|
Post by talysman on Jul 10, 2014 19:50:56 GMT -6
Well first of all, 0e characters restore 1 HP every *other* day, not every day... But we're talking about a full day's rest, there, after returning to civilization. But in 5e, it's an 8 hour rest period. The other 16 hours can be spent doing *anything*, including fighting. If you can erase all damage at the end of a day of combat and fight again the next day, that certainly affects hit points available in combat.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 19:56:00 GMT -6
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. The expectation that a game should comprise balanced encounters and winnable scenarios is, IMHO, a tragic malady that seems to have crept into game design. That modern computing enables designers to realise their design expectations so completely puts them in a position of genuine responsibility. They know precisely why every number is what it is, and what it means for game play. The potential for overwhelming numbers (of foes), unbeatable monsters, and freakish treasure hauls seems "unfair" in a modern world where sensibilities are more balanced, manageable, and predicable. The players are meant to win the modern game; it's made that way with all the world's computing power to stack the numbers in favor of the designer's desired outcome. When victory becomes "business as usual", then the focus of player emotion shifts from a sense of accomplishment when they win, toward a sense of frustration when they don't. That's all a bit melodramatic, sure; realistically a lot depends on the individual players. But the gist of it is, I believe, still relevant. That is largely why this thread exists: to see if it's possible to reinvest some of those old school sensibilities into the otherwise perfectly designed modern game
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 10, 2014 19:56:04 GMT -6
No that effects the number of encounters before returning to town. Which has nothing to do with resources in any given battle.
The difference between "we take a short rest and heal" and "we go back to town for a week to heal" is one of calendar and RP and does not in anyway add or subtract resources in any particular battle other than if the DM interrupts the short rest/week in town.
Also, saying that a long rest is "only 8 hours" and that they can spend 16 hours fighting is semantics as it falls to the DM to allow or disallow sleeping in the dungeon, he may as well say that it's a week back to a safe place to be able to rest for 8 hours in one single chunk of time. Certainly if you are rolling wandering monsters every hour.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 20:02:56 GMT -6
No that effects the number of encounters before returning to town. Which has nothing to do with resources in any given battle. I think this depends on whether the 8 hour rest can be taken during an adventure (i.e., camped overnight in a wilderness), or only between adventures.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 10, 2014 20:13:04 GMT -6
No that effects the number of encounters before returning to town. Which has nothing to do with resources in any given battle. I think this depends on whether the 8 hour rest can be taken during an adventure (i.e., camped overnight in a wilderness), or only between adventures. Well, the 0d&d DM can also allow camping in the wilderness and if he only rolls 1 encounter per day and the 5e DM rolls 1 encounter per hour, the effects are in the 0e players favor, especially with regards to magical healing as an 0e cleric can cast 7 healing spells in one "long rest" (5e posits an hourly outdoor game turn where 0e posits a 1 day game turn). I do not deny 5e has lengthened the time spent in the dungeon, but that adds a level of complexity that is beyond the scope of the graphs presented.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 21:13:08 GMT -6
the 0d&d DM can also allow camping in the wilderness and if he only rolls 1 encounter per day and the 5e DM rolls 1 encounter per hour, the effects are in the 0e players favor, especially with regards to magical healing as an 0e cleric can cast 7 healing spells in one "long rest" (5e posits an hourly outdoor game turn where 0e posits a 1 day game turn). This seems like a good opportunity to rigorously compare "resting" mechanics. I'm not up to speed with "short" and "long" rests, so perhaps someone who gets it can make it blindingly obvious for me? As far as I'm aware, OD&D enforces: A dungeon-exploration-turn of rest once per hour underground (once per six turns), A wilderness-exploration-turn of rest once per week overland (once per seven turns). No hit points are recovered. Stops in town between adventures are of arbitrary duration, but are minimally whatever remains of the week of a delve. I.e, a delve many take one or several days, but whatever remains of the week is assumed to be taken up by rest, recuperation, and preparation for the next delve. The purpose of this is that only one delve is allowed per game week. Magic item construction and spell research is also in periods of game-weeks, so we might deduce that a game-week is effectively a "campaign-turn". One hit point is recovered per two game days spent resting (and this will likely determine the minimum period the players want to spend in town). Access to clerical healing could speed recovery along considerably, but it is not explicit in the rules that a cleric player can cast his full compliment of spells each game day of a "rest turn" (and casting spells would seem to preclude the cleric from claiming "rest" himself). I think it would be up to the referee to determine how this should be handled. The "costs" of resting in OD&D include: During an adventure: random monster checks, using up consumables including torches, food, water. Between adventures: progression of events in the campaign, the cost of living. Edit: 5E says: "Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day." (Basic PDF p67) A short rest is one hour long, during an adventure. The PC rolls as many of his hit die as he chooses (managing this pool across numerous short rests), and regains that many hit points. A long rest is overnight (or equivalent); it includes sleep (allowing 2 hours of watch duty!). The PCs regains all lost hit points, and recharges his short-rest HD pool (by at most half his total number of HD). I think it's fair to presume that the 5e "short" rest is intended to be used (potentially multiple times) during the course of a delve. It extends the players' collective staying power during a single dungeon delve. I.e., how much damage they can collectively sustain before they have to retire back to town or camp for a "long" rest. The 5e "long" rest is possibly equivalent to 0e's stay in town, but it need never be any longer than two days (for healing purposes), and the fact that it's allowed to include watch duty implies it might be allowable even in the wilderness, or camped right out front of a dungeon. I could find anything on the frequency of wandering monsters in 5e in the Basic PDF... is that in there?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2014 22:03:17 GMT -6
Onward to damage!
