Yeah, 5e design principles really tried to both restrict DM and player creative agency re: making new spell effects/monsters or necromancing (prob not a word) beasts and monstrosities to do their bidding.
Well, no. It really only restricts player agency, as the DM is not obliged to follow PC rules or explain how the NPC did the thing. I generally assume that there's a class of slow ritual magics that take extended time periods and preparation and where the general interaction of PCs with those rituals is as things the PCs arrive just in time to foil.
In the 3.5e Monster Manual, there are literally templates for building NPCs, PCs and monsters that are vampires or humanoids and scaling them to work within the expectations of combat encounter design. The 2014 DMG and MM are a joke in this regard. While I hear that the 2024 DMG makes it easier to calculate CR than the 2014 DMG, the kind of templates in 3.5 just aren't available to DMs. Making homebrew monsters that scale well is really a combination of trial-and-error or coming onto DDB and asking questions. Possible, yes, but functionally more difficult to do than in 3.5e.
I have to say, I've been enjoying how this thread actually focuses on what they loved about an older edition, instead of the usual comparisons and focusing on the negatives and slipping into edition warring.
Trying to get back into older editions, as messy as they can be, really had some little charms even if they had pretty different playstyles.
AD&D tended to focus on 'player skill' at times, rather than PC skill, of which there wasn't really many to rely on, which did encourage players to give more details about their actions and plans.
I still go tend to recommend 1e and things like Wilderness Surival guides for things like hexcrawls and base building, due to the rules on clearing out and maintaining an area, attracting people, getting tithes so on.
3e's Stronghold Builder guidebook, as much as it could get focused on minutia (locks and windows!) had some really cool ideas and lots of rules for buildings forts and furnishing them.
A lot of the older editions had some good stuff for managing bases.
Ooh and some really in depth and flavourful rules for things, anywhere from creation of arcane ink to becoming a lich. AD&D did have a lot more fun 'fluff' rituals, that were less mechanic and more narrative, but really got into details on herbs and gems to use in a specific ritual.
In the 3.5e Monster Manual, there are literally templates for building NPCs, PCs and monsters that are vampires or humanoids and scaling them to work within the expectations of combat encounter design.
Which turns into a gigantic math exercise of dubious value. I've designed monsters in both 3.5e and 5e, and while the presentation in the DMG is atrocious, I generally find it easier to create custom monsters in 5e than in 3.5e, precisely because there aren't all those rules to manage.
In the 3.5e Monster Manual, there are literally templates for building NPCs, PCs and monsters that are vampires or humanoids and scaling them to work within the expectations of combat encounter design.
Which turns into a gigantic math exercise of dubious value. I've designed monsters in both 3.5e and 5e, and while the presentation in the DMG is atrocious, I generally find it easier to create custom monsters in 5e than in 3.5e, precisely because there aren't all those rules to manage.
Yeah, slapping templates or class levels onto existing monsters was easy, but it rarely gave an accurate increase to CR.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Do you feel that the 2024 DMG and MM have made CR calculations more accurate?
The 2024 DMG doesn't give CR calculations, and its encounter building has issues (2014 also had issues... but the issues were different). The 2024 MM has greater internal consistency though we can't say how well it matches some formula because the formula isn't published (it seems to be ~20% higher damage than 2014, and resistance to normal weapons is mostly replaced by higher regular defenses).
Folk that was a gentle reminder to try and get back to the original topic- what rules from older editions do you miss? Let's avoid any potential edition warring by derailing into talking about 5th edition rules or overly comparing between editions and focusing on negatives.
On the one hand, low CR monsters are more viable than they were in previous editions thanks to bounded accuracy and the corresponding limits on armor class. On the other hand, minion rules were a good way to provide low-threat cannon fodder that nevertheless had a good chance of actually hitting the PCs while they're packing higher-powered magic items and armor than most of the low end CR 1/2 options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
On the one hand, low CR monsters are more viable than they were in previous editions thanks to bounded accuracy and the corresponding limits on armor class. On the other hand, minion rules were a good way to provide low-threat cannon fodder that nevertheless had a good chance of actually hitting the PCs while they're packing higher-powered magic items and armor than most of the low end CR 1/2 options.
Though a counter-argument could be made that it makes magic at least look even more scene stealing. If the minions all die to any damage, then without a fairly large space to work with one good AoE wipes them all out.
On the one hand, low CR monsters are more viable than they were in previous editions thanks to bounded accuracy and the corresponding limits on armor class. On the other hand, minion rules were a good way to provide low-threat cannon fodder that nevertheless had a good chance of actually hitting the PCs while they're packing higher-powered magic items and armor than most of the low end CR 1/2 options.
