D&D 2.5 e?

[Sploggle1]

From what I've seen in the previews and the free version this version looks a lot like 2nd. From the death at 0 hit points if you fail the save to the classes jam packed with special abilities. The classes I've compared have been the Bard, and the paladin which look very similar. The feats being optional is another thing. Take the opt out on feats and it would be even closer to being 2e.
The .5 would be the things that seem similar to 3rd or 3.5 which would be the feats, The optional CR chart, and some of the skills 2e wouldn't offer.

This is not a bad thing. Personally I think wizards should have reverted years ago before they took a hit from 4th. I like how they are adding older elements and so far this system looks promising.

Any other thoughts on it being 2.5th edition?

[akaddk]

Sigh.

https://i.imgur.com/EvEzsgKl.png

[Sploggle1]

As your chart says mostly 2e and 3rd e. 4th edition is almost non existent which im glad about so I will stand by 2.5. the only thing it gets from 4th is the Bard stuff, more attributes, and that last bubble which amount to nothing of the other editions.

[AuraTwilight]

The chart's inaccurate on the grounds that it implies the bard isn't totally baller in 3.x, because it totally is, especially with splatbook support.

[Chaosvii7]

This chart is absolute blasphemy of the highest order. It's slanderous, and offensive that somebody would go so far as to put gross misinformation like that onto this chart. I have never felt so insulted in all of my life.

The Bard has always been awesome.

In all seriousness, I'm glad somebody laid out the actual design cues from each edition before it in this roadmap, because it clarifies a lot about where the game has come from and where it's going with 5e. I've been told time and time again that 5e took the most design cues from 2e and AD&D, but I've never had any idea to base it off of.

I also had a long hard think about it and did a lot of soul searching, but my verdict is that I prefer 5e's Proficiency skill system over 3.X's skill ranks system. It was too messy, and realizing that it comes from 4e(which had it's own good design cues, that being one of them) AND 2e I am now sold on the idea for that combo of new-age thinking(proficiency) and old-style flavor. It's too complex to worry oneself with the meticulous ranking up of skills, especially when it can cause analysis paralysis for new players and is almost as great a source of number crunching as metamagic reduction was.

I might make that chart my background until I get my player's handbook in.

[Joe the Rat]

No, it's 2.75. 2.5 was the Player's Option series.

(In all seriousness, I get a strong 2e vibe from it as well, but that's my fallback preferred edition)

Love the chart.

[obryn]

It's missing several 3e influences, especially buffet-style multiclassing. Spontaneous casters, too.

It also has feats shared between 3e and 4e, though closer to the 3e rate than the 4e rate.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's missing several 3e influences, especially buffet-style multiclassing. Spontaneous casters, too.

It also has feats shared between 3e and 4e, though closer to the 3e rate than the 4e rate.

Well technically both cleric and wizard are spontaneous casters, they just get to pick spell known in a better way than the 3.5 sorcerer. It is a weird hybrid that I think should do well.

[MeeposFire]

This chart is absolute blasphemy of the highest order. It's slanderous, and offensive that somebody would go so far as to put gross misinformation like that onto this chart. I have never felt so insulted in all of my life.

The Bard has always been awesome.

In all seriousness, I'm glad somebody laid out the actual design cues from each edition before it in this roadmap, because it clarifies a lot about where the game has come from and where it's going with 5e. I've been told time and time again that 5e took the most design cues from 2e and AD&D, but I've never had any idea to base it off of.

I also had a long hard think about it and did a lot of soul searching, but my verdict is that I prefer 5e's Proficiency skill system over 3.X's skill ranks system. It was too messy, and realizing that it comes from 4e(which had it's own good design cues, that being one of them) AND 2e I am now sold on the idea for that combo of new-age thinking(proficiency) and old-style flavor. It's too complex to worry oneself with the meticulous ranking up of skills, especially when it can cause analysis paralysis for new players and is almost as great a source of number crunching as metamagic reduction was.

I might make that chart my background until I get my player's handbook in.

Yes the bard has always been awesome. The 2e bard's problem was a lack of any real role what so ever (3e could get away with group buffer and trivially could become the skill monkey+item abuse but the 2e one lacked these qualities to make itself a role) and it was not quite versatile enough to be a true jack of all trades (it is close but I think it needs slightly more warrior, a lot more thief, and something priestly to be a true jack of all trades). The bard could be powerful though it was usually abusing its spell list, with its decent weapon/armor list, and its quick progression chart (with a smattering of nice versatility). The bard wasn't perfect by any means but it was far better than its reputation ended up being (oddly the same is true with the cleric as it was a powerhouse but many people think it is weak due to being perceived as the heal bot).

