Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that WotC decided to make a 5E AD&D game which, rather than being a replacement for 5E, was instead meant to run alongside it as a more difficult and detailed game for those players who prefer that in their game (I.E. They would sell D&D and AD&D alongside each other in stores)? What would you like to see in such a game? For myself, I’d like the following:
The return of race penalties. A Half-Orc should be, on average, dumber and less charismatic than a human, which should be less stout than a dwarf or less agile than an elf, on average. And of course, no variable ability score bonuses like in Tasha’s. A Dwarf always gets +2 Con, an Elf always gets +2 Dex, etc. None of this silliness with Mountain Dwarves with +2 Dex/+2 Int.
Different ability score caps for different races. Maybe something like 22 for a stat a race has a +2 bonus in, and 18 for a stat that a race has a -2 bonus in. I’ve never liked that, by Level 20, a Half-Orc Wizard is just as intelligent as a High Elf Wizard. The smartest High Elf Wizard should absolutely be noticeably smarter than the smartest Half-Orc Wizard. The strongest Halfling Fighter should never be as strong as the strongest Human Fighter, nor anywhere near as strong as the strongest Half-Orc Fighter.
Humans changed to a combination of the standard human and variant human (+1 to all six stats, 1 extra language, 1 extra proficiency, and 1 bonus feat).
1 Feat is automatically granted at Level 1 and every 5 levels thereafter (5, 10, 15, 20).
Level 0 for all classes, even weaker than a Level 1, somewhere between a commoner and a Level 1 adventurer.
Leveling requiring training time to advance to the next level, with experience point gains frozen until such time, thus preventing characters from advancing multiple levels and inexplicably gaining new abilities while in the middle of a dungeon.
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels).
Wizard/Sorcerer HD reduced to D4.
Bard/Rogue/Warlock HD reduced to D6.
Proficiency Bonus divided into three stats: Combat Proficiency Bonus, Magic Proficiency Bonus, and Skill Proficiency Bonus. Different classes get different bonuses in each, rather than getting the same for all (in other words, a high Dex Wizard at Level 1 should not be as good of a knife fighter as a Fighter. Likewise, a Wizard gets a higher bonus to their skills than a Fighter would, as the Wizard is far more educated).
Spellcasting foci (F) become a separate component in addition to Verbal (V), Somatic (S), Material (M). Many spells require the use of a foci (wand, staff, rod, orb, etc.) in order to be able to be cast. ALL cantrips require a foci (I.E. a Wizard without their foci, whether a wand or a staff, can’t cast Magic Missile).
Material (M) components becoming more common and dependent on possessing the specific material component to cast the spell (copper wire, two magnets, pork rind, chalk, etc), giving Wizards a reason to hunt for weird items.
Armor purchased in pieces for different parts of the body, making it possible to mix-and-match armor pieces.
Armor damage rules, which necessitate armor requiring regular upkeep and repair.
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on).
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust).
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls.
Called Shot rules, making it possible to strike a specific body part and inflict an effect depending on which body part was struck, with more dangerous effects if that called shot becomes a critical hit.
Critical hit tables similar to the ones found in the old AD&D book Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics, which could lead to permanent scars, crippling wounds, severed limbs, and even instant death.
Long Rest no longer restores all lost hit points. Instead, a character only regains one hit point per level per each Long Rest, with the possibility of regaining more under different circumstances (bed rest, hospitalization, etc.). Without magical healing, it should be common for an adventurer to require several days rest to fully recover, should they have been severely hurt on an adventure.
Similar to how Classic World of Warcraft brought back the Vanilla World of Warcraft game, settings for AD&D 5E should bring back versions of beloved campaign settings as they were by the end of 3E, unaffected by changes made to them in 4E or 5E. So for example, AD&D Ravenloft should reflect the Ravenloft setting as of the last Ravenloft book published by Arthaus. AD&D Forgotten Realms should reflect the Forgotten Realms setting as of the last Forgotten Realms book published at the end of the 3E era, and so on.
So those are my thoughts. How about you all? Would you like an AD&D which is concurrent with regular D&D and doesn’t replace it? And if so, what would you like to see in it? What would make it “Advanced” for you?
A few of these are either variant rules in the DMG, or can easily be a house rule if the players are looking for a harder, grittier game. No need for a new edition that splits the community. If people want a harder game, the DM has the power to do that in a variety of ways. For example, idea #6 is completely in the hands of the DM already. Idea #18 already sort of already exists in the form of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. Ideas #1 and #2 feel like a bit of a regression given 5e's design goals, and the evolving social politics of the world.
Rather than an "advanced" edition, I'm more in favor of a 5.5e of sorts. Even out the power level of some classes, standardize subclass advancement (so that subclasses like those in the Strixhaven UA would work), and give more options to martial characters.
