|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 5, 2014 5:46:44 GMT -6
I think people are focusing on the wrong thing when it comes to D&D 5e vs a classic edition of D&D.
Having played and referee D&D 5e throughout the playtest period, the problem is not in character customization.
Yes D&D 5e is more flexible than OD&D or most other classic editions. However it operates on two levels. The first level is that each class has different paths that a player can take. Understand unlike 3e feats these paths are not infinitely flexible. Instead they work more like AD&D subclasses. At 1st level you are a fighter, at 2nd level you pick whether you are going to be a Fighter-Archer, Fighter-Champion, etc. The choices are general fixed and come at specific levels like in most classic edition D&D game.
The Second level kicks in you opt to use Backgrounds and Feats. Background give you skill proficiencies and a benefit usually roleplaying in nature. Feats work similarly to 3e and 4e in giving you a defined benefit. However unlike 3e, 5e works fine without feats instead character get an ability score increase. That over the long term amount to the same type of benefit. Is Charops possible? Perhaps but not with the Basic set just released. Charops fans likely have to wait until the DMG is release before they see all the possible options. Even then it is highly likely that the DMG option are true options in the terms of design and presentation.
So while distinctly different than OD&D or AD&D characters in 5e, especially with the Basic rules, are not dramatically different than a Rangers, Druids, Monk, or Assassine. They come off as detailed and option heavy character class.
If not characters then what is the deal breaker. Simply while D&D 5e has a similar power curve to OD&D the way they achieve it is completely different. In 5e AC and the to Hit bonuses have been moderated considerably. Lowered to even below that of OD&D. A 20th level fighter in OD&D has the equivalent of a +12 to hit bonus. While in 5e the same 20th level fighter has only a +6 to hit bonus. Magic items are capped similarly in the two editions except 5e puts a severe clamp on to hit bonus limiting them to +1 in general.
Note because of the flattening of the power curve the mechanical balance between characters in 5e is most akin to core book only OD&D. The characters differ but any character can attempt just about anything with some chance of success. Just some are better than others at doing certain things.
So what does 5e do in lieu of ever higher AC and corresponding to hit bonuses? Hit points are higher than in OD&D, and there is considerably more variety in ways to do damage. D&D 5e combat is about who runs out of hit points first to a far greater degree than previous editions. A 5e Dragon is tough because in addition to all its abilities it has a ton of hit points. High level characters are deadly not because they can hit you dramatically better but they can do more damage in more ways in less time than lower level characters. The way is currently setup combat doesn't take longer than classic editions. Mearls and crew did a good job of find tuning the balance between damage and hit points.
This is what will ultimately make or break a fan of an older edition. Because out of all the things in 5e this is the part that is the most dramatically different. And it does feel different.
Now this isn't from me just reading the rules. I played and ran over two dozens sessions of 5e throughout the playtest period. By the middle of the playtest the rules jelled into a rough form similar to what you see in the Basic set. There are difference but not dramatic ones. Mostly tweaks here and there.
The good news, particularly with this group, is that 5e adventures and settings are likely to be highly compatible with OD&D. Just substitute the OD&D stat block in place of 5e and you are good to go. Like I said the power curve is similar to OD&D core book only.
I endorse 5e because I tried it. Ate my own dogfood so to speak. Unless they have a generous third party license I am not likely to switch away from my S&W + Majestic Wilderlands game. If they do then I will likely publish for it and as a consequence referee it to develop the necessary actual play experience.
