Keeping to the default setting (5e for an old schooler)

[llenlleawg]

I'm quite pleased with the 5e books, but I have (contrary to the good of my blood pressure) dropped in on discussions at the WotC site. Mind you, a lot going on there is just fine, with people new to the game looking for help, or people sharing their excitement or confusion. However, one also sees a lot of the arguing over fine-tuning and "character builds" that so characterized a great deal at least of internet discussion of the game, but also the development of the game itself, since 2000.

So, how to avoid it as an old schooler coming to the new iteration? Stick with the defaults! So, while there are options for using a "standard array" for stats, or even for a "point buy" system, have the players roll six times, 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. That's the default, and it works just fine.

The second default is not to allow multiclassing or feats. Technically they are options, and indeed the PHB explicitly says to ask the DM if he allows it in his campaign. My suggestion, don't allow it! Then, there's no worry about someone "dipping" into this or that class to get a (likely unintended) synergy. After all, the main kinds of multiclasses are already either classes themselves, or at least subclasses. You want a fighter/magic user? Play an eldritch knight (subclass of fighter) or, perhaps, a blade pact warlock, the former putting the accent on combat, the latter on spellcasting. Want a magic user/thief? Play the arcane trickster (subclass of rogue). Someone who wants a fighter/cleric should probably play either a paladin or a cleric with the War domain.

In fact, just using the four classes and races in the Basic D&D document, but allowing, perhaps, the options for those classes in the PHB (so, the different kinds of fighter, the different specialists for wizard, etc.), no feats or multiclassing, and you already have more than enough variety for many long and fun campaigns!

[Finarvyn]

Not a bad idea. My baseline has been to start with one of the pregens from the Starter Set, then tweak from there. For example, I started with "wizard1" for the stats (and race) and then swapped out spells for ones I liked better. Pretty easy to do.

And I agree that starting with the Basic PDF is a nice way to go. Once you go up a level or two then some of the other options kick in, so you can switch to the PHB if you like. (Or just stay with Basic. It gives the most common option anyway!)

[Vile Traveller]

I'm about to start running the Starter Set with my group and I plan to run it by-the-book in order to find out how things work. Then, as always, I'll start playing with the options. Then I'll no doubt start house ruling. But from my reading so far I quite like the rules as written, there seems to be a deliberate emphasis on a kind of vague, non-definitive ruling style that I like.

[scottenkainen]

Mrs. Casper's been making me run her through the Starter Set -- a horrible chore for me because I want to fix it with house rules SO bad and she wants to play it as-is. With one exception: Mrs. Casper has never liked playing thieves (in any edition), so Edward the Halfling Thief had to pick up a proficiency for wearing medium-weight armor at 2nd level and now she's fine with him being just a 2nd-rate fighter (for whatever reason she refuses to multi-class him to fighter/thief despite playing him that way).

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Finarvyn]

My 5E experience has been sort of eclectic.
(1) I ran games with a non-released version of the PH.
(2) Then I ran games with the Starter Set / Basic rules only.
(3) Finally I've been running games with the actual PH.

Phase (2) was great (i.e. you can run a game with Basic only and be fine) except that once I'd opened Pandora's Box and allowed extra PH options a couple of my players wanted to use some of them. Otherwise, IMO the Basic game is pretty complete and you could play with those rules only for a very long time.

The key is that each class uses the common stereotype option, whereas the PH will let you break the stereotype and do other things. For example, the Basic thief is pretty much what you'd expect but in the PH you could specialize as a trickster or assassin or some such. Heck, we played OD&D for decades without the trickster so it's not like you need one! The same applies to the other classes.

Bottom line, you can go to the Basic "defaults" and play just fine. Keeps the game simple and easy to play, plus it has all of the main options most players probably want anyway.

[llenlleawg]

I don't think that the options in (3) are too overwhelming if you make sure not to use multiclassing or feats. Basically, think of it like OD&D with the supplements and some issues of Strategic Review, or OD&D c. 1976! Minimally, I think that allowing the options for the four basic classes would not cause too much trouble. Still, as you say, working only with the basic 4 as presented in the Basic Rules, plus (possibly, as you desire) the full spell list in the PHB, and you're good to go. You can always add a class if there is a specific demand for one by a specific player, which is much how the early subclasses came into being anyway.

