundane tool.

Things that are limited are special.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: JRR on January 25, 2015, 02:53:36 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;810236
Next up! How 5e can be GURPS! :)


BTW, I've heard Gygax claimed 1e falling damage was a typo. Somebody can hunt down the discussion on Dragonsfoot or wherever. My understanding was falling was supposed to be 1D6 for 10ft, 2D6 for 20, 4D6 for 30, 8D6 for 40 etc.  It's odd 5e would not recognize the Falling Damage vs. HP issue. Even 4e had 1D10 per 10 feet.

Close.  Gary said that it should be 1d6 per 10 feet fallen, so a 30 foot fall would be 1d6+2d6+3d6=6d6.

The above author got so much about 1e wrong, it would take a week to correct it.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on January 30, 2015, 11:37:59 AM
I would be interested in hearing what was wrong, since I took it all at face value.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bren on January 30, 2015, 12:10:31 PM
Quote from: JRR;812201
Close.  Gary said that it should be 1d6 per 10 feet fallen, so a 30 foot fall would be 1d6+2d6+3d6=6d6.
Well no wonder there was confusion. The description and the example contradict each other.


Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: rawma on January 30, 2015, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Bren;813264
Well no wonder there was confusion. The description and the example contradict each other.

  • 1d6 per 10 feet fallen is Nd6 damage for a fall of Nx10 feet which is 3d6 damage for a 30 foot fall.

  • Damage of 1d6+2d6+3d6 might be written as Sum(i=1, N) x d6 damage for a fall of Nx10 feet.


If they fell 30 feet, they also fell from 20 feet and from 10 feet (throw "cumulative" into the description, maybe). Characters named Zeno take infinite damage when they hit the ground (but fortunately they never actually fall that far).
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bren on January 30, 2015, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: rawma;813335
If they fell 30 feet, they also fell from 20 feet and from 10 feet (throw "cumulative" into the description, maybe).
Or just use a math formula with an example. Mathematicians invented all those nifty symbols to clearly and succinctly cover this exact case. Why not use the symbols (plus example) when that would clarify the sloppy language?

Quote
Characters named Zeno take infinite damage when they hit the ground (but fortunately they never actually fall that far).
Zeno takes damage per each half unit of the remaining distance not per ten feet. Fortunately since he only falls half the remaining distance per combat round, it takes him an infinite number of combat rounds to hit the ground. Most people don't realize that Zeno started falling in Dave Arneson's very first game session, but no one (not Dave, not Gary, not any other old geezer) has run a campaign long enough for Zeno to hit the ground.

Yet.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: rawma on January 30, 2015, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Bren;813368
Or just use a math formula with an example. Mathematicians invented all those nifty symbols to clearly and succinctly cover this exact case. Why not use the symbols (plus example) when that would clarify the sloppy language?


Principia Mathematica - the first fantasy heartbreaker. Pretty much soured the hobby on mathematical notation, especially with the greater success of its rival, Little Wars.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bren on January 30, 2015, 11:50:46 PM
Quote from: rawma;813375
Principia Mathematica - the first fantasy heartbreaker. Pretty much soured the hobby on mathematical notation, especially with the greater success of its rival, Little Wars.

The Principia as a fantasy heartbreaker is clever. :cool:

Although I was thinking of something earlier and more integral to mathematical notation and the solution of both Gary's problem and Zeno's, namely the works of Newton and Leibniz on the summation of series and the calculus.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: rawma on January 31, 2015, 01:40:14 AM
Quote from: Bren;813382
Although I was thinking of something earlier and more integral to mathematical notation and the solution of both Gary's problem and Zeno's, namely the works of Newton and Leibniz on the summation of series and the calculus.


Oh, indeed, their Prioritätsstreit makes Gygax and Arneson look like underachievers in the squabbling arena. But Σ for summation was Euler's notation introduced later; intriguingly, Euler also introduced i (crucial to beholders), and dice notation in a little known monograph, Advanced Deltas and Derivatives, although some suggest he borrowed it from Descartes ("salvabo ergo sum").
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bren on January 31, 2015, 02:04:05 AM
Quote from: rawma;813402
Oh, indeed, their Prioritätsstreit makes Gygax and Arneson look like underachievers in the squabbling arena. But Σ for summation was Euler's notation introduced later; intriguingly, Euler also introduced i (crucial to beholders), and dice notation in a little known monograph, Advanced Deltas and Derivatives, although some suggest he borrowed it from Descartes ("salvabo ergo sum").
OK, you win. Sum of these jokes have become too obscure for me. Math was just too many decades ago.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: rawma on January 31, 2015, 02:20:41 AM
Quote from: Bren;813409
OK, you win. Sum [heh!] of these jokes have become too obscure for me. Math was just too many decades ago.


