D&D 2E D&D 5e Rules, D&D 2e Classes - Thoughts and Ideas

[mserabian]

Hey guys

Been doing some thinking...

I really like 5e's simplified and streamlined rules set... i.e. Advantage/Disadvantage, BAB, Ascending AC, and the way Proficiencies work.

BUT I also really like the complete and utter simplicity of the the 2e classes... i.e. Fighter just gets weapon specialization and better attacks, Wizards and Clerics just get more spells, etc. (5e class abilities seem to me really to be just feats assigned to a specific class and I really don't like them feats!)...

So I'm thinking of trying to mash the two together to make a simpler and more streamlined game over all.

Any ideas out there? Anyone already doing something like this?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It'd be simple enough to strip down 5e classes. Throw away the sub-classes, don't use feats. For the fighter, replace style with a simple 2e-style weapon specialization. Without sub-classes, wizards, clerics, & Druids would be simplified, etc. In a few cases, you might need to pick 1 sub-class to represent the class, like the LG Paladin Oath, so you get a traditional paladin. You could also toss the post-2e classes Sorcerer & Warlock, and the absent-from-2e-as-a-class Monk & Barbarian, if you liked.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Most classes have one of their sub-classes representing the traditional option that was presented in 2E, so just go with that one instead of opening up all options. Skip feats entirely. Your stats will go up instead, but I'm not sure how terrible that is for what you're trying to do.

Classes will gain new abilities as they reach higher levels, but that was also true of 2E (mostly with the Paladin and Druid).

 

[Li Shenron]

Most classes have one of their sub-classes representing the traditional option that was presented in 2E, so just go with that one instead of opening up all options. Skip feats entirely. Your stats will go up instead

I think this is a good start, but you could go even a bit further with the simplifications, for example by defaulting the Fighter's Fighting Style to 'Defense' (the simplest one, works for almost all Fighters), or by pre-selecting the skills proficiencies.

Not so easy to replace the many special abilities that all classes get in 5e anyway... if you just 'throw away' stuff, you need to do so for all classes equally in order to be fair, but then everyone has to use your simplified classes in the game, you can't have some players use them while other players use the original 5e classes.

 

[designbot]

Sounds like you could get some of what you're looking for by limiting characters to the free basic rules.

 

[steeldragons]

Ok. Let's see...We'll start simple...

[NOTE: This is all being done as I type. None of it is playtested nor is guaranteed to produce a "2e" feel/vibe. Just trying to match things to a 2e flavor/simplicity, as make the most sense to my mind, as best I can.]

Right...simple...

Well, first, throw out Sorcerers and Warlocks. I personally would save them in reserve for villains/NPCs to throw at the PCs (Villain spellcasters that do stuff we can't do?! AAAAAHHHH!!!!). I'd throw out Monks too. BUT, if you want/like a bit of 1e/Unearthed Arcana in your 2e (we always did), go:

Barbarians: No subclass necessary. Berserker Path if you want one. Optimal background: Outlander.

Monks: WITH SUBCLASS: Open Hand Way. Optimal background: Hermit. Matches, pretty closely to the cascading list of weird powers 1e monks got Quivering Palm and all (minus Speak with Plants, though.).

Cavaliers: Fighter with the Mounted Combatant Feat at 1st level in lieu of a Fighting Style. Offer the Fighting Style in at 3rd in lieu of the Martial Archetype (which we won't be using). Optimal Background: Noble or Noble variant: Knight.

Thief-Acrobats...There's really no way to effectively do this in 5e at the moment [note to self, homebrew an Acrobat]. "Acrobatics" is just a [fairly flavorless] skill. You can do a Rogue: Thief: Entertainer Background...but you're not going to get any cool tumbling things or evasion or anything else more than what a rogue/thief can already do.

NOW, the "official" 2e classes. As a rule, for 2e style classes, when a subclass/archetype is called for, it should be implemented at level 1, with all future abilities bumping up the appropriate number of levels unless otherwise stated.

i.e. Instead of gaining Thief abilities: 2 at 3rd, 9th, 13th and 17th...3rd level traits occur at 1st and the other abilities "kick in" at 7th, 11th, and 15th, respectively.

So...

Fighter: If you want to utilize the abilities and flavor offered by 5e's subclass/archetype structure, then your basic Fighter is a Champion. Honestly, with the fighter (and several other classes) an archetype isn't even necessary. Grant a standard +2 to attack rolls with their chosen weapon, call it "Weapon Expertise" (as a default Fighting Style) and be done with it. For 2e's "specialization" damage, instead of adding your proficiency to attack rolls only, let the fighter add their proficiency bonus to damage rolls (on top of their ability bonus, of course), also. No other class can do that (that I know of).

Thief: This one kinda needs the subclass. Bring it in at 1st level, Rogue: Thief (obviously). Optimal Background: Criminal or Urchin. Done. Obviously, 5e (as anything from WotC) doesn't do 2e's thieves' ability %d. The skill system is significantly simpler and the Rogue's "Expertise" grants the thief a boost (double prof. bonus) in several skill rolls, 2 at 1st level and 2 more at 6th. "Cunning Action" [at 2nd level] and the thief's "Fast Hands" take care of the rest.

Cleric: With Cleric's choosing their Divine Domain at 1st level, and the Divine Domain serving as a beefed up "Spheres Magic" system for clerics, I would just leave/play these guys as is. Your deity dictates which Domains you can choose from and you gain Bonus spells and additional powers in relation to your deity's area(s) [a.k.a. their Domain, formerly known as their Spheres]. If you are looking to minimize complexity, KEEP the Domain/Bonus Spells to mimic the spell sphere's and do away with the domain special abilities (though I feel you will suffer in flavor).

