D&D General Help Me Build the D&D Game I Want to Run

[Flamestrike]

That is one thing I never understood. I know that strict tracking of all resources (food, water, ammo, spell components, encumbrance, etc) can really turn people off these days but to completely eliminate ALL resources just seems like lazy design imo. There are times where limited resources can create adventures and tension on their own.

There is nothing stopping the DM from vetoing the ability (No Grog, you're in the desert/ badlands. You cant automatically find food, and/or you need to make a DC X survival check to do so').

That's what DM's are for.

Id rather they took the above approach, than include a complex table of how much food you find with a check result of X, divided by terrain types and so forth, plus meticulous bookeeping.

Eyeball it, make a ruling and move on.

 

[Reynard]

There is nothing stopping the DM from vetoing the ability (No Grog, you're in the desert/ badlands. You cant automatically find food, and/or you need to make a DC X survival check to do so').

That's what DM's are for.

Id rather they took the above approach, than include a complex table of how much food you find with a check result of X, divided by terrain types and so forth, plus meticulous bookeeping.

Eyeball it, make a ruling and move on.

I'd rather they hadn't included it at all, since the reason for doing so was clearly to obviate resource management.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'd rather they hadn't included it at all, since the reason for doing so was clearly to obviate resource management.

Create food and water has always been a spell that exists at low levels in any event, and a vast number of DMs dont really bother with the nitty gritty of tracking food intake.

People want to play Achillies, Gandalf or Conan. They dont want to be tracking how much toilet paper and apples they're carrying around.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Create food and water has always been a spell that exists at low levels in any event, and a vast number of DMs dont really bother with the nitty gritty of tracking food intake.

People want to play Achillies, Gandalf or Conan. They dont want to be tracking how much toilet paper and apples they're carrying around.

Except I don't want to play Achillies, Gandalf or Conan. I find them rather boring; they're expected to win. I want to play an unnamed adventurer in a ruthless fantasy world - an adventure who, if shred and cunning enough, can eventually surpass Achillies, Gandalf and Conan despite his/her humble beginning.

 

[Flamestrike]

Except I don't want to play Achillies, Gandalf or Conan. I find them rather boring; they're expected to win.

So are the PC's.

In my games at least. I dont run long term campaigns only for them to be TPK'd 3/4 of the way through.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So are the PC's.

In my games at least. I dont run long term campaigns only for them to be TPK'd 3/4 of the way through.

I think the word "win" doesn't fit my games. They PCs don't "win". There isn't anything to "win". They don't might encounter and achieve fleeting success, but the game lacks a win condition. There are no big bad guys in my game. There are competing forces. Some good, some evil.

I see my world like the Count of Monte Cristo. While Edmond Dantès avenges the wrongs done to him, his success leave him feeling empty. Vengeance brought him neither happiness nor closure. When all was finished, "winning" left him meaningless and without a clear path to follow.

That's how things in my world. You might have defeated the Bloodhound Bandits, but the city's still going to a corrupt cesspit no matter how hard you try, because the majority of humanity in my world isn't worth saving.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think the word "win" doesn't fit my games. They PCs don't "win". There isn't anything to "win". They don't might encounter and achieve fleeting success, but the game lacks a win condition. There are no big bad guys in my game. There are competing forces. Some good, some evil.

I see my world like the Count of Monte Cristo. While Edmond Dantès avenges the wrongs done to him, his success leave him feeling empty. Vengeance brought him neither happiness nor closure. When all was finished, "winning" left him meaningless and without a clear path to follow.

That's how things in my world. You might have defeated the Bloodhound Bandits, but the city's still going to a corrupt cesspit no matter how hard you try, because the majority of humanity in my world isn't worth saving.

Sounds like fun.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sounds like fun.

Fun can be many things. It's simply preferring Hamlet to King Henry V.

Many people like their games to embody the phrases "Once more into the breach my friends" and "From this day to the ending of the world, we in it shall be remembered."

Others prefer "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark" and "“I must be cruel only to be kind; Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind."

 

[Aldarc]

@Reynard, you should consider plundering Black Hack (2nd ed.) for ideas. It's an easy-to-play OSR game with some connections to 5e, though Black Hack is a roll-under-stat system. You may find its Usage Dice idea worth considering or even its armor rules, if you want to put the warriors' equipment also through the wear-and-tear.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Any time I think about whether or not I'd have more fun running or playing something like 2E... all I need to do is fire up the Baldur's Gate video game and suddenly realize just how much of 2E sucks to me compared to more modern mechanical ideas and balancing.

- The massive amount of spells that just don't get any use whatsoever because there's only a handful that are actually useful except in very specific situations. The cleric basically preparing nothing but healing spells every morning because all the others just don't give any equivalent bang for their buck for instance.

