Grimdark Pathfinder 2

I like games and campaigns that have grit, a feeling of darkness, despair, and a sense of life being hard. Modern games lean into the cute so much that it is hard to convince people the world isn't some happy, colorful place filled with anime monsters that look like Pookie dolls from carnivals. Even the Lost Omens books fight you at this, as they are filled with happy, colorful, overly clean, and hopeful art that looks like vendor stalls at a Burning Man festival.

No, thank you. Please reduce the saturation of these colors to 10% in Photoshop and add a few grunge layers. You are the rule books and have no right to be happy or tell me to be the same. Adventurers will find poverty when they head into a town; most everyone is broke, there is nothing good for sale, and all those smiling pictures of happy people in the rulebook are lies.

The imagery of the books gives me the feeling everyone is wealthy, able to afford the best clothes dyed in the richest hues, with an abundance of food on the table, and a fat, lazy, prosperous society of 'have it all.'

In a way, it feels overly Disney.

Non-threatening, safe, too comforting, happy, and colorful, and there is little need to go adventuring outside these rich, opulent, no-problems, have-it-all places of civilization.

This society is ripe for the pickings. It is fat, lazy, and too rich to care about defending itself. This is a world ready for a hard fall down the civilizational ladder.

Evil, and the concept of evil, exists. Every society can be torn down. Just read the news. Peace and happiness are not "natural states" in nature. Land that is not defended is taken and ruled by savagery.

Wealthy, unprotected civilizations are seen as piles of wealth to plunder by the barbarian hordes. These days, they ride in on pickup trucks and take over their peaceful neighbors.

Tens of thousands of years of history don't lie. Nor does the world outside our window.

I get it; people play this game to escape the real world. Still, too happy a game world gets to be an opiate, a false place, and it feels fake and unreal. There is no compelling story, fight, or struggle, and nothing to work toward.

The Highhelm book is endemic in its use of pictures of happy, smiling dwarves, complete with a fourth-wall-breaking selfie on the cover. When I think of dwarves, I want a grittier, more challenging life. The cover tells me very little, and some of the fantastic interior pictures in this book would have made better covers. I would not mind this picture inside the book as the book between the cover and the pages, but when I think of a cover of a book, I reach for when I think of dwarves; this isn't the cover I would go for.

I get what they were going for on the cover of this book; it is a comparison between what you thought dwarves 'were' versus what they 'are' in this setting. You may have thought dwarves were giant dour stone heads carved into mountains, but look again! They are just like you. I get it thematically; this is the message you wanted to send, and the book delivers that message. The cover isn't misleading the book's content. But it doesn't speak to me.

But there don't seem to be many "great enemies" of this civilization. Why do they need to be in fortresses? Why do they need to mine? I am still reading the book, but from the art, these dwarves don't seem to be locked in an eternal battle with anything for survival - at least from the art.

I want drama and a call to action.

I don't want comfort imagery.

I don't want to see 'happy for no good reason.'

I know the enemies they face are up to me. Sometimes, I miss the old Orcus-worshipping orcs from AD&D and throwing a few hundred thousand of those at the mountain fortresses of the dwarves where no stone goes unsoaked in the blood of the fallen.

There are moments when I feel I can't tell those stories in Pathfinder 2 because the art tells everyone, "NO."

That is a problem.

Many of the Lost Omens books have an overly happy tone. The options inside them are great, and many interior pictures shine. It is just too darn delightful and colorful, page after page. I feel the designers aren't taking their world seriously; they care more about presenting non-threatening environments than a world filled with evil trying to destroy all that is good.

And you can define 'good' however you want, traditional or progressive! My problem isn't the definition of what is good; it presents a credible threat against it and calls us to action.

The remaster books do a better job of splitting Golarion from the game, as the player book no longer has an implied setting. The rules are more "setting neutral" now.

When you fight a game more than it serves as a tool of expression, there is a problem. This is when you reach for another game that enforces the tone you are looking for. I can get this tone quickly in games with a more neutral base, such as GURPS or OSRIC.

OSRIC is the community implementation of the greatest RPG ever written. When all else fails you, first edition will be there.

I like games like GURPS, which are more for world builders and assume nothing about the default world. Modern games focus more on delivering fantasy sandboxes instead of core rules, and D&D 5E (2014) does a better job presenting a neutral base world than Pathfinder. This is likely because the company never wants to release a setting book again and expects players to keep reusing  3.5E books for setting guides.

My two best tactical figure combat games are Pathfinder 2 and GURPS. The first is because it is the best mainstream option (and a tremendous 5E replacement), and the second is a legendary game that gives me complete control.

But Pathfinder 2 can be played as a darker, more gritty game. I own the books. I can do what I want with them. If I wish to create a grimdark world, I say it is a grimdark world, and we go from there. Nothing in the core books precludes that, and the Lost Omens "sample world" in the GM Core book can be ignored. Most of the content in Lost Omens can also be ignored or picked and sorted through as potential character options. For the most part, just stick to the core rulebooks.

I understand what they are trying to do with the art, making the fantasy genre more relatable to the social media crowd. But this is following, not leading.

You will never pander enough to anyone to make yourself "cool."

You must always be the "next big thing" by presenting something people want to see themselves in. And this doesn't happen by making what you have familiar. You must break through, present a world nobody has seen before, and show them the way.

Make the audience "want to be you."

Never make yourself look "more like the ordinary."

OSRIC and the Soul of First Edition

I liked the lower ability score modifiers of Swords & Wizardry, and OSRIC is more of the same. Most characters won't have modifiers to to-hot or damage, AC, or many other freebies that many modern games, and a fair proportion of OSR games, freely hand out. I also enjoy level limits and high ability score requirements for classes.

In Swords & Wizardry, there are no ability score requirements for being a paladin; alignment must be lawful, though a STR 13 or higher gives you an XP bonus. Anyone can be a paladin, just like in 5E. I love S&W; it is another A-Tier game with the softness and accessibility that many modern games have. I get why the game has to sell and deliver on player fantasy, but this puts it more in the mainstream genre than an OSRIC.

In OSRIC, you must have minimum ability scores: STR 12, DEX 6, CON 9, INT 9, WIS 13, and CHR 17 to be a paladin. You must be lawful good. With a 3d6 generation method, that charisma requirement will mean 11% of characters will qualify for this at a minimum since that 17 is a 1.85% chance to roll, assuming you can place scores where you want. Rolled straight, this drops to less than 1.85% of characters.

AD&D 2nd Edition was similar: STR 12, CON 9, WIS 13, and CHR 17.

Swords & Wizardry is a great game; it is easier on requirements and accessible while still delivering the old-school feeling. Something feels missing, though.