The most likely outcome for this group is that 5e will be your secondary game for went you want to play with the larger hobby. It is close enough to classic editions that you can play (or referee) it like your OD&D campaign. Newer players will have their options, and you won't be at a disadvantage for ignoring those mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 5, 2014 6:57:12 GMT -6
I mean, is ad&d grappling rules better than 5E? Those rules weren't included in the PHB though. The dm can see them, say "oh god what is this abomination", and the players never have even know they exist.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 5, 2014 7:26:07 GMT -6
Because D&D 5e is firmly in the family of retro clones. It is no S&W, L&L, or OSRIC. Rather It more akin to Lotfp or Blood & Treasure or Castles & Crusades. Having played and refereed it I play most similarly to the a Blood & Treasure campaign I am playing and it feel similar to how I referee the Majestic Wilderlands Honest question. I played Castles & Crusades and hated it. I hated the SIEGE Engine and the way the abilities were superficially like older AD&D and basic D&D but not like them in play. If I felt that way about C&C, is there any reason to think that I would like D&D 5e?
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jul 5, 2014 7:46:45 GMT -6
There were no less than 3 distinct combat systems that shipped with 0d&d, what's one more? One. There was one combat system detailed, with minor variations for naval and aerial combat. Need links to some free PDFs to verify?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 5, 2014 8:20:35 GMT -6
There were no less than 3 distinct combat systems that shipped with 0d&d, what's one more? One. There was one combat system detailed, with minor variations for naval and aerial combat. Need links to some free PDFs to verify? Let's not be coy, some creatures were described as fighting as "light foot" (mass combat) or "attacking twice as mace" (man to man) and even the character classes listed things like "4 men +1" and "hero-1" 0d&d went to print knowing that some groups would perhaps resolve combat differently from others. With Elderitch wizardry, there were then two initiative systems!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 5, 2014 8:36:51 GMT -6
At 1st level you are a fighter, at 2nd level you pick whether you are going to be a Fighter-Archer, Fighter-Champion, etc. The choices are general fixed and come at specific levels like in most classic edition D&D game. ... So while distinctly different than OD&D or AD&D characters in 5e, especially with the Basic rules, are not dramatically different than a Rangers, Druids, Monk, or Assassine. They come off as detailed and option heavy character class. The issue with this design is that *every* character is like an AD&D cavalier or barbarian; there's no "bog standard fighter" anymore. Your *only* option seems to be the heavily optioned class. Is Charops possible? Perhaps but not with the Basic set just released. Charops fans likely have to wait until the DMG is release before they see all the possible options. Even then it is highly likely that the DMG option are true options in the terms of design and presentation. Min/maxing your build appears to be presumed from dot in 5e Basic starting with choosing/allocating your ability scores, choosing the race that ups your PR stat, choosing the the appropriate path/skills/background/options that maximise your synergies with your best stats, and then planning the optimal stat "upgrade path" throughout your prospective level ups in your chosen class(es). Yes, feats will add another layer on top of that. What is the obsession with stat increases all about anyway? Having ordained stat increases means everyone can expect to have the max score in their favoured stat(s), so everyone gets the same adjustment to their class rolls, so everyone is effectively equal, so all the stat inflation is for nothing. I don't get why we need it. A 20th level fighter in OD&D has the equivalent of a +12 to hit bonus. While in 5e the same 20th level fighter has only a +6 to hit bonus. IMHO this isn't a very useful comparison. OD&D is generally thought to top out around the 12th level of play, so one might argue that a 12th (or perhaps a 13th-15th) level OD&D fighter is equivalent to a 20th level 5e fighter. My understanding is that the 5e fighter is all but guaranteed to have 20 strength (and a +5 adjustment to hit and damage) by 8th level, and the possibility of even higher strength by 20th level (the chart goes to 30 so...) as well as his +6 proficiency adjustment to hit. And doubtless there will be a fighting style or feat or other option that will add +2 (there is already one for archery in Basic, the rest will likely be added). So, if I'm reading it right, the 20th level 5e guy will likely be at +13 (plus magic), while the equivalent OD&D fighter will be at +7 for 12th level, or +9 for 13th-15th level (plus magic). Meanwhile, it's worth noticing that a 20th level 5e fighter (with the "standard" 20 constitution) has 224 hit points. And a 12th level OD&D fighter (with high constitution) has 51 hit points. At 15th level he has 57 hit points. Why do we need hundreds of hit points? 50 hit points is getting silly, sure, but several hundreds is just out of control. Newer players will have their options, and you won't be at a disadvantage for ignoring those mechanics. Does this mean that player A (sans options) and player B (with options) can play along side one another in a single game and be equally effective? How?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 5, 2014 10:01:39 GMT -6
Players who go for options and feats and character building do not get stat increases. That means if you want to CharOp your 20th level fighter, he's going to have the 16 strength and 14 constitution he started with at 1st level. This means his hit points, saving throws and any ability check is also going to be worse.
