|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 16:57:48 GMT -6
I have in mind to do a stripped down hack of 5e Basic that will be more inclusive of the earliest D&D editions. If this goes anywhere constructive I'll be happy to put it all together in PDF form.
How would you hack the new Basic rules (particularly the character creation rules) to be more inclusive of the earliest editions?
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 6, 2014 17:10:44 GMT -6
Reduce racial bonuses or kill them alltogether. Reduce stat bonuses. Cap at 18-19 with +3 No Feats Drop mega level one HPs based off Con. Reduce Damage for all weapons is d6 Use OD&D spells from Basic Redbox No healing surges
Where I am going is not a hack, it's a rewrite. Forgive me.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 17:19:39 GMT -6
I haven't done the math carefully but, at first glance, it looks like half (rounded down) of the official stat adjustments would be super easy to calculate on the fly, and would bring the numbers into line with the earliest editions.
You'd get:
04-07 -1 (call it 3-7) 08-13 +0 14-17 +1 18-21 +2 (call it 18+)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 17:28:00 GMT -6
talysman 's explanation of how Backgrounds should have been done is exactly what I was hoping for too: I was also disappointed that backgrounds turned out to be bundles of mechanical benefits instead of a brief description of the background for use with advantantage/disadvantage. "Oh, you are a former knight in the king's cavalry? You have advantage when taking care of horses or performing tricky riding maneuvers." Also disappointed that skills aren't treated as part of the same system, too. They had a real opportunity to simplify it a lot with this mechanic, and they dropped the ball.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 17:37:11 GMT -6
Huge numbers of hit points are a needless overhead IMHO, and push 5e out of the old school "scale" of reckoning.
I'd need to do the math more carefully, but once again I wonder if something as simple as half all official the hit points would be pretty close to the mark? This would, at least, be super easy to convert on the fly.
The above mentioned change to constitution adjustments would already impact hit points, of course.
Another fun option might be that all PCs should get 1d6 hit points per level (up to name level!), but fighters would be advantaged and M-Us would be disadvantaged in this roll. This would be kinda 5e/OD&Dish, perhaps, but less Holmes/B-X/BECMI-like.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 6, 2014 18:11:25 GMT -6
I haven't done the math carefully but, at first glance, it looks like half (rounded down) of the official stat adjustments would be super easy to calculate on the fly, and would bring the numbers into line with the earliest editions. You'd get: 04-07 -1 (call it 3-7) 08-13 +0 14-17 +1 18-21 +2 (call it 18+) I was thinking along the same lines... Might work if you halved the absolute value and round down. You could let the 5e fans build characters the 5e way for an OD&D game, but run skills and things differently behind the screen. For example use a d6 instead of a d20, but use the best of ability bonus or proficiency bonus as a target number to roll under. Classes are going to be harder to fix, because of the enormous goody bag of bonuses and abilities you get from race + class + subclass + archetype.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 18:28:59 GMT -6
Classes are going to be harder to fix, because of the enormous goody bag of bonuses and abilities you get from race + class + subclass + archetype. Harder, but not beyond our collective hacking capabilities
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 6, 2014 21:16:36 GMT -6
Instead of figuring a passive check number for each stat (10 + stat bonus,) just use the full stat. Since you don't roll for a passive check, this means that you are using raw ability to determine whether or not a character recognizes an obscure name, remembers useful lore, spots a hidden trigger, etc. Which makes setting DCs more natural: just ask "how intelligent or wise do you have to be to recognize or know this?"
In fact, if you use the suggestion of d6 rolls for skills I mentioned above, there's really no DCs at all, just armor, ability ratings, and proficiency bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 21:39:19 GMT -6
I agree that the "passive checks" will need a patch, particularly in light of halving the 5e stat bonuses.
Using the raw stat seems simple and natural, and implies that every point of an ability could be meaningful somewhere along the line. It is a bit of an overhead to have to assign a target number to everything; on the other hand the ref could simply roll 1d20 to determine a target number (if one isn't provided) on the fly.
