D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[overgeeked]

Of course we can, but I am looking at the game as written. As written, these changes, happening bit by bit, are taking away those hard choices that can make the game exciting. And I'm pretty easy going.

And each one becomes yet another house rule you have to impose on the game and deal with the fallout of that house rule.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the last house rules I did before stopping 5E was to do rolled potion effect as a bonus action and full effect as an action. So a healing spell is rolled with a bonus, but you get max as an action. I also had rolled duration of other potions. To me that made sense because you're hurrying and spilling some as a bonus action or being slow and careful as an action. This worked for me because it gives the option.

That's a reasonable compromise; since I don't know 5e well, I'm not sure how often the maximum roll is potent enough to justify the full action, but at least the bonus action is right there for more routine usage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And each one becomes yet another house rule you have to impose on the game and deal with the fallout of that house rule.

Including, in some cases, finding out the house rule has unexpected side effects you didn't see coming. I'm not allergic to house rules even now, but I'm pretty cautious about ones that might have broad effects any more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Including, in some cases, finding out the house rule has unexpected side effects you didn't see coming. I'm not allergic to house rules even now, but I'm pretty cautious about ones that might have broad effects any more.

I'm perfectly happy to experiment with houserules. I respect game designers, but I never automatically assume they know what's best for my game better than I and my players do.

 

[JohnSnow]

@JohnSnow, I am going to ask you to delve a bit deeper into some of your points in the OP, if you don't mind? (Or anyone else who wants to chime in... )

I’ll do my best to give my answer to these as briefly as I can. In order:

What is mechanically simpler in B/X compared to 5E?

Every exception is a rule. B/X had fewer class powers, and fewer species abilities.

The hit point cap was lower. The game didn’t have Actions, Reactions, Bonus Actions, Minor Actions, Attacks of Opportunity, etc.

The munchkinning potential of finding “broken combinations” was much lower.

What do you mean by "better" to you? I never considered the NWP from AD&D as a "wing it" sort of thing, so I am curious how your experience differed?

NWP’s are insufficient to cover the breadth of a heroic character’s skills. I’m thinking of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, who were talented athletes and horsemen, versed in lore, both of whom had stealth and thief skills, Mouser was a skilled forger, Fafhrd was a singing Skald, etc.

AD&D basically left all but a few skills as class abilities and 2-4 non-weapon proficiencies (when those were added) to DM fiat. With no guidelines for resolving them. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

What about it did you love compared to what you already had in B/X+AD&D/2E?

Ascending armor class. Unified attribute bonuses. Skills providing a unified resolution mechanic. The codification of combat NWPs in the feat system meant Fighters got some cool stuff to do. It was a vast quality of life improvement. The cracks were all in the implementation.

How was the magic system in 3E grating (especially "still" grating)? I know you mentioned you like the roll to cast mechanic, was it just that or something else?

Spell slots is my primary complaint. It always required elaborate justification. Some of the spells are way too OP, but that’s minor.

I’ve never loved the strict arcane/divine magic divide, but I realize I’m in a minority there.

Also, the “crossbow wizard.” I have no issue giving spellcasters a weak magical attack at-will so they don’t need a crossbow. YMMV.

As an aside, my first C&C gamemaster let my wizard have two “at-will” powers: “Cantrip” (basically “prestidigitation” at-will) and “Arcane bolt” (which was a Dex-based 1d6 ranged attack). With those two powers, I always felt like a wizard, and It did not feel overpowered at our table.

Such as?

d6 skills. Saving Throws. And Tables. Tables. Tables.

How do you envision creating more "fun combat options" without "fiddly rules"?

I think something like DCC’s “Mighty Deeds” crossed with Luck/Deathbringer Dice that provides revolution guidelines for what’s an appropriate effect to trigger by level.

Actually figure out simple rules for grappling, throwing, tripping, disarming, et cetera. And making tactical choices in combat.

I’m spending most of my homebrew effort on this topic.

Why aren't they "there" for you, what is lacking to make such options ideal?

See above re: combat.

Shadowdark is super-close, which is why it’s my system of choice.

