• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

OSR OSR Gripes

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Using AD&Ds rules for healing in 5e would have a huge impact (eliminating non magical healing almost completely, spells/powers only reset on a daily basis, etc). As well using 5e's rule of healing into an AD&D game (hit dice recovery on short rest, spell/power recovery on short rests) would also have a major impact. So much of an impact it would change how the game is played. Your handwaving away of such obvious and impactful changes as mere "bookkeeping" makes me think you have no idea about the games you're talking about, or being disingenuous intentionally. It also shows you fail at basic math. The amount of HPs that can be healed in one day in 5e compared to AD&D is huge. Not only does 5e have hit dice, and heal to max after a long rest, but a cleric with 9 available spells of various levels can use all of them for cure wounds, while the AD&D cleric cannot. The difference in rate is not "moot" :facepalm

There have been some ridiculous arguments I've seen in the past, but to say the rest/recovery rules in AD&D is comparable and equivalent (what akin is defined as) to 5e ranks up there near the top.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Using AD&Ds rules for healing in 5e would have a huge impact (eliminating non magical healing almost completely, spells/powers only reset on a daily basis, etc).
Not a lot more than merely setting short & long rests to different durations. You push out the time scale of the adventure.

The bigger difference is table time devoted to bookkeeping, and that's not a /big/ difference, either.

makes me think you have no idea about the games you're talking about
Again, folks played the game very differently from place to place & table to table back in the day.

The amount of HPs that can be healed in one day in 5e compared to AD&D is huge.
5e shifted most scaling to hps, so, yeah, they balloon. PCs have more hps, especially from CON bonus, especially as they level. Monsters have more hps. They all do more damage. They blow through more healing.

The cadence of play can still be kept to the adventuring day, though, as it always has been.


The ‘rest period’ up to 10 minutes was more to maintain time keeping and to maintain the time pressure of a delve. There was also a 1 turn test period required for every 5 turns of activity. But these rest periods did not allow for recovery of resources.
Nod. And, I'll admit the balance of the turn after a combat being spent in rest &c was probably pretty obscure. But, there /were/ rests on a short scale, however little they recovered, so the short rest / long-rest cadence of WotC era D&D (and, yeah, 3.x had it, de-facto, too, when you paused to top everyone up from the WoCLW).
(already mentioned variants that /did/ give you a little hp recovery for 'binding wound.')

Their intention is to keep the clock moving and keep the time pressure moving. Interesting enough, the one turn rest for every 5 actually coincides with torch duration, as well as with wandering encounter checks. They are kind of akin to blinds in poker, they maintain pressure on the game by forcing resource depletion.
That's fine, no disagreement. The point of short rests was different. But, they're not unprecedented, so not automatically antithetical to old-school feel.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
Nod. And, I'll admit the balance of the turn after a combat being spent in rest &c was probably pretty obscure. But, there /were/ rests on a short scale, however little they recovered, so the short rest / long-rest cadence of WotC era D&D (and, yeah, 3.x had it, de-facto, too, when you paused to top everyone up from the WoCLW).
(already mentioned variants that /did/ give you a little hp recovery for 'binding wound.')
I don't remember using the bind wounds rule back then, I actually first heard of it as a Swords & Wizardry house rule. Makes sense as a way add a little longevity to a group. I think the common rule is that binding only works on damage taken that specific encounter.

Personally, short rests are, to me, one of the least egregious differences. I don't really mind them all tat much... I've run quite a few games where a disastrous encounter shuts down a potentially lucrative delve. The idea of recovering a few hit points after such an encounter such that the party can explore further is not a bad idea to me.

For me, the one hour requirement is a pretty stiff one... as I rule an interruption prevents the rest. The group has to ensure that they will not be interrupted. One hour is 6 turns which is 3 encounter checks. They have a 50/50 chance of having to deal with an encounter while they try to rest.


That's fine, no disagreement. The point of short rests was different. But, they're not unprecedented, so not automatically antithetical to old-school feel.
I think a lot of the feel of old school is in resource recovery. There is a slider between no recovery (you have what you went in with and you must be as efficient as possible with it) to easily obtained recovery (you can refresh your capability frequently enough and maintain your strength from encounter to encounter).

The closer that slider is to lack of recovery, the more old school in feel it is to me. But for me, it doesn't have to be pushed hard to the left.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
5e shifted most scaling to hps, so, yeah, they balloon. PCs have more hps, especially from CON bonus, especially as they level. Monsters have more hps. They all do more damage. They blow through more healing.