[Sploggle1]

I can agree with 2.75 and I can also agree that 4th was not the only edition the bard was good in. Anyone who knows how to play a bard to their strengths can make them work in any edition. In the current edition I'm playing (3.5) The bard has a lot of strengths the other classes don't. For one their Bardic knowledge. You can figure out anything another character cant with this making the bard an information broker. Also in 3.5 the way a bard can learn spells puts their learning curve ahead of the wizard.

[obryn]

The 1e bard was pretty OP.

[Sartharina]

I say it's Dungeons+Dragons. Trying to put a number on it in relation to where it stands with others, as though they're a continuum, is impossible.

[Theodoxus]

I say it's Dungeons+Dragons. Trying to put a number on it in relation to where it stands with others, as though they're a continuum, is impossible.

Agreed - +1 and all that jazz.

It's helpful to those who, for whatever reason, never picked up 3, 4 or PF to understand that 5th ed plays similar to 2nd - but similar is about as close as you're gonna get.

Its experiential; and not even straightforward in it's aptitude. One could adopt a 4th-esque playstyle with the 5th ed rules - it's all there, just not neatly codified like 4th was. I'm planning on running a 3x/4th-ish style campaign using battlemaps and miniatures because I find tracking positioning in my head to be overly burdensome. But I'm happy to play in a TotM game - as long as the DM is willing to give me accurate descriptions of distances and times for my character to react within.

The game, as it always has been, is what you make it.

[Tholomyes]

Agreed - +1 and all that jazz.

It's helpful to those who, for whatever reason, never picked up 3, 4 or PF to understand that 5th ed plays similar to 2nd - but similar is about as close as you're gonna get.

Its experiential; and not even straightforward in it's aptitude. One could adopt a 4th-esque playstyle with the 5th ed rules - it's all there, just not neatly codified like 4th was. I'm planning on running a 3x/4th-ish style campaign using battlemaps and miniatures because I find tracking positioning in my head to be overly burdensome. But I'm happy to play in a TotM game - as long as the DM is willing to give me accurate descriptions of distances and times for my character to react within.

The game, as it always has been, is what you make it.Just as an aside, I've found TotM works well with minis simply as a rough estimate of location and for who is adjacent to whom. It still speeds things up considerably, since you don't have to deal with distances and areas. The issue I take with D&D and TotM is that, even with TotM, everything is described in exact distances and areas, and especially when you have things such as reach and threatened zones, and AoE spells, and the like, it takes a lot of on the spot adjudication, which I'm personally very bad at. I'm good when I can take time to work mechanics out more, and I'm pretty decent with on-the-spot narrative improvisation, but I'm not as good with mechanical improvisation, just going based on instinct, meaning I prefer Battlemaps, so I can be more secure in my role as an impartial judge in combat.

[Aurorablade]

But does it have a THACO?

[Knaight]

But does it have a THACO?

Thankfully, no.

[obryn]

Thankfully, no.
It will in a module.

Because clearly that's critical.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It will in a module.

Because clearly that's critical.

Well technically every edition had THAC0, AC is the reverse of ACC (accending armor class) after all.

:smallbiggrin:

I've had friends out west play 4e with all attacks working through THAC0. No clue why other than just because they could...

[da_chicken]

I've had friends out west play 4e with all attacks working through THAC0. No clue why other than just because they could...

Because what fun is D&D if you can't mistake THAC0 - (d20 + bonus) with THAC0 - d20 + bonus!

[Doug Lampert]

Because what fun is D&D if you can't mistake THAC0 - (d20 + bonus) with THAC0 - d20 + bonus!

Surely you combine the bonus into THAC0 in advance so it's (THAC0 - bonus) - d20. Without that you don't get the joy of using your "bonus" as a subtraction.

Being older school I simply used d20 + bonus and compare with the table cross-referenced by class and level. Who needs this new-fangled over-simplified wussed out for those too lazy to memorize the table THAC0 garbage?!

[obryn]

When I run oldschool, I use the same method Darker Dungeons uses. It's awesome because it's easy to remember and doesn't require serious monster conversion.

20-THAC0 = Your PC's Base Attack Bonus.
Add in any other special stuff to your attack bonus - strength/dex, specialization, magic items. Pencil this final attack bonus in next to the weapon.

When attacking, roll a d20. Add your final attack bonus. Tell the DM. The DM adds the monster's AC. Total of 20 or above = HIT!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Surely you combine the bonus into THAC0 in advance so it's (THAC0 - bonus) - d20. Without that you don't get the joy of using your "bonus" as a subtraction.