Characters are a little too fragile (easily fixed), it doesn't have a skill system, and it lacks those combat options (although it does use luck tokens). It’s also a bit obsessed with niche protection.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm perfectly happy to experiment with houserules. I respect game designers, but I never automatically assume they know what's best for my game better than I and my players do.

I think there's a difference between assuming you know what your game and your players want, and getting there without doing other things neither of you wants. And the more broad impact a rule has, the more likely that is to occur, and it doesn't matter whether its you or a designer. The big issue is how much playtesting a rule gets, and I don't always find doing my own play testing with broad-reach rules has pleasant consequences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there's a difference between assuming you know what your game and your players want, and getting there without doing other things neither of you wants. And the more broad impact a rule has, the more likely that is to occur, and it doesn't matter whether its you or a designer. The big issue is how much playtesting a rule gets, and I don't always find doing my own play testing with broad-reach rules has pleasant consequences.

Well, I don't run my own game company, so it's either do the best I can with my limited resources or trust the professionals unquestioned. Option A is better for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I don't run my own game company, so it's either do the best I can with my limited resources or trust the professionals unquestioned. Option A is better for me.

I've just had a few too many experiences with "Well, this rule looks dumb, let's do X instead." (Six months later) "Gods and little monsters, that change has produced this result. Now I get to change it back and seriously annoy everyone who it benefited or put up with the problem. I really needed to understand the implications of this more before I did it."
(This is why I say narrow rules are usually safer to fix than broad ones. Narrow rules you can often see all the implications of out of the gate.)

 

[Quickleaf]

I’ll do my best to give my answer to these as briefly as I can. In order:

Every exception is a rule. B/X had fewer class powers, and fewer species abilities.

The hit point cap was lower. The game didn’t have Actions, Reactions, Bonus Actions, Minor Actions, Attacks of Opportunity, etc.

The munchkinning potential of finding “broken combinations” was much lower.

NWP’s are insufficient to cover the breadth of a heroic character’s skills. I’m thinking of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, who were talented athletes and horsemen, versed in lore, both of whom had stealth and thief skills, Mouser was a skilled forger, Fafhrd was a singing Skald, etc.

AD&D basically left all but a few skills as class abilities and 2-4 non-weapon proficiencies (when those were added) to DM fiat. With no guidelines for resolving them. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Ascending armor class. Unified attribute bonuses. Skills providing a unified resolution mechanic. The codification of combat NWPs in the feat system meant Fighters got some cool stuff to do. It was a vast quality of life improvement. The cracks were all in the implementation.

Spell slots is my primary complaint. It always required elaborate justification. Some of the spells are way too OP, but that’s minor.

I’ve never loved the strict arcane/divine magic divide, but I realize I’m in a minority there.

Also, the “crossbow wizard.” I have no issue giving spellcasters a weak magical attack at-will so they don’t need a crossbow. YMMV.

As an aside, my first C&C gamemaster let my wizard have two “at-will” powers: “Cantrip” (basically “prestidigitation” at-will) and “Arcane bolt” (which was a Dex-based 1d6 ranged attack). With those two powers, I always felt like a wizard, and It did not feel overpowered at our table.

d6 skills. Saving Throws. And Tables. Tables. Tables.

I think something like DCC’s “Mighty Deeds” crossed with Luck/Deathbringer Dice that provides revolution guidelines for what’s an appropriate effect to trigger by level.

Actually figure out simple rules for grappling, throwing, tripping, disarming, et cetera. And making tactical choices in combat.

I’m spending most of my homebrew effort on this topic.

See above re: combat.

Shadowdark is super-close, which is why it’s my system of choice.

Characters are a little too fragile (easily fixed), it doesn't have a skill system, and it lacks those combat options (although it does use luck tokens). It’s also a bit obsessed with niche protection.

It's interesting because a lot of your tastes – not all, but definitely most – line up with my own. That is one of the reasons why I started translating my setting into a B/X or OSE/Dolmenwood adjacent homebrew, as opposed to 5e, TotV, PF2e, or a modern D&D-like. I'll share a class snippet - it's unapologetically quirky and has a tone that won't appeal to many, but it's my jam.

 

[mamba]

It's my understanding that you can use the rules you like and not use the rules you don't.

and it is my understanding that I can play a different game / not switch to 2024 when it frequently makes things worse for me