D&D 1E Getting a 1E/2E feel from 5E

[Sacrosanct]

1e and 2e had multiclassing and dual classing, but it was the lamest rules in the history of DnD next to weapon speed. No, don't. Multiclassing, you had to split XP between whatever classes and it would take forever to level.

Not true. YOu were only usually 1 level behind with the way XP tables worked.

. Oh, and do allow feats. In 2e, this was in the Skills and Powers books.

2e S&P is largely held as *not* AD&D. All those Players OPtions books came out at the end of the TSR days and feel more like 3e than AD&D. If someone wanted to emulate AD&D, I would not include PO books from 2e because it doesn't represent the majority of actual game play during the almost 2 decades of AD&D prior to them coming out.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

No one at *your* table played with DC, but that doesn't mean other people didn't. I know people who did. That's my point. You shouldn't apply your anecdotal experiences as universal truth when saying what the AD&D feel is. because it's different from group to group, and therefor we need to look data we can measure. And by doing that, we can see MC and DC (to an extent) were common in AD&D, and thus it's pretty odd to say that if you want an AD&D feel, to get rid of MC.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think you need to add back in ageing on haste spells, and other negatives from casting certain spells. System shock and resurrection survival as well. De nerf the game a bit.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I think the big difference is that Ad&d (I never played 2e so can't comment on that) imposed restrictions. 5e doesn't.

To echo that, you need to put limits in place rather than allow the complete freedom 5e gives - limits on classes by race (which I'm glad to see done away with, personally); limits on armour and weapons (non-edged weapons for clerics as an example - Druid non metal armour is the only holdover from that in 5e, and that isolation in itself has caused much angst purely because it exists in isolation); that kind of thing.

Ad&d said "yes, but"; 5e says "fill your boots".

That's the biggest difference really that I can see, and if emulation is your game, maybe try to impose some limits or sanctions on what people can do. And be prepared to replace the toys back in the pram a fair bit if your table is used to editions between then and now.

 

[fuindordm]

I love AD&D, it's probably my second-favorite edition. But I'm trying to run 5E RAW for a while before tinkering with the rules.

Here's what I would do for an AD&D feel. I would only make changes that really have an effect on player incentives.

1. Give only 20% listed XP for defeating monsters, but treasure returned home nets 1XP/GP. This promotes combat avoidance as the smart choice in most cases.

2. PCs are dead at -10 (or -Con if you want to be generous), and track negative HP. if you go negative, make a DC 10 Con save or suffer a lingering injury.

3. You can spend HD during a short or long rest, but a long rest restores only one HD to your pool.

Changes 2 and 3 encourage players to avoid combat if possible, heal before zero, and to think of healing as a limited, valuable resource. Remember that damage is more abundant in 5E than in 1E, so I think 1HP/day is too stingy.

That's about it. I never felt that the race/class restrictions or level restrictions were important to AD&D; they are just a reflection of the assumed setting. The other rules differences are minor details that don't really affect the way a campaign plays out.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh yeah. forgot about death saves. get rid of those too.

 

[Lidgar]

1. As others have said, no death saves. Use negative hit points based on Con or level or just dead at -1.

2. Reduce number of classes. Consider making some classes "prestige" classes - like 1e Bard (i.e., needs to level in fighter and thief first).

3. Reduce healing as has been said (modify short and long rest mechanics).

4. Consider variable xp awards, or even variable xp by class (not a fan, but was an important element of that era).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Dual classing didn't exist in any campaigns I knew of. Not a single one, due to the implementation (you "forgot" your class until you equaled the level). Now, I have since heard that there were a few groups that, pace a video game, had players choose one level in a class, then dual class in another, but that was foreign to the campaigns I knew of and (to the extent someone did it) that would have been disallowed- and there were no examples I saw in tournament play- and I never saw a "real" bard. YMMV.

Forgot your class? Must have been a house rule. We used the actual rules. You forgot nothing, but if you used your old class abilities on an adventure then you didn't earn any XP. That made perfect sense to us.

It's not just anecdotal- I agree that multiclassed NPC demihumans were common, but I think you are forgetting how low the level limits were and the disadvantages (multiclass F/MU = no armor while casting).*

And it wasn't name level, ignoring thief and cleric (cleric was, what, 5-7 when allowed, druid for halfling)-
A dwarf would max out as 7 as a fighter, 9 as an assasin
Elf: Fighter 5, MU 9.
Gnome: Fighter 5, Illusionist 5.
Half-Elf: Fighter 6, MU 6.
And so on. Now, if you rolled 17 or 18 in some key abilities, you might get an extra level. But these aren't caps at level 15 or 20 we are talking about.

And I will repeat that no one played with the dualclass option- and invoking the *very different* option from 1e to support the inclusion in 5e is different.

Now, YMMV, but there is a reason that the Rogue's gallery didn't include a separate "dual class" section.


*IME, the limits and penalties were so absurd that either players multiclassed with thief, DMs ignored it, or DMs houseruled that a single-classed demihuman could advance normally.

Elven fighter/magic users could wear any armor and still cast. That is why they were popular. The level limits seem restrictive but the benefits compared to a human were huge. Another thing that is seldom mentioned was that 7th level in AD&D is no where close to 7th level in 5E with regard to the actual play time needed to attain the level. Unless the campaign gave away huge amounts of treasure, an AD&D campaign could go on a long time before reaching 7th level. Not a few months, more like a few years. In that context, the level restrictions were not as bad. I wouldn't use such restrictions in 5E, they would be far too limiting.