By the time we get D&D 3.5E from Wizards, a paladin is just a WIS requirement of 11 to cast spells and 14 to get the highest spells. Anyone can be a paladin. Wizards D&D ceases to be D&D at this point. It may have all the same pieces, but the soul is missing.

How does letting everyone be everything make a game lose its soul?

So, can only one percent of characters created be paladins? Yes. If you manage to roll one, it will be memorable, a highlight of your experience with that campaign. Being a paladin in OSRIC automatically means more than being one in S&W or 5E. You pulled a golden ticket. You get to play one; even if that wasn't your original idea, you now have that choice.

As a result, there are very few paladins in the world. If people see one, they may be in awe of this rare person walking among them. You are guaranteed to attract attention, good or bad.

In OSRIC, the answer to the question, "Shouldn't everyone be entitled to play the character they want?" is no.

You will never understand old-school gaming if you don't understand why that fact exists.

You will also be blissfully unaware of what modern gaming has become.

This isn't gatekeeping, exclusionary, or for any other negative social reason. It used to be only the top 1% of applicants get into a prestigious university, and this sets you up for life - given you use what you have been given and make good choices. Old school games simulate this too; it is a part of life for your average Midwestern kid, growing up, and knowing most of them will never make it to the pinnacle of the prestige classes or get into the best schools.

But there are other ways to make it, given what you have, hard work, determination, and smarts.

You accept inequality exists.

The measure of your success in life is finding the other way around.

This isn't a game about letting everyone be anything they want. This is a game about dealing with the hand you are dealt. The former is childish escapism, while the latter is life.

You may never be a level 24 paladin, but you can be a level 24 fighter or thief. You can impact the world just as much, or even more, without being born into privilege or raw talent. That paladin who rolled well may get there, too. Or they may fail along the way, sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and become a legend.

Having a guaranteed 18, no score lower than a 14, any class you want, any race you imagine, free player housing safe spaces the referee can't touch, and being given success on a platter with zero fear of death and failure is a game I don't want to play. It is a game that teaches you nothing about adversity and the difficulty of life.

And also, if you are paying attention, this is another huge difference between old-school and modern gaming.

Old-school gaming wasn't escapist entertainment.

It was preparation and training for how to live a meaningful life, get ahead, and survive hardships, given whatever you started out with.

This is also why religion used to hate D&D; it replaced them as values and morals teachers. D&D, in the old days, when it was hardcore old-school, was a religion. Demons and devils tempted your soul. Lucifer was there. Orcus's minions ravaged the land. The succubus was there. Greed, stealing from the innocent, and being evil were options. You couldn't be a half-demon "Tiefling" with Satan's blood in your veins, a vampire who feasts on blood, and say you are just "misunderstood."

You were asked, "What would you do?" and you had to answer in front of people you knew.

When D&D went "escapist," religion quieted down pretty quickly.

Tabletop Dungeon Gaming

My "truth" in gaming is the same as when my brother and I played D&D 4E. The search for that "perfect" dungeon tabletop game. We loved D&D 4E's tactical dungeon chess gameplay. The game blew up at the 10th level, just like anything else Wizards makes. The monsters were bags of hit points, and once the characters locked in on turn-denial mechanics, they were helpless as the players beat them down.

My art, not AI

One combat we had lasted more than sixty turns, most of them spent knocking a "plant creature" boss monster over, beating on him, and repeating the next turn. Sometimes, they wouldn't knock the beast over, and a few attacks landed, but it wasn't often. We watched the game break in real-time before our eyes, and the "illusion" was over. We quit 4E soon after.

The game failed us.

We saw 5E coming a mile away, and this was D&D 4E's Essentials line as the driving design theory of "back to basics" - but it wasn't back to basics. 5E abandoned the tabletop play we loved for story gaming. When Tasha's came out, the game changed again with silly, tacked-on mechanics, and we lost interest. I gave 5E two or three chances in the last few years and even Open 5E, but it is still all the same game.

This is soft, theater of the mind, multiple action type, interrupt-based gameplay. D&D 5E sucks for DMs. You play this solo, and your player side is having fun, while your DM side dreads the next session and just wants the campaign to end, so the pain stops.

And Pathfinder 2E killed the Open 5E clones 5 years ago, and the OGL fiasco nailed the coffin shut. Pathfinder 2E is exclusively map-based, and I gave this another look after returning to D&D 3.5E to cleanse my palette of "modern gaming" and rediscover a game built for the tabletop first. Pathfinder 2E works; it was tested, the exploits are very rare, and the game works from level one to twenty.

It delivers on the promise.

I prefer D&D 3.5E to any version of D&D that came after it. This is still "true D&D" built for that tabletop ideal. The book has battle maps and examples of movement and cover, and the manual sometimes resembles a wargame ruleset. This is good, "true to D&D" gaming. If you are not "proving your build on the table," you are just "theory gaming" and playing a story game.

D&D 3.5E has the last, best, first-party content produced for all the classic TSR settings; Greyhawk, the Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron are all there. You have world-specific character options. You have real gazetteers. You have on-the-table miniatures rules. This is the last "real" edition of D&D.

Oh, and it is also broken past level 10.

When D&D 4E came out, they leaned into the tabletop rules and wargaming part, which we enjoyed. But they changed the game too much. The math could have been better. Something needed to be done right, and the game became endless stacked +1 to +6 magic-item charts, with a few of the thousands of options being any good from that sea of garbage choices.

Pathfinder 1e put a bandage on the bleeding and kept D&D 3.5E alive for the next 10 years. My brother did not like this game, but I embraced it. This was "true D&D" to me since it kept the embrace of tabletop play alive and all the adventures shipped with battle mats. You were still expected to play "on the table" and "prove your build."

Pathfinder 1e suffered from the broken nature of D&D's high-level play. The game became complicated and slow past level ten. It wasn't worth playing at the high levels.

I still liked D&D 3.5E, if not for its different focus, which was more on tabletop play and less on adventure paths. D&D 3.5E still felt like the "random dungeon game" with skills made for dungeon exploration. The outside world was a little less critical, and that was cool. The wealth of world-specific material was also a reason to love D&D 3.5E.

Pathfinder 1e was less broken past level 10, but there were still so many exploits and cheese builds. They inherited a flawed system and did the best they could, and this is still one of my S-Tier games.

I like Pathfinder 1e for Golarion and 3.5E-era gaming. I still like D&D 3.5E for the TSR worlds. They are the same game, but they have different goals and feelings.

GURPS and Dungeon Fantasy are in here, too; this is a fun, realism-based, hex-grid tabletop combat game. You can still get that "tabletop tactical gaming" hit from this game, too, so it remains on my most-played shelves. It is not a "level game" but simulates a level 3 to 9 run versus relatively reality-based monsters in that range. You get a lot of great character designs and tactical crunch, but there are still exploits.

