D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't follow you. You've gone from saying that 5e isn't good enough as a game to mechanically implement the Warlord, to claiming that it can't even handle it's own mechanical sub-systems?

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. 5e has a very open design philosophy that has successfully integrated at least some elements from each edition into a whole that is perfectly playable. Not only that, but it builds DM Empowerment right into the basic resolution systems, giving the DM the ability to deal summarily with any negative issues that do come up. It is absolutely up to handling anything an avid fan of a prior ed might have a hankering for.

I'm not 100% sure about the statement in bold. It might be true in the same vacuous sense that makes it possible for AD&D 2nd edition to handle lightsabers and CoC-style Sanity loss, through extensive houseruling--but houserules of that magnitude generally don't borrow much from their base systems.

When considering what aspects of AD&D don't fit into 5E, I'd look primarily at data that simply isn't available any more. That could mean missing monster statistics like "Organization" and "Morale", it could mean whole missing rule systems like Charisma-based Reaction Rolls at the start of every encounter, or it could mean missing mechanics like class-based XP awards (thieves getting 6 XP per gold piece of treasure found) or spells that scale with level or magic resistance.

There are some AD&D-era mechanics that I think could be ported into 5E, but I would not make the claim that it can handle "anything" from that edition, because by the time you finished house-ruling 5E into AD&D shape, you'd be playing a hybrid abomination that compromised the design integrity of 5E and probably would be less fun than just playing AD&D or 5E by itself. You have to take 5E as what it is, I think. For example, much as I love 90% Magic Resistant Mind Flayers, much as I "hanker" for them, I haven't made up my mind to houserule it into existence because it's so far from the 5E idiom that I am doubtful 5E can handle it[1]. Other things like spells that scale with level are even further from the 5E idiom and simply don't belong.


[1] I think the 5E way of simulating Magic Resistance would be for me to: give disadvantage to magic attacks, and give advantage on saving throws (which 5E already does), and give them the Avoidance feature that Demiliches have. For highly-resistant creatures such as Mind Flayers it might be appropriate to also give an AC bonus and a saving throw bonus against magic attacks, no more than +4. Or how about, "The Mind Flayer can expend its reaction to add its profiency bonus to its AC or saving throw against a magical effect. It must do this after it sees the die roll but before the effect is resolved." Kind of like Defensive Duelist for Magic, and it winds up serving the desired function of making Mind Flayers fairly impervious to bog-standard Fireballs, although you might or might not want to do something about Magic Missiles.

It might be appropriate to apply this logic to dragons as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Of if you mean that all hit point recovery has to be magical in the fiction, then I guess you don't use the fighter's second wind ability?

Maybe he rules that the fighter's second wind is magic. The Eldritch Knight already has magic, and the Champion's regeneration sure looks magic to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not 100% sure about the statement in bold. It might be true in the same vacuous sense that makes it possible for AD&D 2nd edition to handle lightsabers and CoC-style Sanity loss, through extensive houseruling--but houserules of that magnitude generally don't borrow much from their base systems.

I'm not sure I agree with the move you're making here--we're not talking about porting new mechanics into AD&D 2e. We're talking about porting them into D&D 5e--which has been intentionally made to be amenable to porting things in. I thought that was the whole point of having all the rules options in the DMG? So...yeah, I agree that those things would be hard to port into 2e...but I disagree that it's appropriate to draw an analogy to "what you can port into 2e" from "what you can port into 5e." Particularly because one of the things you mention--Sanity loss--is already an optional rule of 5e, and thus probably not the best example you could've chosen

On a slightly higher level, though, how do we meaningfully draw the line between "extensive" vs. non-"extensive" house rules?

When considering what aspects of AD&D don't fit into 5E, I'd look primarily at data that simply isn't available any more. That could mean missing monster statistics like "Organization" and "Morale", it could mean whole missing rule systems like Charisma-based Reaction Rolls at the start of every encounter, or it could mean missing mechanics like class-based XP awards (thieves getting 6 XP per gold piece of treasure found) or spells that scale with level or magic resistance.