Number 21 is an argument waiting to happen. 3e is not the default time for a vanilla version. It may be for you (and that’s cool, nothing wrong with that), but there’s lots of us that remember the deeper magic. Others seem like trying to bring back bad ideas. For example, they got rid of crit tables (No. 19) because it screws characters. They got rid of training for levels (No. 6) because it wasn’t fun.
And taken together, what you’re suggesting wouldn’t be 5 e advanced that would work alongside; it would be a whole new edition.
But you could go check out enworld. They’re about to release something they’re marketing as a 5e advanced. Or pathfinder has lots of gritty rules.
I don't see people tolerating this. I know a lot of these rules beef down martial classes, but I would never play a wizard with d4 hit die, and most definitely not a sorcerer, weak as they already are. You could, as nightmyst999 suggested, make a lot of these as house rules. Generally, messing with core principals, like spells, classes, and races, doesn't go too well, unless its making small changes, as Tasha's did to the ranger class. I think I agree that this would basically be a new edition. But hey, if you want to use this with your players, that's cool, but I don't think these changes even make it "advanced" or more difficult, just a different edition.
On another note, If we were to get advanced DnD 5e, or if we were to get 5.5e (which I would be more in favor of), I would like a bit more solidity in DnD 5e as a whole. The races and classes and rules are getting so diverse, especially with books like Xanathar's guide and Tasha's. I love these books , and I love the new stuff, and I don't even want anything removed. I would just prefer a bit more organization to the game. We've branched out so much from the PHB I think we need a new rule book that organizes all the content together.
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on).
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust).
That being said, i like these rules, as it adds some good variety to the game. I will say one of the things 5e lacks is some weapon variety, and your way makes combat, especially tactical combat, much more versatile.
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls.
In my opinion, this is an unnecessary complication. The point of Dex being added to initiative is so that said rogue has a higher bonus than the barbarian. Say the rogue's bonus is +5, and the barb's is +2. The high Dex of the rogue accounts for their speed advantage in combat. Sometimes, the barbarian might end up going first, but that's just the roll of the dice. It's up to the DM or the players to roleplay why one goes before the other. Maybe the rogue tripped, or lost his footing, or the barbarian raged and gained a sudden burst of energy. The point is, don't try to make DnD overly realistic, to the point where you try to make every dice role completely logical. Sometimes, the sneaky rogue rolls a nat 1 on initiative, and the others roll a nat 20.
I also prefer more optional rules rather than an advanced edition. I do not see the point of having an advanced edition as that is essentially just a list of "official" house rules that people are just going to modify and homebrew further anyways. Having a base game with more optional rules can better serve that purpose.
The return of race penalties. A Half-Orc should be, on average, dumber and less charismatic than a human, which should be less stout than a dwarf or less agile than an elf, on average. And of course, no variable ability score bonuses like in Tasha’s. A Dwarf always gets +2 Con, an Elf always gets +2 Dex, etc. None of this silliness with Mountain Dwarves with +2 Dex/+2 Int. ------ I don't know anything about Tasha's, but the first bit is already in the game. It may not be in terms of negative, but a High Elf is more intelligent than a Drow because it has a positive modifier to Int. That it's all positive in description is a mathematical thing - races get different modifiers.
Different ability score caps for different races. Maybe something like 22 for a stat a race has a +2 bonus in, and 18 for a stat that a race has a -2 bonus in. I’ve never liked that, by Level 20, a Half-Orc Wizard is just as intelligent as a High Elf Wizard. The smartest High Elf Wizard should absolutely be noticeably smarter than the smartest Half-Orc Wizard. The strongest Halfling Fighter should never be as strong as the strongest Human Fighter, nor anywhere near as strong as the strongest Half-Orc Fighter. ---- I don't like this. I like that characters are not permanently behind, that if you focus on something, you can eventually even out. It.kist means sacrificing in other areas that would otherwise have received those points.
Humans changed to a combination of the standard human and variant human (+1 to all six stats, 1 extra language, 1 extra proficiency, and 1 bonus feat). ---- I don't know how that would affect balance, but it would help overcome the vanillaness of humans and so why they're played so little by making them pretty powerful.
1 Feat is automatically granted at Level 1 and every 5 levels thereafter (5, 10, 15, 20). ----- I like the idea, but would want a lot more feats put in so there is an actual choice. I'm playing a Wizard and will probably never take a.feat for him - none were particularly enticing, not enough not take the ASIs that would improve my character generally.
Level 0 for all classes, even weaker than a Level 1, somewhere between a commoner and a Level 1 adventurer. ----- I'm not sure of the point of this.
Leveling requiring training time to advance to the next level, with experience point gains frozen until such time, thus preventing characters from advancing multiple levels and inexplicably gaining new abilities while in the middle of a dungeon. ----- I'm conflicted. It sounds good, but levelling up in dungeon can provide that "I've taken a beating and I'm about to dish it right back at you" moments.
