Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Advertisement Create a free account

[Interest Check] DND 5E - House ruled to feel like AD&D

I've been trying to find my passion for gaming again and I've thought about running a DND 5 game but with some modifications. I've been playing for about 25 years and really miss the old school game systems. I like Dungeon Crawl Classics but I like 5E even better so I've taken some ideas from them.&nbsp; Start as 0 level nobodies with 1d4 HP. You start with 3 or 4 nobodies because many of them will die.&nbsp; Roll 3d6 straight down the line of stats.&nbsp; For encounter building, disregard the multiplier for number of monsters.&nbsp; Usually run "Deadly" encounters Race and Class restrictions: No tiefling or dragonborn Only humans can be Paladins and they must be Lawful Good Minimum attribute scores to be allowed into a class: <a href="http://adventuresinnerdliness.net/dnd/adnd/classes" rel="nofollow">http://adventuresinnerdliness.net/dnd/adnd/classes</a>... Just some thoughts. Combat to role play ratio would be something like 60% combat, 40% role play. This means that there would be a good amount of dungeons to craw through along with encounters. It doesn't necessarily mean we'd do combat every session. Let me know if you have any input or suggestions. Thanks for looking.&nbsp;
1463456886
Greg
Pro
Shortly after the release of 5E, I ran a group that used the new basic rules and some character limitations to create an old school feel.&nbsp;5E is such a great system that I think it's better to run old school games with the new rules. In fact, they were partly designed for that purpose. So, I like your idea of using 5E to run something similar to AD&D. Of course, in AD&D, the straight 3d6 method was no longer advised, and the DM's guide recommends four other methods. Three of them are rather far-fetched, but the first method remains today: roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die. That would be my preference. Personally, I wouldn't be keen on starting at level 0 and 1d4 hit points. The current 5E system for hit points works well, and I wouldn't sign up for anything that ignores the encounter building guidelines and deliberately makes deadly encounters the norm. I would rather be able to build a character over the long haul and not go back to the early days of characters dying constantly. Otherwise, I like your concepts. One house rule I plan to use in some of my future campaigns is to exclude the Oath of Devotion for paladins, in addition to limiting them to good and neutral alignments. This is to avoid problems between players and within the party if such a character is role played accurately. The Oath of the Ancients and Oath of Vengeance seem better suited for adventuring parties and a potential mix of good and neutral alignments.
Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I 100% agree about the 3d6 vs. the 4d6 drop the lowest. I like that a lot better. I can understand the hesitation of doing encounters that were always deadly but I think that was the best part of 1st and 2nd DND. I like that dangerous environment and the fact that you can't always slash your way through fights. Sometimes you need to run away and regroup or be very very cleaver. But I can see your point so I think I'll scale it back a bit. I know it can suck when you lose a character that you invest into but I feel that 5E doesn't give you many chances of death which takes the excitement out of it for me. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks again for the input.&nbsp;
I'd like to show some interest in this if it ever gets on its feet. I am relatively new to both 2e and 5e but have had more play time with 2e lately.&nbsp;I enjoy the needed combat strategy, puzzle solving and the relentless challenge of survival in 2e (from my limited personal experience), although I have not had enough exposure or playtime with 5e to see all the possibilities it has to offer aside from reading the phb and getting involved in some very short adventures. I can't offer much criticism but the idea of weaklings overcoming unimaginable odds is very appealing. If this gets off the ground I'd like to get involved.
1463551467