Od&d type players will have "Conan-esque" characters--bigger, faster, smarter, stronger, whereas the new school 3e:4e types will be physical pansies in comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 5, 2014 12:13:55 GMT -6
I have downloaded the PDF and read parts of it. It won't replace what I already do, but I will probably get this largely so I can play with my kids and they will be able to be part of the larger hobby that will use the latest edition. Unlike 4e it seems like this is not utterly incompatible with my 0e/ 1e approach.
For those of you who have run this extensively, would it be possible to run both styles within a campaign? What would be involved in a combat between two groups, one originating in the new rule set, and another coming from the old rules? House rules will be necessary of course, I guess the question is how extensive will those house rules have to be?
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jul 5, 2014 12:54:22 GMT -6
It has some interesting bits in it. I won't completely discount it until I've tried the game. The biggest thing I've noticed and maybe it's just me now noticing it. But since the advent of 3.x and above classes are judged by their combat effectiveness only. The game seems to have nearly lost it's exploration/role play factor. As if everything else is filler between combat encounters. Everyone is at the table is competing to "win" at d&d:
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 5, 2014 14:36:51 GMT -6
It has some interesting bits in it. I won't completely discount it until I've tried the game. The biggest thing I've noticed and maybe it's just me now noticing it. But since the advent of 3.x and above classes are judged by their combat effectiveness only. The game seems to have nearly lost it's exploration/role play factor. As if everything else is filler between combat encounters. Everyone is at the table is competing to "win" at d&d: This is not so much an issue with the classes as it is with the larger game. The rules imply and modules suggest that combat opportunities will be plentiful and that they will be tied to how mnay players they are and what level. This necessitates that all characters of all classes be competent combatants. If WOTC was putting out modules that instead showed dungeons filled with deathtraps, interesting things to poke at, and only a scarce few rooms of monsters (all of which were too numberous/powerful to kill), this wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 5, 2014 16:14:41 GMT -6
...aren't the rules what you make them? Isn't that an enjoyable part of the experience? And everything I've read about what's coming in the core books indicates that they'll be making that an explicit assumption of play---"Here are a ton of options--use the ones you like, ignore the ones you don't, or make up your own!" I haven't really been following the discussions about what 5e will or will not include, so I can't speak to that precisely. But the free download of 5e Basic doesn't really do that, unless I missed something. Plus, it's not just what you say, it's, so to speak, the example you set. In other words, you could tack on a Tim Kask-like Introduction encouraging you to change things and make things up, but if 5-10% of the main body of the Basic Intro game is devoted to outlining the sociology and psychology of different player-character races, most ten-year old kids aren't going to be inclined to just ignore that stuff and instead "imagine the hell out of it." To be fair, the authors state that the D&D "multiverse" not only contains all the standard WOTC campaign settings but also an almost infinite number of settings created by D&D players "throughout the ages", or however they put it. They even mention that in some official settings, there are jungle-dwelling Halfling cannibals and Elves who are desert nomads. But then they spend pages and pages describing the "D&D" Dwarven, Elvish, Halfling and Human cultures, sub-races and psychologies, even devoting multiple text boxes to present (in my view) banal and silly sort of inner monologues describing how each race feels about each other race. I looked back at my old books. In Men & Magic and the 1e Players Manual there's not one word about non-human culture or psychology, not one word. I didn't check Holmes and Moldvay but I suspect one would find the same. (Admitedly, the 1e Monster Manual did mention Dwarven clans.) The sort of soap-operay psychological