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels). ---- sometimes a person's speciality develops over time. For example, my Wizard makes sense that he's learning the basics and then developed an aptitude for evocation - rather than just being super awesome at evocation and just collecting the rewards of that aptitude as time goes on. Perhaps a variable start.would be appropriate. Some might be available from character creation and others later on.
Wizard/Sorcerer HD reduced to D4..----- No. That's far too squishy. Wizards are.bad enough as it is, with their low AC.
Bard/Rogue/Warlock HD reduced to D6. --- Maybe, I'm not sure.
Proficiency Bonus divided into three stats: Combat Proficiency Bonus, Magic Proficiency Bonus, and Skill Proficiency Bonus. Different classes get different bonuses in each, rather than getting the same for all (in other words, a high Dex Wizard at Level 1 should not be as good of a knife fighter as a Fighter. Likewise, a Wizard gets a higher bonus to their skills than a Fighter would, as the Wizard is far more educated). ----- already exists, at least the magic (Spell save DC and spell attack bonus) and skill proficiencies. The only difference is that now we have an overall proficiency as well.
Spellcasting foci (F) become a separate component in addition to Verbal (V), Somatic (S), Material (M). Many spells require the use of a foci (wand, staff, rod, orb, etc.) in order to be able to be cast. ALL cantrips require a foci (I.E. a Wizard without their foci, whether a wand or a staff, can’t cast Magic Missile). ----- I've not been a bard etc yet, but I like the current system where what separates me as a wizard from my wife's bard that, other than my spellbook, is my ability to cast most spells without having to have the required material.
Material (M) components becoming more common and dependent on possessing the specific material component to cast the spell (copper wire, two magnets, pork rind, chalk, etc), giving Wizards a reason to hunt for weird items. ----- Certainly more common would be good.
Armor purchased in pieces for different parts of the body, making it possible to mix-and-match armor pieces. ----- Yes, so long as it doesn't get too complicated to calculate AC.
Armor damage rules, which necessitate armor requiring regular upkeep and repair. ----- Theybsort of do, there are just no specific mechanics provided to do standardise it.
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on). ---- Agreed.
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust). ---- Agreed, and I'll implement this in my game, actually - thanks.
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls. ---- Agreed. Also, I'm frustrated that it's not taken into account in combat. I can, apparently run 30ft+ from anstanding start, but not repeatedly stable with a dagger in the same timeframe.
Called Shot rules, making it possible to strike a specific body part and inflict an effect depending on which body part was struck, with more dangerous effects if that called shot becomes a critical hit. ---- Agreed, with the caveat that the attack roll becomes harder. I can try to stab you in the head and do more damage, but I'm less likely to actually land the hit. Also dexterity and strength should go down as you take damage.
Critical hit tables similar to the ones found in the old AD&D book Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics, which could lead to permanent scars, crippling wounds, severed limbs, and even instant death. ---- No experience of this. You can get permanent scars already (by getting wounds and failing saves). I wouldn't hesitate to take the arm of a character if the situation called for it.
Long Rest no longer restores all lost hit points. Instead, a character only regains one hit point per level per each Long Rest, with the possibility of regaining more under different circumstances (bed rest, hospitalization, etc.). Without magical healing, it should be common for an adventurer to require several days rest to fully recover, should they have been severely hurt on an adventure. --- On the one hand I agree, but I can't help but feel that this would be problematic. At least at low levels, each battle can be life threatening and healing spells take spell slots. It might make it too difficult to insist on bed rest.
Similar to how Classic World of Warcraft brought back the Vanilla World of Warcraft game, settings for AD&D 5E should bring back versions of beloved campaign settings as they were by the end of 3E, unaffected by changes made to them in 4E or 5E. So for example, AD&D Ravenloft should reflect the Ravenloft setting as of the last Ravenloft book published by Arthaus. AD&D Forgotten Realms should reflect the Forgotten Realms setting as of the last Forgotten Realms book published at the end of the 3E era, and so on. ---- Eh, I don't know about this.
Some Inagree with, but a lot I don't. Part of it seems to be that we seem to fundamentally disagree on the nature of how things are, and you're pushing for your view to be represented in the game - regardless of who is right, that suggests that, to avoid splitting or putting off players, it's probably best to leave them out. Also, apart from 10, 15, 18 and 21, they're all really easy to homebrew into your games and 1 might be controversial. Changes.to the actual game should be, in my opinion, left to homebrews unless the changes might cause controversy.between DM and players (to give the DM authority on the matter) or if it's too complex to merely insert and would affect other rules as well.
Major edits to formatting for clarity and added closing paragraph.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think a Compendium of Optional Rules might be interesting, I don't know if that necessitates an entirely different AD&D version.
