| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1arnwolf666Mar 29, 2015 15:03:40 | I been having discussions about 1E/2E rules for firing into melee on another thread. It's a very unpopular rule with the new generation of players, but one my group likes very much. Are there any other players of older editions (pre 3.x) that really like 5E, but really like a rule or feature of a previous edition. If so, what is a rule or feature you like that you have ported over.
Another of mine is the clash. I do group initiative (you can class with individual initiative too). If you have the same initiative as your opponent, you both attack at the same time and can possibly kill each other. Even if you do enough damage to drop your opponent he still makes his attack because the actions happened simultaneously.
I would love to know rules that people liked from other editions. Preferably pre3.x. |
| #2Ath-kethinMar 29, 2015 15:41:09 | I have said this several times before: I detest the 3.x style dip-and-dump multiclassing rules. I haven't really had time (full time job, full time student, 16 month old kid) to formulate a 5e port of the 2nd edition rules, but I would love to see a good one. |
| #3arnwolf666Mar 29, 2015 15:43:24 | No multiclassing is a rule I use even when I play straight 5E. Multiclass is technicially optional in 5E. Though I think it is allowed in Adventure League. Pick your theme and go with it. I see most (not all) multiclassing as just level dips for features to make some kind of power build. |
| #4IllithidbixMar 29, 2015 16:56:14 | Morale.
Although more specifically 2E's DMG advice on morale before introducing the actual rules.
|
| (Reply to #4)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #2)DarkSphinx |
|
| #7Macv12Mar 29, 2015 17:37:05 | Flanking for +2 to attack rolls.
(Yeah, sorry, I was super late to the RPG game. No AD&D reminiscing for me...)
Advantge is just way too much when given out like candy, but our group didn't like that you could pretty much waltz all over the field and entangle yourself in a clump of baddies with nearly no consequences. When I was playing a rogue, I was bored by how senselessly easy it was to machine-gun d6's at anyone I wanted to, so I chose to be restricted to sneak attacking only when I had advantage, which nearly always came from flanking (though again, only +2 in that case). |
| #8BRJNMar 29, 2015 17:37:19 | I like Pathfinder's "Investment" rules - how to turn spare cash into part-ownership of a business that somebody else runs - because they are quick and easy. 3.x Power of Faerun has a more complex and more expensive system.
My goal, since unlike 4e my characters do not need every red cent to upgrade equipment to the next +1more, is to provide my character a Rich lifestyle without having to spend GP every month; the money is coming back in the form of dividends / share payouts. I also get plot hooks and potential adventures, when the businesses have to roll on the Events Chart to see if anything especially good / bad happens to them.
If you find yourself having to play D&D solo, creating a Patron NPC for your campaign can be a worthwhile way to put in time before the next campaign is ready. (Plus you have a ready-made Patron for the DM to plug into his plans.) |
| #9Tempest_StormwindMar 29, 2015 18:02:45 |
|
| (Reply to #9)arnwolf666 |
|
| #11Tempest_StormwindMar 29, 2015 19:22:48 |
|
| #12EchamilMar 29, 2015 19:33:02 | I've no idea if this is a pre-3.x rule or a houserule, but I ran with a mid-level group a few weeks back. They had a rule about property ownership.
It was more important between quests, (We had just explored the Catacombs of a Lords' Family in search for an ancient Tome that was buried with an ancestor nd were in-between.) We were about level 10 to level 11.
Anyways- One of the Adventures' owned a small roadside Inn. The DM made the Player Draw-up a small Floor map of the inn, figure out the costs of the rooms for a night plus several meals, etc. The DM also gave him a few NPC profiles, to pick out the NPC's to manage and run the Inn.
It was pretty interesting, because it gave a sense of realism within Fantasy. The PC had to manage the Inn between adventures. The DM even made up a Table (1D100), to roll for each day/ week/ month we had between adventures.
