|
Post by hamurai on Apr 3, 2019 6:21:58 GMT -6
And now I found my ideas for what I called Robbers & Rulers, maybe they can serve as inspiration:
(Levels were supposed to go up to 10 and Levels were supposed to be the most important factor in play. Ability scores of 15+ would grant a simple +1 to related rolls. Checks related to your class and/or background would simply grant Advantage on the roll, or Disadvantage if it was something you couldn't possibly do/know. Average target number would be 15.)
Fighter Fighters add their level to their attack rolls with weapons they are proficient with, and get +1 HP per fighter level. At 3rd level, they select an archetype reflecting their fighting style, and sometimes their entire way of life.
Archetypes: Barbarian: Barbarians favor mobility over armor protection. When not wearing armor, their armor class is equal to their dexterity or their constitution score, whatever is higher. They can use a shield and still count as unarmored. While unarmored, they get +1 to attack and damage rolls. (Scale by level?!)
Battle Master: Battle Masters learn to use maneuvers in combat. They get a maneuver die (d6 at 3rd, d8 at 6th and d10 at 9th level) to roll alongside the attack die. If the attack is successful and the maneuver die comes up equal to or higher than the enemy’s HD (or level), choose a maneuver effect from the list: • Enemy prone (if prone is not an option, shoved 5’, if that’s also not possible, enemy gets disadvantage on next round’s checks) • Enemy shoved 5’ (if not possible, enemy prone, if that’s also not possible, enemy gets disadvantage on next round’s attacks) • Enemy outmaneuvered: choose an ally (or self) to get advantage on the next attack roll on this target • Enemy distracted: enemy gets disadvantage on next round’s attacks …or don’t deal damage and choose an effect from the list: • Enemy grappled • Enemy shield destroyed (only with a heavy weapon) • Enemy disarmed
Champion: 3rd level: Crit Range 19-20 6th level: advantage for all active physical tasks 9th level: Crit Range 18-20
Cleric Clerics add half their level (round down) to their attack rolls with weapons they are proficient with. Clerics can cast spells as miracles granted to them by their deity or worshiped power. Their Spell Save DC is calculated by adding 10 to their cleric level.
Cleric Archetypes: Healer Healers may not use their miracles to harm another living creature as their powers are considered the holy embodiment of healing. They can still use weapons, though. 3rd level: • healing spells heal +1 HP per 2 full cleric levels • turn undead: make undead creatures flee; roll d20 + cleric level vs. 10 + highest enemy HD; a number of undead equal to twice the cleric’s level are turned, starting from the lowest HD 6th level: • healing spells heal +1 HP per cleric level • turn undead: the cleric now rolls with advantage 9th level: • healing spells heal +2 HP per cleric level
War Priest War priests are proficient with simple and martial weapons. 3rd level: The war priest is now proficient with heavy armor, too. 6th level: The war priest now adds their full level to their attack rolls, just like a fighter. 9th level: The war priest may choose to learn the 3rd-level ability of either the champion or the battle master (the maneuver die is a d8 for the war priest).
Druid Druids normally shun the use of metal arms and armor, preferring natural material like bone, wood, leather and hide. 3rd level: The druid gains an animal companion. The animal must be mundane and its maximum hit dice can be half the druid’s level. 6th level: The druid’s companion animal’s hit dice may now equal the druid’s level. The beast must still be a mundane animal. The druid may choose a new companion or level up their existing one, which is infused with the magic of the spirits of nature. 9th level: The animal companion may now also be a magical beast like a griffon or pegasus, for example.
Rogue Rogues add half their class level (rounded down) to attack rolls with weapons they are proficient with.
Rogue Archetypes Scoundrel 3rd level, 6th level, 9th level: Choose 1: Team fighter: Gain advantage to attack rolls when attacking an enemy that is also engaged in close combat with at least one of your allies. OR Learn backstab: When attacking with advantage, roll damage with advantage. This ability requires a lot of mobility and requires the scoundrel to be lightly or not armored. OR Gain a new skill proficiency.
Ranger Choose a favorite fighting style: ranged or close combat. You add your full ranger level to attack rolls for your favorite fighting style. 3rd level: Choose 1: Get one favorite enemy: Gain advantage on all lore checks relating to the enemy and learn their language. Additionally, you add your full ranger level to all attack rolls against that type of enemy. Examples for favorite enemies are humanoids, beasts, fey, devils, and so on. OR Get an animal companion as a 3rd-level druid. 6th level: Choose 1: Roll with advantage for initiative due to your quick reflexes OR Gain new favorite enemy. OR Get an animal companion as a 3rd-level druid. If you already have an animal companion, your animal companion is now like a 6th-level druid’s. 9th level: Choose 1: Roll 2d6 for initiative because of your lightning reflexes. OR Crit Range 19-20: Score critical hits on a roll of 19 or 20. OR Get an animal companion as a 3rd-level druid. If you already have an animal companion, your animal companion is now like a 6th-level druid’s. If you already have a companion as a 6th-level druid, gain an animal companion as a 9th-level druid.
Magic-User (I didn't really come that far. I stopped development as I started experimenting with a completely new, non-Vancian spell-casting system for MU's which is based on d6 pools. I might share this at some point, too, if folks are interested)
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 3, 2019 8:19:34 GMT -6
I used several 5th edition concept in my Majestic Fantasy Basic Rules. Most importantly is the advantage/disadvantage in lieu of bonus. www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdfWhat monsters look like www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Monsters%20Sample.pdfPotions and Elixirs which an example of what magic items look like www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Herbs%20and%20Potions%20Rev_02.pdfCharacter Sheet www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MWCharSheet_Rev2.pdfA useful aid Randomized Memorized Spells with the feature that is based on my experience on what players pick rather than giving all spell equal weight. www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Random%20Memorized%20Spells.pdfWrapping it upThe initial form of the above predates 5th edition. The major changes I made was ditching my old bonus system of -4/-2/0/+2/+4 in favor of advantage/disadvantage. I was also inspired by the idea of bounded accuracy to come up with the idea that some ability tests are based on the number of successful ability rolls rather than a single opened ended roll. This still rewarded those with high ability bonuses but put a cap on the maximum benefit from a successful roll. For example using Physician for First Aid, I have the player make two rolls. If both are successful the character is healed 2 hit point, if only one, then the character is healed for 1 hp. I when through the spells and converted any alternative dice rolling system, like percentage, into a d20 roll high equivalent. Where it made sense eliminated use of tables like making sleep 4d4 hit dice with only 4 HD or lower are effected. For classes I try to add one or two thing to make them more nuanced. For example Fighters get to add their to-hit bonus to the initiative die roll. It had a surprisingly positive effect on how players perceived fighters. Comments welcomed
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 3, 2019 9:09:16 GMT -6
Lots of good ideas and food for thought in this thread! 😁
I especially like the idea of de-emphasising abilities, and getting rid of straight bonuses in favour of advantage/ disadvantage. The value vs. complication of +1 on a d20 roll is debatable.
