D&D 5E Stripping 5e to its core

[ezo]

How far can you strip 5e down to core mechanics and still have a game that looks and feels like D&D, and could still be relatively compatible?

A lot depends on the scope of the project and its purpose. I recall when you were doing B&B and sort of disappointed that it didn't turn into the 5E D&D primer direction it seemed to be taking at one point.

At its core, you need very little IMO, but that is because for myself I don't need much to have a game that still "feels like D&D" to me because I find the "feel" part comes more from how I play, not exactly the mechanics I get to play with.

So, with you already having B&B, what is the point of this now? What are you hoping or trying to accomplish?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How far do you want to go?
Reduce the weapons chart. Doesn’t matter what a weapon actually is it fits one of the categories:
light hand weapons - d6
Regular hand weapon - d8
Heavy hand weapons - d10, require 2 hands
Reach weapon - d8, reach 1, 2 hands
Bows - d6
Crossbow - d8

There's at least one OSR game -- I forget which -- which makes weapon damage go off of class, not the weapon itself. A fighter always does d8 damage with a weapon, a thief or cleric always does d6 damage, a wizard always does d4.

It simplifies the game a lot and the damage matches up with existing weapon categories pretty closely throughout D&D history.

 

[Faxfire683]

Play Shadowdark.

Some interesting discussion in this thread on aspects I hadn’t considered on ways to slim down mechanics, but I would agree with DarkCrisis in that much of what everyone is talking about looks and smells like Shadowdark. That would be my go-to 5e-lite version, and I agree with Mike Shea when he recommends it as a great intro to modern D&D for new players that is less complex.

Definitely a great exercise in breaking down 5e further here though and don’t want to discourage that discussion—my point is that Shadowdark delivers on many of the OP’s ideas and the philosophy to me.

 

[Faolyn]

5e magic isn't Vancian.

It has Vancian roots, what with the spell slots and limited number of spells per day (although obviously D&D in any edition gives a lot more spells per day than Vancian magic did, IIRC). If it was point-based or at-will, then it wouldn't be Vancian.

Pulling out ability score values makes it hard to meet ability score requirements (like those for Strength and speed in armor). It also makes calculating your new bonuses tricky after the countless "ASIs."

Ish. In modern D&D, you would have a Strength of 16 (+3). You can drop the 16 and just have stats that go from -5 to +5 (or whatever you want the end points to be). Then you can say "You need Strength +2 to wear a breastplate." (Or whatever it is; it's been a while since I've looked at the armor list.)

It's not really pulling out the ability so much as removing the redundancy, since there's almost no difference between a 16 and a 17 in a score.

There are way too many instances of attack roll modifiers to make this compatible. That's not to say it wouldn't be a welcome addition (subtraction) from 5e.

While I generally agree here--I for one don't mind not having attack rolls if combat is otherwise interesting and/or there's ways to mitigate damage, like a dodge or block--I think the attack modifiers could be applied to damage in some way. Your high-level character or high-CR monster should be doing more damage than a weaker one.

My first thought (probably not great) is that what is the current proficiency bonus system get used. Do +1 damage for every two points of PB (or fraction thereof for martials) for characters, or +1 damage for every two levels of CR (or fraction thereof for combat-focused monsters). Or something like that.

 

[Faolyn]

There's at least one OSR game -- I forget which -- which makes weapon damage go off of class, not the weapon itself. A fighter always does d8 damage with a weapon, a thief or cleric always does d6 damage, a wizard always does d4.

It simplifies the game a lot and the damage matches up with existing weapon categories pretty closely throughout D&D history.

This also allows for the possibility of having special training, feats, masterwork weapons, or magic items that grant the ability to inflict a higher die of damage in a weapon, which would help make that character stand out a bit more.

 

[Reynard]

Play Shadowdark.

While I support this advice in general, Shadowdark isn't really a "stripped down 5E." It is a modern B/X. The assumptions and meta-play are much closer to the OSR than 5E.

 

[DarkCrisis]

While I support this advice in general, Shadowdark isn't really a "stripped down 5E." It is a modern B/X. The assumptions and meta-play are much closer to the OSR than 5E.

I disagree. Aside from the player power level, I find it very 5E. Though, I like to strip out the xp system and use something more normal.

Then again, I suppose how you want to define 5E.

One could say that OSE using the optional To Hit Bonus instead of THACO and ascending AC is very 5E. Though that's 3E.

Again, I suppose it's how you want to define 5E.

Perhaps better to say SD is more modern than old school aside from power level

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, with you already having B&B, what is the point of this now? What are you hoping or trying to accomplish?

A couple things. B&B was meant to be a basic version for 5e inspired by B/X and have that old school feel in the same way B/X was for AD&D (I mean, just look at the front and back cover art lol). It was meant to be compatible with 5e for the most part.

Then Shadowdark came out later and really filled that niche of making what I feel is an OSR version of 5e. I don't view Shadowdark as basic 5e because there are major differences in the rules and mechanics. You really can't take a Shadowdark PC and a 5e PC and have them together in the same adventure. You could with B/X and AD&D, and with B&B and 5e with minimal inconsistencies.

So with this thought exercise? There is the new 2024 version and there are lessons learned with B&B that could have been done a bit better IMO. So while an OSR feel basic version of 5e is not in scope (Shadowdark has that covered), there is an opportunity to really focus on a basic 5e primer. In my head, that means the core game starts completely stripped down. That's what the new players will experience at low levels--just the critical terms and rules. Then a secondary module that starts to introduce some of the 2024 5e things (terms, rules, etc.). Kind of modular learn as you go approach.

While I support this advice in general, Shadowdark isn't really a "stripped down 5E." It is a modern B/X. The assumptions and meta-play are much closer to the OSR than 5E.

Agreed, as I stated directly above.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's at least one OSR game -- I forget which -- which makes weapon damage go off of class, not the weapon itself. A fighter always does d8 damage with a weapon, a thief or cleric always does d6 damage, a wizard always does d4.

It simplifies the game a lot and the damage matches up with existing weapon categories pretty closely throughout D&D history.

There are a couple, actually, including one done by me

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There are a couple, actually, including one done by me

So what I hear you saying is that it's a great idea.