Paladins & Rangers...
Ugh. These guys. 5e did a number on them, making them casters from level TWO and wrapping a bunch of their traditional powers/abilities into individualized class spell lists...several of which -I have read- are broken...the paladin is a bit less egregious in this than the ranger...But the spell casting at 2nd is a travesty to [my] old school sensibilities. Here's what I would do...

Paladin: Devotion Oath. Optimal Background: Acolyte or Noble. Rip out the spellcasting and Oath spells as written.
Option 1: Bring in Spell Use as an ability as 8th level ability. Use the Paladin Spell Progression chart (from level 2) choosing from the Cleric (and/or Paladin, if you want) Spell List. This brings the Paladin a [close to] 2nd style spell progression with a maximum of 4/3/3/1 at 20th level.
Option 2: Bring in Spell Use at 2nd level as normal. Ignore "Oath Spells." But follow the Eldritch Knight spell progression (aain choosing from Cleric and/or Paladin lists, as desired). It is magic much earlier, but still a slower progression (no 2nd level spell slots until 7th level, 3rd slots at 13th, and 4th not until 19th level!) and it doesn't exceed 4th level spells. Choose cantrips (which are cast "at will" in 5e!) from the Cleric list.
Option 3: Combine those. Don't allow spell use until 8th level, but use the Eldrtich Knight table (from the beginning) with Cleric cantrips & spell list. I would be inclined to use this one.

Ranger: Doesn't need a subclass, but if you are going to use it, Hunter. Optimal Background: Outlander or Hermit. For these guys, swap the Land's Stride to 2nd level and Spell Use to 8th. I, personally, would follow the Eldritch Knight spell progression, choosing from cantrips and spells from the Wizard or Druid lists as desired. If you prefer...
Option 1: Follow the Ranger spell progression beginning at 8th level...choosing from Druid/Wizard (and/or/with/without Ranger) spells as desired.

Now...the Mages...

[Wizard] Mage: for a generalist, use as is with no subclasses necessary. No changes needed. Optimal background: Sage.

2e-style Specialist Mages:

1. Allow the subclass choice at 1st level. This includes the "Savant" feature of the specialist.
2. Leave the other 2nd level feature of the specialists (it's usually the best/most flavorful of them all, anyway) at 2nd level. So an Illusionist gets Improved Minor Illusion, Evokers can Sculpt Spells...and the specialists that people wouldn't touch with a 10' pole in 2e, Diviners and Abjurists get their great/flavorful Portent and Arcane Ward, respectively, etc...at 2nd.
3. Maintain the "Opposing School" flavor/philosophy...either strictly [as written in the 2e PHB] or watered down to just directly opposing schools: Illusionist can't use Necromancy (but Evo and Abj. are ok) and vice versa, Enchanters can't use Evocation and vice versa, etc...
4. Keep the bonus spell of your school at each new slot level.

Optional Variant: Arcane Recovery only applies to reclaiming/using/casting spells of their specialty school.
Option 2: Do away with the extra spells and opposing schools and just use all of the specialty schools/subclass additional features as is.

Is that everybody?....Oh! Bards & Druids!

Bard: Lore College, if you want some extra skills and magic (at 4th level, if the subclass is bumped up to 1st). But I don't think it is strictly necessary. The bard has LOTS to do/use just in its base class. Optimal Background: Entertainer. You can allow the spellcasting from 1st, if you wish or wait until 2nd (as in 2e) or even 3rd (as, technically speaking, the Eldritch Knight is). Use the Eldritch Knight Spell Progression chart...it maxes out at 4th level spells instead of 5th, but, again, 5e has cantrips which are at will...and the Bard's Cantrip spell list is just fine Maybe allow Bard or Druid cantrips. Unlike Rangers or Paladins, I personally, think 5e's Bard Spell List is close to spot on for the flavor of bard I like. If you want to play up the "bards are dabblers" flavor of 2e, let them choose from Cleric, Druid or Wizard lists, as desired. But the existing 5e Bard spell list has a nice blend of Cleric and Illusion spells already.

Druid: Land Circle. Optimal Background: Hermit. Swap Land's Stride and Wildshape (to 2nd and 6th level, respectively) - and limit Wildshape to Wisdom modifier times per day! - for the [close to] 2e flavor of shapeshifting instead of the travesty that is Wildshape. Pretty much everything else about the base class or Land Circle can be played/used as is.

I think that covers everything. I think the 2e Non-weapon Proficiencies would fit well in with the Ability[Skill] check system of 5e. Use it or don't...as in 2e.

Hope that's something to work with. Enjoy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this is a good start, but you could go even a bit further with the simplifications, for example by defaulting the Fighter's Fighting Style to 'Defense' (the simplest one, works for almost all Fighters), or by pre-selecting the skills proficiencies.

But it's not very 2e. TWF or Archery, for the typical 2e double-specialist, if not introduce a weapon specialist style (+1 to hit, +2 damage, attack 1/round as a bonus action with your specialized weapon, only).

Other classes wouldn't need to be trimmed of sub-classes, at all. You'd even have to /add/ one to the wizard, since 5e lacks a 2e-style generalist!

Not so easy to replace the many special abilities that all classes get in 5e anyway... if you just 'throw away' stuff, you need to do so for all classes equally in order to be fair, but then everyone has to use your simplified classes in the game, you can't have some players use them while other players use the original 5e classes.

Not a major concern, IMHO. If you're going for something like a 2e class, and just trimming a 5e class gets you there, great. Maybe that leaves it a little underprivileged, or, hey, maybe 5e just gave it too much stuff. As DM, you're going to be adjusting challenges and shaping the play experience to keep everyone interested/participating/contributing, anyway.