OSRIC will last; this is and isn't in the tabletop tactical gaming genre. It isn't as profoundly detailed and tactical, nor are the character builds affecting the map too much. A wider variety of options needs to be added. But it is another S-Tier game, possibly the best of all time. This is a far better choice if you are content playing "theater of the mind" with 5E. This beats any rules-light dungeon game and gives you enough detail and depth to satisfy.

So, with the Humble Bundle of PDFs, I am reading the Pathfinder 2E Remaster. I bounced off this game hard the first time I tried to learn it, and the original 2E book having so much in it did not help. There was no way I was learning twelve classes, not with a few of them being conceptually complex, like an alchemist. There was way too much information in the first book, and it was too big, there was too much in it; the information seemed like a wall to climb and I needed help to get over the learning curve.

My original Beginner Box had a terribly biased D20 that would not roll above a 6. I would go 7-8 rolls in a row, averaging 5. I know that is a silly reason to quit learning a game, but I put that mountain of information to sort through after dealing with this horrible die, and it seemed like it was not worth the effort. I know, I have plenty of d20s. But, at the time, Open 5E was hitting its stride and attempting a take-off, which never happened. I needed to see the hype and promise of Open 5E. When I saw Open 5E failing to gain traction, the Pathfinder 2E remaster was announced, so I held off for a year to let the game settle and the errata to sort out.

The goal is to return to the tabletop, figures, and tactical play. Story gaming is something that I play solo, and it feels meaningless to me. Putting a map down, a bunch of monsters, and playing each side to their best? That means something. There is a winner and a loser, and how I build characters affects the result.

Playing on a map with figures feels real.

Pathfinder 2E, with the remastered books, is getting another look.

Pathfinder 2: Remaster Contents

I was driven away by the Pathfinder 2 remaster. When I started to learn the game, they announced the remaster, and I wasted all this money on an edition I couldn't use. It cut my enthusiasm in half, so I moved on to learn 5E, which was a mistake. 

5E is a sea of Kickstarter grifts, false promises, and Wizards cutting the legs from under you since they own the game and platform. Nothing works well together. The exploits are legendary. You don't have a choice since there is always the best one. You can buy six shelves of books of 5E and never be happy; the more you buy, the less happy you will be. You can't use most 3rd-party books since D&D Beyond doesn't support them. You are always excited about that next book, then let down, and you shift those hopes to the next thing.

5E is predatory consumerism to the nth degree.

And those hopes always get shifted to the next thing. Or maybe someone else writing 5E. Or this book that makes it hardcore. Or maybe...

I broke free of the 5E book addiction, so I know, oh, do I know.

To its credit, Pathfinder 2 also supports the old editions, and only five books were invalidated: the player's guide, the GM book, the first bestiary book, the Advanced Players Guide, and (more recently) Guns & Gears. The last is more of an errata reprint than a remaster in the first four books, and people who purchased it will get the updated PDF for free (from what I read).

Getting the remaster books in the Humble Bundle changed my mind about the game, and it helped me see some of the problems I had when I tried to learn it.

Part of my problem learning the game was that there was too much to it. The first book had to "do it all" and suffered greatly. Do we have magic items and treasure lists (88 pages)? GM Information (48 pages)? Information on the world (26 pages)? Twelve classes? The book was a "first release," so people needed to be able to play and have everything they needed, but the days of 642-page rulebooks have come and gone. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this book felt like an impossible mountain to climb.

The remaster player core strips out almost all that and presents eight classes in a more complete and focused format. The book is 466 pages, 176 pages shorter than the first book, and a lot easier to use and reference at the table. The GM information was moved to the GM book, including all the treasures, magic items, GM advice, traps, hazards, starting world info, and anything else for the GM.

And having eight classes is excellent. I am not trying to juggle learning twelve in this book. I can understand these and then move on to others. Each of those eight classes has a good amount of customization, too! Less is more.

The remaster GM Core book is 338 pages, compared to the old one's 258 pages, an increase of 80 pages. The new GM book has traps and treasure tables, which makes it far more helpful to me as a GM. The only thing we lost is the NPC gallery (48 pages), but we can still use the old one, and an NPC-focused book is coming, which will be a better use of a book and that page count. NPCs are so important they deserve an entire book, just like a bestiary. Those extra 48 pages lost by the NPC information were used well, and the information moved over feels right where it should be, just like the classic DMG's content.

The remaster books were "rebalanced" and made more useful to players and GMs. Now, I can open that GM book and use it instead of flipping through a nearly 700-page player book to find a magic item or trap. Thank you for making playing, learning, and managing the game easier.

Also, moving the world information out of the player book made the remastered game much more friendly to homebrewed worlds. These 40 pages now resemble more of an "example world" in the GM book than a "setting you must use" in the player book. This is a massive tonal shift, and moving this information out of the remaster player book "opens the door" to homebrew worlds since player expectations now come from a neutral starting point.

The remaster is much less the "Golarion Roleplaying Game" than it felt like it was. I could convert the classic TSR settings to the remastered rules, which would be much more straightforward. I like the classic world the best, and this also opens the door to playing in the classic world with the new rule books much easier than having to retcon a part of the player book every time I start a session.

Less is "nailed down" in the remastered books, which is good when you use the book outside of the Lost Omens content. I would also like to see a "Lost Omens Legends" line of remastered books that convert over the old adventures, present the original world as was, and be an alt-setting that could be used alongside the current timeline. This would compete with the 1E books but also move them forward and save all that content in case of a "Wizards flip out" again when they are eventually sold or bought by someone who wants to revoke the OGL entirely and control the market.

Don't laugh. We live in a stupid timeline where stupid things happen.

We lost four classes in the player book remaster, but those would be better served by being in the Player Core 2 book, where they would be given room to breathe and have all their options fleshed out. We have eight more classes in this volume. Eight is the perfect number of character classes for an expansion hardcover, and it allows the book to have room to focus on each without cramming too much in or feeling too sparse.

Do I wish the champion class was in the first book? Yes, that is what I am used to, but thematically, let the cleric be the first book's "holy warrior," while Player Core 2 presents the champion class as an alternate option. I can see why the witch was moved to the first book since the class is popular and unique to the game, almost a defining part of the Pathfinder experience.

Plus, moving the alchemist to a book where you can include all the supporting information on alchemy is also a good choice since this will be the book I reach for if that class is used at a table. Similarly, other classes that rely on a lot of supporting information are in Player Core 2, like the monk, sorcerer, and investigator. Classes that are straightforward and well understood should be in the first book, while others that need more space to properly present should be in expansions.

