|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 28, 2019 22:29:33 GMT -6
What I would really like to see is a published rules set which combines the two, with base 5E mechanics simplified like OD&D. Not the WotC Basic rules set, because those limit things too much. Something more in-between. Mmm. I have been thinking similar thoughts on and off for quite a while. I have some notes, but probably for another topic. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 29, 2019 0:56:17 GMT -6
What I would really like to see is a published rules set which combines the two, with base 5E mechanics simplified like OD&D. Not the WotC Basic rules set, because those limit things too much. Something more in-between. Mmm. I have been thinking similar thoughts on and off for quite a while. I have some notes, but probably for another topic. I'm always interested in this topic for some reason. I've made several attempts at doing just this over the years. I now have some nice reference sheets I made to handout to players and that does seem to help. I did them in a 5E-style for familiarity and ease-of-transition. You can see a sample here or here. A "B/X" or "OD&D" version of 5E is something I think would be really successful with new and old players alike. I feel like the Basic Rules are excellent considering they're free, but still too fiddly and "limiting," as Fin put it, for my tastes. Nothing beats the 3lbbs for speed and simplicity in my limited experience. As a ruleset, however, the 3lbbs is a tough sell for neophytes with B/X being only marginally better in that regard. It's pretty easy to get folks on board for a 5E game, but I'd much rather ref OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 29, 2019 1:11:53 GMT -6
Mmm. I have been thinking similar thoughts on and off for quite a while. I have some notes, but probably for another topic. A "B/X" or "OD&D" version of 5E is something I think would be really successful with new and old players alike. I feel like the Basic Rules are excellent considering they're free, but still too fiddly and "limiting," as Fin put it, for my tastes. It's an interesting point, since I thought the Basic Rules for 5e were much smaller than they are (having just looked them over again). You could, frankly, get away with many house-rules and simplifications on these and I think most 5e players would probably accept it, especially if they're in the name of making things faster to run and easier to remember without a book. I'd thought of something similar: remove Skills, change how abilities are rolled, trim the race list, change Death Saves, etc. I suppose the question is, if you can likely change a lot about 5e without offending many sensibilities, "what makes 5e the easier sell than the comparatively-simple LBBs?" |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 29, 2019 5:17:01 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the best approach might be to accomplish an OD&D-5E blend. I think that one of the fundamental differences is that the 5E Basic doc seems sterile. It may not be as much a matter of the rules, but instead one of feel.
I think that the first thing I would do is to cap the thing at level 10 or 12, and remove all spells etc devoted to anything higher than that. The free basic rules are something like 180 pages, which is huge.
Divide the whole thing into three parts, roughly corresponding to the 3 LBB. (After all, players really shouldn't have access to all of the monster data.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 29, 2019 14:11:22 GMT -6
Clearly, moving the topic killed the discussion. Darn.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 29, 2019 16:33:20 GMT -6
Clearly, moving the topic killed the discussion. Darn. Nah, just timing. There are a few other discussions on this topic across the board; might be good to round up links to all these as a starter (but not doable from my phone). Some pertinent design observations in the D. A.’s genius thread also. Then i’d suggest a table of feature-by-feature comparisons: 0e : 5e : desired. With that we’d have a clearer idea what we’re chasing. From there it’s just a matter of doing something about it  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 29, 2019 19:24:56 GMT -6
I'm not a 5e aficionado. I have read the basic rules though and it's pretty obvious that the game is heavily mechanics driven for all character actions. Character generation starts with picking a race then a class before rolling abilities. It is designed this way for character builds where a player is attempting to maximize it's potential. All components are interconnected to future character effectiveness and growth. This all seems to be a large hurdle out the gate if you want an OD&D-like game.
Possibly you could create something similar to 5e with an OD&D feel by emphasizing it's core d20 mechanic while stripping the game of it's excessive modifiers, de-emphasizing ability and skill checks (though these are things players are probably accustomed to), and ignoring the chapter on character customization with personality and backgrounds.
