OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

[fjw70]

---

One big goal of 5e is to be more backwards compatible than 3e/4e.

I don't recall that being a goal of 5e.

 

[Gadget]

So you think the data is fairly useless. Fine. It may well be; and that's OK. But the only aspersions I'm seeing being cast here are by you towards the author; the author certainly hasn't cast any. I think you're getting emotionally affected by a piece of interesting but fairly trivial trivia. Who is it "misleading"? And why? Who used the word "better" other than you? What import are you assigning this? And, indeed, why?

You need to try pretty hard to assign a value judgment to the sentence ""the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". You have to want to see it, I think. It may or may not be wrong, or right, or inaccurate, or incomplete, but it's not a value judgement.

What, then, does combat efficacy mean to you, if not ability, or effectiveness, at combat? You know, the fighters main job? If that is not a value statement, it is the closest thing to it. I suppose there are those who value fighters being ineffective, or less effective in combat, so this may be an erroneous assumption on my part, and if so I apologize. Now, I think the chart is very useful to illustrate how game design of BAB equivalent has changed over time, and part of how the 'treadmill effect' that some have complained about has changed (or not changed) over editions. But even that can be misleading because, as noted above, BAB does more or less heavy lifting in various editions. Where this data might be even more useful is as a gauge to help one in converting adventures/monsters from one edition to another, and it is an interesting bit of trivia, as you pointed out. But what it is not about, is combat efficacy.

 

[TerraDave]

That is the quastion posed on page 1... Was it a mistake where he miss read the info or was it an attempt to make the numbers say something he wanted?

arguably the later. context for the numbers presented is lacking.


arguably. apparently.

 

[Morrus]

What, then, does combat efficacy mean to you, if not ability, or effectiveness, at combat? .

Please re-read my posts. Your question indicates that have misunderstood them. Thanks.

 

[Morrus]

It's dangerous to state a conclusion or opinion that something is worse than everything that came before.

By "worse" you mean "the fighter is worse at fighting"? You and I define "dangerous " differently, then!

If talking about D&D can be dangerous, we're in dire straits here on the messageboard!

It's likely that he didn't mean for his words to be written the way they were. But if he's going to be providing that research to the public, he should learn to be more careful with the wording of his conclusions.

Like everyone here, you mean?

 

[Agamon]

Okay, this thread has me confused. The blog is new and the blogger appears to be an old school gamer interested in what 5e has to offer. The blog post reads as very neutral, in that nothing is cast derogatorily or utterly dismissed. It instead presents some data and the blogger tells what he believes are his conclusions to this data, as follows:

Conclusions

So, could you use old school stats directly in D&D Next?

With low level monsters, the systems appear fairly compatible with the exception that old school monsters will have fewer hit points and damage, so will likely be slightly outclassed by low level PCs. With higher level monsters, damage output and hit points will be significantly lower, but this deficiency may be made up by the higher armor class and to-hit bonuses. PCs will do more damage, but hit less often. Monsters will do less damage, but hit more often. Negative armor classes will be extremely hard to hit by a D&D Next PC even considering that a natural 20 will always hit. Given this data, it is possible that high level monsters may still be fairly compatible due to those balancing factors, but it will require some play testing (or heavy number crunching) to vet this out completely.

I don't have the statistics background to get into the hard math, so if there are any statistic wonks who wants to try to deconstruct what I've laid out so far, please add your comments!

He even admits at the end that a) more analysis is required, and b) this isn't his area of expertise and allows that perhaps someone more knowledgeable could correct him.

How does this become someone with some sort of an evil agenda? This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Morrus]

How does this become someone with some sort of an evil agenda? This is why we can't have nice things.

It's a lost cause. The answer is "but...internet!"

 

[Dausuul]

Looking at Morrus's chart again, I developed a case of chart envy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the statement: "the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition" is a bit problematic. It needs to be clarified, that it is only comparing attackbonus without looking at target numbers and other factors. I also believe, the chart is misleading, as it looks like the fighter is nerfed, despite him being one of the most combat efficient classes in D&D next.

 

[Nagol]

I don't have an AD&D DMG handy, but I do have an OSRIC PDF. Assuming they're using the same tables, it's not unlikely at all. I found five Strength-boosting items: Ring of three wishes, gauntlets of ogre power, ioun stone (pale blue rhomboid), belt of giant strength, and manual of gainful exercise. For each roll on the item tables, the combined probability to get any of these is less than 0.12%. That means you would, on average, need to find 800 magic items to get one that boosted your Strength.

As for making magic items, good luck convincing the party wizard to burn Constitution points so you can get a bonus to hit. By the time the wizard gets 8th-level spells, she has better people to make magic items for, like herself.

You hit most of them. If we ignore artefacts, there is also the Deck of Many Things (three ways), Talisman of Zagy, Ring of Wishes (both types), Luck Blade, Efreeti Bootle, a small sample of Iron Flasks, and wishes on a scroll, off the top of my head. There's probably one or two others buried in the lists. This also discounts magical area effects like magic pools, encountered creatures like djinni and efreeti, and other such frippery.

As for burning a Con point, the Wizard would have to be very unlucky (only a 5% chance of losing a point of Con if it cast on a non-living thing DMG pg. 46) and the Cleric, Druid, and Illusionist don't take that risk anyway.

Whether a PC will work to help another PC is a matter of group dynamics. From memory, it was never too difficult for my players to cooperate at least to a point.