5e -> 1D&D, as a PLAYER / DM do you care?

[Zuras]

Except for all the feats that make number go up

You’d have to completely re-work much of the system, as Dexterity based martials would need a completely new basis for AC calculation, unless you intend for Rogues and Monks to be nerfed. It’s considerably more than a cosmetic change, so you’ll need to change all the feats while you’re at it.

[KorvinStarmast]

You’d have to completely re-work much of the system, as Dexterity based martials would need a completely new basis for AC calculation, unless you intend for Rogues and Monks to be nerfed. It’s considerably more than a cosmetic change, so you’ll need to change all the feats while you’re at it.

Good point on the mechanical side.

[Witty Username]

There was a time that you got your stats once, at the beginning, and it took extraordinary magic or blessing from a deity to raise a stat. I think that returning to that would not harm the game. I also think that the game community who has grown up with the stat boost ASI standard would revolt.

I have fond memories of stuff from that time, but I am more thinking another angle from that. I am thinking of the kinds of things like if I recall the numbers right a 15 str got a +1 to attack rolls, and 16 got +1 to attack and damage rolls. As well as things like only benefiting from a con of higher than 16 if a warrior type.
I personally think having a 16+ stat should mean less than it currently does. Still enough to provide benefits but not to the point where it blocks say, a fighter from being able to fight effectively.

I agree that tier 2 is very strong and tier 3/4 level threats feel, lacking, for want of a better word. I think that could use more DM material support. But I feel that is in addition to high level progression feeling, superfluous, high level gains tend towards non-existant, and the monsters are still getting rolled from the level 5 stuff anyway. It has a sense of "we peaked".

[elyktsorb]

Please notew that the core unit in D&D is the party, not the PC. Stat jealousy isn't a good look. And, the options for point buy or a valid standard array can mitigate that.

That complaint primarily applies to games where the standard array isn't an option, and believe me I've played those in several editions. Tho I also enjoy having my number be high, can't help that, big number happy.

Didn't bother the vast majority of the players in my OD&D and AD&D games, nor in EPT. Looks like the problem here is the archer, not the arrow.

Maybe it didn't bother your circle of friends, but I've played with people who were annoyed by having lackluster stats from adnd to 3.5, 4th and 5th

[Ignimortis]

There was a time that you got your stats once, at the beginning, and it took extraordinary magic or blessing from a deity to raise a stat. I think that returning to that would not harm the game. I also think that the game community who has grown up with the stat boost ASI standard would revolt.

Darn right I would.

People who have started with OD&D and AD&D tend to have immensely different perspectives on D&D from people who started with 3e or 4e. As someone who started with 3.5, I expect D&D to be a zero-to-hero-to-demigod game, and have been consequently disappointed by every take on D&D that came after (granted, 4e was somewhat disappointing for different reasons). None have been a genuine improvement over late 3.5, which is already very far from perfect and could be iterated upon without much issue (most if not all good changes to the 3.5 formula that 5e made are overshadowed by bad changes 5e made, PF1 is the worst of 3.5 put on a pedestal, and PF2 is a wargame for 4 to 6 players).

IMO, if anything, D&D needs more ASIs, not less. Possibly not in the 5e stat format (high starting points and low caps would mean that everyone would be good at mostly everything by level 12), but that's a thing that PF2 got semi-right - you get to boost 4 out of 6 stats every five levels, with no real hard cap on how high stats can actually go. So your Fighter isn't only raising STR or DEX, but also some INT or WIS to supplement their non-combat capabilities.

Feats should also be uncoupled from ASIs completely, with half-feats receiving some other benefit than +1 stat to keep them competitive. 5e found a decent point for feats where they do actually feel meaningful and impactful, and a couple of balance changes (both up and down) could very well make them the best version of feats thus far.

As someone who grew up playing baldur's gate, I would absolutely sit there, for literal hours, tapping reroll until I got the highest stats possible, despite the fact that 3 or 4 of those stats would not matter for my character.

I'd usually be satisfied with an 86 or more total, IIRC.

Please notew that the core unit in D&D is the party, not the PC.

