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.
Heh, 5e is "zaftig." Love the description. Next time at AL I am going to call 5e "Reubenesque" and see who gets the reference.
Anyway, I dig Edgewise callling you to articulate and narrow your goals. I am very much in the same boat about less mechanical pyrotechnics and greater grittiness. Most of my changes were in that vein, FYI.
Later I found the class/race features, abilities, feats, and delineated combat a bit too involved for my tables as well. Most players just forget the alternate basic moves outright, so they almost surrender to routine. And those who are on the ball often have too many widgets for GMs to keep abreast once we get into the mid-high tiers.
The only issue I have with this set up is the healing.
The moment you remove the healing options, you get classes that will hold up the rest of the party because they have so many hitpoints more than the others. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins (assuming you're using all of them) all get a D10 which means they'll on average have more HP to heal up. Especially if they're the up front swing the big phallus weapons.
If you have a means to balance that out, perfect, otherwise, it could (key word there) be an issue.
That actually would be the point, the bloaty HP front-liners hold up the party's threat threshold. That's the reward for big, beefy front-liners.
I would keep Hit Dice as a healing mechanism. It also doubles, like exhaustion, as a useful design resource for ad hoc campaign house rules.
I do like some feats, like Healer, for their less synergistic supplemental roles.
Quote from: Opaopajr;891123That actually would be the point, the bloaty HP front-liners hold up the party's threat threshold. That's the reward for big, beefy front-liners.
I would keep Hit Dice as a healing mechanism. It also doubles, like exhaustion, as a useful design resource for ad hoc campaign house rules.
I do like some feats, like Healer, for their less synergistic supplemental roles.
The OP stated they wanted extended 'rest times', which means that the HD healing thing wouldn't be much of a benefit in general.
I think the suggestions made in the DMG and the Unearthed Arcana articles are enough to change the flow of the game.
I've been running an old school wilderlands-style sandbox in 5E RAW (without feats) for a year now and can attest to it working well. Characters have been dying right and left, just because I don't scale encounters at all. They dig deep, they see some shit.
The biggest difference is in the availability of magic. If you want a sword & sorcery setting, either don't use many spellcasters or make them count. Spellcasters are rare in my homebrew, but I don't keep quotas on my players playing any of them. It just means that they are exceptional in that way.
OSRing 5E doesn't make much sense on the rules front, because take S&W for example: if you are using ascending AC it isn't that far away from 5E anymore. It is just way deadlier and streamlined to its essential core.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;891120The only issue I have with this set up is the healing.
The moment you remove the healing options, you get classes that will hold up the rest of the party because they have so many hitpoints more than the others. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins (assuming you're using all of them) all get a D10 which means they'll on average have more HP to heal up. Especially if they're the up front swing the big phallus weapons.
If you have a means to balance that out, perfect, otherwise, it could (key word there) be an issue.
Hold up the rest of the party?
Only if you think that it is impossible to set foot outside the inn without max hit points.
Part of the old school mode of play involved sometimes having to keep going without hit points always being topped off. To compliment that, the play style focused more on exploration and not just a series of planned combat encounters of X, Y, or Z difficulty.
If you change the game rules without changing the basic mode of play along with it then there will be likely be extra complications.
Stick to the Basic edition, use some of the alternate skill/proficiency options in the DMG.
Example: no skills, only ability score proficiency. Proficiency dice instead of a flat bonus, perhaps.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;891181I think the suggestions made in the DMG and the Unearthed Arcana articles are enough to change the flow of the game.
I've been running an old school wilderlands-style sandbox in 5E RAW (without feats) for a year now and can attest to it working well. Characters have been dying right and left, just because I don't scale encounters at all. They dig deep, they see some shit.
The biggest difference is in the availability of magic. If you want a sword & sorcery setting, either don't use many spellcasters or make them count. Spellcasters are rare in my homebrew, but I don't keep quotas on my players playing any of them. It just means that they are exceptional in that way.
Sounds exactly like my own 5e Wilderlands sandbox game, also just over a year old - bravo, sir! :D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;891194Hold up the rest of the party?
Only if you think that it is impossible to set foot outside the inn without max hit points.
I was thinking leaving the inn at 50% when the rest of the party are nearly topped up.
If the Wizard has 20HP out of 25, that's not that big an issue. When the Fighter has 20HP out of 50 (At about 7th level) you MAY want to wait a tad longer. And depending on how long healing takes in the OPs game, don't bother with time sensitive missions, because the amount of time it takes to get enough healing in may prevent you from ever succeeding.
It's an issue, not a game stopper. Just something you need to realize and work with, is all.
