D&D General Stuff 5E Did Right

[Oofta]

It worked just fine in B/X and BECMI, and those are D&D too. Even 1e, 2e and 3e did better with it then 4/5e. "D&D" may or may not only refer to the official game, but it certainly refers to more than just the current official edition. The point is, 4e and 5e straight-up removed game options that used to be present, resulting in an experience that is, to me, less rich.

Did it? Because I don't remember anything other than "you get followers". Okay ... so you got followers. So what? What do I do with them?

I don't care if they removed features that didn't really work and we never used anyway. Let it go the way of the Dodo bird like weapon speed and doing different damage based on the size of the target. Good riddance.

Meanwhile not including them frees up space for 3PP to design something that you actually do like. Seems like you're ultimately getting what you want, I don't understand the complaint.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did it? Because I don't remember anything other than "you get followers". Okay ... so you got followers. So what? What do I do with them?

I don't care if they removed features that didn't really work and we never used anyway. Let it go the way of the Dodo bird like weapon speed and doing different damage based on the size of the target. Good riddance.

Meanwhile not including them frees up space for 3PP to design something that you actually do like. Seems like you're ultimately getting what you want, I don't understand the complaint.

Features that didn't really work for you and that you never used. I liked and still like those features and the concept behind them, and would rather they were iterated upon than removed. And my opinion on the matter is no less valid than yours (and you don't see me calling for the removal of game features, or praising said removal when it occurs). Providing rules for as many aspects of the imaginary world as possible is, IMO, a very good thing.

My objection is to your claim that they were never part of D&D. In reality, you just didn't like them.

 

[hoffrg86]

2e saw it cut back & ultimately 3rd was the removal of mercenaries, hirelings, strongholds and domain play. 2e players, that wanted/used more likely had the 1e books anyway - 1e and 2e had some overlap in shelf space, I have 1e & 2e dmg's.. 1e is far superior in that content. 2e added Domain play back with Red Steel, and the Rules Cyclopedia(BECMI), we again used all that. I have a party that I said, we will use 1e/RC hireling, mercenary and domain rules.. crickets /its there if they want. 2e started the age of heros, and that continued into 5th, who needs a merc to take money and glory, a stronghold to rule while there is foes to crush?!

I guess someone wanted the strongholds, because Matt C. put out a 3rd party book, some in the OSR herald, and 3rd had some stuff, then most seasoned dm's would pull the old stuff off the shelves - like myself.

--I've played all incarnations of D&D, except 2024, and currently in active ad&d 2e and OSE - B/X games.

To pull it back into what 5e did right.. the system [5th] in that regards is loose enough that these diaspora of editions/rules could be pulled in easy if the dm is inclined... made better sense in a supplement, and more the better that Matt C got it right, as WOTC has been souring me lately.

 

[Oofta]

Features that didn't really work for you and that you never used. I liked and still like those features and the concept behind them, and would rather they were iterated upon than removed. And my opinion on the matter is no less valid than yours (and you don't see me calling for the removal of game features, or praising said removal when it occurs). Providing rules for as many aspects of the imaginary world as possible is, IMO, a very good thing.

My objection is to your claim that they were never part of D&D. In reality, you just didn't like them.

There just wasn't much to it from what I remember*, not that they weren't there at all. I don't have an issue with them dropping things people don't use and they likely have more info on that than either one of use. For example mass combat rules have popped up in UA more than once but we never got anything.

My only real point, other than that I don't remember there ever being a particularly robust system, is that you stated above that you like Level Up's rules for this kind of stuff. You have what you want and had a choice between that and Matt Colville's version and likely several others I don't know about. If WotC had published rules that you didn't care for it's less likely you'd have rules you do like. So I don't see what the issue is, you have what you want it just isn't published by WotC.

*Then again there were a bazillion supplements, but all I recall was one that had costs for building a keep ... and then nothing to do with it.