stuff in the main player rulebooks came in with 2e. Of course even before the green "splatbooks" of 2e I'm sure one could find this sort of thing in 1e and pre-1e modules, magazines and supplements, etc. but that's sort of the point. It wasn't given to you in the beginning. You could seek it out if you wanted to, or not. And if you did seek it out, you could choose what to buy and how much of it to use. Sure you can theoretically do that with any rule presented in any context. But we're talking about typical ten-year olds not middle-aged nerds (like me) steeped in that philosophy. This is part of what I mean by 5e and all other versions of "modern" or "new school" or whatever you want to call it D&D "smothering" the imagination. Strong words, but I think they're accurate. The sort of thing I just described is not the only way the imaginative fun is leeched away. It may not be even the most important way. But it's a good example.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 5, 2014 16:54:17 GMT -6
Because D&D 5e is firmly in the family of retro clones. It is no S&W, L&L, or OSRIC. Rather It more akin to Lotfp or Blood & Treasure or Castles & Crusades. Having played and refereed it I play most similarly to the a Blood & Treasure campaign I am playing and it feel similar to how I referee the Majestic Wilderlands Honest question. I played Castles & Crusades and hated it. I hated the SIEGE Engine and the way the abilities were superficially like older AD&D and basic D&D but not like them in play. If I felt that way about C&C, is there any reason to think that I would like D&D 5e? Probably not. It is organized a bit differently but it is effectively the same system. Skill have an associated attribute that determines its initial bonus. Instead of making certain attribute prime and getting a increased chance of success. You mark certain skills as proficient and get a increased chance of success by being able to add in your proficiency bonus. The main difference is that C&C uses traditional modifiers for different circumstances while 5e uses the advantage/disadvantage system. Another difference is that you have more options and flexibility with characters in 5e than with C&C. Whether that adds to up something you will like better than C&C only you can say.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 5, 2014 17:45:55 GMT -6
I give trying to type around quotes. Here are my replies to WayofEarth comments.
The bog standard fighter is the Fighter-Champion as that is the fighter you can make with Basic D&D. The four bog standard classes are Fighter-Champion, Wizard-Evocater, Cleric-Life Domain, and Rogue-Thief. From reading it over they pretty much encapsulate what the original Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief were like. T
The stat increases are so that a character with the same attribute, classes, background but without feats is equivalent to the same character with feats. In this case, you don't use feats means the default is to increase your attribute. Because feats in 5e, from the playtest, add skill bonuses and proficiencies. The simplest equivalent without requiring the use of feats to give an attribute increase. Which does effectively does the same thing but in a more generic fashion.
From working with my Majestic Wilderlands supplement I can state that is a critical psychological point in making Basic D&D viewed as a viable option compared the the full 5e PHB and 5e DMG. Otherwise the fan base will be split between the Basic 5e crowd and the Advanced 5e crowds. Because Basic characters will be less capable than the Advanced character.
My understanding is that the 5e fighter is all but guaranteed to have 20 strength (and a +5 adjustment to hit and damage) by 8th level, and the possibility of even higher strength by 20th level (the chart goes to 30 so...) as well as his +6 proficiency adjustment to hit. And doubtless there will be a fighting style or feat or other option that will add +2 (there is already one for archery in Basic, the rest will likely be added).
So, if I'm reading it right, the 20th level 5e guy will likely be at +13 (plus magic), while the equivalent OD&D fighter will be at +7 for 12th level, or +9 for 13th-15th level (plus magic).
Meanwhile, it's worth noticing that a 20th level 5e fighter (with the "standard" 20 constitution) has 224 hit points. And a 12th level OD&D fighter (with high constitution) has 51 hit points. At 15th level he has 57 hit points.
