Brother Fen wrote:
I just realized that my post was inappropriate for this thread and probably came across as trolling or thread-crapping. It was not intended as such but if anyone viewed it that way, I apologize. I would never want to tell someone else how to play the game the "right" way or suggest that they are engaged in "badwrongfun" but my original post may have come across that way. Again, I apologize if I gave offense.
houstonderek wrote: Re: healing. Anything, even decent ideas, that even HINT at 4e influence, makes some people mad. I like it, personally, cuts down on the whining about misusing resources. Yeah, I'm guilty on that score. I hated 4th edition (never even deigned to play it) and its "healing surges" and was not a fan of the "hit dice" healing mechanic of 5E until I actually played a few sessions and now I'm kinda, sorta, maybe...okay with it. That was a difficult admission for an old grognard like myself.
Diffan wrote:
It's always interesting to see that one man's trash is another man's treasure: I dislike ALL of the things you listed above about 5E. One of the things I do like about 5E is that WotC actively promote the idea that the game should be modified for YOUR table and encourage you to tinker with the rules to make the game play the way YOU want it to play rather than slavishly adhering to the "One True Way". So, Diffan can keep all of the points he listed above and have fun, while I can alter them to play the way I want and have fun.
Kthulhu wrote:
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am a lapsed gamer who no longer has a regular gaming group and trying to find enough people who are willing to play "classic" editions or their clones is tough sledding. 5E allows me to find a larger group of people to potentially game with and, maybe, convince them to try some rules variants to emulate older, er...I mean classic, editions. A few months ago, I tried starting a Labyrinth Lord game on this forum and got very few people expressing interest. I am considering running a 1E module (probably Village of Hommlet) in the near future using 5E (with rules variants to make it more 1E-like) and I hope to have a better response (fingers crossed).
There are a LOT of holdovers from newer editions (*cough* 4th Edition *cough*) which I don't like currently in 5E: spammable cantrips, hit dice healing mechanic, ignoring negative hit points and short rests "recharging" powers to name just a few. The problem I am having is determining how to "balance" a game if I strip all of those things out. While I think a decent DM can just house rule stuff himself, I wouldn't object to seeing a supplement that provided an official, comprehensive list of options to make 5E more like another system, in my case like 1st Edition AD&D. It would be reassuring to know that the guys and gals at Wizards had vetted these options (hopefully, some play testing would have been involved as well) and made sure that the game didn't "break" if they were implemented or could give advice on what other aspects of the game might need to be tweeked if one were to make significant alterations to the game.
Personally, I hope they keep a tight rein on rules bloat. The only thing I would be remotely interested in would be a few more archetypes/sub-classes for each class but even that might be a problem as it seems invariable that later released stuff is usually more powerful/"better" than the stuff in core releases (see: every rulebook released by Paizo after the Core rulebook.) I suspect that we will see more backgrounds, feats and spells as well as the additional sub-classes I mentioned.
Adjule wrote:
Personally, I'd love to see a move away from Adventure Path campaigns and a move back to more one-shot modules. I grew up playing 1E in the (now derisively termed) murder-hobo style of gaming. Our party wasn't a group of "heroes" out to save the kingdom or world, we were just "adventurers" looking to kill some monsters and take their sh*t. No need for in depth "story" or "narrative", just give me a good old-fashioned fun house dungeon romp like White Plume Mountain and I'll be a very happy camper.
strayshift wrote:
Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E. I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.
lorenlord wrote:
I was surprised to see that compulsion spells like Charm Person and Command (to name a few) were Wisdom saves when they seem like natural candidates to be Charisma saves.
David Bowles wrote:
Luckily for you, a game already exists that suits your preference: Pathfinder. Those of us who do not enjoy the "crunchiness" of Pathfinder have been given the opportunity to play a game closer to our taste: 5E. Everyone wins! :D
I can't recall having arguments about who would be "stuck" playing the healing role at our table but I haven't played regularly for over 20 years and my recollection may be faulty. In my experience, clerics were the second best combatants in 1E after the warrior classes with their superior hit points (back when clerics got 1d8, thieves got 1d6 and magic-users 1d4), better armor capabilities and better combat advancement on the attack tables. Getting to heal and turn/destroy undead was just a nice bonus that made up for being a little bit weaker in combat than warriors.
