D&D 5E Stripping 5e to its core

In my desire to reduce redundant terminology, I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of the terms AC, Save, and Ability checks. They are all basically the same (roll d20 against a DC). Basically, everything has a DC and that's the term used.

AC is an antiquated term that only made sense in the early days, because something based on a Class rating, the lower the better. "First class vs. third class, Class III protection vs. Class IV protection, etc." So it only made sense with descending AC. It doesn't make sense any longer to use that term and is often confusing to newer players. Saving Throw is also a bit non-intuitive. "Resist" is more intuitive.

I haven't landed on anything yet, but my gut says make it Defensive DC, Resist DC, and Skill DC.
I know that it wouldn't be compatible with 5e, but I would get rid of saving throws and replace them with Defenses as per 4e D&D. So AC and saves all become target DCs that the attacker is rolling to overcome. But alas! That may be outside the scope of this project.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

i didn't write it on the post but it'd imagined it would cost MP to use your breath weapon, and weapon attacks are still getting their STR/DEX bonus, so i don't know it would be that exploitable/powerful.
The MP requirement balances it. When I ran B&B Tieflings and Dragonborn were the first races that caught people's eye because they had significant advantages. I took them.out completely they don't really feel like "Basic" races to me anyway especially because it adds an extra decision layer to character creation "which elemental type should I choose?" But at least making the breath weapon a cost helps a bit.
 

a question i think that would be important to consider in stripping 5e to it's basics: which spells are you keeping? as it stands the spell library of 5e is very bloated especially for an adaptation trying to trim the fat.
 

this is my take as well.
But I agree on high level spell limit. only 1 spell per Long rest for levels 6-9. Some "archmage" feat could add a bonus cast or two, at the expense of not getting something else.

I am not sold on the "expert" being it's own class.
I'm more for martial/spell split in base classes.
Expert can just be a selection of feats you take on the way instead of taking more martial/spellcasting features.

so the 4 classes:

warrior:
HD: d12
Extra attack: levels 5,9,13,17
Weapons: simple and martial
weapon mastery: 3
Armor: light+shield, medium, Optional: Heavy
spellcasting: none
cantrips: none

Gish:
HD: d10
Extra attack: levels 5,15
Weapons: simple and martial
weapon mastery: 2
Armor: light+shield, Optional: Medium, Optional: Heavy
Spellcasting: half-caster
cantrips: 2
1st to 5th level spells
new spell level at class levels 1,5,9,13,17

Adept:
HD: d8
Extra attack: level 9
Weapons: simple, Optional: martial
weapon mastery: 1
Armor: none, Optional: light+shield, Optional: medium
Spellcasting: 2/3rd caster
cantrips: 3
1st to 7th level spells
new spell levels at class levels 1,4,7,10,13,16,19

mage:
HD: d6
Extra attack: none
Weapons: simple, Optional: martial
weapon mastery: none
Armor: none, Optional: light+shield
Spellcasting: full caster
cantrips: 4
1st to 9th level spells
new spell levels at class levels 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17


for optional features, every class would get a certain number of feats at 1st level that could be spent on:
martial weapons
fighting style(s)
armor proficiency
extra skills
extra expertise
extra cantrips
extra Spell points
extra spells known
extra HP per level
extra move speed
extra usages for Bonus action
extra sneak attack damage
extra weapon mastery

OFC, all of there options could be taken later instead of higher level feats if someone wished it.
Where's the thief in that?

Also, I'm not sure that the warrior has enough going on to make it more interesting than the gish. You'd have to bring in fighting maneuvers--either freeform like in Dungeon Crawl Classics or codified like in Level Up.
 

Where's the thief in that?
where ever you want it to be...

most basic thief would be warrior class.

since you do not want to be in melee for anytime or being sneaky, you can forgo CON for raising mental stats.
with d12 HD you can get away with 10 CON, even 8 if you play carefully as current rogue.

since you do not want any armor except base, you can get expertise and more skills instead of more armor, fighting styles and maneuvers.

if you want to be arcane trickster, just take the base Gish class and work it from there.



Also, I'm not sure that the warrior has enough going on to make it more interesting than the gish. You'd have to bring in fighting maneuvers--either freeform like in Dungeon Crawl Classics or codified like in Level Up.
This is just a 1st level idea, since warrior does not gain any spells, warrior would get most "feats" per level than any class.
you could take those feats and learn battlemasters maneuvers, fighting styles, more masteries, feats that are in 5E as normal,
maybe add a little Rage powers to that or hunting and trailblazing of the a ranger.

basically, more spells you have, less options to customize your character as spell are limited use features in themselves.
 

Where's the thief in that?

Also, I'm not sure that the warrior has enough going on to make it more interesting than the gish. You'd have to bring in fighting maneuvers--either freeform like in Dungeon Crawl Classics or codified like in Level Up.

yeah in a more simplified system you really do need to give Warriors something to parallel Cantrips and all spells - they're an entire section of game abilities being denied to the Warrior.
Which is why I like successful hits to be able to impose conditions on the target (kinda like Dungeon Crawl Classics Mighty Deeds) but expanding that out to do more like martial exploits and maneuvers would be fun too
 

Since it looks like we're not worried about compatibility anymore . . .