There's a case for leaving 5e damage "as is" since the scale of damage is really only meaningful relative to the scale of hit-points.
Remember that we have already halved the damage adjustment due to high strength. (If the dexterity adjustment to hit is also meant to apply to damage in 5e, I'd recommend cutting that rule for "Old School"er play).
So, assuming we want to scale 5e hit points back to the GH/Holmes level, then weapon damage is probably okay "as is" -- being very similar to GH damage. A 5e "greatsword" deals 2-12 damage, while a GH two-handed sword deals 1-10/3-18 (average 2-14) damage. A 5e "greataxe" deals 1-12 damage and must, presumably, be equivalent to a GH pole arm of some sort, which deals 1-8/1-12 (average 1-10) damage.
If we want to scale 5e hit points right back to the 0e level, then we might want to also scale weapon damage back. Speculatively one could work with: * Any weapon that deals d8 damage should deal d6 instead. * Any weapon that deals more than d8 damage should be "advantaged" on damage (higher of 2d6), or deal d8 damage instead. * Any weapon that deals less than d8 damage should be "disadvantaged" on damage (lower of 2d6), or deal d4 damage instead.
Spell Damage
It seems a lot of 5e spells deal Nd8+X or Nd10+X damage.
I'd be inclined to generically use six-sided dice for "damage spells" because in the classic D&D era everybody had lots of six-sided dice and fewer eight-sided dice. Who had 10d8 in the 70s or even in the 80s?
A few spells that already deal damage in six-sided dice may then need re-balancing (e.g., the 1st level clerical spell guiding bolt does 4d6 damage AND has a subsequent effect on combat--seems like too much to me).
On the other hand, top level spells that were classically "save or die" (e.g., disintegrate, finger of death) that have been made into vanilla damage spells should be re-instated!
Low level cleric spells that deal damage should, IMHO, be removed or rewritten to be either non-damaging or damaging only to undead (or other very specific types).
FWIW, I really like 5e's "casting at higher level" mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 12, 2014 22:07:40 GMT -6
Hack and Slash Blog has a neat write up on 5e spells and the very cool concentration mechanic. OSRToday featured it on their front page.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 13, 2014 4:20:50 GMT -6
I'm sort of bummed that so many neat topics are all hidden in one thread.
I think that the whole concept of "balance" in encounters is totally up to the DM. It's nice to have a system whereby I can quickly estimate whether an encounter is too easy or too hard, but as the DM I get the final decision on what beasties I throw at my players and they get the final decision on whether they fight or flee. Having a mechanic in place does not mean that the individual campaign has to make use of it or mean that the players have to be able to defeat a foe. That's all DM style, so I don't see this as being any different in 5E than in OD&D/AD&D unless you only play modules written to be balanced.
Also, I think that the 5E healing concept is designed to eliminate the "five minute work day" where you get up, battle monsters for five minutes, sleep for eight hours. This was a potential problem in both OD&D and AD&D because players would have to metagame to try to estimate how many other encounters they might have in a given "day" in order to conserve spells and hit points, etc. For better or worse, they "fixed" that in more recent versions of the game. Having played 5E for a while now, I actually like the way healing works. It does mean that low-level characters get to do a lot more, but it also means that I don't feel the need to level-up characters as quickly, either.
Just my two coppers.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 13, 2014 7:05:08 GMT -6
Here's some more detail on 5e vs. classic spell damage. These are the damaging M-U spells that 5e Basic has in common with classic D&D, and the average damage they do at each caster level up to 12th: What does it all mean? For those damaging M-U spells common to 5e Basic and Classic D&D, the 5e versions deal an average of 1.55 times as much damage across caster levels 1-12 as do their "classic" counterparts. (Yes, 5e spells scale by spell level, not caster level; I assumed a 5e caster using his maximum available spell level). Given that 5e characters have about 160% as many hit points as Classic (Holmes/GH) characters, then it makes sense that 5e spells should deal 155% as much damage as the Classic (now OD&D/GH/AD&D) versions of those spells. The numbers are, on average, a very close match but there are a few individual spells that differ significantly (burning hands and flaming sphere were too weak in AD&D/UA, while chain lightning could do 78d6 damage at 12th level in UA). So 5e spell damage is neatly balanced to 5e hit points, but what does that mean for us if we scale hit points back from 5e to Holmes/GH level? If we're cutting hit points back to around half (0e has about 40% 5e hit points, GH/Holmes about 60%), then we should do the same to spell damage across the board. Simplest technique seems to be to half all spell damage. One nice side effect of this might be to emphasise non-combat spells?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 13, 2014 7:26:27 GMT -6
I think that the whole concept of "balance" in encounters is totally up to the DM. ... I don't see this as being any different in 5E than in OD&D/AD&D unless you only play modules written to be balanced. If you have it handy, please check out U&WA to page 10 and note there's a 1 in 6 chance of getting encounter table 4 on the first dungeon level. That's ogres, wraiths, lycanthropes, enchanters (7th level M-Us!), evil priests (4th level anti-clerics), myrmidons (6th level fighters), etc. on the 1st dungeon level. You get table 5 encounters starting on level 2. And table 6 encounters starting on the 3rd dungeon level. That's Balrogs, Giants, Dragons, Vampires, Purple Worms etc. on the 3rd dungeon level. Yes, you'll be terrified. Yes, you'd better run! And yes, you'll get ripped apart nine times out of ten. But what if, that one time, you somehow managed to... Now that's the stuff of legend! It's certainly possible for the veteran referee who's seen every edition of D&D to apply his decades of gaming wisdom to any RPG rules and get a result that suits him. But it's a different thing to expect newcomers and young kids without that wisdom to draw similar conclusions from a few years of 4e and now 5e. They will be guided by the rules in front of them, not by your deeper experience.
