Community created 5e clone?

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

When I was playing around with my d12 system I did it in 6s...

so at level 1 you picked a class and (back then we called them races) and a a heroic theme
At level 6 you picked a paragon path
At level 12 you picked a Legendary archtype
At level 18 you picked a epic destiny
At level 24 you picked an immortal package
and in theory at level 30 you just ended up the game...

I was trying for each class had 2 built in good choices for each, and then each subset "warrior, priest, mage ect" had 2 that anyone in that group could take and at least 2 any non caster could take and 2 any caster could take...

As awesome of a concept as it was I could not make it work

 

[Faolyn]

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.

At this point, might as well make it a point-based system.

Or like that 3x(?) hack that was one class with a billion feats instead of class stuff.

 

[mellored]

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.

I agree.
Ranger is not significant different from a rogue/ druid /fighter.
Paladin has 1 feature that makes it different, though the aura could fit on a bard just as easily.

So if we came make multi-classing viable, then we can allow all those combinations.

 

[mellored]

At this point, might as well make it a point-based system.

Or like that 3x(?) hack that was one class with a billion feats instead of class stuff.

The advantage of the tree is that you don't get flooded with a billion options at level 1.

But if you get 3 option each level,
that's 9 classes at level 2
27 sub-classes at level 3
...
and 3.5 billion options at level 20.

So plenty of total combinations, but it's still just 3 at a time.

We have to remember the newbs.

 

[mellored]

I was trying for each class had 2 built in good choices for each, and then each subset "warrior, priest, mage ect" had 2 that anyone in that group could take and at least 2 any non caster could take and 2 any caster could take...

As awesome of a concept as it was I could not make it work

Sounds like too many combinations to keep track of. And forcing yourself into unnecessary symmetry.

Or where you having other issues?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sounds like too many combinations to keep track of. And forcing yourself into unnecessary symmetry.

Or where you having other issues?

first issue... I suck with wording, so even when I mean to close loop holes they would show up everywhere and my playtest basicly needed "Don't try to use RAW to over rule RAI" rule that wouldn't work well if published
Second it was only symmetrical in the "at least" part... like I did end up with a bunch more warrior sub stuff then caster stuff... I didn't need exactly 2 but at least 2... HOWEVER trying to figure out if Ranger should be a class or a heroic theme and paragon path for the rogue, or what needed to be a class and what could be a path...
third and most important was I started doubling up on options, so like "this heroic theme got an extended crit, but now I am working on another heroic theme and that would really fit"
fourth and LEAST important was that everytime I got a new idea I ended up wanting to go back and rewrite everything else that could interact with it (remember part of the point was to let things interact with each other)

 

[mellored]

first issue... I suck with wording, so even when I mean to close loop holes they would show up everywhere and my playtest basicly needed "Don't try to use RAW to over rule RAI" rule that wouldn't work well if published

That's where community feedback comes in handy.

Second it was only symmetrical in the "at least" part... like I did end up with a bunch more warrior sub stuff then caster stuff... I didn't need exactly 2 but at least 2... HOWEVER trying to figure out if Ranger should be a class or a heroic theme and paragon path for the rogue, or what needed to be a class and what could be a path...

Ranger is always an issue. We might just want to avoid the word all together.

third and most important was I started doubling up on options, so like "this heroic theme got an extended crit, but now I am working on another heroic theme and that would really fit"

Not sure why that would be a major problem, as long as they didn't stack.

I mean, better if each thing was more unique than not. But repeats aren't the worst thing.

fourth and LEAST important was that everytime I got a new idea I ended up wanting to go back and rewrite everything else that could interact with it (remember part of the point was to let things interact with each other)

That's usually where I end up failing.

I have rewritten so many things so many times, they eventually morph into a completely new thing.

Also, it's why a DM exsists.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree.
Ranger is not significant different from a rogue/ druid /fighter.
Paladin has 1 feature that makes it different, though the aura could fit on a bard just as easily.

So if we came make multi-classing viable, then we can allow all those combinations.

Potentially losing a decent number of folks (myself included) if moving to not having classes like ranger and Paladin as classes.

But…in your branching setup, which I do like, I don’t think you’d need every class to be nearly as big as a 5e class is.

I’d much rather be able to play like the character concept at level 1, though, not level 3 or whatever. Only way to do that without a ton of level choices is to have a wide range of options, or reduce level 1 complexity elsewhere and choose class and specialization or multiclass at level 1 as well.

So, multiclassing would be done via specializations, with some being in between archetypes eg things like Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, etc, ie the more narrow/specific classes and the conceptually bigger archetypes in 5e. Other specializations might only be available to one class, and still others might only be for multiclassing?

With the right setup, an archetype that adds Spellcasting, if chosen as a Mage, would add Spellcasting versatility, while on a Warrior it would add baseline Spellcasting. Spell level progression would be the same for all spellcasters, but your spell level cap and spell slots would be different based on you class and specialization.

