I have read many reviews on 5th ed. Everyone of them say there is an "Old School" feel to 5e. What are we talking about when we say old school? Old school to me is 1e. Are some of these reviews considering 3e old school? This leads to the real question for me: What parts of 5e are "Old School"?
Just the dress.
Electrum and platinum pieces
Thieves' cant
They're a nod to old-school D&D at least (last mentioned in 2e I believe).
Come to think of it: Appedix E: Inspirational Reading is a nod to Appendix N: Inspirational and Educational Reading in the 1st edition DMG. Or so I believe (don't quote me 
).
So, just off the top o' my head, a couple of things are definately old-school.
Quick play favored over simulation, piles of options, or tactical depth. Fighters getting damage from repeated attacks rather than single high-damage hits.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The fighter class feel/design in reference to how it is limited versus spell casters.
It is just more or less small hifdden bits.
Electrum pieces
limit of +3 on magic weapons/armor
The Basic D&D PDF with only 4 races
Unable to buy magic items unlike 3rd and 4E
Things like that. Its not really that simple compared to BECMI though.
Multiple attacks are taken at the same value. No more BAB that decreases each time you swing.
Attacks are made at any point, making combat fluid and operatic. No more 5ft shuffle.
Damage, Powers, and Abilities are defined almost exclusively by class levels and race rather than an aggregate of numbers. Number of attacks per round are determined by class, rather than an aggregate of numbers (sum of BAB from all class levels). This is "Old School." Back in the day if you were a 5th Level Fighter, specialized in Great Swords those "attacks" were completely separate from your 6 Magic User (Wizard) levels. Your Fighter ThAC0 was different from your Magic User (Wizard) levels, and they didn't add together.
Lots of different Saving Throws rather than 3.
Magic Items are rare, to say the least, and no Player Character is going to be crafting anything worth holding on to. D&D is exploration, bravery, and discovery, not crafting (which is MMO to the max). If you want a great and powerful magic item you quest for it. Long gone are the days of PC's lugging around buckets of +1 Longswords.
Barbarians are much more like the Unearthed Arcana Barbarians and less like the Quasi-Magical 4e Fur-Fighters or the Rage-Fighters of 3e.
Combat and roleplaying are WAY more fluid than either 3e or 4e. I really liked 4e but this combat is definitely better. They kept the clear, concise 4e style conditions but scrapped the hyper-focused combat rules for that AD&D "Theater of the Mind" style. Granted, we still use minis. In our game last night, fighting a band of Trolls, the D&D minis came in handy, but they're not always necessary. For lesser fights we just talk it through, character placement and whatnot.
There are plenty of things that are not "Old School" and I'm glad they're gone/changed - Vancian Magic is still around and it's better than ever.
It reads like 3.5 but players are forced to approach problems as 2nd ed characters.
Toshi wrote:
Nobody's gonna correct me about platinum pieces not being old-school?
Shucks
Artifact wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
There's a water clock on the equipment list. That right there marks it as old school: "We don't know what we're doing but if we throw enough stuff in, everyone will find something they like about it!"
Artifact wrote:
I think it is old school, but "piles of options" is hardly old school, at least until 2nd edition.
Toshi wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
I guess my idea of old school has always been
-different xp progression tables
-only a few per level abilities for base classes/ but faster progression
-many per level abilities for sub classes/ but slower progression.
However, it seems like there are a few head nods to very suble rules of ad&d.
Off the top of my head I think the following tthings are old school in 5E and can be found earlier editions like AD&D;
- The action economy (1 action + movement)
- Opportunity Attack (only moving away provoke)
- Critical Hit (roll additional dmg die)
- Cover (half, three-quarter and full cover)
- HP (no negative HP)
- Cosmology (Great Wheel, albeit with a twist with the inclusion of shadowfell/feywild)
- Alignment (the Nine, albeit with a twist with the inclusion of unaligned)
I don't tend to consider any given mechanic "old school," regardless of the edition. Old school isn't an XP table or a way of calculating hits or a size of die, or spell slots or THAC0s or hit charts; it's the overall feeling the rules as a whole give me. It's the specific flavor of fun I'm having.
Playing 5e mirrors the flavor of fun I had with BECMI and 2e much more closely than that of 4e or 3.X. That's why I call it old-school.