How to OSR 5e?
- To get a feel, go back to Moldvay Basic or AD&D1
- Stay there :D
Seriously though, the problem with 5e is, it's still a card-based powers rules system like everything WotC does. Nearly anything that defines a class is how it breaks the rules other classes have to live by, exception-based design. It's less complex than 3/3.5, but suffers from the exact same problem, every character is nothing but a laundry list of rules exclusions. So far they haven't splatted the hell out of it, but if you want to play something other than baseline character and setting assumptions (in other words, not something painfully generic or Forgotten Realms based) then it's the exact same process as 3/3.5:
- Take every class that exists, put it in a blender to get a master list of cards, err powers.
- Assemble your deck, err class.
GURPS, HERO, etc are somewhat similar, but they provide an entire toolkit, a unified system. WotC has no interest in providing a unified system, even though with a million splats for 3e, they ended up with a de facto one, and the horror stories that the emergent complexity created are legendary.
At-will cantrips
Wolverine Healing
Christ, where do you even start, it's a "Post-MMO" fantasy RPG, and you're never gonna get past that without major surgery.
Don't get me wrong, there's some really cool ideas in there, but way too much of 4e design philosophy with regards to spells, powers, and healing carried over.
Yeah, agreed. The game feels deceptively old-school at level one, but every additional level introduces some new mechanical tchotchke that slows down play and makes the players think about rules too much. A good fix might be to eliminate all class features beyond level one or two. Just give HP, proficiency bonuses and spell slots.
Quote from: CRKrueger;891277How to OSR 5e?
- To get a feel, go back to Moldvay Basic or AD&D1
- Stay there :D
Seriously though, the problem with 5e is, it's still a card-based powers rules system like everything WotC does. Nearly anything that defines a class is how it breaks the rules other classes have to live by, exception-based design. It's less complex than 3/3.5, but suffers from the exact same problem, every character is nothing but a laundry list of rules exclusions. So far they haven't splatted the hell out of it, but if you want to play something other than baseline character and setting assumptions (in other words, not something painfully generic or Forgotten Realms based) then it's the exact same process as 3/3.5:
- Take every class that exists, put it in a blender to get a master list of cards, err powers.
- Assemble your deck, err class.
GURPS, HERO, etc are somewhat similar, but they provide an entire toolkit, a unified system. WotC has no interest in providing a unified system, even though with a million splats for 3e, they ended up with a de facto one, and the horror stories that the emergent complexity created are legendary.
At-will cantrips
Wolverine Healing
Christ, where do you even start, it's a "Post-MMO" fantasy RPG, and you're never gonna get past that without major surgery.
Don't get me wrong, there's some really cool ideas in there, but way too much of 4e design philosophy with regards to spells, powers, and healing carried over.
Wait what do you mean, don't older editions also have classes? So how is that different?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891319Wait what do you mean, don't older editions also have classes? So how is that different?
Have you played B/X or 1e?
Nope, 5th is my first. I just hear old war stories about the rest.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891326Nope, 5th is my first. I just hear old war stories about the rest.
Well, let's just compare 1st level to 5th level.
In AD&D, for example, every single thing a 5th level fighter could do? A first level fighter could do also. Yes, the higher level fighter had more hit points, better saving throws, and a better chance of hitting...but there were no other powers beyond that (base AD&D rules, I don't know all the splats or whatever that may have come out).
Now, a 5th level cleric had more spells than a 1st level cleric (half a dozen or more)...but special powers? Nope. Much like the fighter, there was nothing gained.
Only the thief arguably gained something between levels 1 and 5...an extra die on (never clearly defined) sneak attacks, and I think maybe a 5% chance of reading scrolls or something.
Yes, there were a few special classes like Paladin or Ranger that got some stuff at "name" level...but honestly this was pretty much retirement level and a moot point.
Now 5e (and 4e, and to a lesser extent 3e), you get a new uberpower every level, as well as a family of powers based on your class, well beyond AD&D (eg, "Second Wind" is well beyond anything a fighter ever, ever, gets in AD&D).
It's a sound idea in principle, but the bottom line, after a handful of levels, you've got so many uberpowers hitting the table at once that it can get problematic, much like, say, a six player game of M:TG where everyone is playing either direct damage or counterspells...it's all boomboomboom or nonononono.
'Uberpower'? Really? the ability to hit once more is an 'Uberpower'. The ability to not hit your friends with a Fireball when you throw one in the middle of a melee and thus be a dick by pretty much TPK'ing the party is an 'Uberpower'.