There are no feats in Basic. Yes you get up to 20 strength easily by 8th level. Which would give you +11 to hit at 19th level. As for magic items the playtest had them capped at +1 I don't see that change for the released rules. For OD&D +12 at 20th is the starting point. You add strength on top of that plus a +3 magic item.
The chart is infinite the formula for stat bonuses are (attribute -10 ) divided by 2 round down.
As for 20th 5e is equivalent to 12th in OD&D, make that comparison if you want but I will compare it level to level.
The larger hit points is so that low level creature are still a threat in mass to higher level character. AC and to hit are capped and one things that higher lever creature tougher is more hit points. From playing a high level playtest it plays out the same as my high level Swords & Wizardry game. The difference that the players have more ways of dealing damage and damage increased overall compared to OD&D.
Feats in general add skill bonuses, sometimes extra damage, and proficiencies. Boosting Attribute provides an equivalent bonuses to 5e feats. My impression is that combat feats add options for damage or mitigating damage to your character but don't increase your accuracy. While opting for an attribute increase will increase damage and accuracy. Can it be broken sure. OD&D can be break if a referee is fool enough to have a +12 hackmaster sword in their campaign. Will it work with the core book only. I say yes it will. Characters with the Basic set will be on a even playing field with PHB characters in 5e.
Again from playing the playtest 5e plays similarly to OD&D. But the details are different, enough so that if you are happy with OD&D you will not likely to switch. But again the good news because of the similarity. You can take a 5e adventure (like the starter set adventure) swap out the stats and it will work perfectly fine with OD&D or AD&D 1st.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 5, 2014 17:47:41 GMT -6
It has some interesting bits in it. I won't completely discount it until I've tried the game. The biggest thing I've noticed and maybe it's just me now noticing it. But since the advent of 3.x and above classes are judged by their combat effectiveness only. The game seems to have nearly lost it's exploration/role play factor. As if everything else is filler between combat encounters. Everyone is at the table is competing to "win" at d&d: There is a whole chapters on character backgrounds and roleplaying. Plus the skill system has a lot of uses for non-combat situations. I don't see that at all.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 5, 2014 18:07:29 GMT -6
For OD&D +12 at 20th is the starting point. You add strength on top of that plus a +3 magic item. ... As for 20th 5e is equivalent to 12th in OD&D, make that comparison if you want but I will compare it level to level. There is no strength adjustment to attack rolls in the 3LBBs, as you know. 2% of magic swords are +3 as are 2% of miscellaneous magic weapons. That is; seven-tenths of one percent of all magic items are +3 weapons. I still don't believe it's valid to compare 20th level OD&D to 20th level 5e. OD&D has "normal", "heroic", and "superheroic" tiers built right in: Normal is at levels 1-3 because heroes are 4th level. Heroic is at levels 4-7 because heroes are 4th level and superheroes are 8th level. Superheroic is at levels 8+ (up to 11th if we follow the pattern). We can therefore presume the "ultimate" Conan, King Arthur, Merlin, Svenny, and John Carter types are the "next step up", so around 12th-15th level. Now look at 5e Basic's TIERS OF PLAY (p10). Normal is at levels 1-4. Heroic is at levels 5-10. Superheroic is at levels 11-16. SUPER superheroic is at 17-20. Now the ultimate types are 17th-20th level. Hence, OD&D and 5e PCs of the same level are not precisely comparable. The XP requirements tell more or less the same story. In OD&D a fighter requires 8,000 XP and 120,000 XP to achieve hero and superhero status (4th and 8th level, respectively). A 5e fighter with 8,000 XP and 120,000 XP will be 5th and 13th level respectively. OD&D's XP requirements are effectively prohibitive from double digit levels, while 5e is designed to get you to 20th level within a year (or two?) of play.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 5, 2014 20:53:48 GMT -6
I played Castles & Crusades and hated it. I hated the SIEGE Engine and the way the abilities were superficially like older AD&D and basic D&D but not like them in play. If I felt that way about C&C, is there any reason to think that I would like D&D 5e? Doubtful. While I like C&C, I can't even bring myself to read 5th edition. I tried, but it bounced off of my brain. It just seemed to have no magic. That's a purely subjective observation, so take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 5, 2014 21:34:16 GMT -6
5e is 3x/4e mashup which s cool for folks who want fixes to those two systems. I am glad the suits at Hasbro keep trying, but Gary had me long ago, and there is no real need to redo that game beyond my own hacks and scribbles.
