OD&D and B/X

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I'm also a big fan of his modules, my favourites are Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, Vault of the Drow and The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. Not sure I'd say they are THE best (big fan of Cook, Moldvay, Jaquays and Hickman) but they're among the best.
Oh yeah Jaquay’s to me is the best overall. Gary the best of TSR to me.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think that so much of the early history of the hobby would have been different if Gygax had enlisted the help of a professional editor. And I'm not even going to mention layouit artist:smile:.

I'm just not sure that it would have differed for the better, but there's no way to run an experiment now:wink:.
 
Personally, I love both OD&D and B/X fairly equally.

B/X feels like a more complete game, while OD&D feels more like a game engine (especially if you're just using the core rules and not the supplements) to build your own campaigns for.

OD&D White Box rules are a great simple springboard system (albeit they aren't very well-organized or clarified) and can be great with the four supplements added in.

If you're just adding Greyhawk to OD&D, it gives a feel more akin to Holmes or B/X while adding all four of the supplements feels more like a slightly rougher version of AD&D 1E.

Then there is all the stuff from Judges Guild and Dragon Magazine back in the day and fan supplements including adaptations of Carcosa, Tekumel, and I've even seen OD&D fan adaptations for Cyberpunk 2020, Star Wars, and even Buffy.

Personally, I am deeply considering writing my own OD&D adaptations for Dawn of the Dead (outlined both on my blog and earlier on the OD&D 74 ProBoards site) as well as a Dracula setting reminiscent of early White Wolf (but not directly based on it)
 
Prefer the logics of the D&D 5E, but love the flavour of D&D B/X.
Such a cooler vibe going on with B/X! :grin:
 
Prefer the logics of the D&D 5E, but love the flavour of D&D B/X.
Such a cooler vibe going on with B/X! :grin:

I think a lot of the vibe comes down to production values and the art they have used, not the rules themselves. I think you could insert the 5e basic rules into B/X format and it would have that retro vibe.
 
I think a lot of the vibe comes down to production values and the art they have used, not the rules themselves. I think you could insert the 5e basic rules into B/X format and it would have that retro vibe.

I tend to run D&D 5E for my kids with lots of old school flavour, lots of artwork from that era.
Not necessarily just TSR D&D artwork, but also from stuff like Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, Fighting Fantasy, and old Dungeon and White Dwarf maganzines. It's not eclusively old school art, but I try to find it first if possible, it often has the flavour I want.

We initially started playing with Fighting Fantasy, but then moved up to D&D 5E.
However I kept the world of Titan as a setting, so lots of great old school b&w art there that I grew up with.

I try and keep it pretty simple, focusing on low-level dungeoncrawling and whatnot; with the kind of loose, often wacky, sword & sorcery vibe that I was into in my early teens.

I also tend to use alot of free scenarios I find on the net, often written for D&D OSR games, and these often have lots of challenges that the players are designed to work out, rather than relying purely on character rolls (I often compromise with this, and let them make INT rolls for hints if they are getting stuck, at the cost of reduced EXP. Seems to encourage them to be creative, and that's the main thing).

Playing D&D 5E this ways often feels like almost the same game we played when TSR published it (much moreso than the earlier WotC editions did), but with more consistent mechanics - which I feel is actually simplier and makes sense.

Lots of fun :thumbsup:

Also, it would be an interesting exercise to see if WotC publish a nice hardcover version of the D&D 5E Basic Rules with predominantly b&w internal art, just to see if this captures some of the OSR vibe. Even recyling some of the old TSR D&D artwork here and there would be cool. More of the B/X and BECMI era stuff, rather than the OD&D cartoons. Or something in between, with the flavour that DCC goes for (maybe not as dark).
I'ld certainly buy it.
 