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Oct 13, 2014 1:32:28 GMT -6
Resurrecting the thread. Nice thoughts everyone. Here's what I came up with:
OD&D as written (that means same 3 core classes, ability mods,spells, HP, damage etc etc) except I would incorporate backgrounds, advantage/disadvantage and ability-based saving throws form 5e. No feats, no level based ability bonuses etc. just backgrounds,saving throws and advantage/disadvantage from 5e.
My main mechanic for handling "skills" and ability saves would look something like this:
Roll d20 + ability/2 + level vs Difficulty (that's ability score and not ability modifier)
Backgrounds: give you an advantage when trying to do something along the lines of your profession so a "Sailor" would earn advantage in sailing, navigating etc
Saving Throws: 1st level characters choose 1 ability-based saving throw they are good at and earn advantage in that save. At 3rd (?) level they can choose a new ability and then again at 6th (?).
I was also thinking of having each class choose from specific saving throws but I don't know if that would add anything more than extra niche protection :
Fightning-men can choose from: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity Clerics from: Constitution, Wisdom, Charisma Magic-users from: Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma
how does it look?
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Oct 23, 2014 14:36:34 GMT -6
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. The expectation that a game should comprise balanced encounters and winnable scenarios is, IMHO, a tragic malady that seems to have crept into game design. That modern computing enables designers to realise their design expectations so completely puts them in a position of genuine responsibility. They know precisely why every number is what it is, and what it means for game play. The potential for overwhelming numbers (of foes), unbeatable monsters, and freakish treasure hauls seems "unfair" in a modern world where sensibilities are more balanced, manageable, and predicable. The players are meant to win the modern game; it's made that way with all the world's computing power to stack the numbers in favor of the designer's desired outcome. When victory becomes "business as usual", then the focus of player emotion shifts from a sense of accomplishment when they win, toward a sense of frustration when they don't. That's all a bit melodramatic, sure; realistically a lot depends on the individual players. But the gist of it is, I believe, still relevant. That is largely why this thread exists: to see if it's possible to reinvest some of those old school sensibilities into the otherwise perfectly designed modern game I think this post strikes at the heart of "hacking" 5e for an old school feel. Despite the many changes 5e makes that feel more old school, at its core 5e still operates on the same basic assumptions of 3E and 4E, that combat is the central activity of the game. And as combat is the major source of XP in the game, the players are incentivized to approach every encounter as a combat encounter, meticulously designed to be winnable no matter how tough the odds. If you really want to hack 5e for an old school feel, you need to change the reward structure of the game. The balance of XP rewards should come from exploration and treasure hunting, not combat. Doing so changes the player's incentives and the way they approach the game. If you don't change the reward structure, then none of the other changes you make will matter, at least as far as old school play is concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 19:10:06 GMT -6
The expectation that a game should comprise balanced encounters and winnable scenarios is, IMHO, a tragic malady that seems to have crept into game design. That modern computing enables designers to realise their design expectations so completely puts them in a position of genuine responsibility. They know precisely why every number is what it is, and what it means for game play. The potential for overwhelming numbers (of foes), unbeatable monsters, and freakish treasure hauls seems "unfair" in a modern world where sensibilities are more balanced, manageable, and predicable. The players are meant to win the modern game; it's made that way with all the world's computing power to stack the numbers in favor of the designer's desired outcome. When victory becomes "business as usual", then the focus of player emotion shifts from a sense of accomplishment when they win, toward a sense of frustration when they don't. That's all a bit melodramatic, sure; realistically a lot depends on the individual players. But the gist of it is, I believe, still relevant. That is largely why this thread exists: to see if it's possible to reinvest some of those old school sensibilities into the otherwise perfectly designed modern game I think this post strikes at the heart of "hacking" 5e for an old school feel. Despite the many changes 5e makes that feel more old school, at its core 5e still operates on the same basic assumptions of 3E and 4E, that combat is the central activity of the game. And as combat is the major source of XP in the game, the players are incentivized to approach every encounter as a combat encounter, meticulously designed to be winnable no matter how tough the odds. If you really want to hack 5e for an old school feel, you need to change the reward structure of the game. The balance of XP rewards should come from exploration and treasure hunting, not combat. Doing so changes the player's incentives and the way they approach the game. If you don't change the reward structure, then none of the other changes you make will matter, at least as far as old school play is concerned. I must confess that I do not understand why anyone wants to "hack" 5E to play like an old school game when you could just play the old school game to begin with. However, assuming that you do want to do so, I think edowar has hit the nail on the head when he says: I would say that you should just tell the players up front you get XP for exploration, treasure hunting and the treasure itself, good decision making and creative thinking and you get zero XP for killing monsters.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 16, 2014 19:20:14 GMT -6
When did the shift occur that dropped gold from XP? Which edition? Whose idea?
