Merger of Systems?

[Reflected_Shadows]

During 3.5, I created a homebrew world that had no reason to change with coming editions, so it didn't. I made a few small adaptations to include some fun content and ideas from Pathfinder and 4e. I feel 5e has been out enough to scour for inspiration. I am also creating a whole new world, homebrewing a whole new thing from scratch after the resolution of the last campaign. New map, classes, everything. So, I am looking at the idea of 5e and seeing what other people think about the content of 5e compared to 3.x era. I have been told that ability scores work a bit differently. I have been told about the Bounded Accuracy system, and I have been told about advantage/disadvantage. I was also told that the "Character Level Chart" is no longer the same - that you no longer get bonus feats every 3 levels and +1 ability score every 4 levels? What else should I know about? What are your feelings about the weaknesses and strengths of Advantage/Disadvantage, Bounded Accuracy or other new features and mechanics? Thank you for any thoughts, musings, feedback or advice. I am not looking to play any straight edition pure - rather, to "absorb" certain fundamentals and make adjustments to keep my homebrew modern and contemporary with the current system. I am kinda teetering on what elements of the various editions I want to incorporate and which ones I will "pass". (For example, my PC's are furious about the concept of "Proficiency" removing the feeling of choice/autonomy regarding character development and level up). I still have a lot of things I am unsure about, and a lot of things seem like a fresh breath of air.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'd suggest you play a session or five of 5e, maybe run thru LMOP as a test. See how you and the players like it. Stress that it's an exploration of the system. Then you can choose the bits you like, discard those you don't, merge, decide 5e is for you entirely or absolutely not and stick with what you know.
There is no substitute for first hand experience.

 

[BoldItalic]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'd suggest you play a session or five of 5e, maybe run thru LMOP as a test. See how you and the players like it. Stress that it's an exploration of the system. Then you can choose the bits you like, discard those you don't, merge, decide 5e is for you entirely or absolutely not and stick with what you know.
There is no substitute for first hand experience.

I would echo this wholeheartedly.

5e is notable, not for what new mechanics it introduced but for what it simplified and removed. If you want your new campaign to be simpler to run at the table, if you want the mechanics to fade into the background so that the narrative takes over, then 5e may have something for you. But if you are looking for extra mechanics to add, to make your existing ruleset even more complex, 5e probably can't help you because you are heading in the opposite direction.

So, ask yourself: what do I want to leave out, and what do I absolutely want to keep? Tell us that, and we may be able to make detailed suggestions.

 

[Grainger]

Yeah, it's not really useful to just have a check-list of differences (such as what you get when you level up), as the underlying philosophy is different. There's nothing wrong with mixing and matching between editions, of course, but to understand what 5e is doing, you really need to play it. The basic rules are free online, so no purchase is necessary, unless you want to try out all the bells and whistles.

 

[Shiroiken]

There are many ways you can customize 5E, but the question often becomes "is it worth it?" I've done some customizing myself, and I've dropped most of those options fairly quickly because the additional rules were not adding to the game. I'll give an example for your players.

Customized Skills/Tools
Track all skills/Tools you have "proficiency" with under the core rules: that determines the amount of training you receive when you gain a new proficiency (track skills & tools separately). When you would increase your proficiency bonus, you instead train a number of skills/tools equal to your training. Training a skill/tool you already have grants +1, while a new skill gains +2 instead.

This rules would allow your players to customize their skills and tools. In some ways they'll be better (because they can have a bunch of skills at +2), but it'll probably be worse overall (because they won't have many skills at maximum proficiency). The real downside is having to track the proficiency bonus for each and every skill. At first glance this doesn't seem hard, but a careless (or cheating) player can throw a huge monkey wrench, since it'll be more difficult to untangle the error. Additionally, it might take more time to level, if the players want to discuss the best way to optimize the group's skill.

