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

[Oofta]

I understand that, it was expounded to me over and over again when I first joined here. Some of the changes I wanted to make wouldn't have worked probably, as other pointed out nicely (thank you btw), but so far I have not seen most of my groups proposed changes breaking anything in the game or knocking it out of whack.

And what is a thorough understanding? When is that reached? People still debate some ways the rules are "meant" to work. A good part of it is up to interpretation by the DM and players. And if someone wants to make changes from the beginning, there is nothing wrong with it. If it doesn't work out, change it again or try RAW and see if the group is happy with that.

While simplifying D&D is nice, too much begins to suspend a reality aspect that many people (myself included) enjoy. Sure, I want fantasy, too, but I want something based realism as well. To each their own.

One person's "realism" is another person's head scratcher. See the thread on weapon weights as an example.

So for the suggestions you've made, I'd just caution on a couple of things. First, D&D isn't particularly realistic because there has to be a great deal of simplification for the game to work.

Second, be consistent. For example, if paper is cheap and there's a morning newspaper (or wanted posters, flyers handed out on the corner, etc) I'd really question strict literacy rules. That's really campaign specific, but I always thought it was odd when some campaigns have print/paper everywhere and only a few people can read. At the very least, I'd tie literacy to classes and backgrounds as mentioned.

Third, personally I don't think it's particularly realistic for a higher level fighter to be fumbling consistently. I had a DM long ago that did that ... it was annoying and one of the reasons I left the game. I take the view that a high level fighter may actually be feinting/parrying/swinging less often than a low level fighter. They're just more effective at it and have a better chance of landing a wounding blow.

Last, but not least, I'd still suggest running for a bit with standard rules even if it's just a one-off fight or ten so you and your group get a better feel for the game. It's your game and I know I have some minor tweaks, but I started with generic rules first.

Good luck, have fun, discuss rules changes with your group.

 

[Satyrn]

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?

Neither

I think of Xena and Iolus. Heroes.

 

[lluewhyn]

Third, personally I don't think it's particularly realistic for a higher level fighter to be fumbling consistently. I had a DM long ago that did that ... it was annoying and one of the reasons I left the game. I take the view that a high level fighter may actually be feinting/parrying/swinging less often than a low level fighter. They're just more effective at it and have a better chance of landing a wounding blow.

We have fumbles in our game, but it's kind of a 3E style where you have to "confirm" a fumble, which is rolling again and missing the target, otherwise it's just a plain miss. Therefore, someone fighting a zombie, or a high-level Fighter attacking most things isn't likely to fumble unless they roll two 1s in a row, which puts it on a more realistic statistical level (at least 1-in-400 Olympic competitors is going to perform some kind of flop in a competition.

If the fumble confirm roll gets a Nat 20, then it's a recovery, and the player can attempt to attack again. Not sure if we've ever had a routine where a character kept fumbling, recovering, and fumbling again, etc., but the laughter from everyone and memory would be worth the hit to the combat pacing for that one night I'm sure.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Second, be consistent. For example, if paper is cheap and there's a morning newspaper (or wanted posters, flyers handed out on the corner, etc) I'd really question strict literacy rules. That's really campaign specific, but I always thought it was odd when some campaigns have print/paper everywhere and only a few people can read. At the very least, I'd tie literacy to classes and backgrounds as mentioned.

One thing that's interesting historically is that it's really hard to tell how literate commoners were because, well, they don't write about it much, so there's not much to reference. Also while today you tend to either be fully literate or never learned to read at all, and 'functional' literacy requires being able to read and comprehend a newspaper article, it appears that what counted as functional literacy was significantly lower at various points in history. It wouldn't be uncommon for a person to be unable to write more than their, and be unable to read an entire letter or book, but could read things like street signs, grave stones, and posters, and could figure out who a letter was addressed to even if reading the whole thing was a bit much. (And yes, multiple daily newspapers but most people unable to read is a bit... odd).

