For a More Old-School Experience, Don't Use Background and Theme

[CleverNickName]

If you blink you will miss it, but right there in fine print on each pregenerated character sheet, underneath the Background and Theme sections, you will find instructions for giving the D&D Next playtest more of an "old-school experience."

We tried it out...and we really enjoyed it. In fact, I preferred it. I'm curious if anyone else ran the playtest in this fashion, and what they thought of it.

My two cents:

Most notably, it "fixed" the Reaper feat that a lot of people seem to be having trouble with. Maybe I'm just old and set in my ways, but being able to score melee attack damage on a miss just feels broken.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make at-will orisons and cantrips into themes as well?

 

[Libramarian]

I appreciated that somewhat, but I don't like the idea that the "old school experience" is all about less is more.

Old school is also random encounters, reaction and morale mechanics, which can't just be ignored into being.

 

[KidSnide]

I appreciated that somewhat, but I don't like the idea that the "old school experience" is all about less is more.

Old school is also random encounters, reaction and morale mechanics, which can't just be ignored into being.

Half of old-school is the "less is more" approach to character abilities. I wouldn't expect to see reaction and morale mechanics in this first round, as those rules clearly belong in optional modules.

Anyway, I love the toolbox approach. I'm not sure I'd ever run without backgrounds and themes, but I love the idea that I can segment off that entire section of the rules and run without it. It really lets you trim down character complexity to the bare bones.

-KS

 

[Ichneumon]

As a 4e fan, I'm just old-school enough to believe that missing is missing.

It's great that the option is there to leave out background and theme. Can't see my own group doing so, but it's one step towards modularity nirvana. I'd like to see casting style options within the wizard class, say "Contemporary" for at-wills, and "Traditional" for pure Vancian.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that the suggestion here means to target the idea that old-school has less character creation choices, and weaker 1st-level characters.

Obviously old-school is not just that...

Also, personally I don't think that the extra feat from theme and the bonuses from background make the character that stronger (except Reaper). To me, cantrips at will has a much bigger effect.

 

[steeldragons]

I think it's no surprise to anyone here that I am thoroughly "old school" in my preferences and tastes.

That said, I am thoroughly looking forward to Backgrounds and Themes and, it seems to me from what I've read thus far, that removing them does not really, in any large way, promote an "old school" feel. Yes, it'll make your character sheets LOOK more old school...but...

I think I could do very GOOD old school WITH BGs and Themes...They're not striking me as that much of an "added complexity" issue as a "detail" issue/offering. Feature, not bug.

Realistically, of course, I get that we are looking at 1-3rd level characters. So it is entirley possible that at more advanced levels, they COULD become overly fiddly/complex and interfere with stuff...but from what they've presented thus far (again, don't have it, just reading other people's posts) it looks like a nice amount of extra flavor and detail without, necessarily, being intrusive or cumbersome to an old school game style.

Now, all of THAT said, for things like "doing damage on a miss"...that's coming out! No question. No debate. Do not pass Go! I can't think of a single player that would fight me on that. But I can still use the Theme/BG otherwise. I can change it to an added damage on a hit bonus or swap it out for something a different BG/Theme has...so the player doesn't feel like he's being jipped.

But that wouldn't cause me to do away with BGs and Themes entirely and expect it is somehow "Old school."

Just my two coppers at this stage of the presentation.
--SD

 

[Mallus]

Now, all of THAT said, for things like "doing damage on a miss"...that's coming out! No question. No debate. Do not pass Go! I can't think of a single player that would fight me on that. But I can still use the Theme/BG otherwise.

I'm not trying to convince you to keep the effect of the Slayer theme, but...

... doing a small amount of HP damage on a failed attack roll makes perfect sense from an AD&D perspective --is that old-school enough?-- and is congruent with the AD&D's conception of HP.

Because in AD&D, rounds a minute long and represent a whole sequence of strikes, dodges, feints, grazing blows, etc. The to-hit roll is really a "to-damage" roll, the one hit out of many that actually caused damage (and remember, damage ain't all physical, not by a long shot).

Even with these new-fangled 6 second rounds, a single attack roll is going to be more than a single swing of a weapon.

Considered from this perspective, a Reaper fighter is just particularly good at wearing opponents down, chipped away at their defenses, bruising them, whatever. They're endurance fighters -- like Rocky Balboa.

It's not that they can hit when they miss, it's just means engaging them in melee inevitably wear you out.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not trying to convince you to keep the effect of the Slayer theme, but...

... doing a small amount of HP damage on a failed attack roll makes perfect sense from an AD&D perspective --is that old-school enough?-- and is congruent with the AD&D's conception of HP...

Maybe that is also part of the issue: there are many different flavors of "old school."

See, when I think "old school," I think of the 1977 Basic Set. Thus, AD&D doesn't evoke feelings of nostalgia to me...instead, it reminds me of the first time that my friends told me that I was doing it wrong. AD&D isn't "old school" to gamers like me; it is "the new hotness" that isn't quite so new anymore.

There are those who cut their gaming teeth on the original 1974 set, too. For them, practically anything else isn't going to be "old school," just varying degrees of "new." And I'm sure that a lot of gamers will think that any pre-4E rules mechanic has an "old-school" feel to it.

All this to say, I think that being able to score combat damage every round regardless of whether or not your attacks hit or miss feels like a new, somewhat dubious ability, not "old-school." (Imagine if every creature in the Caves had the Reaper feat, or a similar ability.) I have less of a problem with at-will cantrips and orisons, though...except for the ones that cause/heal damage. Spamming light, read magic, detect evil, etc. doesn't break the game nearly as much as spamming magic missile or radiant lance does.

 

[KesselZero]

I'm not totally sure about Reaper either, but I will say that I'm betting it's part of the attempt to make fighters not get outclassed by wizards. At first level the wizard has two attack spells that have an effect on a miss (Burning Hands does half damage and Sleep slows) plus an auto-hit at-will (Magic Missile). Compared to that the fighter getting 3 damage on a miss doesn't really concern me.

 

[erf_beto]

Personally, I think we won't but depending on how the playtest reports go, it's possible we see cantrips and orisons folded into a kind of Channel Divine, X per day ability. That would be more old school wouldn't it?