Is 5e highly modular with snap on snap off goodness folks enjoy, sure is. Can it do old D&D? It could with work. I just do not care too much about the new game. I will borrow what I like, dump the rest and play my hack of D&D like I always have.
I am no expert on D&D, and do not try to be. I know 5e won't be my goto game, justl ike 4e was not and 3x was not, but there is good stuff to steal.
Now I must play RIFTS, because I am strangely attracted to mega damage, full cover version borgs, juicers and the CS.
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Jul 5, 2014 22:36:05 GMT -6
I'm in this weird place where I've been following all the 5E stuff, and I'm probably going to buy this edition but if anybody cornered me asked me what game I'm REALLY excited about right now I'd have to say something like: "Runequest (2e and 3e), Chivalry & Sorcery, Talislanta. . ."
Y'know the games everybody talks about. . .Oh wait. . .
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Jul 6, 2014 4:24:08 GMT -6
I'm not sure why everyone is bothering to compare OD&D to 5e. They are very different games. Can you play an OD&D style game using 5e? Of course you can, just cut out a bunch rules (like the never-dying, skills, backgrounds, ability increases, etc.). It doesn't seem like doing away with these would break the game. Most importantly, play with an OD&D mindset. I ordered the Starter Set (the first D&D product I've purchased since the late 1990's) and I'm going to drop some stuff and keep other technical junk like conditions and actions in the background. Hell we played 3e when it first came out in the same style that we played 2e (ditching things like Attacks of Opportunity...something I'll be ditching this time around too). It's mostly about the mindset/focus of the gameplay. This is part of what I mean by 5e and all other versions of "modern" or "new school" or whatever you want to call it D&D "smothering" the imagination. Strong words, but I think they're accurate. The sort of thing I just described is not the only way the imaginative fun is leeched away. It may not be even the most important way. But it's a good example. Ridiculous. I'd agree that modern D&D games have limited the imagination in terms of gameplay, directing players to pick actions from their characters sheets (or power cards *shudder*) rather than imagine themselves in an actual situation. But I don't think fluff stuff like demi-human society descriptions "leeches" away "fun". The 2e race descriptions fired my imagination like crazy when I was a kid. Kids (or at least 12 year old boys) love that stuff. I read that player's handbook cover to cover a dozen times, especially the descriptive bits, and I expanded upon it with my own ideas through play. I don't think OD&D as a text is very good for firing the imagination of children, nor is it meant to be. "Here's a block of text with a bunch of probably confusing notes on your elf! But don't ask me what an elf is, I don't want to leech your fun!" I guess RPG books shouldn't come with illustrations for the same reason? EDIT: I forgot to add that RC's comment about 5e not being everyone's favorite, but being a game to go to when you want to engage the greater hobby really rings true.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 6, 2014 6:39:05 GMT -6
I guess RPG books shouldn't come with illustrations for the same reason? That depends. Some illustrations stimulate the imagination. Others drown it out with their glare. It's the difference between, say, a black and white Trampier line drawing and a garish image of a dragon confronting a pumped up superhero that looks like a screenshot from a video game.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 7:28:28 GMT -6
Players who go for options and feats and character building do not get stat increases. That means if you want to CharOp your 20th level fighter, he's going to have the 16 strength and 14 constitution he started with at 1st level. This means his hit points, saving throws and any ability check is also going to be worse. Od&d type players will have "Conan-esque" characters--bigger, faster, smarter, stronger, whereas the new school 3e:4e types will be physical pansies in comparisons. Yes, I see it says this for Feats (on p56). But feats aren't included in Basic anyway, so all the other options/features described in Basic are combined with stat increases. Net result is: the "standard" 5e PC has either stat inflation or functionally equivalent feats. This means there's no "un-inflated" PC option, and that the designers chose not to preserve the iconic six stats of 3-18 in the Basic game. IMHO