You don't see this reorganization and focus on "book flow" in 5E. Controlling page count while balancing that with presenting the best options and no filler makes the remaster books so good. The first Pathfinder 2E book under the OGL was good for a one-book game that only needed a bestiary, but we have moved on from needing that anymore. I would rather have better-organized books at this time that are each highly useful and focused.

Bigger isn't better.

Better is better.

I like that philosophy.

ORSIC & AD&D

The more I read today's games, the more I like OSRIC.

OSRIC is reimagining the first edition rules in a more sane and organized layout and presentation. This is, in essence, Old School Essentials for AD&D, but it is massively cleaned up and usable. I like this better than the AD&D books; I miss Gygax, but he is better in our hearts than clinging to reprints of books published with errors and a community that isn't open and free for expression.

OSRIC is an open community; anyone can publish for and create inside; this automatically presses the "I win" button for me. Community wins over nostalgia each and every time.

OSRIC is delightfully the first edition, but it has some great quirks. The initiative roll is rolled on a d6, but you are rolling the dice for the other side and telling the other side in which segment (counting up from one to ten) they can act. Spells are declared before the initiative die is rolled! Missile attacks into melee have targets determined randomly.

Surprise adds some "surprise segments" for free turns before combat. Yes, getting two free turns when rolling for a surprise is possible, and this is very cool. This one rule makes elves incredible since they get bonuses to gain surprise.

AC is old-school descending. It doesn't matter, and part of me prefers looking up a character's to-hit for a given AC instead of being roll-high and too easy. Ability score modifiers are pared back massively; you aren't getting an STR damage bonus until 16 and a to-hit bonus until 17. CON bonuses to hit dice don't start until 15.

Ability score modifiers in B/X, especially in today's games, are far too high. It is okay for an orc to have 2 hit points, making that d4 dagger more powerful. Fewer modifiers speed play, reduce ability score inflation and make every character viable.

Morale is important! Monsters roll this during combat!

Spells begin casting on the caster's initiative segment but take a casting time in segments to actually happen. If a magic user begins casting a fireball on segment 4, the spell does not land until segment 7 since it has a 3-segment casting time. The monsters have a chance to damage the caster and force the caster to lose the spell. What? Is there actually pushback on caster power? Magic isn't a "sure thing?" There is a tactical consideration to magic, and it needs to be declared before the initiative is rolled?

Yes.

The mistakes made with almost every edition beyond the first "made things easy" for players, which resulted in the game's power level spinning out of control and casters dominating play. Nowadays, everyone has a laser pistol infinite cantrip on their hip, and people wonder how they can make magic "special" again.

You can go back to the first edition.

Miss the bard? Pickup ADaD's Book of Lost Lore for a great first-edition bard that isn't overpowered and doesn't dominate the game as a default choice. If you pick this class, you really want to play a bard.

The above book also introduces a skill system to the game, where you buy skills by permanently spending XP to gain them. This is a genius addition to first-edition games.

You get the classic racial level limits, which balance the game, allowing character races to have powerful racial abilities starting at level one. This isn't an issue of fairness; this is a balance issue, and since most games never hit the limits, it is a non-issue for the most part.

Non-humans are the only ones who get to multi-class, so you can have spell-casting fighter elves; humans only get to dual-class, which means class limits apply (no casting spells in armor). This greatly benefits non-human characters; you take class-level limits, combine class powers, ignore restrictions, and use your innate abilities.

Humans? Often boring slogs to become level 12 and higher. Non-humans? You get to mix and match classes and use extraordinary racial abilities at level one.

Similarly, classes have minimum ability scores and alignment restrictions, meaning not everyone can play a paladin. If you roll scores good enough to play one, consider yourself lucky. This is your "prestige class," you must be lucky to roll the minimums. You won't see them in every game, but they will be memorable and unique when you do.

I like this! Not everyone can be in any class.

Finally. A game that makes sense.

Yes, what you could play depended on your ability score rolls. This isn't a game that gives everything to everyone; players are children and need to be coddled, pandered to, told they are unique and kept from being upset. Parts of this game simulated life and how unfair it was, and despite those hardships, we can still succeed and find purpose, even with a character with no score above 13.

Modern games pander too much. They water down every choice to be the same. Nothing is special. Everyone is given incredible ability scores and a bucketful of die-roll modifiers. Even AD&D 2nd Edition began to suffer from this idiocy. People complained, and the suits came in, making every choice bland and meaningless.

OSRIC is that classic first-edition Midwestern design sensibility shining through. Everyone knows they start life behind the eight ball, and how you begin life isn't always perfect. Others will have advantages over you, but those can be squandered or wasted due to stupidity, ego, and pride. 

What you do and who you become is what ultimately matters.

Pathfinder 2: OGL vs. ORC

I like the Pathfinder 2 Remaster ORC books better than the original Pathfinder 2 OGL ones. The new books have better art, a more refined layout, and a general maturity in presentation compared to the original edition, which feels like a 5E book. Much of the art is the same, but a few new pieces stand out. The ones that distracted me are gone, and the game seems "settled," if that is how I can put it.

The official world is still okay with me, but it is not how I prefer a fantasy world. If I ran this, it would be my own world. I would simplify things to the traditional choices and make the design feel more grounded. I get where Lost Omens is going, but I have my own tastes in settings and what I like. To each their own.

The tactical battle rules are why you pay admission to the game. If you like D&D 3.5E's feeling of "put it on the table," you will have a blast here. The game is not "soft story gaming," if you have a build, you need to master it on a map with tokens. You can roleplay, but the dice and rules decide whether your character lives or dies. In story games like 5E, there is a tendency to roleplay to increase your power level with soft RP fluff and words, and Pathfinder 2 shakes its head and says, "Prove it."

Unlike D&D 3.5E, the game isn't broken at the high levels, and the power level between martial characters and casters is addressed. Some don't like that and want overpowered casters, so they should stay in D&D. The expectation problem still exists, and if you come in expecting traditional roles for every class to be the same, you will be disappointed. The game was designed for teamwork and for everyone to play a role, just like D&D 4E was.

Also, good riddance to the OGL content. I am finding every game that gets rid of OGL content comes out better, from ACKS2 to Castles & Crusades; forcing designers to part ways with the OGL and come up with monsters, spells, and magic unique to their worlds and vision makes the game so much better. Even Swords & Wizardry Revised, forced to use the Creative Commons content, is still a better game. Ditching the OGL is the best way forward. Suddenly, you see the designers' imagination at work, and we are "forced out of the cave," and the "tried and true OGL standards" are gone. We explore new worlds, see new magic, and find new treasures in these places.

Every game that ditches the OGL is 100% better. Too often, we "fall back on what we know from D&D," and our games become "D&D clones using another set of rules."