[EdOWar]

I finally had a chance to run some 5th Edition last Saturday. Though I have a copy of the PHB, I restricted this game to just the 'basic' PDF. I still found character creation took longer than I was happy with, though I did have each player make two characters so no doubt that was part of the problem. I do like that the game pushes most of the 'archetype' decisions to 2nd or 3rd level.

If you want an 'old school' feel, I'd say just use the races, classes and archetypes in the PDF. Also, get rid of backgrounds. Instead, have players pick 2 skills, a language and a tool proficiency of their choice and give them a pouch with 20 gold.

For a little faster character creation, go with the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 ability score distribution. It's not old school, but it is fast and the game assumes higher ability scores.

Overall, though, I'm quite impressed with 5th Edition. I did forget a few things, but the game largely ran intuitively. The only time I had to stop and look something up was to reference a specific spell or monster ability. My players were quite impressed with the system as well. Given a choice between 5th and Pathfinder (our group's current version of choice), I'd pick 5th every day of the week.

[Falconer]

If you’re going to be swimming against the current of the 5e “character build” culture, why even bother trying to bend 5e to run an old school style game? If the thought is that it will be easier to find “5e players” (a mentality I don’t understand, but I’ve heard a lot), wouldn’t those players feel tricked when they discover you’re only running Basic, not allowing feats, etc.? I just have to wonder if you aren’t setting yourselves up for greater frustration and disharmony in the group.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 30, 2014 11:15:44 GMT -6 Falconer said:

If you’re going to be swimming against the current of the 5e “character build” culture, why even bother trying to bend 5e to run an old school style game? If the thought is that it will be easier to find “5e players” (a mentality I don’t understand, but I’ve heard a lot), wouldn’t those players feel tricked when they discover you’re only running Basic, not allowing feats, etc.? I just have to wonder if you aren’t setting yourselves up for greater frustration and disharmony in the group.

I think that 5E has a lot to offer, even if the "bells and whistles" of feats and skills are ignored.

For example:

--> The point build process for stats is one I'm falling in love with. I have friends who always seem to roll lucky for stats and my sister always rolls unlucky, so this at least starts everyone out equal.

--> I like ascending AC, and this is the first official D&D rules set that uses it. (Yes, I know that some of the clones use it, too.)

--> I like the fact that low-level mages get more goodies that are actual spells instead of throwing daggers all of the time.

Stuff like that. I could house-rule this stuff, but I like a lot of the way 5E is put together so I might as well use it.

[Falconer]

Sept 30, 2014 14:30:33 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I like ascending AC, and this is the first official D&D rules set that uses it.

[llenlleawg]

Sept 30, 2014 11:15:44 GMT -6 Falconer said:

If you’re going to be swimming against the current of the 5e “character build” culture, why even bother trying to bend 5e to run an old school style game? If the thought is that it will be easier to find “5e players” (a mentality I don’t understand, but I’ve heard a lot), wouldn’t those players feel tricked when they discover you’re only running Basic, not allowing feats, etc.? I just have to wonder if you aren’t setting yourselves up for greater frustration and disharmony in the group.

The thing is, or rather part of my point was, you are not bending 5e at all by removing feats and multiclassing. They are optional. Likewise, rolling for stats is the presumed, default method, as is rolling for hit points after 1st level. It's an unhappy feature that many players, probably b/c of their experience of the game since 2000 (which is not a short period of time, I admit!), have just presumed that feats, multiclassing, and character building is just "part" of the game. However, while removing these things would have been bending 3e or 4e, it is not at all bending 5e. If you just play the Basic rules, or even the full PHB but not opting for the options (and likewise, as the rules presume, deciding which, if any, of the races apart from human, dwarf, elf, or halfling can be used), then you are actually playing honest-to-goodness, not-bent-in-any-way 5e.

[fitz]

I really don't mind feats at all, the way they're handled in 5e; I have no objection at all to players getting access to rules-mechanical ways to make their characters a bit special. I really didn't like the way they were handled in 3e (and never played 4e) — the feat chains, where you need one feat to get another feat to get the feat you actually want, really ticked me off, and pandered to those who take an unseemly joy in min-max construction.

I'm not all that keen on free-for-all multi-classing though; as someone pointed out earlier, most reasonable multi-class combinations can be easily catered to by means of the existing sub-class mechanics.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 30, 2014 14:43:56 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Sept 30, 2014 14:30:33 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I like ascending AC, and this is the first official D&D rules set that uses it.

Brain glitch there. Of course 3E and 4E used it, too. I ought to have said "the is the first official D&D rules set that I've liked that uses it."