Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions

[Lanefan]

Yeah, but to me the analogy does not seem apt. A common view is that an "attack" is the one swing out of many (or at least several) during a round that has a chance to connect.

In older editions where a round was a minute this was absolutely true (and by extension the fumble could have happened in the fiction on any one of those non-rolled swings, but is reflected by the poor roll on the die for the "real" swing). In the newer editions, however, where a round is only a few seconds there's probably not that many "extra" swings that aren't being rolled for.

By extension, I think of "extra attack" as having two of your swings have a chance to connect - not making more swings. So then a constant chance of fumble per attack looks like "you have a greater chance to fumble because out of the same number of swings, more of them were good". Doesn't seem right.

I see what you're saying, though I don't entirely agree with it.

I see it more as the multi-attack fighter is just moving that much faster - cramming what would once have been two rounds worth of attacking into one round. In other words, there's just as many "extra" or non-rolled swings per rolled swing, they just all happen faster in clock time due to experience and training.

I suppose one might conceive that the fumble becomes possible only when the swing is strong and committed enough to constitute an attack, but honestly at that point it sounds a bit like one is just reaching for any fiction that will justify nat 1s being fumbles.

In case it matters, the system I use is that on a nat. 1 (or any attack where penalties bring the roll to or below a 1) you roll a d6, and only on a 1 on that do you fumble. Otherwise on a nat. 1 you miss and a modified 1 or less is treated as a normal attack and can with enough bonuses, sometimes, still hit.

And there's loads of possible outcomes on a fumble. The most common is minor (i.e. unmodified d4) damage to self or ally. Damage (or potential damage) to weapon is another common one. Lowering your guard by mistake such that your opponent gets a free attack (much like an AoO) is another. Less common are dropping or throwing your weapon, or more significant damage to self or ally, or losing your footing (though this one's situation and terrain-dependent), or damage to your shield or armour. Rare outcomes include critical damage to self or ally, or a combination of lesser effects.

I also use 30-second rounds, which makes fumbles easier to narrate.

Something else to keep in mind is that all the stats that are being applied to fumbles also apply to criticals.

*At my table, combat is kind of slow because I have seven players, some of whom are sometimes indecisive, but those are different issues. And then there was the time that I gave them 2 NPC allies and a fight against 7 NPC opponents, all with class-like abilities. Yeah, I won't do that again very soon.

It doesn't matter what edition you're playing, the most complicated combats to run are always when it's an NPC full-scale adventuring party against the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Critical fumble systems are almost always worse that you expect. An explicitly punish fighters.

I wonder if you're making an assumption here, that fumbles only apply to melee attacks and not to missile fire or under-duress spell aiming.

Because if so, think again.

Also, IME it's not just the fighters who wade into melee.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wonder if you're making an assumption here, that fumbles only apply to melee attacks and not to missile fire or under-duress spell aiming.

Because if so, think again.

Also, IME it's not just the fighters who wade into melee.

The point is, fighters roll the dice more times, and therefore have a higher chance of getting a 1.

I would suggest that if you want to use critical failure, have it only apply on the first attack roll made in a round.

 

[Satyrn]

The point is, fighters roll the dice more times, and therefore have a higher chance of getting a 1.

I would suggest that if you want to use critical failure, have it only apply on the first attack roll made in a round.

So, fighters and warlocks are getting punished most.

 

[Mort]

I wonder if you're making an assumption here, that fumbles only apply to melee attacks and not to missile fire or under-duress spell aiming.

Because if so, think again.

Also, IME it's not just the fighters who wade into melee.

Missile fire - sure, but that's still mostly fighters and other melee types.

Spell fire - yes, but spellcasters tend to have plenty of other options -if the fumble system is harsh, a spell caster can resort to any number of other spells, fighters can't they can either attack with a roll or attack with a roll.

While other classes wade into melee - it's explicitly the martial characters role to do it most often. More importantly, it's their role to take hits away from other characters. Harsh critical hit rules can really out a damper on that!

So fighters (including other martial characters) are double wammied by critical and fumble rules.

 

[Salamandyr]

Absent a more thorough understanding of how you construct encounters, I can't say for sure whether that is a bad (or good) idea. However, if your encounters are more or less in line with DMG guidelines, a level-appropriate band of monsters is already tends toward being weak. (This is a vast generalization, but then so is the quoted suggestion.) If you, say, increase monster DPR (or, equivalently, choose higher CR monsters with your trimmed-down HP) to compensate, then you move toward having glass cannon monsters and swingier encounters. For me, that is a very undesirable effect. YMMV.