For you group, this might be worth it, but others may not feel the same. I'd suggest running a one-shot adventure using the standard rules before tweaking things. If you all agree that something isn't working the way you want, then I'd suggest changing it.

 

[Jester David]

So, I am looking at the idea of 5e and seeing what other people think about the content of 5e compared to 3.x era. I have been told that ability scores work a bit differently. I have been told about the Bounded Accuracy system, and I have been told about advantage/disadvantage.

Ability scores work very much the same. You just make checks far more often. Ability checks are the big action, replacing skills (which are a subset of ability checks).

I was also told that the "Character Level Chart" is no longer the same - that you no longer get bonus feats every 3 levels and +1 ability score every 4 levels?

Yup. The idea is to encourage you to stick to your class. And make things simpler so you don't need to remember one feat/ability score books every 3 or 4 total character levels in addition to whatever you get for a class. One less place to look when leveling up.
It's a little funky...

What else should I know about?

They removed magic items from the math, which is great. This is tricky to do in 3e, but can be done with inherent bonuses and the like. So you don't need the +X sword, cloak of resistance, and the assorted stat boosting items. Alternatively, you could just nerf monsters to accommodate the diminishing power.

You can roll Hit Dice to heal by pausing for an hour. This would be super easy to port into 3.5e and reduce the need for a cleric.

Prepared casters no longer memorize at set slots. Instead, they prepare individual spells (based on their level) and cast at whatever slot they want. Wizards and clerics work a little like a 3e sorcerer that prepares new spells every day.
Similarly, spells no longer automatically get better with levels and need to be cast using a higher slot. This would be fairly easy to port over as well: using a higher spell slot adds two caster levels per spell level.

What are your feelings about the weaknesses and strengths of Advantage/Disadvantage,

It's actually pretty awesome and easy to port into other systems. Rather than a small +2 situation bonus, just say "advantage". It's fun since you get to roll more dice. And easy to apply after rolling since you don't need to add a bonus to a number you may have already forgotten. And it keeps the math down, so you're not managing dozens of fiddly bonuses.
There's not a lot of weaknesses, apart from the lack of stacking and the fact it's a pretty big bonus. If you only need a 10 or 11, then it's closer to a +5 bonus.

I'd definitely add that it in place of any small bonuses, replacing any +2 or so that is around less than a minute (or combat). Longer than that, and they can just write the change on their character sheet and use the new number

Bounded Accuracy

This is really a love it or hate it mechanics. Some people love that monsters are viable at all levels, and don't cease to be a threat when a couple CRs off. Others hate the limited amount of bonuses and want to feel more powerful and have a sense of advancement.
Personally, I like it. I like being able to use orcs at any level without having to give orcs crazy class levels or make a variant that is the same CR as the PCs. And the feeling or progress from continual attack bonuses is largely an illusion, since monster AC goes up at the same rate. When you have a plus to hit in 5e, you typically hit more often.

or other new features and mechanics?

A few options (bards, the bless spell)) add a dice instead of a plus. This is kind of fun, adding a 1d4 rather than a +2.

For example, my PC's are furious about the concept of "Proficiency" removing the feeling of choice/autonomy regarding character development and level up.

The lack of "leveling up" choices is an issue with 5e. Unless you're playing a spellcaster, you often make no decisions each level. A fighter or rogue might not make a single decision after level 3 apart from ABI/feats.
This is very much a feature/bug. It's simpler and easier to manage since you can level in 30 seconds, before or after a session. You don't need to try and remember to level between sessions or look in dozen books for feat options, remember how many skills ranks you have, etc. (Have you ever had a player forget to level between games? *shudder*)

 

[Grainger]

Surely a Fighter and Rogue (especially the former) gets a lot of stat increases, which he/she chooses? Or, if the DM allows, it, a choice of Feats instead.

If the Fighter is an Eldritch Knight or Battle Master, they also get other choices (which spells or manoeuvres to choose).