Personally, I wouldn't bother restricting PC literacy unless I was running a very specific campaign setting. If a PC wants to play an illiterate barbarian or back country witch they can chose to, but I'd have the PCs above average enough by default to just assume they can read and write. Most people in the world might not know how to read, but the PCs are already exceptional in combat, so they can be exceptional in literacy without it being a big deal. The players are so used to writing notes and reading information that I think that including illiteracy for the PCs is either going to be a drag on the game or so little used that you may as well skip it.

 

[Satyrn]

Personally, I wouldn't bother restricting PC literacy unless I was running a very specific campaign setting. If a PC wants to play an illiterate barbarian or back country witch they can chose to

I once played a dumb half orc who may or may not have been illiterate. I never figured out which because I played up how he refused to even look at words.

 

[Salamandyr]

Great idea! (and I like 2e's initiative rules)--by which I mean, making 5e a bit more old school; not upgrading from 2e.

I think one of the best things you can do is cut monster hit points by about a third...which should have the effect of speeding things up and alleviating the issue with having fewer encounter abilities due to the slower rest rules.

It'll make the math work a bit better too.

 

[Oofta]

We have fumbles in our game, but it's kind of a 3E style where you have to "confirm" a fumble, which is rolling again and missing the target, otherwise it's just a plain miss. Therefore, someone fighting a zombie, or a high-level Fighter attacking most things isn't likely to fumble unless they roll two 1s in a row, which puts it on a more realistic statistical level (at least 1-in-400 Olympic competitors is going to perform some kind of flop in a competition.

If the fumble confirm roll gets a Nat 20, then it's a recovery, and the player can attempt to attack again. Not sure if we've ever had a routine where a character kept fumbling, recovering, and fumbling again, etc., but the laughter from everyone and memory would be worth the hit to the combat pacing for that one night I'm sure.

That sounds like an interesting compromise. I tried something similar once ... but for me I fond it just slowed the game down more than it's worth. I also used to do crits in a similar fashion, if you roll a 20 roll again to add damage. Roll a second 20? Roll again! It does make combats slightly more swingy though.

So while I don't bother any more this is a good variation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Personally, I wouldn't bother restricting PC literacy unless I was running a very specific campaign setting. If a PC wants to play an illiterate barbarian or back country witch they can chose to, but I'd have the PCs above average enough by default to just assume they can read and write.

It might also make sense to have it as a Tool proficiency, so that anyone can learn if they put in a little work, but it's not generally assumed that everyone in the world can do it.

 

[Satyrn]

It might also make sense to have it as a Tool proficiency, so that anyone can learn if they put in a little work, but it's not generally assumed that everyone in the world can do it.

I started suggesting the same thing right near the start of the thread, then halfway through my post I remembered that language proficiency is its own rule, too. It seems straightforwarder to have literacy a language instead of a tool.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

As one poster suggested elsewhere, play up to level 5. That should provide a very grounded, practical understanding of how things work that no amount of reading the rules can.

I recall this as well, and I don't remember who suggested it either LOL. But, that was the consensus for my group. They are all level 4 now, and by the time they finish the adventure they will be 5th. That was the point we all agreed to review and revise the file I have been building regarding house-rules.

But, that being said, a few changes I've ruled (as DM) from the beginning, such as Dragonborn having a Speed of 25 and not 30. My take is I want them a bit slower moving in my world. The player was fine with it. Everyone is happy!

We have fumbles in our game, but it's kind of a 3E style where you have to "confirm" a fumble, which is rolling again and missing the target, otherwise it's just a plain miss. Therefore, someone fighting a zombie, or a high-level Fighter attacking most things isn't likely to fumble unless they roll two 1s in a row, which puts it on a more realistic statistical level (at least 1-in-400 Olympic competitors is going to perform some kind of flop in a competition.

We use a similar system. A natural 1 requires a Dex check (or weapon dropped), but this is always assumed to be a proficent check (so higher level characters are less likely to fail). If that fails, a second check is required, with failure on the second check meaning the character falls prone. Since natural 1's aren't that common, it isn't all the time and doesn't really slow things down much.

On crits, we use the double dice RAW for now, but in the past I changed it to max damage (so no roll needed). I don't know if I will bother changing it in the future as double dice works fine.

As to the OP, if you make a Table, I would suggest having the roll adjusted by level, decreasing the likelihood of serious fumbles, etc. as level increases.