Big Ideas and Concepts Pre 5E

[ezo]

Anyway, as for "the right amount" from your earlier post...

Hit Points

Ok, we know hit points are abstract. They represent a lot. Physical health and resilience, mental fortitude, skill in combat, luck, divine favor, agility and reaction, will to live, etc. But, let's look at how Hit Points are determined:

Constitution modifier. Sure, physical health and resistance to pain, etc.
Hit Dice. More abstract, but I have to think mostly this is skill in combat, however part of it is likely a mixture of the other aspects.

Frankly, I feel using the Constitution modifier for each hit die places too much emphasis on it. Polls have shown the majority of PCs have CON 14 or better due primarily to the game's reliance on hit points. This makes CON often tertiary, if not secondary, in the ranking of ability scores (prime class-dependent score, DEX or CON, CON or DEX, remaining ability scores are 4th to 6th; for heavy armor PCs, DEX is usually replaced by WIS).

So, we changed things up by granting a Hit Point bonus for ALL your ability modifiers at 1st-level. Why did we do this?

STR - physical resilience
DEX - agility and reaction
CON - resistance to pain
INT - tactical awareness
WIS - sense of danger (possibly divine favor?)
CHA - will to live (possible luck?)

And I am sure we could come up with other abstract justifications why every ability modifer can and should influence hit points.

By adding all the modifiers at level 1, it increases PC survivability. It isn't until around 4th or 5th level that PCs using this concept start to lag behind RAW. And, of course, when a PC increases an ability modifier (permanently), their HP increase by a like amount.

Here is an example showing a RAW Fighter with CON 16. The Revised Fighter begins with +7 for ability modifiers (assuming standard array with +2/+1 to scores) and in this table never increases them. As you can see, the hit points are close to AD&D up to 9th level, and ahead after that. Compared to RAW, it is close until 3rd level, then lags behind slightly, averaging out to about 70%.

OPTION: Roll HP with Advantage. To offset this an option is to allow PCs to roll HP with advantage. This gets you closer to the "round-up" average available when you level-up, and increases the average to about 83%-- a fair balance between 5E and AD&D.

CONVERTING FOR 5E CREATURES
This is fairly simple since HP are shown with HD+CON bonus. Just remove the CON bonus, then add all the ability modifiers, if you want to. Frankly, it is easier to not bother...

 

[Tigris]

I am not 100% sure what you are looking for exactly but things that 5E did worse than editions before:

• Power scaling being all over the place. In D&D 3.5 you would double in power every 2 levels (at least that was the plan). So 1 CRX enemy could be replaced with 2 CRX-2 enemies. In 4E the power scaling still was completly constant just less steap. Every 4 levels you double in power. (I think I read 2E also tried this but was even less good at it than 3). Meanwhile in 5E you tripple in power from level 1 to 3, the doubble from 3 to 5 the double from 5 to 9 and then whatever.
• Simple encounter building rules INCLUDING TRAPS AND HAZARDs. In 3.5 Traps had a CR value and could be included in combats. in 4E this was made even simpler by giving traps and dangerous terrain/hazards levels and xp values, so they could just be used in encounters as part of the budget like monsters. Meanwhile 5E has generally worse encounter building rules and forgot about traps etc.
• Making movement (forced movement and opportunity attacks) matter. In 3.5 a full attack action was powerfull (at least it is in PF1 I hope I dont confuse things here), so kicking enemies away, (or being able to use a minor action to teleport to an enemy) both was powerfull. Similar opportunity attacks could trigger from casting (and could disrupt casting!) so using a 5 step to get away to be able to cast made people move (even if it was just a bit). In 4E movement is also important, so many area attacks and areas to push enemie sin or be pushed in yourself. Opportunity attacks are really strong, they cant disrupt casting but they hurt. Lots of shifts teleports etc. Meanwhile in 5E the higher the level the less an opportunity attack matters, but people still dont really move since there is no reason. Good opportunity attacks can actually be a reason to move:
• Just use 3 saves/defenses. Not "charisma save and int save" etc. Its a lot easier to make sense of (and balance) 3 stats instead of 6 which are differently common. Also having more than 1 way (class save progression 3.5 or 2 stats 4e) to influence a save is definitly a plus.
• Getting away from the "basic attack". 3.5 did it later with the book of 9 swords and D&D 4E did it (with the earlier books). When you do martial arts (and martial characters would be in that way) you dont do "basic attacks", you do maneuvers. Every attack has a name.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am not 100% sure what you are looking for exactly but things that 5E did worse than editions before:

• Power scaling being all over the place. In D&D 3.5 you would double in power every 2 levels (at least that was the plan). So 1 CRX enemy could be replaced with 2 CRX-2 enemies. In 4E the power scaling still was completly constant just less steap. Every 4 levels you double in power. (I think I read 2E also tried this but was even less good at it than 3). Meanwhile in 5E you tripple in power from level 1 to 3, the doubble from 3 to 5 the double from 5 to 9 and then whatever.
• Simple encounter building rules INCLUDING TRAPS AND HAZARDs. In 3.5 Traps had a CR value and could be included in combats. in 4E this was made even simpler by giving traps and dangerous terrain/hazards levels and xp values, so they could just be used in encounters as part of the budget like monsters. Meanwhile 5E has generally worse encounter building rules and forgot about traps etc.
• Making movement (forced movement and opportunity attacks) matter. In 3.5 a full attack action was powerfull (at least it is in PF1 I hope I dont confuse things here), so kicking enemies away, (or being able to use a minor action to teleport to an enemy) both was powerfull. Similar opportunity attacks could trigger from casting (and could disrupt casting!) so using a 5 step to get away to be able to cast made people move (even if it was just a bit). In 4E movement is also important, so many area attacks and areas to push enemie sin or be pushed in yourself. Opportunity attacks are really strong, they cant disrupt casting but they hurt. Lots of shifts teleports etc. Meanwhile in 5E the higher the level the less an opportunity attack matters, but people still dont really move since there is no reason. Good opportunity attacks can actually be a reason to move:
• Just use 3 saves/defenses. Not "charisma save and int save" etc. Its a lot easier to make sense of (and balance) 3 stats instead of 6 which are differently common. Also having more than 1 way (class save progression 3.5 or 2 stats 4e) to influence a save is definitly a plus.
• Getting away from the "basic attack". 3.5 did it later with the book of 9 swords and D&D 4E did it (with the earlier books). When you do martial arts (and martial characters would be in that way) you dont do "basic attacks", you do maneuvers. Every attack has a name.

Pre 5E had sone good fonceots in it. I think saved scaling better a'la OSR and 4E are good.

Hit Point bloat a common thing about 5E. OSR may be to few idk everyone has their preferences.

An engine/skill system shoukd probably cone first. I have a homebrew I'm planning on tweaking.

I haven't fully decided on its complexity. Right now it's using 5E engine, 4E micro feats, class design similar to Star Wars Saga and the talents map to some 4E or 5E class abilities. Eg you can pick a talent similar to say 5.5 champio ability or 4E defender mechanic.

My monsters are closest to 3.0 ones less hp. Still thinking . it over withb5E class design.

Conceptually I'm also leaning towards 3.5 scaling boom spells and scaling defenses faster than spell DCs. A higher level caster would have to defuff or use boom spells at higher levels.

What type of saves and how many is another one. Currently leaning towards 3 (fort, ref, will).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Monsters never had ability scores pre 3.0. 8HD monster for example had 36 hp. 5E ogre has 59 hp iirc vs 18 pre 3E. Con score of 12 on 8HD monster boosts hp to 44, 18 con 68 hp.

Not saying pre 3E is ideal either. Fire giant in OSR game other night 60 hp, 5E 162.

3.0 and 3.5 are in the middle hp wise vs 4E and 5E. 3.5 has more hp than 3.0 as the monsters in 3.0 were often glass cannons.

Well, they had Int, and other scores (usually Str) when a score was needed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, they had Int, and other scores (usually Str) when a score was needed.

Up to a point yes. They mostly didn't matter mechanically.

I'm not sure on a sweet spot.

 

[ezo]

I'm not sure on a sweet spot.

That depends on a lot on your design.

Ask yourself this: why would ability scores be needed for monsters?

For PCs in 5E (and most games IME) it is for skills, attacks, defenses, saves, etc. Since each PC is different, using ability scores as variables allows for the creation of unique PCs.

For creatures, which are static in a game, however, are they necessary? Most games treat individual creatures of the same type as identical: an ogre is an ogre is an ogre; in such cases they aren't really necessary then.

You can just assign AC, HP, attack bonus and damage bonus, damage, skills, saves, or whatever as you see fit and largely (if not entirely) ignore ability scores OR you design creatures using the same rules PCs have to follow.

For the most part, first option is AD&D, second option is 5E.

 

[Gus L]

I find it a bit telling that this thread is most talking about mechanics... specifically combat mechanics and character builds. This strikes me as a very particular framework for looking at older editions of D&D, and one with a very contemporary inflection.

The fundamental difference for me between D&D editions is not found in the mechanical bits and bobs attached to it - and stuff like prestige classes start in the Greyhawk supplement to OD&D - but in the locus of play. Where does the edition expect players to spend most of their time? Dungeon exploration, combat, domain building (this isn't found much in D&D) etc. Then beyond that what version of the locus is important - how is it framed. Many people argue that OD&D as designed was intended as sort of a skirmish wargame focused on tactical combat between groups of 10 - 100 or so "figures", and while 3.5 - 5E are also very combat focused the design of tactical combat is very different. In more contemporary editions tactical combat predominates, but it is generally between sides of 1-6, far more complex "figures". It's a very different game, evoking a heroic team rather then warband. This is both the result of and challenges players fundamental conception of what the game is about even while it may share many mechanics.

