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

[Sacrosanct]

I'm running a 1st-level party right now and their to-hit rate as a party isn't exactly stellar. Sure the Fighter isn't bad (though still nowhere near single-digit hits against most things), but the Fighter can't take on all six of the opponents meaning the others have to help out, and their to-hit is worse.

True, at higher levels the warrior-types really did well, but that's kind of the point.

Tell that to the 7th-9th level characters I was still managing to kill off now and then via straight melee before covid hit.

A few at a time.

Recent editions - 4e in particular - seem to expect a party to wade through an adventure in one almost non-stop run. 1e much more expected a sortie-and-retreat approach, where you'd kind of nibble away at the adventure bit by bit until you'd softened it up enough to take it on in full. Face-charging through the front door was pretty much suicide.

So yeah, there's lots of baddies, and they'll kill you dead unless you're smart and patient about how you deal with them.

Yep. Anyone who looks at a 1e module and sees all of the monsters and thinks you have to, or were expected to, fight them? They must not be familiar with 1e lol. That approach is the antithesis to the design of 1e, and just leads to a ton of dead PCs. You didn't get crud for XP for monsters on 1e, you got it from treasure. A single hit from a goblin could outright kill most 1st level PCs. Even at high level, a dragons breath weapon did 1 point per hit point it had. So even a failed save meant automatic death for even high level characters. An 88hp dragon vs a 10th level MU with an average of 25 hit points? Or a thief with an average of 35? Or even a cleric with an average of 45?

Yeah, you were not expected to fight all the monsters. Avoid them. Turn them against each other. Use henchmen. Whatever. That's how 1e was designed to be played.

 

[Hussar]

Yep. Anyone who looks at a 1e module and sees all of the monsters and thinks you have to, or were expected to, fight them? They must not be familiar with 1e lol. That approach is the antithesis to the design of 1e, and just leads to a ton of dead PCs. You didn't get crud for XP for monsters on 1e, you got it from treasure. A single hit from a goblin could outright kill most 1st level PCs. Even at high level, a dragons breath weapon did 1 point per hit point it had. So even a failed save meant automatic death for even high level characters. An 88hp dragon vs a 10th level MU with an average of 25 hit points? Or a thief with an average of 35? Or even a cleric with an average of 45?

Yeah, you were not expected to fight all the monsters. Avoid them. Turn them against each other. Use henchmen. Whatever. That's how 1e was designed to be played.

Again, I totally disagree. You were expected to one on one these baddies. 20 kobolds? Your second level party blasted through them like tissue paper. Note, you had twice the number of expected PC's that you have in a 3e onwards party - 6-8 vs 4-5, and, while you didn't get a lot of spells, those spells became "I win" buttons.

An 88 HP dragon was the LARGEST evil dragon there was. That was the 1e equivalent of Smaug. Most dragons were running in the 30-40 hp range, had a chance of being caught sleeping and could generally be dropped in a single round if the party was lucky. Heck, DL1, the first Dragonlance module, pits the 5th level party against an ancient huge black dragon and you're expected to win. And, having run the module a couple of times, yeah, the party generally did.

I love how people talk about how lethal the game was by pointing to the rarest, least encountered creatures in the game and then claim that others aren't "familiar" with 1e. Look at modules like the A series, or the G series. There were no "hit and run" nibbling going on there. Those were tournament modules. You were expected to do that in a single go, possibly risking a rest or two within the dungeon. Heck, the G series starts out with the players not even being allowed to return to town.

Why would you ever avoid combat? Most of the time you could blast your way through the baddies in a couple of rounds, not taking any damage at all. And, since you got xp for gold, sure the kill xp wasn't worth much, but, they were all carrying treasure.

 

[S'mon]

AD&D is more of a slow burn.

So I'd say the best way to capture that feel isn't necessarily rewriting rules, but rather adapt concept to 5e parameters.