Most editions have had something like this so far. Gygax created the first Unearthed Arcana for 1st ed, 2nd ed had a couple of Player's Options books, 3ed ed had its own UA again. 4th had a modular installments approach, that was a little bit different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like the idea of a meatier game without having to resort to an entirely different RPG, or an older one with backwards mathematics such as ThAC0 (which I like, but would it sell enough to justify in today's RPG landscape). So I'll hear your suggestions.
The Return of Race Penalties. I'm fine with this, but I disagree with your example numbers. For instance I think Half-Orcs can have a greater (or equal) force of personality of a human given their intimidation. Neither side of their bloodline particularly wants anything to do with them (as written) so I could see them harnessing their neglect in a rather terrifying way. Charisma isn't just Persuasion. I also disagree with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything being "silliness." There's equal arguments for and against racial penalties as there are zero racial perks.
Different Ability Score caps for Different Races. I'm fine with this, but it's the examples I have some minor disagreements with. Even then, neither of us are qualified to design the game so there's no sense in me getting up in arms.
Human and Variant Human Combine. For the sake of convenience as I almost always go Variant, I'll agree to this, just not the specifics (+1 to all ability scores and a feat that can boost them?)
1 Feat automatically granted at lv.1. I like feats, and it's a layer of flexibility that's not really present in 5E's early class progression. I find feats are one of the best ways to make your character your character, mechanically and potentially RP-wise.
Level 0 for all classes. Sure, I'd want this as an option.
Levelling Requires Training. All of this is Milestone levelling, limited to a town/grove. I prefer Milestone anyway.
All Class Archetypes at Level 0. I think this would work better at Level 1, when you've covered the basics of your class. But then again I'm fine with the old Class Kits (today's archetypes/subclasses) at lv.0 too.
Wizard/Sorcerer D4 HD. I fail to see what this achieves.
Bard/Rogue/Sorcerer D6 HD. See above.
Proficiency Bonuses in Three Stats. Completely agree, I'm fine with this.
Spellcasting Foci (F) is a new component type. Much as this would aggrevate me, I understand it would be a necessary addition. Fair enough.
Material (M) components become more common. I imagine this would be more dependent on the DM.
Armour has slots. Fine.
Armour damage rules. I suppose this could be done. It technically already exists with resting rules in 5th, but it's assumed you're doing all you can to keep your gear in good nick.
A variety of shields and their rules. Yes. Also shield bashing rules, and dual-wield shield proficiencies.
Weapons having more than one type of damage. Fine, also. It makes perfect sense.
Bring Back Weapon Speed. I didn't think I'd like this at first but when you put it into context, I really like the idea. That's absolutely fine with me.
Called Shot rules. Yep, especially if the armour rules are going to give each piece of gear different defences versus hacking/poking/thunking damage.
Critical hit tables. I wouldn't want any of these things to happen to my character, but that's the game. Sure, I'd accept it, begrudgingly.
Long Rest Rules. While I get the idea behind this, I'm not sure I'd appreciate it, especially with how few hit points some of the classes will have.
What we want in regards to the older materials is irrelevant, as Wizards of the Coast say on some of their older works on Dungeon Master's Guild: "We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end."
(21 continued) It's far more likely we would see those old adventures republished, akin to Tales from the Yawning Portal, and if we're lucky they might be written with as much detail or greater clarity this time around.
Honestly, while I might disagree with a lot of these things (especially if I were to play with them), I feel AD&D or some other meatier rules would be better. I doubt it would ever happen in a possible 6th Edition, and I'm not sure if all 5th needs is a single book to do more advanced material. Nonetheless, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your post! ^^
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I got halfway through and my only thought was, if I wanted these I would go back to 3.5. also any thing you don't like in any book other than phb, mm, dmg is optional. I suppose it might be fun to have a dnd crunchy optional rules book.
It doesn't make any financial sense for them to have some half-edition running in parallel to 5e while 5e sales are still going strong. It's just going to confuse and split the player base. 5e does have enough warts in its design to warrant a whole new revision, but they're not significant enough to justify abandoning it yet either.
I absolutely respect and appreciate all of the effort put into writing and compiling a checklist of things that we all want to see if the perfect version of D&D
BUT..
I never understood why anyone chooses to wait to turn any current version of D&D into the exact type of D&D they want.
DO YOU WANT MORE GRIT?
(The DMG has variant options.)
Make long rest 24 hours
Make short rests 8 hours
Rest is available only in cities/settlements
Don't full heal after a long rest
Use google and find a lingering injury table
Turn crit damage into extra dice and a permanent injury (reduce a stat by 1, etc.)
Everyone has 1 death save
Undead can't be crit
Turn the resistances that many monsters have into immunities
Increase all monsters to Max Hit points
Re-do the caster table. High level spells are pushed up 1-level. Fireball at level 6. Level 5 spells don't come on board until you're a level 10 caster, etc.
Everyone gets 2 attunement slots - EVER. (Except for Artificers.)
