Quote from: estar;891490But there isn't this huge gulf of design philosophy between 5e and classic editions as you are making it out to be.

Combat differences between Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.  You really want to do a level-by-level comparison of 1e vs. 5e and how the 1e versions hardly differ in how they approach combat and how the 5e versions vary greatly due to the different special abilties?

Spell-casting.  Christ.  WotC D&D outright removed every single possible restriction ever placed on spell-casters in TSR D&D or allowed them to be mitigated through special abilities.  5e doesn't walk that back.

Healing - 4e lite.

Monsters as lists of Special Tricks - Bugbears have Brutal Blow, but Ogres don't because...it's got nothing to do with what a Bugbear or Ogre is supposed to be, but how you use them tactically as pieces on the table, classic WotC gamist dissociation.

I keep hearing this magnificent return to Old School.  What I'm seeing is 4e modified by designers who are implementing suggestions without understanding the nature of the games the suggestions came from.  You end up with exactly what I said, a Post-MMO WotC D&D.  Simpler than 3e.  Actually recognizable as D&D.  Enjoyable to play for what it is. What it is, is definitely New School D&D.

The only reason 5e can be called Old School with a straight face is because of the total insanity that was late era 3.5 and the specifically designed to be not compatible with the OGL 4e.  It's only by comparison to this, that 5e is even remotely similar to older versions.

I love you man, but for once I'd like to hear someone go to bat strongly for 5e's Old School Bona Fides, who wasn't making money off 5e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891495There's no blasting fest in my 30 years and over one hundred player career.  

But every wizard player I've had goes for the Divination and Enchantment spells, or went with before they changed it, auto kill spells of Disintegrate and Finger of Death at the high levels.  As I pointed out, every Caster player I've had has always gone for the Save or 'Die' effects (and by 'Die', I mean fight ending spells like Charm Person/Monster.)  They're more effective and less random than going for hit points.

My use of "nuke" means blowing shit up, AoE style or, Nuke as in big ol' ball of fire (a fire that somehow doesn't harm the friendlies, thanks to convenient "spell sculpting"). Nothing to do with "biggest spell you got."

As for "blast fest," I refer to (that you say isn't and never happens?) I would say that you're conveniently leaving out the cantrips here, sir, not to mention low-level, blasty spells that scale. I mean, let's just take the two cantrips, Acid Splash and Ray of Frost. By level 11 it's 3d6 and 3d8 dmg, respectively. At no cost. So, why WOULDN'T I blast away. That's a a 5E wizard -- I can constantly hurl bolts of "X" out my ass, ad infinitum. (seriously, if that's not a blast fest, then what is it? Do I need a more delicate term?).

As for the Charm Monster stuff, etc., I think this is an exception to what we're discussing, since the spells you refer to are targeted specifically at an enemy, so no need to sculpt. Your argument is that this is why people pick them over and above the AoE's. But now that you can sculpt, hey--here's some cake...

And finally...

I have about the same amount of experience as yourself. However, I would not presume that that experience is all inclusive. Even so, I've never had a player run a wizard who didn't go for offensive spells if they were available. In fact, I would assume doing the blast-blast is something of an expectation in 5E, especially if you look at the wizard school presented in the released OGL (what's that? did someone say "evocation? hmmmmm....). And since I can exclude friendlies, again, why WOULDN'T it become a blast fest for me? No downside to it.  

FWOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Quote from: cranebump;891520FWOOOOOOOOOOSH!

That's the 5e anthem...
Pew-Pew-Pew-FWOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Combat differences between Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.  You really want to do a level-by-level comparison of 1e vs. 5e and how the 1e versions hardly differ in how they approach combat and how the 5e versions vary greatly due to the different special abilties?

Spell-casting.  Christ.  WotC D&D outright removed every single possible restriction ever placed on spell-casters in TSR D&D or allowed them to be mitigated through special abilities.  5e doesn't walk that back.

Healing - 4e lite.

Monsters as lists of Special Tricks - Bugbears have Brutal Blow, but Ogres don't because...it's got nothing to do with what a Bugbear or Ogre is supposed to be, but how you use them tactically as pieces on the table, classic WotC gamist dissociation.