Even games like Dungeon Crawl Classics get it; monsters and things we have never seen before should be unique. PF2 gives you tools to build your own monsters; from what I hear, it isn't difficult. So why not create your own monsters and develop your own bestiary? Your players will probably thank you and feel the thrill of not knowing what they are fighting or its relative power level based on OGL knowledge.

Those strange floating spore things that zapped us with lightning? Who knows what they were, but this is the first time we have seen something like that. That was fun. We didn't know what to expect.

Meanwhile, D&D and the OSR are sitting over there pushing nostalgia and member berries. It is okay if that is what you expect, but remember, when the hobby started, all those monsters were new to us, and we had no idea what they were.

We still have three legacy bestiaries with the OGL monsters, which work - so we still have everything. The ORC PF2 still has a "cavern elf" heritage, so there is your "drow, but just change their names." Most of the time, what you miss will have a new name without the "flavor," - so if you want drow, you got them; just say they are and play.

The character sheet is drastically better. It does not look like a tax form anymore.

Ditching the 3-18 ability scores was a good move. Why did we need the old stats? We aren't rolling against them, so just using the modifier as the ability score streamlines the game. We don't have to remember that "this score is a +2" or that we need to write another number down. Again, ditching the D&D and OGL standards and tropes improves the game.

They had a solid base of "what worked," they took years of feedback and then mixed that with pulling out the OGL. Yes, the remaster came early in the game's lifecycle, and some feel like this came way too early. But Paizo should thank Wizards for pulling the OGL scheme on the community.

They ended up with a better game.

Playing Effective D&D 3.5E

You need two books and a character designer to play effective D&D 3.5E. With them, I would be able to play the game quickly and accurately. These are my requirements for serious players and groups.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/56883/sord

The first is SORD, the D&D 3.5E version, and I recommend getting this printed in full-color and plastic coil over on this site:

https://www.printme1.com/

If you are serious about D&D 3.5E, every player should have this done. It saves everyone else's time and yours, and saving time for other players makes you a good player. Learning the game to be able to play quickly, correctly, and without needing to flip through books for rules shows respect for everyone else you play with.

This is a super-effective reference for all combat matters, and you need this to quickly sort through combat options and anything related to on-map play. Having this in color and lay flat is a must, even if you are playing on a VTT. You will cut hours off of combat time during a session, you will be able to play faster, and you will learn the game more straightforward with this handy reference.

Learning to play D&D 3.5E is like playing collegiate sports. Only some people can do this to a high level of skill. It requires dedication and effort. You must put time in and play efficiently to be in demand with the great tables and groups. The same goes for being the DM for games like this. Wizards designed this game to demand a higher skill level for the best groups, just like Magic the Gathering in tournament-level play.

Being fantastic means you will be in demand as a player or DM.

Note: the "Wizards" who designed D&D 3.5E are long gone. This is a different game entirely from the rule-light story game 5E became. It is built for tactical and competitive play. This is a miniatures game. Roleplaying isn't "built into" the rules; it is what you do between surviving miniatures battles, as it should be.

Rules-light games "anyone can play" don't attract a dedicated or skilled player base. This isn't gatekeeping or exclusionary; it is about putting time into being a good player and making your skills and ability to play a complex system higher than others.

You can be a "star player" or "master DM" in D&D 3.5E, which doesn't happen in D&D 5E.

https://www.dmsguild.com/product/54392/Rules-Compendium-35

The D&D 3.5E Rules Compendium is another must-have book, one per group, and players' having this PDF is very helpful. This book is key to understanding the system more in-depth if you want a complete breakdown of each critical area of the rules in a more conversational style. If you have a question about how spellcasting works, they have a whole chapter breaking it down.

This is more of a "teaching reference" for the game, and it feels strange to have a "study guide" breaking down areas of the rules that need in-depth explanation, but this is how D&D 3.5E is played. It is an in-depth, complete, tactical system that plays faster with figures than without. This book includes this remarkable observation:

One day I picked up a few metal minis, and a box of plastic D&D monsters, and quickly realized the advantage of being able to visually represent an encounter. Now the rogue’s player could see the path to take to get in a backstab, and the wizard could determine the closest doorway to duck into for cover. Combats became more tactical and efficient. Faster fights meant more encounters per session, and more time to focus on the story.

This observation that D&D "plays faster with a battle mat and figures" should stick a dagger in the back of theater of the mind (ToM) combat "being how modern D&D is played." Back in AD&D, you could get away with ToM combat, but having a map always felt better. With D&D 3.5E, having a map and figures or tokens speeds play and gives you more time for stories. D&D 5E feels like a regression back into that murky, nebulous ToM realm and "rules light roleplaying" that isn't D&D.

D&D 4E was all about maps. It was a mistake for D&D 5E to move away from maps and become a story game with soft resting mechanics, infinite cantrips, and resetting resources every encounter. It isn't D&D.

Shadowdark, with its "entire game on map" style of play, is more D&D than 5E is.

D&D 3.5E is the last time D&D was still the classic resource management, survival, tactical, tightly rules-integrated dungeon game. This was the "ultimate tabletop miniatures game. " You can see how they tried to lean into this with D&D 4E and failed. The resource resetting and infinite cantrip power cantrips began in D&D 4E, so we are still playing that game. D&D 5E is actually D&D 4.5E.

https://www.wolflair.com/hero-lab-classic/

My last "must-have" tool is Hero Lab, with the SRD D&D 3.5 module and the community pack add-on. You can't design D&D 3.5E characters on D&D Beyond; this is pay-once, own forever. If you want computer-aided design and management, this tool creates valid characters by the rules. This is especially important if you are building towards prestige classes, as you get the requirements laid out clearly and these characters validated against the rules.

Some of D&D 3.5E's balance problems were caused by people playing fast and loose with character creation and exceeding level-based skill limits, encumbrance, requirements, and other design limits. If a character begins to "break the game," you can fix it here, make notes on your limits or adjustments, and have those on the character's record sheet. If a skill gets too high and begins to trivialize a part of the game - put a cap on skill levels for your game, and don't make it worse by throwing more points into it!

Some silly D&D 3.5E stories revolve around someone saying, "I had a +50 in Bluff and Diplomacy and could lie my way through the game." The group had to allow that. Nobody saw this was silly? The maximum level for a class skill is level +3, and cross-class is one-half that number. So a level 20 character maxes out at a +23 and a +11.5, respectively, on skill levels (plus ability score mods).

If a group puts a "skill cap" of +15 on all skills to keep the game realistic and grounded, so a DC 30 still has some weight, that would be a good house rule. The maximum DC in D&D 3.5E is 40, so in reality, a +23 plus an extra 4 for a score of 18 would be a theoretical maximum of +27, so DC 40 is like rolling 13 or higher on a d20. There are synergy bonuses to consider, too.

