D&D General Ready for playtest: a "5E-lite" retroclone

[HephaistosFnord]

I don't know if I would go that far, I can tell you've put a lot of work into it! However, as for "marketing" it I think you need to find something that sets your game apart from the others.

For example, in our game, which is 5E-based, we're adding proficiency bonus to damage. Why? Because it is a simple and easy way to represent your PC (and other creatures) become more lethal. An Orc has 15 hp, but it is rare for a mid to high level PC to kill an orc with a single hit. However, if you are 10th-level, the extra +4 damage based on proficiency bouns helps a lot. Instead of doing 1d8+6 (say dueling style with +4 STR), which only average 10.5 and barring a critical, cannot kill and orc, you are doing 1d8+10, which averages 14.5 so has about a 50/50 change of taking the orc down.

We did this because a number of new players to 5E kept wanting to add proficiency bonus to damage rolls as well as attack rolls.

It's a common solution; my system does the same thing for warrior classes (but since my system tracks proficiency bonuses as dice, it keeps damage 'swingy' in a way I rather appreciate)

 

[HephaistosFnord]

I don't know if I would go that far, I can tell you've put a lot of work into it! However, as for "marketing" it I think you need to find something that sets your game apart from the others.

For example, in our game, which is 5E-based, we're adding proficiency bonus to damage. Why? Because it is a simple and easy way to represent your PC (and other creatures) become more lethal. An Orc has 15 hp, but it is rare for a mid to high level PC to kill an orc with a single hit. However, if you are 10th-level, the extra +4 damage based on proficiency bouns helps a lot. Instead of doing 1d8+6 (say dueling style with +4 STR), which only average 10.5 and barring a critical, cannot kill and orc, you are doing 1d8+10, which averages 14.5 so has about a 50/50 change of taking the orc down.

We did this because a number of new players to 5E kept wanting to add proficiency bonus to damage rolls as well as attack rolls.

the problem is that I am absolutely terrible at marketing, and always have been; I keep making things (board games, computer games, toys, little physical inventions, whatever) and then try to market them, fail, and give up bc I took Charisma as a dump-stat.

 

[Umbran]

So not sure even what to call it.

Call it your game.
From one of our alumni that has since published a couple really good games - "Tell us why your game is awesome WITHOUT comparing it to any other game."
This is good both for messageboard discussions, and marketing.

 

[HephaistosFnord]

Call it your game.
From one of our alumni that has since published a couple really good games - "Tell us why your game is awesome WITHOUT comparing it to any other game."
This is good both for messageboard discussions, and marketing.

I don't know how to make any claims that won't be refuted instantly by someone claiming that they aren't true (see: the reaction to me calling it "lite")

 

[TiQuinn]

That's all fair. But it does mean that I'm likely speaking a "different language" than you guys, AND a "different language" than the OSR guys, and I think that means there just isn't a market for my thing, and I should abandon it.

Well, let’s be honest. Is this a labor of love or something that you really want to sell for a profit? There may not be a much of a market for it because there’s already a lot of alternatives out there and they’re being designed by people with lots of experience. You have to differentiate and there’s probably not enough there in what you’ve shown us to do it.

But that doesn’t mean that if you really feel like there’s a need for what you are offering that you should give up on it. Consider it more of a hobby. Have you played with these rules yet at your own table? Have you refined it a few times after trying it out?

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't know how to make any claims that won't be refuted instantly by someone claiming that they aren't true (see: the reaction to me calling it "lite")

You’re gonna have to grow a thicker skin if you expect to present this to a bunch of forum goers who have no skin in the game and a willingness to sling arrows just because they can. Truly you’re gonna have to separate the wheat from the chafe here.