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Nov 17, 2014 1:31:59 GMT -6
3e dropped the gp = xp rule altogether. It was optional under 2e (DMG p. 47), but there were other suggestions for xp awards listed.
In 3e, xp was awarded for the monsters defeated (not necessarily killed). It also scaled to the level of the adventurer; a 10-level PC would get less xp for defeating a kobold than a 1st-level PC because the monster is less dangerous to the first PC. I had no problems with that, but I didn't like the fact that defeating monsters was the only way to gain xp.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 17, 2014 8:11:47 GMT -6
Huge numbers of hit points are a needless overhead IMHO, and push 5e out of the old school "scale" of reckoning. In my experience the power curve of OD&D with the three core books only and 5e are very similar. Plus the relative abilities of character are even better than that of OD&D. At D high level OD&D spellcasters tend to shine over OD&D fighters. In 5e this is not an issue. Doesn't make 5e better. The power curve of core book only OD&D is achieves by less everything. Less bonuses, less hit points, less armor class, etc. This is distinctly different that of 5e which achieves its balence but having less bonuses and less armor class (bounded accuracy) but increases the amount and ways of dealing damage and total hit points. The reason for this is that 5e is in part designed to give characters a moderate amount of mechanics for combat . Since 5e opted to avoid the bonus arms race that characterized 3e and 4e the only area left is in how to deal and withstand damage. 1) 5e bonuses are higher than OD&D but they follow a similar curve to that of OD&D core book only. The difference between the lowest and highest level characters in terms of bonuses are not dramatic and is less than OD&D. Armor class is on a absolute scale meaining if something has an AC 18 is because it consider to have the equivalent of plate armor not because it is a more powerful creature. 2) In general 5e character get something every even level with the occasional odd levels getting something. This results in about 12 to 15 elements per character. This is a lot more than OD&D which grants typically a half dozen or so element per characters. If you want to make 5e more like OD&D then figure out way to reduce the number of granted elements but still have the character dealing a equivalent amount of damage. 3) OD&D magic-users generally have a limited number of highly effective spells. For example sleep. In 5e the area effect spells have been toned down. 5e Sleep is not the game changer the OD&D spell is. While 5e fireball is similar to that of previous edition the higher high points, the bounded accuracy of saving throws, and the fact the amount of damage is based on spell level rather than character level. Means that creatures are more likely to survive a fireball burst in their midst. 4)Core book only OD&D didn't have much in the way of non-combat mechanics for resolving sneaking around, finding traps, picking locks, etc. Characters pretty much were equal in their ability to attempt most actions with differences due to their ability scores. While 5e has skill mechanics, it follows a similar philosophy resulting in a situation where any character can attempt anything but some are better than other. In my opinion if you want to make 5e more like OD&D than focus on simplifying the four core classes. Make it so that by 20th level you are only tracking a handful of elements for the character. For combat keep the damage the character can do equivalent to the full blown 5e counterpart. If you try to drop hit points and tamp down bonuses then you pretty much made a new RPG that will make it difficult to intregrate subsequent 5e material. If that the route you want to take then I recommend taking the reverse approach and start with OD&D and add in selected elements from 5e. What will result is something like Sword & Wizardry plus my Majestic Wilderlands supplement. I feel the following are useful elements to take from 5e. 1) Advantage/Disadvantage 2) The 5e skill list 3) Prepared spells 4) Spells based on the level of the spell slot not the character level. 5) 5e monster abilities keeping an eye making them use OD&D level of damage and OD&D mechanics where it make sense. For example goblin stealth, orc charge, zombie resilience, dragon legendary abilities.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 23, 2017 6:57:02 GMT -6
Raising this thread to ask a question. If I take a module designed for 5e and try to run it using 0e rules with 0e characters, what are the basic rules of thumb you would suggest?
Just half all monster HP? Do they list monster HD? Any tips for figuring HD if they don't?
Anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 23, 2017 10:19:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 1, 2017 17:06:27 GMT -6
Okay, I just got the adventure I was interested in. It looks really fun. A bit new-school-ish in the sense that the maps are not very wargame usable. I will have to grid and hex them myself. No big-whoop, but there it is. Otherwise, it is old school in theme and feel, a bit on the gonzo side (which I like) and there are at least maps with a key instead of a flow chart with descriptions of amazing vistas!