Christ Almighty on a Pogo Stick, just how pretentiously 'Hardcore' can you possibly be?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;891340'Uberpower'? Really? the ability to hit once more is an 'Uberpower'. The ability to not hit your friends with a Fireball when you throw one in the middle of a melee and thus be a dick by pretty much TPK'ing the party is an 'Uberpower'.
Christ Almighty on a Pogo Stick, just how pretentiously 'Hardcore' can you possibly be?
How high level have you played 5e? How high level have you played 0e-2e? How much widget synergy and feature/ability volleying did you notice between the two?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;891340The ability to not hit your friends with a Fireball when you throw one in the middle of a melee and thus be a dick by pretty much TPK'ing the party is an 'Uberpower'.
Is that an ability/power in 5e? Pretty nifty, but against the grain of D&D IMO. Fireballs are supposed to be dangerous, not kid-safe lighters.
Quote from: Dumpire;891314Yeah, agreed. The game feels deceptively old-school at level one, but every additional level introduces some new mechanical tchotchke that slows down play and makes the players think about rules too much.
While there is some truth in this - characters keep getting more powers - I run 5e online with Dragonsfoot grognards and in play it has not really been a problem. By the time the PCs are 12th-14th level we have been playing 70 sessions, over a year, and the players have plenty of time to get used to new abilities as they are gradually acquired. There are also some fairly simple character types, like the Champion Fighter.
Quote from: Teazia;891407Is that an ability/power in 5e? Pretty nifty, but against the grain of D&D IMO. Fireballs are supposed to be dangerous, not kid-safe lighters.
That'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.
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.
Wow thats news. I never noticed fireball and lightning bolt not being used in older editions.
There is another route at the crossroads that is very familiar because many old school players travel it regularly. It is the road of actually thinking about the environment and the situation when choosing which spell to cast.
I know, kind of crazy right?
One thing that the rules of old school helped with is teamwork. Initiative was a team thing not a " Its MY turn" thing. Players actually coordinated and communicated with each other to work in a way that was best for the team.
Sometimes the circumstances and close quarters meant that fireball and lightning bolt were not the best choices
Spell shaping is an uber power because it relieves the player from needing to think about the situation before acting. Some players enjoy the challenge of playing spell casters in the older rules.
You don't understand, Exploderwizard, they were "the least chosen spells." Even Gaze Reflection was more popular. Geez, get your history right already!
People choosing fireball and lightning bolt after their first accidental TPK... sh-yeah, as if?! Like, gag me with a spoon.
/tosses hair back and swigs a can of Tab.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;891277Seriously though, the problem with 5e is, it's still a card-based powers rules system like everything WotC does. Nearly anything that defines a class is how it breaks the rules other classes have to live by, exception-based design.
The progression of abilities in 5e is little different in design from that of the paladin, druid, and ranger of AD&D 1st. Each classes is a fixed progression from 1st to 20th with three main set of options: feats if they are allowed in lieu of an ability increase, an sub class option, and what skills to be proficient in. At character creation, the player can be pick a background for his character.
Yeah it more detailed than AD&D 1st and to create a 5e class is more work than 1st edition. But it is nothing like what you had to do with 5e or 3e. Having written material for 3e, 5e, and OD&D, I can understand why 5e wouldn't appeal a person who wants to tinker with their campaign mechanics over a classic edition. But it not that dramatic of a difference and nothing like what you had to write for 3e and 4e.
Quote from: CRKrueger;891277- Take every class that exists, put it in a blender to get a master list of cards, err powers.
- Assemble your deck, err class.
Well having some experience (http://www.batintheattic.com/majesticwilderlands.php) at writing new classes. That is is not the problem with writing a 5e class versus a classic edition class. The problem is that with a classic edition classes I only have to write up five to eight abilities at most to get something comparable. With 5e there is a pattern of progression from 1st to 20th and you need to come up with at least a dozen things to make a class comparable to one of the basic classes.
Before I wrote up the Halfling Shadow (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%205e%20Halfling%20Shadow.pdf) and the Berserker (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%205e%20Berserker.pdf), I came up with a template to help see the structure.
It is about double the work compared to classic edition. But in terms of being creative of what goes into each slot, it is the same as when I worked on the Majestic Wilderlands.
Finally have played both OD&D and 5e, I find how combat plays out to be comparable in both as far as deadliness and relative power levels. OD&D is much less detail and less to keep track, 5e is more detailed so how it played is very different but they both end up in the same place as far as how it works in the campaign.
