Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1092038The problem with this is that if magic doesn't work usefully enough, often enough, to be worth the risk of what happens when it goes wrong, the vast majority of players are going to stop doing it, especially if the consequences of a magic backfire stand a reasonable chance of hosing all the other PCs in the vicinity.

Apparently it not an issue given the DCC RPG which magic is indeed unpredictable and can wind up hosing all the other PCs in the vicinity.

I ran a playtest session of the Emerald Sorcerer for Goodman Games. They arrived at the dungeon with entrance door being locked. The wizard had an enlarge spell. He cast the spell and got the best possible result. The door expanded 500% and shot out of the frame like a bat out of hell.

I used miniatures and saw that the caster was in the line of fire. So I rolled a 1d6 and rulled that on a 3 or 4 it was going straight at the caster and he will need to make a save. I roll a 4, and he failed his save. He was 1st level and only had 2 hit points and died.

The only time I ever ran thing and a character suffered death by door. Not even Sean Bean can boast that.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1092006All of this 100% confirms what I said initially.

The change doesn't work slapped on top of D&D. I did not say that it couldn't work at all.

You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.

Given that the save math is based off average chances to miss from OD&D, I don't think this is the case at all.  It's also in keeping with D&Dness in that it's the same basic mechanic as a saving throw.  It also fits right into the tradition of miniature wargaming at the time.  Armour saves from that tradition are still in use by the most popular miniature wargames today.

It's very D&D.

On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!

We all need some quality Wenches, right?

Quote from: Razor 007;1092044On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!

We all need some quality Wenches, right?

1e DMG has you covered.

I'm sure someone can come up with a brothel encounter table.

Quote from: RandyB;10920461e DMG has you covered.

My premium edition reprint of the 1E DMG may not have that.....

Quote from: Razor 007;1092064My premium edition reprint of the 1E DMG may not have that.....

Page 192 under Harlot

Quote from: Chris24601;1090157My fix is just that all saves should be proficient and leave the differences purely down to the ability scores. Since every class gets the same "one of Dex/Con/Wis and one of Str/Int/Cha" this change doesn't benefit any specific class more than any other.

It harms monks who eventually get proficiency in all saves. I would prefer that Resilient (feat for proficiency in one save) be allowed to be taken multiple times for different abilities (in the rules as written, it can only be taken once).

That high level characters cannot save reliably against everything is an improvement in 5e; in early D&D, player characters had a slightly worse to hit chart but benefited from ability score bonuses and magic items that their opponents almost never got. In compensation, missing a single saving throw is mostly not a permanent defeat (in particular, a lot of effects allow repeated saving throws to end the effect).

Quote from: estar;1091865On the other hand one could design classes so that the amount of learning per level is equivalent thus justifying a unified XP chart.

My experience is that it is better to have characters advance at the same rate - same experience awards to all members of the party, same XP chart for all classes. Even though classes in 5e are not closely balanced, players still play a wide variety of character classes.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1092005It takes more time -per roll- but less time overall to resolve the entire combat. I also use rules that speed up combat such as damage spillover and abstract movement. I can run 10 v 10 fights in significantly less time than I could run 4 v 4 fights in AD&D.

If you go from one roll to hit followed by a damage roll to one roll to hit, one armor save and then a damage roll, you are necessarily slowing down resolution; if combats actually go faster it's because of your other changes or because the shift in balance means fights end in fewer rounds (which carries changes for the game in terms of giving parties a chance to change tactics or choose to use their limited resources when they see how the fight is going).

Quote from: tenbones;1090692I would re-tune the entire core game to be 10-levels.

Every other "issue" would likely be resolved within that core assumption.

I assume this would be different than just limiting player characters to 10th level, since you can just impose that limitation in your own game. And just compressing things so that 10th level characters get the benefits of 16-20th level characters seems kind of pointless. So would you throw out the effects of high level spells entirely, or just confine them to unusual magic items (sort of what OD&D did)?

Quote from: estar;1092018As far as the mechanics goes I found mucking around with the follow renders it incompatible with the original edition.

• Armor Class
• Hit Points
• Levels and Hit Dice
• Saving Throws to avoid something "bad" happening
• Damage is dealt by rolling higher or equal to a number based on AC (THACO, chart or ascending)

I am completely unclear on the difference between the first and last element of that list.

QuoteOne divide between classic D&D (AD&D 2e and prior) and later editions (D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e, 5e) are how to conduct initiative and combat actions.

As a rule in a classic edition you can muck around with how initiative and combat actions are handled and still remain compatible.  However you are much more limited in later editions as many abilities make use of standard terms used in the combat rules. Like reaction, standard action, swift action, bonus action, move action, and so on.