In it's place a GM would have to create an expectation for roleplay where skills and abilities take on a rarer significance in adjudication.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 29, 2019 20:13:14 GMT -6
A relevant primer topic to catch up on may be this one: odd74.proboards.com/thread/10138/hack-5e-old-schoolNoting this salient post toward the bottom: part of the appeal of some to 5E is that they are using very high level math to figure out how long it takes a hero to not just kill an ogre, but how long it takes a party of heroes to kill multiple encounters of ogres and how much those encounters effect their total resources in a dungeon delve taking into account things like rests, second wind, wizards use of spells, group dynamics etc. The expectation that a game should comprise balanced encounters and winnable scenarios is, IMHO, a tragic malady that seems to have crept into game design. That modern computing enables designers to realise their design expectations so completely puts them in a position of genuine responsibility. They know precisely why every number is what it is, and what it means for game play. The potential for overwhelming numbers (of foes), unbeatable monsters, and freakish treasure hauls seems "unfair" in a modern world where sensibilities are more balanced, manageable, and predicable. The players are meant to win the modern game; it's made that way with all the world's computing power to stack the numbers in favor of the designer's desired outcome. When victory becomes "business as usual", then the focus of player emotion shifts from a sense of accomplishment when they win, toward a sense of frustration when they don't. That's all a bit melodramatic, sure; realistically a lot depends on the individual players. But the gist of it is, I believe, still relevant. That is largely why this thread exists: to see if it's possible to reinvest some of those old school sensibilities into the otherwise perfectly designed modern game  I think this post strikes at the heart of "hacking" 5e for an old school feel. Despite the many changes 5e makes that feel more old school, at its core 5e still operates on the same basic assumptions of 3E and 4E, that combat is the central activity of the game. And as combat is the major source of XP in the game, the players are incentivized to approach every encounter as a combat encounter, meticulously designed to be winnable no matter how tough the odds. If you really want to hack 5e for an old school feel, you need to change the reward structure of the game. The balance of XP rewards should come from exploration and treasure hunting, not combat. Doing so changes the player's incentives and the way they approach the game. If you don't change the reward structure, then none of the other changes you make will matter, at least as far as old school play is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Greyharp on Mar 29, 2019 23:39:09 GMT -6
A relevant primer topic to catch up on may be this one: odd74.proboards.com/thread/10138/hack-5e-old-schoolNoting this salient post toward the bottom: I think this post strikes at the heart of "hacking" 5e for an old school feel. Despite the many changes 5e makes that feel more old school, at its core 5e still operates on the same basic assumptions of 3E and 4E, that combat is the central activity of the game. And as combat is the major source of XP in the game, the players are incentivized to approach every encounter as a combat encounter, meticulously designed to be winnable no matter how tough the odds. If you really want to hack 5e for an old school feel, you need to change the reward structure of the game. The balance of XP rewards should come from exploration and treasure hunting, not combat. Doing so changes the player's incentives and the way they approach the game. If you don't change the reward structure, then none of the other changes you make will matter, at least as far as old school play is concerned. Not a blend of games but rather just house-ruling 5e, some good suggestions the Hack & Slash blog, starting with the sort of dramatic change to XP rewards as suggested above:
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 0:15:49 GMT -6
That's a good post for summing up the intended playstyle, Ways. Thanks for digging that up.
So for now, let's just assume an old-school mentality towards adventure design and XP awards, that way we can focus on tweaking the mechanics first. Here's where I'd start:
1. Use the 5E basic rules as a base.
2. Temporarily tease out all the monsters, magic items, spells, and any setting/flavor text.
3. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all skills
4. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all feats
5. Remove death saves
6. Proficiency bonus applies to all saves and ability checks
7. Remove spell components
8. Remove damage types
9. Remove hit dice
10. Remove short rests
11. Use the optional DMG rule that long rests take a week
12. Remove good/evil alignments
13. Use the optional DMG rule for side-based initiative
14. Remove inspiration
15. Remove passive perception
With that done, I'd see what we're left with. I can already anticipate needing to trim the combat actions and conditions, so I think we should look at those two items next.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2019 12:39:03 GMT -6
Not a blend of games but rather just house-ruling 5e, some good suggestions the Hack & Slash blog, starting with the sort of dramatic change to XP rewards as suggested above: I think all his suggestions are pretty good. His first one I'd want to tinker with a little more. I actually kind of like 5e's CR system and see it's utility. I'd be inclined to first try reducing XP rewards for combat by 50%. Then, instead of xp for gp, add xp for reaching certain objectives (1-4 per session). This would include finding key treasures, completing a mission, and overcoming obstacles like tricks and traps. Conservatively, the possible xp total gains for this should not exceed a parties deadly threshold x2 (ie. for four 1st level characters- 400 x2= 800 xp). Divvy the xp between the objectives however you choose. 5e seems like it is designed for rapid level gains at the start. I'd be inclined to want to slow it down slightly. Others may not. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 15:01:47 GMT -6