This approach should be extremely moderated when it comes to designing the game. If taken even a bit too far, you get PCs that are unpleasantly incompetent whenever the party isn't backing them up. See: PF2e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As someone who started with 3.5, I expect D&D to be a zero-to-hero-to-demigod game,

Whereas I strongly prefer a more "action hero" to "low-mid-level superhero" (very much more Hawkeye, much less Dr Strange). Settings make much more sense, games don't have jarring transitions in theme and scope, and the numbers still actually work. Whereas at either zero or demigod...they don't. And never have--3e's numbers never made any sense.

[J-H]

If we're talking 1/2nd edition changes, my next game is going to cap HP growth at level 10 and only have HP after that = to CON mod, or something similar. 19th level characters with 160hp can just blow off multiple Prismatic Sprays, Cones of Cold, Fireballs, dragon full attacks, etc. even if they fail their saves.

[Psyren]

There was a time that you got your stats once, at the beginning, and it took extraordinary magic or blessing from a deity to raise a stat. I think that returning to that would not harm the game. I also think that the game community who has grown up with the stat boost ASI standard would revolt.

Honestly, one of the interesting things about bounded accuracy is that you could do that and it wouldn't make the game unplayable. It would definitely be less fun (for most people) than maxing out your primary stat though, I'd wager.

[elyktsorb]

I'd usually be satisfied with an 86 or more total, IIRC.

You haven't lived until you've rolled a 96, course now they got programs to roll your baldur's gate stats for you

[J-H]

At that point, why not just use Shadowkeeper to edit your stats?

[Ignimortis]

Whereas I strongly prefer a more "action hero" to "low-mid-level superhero" (very much more Hawkeye, much less Dr Strange). Settings make much more sense, games don't have jarring transitions in theme and scope, and the numbers still actually work. Whereas at either zero or demigod...they don't. And never have--3e's numbers never made any sense.

3e's numbers make a decent amount of sense until you start going out of (very generous) bounds. Is any creature meant to have three-digit STR? Probably not. Can the game handle a creature with 40 or even 50 in a stat? Yes, it can. I certainly prefer 3.5's high-end baddies to 5e's high-end baddies, in part because they emphasize quality over quantity, something that 5e sorely lacks (500-1000 archers > 1 of anything). It provides the grit to lower levels (any point before level 5 is pretty swingy and deadly), and high power to higher levels (though I do dislike the general idea of the sheer amount of blanket immunities the game expects you to pick up).

As for jarring transitions - I find that a game about people who have trouble clearing a tomb of shambling corpses is inherently narratively very different from a game about people who can break a high-ranking devil over their knee in a couple seconds or visit a different, dangerous plane of existence casually. I don't see any reason for them to play very similarly, although I confess that I do think D&D hasn't ever been good at anything but ground-based grid-focused (even if not run on a grid) combat in various ways. Perhaps part of the issue is that modeling a 3d environment is far harder than it is a 2d one, and thus the crazy reality of consistent flight and teleportation and mobility gets a bit limited by the tools we have to depict them, and another part is that not everyone even gets those capabilities (though 3e had them be a lot more accessible).

Which is, I think, why every D&D-like after 3.5 actually tried really hard to ground (both literally and figuratively) the game - because designing a game around low-level (in feel) ground-based combat is far easier than allowing for multiple ways to bypass some of the most common design elements, such as difficult terrain, ground-based cover, walls in general, etc. For instance, I can design a combat where lacking flight will get you killed automatically, but that would require the game to guarantee flight at some point, wouldn't it?

You haven't lived until you've rolled a 96, course now they got programs to roll your baldur's gate stats for you

The worst was trying to get a 18/00 in STR for melees, of course. These days I just don't, and, indeed, just write stuff in with Shadowkeeper.

[Cheesegear]

What's in it for you the end user?

From the UAs so far, I've seen very little - mostly negative - changes that necessitate an edition change.

The few positive things I've seen, I could easily 'port into 5e as it is. If WotC just took the things from the UA, put them into a 5.1 PHB, and sold me that, we're good to go.

I don't forsee changing to 1DD until 12-18 months after 1DD is released. I was very happy with 5e up until Tasha's, and even the things I don't like in Tasha's, I've been able to work around. I see no reason to change editions in the short term.

