D&D 5E Blue ONE, An attempt at a TRUE 5e Basic version

[Sacrosanct]

One thing that confuses me. With the push to streamlining skills, ie all classes get proficiency in a stats worth of skills (rather than individual skills), why are there still individual skills at all?

Shouldn't there just be 6 skills (ie the stats), and then players just use those stats whenever they want to do a skill like thing? I like the streamlined approach, it makes sense from a basic dnd approach, but then it seems needlessly complicated to then add skills back in.

There aren't any individual skills. There are just abilities and some example tasks/skills that would fall under each ability. That is, there isn't a "stealth skill", but if you're attempting to be stealthy, that would be Dexterity check. So any activity that you want to do that would fall under Dexterity, and you have prof in DEX, you apply your prof bonus to.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think I like this better than what I have for combat vet.

So here's how the fighter is looking

View attachment 259711

@GMforPowergamers , I have a question/favor to ask. I know you are passionate about the fighter, particularly in trying to have them do more things than just hit harder, and have advocated for more utility. I'd love to hear your feedback on the above, keeping the following in mind:

• This is a basic version of the class, so simplicity is key. In this basic version, class features are hard baked in, rather than players having several decision points of what to choose at every level. So having a long list of maneuvers is out of scope.
• There are no individual skills. If you're proficient in Strength, you add prof bonus to all strength-based tasks.

I'm toying with replacing parry with something like "Maneuvers (4th level): When you attempt a special maneuver, such as tripping or disarm attempts, you gain a +2 bonus to your attack roll." But I think there's a better way to write it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@GMforPowergamers , I have a question/favor to ask. I know you are passionate about the fighter, particularly in trying to have them do more things than just hit harder, and have advocated for more utility. I'd love to hear your feedback on the above, keeping the following in mind:

• This is a basic version of the class, so simplicity is key. In this basic version, class features are hard baked in, rather than players having several decision points of what to choose at every level. So having a long list of maneuvers is out of scope.
• There are no individual skills. If you're proficient in Strength, you add prof bonus to all strength-based tasks.

I'm toying with replacing parry with something like "Maneuvers (4th level): When you attempt a special maneuver, such as tripping or disarm attempts, you gain a +2 bonus to your attack roll." But I think there's a better way to write it.

it looks better then the base 5e fighter by a bit. I see you have prof in whole stats worth of skills that will make the fighter quite skilled. I just wish there were more options. places where you could get X but you can choose to trade that for Y or Z... so the defualt fighter has action surge and I know it may be out of the scope of this test. Overall I like it

 

[CleverNickName]

I'd love to hear your feedback on the above, keeping the following in mind:

• This is a basic version of the class, so simplicity is key. In this basic version, class features are hard baked in, rather than players having several decision points of what to choose at every level. So having a long list of maneuvers is out of scope.
• There are no individual skills. If you're proficient in Strength, you add prof bonus to all strength-based tasks.

This whole quote is brilliant, but the part in red is genius. You weren't asking me, but I thought I'd chime in anyway.

Not all players want a giant dashboard full of switches and dials when they're playing this game. Complexity doesn't need to be coded into the rules; oftentimes it can be restrictive. Having a rule like "this feature allows you to trip your opponent as a bonus action" creates the expectation that you must have that feature to trip your opponent, and that you must use a bonus action to do so. But not mentioning it at all leaves it open to interpretation by both the player and the DM: the player isn't scrolling down a list of options every round on their turn, deciding what they can/cannot do with their action/bonus action/reaction/movement and shopping for the most efficient combinations...

Instead, they just describe what their character is doing, and the DM calls for one or more rolls. Rules-light can often be low-stress for a certain style of play (and a certain type of player, who is me.)

And along those lines, just having the DM ask a player to "make a Strength roll," and using the result of that roll to inform and describe the trip attempt can be very cinematic for the DM and less fiddly for the player. At the very least, it makes certain arguments and frustrations obsolete, like trying to convince the DM to let you roll History instead of Religion. That's a big deal at my table.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This whole quote is brilliant, but the part in red is genius. You weren't asking me, but I thought I'd chime in anyway.

Not all players want a giant dashboard full of switches and dials when they're playing this game. Complexity doesn't need to be coded into the rules; oftentimes it can be restrictive. Having a rule like "this feature allows you to trip your opponent as a bonus action" creates the expectation that you must have that feature to trip your opponent, and that you must use a bonus action to do so. But not mentioning it at all leaves it open to interpretation by both the player and the DM: the player isn't scrolling down a list of options every round on their turn, deciding what they can/cannot do with their action/bonus action/reaction/movement and shopping for the most efficient combinations...

That certainly is the design intent. I'm glad you like it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

OK, I made some changes to the fighter's 4th level feature, and revised how special attacks are done (I never really like the straight attack roll).

 

[cbwjm]

It might be worthwhile merging saving throw and skill proficiencies together. This would avoid a situation with the fighter's well rounded ability where you might choose an ability to gain proficiency for skills that you already have for saves.

 

[Faolyn]

There aren't any individual skills. There are just abilities and some example tasks/skills that would fall under each ability. That is, there isn't a "stealth skill", but if you're attempting to be stealthy, that would be Dexterity check. So any activity that you want to do that would fall under Dexterity, and you have prof in DEX, you apply your prof bonus to.

What you may wish to do is, instead of listing the skills the way you do (Intelligence skills: Arcana, History, etc.), just give a brief description of what sort of roll you would make with it. "Make an Intelligence skill when you want to remember facts about magic, history, nature, or religion, or when you wish to investigate an object for secret compartments."

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

About Maneuvers, one thing I liked from a pretty old UA were the feats that let you do a special trick when you had advantage and either:

• sacrificed the advantage to add an effec to your attack
• if both dice from the advantage hit the target, you can add a special effect.

I prefer the second way of doing it, but I think this would be a good way to add some maneuvers that doesnt require the whole action.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The previous way was automatically remove it. This way you still need to make the save. I dunno, could go either way.

Yes, it could automatically remove it, but it was limited to two conditions initially: Charmed and Frightened. I suggested Stunned, but as @TwoSix mentions Stunned prevents actions, so the feature would have to be reworked if Stunned was to be included.

I like "reroll at start of turn" a little better because it's somewhat less powerful, especially if the save being targeted is a weak one, but it impacts a wider range of effects than just "charmed/frightened"

First, there are effects (how many I could not tell you...) which do not allow repeated saves, and many of those that do allow them at the start of your turn anyway IIRC -- but I could be wrong.

But, as I said, this is MORE powerful because it affects so many conditions.

I don't know, perhaps I am overthinking it and some playtesting would settle it.