So, after much deliberation about what old-school/retroclone system to convert my group over to for our latest game, I think I'm going to keep them on 5e, with a few tweaks.

What rules would you add/remove to make 5e more old-school?, without completely re-making it?

So far, I'm thinking:

• Extended rest times
• No feats - such abilities might be available with training, or other special circumstances
• No spells at level up for Wizards - they have to be found or trained.
• Possibly a reduced class and race list, though I quite like some of the new class mechanics.

There's also using more old school procedures and thinking - reaction rolls, morale, rulings over rules, etc. But I want to see what solid things I can use to reinforce the feel.

Any other suggestions?

I'd take out skills and feats... and do whatever it takes to make it harder (impossible) to get revived during combat (something that stood out large in the 5e games I played... warriors bobbing up/down/up repeatedly during fights).
Probably get rid of cantrips too.
But eventually I'd just be playing S&W... so why bother.

Quote

• No spells at level up for Wizards - they have to be found or trained.

That's one I particularly favor, though I've got no clue if that's widely considered 'old school' or not.

Weirdly, skills don't brother me. Their pretty similar to Ability Checks, which are pretty old school, and they don't seem to get too out of hand.

I'm wondering how to handle the Class Archetypes - whether to make one the dominant class path, whether to break the others into specialised training with weird requirements, or whether to just leave them as-is.

The only class I'd see having an issue with removing their special abilities, is Wizard with it's nine or so schools of specialization.

We use the basic classes. I allow proficiency added to every stat to produce a "rating" which is used for ability checks, saves, etc.  I also dropped skills in general, and, for awhile, when they tried something class related, just made it an ability check, with advantage.  Modified that to where they list their skill proficiencies granted by class and, when they use those skills, they have advantage on them. For everything else, rating.  This makes them all pretty adept, but not unduly so....so far, anyway. We don't use feats. No multiclassing.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889945The only class I'd see having an issue with removing their special abilities, is Wizard with it's nine or so schools of specialization.

Yeah - I can see leaving Wizards and Clerics with their Schools and Domains, or stripping them out entirely - sure, they lose a lot, but they do get a *lot* of spells.

I didn't use feats, skills, or multiclassing. Everyone proficient in all saves. Negative hp rather than heal-from-0.

- Reintroduce spell interruption. No, not concentration, keep that too.
- Cantrips = Casting Attribute Score (NOT mod) per Long Rest.
- No Feats (though I really do like some, such as Actor, Linguist, etc.). Kludge mechanic.
- No Multi-classing, period.
- Drop eyebrow raising Class Features, i.e. Second Wind, Sneak Attack, etc.
- Custom Background is off-the-table. All backgrounds require GM approval beforehand.
- Even out that beginning rocket curve, double or more XP needed for Lvls 1-3.
- Dump most caster classes as redundant to be replaced by background and archetypes.
- Widen attribute average to tamp down mods and foster greater Proficiency Bonus reliance.
- All saves receive PB, class saves receive PB expertise.

That's currently my big ones, after many weeks of actual play. I'm sure I can think of others as this goes on.

Quote from: Opaopajr;890019- Reintroduce spell interruption. No, not concentration, keep that too.
- Cantrips = Casting Attribute Score (NOT mod) per Long Rest.
- No Feats (though I really do like some, such as Actor, Linguist, etc.). Kludge mechanic.
- No Multi-classing, period.
- Drop eyebrow raising Class Features, i.e. Second Wind, Sneak Attack, etc.
- Custom Background is off-the-table. All backgrounds require GM approval beforehand.
- Even out that beginning rocket curve, double or more XP needed for Lvls 1-3.
- Dump most caster classes as redundant to be replaced by background and archetypes.
- Widen attribute average to tamp down mods and foster greater Proficiency Bonus reliance.
- All saves receive PB, class saves receive PB expertise.

That's currently my big ones, after many weeks of actual play. I'm sure I can think of others as this goes on.

Does that actually make the game better? It's an interesting thought experiment but is the game better off being changed that much?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890064Does that actually make the game better? It's an interesting thought experiment but is the game better off being changed that much?

If you really want old school style play, most of those changes sound like real good ideas to me. 5e is a long way from old school.  Whether this makes the game "better" depends on what you want from the game. I'd need even more changes (like reverting some spells (e.g. Nap -- err, I mean Sleep) to their more powerful TSR versions) if I were to run 5e old school style in my homebrew settings.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890064Does that actually make the game better? It's an interesting thought experiment but is the game better off being changed that much?

Does it matter if I like it? So far I dig the results of what players I can coax to try it. An rpg game is only as useful as it suits your needs. Try it RAW, see what you don't like, edit, return, see if it works.

But many other players would rather keep abreast of "tourney style" (read: Org Play) and learn the "munchkin wizardry" within the RAW paradigm.

Though you're right, there's likely many games where eventually you have to edit even more than that to where the game is unrecognizable and you might as well play another game. I think that's where I was ending up in that D&D 4e topic.

Quote from: Opaopajr;890166Does it matter if I like it?

If you like it, then the answer to the question of:  'Does it make the game better?' is a big WHOPPING HOODALOLIE "yes."

Quote from: Opaopajr;890166Does it matter if I like it? So far I dig the results of what players I can coax to try it. An rpg game is only as useful as it suits your needs. Try it RAW, see what you don't like, edit, return, see if it works.

But many other players would rather keep abreast of "tourney style" (read: Org Play) and learn the "munchkin wizardry" within the RAW paradigm.

Though you're right, there's likely many games where eventually you have to edit even more than that to where the game is unrecognizable and you might as well play another game. I think that's where I was ending up in that D&D 4e topic.

Well that's what I'm getting at: what is it about these changes, that they do to the game experience, that make you like it over standard 5e?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890177Well that's what I'm getting at: what is it about these changes, that they do to the game experience, that make you like it over standard 5e?

I think that's a really good question.  PiebaldWookie, why in particular do you want to go old school?  The answer to that question should be able to guide whatever changes you make.  If you like old school because you don't like feats and skills, take out feats and skills.  If you like old school because of the resource management and deadliness, take out various hit point recovery mechanics.

Personally, I like old school because of the simplicity and speed of play, so 5e is just a little too zaftig for me.  But if I had a taste for something a little more complicated, 5e could be an excellent fit for me (although DCC has really caught my eye lately on the crunchier side of the street).  The only thing in it that I am not a big fan of are feats.  I'm fine with skills; I think LotFP has exactly the right approach, there.

But that's just me.  I certainly don't believe in being old school for the sake of itself.  Not that you do, PiebaldWookie, but I just don't know what it is about OSR that appeals to you, so it's hard to answer your question.

Quote from: Edgewise;890184I think that's a really good question.  PiebaldWookie, why in particular do you want to go old school?  The answer to that question should be able to guide whatever changes you make.  If you like old school because you don't like feats and skills, take out feats and skills.  If you like old school because of the resource management and deadliness, take out various hit point recovery mechanics.

Personally, I like old school because of the simplicity and speed of play, so 5e is just a little too zaftig for me.  But if I had a taste for something a little more complicated, 5e could be an excellent fit for me (although DCC has really caught my eye lately on the crunchier side of the street).  The only thing in it that I am not a big fan of are feats.  I'm fine with skills; I think LotFP has exactly the right approach, there.

But that's just me.  I certainly don't believe in being old school for the sake of itself.  Not that you do, PiebaldWookie, but I just don't know what it is about OSR that appeals to you, so it's hard to answer your question.

Its partly an issue of mechanical complexity (and a lack thereof), and partly the atmosphere of grime, death, and low-powered sneak thieves rather than high fantasy, magic everywhere heroes.