Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions

WhosDaDungeonMaster · Dec 13, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
I have an interest in more people playing and enjoying my hobby. To that end, helping others avoid bad outcomes due to easily avoidable misconceptions about the ruleset aids this.

Abd 5e is very different from previous editions. Yes, it evokes a similar feel to 1e and 2e, but it's very much not those games. Relying on your experience with those rulesets will lead you awry. The only way to get sufficient experience to make changes that will actually do what you expect is to learn the ruleset first.

And please don't misunderstand me, your goal is commendable. But if people (myself included) want to try making changes, and possibly learning from mistakes if they don't make the game work more to our liking and more enjoyable, they should be encouraged to make the game the best for them it can be. And who is to say any changes from others perspective will be "bad."

Take Initiative, for example. Some people advocate RAW, others want to remove the Dex modifier, others still think of using either Int, Wis, or Dex as other game systems have done. Arguments can be made for any of them with good, reasonable foundations. The OP wants to add Initiative modifiers akin to prior editions and the option available in the 5E DMG.

While there is wisdom in trying RAW for a while (myself and my players are still playing RAW with only a couple minor exceptions, btw), if something doesn't fit the feel for a new DM then they should try making the game better, We are in the process of compiling a list of possible house-rules, and after a while will review them all and determine as a group which one we want to implement.

WhosDaDungeonMaster · Dec 13, 2018

Azzy said:
Sure... Once one has had time to learn and understand the system in question before popping off to make what may seem like innocous changes that can actually have knock-on effects that the inexperienced DM wouldn't know about because they haven't had a proper grasp of the unmolested system.

In other words... No one is telling anyone not to change the rules, the suggesting is to get a thorough understanding of the rules by playing them for a while before you make changes.

I understand that, it was expounded to me over and over again when I first joined here. Some of the changes I wanted to make wouldn't have worked probably, as other pointed out nicely (thank you btw), but so far I have not seen most of my groups proposed changes breaking anything in the game or knocking it out of whack.

And what is a thorough understanding? When is that reached? People still debate some ways the rules are "meant" to work. A good part of it is up to interpretation by the DM and players. And if someone wants to make changes from the beginning, there is nothing wrong with it. If it doesn't work out, change it again or try RAW and see if the group is happy with that.

While simplifying D&D is nice, too much begins to suspend a reality aspect that many people (myself included) enjoy. Sure, I want fantasy, too, but I want something based realism as well. To each their own.

Mort · Dec 13, 2018

James Grover said:
While there is wisdom in trying RAW for a while (myself and my players are still playing RAW with only a couple minor exceptions, btw), if something doesn't fit the feel for a new DM then they should try making the game better, We are in the process of compiling a list of possible house-rules, and after a while will review them all and determine as a group which one we want to implement.

By "we" you mean you and your players?

Because that's, the key. You and your players, together, are compiling a list of changes you all want to make. By doing it together, you are ensuring everyone is adding to the fun of the game (as it applies to the relevant table).

I

WhosDaDungeonMaster · Dec 13, 2018

Mort said:
By "we" you mean you and your players?

Because that's, the key. You and your players, together, are compiling a list of changes you all want to make. By doing it together, you are ensuring everyone is adding to the fun of the game (as it applies to the relevant table).

I

Very good point. Perhaps my mistake is in assuming the OP would discuss changes with other in their group. As a DM, I have always believed power to be absolute, but it must be tempered by the will of the players and the enjoyment of all.

Maybe the OP did discuss things, maybe they didn't, only they know.

SkidAce · Dec 13, 2018

James Grover said:
Finally, many posts will say "Don't change it! Play it first. You'll learn to love it. Blah blah blah." And you know what, they are right in their way. 5E, played completely RAW, works fine. That doesn't mean, however, it works as YOU want to play it. So, change what you want. If you find out later on a change was a bad idea, go RAW or come up with something else. I personally love house-rules and I will have several of them before it is over. Remember...

Make it yours and your players game so you have as much fun as possible!

Quoted for truth.

SkidAce · Dec 13, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
Note: Mr. Grover has also just started playing 5e. His experience is limited, and he's recieved the same advice as the OP, to limited apparent success.

I have played since Red Box, and some of his advice is solid.

Because it depends, some people and groups should play 5e as is for a time to get a feel for it, others can read the book and know some changes that would suit their group immediately.

Two examples for me; Paladins are LG, you can use the chassis for anti-paladins, or champions, or etc, but a Paladin is LG.

The other example is Attunement, we like the concept (i.e. mystical bonding with a weapon etc) but we felt three was too limiting. And arbitrary. Why three? (rhetorical question, not debating it). So we changed that day one.

Game is fine, we are having fun.

CapnZapp · Dec 13, 2018

Coroc said:
Leave out the absolute stupid and wrong 2e initiative rule and everything else you ruled is fine. Come at me with a dagger while I wield a halberd and you will see which weapon strikes with more velocity and who attacks who first simply because of reach.

A good start for the thread

Guest 6801328 · Dec 13, 2018

Also read through this thread (focusing on what @iserith, @Bawylie, and @Ovinomancer write) to get a handle on how skill use has evolved since earlier editions.

And then don't be surprised if your initial reaction is, like many experienced players, "Wait! What? Never!"

Ovinomancer · Dec 13, 2018

SkidAce said:
I have played since Red Box, and some of his advice is solid.

Because it depends, some people and groups should play 5e as is for a time to get a feel for it, others can read the book and know some changes that would suit their group immediately.

Two examples for me; Paladins are LG, you can use the chassis for anti-paladins, or champions, or etc, but a Paladin is LG.

The other example is Attunement, we like the concept (i.e. mystical bonding with a weapon etc) but we felt three was too limiting. And arbitrary. Why three? (rhetorical question, not debating it). So we changed that day one.

Game is fine, we are having fun.

Cool, bit the first is a setting issue, not a rules one and the second happens to be arbitrary -- it only interfaces with item rarity and not play mechanics. The changes in the OP, however, do make large changes in the rukes with knock-on effects. The initiative rule, since [MENTION=6976296]James Grover[/MENTION] likes it, interfaces directly with at least 3 class features I can think of and a few rules. It also has a knockon by slightly debuffing fighters, who really don't need it. That last is not at all apparent from a read through.

The suggestion isn't to not make some flavor changes -- those are fine. But leave the nechanics alone until you get a gradp of the system, because it does play differently from previous editions.

Azzy · Dec 13, 2018

James Grover said:
And what is a thorough understanding?

That should have read as a "more thorough understanding", but fast typing sometimes leads to bad results.

[/QUOTE]When is that reached? [/QUOTE]

As one poster suggested elsewhere, play up to level 5. That should provide a very grounded, practical understanding of how things work that no amount of reading the rules can.

And if someone wants to make changes from the beginning, there is nothing wrong with it. If it doesn't work out, change it again or try RAW and see if the group is happy with that.

Sure, if you want to run before you walk.

While simplifying D&D is nice, too much begins to suspend a reality aspect that many people (myself included) enjoy. Sure, I want fantasy, too, but I want something based realism as well. To each their own.

Sure, adjust to taste. But be sure to undsterstand the basics of the recipe first.