If your skill level is higher than a DC, there is no need to roll, so high skill levels speed play.

Put a flat +25 cap on any skill roll die modifier and leave it there, especially if you are not playing epic levels. The gods say we want mortals only so powerful, and the cap stands. You could have a cap for worlds on the prime material and no cap on the planes or different ones on different worlds. Thus, no matter how high a player raises a character's skill, something limits the modifier based on the world and reality. You don't need to restrict character designs with a system like this, and it balances the game for you while keeping high skill levels that are still valuable for "no limits" planar play.

Having the right tools and training is key to enjoying D&D 3.5E. People dismiss this game as "too complicated" and parrot what the designers of new editions say.

I see it differently.

People who want an easy game always have 5E.

Playing D&D 3.5E is mental athletics and a discipline that requires a higher level of thinking and dedication. This will sift out the people who don't have the time or commitment to learn a system that requires mastery to play at high levels. Those not interested won't play, while those interested and engaged will express that. These will naturally be the better players you will gravitate towards in groups. You will have a better play experience with those committed to learning to play the game as intended.

And these tools give you a good start on that journey.

Pathfinder 2 Remastered

https://www.humblebundle.com/books/pathfinder-second-edition-happy-birthday-remaster-bundle-from-paizo-inc-books

There is still a day to get the Pathfinder 2 Humble Bundle, and you can pick up the PDFs of the remaster books and support charity. I bounced off Pathfinder 2 pretty hard; the learning curve here, especially for a solo player, is significant - especially if you run multiple characters alone.

Learning and mastering GURPS was far easier for me because all characters in GURPS work the same, and there isn't specialized lingo and class mechanics for every class. The game was better for group play. If all you play is bards, then all you have to worry about is understanding and playing your class, and you can contribute to a group much better.

I am still trying to figure out how to learn this game and play it solo. There is a lot here.

The one thing that sets Pathfinder 2 apart is that the game delivers on the original promise that D&D 3.0 made in 2000. For 25 years, Wizards has been flailing, trying to provide the "balanced tabletop dungeon game" that works from level one to twenty, that provides tactical clarity and options, where every choice is valid, and that plays the best on a map.

With D&D 5? They gave up. The fifth edition is a glorified story game. They were burned by D&D 4 and abandoned tactical play. There isn't any "tight map play" where the choices you make on your character matter that much. The action system is soft and better suited to the theater of the mind. The resting system is far too generous. Resources constantly replenish. Nobody dies.

If you want a tactical dungeon board game with roleplaying class builds, you play D&D 3.5E. There isn't getting better than this, and you could say D&D 3.5E is "Advanced D&D 5E." Just open the D&D 3.5E book, and you will see grids, line-of-sight charts, spell templates, examples of on-map play, and diagrams that help you play the game. It isn't a coffee table art book with pretty filler and fluff.

But, like all Wizards games, it must be fixed past level 10. You homebrew, patch, ban builds, and begin repairing the game now, and you are on your own. If you love the game, great, you accept this and make the game your own creation.

With Pathfinder 2, someone finally "did it."

They delivered a tactical dungeon tabletop game, with every choice valid, no broken high-level play, and adjustable difficulty from trivial to near-impossible play. Granted, they needed many rules, structures, tags, conditions, and rules inside classes to pull this off. The work required to deliver that "dungeon board game" dream, and the number of interactions between layered rules, is pretty hefty.

Spending time mastering D&D 3.5E could be better spent learning something that works and delivers on its promise. This is true if nostalgia weren't a thing. D&D 3.5E is just as in-depth, with many more modifiers and special circumstance rules than Pathfinder 2E. The design of D&D 3.5E needs to be more streamlined and unified, whereas Pathfinder 2E is designed as a solid, sensible core system.

And there is no need to fix the game. Someone isn't going to walk into your game with a cheese build they read on an Internet forum, or it will happen a lot less here. There are "whirlwind attack" cheese builds in D&D 3.5E that do hundreds of points of damage per turn, and people think they are brilliant for wanting to develop and use those in your game when all they are trying to do is waste weeks of your time building to the moment they wreck your game during one session and laugh.

D&D is notorious for these "thank you for wasting our time" builds that ruin the investment, time, and enjoyment of everyone else at the table. They are a real problem the company refuses to address and, in some cases, encourages to get more book sales. The overall health of the D&D game could be improved.

Pathfinder 2 gives you greater "idiot protection" than D&D 5E or D&D 3.5E. I hate putting it that way, but it is true. If I am playing at a hobby store, with random online others, or with people I don't know as well - Pathfinder 2E is the better choice. People's choices are protected; no one is going to "cheese in" and ruin the game for the table, and the game will work all the way to the highest level, thus protecting the time investment of the table.

The remaster player guide cover sums it up best. That dragon that barely makes a lick of sense, how does it live with those horns and the jagged, spiky, threatening design? That isn't a dragon. That is a loudmouth, rules-lawyer, cheat-the-game idiot trying to ruin your table's game. The game protects you from that threat heroically.

But the rules say I can!!!

Is Pathfinder 2E perfect? No. People still complain about a few classes not living up to their ideal of how the class should play or the role they want it to take. "It isn't like what the other game does" is a common criticism of the classes and their roles in PF2E.

Pathfinder 2 is better than the alternatives and much better for groups than any of the D&D games.

OSRIC & D&D 3.5E: The Best Combo

One of the best combos in gaming these days is the OSRIC and D&D 3.5E pair. If you want a B/X-style rules-light dungeon game, the classic first-edition style does not disappoint. People may raise an eyebrow when I say OSRIC is rules-light since I am inclined to first put Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, or any other B/X hybrid or clone in that space.

But OSRIC plays precisely like those games once you get through the rules on character creation. And I like the limits on character creation; this makes the game special. The class, race, and level limits for all the different builds give OSRIC a depth that the other "pick any race and any class" B/X clones do not have.

In the first edition, you make a huge choice when you create a character that needs to be informed and conscious. In the old days, this was like picking a college based on the school's specialty and reputation. You will live with this choice for the rest of your life.

OSRIC is my game manual of choice, but having your AD&D books lying around for inspiration and Gary's advice at the table never hurts. Nothing replaces having the words of the game's inventor and true master by your side, and those will also serve you well in life as your driving force of adventure.

And there is descending AC here. I like this since the new-style "AC as target number" can sometimes feel too easy, and it streamlines far too much. Having this extra "decoder step" before you strike a blow makes each blow seem more serious, as if you are unlocking a choice from which there is no way back and putting the finger on the trigger. Looking that to-hit number up feels the same way.

