The Dwarf is up for review. Full version at the bottom of page The Dwarf in B/X is basically the fighter with better saves. I decided to let Extra Attack be a unique feature of the fighter in Into the Unknown.  So the Dwarf is instead based around being a a good mook horde breaker (from 3rd level onwards) and otherwise being a reliable hard damage dealer against solitary foes, who can also take a good amount of punishment. I've tried to focus on mechanics that doesn't require extra die rolls or new mechanics to learn (or if they do, ride on existing ones - two abilities look at the ignored die of advantage/disadvantage for their effect - And two other abilities involve invoking advantage and disadvantage for nice synergies). Oh and I added favored enemy. Because it's well known that dwarves carry a mighty grudge against their enemies. Overall, I am really happy with the result. I think it would be would to play (combining free shoves on advantage with opportuni

Throughout the proccess of developing Into the Unkown  I've been resistant to the idea of splitting the rules set into staggered releases the way B/X and BECMI did. The 5e SRD has rules going all the way to level 20 for free, why impose limitations on what should be in ItU's ruleset when the material for higher is already there and just need some adaption and editing? If it's there, put it in. One rules set to rule them or or staggered sets for different tiers of play? I am getting close enough to the finishing line now that I did a projected page count, minus cover, toc and formalia (but including internal artwork), for the player booklets. Book 1: Characters - 55 pages Book 2: Playing the Game - 23 pages Book 3: Magic - 72 pages Spread out like this: 40 pages of intro and character creation 26 pages of rules 15 pages of equipment 69 pages of spell lists and spells So basically 150 pages of player material. For comparison, the equivalent chapters in the

Making the Magic book for Into the Unknown is without a doubt the most editorially demanding of the set. 5e magic is verbose  and overly focused on spelling out everything. Re-arranging (I am sorting spells by level) and cutting superfluous stat blocks helps, even if it takes a lot of time. For comparisons, here is the B/X presentation of two simple spells: And here is the 5th edition presentation of two simple spells: Here are two simple spells in Into the Unknown: I am pretty happy that most 5e spells can have their stat block simplified to B/X standard of range/duration with mostly just a different approach to presentation (unless otherwise specified, casting a spell takes an action and requires verbal and somatic components - and I've eliminated material components without a cost). The screenshots here aren't so bad as they are all simple. But there are just so many spells in 5e that are ridiculously detailed. Paring them down is a lot of work. And 5e'

Saving throws have always been quirky in D&D - The original categories were.... eccentric to say the least. Why is save vs wand different from save vs staff? Is petrification really widespread enough to get an explicit mention? And what is a death ray anyway? Finger of death? What else? That said, it was charming and that has its own sort of saving grace. It is a lot more menacing when the DM exclaims "save vs DEATH RAY" than "make a fortitude save". 3e did an admirable job of simplifying and clarifying saves. 3 instead of 5, keying it to dexterity, constitution and wisdom gives you an idea of how you are trying to save yourself, making saving throws a lot less disassociated. Good job allround. The only recurring complaint against 3e saves were lacking the charm of older editions. Which, as complaints go, fall somewhere between obstinate and petulant. For me, it is mildly aesthetically displeasing that there are 2 physical saves and only 1 mental save. Bu

(tl:dr -  Here is a table with more interesting weapon choices for 5e ) I really like the armor table for 5e. Good range of choice, not too short, not too long and there are just enough differences and overlaps that your choice of armor is meaningful and distinct. Simple and interesting. The weapons table for 5ed is probably one of the least thought out and most poorly implemented mechanics in the Player's Handbook though. Loads of redundancies (Why would I ever buy a mace when a quarterstaff does the same damage, is 20 times cheaper and can be used with 2 hands for even more damage?), Shortswords and scimitars being the same except vast price difference, longsword, warhammers and battleaxes all being the frigging same weapon, etc. It seems to have been built around weighing different damage types as more valuable than others, no matter that the differences almost never come into play. Except it's inconsistent. A warhammer is bludgeoning, but pricier than a slashing ba