This is a result of actual experience of running multiple OD&D and 5e campaign.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;891340'Uberpower'? Really? the ability to hit once more is an 'Uberpower'. The ability to not hit your friends with a Fireball when you throw one in the middle of a melee and thus be a dick by pretty much TPK'ing the party is an 'Uberpower'.
Christ Almighty on a Pogo Stick, just how pretentiously 'Hardcore' can you possibly be?
Feel like additional attack for a fighter is something they should always have, as the best, most consistent damage dealers.
As for the cherry-picking wizard fireball spell...maybe there OUGHT to be a downside to throwing down your nukes.
For DMs who don't like the blasting fest that is 5E, the simplest thing to do may be to simply disallow evocation spells. Make wizards the utility class.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891326Nope, 5th is my first. I just hear old war stories about the rest.
The main difference between 5e and classic editions (take your pick) is that 5e has more details and thus take more work to create new classes. But unlike 3e and 4e, 5e details effect the flow of the campaign in a way similar to that of OD&D. Combat takes the same amount of time, things work out at higher level about the same.
But if you are going to get into creating new stuff, classic edition of D&D are definitely easier to do. You only need to create a handful of specifics for a class and the rest can be flavor. It 5e that much more work? About double. Provided you don't drink the rules are god and must be balanced kool-aid 5e is just as flexible as any classic edition. Note the preceding is not found in the 5e rulebook just unfortunately way most tabletop RPG gamers play today. What 5e actually says it is your game make it how you like.
Plus other complained about feats, sub-classes, and healing all of which can be omitted if that now how you want to play.
But again 5e has more details, has more choices than classic editions. For some that is a turn off hence they prefer playing one of the classic edition or a retro-clones.
For me, I find that that 5e matches what I expect out of a D&D game pretty close. A lot of what I did in the Majestic Wilderlands worked out to be the same as what was done in 5e. Especially in how I treated skills in that any character can do any skill but some classes are better at certain skills than others.
But I have to say I still like my Majestic Wilderlands over 5e. If I had to go with something with more detail I would go with Fantasy Age which incorporates some of things I like about GURPS but with far less rules.
Quote from: Teazia;891407Is that an ability/power in 5e? Pretty nifty, but against the grain of D&D IMO. Fireballs are supposed to be dangerous, not kid-safe lighters.
Oh yeah, in 5e, I can drop a fireball right on top of the party and choose who gets hit with the right abilities.
Quote from: CRKrueger;891460Oh yeah, in 5e, I can drop a fireball right on top of the party and choose who gets hit with the right abilities.
It magic, a completely arbitrary element of the game. Obviously you don't agree with the designer. Luckily D&D 5e works like classic editions in that you can change any spell you don't like without doing a wholesale revamp of the system.
And since the ability stems from the evocation arcane tradition, you can simply not allow that tradition in your campaign as it not being part of the setting.
Quote from: estar;891463It magic, a completely arbitrary element of the game. Obviously you don't agree with the designer. Luckily D&D 5e works like classic editions in that you can change any spell you don't like without doing a wholesale revamp of the system.
And since the ability stems from the evocation arcane tradition, you can simply not allow that tradition in your campaign as it not being part of the setting.
I'm aware of Rule Zero, bro. Thanks. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;891467I'm aware of Rule Zero, bro. Thanks. ;)
I know you do but your justification for why you don't like 5e makes no sense in light of what you do prefer.
For me I find is more enjoyable to come up with half dozen or so element spread across 12 or so level for a OD&D class compared to the dozen+ element spread across 20 levels of D&D 5e.
But there isn't this huge gulf of design philosophy between 5e and classic editions as you are making it out to be. And the amount of potential abilities you can gain with 5e is far more limited compared to 3e or 4e. 5e doesn't sit halfway between classic and 3e/4e. It sits slightly beyond 2e (before Skills and Powers) in terms of flexibility.
Quote from: cranebump;891434Feel like additional attack for a fighter is something they should always have, as the best, most consistent damage dealers.
As for the cherry-picking wizard fireball spell...maybe there OUGHT to be a downside to throwing down your nukes.
A nuke implies that they're the strongest spells. That perception is incorrect. The 'real' nukes are spells that remove the option for a saving throw. Like the early editions of Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
Anything that was based on a stat check or saving throw, those were the nukes. Fireball and Lightning Bolt were always relegated to third tier 'if I hafta, and I got nothing left, now where's that wand?' category
Quote from: cranebump;891434For DMs who don't like the blasting fest that is 5E, the simplest thing to do may be to simply disallow evocation spells. Make wizards the utility class.
There's no blasting fest in my 30 years and over one hundred player career. Not saying this is representative of the hobby, just anecdotal.
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.