Last edited:
There is Dungeonesque for those who like that style of B/X for 5th edition
I have never seen this before - very interesting, it's looks like D&D 5E with the early TSR artwork - that's pretty cool.
Thanks for showing this to me, it may be something I may hunt down, especially the Red Box books

It'll take a few more good reviews for me to pull the trigger on it (the YouTube reviews were quite varied), but I think I may grab some pdf scenarios and see if I can run them with 5E anyway :grin:
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of the vibe comes down to production values and the art they have used, not the rules themselves. I think you could insert the 5e basic rules into B/X format and it would have that retro vibe.
You'd need to totally re-write 5E too. The Basic book has taught you character generation, combat, adventuring rules, given you spells, magic items and taught you how to make a dungeon, complete with an example in 64 pages. The 5E book is still working its way through class descriptions at the 64-page mark (and only up to D in alphabetical order).

If we add the Expert rules into the mix bringing B/X's page count up to 128 pages, at that point 5E isn't even up to the equipment section yet, still stuck on explaining character personalities and backgrounds (and in typical WotC fashion, your background is a prepackaged power widget you pick off a list, not something you just come up with. This also commits a new player to browsing through 15 pages of additional options before they can start the game. B/X handles all of character generation, all of it, in 13 pages). By this point, someone learning to play from B/X already knows everything they need to know to play and run and run D&D, including making their own hex crawl.

You could make a B/X-like game using some elements from 5E, but you'd have to do a lot of trimming of both mechanics and text.
 
Oh I agree with you. If they trimmed the fat it could work. I think they can trim the fat, but they want to pad these books out.
 
You'd need to totally re-write 5E too. The Basic book has taught you character generation, combat, adventuring rules, given you spells, magic items and taught you how to make a dungeon, complete with an example in 64 pages. The 5E book is still working its way through class descriptions at the 64-page mark (and only up to D in alphabetical order).

If we add the Expert rules into the mix bringing B/X's page count up to 128 pages, at that point 5E isn't even up to the equipment section yet, still stuck on explaining character personalities and backgrounds (and in typical WotC fashion, your background is a prepackaged power widget you pick off a list, not something you just come up with. This also commits a new player to browsing through 15 pages of additional options before they can start the game. B/X handles all of character generation, all of it, in 13 pages). By this point, someone learning to play from B/X already knows everything they need to know to play and run and run D&D, including making their own hex crawl.

You could make a B/X-like game using some elements from 5E, but you'd have to do a lot of trimming of both mechanics and text.
At this point, I'd much rather simply use a game like Age of Shadows (less than 80 oages), Atomic Highway (about 140) or Tales & Legends (about half that) if you want a light, freeform but stable enough system:smile:.
Amusingly, all of those have an artwork that's also much closer to the one of B/X. And at least two of them come pre-packaged with setting in the same pagecount:wink:.
T&L is even D&D-derived, though there are quite a few changes. Well, maybe it's better to say it's Chainmail-derived, like many other retroclones I like:grin:!
 
You'd need to totally re-write 5E too. The Basic book has taught you character generation, combat, adventuring rules, given you spells, magic items and taught you how to make a dungeon, complete with an example in 64 pages. The 5E book is still working its way through class descriptions at the 64-page mark (and only up to D in alphabetical order).

If we add the Expert rules into the mix bringing B/X's page count up to 128 pages, at that point 5E isn't even up to the equipment section yet, still stuck on explaining character personalities and backgrounds (and in typical WotC fashion, your background is a prepackaged power widget you pick off a list, not something you just come up with. This also commits a new player to browsing through 15 pages of additional options before they can start the game. B/X handles all of character generation, all of it, in 13 pages). By this point, someone learning to play from B/X already knows everything they need to know to play and run and run D&D, including making their own hex crawl.

You could make a B/X-like game using some elements from 5E, but you'd have to do a lot of trimming of both mechanics and text.

Wizards of the Coast has you covered already. The Basic 5e rules are available in pdf form, can be found here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

It is a 180 page document, at page 64 it is past all character generation and equipment and into the rules for ability checks. At page 128 we’re looking at monster stats for Flying Snake, Flying Sword, Frog and Frost Giant. The 5e basic rules are therefore somewhat more expansive than B/X, but less so than adding another 64 page book, say a companion module, would have been.
 