Upon reaching 0 hit points, gain 1 exhaustion. Go a full 24 without a long rest, gain 1 exhaustion
Most magic items are cursed
A strange bubble of chaotic magic covers your world. All spellcasting refers to the Wild Magic table in the Sorcerer section
You don't attune to a new magic item after a short rest. A quest is involved. You must study and learn about the sword
Now, many of these ideas suck ass. Many would never work. However, at the end of the day, if anything here makes your table shine in the dark USE IT. If this is what makes your game lean in the direction you'd like to go, USE IT. Why wait for an official release with such details? Why continue playing the official style of D&D that doesn't fit your style of D&D? D&D is yours. Build it your way. That's been true since 1974 and it still hasn't changed. Stop waiting for others to tell you when and how you get to have the fun you want to have.
However, at the end of the day, if anything here makes your table shine in the dark USE IT.
That's the long and, more importantly, short of it. If you want to do something different and it'll be better for your table, go for it. Everything's at the DM's discretion anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah. I would never say there is a way you have to play Dnd. It is always up to the DM and the players to create a game that will be the most fun for them. However, this way seems to sort of minimize creative and difficult roleplaying (for example, trying to create an intelligent half orc wizard), and maximize ultra realistic detail. That's fine if that's the way you and your players enjoy more, but in general, I would say most DnD players wouldn't want to play this way.
The return of race penalties. A Half-Orc should be, on average, dumber and less charismatic than a human, which should be less stout than a dwarf or less agile than an elf, on average. And of course, no variable ability score bonuses like in Tasha’s. A Dwarf always gets +2 Con, an Elf always gets +2 Dex, etc. None of this silliness with Mountain Dwarves with +2 Dex/+2 Int. Fixed racial bonuses yes, racial penalties no. Especially since I tend to go with rolled statlines, but I wouldn't want them otherwise either.
Different ability score caps for different races. Maybe something like 22 for a stat a race has a +2 bonus in, and 18 for a stat that a race has a -2 bonus in. I’ve never liked that, by Level 20, a Half-Orc Wizard is just as intelligent as a High Elf Wizard. The smartest High Elf Wizard should absolutely be noticeably smarter than the smartest Half-Orc Wizard. The strongest Halfling Fighter should never be as strong as the strongest Human Fighter, nor anywhere near as strong as the strongest Half-Orc Fighter. Score caps blow. I'd eliminate them altogether, personally. Magic exists. The smartest half-orc wizard should be smart enough to figure out a way to magically enhance their intelligence to whatever max there is, and magic doesn't care about something silly like racial limitations.
Humans changed to a combination of the standard human and variant human (+1 to all six stats, 1 extra language, 1 extra proficiency, and 1 bonus feat). I really don't think humans need a mechanical boost.
1 Feat is automatically granted at Level 1 and every 5 levels thereafter (5, 10, 15, 20). Better come up with more feats then, I think, or impose a limitation on ASIs (which would be a drag, so just come up with more feats).
Level 0 for all classes, even weaker than a Level 1, somewhere between a commoner and a Level 1 adventurer. Why? To add one more session to an adventurer's career, just enough to go from level 0 to level 1?
Leveling requiring training time to advance to the next level, with experience point gains frozen until such time, thus preventing characters from advancing multiple levels and inexplicably gaining new abilities while in the middle of a dungeon. Lots of DMs do this already in some way. I don't know a single one who lets characters level up in the middle of something, it can always wait until there's an opportune moment. Also, not everybody levels based on experience anymore to begin with.
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels). I like this, provided that whatever ability defines the subclass is relatively minimal at the start.
Wizard/Sorcerer HD reduced to D4. Just no.
Bard/Rogue/Warlock HD reduced to D6. See 8. Reducing hp is a poor way of inducing frailty in character classes.
Proficiency Bonus divided into three stats: Combat Proficiency Bonus, Magic Proficiency Bonus, and Skill Proficiency Bonus. Different classes get different bonuses in each, rather than getting the same for all (in other words, a high Dex Wizard at Level 1 should not be as good of a knife fighter as a Fighter. Likewise, a Wizard gets a higher bonus to their skills than a Fighter would, as the Wizard is far more educated). I don't mind the idea per se, but this becomes a hassle with multiclassed characters. Also, there's no such thing as class skills anymore. For a lot of skill proficiencies a wizard's education would not be more beneficial then a fighter's training (the opposite, even).
Spellcasting foci (F) become a separate component in addition to Verbal (V), Somatic (S), Material (M). Many spells require the use of a foci (wand, staff, rod, orb, etc.) in order to be able to be cast. ALL cantrips require a foci (I.E. a Wizard without their foci, whether a wand or a staff, can’t cast Magic Missile). I'd rather see casters get benefits from using a focus than penalties for not using one.
Material (M) components becoming more common and dependent on possessing the specific material component to cast the spell (copper wire, two magnets, pork rind, chalk, etc), giving Wizards a reason to hunt for weird items. That should make them less common, as common ones are supposed to be covered by component pouches. Keep in mind that this will quickly lead to a level of bookkeeping that's just drudgery, not something that makes games more interesting.