Long term. I will have to change editions. Eventually. But hopefully by the time I do change, the kinks will have been worked out in the edition, and hopefully the community will have formulated some errata/FAQs to patch the major holes in the edition that wont be fixed on release.

But ultimately 1DD shows me that min-maxing will still be very prevalent. So the main issue I have with 5e, I'm still going to have with 1DD.

[Rukelnikov]

There was a time that you got your stats once, at the beginning, and it took extraordinary magic or blessing from a deity to raise a stat. I think that returning to that would not harm the game. I also think that the game community who has grown up with the stat boost ASI standard would revolt.

I think I agree. Ruleswise 2e had a loooooot of clunkiness, but feels wise, its probably the edition that best captured the feel of adventure.

As someone who grew up playing baldur's gate, I would absolutely sit there, for literal hours, tapping reroll until I got the highest stats possible, despite the fact that 3 or 4 of those stats would not matter for my character.

The issue with roll once and live with it always comes down to if you roll particularly badly, or if someone else rolls amazingly well. Boy do I love having a +2 to my primary attacking stat with minuses in other significant stat while my ally has a +5 to their primary attacking stat and no negatives at all.

As someone who has played several editions of dnd, having worse stats than another player because of dumb luck will always be the worst.


I personally also do not give a flying feather about onednd

But did you really felt the difference? I don't remember feeling that in 2e and we sometimes did 3d6 straight, I remember them feeling less relevant in combat (magic item envy was a thing though). But we were a group of mostly noobs, with a couple players with 1 and 3 years experience at most and used ToTM, so combat was frankly a very different experience.

I have fond memories of stuff from that time, but I am more thinking another angle from that. I am thinking of the kinds of things like if I recall the numbers right a 15 str got a +1 to attack rolls, and 16 got +1 to attack and damage rolls. As well as things like only benefiting from a con of higher than 16 if a warrior type.
I personally think having a 16+ stat should mean less than it currently does. Still enough to provide benefits but not to the point where it blocks say, a fighter from being able to fight effectively.

Consider having Int 15 vs 18 as a Wizard, you max spells per level go from like 10 to 15, I played a Wizard to 9, and never even reached 10 spells/lvl. I would have had missed out on copying some scrolls, which would have been a bummer, but probably much less relevant than 5e's 15 to 18 Int gap. (With the latter options like Non-weapon Proficiencies into spell specializations it would've been more directly translatable to combat usefulness, but that not how the game worked originally)

I agree that tier 2 is very strong and tier 3/4 level threats feel, lacking, for want of a better word. I think that could use more DM material support. But I feel that is in addition to high level progression feeling, superfluous, high level gains tend towards non-existant, and the monsters are still getting rolled from the level 5 stuff anyway. It has a sense of "we peaked".

I remember higher levels being much more resilient to mixed level parties, I remember we used to do more "west march" like campaigns (i.e.: mostly one shots with whomever is available that day), so frequently we would end up with lvl 7-10 in the same party, and you could still do fine when in the lower end of the party's levels.

[Captain Panda]

"It's a solution in search of a problem." I think this pretty much sums up my opinion.

Toss me into that same boat. I like 5e fine. One D&D doesn't seem to have any selling point as far as I can see. Is there some new vision for the game? Major problems with 5e they are addressing? Major reworks to their design philosophy? I don't see it.

Everything released so far, with a few limited exceptions, has been either a "meh" from me or an outright downgrade. I just don't see a need for this game. They sound a lot like they're making changes for the sake of it just to sell new books, not making changes to make a better game.

That, and it doesn't help that their recent corporate overreach has offended the community and left me very hesitant to ever give them a dime again. I'm happy to pay for quality products; I'm not going to just give them money because they slap D&D on the cover of a book.

[Captain Cap]

But ultimately 1DD shows me that min-maxing will still be very prevalent. So the main issue I have with 5e, I'm still going to have with 1DD.

Have you ever considered classless systems? As someone with similar gripes, I find that I tend to enjoy them more.