Wizards of the Coast has you covered already. The Basic 5e rules are available in pdf form, can be found here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

It is a 180 page document, at page 64 it is past all character generation and equipment and into the rules for ability checks. At page 128 we’re looking at monster stats for Flying Snake, Flying Sword, Frog and Frost Giant. The 5e basic rules are therefore somewhat more expansive than B/X, but less so than adding another 64 page book, say a companion module, would have been.
That's not bad, but what it lacks are about 10-20 pages on mapping and stocking dungeons and wilderness areas. The GM section focuses its advice on creating level-appropriate encounter, which makes the game seem to be about stringing fights together rather than exploration. Any edition of D&D that doesn't present the player with at least one example graph map of a dungeon and one hex wilderness map, along with keys for easily hand-drawn symbols for both, isn't a complete edition of D&D in my mind.

I'll add, the simplicity of the maps in early D&D is one of their best points. The simple maps in B/X or early D&D modules encourage kids to sit down and immediately make their own.
 
That's not bad, but what it lacks are about 10-20 pages on mapping and stocking dungeons and wilderness areas. The GM section focuses its advice on creating level-appropriate encounter, which makes the game seem to be about stringing fights together rather than exploration. Any edition of D&D that doesn't present the player with at least one example graph map of a dungeon and one hex wilderness map, along with keys for easily hand-drawn symbols for both, isn't a complete edition of D&D in my mind.

I'll add, the simplicity of the maps in early D&D is one of their best points. The simple maps in B/X or early D&D modules encourage kids to sit down and immediately make their own.

I'll agree with that. I think it would be in there if WotC didn't consider the Starter Set, with the full level 1-5 Lost Mines of Phandelver campaign their actual introductory piece. This is I assume meant to come after that. But if one wanted to make a more open introductory box set of 5e, these Basic rules would at the very least be a much better starting point than the full Adcanced ruleset. You only need to do some tinkering to maybe cut down on the page count a bit while adding in stuff about mapping, stocking and random encounters. It is no longer a complete rewrite.
 
Even though I prefer 1E or B/X, I'm happy to play or run 5E. It's a good game. Whenever I have gamed with someone from outside my long-term group in the last couple of years, they generally want to play 5E (and don't know many other games). I'm actually about to start running a 5E game for some friends. I feel like its a system that has a 'feel' that depends very strongly on what the DM is dishing out and what sorts of controls he or she places on character advancement. When I run 5E, I keep the levels low (really low by modern standards), and the danger level quite high. I find this makes players really play. When players are pretty confident they can win any fight they start, I find they tend to just wander around fighting stuff, and very little happens in a night of play beyond 2-3 combats. If they are a bit nervous about fights, they'll tend to do other things. The two tactics I'll use at the table are 1) I create a setting, not a balanced set of encounters. The setting contains things you probably can't defeat early in the campaign, and it is your job to figure out where they are and how to avoid fighting them. And 2) I modified the healing rules so you don't get to get chopped to ribbons every day and wake up the next morning fresh as a daisy.
 
Even though I prefer 1E or B/X, I'm happy to play or run 5E. It's a good game.

I think its a good game as well. Whatever issues I have with it, it is pretty easy for me to tweak. My complaints mainly come down to how it functions as an introduction to RPGs.
 
Even though I prefer 1E or B/X, I'm happy to play or run 5E. It's a good game. Whenever I have gamed with someone from outside my long-term group in the last couple of years, they generally want to play 5E (and don't know many other games). I'm actually about to start running a 5E game for some friends. I feel like its a system that has a 'feel' that depends very strongly on what the DM is dishing out and what sorts of controls he or she places on character advancement. When I run 5E, I keep the levels low (really low by modern standards), and the danger level quite high. I find this makes players really play. When players are pretty confident they can win any fight they start, I find they tend to just wander around fighting stuff, and very little happens in a night of play beyond 2-3 combats. If they are a bit nervous about fights, they'll tend to do other things. The two tactics I'll use at the table are 1) I create a setting, not a balanced set of encounters. The setting contains things you probably can't defeat early in the campaign, and it is your job to figure out where they are and how to avoid fighting them. And 2) I modified the healing rules so you don't get to get chopped to ribbons every day and wake up the next morning fresh as a daisy.