Here is where I need the most help:
Could someone give me a quick conversion of 5e AC to 0e AC? I just don't get ascending AC.
How about a quick conversion of "Speed" to Move rates?
Any tips on converting all HD to d6?
Here is what I am thinking:
d4 = d6-1 d8 = d6+1 d10 + d6+2 d12 = 2d6
Would that, roughly, work?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 5:21:52 GMT -6
Hey tetramorph. It's been a long while since I've looked at the details, but I'll give it a go. For AC: refer to Attack Matrix I (M&M p19). Find your 5e AC in the first column, then look to the far left of that row, where you'll see your equivalent 0e AC. For movement: I believe 5e Men (and man-types) have a 30ft move, so I'll assume (until I learn otherwise) that a 5e 30ft move ~= 0e 12" move. Scale the rest from there. For HD: What you suggested looks fine. If you want quicker, you could just substitute 0e HD figures you "know" or seem "about right" on the fly. If you want science, figure out how many 5e-hp these critters have relative to a "5e normal hit". From there it's a cinch: give 'em one six-sided HD in 0e for every "5e normal hit" worth of 5e-hp they have. The numbers I posted way back suggested that 5e has 2x the 0e number of hp. If we want to believe that, then we might crudely assume that a "5e normal hit" is gonna be about 2--12 hp (2x an 0e normal hit). Hope that helps some
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 30, 2020 14:39:33 GMT -6
Casting "raise thread." Folks involved in this thread ( talysman waysoftheearth cooper Lorgalis Finarvyn legopaidi EdOWar tkdco2 robertsconley Vile Traveller ), and really anyone, I'd love to read your thoughts on what follows. I really want to see if there is a way I could run a 5e campaign in an old school way. I want to attract people to old school play. I don't really care about the edition, per se. From there, interested folks might migrate to older rule sets, TSR era, and, eventually, the Holy Grail of (original) D&D. So I envision offering games at the FLGS, say, once a month, just to say: hey, would you like to try it old school? Promising a use of a rule set they are already familiar with. If they are not familiar with the rules, and they want to keep playing, I haven't set them back by teaching them a set of rules no one is using much these days. Anyway that is the why and the who. Now, here are my ideas: Basic 5ewith the following DMG rules variants and "gentle" house-rulings:Starting race: human. Other races: Elves, Dwarves and Halflings become available for playing characters when the party visits one of the respective homelands (Elvenhome, Dwarvendeep and Halvington, respectively) or has a random encounter with a party of said race. No subraces. Starting classes: Cleric, Fighter, Wizard. Rogue class becomes available for playing characters when party visits an adventure town large enough to have a Thieves' Guild. Ability scores: HOUSE RULE: 3d6 per ability score. Do NOT use 4d6 drop the lowest. Do not use the predetermined ability scores (B5e p. 7). Do not use point-buy (B5e p. 8). HP rolled randomly; No fixed values (B5e p.#?). NO skills: Use Ability Check Proficiency instead of skills (DMG p263). HOUSE RULE: because there are no skills, Rogues roll advantage for their listed skills. Backgrounds: do not provide skill proficiencies that alter game mechanics. Instead, use listed skill proficiencies as aids to role-play and creative problem solving. Replace "Noble" Background (B5e p. 40) with "Outlander" (PH p 136-137). HOUSE RULE: Rogues cannot have Acolyte background; Clerics cannot have Criminal background; Fighters cannot have Sage background; Wizards cannot have Soldier background. No multi-classing or feats (B5e p56). Alignment: HOUSE RULE: the referee does not allow evil playing characters at the table. Dwarves must be lawful. Halflings must be good. Rogues must be chaotic. Healing requires healing kits to use HD to recover HP (DMGp#?). [OPTION: Healing follows slow natural healing (DMGp267).] [OPTION: Rest follows gritty realism (DMGp267).] Combat uses side initiative (DMG p271). Attacks include the possibility of cleaving through creatures (DMGp272). Morale determines monster reactions and response of hirelings and retainers to threats and dangers (DMG p273). Experience points rewarded for the noncombat challenge of treasure extraction (DMG p261). One experience point awarded per gold piece value of successfully extracted treasure. NOTE: gold for experience is an important principle of old school play, because it better aligns game goals and rewards to the literature of Sword and Sorcery with its focus on gold and glory as core character motivation. Because of this noncombat challenge reward system, please note the following HOUSE RULE: experience for resolving encounters with monsters and NPCs will be awarded in experience points equivalent to challenge rating multiplied by 100. Play Style:Please note the following Old School "pillars of adventure" (contrasted with B5e p.5): exploration, encounter, extraction. Emphasis on Exploring and Problem Solving (DMGp6). Neither hack-n-slash nor immersive storytelling. Emphasis is on the use of the character as a means to simulate an encounter with a fantasy world. Although character advancement is understood as an important goal and pursuit of advancement is generally rewarded, the game is a team-sport and collective exploration and successful puzzle solving provides its own reward. The story is the result of describing the result of successful exploration and problem solving (DMGp34). There are no plot points (DMG p 269). Play starts at the level of Local Heroes where characters start as "zeroes," and progress to local hero status (DMG p37). Adventures will be location-based rather than event based, in the main (DMG p 72ff). Expect most adventure locations to be home-spun by the referee. Published modules will rarely be used straightforwardly. NPCs and monsters will in the main become more powerful and dangerous the deeper into the wilderness or underworld the characters explore (DMG