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!
:D
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 (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/2993/Bat-in-the-Attic-Games). 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 (http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/search/label/Majestic%20Wilderlands) 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!
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. And the amount of potential abilities you can gain with 5e is far more limited compared to 3e or 4e. 5e doesn't sit halfway between classic and 3e/4e. It sits slightly beyond 2e (before Skills and Powers) in terms of flexibility.
Thank you for the input, I recently ran a Myth & Magic game (mashup of 2e as the core with 3e-isma) and I think it is just about right for where I want to be as a DM. Players have also had alot of fun, although Weapon Proficiencies are an extra layer of crunch that I think I will do away with.
M&M is also in the same design space of 5e (no Skills and Powers, but lots of options turned "on," you also have the option of turning things "off"). I am exploring 5e atm, and hope to be a player a few times before I make the decision on the switch. Since M&M and 5e are so close conceptually and, maybe, in execution, I might make the switch to 5e as it is readily available and the current lingua franca in the RPG community over here in this Asian country. I do worry about the general numbers escalation thought: lots of HP, and lots of damage. Maybe the advantage mechanic balances the number bloat?
The 5e DMG will be arriving any day now for me. After peeking at a pdf of it, I think it is right up there with the 1e DMG, Hackmaster 4e GMG which are both masterworks. The 5e DMG may be more useful at the table and easier on the eyes as well, but that remains to be seen.
Also, I'd be remiss not to link this thread with an explanation of the linked item. Pretty interesting:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=73702&p=1740093#p1740093
Quote from: S'mon;891559I feel like I've stumbled into Bizarro Universe here.
Big time, I haven't the slightest idea what planet he's from. Fireballs/Lightning bolts were plenty common back in the day, and plenty common in PF, and plenty common in 5e.
Heck, I'd say more than half the 5e games I've run have had a Spellshaping Evoker at the table, blasting and blasting away.
I'm not saying status effect save-or-sucks don't come up, but even the Diviner at my table used damaging spells like Disintegrate (naturally, using the uber-power of guaranteeing a monster failed the saving throw--omg, he's-got-the-combo!).
Quote from: Doom;891614Big time, I haven't the slightest idea what planet he's from. Fireballs/Lightning bolts were plenty common back in the day, and plenty common in PF, and plenty common in 5e.
Heck, I'd say more than half the 5e games I've run have had a Spellshaping Evoker at the table, blasting and blasting away.
I'm not saying status effect save-or-sucks don't come up, but even the Diviner at my table used damaging spells like Disintegrate (naturally, using the uber-power of guaranteeing a monster failed the saving throw--omg, he's-got-the-combo!).
Direct damage spells are common in my 5e games, but in my Mentzer Classic D&D game they really dominate - when a 12d6 fireball can crisp a throneroom full of 8 hd hill giants, it'd be crazy not to use them. My son's MU spell loadout these days is typically a bunch of magic missile, lightning bolt & fireball in every available 1st & 3rd level slot, with non-damage spells only in the levels where there aren't good ones. He's got very good at bouncing lighting bolts off the walls at angles to clear rooms of high-hd critters where space doesn't allow fireball; and in really cramped quarters 5 d6+1 magic missiles with no save isn't bad either. Often the main function of the Fighters is to keep monsters away from his very squishy 28 hp, AC 14 MU (I use ascending AC), occasionally to clear up badly wounded survivors from the spell inferno.
Back in the day it was quite common for there to be renegade Red Wizards of Thay double specialized in Evocation/X School in our groups. Boom Boom BOOM!
I was pointed to this thread from another site. It was thought that perhaps in light of the thread's topic and discussion, that a book/document I put together would be of interest. I'll paste what I put there, here.
A few months ago they opened up the ability to make D&D stuff available on a site called DMs Guild. So, I started putting together a document.
It IS for 5e...it uses the 5e rules, and all references in the book are to 5e rulebooks.
HOWEVER, it is trying to recreate the feel of OD&D, BX & BECMI, and AD&D using the 5e rules.
It's basically a toolbox, and bunch of different options to make a 5e game run more like an Old School game. I've tried to be pretty inclusive...though the OD&D feel ONLY includes stuff from the original 3 booklets in what it attempts to do.
The stuff from BECMI and BX really only include stuff from BX and BE (though I did toss in an obligatory nod towards weaponmastry skills).
AD&D covers stuff from UA and OA in regards to what I did. It turned out to be around 192 pages, I put on a Quick Preview and a Full Preview for those who are interested.
I think this is the link to where it's located.
