5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

Ice

*eyeroll*
I am enjoying this back-and-forth very much. (Particularly because I'm not in the thick of it for once).

It is teaching me things because I am squarely in the OD&D camp but am looking for ways to improve that elegantly simple game with elements proven to work well for others. I most definitely want to hear about others' play experience. Nothing is more valuable that real-world data.

The case for some of the AD&D (1e) improvements over OD&D seems strong (and easy to add). One might argue that the 1e DMG is an open letter by Gygax to OD&D DM's trying to help them out of some jams.

Even circling back to the original topic of the thread---I also want to hear what's good about 5e. For example, advantage/disadvantage sounds like a nice nuance over DM fiat (i.e. I'll give you XX% change of that working). Something to experiment with, and that wouldn't break the basic game.

EOTB has stated he already has everything he needs in 1e (and owns a Jeep).

I do not. (...err...for D&D, or a Jeep...)

I am looking to cherry-pick and find my personal (best) groove, and I am not done shopping. (...err, for D&D...or Christmas...)

Please, continue.

here are some free systems that I have enjoyed perusing the rules of. this one is three bucks. I've not looked at this one, but everyone likes it. The last two have examples of advantage is an old-school style system. There are cheap DCC starter rules from 'Free RPG DAY' that you can find on DrivethruRPG, but the rules from the actual full rulebook are written much better. A good chunk of what makes DCC so fun is left out of the starter rules, so I am not going to link that one.

Also, here is the funniest and best designed class I have seen on a blog. Gothic Villain
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
The Gothic Villain is hilarious! I love "Everything I Own Is Poisoned". Genius.

Thanks for the other links too. I'm thinking of trying to buckle-down and establish some new House Rules (yeah...I can already hear my players groaning), and things like these really help. It's not so much that I'm looking for "new" in terms of classes or core system, since I like the Swords & Wizardry 0e engine very much---I've even come to appreciate the single saving-throw---but I'm looking for some mods to rev up the tactical elements a bit as well as codify some of the vaguer rules and corner cases.

I feel like I've been a bit lax in the past with certain parts of the game. Time to "toughen up" and stop hand-waving so much. Rules-Light and Streamlined Play is great, but I think I'm ready for a bit more complexity now---call it D&D 0.5e, if you will. In short, I think 1e is ringing me (again). I may answer the phone this time, although it seems like everyone has to do a bit of individual homework and serious decision-making in order to get ready for that conversation.

Grazie Ice!
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Gus L. over at All Dead Generations seems to be helping make DP's original point---with the WotC published adventure "Descent to Avernus" seeming to cater to a different (non-OSR) style of play.
 

Ice

*eyeroll*
The Gothic Villain is hilarious! I love "Everything I Own Is Poisoned". Genius.

Thanks for the other links too. I'm thinking of trying to buckle-down and establish some new House Rules (yeah...I can already hear my players groaning), and things like these really help. It's not so much that I'm looking for "new" in terms of classes or core system, since I like the Swords & Wizardry 0e engine very much---I've even come to appreciate the single saving-throw---but I'm looking for some mods to rev up the tactical elements a bit as well as codify some of the vaguer rules and corner cases.

I feel like I've been a bit lax in the past with certain parts of the game. Time to "toughen up" and stop hand-waving so much. Rules-Light and Streamlined Play is great, but I think I'm ready for a bit more complexity now---call it D&D 0.5e, if you will. In short, I think 1e is ringing me (again). I may answer the phone this time, although it seems like everyone has to do a bit of individual homework and serious decision-making in order to get ready for that conversation.

Grazie Ice!
This is the inventory system I have my players use. Everyone groaned when I first introduced it, but after they got it, they all really seemed to like it. As a player, it really helps you visualize how your character is carrying their stuff without having to do any boring calculations. As a DM, it lets you actually screw with the players items. In the last session I played, someone got their pants ripped off after they tried to hide some food in them from a starving villager.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
This is the inventory system I have my players use. Everyone groaned when I first introduced it, but after they got it, they all really seemed to like it. As a player, it really helps you visualize how your character is carrying their stuff without having to do any boring calculations. As a DM, it lets you actually screw with the players items. In the last session I played, someone got their pants ripped off after they tried to hide some food in them from a starving villager.
Ice, I really like this. This is exactly the kind of nunaced detail I want to add. Many Thanks!
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
Guys... GUYS!
Weapon vs. AC. This is an easy one.
I dunno if this was around originally. But has anyone looked at a Labyrinth Lord character sheet lately?