One thing I'll ditch is choosing a specialism at 3rd level, though. I think people should be able to make up their mind whether they want to be a thief or an assassin at 1st level.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 3, 2019 10:27:30 GMT -6
I especially like the idea of de-emphasising abilities, and getting rid of straight bonuses in favour of advantage/ disadvantage. The value vs. complication of +1 on a d20 roll is debatable. There is a benefit and a downside The benefit is that players seem to "get" it more than any type of bonus system I seen used not just D&D but most RPGs I ran. The downside is that you have three levels of modifiers and lose some nuance. Granted for what this group is interested in we don't need much nuance but still having five levels (-4/-2/+0/+2/+4) seem about right. But d**n do players really "get" advantage/disadvantage. So it is adv/disad for the win.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 3, 2019 10:30:39 GMT -6
Also when doing any type of work like this thread is doing. The reason why 5th edition has inflated hit points is that it allows for variety at higher levels. Basically high level in 5e means a character to do more damage in more ways.
Because of bounded accuracy, high level can and do miss, low levels can and do hit. Compared to D20 systems (3.X) where not only high level character can do more damage in more ways, they are harder to hit, and far more likely to be able to hit.
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Apr 4, 2019 21:11:25 GMT -6
A friend of mine recently started a new 5E game at our FLGS running Goodman Games In Search of the Unknown/Keep on the Borderlands conversion. The primary rule change he implemented is that XP is only gained for treasure returned to town. Absolutely no treasure for killing monsters, deactivating traps and so forth. And it has worked brilliantly so far. The games have proven so popular that we regularly run 3 tables (with the same adventure), of which I'm one of the DMs.
In Search of the Unknown comes pre-stocked, but I can tell the author definitely did not use 5E encounter building tables. This means lots of difficult encounters, and lots of running away to regroup and heal. And it also means smarter play on the part of the players (if they want to live). It also doesn't have a lot of treasure, so leveling from 1 to 2 still takes 3-4 sessions despite only needing 300 XP (there's also a lot of players dividing the xp/treasure), slowing down advancement.
Keep of the Borderlands/Caves of Chaos is a direct port. The monsters are just stated out in 5E terms, with no attempt to balance encounters (or rewards). Again, this leads to some very tough fights, even against normally weak monsters. A couple of weeks ago my party walked away from a fight with the kobolds because they thought the risk-reward just wasn't there. One of the PCs cast Charm Person on the kobold chief and they talked their way out of a tight situation. I was so proud of them! Though, I suppose, had they been smarter they wouldn't have gotten into a tight spot in the first place.
My suggestions for running 5E with an old school flavor: - XP for gold only - Ignore encounter building tables altogether; go ahead and add dangerous encounters - smart players will figure things out - Maybe throw in some of optional rules from the DMG for grittier games - If you want more lethality, only allow a single Death Save - If you're going for an old school feel, just use the basic rules PDF, which only has Cleric/Fighter/Thief/Wizard
However, just implementing XP for gold, combined with old school dungeon stocking, has gone a long way towards encouraging an old school style of play (at least at my table). PCs don't just charge into every fight expecting to win. The players purposely avoid fights that look too difficult, especially if they think the reward isn't there. And they don't waste a lot of time screwing around in the dungeon.
One thing they do need to work on is the exploration aspect of the game. They missed a lot of secret rooms in Quasqueton, despite mapping the dungeon. Yes, some of the players actually mapped!
Anyways, I hope my experiences have been of some use. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2019 5:48:55 GMT -6
FWIW, and just to add to the pile of "lore" accumulating here, I compared 5e wizard to 0e M-U spell casting progression. If we assume 1 XP is 1 XP, regardless of edition, then it's possible to line up the two M-Us side by side and take a look. The relatively speedy progression through 5e low levels means the 5e Wiz hits level 4 about the same time the 0e M-U hits level 2. Turns out there are five of these "XP equivalent" touch points (beyond 1st level) across the level progression. The last one is when the 5e Wizard hits 19th at 305,000 XP and the 0e M-U hits 11th (Top Level) at 300,000 XP, respectively. Interestingly (and encouragingly) this implies both careers are played out across a more or less equivalent XP range. From there it's possible to count the number of spells throwable by each with any given number of XP across their progressions, and hence compare "fire power". It's clear from this how much the low level 5e wizard's spell casting has been beefed up. Across the first 5,000 XP of their careers (comparing the number of spells throwable at: 0 XP, 1 XP, 2 XP, 3 XP, . . . all the way up to 5,000 XP) the 5e Wizard has an average of 4.1 times as many spells available as the 0e M-U ( excluding cantrips which are a reasonably big deal in this level range). Furthermore: Across the first 10,000 XP of their careers the 5e wizard has 3.1 times as many spells. Across the first 20,000 XP of their careers the 5e wizard has 2.2 times as many spells. Across the first 355,000 XP of their careers the 5e wizard has 1.3 times as many spells. Regarding spell levels, between 300 XP and <120,000 XP (representing the majority play, I'd hazard) the 5e wizard virtually always has access to spells of one higher spell level than does the 0e M-U. Beyond 120,000 XP it tilts harder with the 5e Wizard progressing to spell levels 7 (120k XP), 8 (165k XP), and 9 (225k XP), while the 0e wiz reaches 6th level spells at 400k XP. With this info we can plug 5e's number of spells throwable into the 0e M-U table at the XP equivalent levels, like this: The dark rows (0e levels 2, 6, 9, 10, 11) are "XP equivalent" to 5e levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19. The light rows (0e levels 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8) have no obvious "XP equivalent" level in 5e, so I filled them in logically to make the overall progression work. I recognise that many of the 5e spells are not directly comparable to their 0e counterparts, but it's an interesting visualisation
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2019 18:02:52 GMT -6
If we assume 1 XP is 1 XP, regardless of edition Hmm. Pondering this assumption some more, I'm thinking XP is a sounder basis for comparison, rather than assuming that 5e and 0e levels are somehow equivalent. With this underlying premise, I'd need to revisit the player-type hp comparisons I did earlier.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2019 18:07:36 GMT -6
My suggestions for running 5E with an old school flavor: - XP for gold only - Ignore encounter building tables altogether; go ahead and add dangerous encounters - smart players will figure things out - Maybe throw in some of optional rules from the DMG for grittier games - If you want more lethality, only allow a single Death Save - If you're going for an old school feel, just use the basic rules PDF, which only has Cleric/Fighter/Thief/Wizard However, just implementing XP for gold, combined with old school dungeon stocking, has gone a long way towards encouraging an old school style of play (at least at my table). PCs don't just charge into every fight expecting to win. The players purposely avoid fights that look too difficult, especially if they think the reward isn't there. And they don't waste a lot of time screwing around in the dungeon. Super advice EdOWar thanks for sharing