Adjule wrote:
I think this is one of the biggest divides between modern gaming style and "old skool" gaming style. The (almost) exclusive focus by gamers in modern games is on optimizing their DPR and combat effectiveness. No one wants to be a "weak" support role, they ALL want to be Rambo-like bada@@es tearing up foes in combat. Back in the day (as the kids say nowadays) only fighters and their subclasses were expected to shine in combat; clerics, thieves and magic-users played their part in combat but were really expected to assist in other areas of the adventure. The game felt far more party-centric and less focused on the accomplishments of the disparate individuals. No one felt like they were left out or not "pulling their weight" simply because they were not a juggernaut of destruction in combat. /end old-man rant and thread derail
Kthulhu wrote: I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six". I absolutely agree. +x weapons and armor are nice for their utility but just don't spark the imagination the way a Cloak of Manta Ray or Horn of Blasting does. Those are truly "cool" items that often solve a problem or turn the tide of battle in ways that create a memorable experience.
I have a theory about the divide between those who like games with less "crunch" and character options and those who prefer the heavy crunch games: The first group, which includes myself, plays (played, in my case) to experience a cool, memorable adventure and socialize with friends. The second group plays to craft a cool, memorable character and, very likely, to socialize with friends. For me, the excitement of the game was finding out what our party was going to face (terrible monsters, confounding puzzles and traps, piles of shiny loot) in this ruined old keep as we delved deeper into its confines. I didn't care about my PC at all. He was simply an avatar that allowed me, the player, to experience the adventure. I would have been perfectly content to play pre-gen characters and slap a name on them. For the second group, I posit that the appeal of the game is the exploration and growth of their PC both through mechanical means (feats, increasing skills, new powers, etc.) and through role-playing their PC's "story". I want to point out that I am NOT making any distinction about "roll-playing" vs. "role-playing" here at all. I am an old school gamer but I was never a heavy role-player. I am a quiet, introverted person in real life and my PC's were pretty much the same. Any game that had lots of talking and not enough action quickly bored me. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others regarding why they prefer "crunchy" vs. "creamy" gaming...
David Bowles wrote:
Oooo....rant/diatribe bullet point #2: Encounters don't have to be "balanced" to ensure that the PC's can overcome all challenges. Sometimes the best option is to *gasp* avoid a fight or, if you are already involved in one, **double gasp** run away. Back in the old days, fighting monsters was usually a suboptimal choice as the XP gained was minimal compared to the risk of dying. Now, killing things is the primary way to gain levels. I think this was a poor design choice... EDIT: My complaint about player optimization and the one in this thread about fighting everything are linked, of course. When the primary method for player advancement is killing stuff, gamers are going to shift their focus heavily to optimizing the damage their PC's can dish out.
bugleyman wrote:
Agreed, particularly because 2E wasn't released until 1989 not 1988 as the OP stated. ;) I'm going to hitch up my pants to my chest, fiddle with my hearing aid and give a little mini rant/diatribe about my feelings re: gaming today... One of the things that concerns me the most about modern gaming is that the game seems to have moved away from a collaborative game where a few friends got together and played some "make believe" in a fantastical world all while having some fun to the point where it is almost a competitive exercise to see who can "build" the most bad-a** PC and "win the game". I absolutely cringe when I see "optimization guides", DPS calculations and people bragging about how their PC "one-shoted" Orcus on message boards. Interestingly enough, modern gamers seem to spend a lot more time talking about things like "narrative" and "story" (I think many modern gamers are frustrated novelists/screen writers) which weren't that important to my gaming group back in the 80's, so I am not trying to say that modern gamers are just "roll" players. I sometimes wonder if this more competitive spirit to the game has evolved because more people are gaming either via organized play or online in play-by-post format usually with total strangers so the feeling of camaraderie among ones friends simply isn't a factor and people become more competitive as a result.
KestrelZ wrote:
The condescension is strong with this one... Megadungeons were a staple of the early days of D&D which was created, played and DM'd by many adults including Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax to name a few.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Well, I guess if you are under 25, 3E would qualify as old-school. ;)
scranford wrote:
I initially hoped that 5E would be a game I could play (tried 3.5 and Pathfinder...didn't like em; completely ignored 4E) but while I think it is a little closer to "old-school" in its sensibilities than anything since 2E it still has far too many modern options in it to really please me: spammable, powerful 0-level cantrips, healing hit dice, no negative HP, fully healed back to max HP after "long rest", 3rd level spells that revive the dead, "action surges", the whole notion of "recharging" abilities after a "short rest". Most of those things seem to be from 4E (or at least modifications of 4E) and I definitely did not want to play that system. If the DMG is able to truly provide the guidance on how to modify/eliminate the stuff I don't like and still "work" as a game, then I might get more excited but right now...not so much.
