I’ll do my best to give my answer to these as briefly as I can. In order:
Gracias!
Every exception is a rule. B/X had fewer class powers, and fewer species abilities.
So, in 5E terms "fewer features". This is something we've incorporated in nearly every homebrew for the last several years.
The hit point cap was lower.
Lower HD, maxed at 9th IIRC. Easy enough for 5E.
The game didn’t have Actions, Reactions, Bonus Actions, Minor Actions, Attacks of Opportunity, etc.
The round was structured. Resolve this, then this, then that, and so on. Initiative wasn't a thing, even remotely like 5E, until 2E I would think.
The munchkinning potential of finding “broken combinations” was much lower.
Very much so!
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.
I know in the OP you mentioned still having the WSG and DSG from AD&D... I never found any of what you're saying to be true IME... 2E organized it a bit better, and certainly you wouldn't have everything at lower levels, but by name level you pretty much had things covered IMO.
As for Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Fafhrd would have to be dual-classes to get some thief skills, but otherwise being athletic and horsemen, etc. could all be covered under NWP.
I think this bears more discussion to find out why our experiences differed so much on this point. Perhaps I'm just remembering things through rose-coloured glasses LOL!
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.
Most of which has carried over into 5E, though, right?
Spell slots is my primary complaint. It always required elaborate justification. Some of the spells are way too OP, but that’s minor.
So the concept that channeling magic was draining/taxing to the caster didn't work? I've never found that too elaborate and a lot of the literature supports the idea that casting spells is fatiguing. Does that mean spell points or any other similar mechanic equally doesn't fit for you?
As for spells being OP, I've found different editions had different spells being OP. One spell gets "fixed" and another buffed beyond needs...
I’ve never loved the strict arcane/divine magic divide, but I realize I’m in a minority there.
This is one I go back and forth on. For simplicity's sake, I like just thinking "magic is magic is magic" and the arcane/divine/primal is the fluff; but it is so rooted into the game for many people that NOT having the divide does make the magic feel "samey". In that sense, having a hard divide would be better IMO than having a blurry one.
Also, the “crossbow wizard.” I have no issue giving spellcasters a weak magical attack at-will so they don’t need a crossbow. YMMV.
My preference in such cases is "do
something else!" Why does a wizard (or any caster)
have to use magic all the time or attack with a weapon? 5E offers a few other options. While I can envision clerics fighting in melee, druids and warlocks too, perhaps, and of course bards... but sorcerers not as much and certainly not wizards (barring subclasses like bladesingers....).
But at-will magical
pew pew pew attacks is something myself and most of the people I play with abhore! Having magic so "commonplace" for a PC, even such a weak version as a magical attack, makes magic feel less
magical for our groups.
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.
I agree it isn't necessarily a matter of overpowered in such a case. I think most cantrips being at-will and allowing PCs to know them all works fine. For over a year we played where casters knew every cantrip in their spell list that did not deal damage, and it worked really well. Lots of non-damage stuff to do that could help out even in combat.
We have an Arcane Trickster in our current game who makes wonderful use of
minor illusion!
d6 skills. Saving Throws. And Tables. Tables. Tables.
LOL fair enough!
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.
I'll have to research those things as I'm not familiar with them.
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.
I think the rules in 5E are simple enough, but nearly entirely
ineffective! I'd be curious to see what your efforts are on these if you feel like sharing at some point.
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.
I see some appeal to Shadowdark, but in some ways it goes overboard and simplifies things too much for me. Many things lack the concrete rules I like, with options covering most things. 5E's design of "rulings over rules" hinders the game for me as well.
Rules were always optional, in every edition, so having solid rules which can be altered or ignored is more beneficial to players than not having them at all and just leave everything up to the DM/players to decide "how they want to do it".
5E also misses the mark on simple combat options which were used IRL, such as attacking with a shield.
Thank you for the response.