p81). That said, not all encounters will be scaled to the level of the adventurers (DMGp87). Therefore, please note, HOUSE RULE: There may be genuinely random encounters that could lead to serious damage if not TPKs. Negotiation, hiding and fleeing are real and strategic options to consider. The referee will describe environments and provide some maps, especially of land areas. Players will be expected to keep their own map of underworld environments for the sake of finding their way back out, discovering strategic locations, and possibly discerning secret or hidden areas (DMG p102). Please NOTE, "mapping" is a significant player skill when playing Old School. HOUSE RULE: Recurring expenses for characters between adventures will be abstracted into a generic upkeep cost in gold pieces equivalent to one tenth of the characters last successful accrual of experience points (DMG 127). So-called "metagame" conversation is tolerable so long as discussion focuses on group strategy and does not degenerate into conversations based upon character attributes and mechanics. Play the game; don't game the rules (DMG p.235). Players may petition for the referee to make a new ruling, or politely remind the referee of a rule that may have been inadvertently forgotten. But the referee's final ruling holds. No "rules lawyering," please. (DMG p. 235). NOTE: "rulings, not rules," is a core principle of most Old School play. Dice stuff: Players make attack and damage rolls, saving throws and some ability checks. In the main, the referee will perform all other dice mechanics, including many "secret" ability checks (DMG p 235). In the main, although the referee will not so much "ignore" the dice, the referee will use dice as rarely as possible. The referee will use dice when the outcome of a character's action would not otherwise be obvious, such as in cases when success would simply be automatic (DMG p239). This "minimal-dice" approach rewards player creativity by encouraging players to problem solve as a team, using the described environment and their own equipment and magic items for answers, rather than relying upon character's stats and mechanical descriptors. (DMG p 236). Most role-play will be reported in the third person, "my character does the following." There will be times when speaking in character may be appropriate. Follow the referee's guidance with that regard. (DMG p245). Most combat will be "theatre of the mind." We will make very little use of miniatures and battle mats except when doing so clarifies tactically important information for the party. Expect the referee to create unique monsters, spells and magic items. Playing characters may research their own spells and create or commission magic items when high enough in level. (DMG p273ff). Campaign:Sword and Sorcery "Flavor": A dark gritty world of evil sorcerers, secret cults, and wretched hives of scum and villainy. The world is post-apocalyptic and most of ordinary life is nasty brutish and short. Thus the motivation for adventure is that of gold and glory, fame and fortune. This is not to say there may not be heroic pursuits, or heroic actions while pursuing gold. It is just not the main adventure "hook." Treasure is the hook (DMG pp38-39). This affects the accumulation of experience towards character advancement. See house rules with regards to experience points, above. Gods are distant, obscure, but still dangerous when summoned (DMGp9). There is one Church of Law, and several nations of Law with imperial Lawful cults. There are multiple overlapping, contradictory yet syncretically relatable chaotic pantheons. There are multitudinous Mystery Cults (DMG pp10-11). Magic is most prominent in wildernesses and dungeons as entrances to the mythic underworld (DMGp9). Magic items are rare, valuable and dangerous (DMGp24). Magic does not work well in civilization and large lawful settlements, so magic is self-regulating (DMGp24). A so-called "multiverse" will not be important to play or campaign setting description (DMGp43). The world is serious to and for the characters, but there will be enough tongue-in-check description of the world to keep things humorous for players (DMG p. 34). Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Dec 30, 2020 16:16:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 30, 2020 17:11:38 GMT -6
I got 5 torches deep and was initially excited about it, but ultimately found it unsatisfying. It is more a good start to converting 5e to OSR, but isn't really a complete game and still requires a lot of work to turn it into one. Also, the book's landscape format is annoying.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Dec 30, 2020 17:26:37 GMT -6
I got 5 torches deep and was initially excited about it, but ultimately found it unsatisfying. It is more a good start to converting 5e to OSR, but isn't really a complete game and still requires a lot of work to turn it into one. Also, the book's landscape format is annoying. It's definitely not perfect. But don't forget that I'm of the mind that: 1) The whole endeavor of OSR-izing 5E is pointless (having tried to do the same thing), because it's a ton of work for essentially no payoff (unless you just want to tap into the 5E player base). 2) It's a much better idea to incorporate any 5E-isms into your OSR ruleset as it's much easier to add some things too an OSR ruleset than it is strip away/re-write a large amount of rules from a more complex system 3) It's best to just play to 5E's strengths as a whole, and play 5E. So it was my suggestion to lighten the load for tetramorph 's goals, instead of just saying "I wouldn't bother"
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 31, 2020 0:28:00 GMT -6
