Community created 5e clone?

[GMforPowergamers]

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

I was trying to be snarky, but those are things I could make a case for... in the case of modern design I mean not having the setting dominated by high level spellcasting NPCs, and having a more wide burth of ancestries/heritages

 

[Faolyn]

I was trying to be snarky, but those are things I could make a case for... in the case of modern design I mean not having the setting dominated by high level spellcasting NPCs, and having a more wide burth of ancestries/heritages

I wouldn't consider having high-level NPCs everywhere so much a design aspect of older games as just an unfortunate side effect of Greyhawk and the Realms.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I updated my thread on a similar topic tonight, which I'll link here.

D&D General - What Would You Base A non-OGL 5e-alike Game On? (+)

The more this gets discussed and I have time to think on it, the more I think I’ve got my basic model and goals. Simplified low level chargen, but simple but meaningful choices as you advance Much simpler classes, basically a starting package with scaling features and maybe 1 new feature...

www.enworld.org

Spoiler

The more this gets discussed and I have time to think on it, the more I think I’ve got my basic model and goals.

• Simplified low level chargen, but simple but meaningful choices as you advance
  
  • Much simpler classes, basically a starting package with scaling features and maybe 1 new feature every 3-4 levels.
  • Each class has a couple few fundamental choices, like rogues choose between being a jack of all trades or a swashbuckler/acrobat. The Warden chooses essentially whether to be an arcane or divine ( gish, with a Mark that can be used offensively or defensively.
  • Feats come in two tiers, lesser and greater.
  • Archetypes are basically greater feats, multiclassing can be done with either/both
  • Ancestry and Upbringing help define you, but aren’t huge. Upbringing similar to background and culture, provides languages.
• Skill system as the core resolution system, replacing all the fiddly little individual systems for resolving different things
  
  • Each type of magic a skill, and Each group of weapons (one-handed, light thrown, heavy thrown, polearms, shield, off-hand weapons, bows, etc) a skill or a category that works like skills but is distinct to avoid confusion wrt whether you can ignore social skills to have nothing but weapon skills
  • Every “skill” has at least two basic actions associated with it, and a 1-paragraph description of what kinda of things you can do with it.
  • “Upcasting” is built into the basic actions, but part of the description could also be “more powerful actions might increase in scope, or direct power, at XYZ rate”
    • Example; Pyromancy would have the ability to yeet a burning pinecone at someone, or whatever, and would have language as to what vectors can be increased by what degrees with each unit of increase resource spend

• Magic and martial abilities remade into skills, and unified into a coherent system, without losing spells or making martials feel like wizards
  
  • Spells and techniques both draw from one resource, like ability pools or a derived statistic like Will which comes from con and wisdom or whatever
  • Spellcraft and techniques are player-driven, ie there are example spells for each magic skill and techniques for each martial combat style, but it’s a short list. Instead players create spells and techniques in-character, either by figuring out a need, or improvising more complex uses of magic skills, etc, or by collaboration.
  • More types of magic, more distinct weapons.

• Core mechanics that support ease of play with depth of potential mastery. Easy to learn and satisfying to master? Is that the phrase?
  
  • Skills are dirt simple to learn the basics of, with a high level of depth. The text of the mechanics of the game is not huge.
  • PCs roll defense, NPCs don’t roll attacks. This way anything trying to hurt you uses the same methodology, and PCs make most of the rolls.
  • Maybe distance in zones?
  • De-fiddle stuff like special vision. You either have the special sense or you don't. Only something like tremorsense and maybe blindsight should have a defined distance
  • Still need to go over the basic rules kernel that runs 5e and find the stuff that only serves to increase complexity with little benefit. Ya know, stuff like how movement used to work before 5e. I'm blanking on what elements of 5e have felt that way to me, but I know they exist.

In case anyone sees anything in what I've got and wants to snatch it.

I figure the whole point here is an open game, so I see no reason to not share ideas even if we end up diverging into several paths.

 

[aco175]

I was going to write something snarky, but do not want to rain on others parades. Seems like something that could be done, but need to get the words down. I already seen 3 different uses for the race. I would not want 20 pages of arguing about each thing. Might need sub-groups to finalize things down to 3-4 before open vote.

Would people be happy with 20% of stuff I really like and 20% I do not want?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was going to write something snarky, but do not want to rain on others parades. Seems like something that could be done, but need to get the words down. I already seen 3 different uses for the race. I would not want 20 pages of arguing about each thing. Might need sub-groups to finalize things down to 3-4 before open vote.

Would people be happy with 20% of stuff I really like and 20% I do not want?

if you think that's bad wait until the "what is a warlock" and "what is a sorcerer" starts... or heaven forbid the relaunch of the 'warlord' threads

 

[mellored]

Random thought

1 vote for reading the class/spell/monster
2 votes for playing the class/spell/monster
3 votes if someone else in your game played the class/spell/monster

I find the best perspective of balance is being on the receiving end.

 

[Faolyn]

if you think that's bad wait until the "what is a warlock" and "what is a sorcerer" starts... or heaven forbid the relaunch of the 'warlord' threads

Or the "how many classes do you actually need?" thread.

(I vote "fewer," although I understand why some people want lots.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or the "how many classes do you actually need?" thread.

(I vote "fewer," although I understand why some people want lots.)

I mean with good subclass and multi classing (maybe duel) you only need Warrior, Skill peep, and magic caster

on the other end it just makes sense to make a knight, a swashbuckler, ect...

 

[fuindordm]

I'd love a 5e style game with 8 or more mundane classes, only 4 spellcaster classes (arcane, divine, nature, psychic), zero "half-caster" classes, and 1e-style multiclassing.

 

[mellored]

I mean with good subclass and multi classing (maybe duel) you only need Warrior, Skill peep, and magic caster

on the other end it just makes sense to make a knight, a swashbuckler, ect...

You could have more branches.

At level 1, pick a group between warrior, skill, or magic.

At level 2, pick an archetype.
warrior -> swashbuckler, knight, or brute.
Skills-> sneak, charm, craft
Magic -> holy, nature, arcane.

At level 3, pick sub-class.

At level 4 you get a feat.

level 5, get a group increase
Level 6 an archetype increase
Level 7 a sub-class increase
Level 8 a feat.

repeat.

And continue customization on the way up.