Edited 1463551605
Greg
Pro
I suppose your approach to deadly encounter frequency is okay, as long as the players have options to parlay, negotiate, run away, or find other ways to avoid the risk. I was not thinking in those terms. But that was definitely the key to old school gaming. However, I think it's good to have a balance of encounters from easy to deadly. Otherwise, if they are all deadly, encounters might become monotonous, or the PCs may never take them on unless there is something major to be gained. Personally, I disagree that 5E does not offer as many chances at death. There are rules and guidelines for encounter building, but they are neutral. They are designed to help the DM build encounters that are easier, more balanced, or more deadly. It is all up to the DM. If the DM and players prefer to have greater risk of death with greater frequency, it is easy to achieve. The rules provide a quick guideline for how to achieve this. Also, the risks in 5E can go beyond combat into many other areas, such as an acrobatics check to navigate a narrow cliff ledge and avoid a drop to certain death in a ravine below. The game is as easy or deadly as you would like it to be, without resorting to house rules. With the entire monster manual at your disposal, it is a simple exercise to present the PCs with a truly deadly encounter or the prospect of a total party kill. I agree that the risk of character death helps create tension, which can make the game more exciting for many players. However, if the risk is always high and always deadly, it seems inevitable that a lot of characters will die, and this might cause some players to become frustrated and lose interest. That is why the ability score rules were adjusted in AD&D and why we have seen so many innovations in hit points, healing, and other rules. Think of it in literary terms. Would a trilogy of fantasy novels be successful if all four of the main characters died during the course of the first book, and they were replaced by other characters? No. People want to invest in characters emotionally and see them succeed. One or two deaths are a tragedy and can bring meaning and gravity to a story. Wiping out everyone in the opening chapters is probably going to lose your readers. I don't mean to imply that you are looking to kill off all your PCs, but hopefully you get the idea. In the end, I think it is all about balancing risk and success in the interest of immersion, tension, release, and fun. &nbsp;
I love the thought, I always enjoyed the "realistic" (Hard) version of D&D/AD&D. If you kick this off, id love to join. As far as advice. I like everything everyone's said, the only thing i'd add is the "Short/Long rest". I think it makes more sense to be longer (1-3 days) as well as resting in a forest, would be more likely to encounter, or a cheap inn, would give chance of stolen stuff. That's how i like to make my games. \As far as the starting level 0, and dice roll. I do enjoy that, Depending on the story, i like to start my champs as "level 0/session 0" and make them pick their class based off of how they roll, how they act. This way if you rolled a 18 on dex, you probably won't want to play the cleric (Who knows?!). And it lets my players have a choice, rather than one person playing the rogue every campaign. I usually do the 4d6, roll per stat. so first roll is STR, and goes down the list. It can suck, but, hey, it gives your character some "character" All in all, let me know if you ever want to start a game. This should be fun
@ chloro I can't offer much criticism but the idea of weaklings overcoming unimaginable odds is very appealing. If this gets off the ground I'd like to get involved. You'll be the first to know, thanks.&nbsp; @ Greg I suppose your approach to deadly encounter frequency is okay, as long as the players have options to parlay, negotiate, run away, or find other ways to avoid the risk. Yeah, that's the approach. I don't run typically combat sessions. I like players to ask why the orc tribe is holed up in a dungeon and attempt tasks by doing something other than "I attack."&nbsp; Personally, I disagree that 5E does not offer as many chances at death. There are rules and guidelines for encounter building... 5E does a great job of giving you the tools to create balanced encounters. I just feel that even deadly encounters are a little light because of the multiplier rule. I've ran 5E for about 2 years now and have only had one character die during a deadly encounter in all that time. But I do agree with you about the good tools.&nbsp; However, if the risk is always high and always deadly, it seems inevitable that a lot of characters will die... Oh yeah, I don't intend on every encounter being deadly. I should have clarified that I want to build encounters which don't really abide by encounter XP totals and ignore the XP multiplier. I also would sprinkle these deadly encounters through the campaign without building them for certain levels as I feel like that puts everyone on the train tracks from point A to B. If the PC's somehow run into the level 12 encounter I built but they're only level 3... then that's where that disregard for "deadly" encounters comes in. I tend to create sandbox campaigns. It works the other way around as well. If they were level 12 and ran into a 3rd level encounter, it could go a totally different way with the party not slaughtering the goblins but instead follow them around for a few days to see what they're up to.&nbsp; Would a trilogy of fantasy novels be successful if all four of the main characters died during the course of the first book, and they were replaced by other characters? *cough*Game*cough*Of*cough*Thrones I think it is all about balancing risk and success in the interest of immersion, tension, release, and fun. Exactly @ Jon Great ideas and advice that I'm going to shamelessly steal. Thanks, and I'll let you know when this gets off the ground.&nbsp;
1463614854
Greg
Pro
Ansgar said: Would a trilogy of fantasy novels be successful if all four of the main characters died during the course of the first book, and they were replaced by other characters? *cough*Game*cough*Of*cough*Thrones Did that happen in the novels? I have never read the books or watched the TV series. Were these the actual protagonists of the story, or were they just some of the main cast? If George R.R. Martin managed to pull it off despite killing off the actual protagonists of the story, then I suppose I should give him credit for beating the odds. That certainly isn't the usual formula for success. I think of it this way: how successful would the Icewind Dale trilogy have been if Drizzt, Wulfgar, Brunor, and Regis all died in the first book? It's hard to imagine readers sticking with the series after that. At any rate, we are probably more in agreement than it might have seemed. I guess your main issue is just with the 5E multipliers and whether the resulting "deadly" encounters are truly deadly. The rules say that a deadly encounter only means it "could be lethal for one or more player characters." How much of a chance does "could" mean? We don't know. It also says survival requires good tactics and quick thinking. Maybe your players have just been lucky, or maybe the odds of death are not high enough for your preference, or maybe the statement above implies that good tactics and quick thinking will usually overcome the lethal nature of the encounter. So, if you have smart players, they may be routinely turning deadly encounters into merely hard encounters. It's hard to say. But you're probably right to ignore or tweak the multipliers if you aren't getting the results you like. As Jon seemed to suggest, gritty realism options are another way to increase the risks and dangers of encounters and challenges in the game. If you need a week for a long rest and 8 hours just to spend a hit die, you will probably be very cautious about combat or will frequently have fewer than your full hit points.
I don't know why it's so hard to find a list of character deaths for the first book A Game Of Thrones but I did find this: MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW <a href="http://genius.com/Game-of-thrones-list-of-game-of-" rel="nofollow">http://genius.com/Game-of-thrones-list-of-game-of-</a>... I think of it this way: how successful would the Icewind Dale trilogy have been if Drizzt, Wulfgar, Brunor, and Regis all died in the first book? It's hard to imagine readers sticking with the series after that. IMHO, I think that if the story involved a wide range of characters then their deaths would have been so profound and earth shattering that I'd be forced to read the next book to find out what the series had in store for me as the reader. But since the books focused primarily on the 4 heroes then it'd kind of suck. BUT, when I thought that Bruenor had died for real when he jumped on Shimmergloom's back and fought it to the depths of hell in a fiery blaze... that was amazing.&nbsp; My campaigns are almost always focused on the story and the world around the players. The world and the NPC's in the world act as another character in that story. I've had sessions where a character died and it brought real tears to all of us around the table. All I'm trying to say is that character death doesn't have to be a campaign ending event. I think that gamers have evolved alongside the rule sets over the years and we [gamers] have a hard time letting go of the character on paper because it's a direct representation of the player in our hearts. Whoa.&nbsp; ha, but anyways, good points. Love the gritty resting rules. I can't wait to actually get started now that I have more direction. Thanks.&nbsp;