Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.Love these tools. I use them often.
Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.Love these tools. I use them often.
I had a complete encounter generator for AD&D I wrote as a program a LONG time ago, but it won't run in Windows past XP.Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.
Hmm. Everyone's threshold is different of course, I guess I feel lvl 1 5e characters are fairly competent. Of course I don't know how your house-rules play into that belief.Competence without super heroism. (I LOVE super hero games, just not in my D&D)
Diversity of potential enemies (i.e. low level monsters are still viable and there's a chance against some of the scarier monsters).
Characters can be "important" without being world shaking.
I'd say that's an absolutely essential step: going through every spell in the game and deciding a) whether to keep it at all, b) what class(es) get it, c) at what level does each class get it (a given doesn't have to be the same level for each class), and d) whether it needs rewriting in any way to make it work like you want (e.g. were it me casting times would go back in for every spell).To cover it in that much detail you would need to curate the spell list of each class. Not something I would want to do, but could go a long way to get the feel your looking for.
The PCs can change it on a whim simply by going somewhere different, particularly once they get access to fast long-range travel.Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.
Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe edition with the expanded exploration rules does exactly this, both mechanics wise and the adventures are written in this style - travel to site, adventure at site, return to base (see Midlands Low Magic Sandbox Setting for example, or pretty much any of the Adventure Frameworks).So first, let me describe the game I want to run:
The aesthetic is relatively gritty and "realistic" in the sense that Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings or Abercrombie's worlds are: people need to eat, they get tired, wounds hurt and while fantastical elements exist and may even be prominent and powerful, they aren't common.
The play loop I want is a cycle of: wilderness exploration to the adventuring sight (moderate peril); exploration and problem solving at the adventuring site (high peril); return to the relative safety of civilization where character development and interaction with the world takes precedence (low peril). I use the term "peril" because I don't necessarily mean "deadliness" although that might be included; it is more about lasting negative consequences, from injury to disease to magic curses to losing what one cares about.
Although this main loop is episodic, it should support characters growing over time, discovering more, exploring farther and gaining competence, without necessarily significantly transforming over time (becoming superheroes).Long term stories should emerge from this sort of play and be largely informed by the interactions in civilization based on events that occurred out in the wild or in the dungeons.
I think it is good work, but it doesn't have to be done. In fact, I have never done it and I have had a great time with D&D for 30+ years. For instance, in a previous group the only magic user we had was a druid and in my current group the only magic user is a wizard. There is no need for me to think about any other class spells than wizards and druid. in those respective groups. And though I like the idea of a more specialized class spell list, I'm the DM and my players where fine with the way things are RAW. So we didn't change anything in that regard and it is working great. It may not be my preference, but I don't need to do everything I prefer.I'd say that's an absolutely essential step: going through every spell in the game and deciding a) whether to keep it at all, b) what class(es) get it, c) at what level does each class get it (a given doesn't have to be the same level for each class), and d) whether it needs rewriting in any way to make it work like you want (e.g. were it me casting times would go back in for every spell).
After that, you'd want to look at the spell list for the system you're trying to emulate and see if any spells that have since come out of the game need to go back in.
And yes, this is very tedious, but it has to be done.![]()
Works for you.I think it is good work, but it doesn't have to be done. In fact, I have never done it and I have had a great time with D&D for 30+ years. For instance, in a previous group the only magic user we had was a druid and in my current group the only magic user is a wizard. There is no need for me to think about any other class spells than wizards and druid. in those respective groups. And though I like the idea of a more specialized class spell list, I'm the DM and my players where fine with the way things are RAW. So we didn't change anything in that regard and it is working great. It may not be my preference, but I don't need to do everything I prefer.
If used in moderation, yes. 5e overuses it.So to switch gears a moment, let's say I decided to do it the other way and run AD&D 2E (along with BECMI it is my most formative edition) and add in a couple 5E and other house rules. What works and maintains the feel of 2e.
I would totally keep advantage/disadvantage. It just makes life so much easier from an adjudication standpoint
Wizards yes, Clerics no; Clerics - particularly Druids - already have enough going for them.I think 2E wizards and clerics need cantrips. Not necessarily combat ones, but magical powers that are just inherent and establish their magicality.
Maybe don't worry about it, and see if they get played anyway. (not all 'interesting' stuff comes from mechanics and numbers)I want to do something for fighters to keep them interesting to play but don't know what.
This is somewhat related to my recent "Let's Talk About Chapter 9 of the DMG" thread, and informed by a recent playtest I did of Five Torches Deep (which is an OSRification of 5e). Going back and forth and thinking about things, what I decided is that I want to create the game I want to run out of 5e using optional rules, house rules, 3rd part supplements and bits and bobs from other games.
So first, let me describe the game I want to run:
The aesthetic is relatively gritty and "realistic" in the sense that Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings or Abercrombie's worlds are: people need to eat, they get tired, wounds hurt and while fantastical elements exist and may even be prominent and powerful, they aren't common.