- The inanity of negative AC and THAC0

- The ability modifiers that only pop in starting at like 15, and which most classes don't even get in their best forms (+3/+4 HP from CON for any class other than Fighter for instance).

- Non-weapon proficiencies being a pale shade of an actual skill system.

- And many others.

Sure, I'd love a game whose "essence" was evoked from the 2E era occasionally... but I sure as heck would never want to use the actual 2E rules to accomplish it. Not after three subsequent editions that showed off just how bad many of the game rules actually were.

 

[Aldarc]

Trimming the spell list would actually not be a bad idea, if only to make spell discovery all the more interesting and to decrease spell choice paralysis. You could even do this for clerics by making these discovered prayers for a deity that had been lost to the clergy.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whenever this topic comes up, it seems to me the grittiness really boils down to the fact that hit points don’t do a good job. By design, they are the opposite of gritiness.

I think the big untapped part of 5E that might help here is the Hit Die. There aren’t a lot of mechanics tied to HD, but it seems like something that could be tapped to dial the grittiness up or down.

Maybe HD can be used for more than HP recovery during rests? Maybe HD are essential to a character functioning without exhaustion? Maybe certain monsters or attacks remove HD? maybe when you get to 0 HD, you suffer some permanent wound or similar harm?

This is not a fully baked idea at all, but it would add another layer to character health beyond HP. I’m surprised more variant or homebrew rules haven’t tried to leverage HD.

 

[Reynard]

Whenever this topic comes up, it seems to me the grittiness really boils down to the fact that hit points don’t do a good job. By design, they are the opposite of gritiness.

I think the big untapped part of 5E that might help here is the Hit Die. There aren’t a lot of mechanics tied to HD, but it seems like something that could be tapped to dial the grittiness up or down.

Maybe HD can be used for more than HP recovery during rests? Maybe HD are essential to a character functioning without exhaustion? Maybe certain monsters or attacks remove HD? maybe when you get to 0 HD, you suffer some permanent wound or similar harm?

This is not a fully baked idea at all, but it would add another layer to character health beyond HP. I’m surprised more variant or homebrew rules haven’t tried to leverage HD.

I don't think hit points are the problem. Or, rather, I don't think hit points are my problem. My problem is the tonal shift, mechanically, from heroic to superheroic throughout the editions so that with 5e even low level characters represent a kind of flashy, over the top fantasy. That's not inherently bad. Sometimes I want that (the current Avernus campaign i am running is all in on heavy metal fantasy). But i have found it is really hard to remove that tone in 5e because the game no longer waits until 7th or 9th level to get super powered. Hit points and healing contribute to that, of course, but applying slow natural healing doesn't change the fact that the bard can cast cloud of daggers or that the barbarian summons ghostly ancestors or whatever. Changing that requires an Adventures in Middle Earth level overhaul, at which point the thesis of the thread -- how to get the game I want with a few house rules -- proves untenable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Part of the issue is the speed of advance in 5E as well. You need so little XP that your "rise to superhero" is incredibly quick compared to AD&D. I'll give you an example:

An orc in AD&D was worth an average of 18 XP (15 but a bit more when you factor in ep carried)
An orc in 5E is worth 100 XP.

A Fighter in AD&D needs 2000 (basically) XP for level 2. Assuming the 10% bonus, that is only about 1820 XP really.
A Fighter in 5E needs 300 XP.

So, in AD&D the Fighter would need to kill/defeat 101 orcs. In 5E, only 3.

Changing the XP needed for leveling, removing a lot of the magical-type features for non-magical classes (no barbarians summoning ghostly ancestors), etc. I think would help, also.

 

[not-so-newguy]

Part of the issue is the speed of advance in 5E as well. You need so little XP that your "rise to superhero" is incredibly quick compared to AD&D. I'll give you an example:

An orc in AD&D was worth an average of 18 XP (15 but a bit more when you factor in ep carried)
An orc in 5E is worth 100 XP.

A Fighter in AD&D needs 2000 (basically) XP for level 2. Assuming the 10% bonus, that is only about 1820 XP really.
A Fighter in 5E needs 300 XP.

So, in AD&D the Fighter would need to kill/defeat 101 orcs. In 5E, only 3.

Changing the XP needed for leveling, removing a lot of the magical-type features for non-magical classes (no barbarians summoning ghostly ancestors), etc. I think would help, also.

Most of the experience point gained in AD&D was gained through loot, not defeating monsters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Most of the experience point gained in AD&D was gained through loot, not defeating monsters.