Once you boil 5th edition of D&D down a bit, it is actually a very simple game. So much so that you can outline the basics of the whole and all the needed terms in one page. So I went ahead and did that for Into the Unknown , since the aim of this 5e hack is to make it as simple and easy to play as B/X was - But using the more streamlined and balanced engine of 5e. Into The Unknown - Quick Intro & Common Terms (PDF) Only real variances here from 5e are use of the term "magic-user" instead of wizard and "Proficiency area" instead of "Skills"

I've already shared write-ups for the  Halfling [Race-as-class] ,  Fighter & Rogue classes  and  Book 2: Playing the Game  for my B/X-inspired 5e hack, Into the Unknown. Without further ado, here are write-ups for the last two core classes. The Magic-User (PDF) The Priest (PDF) Here, I am making use of the categorisation employed from OD&D all the way to 2nd edition - of later classes, such as druids, being sub-classes of the four main classes. Except, I've simplified the distinction even more and not even made them sub-classes but different class features. So sorcerers, warlocks and wizards are all the same class. The magic-user class feature only shows up at 1st and 2nd lvl and basically just defines how a magic-user learns spells. I feel each feature is still very thematically distinct without needing to be separate classes. With the priest class, I am stretching this a lot more - as druid/cleric as class feature shows up on a lot of levels and they

We reached 5th level in our D&D campaign last session. Wow, that is a significant step up in the power curve in 5e. 7th level ought to map well enough to the 'superhero' title of OD&D I reckon. We (two battlemasters and a paladin) went up against some 'Varl' that our DM estimated to be of medium difficulty. Curbstomped in the first round. He was faltering by the time my paladin was ready to roll 4d8+2d6+6 for smiting. Didn't even have time to make my extra attack for another 4d8+6 before I had chopped his head off. DM trying not to have his jaw drop at how easy that was for us. We've had lots of fun at levels 1-4 though. Vulnerable at times, but not too vulnerable. We all had some nice moves and badass moments yet threats were tangible. 5th level feels like we're now consistently baddass. So that is probably my rule of thumb for 5e's implied setting. 1st/2nd - Trained and well above average person but nonetheless mundane. 3rd/4th level - Ge

For links to all instalments in this series,  go here . Final instalment in my review series of classical maps is my own - The Mythlands of Erce! The main large map is more or less finished by now. Click here to download the full size 6000x4000 map It would seem a bit puerile to review what I like and don't like about my own map, so I am just going to talk a bit about what I am trying to do with it, the process and how I feel about the result. One of the touches I am pretty happy with (and which really helped me figure out the proper scale of symbols as well) is that this is actually a hex map. Each mountain is a hex, woodlands border to hexes, albeit lazily, so do hills, etc. So this can actually be used a table, players can be told what hex they are in and see what can of primary terrain it has, calculate overland travel, etc (I didn't go for hexes for the seas because imo, sea travel is almost always a pointcrawl anyway). I feel like I have to show a slightly

I've been doing most of the grunt work with layout and art and so forth on the five booklets I plan to release. So here is a sneak preview of the covers of all five booklets. I am doing five booklets because this is meant to be as usable and easy to use at the table as possible. So one book for character creation (and during the game, equipment - The weapons table, fx, is on the last page. Real easy to look up), another for all the shared rules, a third for magic and spells, a fourth for all the GM specific stuff and a fifth reference work for monsters and treasure. And a lot of effort has been put into the formatting, layout and writing to make sure it is simple, non-superflouous, broken into easy to scan paragraphs for important bit and broken into easy to scan sections on each page. You can check out the full  Book 2: Playing the Game  to see how you like it. The juiciest book, character creation, is getting near to be done. Stay tuned. PS. As you can te

