I think it's worth pointing out that, although it was only one per level, the "automatically add spells to your spellbook at level up" goes back all the way to 1e.
I'm not as familiar with 1E. In 2E, only specialist mages automatically gained a new spell each level, and it had to be from their specialist school. It was also stated that the spell may either be left up to player choice or be chosen by the DM.
As a DM, I personally would probably not pick out each spell for my players, but I may choose to veto certain spells if they have the potential to break a campaign. Of course, there's really nothing to keep me from using similar restrictions with any edition.
It's pretty clear that 5th edition isn't for you( barring lots of alterations) and you would be better served modding what you have.
That's a very direct and unilateral statement - could you at least provide some reasoning as to why you don't think I should go with 5th? Because at this point, I've been heavily leaning towards it. Whatever rules I use, there is going to be a need for some level of modification. But if you have some legitimate reasons as to why you think 5th just won't work, I'd love to hear them.
Before 5e, I had only ever ran or played 1e, 2e, and BECMI.
5e is hands down my favorite. To me it feels and plays like those older editions, but easier. Just like those older editions, it's easy to hack. I've been able to run old adventures without having to do any heavy lifting, I've been able to convert "on the fly".
It's also fairly easy to convert monsters, spells, items, ect. from previous editions once you do it once or twice. I've even taken some new classes from old Dragon Magazines and converted them into 5e subclasses. Someone's idea of making a rogue archetype that would fit in as a magic light bard would be fairly simple to do.
As others have mentioned, low level wizards are more powerful than early editions, but don't grow exponentially in power.
A lot of the things you are looking to house rule or homebrew are things that have been done. Check out
EnWorld's House rule, Homebrew and Conversion Library. Tons of good stuff Google+ has many groups that discuss and share the same idea, and there are many great blogs that do as well.
To get you started, one of the things you wanted were more cleric domains:
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-5th-edition-dungeons.html?m=1
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-dungeons-dragons-5e.html?m=1
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-5th-edition-dungeons_23.html?m=1
Good resources, thanks! I also appreciate the insights on conversions.
Do note that in 5e ability score increases give you 2 points which you can give to a single ability or split into +1 to two different abilities. Since there are feats that give you a +1 ability score and other benefits, odd stats at character creation can actually be useful. Having a 13 and then taking a feat that gives you a +1 and a benefit is much better than taking a +2 to that stat. There are actually, in my experience, more interesting possibilities in how you split up your ability scores and increase them as you level than there were in 3e. (Not sure if that's a draw for you or not).
So noted. Although, I'm not certain that "better than 3E" in this regard is quite the criteria I'm aiming for. We'll see; my starter set is supposed to arrive today, so I'm hoping to play around with some of it this weekend.
Look at p. 142-143 in the DMG.
Ooooooo... I like! That can definitely be useful, as a source of ideas if nothing else.
I looked over rogue and bard a bit. Here's how I would do a non-magical/low-magical bard.
Create a roguish archetype--we'll call it "Troubadour."
For their 3rd level ability they get proficiency in two musical instruments and the Bardic Inspiration class feature from bard. The dice scale at the levels given in the bard description. (That should keep it competitive with Assassination.)
At 9th level they get Font of Inspiration.
At 13th level I'd give them Use Magic Device (though you could give them two spells from the bard's Magical Secrets feature if you prefer).
At 17th level I'd give them Magical Secrets (or two additional spells if you already gave it to them at 13th level).
Magical Secrets would allow them to learn any two spells of spell level equal to or less than 1/4 their level, rounded up (so the same max as paladin or ranger), or cantrips.
The balance is a bit more difficult to judge than with some other classes, since the other two rogue subclasses are quite different from each other in their abilities.
It's definitely got some potential. One issue (and this is an issue with the Bard as well) is that I'm really not crazy about the Magical Secrets ability. It seems to have a lot of possibility for game-breaking abuse. In some other discussions which I had read the point was made that this can give the Bard access to Paladin/Ranger powers which otherwise would not be in the game until a much higher level, which may certainly be a concern. I'm also still not a fan of casters of any sort just pulling new spells from anywhere without restriction. I think that if I were to allow a Magical Secrets ability within my campaign, I would have to restrict the player to spells which they had been exposed to - either something that a party member of another class could teach them, or pulling spells from a defeated enemy's spell book, etc. Maybe even something which they had seen being cast, provided they were in a position to observe the details of the casting.