Using the proficiency bonus as a chance in 6 seems neat too, although I'm not sure that being able to achieve a 6 in 6 chance is going to work.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jul 6, 2014 21:42:03 GMT -6
I agree that the "passive checks" will need a patch, particularly in light of halving the 5e stat bonuses. Using the raw stat seems simple and natural, and implies that every point of an ability could be meaningful somewhere along the line. It is a bit of an overhead to have to assign a target number to everything; on the other hand the ref could simply roll 1d20 to determine a target number (if one isn't provided) on the fly. Using the proficiency bonus as a chance in 6 seems neat too, although I'm not sure that being able to achieve a 6 in 6 chance is going to work. You could always roll a 2d6 in that case and have a fail on double 6's.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 7, 2014 5:35:43 GMT -6
Why work out a complex equation for converting 5E stat bonus into old school bonus? If you don't like the 5E one, just go with the B/X chart:
3 = -3 4-5 = -2 6-8 = -1 9-12 = +0 13-15 = +1 16-17 = +2 18 = +3
Heck, if you go with the point build the maximum you can start is a 15 in any stat (which could become a 17, I think, with racial bonus). And even though the stat chart goes to 30 I'm pretty sure it's capped out at 20 for characters (which yields a maximum of +5 on the BTB scale). The higher numbers are reserved for monsters, which also get stats.
5E really does cap things off more than you'd think. The stats start in the reasonable range and gaining a bonus at levels 4, 8, 12 or whatever isn't a big deal if you don't adventure to the really high levels anyway.
The "proficiency" bonus is one you get for doing stuff -- combat, picking pockets, whatever -- and it factors in level. It's not too far out of whack, either.
1-4 = +2 5-8 = +3 9-12 = +4 13-16 = +5 17-20 = +6
So, not counting any magic items, a 20th level fighter with a maxed out 20 strength would be +11 to his d20 roll.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2014 6:41:40 GMT -6
If you don't like the 5E one, just go with the B/X chart I don't think that halving the 5E stat bonus is onerously complicated; a trivial formula can be easier than a lookup table. Particularly if that lookup table doesn't cover the full range of possible 5E stats. The stats start in the reasonable range and gaining a bonus at levels 4, 8, 12 or whatever isn't a big deal if you don't adventure to the really high levels anyway. The 5E stats start out above average. Which is okay, I guess, if that's what you want. Then you add +1 to all of them, or +2 to one of them. Then you add a further +2 to one stat or +1 to two stats at every four levels. It's not the stats themselves that bug me particularly, but more so the high adjustments. The other part is that I find PCs with strengths and weaknesses more interesting than PCs with only strengths and stronger strengths. The "proficiency" bonus is ... not too far out of whack, either. I agree that the proficiency bonus is pretty reasonable; it's a nice smooth translation from the OD&D attack matrix to the more general proficiency bonus.
|
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Jul 7, 2014 16:40:10 GMT -6
One thing to remember is the stat increase is only there to balance those that take feats. There is no problem removing them from the game, just making it a little harder on the players.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 7, 2014 19:11:02 GMT -6
Still don't know why no one thinks of making characters pay *GOLD* for feats and spells, instead of making it a class feature. Same deal with ability score improvement.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2014 19:39:50 GMT -6
Still don't know why no one thinks of making characters pay *GOLD* for feats and spells, instead of making it a class feature. Same deal with ability score improvement. Since 1 gp = 1 XP this is a similar kinda notion to my suggestion in the other thread; paying for "add ons" with additional XP. The idea of paying with gold is probably more palatable than messing with the XP tables. So, what have we got so far for our "More Basic"? I think we might be looking at something like this: Drop stat increases, Rethink racial stat mods* Drop feats (these are not in Basic anyway), Drop subraces, Halve the stat bonuses, Keep the proficiency bonus, Convert Backgrounds into areas of "advantage". Still to think about/review: Multiple attacks/critical hits? Scale of hit points/damage. Is it reasonable to halve everything? Hit die type? Greyhawk/Holmes/5e? Or all d6s with advantage/disadvantage? Skills/tools? 1d6 or 1d20 approach? Cut back weapon/armor selection to minimal sub-list. Ascending AC? Add hirelings/retainers/morale. * Speculatively, Humans could get best 3 of 4d6 in all abilities. Non-humans could get best 3 of 6d6 in two abilities, and 3d6 in the other four. That makes total 24 dice for everyone and keeps scores in the iconic range 3-18. edit: Drop monster ability scores!! Add HD stat to monsters?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2014 0:41:49 GMT -6
Here is a comparison of the (relatively few) known 5e monster hp against their 0e ancestors: Clearly we'd need a wider sample of updated 5e stats for confirmation, but on the basis of the Legacy of the Crystal Shard PDF alone it appears that 5e monsters have, on average, roughly double the hit points of their 0e ancestors. It will be "convenient" for the purposes of translating 5e <--> 0e if this trend continues
