D&D General Help Me Build the D&D Game I Want to Run

[Reynard]

I would love to look into AiME but no one I know has a copy, it isn't in bookstores, and I don't like buying a new system/ add-on without previewing it first.

@Reynard, I am working on a L12-variant that I'll share when it is done. I don't know if it will fit the bill completely, but it might give you more ideas.

Judging from your statement about bards, you might need more such as heavy spell list pruning.

First I'm going to try C&C with the same adventure I am running for the pared down 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

First I'm going to try C&C with the same adventure I am running for the pared down 5e.

That's cool. I expect it should run fine I would think. I've looked into C&C a bit but a lot of it just reminds me more of 1E--sort of a OSR/5E blend. But I've never played it, so I'm interested to see what you think.

 

[Mepher]

Castles & Crusades actually interests me a lot. I picked up the Hardcover PHB a few months back. With everything going on they are giving away the latest pdf of the PHB. Check it out, its a nice mix of 2E & 5E imo.

Troll Lord Games

www.trolllord.com

 

[Mepher]

That's cool. I expect it should run fine I would think. I've looked into C&C a bit but a lot of it just reminds me more of 1E--sort of a OSR/5E blend. But I've never played it, so I'm interested to see what you think.

Well you have to remember that C&C came out before 5E was released. It filled a niche for people that wanted something more than AD&D. 5E took a lot of their thunder but for people like me, it's a great alternative. Gives the players some more options (limited cantrips, more classes) without the over the top numbers that 5E brought into combat.

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't say "most" of the XP was from treasure--maybe half overall would be my best estimate. But that depends entirely on the game and the DM's comparison of XP to gold (what ratio) and what monsters you are looking at.

Years ago a poster here named @Quasqueton did an exhaustive analysis of available xp via gold and monsters in many of the classic 1e modules. I don't know if any of those old threads exist in archived form any more, but if memory serves the ratio of xp from treasure to xp from monsters was often much higher than 1:1, with sometimes as much as 80% of the available xp coming from treasure!

He also found that if one used xp-for-treasre as written the level advance rate per adventure in 1e wasn't much different from that in 3e, which came as a complete surprise to me.

Regardless, the pace was slower when it came to leveling IME due to how much was needed.

It's even slower if you take out xp for treasure completely, as we did ages ago (and 2e did later).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Late in, and up front I'm going to say that the resource tracking heavy game you're asking for isn't my cuppa, but I've done some things along these lines that may help you get where you want without major overhauls.

I ran (for about a year) a hexcrawl exploration in 5e. I wanted to focus the game on the risk of exploring and travel. To do this, I did not use the gritty long rest times, but I did alter how rests work by changing all healing to hit die use and altering hit die recovery times. Paired with requirements to be able to rest, this created a need for safe bases and risk between those bases and required having necessary resources.

The off the top of me head recreation would be something like this:

Short rest: 1 hour. Must have reasonably safe area (can be fortified or has active watches without immediate danger). Requires rations. Requires water. Can spend hit die to recover hitpoints. Regain short rest abilities.

Long rest: overnight. Must have reasonably safe area (can be fortified or has active watches without immediate danger). Requires rations. Requires water. Requires fire. Requires 6 hours sleep. Can spend hit die to recover hitpoints. Will recover 1 level exhaustion. Will recover long rest abilities. Recover 1/2 hit dice.

Safe rest: 1 day. Must have safe area with accomodations. Requires daily upkeep costs. Regain all hit points. Regain daily and short rest abilities. Recover 1 level exhaustion. Recover all hit dice.

This is a somewhat limited shift, but the changes to what's required to rest makes a big difference, and the slow bleed of hit dice over a few days in the wilderness adds up without becoming a single bad encounter crippling (like the gritty rest can do). It focuses play more on the exploration without going overboard or requiring huge changes. If the PCs think a fire is too dangerous, well, then no long rest. This really makes rangers in their home terrain shine, although, oddly, I didn't have a ranger in this game. I have a ranger in my Sigil Planescape game. Players, go figure.

 

[Lanefan]

@Ovinomancer - good call on adding the third rest type, that being "safe rest".

The only change I'd make there would be to add "if possible" to "requires fire" for a long rest, as there'll arise many situations where a party can safely long-rest but not be able to safely make a fire e.g. in a sheltered ice cave, or not have access to anything that will burn e.g. in a desolate plant-free wasteland.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer - good call on adding the third rest type, that being "safe rest".

The only change I'd make there would be to add "if possible" to "requires fire" for a long rest, as there'll arise many situations where a party can safely long-rest but not be able to safely make a fire e.g. in a sheltered ice cave, or not have access to anything that will burn e.g. in a desolate plant-free wasteland.

Ah, yes, thank you. I thought I had a fourth rest in there, the night's rest. Same as long rest but no fire needed and no hit dice recovery, though you can spend them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Years ago a poster here named @Quasqueton did an exhaustive analysis of available xp via gold and monsters in many of the classic 1e modules. I don't know if any of those old threads exist in archived form any more, but if memory serves the ratio of xp from treasure to xp from monsters was often much higher than 1:1, with sometimes as much as 80% of the available xp coming from treasure!

He also found that if one used xp-for-treasre as written the level advance rate per adventure in 1e wasn't much different from that in 3e, which came as a complete surprise to me.

It's even slower if you take out xp for treasure completely, as we did ages ago (and 2e did later).

Well, from my own experience and research, it was overall about 50-50 for monsters vs. treasure for XP distribution. The default for an encounter where the monster matched the party in strength was 1:1, and the vast majority of encounters are not even matches, so awards were more typically 3:1, 5:1, or less (gp:xp).

So, advancement was slower in AD&D. If your table differed, that is fine. In 5E roughly 2-3 sessions per level is expected to be "the norm" (DMG, p. 261) and I have found that isn't far off for our main game. In AD&D, it was typically twice as long (minimum 4-8 sessions per level). Of course, every table has their own pace, so I am just speaking for my own experience.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, from my own experience and research, it was overall about 50-50 for monsters vs. treasure for XP distribution. The default for an encounter where the monster matched the party in strength was 1:1, and the vast majority of encounters are not even matches, so awards were more typically 3:1, 5:1, or less (gp:xp).

Depends if you're running published modules stock (which is what Quasqueton was looking at), or whether you're tweaking them to reduce trasure and-or increase monsters, or whether you're running homemade adventures.

It also depends how much of the treasure is actually found compared with what's available, ditto how many monsters are fought compared to the complete roster in the adventure. Wandering monsters present another headache as every DM handles them differently, particularly in frequency of occurrence.

So, advancement was slower in AD&D. If your table differed, that is fine. In 5E roughly 2-3 sessions per level is expected to be "the norm" (DMG, p. 261) and I have found that isn't far off for our main game. In AD&D, it was typically twice as long (minimum 4-8 sessions per level). Of course, every table has their own pace, so I am just speaking for my own experience.

This didn't look at advancement by session counts, only adventure counts e.g. G1, G2 and G3 would be three adventures. Every table is going to take a different number of sessions to get through any given adventure, thus comparing adventure to adventure is more valid.

Also, he was comparing 1e to 3e; this was begun in times before 4e had come out (never mind 5e!), and people were remarking on 3e's (to them) astonishingly fast level advancement compared to 2e.