That seems to be the consensus. I did some math and determined that hunter rangers can be pretty good at dealing damage to multiple targets if they are making good use of their subclass features and spells--but again, it just feels weak for some reason. They have a decent amount going for them in the non-combat department, and that means they can't be as good as a fighter or paladin (who are both almost entirely combat) in combat or they'd be overpowered. Still, they're just "off" some how, and almost everyone feels it.
Part of me almost hopes for a 5.5E or something similar in a couple of years to try to correct this. Hopefully it won't take something that drastic, but I've rarely seen supplements which completely rewrite a base class instead of just tacking on to it.
That's a harder question than it seems! A general feeling seems to place 5e's overall feel somewhere between 2e and 3e, and I believe that is accurate. One difference, however, is that it is highly variable depending on what options and variant rules you use.
The Starter Set games I've been involved in that only used the Basic Rules (rather than the PHB) feel almost like classic BECMI D&D. While on the other hand, the Starter Set game that I ran with full PHB options felt like some odd mix of 2e, 3e, and 4e. The party was human monk, human wild mage sorcerer, drow transmuter, tiefling eldritch knight and dragonborn arcane trickster. While the overall play experience, monsters, treasure, and exploration was more AD&D 1e/2e, the characters just made it crazy. (When I started the campaign I told the players that this was the last game I'd be running where I allowed things like these 4e/5e tieflings and dragonborn (I allow Planescape tieflings in appropriate scenarios, but these crazy looking 4e/5e ones have no place in my multiverse) so if they wanted to play them now was the time.)
The other game I ran was a one-shot 20th-level adventure with one of the character from the other game recurring. Being a 20th level assault on a kraken's lair, it would be difficult to assess.
So my best guess is that if I simply chose which classes, subclasses, races and feats to allow (technically, according to the PHB feats, multiclassing, and races other than human, dwarf, elf, and half-elf are all explicitly optional and only allowed if the DM tells you so--so your players really shouldn't expect to have access to them), define the setting elements the way I like them (which means using setting materials from 2e/3e), and select the optional modules from the DMG and the web articles that I prefer (like slower healing, old-school multiclassing, etc), it should have exactly the feel that I'm looking for.
Perhaps one of the hidden pitfalls you might want to look at is how certain subclasses alter feel. Just carefully examine each one and decide whether things like eldritch knight and way of the four elements monk are things that you want or not. Since 2e eventually ended up with all kinds of stuff, they might work for you, but if you are thinking more along the lines of 2e PHB, that might be over the top.
I'll definitely be limiting races and classes. Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, period. Well, I may allow Gnomes, but I'm still trying to figure out how or if Gnomes fit into this world I'm building. As for classes, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Monks are all up on the list of "might not make it into the campaign." I'm still working on subclasses.
I'm not sure when to expect gestalt multiclassing. Someone who has to give the final approval on certain articles has been tied up in jury duty, and will be for a few months apparently, which has slowed them down a bit. It also depends entirely on their choice of how to release that material. If it comes out in the article on "making 5e feel like another edition," then it will be sooner. If it comes out in its own article, who knows how long we'll have to wait. I need it by the end of this year, so I'll have to create a temporary do it myself version if we don't have it by then. I think there's a pretty reasonable chance we'll have it by then though.
In the meantime, here are a couple of suggestions I had found on multiclassing; maybe you can make them work for you:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-multiclassing-in-5th-edition.html
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4109036
Personally I'll probably pull a few elements from each of these and come up with my own solution. So far as including a "dual class" of option, I was thinking of just allowing the standard 5E multiclassing, but with the stipulation that once the character has taken a second class, if they take any new levels in their original class or add levels from a third (or more) class(es), then they take a penalty to XP. I was considering scaling this penalty based on the total number of classes the character has taken. I've considered some other possible restrictions, but it's still a work in progress.
I haven't decided whether I'm going to limit combos or not. I'll have to see the official rules when they come out and then feel it out. Part of me is just conceptually bound to the idea that old-school multiclassing was about different types of classes. You can be a fighter/mage, or a thief/cleric, but you can't be a fighter/ranger or a wizard/sorcerer. I still like those sorts of distinctions even though we don't have the class groups anymore. Sometimes my knee-jerk reaction isn't actually warranted though, and once I actually give things a chance it isn't an issue. (Other times it is, so judgment is required.)
