D&D 5E How Old-School is 5th Edition? Can it even do Old-School?

[S'mon]

Here's a simpler version of my non combat awards chart, intended for PCs starting at level 3:

Non-Combat XP Awards, per PC. Tier 1, 2, 3, 4
Minor: 100/200/300/500 - overcome a moderate non-combat challenge
Moderate: 200/400/600/1000 - typical session award, minor quest completion
Major: 400/800/1200/2000 - substantial quest completion
Mighty: 1000/2000/3000/5000 - major quest completion

So in my level 17 Primeval Thule campaign I use the XP awards from the far right column (Tier 4).

 

[Reynard]

Good for you man. That's great, but the default in 5e is much to quick, so milestone is a more efficient way to emulate old school without house ruling in the old XP charts and at that point, just buy the 1e books off DM's Guild.

I agree: don't use 5E to emulate old school play. Just play an old school version of D&D.

EDIT: Rereading that comes off more dismissive than I intended. My point was more that if you believe it takes a lot of work to get 5E to an old school state, then it seems like wasted effort when those games (and etroclones) are accessible.

 

[Yora]

I think a sensible goal is not to turn 5th edition into an oldschool game, but to use oldschool methods and techniques to improve 5th edition.

 

[R_J_K75]

I dont believe it but I just read posts 1-132 straight through, took a few hours but...can I get my milestone xp now?

I read through this thread because I have alot of feelings toward 5E as @Yora . I think one of my problems is that I need to go back and re-read the 3 core books with the experience of the last 4-5 years of gaming and get a better understanding of what 5E rather than what its not. Then decide where I want to make changes.

One thing I've noticed browsing through some 2E MMs earlier tonight after posting in the "Obscure monsters that you got great use out of" thread was this. The 5E MM seems almost exclusively dedicated to creatures for hostile, combat purposes. There's really none that fill non-combat, non-hostile roles to center encounters/adventures around. I'm sure there's many more from previous editions but two that come to mind that aren't there that would make the game feel old school to me are things like Brownies and Leprechauns.

 

[Yora]

That was one of the things I noticed as well right when 5th edition first came out. Reducing the length of stat blocks was a very welcome change compared to 3rd edition, and there really was no need for monsters that have 20 different combat spells. But they very much went overboard with that.
In 3rd edition, the aboleth can use at will illusionary wall and mirage arcana (improved hallucinary terrain) to alter the environment, veil (mass disguise self) to alter its minions, use persistent image (permanent silent image) and programmed image (triggered delayed silent image), and use projected image to talk and cast spells through a remote controlled illusion of itself.
In 5th edition, it can drain hit points from a creature it charmed,

 

[R_J_K75]

That was one of the things I noticed as well right when 5th edition first came out. Reducing the length of stat blocks was a very welcome change compared to 3rd edition, and there really was no need for monsters that have 20 different combat spells. But they very much went overboard with that.
In 3rd edition, the aboleth can use at will illusionary wall and mirage arcana (improved hallucinary terrain) to alter the environment, veil (mass disguise self) to alter its minions, use persistent image (permanent silent image) and programmed image (triggered delayed silent image), and use projected image to talk and cast spells through a remote controlled illusion of itself.
In 5th edition, it can drain hit points from a creature it charmed,

I miss the habitat/society and ecology sections among a few other features of the old 2E stat blocks. They arent necessary but were useful in creating "sensible" encounters and determining how creature will react within them. I play with a DM whose only played 5E and I think those things would give him more tools when running games so everything isnt so combat heavy.

 

[Reynard]

I miss the habitat/society and ecology sections among a few other features of the old 2E stat blocks. They arent necessary but were useful in creating "sensible" encounters and determining how creature will react within them. I play with a DM whose only played 5E and I think those things would give him more tools when running games so everything isnt so combat heavy.

The 2E Monstrous Manual is easily in my top 3 favorite D&D books of all time.

 

[R_J_K75]

The 2E Monstrous Manual is easily in my top 3 favorite D&D books of all time.

So much variety of different creatures in them. Very little if any wasted space; all useful content, a small square with a picture of the creature (except the Invisible stalker is just a blank square iirc). But you are right the hardbound 2E Monstrous Manual would be on my short list of books if I had to choose a few to play D&D with for the rest of my life. All the monster books in 2E all started with: "HOW TO USE THIS BOOK", which was a great succinct introduction. I read the entry for the Bogie Brownie last night. I thought to myself I could take the information on that one single page and introduce them into my campaign in a starter adventure and run it without having to roll a single die all game. That's what old school means to me. WotC getting rid of that format was one of, if not the worst thing they did with 3E and editions after.

 

[Reynard]

So much variety of different creatures in them. Very little if any wasted space; all useful content, a small square with a picture of the creature (except the Invisible stalker is just a blank square iirc). But you are right the hardbound 2E Monstrous Manual would be on my short list of books if I had to choose a few to play D&D with for the rest of my life. All the monster books in 2E all started with: "HOW TO USE THIS BOOK", which was a great succinct introduction. I read the entry for the Bogie Brownie last night. I thought to myself I could take the information on that one single page and introduce them into my campaign in a starter adventure and run it without having to roll a single die all game. That's what old school means to me. WotC getting rid of that format was one of, if not the worst thing they did with 3E and editions after.

Emphasis mine.

I love 2E but I don't think it qualifies as "old school." in fact, I think it is the dividing line between "old school" and "middle school" D&D. Those awesome fluff entries in the 2E MM are a perfect example. Old school (Original, Basic, 1E) was less wordy and more utilitarian in almost everything it did, from monsters descriptions to spells to adventure keys.

 

[R_J_K75]

Emphasis mine.

I love 2E but I don't think it qualifies as "old school." in fact, I think it is the dividing line between "old school" and "middle school" D&D. Those awesome fluff entries in the 2E MM are a perfect example. Old school (Original, Basic, 1E) was less wordy and more utilitarian in almost everything it did, from monsters descriptions to spells to adventure keys.

Fair enough, I can see that, and correct 2E extremely expanded on the entries. I played more 2E than 1E. We were still figuring out the game in the early to mid 80s when playing 1E, and every DM did whatever they wanted. Most of games were short games for a week or two or pickup games with a different group so we didnt play in extended campaigns or huge dungeon crawls. Although the rules were different 1E and 2E could both be used in the same game with minimal adjustment. Eventually we went full on 2E. We started playing alot more often, sandboxing, running extended campaigns and playing more complex PCs. So 2E to me is "old school" as thats the edition we got the most/best milage out of.