Armor purchased in pieces for different parts of the body, making it possible to mix-and-match armor pieces. I think you overestimate the 'fun' of this mixing and matching.
Armor damage rules, which necessitate armor requiring regular upkeep and repair. More bookkeeping, and upkeep and repair would in many cases just be something that might as well happen in the background.
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on). This would make battlemaps indispensible. Not a fan. I use battlemaps when possible, but I value the flexibility of just pulling an encounter out of thin air too much to want to require the use of one at all times.
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust). The differences between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage are largely meaningless in 5E - they rarely come into play. You'd need to make those matter in the first place.
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls. So many arguments waiting to happen. Well-trained fighters use whatever weapon they're wielding to best effect, getting the most out of its strengths and minimizing its weaknesses with technique. The difference would be a lot smaller than you think, and in many cases it'd be very circumstantial.
Called Shot rules, making it possible to strike a specific body part and inflict an effect depending on which body part was struck, with more dangerous effects if that called shot becomes a critical hit. See 19.
Critical hit tables similar to the ones found in the old AD&D book Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics, which could lead to permanent scars, crippling wounds, severed limbs, and even instant death. This sort of thing impacts PCs far more than monsters, if the DM plays it fair.
Long Rest no longer restores all lost hit points. Instead, a character only regains one hit point per level per each Long Rest, with the possibility of regaining more under different circumstances (bed rest, hospitalization, etc.). Without magical healing, it should be common for an adventurer to require several days rest to fully recover, should they have been severely hurt on an adventure. Better to limit the opportunities for a long rest in the first place. Regardless, this will most likely just lead to a different balance between buying potions/wands/scrolls and other gear, rather than anything meaningful.
Similar to how Classic World of Warcraft brought back the Vanilla World of Warcraft game, settings for AD&D 5E should bring back versions of beloved campaign settings as they were by the end of 3E, unaffected by changes made to them in 4E or 5E. So for example, AD&D Ravenloft should reflect the Ravenloft setting as of the last Ravenloft book published by Arthaus. AD&D Forgotten Realms should reflect the Forgotten Realms setting as of the last Forgotten Realms book published at the end of the 3E era, and so on. First, why the end of 3? Those campaign settings have had multiple updates. Second, this is much more appropriately accomplished with timelines in a single book than with different books, especially since if I want to use a previous era campaign setting I can easily just use the book from that edition already.
Had 45m to spare.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that WotC decided to make a 5E AD&D game which, rather than being a replacement for 5E, was instead meant to run alongside it as a more difficult and detailed game for those players who prefer that in their game (I.E. They would sell D&D and AD&D alongside each other in stores)? What would you like to see in such a game? For myself, I’d like the following:
The return of race penalties. A Half-Orc should be, on average, dumber and less charismatic than a human, which should be less stout than a dwarf or less agile than an elf, on average. And of course, no variable ability score bonuses like in Tasha’s. A Dwarf always gets +2 Con, an Elf always gets +2 Dex, etc. None of this silliness with Mountain Dwarves with +2 Dex/+2 Int. I don't actually agree with this part as it actually seems like it's undoing the work that was taken to reduce racial stereotypes, but neither of us can control each other's tables, so I don't want to get in an argument over this.
Different ability score caps for different races. Maybe something like 22 for a stat a race has a +2 bonus in, and 18 for a stat that a race has a -2 bonus in. I’ve never liked that, by Level 20, a Half-Orc Wizard is just as intelligent as a High Elf Wizard. The smartest High Elf Wizard should absolutely be noticeably smarter than the smartest Half-Orc Wizard. The strongest Halfling Fighter should never be as strong as the strongest Human Fighter, nor anywhere near as strong as the strongest Half-Orc Fighter. Same as 1.
Humans changed to a combination of the standard human and variant human (+1 to all six stats, 1 extra language, 1 extra proficiency, and 1 bonus feat). I don't see why humans need more features.
1 Feat is automatically granted at Level 1 and every 5 levels thereafter (5, 10, 15, 20). I'm assuming that you're changing the feat progression instead of adding more in.
Level 0 for all classes, even weaker than a Level 1, somewhere between a commoner and a Level 1 adventurer. I don't see why this is necessary.
Leveling requiring training time to advance to the next level, with experience point gains frozen until such time, thus preventing characters from advancing multiple levels and inexplicably gaining new abilities while in the middle of a dungeon. So basically the variant training rule in the DMG but official in that?
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels). I don't really get this part.
Wizard/Sorcerer HD reduced to D4. I think that will probably just encourage people to play as fighters more.
Bard/Rogue/Warlock HD reduced to D6. See 8.