That said, the intended loci and actual nature of play aren't always the same. I'd argue that OD&D evolved in play (even before publication perhaps) rapidly from its skirmish game intent to an exploration focused game with procedural and referee facing support for dungeon crawling but still a base mechanical focus one combat.

This seems to me just one example, because rules review doesn't actually get us to how editions were played or can be played. To me the idea of stable concepts, especially at the granular level of specific rules evolution seems far less interesting then goals of campaign/adventure design, the play cultures they give rise to and the division or similarities between designer goals and play cultural ones. To discuss how something like Saving Throws evolved, or their purpose one needs to first have a shared set of ideas about the history of saving throws that explains not just how they change over time, but both what the designer goals in changing them were and how they actually were used by players.

 

[ezo]

The fundamental difference for me between D&D editions is not found in the mechanical bits and bobs attached to it - and stuff like prestige classes start in the Greyhawk supplement to OD&D - but in the locus of play.

I find, along these lines, the focus of DM-centered vs. Player-centered is another large shift between editions, and this shift mirrors the issue of complexity of the game both in terms of play mechanics (DM-focused really) vs. creation rules (Player-focused).

Consider AD&D 1E. Characters were relatively basic in what they could do given player-control. Mostly it was attack, cast a spell, or thief skill. All the little bits and bobs were in the DMG for the DM to work with.

Now to 5E. Characters are vastly complex with numerous decision points during creation and when leveling. While the primary actions remain the same: attack, cast a spell, ability check, you have other options, including bonus actions and reactions to use with those options. On the DM side of things, rules were largely replaced with rulings and even more DM fiat IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

That depends on a lot on your design.

Ask yourself this: why would ability scores be needed for monsters?

For PCs in 5E (and most games IME) it is for skills, attacks, defenses, saves, etc. Since each PC is different, using ability scores as variables allows for the creation of unique PCs.

For creatures, which are static in a game, however, are they necessary? Most games treat individual creatures of the same type as identical: an ogre is an ogre is an ogre; in such cases they aren't really necessary then.

You can just assign AC, HP, attack bonus and damage bonus, damage, skills, saves, or whatever as you see fit and largely (if not entirely) ignore ability scores OR you design creatures using the same rules PCs have to follow.

For the most part, first option is AD&D, second option is 5E.

Well thatssomething to consider. If you're writing it less complex helps.

 

[Gus L]

I find, along these lines, the focus of DM-centered vs. Player-centered is another large shift between editions, and this shift mirrors the issue of complexity of the game both in terms of play mechanics (DM-focused really) vs. creation rules (Player-focused).

Consider AD&D 1E. Characters were relatively basic in what they could do given player-control. Mostly it was attack, cast a spell, or thief skill. All the little bits and bobs were in the DMG for the DM to work with.

Now to 5E. Characters are vastly complex with numerous decision points during creation and when leveling. While the primary actions remain the same: attack, cast a spell, ability check, you have other options, including bonus actions and reactions to use with those options. On the DM side of things, rules were largely replaced with rulings and even more DM fiat IMO.

This is a good observation - except I think it undervalues a lot of "what you can do", especially in early editions. When one looks purely at the mechanics of combat (or exploration here - skills being mentioned) one is looking from a contemporary position that focuses on mechanical character abilities and then projecting that onto a style of play and system that in at least some of its incarnations relies more on meta-game knowledge and player actions without mechanical frameworks - especially in exploration.

AD&D of course is a tricky one, because it's both a shambling Frankenstein of a system and was to some degree designed to facilitate highly structured play via tournaments (Also... Yes. I know AD&D psychos, it's a perfect beautiful system. Just as St. Guggylax intended - and by not loving it I defame him, the hobby, the Western canon and everything good or just ... blah blah blah). That is AD&D particularly starts moving towards limiting player actions to mechanically supported abilities (as one can see with the scoring systems provided for things like the Slavelord's adventures) while at the same time in the larger RPG community it was often used to supplement OD&D and B/X play with higher level or more complex content without fundamentally breaking down the various emergent late 1970's play styles associated with early D&D or replacing them with tournament D&D. These playstyles were varied and many didn't rely on mechanical limitation. Of course regardless of play style AD&D also firmly lodges the practice of more complex character creation, or at least more options, into D&D (not new at the time of course ... but very much key to making AD&D a distinct game).

I also think it's important to look at how a system's published adventures believe the game will be played.

For early D&D you have a lot of variety - take Palace of the Vampire Queen, Temple of the Frog, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and Caverns of Thracia and while all use roughly the same system (OD&D + supplements/Holmes/AD&D) they all have distinct authorial emphasis that suggest differing kinds of play. Palace is a boardgame style hack n' slash, Frog is a Braunstein with added dungeon layer, Steading a Gygaxian commando raid and Thracia an archeological exploration. Each expects a different player relationship to mechanics.