I can't comment on "Organization," since I don't know how it was used in 2e, but Morale seems pretty easy to work with. I know I've seen some very simple suggestions on that front (usually something like "morale is a Cha save, with x/y/z bonuses/penalties based on the situation at hand, failure inflicts Frightened condition until threat is gone").

There are some AD&D-era mechanics that I think could be ported into 5E, but I would not make the claim that it can handle "anything" from that edition, because by the time you finished house-ruling 5E into AD&D shape, you'd be playing a hybrid abomination that compromised the design integrity of 5E and probably would be less fun than just playing AD&D or 5E by itself. You have to take 5E as what it is, I think. For example, much as I love 90% Magic Resistant Mind Flayers, much as I "hanker" for them, I haven't made up my mind to houserule it into existence because it's so far from the 5E idiom that I am doubtful 5E can handle it. Other things like spells that scale with level are even further from the 5E idiom and simply don't belong.

Alright, now you're getting into something I can see as a meaningful response. Though even as soon as I type that, I have ideas. 5e already offers the concept of Resistance (reduce by 50%) to damage, including from magic. You can have Expertise in any skill proficiency--why not a special ability that gives Expertise in saves? You have Legendary Saves, which are in theory even *better* than simply 80% resistance because it's 100% when you need it--just give Mind Flayers, say, 5 uses of it and you're probably good.

Or, I mean, if it's a monster specifically designed to make spellcasters wet their pants, and make melee characters feel awesome and powerful (or still wet their pants, if the whole 'devour intellect on each hit' thing still applies), I'm not even necessarily sure that it IS a problem to allow a d100 roll to see if a spell actually hits or not. I mean, we have CR 3 Mummies that inflict a horrifically awful curse on a failed Con save, that can kill outright with no possibility of resurrection after a single day if you're low level or unlucky (I would know--I nearly lost my very first 5e character to it). I don't see why it's necessarily a problem to have a very high-CR Mind Flayer that laughs off (most) spells.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure I agree with the move you're making here--we're not talking about porting new mechanics into AD&D 2e. We're talking about porting them into D&D 5e--which has been intentionally made to be amenable to porting things in. I thought that was the whole point of having all the rules options in the DMG? So...yeah, I agree that those things would be hard to port into 2e...but I disagree that it's appropriate to draw an analogy to "what you can port into 2e" from "what you can port into 5e." Particularly because one of the things you mention--Sanity loss--is already an optional rule of 5e, and thus probably not the best example you could've chosen

I chose Sanity loss deliberately, with the 5E DMG rules in mind, because the 5E rules pretty well showcase how badly (A)D&D does Sanity compared to CoC (rules here: http://letsgetweird.info/?page_id=278).

AD&D2 and 5E are about equally-friendly to house rules. AD&D2 may have been the most-extensively-houseruled edition ever (though I don't know how to measure it for sure, it was very common), and some would say that's because the core rules were so whacked that they needed it. No one needed the DMG to say, "It's okay to write houserules," because that was obvious. Here's one of my favorite compilations of houserules: different ways to do magic in AD&D, from Elric-style to Kelewan-style.

Alright, now you're getting into something I can see as a meaningful response. Though even as soon as I type that, I have ideas. 5e already offers the concept of Resistance (reduce by 50%) to damage, including from magic. You can have Expertise in any skill proficiency--why not a special ability that gives Expertise in saves? You have Legendary Saves, which are in theory even *better* than simply 80% resistance because it's 100% when you need it--just give Mind Flayers, say, 5 uses of it and you're probably good.

If you review the rules for AD&D Magic Resistance and think about the 5E spell list, you'll immediately see a number of shortcomings to this approach. Magic Missile and Maze are two, right off the top of my head. Wall of Force is another big one.

I gave several ideas for fixing the situation in an edit to the prior post. You'd want to be careful though to stay within the 5E idiom. Maybe making illithids vulnerable to Magic Missiles is something you'd have to accept, in order not to color too far outside the lines. I don't like the Wall of Force vulnerability though, that seems like something that illithids should clearly be able to ignore, so Avoidance and Legendary Resistance aren't enough. It bears thinking on
[*], and maybe there is no solution within the 5E paradigm. Maybe some things about AD&D have to stay in AD&D and can't be ported to 5E. Seems likely anyway.