Eirikrautha wrote:
My experience playing 1E (didn't play 2E) was the same as yours: "buffing" and "crowd control" were not all that common for Magic-users (aka Wizards) or even Clerics for that matter. The notion of a MU casting the Fly spell on anyone for combat, which I have seen repeatedly mentioned in this thread, is completely foreign to me.
JoeJ wrote:
You bring up a point that seems especially important to me: 5E's stated mission is to foster a greater balance in the "Holy Trinity" of gaming (combat, exploration, interaction). I have limited experience with the modern games but my understanding is that 3.X/PF/4E have a heavy emphasis on combat at least in terms of amount of time spent at the table resolving combat. In 1E there was plenty of combat but it was resolved fairly quickly so there was still plenty of time left for the other two "pillars" of gaming. In 1E, Magic-users (aka Wizards) were actually expected to help out as much outside of combat as they were in combat. Spells like Detect Magic, Identify, Friends, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Levitate, Polymorph Self, etc. were often used in the exploration phase of gaming which was far more prominent in older games. Nowadays, it seems like the emphasis for Wizards has switched almost entirely to combat casting (blasting, buffing or control). Perhaps, WotC has made the changes in magic in order to reinforce the notion that Wizards are not just combat casters and should focus on other aspects of the game.
I'm not saying this to be glib, but if you don't like the rules for Concentration as they relate to buff spells couldn't you just...ignore them? That seems like a pretty easy solution, although I have no idea if that might have repercussions elsewhere. Those of us who like the idea of keeping casters in check get what we want (full concentration rules in effect), those who don't can just ignore or modify them to ease the restrictions to get closer to 3.X/PF levels of caster power.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Did you play 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D? Casters were powerful (at really high levels) but not nearly as powerful as they became in 3.X/PF. So, they haven't been "nerfing casters with each edition". They are just trying to bring casters back down from the lofty god-like realms they reached in 3.X/PF. (I have no idea what they were like in 4E, btw.) Personally, I would hate to see martials "pumped up" in an attempt to match casters because they (martials) already look a little too powerful for my tastes in 5E. I think this might come down to those who prefer an "old-school"/lower power level style of gaming versus those who prefer the "new-school"/high power level style.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
As someone who rarely plays casters and prefers martial types, I am pleased to see that casters got nerfed hard. They needed it...badly. However, I understand that people who like playing casters are "miffed" about the nerf-age.
Jacob Saltband wrote: Just how do reactive works? If you use a reactive spell not on your action, when your action comes around what can you do? Was the reactive spell your action for that round? You would still get to take a normal action on your turn after using your reaction to cast a spell (like Shield).
Adjule wrote: Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like. Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO. I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed. I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).
As I more deeply read the Basic rules and see the previews of the PHB classes, I am becoming less and less enchanted with 5E. The power level of PC's just seems far too high for my tastes. In addition, I just saw a 3rd level Cleric spell Revivify that allows a Cleric to raise the dead! So, once your party has a 5th level Cleric, permanent death is pretty much a thing of the past.
P.H. Dungeon wrote: I think the background mechanic also goes a long way to making a character feel "unique", but I guess that depends on what your idea of feeling unique is- some people want to a lot of mechanical options to make a character feel unique and other players can play two characters that are almost identically mechanically but have them feel completely different based on things like personality and background. Having started D&D in 1981, I am always surprised when people complain about not having enough options (usually mechanical options) to make their characters feel "unique." Basic D&D (the B/X version) and 1E AD&D had almost NO mechanical device for making your characters "unique" yet, somehow, we managed to achieve that goal anyway. (Grumbles something about kids and my lawn...)
Buri wrote:
I plan to (if I ever DM). I like 5E (at least what little I have seen so far) more than 3.X/4E and Pathfinder but there are still plenty of things that make me cringe including: the evoker's Sculpt Spells ability, healing Hit Dice, "encounter" powers that "recharge" after a short rest and completely healing back to full hit points after a long rest.
Buri wrote:
More lethal overall than what? 3E? 4E? Probably not more lethal than 0E or 1E which is the play style I'd like to have replicated.