5e Old School and Oriental Adventures (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/180409/5e-Old-School-and-Oriental-Adventures)
You shouldn't have to pay a red cent to read it or use it (I couldn't figure out how to make it totally free...I guess I'm that tech illiterate...sorry...but you dont' have to pay anything, it's pay what you want..as well as having a free quick preview and free full preview of everything in it).
Artwork is ALL original (not by me) and I think is VERY old school in how it looks (OLD school as in 1975-1978 type old school artwork). It doesn't copy other's art, it's all original, but it's done in a style that tries to replicate the feel of that artwork (and the entire book isn't writing down the old rules, it's about establishing the feel of those games and giving a pick and choose toolbox for those who want to have that feel in their game).
Anyways, this thing is definitely NOT edition specific (as I said, it would cover the feel of OD&D, BX and BECMI, and AD&D) but with the 5e rules. Thought it might fit in the general forum, and hopefully those who would be interested in such a thing will find it useful.
Welcome GreyLord!
I just checked out your houserules pdf at DMsGuild and my, at 192 pages, it is quite the thorough tour through 0e-Be-1/2e ideas for 5e. I scanned it, it's a bit much all at once, but I liked the effort involved. The naive artwork was a nice homage, too.
Quote from: PiebaldWookie;889942Weirdly, 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 5e skill method is the most straightforward and old-school of the 3e+ era.
As for class, I'd make sure to keep the class options limited.
I would also get rid of choosing feats apart from the class archetypes.
I would like to point out that the OP may want to remove the stat boosters that each class starts getting at level 4. There was none of that before 3.x.
If you do keep them, just bear in mind that Fighters will get a lot of stat points, more than any other class.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;892065I would like to point out that the OP may want to remove the stat boosters that each class starts getting at level 4. There was none of that before 3.x.
If you do keep them, just bear in mind that Fighters will get a lot of stat points, more than any other class.
I think 5e stat bumps are pretty mild compared to 1e Unearthed Arcana PCs with Triple Weapon Specialisation, and the cap at 20 keeps their stats (& bonuses) lower than high level late-1e PCs, too. I definitely don't find in play that high stats are an issue harming an old school feel, if old school includes AD&D percentile STR.
Quote from: S'mon;892096I think 5e stat bumps are pretty mild compared to 1e Unearthed Arcana PCs with Triple Weapon Specialisation, and the cap at 20 keeps their stats (& bonuses) lower than high level late-1e PCs, too. I definitely don't find in play that high stats are an issue harming an old school feel, if old school includes AD&D percentile STR.
Fair enough, I'm just bringing up potential issues that perhaps the OP didn't consider. Not trying to dissuade them. And it's not like removing the stat bumps will harm anything in terms of leveling anyway. Just want to make sure they know, is all.
Seems like this thread has derailed somewhat, from the "OSR-ing 5E" theme to a "is it a good game" debate. I started out with OD&D in the 1970's and have tried every edition of D&D created, and I think that 5E rolls back the clock a lot better than 3E or 4E. Is it perfect, no. Is it exactly like the older editions, no. Is it still a decent game, I think so.
For me, "old school" is more of an attitude than a specific rules mechanic. While I prefer the freewheeling style of OD&D, I think that AD&D is probably more common and easier to emulate with the 5E rules set because both tend to be somewhat specific on what you can and cannot do. OD&D is pretty loose and you'd have to remove most of the 5E rules to scale things back that far.
I think that the best way to "OSR" a game is to limit the overflow of options, so starting with the Basic 5E PDF is a great first step. This removes a bunch of the classes that stretch the boundaries of the game and puts the focus back on the "core four" classes plus the basic fantasy races. I find that 5E has a more old school feel at lower levels, so I'd want to limit my campaign to roughly 7th level. Indeed, a 1st level 5E character has the feel of a 3rd level AD&D character so a level 1-7 5E campaign feels a lot like an AD&D level 3-10 campaign.
I guess if one wanted to nit-pick, one could move through 5E a rule at a time and eliminate stuff. Skills were a 2E thing, feats a 3E thing, so both would technically have to go. I think that 5E still works well with skills and feats because the skill list is so short (compared to 3E/4E) and the feat options are more limited as well. 5E is built with the idea of keeping bonuses under control, which has an old school feel to me, and so much of the core system can stay unchanged.
Oh, and as to the fireball discussion:
(1) We always loaded up on them. Very old school, in my book.
(2) The 5E fireball isn't as cool as you'd think. 8d6 gives around 28 points of damage on the average, and we have some sneak-attack rogues with two weapons doing similar damage each round. The area-effect thing is nice, but the monsters seem to save half the time anyway. Fireball in 5E isn't as cool as it was in older editions, in my experience.