I like this. This is why I quit my last 5e group. The DM was extremely stingy with letting anything other than fighting ever work. Try to reason with enemies? Immediate fight. Offer to let the clearly outmatched enemies surrender so we wouldn't have to waste any more resources on dealing with them (and hoping they didn't get in a lucky shot and take one of us down before dying themselves)? Complete waste of time. Try to bluff enemies? Nope, led to a fight. Playing someone who tried to avoid fights I managed to do one thing over three sessions that got us a peaceful resolution to a potentially hostile situation (got some guard dogs to back off by giving them meat). If I wanted that I'd sit at home playing a computer game.

As for healing rules, I like the gritty realism rules presented in the DMG where short rest is 8 hours and a long rest is a week of rest and relaxation. So you can get some healing by sleeping for the night, even if it is just in some barn or even in a dungeon room with spiked doors and everyone taking a watch. But for bigger healing you have to actually go and rest for real.
 
5E doesn't have many important structural weaknesses, but one of them is that combat takes too much time, both because moderately powerful combatants have deep reserves of hit points and because combatants generally have options to choose between, which slows the resolution of each turn. It is nothing like as extreme as 4E, but it is still true that you are in for some significant 'time suck' whenever you start a combat in 5E. Some groups seem to lean into this and prefer to treat the game as a string of tactical battles, ending in the 'boss fight'. I find that sort of play mind numbingly dull, in part because every version of D+D is quite abstract - it really isn't an ideal combat engine if all you want to do is play out table top fights. A miniatures skirmish game or board game would be better for that. In any event, I try to keep the fighting to a minimum for this reason. The players are happy to go along with this preference, particularly when their 2nd level party stumbles across a giant or hunting party of several dozen orcs.
 
5E doesn't have many important structural weaknesses, but one of them is that combat takes too much time, both because moderately powerful combatants have deep reserves of hit points and because combatants generally have options to choose between, which slows the resolution of each turn. It is nothing like as extreme as 4E, but it is still true that you are in for some significant 'time suck' whenever you start a combat in 5E. Some groups seem to lean into this and prefer to treat the game as a string of tactical battles, ending in the 'boss fight'. I find that sort of play mind numbingly dull, in part because every version of D+D is quite abstract - it really isn't an ideal combat engine if all you want to do is play out table top fights. A miniatures skirmish game or board game would be better for that. In any event, I try to keep the fighting to a minimum for this reason. The players are happy to go along with this preference, particularly when their 2nd level party stumbles across a giant or hunting party of several dozen orcs.
I agree with this as well. Its funny as when I quit D&D in the mid-80s for other games, one of the reasons was the weird, abstract combat. When I came back to B/X years later, I really enjoyed the way it was simple and moved along, keeping the pace of a session brisk. I feel like adding complexity and options to D&D only tends to make the abstraction even more stark and jarring. It's kind of like an uncanny valley effect. The more detail you add, the more clearly it isn't real.

If I wanted to run a game that revolved around fighting as the main appeal, I'd probably go with Mythras.

That said, it helps if you either play with morale rules or if the GM is simply mindful of roleplaying opposition with a realistic aversion to always fanatically fighting to the last man. It sucks to spend 20 minutes of playing time mopping up a fight you've already won.
 
I feel like adding complexity and options to D&D only tends to make the abstraction even more stark and jarring. It's kind of like an uncanny valley effect. The more detail you add, the more clearly it isn't real.
I've definitely encountered this. You end up with mechanics representing wildly different levels of abstraction - and for what? Slower resolution and no greater sense of realism.
 