 

[TiQuinn]

From your document…

Proficiencies measure your character’s talent at various tasks that they might attempt. Each Proficiency is represented by a proficiency die which ranges from d4 to d12, limited by your character class and level. In addition to the proficiency die itself, each of your proficiencies has a proficiency level and a static value, called a Defensive value (DV) associated with it. Note that Defensive Value (DV) and Diculty Value (DV) have the same abbreviation; this is intentional, as a skill’s Defensive Value is the Diculty Value for any proficiency roll made against you that could be reasonably defended by that skill.
Your proficiency level is based on your associated proficiency die: a d4 is proficiency level 2, a d6 is proficiency level 3, a d8 is proficiency level 4, a d10 is proficiency level 5, a d12 is proficiency level 6. There is no proficiency level 1; as soon as you gain a new proficiency, it starts at +d4.

So I’ve read this block a few times, and I think this is an example of how it’s heavier than just regular 5e. You have an escalating die that has a level and a value and then an abbreviation that has two separate names. It’s just very convoluted. It’s begging for at least an example of play to explain what you mean.

 

[HephaistosFnord]

From your document…

Proficiencies measure your character’s talent at various tasks that they might attempt. Each Proficiency is represented by a proficiency die which ranges from d4 to d12, limited by your character class and level. In addition to the proficiency die itself, each of your proficiencies has a proficiency level and a static value, called a Defensive value (DV) associated with it. Note that Defensive Value (DV) and Diculty Value (DV) have the same abbreviation; this is intentional, as a skill’s Defensive Value is the Diculty Value for any proficiency roll made against you that could be reasonably defended by that skill.
Your proficiency level is based on your associated proficiency die: a d4 is proficiency level 2, a d6 is proficiency level 3, a d8 is proficiency level 4, a d10 is proficiency level 5, a d12 is proficiency level 6. There is no proficiency level 1; as soon as you gain a new proficiency, it starts at +d4.

So I’ve read this block a few times, and I think this is an example of how it’s heavier than just regular 5e. You have an escalating die that has a level and a value and then an abbreviation that has two separate names. It’s just very convoluted. It’s begging for at least an example of play to explain what you mean.

Thanks, this is actually useful!

I might be able to rephrase it so it doesn't even bother w dice/levels, but taking the current RAW, lemme try and explain w examples.

You have a skill. Let's use Athletics (Str), since that's at the top of the sheet. Let's say your Athletics Proficiency is +d6, and you've got a Strength modifier of +1.

This means that when you make a d20 Athletics roll, you roll d20+d6+1.

It also means that you have an Athletics DV of 10+3+1, because - again - Str +1, Athletics +d6 (3), and DV's start at 10.

So! This means that if something "targets your Athletics DV", it has to roll a 14 or higher (10+3+1). If you roll Athletics vs something, you're rolling a d20+d6+1 vs. whatever the DM says.

"Level" vs "die" vs "DV" is the "passive values" rule from 4E/5E.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Fourth time trying to reply:

- I've noticed that all editions, including forks like PF, do this "throw out the good with the bad" game in order to try to wash the taste of earlier editions out of players' mouths.

- This means there are a ton of superior mechanics that no one will touch bc "that's not how we do things now".

- I'm trying to actually create a single clean system that handles stuff in a coherent way.

- apparently there is so much baggage in the D&D community, that "coherent" isn't even a thing anymore.

What seems coherent to you is not necessarily coherent to others.

 

[HephaistosFnord]

Thanks, this is actually useful!

I might be able to rephrase it so it doesn't even bother w dice/levels, but taking the current RAW, lemme try and explain w examples.

You have a skill. Let's use Athletics (Str), since that's at the top of the sheet. Let's say your Athletics Proficiency is +d6, and you've got a Strength modifier of +1.

This means that when you make a d20 Athletics roll, you roll d20+d6+1.

It also means that you have an Athletics DV of 10+3+1, because - again - Str +1, Athletics +d6 (3), and DV's start at 10.

So! This means that if something "targets your Athletics DV", it has to roll a 14 or higher (10+3+1). If you roll Athletics vs something, you're rolling a d20+d6+1 vs. whatever the DM says.

"Level" vs "die" vs "DV" is the "passive values" rule from 4E/5E.

Looking over the rest of the rules, the places where "proficiency level" as a static number are so low, that I'm pretty sure I can literally remove them everywhere, and just refer to the die itself wherever necessary. So, edited and updated!