D&D 1E Giving an AD&D feel to 5e

S'mon

Legend
That crunch isn't the only thing making AD&D feel like it does. The emphasis on a particlar sort of skilled play is very different from 5E. I agree that 5R E is quite flexible, but in this case it feels like reinventing rhe wheel when you already have thatbwheel on your shelf. YMMV.
I ran 1e-drifted 5e and 1e parrallel for a while in the same setting. I found I mostly preferred 5e, mostly for the magic system. I like how 5e does monsters, too. I find it much easier to drift 5e than 1e to what I want.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
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. :erm:

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.
Prove you right by using extreme examples? YOU were the one to mention G series. I was using your own example. 🤷‍♂️ Also, I used Homlett because it was probably the most common example and adventure played outside of KotBL. It certainly isn't any more extreme than any other module. Would you prefer me to list those save or die opponents in Palace of the silver Princess? Horror on the Hill? Guess what, you might not like the answer.

I am fully aware a long sword does d12 vs large opponents. But you have to be extremely generous to assume a very high strength (1e wasn't like 3e on up, getting a high score was more rare than not), AND powerful magic items (also, specialization didn't exist when that module was out) to average 9.5 points of damage on each hit.

And again, your math is off. Even if the PC is a 12th level MU, 12d6 is an average of 42. And those giants will succeed for half, half of the time. "Poof, encounter over."? The more and more you argue, the more it seems like you aren't aware of what the rules of 1e actually were or how they worked.

I will offer some sincere advice. Before making arguments that every monster was meant to be fought, or that high risk (save or die/nearly die) monsters weren't encountered with frequency, you might want to actually look at the modules, and look at the actual rulebooks. Because I'm pretty sure that those of us with lots of actual experience playing 1e are rolling our eyes when you make a comment like VoH is an extreme example of deadly monsters that show up in modules. It's pretty par for the course. And I'm not even talking about traps either...
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Skilled play is precisely the thing here, actually. The term refers to the playstyle of RPGs that preference player ingenuity over character ability. This is generally true of D&D prior to 2E, and very much not true of 5E.
Yep. Player skill over character skill was definitely a thing. I think it was 3e where I saw the big shift happen to character skill. On one hand, I see why, because player's who aren't good and problem solving or tactics should be able to enjoy the game and success too, so having character skill matter is a big thing. On the other, I saw people move to now look at their character sheet and seeing what their skill modifier was before attempting an act after the shift, which IMO is a bad thing. Or refuse to try something if someone else in the party had an extra +1 modifier. That seems to metagamey to me, and I don't like how it shuts players down from trying things.
 

I've been running Rime of the Frostmaiden using milestones. Not my choice, but that's what the players wanted. I did slow them down just a hair (the module specifies X number of quests completed to go up a level, and I increased it by just one more than the number given) and it's definitely made for a more fraught experience.

The thing I miss the most as a DM! Best way to emulate that is "milestones" but don't make them story based. Just level them up when you feel it is appropriate. I am using XP for my Theros campaign and they are levelling quickly, which is fitting for the setting but were I to run Greyhawk I would have them levelling every two or three adventures with a slow crawl after level 7 of 4 adventures or thereabouts.
 

1. Less rules / no skills = more DM adjudication, more chances for crazy and fantastical things to happen that you didn't expect, so long as they aren't jerk rulings like "you open the unmarked door into the vacuum of cold dark space. You're all dead." When players came across puzzles, they often had to critically think or experiment their way through it instead of rolling a d20.
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.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
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.
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.
Many tables - including all of ours - very quickly either houseruled xp-for-gp right out of 1e or hugely reduced the amount of xp treasure would provide. It was a common variant; common enough that 2e adopted it as RAW.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Many tables - including all of ours - very quickly either houseruled xp-for-gp right out of 1e or hugely reduced the amount of xp treasure would provide. It was a common variant; common enough that 2e adopted it as RAW.
I mentioned this upthread, that as early as 1977 in Dragon, people were talking about only getting XP for treasure you spent, not just acquired.

Also, if I were a betting man, I'd bet groups that got xp for gold straight up and felt leveling was too fast were probably ignoring training time periods and costs for training and only being able to go up one level at a time. Those were RAW as well, and assured that you weren't leveling up fast.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I am fully aware a long sword does d12 vs large opponents. But you have to be extremely generous to assume a very high strength (1e wasn't like 3e on up, getting a high score was more rare than not),
Perhaps.
AND powerful magic items
Not perhaps. By the time a party gets to levels suitable for the G-series, if they got there via adventuring up through other modules, they'll be knee-deep in magic items including weapons.
(also, specialization didn't exist when that module was out) to average 9.5 points of damage on each hit.

And again, your math is off. Even if the PC is a 12th level MU, 12d6 is an average of 42. And those giants will succeed for half, half of the time. "Poof, encounter over."? The more and more you argue, the more it seems like you aren't aware of what the rules of 1e actually were or how they worked.
Two fireballs even at 20 points each on made saves is going to put a world o' hurt on 42 h.p. Giants, after which your archers or Magic Missiles can finish 'em off.

Big monsters in 1e simply don't have enough h.p. as written, largely because for some reason Gygax didn't give them any sort of Con bonus. Easily fixed, if a DM wants to do so.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I mentioned this upthread, that as early as 1977 in Dragon, people were talking about only getting XP for treasure you spent, not just acquired.

Also, if I were a betting man, I'd bet groups that got xp for gold straight up and felt leveling was too fast were probably ignoring training time periods and costs for training and only being able to go up one level at a time. Those were RAW as well, and assured that you weren't leveling up fast.
In effect it capped you at gaining one level per adventure.

The problem with this is that were you unlucky enough to bump early on in an adventure the rest of it was "wasted" in terms of earning xp, so a case could be made for "why bother continuing?". This seems counterproductive, somehow. :)

We did away with xp for gp and at the same time loosened things such that you could keep earning xp after bumping but before training - to a point, after which you'd hit an increasing slowdown.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Perhaps.

Not perhaps. By the time a party gets to levels suitable for the G-series, if they got there via adventuring up through other modules, they'll be knee-deep in magic items including weapons.

Two fireballs even at 20 points each on made saves is going to put a world o' hurt on 42 h.p. Giants, after which your archers or Magic Missiles can finish 'em off.

Big monsters in 1e simply don't have enough h.p. as written, largely because for some reason Gygax didn't give them any sort of Con bonus. Easily fixed, if a DM wants to do so.
I don't see how you're gonna get 2 fireballs off though. Well, if you had 2 MUs with those spells available I guess, but that's not typical. You might get one round off, but each of those giants can throw things, and in 1e, all it took was one minor distraction to interrupt a spell, let alone actual damage.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top