It's old school fun without old school frustration.
A lot of the monsters are (reportedly) pretty oldschool.
The only really "old school" aspect of it is a preponderance of rules that rely on the DM (dismissively termed Mother-may-I). Everything else is just simplification, and simplification is a trait distinctive of neither old nor new school.
It's 'old school' compared to 4e, which was new, different.
3e (and its clone, PF) is even 'old school' now too; it came out in 2000. A lot of people playing games now were concieved in the 80's/90's, not playing TSR D&D in the 80's/90's. Also, the kids getting into TTRPGs for the fist time might have been born in 2000-2006. I started D&D when I was about 9-10...
LOL, you're all old now! (I am too...38 this year...) It's also not your game. It belongs to everyone who likes RPGs. Some of those people aren't old enough to vote yet, and have very different needs and wants for a D&D expeience they you had/have.
5e has the look and feel of a really well presented (read: high illo/graphic design budget) neo-retro D&D game. I like it, but I can see how some might not for: Reasons.
I have played D&D for nearly 30 years. I have played every edition, and many clones and spin-offs.Earlier this year my group played 1st edition Greyhawk campaign for 4 months.
And I agree with nineinchnail. The mechanics of 5th edition is modeled most like 3rd, with only a few bits from 4th edition (mainly healing dice, death saves, and selecting powers as you level.)
The only thing old school about 5e is all the places it keeps saying "ask your DM" or "if the DM allows it"
Fallen_Star_02 wrote:
Each class and subclass does it differently. Some have a lot more choice than others. Warkocks, elemental monks, battlemaster fighters have multiple options to pick from. Thieves, champion fighters, berserker barbarians, etc have hardly any choices.
But still, choice as you level was a major component of 4e but barely existed before that. 2nd edition had kits, which are like the subclasses now. 3rd had more feats gained. But that was it.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
1eejit wrote:
by "old school" what i think is meant is a repudiation of much of the last 2 editions, including:
1) D&D has never been a rules-light game in any edition, but the last 2 were decidedly heavily tactical and rules-heavy. therefore, a return ot the theater of the mind-style of play is (correctly i think) being hailed as retro. i've certainly called this edition "paleo".
2) the scrunching of the number-scale. 3.0 brought an uncapped scale in which through a combination of means ability scores and other numbers could rise more or less indefinitely. 5e truncated that scale, giving definite boundaries.
there are also small flavor things--references/ to pre-AD&D2 stuff, such as the (unwelcome to me) return of electrum, druidic language, inspirational reading list, exposition that doesn't sound like it came out of a textbook, the great wheel--but the 2 things i mention above have a trickle-down effect that's important and far-reaching re: what' we actually have in our hands.
blake_marlowe wrote:
'old school' is a subjective evaluation.
For example in AD&D going to zero HP by default would kill you. And alot of low level play was against monsters who could drop you to zero, possibly in one hit (unless the DM put work into choosing weeny monsters)
Most played it that you could survive to -10.
Now 5e has monsterst that might drop you in one hit, but you survive at zero. Ie, it falls to the old school of how some people played, but not the actual old school default.
'old school' is a problematic and complicated term.
Noon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
1) rules designed to enable theatre of the mind style play. I've been using it with both of my groups, the grogs like the return of the feel, easier to feel the dread, etc. the younger group never experienced this style before and are really hooked on the fast play, smooth blending of exploration and combat, easier to fall into pattern if simply stating what you are doing or what you are trying to accomplish. More complicated scenarios still call for a map, so I draw those out, but the players are asking me to not bring out minis for monsters because they would rather have their own imagination. Uh, so much for my giant mini collection. Still using player minis though.
2) marching order! Too bad no party leaders, might be even faster for the group, :-).
3) bounded accuracy, makes ACs match old school games. It's easier to guess monster ACs straight from visual description.
4) no skill challenges. Leave it up to the DM how to adjucate multiple PC involvement without inventing contrived structure.
5) DM empowerment, chose the rules or change them to match the style of your players.
6) no MMO like explicit combat roles. Sure you may have played that way in your old school games, but I never encounter it, so felt like forced playstyle and over focus on combat pillar.
7) magic items are treasure, not player character build options.