I keep hearing this magnificent return to Old School.  What I'm seeing is 4e modified by designers who are implementing suggestions without understanding the nature of the games the suggestions came from.  You end up with exactly what I said, a Post-MMO WotC D&D.  Simpler than 3e.  Actually recognizable as D&D.  Enjoyable to play for what it is. What it is, is definitely New School D&D.

The only reason 5e can be called Old School with a straight face is because of the total insanity that was late era 3.5 and the specifically designed to be not compatible with the OGL 4e.  It's only by comparison to this, that 5e is even remotely similar to older versions.

I love you man, but for once I'd like to hear someone go to bat strongly for 5e's Old School Bona Fides, who wasn't making money off 5e.

That's an interesting point about monsters. So monsters in 1E/2E had abilities based on what was realistic for them to have? All the huge monsters had the same kind of effect with an attack?

I kind of ad hoc that already in 5e anyway; if an Ogre hits you half the time I'll have the person blown across the room because that's what makes sense.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Simpler than 3e.  Actually recognizable as D&D.  Enjoyable to play for what it is. What it is, is definitely New School D&D.

The only reason 5e can be called Old School with a straight face is because of the total insanity that was late era 3.5 and the specifically designed to be not compatible with the OGL 4e.  It's only by comparison to this, that 5e is even remotely similar to older versions.

I agree with this. It's the only WotC version I'll ever bother playing again. And it compares favorably in the vein of TSR due to how out there the game got under WotC by 2012-ish.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891534That's an interesting point about monsters. So monsters in 1E/2E had abilities based on what was realistic for them to have? All the huge monsters had the same kind of effect with an attack?

Yeah, generally speaking, the bigger the monster the more the damage.
Poisonous things had poison
Stuff had immunities because you can't drown a Water Elemental.
Things like that.

You really should get a hold of the older games and just sit down and read a bit if 5e is where you started with D&D.  I think it will be surprising how different it is.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891534That's an interesting point about monsters. So monsters in 1E/2E had abilities based on what was realistic for them to have? All the huge monsters had the same kind of effect with an attack?

I kind of ad hoc that already in 5e anyway; if an Ogre hits you half the time I'll have the person blown across the room because that's what makes sense.

It's more based on how monsters (outside of Special Attacks and Defenses) were not keyworded with tactical widgets and funneled into niches.

So goblins and kobolds, for the most part, were just small, crafty, vicious humanoids. Any Tucker's Kobolds creations were a matter of in-setting functions of equipment and tactics, not system exceptions bolted on as special powers. In contrast, 5e Goblins have Nimble Escape and Kobolds have Pack Tactics, making them mechanically distinct apart from setting necessity (and in fact, should lead to setting ramifications for coherency fans).

That actually harkens back to 4e design, where keyworded widgets are a MtG-esque step down compromise from AEDU-splatted combat role variations. It serves a purpose to increase creature difficulty in a seemingly formulaic way. But it also steps on the toes of setting for a ham-fisted differentiation. Further, it also camps the freeform equipment & tactics space because anything else put in there could potentially override (or worse, create miscibility with) already extant keywords...

Keywording is something I initially liked, and still do for reading clarity. However, over time I have noticed it does get in the way of more freeform play and design. Remember these words "unintended cascading effects," they'll come to haunt your DIY days. Essentially, a little goes a long way; best for iconic creatures (beholders, dragons, etc) but not so great to sprinkle generously on everything.

Well, I have read plenty of GMing literature and other such things about older editions since when I played roleplaying games back in the day that weren't D&D, I was unintentionally (looking back in hindsight) basically playing "old school" style since it's much closer to freeform. And that's what I always liked. I avoided D&D until 5th edition because I was scared off by PF/3.5's obsession with mechanics and feats and abilities. People talking about their characters in those sound like they're talking about MtG decks they built.

But you could argue that these mechanical exceptions are just giving you a concrete expression of the in-setting ramifications that normally you'd do anyway. The problem just is that sometimes there's just too much to keep track of and that they don't cover everything logical. People fall into a "rules positivism" where if it's not stated in the rules it means it doesn't exist.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Combat differences between Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.  You really want to do a level-by-level comparison of 1e vs. 5e and how the 1e versions hardly differ in how they approach combat and how the 5e versions vary greatly due to the different special abilties?