they missed an opportunity by not making both stat inflation and feats optional. Then the "standard" Basic PC could have been a totally un-inflated "classic" D&D PC, and various groups could have added their preferred layers on from there. PCs using optional stat inflation, feats, etc., could have paid an XP or hp cost for their added "benefits". (I'm not saying I've spent months balancing this out, I'm just suggesting a reasonable mechanism could have been achieved that included un-inflated "classic" PCs). Yep, the 3x/4e market would probably have hated it, so WotC couldn't go that way. I'm not sure why everyone is bothering to compare OD&D to 5e. They are very different games. Can you play an OD&D style game using 5e? Of course you can The "OD&D philosopher" type can likely make an OD&D-style game out of almost any RPG game. That is due to the sensibilities of the player, not to any virtue of the game in question. Some folks just think it's a shame that, with all our 40 years of RPG/D&D wisdom, the "old school" gaming sensibility is barley detectable in 5e.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jul 6, 2014 8:01:05 GMT -6
Let's not be coy, some creatures were described as fighting as "light foot" (mass combat) or "attacking twice as mace" (man to man) and even the character classes listed things like "4 men +1" and "hero-1" 0d&d went to print knowing that some groups would perhaps resolve combat differently from others. Nobody is being coy. "Shipped with" implies something in the box and there was exactly one combat system (with variants for aerial and naval combat) in the OD&D box, along with printed references to a system even the author didn't use for one on one combat. Those references were useless without a separate purchase of another set of rules.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 6, 2014 9:29:13 GMT -6
Well, if you house rule an 18 max it shouldn't be a problem. At 12th level you would have stats of 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8--does that seem terribly inflated? I don't think it's unreasonable for stats to increase a bit over the course of play, in fact it's kind of assumed in 0d&d. Heck, you can remove automatic stat increases and just do it the old fashioned way...with pools and wishes and if someone comes into your campaign with a 20, put a pool of stat reduction in your next dungeon and let their curiosity deal with the matter the way god and Gygax intended
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 6, 2014 14:36:56 GMT -6
The game seems to have nearly lost it's exploration/role play factor. As if everything else is filler between combat encounters. Everyone is at the table is competing to "win" at d&d I think that's a function of the DM. I've been running some house 5E games all summer and they have a huge emphasis on exploration and role play. Sure there are combats, but I throw a lot of other stuff at my players as well.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 6, 2014 15:20:30 GMT -6
I don't think it's unreasonable for stats to increase a bit over the course of play, in fact it's kind of assumed in 0d&d. In what way is this "kind of assumed" in OD&D? There are no mechanics for changing ability scores, and there is nothing in the text (as far as I'm aware) that actually backs up the assertion that it's an assumption. You should really back things like up rather than just saying them as if they're obvious facts.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 6, 2014 16:06:24 GMT -6
I don't think it's unreasonable for stats to increase a bit over the course of play, in fact it's kind of assumed in 0d&d. In what way is this "kind of assumed" in OD&D? There are no mechanics for changing ability scores, and there is nothing in the text (as far as I'm aware) that actually backs up the assertion that it's an assumption. You should really back things like up rather than just saying them as if they're obvious facts. I'll take a quick stab at it. I think that while characters adventure, it's assumed that they will acquire gold and magic items. Looking at some magic items in M&T, I see: * potion of giant strength * potion of speed (increases move, but not DEX) * girdle of giant strength * boots of speed (again, increases move, but not DEX) * gauntlets of ogre power (some strength benefits) In Greyhawk you can find: * magic-user spell "Strength" * gauntlets of dexterity (+2 DEX) While none of those items directly add to a character's attribute, they do provide some measure of "stat inflation" in that characters tend to have higher abilities as they accumulate magical items. In addition, one could argue from the presence of GD&H that if characters were "meant" to battle with the gods they would need to be better than what they'd get from 3d6 random chance. If heroic examples from GD&H such as Conan and Elric are supposed to give any sense of what high level play is like, those characters clearly are above and beyond 3d6. A bit of a reach, perhaps, but not totally unfounded an assumption. AD&D goes a bit farther with tables that actually go to attributes of 25.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 16:32:10 GMT -6
