D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[Ovinomancer]

No idea really. I can only speak relative to the games I've played: 1e/ BECMI; 4e, 5e, and Call of Cthulhu.

However, what I guess is that is a forgiving system. You can change a lot of things without breaking it. Is that true of other games? I don't know. I do know from experience it was easier to hack for me than the other games I've played in the past 30 years.

• 4e is a very strict / rigid system (like PF2) that wants to have everything in a particular place. It was more difficult for me to design hacks for that structure (though we didn't need to many in 4e).
• Call of Cthulhu (I had 4th edition I believe), well I didn't even try. It just seemed all to obtuse.
• 1e was very hackable, but it all felt so haphazard and unknowable. I did a lot of hacking back in 1e (20+ pages), but it felt like a chore compared to 5e.

Speaking for myself: 5e is robust in that you can make these kinds of changes without breaking the system. The small mods and limited number of active effects means you don't need to worry about too many synergies the way you would with a game like Pathfinder (either) or 4e. Adding a new condition that can grant a +1 in PF2 is a big deal and should be done with caution, because of how it impacts critical hits and therefore crit effects. Giving everyone a +1d6 in 5e is fine and won't break anything, because you'll just hit more.

Pulling these both in for reference.

@dave2008, are you using the pacing and encounter building rules for 5e unchanged, or did your hacks require you to also hack that system? I ask because while your hacks look simple, I can see a host of downstream other things that need to change to make these work well. I think that we all quite often underestimate the level of actual work that goes into a change in play because we're doing it and it seems like running the game to us, but there's often a number of things that change and require constant tweaking on the backside to maintain hacks. D&D has, largely, instructed us that this is normal, but it's not. It's literally the overhead that exists and that is ignored. D&D in general has a massive overhead for the GM to manage the game. So moving bits around doesn't really feel like that much more work than the massive work already done and gets ignored/assumed to be normal.

Also, the way 4e enabled hacking was to make sure every systems was clear and in the open -- you knew what and how it did what it did. It was still a tightly constrained game, yes, and patching out AEDU was a major undertaking (Essentials did it, though) if that's what bothered you. Kinda like bounded accuracy would be lots of work to remove from 5e. 5e, though, buries a lot of the assumptions of the game and doesn't call them out. Resting, for instance, is so deeply rooted in the encounter assumptions, and that also feeds into recovery types and class abilities, and so on. This is why touching resting never quite works out with a lot of work. And, honestly, your hack of resting is a major departure from 5e core such that encounter balance has to change and resting cycles have to change. I expect that's a large part of the HD class ability recovery system you have -- did this emerge through play as a patch or did you start there?

 

[dave2008]

Pulling these both in for reference.

@dave2008, are you using the pacing and encounter building rules for 5e unchanged, or did your hacks require you to also hack that system?

I don't really use encounter building anymore as I found it was not needed, one of the other things I like about 5e.

However, when we started I did use the encounter building rules and we had adopted most of these hacks from our 4e game and it worked fine. Thought we only got to level 3 or so before I realized I didn't need to waste time with the encounter building guidelines.

Also, we did do a few one-shot high level (lvl 17-20) adventures in that first year and the encounter building guidelines worked with these house rules for my group.

I ask because while your hacks look simple, I can see a host of downstream other things that need to change to make these work well. I think that we all quite often underestimate the level of actual work that goes into a change in play because we're doing it and it seems like running the game to us, but there's often a number of things that change and require constant tweaking on the backside to maintain hacks.

That is of course possible, that is what I meant when I said I don't need to hack with the whole game in mind, just my group. The hacks we have made works for us, and if we need to make changes we do. The only one I can think we added after the initial batch was spending HD for all healing, including magic.

Also, the way 4e enabled hacking was to make sure every systems was clear and in the open -- you knew what and how it did what it did.