Quote from: finarvyn;892316(2) The 5E fireball isn't as cool as you'd think. 8d6 gives around 28 points of damage on the average, and we have some sneak-attack rogues with two weapons doing similar damage each round. The area-effect thing is nice, but the monsters seem to save half the time anyway. Fireball in 5E isn't as cool as it was in older editions, in my experience.
I find Fireball in 5e works like Fireball in 3e; it doesn't tend to kill creatures that are much of a threat, instead it softens up gangs of mid-threat critters for the warriors to finish off.
Quote from: finarvyn;892316Oh, and as to the fireball discussion:
(1) We always loaded up on them. Very old school, in my book.
(2) The 5E fireball isn't as cool as you'd think. 8d6 gives around 28 points of damage on the average, and we have some sneak-attack rogues with two weapons doing similar damage each round. The area-effect thing is nice, but the monsters seem to save half the time anyway. Fireball in 5E isn't as cool as it was in older editions, in my experience.
Well, the fireball issue is simply one of hit point inflation. In OD&D a fearsome troll had an average of 20-24 hit points. That 28 average damage is looking pretty great now! The 5E Troll with its 84 average hit points just gets mad and charges the wizard.
Old school big gun spells (fireball, lightning bolt, flame strike, etc) used to just take shit OUT. The 5E big guns can only take out the weakest of creatures.
Of course the 5E wizard doesn't need more XP to advance and isn't nearly as fragile as the old school counterpart so it kind of balances out.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;892357Well, the fireball issue is simply one of hit point inflation. In OD&D a fearsome troll had an average of 20-24 hit points. That 28 average damage is looking pretty great now! The 5E Troll with its 84 average hit points just gets mad and charges the wizard.
Old school big gun spells (fireball, lightning bolt, flame strike, etc) used to just take shit OUT. The 5E big guns can only take out the weakest of creatures.
Of course the 5E wizard doesn't need more XP to advance and isn't nearly as fragile as the old school counterpart so it kind of balances out.
True! Looks like you can add some oomph to it by spending higher slots, but, by that time, the targets are tougher. Casting it at 9th level would be another 6 dice, I think, so, 14d6 (if I read it right), if you blow a slot that high (I can't see that anyone actually would, however, considering that you'd have Meteor Swarm (20d6 fire, 20d6 bludgeoning, twice the radius).
One fun option is that the short rest requires heavy drinking/smoking, the kind that results in the inebriation tables in the 1e DMG or the expanded one from the HM4e DMG. You could also lean on the sanity rules in the 5e DMG with imbibing offering some protections or otherwise.
The "tonic" can be race specific: fire water for dwarves, elven wine for elves, "pipeweed" for hobbits etc, with humans (and half) being able to partake in any, :p This may not be the flavor best suited for a game with kids, however, THIS, IS, THERPGSITE!
The OSR option would be to get rid of the 'short rest' altogether.
Quote from: RPGPundit;893820The OSR option would be to get rid of the 'short rest' altogether.
So since 5e is the OSRied official D&D, and you were obviously such a spiritus movens of the game, why was it implemented in the first place?
Quote from: Rincewind1;893822So since 5e is the OSRied official D&D, and you were obviously such a spiritus movens of the game, why was it implemented in the first place?
I'm guessing that it was a carry over of 4e healing surges. Though I only played 4e once in 2008 so my memory is a bit hazy.
Quote from: Teazia;892431The "tonic" can be race specific: fire water for dwarves, elven wine for elves, "pipeweed" for hobbits etc, with humans (and half) being able to partake in any, :p This may not be the flavor best suited for a game with kids, however, THIS, IS, THERPGSITE!
That takes me back to when I associated a lot of fantasy, including Tolkien, with headshops and stoners. There was a headshop here called The Wizard's Lair... enter through a stone tunnel to emerge in a castle courtyard under a sky of blacklight/neon stars and planets. The counter guy turned me on to some great comics and the trippy Greyfax Grimwald books.
Man, it's like a laser light show going off in my head! Definitely a flavor of fantasy I hadn't thought of in quite a while.
Quote from: Krimson;893852I'm guessing that it was a carry over of 4e healing surges. Though I only played 4e once in 2008 so my memory is a bit hazy.
Which was to help parties with low healing potential get past the 15 Minute Work Day thing that became super popular in 3e, but was also an issue (but not to the same extent) in 2e.
In 5e it's to help parties keep going, instead of panicking whenever the party realizes that the Magic Go Juice was running low.
