D&D 5E (2014) So 5E is the Successor to AD&D 2nd Edition? How and How Not?

[TwoSix]

it’s your game, you do with it what you feel is right. I agree that 1e and 2e basically had individual XP progressions, but I’d rather move past 2e towards newer ideas instead of back towards 1e, and a unified progression is high on my list.

For an AD&D-derived game, I actually prefer the individual chart. It lets the designer focus on building the class by focusing on narrative as the primary concern rather than balance, and then use the XP progression as a more granular tool to balance the class, as well as communicate expectations as to how powerful the class is.

As mentioned in some of the recent threads on 1e, though, it could be worth revisiting some of the classes that veer widely off the regular curve of XP progression (like higher level druids, or mid-level wizards).

 

[Bluenose]

Well, other than The Edition That Must Not Be Named.

BECMI? No, I don't see much of Best Edition in 5e either.

 

[Retreater]

I actually used the monk from Dragon (54 I think??) as the template instead of the core 1e (which was woefully underpowered). TBH, I never liked the unarmed combat system in 2e. Make an attack roll, but depending on what you rolled, lower could be better, and take a penalty if your opponent has a weapon or natural attack, etc. (I fully acknowledge the damage for unarmed combat needs serious nerfing though at higher levels)

Awesome. That was fast! Looks like the Monk has the Ascending AC option built in.

 

[Remathilis]

BECMI? No, I don't see much of Best Edition in 5e either.

They both have tortles and (soon to be) lupins.

Becmi, 2e, 5e are only ones to have them. Make of that what you will

 

[Zardnaar]

Necro'd thread, but whatevs, I'll reply to the recent posts

One of the best things about 1e/2e is that they were intentionally built to be compatible, which allowed us to mix and match the best parts of each edition to our tastes. Hard to do with later editions. For example, I love how 1e is presented and the art, but it was also easy for me to incorporate 2e changes like spell spheres, thief/bard skill progression, etc.

Funny enough I'm currently working on a 2e clone that pulls some things from 1e. Lots of 1e clones, only 1 2e clone, and no offense to Gold and Glory*, but the presentation and layout has some challenges, like walls of text. The primary purpose of what I'm doing is to present it in a more user-friendly format, especially for us who are getting older, like 13 pt font, rearranging things to have everything you need in one place instead of flipping back and forth between books, summarizing parts, etc.

* I think Justen and team deserve a lot of credit, and they crammed 3 books into one and had to keep age count down, and a drawback of that is a ton of smaller font text on one page. My comment isn't meant to take a dig at them.

I think 1.5 AD&D is what I like. 1E vibe, 2E mechanics.

I dont lije levrl limits now, racial restrictions I dont mind to much. Limits multiclass abuse cheese (no you cant be a paladin/specialty priest).

 

[Zardnaar]

I think 3e is directly linked to 2e as both spiritual and literal successor. We can see what they wanted to do with the 2e Player's Options books. With the exception of ascending AC (which they wanted in 2e anyway but decided being backwards compatible was more important), you can see 3e in those PO books. PO was the groundwork for more tactical combat, feats, and PC customization we saw really take off in 3e.

That and fighters handbook.

WPs were proto feats in that book.

 

[Zardnaar]

BECMI? No, I don't see much of Best Edition in 5e either.

Thats not how you spell B/X????

To me B/X influence is things like capping magic weapons at +3 vs +5, some magic itrm tablets and bounded accuracy.

Rules cyclopedoa fighter has around +13 to hit at 20. 5E ones around +11.

5.0 Mostly powered by evolved 4E, resembles 3E, influence from Basic and 2E very little 1E or OD&D.

5.5 more 4E and 3.5 influence. Less B/X amd 2E.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Thats not how you spell B/X????

Indeed. Several reasons why I prefer B/X over BECMI. The aesthetic is one (Willingham and Otus artwork). Smaller rulebooks is another. But a big one is level cap at 14 for humans, less for demi humans. Several years ago I asked Frank if there was one thing he'd change about BECMI, what would it be? He said he'd cap everyone at level 20. Would never go higher. And since CMI goes beyond those low teens in levels and is part of the BECMI package, I have to go with B/X.

 

[TwoSix]

Indeed. Several reasons why I prefer B/X over BECMI. The aesthetic is one (Willingham and Otus artwork). Smaller rulebooks is another. But a big one is level cap at 14 for humans, less for demi humans. Several years ago I asked Frank if there was one thing he'd change about BECMI, what would it be? He said he'd cap everyone at level 20. Would never go higher. And since CMI goes beyond those low teens in levels and is part of the BECMI package, I have to go with B/X.

I think B/X class design is probably the pinnacle of 20th century D&D; the only thing that I personally would add to it is AD&D multiclassing and dual-classing (with dual-classing being more robust and less punitive).

 

[Zardnaar]

Indeed. Several reasons why I prefer B/X over BECMI. The aesthetic is one (Willingham and Otus artwork). Smaller rulebooks is another. But a big one is level cap at 14 for humans, less for demi humans. Several years ago I asked Frank if there was one thing he'd change about BECMI, what would it be? He said he'd cap everyone at level 20. Would never go higher. And since CMI goes beyond those low teens in levels and is part of the BECMI package, I have to go with B/X.

Agree.

Best part of BECMI is tge Rules Cyclopedia. 20 levels would improve that book along with stretched demo human level limits.

Downside of B/X is no RC.

36 levels doesnt really work hell 20 is marginal but what people expect.