I'm definitely thinking along the same lines, separating martial, rogue, arcane, and priest classes and not allowing multiclassing within one group. In my experience, multiclassing within one major class type is usually only done to grab a few powers of that class (a fighter dipping into barbarian for rage, or paladin for the saves, etc.), and is usually the result of min-maxing. There will probably also be classes which I don't allow as options to take levels in at a later time for standard 5E multiclassing/dual classing. Barbarian is the first class which comes to mind; thematically, one is a barbarian because of their culture and upbringing. Barring some extreme circumstances, one does not grow up and train in a civilized society and then at a later time learn to become a barbarian. I'm sure there could be exceptions to this, but there would have to be some story-appropriate justifications for such a radical shift in one's fundamental makeup.
I don't actually think implementing that would break anything. It might actually make the game better. If you do try it out, let us know how it works.
We'll see; I imagine it will be some time before my group gets far enough to test this out.
Some people have already addressed it, but yes, the system keeps wizards and high level casters from getting out of hand with multiple checks and balances. There isn't really a linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue anymore. Classes don't increase in power along as steep of a curve as they did in 3e, but still get pretty cool stuff at high levels. And they've done an excellent job of bringing casters and non-casters to the same power level.
As far as the number of spells a wizard has in his book, I would think long and hard before limiting that. Clerics and druids, and even paladins, still get the whole blasted class list, and they even have bonus spells that they always have prepared. So not only do they know more spells, but they have more of them available to them each day (not more slots, just more spells "prepared"). Anything that reduces the number of spells a wizard knows (ie, in his spellbook) risks making the wizard too weak.
That is something else I am noticing. I am used to cleric spells being at least partially restricted by only having access to certain spheres. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand what I've been reading in the 5E PHB that does not seem to be the case. As best as I can tell, spheres/domains don't seem to exist at all in 5E. This feels like a significant oversight to me which I would probably have to address. As I mentioned before, there will be a variety of clerics in my campaign, and part of this involves different orders having access to different sorts of spells.
I'm undecided on whether I want to add in a generalist class. My initial reaction was that I obviously had to have one. Mechanically I'm not too concerned, but there are lore issues here. Many of the known wizards in D&D lore are generalists. Some are specialists. It's a thing. If all wizards are specialists that means that all of those wizards have to be assigned a specialty (if they happen to play a part in a campaign). Evoker, Conjurer, and Transmuter are probably your best bets for a wizard that was a generalist in prior editions. The Basic Rules has Evoker as the most basic wizard subclass (like Life domain for the cleric).
As I said, I'm undecided. Thematically I like generalists, but this may end up as one of those issues that goes away once I let it settle for a bit.
Part of my interest in having generalists comes from wanting to in some way implement the old restriction that specialists do not multiclass, as their specialization takes too much focus.
It sounds like you're doing about the same thing I am with it: deciding which parts you are iffy on, and whether they are good enough, or whether they need changed and how. I've been liking the results. Very rarely have I run across anything that needed extensive changes, and when I started more carefully examining my house rules, I realized I can get the feel I like with a relative small number of targeted rules.
I think that I am at the point where in order to make a solid decision, I'm going to have to start making a chart of all the features I like and dislike about 5th, and then determine which of the ones I dislike can be easily fixed or ignored, which I can live with, and which will take significant effort to make work. I think that only then will I be able to accurately evaluate whether 5E will be a good fit. At the very least though, I've found a lot of features about 5E that I like well enough that even if I don't use 5E as the core rules, I'll definitely be cobbling some of these mechanics into whatever system I do end up using.
Something else which I've noticed about 5E: it seems that even at low levels, characters have the potential to do significant damage with regular attacks - I've seen some examples using multiple damage dice and some hefty damage bonus numbers (in many cases, the raw bonus value has been larger than a single damage die max roll). On the opposite side of this, hit points don't seem to be scaled to match. Basically I'm seeing something on the level of 4E damage, but 1E/2E/3E hit points, and I'm curious as to what that does to combat. Just looking at the numbers, it seems that the players would plow through any enemies where they had the chance to strike first, but could themselves potentially be knocked out of the fight in a single hit (assuming their opponents have similar attacks). It seems like this system would make for some very short and bloody fights (not necessarily a bad thing, I thought 4E combat was way too drawn out for my tastes), but I'd be interested to know how it works out in practice? One caveat here is that I haven't spent much time so far looking into monster stats, and so those encounters may play out differently. Monsters just haven't been a priority for me yet, as in the early levels of my campaign the players will mostly be dealing with other humans and demihumans.