That 'attack table' at the bottom. You know, before Thac0 they actually listed EACH number you needed to hit each AC? If you were using weapon vs. AC, wouldn't you just write your modified numbers in there? Anthony Huso talked about this, of course.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Sure, it would have to be a simple matrix -- one row per weapon on the character sheet. Easy peasy.

However, when writing up an adventure, who wants to grow the stat-block by that much? Not me. I like a quick and dirty THAC0 number next to each attack type. So, for WvAC I'd like a simple modifier table on my DM screen that condenses what's in the 1e PHB to something I can do dynamically. It's either that or just ignore it for monsters (NPCs?), which seems lop-sided.
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
It's either that or just ignore it for monsters (NPCs?), which seems lop-sided.
Well, yeah. Huso ignores it for NPCs except for major foes with their own character sheet, which seems uncontroversial. It's there to add another tactical dimension to combat, not make the DM's job even harder - we all have enough to think about.

PSA for everyone. The math of rolling a tie on initiative. No matter what number I roll on a d6, my opponent has a 1/6 chance of rolling that number.

The more complex breakdown is:
Rolling a specific double (ie. Snake eyes) is 1/36 (1/6 x 1/6). There are six possible doubles you can roll. So 6/36, which is 1/6.
 

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
As for house-rules/style, EOTB's having players roll random encounters would probably go against the "immersive" (OD&D?) vibe I love. Too much looking-behind-the-curtains spoils the Grand Illusion, i.e. "this is a game...here's how this piece works...be strategic or suffer the consequences." That might be a bridge-to-far for my tastes...even though I once believed the same about weapons vs. AC. [In his post (above), he posits expert players who all grok the rules...so maybe that's the difference.]
I've been having PCs roll for random encounters since early 2012, and first implemented it in a Swords and Wizardry campaign where the PCs were doing a ton of exploration and overland travel. The players were a combination of people new to adventure gaming, and people who had last played about ten years beforehand, so overall a fairly inexperienced group. They loved it, and it indeed had the effect EOTB mentions of drawing their attention to the die roll, creating tension, paranoia, etc. The knowledge that it was a basically random mechanic didn't change that, but rather the low level of agency they had influencing the roll ratcheted those feelings up.
 

Two orcs

Officially better than you, according to PoN
This is the inventory system I have my players use. Everyone groaned when I first introduced it, but after they got it, they all really seemed to like it. As a player, it really helps you visualize how your character is carrying their stuff without having to do any boring calculations. As a DM, it lets you actually screw with the players items. In the last session I played, someone got their pants ripped off after they tried to hide some food in them from a starving villager.
Next time I play on paper I'll try out a system even more hostile to hammer space: outlines of you character and you have to draw where something is stored on their body (front and back). Probably two sets so one is for full adventuring kit another for formal functions where bandoliers of potions and firebombs isn't kosher wear but you might want a discrete boot knife in addition to your dress sword.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
Modern systems would just call it Resistance to Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning/whatever, which means half damage, or Vulnerability to X, which means double damage. It's more elegant and simpler to remember IMO.

It makes a bit more sense too - those numbers you've posted are modifiers to hit, but why would it be easier to hit plate mail over leather armor simply because you're using a mace? Leather doesn't exactly "cushion" bludgeoning blows...
 

gandalf_scion

*eyeroll*
Found this old post over at Delta' D&D Blog about a distilled weapons vs. AC. Super simple.

View attachment 107

I might go with this as a OD&D (S&W) house rule or just a quick-and-dirty solution when I don't have everything spelled out on the character sheet.
Squeen

Plausible table (like 2e, but with mods in the correct direction). Reminiscent of how Lamentations of the Flame Princess solves this problem. Although, you might bump up piercing against plate since the Welsh longbow did get through French plate at Agincourt and all armies eventually adopted pikes as standard fare.

Thanks
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
The table is probably a bit too simple. DP's "modern" solution doesn't sit quite right with me either.

The 1e PHB is more compete and captures things like a staff against plate is pretty useless (-5!) which I like (but simple is nice too).

WeaponVsAC-1e.png

And missiles...

WeaponVsAC-missiles-1e.png

Which brings up the next big question for me: WHY USE A CROSSBOW?

CONS: It has 1/2 or 1/4 the rate of fire!

PROS: Here's what I have gathered so far...
a) less training/skill --- but how is that reflected in the rules? Maybe troops?
b) heavy cross bow does +1 more damage (vs Large?)
c) slightly better range
d) armed and readied crossbow fire first in combat...

