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

[Pauln6]

You could add an extra D8 or d4 to healing spells to make up for the loss of hit dice healing.

You could give fighters a daily or short rest resource to avoid fumbles I suppose maybe based on their proficiency bonus.

 

[Mort]

First I'm going to agree with the chorus of people saying try it without all the changes first. Making huge changes without a feel for how the rules actually play is just asking for a headache.

As to the specific changes, here are my thoughts

1. Short rest 8 hours of rest – Long rest 1 week of normal rest or 3 days with healer
- Must have someone with healing proficiency or healing pollutes or similar

This will change the pacing of adventures and make things go longer - not my preferred style, but ok.
It will also change people's willingness to enter melee, maybe a good change, maybe not.

2. Being proficient with martial weapons lets you choose 5 weapons from the martial weapon list to be proficient with and have +1 to attacks in all other weapons
-being proficient with simple weapons lets you choose 8 weapons from the simple weapon list to be proficient in and +1 to all others

Adds a completely unnecessary level of complexity and then adds a feat tax if the players run into a weapon that's much better than one they already have.

3. At short rests you can use the abilities from rest of the weary

Even with assistance from google - no idea what this is.

4. Critical hits and failures in combat cause a roll on a table for extra effects, a critical can instra kill anyone if the roll is right

As stated before, this highly negative for the players, the DM rolls many, many, more to hit rolls. Also, it stacks the deck against melee types and that's not something I like in my games.

5. Weapon speeds will effect initiative, I’ll be making a table

Fiddly and cumbersome with no real benefit - other than, again, to discourage melee type characters.

6. You don’t have to speak your races language if it doesn’t suit your backstory. It can be changed for any other language that makes sense for your backstory

Ok

7. Reading and writing will be an intelligence skill and can be chosen by any class or race instead of one being given

Ok, though characters get few skills as it is. I'd urge you to instead look at the backgrounds etc. and see how they work before fiddling with the skill system.

I will also be changing the magic system to be more like 2e with the spheres as to me it doesn't make sense that a cleric of life would be able to raise any undead.

Ok, but you have to be careful that spells are evenly distributed to get parity between types of clerics, and that's harder than it looks.

I will probably also do something to wizards as being able to pick any spell and just know it without any training or even know of the spells existence seems OP and doesn't make sense to me.

This seems campaign specific - really depends on the world and the availability of magic in general. Certainly seems fine even preferred for certain settings.

 

[Azzy]

In early D&D fighter characters started as young as 15 and as old as 19 years of age. It makes a lot more since for a 1st level 15/19 yr old fighter to know only a few weapons, then that they would know ALL weapons available in the game.

Don't underestimate training at an early age or how the basics with one weapon can apply to multiple weapons

 

[Ovinomancer]

In early D&D fighter characters started as young as 15 and as old as 19 years of age. It makes a lot more since for a 1st level 15/19 yr old fighter to know only a few weapons, then that they would know ALL weapons available in the game.

This is a modern notion. Back when playe and mail were common, 15 was a full man, expected to pull the full weight of duty. Often married, as well. 19 year olds were most likely already veterans.

 

[Yardiff]

I agree that weapon groups make since then to few or way to many. They had this option on 3rd ed Unearth Arcana.

 

[Yardiff]

A quick google search on Knights show that they know quite a few weapons, not all weapons, but quite a few. It also shows that knights start at around age 8-10 and train for 14+ yrs to achieve this knowledge of many weapons.

 

[Yardiff]

What do people think of when they think of the Fighter class in D&D? Do you think of a normal army soldier or do they think of someone like a Knight?