That's a good post for summing up the intended playstyle, Ways. Thanks for digging that up. So for now, let's just assume an old-school mentality towards adventure design and XP awards, that way we can focus on tweaking the mechanics first. Here's where I'd start: 1. Use the 5E basic rules as a base. 2. Temporarily tease out all the monsters, magic items, spells, and any setting/flavor text. 3. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all skills 4. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all feats 5. Remove death saves 6. Proficiency bonus applies to all saves and ability checks 7. Remove spell components 8. Remove damage types 9. Remove hit dice 10. Remove short rests 11. Use the optional DMG rule that long rests take a week 12. Remove good/evil alignments 13. Use the optional DMG rule for side-based initiative 14. Remove inspiration With that done, I'd see what we're left with. I can already anticipate needing to trim the combat actions and conditions, so I think we should look at those two items next. Nice list Six. What are the features of 5E you’d bring over if you were starting from an 0e base? |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 30, 2019 15:04:45 GMT -6
I like the advantage/disadvantage system. I feel it is an easy "wing it" mechanic that replaces the need for lots of tables.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 15:04:48 GMT -6
Not a blend of games but rather just house-ruling 5e, some good suggestions the Hack & Slash blog, starting with the sort of dramatic change to XP rewards as suggested above: Nice blog post; very relevant suggesions. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 15:10:10 GMT -6
I like the advantage/disadvantage system. I feel it is an easy "wing it" mechanic that replaces the need for lots of tables. Agree; a single qualitative advantage is way easier than adding up a series of quantitative advantages. I also like the casting spells at higher level mechanic. It partly addresses the old quadratic power curve of MUs. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 15:24:21 GMT -6
What are the features of 5E you’d bring over if you were starting from an 0e base? Good question. Things that may help noobs and other 5E folks adjust to OE: 1. Advantage/Disadvantage (I actually use this in OE) 2. Proficiency Bonus 3. Ability Bonuses 4. Core Four Classes 5. Core Four Races 6. Milestone/Session XP (encourages sandbox-style exploration instead of combat) 7. Ascending Armor Class 8. Save DC 9. Most class features (I would need to go through these in more detail though, but I believe that they essential to the classes in 5E) I think those things would get you 90% of the way to a 5E-feel. The core 5E mechanic is ability bonus + prof bonus >= AC or Save DC. Everything else is an ability check. So as long as that stays the same, turning 0e into 5e or, conversely, 5e to 0e should be doable. I suppose the question is whether it's easier to strip 5e into something more 0e-like, or to bolt some 5e conventions onto 0e. I forgot to mention above, but I'd also remove passive perception, it's unnecessary as well. I'll add it to the list. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 15:30:20 GMT -6
I like the advantage/disadvantage system. I feel it is an easy "wing it" mechanic that replaces the need for lots of tables. Agree; a single qualitative advantage is way easier than adding up a series of quantitative advantages. I also like the casting spells at higher level mechanic. It partly addresses the old quadratic power curve of MUs. I agree with both of y'all here. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 16:16:34 GMT -6
Things that may help noobs and other 5E folks adjust to OE: 1. Advantage/Disadvantage (I actually use this in OE) 2. Proficiency Bonus 3. Ability Bonuses 4. Core Four Classes 5. Core Four Races 6. Milestone/Session XP (encourages sandbox-style exploration instead of combat) 7. Ascending Armor Class 8. Save DC 9. Most class features (I would need to go through these in more detail though, but I believe that they essential to the classes in 5E) 'nother nice list Considering points 4 and 9, which are your four "core" 5e classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard)? Maybe for another post, but what do you consider to be the "essential" features of each? |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 16:35:10 GMT -6
Considering points 4 and 9, which are your four "core" 5e classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard)? Yes, mainly because those are the ones included in the free basic rules and other intro sets like: Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, 5e starter set, etc. I know the thief/rogue is controversial in 0e-land, but in most other places it's considered a core class. Likewise, the human, dwarf, elf, halfling races. Maybe for another post, but what do you consider to be the "essential" features of each? Yeah, I need to take a closer look at the 5e class features of each. Off the top of my head for fighters it's extra attacks, in-combat healing, and easier crits, for rogues it's backstab damage and stealthy movement, for clerics it's magic healing/buffs and turning undead, and for wizards it's obviously spell casting. I'm rusty on the specifics, though. I'll make some posts on these features, along with trying to consolidate some of the combat actions and conditions. Edit: I think the 5e racial traits might actually be less prominent than 0e (or at least not moreso), but I'll need to double-check on that. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 17:42:47 GMT -6
Off the top of head for fighters it's extra attacks, in-combat healing, and easier crits, … I'll make some posts on these features, along with trying to consolidate some of the combat actions and conditions. Ya. So, 5e fighters get the following class "features": - Fighting Style (archery, defence (armor), duelling, defender (of others), great weapon, dual weapon). An advantage (+2 to hit) with a preferred loadout. In 0e this is essentially built into the F-M's attack matrix and weapon selection. It's saying there's a particular loadout this FM is "good at", implying that he's "not as good at" other loadouts. Similar-ish to AD&D weapon proficiencies, but covers "weapon groups" and armor/shields too.