Proficiency Bonus divided into three stats: Combat Proficiency Bonus, Magic Proficiency Bonus, and Skill Proficiency Bonus. Different classes get different bonuses in each, rather than getting the same for all (in other words, a high Dex Wizard at Level 1 should not be as good of a knife fighter as a Fighter. Likewise, a Wizard gets a higher bonus to their skills than a Fighter would, as the Wizard is far more educated).
Spellcasting foci (F) become a separate component in addition to Verbal (V), Somatic (S), Material (M). Many spells require the use of a foci (wand, staff, rod, orb, etc.) in order to be able to be cast. ALL cantrips require a foci (I.E. a Wizard without their foci, whether a wand or a staff, can’t cast Magic Missile).
Material (M) components becoming more common and dependent on possessing the specific material component to cast the spell (copper wire, two magnets, pork rind, chalk, etc), giving Wizards a reason to hunt for weird items.
Armor purchased in pieces for different parts of the body, making it possible to mix-and-match armor pieces.
Armor damage rules, which necessitate armor requiring regular upkeep and repair.
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on).
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust).
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls.
Called Shot rules, making it possible to strike a specific body part and inflict an effect depending on which body part was struck, with more dangerous effects if that called shot becomes a critical hit.
Critical hit tables similar to the ones found in the old AD&D book Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics, which could lead to permanent scars, crippling wounds, severed limbs, and even instant death.
Long Rest no longer restores all lost hit points. Instead, a character only regains one hit point per level per each Long Rest, with the possibility of regaining more under different circumstances (bed rest, hospitalization, etc.). Without magical healing, it should be common for an adventurer to require several days rest to fully recover, should they have been severely hurt on an adventure.
Similar to how Classic World of Warcraft brought back the Vanilla World of Warcraft game, settings for AD&D 5E should bring back versions of beloved campaign settings as they were by the end of 3E, unaffected by changes made to them in 4E or 5E. So for example, AD&D Ravenloft should reflect the Ravenloft setting as of the last Ravenloft book published by Arthaus. AD&D Forgotten Realms should reflect the Forgotten Realms setting as of the last Forgotten Realms book published at the end of the 3E era, and so on.
So those are my thoughts. How about you all? Would you like an AD&D which is concurrent with regular D&D and doesn’t replace it? And if so, what would you like to see in it? What would make it “Advanced” for you?
I didn't do all because I don't have enough time, but I did do a few of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bardof the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules.Sig.Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that WotC decided to make a 5E AD&D game which, rather than being a replacement for 5E, was instead meant to run alongside it as a more difficult and detailed game for those players who prefer that in their game (I.E. They would sell D&D and AD&D alongside each other in stores)? What would you like to see in such a game? For myself, I’d like the following:
So those are my thoughts. How about you all? Would you like an AD&D which is concurrent with regular D&D and doesn’t replace it? And if so, what would you like to see in it? What would make it “Advanced” for you?
A few of these are either variant rules in the DMG, or can easily be a house rule if the players are looking for a harder, grittier game. No need for a new edition that splits the community. If people want a harder game, the DM has the power to do that in a variety of ways. For example, idea #6 is completely in the hands of the DM already. Idea #18 already sort of already exists in the form of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. Ideas #1 and #2 feel like a bit of a regression given 5e's design goals, and the evolving social politics of the world.
Rather than an "advanced" edition, I'm more in favor of a 5.5e of sorts. Even out the power level of some classes, standardize subclass advancement (so that subclasses like those in the Strixhaven UA would work), and give more options to martial characters.
Number 21 is an argument waiting to happen. 3e is not the default time for a vanilla version. It may be for you (and that’s cool, nothing wrong with that), but there’s lots of us that remember the deeper magic.
Others seem like trying to bring back bad ideas. For example, they got rid of crit tables (No. 19) because it screws characters. They got rid of training for levels (No. 6) because it wasn’t fun.
And taken together, what you’re suggesting wouldn’t be 5 e advanced that would work alongside; it would be a whole new edition.
But you could go check out enworld. They’re about to release something they’re marketing as a 5e advanced. Or pathfinder has lots of gritty rules.
I don't see people tolerating this. I know a lot of these rules beef down martial classes, but I would never play a wizard with d4 hit die, and most definitely not a sorcerer, weak as they already are. You could, as nightmyst999 suggested, make a lot of these as house rules. Generally, messing with core principals, like spells, classes, and races, doesn't go too well, unless its making small changes, as Tasha's did to the ranger class. I think I agree that this would basically be a new edition. But hey, if you want to use this with your players, that's cool, but I don't think these changes even make it "advanced" or more difficult, just a different edition.
On another note, If we were to get advanced DnD 5e, or if we were to get 5.5e (which I would be more in favor of), I would like a bit more solidity in DnD 5e as a whole. The races and classes and rules are getting so diverse, especially with books like Xanathar's guide and Tasha's. I love these books , and I love the new stuff, and I don't even want anything removed. I would just prefer a bit more organization to the game. We've branched out so much from the PHB I think we need a new rule book that organizes all the content together.