I am not sure if that was ever something from a previous edition, but I liked it. So far, of our party, Jilstaag, (our Fighter), owns an Inn and Lifghel (our Wizard) owns a Mage's Tower with his own 2 level dungeon full of local monsters. |
| #13CCSMar 29, 2015 19:56:00 | (Disclaimer: My favorite edition is STILL AD&D 1e. I was, am, & always will be a 1e player/DM - no matter how many other editions I dabble in. 5e is pretty good though....) Things I like from AD&D: weapon speeds/inititive. Different xp charts for different classes. The lack of dex bonus limits based upon armor. The ABC+ treasure % tables. The morale rules. That your alignment actually mattered. That to get +s from a stat that the stat had to be sufficiently high (like 15+). That there are no crit hits in 1e. The age modifiers to stats. Oh, and the random harlots chart in the 1e DMG. |
| #14EchamilMar 29, 2015 20:03:18 | I liked THAC0.
I hear a lot of players who bash THAC0, but it always seemed simpler to me. |
| (Reply to #14)arnwolf666 |
|
| #16AaronOfBarbariaMar 29, 2015 20:37:13 | Can we please refrain from generalizing D&D fans' preferences by their generation?
I might be the only one, but such behavior agitates me to no end. Especially when brought up in a way that creates the implication of teams at opposition with each other (such as "old school" and "new school").
This thread in particular started off with a severe agitation, since I started with AD&D and yet never really liked the firing into melee rules in question... and then their is my wife who absolutely loves that rule and grumbles at me for not including it, yet she is our group's "newbie" and started with more modern games (before an eventual "this is the version of the game that I got started with, I thought you might like to check it out" campaign resulted in her as of yet unyielding declaration of AD&D being her favorite version of the game).
Now, to be not entirely off-topic:
So far the only previous-edition rules that I am looking at bringing into the new edition are a sort of modern redeaux of the Immortal set/Wrath of the Immortals rules, using Epic Boons as the jumping off point (i.e. you do the right things to earn the lowest immortal rank and you get the Boon of Immortality as a result... but I haven't really sorted out exactly where to go from there because I'm not sure exactly what I want the upper limit of PC power levels to be). |
| #17dmgorgonMar 30, 2015 7:48:43 | There certainly are some old school rules I'd like to port over.
1. I like the simplicity of rolling under your stat score for ability checks. No need for a DC, and regardless of level, skill checks are not bloated with modifier porn. 2. Item saving throws 3. Aging - beware of ghosts 4. Unique abilities granted by very high ability scores - High Con score grants regeneration, High wisdom makes you immune to low level illusions, etc 5. Stat bonuses are more granular. You can have a +1 to hit, +2 to damage 6. Spell learning checks
Of course, there are a few 5e rules I'd like to remove
1. Hit Dice 2. All forms of non-magical healing. 3. Shared actions.
|
| #18ChrisTheSMar 30, 2015 8:33:44 | I like 2e's non-weapon proficiencies, in theory - not so keen on it in practice. They're easy enough to port over, just replacing skill/tool proficiencies with whatever NWPs make sense for your species/class/background, and otherwise sticking with the standard rules.