For me, given that armor, hit points, classes, levels, one-minute combat rounds, damage dealt, saving throws, and everything else in D&D (as I knew it, anyway) is so abstract (which seemed to have been the point), I don't think it makes any sense to try to change one of those with the aim of "realism" unless you're going to change them all, in which case you'd probably be better off just playing a different game and saving yourself all that effort.
 
Abstract is fine. Chess is abstract. Lots of great skirmish war games are abstract. But slow and abstract is unacceptable. Also, an abstract game that doesn't provide any meaningful, 'gamable' choices is not a good game. I think a nice case study in this issue is the comparison of GURPS and The Fantasy Trip. Both are good games, but the TFT is substantially more abstract when it comes to resolving tactical combat. I've played a lot of both, and am convinced that GURPS is obviously more realistic and nuanced, yet TFT is the better game at the table, simply because it moves along at a quicker pace and is designed to let you focus your attention on making a small number of meaningful decisions each turn and then immediately learning the consequences of those decisions. You don't spin your wheels picking through lots of nitty gritty details, or slowly figuring out the consequences of each hit.
 
That's not bad, but what it lacks are about 10-20 pages on mapping and stocking dungeons and wilderness areas. The GM section focuses its advice on creating level-appropriate encounter, which makes the game seem to be about stringing fights together rather than exploration. Any edition of D&D that doesn't present the player with at least one example graph map of a dungeon and one hex wilderness map, along with keys for easily hand-drawn symbols for both, isn't a complete edition of D&D in my mind.

I'll add, the simplicity of the maps in early D&D is one of their best points. The simple maps in B/X or early D&D modules encourage kids to sit down and immediately make their own.

On a recent interview on The Smart Party podcast Mearls talked about how he was intrigued by the design challenge of reducing 5e down to as few of pages as possible (I think he mentioned the WFRP 4e quickstart as an inspiration) as an introduction for newbies so we may eventually see something like that.
 
On a recent interview on The Smart Party podcast Mearls talked about how he was intrigued by the design challenge of reducing 5e down to as few of pages as possible (I think he mentioned the WFRP 4e quickstart as an inspiration) as an introduction for newbies so we may eventually see something like that.
Interesting to see how that might work. Intuitively I think if you just explained checks, the (dis)advantage mechanic, had a smaller list of the simpler spells and gave only a "canonical" version of each class, i.e. one specific set of choices, you could greatly reduce the PHB. The hard thing would be replacing the extensive fluff with shorter text that's still evocative.
 
I agree that D&D works best when it is loose and handwavey. Beyond this, the cracks often appear in the hull.

If I want to play a fantasy rpg with some attempt at realism then I'll go for BRP - OpenQuest or Mythras - depending upon how crunchy I want the game to be.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see how that might work. Intuitively I think if you just explained checks, the (dis)advantage mechanic, had a smaller list of the simpler spells and gave only a "canonical" version of each class, i.e. one specific set of choices, you could greatly reduce the PHB. The hard thing would be replacing the extensive fluff with shorter text that's still evocative.
Personally, I think cutting the fluff would be easy. Just looking at the 5E classes, they each open with around ten paragraphs, and not short paragraphs, of fluff. In a game with archetypal classes like D&D, you ought to be able to get all the evocative fluff into a single paragraph before launching into the mechanics. These aren't complicated concepts.
 
Personally, I think cutting the fluff would be easy.
The core of 5e is very simple; you just add your proficiency bonus to everything you're good at, and roll 1d20 + modifier over the DC. Season with advantage and disadvantage. All you need is fighter/thief/magic-user/cleric and a few demi-human races. Skills can be replaced with big chunky skills that encompass many activities, like "thief," "merchant," "noble," etc. You can do all this, including rules for combat and character creation, in about 20-25 pages.

What else is left? Abbreviated lists of spells, monsters and magic items...that's easy. Adventuring rules, tables and advice for the GM - I don't think they would know how to do that in a concise way, to be honest. That would probably be the messiest section, but it's still necessary.