 

[Voadam]

It worked just fine in B/X and BECMI, and those are D&D too. Even 1e, 2e and 3e did better with it then 4/5e. "D&D" may or may not only refer to the official game, but it certainly refers to more than just the current official edition. The point is, 4e and 5e straight-up removed game options that used to be present, resulting in an experience that is, to me, less rich.

BECMI had it as core with developed rules at the companion set and had modules in the c series that used them.

There was also some optional subsystems about trade in some of the BECMI Gaz series.

BX had none.

I do not recall seeing stuff in the OD&D pdfs I picked up.

There were the occasional 2e supplements with some optional subsystems like trade stuff in Dark Sun Dune Trader.

I played a PC who became a high level merchant prince in a long time political AD&D campaign up to level 20 and it was a blast but it used none of the follower or stronghold rules.

 

[Quickleaf]

If we’re focusing the conversation on talking about the rules text (eg. as opposed to marketing via live plays), I think the 5e rules’ one - and possibly only strength - is how it synthesizes pieces from older systems. Advantage/Disadvantage and a modified version of Healing Surges are straight out of 4e. Concentration, albeit modified, from 3e. Monsters are an amalgamation of their versions across editions. The effect is sort of “prismatic” for gamers from past editions in that if you blur your eyes, you’ll see aspects from your edition of choice echoed in 5e.

 

[GrimCo]

3e feat leadership was of marginal use. People mostly used it to get free heal bot follower one level lower than party, cause you get permanent cumulative penalty to your leadership score for every cohort that gets killed. Followers were even worse, you got 5-6 lv npc-s who would get killed easy, which in turn, again, lowers your leadership score. In my experience, Leadership was one of those feats that sounded great on paper, but wasn't worth it in game. Strongholds were not in the core books, but in one of many splatbooks.

In 2ed, you get stronghold at level 9. Also, you need to have darn good luck for your character to survive up to that level. Prior to 3ed, characters died like flies in first few levels. So much so, that it wasn't worth investing time to naming and creating backstory for your wizard or thief until they reached at least 3-4 level. Also, if my memory serves me, it was presumed that you would at that point retire your character from active adventuring ( haven't played 2ed in over a decade).

Essentially, for almost half of games existence, stronghold and domain management wasn't even covered in core game. Prior to that, it was covered marginally and never really intended as main focus of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3e feat leadership was of marginal use. People mostly used it to get free heal bot follower one level lower than party, cause you get permanent cumulative penalty to your leadership score for every cohort that gets killed. Followers were even worse, you got 5-6 lv npc-s who would get killed easy, which in turn, again, lowers your leadership score. In my experience, Leadership was one of those feats that sounded great on paper, but wasn't worth it in game. Strongholds were not in the core books, but in one of many splatbooks.

In 2ed, you get stronghold at level 9. Also, you need to have darn good luck for your character to survive up to that level. Prior to 3ed, characters died like flies in first few levels. So much so, that it wasn't worth investing time to naming and creating backstory for your wizard or thief until they reached at least 3-4 level. Also, if my memory serves me, it was presumed that you would at that point retire your character from active adventuring ( haven't played 2ed in over a decade).

Essentially, for almost half of games existence, stronghold and domain management wasn't even covered in core game. Prior to that, it was covered marginally and never really intended as main focus of the game.

My point was never that it was the main focus. Just that it was there to some degree, so claiming otherwise is an error. This is a question of fact, not preference.

 

[Oofta]

My point was never that it was the main focus. Just that it was there to some degree, so claiming otherwise is an error. This is a question of fact, not preference.

Has anyone said it hasn't been part of the rules at one time or another? I said they were minimal and that there wasn't really much to do with them. I also admit that maybe there was something out there, it was hard to keep up with everything TSR published.

Saying "you get followers" or "you get a keep" or a supplement that says "here's how much it takes to build a castle and what staff you might need" doesn't really add much to the game for a lot of people. Nor, in my experience, did many people care.

 

[Oofta]

No matter what D&D did or did not have in the past, we do know that the new version of the DMG is going to have a bastion system. A way for players to build some sort of home base they can come back to. Not sure how it's actually going to be implemented though, we'll have to wait for November.