Without writing new house rules... I'd say run a Gritty Variant game from the DMG, ignore the recommendation of the daily # of encounters (or in the very least stretch it out over the week), and especially don't cater the encounters to the players.

Adventures would need to be more excavation style dungeon crawls, and not pre-written short-stories complete with all the acts and beats laid out for you. Players need to know when to run away, because there's no guarantee they can handle what's coming. Games would literally be a day spent in a dungeon followed by retreating home for a week for a long rest to recover, and return later.

It's not much different than AD&D where you healed 1 hp a day, and had to leave for a few days to heal after a fight.

The DM definitely has to be up to the task, though, and players used to the quick and dirty video game style of 5e will be in for a shock.

Yeah, this is how I run my current 5e game, which is set in the 1e era Forgotten Realms & is deliberately evocative of 1e. The 1 week Long Rest & the DMG Training to Level rules, along with no Feats and more magic items (esp weapons) & gold, makes for a 1e feel IME.

I use the standard 5e XP rules but most fights are with groups of enemies, so with typically 7-10 on the player side vs a similar number of foes, awards tend to be fairly low in practice. Plus new PCs start at 1st level. Been running it weekly online since August 2020 and the highest level PCs have gone from 1st to 5th level in that time.

 

[S'mon]

Yep. Anyone who looks at a 1e module and sees all of the monsters and thinks you have to, or were expected to, fight them? They must not be familiar with 1e lol. That approach is the antithesis to the design of 1e, and just leads to a ton of dead PCs. You didn't get crud for XP for monsters on 1e, you got it from treasure. A single hit from a goblin could outright kill most 1st level PCs. Even at high level, a dragons breath weapon did 1 point per hit point it had. So even a failed save meant automatic death for even high level characters. An 88hp dragon vs a 10th level MU with an average of 25 hit points? Or a thief with an average of 35? Or even a cleric with an average of 45?

Yeah, you were not expected to fight all the monsters. Avoid them. Turn them against each other. Use henchmen. Whatever. That's how 1e was designed to be played.

I find that using Young 5e dragon breath weapons vs 2nd & 3rd level 5e PCs has quite a similar effect.

A group of around 9 PCs & allies met a young white dragon IMC & charged in. 2 rounds of combat later & several PCs on death saves, they were negotiating with it for what tribute it would receive in return for not eating people.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I totally disagree. You were expected to one on one these baddies. 20 kobolds? Your second level party blasted through them like tissue paper.

If your caster had Sleep and could get it away twice, yes.

Otherwise 20 Kobolds could easily lay a pretty good beating - not a TPK but maybe one PC death and a lot of pain otherwise - on a 7-character party of 2nd-level types in any situation where the PCs couldn't establish a chokepoint. Even more so if the Kobolds had a) crossbows and b) a bit of range to use them.

Make that 20 skeletons and the Sleep issue goes away too.

Note, you had twice the number of expected PC's that you have in a 3e onwards party - 6-8 vs 4-5, and, while you didn't get a lot of spells, those spells became "I win" buttons.

Sleep, yes. Most other spells, not so much.

An 88 HP dragon was the LARGEST evil dragon there was. That was the 1e equivalent of Smaug. Most dragons were running in the 30-40 hp range, had a chance of being caught sleeping and could generally be dropped in a single round if the party was lucky. Heck, DL1, the first Dragonlance module, pits the 5th level party against an ancient huge black dragon and you're expected to win. And, having run the module a couple of times, yeah, the party generally did.

I agree, in 1e Dragons (and most other big monsters, for all that) really were glass cannons. I - and I suspect many other 1e DMs - have since taken the liberty of beefing them up somewhat, while at the same time decoupling their breath damage from their hit point total.

I love how people talk about how lethal the game was by pointing to the rarest, least encountered creatures in the game and then claim that others aren't "familiar" with 1e. Look at modules like the A series, or the G series.

Last time I ran A2 I ran it pretty much stock with a party averaging about 8-9 characters at any given time (there was a fair bit of turnover), of 3rd-4th level.