[*] Okay, here's my thoughts on Wall of Force/Maze. The illithid has the option to use its action to "Ignore Spell", which lets it ignore the existence of one ongoing spell effect for one turn. If the spell effect was anchored on the illithid, like Maze, the spell ends on the turn when the illithid ignores it. If the spell is an area effect spell like Wall of Force or Evard's Black Tentacles, the illithid simply gets to move freely/take no damage for that turn. I think that, combined with Avoidance and save/AC bonuses, might give the right flavor. Vulnerability to Magic Missile would remain.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe he rules that the fighter's second wind is magic. The Eldritch Knight already has magic, and the Champion's regeneration sure looks magic to me.

But then nothing would stop someone treating warlord healing the same way!

 

[pemerton]

Vulnerability to Magic Missile would remain.

I'm missing something. Why is Magic Missile such a big issue? Because it doesn't require an attack roll nor allow a save?

AD&D was full of abilities (mostly from magic items) that granted saves when one normally wasn't allowed. Is there any reason why that couldn't be ported into 5e as a special ability for some monsters?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm missing something. Why is Magic Missile such a big issue? Because it doesn't require an attack roll nor allow a save?

AD&D was full of abilities (mostly from magic items) that granted saves when one normally wasn't allowed. Is there any reason why that couldn't be ported into 5e as a special ability for some monsters?

I believe the point is that Hemlock is trying to capture, as perfectly as possible, what "80% magic resistance" accomplished in 2e.

I still don't, personally, see why this could not just be a unique feature of the Illithid. "Magically Resilient 5 (80%): Whenever a divine or arcane spell would damage, hinder, or otherwise alter this creature against its will, it makes a DC 5 saving throw with no modifier for any reason. If the creature succeeds, the spell simply fails to apply its effects to the target. For most spells, such as magic missile or maze, this causes its magic to dissipate harmlessly, ending its effects. For spells that leave a persistent effect on the world, such as wall of fire, the effects are only negated for that round; on subsequent rounds, a new save must be made."

It's an extremely powerful anti-magical defensive mechanism. Since we want illithids to be bloody badasses, given that they're a key intellectual property, I see no harm in giving such a powerful benefit. I guess I just don't understand why we have to wrangle with so many hoops and gewgaws and special cases when it's easy to make up something like this--from whole cloth, to be sure, but perfectly cromulent by 5e monster design. After all, such powerful abilities often aren't even considered to affect a monster's CR! And it's not like giving special, creature-only features is unusual in 5e. Multiattack doesn't exist for PCs (except Druids I guess), and explicitly doesn't work like Extra Attack. Perhaps Magically Resilient X works the same way--a distinctly "monster-only" mechanic, in certain ways similar to stuff PCs can do, but in certain ways very different.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I dunno. I don't think I'd want to create a new mechanic.

First, a straight % implies that the level at which magic was cast isn't relevant, but everywhere else in the game it is. So assuming that cast level matters, you could boost their Saving Throws (by adding Con to their proficiencies, and maybe boosting their Con) and then combined with their Advantage you have ranges close to 80% you're looking for. In other words, you could get there without creating a new mechanic.

But in any event Mind Flayers are supposed to be psions, not arch-wizards, which to me doesn't even suggest "magic resistance" but rather "immunity to mind controlling effects". Sure I can see rationalizing the magic resistance but it's tangential not core. But they give wizards the heebie-jeebies because they want to eat your brains. Do you really need something more terrifying than that?

If they're not scary enough just boost all their stats. No need for new rules.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Do you consider 5e to be almost entirely derived from 3e? Does that mean that it isn't staying true to the "D&D Traditions" as established in 1e and 2e and BECM? If it's true to those versions, why would the Warlord be unacceptable as a class in those editions?

I think that the game has more in common with 2e then 3e but diffently with lots of 3e and saga (starwars not the cards) influence with a little (I think too much) 4e influence. If I had to place % I would say it's 60% a mix of 1e/2e and 30% 3e influenced....