Everyone is different. 4e was more constraining to me. I loved the game, but it eventually felt a bit like a straight jacket. When I made a custom monster I had to do so much to make it work it started to loose some of its fun and I really welcomed he hybrid approach of 5e.

Kinda like bounded accuracy would be lots of work to remove from 5e.

Possibly, but I have no interest in doing that.

5e, though, buries a lot of the assumptions of the game and doesn't call them out.

Yes, that is a feature for me. I like hidden stories. I feels liberating. Everyone's different!

Resting, for instance, is so deeply rooted in the encounter assumptions, and that also feeds into recovery types and class abilities, and so on. This is why touching resting never quite works out with a lot of work. And, honestly, your hack of resting is a major departure from 5e core such that encounter balance has to change and resting cycles have to change. I expect that's a large part of the HD class ability recovery system you have -- did this emerge through play as a patch or did you start there?

All I can tell you is it has been very easy to implement for our group

 

[FrozenNorth]

Second, why is a system that doesn't directly provide an open framework and explanation of how to adapt it considered easy to hack? 5e isn't really a toolkit system, it doesn't provide structures that are particularly adaptable. Hacking in 5e is really staying pretty darned close to 5e -- maybe adding some more skills or tweaking an ability or three.

Ultimately, it depends on what you are trying to hack and what you are comparing it to. Overall, the system is pretty simplified, and I find that adding a layer of complexity is easier than taking something out and worry about unintended consequences that may not be obvious.

And of course, with any hack, a lot depends on how much you like about the base system. At a certain point, you are better off just starting your hack from a different system.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Bloodied Hit Points (BHP)

• Armor has AC and damage reduction (DR)
• Rest and recovery works normally for abilities and hit points, however,...
• ...BHP recover at the rate of 1/ extended rest (1 week)
• You die at 0 BHP
• You can spend 1 HD to recharge a short rest ability
• You can spend 2 HD to recharge a long rest ability
• You musts spend an HD each time you are healed (by magic or otherwise).
• You can spend an HD and add your prof. bonus to melee damage (if you are proficient in that weapon).

We have used other hacks for a specific genre feel in one-shots, but those are the hacks for our standard game.

Hacks we are considering for out next campaign:

• Capping standard HP at 10th level. Starting a 11th level you get fixed hit points based on your HD only: 1 for d6, 2 for d8, 3 for d10, and 4 for d12.
• Action speeds (not likely though)
• Spell disruption when a caster takes damage

Very cool list! Some hacks I have implemented or considered implementing:

• Campaign specific skills;
• Powerful curses;
• Replacing all proficiency (including weapon proficiency) with a proficiency die. The die does not advance, but spells and circumstances can improve it;
• Ancestral paragons: characters get additional powers associated with their race at 4th, 6th and 10th level;
• A5E does a good job of creating an Exploration overlay on base 5e;
• More of a principle than a hack, but magic is different, not superior. So, walls of force and spiritual weapons can be hacked to pieces, invisibility is auto-find unless you hide, Medecine is better for diseases than Lesser Restoration, Arcana can provide the same information as detect magic etc.
• In furtherance of the above, counteract checks for some spells (with a penalty if the opposed spell is higher level);

Like @dave2008 said, many of these are small changes, but can make the game feel dramatically different and still fresh after many years.

 

[dave2008]

• A5E does a good job of creating an Exploration overlay on base 5e;

I've thought about doing this too, but I haven't really needed to yet.

• More of a principle than a hack, but magic is different, not superior. So, walls of force and spiritual weapons can be hacked to pieces, invisibility is auto-find unless you hide, Medecine is better for diseases than Lesser Restoration, Arcana can provide the same information as detect magic etc.

I like this idea, I might try something like that for our next campaign. My players are 90% martials so I don't imagine it would be much of an issue.

• In furtherance of the above, counteract checks for some spells (with a penalty if the opposed spell is higher level);

Can you clarify what you mean? What are counteracting and how are you doing it?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Can you clarify what you mean? What are counteracting and how are you doing it?