With OSRIC and the BRW Games expansions, you can also have a complete, expanded, and content-packed version of the first edition that puts any 5E or clone-5E game to shame in less page count with the modern class choices you come to expect. There are also the best Cthulhu and Oriental Adventures in this lineup for the first edition you will ever see, done respectfully and with a strong sense of design. These books also give you a model and framework to expand the game in any direction.

OSRIC is suitable for B/X-style "theater of the mind" play. It works well on a map, but the rules are simple enough to handle most fights without one. D&D 3.5E is much better with a map since it "proves" your build and tactics, but OSRIC and the first edition still let you do that conversational style of play.

If I just want to "play a dungeon game" without maps or in a solo play style, the first edition through OSRIC is very hard to beat and remains one of the best editions of the game ever.

Do you want modern "character building" by the Wizards style? Do you want tactical play? Go D&D 3.5E. Frankly, character customization has worsened with every new edition Wizards has released. Here? Point buy skills and building into prestige classes; you can still multiclass at every level.

With D&D 4? We lost multiclassing, and the classes became power-list choices.

D&D 5? We have multiclassing back, but the internal structure of classes means treed choices at the low levels and no real, meaningful choice past your subclass selection. You are on that track until you multiclass and invest enough levels to make a second treed choice.

With D&D 3.5E? Point-buy all the way up, meeting prestige class requirements, and free multiclassing. It has problems; it needs patching, you need to establish a world skill cap, and there are plenty of cheese builds - but you will have fun finding and banning them. Nothing beats D&D 3.5E as a character-building game, not even Pathfinder 1e, which began to retreat into the "treed choice" cave with its design and the weak support for prestige classes.

D&D 3.5E was also written before censorship and Hasbro's interference in the rules. This was the last team that could "do what they wanted" with the game, and it shows. The game was mature, not written down to an audience, did not pander, still had edgy content, and even had books that contained artistic nudity. Evil could be evil, and good could be good. This is the last version of the game where the rules support evil campaigns.

Why do I need third-party "evil campaign 5E books" on Kickstarter again? This is built into D&D 3.5E, and the tone and style of the core rulebook don't oppose it.

D&D 3.5E also had the tight, map-based play that D&D 4E had, which we lost in D&D 5E for story gaming. Once you go story gaming, your game is destroyed, and it begins to take a soft, interpretation-based, just-make-everyone-win, easy-play route. Pathfinder 2E and Shadowdark continue the tradition of "characters that can die on a map," but D&D 3.5E is the purest form of that combination of wargames and horror movies.

Once you are forced to "pick a figure" and "place it on the map," and you need to understand a rules framework to survive, along with having a viable character build - you will discover a thrill and a terror only possible with a game where "tactical rules matter."

Those modifiers can kill you or doom your enemies.

And no, not everyone can play, which is good. You need to learn rules with built-in mastery and become efficient and proficient enough to earn your way into the "best groups." With 5E, anyone with a character sheet or a build ripped off a forum can be a good player, and that invites in people who don't care about the game or care more about themselves.

With D&D 3.5E, just like Magic: the Gathering, you have much to learn and practice before considering yourself a "high-level" player. Frankly, this is the same in Pathfinder 2E. This isn't gatekeeping. The game makes no apologies for asking you to learn a system and become good at playing and running it. You aren't taking 30 minutes to decide what you do on your turn; that is hugely disrespectful to other players and their time, and you won't get invited to play in the best player circles.

If you slam D&D 3.5E for gatekeeping, you must do the same for Magic: the Gathering and Pathfinder 2E. But forcing you to learn a system to sort your players into player skill levels isn't gatekeeping; it creates a natural selection, just like high-level Diablo IV or World of Warcraft play. Not everyone can do mythic raids, and not everyone should be allowed to do so. This is a privilege you need to earn to become a great player.

Gatekeeping implies "barring someone from playing." Systems where you "earn the right at high-level play" still allow everyone into that gate if they put in the effort. No one is keeping you from going through but yourself. D&D 3.5E filters out the worst players and bad habits, whereas D&D 5E opens the door to them. This is the Hasbro "everyone can play" design we are stuck with today.

DCC version of 5E? Advanced Advantage?

Is Goodman Games making its own version of 5E? The next Kickstarter (Terror from the Underdeep) will have a playtest rules packet for this. Check 1:10 on the above video.

Please use the Zocchi dice! I would rather have them rewrite all of 5E and integrate the Zocchi dice. They say they don't want to "replace 5E" but "enhance it."

I would rather have them rewrite it all, release books with their art style, remake all the monsters, and just go whole hog with this. Companies come and go trying to replace 5E, and the 5E players are more D&D Beyond players these days, but a "Z5E" written and presented like DCC would be awesome.

Part of me gets excited about projects like this, but another part feels like new 5E games are tilting at windmills. DCC is still one of the best 3.5E implementations ever written, and I would love to see a 5E done that way.

Like D&D 3.5E? Play Pathfinder 2

Like map-based tactical combat and balanced rules that work as advertised to level 20? The fatal flaw of D&D 3.5E is Pathfinder 2E, which delivers all that. Wizards of the Coast does not write games that work great past level ten, and they have been trying and failing since D&D 3.0.

I like D&D 3.5E for other reasons, one being nostalgia, a few others relating to the last, best versions of the world books that the 3.5E team made, and the legendary designers behind the game.

You can be serious about D&D 3.5E and make it work, but the game that is supported and much less hassle is Pathfinder 2E. It works. It works on the tabletop. It works all the way to a high level. The game is balanced, and all the choices are valid.

Due to the messy divorce Wizards of the Coast forced on the gaming industry, the OGL and SRD content has been removed or renamed from the PF2E remaster version. I have the original game and I am not in the market for the remaster, and I want to wait an edition to see fixes and patches. Then again, I am asking to put myself back into a pricy book and electronic character sheet market, and it didn't feel (back then and now) that I would get enjoyment out of that investment.

I am not a fan of the Pathfinder 2E world. With the removal of OSR elements, the guns (I know they are optional), the steampunk aesthetic, and the modern feeling don't speak to me. If someone made a traditional-art version of Pathfinder 2E's main rules with old-school nods and support, I would look into that.

Part of me is eternally happy with OSRIC. There are fewer books, fewer rules, and fewer modern-day distractions, and the classic and original AD&D sourcebooks are legendary documents. I always ask, why do I need a new game?

The incremental minor upgrades are what draw me to modern games, and they are primarily worthless. They are tiny increments you could just "write in" to a game like OSRIC, have it all, and not be drained of money from the publisher or character design software. Today's games are designed to have thousands of trivial options that are meant to lock you in and force you to buy books. They "gamify" things that should be left to the story and the natural progression of character, and doing it yourself is always better than relying on someone else's half-baked design.