Of course they are different. What I am pointing out is that is not consistent to criticize because 5e classes has X more options than AD&D 1st basic four classes when the Druid, Ranger, and Paladin have different options at various levels.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Spell-casting.  Christ.  WotC D&D outright removed every single possible restriction ever placed on spell-casters in TSR D&D or allowed them to be mitigated through special abilities.  5e doesn't walk that back.

Yes 5e magic is different which is a good reason not to prefer 5e over a classic edition. But it designed to wind up in the same spot as OD&D when it comes to an adventuring party fighting monsters at various levels. It is how that fights plays out to get those results is where 5e differs.

Again this this from me running multiple OD&D campaign versus running multiple 5e campaigns. OD&D fights don't have a lot of mechanics but has a lot of rulings. D&D 5e have more mechanics that come into play and the skill system usually covers the rest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Healing - 4e lite.

Take a knee and get your hit points back and also trivial to default to the classic method of treating hit point recovery which I did after the first few session.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507Monsters as lists of Special Tricks - Bugbears have Brutal Blow, but Ogres don't because...it's got nothing to do with what a Bugbear or Ogre is supposed to be, but how you use them tactically as pieces on the table, classic WotC gamist dissociation.

I am in the midst of writing a Majestic Wilderlands 2nd edition that is more of a standalone RPG to reflect how I been running my OD&D campaign since 2009. I hate to break it to you but as part of that project I went through the monster manual and wrote my take on it. My focus was to rewrite the flavor to show who I used the monster in the campaign. Plus in most cases when the monster had abilities, I reformatted as a bullet list as that what I did to make for easy reference at the table.

I found when you do that reformat into bullet lists it winds up just just like 5e's list of monster abilities except shorter (or non-existent for some monsters).  

Because of that I view what you just said above is as a distinction with little consequence. If you are going to run a OD&D vampire and make a cheat sheet, you wind up with a list of "powers" just like 5e only shorter.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507The only reason 5e can be called Old School

Well I will say that 5e is more Blood & Treasure Old School than S&W White Box old school. It is old school level of power with new edition customization. Leavened with a fusion of old school concepts with newer idea namely in the idea that any character can do anything but there is a explicit mechanic for it in 5e.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507I love you man, but for once I'd like to hear someone go to bat strongly for 5e's Old School Bona Fides, who wasn't making money off 5e.

Well that the thing, I am not making money off of 5e. Certainly I could do it, but before the OGL dropped I was working on MW 2nd edition. And after waffling a bit between it, 5e and FAGE I said fuck it and continued to work it.  Right now I am in the midst of the treasure and magic item chapter. All my 5e stuff is for free and are ports of the OD&D stuff I been working on for MW 2nd edition.

I refereed some 5e campaigns because it is the new game on the block. Then stopped, then ran another session several month later as a favor which turned into a new campaign because of the people.

So I feel I kind of know what the hell I am talking about. Because of the free stuff I did already and some other preliminary work I know exactly what it would take to implement MW with 5e rules. The problem is I have to come up with double of the stuff when it comes to classes. For monster it is a matter of coming up with stats (STR, INT, etc) and tweaking damage and maybe abilities so that a fight with a bunch of 4 HD things works out the same when facing a 4th level party.

Armor Class switch is easy because of bounded accuracy as well as the to-hit bonus that a monster would get. High level monster in 5e are high level because of the variety and amount of damage they can do. Not how tough they are to hit or how easy they can hit party members. It certaintly different but in the end amount to the same outcome.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891507I keep hearing this magnificent return to Old School.  What I'm seeing is 4e modified by designers who are implementing suggestions without understanding the nature of the games the suggestions came from.  

Have you tried refereeing a 5e campaign over multiple sessions? Tried to take the same setting you used in AD&D (or whatever classic edition you use) and run it in 5e? I have.

Again how 5e gets to the result of combat and other things you do in a campaign is different, different enough that I still prefer using Swords & Wizardry Core rule plus MW has my take on D&D. So it OK not to like 5e, but it not the vastly different thing that you make it out to be.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891534That's an interesting point about monsters. So monsters in 1E/2E had abilities based on what was realistic for them to have? All the huge monsters had the same kind of effect with an attack?