But I think they could keep a Basic 5e to 64 pages, for sure. The chassis is definitely there. They just can't resist adding tail fins.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see how that might work. Intuitively I think if you just explained checks, the (dis)advantage mechanic, had a smaller list of the simpler spells and gave only a "canonical" version of each class, i.e. one specific set of choices, you could greatly reduce the PHB. The hard thing would be replacing the extensive fluff with shorter text that's still evocative.
Have you checked out the Basic 5e rules? This is to a large extent pretty much what they’ve done already. Only four classes with no optional subclasses (you get Life domain Cleric, Champion Fighter, Thief Rogue and Evocation Wizard). Fewer spells, fewer monsters crammed in several to a page, a short list of magic items etc.
 
That's not bad, but what it lacks are about 10-20 pages on mapping and stocking dungeons and wilderness areas.

Apparently the upcoming Dungeons and Tombs volume of the Young Adventurer's Guide series will have a section on mapping dungeons. I'm very interested in this series as I understand they are mostly visual guides without any stats or game mechanics included so could potentially be used with earlier editions.
 
On a recent interview on The Smart Party podcast Mearls talked about how he was intrigued by the design challenge of reducing 5e down to as few of pages as possible (I think he mentioned the WFRP 4e quickstart as an inspiration) as an introduction for newbies so we may eventually see something like that.

Seen this one?


17 pages - WotC wouldn't trim it back that far!
 
Last edited:
Shameless plug but am currently not far off releasing a B/X-ified hack of 5e called "Into the Unknown". Hopefully ready for print within a month or two.

It will have morale, reaction rolls, race-as-class as you know them, but built on a 5e chassis without the "advanced" parts on top. I consider it the 5e 'basic' D&D to WotC's Advanced version.

M20 looks very cool though! Will definitely be bookmarking that. I tried my hand at a one page summary a while back too.
 
5E doesn't have many important structural weaknesses, but one of them is that combat takes too much time, both because moderately powerful combatants have deep reserves of hit points and because combatants generally have options to choose between, which slows the resolution of each turn. It is nothing like as extreme as 4E, but it is still true that you are in for some significant 'time suck' whenever you start a combat in 5E. Some groups seem to lean into this and prefer to treat the game as a string of tactical battles, ending in the 'boss fight'. I find that sort of play mind numbingly dull, in part because every version of D+D is quite abstract - it really isn't an ideal combat engine if all you want to do is play out table top fights. A miniatures skirmish game or board game would be better for that. In any event, I try to keep the fighting to a minimum for this reason. The players are happy to go along with this preference, particularly when their 2nd level party stumbles across a giant or hunting party of several dozen orcs.

I don't think it is that bad. Combat flows a lot faster than 3rd or 4th edition and doesn't really lend itself that much towards complex tactics. Your choices are more resource based really (ie. do I use this long/short rest power now or save it for later). Unless you're a spellcaster (not much different from other editions there) or a battlemaster, the options are not that many. It's hard for me imagine anyone using 5e as a game of tactical battles. I'd say even TSR D&D lends itself more to that type of game.

The hit points inflation looks ugly at a glance, but damage has scaled well to match. Overall, I think it strikes a nice middle ground between the oneshot danger of TSR D&D from just about any opponent and the endless hit point drain wells of 3rd/4th edition. You can take a good hit or two from but not much more than that at low levels. Just enough to get a good feel for whether to run or keep fighting. The damage from stronger opponents seems to scale fairly well in that regard as you level up.
 
What I most dislike about 5e is the spells really. They are well balanced, as a solution to wizard being "quadratically overpowered" compared to the "linear fighter".

I dislike what this approach has done to the thematic flavour of magic-users. Spells in 5e are mostly just ease-fire utility tools with narrowly defined functional effects. I prefer my wizards having to have to reserve their power for when it matters, spells not being trivial to get off, but when they are cast they radically define the outcome of the situation. TSR D&D is closer to this style, but I still feel they did not quite get there either. Still, Charm Person in TSR D&D is a major effect achievable by any 1st level magic-user. Spells should be game-changers, not attritional contributors.