First of all, let me say that this is a fine old school set of house/optional DMG rules to support old school play. After playing 5E for 5 years with just a small pause, I'd love to play it that way myself. In fact, that list will fly straight over to my DM Be aware, though, that monsters will be higher in power than the PCs of the usual level (when using CR to determine the encounter difficulty) because they tend to have higher stat bonuses than the 3d6-stat PCs. In general, playing it your way, that should not be a big problem, though. It might be with experienced 5E players who believe they "know" the enemy... You might also want to add to your rules, that HP will (I guess) be rolled randomly and not use the fixed value. Rest follows gritty realism (DMGp267). That's really the only thing that bothered me when I read it in the DMG back when I got it. Because spell-casters only regain their spell slots after a long rest, that'd mean they'd have to rest a whole week to regain their spells. Is that intentional? Also, pretty much half of the class features which require a long rest to "refresh" will be seriously powered down. Off the top of my hat, I'd say that the 4 "basic" classes you allow won't have that happen too often, though. Questions: 1.) Since you only allow players to create demihumans and thieves after "unlocking" them during play, I guess these are only available after a PC dies, right? 2.) How do you handle the rogue's expertise feature? It's a big thing that rogues in 5E are "skill experts", but if you leave out skills, will these class features just be ignored or incorporated some other way? Expertise with thieves' tools is a common thing in 5E for rogues, which makes them stand out with their thieves' skills (since anyone can use the tools, but no one is proficient in them). Edit: While I agree that it's easier to use 5E-isms in OD&D than rewriting the latter, 5E offers an action economy which isn't that easy to write "onto" OD&D, for example. It also provides a streamlined set of conditions (grappled, prone, poisoned etc).
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 31, 2020 1:33:10 GMT -6
It's definitely not perfect. But don't forget that I'm of the mind that: 1) The whole endeavor of OSR-izing 5E is pointless (having tried to do the same thing), because it's a ton of work for essentially no payoff (unless you just want to tap into the 5E player base). 2) It's a much better idea to incorporate any 5E-isms into your OSR ruleset as it's much easier to add some things too an OSR ruleset than it is strip away/re-write a large amount of rules from a more complex system 3) It's best to just play to 5E's strengths as a whole, and play 5E. 1. I wouldn't go so far as to call it pointless. While 5e is very tightly designed, there are plenty of areas to streamline 5e in an OSR style. 2. I agree it is a better idea to pull some of the best stuff from 5e into OSR, it is harder to go the other way - but not impossible. 3. It took me a long time to start playing 5e, my daughters finally got me into it, and now I love it.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 31, 2020 7:14:13 GMT -6
First of all, let me say that this is a fine old school set of house/optional DMG rules to support old school play. After playing 5E for 5 years with just a small pause, I'd love to play it that way myself. In fact, that list will fly straight over to my DM That is a great compliment. thanks hamurai. And thanks for your reply. It is exactly what I was looking for. If you ever do play this way, or similarly, let me know how it goes! Yes, sir. Will do. I will alter the OP ASAP. It looked right to me per S&S feel. But, come to think of it, I hate long rest and heal times in OD&D, so I may strike this one or leave it as "optional." Full disclosure: I haven't played 5e at all yet (except insofar as character creation is itself "play," for such an edition). I am trying to grasp things as best as I can through a thorough reading of the rules and my best imagination. This gets to one of my goals: I just have fun trying to see how to make something work to my liking, as best as possible, within the boundaries given to me. Like painting with only three colors. Brian Eno says that limiting possibility increases creativity. This is a thought experiment where I am trying to see how close to Old School play I can come using only the options available through the rules as written with as few (and as gentle) house rules as possible. Thanks for helping me to think through this thought experiment -- especially with your own experience of the actual game! 1.) No, they can let go of their current character and "retire" them in their new digs. But they must decide if they want to start at level one again or not. This is to deal with the player who says (imagine Arnold Horshack's voice here:) "oh, oh, I wanna be an ELF, I wanna be an EELLFFFF!" (because there is always one). This allows me to hold them at bay, promise they can be one, but discourage the play of nonhuman races. I just prefer a predominantly human S&S setting. 2.) Here, again, I could use your help. From my perspective as a rules-reader but non player, I can't see this hugely affecting play. They still get their bonuses when rolling checks against abilities that match up with their class and "background." The thieves background would allow them to use those bonuses with their tools in a way that other classes could not. Or am I reading this alternative ruling from the DMG wrongly? I could use some help here. Here is my goal: simplify mechanics as much as possible, nerf power-gaming as much as possible, but still honor classes (and, to a certain degree, since it seems so defining of the game, honor "backgrounds"). By "action economy" (btw, I like that phraseology) do you mean what we would perhaps call "exploration mechanics," and "exploration play"? If I am emphasizing less dice rolling and more "trust the ref" style play, how much will I need to worry about the particulars of "conditions" if I can assume that I've got a handle on the rules lawyers? Thanks for this interaction.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Dec 31, 2020 10:50:40 GMT -6