This is mostly because classic editions either didn't explain their initiative rules or they were just ignored. I played in separate OD&D and 1e games that were pretty thoroughly incompatible with each other just from how initiative and actions were handled.

Quote from: rawma;1092232I am completely unclear on the difference between the first and last element of that list.

It may be splitting hairs but there several variants that still have Armor Class but but use as part of a mechanic for damage reduction.

Quote from: rawma;1092232This is mostly because classic editions either didn't explain their initiative rules or they were just ignored. I played in separate OD&D and 1e games that were pretty thoroughly incompatible with each other just from how initiative and actions were handled.

Yet both can use each other lists (monsters, spells, etc), and support material so differences in initiative and handling actions is not a source of incompatibility. For example swap what the OD&D did with the AD&D referee did for initiative and action and nothing else.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1092006You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.

If I'm limited, as the OP suggested, to only changing one rule, I will always opt for the rule that provides the most improvement. Whether that changes the game to something that's not really D&D isn't a concern. That it becomes a better game is. There isn't much point to changing a rule if its impact is negligible.

Quote from: Razor 007;1092044On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!

We all need some quality Wenches, right?

slovenly trull
cheap trollop
saucy tart
wanton wench
aged madam
and more!


In addition to the offering of the usual fare, the harlot is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make something up in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be , or work with a thief.

No prices though.......

Quote from: rawma;1092226It harms monks who eventually get proficiency in all saves. I would prefer that Resilient (feat for proficiency in one save) be allowed to be taken multiple times for different abilities (in the rules as written, it can only be taken once).

Boo hoo... it robs level 14+ monks of half a feature (they still get to reroll all saves for 1 ki point at level 14) in trade for actually making the game playable. And it doesn't make Resilient into a stupid feat tax... I thought 4E had killed everyone's desire for feat taxes (it also doesn't fix games where they're not using feats).

The lack of scaling of non-proficient saves results in the same degree of disparity as 3e inflicted between good and bad saves (in fact the base variance scales almost identically starting at 2 better and ending at 6 better) and is made even worse by the lack of stat buff items you could at least partially buff your weaker saves with (without burning limited ASI/feat slots).

The net result is one where saves that are trivial for one PC are impossible for another; particularly at higher levels. And 5e still has enough save or lose effects that auto-failing means you might as well go make a fast food run since you're going to have plenty of time on your hands. Some allow you to roll every round, but when your save bonus is +1 vs. DC 22 and natural 20s don't automatically succeed... not even advantage will get you out before the duration is over.

Save DCs always being proficient and using the attacker's best ability score while all the targets non-proficient saves are also for scores that are likely to be low anyway has always been the greatest mechanical flaw in the system. It cascades into why the CR system is basically useless because it can't possibly account for the vast disparity in potential save values in relation to their abilities.

In a high level party the worst save might be a -1 and the best +12 or more... there is no DC you could possibly set that wouldn't be a joke to one character or a death sentence to the other). If you make all the saves proficient though (to match that all the attacks are also proficient) the high stays the same but the low bumps up to +5. Now you could set a DC at say 19 and the one with the poor -1 save needs a 14+ on the die and the one with the +12 needs a 7+ on the die. That's a much more comfortable range to have at least some challenge to both ends of the spectrum (basically a 1/3 chance for a poor save and 2/3 for best save) and one where getting advantage can make a meaningful difference.

If that minorly affects one class in the rare instance your campaign makes it to level 14+ (note it's not even losing anything, it still has proficiency with all saves) it's worth it for the overall improvement to the entire game's underlying engine.

I'm not sure if this counts as a change or an addition. Magicians powering spells with their lifeforce, or other peoples' life force.

Magicians get their usual complement of prepared spells that they can use without problems. If they want to cast spells that they haven't got prepared or they've cast all their spells for the day they can spend hp on a 1 hp for 1 spell-level basis. These HP come back much more slowly than they would normally.

If they want to take the hp from a willing person then they can spend someone else's hp at a 2hp for one spell level. These HP don't come back

If they want to take from an unwilling person they can spend at 4hp per one spell level, these don't come back either. Mass sacrifices beckon.

There would be a save of some sort for unwilling victims.

Quote from: Blood Axe;1092260slovenly trull
cheap trollop
saucy tart
wanton wench
aged madam
and more!


In addition to the offering of the usual fare, the harlot is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make something up in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be , or work with a thief.

No prices though.......

Well Dang then!!!  How am I supposed to know if I'm getting a good deal or not?

I mean, I want to feel like I'm getting my money's worth....

Wanton Wench, for the win!!!