Now that none will follow me past the foothills, perhaps I know some shadow of the disappointment that Opaopajr must feel... :boohoo:
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on May 28, 2017, 02:56:50 AM
The problem is that Mearls and co showed their ignorance by just copy-pasting from 2e the typo copy-pasted from AD&D. AND ignoring the fact that falling damage can change.

It states very clearly in the PHB that damage taken could be much more depending on the surface fallen on and other factors and the DM might use a d8, d10, d12 etc.

And Spelljammer fixed falling damage even more. After a point you started taking escalating heat damage that magic couldnt counter. And a death save on impact.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: AsenRG on May 28, 2017, 04:08:50 PM
The problem is in assuming that a "basic pit" in 5e would be the same depth as it was in 1e, IMO:). As the OP said himself, the aesthetics are different, therefore the pits in 5e should be deeper, so you could claim you braved bottomless pits (just like you'd put even deeper pits in a game about kung-fu masters that routinely defy the laws of gravitation:p).
But make that pit 30 feet deep, and the poor wizard will be in even more danger for his life than from a fall in a 10-feet deep pit in the earlier edition;).
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Voros on May 28, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
To die falling into a 10' pit would be highly unlikely in RL let alone a fantasy game.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on May 28, 2017, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: Voros;964896
To die falling into a 10' pit would be highly unlikely in RL let alone a fantasy game.

My great grandfather died from falling a mere 5ft. He didnt die instantly. But its what did him in when bullets didnt. A fall of 10ft can be lethal. Its a matter of surface and how you land. Especially how you land.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: AsenRG on May 28, 2017, 08:44:47 PM
Even a simple fall can be lethal, depending on how you land.  Just ask anyone who has suffered a properly executed throw or takedown.
My point is that, reality aside, different editions of D&D take different threats as a baseline of "what stands a chance to kill you at a given level", and the dungeons for those editions are populated with threats that fit the baseline.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Doom on May 28, 2017, 08:57:54 PM
I had a cousin die from a 6ft fall...no bullets involved, but concrete is probably as hard as any stone floor in a dungeon.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Voros on May 28, 2017, 11:00:02 PM
If you land on your head/spine no doubt it can be fatal.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 28, 2017, 11:20:19 PM
Quote from: Voros;964896
To die falling into a 10' pit would be highly unlikely in RL let alone a fantasy game.

In AD&D1e you almost certainly wouldn't die, but you might be reduced to below 0HP, which means you'll take a week to recover. This is an abstraction of things like a twisted ankle, etc.

Just an example of the misunderstandings about 1e evident in the OP. But seriously: if you play 5e, play 5e. If you want to play 1e, play 1e.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on May 29, 2017, 02:33:59 AM
Quote from: Doom;964958
I had a cousin die from a 6ft fall...no bullets involved, but concrete is probably as hard as any stone floor in a dungeon.

In my great grandfathers case he wasnt shot AND fell. He'd been shot before and lived through it. Law enforcement is hazardous.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on May 29, 2017, 02:42:56 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;964975
In AD&D1e you almost certainly wouldn't die, but you might be reduced to below 0HP, which means you'll take a week to recover. This is an abstraction of things like a twisted ankle, etc.

Just an example of the misunderstandings about 1e evident in the OP. But seriously: if you play 5e, play 5e. If you want to play 1e, play 1e.

1: A 10ft fall could potentially kill a magic user or thief. You could well go into negatives enough to die if rescue didnt, or couldnt, get to you in time. 20ft using the correct falling rules could possibly flat out kill a first level MU on a really bad day. And if the DM is using the falling rules from the PHB then dont count on that damage being mere d6s.

2: Theres nothing wrong with wanting to fix a typo that was stupidly copied when it shouldn't have been.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 29, 2017, 03:31:39 AM
Quote from: Omega;964995
1: A 10ft fall could potentially kill a magic user or thief. You could well go into negatives enough to die if rescue didnt, or couldnt, get to you in time.
That's why I said, "almost certainly" not kill you. A well-prepared party would be able to rescue them. A poorly-prepared party wouldn't, but anything can kill a poorly-prepared party. It's possible a combat or something could slow the rescue, but it'd be unusual. Also, the character could be some HP down from other stuff. But most parties won't have their members wandering around on 1HP if they can help it. Thus, "almost certainly" you'll survive.