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2019 18:49:04 GMT -6
The reason why 5th edition has inflated hit points is that it allows for variety at higher levels. Basically high level in 5e means a character to do more damage in more ways. The issue with this argument is that magnitude of damage is only relative to the magnitude of hp that can be sustained. 6 hp damage is a killer blow in 0e because an 0e orc has 1--6 hp, but the same 6 hp damage is a glancing blow in 5e because a 5e orc has 8--22 hp. This is a matter of granularity rather than variety. An 0e-hit-point is a coarser-grained thing than is a 5e-hit-point. A 5e-hit-point is a finer-grained thing than is an 0e-hit-point. The upshot of this is that the smallest damage accountable (1 hp) is more significant in 0e than it is in 5e. I.e., the smallest possible damage (1 hp) is meaningful even to a 0e superhero who likely has 30-ish hp, whereas 1 hp damage is trivial to a 13th level 5e fighter who likely has 120-ish hp, as well as a whole bunch of self healing features. (A 13th level 5e fighter and an 8th level 0e fighter are "XP equivalent"; both require 120,000 XP; they represent "equivalent" progression through their respective career arcs). Arguably, I can cause harm in just as many and varied ways in 0e as I can in 5e, albeit some might be narrative or house ruled because the 3LBBs are not exhaustive. But it's not obvious to me that larger numbers of hit points enables increased variety in the ways harm can be caused.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 8, 2019 6:52:49 GMT -6
But it's not obvious to me that larger numbers of hit points enables increased variety in the ways harm can be caused. Because the amount of damage done per round also increases. The single attack is boosted over OD&D due to attribute and character ability bonuses. But it not the main source of increased damage. It found in various character abilities. For example for a fighter; a one time (per long rest) action surge is gained at 2nd level. Multiple attacks are gained at 5th level. Which combined with the above allows four attacks to be executed in one round one time between rests. This is one top of the bonuses added to daamge with typically ranges for fighters between +2 (14 str) and +3 (16 str). And there is some damage mitigation going on but mostly it is about being able to do more damage in more ways as you level irregardless of class. How that it accomplished differs between the different classes as well the timing of the damage. It hard to see this with all the verbiage in the basic rules or the PHB. But when you lay it out in a bullet list it become clear how WOTC designed this. drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8T05PUENoUi1RUDgFrom running the same setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, in two different campaigns; one using OD&D rules the form of Swords & Wizardry and the other using 5th edition, it became apparent that the two share a similar power curve. But achieved with two very different approaches. Which if you going to tweak 5th edition to make it more like OD&D you need to keep an eye on how much damage per round (roughly) the characters are able to do versus the monster hit points. In addition you need to track how fast the character can recover. In Adventures in Middle Earth the rest rules changes to where you can only take a long rest in a secure area like home, refuge, or a town. As a consequence the game became a lot more gritters especially as the exhaustion mechanics play a bigger role in AiME. Which bring up another area worthy of investigation. OD&D has idea that you need to rest 10 minutes every hour while exploring dungeons. With the exhaustion mechanics you may be able to work in that in a way that not just an arbitrary X out of Y.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 8, 2019 13:20:48 GMT -6
But it's not obvious to me that larger numbers of hit points enables increased variety in the ways harm can be caused. Because the amount of damage done per round also increases. ============== Which if you going to tweak 5th edition to make it more like OD&D you need to keep an eye on how much damage per round (roughly) the characters are able to do versus the monster hit points. Not to pry, but isn't that a zero-sum game? If monsters and players gain more HP and more damage in-step with one another, and you choose to replicate 5e's encounters-per-day setup, isn't that encouraging stagnancy? One of 5e's flaws, in my opinion is its (rather messily enforced) encouragement of balancing combat for the players. I would sooner copy the Arnesonian method of multiple Hit Dice for damage; that to me seems more elegant than 5e's unwieldy arrangement of rest-oriented abilities and multiple attacks. Mostly unrelated, but if I were trying to make a hybrid between 0e and 5e, ability bonuses would be the first thing to go. Thanks to the proliferation of ability bonuses over time and number of classes, it's near-objectively "wrong" to play, say, a low-INT wizard. In OD&D such a thing is a non-issue, and a dislike the modern sensibility because it encourages members of a certain class to all look and play alike.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 8, 2019 20:35:48 GMT -6
Not to pry, but isn't that a zero-sum game? If monsters and players gain more HP and more damage in-step with one another, and you choose to replicate 5e's encounters-per-day setup, isn't that encouraging stagnancy? One of 5e's flaws, in my opinion is its (rather messily enforced) encouragement of balancing combat for the players. In my experience it takes about the same amount of PCs at a roughly the same level in both systems to take down a Frost Giant. The same with any arbitrary PC group versus a group of monster. However how it done in terms of mechanics is very different. D&D 5th edition both sides have more attacks and more hit points than their OD&D equivalents. 1st level OD&D Fighter versus a 1 HD Orc work out the same as 5e 1st level Fighter versus a 5e Orc. I would sooner copy the Arnesonian method of multiple Hit Dice for damage; that to me seems more elegant than 5e's unwieldy arrangement of rest-oriented abilities and multiple attacks. That probably would work but it not a 5e and OD&D blend. Mostly unrelated, but if I were trying to make a hybrid between 0e and 5e, ability bonuses would be the first thing to go. Thanks to the proliferation of ability bonuses over time and number of classes, it's near-objectively "wrong" to play, say, a low-INT wizard. In OD&D such a thing is a non-issue, and a dislike the modern sensibility because it encourages members of a certain class to all look and play alike. Not my experience due to the variety of available choices even one is focused on optimization. The choices are not quite as diverse as D&D 4th edition but still way more than most options in any classic edition. The important side effect of D&D 5e design is that I can take a OD&D adventure like Tegel Manor sub in the 5e edition equivalent and it will run the same. What easy remain easy, what tough is still tough. And this is based on actual play in the campaigns I ran. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 9, 2019 5:38:26 GMT -6