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
To my mind, the proficiency bonus reflects skill through training. A wizard is not as skilled at fighting, thus he/she should not have the same base attack bonus/proficiency bonus as a fighter for combat. I don't care that the fighter will probably end up with a higher total attack bonus (due to high STR or DEX). It just doesn't "feel" right to me for a Wizard to have the same level of "skill" in fighting that a fighter has.
The Basic D&D PDF will go "live" when Wizards actually opens for business today in order to have real people on hand in case they are needed for any issues. Since they are located in Seattle, WA, the PDF will probably not be available until 8 or 9 AM Pacific Time. Personally, I'm just going to wait one more day and download it on the 4th as I expect really heavy traffic on the Wizards site today.
Matt Thomason wrote:
This. I would LOVE to play 1st Edition AD&D again but it is pretty difficult finding enough people to play it face-to-face because I don't like gaming via PbP or VTT. This is why I am pretty excited about the possibility of being able to play the currently supported version of D&D again (I don't like 4th Edition nor do I like Pathfinder); hopefully it will be easier to find gamers to play with F2F using Basic D&D.
I'm pretty geeked about this development. I love simple, rules light gaming so being able to get that for free AND as part of the currently supported system (retro-clone stuff is free but rather niche and hard to find games for) of one of the major players in TTRPG's is very exciting. I just hope that the complexity is as low as the name "Basic D&D" conjures up in my mind. You young whippersnappers can keep your skills and feats, thank you very much.
P.H. Dungeon wrote: It looks like they have two big adventure modules listed to come out around the same time the core books are released. Both are tied together and seem to revolve around the Red Wizards and Cult of the Dragon working together to free Tiamat from imprisonment in the nine hells. I have no idea if they will be any good or not. I'm personally not eager to start up another big save the world campaign since I'm currently running Age of Worms and Rise of the Runelords, but I'll definitely keep an eye on what sort of reviews they get. I miss the old days (i.e. 1st Edition) where a module just consisted of going to a dungeon, beating the crap out of a few monsters, taking their stuff and then heading back to town to blow all that loot without feeling like I was being swept up in some epic, world altering storyline. I enjoy reading stories that chronicle such epic adventures (e.g. Dragonlance or Lord of the Rings) but not playing in them. I guess that makes me in the minority these days as so many adventures seem to be along those earth-shaking story lines.
Why are we having any debate, though? This thread was started by someone saying that he liked Pathfinder but wanted to recapture some lost elements of AD&D that he also liked. He wasn't asking for opinions on which style of gaming (old vs. new) was better, he was seeking advice on what elements he could add/change in his PF game to get a little more "old school" feel back in his particular game. I have no idea why this devolved into an "AD&D is better, no PF is better" wrangle-fest, other than that is apparently what internet message boards were built for.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Oooo...nice, obscure reference to the fabled "lost" orange covered version of B3: Palace of the Silver Princess. Have a virtual cookie!
Mark Hoover wrote:
Why do you keep doing this? We get it: you HATED AD&D and think PF is great. That's fine but this thread is not intended for someone like you, yet you keep making this same point over and over again. The OP asked for ways to recapture an AD&D feel in Pathfinder, not to elicit a list of why AD&D is bad and one should avoid anything to do with it.
thejeff wrote:
That is a good point. While Karl's descriptive action for Brian the Black was evocative it is unlikely that anyone would do that for all (or even most) of their actions. It would be difficult to come up with that off-the-cuff at the table. That would be something you might see more of in a PbP game where players have lots of time to craft such an action and I suspect Karl took some time coming up with it himself. Personally, I would actually start to get a little annoyed if someone did that for EVERY turn as it would feel like they are just hogging the spotlight.
OgreBattle wrote:
From my perspective, the two things that make Pathfinder so different from AD&D are: 1) Crazy race-class combos like Kitsune Oracle/Sorcerer (with appropriate archetypes as well). Multi-classing is severely broken in PF and results in wacky and cheesy PC's. 2) Magic item availability either via "Ye Olde Magic Mart" in every corner of civilization or PC's creating magic items via item creation feats whose only cost requires some expenditure of gold. 3rd edition D&D required PC's to sacrifice experience points if they wanted to create magic items. 1st Edition required the 6th level spell "Permanency" to create any permanently enchanted item. Each casting of that spell reduced the caster's Constitution by 1 point. Now that was a full proof way to prevent PC's from creating too many permanent magic items.
|