D&D 5E What would you miss about 5E if you were playing AD&D?

[Prakriti]

Ability score modifiers being streamlined. Honestly, this is probably the biggest change between AD&D and 5th Edition. A 16 in 5E is always +3. +3 to what, you ask? To everything, no matter the ability. Whereas in AD&D, it might be a +2 to hit, +3 to damage, 35% chance to bend bars, +1 spell slot, +5 known spells, +10% to pick pockets, +15% to open locks, etc. It was all too much to remember.

And I really disliked the fiddly AC's in AD&D. Attacked from behind? You lose your Dex bonus, and the attacker gets +4 bonus to hit. And you don't benefit from your shield, so that's +1 or +2 or +3 or +4 depending on the size of your shield. And if you're a halfling, then you get an AC bonus against large creatures. You almost had to keep track of your AC for 6-7 different scenarios.

 

[MackMcMacky]

I wouldn't miss anything. I am very comfortable running AD&D and have worked all the kinks out using optional rules and a few house rules over the years. I play 5E because that is what the DM wants to run because it is easier for him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What would you miss about 5E if you were playing AD&D?

Skills.

 

[ccs]

Am I playing 1e or 2e?
Because that might influence my answers.

Either way, the 5e Warlock. Having played one for almost a year now, I rather like the class in this edition.

If 1e? Then add Bards to the list. The Bard has always been one of my favorite classes to play. But it's really hard to do in 1e as by the time you can do it most games are ending.

 

[Gladius Legis]

- The skill system.
- The streamlining of many things for the better, such as ability score bonuses, and advantage/disadvantage.
- Higher numbers being better. >_<
- Not having to play a Paladin with a stick up the butt, or risk losing my powers after a lengthy argument over nebulous ideas of "lawful" or "good" with the DM. Having even Lawful Good Paladins not play out as Lawful Stupid, and having a core option to play Paladins of other alignments.
- Really just the Paladin class in general. 5e does it very well. (Although the UA Paladin-Cavalier was delightfully overpowered so that'd compensate a little bit, heh.)
- Rogues that are actually functional with skills from the start, and actually capable in combat from the start.
- The Bard class in general.
- No silly racial level caps.
- Cantrips.

 

[happyhermit]

If I was just playing "a game", then I wouldn't miss much. If it was to be the main system I played in then the list gets too long to be complete.

Advantage/Disadvantage
Contests ie; grappling (especially like how Adv/Dis works with contests)
Ascending AC
Bounded Accuracy
Neo-Vancian spellcasting
Concentration
Cantrips
Dice based bonuses ie; Bardic Inspiration
Less "need" for magic weapons
General competence of adventurers ie; anybody can make a decent melee or ranged attack
Backgrounds
Ideals, Bonds, Flaws
Inspiration
Streamlined spell list
Atunement
etc. etc.

Some of this would be super easy to add in, some is more difficult, but a lot of it just seems out of place. Honestly though, I always found myself coming back to some form of Basic rather than AD&D so I am more likely to start from there if anything.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Skills.

Care to elaborate?

 

[S'mon]

It's a 20 point range actually (20th level fighter has a THAC0 of 1, not 4). But the thought occurs to me that it's not right of me to consider only fighters. A high-level Fighter will hit more often than the equivalent 5E PC, but a high-level Priest, Rogue or Wizard will indeed hit that AC -5 Pit Fiend far less frequently than the equivalent 5E PC would hit the equivalent 5E AC 19 Pit Fiend. For clerics/rogues/wizards, I see your point.

Acknowledged that at low levels (1st-4th or so), the fact that 5E monsters have lower AC and 5E PCs have higher ability score bonuses and +2 to hit does make a big difference in relative hit rates.

In 1e AD&D Fighter caps at THAC0 4 at 17th level. I played so much 1e BiTD I have it
memorised. Monsters cap at THAC0 7 at 16 hd, and since they rarely get bonuses are much worse off than Fighters.

Turning to 5e, the Barb-18 IMC with STR 20 +3 sword gets +14 to hit, and functionally is not that different from a high level 1e Fighter in that he's hitting most common opponents on a '2'; though he'd need 6 to hit a plate & shield wearer where the 1e Ftr-18 would still hit on a 2. The much bigger difference is
that with AC 22 he is still getting hit on 18+ by common ATT+4 foes, and hit easily by big
monsters, whereas his 1e equivalent would typically have AC -6 to -10 (say +3 plate, +3 shield, +3 ring, maybe a DEX bonus etc etc) and might not be hittable even on a 20 according to 1e attack tables.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In 1e AD&D Fighter caps at THAC0 4 at 17th level. I played so much 1e BiTD I have it
memorised.

Huh. I thought THAC0 was a 2nd edition innovation--I had understood 1E to be chart-based and slightly irregular. Learn something every day I guess.

 

[S'mon]

Huh. I thought THAC0 was a 2nd edition innovation--I had understood 1E to be chart-based and slightly irregular. Learn something every day I guess.

1e has charts, but also lists monster THAC0 in the appendix. Anyway you can extract THAC0 from the charts by looking at the AC0 line.

The Fighter chart is +2 to hit per 2 levels up to 17+, with a suggested option to give him +1 to hit per
level instead. Personally I prefer Classic D&D's +2 to hit per 3 levels or 4e's +1 per 2 levels.