Also, character kits (2e)/themes (4e). Harder to port without either losing the mechanical effects of the originals or adding potentially unbalancing things to a character. |
| #19dmgorgonMar 30, 2015 8:42:37 |
|
| #20strider13xMar 30, 2015 9:28:28 | Been playing D&D for almost 30 years and feel 5e does everything better than any previous edition. Morale and Weapon Speeds are presented in the DMG (morale could be better fleshed out so that CHA has more influence). Flanking is too although I dont use it (assumes the creature being flanked is static). I am more of the storytelling camp than the wargamer camp though... |
| #21arnwolf666Mar 30, 2015 12:21:40 | I have been toying with special abilities that run by rolling equal to or under an ability score. They should be special ablities that are developed out of happerstance or coolness that aren't really something that is taught or trained. I picture a Thief's ability to Use Magic Devices as an intelligence check. It's just something a thief has pieced together, he can do it, wizards don't know how he figured it out, it's not really something he should know how to do. That's just one example. But I can't think of enough skills to do that with. |
| #22DemoMonkeyMar 30, 2015 12:26:39 | I'd like 5E to have some kind of codified Fumble rule, in the same way it has a codified Critical rule. (other than "A 1 always misses')
And I'd love to see an old-school percentile chart for it! |
| #23Tempest_StormwindMar 30, 2015 12:47:41 |
|
| #24arnwolf666Mar 30, 2015 12:46:26 | You could still have difficulty accounted for in old school ability checks. You can tell them to make a check with a -X penalty. Sometimes checks were made at 1/2 your ability score also. |
| (Reply to #11)arnwolf666 |
|
| #26Tempest_StormwindMar 30, 2015 12:53:53 |
|
| #27ChrisTheSMar 30, 2015 13:00:10 | Then there's always the Alternity method (full ability = partial success, half ability = full success, quarter ability = awesome success). |
| #28BRJNMar 30, 2015 14:36:49 | I don't remember the rules that made it work, but one of my first D&D experiences (c1980) was: Our group encountered a statue of Thor. My (borrowed) Thor-worshipping Dwarf made a sign of respect. And got a thrown hammer in the chest for my pains. The next guy up says, "I point at the statue and say, 'I disbelieve in you!' ". POOF - statue disappears.
How did he do that? |
| (Reply to #26)arnwolf666 |
|
| #30Tempest_StormwindMar 30, 2015 15:16:37 |
|
| (Reply to #30)arnwolf666 |
|
| #32Tempest_StormwindMar 30, 2015 16:02:45 |
|
| (Reply to #16)arnwolf666 |
|
| #34Tempest_StormwindMar 30, 2015 16:14:24 |
|
| (Reply to #34)arnwolf666 |
|
| #36arnwolf666Mar 30, 2015 16:30:26 | Another thing that simulates 2E saves would be making all classes proficient in all saves. For monster I would do it on a case by case basis, or give important monsters classes too. |
| #37dmgorgonMar 30, 2015 17:48:39 |
|
| (Reply to #37)arnwolf666 |
|
| #39dmgorgonMar 30, 2015 18:03:19 |
|
| (Reply to #39)arnwolf666 |
|
| #41MechaPilotMar 30, 2015 18:21:02 |
|
| #42arnwolf666Mar 30, 2015 18:26:59 | I still play BECMI too, we rotate between various editions. Sometime BECMI sometime 1E, sometime 2E. All great games. I do like the way multiclassing worked for the older editions, and it was a demihuman only thing allowable because of their long life span, and it had very inherent drawbacks in my opinion. Especially with some combinations. Fighter/Thief not as bad. Humans could dual class, but that was very difficult and you payed for the concept. |
| #43MechaPilotMar 30, 2015 18:31:28 |
|
| #44cbwjmMar 30, 2015 18:50:51 |
|
| (Reply to #44)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #33)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #46)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #47)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #49dmgorgonMar 31, 2015 7:02:30 |
|
| #82ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 14:51:42 |
|
| #83MechaPilotApr 03, 2015 15:11:05 |
|
| #84cowleymenApr 03, 2015 16:44:29 |
|
| #85MechaPilotApr 03, 2015 17:20:52 |
|
| #86ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 17:51:23 |
|
| #87MechaPilotApr 03, 2015 18:25:58 |
|
| (Reply to #74)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #75)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #80)arnwolf666 | [quote="Zardnaar"]
|
| (Reply to #85)arnwolf666 |
|
| #92ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 20:31:02 | [quote="arnwolf666"]
|
| #93MechaPilotApr 03, 2015 20:38:43 |
|
| #94BRJNApr 03, 2015 21:24:28 |
|
| #95BRJNApr 03, 2015 21:34:32 |
|
| #96MechaPilotApr 03, 2015 21:46:16 |
|
| (Reply to #96)arnwolf666 |
|