Most obvious example: player casts detect magic and something in the room is the result of a high level illusion. It doesn’t seem right to me that detect magic can defeat a phantasmal force or improved invisibility etc. So, roll a counteract check against the illusion spell. If you succeed, your detect magic pierces the illusion. Otherwise, the illusion looks real to the detect magic spell.

Likewise when using a spell to counteract a disease caused by a spell or poison. It isn’t automatic. You need to beat a DC based of the level of the target effect.

 

[Seramus]

I agree that 5E is very easy to hack, but I really wish I could get more players to try out game systems that don't even need those hacks.

There are so many cool games I want to play, but 5E and Vampire/Werewolf is all I can get them to try.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree that 5E is very easy to hack, but I really wish I could get more players to try out game systems that don't even need those hacks.

There are so many cool games I want to play, but 5E and Vampire/Werewolf is all I can get them to try.

I had a conversation with my oldest friend/player yesterday and this came up.

I told him I do not consider myself a "gamer" really anymore (back when D&D was more taboo I did) because I don't really care for any RPGs other than D&D. Sure, I used to play Shadowrun and Vampire a long time ago, but even those games were just to take a 2-3 month break from D&D while I got the next campaign organized.

I don't do a lot of the things other gamers do, such as go to conventions (no desire to at all!), watch anime (a couple movies and one series is all I have ever watched) or read comics (never go into them), collect dice or minis (or paint them), no larping, etc. I also don't play video games anymore--and even when I did the list was fairly short (NFS, Tomb Raider, StarCraft, Thief, KOTOR).

Anyway, my friend LOVES trying out new RPGs and systems, saying how he likes 13th Age and Savage Worlds (I've looked at them but they just don't appeal to me at all), among others (like SR and Vampire). He's played B/X back when we first started in '78, then AD&D, BECMI, 2E, 3E, 4E, PF, and now 5E. In that respect we are fairly different.

Even the players in my current group, I would only consider one (maybe two) of them a gamer in the sense of the above hobbies and he likes trying all sorts of RPGs / genres / etc. Most of us aren't gamers (in that sense) but simply enjoy playing D&D.

So, I am sympathize with DMs and players who want to try other games, but I can't really empathize with you.

 

[teitan]

I disagree. I find 5e very easy to hack. That being said, what I consider hacking and you consider hacking may be different things and serve different needs. When I hack something, I don't need to worry about how that hack affects the entire game - I just need to consider how it affects our game. I find 5e is really good for that. Examples of our hacks:

• Bloodied Hit Points (BHP)
• Armor has AC and damage reduction (DR)
• Rest and recovery works normally for abilities and hit points, however,...
• ...BHP recover at the rate of 1/ extended rest (1 week)
• You die at 0 BHP
• You can spend 1 HD to recharge a short rest ability
• You can spend 2 HD to recharge a long rest ability
• You musts spend an HD each time you are healed (by magic or otherwise).
• You can spend an HD and add your prof. bonus to melee damage (if you are proficient in that weapon).

We have used other hacks for a specific genre feel in one-shots, but those are the hacks for our standard game.

Hacks we are considering for out next campaign:

• Capping standard HP at 10th level. Starting a 11th level you get fixed hit points based on your HD only: 1 for d6, 2 for d8, 3 for d10, and 4 for d12.
• Action speeds (not likely though)
• Spell disruption when a caster takes damage

EDIT: I find all of these (together) change the feel of the game and were easy to implement.

And just like that... basically a new version of 1e/2e is born ;-) I like it. Shows the versatility of 5e to do more old school style games without breaking the game. Great house rules.

 

[dave2008]

And just like that... basically a new version of 1e/2e is born ;-) I like it. Shows the versatility of 5e to do more old school style games without breaking the game. Great house rules.

Well, we started in 1e so it is kind of in our bones.