Because the amount of damage done per round also increases. The single attack is boosted over OD&D due to attribute and character ability bonuses. But it not the main source of increased damage. It found in various character abilities. For example for a fighter; a one time (per long rest) action surge is gained at 2nd level. Multiple attacks are gained at 5th level. Which combined with the above allows four attacks to be executed in one round one time between rests. This is just more attacks doing more damage. This is quantity (of damage), not variety (of ways damage can be caused). I still haven't seen a way a 5e fighter can cause harm that an 0e fighter can't, and I don't expect to because they are conceptually capable of all the same things. If anything, the 0e fighter is all the 5e archetypes rolled into one, so he is not limited to just one archetype. FWIW, the 0e fighter also gets multiple attacks vs normals from 2nd level.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 9, 2019 6:55:34 GMT -6
If anything, the 0e fighter is all the 5e archetypes rolled into one, so he is not limited to just one archetype. The Fighter:Champion that is in the SRD is meant to be straight forward in the matter of how fighter are traditionally treated. This is just more attacks doing more damage. Action Surge allows a character to take another action. It could be a second attack but it can be any other 5e action or something a player thinks of that fits. So it more nuanced then just doing more attacks. For example a player could use Action Surge to disengage from an opponent who would not get an attack for the character retreating, move to a friend in trouble, and then use their normal action to take or to something else relevant. This is quantity (of damage), not variety (of ways damage can be caused). I still haven't seen a way a 5e fighter can cause harm that an 0e fighter can't, and I don't expect to because they are conceptually capable of all the same things My point is about how the mechanics of 5e work. Outside of the mechanics, I assume for both systems that anything that make sense for the character to do within the setting still a basis for a ruling. As for a 5e Fighter that is different you have to look at the other Archetypes. The champion is meant to be similar to a classic D&D fighter. The Eldritch Knight is a different style of fight, and the Battle Master is more about combat maneuvers and setup more like how the D&D 4th edition fighter was setup. For ExampleIn 5th edition Fighter Archetypes differ by what they get at 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level. A champion gets improved odds of a critical at 3rd, A bonus to physical tasks at 7th, an addition fighting style at 10th, another increase in the odds of a critical at 15th, the ability to heal if below 1/2 hit points at 18th. In contrast as Eldritch Knight foregoes the above and get to cast spells at 3rd level, get to bond with a weapon so you call always ready it to your in a manner like Marvel Thor's hammer at 3rd level, at 7th level can cast a cantrip and attack with a weapon, at 10th level anybody you hit with your weapon has a harder chance to make a save against your spells, at 15th level use your Action Surge to teleport, and at 18th level when you cast a spell you can attack with a weapon. Because of the structure of D&D 5e both character are equivalent in effectiveness. In classic D&D it more muted with fewer abilities changing between the different subclasses. Like the Ranger dropping down a hit die type, adding spells and wilderness abilities. FWIW, the 0e fighter also gets multiple attacks vs normals from 2nd level. I am aware of the rule and use it myself but not applicable against monsters in the way 5e class abilities are. Wrapping it upMy points address only how the D&D 5e mechanics work. Which leads to why I am making this points. I am pointing out design features of D&D 5th edition, not trying to make the claim is that is somehow better or worse in regards to classic D&D. The implication of my points is that if one takes away class abilities then hit points totals need to drop. Otherwise the combat will become a slog. Since this thread about a merger of OD&D and D&D 5e mechanics and from reading the subsequent conversations, one step would be to reduce the complexity of the classes downwards. Hence why I pointed out this aspect of 5th edition's design.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 19, 2019 22:07:21 GMT -6
I think before getting into this seriously, you have to decide: why are you doing this? This is, perhaps, the salient question in this topic to date. For me, I'd like to be able to coax some local 5e players (subtly or overtly) toward a more 0e style of gameplay. The two core elements (as I see it) are: 1) More abstract, faster combat resolution. I.e., at the "sides" (rather than the "blow-by-blow-dodge-parry") level of detail. The point is to spend less time on ultra detailed combat resolution, and more time on dungeon and wilderness exploration, and (later) campaign geopolitics. 2) A more "blackbox" style of gameplay. I.e., players rely less on "the rules"; refs rely less on pre-canned "story arcs"; both participate more in a creative/conceptual campaign development. Probably 1 goes a fair way toward enabling 2. For this to be practical, there would need to be a handful of neat tables that map 0e and 5e standards to whatever middle ground is established (shall I call it "50e"?). Frex: * Show how the standard 0e and 5e player types map to 50e. * Show how the standard 5e/0e player "powerz" map to 50e. * Show how the standard 5e/0e monsters map to 50e. * Provide a superfast-in-your-head translation for on the fly 5e/0e to 50e calcs. This should be something like: halve all 5e damage/hp/d20 adjustments; double all 0e damage/hp/d20 adjustments. It's more important to be practical than perfect. For anyone (beyond contributors to this topic) to care or bother or be vaguely interested there would have to be demonstrable benefit. I'd like to think these could include: * Quicker combat resolution, * More game-time achieving campaign development outcomes (enabled by spending less game-time on combat minutia), * Cross edition gaming: --- 0e and 5e characters at the same table? (an early 5e design goal that never really AFAIK materialised) --- Running 5e and/or 0e dungeons "on the fly". This is just me kicking tyres. Hoping this speculation might generate constructive input from some of the great imaginations present...
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 27, 2019 10:07:48 GMT -6
Briefly, here's what I'm doing so far. Bear in mind that, as usual, I'm bending things towards Holmes rather than OD&D where they differ. In essence, I think what I'm doing mainly is skinning the core 5E system with a Holmes flavour overlay. That does mean that balance goes out the window, hey-ho. I will implement some of the DMG options, e.g. on long & short rests, but avoid house-ruling where possible. I use the base rules of 5E where possible, with the below major changes. I'm going to write this up and publish it. One day ... - PC Species: Humans, halflings, elves, and dwarves as PC species, with the caveat tha anything goes with the referee's agreement. Traits are based on Holmes, not 5E.
- PC Classes: Fighters (champion archetype), clerics (life domain), magic-users (arcane traditions become colleges), and thieves (thief archetype) as PC classes. Working on a fighter/magic-user combination for elves, or just combination class rules to supplant multi-classing. Abilities mainly converted from Holmes/OD&D, but with 5E progression.
- Backgrounds: Nope, but I do allow extra proficiencies under classes to make up for the loss.