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Hey so recently my players wanted to shift from 2e to 5e and I don't like how different they are especially with being able to use all weapons and armour at 1st level choosing the right class or being completely healed from one nights rest. I know it's trying to make things a lot easier to use but I feel it takes away from the experience of the game such as finding a powerful magic weapon that your not proficient with and spending the time and effort to get proficient with it but that's just me.
I was thinking of adding/changing the following rules and want to know what everyone thinks and what other ideas could be used.
1. Short rest 8 hours of rest – Long rest 1 week of normal rest or 3 days with healer
- Must have someone with healing proficiency or healing pollutes or similar
2. Being proficient with martial weapons lets you choose 5 weapons from the martial weapon list to be proficient with and have +1 to attacks in all other weapons
-being proficient with simple weapons lets you choose 8 weapons from the simple weapon list to be proficient in and +1 to all others
3. At short rests you can use the abilities from rest of the weary
4. Critical hits and failures in combat cause a roll on a table for extra effects, a critical can instra kill anyone if the roll is right
5. Weapon speeds will effect initiative, I’ll be making a table
6. You don’t have to speak your races language if it doesn’t suit your backstory. It can be changed for any other language that makes sense for your backstory
7. Reading and writing will be an intelligence skill and can be chosen by any class or race instead of one being given
I will also be changing the magic system to be more like 2e with the spheres as to me it doesn't make sense that a cleric of life would be able to raise any undead.
I will probably also do something to wizards as being able to pick any spell and just know it without any training or even know of the spells existence seems OP and doesn't make sense to me.
Please tell me what you think of the rules above and if you can think of any more. Thnaks

I am certain someone has mentioned this by now, but some of the things you want to accomplish are already available in the DMG as adventuring and combat options:
1. Gritty Realism (DMG p. 267), Healer's Kit Dependency (p. 266), and Slow Natural Healing (p. 267)
4. Lingering Injuries (p. 272) sort of covers this.
5. Initiative Modifiers (p. 271)

2. Works fine. It is a bit more bookkeeping, but nothing major.
3. No idea what this is--sorry.
6. Sure, why not.
7. Hmm... the number of skills most characters get is pretty limited, so I would advise against your idea here. But, you do have a valid point, too, because in many stations of medieval life, reading and writing was NOT common at all. If that is the flavor for your game, I don't think using your idea would break anything.

Any changes to the magic system might change the nature of the system in your game. Doesn't mean it won't work, but I'd give it a lot of thought.

As for arcane spells, I agree a lot with you on this one. I remember in 1E the "Change to Know Each Listed Spell" was the same as your chance to learn a spell. A simple way to implement this in 5E would make the chance 5% per point of Intelligence (alternatively Charisma for Sorcerers and Warlocks). So, an Int 14 would have a 70% to know of a spell, and you could even use the same number for the chance to learn it, maybe allowing additional attempts with each new level.

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!

 

[Psyzhran2357]

What do people think of when they think of the Fighter class in D&D? Do you think of a normal army soldier or do they think of someone like a Knight?

As somebody who's only ever played 5e, it depends more on the Background. I could see the case for a Folk Hero or an Urchin being a teenage noob like you described earlier, but taking the other backgrounds gives me more of an experienced professional mental image, whether directly (Soldier, Knight, Mercenary Veteran) or indirectly (Haunted One, Anthropoplogist, Far Traveler).

Also, almost all the subclasses give off an air of experience to me, not just in the features but also in the implied fluff. Battlemasters, Bannerets, and Cavaliers bring to mind army officers, while Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Samurai have a solo, almost "hero of legend" vibe. Only Champion seems to fit the boy who picked up his father's sword or the youth press-ganged into the army, but even that subclass can be played as a veteran warrior without breaking immersion.

In short; I'm having trouble envisioning somebody as young as 15 as somebody with Fighter class levels, particularly in a campaign starting at 3 instead of 1.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

What do people think of when they think of the Fighter class in D&D? Do you think of a normal army soldier or do they think of someone like a Knight?

My interpretation will differ from many, I am sure. I equate Level to Experience. A Level One Anything is just starting out IMO. Now, a Fighter 1 might have been an army soldier and that is where he received his training (the good ol' 0-Level men-at-arms from 1E) until making the "mystic" leap into the realm of Player Character. At this point he might be a soldier of fortune, a mercenary, etc. and that is all about background to present story.

I never think of a Fighter as a Knight. I grew up on 1E with Paladins and Cavaliers. Those are the Knights to me. Of course, I despise the idea of Paladins having any other alignment than Lawful Good (yeah, I know, old fashion... ). I get it in 5E a Paladin is based on conviction (i.e. Charisma), and can follow any path towards furthering "the cause". I will never like it, but if a player wants to go that route, I won't stop them--it is their game, too.

Anyway, long answer short: a mercenary or such is the Fighter to me.