Five kills, two petrifications; just from the opponents in the module.

There were no "hit and run" nibbling going on there. Those were tournament modules. You were expected to do that in a single go, possibly risking a rest or two within the dungeon. Heck, the G series starts out with the players not even being allowed to return to town.

I can't imagine a DM using tournament conditions like that in a home campaign.

That said, there are tournament modules where once you're in you really can't get out until-unless you win (e.g. Ghost Tower of Inverness) but even there a non-tournament party is going to rest and recover whenever they can, probably after each major encounter or section.

Why would you ever avoid combat? Most of the time you could blast your way through the baddies in a couple of rounds, not taking any damage at all. And, since you got xp for gold, sure the kill xp wasn't worth much, but, they were all carrying treasure.

By RAW in 1e you get the same xp for avoiding a combat as for fighting it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I really prefer the 5e proficiency bonus/bounded accuracy over ad&d. But I miss the feel of ad&d. I was thinking the following changes would give more of an ad&d feel to 5th edition:
--- modified rules
So after reading all of the feedback I'm thinking:
1. Roll 4d6s (reroll until >= 75 total) and apply standard racial modifiers, max 18 abilities (instead of 20)

2. No Artificers/Sorcerers/Warlocks (Wizards may also pick from Sorcerer or Warlock subclasses); no feats; no standard multiclassing

3. The first 4 ASIs gained instead give a new saving throw proficiency (with ASIs after this being ignored): Fighters & Rogues will have all saves at level 12, Monks at level 14, a Fighter/Rogue at level 10, and other classes at level 16

4. AD&D ("gestalt") multiclassing allowed (non-Human PHB races only) with two classes from two separate groups: Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger, Cleric/Druid, Rogue, & Wizard (e.g. Fighter/Wizard is ok, but Barbarian/Fighter is not; Bards/Monks/Paladins may not multiclass)

5. After level 10 only gain 1 hp/level with no con mod, or 3 hp/level if Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue
---
Any thoughts from people that like 1e and 5e?

Different XP-Level progression for classes with that as part of the balancing factor

 

[Sacrosanct]

Again, I totally disagree. You were expected to one on one these baddies. 20 kobolds? Your second level party blasted through them like tissue paper. Note, you had twice the number of expected PC's that you have in a 3e onwards party - 6-8 vs 4-5, and, while you didn't get a lot of spells, those spells became "I win" buttons.

An 88 HP dragon was the LARGEST evil dragon there was. That was the 1e equivalent of Smaug. Most dragons were running in the 30-40 hp range, had a chance of being caught sleeping and could generally be dropped in a single round if the party was lucky. Heck, DL1, the first Dragonlance module, pits the 5th level party against an ancient huge black dragon and you're expected to win. And, having run the module a couple of times, yeah, the party generally did.

I love how people talk about how lethal the game was by pointing to the rarest, least encountered creatures in the game and then claim that others aren't "familiar" with 1e. Look at modules like the A series, or the G series. There were no "hit and run" nibbling going on there. Those were tournament modules. You were expected to do that in a single go, possibly risking a rest or two within the dungeon. Heck, the G series starts out with the players not even being allowed to return to town.

Why would you ever avoid combat? Most of the time you could blast your way through the baddies in a couple of rounds, not taking any damage at all. And, since you got xp for gold, sure the kill xp wasn't worth much, but, they were all carrying treasure.

Again, this response makes me wonder if you ever really did play 1e. No, I'm not just talking about dragons. There were a LOT of poisonous creatures in 1e, and they all were save or die. Lots of undead, which paralyzed you or drained levels all over the place. Several save or die petrification creatures that appeared with frequency. Really, the list of monsters that could kill a PC instantly was pretty high.

You also missed the point of the dragon example, which was to point out how HP in 1e were low compared to every other edition. Capped CON bonuses for non fighters if you even lucky enough to get a con bonus. That meant every dragon could easily kills any equal level PC since breath weapon damage was equal to their HP, and you used a d8 for HP (if you ignored age) and many PCs used a lower die.