In other words, a system based on 5E that only removes or simplies from 5E, doesn't add anything new.

If you change how systems in 5E work or add new things, this is no longer stripping 5E to its core. So, for this concept, while many of the suggestions upthread are great ones, they are changing or adding, not stripping down to core.
I'll tear some stuff out of the 5RD. See if we can get down to the core, and still feel like D&D. You might want to duck, I'm just gonna throw these over my shoulder:

Advantage, Dex, Con, Wis, races, classes (and subclasses), alignment (see below), hit points, AC, attack rolls, saving throws, damage bonuses, proficiency, time, movement and grids, environment (includes light rules), crits, action types, death rules.

ABILITY SCORES & MODIFIERS
RACES
CLASSES & SUBCLASSES
HIT POINTS
SKILLS & PROFICIENCIES
EQUIPMENT
ADVENTURING
COMBAT & ACTIONS
FEATS
Okay, I think I covered most of these. And threw most out.

Why keep Inspiration? Because if you look at it as "you did something cool" instead of "you get a bonus to a roll," it's actually a really fun, simple, rule.

Initiative stays, but gets a twist. No one wants to get the last turn. The whole battle could be over by then! Roll initiative, and your result determines your priority, not your turn. So you can act whenever you want, but if there's a conflict with another character, initiative determines who beats the other to the punch. This rewards indecisive PCs with later-round-actions.

Let's keep ability scores for Str, Int, and Cha. They're not useless - especially with Hit Points removed from the game. They'll determine how much damage you can take. Which means we'd better keep ASIs, because there's gotta be something to award at level-up!

Alignment's out, but Flaws, Traits, Bonds, and Ideals remain. Alignment complicates D&D (despite its severe gutting), while the FTBI do something much more useful: make characters interesting without complicating rules.

Does it still resemble D&D? Let's look at the demos:

Fireball
3rd level evocation . . .
Hmm. Fireball doesn't need to be evocation. Maybe not even 3rd level? Let's get rid of most of the magic rules.

Fireball
1 action
Range: 150
You cause d8 heat damage to one target.
Short and sweet. Without saving throws for monsters, you'll have to roll a d20 test (the only type of roll left) to see if your fireball hits. Without Wizard Levels, how does a PC know she can cast it? We'll have to add a difficulty to spells, so the caster will need more ability to cast higher-level spells.

Fireball
Level 1 (1 action)
Range: 150
Difficulty: 0
You cause d8 heat damage to one target.
There we go. It's obviously first level since it only does d8 damage, so we'll keep the difficulty easy. The "wizard" will get a bonus from his Intelligence score to offset the spell's difficulty. We're keeping skills too, so that will provide a bonus as well. It's not hitting everything in a "20-foot-radius sphere," but a level 2 fireball could easily hit "two targets." Or cause more damage to one target.

Let's look at the orc berserker.

Orc Berserker
CR 1, 200 XP, Prof: +2 . . .
That's not feeling "core" to me. Let's replace all of that.

Orc Berserker
Level 1
Much better. It will need some abilities, skills, and gear. A description would be nice, too, for those who don't know whom orc berserkers are.

Orc Berserker, Level 1
A big, burly, axe-wielding maniac from the lands of Orsinum. Ideal: chaos reigns! Trait: berserk.
STR 14 (+2), INT 8 (-1), CHA 10 (0)
Skills: attack 1
Gear: ring mail d6, greataxe d10, javelin d6
With hit points removed, the orc's physical damage capacity equals her physical score: 14. But, no AC? The ring mail reduces damage instead of reducing odds of a hit. Instead of a STR bonus to damage, the orc can upgrade from a d6 handaxe to the d10 greataxe. STR still adds to the test for attacks. She doesn't need a speed rating either, since grids are out. If there's a timing question ("did my halfling outrun her?") the DM can ask for a STR contest.

This is important information. Seriously, I'm not kidding nor making fun of it. The d12 is among the least used polyhedral dice in D&D mechanics. But still loved -- so we can't drop dice types and still have it feel like D&D!
Agreed - the d12 is loved, and is least used. Since I tossed out damage bonuses, die-type increases fill the gap of Hurting More. As with the greataxe, heavier or more dangerous weapons use higher die-types, and the d12 is often the top of that food-chain.

By now, I've probably broken 5e pretty well, and left a couple of mechanism gaps that need filling (TotM positioning, feats). I hope, however, that I've provided some ideas on what's the "core" of 5e, and what this thread's work-in-progress might consider. Here's a possible conclusion of the above modifications, with the gaps filled in to make it fully playable:
 


ABILITY SCORES & MODIFIERS
Removing ability scores and just keeping modifiers is understandable. However, since this is a primer and 5E uses the scores, would it be confusing to go from this primer to regular 5E? What is so difficult about the scores you can't keep them?

