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 ...