Being older school I simply used d20 + bonus and compare with the table cross-referenced by class and level. Who needs this new-fangled over-simplified wussed out for those too lazy to memorize the table THAC0 garbage?!

Role Master is calling, they say THAC0 is for wusses.

:smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

But does it have a THACO?

No, but it has tacos.

For me, it's not so much that the 5E rules remind me of 2E (they really don't), but that reading all the design discussion and related forum debate made me appreciate 2E more, and want to play it again. In particular, I find that most of the commonly cited issues with 3E come from changes made between 2E and 3E.

[MeeposFire]

No, but it has tacos.

For me, it's not so much that the 5E rules remind me of 2E (they really don't), but that reading all the design discussion and related forum debate made me appreciate 2E more, and want to play it again. In particular, I find that most of the commonly cited issues with 3E come from changes made between 2E and 3E.

Oh man I miss playing AD&D. Yea I would make some changes but honestly I think it is still my overall favorite system. I should go back and make my tweaks to it though (like making rogues and rangers better, and making it so that bards actually have a role even if they are already awesome, etc).

[da_chicken]

Surely you combine the bonus into THAC0 in advance so it's (THAC0 - bonus) - d20. Without that you don't get the joy of using your "bonus" as a subtraction.

Being older school I simply used d20 + bonus and compare with the table cross-referenced by class and level. Who needs this new-fangled over-simplified wussed out for those too lazy to memorize the table THAC0 garbage?!

Oh that works just fine. For bonuses you get all day. Now charge and you get a +1 bonus. That subtracts from your THAC0 or adds to your die roll. Then next turn the enemy cleric casts prayer, and you're at -1. That adds to your THAC0 or subtracts from your die roll.

Like most editions of D&D, the combat is super simple until you get to all the fiddly bonuses. When you have to deal with fiddley bonuses *and* remember order of operations it's easy to accidentally turn a +1 into a -1.

Remember: THAC0 isn't bad because it's complicated. It's bad because it's needlessly complicated.

[obryn]

Oh man I miss playing AD&D. Yea I would make some changes but honestly I think it is still my overall favorite system. I should go back and make my tweaks to it though (like making rogues and rangers better, and making it so that bards actually have a role even if they are already awesome, etc).
Guys, I love AD&D, especially 1e. I love it a whole lot.

But if you haven't looked back into RC D&D (or if you've never looked into it) you really, really should. For my money it's better designed than most games of its era, and most D&D editions, too. Plus, it's a one book game, which includes adventuring to realm management to war to becoming immortal.

Its retroclone, Dark Dungeons, does a stellar job of it, improving on the source material in a lot of ways.

[MeeposFire]

Guys, I love AD&D, especially 1e. I love it a whole lot.

But if you haven't looked back into RC D&D (or if you've never looked into it) you really, really should. For my money it's better designed than most games of its era, and most D&D editions, too. Plus, it's a one book game, which includes adventuring to realm management to war to becoming immortal.

Its retroclone, Dark Dungeons, does a stellar job of it, improving on the source material in a lot of ways.

I love the Rules Cyclopedia just got it this Christmas (assuming that is what you are talking about). There are some things I would still change but it is very cool.

[obryn]

I love the Rules Cyclopedia just got it this Christmas (assuming that is what you are talking about). There are some things I would still change but it is very cool.
Oh yeah. In particular, the Thief class is terrible. It's well-known to be terrible, and there are a number of suggested fixes. When I run RC next, I'll probably up their hit dice to a d6 and increase all their Thief Skill chances by, say, 3x their Dexterity or maybe just a flat 50%. Because if your entire class is "the dungeon guy who's good at dungeoning" but your chances of success mean you're actually terrible at dungeoning, something's gone wrong. :smallsmile:

[MeeposFire]

Oh yeah. In particular, the Thief class is terrible. It's well-known to be terrible, and there are a number of suggested fixes. When I run RC next, I'll probably up their hit dice to a d6 and increase all their Thief Skill chances by, say, 3x their Dexterity or maybe just a flat 50%. Because if your entire class is "the dungeon guy who's good at dungeoning" but your chances of success mean you're actually terrible at dungeoning, something's gone wrong. :smallsmile:

Yea the thief was definitely one of the classes needing some help. I think it needs some more combat and defensive power too (I am thinking of adding bonus damage in sneak attack like situations and giving them the resistance ability that the mystic eventually gets so that they are not so frail).

Also I love the fighter can choose to gain spells as a paladin but I think more classes need options like that. The thief could do it with a bard option for example.