Personally, I don't see any speed-of-play issues with combat generically*.

As to ability uses vs. rest rules...the two reasons that I can think of to adopt less generous rest rules are 1) to allow slower pacing, that is, more or less the same number of encounters spread out over a longer fictional time; or 2) to make the game harder by taxing PC resources. If it's (1), then availability of ability uses shouldn't change much, and if it's (2), well, then your suggestion just subverts the entire purpose of adopting the less generous rest rules. (!)

To the OP, I just reiterate for this suggestion what many have said for others - play it RAW for a good while first, then decide on what changes you want to make.

*At my table, combat is kind of slow because I have seven players, some of whom are sometimes indecisive, but those are different issues. And then there was the time that I gave them 2 NPC allies and a fight against 7 NPC opponents, all with class-like abilities. Yeah, I won't do that again very soon.

It's not really about "ease" of encounters...but speed and expected outcome; for instance in a bog standard mid level 5e game, fireball isn't a bad news explosive bomb that ends encounters, and leaves a trail of burned bodies, but a tool to lower the hit point level of an encounter to allow each monster to be taken down by in one or two rounds by the fighters, than 3 or 4 rounds by the fighters. Either way the players are going to win, but we're trying to make 5e more "2nd edition-ish".

And that's the context I'm speaking in; a condition of the OP was slowing down rest and recovery; I like your idea about "slower pace", but ironically, the combat should be ramped up to be short, sharp, and deadly. One could have the same effect by upping the damage, but there are so many variable ways to up damage, it's a lot easier just to lower hit points--accomplishes the same effect.

 

[toucanbuzz]

As suggested, play it first "as-is" then see how you feel it runs! You might find your players don't want some of the fluff that comes with prior editions. I played AD&D 2E for a LONG time, then moved to 3rd and Pathfinder. But out of them all, 5th has the most of what we (not just me!) are looking for. Not all (see summary below), and that only comes with actually playing to see what you like and maybe want more/less of.


But otherwise to your points.

1. Short Rest. Recommend against longer rests. Several classes have unique abilities tied solely to the ability to take a short rest, and you're punishing those who use long-term duration spells by gimping the ability to keep the adventuring day going with a "breather." It's really a vital part of the machinery and works well so you spend more time adventuring than resting (especially horrible if you run into random encounters and find yourself resting rather than chasing the bad guy in a thriller). If you're having a problem with the idea of "regeneration" as healing, try and view hit points as abstract concepts of being able to avoid the fatal blow. It hurts the head otherwise to view hit points as realistic measures of damage. If human beings actually got hit as many times as we do in D&D with blades, arrows, spells and giant clubs the size of trees, they'd be dead. Very few "hits" should be viewed as "body blows." Most are "close calls." Even Magic Missile, which never misses, can be viewed as exploding poofs of force that knocked you around but didn't manage to do real damage...this time.

Also, short rests allow parties to exist that don't have dedicated healers, giving players more freedom to play what they really want to play. By making healing take a week, you'd effectively be forcing someone to play a class that heals. D&D rocks because you really can have a party succeed with no cleric / healer bard / druid caster at all. But, it all boils down to "what do your players want more: micromanaging their sleep, or scouting the hobgoblin infested wilderness / looting ancient ruins / schmoozing royalty, etc.?"

2. Proficiency. The more rules you add, the more rules there are for players to forget. This one is the way it is for simplicity. And, unless you're using optional rules that make weapons distinctly unique for what they can do (see Battle Axe vs. Long Sword, exactly the same), there's not much point or benefit restricting too much. But, can't see it being a gamebreaker. I'd try it first and see how it feels before modifying.

3. Rest of the Weary homebrew I've not played this homebrew and had to look it up. But, I have tried DMG's long rests. Didn't work. See above "what do your players want" comment along with "waiting a week to chase down Count Strahd because we had another random encounter really sucks, and wasn't he going to kill the hostages tomorrow? Well, nothing we can do about it because that random encounter sucked my spells dry and I can't get them back for another week."

4. Critical hits This was a big issue for debate in 3rd edition. As to crits, there are more monsters than players. Monsters are going to roll more attack dice. Monsters are likely going to roll more 20s than players. If you have decapitation rules, stun rules, and so on, players suffer in the long run more than they benefit. As to fumbles, a 20th level fighter with multiple attacks has more odds to "fumble" more than a 1st level fighter. Even the Vorpal Blade now only causes instant death using it on a Natural 20 + another Natural 20. In 3.5 and Pathfinder, characters had to "confirm" hits and fumbles, which led to more dice rolling, slowing down combats, and with more rules, turning what would be a 15 minute battle in D&D to a 2 hour battle. This was one of our top 3 reasons for leaving those editions. Be forewarned!