This is always my battle with newer games. The original works just fine and, in many cases, better. The best part of PF2E is the tactical combat, which is the selling point. D&D 5.5E leans heavily into social and roleplay, and the game fails at tactical combat. They want to sell the game as a "social platform," which falls flat for me since I am not in those circles.

Why should I play if I don't buy into D&D 5.5E's identity gaming social platform? A few unsupported campaign settings and nostalgia aren't enough.

They still need to answer this question.

PF2E delivers a tested, working, one-to-twenty tabletop game. D&D 3.5E tried to do this but failed because of the broken nature of high-level play. You will get a fun run to level seven, and then you will fight the rules and broken builds for the rest of the campaign. This has always stayed the same in 25 years of D&D.

Pathfinder 2E is supported, works, and has an active community. D&D 3.5E is all but dead, except for a few die-hard fans (like myself). You will be happy if you want tabletop, map-based, tight tactical play? Go Pathfinder 2E. I still like D&D 3.5E, but this needs to be said to temper my coverage and enthusiasm.

OSRIC and AD&D will be here forever and will always be my default choices.

DCC vs. C&C

Castles & Crusades and Dungeon Crawl Classics are completely opposite games. Both have an old-school feeling, but this is where the similarities end.

C&C is about simplicity, eliminating as many charts and tables as possible. The game plays like a "rules light B/X" but with fantastic depth and heft to the systems. The game feels much more complicated and profound than it is, which is a tremendous feat of design. This is one of the best fantasy games out there, capable of doing anything: pulp fantasy adventure, high fantasy, dark fantasy, gritty fantasy, and even any fantasy fiction book written. The game can be modded into high-power super-heroic 5E style gaming with feat-like abilities, higher ability score modifiers, and infinite-use cantrips.

C&C is also compatible with everything from zero-edition to AD&D 2nd Edition, a genuine Rosetta Stone of fantasy gaming. Keep on the Borderlands? It plays that. Tomb of Horrors? It plays that. Ravenloft or the Forgotten Realms? Those too.

Both are rooted in the 3rd edition game. C&C is more like 3.0 but with the modern parts removed, and DCC is more like the 3.5E version, clinging to the familiar Fort/Ref/Will saves.

C&C is one of my all-time best fantasy games. One 4x6 index card is all you need for a character. You instantly get that classic AD&D feeling when you play without all the reference work. The multi-classing is fantastic. The SIEGE Engine seamlessly handles everything from saves and ability checks to skill rolls. The game does a lot with a little.

Some dislike the SIEGE Engine because the default CL of 18 for a secondary attribute makes actions "too hard" at level one. The game tells you to "add your level" to the roll if the ability is not covered by another class, and you are supposed to move up the levels (up to 24) pretty quickly. You are supposed to have it tough at level one; wait six to eight more levels, and then things will be too easy.

C&C is not D&D; campaigns don't need to end at the 8th level because the high-level rules are broken. You can keep playing, and it will be fine!

Also, the CK can modify the roll by up to a -10 to +20, so feeling a "level 3 trap" is a CL of 21 is just the starting point. Is it a "level 3 easy" trap? Modify it by -5 for a CL of 16. Is it a "level 3 trivial trap?" Make it a CL of 11. Also, if you use a primary, those CLs get lowered by six points.

The system is meant to be flexible, so be flexible!

People coming from 5E need to be told that.

DCC reminds me of the old-school Paranoia game in ways that make it a love letter to the genre, a parody of fantasy gaming, yet a capable fantasy game in its own right. This is a fever dream of fantasy tropes and Appendix N fiction, and it plays like the original inspirations of fantasy gaming. This game revels in its random charts, creating chaos, insane outcomes, and emergent gameplay through randomness.

Where C&C strips out every chart needed during play, DCC asks for more.

DCC achieves commentary on a hobby that only comes from finding truth through parody, reverence, and introspection. The things that happened to characters in Appendix N books can happen to you. With a straight fantasy game like C&C, we will fall into our biases and assumptions. What can happen in a game is what we expect to happen, and nothing else can happen. The odd, strange, spooky, creepy, and unknown things that can happen - never do.

The dice selection, fourteen instead of the regular seven, also breaks the genre's expectations. Suddenly, the familiar seven fantasy shapes are mixed in with others, and the certainty of relying on one or two dice is broken. In addition to moving to-hit dice up and down the chain, I will move any other die, damage dice included, up and down the chain depending on the situation. When asked to roll a d16 or a d24 for a to-hit, you realize you are playing DCC, and your view of AC and hit modifiers flips on its head. As a warrior, your deed die as a component of to-hits becomes very important with those smaller dice.

As for ability score rolls, in DCC, the only checks you roll a d20 and under are Luck checks. All the others are the standard 3.5E DC skill check system, modified by ability score. A character's occupation and class determine if skills are trained (d20) versus untrained (d10). Level does not modify skill checks, nor is there a "skill system."

You can easily bolt on a skill system to the game by assuming level one characters get two "level zero" skills, one in their class and the other in their occupation. At every level, you get one skill point. With a skill point, you can add a +1 to a skill or buy a new level zero skill. You can give level-one characters a free skill point to see someone with "farmer +10" at level ten instead of +9. Skill points can be banked and saved, but training or practical use is needed to spend them.

Note that the above system will introduce DC inflation, but in 3.5E, that is easily handled by moving the max DC to 30. You can cap skill levels to +3 or +5 if you want.

DCC relies on breaking down assumptions, changing the norm, destroying expectations, and taking the train off the rails. Like any great "S" series module, and this includes Tomb of Horrors, you are forcing a party "outside the box" in terms of expectations of understanding and success. In S3, you are dealing with an alien environment; with S1, your success depends on your thinking ability. "Damage per turn (DPT)" is secondary to these adventures, and that traditional measure of success and capability is turned on.

This is completely opposed to the design ethos of 5E since 5E is all about character power, and your passive skills automatically spot and see everything in the environment—the referee is "supposed to tell you" things based on a fixed skill value. In these modules, you poke, prod, push, and listen. Understanding and the ability to query and interact with an environment is critical. Not numbers. Not DPT. Not builds. Not cheese action economy hacking. Not linking powers and effects.

And death is a "player at the table" in DCC, which is refreshing. Characters always die in this game, from zero-level funnels to a powerful high-level wizard getting backstabbed in an alley. In D&D 5E, character death is near impossible, and this was done by design for marketing and "identity gaming." If you "see yourself in the game" and "buy microtransactions to support that identity," then why would the company want you to lose that character by having them die?

If character death is impossible, it is not D&D. There is no way.

C&C and DCC are more faithful to the spirit of D&D than 5E's software-as-a-service game, and it isn't even close.