I kind of like the suggestion made earlier about limiting the short rest to once a day and the long rest to once a week, though I think for the time being I am going to stick to RAW. I already have OSR players and 5e feels like D&D to me. I wouldn't be averse to adding house rules to OSRify it if my players wanted it, but they'd have to want it. I'm guessing at some point I might have to try and incorporate the Mentzer Monster Reaction Chart, aka my favorite table in D&D ever, since we used to use that for everything, including diplomacy. :D
Quote from: Krimson;893948I kind of like the suggestion made earlier about limiting the short rest to once a day and the long rest to once a week, though I think for the time being I am going to stick to RAW.
It is an official option in the 5e DMG, BTW. A good idea for wilderness or urban games; I'm not sure it works for dungeon crawling - I expect in a crawl everyone just retreats to town whenever a short rest would be needed and long rests instead.
My 5e Primeval Thule GM keeps most resource recovery as standard, but slow healing to: overnight to spend hd as per short rest, 1 week to recover all hp & 1/2 hd as per long rest, and you (either caster or recipient) need to spend hd to benefit from healing spells. This works pretty well in play, I think the Fighter still comes out a bit underpowered but that's always going to be a problem if you don't have long crawly adventure days.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;892357Well, the fireball issue is simply one of hit point inflation. In OD&D a fearsome troll had an average of 20-24 hit points. That 28 average damage is looking pretty great now! The 5E Troll with its 84 average hit points just gets mad and charges the wizard.
Old school big gun spells (fireball, lightning bolt, flame strike, etc) used to just take shit OUT. The 5E big guns can only take out the weakest of creatures.
Of course the 5E wizard doesn't need more XP to advance and isn't nearly as fragile as the old school counterpart so it kind of balances out.
I agree with what you've said here.
(1) 5E does have a different HP scale, so this makes the base fireball spell less valuable.
(2) There is a nice trade-off, in that I would get lots of damage-dealing cantrips but I lose some of the big-gun value.
My point was mostly in reference to the notion that posters (and my own game group) have that fireball is this awesome spell in spite of the fact that the numbers would suggest otherwise. It's still a decent spell, but not as impressive as it was in older editions.
Quote from: Simlasa;893870That takes me back to when I associated a lot of fantasy, including Tolkien, with headshops and stoners. There was a headshop here called The Wizard's Lair... enter through a stone tunnel to emerge in a castle courtyard under a sky of blacklight/neon stars and planets. The counter guy turned me on to some great comics and the trippy Greyfax Grimwald books.
Man, it's like a laser light show going off in my head! Definitely a flavor of fantasy I hadn't thought of in quite a while.
Happy to serve. I think 5e is pretty well done overall, the flavor is even OSR but in a corporate sanitized way, backwards looking through a soft lens, informed by the energy that erupted DCC, but with all the dirt and esoterica scrubbed away. A bit like how 2e core was and became (although many of the campaign settings kept this somewhat). Beyond the mechanics, a bit of headshop is great addition to the 5e game.
Quote from: Teazia;894654Happy to serve. I think 5e is pretty well done overall, the flavor is even OSR but in a corporate sanitized way, backwards looking through a soft lens, informed by the energy that erupted DCC, but with all the dirt and esoterica scrubbed away. A bit like how 2e core was and became.
Interesting analogy, thanks.
I think for a game that wants to dominate the RPG marketplace and be extremely accessible to the largest number of people, a degree of corporate blandness is probably advisable. So many people take offence so easily these days - in 1989 TSR was trying to appease the conservative Angry Mothers From Heck who objected to demons & devils as Satanism, now it's more the leftists, especially feminists who will object to dwarves with cleavage, naked succubi art, or half-orcs who are the product of rape.
Quote from: Rincewind1;893822So since 5e is the OSRied official D&D, and you were obviously such a spiritus movens of the game, why was it implemented in the first place?
Because while 5e is strongly influenced by OSR concepts, it was never meant to be something to appeal only to the OSR. The official rules needed to have a broad brush to support a variety of playstyles.
So you see, in the DMG, several options for making the game more old-school, and most importantly (and one of the things I most emphasized in my Consulting) the game is set up in such a way that it is very easy to radically change the default rules to alter the style of play you want. This is one of the big differences in 5e versus earlier WoTC editions. 3.x for example, had so many intertwining rules related to things like feats, that if you wanted to ban certain feats it would often require going over all the feats to try to figure out what needed to change, and then altering some of the basic class abilities, etc. etc.
In 5e, it's WAY easier to just take a scalpel to the rules and chop or change anything you don't like, and still have a game that will run without bugs.