Updog
I already give a free feat at first level in my games. The truth is I'm pretty much against all these.
1. I aggressively disagree with attribute adjustments being reintroduced.
2. Most of the other rules work better as house rules.
3. The hitdies are just fine as they are.
That being said, i like these rules, as it adds some good variety to the game. I will say one of the things 5e lacks is some weapon variety, and your way makes combat, especially tactical combat, much more versatile.
In my opinion, this is an unnecessary complication. The point of Dex being added to initiative is so that said rogue has a higher bonus than the barbarian. Say the rogue's bonus is +5, and the barb's is +2. The high Dex of the rogue accounts for their speed advantage in combat. Sometimes, the barbarian might end up going first, but that's just the roll of the dice. It's up to the DM or the players to roleplay why one goes before the other. Maybe the rogue tripped, or lost his footing, or the barbarian raged and gained a sudden burst of energy. The point is, don't try to make DnD overly realistic, to the point where you try to make every dice role completely logical. Sometimes, the sneaky rogue rolls a nat 1 on initiative, and the others roll a nat 20.
Updog
Free feat at early levels is good, but five total for the whole game is pretty OP.
Updog
I think a Compendium of Optional Rules might be interesting, I don't know if that necessitates an entirely different AD&D version.
I also prefer more optional rules rather than an advanced edition. I do not see the point of having an advanced edition as that is essentially just a list of "official" house rules that people are just going to modify and homebrew further anyways. Having a base game with more optional rules can better serve that purpose.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Some Inagree with, but a lot I don't. Part of it seems to be that we seem to fundamentally disagree on the nature of how things are, and you're pushing for your view to be represented in the game - regardless of who is right, that suggests that, to avoid splitting or putting off players, it's probably best to leave them out. Also, apart from 10, 15, 18 and 21, they're all really easy to homebrew into your games and 1 might be controversial. Changes.to the actual game should be, in my opinion, left to homebrews unless the changes might cause controversy.between DM and players (to give the DM authority on the matter) or if it's too complex to merely insert and would affect other rules as well.
Major edits to formatting for clarity and added closing paragraph.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Most editions have had something like this so far. Gygax created the first Unearthed Arcana for 1st ed, 2nd ed had a couple of Player's Options books, 3ed ed had its own UA again. 4th had a modular installments approach, that was a little bit different.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like the idea of a meatier game without having to resort to an entirely different RPG, or an older one with backwards mathematics such as ThAC0 (which I like, but would it sell enough to justify in today's RPG landscape). So I'll hear your suggestions.
Honestly, while I might disagree with a lot of these things (especially if I were to play with them), I feel AD&D or some other meatier rules would be better. I doubt it would ever happen in a possible 6th Edition, and I'm not sure if all 5th needs is a single book to do more advanced material. Nonetheless, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your post! ^^
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I got halfway through and my only thought was, if I wanted these I would go back to 3.5. also any thing you don't like in any book other than phb, mm, dmg is optional. I suppose it might be fun to have a dnd crunchy optional rules book.
It doesn't make any financial sense for them to have some half-edition running in parallel to 5e while 5e sales are still going strong. It's just going to confuse and split the player base. 5e does have enough warts in its design to warrant a whole new revision, but they're not significant enough to justify abandoning it yet either.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I absolutely respect and appreciate all of the effort put into writing and compiling a checklist of things that we all want to see if the perfect version of D&D
BUT..
I never understood why anyone chooses to wait to turn any current version of D&D into the exact type of D&D they want.
DO YOU WANT MORE GRIT?
(The DMG has variant options.)
Now, many of these ideas suck ass. Many would never work. However, at the end of the day, if anything here makes your table shine in the dark USE IT. If this is what makes your game lean in the direction you'd like to go, USE IT. Why wait for an official release with such details? Why continue playing the official style of D&D that doesn't fit your style of D&D? D&D is yours. Build it your way. That's been true since 1974 and it still hasn't changed. Stop waiting for others to tell you when and how you get to have the fun you want to have.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
That's the long and, more importantly, short of it. If you want to do something different and it'll be better for your table, go for it. Everything's at the DM's discretion anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah. I would never say there is a way you have to play Dnd. It is always up to the DM and the players to create a game that will be the most fun for them. However, this way seems to sort of minimize creative and difficult roleplaying (for example, trying to create an intelligent half orc wizard), and maximize ultra realistic detail. That's fine if that's the way you and your players enjoy more, but in general, I would say most DnD players wouldn't want to play this way.
Updog
Had 45m to spare.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
For many of the options you could just switch back to 3.5 instead of trying to drag 5E backwards towards being closer to 3.5
I didn't do all because I don't have enough time, but I did do a few of them.
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bard of the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules. Sig. Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.