One day, I might try my hand at writing a spellbook with a variant system for wizards that heave closer to this.
 
I don't think it is that bad. Combat flows a lot faster than 3rd or 4th edition
Except that's a really, really low bar to clear:wink:. In fact, I can only think of a grand total of ONE game* where it's not true, so "faster than 3-3.5-4e" isn't any recommendation by itself!

*Other than Pathfinder and other "3.5 in drag" rulesets:grin:!
 
Spells in 5e are mostly just ease-fire utility tools with narrowly defined functional effects. I prefer my wizards having to have to reserve their power for when it matters, spells not being trivial to get off, but when they are cast they radically define the outcome of the situation. TSR D&D is closer to this style, but I still feel they did not quite get there either.
I agree with all of this. My solution is that to eschew the entire modern approach to wizards as "glass cannons" by greatly reducing the presence of combat magic, especially spells that cause direct damage.

My way of thinking is that each class should have some niche protection. Fighters are good at fighting, and thieves are good at sneaking and skills. I try to avoid spells that replicate the strengths of other classes; for instance, my spell lists omit Fireball and Knock.

So what does that leave for wizards? The best niche of all: they get to break the rules. Not in the sense that they are OP, but what makes them special is literally that they can do things that no other class can do. So I want every spell to do something that simply can't be achieved with skills or a sword.

This doesn't mean that wizards have no use in combat. Charm Person is a good example. A mage should be creative, figuring out how they can abuse relatively innocuous spells to do terrible things. That's why I'm especially fond of spells like Enlarge or Transmute Stone To Mud. Essentially, I see wizards as being all about the "hacks," as the kids call em today. They come at problems obliquely, and they cheat as much as they can.
 
I agree with all of this. My solution is that to eschew the entire modern approach to wizards as "glass cannons" by greatly reducing the presence of combat magic, especially spells that cause direct damage.

My way of thinking is that each class should have some niche protection. Fighters are good at fighting, and thieves are good at sneaking and skills. I try to avoid spells that replicate the strengths of other classes; for instance, my spell lists omit Fireball and Knock.

So what does that leave for wizards? The best niche of all: they get to break the rules. Not in the sense that they are OP, but what makes them special is literally that they can do things that no other class can do. So I want every spell to do something that simply can't be achieved with skills or a sword.

This doesn't mean that wizards have no use in combat. Charm Person is a good example. A mage should be creative, figuring out how they can abuse relatively innocuous spells to do terrible things. That's why I'm especially fond of spells like Enlarge or Transmute Stone To Mud. Essentially, I see wizards as being all about the "hacks," as the kids call em today. They come at problems obliquely, and they cheat as much as they can.
I agree with all of this. My thinking on the matter is shaped by the advice in Unknown Armies, a modern occult game. While you can use magic to hurt people in that game, if you want to play a combat monster, the book recommends that you just buy weapon skills. It will be a lot more effective. Magic is for doing things that are impossible.
 
The approach to combat magic in 4E and 5E is very damaging to the game, in all sorts of ways that might not seem apparent on the page but feel like a big deal to me at the table. The design concept seems to be to make sure all classes have some more or less equivalent attack they can deliver most or all rounds of most or all combats, so everyone has something to do during encounters. Sounds cool, except now everyone is functionally the same, and all anyone ever does is run around picking fights, and now you are playing a repetitive skirmish combat game.
 
Sounds cool, except now everyone is functionally the same, and all anyone ever does is run around picking fights, and now you are playing a repetitive skirmish combat game.

I think you're just a bit unlucky with your choice of tables if that's your experience.

Either way, I'm more inclined to blame XP for killing stuff as the culprit for this. And 5e is more lenient towards changing this than 3e/4e. Ask your DM to use XP for Gold and I reckon you will quickly see a change.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top