- Second wind self heal during combat. In 0e this could be an extension (to all F-M) of the CM Hero's ability to ignore up to 3 normal hits. To some extent this reduces the need for F-M to have "too many" extra hp.
- Action Surge: one extra "action" (attack, move, whatever) per rest. In 0e this would be an extra "segment" (attack, move, whatever), similar to a surprise segment. Recalling that surprise can be decisive, and that it can happen to players too, this ability should likely apply in limited circumstances? Perhaps only when the players have already won surprise (so F-M can really capitalise on surprise/ambush)?
- Martial Archetype: a "development path" (champion, battlemaster, eldritch knight) that offers a fairly complex package of benefits/action options at level 3, with additional breadth/depth added at levels 7, 10, 15, 18. No obvious 0e analogy. This might be positioned as an (optional) mechanism for building out F-M "subclasses"?
- Ability Score Improvement: +2 to one score or +1 to two scores. No obvious 0e analogy. 0e ability score adjustments are less significant, so it's no big deal to inflate 0e scores somewhat. Probably once per "tier" (heroic, super-heroic, legendary)?
- Extra attack at levels 5, 11, 20, so up to 4 attacks. This is similar, but not identical, to 0e's FC stat. The main difference is 0e's distinction between normal and fantastic attacks; should likely yield to the 5e mechanic for simplicity/popular appeal.
- Indomitable: reroll a failed save once per rest. No obvious 0e analogy, but this seems redundant with improved saves. Re-rolls also slow play. Perhaps this could translate to always being advantaged on certain types of saves?
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 19:05:39 GMT -6
Ya. So, 5e fighters get the following class "features": I really like all these justifications! For the Martial Archetype, the default is Champion and that's actually the only option in the basic rules, so I think we can safely eliminate the others. All the rest of these are really well-thought out. This is probably where 0e has the major advantage of having less moving parts. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 20:04:20 GMT -6
For me the ability score improvements and "indomitable" saves could be positioned as general features of all classes related to a PC's "tier" rather than to a specific class. This would simplify a class. Regarding the 5e "Champion" archetype, it gets the following features: - (3rd level) Improved Critical: Crit on 19-20 rather than just 20. Assumes critical hits are "a thing" (which is likely overall a bad deal for players). Essentially, this is saying a F-M can occasionally deal more damage on a hit. An issue might be that hard to hit targets end up suffering a higher proportion of critical hits. Perhaps some form of exploding damage dice could work instead?
- (7th level) Remarkable Athlete: Add half proficiency bonus to athletic checks; long jump farther. Seems innocuous, but the issues for me are whether "athletic checks" are necessary, and whether 7th level is the appropriate time to start "jumping further". For me, a hero jumps heroically, so this kind of stuff should kick in at 4th level (in 0e terms).
- (10th level) Additional Fighting Style: So... "good at" another loadout. No particular issue with this.
- (15th level) Superior Critical: Crit on 18-20. See above.
- (18th level) Survivor: Regenerate 5 + constitution adj. hp each turn when below half hp. Redundant with: F-M's additional hp, ignoring normal hits (see above post), and rings of regeneration. In general, managing larger pools of hp and/or dealing with more hp "transactions" will slow play. Conversely, having less of this will (relatively) speed play along.
Some other 0e F-M abilities which seem to have been lost include: * The privilege of jousting. * The ability to strike various monsters immune to normal missiles, normal weapons, or struck only by +1, +2, +3 magic weapons. * The ability to sense invisible opponents. * Raising morale of friendly troops. * Causing enemy troops to test morale by merely threatening to attack and/or by actually attacking. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 30, 2019 20:25:43 GMT -6
This thread is giving me some good ideas for BLUEHOLME 5E. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 30, 2019 20:33:33 GMT -6
A big difference is the 5E idea of limiting the number of magic items by requiring "attunement", and the general scarcity of any kind of item. I believe that's one of the reasons for some of the higher-level character bonuses. If you remove attunement you could effectively swap some class abilities for an assumption of more magic items per character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 30, 2019 21:58:58 GMT -6
One thing that I rather like about later editions--even though not necessary in OD&D--is the straightforward function for ability modifiers on a scale of 1-20. Every modifier works slightly differently (and has different requirements) in OD&D by-the-book, so it's not the easiest thing to remember.