Example: Warden (renamed ranger, in this case) gives primal magic relating to hunting/tracking/searching, animal and plant magic, and weapon combat magic. On a warrior, it just adds that magic and the ability to cast spells, up to 5th level, with roughly half the spell slots as a mage. On a Mage, it opens up magic they normally wouldn’t have access to, and gives access to the common warrior (this is how warriors meet baseline damage numbers) mechanic.

If the warrior has a similarly scaling weapon attack progression, then these MC specializations could grant “half power” progression in that mechanic, just like granting half power casting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Potentially losing a decent number of folks (myself included) if moving to not having classes like ranger and Paladin as classes.

But…in your branching setup, which I do like, I don’t think you’d need every class to be nearly as big as a 5e class is.

I’d much rather be able to play like the character concept at level 1, though, not level 3 or whatever. Only way to do that without a ton of level choices is to have a wide range of options, or reduce level 1 complexity elsewhere and choose class and specialization or multiclass at level 1 as well.

So, multiclassing would be done via specializations, with some being in between archetypes eg things like Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, etc, ie the more narrow/specific classes and the conceptually bigger archetypes in 5e. Other specializations might only be available to one class, and still others might only be for multiclassing?

With the right setup, an archetype that adds Spellcasting, if chosen as a Mage, would add Spellcasting versatility, while on a Warrior it would add baseline Spellcasting. Spell level progression would be the same for all spellcasters, but your spell level cap and spell slots would be different based on you class and specialization.

Example: Warden (renamed ranger, in this case) gives primal magic relating to hunting/tracking/searching, animal and plant magic, and weapon combat magic. On a warrior, it just adds that magic and the ability to cast spells, up to 5th level, with roughly half the spell slots as a mage. On a Mage, it opens up magic they normally wouldn’t have access to, and gives access to the common warrior (this is how warriors meet baseline damage numbers) mechanic.

If the warrior has a similarly scaling weapon attack progression, then these MC specializations could grant “half power” progression in that mechanic, just like granting half power casting.

Experts would also need some sort of scaling thing that could be given a 1/2 and 1/4 (for feats) scale progression, and I think skills can do that easily if you break the current 2-step progression into 4 or more steps.

Maybe just untrained, Novice, Expert/Jack/Journeyman/?, Master, would work.

Then attacks would have 1, 2, 3, and 4, attacks per turn,

magic would be split into groups of 2 spell levels, maybe called circles or tiers, up to 8th level spells.

Spellcasting tiers would also tell you how many slots per level you have, and again, at low levels everyone has the same spell levels, but not the same number of slots. Or spell points or whatever.

Each thing would have an epic boon option that gives access to a tier above the 4th, ie 9th level spells, and that tier would be buck wild, and optional. Ie, a DM could choose to not allow it at all.

This way it’s easy to translate what goes where when mixing, and it’s a big deal if you give an ability to go above your limit under XYZ condition (additional attack while raging or hasted, cast spells at 1 level higher, etc). It also means you can have someone who is pretty good at everything, and they won’t suck at anything or be OP.

 

[mellored]

Potentially losing a decent number of folks (myself included) if moving to not having classes like ranger and Paladin as classes.

I mean... you could do something like.

Paladin: prerequisite, knight (warrior) and holy (magic).

Or perhaps just don't have class names.

But…in your branching setup, which I do like, I don’t think you’d need every class to be nearly as big as a 5e class is.

Good idea. Not all branches need to be 20 levels. Or even full "classes".

I.e. the intimidation branch has only 3 levels for instance.

I’d much rather be able to play like the character concept at level 1, though, not level 3 or whatever. Only way to do that without a ton of level choices is to have a wide range of options, or reduce level 1 complexity elsewhere and choose class and specialization or multiclass at level 1 as well.

Depends on what you mean by a concept I guess.

Do you need to have heavy armor, smite, holy magic, and an aura at level 1 to call yourself a paladin?

Or can you just start with armor, call yourself a warrior of light, and pick up the rest as you go along?

Also, kind of a hack, but having a level 0 or level -1 can let "level 1" be 3 choices.

So, multiclassing would be done via specializations, with some being in between archetypes eg things like Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, etc, ie the more narrow/specific classes and the conceptually bigger archetypes in 5e. Other specializations might only be available to one class, and still others might only be for multiclassing?

Hmmm..

I'm thinking as long as you meet the prerequisite, you can take a level in any branch.

I.e. if you have magic 1 -> holy 1. You can just take arcane 1. No need to take magic again.

With the right setup, an archetype that adds Spellcasting, if chosen as a Mage, would add Spellcasting versatility, while on a Warrior it would add baseline Spellcasting. Spell level progression would be the same for all spellcasters, but your spell level cap and spell slots would be different based on you class and specialization.

Possibly something like...

Magic - increases spell slots, gain a cantrip.
Holy - learn a higher level holy spell
Arcane - learn a higher level arcane spell
Nature - learn a higher level nature spell.

"Multiclass" would just be taking a few levels of each of those, rather than focusing on one.


....
And here i go rewriting the original idea into something completely different again.