I don't know if that's a lot less choice than 3e or 4e (never played them), but it's still a fair amount of it.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As others have succinctly put it...5e is a great system, but you really need to give it a serious run before deciding what to pull from it (or use 5e outright instead). I bought the Starter Set and gave it a quick read and look-see. I wasn't sure about it at all...so it sat on my shelf for a month or two. Then, while waiting for other players to arrive, me and two players that were here decided to give it a shot until the others got here. The picked characters, and off we went.

Long story short...we three were stunned at how well it played and felt. It just felt like D&D. It didn't feel like a bunch of rules and 'options' in the guise of a "role playing game". It wasn't confusing as to what we needed to "do" to, er, "do" something in game. Simple language that was easy for me to interpret (e.g., "The character is better at detecting ambushes" vs "The character has +2 to Perception skill checks when in Hill or Mountain terrain and not wearing metal armor in order to detect ambushes"; I'll take the former every day of the week, thank you very much! ). We started a 5e game two sessions later, shelving our current RPG campaign at the time. Now, your players may be all into the whole "micro transaction" play style of 3.x/PF/4e, which means they probably won't really grock the "macro choice" play style of 5e.

In 3.x, you get "6 skill points, one feat, choice of one of 19 classes, each that gives one to three sub abilities that interact with your other choices", so you can really customize the "numbers" of your character. It doesn't tell you much about your character other than "he now has +4 on Skill A in stead of +3", and a bunch of other 'abilities' that give minimal bonuses. The character concept that the player is going for isn't going to arrive for multiple levels...after getting enough skill points, feats and class abilities to make his "Skill roll, +8" noticable over everyone elses "Skill roll, +3".

In 5e, you get a "macro" feeling. Your character will "have Skill A as a Proficiency". Others don't. After gaining multiple levels and adventuring...your character still has Skill A, and others don't. Your overall, "macro Proficiency bonus" adds to your Skill A and not to anyone elses. Now, this is where 5e changes significantly from 3.x; The DM's input, use, and adjudication of ALL things...skill checks, ability checks, combat choices, spell results, etc...is NEEDED! A DM is expected to use his/her own 'style' of DM'ing to make the game feel real and give players a good time. For me, I always give the character who has a skill, for example, more "knowledge" or a better "result" when succeeding on a check. So, if a Proficiency character is making a Perception roll, and so is everyone else who doesn't have Perception as a Proficiency...and everyone succeeds, I give the "notice" to the character with the skill, regardless of who rolled better (e.g, DC 10, Proficient character rolls an 11...everyone else succeeds and rolls 16's to 20's...I still indicate that the Proficient character "sees a slightly brighter shadow form in the back corner of the room, lurking next to the book case"). This gives players an incentive to "macro" their character in place of just trying to min/max the numbers. Having +8 on a skill because of a feat, min/maxed ability scores, and a class ability is still "less good" than having Proficiency in that skill.

I guess it boils down to this: In 5e, a player can play a character "concept" once he hits level three (and, btw, level 1 and 2 absolutely zoom buy...as in two sessions you will be level 3; one session if it's a 8 hour one). In 3.x/PF, you frequently had to get a half-dozen levels, minimum, to really start to "feel" your character concept developing. As I said...5e, "macro" concepts...3.x/PF, "micro" concepts.

Sorry for the length. Bottom line...play 5e for three or four sessions. Then pick and choose what you want for your old game (or convert to 5e, like so many other 4e, PF, 3.x, 2e, 1e, and BECMI/RC folks have done).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel 5e has been out enough to scour for inspiration. I am also creating a whole new world, homebrewing a whole new thing from scratch after the resolution of the last campaign. New map, classes, everything. So, I am looking at the idea of 5e and seeing what other people think about the content of 5e compared to 3.x era.

5e uses 3.x style MCing as an optional rule. Check out how it handles caster/caster MC.

What are your feelings about the weaknesses and strengths of Advantage/Disadvantage, Bounded Accuracy or other new features and mechanics?