if you house rule an 18 max it shouldn't be a problem. At 12th level you would have stats of 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8--does that seem terribly inflated? The issue isn't the stats themselves. It's the scale of the modifiers associated with them that risks shifting the game from "strategic combat on even terms" to "my numbers are bigger than yours". Imagine you have an existing 0e game; most of the PCs have maybe one or two +1 adjustments on a d20. Now bring in your 5e PC with 17(+3), 16(+3), 13(+1), 12(+1), 10, 8. His adjustments are *clearly* on a whole different scale that eclipses the 0e scale. I think that while characters adventure, it's assumed that they will acquire gold and magic items. Looking at some magic items in M&T, I see: * potion of giant strength * potion of speed (increases move, but not DEX) * girdle of giant strength * boots of speed (again, increases move, but not DEX) * gauntlets of ogre power (some strength benefits) Those "stat inflations" are achieved by in game play, not by PC build -- we should expect 5e characters to find all that gear in equal measure too. Besides which, an 0e character generally has no (or minimal) mechanical advantage for stat increments above 15. The 5e character gains an incremental +1 for every two points above (the statistically below average score of) 10.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 6, 2014 20:35:51 GMT -6
the ring of wishes, djinn, and demon lords from the earliest games were used to raise stats. Magical pools that adjust stats are also used very early in the games history including B1!
You can't champion od&d as a free and open game with loose rules and then turn around and ask me to quote paragraph and page number of the specific rule that allows for increasing stats. It's certainly seems like that's how the early game was played. After all, dieties and demigods was not a late addition.
1) 0d&d assumes magic items, 5e does not. So 0d&d assumes people will get their hands on girdles of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power and rings of wishes. 5e does not.
2) modern old school renaissance gamers play a very low magic low level 0d&d. It is pretty clear that the early games had artifacts, really powerful dual class characters and arch mages, 100th level characters etc. Asking 5e to comport to a modern interpretation Amish-like low level low magic version of 0d&d was the bone of 1st level having only 1 HD which I applaud WotC for doing.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2014 22:26:52 GMT -6
1) 0d&d assumes magic items, 5e does not. So 0d&d assumes people will get their hands on girdles of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power and rings of wishes. 5e does not. Magic items have been a staple of D&D in every edition. Can it really be true that there will be so few in 5e that we should discount having them?
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 6, 2014 23:33:37 GMT -6
2) modern old school renaissance gamers play a very low magic low level 0d&d. It is pretty clear that the early games had artifacts, really powerful dual class characters and arch mages, 100th level characters etc. Asking 5e to comport to a modern interpretation Amish-like low level low magic version of 0d&d was the bone of 1st level having only 1 HD which I applaud WotC for doing. Apologies, but I think that's an inaccurate picture. Sure some people liked to run or play in "Monty Haul" campaigns or souped up Cal-Techy-like games. And they were made fun of--by Gygax, among others, who never tired of saying that what they were playing "just wasn't (A)D&D". It certainly wasn't written into the rules. In the rules for the early editions of the game, sure you could get a stat perhaps increased by a Wish, but the fact that you needed something like that (as opposed to it just happening as a matter of course when you went from 4th to 5th level, or whatever) reinforced how relatively immutable ability scores were. Also, I don't see the OSR as being particularly anti-magic.
|
|