I kind of ad hoc that already in 5e anyway; if an Ogre hits you half the time I'll have the person blown across the room because that's what makes sense.

Mmm sort of. Classic editions had the Mimic, Trapper, Lurker above and others. So some monster are total fantasies in terms what they can do and why they exist.

What 5e does that is similar to 3e and 4e is treat monsters as mini-characters. For example CK criticized that bugbears had brute, surprise attack and other abilities.  Well there are two things going on. One is that how the 5e author thing what makes bugbear special in their default setting. Two bugbears are not monsters found on the 1st level of the dungeons. Given the changes to the character classes to make them work the way they work in classic editions they need to add to the ways they work in and out of combat. Hence they get new abilities.

The result is the same. If you don't what to deal with the extra overhead but like the result then play classic D&D. Otherwise stay with 5e.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891544Well, I have read plenty of GMing literature and other such things about older editions since when I played roleplaying games back in the day that weren't D&D, I was unintentionally (looking back in hindsight) basically playing "old school" style since it's much closer to freeform. And that's what I always liked. I avoided D&D until 5th edition because I was scared off by PF/3.5's obsession with mechanics and feats and abilities. People talking about their characters in those sound like they're talking about MtG decks they built.

But you could argue that these mechanical exceptions are just giving you a concrete expression of the in-setting ramifications that normally you'd do anyway. The problem just is that sometimes there's just too much to keep track of and that they don't cover everything logical. People fall into a "rules positivism" where if it's not stated in the rules it means it doesn't exist.

Ahhh... an old school soul is in you yet. All we now need in you is a metric tonnage of bitters and jade, and then you too can join us in the coffee klatch, er, grog gathering.

Quote from: Opaopajr;891551Ahhh... an old school soul is in you yet. All we now need in you is a metric tonnage of bitters and jade, and then you too can join us in the coffee klatch, er, grog gathering.

I already consider myself an old school fan. I'm always the one hawking the benefits of less mechanical, old school play, amongst my playgroups. I've always found it more immersive, and I hate having to keep track of tons of rules.

There was actually a debate that came up related to this with them yesterday: is it objectively better for a game to have more options, or not. The comparison being made between PF and 5e.

On the one hand, more options = more freedom, allegedly, since you get to have special guaranteed powers carved out for you by the game. On the other hand, it means you can ONLY do things that have been specifically mentioned. I suppose in PF's case people would argue that it just has so much carved out that it effectively doesn't matter, it might as well be infinite abilities.

The argument for "less abilities" though is that so many options become unwieldy to manage, and it becomes less of a game and more of a perk management exercise. However, one of my friends made the point that when you do freeform style GM handwaving to make certain things happen, it's no different than the GM just homebrewing a feat, except without having it spelled out ahead of time.

What do you think? (Maybe this would be better as its own thread...)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891411That's why no one who played actually chose them past the first time, and figured out that they were traps.

And since then, Fireball, Lightning Bolt were the least chosen spells.  In any edition those two and any other area effect, damage based spells were deemed inefficient, and thus ignored.

Now, if I were designing a new edition of a game, I would want every piece of writing put into it used at some point.  But if I have a series of rules that people would ignore, why bother putting it into the book.

So here we have a crossroad:  Do you remove the entire evocation school, because for the longest time it was considered the weakest School of Magic, or do you find a way to allow people to play it?

Pick one.

I feel like I've stumbled into Bizarro Universe here.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891554There was actually a debate that came up related to this with them yesterday: is it objectively better for a game to have more options, or not. The comparison being made between PF and 5e.

I don't like Feats but I do enjoy the middle-ground approach of things like DCC with its 'Mighty Deeds' mechanic, which covers a lot of combat and non-combat Feats warriors might employ, without listing them out. The Player declares what he's trying to do, rolls the deed dice, and if he gets it then the Deed comes off.
RQ6 has something kinda similar with it's combat maneuvers.

At the end of the day, if the OP finds what he wants with whatever edition, I say let him have it.  It's his fun, not mine, I have no right to complain about it.

So I won't.

Happy Gaming!