If I were doing something akin to a stripped-down 5e, I would excise multiple attacks and reintroduce Dave Arneson's chop-'til-you-drop. I could probably justify using d10/d8/d6/d4 for Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, but also apply this to how much damage they deal. This way, Fighters do more damage, period, without need for a convoluted weapon list (I would rather copy scottenkainen's idea of each weapon having one "special thing" each).
I also like the idea of Inspiration; I think it could fill holes in some otherwise unremarkable parts of the rules. I don't know when I'd be able to share this otherwise, so here's my thought:
0.) You can hold Inspiration equal to Proficiency Bonus, rather than just 1.
1.) You gain Inspiration on any Ability Check/Saving Throw of a natural 20.
2.) When Attacking, you choose whether it's an Attack to Damage/Effect/Inspire (effects like trip, grapple, disarm, unhorse, etc.)
3.) An Attack roll of 20 lets you choose a second option (Damage/Damage, Inspire/Damage, Effect/Inspire, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2019 22:25:38 GMT -6
A big difference is the 5E idea of limiting the number of magic items by requiring "attunement", and the general scarcity of any kind of item. I believe that's one of the reasons for some of the higher-level character bonuses. If you remove attunement you could effectively swap some class abilities for an assumption of more magic items per character. Well spotted Vile Traveller Yeah, I kinda like that magic item possession should be somehow capped (probably by player tier), but I don't think vesting "magic powers" in class features is a great option because it makes player-types intrinsically more powerful. In 0e it's part of the game to find, de-mystify, and hang onto magic items to make figures powerful. But the magic items themselves can get used up, lost, stolen, taxed, inherited, destroyed, or whatever; any of which can add motive, strategy, or intrigue to a campaign. It's more work to achieve that kind of dynamic if the magical powers are "built in" to player-types instead/as well. Also, in 0e it's possible for a low level PC find a powerful item, or for a high level PC to never find a powerful item. This variability is less plausible when the kewl powerz are baked into the PC development path. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 1, 2019 2:58:23 GMT -6
Another big difference, of course, is magic. 5E has cantrips, which are fine in 5E (once you get over the attack ones and see the much greater value of the utility ones) but IMO don't really fit OD&D. Also, the spells are delicately balanced in 5E, while there is OD&D sleep and charm person. Now, I'd be tempted to go for the crazy OD&D imbalance, myself, but you have to go in understanding that 5E is very carefully balanced and messing with that balance might upset things in unexpected ways down the line.
I think before getting into this seriously, you have to decide: why are you doing this? If it's to play with 5E gamers in an OD&D style, maybe you want to stick closely to the 5E system. If it's to win 5E players over to OD&D, you might need to be more radical and re-write substantial portions of the 5E rules closer to that OD&D quirkiness. I think there are merits in both approaches, but they involve fundamentally different approaches - the first is basically subtractive, while the second is a more comprehensive re-write.
For BLUEHOLME™ 5E I am going with the first, basically just re-skinning 5E for "Holmes flavour". That means taking away lots of stuff, some re-naming, substituting some of the DMG options for the PHB rules, and changing elements that won't have a major mechanical impact or are essentially "behind the scenes".
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 1, 2019 3:52:17 GMT -6
I think before getting into this seriously, you have to decide: why are you doing this? If it's to play with 5E gamers in an OD&D style, maybe you want to stick closely to the 5E system. If it's to win 5E players over to OD&D, you might need to be more radical and re-write substantial portions of the 5E rules closer to that OD&D quirkiness. I think there are merits in both approaches, but they involve fundamentally different approaches - the first is basically subtractive, while the second is a more comprehensive re-write. For myself, I'm not certain of the answer. My group of players really enjoys 5E and I enjoy both. As I've stated before, 5E is probably more fun to play while OD&D is more fun to DM. I guess I would have to steer closer to the "play with 5E gamers in the OD&D style" in order to achieve my goals. That kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Apr 2, 2019 22:59:47 GMT -6
I've written some ideas down on this already. Once I find them, I'll post them here Mostly class conversion ideas, iirc. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Apr 3, 2019 5:49:46 GMT -6
|
|