All pretty weak except maybe the last. (Also read 3e lets spell casters use them! Sacrebleu!)

Another side note...Weapon vs AC adjustments seem to be missing from OSRIC.
 
Last edited:

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
One reason I like a simplistic system that is easy to remember is because it requires no reference. Next to indecisiveness, referencing stuff in a book seems to me to be the biggest culprit of slowing down play. The tables you've linked would never fly at my games anymore (they would when I played AD&D, but the game has evolved beyond it, so to speak) - I don't need more actions that take two or three minutes to resolve after the die has already been rolled, you know?
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
TerribleSorcery makes the point (above) that it's just a row on the character's sheet next to the weapon with the 9/10 columns that says what they need to roll with each weapon to hit each AC. If (unlike me) you allow the players to know opponent's AC, they just look in that box and roll---in my case, I do the looking on my PC cheat sheet. Hard to argue that is slow...

What I don't like is the notion of blowing up the stat blocks in written adventures (I like just having a THAC0 number in them).
Hence my search for a simple short-hand ajustment table to put on my DM screen.

Why include it at all?... I think it might make weapon choice more interesting/strategic for the PC's.

("Evolution" implies some sort of Natural Selection---begs the question: What is the modern game selecting for?)
 

gandalf_scion

*eyeroll*
We used 1e Wpn Vs AC adjustments in our last LL game. It adds about three seconds per player to combat resolution, less if multiple players have the same weapon. At the start of the combat, a player or the DM consults the table and applies that mod for the duration. After you do this once, you know your weapon's row, so finding it next time is a snap. After you do this three or four times, you know the adjustments for the most common ACs by heart. Since monsters often come in groups with the same weapon (six skeletons with short swords) one three-second check gets that number for all six of them! So, when we have two players, three meat shields, and seven foes, using Wpn Vs AC adds about 12 seconds to combat resolution.

More time is wasted by clumsy dice rolling that requires someone to pick a cube off the floor than is wasted by consulting the Wpn vs. AC table table.

THACO is a great idea, but not necessary for monsters. Their THACO is always 20 - HD (rounding pluses up to the next whole number). So, a 2 HD monster has THACO 18 while a 2+1 or better has THACO 17. So if you know the HD, you know the THACO.
 

Slick

*eyeroll*
I keep track of the type of damage a weapon does (Slash/Pierce/Blunt), and just adjudicate a +2/-2 penalty on the fly when it seems appropriate. A table based on armor type doesn't take into account monsters who have vulnerabilities that don't necessarily line up with the AC values for leather/chain/plate. For example skeletons have AC what? 12 or something? But I'd say piercing weapons get a penalty (you might stab harmlessly straight through their ribcage), slashing weapons are neutral, and blunt weapons get a bonus.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I keep track of the type of damage a weapon does (Slash/Pierce/Blunt), and just adjudicate a +2/-2 penalty on the fly when it seems appropriate. A table based on armor type doesn't take into account monsters who have vulnerabilities that don't necessarily line up with the AC values for leather/chain/plate. For example skeletons have AC what? 12 or something? But I'd say piercing weapons get a penalty (you might stab harmlessly straight through their ribcage), slashing weapons are neutral, and blunt weapons get a bonus.
Yup, my players learned early piercing weapons on skeletons were pretty bad and surprisingly they never forgot it---adapting play as necessary.
 

gandalf_scion

*eyeroll*
I should add that taking a few seconds to consult the table actually adds suspense to play.

The shortfall of slash/pierce/blunt is that it does not account for leverage, mass, or velocity. Knives and two handed swords are both slashing weapons, but one is six feet long and comes down with a lot more force owing to mass and velocity. That force is better at penetrating armor AND does more damage; damage dice account only for the latter. This difference is huge for flails which build up centrifugal force before "piercing" foes with spikes made all the more deadly by the swinging mass (F=Ma) on which they are mounted. Anyway, all these complexities are summed up in by-weapon-mods vice broader rubrics.

What your actually comparing to is "Armor Class Type" not merely AC. So, a skeleton clad in rusty chain mail could be AC (type) 5 - the usual AC for chain mail. A typical 1e skeleton has AC 7 so I call that AC type 8 (leather), but one might judge it to be AC type 6 (scale mail). Hence, when the foe's exact armor is not known their is an element of judgement to this; but that's old news for RPGs.

Also FYI, 1e skeletons take only half damage from sharp weapons for the reasons you cite.
 
Top