- Equipment: Equipment is bought from the list, I still need to work out the 3d6 gp-price-equivalency. I'll probably cut down the equipment list a bit, too.
- Feats: Nope.
- Combat: Holmes initiative, parries, I think that's it - otherwise 5E.
- Spell Casting: Mostly 5E, but I have those un-transportable Holmes magic books (clerics have equivalent "holy books").
- Spells: No cantrips, but M-Us can write scrolls as per Holmes and Clerics can create holy water and "healing" potions (includes cure disease, neutralise poison, remove curse, etc.). Spell slots and rules are 5E. The spell list and effects come straight from Holmes or OD&D.
- Creatures: The base list is out of the Holmes book, including some non-standard ones like cyclopians and dreenoi, plus normal and giant animals - I think these are all that's needed for a campaign world. When the fancy strikes me I'll introduce new species. All are based on Holmes rather than 5E.
- Magic Items: Straight out of Holmes/ OD&D. No attuning, or limits. If PCs want to carry golf bags of magic swords, that's up to them (rust monsters can smell those a mile away).
|
|
|
Post by Radio Dask on Jun 8, 2019 17:13:31 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 8:07:28 GMT -6
Hello
I'm working on such a project. I don't plan to publish it (the world doesn't need yet another retro clone), it's for my personal amusement but I will send it to anyone interested once it's finished. I would like advice and feedback though so here are my thoughts.
In terms of content it's OD&D (races, classes, spells, magic items. monsters, etc). This is basically for my personal sanity to keep things tight, because once we get to AD&D the whole thing gets huge. OD&D even with supplements, Strategic Review and Dragon articles is far more manageable. Some things will go though, like Psionics and the Monk class.
The purpose is to return D&D to its literary roots, "purging" it from more modern influences like anime or video games and fantasy literature which was written after D&D. Most of this stuff was heavily inspired by D&D so we have a vicious circle. The playing style will also return to the days when characters were mortals and not super heroes, the game was deadly and encounters were not designed to scale with PC level.
Apart from playing style, one more reason to return to OD&D is the problem of bonus inflation which gets worse with each edition and each supplement. This inflation is not symmetric so certain things have become too powerful and some were left behind. Take for example the magic weapon. Even a +1 bonus when you didn't get any to hit bonuses from high strength and +1 to damage when all characters and monsters had d6 for hit die was a significant boost. But when you get so high attack bonuses and huge bonuses to damage from feats and the like, the +1 weapon (even a +3) seems insignificant in comparison. So let's go back and try to rebalance the whole thing. 5e has taken some steps, but characters are still super heroes and hit point inflation is huge.
So in short: keep old school feel, remove power creep and the "character build" but have a bit of modern game design like a unified task resolution system.
Ability scores: roll 3d6 7 times assign the best 6 as you desire. The discarded 7th result is your beginning luck score. You can burn one point to make one reroll. You gain one luck point per level or if the GM decides you have done something noteworthy. The game will be deadly (with undead draining levels, a lot of save or die rolls) so this mechanic is used to mitigate it a bit.
Ability score modifiers are per Basic D&D (+3 for 18) so somewhat more modest than the WOTC era bonuses. You can increase one ability score per 4 levels up to racial maximum (taken from AD&D, so 18 in most cases). While ability score increase didn't exist during TSR era D&D I feel players like to get that sense of improvement and think that at some point their characters will become the strongest, fastest, smartest men in the realm if they manage to survive that long.
Races: The standard four, with bonuses and penalties as per AD&D but everything in "5e speak". Humans will get certain bonuses in order to make them the most desirable pick. I think it's far better than level limits, since some are so far into the future (and you don't know if the campaign will ever get there) that they are not a hindrance at all.
Classes: Assassin, thief, fighter, paladin, ranger, magic user, cleric, druid, bard (completely redesigned, I will see about that) and berserker. The last one kind of existed in OD&D (a dragon magazine article for a NPC class) but since a lot of players like to play a "barbarian" I have to include it. The illusionist is merged with the magic user (I don't like that term, so I'll call the class mage or wizard). Class abilities will be pretty much like OD&D in 5e speak, but some will get a bit of a boost (the fighter, the thief) and some will get nerfed (spellcasters mainly). Paladins, rangers, bards won't cast spells.
XP: Unified xp table based on the fighter (2000,4000,8000,16000,etc). I like the DCC idea of playing 0 level characters so you also have -1 level or unclassed at -1500 xp and 0 level "apprentice" (your standard 0 level soldier for example) at -1000 xp. XP for gold: Sort of. First I'm moving the game to a silver standard so it's xp for silver and second you gain xp for training with a mentor whom you have to pay. This takes time (say 1 week per 1000 sp/xp spent/gained per character level: so a 3rd level character will spend 3000 sp in one week of training and gain 3000 xp). Since you can't always have a mentor or you don't have the time to train, there's a "fast track" method: donate money to the church. You gain 50% in xp.
Multiclassing: Under consideration. My idea is this: when you multiclass your next character level is the -1 of the second class (so you gain nothing) the next is 0 level (you gain some) and the third is first. Then you gain levels to your second class until you reach the level of the first. Then you progress on one level per class. Example: a 3rd level fighter wants to become a wizard. His next level up (4th character level) is at 8,000xp where he becomes 3rd level fighter/-1 level wizard and gains nothing apart from advancement in his proficiency bonus. At 16,000xp he becomes 3rd level fighter/0 level wizard, at 32,000 xp he becomes 3rd level fighter/1st level wizard. At 64,000 xp he becomes 3rd level fighter/2nd level wizard and at 128,000 xp he becomes 3rd fighter/3rd level wizard. From then on he must advance on one one basis (4th level fighter/3rd level wizard, then 4th level fighter/4th level wizard and so on). The two classes must never have more than one level difference. This will deter most players from multiclassing and only characters with long lifespans would choose such a path (eg elves).
Magic: Ok, here's the big heresy and a huge deviation from standard D&D. Everybody has spell slots. One table for everybody with far less spell slots than any other version of the game to keep spellcasters somewhat in check at higher levels. Level 20 is: 3/3/3/3/3/2/1/1/1. Druid and cleric spells cap at level 7 so the 8th and 9th level spell slots are simply used for extra lower level spells.
Mages use vancian magic as usual (the classic, not the 5e system) but they can only memorise one version of each spell (so no 3 fireballs for example). Druids don't have to memorise spells, but they can learn a limited number of spells, like the 5e sorcerer. That's druidic knowledge passed from druid to druid verbally. Clerics use charisma and not wisdom as their prime requisite. The cleric's main purpose is to proselytise either by convincing the unfaithful or through violence. He can cast any spell in the cleric spell list but he has to pray to god (he makes a roll) to perform the miracle. If the result is a failure the spell slot is lost for the day. There are situations which grand advantage or disadvantage to the roll.