[Cheesegear]

Have you ever considered classless systems? As someone with similar gripes, I find that I tend to enjoy them more.

But I like Classes.
What I don't like is that each Class is keyed to a specific ability score.

What I don't like is that there is no reason at all to play a Barbarian with an Int score higher than your lowest number. What I don't like is that Cha is basically a dump stat for every class.

What does a Fighter get if they have high Cha? ...Provoke/Taunt? Rally?
What does a Wizard get if they have high Str? ...Armour proficiencies?

Just...Anything. I feel like at this point I need to make the homebrew. I've mentioned it so many times on this forum.

[stoutstien]

Have you ever considered classless systems? As someone with similar gripes, I find that I tend to enjoy them more.

Eh.the min/max subculture of 5e is holding the system back more so than any integral design issues it may have.

There's nothing wrong with it as a play style or means of entertainment but 5e just doesn't support it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have fond memories of stuff from that time, but I am more thinking another angle from that. I am thinking of the kinds of things like if I recall the numbers right a 15 str got a +1 to attack rolls, and 16 got +1 to attack and damage rolls. As well as things like only benefiting from a con of higher than 16 if a warrior type.

13-15 +1, 16-7 +2, 18 +3 was another way to approach that in a way that fit how a 3d6 bell curve works.

I personally think having a 16+ stat should mean less than it currently does. Still enough to provide benefits but not to the point where it blocks say, a fighter from being able to fight effectively.

Bounded accuracy and the proficiency system mostly addresses that.

I agree that tier 2 is very strong and tier 3/4 level threats feel, lacking, for want of a better word. I think that could use more DM material support. But I feel that is in addition to high level progression feeling, superfluous, high level gains tend towards non-existant, and the monsters are still getting rolled from the level 5 stuff anyway. It has a sense of "we peaked".

More support for Tier 3 and Tier 4 DMs would be nice. (This is where some 3PP authors have added value at DMs Guild which risks going away if the whole open license thing goes bad).

Honestly, one of the interesting things about bounded accuracy is that you could do that and it wouldn't make the game unplayable.

Tend to agree. Caveat: I think that any monster with a CR of 1/4 or less ought to have +1 PB, not +2. It's one of the pieces of that system that I think is incorrect.

The min/max subculture of 5e is holding the system back more so than any integral design issues it may have.

Concur. I have seen far to many rants about PAM on this forum that are utterly unfounded ... I'll stop.

There's nothing wrong with it as a play style or means of entertainment but 5e just doesn't support it.

More importantly, it doesn't need it.

[skyth]

Which edition had a big difference on how stats affected things -

BECMI had bonuses at a lower level (13-15 was +1, 16-17 was +2 and 18 was +3). Created more of a discrepancy, especially since high stats in the one for your class gave you more xp combined with the variable xp needed to level based on class made it less balanced between players.

1st and 2nd, stats had less of an effect except for extreme (ie 18) strength for fighters. You needed a 16 str to get a +1 to damage (17 gave +1 hit and damage, 18 gave +1 hit, +2 damage). However, fighters with 18 strength rolled an additional d100 to modify it and could get up to +3 to hit and +6 to damage. The disparity in effectiveness between a 15 strength fighter and an 18/00 strength fighter is huge. The other stats didn't matter as much, so rolling off stats wasn't that much of a disadvantage compared to the rest of the party except if you didn't meet the stat requirements for the class you want.

I know I was frustrated if I had to play someone with worse stats that has an in-game effect compared to the rest of the party. Ideally you want a party to feel like everyone has the opportunity to equally contribute to the success. Rolling stats contributes to unbalanced parties and feeling like your contribution doesn't really matter.

[Joe the Rat]

Have you ever considered classless systems? As someone with similar gripes, I find that I tend to enjoy them more.

But I like Classes.

Eclipse: The Codex Persona is a lovely little 3.5 era tool for making "classes" from scratch. Assigning build points to all the usual features, trading trees for expanding features of the various feat-like abilities... and quite a few alternative resource systems for "magic". Something similar could be done with 5e. Hell, most of the good 'brewers probably have some sort of feature calculus already.

Then again, this is pretty close to "classless and level" rather than "class and level."