.
When you make comments like this as to why healing is comparable in AD&D to 5e, this is why I think you either don't know anything about the game rules (which I doubt that's true), or that you hope no one else knows the difference, or that you're being intentionally disingenuous. I know you know the rules, so I can't figure out why you're insisting on arguing something that is so clearly not true. Yes, hp increased in 5e, but the ratio increased so much, that they aren't comparable as you claim. I shouldn't even have to show you the math because it's so obvious, but apparently I do:

5th level party, AD&D:
Fighter: 33 hp (+1 bonus from con)
Cleric: 23 hp
Mu: 13 hp
Thief: 18 hp
Healing: no hit dice. 1 hp per party member (total: 4). cleric has 5/5/1 spells (2 bonus 1st level and 2nd level due to WIS score). Available healing spells: cure light wounds 5x (5-40 total points)

Total hit points: 87. Total points able to be healed: 9-44. Average: 27. Ratio: max: 51%. Average: 31%

5th level party, 5e:
Fighter: 52 hp (+2 bonus from Con since the same value in 5e gives a +2 bonus when in AD&D its +1)
Cleric: 28 hp
Wizard: 18 hp
Rogue: 28 hp

Healing: short rests: 5d10+10+10d8+5d6 available (30-170 points, average: 100). Long rest: 126 points. Cleric healing: 4/3/2. Can use cure wounds at every slot, so: 4d8+12 (spell modifier that AD&D don’t get added)+6d8+9+6d8+6 = 43-155 points. Average: 99 hit points.

Total hit points: 126. Total points that can be healed: 451. Average: 325 points. Ratio max: 358% Ratio average: 258%


Summary
Even though hp increased in 5e, the rate of healing is exponentially higher than AD&D over an adventuring day. In 5e, you can recover 3.5 times your party's hit points in a day. In AD&D? 1/2 your total hit points. Not even remotely close, let alone "a moot difference" as you say. You're simply wrong here. By a lot. And that's not even accounting for all of the other things in 5e that recover after a short rest, or comparing a party without a cleric in each edition (which would make the disparity even far greater than it is), or things like healing kits in 5e vs 1e. There are entire classes designed around short rest recovery. AD&D has nothing even remotely close. I have no idea why you continue to argue they are comparable when I know you know they aren't.

*Edit* updated as I used only 1 HD per day, and I should have used 5 HD per day per PC
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Summary
Even though hp increased in 5e, the rate of healing is exponentially higher than AD&D over an adventuring day. In 5e, you can recover 3.5 times your party's hit points in a day. In AD&D? 1/2 your total hit points. Not even remotely close, let alone "a moot difference" as you say. You're simply wrong here. By a lot.
With respect, this doesn't tell us anything until you also do a measure of how fast PCs are expected to *lose* hit points. If AD&D monsters generally did less damage, or an AD&D party dealt with far fewer monsters in a day, yes, it could be moot.
 

Lanefan

Hero
"Something akin to" is, I think, a pretty low bar. Admittedly, the balance of a 10 minute turn is a lot less resting than 5e's one hour. But it's still a rest, and it's still short. Some variant I vaguely recall even let that 'bind wounds' assumption heal d3 hps. Which, at 1st level, in particular, was nothing to sneeze at.
Interesting. I always thought this was an ancient house rule adopted before I started playing - never knew it had an official basis.

Not spells in any standard class, now, but there were the occasional n/turn items or special abilities.
I can think of gobs of per-day things and even a few x-per-hour devices but I can't for the life of me think of anything that recharged after a turn.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Interesting. I always thought this was an ancient house rule adopted before I started playing - never knew it had an official basis.
To be clear, the balance of the turn being used in resting was the obscure rule, the d3 for 'binding wounds' during that rest was very much a variant - a Len Lakofka variant, I'd guess, at least, a lot of 'em that got heavily used in my area were his, straight from his Dragon articles.

I can think of gobs of per-day things and even a few x-per-hour devices but I can't for the life of me think of anything that recharged after a turn.
Per-hour doesn't ring a bell as loudly. Per turn, does, but I can't recall a specific example, either (also 'turn' sometimes seemed to be used ambiguously, like it might mean 10-min turn, or might mean round ...hmm... how was "turn" used in 0e?).
Heck, I'm near certain there were per week & month, too, but I can't recall exactly what. ;)


Edit: y'know what some of the more oddball recharge times might've been? artifact powers.