The play loop I want is a cycle of: wilderness exploration to the adventuring sight (moderate peril); exploration and problem solving at the adventuring site (high peril); return to the relative safety of civilization where character development and interaction with the world takes precedence (low peril). I use the term "peril" because I don't necessarily mean "deadliness" although that might be included; it is more about lasting negative consequences, from injury to disease to magic curses to losing what one cares about.
Although this main loop is episodic, it should support characters growing over time, discovering more, exploring farther and gaining competence, without necessarily significantly transforming over time (becoming superheroes).Long term stories should emerge from this sort of play and be largely informed by the interactions in civilization based on events that occurred out in the wild or in the dungeons.
Now, I know some folks are going to say "Use something besides 5E" and that is a totally fine suggestion, except that I WANT to use a modified 5E for this. I think Zweihander is likely a good fit for all the above, but I don't want to have to learn and master a whole new system and have to convince players to do the same (not to mention the monetary cost of everyone coming on board for a new game).
So, with all the above presented, what comes to mind for optional rules, house rules, bits stolen from other games, etc... to get 5E where I want it to be?
Thanks.
That sounds awesome, and a lot of work!Works for you.
I like to prepare for every class including those not currently being played, thus if-when one does get played I'm not scrambling. We'd long since redone the spells and put them in binders as the PH/UA write-ups were so often unclear or incomplete (or just said "look here instead").
Once we got our gaming website going I wanted to put the spells online to get away from the binders, and that forced me to do a to-the-floor rework of them as I was typing them all in longhand anyway and including our rulings etc. built up over the years.
Process took a couple of years, but now it'd done all I ever have to do is add any new rulings, add (or delete) spells as needed, and occasionally tweak anything that raises a problem.
5thAnd your current group has no Clerics and just one Wizard? What edition?
Works for you.
I like to prepare for every class including those not currently being played, thus if-when one does get played I'm not scrambling. We'd long since redone the spells and put them in binders as the PH/UA write-ups were so often unclear or incomplete (or just said "look here instead").
Once we got our gaming website going I wanted to put the spells online to get away from the binders, and that forced me to do a to-the-floor rework of them as I was typing them all in longhand anyway and including our rulings etc. built up over the years.
Process took a couple of years, but now it'd done all I ever have to do is add any new rulings, add (or delete) spells as needed, and occasionally tweak anything that raises a problem.
And your current group has no Clerics and just one Wizard? What edition?
But that's what made 2e wizards cool; if you didn't use your spells wisely, you'd have to resort to the stick, or the dagger. Better yet, you'd go find a nice hole to hide in until the fight was over.I think 2E wizards and clerics need cantrips. Not necessarily combat ones, but magical powers that are just inherent and establish their magicality.
I want to do something for fighters to keep them interesting to play but don't know what.
Thoughts?
I'd got with a combat maneuver system system for fighters. Something that encourages creative actions in combat and lets fighters perform feats of strength and skill. Something like Dungeon Crawl Classic's Mighty Deeds or Low Fantasy Gaming's Martial Exploits.So to switch gears a moment, let's say I decided to do it the other way and run AD&D 2E (along with BECMI it is my most formative edition) and add in a couple 5E and other house rules. What works and maintains the feel of 2e.
I would totally keep advantage/disadvantage. It just makes life so much easier from an adjudication standpoint,
I think 2E wizards and clerics need cantrips. Not necessarily combat ones, but magical powers that are just inherent and establish their magicality.
I want to do something for fighters to keep them interesting to play but don't know what.
Thoughts?
{snip}
If a 1st level wizard can put 6 orcs to sleep, a fighter should be able to make a sweeping attack and kill 6 orcs at once.
I was with you up until this point. First of all, I don't want that flavor of fantasy. I don't want superheroic warriors beheading 6 orcs with a single blow. That's what's wrong with 5E in the first place (for this particular exercise; I am not anti-5E in general). And second, it's just plain unbalanced because the 1st level wizard can do it exactly one time, and the orcs aren't dead and will wake up if they are damaged but not killed.If a 1st level wizard can put 6 orcs to sleep, a fighter should be able to make a sweeping attack and kill 6 orcs at once.
Sure.I was with you up until this point. First of all, I don't want that flavor of fantasy. I don't want superheroic warriors beheading 6 orcs with a single blow. That's what's wrong with 5E in the first place (for this particular exercise; I am not anti-5E in general). And second, it's just plain unbalanced because the 1st level wizard can do it exactly one time, and the orcs aren't dead and will wake up if they are damaged but not killed.
It's quasi-private in that you can only get to it if someone tells you where it is - it's hidden from search engines.That really does sound awesome. Is your site public?
That's in 1e as well. Note that the Fighter still had to roll to hit each target.2. OD&D had a rule to allow fighters an number of attacks equal to their hit die against 1 HD or less creatures.