Bounded Accuracy is a fancy way of saying 'slow, even, advancement.' The 'slow' part is what usually gets talked up, but the 'even' part is very significant. You no longer have varied BAB from one class to another, nor do you have a huge gulf between untrained/cross-class skills and maxed-out in-class ranks. Instead, everything that advances at all (and not everything does) advances via your Proficiency Bonus, which is +2 at first level, and goes up to +6 over 20 levels. So, you get better as you level, but not much better. It could just as easily be +1/2 levels or +1/level, the useful takeaway is that everyone advances at the same rate, so the game is less prone to just collapsing at higher level. Or, you can just think of it as being like E6, but only for BAB/ranks, not for spellcasting.

Another side to Bounded Accuracy is that multiple attacks are no longer tied to BAB, instead, they're class features. Fighters get the most, then Paladins, Rangers - even some Bards Clerics & the Bladesinger get one extra attack. All those extra attacks are full BAB, so fighters are back to 2e-style DPR, and thus 'best at combat,' as promised.

Advantage consolidates a lot of bonuses and 'loss of DEX bonus to AC' to one very simple, DM-adjudicated, inherently non-stacking, mechanic: roll 2d20, take the higher. Disadvantage is the opposite. There are still a few bonuses and penalties in 5e, but mostly you just assign Advantage or Disadvantage instead. Adv/Dis doesn't stack, but they do cancel, so if you have Advantage from one source, and Disadvantage from one source, you just roll normally. Same if you have Advantage from one source and Disadvantage from 12 or vice versa. Assigning one or the other can be a powerful DM tool, especially in combat.

(For example, my PC's are furious about the concept of "Proficiency" removing the feeling of choice/autonomy regarding character development and level up).

Heh. 5e shifts a lot of 'empowerment' from players to DM, across the board, so there may be a lot for them to be 'furious' about.
Except for you campaign getting better, and everyone having more fun, that is.

 

[Reflected_Shadows]

Thank you all for your great advice. I went to the library and picked up a 5e DMG and am gleaning through the basic rules and SRD while waiting on the PHB.

My last world, I homebrewed a 3.5-esque ruleset. For this one, I want to look at a hybrid option of 3.5-esque and 5e. I am not interested in "combining the systems" - I am looking at starting with the base of 5e, and asking where my next world needs 3.5-esque elements (I will be keeping my homebrew crafting system and associated skills, for example). I am impressed - the 5e DMG does everything I wanted to. I already knew 80% of the material and advice in the first two sections. My girlfriend pointed out when I was looking at 3.5 and 4e DMG's, I was shaking my fist like "NO! NO! NO! YOU HAVE IT ALL WRONG!!!" so that is a big improvement that I agree with the content I already knew (mostly about advice, worldbuilding, running a smooth game, understanding your players, creating diverse scenes and encounters, etc). I wished the older DMG's had it so that I could have learned it when I first picked up 2E in the mid 1990's instead of waiting until I went to college, but I digress.

I am pleased with the 5e handling of DM's because I feel like it gives me full freedom to combine narrative, sandbox and simulationist gameplay styles by weaving different elements into the foreground and background as needed. I am also pleased with the thought put into making good, modern charts rather than just reprinting the old, bad ones again. There is also a great improvement on character efficacy in my opinion, because the rules don't pretty much encourage dickering around with semantics to "word yourself into a bonus". I also like the one move/one action per turn (with one bonus action only) model. I felt like the old model allowed a lot of bad manipulations. The main player concerns are the feeling of "wanting to choose how I improve when I level up", so I will probably just give every class 6 skills + intelligence modifier with 24 ranks + intelligence to place at first level. I want to maintain the continuity, if you will, of proficiency. Also, I agree with "Why should EVERY barbarian be unskilled?" - it just seems stereotypical.

I am now in the process of designing classes and character sheets, level up charts, and all of that. Thinking and musing about keeping things simple, yet open.