8) nothing is core. Not default expectations, force the conversation to happen with your players before you start the game.
9) no quick rests. Current default rule not exactly old school, but closer and easy to change.
10) different iconic classes have different mechanics, strengths and weaknesses, and structure.
11) rulings not rules = no one true way.
12) description of how ability/spell works can influence adjucation, ie does fireball work under water?
13) content encouraging role play, backgrounds (old school didn't have this system, but play groups that I recall encouraged deep background development before play started, so additional content reminds me to get into that frame of mind)
14) lots of fun tables of random stuff.
15) alignment goodness.
16) revival of iconic character flavor if not mechanics, reminds me of those first edition. All the old favorites available in PHB.
17) most iconic monsters available in mm, aka "the best of old school". No need to wait on more books.
18) make the players map it out, says evil DM. Let me get lost, he he he. Man it's getting late.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Polaris wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I think these are old school things that 5e embraces.
1. Rapid combat resolution. 10 combats in a four our session and half the time is not combat.
2. Rulings not rules. DM empowerment. Set the DC and roll. Again makes for a faster game.
3. At least a nod to vancian magic.
4. Magic items are given out as the DM sees fit. No magic marts by default. No expectation of magic items by default. (This has nothing to do with how much magic the typical game has by the way)
5. A simple fighter.
These areas are still modernist in their approach and anti-old school in my opinion.
1. Healing system is wonky and predicates one view of hit points. Old school allowed for more views.
2. The simple fighter achieves it's goal using dissociative mechanics in a number of places. This will bother some old school players like me.
I think in many ways though 5e is a breath of fresh air for many people especially those not very bothered by the modernist stuff still in the game.
Zardnaar wrote:
1eejit wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
seti wrote:
Centauri wrote:
@OP: Calling an edition old school or modern is the non-offensive way of saying "like AD&D/3e" or "like 4e". 5e plays more like AD&D than 4e so it qualifies as old school.
It's really a matter of perspective. Some people felt that 4e was different (for better or worse) and others felt like it played like the D&D they always played. If you're in the later category, then you probably don't see the difference and don't understand why you have reviews saying things like "5e has an old school feel" or "D&D is back".
But I think the three things about 5e that makes it "old school" are:
1) Combats are fast and aren't complex.
2) It has the AD&D/3e spell list with a few additions from 4e and new spells from 5e.
3) Classes don't have the same variety of options.
And you also have a whole bunch of little details like gauntets of ogre power that give a flat strength score instead of a +2 bonus to Strength, saving throws instead of NADs, magic items as rewards instead of goods you can purchase in a magic shop, etc... They barely affect the way the game plays but they feel more familiar to an AD&D player than a 3e/4e player.
Gnarl wrote:
There's a lot of bits and pieces here and there, but honestly, not a great deal. Whatever's there feels overwhelemed by overly high scores, multiple class widgets, and an emphasis on rolls over role playing (if you actually heed some of the sample styles of play). It's old school in the sense that, in some ways, it feels a little like a 2E hodgepodge of core splatbooks. But it does run somewhat fast, it can be tailored toward simplicity and is hackable. BUt ;et's face it -- it's a modern incarnation of the game.
I don't think of 5E as 'old school'. I think it has shifted back along that direction though. I think it encourages me to play it more like how I played first edition.
I've played 5E (play test) just as I played 4E, and revised 3E, and Pathfinder, and 3.0 and AD&D 2nd Edition. Play style hasn't changed at all despite the differences in the rules. It's no more "old school" that 4E or AD&D. The only thing that I feel even remotely goes back to "old school" is not depending on magical items, which is nearly a lie since you pretty much NEEDED magical items in AD&D 2E to get far into the character's levels.
I think of 5e (more accurately) as traditional, rather than old-school.
The game harkens back to an earlier era of D&D (true) but it's a modern take, not old-fashioned. Vancian-flex is a nice example I think.
Artifact wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The thing that makes it feel old-school to me, more than anything, is the increased focus on the Ability Scores. They are the mechanical center of a character, and somehow that feels more inherently D&D than anything recent editions have had. Which is strange, since it's more about presentation than anything. Mathmatically, not much has changed.