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 8, 2014 5:22:11 GMT -6
May I ask what's your goal with this conversion? Running 5E adventures with older rules? Running older modules with 5E? Something completely different?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2014 7:33:54 GMT -6
Being able to run classic modules with a "More Basic" 5e is certainly an appeal, plus I think being able to create supplements/materials that work with the classic rules and a "More Basic" 5e right out of the box would be neat. I know only a handful of obsessive rules junkies are going to care, but hey, it's what we do for fun
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Jul 8, 2014 10:55:15 GMT -6
Still don't know why no one thinks of making characters pay *GOLD* for feats and spells, instead of making it a class feature. Same deal with ability score improvement. That's a pretty neat idea, especially in old school games where players complain they have more gold than they can spend. Maybe turn it into an adventure seed as well: you need to seek out a master in some distant land, probably living in a remote and dangerous place...and then pay the guy tons of gold to study under him.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 8, 2014 13:23:24 GMT -6
Still don't know why no one thinks of making characters pay *GOLD* for feats and spells, instead of making it a class feature. Same deal with ability score improvement. That's a pretty neat idea, especially in old school games where players complain they have more gold than they can spend. Maybe turn it into an adventure seed as well: you need to seek out a master in some distant land, probably living in a remote and dangerous place...and then pay the guy tons of gold to study under him. I once suggested using the magic research rules to set costs. Find a spell equivalent to the ability to set the "spell level", divide cost by ten if it's a non-cinematic/non-fantastic ability. So: crazy "Lightning Blade" attack for those who complain about Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard = 3rd level fantastic ability, costs 8,000 gp, takes three weeks, 20% chance of acquiring ability. Lock picking for non-thieves = 2nd level non-fantastic ability (equivalent to Knock), costs 400 gp, takes two weeks. In an RPGnet forum thread complaining about fighters being "boring", I suggested just re-skinning Magic-Users as Fantastic Fighters, using much the same idea, but got a negative reaction. Apparently, looking EXACTLY like a fighter, but being able to fling lightning bolts from your blade at 5th level, just isn't enough, because some you aren't really a fighter who is on a par with a Magic-User.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 8, 2014 16:15:24 GMT -6
talysman 's explanation of how Backgrounds should have been done is exactly what I was hoping for too: I was also disappointed that backgrounds turned out to be bundles of mechanical benefits instead of a brief description of the background for use with advantantage/disadvantage. "Oh, you are a former knight in the king's cavalry? You have advantage when taking care of horses or performing tricky riding maneuvers." Also disappointed that skills aren't treated as part of the same system, too. They had a real opportunity to simplify it a lot with this mechanic, and they dropped the ball. You will want to check out 13th Age for that kind of background/skill system. My kids group really embraced it, and got creative with it.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 8:04:20 GMT -6
Here's a closer look at PC hit points in 5e compared to 0e: I compared the sum of mean hit points to 9th level for each class in each edition (because beyond 9th is where it really slows up in OD&D). I did this with both a theoretical "middle" constitution adjustment, and also for the maximum constitution adjustment. Then I figured that, with the "middle" con adjustment in each edition, 5e PCs have an average of 243% as many hit points as 0e PCs. With the "maximum" con adjustment in each edition, 5e PCs have an average of 272% as many hit points as 0e PCs. With an average con adjustment between "middle" and "maximum", 5e PCs have an average of 257% as many hit points as 0e PCs. So 5e PCs in the most likely "playable" range have about two and a half times as many hit points as similar 0e PCs. This may well be balanced out by 5e attacks causing two and a half times as much damage (I haven't looked into that yet). If it is, then one genuinely wonders why we need to deal with bigger numbers of hit points at all..?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 10, 2014 9:21:14 GMT -6
I suspect that a lot of it is the desire to have battles rage on longer. At least, this seems to be a design goal somehow. My experience has been that 5E characters deal more damage, but I doubt that it's 2.5x as much. An interesting note is that 5E assumes full HP for the first HD and then average for each HD thereafter. (I think you could roll instead, but I've been doing it the way I just mentioned.) I've used a similar rule for OD&D and that would bring the numbers for the two editions slighly closer together, I should think. Another factor which skews the HP numbers a lot is the fact that 5E characters get healing HD equal to their regular HD, effectively doubling their hit points. That would make the 5E character have approximately 5x the hit points of the OE character. It would be interesting to include the Greyhawk version of OD&D along side the two you have done already, as they also get funky dice instead of all d6 HD. Good stuff here! You get an exalt ... er ... a "like".