It's definitely not perfect. But don't forget that I'm of the mind that: 1) The whole endeavor of OSR-izing 5E is pointless (having tried to do the same thing), because it's a ton of work for essentially no payoff (unless you just want to tap into the 5E player base). 2) It's a much better idea to incorporate any 5E-isms into your OSR ruleset as it's much easier to add some things too an OSR ruleset than it is strip away/re-write a large amount of rules from a more complex system 3) It's best to just play to 5E's strengths as a whole, and play 5E. 1. I wouldn't go so far as to call it pointless. While 5e is very tightly designed, there are plenty of areas to streamline 5e in an OSR style. 2. I agree it is a better idea to pull some of the best stuff from 5e into OSR, it is harder to go the other way - but not impossible. 3. It took me a long time to start playing 5e, my daughters finally got me into it, and now I love it. As I said, I've been there done that. Not sure where I said I found it impossible, just not worth the effort (again, unless you are looking to enlist people who are fam with 5e) I didn't find simplifying 5E all that satisfying as a GM and it did not offer any gameplay improvements over any of my O/TSR "hacks" or Castles & Crusades. (edit- In fact, it's strict action economy suffers compared to less structured systems when you start tinkering) 5E is a fine system as is for the most part , but it's not my fave version of a modern D&D rule set by a long shot. It hasn't brought anything new or innovative mechanically (just borrowed some ideas from other RPGs) and it's just going down the same ol' corporate fiction/setting road as usual (barring the M:TG settings). :shrug: I'd be curious to hear what you feel are the gameplay improvements in your simplified/OSR-ized 5E vs. OSR games modded to taste.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 31, 2020 11:18:00 GMT -6
It looked right to me per S&S feel. But, come to think of it, I hate long rest and heal times in OD&D, so I may strike this one or leave it as "optional." Full disclosure: I haven't played 5e at all yet (except insofar as character creation is itself "play," for such an edition). I am trying to grasp things as best as I can through a thorough reading of the rules and my best imagination. This gets to one of my goals: I just have fun trying to see how to make something work to my liking, as best as possible, within the boundaries given to me. Like painting with only three colors. Brian Eno says that limiting possibility increases creativity. This is a thought experiment where I am trying to see how close to Old School play I can come using only the options available through the rules as written with as few (and as gentle) house rules as possible. Thanks for helping me to think through this thought experiment -- especially with your own experience of the actual game! There's another optional rule in the DMG which requires the PCs to have healing kits if they want to use HD to recover HP. This limits the use of HP and rests a lot, while you can still have the characters recover their spell slots normally (wizards only can recover 1/2 their level worth of spell slots with a short rest, btw). If a fight goes bad, the PCs might heal up a little but still be forced to carefully plan their next step - go on, or go back and get more healing kits. 2.) Here, again, I could use your help. From my perspective as a rules-reader but non player, I can't see this hugely affecting play. They still get their bonuses when rolling checks against abilities that match up with their class and "background." The thieves background would allow them to use those bonuses with their tools in a way that other classes could not. Or am I reading this alternative ruling from the DMG wrongly? I could use some help here. Here is my goal: simplify mechanics as much as possible, nerf power-gaming as much as possible, but still honor classes (and, to a certain degree, since it seems so defining of the game, honor "backgrounds"). A very easy-to-use and easy-to-remember rule is advantage/disadvantage (roll 2d20 and take the better/worse result). Apart from being the class with the most skill proficiencies, rogues get "expertise" in skill/tools which they focus on, and you might grant them advantage for a narrow field of expertise in their thief background, like picking locks, disarming traps, climbing, etc. By "action economy" (btw, I like that phraseology) do you mean what we would perhaps call "exploration mechanics," and "exploration play"? If I am emphasizing less dice rolling and more "trust the ref" style play, how much will I need to worry about the particulars of "conditions" if I can assume that I've got a handle on the rules lawyers? Thanks for this interaction. The Action Economy in 5E has PCs act in rounds. On your turn you can move, use an action (another move, or attack, or spellcasting, or.... - there's an official list of actions in 5E), a bonus action (some classes gain abilities which use a bonus action, for example another attack X times per rest, or something else) and you get a reaction, which can happen at any time in the round once there's a trigger, for example an enemy trying to run away from melee, you can use your reaction to do an opportunity attack. Or, the Shield spell allows you to cast Shield as a reation to being attacked. The conditions are closely defined and streamlined in their appliance and easy to manage, in my opinion. For example, a poisoned character may take some damage from the poison, but the condition itself only states that poisoned characters roll their attacks and ability checks (including skills) with disadvantage. Similarly, being paralyzed means that enemies adjacent to you attack with advantage and always do a critical hit, if they hit. You can rather easily get rid of the conditions, though, and use your own judgment. The division between action, bonus action, reaction... that's a tougher one. But they're easy to use in-game (think of Bonus Actions as, well, a bonus action on top of your regular one, but you can only ever take one Bonus Action per turn). With good judgment and an eye on the abilities and what they do, it should be easy to judge if a player can just use another one or not on the same turn, I guess.
|
|