I don't remember using the bind wounds rule back then, I actually first heard of it as a Swords & Wizardry house rule. Makes sense as a way add a little longevity to a group. I think the common rule is that binding only works on damage taken that specific encounter.
That's how the groups who used it ruled IMX, otherwise you could just keep binding 1-3 hps at a time until you were a fully-healed mummy. ;)

Personally, short rests are, to me, one of the least egregious differences. I don't really mind them all tat much... For me, the one hour requirement is a pretty stiff one...
Nod. I don't feel like they deviate the cadence of the game that much from prior editions, and, when they do, it's mostly because they're so /long/ - they feel more like the 4hr-nap (below) than the balance-of-the-10min-turn (above).

I think a lot of the feel of old school is in resource recovery. There is a slider between no recovery (you have what you went in with and you must be as efficient as possible with it) to easily obtained recovery (you can refresh your capability frequently enough and maintain your strength from encounter to encounter). The closer that slider is to lack of recovery, the more old school in feel it is to me. But for me, it doesn't have to be pushed hard to the left.
And, like a lot of old-school feel, it could vary with the place, time, group, and the variants in use and the unspoken expectations in play. Some groups would, by convention, "go back to town" to rest whole days. Others would use the shorter rest times to recover low-level spells and barricade themselves in a dungeon room for 4 hrs to qualify to re-memorize spells.

I mean, if you have a time-pressure scenario, and it's below the threshold of a recovery cycle, you have no recovery, you use things up, they're gone, they don't come back until the next scenario... and you can do that for almost any recovery cycle.*

OTOH, if you're engaged in a long journey, or grinding against a mega-dungeon, or between adventures, even a daily cycle becomes a lot less significant. In sufficiently long/unregulated downtime the line between unlimited and daily could become fairly academic.

Ultimately pacing is up to the DM, he can match it to recharge rates as he sees fit (to the limit of his comfort with screwing around with the feel of his campaign), and 5e's formal 1-hr 'short' rest, and 24-hr hard limit on 'long' rests hardly complicates that compared to the obscure rules & subsystems of AD&D and the many ways it was tweaked & interpreted back in the day.



















* I once ran a convention game in which all the action took place between the drawback and arrival of a tsunami that would destroy the character's home city. No time for even a genuinely-short short rest, even using more than a few charges from a WoCLW would've been pushing it. Heck, no progress in 10-min turns, for that matter.
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Hero
With respect, this doesn't tell us anything until you also do a measure of how fast PCs are expected to *lose* hit points. If AD&D monsters generally did less damage, or an AD&D party dealt with far fewer monsters in a day, yes, it could be moot.
If one assumes that the party in each game loses few enough hit points per day on average that the characters all survive until tomorrow, then the comparison is valid...except:

In 5e you can be at 3 h.p. and lose a boatload of 'em, but you'll only go to 0 whereupon you'll fall over and start making death saves and during that time someone can cure you up. What this means is that any attempted comparison of hit point loss ratios between 1e and 5e is liable to fail due to the "missing" lost points in 5e that would otherwise have taken a character below 0. (remember, in 1e death at -10 was a very commonly-used option)

This same thing will also skew the h.p. loss ratio in that the 5e party can in theory lose lots more h.p. than they have and yet still survive provided the healer(s) can keep the whack-a-mole cycle going until the foes are vanquished.

So, as [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] does above, all we can truly compare are the recovery rates and ratios - and there's absolutely no denying that 5e is way way faster than 1e here.
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Hero
To be clear, the balance of the turn being used in resting was the obscure rule, the d3 for 'binding wounds' during that rest was very much a variant - a Len Lakofka variant, I'd guess, at least, a lot of 'em that got heavily used in my area were his, straight from his Dragon articles.

Per-hour doesn't ring a bell as loudly. Per turn, does, but I can't recall a specific example, either (also 'turn' sometimes seemed to be used ambiguously, like it might mean 10-min turn, or might mean round).
Per round was everywhere, as most things couldn't be used or done more than once per round anyway...and that hasn't really changed.

Heck, I'm near certain there were per week & month, too, but I can't recall exactly what. ;)
We've both house-ruled in that some spells can only be cast once a week and added various magical devices that only do their thing once per week or per month (or in one currently-existing case per year, though the item's owner hasn't figured this out yet). Officially I think there might have been some per-week or per-month things but I can't recall what.

