Community created 5e clone?

[Guest 7030100]

My votes for core classes:

Phighter​

Clerriq​

Rowg​

Dawizard​

 

[mamba]

So, my first thought was jokingly saying "democracy is overrated", but…
Isn't anyone else concerned that a voting based system will possibly be awful?
I think a project like this would need a strong, opinionated leader with game design chops instead of letting the popular vote carry system design. Anything else just feels like populist decision making.

not sure why I would be concerned about that. There is a reason why WotC asks us whether we like their changes, and not to come up with our own changes

 

[Ashtagon]

My votes for core classes:

Phighter​

Clerriq​

Rowg​

Dawizard​

I'd rather have a Teeth class than a Rowg class.

No Whizzards please.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'm in, but in order to accurately capture the spirit of WotC ranger class design, I propose we set up several tables of possible class features, then determine which ones make the cut through chat input in the vein of Twitch Plays Pokemon.

 

[Ashtagon]

Call the game Freed Ned.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If we use different classes, I vote

Warrior (big weapons strength/con based can gain Berserker Fury or maneuvers) combines fighter and Barbarian elements

Knight or Warden (vharisma and strength, can gain a guardian’s mark or a rallying cry that creates an aura) combines fighter and Paladin elements, plus some light defender mechanics

Rogue ( Dex and Cha, thievery and deception, dirty fighting, either gets Jack of all trades or acrobatic themed stuff) rogue and bard elements, mostly nonmagical but does include a way to be the arcane trickster or the music magic guy

Assassin (Dex/Int, stealth and disguise expert, damage nova mechanic, either gets specialized kit including poisons or gets shadow magic) rogue and fighter elements, with small bits of monk influence around movement and defense

Mage (def spellbook, but make it more central as a well of power and knowledge, and make implements matter as much as weapons do for martials, maybe choose between the tome and internal power? Either way you can learn new magic in adventure) wizard and sorcerer elements

Warlock (Int and Cha, themes of stolen power, forbidden knowledge, calling upon True Names, choose between a Patron as Power Source and a Ritual/Binding Specialization? Warlocks should be a mix of a Golden Dawn Hermetic Ritualist and Evocationist, and John Constantine) Warlock with a smidge of Rogue and Bard bits, more witchy, less strictly Faustian

Warden or similar name (Str or Dex and Wis, half-caster, something like smite and a mark that can be offensive or protective, chooses arcane or divine power, getting either mage armor and mobility or healing) Paladin and swordmage elements. Heavy gish

Mystic (wisdom primary with Dex or strength features, mystical powers relating to the self, can either lean into martial artist tropes or into mystic warrior tropes) monk elements and 4e avenger and swordmage elements. The light gish.

Priest (no armor, divine aura, idk I don’t even like clerics someone else do the thing lol)

Druid and Ranger close to as is thematically, Bard…total redesign to being a lore master, keeper of stories, able to essentially Turn Mortals by subjecting them to the unmitigated truth, etc

 

[Faolyn]

I mean while we are at it I would love to cut back the HP inflation that WotC editions have had
and while we are at it maybe we can make a setting that is set on modern designs instead of rehashing ideas form 70's 80's 90's and early 00's
wait while we are at it we should....

So, like, what exactly do you not want versus what do you want? Because "set on modern design" isn't a useful phrase.

So, my first thought was jokingly saying "democracy is overrated", but…
Isn't anyone else concerned that a voting based system will possibly be awful?
I think a project like this would need a strong, opinionated leader with game design chops instead of letting the popular vote carry system design. Anything else just feels like populist decision making.

On the SJ Games forums, they used to (and may still do; haven't been there in forever) do "vote up a X" threads and they were usually pretty interesting. They were more theorycrafting than anything, but it's likely that a community-created 5e clone would also be more theorycrafting than actual result.

With the ability to do polls, I would strongly suggest that's how it's done. Not just "I want <this list of items>."

 

[Yaarel]

IME, there are always "while we're at..." changes in a lot of retroclones. These are often retroclones designed by one or maybe to designers. But in a committee? How many "while we're at" changes would there be and where? It really would be pure...

In this case, the "while were at it" changes help distance the clone more clearly from the original. There is benefit.

However, any structural changes or terminology changes would need to be simple and straightforward − and appeal to the majority of the 5e players.

So the changes cannot deviate too far from what 5e players are familiar with.

The benefit of a group of active designers under the observation of the gaming community can − via voting − help stay on course.

 

[Yaarel]

Particularly any decision that didn't reflect the launch state of 3rd edition (no typo).

Yeah. As I am starting to familiarize myself with P2 (Pathfinder 2), I am seeing the "bounded accuracy" of 5e differently.

Bounded accuracy keeps math simpler. That is a powerful attractiveness

At the same time, a lack of bounded accuracy allows wide gaps between numbers (+10, +20, +30) gives more design space for different kinds of features, and characters that have more nuance and more flavor.



Relatedly, both 5e and P2 minimize reliance on magic items, so magic items are +1 at the lowest levels and only +3 at the highest levels. The difference is, the math for P2 expects magic items of a certain amount of power at certain character levels, whereas the bounded accuracy of 5e has no room for magic items and ignores magic items entirely. In this way, 5e customarily awards magic items but lacks the math for them, which causes serious imbalances at the highest level encounters, where bounded accuracy cannot compete with the magical boosts.



Anyways bounded accuracy (for simple math) versus bigger math (for more design space for more options) is a deep structural difference. It is something 5e players might want to revisit when deciding the gaming engine of the clone.



On the other hand, if 5e moved away from bounded accuracy, the highest levels of 5e would no longer be mathematically compatible − but probably easy to convert to the clone.

It seems to me, the clone of 5e would need math that is strictly compatible with 5e upto level 8, and be reasonable enough upto level 12. But for the highest levels, the clone can depart from bounded accuracy if that is what people want.

 

[Yaarel]

Ok, first vote:

Warlord: archetype or full-class?

I'll post the second vote in 2-3 years!



Joking aside, I'd be down to participate, but I dont think it would produce any results. There's a reason we all have a different bunch of houserules at our own table.

The cool thing about this approach is, variants are welcome.

If someone wants to build the Warlord as a separate class with unique features, do that.

If someone wants to build the Warlord as a subclass, do that too.

All Warlords are variants. The most popular variant is the "default".