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

[TheCosmicKid]

What do people think of when they think of the Fighter class in D&D? Do you think of a normal army soldier or do they think of someone like a Knight?

Yes.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I never think of a Fighter as a Knight. I grew up on 1E with Paladins and Cavaliers. Those are the Knights to me. Of course, I despise the idea of Paladins having any other alignment than Lawful Good (yeah, I know, old fashion... ). I get it in 5E a Paladin is based on conviction (i.e. Charisma), and can follow any path towards furthering "the cause". I will never like it, but if a player wants to go that route, I won't stop them--it is their game, too.

Well, in 1E, both paladins and cavaliers were fighter subclasses, and in 5E, the cavalier still is, so...

 

[Ratskinner]

7. Reading and writing will be an intelligence skill and can be chosen by any class or race instead of one being given
I will also be changing the magic system to be more like 2e with the spheres as to me it doesn't make sense that a cleric of life would be able to raise any undead.

Changing the rest mechanics is suggested in the DMG. Just be aware of the pacing, especially if you're using published 5e adventures.

I'm not sure about #7, though. If you want literacy separate, I would give the character's two points/language. You can buy speech in a language for one point, and if you want, literacy in that language for a second point. Optionally, you could have dead or exotic languages be available for literate purcase. ("Sure I can read abyssal, but I don't know how to pronounce any of it.") This is mostly because I'm not sure what an Intelligence(Literacy) would be for in-game.

Otherwise, I don't think any of your changes are terribly problematic, if you think the extra bookkeeping is worth the result.

Good gaming!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Making literacy costly can be a flavorful campaign-specific rule. If you do it, though, I would make sure to give wizards, bards, and perhaps clerics literacy as a bonus proficiency. It's not optional for wizards; the class literally doesn't work if you can't read. For the other two it's more just a matter of in-universe plausibility.

The other, more practical cautionary note I might make about having illiterate player characters is that it can be a challenge to run consistently. Literacy is so much second nature to us 21st-Century nerds that, in my experience, players and DMs (myself included) often simply forget that a character can't read.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My interpretation will differ from many, I am sure. I equate Level to Experience. A Level One Anything is just starting out IMO. Now, a Fighter 1 might have been an army soldier and that is where he received his training (the good ol' 0-Level men-at-arms from 1E) until making the "mystic" leap into the realm of Player Character. At this point he might be a soldier of fortune, a mercenary, etc. and that is all about background to present story.

I never think of a Fighter as a Knight. I grew up on 1E with Paladins and Cavaliers. Those are the Knights to me. Of course, I despise the idea of Paladins having any other alignment than Lawful Good (yeah, I know, old fashion... ). I get it in 5E a Paladin is based on conviction (i.e. Charisma), and can follow any path towards furthering "the cause". I will never like it, but if a player wants to go that route, I won't stop them--it is their game, too.

Anyway, long answer short: a mercenary or such is the Fighter to me.

Do you intend to avoid the typical D&D pseudo-medieval setting then? If not, it might help to learn some history.


In medieval England (male) peasants where required, by law, to train with weapons, as they could be drafted into the army at any time. This would have begun at around 9 years old.

The knights of the period where mostly far from good, and didn't, on the whole, have divine powers.



As for 5e, Cavalier and Purple Dragon Knight are subclasses of fighter. However, the intention in 5e is that the Background feature determines if a fighter is a noble knight, professional soldier or farm boy.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Well, in 1E, both paladins and cavaliers were fighter subclasses, and in 5E, the cavalier still is, so...

Actually, Cavalier was it's own class, on par with Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, and Monk. Paladin became a subclass of Cavalier, allowing Barbarian to become the second sub-class of Fighter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am certain someone has mentioned this by now, but some of the things you want to accomplish are already available in the DMG as adventuring and combat options:
1. Gritty Realism (DMG p. 267), Healer's Kit Dependency (p. 266), and Slow Natural Healing (p. 267)
4. Lingering Injuries (p. 272) sort of covers this.
5. Initiative Modifiers (p. 271)

2. Works fine. It is a bit more bookkeeping, but nothing major.
3. No idea what this is--sorry.
6. Sure, why not.
7. Hmm... the number of skills most characters get is pretty limited, so I would advise against your idea here. But, you do have a valid point, too, because in many stations of medieval life, reading and writing was NOT common at all. If that is the flavor for your game, I don't think using your idea would break anything.

Any changes to the magic system might change the nature of the system in your game. Doesn't mean it won't work, but I'd give it a lot of thought.

As for arcane spells, I agree a lot with you on this one. I remember in 1E the "Change to Know Each Listed Spell" was the same as your chance to learn a spell. A simple way to implement this in 5E would make the chance 5% per point of Intelligence (alternatively Charisma for Sorcerers and Warlocks). So, an Int 14 would have a 70% to know of a spell, and you could even use the same number for the chance to learn it, maybe allowing additional attempts with each new level.

Finally, many posts will say "Don't change it! Play it first. You'll learn to love it. Blah blah blah." And you know what, they are right in their way. 5E, played completely RAW, works fine. That doesn't mean, however, it works as YOU want to play it. So, change what you want. If you find out later on a change was a bad idea, go RAW or come up with something else. I personally love house-rules and I will have several of them before it is over. Remember...

Make it yours and your players game so you have as much fun as possible!

Note: Mr. Grover has also just started playing 5e. His experience is limited, and he's recieved the same advice as the OP, to limited apparent success.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Note: Mr. Grover has also just started playing 5e. His experience is limited, and he's recieved the same advice as the OP, to limited apparent success.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Do you intend to avoid the typical D&D pseudo-medieval setting then? If not, it might help to learn some history.

In medieval England (male) peasants where required, by law, to train with weapons, as they could be drafted into the army at any time. This would have begun at around 9 years old.

I am exactly talking about the typical D&D pseudo-medieval setting. Most people couldn't read and write, including upper classes, which was why scribes actually had work to do.

As to whether or not peasants trained depends incredibly on where you are talking about and the time period (and I don't recall mentioning anything about peasants NOT getting weapons... but anyway). Also, sources differ greatly on to the amount and type of training. Weapons would have been most commonly spears and such, as swords were at a cost well beyond what most peasant could afford, and in many regions the laws didn't permit them to own most weapons.

The knights of the period where mostly far from good, and didn't, on the whole, have divine powers.

No, many were not good at all, but the "Paladin" in 1E was, in both cases of being good and having divine powers. As a paragon, based on the Lancelot figure and later Galahad. Since I grew up on 1E, the thought of a Paladin being anything but good is not to my tastes.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Note: Mr. Grover has also just started playing 5e. His experience is limited, and he's recieved the same advice as the OP, to limited apparent success.

Ah, I suspected someone would chime in on my response LOL. While true, that hardly means my advise is less valuable than others. While my 5E is limited, my general gaming (beyond D&D) in vast.

As I said in my post, playing RAW is perfectly fine (and we have been doing so for several sessions now), but the best part of these games is you can make them your own and house-rule as you see fit, especially if your players agree with you.

So, to repeat myself to the OP, make it your own and have as much fun as possible.