Now the whole magic thing is based on alignment. There is law (god, heaven, angels and saints) which is served by clerics, chaos (satan, hell, demons) and balance (neutral) which is the druidic "pagan" religion of nature and its many "gods" or nature spirits. Now for the servants of chaos...I don't feel the anti-cleric is satisfactory. Why would they use blunt weapons? Why would their spells have 7 levels like the 7 heavens? Why would they be the same (with only a few reversed) as their lawful counterparts? I think it would be far more fitting to put mages as the servants of chaos. Mages can either be neutral or chaotic. Most want to control the forces of chaos for their benefit (or perhaps the benefit of mankind). But this path is hard. Some prefer the easy way (or eventually get corrupted) of becoming servants of chaos and have demons as mentors. Instead of forcing demons to serve you, you eventually become their servant. So arcane magic is met with suspicion by society because corruption is very likely.
Skills: Nope, well, kind of. I'm not against a skill system, on the contrary, but D&D is a class based, not a skill based game. You have two abilities where you can apply your proficiency bonus (it includes "skill checks" and saving throws) based on class. Each class has abilities (for example the thief's "pick pockets") where it excels. Characters add double their proficiency bonus in such abilities.
Backgrounds: Kind of. Basically an ameliorated AD&D "secondary skill" system where you have a profession, which gives certain mechanical benefits. For example an armorer can craft armor a healer can tend to wounds etc.
Hit Dice: D6s for everybody! Fighting classes get 1d6 + con modifier for each level up to level 9, mages every 2 levels up to 5d6, thiefs/clerics 2 every 3 levels up to 7d6. At levels you don't get a hit die you get one hit point. Fighting classes get 2 hit points, from level 10 onwards, everybody else 1 hp. To make the game less deadly, these hit dice are added to your initial hit points which are 1d6 + con modifier. A non classed human has 1d6 hit points, so characters logically start with that as well and character class levels add hit dice on top of that.
Proficiency bonus: As per 5e but more gradual. At 0-2 levels it's +0, at 3-5 +1, 6-8 +2 and so on up to +6.
Armor Class: Ok Armor matters a lot. Light armor (gambeson or leather) AC 12, medium armor (mail) AC 14 (requires str 13+), heavy armor (plate) AC 16 (str 15+), shield +1. Since attack bonuses are far lower even a high level character will have a hard time hitting someone in plate. Also weapons will have advantage/disadvantage against each armor. A sword for example is very inefficient against plate armor so it will have disadvantage (so hitting AC 16 with disadvantage is highly unlikely). Using the right tools for the job will be essential for fighters. "Dodge" bonuses (from dexterity) do not stack with armor.
Monsters: D6 for hit dice, they have ability scores (more modest than 5e, since PCs also have lower scores) and add their constitution modifier only ONCE not per hit die. A 0 level human is 1d6+ con modifier, a monster is like a 0 level character but has more hit dice because it's bigger and stronger by nature (so Xd6 + con modifier). If a monster had character levels (nope it won't, I said if) it would progress as a character class. Monster hit dice, AC, special abilities and such as OD&D but they will also add their strength modifier to attacks and damage.
Combat: Personal initiative, you roll once at the beginning of combat. You can take only ONE action per round (attack, cast a spell, close in to melee, charge, etc). Some things happen faster than others so the round is divided in fast/average/slow phase. If I have a bow ready I will definitely get a shot before my opponent charges me from the other side of the room. If I have my weapon drawn I will attack before the opponent who has his weapon sheathed. While this adds an extra layer of complexity I think it's ok since it will only matter for the first round. Once everyone has their weapon drawn and they have moved into melee (or they are at distance firing spells and missiles) they will all act on the fast phase in initiative order. Death occurs at -1 hp/level + con modifier.
That's it as initial thoughts, I will return with details later on.
|
|
noteef
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 52
|
Post by noteef on Jul 2, 2019 17:21:26 GMT -6
Tangent warning...but this thread is evidence of the great minds on this board. I am always amazed at what I learn from all of you. I tried to do something like this but lacked the mastery over both systems to make it work, however, I am seeing a lot of good ideas in this thread, so thank you. I used 5e as a gateway to the hobby for friends and family, then turned the campaign over to my teenage son to run. In addition to passing along the family name and DNA, he carries on my love for the hobby, and importantly, I get to run a second campaign that is OD&D . The closest I could come up with was incorporating certain races, classes, or spells into the OD&D game as one-offs. Again, a lot of great ideas and thoughts here.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 16, 2020 8:38:01 GMT -6
Just finished reading through the thread and I find a lot of interesting things to digest, but I'll bring up a topic barely touched on that I think of as key:
Actions.
Put simply, I hate the idea. To me "Action and Bonus Action" are game ruining concepts. What I mean is that they destroy immersion at a critical point in the game. Instead of creatively describing what the character is doing in their turn, players are getting all rulesy and looking at their sheet to describe some mechanical thing. Instead of "I leap from the banister, whip out my throwing knife in mid air and throw it at the goblin.", players will say something like, "For my action I will jump down and I'll take my bonus action to throw my knife at the goblin" or something like that (you get the idea). It sucks and is totally unnecessary in OD&D where it is simply a matter of the DM deciding what it is reasonably for a character to try in their turn.
So I would say all the rules mechanics on "actions" should be the first thing to go from a 5e game with OD&D blends.
My problem is that I don't know 5e well enough to know if that is even feasible. It seems like it may be too deeply baked in - but I don't know. So my question to the collective wisdom here is what do you think? Can the action Mechanics be removed from the game without breaking the classes, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 16, 2020 8:51:44 GMT -6
The "Action economy" of 5E is very baked into the system- combat system, the character class design, spells, overall "balance' of classes/spells , etc. Its no different than previous WOTC editions.
Even doing something as simple as going to "reroll initiative every round" can have significant impacts on gameplay.
You would need to rewrite the game from the ground up, OR handwave a whole lot of stuff. Neither of which I find worth bothering about. PLay 5E for 5E, or play OD&D or whatever else.