I did it - I actually managed to finish a project. Or part of it at least. Available for your consumption is Book 2: Playing the Game   of  Into the Unknown - A 5e compatible game for OSR gaming. Download here This is basically the rules for 5e D&D, excluding magic, chargen and DM specific stuff packed into a mere 24 large-font pages of rules, with artwork on top. Probably could have made it into 22, if not for the 2½ pages of attribute descriptions I wanted to include. Rule differences from 5e in this booklet:  Harsher rules for healing Looser definition of long and short rest Dropping to 0 hp causes exhaustion Proficiency areas based on class and background instead of skills (this will be detailed more in Book 1 for chargen) Proficiency advantage Fighters get proficiency bonus to improvising stunts in combat A few optional rules for firing onto melee and succeeding at a cost The main differences will be found in the other booklets

So far, I have been using "RedNext" as my working title (mix of 'red box' and 'd&d next'). As I am progressing, I am thinking I should go with a better name. These are the ones I've toyed with so far: Vaults & Wyrms Wyrms & Warlocks Crypts & Chaos Catacombs & Crypt Things Orcs & Owlbears Ruins & Rust Monsters Tombs & Horrors Adventures in the Unknown Into the Unknown Journeys to the Unknown Unknown Journeys Basic Adventures Into the Underworld Journeys to the Underworld Underworld Adventures So far, I am leaning towards Into the Unknown thoughts?

I've finished my write ups of both the Fighter and Rogue for my B/X-5e "RedNext" hack. Unlike the  Halfling , which was mostly written from scratch, these were a lot easier. Copy-paste from the SRD, trim and re-organise to make it easier to scan and fit into 3 pages each. The Figher (PDF) The Rogue (PDF) There are a few differences from the 5e PHB version though. No sub-classes, no feats, no race to be chosen (since race is a class), skill lists dumped and only the four core classes (+3 optional race-classes), trims a lot of the fat from the character dev mini-game that modern D&D so wants to become. There are two changes I use to cover the difference: A much increased focus on the simple combo of (4 core classes + background)  to define your proficiency and 'adventuring identity' as opposed to a proliferation of classes and long lists of skills (I do appreciate that 5e vastly cuts down on the skill lists. Still a bit too long for my taste). A choic

It has been leaked that the forthcoming Volo's Guide to Monsters will have rules for playing Aasimar, Bugbears, Firbolgs, Goblins,Goliaths, hobgoblins, Kenku, Kobolds, Lizardfolk, Orcs, Tabaxi and Tritons. Setting aside my current movement towards even finding elves a bit problematic as a playable race, I can see the case for things like Aasimar, Kenky and Goliaths. But bugbears? Goblins? Hobgoblins? I've even seen complaints that gnolls weren't included. What? These are monsters . I guess it comes out of an assumption that I've grown to wholesale reject - A naturalistic approach to critters. Ie, that gnolls or bugbears are just another intelligent species like any other, albeit one more violent then most.  In other words, they are not really monsters. This approach, populised I suppose by the WoW/Eberron approach to orcs as Noble Savages, to me roundly defeats much of the Raison d'Etre for D&D adventuring - Namely that it is ok to kill these cr

Halfling - Racial Class 5e (PDF) First of all, let me start by saying - 5e may be simple and balanced, but class design is NOT.  Class design is really where the designers put in the highest level of complexity into the system. Lots of unique sub systems (battemaster, warlock), maneuvers that break the action economy in unique ways, implied strategic build paths, etc.  All stuff I want to simplify away with  RedNext  - take away the excess of moving parts.  But even besides that, there is lots to consider - Every level gets a bennie of some sort (in three tiers), some hardcore class defining ones, others thematic. And impact of bennies is asymmetrical from class to class (except 5th and 11th). And all of them have frontloaded abilities that are on the surface overpowered.  Weighing all these up and when to put the big ones is a lot to consider - Making the Halfling took time! Dwarf and elf might be easier purely because I now have a better grasp of the ideas behind clas