The big benefit of minions wasn't that you can't have a mass of rabble in any edition of D&D. The big benefit is that they were very low effort to run.
Though a counter-argument could be made that it makes magic at least look even more scene stealing. If the minions all die to any damage, then without a fairly large space to work with one good AoE wipes them all out.
It's hard to make minions work without a lot of other features that existed in 4e -- notably, they had extremely high accuracy and defenses relative to their power, never took damage on a miss (equivalent in 5e: CR-appropriate minions would have around a 40% chance of making their save and if they saved, would ignore the effect entirely), and 4e did not have a lot of automatic damage effects and was pretty modest on the scale of its area effects, it was rare to have area effects larger than a 25' cube (similar size to a 15' radius or a 35' cone).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the 3.5e Monster Manual, there are literally templates for building NPCs, PCs and monsters that are vampires or humanoids and scaling them to work within the expectations of combat encounter design. The 2014 DMG and MM are a joke in this regard. While I hear that the 2024 DMG makes it easier to calculate CR than the 2014 DMG, the kind of templates in 3.5 just aren't available to DMs. Making homebrew monsters that scale well is really a combination of trial-and-error or coming onto DDB and asking questions. Possible, yes, but functionally more difficult to do than in 3.5e.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI have to say, I've been enjoying how this thread actually focuses on what they loved about an older edition, instead of the usual comparisons and focusing on the negatives and slipping into edition warring.
Trying to get back into older editions, as messy as they can be, really had some little charms even if they had pretty different playstyles.
AD&D tended to focus on 'player skill' at times, rather than PC skill, of which there wasn't really many to rely on, which did encourage players to give more details about their actions and plans.
I still go tend to recommend 1e and things like Wilderness Surival guides for things like hexcrawls and base building, due to the rules on clearing out and maintaining an area, attracting people, getting tithes so on.
3e's Stronghold Builder guidebook, as much as it could get focused on minutia (locks and windows!) had some really cool ideas and lots of rules for buildings forts and furnishing them.
A lot of the older editions had some good stuff for managing bases.
Ooh and some really in depth and flavourful rules for things, anywhere from creation of arcane ink to becoming a lich. AD&D did have a lot more fun 'fluff' rituals, that were less mechanic and more narrative, but really got into details on herbs and gems to use in a specific ritual.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Which turns into a gigantic math exercise of dubious value. I've designed monsters in both 3.5e and 5e, and while the presentation in the DMG is atrocious, I generally find it easier to create custom monsters in 5e than in 3.5e, precisely because there aren't all those rules to manage.
Yeah, slapping templates or class levels onto existing monsters was easy, but it rarely gave an accurate increase to CR.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Do you feel that the 2024 DMG and MM have made CR calculations more accurate?
The 2024 DMG doesn't give CR calculations, and its encounter building has issues (2014 also had issues... but the issues were different). The 2024 MM has greater internal consistency though we can't say how well it matches some formula because the formula isn't published (it seems to be ~20% higher damage than 2014, and resistance to normal weapons is mostly replaced by higher regular defenses).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFolk that was a gentle reminder to try and get back to the original topic- what rules from older editions do you miss? Let's avoid any potential edition warring by derailing into talking about 5th edition rules or overly comparing between editions and focusing on negatives.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Minions from 4e.
That is all.
Easy way to buff bosses.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Hmm.
On the one hand, low CR monsters are more viable than they were in previous editions thanks to bounded accuracy and the corresponding limits on armor class. On the other hand, minion rules were a good way to provide low-threat cannon fodder that nevertheless had a good chance of actually hitting the PCs while they're packing higher-powered magic items and armor than most of the low end CR 1/2 options.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Though a counter-argument could be made that it makes magic at least look even more scene stealing. If the minions all die to any damage, then without a fairly large space to work with one good AoE wipes them all out.
The big benefit of minions wasn't that you can't have a mass of rabble in any edition of D&D. The big benefit is that they were very low effort to run.
It's hard to make minions work without a lot of other features that existed in 4e -- notably, they had extremely high accuracy and defenses relative to their power, never took damage on a miss (equivalent in 5e: CR-appropriate minions would have around a 40% chance of making their save and if they saved, would ignore the effect entirely), and 4e did not have a lot of automatic damage effects and was pretty modest on the scale of its area effects, it was rare to have area effects larger than a 25' cube (similar size to a 15' radius or a 35' cone).