The strict action system of WOTC editions is overall my main issue with any of them. It routinely keeps players in the mentality of looking at thier character sheet and asking "can I do this?" Instead of looking at the DM and saying, "this is what I want to do". I had a game with the kids group (Son and 3 of his friends- all around 10-11 yo) circa 2011 where we were playing PF Beginner Box. One kid (friend of my son) came into a situation and blurted out "I run 10 feet jump on the table and swing on the chandelier- I'll kick the first guy with my boot and slice the other guy with my sword", which just cannot happen in PF BB- it's too many actions, it breaks too many rules, etc. Going by the book, as gentle as I could I squashed the kid's idea- "you can move 10 feet and jump up, but you can't draw your sword, and you will have to wait to do the chandalier, and then you can only attack one guy". Of course by the time his turn came up again, none of that made any sense to do, and it made a pretty gun shy kid even more gun shy. It was a huge mistake on my part and ruined the entire effing game.
And the next week we started playing S&W and never went back to hard coded action systems like that.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 16, 2020 18:29:09 GMT -6
The "Action economy" of 5E is very baked into the system- combat system, the character class design, spells, overall "balance' of classes/spells , etc. Its no different than previous WOTC editions. Even doing something as simple as going to "reroll initiative every round" can have significant impacts on gameplay. You would need to rewrite the game from the ground up, OR handwave a whole lot of stuff. Neither of which I find worth bothering about. PLay 5E for 5E, or play OD&D or whatever else. The strict action system of WOTC editions is overall my main issue with any of them. It routinely keeps players in the mentality of looking at thier character sheet and asking "can I do this?" Instead of looking at the DM and saying, "this is what I want to do". I had a game with the kids group (Son and 3 of his friends- all around 10-11 yo) circa 2011 where we were playing PF Beginner Box. One kid (friend of my son) came into a situation and blurted out "I run 10 feet jump on the table and swing on the chandelier- I'll kick the first guy with my boot and slice the other guy with my sword", which just cannot happen in PF BB- it's too many actions, it breaks too many rules, etc. Going by the book, as gentle as I could I squashed the kid's idea- "you can move 10 feet and jump up, but you can't draw your sword, and you will have to wait to do the chandalier, and then you can only attack one guy". Of course by the time his turn came up again, none of that made any sense to do, and it made a pretty gun shy kid even more gun shy. It was a huge mistake on my part and ruined the entire effing game. And the next week we started playing S&W and never went back to hard coded action systems like that. I don't know if the Beginner Box deliberately dumbed it down, but I just checked the online Pathfinder SRD and that sounds more restrictive than the base system. Jumping and swinging on the chandelier should be an Acrobatics check, which is done as a free action as part of movement. Then kick as a standard action attack. Technically, you're supposed to need a BAB of +1 or higher to draw a weapon as part of an attack action, so fighters could do that right off the bat but a thief might be stymied until 2nd level - though that's very pedantic and easy to house rule - but anyway, let's assume he's a fighter and/or 2nd level. Then with two-weapon fighting rules he can attack with both his sword and an unarmed strike as part of the same action. So from what I can tell, a real hard-ass DM might have to tell him "You can do everything except draw the sword, but you could make a second unarmed strike if you want." Whereas if the character meets a minimal prerequisite and/or has a DM who is even the slightest bit obliging, then that action looks like it's totally in the clear, albeit difficult to actually pull off since it requires an Acrobatics check as well as the attack rolls being penalized for two-weapon combat.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 16, 2020 19:53:21 GMT -6
1st level elven rogue. Drawing a weapon is a move action. Making the run and jump was a move action (doesn't include grabbing the chandelier and swinging across the room). PC out of actions. That's not being a hardass, thats going BTB.
Again, I could just handwave stuff, but that's my point. Why bother with that sort of gameplay and system if you are going to handwave half of it in order to have fun?
But I did make a mistake , and I learned from it- find systems that better fit my natural tendencies and strengths as DM, and that provides a better experience for the kids. As they got older we played other hard coded systems here and there- but we always went back to OD&D/variants, looser/abstract modern systems like 13A , or Dungeon World.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 16, 2020 20:40:08 GMT -6
The point was that even if strictly following the rules, he could do everything except the sword attack. If he skips that, then the jump, chandelier swing, and kick are totally within what he can do in a round. And if he was a fighter or a level 2 thief, then drawing the weapon would also no longer require an action. My point about the DM's discretion wasn't suggesting "handwave everything," it was that the rules about drawing a weapon already collapse into "it's a free action" for all weapon-wielding classes by 2nd level. All classes aside from wizards/sorcerers/etc. have a +1 BAB or higher by 2nd level, so it's really a rule that only ever affects 1st level characters - to my mind, a prime candidate for house ruling.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 17, 2020 5:32:30 GMT -6
The point was that even if strictly following the rules, he could do everything except the sword attack. If he skips that, then the jump, chandelier swing, and kick are totally within what he can do in a round. And if he was a fighter or a level 2 thief, then drawing the weapon would also no longer require an action. My point about the DM's discretion wasn't suggesting "handwave everything," it was that the rules about drawing a weapon already collapse into "it's a free action" for all weapon-wielding classes by 2nd level. All classes aside from wizards/sorcerers/etc. have a +1 BAB or higher by 2nd level, so it's really a rule that only ever affects 1st level characters - to my mind, a prime candidate for house ruling. Or you could just play a game where 1) it doesn't matter what base attack bonus you have or class you are to draw a weapon (silly rule- a 1st level rogue is too inexperienced to be able to draw a weapon too?) 2) Could accomplish that whole move (draw, run, jump up to table, jump to chandelier, swing across room) without consulting a rule book 3) You can attack two people close together even though your character isn't allowed two Attacks because you don't have a high enough attack bonus I would have to ignore/handwave 3 rules (weapon draw, second jump onto chandelier, second attack) to "allow" what the kid to do what he wanted to do-And I should have done it for the sake of the session, but I was trying to play fair with all of them and by the rules as we were all learning the rules together. And frankly, getting into a rules discussion here 10 years later is exactly why I avoid games like PF as if they were the plague. But if you like a game where the rules inform the scene/fiction, that's great- I prefer a game where the scene/fiction takes precedence over the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 17, 2020 6:04:45 GMT -6
I honestly don't even like Pathfinder, but I find that you're being intensely unfair to it. For example, you're breaking it out into supposedly needing to bend three rules to accomplish what he wanted, when really #1 is the only valid point.
2) I already explained how a cursory look at the PF SRD showed that acrobatics (i.e., jumping, swinging) is a free action as part of your movement, so as long as he was within movement range of the enemies then it's a non-issue. If he wasn't within movement range of them, then that would be bending/breaking the rules in ANY edition.