Edit: y'know what some of the more oddball recharge times might've been? artifact powers.
Makes sense for two reasons: one, artifacts don't follow normal rules; and two, over the years I've used very few if any 'standard' artifacts and thus I'm not all that familiar with their as-written versions. (usually if I need something artifact-grade I'll make it up from scratch)

That's how the groups who used it ruled IMX, otherwise you could just keep binding 1-3 hps at a time until you were a fully-healed mummy. ;)
Same here - if you didn't get hurt during the fight just ended then you can't benefit from the d3 this time.

We use a body-fatigue point system, and the d3 also only helps if you're still in fatigues; if you went into bodies that means you took the sort of damage a simple few-round rest and refresh can't help you with.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
If one assumes that the party in each game loses few enough hit points per day on average that the characters all survive until tomorrow, then the comparison is valid
That's not a bad assumption, though character death is hardly unknown in D&D (to put it mildly), at some point, you reach some sort of, IDK, homeostasis, that results in PCs surviving & leveling rather than dying and being replaced.

In 5e, scaling (and some class differentiation) was shifted from d20 modifiers (or targets in the case of the classic game) to hps & damage. Some of that shift, like ending up with 20HD instead of 8 or 9 or 11 (and I'm discarding hard max level classes, and the 1e Bard as an outlier, here), and getting CON bonuses per die as high as +5 (or more) rather than +2 for most classes, started with 3e, of course. But 5e is all-in on monsters that have huge numbers of hps compared to their classic counterparts, and a lot of damage flying around. So getting through a comparable 'day' requires a lot more hps recovery than back in the day, in proportion and in total.

But that's the size of the numbers. It needn't result in a radically different (I hope I'm not over-using the word) cadence of play, or radically different pacing in the campaign.

And, 5e /does/ offer fairly obvious/simple variants to radically slow pacing across the board, if that's desired.

In 5e you can be at 3 h.p. and lose a boatload of 'em, but you'll only go to 0 whereupon you'll fall over and start making death saves and during that time someone can cure you up.
Yeah, that's a rule I'd agree absolutely has to go to get back to the old-school feel. AD&D, if you even used Death's Door, it came with a 1-week recuperation period. So the impetus was the exact opposite of 5e Whack-a-Mole.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
With respect, this doesn't tell us anything until you also do a measure of how fast PCs are expected to *lose* hit points. If AD&D monsters generally did less damage, or an AD&D party dealt with far fewer monsters in a day, yes, it could be moot.
5e recovers not 3.5 times the hit points, but 3.5 time the ratio of hit points that are available. So in order to make that particular point moot (which again, doesn't account for additional healing such as healing kits, potions of healing being a common item, and more classes that can heal or class abilities that can heal), 5e monsters would have to inflict 3.5 times the ratio of damage compared to AD&D.

I.e., if a level 1 PC has 5 hp and the typical monster they face in AD&D does 1d6 points of damage, then the average damage (3.5) does 70% of damage to the available hit points. In 5e, with a level 1 PC having 8 hit points, that in order to hit the 3.5 times value in order to offset the 3.5 times increased healing rate, that same opponent a typical level 1 PC would face would inflict an average of 19.6 points of damage (3.5 times 70% of the 8 max hp: (.70% of 8 is 5.6, times 3.5 is 19.6). How many 5e monsters that level 1 PCs face do an average of 19.6 points of damage?

I would like to think that we can all agree even just from a cursory glance (no math needed), that the healing rate in 5e is way higher than in AD&D, right? Especially now with the math, even favoring 5e by not including things like healing kits, second wind, etc, it should be settled, correct?

Basically, with that example party I gave above, it would take the AD&D party 7 days to heal the same amount of damage that the 5e party did in one day. Going from 1 day to 7 days certainly isn't "moot" or inconsequential.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
5e monsters would have to inflict 3.5 times the ratio of damage compared to AD&D.
Well, they hit more often than 1e monsters at low levels (and, thanks to BA, keep hitting at least some), and have more hps of their own as you go up levels, so stick around longer, inflicting more damage...
...doesn't sound too implausible.

Certainly, I haven't seen any 5e parties breezing through 21-encounter days.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Well, they hit more often than 1e monsters at low levels .
I'd love to see your figures that monsters in 5e average 3.5x the ratio (or in the example above, that means 6x flat rate) the average damage of 1e counterparts. find out how often each monster hits on average in 5e compared to 1e (because I don't think they did hit more often with any significance), find out the average damage for each of those hits, and then compare. If the raw comparison is 6x higher than in AD&D, I'd eat my socks.