Well, for one thing, how about ASIs? The biggest confusion IME with scores and modifiers are with ASIs because a +2 ASI translates into a +1 modifier increase. I'll give you a real-life example: a player had an Elf a few years ago and applied the +2 Dexterity ASI. His DEX 16 with +3 modifier became DEX 16 with +5 modifier. In other words, he added the +2 ASI to the modifier--not the score! I've seen this happen a few times, actually.

Another issue (less important) is the +1 ASI, since it only results in a modifier change if the score is odd to begin with. But, if you remove scores and just have modifiers, what does the +1 ASI do? Flip a coin to see if it increases the modifier or not??
It depends on how you roll the dice. If, as in most(?) OSR-ish games, you roll 3d6 instead of 4d6 drop lowest, or you do a stat array, the numbers will be low enough you can give a +1 in a stat (modifier) and not have it be a big deal.

Darkvision is also an issue. Just how it works, and the impact of dim light with perception, etc. can cause problems. I don't know if this is enough to remove it or not.
Darkvision is annoying, but you'll have to decide if remembering to pay attention to how dark an area is and enforce vision penalties or blindness in darker areas is more or less annoying than darkvision.

Subclasses. As for subclasses, don't use them. While they help a player flesh-out their concept, they add more features which complicate what actions their PC can do on their turn.
What I would do is make relatively simple main classes, and then have the subclasses as a collection of traits that you get at 1st level (or 3rd level or whenever). They could have, like two combat-oriented features and two non-combat features. E.g., a Knight could have a bonus to attack and damage rolls when mounted and gain some temp hp as long as they're in armor, and get a bonus to taking care of, controlling, and buying mounts and on social rolls with peasants (who either fear or idolize you) and with nobility (who see you as one of their own), provided you're wearing your livery or known to be a knight. A Bruiser could have a bonus to damage rolls using fists or bludgeoning weapons, and get a bonus to AC when wearing light armor (but lose these options if wearing heavier armor), and get a bonus to Intimidation rolls and on social rolls made with people who view brute strength as a positive (but possibly have a penalty with "refined" people).

These "subclasses" allow for a lot more freedom of choice but won't overwhelm you with extra features. The bonuses could go up as you level up--the knight could start out with 5 temp hp and gain another 5 every other level, or something like that--but you wouldn't gain any more abilities.

This LARGEST issue with this is the proficiency bonus. I often have players want to add proficiency bonus to damage as well as attacks. Also, sometimes players don't add proficiency bonus to saves they with which they have proficiency.
Weird. I don't think I've ever run into that problem.

But that could actually be a good ability to give fighters. No matter what, they should be doing more damage than anyone else.

Light. Get rid of dim light. You are either in light or darkness. This would remove the darkvision issue (you can see in darkness--keep it simple).
I can see doing this: You can't see in darkness, period. No sight-based Perception checks for you. You can make other Perception checks, but at disad, because you're not used to relying on these other senses. To attack in darkness, you first have to make that Perception check, then your attack roll, which is also at disad.

There's a feat that will remove that disad for your other senses, but you'd still have to roll Perception before attacking.

If your species has darkvision, you can make sight-based Perception checks at disad, and other Perception checks at no penalty. You still attack at disad, unless you have the above-mentioned feat.

Food & Water. Get rid of it. Assume characters can find or have food most of the time. Compared to how much gold they get adventuring, the cost of food is a nuisance. You can keep the rules on dehydration and starving in desolate wilderness which the DM can enforce when it happens.
Level Up simplifies it to Supply, which can also be used to represent other single-use items, like insect repellent. You can carry a number of Supply based on your Strength, although some things will alter that number. You use one Supply a day. It's easy and cheap to acquire anywhere you can stop and do some shopping, to the point that if the PCs stop in a village you can just assume they stock up, but at the same time is useful in those times when when you're in the desolate wilderness.

Bonus Actions. Another tricky mechanic. Some players have issues with them, but IME most don't. Certain classes require bonus actions for key features (like Rogue with Cunning Action). Two-Weapon Fighting also requires bonus actions and is popular. So, without rewriting things you can't remove them--but if you rewrite things you could easily fall outside the "primer" concept.
I might go with simply having two actions on a turn, but you can only make one attack or cast one spell unless you have an ability that says otherwise (like Two-Weapon Fighting).
 

yeah in a more simplified system you really do need to give Warriors something to parallel Cantrips and all spells - they're an entire section of game abilities being denied to the Warrior.
Which is why I like successful hits to be able to impose conditions on the target (kinda like Dungeon Crawl Classics Mighty Deeds) but expanding that out to do more like martial exploits and maneuvers would be fun too
B&B did a really cool auto-kill that's been popular at my table for warriors. They've asked about some kind of cleave ability but I haven't decided yet.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top