D&D 5E What I Miss From 1st Ed

[Zardnaar]

Martial classes. Consider the PHB.

Bard (sort of good luck qualifying)

Assassin
Cleric
Druid
Illusionist
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Thief
Wizard

Unearthed Arcana added 3 more classes.
Barbarian
Cavalier
Thief-Acrobat

There was only 1 primary caster the wizard, Cleric and Druids were weaker and arcane magic was usally stronger as well. The Ranger and Paladin were mostly martial as well with only a handful opf spells coming in late being very few and very low level. 14 classes and only 5 of them were spellcasters for the most part and being a Bard was kind of erm hard. Now BArds are going to be a primary caster and Rangers and Paladins have a spell pattern similar to the Bard from 2nd and 3rd ed and are in effect secondary casters. Bard, Cleric, Druid Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard as primary (lvl 9) spell casters. Yay. I suspect it is to get powers back into the game under a neo vancian disguise.

Since everything else is different ass well no wepaon specialization for fighters, no real vancian spells for the spell casters, no increasing numbers for the classes like attacks, saves etc at what point can you claim with a straight face it is the same game? Every class is only remotely based on what came before. All classes have the same attack rolls, bonuses to skills and now spell pattern it seems and they all level up at the same time and alignment doesn't matter. Seems to be a 4.5 design theory to me. 3rd ed was kind of a crazy powerful broken version of D&D but alignment mattered, the classes were very similar to what came before, and they addded skills and feats to the game which kind of turned up in late 2nd ed anyway. Turning THACO into BAB was no big deal and ascending ACs was a good idea. Relaxing some of the AD&D restrictions was also a good move along with no level limits.

D&DN the grand homogenization 2.0 but everything from pre 2008 is badwrongfun? The resource management from previous editions has also been minimized with roughly double you hit points via hit dice and scaling at will spells. It has D&D written on the cover though so that makes it alright? Its not really even the same game anymore.

 

[Ichneumon]

I miss High Gygaxian. Books these days just don't have enough of it.

 

[Mistwell]

D&DN the grand homogenization 2.0 but everything from pre 2008 is badwrongfun? The resource management from previous editions has also been minimized with roughly double you hit points via hit dice and scaling at will spells. It has D&D written on the cover though so that makes it alright? Its not really even the same game anymore.

The most common argument characterizing D&DN is that it's a throw-back to TSR-era games.

That you see it as so much the opposite tells me it's just not going to be the game for you.

 

[Zardnaar]

The most common argument characterizing D&DN is that it's a throw-back to TSR-era games.

That you see it as so much the opposite tells me it's just not going to be the game for you.

I have been playing OSR games and D&DN is a pure d20 game through and through. With weak monsters though combat doies flow faster than 3rd and 4th ed games so maybe that is why.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Um...

Black text on a black background...

 

[Zardnaar]

Um...

Black text on a black background...

Hopefully fixed. Forgot IDK why ENworld is the only forums anywhere that copy and pasting is an issue.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, the 4e influences on Next are few and far between, if you ask me. Spellcasting - like Paladins, Rangers, etc. - bears little resemblance to 4e powers, being primarily Daily resources and Arcana Evolved-style for casting. (What's more, keep in mind that Fighters and Rogues don't have casting, so it's hard to see it as some kind of stealth attempt to merge 4e-style powers with the game.)

For specialization, remember that 4e Fighters were more specialized than Next's Fighters by far, so I'm not seeing that either...

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, the 4e influences on Next are few and far between, if you ask me. Spellcasting - like Paladins, Rangers, etc. - bears little resemblance to 4e powers, being primarily Daily resources and Arcana Evolved-style for casting. (What's more, keep in mind that Fighters and Rogues don't have casting, so it's hard to see it as some kind of stealth attempt to merge 4e-style powers with the game.)

For specialization, remember that 4e Fighters were more specialized than Next's Fighters by far, so I'm not seeing that either...

It is also other things like trying to get damage in a range similar to the 4E role structure and things like everyclass having the same attack numbers a'la 4th ed. It is a bit more like 4E essentials I suppose. At least IMHO. In any even it is not like traditional D&D and by traditional I mean pre 4th ed.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It is also other things like trying to get damage in a range similar to the 4E role structure

The role structure has always existed in D&D. 4e was just the first time it actually listed it.

At least IMHO. In any even it is not like traditional D&D and by traditional I mean pre 4th ed.

So it's not YOUR definition of traditional then, which is a pretty meaningless way of putting it. Ask a group of 10 people what's traditional for D&D and you'll get about 14 different answers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If that grand list is all the things you miss about 1st edition... then why not do the crazy idea of you know... actually playing 1st edition?

If you already still are playing 1st edition, then what are you complaining about? You're getting exactly what you want already.

And if you aren't currently playing 1st edition... find some people to play it with you. And if you can't find people willing to play 1st edition with you... why would you want 5E to play and look like it? Cause you wouldn't find anyone willing to play 5E with you then either.