D&D 5E How to emulate older editions of D&D using 5e.

[Anth]

Also, is there a training option for level-up in the 5e DMG? (with Yule approaching I'm on moratorium on buying things for myself) If yes, using that'll help with the 1e feel too.

Yup.
Chapter 6, Between Adventures, p131: Multiply Tier with 10 days & 20 gp. Worthless rule.

My houserule:
Same time as Recuperate (3 days), cost as much gp as xp for CR same as current level (except tier 2, when double cost).
So train to 2nd level cost 200 gp, train to 3rd level cost 450 gp, etc, except level 5-10 when the cost doubles.

 

[Lanefan]

Yup.
Chapter 6, Between Adventures, p131: Multiply Tier with 10 days & 20 gp. Worthless rule.

My houserule:
Same time as Recuperate (3 days), cost as much gp as xp for CR same as current level (except tier 2, when double cost).
So train to 2nd level cost 200 gp, train to 3rd level cost 450 gp, etc, except level 5-10 when the cost doubles.

Cool.

For time, I'd probably go somewhere between yours and the RAW; say, d6+6 days no matter what level. Or, maybe d6+level days, minimum 4.

For cost, I'd probably go with a flat amount per level (I'd have to see how much treasure 5e tends to give out before setting a value) but put a minor randomizer on it, say + or - up to 10%.

Lan-"a pleasant side effect of training costs is that free training can then be given out sometimes as an in-game reward"-efan

 

[SirAntoine]

Some clever ideas and a lot of effort in this thread, but I'd recommend drawing from 5e to add something you want to your campaign instead of "switching" to 5e. There are many flavorful, new and creative abilities in 5e, among my personal favorites the ranger's choice of colossus slayer, giant killer, and breaker of the horde, and I think it would just go easier if you bring things into the previous edition (tailored for balance).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A few months ago Mike Mearls said such rules would be in the DMG. Therefore we can hope they will show up in the Unearthed Arcana articles, and keep bugging them about it if they don't.

Ooooh really!

If they do bring back a decent version of those rules (which yes, would probably resemble 3E's Gestalt and 4E's Hybrid rules too, and learn lessons from all three), that'd be an actual "Thing that 5E does that other modern D&D-esque games do not do well", and would be a draw for me. I'd be tempted to resurrect the old 2E characters of my players, and oh man, they'd LOVE that.

 

[fjw70]

1e multiclassing can be done pretty well with 5e rules. Just start at level 2 with one level in each class then take levels in class A at odd levels and levels in class B at even levels. Since you would cap out at 10/10 when others are 20th level then it also simulates racial level limits. Not prefect but a decent facsimile.

Do we need rules for gestalt characters? Isn't that just getting the stuff from two classes every time you level up? Or was there more to it?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

1e multiclassing can be done pretty well with 5e rules. Just start at level 2 with one level in each class then take levels in class A at odd levels and levels in class B at even levels. Since you would cap out at 10/10 when others are 20th level then it also simulates racial level limits. Not prefect but a decent facsimile.

Do we need rules for gestalt characters? Isn't that just getting the stuff from two classes every time you level up? Or was there more to it?

It's a bit more difficult than that, and yeah, we really do kind of need rules for it. The major point of AD&D multiclassing is that you sacrifice vertical power for horizontal breadth, but you don't sacrifice half of your vertical power in each class. To do so under-powers characters, since what you get from levels 11-20 is more powerful than what you get from levels 1-10. In AD&D, when most of your party was 20th level, you'd be sitting at something like 14th level in both classes. That means you are still a high level character, rather than just two mid-level characters stuck into the same body. There is also an element of advancement at early levels, where switching back and forth between classes means you will suck at too many levels (takes too long to get your extra attack and decent level of spells if you are a fighter/wizard, for example).

The reason I'd like WotC to do it for me is that they are better at balancing than I am. It is true that AD&D multiclass characters were somewhat overpowered at certain levels, and I'd like to see how they manage to balance these issues while still giving us the feel and functionality of the old style multiclassing.

 

[fjw70]

It's a bit more difficult than that, and yeah, we really do kind of need rules for it. The major point of AD&D multiclassing is that you sacrifice vertical power for horizontal breadth, but you don't sacrifice half of your vertical power in each class. To do so under-powers characters, since what you get from levels 11-20 is more powerful than what you get from levels 1-10. In AD&D, when most of your party was 20th level, you'd be sitting at something like 14th level in both classes. That means you are still a high level character, rather than just two mid-level characters stuck into the same body. There is also an element of advancement at early levels, where switching back and forth between classes means you will suck at too many levels (takes too long to get your extra attack and decent level of spells if you are a fighter/wizard, for example).

The reason I'd like WotC to do it for me is that they are better at balancing than I am. It is true that AD&D multiclass characters were somewhat overpowered at certain levels, and I'd like to see how they manage to balance these issues while still giving us the feel and functionality of the old style multiclassing.

With racial level limits most classes were capped in the single digits. UA did open that up some (especially if you got ability scores on the 20s) but it was a rare character that could manage 14 in two classes. So limiting the non-human levels is a significant factor in AD&D multiclassing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Most kits from 2e translate well into backgrounds.

Most prestige classes from 3e translate into feats, or sometimes builds, in 5e.

On the DM side, you can actually literally take a monster from any e, apply the CR rules to it, and run it basically as-is. You might need to convert descending AC to ascending AC, and THAC0 to a to-hit bonus, but that's not much of a deal. The 5e monster rules accommodate ANY monster.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

With racial level limits most classes were capped in the single digits. UA did open that up some (especially if you got ability scores on the 20s) but it was a rare character that could manage 14 in two classes. So limiting the non-human levels is a significant factor in AD&D multiclassing.

I prefer 2e tables where the limits are higher. A 5e version should still have limits. The character should be capped at "character level" 20 like everyone else. It's just that the class abilities gained need to reach into the lower high level range.

 

[Ahrimon]

Something I considered for emulating 1E was making Paladin and Ranger martial archetypes of Fighter, Druid a "Domain" (in a game mechanic sense) of Cleric, leaving the Rogue as is with Thief and Assassin rogueish archetypes, and limiting the Monk to the Way of the Open Hand monastic tradition. Then, just leave out the other classes and subclasses (except the "default" subclasses for each of the core four). For added flavor, make Bard a multi-class only class (i.e., you can only use the multiclassing rules to access the class, you can't take it at first level) and limit it to the college of lore. You would, of course, have to do figure out how to translate paladin, ranger, and druid in to subclasses, but I think it would capture the flavor of 1E fairly well.

You could make Paladin and Ranger multiclass only and require two levels of fighter. That would slow down their combat progress enough to mimic how paladins and rangers were slightly behind fighters too.