D&D 1E Giving an AD&D feel to 5e

[MichaelSomething]

Does "AD&D feel" mean adhering to the gaming style and rules presented in the books and adventure or taking things piece meal and using them to construct a Frankensteinist game that was your own???

 

[toucanbuzz]

I was completely agreeing with this until the totally bizarre assertion that you don't have to critically think or experiment with puzzles in 5E. That's completely wild and obviously false. You can't roll your way through a puzzle in 5E any more than 1E. If you're letting the characters skip a puzzle because they made an Investigation check or something in 5E, that's identical to letting the characters skip a puzzle in 1E by rolling an INT check.

Not what I meant. I meant 5E makes it easy to fall into that trap of allowing a d20 roll to detect every trap and a d20 roll to resolve every trap because of the rules and how many adventures are written:

"A trap’s description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap’s DC....Any character can attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to detect or Disarm a magic trap..."

The sample traps (e.g. collapsing ceiling, net, fire) all have d20 rolls to detect and disable them. And sure, sometimes that makes sense.

Contrast this with a famous classic. "Show your players graphic #6."



In AD&D, no rolls to see if it was a trap. Instead, players had to experiment, say what they were doing. In the 5E conversion, a character who "succeeds on a DC 20 Intelligence (Arcana) check identifies" it. That takes all the experimentation and "play" out of it, imo, even though it's consistent with the rules on traps.

This comes up again. "Show your players graphic #20." OMG, a huge pit of spikes. What do we do? In the AD&D version, something happens depending on what players say they're doing. In the 5E conversion: a "DC 20 Wisdom (Perception) check" discovers the nature of the trap and a DC 20 Dexterity check disables it. Boring. Players don't have to puzzle-solve. They've declared they're always looking for traps because, duh, this is a dangerous place.

Summary: it's up to the DM. You can play it more old-school: have players interact and explain what they're doing, avoiding most rolling. Or, you can play it more like a video game: I have my auto-detect on and I right-click to disable the trap once spotted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not what I meant. I meant 5E makes it easy to fall into that trap of allowing a d20 roll to detect every trap and a d20 roll to resolve every trap because of the rules and how many adventures are written:

"A trap’s description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap’s DC....Any character can attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to detect or Disarm a magic trap..."

The sample traps (e.g. collapsing ceiling, net, fire) all have d20 rolls to detect and disable them. And sure, sometimes that makes sense.

Contrast this with a famous classic. "Show your players graphic #6."

View attachment 135208

In AD&D, no rolls to see if it was a trap. Instead, players had to experiment, say what they were doing. In the 5E conversion, a character who "succeeds on a DC 20 Intelligence (Arcana) check identifies" it. That takes all the experimentation and "play" out of it, imo, even though it's consistent with the rules on traps.

This comes up again. "Show your players graphic #20." OMG, a huge pit of spikes. What do we do? In the AD&D version, something happens depending on what players say they're doing. In the 5E conversion: a "DC 20 Wisdom (Perception) check" discovers the nature of the trap and a DC 20 Dexterity check disables it. Boring. Players don't have to puzzle-solve. They've declared they're always looking for traps because, duh, this is a dangerous place.

Summary: it's up to the DM. You can play it more old-school: have players interact and explain what they're doing, avoiding most rolling. Or, you can play it more like a video game: I have my auto-detect on and I right-click to disable the trap once spotted.

Indeed. I recently just reran Hidden Shrine of T in 5e, using the 5e version. In the original, the only skill check was if a thief was using detect traps skill, which brings up two things: 1. No other character had that skill while in 5e it's a generic DC15 perception check, 2. many traps weren't detectable even by a find traps skill. They were more elaborate, so players had to narrate what their players were doing. In the revised version? Again, DC15 perception check to notice stuff.

I'm not going to argue one way is better than the other, only that AD&D did rely more on player skill than modern editions. Ability checks in AD&D were not RAW either. It was a houserule. A common one, but not an actual rule.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In fairness, with that many opponents you'd be lucky to get two fireballs away as a caster before at least one enemy got up in your face (or put a boulder through it) and-or you had to worry about hitting your allies.

Giants also have half-decent odds of saving, meaning the 28 average damage from your typical 8d6 fireball (assuming an 8th-level MU in the crew) is going to be halved to 14 a lot of the time.

There was a fair amount missing from the Hussar's analysis, which, while you and Sacrosanct have engage with, I still don't see the major issue addressed.

Let us put aside, for the moment, the many ways in which OD&D and 1e AD&D was more deadly than 5e. Among those are:
1. Level draining.
2. Save or die.
3. Traps that would kill you (save or die again).
4. Massive damage (a 6d6 fall for a MU or even a Fighter in 1e is a lot different than in 5e).
5. You didn't get death saves. You went to 0, and you died. Yeah, some tables played with "house rules" or misreadings to let you go as low as -10, but 0 was death. And then, ANYTIME YOU CAME BACK , you had to roll or die permanently AND lose a point of Constitution.

The three primary issues with the "hit point" analysis provided by Hussar are fairly simple:

A. "Concentrated fire." Sure, the party could "concentrate their fire" on a single source, or two. But ... there weren't attack cantrips. Thieves didn't have comparable combat abilities. In effect, you had front-line Fighters (and subclasses) and Clerics and that was about it. Everyone else was support- not worrying about equality of damage.

B. Disparity of hit points was equalized. Yes, an Ogre only had 24 hitpoints. But you know what? Your MU, who was 5th level, only had 13 hit points. Because he didn't have a CON modifier, and got d4 hit points per level. So maybe the Ogre didn't last very long, but neither did your MU.