Brock_Landers wrote:
For me, the old school feel mostly comes from (i) quick, narrative combat (no grid), (ii) highlighting being able to try things that arent codified, and (iii) encouraging the DM to feel confident to make rulings based on existing rules and guides. Aditionally - random treasure tables, magic items being treasure (not treadmill) and evocative magic.
The old school for me comes from locked in choices for certain classes, and flexiblity for others, and the only hope is magic items to level the playing field.
I went old school tonight and the PCs each had intelligent weapons of 2 NPC factions and they all got dominated at one point except for 1 and they started beating on each other at times.
That seems horrid. (Unless everyone at the table is fine with playing fantasy-themed Paranoia.)
Diffan wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:
It's going to be subjective for everyone. As others have mentioned, the games feel more like the ones I ran in the 80's. In 3E and 4E, I designed adventures around the math of the encounter guidelines. Adventure locations tended to be small... 3-5 room dungeons (caverns, mansions, etc.). In 4E, I knew fights were going to take a long time and trying to get in more than two a session meant sacrificing the interaction and handwaving exploration to make sure I had enough time to get everything in.
For me 5E is more intuitive... I am already comfortable improvising encounters. I am back to thinking of adventure locations rather than a series of encounters where the math adds up. Many of the AD&D modules seem to fit into the 5E style of games that I've run so far, which probably is the biggest thing that makes it old school for me.
All just my opinion based on how various iterations of the game have work at my group's table...
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:
Only compared to 4E. In truth it brings together 3x and 4E. It fails in many ways but has some nice things as well.
I'm kind of runnig it old school. The no longer can buy your eweapons and customise you PC (oputside feats and subclasses) is about as old school as it gets. My PCs are equipped with often sub optimal magic weapons and 3/5 by 5th level have found magic weapons they actually want and 2/3 have some big drawbacks on them.
I'm also more or less ignoring the suggested encounter guidelines. My easy fights RAW are hard, my average fights are deadly and my tough fights are deadly+ with perhaps almost double the recommended xp limit being used.
Toshi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
This, alone, was enough for me to feel some of that "old school" vibe from the game.
ADnD 1e DMG wrote:
AtomicPope wrote:
Diffan wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Toshi wrote:
Diffan wrote:
"An X is not a Y in the traditional sense."
All that must be true for this sentence to obtain is that X does not fit the traditional definition for Y. Anything that doesn't fit that definition satisfies the truth condition.
For instance, "A domestic cat is not a humpback whale in the traditional sense." It's trivially true, but it is true.
Or consider a more conversational use of the construction: "My cat isn't a dog in the traditional sense." It is true that my cat isn't a dog, but there is an implication that a similarity exists. "My cat isn't a dog in the traditional sense, but she plays fetch like one." In this case, the sentence acknowledges that X is not Y while simultaneously suggesting a point of similarity. That is all that is happening in the description of martial powers. They are not magic, but they bear similarity to magic.
NineInchNall wrote:
So it does except in the actual literal sense.
Lets try another one. Clerics do not cast Spells, in the traditional sense.
Plaguescarred wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
To me old school is simply old games like 1st edition. I suppose you could claim that there are certain rules or playstyles that are definitively old school but in large part old school mechanics where not terribly good, they relied heavily on good gm and playstyles, there are (and we're even back then) so many, it would be hard to point to one and say "ya that's old school".
I do think there is an intangible nostalgic presents when you play games like 1st and 2nd edition and in 5th edition I distinctivly felt that presence. So whatever that is, it's definitly there and it was definitivly missing from 3rd and 4th edition.
Just a short list..
the font
ring mail
the artwork is about as quality as 2e (half-finished stuff that looks like watercolor)..other than the lid of the phb
What I wish was in there that actually felt old school was something akin to the Keep on the Borderlands..but with a murder mystery ;)
jh
Plaguescarred wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
A daily power as anything is disassociative from my perspective, but people tend to choose their level of abstraction when accepting any specific mechanic to fit their preference.
Uchawi wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
You can read how to prevent edition wars here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28870729/
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Well, I've enjoyed reading through the varied thoughts of "old school", and the numerous discussions regarding the past editions. 
For me, I'm just about the story, and letting my players roam about and enjoy themselves in the world! I like the 5th Edition options given, and the ease of play.
And electrum pieces. HEH!