For everyone's benefit, here is the section we're discussing:

I wouldn't say "most" of the XP was from treasure--maybe half overall would be my best estimate. But that depends entirely on the game and the DM's comparison of XP to gold (what ratio) and what monsters you are looking at.

Our most common ratio was 1 XP per 5 GP, which was then split among the party members. So, 1000 gp in a moderate encounter would only be worth 200 XP, divided by 5 characters is only 40 XP each.

As you can see from the orc example as well, the orc itself is worth 15 XP in AD&D, the (average) 7 ep would be worth only 2-3 XP, even on a 1-1 basis!

BBEG monsters went more the other direction (the horde of a dragon was worth more XP than the dragon itself).

AD&D also awarded XP for magic items if they weren't sold for gp (in which case the gp value was used).

Regardless, the pace was slower when it came to leveling IME due to how much was needed.

 

[not-so-newguy]

@dnd4vr yes, progress was slower IME too. Point taken.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think hit points are the problem. Or, rather, I don't think hit points are my problem. My problem is the tonal shift, mechanically, from heroic to superheroic throughout the editions so that with 5e even low level characters represent a kind of flashy, over the top fantasy. That's not inherently bad. Sometimes I want that (the current Avernus campaign i am running is all in on heavy metal fantasy). But i have found it is really hard to remove that tone in 5e because the game no longer waits until 7th or 9th level to get super powered. Hit points and healing contribute to that, of course, but applying slow natural healing doesn't change the fact that the bard can cast cloud of daggers or that the barbarian summons ghostly ancestors or whatever. Changing that requires an Adventures in Middle Earth level overhaul, at which point the thesis of the thread -- how to get the game I want with a few house rules -- proves untenable.

I just mean hit points overall. Nothing says superhero more than people taking hit after hit of what would otherwise lethal or at least crippling blows, and gritting their teeth and pressing on.

Sure, if HP are narrated as luck and close calls and so on, that can address the issue somewhat, but it still leaves the fundamental problem: most individual attacks made on the PCs are not dangerous.

If you ditch HP altogether and moved to a more status based system, that problem totally disappears. However, doing that for D&D is far from easy because everything is set up with HP as the espectation; bad guys, spells, magic items, and so on all function accordingly.

That’s a lot to have to change.

This is why I’d try and incorporate Hit Dice in a more meaningful way, and leave the HP system largely intact. You’d still have to tweak some things a bit, but it would all be about HD rather than a fundamental change as far reaching as HP.

As for the spells and such....I mean, what’s the difference with a bard casting cloud of daggers compared to a wizard? That’s a sincere question. I can understand removing the magical subclasses for otherwise martial classes....eldritch knights and the like....but if wizards are available unchanged, then I don’t see why you’d bother removing the bard or sorcerer.

Another sincere question....how does AiME not fit your thesis? They took 5E and altered it to get what they want....lower magic, more hazardous travel in a dangerous wilderness, etc. Isn’t this, or something very like it, your goal?

 

[Reynard]

I just mean hit points overall. Nothing says superhero more than people taking hit after hit of what would otherwise lethal or at least crippling blows, and gritting their teeth and pressing on.

Sure, if HP are narrated as luck and close calls and so on, that can address the issue somewhat, but it still leaves the fundamental problem: most individual attacks made on the PCs are not dangerous.

If you ditch HP altogether and moved to a more status based system, that problem totally disappears. However, doing that for D&D is far from easy because everything is set up with HP as the espectation; bad guys, spells, magic items, and so on all function accordingly.

That’s a lot to have to change.

This is why I’d try and incorporate Hit Dice in a more meaningful way, and leave the HP system largely intact. You’d still have to tweak some things a bit, but it would all be about HD rather than a fundamental change as far reaching as HP.

As for the spells and such....I mean, what’s the difference with a bard casting cloud of daggers compared to a wizard? That’s a sincere question. I can understand removing the magical subclasses for otherwise martial classes....eldritch knights and the like....but if wizards are available unchanged, then I don’t see why you’d bother removing the bard or sorcerer.

Another sincere question....how does AiME not fit your thesis? They took 5E and altered it to get what they want....lower magic, more hazardous travel in a dangerous wilderness, etc. Isn’t this, or something very like it, your goal?

Re: bards and cloud of daggers. I don't know what to say other than "that's not what a bard is" which I know is entirely subjective.

On AiME, the difference is that I was hoping to be able to use a handful of optional rules and do a little curating and be there. AiME does a lot more than that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would love to look into AiME but no one I know has a copy, it isn't in bookstores, and I don't like buying a new system/ add-on without previewing it first.

@Reynard, I am working on a L12-variant that I'll share when it is done. I don't know if it will fit the bill completely, but it might give you more ideas.

Judging from your statement about bards, you might need more such as heavy spell list pruning.