C. Armor class. I can't state this enough, but the 5e model of "Everyone hits, every round, because every combat is a pinata of hit points" didn't apply either. AC was king- there was a lot of missing going on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There was a fair amount missing from the Hussar's analysis, which, while you and Sacrosanct have engage with, I still don't see the major issue addressed.

Let us put aside, for the moment, the many ways in which OD&D and 1e AD&D was more deadly than 5e. Among those are:
1. Level draining.
2. Save or die.
3. Traps that would kill you (save or die again).
4. Massive damage (a 6d6 fall for a MU or even a Fighter in 1e is a lot different than in 5e).
5. You didn't get death saves. You went to 0, and you died. Yeah, some tables played with "house rules" or misreadings to let you go as low as -10, but 0 was death. And then, ANYTIME YOU CAME BACK , you had to roll or die permanently AND lose a point of Constitution.

The two primary issues with the "hit point" analysis provided by Hussar are fairly simple:

A. "Concentrated fire." Sure, the party could "concentrate their fire" on a single source, or two. But ... there weren't attack cantrips. Thieves didn't have comparable combat abilities. In effect, you had front-line Fighters (and subclasses) and Clerics and that was about it. Everyone else was support- not worrying about equality of damage.

B. Disparity of hit points was equalized. Yes, an Ogre only had 24 hitpoints. But you know what? Your MU, who was 5th level, only had 13 hit points. Because he didn't have a CON modifier, and got d4 hit points per level. So maybe the Ogre didn't last very long, but neither did your MU.

C. Armor class. I can't state this enough, but the 5e model of "Everyone hits, every round, because every combat is a pinata of hit points" didn't apply either. AC was king- there was a lot of missing going on.

Agreed. It's also worth noting that the encounter I put above? That was on the first floor. after already have ran into a few encounters (assuming resources would have been spent on those). So even assuming you've got two MUs and they both have fireballs ready, what do you do on the lower level of the fort? I mean, if every monster is meant to be fought*, you have to fight them, right? You couldn't just take a short or long rest whenever you wanted in 1e. So how do you fight them when you've blown through all your spells earlier?

*Not my argument, obviously.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Agreed. It's also worth noting that the encounter I put above? That was on the first floor. after already have ran into a few encounters (assuming resources would have been spent on those). So even assuming you've got two MUs and they both have fireballs ready, what do you do on the lower level of the fort? I mean, if every monster is meant to be fought*, you have to fight them, right? You couldn't just take a short or long rest whenever you wanted in 1e. So how do you fight them when you've blown through all your spells earlier?

*Not my argument, obviously.

Not just that, we have to remember the healing rules. In 1e, you didn't heal overnight (HA!), you didn't have an ever-ready wand of cure light wounds, and your cleric (or sometimes druid) had limited healing.

That said, individual experiences could differ. With all the house rules, and regional and table differences, not to mention the prevalence of Monty Haul campaigns, it was certainly possible to play 1e on "easy mode" (just like you could really hammer a party in 5e by putting some effort into it). It's just not how the game is normally set up.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not just that, we have to remember the healing rules. In 1e, you didn't heal overnight (HA!), you didn't have an ever-ready wand of cure light wounds, and your cleric (or sometimes druid) had limited healing.

That said, individual experiences could differ. With all the house rules, and regional and table differences, not to mention the prevalence of Monty Haul campaigns, it was certainly possible to play 1e on "easy mode" (just like you could really hammer a party in 5e by putting some effort into it). It's just not how the game is normally set up.

Also, it shouldn't be lost about how using a fireball in the room of a wooden fortress probably isn't the best idea when you're in said room.

In fact, many of the people I know who have played the module did exactly that from afar. Just set the whole darn thing on fire from a distance.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also, it shouldn't be lost about how using a fireball in the room of a wooden fortress probably isn't the best idea when you're in said room.

In fact, many of the people I know who have played the module did exactly that from afar. Just set the whole darn thing on fire from a distance.

The utility of fireball varied greatly depending on, um, whether or not anyone was paying attention to how it actually worked.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Summary: it's up to the DM. You can play it more old-school: have players interact and explain what they're doing, avoiding most rolling. Or, you can play it more like a video game: I have my auto-detect on and I right-click to disable the trap once spotted.

It really sounds like this is guesswork on your part based on what, that 5E had a naughty word/lazy conversion of notorious (and frankly not-very-good) module Tomb of Horrors? I've never seen any puzzles avoided in D&D with checks, and I strongly suspect that in an adventure actually written for 5E, whilst Arcana might give insight but wouldn't magically turn the mouth off or whatever. I mean, that isn't even a trap in the same sense as the items described (the pit trap is, but it sounds like the pit trap was merely a speedbump).

Generally speaking in 5E, avoiding rolling is advantageous to the PCs, not to the DM, note, too. In 5E, you generally seek to avoid rolling. It's been discussed at great length here.

 

[teitan]

Umm, a longsword vs larger target is d12 damage. Two hits, without any bonuses, is still max 24 points of damage. Enough to kill an average ogre. Or, as @Lanefan put it, certainly not unreasonable.

And, yeah, look at that encounter. Two fireballs and poof, encounter over. Like I said, 42 hp giants.

But, hey, keep proving me right by pointing to the extreme examples of encounters in modules as to how lethal the game was. It's funny. Gygax complained about how many players were hitting double digit levels, back in the 70's. I wonder how they did it if @Sacrosanct is right. After all, according to him, no one should have ever advanced past third level in all the years of gaming.

It's like the "slow progression". That's another myth. The DMG actually flat out states you should be hitting name level in a year of gaming. 2e? Oh, ok, fair enough. No xp for gp? Yup, that's going to slow advancement to a crawl. Totally fair. But AD&D? Naw, you yoinked up levels quick as you please.

Play time was also assumed to be much longer than the 4 hour expectations built into the design of 5e and 5e expects level 20 within a year.