3) Sure he can, he'll just take the two-weapon fighting penalty. Meanwhile, in any edition prior to AD&D it's simply not allowed, period. No thief of any level can make more than one attack per round. Even when AD&D allowed fighting with two weapons the second weapon was explicitly required to be a dagger or hand axe, so a sword plus an unarmed strike would not be a valid combination - in this respect, PF is much more generous to the player.
I considering "you only get one attack per round" to be a much more significant and core rule that you're breaking/changing to allow the described action, than some little bit of minutiae about attack bonuses and drawing weapons.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 17, 2020 9:05:26 GMT -6
Just finished reading through the thread and I find a lot of interesting things to digest, but I'll bring up a topic barely touched on that I think of as key: Actions. Put simply, I hate the idea. To me "Action and Bonus Action" are game ruining concepts. What I mean is that they destroy immersion at a critical point in the game. Instead of creatively describing what the character is doing in their turn, players are getting all rulesy and looking at their sheet to describe some mechanical thing. Instead of "I leap from the banister, whip out my throwing knife in mid air and throw it at the goblin.", players will say something like, "For my action I will jump down and I'll take my bonus action to throw my knife at the goblin" or something like that (you get the idea). It sucks and is totally unnecessary in OD&D where it is simply a matter of the DM deciding what it is reasonably for a character to try in their turn. What you describe (and what players of 5E in my groups also describe like that) are a Move* Action and an Attack action. If the player resorts to announcing it like that, it's an issue with the player, not the game, in my opinion. As in most games, inexperienced players will look at their sheet often and ask "can I do that?", but the same goes for OD&D. "Can I leap from the banister, whip out my throwing knife in mid air and throw it at the goblin?" may be a question heard during OD&D as well as in 5E. In OD&D the answer may just be a DM ruling of "Yes/No", in 5E the DM may say "Yes, (leaping down is your Move Action and throwing the dagger is the Attack action.)" In OD&D a player may also just say "I jump down and attack with my throwing dagger." So I would say all the rules mechanics on "actions" should be the first thing to go from a 5e game with OD&D blends. My problem is that I don't know 5e well enough to know if that is even feasible. It seems like it may be too deeply baked in - but I don't know. So my question to the collective wisdom here is what do you think? Can the action Mechanics be removed from the game without breaking the classes, etc.? No, it can't. You'd have to completely rewrite the class abilities. There are several abilities which you can use as a Bonus Action, or as an Attack action, but the fact that you only ever get 1 Attack and 1 Bonus Action on your Turn limit the number of abilities you can use. You can, of course, try to just wing all of it, but then you wouldn't need 5E at all. *I'm aware that the DM may call for an Acrobatics check and have the character be done with it, but that's really not how we play, is it?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 17, 2020 15:54:13 GMT -6
What you describe (and what players of 5E in my groups also describe like that) are a Move* Action and an Attack action. If the player resorts to announcing it like that, it's an issue with the player, not the game, in my opinion. As in most games, inexperienced players will look at their sheet often and ask "can I do that?", but the same goes for OD&D. "Can I leap from the banister, whip out my throwing knife in mid air and throw it at the goblin?" may be a question heard during OD&D as well as in 5E. In OD&D the answer may just be a DM ruling of "Yes/No", in 5E the DM may say "Yes, (leaping down is your Move Action and throwing the dagger is the Attack action.)" Thanks for your thoughts, and of course each to his own fun. I'll only say that, having idled away many a Corona staycation hour listening to various D&D games on youtube, I haven't heard a 5e game yet where there wasn't pretty steady back and forth chatter about actions, bonus actions and the like during combat rounds, so while I suppose there are players who have both the cinematic skill and rules savvy to avoid that sort of dull verbiage, it doesn't appear to be typical. To me, the ideal combat narrative is as Jaquays describes it in her "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs" book, where immersion is broken as little as possible. I don't even like mentioning "Armor Class" if it can be avoided. Hit points and dice throws are about the only metagaming terms I will mention of necessity. No, it can't. You'd have to completely rewrite the class abilities. There are several abilities which you can use as a Bonus Action, or as an Attack action, but the fact that you only ever get 1 Attack and 1 Bonus Action on your Turn limit the number of abilities you can use. You can, of course, try to just wing all of it, but then you wouldn't need 5E at all. Yeah, I was afraid that was the way of it. In my mind the advantage to using a 5e "blended" game per the OP would be that you could readily adapt new material etc. to your game without going through a conversion process, but as you say, there would be little point to that for me if I had to stick with the Action Economy stuff. I suppose you could cut out the classes and replace them with super-sized versions of the old school types and probably do something similar with spells and magic items. Not sure if that would be worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 18, 2020 0:09:42 GMT -6
I haven't even once listened to or watched an actual play of 5E, so I don't know about other groups. I know from personal experience, that it's possible to stay in the story most of the time, but I admit that it's not as easy as in a true rules-light game.
I have played in 3 distinct 5E groups, group 1 being my online group that has been playing 5E from the beginning around early 2015 with only a short break. The group's core has never changed and from those 3 there are those 2 who are able to easily leave the game terms completely behind - but it takes some time to get into the rules and to know what you can and can't do, granted. One of our core just never really learned the rules - he just doesn't have the mindset for it, I guess. He doesn't bother, he just wants to play. So when he announces his actions he often refers to game terms when he is using special abilities. I guess it's just to show the GM that he knows what he's doing because for a long time he was the one who always needed reminders of how the game was played, even after 4 years playing the same class. The newer players sometimes refer to game terms but most of the time it's really just when they do additional stuff which might seem odd, so they "justify" them by explaining the underlying rule, most often "I can do that as a Bonus Action", and that's it. What I hear often is "I rage" from our Barbarian player, to make it clearer that he uses the ability (as his character is pretty much grumpy and angry all the time).
Our DM never tires to remind us to stay in the story, though, which helps. "Don't tell me what mechanics you use, tell me what you do and how you do it." And it's catching on.
Long story short, I guess it's mostly a mindset of both players and DM to stay in the story and not refer to the rules and game terms. It's a style of play. Newer players will often refer to game terms also to remind themselves (and maybe the group) of the rules until they're sure that what they do is really according to the rules.
If you truly want to blend 5E and OD&D and get rid of the several Action types of 5E, you may try remove all Bonus Action abilities from all classes. Maybe it'll even out. All references to Bonus Actions, like spell casting times, are treated as normal actions. Not sure off the top of my hat if that'll work out since a lot of work has gone into balancing the action economy of 5E.
If you patch the old classes into 5E and get rid of the action economy, you'll pretty much end up destroying 5E and recreating OD&D with skills and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, which means maybe you should try to take elements of 5E and build them into OD&D instead of cutting 5E down.
|
|