You are also flawed in saying that because a dragon appears in the module, you were meant to fight it. That's the whole point you're ignoring. No you're not. You don't have to. With the way the game is designed, you're encouraged to avoid combat when possible. Or come up with creative ways to handle the combat when it happens.

This is objectively true, because we can look at the actual rules of the game. Even outside if the guidance telling you to not fight every monster, with little XP for monsters and no such thing as healing from rests, it's clear you were only to fight when needed. Treasure was the clear goal. Take ToEE for example. The idea that you're suppose to fight everything in the module is ludacris. And will result in dead PCs. Rather, you are to do creative approaches, like turning the various elemental gangs against each other.

It also seems clear you have no idea how tourny modules worked either. You weren't meant to fight everything. The whole point of them was to see how far PCs could get before they died. The whole scoring system was based on progress, and you got a lot of points for non fighting tasks. Using a tourny module, which was designed specially to eventually kill the party, as an example of how 1e was designed to be played is fundamentally flawed

 

[billd91]

You are also flawed in saying that because a dragon appears in the module, you were meant to fight it. That's the whole point you're ignoring. No you're not. You don't have to. With the way the game is designed, you're encouraged to avoid combat when possible. Or come up with creative ways to handle the combat when it happens.

Combat could dangerous - your comments about level-draining undead, poisons, and other things like petrification are true (though those were generally not the monsters seen in large mobs) - but I don't think the rules really did encourage avoiding combat when possible. It's far too core to the experience and the rules. You just didn't want to be stupid about your tactics because even a heavily armored fighter with a magic shield and good Dex was easy to hit when his back was turned.
There's a lot of skewed mythology about AD&D out there, largely promulgated by looking back with nostalgia and trying extremely hard to find contrasts with WotC editions. The differences were a lot more subtle and specific to group cultures than the OSR makes out.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Combat could dangerous - your comments about level-draining undead, poisons, and other things like petrification are true (though those were generally not the monsters seen in large mobs) - but I don't think the rules really did encourage avoiding combat when possible. It's far too core to the experience and the rules. You just didn't want to be stupid about your tactics because even a heavily armored fighter with a magic shield and good Dex was easy to hit when his back was turned.
There's a lot of skewed mythology about AD&D out there, largely promulgated by looking back with nostalgia and trying extremely hard to find contrasts with WotC editions. The differences were a lot more subtle and specific to group cultures than the OSR makes out.

FWIW, 1e was the edition I played almost extensively from 1981 to 2012. So it's not exactly nostalgia from 30 years ago for me. The way the game was designed very much pushed towards not fighting every enemy, but looking to avoid them when possible. Things like getting full XP for "defeating" the encounter, which included non combat solutions. Treasure is where it was at.

That isn't to say people didn't just rush in and fight every encounter back then; people will be people and some liked to play that way. But they either died a lot, or they got tons of magic items a lot, or the DM ignored half of the rules (like spell interruption, components, learning and/or failing spells, etc). And the game certainly wasn't RAW to support that.

I mean, the 1e DMG outright states that playing combat only is...well...not good lol:

"It is common for player characters to attack first, parley ofterwards. It is recommended that you devise encounters which penalize such action so as to encourage porleying attempts"

And then of course there were the entire existence of Reaction Tables, and morale tables. etc. Which clearly seem to indicate that not every encounter should be fought (or to the death).

 

[Sacrosanct]

On a related note, the way the early game was written by having xp for treasure far outweigh xp for monster defeats, it created a problem large enough that way back as early as 1977 there were articles in Dragon to change the rule to only get XP for treasure spent, rather than acquired. It's pretty clear that in the early days, you were far more rewarded for treasure and because PCs were so fragile, normal human behavior would be to reduce that risk of PC death as much as possible and go for the gold, literally.