5. Weapon Speeds I'm totally sympathetic because I've liked the idea of randomization and impact on weapon choice in combat, but weapon speeds do suck, just a realization I've come to after decades. Knowing Player A goes first then Player B second and Troll third is boring, omniscient, and leads to predictable play. But, you're going to face a LOT of problems as Weapon Speed is really about Reach versus weight. See the Halberd comment earlier. Currently, I'm using the DMG optional weapon speed rule that is VERY simplistic, and players are getting it pretty well. It leads them to strategize (since you're casting fireball I'll shoot my longbow rather than charge in) and guess at the battlefield. Two reasons we went this route: (1) do away with predictability and (2) limit analysis paralysis as players on their turn try to figure out the perfect thing to do. Because they've already said what they're doing and had to do so by paying attention to what's going on, they're involved. As it stands now, a player can play on their phone and figure out what to do when their turn rolls around. In summary, I'd try out the way it works now and see if you like it before going the Weapon Speed route.

Remember, the quicker combats go, the more time you have to devote to role-play and the story. I can't stress how important this has been between editions for my players.

6. Racial Language Go for it. Anything that makes for a better story should be encouraged!

7. Reading and Writing It sucks to be the only person who can't read, so they just did away with this. Go Barbarians! The simpler way to view might be that if you deem something needs to be written "well" or there's a fairly complex tome to read and comprehend (e.g. a math book that has the solution to a deadly puzzle), you can simply require an "intelligence" check to succeed. Otherwise, see #6.

8. Magic System I'd try it first before barring anyone from getting spells. I know they've done away with "evil" spells so anyone can use Animate Dead, and you can if you want bring it all back. You can bludgeon your enemy to death, burn them with radiant fire, and freeze them so another can slit their throat, but don't cast a spell that animates objects like bones. I'm being a bit facetious but that's really the counter to it all. As for wizards, it's going to suck if they can't take advantage of their classes +2 spells per level, but maybe you could require them to roleplay their study and observation of spells they want to take as they're adventuring. Wizard plans on getting Teleport so he describes from time to time meditating and envisioning his body drifting a few inches forward...and he makes it work, then takes notes as to words of magic he knows that worked and didn't work, and so on.

Summary: D&D 5th plays a LOT better than prior editions. There's a few nostalgic things I miss like having more complex weapons and more complex monsters, and I've fixed those with some DM-vetted material on the DM Guild site. But I only knew what I missed and didn't miss by playing for awhile. The STARTER BOX adventure rocks, and if you haven't already, I'd give that a run, as-is, no homebrew, then gradually decide what does and doesn't work.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Also, short rests allow parties to exist that don't have dedicated healers, giving players more freedom to play what they really want to play. By making healing take a week, you'd effectively be forcing someone to play a class that heals.

When I played 2E, we never had a healer, and we were just fine. If you got in one combat over here, and it takes a week of travel before you have another combat, then you were mostly fine by the time you got there. You only need a healer if you absolutely must face several dangerous encounters in the same day, which the variant rule pre-supposes is not happening.

wasn't he going to kill the hostages tomorrow? Well, nothing we can do about it because that random encounter sucked my spells dry and I can't get them back for another week."

Encounters don't "suck your spells dry", as you put it. Encounters provide opportunities for you to manage your resources, in such a way that you don't end up empty when you need them. If you know that Strahd is going to sacrifice the hostages tomorrow, and you choose to cast your vampire-killing spell before you find him, then you only have yourself to blame. And even if you have squandered your resources foolishly, what kind of hero would you be if you didn't try to stop him anyway? It might actually be a tough fight with an uncertain outcome, rather than a landslide victory for the party, but that's a more interesting outcome anyway.

One of the real, serious flaws of 5E is how ludicrously powerful a party can be when it's well-rested. A well-rested party, at level 10, can beat a level 20 encounter without anyone dying. It's difficult to really challenge a party, until you've worn down their free healing and spell slots, so anything that increases the attrition rate is a huge help toward keeping things interesting.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Adding content*

 

[S'mon]

I made a bunch of changes when I started with 5e.

I eventually realised that those changes were not the actual changes I needed to suit my game.

So, try running it RAW first, as a playtest. THEN start bringing in changes, one at a time.