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

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, I suspected someone would chime in on my response LOL. While true, that hardly means my advise is less valuable than others. While my 5E is limited, my general gaming (beyond D&D) in vast.

As I said in my post, playing RAW is perfectly fine (and we have been doing so for several sessions now), but the best part of these games is you can make them your own and house-rule as you see fit, especially if your players agree with you.

So, to repeat myself to the OP, make it your own and have as much fun as possible.

Well, given you made a similar post just a few weeks ago and were strongly told that you also were misunderstanding the system....

Long experience is good for general advice -- to a point (I'm pretty sure your advice fir a PbtA game would be limited) -- on the specific topic of rule tweaks to 5e it's of limited value. Closing with a cliched platitude does not good advice make.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Closing with a cliched platitude does not good advice make.

Of course it is good advice! That is why people say it so often.

As to the rest of my post, I included that playing RAW for a while is a good idea, but also encouraged (Gods help us!) that the OP feel free to make changes. It seems like some of the vocal minority on this forum is very objective to changing 5E. It is far from perfect, even if some aspects of it are superior to prior editions (which, to the same point, where far from perfect as well and heavily updated and house-ruled).

Why are you so against advocating changes? It isn't affecting your game is it? Do you even use any house-rules of your own???

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course it is good advice! That is why people say it so often.

As to the rest of my post, I included that playing RAW for a while is a good idea, but also encouraged (Gods help us!) that the OP feel free to make changes. It seems like some of the vocal minority on this forum is very objective to changing 5E. It is far from perfect, even if some aspects of it are superior to prior editions (which, to the same point, where far from perfect as well and heavily updated and house-ruled).

Why are you so against advocating changes? It isn't affecting your game is it? Do you even use any house-rules of your own???

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.

 

[Mort]

I think more focus needs to be put on the OPs first sentence:

Hey so recently my players wanted to shift from 2e to 5e ...

The players wanted a shift. Presumably this means they want a more 5e style game. Taking 5e and trying to make it more like 2e kind of goes against that desire?

What really should happen here is the DM having a conversation with the players. What did they want in the game? Do they want fast or slow healing? Do they want crits and fumbles?

For a campaign to truly succeed the DM and players must be on the same page. If the DM wants one style of play and the players want something totally different, it's a good chance no one ends up having fun!

 

[Azzy]

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?

D) All of the above.

A fighter can be either of those or more. I know I've played a range of types using the fighter class over the last 30+ years.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's fine if you think Paladins should be good, but most knights aren't paladins. Most are just soldiers with a privileged background.

 

[Azzy]

Actually, Cavalier was it's own class, on par with Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, and Monk. Paladin became a subclass of Cavalier, allowing Barbarian to become the second sub-class of Fighter.

The calavlier was a broken piece of trash that should never had existed. The only class that wasn't a complete mess that came out of UA was the thief-acrobat.

 

[Azzy]

As I said in my post, playing RAW is perfectly fine (and we have been doing so for several sessions now), but the best part of these games is you can make them your own and house-rule as you see fit, especially if your players agree with you.

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.

 

[Azzy]

I think more focus needs to be put on the OPs first sentence:



The players wanted a shift. Presumably this means they want a more 5e style game. Taking 5e and trying to make it more like 2e kind of goes against that desire?

What really should happen here is the DM having a conversation with the players. What did they want in the game? Do they want fast or slow healing? Do they want crits and fumbles?

For a campaign to truly succeed the DM and players must be on the same page. If the DM wants one style of play and the players want something totally different, it's a good chance no one ends up having fun!

Quoted for reinforcing the point.

 

[FXR]

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.

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

I use a different rule in my own game. Short rests work like stated in the PHB but you can only take a long rest in a safe place (i.e.: not in the wilderness or in a dungeon). It's less drastic than the one you are proposing, yet still stresses the danger of adventuring.

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

I would suggest discarding this rule. D&D5e frowns on bonus, as it tries to speed up calculations as much as possible. This rule adds very little to the game, as it is quite rare that players will use more than 3 or 4 different weapons.

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

I don't know what that feature 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

You're better to use the massive damage table in the DMG, just like I do. I would also point out that the rule you are considering using will make monsters with weak multi-attacks (like many animals) much more lethal.

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

Again, see the DMG guide.

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

Such a rule would penalise wizards and other classes where reading and writing are necessary, as they would have to gain that skill. You are better to give it as a feature for some backgrounds and classes. Others could gain it during play, using the rule about Learning to use tools.

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.

That would hamper severely wizards, unless your game feature plenty of spell scrolls (mine doesn't) or opportunities for mentorship.