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 10, 2014 10:09:41 GMT -6
One thing I pick up is that the change from rolling to building toons inflated the notion that certain toons are good and others are bad. Back in the day, the fighter was the player who chose fighter even if the toon had a 12 Strength a 8 Constitution and a 9 Dexterity. Nowadays, groups of players won't allow one to play in thier 3x, 4e parties because the build is sub optimal.
Literally, the toon hurts/detracts from the game based purely on math, so much so as to ruin it.
I find this sad. I know folks have work arounds, and other GMs would not act as such, but the games were made that way.
If I am wrong, please correct.
I wonder if 5e goes down that path.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 16:54:03 GMT -6
Another factor which skews the HP numbers a lot is the fact that 5E characters get healing HD equal to their regular HD, effectively doubling their hit points. That would make the 5E character have approximately 5x the hit points of the OE character. Whoa. That is a pretty big deal right there. Where does it cover this in the Basic rules?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 10, 2014 17:03:11 GMT -6
Another factor which skews the HP numbers a lot is the fact that 5E characters get healing HD equal to their regular HD, effectively doubling their hit points. That would make the 5E character have approximately 5x the hit points of the OE character. Whoa. That is a pretty big deal right there. Where does it cover this in the Basic rules? That's 4E. They took that rule out of 5e. Fighters can do a second wind in combat, but otherwise in order to heal you need to take a short or long rest.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 17:55:17 GMT -6
It would be interesting to include the Greyhawk version of OD&D along side the two you have done already, as they also get funky dice instead of all d6 HD. Here's the numbers of hit points for Greyhawk (and Holmes): And here is a summary of hit point magnitude across 3LBBs, GH/Holmes, and 5e: "mid" means the middle constitution adj. (+0 in 3LBBs, +1 in GH, +2 in 5e). "max" means the maximum constitution adj. (+1 in 3LBBs, +3 in GH, +5 in 5e). "play" is a theoretical compromise between mid and max (+0.5 in 3LBBs, +2 in GH, +3.5 in 5e). It's interesting that (for levels up to 9th) the GH/Holmes scheme is almost exactly half way between the 3LBB scheme and 5e. For levels above the 9th 5e will pull further ahead because GH PCs are no longer gaining HD or constitution adjustments (not to mention they need vastly more XP). So for those using the GH, Holmes, or (similar) B/X hit dice schemes, the jump to 5e hit points is not nearly so wide (up to 9th level). North of 9th level, gains for "classic" D&D PCs tend to level off, while 5e PCs continue to gain.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 10, 2014 18:15:07 GMT -6
To be fair, Gary was using addition and multiplication when figuring out HD and damage. "ok a hero is 4 men and a troll is 6 men each doing 1 HD of damage per round to each other", whereas part of the appeal of some to 5E is that they are using very high level math to figure out how long it takes a hero to not just kill an ogre, but how long it takes a party of heroes to kill multiple encounters of ogres and how much those encounters effect their total resources in a dungeon delve taking into account things like rests, second wind, wizards use of spells, group dynamics etc.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 10, 2014 19:29:45 GMT -6
Another factor which skews the HP numbers a lot is the fact that 5E characters get healing HD equal to their regular HD, effectively doubling their hit points. That would make the 5E character have approximately 5x the hit points of the OE character. Whoa. That is a pretty big deal right there. Where does it cover this in the Basic rules? Chapter 8, page 67, under "Short Rest". "A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character's maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character's level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total." Note also that, if the character can manage a long rest while on an adventure, all hit points and half the spent hit dice are restored, which makes the hit point differential even higher.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 10, 2014 19:41:26 GMT -6
How does that make hit point differential higher? Isn't that like says 0e/1e characters have 365 hit points because they earn 1hp per day of rest? Hit points gained during a rest have no bearing on hit points available in combat.
The length of rests only has bearing on the campaign calendar. A short rest could just as well be 1 day and a long rest 1 week as it is 10 min/1 day.
|
|