Honestly, I can't see why you are continuing to argue this. The healing rate and recovery in 5e is a lot higher than in AD&D, even when you consider 5e has higher HP in general. That's something that is blatantly obvious. Your unsubstantiated claims and handwaving of significant mathematical differences aren't helping your case.
 
But 5e is all-in on monsters that have huge numbers of hps compared to their classic counterparts, and a lot of damage flying around.
One of the things about the Monster Encylopedia series of posts by Echohawk is that it allows you to track just how much number inflation has occurred between 1e and 5e, and it's a rare monster whose hit points and expected damage/round doesn't scale with its edition number.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
find out how often each monster hits on average in 5e compared to 1e (because I don't think they did hit more often with any significance), find out the average damage for each of those hits, and then compare.
Well, IDK, compare a simple, iconic Orc, for instance. In 1e, it hits a stereotypical 1st level front-liner in banded/splint & shield on a natural 17, for 1d8 (4.5) damage (0.9 DPR), and as a 1 HD monster has 1-8 hps, and was AC 6. In 5e, it hits a starting-package heavy armor PC in chain & shield (AC 18) on a natural 13, for 9(1d12+3) damage (3.6 DPR - 4.05 if you count the crit on a 20, which is standard in 5e, and wasn't in 1e), has 15 hps, and AC 13.

So, it does twice the damage, hits twice as often, and has 5x the hps, but is way easier to hit (attack bonuses are easy for PCs to come by in 5e relative to 1e).
Now, how fast you kill it is a whole 'nuther thing. A 1st level cleric or an unremarkable 1e fighter with a 15 STR and no weapon specialization does, on average, the 4.5 damage it takes to kill the average orc, and hits on a natural 14 - but, a high STR fighter 17-18/50, with specialization hits on a 12, while the 18/00 fighter w/specialization hits on an 10, and kills the toughest 8hp ordinary orc automatically.
In 5e it's not so varied. Your fighter or other melee-capable PC will have an attack bonus, +4 at least, probably (& only +2 dam), possibly as high as +6, but Duelist style can bring your longsword up to 1d8+6 on top of that. You won't ever quite one-hit kill the 5e orc ('cept on a crit, turnabout's fair play), but you'll hit it a /lot/, all the way down to a natural 7 (70% chance, neatly double the 1e baseline).

Oh, but when you do kill it, in 5e, it takes some kind of an dying swing at you, doesn't it?

So if, in both cases, you happen to kill it on one round, it attacks you once in 1e, and twice in 5e.

enjoy


… edit: TBH, I didn't expect that to work out...
What's really behind this, for me, is just my actual experience running both AD&D back in the day, and 5e until last year. The, IDK, "dynamics of play" and the "feel of running" were just so similar. I didn't run numbers, but I noticed 1st level parties would be struggling and desperate to rest just like in the olden days, that they'd face the odd unpredictable TPK, just like in the olden days.

The most noticeable difference wasn't in managing hps/spells over the course of the day, it was the built-in incentive to whack-a-mole healing vs the profound disincentive of Death's Door - or just Death - back in the day. That's where 5e shows it's millennial stripes.
 
Last edited:

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

It's mostly a matter of expectations of play than of rules (or lack of). The key thing to OSR games is really "you don't like something, change it"...and, because there is a distinct lack of "interlocking rules minutia", you won't break anything 99% of the time. For your 2hp fighter...easy; just tell your DM "Can you re-roll my HP for me? I got a 2. I'll be dead the first fight and don't want to waste my time or anyone elses". Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request. In fact, IIRC, I think it was some version of Basic D&D that addresses this to the DM; something to the effect of "If a fighter or dwarf rolls 1 or 2 hp's, you might want to let them reroll...".

Anyway...Frog God Games did a rather excellent write up of what "Old School Gaming" was/is like and how that differs from what more modern gamers might be expecting. Here's a link to their page where you can DL it (PDF; free). https://froggodgames.com/frogs/product-category/free-stuff/

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Well, IDK, compare a simple, iconic Orc, for instance. In 1e, it hits a stereotypical 1st level front-liner in banded/splint & shield on a natural 17, for 1d8 (4.5) damage (0.9 DPR), and as a 1 HD monster has 1-8 hps, and was AC 6. In 5e, it hits a starting-package heavy armor PC in chain & shield (AC 18) on a natural 13, for 9(1d12+3) damage (3.6 DPR - 4.05 if you count the crit on a 20, which is standard in 5e, and wasn't in 1e), has 15 hps, and AC 13.