Quote
2: Theres nothing wrong with wanting to fix a typo that was stupidly copied when it shouldn't have been.
After four decades I think it's fair to say it's no longer a typo, but is now part of the rules.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Zalman on August 14, 2017, 10:43:01 AM
Quote from: Voros;964896
To die falling into a 10' pit would be highly unlikely in RL let alone a fantasy game.

Agreed, certainly less than 50% likely regardless of anecdotes to the contrary. 1d6/10' Damage seems more realistic to me in later versions of D&D, so I'm in the camp that would simply prefer deeper (or spiked) pits to increase deadliness at first level.

That's also in line with various fantasy memes I consume in books and movies: it's never the 10' fall itself that kills, rather those nasty poisoned spikes at the bottom do the job. Even more commonly, falling in a pit simply puts the protagonist at a severe disadvantage while alerting the architects of the pit to surround it from above.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Dumarest on August 17, 2017, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Voros;964896
To die falling into a 10' pit would be highly unlikely in RL let alone a fantasy game.

Depends entirely on how you land. Trip or fall and break your neck on a rock or concrete sometime and see what I mean.

Edit: but worrying about whether it's realistic in D&D seems rather silly given ever-increasing hit points and magic potions and resurrections on every other street corner (or so it seems in most settings).
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Headless on August 19, 2017, 11:01:14 AM
Eagerly awaiting the 2nd instalment.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 19, 2017, 08:46:24 PM
Why? The first one wasn't very smart or useful.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Voros on August 23, 2017, 04:43:29 AM
At least he is producing creative content instead of redundant groupthink 'old school' theorycrafting.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Headless on August 25, 2017, 07:53:01 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;985337
Why? The first one wasn't very smart or useful.

I disagree.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 25, 2017, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: Voros;986118
At least he is producing creative content instead of redundant groupthink 'old school' theorycrafting.
What creative content? I'm interested in game materials and examples. This is just musings about rules, and the musings bear no relation to actual play. As for example my noting, a 10ft pit will almost certainly not kill a 1st level character in AD&D1e, let alone in more generous later editions.

A long time ago on the GURPS mailing list, S John Ross noted that you could tell when someone was asking a question about something coming up in play, and a question about something coming just from reading the rules.

There's actually a third category of questions, where a person sort of half-remembers a rule that they never saw in play.

The questions from the OP and others in this thread are at best the second category, and uncharitably in the third.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Voros on August 25, 2017, 10:53:42 PM
I was referring to his Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate. All I've ever seen you do is spiel the same OSR dogma over and over again.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Headless on August 28, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
He's theroy crafting.  I think that was fairly clear from his OP.  I love theory crafting.  You don't. Thats fine.  You don't have to read his content if you think you might not be the target audience.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Bren on August 29, 2017, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: Voros;986707
I was referring to his Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate. All I've ever seen you do is spiel the same OSR dogma over and over again.


Quote
Default Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
BY RICK MOSCATELLO
I think that Brendan (who does Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate) and Rick Moscatello (the writer of the article in question) are two different people.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Voros on August 30, 2017, 01:49:34 AM
Ah thanks for the clarification.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: fearsomepirate on September 05, 2017, 06:27:44 PM
Tomb of Horrors is full of those 1d6 damage traps. The entrance one of the lairs in Keep on the Borderlands has a 1d6 pit traps. His point about 1d6 being a rather different value in AD&D than 5e is entirely correct. Maybe he misread 1e RAW on falling farther than that...but sounds like a lot of people did.

I'm currently trying to run an AD&D-ish game using the 5e rule set. By AD&D-ish, I mean more lethality, more randomness, and gold is XP. My players cried and cried about random spells, so I relented on that front. Of course, 5e has a lot of these magic-using classes that don't have spell books, and that wouldn't really be fair to them.
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on September 16, 2017, 08:12:41 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;965005
After four decades I think it's fair to say it's no longer a typo, but is now part of the rules.


I think its just willful, possibly smug, ignorance on the part of the later designers. "hur hur hur! Them fighters fall off cliff. Walk away. Gygax so dhum! Me so smaht!"
Title: Under the Hood: OldSchooling 5e: Falling Damage, and Magic
Post by: Omega on September 16, 2017, 08:18:22 PM
Quote from: Voros;986118
At least he is producing creative content instead of redundant groupthink 'old school' theorycrafting.


Its kinda the opposite of creative content and creeping towards disinformation at points.