So, it does twice the damage, hits twice as often, and has 5x the hps, but is way easier to hit (attack bonuses are easy for PCs to come by in 5e relative to 1e).
Now, how fast you kill it is a whole 'nuther thing. A 1st level cleric or an unremarkable 1e fighter with a 15 STR and no weapon specialization does, on average, the 4.5 damage it takes to kill the average orc, and hits on a natural 14 - but, a high STR fighter 17-18/50, with specialization hits on a 12, while the 18/00 fighter w/specialization hits on an 10, and kills the toughest 8hp ordinary orc automatically.
In 5e it's not so varied. Your fighter or other melee-capable PC will have an attack bonus, +4 at least, probably (& only +2 dam), possibly as high as +6, but Duelist style can bring your longsword up to 1d8+6 on top of that. You won't ever quite one-hit kill the 5e orc ('cept on a crit, turnabout's fair play), but you'll hit it a /lot/, all the way down to a natural 7 (70% chance, neatly double the 1e baseline).

Oh, but when you do kill it, in 5e, it takes some kind of an dying swing at you, doesn't it?

So if, in both cases, you happen to kill it on one round, it attacks you once in 1e, and twice in 5e.

enjoy


… edit: TBH, I didn't expect that to work out...
What's really behind this, for me, is just my actual experience running both AD&D back in the day, and 5e until last year. The, IDK, "dynamics of play" and the "feel of running" were just so similar. I didn't run numbers, but I noticed 1st level parties would be struggling and desperate to rest just like in the olden days, that they'd face the odd unpredictable TPK, just like in the olden days.

The most noticeable difference wasn't in managing hps/spells over the course of the day, it was the built-in incentive to whack-a-mole healing vs the profound disincentive of Death's Door - or just Death - back in the day. That's where 5e shows it's millennial stripes.
Once again, you are being disingenuous in your selection. I said a typical creature a level 1 PC would face. In 5e, they bumped the orc up significantly. Level one PCs would not typically fight a group of orcs on a one to one basis. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Look, you’re arguing an untenable position. Not only can’t you back up your argument in an equal basis, but the book itself tells you that if you want a more OSR style of recovery, to use the optimal rules where recovery is way slowed down.

The fact that you continue to argue that the recovery/rest rules in AD&D are comparable to 5e, tells me you just want to argue for arguments sake.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
I was more than half expecting I'd made some dumb math or table lookup error. ::shrug::

I said a typical creature a level 1 PC would face.
CR: 1/2.

the book itself tells you that if you want a more OSR style of recovery, to use the optimal rules where recovery is way slowed down.
I already mentioned that, yes. You want slower pacing, it's readily doable, no heavy rules-rewriting called for.
 
Last edited:
'll be dead the first fight and don't want to waste my time or anyone elses". Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request.
Will they really? We're on like page 9 and you are the first person on the OSR side to suggest that. The first half-dozen all suggested that playing with low hit points where one hit will kill you was the source of the fun, and in some way or the other tacitly endorsed character funnels and the ultimate playability (or viability) of any character whether 2 hit points or not.

So while your answer makes some sense, I don't think it's grounded in reality. Further, if your answer does make sense, then it becomes a table rule of some sort the simplest and least time wasting version of which will be something like "max hit points at first level".

Anyway, I'm not really a modern gamer. I'm an "old man" (at least compared to the soccer team I coach or my kids). I've got a grognard membership badge.

This is one example of me being nostalgic: https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?580811-Revised-and-rebalanced-dragons-for-1e-AD-amp-D.

But consider both how nostalgic that post is and at the same time how many sacred cows it is willing to BBQ if the drawbacks outweighed the value of the tradition.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Will they really? We're on like page 9 and you are the first person on the OSR side to suggest that. The first half-dozen all suggested that playing with low hit points where one hit will kill you was the source of the fun, and in some way or the other tacitly endorsed character funnels and the ultimate playability (or viability) of any character whether 2 hit points or not.

So while your answer makes some sense, I don't think it's grounded in reality. Further, if your answer does make sense, then it becomes a table rule of some sort the simplest and least time wasting version of which will be something like "max hit points at first level".
Or, the also not-uncommon "start at 3rd level".

Note that "a half-dozen people before you suggested X" does not actually mean that those half-dozen are representative. Using posts here for that is like using self-selected poll data - it does not represent what portion of people actually feel that way, as much as how strongly this small number of people feel about the point.
 

Advertisement

Top